Open Collections

Delgamuukw Trial Transcripts

[Proceedings of the Supreme Court of British Columbia 1989-01-13] British Columbia. Supreme Court Jan 13, 1989

Item Metadata


JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019496.json
JSON-LD: delgamuukw-1.0019496-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): delgamuukw-1.0019496-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: delgamuukw-1.0019496-rdf.json
Turtle: delgamuukw-1.0019496-turtle.txt
N-Triples: delgamuukw-1.0019496-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: delgamuukw-1.0019496-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 10557  Proceedings  1 VANCOUVER, B.C.  2 JANUARY 13, 1989  3  4 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  In the Supreme Court of British  5 Columbia, Vancouver, this Friday, January 13, 1989.  6 Delgamuukw versus Her Majesty the Queen at bar.  7 I caution the witness you are still under oath.  8 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms.  9 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, before we start, there is one point that I  10 would like to deal with, and that is this.  We have  11 now done a cursory examination of the -- just under  12 300 documents that were delivered yesterday.  Those  13 300 documents are the -- they are not the drafts, they  14 are the field notes collected by this witness and by  15 her researchers, not only for the ancestral village  16 locations detailed in chapter three, but also for the  17 locations that were detailed in chapter two of the  18 report.  There is additional material on Moricetown  19 Canyon, and there is additional material on Hagwilget.  20 It primarily relates to chapter three and the  21 archaeological investigation, but there is that  22 overlap.  The documents are not organized, and we  23 haven't been able to organize them yet, although we  24 are struggling to do that so that they can be  25 co-related to the part of the report that they are  26 derived from.  27 And my advisor tells me, and I'm not an  28 archaeologist, My Lord, so this doesn't mean very much  29 to me without help, that it would take at least a week  30 to be able to go through these notes to organize the  31 notes and correlate with where they are from in the  32 report, in order to have some understanding about what  33 they mean.  And one thing that clearly flows from  34 that, My Lord, is that any cross-examination that I  35 may do about chapter three is going to be disjointed,  36 because I am not going to be able to incorporate those  37 notes into any cross-examination on chapter three at  38 this time, which will likely lead to extended  39 cross-examination, if I embark in that area at this  4 0 time.  41 Now, Your Lordship has already heard earlier this  42 week from Mr. Goldie and Mr. Macaulay about the  43 difficulties with the Heather Harris documents.  And  44 as I understand it, Heather Harris will be called  45 Monday.  There will be an argument about her  46 qualifications.  Mr. Grant estimates that Heather  47 Harris's evidence in chief will last two and-a-half 1055?  Proceedings  1 days, maybe three days, and I am advised this morning  2 that my colleague, Mr. Goldie, is not able to go ahead  3 with the cross-examination of Heather Harris next  4 week.  The material is still apparently coming in on  5 Heather Harris.  It is still not all in, and that he  6 will be asking to step down after the evidence in  7 chief -- stand down after the evidence in chief of  8 Heather Harris.  9 So my suggestion, My Lord, is this.  Since this  10 witness will need to be stood down in order to  11 adequately review the almost 300 pages that have just  12 been produced, the facts upon which the witness's  13 opinion were based, that we take up with the witness  14 again next week, after Heather Harris has been  15 finished in chief, which it looks like would not be  16 later than Thursday, assuming Mr. Grant's estimate of  17 how long the evidence in chief of Heather Harris will  18 be is accurate.  And what I am suggesting, My Lord, is  19 that the time between the end of today and then would  20 be most profitably spent, both for the court, in terms  21 of tightening up cross-examination without  22 unnecessarily rambling here and there, because there  23 are missing links which haven't been tied in, that we  24 stand down at the end of today and then carry on with  25 Ms. Albright next Thursday.  2 6    THE COURT:  Mr. Macaulay.  2 7    MR. MACAULAY:  My Lord, I haven't examined the material that Mr.  28 Willms is having difficulty with, except just to look  29 at the amount of it.  There is quite a bit.  I am  30 informed that the material from Heather Harris is  31 still coming in.  The last of it hasn't arrived yet,  32 and this is Friday.  I suppose if it hasn't arrived  33 here, it won't be here 'til Monday.  We -- safe to say  34 that there would be difficulties about the  35 commencement of Heather Harris's cross-examination in  36 those circumstances, and I believe that what Mr.  37 Willms has proposed will avoid the loss of trial days  38 and is perhaps the best solution to the situation.  39 THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Rush.  40 MR. RUSH:  The issue of the availability of trial time next week  41 is one that I seem at this point to be somewhat  42 confused about, because it was my understanding from  43 Mr. Macaulay that he was going to be leading with the  44 cross-examination of Heather Harris, and that he felt  45 himself, earlier this week, to be able to proceed with  46 the cross-examination of Ms. Harris up to a point  47 where he found himself not able to continue because of 10559  Proceedings  1 the late delivery of documents.  2 Now, that was my understanding, and on that basis I  3 had assumed that if the direct examination was going  4 to take two and-a-half days, that the  5 cross-examination would probably start on Wednesday,  6 and there would at least be one day of  7 cross-examination, that probably of Mr. Macaulay's,  8 and those were the assumptions I was operating under.  9 And if my assumptions are correct, then the proposal  10 that Mr. Willms advances is not one that is going to  11 fit in with next week's schedule as far as the  12 documents go.  13 THE COURT:  I'm not sure, Mr. Rush.  Mr. Willms suggests we  14 resume Thursday anyway.  15 MR. RUSH:  Yes, that's right.  He said go anyway on Thursday  16 with this witness.  That's correct.  17 My suggestion is, however, that we keep to the  18 schedule or to the perception of what we had agreed to  19 earlier this week, and that is to start Heather Harris  20 and go until the defendants do not feel they are able  21 to proceed any further with that witness.  22 So far as the documents that are disclosed, many,  23 many of these documents are hand drafts of the more  24 perfected figures and tables and photographs and maps  25 that are contained in the report, that what -- that  26 many of these documents are simply duplicates of what  27 already appears in the report.  And there isn't any  28 magic about looking at these documents.  Many of these  29 documents, for example, are documents which are  30 computer printouts of heritage conservation data,  31 material from their data bank in the hands of the  32 provincial government.  33 The documents -- I take issue with my friend to  34 suggest they are not organized.  They are organized  35 and they are grouped around specific subject areas,  36 and I think it's evident from the elastic banding what  37 we have done to these documents in order to assist to  38 show that they are indiscreet portions.  39 In my submission it ought not to take the time that  40 my friend indicates in order to review and determine  41 whether or not there is any basis for a  42 cross-examination on the underlying handwritten  43 documents that -- material of which appears in the  44 report.  So I -- it's my submission, My Lord, that my  45 friends should continue today and we should sit 'til  46 tomorrow until we finish Ms. Albright, and I -- that  47 is the proposal that I make. 10560  Proceedings  1 THE COURT:  All right.  Well, I don't think I need to hear you,  2 Mr. Willms.  I think that we should proceed as best we  3 can.  I think we should continue today as far as you  4 can go, and if you can continue tomorrow, then I am in  5 your hands in that regard, then we should continue  6 tomorrow.  If you say, as counsel, that you can't  7 usefully carry on, then we must adjourn, either at the  8 end of today or at some time tomorrow.  I think we  9 must proceed with Ms. Harris on Monday, and I think we  10 should complete her evidence in chief, and you should  11 go as far with cross-examination as counsel  12 responsibly say they can continue.  They say they  13 can't start or can't go beyond a certain time, then I  14 have to accept that we must then stop and we must then  15 be prepared to proceed with his further  16 cross-examination of this witness.  17 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, one thing that arises out of that is this.  18 There is no question that I can ask this witness  19 questions tomorrow about chapter three.  There is  20 cross-examination prepared on chapter three in the  21 absence of this underlying evidence.  It will of  22 necessity be duplicative, because the material that  23 has just come in may be explanatory of the  24 cross-examination.  Some of the cross-examination may  25 be unnecessary.  So I cannot tell Your Lordship that I  26 can't continue, but I can tell Your Lordship that I  27 question the usefulness of continuing in the absence  28 of preparing a cross-examination that would take up  29 less court time.  30 THE COURT:  Well, I don't think I can theorize by that, Mr.  31 Willms.  32 MR. WILLMS:  I am not trying to do that, My Lord.  33 THE COURT:  I understand that.  I think we must bring some  34 discipline to these proceedings, and if anything  35 useful can be done at all, then we must do it.  Let's  36 use up the time.  I have the sense that counsel may be  37 abusing each other, and I have a very strong feeling  38 that I am being abused.  And I think it's much to be  39 regretted, but I think we must push on.  If we are  40 spinning our wheels most of the time but making  41 progress, then we must make progress.  If we are  42 making no progress at all, and I am in counsels' hands  43 in that regard, then we must stop.  As long as we are  44 making progress, we must continue on.  I regret -- I  45 think this will take its toll on all of us, and we  46 will regret it in the end, but things have come in the  47 past to such a state where I can't allow it to 10561  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 continue.  We must sit wherever we can and do as much  2 as we can.  Thank you.  3 MR. RUSH:  My Lord, yesterday Mr. Willms requested that two of  4 the letters for which privilege claim is made be  5 produced, and for Your Lordship to review those  6 letters.  And I have copies of those letters for you,  7 and I don't -- I really don't intend to make an  8 argument on these, My Lord.  In my submission it's  9 covered by Your Lordship's decision that was rendered  10 on November the 7th, 1988.  And I just draw your  11 attention to the relevant pages, which are page 20,  12 page 21 and page 24 of your decision, and sum in  13 total, I think that the cutting line for Your  14 Lordship's determination of whether or not the  15 document ought to be produced was whether or not the  16 document would have the effect of impacting on the  17 substance or credibility of the witness, and in my  18 submission the contents of these letters would not.  19 And so I am going to hand these up to Your Lordship,  20 and you may want to consider them in light of your  21 decision.  22 THE COURT:  All right.  Is my decision on privilege in the book  23 of cases right here --  24 MR. RUSH:  I have a copy of that, if Your Lordship would like.  25 THE COURT:  Then you will lend me a copy.  I will look at it as  26 quickly as I can.  You don't wish us to stand down  27 while I do this, Mr. Rush?  2 8 MR. RUSH:  No.  29 THE COURT:  I will get to it as quickly as I can.  I will get to  30 it over the weekend.  Thank you.  Mr. Willms.  31 MR. WILLMS:  32 Q   Ms. Albright, one of the references in your report was  33 a reference to work by Dr. Fladmark entitled a  34 Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory.  35 And you reviewed that in preparation of your report.  36 And I haven't handed you the whole -- I have just  37 handed you extracts, but do you recall --  38 A   I made reference to -- I did make reference to this  39 work.  Also in connection with other discussions by  4 0 Fladmark.  41 Q   Yes.  And I think you already said that Dr. Fladmark  42 was on -- he was on your masters advisory committee?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And he's a well respected archaeologist in British  45 Columbia?  46 A   Yes.  47 Q   Yes.  Now, in this work that you relied on in your 10562  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 report, you will see on page 2 Dr. Fladmark at the  2 bottom of the page in that paragraph --  3 A  What area of the report are you referring to in  4 connection?  5 Q   I am referring just to the paleoecological model right  6 now at page 2.  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   And at the bottom he says -- he starts the paragraph  9 with Drucker.  Who is Drucker?  10 A   He is an anthropologist with -- having conducted  11 extensive anthropological as well as archaeological  12 investigations across the northwest coast, and has  13 published on the northwest coast.  14 Q   And he is well respected in the northwest of British  15 Columbia?  16 A   He's taken as an earlier -- as the basis for some of  17 the early work that was done in the province.  18 Q   Now, Dr. Fladmark says in this work:  19  20 "Drucker divided the Northwest Coast into 4  21 'provinces' based on constellations of shared  22 cultural triats:  (1) 'Northern' (including  23 Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and Haisla);  24  25 My Lord, I will give a copy of this to the  26 Reporter later.  2 7    THE COURT:  Thank you.  28 MR. WILLMS:  29 Q  30 "(2) 'Wakashan' (Central and Souther Kwakiutl,  31 Bella-Coola, and Nootka); (3) 'Coast  32 Salish-Chinook' (Coast Salish, Chinook,  33 Quileute, Chemakum; and (4) 'Northern  34 Californian' (Yurok, Karok and Hupa)."  35  36 From your ethnographic and archaeological reading,  37 is that an accurate statement?  38 A   Yes, this is a classification by Drucker, and is two  39 publications.  40 Q   And do you agree that the Gitksan or regard it as the  41 link which is particular subdivision of the Tsimshian?  42 A   Yes, they have been referred to in the literature as a  43 division of the Tsimshian as described by -- in the  44 anthropological literature.  45 Q   And you are also aware that at present there appear to  46 be four sub-classifications of Tsimshian:  Coast  47 Tsimshian, southern Tsimshian, Nishga and Gitksan? 10563  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Generally there is a reference to three groups of  2 three tribal groups referred to as Tsimshian.  Coast  3 Tsimshian that Nishga and Gitksan --  4 THE COURT:  So three are coastal?  5 THE WITNESS:  Coastal.  6 THE COURT:  Yes.  7 THE WITNESS:  Nishga and Gitksan.  And that they have a closely  8 related aspect of culture and cultural traditions.  9 THE COURT:  And you would put Haida in with coastal, would you?  10 THE WITNESS:  No.  Haida people are on The Queen Charlottes, and  11 they are considered a separate ethno-linguistic group,  12 according to --  13 THE COURT:  So you don't agree with Mr. Willms that there are  14 four subdivisions.  You say there are three?  15 THE WITNESS:   Generally the literature refers to three.  16 MR. WILLMS:  17 Q   That's fine.  Down at the bottom of the page -- sorry,  18 carry on at the top of page four.  He describes what  19 the classification is based on, the material culture  20 and matrilineal to patrilineal, and then he says this  21 at the bottom of that paragraph:  22  23 "Primarily these groupings ..."  24  25 And he is referring to the four groupings above by  26 Drucker.  27  28 "Primarily these groupings are based on  29 material culture.  Further subdivisions, such  30 as the tribal groupings of the historical  31 period are based primarily on linguistic data  32 and are invisible archaeologically."  33  34 Is that an accurate statement in your view?  35 A   I think this may have been an accurate view when  36 Fladmark wrote this.  It may be possible to see  37 further distinctions in the archaeological record as  38 more archaeological research is carried out and  39 evidence is brought to light.  40 Q   Do you agree that tribal groupings based primarily on  41 linguistic data are invisible archaeologically?  42 A   Linguistic -- linguistic data is separate from  43 archaeological data.  44 Q   And so you can't tell archaeologically where the  45 Gitksan language ends and the Coast Tsimshian language  46 begins?  Archaeologically you can't tell, can you?  47 THE COURT:  I don't understand that question, Mr. Willms, 10564  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 because you included linguistic and archaeological in  2 the same question as if they are the same thing, and  3 I'm not sure if they are.  Perhaps they are.  4 MR. WILLMS:  5 Q   Let me approach it a little bit differently.  You will  6 agree that the material culture archaeologically of  7 the Gitksan and the Coast Tsimshian is virtually  8 identical?  9 A   No, I would not agree with that.  10 Q   So it's your evidence that there are archaeological  11 distinctions between the Coast Tsimshian and the  12 Gitksan?  13 A   There are distinctions in the archaeological record  14 between the two areas.  15 Q   Well, let's forget about the areas for a minute.  16 A  At various times.  We are here looking at and  17 comparing archaeological materials that span 5,000  18 years, and there are differences in the archaeological  19 record in those two areas over that time span.  20 Q   There are differences in the archaeological record --  21 are you referring to a particular site?  Are you  22 comparing two sites and saying that they are  23 different, culturally different?  24 A   The material remains, the material evidence, the  25 archaeological evidence, and in the middle Skeena or  26 sites in the middle Skeena reflect differences over  27 time, and the material archaeological material in the  28 Prince Rupert area reflects differences over time, and  29 there are materials in the upper river area that are  30 different than the materials in the -- at the mouth of  31 the river.  There are many similarities as well, and  32 there are many differences.  A comparison is based on  33 looking at similarities and differences.  34 Q   Just returning to what Dr. Fladmark says in the  35 Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory.  36 He says in the middle paragraph on page 4:  37  38 "The material culture of the Haida, Tsimshian  39 and Tlingit was so similar that it is  40 virtually impossible to distinguish them  41 archaeologically beyond the 'province' level."  42  43 Now, that's an accurate archaeological statement for  44 Northwestern British Columbia, isn't it?  45 A   There is a great deal of similarity between the Haida  46 and the material culture in this cultural area, yes.  47 And MacDonald in his -- in one of his early papers 10565  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 also refers to the similarity in material culture, as  2 well as other aspects of culture.  So yes, the -- that  3 similarity in the material culture and aspects of  4 other -- other aspects of culture clearly indicate  5 that there has been intense interaction between  6 these -- between peoples in the -- these areas that  7 speak -- that have been described in the ethnographic  8 literature as speaking different languages.  The  9 material culture is similar and indicates intensive  10 interaction.  11 Q   It's more than similar.  It's so similar that it's  12 virtually impossible to distinguish them  13 archaeologically beyond the large level set out in  14 this paper.  15 A   Yes —  16 Q   And just to set the context for the work described  17 here.  If you turn onto page 11, which is Figure 1,  18 you will see that he has drawn a -- some dotted lines  19 respecting the place and tribes of the northwest  20 coast.  And a dotted line, and albeit this is a very  21 general drawing for Tsimshian, including the Skeena  22 River and the Nass River?  23 A   Yes.  24 Q   And you will see that he has described in  25 ethno-linguistic boundary.  That's what that dotted  26 line is.  That's what he is attempting to portray  27 here?  28 A   Yes.  29 Q   And then, if you look to -- and it's the next page in  30 what I have given you, but it's page 220 of the  31 report, where he's listed the archaeological sites in  32 the northeast Pacific region, and this is as of the  33 date that this was written in '75.  Site 21 is the  34 Prince Rupert Harbour site that Dr. MacDonald  35 excavated?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And site 20 is the Kitselas Canyon site, and that was  38 primarily -- was that primarily Allaire?  39 A  Allaire and Coupland.  It was -- have been Allaire at  4 0 the time.  41 Q   Allaire at the time and then later on?  42 A   Coupland.  43 Q   Very close by Dr. Coupland?  44 A   Yes, the two sites are within a kilometer or two.  45 Q   These are sites that you considered in your report,  46 aren't they, as well, these two sites, 20 and 21?  21  47 is the Prince Rupert site that you describe in your 10566  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 report?  2 A   Yes.  3 Q   Correct.  And 20 is the Kitselus Canyon site excavated  4 by Allaire that you describe in your report?  5 A  Allaire and Coupland, yes.  6 Q   Now, one of the documents that you referred to in  7 preparing your report -- My Lord, maybe before I move  8 off this, this could be marked as Exhibit 849-8.  9  10 (EXHIBIT 849-8 - REPORT EXTRACT OF K.  11 FLADMARK'S - (1975)  (AGBC)  12  13 And I am showing you an extract of that  14 dissertation, and the pages are not -- they are  15 different in some respects from the pages that are in  16 the document binder that was marked by my friend.  17 Now, you will see -- first of all this is the Coupland  18 thesis that you referred to in your report?  19 A   Yes.  20 Q   And this is the analysis called Paul Mason in your  21 report?  This is -- refers to the site "Paul Mason"?  22 A   Yes, it refers to his excavations at Paul Mason site,  23 as well as his discussions of Paul Mason and Gitaus.  24 Q   If you turn to -- and it's the very last page in this.  25 What I have here is the abstract at the beginning  26 describing what he's done, and then page three from  27 the beginning of the report.  And it's that paragraph  28 in the middle of the page -- it's page three of the  29 thesis and the last page of the extract that I have  30 handed you.  And Dr. Coupland says:  31  32 "It is recognized that cultural change at  33 Kitselas Canyon did not occur in isolation.  34 Data from two other important localities on  35 the lower Skeena River - Prince Rupert Harbour  36 and Hagwilget Canyon  - are compared to the  37 Kitselas Canyon material."  38  39 Just pausing there.  You recognize Prince Rupert  40 Harbour as being Dr. MacDonald's investigations,  41 correct?  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   And Hagwilget Canyon as being Dr. Ames'  44 investigations?  45 A   Yes.  46 Q   Then Dr. Coupland continues:  47 10567  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 "This places Kitselas Canyon in the larger  2 context of the lower Skeena River.  I argue,  3 contrary to an existing model, that Kitselas  4 Canyon and the two localities mentioned above  5 have existed as part of a cultural interaction  6 system for the past 4300 years."  7  8 Just stopping there.  Do you accept that?  Is that  9 accurate?  10 A   Yes, I would agree.  11 Q   And so, as I suggested earlier -- and you know that  12 the differences between the people inhabiting those  13 localities now between Hagwilget and Kitselas and  14 Prince Rupert Harbour are linguistic differences?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   Yes.  And I am going to suggest again that there is,  17 in terms of linguistic differences between people --  18 in other words, identifying the people that were there  19 as either Gitksan or Coast Tsimshian, that  20 archaeologically that is impossible?  21 A   I don't understand your question, sir.  Language is  22 one aspect of culture.  23 Q   Well, language is not an aspect of material culture,  24 is it?  25 A   Language is.  26 Q   Material culture?  27 A   Is an aspect of communication.  28 Q   Maybe I have been misunderstanding what material --  29 what does material culture mean archaeologically?  30 A   The physical remains of occupation and indicating  31 occupation and use of -- at a particular site or a  32 particular area.  33 Q   And there is virtually no difference in the material  34 culture excavated at either Prince Rupert, at Kitselas  35 or Hagwilget, is there?  36 A   There are differences.  37 Q   They are very minor?  38 A   In the material.  39 Q   They are very minor?  40 A   There are materials.  As Dr. Coupland indicates, there  41 are -- there is evidence of cultural interaction along  42 the Skeena.  There are also indications of differences  43 in the archaeological record.  Those differences in  44 the archaeological record reflect different  45 adaptations to differences in the environment in which  46 peoples are carrying out subsistence activities, are  47 earning their earnings, their livings. 10568  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  Q  2  3  4  5  A  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Q  13  14  A  15  Q  16  17  A  18  Q  19  20  A  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Q  33  34  A  35  36  37  38  39  Q  40  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  47  MR. WILLMS  What artifacts did you unearth anywhere within the  territory claimed by the Gitksan that was materially  different than artifacts unearthed outside that  territory than, say, Prince Rupert or Kitselas?  I can't think of specific items at the moment, because  I didn't -- you know, there are diagnostics that were  compared.  There are definitely the small side notch  projectile points that are found in Moricetown Canyon,  are not found, which had come from the upper layer at  Moricetown Canyon, have not been found in further down  the Skeena.  And so you say that and Moricetown is a difference in  material culture between what's down the Skeena River?  Yes.  And in fact it's a difference from what was excavated  by Ames at Hagwilget?  Excuse me?  It's different than what was excavated by Ames at  Hagwilget as well?  Some of these differences reflect adaptation to the  specific environments that people are living in, and  the differences in resources.  The small projectile  points that were found at -- in the upper levels of  Moricetown are indicative of small points used as  arrow points, for use of the bow and arrow in hunting  activities.  As far as I am aware, similar points have  not been found in other areas along the Skeena.  And  that may be a reflection of the -- of whether the  concentration of activities along the Skeena are --  you know, people along the Skeena were also hunting,  but not at the river.  Similar artifacts to those that you unearthed at  Moricetown were also recovered in the Chilcotin?  The small site -- projectile points found in the upper  layer at Moricetown are similar to small arrow points  found in the northern interior and the central  interior.  They reflect hunting adaptation in late  pre-contact times.  Now, I asked you about Hagwilget Canyon and the Ames'  excavation, and I suggested to you that you unearthed  different material at Moricetown from the material  culture that had been unearthed by Ames at Hagwilget.  Yes, there are some differences in the materials.  I  have acknowledged that in my opinion report.  I  believe chapter two, when I summarized the materials  from the Hagwilget and Moricetown Canyons.  :  My Lord, could Coupland be 849 — 849-9? 10569  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  2  3 (EXHIBIT NO. 849-9 - EXTRACT OF REPORT OF G.  4 COUPLAND (DEC. 1985)  (AGBC)  5  6 Q   Now, perhaps the starting point, I am going to turn to  7 Moricetown Canyon and the radiocarbon dates, and you  8 set them out at page 2-8 of your report.  And these  9 are a listing of eight samples for which you received  10 carbon date information back from Beta Analytic?  11 A   Yes, that's true.  12 Q   And you sent or you took over 30 samples altogether  13 for radiocarbon dating?  14 A   Yes, approximately 30 samples.  They varied in size  15 and quality.  16 THE COURT:  I'm sorry, did you say you took 30 samples or you  17 sent 30 samples?  18 THE WITNESS:   No.  No.  We collected approximately a little  19 over 30 samples.  20 THE COURT:  This is from the trench wall at Moricetown?  21 THE WITNESS: Moricetown, yes.  22 MR. WILLMS:  23 Q   And the document that I have handed to you, are these  24 your handwritten notes -- first of all are these your  25 handwritten notes?  26 A   These are notes, a summary of excavation units by --  27 carried out by Deana Ludovicz on my request.  28 Q   So these were made by Deana Ludovicz on your request?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And if you look, you will see that what you have  31 done -- and I don't intend to take you through it  32 all -- but "EU" at the top refers to where the  33 excavation unit is?  34 A   Yes.  35 Q   And then you set who -- or Deana Ludovicz is described  36 who did the excavation?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   There is then a description of features in the  39 section?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   Then under "RC".  "RC" stands for radiocarbon, and the  42 next section says how many samples were collected?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And then following that there is either a reference  45 usually to which one was sent for analysis or that  46 none were sent for analysis.  Is that --  47 A   I think this is a discussion as to -- yes, which 10570  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 samples would be appropriate.  2 Q   All right.  Okay.  Who made the decision which samples  3 would be appropriate to send for dating?  Was it Ms.  4 Ludovicz which made that decision?  5 A   It was my decision which samples would be sent, in  6 review of the -- a review of the summary that she had  7 prepared and quality of the sample, and our discussion  8 about the samples and what samples reflected various  9 layers and features at the site.  10 Q   Just turning to the second page.  At the top of the  11 page it refers to excavation unit 4 to 5.5, and it's  12 5.5 to 6.5, combined due to stratigraphy, and it says  13 it was excavated by SA, RM and MD.  Now, SA is you, is  14 that right?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   RM.  Is that Ruth Murdoch?  17 A   Yes.  She volunteered to give us some assistance on  18 one weekend.  19 Q   And who is MD?  20 A   Oh, I believe that refers to Mark Duivan.  21 THE COURT:  D-I-V-E-N?  22 THE WITNESS: I believe it's D-U-I-V-A-N.  23 MR. WILLMS:  24 Q   Was this the only time that you had assistance, other  25 than from Ms. Ludovicz and Mr. Brolly, in doing your  26 archaeological investigations?  27 A  Mark Duivan was working in Hazelton, and came out  28 to -- with us one day when -- one or two days, one day  29 I believe at -- well, we were working at the large  30 lithic gather at Moricetown Canyon, at Hagwilget  31 Canyon.  32 Q   Ruth Murdoch had done work at Moricetown Canyon before  33 your work at Moricetown, hadn't she?  34 A   Yes, she did.  35 Q   Do you know what the qualifications of either Ms.  36 Murdoch or Mr. Neetal -- or sorry, Duival -- Duival?  37 A   Duivan.  38 Q   What were their archaeological qualifications?  39 A   They've both had experience in doing archaeological  40 field work.  41 Q   Do they have degrees in archaeology?  42 A   No -- Ruth Murdoch has a degree from U.B.C. and has  43 participated in a number of archaeology projects doing  44 field work.  45 Q   And in fact you reviewed and relied on the work that  46 Ruth Murdoch had done earlier for the Moricetown area  47 in your writing your report? 10571  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  A  2  Q  3  THE  COURT:  4  5  6  7  8  Q  9  10  11  12  13  A  14  Q  15  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  Q  22  23  24  A  25  MR.  WILLMS  26  27  28  29  30  31  Q  32  33  34  35  THE  COURT:  36  37  38  39  A  40  41  Q  42  THE  COURT:  43  MR.  WILLMS  44  Q  45  46  A  47  I have referred to her work, yes.  Okay.  Now, could that be 849-10, My Lord.  Thank you.  (EXHIBIT NO.  D.  LUDOWICZ  3 4 9-10 - TAB 10 - HAND NOTES OF  - RE SAMPLES UNDATED)  Now, referring back to the dates from Beta Analytic --  sorry, the samples from Beta Analytic which are set  out on that page.  Is it your evidence that there was  evidence of human presence found in association with  each of these carbon samples?  Yes.  I am showing you what has been produced to us in  respect of the radiocarbon sample data sheets with the  code numbers RSR-85-2 all the way up to, I think the  last one is RSR-85-11.  So you sent -- there were 10  samples of the 30 collected that were sent to Beta  Analytic, correct?  Yes, there were 10 samples.  And if you want to just review this for a minute and  confirm that this is all the material that was sent to  Beta Analytic.  Yes, I believe so.  :   84-11, My Lord.  (EXHIBIT NO. 84-11  SEPTEMBER 2, 1985 -  AGBC)  - RADIOCARBON DATA -  SHEETS FROM BETA ANALYTIC  If you could have that before you, and at the same  time have Figure 2, which are your profiles before  you.  And your profiles are found after page 2-2 in  your report.  Could I just get a note, please.  The evidence is,  Ms. Albright, that these sample data sheets are the  totality of what was sent to Beta Analytic for the --  I'm sorry, for the eight samples?  For the 10 samples that were submitted, and I had  dates returned for 8.  All right.  All right.  This was the only documentation that was sent to Beta  Analytic; is that right?  These are -- these are standard data sheets, which  they request that researchers submit information, in 10572  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Q  8  9  A  10  Q  11  A  12  Q  13  A  14  15  Q  16  A  17  18  Q  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  A  34  Q  35  36  A  37  Q  38  39  40  A  41  Q  42  43  A  44  Q  45  A  46  Q  47  THE COURT  terms of the context in which samples are from.  So  there is -- should be two pages for each one.  And I  didn't have -- I didn't have enough of the original  forms, so the -- for some samples we gave the  information in the format requested, although it was  just written up on a clean paper.  But was there any other documentation in addition to  this sent to Beta Analytic?  No.  This was it?  These were the sheets, yes.  No cover letter?  Well, the information on the sheets indicates who is  submitting the sample.  Yes.  I don't recall a cover letter.  If there was, I sent a  cover letter and didn't retain a copy.  Now, just starting with the very first RSR-85-2.  And  if you look at the location of this.  This is -- and  there is a little drawing on the next page in Exhibit  84-11.  There is a description, first of all, at the  top of the page saying:  "The site is comprised of three distinct  cultural layers overlaying alluvial gravels.  This sample was collected from the lower  levels of layer B, indicative of the middle  prehistoric occupation of the site."  And then down below there is a little number 3, and  that shows where this particular sample was taken.  Correct?  In the little figure?  Yes.  And so if we want to match that up with the Figure 2,  we look on the south wall profile?  Yes.  And it's that RC that's in -- that is in from the  south wall.  It's the first one in the diagonally  hatched area from the right-hand side on the top?  Yes.  It's the first unit from the right.  All right.  But there is -- you have drawn a little RC  down there on the figure.  Yes.  Is that the RC?  Yes.  All right.  :  I'm sorry, where are we? 10573  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, if you start at the top of the figure,  2 right-hand side.  3 THE COURT:  I am sorry.  It's the one on the right.  4 MR. WILLMS:  The one on the right.  5 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  6 MR. WILLMS:  The first one in, the hatching is diagonal, and if  7 you look at the numbers down below, it appears as if  8 it would be around the one meter mark about halfway in  9 between the start.  10 THE COURT:  Yes.  11 MR. WILLMS:  12 Q   So that is the sample that you have identified as  13 R-SR-85-2?  14 THE COURT:  What's it again please?  15 MR. WILLMS:  R-SR-85-2.  16 Q   Correct?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   All right.  Now, you will see that -- first of all  19 who -- this one was completed by Richard Brolly, this  20 first sample sheet.  He filled that in?  21 A   No.  22 Q   Who filled this sheet in?  23 A  Most of the basic information about the context was  24 prepared by Deana Ludovicz.  25 Q   So this is her writing?  26 A   Yes.  27 Q   Okay.  And you will see that Deana Ludovicz -- and  28 what does she prepare this from?  Does she prepare  29 this from the actual sheet taken at the time on the  30 site by the person who locates the sample?  31 A   This was based on original -- the original field  32 notes.  33 Q   Yes.  34 A  At the time.  35 Q   And the level sheets?  36 A  And level sheets, yes, field notes.  And the original  37 field notes were by Richard Brolly, who excavated the  38 unit.  39 Q   Okay.  Can you explain why in Exhibit 849-11 it is  40 shown that sample three is taken from layer B, and on  41 your Figure 2 you place the sample in layer CI.  42 A   The samples and data sheets based on original field  43 notes were sent in before we had completed our work at  44 the canyon, before we had completed profiling of all  45 the units.  So profiles are done during excavation  46 by -- of each unit by the individual who is excavating  47 the unit, and then the composite profiles, which are 10574  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 used for this, were based on an additional examination  2 after the excavations were complete.  And those were  3 done by Ms. Ludovicz and I, and we re-examined all of  4 the stratigraphy and revised based on additional  5 examination some of the original observations.  6 Q   When was it that you went back and re-examined the  7 work that had already been done?  8 A   There were, I believe, two additional weekends at the  9 site in September.  So we probably finished profiling,  10 drawing profiles September 12th or 13th.  It would  11 have been almost into the middle of the month.  12 Q   And whose -- whose opinion was it when this was sent  13 in that this sample was collected from layer B?  Was  14 that Mr. Brolly's opinion that's reflected on the  15 sample sheet?  16 A   Yes, that would have been based on his notes and  17 observations.  18 Q   Right.  And later on you determined that Mr. Brolly  19 was wrong?  20 A   I went through all of the field notes and maps and  21 interpreted the data.  22 Q   I asked you whether Mr. Brolly was wrong.  Was he  23 wrong?  24 A   In re-examining the stratigraphy upon the completion  25 of excavation, the -- yes, the bottom of what Brolly  26 has described as the bottom of the B, appeared to be a  27 dark C.  The CI later that was visible in other units.  28 Q   Do you recall what evidence of human presence you  29 found in association with carbon sample number 3?  30 A   Yes, I believe there was a number of items from that  31 area.  They are in the materials throughout, yes.  32 Q   There is a note at the bottom, and I can't read my  33 copy, and I don't know if you have got a better copy  34 around, but maybe from memory, is that your note at  35 the bottom?  Is that your writing?  I can see a BI SA  36 and DL.  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Do you remember what you wrote there?  39 A  Well, probably reference to -- reference to the  40 revision of the re-examination.  41 Q   Okay.  42 A   Of the re-observation of the stratigraphy.  43 Q   When did you write -- whose writing is 3680 plus or  44 minus 170 BP?  45 A   That would be mine, after I got the --  46 Q   The results back?  47 A   The results back, yes. 10575  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Is it possible that after you got the results back, at  2 the same time you altered the profile, as you have  3 noted at the bottom, you also moved level C up above  4 the radiocarbon date?  5 A   I have made a note that we had re-examined the  6 stratigraphy after the samples were sent in.  7 Q   Did you make that note on -- at the same time you  8 wrote in the carbon date?  9 A   Yes.  Likely, yes.  10 Q   And so if the carbon date is in level CI, it tends to  11 substantiate the date of that level?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   But if it's in B, then there are some difficulties  14 with the interpretation, aren't there?  15 A   I don't see -- no, these are interpretations that I  16 have made based on a review of all of the notes and  17 materials and observations.  18 Q   Was the material feature that you found associated  19 with this radiocarbon date, was it any one of the  20 artifacts that you have listed later on page 2-10 of  21 your report?  22 A   I believe the medium size stemmed point was found  23 at -- under projectile points.  24 THE COURT:  Item D?  25 THE WITNESS:  Item D.  26 MR. WILLMS:  Thank you.  My Lord, this would be an appropriate  27 time for the break.  2 8 THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  29 You're saying that item D from page 210 was found  30 where?  31 THE WITNESS:  In this CI layer.  32 THE COURT:  But do you know how far from the sample, or does it  33 matter in your discipline?  As long as it's in the  34 layer is that sufficient?  35 THE WITNESS:   No.  It was within the unit.  I have described  36 this point as coming from that --  37 THE COURT:  Within that unit?  38 THE WITNESS: From that unit.  39 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  40 THE WITNESS:  It was from the CI layer.  41 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  Take the morning adjournment.  42 Thank you.  43 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  Court will recess.  44  45 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT RECESS)  46  47 10576  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3 I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO  4 BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT  5 OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEREIN TO THE  6 BEST OF MY SKILL AND ABILITY.  7  9 LORI OXLEY  10 OFFICIAL REPORTER  11 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10577  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 S. L. ALBRIGHT, Resumed:  2  3    CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLMS: (Continued)  4  5 MR. WILLMS:  6 Q   Will you turn to the second sheet, R-SR-85-3, you were  7 the collector of the carbon sample?  That's what it  8 indicates on the first page, so the collector on the  9 first page is the person who actually --  10 A  Was carrying out the -- excavated the unit, yes.  11 Q   On the second page -- so that this description on the  12 second page is not Mr. Brolly's description, it's your  13 description?  At the top, "the site is comprised of  14 three distinct cultural layers overlying alluvial  15 gravels.  This sample was collected from layer A The  16 uppermost pre-historic occupation."  So that's a --  17 A   That is a general description of the site as a whole,  18 yes.  19 Q   That was your description as the collector?  20 A   It's a general -- so that would refer to, yes, my  21 notes in collecting the sample.  22 Q   And do you remember what evidence of human habitation  23 or human remains that you found in association with  24 this sample?  And if it would help you, maybe you  25 could turn to the sheet at 2-10.  26 A   The — 2-10 —  27 Q   I am assuming --  28 A  Materials collected from A, layer A, include small,  29 the small side notched arrow points.  30 Q   Did you collect any of the small side notched arrow  31 points in close association to the location where you  32 took sample 11?  33 A   I can't recall offhand what -- there were a variety of  34 artifacts throughout the deposits and I can't quite  35 recall what came from this particular unit.  But the  36 date or the sample was submitted to get an approximate  37 age for the layer in which there were also distinctive  38 or characteristic artifacts.  39 Q   But that layer goes a long way, the layer goes right  40 across the whole ten metres, right?  41 A   Yes.  42 Q   So the artifacts that were collected in layer A could  43 have been several metres away from where you took this  44 carbon sample?  45 A   Yes, hm-hmm.  46 Q   Now the next one was taken by Deanna Ludowicz, 85-4,  47 and on the second page -- and I am not clear on 1057?  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 whether or not it's intended to depict that the sample  2 was taken in layer A or layer B, because there appears  3 to be this line under A layer dividing A layer and the  4 hearth the sample was from, taken from the hearth  5 itself, and the hearth is a feature within layer B  6 Layer A caps layer B and the hearth.  7 Q   Well, the recorder here says, "The hearth was cut into  8 the layer B deposit and is believed to be associated  9 with the most recent pre-historic occupation of the  10 site."  And I am sorry, maybe I am misreading that but  11 it notes it's cut into layer B but that the  12 association is clearly layer A  13 A   That was not the final interpretation of this feature.  14 Q   And you made the final --  15 A   It was a -- based on field notes made by Deanna  16 Ludowicz, but in looking at the context of the hearth,  17 the hearth is -- the hearth is found within the  18 context of layer B  19 Q   I —  20 A   The hearth is built up during occupation of the layer  21 B deposits.  22 Q   Now the next sample R-SR 85-5 was collected by Deanna  23 Ludowicz, and is described as, at the top of the page,  24 "the sample was collected from the lowest cultural  25 layer C as indicated in the following diagram."  And  26 the date on that one for that -- for the lowest layer  27 is 2860, that was the date that you received back from  28 Beta Analytic?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   Now the next -- and I won't take you through the next  31 one because the next one is just -- there is no  32 result.  Well, maybe I will ask you one question on  33 R-SR-85-6, this is collected by you?  34 A   Yes, I would have --  35 Q   So this drawing came from the drawing that you made?  36 A   Yes.  This would have been the original sketch in the  37 field notes.  38 Q   And originally in the field notes, you noted a layer B  39 and B-l, which were different.  40 A   Yes, I believe -- I believe that was -- that may have  41 been one of the ash patches in B.  42 Q   And I am just looking at figure two, you don't show in  43 this radiocarbon drawing, you do show in figure two in  44 your report, in the upper left-hand corner, on the  45 south wall profile, two ash deposits on either side of  46 the pit feature; do you see that?  47 A  Again, this was from the -- from the original field 10579  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 notes and together --  2 Q   But you made the original field notes, didn't you, you  3 were the collector?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   Well, what happened to change your mind about the way  6 you have depicted the soil in the information sent to  7 Beta Analytic and what you ultimately put on figure  8 two showing an ash feature or an ash deposit, to the  9 left of the pit feature, and showing an ash deposit to  10 the right of the pit feature?  11 THE COURT:  Are we on the north wall now?  12 MR. WILLMS:  No, still on the south wall, my lord.  If you look  13 at the top you will see it's ten metres -- I am  14 looking at the Beta Analytic material, it's marked off  15 ten metres, 9.8, 9.6 all the way to 8 metres and then  16 if you look at the south wall profile, the metric  17 marking is at the bottom but it runs from ten to eight  18 again and you will see that pit feature described if  19 that's described in the Beta Analytic document is  20 described as F-5 on figure two and what I am exploring  21 right now is why there have apparently been ash  22 deposits added.  23 A   That was additional interpretation of the material as  24 we re-examined it.  25 Q   But did you make a mistake the first time you saw and  26 recorded what you were excavating, is that what you're  27 saying?  28 A   No.  In re-examining the deposits and the  29 stratigraphy, our understanding as we excavated the  30 deposits became more refined.  31 Q   Can you --  32 A   So we were better able to interpret the stratigraphy.  33 Q   Why did the left wall of feature five that you have  34 called a pit extend all the way to the ten metre mark  35 in this material sent to Beta Analytic that was drawn  36 from your notes, your field notes, and then instead  37 stop in figure two and continue instead of a pit you  38 have got layer B, why did you change that?  39 A   That was based on re-examination of the wall profiles.  40 Q   And you said earlier that you did this re-examination,  41 which resulted in these alterations, some of which we  42 have gone through already, on two days?  Or two  43 separate weekends in September, is that when you did  44 it?  45 A   Yes, the re-examination was done in September.  46 Q   And you made careful notes of that re-examination in  47 September? 10580  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   The composite profile was drawn at that time, as we  2 went back to re-examine the site, yes, on a weekend,  3 later in September and the profiles in figure two are  4 that final understanding of the stratigraphy.  5 Q   And you made notes about this, and they're dated  6 September, showing the changes?  7 A   No, it was a profile that was drawn.  8 Q   On site?  9 A   Yes.  10 Q   And so there will be a profile somewhere in your  11 material dated in September showing these changes?  12 A   They will indicate the stratigraphy that was observed  13 when we re-examined it, yes.  As presented in this  14 figure.  15 Q   And that was done by you and Deanna Ludowicz?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   Was that done -- did you take the original level notes  18 out with you when you did that to compare the level  19 notes to the stratigraphy that you were now drawing?  20 A  We compared the stratigraphy with the field notes,  21 yes.  22 Q   In the field?  23 A   In the field.  24 Q   Now the next carbon date is from the north wall and  25 the sample is 85-7, Richard Brolly was the collector,  26 and you will see first of all from the Beta Analytic  27 material that it was his view when he collected the  28 sample that was collected from layer B indicative of  29 the middle occupation of the site?  30 A   Yes, it's from the middle layers.  31 Q   When you finally got the data back the date was at  32 1700 from Beta Analytic?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And you have already given evidence that from the  35 other wall you had a date of 1650 for the top cultural  36 layer, layer A, and --  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   — and 1800 for layer B?  It's around 18, 1830 maybe?  39 THE COURT:  Plus or minus something.  40 MR. WILLMS:  41 Q   1880?  42 A   1880.  43 Q   Plus or minus 90.  44 A   Yes, that was the date returned on that sample.  45 Q   So that when you look at those samples for those two  46 layers, and take into account the radiocarbon dating,  47 accepting that it's accurate from Beta Analytic, you 10581  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 have got a carbon dating overlap between B and C -- A  2 and B?  3 A   I have listed the dates as returned in table two and  4 the context in which they were from.  5 Q   But you have described three occupational layers, A as  6 being more recent, B as being middle and C as being  7 the old occupational layer in your report?  8 A   I have described a C-l and a C-2 in the field we  9 identified a darker, reddish-brown or brown as  10 compared to a lighter yellowish-brown, distinction  11 between B and C or the lower C, C-2.  12 Q   This sample that we are just talking about, the 1700  13 which is from the B layer, from the drawing appears to  14 be 20 centimetres below the surface, that's  15 approximately where the sample was taken?  You see the  16 20 centimetre line on the left-hand side?  17 A   Yes.  18 Q   And that's about eight inches from the surface?  19 A   The deposits on the north trench, on the north side of  20 the trench, were -- appear to be more compressed.  In  21 other words, we have the same layers, but they are  22 more compressed, they are not as thick as on the south  23 side.  24 Q   Why, just on this, there appears to be a C-2 and C-4  25 soil layer identified by Mr. Brolly.  Were you using  26 different numbers to identify soil layers while you  27 were doing your analysis than you ultimately used in  28 your report?  Why did he use C-2 and C-4, there is no  29 C-4 in your report?  30 A   No, in -- while he was working in this unit, he was  31 interpreting or he was seeing perhaps some finer  32 distinctions within the layer, which in comparing to  33 other units, deposits in other units, were identified  34 as either C-l or C-2.  35 Q   But did each of you, as you were excavating and making  36 your level notes, have your own idea about how to note  37 and identify the levels, was it individual?  38 A  We had identified, together in our discussions of what  39 we were excavating, the uppermost layer A, B, and a  40 dark C and the lighter yellowish-brown C.  In some  41 units these were more clearly identifiable than  42 others.  And I do remember talking to Brolly after he  43 had been working in this unit in checking with him on  44 his excavation into this unit, that he was seeing some  45 visual distinctions that Deanna Ludowicz and I did not  46 see in that unit.  47 Q   So that what you visually see is a matter of 10582  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 interpretation, depends on who is doing the  2 interpretation?  Brolly saw level C-2 and C-4 where  3 you and Deanna saw a level C-l and C-2, is that what  4 you're saying?  5 A  We discussed this matter and we -- I remember that as  6 we were working along the trench that particular day,  7 the light, it was a very hot day and the light was  8 varying on the --  9 Q   Are you saying you changed them on the day, on the  10 very day that they were being identified you talked to  11 Mr. Brolly and changed them?  12 A   No, he -- I did not change his field -- you know, he  13 was writing field notes in terms of what he was  14 seeing, but in discussing what his observations were  15 compared to what was being observed in other units, we  16 indicated that perhaps it wasn't -- that he was seeing  17 distinctions which were not seen in other units that  18 the or that some of the lensing, some of the lensing  19 that he referred to were specific ash patches.  2 0 Q   Maybe you could turn now to --  21 A   So as distinctions within the layer that he saw.  So  22 he was using it perhaps, perhaps a different lettering  23 system for the distinctions that he was seeing.  24 Q   You —  25 A  And he had made those observations before I had a  26 chance to discuss them with him at that particular  27 unit.  28 Q   Can you please turn to R-SR-85-9, I won't ask you  29 about 85-8 because there is no date back from Beta  30 Analytic.  But this was one that you collected,  31 correct?  32 A   Yes.  33 Q   And your description on the second page is that the  34 sample was collected from a hearth cut into the lower  35 cultural layer overlying a post, that was your  36 description of where the sample was taken?  37 A   That's a general -- that was written by Deanna  38 Ludowicz in reading the notes.  39 Q   But reading your notes about where it was found,  40 right?  41 A   Her description of the hearth cut into is her own  42 description.  The note is that the -- the notes would  43 be that this sample was collected from the hearth.  44 Q   And you will see immediately adjacent or it appears  45 adjacent to where the sample was taken, there is a  46 layer C-l?  47 A   Yes. 10583  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  THE COURT  THE  THE  THE  THE  THE  THE  THE  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  Now, in looking at the figure two, can you explain on  the north wall profile where this -- is this  radiocarbon date?  Between.  Between six and what appears to be seven?  Yes.  In that very dark area?  Yes.  In the hearth.  In the hearth.  And the date -- and so this is located  below where the B zone starts, right where B and C  intersect, and in fact, very close to C-2, which I  think you call C on this drawing; is that right?  The hearth is interpreted as a part of layer B  At 19 -- that's the date that you got back from Beta  Analytic?  Yes.  So —  The sample is from the hearth and the hearth is  part -- a feature in layer B  I am not sure I am following this, is the R. C. that  you are talking about the one that's being six metres  and seven metres on the north wall?  Yes.  And there are two R. C.'s on that profile and the  one on the left?  One on the left from the dark.  In the black end area?  Yes, that represents the hearth.  The other --  What does F mean on that?  Feature.  That's the post?  Feature name for the post, yes, and there was a sample  taken from it as well.  That's number 18, is it?  Or is the post E-19?  The post is feature 19.  I see.  19.  What is the feature number 18?  That's also a post mould.  Two posts?  Yes.  All right.  I have it now.  Thank you.  And which  one is it that we are talking about, it's the R. C. on  the left?  A   Yes, in the hearth.  WILLMS:  It's the higher one, my lord.  COURT:  Thank you.  WILLMS:  Q   Now, the description of the next one, this is at  A  COURT  A  COURT  A  COURT  A  COURT  A  COURT  A  COURT  A  COURT  A  COURT 10584  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  A  4  Q  5  A  6  Q  7  8  9  10  11  12  A  13  Q  14  15  A  16  17  18  Q  19  20  A  21  Q  22  A  23  Q  24  25  THE  COURT  26  27  28  A  29  30  THE  COURT  31  32  A  33  34  THE  COURT  35  36  A  37  THE  COURT  38  A  39  THE  COURT  40  A  41  42  43  THE  COURT  44  MR.  WILLM  45  Q  46  47  85-10, is off the second page, a post mould cut into  layer C.  A post mould found in layer C-2 deposits.  And this sample was collected by you?  Yes.  And it appears to have been collected less than 20  centimetres below where you collected the sample that  we have just talked about that was dated by Beta  Analytic at 1960.  I should say, it appears, if you  look on page 2-8, that it's a difference of 12  centimetres in the depth of those two samples.  Yes.  And with dates over that 12 centimetres, how far is  that, that's five inches, that far?  Oh, deeper than that.  I don't have a ruler with me  today.  But that sample, yes, that sample was taken  from the post in layer C, C-2, the lower C.  Well, it's called C here, yellowish, reddish-brown  silt?  Yes.  And the --  And the C-l is a dark reddish-brown.  Dark stained reddish-brown silt, right?  And when --  let's just do the last one.  :  Before you do that, what does it mean where it says  beside the sketch for number ten it says profile at  3.8 north, what does that mean?  3.8 metres north of the base line at zero, so where  this is the north wall.  :  But this is the north wall profile from 5.6 to 7  metres, isn't it?  5.6 to 7 metres east, and the 3.8 is north.  So we  have three dimensions there.  :  All right.  I see.  Thank you.  But, I am sorry, I  thought these units were one --  We set --  :  Two metres square, were they not?  Basic unit was one metre.  :  This one is almost four metres, is it?  The basic unit excavated was six to seven, and then a  portion of the adjacent unit was also illustrated in  this profile.  :  All right.  The last one is -11, and this was collected by Deanna  Ludowicz and her description is that this sample was  collected from a feature interpreted to have been a described as  sheet.  A  Yes.  Q  And there is  10585  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 post and she gives the stratographic location and I  2 think that the sample was taken, it appears to be  3 about half a metre below the surface.  And it's  4 described as 47 centimetres below the surface in your  5  6  7 Q   And there is the description of the silt underneath  8 it, it sort of fills out a little bit, there is two  9 types of silt at the bottom?  10 A   The —  11 Q   At the bottom of the post of what you described as the  12 post feature, there are two different colours of silt  13 in that feature?  14 A  Well, the post -- yes, I believe that there was gray  15 brown mottling in that post feature, which would --  16 and probably indicates the degree of carbon and  17 charcoal in it.  18 Q   Does the two colours of silt indicate that perhaps  19 there were, at one time, another hole there, that is  20 filled in twice?  21 A   No, the actual examination of the post feature did not  22 indicate that it would be any more than one post  23 feature.  24 Q   No, I am asking whether or not the presence of two  25 different colours indicate that you may have  26 superimposed features in the same location for some  27 reason, that it's filled in -- the silt is what fills  28 in later on after the post rots; is that right?  29 A  We have the decomposition of the post itself, which  30 produces soil as it decomposes.  31 Q   Yes.  And?  32 A   Or a burning of the post with silt from the matrix  33 being added to it.  So there would be some silt matrix  34 along with the decomposed or charred post material.  35 Q   Well, there is a hearth above this, so let's just look  36 at the soils that you found in that, is that not the  37 difference between those two colours, is that not  38 relevant at all in your interpretation of what that  39 might be and whether it's one occurrence or two?  40 A   I am not sure what you're asking, sir.  41 Q   If you dig a hole in the ground and just leave the  42 hole there and let it fill in naturally, you have silt  43 that over time can fill in to the hole which will  44 leave an indication in the future that there was a  45 hole there at some time, there will be different  46 coloured soil, possibly; is that right?  47 A   Yes, we often see cache features with some 10586  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 stratigraphy in them based on weathering and in-  2 filling of silt.  3 Q   Or where a tree may burn at a particular location and  4 decompose, you will find a similar kind of silty  5 matrix after the tree is decomposed over a period of  6 time?  7 A   For a forest burning, a forest burning would have  8 an -- or a tree burning would have a very different  9 characteristic than a cultural feature, and in this  10 situation we have a cultural feature, we have a post  11 feature in the deposit.  12 Q   And animal holes fill in over time, animal burrows and  13 they can fill in from the top, can't they, from  14 deposition of material from the surface in to fill the  15 hole in when it's not used at later times; is that  16 right?  17 A  Animal burrowing would leave, I guess, distinctive  18 characteristics.  19 Q   It would leave what might be described as silt of  20 different colours, wouldn't it?  21 A   But if you're implying that this or getting me to  22 imply that this is not a post feature then, you know,  23 I -- which your line of questioning seems to be  24 indicative of, this is distinctly a cultural feature  25 identified as a large post feature.  A post mould.  26 And there are a number of aspects that are related to  27 it, including its support by several large boulders,  28 and the nature of the profile.  29 Q   Would you turn back to the last radiocarbon where you  30 have got a post there, where are the large rocks on  31 both sides of that post to support it?  32 A   There are several rocks.  33 Q   Well, there is one there.  34 A   Indicated -- R refers to rock.  And it was clearly  35 indicated during excavation of this unit that post  36 features in this unit were also supported by rocks.  37 Q   But during the course of your investigation mistakes  38 were occasionally made on identifying features, isn't  39 that right?  40 A  All of the features that have been identified, I have  41 reviewed all of the information that is relevant to  42 them, that has led to my discussion of them in the  43 report.  44 Q   Well, I am showing you a document from the level, it  45 was described as a level sheet for Moricetown, and  46 there is a list of excavation unit 1.0 to 2.0, and if  47 you just look through this, but do you recognize this 10587  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 as one of the level sheets from Moricetown, in  2 particular a level sheet that was prepared by --  3 sorry, my lord, can we put that one to the side?  It's  4 the wrong level sheet.  5 THE COURT:  I will give it back to you.  6 MR. WILLMS:  I will come back to it.  I want to start with  7 something that's identified as a feature record,  8 feature eight.  Now, do you recognize that this is a  9 feature reported by Richard Bally on the 11th of  10 August, 1985?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   And he is -- I have done it again, my lord, that's not  13 the right one.  But I have got it now and I will come  14 back to this later.  15 THE COURT:  What does D. B. S. mean?  16 A   Depth below surface.  17 MR. WILLMS:  This is the one and then we can break.  18 Q   This is a level sheet, the whole level sheet that we  19 got for this particular one and you recognize that?  20 If you look to the third page of it, which is number  21 four, it's noted as a recorder RPB, and the date of  22 August 14th, 1985.  This is one of the level sheets  23 from Moricetown?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   And you will see on the first page -- and that's Mr.  26 Brolly?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   And on the first page he notes that in that first  29 paragraph:  "Most important development in this level  30 is utter disappearance of all layer 'C-4' dark  31 grayish-brown gravelly silt loam; expected along south  32 trench wall" and then he says this:  "but proving that  33 identification of 'post mould' in preceding level was  34 mostly wishful thinking based on faulty interpretation  35 of a very minor stained-soil zone on floor plan."  36 Now from time to time during excavation, mistakes  37 can be made in identifying the features in the  38 excavation; is that correct?  39 A   Or what is expecting may be something different or the  40 feature is re-interpreted.  41 Q   So when -- and one of the problems with interpreting a  42 feature is that there are several things that you can  43 find underground, that there are features that you can  44 find which may have several interpretations or they  45 may not be a feature at all?  You may think that they  46 are a feature but they are not and you may find things  47 that you think are one kind of a feature but it's 105?  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 really something else?  2 A   I feel like you're trying to confuse me here in this  3 matter.  4 Q   Well, when you see the remains of the filled-in  5 remains of a hole in the ground, that could be the  6 remains of a post mould, right?  7 A   The post moulds are generally quite distinct in that  8 they can be -- they can be, during excavation, they  9 show up as distinct dark circular colourations,  10 stains.  11 Q   So your answer is yes?  12 A   No, I didn't say yes.  I don't remember what you're  13 asking anyway.  I am wanting to explain to you our  14 identification of a post, for example, a post feature,  15 identification of a hearth and how they are determined  16 as a feature, in that a post feature is identified by  17 following it through from its original recognition  18 down through the deposits and it may be noted to  19 extend down into the -- down in the deposits for a  20 distance.  21 THE COURT:  Shall we leave it there until after lunch?  22 MR. WILLMS:  I think it may be useful, my lord.  23 THE COURT:  All right.  2 o'clock, please.  24  25    (Proceedings adjourned for lunch)  26  27  28  29  30 I hereby certify the foregoing to be  31 a true and accurate transcript of the  32 proceedings herein to the best of my  33 skill and ability.  34  35  36  37  38  39 Wilf Roy  40 Official Reporter  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 10589  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RECOMMENCED AFTER LUNCHEON RECESS)  2  3 THE REGISTRAR:  Order in court.  4 THE COURT:  Mr. Willms.  5 MR. WILLMS:  My Lord, before I continue, I just want to first of  6 all mark that level sheet dated August 14, 1985 as  7 Exhibit 849-12.  8 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  9  10 (EXHIBIT NO. 849-12 - COPY - LEVEL SHEET -  11 MORICETOWN - AUGUST 14, 1985 AGBC)  12  13 MR. WILLMS:  And over the lunch break I found what I was looking  14 for, I hope.  15 THE REGISTRAR:  Are you finished with these?  16 MR. WILLMS:  If that last one, 849-12, could be left with the  17 witness.  18 THE REGISTRAR:  Okay.  19 MR. WILLMS:  20 Q   I am showing you, Ms. Albright, what is identified as  21 a feature record form from Moricetown for feature 9.  22 Do you recognize that as the feature record form for  23 feature 9?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   And that's Mr. Brolly down below?  26 A   Yes.  27 THE COURT:  What is it called, a record -- feature record sheet?  28 MR. WILLMS:  Feature record form, My Lord.  2 9 THE COURT:  Thank you.  30 MR. WILLMS:  31 Q   And you will see that the -- under 11 the depth of the  32 feature is 30 centimeters.  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   And the excavation unit is 1 to 2 meters east, 4 to  35 4.5 north?  36 A   Yes.  37 Q   And it's described as a post feature?  38 A   Yes.  39 Q   Now, can you please look back to Exhibit 849-12, which  40 is the level sheet.  You will see that the excavation  41 unit in the level sheet is one to two east.  42 A   Yes.  43 Q   3.8 to 4.5 north?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   And DBS is circled.  That's the depth below the  46 surface?  47 A   Yes. 10590  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  THE COURT  MR. RUSH:  And it's .35 to .40 meters or 35 to 40 centimeters?  Yes.  And I am going to suggest to you that what Mr. Brolly  is talking about here in Exhibit 849-12, when he says  that the identification of a post mold in the  preceding level was wishful thinking, he is referring  to what's been identified as feature 9.  No, I am not sure that it is the same feature.  I  would need all the level sheets.  Feature 9 was  identified from the -- on the basis of all the level  sheets, and you have only given me one.  You have got the level sheets?  I got --  No.  No.  Do you still have the level sheets, all of  the level sheets that you took from Moricetown?  Yes, they are in the binder.  Yes.  All right.  And, My Lord, I apologize for this,  but when these materials came to us they are all over  the place.  I looked and looked and looked for the  level sheet above this, and couldn't find it.  And I  know it's an imposition, and I don't mean to do it  right now, but if it's at all possible for the witness  to review the notes that she kept to identify the  level sheet above that Mr. Brolly is talking about.  The only document that I can find that he could  possibly be talking about is feature 9.  But I could  have been mistaken in reviewing the level notes,  because there is some missing, there is pages missing,  and they are all over the place, and it would be of  great assistance if overnight this witness could have  leave to refuse -- sorry, review all of that, and  advise us in the morning when she finds it.  And I  would like to leave it that way, if I could.  :  All right.  I take objection to my friend's characterization that  the sheets were all over the place, that some were  missing and so on.  I think you should see that as my  learned friend's interpretation of them.  :  I didn't take it any other way.  The short request, I think, is would the witness look  at the notes she has.  :  Yes.  I'm sure she will.  THE COURT  MR. WILLMS:  Q   The site at Moricetown, GGST2, was first investigated  by Mr. Turnbull?  A   Yes.  Q   And, My Lord, I can't remember, did I ask that that 10591  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 feature be marked --  2 THE COURT:  No.  3 MR. WILLMS:  Sorry.  Feature 9 be 849-13.  4 THE COURT:  Yes.  5 THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you.  6  7 (EXHIBIT NO. 849-13 - COPY - FEATURE RECORD  8 FORM - AUGUST 12, 1985 - AGBC)  9  10 MR. WILLMS:  And now it's the large black —  11 THE REGISTRAR:  847.  Exhibit 847.  12 MR. WILLMS:  13 Q   And in there you have the -- Turnbull at tab three.  14 And in paragraph 2, Mr. Turnbull, this is at tab three  15 in his report on the site that you later investigated,  16 further says that:  17  18 "As far as ethnohistoric data is concerned,  19 the Moricetown people are not going to be much  2 0 help.  There are not many people who know much  21 about the old days, in spite of the fact that  22 a certain number of the village spent most of  23 their time gaffing fish and totem poles are  24 still being erected."  25  2 6 Now, when you were conducting your ethnographic  27 research in the Moricetown area, did you interview any  28 of the elders in the area to determine how various  29 material culture may have been used in the past?  30 A   Several elders came to see us while we were excavating  31 at the site, and gave comments on features visible in  32 the profiles.  33 Q   Did you make notes of the dates that you spoke to  34 those people commenting on the features, and what they  35 said about them?  3 6 A   No, I didn't.  37 Q   When you did your research, Tahltan ethno-archaeology,  38 in order to explain the hunter gatherer use of  39 material culture, you also observed and interviewed  40 people among the Tahltans, is that correct?  41 A   Yes, I did.  42 Q   As part of your ethnographic research to interpret the  43 archaeological record?  44 A   Yes.  45 Q   Yes.  And in accordance with your practise you made  46 notes of those conversations and the information that  47 you received? 10592  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   Why did you do it differently here?  3 A   In this situation I did not carry out formal  4 interviews.  These were visitors to the site.  5 Q   All right.  So you did your ethno-archaeological  6 investigation here differently than the method that  7 you used in doing Tahltan ethno-archaeology?  8 A   In what sense do you mean differently?  9 Q   Well, that's one example, isn't it, that you just  10 explained.  You had informal meetings with people  11 explaining how material culture was used and what  12 things were at Moricetown.  You formally recorded that  13 in your investigations with the Tahltan.  That's a  14 difference, isn't it?  15 A   Yes.  16 Q   Just carrying on with Turnbull at tab three.  Turnbull  17 did excavate two pits at GGST2, and he says, and this  18 is at the bottom.  He put in two at the third terrace  19 and one on the second.  And at the very bottom of the  20 page he notes that he only drew two of the pit walls  21 from that test pit.  There were only 19 artifacts  22 recovered, and then on the top of the next page he  23 describes that he did test pit two because the first  24 one was so unproductive.  And one thing that he notes,  25 and I'm sorry to flip you back, but back to the first  26 page on the one pit that he excavated at GGST2.  If  27 you look down, he says that the pit was riddled with  28 animal burrows.  Do you see that?  29 A   Yes.  30 Q   And I suggested to you before, and I just -- I can't  31 remember what you said, but I suggested that a filled  32 in animal burrow might look similar to a decayed post  33 mold over time.  Isn't that true?  34 A   No, it isn't.  35 Q   All right.  Totally different?  36 A   Quite different, yes.  37 Q   All right.  And what are the points that are so  38 different that you can tell just by looking at them?  39 A   Post molds are features that are vertical and indicate  40 vertical placement of a post.  Animal burrows, animals  41 tend to burrow in every which direction.  42 Q   You mean at an angle?  43 A   No.  Every which direction.  44 Q   And they never burrow straight down?  Is that your  45 evidence?  46 A   I don't live with animals.  I'm not sure that they  47 would ever burrow -- dig straight up or down. 10593  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   One thing you noted when you viewed Turnbull is that  2 if a pit is riddled with animal burrows, it -- there  3 is a possibility that the material may be disturbed  4 below the soil level.  Is that correct?  5 A   He's referring to a cache pit which was excavated.  6 Q   It may be a cache pit, but it's in GGST2.  It's in  7 that same location where you did your -- I am not  8 saying it's the same walls.  9 A   It's on the same terrace.  10 Q   It's on the same terrace?  11 A   Yes.  12 Q   You are not trying to suggest that there were animal  13 burrows only in a cache pit area and nowhere else on  14 that whole terrace.  I mean, surely the animal burrows  15 would be within a -- at least a localized environ in  16 that area, or didn't you notice any animal burrows  17 whatsoever?  18 A  We did not observe animal burrows in the cultural  19 deposits that we excavated.  20 Q   Did you observe any around on the surface or nearby  21 where you excavated?  22 A   No.  23 Q   Did you observe any at all?  24 A   No, I didn't in the cultural deposits that we  25 excavated.  26 Q   You walked over this whole area, didn't you?  27 A   Yes.  28 Q   Did you observe any animal burrows whatsoever?  2 9 A   No, I didn't.  30 Q   Now, you will see that on the second page of this  31 Turnbull describes -- and this is from the bottom of  32 the page over to the top, when he is still talking  33 about test pit one at GGST2 and the 19 artifacts that  34 he recovered with the major features are recorded, and  35 that the depth of the deposit is 2.5 feet.  Then he  36 says this:  37  38 "Since there are cache pits nearby, some of the  39 deposit may be excavated material."  40  41 Now, were there cache pits in the area of GGST2 that  42 you noticed during your investigations?  43 A   Those cache pits at the edge of the terrace where  44 Turnbull did this test unit are still visible.  45 Q   All right.  Did you observe cache pits anywhere else  46 in the area of GGST2?  47 A   I believe there were a few pits further to the south 10594  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 on the terrace, but not in the vicinity of the area  2 that I excavated.  3 Q   No.  But the area that you excavated was an area where  4 the reason why you were able to excavate there was a  5 trench had been cut, right, with a bulldozer or  6 something like that.  There was a trench that was cut  7 before you even went to the site.  8 A   Yes.  9 Q   Yes.  And you don't know whether there were any cache  10 pits in that trench, or what was in the trench before  11 it was excavated, do you?  12 A   There are comparable deposits on the trench wall.  13 Q   And you interpolate from the trench wall what was in  14 the trench, that it was all the same?  15 A   There were no -- had been no pits observed in this  16 area.  17 Q   Well —  18 A   Turnbull made known where the pits were located on the  19 very edge of the terrace.  20 Q   When you arrived at the site you made use of a trench  21 pit that had been cut at some time before you arrived?  22 THE COURT:  Trench pit?  23 MR. WILLMS:  Well, sorry, a trench.  I will call it a trench.  24 Q   About 4 and-a-half meters wide?  25 A   Three meters wide.  26 Q   Three meters wide.  And it was that trench that  27 allowed you to get at the excavations that you did on  28 either side?  29 A  We excavated from the trench.  30 Q   My question is:  First of all, other than  31 interpolating from what you found on either side of  32 the trench, you don't know what it was that was  33 excavated out of that trench?  34 A  Material similar to what we have observed on both  35 sides of the trench.  3 6 Q   You assume?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   But you don't know whether material from the trench  39 was placed on either side of the trench?  40 A  Materials were placed to the -- on the -- to the south  41 of the trench.  42 Q   On the south side of the trench?  43 A   Yes.  44 Q   And if you can look in your report.  The south side of  45 the trench is the south wall profile on figure 2.  46 A   That is the south -- yes, that's the south wall of the  47 trench. 10595  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And it's your evidence that material was piled on that  2 wall?  3 A   In the photograph of the area we excavated you can see  4 how the materials from the trench had been placed on  5 the surface, on the other side of the wall.  6 Q   So that you knew when you went in to excavate in these  7 areas that there had been at least some disturbance,  8 before you got there, of the area that you were  9 excavating?  10 A   No.  The trench materials were placed on the surface  11 back from the edge of the trench wall.  The deposits  12 themselves were not disturbed.  13 Q   The deposits weren't disturbed?  14 A   The deposits below ground surface were not disturbed.  15 Q   Now, go back now, My Lord, to something I got a little  16 out of order before.  17 THE COURT:  Looking at plate one?  18 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  19 THE COURT:  I take it the backhoe is still working when that  20 picture was taken, was it, that was causing all that  21 dust?  22 THE WITNESS:  The backhoe is on — yes, I think there was still  23 a backhoe operating at the other end of the terrace,  24 on the back of the terrace.  25 THE COURT:  Why did they dig this trench?  Was it for your  26 purposes?  27 THE WITNESS:  No, not at all, sir.  2 8 THE COURT:  What was it for?  29 THE WITNESS:  The band was upgrading the -- a campground on this  30 terrace.  31 THE COURT:  What was this trench for?  32 THE WITNESS:  To put in water lines and electric lines.  33 THE COURT:  A three meter trench for water?  34 THE WITNESS:  I guess as big as was useful for the backhoe.  35 THE COURT:  You think that might have been the size of the  36 bucket?  37 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I don't know — the bucket wouldn't be that  38 big, sir, but I imagine they laid both water lines and  39 electric lines.  4 0 THE COURT:  All right.  41 MR. WILLMS:  42 Q   This one is the one for His Lordship.  Now, I am  43 showing you something that I showed you before.  It's  44 a note entitled feature eight and -- this is a feature  45 that's recorded by Richard Brolly on August 11th,  46 1985.  Do you see that?  47 A   Yes. 10596  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And he is recording it, and he says this, that the  2 type of feature is unclear.  He calls it a ash  3 deposit.  And then he says:  4  5 "A lens or cultural deposit of layer C/ash,  6 overlying the normally stratigraphically  7 superior layer B."  8  9 And then down below he says that it's a:  10  11 "Stratigraphic paradox of layer."  12  13 I think it's C overlying layer B.  Now, just for a  14 moment, if you find a soil layer overlying another  15 soil layer out of sequence, is that one indication  16 that the soil layers may have been disturbed?  17 A   No.  18 Q   Never?  It's never an indication?  If you found layer  19 C material sitting on the top of layer B material,  20 isn't that an indication that there could have been  21 disturbance in the soil at that location?  22 A   Oh, there could have been.  23 Q   Okay.  24 A   From what you outlined.  25 MR. WILLMS:   All right.  And maybe while I — maybe I can mark  26 that, My Lord, before I turn to the more detailed  27 description by Mr. Brolly.  Maybe that could be  28 849-14.  29  30 (EXHIBIT NO. 849-14 - COPY - FEATURE RECORD  31 FORM - AUGUST 11, 1985 - AGBC)  32  33 MR. WILLMS:  34 Q   Then the next one is a level sheet, and it appears, at  35 least from the top, to represent the same location.  36 And you will see it's a level sheet dated August 11th,  37 which is the same date as the feature sheet, marked  38 849-14.  You recognize this as Mr. Brolly's feature  39 sheet -- sorry, level sheet?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   And you will see that Mr. Brolly is describing:  42  43 "An odd juxtaposition of the apparent layer C  44 material over apparent layer B matrix."  45  46 And then he says:  47 10597  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 "See feature record form from this unit."  2  3 And then says this:  4  5 "While doing so, it became evident that while  6 there was a superpositioning of strata,  7 that there was also more stratigraphic  8 weirdness going on in here than previously  9 believed."  10  11 And is that just a comment particular to Mr. Brolly,  12 or did you notice that there was some -- not using  13 weirdness, but some interesting stratigraphic things  14 taking place during the excavation?  15 A   I think that refers to a case of sunstroke on that  16 particular day.  17 Q   Because --  18 A  And the -- and the effect that sunstroke is having on  19 his ability to read the colouration of the matrix he  20 was excavating in.  21 Q   You see, on page 4 he carries on.  22 A   That was a day I did get quite angry with him.  23 Q   He carries on on page 4, and says that:  24  25 "The stratigraphic anomaly seen along the  26 trench wall may be a function of the pit fill  27 at the edge of the 'ash pit', but seemingly  2 8 this should not have remained unmixed for very  29 long."  30  31 Do you agree with that observation?  32 A   No.  33 Q   No.  And then Mr. Brolly -- and maybe you could put  34 figure 2 -- have figure 2 in front of you.  First of  35 all this is the north wall that he is describing here.  36 If you look at it, it's described as 3.8 to 4.5 north.  37 A   North.  38 Q   It's the north wall between one meter and two meters.  39 And you will see that Mr. Brolly has described the ash  40 pit at E up at the top left-hand corner of his  41 diagram.  42 Sorry, I'm on page 5 of the level sheet.  43 THE COURT:  Yes.  All right.  Thank you.  44 MR. WILLMS:  The very last page of the level sheet.  45 Q   And Mr. Brolly has drawn the boundary here, and he's  46 got E as the gray ashy silt, and then he has it  47 underlain by D, by C, and also by B, which he 1059?  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 describes as a dark grayish brown gravelly silt loam.  2 And if you look on your figure 2 at the bottom, you  3 have described layer B as dark grayish brown sandy  4 silt.  Right?  5 A   Yes.  6 Q   But if you look between one and two meters on the  7 north wall profile, you don't show any layer B or C  8 underlying that ash deposit that is set in there, do  9 you.  What you have got underlying it is layer D, but  10 no C and no B.  11 AD refers to the rich brown gravels.  12 Q   And you have got that underneath the ash deposit, and  13 that's what Mr. Brolly shows too in his level sheet?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   But then for some reason you don't show any layer C  16 under layer D as he has, and he's marked down what the  17 colour of it is.  18 A   The C would be above the D.  19 Q   Well, that would be if there was no stratigraphic  20 weirdness going on, but that's not what Mr. Brolly's  21 describing here, is it?  22 A   The C is stratigraphically above D.  23 Q   That's what you have shown here in figure 2, right?  24 A   Yes.  25 Q   But that's not what Mr. Brolly showed on his level  26 sheet.  27 A   I believe that's what he was referring to.  28 Q   Well, look here.  He calls B at the very bottom of his  29 level sheet, he describes it very carefully in his  30 legend as dark grayish brown gravelly silt loam.  That  31 is the very same legend.  32 A   This is part of a feature at that location.  The  33 feature fill has a dark matrix within the context of  34 the C.  And he says here, "bottoms out at 46  35 centimeters below surface."  So this is the one to two  36 meters east.  This is the post feature referred to as  37 nine.  38 Q   Yes.  39 A   That's number 9.  And on figure 4 showing the  40 distribution of features in the deposits.  Feature  41 number 9 is a post mold, and what Brolly has called B  42 as a dark gray brown matrix in the -- within the C is  43 the post feature.  And the yellowish grayish ashy silt  44 at which he has referred to as E, as a separate  45 designation for this lens of yellowish grayish ash,  46 has been defined as -- as the feature number 8, ash  47 feature number 8, which is also shown in figure 4 of 10599  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the opinion report.  2 Q   Well, however you interpret what Mr. Brolly has drawn  3 here, he has clearly said in here that he saw layer C  4 material lying over layer B material.  There is no  5 doubt about that, is there?  That's what he says.  6 A   He is seeing layer C material over a dark matrix,  7 which was determined to be part of another feature,  8 not an aspect of the layer, and he has referred to it  9 as B here, because the same -- it is the same colour  10 as layer B up above.  11 Q   Yes.  12 A   So he has used B to describe the colour of it.  13 Q   Well, I don't want to dwell on this, but if we are  14 reading from the same page --  15 A   So I believe the --  16 Q   Isn't this what he describes B as, a dark grayish  17 brown gravelly silt loam?  18 A   In the fill of this feature, this pit feature?  19 Q   B.  20 A   Yes.  21 Q   And he shows C as being dark reddish brown silt  22 overlaying that B.  23 A   No, it's not overlaying.  It is adjacent to it.  It's  24 not overlaying it.  25 THE COURT:  It's drawn as overlaying, isn't it?  26 THE WITNESS:  No, it's drawn as adjacent to it.  At this point  27 in time where the plan would have been drawn, the B  28 matrix is quite distinct surrounded by -- I say  29 surrounded by at the same level by C matrix.  30 MR. WILLMS:  31 Q   Just going back.  Do you have feature eight in front  32 of you?  33 A   So we have a feature within a separate feature in the  34 C deposits, in the C layer.  35 Q   Do you still have the feature eight description,  36 849-14?  It's that page.  And as I read Mr. Brolly, he  37 says:  38  39 "A paradox of layer C matrix overlying layer B  4 0 matrix."  41  42 Which happens to coincide with, and maybe I'm not  43 able to read these archaeological diagrams, but it  44 looks like what he's depicted on the last page of the  45 level notes "C overlaying B", isn't that what he is  46 describing?  47 A   Feature eight refers to the ash deposit which on the 10600  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 level sheet he has referred to as E.  E letter  2 designation to refer to this yellowish gray ashy silt,  3 described as E.  4 Q   Well, this is it.  I will leave this.  Can I just ask  5 you one question?  6 A   Yes.  I was going to say, interpretation of  7 stratigraphy and features is a very complex process,  8 and it --  9 Q   He does say in Exhibit 84-14, when he describes the  10 feature in item 9:  11  12 "A lens or cultural deposit of layer C/ash  13 overlaying the normally graphically superior  14 layer B."  15  16 And when I look at figure 2 in your report, I can  17 see the ash deposit depicted between one meter and two  18 meter, but I do not see it overlaying the normally  19 stratigraphically superior layer B.  20 A   Yes, the -- normally the layer we have designated as B  21 is -- it is -- it is stratigraphically above C.  What  22 his confusion is here is that he has given the same B  23 designation to describe the matrix of another post  24 feature.  25 Q   Well, I don't —  26 A  And that's why I got angry at him that day, because he  27 was -- is getting confused with his descriptions of  28 the features and colourations he was seeing.  2 9 Q   Uh-huh.  Well, maybe we will move on.  30 THE COURT:  What is the post in figure 2?  Is that F7?  31 THE WITNESS:  In the post — yes, what he has called in his —  32 on his level sheet here as B matrix is the post  33 feature number 9, which is shown in my report on  34 figure 4.  Figure 4 which shows a distribution of  35 features in the earlier C deposits.  36 THE COURT:  But this 849-14 shows it to be between one and two  37 meters east.  38 THE WITNESS:  Yes.  39 THE COURT:  Would that not put it on the left-hand side of the  40 north wall profile?  41 THE WITNESS:  It — the second unit in from the left at one to  42 two meters there is a ash patch shown in the profiles.  43 That's after the unit was excavated, because it shows  44 up in the -- in the wall of the completed unit.  So  45 the ash that is referred to in this level sheet has  46 been identified as a feature, as an ash lens in the  47 profile.  The post feature that is referred to here is 10601  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 not, because it was along the edge of the unit that  2 was being excavated.  It didn't show up in the profile  3 after completion of the unit, but it is mapped in the  4 distribution of features a few pages following the  5 profiles in figure 4.  It shows up as the post mold  6 number 9.  Figure 4, features associated with  7 deposition of layer C.  8 THE COURT:  Where is that post?  9 THE WITNESS:  It's on the right-hand side of the page.  Again  10 feature number 9.  11 THE COURT:  It is called feature eight in the level sheet, or  12 the feature record form.  13 THE WITNESS:  The feature eight refers to that ash, which you  14 can see at the back of the unit.  15 THE COURT:  All right.  16 THE WITNESS:  And then 9 refers to the post mold on the edge of  17 the unit.  18 THE COURT:  All right.  19 THE WITNESS:  So both of those features that are identified in  20 the notes and his floor plan are identified in figure  21 4 there, associated with layer C, which surrounds at  22 the same level, surrounds those features.  23 THE COURT:  All right.  24 MR. WILLMS:  25 Q   Did you -- and if you are at layer C, the features  26 associate with deposition of layer C, you have shown a  27 lot of post molds here.  28 MR. RUSH:  What are you referring to please?  29 MR. WILLMS:  I'm sorry, it's your figure 4 after 2-5.  30 Q   And of those -- and you have associated all of those  31 with layer -- you say C here, without distinguishing  32 between CI and C2.  33 A   Yes, there were two features, I believe.  34 Q   But post mold 26 at the very bottom?  35 A   Yes.  36 Q   That you obtained a carbon date for?  37 A   Yes.  38 Q   Post mold 19 you obtained a carbon date for?  39 A   I believe so.  40 THE COURT:  Where is 19?  41 MR. WILLMS:  If you go up, My Lord, they sort of work backwards.  42 It's on the right-hand portion of the backhoe trench,  43 PM 19.  I am on this one, My Lord.  It's figure 4.  44 THE COURT:  Yes, I am on figure 4.  45 MR. WILLMS:  And on the right hand you will see there is a  46 series of circles and numbers beside them.  4 7 THE COURT:  Yes. 10602  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  MR. WILLMS  2  Q  3  4  5  MR. RUSH:  6  7  MR. WILLMS  8  Q  9  10  11  12  A  13  Q  14  15  16  A  17  Q  18  19  A  20  Q  21  22  23  24  A  25  26  27  Q  28  A  29  30  Q  31  32  33  34  A  35  36  37  38  Q  39  A  40  41  42  Q  43  A  44  Q  45  46  47  Now, all of these post molds that you have shown in  layer C, they vary from 42 centimeters in diameter --  from 20 centimeters in diameter to 42.  The summary of features indicates the depths and the  diameters, which are not quite as you indicated.  Well, the variation is the diameter or the depth.  The  depth range -- sorry, I had it backwards.  The depths  range from 55 as the deepest in layer C all the way up  to 30 — 25?  25 in one case, yes.  All right.  So there is a 30 centimeter difference  from the top to bottom of the depth of these post  molds in layer C, and they range?  Yes, there is a range of depth.  All right.  And then there is a range of diameters of  these post molds as well?  Yes.  And you are not suggesting, are you, that any more  than one or two of these post molds may have been in  existence at any particular time in the past, are you,  that is at the same time?  Yes, I am indicating there are.  There are likely to  be several posts that are indicative of a structure, a  particular structure.  At one time?  At one specific time?  A structure would have been used over a period of  time.  All right.  Do you know what the life of a post is,  exposed to the elements in this area, and how long it  takes before it either rots in the ground or  decomposes naturally?  I haven't been out looking at fence posts, no.  But  these are house posts which suggest several periods of  rebuilding and occupation of house structures at this  site over a considerable period of time.  And —  And there are likely that -- likely that there is more  than one or two associated with each other in any  building episode.  One or two?  It's likely there are more than one or two.  You have only dated two, and you know from the results  that you've received for Beta Analytic, and assuming  that those results are accurate, that the two dates  you got show that it's unlikely that those two posts, 10603  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  THE  MR.  A  Q  COURT:  WILLMS  being 900 years apart, were part of the same  structure.  And I am speaking about post mold 19 and  post mold 26.  I am not suggesting they are the same structure.  No.  And because of the time depth of layer C, as  you've described it, you have got layer C on page 2 --  eight ranging all the way from 2860 B.P. to 5660 B.P.  That's 2800 years.  What was this again, Mr. Willms?  It's at page 2-8, My Lord, and the range for layer  C is  COURT:  WILLMS:  WITNESS  WILLMS:  Q   Yes  Oh, yes.  Just a moment.  2860 to 5660.  That includes both CI and C2.  A  MR.  THE  I am just trying to correlate that with the  figure you have shown, CI and C2 -- you have shown  them on the same figure 4?  Yes.  And there are two of those features associated  with CI.  And the carbon dating for figure 4, assuming that it's  accurate, ranges from 2860 to 5660 for the features  listed on that?  We have dates on samples retrieved from two of those  features.  No.  The post molds.  But there are other features in  here, right?  Yes.  And the features that are associated with layer C, you  have marked all of the features on figure 4?  Yes.  You have marked hearths and the post molds and the ash  deposits, right?  Yes.  So that the time depth based on what Beta Analytic  reported to you, the time depth of figure 4 is 2800  years?  Yes, for the CI and the C2 deposits, yes.  So that it's highly unlikely that any more than one or  two or maybe three of these features were  contemporaneous with each other?  Without dates from all of them, I couldn't tell you  exactly which ones were contemporaneous with each  other.  WILLMS:  My Lord, this may be an appropriate time to take  the afternoon break.  COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  A  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A  Q  A 10604  S.L. Albright (for Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED FOR A BRIEF RECESS)  3  4 I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO  5 BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT  6 OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEREIN TO THE  7 BEST OF MY SKILL AND ABILITY.  8  9  10 LORI OXLEY  11 OFFICIAL REPORTER  12 UNITED REPORTING SERVICE LTD.  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 10605  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (PROCEEDINGS RESUMED FOLLOWING SHORT RECESS)  2  3 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, I would ask that the level sheet that the  4 witness was just referring to, prepared by Mr. Brolly,  5 be marked Exhibit 849-15.  6  7 (EXHIBIT 849-15: LEVEL SHEET - SITE - MORRICETOWN)  8  9 MR. WILLMS:  10 Q   Ms. Albright, could you have your report at page 2-8,  11 and I think I asked you this before, but just before  12 we proceed with this, is it your evidence that you  13 found evidence of human habitation associated with  14 each of the locations of the carbon samples that are  15 reported at figure 2 at page 2-8?  16 A   Yes.  17 Q   Now, looking at the archaeological evidence that you  18 looked at, can you tell whether the site dwellers at  19 any of the different dates that are set out at page  20 2-8 were either the ancestors or the descendants of  21 the site dwellers at any of the other dates?  22 A   Could you repeat that, please?  23 Q   Well, maybe I will just focus on two dates.  Do you  24 know whether or not the human habitation represented  25 at 5660 B. P. on this table, whether those people were  26 the descendents -- sorry, were the ancestors of the  27 people at, say, 1650 B. P. from the archaeological  28 evidence, can you tell that?  29 A   The archaeological evidence reflects continuous use  30 and occupation over the five to 6000 years as  31 represented by the materials.  32 Q   So that your answer to my question --  33 MR. RUSH:  Excuse me —  34 MR. WILLMS:  I thought she was finished.  35 MR. RUSH:  Is she finished is the question?  36 A   The materials themselves -- the materials themselves  37 do not have -- do not indicate who -- what language  38 the speakers were who occupied the site at that time.  39 MR. WILLMS:  40 Q   But let me take it even further, each one of these  41 could represent people with a similar material culture  42 who were at the location at the particular time but  4 3 moved away?  44 A   I don't know that.  45 Q   That's a possibility, isn't it?  46 A   People could have occupied the site at an early time  47 and moved to a different location. 10606  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And the ancestors of those people could move back and  2 be represented later?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   Or someone else with the same material culture or  5 similar material culture could have moved into the  6 same location?  7 A   The materials at the site indicate changes in  8 technology over time, such as the diagnostic  9 projectile points that were recovered.  We see a  10 change in those point styles over time at the site.  11 Q   And just stopping there --  12 MR. RUSH:  Just a minute.  13 MR. WILLMS:  I thought she was finished.  14 A   The materials at the site, including the artifactual  15 material, the stratigraphy and the sequence of dates  16 indicate continuous occupation up to the historic  17 period.  18 Q   Well, I thought a moment ago you agreed that a  19 possibility was that people who lived there at a  20 particular time could have moved away from the site  21 for a period of time and then moved back, that's an  22 archaeological possibility from your findings, isn't  23 it?  24 A   They could have been here fishing in the summer and  25 off in some other part of the region for hunting in  26 different parts of the environment.  27 Q   And from the archaeology, they could have gone away to  28 a different location and your dates are hundreds of  29 years apart, in that interim you don't know whether if  30 was anyone there from the archaeological record?  31 A  Within the stratigraphy revealed during excavation, I  32 do not see any sudden break in stratigraphy that would  33 suggest that the site had been abandoned for any  34 lengthy period of time.  35 Q   Well —  36 A  Which would give an erosional surface to the site.  37 Q   But didn't, at Hagwilget, didn't Dr. Ames interpret a  38 period where he found one cultural zone but very few  39 or not a great number of artifacts, as something that  40 had been used sporadically, wasn't that an  41 archaeological interpretation of his result?  42 A   That was his interpretation.  43 Q   At Hagwilget?  44 A   Yes, he interpreted that zone B as being used for  45 summer fishing activities.  46 Q   Sporadic?  47 A   I wouldn't agree with him on sporadic, the term 10607  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 sporadic.  In looking at the materials in the features  2 associated with that zone the -- I agree with his  3 interpretation that it was used as a fishing site.  4 Q   I thought your evidence earlier, for example, with  5 respect to plate A-6, the projectile points, first of  6 all you saw a similarity between A, B and C, A and B  7 were recovered from Moricetown and C was recovered  8 from Hagwilget, all right?  And didn't you give that  9 evidence before that there was a material cultural  10 similarity between them?  11 A   Similar in terms of comparable time frames for those  12 projectile points.  13 Q   About how about material culture telling you something  14 about who used them?  15 A   That -- yes, they represent comparable activities.  16 Q   And I think you gave evidence that you saw drawings,  17 and I can't recall whether it was MacDonald further  18 down the Skeena or whether it was Allaire, but of  19 similar features further down the Skeena River?  20 A   Similar points styles.  21 Q   Similar point styles, right.  22 A   Yes, they appear at the Gitaus site excavated by  23 Allaire.  24 Q   Similar cultural material?  25 A   Yes.  26 Q   And when you say diagnostic to tell you something  27 about a material culture, that's what you mean, don't  28 you, you mean that you can look at this point that's  29 been excavated at point A and say that the material  30 culture of whoever was using it there is the same  31 material culture as whoever was using a similar point  32 excavated at point B?  33 A   Those two, that aspect of the culture is similar, yes.  34 Q   And the other points, and it's with a projectile point  35 at the top of plate A-6, I think you have already  36 given evidence that was the Magne article that you  37 relied on in saying that they were diagnostic, that  38 you could say something about the material culture by  39 looking at those?  40 A   I didn't rely on the Magne paper to say they were  41 diagnostic, they are diagnostic of late period arrow  42 points.  43 Q   At Athapaskan?  44 A   Found in the interior, both northern, central and  45 southern interior.  46 Q   So that there is a large geographic range where points  47 similar to that have been found? 1060?  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 A   Yes.  2 Q   And is there a similar large geographic range where  3 points similar to A, B and C have been found?  4 A   Yes.  5 Q   So I am going to suggest to you again that you can't  6 tell from the archaeological record whether or not  7 people present at a particular time at Moricetown  8 Canyon were the ancestors or the descendents of anyone  9 there at a different time, you can't tell that from  10 the archaeological record?  11 A   Not from looking at individual items.  Looking at the  12 sequence, looking at the materials within the context  13 of the sequence, that is represented at this site, the  14 sequence of occupation at the site indicates  15 occupation over a period of 6000 years that material  16 culture indicates a development that is in late times  17 indicative that -- suggestive that this development  18 has led to the occupation of the site by the present  19 occupants of the area.  So there appears to be an in  20 situ cultural development at the site.  21 Q   Well, let's just turn to the in situ development and  22 maybe the starting point would be table 5 in your  23 report, which is your temporal comparisons?  24 A   Table 5?  25 Q   Yes, it's after page 2-19.  Now, on this table that  26 you refer to a period since Euro-Canadian trade and  27 contact of about 200 years at Moricetown on the  28 right-hand side, and then you get into layer A on this  29 table.  30 A   Yes, this is a generalization of a period.  I am not  31 sure that that contact at each site was exactly the  32 same.  This is -- 200 years is taken as a general  33 reference point.  34 Q   You did locate a historic zone at Moricetown where you  35 located insulator fragments?  36 A   They, were lying in the sod on the surface of the  37 site.  38 Q   I am showing you what's been described as your  39 excavation catalogue for the -- it's just extracts  40 from it, is that your handwriting or is that Deanna  41 Ludowicz's handwriting?  42 A   I believe the catalogue is in various handwritings,  43 depending who took turns identifying and writing.  44 Q   And let's just -- my lord, maybe we should mark that  45 before I forget, as 849-16.  46  47 10609  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 (EXHIBIT 84 9-16:EXCAVATION CATALOGUE MORRICETOWN -  2 TRENCH 1)  3  4 Q   Just to describe what you have done here, there is a  5 column entitled catalogue number and that is the  6 number of the artifact that you have excavated?  7 A   Yes.  8 Q   Then the next column over is horizontal excavation  9 unit, and the two lines below tell you which way you  10 move to the east or west and immediately below to the  11 north or south from your datum point?  12 A   Yes.  13 Q   Next you have the layer mentioned, and the depth?  14 A   Yes.  15 Q   And then next you have an artifact description,  16 correct?  Now you will see that working down here,  17 catalogue 85-103 is identified as a green glass  18 insulator fragment and it's identified as being in  19 layer A, 30 centimetres DBUD, that's depth below upper  2 0              datum?  21 A   Yes.  22 Q   Now, is this your handwriting or is this someone  23 else's?  24 A   DBUD is different from depth below surface.  25 Q   I know.  If you go down to the next one, which is  26 another green glass insulator fragment, DBS and 20  27 centimetres, that means depth below surface, doesn't  28 it?  29 A   It says DBS.  30 Q   That means depth below surface; is that right?  31 A   It means depth below surface.  32 Q   And it also says layer A?  33 A   Yes.  34 Q   So green glass insulator fragments were found in layer  35 A?  36 A   I think this may still refer to the sod layer  37 referring to depth below datum, because I think both  38 were used on the south trench.  39 Q   Well, perhaps you could turn to page 11, which is the  40 second or third to the last page in this artifact  41 list?  42 A   Third to —  43 Q   Page 11, but it's the third to the last page and you  44 will see at the very bottom there is catalogue number  45 85-264 layer and it says A, zero to ten centimetres,  46 green glass insulator fragment and then sod?  47 A   Yes. 10610  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   And so where it's the sod, the sod is written in, zero  2 to ten centimetres;  do you see that?  3 A   Yes.  4 Q   So going back to the first page, I am suggesting to  5 you that the glass insulator fragments were more than  6 just in the sod, they were also in layer A, as is set  7 out on the catalogue?  8 A  Well, in cataloguing the artifacts the sod was  9 including as A as part of the --  10 Q   As A?  11 A  As A.  12 Q   And just keeping that in front of you, if you turn  13 back in your report to page 2-5, where you have listed  14 the artifacts -- sorry, where you have listed the  15 features, if you look down the depth on table 1, at  16 page 2-5, you will see you have got the depth in  17 centimetres, now that's the depth below surface, that  18 column, DBS?  19 A   On this table?  20 Q   Yes.  21 A   Yes, in preparing the table I went through all of the  22 field notes and, in some cases, the -- most cases DBS  23 was used but often DBU was used on the south wall  24 trench.  25 Q   But in any event, you're representing DBS here, that's  26 what you're representing?  27 A   On the table it's DBS, yes.  28 Q   And your DBS on the table, there are some that are 80  29 or 70, but if you look down the list, at least down to  30 the ash deposits, you're within 25 centimetres, except  31 for those two pits, of the surface?  32 A   No, you see most of the post moulds are in the layer C  33 deposits are --  34 Q   But I wasn't talking about the post moulds, just stop  35 at the ash deposits, except for those two pit  36 features, five and four -- sorry, two and five, all  37 the rest of those features are 25 DBS or less?  38 A   The ash features?  39 Q   Well, and pit and hearths, the hearths are 25 as well?  40 A   Yes.  41 Q   So what I am suggesting to you is that if you have got  42 green glass insulator fragments down ten to 20  43 centimetres DBS, it's possible that you are in a  44 historic zone when you are looking at the hearth  45 three, hearth 15, 17, pit feature four, and all of the  46 ash deposits?  47 A   No. 10611  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 Q   Impossible?  2 A   There were only the three items or I believe three  3 fragments found that reflect post contact activity at  4 the site.  All of the -- all of the materials and  5 the -- all of the artifacts, all of the rest of the  6 artifactual material and all of the features at the  7 site indicate pre-contact occupation of the site.  8 Q   Well, let's just test that.  Turn to the second page  9 of your excavation, of the extract from your  10 excavation catalogue, which is page six, on page six  11 you have 85-185, you have it noted as zero to 15  12 centimetres DBS?  13 THE COURT:  I am sorry, what are you looking at?  14 MR. WILLMS:  Page six, I am at artifact 85-185, if you look at  15 the catalogue number in the left hand column, my lord,  16 and then you go across.  17 THE COURT:  Oh, yes.  18 MR. WILLMS:  19 Q   The layer is described as A again, the depth below  20 surface is zero to 15 and it's described as a brown  21 glass fragment, that's historic, isn't it?  22 A   That would indicate a historic item, yes, and it was  23 found in level bag material, which included the sod so  24 it was in a level bag.  25 Q   With the other prehistoric artifacts, wasn't it, they  26 were all in the same level bag?  27 A   Yes, they may have been put in the level bag with  28 mostly prehistoric materials but all prehistoric  29 materials for that level of excavation, including the  30 sod.  31 Q   Can you turn to the next page of the extract that I  32 gave you, it's page nine from your notes, the  33 catalogue number is 85-223, the depth is zero to five  34 centimetres, and I do note that immediately below it  35 there is flake shatter basalt, apparently found in the  36 same level, flakes, margin, chert, apparently in the  37 same level bag, but a green glass insulator as well,  38 that's historic, isn't it, the green glass insulator  39 fragment?  40 A   Yes, there was one item, it was in three to four or  41 perhaps five fragments.  42 Q   Well, we started on the first page --  43 A  And it's still found in the sod layer.  Okay?  In  44 excavating the unit, the material from the sod was  45 included in the surface, the first level.  46 Q   The historic level?  47 A  Well, those are historic items and I acknowledge that 10612  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 these historic items are on the surface, are at the  2 site.  3 Q   They were under the surface, weren't they, ten to 20  4 centimetres under the surface?  5 A  My analysis of the pre-contact materials indicated  6 that the -- most of the materials from layer A,  7 perhaps the problem for you is my designation of layer  8 A, perhaps I should have called on the temporal chart  9 or to refer to zones of occupation.  10 Q   Let's carry on to page ten, once again if you go down  11 the list on page ten, which is the next page over, you  12 have artifact 85-247, layer A, zero to ten DBS, a  13 green glass insulator fragment, and the next page is  14 page 11, I have already referred you to those green  15 glass insulator fragments which you described as being  16 in the sod, and then the next page is page 19, and you  17 will see that there appear to be a number from the  18 start of the page down, artifacts taken from what's  19 described as layer A, zero to ten centimetres, and the  20 first four are obsidian, all from the same area, the  21 next one is jasper, and then there is a flake with a  22 question mark, glass, and then more obsidian.  If it's  23 glass, that's historic, isn't it?  24 A   It could also have been obsidian.  25 Q   That's why there is a question mark, it could be glass  26 it could be obsidian, correct?  And then just to  27 complete it, if you turn the page, and page 20, and  28 this appears to be a continuation of whatever was  29 taken from that same level, you will see the top ones  30 are flake shatter, basalt, basalt, chert, all the way  31 down to 85-392, flake shatter glass, that's historic,  32 isn't it?  33 A   Yes.  Likely.  It could also be obsidian but likely  34 glass.  35 Q   Does the presence of historic material in layer A  36 indicate that the layer may be disturbed, that is, it  37 may not be as it was prehistorically?  38 A   That historic material is from a level bag, including  39 the sod, which is the surface, the grass surface.  40 Q   And without knowing exactly where it was taken, if  41 it's in a level bag with a bunch of other material,  42 and if you have a level bag which has got historic  43 material and prehistoric material in it, can you tell  44 from the bag whether or not the prehistoric material  45 was overlying the historic material when you pull the  46 stuff out of the bag?  47 A   The nature of the historic items, several fragments of 10613  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 the green glass insulator, will have a time frame for  2 its use, and a few flakes of glass are likely of  3 recent activity on the surface of the site that are  4 found in the sod layer.  And that was our observation  5 during excavation that these materials were on the  6 surface.  7 Q   Well, one is specifically listed as being ten to 20  8 centimetres below the surface on page one, do you see  9 that?  10 A   Yes.  11 Q   Well, forgetting about all the other ones --  12 A   Ten to 20 below the —  13 Q   S, DBS, surface, right?  14 A   I don't see DBS here.  I am not sure whether it's DBS  15 or DBD.  16 Q   I am looking at 85-104, level A, ten to 20  17 centimetres, DBS?  Isn't that DBS?  85-104, that's not  18 a D, is it, that's an S?  19 A   It says DBS.  20 Q   Yes.  21 A   It's possible that it has been found at DBD.  22 Q   When you take the level bag from ten to 20 centimetres  23 DBS so that you know that you don't have the sod and  24 you have historic materials mixed in with prehistoric  25 materials, you don't know when any of those materials  26 were deposited there, do you?  They could have been  27 deposited there prehistorically except, of course, for  28 the insulator fragment?  29 A   The insulator we have a time frame for the insulator,  30 yes.  31 Q   But they could have all been deposited at the same  32 time as the insulator fragment?  33 A  And it's possible that this -- it's likely this item  34 has worked down through the -- from the surface.  35 Q   Yes.  And like the other ones they could have all  36 worked down from the surface too?  37 A  Well, I believe most of them were found on the  38 surface.  39 Q   So these are -- the layer A, I am just trying to get  40 at the artifacts that you have noted out of layer A  41 and what I am suggesting is that many of them may have  42 been deposited in the historic period in layer A?  43 A   You mean items may have been used pre-what,  44 pre-what -- I am not sure what you're asking me.  45 Q   I don't care how they were used or what they were used  46 for, I am just talking about the items and if you find  47 an item that you know had to be manufactured less than 10614  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1 100 years ago 20 centimetres below the surface and  2 right beside it you find a flake of obsidian, you  3 don't know whether that flake of obsidian has only  4 been there for 100 years because the insulator  5 fragment couldn't have been there longer or whether  6 it's been there longer, do you?  7 A   Yes, I do know that it's been there longer because it  8 is an item of -- an item characteristic of use in  9 manufacture of --  10 Q   And I will just take this one step further, let's  11 assume that the insulator fragment is found and  12 immediately above is the obsidian flake shatter, right  13 on top of the insulator fragment, might that indicate  14 to you that the obsidian flake shatter was deposited  15 sometime after the insulator fragment?  16 A   It's possible that they were deposited at the same  17 time.  18 Q   Yes.  Do you agree that the archaeological evidence  19 from the Skeena River Valley suggests long and  20 isolated developments outside the microblade and side  21 notch points which have been associated with  22 Athapaskan groups?  23 A   Could you repeat that, please?  24 Q   Do you agree that the archaeological evidence from the  25 Skeena Valley suggests long and isolated developments  26 outside the areas of distribution of microblades and  27 side notch points?  28 A   I am sorry, the question does not make any sense to me  2 9 at all.  I don't know what you mean by it.  30 Q   I am sorry, I should --  31 A   I think it's just the phrasing of it, sir.  32 Q   I am showing you a --  33 A   The term, I think I am being confused by your term  34 isolated.  35 Q   I am showing you Skeena River Prehistory, and you will  36 see there is a description of the Cultural Sequence of  37 Gitaus by Louis Allaire, and this is one of the  38 documents you relied on in preparing your report?  39 A   Yes.  40 Q   And if you turn to --  41 THE COURT:  This is Inglis and MacDonald.  42 MR. WILLMS:  My lord, it's — this is the cover of a very large  43 volume, they edited it, Allaire wrote -- if you look  44 to the first page in and, my lord, just -- there are  45 many extracts, they are all from this book.  4 6    THE COURT:  All right.  47    MR. WILLMS:  But Allaire was one of the investigators at 10615  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  A  3  Q  4  5  6  A  7  Q  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  A  21  22  23  24  Q  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  A  34  35  36  Q  37  A  38  Q  39  A  40  THE COURT  41  42  43  A  44  45  46  47  THE COURT  Kitselas, Gary Coupland was the other.  Yes.  And if you turn to page 50 of Allaire's discussion and  his conclusion about what he found -- did you review  any of the artifacts that he found, by the way?  No, I didn't.  Okay.  He says at page 50, the final paragraph,  "Finally, is it possible to correlate these early  occupants of the Kitselas canyon with historic ethnic  groups of the area?  The problem of whether these were  an Athapaskan people, for instance, is related to much  debated issues."  Here is the sentence that I just  suggested to you:  "The archaeological evidence  suggests long and isolated developments in the Skeena  Valley, definitely outside the areas of distribution  of microblades and side-notch points that some have  associated closely with Athapaskan groups (Dumond  1969)"  Just pausing there, do you accept that as an  archaeologically accurate statement?  That was a conclusion that Allaire reached as a result  of his work at Gitaus -- yes, Gitaus.  Materials  researched since that time have recovered microblades  at Kitselas Canyon.  Now he continues:  "Despite the fact that the cultural  boundaries do not necessarily coincide with ethnic or  linguistic groups, the picture better fits the known  development of the isolated Tsimshian languages in the  Skeena Valley, and one may still legitimately wonder  whether these early canyon groups were not Tsimshian  in their language and ethnicity."  Is that different, did you accept that when did you  your research?  He is referring here to Tsimshian as that larger  cultural group, including coast Tsimshian, Gitksan and  Nisga'a in this sense.  Well, in that sense you accepted that?  In this context, yes.  You accepted that when you did your research?  Yes.  :  Does he say anything more there than the occupants  of the Skeena were more likely to be related to the  Tsimshian than the Athapaskan?  Yes, at the time of his results, his work, there were  still no microblades found.  There have been  microblades found subsequently at Kitselas.  So he  sees --  :  Well, I almost thought that he was suggesting there 10616  S. L. Albright (For Plaintiffs)  Cross-exam by Mr. Willms  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  A  that microblades had been found but you say that's not  what he is saying?  No, he did not find microblades himself at the Gitaus  site.  Gary Coupland later found them at the Paul  Mason site upstream from this location.  And so from  the results of his work, he is suggesting that the  cultural development that he sees at Gitaus  corresponds to the distribution of Tsimshian groups  that are recognized at ethnographic times in the  Skeena Valley.  As of what date do you think that was written?  Pardon me?  As of what date was this written?  Do we know?  There was 730 — '79, yes, that's right.  '79.  All right.  Should we adjourn, Mr. Willms?  MR. WILLMS:  My lord, can we mark that Exhibit 849-17?  THE COURT:  All right.  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  A  THE COURT  (EXHIBIT 849-17:  MERCURY SERIES -  EXCERPT FROM NATIONAL MUSEAM OF MAN  SKEENA RIVER PREHISTORY)  THE COURT:  Is 9:30 tomorrow morning convenient?   All right.  Thank you.  9:30 tomorrow morning.  (Proceedings adjourned to Saturday, January 14, 1989  at 9:30 a.m.)  I hereby certify the foregoing to be  a true and accurate transcript of the  proceedings herein to the best of my  skill and ability.  Wilf Roy  Official Reporter


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