Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-10-28] British Columbia. Supreme Court Oct 28, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018457.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0018457-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0018457-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0018457-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0018457-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0018457-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0018457-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 21812  Ruling by the Court  1 Vancouver, B.C.  2 October 28, 1989  3  4 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 9:30 A.M.)  5  6 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  7 Columbia, Saturday, this 28th day of October, 1989.  8 Delgamuukw versus her Majesty the Queen at bar, my  9 lord.  Miss Robinson, do you realize you are still  10 under oath?  11 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  12 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  13 MR. GRANT:  Thank you, my lord.  14 Dr. Robinson, we were in the midst of reviewing  15 your bibliography and I think I may be able to assist.  16 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant, I am sorry, before you proceed.  I looked  17 at the material Mr. Willms gave me yesterday  18 afternoon -- and unfortunately I left it in my  19 chambers -- but with respect to the document prepared  20 by this woman with relation to the Kwakiutl  21 comprehensive land claim, it's my view, upon a quick  22 read of that document, that there is absolutely  23 nothing in it that could in any way assist either the  24 cross-examination of this witness or the trial of  25 these issues.  The issues are terribly unrelated to  26 those of this case and the report is an overview of  27 the claim, description of some of the people, and a  28 straightforward account of what is being asserted, and  29 the occasional reference to a possibility of other  30 claims that might overlap but which the parties had  31 given some suggestion that they would resolve amongst  32 themselves.  33 And for that reason, and there being an issue of  34 credibility, it is my view that I ought not to order  35 its production, not because it is privileged, although  36 it might be, but not on that ground but, rather, on  37 the ground of a general jurisdiction to preserve  38 confidentiality to the extent possible without  39 prejudicing the trial of these issues.  And my  40 intention is, unless I am persuaded otherwise, is  41 simply to disregard its inclusion in the CV of the  42 witness and not to direct that it be delivered to you,  43 Mr. Grant.  44 I think I erred in stating earlier that the  45 documents were handed to me by Mr. Willms.  That  46 particular document, I think, came from Miss  47 Koenigsberg.  With regard to the others, they were all 21813  Ruling by the Court  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 documents which, in my view, fall within the category  2 of re -- which I have -- for which I have attempted to  3 maintain privilege, that is, that they deal with the  4 strategy of the defendant province and would not be of  5 any assistance to counsel because they are all so  6 tentative.  And for that reason, I do not propose to  7 direct that they be produced either.  And after the  8 morning break I will bring those documents back and  9 return them to their rightful owners.  10    MR. GRANT:  Thank you, my lord.  11  12 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT (cont'd):  13 Q   Before proceeding with your CV, do you recall where we  14 were yesterday?  We seem to have some confusion and I  15 think I can clarify it and maybe expedite what I'm  16 endeavouring to pursue here.  17 A   Sure.  18 Q   I'm referring you to volume 6 of the Smithsonian  19 Institute -- Institution.  And by the way, that's in  20 Washington not New York.  I believe it's in New York  21 in your CV but it's in Washington, right?  22 THE COURT:  Says so.  2 3    MR. GRANT:  24 Q   Yes.  But in your CV you make a reference to the  25 Smithsonian Institution publication in your  26 bibliography, but it's in Washington state -- in  27 Washington, D.C, not in New York?  28 A   Oh, yes.  I wasn't aware that I had mentioned it was  29 in New York.  30 Q   I just want to be sure we are talking about the same  31 place.  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   Page 96, Tobey, see Handbook of North American  34 Indians. Vol. 6 Subartic, New York?  35 A   I have an article here by McClellan.  Did you say  36 Tobey on page 96?  37 Q   Sorry.  I am looking at your -- I'm not clear.  I am  38 looking at your report.  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Just so you know what I was referring to.  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   The last entry on 96?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And that actually is the same publication as the  45 McClellan article is in, that is the volume on the  46 subartic, and it should be Washington and not New York  47 in your bibliography? 21814  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  Q  A  Q  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  Oh yes, yes.  Okay.  Now, if you look, this is on page -- this article  is entitled History of Research in the Subartic  Cordillera.  Are you familiar with this article?  You  are certainly familiar with the author, Catharine  McClellan?  Yes.  She is the author you have cited three other  references to?  Yes, I believe so.  Now, in this -- I think it's Dr. McClellan if I recall  rightly?  Yes, it is.  Dr. McClellan deals with and does a breakdown that I  think assists in what I'm asking you.  She talks  about -- with respect to research in the subartic  cordillera, non-professional sources.  And she  starts -- and I'm just going to refer you to the  headings -- that non-professional sources -- and this  is with respect to -- and I'll look -- if you look at  the last sentence of the first paragraph she says,  "Until after World War II" -- are you with me?  Yes.  This is page 35, my lord.  :  Yes.  -- few ethnographers worked in the cordillera.  This is equally true of archaeologists: the  history of archaeological investigation in the  cordillera is addressed in "Prehistory of the  Western Subartic," this volume.  And then she goes on to talk about -- I'm sorry,  above that:  Throughout the nineteenth century the few  accounts of Cordilleran Indians were by  explorers, fur traders, missionaries,  geologists or other natural scientists:  however, many of the best were not published  until well into the twentieth century.  And you would agree with that, I take it, would you?  A   Yes.  Q 21815  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Others remained in the archives of fur  2 companies, churches and museums; some are still  3 inaccessible to researchers.  4  5 And then she starts to breakdown the types of  6 sources and she divides it into two broad categories,  7 non-professional sources and professional sources,  8 okay?  9 A   Um-hmm, yes.  10 Q   Now, non-professional sources, under the heading, she  11 talks about explorers and fur traders.  And if you  12 look over at the second column about the second  13 paragraph on page 35, she says as -- these are as  14 examples.  Well, first of all, she says:  15  16 The journals of early North West Company men  17 such as Simon Fraser... Daniel William Harmon  18 are richer than those of Mackenzie in data on  19 the Chilcotin, Carrier, and Sekani.  20  21 Now, you would agree that it would be -- you would  22 agree with her categorization of Harmon and Simon  23 Fraser as non-professional sources under the category  24 of explorers and fur traders?  25 A  Well, she has got a scheme for sorting out the  26 different kinds of references.  This is her -- it  27 appears to be her scheme for doing so, yes.  28 Q   And you don't have any difficulty with that scheme?  29 You understand it and you would agree that they could  30 be categorized as non-professional sources and --  31 A   Oh, they could, certainly.  According to her.  32 Q   Yeah.  And then what she says at the bottom of the  33 first column and the top of the second, is:  34  35 In the early decades of the nineteenth  36 century during their long winters at remote  37 outposts the men of the North West Company and  38 of the Hudson's Bay Company sometimes wrote  39 about the customs of the local Indians, either  40 as a diversion or because company officials  41 asked for such reports.  42  43 A   I'm sorry, I lost the place there.  That was -- now I  44 found it.  45 Q   Bottom of first column, page 35?  46 A   Yes, yes.  47 Q 21816  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Even those most prejudiced against the Indians  2 offer invaluable glimpses of native culture  3 before it had been too greatly changed by White  4 contact.  5  6 You would agree with her opinion with respect to that?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And then she goes on, if you skip a sentence -- I'm  9 sorry, my lord, it's on the second column.  10 THE COURT:  Yes.  11 MR. GRANT:  12 Q   First paragraph of the second column, page 35, she  13 goes on:  14  15 In addition, they kept records of the goings  16 and comings of the natives, their numbers, the  17 amounts of furs, meat, and fish they brought in  18 to the posts, and the kinds of tools and  19 baubles they bought.  The trade records thus  20 give temporal depth, demographic and ecological  21 data, and, in some instances, a surprising  22 amount of ethnographic detail.  The records of  23 the Hudson's Bay Company are in Winnipeg,  24 Manitoba.  25  2 6 Now, you would agree with her comment and the  27 general description of the utility of these kinds of  28 non-professional sources?  2 9 A   Oh yes.  30 Q   Okay.  Now, on the bottom of that paragraph she also  31 refers to James McDougall, John Steward and Peter  32 Skene Ogden.  And you would agree with that  33 categorization of them as non-professional explorers  34 and fur traders within this category?  35 A   Yes.  I am not familiar with John Steward's.  36 Q   Okay.  But you are with McDougall?  37 A   I know the names McDougall and Ogden.  38 Q   And Ogden, right.  Okay.  And then there is the  39 reference to Samuel Black on the bottom which I think  40 we mentioned yesterday?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   Now, if you go to page 37, you see the second sub-  43 category that she refers to under non-professional  44 sources is "Missionaries".  And you would agree again  45 that missionaries, albeit they provide -- there is  46 ethnographic data in their writings, it would be fair  47 to say that they would be a non-professional 21817  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 ethnographic source?  2 A  Well, you are using McClellan's categorization, yes.  3 Q   Yes.  And that's right, I'm using her categorizations  4 to help us through what I'm trying to ask you about?  5 A   Yes, certainly.  6 Q   And then on the next page, 38, she refers specifically  7 to Morice, and I believe you do -- you cite Morice, if  8 I remember rightly?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   Yes, you do.  Morice -- the second full paragraph,  11 fifth line down:  12  13 Morice, characterized as "missionary, linguist,  14 geographer, journalist, historian and  15 polemicist", was with the Chilcotin from 1882  16 to 1885 and with the Stuart Lake Carrier from  17 1885 to 1906.  18  19 Were you aware of those dates of his?  20 A   Not specifically without reference, but yes, I was  21 aware that he was in these areas for some time.  22 Q   And you know that where he resided from 1885 to 1906  23 was in Stuart Lake?  24 A   I wouldn't have been able to pin the precise dates,  25 but yes, I was aware he had considerable residency  26 there.  27 Q   Yes.  He -- he travelled into the Wet'suwet'en area,  28 as I recall?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   But he didn't reside in the Wet'suwet'en area?  31 A   Not as far as I can recollect.  32 Q   Right.  33  34 He began publishing ethnography in 1890, but  35 the bulk of his work appeared long after he had  36 left the field.  37  38 You would agree with that?  Are you familiar?  39 A   I'm not sure.  I would want to see a list of dates.  40 I'm not sure when he wrote some of the pieces and when  41 he actually got published.  But yes, if McClellan has  42 said that, yes, I trust her judgment on these issues.  43 Q   Yes.  Dr. McClellan is someone you respect, I think?  44 A   Yes.  Because of her considerable work with the  45 Tlingit.  46 Q   Yes.  "And some professional anthropologists scorned  47 much of it," and she refers to Dixon 1921.  Now, you 2181?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 again, if -- you would agree with her synopsis of  2 Morice on that comment?  3 A   I am not aware of Dixon.  4 Q   But again, you would -- if McClellan has said that and  5 published this --  6 A   No, not necessarily.  I think for something like a  7 summary of dates of when she -- when he published  8 material, yes.  The reference to Dixon is probably  9 based on an opinion of Dixon's work, and I would want  10 to see that.  I think we are talking about two  11 different things here.  12 Q   She is not saying that she scorns Morice, she is just  13 commenting that some professional anthropologists  14 scorn Morice?  15 A   Yes.  And I would like to make the distinction that if  16 another scholar in the field makes a list referring to  17 dates of publications, that's something that's a  18 summary of descriptive information that I quite  19 readily accept.  Where she is offering an opinion on  20 other opinion writing, I tend to go back to the source  21 myself.  22 Q   Okay.  23 A   Rather than just accept it.  24 Q   Okay.  Let's go to the -- page 39.  And the third  25 category that she refers to is hunters and  26 adventurers.  These are under non-professional sources  27 and you would agree that that would fit into a  28 non-professional source?  29 A   Yes.  And it's certainly an interesting heading.  30 Q   Okay.  Would you also agree that -- I don't -- she  31 hasn't separately categorized this group and it may be  32 because she is dealing more with the interior although  33 she has talked about traders, but of course the  34 coastal -- the maritime traders would equally -- if we  35 used her categorization of professional, non-  36 professional sources, they would be non-professional  37 ethnographic sources.  These are the people that have  38 cruised the --  39 A   Yes, I believe that the distinction she is making  40 relates to the fact that anthropology as a profession  41 did not exist.  42 Q   Yeah.  Let's go down to that group and we can --  43 A   Yes.  I think that's an important point to make.  44 It --  45 Q   And you can make it when we get to the second  46 category.  47 A   Certainly. 21819  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  4  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  A  19  MR.  GRANT:  20  THE  COURT:  21  MR.  GRANT:  22  THE  COURT:  23  MR.  GRANT:  24  25  THE  COURT:  26  27  MR.  WILLMS  28  MR.  GRANT:  29  THE  COURT:  30  MR.  GRANT:  31  32  THE  COURT:  33  34  35  MR.  GRANT:  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Professional anthropologists.  She starts with Franz  Boas and she refers to Franz Boas and then -- and  would you agree that he would be considered a  professional anthropologist?  Yes.  And then you go on to the bottom of page 39, the  left -- right-hand column:  From the late 1920s through the 1930s the  major professional figures in Cordilleran  ethnography were Diamond Jenness and Cornelius  Osgood.  And again, you would agree that Diamond Jenness,  who I believe you cite, was a professional  ethnographer and ethnologist?  He was a professional  as opposed to a non-professional source?  Yes, yes.  Maybe that could be marked as the next tab.  Yes.  Tab 20.  My copy hasn't been punched.  Yes.  That's all right.  I'm sorry, my lord.  This would be tab 20 as I  recall?  Do you have the facility to punch them in the  building?  :  What was tab 19, my lord, I'm sorry?  that's right.  Tab 18 was Beynon  Tab 19 was -- oh no, this would  You are quite right.  Yes.  I think I mentioned tab 19  and so this should be properly 19.  Yes, thank you.  (EXHIBIT 1191-19 - Excerpt from Subartic by C.  McClellan, published by Smithsonian Institution 1981)  Okay.  Now Dr. Robinson, it may be that it was of  greater assistance to me than you to go through that  brief exercise, but what I would like to do now is to  utilize that categorization of Dr. McClellan when I  review your references, so that you understand what  I'm referring to.  What I'm referring to is -- in the  citations would be professional anthropological  sources as opposed to the non-professional sources, so  that I get -- because I had a bit of confusion myself  yesterday, if you recall, and I think maybe yourself,  and we weren't understanding each other.  But if we  can use that categorization as she does, so that we 21820  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 use Diamond Jenness, for example, as a professional  2 anthropologist, and John Adams I would say would be a  3 professional anthropologist under her categorization.  4 I think you agree with that?  5 A   Yes.  I thought the distinction you were making  6 yesterday, however, had to do with whether or not  7 there was ethnographic material and ethnological or  8 interpretive anthropology.  9 MR. GRANT:  I understand that.  10 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, my friend should let the witness finish.  11 MR. GRANT:  I just asked the question  12 THE WITNESS:  I think that was the distinction we were making  13 yesterday, and so now, if we are going to make another  14 kind of distinction, I just wanted to be clear.  Now  15 we are talking about whether it's a professional  16 scholar or non-professional?  17 MR. GRANT:  18 Q   Yeah.  I was probably not clear in my question  19 yesterday.  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   But when you look at Dr. McClellan, she talks about  22 non-professional sources and she refers to these fur  23 traders and these missionaries as sources of  24 ethnographic materials?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   So I under -- even if I put them aside, it doesn't  27 mean those people don't rely on ethnographic material?  2 8 A   No.  29 Q   In this category?  30 A   So today what we are going to be looking through this  31 list for is the difference between professional  32 anthropologists doing ethnology?  33 Q   Professional anthropologists, yes.  And if any of  34 these professional anthropologists do not rely on  35 ethnography, okay, you can please let me know, because  36 I'm assuming that that's what they rely upon.  They  37 rely on other things as well, but they -- if they  38 don't rely -- you know what I mean?  39 A   Yes.  And in -- perhaps before we go through the list,  40 just one thing that I would also like to clarify is  41 those people who use anthropological sources but who  42 might have academic postings in other departments.  43 For instance, I don't know with Charles Bishop,  44 whether he would consider himself an anthropologist,  45 but he does anthropological work, or an  46 ethnohistorian, and so on.  So there is some --  47 Q   There is some grey areas? 21821  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   There is some muddying of the borders.  2 Q   But he would be a professional -- well, I think he is  3 an ethnohistorian, is that right?  You would call him  4 that?  5 A   I don't know what hat he wears these days.  6 Q   Okay.  Let's go through here.  You understand what I'm  7 looking for is the professional anthropologists?  8 MR. WILLMS:  Now my lord, one thing -- and my friend promised  9 the witness that when he started talking about the  10 professional anthropologists in McClellan, he would  11 let the witness explain about when the profession got  12 started, and then he hasn't given the witness that  13 opportunity.  And I think that since he cut her off  14 and then promised that he would let her do it later,  15 if she has something that she wants to say about that,  16 that she should be allowed to say something about  17 that.  18 MR. GRANT:  Well with respect, my lord, I think we have had  19 evidence about that.  I am not interested in what this  20 witness has to say about that.  And I -- I would like  21 to proceed with the cross-examination.  I don't think  22 that the cross-examination should be everything the  23 witness wants to talk about.  We have her report.  24 MR. WILLMS:  Well, I am not suggesting that.  Just that when my  25 friend promises that he'll let the witness deal with  26 it later on, and then marks the document and moves on  27 to something else, I think it is fair to the  28 witness -- it's unfair not to let her say something if  29 there was something that she wanted to say and my  30 friend cut her off.  31 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Grant, do you dispute your friend's  32 assertion that you told her that she would have a  33 chance to explain something?  Because I confess that I  34 don't have a fixed recollection of this, and there has  35 been -- so much of this has gone on in the course of  36 this trial, in the course of the evidence of this  37 witness, that I don't have a photographic recollection  38 of everything that's been said.  It isn't uncommon for  39 you to say you'll come back to something and the  40 witness can explain it, but I don't know whether you  41 did in this case or not.  You say you did -- or you  42 agree you did or do you say you didn't?  43 MR. GRANT:  Well, the witness said there was a distinction  44 between the non-professional and the professional and  45 I said when I came to the second group she could  46 explain that, and I thought that she had explained  47 that.  My friend now has raised another point which -- 21822  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 THE COURT:  Have you had a chance to explain what you wanted to  2 explain about this categorization of professional and  3 non-professional witnesses?  4 THE WITNESS:  I think sufficient for these purposes.  However, I  5 do find it awkward that someone else's scheme for  6 sorting documents is set before me and then I am asked  7 to go through my list without having a chance to  8 really review that scheme.  It doesn't seem to me to  9 be terribly important, but being asked to use somebody  10 else's definitions and then moving on -- back to my  11 list is a little bit awkward.  12 MR. GRANT:  13 Q   Well, if there is something --  14 A   But if we -- if we accept that she is basically  15 drawing a distinction between those people who had  16 professional training in an academic context in a  17 field that was invented or developed sometime after a  18 lot of those early records containing ethnographic  19 descriptions were created, then that's fine.  20 Q   Okay.  I think you understand.  And the only reason  21 was not to try to ensnare you with Dr. McClellan, but  22 because she is a source that you respect and rely  23 upon, I thought that her categorization simplified the  24 problem we had yesterday.  That's the only thing I'm  25 trying to do.  2 6 A   Fine.  27 Q   And maybe it's clearer than what I was trying to say.  28 Okay, Doctor, let's -- let's go -- but to be fair to  29 you, I think given now that I've re-explained it, I  30 better go back to the first page.  31 A   Yes, please.  32 Q   And just correct me if I'm wrong here.  I'm going --  33 I'll lead -- and if I've missed somebody or include  34 somebody you will tell me.  35 The following on page 84 are what we would call  36 professional anthropologists and I will -- I am not  37 going to make this hazy distinction of anthropologists  38 or ethnologists, I'm dealing with them with the same  39 terminology.  John Adams, Wayne Allen, Marius Barbeau.  40 Would you agree with that?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   First of all, are those --  43 A   Yes, yes.  44 Q   Are those all right?  45 A   Yes.  Although I'm not sure what field Allen's thesis  46 was actually submitted in.  47 Q   Okay.  Go to the next page.  Charles Bishop, and I 21823  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 think you've given an example, may -- he is a  2 professional academic and he relies on ethnology.  3 Whether he is -- would call himself an anthropologist  4 or not we don't know, but let's assume he is a  5 professional?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   Does he rely on ethnography, Bishop, in the material  8 that you are familiar with?  9 A   Yes, he does.  10 Q   Okay, fine   Franz Boas who Dr. McClellan specifically  11 refers to?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And Roy Carlson?  14 A   Yes.  Additionally, Charles Borden.  15 Q   Okay, fine.  I didn't have the -- and I think when you  16 say "in MacDonald 1979", that's in our —  17 A   That's Skeena River Prehistory that's been referred  18 to.  19 Q   Right, thank you.  86, Michael Cranny?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   Of course this is his M.A. thesis.  This is student  22 work but still it's in the academic field of ethnology  23 or anthropology?  24 A   Yes.  It's in archaeology which is anthropology, yes.  25 Q   That's fine.  And that's good that you --  26 Davidson, De Laguna and Duff.  First of all, is  27 that correct, all of those?  28 A   Yes.  Although again, I'm not sure what field  29 Davidson's thesis was prepared for, but it does refer  30 to ethnographic and ethnological material.  31 Q   Okay.  The next page is a carry over of Dr. Duff, and  32 then we have Emmons?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And Ferguson?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And they would be -- yes, okay.  Page 88, Garfield?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Goldman, Hackler and Halpin?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Yes, okay.  41 A  And I would also say to some extent James Gibson who I  42 believe was a geographer who -- and this study refers  43 extensively to ethnographic records for southeastern  44 Alaska.  45 Q   And you said he was a geographer, I think?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   Yes.  Refers to ethnographic records? 21824  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   For southeastern Alaska, early Russian-Indian contact  2 or -- and Aleut contact.  3 Q   That's the Aleut material he is referring to?  4 A   Some Aleut, some Tlingit, some Eyak.  5 Q   Okay, fine.  6 A  And perhaps some others.  I don't remember.  7 Q   That's right.  89 -- well, none of those would be --  8 come within that category, eh?  9 A   I think Harris and Ingram might.  10 Q   Oh, okay.  11 A   Bill Holm's work.  He is in ethnohistory.  That's the  12 study of soft gold.  13 Q   From the title of Harris and Ingram, that would be  14 sort of in the same category as Dr. Bishop.  It may be  15 ethnohistory as well?  16 A   Yes.  I'm noting where it was published, the Western  17 Canadian Journal of Anthropology.  18 Q   Okay.  They rely on ethnographic material?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   Page 90, Doug Hudson, Inglis and MacDonald, when we  21 encompass the archaeological as a branch of it.  22 Jenness?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   Page 91, Jochelson?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Kobrinsky, and Krause.  First of all, you agree with  27 all three of those?  28 A   Krause did his observations of the Tlingit Indians  29 before the discipline of anthropology had been  30 developed in the American context.  And although this  31 is considered one of the best ethnographies for the  32 Tlingit, he was not himself a professional  33 anthropologist.  34 Q   So what we may consider is his material would be more  35 along the line of the Beynon-Barbeau account --  36 recordings of oral histories?  37 A   No, not at all.  38 Q   It's interpretive?  39 A   Yes, it is.  And also descriptive, based on  40 descriptive material.  And I guess you would have to  41 put it in the non-professional sources, although today  42 it's regarded as one of the best works in  43 anthropology.  44 Q   Fine, thank you.  Page 92, of course, Dr. McClellan?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And Dr. MacDonald, George MacDonald.  Page 93, James  47 MacDonald, Bruce MacLachlan, Donald Mitchell.  First 21825  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 of all, are those all -- would those all be within the  2 category?  3 A  And W.C MacLeod as well.  I'm not sure.  Did you  4 mention him?  5 Q   No, I didn't.  But first of all, those ones I  6 mentioned are?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And then you add MacLeod?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   Okay, thank you.  11 Page 94, none of -- I'm sorry, Oberg, I believe?  12 A   Yes.  Olson as well.  13 Q   Olson, yes?  14 A  And there is a second reference to this publication  15 Soft Gold where the -- it's listed under Oregon  16 Historical Society.  17 Q   Isn't that the same one that we had before?  18 A   Yes.  One was the excerpt of the introduction listed  19 under the author, and the second is the description of  20 the whole publication.  21 Q   Okay.  But that's the same text?  22 A   It comes from --  23 Q   The one of Bill Holm's is part of it, the second one  24 is the whole thing, which includes that?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   Okay.  95, Margaret Seguin and Julian Steward, you  27 agree that they would be in the professional field?  28 A   Yes.  And also Michael P. Robinson's work.  29 Q   That would be -- okay.  That would be --  30 A   That was an unpublished BA Honours thesis in  31 anthropology that he did publish then.  32 Q   I see, okay.  33 A   So -- under the supervision of Wilson Duff.  34 Q   The publication is under the supervision of Wilson  35 Duff of the BA Honours thesis?  36 A   The BA Honours thesis on which that was based.  37 Q   But you are referring to his published work here, I  38 read it, not his thesis?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Yes, okay.  The next page, John Swanton?  41 A   Now, I think we should perhaps go back to page 95.  I  42 was thinking it was somewhat problematic, but I think  43 the hesitation, because I also am an archaeologist, to  44 call this the work by an anthropologist, my own  45 dissertation.  46 Q   Well let's —  47 A  Although it is — 21826  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  3  4  A  5  Q  6  7  A  8  Q  9  A  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  14  A  15  Q  16  17  18  19  THE COURT  20  MR. GRANT  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  A  25  Q  26  A  27  Q  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  A  42  43  Q  44  45  46  47  Let me rephrase my question so you can answer it yes  or no.  In your dissertation do you rely on  ethnographic material?  Yes, I do.  Then that would be within the grouping.  On page 96, Swanton, Teit and Tobey?  Yes.  And on page 97, Wilmeth and Yerbury?  And Joyce Wike as well, yes, 1951.  Did she rely on ethnographic material?  Yes, she did.  Okay.  I just want -- I'm framing the question so you  can answer it in that way.  Yes.  Okay, good.  Putting Exhibit 844 in front of you.  And this  exhibit, my lord, I haven't reproduced it, but it is  the Albright report of January 1987.  :  All right.  First of all, you've seen this report before?  Yes, I have.  In fact, you saw this report sometime in 1987?  Yes.  I am not sure when I was first exposed to it.  Well —  But yes, I did see it.  One of the documents that my friends have listed --  that Mr. Willms has listed as privileged and I haven't  seen the document, but it's entitled -- it's February  1987, and it's a document that was put before his  lordship yesterday, and it's a memorandum re: Albright  report.  And Mr. Willms explained that this was a  memorandum from a third party at the request of  counsel that was forwarded to you?  Yes.  Okay.  So as of February 1987, that's the date of this  memorandum, the report was in the hands of counsel.  And you recall receiving the memorandum to which Mr.  Willms referred yesterday at some time?  You recall  receiving it?  Not specifically, no.  But yes, I'm sure I did if it  was listed in with the other documents I had received.  Okay.  It's something that's written by somebody else,  passed on to you, as I understand it, the way Mr.  Willms explained it.  Would it be correct to say that  you saw Dr. Albright's report prior to the completion  of your report?  And let me say this -- 21827  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   I don't remember.  But if there are letters dated to  2 the effect that I did, yes, I did, but I honestly  3 don't remember the sequence.  4 Q   Okay.  I don't have the letters.  I'm not going to put  5 it in front of you because I don't have it, but on  6 April 21st, 1987, there was a letter from Mr. Plant to  7 yourself, re: Albright report?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   And -- so at least as of April 1987, you were aware of  10 Dr. Albright's report?  11 A   Yes.  And I am -- all I was saying is that I'm not  12 sure when exactly in the sequence of things that I  13 received a copy of the report.  14 Q   You are -- you recall that Dr. Albright in her report  15 described a find -- a location called Gitanka'at,  16 G-I-T-A-N-K-A-'-A-T.  Do you remember that?  17 A   Yes.  Could you refer me to the place in the report  18 where it's described?  19 Q   Yeah.  But first I'm going to ask you to remember that  20 Gitanka'at -- that she -- you remember that?  21 A   I'm not sure what find you are referring to, and I  22 feel awkward having to rely on memory like this.  23 Q   Okay.  Go to chapter 3, page 3-1?  24 A   Thank you.  25 Q   Are you with me?  26 A   Sorry, 3-1, yes.  27 Q   3-1, chapter three, the first page of it?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   She says:  30  31 Archaeological investigation of ancestral  32 village localities tends to confirm the  33 reliability of Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en oral  34 histories.  Evidence of earlier occupation and  35 land use activities --  36  37 Are you with me, the second paragraph?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q  40  41 -- was recorded in four out of five ancestral  42 village localities investigated during the 1985  43 field season.  Two significant site areas  44 recorded in the Gitanka'at study area confirm  45 accounts of earlier occupation of the  46 Gitanka'at locality by Lakski'ik Houses.  One  47 site area consisting of more than 100 cache 2182?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 pits indicates intensive resource exploitation  2 and storage of dried food supplies for winter  3 use.  Archaeological evidence at a smaller site  4 indicates occupation of ancient 'daak' style  5 houses at Gitanka'at at about 1750 years ago.  6  7 Now, that assists in refreshing your memory about  8 the -- about her find at Gitanka'at?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   You make no reference to this find in your report?  11 A   No, I do not.  12 Q   In one of the earlier document -- well let me --  13 A   Just you are -- you've asked me if I was aware of how  14 she described a find, first.  15 Q   No.  I said you made no reference to this find in your  16 report.  17 A   I made no reference to what she describes as a find in  18 her report.  19 Q   You know that that find was radiocarbondated by  20 independent radiocarbondating at 1750 years B.P., a  21 find at Gitanka'at.  You know that, don't you?  22 A   I'm not sure what you mean by "find".  23 Q  24 Archaeological evidence at a smaller site  25 indicates occupation of ancient 'daak' style  26 houses at Gitanka'at about 1750 years ago.  27  28 They found evidence of human occupation 1750 years  29 before present at Gitanka'at.  That's what I'm  30 referring to, Doctor.  31 A  Well, my review of the archaeological information  32 suggests that that conclusion that's drawn, vis-a-vis  33 a house or house remains, is contentious.  34 Q   The archaeological find at Gitanka'at is radiocarbon-  35 dated at 1750 years before present.  You know that,  36 don't you?  37 A   I know that there is -- there has been a radiocarbon-  38 date or perhaps even dates produced of materials that  39 were recovered from a cultural material bearing zone.  40 I don't accept additional interpretation of that find.  41 Q   You know there was a radiocarbondating at Gitanka'at  42 at 1750 years before present, don't you?  43 A   I forget what the plus or minus range is of it.  44 Q   Do you know -- there was a radiocarbondating at  45 Gitanka'at 1750 years before present, yes or no?  46 A   Could you please refer me to the page where it is  47 listed? 21829  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Where what is listed?  2 A   The date.  3 Q   Right there.  "1750 years ago"?  4 A   "About 1750 years".  5 Q   Yes, "about 1750 years ago"?  6 A  Well, I would just like to refresh my memory about the  7 material on that -- on which that date was obtained,  8 and also what the plus or minus is vis-a-vis the  9 radiocarbondating of that remain.  10 Q   This reference I've just given you is not something  11 that comes to you as a surprise this morning for the  12 first time, and you've never heard of it before, is  13 it?  14 A   No.  But I don't have an immediate recollection of the  15 material on which that radiocarbon date was obtained,  16 the size of the sample, and I also don't have an  17 immediate recall of what the plus or minus range was  18 on that date which was obtained.  19 Q   Now Dr. Robinson, in your report you do not consider,  20 refer to, or -- refer to and reject, refer to and say,  21 "This should be -- further investigation should be  22 made," or, "This is spurious."  You make no reference  23 to the Gitanka'at archaeological dating in your  24 report; that's agreed?  25 A   No, I do not.  And as I explained earlier, I feel that  26 the archaeological information for this region, in  27 general, is too sparse to be used as any kind of basis  28 for forming opinions about --  2 9 Q   And it is less --  30 A   -- about prehistoric behaviour.  And I also was not  31 addressing questions of cultural activity in that  32 area, 1700 or about 1750 years ago.  33 Q   But you were addressing -- you were addressing the  34 movement of cultural change and concluding -- making  35 conclusions about cultural change at the time of  36 prehistoric, protohistoric, and early historic  37 contact.  That's what your opinion deals with, right?  38 A   I certainly was not addressing questions of cultural  39 activity in that area 1750 years ago.  That's somewhat  40 prior to what I'm talking about when I talk about  41 protohistoric and even late prehistoric.  42 Q   This reference -- this -- just assume for the  43 moment -- assume for the moment that -- and you don't  44 have to -- I'm not saying to accept.  Do you  45 understand what I mean by "to assume"?  Just assume  46 this fact.  Assume that the radiocarbondating of that  47 site is radiocarbondating indicating human habitation. 21830  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Just make that assumption.  If that was the case,  2 would that not be relevant to your opinions?  3 A   It would be about as relevant to my opinions as --  4 temporally, as addressing questions about what was  5 going on on the Columbia River is spatially.  6 Q   This find at Gitanka'at in 1985 post-dates Dr.  7 MacDonald's archaeological work at Kitwanga, right?  8 A   I think we should have some refreshment of -- or  9 refreshing thoughts about what is the nature of that  10 find at Gitanka'at that you are referring to.  11 Q   Please answer my question.  12 MR. WILLMS:  Well, I object my lord.  My friend keeps talking  13 about "a find, a find, a find, " and the witness keeps  14 saying, "Would you please tell me what this find was."  15 And surely the witness can go to figure 10 where the  16 find is set out.  Surely my friend could let her do  17 that before he continues to cross-examine on something  18 that the witness has already said, "Give me some help  19 on what it is you are talking about."  20 THE COURT:  I think that's right, Mr. Grant.  The witness is  21 entitled to have more definition.  22 MR. GRANT:  Sure.  23 Go to page 3-10 -- I'm sorry, the chart  24 immediately following, sorry.  25 MR. WILLMS:  I think it's figure 10, my lord, shows the carbon  26 date, where the carbondate was taken, and that my  27 friend is talking about.  28 THE WITNESS:  I am sorry, what page is that on?  2 9 MR. GRANT:  30 Q   Figure 10.  It's two pages following page 3-6, okay.  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Okay.  33 A   No, I'm not sure what the find is that we are  34 referring to.  I don't remember what zone, for  35 instance, the carbondate was obtained from, looking at  36 this diagram.  37 Q   Zone E.  38 A   The black, carbon-stained silt, about five centimetres  39 thick?  40 Q   Yes.  41 A   That's showing in this diagram as a lense.  42 Q   I'm sorry?  43 A   Now -- I'm sorry, perhaps we could go back to the  44 question that was associated with this.  This is the  45 find that you are referring to?  46 Q   Yeah.  Dr. Albright in her report explained --  47 starting on page 3, "1985 Field Investigations".  And 21831  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  A  9  Q  10  A  11  12  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  A  17  Q  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  A  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Q  41  A  42  Q  43  A  44  MR. WILLMS  45  46  MR. GRANT:  47  THE COURT:  under the heading of "1985 Field Investigations", she  describes this find.  You -- the question I had was  much simpler than what you are making it, Dr.  Robinson.  That assuming Dr. Albright is correct and  that that's the date she did the work, that find  post-dates Dr. MacDonald's work at the Kitwanga Fort  site.  Would you not agree?  Post-dates?  It's after 1985.  Is after?  Oh, I'm sorry.  I was thinking that -- I was thinking  of the components, and I was thinking that his  components are later in time than this 1750 date.  I see.  Sorry, that's archaeological confusion.  Comes after his work.  Post-dates his work?  Yes.  I'm sorry.  How can you justify as a scholar who -- and I want to  point out one thing.  Yesterday you referred in your  earlier -- earliest references to the defendant's  counsel that investigation of archaeological  information would be important.  And for the  investigations you were doing and the tasks you were  doing, how can you justify, as a scholar, not taking  into account or dealing with and distinguishing or  doing something with a find as late as 1985, right in  the study area?  Well, as I think I explained to you, there are two  things that I would object to, and one is that Miss  Albright did not make any reference at all to the one  organizational body that maintains some kind of  control in a conservation sense over the archaeology  that is done in this province.  And unless material is  registered with the Heritage Conservation Branch in  Victoria, I tend to stay away from it.  I don't think  that that's very professional archaeology that I'm  being exposed to, and I would certainly have no  intention of reviewing the material unless she had at  least had the common sense to register it with the  provincial branch.  And you were present --  That's one objection for that.  Okay.  Let's deal with the first objection.  But the second objection --  :  Let's hear the second one and then you can come  back.  No.  No, I think she can give her answer, Mr. Grant. 21832  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  MR. GRANT  2  THE WITNE  3  4  MR. GRANT  5  Q  6  A  7  8  Q  9  A  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Q  21  22  A  23  Q  24  25  26  27  28  29  A  30  31  32  Q  33  A  34  Q  35  A  36  Q  37  A  38  39  Q  40  A  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  :  Okay.  3S:  But the second problem I certainly have with this  is that I reviewed the evidence.  What did you review?  Her report?  Both the report and her field notes for this  excavation.  Yes?  And I don't see that there is any evidence at all from  those materials -- unless she saw something which she  did not record -- that would indicate that there is a  habitation at that time, 1750 B.P.  Now, if you -- if we look at the figure 10 and  what's indicated on the drawing there is a lense of  carbon-stained soil that's five centimetres thick,  that can be interpreted in more than one way and it  certainly doesn't indicate to me, with the absence,  for instance, of any faunal remains or any cultural  material remains, anything like an occupation.  Well, the Heritage Conservation Branch, that's a  requirement of reporting, isn't it?  Yes.  And this is a report.  It's a requirement of reporting and it's -- the  Heritage Conservation Branch does not do peer review  of what they find.  They basically record  archaeological sites, right?  And it's run by the  provincial defendant, right?  It's a branch of the  Provincial Government?  There is a peer review in the sense that the  allocation of permits is subject to some review of a  person's qualifications that work in the field.  And Miss Albright has received permits in the past?  Yes, but I have not --  And she has done recorded digs in this province?  I'm not sure.  You are not familiar with her?  I haven't seen a list of the permits that she was  issued or the subsequent reports that she produced.  Are you familiar with Tahltan Ethnoarchaeology?  Yes, I am.  And I'm also not sure whether or not the  branch would authorize permits unless excavations were  carried out in a manner to which they concurred or  approved.  In terms simply of the recovery of material  from the field, I think you are correct in suggesting  that they don't screen, reject, or otherwise edit or  control the publications as they come out, or the  manuscript reports that are submitted, but they 21833  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 certainly do assert some kinds of standards about the  2 methods and manners of field work.  3 Q   This find was not available to Dr. MacDonald when he  4 did his work and reviewed the Kitwanga site?  5 A  Ms. Albright's work was not available, no, it was not.  6 Q   Can you turn to your report, page 4, last paragraph,  7 fourth line down:  8  9 In my research I have discovered no conclusive  10 evidence that suggests that, prior to the  11 advent of European influence in the claim area,  12 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en lineages and  13 families identified ownership rights to large  14 and precisely defined tracts of hunting  15 territories.  16  17 And that's your opinion that you were -- that was  18 quoted to you earlier?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   In giving that opinion, you have not taken into  21 account William Brown, have you?  22 A   Yes, I have.  23 Q   You have not taken into account Dyen and Aberle, have  24 you?  25 A   Yes, I have.  26 Q   You have not taken into account John Ives, the  27 Tsimshian or Carrier, have you?  28 A   Not in the formulation of this opinion.  29 Q   You've not taken into account the Skene Ogden, have  30 you?  31 A   Skene Ogden?  32 Q   Peter Skene Ogden, S-K-E-N-E?  33 A   No, I don't believe so.  34 Q   You have not taken into account the oral histories as  35 recorded by Beynon, have you?  36 A   No, I have not.  37 Q   You've not taken into account the chronology of The  38 Men of Medeek or The Wars of Medeek, have you?  39 A   I'm not sure what chronology and sequencing you are  40 referring to.  41 Q   Have you read The Men of Medeek?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   Have you read The Wars of Medeek?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   Have you -- do you agree with me that when you read  46 those through, it goes -- it appears the narration --  47 the oral history goes in a chronological order? 21834  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   No, I don't agree.  2 Q   Okay.  You have not taken into account The Men of  3 Medeek and The Wars of Medeek, have you?  4 A   Only to the extent that some examples were cited from  5 them.  6 Q   I suggest to you that for you to make this statement,  7 Dr. Robinson, for you to make this statement, you have  8 to disregard the recordings of William Beynon, of the  9 oral histories that he dealt with between 1916 and  10 1956.  You have to disregard that, because those oral  11 histories do show Gitksan lineages.  Do you agree with  12 me or not?  13 A   I would like you to refer me to those parts of the  14 Barbeau-Beynon manuscripts that do disagree with this  15 opinion.  I can't --  16 Q   Well, you didn't take it into account anyway, did you?  17 I think you've said that's so it's okay.  18 A   I took into account some of the published versions of  19 those narratives and also, as you've mentioned, some  20 of the ethnologists whose work I rely on do also refer  21 to those manuscript reports.  22 Q   Such as Barbeau?  2 3 A  And Adams.  24 Q   Right.  Your principal reliance for this "no  25 conclusive evidence" statement with respect to the  26 Gitksan is Adams, is that not fair to say?  27 A   No, that's not fair to say.  2 8 Q   Who as well as Adams?  29 A   I'm drawing the conclusion there on the basis that we  30 have no written record which reflects absolutely what  31 was going on in late prehistoric times.  And so that  32 sentence is a reference to the fact that we have no  33 real information which is untainted by European  34 influence and in the absence of any good conclusive  35 archaeological material which might possibly give  36 us -- and when I say "possibly", I'm meaning in a  37 very, very ephemeral sense -- clues about territories,  38 we simply have no conclusive evidence.  That's what  39 I'm basing that on.  40 Q   We have absolutely no positive evidence, that's what  41 you mean?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And that's because you are saying that -- you are  44 relying on the historical record in part?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   And that the historical record, of course, by  47 definition, commences after the protohistoric period? 21835  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   Can you return to tab 18 of the black book.  And I  3 think yesterday we already referred to this article,  4 and Dr. Halpin, and she is respected in the field of  5 anthropology?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   And she states here --  8 MR. WILLMS:  Where?  9 MR. GRANT:  10 Q   On page 141, the very first paragraph, "William  11 Beynon, Tsimshian, did ethnography for White  12 anthropologists for over 40 years."  And that you have  13 no -- you don't dispute that statement?  14 A   No, I do not.  15 Q   And then she goes on to describe that he's known as an  16 informant and an interpreter.  And of course what she  17 is suggesting -- and she goes into the definition of  18 ethnographer -- that he should really be considered as  19 an ethnographer.  For my purposes, we don't need to  20 concern ourselves with that discussion, except to say  21 on page 149, the second -- the first paragraph:  22  23 It seems fairly clear to me that Boas  24 employed Beynon to send him material to  25 comprise a second monumental publication on the  26 Tsimshian.  27  28 Now, my only reference there is that you don't  29 dispute that Beynon did work -- ethnographic work, if  30 we adopt what Dr. Halpin says, for Boas?  31 A   Yes.  And if we adopt the criteria we were using  32 earlier, I guess we would put him in the  33 non-professsional scholar end of things.  34 Q   That's what I'm saying.  We don't have to worry about  35 that, Dr. McClellan for this purpose, because I think  36 Dr. Halpin makes an argument why he should be  37 considered an ethnographer, but I didn't want to  38 confuse you, that's why I mentioned that.  39 A   That's fine.  40 Q   And then the last sentence of that, you agree that:  41  42 ...Barbeau left in the CCFCS a massive  43 four-volume manuscript of Tsimshian narratives,  44 many of them collected by Beynon, that he had  45 been unable to get published.  46  47 You agree that Beynon collected many of the oral 21836  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  A  5  Q  6  7  THE COURT  8  MR. GRANT  9  Q  10  A  11  12  Q  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  24  25  26  A  27  Q  28  29  A  30  31  32  Q  33  A  34  35  Q  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  A  43  Q  44  A  45  Q  46  47  histories in this four-volume, unpublished series  which is the Raven Clan Outlaws, the Gwenhoot of  Alaska, the one we referred to the other day?  Yes, I do.  And those are the ones that are Exhibits 1046 through  to — 1046 to 1049 and 1054, my lord.  :  What does CCFCS mean?  I believe it's at the end, if I recall.  I think the Canadian Centre for Folk Culture Studies  or Folk Cultural Studies.  Okay.  And then at the bottom of that page she  introduces that William Beynon "began a new role in  his ethnographic career in 1932 with Viola  Garfield--that of that informant."  And here she  describes how he took on a different role of providing  her with specific information.  You agree with that?  In other words, Dr. Garfield, who you've also relied  on, relied on Beynon?  Yes.  And I -- as I recall, and on page 150 if you have  trouble remembering it, is that Dr. Garfield -- the  work -- the information he provided to her was  regarding the Tsimshian, and I believe that would be  the coastal Tsimshian we were talking about?  Predominantly but not exclusively, yes.  The work that she relied on Beynon for was the coastal  Tsimshian?  Yes.  I think also -- I'm not sure if he did, but she  certainly covered in her study of the Tsimshian, some  information relating to the inland Tsimshian people.  Yeah.  That's why I want to be clear.  So I'm not sure if Beynon was a source of some of her  information on the inland Tsimshian people.  Okay.  And then on page 151, the second paragraph:  The final chapter in William Beynon's  ethnographic career opened in 1953, when he  acted as informant for Philip Drucker.  And you are familiar with Philip Drucker's work?  Yes.  And do you agree that he did work for Drucker?  Yes.  And then she goes on to describe on the bottom of 151,  "The material he" -- that is -- that's Beynon, I  believe. 21837  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 -- did produce, however, should be published.  2 It is no less than a synthesis of the  3 "adaox" --  4  5 A-D-A-O-X in this paragraph.  6  7 -- or traditional histories of the Houses of a  8 number of Tsimshian groups.  9  10 You are familiar with the terminology of "adaawk",  11 aren't you?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   And we can -- adaawk and oral histories are  14 traditional histories.  She uses adaawk and  15 traditional histories.  You understand what she is  16 referring to there?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q  19 Drucker had asked for an ethnogeography, and  20 Beynon included some geography and place names  21 in his account, but he had been working for  22 forty years on the "adaox" collecting for  23 himself and for Barbeau and Boas, and he knew  24 better than Drucker what he could do.  As one  25 who had read through dozens of the "adaox" of  26 Tsimshing-speaking peoples, I can appreciate  27 the attempt at synthesis Beynon was making, and  28 believe that it should be made available.  It  29 is contained in six volumes of handwritten  30 notebooks Beynon sent to Drucker at the Bureau  31 of American Ethnology, and subsequently sent by  32 Drucker to the Department of Anthropology at  33 the American Museum of Natural History.  34  35 You are aware -- you were aware before I've read  36 this extract to you, that Beynon did that work for  37 Drucker, are you?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   And you have not, of course, reviewed those?  40 A   Some of that material is, I believe, some of the  41 material that we were referring to in an earlier tab  42 here.  And it's on microfilm if that's the same  43 material as the stuff in the Columbia University.  I'm  44 not sure if it's exactly the same thing, looking at  45 the numbers here.  46 Q   Okay.  47 A   But that -- that may be part of the Drucker -- or the 2183?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 materials sent to Drucker.  2 Q   You don't know?  3 A   Not offhand.  4 Q   But what it is, the material in the earlier cite, I  5 think, is clearly -- was material that came from  6 Beynon?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And it may have been sent to Drucker or it may be this  9 material or it may be something else?  10 A   It's this or something very similar that was sent to  11 Drucker by Beynon.  Beynon is the senior or the only  12 author on that, and it does contain some summaries and  13 overviews, in which sense he is behaving as an  14 ethnologist.  15 Q   Page 152, she states:  16  17 Of even more urgency, however, is the need to  18 publish Beynon's four volumes of notes on the  19 Kitsegukla potlatches and naxnox dramatizations  20 in 1945 (now in the CCFCS).  21  22 Are you familiar with that material?  Well, let me  23 rephrase the questions and make it easier for you.  Do  24 you know of the existence of that material before I've  25 read this to you?  26 A   Yes, I think so.  And what I'm -- I would like to do  27 is just check that footnote so I know what is actually  28 being referred to here.  29 Q   It's on the next page.  30  31 [He] sent a manuscript based on these notes to  32 Harry B. Hawthorn at [U.B.C] about 1948.  It  33 is misleadingly entitled "Totem Poles" and  34 contains some information not included in the  35 field notes proper.  36  37 I said "he" I should say "Beynon" sent the manuscript.  38 So she is referring to something else.  But you were  39 aware of the existance of those, Dr. Robinson?  40 A   Probably.  I'm not quite sure when this article was  41 rewritten, and I know there has been some  42 reorganization of the files in the CCFCS, so that I'm  43 not sure, looking at that sentence, whether it -- it  44 exactly describes some materials I'm familiar with,  45 apart from those four volumes of narratives we've  46 referred to earlier.  47 Q   The four volumes being the Gwenhoot of Alaska and the 21839  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 others?  2 A   Yes.  And I know there are some additional materials  3 I've looked at in a fairly cursory manner and some in  4 more detail.  But I'm not sure, quite, what -- I think  5 they are the same, but I'm not sure exactly if they  6 correspond to these.  7 Q   And you are familiar that Beynon did take notes of all  8 potlatch feasting in Kitsegukla in 1945?  9 A   Yes.  I think they are listed in Cole's inventory.  10 Q   And have you referred to Beynon's description of the  11 potlatch at Kitsegukla in 1945?  12 A   Not my opinion report.  13 Q   I'm sorry, I said "referred".  Have you read it?  14 A   I would like to know exactly which potlatch  15 descriptions are you referring to.  I believe I've  16 read some from Kitsegukla from 1945, but I'm not sure  17 I cover them all.  18 Q   But you did not cite them in your report in any event?  19 A   No, I did not.  20 Q   And you did not refer --  21 A   No.  Because I was dealing with the protohistoric  22 period, and 1945 potlatches, I don't know if they have  23 any relevance.  24 Q   And when did Dr. Adams observe potlatching?  25 A   I believe in the early '70's.  26 Q   That was after the protohistoric?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   Do you agree with Dr. Halpin's view expressed there  29 that these materials that I've referred you to, the  30 material that Beynon sends to Drucker, the material to  31 Barbeau, and the Beynon's recording of the 1945  32 Kitsegukla feasts, are valuable ethnographic mater-  33 ials?  And I'm not going to ask you if you think they  34 should be published, I don't think it matters what you  35 think because they aren't published.  But Dr. Halpin  36 goes that far.  Of course she thinks they're valuable  37 and they should be published.  But do you agree with  38 her that they are valuable ethnographic materials?  39 A   Yes.  But their value, of course, varies from the kind  40 of scholars -- varies with the kinds of scholars that  41 might wish to use them for those purposes.  42 Q   Well, when I say they are valuable --  43 A  What I'm saying, some scholars might find them of more  44 use and interest to the kinds of research they engage  45 in than others.  But yes, I would agree that they are  46 valuable.  47 Q   I understand that they may be used more by some and 21840  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  A  4  5  Q  6  7  8  9  THE  COURT  10  MR.  GRANT  11  12  13  14  15  16  THE  COURT  17  MR.  GRANT  18  19  20  THE  COURT  21  MR.  GRANT  22  Q  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  A  30  31  Q  32  A  33  Q  34  A  35  THE  COURT  36  MR.  GRANT  37  38  39  40  MR.  GRANT  41  42  THE  COURT  43  MR.  GRANT  44  45  46  47  less by others, but they are valuable data.  It's a  very voluminous data base of 40 years?  Well, volume and value I think are two different  things.  But yes, they are valuable.  Okay.  Now, before I proceed here, my lord, if you --  I'm giving an extract here of John -- William Brown,  1821, Report of the Babine Counties Westward by  William Brown.  And if you -- just a moment.  :  Is this one document or is it divided in two parts?  :  Just let me check my friend's because it may be --  yes, it is one document, but it may be that I -- yes.  It's one document but if, my lord, if you went in  three pages, you have Report of the Babine Country,  and Countries to the Westward, April 15th, 1826, page  2 -- stamped page 2.  :  Yes.  :  You go one page over and then the second clipped  section which starts at page 11 should go in there.  It was for some reason not collated.  :  It goes from 2 to 11?  Yes, it goes from page 2 to 11.  I just put the first  page -- the report is fairly long.  This report is  already an exhibit too, my lord.  This report is  actually Exhibit -- also Exhibit 964-12, a document  referred to by Dr. Ray.  So it would go cover, title page, page 2, page  11.  Have I clarified for yourself?  I think so.  You have covers -- two covers and then  page 2.  Yes.  And then page --  Eleven is in that section.  Okay, got it.  Thanks.  :  And you want this to be tab 20, do you?  :  Yes.  You may note that that's Exhibit 9 -- that  that's also Exhibit 964-12.  (EXHIBIT 1191-20 - Extract from Report of the Babine  Country by W. Brown dd. April 1, 1826)  :  Now, can you -- do you have it in your tab there?  Yes.  Oh, my lord, do you have a tab for that, tab 20?  :  Yes, tab 20.  :  Maybe you can just put that in there because I want  you to refer to another tab first just so I can put it  in some context for you, which you already have.  Okay.  Sorry, my lord, I didn't get everything punched, 21841  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 three-hole punched.  Can you go back to tab 5 just for  2 a moment, of the black book.  3 MR. WILLMS:  Did you mark this?  4 MR. GRANT:  5 Q   Yes.  Exhibit 1191 tab 20, cross-referenced as Exhibit  6 964-12, and should be referred to as B ll/e/2 Report  7 of the Babine Country and Countries to the Westwards -  8 1826 - Brown.  And then for this exhibit, bracket,  9 extract.  10 And at tab 5 -- at tab 5 you have the index of Dr.  11 Ray's first two volumes of documents, and you see tab  12 12 there, the first one in volume 2.  I just want you  13 to refer -- this is not one of the ones that you  14 recited in your report and you agree with that because  15 we've clarified you've cited 3 and 8?  16 A   Yes, yes.  17 Q   Have you looked at this?  18 A   Yes, I have.  19 Q   Okay.  Did you look at this prior to the completion of  20 your report?  21 A   No, I don't believe so.  22 Q   Okay.  23 A   I'm not sure.  24 Q   Okay.  25 A   I didn't cite it.  26 Q   If you had looked at it you didn't consider that it  27 had any bearing on your opinion report?  28 THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Grant, that is a question that cannot be  29 answered.  3 0    MR. GRANT:  31 Q   I'm sorry.  If you didn't cite it you didn't -- if you  32 had referred -- you don't know if you referred to it  33 or not -- or before your report, you just don't know?  34 A   I may have.  I may well have, because I didn't cite  35 everything that I was aware of that might have  36 supported the reference in the reference section of  37 the report.  I think that's one of those things that  38 any scholar recognizes is exponential and you can keep  39 going and going and going.  40 Q   I understand that, you've explained that.  But I'm  41 just saying you don't remember today whether you  42 looked at this before the completion of the report or  43 not?  44 A   I really don't, no.  45 Q   Okay.  Now, on this report at page 11, he talks about:  46 "Of the Traders from the Seacoast", and you recall  47 this was the trip of William Brown to the west in 21842  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 1826?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   And he states:  4  5 It does not appear to me, that we are able to  6 cope with these people by making --  7  8 MR. WILLMS:  Derouines, D-E-R-O-U-I-N-E-S.  9 MR. GRANT:  Right, thank you.  10  11 -- into the Countries they are in the habit of  12 visiting.  13  14 THE COURT:  What's that word?  15 MR. WILLMS:  I think it's derouines, D-E-R-O-U-I-N-E-S.  I say  16 that because that was used in some of the other Brown  17 material.  18 THE COURT:  Does it mean trips?  19 MR. GRANT:  I think so.  20 MR. WILLMS:  I don't know.  21 MR. GRANT:  "— into the Countries they are in the habit of  22 visiting."  23 THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  2 4 MR. GRANT:  25 Q   Now here he is talking of the traders from the  26 seacoast, that's what his heading is?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And then if you go down seven lines down, it starts,  29  30 For we do not meet on an equal footing, as they  31 receive goods at a low rate from the --  32  33 A   "Vessels".  34 Q   "-- vessels which frequent the coast."  And here, of  35 course, William Brown -- and I think you even made  36 mention of this -- was aware of the Maritime fur  37 trade, and in fact here is a reference that he is  38 making to the competition they are facing from the  39 Maritime fur trades?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q  42 And though these articles, generally speaking  43 are old and little worthy, particularly the  44 arms, still when compliance --  45  46 MR. WILLMS:  "Compared".  4 7 MR. GRANT: 21843  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 -- compared with any thing we can give at the  2 same price, they appear great in the eyes of  3 Indians who have no knowledge of the intrinsic  4 value of the property to which may be added  5 they work their own Crafts coming up the  6 river... understand the language, and are at no  7 expenses for provisions nor anything else.  8  9    THE COURT:  "Consequently".  10 MR. GRANT:  11 Q  12 Consequently can afford to give a high price  13 for what furs they receive, and then have what  14 will appear to them handsome profits.  Besides  15 they have recourse to means which would not do  16 with us.  For instance, on their arrival at a  17 village, they ascertained, if they do not know  18 previously, who have furs and the amount of  19 them, on which they go to the person's lodge,  20 blow a parcel of swans down upon his head,  21 which is reckoned a mark of great honour, both  22 amongst the Carriers and Atnahs.  23  24 And let me pause there if I may, Doctor.  The  25 Atnahs, you understand he is referring to the Gitksan  26 there?  Or you don't?  27 A   From references in the 1822 journal and also the 1822  28 report on the district by Brown, it appears that he is  29 speaking of people that may include the Gitksan.  I'm  30 not sure if the term Atnah is limited to or restricted  31 to the Atnah in that contemporary sense.  32 Q   Fine.  Thank you.  Have you heard of this description  33 of the blowing of a parcel of swans down upon a  34 person's head before reading this?  35 A   Yes, I have.  36 Q   Okay.  37 A  With specific reference to the Tlingit, using this in  38 peace-making ceremonies, also the Haida, I believe.  39 Q   And in the oral histories recorded by Beynon, do you  40 recall the reference being made?  41 A   Not a specific one.  42 Q   Okay.  43  44 And then commence dancing and singing a song in  45 his praise.  After which they make him a  46 present, and treat him with something to eat.  47 When he according to the custom of his country, 21844  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 makes them in return a present of his furs,  2 which is not equal to what he has received, he  3 adds surplus (robes and dried skins to make up  4 the value).  5  6 MR. WILLMS:  "Dressed".  7 MR. GRANT:  8 Q   "Dressed skins", sorry, "to make up the value".  9 A   I think the word before robes is siffleu,  10 S-I-F-F-L-E-U, and I believe that's a reference to  11 marmot, marmot skins.  This is something that --  12 S-I-F-F-L-E-U or L-U-X -- comes up with marmots in the  13 context of Rocky Mountain records.  14 Q   Okay, okay.  Are you aware that marmots -- marmots  15 were of significance to the people -- the Gitksan and  16 Wet'suwet'en?  They utilized them themselves?  17 A   I'm not sure what time period you are referring to,  18 but I don't have a specific notion of that, no.  19 Q   Okay.  You don't know?  I'm talking about the pre --  20 before the fur trade?  21 A   Pre-European?  22 Q   Pre fur trade.  Independent of the fur trade?  23 A   Pre-European?  2 4 Q   Um-hmm.  25 A   Fur trade?  2 6 Q   Um-hmm.  27 A   No, I don't have a specific knowledge of --  28 Q   Okay.  29 A   -- the use of marmots.  30 Q   Okay.  31  32 It would appear that the vessels which  33 visit the entrance of the river, bring a better  34 supply of --  35  36 It's not "supply", I know.  Sorry, my lord.  37  38 -- of goods than formerly.  As the Atnahs has a  39 number of these and four point blankets, and  40 very fine dressed skins with plenty of  41 ammunition both in cartridges and otherwise.  42 While at the same time, the traders from the  43 coast seem as if they intended to extend their  44 trading excursions as they seldom used to come  45 higher than the forks of the Babine River and  46 Simpson's River, and very frequently not so  47 high.  But last fall they came as far up as the 21845  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  upper Atnah Village, and traded the whole of  the furs and siffleu robes, the natives have to  dispose of.  And here, of course, that word again that you  mentioned may be marmot, but you are talking about --  they are talking about -- that's a modification of  robes, it's the type of robe?  A   Um-hmm, yes.  THE COURT:  I'm sorry, what does it say, "But last fall they  came as far up as the upper Atnah"?  MR. GRANT:  Upper Atnah.  THE COURT:  Village?  MR. GRANT:  Village.  THE COURT:  And what's that next word, "and trade"?  THE WITNESS:  "And traded the whole of the furs and siffleu  robes the natives have to dispose of."  THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  MR. GRANT:  Is that when I was there...all that I could  collect amongst them was only thirty martens.  MR. WILLMS:  "So that when I was there."  MR. GRANT:  Oh, yes.  Thank you.  "So that when I was there  in" -- that's cut off.  I think in March.  -- all that I could collect amongst them was  only thirty martens and a little beaver coating  and that at a very high rate, which induced me  to return from Childocall in place of going to  the Forks as was my first intention.  THE COURT:  What is that word that's got highlighting on it that  blocks it out?  MR. GRANT:  Childocall, C-H-I-L-D-O-C-A —  THE WITNESS:  C-A-L-L.  MR. GRANT:  C-A-L-L, um-hmm.  It appears to me that the very effectual  method to put a stop to this  protect Western Caledonia from the inroads of  these people and to secure the trade of both  rivers to the concern --  He is referring here to the company, right.  -- the concern.  Is to form an establishment at 21846  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 the Forks of the Babine and Simpson's River, by  2 which such furs as are not pursued there will  3 be got at either Kilmaurs or Fraser Lake.  4  5 And you agree with me that what Doctor -- in the  6 extract that I have just read to you, that what Mr.  7 Brown is recording in 1826, is his observations of  8 the -- of the trading patterns of the Atnahs and the  9 Carriers in connection with the Coastal Indian people  10 coming up from -- with their goods from the coast?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And he, of course, gives some detail of it because --  13 it is of particular import to him in his report,  14 because he is a fur trader and they are trying to deal  15 with competition?  16 A   Yes.  Some detail.  17 Q   In this reference there is no discussion or no  18 suggestion that the Atnahs have chosen to trade at the  19 coast because of superior relations with the "un"  20 superior?  The Tsimshian are superior to the  21 Athabaskans?  22 A   In this reference?  23 Q   Yes?  24 A   No, there is not.  25 Q   And Brown does not refer to that, does he?  I am not  26 talking about the --  27 A   Not that I am aware of, no.  28 THE COURT:  I notice that we are half-way through the morning,  2 9 Mr. Grant.  30 MR. GRANT:  I was a little dismayed, my lord.  I thought I had  31 been here longer than half an hour.  32 THE COURT:  All right.  We will adjourn for a few minutes.  33 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  This court stands adjourned for  34 a morning recess.  35  36 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 11:00 A.M.)  37  38 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  39 a true and accurate transcript of the  40 proceedings herein transcribed to the  41 best of my skill and ability.  42  43  44  45 Toni Kerekes, O.R.  46 United Reporting Service Ltd.  47 21847  Proceedings  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.  MR.  (PROCEEDINGS RECOMMENCED AFTER RECESS)  THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  THE COURT:  Mr. Grant.  MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, if I might speak to scheduling.  I  mentioned this to my friend a moment ago.  I wonder  how much time we should take for lunch, or how long we  will sit today, and whether my friend has an estimate  of how long it will take him to complete the witness  today.  He told me that he didn't really know yet, but  what I would like to do, as I think we have been  aiming for since Wednesday, and since Mr. Grant said  he was aiming for it Wednesday as well, I would like  to finish this witness today, if possible, and I would  like to know how we can do that.  Well, I thought we would take an hour for lunch,  which is what we have been doing on Saturdays, if  that's convenient.  WILLMS:  That's convenient.  GRANT:  I assumed we would take an hour for lunch and  proceed 'til 4:30, which I understand is what we have  done on Saturdays.  And I must say to Your Lordship  that the cross-examination is taking longer than I had  initially planned, but I -- my friend said yesterday  that he thought -- it was the first he had known that  I was going over to the 6th, and I had reference two  days ago of this, I may be going over to the 6th with  this cross-examination with this witness.  I am doing  everything I can.  THE COURT:  I think we should sit longer, if we have to, to  finish.  I don't think we can mutilate ourselves over  it.  If we can't finish by sitting longer, then it  will have to go over 'til the 6th.  I don't want to be  unkind.  I haven't had any days out of court since the  first of September, except for the week I had to go  east, which was no great rest.  And judges aren't used  to working in court every day.  We have other things  to do.  I have enormous other pressures, and I am  looking forward to some time on that week of the 6th,  and that time is getting less and less as we go along.  So I would like to finish this cross-examination  today.  As I say, I don't think we should injure  ourselves over it, but I think we should make a real  effort to do so.  MR. GRANT: I just -- I said to my friend I couldn't say now,  and we will see how we go. I am doing everything I  can, and I am doing everything I can and -- 21848  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  COURT:  WILLMS  COURT  GRANT  COURT  MR.  GRANT:  Q  The idea of sitting on Saturdays was more or less to  bring some distance to us, so that we would finish  witnesses within the generally projected time.  And I  remember threatening you all at one time, threatening  myself as well, I suppose, that you would -- we would  sit late, if necessary, to finish witnesses on  schedule, and I think we should rather regard that as  our objective.  Well, I had indicated out of court to Mr. Goldie the  scheduling, clarifying the scheduling proposal with  respect to Mr. Hobenshield, that I would require the  Monday and Tuesday of this week, if he was going to go  ahead, which was what the plan was.  And I had  suggested alternatively that Mr. Hobenshield, as he  was an out of court witness, if he was -- this was  some weeks ago -- if he was an out of court witness,  could have been done, for example, next week or the  week after, because I had anticipated a full week for  Dr. Robinson.  This suggestion that Dr. Robinson was  going to be a two and-a-half or three day witness  never was generated by the plaintiffs.  I understand that.  My friend should read what he said to all of us.  I don't think we should get into this.  I would like to get on with this.  I should add, I do not get next week off.  I have  got two, five judge courts in the Court of Appeal next  week, and so that following week looks pretty precious  at the moment.  That's why I am very anxious to get  this behind us, if we can.  Go ahead, Mr. Grant.  I would like you to have your report, both parts of  your report in front of you. Page 1 of your report  you state:  "By proto-historic, I mean the time prior to  European presence in the area claimed by the  plaintiffs, but when European influence was  felt through native intermediaries."  Now, what time period are you talking about?  Then you go on to say:  "Roughly speaking the proto-historic period  spans to the mid-17th century to the early 19th  century." 21849  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 When, Dr. Robinson, do you conclude is the  2 proto-historic period with respect to the Gitksan and  3 Wet'suwet'en people, and if it's -- I'll break it up  4 with respect to the Gitksan people.  When does that  5 commence?  6 A   I think Trader Brown's early -- or early reports on  7 Babine Lake, Babine country, and also the first Fort  8 Kilmaur's reports spanning the years 1822 to 1825 has  9 some direct references to people at a village called  10 Hotset, which is tentatively but reasonably  11 conclusively identified into the Wet'suwet'en or  12 Bulkley River area.  And those journals also have  13 references to some Atnah people, which were -- which  14 we are generally associating to some extent with the  15 Gitksan.  I think that's a good time for both areas,  16 that we can see as the beginning of the historic  17 period.  So the end of the proto-historic, if we are  18 going to assign it a very firm chronological date.  19 Q   When is the beginning of the proto-historic period  20 among the Gitksan?  21 A  Well, a conservative estimate is what I have given  22 here to talk about the mid-17th century.  We certainly  23 have --  24 Q   I am talking about the Gitksan.  25 A  Mid-17th century, I would talk about the  26 proto-historic.  27 Q   What is the basis for you concluding that the  28 proto-historic period among the Gitksan starts in the  29 mid-17th century?  30 A   I would say that's a conservative estimate, and for  31 northwestern North America at large --  32 Q   Talking about the Gitksan --  33 A   -- including the Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en.  For  34 northwestern North America at large, including the  35 Gitksan and the Wet'suwet'en areas, we could put it  36 back even further in time.  But a conservative  37 estimate is one that I am basing on my knowledge of  38 both the expanding fur trade coming across the  39 continent from the east, and also the introduction of  40 European trade goods from the north in the Russian  41 context.  42 Q   Do you agree that the proto-historic period, if we  43 look at all of North America or all of Canada, the  44 proto-historic period, that is as you define when  45 European influence was felt through native  46 intermediaries, was different in different areas?  47 A   Yes, I do. 21850  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   You would agree that the proto-historic period may  2 well have started earlier among the coastal Tsimshian  3 and Haida than among the Gitksan?  Or do you know?  4 A   I would say it's unlikely that it would have been  5 any -- there would have been any significant  6 difference, based on my understanding of pre-historic  7 trade networks.  And that's largely based on my  8 understanding of the distribution of archaeological  9 materials, which we infer, for example, with obsidian,  10 represents trade networks existing prehistorically,  11 some as early as 9 or 10,000 years ago for this part  12 of this world.  13 Q   Let's go back to my question.  On what sources -- on  14 what source or sources do you rely to say that the  15 proto-historic period commenced for the Gitksan at the  16 same time or around the same time as the coastal  17 Tsimshian?  What source do you rely on in support of  18 that proposition?  19 A  Well, among other sources I will mention Dyen and  20 Aberle, which is a book that's come up earlier in  21 discussion, for their description of the way the  22 mid-17th century Cree were pushing on the mid-17th  23 century Chipewyan, and encouraging dislocations and  24 movements of native population relating to the  25 European influence fur trade.  And they are talking  26 about neighbours of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, such  27 as the Beaver and Sekani.  28 So I am inferring from that, and from their  29 description of changes in cultural behaviour stemming  30 from the mid-17th century, and also from MacDonald's  31 summary of mid-17th century changes, which are  32 documented in other sources, that we have got a  33 considerable amount of movement occurring in  34 northwestern North America relating to fur trade,  35 European fur trade influence in about the mid-17th  36 century.  37 Q   Where are the Cree that Dyen and Aberle are referring  38 to?  39 A   Considerably east of the study area.  40 Q   Where?  41 A   I would like to refer to that exhibit, if perhaps I  42 could, and I can tell you exactly where.  But perhaps  43 we should cite from those passages, so that we have it  44 precise.  45 Q   You have brought up Dyen and Aberle.  I am prepared to  46 deal with the passages you cite in your footnotes.  47 You don't cite Dyen and Aberle in your material, do 21851  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  A  3  Q  4  5  6  7  8  A  9  Q  10  A  11  THE COURT  12  THE WITNE  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Q  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  A  26  Q  27  A  28  29  30  31  Q  32  A  33  Q  34  35  36  37  38  A  39  40  Q  41  A  42  43  44  Q  45  A  46  47  you?  No, I do not.  I don't happen to have Dyen and Aberle, the entire  text with me.  But you say Dyen and Aberle is one of  your bases, and I would like you to tell me where  the -- let's make it general.  The Cree are east of  the Rockies, right?  Yes, east of the Rockies.  And the Chipewyan, are they east of the Rockies?  Yes, they are.  :  When you say mid-17th century, you mean 1650?  3S:   Yes.  And the references that Dyen and Aberle  refer to, when they describe these movements of  dislocation through the plains, and pushing west onto  the edge of the mountains from more or less the  Alberta mountainous strip west.  They are talking  about La Verendrye.  That's one source of information,  I believe, and is it De Voto, but they got some direct  references to squirmishes, and also to connecting --  When does La Verendrye reach the Rockies?  1640 something or another.  It's in that general --  1741?  1741.  Well, there we go.  A hundred years later?  Mid —  You are a hundred years out in that, aren't you?  No.  I may have been wrong with the specific  reference, but no, mid-17th century is what I am quite  happy with, when I am describing the proto-historic  for this range.  For the Gitksan?  Yes.  Dyen and Aberle do not suggest that the Gitksan -- the  proto-historic commences with the Gitksan in the  mid-17th century, do they?  That's your extrapolation  of what they are talking about with the Cree and the  Chipewyan?  No, I don't believe so.  I would like to refer to some  certain pages that I can cite.  I would like you to too.  Pages 250 to 252, 274 to 276.  There are some passages  in there directly related to mid-17th century and 18th  century changes.  With respect to who?  With respect to the whole of northwestern North  America configuration, specifically with the  Athabaskan tribes. 21852  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Give me those pages again, please.  2 A   250 to 252, 274 to 276.  There is a passage in the  3 middle of page 275 that might be illuminating in this  4 regard.  5 Q   Is there a reason why you didn't cite that in your  6 footnotes in support of this proposition?  Is it  7 something that came to your attention after your  8 report?  9 A   I think it's something that came to my attention about  10 two days ago, when you were suggesting that Dyen and  11 Aberle's material was in contradiction to what I had  12 stated in my opinion report.  And having had some  13 interest in just checking that, out of curiosity more  14 than anything, I found some passages that seem to me  15 to relate directly to this.  16 One of the reasons why I didn't mention Dyen and  17 Aberle in my opinion report, is I felt that for -- and  18 perhaps being naive about this, I felt that for the  19 context of the court, it was unnecessary to be  20 referring to places as far east as Dyen and Aberle  21 concerned themselves dealing with the Cree and the  22 Chipewyan and so on, because there is no need,  23 perhaps, to throw it into that broad a context.  24 I think there's already been some objection, or  25 perhaps I misunderstand you, with me even referring to  26 areas as far north as the Tlingit territory, which is  27 in the northwest coast region.  So I just felt it  28 would be easier, perhaps, not to suggest that this was  29 a broad North American pattern, and certainly no  30 surprise to anyone dealing in either northeastern or  31 northwestern North America.  I thought it was better  32 to confine my remarks to the nearby regions, rather  33 than broaden it out.  But if we are going to draw Dyen  34 and Aberle in, then I think we should at least refer  35 to some passages that are relevant.  36 Q   You have read Dyen and Aberle --  37 A   No, not the whole thing in the last day and-a-half.  I  38 find it rather heavy going.  But there are some  39 sections that I am aware of where they summarize their  40 very exhaustive and extensive treatment of linguistic  41 information, and do draw some conclusions about  42 movements in this area of population, of language and  43 so on.  44 Q   And you say in these page references they refer  45 specifically to the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  46 A   I'm not sure if the Wet'suwet'en are distinguished, or  47 forgive me if I used that word incorrectly here.  I am 21853  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 not sure if they make special mention of the  2 Wet'suwet'en as a discreet cultural group in their  3 treatment of the various Athabaskan languages and so  4 on.  I really don't have that offhand recollection.  I  5 think they do refer to the Gitksan in those passages I  6 have mentioned.  7 Q   Can you turn to page 30 of your report.  Footnote 1.  8 Now, this is the footnote that you do cite, and it's  9 what I had to go on in support of the proposition  10 about proto-historic times being from the mid-17th to  11 the early 18th century.  You see that?   You have your  12 report, page 1 and page 30.  You follow me?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   And you agree with me?  That's right, eh?  You rely on  15 footnote 1 in support of the proposition in that first  16 paragraph?  Just look at the -- see the end of the  17 first paragraph?  18 A   Yes.  And I am having some trouble right now with my  19 recollection.  I think that's 1741 for the date in the  20 second line.  Something I could check with my  21 dissertation.  I think that's a typographical error.  22 Q   Okay.  23 A   I know that Bering in 1741 was referring to some 1648  24 trade.  I think that's mentioned in a note further on.  25 So I think that, if I have mentioned it once, I think  26 it's correctly cited as 1741 later.  27 Q   You agree with me that this Bering voyage to  28 northwestern Alaska was in 1741, not in 1641?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   But then you go on to say in the second sentence of  31 your footnote:  32  33 "There is no doubt that trade in European  34 commodities from Siberia into North America  35 began some time earlier."  36  37 And what is your support for that proposition that  38 there is no doubt that trade in European commodities  39 from Siberia into North America began some time  40 earlier?  41 A  A reference that comes to mind quickly, because it's  42 in my own biliography, is Jim Gibson's report,  43 "Imperial Russia and Frontier America".  I am citing  44 the title incorrectly --  45 Q   Let's look at the notes.  Look at the bottom of your  46 footnote 1.  You have further notes, right?  47 A   Yes. 21854  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q  2  3 "See also notes (li, 2g, 2h, 2i, 2j, 21) ."  4  5 Now, I have looked at those notes.  Again, it's  6 all I have to go on, is what you refer to in your  7 report, until you tell me something new.  And it  8 appears to me that 2i and 2j are the only references  9 that you make that have a bearing -- no pun  10 intended -- on your statement that there is no doubt  11 that trade in European commodities from Sibera and  12 North America began some time earlier.  And if you  13 want to check the other footnotes right now, that's  14 fine, but those are the two that I think seem to have  15 a bearing on it.  16 A   I think we also in the passage right before that  17 excerpt from Bill Holms' work in the book "Soft  18 Gold" --  19 Q   Give me the footnote, would you please, page number.  20 A   2H, I believe.  Yes, 2H on page 38.  21 Q   Just a moment.  22 A  And 2G on page 38.  23 Q   Okay.  Where in 2G -- let's start with 2G then.  Where  24 in 2G is there support for the proposition that trade  25 in European commodities from Siberia into North  26 America began some time earlier than 1741?  Show me  27 where that is.  28 A   I'm sorry, I shouldn't have mentioned 2G or -- it's  29 just a continuation of the same sort of notion.  We do  30 have evidence -- archeaologists do have evidence of  31 trade in both native copper and in historic copper.  32 Q   There is no reference in 2G?  33 A   In 2G -- I'm sorry, I mislead you there.  34 Q   2H, you said, may also be a --  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   Now, where in 2H is there reference that shows that  37 there is no doubt that trade in European commodities  38 from Siberia into North America began some time  39 earlier than 1741?  40 A  Well, perhaps it's an indirect reference, because what  41 I am suggesting is that there is no knowledge -- or I  42 have no knowledge of iron being indigenous to this  43 region, and I would assume that its being traded in,  44 and the nearest source for which we do have  45 archaeological evidence is Siberia.  46 Q   You are assuming that iron is being traded in from  47 Siberia? 21855  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A  Well, it may be meteorite iron.  There is some  2 evidence -- I am not being facetious.  There is some  3 evidence a meteorite is being used in some  4 pre-historic context, or thought to have been used in  5 the production of metal objects.  But otherwise I  6 would say that -- there is some evidence, perhaps I  7 didn't cite it here, because again -- I shouldn't say  8 again.  Perhaps I am stating this for the first time.  9 Some of the information on which I relied is to my  10 mind common enough knowledge that I felt that a couple  11 of references would suffice.  12 Q   Well, I am trying to find one.  I am trying to find  13 one, and maybe you'll get to it.  14 A   I think you have mentioned two, which is 21 and 2J.  15 Q   So we have come through -- you have footnoted footnote  16 1, followed it up with 2G and 2H, and now we are at  17 21.  Now, here at 21 maybe we are getting closer to --  18 it seemed to have some bearing on your conclusion that  19 there is no doubt trade commodity -- trade in European  20 commodities from Siberia to North America began some  21 time earlier.  Now, let's look at this 21.  This is a  22 reference by Jochelson, and he is a German naturalist  23 who accompanied Bering on his voyage in 1741, and you  24 say here -- he quotes, and I take this as a quote from  25 Jochelson:  26  27 "The Chuckchees carry on trade with America  28 through the medium of the islanders (Diomede),  29 they sell to the Americans iron knives, axes,  30 lances, iron points, in exchange for sea  31 otters, martens and foxes.  The Chuckchees  32 obtain iron wares at Anadyr at excessive prices  33 from te Russians and sometime sseel to the  34 Americans for furs."  35  36 Now, do you know who he is referring to there?  37 A   That's a direct citation from Stellar, I believe.  38 Q   In 1741?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And where there does he say that there is no doubt  41 that the trade in European commodities started some  42 time earlier?  I'm sorry, I want to say it all.  "The  43 trade in European commodities from Siberia to North  44 America began some time earlier."  What's the  45 foundation for him saying that?  46 A   There is nothing in that particular passage that  47 suggests that it -- that it didn't start that day or 21856  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 the day before.  But my assumption would be, in  2 connection with the passage cited from Bering, that  3 there is a trade existing that he's observing that has  4 some basis in time.  It may have sprung up that  5 morning, though, I don't know, and I don't know from  6 that passage.  7 Q   And you don't know if it sprung up that morning, the  8 week before, the month before, 50 years before or a  9 hundred years before?  10 A   No.  But I am aware of some archaeological reports.  11 And I think particularly for Kodiak Island, which is  12 the beginning of a chain of islands that goes out  13 through the Bering Strait area, that there is earlier  14 metal turning up in some of the archaeological  15 assemblages.  I am aware of that.  And I think one of  16 the good references I could refer us all to here is  17 Grant Keddy at the provincial museum has recently done  18 a fairly exhaustive summary of early contact  19 literature.  And also an exhibition that's been held  20 in Seattle that deals specifically with the business  21 of early Siberia trade into North America.  22 Q   Was Grant Keddy's material available at the time you  23 did your report?  24 A   No, it was not.  It's in press, and I became aware of  25 it this summer when I was in Victoria.  26 Q   But your conclusion -- but your opinions haven't  27 changed, and your conclusion at the time you wrote  28 your report is there is no doubt the trade in European  29 commodities in Siberia and North America began some  30 time earlier.  At the time you made that statement,  31 you didn't have Keddy available.  32 A   No, I didn't have any doubt either.  Perhaps I haven't  33 cited the appropriate passages in the anthology edited  34 partly by Bill Holm and also by Thomas Hahn, but it's  35 the sort of thing that to me is common knowledge, and  36 Grant Keddy is common knowledge enough, and in my  37 knowledge of archaeological assemblages.  38 THE COURT:  Who are the Chuckchees please?  39 THE WITNESS:   People living in Siberia across the Diomedes  40 Straits.  I think there is only twenty odd miles  41 separating continental Asia from continental North  42 America.  It's fairly clear from the archaeological  43 record, but again I am using the phrase that I might  44 have difficulty coming to mind with specific examples.  45 But it's fairly clear that there's been a lot of  46 contact between continental Asia and continental North  47 America.  And trade materials are to my knowledge 21857  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 dating back at least fifteen hundred years.  2 Q   Well, you haven't cited one of these archaeological  3 finds in support of this proposition, have you?  I  4 mean, I can't find it.  Maybe I am missing something.  5 A   No, I haven't.  6 Q   This common knowledge?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Common to you and common to everybody.  Who else,  9 aside from Grant Keddy's later publication after your  10 report?  What is this common knowledge you are talking  11 about?  12 A   I would say several of the scholars on whose work I  13 have, or from whose work I have derived some  14 materials, have in their other reports on the reports  15 I cite, mentioned just these kinds of connections.  De  16 Laguna, for example, in her "Under Mount St. Elias"  17 publication, Catherine McClellan mentions these.  18 Q   In what?  19 A   If I could consult my bibliography, I could give you  20 some specific McClellan references to this.  But it's  21 a theme she comes back to time and time again, and it  22 might be referred to in the publication I list in this  23 opinion report.  24 Q   Take a look at this opinion report.  25 A   This is 1985 —  26 Q   I am talking about this -- you don't cite what  27 publications she refers to in this opinion report?  28 A   Not specifically about that point, no.  29 Q   Well, I will give you time to take a look at the other  30 one over your break.  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Then you go -- the closest -- and by the way --  33 A  And Jim Gibson, "Imperial Russia in Frontier America",  34 is someone who does talk about some early contact.  I  35 think in the very first chapter in the first few pages  36 there is some reference to this.  George MacDonald in  37 the "Epic of Nekt" refers to extensive trade contacts.  38 Q   Let's go to George MacDonald.  You cite at J -- this  39 is the only reference in your report that talks  40 about -- page 40, My Lord.   You said:  41  42 "Indications of trade in European objects across  43 the Bering Straits before Bering's voyage."  44  45 Now I, I guess being a little -- following through  46 your footnotes, this is what I thought you meant, and  47 because you noted it.  And I go to MacDonald in 2185?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 1979:53.  Now, would you look at your white book.  2 A   I don't have a copy of it with me.  3 Q   Madam Registrar has it.  Tab 2, page 53.  Do you have  4 it?  Are you with me?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   Okay.  And what George MacDonald has said there -- of  7 course this isn't the principal proposition of his  8 report, is it?  It's about the Kitwanga fort site,  9 right?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   But anyway, he says here:  12  13 "Such items were undoubtedly traded across  14 Bering Strait from the Gulf of Anadyr opposite  15 the mouth of the Yukon River."  16  17 So he uses the word "undoubtly", and I gather  18 that's where you took the word "no doubt" from; is  19 that right?  Then he goes on to say:  20  21 "Bering notes (9-10) that as early as 1648  22 trading expeditions had brought quantities of  23 trade objects to this area some of which would  24 have been traded into the New World."  25  26 Now, Bering was writing in 1741?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And Bering is talking about something that occurred 97  29 years earlier?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   Have you looked at the Bering reference to which he  32 cites?  33 A   No, I have not.  34 Q   You don't know on what basis Bering made that  35 statement or not, do you?  You have no idea?  36 A   No, I do not, except that I know that there were  37 Russians established on coastal Kamchatka and eastern  38 Siberia.  They had reached the coast a hundred years  39 before Bering's voyage, according to James Gibson,  40 among other sources.  41 Q   Okay.  We'll come to that.  Then he goes on, and this,  42 I take it, is what I take it you principally rely on.  43 He says:  44  45 "Stellar comments of the Siberian Eskimos:"  46  47 And that's the Chuckchee, isn't it?  The Chuckchee 21859  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 were Siberian -- is that -- when MacDonald says he  2 comments on Siberian Eskimos, is he referring to the  3 quote -- he then quotes --  4 A   I think they call themselves Chuckchee, and I don't  5 know if they use the words Inuit or Eskimo to -- but  6 it's similar.  Let's say for the time being it's  7 similar.  8 Q   But —  9 A   I'm not quite sure what the relationship is  10 linguistically and so on.  11 Q   Dr. MacDonald sometimes uses these kinds of terms  12 interchangeably, and he's not exactly precise on this  13 kind of --  14 A   There is no place here where he is suggesting that the  15 Chuckchee are Inuit or Eskimo, is there?  16 Q  17  18 "Stellar comments of the Siberian Eskimos".  19  20 A  Well, Eskimos.  That's Stellar, Eskimos.  You used the  21 word "Inuit".  I was hesitating about Inuit.  22 Q   I'm sorry.  23  24 "Stellar comments of the Siberian Eskimos."  25  26 The Chuckchee are not generally known as Eskimos.  27 He was just making a parallel, wasn't he?  28 A   I'm not sure.  2 9 Q   And then he quotes what you have quoted at footnote I,  30 same reference.  31 A   Yes.  32 Q   Now, let's follow through here.  Now, that's the basis  33 upon which you make the proposition -- you quote from  34 MacDonald in J, 79, and that's the basis upon which  35 your footnote J is, right?  36 A   I'm sorry, could you repeat that please.  37 Q   Well, you cite MacDonald as footnote J.  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   But you do something more.  You say:  40  41 "After Morice 1962 (1971): 9-10 . "  42  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   So you suggest that Morice has something to say about  45 this too, right?  46 A   No, I am suggesting that that's where MacDonald got  47 his reference.  No, I am not suggesting Morice had 21860  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 anything to say.  I am saying that MacDonald got his  2 reference in Morice.  That's where he picked it up.  3 Q   Oh.  So the Bering notes 9 and 10 goes back to quote  4 it in Morice 62, page 346?  5 A   Yes.  And the reason I did that, was because had  6 Morice perhaps changed some kinds of wording or so on,  7 I just wanted to make sure -- because perhaps I didn't  8 check the Morice reference, I just wanted to indicate  9 there that this is where MacDonald was getting his  10 reference.  11 Q   You haven't checked the Morice reference?  12 A   Not recently, no.  13 THE COURT:  Might I enquire, is MacDonald still alive?  14 THE WITNESS:  Yes, he is.  He is the head of the National Museum  15 of Civilization, I believe.  16 THE COURT:  In Ottawa?  17 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Dr. MacDonald.  18 MR. GRANT:  19 Q   You didn't communicate with him about this, did you?  20 A   Not about this specifically.  I did speak with him  21 about some of the material in my dissertation.  22 Q   Did you speak to him about your opinion report, your  23 opinions?  24 A   No, I did not.  25 Q   Now, let's go to Morice.  And Morice -- this is the  26 Morice that you are referring to, right?  "The History  27 of the Northern Interior of British Columbia".  This  28 is the citation that MacDonald refers to?  Yes or no,  29 doctor?  30 A   Yes, I believe so.  31 Q   Okay.  And we can go to page 9.  Now, Morice here is  32 talking about the Carrier Indians -- or he's talking  33 about an Indian village was posted at Hazelton, and he  34 states, the second paragraph on page 9:  35  36 "This came to him about 1730, probably by way of  37 Tsechah ..."  38  39 Now, he is referring to an Indian on Stuart Lake.  40 You see?  You see the beginning of the paragraph?  Do  41 you have the right page?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   "Chapter 1, Earliest Historic Times, 1660-1765".  44  45 "Na'kwoel is the first really historical  46 aborigine mentioned by the Carrier Indians of  47 Stuart Lake.  His name has come down to the 21861  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  present generation as that of one who was the  personification of old age, and after a careful  computation based on the various data forming  our original chapter and many others not  furnished here, the date of his birth cannot be  set later than the year 1660."  Now, of course, all of it Morice -- are you having  difficulty?  A   I am having trouble finding the passage.  Q   Why don't you follow me, and we'll get to that.  A   No, I lost you there.  Q   Okay.  On chapter 1, page 9.  A   Yes.  Q   We can move a little --  A   You are starting here.  "This came to him about 1730."  THE COURT:  Mr. Grant, you started on the second paragraph.  MR. GRANT:  Q   I moved to the first.  The first paragraph I was  reading to you:  "Na'kwoel is the first really historical  aborigine mentioned by the Carrier Indians of  Stuart Lake."  The Carrier Indians of Stuart Lake, you understand  they are not within the Wet'suwet'en group, but that's  the area where, of course, Father Morice was based,  right?  Yes.  A  Q  A  "His name has come down to the present  generation as that of one who was the  personification of old age, and after a careful  computation based on the various data forming  our original chapter and many others not  furnished here, the date of his birth cannot be  set later than the year 1660."  I'll stop right there.  Father Morice, you know  when he was in the area.  I mentioned it to you  earlier today.  Yes. 21862  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Obviously if he is talking about somebody that was  2 born in 1660, he must be getting his information based  3 on oral accounts of the Indian people.  Do you not  4 agree?  Unless the person lived to be 200 and  5 something years old.  6 A   Yes, probably.  7 Q   So you haven't heard of that account of a person -- a  8 Carrier living over 200 years of age?  9 A   No, I haven't.  10 Q  11  12 "He grew up to attain, in course of time, the  13 honored position of toeneza, or hereditry  14 nobleman, of the Stuart Lake sept, and he is  15 likewise famous as having been the first Dene  16 who could boast the acquisition of an iron axe  17 of adze."  18  19 Then he goes on to say:  20  21 "This came to him about 1730, probably by way of  22 Tsechah, an Indian village close to what is now  23 Hazelton, on the Skeena."  24  25 Now, are you aware that Hagwilget also goes by the  26 name Tsechah, T-s-e-c-h-a-h?  Do you know that?  27 A   No, I am not aware of that.  28 Q   Well, just assume that, okay --  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   -- for the purposes of this, so that I can help you.  31  32 "Whatever may have been the origin of the  33 wonderful implement, it is said that, on  34 acquiring it, Na'kwoel convoked his  35 fellow-tribesmen to a great banquet or  36 ceremonial feast, where all the guests could  37 admire it hanging above them from one of the  38 rafters of the large lodge where they were  39 assembled."  40  41 Now, again this description of what happened of  42 Na'Kwoel getting this implement in 1730 would have to  43 have been given to Morice through oral ethnographic  44 histories, right?  There was no written record in 1730  45 of what Na'kwoel did?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   There wasn't — 21863  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  A  13  Q  14  A  15  Q  16  17  18  19  A  20  Q  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  THE  COURT  34  MR.  GRANT  35  36  37  THE  COURT  38  MR.  GRANT  39  THE  COURT  40  MR.  GRANT  41  Q  42  A  43  Q  44  45  46  47  Yes, I agree with you.  You agree with me.  Now, then what Father Morice does  is he puts footnote 1, okay.  And he says:  "From Chapters III., IV. and V. will be seen how  comparatively common were iron wares in New  Caledonia at the time of its discovery by  Mackenzie and Fraser."  MacKenzie and Fraser are, of course, what, 1793  and 1806?  1805, 1806, something like that.  And of course 1793 and 1806 --  Yes.  This is after what you  trade, what we -- what  the maritime fur trade  gave a date of about 17  talk about as the maritime fur  you've done a lot of study on,  and coast, which I think you  85.  1786 for the first English speaking commercial voyage.  Okay.  Now, then he gets on:  "And the fact that the latter found, near the  49th parallel, some of them which seemed of  Russian manufacture, goes to show the ease with  which such goods travelled in pre-European  times. (See Appendix B)"  Now, if you go over what I have done to make  things easier, I have put in page 346, which is  Appendix B.  Now, in this reference you see nine lines  down the words at the edge of the margin, page 243,  44.  Are you with me, Appendix B, 9 lines down?  Where are you?  It's in the same material -- My Lord, the extract --  it's on page 346.  It's the last page of what I've  tendered.  Thank you.  326.  Oh, yes.  Yes.  Thank you.  I didn't tender the entire book.  I have it, thank you.  Do you have it?  Yes, I do.  And then the ninth line down on the left-hand column,  page -- words PP243244, and he says -- this is  relating to the Russians:  "When, in 1741, Bering first reached the 21864  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 mainland of America, he found among the  2 inhabitants of the Fox or Eastern Aleutian  3 Islands 'long iron knives, apparently their own  4 manufacture' ('ten months among the tents of  5 the Tuski', page 9).  It is open to question  6 whether iron was then really indigenous to that  7 quarter; it is much more likely that the supply  8 of it was derived from the Russian merchants of  9 Eastern Siberia.  As early as 1648 a trading  10 expedition consisting of seven vessels, four of  11 which seemed to have been lost and perhaps  12 drifted to the coast of America, reached the  13 Gulf of Anadyr, opposite the mouth of the  14 Yukon.  Now, as the natives of the coast of  15 Eastern Siberia have from time immemorial  16 intercourse with America, directly by way of  17 Behring Strait, or through the Aleutian  18 aborigines, 'who seem to migrate from island to  19 island, and many to the mainland of America'  20 ('Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski,' pp.  21 9-10), it becomes evident that there is nothing  22 extraordinary in the fact that in 1730 an iron  23 axe should have found its way to the basin of  24 Lake Stuart, some 200 miles fron the North  25 Pacific Coast."  26  27 That is the reference of Father Morice?  28 A   Yes, I think so.  29 Q   And you hadn't looked at that, but you had, to be  30 careful -- you had footnoted that, because you saw  31 MacDonald was following Morice?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   You are not aware of -- with respect to this, I  34 suggest that this -- this is very hypothetical, what  35 Father Morice is setting out; would you not agree with  36 that?  37 A   Yes and no.  I think for Morice at the time of his  38 writing, this is where I will say yes, at the time of  39 his writing might have been speculating about  40 something that archaeologists now have more  41 confirmation of, the role of foreign trade items  42 coming into continental North America from northern  43 sources.  And I am sorry if right now I don't have  44 some specific references offhand, because I do assume  45 it's common knowledge, but I could certainly supply  4 6 s ome.  47 I might just make one mention of something that 21865  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 does tie in with this, that I am aware of, and that is  2 we have 14th century bamboo, which is clearly of  3 Asiatic origin, turning up in a water logged site in  4 Washington state.  So there's absolutely no question  5 that there was a trade or drift contact going back  6 several hundred years.  That did link up the Asian  7 side of things with the North American side of things.  8 Specifically with reference to iron goods, which seem  9 not to have a North American origin, I believe there  10 are some archaeological assemblages dating back  11 several hundred years, and it's -- Grant Keddy has  12 done us all a service by bringing this material  13 together in a fairly carefully written report for the  14 provincial museum quite recently.  But many of his  15 sources were not unfamiliar to me before.  16 Q   What sources?  17 A  And I would like to say that I can make reference to  18 that and supply you with those sources later.  I  19 really honestly can't pull them out from the top of my  20 head.  21 Q   Well, give me one source within the Gitksan and  22 Wet'suwet'en territory of an archaeological find of  23 iron that pre-dates 1780.  24 A   Unequivocally?  25 Q   Can you think of one?  2 6 A   I think some of the upper components at Kitwanga that  27 has some trade goods in them, may have dates that have  2 8 ranges, but I am not -- I can't remember offhand what  29 those are.  Perhaps because we have the Kitwanga Hill  30 Fort report here, I could review that.  I'm not sure  31 if they pre-date this specific date you are  32 mentioning.  33 Q   What I suggest to you, with all due respect, Dr.  34 Robinson, is there isn't a scintilla of evidence,  35 other than what Father Morice speculated, that there  36 was European trade goods moving into the Gitksan or  37 Wet'suwet'en area before 1786.  There is not one  38 scintilla of evidence, doctor.  39 A  Well, we are having the kind of discussion similar to  40 what we did this morning about conclusive evidence.  41 Q   Right.  But here you say there is no doubt.  42 A   I have no doubt at all that there wasn't a  43 considerable amount of proto-historic influence coming  44 from Asiatic sources or northern Russian sources in  45 the proto-historic period, as I have defined it  46 mid-17th century onward.  47 Q   Into the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en area, doctor? 21866  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   I have absolutely no reason to think that they were  2 isolated from what are otherwise described in several  3 places as broad trade patterns, broad developments  4 occurring.  5 Q   Is there one piece of evidence, one source that you  6 can direct me to, that there is evidence of a single  7 European trade good moving into the Gitksan or  8 Wet'suwet'en area prior to 1786?  One.  9 A   I would like to review the Kitwanga Hill Fort  10 archaeological list, and then I can answer that.  I  11 would say if there is any specific material item that  12 is going to be linked to this time period, it would  13 have been referred to in MacDonald's report on  14 Kitwanga Hill Fort.  I don't have a perfect  15 recollection of that report right at this moment, but  16 that's where I would -- if I drew you to any source, I  17 would draw you to MacDonald's Hill Fort report.  18 Q   And you did draw me to MacDonald's Hill Fort.  You  19 drew me in 2G, you drew me directly to the source that  20 you had in MacDonald.  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   And you drew me to his statement, which we have now  23 gone through, and seen what Father Morice has to say?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   And I suggest to you that if you had -- in light of  26 your theory, in light of your argument, that if you  27 had found, and you have looked at the time you  28 prepared your report, you looked at MacDonald Hill  29 Fort fairly carefully?  30 A   Yes.  31 Q   If you had found that there was evidence of European  32 trade goods into the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en area  33 referred to by MacDonald, you would have put that  34 reference in your report, because that would have been  35 much better and much more specific than this Father  36 Morice speculation.  37 A   Not necessarily, because my recollection of the report  38 writing procedure was that there was never any  39 indication made to me until we got within a week or  40 two of getting that May 12th, 1987 version of the  41 report finalized, there was never any indication to me  42 that there wouldn't have been additional opportunities  43 to cover more reference materials.  So I don't make  44 any claims for having absolutely considered every  45 possible bit of information, or made the decision  46 whether to include it or not with regards to this  47 report. 21867  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   Well, doctor, look, you have explained what you meant  2 by there is no conclusive evidence with respect to the  3 other passage, right?  You have explained that the  4 other day, and you have explained it today.  "More  5 likely than not", I think you said.  But here you say  6 there is no doubt.  That's pretty conclusive to me,  7 isn't it?  8 A   Yes, and I'll stand by that.  I will say that there is  9 no doubt.  We may not have material items representing  10 that in that claims area yet.  I would say that  11 further archaeological research will no doubt turn  12 them up.  13 Q   And that is speculative?  14 A   Yes, it is, but it's based on my opinion.  15 Q   And what's the source for that opinion?  16 A  A fairly extensive reading of pertinent materials.  17 Q   Well, I have tried to be very fair to you on this  18 point, doctor, because I was trying to follow your  19 logic.  I went to every source you cited.  I went to  20 MacDonald.  I went to Morice.  It's all I could do.  21 You are the expert.  You gave me those sources.  I  22 went to them, and I show them to you now, and I  23 suggest to you that aside from Morice's speculation,  24 which is not corroborated by a single archaeological  25 dig in the area, that there is not a scintilla of  26 evidence of any trade goods, European trade goods into  27 the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en area before the maritime  28 fur trade, I am talking about the maritime 1786 period  2 9 commenced.  And you say there may be something in  30 the —  31 A   Yes, and I would like to check that one source --  32 Q   And I am going to give you a chance to check that,  33 because if there is, it would be a tremendous aid to  34 me to understand this.  35 A   Yes.  And even if there is not, I would say that I  36 have no doubt that this area hasn't been impacted by  37 the proto-historic period.  I see absolutely no reason  38 to consider that these societies might have maintained  39 themselves in some kind of isolationism, and that they  40 were not involved with fairly extensive changes that  41 were going on -- that were stemming from or accruing  42 from wealth from European sources coming in from  43 continental Asia.  44 Q   When?  45 A   I would say mid-17th century, on the basis of what  46 MacDonald's described.  But there is also additional  47 archaeological information, which, if it's necessary, 2186?  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  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  I will bring in.  I do have a copy of Grant Keddy's  recent report, and although that doesn't pertain  exactly to this, because it was brought to -- it came  to my attention from Dr. Keddy in the summer, its a  good overview of this business about contact between  Asia and North America.  Can you turn to tab 16 of the black book, the black  binder.  Do you have that tab?  Yes, I do.  And this, you remember, we were dealing with your  draft, and at page 12 of that I would like to refer  you to.  You state that the -- the middle paragraph,  the four lines from the bottom:  "An approach treating continuing developments  I'm sorry, I didn't get the page number.  Page 12 of tab 16.  Thank you.  You state:  " An approach treating continuing developments  Along the same lines.  "... Through the late pre-historic,  proto-historic and historic periods, with  changes only in tempo, might seem excessively  simple, but in the absence of an accepted  schedule of meaningful events, it could be  taken as 'best evidence'.  Such an approach is less than satisfactory,  as I do think that a useful chronology could be  conjectured.  This is one which would interpret  'protohistoric' in the broadest sense, giving  it a time depth commensurate with the earliest  possible European influences in the  Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en area.  Recent  ethnohistoric research suggests that we must  not underestimate the importance of extensive  interregional exchange networks and must  accordingly take into account the earliest  white-native contacts in the far north, in  southern extremes, and westward across the 21869  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 North American continent.  If the  2 'protohistoric' is pushed back to the  3 seventeenth century or even earlier, then it is  4 possible to consider that most of the processes  5 of socioeconomic transformation connected with  6 the interior of coast-interior exchange  7 relations were ultimatey linked to European  8 stimuli.  I say 'most', because it is incorrect  9 to suggest that any northwestern North Americna  10 native cultures were stable on the eve of  11 contact."  12  13  14 It was important in December, 1986, doctor, for  15 you to push back the proto-historic period to the  16 mid-17th century or earlier, in order for you to be  17 able to formulate the opinion that changes in social  18 structure of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en were derived  19 from the Europeans.  Is that not what you're saying  20 there?  21 A   No, it isn't at all.  In fact that's got several  22 points in it, that paragraph, that relates to this,  23 and perhaps I can address a couple of them.  24 Q   What I would like —  25 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, the witness should be allowed to answer.  26 My friend put a long quote to the witness, and then  27 said isn't that what you are going to do, and now the  28 witness is going to break it down and help my friend  29 out, and the witness should be allowed to do that.  3 0    MR. GRANT:  31 Q   I would like you to start, then, with that last  32 sentence.  33  34 "If the proto-historic is pushed back to the  35 17th century or even earlier, then it is  36 possible to consider that most of the processes  37 of socioeconomic transformation connected with  38 the interior of coast interior exchange  39 relations were ultimately linked to European  4 0 stimuli."  41  42 The second last sentence, I should say, in that  43 paragraph.  What do you mean by that sentence?  44 A   The last sentence or --  45 Q   The one I just read to you.  The second to last.  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   That's the sentence I was directing the question to. 21870  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes.  I think the best way to describe what I was  2 probably referring to then.  It's sometimes hard, as I  3 have mentioned before, I know, to remember exactly  4 what you intended several years ago in a piece of  5 writing, but in a very narrow way we could talk about  6 the proto -- some proto-historic events developing,  7 considering only European presence, where it's a  8 adjacent to or nearby the area in question.  9 For instance, we can talk about the  10 proto-historic.  While the maritime fur trade is  11 active on the coast, we can talk about the  12 proto-historic and Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en area, and  13 then we are limiting ourselves or talking specifically  14 about that period from about the 1780's up to about  15 1825.  If we throw the notion of proto-historic only  16 as it refers to European native contacts, and  17 forgetting for a moment here Asian north American  18 relations, we can say that the proto-historic can  19 really be extended for all of continental North  20 America back to the time when the first Europeans came  21 into the continent, because its certainly been  22 suggested that there were waves of stimulus and waves  23 of trade which to some -- or waves of stimulus which  24 to some extent can be traced to the European presence,  25 although it's very difficult to have direct  26 connections.  So it's a matter of looking at steps  27 apart from.  28 Q   Well, let me -- can I just suggest this, and correct  29 me if I'm wrong.  This is a longer one, which I  30 haven't got all organized yet.  It's Bishop and Ray,  31 and I'll just refer you at page 124.  That's one of  32 the ones you have cited?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   They talk about pre-historic, proto-historic and  35 histories.  Just what we understand, I am just  36 wondering if you agree with their terminology of  37 proto-historic.  They say:  38  39 "The initial influx of trade wares or disease  40 serves to make the beginning of the  41 proto-historic period, if these goods were  42 obtained through Indian middle men."  43  44 And then they give an example of the plains tribes  45 who had adopted the horse during the 18th century, but  46 who had no direct contact with Europeans.  47 Now, before you answer that, if you could go to 21871  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 page -- page 1 of your report where you say:  2  3 "I mean the time prior to European presence in  4 the area claimed by the plaintiffs, but when  5 European influence was felt through native  6 intermediaries."  7  8 So to my non-expert mind, they seem to be similar.  9 Would you accept that --  10 A   Similar, yes.  11 Q   Would you accept that Bishop -- do you agree with  12 Bishop and Ray's definition of proto-historic?  13 A   I would like to read it once more carefully, please,  14 before I accept it.  15 Q   Yes, fine.  16 A   I think my own description, the one on page one,  17 doesn't specify such material items as trade wares or  18 disease, but talks only of European influence, which  19 can be more indirect than those two items.  But  20 otherwise yes.  21 Q   Okay.  But —  22 A  What I am saying is that European influence doesn't  23 necessarily have to be measured in terms of trade  24 goods, or measured in terms of accounts of epidemics,  25 but that influence can stimulate local economies, for  26 instance.  27 Q   But if we are using archaeological digs to determine  28 the commencement of proto-historic, we have to be  29 dealing with wares and goods?  30 A   No, not necessarily.  I don't think anywhere I have  31 suggested that archaeological evidence is the way that  32 we determine the beginning of a proto-historic period.  33 Q   Well —  34 A   There are also historic accounts.  35 Q   Well, we've gone through those, haven't we?  I have  36 dealt with the ones that you have cited.  As I say,  37 it's all I have got to work with, which is you say  38 this is the source.  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   Morice and MacDonald reiterating -- Morice and  41 MacDonald reiterating Stellar, I think it was, who you  42 quote as well.  43 A   Yes.  And I have made no claims to having this opinion  44 evidence being based on an exhaustive summary of all  45 available sources.  46 THE COURT:  Mr. Grant, what did you read out to me there a  47 moment ago as the suggestion the date of the first use 21872  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  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  of the horse by the plains Indians.  I'll read it, My Lord.  Actually I just rather -- I  can give it to Your Lordship now, but I would rather  hold off the tabbing of it.  All right.  I just wonder, was it mid-17 or mid-16?  Oh, I'm sorry.  I'll just read it.  "The initial influx of trade wares or disease  serves to make the beginning of the  proto-historic period, if these goods are  obtained through Indian middlemen.  An example  would be those marginal plains tribes who had  adopted the horse during the 18th century, but  who had no direct contact with Europeans."  THE COURT:  18th century?  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  Q   Now, he's referring there -- Bishop and Ray are there  referring to -- if I remember rightly, these are the  plains Indians in the western shores of the  Mississippi and up north where -- when the horse came  in, aren't they?  A   Yes.  And I think there is an earlier -- I think the  suggestion that horses came up through the plains goes  back further in time.  The reference I am thinking of  offhand is Ewers, E-w-e-r-s.  I hesitate to give that  a specific date, but my understanding was that it was  mid-17th century.  THE COURT:  And that's just for the plains Indians?  THE WITNESS:   Well, the horse, yes.  And what seems to have  happened in the passages I referred to earlier with  Dyen and Aberle, is that there seems to be a lot of  population, dislocation and movement on the plains  that's partly being stimulated by the European fur  trade, and to some extent the introduction of the  horse onto the plains, which came north from Spanish  sources in Mexico, completely changed the nature of  the tribal economy or the band economy on the plains.  It changed hunting so considerably that an entirely  new complex was evolving.  So when Jenness reports, for instance, that the  Sekani and Beaver people were being pushed westward,  and we also know from archaeological evidence, as well  as ethnographic, that the Kootenay people seemed to be  pushed west of the mountains, and that this is tied in  with the introduction of the horse through that region 21873  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  in Alberta, that's another example of proto-historic  developments causing significant shifts in behaviour  in the mid-17th century to mid -- or early 19th  century period.  And as you suggested before, it does vary from  region to region, but I have no reason to doubt that  the proto-historic influence stemming from the  European presence in several parts of the continent  doesn't affect this area in the mid-17th century.  :  Thank you.  Can you go back to your white book, please.  Yes.  Page 54, Tab 2.  Are you with me?  Yes, I am.  Middle paragraph.  This is MacDonald.  "Archaeologically, trade goods have been found  in the central interior of B.C. which  corroborates these dates."  And this is where he is talking about -- it  follows on, and he -- it's hard to determine what  dates, because he has given a whole series of dates  ahead of it.  Let's go on:  "Borden (1959) found a Chinese coin at the  Carrier village of Chilac which Morice claims  was destroyed during a Chilcotin raid of 1745.'  And that's Chinlac, C-h-i-n-1-a-c.  That's one of  MacDonald's or his typists --  MacDonald's known for -- sometimes in his work not  giving the right -- secretarial error or something.  Typographical things.  I don't know about -- I  wouldn't say that about content.  I am not suggesting about content.  Dr. MacDonald is  respected.  "Excavating the Chilcotin area south of Carrier  territory Wilmeth (1979:150), has trade copper  objects appearing at A.D. 1805 plus or minus  75.  It is now apparent that trade objects of  European origin began to appear in the Skeena  River district in the early decades of the  eighteenth century althought he first European  did not travel this river before another 21874  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 century had passed."  2  3 So, Dr. MacDonald, he's talking here now of the  4 Skeena River district, and he suggests that based on  5 these other sources, Carrier and, of course, the  6 Chilcotin territories outside the Wet'suwet'en, he is  7 saying that trade objects of European origin began to  8 appear in the Skeena River district in the early  9 decades of the 18th century.  And I -- you know, I --  10 this was not directed to me by your footnote, and I  11 had overlooked this particular part of this passage,  12 and -- but you would not disagree with Dr. MacDonald's  13 dating of the early decades of the 18th century?  14 A   I would suggest that I have no reason, although there  15 is no conclusive evidence yet, I have no reason to  16 think that this couldn't be extended back some decades  17 into the mid-17th century.  18 Q   There is no conclusive evidence that this could not be  19 extended back?  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   There is no --  22 A   There is no reason why -- he's saying early decades of  23 the 18th century in a report that was written ten  24 years ago.  And I am suggesting that my knowledge now  25 of the proto-historic changes generally in  26 northwestern North America are suggesting that it  27 could even happen earlier.  28 Q   In the Skeena River district?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   But you have not any evidence --  31 A   That's correct.  32 Q   -- to support that?  So as far as we can go on the  33 evidentiary base, if we rely on Dr. MacDonald, who is  34 the latest word on this subject right now in the  35 Skeena River district, you would not disagree with his  36 date?  37 A  Well, this is his 1979 publication.  I'm not sure if  38 he didn't -- actually I do think that he was talking  39 about mid-17th century changes in his 1984 article,  40 "The Epic of Nekt".  41 Q   But he doesn't produce any -- "The Epic of Nekt", he  42 doesn't produce any further evidence --  43 A   I don't know.  I would have to check the two  44 references.  45 Q   But what you say, you see, is quite a bit different  46 than "no conclusive".  Maybe I am misunderstanding  47 your note, but, you see, you say: 21875  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 "By proto-historic I mean the time prior to  3 European presence in the area claimed by the  4 plaintiffs."  5  6 You are talking about Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en area?  7 That's the subject matter of your report, right?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   And then you say:  10  11 "Roughly speaking the mid-17th to early 19th  12 century."  13  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   And the best evidence you would have in support of  16 that -- you did not specifically reference in support  17 of that proposition, but would be Dr. MacDonald's  18 statement of trade goods in the early decades of the  19 18th century in the Skeena River district?  20 MR. WILLMS:  Well, My Lord, to specific reference, the previous  21 page is referenced.  If that's what my friend means  22 for specific reference, yes.  But it's self-evident.  23 That's not a question.  If that's all his question  24 means -- if his question means did she refer to it,  25 then the answer to that is self-evident too.  She did  26 refer to it.  So in my submission that's not a  27 question that need be answered by anyone.  28 THE COURT:  She needn't answer it now anyway, because I think we  29 should adjourn for lunch.  30 MR. GRANT:  Thank you, My Lord.  31 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  This Court stands adjourned  32 'til 1:30.  33  34 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:30 P.M.)  35  36 I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE  37 A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE  38 PROCEEDINGS HEREIN TO THE BEST OF MY  39 SKILL AND ABILITY.  40  41    42 LORI OXLEY  43 OFFICIAL REPORTER.  44 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  45  46  47 21876  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED PURSUANT TO LUNCH RECESS)  THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  THE COURT: May I distribute to counsel that which belongs to  them.  That belongs to Miss Koenigsberg, that belongs  to Mr. Plant, I'm sorry, Mr. Plant's names are all  over these documents, Mr. Willms, that's why.  MR. WILLMS:  I'll accept it on his behalf, my lord.  THE COURT:  At least I spelled it right.  MR. GRANT:  There's a striking resemblance.  THE REGISTRAR:  Dr. Robinson, do you realize you're still under  oath?  THE WTINESS:   Yes, I do.  MR. GRANT:   Before I go any further, my lord, maybe I could  mark that extract of Morice as tab 21 I believe it is.  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  Exhibit 1191.  (EXHIBIT 1191-21:  by A.G. Morice)  Extract, "History of Northern B.C.  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  I think I've already done so, but --  Well, madam registrar reminded me that I hadn't, so --  Before the lunch break, Dr. Robinson, you said  that one of your sources, and this is a source whom  you have cited, was James Gibson, in support of the  proposition there was earlier trade before 1741  between Siberia and North America; you recall that?  Yes.  I don't have copies and was unable to make copies over  the noon hour, but I do have Dr. Gibson's book  "Imperial Russia in Frontier America".  Is this the  book you're referring to?  Yes, it is.  And I believe you referred to page 1.  There's some  annotation here, ignore that, but what he says -- I'm  sorry, it would be Roman numeral page vii, the  preface.  "Russian occupancy of Alaska from the late 18th  century was neither sudden nor novel.  It was  simply the latest and farthest phase of a  protracted and extensive process of eastward  expansion that had been launched by Muscovy"  M-u-s-c-o-v-y "in the mid-16th century.  The  advance across northern Asia had been speeded 21877  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  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  by the Taiga's" T-a-i-g-a-'-s "abundance of  furs, and monopoly on sables", s-a-b-1-e-s, and  by Europe's huge demand for 'soft gold'" soft  gold in quotes, "as well as by Siberia's dense  network of river roads, weak native resistance,  and lack of foreign competition.  In 1639 only 60 years after they crossed  the Urals, Russian cossacks and Promyshlenniks  (fur hunters) reached the Pacific.  Although  the next half century" -- I'm sorry, let me  restate that.  "Although for the next half  century this eastward movement was temporarily  halted while Russia concentrated on the Andwar  Valley to the south, by the end of the century  powerful Manchu, China, had blocked the thrust  and the Russian advance resumed its easterly  course via Kamchatka."  I'm instructed that this is the only reference in  this entire text to any events prior to 1741. Do you  dispute that?  I haven't read it thoroughly recently, but if that's  how you've been instructed, I imagine the person who  has instructed you has, so that person --  You have no reason to dispute it?  No, I have no reason to dispute it.  There's no suggestion there by Dr. Gibson of pre-18th  century fur trade or pre-18th century trade between  Siberia and North America, is there, in that extract  I ' ve read?  No, I don't believe so.  I think he just makes note  that in 1639 the Russians pushing eastward across  Siberia had reached the Pacific.  Oh, I -- yes, they had reached the Pacific.  That's  right.  Thank you.  Now --  What's the name of that author, please?  James Gibson, my lord, and I -- "Imperial Russia in  Frontier America".  Imperial --  -- Russia in Frontier America, the full title "The  Changing Geography of Supply of Russian America, 1784-  1867".  COURT:  And it was in 163 —  WITNESS:   — 39.  GRANT:  Q  "In 1639, only 60 years after they crossed the Urals,  Russian cossacks and Promyshlenniks (fur hunters)  A  Q  A  Q  A  MR. GRANT  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT 2187?  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  10  11  12  13  A  14  15  16  17  MR. GRANT  18  19  THE COURT  20  21  MR. GRANT  22  Q  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  A  31  Q  32  A  33  Q  34  35  A  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  42  A  43  Q  44  45  A  46  47  reached the Pacific."  And then it says:  "Although for the next half  century this eastward movement was temporarily halted,  by the end of the century..."  That would be the 17th  century, right?  Yes.  '...powerful Manchu China had blocked the thrust to the  south and the Russias advance resumed its easterly  course via Kamchatka."  But there's no evidence in -- there's no evidence  given by Dr. Gibson in his book of pre-18th century  trade between Siberia and North America?  If this is how you've been instructed, then I'll agree  with that.  I'm not sure if some of his references,  however, in his bibliography might not have reference  to that.  I can't remember offhand.  :   Well, Doctor, I want to be very clear about this.  If there is any source --  :  Mr. Grant, really, that is not a question to ask the  witness.  Okay.  I want to be clear about your evidence on this.  If there is a source that you're saying that Dr.  Gibson refers to or puts in his bibliography that  supports your proposition, I want to know what it is.  That's what I -- okay?  As I say, I can only deal with  your opinion report, and now what you've told me is in  addition to it, you understand?  You don't recall any  such source?  Not without reference to his bibliography, no.  Do you want to look at his bibliography?  I could if I could take some time with it.  Okay.  Well, maybe at the afternoon break I'll lend  you the book and you can look at it.  Certainly.  That would save some time.  You also stated that  McClellan, Dr. Catharine McClellan, would be a source  upon whom you would rely that there was no doubt that  there was trade between -- in European commodities  from Siberia into North America sometime earlier than  the Bering voyage?  Yes.  I think you referred to her.  And can you point me to  any reference of hers?  Not without some time with the material.  I could say  that without hesitation that Frederica de Laguna in  her study under Mount St. Elias, it's Mount St. Elias, 21879  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Q  9  10  11  A  12  13  14  15  Q  16  A  17  18  Q  19  20  21  22  A  23  24  MR. GRANT  25  THE COURT  26  27  28  29  MR. GRANT  30  Q  31  32  33  34  35  36  A  37  38  Q  39  A  40  Q  41  A  42  43  44  45  Q  46  A  47  spent a considerable amount of time reviewing early  Russian exploration in the area, and if anyone has  referred to the earlier period she would have, of the  two I gave you, McClellan and de Laguna.  I would say  that if I went to Volumes 1 and 2 of under Mount St.  Elias there would be some reference to that.  I can't  give you a page number offhand.  I understand that.  I appreciate that, because -- but  you see my difficulty is you're giving me these  references now so I have to be --  No, the de Laguna reference and the McClellan  reference and the Gibson reference, all three of them  are in the reference list of my opinion report, which  is why I referred to notes.  No, but they're not in the reference to footnote one?  No, but they are in the bibliography of that opinion  report.  Oh, I agree.  Well, I'm instructed that Dr. McClellan  never makes reference to this pre-1741 Russian trade  in her text.  That's what I've been informed of.  Do  you think that I may be wrong there?  I wouldn't want to quibble about that without having  some opportunity to review McClellan's works.  :   Okay.  Yes.  I want you to provide me with --  :  No, Mr. Grant.  No, no, no.  Witnesses can't be  asked to go out and do research.  She's given you the  sources.  You can look at them or your researchers can  look at them.  Okay.  I see the point you're making and I can maybe  be able to resolve it in this way.  When you're looking at McClellan, when you're  referring to McClellan, are you referring to those  references cited on page 92 of your bibliography?  You've given three there.  Yes.  And I may be referring to others of her works.  I -- in that statement, yes, I am referring to those.  But you may be referring to others?  Yes.  Okay.  I haven't reviewed the 1964 article recently, but I  think that that's a place I would head if I was  looking for confirmation of the statement I made this  morning.  Well, I —  And after that I would look at "My Old People Say",  those two being the ones I've most recently reviewed, 21880  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 but there are some other works by McClellan.  2 Q   McClellan I understand, I don't know if I should use  3 the word prolific, but she's written more than these  4 three obviously?  5 A   Yes, she has.  6 Q   And I just want to be sure that it's these three then,  7 as his lordship said, and I can look at your  8 reference, but if there's something that you haven't  9 cited here that she writes, and I think she's written  10 a fair amount, as I understand, I'd just like you to  11 direct me to which ones you're referring to, which  12 articles?  13 A  Well, as I said earlier, if I had some opportunity I  14 would be able to find references to his early contact  15 and early trade across the straits.  16 Q   In McClellan?  17 A   I think so.  And if not in McClellan, I believe in de  18 Laguna, and I think that passage cited out of James  19 Gibson is not inconsistent with what I was saying this  2 0              morning.  21 Q   Okay.  I'll come back to that, but I'm saying -- well,  22 Gibson doesn't talk about the trade though, you agreed  23 with me, I'm talking about your content -- you say  24 it's not inconsistent, but it doesn't establish or  25 doesn't make any reference to trade in the European  26 commodities from Siberia into North America sometime  27 before 1741.  That's —  28 A   No, but it does lend some support to the passage we  29 cited earlier, I think at 2 J, note 2 J, the one of  30 MacDonald's after Bering, where Bering notes in 1648  31 that there's a trade between Chachi(ph).  32 Q   Okay.  We're jumping around a bit.  33 A  Well, we are jumping around a bit.  I think that  34 you're asking about confirmation on that point and  35 that's confirmation on that point.  36 Q   No, but -- yes, I'd asked you a question that you  37 didn't answer, which is other than -- you didn't fully  38 answer, which is other than the sources in the  39 McClellan that you've cited, is there other McClellan  40 articles or treatises upon which you relied in support  41 of your proposition where you say that Dr. McClellan  42 says that -- gives evidence or opinions that the trade  43 in European commodities from Siberia into North  44 America began sometime before 1741, other than those  45 three sources?  46 A   Is there other work by Dr. McClellan supporting that  47 contention?  I hesitate to say, without having 21881  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 reviewed those materials recently, but I think so.  2 Q   Which ones would you look at, or should I look at?  3 A   There's one on inter-Cordilleran relations and I don't  4 remember the year for that.  I'm speaking of her  5 writings in that Subarctic anthology, the Tobey  6 article, of which you showed me yesterday or referred  7 me to yesterday.  There's not just the introduction to  8 that section by McClellan, there's also another piece  9 about intercultural contact or intercultural relations  10 within that Subarctic anthology.  That's one place I'd  11 look.  12 Q   So that's her writings or her contributions to the  13 Subarctic volume which is Volume 6 I think of that  14 series?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   That's a place.  Yes?  17 A   Then what I would do from there, and I would also say  18 from the Tobey article as well, is there's some  19 references to groups living further north than the  20 ones that I've been dealing with in my opinion report  21 whose authors have dealt more perhaps with the  22 connections between Siberia and Alaska.  23 Q   Okay.  But I'll take you right back to what we're  24 trying to do here.  I'm not trying to cover all of  25 North America, okay?  26 A   Okay.  27 Q   On your report you define protohistoric as meaning the  28 time prior to European presence in the area claimed by  29 the plaintiffs when -- but when European influence was  30 felt through native intermediaries.  You're talking  31 about the time prior to European presence in the area  32 claimed by the plaintiffs, and we've now I think got  33 clear, Dr. MacDonald makes some reference to this as  34 early as 1705.  Let me ask you this, and I put to you  35 Bishop's and Ray's comments of protohistoric where  36 there is European trade goods or disease, and you said  37 there was a difference between what they said and what  38 you said, which is European influence.  What do you  39 mean by European influence, and how do you determine  40 when that starts?  41 A   I believe I was intending to say that the difference  42 between what they stated and what I state is that  43 there is a narrower definition where they're only  44 considering the presence of material items of European  45 manufacture or derivation and also evidence of  46 diseases.  And what I'm saying, and it's something  47 relating to this business that the causes of actions 21882  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 can't always be directly seen or felt, is that we know  2 there's indirect stimulus accruing from the  3 participation of some native groups in direct exchange  4 with Europeans which may only be felt as repercussions  5 in the sense that it's stimulating other native groups  6 to participate more actively, for instance, in a  7 wealth exchange.  Its indirect influence does not  8 necessarily have to have a physical manifestation,  9 such as a trade item or evidence of pock marks on  10 faces, which is the sort of thing maritime fur traders  11 were occasionally noting in the late 1770's and 80's  12 on the coast.  I think Dixon's voyage is something  13 that Morice referred to, and I think it's in Dixon's  14 account that there's evidence or some indication that  15 might possibly be interpreted as small pox.  16 Q   Of course at that 1780's we're talking 40 years after  17 Bering and Chirikov --  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   -- landing.  But if you're talking about the mid-17th  20 century --  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   -- as the time when "European influence" was felt  23 through native intermediaries in the area claimed by  24 the plaintiff, how can you -- how can you determine  25 that time if you don't rely on material goods or, as  26 you say, disease evidence?  What evidence do you rely  27 on to show "this European influence"?  28 A  Well, it's something that Dyen and Aberle actually  29 speak of, if you're looking for statistical,  30 quantifiable kinds of summaries and analyses, they do  31 refer to this protohistoric influence.  32 Q   As early as the mid-17th century?  33 A   I'd like to read again those passages and the page  34 numbers I cited to you this morning, but yes, I  35 believe so.  36 Q   Yes.  Well, I'm —  37 A  With the caveat that I'd like to have a glimpse at  38 them first to make sure I'm right on that, but I  39 believe so.  40 Q   Well, you help me with the page reference.  I don't  41 have it.  Let me turn to to footnote one again, the  42 third sentence:  43  44 "The protohistoric period perhaps extends back  45 as early as the mid-sixteenth century, when  46 Russians first began to settle into the  47 Kamchatkan peninsula." 21883  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 That, with due respect, is not that an invention  3 of yours with no foundation in evidence?  4 A   I think it must be, and I'm apologetic about those  5 dates.  I'd like to check that.  I'm -- I was just  6 thrown by that noticing with the 1640 one.  I would  7 like to reread that couple of pages of Gibson before  8 I'd say absolutely that it should be mid-17th century.  9 It probably should be mid-17th century, and I think  10 what I did was slip up on one century with the 1641,  11 and then push the other one back.  12 Q   Which is what you'd propose in December of '86 is to  13 push the protohistoric back?  14 A   I don't see them as quite the same thing, but if you  15 want to make the connection, yes.  16 Q   I'd like to show you, to assist you in this regard, an  17 extract from Hermann Friis, "The Pacific Basin, A  18 History of Its Geographical Exploration", and chapter  19 10, page 170 and 171 I've included.  Have you seen  20 this before?  21 A   No, I'm still worried about the mid-16th century.  I'd  22 like to check that for Kamchatka, but I'll move on.  23 Okay.  24 Q   Well, I think you're going to have a chance.  25 A   Okay.  26 Q   Just pay attention to --  27 A   No, I haven't.  28 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  2 9 THE COURT:  You haven't seen this?  30 THE WITNESS:   No, I have not.  31 MR. GRANT:  Okay.  Now —  32 THE COURT:  Do you recognize the author?  33 THE WITNESS:   No, I don't.  34 MR. GRANT:  35 Q   Well, just let me go to page 171 and this is going to  36 the second paragraph down.  This is -- you know the  37 American Geographical Society?  38 A   No.  Of it, yes.  39 Q   Okay.  And they do special publications such as this?  40 A   I was not aware of this one.  41 Q   But you know they do special publications on specific  42 areas?  43 A   I don't know of any --  44 Q   Okay.  45 A   -- others, but perhaps they do.  46 Q   Okay.  Page 171, during the second half of the -- the  47 first full paragraph: 21884  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 "During the second half of the seventeenth  3 century..."  4  5 This would be after 1650, right?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   "...there were many..."  Are you with me?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q  10 "...there were many non-governmental sailings  11 near the coast and numerous land traverses  12 between separate portions of the western  13 margins of Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk."  14 O-k-h-o-t-s-k.  "One of the most inaccessible  15 regions was Kamchatka.  Apparently Russians  16 began to visit the peninsula about 1690,  17 although rumours about its existence were  18 current even earlier.  Kamchatka was visited by  19 Luka Morozko and his Cossacks about 1696.  20 However, the first, and for its time brilliant,  21 description of Kamchatka's nature and  22 population was given by V. Atlasov as a result  23 of his trip in 1697-1699.  Some time prior to  24 1700-1701, Ivan Golygin and his companions  25 reached Ostrov Karaginskiy, and in 1712 A.I.  26 Bykov and A. Krestianinov reached Shantarskiye  27 Ostrova."  28  29 Now, having read that to you, would you -- you  30 have to reason to dispute that Kamchatka was first  31 visited by the Russians in 1690, would you?  32 A   I don't know anything about the authors of this, but I  33 would assume that, having published in the American  34 Geographical Society, they probably have some  35 reputation.  So I would see no reason not to go with  36 that or at least to use that as a basis for  37 investigating some other sources.  38 Q   Right.  39 A   Certainly.  40 THE COURT:  But you also seem to approve the suggestion that  41 Russian cossacks had reached -- oh, I'm sorry, the  42 1639 date was just to reach the Pacific, it wasn't  43 Kamchatka?  44 THE WITNESS:   Not specifically.  And if I've made mention of  45 Kamchatka in my introductory note in point one, that  46 would be based on what my knowledge was to that date.  47 Now, if Mr. Grant is suggesting here that there's some 21885  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 information suggesting that Kamchatka wasn't reached  2 until that time, it would be something that I'd want  3 to investigate.  It looks like an interesting  4 publication.  5 MR. GRANT:  Yes, it's done by Professors Lebedev and Grekov who  6 are staff members of the Institute of Geography at the  7 Academy of Science, Moscow, U.S.S.R., that particular  8 chapter, and edited by Hermann Friis, and it's  9 published in 1967.  10 Well, what I wanted to ask you, and again I went  11 to all of your footnotes cited under footnote one, and  12 I could not find any source for the proposition that  13 the Russians first began to settle in the Kamchatkan  14 Peninsula in the mid-16th century, and this is the  15 source I found that suggested different, which I  16 presume was a reputable source.  What source are you  17 relying on in support of your proposition that they  18 reached the Kamchatka peninsula in the mid-16th  19 century 150 years earlier than these authors say -- a  20 hundred and forty years earlier?  21 MR. WILLMS:  My friend -- the witness already said that she  22 thinks that she made a mistake 1641, 1741, and was out  23 a hundred years below that.  2 4 THE COURT:  Yes.  25 MR. WILLMS:  She's already said that.  26 MR. GRANT:  Yes, on the first one.  That's on 1641, 1741, but  27 I -- but you said it's something you would like to  28 investigate further, and that suggested to me that you  29 had some basis for saying that the Russians began to  30 settle Kamchatka in the mid-16th century.  31 THE COURT:  I don't think she said that, Mr. Grant.  I think her  32 evidence is that the Russians began to settle in  33 Kamchatka, I'm not sure about settle or visit, in the  34 mid-17th century, which would be 1650.  35 THE WITNESS:  Well, I'm grateful to you for bringing this to my  36 attention.  I think it's something that I'd certainly  37 want to investigate further, and I think this sounds  38 like a very interesting publication.  3 9 MR. GRANT:  40 Q   But what I'm asking is -- okay.  And his lordship has  41 said that -- I didn't pick it up, and maybe you'd  42 meant, that you had gone a hundred years off on  43 Bering, and then you'd gone back with the mid-16th so  44 that you tracked your -- you pushed it back?  45 A   Yes, and I think -- I'd just like to say that I think  46 on note -- a couple of pages pages later when we were  47 fiddling around with the 2 F's and 2 G's, and so on, I 21886  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 make reference to Bering in 1741.  So to me it was an  2 error associated with that one note that I corrected  3 later and simply it wasn't proofread adequately or I  4 think I would have caught that.  As for my sources, my  5 understanding is that I've run into this often enough  6 and it probably needed correcting.  In this  7 publication that you've brought to my attention just  8 now, it looks like there's a good synopsis of the  9 early exploration of Kamchatka.  That's all I can say  10 on that.  11 Q   Well, okay, let's reword that second sentence.  "The  12 protohistoric period perhaps extends back as early as  13 the mid-17th century...", to follow your instructions?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   "...when Russians first began to settle into the  16 Kamchatka peninsula."?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   What is your basis for saying the Russians began to  19 settle there in the mid-17th century? What source did  20 you go to?  What source did you rely on?  21 A   If I could check the beginning of chapter 4 in my  22 thesis, I think that possibly the source of err are  23 there, or at least the references to which I'm  24 referring are there.  25 Q   The beginning of which chapter was it?  26 A   I think chapter 4.  There are some opening passages  27 which have to deal with the beginning of the Russian  28 advance across Siberia, and I think the references  29 there are to Gibson, and if I've miscited them, then  30 you've been correct in drawing that to my attention.  31 MR. GRANT:   Okay.  Just a moment here.  I'm just going to get  32 that for you.  Here's chapter 4 of your thesis.  33 MR. WILLMS:  Page 165.  34 THE WITNESS:   I wonder if I could read that section and then —  35 MR. GRANT:  36 Q   Just read it to yourself and then point out what's  37 relevant, and then I can read it into the record. I  38 mean, just read the area there.  39 A   The footnotes are in the next volume.  40 Q   Yes.  Your thesis is long, so what note are you  41 looking for?  42 A   Footnote two for chapter 4, and we might also get  43 something slightly different.  If we're trying to pin  44 that particular thing down, I'd say footnotes two to  45 seven probably contain the clue or the answer to your  46 question of what references was I referring to.  So  47 they may all be the same thing, but between footnote 21887  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 two and footnote eight it's dealing with that early  2 Russian activity.  3 Q   Footnote two is Rickard?  4 A   1948.  5 Q   1948:67, and "The Sea Otter", that would be Robinson,  6 Michael Robinson, right?  7 A   No, that's -- "The Sea Otter" is an anonymous article  8 about the sea otter I believe listed under anonymous  9 in the footnotes in the bibliography.  If I could just  10 check that?  And then I'm referring to Gough 1980,  11 Bancroft 1986, Barbeau 1958, Gibson 1976, and Gough  12 again, Gibson 1978.  So I would -- and Lisianskii  13 1817.  So I would say in these references from two to  14 eight are the answer to your question of what were the  15 materials I was referring to.  I don't remember which  16 one specifically might have mentioned that Kamchatka  17 was settled in the mid-17th century.  And if those  18 writers were incorrect in that, I'm grateful for you  19 having pointed out this what looks to be an  20 interesting piece of the geographical exploration of  21 the Russians in that area.  22 Q   The statement on page 165 which Mr. Willms suggested  23 dealt with it, and which you reviewed, states, this is  24 in your thesis:  25  26 "The quest for furs, particularly sable,  27 instigated an eastward movement of Russians  28 across northern Asia from Muscovy in the  29 mid-16th century.  By 1639 cossacks and fur  30 hunters had reached the Siberian coast."  31  32 Now, this parallels Gibson in fact doesn't it?  33 A   Yes, it does.  34 Q   Then it says:  35  36 "It was evidently sometime before maritime  37 forays were made beyond the Kamchatka  38 Peninsula, but by 1725 Czar Peter was  39 sufficiently curious about the North Pacific to  40 send Vitus Bering to determine if Asia and  41 America were separate continents.  Seven years  42 passed before another expedition was formed to  43 explore Northern Pacific waters further and as  44 well to verify rumours of a rich source of furs  45 in that region.  Some members of this second  46 expedition led by Bering investigated the North  47 American coast line as far as Cross Sound and 21?  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 southeastern Alaska. There a large party went  2 ashore and vanished."  3  4 And this is footnote two, Rickard, 1948:67, so  5 this section I've just read you make one footnote and  6 that's footnote two, Rickard?  7 A  And I think that reference, if we turn then to the  8 bibliography and check that one out, I think Rickard  9 in the dissertation refers -- that article discusses  10 the Chirikov expedition.  11 Q   Right.  That's —  12 A   So I would say that the rest of that paragraph might  13 because it's very hard to remember now exactly, but I  14 think it probably refers to that cluster of references  15 from two to eight that they recited.  16 Q   Actually Rickard in '48 is "Historical Background of  17 British Columbia", Rigley Printing Company.  18 Well, you then go on from there to talk about what  19 happens after the fate of the Chirikov -- if you go to  20 the next page, you talk about the 1741 and the next  21 sentence, that ill-fated expedition where they lost,  22 and then you go on you talk about Commodore Bering,  23 and then you proceed on to talk about the 50-year lead  24 of the Russians ahead of other nations and sea otter  25 exploration between 1743 and 1797, so basically the  26 balance of this paragraph of your dissertation is  27 dealing with post 1741 events?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   I'd like to refer you to page 36 of your opinion  30 report, the Garfield reference that you quoted at  31 page -- at paragraph 2A, where Viola Garfield -- now,  32 she's talking about I think coast Tsimshian, am I  33 right, or is it Tlingit at this point?  She did her  34 work with the Tsimshian, the coast Tsimshian, didn't  35 she?  36 A   Yes, I don't remember if on page 69 she's dealing  37 specifically with the Tsimshian, but I imagine she  38 does because that's generally the field of that book.  39 Q   Yes.  40 A   But she also does refer to the other groups, but I --  41 in this context, yes, I think she's talking about  42 certainly that northern coastal region.  43 Q   Okay.  Because she says:  44  45 "The opening of the era of exploration and  46 maritime fur trading in the middle of the  47 eighteenth century..." 21889  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 Now, this she would be referring to Bering and  3 Chirikov, right?  4 A   Yes, and also to some Spanish voyages that came just  5 slightly later, yes.  6 Q   Okay.  7 A   Yes.  8 Q  9 "...favored those Northwest Coast tribes living  10 along the migration routes of the seal and sea  11 otter.  During the thirty to forty years before  12 the animals were virtually annihilated, the  13 coast Indians supplied the majority of pelts  14 and acted as middlemen between their less  15 strategically located countrymen and the  16 traders ... The quantity of iron received in  17 barter met their tool needs within a few  18 years."  19  20 Would you not agree that what she is here talking  21 about is the commencement of the protohistoric period  22 on the north-west coast?  23 A   No, she's talking about the historic period.  24 Q   I'm sorry, the commencement of the historic period on  25 the north-west coast?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   And that would be around the time of the commencement  28 of the protohistoric period among the Gitksan and the  29 Wet'suwet'en?  30 A   Oh, no.  I think that the beginning of the intense  31 commerce between northern north-west coast Indians and  32 maritime fur traders and also with Russians who were  33 by the early 1800's actually settled at Sitka and at  34 Yakutat Bay, the historic period for Alaska, coastal  35 Alaska, the Queen Charlotte Islands and the coastal  36 Tsimshian area, that's a period of intensification of  37 relations between the coast and the interior as far as  38 I can ascertain.  But it's certainly not the beginning  39 of the protohistoric for the interior groups.  40 Q   I'm not talking generally about interior groups.  I'm  41 not talking about Tlingit.  I'm not talking about  42 Tutchone or any of these other groups.  I'm talking  43 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en.  And we have this one  44 reference of George MacDonald to the -- some iron  45 goods in 1705 in the Skeena River district, right?  46 You have that reference we talked about earlier?  47 A   I'm not sure which one you mean. 21890  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  A  Q  A  MR. WILLMS  THE COURT:  MR. GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  A  Q  A  A  Q  A  Page 54.  Oh, yes, I'm sorry, page 54, in Kitwanga?  Yes.  And there's a reference to --  It's for Chinlak 1705 plus or minus 75 years.  Where are we?  The white book, tab 4, page 54 -- page 53, no, page  54.  Do you know where Chinlak was?  Yes, within some range.  You don't know if it was within or not within the  Wet'suwet'en area do you?  What time frame are you referring to or --  What I'm describing is the -- what is on the area  claimed by the Wet'suwet'en today in this court  action.  I can't say with certainty, but I believe it's  outside.  Now, my friend suggested that Chinlak was at 1705,  plus or minus 75.  In fact, when you look at that, at  George MacDonald, "excavating in the Chilcotin area  south of Carrier territory", now that's outside of the  Wet'suwet'en area, isn't it, the Chilcotin area?  Oh, yes, it is.  Sorry, yes.  "South of Carrier territory Wilna(ph) has trade copper  objects appearing at A.D. 1705, plus or minus 75."  Now, you are aware that there is -- there was copper  produced domestically, I think you even make reference  to it in some of your footnotes, that is, within the  area?  Copper produced domestically?  I know of no mineral  source of copper within the claims area.  When archaeological finds are made of copper that does  not automatically assume it was a European trade good  does it?  Does not automatically assume that, no.  Because there are within the area, let us be -- of  British Columbia, what we now call British Columbia,  there are -- the scholars in the field recognize that  there was copper sources within that area?  I don't know of any that are within British Columbia,  per se.  I know that there were some sources of native  copper up in the white area region of coastal Alaska,  and I also know that most of the copper artefacts that  I'm aware of that have been tested for source or  origin, including a lot of materials at the provincial  museum, have been found to be of European copper. 21891  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   And what is your source for that comment?  2 A  A personal communication with someone who several  3 years ago was analysing the copper shields and other  4 copper artefacts at the provincial museum, and I'm  5 sorry, but her name escapes me right now, but I think  6 her analysis would be easily accessible through the  7 provincial museum.  8 Q   It was published?  9 A   I'm not sure.  10 A  And I believe she was associated with the Canadian  11 Conservation Institute, but that was several years ago  12 and I don't have a specific reference to that.  13 Q   If you look at MacDonald, Borden, the reference to  14 Chinlak, which you can't determine is in or outside  15 the claim area of the Wet'suwet'en --  16 A   I'm not absolutely clear on that, no.  17 Q   -- was a Chinese coin found at that village site which  18 Morice claims was destroyed during a Chilcotin raid of  19 1745.  So you can't add anything to what MacDonald  20 says because you don't know any more about that  21 particular find, do you?  22 A   No, except that it's referred to in Mike Cranny's  23 thesis of course because he did review the Borden  24 materials. But things like Chinese coins are  25 problematic because they can come from earlier times.  26 What we worked with with archaeological dates, if I  27 can start that again, is the last date that something  28 may have been introduced.  A Chinese coin might  29 actually be an older coin that's associated with a  30 1705 radiocarbon date.  31 THE COURT:  Well, it doesn't really say anything about it.  It  32 says in 1959 Borden found a coin at a location which  33 was destroyed in 1745?  34 THE WITNESS:   Yes.  35 MR. GRANT:  It doesn't tell us much.  36 THE COURT:  It doesn't tell us much does it?  37 THE WITNESS:   No, except that it's a Chinese coin and it's the  38 kind of thing that I consider anecdotal information  39 that at best gives us a bit of a time frame.  40 Similarily, Mackenzie's record in 1793 of the Sekani  41 Indians having in their possession some trade goods  42 that they say are coming from the stinking sea.  It is  43 some illustration of the flow of materials from inland  44 or from the coast inland.  45 THE COURT:  Of course the Chinese coin might have been dropped  46 in that location any time up to 1959 couldn't it?  47 THE WITNESS:   It could have, and I think that the reason that 21892  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  THE COURT  4  MR. GRANT  5  Q  6  7  8  9  10  A  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  A  17  18  Q  19  20  A  21  22  Q  23  A  24  Q  25  26  27  A  28  Q  29  A  30  31  Q  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  A  39  MR. GRANT  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  Borden dated the site was he referred to Morice's  reliance on the oral traditions for the area.  :  All right.  So in going back to determine what was going on,  whether you rely on in the prehistoric period, all  scholars in all fields are compelled to go back to the  oral accounts to a certain degree aren't they?  You  have to?  They're very problematic.  They're very problematic for your theory for sure; you  would agree with that?  Yes, I would.  And there's methods of analysis of them and these  other aspects too?  Methods of analysis which serve some kinds of  purposes.  Yes, there are.  Would you agree that Dr. Halpin is probably one of  those who --she worked closely with Wilson Duff?  Would I agree that she worked closely with Wilson  Duff?  Yes.  I don't know that personally.  Okay.  She is quite familiar with the Beynon record  relating to the Tsimshian, including the Gitksan?  You  don't know that either?  I don't know that personally.  Okay.  But from some review of her thesis I imagine that she  is fairly familiar with him.  Right.  Okay.  Just a moment.  I'm just going to get  some of these things out of the way.  I've already asked you about the importance of  geography in dealing with ethnographic data, and I  take it that you would agree that environmental  conditions are important processes -- are important in  processes of cultural adaptation and development?  Environmental conditions, yes.  :  Uh-huh.  Could I ask what tab I — "The Pacific  Basin" I'd asked to be marked at tab 22, my lord, the  extract from "The Pacific Basin", and I'm not certain  if I -- I think I gave you a tab for 23.  (EXHIBIT 1191-22: Document, excerpt from "The Pacific  Basin")  Yes. 21893  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:  And I will now give you the tab 22 and I will give  you the item that I'll refer to for tab 23.  You gave me tab 23.  I'll give you now something to use it for.  Oh, all right.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  COURT  GRANT  COURT  GRANT  Q  MR.  THE  THE  MR.  THE  THE  THE  THE  Now, I'm referring you to the first page of your M.A.  thesis, "A Preliminary Review of Faunal Resources".  That is the title page in the --  A   I'd like to make a statement there.  It's something  that I mentioned on the first day when my  qualifications were being cross-examined, that this is  not a thesis.  This was a major paper done while I was  doing my Masters' degree in London.  Q   You did explain that, and I'm sorry.  A   Yes.  Q   I didn't mean to try to torture what you'd said.  A   No, I just simply don't want it be to be taken for  more than it is.  GRANT:   Thank you.  COURT:  And this is not your piece, your dissertation?  WITNESS:  No, it isn't.  GRANT:  Page 1 in the introduction you, yourself, you state:  COURT:  And the major paper is something less than a thesis  then?  WITNESS:   Yes.  In England, if I can just spend a moment  here, in England a Masters' degree, that's an M.A., is  more often a course degree, and an M. Phil, is more  like equivalent to a Masters' thesis in North America.  COURT:  I see.  WITNESS:   And when I did my doctrate in England, I started  off doing an M. Phil, and then what they do in England  is they upgrade the status of that so that you produce  a D. Phil, or a Ph.D., so that this paper was part of  the courses I took while I was doing an M.A. in  England.  MR.  GRANT:  Q  A  Q  It's just one paper that you did?  Yes.  Okay.  In any event, this paper is on the topic of "A  Preliminary Review of Faunal Resources on the  Northwest Coast of North America" and the  introduction, the first paragraph, you state:  "Without an understanding of environmental  conditions, the interpretation of  archaeological materials is often rendered 21894  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  A  15  16  Q  17  A  18  Q  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  24  25  26  A  27  Q  28  A  29  Q  30  31  32  A  33  MR.  GRANT:  34  35  36  37  38  MR.  WILLMS  39  40  41  42  43  MR.  GRANT:  44  45  46  THE  COURT:  47  MR.  GRANT:  incomplete or even invalid, although theories  of environmental determinism have long been  discarded by scholars in the social sciences,  it is still recognized that environmental  conditions are important in processes of  cultural adaptation and development.  Cultures  do not exist in static isolation.  They are  part of dynamic systems of interaction and  exchange... systems which comprise cultural and  ecological factors, undergoing constant  re-articulation."  Now --  I don't have a copy of that.  Should I?  I have a  title page.  Oh, you've got the title page.  I've been listening, but I wonder if I might see it.  Just a moment.  Yes, you certainly should have it.  If  any of these --  That's fine.  I'm just referring to the first paragraph.  If you  want to take a moment to reread it yourself, I don't  see any point in rereading it into the record, and I'm  only reading the whole first paragraph to put the  question in context.  Yes.  Okay?  That's fine.  You would agree then and still maintain the position  that environmental conditions are important in  processes of cultural adaptation and development?  Yes.  And then I'd like to refer you to -- my lord, I'm  going to give you -- I'm sorry, these are a bit out of  sync, but if I could -- I'll give you tab 24 and 25,  but this next one should go under 25.  I'd ask that  that be marked as Exhibit 1191-24.  :  23.  (EXHIBIT 1191-23: Extract from A Preliminary Review of  Faunal Resources on the Northwest Coast of N.A.")  23. My lord, I've given you -- if you could just  put this document in tab 25, it was clipped  together -- or tab 24, I should say.  24, okay.  The one that I've just handed, and just keep tab 25 21895  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  aside.  THE COURT:  All right.  MR.  (EXHIBIT 1191-24: Extract, "Men and Resources on the  Northern Northwest Coast of N.A."  GRANT:  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  Okay.  Are you with me?  I don't have anything in tab 24.  Should I?  Yes, you should.  You should have what I gave you in  tab 24.  Just leave tab 25 for later reference, okay?  Yes, got that.  And, again, this is an extract from your dissertation  and I'd like to refer you to page 370.  Are you with  me?  Yes.  Okay.  At the top you say:  "Another set of difficulties presenting  with using the anthropological literature to  analyse early post-contact developments in the  traditional socioeconomic organizations of the  Northwest Coast Indians is that they do not  provide complete or comparable coverage within  or between cultural regions."  Are you with me there?  Yes, I am.  And you still agree with that proposition that you  made in your dissertation, do you not?  Yes.  Then just skip a sentence and go on:  "Although some scholars have attempted to show  that inconsistencies in certain details of  socioeconomic behaviour may relate to  differences between precontact and post-contact  cultural organizations, they may also relate to  spatial as well as temporal variability, in  addition to differences in the types of  research orientation chosen by the scholars."  And, once again, you'd agree with that?  A   Yes, I do.  Q   And you stand by that opinion today?  A   Yes, I do.  Q  A  Q  A  Q 21896  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 "For instance, disparities among De Laguna's  2 (1972), Oberg's (1973), and Krause's (1956)  3 treatment of Tlingit cultural organization,  4 probably relate to cultural and  5 cultural-environmental differences between  6 outer coast Yakutat Bay and mainland riverine  7 Chilkat habitats and dwellers.  It is certainly  8 also significant that Krause's observations  9 were made more than a half century earlier than  10 either De Laguna's or Oberg's."  11  12 Now, with respect to that underlined part of it  13 that I read to you ending at "the mainland riverine  14 Chilkat habitats and dwellers", that exemplifies the  15 spatial variability to which you're referring in the  16 previous sentence, isn't it?  It's example of it?  17 A   It's an example of it.  18 Q   And let me now take you, you can keep that open if  19 you'd like, to footnote two, you need your report so  20 we know what we're talking about here, at the bottom  21 of page 1 you state:  22  23 "Most modern scholars engaged in North American  24 ethnohistoric research agree that indigenous  25 populations were profoundly affected by  26 indirect contact with Europeans before they  27 experienced direct contact with them."  28  29 And then in support of that proposition you refer  30 to footnote two on page 30, and then you make a large  31 listing of people in that footnote.  Would you agree  32 with me that Allan, Cranny, de Laguna, Ferguson,  33 Garfield, Goldman, Hackler, Hudson, McClellan, and  34 M.P. Robinson, none of those authors deal with the  35 Gitksan or the Wet'suwet'en, is that a fair statement,  36 in those treatises?  37 A   Now that I've heard the question, can you just quickly  38 tell me which ones again?  39 Q   Certainly.  40 A  Allan.  41 Q   Cranny?  42 A   Cranny.  43 Q   De Laguna, Ferguson, Garfield, Goldman, Hackler,  44 Hudson, McClellan and M.P. Robinson?  45 A   Let's see now.  Cranny may refer to the Gitksan in  46 passing, but it's certainly not an emphasis of his.  47 Ferguson does talk about warfare in general on the 21897  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  coast and exchange, and in that sense does I think  bring into the -- the Gitksan into the sphere because  he mentions I believe Legaix.  Q   He mentions Legaix.  A  And M.P. Robinson is also talking about Legaix and  upriver movement in the protohistoric period and  historic period, so that's also one that comes into  play with the Gitksan.  Q   But where Legaix, or one of the Legaixs, did -- and  we've got this clear from you travelled up the  interior, right --  Yes.  -- into the Gitksan country?  But Legaix -- what these  authors -- Legaix was a coastal Tsimshian and  development of what was going on with Legaix much of  that occurred outside of the Gitksan area?  I don't know how I can separate them like that.  A lot  of the Legaix activities to which I refer and to which  M.P. Robinson refers, and so on, these are going on  along the Skeena River and part of those activities  are in what is now considered Gitksan territory, so I  hesitate to draw a distinction.  Q   You would agree with me that when we're now talking  about spatial variability, as you describe in your  thesis, your dissertation, there is great spatial  variability and environmental variability between the  environments of the coastal Tsimshian and the Gitksan  and Wet'suwet'en, I take it you wouldn't dispute that?  A  We do make a distinction sometimes between an  effective environment and an exploitive environment  and a natural environment.  In terms of the riverine  people having an economy that's largely based on  fishing resources or fish resources, I would say that  yes, there is an environmental distinction, but I'd  like to know under what -- like how we're considering  that.  Q   Well, are you saying -- I mean, do you disagree with  the proposition that there's major environmental  variability between the Gitksan and the coastal  Tsimshian natural environment?  A   Natural environmental variability, yes.  MR. GRANT:   Okay.  THE COURT: What's an unnatural environment?  THE WITNESS:   Well, what I was suggesting there —  THE COURT:  Except this.  THE WITNESS:   -- is we sometimes think about the environment in  terms of how people are using it, and there can 2189?  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 sometimes be differences between resources that are  2 available.  If they're not being used, then they might  3 as well not be there.  And so anthropologists look at  4 the ones that are being used.  So to say, well the  5 economies of the coastal people and the interior  6 people seem to have been, say, both in these two  7 cases, largely based on fish, and that meant that  8 9/10ths of the year they were fishing or living a lot  9 on fish, then maybe we would say that the  10 environmental differences aren't so great.  That's the  11 kind of thing I was alluding to.  12 MR. GRANT:  13 Q   Well, 9/10ths of the year the coastal people may be  14 engaged in fishing, but certainly not the interior  15 people, the Gitksan?  16 A   I was using that as an hypothetical example.  17 Q   That's right.  The environment, the natural  18 environment, is different?  19 A   Yes, it is, and I agreed to that.  2 0 Q   Right.  And when you go at tab 2 3 you -- when you  21 stated:  "It is still recognized that environmental  22 conditions are important in processes of cultural  23 adaptation and development.", you would agree with me  24 that the environmental conditions of the coastal  25 Tsimshian, the distinct and the environmental  26 conditions of the Gitksan, and the Wet'suwet'en on the  27 other hand, are important in an analysis of the  28 processes of cultural adaptation and development?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And there you were referring, of course, to natural  31 environmental conditions, weren't you?  32 A   Not necessarily.  33 Q   Well, your report, your paper, was "A Preliminary  34 Review of Faunal Resources".  I take it faunal  35 resources is natural environmental material?  36 A  Well, the context of archaeology environment also  37 includes neighbours, cultural groups that you're  38 interacting with.  39 Q   Well, this paper here, your paper on faunal resources,  40 dealt with natural environmental material?  41 A   It also dealt with adaptation, and adaptation includes  42 relations with neighbours.  43 Q   Okay.  The other day you referred me to some of those  44 when we were talking about -- I think it was the  45 others in the -- just a moment.  I just want to -- I  46 don't want to mislead you.  I just have to get my --  47 oh, yes, in your December 5th draft.  You don't have 21899  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 to go to it, I'll just refer you to it.  On page 5 of  2 that draft I asked you about -- it's the statement in  3 keeping with recent ethnohistoric cultural ecological  4 and cultural evolutionary research, and you gave me a  5 number of persons that you were referring to, and with  6 respect to the ethnohistoric you referred to Yerbury.  7 Yerbury's work is with respect to the Chipewyan people  8 east of the Mackenzie Valley; is that right?  9 A   Yes, that's what he focuses on.  He also refers in  10 some passages, including one I think I've cited in  11 note 40, I forget now, but there's a passage I've  12 cited which is just part of his broader discussion  13 dealing with the coast interior connections and  14 relations throughout that broad region.  So he's not  15 just dealing with the Chipewyan.  16 Q   But that's the focus of his work is with the Chipewyan  17 in the eastern Mackenzie?  18 A   Yes, and I think he throws it into the broader  19 perspective in order to interpret best the changes  20 that were going on.  21 Q   In among the Chipewyan?  22 A   Relating to the fur trade.  23 Q   Among the Chipewyan?  24 A   Yes.  And he also threw that into a broader context in  25 order to best interpret those.  26 Q   How do you know he threw it in for broader context?  27 A   Because of the passage I've read in his report.  Part  28 of one is cited in here, and I think perhaps Mr.  29 Willms referred to it on the first day, but I could  30 find it now.  31 Q   You don't have to find it.  That's okay.  Krech,  32 K-r-e-k I believe?  33 A   K-r-e-c-h.  34 Q   He focused on the central Subarctic, is that fair to  35 say?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   East of the Rockies?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   Now, the peoples that Krech and Yerbury focused on are  40 not -- are not proximate or neighbours of the Gitksan  41 or Wet'suwet'en?  42 A   Not immediate neighbours.  43 Q   Well, several hundred miles distant with many groups  44 in between?  45 A  Well, considering that we get dentalia shells from the  46 coast turning up in central Alberta, that doesn't -- I  47 don't limit my notion of neighbours quite that much. 21900  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   I see.  The Subarctic east of the Rockies, the  2 environment in which the Cree and the Chipewyan lived,  3 or live, is different, much different environmental  4 conditions, natural environmental conditions, than the  5 area of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, would you not  6 agree?  7 A   Yes, I would agree.  8 Q   The historic contact and protohistoric contact with  9 those peoples is much different than the Gitksan and  10 Wet'suwet'en, is it not?  11 A   I'm not sure in what ways you're referring to.  12 Q   Time.  Let's talk about time.  13 A   I don't have a very good chronology for the eastern  14 areas that you're referring to.  15 Q   Okay.  In your report -- oh, Bishop.  Bishop.  I  16 forgot about Bishop.  Bishop's work, until he did this  17 recent paper on the west coast, which I think you  18 cite, "Limiting Access to Limited Goods", 1979 paper,  19 his work -- you're aware that his work entirely before  20 that was with the Ojibway in northern Ontario?  21 A   His published work?  22 Q   Yes.  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   And, again, they are much distant, they are not  25 neighbours of the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, are they?  26 A   No, they are not neighbours of the Gitksan or  27 Wet'suwet'en.  28 Q   The development of protohistoric and historic contact  29 with them and Europeans again is much different than  30 the Gitksan timewise, or the Wet'suwet'en?  31 A   Yes.  I would think it's somewhat earlier.  32 Q   Yes.  And their natural environment is much different  33 than the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  34 A   I'm not sure in what ways you're describing that.  35 Q   Well —  36 A   Natural environmental conditions?  37 Q   Yes.  Or do you know?  38 A  Well, I'm not sure in what ways you're describing  39 those differences.  There are winter seasons, there  40 are rivers and water, there are fish resources,  41 there's game hunting, or game to hunt.  In other ways  42 the environments might be very different.  I'm not  43 quite sure what ways you're indicating there.  44 MR. GRANT:   So you're — well, Doctor, look, maybe I'm being  45 naive here, but I understood just on basic geography,  46 right, I'm talking about natural environment, okay,  47 that we're talking there about I think what's called, 21901  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  if I remember from school, the Canadian Shield, right,  we're not talking about the Cordillera.  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, if my friend — I object.  If my friend  wants to ask the witness are there big mountains in  Ontario like the Rockies, you know, what a waste of  time.  If it's subtle, and it sounds like it's subtle  at least to the witness, the witness would like to  know what it is, what environment.  And frankly, my  lord, I'm surprised that if that's all my friend is  suggesting, why he's asking an expert whether there's  big mountains in Ontario, if that's what he's getting  at, if that's what he means by natural environment.  So maybe he should define what he means by natural  environment.  THE COURT:  Well, I'm not sure, Mr. Willms.  I'm not sure  there's any difficulty in following that question.  He's asking the difference between the Cordillera and  the Canadian Shield, does that make a difference.  I'm  not sure it's just the size of the mountains that's a  prominent feature of one of those two.  MR. WILLMS:  I mean, there are lakes, there are rivers, there  are mountains, I mean what --  MR. GRANT:  The witness has already said that.  MR. WILLMS:  You know.  MR. GRANT:  Going back to tab 24 —  THE COURT:  You don't want to pursue the matter?  MR. GRANT:  Oh, I am, but I'll do it a different way.  THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  MR. GRANT:  Q   The environmental conditions of the Ojibway are  different than the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en, aren't  they, the natural environmental conditions, yes or no?  And I'm taking environmental conditions from your own  paper.  If you want to go back to tab 24 in your  introduction, you can look there.  You used the word  "environmental conditions".  It's not my word, it's  your word.  It's tab 23.  A   In tab 23, the first page of the introduction where  I'm describing environmental conditions, and as I  said, environmental conditions also includes a social  environment or a cultural environment, and we have --  if you follow through that again:  "Cultures do not  exist in static isolation.  They are part of dynamic  systems of interaction and exchange." And by that I  was referring to those ecological theories that deal  with environment by saying that we both have  relationships between a group of people and the 21902  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 natural environment in which they're situated and part  2 of their environment is also their interactions with  3 neighbouring groups.  4 Q   Doctor, is there a difference between the  5 environmental conditions of the Ojibway and the  6 Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en, the natural environmental  7 conditions?  8 A   Yes, I would say there is.  9 Q   Thank you.  And you would agree that that difference  10 in those environmental conditions is important in  11 processes of cultural adaptation and development,  12 would you not?  13 A   That the difference between the environmental  14 conditions is important in the process?  15 Q   That the difference in the environmental conditions  16 between the Ojibway and the Gitksan and the  17 Wet'suwet'en are important in processes of cultural  18 adaptation and development; yes or no?  19 A   Yes, I would think they'd have to be considered.  20 Q   Page 2 of your report, second paragraph, half-way down  21 you state:  22  23 "More to the point, reconstructions of  24 traditional native socioeconomies which fail to  25 account for indirect European influence deny  26 the dynamic dimensions of ongoing cultural  27 adaptations and resign their subjects to an  28 untenable, however remote, however romantic,  29 snapshot stasis."  30  31 In support of that proposition you have set out  32 footnote three, page 30.  Footnote three is nothing  33 more than a further statement of your own views  34 without any citation; is that right?  35 A   Yes, it is.  36 Q   Are you not in that statement from that paragraph  37 setting up a straw man?  Who are you referring to as  38 reconstructing traditional native socioeconomies and  39 failing to account for indirect European influence,  40 what ethnographers?  41 A   I'm not, I don't believe, referring to anyone  42 specifically there, and I think if I suggest a straw  43 man there, it was simply a matter of style in  44 presentation or firming up the point that I had made  45 in my report, nothing deliberate or specific intended,  46 except to clarify my view.  47 Q   Well, that's right.  Nobody is -- you don't know of 21903  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 any writings which fail to take into account for  2 indirect European influence, do you?  Of any expert?  3 Of any scholar?  And let's expand it.  Let's include  4 Dr. Daly.  Let's include Dr. Antonia Mills.  Are you  5 suggesting that they don't take into account indirect  6 European influence?  7 A   I don't know if I had heard of either of those  8 individuals at the time I wrote my report.  9 Q   You've heard of them today?  10 A   Yes, I have.  11 Q   You've read their reports before today?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   Yes.  Well, are you suggesting that they failed to  14 take those things into account?  15 A   I'd prefer not to offer an opinion on that without  16 having a chance to review their reports.  17 Q   Well, who are you referring to here, and let's go to  18 the next sentence:  19  20 "In this context Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en claims  21 about 'traditionally' having owned and managed  22 certain territories are questionable."  23  24 Before I ask you anything further on that and go  25 back to the point, which I will give you a chance to  26 speak on, what do you mean by "traditionally"?  27 A   "Traditionally", I'm referring to in the same context  28 as the word pristine.  Traditional is often used as a  29 word to describe pre-European influenced native  30 societies.  This is the way people used to be.  This  31 is the way people traditionally were.  And that's I  32 would say that the word traditional is synonymous with  33 my usage with the word pristine.  34 Q   Well, you can't name one writer or scholar in the  35 field of anthropology, let's put aside the expert  36 reports for now, the expert witnesses, okay, one  37 scholar who fails to take into account indirect  38 European influence, can you?  39 A   No.  40 MR. WILLMS:  Didn't he ask that already and wasn't it already  41 answered?  I think it was asked and answered.  42 MR. GRANT:  43 Q   Okay.  The witness answered it again.  I just didn't  4 4 know.  45 Go to your footnote three.  46 A   Yes.  47 Q 21904  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 "I am generally suspicious of writers who tend  2 towards a static or structural treatment of any  3 society."  4  5 Who are you talking about there?  6 A   Oh, more than anything this is probably an academic  7 aside in reference to the fact that there are  8 traditions in social anthropology which have tended to  9 create structural models which people used to analyse  10 things such as kinship systems, which have not always  11 taken into account the notions of change or process.  12 And, similarily, early 20th century, and I'm being  13 rather loose or sloppy with a date here, but earlier  14 treatments of evolutionary stages of human behaviour  15 have been criticized by later generations of scholars  16 for having not taken into account notions of process  17 or change.  So having myself being grounded or trained  18 in or instructed in or badgered with theories in  19 anthropology, cultural geography, which emphasized  20 repeatedly how important change is and process is.  21 That aside probably relates to that more than anything  22 specifically, that some social anthropologists and  23 some early practitioners or users of evolutionary  24 theories tend to see cultures existing as patches  25 along and continuing or static models.  26 Q   Doctor, my question was who.  27 A  Who?  Well, it's an area that's addressed by Marvin  28 Harris, but he would give better more specific  29 references than I could offhand.  I think I would say  30 that the structural models --  31 Q   Who?  Can you name one writer that you're suspicious  32 of there for those reasons?  33 A   I think some earlier work by Rosman and Rubel tended  34 to give pretty static -- well, not static so much as  35 they were offering and they have offered very useful  36 structural models of kinship, and I've seen their work  37 cited as descriptions of the social organization for  38 people where they were intended only to be schemes  39 describing the kinship theory.  So here's a case where  40 the static model of cultural organization, which has  41 been derived for some analytical purposes, has been  42 taken to be ethnological fact and used in other  43 circumstances.  That's one application of structural  4 4 model.  4 5 Q   By whom?  46 A   I've seen Rosman and Rubel cited in places.  Now, let  47 me think.  I could dig up some reference I think in 21905  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 the Tsimshian anthology edited by Margaret Seguin most  2 recently, but I can't think of one offhand.  3 Q   Is that the Margaret Seguin, 1984, "The Tsiamshian  4 Images of the Past:  Views For The Present"?  5 A   Yes, it is.  6 Q   You're not -- just to be clear, you're not suggesting  7 Margaret Seguin herself, but some references in that  8 text?  9 A   No.  And actually, if I can be a little more specific  10 on this, there is controversy about preferential  11 marriage rules and preferential post-marital  12 localities, where people live. There's a lot of  13 controversy vis-a-vis the reconstruction of kinship  14 patterns for throughout the northern coastal and  15 adjacent interior region, and what the writer's trying  16 to figure out, what was actually happening in these  17 areas, all seemed to state is that when we deal with  18 static models that are ideal type models of how the  19 society should be operating, and we compare those  20 ideal type models with what's really going on in the  21 ground, we run into problems.  22 Q   Well, look, I want to try to focus you -- maybe you  23 don't understand my question sometimes.  You can ask  24 me if you don't.  But what I'm asking is, is that your  25 statement there is fairly clear.  There's no ambiguity  26 about that statement.  It says "I am generally", I,  27 Dr. Sheila Robinson, "am generally suspicious of  28 writers who tend towards a static or structural  29 treatment of any society."  30 Now, you've referred me to Rosman and Rubel, who  31 set up a model, and I think, if I understand you  32 right, and if I don't you correct me, you say that  33 model is useful, but that there are other writers that  34 may take it as ethnographic fact?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   And that's the danger?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Okay.  But you can't at this point think of any, but  39 there may be some referred to in Margaret Seguin's  40 text, the book that you refer in the introduction to?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   You mean, I just want to be sure, do you mean that  43 that's a collection of articles as I recall?  44 A   Yes, it is.  45 Q   And so some of those articles are what you're  46 referring to or some footnotes to those articles?  47 A   Yes. 21906  S. P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   The articles themselves?  2 A   Yes, I would say the articles themselves.  3 MR. GRANT:   Okay.  4 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, the witness also referred to Marvin  5 Harris', I think, anthology in her collection, if that  6 helps my friend in his searches.  7 MR. WILLMS:  8 Q   Then you say the third sentence into that footnote:  9  10 "As poorly understood as are the processes of  11 change occurring in the protohistoric and early  12 historic eras, the fact that changes were  13 occurring is irrefutable."  14  15 Is that right?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   And that is something that you don't suggest that  18 anyone suggests that changes were not occurring that  19 you know of in that period?  I mean, this is a straw  20 man, Doctor, because nobody that you can think -- or  21 that you can think of suggests that in that period of  22 time, protohistoric and early historic eras, change  23 was not occurring; am I right?  24 A  Well, now I'm fishing for things to pin this to, and I  25 will suggest one, although I'm probably taking us both  26 off onto a bit of a tangent because it may not have  27 been what I intended, but perhaps needs some airing in  28 this context.  Well, two things:  One minor point is  29 that, not quite knowing what the people for whom this  30 report was intended knew about how anthropologists  31 deal with the notion of change, perhaps some of that  32 is just simply addressed to making sure that my point  33 is really well understood.  34 Q   When you say the people to whom it's addressed, you  35 mean your clients?  36 A   Yes, when I was first writing this it was to go to my  37 clients.  38 Q   Right.  Okay.  39 A   But the other -- the other thing that perhaps we  40 should bring up here, because it's something that I  41 haven't been skirting, but I didn't realize until now  42 might need to be explained a bit, is that there are  43 some writers who are suggesting, and I'm going to use  44 Robin Fischer for an example with his book called  45 "Contact and Conflict", who suggests that during the  46 early fur trade years the maritime fur trade and the  47 land base fur trade periods, native cultures generally 21907  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  along the coast of British Columbia were able to keep  control of their culture.  I'm not sure if that's the  phrasing exactly he uses, but Fischer was referring in  statements such as that to works by people like Wilson  Duff and also earlier than that to Joyce Wike.  One of  Duff's works and also Wike's works are listed in my  bibliography.  And both of those writers more or less  perpetuated the theme that the native cultures in B.C.  had not changed during the early maritime fur trade  period.  In my estimation, the notions of change  weren't adequately addressed because change was never  adequately described, and so to some extent I'm  referring to those.  That's Duff and who else?  Joyce Wike.  And Joyce Wike.  And I believe she's listed in the footnotes as well.  Yes.  Joyce Wike, that's this unpublished Ph.D.  dissertation that you reviewed?  Yes.  And that's the one that you're referring to, that  specific reference?  Yes, in light of what I've just said.  Yes.  And with Wilson Duff you've got a number of  references on pages --  "The Impact of the White Man", the 1964 publication,  if it's listed here.  Okay.  Thank you.  Shall we take the afternoon break?  Sure, my lord.  THE REGISTRAR: Order in court.  This court stands adjourned for  the afternoon recess.  (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR THE AFTERNOON 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.  Tanita S. French  Official Reporter  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT 2190?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 3:15 P.M.)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 MR. GRANT:  5 Q   Do you have footnote three in front of you?  6 A   No, I don't.  7 Q   From the report?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Yes.  Page 30?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   I'm referring you to that sentence:  12  13 As poorly understood as are the processes of  14 change occurring in the protohistoric and early  15 historic eras, the fact that changes were  16 occurring is irrefutable.  17  18 A   Yes.  19 Q   When you are talking here about the early historic  20 eras, with respect to your report and your evidence,  21 that would be the period between 1822 and 1860 I think  22 is what -- where your report ends, you said?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   That's what you had said.  In order to determine  25 change, one must -- would you not agree, that one must  26 have some base as to at some point in time the status  27 of the situation?  28 A   Ideally, we would like to.  I don't think there are  29 many circumstances where that base can be established.  30 Q   If you cannot establish the base for change, then you  31 cannot conclude anything about the rate of change, can  32 you?  I'm sorry, if you can't -- if you can't  33 establish that base of the status of something, of a  34 society, you can't determine the rate of change?  35 A   Not necessarily.  36 Q   If you don't know the condition of a society at a  37 particular point, if you don't have any baseline to  38 operate under, how can you analyse the change to the  39 society when you don't know what it's like at the  40 beginning of the "change period"?  And here let's talk  41 about the historic era.  Let's forget about the  42 protohistoric for this discussion.  Don't you need  43 some baseline at the beginning of the historic era so  44 you can determine the rate of change as you go through  45 the historic era?  46 A   I think I answered you and said not necessarily.  And  47 that in an ideal situation a base might be required or 21909  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 desirable, but there are many -- or I can't think of  2 many situations where one could be created except in  3 theory.  4 Q   Well, how can you establish the change if you don't  5 have the base?  You say not necessarily?  6 A  Well, this is one of the perplexing problems for  7 archaeologists generally.  8 Q   And anthropologists?  9 A  And anthropologists.  10 Q   And historians?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   But what you would do is you -- is good  13 anthropologists, good historians and good  14 archaeologists will do everything they can to find out  15 everything about the particular group they are  16 studying, what they can determine about it at that  17 starting point, whatever starting point they choose.  18 That would be true, right?  19 A   That's your opinion.  20 Q   No, it's not my opinion.  I'm suggesting that's  21 correct.  22 A   Good anthropologists, good historians, good  23 geographers do everything they can to?  24 Q   Good archaeologists I said, not geographers.  25 A   I wonder if you could state that again.  26 Q   If you are studying change, you do everything you can  27 as a good scholar to determine the state of the  28 situation at the beginning period of the change.  You  29 do what you can to determine what it was like, right?  30 A   I'm thinking now of examples -- I'm trying to think of  31 specific examples where, say, good archaeologists who  32 are looking at changes and things as specific, for  33 instance, as pottery styles, will not necessarily  34 examine everything there is to know about the cultures  35 in which those potteries are found.  So that sometimes  36 we are looking at aspects of change and not always can  37 baselines be established.  38 Q   But what those good archaeologists looking at pottery  39 changes would do, would find out everything they can  40 about the status of the pottery at the beginning line  41 of the time they are looking at the change, right?  If  42 you are -- like your example, if you are talking about  43 pottery, you are going to find out everything you can  44 about pottery at point one so you can determine the  45 changes in it as it develops.  That's a fair  46 statement, isn't it, Doctor?  47 A   I think in recognition that baselines can often not be 21910  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 established, I would say that in some circumstances  2 those good scholars don't necessarily try to get a  3 comprehensive overview of everything they can possibly  4 find that pertains to that particular society.  So I  5 don't agree with you entirely, but what you are  6 talking about, sounds to me like what might be ideal  7 scholarship.  8 Q   I want you to try to listen to my question.  If you  9 don't understand it, ask me.  I would like you to try  10 to answer my question.  If we are talking about  11 archaeologists studying changes in pottery, your  12 example?  13 A   Yes.  14 Q   They may not study everything about the society.  But  15 what they will do, if they are good archaeologists, is  16 they will try to determine everything they can about  17 the status of the pottery, that item that they are  18 looking at the change in, before -- as part of their  19 research as to the change.  Yes or no?  Am I wrong?  20 You can explain later but tell me, am I right or  21 wrong?  22 A   I think you are wrong.  23 Q   Why?  24 A   Because often we are working back through time to  25 establish a baseline as part of the research goal.  So  26 that the end point might be -- or the end points or  27 the ends in time might be the things that are better  28 known than the earlier part of the sequence.  And  29 again, I'll say that baselines are particularly  30 problematic.  It's going back is the harder part of  31 the exercise more often than not.  32 Q   Okay.  Let's -- I see what you are saying.  Good  33 point.  34 A   So your baseline might be up here.  35 Q   Yeah.  Let's talk about our pottery now.  So the  36 archaeologist is trying to study the changes in  37 pottery from time A to time B.  What you are now  38 telling me is I'm wrong because I say they wouldn't go  39 and look at what's there at time A, the earlier time,  40 they would start at time B, okay, and then work -- you  41 are saying they would work backwards because they  42 would have better data, that's what you are telling  43 me?  44 A   Sometimes.  45 Q   Sometimes.  Well, in your hypothetical -- let's say  46 that in this case they do have better data for time  47 B, the later date, than the earlier date.  They would 21911  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 find out everything they could about pottery at time B  2 in order to progress the change back, if they were  3 doing good scholarship.  Is that not true?  4 A   Not necessarily.  Because depending on those variables  5 that they were investigating, that they thought might  6 help them explain the change, they would be looking at  7 those aspects of the pottery represented at point B.  8 And part of the selection of those aspects at point B  9 would be depending on what had been turning up at  10 point A that might relate to point B.  So it's a  11 selective kind of thing and it's not necessarily  12 comprehensive, I think, in the way that you are  13 suggesting.  14 Q   Is pottery a good example for what I'm trying to deal  15 with here or would you like to deal with something  16 else?  I'm talking about a --  17 A   I'm not sure what we are discussing.  18 Q   A study of change.  A study of change.  If -- if a  19 historian wants to study -- let's take something you  20 are more familiar with, the rate of change in the  21 transport of sea-otter furs from time A to time B.  Or  22 a cultural geographer.  It is good scholarship to  23 study how many furs and all -- get all of the  24 information relating to the furs for time A, or  25 starting at time B, and then work either forward or  26 backward, right?  27 A   Yes, that sounds good.  28 Q   Okay.  And in an ideal world, if you are studying the  29 rate of change of society, it would be good to do the  30 same scholarship, right, when I --  31 A   The rate of change in a society?  32 Q   The changes in a society.  You ideally would like to  33 get a baseline at some point in time within your study  34 time period.  If you are looking at a rate of change  35 over time, you understand that -- you understand  36 that's what I'm talking about, a rate of change over  37 time?  38 A   I'm not sure what we are measuring is changing at a  39 rate.  40 Q   I'm sorry.  Maybe the rate is confusing to you.  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   Yes, sorry.  The change in a society, okay?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   You are measuring changes in a society.  And ideally,  45 you would get all of the information about the society  46 at -- at a beginning point or at an end point and work  47 forward or backward.  You would get a base of what the 21912  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 society was like so then you could analyse what the  2 changes were?  3 A  And as I've said a couple of times, the baseline  4 business is sometimes the most problematic part of  5 that whole investigation.  6 Q   If you are doing the earlier one first?  7 A   If you are -- if you are trying to establish something  8 that's fixed.  9 Q   I understand.  It's not easy, right?  10 A  At any time.  11 Q   It's not easy when you are talking about a society,  12 that's what you are telling me?  13 A   Yes, I'm telling you that.  14 Q   And in fact, sometimes you just can't do it.  It's  15 hard, right, that's what you are saying?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   But you try, if you are doing good scholarship, you  18 use what data you can get your hands on if you are  19 doing good scholarship?  20 A   Not necessarily.  21 Q   So how can you tell the change if you don't have some  22 base to work from?  You just make up a theory about  23 it?  24 A   No.  This is one of the really problematic parts of  25 anthropology or anthropological research or geographic  26 research.  27 Q   Or ethnohistory?  28 A   Or ethnohistory.  Baselines are particularly  29 problematic, and sometimes the best scholars can do is  30 look at aspects of those processes of change.  31 Establishing rates of change is very problematic.  32 Q   And Bishop and Ray in their treatise that you cite,  33 give some guidelines for this, don't they?  They tell  34 you and they critique that you shouldn't -- that the  35 problem with this is that you should go to archival  36 sources.  You should use the archival source for the  37 earliest historical records if you are studying a  38 society at early times.  Isn't that the nub of Bishop  39 and Ray's treatise that you cited?  40 A   I believe that's what they say, yes.  41 Q   That's the —  42 A   That's what Bishop and Ray say, yes.  43 Q   And you do not disagree with that?  44 A  Well, they are certainly entitled to their scholarly  45 opinions as well.  I am not going to say right now  46 that I agree with everything in Bishop and Ray's  47 article without having an opportunity to review it. 21913  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 Q   And I think that's very fair.  2 A   Thank you.  3 Q   But what I'm saying to you, is that their central  4 thesis is that if you are going to do good ethnology,  5 good ethnohistorical work, that one of the problems  6 that has been going on in the past is that those in  7 the ethnology field have not relied on sufficiently  8 available archival data.  They critique that, right?  9 A   I think so.  10 Q   And you think -- and what I proposed to you is not  11 that everything they say in their treatise is right or  12 wrong right now, but you agree that that's true?  13 A   That has value, yes, certainly.  14 Q   The next sentence of footnote three says, "Gitksan and  15 Wet'suwet'en societies were never static." That's --  16 this is your opinion?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   This is the one we don't have any references for?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And what is your foundation for that opinion?  21 A   I think that sentence is in reference to the fact that  22 any human, are living in societies that are not  23 static.  That there is change going on with birth,  24 with death, with relations with neighbours changing,  25 with goings on in households changing, with changes in  26 membership, and so on.  That's a reference to the fact  27 that things are always in flux, for any society, any  28 human society.  29 Q   Any living human society, that is true.  30 A   Yes.  And it's a reference to the fact that human  31 societies are dynamic, ongoing processes, constantly.  32 All societies.  33 Q   And that's a truism?  34 A   I believe so.  35 Q   You can't think of anybody that would disagree with  36 that in your field?  37 A   No, I can't.  38 Q   And I have page 3 -- or page 2 of your report, and the  39 other -- so if you have them beside each other because  40 I'm going back and forth a little.  41 I asked you about traditional in this context --  42 and this is the "romantic 'snapshot' stasis" context.  43 You say, the last sentence of that  44 paragraph, my lord:  45  46 The Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en claims about  47 "traditionally" having owned and managed 21914  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 certain territories are questionable.  2  3 And here you've explained "traditionally" as the  4 "pristine", that is, the pristine society, and I think  5 that's another description of, really, of a static  6 picture?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Right.  Well, let's -- if we all agree that no society  9 is pristine and ideal, let's take out that word  10 "traditionally", in this context, and I ask you this:  11 Is it your opinion that:  12  13 In this context, Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  14 claims about... having owned and managed certain  15 territories are questionable.  16  17 A   I'm not sure I want to take out the word  18 "traditionally" quite so hastily.  19 Q   I'm sure you don't, because if you use "traditionally"  20 interchangeably with "pristine", and now we've brought  21 it to your footnote, Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  22 societies running static, I don't think that anybody  23 is disputing that.  Human societies are evolved.  But  24 I'm saying this is something different here now.  You  25 are saying:  26  27 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en claims about... having  28 owned and managed certain territories are  29 questionable.  30  31 I'm asking you what is your foundation for that  32 opinion?  33 A   I won't take the word "traditionally" out.  And --  34 Q   Leave the word "traditionally" in.  35 A   Thank you.  36 Q   And tell me what is the foundation for that opinion?  37 What are your sources for that opinion?  38 A  What I'm saying is that in light of my context in  39 which I both refer to indirect European influence  40 having had a substantial impact on northern  41 northwestern American societies from the late 17th --  42 18th -- now I'm getting confused with dates.  From the  43 mid-17th century onward.  44 Q   The mid-17th century?  45 A   No.  I'm just flipping around in dates now.  Mid-18th  4 6 century onward.  Let me go back and see how I worded  47 it in this paragraph, please.  But in the context 21915  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 where I've been discussing indirect European influence  2 and in context with my feeling that there are ongoing  3 changes always, and that I believe that those changes  4 were accelerated during the protohistoric era, I think  5 it's questionable that maps showing traditional land  6 use that are discrete can be questioned.  7 Q   What do you mean by "traditional land use"?  8 A   I mean those maps referring to discrete and definite  9 areas as they have been laid out.  10 Q   What do you mean by "traditional land use"?  11 A  Any way that people prior to European contact used the  12 land in which they were situated.  13 Q   So "traditional" means "prehistoric" now?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   What is the source for your opinion in that sentence?  16 A   The source for the opinion in that sentence is based  17 on my general understanding based on a fairly  18 extensive reading.  I'm sorry, I don't quite  19 understand your question.  20 Q   Well, I'm going to try to make it a bit easier.  The  21 next sentence is where you describe it:  22  23 This report is based on a review and  24 interpretation of existing information, largely  25 contained in secondary sources, both published  26 and unpublished, concerning the Gitksan and  27 Carrier.  28  29 And you refer to "other northwest coast and interior  30 native groups."  Now, we are talking here about the  31 Gitksan and Carrier, Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   What is your source for your conclusion?  34 A  Well, the source for my conclusion "is based on a  35 review and interpretation of existing information,  36 largely contained in secondary sources, both published  37 and unpublished, concerning the Gitksan and Carrier."  38 Q   Refer me to one?  39 A  Well, I would like to have a look at my dissertation  40 and I can list you most of the sources in that  41 bibliography that relate to this.  42 Q   Okay.  Let's see if we can help you there.  This is  43 your dissertation.  Because you focused on your work  44 on your dissertation, right?  45 A   Yes.  My opinion about this matter is largely based on  46 my review in -- largely expressed in chapter III of my  47 dissertation which is a review of the traditional 21916  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  socioeconomies of the northern northwest coast  Indians, including not only the Haida and Tlingit but  also the coast Tsimshian and some of the interior  groups in addition.  THE COURT:  Sorry, some of the interior groups?  THE WITNESS:  In addition to the Haida and Tlingit focus.  THE COURT:  Thank you.  MR. GRANT:  Q   Let's look at page 507 of your dissertation where your  "Works Cited" starts.  A   Yes.  Q   It starts with A?  A   Yes.  Q   Is Adams cited?  A   No, Adams is not.  We've discussed that, haven't we.  Q   No, we have discussed it -- we have discussed it and  you weren't sure.  You wanted to check, you wanted to  be sure?  A   Yes.  Adams is not there.  Q   Right.  Okay, here you go.  Show me which source or  sources in your dissertation refer to -- you want  chapter III.  Chapter III isn't in that volume.  A   No, that's right.  Q   Do you want chapter III?  A   I would like the bibliography as well.  Q   Okay.  Just flip over to the bibliography if you  would, and I'll give you chapter III as well and it  will be easier for you.  Chapter III, entitled "The Traditional  Socioeconomies of the Haida and Tlingit Indians."  This is the chapter we are talking about, right?  A   Yes, it is.  Q   And let me just -- so -- because I haven't put it all  in the record.  You say:  Chapter III describes the traditional  socioeconomies of the Haida and Tlingit  Indians, placing particular emphasis on their  economic arrangements.  And that's a fair -- it goes on to describe other  aspects of it, and I'll be fair.  It reviews ethnographic information to provide  a context for analyzing the role of indigenous  tobacco.  Understanding how tobacco cultivation  was scheduled with other productive activities 21917  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 as well as how tobacco served as a prestigious  2 commodity in intergroup exchange helps explain  3 why tobacco was grown and why it was probably  4 scarce within the northern coastal region  5 before European contact.  6  7 Is that right?  And then it says:  8  9 Chapter III also provides the basis for  10 discussions about early post-contact  11 developments in the socioeconomies of the  12 Tlingit and Haida Indians, as well as the  13 significance of their agricultural activities,  14 in following chapters.  15  16 And that's your first paragraph of your  17 introduction on page 74 of your dissertation, and  18 that's a -- well, it's part of the introduction, it's  19 a synopsis of chapter III.  And then you go on to talk  20 about the five sections, et cetera?  21 A   Yes.  And in light of the kind of conversation we are  22 having now, I think I should just mention that part of  23 the introductory paragraphs, you might want to read  24 from some of this passage which shows how aspects of  25 this review touches on other groups, and it's not -- I  26 would say from -- to a considerable extent to the  27 bottom of that paragraph, shows how the Haida and  28 Tlingit are not just considered alone but are also  29 thrown into the context of the other neighbouring  30 native groups.  31 Q   Okay.  Now just -- and I'm wondering if it may be  32 easier if I just arranged to copy this rather than  33 read it, that's all, but I don't oppose -- if you like  34 me to read it now, I will.  35 A   I think it's just as good to put it in with the other  36 stuff.  37 Q   Okay.  This would be on page 75, the third chapter --  38 or the third paragraph of the introduction to chapter  39 III.  And you state:  40  41 To a considerable extent, the review of  42 traditional Haida and Tlingit socioeconomies  43 also describes the cultural organization of the  44 Tsimshian Indians, who complete the list of the  45 three major cultural and linguistic divisions  46 of segmentary societies within the northern  47 Northwest Coast region. 2191?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 And the Tsimshian Indians that you are referring  2 to there are the Coastal Tsimshian, aren't they?  3 A   No.  I'm talking about the Tsimshian.  4 Q   Oh.  Okay.  5  6 In many respects, these three tribal divisions  7 can be considered culturally homogeneous.  8  9 Well, when you say you are referring to the  10 Tsimshian, are you meaning you are referring to the  11 Gitksan as part of them?  12 A   In the sense that Garfield defines them as such, yes.  13 Q   Are you saying that the Gitksan are culturally  14 homogeneous with the Tlingit and the Haida?  15 A   I'm saying in many respects these three tribal  16 divisions can be considered culturally homogeneous.  17 Q   Are you saying in many respects the Gitksan are  18 culturally homogeneous with the Tlingit and the Haida?  19 A   In many respects.  20 Q   I've said that.  21 A   Yes.  22 Q  23 This unity, based on their shared recognition  24 of matrilineally-organized exogamous moiety  25 subdivisions, underscores the fundamental  26 importance of inter-tribal exchange, which  27 bound these groups together in common  28 interests.  29  30 Then you go on:  31  32 Similarly, aspects of this review touch upon  33 the interior groups in southern Yukon Territory  34 and in northern British Columbia because some  35 of the coastal Tlingit and Tsimshian Indians  36 traded actively into the interior.  The  37 Athabascan Tagish, Tutchone, and Tahltan, as  38 well as the inland Tlingit and Tsimshians  39 living along the Nass and Skeena Rivers also  40 shared the basic two-part moiety structures  41 regulating real and putative kinship relations.  42  43 Relating that sentence in the context of when you  44 combine the Tsimshian with the Tlingit and the Haida,  45 in fact, the earlier reference is to the coastal  46 Tsimshian, isn't it, and it's later on that you are  47 making a reference to the inland groups where you say, 21919  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 "The Athabascan Tagish, Tutchone, and Tahltan, as well  2 as the inland Tlingit and Tsimshians living along the  3 Nass and Skeena Rivers"?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   So I was correct?  6 A   Yes, you were.  7 Q  8 As well, they emphasized wealth accumulation  9 for status recognition and achievement.  These  10 groups enter into this group in section D's  11 discussion of interregional and intercultural  12 exchange.  13  14 Now, my question is, if we can both remember it,  15 looking at page 2 of your opinion report, you say:  16  17 Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en claims about  18 traditionally having owned and managed certain  19 territories are questionable.  20  21 And I'm -- I've asked you, what are your sources for  22 your conclusions with respect to the Gitksan and  23 Wet'suwet'en?  And you've said, "I need to look at my  24 bibliography in chapter III," and you have it in front  25 of you.  And I would like you to answer my question?  26 A   Oh yes, I will answer your question.  I would like to  27 take a bit of time with it.  28 Q   Sure.  29 A   It might take me a moment or so to read this and do  30 some review of that, because there are --  31 Q   Do you want me to leave this area and give you some  32 time so you don't have to just sit here and read it  33 while we watch?  That's fine.  I don't want to press  34 you in that way.  35 Q   Well, it's a lengthy chapter and there are passages in  36 the chapter of that dissertation that relate directly  37 to the matters we are discussing here.  But I think  38 that if we were simply to reiterate all the  39 references, that would be doing all of us an  40 injustice.  So perhaps I should review that.  41 Q   But you can't tell me today a single source that you  42 rely on in support of the last sentence of that  43 paragraph on page 2 of your opinion report without  44 doing this?  I mean you can't think of a single one?  45 A  Well, I think the point I would like to make is that  46 it's not based on a single one, and it's based on my  47 scholarly opinion which is largely based on an 21920  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  A  MR.  extensive review of the literature.  And to single out  any particular source would do not only the author of  that piece an injustice but me as well, because I've  spent some time thinking about these matters.  In your earlier drafts?  This is the opinion I've come to on the basis of my  knowledge of the protohistoric period and, also, my  awareness that static portrayals of societies are  inappropriate.  But it's based on a lot of the reading  that's at the base of the dissertation as well as  materials that are in this opinion report.  Q   Don't get me wrong.  When I said "single source" I'm  not suggesting you only have one, but I'm trying to  think if we can -- if there is anything you can think  of, that's what I meant.  WILLMS:  Well my lord, if my friend -- we had days and days  of the witness talking about referring to the areas to  the north, the west, the east, the south, and that  area, and they're all in a reference list.  So I don't  know what he is getting at.  Maybe the witness doesn't  either.  I'm lost.  I don't know what his question  means.  Well, what I'm troubled by is that part, more --  whether this isn't a matter for argument.  Are the  thoughts the witness has expressed supported in the  writings in her bibliography or aren't they?  The bibliography to her opinion report or to --  Or anywhere?  Well, you see that's my difficulty.  If it was the  bibliography to her opinion report I would have a lot  less difficulty here, but she keeps taking me to other  things and I'm not --  Well, I think your questions are taking her to the  things that she is taking you to.  She wouldn't be  doing it without your questions.  But what I'm -- what  I am troubled by -- and I know that this is a  different kind of trial -- but in the ordinary course  of events -- and my antenna starts to quiver when  witnesses are required to go and do research.  Firstly, they are not required to do that and  secondly, if it is necessary, then I immediately sense  that we are out of litigation and into some wider  investigation.  And what I suggest for counsel's consideration is  that the questions might be framed in such a way so  that we know what the witness is saying.  And it's for  counsel, with their resources at argument, to point  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT  MR. GRANT  THE COURT 21921  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  THE COURT:  mR. GRANT:  Q  A  out that what the witness is saying is supported or is  not supported by the references which have -- under  the broad permission I have given to counsel in this  case -- to be treated as almost as part of the  evidence.  It -- to have the witness go off and do  this research really amounts to the witness  participating in the argument, does it not?  Well, with respect, I think I would like to speak to  that, my lord.  I mean this sentence that I'm  referring to is an opinion of this witness, okay.  The  normal -- it's the opinion that's been filed in this  court.  It goes to the -- directly to the -- to one of  the central issues of the case.  Yes.  And it seems to me that she can be challenged  on that in a number of ways.  But if the method chosen  is to see what support there is for it elsewhere, then  it seems to me that she should be asked where is the  support.  Pin her down as far as she can be pinned in  that regard, and then it becomes counsel's job.  Oh, I agree that if I get some reference from her as  to where the support for that proposition is, other  than -- then yes, I do agree.  I don't think it's a  question -- we don't have to go on with this.  But my  difficulty is that if I have no idea where this is  coming from.  With all this enlightenment, why don't we just carry  on with the cross-examination.  Are there any sources that you can refer me to in  support of the proposition in the last sentence in the  middle paragraph on page 2?  Well, perhaps the most straightforward way of  answering that is to refer us all back to those lists  of authors in support of the general proposition that  the protohistoric did have significant influence on  the relationship between coast interior groups, all  the way from the northern Tlingit area down to  approximately the Bella Coola area on the coast, and  their adjacent neighbours.  And I can cite those  sources that I've used in support of developing this  opinion, ranging from -- and I believe I did this  before with Mr. Willms.  De Laguna, Oberg, McClellan,  Bishop, Jenness, Steward, Mike Cranny, Tobey,  MacLachlan, and I think they are -- there is a handful  of them, and perhaps I haven't got them all on the  list, but we've talked about these repeatedly; these  other scholars who have recognized that there are 21922  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2  3  Q  4  5  6  7  MR. WILLM  8  9  10  11  THE WITNE  12  13  MR. GRANT  14  Q  15  16  A  17  Q  18  A  19  20  Q  21  A  22  Q  23  A  24  25  Q  26  27  28  29  30  A  31  32  Q  33  34  A  35  Q  36  37  38  A  39  Q  40  41  42  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  Q  47  A  similar kinds of developments going on.  And  Kobrinsky.  Has anyone -- has any other scholar in the field  concluded that ownership of territories by the Gitksan  and Wet'suwet'en or the Gitksan or Wet'suwet'en, are  questionable in the prehistoric times?  3:  That's not the -- the opinion was "traditional", my  lord.  My friend keeps trying to cross the word  "traditional" out there and the witness is reluctant  to do that.  3S:  I don't know.  I don't think so.  Perhaps  Kobrinsky's work relates to that directly.  Other than Kobrinsky there is none that you can think  of?  Adams.  And Adams ?  I believe as well.  Garfield refers to it but not  as --  With respect to the Gitksan?  Not as directly.  Yes.  With respect to the Gitksan?  Yes.  When she talks about the Tsimshian, she includes  the Gitksan in her study of the Tsimshian.  And she concludes that prehistoric -- that's why I'm  not using the word "traditional" because you've  understood what I mean there.  Prehistoric ownership  and management of the territories by the Gitksan and  Wet'suwet'en are questionable?  I don't know if she concludes that.  I think that she  supports my conclusion of that.  There is something that's in hers that you can take  out and extrapolate from?  No.  That lends support to.  Okay.  I can't recall if you have said whether or not  you reviewed any of the evidence of the lay witnesses  in this case?  I don't think so.  Okay.  And I just to be -- I think that's what you did  say the other day, but just to be clear, there was  evidence given in advance of your report by way of  commission?  Yes.  By Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en lay witnesses?  Yes.  You are aware of that?  I was aware of some, yes. 21923  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  A  3  Q  4  A  5  Q  6  7  THE  COURT  8  9  10  MR.  GRANT  11  Q  12  13  A  14  Q  15  A  16  Q  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  THE  COURT  29  30  MR.  GRANT  31  THE  COURT  32  MR.  GRANT  33  THE  COURT  34  MR.  GRANT  35  Q  36  A  37  38  THE  COURT  39  MR.  GRANT  40  Q  41  42  THE  COURT  43  44  THE  WITNE  45  THE  COURT  46  MR.  GRANT  47  THE  WITNE  Did you review any of that?  No.  Either before or after the preparation of your report?  No.  Do you have an extra tab, my lord?  I think you should  have a tab 25.  Yes, I have an extra tab 25.  (EXHIBIT 1191-25 - Extract from Cultures of the North  Pacific Coast by Philip Drucker)  I would like to make a reference here.  You are  familiar with Drucker's book, aren't you, Doctor?  Yes.  Yesterday you raised something about disease?  Yes.  Or maybe I did.  I would like you to turn to page 197  of Drucker's Cultures of the North Pacific Coast, the  bottom of that page.  And you can see in the middle  paragraph, the paragraph immediately above:  One force toward change of this period,  which has been mentioned in other connections,  was the concentration of groups about the sites  of trading posts -- Fort Rupert, Fort  McLoughlin, and Fort Simpson.  Now, in this -- he is generally talking --  Sorry, I don't know where those places are.  Where  is Fort Rupert?  That's, I believe, on Alert -- Port Hardy.  Oh, Port Hardy.  Yes, yes.  And Fort Simpson is North of Prince Rupert.  Yes.  And Fort McLoughlin?  Do you recall that, Doctor?  Yes, I do.  It's the fort associated with modern Bella  Bella and it was first established in 1834.  I remember Bella Bella.  Now, Drucker here, he is dealing with the North  Pacific Coast?  I'm sorry, that was an interesting addition.  When  was it established?  SS:  1834, I believe.  My sister was born in Bella Bella.  I can ask some more about it, my lord.  SS:  William Tolmie's diaries from the first few years 21924  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 are printed and quite interesting.  2 THE COURT:  Thank you.  3 MR. GRANT:  4 Q   Am I right about Fort Simpson just being north of  5 Prince Rupert?  6 A   Fort Simpson?  7 Q   Yes?  8 A   No.  Fort Simpson is the fort I associate -- well,  9 there were two locations for it.  It was first  10 established on the Nass and then moved slightly south.  11 Q   But both of those are on the coast just north of  12 Prince Rupert?  The mouth of the Nass?  13 A   Sorry, I thought you said Fort Rupert.  Yes, Prince  14 Rupert, yes.  15 THE COURT:  Well, which is the one you are talking about?  On  16 the Nass?  17 THE WITNESS:  That was the first Fort Simpson, and then it was  18 relocated because it was seen not to be a very  19 advantageous place to pursue the trade.  2 0    MR. GRANT:  21 Q   Okay.  Now, the last paragraph -- this is a  22 well-recognized treatise by Drucker, isn't it?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   He states:  25  2 6 One accompaniment of Indian-white contact  27 had more far-reaching results than any instance  28 of cultural diffusion: the introduction of  29 various diseases.  There are a number of  30 reports of prevalence of venereal disease among  31 the Indians at early dates, and there appear to  32 have been some localized smallpox epidemics,  33 but the first devastating smallpox epidemic  34 probably occurred in the middle 1830's.  35 Several others in later years cut back the  36 native population drastically.  The full  37 cultural implications of these disasters has  38 not been analyzed in detail, but there is no  39 question that they have been far-reaching.  40  41 You have no reason to dispute what Drucker states  42 there, do you?  43 A   The interpretation -- yes, I do.  I would say the  44 interpretation of the impact of European diseases on  45 any native populations in northwestern North America  46 is problematic.  We don't, for instance, know how  47 various kinds of epidemics may have affected the 21925  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 demographic profile of any one village or any group of  2 villages.  We don't know very much about how diseases  3 spread, different kinds of diseases spread.  We are  4 left with accounts of depopulation in various places  5 and we can tie certain dates to some epidemics.  But  6 it's a very tricky area, the whole notion of -- or not  7 the notion.  It certainly was accepted there were  8 European diseases being introduced to areas, but the  9 impact that they had on native societies is not very  10 well understood.  And a lot of very serious  11 scholarship has been devoted to trying to figure this  12 stuff out, but I would say it's still a very  13 problematic area.  And in light of that, I would say  14 that his statement that the diseases had more far-  15 reaching results than any instance of cultural  16 diffusion is one that simply can't be made.  It's an  17 opinion but it's based on problematic information.  18 Q   An opinion by one of the most learned scholars in the  19 field of ethnology in the study of the North Pacific  20 Coast?  21 A  Writing almost a quarter of a century ago here.  22 Q   Yes.  Twenty-four years ago?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   What sources do you rely on in support of your -- that  25 you're disputing of him?  What studies have you done  26 that gives you the foundation to make that opinion?  27 In other words, what source?  28 A   To make the opinion about the impact of European  29 diseases on Indians?  30 Q   When I say that, what sources did you refer to?  31 A  Well, excuse me, now that I have my bigger  32 bibliography in front of me, I can consult it.  I  33 think we made reference earlier to Boyd's work and to  34 Hajda, that was listed in a bibliography.  Those are  35 two people that have addressed the issue of  36 post-contact depopulations and so on.  Fisher also  37 makes mention of this in Contact and Conflict, but I  38 don't remember right now what his observations were  39 except that he probably does give some additional  40 reference in his footnotes.  41 Q   Boyd, that was, I think, an unpublished thesis?  42 A  A dissertation.  He has a Ph.D.  43 Q   A Ph.D. dissertation?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   And you said someone else that I just didn't get the  46 name of.  Not Fisher, the one before?  47 A   No.  Hajda.  Yvonne Hajda.  What is it?  When -- you 21926  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 did give me one of the tabs of excerpts from a letter  2 of mine which had listed about a dozen references, and  3 I think the third item in that was of -- a reference  4 to Yvonne Hajda's thesis.  5 Q   Oh, yes.  The one -- that reference to Boyd's?  6 A   Yes.  7 Q   That one that refers to Boyd?  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Okay, I know what you are talking about.  And Fisher?  10 A   Fisher mentions disease and depopulation.  Joyce Wike  11 does in her thesis.  12 Q   Well, are you saying, Dr. Robinson, that Boyd,  13 Hajda -- that woman -- Fisher, and Wike, all counter  14 the proposition of the far-reaching effects of disease  15 proposed by Drucker in 1965?  16 A   No, I'm not saying they counter them.  I'm saying this  17 is a very problematic issue and I'm offering my own  18 opinion here to say that it's problematic.  I don't  19 accept Drucker's conclusion, if you are suggesting  20 that he is making a conclusive statement here.  But  21 when he does say that disease had a more far-reaching  22 impact than --  23 Q   Cultural diffusion?  24 A   Cultural diffusion.  I'm saying, well, I don't really  25 understand on what basis he is making that claim.  26 Q   But you do not -- these other writers have written  27 about disease but you are not suggesting that Boyd  28 disputes what Drucker has said and establishs that  29 Drucker is wrong, are you?  30 A   I'm not sure what Drucker is basing his -- oh, I'm  31 sorry, I don't remember the details and whether or not  32 Boyd took Drucker on on this point.  33 Q   Right.  Or Fisher took him on?  34 A   On this point, no, I don't remember.  35 Q   Or White?  36 A  Wike, W-I-K-E.  37 Q   Thank you.  Wike, yes.  That's the one that's cited in  38 your bibliography?  39 A   Yes.  In fact, Wike wouldn't have, because her thesis  40 is earlier than the reference here to Drucker.  41 Q   When I say take him on, if --  42 A   Contradicted or disputed his point.  43 Q   Contradicted it?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   So even if it's earlier, I understand.  But you don't  46 have any basis yourself for saying that he is wrong  47 other than it's your opinion? 21927  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Yes.  It's my opinion right now of -- based on an  2 extensive reading, and I could -- I could come up with  3 a literature review, I suppose, if I had to.  But it's  4 my knowledge of the area and my knowledge of what  5 little is known about the dynamics of various kinds of  6 diseases that it's simply not known, it's simply  7 problematic.  8 And if I can give a -- probably to his dismay, a  9 personal communication reference here -- there is a  10 physical anthropologist, Jerry Cybulski, who works --  11 or used to work in association with the national  12 museums.  And I think he would agree with me on this,  13 is that the impact of European diseases is  14 problematic.  We don't know numerically or  15 proportionately what sorts of inroads any one of those  16 various kinds of diseases might have made on any one  17 of the native communities.  18 Q   Okay.  But other than the authors that you've referred  19 to discussed the disease and the impact of disease,  20 but you can't think of any published source or  21 unpublished Ph.D. dissertation that disputes the  22 statement by Drucker, except --  23 A   Not specifically, no.  24 Q   But you have your own opinion on that?  25 A   Yes, I do.  26 Q   Yes, okay.  I just want to be clear about something  27 that may be obvious on footnote three on page 30?  2 8 A   However --  29 Q   Last sentence?  30 A   There is a passage in my dissertation relating to my  31 up-to-date information at that time about populations  32 and the difficulty in reconstructing native  33 populations for the northern coast region, and that  34 would be in chapter III.  35 Q   Um-hmm.  Page 30 of your opinion report.  That's in  36 Part II.  You say, "There are many examples of social  37 and economic changes: wars fought, truces forged."  38 That would be two sides of the same thing you are  39 referring to there, right?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   And, "houses amalgamating, and houses splitting"?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And is that the same thing, different --  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   Two sets?  4 6 A   Comings and goings.  47 Q   Pardon? 2192?  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 A   Comings and goings.  And those are examples of changes  2 that I used here.  3 Q   Fission and fusion of houses?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Could you get -- I believe it's over here.  It's  6 Exhibit 898.  It will be in a book like this.  It's  7 one of three tabs.  8 You would not dispute the proposition that there  9 were wars between the Gitksan -- there were wars  10 before proto-contact?  11 A   No, I think there were.  12 Q   Right?  13 A   In all likelihood.  14 Q   And some of those wars are described in The Men of  15 Medeek?  16 A   Yes, I believe so.  Although the dating of the oral  17 traditions is problematic to know which ones that you  18 are referring to are prehistoric.  19 Q   I'm going to refer you to chapter 6 of The Men of  20 Medeek which is exhibit -- this is one of the ones  21 you've referred to -- I think you've cited it,  22 actually, if I recall rightly.  23 MS. KOENIGSBERG:  What's the exhibit number?  2 4    MR. GRANT:  25 Q   I'm sorry, it's Exhibit 898, chapter 6, "The Final  26 Conflict".  Now, this is in The Men of Medeek.  It's  27 page 184 of Exhibit 898, my lord.  It says:  28  29 Many hundreds of years had passed.  Neaskitlop  30 had been killed and his body cast on the gravel  31 bar.  A new generation of people had grown up  32 since the war with the Haidas.  Githoun --  33  34 Neaskitlop is spelt N-E-A-S-K-I-T-L-O-P.  Githoun,  35 G-I-T-H-O-U-N.  36  37 -- sat in the chair of his forefathers and held  38 the power on the left side of the canyon.  Then  39 came the day when guns came into the land, old  40 flintlocks from the east.  Githoun carried many  41 of these guns and stored them safely away.  The  42 day was coming when they would be used in the  43 war to avenge the death of his ancestor.  44  45 Now, that is an example of an oral history which  46 makes reference to -- at least proto-contact, possibly  47 contact.  You would agree with that? 21929  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  A  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  A  8  Q  9  10  11  12  13  MR. WILLM  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  THE COURT  21  22  23  MR. GRANT  24  Q  25  A  26  27  Q  28  29  30  A  31  Q  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  Q  47  A  Yes.  And just -- this is towards the end, it's page 184 of  The Men of Medeek -- just a moment.  It may be -- yes,  I'm sorry.  It's -- it's page 184 of The Wars of  Medeek, it's the same exhibit number, but they are --  they are broken up?  Um-hmm.  This comes in after all of the other description.  So  if one is to take anything from "the many years had  passed" -- "many hundreds of years had passed," then  that would indicate that earlier sections of Men of  Medeek dealt with pre-contact conflicts.  3:  My lord, that's argument.  I object.  I mean we can  argue this out at the end of the day by looking at the  previous chapters and what's referred to in the  previous chapters.  But that's not a proper question  for the witness.  How we chronologize this is  something that we can do in argument with reference to  what was said previously.  :  Well, that is so.  It would only be permissible if  it were necessary to put the witness in context for  what's to follow.  That's right.  Sorry, you were asking me if that material went  before, chronologically, the --  No.  I'm -- well, you haven't -- you haven't analyzed  this for chronologizing The Men and Wars of Medeek,  have you?  No, I have not.  Okay, that's fine.  I won't go further with that.  Page 4 of your report.  At the top you state:  The term Wet'suwet'en, which is used by the  Plaintiffs in this case, is of very recent  origin and appears to be intended to refer to  those Carrier Indians who inhabited the  villages now known as Hagwilget and Moricetown  on the Bulkley River.  They are described by  Diamond Jenness as the --  How would you pronounce that?  Well, on an anglicized version I would call it the  Hwitsowitenne.  I'm not quite sure what the correct  pronunciation is.  Say it again?  Hwitsowitenne. 21930  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  Q  2  A  3  Q  4  THE  COURT:  5  MR.  GRANT:  6  Q  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  A  23  Q  24  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Q  37  38  39  40  41  THE  COURT:  42  MR.  GRANT:  43  THE  COURT:  44  MR.  GRANT:  45  46  THE  COURT:  47  MR.  GRANT:  And that was in 1943 that he used that term?  Yes.  And then you go to --  Does Madam Reporter have a spelling for that?  The Hwitsowitenne, H-W-I-T-S-O-W-I-T-E-N-N-E.  Now, you go to footnote four and you refer to  Tobey.  At page 30, at the bottom, you state, lines --  three lines up from the bottom:  However, it is clear that the subtribes were  neither corporate kinship groups nor unified  political divisions.  Rather, each subtribe was  identified by its association with a particular  territory and had a name consisting of a place-  name or a description of a place.  Now, by "subtribe" here, in the context of the Tobey  article which is an article on the Carrier, she is  referring to the subgroup such as the Wet'suwet'en,  isn't she?  Yes, I believe so.  And another subgroup of the Carrier is the Ulkatcho  Carrier, isn't it?  Is that right, Doctor?  I would like to see how she has listed them out, all  of them.  But yes, I think so, in terms of her  breakdown of the tribal units.  There is always --  there is some confusion about the use of words like  "subtribe" and "tribe" and the breakdown of various  groups of the Carrier.  And that's -- there has been  quite a lot of not so much contention as in  re-arrangement of those groups.  So I'm not sure if in  Tobey's list Ulkatcho, as Goldman described it, is  equivalent to her use in the term of the  Hwitsowitenne.  Fair enough.  Now, this is an extract from Dyen and Aberle.  Now, my lord -- just a moment, I would ask that this  go in as the first of the two tabs.  It's an extract  from Tobey.  I was only given one tab.  Sorry.  I was only given one tab, tab 26.  Sorry.  If tab 26 could be the Tobey extract, the  second one I'm giving you, and then --  Thank you.  Okay.  Tab 27 would be Dyen and Aberle, the extract 21931  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 which we've all seen before.  Here is a Tobey extract.  2 Okay.  I believe the next tab is 27.  3 THE COURT:  Yes.  Well, Tobey is 26.  4 MR. GRANT:  Tobey is 26, that's right.  And then Dyen and Aberle  5 is 27.  6 THE COURT:  Yes.  7 MR. GRANT:  Thank you, my lord.  8 (EXHIBIT 1191-26 - Extract from Carrier by M.L. Tobey)  9 (EXHIBIT 1191-27 - Extract from Lexical Reconstruction  10 by I. Dyen and D. Aberle)  11 MR. WILLMS:  I might note, my lord, that Tobey appears to have  12 some comments on it.  I don't know whose comments they  13 are.  14 THE COURT:  Well, I'll ignore those.  15 MR. GRANT:  Yes, ignore them, my lord.  It's the only copy I  16 could acquire.  17 MR. WILLMS:  Well, you could have found it at 966-2.  The whole  18 extract is at 966-2.  19 THE COURT:  Thank you.  2 0 MR. GRANT:  21 Q   Well, yes, of course.  I am not asking it in regard to  22 comments, my lord, just the article is what I put it  23 in for.  I didn't have 966-2 in Hazelton.  24 Now, are you with me?  You've got Tobey and you've  25 got Dyen and Aberle, and you've got them where they  26 should be.  Okay.  Now, and if you have -- get your  27 report.  Okay -- okay.  If you could turn over -- I  28 just put the first page of Tobey on so you knew what  29 that was about.  It was -- I mean that it was that  30 article.  And at page 418, and I just like you to  31 start at the bottom.  "Culture.  Social Organization",  32 you see that?  33 A   418?  34 Q   Yes?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   Right-hand column, two lines from the bottom, "The  37 Potlatch-Rank Complex":  38  39 THE POTLATCH-RANK COMPLEX   According to  40 Goldman and Steward, adoption of the  41 potlatch-rank complex entailed, among the  42 Northern Carrier, a shift in the descent system  43 from bilateral to matrilineal.  The Gitksan  44 were divided into clans and phratries based on  45 the principle of matrilineal descent, and it  46 was this system (with important variations)  47 that the Northern Carrier subtribes adopted. 21932  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 However, the Bella Coola recognized the  2 principle of bilateral descent, and their  3 ambilineal corporate kinship groups, "ancestral  4 families," were composed of individuals who had  5 chosen to activate membership in an ancestral  6 family either through the maternal or paternal  7 line.  Thus, according to Goldman, the Bella  8 Coola were instrumental in maintaining an  9 emphasis on bilaterality among the Southern  10 Carrier (primarily Ulkatcho) with whom they  11 traded and intermarried.  12  13 So, now that helps to answer the question that --  14 where she is referring to Ulkatcho --  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   -- it's Goldman.  But then she goes on to say -- and  17 just so that we are clear, you rely, of course, on  18 Goldman and Steward among others?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   Because this thesis here, this presentation here is  21 consistent with your theory -- I shouldn't say  22 because.  This -- their theory is consistent with your  23 theory?  24 A   Yes, I used their materials in support of some of the  25 arguments I was making.  2 6 Q   Thank you.  27  28 A fundamentally different view of the  29 changes in Carrier sociopolitical organization  30 is offered by Dyen and Aberle (1974: 410-418).  31  32 And are you familiar with that?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And that part of it?  35 A   Not specifically -- not without some recollection, but  36 yes, I've got some familiarity with Dyen and Aberle.  37 Q   Okay.  38  39 Based on their lexical reconstruction of the  40 Proto-Athapaskan kinship system, they suggest  41 that the Carrier (and most Athapaskans) were  42 originally matrilineal, that only the potlatch-  43 rank complex and not the matrilineal descent  44 rule was adopted by the Northern Carrier, and  45 that the Southern Carrier lost the rule or  46 matrilineal descent under Bella Coola  47 influence. 21933  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  2 Now, in fact, there is nothing in Dyen and Aberle  3 that suggests that the potlatch-rank complex was  4 adopted by the Northern Carrier, is there?  5 A   I don't think that's correct.  6 Q   You don't think what I've said is correct?  7 A   No, I do not.  8 Q   Okay.  9 A  And I just -- this is a simplistic explanation,  10 because Dyen and Aberle is pretty heavy going for  11 someone that is not familiar with linguistics, as I am  12 not.  All I would like --  13 Q   I want you to --  14 A  All I would like to say —  15 Q   No, just wait.  Just wait.  16 THE COURT:  No, no, no.  Let her finish.  17 A   Is that the business of whether or not the  18 Proto-Athabaskans or the Athapaskans had a matrilineal  19 principle is not critical to the development of the  20 opinion I expressed in my report.  What is important  21 is that they did agree, in my reading of Dyen and  22 Aberle, that the potlatch-rank complex was introduced  23 and this is how it's described here by Tobey.  And so  24 this is why I say that Dyen and Aberle are not out of  25 keeping with the general interpretation I've offered  26 with my opinion report.  And earlier, I referred to  27 some pages that might help clarify that on pages 250  28 to 252, I believe, and 274 to 276, in Dyen and Aberle,  29 that support not only the proposition that the  30 northwest coast influence on the interior groups was  31 somewhat intensified as a result of the European fur  32 trade, but also that there were substantial  33 protohistoric developments occurring right through the  34 northwestern North American region.  35 So I take exception to the notion that Dyen and  36 Aberle are contrary to the views I express, simply  37 because they are talking about a matrilineal rather  38 than a bilateral or patrilineal basis.  They are  39 talking about a time period somewhat earlier than the  40 time period I am addressing.  And also, they assemble  41 the arguments on both sides of this and say it's not  42 conclusive either way, but that they go to the  43 matrilineal end of things in order to develop further  44 arguments along that line.  But even those authors  45 will say that it's not conclusive one way or the  46 other, whether or not there was a Proto-Athabaskan  47 matrilineal principle. 21934  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1  MR. GRANT  2  Q  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  A  23  24  Q  25  A  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Q  34  35  36  A  37  Q  38  39  40  41  A  42  THE COURT  43  MR. GRANT  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  De Laguna also believes that matrilineality may  be very ancient among Athapaskans.  Her  excellent comparison of matrilineal kinship  institutions, particularly clan, moiety, and  phratry names, in northwestern North America  neither proves nor negates such a possibility  but offers synthesized data for further study.  This interpretation certainly deserves  investigation, but the more widely held view of  the changes in Carrier social organization is  the basis for analysis in this chapter.  And in that last sentence, you would agree that  "the more widely held view of the changes in Carrier  social organization is the basis for analysis in this  chapter."  That is, that Tobey doesn't -- does not  deal any further with either Dyen and Aberle's  proposition or De Laguna's proposition that she is  referring to there?  Well -- and as I'll continue with the kinds of  comments I was making with Dyen and Aberle --  Well, answer my question first.  De Laguna did -- well, just De Laguna did put together  an excellent synthesis and she also said that it  didn't -- it wasn't conclusive one way or the other,  the origins of matrili (phonetics).  But yes, I think  Tobey did not further deal with these two specifically  along the lines of the antiquity of matrili for that  area because that was not what she was concerning the  rest of her article with.  Do you agree that the interpretation of De Laguna and  Dyen and Aberle as explained there by Tobey is  deserving of further investigation?  Certainly.  Yes.  Now, did you investigate the data on which De  Laguna refers in support of her concept of  matrilineality and social organization at a much  earlier date among the Wet'suwet'en?  No, I did not.  :  How are you getting along, Mr. Grant?  :  Actually, I wish I was getting along more than I  was, my  lord.  My lord, I am not going to be able to  complete today even if we extend.  I am moving but I  am not going to be able to complete.  :  All right.  Well, I was thinking earlier this 21935  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  afternoon that we ran into the same problem with Miss  Albright, and I think perhaps we ought to adjourn.  I  would like to finish the witness but I don't think  that it's going to be too likely that we can do so in  a civilized way.  So I take it that you are going to  be available in a week's time, are you?  THE WITNESS:  I guess I'll have to be.  THE COURT:  Well, if you were going to the Club Med somewhere I  would think you might give it some priority.  THE WITNESS:  No, my lord, I don't have any plans for such  elaborate things.  THE COURT:  All right.  I think we should adjourn to a week  Monday or a week Tuesday?  MR. GRANT:  I think —  THE COURT:  When is the holiday?  MR. GRANT:  The holiday is the 13th I think, so it would be  the —  THE COURT:  So it's a week Monday then.  MR. GRANT:  Yes.  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, we would like to know — I talked to my  friend briefly before and he said definitely not  longer than two days.  He thought he could complete in  a day.  I would like to know whether or not that is  still his estimate, because we have other matters to  schedule and we also -- I recall your lordship  suggested some difficulties that you have.  Well, I need that time, but it's obvious I'm not  going to get it.  I'm still assuming we are not going  to be more than another day, are we, Mr. Grant?  My lord, as I said to my friend, my objective is to  be another day.  THE COURT:  Your objective is to be another day?  MR. GRANT:  My objective is to be no longer than another day.  And he said, "What's the outside?"  And I said "Well,  some things you can't predict."  And he said, "Well,  is two days the maximum?"  And I said, "Well, I think  given that my objective is one day, that that's true."  THE COURT:  Yes.  MR. GRANT:  I would like very much to be completed in another  day.  I don't want to --  THE COURT:  Well, I think —  MR. GRANT:  And I have the time now to reassess in light of the  evidence and be able to, as they say --  THE COURT:  Well, I think —  MR. GRANT:  — work towards that.  THE COURT:  I think Mr. Goldie can be informed we won't resume  the reading until Tuesday morning a week after next,  THE COURT  MR. GRANT 21936  S.P. Robinson (for Province)  Cross-exam by Mr. Grant  1 and I would hope that he can resume at that time.  2 These matters must all be ones of wishful belief and  3 that's as high as we can elevate it, I think.  So we  4 will adjourn until a week Monday and we will resume  5 with the cross-examination of the witness at that  6 time.  7 MR. GRANT:  Thank you, my lord.  8 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  This court stands adjourned  9 until November 6 at 10:00 a.m.  10  11 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M.)  12  13 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  14 a true and accurate transcript of the  15 proceedings herein transcribed to the  16 best of my skill and ability.  17  18  19  20  21  22 Toni Kerekes, O.R.  23 United Reporting Service Ltd.  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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


Related Items