SINCE KWATYAT LIVED ON EARTH:
AN EXAMINATION OF NUU-CHAH-NULTHCULTURE HISTORY
Alan D. McMillan
B.A., University of Saskatchewan
M.A., University of British Columbia
THESIS SUBMI'ITED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the
Department of Archaeology
O Alan D. McMillan
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
January 1996
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced i n whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.
APPROVAL
Name:
Alan D. McMillan
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Title of Thesis
Since Kwatyat Lived on Earth: An Examination
of Nuu-chah-nulth Culture History
Examining Committe:
Chair: J. Nance
Roy L. Carlson
Senior Supervisor
Philip M. Hobler
David V. Burley
Internal External Examiner
Madonna L. Moss
Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon
External Examiner
Date Approved:
krb,,,) 1s
lwb
PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my
thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown
below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to
make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to
a request from the library of any other university, or other
educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I
further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work
for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of
Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of
this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my
written permission.
Title of Thesis/Project/Extended Essay
Since Kwatyat Lived on Earth: An Examination of
Nuu-chah-nulth Culture History
Author:
-
A
(signature)
Alan D. McMillan
(name)
January 19, 1996
(date)
ABSTRACT
This study examines the culture history of the related Nuu-chah-nulth,
Ditidaht, and Makah peoples, whose historic territory encompasses western
Vancouver Island and the northwestern Olympic Peninsula. Although
archaeological research began relatively late in this area, the greatly expanded
pace of recent fieldwork now allows an integrated assessment of their cultural
heritage. The West Coast culture type, previously proposed for this area on
limited archaeological data, is assessed against more recent evidence for
diachronic trends and regional differences.
An historical and multi-faceted approach is employed, integrating data
from archaeology, historical linguistics, and aboriginal oral traditions, along with
ethnography and ethnohistory for later time periods, in a cultural historical
synthesis. Recent research with the Toquaht, a small Nuu-chah-nulth group in
western Barkley Sound, provides much of the archaeological data for this study.
Archaeological and linguistic evidence suggest a southward movement of
Nuu-chah-nulth peoples from an original homeland on northern or north-western
Vancouver Island. The ancestors of the Ditidaht and Makah split off from the
parent stock and settled in their historic territories in relatively recent times.
Over the last two millennia the ethnographic cultures gradually developed in
their present territories. The destructive events of the early contact period
resulted in significant cultural restructuring, particularly involving changes in
political organization and settlement pattern. The West Coast culture type
masks significant temporal change in Nuu-chah-nulth culture history, which is
best seen in the framework of an evolving tradition.
"Kwatyat,the one of many tricks . . . ."
(Sapir and Swadesh 1939:51)
"Quawteaht[Kwatyat] . . . . , while on earth, lived at the Toquaht river"
(Sproat 1868:19)
Kwatyat was the culture hero and transfomer figure of the Barkley
Sound Nuu-chah-nulth.His exploits are reflected at many locations on the Nuuchah-nulth cultural landscape.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a debt of gratitude to the committee members. I thank Roy Carlson
for encouraging me @I pursue this degree and for taking the role of mentor during
my studies. He also served as Senior Supervisor for the preparation of this
dissertation. Philip Hobler offered invaluable advice, suggestions, and assistance
during the writing of this dissertation. In their extensive experience and
knowledge in Northwest Coast archaeology, both served as inspiration in my
own work. In addition, David Burley and Madonna Moss kindly took time from
their busy schedules to evaluate this work as external examiners. I thank them
all for their efforts.
I am also grateful for the support of several Nuu-chah-nulth bands during
my years of fieldwork on western Vancouver Island. In particular, I thank the
Toquaht Nation and Chief Bert Mack for their unwavering support and for
assistance in many aspects of the fieldwork. Bert Mack and Archie Thompson
also generously shared their knowledge of traditional Toquaht culture as part of
the ethnographic component of research. I also thank the Tseshaht Nation for
support during earlier fieldwork, and fondly remember the late Chief Adam
Shewish and the late Margaret Shewish for their hospitality and companionship
during our stay with them. Return visits for potlatches and other events have
provided welcome opportunities to continue to feel connected to the community.
The British Columbia Heritage Trust is gratefully acknowledged for
providing the primary funding for the Toquaht Archaeological Project. Additional
funding was provided by the Toquaht Nation, and through Challenge '91 and '92
grants administered by Douglas College and an Access to Archaeology grant
administered by the Toquaht Nation. The Department of Archaeology, Simon
Fraser University, provided boats and motors, surveying equipment, and much
of the field gear. Other equipment was provided by Douglas College and the
Toquaht Nation. The University of Manitoba also provided funding and other
support related to the analysis of faunal remains. Douglas College also supplied
administrative support and granted the author educational leave time to pursue
doctoral studies and to do some of the analysis for the Toquaht project.
Any synthesis rests of necessity on the works of others. I would like to
acknowledge my colleagues in Nuu-chah-nulth studies, with whom I have had
numerous discussions and exchanges of information over the years. These
include Dale Croes, John Dewhirst, Morley Eldridge, Gay Frederick, Jim
Haggarty, Dave Huelsbeck, Richard Inglis, Yvonne Marshall, Denis St. Claire,
Arnoud Stryd, and Gary Wessen. In response to my requests while preparing
this dissertation, Dale, John, Morley, and Gary kindly provided unpublished
information on their work. Particular gratitude is owed to Denis St. Claire, the
co-director of the Toquaht Archaeological Project, for his numerous
contributions during our long association in Nuu-chah-nulth fieldwork. Greg
Monks should also be acknowledged for providing the Toquaht project with his
expertise in faunal analysis. I thank all the above for their contributions and
apologize for where my summary or interpretation of their work differs from
their own perceptions.
More generally, various friends and colleagues have influenced my
thoughts on Northwest Coast archaeology through numerous discussions over
the years. In addition to people mentioned above, I would like to credit Knut
Fladmark, Dave Burley, Bjorn Simonsen, Ken Ames, and R.G. Matson.
Many other people contributed to this work in various ways. Randy
Bouchard kindly provided transcriptions of Nuu-chah-nulth terms. Doris Lundy,
Ian Whitbread, and Heather Moon of the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, sent me
unpublished reports, individual site records, and computer print-outs of site file
information. Terry Spurgeon took aerial photographs of the Toquaht sites, some
of which are included in this dissertation. In the Archaeology Department a t
S.F.U., Andrew Barton provided assistance at many points in preparing for
fieldwork, while Ann Sullivan,Linda Bannister, and Lynda Przybyla efficiently
handled my many queries and pleas for assistance around the office.
As always, I thank my family for their tolerance of my absences during
fieldwork and my preoccupied state during writing. My wife, Gillian, has my
gratitude for her constant support and encouragement, as well as for preparing
most of the artifact drawings which appear in this dissertation.
vii
CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
....1
1. Setting the Stage
Introduction
Goals and Outline
Theoretical Perspective
The West Coast People - Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah
Languages
Ethnographic Background
The Toquaht and their Neighbors
The Nuu-chah-nulth of Barkley Sound
Toquaht Territory
Toquaht Oral Traditions
2. Differing Approaches to the Nuu-chah-nulth Past
....49
Oral Histories
Anthropological Theories
Early Difisionist Views
Ecological Models
Historical Linguistics
Linguistic Models of Wakashan Origins and Expansion
Linguistic and Oral History Evidence for Territorial Shifts
Molecular Biology
3. Archaeological Research in Nuu-chah-nulth Territory
Introduction
Nootka Sound and Hesquiat Harbour
Research in Nootka Sound
The Hesquiat Project
Clayoquot Sound to Barkley Sound
The Toquaht Archaeological Project
Shoemaker Bay and Little Beach
Other Archaeological Research
Ditidaht Territory
Olympic Peninsula
Ozette
Hoko River
Other Makah Area Sites
....1
....1
....5
....9
....9
...16
...32
...33
...36
...42
...49
...54
...54
...59
...62
...62
...65
...70
4. The Emergence of the West Coast Culture Type
Cultural Antecedents
Archaeological Evidence
Geological Factors
Definition of the West Coast Culture Type
The West Coast Culture Type to 2000 B.P.
Continuity and Change
Regional Variation and the "SdishanHypothesis"
Emergence of the Ethnographic Pattern
5. The Late West Coast Culture Type
Subsistence and Settlement
Settlement Patterns
Whaling
Other Economic Aspects
Social Relations
Warfare
Trade
Status Distinctions
Ideology/Cosmology
Regional and Temporal Variation
6. The Transition to Recorded History
The Meeting of Two Cultures
Brief History
The Toquaht Case
The Twin Spectres: Disease and Warfare
Political and Settlement Pattern Changes
Nootka Sound
Barkley Sound
Culture Change and the "Ethnographic Present"
7. Discussion and Conclusions
References
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.Climatic data from Amphitrite Point, Ucluelet
....39
Table 2. Toquaht subgroups
....47
Table 3. Site inventory totals for the west coast of Vancouver Island
(ethnographicNuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht territories), 1995
....76
Table 4. Radiocarbon dates from Nootka Sound
Table 5. Radiocarbon dates from Hesquiat Harbour sites
Table 6. Radiocarbon dates from Toquaht sites
...112
Table 7. Radiocarbon dates from Shoemaker Bay and Little Beach
...119
Table 8. Radiocarbon dates from other sites in Clayoquot and Barkley
Sounds
...I22
Table 9. Radiocarbon dates from Nitinat Lake sites
...125
Table 10. Radiocarbon dates from Ozette
...135
Table 11.Radiocarbon dates from Hoko River sites
...I40
Table 12. Radiocarbon dates from other Makah-area sites
...147-148
Table 13. Ch'uurnat'a artifads predating 2000 B.P.
...I74
Table 14. Settlement size distributions - Clayoquot Sound, Long
Beach, Broken Group Islands, and Toquaht territory
...192
Table 15. Comparison of artifacts from five excavated sites
...251-252
Table 16. Spearman correlation coefficients for six Nuu-chah-nulth
area sites
...254
Table 17. Toquaht population estimates
...278
Table 18. Summary of Nuu-chah-nulth culture history
...309
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1.Traditional territories of the Nuu.chah.nulth, Ditidaht and
Makah in the 19th century.
Fig. 2.Location of Nuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht political units by
the early 20th century.
Fig.3.Barkley Sound. showing 19th century Nuu-chah-nulth group
territories.
Fig.4 .Toquaht traditional territory. showing the location of major
ethnographic villages.
Fig. 5.The boundary rock between Ucluelet and Toquaht territories.
located near the site of T'ukw'aa. at the entrance to Ucluelet Inlet .
Fig. 6.Location of excavated sites in Nuu.chah.nulth, Ditidaht and
Makah territories .
Fig. 7.Toquaht traditional territory. showing the location of the four
sites excavated as part of the Toquaht Archaeological Project.
Fig.8.Aerial view of Macoah. showing modern housing. The rocky
point for which the site is named is at the right .
Fig. 9. The site of Macoah from the beach. looking north to the point .
Fig. 10. Map of Macoah. showing location of excavation units .
Fig. 11.Aerial view of T'ukw'aa.The rocky point with the defensive
site is at the left.
Fig. 12. Tukw'aa from the terrace at the eastern end of the site. The
defensive location is at the far end of the site.
Fig. 13. Contour map of T'ukw'aa. showing location of excavation units .
Fig. 14.Aerial view of Ch'uumat'a.
Fig. 15. Ch'uumat'a from beach.
Fig. 16. Contour map of Ch'uumat'a. showing location of excavation units...107
Fig. 17. DfSj 30. a lookout site in the George Fraser Islands .
...109
Fig. 18.Aerial view of DfSj 30.
...109
Fig. 19. Sketch map of DfSj 30, showing the location of the excavation
trench.
Fig. 20. Surface collected lithic artifacts from DhSf 31, an elevated
site in the Alberni Valley (upper left, chipped bifaces; upper right,
retouched cortex spall tool; lower row, microblade cores).
Fig. 21. Chipped stone bifaces from inter-tidal contexts in Barkley and
Nootka Sounds. (a, from DfSi 72, near Toquart Bay, Barkley Sound;
b, from DkSo 6, Nootka Sound; c, from DjSo 8, Muchalat Inlet,
Nootka Sound)
Fig. 22. Lithic artifacts from pre-2000 B.P. levels at Ch'uumat'a.
(left,chipped biface; centre, green chert detrius, including a reworked
possible "piercer"at top; right, tip of faceted ground slate point,
ground slate fragment).
Fig. 23. Whalebone club handles from Nuu-chah-nulth sites: left, from
Yuquot (DjSp I),Zone 11, ca. 2000 B.P., note the break at a drilled
perforation for suspension at the wrist; right, from Macoah ( m i 5),
age unknown.
Fig. 24. Location of recorded defensive sites or lookouts in Nuu-chahnulth, Ditidaht, and Makah territories.
Fig. 25. The defensive site (DfSh 79) on Dicebox Island, Broken Group,
Barkley Sound. The Tseshaht village of Hutsatruilh (DfSh 31) is to
the left of this picture.
Fig. 26. The Ohiaht village ofKiix7in (DeSh 1)is in the trees in the
centre of this picture. Its defensive site (DeSh 2), known locally as
"Execution Rock", is atop the steep cliffs to the right.
Fig. 27. Location of recorded rock art sites in Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht,
and Makah territories.
Fig. 28. Red ochre pictograph of thunderbird (DkSp 8))Hisnit Inlet,
Nootka Sound.
Fig. 29. Photograph and drawing showing red ochre pictograph of
anthropomorphic face (DgSh 7), Toquart Bay, Barkley Sound.
Fig. 30. Anthropomorphs and whales, Clo-oose Hill petroglyph site
(DdSe 14).
Fig. 31. Petroglyphs on boulders at the Wedding Rocks site (45CA31)
south of Ozette: left, anthropomorphicfaces and whales; right,
anthropomorphic figures with vulvic imagry.
...242
Fig. 32. Detail of the Sproat Lake petroglyphs (DhSf I),showing
mythical marine creatures.
...244
Fig. 33. Sailing ship and vulvic image carved on beach boulder,
Wedding Rocks site (45CA31).
...244
Fig. 34. Artifacts of the later West Coast culture type: a, stone celt
(Yuquot);b, stone fishhook shank (Yuquot);c, bone fishhook shank
(Ch'uumat'a);d, mussel shell celt (T'ukw'aa);e, bilaterally barbed
harpoon head (Ch'uumat'a);f, channeled valve for composite harpoon
head (T'ukw'aa);g, slotted valve for composite harpoon head (Yuquot);
h,i, bone bipoints (T'ukw'aa);j, bone point, probably a fishhook barb
(Tukw'aa); k, bone point, probably for arming a composite toggling
harpoon head (Tukw'aa);1,bone splinter awl (Tukw'aa);m, barbed
bone point, possibly an arrow point (Yuquot);n, single barb point,
probably a fishhook barb (Tukw'aa);o, bone needle (Ch'uumat'a);
...248
p, canine tooth pendant (T'ukw'aa);q, bone comb (T'ukw'aa).
Fig. 35.Multi-dimensional scalingof six Nuu-chah-nulth area sites
...254
CHAPTER 1:
SETTING THE STAGE
Introduction
Goals and Outline
The record of the human presence on western Vancouver Island spans at
least the last 4200 years, as known from archaeological research. From an
indigenous perspective, human history extends back to the time when
transformers such as Kwatyat put the landscape and the animals in their
present forms. This dissertation examines the long culture history of the three
related groups known today as the Nuu-chah-nulth,Ditidaht, and Makah, whose
historic territories comprise western Vancouver Island and the northwestern
portion of the Olympic Peninsula.
Long a "frontier area" to archaeologists, the precontact culture history of
this region was essentially unknown until 1966, when large-scale excavations
began at Yuquot in Nootka Sound and Ozette on the Olympic Peninsula. In
subsequent decades several major excavation projects and intensive regional
surveys, in addition to a number of smaller scale archaeological investigations,
have taken place at various locations within the general region (see Chapter 3
for a review and assessment of relevant archaeological research). Sufficient
data now exist to outline general diachronic trends and to perceive regional
differences within the larger picture. For later time periods, this large body of
information allows insight into a relatively wide range of past cultural practices.
Linguistic and ethnographic data, as well as native oral traditions, also provide
substantial contributions to our understanding of aboriginal culture history in
this area.
Although this dissertation examines and integrates such data from
throughout the study region, the emphasis is on the Nuu-chah-nulth, with
particular attention paid to the Toquaht of western Barkley Sound. This littleknown Nuu-chah-nulth group is the focus of study for the on-going Toquaht
Archaeological Project, which was initiated in 1991 (McMillan and St. Claire
1991, 1992, 1994). Throughout the following chapters, data from the Toquaht
Project investigations are used as specific examples of more general issues.
Ethnographic and archaeological information from Toquaht territory
contributes to an emerging understanding of the broad patterns of Nuu-chahnulth culture history, while a t the same time being illuminated by and
interpreted within this growing body of knowledge from the wider region.
As part of the general study, this dissertation examines and assesses the
West Coast culture type, the present model of cultural continuity proposed for
western Vancouver Island by Donald Mitchell (1990). This construct was
proposed as part of a general review of the prehistory of southwestern British
Columbia, and was based almost entirely on the excavated results from Yuquot
and Hesquiat Harbour. Cultural continuity evident in the Yuquot sequence led
Mitchell to place the entire known precontact history of western Vancouver
Island, covering at least 4200 years, into a single culture type. He claims that
the artifacts recovered, even from the earliest levels at Yuquot, are recognizable
in the ethnographic material culture of the Nuu-chah-nulth, and concludes that
"the post-3000 B.C. period can be characterized as one of relatively little change
in subsistence and other aspects of technology" (Mitchell 1990:357).This model
of cultural conservatism and continuity, however, masks significant changes
I
that occur through time. More recent archaeological data are used here to
assess issues of temporal change and regional variation in the culture type.
The West Coast culture type, as generally applied, tends to project
ethnographic Nuu-chah-nulth culture back in time to interpret the
archaeological evidence. Certainly sites such as Yuquot demonstrate a
remarkable cultural continuity. I t is argued here, however, that significant
changes did occur over time and that the cultural restructuring required by the
traumatic events of the early contact period preclude any simplistic projections
of the ethnographic culture into precontact times. Ethnographic data must be
assessed with knowledge gleaned from archaeology to determine which traits
have a lengthy continuity among the Nuu-chah-nulth, as well as the nature and
extent of culture change that has taken place.
Following a brief discussion of the theoretical perspectives which guide
the approach followed in this dissertation, this chapter then turns to linguistic
and ethnographic overviews of the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah
peoples, whose ancient heritage is investigated in this study. Linguistic analysis
shows evidence of past relationships, of vital concern in investigating culture
history. Ethnographic data allow us to understand the functioning
interrelationships of living societies and provide a cultural framework against
which remains recovered through archaeology can be compared. Attention then
shifts more specifically to western Barkley Sound, with an account of the
Toquaht and their neighbours, who provide many of the specific examples used
in the following chapters. A brief description of Toquaht territory and its
resources is provided, as well as a discussion of what is known of Toquaht
culture history through native oral accounts and ethnographic research.
Chapter 2 examines various non-archaeological perspectives in
interpreting the Nuu-chah-nulth past, including anthropological and linguistic
models and aboriginal oral traditions. In the holistic perspective described in the
following section, all make substantial contributions to our understanding of
past culture histories.
Archaeological data and interpretations are covered in Chapters 3 to 5.
Chapter 3 reviews archaeological research carried out throughout Nuu-chahnulth, Ditidaht and Makah territory, and summarizes the amount and quality of
information presently available. Based on this, a broad reconstruction of Nuuchah-nulth prehistory, divided into the period prior to 2000 B.P. and the period
from 2000 B.P. to historic contact, is presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Possible
antecedent cultures and the geological factors which have inhibited study of the
initial occupants are included with the early period. The more complete
information available for the later period allows a fuller reconstruction of various
aspects of past lifeways.
The early historic impact on Nuu-chah-nulth cultures is examined in
Chapter 6 . Changes in political organization and patterns of resource use are
documented, particularly using examples from Nootka Sound and Barkley
Sound, and the limitations of ethnographic analogy in the interpretation of
archaeological materials from this area are assessed. Chapter 7 offers a
summary and concluding remarks.
All aboriginal terms used in this study are written in the orthographic
system devised for the B.C. Indian Language Project by Randy Bouchard
(1971). Published accounts of this system can be found in Ellis and Swan (1981)
and McMillan and St. Claire (1982). All radiocarbon dates are given as
radiocarbon years before present (shown simply as B.P.), with no correction or
calibration factor, providing consistency for comparison between sites.
TheoreticalPerspective
The approach followed in this dissertation is guided by the concept of an
"holistic archaeology," as advocated by Bruce Trigger (1989a, 1989b, 1991).
Central to the search for an "holisticunderstanding of human behavior" (Trigger
1991:562) is an historical perspective, integrating data from a number of
distinct fields. As Trigger (1989a:377) states:
This humanistic outlook also reinforces the view that it is
reasonable to employ a direct historical approach and to use
non-archaeological sources of data, such as oral traditions,
historical linguistics, and comparative ethnography, in order to
produce a more rounded picture of prehistoric cultures.
Such a perspective has a lengthy history in North American anthropology,
extending back to Sapir's (1916) important early paper, but it is put into its
fullest and most recent form by Trigger. Unlike processualism, this integrative
and humanistic approach validates an interest in the cosmologies, religious
beliefs, artforms, and other symbolic aspects of individual cultures. Trigger
(1991:562) states that the search for culturally specific meaning in the
archaeological record "requires additional information, which can only be
acquired from non-archeological sources by means of the direct historical
approach." The rigorous development of this approach, Trigger (1991:562)
maintains, is "perhaps the most challenging and potentially important task
confronting archeologists today."
Holistic archaeology can be perceived as one of the many strands
embedded in contemporary post-processual archaeology. Trigger (1989a:377)
considers it an extension of contextualism, as advocated by Hodder (1986). This
stresses the need to consider all possible aspects of the archaeological
record in order to understand the significance of individual elements. It also calls
for recognition of the dynamic and symbolic nature of material culture.
Trigger (1989b:22)notes that traditional culture history, which tended to
attribute culture change to such external factors as migration and diffusion,had
little in common with true history except for a concern with chronology.
~rocessualistscame to view historical concerns as the opposite of science, as
descriptive rather than explanatory, as particularistic rather than as capable of
evolutionary generalizations. Trigger (1980:673; 1989a:373) rejects this "false
dichotomy" between history and science. Through an holistic approach, he
maintains (1991:562), where cultural traditions are examined as closely as
ecological and systemic constraints, archaeologists can gain a more roundedand
humanistic understanding of the past.
Similarly, Sahlins (1983, 1985) has sought to bridge anthropology and
history. Rejecting the ahistoricism of structural anthropology, Sahlins calls for
"a structural, historical anthropology." The problem now, as Sahlins (1985:72)
sees it, "is to explode the concept of history by the anthropological experience of
culture." In archaeology, Green (1994) adopts the term "historical
anthropology,"but maintains that a more appropriate label for this approach
would be "the anthropology of long-term history." Green also makes the point
that this is not the much-criticized traditional culture history, but a higher-level
synthesis.
Such approaches, sometimes called "the new cultural history" (see Hunt
19891, have been applied in fields as diverse as social anthropology and literary
theory. The common threads include roles as "historians of culture" (Hunt
1989:lO) and the use of an integrative methodology which blurs disciplinary
boundaries. Biersack (1989,1991),in advocating such an historical perspective
in anthropology, uses the term "postdisciplinary"to describe the modern multifaceted approach. In typical postmodernist phrasing, she refers to "the play of
texts across topically diverse terrains" (1991:2). She also sees an emerging
"historical anthropology"as providing an integrative focus for all anthropological
subfields,including archaeology.
Trigger has questioned the colonialism inherent in academic fields which
have not treated indigenous peoples as suitable subjects for historical study.
People of European descent were perceived as the "prime movers" of historical
analysis, while indigenous populations became "people without history" and
were relegated to the subject matter of anthropology (Wolf 1982; Trigger 1980,
1984,1985,1989b).A misleading image of the "unchanging native" was further
enhanced by such anthropological concepts as the "ethnographic present."
Trigger (198534) describes the differentiation of history and anthropology as "a
product of colonialism and ethnocentrism."
As a subfield of anthropology, prehistoric archaeology in North America
traditionally has had weak ties with history. More recently, the processualist
use of native heritage to formulate and test general hypotheses on human
behaviour was resented by aboriginal communities as failing to address their
own distinct identities and histories (Trigger 1980; 198529-32; 1989a:376;
1989b:24-25). Archaeology, if it is to meet the needs of the people it studies,
must provide specific information on their unique culture histories. This is
particularly vital in the modern political climate, as collaboration for mutual
benefit is a prerequisite for many archaeologists working with aboriginal
communities. Potential contributions archaeologists can make to aboriginal
groups include investigating ancient ties to the land and demolishing the myth of
"the unchanging native." In addition, the new emphasis on studying cognitive
and symbolic aspects of the past has the potential to enrich our understanding
of aboriginal accomplishments. Recognition of "the native voice" through oral
traditions and collaboration with existing populations may also enhance our
understanding through new lines of knowledge. This is consistent with Hodder's
(1991) call for respecting "multiple voices" on the past as a key element of his
"interpretive archaeology."
A similar approach to that pursued in this dissertation was taken by
Marshall (1993),who integrated data from a number of fields to assess changing
Nuu-chah-nulth political organization. Central to her perspective is the
requirement of study over a broad temporal framework, beginning well before
contact and extending into modern times. Such an approach documents the
resiliency of aboriginal cultures and the survival of a strong core of Nuu-chahnulth culture and identity in the modern world. An important contribution of her
work was a challenge to the established view that precontact Nuu-chah-nulth
culture had been conservative and largely unchanging, a view based primarily
on artifacts from a few major excavations. By focusing on other types of
archaeological data, such as settlement patterns, Marshall was able to
document important changes in Nuu-chah-nulth political organization over
time.
The basic elements of "holistic archaeology" or "historical anthropology"
have been put into practice in some areas, particularly in Polynesia. Green
(1986) has employed a "triangulation" method, involving a search for
convergences between archaeology, historical linguistics, and comparative
ethnology, to reconstruct shared ancestral forms of Polynesian cultures. In a
more ambitious paper, Kirch and Green (1987)call for an evolutionary approach
to Polynesian prehistory that has as its goal the task of unraveling both specific
historical pathways and general processes of cultural evolution. The
methodology they employ involves the analysis of linguistic relationships to
reconstruct past population movements, testing such reconstructions with data
from archaeology and physical anthropology, and then using ethnohistoric and
ethnographic information to analyze systemic cultural patterns. In a prediction
for the future of Polynesian archaeology, Green (1994:16) envisages a situation
that might characterize archaeology generally:
The archaeology of the first part of the 21st century. . . will
have to do with the anthropology of long-term history where
the constructions of the past are multi-faceted, the
perspectives multi-ethnic, and the players multi-cultural and
multi-disciplinary.
The West Coast People: Nuu-chah-nulth,Ditidaht and Makah
Languages
The rugged west coast of Vancouver Island, from Cape Cook in the north
to around Point No Point in the south, is the traditional homeland of people
known historically as the Nootka. This name was applied by the famed British
explorer Captain James Cook, who mistakenly thought he was recording a term
I
the natives of the area used to describe themselves. In fact, "Nootka" stems
from a word meaning "to come around" or "to circle about" (Sapir and Swadesh
1939:276; Moser 1926:160), apparently reflecting native attempts to direct
Cook and his vessel into the sheltered harbour in front of the nearby village of
Yuquot (Efrat and Langlois 1978:55; Folan 1972:32; Arima et al. 1991:6-7).
Although largely rejected by the people to whom it was applied, the name
"Nootka" came into widespread use by anthropologists and others to describe
not just the people of Nootka Sound but all the culturally related groups along
Vancouver Island's west coast. The aboriginal languages of the area lacked any
such broad collective term, preferring to keep self-designations at the more local
level.1 As a result, the English phrase "the West Coast (or Westcoast) peoples"
came into widespread use to encompass all the people formerly known as
Nootka. This gained official use in the title of their political organization,
formerly known as the West Coast District Council of Indian Chiefs, which was
first established in 1958. The name Nuu-chah-nulth is a relatively recent
innovation, being formally adopted by the Tribal Council in 1978, fully two
hundred years after Cook erroneously applied the term "Nootka." Loosely
translated, it means "all along the mountains," referring to the mountain chain
of central Vancouver Island which forms the backdrop for the west coast
villages.
To the south, along the storm-lashed coast of the Olympic Peninsula,
were the culturally and linguistically related Makah. Their most southerly
village, Ozette, was at Cape Alava, on the outer coast. In their own language,
these people referred to themselves as the Kwfidishch7aa7tx_,meaning "people
who live at the cape" (Swan 1870:l; Colson 1953:76;Taylor 1974:43).The Nuuchah-nulth called them the Tl'aa7as7at~,
or "people of the outside coast" (Sapir
and Swadesh 1939:148, 310; Arima 1983:7; Renker and Gunther 1990:429).
This term frequently appears in early historic accounts as "Classet" or
"Klazzart." The name "Makah" has been in common use since the mid-19th
lhdividual political groups generally have names ending in -7atb (Nuu-chah-nulth)or -7aa7tg
(Ditidaht and Makah),meaning "people of'. This led Sproat (1868)to refer to the Nuu-chahnulth as the "Aht"Indians.
10
century, deriving from a term applied to them by the Clallum, their Salishan
neighbours to the east.
Although linguists today identifjrthree separate languages (Figure I),the
aboriginal peoples of this area have a strong sense of sharing a common culture.
Certainly the late-18th century European observers perceived them all as a
single people, with only minor regional differences. Meares (1790:165) found "the
language of King George's [Nootka] Sound . . . to prevail from thence to the
district of Tatootche," referring to the powerful chief of the Cape Flattery area.
Haswell, among the Ditidaht in 1789, was "glad to find that they spoke a dialect
of the Nootka Language" (Howay 1941:71).When the Spanish established their
settlement of Nufiez Gaona at Neah Bay in 1792, they thought the surrounding
Makah closely resembled the inhabitants of Nootka Sound, differing only slightly
in speech (Wagner 1933:189). Jewitt (1967:75), at Nootka Sound from 1803 to
1805, said of the Makah ("Kla-iz-zart")visitors to the sound: "Their language is
the same as spoken at Nootka, but their pronunciation is much more hoarse
and guttural."
Although these early observers had no linguistic training, the first
anthropologists to work in this area came to the same conclusions. In his
pioneering work among the "Nootka,"Boas (1891:583) referred to three "closely
allied dialects of the same language,"which were "all intelligible to each other."
Sapir, in his linguistic studies of the Barkley Sound groups, also comments on
the three "Nootka dialects" (Sapir and Swadesh 1939:lO). Similarly, Drucker
(1951:3) refers to three "dialecticdivisions,"noting:
These dialects seem to differ through a few fairly simple and
consistent phonetic shifts, so that although at first mutually
unintelligible, a person who speaks one form can soon
understand the other and make himself understood. At least
that is what informants say. . .
Fig. 1. Traditional territories of the Nuu-chah-nulth,Ditidaht and Makah in the
19th century.
Duringfieldworkamong the Tseshaht in Port Alberni, this author had similar
experiences, with several informants insisting that they were a single people
from Cape Cook to the Olympic Peninsula and that they could make themselves
understood despite linguistic differences.2 More recently, Thompson and Kinkade
(1990:39-40)have noted this tension between aboriginal views and the linguistic
evidence:
Nootka, Nitinaht [Ditidaht], and Makah are reported to be
considered a single language by the Indians, sometimes
referred to as the Westcoast language, after the native
expression; however, as they are not mutually intelligible, they
are considered here to be three separate languages.
The northernmost of the three languages, formerly termed Nootka, is
usually referred to as Nuu-chah-nulth today. The Language Committee of the
Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council uses the term T'aat'aaqsapa for this language
(Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council 1991; see also Thomas and Arima 1970).
T'aat'aaqsapa exists as a series of intergrading dialects, from the Kyuquot in the
north to just south of Barkley Sound. Local differences in speech are clearly
evident, but do not hinder communication. For example, the Tseshaht are said to
"talk very fast;" if someone speaks rapidly in a conversation, the others will joke
that he must be a Tseshaht (Sapir 1915:194).3
The language spoken by the Vancouver Island groups south of Barkley
Sound is Ditidaht (formerly Nitinaht, but this reflects Nuu-chah-nulth, not
Ditidaht, pronunciation)4. Like the Makah language, Ditidaht has a relatively
small number of speakers and little dialectal variation (Thompson and Kinkade
2~ouchardand Kennedy (1991) report a different experience among the Ditidaht, where
informants insisted that their language was distinct from Nuu-chah-nulth.
3 ~ h ijoke
s was also made to the author on several occasions during research with the
Tseshaht in the 1970s.
4~iitiid7aa7&
is the term used by those who speak this language, while in the language of
their Nuu-chah-nulthneighbours it is pronounced Niitiinaa7at&.
1990:39). Although Ditidaht and Makah are considered to be two separate
languages, they have a high degree of intelligibility (Bates 198754; Arima
1988:23). They are more closely related to each other than either is to Nuuchah-nulth (Renker and Gunther 1990:422; Bouchard and Kennedy 1991:4;
Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council 1991:3). The divergence of Ditidaht and Makah
may have occurred about 1000 years ago, based on glottochronology (Jacobsen
1979:776).
Despite these linguistic differences, the three groups consider themselves
a single population, distinguished from their Kwakwakgtwakw, Salish and
Quileute neighbours. Ties of intermarriage and reciprocal attendance a t social
and ceremonial events enhance this shared identity. Even today, the Makah are
frequently honoured guests at potlatches held by the Ditidaht or Nuu-chahnulth groups. At such occasions, speakers stress their kin ties with statements
such as: "We are related up and down the coast" (Bates 1987:151).
Today there are approximately-6000Nuu-chah-nulth and 700 Ditidaht in
Canada (Canada, Indian and Northern Mairs 1995),along with 2200 Makah in
the United States (Makah Tribal Council; G. Wessen, pers. comm. 1995). These
are the legally enrolled populations, however, and not all speak their native
languages. A Canadian government study in the early 1980s categorized the
Nuu-chah-nulth language as "moderatelyendangered,"with one to two thousand
speakers, while Ditidaht was considered "extremely endangered," with only
perhaps sixty speakers (Foster 1982). In the Aboriginal Peoples Survey which
followed the 1991 federal census approximately one thousand people indicated
that they could speak the "Nootka" (presumablyincluding Ditidaht) language.
This should be considered a minimum number of native language speakers
among the Nuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht today.
The three "Nootkan" languages comprise the southern branch of the
Wakashan language family. This term also comes from the observations of
Captain James Cook among the Nuu-chah-nulth of Nootka Sound in 1778. He
proposed that the people should be called Wakashians, after an expression in
common use:
the word wakash . . . was very frequently in their mouths. It
seemed to express applause, approbation, and friendship. For
when they appeared to be satisfied, or well pleased with any
thing they saw, or any incident that happened, they would,
with one voice, call out wakash! wakash!
(Cook 1784:337)
The northern (or "Kwakiutlan") branch of the family also contains three
languages: Kwakwala (the people speaking the Kwakwala language, formerly
known as the Southern Kwakiutl, are today referred to as the Kwakwgkg'wakw
or Kwagiulth),Heiltsuk (at Bella Bella) and Haisla (at Kitamaat).
The recognition that these two sets of languages are related was an early
discovery in the pioneering work of Franz Boas (1891:678-679).Sapir (1911:15),
however, noted that the differences between the two branches are "very great."
Swadesh (1953, 1954), in an attempt to establish the time depth separating
northern and southern Wakashan based on "percentages of agreement in
noncultural vocabulary, according to the method known as glottochronology~~~r
lexical statistics" (1954:361), arrived at an estimate of 29 centuries. Although
numerous problems exist with glottochronology as a dating technique, Jacobsen
(1979:769), in a review of the Wakashan family, considers this estimate
"plausible."
Some linguists have sought more distant relationships. In his pioneering
linguistic work, Edward Sapir (1929) suggested that all the aboriginal languages
of North America could be encompassed within six broad super-stocks. He
linked the Wakashan languages to Kutenai and the widespread Algonkian
family, creating the Algonkian-Wakashan super-stock. One of the three
divisions within this super-stock he termed "Mosan," consisting of the
Wakashan, Chimakuan and Salishan families. The Mosan grouping was further
studied by Sapir's former student Morris Swadesh (1953). He considered the
Wakashan languages to be most closely related to Chimakuan (consisting of
only two languages, Quileute and Chemakum, widely separated on the Olympic
Peninsula), and calculated that the time depth separating them was about 6500
years. Differences with the Salish languages were seen as even greater,
requiring a time depth of about 9000 years for Mosan as a whole (Swadesh
1953:27, 42). If such distant relationships could be substantiated this would
have obvious implications for the early occupation of a vast area of what is now
central and southern British Columbia and northern Washington. This scheme,
however, receives very little support from modern linguists. The AlgonkianWakashan link has been completely abandoned and the Mosan grouping largely
dismantled. Although Powell (1976) has attempted to demonstrate a
relationship between Wakashan and Chimakuan, most modern linguists
consider the former members of Sapir's Mosan to be three separate language
family isolates (Kinkade 1990:l W . 5
Ethnographic Background
A rich body of ethnohistoric information describes Nuu-chah-nulth,
Ditidaht and Makah life during the initial contact and maritime fur trade period.
Of the many late-18th century observations by European visitors, both
5
~ignores
s the contsoversial claims of Joseph Greenberg. The ultimate linguistic "lumper",
Greenberg (1987) goes far beyond Sapir's suggestions of distant relationships, proposing that
all the aboriginal languages of North and South America, with the exception of the NaDene
and Eskimo-Aleut languages, are distantly related in a huge stock he calls Amerind.
published and unpublished, the journals of Captain James Cook (1784;
Beaglehole 1967) offer the most important insights into Nuu-chah-nulth life
during the early years of contact. Other valuable late-18th century accounts
include those of John Meares (1790), George Vancouver (1984), Archibald
Menzies (Newcombe 1923),Alexander Walker (1982) and Jose Mariano Mozifio
(1970).At the beginning of the 19th century, John R. Jewitt, who was held as a
slave among the Nuu-chah-nulth of Nootka Sound for several years, left brief
but valuable observations in his journal (1988), as well as a fuller but perhaps
less reliable narrative of his adventures (Jewitt 1967; Stewart 1987).
The first detailed ethnographic studies, based on years of close contact
with the people being described, appear in the second half of the 19th century
with the works of Gilbert Malcolm Sproat (1868) among the Nuu-chah-nulth of
Barkley Sound and James G. Swan (1870) among the Makah. Edward Sapir
(1910-1914;Sapir and Swadesh 1939, 1945)collected extensive anthropological
accounts of the Barkley Sound groups early in the 20th century. Other early
20th century ethnographers include Edward Curtis (1916) and Vincent Koppert
(1930),the latter writing exclusively on the Tla-o-qui-aht(formerly Clayoquot).
Philip Drucker's monograph on the northern and central Nootkans (1951),based
on fieldwork carried out in the 1930s, is an ethnographic classic and the most
widely cited source on traditional Nuu-chah-nulth culture. Much more recently,
Eugene Arima (1983) has prepared a more general account, providing an
ethnographic overview of all three West Coast peoples. More specific
ethnographies, dealing with more recent issues of acculturation and adaptation,
include Colson's (1953) study of the Makah, Kenyon's (1980) work with the
Kyuquot, Golla's (1987) research on the Tseshaht of the Alberni area, and the
study of Ditidaht and Makah interaction by Bates (1987).
Throughout their entire territory, from Cape Cook to Cape Alava, the
Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah occupied a landscape of majestic
grandeur. Frequently shrouded in clouds, the rainy coast bears a lush green
mantle of cedar, fir, hemlock and spruce. Along the outer coast huge waves
break against long sweeping sandy beaches, broken by rocky headlands. Rugged
mountains descend precipitously to the sea along the fiord-like inlets which
stretch far inland. Large sounds and numerous smaller bays and inlets, studded
with island clusters, result in a convoluted coastline offering a diversity of local
environments and a great variety of resources. From the outer coast these
people took whales, sea lions, seals, halibut and shellfish; the protected
waterways of the sounds and inlets offered salmon, herring and other fish; and
the forests provided deer, elk, bear and various plant foods.
Large dugout cedar canoes once traversed these waterways, allowing
people to exploit resources throughout their territories and to travel to distant
villages for feasts, ceremonies, or raids. Permanent villages of large cedar plankclad houses faced the sheltered waterways at important locations, although
temporary housing was also used at short-term resource camps. The beaches in
front of the houses bustled with activity, as the canoes of fishermen, sea
mammal hunters and traders arrived and departed. Here people gatheredla
clean and dry fish, make and mend tools, and visit. The basic activities of
everyday life, such as sleeping, cooking, and caring for children, as well as major
ceremonial activities, took place primarily within the houses, the cluster of
people occupying a house forming one of the basic levels of Nuu-chah-nulth
social organization (Marshall 1989a;Golla 1987:98-102;Wike 1958:219).
Throughout much of the historic period the numerous politically
independent local groups along the west coast of Vancouver Island were
coalescing into larger and more complex political units. By the 19th century
rapidly declining populations, brought about by introduced European diseases
and intense internecine warfare, resulted in amalgamations to form the
historically known Nuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht groups (Figure 2). Sproat
(1868:308) lists 20 "tribes" for western Vancouver Island in 1860; similarly
Boas (1891:583) lists 22 "tribes,"including the Makah, in the late 19th century.
Several of these ceased to exist, their surviving members being incorporated
-into other bands, in a process continuing well into the 20th century. T o d q there
are 15 legally recognized bands of Nuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht, of which all but
the most southerly, the Pacheenaht, are represented politically by the Nuuchah-nulth Tribal Council.6 Similarly, the Makah, formerly composed of five
semi-autonomous villages with the people at Ozette the most politically
separate (Taylor 1974:37, 66; Riley 1968:70, 79-80; Singh 1966), had
amalgamated by the early 20th century into a single political unit based at
Neah Bay.
-
The basic social and economic unit in the Nuu-chah-nulth political
system was the local
group. As Drucker (1951:220) describes it:
-./-
The fundamental Nootkan political unit was a local group
centering in a family of chiefs who owned territorial rights,
houses, and various other privileges. Such a group bore a
name, usually that of their "place"(a site at their fishing
ground where they "belonged"),or sometimes that of a chief;
and had a tradition, firmly believed, of descent from a common
ancestor.
Kenyon (1980:84) adds further details:
. . .the Nootka local group was conceived of as an idealized
family, expanded over time, which owned a distinct territory
and shared common ceremonial and ritual property. Members
The Pacheenaht, along with their Salishan neighbow the Sooke and Songhees, are
members of the First Nations of South Island Tribal Council.
Fig. 2. Location of Nuu-chah-nulthand Ditidaht political units by the early 20th
century.
of this family were ranked on the basis of primogeniture and it
was the highest ranking member who was regarded as the
owner of most of the group's property.
Such social units had clearly defined territorial boundaries. Access to economic
resources within that territory was strictly controlled. As a result, each local
group would have exploited a slightly different pattern of available resources,
making individual local groups potentially detectable in the archaeological record
(Calvert 1980; Haggarty 1982; Huelsbeck 1989).
Although the local group was the basic political entity in Nuu-chah-nulth
society, it was composed of varying numbers of subgroups, called ushtakimilh.
These subgroups have been designated "lineages,""houses,"or "family groups"
by anthropologists. Members of a local group considered themselves to be the
descendants of a common ancestor and the various ushtakimilh represented
different lines of descent from that ancestor. Primogeniture prevailed; the senior
member of the line of descent stemming from the eldest son would be the head
chief of the entire local group (St. Claire 1991:22;Wike 1958:220).This person
would bear the name of the ancestor-founder and act as custodian of all group
property (Wike 1958:219).Within the local group, each ushta&milh was likely
to have its own house, that of the head chief being the largest and grandest
(Golla 1987:111).
Marriage, particularly among high-status individuals, served to promote
alliances between social groups. Membership in several different local groups
was possible through ambilateral descent (Arima and Dewhirst 1990:399).
Broad networks of kin ties meant that individuals could shift local group
affiliationthrough changing residence and participating in the new social unit.
Considerable movement of people between local groups was common. Although
patrilocal residence was the preferred form, in practice there was no set rule
(Drucker 1951:278;Arima and Dewhirst 1980:399).
In many regions, such as along Muchalat Arm and in Hesquiat Harbour,
autonomous local groups survived into quite recent times. In other regions,
however, more complex social structures emerged through political alliances of
formerly separate groups. Drucker (1951:220) uses the term "tribe" to refer to
allied local groups which shared a common winter village. Each local group
owned and occupied at least one of the large permanent house structures a t the
winter village, where important ceremonial activities involving the entire tribe
took place. The people of such a tribal union shared a name, frequently taken
from one of the component groups, and had a pattern of fmed ranking for their
assembled chiefs. The local groups still maintained their distinct identity,
however, and retained exclusive ownership over important seasonal resource
locations.
Warfare also played a major role in the formation of such larger
groupings. Often hostilities were driven by a desire to appropriate the territorial
holdings of another group, particularly if these contained such vital economic
resources as rivers with salmon runs (Swadesh 1948; Drucker 1951:333; Arima
1983:105). The conquerors killed or enslaved the area's occupants and took
possession of the territory. Families which escaped the destruction of their
villages sought refuge among their relatives in neighbouring groups. Some
groups, reduced in population through such hostilities, sought voluntary fusion
with stronger neighbours for protection. A well-documented example of such
wars of conquest is the expansion of the Ahousaht, formerly restricted to a
small area of the outer coast, who in the early 19th century nearly exterminated
the Otsosaht and absorbed their territory with its rich salmon streams (Drucker
1951:344-353; Arima 1983:107-117; Webster 198359-64; Bouchard and
Kennedy 1990:224-241).Similarly, the Ucluelet, who also lacked a good salmon
river, destroyed the Nahmintaht, an apparently independent local group on
Alberni Inlet, and took possession of the rich fishery in the Nahmint River
(Sapir and Swadesh 1955:362-367). Various other traditions of territorial
conquest for economic gain have been recorded (Sapir 1910-1914; Swadesh
1948). The expanded territories of the victorious groups forced a shift in
settlement pattern, involving seasonal movements between widely separated
locations. These changes in economic and political systems are discussed
further in Chapter 6.
The northern Nuu-chah-nulth - the Mowachaht, Ehattesaht, Nuchatlaht,
and Kyuquot
-
formed confederacies, some apparently predating European
contact. The members of such political units shared a name, generally taken
from one of the constituent groups; a fured series of chiefs, whose relative ranks
were reaffirmed through ritual prerogatives, such as the order of seating for
ceremonies; and a common village site, occupied during the summer months
(Drucker 1951:220; Arima and Dewhirst 1990:391; Morgan 1980). Constituent
groups maintained their distinct identities and territories, and they acted as
ceremonial units within the confederacy. At other times of the year people still
occupied their tribal winter villages and the local group resource sites.
Hereditary chiefs (_hawilh)derived their power through inherited
privileges. These included ownership of specific economic resources, such as
salmon streams, off-shore halibut banks, sea lion rocks, clam beds or salvage
rights to anything that drifted onto a particular beach. House sites and
important ceremonial privileges were also included. Drucker (1951:247)
described such rights as the "fountainheadof chiefly power", stating:
The Nootkans carried the concept of ownership to an
incredible extreme. Not only rivers and fishing places close at
hand, but the waters of the sea for miles offshore, the land,
houses, carvings on a house post, the right to marry in a
certain way or the right to omit part of an ordinary marriage
ceremony, names, songs, dances, medicines, and rituals, all
were privately owned property.
(Drucker 1951:247)
Ceremonial privileges had to be publicly displayed. Sapir and Swadesh (1955)
explain the Nuu-chah-nulth concept of tupaati (hereditary display privilege),
which is essential to chiefly power:
The term "tupaati". . . is used in a narrow sense for a
ceremonial trial of strength or skill in a guessing game, which
constitutes an exclusive hereditary prerogative of a given
lineage; those who are successful in such trials are rewarded
with prizes and the host takes the occasion to reaffirm his
family prestige, of which the tupaati is a token. Tupaati is also
used in a broad sense for any hereditary privilege or any token
of such a privilege, including territorial rights, songs, names,
painted screens, carvings, which are the exclusive possession
of a lineage.
(Sapir and Swadesh 1955:3)
Commoners were individuals who lacked claims to inherited privileges. In
return for access to economic resources, they provided their services to the
chiefs as fishers, hunters and craftworkers, as well as providing much of the
menial labour. Chiefs required the labour of their commoners to "keep up their
names," that is, to live up to the expectations of their chiefly positions through
lavish feasting and potlatching (Drucker 195l:273). Commoners had much
greater mobility than chiefs, who were tied to specific locations by their
hereditary rights and traditions. If their leaders were overbearing, or failed to
provide feasts and security, commoners could leave to assert their kin ties in the
villages of other chiefs (Arima and Dewhirst 1990:401). In extreme cases they
might kill their chief; in 1804, for example, a period of hunger caused by poor
fishing and unsuccessful whaling led the Mowachaht chief Maquinna to fear for
his life, forcing him to use his slaves for protection from his own people (Jewitt
1988:59-60).
Slaves occupied the lowest rung of the social ladder. Most slaves were
captives taken in war, then sold to other groups along the coast. A slave was
considered chattel, and could be sold or mistreated a t the whim of the chief.
Occasionally slaves were killed at the mourning ceremonies for their chief, or
publicly dispatched by a chief at a potlatch to demonstrate his great wealth. In
most respects, however, their lives differed little from those of commoners. They
carried out numerous menial but essential tasks, and were important economic
resources. They also played an important military and political role, as some
chiefs used their slaves to wage war or to enforce their control over their
commoners (Wike 1958:223,225;Donald 1983:113).
r
Nuu-chah-nulth economic life changed with the seasons, as many
resources, such as salmon, herring and various waterfowl, were only available a t
certain times of the year, while other species, such as halibut and sea
mammals, could only be taken when the seas were relatively calm and people
were living on the outer coast. Drucker (1951:36-61) describes the Nuu-chahnulth economic cycle in some detail. Although considerable local variation
existed, the basic pattern involved an annual round of movement from' a
sheltered winter village site on the inner coast, to spring and summer fishing and
sea mammal hunting locations on the outer coast, to various rivers and streams
for fall salmon fishing, and back to the winter village. This seasonal movement
between "inside" and "outside" locations typifies the ethnographic cultures.
Much of the warfare and political maneuvering historically recorded can be
understood as attempts to secure territorial rights in both of these settings
(Dewhirst 1978:7; Arima and Dewhirst 1990:394).Prior to the extensive historic
amalgamations, however, many local groups appear to have relied year-round
on the resources locally available, perhaps augmented through patterns of trade
and ceremonial exchange with their neighbours.7
In early spring, as stores of dried salmon and other winter provisions were
exhausted, Nuu-chah-nulth groups began the move toward the "outside"
portions of their territories. Schools of herring, the first important resource to
appear, were eagerly taken in the inlets, using herring rakes (long wooden poles
studded with sharp bone points on which the fish were impaled) and dip nets.
Spring salmon also appeared to feed on the herring, and were taken by trolling
with a sharp-angled hook, usually baited with whole herring (Drucker 1951:40).
These were cooked and eaten fresh. When the herring spawned, the Nuu-chahnulth collected the thick egg masses on sunken hemlock boughs and dried them
for later consumption. Spring was also the time when large flocks of migratory
waterfowl arrived and were taken by various methods, including hunting from
canoes, netting and snaring.
As the weather improved, groups which owned outside village locations
dispersed there to fish for halibut and cod and to hunt sea mammals (Drucker
- --
1951:48; Calvert 1980:83; Arima and Dewhirst 1990:394). Halibut were taken
on U-shaped hooks of dense wood, usually baited with octopus tentacle, sunk to
the ocean floor. The halibut banks were often considerable distances offshore,
the Barkley Sound p u p s reporting that they would paddle their canoes all night
to reach their destination by dawn (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:41). People also
7 ~ e o r g Clutesi,
e
a Nuu-chah-nulthauthor, gives an example of food exchange in a ceremonial
context. In his book Potlatch, he describes a Tseshaht ceremony at Port Alberni early in the
20th century, to which the people of the inland lakes brought fkesh deer and elk meat and
roasted camas bulbs, while the people of the outer coast provided seal oil and chunks of
smoked fur-seal and whale blubber (Clutesi 1969).
harpooned seals, sea lions and porpoises fiom their canoes, and clubbed seals
-----__
_
--__. - - - - --when they hauled up on the rocks.
4-
I
This was also the time when migrating whales became available and
could be hunted through the summer. Grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus) and
humpback whales (Megaptemr mvaeangliae) were the two main species taken
ethnographically (Sapir 1924; Drucker 1951:49-50;Huelsbeck 1988b),although
the latter may have been the most important in earlier times (Kool 1982). Only
chiefs could hunt whales, an activity which required ritual preparation and
careful training for both the whaler and his crew (Sapir 1924; Gunther 1942;
Curtis 1916:16; Densmore 1939:47; Drucker 1951:169-170).The whaling canoe
had to be paddled alongside the whale, so that just as the whale submerged the
whaler could thrust the heavy harpoon deeply in behind the left flipper. As the
whale dove and the paddlers frantically tried to get the canoe out of the way, the
whale took with it a long line attached to the harpoon head, to which floats of
inflated seal skins were added. As the whale resurfaced, other canoes could move
in to implant additional harpoon lines and floats. Finally, when the weakened
whale could no longer escape by diving, it was dispatched with a long lance and
towed to shore. The "saddle"from the back of the whale was reserved for ritual
treatment by the chief, while the rest was distributed according to rank and
participation, with the blubber going to the entire group (Drucker 1951:55; Swan
1870:21-22; Waterman 1920:45; Koppert 1930:58-60; Densmore 1939:63;
Arima and Dewhirst 1990:395).
Drucker (1951:49) argues that whaling was primarily a prestige activity,
and that successfid hunts were relatively rare events. Certainly, Jewitt's (1967,
1988) observations among the Mowachaht in 1803 to 1805 show a low success
rate for Maquinna's whaling expeditions. Nevertheless, whaling clearly played a
major role in the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah economies. Even a
relatively small number of kills would provide a substantial quantity of oil in the
diet (Inglis and Haggarty 1983; Cavanagh 1983; Huelsbeck 1988a, 1988b;
Arima 1988).The southern groups emphasized whaling to a greater extent than
the Mowachaht and other northern groups studied by Drucker. Riley (1968:72)
quotes an Indian agent among the Makah in 1865 as stating: "What the buffalo
is to the Indians on the plains, the whale is to the Makah."
The outside sites also provided excellent access to marine invertebrates.
A variety of clams, mussels and other shellfish were collected and eaten (Clarke
and Clarke 1975, 1980; Ellis and Swan 1981; Calvert 1980). Women were
the
-"--primary collectors, although men also gathered such foods (Moss 1993). Digging
-- -
and prying sticks of yew and openwork collecting baskets were the major
implements used (Ellis and Swan 1981:75-80). In addition to shellfish, the
intertidal zone held an array of edible invertebrates, including several species of
chitons, sea urchins, sea cucumber, crabs and octopus (Ellis and Swan 1981).
From late spring to fall, a wide variety of plant foods was collected
(Drucker 195156-57;Turner and Efrat 1982;Turner et al. 1983). In spring, the
fresh green stalks of salmonbenies, cow parsnip and several other species were
eagerly eaten raw. Several types of roots and bulbs were also dug for roasting or
steaming. Camas and tiger lily bulbs were dug in summer. In late summer the
Nuu-chah-nulth dug and steamed clover rhizomes, their most important root
food, and feasted on the numerous berries which ripened then.
Throughout the summer people continued to fish and hunt sea mammals.
.
-"-
---d
A variety of rockfish, lingcod, Pacific cod, greenling and other fish were taken on
hooks and lines around rocky reefs and headlands. Offshore, they took halibut,
cod and red snapper. During hot summers the warm ocean currents brought
such large fish as bluefin tuna. Although these are not mentioned in the
ethnographic literature, there are a few early historic references and their bones
are found in virtually all excavated archaeological sites in Nuu-chah-nulth
territory (McMillan 1979; Crockford 1992,1994).
By late summer the sockeye salmon run brought many people back into
the bays and inlets, to the mouths of their salmon streams. As the season
advanced, particularly when the important chum or dog salmon run began in the
fall, most groups were back "inside"at their fall fishing stations. Wooden stake
weirs enclosing traps were constructed in coves by river mouths or in the rivers
(Drucker 195158). As the runs began to thin, harpooning became the dominant
method of capture. Most salmon taken at this time were smoked and dried for
winter consumption. The chum salmon had spawning runs in nearly every
sizable stream and river, its relatively dry flesh made it easy to preserve, and
the late timing of its runs made it an ideal resource for winter provisions
(Drucker 195l:36).
The West Coast people spent the wet, stormy months of winter at their
major villages, generally located on the sheltered "inside" portion of their
territory. Large multifamily houses, consisting of permanent cedar log
frameworks covered with removable split cedar planks, lined the beaches 'at
such locations. House posts and ridge beams might be carved with images that
were the inherited rights of important chiefs. When torrential rains and rough
seas kept the people indoors, they were able to feast on such preserved foods as
dried salmon and halibut, dried clams, dried salal berry cakes, and sea mammal
----.
." ".-
-
blubber and oil. When the weather cleared, men set off to fish for cod, while
-
women gathered shellfish, other marine invertebrates, and winter huckleberries
(Drucker 1951:37-39),adding variety to the steady diet of dried foods. Hunting
for land mammals, such as deer, elk, and bear, was done opportunistically
throughout the year, but winter was a favoured time for many, when inland
groups such as the Muchalaht and Opetchesaht used snowshoes to run down
deer and elk in deep snow and dispatched them with yew lances (Drucker
1951:38; Arima and Dewhirst 1990:397). The reduced food-gathering
requirements of this season allowed people to spend more time indoors,
manufacturing and repairing their tools, weapons and clothing, as well as
producing objects and regalia to be used in ceremonies.
The grey rainy winter days, when large numbers of people were gathered
in the villages, were enlivened by major ceremonial events. Chiefs displayed
their wealth, generosity, and ceremonial privileges at major feasts and
potlatches, to which guests from other villages were invited. The major winter
ceremonial was the tlukwana (tlukwaali in Ditidaht and Makah), literally the
"Shamans'Dance" although it is widely referred to as the Wolf Ritual. A wealthy
chief would sponsor such an event, which might last for ten days or more, in
order to initiate a son, daughter, or other younger relative. Nearly all the people
of the village participated in some fashion, many having roles which were
hereditary rights. At the beginning of the ritual, as the people were seated for a
feast, whistles from the woods signaled the arrival of the wolves. Men dressed 'as
wolves burst into the house and abducted the children to be initiated, who were
kept in isolation for several days. Later, the children were recaptured, "tamed,"
and restored to human society. The final event was a potlatch, a t which the
initiates danced to display the ceremonial prerogatives they had received from
the wolves. Elaborate costumes and theatrical illusions enhanced the dance
performances, and the entire event was punctuated with feasting and speeches
(Ernst 1952; Drucker 1951:386-443; Curtis 1926:68-91; Sapir 1922:320-321;
Densmore 1939:102; Moogk 1980).
Like dl Northwest Coast aboriginal peoples, the three "Nootkan"groups
relied exknsivdy on the western red cedar in their technalagy (see Stewart
1984). House beams and planks, carved figures, canoes, and boxes were all of
cedar, as were most masks, whistles and other ritual objects. Yeffow cedar and
alder were also important in various manufactures, and the tough wood of the
yew provided spears, paddles, dig#ng sticks and other implements. Although
ethnographic studies list a relatively fimibd range of woods, J. Friedman's
(1975, 1976) analysis of the late prehistoric material culture a t Ozette
demonstrates that almost et7eryavailable species was employed. In addition to
wood, the roots, bark, and withes fram cedar and other trees were important
technological raw materials. Women spent much of their time collecting,
preparing, and weaving cedar bark and other materials into a wide range of
useful products, such as basketry, matting, blankets, and items of clothing
Gkucker 19&1:92-99;Sapir 1922:305).Drucker {1951:93) points out that such
vital products permeated ail stages of Nuu-chah-nulth life, from the shredded
cedar bark pads used to dean infants to the cedar bark mats used ta wrap the
in the technolo&
dead, The overwhelming importance of wood, bark, and ~*oots
is, unfortunately, reflected in. the archaeological record only at the few
waterlogged sites known in the area. At all other archaeological sites, factors of
preservation have removed most of the material culture that once existed,
leaving only such remnants as sharpened slivers of bone that were once pads of
composite As-
gear.
Although ethnographic studies have provided a fairly detailed:-pictweof
traditional Nuu-chah-nulth culture, they have to be used with caution.
Numerous differences existed between the various Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht
and Makah groups, and even between families in the same community. Differing
beliefs and behaviours attributable to rank and gender distinctions are also
minimized in these normative descriptions. Furthermore, they present an
idealized account of cultural practices, largely ignoring the exceptions or
variations in behaviour. The late date at which this information was collected
means that it refers primarily to the mid-19th century and cannot be extended
uncritically to earlier periods. Practices documented ethnographically may
reflect historic adaptations to declining populations and the European presence,
while many earlier traits were abandoned and forgotten by the time the
ethnographic data were collected. The accuracy of the ethnographic record can
now be evaluated only through archaeological research, which also provides a
temporal perspective to the synchronic ethnographic picture.
The Toquaht and Their Neighbours
The Nuu-chah-nulth of western Barkley Sound provide a specific focus for
this study. Archaeological research in Toquaht territory features prominently in
the analysis of Nuu-chah-nulth culture history presented in subsequent
chapters. As Drucker's (1951) classic ethnography of the Nuu-chah-nulth deals
only with the groups to the north of Barkley Sound, a review of Toquaht
ethnography and oral traditions provides insight into the nature of more
southerly Nuu-chah-nulth cultures. Specific details of the changes brought
about by the events of the early contact period are given in Chapter 6.
I
The Nuu-chah-nulthofBarkley Sound
Barkley Sound may have supported one of the densest populations in
Nuu-chah-nulth territory. This, at least, was the opinion of the Spanish officers
of the Eliza expedition, who explored Barkley Sound in 1791 and expressed a n
opinion that the villages they observed "contained more Indians than Nuca
[Nootka] and Clayocuat [Clayoquot]" (Wagner 1933:149). Spanish chroniclers
over the next several years estimated the population of Barkley Sound to be
more than 8500 people, compared to 4000 at Nootka Sound (Boyd 1990:145).
By the mid-19th century five major groups - the Toquaht (T1ukw'aa7ath),
Ucluelet (Yuulhuu7ilh7at~),
Tseshaht (Ts'ishaa7ath), Ohiaht (Huuzii7ath), and
Uchucklesaht (Huuchu&tlis7ath)
- shared the sound and its resources. Unlike
more northerly areas, no single polity dominated the entire sound. Each of the
,.-
five
groups maintained distinct and jealously guarded territories, with clearly
--.._
-._-
established boundaries. The 19th century territories of these groups are shown
in Figure 3.
By the latter half of the 19th century a sixth Nuu-chah-nulth group was
making at least seasonal use of the sound and its resources. This was the
Opetchesaht (Hup1ach'is7ath), an amalgamation of several local groups
occupying the lakes and rivers of the Alberni Valley. Their ancestors were
apparently Salish-speaking,prior to the late prehistoric or early historic arrival
of the Tseshaht from Barkley Sound into the lower Alberni Valley (McMillan and
St. Claire 1982:13-16; St. Claire 1991:76-81). By the late 19th century the
Opetchesaht and Tseshaht were highly intermarried and living in nearby
communities in the lower Alberni Valley. The Opetchesaht movement into the
-
sound was motivated by the lucrative late-19th century trade for dogfish and
seal oil. In 1869, Rev. J.X. Willemar lamented the disappearance of all the
Fig. 3. Barkley Sound, showing 19th century Nuu-chah-nulthgroup territories
(following St.Claire 1991:175).
34
native groups from around the mission at Alberni, stating: ".. . even the Opeeshesh-aht tribe, who have never been known to leave except for hunting deer in
the interior, have given up their usual occupation and gone down to the coast in
order to catch seals
- ------a n d - ~ W S W i l l e m a1870).
r
They had no territorial claim
in the sound, and the reserve commissioner (O'Reilly 1883) did not assign them
any reserves in this area.
By the 19th century, all the Barkley Sound groups, with the possible
exceptions of the Toquaht and the Uchucklesaht, were amalgamations of
formerly autonomous local groups. The Tseshaht consolidation, for example,
continued into the late 19th century, when the Ekoolthaht (Hikwuulh7ath) of
the upper soundjoined their more populous neighbours (Blenkinsop 1874:41;St.
Claire 1991:37-38). Ethnographic accounts of these groups refer to this late
postramalgamation period. This process of amalgamation is discussed hrther in
Chapter 6.
Boundaries between the amalgamated Barkley Sound groups shifted over
time, as more powerful groups pushed aside their weaker neighbours and seized
valuable resource areas. The Ucluelets embarked on wars of expansion, takmg
Effingham Inlet and the Nahmint River by conquest and extermination of the
former occupants (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:362-367,373-377;Swadesh 1948).
The important village site of Hiikwis changed hands between the Tseshaht and
Ucluelet several times. The Tseshaht expanded up Alberni Inlet to seize the rich
salmon fishery on the Somass River of the lower Alberni Valley (McMillan and
St. Claire 1982:12-16; St Claire 1991:76-81).The Uchucklesaht once held much
of eastern Barkley Sound, which they had obtained through conquest, but by the
19th century were greatly reduced in numbers and restricted to a small area
near the entrance to Alberni Inlet (St. Claire 1991:75).The Toquaht may also
have held more extensive territories in earlier times (McMillan and St. Claire
1982:lO).
Toquaht Territory
Toquaht traditional territory in the 19th century encompassed western
Barkley Sound, including Toquart Bay, Mayne Bay, and Macoah Passage
(Figure 4). The Toquart and Maggie Rivers were also included, with at least the
former having major fishing locations a considerable distance upriver. Several
smaller rivers and creeks also supported important salmon runs. The few
islands, such as the Stopper group, provide some protection but much of the
coastline is exposed to winter storms. The large village sites of T'ukw'aa,
Ch'uumat'a, and Macoah all are sheltered by offshore islands, while the long
stretch of exposed coastline has few known habitations. The area lacks the
resource diversity and abundance of sheltered locations characteristic of the
Broken Group Islands in central Barkley Sound, and consequently has a much
lower site density.
At the western edge of Toquaht territory, a short distance into Ucluelet
Inlet, a prominent white-faced bluff marks the boundary with the Ucluelet
(Figure 5). Blenkinsop described this in 1874 as a "small remarkable pinnacle
rock with a few trees on top". From there the boundary line ran out to the open
ocean through the George Fraser Islands. These islands, ethnographically the
location of a Toquaht whaling village, were recognized as Toquaht possessions
but were shared in use with the Ucluelet (Blenkinsop 1874:33). On the east,
Lyall Point forms the boundary with the Tseshaht. Even as late as 1874,
however, Blenkinsop described the "dispute and contention" over this boundary
(St. Claire 1991:55,167). From there the boundary extended out to sea, cutting
0
1
2
3
I
4
1
km.
Fig. 4. Toquaht traditional territory, showing the location of major ethnographic
villages.
37
Fig. 5. The boundary rock between Ucluelet and Toquaht territories, located
near the site of T'ukw'aa, at the entrance to Ucluelet Inlet.
through the middle of Hankin Island, at the western edge of the Broken Group.
Such precisely demarcated territorial boundaries were a characteristic feature
of Nuu-chah-nulth concepts of exclusive rights to lands and resources.
The islands and shoreline of western Barkley Sound fall within the
Estevan Coastal Plain (Holland 1964:32), a comparatively low-lying strip of
outer coast immediately backed by the rugged topography of the Vancouver
Island Range. Holland (1964:20)characterizes the geology of most of the west
coast of Vancouver Island, including all of Toquaht territory, as "folded and
faulted sedimentary and volcanic rocks." Volcanic rocks such as andesites and
basalts predominate, mantled along the coastal plain with Tertiary sandstones
and Pleistocene glacial drift deposits (Carter 1973:442; Dolmage 1921:14). The
land is thickly covered with the predominantly coniferous forests of the Coastal
Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone (Krajina 1969),with the principal species
being Western red cedar (Thuja plicata),Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla),
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Sitka spruce (Rceasitchensis).
The lush forest cover is sustained by the rainy climate, with an average
annual precipitation of over 300 cm. Winters are relatively warm and wet, with
much of the annual rainfall occurring during that time. Snowfall occurs on
average only about six days a year. Table 1 summarizes climatic data from the
weather station a t Amphitrite Point, near the end of the Ucluth Peninsula, only
a short distance across Ucluelet Inlet from several major Toquaht sites.
Table 1
Climatic Data From Amphitrite Point, Ucluelet
(Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service, 1982)
(figures refer to the averages from 1951 to 1980)
mean January temperature
mean August temperature
mean annual temperature
maximum recorded temperature
minimum recorded temperature
mean annual precipitation
days per year with precipitation
4.7 " C
14.3 " C
9.4 " C
28.9 " C
-11.7 " C
307.7 cm
197
The intertidal zone of Toquaht territory offered numerous economic
resources. Butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus), native little neck clams
(Protothaca staminea), cockles (Clinocardium nuttalli), geoduck (Panope
generosa), two species of horse clam (Schizothoerus nuttalli and S. capax) and
several species of Macoma are found in the mud, sand and gravel substrata of
the protected a n d semi-exposed locations. Exposed rocky areas are more
characteristic of Toquaht territory, yielding such important intertidal resources
a s California mussel (Mytilus californianus), bay mussel (Mytilus edulis), purplehinged rock scallop (Hinnites multirugosus), barnacle (Balanus spp.), goose
barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus), black katy chiton and giant red chiton
(Katharim tunicata and Cryptochiton stelleri), and the purple, green, and giant
red sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus spp.). The rocky Food Islets off the village
site of Ch'uumat'a take their name from the abundance of such resources, and
both they and the George Fraser Islands are used by modern Nuu-chah-nulth
food collectors.
The waters of western Barkley Sound and offshore also provided access
to various sea mammals, a vital component of Toquaht economy. Stellar or
northern sea lion (Eumetopias jubata), California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) and harbour seal ( ~ h & a
vitulina) all occur in these waters. The sea otter (Enhydra lutris) was also
present, prior to being hunted to local extinction early in the 19th century.
Cetaceans which come into the area include the humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae), grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus), sei whale (Balaenoptera
borealis), minke whale (B. acutorostrata), blue whale (B. musculus), fin whale (B.
physalus), right whale (Balaena glacialis), sperm whale (Physeter catodon),
Pacific pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhyncha), killer whale (Orcinus orca) and
the Pacific harbour porpoise (Phocoenaphocoena). I t was the humpback and
grey whales which were the primary prey of the Nuu-chah-nulth hunters. When
a commercial whaling station was established on Sechart Channel in Barkley
Sound early in the 20th century, the great majority of animals killed were
humpback whales, with lesser numbers of blue and fin whales and a few sperm
whales (Webb 1988:190,338).Today, the whale most likely to be spotted in the
sound is the grey, which comes right into the shallow water off the mouth of the
Maggie River in Toquaht territory.
The waters of Barkley Sound also provided an abundant and varied
supply of fish. Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), cod (Gadus macrocephalus),
lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), rockfish (Sebastes spp.), herring (Clupea harengus
pallasi) and dogfish (Squalus acanthius) are among the common species.
Chinook or spring salmon (Oncorhynchustshawytscha) could be caught by
trolling throughout much of the year, while several other salmon species were
taken during their spawning runs at various creeks and rivers in Toquaht
territory. The Toquart River was the most important fishery, with a major run
of chum or dog salmon (Oncorhynchusketa), a somewhat smaller run of coho
salmon (0. kisutch), and much smaller numbers of chinook salmon, pink salmon
(0. gorbuscha) and steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) (Brown et al. 1979:165).
According to modern salmon escapement data, Maggie River, Twin Rivers, Little
Toquart Creek, Lucky Creek, Cataract Creek and Sandy Creek also support
chum and coho runs (Brown et al. 1979). The lower portions of Toquart River
and Little Toquart Creek, Maggie River and Two Rivers are held as Toquaht
reserves today, attesting to their historic importance.
Barkley Sound is also home to a large variety of birds, both as seasonal
visitors and permanent residents. Economically important birds include an
abundance of ducks and geese. A survey in Pacific Rim National Park listed 10
species of dabbling ducks and 15 species of diving ducks (Hatler, Campbell and
Dorst 1978).The Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and brant (Branta bernicla)
are numerous during their migration periods to and from their breeding grounds.
Three species of grebe (Podiceps grisegenu, P. auritus and Aechmophorus
accidentalis), three mergansers (Lophodytescucullatus, Mergus merganser and M
serrates), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), gulls (Larus spp.), bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the great blue heron (Ardea herodias) are
common residents of the area. In all, Hatler, Campbell and Dorst (1978) list 247
different species of birds for Pacific Rim National Park, on each side of Toquaht
territory.
Land mammals are the least abundant of faunal categories in the
Barkley Sound area. Only the coast deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)
and the black bear (Ursusamericanus)played a significantrole in the Nuu-chahnulth economy. Other local species include wolf (Canis lupis), cougar (Felis
concolor), beaver (Castor canadensis), weasel (Mustelaermines), mink (Mustela
vison), marten (Marta americanu),raccoon (Procyon lotor) and river otter (Lutra
canadensis).
Toquaht Oral Traditions
Edward Sapir was the first professional anthropologist to do fieldwork of
any magnitude among the Barkley Sound groups. As part of his linguistic and
ethnographic research, he recorded a considerable number of native historical
narratives, primarily from Tseshaht informants, during his first visit to Alberni
in 1910 and subsequent fieldwork in 1913-14. During the latter period Sapir
trained two Tseshaht assistants, Alex Thomas and Frank Williams, to continue
recordmg native traditions. Thomas was able to send Sapir a considerable body
additional texts and other ethnographic information, collected between 1914
and 1923 from several groups in Barkley Sound. Much of Sapir's data remains
unpublished, available only in his field notebooks (Sapir 1910-1914).Two major
volumes of Nuu-chah-nulth texts and traditions, however, were compiled by
Sapir's former student, Morris Swadesh, and published after Sapir's death
(Sapir and Swadesh 1939, 1955).Swadesh gathered additional information from
------~---------.--
Nuu-chah-nulthinformants during a research visit to Port Alberni in 1949, and
also published an article on Nuu-chah-nulth warfare, using the texts on that
theme collected by Sapir and Thomas (Swadesh 1948).
Warfare features prominently in the texts published by Sapir and
Swadesh, clearly reflecting its importance in the recent history of the Barkley
Sound Nuu-chah-nulth. Particularly useful in providing information on the
Toquaht are those texts collected by Alex Thomas from Kwishanishim, Sapir's
main Ucluelet informant. Although Kwishanishim was the son of a Ucluelet war
chief, his mother was Toquaht.
Kwishanishim's story "Ucluelets seize Effingham Inlet" (Swadesh
1948:79; Sapir and Swadesh 1955:373-377)took place sometime before the end
of the 18th century, shortly after the Tla-o-qui-aht had obtained firearms but
before these were available to the Barkley Sound groups. The war started
through a territorial dispute between the Toquaht and the people of Effingham
Inlet, the "A'uts" (A7ut.slath) and "Hachaa"@ c h 'aa7at@. A jumping contest,
which the Toquaht won, was held at the disputed boundary. The Efingham
people attacked the Toquaht to take their land. Toquaht losses were
considerable (Kwishanishim states that the Toquaht "became few" as a result
of these raids). During one night raid, however, a group of Ucluelet were
mistakenly attacked and killed, and the Tla-o-qui-aht also claimed the loss of one
of their people. These two tribes then attacked the Effingham groups, the Tla-oqui-aht bringing the trade guns which they had recently obtained. The A'uts and
Hachaa were nearly exterminated and the Ucluelets seized Effingham Inlet.
The most lengthy and important of Kwishanishim's war texts is "the Long
War in Barkley Sound" (Swadesh 1948:79-80; Sapir and Swadesh 1955: 413439). Kwishanishim's father, Angryface, played a role in this conflict, which can
be dated to around the 1840s. This lengthy war began at the Toquaht village of
Macoah, where a Ucluelet chief demanded compensation for a runaway slave.
When this was refused, the Ucluelets decided to punish the Toquaht, roughing up
some of the men and damaging houses and canoes, but not killing anyone. The
Toquaht forged an alliance with the Tseshaht, Ohiaht, and other Barkley Sound
groups through presents of women. Many of the Ucluelet were killed in the
ensuing attack by the combined forces, and the survivors retreated to a strongly
fortified location. After a number of raids, they dispersed, some to live with their
Tla-o-qui-aht relatives while othersjoined the neighboring Toquaht, despite the
recent hostilities. Hearing of a plot by the Toquaht to help the Ohiaht in the war,
the Ucluelet turned on their hosts. The Tla-o-qui-ahtaided the Ucluelet by hidmg
in the woods and killing the Toquaht as they fled. Kwishanishim estimated that
60 men were killed and beheaded, and many women and children were taken as
slaves. The surviving Toquaht scattered to their relatives among the other
Barkley Sound groups. Mistreatment at their hands, however, led the Toquaht
to return to Macoah and eventually to rejoin the Ucluelet. Their combined village
was attacked by the other groups, particularly the Ohiaht, and a lengthy period
of reciprocal raiding followed. The Ucluelet then moved into Toquaht territory,
settling with the remaining Toquaht at a village on the Toquart River ("Deek-
yac-us" [T'iikyakis], translated by Sapir as "Dug Root Beach"). Kwishanishim
noted that the Toquaht and Ucluelet "had now become one tribe. They no longer
had separate villages" (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:427). Finally, after the Ucluelet
gave gifts of women, the wars were stopped.
The narrative, however, continues past the end of the Long War. Desiring
to own the rights to the Toquart River, a Ucluelet man decided to kill the
Toquaht chief, despite being married to his sister. The other Ucluelet were
opposed, but reluctantly agreed to his plan. The plot failed but several Toquaht
were killed and the two tribes moved apart. According to Kwishanishim: "There
were only a few Tukwaa [Toquaht] people now." Seeking revenge, the Toquaht
survivors invited the Ucluelet to join them. The initiator of the plot returned to
his wife's village and was killed, and another Ucluelet group was ambushed. The
Toquaht then moved to their fishing village at the falls on the Toquart River.
They were followed by the Ucluelet, who wanted to exterminate them, "leaving
none of them alive, because they were now few" (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:433).
After the Ucluelet killed one of the Toquslht chiefs, the two groups finally ceased
hostilities and "war was no longer in season."
Recent oral history research has involved interviews with contemporary
elders, placing particular attention on such topics as place names, site usage,
territorial boundaries, and group composition. Place name research has been
particularly fruitful, with nearly 700 native names now known for Barkley
Sound locations (Inglis and Haggarty 1986:112). Studies of place names allow
insight into how the aboriginal occupants perceived their landscape, as well as
providing specific details of site and resource use. A major program of such
research was initiated as part of the Pacific Rim Project in 1981-83 (Inglis and
Haggarty 1986; St. Claire 1991). Although Toquaht traditional territory lies
outside Pacific Rim National Park, the primary focus of that project,
considerable data were gathered on the Toquaht. For example, St. Claire
(1991:155-167) collected 78 place names in Toquaht territory, and recorded
Toquaht traditions on the use of these locations. This work was continued as
part of the Toquaht Archaeological Project from 1991-94 (McMillan and St.
Claire 1991).
Some of this research has focused on the nature of the component groups
which make up the larger polity. Although the local group was the basic
autonomous political entity in Nuu-chah-nulth society, it was composed of
varying numbers of ushtaimilh, "family groups" or separate lines of descent
from a common ancestor. The drastic decline in Toquaht population caused by
disease and warfare resulted in massive disruption of intragroup relations and
loss of entire descent lines. It is now difficult to determine if the still-remembered
component groups were once autonomous local polities or ushta&imilh.
Sayaach'apis, Sapir's main Tseshaht informant, claimed that the people of
Macoah, the Ma7a&wuu7at&,who were the second ranking "sept" of the
Toquaht according to Boas (1891:584), were once a distinct group which
amalgamated and became subordinate to the Toquaht (Sapir 1910-1914; St.
Claire 199154). Another of Sapir's Tseshaht informants, William, credited the
Ch'uumat'a7at&, whose main village was Ch'uumat'a, with once being a
separate tribe. However, no traditions of amalgamation remain among the
Toquaht, nor are there separate ranked chiefly positions or potlatch seats, as
exist among the Barkley Sound groups where amalgamation is known to have
occurred. The reduction of Toquaht populations to near-extinction levels may, of
course, be responsible for the loss of such positions. Jim McKay, St. Claire's
(1991) primary Toquaht informant, provided the names of seven ushtakimilh
comprising the Toquaht, while Archie Thompson later identified 10 such
subgroups (McMillan and St. Claire 1991). Their lists, compared to the 11
Toquaht "septs"recorded by Boas in 1889, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Toquaht Subgroups
Boas (1891) (ranked) Jim McKay (unranked)
1. Tok'oa'ath
2. Maa'koath
3. Wa'stanek
4. Toltak.amayaath
5. Tsalk.tsak.oath
6. Mu'ktciath
7. Tucklis'a'th
8. Kohatsoath
9. Tc'efnatc'aath
10. Metsto'asath
11. Tco'maath
T'ukw1aa7ath(Boas No. 1)
Ma7algvuu7ath (Boas No. 2)
Kwuhats1a7ath_(Boas No. 8)
Ch'iinaht1a7ath(Boas No. 9)
Ch1uumat'a7ath(Boas No. 11)
K1inaaht'a7ath
Tlrapaat7ath
Archie Thompson
Tukw'aa7ath
Ma7akwuu7ath
Kw&atsfa7ath
Ch'iinaht1a7ath
TaaTaspi7ath
Tiikyags7ath
Ma-kwuu7ath
T11apaat7ath
Ch1uch'aa7ath
Tsaw1in7is7ath
Toquaht informants today maintain that the Toquaht were once the
dominant group in western Barkley Sound. There is a tradition that they were
the original Barkley Sound group, from which all the others sprang (Sproat
1868:19; St. Claire 1991:53). Their dominant position is also suggested by the
location of T'ukw'aa, with its prominent fortress site controlling the entrance to
Ucluelet Inlet. Bert Mack, the hereditary Toquaht chief, was told by his father
that the Toquaht once protected the people of Ucluelet Inlet, prior to the
I
formation of the modern Ucluelet through amalgamation. In addition to
dominating the Ucluelet Inlet groups, the Toquaht also held drift rights, from the
surf line seaward, to the entire outer coast of the Ucluth Peninsula, all
ethnographically Ucluelet territory. A Toquaht family apparently resided in one
of the outer coast Ucluelet villages to watch out for Toquaht drift rights, quickly
sending word when anything important was sighted, for once it reached the
beach it was Ucluelet property. Such an arrangement also suggests that the
Toquaht were once the major political force in western Barkley Sound, prior to
their near-disappearance during the catastrophic events of the early historic
period.
The Toquaht serve as a specific example at many points in this study.
Chapters dealing with archaeology strongly feature the results of research
conducted as part of the Toquaht Archaeological Project (see Chapter 3).
'I
Ethnographic and ethnohistoric information collected during that research
greatly enhance
the archaeological data. In addition, historic forces which
- --
affected the Toquaht, such as the Long War in Barkley Sound, feature
prominentlyin the events described in Chapter 6. In their historic reduction by
warfare and disease, the Toquaht illustrate processes that affected the broader
Nuu-chah-nulthworld.
CHAPTER 2:
DIFFERING APPROACHES TO THE NUU-CHAH-NULTH PAST
A considerable body of ethnohistoric and ethnographic data documents
the recent Nuu-chah-nulth past. For earlier periods, however, the record is
comparatively meagre. Archaeological research came late to the Nuu-chahnulth area and even now provides only an incomplete picture. Many earlier
studies relied on comparative analyses of ethnographic traits to place the Nuuchah-nulth within broad models of the emergence of Northwest Coast cultures.
Linguists have also played a major role in developing models of origins and
migrations of Northwest Coast cultures. More recently, biological anthropology
and molecular biology have contributed new insights, particularly in
demonstrating genetic relationships between groups. Oral traditions of the Nuuchah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah peoples add their own unique flavour to the
study of this region's ancient inhabitants, providing rich detail to augment the
meagre remains recovered by archaeologists. In an holistic approach, all such
sources of knowledge provide vital insights into the past.
Oral Histories
Sharply differing views of the past are commonly held by archaeologists
and native groups. Archaeologists have been preoccupied with determining the
origins of Northwest Coast peoples and the development of various traits which
characterize the ethnographic cultures. Native groups, on the other hand,
through their oral traditions, perceive a past where their ancestors have always
been part of the land they presently occupy. Oral histories of the remote past
refer to a time when humans and animals were not separate, prior to the arrival
of powerful transformers who put all living creatures and many prominent
features of the landscape into their present form.
Edward Sapir noted the difference in the Nuu-chah-nulth oral traditions
between myths and legends, with the former believed to extend back to the time
of the transformers. He states that the Nuu-chah-nulth:
. . . distinguish very strictly between myths proper and
legends. Both are believed to be true, but the myths go back to
a misty past in which the world wore a very different aspect
from its familiar appearance of today. They go back to a time
when animals were human beings, to be later transformed into
the creatures we know, and the tribes of men had not yet
settled in their historic places nor started upon their appointed
tasks. The legends, on the other hand, deal with supposedly
historic characters of human kind, are definitelylocalized, and
connect directly with the tribes of today and what is of
ceremonial or social importance to them. A myth . . . is no
one's special property. It may be told by anyone and is
generally known to a large number. A legend, however, is
family property. Only those may tell it who have an inherited
right to it, who trace descent. . . from the hero of the legend,
the ancestor who has met one or more supernatural beings,
has gained "power"from them, and has bequeathed to his
descendants not only this "power"but a number of privileges,
such as names, songs, and dances, which derive from the
ancestral experiences.
(Sapir 1959:106)
Franz Boas, working in the late 19th century with Tseshaht and
Opetchesaht informants in the Alberni area, collected a typical example of a
Nuu-chah-nulth oral tradition of mythic origins, featuring the arrival of the
transformers. According to this story:
In the beginning only the ky'aimi'mit,1 birds and other animals
lived on the earth. They knew that they would one day be
transformed into people and actual animals. Now when the
rumour went round that two men, called kwe'kust~ps~p
(the
transformers),had descended from the sky and would
transform them, they called a council to talk the matter over.
A'tucmit, the Deer, said, "When they come and want to
transform me, I'll kill them. I'm not afraid." He picked up a
couple of seashells and sharpened them on the beach on a
stone. . .While he was thus engaged he saw two people
approach who looked just like his neighbours. They asked,
"What are you doing there, A'tucmit?" He answered, "I'm
making daggers for myself in order to kill them when they
arrive." "Whom?"they queried. "The transformers, when they
eventually come,"replied Deer. 'You've chosen really nice
shells, let's have a look at them," they continued. When
A'tucmit handed them over, they struck his forehead with
them and shouted, "They shall always stay on your forehead,
this one here and that one there! Now shake your head!" He
had to obey. "Now once more,"they called. After he had
shaken his head for the second time the shells were
transformed into antlers. Then they ordered him to prop his
hands on the ground and smeared his rear-end with the dust
which he had ground off the shells. Then they told him to run
into the woods and he became a Deer. Then the transformers
went to the village and changed all the inhabitants into
animals and birds. The Land-otter had a long spear, the
Beaver a long broad bone-knife and they fashioned them tails
from these.
When the animals had thus come into being, the people
came into the world, one couple in every village. The
transformers created them and said, "Mankind shall speak
different languages. Some tribes shall become powerful, others
shall remain weak. We will give people everything they need:
berries, clams and fish."
(Boas 1974:159-160)
A similar version of this story was collected by Sapir from Tseshaht informants
several decades later (Sapir and Swadesh 1939:45-51).
Stories of how the world was put into its present order varied along the
west coast. Among the Barkley Sound groups, Kwatyat was the culture hero,
The translation of this term is not clear in the Boas manuscri~t.but fi-om its context it
refers to the animal people, who occupied the world until the trk*formers arrived to create
the animals which exist today.
51
who was said "to have been the creator of all things and to have had the power
of transforming himself into anything" (Sapir and Swadesh 1939:217, note 107).
Among groups to the north, Kwatyat played more of a buffoon's role, while
Andaokot was the primary transformer and culture hero (Drucker 1951:452).
Also known as mucus-made or Snot Boy (Arima 1983:50), Andaokot was
formed from the droppings from his mother's nose as she sobbed over the loss of
her child to a supernatural being. Growing rapidly to adulthood, Andaokot
overcame the being that had taken the children from the village and restored
them to life. He eventually climbed on a chain of arrows to the sky world, where
he received powers and instructions to return to earth and transform all things
to their present state (Arima 1983:50-54, 180-187; Boas 1916:903-913;
1974:188-192).
Such myths situate the people on their landscape and reaffirm their
ancient connection with the land. Looking around their territory they can see
prominent features that mark the transformer's exploits. An example is the
story of Kwatyat and the wolves, told to Sapir by a Tseshaht informant (Sapir
and Swadesh 1939:33-34;Thomas and Arima 1970:15-19).After killing the Wolf
chief, Kwatyat was forced to flee. When the wolves were nearly upon him,
Kwatyat set his comb in the ground, commanding it to become a mountain
between him and his pursuers. When they again came close, Kwatyat poured
some oil out of his pouch and it became a big lake, blocking his pursuers' path
and allowing him to escape. When Boas was told this story at Alberni late in the
19th century it was specifically noted that the lakes and mountains formed by
Kwatyat "can still be seen today between Sproat Lake and the central part of
Alberni Canal" (Boas 1974:161) . Similarly, in a modern retelling of this story,
Hupquatchew (Ron Hamilton), an Opetchesaht artist and writer, specifically
links Kwatyat's flight with the creation of the Beaufort Range mountains and
the two large lakes, Sproat and Great Central, in the AZberni Valley
(Hupquatchew 1981).Far to the south, Swan (1870:64-65) was told a version of
this story by the Makah, who trace the origins of the Flattery Rocks and the
Strait of Juan de Fuca to this mythic event.
Other stories were prized possessions of chiefly families. These traced
their origins, often from supernatural forces, and the history of how ancestors
acquired powers and associated privileges, such as names and songs, through
encounters with supernatural beings (Golla 1987:85; Drucker 1951:157-161).
Such stories, meant to be told essentially verbatim, recount family histories in a
Nuu-chah-nulth social context; they are, in Golla's (1991:108) words,
"testaments in the native voice." Group names, founding histories, and
traditions of remote times all reinforced the ties between the Nuu-chah-nulth
and their physical and social landscape.
Several locations in Toquaht territory feature prominently in the oral
traditions. According to Sproat (1868:19), Kwatyat (which he rendered as
"Quawteaht"),during his time on earth, lived at the Toquart River. Macoah, the
main ethnographic Toquaht village, in mythlc times was the home of the Wolves
(Sapir and Swadesh 1939:24-26;Thomas and Arima 1970:9-14).This is where
the Thunderbirds went to play the hoop game, in which they were defeated by
Kwatyat's tricks (Sapir and Swadesh 1939:51). After a dispute with the
Thunderbirds, Kwatyat took revenge. He destroyed three of the four
Thunderbirds by entering a vessel in the form of a whale and luring them from
their mountaintop home, dragging them underwater and drowning them in
Alberni Inlet, in the land of the Uchucklesahts (Sproat 1868:177-178;
Carmichael1922:29-30).The rocks in fi-ont of the site of T'ukw'aa are said to be
the remains of this vessel, transformed by Kwatyat (Boas 1974:169-170).
When the great flood covered the earth, the Toquaht sought refuge on the large
mountain called Quossakt, whose peak was one of the few places above the
waters (Sproat 1868:184). A large rock in the intertidal zone at Toquart Bay
today is known as T'ikwuusim, "an anchor," as this is where the Toquaht tied
their canoes with long ropes during the flood (St. Claire 1991:164;McMillan and
St. Claire 1991:48). This association of features in the modern landscape with
the beings and events of mythic traditions served as constant reinforcements of
Toquaht identity and ancient ties to the land.
Many oral traditions are more straightforward historical accounts set in
more recent times, describing wars, alliances and other social and political
events. Specific examples for the Toquaht and their neighbours, such as the
events of the Long War in Barkley Sound, were given in Chapter 1. Some
traditions describe territorial changes, usually through conquest. Most involve
internecine warfare among Nuu-chah-nulth groups, but some refer to Nuuchah-nulth or Makah expansion at the expense of their neighbours. These are
discussed later in this chapter.
Anthropological Theories
Early Dimionist Views
Prior to the availability of archaeological data, speculations on Nuu-chahnulth culture history had to be drawn from ethnographic traditions or from
distribution studies of material culture items. In an early example of the latter
type of analysis, Ronald Olson (1927) concluded that the "Nootka" were the
probable originators of such important Northwest Coast traits as the ocean-
going "Nootka-style"canoe and the D-shaped adze. Philip Drucker, in a later
study, credited the Wakashans with the development of the D-shaped adze, the
curved halibut hook, end-thrownsea-huntingharpoons with finger-holes or rests,
sealskin floats for sea mammal hunting, ritual use of human corpses and
skeletons, development of the dancing societies and elaborate masks used in
rituals (Drucker 1955a:79; 1955b:198). However, Drucker also lamented the
lack of archaeological data and the subjective nature of distribution studies:
. . .there is a wealth of ethnographicinformation available
plus a few linguistic and anthropometric data, and only a
modicum of cold, hard, archeologic fact to refute one's
interpretations. . .one is tempted to rely far too heavily on
ethnographic distributionsin which subjective evaluations
must be made . . . and, further, arbitrary assumptions must
be made as to the significance of those distributions . .
(Drucker 1955a59)
Early views on the origins of coastal cultures were permeated with
diffusionist and migrationist theoretical assumptions. Franz Boas, in his
association with the Jesup Expedition, attempted to trace a spread of Asiatic
traits around the Pacific littoral and down the Northwest Coast (Boas 1905).
Although he felt that the Tsimshian and Salish were recent arrivals from the
interior, he was willing to credit the Wakashans with a lengthier heritage on the
coast, presumably supplying the model for Salish adaptation to their ne'w
environment (Suttles 1987a).Asiatic influences, in his view, continued to shape
the development of the Northwest Coast ethnographic pattern until they were
cut off by the intrusion of Eskimo-Aleut populations in the Bering Strait region
(Drucker 1955a:60; Chard 1960:235; Suttles and Jonaitis 1990:81). Like so
many early speculations, such ideas were rendered untenable by subsequent
archaeological research, in this case demonstrating considerable antiquity for
the Eskimo-Aleut presence. Any continuing Asiatic influences had then to be
transmitted by Eskimo-Aleut cultures.
An alternative view was to derive the coastal cultures from interior
groups, which moved down the major rivers to the coast. This idea was
expressed in fullest form by Alfred Kroeber (1939:28), who proposed that:
"Northwest Coast culture was originally a river or river-mouth culture, later a
beach culture, and only finally and in part a seagoing one." He pointed to the
simpler societies found inland, along the Fraser and Columbia river drainages, as
the logical prototypes for Northwest Coast cultures. Although crediting the
northern coastal tribes with the "culture climax" in historic times, he thought
that previously the Wakashans may have had the most developed cultures. He
also speculated that in earliest times, as cultures emerged from the rivers to an
ocean environment, the climax may have been centred around the mouth of the
Fraser River (Kroeber 1939:30).
To assess these competing theories anthropologists sought the "earliest"
and "purest" coastal cultures from which to reconstruct the original form. These
early speculative models prominently featured the Nuu-chah-nulth. Looking at
their relatively isolated location and lack of what he considered "interior cultural
traits," Drucker regarded the Wakashans as "the most typical coastal peoples"
(1955a:69), "the purest strain of Coast culture" and "the oldest strain of
Northwest Coast civilization" (1955a:76).Borden (1951:39)referred to the Nuuchah-nulth as "the Indians who have lived longest on the coast," while Gunther
(1960:270) described them as "the base from which all coast cultures began."
Such assessments of the Nuu-chah-nulth stress a perceived isolation and
marginality to later developments on the coast. The emphasis was on their
conservatism, as the Nuu-chah-nulth were believed to have retained most
completely the basic form of the original coastal adaptation.
It was Nuu-chah-nulth whaling that attracted particular anthropological
attention. Of all Northwest Coast peoples, only the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht,
Makah, Quileute and Quinault actively hunted whales, and the latter two groups
clearly derived this practice from contact with the Makah. Along the coast to
the north the nearest whalers were the Koniaq and Aleut peoples, of EskimoAleut stock, in southern Alaska, leaving a distributional gap that cried out for
explanation. In a difisionist argument characteristic of the time, Lantis (1938)
prepared a detailed list of parallels in whaling practices in the two areas and
proposed a formerly continuous distribution that was later broken by the arrival
of the northern Northwest Coast groups from the interior. The parallels that she
noted were not simply technological traits, but involved such ritual practices as
the use of human corpses to obtain supernatural power over the whale. This led
Borden (1951:39) to state that the "close similarity" of whaling practices in the
two areas "makes the assumption of a historic connection unescapable." He
wondered whether "the Nootka found the Eskimo already on the scene upon
their arrival on the coast" or if "the Nootka once lived much farther north than
they do now" (Borden 1951:41). Swanson (1956) also noted a variety of shared
traits between the Nuu-chah-nulth and Eskimoan groups, leading him to debate
whether Nuu-chah-nulth whaling was derived &om the Aleut and Koniaq of
southern Alaska or from Eskimoan groups nearer Bering Strait. Duff (1965)
added another aspect to the argument by noting similarities in construction and
design between the Nuu-chah-nulth whaling canoe and the Eskimo-Aleut umiak,
concluding that the open hide-covered boat was the parent form. Similarly,
Suttles (1952) noted the use of a set formula for the division of sea mammal
carcasses among the Wakashans, Salish and Eskimo-Aleut, favouring the
explanation that this reflects an ancient common origin.
Such ideas strongly influenced Borden's interpretations of his pioneering
research in the Fraser Delta. Drawing on a presumed cultural continuum
between the Nuu-chah-nulth and Eskimo-Aleut in earlier times, Borden (1951)
described the earlier cultures of his emerging Fraser Delta sequence as
"Eskimoid," suggesting a common cultural base for much of the Northwest
Coast, predating the arrival of the Salish from the interior. This view was then
expanded by Drucker (1955a:64), who proposed the hypothesis that "the
distinctive basic patterns of the Northwest Coast culture, from Yakutat Bay to
northwest California, were derived from the same subarctic fishing-and-seahunting base of the coasts of Bering Sea and southwest Alaska that gave rise to
the various Eskimo and Aleut cultures." Chard (1960) expanded even further
the distribution of this proposed fishing and sea-mammal hunting base,
visualizing "an ancient arc of related culture and population around the entire
rim of the North Pacific from Kamchatka to Puget Sound." Characterizing the
Wakashans as "the purest and the most specialized Northwest Coast
subculture," Drucker (1955a:78) concluded that "the groups of the Northern
Province probably emerged on the coast after the Wakashan-speaking groups,
and may actually have disrupted lines of communication of the latter with
Eskimo-Aleut."The speculation of this early period is perhaps taken furthest by
t
.
Duff (1965:30), who conjures up the image of "an umiak-borne migration of
proto-Eskimo people down the coast."
The result of this speculative period was to marginalize the Nuu-chahnulth, making them seem to be an isolated and conservative survival,
tenaciously clinging to an earlier way of life. Modern archaeologists reject such
scenarios, viewing whaling and other features of Nuu-chah-nulth culture as
indigenous and ingenious adaptations to their open ocean environment, rather
than as relic traits with a once more widespread distribution. Faint echoes of
these early interpretations, however, may still lie in such modern archaeological
constructs as the West Coast culture type, with its emphasis on cultural
conservatism and continuity throughout time, downplaying appreciation of
change and innovation.
Ecological Models
Interpretations requiring the migration of peoples or the diffusion of
cultural traits gradually fell into disfavour, partially because they failed to
provide any real explanation of why such events occurred. Instead, many
anthropologists shifted their attention to understanding the ecological factors
behind the distribution and evolution of cultural traits.
A model for the development of Nuu-chah-nulth culture built on systems
theory and ecological theory was proposed by Langdon (1976). Based primarily
on ethnographic data, along with the limited archaeological information then
available, this model incorporates an ecological and demographic perspective.
Langdon was following the ecological functional school, popularized in the
preceding decade by such writers as Suttles (1962, 1968), Vayda (1961), &d
Piddocke (1965), in emphasizing resource variability and occasional shortages
as ecological factors shaping cultural development. The potlatch was seen
primary as a mechanism for resource distribution. Similarly, warfare was
viewed as a way of redistributing people to resources.
The first of the four stages of development Langdon proposed is a long
period of generalized coastal adaptation, based on fishing and sea mammal
hunting. Following Fladmark (1975),he argued that sea level stabilization about
5000 years ago resulted in peak salmon productivity, leading to a period
characterized by semi-sedentary winter villages, increased reliance on salmon
!
and shellfish in the diet, modest population growth and the development of
feasting to enhance the power of emerging elites and to ensure the labour
necessary to acquire adequate supplies of salmon. In the "classic"stage which
followed, the potlatch emerged from the feast as a mechanism for validating
ownership rights to resource locations. An "ideology of extravagant giving and
consumption"was generated, based on extensive resource surpluses, leading to
further elaborations in ceremonial life and power of the chiefly elite. In the final
stage prior to European contact, continued population growth began to tax the
energy requirements of this system, leading to two very different results. In the
north, the potlatch took a unifymg function, resulting in an integrated system of
ranking for chiefs and the emergence of confederacies. Among the central and
southern groups, culturally-induced shortagesresulting from ritual consumption
and competition led to extensive warfare over resource territories. Langdon
viewed warfare as the "systemic alternative" that allowed maintenance of a
"consumptive standard of living."
Morgan (1980) also adopted an ecological approach in his study of Nuuchah-nulth political organization. Donald and Mitchell (1975) had earlier shown
that the potlatch rank of each local group among the neighbouring "Southern
Kwakiutl"(Kwakwakfi'wakw)was strongly correlated with their population and
the median size of the salmon runs in their territory. Morgan (1980) examined
whether differential access to salmon could be a key variable in understanding
why some Nuu-chah-nulth groups remained independent polities while others
formed larger confederacies. Although salmon played a lesser role in the
economies of many Nuu-chah-nulth groups than among the Kwakwgkg'wakw,
Morgan's analysis suggested that there was a significant relationship between
salmon availability and the form of political organization. In general, politically
independentwinter village groups tended to occur in areas of productive salmon
streams. Where the salmon resource was less dependable, political
confederation into larger units, sharing a common summer village, was likely.
Only where a group's population had dropped below levels required for defense
and for participation in inter-group potlatching was this political union likely to
be voluntary. Instead, Morgan emphasizes the role of warfare in the growth of
larger political units. Rather than exterminating their opponents, militarily
successful Nuu-chah-nulth chiefs could accept peace initiatives, usually
consolidated through marriage, and absorb other groups in subordinate
1
positions. In this way, such chiefs gained access not only to additional territory
and resources but also to an enlarged pool of labour, providing a military and
economic advantage. This resulted, according to Morgan, in the emergence of the
hierarchically structured confederated polities known ethnographically among
the northern Nuu-chah-nulth.
Both Morgan and Langdon emphasize the role of warfare in the evolution
of Nuu-chah-nulth political organization. Morgan's scheme, in particular, is
compatible with the broad theory of political evolution advanced by Carneiro
(1970). Although primarily concerned with the evolution of the state, Carneiro
viewed warfare as the basic mechanism behind the emergence of all higher
levels of political organization. Where the resource base is circumscribed by
geographicbarriers or by neighbouring polities, population pressures would force
groups with inadequate resources to wage war against their neighbours to
expand their territory. Conquered groups would be politically incorporated in
subservient positions, resulting in a more complex, hierarchically stratified
society. The role of warfare in Nuu-chah-nulth society is further examined in
Chapter 5.
Historical Linguistics
I
Linguistic Models of Wakashan Origins and Expansion
Historical linguistics provides an important analytical framework for
assessing prehistoric population movements. It provides insights that cannot be
directly derived from archaeology, even where such data are available. On the
Northwest Coast, particular attention has been given to the Salishan-speakers,
with their widespread distribution on the southern coast and in the interior
Plateau. Such noted anthropologists as Franz Boas (1905:96) and Alfred
Kroeber (1923:17)had long maintained that the Salish were late arrivals on the
coast from the interior. To counter these long-standing beliefs, Suttles and
Elmendorf (1963; see also Suttles 1987a, 198713) used linguistic data to argue
that Salish origins were, in fact, coastal, with a later movement inland. They
pointed to the greater variability in the coastal languages, and postulated a
formerly continuous distribution of Salishan-speakers along the coast as far
north as the Nuxalk (formerly known as the Bella Coola) in the Bella Coola
Valley. Such analysis suggested that the Salish homeland was around the lower
Fraser River (Suttles 1987a:260; Jorgensen 1969:23; Thompson and Kinkade
1990:45), possibly extending as far south as the Skagit River (Kinkade
1991:148) or the southern end of Puget Sound (Suttles and Elmendorf 1963:45;
Suttles 1987233277).
I
As the immediate neighbours of the Salish, the Wakashans also figured
prominently in these schemes. The proto-Wakashan homeland has been
interpreted as encompassing northern Vancouver Island (Thompson and
Kinkade 1990:47).In their eventual expansion from that base, the northern (or
Kwakiutlan) branch took much of the adjacent mainland coast, displacing or
absorbing northern members of the Salishan continuum and isolating the
Nuxalk from all other Salish-speakers (Thompson and Kinkade 1990:47;
Swadesh 1949:166). Around the same time, in this model, the southern (or
Nootkan) branch moved down the west coast of Vancouver Island, ultimately
reaching the northern Olympic Peninsula.
Using a somewhat different approach, Kinkade (1991) recently offered a
variant of this established model. He states that it "seems fairly clear" that the
Wakashans once occupied all of Vancouver Island and the south-central British
Columbia coast (1991:151). His analysis of Salishan vocabulary revealed protoSalishan words for animal species which do not occur on Vancouver Island, thus,
in his opinion, "excluding Vancouver Island from the Salishan homeland"
(1991:147).Similarly,his review of Nuxalk vocabulary indicated that names for
typical coastal flora and fauna were borrowings from Wakashan, suggesting
that the Nuxalk were, in fact, of interior origin (1991:149).He concludes that the
Wakashans, in much of their former distribution, "were supplanted by Salishans
moving north and by Bella Coolas moving across from the interior" (1991:151).
Although an intriguing suggestion, this viewpoint provides a poorer "fit"with the
archaeological data and illustrates the equivocal nature of models drawn on
linguistic data alone.
Sapir (1916),in his pioneering work in historical linguistics, proposed two
principles for drawing inferences about the history of a group of related
languages from their distribution. The first principle asserts that linguistic
differentiation increases with time, making the area with greatest linguistic
diversity the original homeland. The second, the "centre of gravity" principle,
asserts that the deepest cleavage between related languages will mark the
homeland. Suttles (1987b), while challenging the inevitability of the first
principle, used Sapir's methodology, with limited success, to demonstrate a
coastal homeland for the Salish. Although the Wakashans lack the range of
languages and the widespread territory of the Salishans, these principles could
also be applied. Certainly the deepest cleavage in the Wakashan family is
between the two major branches, Kwakiutlan and Nootkan, whose relationship
is considered to be rather remote (Sapir 1911:15; Thompson and Kinkade
1990:39). Both branches have their greatest diversity near this split, as both
the Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwgkg'wakw have languages with a series of
dialects, while the other Kwakiutlan and Nootkan languages are more uniform.
Both the "centre of gravity" and the "greatest diversity" criteria could then be
interpreted as suggesting that the northern or northwestern portion of
Vancouver Island was the original Wakashan homeland.
Some archaeologists have embraced these linguistic models to interpret
their own work. Mitchell (1990), for example, has argued that two distinct
cultures once occupied the southern coast of British Columbia, the ancestral
Wakashans along the west coast of Vancouver Island and ancestral Salishans
along the protected waterways of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia and Queen
Charlotte Strait. The Wakashans then expanded from the northern portion of
their homeland into Queen Charlotte Strait and northward, absorbing or
displacing Salish-speakers and isolating the Nuxalk. He supports the linguistic
model with archaeological evidence suggesting a population replacement m
Queen Charlotte Strait around 500 B.C. Similarly, Hobler (1990) adopted the
Suttles and Elmendorf (1963) model of a continuous distribution of Salishanspeakers to the Bella Coola Valley, broken by an expansion of Wakashans from
northern Vancouver Island. Examining his archaeological data from the Bella
Coola Valley, he suggested that such population dislocations may be reflected in
archaeological discontinuities around 2500 B.C. and subsequent changes to
about A.D. 1(Hobler 1990:305).
Analysis of vocabulary, as Kinkade (1991) has shown for the Salish,
provides evidence of the original environment and core elements of the culture
which can be used to reconstruct ancestral homelands. No equivalent study
exists for the Nuu-chah-nulth. Long ago, however, Sapir (1912:228)pointed out
the extensive vocabulary the Nuu-chah-nulth have for various species of
marine animals, suggesting a long period of adaptation to the outer coast. Sapir
(1912:238-239) also noted the common use of suffixes relating to potlatching,
feasting, and gift giving a t girls' puberty ceremonies, claiming that this
demonstrated the fundamental importance of such institutions in Nuu-chahnulth culture.
Linguistic and Oral History Evidence for Territorial Shifts
Linguistic studies and oral histories also contain evidence of territorial
shifts over time . A good example is the late arrival in the Alberni Valley of the
Tseshaht from Barkley Sound. This event is well recorded in oral traditions and
the ethnographic literature (Sproat 1868:179; Boas 1891:584; Carmichael
192251-64; Drucker 1950:157, 19515; McMillan and St. Claire 1982:14; St.
Claire 1991:79-81). The Opetchesaht, an amalgamation of three formerly
separate local groups in the Alberni Valley, were apparently Salishan speaking
prior to the arrival of the Tseshaht. Boas (1891:584; 1974:208) reported
informants who maintained that their grandfathers spoke only Nanaimo, a
dialect of Halkomelem. Sapir's informants also claimed that some Opetchesaht
spoke a Coast Salish language until quite recent times (Sapir 1910-1914; St.
Claire 1991:76), although Sapir related this language to the now-extinct
Pentlatch, another Salishan language of eastern Vancouver Island. In
describing a girl's puberty ceremony, he stated that her original name was
"apparently one of the stock of Coast Salish names that are current among the
Hopatch'asath, who, according to reliable evidence, once spoke a now extinct
Salish language" (Sapir 1913:77). In a later publication, Sapir (1915:19)
described a unique linguistic trait (the confounding of Is' and 'c' sounds) in
Opetchesaht, attributing this to "the fact that they carried over into Nootka
speech a linguistic peculiarity found in the Salish dialect which they originally
spoke."
Nuu-chah-nulth territory may have once extended somewhat further to
the north. Boas (1891:608) recorded a tradition from the Kwakwgkg'wakw of
Quatsino Sound which describes the expulsion of the Nuu-chah-nulth from the
region immediately to the south. Galois (1994:347, 363) attributes this
Kwakwgkg'wakw expansion to the Klaskino and points to a NUU-chah-nukh
place name for the origin point of one of the Klaskino subgroups.
As a third example, a t the southern end of "Nootkan" distribution,
Kinkade and Powell (1976) have argued from a linguistic perspective that the
Makah are relatively recent arrivals on the Olympic Peninsula. In earlier times,
at least the northern portion of the Olympic Peninsula seems to have been the
homeland of Chimakuan peoples, represented historically only by the Quileute,
south of the Makah on the outer coast, and the now-extinct Chemakum, a t the
northeastern end of the Peninsula adjoining Puget Sound (Curtis 1913; Kinkade
and Powell 1976; Elmendorf 1990:438).The geographic separation of these two
related languages carries obvious implications for the culture history of this
region. Kinkade and Powell (1976)point out that a number of place names for
significant features of the landscape, used by both the Makah and the Quileute,
have Chimakuan origins. They also note the lack of strong differentiation
between Quileute and Chemakum, indicating that these two languages had been
separated by Makah intrusion in relatively recent times. Historic Quileute
territory extends into lands once occupied by the Quinault, their Salishanspeaking neighbours to the south, suggesting a late southward movement
(Curtis 1913:176; Powell 1990:431). Swadesh (1955:60)estimated a separation
of 21 centuries between Quileute and Chemakum. Glottochronological dates,
however, are notoriously unreliable and, in any case, this need not refer to the
Makah arrival. Kinkade and Powell propose that the Makah occupation of the
Olympic Peninsula occurred about A.D. 1000, although the evidence for this
specific date seems inconclusive at best. Wessen (1990:421) cautions that there
is no evidence for such population replacement in the archaeological record, and
that whaling and fur sealing, long associated with the Makah, have much
greater time depths on the Olympic Peninsula.
The Ditidaht may also have been relatively recent arrivals in their
territory. According to an oral tradition told to anthropologists Mary Haas and
Morris Swadesh in 1931, the Ditidaht originally stem from a group of people
occupying Tatoosh Island, off Cape Flattery (Clamhouse et al. 1991:288; Inglis
and Haggarty 1986:200). Ditidaht Ernie Chester also recounted this story to
Ann Bates (1987:293-294), although in his version only some of the Ditidaht
ancestors arrived in this fashion. After a battle with the inhabitants of Ozette,
the Tatoosh Island people moved across the Strait of Juan de Fuca and settled
around the Jordan River, now in Pacheenaht territory near their boundary with
the Salish-speaking Sooke. There they lived for a long time, taking their name,
Diitiid7aa7tx_,from the name of the Jordan River, Diitiida (Bouchard and
Kennedy 1991:3; Clamhouse et al. 1991:285). Continued hostilities with their
Salish-speaking neighbours, the Sooke and Clallum, eventually led them to
abandon these lands and move north along the coast. They settled in a number
of villages near Nitinat Lake, including the important fortress of Whyac at the
outlet of the lake. They remained a number of separate local groups, not
coalescing into the modern Ditidaht band until declining populations forced them
to amalgamate in the 20th century.
Oral traditions tell of continued hostilities between the Ditidaht and
Makah. They maintain that at one time the Cape Flattery area was held by the
Ditidaht and that it was forcibly seized by the Makah, who had been living in
their more southerly villages (Irvine 1922). The Makah also defeated the
Ditidaht in their own territory, taking possession of Nitinat Lake for the rich
salmon fishery in the rivers. The Ditidaht were scattered, many going to live
with their relatives among the Pacheenaht. The Makah held the lake for a long
time, assigning their own place names throughout the area (Clamhouse et al.
1991:299-309; Inglis and Haggarty 1986:204). Finally, the Ditidaht and
Pacheenaht defeated the Makah and the Ditidaht reclaimed their territory.
The Pacheenaht (Paachiid7aa7tx_ in the Ditidaht language) may have
had different origins. Chief Peter of the Pacheenaht told Swadesh in 1931that in
earlier times they spoke the same Salishan language as their Sooke neighbours
(Clamhouse et al.1991:289;Inglis and Haggarty 1986:215).Intermarriage with
the Ditidaht led to their adoption of the Ditidaht language sometime prior to
contact with E ~ r o p e a n sThey
. ~ remained a component group of the Ditidaht for
a considerable time, before becoming politically separate. They took their name
from a word meaning "sea foam," after great quantities of this material once
appeared in their river (Jones and Bosustow 1981:21-22;Inglis and Haggarty
These traditions suggest that, until a relatively late period, Vancouver
Island south of Barkley Sound was held by Salish-speakers and the northern
Olympic Peninsula was home to Chimakuans. This may have lasted until
roughly a thousand years ago, when Kinkade and Powell (1976) estimate the
Makah arrived on the Olympic Peninsula. Despite the highly speculative nature
of such dates, this corresponds with a linguistic estimate of about 1000 years
for the separation of Ditidaht and Makah (Jacobsen 1979:776).If the Ditidaht Makah separation occurred when the Cape Flattery people moved to the Jordan
River to become the Ditidaht, this would roughly date this event. The Ditidaht
movement around the still-Salish ancestors of the Pacheenaht to settle a t
Nitinat Lake occurred sometime later, as did intermarriage with the
Pacheenaht and their absorption into Ditidaht culture. Arima (1988:23; Arima
et al. 1991:289) speculates that it was the effective open-ocean technology,
particularly with the development of whaling, that enabled the Ditidaht and
Makah expansion. At present, however, the archaeological research required to
assess these ideas is almost totally lacking in Ditidaht and Pacheenaht
territories.
In summary, oral traditions and linguistic evidence suggest that "West
Coast" territory in early times extended from slightly north of present
2Thia process is apparently still continuing.Bates (1987: 128) noted for the recent era that so
many Ditidaht women have married into the Sooke band that the Sooke people now speak
Ditidaht as well as Sooke.
distribution to somewhere around Barkley Sound. Later migrations took the
ancestors of the Ditidaht and Makah south on Vancouver Island and to the
Olympic Peninsula. The Tseshaht expansion from Barkley Sound into Alberni
Inlet and the lower Alberni Valley took place even later, perhaps about the time
of European contact. This information is in accord with linguistic suggestions of
a Wakashan homeland on northern Vancouver Island, with a spread of the
Nootkan branch south along Vancouver Island's west coast, leaving a string of
dialects through Nuu-chah-nulth territory and a separate southern division
which later split into two closely related languages.
Molecular Biology
Biological anthropology is also making major contributions to our
understanding of the aboriginal past, particularly relating to the nature and
timing of the initial occupation of the Americas. On linguistic grounds, Greenberg
(1987; Greenberg, Turner and Zegura 1986) has argued for three waves of
human arrivals into North America, corresponding to his three large clusters of
aboriginal languages: Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene (comprising all Athapaskan
groups, plus Tlingit and Haida on the Northwest Coast) and Amerind
(encompassing all other aboriginal languages in the Americas). From her
research as a biological anthropologist, Szathmary (1979, 1993) has argued
that members of the Na-Dene stock are more closely related to Eskimo-Aleut
populations than to other North American Indians, likely indicating that the NaDene have a separate origin on this continent. Both Szathmary (1979) and
Spuhler (1979) report analyses of genetic differences among North American
aboriginal peoples based on blood group gene frequencies. Both use the Nuu-
chah-nulth as one of their examples, taking their data from an earlier study of
blood groups among the Ahousaht (Alfred et al. 1969). In both analyses the
Nuu-chah-nulth emerge as a distinct population, not clustering closely with any
other group, but differing markedly from Na-Dene or Eskimo-Aleut populations.
Part of the Nuu-chah-nulth distinctiveness, however, stems from a paucity of
comparable samples from neighbouring areas of the Northwest Coast.
More recently, some researchers are examining mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA) to assess relationships among past populations. One such study
(Ward 1989; Ward et al. 1991) focuses on the Nuu-chah-nulth. As part of a
large-scale biomedical project, serum samples were collected from a large
number of Nuu-chah-nulth individuals, from all 14 bands represented by the
Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. Detailed genealogical information was collected,
along with basic demographic data. The Nuu-chah-nulth form a distinct
population, with a high level of intramarriage; analysis of selected genetic
markers indicated that individuals born before 1940 had less than five percent
Caucasian admixture. To determine the degree of variability in mtDNA, a
sample of 63 maternally unrelated individuals was selected from 13 of the 14
modern bands. The analysis indicated a very high level of mitochondrial diversity
for a small local population. In an attempt to date the development of this level
of diversity, Ward and his colleagues used as their comparison the divergence
between humans and chimpanzees. Using what they view as conservative
figures, they still arrived at an age estimate of nearly 60,000 years, a time
which is assumed to predate human arrival in the Americas (Ward et al. 1991).
They conclude that such differentiation began in Asia and that the first arrivals
to the Americas were already genetically diverse. Similar extensive mtDNA
diversity has been demonstrated for other American aboriginal populations
sampled. Szathmary (1993:215) summarizes the prevailing view that "the
great time depths obtained make it likely that mtDNA radiation began in Asia
and the initial colonizers brought many varieties of mtDNA into America."
In a more recent study, Ward and his colleagues (Ward et al. 1992)look a t
mtDNA data to assess the "three wave" theory of arrival. They examined
mtDNA lineages from selected populations within the proposed Eskimo-Aleut,
Na-Dene and Amerind stocks. Their study indicated closer genetic similarity
between Haida (Na-Dene stock) and the distant Greenlandic Inuit (EskimoAleut stock) than that between Nuu-chah-nulth and the only other Northwest
Coast "Amerind" member in their sample, the Nuxalk at Bella Coola. They
conclude that Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut populations share a relatively recent
common ancestry, and that the huge "Amerind"stock, to which the Nuu-chahnulth belong, is characterized by greater mtDNA diversity, suggesting
considerable antiquity (Ward et al. 1992).
To assess the issues raised in this chapter, further archaeological
fieldwork is required. In particular, speculations based on historical linguistics
regarding the nature and timing of population movements throughout Nuuchah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah territories could be evaluated and refined
through additional archaeological research. Archaeology and linguistics provide
compatible information, strengthening hypotheses supported by both sets of
data. In addition, anthropological models both draw on available archaeological
data and suggest ideas which can be investigated by further archaeological
research. Increased archaeological knowledge may result in abandonment of the
model, as was the case with the early difisionist speculations presented earlier
in this chapter. Native oral traditions also strongly complement the
archaeological data, adding the human and spiritual dimensions to the material
remains recovered by archaeologists, although it is rare that archaeology can
support or confirm the information provided in these traditions.
At present, archaeological research in Nuu-chah-nulth territory is limited.
Only three geographic clusters of excavated sites exist: at Nootka Sound and
adjacent Hesquiat Harbour, at Barkley Sound, and on the Olympic Peninsula.
Only at Hesquiat Harbour has a significant sample been excavated from the
total number of archaeological sites in the region. Even in these better-known
areas, information is very limited, particularly for the crucial early period. We
are totally lacking excavated data for the area north of Nootka Sound and for
the coastline of Vancouver Island south of Barkley Sound, in Ditidaht and
Pacheenaht territory. These are crucial areas for assessing ideas on past
population movements, such as the linguistic model discussed above. The
following chapter reviews what archaeological research has been carried out in
the territories of the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah people, and the
nature and limitations of the archaeological record as it now exists.
CHAPTER 3:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN NUU-CHAH-NULTH TERRITORY
Introduction
Prior to 1966, the west coast of Vancouver Island was virtually an
archaeological terra incognita. In that year, the large-scale excavation a t Yuquot
in Nootka Sound began. At the same time, the large test trench through the
Ozette village midden on the Olympic Peninsula initiated major archaeological
work in Makah territory. Despite the considerable amount of archaeological
fieldwork which has followed these projects, large areas of Nuu-chah-nulth,
Ditidaht and Makah territory remain uninvestigated. This chapter reviews the
archaeological research that has been conducted and summarizes the present
state of our knowledge.
In 1982, when Haggarty and Inglis (1983a) collated the distribution of
Nuu-chah-nulth archaeological sites and their broad environmental settings, a
total of 270 sites had been recorded. This number was swelled greatly by the
rapid increase in archaeological fieldwork in the 1980s. By mid-1995, the
recorded site inventory for western Vancouver Island (Nuu-chah-nulth and
.
,
~itidahtterritories)iad
risen to 1264. When separated by site types, the total
increases to 1536, as several different categories might be included under the
same site number. Table 3 shows the site totals, classified by type, for this
area.1 Habitation sites, the vast majority of which are shell middens, account
l ~ i t inventory
e
data came fkom site records in the CHIN (Canadian Heritage Information
Network) system. The results of a computer search of the relevant areas were provided by the
Archaeology Branch,n~toria. This information reflects the site files as they existed in August,
1995.
for 693, or about 45.1%, of this total. At least 34 of these are located on steepsided headlands or islets, presumably serving as refuges or "fortifications"during
times of hostilities or as lookouts for migratory sea mammals. Intertidal
-
.
-
petroforms, with most identified as rock-wall fish traps or canoe skids, form
another common category. Aboriginal burial sites are most commonly in caves
or rockshelters, but tree burials and canoe burials, as well as historic
cemeteries, are also reported. Most of the "surfacelithic scatters" were recorded
in the lower Alberni Valley and may not be related directly to Nuu-chah-nulth
culture history. The Euro-Canadian presence is also represented in the site
inventory by such historic ruins as shipwrecks, homesteads, canneries, and
mines.
A large and rapidly growing, but still under-reported, site category is
culturally modified trees (CMTs). These include all standing or fallen trees
showing evidence of native use of the wood or bark, as well as all stages in the
manufacture of canoes. CMTs have only recently been given site numbers in
the provincial system on a regular basis (and then primarily as clusters, rather
than individual trees), and have been inconsistentlyrecorded in regional surveys.
Despite clearly being under-represented in the site records, this has become one
of the most common site types reported for western Vancouver Island. CMTs
have also played a vital role in aboriginal land use studies for modern legal
purposes. On Meares Island, for example, Nuu-chah-nulth claims to aboriginal
use of the entire island were strengthened by an intensive archaeological survey
which focused on CMTs (Arcas Associates 1986). The survey identified almost
1800 individual CMTs, with tree-ring dates indicating continuous use since the
mid-17th century, and estimated that the coastal region of this relatively small
island contains a total of 20,000 CMTs (Stryd and Eldridge 1993).
Table 3
Site Inventory Totals for the West Coast of Vancouver Island (Ethnographic
Nuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht territories), 1995
number
site type
habitation sites
fish traps, canoe skids, other petroforms
CMTs
burial sites
historic Em-Canadian sites
surface lithic scatters
rock art
other
total
693
266
245
176
90
28
23
15
1536
A growing interest in non-destructive archaeological fieldwork and the
application of new, more intensive, survey techniques helped focus attention on
regional surveys by the 1980s, with a consequent rise in recorded site totals.
These surveys, designed to record and map all sites a t or near the modern
shoreline, involved inspection on foot of the entire shoreline area, including the
intertidal zone. Soil probes were used to detect buried deposits. Rocky and
inhospitable areas, unsuited to habitation uses, were examined for evidence of
burials, rock art, or defensive locations. This method was first tested in the
Brooks Peninsula survey (Haggarty and Inglis 1981, 1983b) and fully applied,
with considerable success, in survey throughout Pacific Rim National Park
(Haggarty and Inglis 1984, 1985; Inglis and Haggarty 1986). Subsequently,
these techniques were employed in the Meares Island survey (Mackie 19831,
Ohiaht Ethnoarchaeology Project (Mackie 1986), the MowachahtJMuchalat
Archaeology Project (Marshall 1990,1992a;Marshall and Moon 1989), and the
Toquaht Archaeological Project (McMillan and St. Claire 1991, 1992, 1994).
Such regional surveys were also stimulated by the desires of First Nations
communities to document heritage resources in their traditional territories (the
Hesquiat, Ohiaht, Mowachaht/ Muchalaht, and Toquaht Projects) and to assert
land claims (the Meares Island survey). The Ditidaht band also initiated an
inventory and assessment of heritage resources, although this was restricted to
their reserve lands (Eldridge 1992). At present, some portions of Nuu-chahnulth and Ditidaht territory have been intensively surveyed and their heritage
resources are well-documented, while other areas have received only cursory or
unsystematic attention.
Despite the growing number of recorded archaeological sites in Nuu-chahnulth and Ditidaht territory, excavated data are remarkably limited. Although
30 sites have had some form of systematic excavation, most were limited to
very minor testing. The 15 sites in Hesquiat Harbour which were systematically
investigated as part of the Hesquiat Project account for half of this total, yet
only four received more than minor sub-surface examination. Major
excavations, resulting in the recovery of fairly extensive cultural materials,
consist only of those conducted at Yuquot, several of the Hesquiat Project sites,
two of the Toquaht Project sites, and Shoemaker Bay, a t the end of Alberni
Inlet. The distribution of excavated sites on the west coast of Vancouver Island
is shown in Figure 6.
Eleven sites have been excavated in the ethnographic territory of the
Makah. Of these, only Ozette and the two Hoko River sites have been the
Fig. 6. Location of excavated sites in Nuu-chah-nulth,Ditidaht and Makah territories. Not all
sites are labelled on the map. For clarity,only the major sites in Hesquiat Harbour are
shown and only one site is indicated for each of the two at Chesterman Beach, Aguilar
Point, Nitinat Lake, and Hoko River.
78
locations of major excavation projects. A number of sites around Neah Bay and
from Cape Flattery to just south of Ozette have had limited testing (Friedman
1976; Wessen 1990).The location of these sites is also shown on Figure 6.
Major gaps are evident in the geographic distribution of archaeological
research. While Nootka Sound and Hesquiat Harbour in the north and Barkley
Sound in the south have seen relatively extensive fieldwork, including both
inventory and excavation, little has taken place in the intervening areas. The
entire northern portion of Nuu-chah-nulth distribution, from Cape Cook to
Nootka Sound, has been almost entirely ignored. To the south of Barkley Sound
there have been several programs of site inventory, with only limited excavation
around Nitinat Lake. Several of these gaps are in areas crucial to assessing the
hypothetical models of past population movements reviewed in Chapter 2.
Other problems exist with the archaeological record from the west coast.
Differingsampling strategies hinder comparison of recovered materials from
various sites. Only at Hesquiat Harbour has a systematic sample been taken of
all site types in the study region, and a significant number of the total sites
tested. Elsewhere, archaeological attention has tended to be limited to the large,
ethnographically important village sites. At Yuquot, the presence of modern
occupied houses put great constraints on the choice of excavation area, limiting
it to a single large block in an unoccupied portion of the village. Although an
impressive collection of cultural remains was recovered, the extent to which this
I\
represents activities carried out over the total site area is unknown.
Differences in season of occupation may also hinder comparisons. Abbott
(1972) has cautioned that the ethnographic pattern of seasonal movement
would result in a single social group leaving distinctly different archaeological
remains at various locations. He argues that this pattern has considerable
1
1
antiquity, at least in the Coast Salish region. Dewhirst (1980:17-181, however,
minimizes seasonal differences in Nootka Sound by noting the very similar
nature of artifacts found at the ethnographic summer and winter villages. Also,
archaeological and ethnographic research now indicates, as argued in Chapter 6,
that the ethnographic seasonal round was a late adaptation, and that yearround occupation is more likely to characterize the major shell midden sites prior
to contact with Europeans. Detailed analyses of faunal remains provide the
I--
clearest indicators of seasonality (Monks 1981), but such studies have been
completed in relatively full form only for the three major Hesquiat Harbour sites
(Calvert 1980) and Shoemaker Bay (Calvert and Crockford 1982).
Finally, a major problem in understanding the culture history of the area
lies in the incomplete nature of the material remains recovered through
archaeological excavation. Ethnographic sources on the Nuu-chah-nulth and
their relatives emphasize the overwhelming importance of wood, bark, and root
in the material culture, a fact fully borne out at the two sites, Ozette and Hoko
River, where such materials are preserved in waterlogged contexts. These two
sites provide something of a "control,"where the nature and degree of loss can
be understood for those sites which offer only remains in the relatively
imperishable materials of bone, antler, shell and stone.
In the discussion which follows, an effort is made to present all
I
4
radiocarbon age estimates available for Nuu-chah-nulth sites. These are given
as radiocarbon lab dates, without any calibration or correction factor. In a
number of cases, paired charcoal and shell samples were collected and
submitted; only the charcoal dates are presented here.
1
Nootka Sound and Hesquiat Harbour
These two regions are considered together here as they are immediately
adjacent and the material objects recovered are very similar. Ethnographically,
however, Drucker (1951:4) considered Estevan Point, between Nootka Sound
and Hesquiat Harbour, to mark a significant cultural break. The Mowachaht of
Nootka Sound were placed in Drucker's "Northern Nootkans" category, which
was characterized by frequent contact with the Kwakwgkg'wakw and extensive
cultural borrowing. Only the "Northern Nootkans" developed the confederacy
level of social organization. Of these groups, only the Mowachaht have received
any si@cant
archaeological attention, including excavation. Around the point,
the Hesquiaht were the northernmost of Drucker's central division, which he
described as having "little direct contact with foreigners." Drucker (1951:4)
considered any outside influences among the central groups to be indirect,
"brought in by their northern kin, or by the Makah, who plied busily back and
forth across the Strait." The Hesquiaht and Toquaht. are the only "Central
Nootkans" to have received significant archaeological study through excavation.
Research in Nootka Sound
Nootka Sound has had considerable archaeological attention, including
intensive archaeological inventory throughout the entire region (Marshall
1992a, 1993) and excavation a t two sites. The major excavation project took
place a t Yuquot (Yukwaat), the historic summer village for the Mowachaht
confederacy, while more minor excavation was conducted at Kupti (Kwuupti),
the winter village of the dominant Mowachaht tribal unit. In addition, several
small impact assessment studies have been carried out by archaeological
contractors (Eldridge 1989; Arcas Consulting Archeologists 1993,1994).
The outer coast village of Yuquot (DjSp 1)is one of the largest sites on the
west coast of Vancouver Island and the best-known archaeologically. The 1966
excavation was conducted on a large scale, encompassing a trench 19.5 m long
and between 3 and 4.5 m wide. The excavation reached a maximum depth of 5.5
m, without encounteringsterile deposits. The total volume of matrix removed is
calculated at 231.8 m3 (Dewhirst 1980:29). Over 4000 artifacts of indigenous
manufacture, as well as several thousand items of metal, ceramic or other
introduced historic materials, were recovered. Numerous faunal remains,
consisting of about 217,000 fish, mammal and bird elements, as well as about
26,000 mollusc and barnacle specimens, were collected (Dewhirst 1980:33).
Only the avifauna, molluscs and barnacles, however, have been analyzed and
reported in any detail (McAllister 1980; Clarke and Clarke 1980; Fournier and
Dewhirst 1980).
The Yuauot strata are clustered into four zones, providing a continuous
archaeological sequence that spans the period from sometime prior to 4200 B.P.
to the modern era (Dewhirst 1978, 1980, 1988). Dewhirst stresses continuity
throughout, maintaining that there are "no breaks and no extensive qualitative
discontinuities" in the sequence, which culminates in historic Nuu-chah-nulth
culture. Where changes are evident, they represent more complex forms
emerging from their earlier prototypes. Dewhirst (1980:336) concludes that: "In
short, the archaeological record reflects a single culture in a process of improved
adaptation to the outside coastal environment." Similarly, Folan (1972)
interprets the archaeological evidence from earliest occupation as representing
essentially the same way of life as the historic Nuu-chah-nulth. He states that:
In general, the picture provided by the archaeology. . . is that
the inhabitants of Yuquot through time have been a rather
conservative people, fishing and hunting and collecting the
same species of fauna (and probably flora) since their earliest
discovered habitation of the site, and all the while utilizing
basically the same fishing and hunting equipment and tools.
Further, there is no reason to believe that they lived in
structures differing much from some of those drawn by John
Webber in 1778 during Captain James Cook's third and last
voyage of discovery.
(Folan 1972:~)
Zone I, dating from sometime prior to 4200 B.P. to about 3000 B.P.,
encompasses the two lower strata. Sterile deposits were not reached; a test hole
in the wet sand and pebbles of the lowest stratum still revealed fish vertebrae a t
a depth of about 60 cm below where the excavation terminated. During this
Early Period, prior to the build-up of extensive midden deposits, the site was a
low-lying gravel spit. Many of the artifacts and faunal remains are waterworn,
suggesting that sea levels were slightly higher than a t present. Poor
preservation in these wet lower deposits meant that few faunal remains and
only a small number of artifacts were recovered. These artifacts, however,
reflect the types of tools and the range of grinding, pecking, and splitting
technologies found in later stages. The artifacts characteristic of this period
include stone abraders and abrasive saws, stone celts, bone points for composite
fishing gear, and bone awls, needles, and barbed points or harpoons.
The Middle Period is encompassed within Zone I1 deposits, estimated to
date between about 3000 and 1200 B.P. These strata contain much more
organic material, particularly crushed mussel (Mytilus californianus) shell,
resulting in much better preservation of bone and antler. More intensive
occupation of the site is also suggested by large rock-rimmed firepits, some
superimposed, which may indicate that permanent house structures were in
place. A wider range of artifacts may simply reflect the improved preservation
conditions. Stone artifacts include abundant abraders, abrasive saws, and celts.
In addition to the bone points, awls, and needles continuing from Zone 1, these
deposits contain bone fishhook shanks, small barbed points for composite
fishhooks, and bone bipoints which would have served as gorges for taking fish.
Paired valves and arming points are the components of composite toggling
harpoon heads, of the size used for taking salmon. Larger barbed harpoons
would have been suitable for hunting sea mammals. Whalebone shredders and
beaters indicate that the technology for processing and weaving cedar bark was
established by this time. Canine tooth pendants and other objects of personal
adornment are also found.
Materials from Zone I11 deposits are assigned to the Late Period, dated
from about 1200 to 200 B.P. According to Dewhirst (1980:342), the Late Period,
which ends with the Spanish occupation of the site in 1789, "largely reflects
Nootkan culture as it is known from early historical and ethnographical
sources." Although there are no large firepits in Zone 111, the deposits seem to
have formed from activities associated directly with habitations. Artifacts
remain largely unchanged from the Middle Period, with the exception of several
innovations which suggest increased efficiency in exploiting open ocean
resources. Stone fishhook shanks, indicating the specialized salmon trolling
hooks known ethnographically, appear late in this period. Technological changes
for sea mammal hunting also become evident. Barbed non-toggling harpoon
heads were replaced by large composite toggling harpoon heads, with bone
valves slotted for mussel shell cutting blades, of the type known
ethnographically as parts of sea mammal hunting gear (Waterman 1920;
Drucker 1951:26-29). Several large valves have a punctate zigzag design,
identical to historic specimens used in whaling, where the design had "magical
virtue" (Drucker 1951:28). This trait led Dewhirst (1977; 1980:344) to conclude
that Nuu-chah-nulth whaling emerged only in this late period.
/"
Faunal remains were abundant in Zones I1 and I11 and, according to
Dewhirst (1979), were "remarkably consistent" through time. Molluscan
remains, which made up a large part of the site deposits, were overwhelmingly
California mussel (Mytilus californianus) (Clarke and Clarke 1975, 1980;
Dewhirst 1979). Fish bones dominate the vertebrate remains. Although
analysis is incomplete, most elements were identified to species. These are
roughly evenly divided between salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.); nearshore pelagic
species, primarily rockfish (Sebastes spp.); and nearshore bottom dwellers, of
which ling cod (Ophiodon elongatus) is the most abundant (Dewhirst 1979).
Halibut (Hippoglossusstenolepis) appear to have played only a minor role in the
economy, despite their ethnographic importance among the Nuu-chah-nulth.
Avifauna were abundant, representing 67 species, of which 23 occurred in
significant numbers. The most abundant single species, representing 27% to
40% of all avian remains, is the short-tailed albatross (Diomedea albatrus)
(Dewhirst 1979; McAllister 1980). McAllister (1980:133) describes the
abundance of albatross bones as "astonishing,"overwhelming all other species
in the sample. Identification of mammals, based on a sample of about one-third
of the elements recovered, indicated that land mammals were primarily coast
h\
\
deer (Odocoileushemionus), while the most abundant sea mammal species was
- seal (Phoca
the northern
fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), followed by the harbour
.
vitulim) (Dewhirst 1979). Whalebones were found throughout the deposit,
although their fragmentary nature inhibits specific identification and
quantification. The presence in the midden deposits of a distinct type of barnacle
(Coronularegime), which lives almost exclusively on the skin of the humpback
whale, provides indirect evidence for the procurement of humpback whales since
at least about 2200 B.P. (Fournier and Dewhirst 1980:95-96). Based on this
sample of elements, the ratio of sea mammals to land mammals appears to
increase by the Late Period (Savage 1973; Dewhirst 1978:14).
Seasonality studies based on the faunal remains are incomplete and
tentative. Analysis of the avifauna indicates that the site was occupied from at
least February to October during the Middle and Late Periods (McAllister
1980:169). The molluscan remains also suggest a spring to fall occupation for
the Middle Period, with a shift to year-round residence by the Late and Historic
Periods (Clarke and Clarke 198052).
Zone IV encompasses the historic period, from the beginning of intensive
European contact around 1789 to 1966, the year of the excavation. Although
Dewhirst (1978:17)maintains that "the basic character of Nootkan technology
and subsistence remained unchanged until the late 19th century," substantial
cultural shifts are evident. Metal, glass and ceramic implements became
abundant, replacing some categories of indigenous artifacts. Only a few classes
of historic artifacts have been analyzed, however, and objects which can be
shown to predate the late 19th century are relatively rare (Jones 1981:69;
Lueger 1981:104). Small bone points and other tools persist, but they appear to
have been whittled to shape with iron cutting tools (Dewhirst 1978:17;
1980:346). Substantial shifts also took place in the faunal species exploited.
Among the avifauna, albatross remains are less numerous while the Canada
goose (Branta canadensis) markedly increases in importance (Dewhirst 1979;
McAllister 1980). In the molluscan remains, epifaunal species such as mussel
(Mytilm cdifornianm), which dominate the prehistoric deposits, were largely
replaced by infaunal species, such as little-neck clam (Protothaca staminea),
butter clam (Saxidomusgiganteus) and horse clam (Schizothaerus nuttalli)
(Clarke and Clarke 1975,1980; Dewhirst 1979).Even the most common type of
barnacle found in the midden deposit changed in the historic period ( F o d e r and
Dewhirst 1980).Most of the scattered human skeletal elements, including three
possible fragmentary burials, also came from Zone IV deposits (Cybulski 1980).
The archaeological sequence at Yuquot is supported by an extensive
series of radiocarbon age estimates (Dewhirst 1980:36-59). Not all are
consistent and several have been rejected by the excavator. The earliest
radiocarbon date is 423090 years, based on a sample collected from wet sand
and pebbles near but not a t the base of the cultural deposit. Table 4 lists all
radiocarbon dates from Nootka Sound.
As part of the 1966 fieldwork, Folan and Dewhirst also excavated four
small testpits at the site of Kupti (or Cooptee; DkSp I),on the protected "inside"
of Nootka Sound at the entrance to Tahsis Inlet. Few faunal remains and no
artifacts were found. Two years later, McMillan (1969) conducted more
extensive test excavations. A total of 15 units, each 5 foot by 5 foot (1.5 x 1.5
m), was excavated, removing approximately 35.4 m3 of matrix. Most test units
were located on the relatively shallow lower terrace, but two were excavated on
the upper terrace along the back of the site, where a maximum depth of 2.4 m
was reached. This site was revisited in 1990 by Marshall (1992),who prepared
a
detailed map and collected additional artifacts from the beach.
Kupti was the winter village of Chief Maquinna's tribal group in the late
18th century. A 1792 Spanish engraving (Moziiio 1970:Plate 11)shows houses
on several levels densely clustered together. The map prepared by Marshall
(1992a:50; 1993:34) shows the numerous surface ridges and other features
suggestive of closely spaced dwellings. This site was an occupied Mowachaht
village well into the 20th century.
Fewer than 200 artifacts of indigenous manufacture were recovered from
the 1968 excavation, along with numerous introduced historic items and a
substantial quantity of faunal remains. Bone points and abrasive stones were
the most common implements; more diagnostic artifacts include a stone
fishhook shank and several hand maul fragments. Although faunal analysis is
incomplete, some observations can be made (Marshall 1990:109-111). The most
numerous vertebrate remains are fish, which are dominated by salmon
(Oncorhynchus spp.), along with smaller numbers of dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
and rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Among the birds, the common murre (Uria aalge),
loons (Gavia spp.) and cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.) are the most abundant.
These were all common avifauna at Yuquot, although overshadowed by the
great abundance of albatross, which was very rare in the more inner coast
environs of Kupti.
Based on the types of artifacts found, McMillan (1969:109) suggested
that all materials recovered were relatively late, probably within the last 1000
years. Dewhirst (1978:19; 1980:16) considered all the Kupti artifacts as
contemporaneous with Zones I11 and IV at Yuquot, suggesting an occupation
spanning the last 1200 years. More recently, several radiocarbon estimates
have been obtained from charcoal samples originally collected by McMillan
(Marshall 1990:lOl-103; 1992a:49). These are listed in Table 4. The earliest
date of 3090t90 was initially accepted by Marshall (1990:103; 1992b:8), but
aroused enough suspicion that Marshall and McMillan submitted the remaining
portion of the sample to a different laboratory, obtaining an age estimate of
1210%0 years. Thus the 3000 year date is rejected and the oldest radiocarbon
age corresponds closely to McMillan and Dewhirst's original estimates.
The earliest Kupti dates came from the two excavation units on the
second terrace. Evidence of thick ash layers with rocks, presumably hearths,
with little shell and few artifacts, suggests that these are house deposits. No
radiocarbon samples were obtained from the base of this terrace, so the date of
earliest occupation is unknown. The initial occupation may have been limited to
the upper terrace, while the lower deposits, which contain much more shell,
accumulated through refuse disposal. The site appears to have grown rapidly in
late prehistoric times, with evidence of house structures spread along the
relatively shallow deposits of the lower terrace. Marshall (1993:156-157)
.
attributes this to the use of Kupti as a winter village by the larger social group
which emerged through political confederacy of the Yuquot and Tahsis Inlet
peoples.
In addition to the excavated data, stone artifacts have been found on the
beaches in front of several sites in Nootka Sound (Marshall 1990, 1992a; Arcas
Consulting Archeologists 1993).These consist primarily of small stone celts and
chipped stone tools, including bifaces, flakes and cores. The rarity of chipped
stone in the excavated deposits of Yuquot and Kupti makes these beach
discoveries of particular interest. One possible explanation is that they belong to
an early occupation period in Nootka Sound, predating the excavated deposits.
This is examined in more detail in Chapter 4.
Table 4
Radiocarbon Dates from Nootka Sound
Yuquot (from Dewhirst 1980)
C14 Age
Lab No.
Zone
Comments
1330330
980350
1050330
10502100
1120280
1150L90
GaK-2852
GaK-2855
GaK-2194
GaK-2 190
GaK-2184
GaK-2 192
IV
I11
I11
I11
I11
I11
date rejected - historic deposits
15402110
1920k100
1280L90
1770k90
1850k90
1860L90
GaK-2181
GaK-2854
GaK-2185
GaK-2 195
GaK-2182
GaK-2200
I11
I11
I1
I1
I1
I1
date rejected
date rejected
date rejected
2040290
2050290
21202110
21602100
26302110
30202220
31002120
3320290
30002100
35902190
4080330
4230290
GaK-2201
GaK-2178
GaK-2 186
GaK-2198
GaK-2 196
GaK-2191
GaK-2 188
GaK-2187
GaK-2180
GSC-1767
GaK-2179
GaK-2 183
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I1
I
I
I
I
I
at interface with Zone I
date rejected
date rejected
date rejected
same sample as above - rejected
near base of excavation
Kupti
I C14 Age
I
490k75
BROk7.5
--- - -
700L50
1210350
1250f50
3090k90
ILab No.
1 Comments
I
I
I SFU-655
I SFU-656
Beta-53090
Beta-53089
Beta-50031
SFU-654
I lower terrace, near base of deposit
I as above, at base of an adjacent unit (1.3 m)
from 2nd terrace unit - 0.8 m depth
I
I
same 2nd terrace unit as above - ca. 1.6 m
other 2nd terrace unit - ca. 0.9 m depth
date rejected - same sample as Beta-53089
The Hesquiat Project
The Hesquiat Project was initiated in 1971through collaboration between
archaeologists and Hesquiaht band members (Calvert 1980; Haggarty 1982;
Haggarty and Boehm 1974).At first, the focus was on protection of burial caves
and rockshelters, which had been subjected to considerable theft and vandalism.
The initial field season goals were to locate and record all archaeological sites
within Hesquiaht traditional territory, and remove all surface materials from
the burial caves and rockshelters (Sneed 1972; Haggarty 1982). In all, human
remains representing at least 108 individuals were removed from 11such sites,
probably all dating to the early historic period (Cybulski 1978). Over half came
from DiSo 9, the largest burial cave in the region, which also contained
thousands of surface artifacts, including cedar bark mats and baskets, cordage,
wooden harpoon shafts, wood and bone combs, and a wooden dance mask (Sneed
1972:5; Haggarty 1982:19).About 7000 trade beads were also included with the
burials in this cave.
In subsequent fieldwork, lasting until 1979, the Hesquiat Project evolved
into an ambitious program of site survey and excavation, as well as research in
linguistics and ethnography. In all, test excavations were carried out a t 15
habitation sites, sampling all site types from the study area. Substantial
excavations, however, were limited to four sites: DiSo 1,the major ethnographic
and modern village of the Hesquiaht people; DiSo 9, the large burial cave which
also had extensive prehistoric habitation deposits; DiSo 16, a smaller burial and
habitation cave; and DiSo 22, a site consisting of both rockshelter and open
midden deposits (Haggarty 1982). DiSo 9 is the oldest of the four sites, with
prehistoric deposits dating between 1200 and 1800 B.P. underlying the historic
burial materials. Hesquiat Village was occupied from about 1200 years ago to
modem times, while the remaining two sites are encompassed within the past
millennium (Calvert 1980; Haggarty 1982). Radiocarbon age estimates are
shown in Table 5.
Over 1500 artifacts of aboriginal manufacture were excavated from
these four sites, with over 900 of the total coming from Hesquiat Village (DiSo 1)
(Haggarty 1982:Table 18). Abrasive stones were numerous, as were a number
of bone and antler artifacts, including various points and bipoints, awls and
composite harpoon valves. Less numerous but more diagnostic artifacts include
stone fishhook shanks and mussel shell tools, including a cutting point for a
composite harpoon head. As at other Nuu-chah-nulth sites, the simplicity of the
assemblage and the low numbers of artifacts compared to the abundant historic
items in the burial caves suggest that most objects were made from perishable
materials. In general, the artifacts closely resemble those from Kupti and from
Zones I11 and IV at Yuquot, which are contemporary with Hesquiat Village.
A strong focus of the Hesquiat project was the systematic collection and
analysis of faunal remains. Calvert (1980)provides a detailed study of the fauna
from three of the major excavated sites. Fish remains dominate the vertebrate
fauna, but major differences between sites are evident. At Hesquiat Village,
rockfish, lingcod, greenlings, and dogfish were the most abundant, while herring
and salmon were particularly important at DiSo 9. Sea mammals,
particularly
---.-
-.
northern fur seal (Callorhinusursinus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and sea
--
-
--
-
.
- -
.
otter (Enhydra lutris ), were numerous at Hesquiat Village, near the outer coast,
-
while DiSo 9 and 16, on the inner harbour, had a mix of sea and land mammals,
-.
the latter consisting largely of deer. Unidentified whalebone was also common a t
Hesquiat Village; the presence of a whale barnacle (CoronuZa sp.) suggests that
at least some of this represents humpback whale. Avifauna were also
numerous, representing a wide range of species. Loons, ducks, geese,
cormorants and gulls were common, with albatross dominating the assemblage
from Hesquiat Village. The faunal pattern from that site strongly resembles
that from Yuquot, located in a similar outer coast environmental setting.
Differinginterpretations of the faunal remains from Nootka Sound and
I
I
I
Hesquiat Harbour stem from differing levels of ethnographic sociopolitical
I
organization. Dewhirst (1978:20; 1980:15-18) interprets the prehistoric
I
economy in Nootka Sound as representing a pattern of seasonal movement,
from spring and summer outer coast locations to fall and winter "inside"villages,
\I
as was documented ethnographically for the Mowachaht. Further, he perceives
/
an increasingly maritime adaptation over time. Calvert (1980:106), however,
\
\
points out that such patterns would not emerge until a tribal or confederacy
i
level of political organization had been achieved. Her work in Hesquiat Harbour,
i,
where politically independent local groups persisted into historic times, led her to
I
i
interpret differences in site faunal assemblages as reflecting access to differing
4
resources within clearly defined territorial boundaries. Such culturally restricted
territories, exploited on a year-round basis, result in distinct archaeological
Table 5
Radiocarbon Dates from Hesquiat Harbour Sites
Site
C14 Age
Lab No.
Comments
I
date rejected by excavators
GaK-4394
2430-00
component I1
GaK-4395
DiSo9
1180?60
1-8109
component I1
1200335
1-8111
component I1
1285335
component I
WSU-1543
1740260
1-8110
component I
179030
WSU-1544
component I
1800270
1-8112
component I
18102115
DiSol6
1-8114
575285
1-8113
685330
DiSo2l
WSU-2295
date rejected by excavators
230%0
wsu-2292
280290
5202120 wsu-2293
wsu-2294
680290
DiSo22
open camp
1-8115
580330
WSU-2292
rock shelter
980270
DiSp2
WSU-2296
570290
wsu-2297
690&90
(from Calvert 1980:Table 9; Haggarty 1982:Table 20)
1
patterns which reflect the presence of politically autonomous local groups.
Haggarty (1982) also claims that such distinct patterns can be seen in artifact
distributions in Hesquiat Harbour, as the technology of resource procurement
would leave distinguishable assemblages in each local group territory. Calvert
(1980:267-8)suggests that the earliest remains at DiSo 9, dating to about 1800
B.P., show unrestricted access to resources throughout the harbour, but by
1200 B.P. separate geographically-bounded local groups had emerged. Such
simple local group political organization may have been the earliest adaptive
pattern along the west coast of Vancouver Island, even in those areas
characterized historically by larger tribal or confederacy groups.
Clayoquot Sound to Barkley Sound
Little archaeological research has been conducted between Hesquiat
Harbour and Barkley Sound. Intensive site surveys have been carried out on
Meares Island in Clayoquot Sound (Mackie 1983), including systematic
searches for culturally modified trees (Arcas Associates 1984, 1986), and along
the Long Beach portion of Pacific Rim National Park (Inglis and Haggarty
1986). Excavation projects, however, are limited to testing for an historic house
structure on Meares Island (Arcas Associates 1988) and limited testing a t two
shell middens near Tofino (Wilson 1990,1994).
Barkley Sound has received much more archaeological attention.
Intensive surveys have been conducted in the Broken Group islands of the
central sound (the Pacific Rim Project--1nglis and Haggarty 1986), along
western Barkley Sound (the Toquaht Archaeological Project--McMillan and St.
Claire 1991, 1992), and near Bamfield on the eastern side of the sound (the
Ohiaht Ethnoarchaeology Project--no report available). Less intensive surveys
have taken place in the islands of the Broken Group (White 1974) and
throughout Barkley Sound, Alberni Inlet and the lower Alberni Valley (McMillan
1975a, 1975b, 1981; McMillan and St. Claire 1977, 1982; St. Claire 1975).
Major excavations are limited to the Shoemaker Bay site at the head of Alberni
Inlet (McMillan and St. Claire 1982) and several of the ethnographic Toquaht
sites along the western sound (McMillan and St. Claire 1991, 1992, 1994).
Another important excavation, although modest in scale, took place at the Little
Beach site in Ucluelet (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists 1991; Brolly 1992). In
addition, across the sound fi-om Little Beach and the Toquaht sites, two adjacent
sites at w a r Point in Ba&eld have received minor test excavations (Buxton
1969; Coates and Eldridge 1992).See Figure 6 for locations.
Along with the Hesquiaht, all the peoples of this region are considered
"Central Nootkans" in Drucker's scheme. The Ohiaht of eastern BarMey Sound
are today the southernmost Nuu-chah-nulth speakers. The ethnographic
boundary with the Ditidaht is at Pachena Point, on the outer coast just south of
BarMey Sound.
f
The Toquaht Archaeological Project
The Toquaht Project, initiated in 1991, involved test excavation a t
I
Toquaht village sites, intensive survey throughout ethnographic Toquaht
I
I territory, and oral history research with native elders (McMillan 1992;McMillan
1
I
and St. Claire 1991, 1992, 1994). Four sites, including the only three large
villages recorded in Toquaht territory, have been excavated as part of this
project (Figure 7).
0
I
1
I
2
3
4
1 km.
Fig. 7. Toquaht traditional territory, showing the location of the four sites
excavated as part of the Toquaht Archaeological Project.
97
Macoah (Ma7akwuu7a;DfSi 5), near the upper portion of the sound, was
the ethnographic winter village. I t features prominently in the 19th century
traditions collected by Edward Sapir (1910-1914; Sapir and Swadesh 1939,
1955). During the Long War in Barkley Sound, which broke out at Macoah
through a dispute over an escaped slave, the village was apparently palisaded,
as returning slaves noted "a fence all around the Tukwaa [Toquaht] village"
(Sapir and Swadesh 1955:437).Peter OtReilly(1883),the reserve commissioner,
described Macoah as a winter village and fishing station in 1882, as did the
Royal Commission on Indian Affairs in 1914 (British Columbia 1916). Toquaht
elder Jim McKay noted that some people lived there throughout the year, as "a
sort of headquarters for all the creeks around" (St. Claire 1991:163). The site
name means "house on the point,"referring to a rocky point the north end of the
modern reserve. O'Reilly's 1882 map shows four houses near this point, while
five houses appear in the 1893 reserve surveyors' map (B.C. Ministry of Crown
Lands 1894). In 1914 there were nine houses, with only 18 people living there
(British Columbia 1914). By the 1920s the site was abandoned, as the Toquaht
moved closer to Ucluelet.
Today, Macoah is again an occupied Toquaht village (Figures 8, 9).
Construction of a gravel road to Toquart Bay provided access, and new houses
began to appear at Macoah in the early 1980s. House construction continues a t
the site and a new sawmill provides an economic base. Such activities, however,
have resulted in considerable disturbance to the archaeological deposits. Objects
recovered through such disturbance, now in the possession of Chief Bert Mack,
include the handle of a whalebone club in the form of the thunderbird, a complete
flat-topped hand maul, and a bone gambling piece which once had a central
copper band (McMillan and St. Claire 1991:75-77).A reserve resident near the
Fig. 8. Aerial view of Macoah, showing modern housing. The rocky point for
which the site is named is at the right.
Fig. 9. The site of Macoah from the beach, looking north to the point.
99
south of the village has collected seven stone celts (most of which are the small
rounded-poll "pebble celts" characteristic of the West Coast culture type), three
basalt bifaces and a number of shaped sandstone abraders from her property.
House construction was monitored as part of the Toquaht Project and all
recovered materials have been recorded.
Systematic excavation a t this site was limited, partially because of the
disturbed nature of some site deposits. In all, five 1x 2 m units were excavated
(Figure lo), removing a total of about 18.2 m3 of archaeological deposits. Of the
61 artifacts recorded for the site, 48 are of indigenous materials. Bone points
and bipoints, along with abrasive stones, were the most common implements. A
finely-made complete stone fishhook shank, similar to late types from Yuquot,
was found immediately under the sod. Most artifacts and faunal remains came
from the upper midden strata, but some cultural materials continued into the
deeper gravel and pebble layers. Two radiocarbon dates, collected from basal
deposits in widely separated areas of the site, give varying estimates of the
initial occupation, with the earliest suggesting that the site was first occupied
almost two millennia ago. Intensive occupation, however, would not have been
until considerably later. All radiocarbon dates for Toquaht sites are listed in
Table 6.
The largest and most impressive of the Toquaht archaeological sites is
Tukw'aa (DfSj 23), at the entrance to Ucluelet Inlet. The importance of this site
is evident in its name, for the Toquaht (T'ukw'au7athJ are literally "the people of
T'ukw'aa." It would appear, however, that its prominence had greatly declined
by the mid-19th century. Little mention of this site occurs in the extensive
ethnographic accounts of Edward Sapir. When O'Reilly (1883) laid out the
reserve in 1882,he described it as "a fishing station used only during the sealing
Fig. 10. Map of Macoah, showing location of excavation units.
season." The Royal Commission on Indian Mairs lists this as a "village site and
fishing station." Toquaht informants describe fishing for halibut and cod and
hunting seals, sea lion, and whales from this location during spring and fall,
moving to Macoah and other sites up the sound when the fall salmon runs
began.
The impressive size of this site and the depth of archaeological deposits
suggest much more extensive occupation in earlier times (Figures 11, 12). The
site extends for about 250 metres along the beach, with a maximum depth of
between two and three metres. Two distinct terraces are evident along the
western portion of the village area, with ridges forming several house outlines
clearly visible on the upper terrace. At the western end of the site, midden
deposits extend out along the top of a steep-sided rocky promontory. This would
be an ideal defensive location, with a drop of about 20 metres off the steep cliffs.
One narrow access route from the village area would have been relatively easy
to defend. Ethnographic accounts of other defensive sites in Barkley Sound
suggest that the narrow access point could have been closed with logs, piled so
that they could be released to roll down on attackers. The entire top of the
promontory is covered with relatively shallow shell midden deposits, with
numerous surface features. Several flat areas, a t considerably different
elevations, suggest house locations.
Excavation took place during two field seasons on both the village and
defensive areas of this site (Figure 13).On the village area, a total of 38 m2 was
excavated, reaching a maximum depth of 2.75 m. Units scattered across the
elevated defensive area accounted for another 30 m2 of excavation, ranging
from very shallow deposits over bedrock to a maximum depth of about 1.4 m.
The total volume of archaeological deposit removed from the site is about 106
Fig. 11.Aerial view of T'ukw'aa. The rocky point with the defensive site is at the
left.
Fig. 12. T'ukw'aa from the terrace at the eastern end of the site. The defensive
location is at the far end of the site.
Fig. 13. Contour map of T1ukw'aa,showing location of excavation units. The 0
contour line refers to mean sea level. The rise from the upper beach to the site
occurs about the 4.5 m contour line.
m3. Nearly 1500 artifacts were recorded from this site, of which 1407 are of
aboriginal materials. All but a few of the introduced Euro-Canadian artifacts
were surface discoveries associated with the ruins of an early 20th century
house. Faunal remains were abundant from all levels of the deposit (Monks
1992). A series of radiocarbon dates (Table 6) suggests that this site was first
occupied about 1200 years ago, although no evidence exists for use of the refuge
area until about 800 years ago.
The third major excavated village site is Ch'uumat'a (DfSi 4), a large
conspicuous shell midden in a small cove east of Tukw'aa (Figs. 14, 15). Large
rocks on the beach in front of the site have been moved to create an access
channel for canoes. A stream cuts through the site near the western end,
exposing a cutbank with shell midden deposit to a depth of over four metres. The
front, most visible, portion of the site is gently sloping and covered with
salmonberry bushes. Behind this, at the back of the site, the area is covered
with old forest, with large coniferous trees and little undergrowth. Soil probes
revealed shell midden below a considerable overburden of forest deposit.
Subsequent excavation revealed that this area of the site had been abandoned
over 700 years ago, while the front portion of the site continued in use into early
historic times.
Ch'uumat'a was the former major village of the Ch'uumat'a7at&, a
subgroup of the Toquaht. It takes its ethnographic name from the mountain
behind it. A cave near the village was said to extend up the mountain, and from
this cave emerged the wolves, both natural and supernatural (St. Claire 1991:
159).The village appears to have fallen into decline and disuse even earlier than
Tukw'aa, and was apparently not being occupied at the time of the reserve
commissioner'svisit in the late 19th century. Consequently, it is not held today
Fig. 14. Aerial view of Ch'uumat'a.
Fig. 15. Ch'uumat'a from beach.
106
-
DfSi 4 Ch'uumat'a
to
vertical datum
r)
boulders
one metre contour interval
20 rn
excavation units
- - - - - extent of site
ped by KLB.
m by RJ.S.. 1992
Fig. 16. Contour map of Ch'uumat'a,showing location of excavation units.
107
as a Toquaht reserve. Except for objects associated with remains of a recent
cabin on the site, the excavation showed little evidence of historic occupation.
Four 2 x 2 m units were excavated to the base of cultural deposits at
Ch'uumat'a (Fig. 16). Near the front of the site, the excavated deposit had a
depth of about 2.9 m, dating to about 1100 years a t its base. In the back
forested portion of the site, deposits reached a depth of 4.3 m, with several
radiocarbon dates suggesting an initial occupation about 3900 years ago. The
total volume of deposit removed from the four excavated units is approximately
56.4 m3. Of the 466 artifacts recovered, all but one, a piece of rolled copper, are
of indigenous materials. All radiocarbon age estimates are shown in Table 6.
One additional site (DfSj 30) was excavated as part of the Toquaht
Project. Shallow shell midden deposits cover the upper surface of a small saddleshaped rocky islet on the outer portion of the George Fraser Islands, off the tip
of the Ucluth Peninsula (Figs. 7,17,18).It is at an elevation of about 15 metres,
with steep drop-offs on all sides. At low tide there is a beach around it and it is
joinedto surrounding islands, while at high tide the water comes up to its steep
sides. Shell midden deposits are thickest in the centre of the island's saddle,
tapering off to almost nothing over bedrock at both ends. An excellent view from
this site extends across a wide arc, allowing observation of the open ocean from
the entrance to Ucluelet Inlet on one side to the islands of the Broken Group in
Barkley Sound on the other. The elevated location and commanding view would
suggest that this site served as a lookout, probably to watch for whales or other
sea mammals.
Ch'uch'aa is the general Nuu-chah-nulth name for the George Fraser
Islands, as well as the specific name for a Toquaht summer whaling and halibut
fishingvillage. Toquaht informants described a whaling village on these islands,
Fig. 17. DfSj 30, a lookout site in the George Fraser Islands.
Fig. 18.Aerial view of DfSj 30.
although its exact location could not be determined. The islands are associated
with a great whaling chief named Wii&wisan.up, which means "fillingor blocking
the pass," who attempted to fill the channel between the two main islands with
the bones from the many whales he had killed (St. Claire 1991:157). Blenkinsop
(1874:33) stated that although these islands were Toquaht possessions, they
were shared in use with the Ucluelet. Any whale driven ashore on these islands
was shared equally by both groups.
Excavation at this site took the form of a 10 x 2 m trench across the
central saddle (Fig. 19).The average depth of deposit over bedrock was about 70
cm. Approximately 13.9 m3 of deposit was removed. Of the 239 artifacts
recovered, all but one, a rolled copper tinkler, were of indigenous materials.
Despite the ethnographic association with whaling, the artifact assemblage
contains no obvious whaling equipment, such as large slotted harpoon valves,
nor was whalebone particularly common in the faunal remains. Several
radiocarbon dates suggest that this site was occupied only in relatively recent
times, perhaps within the last 400 years (Table 6).
Faunal remains were abundant from all four excavated sites. However,
analysis of this great quantity of material is still in preliminary stages and only
a brief report (Monks 1992) is available. Sea mammals, due to their large size,
were particularly evident. Whale, sea lion and porpoise bones were noted in the
field. Whale identification has not been completed, but humpback (Megaptera
novaeangliae) appears to be the most frequently occurring species (Monks, pers.
comm. 1994). Fish bones were extremely numerous, dominating the assemblage
from all sites when considered by number of identified elements. These ranged in
size from herring (CZupea harenguspallasi) and other small fish to the giant
bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), which is more frequent in these sites than
George Fraser
,
Islands o
a
0
DfSj 30 r00
Alpha Passage
excavation trench
I
Felice Channel
spruce and juniper
DfSj 30, George Fraser Islands
Fig. 19. Sketch map of DfSj 30, showing the location of the excavation trench.
anywhere else on the Northwest Coast yet reported (Monks, pers. comm. 1994).
Land mammals and birds are also well represented. Shellfish also played a
major role in the diet.
Table 6
Radiocarbon Dates from Toquaht Sites
Lab No.
Site
C14 Age
Macoah
5 8 0 ~ 6 0 Beta-47310
1 8 4 0 s 0 Beta-67472
Comments
sand a t base of deposit
clay a t base of site
Tukw'aa
640k60
(village area) 69Ok70
870~0
115030
Beta-67474
Beta-47312
Beta-47314
Beta-55803
2 m depth
upper terrace - 1.5 m
upper terrace - basal clay at 2.3 m
from hearth in basal sand
Tukw'aa
(refuge area)
Beta-47313
Beta-67473
Beta-473 11
Beta-50030
bottom of shell matrix
lower shell matrix, near bedrock
just above bedrock
near bedrock
Beta-55798
CAMS-16625
Beta-75884
Beta-55799
Beta-75885
Beta-55802
Beta-75886
Beta-55800
Beta-55801
CAMS-3967
top of shell a t back of site
level 3
basal sands near front of site
level 23
level 22
level 40
level 38 - basal sands
back of site - level 33
back of site - level 41 (near base)
back of site - level 37
Beta-75888
Beta-75887
near bottom - eastern end of trench
near bottom - western end
Ch'uurnat'a
DfSj3O
150~0
380+50
560~0
780290
720~0
970260
1140~0
2010260
2280%0
2290330
2450260
3480330
381090
3900L60
260k60
440270
.............................................................................................................
A considerable number of artifacts, of which 2160 are of aboriginal
manufacture, came from the four sites. Objects of bone and antler dominate the
assemblage, comprising 90% of the total. By far the most numerous artifact
categories are bone bipoints and a variety of bone points, assumed to be parts of
composite fishing gear. Other categories of bone objects include harpoon valves,
fishhook shanks and awls. Whalebone artifacts are not common, but include a
wedge, small handle and comb preform from DfSj 30 and several rough clubs
from Tukw'aa. In addition, the practice of preparing cedar bark for weaving
basketry and clothing is indicated by the discovery of a complete bark beater
from T'ukw'aa and a fragmentary bark shredder from Ch'uumat'a, both of
whalebone. Stone artifacts, primarily abrasive stones, account for only 8.1%of
the total. Other stone artifacts include fishhook shanks and small ground stone
points, with celts and chipped stone objects almost entirely limited to
Ch'uumat'a. Artifacts of tooth (1%of total) consist primarily of pendants and
other decorative items, although several beaver incisor tools and a large
harpoon valve blank of tooth were also found. Shell implements (0.7% of total)
consist largely of mussel shell tools, such as knives and small celts, along with
dentalium and Olivella shell beads and two abalone shell pendants found
together at DfSj 30.
With few exceptions, all artifacts of aboriginal manufacture recovered
from the excavated Toquaht sites fall within the West Coast culture type as
proposed by Mitchell (1990). The exceptions consist primarily of a small number
of ground stone points found at several of the Toquaht sites and chipped stone
flake tools and detritus, primarily from lower levels of Ch'uumat'a. The only
significant absences among the Toquaht sites from the list of traits established
for the West Coast culture type are deer ulna tools and hand mauls.
Shoemaker Bay and Little Beach
The Shoemaker Bay site (DhSe 2) is located at the end of the long Alberni
Inlet, which cuts through the Vancouver Island mountains from Barkley Sound
to a short distance from the eastern coast. Although this area is today the
political centre for the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, the Nuu-chah-nulth
presence in the lower Alberni Valley appears to be relatively recent. Oral
histories, discussed in Chapter 2, describe the forceful seizure of the rich salmon
fishery on the lower Somass River by groups which later amalgamated to form
the Tseshaht. The original occupants, who apparently spoke a Salishan
language, were acculturated to Nuu-chah-nulth language and culture.
Excavation a t Shoemaker Bay shows close similarities throughout the
prehistoric period to the Strait of Georgia to the east, confirming the late arrival
of the Nuu-chah-nulth from Barkley Sound.
Excavation at Shoemaker Bay was conducted in 1973 and 1974. A total
of 132 m3 of deposit was removed, resulting in the recovery of 2558 in situ
artifacts (an additional 583 were obtained from the disturbed surface), 5 burials
and 20,210 vertebrate faunal elements (McMillan and St. Claire 1982; Calvert
and Crockford 1982). The excavators distinguish three major stratigraphic
zones, with a fourth zone underlying these at one end of the site, and define two
major cultural components (McMillan and St. Claire 1982). A series of
radiocarbon dates (Table 7) shows the site was first occupied about 4000 years
ago and was abandoned sometime after about 1000 years ago. No evidence of
any historic occupation is evident at this location.
The most recent component, Shoemaker Bay 11, is contained in a single
stratigraphic zone (Zone A). This is the only zone with a high level of crushed
shell, resulting in far better preservation of bone and antler than lower levels.
Consequently, most artifacts of those materials and most faunal elements were
obtained from this zone. Particularly common artifacts are the valves for
composite toggling harpoons and the small wedge-based bone points which
served as arming points for such harpoons. Other bone and antler implements
include barbed harpoons and fixed barbed points, deer ulna tools and bone
splinter awls. Abrasive stones dominate the stone artifacts, but ground stone
points and rectangular celts are also relatively numerous. Chipped stone
artifacts are not common, but include small chipped basalt points. Faunal
remains suggest an emphasis on fishing, particularly salmon and herring, as
well as hunting, primarily for coast deer (Odocoileus hemionus), although the
harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) was also relatively important. All would have been
available in the immediate vicinity of the site. Radiocarbon dates suggest an
occupation of roughly 1500 to 1000 years ago, although the fact that the
surface of the site had been leveled off by a bulldozer prior to excavation makes
any terminal date uncertain. Although differences are evident, the closest
parallels for this component are with the Strait of Georgia culture type defined
for the east coast of Vancouver Island (Mitchell 1971, 1990).
The earliest component, Shoemaker Bay I, encompasses materials from
all the lower zones. Zone B, a very dark matrix with abundant fire-cracked rock,
had only traces of shell. Bone and antler artifacts from Shoemaker Bay I came
predominantly from near the top of this zone. Zone C, a lighter brown matrix
with abundant pebbles, and Zone D, a light brown to grey sand which occurred
only in one portion of the site, had few bone or antler artifacts or faunal remains.
The predominance of stone objects in the artifact assemblage is a t least
partially attributable to the lack of bone preservation in the lower deposits.
Numerous chipped stone artifacts include a variety of points and knives, as well
abundant microblades and microflakes of quartz crystal and obsidian. Trade
networks are indicated by the presence of obsidian from several distant
locations, including central Oregon. Numerous abrasive stones dominate the
ground stone tools, but points and celts also exist in considerable numbers. The
relatively limited bone assemblage consists primarily of small points and
splinter awls. Evidence of a large house structure and domestic activities from
the lower levels consists of a row of three very large evenly-spaced post moulds
and numerous large hearths and concentrations of fire-cracked rock. Several
burials came from this component, including one cairn burial, where large rocks
had been piled over a shallow pit containing a partially disarticulated individual
with artificial cranial deformation. What faunal remains exist for these levels
suggest an economy similar to the upper component, based on fishing salmon
and hunting deer and waterfowl. No radiocarbon estimates are available for
Zone B, but several from Zone C suggest a time span of between 1700 to nearly
3000 years ago (Table 7).
McMillan and St. Claire (1982:123)note that the earlier component could
f
be fiwther subdivided. Almost all the bone and antler artifacts are found in Zone
B, although this distinction is primarily due to preservation factors. The
abundant microblades and microflakes of quartz crystal and obsidian are
heavily concentrated in Zones C and D. In addition, nine water-rolled nondiagnostic stone objects came from the top of Zone E, the original beach gravels,
and are included in this component as a matter of convenience. They are
associated with a radiocarbon date of 4000 years, presumably marking the
initial occupation of the site, and may considerably predate the other materials
from Shoemaker Bay I. In general, the abundance of chipped stone points and
I
knives, microblades, ground stone points and small rectangular celts in
Shoemaker Bay I most closely resembles the temporally equivalent stages in
the Strait of Georgia, the Locarno Beach and Marpole culture types. Although
differences are also evident, the similarities are much greater than with
materials of equivalent age at Yuquot, classified in the West Coast culture type.
Shoemaker Bay's proximity to the east coast of Vancouver Island and
the ethnographic traditions of early historic Salishan occupancy of the Alberni
Valley help support the conclusion based on archaeological evidence that this
locality was culturally related to the Strait of Georgia until the relatively late
arrival of the Nuu-chah-nulth. Certainly the artifacts recovered are markedly
dissimilar from those characteristic of other Nuu-chah-nulth area sites. Much
more surprising is a similar claim which has been advanced for an open ocean
site near Ucluelet.
The Little Beach site (DfSj 100) is in a small open-ocean cove near the
end of the Ucluth Peninsula. Development plans for the site area led to the
excavation of a small test pit in 1990 (French 1990) and more extensive testing
in 1991 (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists 1991; Brolly 1992). In a brief (two
week) project, mechanical equipment was used to cut 180 metres of trenching
across the site. Because a number of burials were encountered during trenching
and left insitu,not all trenches were excavated to basal deposits. Four 1 x 1 m
units were laid out adjacent to the trenches and hand excavated, removing a
total of just over 10 m3 of cultural deposits. The main deposit, containing all the
burials encountered a t the site, was a shell midden up to three metres deep.
Several radiocarbon age estimates (Table 7) suggest that the midden dates from
roughly 4000 to 3000 years ago. An overlying layer of black silty loam yielded a
radiocarbon date of about 2500 years. No evidence of more recent occupation
was uncovered, and no ethnographic traditions of a village in this location could
be obtained from Ucluelet informants (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists 1991).
Seventeen definite and six possible burial features, representing a t least
27 individuals, were encountered while trenching the midden deposit. Several
were in shallow pits covered with low rock cairns, sometimes also with
whalebone. Only 68 artifacts were recovered, with 41 coming from the controlled
excavations. Bone points and abrasive stones dominate this small collection,
although more diagnostic implements also occur. These include a leaf-shaped
chipped stone projectile point, a crudely chipped cobble tool, a thick ground slate
point fragment, and a fragment of what appears to be a large flanged labret.
Fish elements dominate the vertebrate faunal remains recovered from
controlled excavations, with the most numerous being lingcod (Ophidon
elongatus), rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) and greenlings (Hexagrammos spp. ),
although a wide variety of fish species was present. The most common
mammals were cetaceans, northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and
harbour seals (Phoca vitulina), as well as canids (Canis sp.). Although only a
small sample of the faunal remains has been analyzed, an economy oriented to
open-ocean resources seems evident.
A number of similarities link Little Beach and the lower component a t
Shoemaker Bay, which are at least partially contemporaneous. Chipped stone
projectile points, thick ground stone points, labrets and cairn burials are found
at both sites. Further, all these traits are absent from the West Coast culture
type, and most closely resemble the Locarno Beach stage in the Strait of
Georgia. This led the excavators a t Little Beach (Arcas Consulting
Archaeologists 1991) to suggest that a "major revision" was required in our
knowledge of Nuu-chah-nulthprehistory. This is further examined in Chapter 4.
Table 7
Radiocarbon Dates From Shoemaker Bay and Little Beach
Shoemaker Bay (from McMillan and St. Claire 1982)
C14 Age
1130~5
1450~0
1730280
1730290
2860290
4030+105
Lab No.
Zone
GaK-5432
GaK-5108
GaK-5107
GaK-5106
GaK-5104
GaK-5105
A
A
C
C
C
E
Comments
near base of deposit - possibly too recent
near base of deposit - possibly too recent
from large trench feature
top of underlying beach gravels
Little Beach (from Arcas Consulting Archaeologists 1991)
C14 Age
Lab No.
Comments
2510260
3310270
40002go
40002170
Beta-47923
Beta-47925
Beta-47924
Beta-47655
from humic black deposit which overlies the midden
bone collagen from burial
near base of deposit, overlying cobbles
from base of deposit, overlying sandy beach
Other Archaeological Research
In Clayoquot Sound itself, the only controlled excavation to take place
was at the site of Tsacheesowus (DhSk I), at the eastern end of Meares Island,
in 1985 (Arcas Associates 1988). Narrow exploratory trenches were used in an
unsuccessful search for buried features associated with an old-style house
described for the site by a Tla-o-qui-ahtinformant. The trenches only extended
to the upper levels of this deep midden, removing a total of just over 3 m3 of
:
deposit. A large sandstone abrader was the only artifact of aboriginal
manufacture recovered from this site.
On the outer coast of the Esowista Peninsula, near Tofino, two shell
midden sites on Chesterman Beach have had minor testing. Six 1 x 1 m
excavation units were spread across two terraces at the disturbed site of DgSl
61, near the south end of the beach (Wilson 1990).The lower deposits contained
an abundance of shellfish remains, primarily of Mytilus californianus, suggesting
than this was a shellfish processing area. The upper level, which may have been
a seasonal camp, contained a wider variety of shellfish, as well as numerous
bones of fish, birds and mammals. Fish were the most common remains, while
the identified mammal bones were dominated by porpoise. These remains and
the environmental setting suggest a summer fishing and sea mammal hunting
camp. Only 15 artifacts were found, with bone points and bipoints most
common, although an antler fishhook shank, two shell tools and an abrasive
stone are also included. No historic materials were recovered. Two radiocarbon
dates suggest that the site was first occupied by at least 1500 years ago (Table
8).
More recently, minor test excavation was carried out at DgSl67, near the
north end of Chesterman Beach (Wilson 1994). Two 1 x 1 m test pits were
excavated in the disturbed and relatively shallow prehistoric deposits. A variety
of fish species dominated the vertebrate faunal remains, while mammal
remains consisted primarily of fur seal and sea lion. No artifacts were found. A
single radiocarbon estimate indicates that this site was first occupied nearly a
millennium ago.
On the eastern side of Barkley Sound, two adjacent sites have been
excavated at Bamfield, in the ethnographic territory of the Ohiaht. DfSg 3 is a
1I
defensive earthwork at Aguilar Point, near the entrance to Bamfield Inlet. Below
this rocky promontory, on the outside of the peninsula, is the ethnographic
village of 70:tsto:7a (St. Claire 1991:99-100;Coates and Eldridge 1992:2), today
represented by a shell midden designated DfSg 2. Although the two sites are
slightly separated, they probably represent the same ethnographic location,
consisting of a village and its associated refuge area. Also nearby, on the inside
of the peninsula, is DfSg 47, the Bamfield Teacherage site, where semicontrolled excavation salvaged the disturbed burial of a native female, probably
dating to the historic period (McLeod and Skinner 1986).
The defensive earthwork at DfSg 3 was formed by the construction of a
ditch and embankment, stretching across the headland for about 15 metres. A
small test excavation in 1968, consisting of a 1x 8 m trench across the mound,
confirmed that there had once been a ditch parallel to the mound, with a total
height from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the mound of about 1.3 m
(Buxton 1969). Only nine artifacts, all of bone, were found, with bone bipoints
being the most common. Faunal remains consisted largely of sea mammals,
particularly seals. Two radiocarbon dates (Table 8) suggest that people were
living at the site about 1200 years ago, and that the ditch was cut through
earlier midden deposits about 700 years ago (Buxton 1969:29).
The adjacent village site (70:ts10:7a; DfSg 2) has also had minor
excavation. Site disturbance led to an archaeological impact assessment,
consisting of a series of shovel test holes and soil probe tests, in 1990 (Simonsen
1990). This was followed in 1992 by further assessment, including several
additional shovel tests and the excavation of three 1 x 1 m units (Coates and
Eldridge 1992). The approximately 2.9 m3 of excavated deposit contained 50
artifacts, of which 32 are of aboriginal manufacture. These are primarily of
Table 8
Radiocarbon Dates from Other Sites in Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds
Site
1 C l 4 Date I Lab No.
Chesterman
Beach
(DgS161)
Chesterman
Beach
(DgS167)
660+80
not given
lower site - 30-35 cm depth
14801t100
not given
upper bench - 80-85 cm depth
890330
AECv1937C
Aguilar Point 7 0 5 5 5
(DfSg 3)
ll9OSl5
I
A-g d a r Point 1
(DfSg 2)
1 Comments
170f50
thought to date trench embankment
1-4008
1-4007
I
40SO
I
I
I Beta-56669 I top of undisturbed midden - 37 cm
-
I
Beta-56668 base of deposit - 120 cm depth
(from Wilson 1990,1994; Buxton 1969; Coates and Eldridge 1992)
bone, consisting largely of points and bipoints, with the only stone artifact being
an abrader. Faunal remains were relatively abundant, with fur seal and sea lion
comprising most of the mammal remains and salmon being the most common
fish. This is consistent with the open ocean location of this site. The two
radiocarbon dates (Table 8) are remarkably recent. Although both are within
the historic period, the fluctuations within radiocarbon in recent times makes it
possible that the dates could actually be late prehistoric (Coates and Eldridge
1992:14). This would be more consistent with the depth of deposit and the lack
of historic material from those levels.
Although defensive sites atop steep rocky promontories are well-knownin
Barkley Sound and elsewhere in Nuu-chah-nulth territory, the defensive
earthwork a t DfSg 3 is unique. Such trench embankments, however, are
relatively common in the Strait of Georgia region. Buxton (1969) lists 58 such
sites in southwestern British Columbia and adjacent Washington. Mitchell
(1990:348) refers to the "widespread distribution of sites with trench
embankment features" as evidence of intergroup hostilities during the late
prehistoric Strait of Georgia culture type. The excavated data from the two
Aguilar Point sites, however, fit comfortably within the West Coast culture
type. No strong ties to the Strait of Georgia are evident in the excavated
materials, although the total sample recovered is very small.
Ditidaht Territory
This long stretch of coastline, from southeast of Barkley Sound to Port
San Juan and Point No Point, has received little archaeological attention.
Intensive survey has been carried out only along the portion in Pacific Rim
National Park (Haggarty and Inglis 1985; Inglis and Haggarty 1986). More
recently, the Ditidaht band commissioned an inventory and assessment of
heritage resources on their reserve lands, and preparation of a management
plan (Eldridge 1992).Discovery of significant archaeological resources, including
waterlogged intertidal deposits, led to excavation a t two such sites in 1994
(Eldridge, pers. comm. 1995).
The two excavated sites are on the same Ditidaht reserve, at "The Flats"
near the mouth of Nitinat Lake. The large shell midden of DeSf 9 corresponds to
the former Ditidaht winter village of Wikgalh7uus (Eldridge 1992:26). Nearby,
the site of DeSf 10 is so large that it has two ethnographic names, Hitats'aasak
and Hit'ilhtaasalz, corresponding to two clusters of houses (Eldridge 1992:26;
Arima et al. 1991:273,277). According to Bates (1987:41), this "may have been
the site of the largest population concentration in Ditidaht territory." Bouchard
and Kennedy (l991:3O) describe this as the home of the "original"Ditidaht, who
were "said to be very numerous." Midden deposits at these sites are up to six
metres in depth (Eldridge 1992; pers. comm. 1995).
The 1994 excavations took place on the flat terraces at the front of the
sites, where waterlogged deposits contained artifacts of perishable materials.
Two 1x 1m units were excavated at DeSf 9 and three at DeSf 10. In addition,
shovel tests were taken from the back of the sites, where creeks had exposed
deep erosion faces, to obtain organic samples for radiocarbon dating. A small
sample of artifacts, not yet analyzed or reported, includes such typically West
Coast culture type items as small bone points, abrasive stones and a mussel
shell blade. Objects of normally perishable materials include baskets
(stylistically similar to Ozette and historic Nuu-chah-nulth examples), wooden
fishhooks, small wooden points (almost identical to the bone points), and several
unilaterally barbed wooden points (Eldridge,pers. comm. 1995).
At DeSf 9 a series of seven radiocarbon dates was taken from the midden
deposits a t the back of the site (Table 9). Although the samples were taken from
discrete strata spanning about two metres of deposit, the dates are essentially
contemporaneous. This part of the midden appears to have built up very rapidly
about 2400 years ago. A sample of basketry from the waterlogged excavation
area a t the front of the site dated to about 600 years ago. Similar dates were
obtained from DeSf 10 (Table 9).
Table 9
Radiocarbon Dates from Nitinat Lake Sites
Site
C14 Age
Lab No.
DeSf 9
2390260
2410260
2430350
2440260
2450260
2500260
2530k60
610L80
2260260
2030260
1920260
1000260
690k60
600k60
CAMS-14450
CAMS-1445 1
CAMS-14445
CAMS-14449
CAMS-14446
CAMS-14448
CAMS-14447
CAMS-14452 from basketrv
" at front of site
CAMS-14453
CAMS-14455
CAMS-14454
Beta-49003
CAMS-14456
CAMS-14457 from front of site
DeSf 10
C
Comments
(from Eldridge 1992:29, pers. comm. 1995)
Olympic Peninsula
The Makah, the southernmost Wakashans, occupy the northwestern
portion of the Olympic Peninsula around Cape Flattery. Their 19th century
territory stretched east along the Strait of J u a n de Fuca to the Hoko River,
which was also claimed by the Clallum Salish, and south beyond Cape Alava,
where they bordered on the Quileute. Five semi-autonomous winter village
groups, linked by ties of kinship and common traditions, made up the Makah
people in the 19th century (Swan 1870; Taylor 1974; Renker and Gunther
1990).Although these major villages seem to have been occupied for much or all
of the year, during the warmer months many people moved to more exposed
locations, such as Tatoosh Island offCape Flattery, to fish for halibut and hunt
sea mammals (Renker and Gunther 1990; Huelsbeck and Wessen 1995).
Ozette
Ozette (Usee7ilh; 45CA24 in the Smithsonian site designation system),
a t Cape Alava on the Olympic Peninsula's open Pacific coast, was the
southernmost and most isolated of the Makah villages. The huge shell midden
deposits which mark the village location stretch for over a kilometre along the
beach, making this the largest site on the Washington coast. While providing
immediate access to the resources of the open Pacific, the site itself was
protected by offshore islands and reefs. Tskawahyah (Cannonball)Island, joined
to the village by a sandspit at low tides, forms part of the Ozette site complex.
Shell midden deposits atop this steep-sided rocky island indicate its use as a
lookout or defensive location. Ozette was occupied for at least two millennia,
continuing into the early 20th century when the last inhabitants moved to the
main Makah community of Neah Bay.
Research a t this important site began in 1966, with the excavation of a
trench through the midden deposits (Daughertyand Fryxell n.d.; McKenzie 1974;
Kirk with Daugherty 1974;Samuels and Daugherty 1991). This two-metre wide
trench extended for 70 metres perpendicular to the beach, cutting through
several distinct terraces and reaching a maximum depth of about four metres.
In total, about 200 m3 of midden was removed (Huelsbeck 1994b:278). In the
following year, further excavation took place south of the main trench, in an
area where remains of recent longhouses could be seen decaying in the thick
vegetation. Although most of the deposit removed was shell midden, essentially
identical to that of the earlier trench, waterlogged deposits were encountered at
lower levels in some of the excavation units. The corner of a well-preserved
wooden house was exposed in one unit, and such normally perishable materials
as basketry and wooden wedges and box parts were common. These early
excavations also included testing the offshore islands, including the deep midden
deposits atop Tskawahyah Island. Later, additional excavation in the midden
portion of the site was carried out by E. Friedman (1976), who dug two 2 x 2 m
units, with an average depth of about 1.5 m, on the uppermost terrace near the
top of the earlier trench.
The results of the early excavations at Ozette have never been fully
reported, although McKenzie (1974) provides an analysis of artifacts from the
lower portion of the 1966 trench. Throughout the midden deposits, evidence of a
highly maritime subsistence orientation was evident. Gustafson (1968)
estimated that nearly 80% of the numerous marine mammal bones recovered
from the trench are northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), and that this
reliance remained constant throughout the occupation of the site. E. Friedman
(1976:109) found even higher percentages of fur seal in his upper terrace
excavation. Fur seals are pelagic mammals, requiring the hunters to venture
out to sea to procure them (Friedman and Gustafson 1975). Whalebones were
also common in the midden deposits. Although fish bones from this part of the
site have not been analyzed, the majority of the artifacts recovered are small
bone and antler portions of composite fishing gear (McKenzie 1974:138). In her
examination of the artifacts from the trench, McKenzie (1974:147) denies any
"si@icant morphological change" throughout the period of site occupation and
maintains that, "with few exceptions," all artifacts are "comparable with
ethnographic forms." The "few exceptions" include some objects of chipped
stone, which are concentrated in the earliest levels. These, and some "heavy
ground slate knives," are the only artifact types from the Ozette trench which
would be out of place in the West Coast Culture Type, as proposed for the Nuuchah-nulth area.
The time represented by these midden deposits is uncertain. Gustafson
(1968:50) maintains that the site was occupied for about 2000 years, based on
stratigraphic evidence and four radiocarbon dates, and McKenzie (1974:26)
follows Gustafson's interpretation. These dates were never published or
reported, however. The two earliest dates from the trench excavation are
14955300 (Daugherty and Fryxell n.d.:4) and 1835k305 (J.C. Sheppard, WSU
Radiocarbon Laboratory, pers. comm., 1995). All have very large margins of
error. McKenzie (1974:27) submitted an additional sample from a lower level of
the trench, receiving a result of only 180270 years. This date seems
unacceptably recent for the depth at which it was recovered, although it is
associated with artifact types such as stone fishhook shanks which are known
to be late at excavated Nuu-chah-nulth sites. Upper terrace deposits yielded age
estimates of 440 and 710 years (E. Friedman 1976:84). The oldest date yet
available from this site, at just over 2000 years, comes from the base of deep
midden deposits on Tskawahyah Island (Samuels and Daugherty 1991:11).It
seems likely that the earliest deposits in the village area should be at least of
equivalent age. All Ozette radiocarbon age results are listed in Table 10.
The most spectacular discoveries at Ozette occurred after 1970. At the
beginning of that year winter storms sent huge waves crashing into the bank
along the edge of the village, causing slumps that exposed portions of a
preserved wooden house and its contents. The importance of this discovery and
the recognition that invaluable objects and information would be lost without
immediate attention led the Makah Tribal Council to request archaeological
salvage work, which began that summer (Kirk with Daugherty 1974; Daugherty
1988; Samuel and Daugherty 1991). This salvage excavation soon expanded
into a major year-round archaeological project, with fieldwork which continued
until 1981. When the project was eventually halted, over 800 m2 of site area
had been cleared, completely exposing the floors of three houses and portions of
several others (Samuels and Daugherty 1991:23; Samuels 1989:143;Huelsbeck
and Wessen 1994:3). Hydraulic excavation techniques were developed, using
high pressure hoses to remove the thick clay deposit and smaller hoses with
adjustable pressure to expose delicate perishable objects (Gleeson and Grosso
1976). Over 50,000 prehistoric artifacts, between 20,000 and 40,000 preserved
wooden structural elements, and over 1,000,000identified or identifiable faunal
elements were recovered from the extensive excavations in this portion of the
site (Wessen 1990:416; Samuels and Daugherty 1991:24; Samuels 1991:178;
Huelsbeck 1994a:20).
These spectacular discoveries at Ozette were the result of a natural
disaster, in the form of a massive mudslide. Sometime shortly before contact
with Europeans, a section of the hillside above the village gave way, possibly as
a result of tectonic activity. A mass of liquefied clay roared down the slope,
crushing and burying at least four houses that stood in its path. Many of the
roof planks and beams were swept out onto the beach by the force of the slide,
but the lower portions of the houses and most of the contents were sealed
beneath a layer of wet clay up to three metres thick. The deposits immediately
below the clay were kept permanently saturated by subsurface water flow,
resulting in excellent preservation of all items of wood or bark. Broken and
scattered architectural elements and almost the entire contents of the houses
at the time the slide struck were exposed as excavation proceeded. Ozette
provides an unprecedented opportunity to study the nearly complete material
culture of a late precontact Northwest Coast society at a single moment of
time.
The exact timing of this disaster is not certain. Initially, the slide was
estimated to have occurred perhaps 450 or 500 years ago, or roughly A.D. 1500
(Kirk with Daugherty 1974:90; Daugherty and Friedman 1983:183; Wessen
1990:416). More recently, dendrochronological studies on cedar planks from a
house destroyed by the slide yielded dates of A.D. 1613 and 1719, although both
planks are missing their outer rings and bark (Samuels 1991:186; Huelsbeck
1994a:20). The lack of European material items among the house contents
indicates a precontact occupation, probably prior to Captain Cook's arrival in
Nootka Sound in 1778, when the Nuu-chah-nulth first obtained a substantial
quantity of European goods, and certainly before 1792, when the Spanish built a
short-lived fort at Neah Bay (Swan 1870:4; Wagner 1933; Cook 1973). This
slide, therefore, was an 18th century event, occurring sometime after A.D. 1719
and prior to about 1778. The house from which the planks came showed signs of
use and repair, suggesting that it had been occupied for a considerable period,
perhaps about a century, at the time of its destruction (Huelsbeck 1989:157;
Samuels 1991:186). A radiocarbon date of over 400 years was obtained from a
hearth at the lowest house levels, providing the earliest evidence for a house at
this location (Samuels 1991:186). Underlying the deposits associated with the
protohistoric houses impacted by the slide are late prehistoric midden deposits,
yielding two radiocarbon age estimates of around 800 years (Table 10) (Samuels
1991:180; Samuels and Daugherty l99l:2 1).These are the earliest cultural
materials from this portion of the site. Throughout the depositional sequence at
Ozette, clay layers show that the 18th century slide which covered the
excavated houses was not a unique event, and that the inhabitants of this
village had been forced periodically to contend with the consequences of slope
instability.
Although the force of the slide snapped upright support posts and
scattered the planks, the great quantity of architectural elements preserved in
the waterlogged deposits allowed reconstruction of house forms (Mauger 1991).
The three completely excavated examples were large, plank-covered shed-roof
structures, closely resembling historic Makah dwellings. Drainage ditches,
frequently lined with whalebone, ran along the house walls to take runoff from
the hillside away from the house floors. One house, along the front row of the
village, has a number of features such as carved wall panels that suggest
occupation by a high status household (Huelsbeck 1989; Samuels 1989).
The nearly complete contents of these houses were also preserved within
the waterlogged deposits. Of the great quantity of artifacts recovered, over 85%
are of perishable materials (Samuels and Daugherty 1991:4). Woven or twisted
plant fibre objects, such as cordage, baskets, pouches, hats, capes and mats,
are numerous (Croes 1977, 1980a). The abundant wooden artifacts include
fishhooks, clubs, wedges, bows and arrows, bowls and kerfed-corner boxes
(Gleeson 1980; Mauger 1982;Daugherty and Friedman 1983). Numerous finelycarved wooden artworks, from decorated bowls and clubs to large incised panels,
feature such motifs as the thunderbird, wolf, and whale, all characteristic of
historic Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah art (Daugherty and Friedman 1983). The
exceptional circumstances of this site even led to the recovery of such ritual
items as a large carved wooden whale dorsal fin effigy, inlaid with sea otter teeth
in the form of the thunderbird, suggesting whaling ceremonies similar to those of
the ethnographic groups. The typical bone and antler artifacts which
characterize Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah shell midden sites are present, but are
greatly reduced in importance. The small bone points which dominate most
assemblages play only a minor role here and are often found as parts of
composite tools, such as the barbs on wooden fishhooks. Small quantities of iron
also appear in these protohistoric house deposits, generally as the cutting edges
of woodworking tools and knives. The source of this metal is not known, but its
origins must be in Europe or Asia, reaching the people of Ozette shortly before
direct contact with outsiders.
The excavated house floors and interveningmidden deposits also yielded a
vast array of faunal remains (Huelsbeck 1981, 1988a, 1994a, 199413; DePuydt
1994; Wessen 1982, 1988, 1994a). The late prehistoric occupants at Ozette
collected 90 species of shellfish, took 18 species of fish, and hunted 42 bird
species and 27 mammal species (Huelsbeck and Wessen 1994:lO). However, a
relatively small number of species dominate each class. This is particularly true
among the mammals; when whalebones are excluded, 90% of all mammal
remains come from a single species, the northern fur seal (Huelsbeck 1989:163;
1994a:28). Grey and humpback whales were also a major part of the Ozette
economy, representing such a huge quantity of meat and oil that whale products
were likely a significant trade commodity (Huelsbeck 1988a, 1988b, 1994b).
Halibut, lingcod and salmon were the principal food fishes. California mussel,
little-neck clam and chitons were among the most important shellfish in the diet.
A highly maritime way of life is evident in an economy dominated by whaling,
sealing and fishingfor halibut.
Swan (1870:6) describes Ozette as being occupied during the winter, the
people dispersing to various fishing locations in the other seasons. Faunal
analysis, however, indicates that this was a year-round settlement. Although
most fishing and sea mammal hunting occurred during spring to fall (Huelsbeck
1994a, 1994b),various species of fish, birds and shellfish indicate procurement
throughout much of the year (Huelsbeck 1994a; DePuydt 1994; Wessen 1988,
1994a). Population levels may have fluctuated seasonally, but it would appear
that at least some people remained in residence throughout the year, as was
probably true of all the ethnographic Makah "winter villages" (Huelsbeck and
Wessen 1995).
The remarkably complete material record at Ozette and the extensive
nature of the excavations, exposing entire house floors, have resulted in insights
into the social realm, both within and between houses. Analysis of floor deposits
within each house has indicated individual family spaces and various activity
areas (Samuels 1989, 1994). Croes and Davis (1977) even suggest that the
residence areas of individual weavers can be located within the house by the
distribution of slight stylistic differences in basketry. The differential distribution
of artifacts and faunal remains across the house floors provides evidence of
status distinctions within the houses, particularly in House 1(Huelsbeck 1989;
Samuels 1989).Uncommon items such as decorative shells, including a string of
dentalium beads, were concentrated in one rear corner of the house,
correspondingto the ethnographic location of high status residential areas.
Various lines of evidence suggest that the occupants of House I, the
structure closest to the beach, held higher status than the other two households
in the excavated area (Huelsbeck 1989, 1994a; Samuels 1989, 1994; Wessen
1988,1994a). This was the only house to contain carved wall panels, decorated
bench planks and a central hearth, as well as the largest number of decorative
shells and whaling gear. Differences in the overall pattern of faunal remains also
suggest differential access to resources between households. House 1 had
considerably more salmon and halibut bones, suggesting control of the restricted
areas in which these could be taken, while the occupants of House 5 had to
exploit more widely available fish species (Huelsbeck 1988a, 1989). Analysis of
shellfish also indicates that House 5 exploited a different set of beaches than the
other two houses (Wessen 1988, 1994a).Huelsbeck (1989:166) concludes:
Houses 1and 2 exploited similar resource territories but more
of the preferred foods were consumed in House 1than in House
2. These two households probably were members of the same
local group, with House 1ranked higher than House 2. House 5
exploited a different suite of territories and almost certainly
belonged to a different local group.
The preserved house deposits at Ozette allow a remarkably complete
picture of late precontact lifeways. They provide unique insights into all aspects
of a functioning community, including the social realm. Ozette serves as an
invaluable reference point in interpreting the more poorly preserved
archaeological remains from shell midden sites, which provide most of the
evidence on which our understanding of Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah
culture history is based. As the main excavated area at Ozette is protohistoric,
however, dating only to the period immediately preceding European contact, this
site yields little evidence on the origin or development of the cultural traits
evident.
Table 10
Radiocarbon Dates From Ozette
C14 Age
Lab No.
Location
1 Comments
1 Reference
midden
lower stratum trench
likely too recent
midden
trench
midden
trench
midden
trench
midden
trench
upper terrace near base
McKenzie
1974:27
J.C.Sheppard,
pers. comm.
J.C.Sheppard,
pers. comm.
Daughertv and
~ r y x n.
d d.~
J.C.Sheppard,
pers. comm.
F'riedman
1976234
upper terrace near base
F'riedman
1976234
House 1
hearth
Samuels
1991:186
house area
stratum below Samuels
1991:180
houses
house area I stratum below l Samuels
I
houses
1991:180
south end of
Daugherb and
site
Fryx&In.d.
south end of
Daugherty and
site
Fryxell n.d.
Tskawahyah
Moss and
- I
1 Erlandson
I
Is.
1992:84
Tskawahyah
near base
Sarnuels and
Is.
Daugherty
1991:ll
I
I
Hoko River
Two excavated sites lie close together near the mouth of the Hoko River,
on the Strait of Juan de F'uca approximately 30 k m from the northwest tip of
the Olympic Peninsula at Cape Flattery. The Hoko River was considered the
ethnographic boundary between the Makah and the Clallum, a Straits Salishspeaking group to the east. Both groups apparently maintained seasonal fishing
stations along the lower river. A number of Makah families moved from Neah
Bay each summer and fall to fish along the Hoko River, a practice which
continued into the beginning of this century (Virden and Brinck-Lund 1980).
The oldest of the two sites is the Hoko River Wet/Dry site (45CA213),
located on the river about half a kilometre from its mouth. The "wet"portion of
the site was formed in a lagoon or estuary setting, where vegetal materials, such
as twigs and pine cones, became water-logged and sank in the still waters (Croes
1976:203;Blinman 1980:64). The organic mats that were formed in this way
also include numerous artifacts of plant fibre that were lost or discarded in the
estuary and also sank to the bottom. Subsequently, the deposits were uplifted
by tectonic activity and exposed by the changing course of the river, although
most remain within the range of tidal fluctuations and can only be examined
during low tides. The "dry"portion of the site, consisting of the sands and gravels
above the "wet" deposits, represents the original bank on which the B s h
camps were located (Croes and Hackenberger 1988:21). An initial test of the
waterlogged deposits in 1967 employed what is thought to have been the first
developed hydraulic excavation techniques employed on any Northwest Coast
site (Croes 1976:209; 1992a:lOO; Croes and Blinman 1980:47). A later test
excavation in 1973 was followed by more extensive fieldwork from 1977 to 1987
(Croes 1988, 1992a, 1992b; Croes and Blinman 1980; Croes and Hackenberger
1988; Howes 1982).
This site contains the oldest perishable materials in the study area.
Radiocarbon dates from both the wet riverside deposits and the dry campsite
cluster between about 2800 and 2200 B.P. (Croes 1976:206; Blinman 1980:87,
89; Flenniken 1981:34). An additional date, taken from a hearth in an
excavation unit W h e r downriver, toward the late period rockshelter near the
mouth of the Hoko, is 1700 B.P. (Croes, pers. comm. 1995). This suggests that
the lower Hoko area as a whole may have been used seasonally throughout
most of the last 3000 years. See Table 11 for all radiocarbon dates from the
Hoko River sites.
Numerous plant fibre artifacts are encased in the layers of vegetal fibre
that characterize the waterlogged deposits. Cordage is by far the most common
artifact class, comprising about 61% of the total, with most representing parts
of fishing lines or leaders (Croes 1980c, 1993; Ayers 1980:126). Basketry
artifacts, including baskets, mats, and hats, in several distinct styles, are also
abundant (Croes 1980b).Many of the baskets are open-weave pack baskets, of
the type used for carrying fish (Croes 1988:145). Over 400 wooden fishhooks
recovered from the riverbank indicate the major activity carried out at this s i b
(Croes 1988:134, 145; 1989:102; 1993:35; Croes and Hackenberger 1988:21).
These fishhooks are of two types, the most common being V-shaped composite
hooks with bone barbs, believed to have been used mainly for flatfish, while Ushaped bentwood hooks are thought from experiments to have been primarily
for Pacific cod (Hoff 1980; Croes 1988:134, 146-7). Several hafted microliths,
still held in their cedar splint handles with spruce root, are believed through
replicative analysis and experimental use to have been fish processing knives
(Flenniken 1980, 1981; Croes 1988:136). Wooden wedges, floats and small
points were also found, as were a number of large unilaterally barbed points,
some of which are elaborately decorated (Croes 1976, 1992a; Ayers 1980). A
finely-carved wooden sculpture depicting two birds (possibly kingfishers or
pileated woodpeckers) shown beak-to-beak came from the earliest levels at this
site and may be the oldest known artwork in wood on the Northwest Coast
(Croes 1988:137).
The dry campsite area lacks any preservation of organic materials, but
contains stone tools and such features as slab-lined hearths, concentrations of
fire-cracked rock, and manufacturing areas for vein quartz microliths (Flenniken
1981; Howes 1982; Croes and Hackenberger 1988:21; Croes 1989:102). The
stone tools include chipped basalt and chalcedony projectile points, large ground
slate projectile points, small rectangular celts, quartz crystal microblades and
vein quartz microliths (Howes 1982; Croes 1989). Small post molds suggest
that a cluster of temporary mat-covered dwellings, similar to those used m
ethnographic summer fishing camps, once provided shelter a t this location
(Howes 1982:120; Croes 1988:148).
At the mouth of the Hoko River is the second excavated site, the Hoko
River Rockshelter (45CA21). Shell midden deposits, reaching a maximum depth
of 3.3 m, fill a large natural rockshelter. Forty-three 1 x 1 m units were
excavated between 1979 and 1985,resulting in a large sample of faunal remains
and over 1600 artifacts (Wigen and Stucki 1988). The most common of the
latter were small bone bipoints and harpoon arming points, along with mussel
shell knives and abrasive stones. Chipped stone implements, however, including
cores, cobble tools, cortex flakes, and scrapers, were also fairly common.
Numerous features, including hearths and refuse dumps, identify living surfaces
activity areas within the rockshelter (Miller 1984; Croes and Hackenberger
1988:21). This site represents a considerably later occupation than the nearby
weudry site, spanning the period from about 900 to 100 B.P. (Miller 1984:174;
Wigen and Stucki 1988:90; Croes 1989:107).
Fishing appears to have been the primary activity carried out a t Hoko
River over the past 3000 years. Flatfish such as halibut dominate the faunal
remains from the wet site, followed by rockfkh, cod, salmon and dogfish
(Huelsbeck 1980:105; Croes 1992b:346). At the later rockshelter site, most of
the fishbones represent locally available rocky-bottom fish, such as greenhg
and rockfish, followed by salmon; halibut and other flatfish are relatively rare
(Wigen and Stucki 1988:90-91). Bones of a variety of bird and mammal species,
the latter dominated by northern fur seal, are also preserved in the rockshelter's
shell midden deposits. Seasonality assessment based on shellfish suggests high
collection levels for late spring through summer, followed by a drop in fall and
abandonment of the site in the winter (Miller 1984). Fish remains from
the wet site also suggest a summer and probable fall occupation (Huelsbeck
1980:108).
In a series of articles based on the Hoko River research, Croes (1987,
1988, 1989, 1992a, 1992b) and Croes and Hackenberger (1988) have argued
that the well established "phases"or "culture types" for the southern coast are
better understood as economic plateaus. Based on such lithic artifact types as
thick ground slate points, chipped contracting stem points, and quartz crystal
microblades, the Hoko River wet/*
site has been placed in the Locarno Beach
culture type established for the Strait of Georgia (Mitchell 1990). The later
deposits of the rockshelter, dominated by small bone points, are placed within
the late prehistoric Gulf of Georgia culture type. Such shifts in economic
Table 11
Radiocarbon Dates for Hoko River Sites
Hoko River Wet/Dry Site (45CA213)
I
12210270
2530260
2570k70
2580330
26102100
2750290
2750k90
2520290
2770290
1700265
-
Comments
Lab No.
C14 Age
IWSU-1442
-
I
WSU-2014
WSU-2201
WSU-2016
WSU-2015
WSU-1443
WSU-2200
WSU-2203
WSU-2202
WSU-2656
I
I wet site
wet site
wet site
wet site
wet site
wet site
wet site
dry campsite
dry campsite
I from hearth, downriver from main site
(Croes and Blinman 1980:89;Flenniken 1981:34;Croes, pers. comm. 1995)
Hoko River Rockshelter (45CA21)
C14 Age
Lab No.
150k60
185335
175270
225k120
72035
920+50
WSU-2872
WSU-2344
WSU-2873
WSU-2308
WSU-2307
WSU-2343
(Croes, pers. comm. 1995)
near surface
3 m depth
.............................................................................................................
.
I
I
adaptation and technology, in this argument, characterize a broad region and
have no direct bearing on ethnicity. Perishables such as basketry and cordage
are believed to be far more sensitive indicators of ethnicity than implements of
stone and bone (Bernick 1987; Croes 1987,1989).In this regard, Hoko basketry
and cordage styles show closest resemblance to those at the much later Ozette
site, while differing markedly from basketry a t temporally equivalent
waterlogged sites, such as Musqueam Northeast, in the Strait of Georgia. In this
argument, then, technological similarities with the Locarno Beach and Gulf of
Georgia culture types are viewed as reflecting similar economic adaptations,
while the ethnic identity of the Hoko River people is linked with Ozette and the
Makah.
Other Makah Area Sites
Two of the five Makah "winter villages" listed by Swan (1870:6) were
located at Neah Bay, on the Strait of Juan de Fuca near Cape Flattery. The
inhabitants of Bihada (Bi7id7a), at the eastern end of the bay, moved in the
mid-19th century to join the residents of Diah (Diiyaa), often rendered as Neah,
near the western end. The modern Makah community of Neah Bay sits on
disturbed shell midden deposits, designated site 45CA22, dating to the late
prehistoric and early historic periods.
Two small-scale archaeological projects have taken place a t this site. E.
Friedman (1976) excavated two 1.5 x 1.5 m test pits &d one 1x 2 m unit in the
midden deposits near the beach in 1973 as part of a project of testing several
ethnographic Makah sites to place the Ozette research in a broader context.
Two radiocarbon determinations provided "modern"results (Friedman 1976:80),
despite deposits which reached depths of nearly two metres, although neither
date came from the lowest stratum. In 1988, Wessen (1991) excavated a 1x 2
m test unit a t a location further back from the modern beach, obtaining two
radiocarbon dates indicating that this site was occupied over two millennia ago
(Table 12). The meagre collection of artifacts from both excavations (a total of
16 objects of aboriginal manufacture from Friedman's work and nine from
Wessen's) are dominated by small bone points (Wessen 1991:12, 24). Faunal
remains are much more numerous, indicating use of a wide range of marine and
terrestrial resources. Bones of fur seal were the most common vertebrate
remains recovered by Friedman (1976:lO3), while fish, particularly greenling
and rockfish, dominate the fauna in Wessen's (1991:32-34) sample.
Three sites around Cape Flattery were identified as Makah summer
villages by Swan (1870:6). Tatoosh Island (45CA207) lies immediately off the
cape, Warmhouse (or Kiddekubbut) (45CA204) is at the entrance to the Strait
of Juan de Fuca, while Archawat (45CA206) lies on the open Pacific. All three
were tested by Friedman (1976). Only "sparse midden deposits" were
encountered a t Archawat, where two excavated units yielded only a few
artifacts and a small quantity of faunal remains, with fur seal and deer the most
common mammals (Friedman 1976:37, 112). Two excavated units at
Warmhouse reached depths of over a metre, but again yielded few artifacts or
faunal remains, although it appears that the ubiquitous rockfish was one of the
major economic resources for residents at this site (Friedman 1976:35, 106).
Tatoosh Island, ethnographically a vital Makah halibut fishing location, has
deeper and more concentrated, although disturbed, deposits. Two excavated
units reached depths of 1.3 and 1.4 metres, while a third unit was discontinued
when human skeletal elements were encountered (Friedman 1976:112). In
addition to abundant fish remains, bones of sea mammals were common, with
fur seal comprising more than 90% of the total (Friedman 1976:115-116).
Artifacts were primarily small bone points, although bone harpoon valves and
stone fishhook shanks were also found. Radiocarbon dates for Archawat and
Warmhouse show occupation only within the last several hundred years, while
use of Tatoosh Island dates back at least a millennium. In addition, an
unexcavated site at Cape Flattery (45CA2) has yielded a date of approximately
2000 years, based on charcoal taken from an exposed midden face (Wessen,
pers. comm. 1995). Table 12 lists all known radiocarbon dates for Makah-area
sites.
Wayatch (Wa7acht;
45CA1), on the open Pacific side of the Olympic
Peninsula, is another of the major "winter villages" identified by Swan. Eleven 4
foot x 4 foot (1.2 x 1.2 m) units, forming two trenches, were excavated at this
site in 1955 (Taylor 1974). No radiocarbon samples were taken and little
specific information has been reported, except that clams, mussels and sea
mammals, particularly whales, made up much of the diet. In 1991 Wessen
(1993:18)excavated a 1x 2 m unit at this site, obtaining two radiocarbon dates
within the last 200 years (Table 12). Much greater time depth, however, is
indicated by a road cut through a ridge back from and above the excavated unit
and the modern beach. A profile cleared at this location revealed about 1.6 m of
midden deposit and yielded radiocarbon age estimates of 1790 B.P from the
uppermost stratum and 3810 B.P. from near the bottom of this exposure
(Wessen 1992, pers. comm. 1995).The latter date makes this the earliest dated
site on the ocean coast of Washington. Faunal remains, consisting largely of sea
mammals and deep water fish, suggest a fully maritime economy from earliest
occupation (Wessen 1992). Faunal remains also indicate that, despite the
ethnographic classification as "wintervillage," this site was probably occupied
year-round (Wessen 1993:19; Huelsbeck and Wessen 1995).
Further south, about halfway between Cape Flattery and Ozette, is the
ethnographic "winter village" of Tsoo-yess or Sooes (Ts'uuyas; 45CA25).
Friedman (1976) excavated two 1x 2 m units and one 2 x 2 m unit at this site, m
deposits that reached 3 m depth. Radiocarbon samples from near the base of
the deposit in two different units yielded age estimates of approximately 1000
and 1100 years (Table 12). The small artifact assemblage consists largely of
bone points, but harpoon valves, several stone fishhook shanks, and a decorated
bone comb were also found. As at the other open-ocean Makah sites, a maritime
economy is indicated in the faunal remains by a variety of fish species and a
mammalian assemblage heavily dominated by northern fur seal (Friedman
1976).
Two excavated sites lie a short distance south of Ozette, in an area that
may have been used by both the Makah and the Quileute (Renker and Gunther
1990; Powell 1990). The most northerly, and the first to be excavated, is the
White Rock Village site (45CA30).Initial test excavations in 1955 were followed
by a larger project in 1961 (Guinn 1963). Twenty-nine 5 foot x 5 foot (1.5 x 1.5
m) squares were excavated, forming several long trenches, into deposits
reaching 1.7 m depth. A total of 248 artifacts was collected, of which 69 (27.8%)
are wedges, primarily of whalebone. Other artifact types include bone points,
harpoon valves, abrasive stones, and stone sinkers. Sea mammal hunting,
fishing, and shellfish collecting were the basis of the economy. Guinn's (1963:13)
assessment of late age for the site was borne out by one radiocarbon
determination of less than 400 years.
A short distance south of White Rock is the Sand Point site (45CA201),
located on what appears to be on an old marine terrace a considerable distance
back from the modern beach. It was first tested by Daugherty and the Ozette
crew in 1966, during the initial examination of the Cape Alava area (Wessen
1984:3; 1993:19-20).Unfortunately, no field notes or other documentation from
this early work are available, although a radiocarbon age of over 6000 years
was apparently obtained (Daugherty and Fryxell n.d.:4, 13; Wessen 1993:20).
As the exact circumstances and provenience of this date are unknown, and as it
was not substantiated by later fieldwork, this date must be considered suspect.
This suggestion of an early age prompted Wessen to do further work at
this site. In 1979 he excavated a 1x 2 m unit near the location of the original
test (Wessen 1984),returning in 1991 to excavate a 0.5 x 2 m extension to this
unit (Wessen 1993). Radiocarbon dates, taken from the uppermost and
lowermost cultural strata in the 1.8 m deep exposure (Table 12), indicate that
this site was occupied between about 1600 and 2300 years ago (Wessen
1984:15; 1993:20). The 82 artifacts recovered from the combined three field
projects differ from those at other open-ocean Makah sites in that chipped stone
implements comprise the majority (Wessen 1993:43). Most are debitage,
showing evidence of both simple and bipolar percussion techniques, but
retouched spa11 tools and several biface fragments were also found. Bone
implements are dominated by small bone points and bipoints, but also include
unilaterally barbed points and a fishhook shank. Fish, primarily halibut, rockfish
and lingcod, were the most abundant faunal remains (Wessen 1993:50).Fur seal
bones were also numerous, comprising over 80 per cent of all mammal remains
(Wessen 1993:53). Faunal studies suggest a multi-season, possibly year-round,
occupation at this site (Wessen 1993:60).
An unexcavated shell midden site (45CA423)is on the lower terrace near
Sand Point, directly below 45CA201. This was examined as part of the 1991
fieldwork, in an attempt to understand the timing of terrace formation.
Whalebone eroding from the beach face of the midden yielded a radiocarbon age
of 650 B.P., while charcoal from the inland edge of the midden gave a date of
1550 B.P. (Wessen 1993:38). This indicates an occupation of a t least 900 years,
beginning shortly after the final date for the upper terrace site. Probing at
another unexcavated site at Cedar Creek (45CA29), a short distance south of
Sand Point and also associated with modern sea levels, provided a date of over
1100 years (Wessen, pers. comm. 1995).
Although Sand Point is the only raised terrace site in the area to have
been excavated, several others have been recorded. Upper Wayatch (45CA400),
located several kilometres inland from Wayatch, yielded a radiocarbon date of
2690 B.P. from charcoal recovered under an uprooted tree. This is only slightly
older than Sand Point and considerably younger than the oldest date from
Wayatch. At Norwegian Memorial (45CA252), south of Sand Point, charcoal
from a pothunter's hole provided an age estimate of just over 1000 years (Table
12), a date that Wessen (pers. comm. 1995) considers unrealistically late for
this elevated site context.
Although several of the ethnographic sites yielded only very recent dates,
evidence for earlier occupation is becoming more abundant. The area historically
occupied by the Makah seems to have been first settled at least 3800 years ago,
based on the earliest date from Wayatch, although there is no evidence of
continuous occupation from that date to the historic settlement. Sites with
dates in the 2000 to 3000 year range consist of Hoko River, Sand Point, and
Upper Wayatch, with Neah Bay and Ozette being first occupied by the end of
.............................................................................................................
Table 12
Radiocarbon Dates from other Makah-Area Sites
C14 Age
Lab No.
Neah Bay (45CA22)
WSU-1607
"moderntt
WSU-1608
"modern"
Beta-28734
2170260
2070k70
IBeta-28735
Archawat (45CA206)
1 150260
I WSU-1604
1
Warmhouse (45CA204)
200260
1 WSU-1603
Comments
83 cm depth
150 cm depth
probably disturbed
Inear base
I
-
Reference
Friedman 1976:80
Friedman 1976:80
Wessen 1991:22
I Wessen 1991:22
I
1
( near base (122 cm depth) ( Friedman 1976235
1 near base (96 cm depth) 1 Friedman 1976:82 1
Tatoosh Island (45CA.207)
1 960270
I WSU-1606
1
I Friedman 197697 1
Cape Flattery (45CA2)
11970k80
I Beta-58385
I from exposure face
I Wessen 1995*
I
I from test pit
I from test pit
-
I Wessen 1995"
I Wessen 1995*
I
Wayatch (45CA1)
I 110-f60
I Beta-47545
I Beta-47546
180270
Beta-47547
1790270
Beta-47548
3810260
1
1
Upper Wayatch (45CA400)
2690260
I Beta-80923
from road cut (top)
from road cut (bottom)
I
1
Wessen 1995"
Wessen 1992, 1995
1 raised terrace inland
I Wessen 1995*
I at base (2.88 m depth)
I
Tsoo-vess (45CA25)
1 980260
I WSU-1611
WSU-1612
1110260
i near base (2.52 m depth)
I Friedman 1976:91 1
White Rock (45CA30)
[ 387242
1 not given
1 lowermost level
I Guinn 1963:13
i
Friedman 1976:93
1
I
Sand Point (45CA201)
SI-4366
1600k75
SI-4367
2270k75
60652250
I WSU-498
uppermost deposit
lowermost deposit
I date not accepted
Wessen 1984:15
Wessen 1984:15
I Wessen 1993:20
I
Sand Point - lower terrace site (45CA423)
1 Beta-57136 I beach erosion -whalebone I Wessen 1993:38
1 650%0
1550SO
I Beta-57566 1 back of midden
1 Wessen 1993:38
1
1
Cedar Creek (45CA29)
1120270
I Beta-55630
1
Norwegian Memorial (45CA252)
1070k50
I Beta-68682 I raised terrace
I
1
I Wessen 1995*
1 Wessen 1995*
* All Wessen 1995 references are personal communications.
.............................................................................................................
this time range. The latter two continued to be inhabited villages into historic
times. Chipped stone implements, absent or very rare at all later deposits, are
common at Sand Point, Hoko River, and the lower levels of the Ozette midden
trench. Otherwise, most implements found at these sites characterize later time
periods as well, and most investigators have emphasized cultural continuity to
the historic occupants. The hypothesis that Wakashan-speaking peoples
arrived on the Olympic Peninsula only about a thousand years ago, as proposed
on linguistic evidence (Chapter 2), does not appear to be supported by the
archaeological evidence, although the chipped stone which characterizes the
period prior to about 2000 B.P. may possibly reflect an earlier population.
CHAPTER 4:
THE EMERGENCE OF THE WEST COAST CULTURE TYPE
Cultural Antecedents
Archaeological Evidence
No excavated sites in the study area date to the Early Period of
Northwest Coast prehistory, generally considered to predate about 5000 B.P.
(Borden 1975; Carlson 1979, 1983a, 1990, 1996a; Fladmark 1982, 1986;
Matson and Coupland 1995).Yuquot, with a date of about 4200 B.P. for Zone I
deposits, is the oldest dated site in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. Similarly, the date
of 3800 B.P. from Wayatch is the earliest from Makah territory. Evidence of
much earlier human presence in surrounding regions, however, suggests that
archaeological traces of the first occupants of the study area have not yet been
recovered.
The date of initial human arrival on the coasts of southern British
Columbia and adjacent Washington is uncertain. The archaeological record in
this area at present extends back nearly 9000 years, but few would argue that
this dates the earliest occupation. If the initial entry into the Americas was by a
southward movement along the west coast at a time when large areas of
coastal shelf were exposed by lowered sea levels, as argued by Fladmark (1979),
any trace of this passing would now lie below the waters off the outer coast.
Evidence that large areas of now-submerged land would have been available to
early human migrants along the coast was obtained in a geological core sample
taken from the ocean bottom north of Vancouver Island a t a depth of 95
metres. The core contained a paleosol with in situ rooted plant remains that
were radiocarbon dated to 10,500B.P., indicating that this was dry land at that
time (Luternauer et al. 1989).
A controversial claim for archaeological evidence of human presence
around 12,000 B.P. comes from the Manis Mastodon site (45CA218) on the
northern Olympic Peninsula. Excavation at this site exposed a largely complete
mastodon skeleton, which was interpreted by the investigators as evidence of
human hunting and butchering practices (Gustafson, Gilbow and Daugherty
1979). Support for this view came primarily from what was thought to be a
bone "projectile point" embedded in a rib of this animal. As this pointed bone is
not indisputably of human manufacture, however, the claim that people were
hunting elephants in this region at this early period remains unsubstantiated.
More definite evidence for human presence in southern coastal British
Columbia and adjacent Washington is evident at about 9000 B.P. This early
stage is
". . . defined on the
basis of the co-occurrence of unifacial pebble
choppers and leaf-shaped bifaces in early assemblages, but it includes
assemblages of pebble (or cobble) tools by themselves" (Carlson 1990:62). The
predominance of crudely flaked pebble tools in such assemblages led Carlson
(1979, 1983a, 1983b, 1990, 1996a) to term this the Pebble Tool Tradition.
Although pebble tools served as general purpose implements, appearing in a
number of different cultural contexts, their abundance in this early stage
becomes a defining characteristic. Matson (1976) and Matson and Coupland
(1995) use the term "Old Cordilleran Culture" to refer to the same stage, while
Mitchell (1971) places this within his Lithic Culture Type. More than just
terminological preferences are involved here, however, as "Old Cordilleran"
implies a generalized culture of the interior mountains, only later moving to the
coast, while Carlson (1990:66; 1991:113; 1996a:8) argues that this was initially
a coastal adaptation, later following the salmon up the rivers to the interior.
Dates as early as 9700 B.P. for similar materials fiom the lowest levels at the
Namu site, on the central British Columbia coast, lend support to this view
(Carlson 1996b).
Much of our information on this early stage comes from the oldest
component at the Glenrose Cannery site, located on the lower Fraser River
(Matson 1976, 1996). The earliest radiocarbon date from this deep, multicomponent site is 8150 + 250 B.P., although this was obtained about one metre
from the base of cultural deposits. Matson and Coupland (1995:70) date the Old
Cordilleran(orPebble Tool) component at Glenrose to between about 8500 and
5000 B.P. Cobble tools dominate the artifact assemblage, comprising about
44% of the total, while bifacial leaf-shaped points are present, but in small
numbers. A barbed antler point and several antler wedges also occur in this
assemblage. Bones of elk (wapiti) and deer, followed by seal, are the most
abundant faunal elements, although these primarily date to the later part of
this component. Fish remains include salmon, flatfish, eulachon, and
stickleback. Substantial lenses of concentrated shell occurred at considerable
depths, indicating that shellfish gathering was part of the economy throughout
this component. A seasonal encampment of generalized hunters, fishers, and
gatherers is indicated for this early occupation.
A similar picture comes from Bear Cove, an early Pebble Tool tradition
site located on northeastern Vancouver Island (C. Carlson 1979). A radiocarbon
date of 8020
+ 110 B.P. was obtained from near the base of deposits underlying
a shell midden. As at Glenrose, the upper levels of this component are undated,
but are older than about 4500 B.P. Similar, but undated, material from non-shell
deposits a t the base of the nearby O'Conner site (Chapman 1982) may also
belong to this period. The artifacts from Bear Cove closely resemble those from
Glenrose, with a small number of bifacial leaf-shaped points and knives and
abundant pebble tools, the latter comprising 48% of the total.
Despite the similarities in age and artifact forms, the faunal remains
from Bear Cove differ significantly from those a t Glenrose (C. Carlson 1979;
Matson 1996; Matson and Coupland 1995:76-77). Mammal bones, which are
twice as numerous as those of fish, are dominated by several species of sea
mammals. Fully 80% of sea mammal remains from Bear Cove were identified
as Delphinidae (porpoise),with northern fur seal and Stellar sea lion making up
most of the rest. Fish remains were dominated by rockfish (Sebastes spp.), with
salmon a distant second. The numerous porpoise, fur seal, and rockfish elements
provide evidence that a developed maritime economy existed at this early period.
Intensive hunting of sea mammals such as porpoises would have required
watercraft and probably harpoons with bone or antler heads. However, all
faunal remains at Bear Cove came from the upper levels of this component and
cannot demonstrate that the earliest arrivals at this location brought with them
a fidly developed maritime economy.
Only a short distance from Bear Cove across Vancouver Island is
Quatsino Sound, immediately north of ethnographic Nuu-chah-nulth territory.
During survey in Quatsino Sound in 1973, Carlson and Hobler (1976:126)
recorded six locations where stone tools produced by simple percussion flaking
were found on intertidal beaches, in two cases without any above-tide midden
present. Several hundred pebble tools, pebble cores, flakes and several leafshaped bifaces are among the chipped stone artifacts collected (Carlson and
Hobler 1976;Apland 1982). Carlson and Hobler (1976:134) place these in their
"Early Period", estimated at 9000 to 4000 B.P. These objects were considered to
be "essentially identical" to those recovered from the early component a t Bear
Cove (C. Carlson 1979:190). In a detailed study of the chipped stone artifacts
from intertidal sites in Quatsino Sound and the central coast, Apland (1982)
described the Quatsino assemblage as based on a pebble-spa11 technology,
closely affiliated with the Pebble Tool Tradition. He argued that the Quatsino
Sound chipped stone objects are not only distinct from the intertidal lithics of the
central coast, but are likely to be earlier, probably predating 5000 B.P.
A number of undated surface discoveries of chipped stone tools in Nuuchah-nulth territory have raised the question of the cultural relationships of the
earliest occupants. A series of elevated sites along the Somass River in the
Alberni Valley (McMillan 1981, 1996; McMillan and St. Claire 1982) may cast
some light on this issue. Lithic artifacts of a well-developed microblade industry
are found with bifacial leaf-shaped points, retouched cortex spalls, and other
large flake tools; pebble tools and cores occur but are relatively rare (Figure 20).
Microblade technology has a north to south temporal gradient on the Northwest
Coast. In southeastern Alaska microblades first appear between about 9200
and 8900 B.P. (Ackerman 1992; Davis 1990; Carlson 1990). In the Gwaii
Haanas region of the southern Queen Charlotte Islands microblade cores are
found at several intertidal locations dated as early as between 9400 and 9000
B.P. (Fedje et al. 1996). By about 8500 B.P. microblade technology appears on
the central coast, where it is added to the Pebble Tool tradition assemblage at
Namu (Carlson 1996b). The Somass River sites may similarly represent an
interface where technologies based on pebble tools and bifaces merge with those
based on microblades. Borden (1975,1979) had earlier speculated that bearers
of these two early cultural traditions met somewhere in the vicinity of northern
Fig. 20. Surface collected lithic artifacts from DhSf 31, an elevated site in the
Alberni Valley (upper left, chipped bifaces; upper right, retouched cortex spa11
tool; lower row, microblade cores).
Vancouver Island, with their merger providing the basis for subsequent
development of Northwest Coast cultures. Artifact typology and the elevated
nature of the Somass River sites argue for their placement within the Pebble
Tool tradition, although the presence of microblades would suggest that they
date toward the later end of that tradition, perhaps in the 7000 to 5000 B.P.
range (Carlson 1990:67; McMillan 1996:214). They certainly predate the
excavated Shoemaker Bay site, with a basal date of 4000 B.P., which is
associated with modern sea levels (McMillan and St. Claire 1982).
Surface discoveries of chipped stone artifacts have also been made on the
outer coast of Nuu-chah-nulth territory, in undated intertidal contexts (Figure
21). In Nootka Sound, Marshall (1992a, 1992b, 1993) reports beach discoveries
of leaf-shaped bifaces, cores, and flakes. Most implements were produced by a
pebble-spall flaking technology and closely resemble the beach discoveries from
Quatsino Sound (Marshall 1993:80).Similar discoveries have also been made in
Barkley Sound,including a large leaf-shaped biface similar in style and material
to Nootka Sound specimens (McMillan and St. Claire 1991:69). A basalt core
with three long narrow flake scars, found on a beach in Nootka Sound, indicates
the former presence of the blade technology (Arcas Consulting Archeologists
1993).These implements may have been used in the intertidal zone and lost or
discarded directly onto these beaches, or may have eroded out from midden
deposits behind the beaches. However, as chipped stone artifacts were
extremely rare in the 4200 year sequence established for Yuquot, another
explanation for the intertidal materials in Nootka Sound would be that they
predate the earliest deposits at Yuquot, representing the remains of sites which
were occupied when sea levels were lower. If these intertidal lithics are related to
the Pebble Tool tradition, this would provide a logical cultural antecedent for the
West Coast culture type. It would also link the early period in Nuu-chah-nulth
territory with surrounding areas and raise the possibility that historic
Wakashan and Salishan populations shared a distant common ancestor, as
argued earlier by Carlson (1983a, 198313,1990,1991).
I t must be stressed, however, that no site in Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht, or
Makah territory has been shown to be older than 4200 years. Furthermore, few
Fig. 21. Chipped stone bifaces from inter-tidal contexts in Barkley and Nootka
Sounds. (a, from DfSi 72, near Toquart Bay, Barkley Sound; b, from DkSo 6,
Nootka Sound; c, from DjSo 8, Muchalat Inlet, Nootka Sound)
(b, c, from Marshall 1992:109; 1993:75).
sites predate about 2500 B.P. This situation is at least in part attributable to
the fact that most archaeological fieldwork has concentrated on sites associated
with modern sea levels. Archaeologists must also consider geological factors
that may have affected site visibility and accessibility on the west coast.
Geological Factors
During the climax of Wisconsinan glaciation much of the study area as it
now exists would have been rendered uninhabitable, with only the Brooks
Peninsula and the end of the Hesquiat Peninsula spared from glacial ice (Clague,
Armstrong and Mathews 1980:Fig. 1). Valley glaciers from the central
Vancouver Island mountains reached the outer coast through what are today
the major inlets. In Barkley Sound, several local glaciers met and coalesced,
extending in two lobes out onto the continental shelf (Carter 1973:443). A
radiocarbon age of 16,700+ 150, obtained from a sample of Pinus contorta found
at the top of glaciofluvialsediments clearly overlain by till of the last glaciation,
provides an estimate for the onset of the final glacial advance in the Clayoquot
Sound area (Clague, Armstrong and Mathews 1980). Further radiocarbon
determinations, from post-glacial marine deposits in Hesquiat Harbour and
Clayoquot Sound, suggest that glacial retreat had freed the outer west coast by
about 13,000 B.P. (Friele 1991:79; Clague et al. 1982; Howes, in Haggarty
+
1982:37). Similarly, a radiocarbon date of 10,280 150 provides a minimum age
for deglaciation of southwestern Vancouver Island (Alley and Chatwin 1979).
Shortly after deglaciation, the sea rose rapidly relative to the land along
western Vancouver Island. Marine inundation reached 32 to 34 metres above
present sea level at Hesquiat Harbour (Clague et al. 1982:611). Elevation of
post-glacial marine deposits above modern sea levels increases with distance
I
inland along the inlets, presumably due to the greater weight of ice inland,
I
reaching about 45 metres near the head of Espinosa Inlet, between Nootka
Sound and Kyuquot Sound (Howes,in Haggarty 1982:37). In the Alberni Valley,
I
at the end of the long Alberni Inlet, the marine limit reached about 90 metres
I
above modern levels (Fyles 1963:90; Holland 1964:117; Mathews, Fyles and
Nasmith 1970:692, 693).
1
Relative sea levels dropped rapidly following these early post-glacial
highs. Radiocarbon dates on in-situ stumps in the intertidal mud near Tofino in
Clayoquot Sound indicates that the sea was about three metres below present
I
levels between 7000 and 8000 B.P. (Bobrowsky and Clague 1992; Friele
1991:80).Based on fieldwork on Vargas Island, Friele (1991:78) has prepared a
sea level curve which he believes is generally applicable to the west coast of
Vancouver Island from Nootka Sound to Barkley Sound, an assumption
supported by recent research in Barkley Sound (Friele and Hutchinson
1993:839). Friele proposes that sea levels rose gradually from the Early
Holocene lows, attaining a height of about three metres above the present level
by 5100 B.P. Relative sea levels then remained stable for over a thousand
years, a period Friele (1991) has termed the Ahous Bay Stillstand. After 4000
B.P. sea levels began to drop, reaching another stillstand around 2200 B.P., at
which time mean sea level stood about two metres higher than today (Friele
1991:78,91). The land has gradually emerged relative to the sea over the past
several millennia along the west coast of Vancouver Island, in a process which is
still continuing (Friele 1991; Hebda and Rouse 1979; Clague et al. 1982:612).
This is in contrast to the inner coast, on the east side of Vancouver Island,
where the sea is presently rising relative to the land (Clague et al. 1982:612).
I
Late Holocene emergence on the outer Olympic Peninsula also appears to be
still in progress (Wessen 1993:8).
Tectonic uplift is generally considered to be the driving force behindMiddle
and Late Holocene emergence of the land along the outer coast of Vancouver
Island (Clagueet al. 1982:616; Muller 1980:9;Hebda and Rouse 1979:129; F'riele
1991:92; Friele and Hutchinson 19932340). Late Holocene uplift appears to
have been continuous and gradual, with only limited evidence of subsidence from
megathrust earthquakes in the vicinity of Vancouver Island (Clague and
Bobrowsky 1990; Bobrowsky and Clague 1991).This is in contrast to the coast
of Washington, where Atwater (1987) has documented at least six events of
tectonic subsidence punctuating late Holocene emergence, corresponding to
major earthquakes which rocked the area over the last 7000 years.
Associated with massive earthquakes are tsunamis, which can often
affect areas far from the quake centre. The huge 1964 earthquake in Alaska, for
example, resulted in a tsunami which caused extensive damage along the west
coast of Vancouver Island, particularly to communities such as Port Alberni
which lie at the ends of long inlets. Clague, Bobrowsky and Hamilton (1994)
identify a widespread sand sheet just below the marsh surface a t the end of
Alberni Inlet as having been deposited by the 1964 event, and argue by analogy
that similar sand sheets at lower levels in the same location identify the
presence of prehistoric tsunamis. Similarly, sand sheets overlying peaty soil
have been identified at several tidal marsh locations on the outer coast near
Tofmo and Ucluelet. Clague and Bobrowsky (l994a, 1994b) interpret these
deposits as former marsh surfaces that subsided suddenly during a large
earthquake and were covered with sand from the ensuing tsunami. They suggest
that several such quakes may have occurred in the last 500 to 800 years, and
that they could have been more powerful than the 1964 event (Clague and
Bobrowsky 1994a). To the south, at the Makah community of Neah Bay,
Wessen (1991:21) identifies several thin sand layers in shell midden deposits
well back f h m the modern beach as possible evidence of past tsunamis.
Nuu-chah-nulth oral traditions provide additional evidence of these past
catastrophic events. An Ohiaht story tells how a huge wave following an
earthquake destroyed a village at Pachena Bay, just to the east of Barkley
Sound, killing many of the inhabitants (Clamhouse et al. 1991:230-231; St.
Claire 1991:67). Similarly, stories of a great ebb of the sea followed by a
massive flood may reflect ancient tsunamis. Sproat (1868:183-185) recorded
such a tradition for Barkley Sound, recounting how the Toquaht and Tseshaht
survived the great flood. Swan (1870:57) was told a similar flood story by a
Makah chief, in a version which also accounts for the close relationship between
the Makah and Vancouver Island groups.
A long time ago, but not at a very remote period, the water of
the Pacific flowed through what is now the swamp and prairie
between Waatch village and Neeah Bay, making an island of
Cape Flattery. The water suddenly receded, leaving Neeah
Bay perfectly dry. It was four days reaching its lowest ebb,
and then rose again without any waves or breakers, till it had
submerged the Cape, and in fad the whole country, excepting
the tops of the mountains at Clyoquot. The water on its rise
became very warm, and as it came up to the houses, those
who had canoes put their effects into them, and floated off with
the current which set very strongly to the north. Some drifted
one way, some another; and when the waters assumed their
accustomed level, a portion of the tribe found themselves
beyond Nootka, where their descendants now reside.
Informants among the Quileute and Chemakum related to Swan the same
tradition, which was seen as an explanation for the separation of these two
related peoples.
These geological data have major archaeological implications. If Friele's
sea level curve is accurate, then all evidence of occupation prior to about 6000
B.P. may lie below modern tides, eroded and inaccessible. Any cultural deposits
later than this time, but prior to the advent of the Ahous Bay Stillstand at
about 5100 B.P., would have been eroded by both rising and falling sea levels.
Intertidal lithic artifacts found along the coast may represent eroded sites
associated with lower relative sea levels than today. In more recent times,
earthquake- induced coastal subsidence may have occurred along at least the
central west coast of Vancouver Island, possibly on several different occasions.
Tsunamis may also have played a role in reshaping foreshores, although the
extent of damage to archaeological sites is unknown.
The earliest intact and dated archaeological remains occur late in the
Ahous Bay Stillstand. At Yuquot, artifacts and faunal remains from the lowest
levels are water-rolled and are interpreted as being deposited on a low-lying sand
and gravel spit that was subject to periodic wave action (Dewhirst 1980:43).
Today, these deposits are about five metres above the high tide line. The lowest
levels at Ch'uumat'a, one of the Toquaht sites in Barkley Sound, also contained
waterworn artifacts and faunal remains apparently deposited on an old beach
which was later uplifted. At Little Beach, near Ucluelet, waterworn fire-cracked
rock and sandy layers interbedded with midden show that the lowest deposits,
now about six metres above sea level, were just above wave action when the
site was first occupied (Arcas Consulting Archeologists 1991:5; Friele and
Hutchinson 1993:838). In all three cases, extensive midden deposits did not
begin to accumulate until roughly 4000 years ago, corresponding to the onset of
lowered sea levels, when these low-lying areas became more suitable for human
habitation. Areas occupied during the height of the Ahous Bay Stillstand, which
would have been abandoned as uplift exposed new land and moved the former
surface fPlrther from the beach, should now be sought on raised terraces above
the level of the Late Holocene shell midden sites. Several archaeological tests at
elevated terrace sites in Makah territory (see Chapter 3), however, failed to
yield evidence of such an age.
In summary, although data are scarce and inconclusive, the surface lithic
discoveries in Nuu-chah-nulth territory suggest early ties to the widespread
Pebble Tool tradition. Changing sea levels have rendered much of the evidence
for the earliest periods in Nuu-chah-nulthterritory inaccessible. A distinct West
Coast culture type, as defined by Mitchell (1990:357), covers "the post-3000
B.C. period," although the earliest excavated archaeological remains are
associated with the 4200 B.P. date at Yuquot. This chapter examines the
archaeological evidence in Nuu-chah-nulth territory predating 2000 B.P. Before
turning to the West Coast data of this age it is necessary to examine how the
culture type was defined.
Definition of the West Coast Culture Type
The term "culture type" was introduced to Northwest Coast studies by
Mitchell (1971), in a reaction to theoretical inadequacies with the "phase"
concept which was in common use. A more specific attack on the phase concept
was launched by Abbott (1972),who documented the widespread seasonal round
of ethnographic Salish peoples and questioned whether any archaeological unit
could be correlated with past social groups. In addition, a confusing number of
local phases had been proposed in the Strait of Georgia region. Instead, Mitchell
borrowed from Spaulding (1955:12) the concept of the "culture type," defined
loosely as "a group of components distinguishable by the common possession of
a group of traits," which was applied to entire regions. Culture types are viewed
by Mitchell (1990:34) as "tentative, largely intuitive archeological units whose
strength and probable endurance lie in the generality of their definition." In
practice, however, most archaeologists on the Northwest Coast continue to use
"phase"or "culture type" as roughly equivalent terms.
The West Coast culture type was proposed by Mitchell (1990) as part of
a broad synthesis of prehistory for the coasts of southern British Columbia and
northern Washington. Mitchell divided the culture history of the Strait of
Georgia area, the ethnographic homeland of the northern and central Coast
Salish, into four temporally distinct culture types, while two culture types were
proposed for the territory of the Kwakwgkg'wakw, on northern Vancouver
Island and the adjacent mainland.1 Of the three broad regions reviewed by
Mitchell, only Nuu-chah-nulth territory was perceived as having a single culture
type throughout its entire known culture history.
Excavated data from Yuquot and Hesquiat, the only major archaeological
projects on the west coast of Vancouver Island at that time, provided much of
the basis for Mitchell's formulation of the West Coast culture type. Claims for
lengthy continuity to the historic occupants at these sites, particularly Yuquot,
led Mitchell to propose that Nuu-chah-nulth culture history could be
encompassed within a single culture type. In reviewing the archaeological data
from these two projects, he concluded that:
The archaeological assemblages are so like described Nootkan
material culture that a lengthy reconstruction of the
technology is not necessary. There are artifacts interpretable
as whale, small sea mammal, and salmon harpoons; parts of
l~itchell(1988)
included an additional "OldCordilleran culture type"in another review of
Kwakwgk-atwakw territory,but this early period was outside the mandate of his 1990 article.
163
composite fishhooks; knives suitable for butchering salmon or
herring or for preparing other fish and foods;woodworking
tools; and tools for shaping the numerous bone implements. . .
these tools are represented even in the 2800-1200 B.C. levels
at Yuquot Village.
(Mitchell 1990:357)
Elsewhere, in reviewing patterns of faunal remains, Mitchell (1988:279) refers
to the west coast as a region that "has seen little or no change." He concludes
that the entire archaeological sequence known for the Nuu-chah-nulth area "can
be characterized as one of relatively little change in subsistence and other
aspects of technology" (1990:357).
Distinguishing features of this culture type are defined almost entirely in
terms of artifacts. Mitchell (1990:356) lists the distinctive traits as:
. . .ground stone celts; ground stone fishhook shanks; hand
mauls; abrasive stones; unilaterally barbed bone points; single
barb points; bone fishhook shanks; unilaterally and bilaterally
barbed bone nontoggling harpoon heads; bone single points;
bone bipoints; large and small composite toggling harpoon
valves of bone or antler, small ones with two-piece "selfarmed"variety with ancillary valve; sea mammal bone
foreshafts; bone needles; bone splinter awls; ulna tools;
whalebone bark beaters; whalebone bark shredders;
perforated tooth and deer phalanx pendants; mussel shell
celts; and mussel shell knives.
The absence or rarity of flaked stone tools and detritus is also seen as an
identifying trait. In fact, stone implements in general are relatively rare. The
major exception is abrasive stones, which were essential in the technology used
to produce the numerous ground bone artifacts found and probably also served
as a vital part of the woodworking toolkit.
Although a strong continuity through time is clearly evident at these
sites, placement of the entire 4200 year sequence into a single culture type, with
a single list of identifying features, tends to project an image of an unchanging
culture. As Dewhirst stresses for Yuquot, gradual change in artifact forms did
occur. Also, the rarity of diagnostic artifacts poses a problem for such schemes.
Most archaeological assemblages, particularly those from the small test
excavations, consist primarily of abrasive stones and small bone points; chipped
stone points and other diagnostic artifacts used to separate culture types in the
Strait of Georgia (Mitchell 1971, 1990) are rare or absent on the west coast of
Vancouver Island. Basketry and other perishable materials, in the few locations
where these have been preserved, are much more sensitive indicators, providing
clearer insights into past cultural change and affiliation than implements of
stone and bone (see, for example, Bernick 1987; Croes 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992).
Where such organics are lacking, classifications based on artifacts may not
adequately reflect cultural diversity and change.
Although the West Coast culture type was defined almost entirely on
data from Yuquot and Hesquiat, it was intended to describe the culture history
of the entire west coast of Vancouver Island. More recent excavations m
Barkley Sound can be used to assess regional and temporal variation in the
culture type. These include several of the earliest known sites in the Nuu-chahnulth area and suggest a somewhat different picture than that seen for the
early period at Yuquot.
The West Coast Culture Type to 2000 B.P.
Even at a relatively late stage of Northwest Coast prehistory there are
few known sites in Nuu-chah-nulth,Ditidaht, and Makah territory. Yuquot, with
a date of 4200 B.P. from near the base of cultural deposits, is the oldest
excavated site in this area. Only five sites offer dates in the 4000 to 3000 year
range. Yuquot and Ch'uumat'a provide the fullest sequences, extending through
this time span to the historic period. Little Beach falls entirely within the 4000
to 3000 B.P. period. The final two dates of this age offer little cultural
information. Shoemaker Bay has an initial date of roughly 4000 years, but this
refers only to a few waterworn artifacts on the old beach surface, prior to
accumulation of major midden deposits. The 3800 year date for the Makah site
of Wayatch came from the bottom of a road cut exposure and does not date any
of the excavated materials, which belong to a much later time.
The lowest component at Shoemaker Bay and the Hoko River wetidry
site join Yuquot and Ch'uumat'a in covering the 3000 to 2000 B.P. period.
However, both contain large numbers of chipped stone artifacts and do not fall
within the West Coast culture type as it is presently characterized. Near the
end of this temporal span we also have dates from two sites on Nitinat Lake and
from Sand Point on the Olympic Peninsula. All three, however, are known only
from very limited test excavations and the Sand Point materials also seem to lie
outside present definitions of the West Coast culture type. Finally, at about
2000 B.P., we have evidence for initial occupation at Ozette and Neah Bay. The
beginning of major midden deposits at these sites is argued to mark the period of
more intensive occupation in the study area discussed in the next chapter.
Continuity and Change
The pre-2000 B.P. period at Yuquot encompasses all of Zone I and lower
and middle portions of Zone 11. Claims of cultural continuity throughout the
occupation of this site were reviewed in Chapter 3. Dewhirst (1980:337) notes
that almost all artifact classes from the earliest levels also occur in later
deposits and concludes "that the basic cultural patterns of later periods are well
established in the Early Period." By Zone I1 deposits, Dewhirst (1980:338)
maintains that artifacts "reflect basic cultural patterns that are known
ethnographically." Faunal remains are poorly preserved in the early strata,
hindering attempts to assess changes in economic adaptation.
Despite the evidence for cultural continuity at Yuquot, changes over time
are evident in artifact forms. Narrow, round-polled celts, for example, are
restricted to Zone I and the lower levels of Zone 11, eventually being supplanted
by flat-polled and broad celts in a process that Dewhirst (1980:339) considers to
be stylistic evolution rather than functional change. Small flaked pebbles,
classified as "wedges"by Dewhirst, are also restricted to Zone I and the base of
Zone 11. Their apparent "early"classification,however, is called into question by
the presence of similar chipped pebbles at Kupti, a much later site in Nootka
Sound (McMillan 1969).Several fragments of what appear to be whalebone war
clubs were found in lower levels of Zone 11, dated by association with a firepit to
around or slightly earlier than 2000 B.P. (Dewhirst 1980:341). Although no
examples were found in later deposits at Yuquot, similar clubs were collected
historically from the Nuu-chah-nulth. Important absences from the pre-2000
B.P. artifact inventory at Yuquot include stone fishhook shanks, bone fishhook
shanks with rectangular bases, and mussel shell tools. Changes also occurred in
the form of composite toggling harpoon heads; slotted valves and channeled
valves with biconical arming points are restricted to later time periods, leaving
only simple and self-armingvalves in the earlier stages.
Some evidence of temporal change is also evident in the Toquaht Project
data, particularly from Ch'uumat'a, the only excavated Toquaht site with
deposits predating 2000 B.P. With the exception of a small number of flake tools
at several of the sites, chipped stone artifacts occur only in the lower levels of
Ch'uumat'a. A concentration of lithic detritus of a distinctive green chert,
including several retouched flakes, came from two nearby units in levels dated to
about 2000 to 2300 B.P. A chipped leaf-shaped biface came from somewhat
older strata in a different unit, and a small pebble with bipolar flaking, classified
as a piece esquill6e, was found even deeper in that unit, one level below a
radiocarbon date of 348OkSO. In addition, a number of stone celts were found at
Ch'uumat'a, all but one from deposits which predate the other Toquaht sites.
Celts are absent in the much larger assemblage from T'ukw'aa, except for one
reworked non-functional greenstone example.
At Ucluelet, the Little Beach site falls entirely within this pre-2000 B.P.
period. Cultural remains recovered from this site, as discussed in Chapter 3,
contrast sharply with later excavated materials from the area, such as those
from Tukw'aa, only a short distance away across Ucluelet Inlet. Although both
small sample size and the specialized use of this site as a burial area may skew
comparisons, there appears to have been a major cultural change over time in
this area. The Little Beach site also offers a considerable contrast to equivalent
time periods at Yuquot, and challenges the model of continuity established for
that site. Along with Shoemaker Bay, Little Beach has been interpreted as
evidence of occupation by a non-Nuu-chah-nulth group, with closest ties to the
Strait of Georgia region. This is examined below in the context of regional
variation.
Regional Variation and the "SalishanHypothesis"
Hypothetical models based on linguistics, reviewed in Chapter 2, suggest
that the original Wakashan homeland was northern or northwestern Vancouver
Island. Nuu-chah-4th oral traditions and linguistic evidence indicate that the
southernmost Wakashans, the Ditidaht and Makah, moved into their historic
territories in relatively recent times. The west coast of Vancouver Island south
of Barkley Sound was presumably home to Salishan-speaking peoples prior to
the Ditidaht arrival. Similarly, the Alberni Valley and much or all of the Alberni
Inlet were occupied by Salishan peoples until quite late times. Barkley Sound
may also have been culturally linked to the peoples of eastern Vancouver Island
prior to Nuu-chah-nulth expansion. If this were the case, the earliest evidence
from Barkley Sound should exhibit significant differences from temporally
equivalent deposits at Yuquot. This section examines the archaeological
evidence prior to 2000 B.P., in an attempt to determine whether this is best
understood as regional variation within the West Coast culture type or as
evidence of occupation prior to Nuu-chah-nulth arrival, the so-called "Salishan
hypothesis."
The evidence seems clearest from the Shoemaker Bay site in the Alberni
Valley (see Chapter 3). Shoemaker Bay I, the earliest component, contains
such diagnostic implements as chipped stone points and knives, ground stone
points, microblades, and rectangular celts (McMillan and St. Claire 1982). These
artifact types, which do not occur a t Yuquot, are typical of the Locarno Beach
and Marpole culture types in the Strait of Georgia. A radiocarbon date of 4000
B.P. marks the initial occupation at this site. Combined with continued strong
similarities to Strait of Georgia cultures during the latest component, along with
the ethnographic evidence for Salishan presence in the early historic period, this
site presents a solid case for cultural ties to the Strait of Georgia region prior to
late Nuu-chah-nulth arrival. Any group living in the Alberni Valley would have
been linked to Barkley Sound by way of Alberni Inlet, and faunal analysis at
Shoemaker Bay indicates at least some use of open-ocean resources throughout
the site occupation (Calvert and Crockford 1982).2
Excavation at Little Beach yielded similar cultural material from an
open-ocean setting near the western edge of Barkley Sound. Although only a
small artifact sample was obtained, this included such diagnostic objects as a
large chipped stone projectile point, a thick ground slate fragment, a crude
cobble tool, and a possible fragment of a flanged labret. Such traits were seen as
precluding assignment to the West Coast culture type, and strong parallels with
Shoemaker Bay I were noted (Arcas Consulting Archeologists 1991). Midden
inhumations, including boulder cairn burials, were also found a t both Little
Beach and Shoemaker Bay I. Cairn burials, unknown from sites of the West
Coast culture type, also suggest cultural ties to the Strait of Georgia.
Along with the earliest levels at Shoemaker Bay I and the Hoko River
welldry site on the Olympic Peninsula, Little Beach has been placed in the
Locarno Beach culture type (Arcas Consulting Archeologists 1991), generally
dated to about 3300 to 2400 B.P. (Mitchell 1990; Matson and Coupland 1995).
This major stage in the culture history of the Strait of Georgia region is
characterized by such artifacts as thick faceted ground slate points, large leafshaped chipped stone points, and labrets (Mitchell 1971, 1990), as well as cairn
burials and other midden inhumations (Matson and Coupland 1995:161). c he
Little Beach materials closely fit this description and the site clearly would have
been classified as a Locarno Beach component if located in the Strait of Georgia
region. Initial dates of 4000 B.P. for both Little Beach and Shoemaker Bay,
however, indicate that if these are Locarno Beach components than this culture
20pen-oceanfauna identified in Shoemaker Bay deposits that are unlikely to have been
available at the end of the long Alberni Inlet include whales (species unidentified), California
sea lion, northern f u r seals, bluefin tuna, sea urchins, and California mussel.
type has its earliest known manifestations on the west coast of Vancouver
Island rather than in the Strait of Georgia.
Other archaeological discoveries in Barkley Sound have suggested strong
links to the Strait of Georgia in earlier times. An undated private collection from
a site in Ohiaht territory near Bamfield (DeSg 10)includes chipped leaf-shaped
and contracting-stem projectile points, chipped pebbles, rectangular celts, and
shaped abrasive stones. A review by Mackie (1992), based on collections and
records of the Royal British Columbia Museum, identified numerous artifacts
found in Nuu-chah-nulth territory, including many flaked stone implements,
that seem out of place in the culture history as it is understood from sites such
as Yuquot. These anomalous items include a chipped obsidian leaf-shaped
projectile point from the head of Ucluelet Inlet, a quartz "whatzit"(Gulf Islands
complex artifact) from Tofino, and a zoomorphic carved stone bowl from Meares
Island in Clayoquot Sound. The trench embankment site (DfSg 3) at Bamfield is
also unique in Nuu-chah-nulthterritory, while such sites are relatively common
in the Strait of Georgia.
Such traits, however, may not be totally out of place in sites of the West
Coast culture type. Excavations at both the defensive earthwork and its
associated village yielded only late prehistoric materials of the West Coast
culture type (see Chapter 3). Chipped stone objects also occur in late period
West Coast sites, although they are relatively rare. A jasper projectile point
fragment, quartz crystal microblade, several cores and a pebble tool came from
Hesquiat Village (Haggarty 1982). A number of small chipped pebbles and a
pebble tool were excavated at Kupti (McMillan 1969), and several of the
Toquaht sites have yielded flake tools (McMillan and St. Claire 1992). Pebble
tools, cortex spall tools, piece esquillees, and heavy ground slate knives are also
I
reported for the Ozette midden, in an assemblage interpreted as ancestral to the
historic Ozette people (McKenzie 1974). Chipped stone points are also reported
for the late period Hoko River rockshelter (Wigen and Stucki 1988:90). In
addition, a thin piece of polished ground stone from Zone I a t Yuquot has been
identified a possible labret fragment (Dewhirst 1980:322).
The Nootka Sound discoveries of chipped bifaces and flakes in intertidal
contexts may also be interpreted in ways other than as eroded early deposits.
As indicated above, chipped stone artifacts are not unknown even in quite late
West Coast sites. Also, many of the beaches where bifaces and other chipped
stone objects have been found have also yielded small pebble celts of a form
characteristic of the West Coast culture type. A good example occurs at DkSo
30, where over a hundred lithic implements were recorded in the intertidal zone
in 1991 (Marshall 1992a, 1993) and 1993 (Arcas Consulting Archeologists
1993). These include several bifaces, numerous flakes and cores of basalt, a
small basalt blade core, and almost twenty celts, primarily of the round-polled
pebble celt variety. Perhaps the most likely interpretation is that the celts were
deposited as part of later use of the beach in front of this site, and that they
post-date the flaked implements. Marshall (19931, however, argues that these
beach assemblages may indeed be roughly contemporaneous and were deposited
directly on the beach surface as part of activities carried out at that location.
The numerous celts, plus evidence that this was a particularly important area
for gathering cedar in historic times, suggests that woodworking was the
activity involved. In this argument, chipped stone tools can be,placed within
evolving Nuu-chah-nulth culture as part of a specialized toolkit, which would be
absent from such village locations as Yuquot.
The Toquaht site of Ch'uumat'a is well situated to cast light on such
questions. With deposits that span the period from about 3900 to 200 B.P.,
Ch'uumat'a provides evidence of equivalent age to Little Beach, only a short
distance away. Of the four units excavated at this site, however, only one at the
back of the site encountered deposits that are this early. TWOmore central units
have basal dates around 2300 to 2500 B.P., while one closer to the beach
contains only much younger deposits (see Chapter 3). Table 13 lists all artifact
types from levels predating 2000 B.P. at Ch'uumat'a. Chipped stone artifacts,
including a large leaf-shaped biface, are fairly common (14.4% of the total), with
most consisting of a cluster of chert flakes found at levels dating between about
2000 and 2300 B.P. (Figure 22). Several ground slate fragments include the tip
of a thick faceted projectile point. Two celts include a small nephrite fragment
and an extensively shaped, flat-polled example, both unlike celts from equivalent
periods at Yuquot. The assemblage, however, is dominated by small bone points
and bipoints (46.6%),along with bone awls (12.7%),typical of later periods and
of the West Coast culture type. In all, bone artifacts comprise 76% of the total,
compared to 25% at Little Beach. Even restricting the comparison to the lower
levels in the back unit, which would be contemporaneous with the Little Beach
midden, does not appreciably change this picture. The small sample of artifacts
from these oldest deposits contains a piece esquilke, a chipped slate fragment,
several ground slate fragments, and an abrasive stone, but small bone points
were still the most common artifact type.
The chipped stone and faceted ground slate point fragment from the early
levels of Ch'uumat'a suggest ties to the contemporaneous occupation at Little
Beach. Such objects seem less anomalous in the Ch'uumat'a sequence, however,
Table 13
Ch'uumat'a Artifacts Predating 2000 B.P.
no.
stone
chipped chert detritus
leaf-shaped projectile point
chipped slate
piece esquillde
hammerstone
ground slate
celts
abrasive stones
14
1
1
1
1
3
2
4
bone
points, bipoints, pointed fragments
awls
needles
harpoon valves
barbed point fragment
ground faceted bone disks
misc. worked bone, including whalebone
55
15
3
2
1
2
12
shell
dentalium bead
totals
118
as the most common artifact classes (bone points, bipoints and awls) are those
that dominate the West Coast culture type. Some items not found a t Yuquot,
such as ground slate points, occur in small numbers in much later Toquaht sites
and may simply represent regional variation in the culture type. Much of Little
Beach's distinctive nature may be attributable to its status as a burial site.
Fig. 22. Lithic artifacts fiom pre-2000 B.P. levels at Ch'uumat'a. (left, chipped
biface; centre, green chert detrius, including a reworked possible "piercer"at
top; right, tip of faceted ground slate point, ground slate fragment).
Sand Point and the Hoko River wevdry site on the Olympic Peninsula
also overlap in time with early Ch'uumat'a materials. Chipped stone dominates
the artifact assemblage at both sites, although Sand Point also had a number of
small bone points and bipoints, as well as a bone fishhook shank. Bone and
antler are not preserved at Hoko River, but such distinctive lithic artifact types
as chipped projectile points, thick ground slate points, small rectangular celts,
and quartz crystal microblades place this site within the Locarno Beach culture
type. Hierarchical cluster analysis, using lithic artifact variables only, links
Hoko River most closely with Montague Harbour I and Georgeson Bay I, two
Locarno Beach components in the Gulf Islands, as well as with Shoemaker Bay
I (Croes 1992b3344). As discussed in Chapter 3, however, Croes and
Hnckenberger (1988) argue that such "culture types," defined primarily on the
basis of stone and bone artifacts, are better understood as broad plateaus in
economic adaptation, with little insight into cultural affiliation or ethnicity. At
sites such as Hoko River, where water-saturated deposits have preserved plant
fibre artifacts, basketry and cordage styles are thought to provide the most
compelling insights into cultural affiliation (Bernick 1987; Croes 1987, 1989,
1993). Such comparisons link Hoko River perishables with those a t the much
later Ozette site and with historic Makah basketry, while Strait of Georgia
basketry of the same age as Hoko is markedly different. This raises the question
of whether any cultural identification based on stone tool types is valid. Would
the Little Beach site, for example, be excluded from Nuu-chah-nulth culture
history if basketry and other perishable artifacts were preserved?
The whole question of ethnic identification in the past raises major
theoretical issues for archaeologists. Whether distinct ethnolinguistic groups
can be detected in the archaeological record is a moot point, and many
researchers have questioned any direct correlation of such units with specific
material culture items (see, for example, Hodder 1982; Weissner 1983; also
Fladmark 1986:48). Nevertheless, with caution, the culture history of some
historic ethnolinguistic groups can be extended a considerable distance into the
past through demonstrated continuity in the archaeological record. Dewhirst
(1978, 1980) makes such a convincing case for Yuquot, leading Mitchell (1990)
to characterize the West Coast culture type as the material record of Nuuchah-nulth culture history. Such ethnic continuity is not necessarily the case in
the Strait of Georgia, however, where greater change over time is evident in the
archaeological record. While Mitchell (1971,1990),Carlson (1983b, 1990), and
Carlson and Hobler (1993) stress lengthy cultural continuity, Burley and
Beattie (1987) argue for population replacement around 2400 B.P., at the
interface between the Locarno Beach and Marpole culture types. Sites such as
Shoemaker Bay and, less certainly, Little Beach can be linked culturally with
the Strait of Georgia, but are not necessarily "Salishan."
The so-called "Salishan hypothesis" for Barkley Sound, although it cannot
be convincingly sustained on present evidence, presents some intriguing
possibilities. The cultural ties to the Strait of Georgia demonstrated for the
Alberni Valley likely extended, at least to some degree, down Alberni Inlet and
into Barkley Sound. Little Beach presents interesting evidence that this was
indeed the case. At a more speculative level, this could be tied to linguistic
suggestions that Nuu-chah-nulth origins were further north on Vancouver
Island, allowing the possibility that Barkley Sound was occupied by populations
culturally linked to the Strait of Georgia prior to Nuu-chah-nulth expansion
south. The Toquaht, at the western end of Barkley Sound, hold the territory
which would have been first occupied by any such movement into the sound.
Sproat's (1868:19) early observation that the other Barkley Sound groups
considered the Toquaht to be the original population, "the tribe f'rom which the
others sprung," takes on new meaning when viewed in this perspective.
Unfortunately, excavation at Ch'uumat'a failed to provide evidence which would
allow conclusive assessment of this scenario, and the cultural affinities of sites
such as Little Beach remain uncertain.
Emergence of the Ethnographic Pattern
Even for the earliest deposits at Yuquot, Dewhirst (1980) and Mitchell
(1990) maintain that the Nuu-chah-nulth ethnographic pattern was in place.
While some changes in artifact forms occurred over time, Dewhirst (1980:336)
argues that this only reinforces the picture of cultural continuity, as more
complex artifact forms emerge from earlier simpler versions. Large, rockrimmed firepits, found in lower and middle Zone I1 levels, were frequently
superimposed, suggesting that their spatial location was constrained, such as
would occur if they had been built inside a permanent structure (Dewhirst
1980:46-51).Dewhirst (1980) and Folan (1972) interpret this as evidence of a
large multi-family house similar to those known historically. Presumably this
structure had a permanent framework, which was clad with split cedar planks
in the ethnographic fashion. The location of the excavation trench within the
centre of this presumed house area would explain why no large post molds were
encountered. Small stake holes around several of the firepits and concentrations
of small fire-cracked beach stones in the pits suggest the historic cooking
practices of roasting food over the fire and boiling it in wooden containers, using
rocks from the fire to heat the water. Both techniques can be seen in the famous
drawing by John Webber, showing the inside of a Nuu-chah-nulth house at
Yuquot in 1778 (Cook 1784;Arima 1983:63;Arima and Dewhirst 1990:398).
Even from this earliest period, the economy of these west coast peoples
was strongly maritime. With the exception of Shoemaker Bay, all of the earliest
sites (Yuquot, Little Beach, Ch'uumat'a, Wayatch) are on the open ocean. Few
faunal remains are preserved from Zone I at Yuquot, but Zone 11 was dominated
by a variety of fish species, as well as such open-ocean fauna as northern fur
I
I
seal and albatross. Fish elements also dominate the faunal remains from Little
Beach and Ch'uumat'a. Whalebone was found in considerable quantities in these
sites, but is not necessarily evidence for active whaling, as artifacts clearly
associated with whaling do not appear until later. The abundance of whalebone
in archaeological deposits, however, suggests that whales were important in the
economy and the use of whalebone to cap burials at Little Beach suggests that
this importance might have extended into the symbolic realm. Unfortunately,
little else can be said for this early period. Faunal analysis for Yuquot remains
incomplete, particularly for fish and mammals. Only an incomplete preliminary
analysis exists for Little Beach fauna (Arcas Consulting Archeologists 1991:3234), while faunal analysis at Ch'uumat'a is only in initial stages (Monks 1992).
The early date from Wayatch is from a road cut and is not associated with any
excavated data. By the end of this period, at around 2000 B.P., the great
numbers of fur seal elements at Sand Point and in the lowest levels at Ozette
confirm the highly maritime nature of early occupants in the Makah area.
Procurement technology for sea mammals consisted of harpoons with
bilaterally barbed whalebone heads. Three such implements came from the
middleportion of Zone I1 at Yuquot, from near a firepit dated around 2000 B.P.
(Dewhirst 1980:290, 341). A similar example came from Ch'uumat'a, although
from somewhat later deposits. Composite toggling harpoon heads, with selfarmed valves or simple valves with wedge-based arming points, were also in use.
These appear to be too small for larger sea mammals and may have been
primarilyfor salmon. Other fish were taken on hooks, with bone or wooden
shanks and bone barbs. Many of the numerous small bone points in collections
from all sites in this area functioned in such a fashion. The large quantity of
wooden fishhooks preserved in the waterlogged deposits at Hoko River, however,
show that not all fishhooks had bone barbs (Hoff 1980; Croes 1992a). Slender
bipoints, also numerous in these sites, were baited and used as gorges,
ethnographically for taking diving ducks as well as fish (Drucker 1951:34).
Despite the very maritime nature of adaptation at West Coast sites from
earliest times, some use was made of inland resources. Coast deer make up a
substantial portion of the faunal remains from all time periods a t Yuquot
(Dewhirst 1979). Recent evidence for hunting marmot (Marmota
vancouverensis), a creature of the alpine and upper sub-alpine meadows which
rarely descends to lower elevations, shows human use of the Vancouver Island
mountains at this early period. Although Shoemaker Bay is the only excavated
village site on Vancouver Island with marmot remains, several high-altitude
caves inland in Nuu-chah-nulth territory have been discovered with clusters of
marmot bones showing cut marks. Radiocarbon dates of 2490 + 50 and 2630 +
50 B.P. have been obtained on cut marmot bones from a cave on the Clayoquot
Plateau, a t an elevation of 1220 m asl, in the mountains behind Clayoquot
Sound (Nagorsen,Keddie and Luszcz n.d.; Arcas Consulting Archeologists and
Archeotech Associates 1994:47-48; Keddie, pers. comm. 1995).
The period beginning around 3300 B.P., corresponding to the Locarno
Beach culture type in the Strait of Georgia, has been seen by a number of
recent researchers as crucial in the development of the ethnographic pattern on
the Northwest Coast (Croes and Hackenberger 1988; Croes 1992b; Matson
1992; Matson and Coupland 1995). In computer simulation modeling based on
Hoko River data, Croes and Hackenberger (1988) project that population
growth in the preceding St. Mungo stage reached the area's carrying capacity.
The development of storage techniques then allowed continued population
growth and marked the beginning of the next economic plateau, the Locarno
Beach stage (Croes 1992b:343). At Hoko River the major resource for
intensification and production of a stored surplus was flatfish (particularly
halibut and petrale sole). In this argument, intensification of salmon fishing,
which may have been "given too much credit in this evolutionary process"
(Croes 1992b:351),occurred later, after the storage technology was already in
place.3
Based on his work at Crescent Beach in the Strait of Georgia, Matson
(1992) also argues for the development of large-scale storage techniques at the
beginning of the Locarno Beach period. Salmon was the dominant resource at
this site from Locarno Beach times on; no evidence of a pre-salmon flatfish
storage period was detected (Matson 1992:422; Matson and Coupland
1995:245). This may simply represent intensification based on suitable local
species in two different environmental settings, or may indicate that flatfish
were being processed in a way that did not leave a discernible archaeological
trace. Evidence for salmon storage in the Locarno Beach and Marpole stages at
Crescent Beach comes from under-representation of salmor, cranial elements,
indicating that these fish were procured and processed elsewhere and brought to
this site as dried food. Older deposits at Crescent Beach have fewer salmon
remains and these include cranial elements. Matson (1992:423) confidently
concludes that "we appear to be on the verge of being able to say with certainty
that the Northwest Coast salmon-storage economy came into being during the
3500-3000 BP period." Not all researchers would accept this relatively late date,
however; Cannon (1991:61, 64), for example, maintains on more tenuous
evidence that salmon storage was a feature of the economy at Namu since at
least about 7000 B.P.
3 Monks (1987),who coined the phrase "salmonopia",similarly attacks a preoccupation with
salmon among Northwest Coast archaeologists.
181
A storage-based economy is thought to have allowed higher population
levels and the development of the full Northwest Coast ethnographic pattern.
Considerable agreement now exists that social stratification emerged only after
salmon specialization and storage techniques were in place (Croes and
Hackenberger 1988; Matson 1992;Matson and Coupland 1995), although these
may have continued t o be "mutually reinforcing" (Ames 1981:798).
Archaeological indicators of social distinctions include labrets and the enigmatic
"Gulf Islands complex artifacts," which adorned the face through holes in the
nose, lips or ears, conveying messages regarding the personal status of the
wearer (Dahm 1994). Marked social distinctions may have characterized the
Strait of Georgia region as early as about 4000 B.P. (Carlson and Hobler
1993:45; Dahm 1994:107).Status indicators, however, do not necessarily mark
the full Northwest Coast pattern of hierarchical ranking based on birth (Ames
1981:797), something that may not have been achieved in the Strait of Georgia
until Marpole times (Burley 1980;Burley and Knusel1989).
Possible evidence of distinctions in social status a t Hoko River comes
from the presence of preserved knob-topped hats, as well as conical flat-topped
hats, in the waterlogged deposits (Croes 199213; Croes and Hackenberger
1988:77). Knob-topped hats historically identified members of the upper class
among the Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah. If, by analogy, the hat styles a t Hoko
River can be interpreted as demonstrating similar social distinctions, then
individuals who owned and managed resources and territories on behalf of
extended familyunits were a feature of west coast life by almost 3000 years
ago. Zoomorphic carving in wood, such as on a number of barbed wooden
projectile points from Hoko, might also, more speculatively, reflect early social
distinctions, as emerging elites manipulated symbols to demonstrate ties to the
supernatural world. Such a process, termed "ritual promotion," is a common
phenomenon in the emergence of ranked societies (Ames 1981:800; l994:Z 12).
Little evidence of such social distinctions can be found in sites of the West
Coast culture type. Lack of preservation of wood and basketry has removed
much of the evidence, and the general unimportance of stone in the technology
means that many of the key artifact types in the Strait of Georgia region do not
occur here. Several fragments of whalebone clubs, tentatively identified at Little
Beach and from lower Zone 11 at Yuquot, may possibly have status implications.
A handle fragment from Yuquot with a carved zoomorphic image is one of the
few decorated artifacts found at this site. Among the historic Nuu-chah-nulth, a
carved whalebone club was the badge of offke of the war chief (Drucker
195l:335).
The models of intensification and storage presented for Hoko River and
Crescent Beach cannot be fully evaluated at West Coast sites. Detailed faunal
analyses are essential to detect such processes in the archaeological record, and
none have been completed on West Coast sites of this age. The models that
have been derived from nearby regions, however, were intended to have some
application to the entire Northwest Coast, although the extent and tempo of
change would vary at the local and regional level. The people of the West Coast
culture type should not be seen as living in an isolated and marginal
environment, contrary to the views of some early anthropologists (see Chapter
2), but would have been participants in broad economic developments that
occurred along the coast. Salmon may not have played the vital role that it did
in the Strait of Georgia region, as good salmon rivers were scarce and valued
commodities, providing much of the incentive for later inter-group hostilities
(Swadesh 1948). Maritime resources seem to have been sufficient, however, to
allow the degree of sedentism suggested at Yuquot, where superimposed hearth
features and other indications of house deposits suggest the presence of large
permanent structures in early Zone I1 deposits, dating roughly from 3000 to
2000 B.P. The continuity seen at Yuquot suggests to Dewhirst (1978, 1980) and
others (Folan 1972; Mitchell 1990) that the ethnographic pattern of resource
use was in place early in the archaeological record for western Vancouver
Island.
As discussed above, few West Coast sites significantly predate 2000 B.P.
Evidence for increased population in Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah territories
comes from a number of additional sites which were first occupied around this
date and continuedin use into historic times. The more complete archaeological
record available from these later sites gives fidler evidence of the evolution of
the ethnographicpattern, as is outlined in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 5:
THE LATE WEST COAST CULTURE TYPE
A larger number of sites and fuller range of data allow a more complete
understanding of West Coast life in the final two millennia prior to contact with
Europeans. With this more extensive information, archaeological reconstructions can approach "ethnographies of the past," including social and ideological
dimensions. The humanistic nature of "holistic archaeology" promotes the
investigation of past belief systems and other symbolic aspects of culture.
Ethnographic accounts of the Nuu-chah-nulth are used as a framework against
which to assess archaeological data, allowing the recent past to be evaluated in
terms of evolving Nuu-chah-nulth culture, consistent with the "direct historic
approach" advocated by Trigger.
By 2000 B.P. the initial occupants had settled a t Ozette and Neah Bay,
two villages which persisted into modern times. The earliest evidence of
occupation in Ditidaht territory, based on dates from two sites on lower Nitinat
Lake, is a few centuries earlier. By 1800 B.P. there is evidence of initial
occupation at Macoah in Barkley Sound and at DiSo 9, a habitation cave in
Hesquiat Harbour, followed at 1500 B.P. by settlement at Chesterman Beach.
An expansion in the number of dated settlements occurs around 1200 B.P., with
the earliest dates from Kupti, Hesquiat Village, T'ukw'aa, and Aguilar Point,
followed prior to 1000 B.P. by Tsoo-yes and Tatoosh Island. Once established, all
continued as occupied villages into historic times. In addition, the earlier sites of
Yuquot and Ch'uumat'a, discussed in the previous chapter, continued as
occupied villages through this period. See Chapter 3 for locations and details of
radiocarbon dates.
This chapter examines evidence of the West Coast culture type from
roughly 2000 to 200 B.P., terminating with the initial contact between
indigenous West Coast peoples and the European explorers and traders of the
late 18th century. All the defining traits of the West Coast culture type as
outlined by Mitchell (1990) were characteristic of this period, although not all
date to its inception. Throughout the area, the archaeological remains reflect the
culture history of the Nuu-chah-nulthpeople.
Subsistence and Settlement
Settlement Patterns
The considerable increase in the number of dated sites in Nuu-chah-nulth
and Makah territories indicates population increase and expansion after 2000
B.P., with the pace becoming more rapid after about 1500 B.P. The location of
these sites on the outer coast and in the major sounds suggests that maritimeadapted populations were expanding along the outer coast. Excavated data also
indicate increased efficiencyof adaptation to open-ocean resources at this time.
Dewhirst (1980) notes this as a general feature of his Late Period, corresponding
to Zone I11 deposits at Yuquot, which is dated to after about 1200 B.P. The key
technological indicators he uses to argue for greater maritime adaptation include
large toggling valves for composite harpoon heads, which would have been
armed with points of ground mussel shell and used in whaling, and stone shanks
for composite fishhooks, of the type used ethnographically for open-ocean
salmon trolling. Although such stone fishhook shanks occur late in the Late
Period at Yuquot, they are found at all four Toquaht sites, dating to about 1200
B.P. a t Ch'uumat'a. Based primarily on the Nootka Sound data, Marshall
(1993:40) has argued for widespread changes in settlement pattern along the
outer coast between about 1500 and 1000 B.P. The small number of sites
excavated and dated, however, renders the nature and timing of such a shift
somewhat speculative. Recent radiocarbon dates suggest that this shift was
well underway somewhat earlier than this estimate and was largely in place by
about 1200 B.P.
Whaling may have been the key adaptation which allowed this relatively
late population expansion along the outer coast. According to traditions reported
by Drucker (1951:49),whaling originated among two outer coast groups in
northern Nuu-chah-nulth territory, on the outside of Nootka Island and outside
Esperanza Inlet. Both groups were year-round occupants of the outer coast and
lacked access to salmon streams, instead adopting whaling' as an economic
mainstay. The lengthy continuity evident in the archaeological record at Yuquot,
plus evidence of an increasing adaptation to maritime resources over time,
supports the ethnographic tradition that reliable whale hunting techniques
developed in situ in the general region of Nootka Sound. Once established in
northern Nuu-chah-nulthterritory, such whaling techniques would have allowed
greater population concentrations on the outer coast and fostered the spread of
Nuu-chah-nulth people along the coast to the south. Marshall (1993:138, 143)
argues for such a Nuy-chah-nulth expansion south along the outer coast and
islands, which would have been lightly populated prior to that development, and
for population replacement in Barkley Sound. Similarly, Arima (1988:23; Arima
et al. 1991:289) attributes the Ditidaht and Makah occupation of their historic
homelands to their mastery of effective whaling techniques and consequent
shifts in their settlement pattern. The importance of whaling in the evolution of
Nuu-chah-nulth culture is explored further in the next section.
Sites on the outer coast are frequently large, with deep midden deposits
suggesting fairly continuous occupation from the initial settlement. Yuquot is
the largest of the excavated Nuu-chah-nulth sites, but even larger examples,
such as the Tla-o-qui-aht village of Opitsat (DhS1 11)in Clayoquot Sound, are
known. T'ukw'aa also is impressive in the extent and depth of its deposits. In
Makah territory, the huge site of Ozette is by far the largest. Excavated data
are highly biased toward these large outer coast sites. Of the 24 excavated sites
with dates between 2000 and 600 B.P., 15 are on or near the open ocean coast.
A n additional six are in the upper sounds or harbours, two are on lower Nitinat
Lake, and only one, the Shoemaker Bay site, is on an inlet, although this site
appears to be unrelated to Nuu-chah-nulth culture history. Regional surveys
show that the sites along the inlets have a very different pattern, consisting of
numerous small and medium settlements, often with quite shallow deposits
(Marshall 1993:114, 137; McMillan 1981:91). These tend to be located in
proximity to specific resources, such as salmon streams, and reflect seasonal
economic activities. The outer coast sites, by contrast, show a more generalized
resource base and their locations are primarily determined by ease of access
and shelter from rough water and storms.
The antiquity of the ethnographic settlement pattern has been a subject
of contention among researchers in this area. The widespread Nuu-chah-nulth
pattern documented in the ethnographies involved seasonal movement between
"outer"locations, providing access to such important open-ocean resources as
whales, sea lions, fur seals, and halibut, and "inner"settlements, with their rich
salmon rivers and streams. Warfare, alliance, and confederation were the
ethnographic strategies to obtain rights to locations in both environmental
settings. Dewhirst (1980:15) maintains that groups which occupied only one
type of environment would have been subject to extreme hardships, and that
the historic pattern of seasonal movement between inner and outer locations
was a long-established one in Nootka Sound. Other researchers (Calvert 1980;
Haggarty 1982; Inglis and Haggarty 1986; St. Claire 1991), however, trace the
ubiquitous nature of this settlement pattern among the Nuu-chah-nulth to the
depopulation caused by early historic epidemics, which forced political
amalgamations of surviving groups and the emergence of the seasonal round as
a consequence of holding a much larger consolidated territory. Calvert's (1980)
detailed faunal analysis of three sites in Hesquiat Harbour documents yearroundoccupation and indicates that access to different local habitats accounts
for most of the assemblage variation between sites. The numerous large shell
midden sites recorded by intensive survey in the Broken Group islands of
Barkley Sound (Haggarty and Inglis 1985; Inglis and Haggarty 1986) also
suggest the former presence of many separate polities resident in year-round
villages exploiting local resources within socially constrained territories. A
similar pattern is emerging in Makah territory, where faunal analyses indicate
that the seasonal "winter villages" described by Swan (1870) were actually
occupied for much or all of the year (Huelsbeck and Wessen 1995). Some people
undoubtedly left temporarily for seasonal camps associated with specific
economic resources, but a relatively permanent resident population seems to
w e been characteristic of the larger communities.
The development of political confederacies brought a change in
settlement pattern to the northern groups sometime just prior to or
immediately following European contact. Confederated polities maintained their
distinct tribal identities, with separate winter villages and seasonal resource
sites, but aggregated in large populations at outer coast villages such as Yuquot
during the summer months (Drucker 1951; Mitchell 1983). Morgan (1980) has
pointed out that these confederated polities developed in areas of limited
availability of salmon, suggesting that confederation was a strategy to obtain
access to a wider range of resource territories. Whaling also may have played a
role, facilitating the distribution of large quantities of meat and blubber to an
assembled population at outer coast locations during the summer (Mitchell
1983:104-106). Groups to the south of Nootka Sound, with access to more
abundant salmon resources, never developed confederated polities, retaining the
winter villages as the largest population aggregates.
Marshall (1993:131)maintains that a distinctive West Coast settlement
pattern can be distinguished in the archaeological landscape. Much of her
argument is based on her survey and mapping fieldwork in Nootka Sound
(Marshall 1992a), but~comparisonsare made to the results of surveys in
southern Clayoquot Sound (Arcas Associates 1988; Mackie 1983) and Pacific
Rim National Park (Haggarty and Inglis 1985; Inglis and Haggarty 1986). She
divides recorded habitation sites into five classes, from Very Small to Very
Large (Table 14). Small and Medium sites are characteristically the most
numerous. Large sites are relatively rare and Very Large sites even more so.
Large and Very Large sites, characteristically exhibiting platforms, ridges, and
other surface features marking the former presence of large house structures,
tend to be on or near the outer coast, while Very Small sites, representing
specific economic activity locations, are most common on islands in the sounds.
An exception to the general pattern occurs in Hesquiat Harbour, where Very
Small sites, many in rockshelters, comprise 65% of the total (Marshall
1993:126, 127).
Results of the Toquaht Project survey can be compared to these findings
(Table 14).The long exposed coastline of western Barkley Sound that makes up
most of Toquaht territory (Figure 4) provides few protected locations for
settlement. Only 51 sites were recorded in the survey area, of which 14 (27.5%)
are habitation sites. This contrasts markedly with the nearby Broken Group
islands in central Barkley Sound, where numerous sheltered locations contained
a total of 163 sites, of which 80 (49%)are habitation sites (Inglis and Haggarty
1986:242-243). Three of the Toquaht habitation sites have been largely
destroyed and their former dimensions are unknown, leaving only 11 to be
classified. T'ukw'aa, at roughly 12,000 m2, is the largest site in Toquaht
territory, although it does not qualify with Yuquot ,(at24,000 m2) for Marshall's
Very Large category. Table 14 compares settlement pattern data for southern
Clayoquot Sound, Long Beach and the Broken Group (two sections of Pacific
Rim National Park, on each side of the Toquaht), and Toquaht territory. Site
lengths were used as a guide to site size for the Pacific Rim and Toquaht
surveys, while Clayoquot Sound sites were classified by total site area. The size
classes used follow those established by Marshall (1993:126). Although site
numbers are very small, the Toquaht data fit the general pattern characteristic
of other Nuu-chah-nulth regions. The exposed coastline has resulted in a much
smaller total number of sics, but the proportions of size classes are roughly the
same.
Table 14
Settlement Size Distributions - Clayoquot Sound, Long Beach, Broken Group
Islands, and Toquaht Territory
Length
Range
Class
I Site ~ o t a l sI
Clayoquot
Sound*
Long
Beach *
Broken
Group*
Toquaht
Territory
I
1125
1 34
111
1
* data from Marshall 1993:126
Whaling
As discussed in Chapter 2, the whaling practices of the Nuu-chah-nulth,
Ditidaht, and Makah posed a fascinating problem for early researchers. The
limited distribution of whaling on the Northwest Coast and the numerous
similarities with Eskimo-Aleut groups in Alaska led to proposed models of an
early broad coastal continuum, later broken by arrival of the more northerly
Northwest Coast groups (Lantis 1938; Borden 1951; Drucker 1955a). In this
view, the Nuu-chah-nulth people became isolated and marginal survivors of an
earlier way of life, retaining whaling as part of a much earlier coastal
adaptation. As such diffusionist explanations gradually lost their hold on
anthropological thought, whaling came to be seen as an ingenious innovation,
developed indigenously by these open-ocean peoples. The timing of this
development, however, still causes some debate.
In the ethnographic traditions, whaling emerged among the "outside"
people of Nootka Island and Esperanza Inlet in response to food shortages.
Whaling then provided a secure food supply similar to salmon for the "inside"
groups (Drucker 1951:49). This view gives temporal priority to an "inside",
salmon-based economy. Dewhirst (1977, 1978, 1980) reinforces this view in his
interpretations based on Yuquot. Whaling is seen as a late development,
occurring as part of general trend toward more a more maritime adaptation.
Other researchers, however, have questioned this picture. In a review of Nuuchah-nulth site distribution, Haggarty and Inglis (1983:16) conclude: "The
pattern that emerges is one of emphasis on the outside with scheduling to
exploit the inside on a seasonal basis." In the Broken Group islands of Barkley
Sound, for example, numerous large shell middens suggest lengthy year-round
occupation, while the small shallow sites which dominate the inlets and other
inner locations reflect relatively recent and limited seasonal use (Inglis and
Haggarty 1986; McMillan and St. Claire 1982). It now appears that prior to
early historic disruptions in political structure and settlement pattern, most of
the large outside settlements were occupied for much or all of the year. Reliable
access to whales would have been a key aspect in effective occupation of the
outer coast.
Some use of whale products characterizes the entire archaeological
record in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. Whalebone was recovered from all zones at
Yuquot, although it was not abundant (Dewhirst 1977; 1979:6). Whalebone
artifacts and fragments occur "in significant quantities" a t Yuquot a t least as
early as 3000 B.P. (Dewhirst 19785). The presence of a whale barnacle
(Coronula regime), which is found on the flesh of the humpback whale, in Zone I1
deposits a t Yuquot indicates that such whales were being consumed by about
2200 B.P. (Dewhirst 1977:15; Dewhirst and Fournier 1980:lOO).Whalebone also
came from the deepest deposits at Ch'uurnat'a and from Little Beach, where its
association with cairn burials argues for considerable importance in the culture,
placing use of whales as early as nearly 4000 B.P. Concentrations of whalebone
occurred throughout the Ozette midden trench (McKenzie 1974), in deposits
spanning roughly the last 1500 years. Whalebone also occurred frequently at
Tukw'aa and makes up a major portion of the faunal remains from Hesquiat
Village, both occupied over the last 1200 years. In fact, whalebone is found in
almost all excavated faunal assemblages of any size in the study area, including
at the end of the long Alberni Inlet, at the Shoemaker Bay site (McMillan and
St. Claire 1982).Whalebone was so abundant in the late period Ozette house
deposits that Huelsbeck (1988b) refers to whales as "the most important food
resource of the Ozettes."
The whales represented by the bones in the Ozette house deposits had
clearly been hunted by harpooning, using large toggling harpoon heads in the
ethnographic fashion. The thin lines of mussel shell evident on a number of the
whalebones are the still-embedded remnants of the harpoon cutting blades
(Huelsbeck 1994:281; Fisken 1994:367). Complete harpoon heads with mussel
shell cutting blades, still in their protective sheaths or pouches, along with
harpoon shafts and line, were found with other items that were in the excavated
Ozette house when the mudslide struck (Kirk and Daugherty 1974:128-9;
Huelsbeck 1994:280). Huelsbeck (1994:302) concludes that the "pattern of
[whale] procurement was essentially unchanged throughout the last 2000
years." The basis for this claim is not clear, however, as all the unambiguous
evidence for whaling comes from the late period house deposits.
Dead whales that floated ashore, commonly known as "drift whales," were
important sources of meat and oil for the historic Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah.
Chiefs jealously guarded their drift rights to anything that washed up on the
beaches of their territories (Drucker 195l:39; Arima 1983:23), and bitter
intertribal disputes over dead whales occasionally ensued (Sproat 1868:228;
Clamhouse et al. 1991:297). Rituals held to cause drift whales to wash ashore
involved secluded whalers' shrines, use of human corpses, and occasional
sacrifice of slaves (Drucker 1951:171-173; Arima 1983:24; Webster 1983:52).
All of the whalebone from earlier midden deposits at Ozette could have come
from drift whales, as is also true for whalebone a t early levels a t Yuquot,
Ch'uumat'a, and other sites. The ethnographic importance of drift whales,
however, is linked to the active pursuit of whales. Many of the drift whales that
washed up on beaches were animals that had been struck during active whaling,
subsequently dying of their wounds and washing ashore. Jewitt's account of
Mowachaht whaling indicates that whales struck and lost greatly exceeded
those taken (Drucker 1951:50). Thus even unsuccessful whaling increased the
chances of acquiring whales, and chiefs could benefit from the activities of
whalers in neighbouring communities. Prior to the development of whale hunting
techniques, drift whales would not have been as numerous as they were
historically, and occasional good fortune in finding a beached whale may not be
sufficient to account for the considerable number of whalebones in early midden
deposits.
Dewhirst (1977, 1978, 1980) argues that development of the full
ethnographic whale hunting technology did not occur until the Late Period at
Yuquot (after 1200 B.P.), when large composite toggling harpoon valves first
appeared. Most of the Yuquot valves, however, are too fragmentary to classify,
too small to have been used in whaling, or lack provenience; only one example
(Dewhirst 1980:Fig. 2221, incised with the punctate zigzag motif often seen on
ethnographic specimens, seems definitely to be a whaling harpoon. No such
large valves were found at Kupti, in the upper sound (McMillan 1969). Although
toggling harpoon valves were relatively common at Hesquiat Village and the
upper component of DiSo 9 in Hesquiat Harbour (Calvert 1980:135; Haggarty
1982:181), both dating to after 1200 B.P., only a few were the large slotted
valves meant to take a broad cutting blade as used for whaling. Six valves from
T'ukw'aa, which also dates to after 1200 B.P., were judged to be of a size and
type consistent with identification as whaling gear, as were two from
Ch'uumat'a, from levels dating within the last 1000 years. Slotted harpoon
valves, some large enough to have been used in whaling, were also found in the
middle and upper portions of the Ozette midden trench (McKenzie 1974).
The small number of defmite whaling harpoon heads recovered from these
sites indicates the difficulty in dating the advent of whaling by use of such
evidence. These artifacts are rare even in late prehistoric and early historic
deposits, when whaling was known to have been practiced. The harpoon heads
were carefidly treated and stored, with their effectiveness ritually enhanced
through incised designs representing the lightning serpent (biy'itl'iik), associated
in myth with the whaling activities of the Thunderbird (Sapir 1922:314). Such
valued implements would rarely be discarded in archaeological contexts, and
would be abundant only in such unusual circumstances as the Ozette house
floor. Also, it is possible that other types of harpoons were used in earlier times,
at least occasionally, to take whales. Dewhirst (1980) reports unilaterally and
bilaterally barbed harpoon heads, several of which are very large, from as early
as about 2000 B.P. Although these clearly would be less efficient than the later
large toggling harpoon heads, it is possible that whaling technology evolved over
time and that whales were occasionally being taken well before development of
the technology used ethnographically.
A major problem in assessing this issue is that the quantity of whalebone
in archaeological sites does not directly reflect the number of whales taken.
Whales were hauled onto the beaches, where they were butchered. Meat and
blubber were brought up to the village, as was the "saddle" area from the back
of the whale, which was taken to the whaler's house and ritually honoured (Swan
1870:21-22; Drucker 1951:178-180; Waterman 1920:46; Arima 1983:43). No
special treatment was accorded the bones, which were discarded on the beach
(Waterman 1920:47). Their presence in the site reflects cultural activities not
directly related to the food quest. Many were selected as raw material for tool
manufacture; large pieces of whalebone with tool "blanks" removed were found
at Ozette (Huelsbeck 1994133284, 288; Fisken 1994:369) and T'ukw'aa. Virtually
all excavated sites contain artifacts of whalebone, which number over 1000 at
Ozette (Huelsbeck 1988b:7,1994b:271).In addition, whalebones were hauled up
to the village area to be used in various structural features. At Ozette,
whalebones were stacked up as retaining walls and were used with wooden
planks to line trenches for diverting water away from the houses (Huelsbeck
1994b:289; Samuels 1991:187; Mauger 1991:93). At T'ukw'aa, whalebone had
been dragged up to the top of the defensive site, where a complete whale scapula
was used to brace a small post in the shallow deposits above bedrock, and
several large whalebone alignments were found in the village area of the site
(McMillan and St. Claire 1992:135-6). Attempts may also have been made to
extract oil from whalebone, as quantities of chopped whalebone, not evidently
products of tool manufacture, were found at Ozette (Huelsbeck 1994b:300) and
Kupti (McMillan 1969:lOl). Finally, some whalebone in the village sites may
represent trophies of the successful hunt, as is likely for several whale skulls
stacked to the side of House 1at Ozette. Ethnographically, whalers attempted
to accumulate such memorials of their successes, beaching the whales in front
of the village to add their bones to those of previous kills (Drucker 1951:55;
Arima 1983:43) or attempting such feats as joining two islands with the bones
of their kills as monuments to their whaling prowess (St. Claire 1991:157).
While the whalebone in an archaeological site gives only a limited view
into the importance of whales in the diet, the actual meat and blubber taken
into the village leaves almost no archaeological trace. The only indication of their
presence comes from the occurrence of barnacles which live exclusively on the
skin of whales, primarily humpback. Their presence within the house deposits a t
Ozette indicates that whale products were being consumed in the houses. Whale
barnacles have also been identified at Yuquot (Fournier and Dewhirst 1980) and
Hesquiat Village (Calvert 1980:192). They give little indication of the total
quantity of meat and blubber consumed, however.
As most whalebone found in archaeological sites has been fragmented or
made into tools, relatively few elements can be identified to species. Only at
Ozette and the Toquaht sites of T'ukw'aa and Ch'uumat'a has whalebone
identification been made to the species level. At Ozette, the identifiable
whalebone was almost equally divided between California grey whales (50.5%)
and humpback (46.5%),with a small number of right (2.3%) and finback (0.7%)
whales (Huelsbeck 1994b3271). The latter two species were likely obtained as
opportunistic kills or as drift whales. Analysis of the excavated Toquaht data is
in process, but humpback whales are clearly the dominant species in the
whalebone identified (Monks, pers. comm. 1995). Humpback remains were
found at both Tukw'aa and Ch'uumat'a, including at the deepest levels of the
latter site. Grey whale and killer whale elements were also identified at Tukw'aa.
A small number of additional whalebones, as yet unidentified, suggest the
presence of additional species in the Toquaht sites.
Ethnographically, Swan (1870:19) and Waterman (1920:42) list seven
whale species known to the Makah, as does Drucker (1951:48-49)for the Nuuchah-nulth. Not all whales, however, were hunted. The California grey was the
species most commonly associated with Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah whaling
(Swan 1870:16; Waterman 1920; Swanson 1956; Curtis 1916:18; Arima
1983:38). I t appears seasonally, migrating along the coast each spring.
According to Drucker (1951:48),it was "thought to be running, just like salmon."
Similarly, Sapir (1924:80)states in a story of two Ditidaht whalers that "When
winter was over, the California whales began to run." Although their migration
takes them close to shore, the greys tend to stay on the outside coast, rarely
entering the sounds (Banfield 1974:271). Sapir's (1910-14) ethnographic work
with Nuu-chah-nulth informants documents their movements for Barkley
Sound. The whales crossed from Cape Beale through the outer Deer Group
islands in Ohiaht territory to the outer islands of the Broken Group, then up the
Ucluelet coast, not entering western Barkley Sound or Ucluelet Inlet. Tukw'aa
and the sites on the George Fraser Islands were well situated to intercept this
migration, but the Toquaht villages further into Barkley Sound were not.
Although often considered secondary to the grey, the humpback is also
identified as a major prey species in the ethnographic literature. It was hunted
during the summer when the seas were calm and most of the California greys
were gone (Sapir 1924; Drucker 1951:48). Their high oil content would make
them a more attractive resource than the greys, which were arriving on the
west coast after a prolonged period of fasting. This species is "rather docile and
. . . easily approached" and "one of the slower whales" (Badeld 1974:279).
Unlike the greys, the humpbacks frequently entered the bays and sounds to feed
on small fish, with some staying in Barkley Sound throughout the summer
months (Banfield 1974;Kool 1982; Cavanagh 1983). Dewhirst (1978:6) initially
speculated that humpbacks may have been the more common prey in earlier
times, a t least for the more northerly Nuu-chah-nulth, a position that Kool
(1982) has further documented. Depletion of humpback stocks by commercial
whaling in the 19th and early 20th centuries may have left so few humpbacks
that only the grey whales were remembered at the time most ethnographic data
were collected. When the Sechart whaling station opened in upper Barkley
Sound early in this century, it quickly and drastically reduced whale populations,
with humpbacks comprising the vast majority of the animals killed (Webb
1988).
In areas such as Barkley Sound, humpbacks may have provided a yearround resource, as some individuals are known to remain through the winter
(Cowan and Guiguet 1965:270). One of Sapir's Tseshaht informants, Frank
Williams, stated that the humpbacks went up the inlets feeding on herring in the
winter months. Specific accounts place the humpbacks in Alberni Inlet in
November, Uchucklesit Inlet in December, and Effingham Inlet in January and
February (Sapir 1910-14). The whales were so numerous that Williams
describes tapping the canoe thwarts to frighten them away while raking for
herring in Alberni and Effingham Inlets. Similarly, an early non-native settler
described his fears that the numerous whales in Effingham Inlet might capsize
his canoe (Kool 1982:34). Sapir (1910-14) also noted that the Uchucklesaht
were whalers, but that their hunt was restricted to Alberni Inlet and only in
winter, as they held no "outside"territory for summer whaling. The waters of
these protected bays and inlets are much calmer than the outer coast during
the winter months, and whaling in these narrow confines likely had a higher rate
of success than on the outer coast.
As a result of these facts, archaeological evidence of whaling in Barkley
Sound cannot be assumed to represent spring and summer activities, as implied
by the ethnographic record. Whales appear to have been available within the
sound for much or all of the year. Kool's (1982:43) hypothesis that a major
excavation in Barkley Sound would provide evidence that humpbacks were the
primary species exploited in precontact whaling is supported by the Toquaht
data. In contrast, Ozette is in a different environmental setting, on the outer
coast far from any major bays or inlets. Humpbacks and greys would both have
been available during their coastal migrations, and the two species are found in
roughlyequal numbers in the site. In these circumstances, whaling would have
been primarily a spring and summer activity. As Ozette was a year-round
village, however, and as small numbers of whales were present during much of
the year, whaling could have occurred occasionally during the winter as well.
Also, drift whales were most likely to wash up on the beaches during winter
storms (Drucker 1951:39).Simple occurrence of whalebone in the site cannot be
used as evidence for seasonality.
Drucker (1951:49) maintains that whaling was primarily a prestige
activity and that successful hunts were relatively rare events. Based on the
limited number of whalebones excavated a t Yuquot, Dewhirst (1978:5-6) also
concludes that the role of whaling in the economy has been exaggerated. He also
recognizes, however, that the location of the excavated trench, well above the
beach and in a possible house area, is unlikely to yield much trace of activities
which took place on the beach (1979:6; 1980:33-34). Despite the limitations of
the archaeologicalrecord, whales clearly played a significant role in the economy
for many groups. This is particularly evident at Ozette, where whalebones were
very numerous, with over 3400 complete enough to be identified (Huelsbeck
1988b, 1994b). A minimum of 67 individual whales is represented by the bones
in the house floor deposits, which accumulated over a relatively short period of
time. Huelsbeck (1994b:267) estimates that whales could account for between
70 and 85% of all meat and oil available to the inhabitants of the excavated
Ozette houses, assuming all whalebone in the site represents animals fully
utilized for food. Whalebone was also abundant a t Hesquiat Village, where
whales are estimated to account for 86% of the total food potential in the
excavated faunal remains (Huelsbeck 1988a:160). This vast amount of meat
and oil suggests that trade in whale products was an important part of the
precontact economy for these groups (Cavanagh 1983; Huelsbeck 1988a,
1988b, 199413).
Some ethnographic and ethnohistoric evidence suggests that whaling was
of considerably greater importance to the central and southern groups than in
Nootka Sound and other northern areas. Meares (1790:125),at Nootka Sound
in 1788, thought that Wickaninish's people from Clayoquot Sound had a "more
thriving appearance,"which he attributed to being from an area "where whales
were in greater plenty." Similarly, Haswell in 1789 was of the opinion that the
people of Clayoquot Sound placed more emphasis on whaling than any other
group on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Howay 1941:70). In 1785, Walker
(1982:47) noted 11 skeletons of recently killed whales on the beach in front of a
village in Hesquiaht or Ahousaht territory. Banfield (1858) observed whaling
among the southern groups, stating that "the Netineth [Ditidaht], as well as the
Macaws [Makahl, kill a great many in a season." Swan (1870:19) describes
whales and halibut as the "principal subsistence of the Makahs" in the 19th
century. These observations are consistent with the archaeological evidence of
greater emphasis on whaling south of Nootka Sound, and help to reconcile the
views of Drucker and Dewhirst with the excavated data from Hesquiat Village,
Tukw'aa, and Ozette.
I
Whaling was essential to chiefly power and authority. Hunting whales
was a chiefly prerogative, a demonstration of the chiefs prowess and ability to
draw on supernatural power. As befitting an event of such importance, the
whale hunt was preceded by ritual bathing and other ceremonials carried out by
the whaler and his wife (Curtis 1916:16; Sapir 1924; Gunther 1942; Jewitt
1967:llO-111; Densmore 1939:47; Koppert 1930:56-57; Drucker 1951:169-170;
Singh 1966:44-45). The killing of the first whale of the season required a
ceremony at which a slave might be sacrificed, an event noted by several late
eighteenth century observers (Howay 1941:77-78;Archer 1993:150). A chiefs
prestige was enhanced by distribution of the great quantity of meat and oil from
a successful hunt or from a whale beached on his lands. It was a demonstration
of his personal, political, and ritual power.
Whaling also provided an incentive for population movements and
dislocations. Although Nuu-chah-nulthoral traditions are filled with accounts of
outside groups conquering inside territories for their productive salmon streams,
there are also accounts of conquests of outer coast territories for access to
whaling. Several of the Kennedy Lake groups, for example, successfully waged
war against the people living on the outer coasts of Clayoquot Sound, beginning
a period of Tla-o-qui-aht expansion (Drucker 195l:24O). These events, according
to Drucker, took place early in the historic period. Centuries earlier, whaling
may have provided the economic base for southern Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht,
and Makah movement into what became their historic territories. As argued
earlier in this chapter, this seems to have taken place between about 2000 and
1200 B.P.
Other Economic Aspects
The Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah demonstrated ingenious
I
adaptations to a wide range of open-ocean resources. Sea mammals, fish, and
aquatic birds, many of them taken far from shore, were important aspects of
the diet. Many of these resources required levels of technological sophistication
and ritual preparation that were similar to whaling. Although whaling has
captured much of the public interest and anthropological attention, it was only
part of a range of subsistence activities demonstrating mastery of the maritime
environment.
Fur seal are migratory and pelagic, with only young animals straying into
littoral waters along the British Columbian coast (Cowan and Guiguet
1965:346-347; Banfield 1974:360). Drucker (1951:46) maintains that fur seal
were not hunted prior to the sealing schooner trade in the late 19th century.
Singh (1966:21),noting that fur seals were hard to hunt, also claims that they
became economically important only in historic times. Archaeological data
clearly show that these opinions are in error, reaflirming that ethnographic data
should be evaluated through the archaeological record. Fur seal bones heavily
dominate the vertebrate faunal remains from the Ozette trench, showing that
fur seal was a major economic resource throughout the entire time represented
by the midden deposits (Gustafson 1968). In all excavated open-ocean Makaharea sites, from Tatoosh Island to Sand Point, fur seal is the most abundant of
1,
the mammalian remains and often dominates the entire faunal assemblage (see
Chapter 3). The Makah were in the most favourable location for taking fur seals
as the spring migration brought the animals in close to the rocks around Cape
Flattery, but fir seal bones are also numerous in such excavated Nuu-chahnulth sites as Yuquot (Dewhirst 1979), Hesquiat Village (Calvert 1980),
Chesterman Beach (Wilson 1994), and Aguilar Point (Coates and Eldridge
1992).Faunal remains have not yet been analyzed for the Toquaht sites, but fur
seal almost certainly played an important role in the economy of this area as
well.
Other seals and sea lions played a vital role in the economies of all Nuuchah-nulth, Ditidaht and Makah groups. Their bones are found in virtually all
excavated sites. Such animals were easier to take than fhr seal, as they could
be harpooned in coastal waters close to the villages or clubbed where they
gathered on rocky islets (Drucker 1951; Singh 1966). Porpoises, which are fast,
agde, and can only be taken from watercraft, posed much more of a challenge to
the aboriginal hunter. Although their flesh was prized, they were only
occasionally taken, using the same type of harpoon as was employed for seals
and sea lions (Swan 1870:30; Koppert 1930:67; Drucker 1951:26, 36). Their
bones, however, occur in many excavated sites. They were relatively common"at
Tukw'aa and dominated the mammalian remains a t DgSl 61, one of the
Chesterman Beach sites (Wilson 1991).
In general, sea mammals made up a large portion of the aboriginal diet,
as seen in both the archaeological record and ethnographic accounts. A good
example comes from the Hesquiat Harbour sites. Excavated data provided by
Calvert (1980) were used by Huelsbeck (1988a:160)to calculate the percentage
contribution by meat weight of each major faunal category to the total food
available. At DiSo 9, in the upper harbour, sea mammals made up almost half
the food consumed as indicated by the faunal remains. At DiSo 1,the Hesquiat
Village site near the outer coast, the abundance of whalebones in the deposit
reduces all other taxa to minor levels. Whales are estimated to account for over
86% of all available food, with the total sea mammal contribution reaching a
whopping 96%. A near-identical situation prevails a t Ozette, where whales
make up almost 88% of the food represented by faunal remains, with the total
contribution from all sea mammals again estimated a t 96% (Huelsbeck
1988a:154).
The maritime adaptation of the ethnographic groups is also evident in
several species of fish taken. Halibut were second only to whales in the economy
of the Makah (Swan 1870:22; Singh 1966:48) and dried halibut was a winter
staple. Although chum salmon outweighed halibut in importance among the
Nuu-chah-nulth, halibut was an important resource and some outer coast
groups such as the Kyuquot relied extensively on it (Drucker 1951:36). Halibut
hooks showed great ingenuity and required skill in use. Although some halibut
were taken close to shore, the major fishery for large halibut was on the offshore banks. Sproat (1868:223) states that the best halibut grounds were 12
miles off land. Sapir and Swadesh (1955:41) report that Nuu-chah-nulth men
would set out from villages in Barkley Sound when it got dark, paddling all night
to reach the halibut banks by dawn. Similarly, the Ditidaht set off around
midnight for their favoured halibut banks, about 15 to 25 miles offshore, arriving
in the early morning (Clamhouse et al. 1991:295). Singh (1966:32) estimates
that the Makah halibut banks were eight to ten miles offshore, while Swan
(1870:22-23) places them 15 to 20 miles from land. Tatoosh Island, off Cape
Flattery, was a major summer residence for many Makah while they were
intensively fishing for halibut.
Despite the ethnographic importance of halibut, it is not well represented
in the excavated sites. Although halibut bones occur in all but the lowermost
deposits a t Yuquot, the relatively small quantities led Dewhirst (1979:7) to
conclude that halibut "does not seem to have been a major food species" and to
suggest that its importance has been exaggerated due to Nuu-chah-nulth
participation in the late commercial halibut fishery. Halibut remains are very
rare in all excavated Hesquiat Harbour sites (Calvert 1980) and are absent a t
Kupti (Marshall 1990:109).Although halibut elements occur in some quantity in
the late period house deposits at Ozette, this fish ranks well behind lingcod,
rockfish, greenling, sculpin, and salmon in importance (Huelsbeck 1994a:'i'l-73).
This anomaly is a t least in part attributable to taphonomic factors, as
ethnographically halibut were cleaned and processed on the beach (Swan
1870:23) and many of their bones may have been discarded there. However,
Swan's (1870:23) description of how halibut were prepared indicates that the
heads, the tails, and the vertebrae with adhering flesh were all dried and packed
away for later consumption, indicating that the technique of processing cannot
fully explain the low representation of halibut in the excavated sites.
Nuu-chah-nulth mastery at exploitingmarine resources is also evident ih
the presence of bluefin tuna elements at almost all excavated sites. This is a
large and powerful fish, up to three metres in length, that entered British
Columbian waters during conditions of warmer weather (McMillan 1979;
Crockford 1994). No ethnographies describe the taking of these huge fish and
there are only a few brief ethnohistoric references to the consumption of tuna,
such as mention of a tuna and porpoise stew served during Vancouver's visit to
Nootka Sound in 1792 (Newcombe 1923:120). Despite this lack of ethnographic
attention, tuna were clearly an important resource in the precontact economy.
Tuna elements are found at Yuquot, Kupti, Hesquiat Village, the Toquaht sites
(T'ukw'aa, Ch'uumat'a, and Macoah), Shoemaker Bay, and Ozette (Crockford
1994), and are also tentatively identified at Chesterman Beach (Wilson
1994:15).They occur in all four zones at Yuquot, covering the entire known span
of Nuu-chah-nulth culture history (McMillan l979:117-118). While most sites
have only a few tuna elements, they are relatively common in the Toquaht sites,
with cut marks and burning on some of the vertebrae suggesting butchering and
cooking practices (Crockford 1994:165). Bluefin tuna travel on the warmer
surface water and enter the sounds and inlets to feed. Recent research with
Mowachaht informants indicates that tuna were harpooned at night as they fed
at the surface of shallow water well inside Nootka Sound (Crockford 1994). Such
activities resembled whaling in terms of equipment and skill required.
As would be expected, the degree of dependence on open-ocean resources
varied with local conditions. Substantial differences are evident in the excavated
faunal remains. At Yuquot, the bones of coast deer were the most numerous of
the identified mammalian remains (Dewhirst 1979).This contrasts with a much
more maritime economy evident in the identified mammals at Ozette, which are
dominated by whales and fur seals, with deer and elk playing a very minor role.'
Some argument has been made that pelagic resources became important
only within the last millennium (Matson and Coupland 1995:272). Matson
(1983:131) has used Calvert's (1980) data from Hesquiat Harbour to argue for
intensification of pelagic sealing in relatively recent times. As success in hunting
fur seals led to improved technology and greater commitment to pelagic sealing,
greater emphasis would simultaneously have been placed on hunting sea
mammals of all types while use of other resources would have declined. This
argument fits well with Dewhirst's (1977) model of late development of effective
whaling techniques. Only one of the excavated Hesquiat sites predates 1200
B.P., however, and it is located in the upper portion of the sound. Certainly the
great abundance of fur seal bones throughout the midden trench a t Ozette
(Gustafson 1968)and substantial numbers of fiw seal elements in Zones I1 to IV
at Yuquot (Dewhirst 1979) argue for a longer period of emphasis on such openocean resources.
Social Relations
Warfare
In the ethnographic literature warfare appears to have permeated all
aspects of Nuu-chah-nulth life. All such sources document the well-developed
military complex among these people, and the texts collected by Sapir from
Barkley Sound groups are filled with accounts of specific hostilities, told from a
native perspective. Swadesh (1948:76), in reviewing the motivations underlying
Nuu-chah-nulth warfare, noted that "the entire social structure of band and
tribe, kinship and caste, as well as economy and social philosophy, are
illuminated against the war background."
War chiefs, often younger brothers of the main chiefs, led the military
campaigns (Swadesh 1948:93; Drucker 1951:270). As was required for any
activity of great importance, such leaders prepared for war by ritual bathing
and other ceremonial activity (Drucker 1951:170; Koppert 1930:105). A
favoured tactic was a night or dawn raid on a sleeping village, with specific
members of the attacking party assigned to each house of the target village
(Drucker 1951:337; Curtis 191654; Arima 1983:106; Ferguson 1984b:272).
Aggressor groups might launch prolonged campaigns of attrition against their
enemies or those whose resource territories they desired. At the culmination of a
successful attack, heads of all the slain were taken as trophies, captured women
and children were taken as slaves, and the houses were plundered and burnt.
Treachery was also a tactic successfully employed according to a number of oral
traditions, as a group feigned peace offers and invited their foes to a feast, only
to strike out against their guests at a prearranged signal from the war chief
(Drucker 1951:338). Slave raiding expeditions were also part of Nuu-chah-nulth
hostilities, with war parties setting out to pick off small groups of individuals
engaged in tasks away from their villages. Slaves and booty provided important
economic motivations for hostilities, as numerous slaves enhanced a chiefs
wealth and prestige (Ferguson 1984b;Mitchell 1984;Donald 1983).
The underlying motivations behind Northwest Coast warfare have been
the subject of considerable theoretical debate (Ferguson 1983, 1984b; Coupland
1989; Langdon 1976). On a broader level, Yesner (1980) maintains that the
relatively high population densities and semisedentism characteristic of
maritime hunter-gatherers promote a greater degree of territoriality and higher
levels of endemic warfare than among hunter-gatherers in other environmental
settings. Vayda (1968) has championed an ecological-functional perspective oh
warfare, visualizing it as a system to redistribute populations to resources. The
ecological-functional theorists view both warfare and the potlatch on the
Northwest Coast as mechanisms for controlling population to resource ratios
(Langdon 1976). Warfare is linked to feasting and potlatching, as redistribution
of food supplies neutralized potential enemies and bound them as allies
(Ferguson 1983:135). In structuralist analysis,
". . . war is the other side of
exchange within a structure of relations - war is an exchange gone bad, and
exchange is a war averted" (Ferguson 1984a:17). Codere (1950:105), while
linking potlatching to warfare among the historic Kwakwgka'wakw, denies any
economic motivation for warfare, a position strongly at odds with ethnographic
studies among the Nuu-chah-nulth.
Virtually all ethnographic sources on the Nuu-chah-nulth emphasize the
economic basis of warfare (Swadesh 1948; Drucker 1951:333;Arima 1983:105).
The oral traditions are replete with accounts of "outside" groups seeking to
acquire "inside"resources, particularly productive salmon streams (Swadesh
1948; Sapir and Swadesh 1955; St. Claire 1991). Slaves, booty, and ceremonial
privileges were additional incentives for war. Revenge was frequently mentioned
as a motivation for warfare by Nuu-chah-nulth informants, but this may be a
convenient rationalization (Swadesh 1948:91; Drucker 1951:333; Ferguson
1984b:308). In varying circumstances, insults or other grievances could be
forgotten or serve as rallying points, even long after the events, and were often
merelyjustifications for wars of territorial expansion or for slave raiding.
Individual motivation, however, should not be dismissed as a frequent
source of hostilities. War chiefs, in particular, stood to gain prestige in successful
military ventures. Warriors who had taken many heads were feared and
respected. Relatives of someone killed in war may demand revenge, requiringa
war chief to mount a retaliatory expedition. Warfare also provided ambitious
chiefs with an opportunity for self-aggrandizementthrough use of military might
to increase territorial holdings, slaves, and prestige.
Weapons, designed for combat in close quarters, consisted of wooden
spears with fire-hardened tips, clubs, and daggers (Drucker 1951:335; Koppert
1930:104; Mills 1955:59; Arima 1983:105). Drucker's informants also told him
that slings were used in warfare prior to the introduction of firearms. Only the
war chiefs wore armour, made from several thicknesses of elkh..de(Cook
178430743; Drucker 1951:335; Koppert 1930:105); wooden rod armour was also
described to Drucker by a Hesquiaht informant. Military leaders carried clubs of
stone or whalebone, often finely carved and referred to by ritual names or
euphemisms such as "orphan maker" (Drucker 1951:335). Whalebone clubs
with handles carved in the stylized image of the Thunderbird suggest the
importance of supernatural power in military endeavours. Finely carved stone
and whalebone clubs are well-represented in ethnographic collections made
among the Nuu-chah-nulth late in the eighteenth century (Gunther 1960:271274; 1972:40-44, 209-211; King 1981:Plate 41, 47; Kaeppler 1978:257; Boas
1907; 1927:284-287),before firearms replaced these as high-status weapons
shortly after European contact.
Few archaeological traces remain in Nuu-chah-nulth sites to gauge the
antiquity of these practices or their extent in precontact times. This is in
contrast to the archaeological record on the northern British Columbian coast,
which indicates that warfare was well established prior to 2000 B.P. (Fladmark,
Ames, and Sutherland 1990:234).The evidence comes primarily from a series of
midden interments in the Prince Rupert Harbour area, where male skeletons
show unusually high levels of trauma, including parry fractures of the forearin
and depressed skull fractures (Cybulski 1990:58),and are associated with grave
goods which include decorated bone and stone clubs. No such evidence comes
from Nuu-chah-nulth territory, where midden interment is almost unknown in
the archaeological record of this period.1 Occasional discoveries, however, have
l ~ h only
e known midden interments for the late West Coast culture type (2000 B.P. to
historic contact) are one articulated human skeleton partially visible in the wall of a unit at
Fig. 23. Whalebone club handles from Nuu-chah-nulthsites: left, fiom Yuquot
(DjSp I), Zone 11, ca. 2000 B.P., note the break at a drilled perforation for
suspension at the wrist; right, from Macoah (DfSi 5), age unknown.
the Toquaht site of Ch'uumat'a,several interments encountered during excavation at Tatoosh
Island (Friedman 1976), and a number of burials disturbed during house construction at
Hesquiat Village (R. Inglis, pers. comm. 1995). AU were exposed and left in place; no detailed
reports are available.
2 13
been made of weapons in archaeological contexts. Three fragments of whalebone
clubs in the distinct Nuu-chah-nulth style were found a t Yuquot, in deposits
dating to about 2000 B.P. (Dewhirst 1980:327-329).Two are blade fragments
while one is a slender decorated handle, carved with a zoomorphic image with a
downturned beak-like mouth and feather-like projections (Figure 23). It
resembles a simplified version of the stylized zoomorphic handles known from
late 18th century collections (Dewhirst 1978:Fig. 20; Boas 1907:404; Gunther
1972:Figs. 19, 20). Another decorated handle fragment, with the stylized
Thunderbird characteristicof historic Nuu-chah-nulth examples, came from the
Toquaht site of Macoah (McMillan and St. Claire 1991:75-76).Unfortunately, it
was not recovered as part of the controlled excavation and cannot be assigned
any age estimate; it may belong to the historic component at that site. Several
similar whalebone clubs, in both uncompleted and fully finished forms, came
from the late precontact house deposits at Ozette (Huelsbeck 1994b:286;
Fisken 1994:364;Daugherty and Friedman 1983:Fig. 10:11).
The major evidence for precontact Nuu-chah-nulth warfare comes from
the occurrence of sites in places that were clearly selected for defense. These are
situated in elevated locations, such as on rocky headlands or steep-sided islets,
reached only by a steep climb or in some cases by ladders. Access was difficult
and living in such conditions would have been inconvenient, yet such sites
offered good vantage spots to watch for enemies and were highly defensible
locations. Many had their defensive capabilities enhanced with construction of
stockades or log ramparts. Known variously as "forts," "defensive sites," and
"rehges," such sites are distributed along the north Pacific shores from the
outer Aleutian Islands to the Oregon coast (Moss and Erlandson 1992:76).
Fig. 24. Location of recorded defensive sites or lookouts in Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht,
and Makah territories. Only four of the eight recorded defensive sites near the
entrance to Kyuquot Sound are shown.
2 15
At least 33 such sites are recorded for Nuu-chah-nulth territory, along
with one (the well-known fortified village of Whyac) in Ditidaht territory.2 Three
more are found among the Makah. Their locations are shown in Figure 24. Such
sites are likely to be underrepresented in the archaeological record, as other
examples are known through ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources.3 Also,
other types of defensive locations are not included in this category. Stockades
are known to have been erected around a number of historic villages (Sproat
1868:196; Swan 1870:51; Drucker 1951:338), including Macoah (Sapir and
Swadesh 1955:437; McMillan and St. Claire 1991:71). The category of
"defensivesite" here refers only to sites on elevated rocky headlands, islets, sea
stacks, or similar locations, today draped with relatively shallow midden
deposits. It is recognized, however, that some of these sites may have served
primarily as lookouts for migratory sea mammals.
With the exception of several examples along the inlets of Nootka Sound,
all known defensive sites are on the outer coast (see Figure 24). They tend to be
located where they could control the access to major sounds and inlets. Clusters
of such sites guard the entrances to Kyuquot Sound and Barkley Sound, in
particular. Movements of people along the coast could have been monitored and
controlled from fortified settlements in such strategic locations as Yuquot, cabe
Beale (at the eastern entrance to Barkley Sound), and Cape Flattery.
2~ computer search of the British Columbia site records by the Archaeology Branch, Victoria,
located most sites identified here as "defensive," "refige," or "fortification."Several others
were added through examination of regional survey reports (Haggarty and Inglis 1985; Inglis
and Haggarty 1986; Marshall 1992).
3 ~ oexample,
r
in 1789 Haswell noted a "fortificationbluEP' visible as he entered the harbour
near modern T o h o (Howay 1941:68). Several of the war texts collected by Sapir for Barkley
Sound also contain references to defensive locations. Before their defeat by the Ucluelet and
Tla-oqui-aht, the people of Effingham Inlet retreated to their "hill village," equipped with log
rollers (Sapir and Swadesh 1955374).As such sites have not been archaeologically located
and recorded they are not included here.
Many of the most impressive defensive sites are in immediate association
with large villages, either as part of one continuous site or in close proximity,
such as on an off-shore islet. T'ukw'aa (DfSj 23), the largest Toquaht village, is a
good example, with midden deposits from the main village area extending to the
top of an immediately adjacent steep-sided headland (Figures 11 to 13).
Similarly, the Tseshaht village of Hutsatswilh (DfSh 31), on Dicebox Island in
the Broken Group, is located beside a high flat-topped defensive area (DfSh 79)
with steep cliffs in all directions except for immediately over the village (Figure
25). Avery similar situation prevails in Ohiaht territory near Bamfield, where a
steep-sided defensive area (DeSh 2) towers over the major village of Kiix7in
(DeSh l)(Figure 26). In all three cases, the village and defensive area are so
closely associated that it is logical to assume that the presence of a suitable flat
elevated area for defense was a major criterion in selecting the village location.
In Ditidaht territory, the only recorded defensive site is at the major village of
Whyac (Waayaa7a& strategically located on the rocks a t the entrance to
Nitinat Narrows. Explorer Rabert Brown discussed the defensive features of
Whyac in 1864:
. . .most of the Nettinaht villages were fortified with wooden
pickets to prevent any night attack, and from its situation,
Whyack, the principal one (built on a cliff, stockaded on the
seaward side, and reached only by a narrow entrance where
the surf breaks continuously),is impregnable to hostile
canoemen.
(Bouchard and Kennedy 1991:26)
Among the Makah, Sproat ('1870:51) notes "stockade forts a t Tatoosh Island,
and on one of the rocky islets composing Flattery Rocks." As the latter are
immediately offshore from Ozette, Sproat is likely referring to Tskawahyah
(also known as Cannonball) Island. This impressive, steep-sided islet,
surmounted by relatively extensive midden deposits, is joined to the main Ozette
Fig. 25. The defensive site (DfSh 79) on Dicebox Island, Broken Group, Barkley
Sound. The Tseshaht village of Hutsatwilh (DfSh 31) is to the left of this picture.
Fig. 26. The Ohiaht village of Kiix7in (DeSh 1)is in the trees in the centre of this
picture. Its defensive site (DeSh 2), known locally as "Execution Rock", is atop the
steep cliffs to the right.
site at low tides and would have provided a convenient lookout for sea mammals
as well as a refuge in times of war.
Oral traditions tell of prolonged residence in such locations during times of
danger. House platforms are evident on the surface of many defensive sites.
Other features relate to defensive measures. Stockades were erected a t some
sites, traps and warning devices were set along trails, and logs were stacked
along the cliff edge to roll down on attackers. Informants described the defensive
strategy of pegging in large logs along the upper lip of the defensive site bluff at
Hutsutswilh (Dicebox Island), to be released against ascending attackers, a
technique apparently successfully employed by the Tseshaht against the
Ahousaht (McMillan and St. Claire 1982:30; St. Claire 1991:146). Similarly,
ethnographic accounts describe a large log roller at the top of the Kiix7in fort,
meant to be used against Clallum raiders (Clamhouse et al. 1991:224-225; Scott
1972:255). Among the Makah, Swan (1870:51) describes "stockades of poles
and brush" around houses and identifies several "stockade forts" on islands. The
only fort in existence at the time of his observations, however, was among the
Quileute, to the south of Ozette. He describes a "precipitousrock," with a single
difficult trail to the summit, from which "great logs" could be rolled down on an
attacking force. Curtis (1913:143), referring to the same site, describes ttmlhg
bowlders" down on the enemy.
The Agullar Point defensive site (DfSg 3), on a rocky headland in eastern
Barkley Sound near the entrance to Bamfield Inlet, overlooks the ethnographic
Ohiaht village of 70:tsto:7a (DfSg 2). To protect the landward side of this
defensive site a trench was dug across the headland, with the earthen
embankment on the inside of the trench probably originally supporting a
palisade. This defensive earthwork is unique among West Coast sites, although
such features are relatively common in the Strait of Georgia region. Buxton
(1969) lists 58 recorded sites of this type in southwestern British Columbia and
adjacent Washington. Except for the defensive earthwork, however, this site and
its associated village are typically Nuu-chah-nulth. An Ohiaht legend refers to
A . l a r Point as the "fort"of a "bear man" and his family, who constructed a
rampart to protect their home on the landward side but eventually were
destroyed by their enemies (Scott 1972:260-262).
Radiocarbon dates from several excavated defensive sites give some idea
of the antiquity of intensive warfare among the Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah.
The earliest date for the defensive portion of T'ukw'aa is about 800 years (Table
6); however, as the village area was occupied as early as about 1200 years ago,
occasional use of the adjacent headland that forms the defensive site likely also
dates to that time. At Aguilar Point, the trench embankment appears to have
been constructed about 700 years ago (Buxton 1969);another radiocarbon date,
however, indicates that people were living out on this headland, presumably for
defensive purposes, about 1200 years ago (Table 8). In Makah territory, rocky
Tatoosh Island was inhabited by about 1000 years ago (Table 12).Although this
was ethnographically a major halibut fishing and processing location, the steep
sides of this island would have also made it an admirable defensive area and
Swan (1870:51) describes a "stockade fort" there. At Ozette, radiocarbon dates
for deposits atop Tskawahyah Island are 98090 and 2010+190 B.P. (Table lo),
the later providing the oldest date at Ozette and possibly the oldest date for a
defensive site on the Northwest Coast (Moss and Erlandson 1992:84). Another
date of about 2000 years comes from an exposure face a t an unexcavated site
(45CA2) high atop a bluff a t Cape Flattery (Table 12). Such dates closely
correspond to what appears to be the beginning of intensive settlement in this
area.
Such elevated locations served as lookout points for migrating sea
mammals and vantage places for sentinels to watch for enemies, as well as
places of refuge during hostilities. Racks for drymg fish may have stood on some
sites, as they offered better exposure to the winds than the sheltered villages
(Buxton 1969:41; Moss and Erlandson 1992:76). Some not directly associated
with villages were only sporadically used, primarily as lookouts. Others,
particularly those on elevated points adjacent to major villages, were occupied
on a fairly sustained basis. This would be the case, for example, at Whyac, at
Tukw'aa, and at the defensive site (DjSp 32) associated with Yuquot (Marshall
1993:122). Excavated defensive sites contain ordinary domestic refuse,
indistinguishable from materials obtained at the village sites. At T'ukw'aa, for
example, the same types of artifacts and faunal remains occur across the site,
including the top of the defensive area. This situation also has been noted for
excavated defensive sites in other coastal regims, such as a t the Rebecca Spit
trench embankment in the Strait of Georgia (Mitchell 1968), three defensive
islets in Kwakwgkgtwakw territory (Mitchell 1981), and a number of Tlingit
"forts" (Moss and Erlandson 1992:76). While these elevated locations offered
defensive capabilities in times of warfare, most of the activities that took place
there were common domestic ones.
Although archaeological evidence is limited, the distribution and
ethnographic importance of these steep-sided defensive locations, plus the
prominence of war accounts in the recorded oral histories (Sapir and Swadesh
1955), attest to the importance of warfare in shaping Nuu-chah-nulth life. The
appearance of defensive sites on the Olympic Peninsula by about 2000 B.P. and
in Barkley Sound by perhaps 1200 B.P. corresponds closely with the period
earlier suggested for the expansion of southern Wakashan peoples into their
historic territories. As populations increased and territorial tensions became
more prevalent, these highly visible sites became public statements of the
group's military power. Ethnographically, chiefs enhanced their power and
prestige through expansion of territory, control of trade, and possession of
wealth, including slaves. Heavily defended sites enabled chiefs to maintain
control of their territory and all trade that passed by, and raids on weaker or
hostile neighbours allowed a chief to acquire additional slaves and booty.
Evidence of heightened hostilities seen in the defensive sites suggests the
presence of social hierarchies and the control of territory and wealth.
Thde
The transfer of goods and services between individuals or groups is the
central feature of all exchange systems. The extent of trade and types of
exchange systems provide some insight into the level of complexity of the
society. On the Northwest Coast, powerful chiefs controlled the trade routes,
maintaining exclusive access t o important resources within their territories.
Such commodities might be traded for economic gain to neighbouring groups or
might be publicly redistributed in status-enhancing events such as the potlatch.
Archaeologists, however, deal only with the tangible and durable products of
trade, usually recoverable as artifacts of exotic raw materials or remains of nonlocal fauna. Such intangibles as names, songs, and ritual prerogatives, which
were exchanged ethnographically a t potlatches, are not recoverable
archaeologically, and only rarely do archaeologists get insight into such major
trade commodities as dried salmon and halibut, oolachon oil, clover roots, furs
and hides, and slaves. Intragroup exchange in local commodities may also elude
archaeological attention; most archaeological evidence consists of exotic items
indicating long-distancetrade.
Ethnographically,most Nuu-chah-nulth trade was with other Nuu-chahnulth groups. Although the Chicklisaht and Kyuquot in the north had some
contact with the Kwakwgkg'wakw of Quatsino Sound, the most important
arteries of commerce with the Kwakwgkg'wakw were the overland trails which
led across Vancouver Island from the heads of Kyuquot and Nootka Sounds to
the Nimpkish River (Drucker 1951:Map l).4 Trails also led from the ends of
Muchalat and Alberni Inlets across Vancouver Island to the Comox, Pentlatch,
and other Salish groups. The Ditidaht traded extensively with the Makah,
although some commerce was also transacted with the neighbouring Sooke
Salish. In the south, the Makah were strategically situated for coastal
commerce, trading goods received from the Nuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht south
as far as the Chinook of the lower Columbia River (Swan 1870:30-31).The
importance of this activity was evident to Swan (1870:30), who described the
Makah as "emphaticallya trading, as well as a producing people."
A first-hand account of Nuu-chah-nulth trade early in the historic period
comes from the observations of John R. Jewitt, held as a captive among the
Mowachaht from 1803to 1805. His journal notes the arrival in Nootka Sound of
various Nuu-chah-nulth groups and the Makah, as well as the Kwakw~kg'wakw
from the Nimpkish River, who had arrived via the overland trail.
The trade of most of the other tribes with Nootka [the
Mowachaht] was principallytrain oil [whale oil], seal or whale's
blubber, fish fresh or dried, herring or salmon spawn, clams,
and muscles [sic], and the yama [salal berries], a species of
l'I'he importance of these trails is shown in the names of the villages where they began. Both
locations, in Kyuquot Sound and in Nootka Sound, were known as Tahsis (or Tacis), meaning
"doorway"(Drucker 1951:224, 228).
223
fiuit which is pressed and dried, cloth, sea otter skins, and
slaves. From the Aitizzarts Ehattisaht], and the Cayuquets
[Kyuquot], particularly the former, the best I-whaw
[dentaliwn shells1 and in the greatest quantities was obtained.
The Eshquates [Hesquiaht] fiullished us with wild ducks and
geese, particularly the latter. The Wickinninish [Tla-o-qui-aht]
and Kla-iz-zarts [Makah] brought to market many slaves, the
best sea otter skins, great quantities of oil, whale sinew, and
cakes of the yama, highly ornamented canoes, some I-whaw,
red ochre and pelpelth filack mica] of an inferior quality to
that obtained fi-omthe Newchemass [Kwakwgka'wakw of the
Nimpkish River], but particularly the so much valued
Metamelth [elk hide], and an excellent root called by the Kla-izzarts Quawnoose [camas]. . . the size of a small onion . . .of a
most agreeable flavour. From the Kla-iz-zarts was also
received, though in no great quantity, a cloth manufactured by
them from the fur already spoken of, which feels like wool and
is of a grey d o u r [probably dog hair].
(Jewitt 1967:78-79)
Sproat (1868:79) also notes that the Nuu-chah-nulth traded dried halibut,
herrings, and cedar bark baskets to the Salish tribes of southern Vancouver
Island in exchange for camas bulbs and swamp rushes for making mats. The
southernmost Ditidaht, the Pacheenaht, were famed as slave traders, primarily
to the Clallum and Sooke, and also traded canoes, although few were made by
them (Banfield 1858:Aug. 14,p. 1; Clamhouse et al. 1991:296). Swan (1870:31)
notes that the Makah traded dried halibut, whale oil and blubber to the Nuuchah-nulth,receiving in turn dried salmon, cedar bark, dentalium shells, canoes,
and slaves. These commodities were then traded to the Quileute or other
southern groups such as the Chinook.
With the exception of dentalium shells, virtually none of these
commodities would be preserved in the archaeological record. Archaeological
claims for prehistoric trade networks usually rely on the occurrence of such
preserved non-local raw materials as obsidian, chert, catlinite, nephrite and
other desirable stone for tool production. Obsidian is particularly useful for such
analysis as it has excellent flaking and cutting properties, was traded widely
from a limited number of source locations, and can be attributed to source
through several non-destructive techniques. Using x-ray fluorescence, obsidian
artifacts from archaeological sites can be matched with known source locations
through study of the distinctive pattern of trace elements characteristic of each
obsidian flow (Nelson 1975;Nelson, D'Auria, and Bennett 1975; Carlson 1994).
The only excavated site reporting obsidian artifacts in the ethnographic
Nuu-chah-nulth area, however, is Shoemaker Bay. Obsidian flakes were fairly
common in the early component, Shoemaker Bay I, which was clearly linked to
contemporaneous cultures in the Strait of Georgia region (McMillan and St.
Claire 1982).Most of the analyzed obsidian came from two unlocated sources on
the south-central coast of British Columbia, although two specimens were
traced to known flows in central Oregon (McMillan and St. Claire 1982:70),
indicating at least sporadic contacts far to the south. No such items came from
sites of the West Coast culture type, although a fragment of a chipped projectile
point made of jasper came from Hesquiat Village. Its unique form and material
for West Coast sites led Haggarty (1982:120) to conclude that it "was likely
obtained in trade." In the Toquaht sites, a small bit fragment of a nephrite celt
came from Ch'uumat'a, from a level dating to about 2300 B.P., and a reworked
greenstone celt came from a level at T'ukw'aa dating to about 900 B.P. The
main source location for nephrite is thought to be the Fraser River canyon, while
a major quarry for greenstone is known in the Bella Coola valley (Carlson
1994:337). While non-local lithic materials are often used in archaeological
analyses as indicators of extensive exchange networks, their paucity in West
Coast sites likely reflects only the general unimportance of stone in Nuu-chahnulth material culture.
Less direct evidence may also be used to understand the extent of
exchange systems in late precontact times. Huelsbeck (1988a, 198813) argues,
based on the huge amount of oil and blubber represented by the whalebones in
the protohistoric house deposits at Ozette, that whale products would have
dominated all other food sources at this site and would have provided a surplus
that served as a major trade commodity. The faunal remains from Hesquiat
Village yielded a similar pattern, leading Huelsbeck (1988a) to suggest that the
Ozette and Hesquiat economies were specialized, with whaling providing a
surplus that could be exchanged for non-local necessities. Yuquot, with its
relative paucity of whalebone, lacked evidence for such specialization. This is
consistent with the ethnographic importance of trade in whale products among
the Ditidaht and Makah (Clamhouse et al. 1991:297; Swan 1870:32; Singh
1966:82), who received in exchange such products as cedar canoes and house
planks (Swan 1870:31; Huelsbeck 1988a:171). The northern Nuu-chah-nulth
appear to have been the recipients of whale products in such trade. Although
John Jewitt noted few whales being taken by the Mowachaht during his two and
a half years of captivity in Nootka Sound, he frequently made references to the
consumption of whale oil and blubber. Despite Jewitt's aversion to such food, it
was a year-round staple, traded in by other groups, often at some distance
(Cavanagh 198356, 134). On the 15 occasions noted by Jewitt when whale oil
or blubber was brought to Nootka Sound, almost half involved the Tla-o-qui-aht,
while the remaining trading expeditions were by the Hesquiaht, Ehattesaht, and
Makah (Marshall 1989b3267; 1993:251).
In extraregional trade, the Nuu-chah-nulth were famed as the suppliers of
dentaliurn shells (hiixwa), a wealth good valued far inland. These were procured
and traded by the peoples of western Vancouver Island, including the
Kwakw&g'wakwof Quatsino Sound and Cape Scott areas as well as the Nuuchah-nulth. Major dentalium beds have been noted in the territories of the
northern Nuu-chah-nulth: the Chicklisaht, Kyuquot, and Ehattesaht (Drucker
1951; Barton 1994). One of the most important was in the waters of
Ehattesaht territory, although chiefs of the Kyuquot, Chicklisaht, and
Nuchatlaht also owned dentalium fishing rights there (Drucker 1951:111,256).
Drucker (1951:112) also mentions an important dentalium bed in Barkley
Sound, although he does not give a specific location. More recently, dentaliwn
sources have been noted in Clayoquot Sound and Hesquiat Harbour (Bouchard
and Kennedy 1990). Elaborate devices were developed to procure dentaliwn in
fairly deep off-shore waters (Drucker 195l:ll2-113; Jewitt 1967:63; Ellis and
Swan 1981:73;Andrews 1989:96-109;Barton 199457-93).Dentalium were also
known to wash ashore in locations such as Long Beach (Drucker 1951:112; Ellis
and Swan 1981:73), but this was only a minor source of supply. In Nootka
Sound, the Mowachaht seem to have relied on trade with neighbouring groups.
In 18 transactions noted by Jewitt where Maquinna received dentalium, the
Ehattesaht were the suppliers in 14 cases, the Nuchatlaht twice, the
Chicklisaht once, and an unknown group to the south, possibly the Hesquiaht, in
the final case (Barton 1994:108,111).To the south, the Makah traded with the
Nuu-chah-nulth for dentalium (Swan 1870:31; Singh 1966:83), which they
traded further south. The artist Paul Kane, however, noted in the mid-19th
century that dentaliwn occurred in abundance at Cape Flattery and described
the technique by which it was taken (Kane 1968:165).
Dentalium shells, then, were highly sought after, were traded between
Nuu-chah-nulth groups, and had important uses and meaning in Nuu-chahnulth society. Drucker (1951:139-140) describes (and illustrates) long hair
ornaments covered in dentalium which were worn by pubescent girls of high
status; these required a major potlatch or public feast before they could be
removed. Swan (1870:13, 16) also describes and illustrates dentalium shell
headdresses and pendants worn by Makah girls a t puberty. Bracelets and
necklaces consisting of a number of strings of dentalia were worn by the nobility
(Jewitt 1967:62). Jewitt observed these shells used in ceremonial contexts by
the Mowachaht, describing on two occasions the burial of high status individuals
with considerable quantities of dentalium (1967:105, 111; 1988:57); he also
noted the transfer of large strings of dentalium to Maquinna during a marriage
ceremony (1988:112).
Dentalium was also a valuable commodity in the early maritime fur
trade. Aware of the high regard in which this shell was held by the native peoples
of the coast, some European traders purchased quantities from the Nuu-chahnulth to use in exchange with other groups. In 1793-94 the captain of the
Jeferson purchased "160 fathoms"(about 300 metres) of strung dentaliurn from
the Nuu-chah-nulth of Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds (Magee 1794; Gibson
1992:229).
In archaeological contexts, dentalium shells are found as far inland as the
Plains and Western Subarctic. They are found in small quantities at several
Northwest Coast sites as early as about 4400 B.P. (Andrews 1989:141). By
2500 B.P., dentalia are found in greater numbers, both on the southern coast
and in the interior plateau (Barton 1994:Z). In the Strait of Georgia region,
dentalia frequently are found in burial contexts dating to the Marpole period
(Burley 1980:29, 61; 1981:401; Burley and Knusel 1989; Mitchell 197152;
1990:346). Certainly most dentalium shells found in Strait of Georgia sites had
an origin on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Barton (1994), however,
cautions that other source possibilities exist, and dentalia should not uncritically
be interpreted as evidence of trade networks involving the Nuu-chah-nulth or
their Kw akwaka'wakw neighbours.
Despite the ethnographic importance of dentalium among the Nuu-chahnulth, known patterns of trade in dentalium between Nuu-chah-nulth groups,
and the occurrence of dentalium from the Pacific coast in archaeological sites
far inland, almost no evidence of this trade exists in West Coast sites. Only two
fragmentary dentalium shells were excavated at Yuquot, and both came from
historic levels (Clarke and Clarke 1980:46). Similarly, a single dentalium shell
came from Tukw'aa, again from historic deposits. At Ch'uumat'a, one dentalium
shell came from a level dated at over 1000 B.P., while a second, decorated with
an incised design, came from a level dated at 2000 B.P. At Shoemaker Bay, a
single dentalium shell, with a single incised encircling line, came from the upper
component (McMillan and St. Claire 1982:111),frustrating speculations that
this site was a vital link in the dentalium trade between the west coast and the
Strait of Georgia (Burley 1981:406). Despite the great quantities of dentalia
from the Strait of Georgia and the Plateau attributed to Nuu-chah-nulth
sources, these six shells are all that are reported from West Coast sites. The
difference is almost certainly attributable to the lack of midden interments in
sites of the West Coast culture type, resulting in a near-absence of wealth items
in archaeological contexts. Only in the unique circumstances a t Ozette do we
find dentalium shells in some quantity. The protohistoric house deposits at that
site contained 256 dentalium shells, almost entirely from the high status House
1(Wessen 1994b:353). The only other Makah-area site with reported dentalium
is Tatoosh Island (E.Friedman 1976:156).
Highly valued metal objects were also important late precontact or
protohistoric trade items. The late house deposits a t Ozette contained small
numbers of woodworking tools and knives with iron cutting blades, as well as
pendants of copper (Wessen 1990:416). Perez noted small quantities of copper
and iron among the natives who came out to his ship near the entrance to
Nootka Sound in 1774 (Beals 1989:89; Moser 1926:163; Mills 1955:71). Four
years later, Cook (1784:267) noted the abundance of iron chisels and knives
among the natives of Nootka Sound, stating that they seemed "perfectly
acquainted with the use of that metal." In trying to determine the source of
metal implements, Cook discounted the Spanish who had preceded him by only
a few years, considering iron "too common, in too many hands and too well
known for them [the Nuu-chah-nulthl to have had the first knowledge of it so
late" (Cook in Beaglehole 1967:321). Instead, Cook (1784:332) speculated that
these objects were traded along aboriginal trade networks from more distant
European sources. Mills (1955:71-72),on the other hand, argues that iron might
ultimately have come from the Bering Sea region of Alaska, where it is found in
archaeological contexts dating back several millennia. The late date of metal
artifacts in Nuu-chah-nulth sites, however, supports Cook's contention that
they were of European origin, rapidly distributed along native trade routes,
reaching areas such as Nootka Sound in advance of direct European contact.
Control of vital trade routes, such as the overland trails across Vancouver
Island, would have greatly enhanced the power and prestige of chiefs.
While exchange systems at some level characterize virtually all human
societies, the social context in which exchange occurs varies. The evolution of
social hierarchies has been linked to the development of centralized
redistribution systems, where chiefs controlled access to valued resources
(Earle and Ericson 1977; Earle 1994). Earle (1994), however, distinguishes
between trade in the subsistence economy and exchange in prestige goods,
maintaining that only the latter was a significant element in the development of
complex societies. The West Coast dentalium trade would clearly be an example,
as ethnographically access to dentalium procurement areas and control of the
trade in dentalium were jealously guarded prerogatives of high status
individuals. The ethnographic importance of trade among the Nuu-chah-nulth,
however, is poorly reflected in the archaeological record.
Status Distinctions
Mortuary data provide one of the most productive avenues to the
detection of social inequalities in the archaeological record (see, for example,
Peebles and Kus 1977; Chapman, Kinnes, and Randsborg 1981; O'Shea 1984).
Among other indicators, differential treatment in burial form and associated
materials may reflect social differencesduring life. Burial of wealth items with
certain individuals, including subadults and both sexes, suggests the presence of
ascribed ranking, rather than that achieved during the lifetime of the individual.
Such arguments have been used to present a convincing case that ascribed
ranking characterized the Strait of Georgia region by Marpole times (Burley and
Knusel1989; Matson and Coupland l995:209-2 10).
The lack of midden interments in West Coast sites, however, frustrates
such analysis. Burials have been excavated at Shoemaker Bay and Little
Beach, but both sites are early and neither can be encompassed within the
West Coast culture type (see Chapter 4). No midden burials have been reported
for late West Coast sites predating European contact.5 Most human remains
analyzed from Nuu-chah-nulth territory date to the historic period and involve
above-ground disposal of the body in caves, rockshelters, or trees (Cybulski
I
I
I
I
1978;McPhatter 1986;Schulting and McMillan 1995),although human remains
were found in the upper midden deposit at Yuquot (Cybulski 1980) and an
apparent historic burial was excavated at Bamfield (McLeod and Skinner 1987).
Artificial cranial deformation, frequently advanced as evidence for status
distinctions in the Marpole period (Mitchell 197154; 1990:346; Matson and
Coupland 1995:209),was noted on individuals from Yuquot, Hesquiat Harbour,
and Bamfield. The frequent occurrence of this trait among historic Nuu-chahnulth remains, plus ethnographic claims for the universality of this practice
(Drucker 1951:122),make this trait unsuitable for use as an indicator of status
distinctions in this area.
As little direct evidence for status distinctions exists in the archaeological
record, we are forced to rely on ethnographic analogy. This is consistent with
Trigger's (1989a:377) advocacy of a humanistic outlook, employing a direct
historic approach. The continuity demonstrated a t sites such as Yuquot
supports the utility of such an approach. Status distinctions featured
prominently in ethnographic Nuu-chah-nu1th life (Drucker 1951:243-247; Arima
1983:67-71).Hereditary chiefs ( b w i l h )controlled access to all valued economic
resources, coordinated group economic and ceremonial activities, distributed
food and goods a t feasts and potlatches, managed the supernatural realm
through inherited secret knowledge, and were ultimately responsible for group
prosperity and security. They were distinguished from other members of the
As indicated previously, however, this does not mean that no such burials exist. Midden
interments dating to this time were exposed, but not removed, at Hesquiat Village,
Ch'uumat'a,and Tatoosh Island. Little analysis was done, and no reports are available.
I
society by occupying particular high-status areas of the houses and by wearing
more elaborate clothing and ornamentation, at least on public occasions. Such
traits are potentially recognizable in the archaeological record, and there are a
few indications that such status distinctions characterized the entire period of
the late West Coast culture type.
Drucker (1951:244) specifically mentions "ornaments of abalone shell
and dentalia" as part of the more ornate costume that marked chiefly status.
The limited occurrence of dentalia in West Coast sites, largely attributable to
the absence of excavated mortuary contexts, has already been mentioned. Two
abalone pendants, for suspension from the ears or nose, came from late
prehistoric deposits at a Toquaht site (DfSj 30) on the George Fraser Islands
(McMillan and St. Claire 1994).A number of small bone pendants and combs
from various West Coast sites may have served the same type of function.
Several fragments of decorated whalebone clubs from Yuquot, dating to about
2000 B.P., led Dewhirst (1980:341) to suggest that "status and ranking" was
present that early.
More complete and convincing evidence comes from the waterlogged
house deposits a t Ozette. The abundance of carved and decorated items
preserved at this unique site suggests chiefly patronage and control of inherited
crest images. Particularly revealing is the occurrence of a large decorated
wooden replica of a whale saddle (the area around the dorsal fin), suggesting
chiefly rituals associated with whaling, as were known ethnographically.
Differences in faunal assemblages between the houses a t Ozette have been
related to differing access to resources, reflecting status distinctions, between
the social groups occupying them (Huelsbeck 1989, 1994a; Samuels 1989,
1994; Wessen 1988, 1994a; see also Chapter 3). Within House 1,which shows
233
evidence of being the most highly ranked, a concentration of dentalium shells
and other wealth items occurred in one rear corner, ethnographically
corresponding to the domestic space of the highest ranked individual. The spatial
patterning of food remains in this house even led Huelsbeck (1989:166) to infer
that feasts were being hosted by high-status individuals. Although these data
relate only to the period immediately prior to European contact, they likely
reflect social systems which had been achieved considerably earlier. Status
distinctions are likely to have characterized much or all of the two millennia
which make up the late West Coast culture type.
Glimpses into perceptions people in the past held of their relationship
with the supernatural world come from the images that they created that have
survived the passage of time. These include cawed bone and stone objects
occasionally found in West Coast sites, abundant wooden artworks recovered
from the waterlogged house deposits at Ozette, and the painted or carved
images left on the rocks at a number of locations in Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht,
and Makah territories. With some caution, several archaeological sites can also
be considered ritual places, reflecting ancient belief systems.
An underlying theme in Nuu-chah-nulth life is the ritual necessity to
prepare and purify the body prior to any important undertaking. This included
fasting, sexual continence, and ceremonial bathing, often scrubbing the flesh
with hemlock boughs until it bled. Whaling was one of the most supernaturally
charged activities and required more elaborate ritual preparation. The whaler
might retire to an isolated location, where rituals could be carried out in secret
(Curtis 1916; Gunther 1942; Drucker 1951). Human corpses or skeletal
elements and carved wooden representations of humans and whales were used
in rituals at such locations. The Mowachaht whalerst "shrine" or "washing
house," located on a small island in a lake near Yuquot, is the most famous
example (Boas 1930:261-269; Drucker 1951:171-172). The entire shrine,
including the wooden structure, nearly one hundred carved figures, and a number
of human skulls, was disassembled and taken to the American Museum of
Natural History in New York in 1904 (Cole 1985:161-163; Jonaitis 1988:183185), in a move which still causes controversy and resentment (Nootka Sound
& Picture Co. 1994). The former location of this shrine has been archaeologically
detected and recorded (as site DjSp 6), although little remains but several post
remnants and an area where the rocks have been removed to allow canoe
access (Inglis and Haggarty 1984; Marshall 1992a:83-84). Ethnographically,
Folan (197256) mentions another whaling shrine on Crawfish Lake, also on
Nootka Island, and Brabant (197750) describes a whaling shrine with human
skeletons that once existed a t Hesquiat. Similarly, Drucker (1951:172-174)
refers to whaling shrines among the Hesquiaht and Ahousaht, as well as a
Muchalaht shrine used in rituals to ensure abundant salmon.
In addition to ritual preparation prior to whaling, ceremonial treatment of
the whale followed the successful hunt. Mention has already been made to the
ritual welcoming of the whale and the removal of the whale's "saddle" to the
home of the whaling chief. The presence of a carved wooden effigy of a whale
saddle in the house deposits a t Ozette shows that this practice extends back
into precontact times. Sea otter teeth inset into the side of the wooden effigy
outline the image of the Thunderbird (tuta or tutuut-sh) with the Lightning
Serpent (biy'it1'iik) (Daugherty and Friedman 1983:184). In Nuu-chah-nulth
mythology, the thunderbirds preyed on whales, hurling the lightning serpents as
their harpoons (Sapir 1922:314; Drucker 1951:153).The frequent association of
the thunderbird, whale, and serpent is a prominent feature of ethnographic Nuuchah-nulth and Makah art, symbolically reflecting the cultural importance
placed on whaling.
More modest welcoming rituals extended to certain other animals hunted.
When a bear was killed it was set up in the house, sprinkled with eagle down in
welcoming, and offered provisions (Jewitt 1967:96; Drucker 1951:180-181).
After the bear was butchered and cooked, a feast was held. Although not
mentioned in the ethnographies, special disposal of the bones may be associated
with such treatment. A burial cave in Nootka Sound was found to contain about
22 bear skulls,-alongwith other bones, perhaps representing ritual treatment of
this animal (McMillan 1969:46-49).Similarly, a cave located in inner Clayoquot
Sound near Kennedy River, containing seven bear skulls thought to be
deliberately placed, has been interpreted as a ritual place (Arcas Consulting
Archaeologists and Archeotech Associates 1994:58).
Depictions on artworks recovered archaeologically may also reflect such
ritual beliefs. Small carvings in stone, bone, or antler, however, are rare in West
Coast sites. The decorated handles of whalebone clubs from Yuquot and
Macoah, the former with a simple bird-like head and the latter with the stylized
Thunderbird characteristic of historic Nuu-chah-nulth examples, have already
been mentioned (Figure 23). Such images reflect the importance of supernatural
power in military endeavours. A small stone carving of a whale was recovered
from late precontact deposits at Ttukwtaa,as was a small zoomorphic bone
pendant (possibly representing the Thunderbird), a bone fragment with an
incised eye design, and a bone cut-out figure possibly representing a stylized
whale's tail (McMillan and St. Claire 1992). A cut-out and incised zoomorphic
antler figure came from late period deposits a t Ch'uumat'a (McMillan and St.
Claire 1994). A cut-out bone figure of the Thunderbird, in typical Nuu-chahnulth style, was excavated in historic levels at Yuquot (Dewhirst 1980:334-335).
Among several decorated objects from the Ozette midden trench was a bone
comb with an incised human face (McKenzie 1974:73). The relative paucity of
such artworks reflects factors of preservation, as most artistic production was
in wood.
The waterlogged deposits a t Ozette clearly demonstrate the wealth of
decorated objects that were part of Makah households in late precontact times.
Boxes, bowls, clubs, tool handles, and other implements were embellished with
fine carving, in a style characteristic of historic Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah art
(Daugherty and F'riedman 1983). Thunderbirds and wolves are depicted on a
large incised and painted wall panel, while the outline image of a whale covers
another. Thunderbirds and whales reflect the importance of whaling, while the
wolf was the dominant supernatural figure in the most important Nuu-chahnulth and Makah ceremonial (Ernst 1952; Moogk 1980; Drucker 1951:387-417;
Curtis 1916:68-98; Arima 1983:152-159).Finely carved owl faces, dreaded by
the Makah as transformed spirits of the dead (Ernst 1952:23), embellish both
ends of a slender wooden club. As this shows no evidence of actual use, it may
have been a ceremonial object (Daugherty and Friedman 1983:195). Human
figures are also well represented in the artwork at Ozette.
One of the most enigmatic of archaeological site types, and one which
holds the promise of casting light on past belief systems, is the category of "rock
art." At 29 locations in the study area, images have been left on prominent rock
surfaces. In 12 cases, these were painted in red ochre (pictographs),while at the
remaining 17 sites these were carved or pecked into the rock surface
(petroglyphs).Figure 27 shows all rock art locations in the study area. Individual
sites range from single depictions on a rock surface to large clusters of carved or
painted images. At the Wedding Rocks site (45CA31)just south of Ozette, for
example, over 40 carved images can be seen on a cluster of boulders extendmg
for a considerable distance along the beach.
Several patterns seem to be clearly evident in rock art distribution in the
study area (Figure 27). Pictographs are located along protected inner
waterways, while petroglyphs are found in exposed outer coast locations. The
only exceptions are two petroglyph sites in the Alberni Valley, at Sproat and
Great Central lakes, and these may have been executed prior to the relatively
late acquisition of this area by Nuu-chah-nulth peoples. Pictographs are
concentrated in northern Nuu-chah-nulth territory, particularly in the inlets of
Nootka Sound, where they are the only recorded rock art type. The only other
pictograph sites are two locations in the inlets of upper Barkley Sound. Aside
from the two Alberni Valley examples, the only petroglyphs recorded in Nuuchah-nulth territory are outside Hesquiat Harbour and a t Quisitis Point, in
outer-coast Ucluelet territory. The Ditidaht have seven recorded sites, all
petroglyphs, with two near Pacheena Point and five near the major
ethnographic village of Clo-oose. Makah territory has six petroglyph sites, with
two near the village of Archawat and four clustered near Ozette. All of the latter
consist only of one or two images, with the exception of the major concentration
at the Wedding Rocks site (Ellison 1977).
Typical images are those that characterize historic Nuu-chah-nulth,
Ditidaht, and Makah art. Whales are prominent depictions at such large and
important sites as Clo-oose Hill (Figure 30) and Wedding Rocks (Figure 31). The
Fig. 27. Location of recorded rock art sites in Nuu-chah-nulth,Ditidaht, and
Makah territories.
thunderbird, with his distinctive downturned beak and frequently outstretched
wings, is carved into the rocks at both the Blowhole and Hill sites near Clo-oose
(Hill and Hill 1974:74,76,78)and painted in Nootka Sound pictographs (Figure
28). Fish are also featured at such petroglyph sites as Wedding Rocks and
Quisitis Point, as well as in the pictographs a t Effingham Inlet.
Anthropomorphs are common, shown as heads (Figures 29, 31) or full figures,
and are o h n engaged in activities. A full-bodied human appears to be holding a
trophy head at the Clo-oose Hill site (Hill and Hill 1974:79),while at Wedding
Rocks one human holds a whale and another uses what appears to be a fish
spear or dip net (Ellison 1977:29,32). Rays emanating from the head of one
anthropomorph with upraised arms (Hill and Hill 1974:69; Ellison 1977:32) may
indicate shamanic power, although Ellison (197730) interprets these as a
headdress used in whaling rituals. Sexual imagery is also common in Ditidaht
and Makah petroglyphs. Among the other images carved into the sandstone
bedrock at the Clo-oose Hill site is a copulating couple (Hill and Hill 1974:79),
and vulvic depiction on anthropomorphs occurs at the Clo-oose sites, Carmanah
Point, and Wedding Rocks (Figure 31). An isolated bisected oval, interpreted as
vulvic imagery, is one of the most common elements of the rock art a t Wedding
Rocks (Figure 31,33), and also occurs at another of the Ozette sites, one of the
Archawat sites, Clo-oose Hill, and Pacheena Point.
Some rock art images may reflect specific myths or traditions. Marshall
(1992a:79-80; 1992b), for example, interprets a pictograph site (DkSp 31) in
Hisnit Inlet, Nootka Sound, in such a manner. The site consists of two
anthropomorphic faces with radiating lines, suggesting sun figures. These may
relate to the story of Umiq, the founding ancestor of the local group which
occupied Hisnit Inlet. In this story, as originally recorded by Curtis (1916:183-
Fig. 28. Red ochre pictograph of thunderbird (DkSp 8), Hisnit Inlet, Nootka
Sound (courtesy Yvonne MarshaIl).
Fig. 29. Photograph and drawing showing red ochre pictograph of
anthropomorphc face (DgSh 7), Toquart Bay, Barkley Sound.
241
Fig. 30. Anthropomorphs and whales, Clo-oose Hill petroglyph site (DdSe 14).
(photo from rubbing by Beth Hill, courtesy Royal British Columbia Museum)
Fig. 31. Petroglyphs on boulders a t the Wedding Rocks site (45CA31) south of
Ozette: left, anthropomorphic faces and whales; right, anthropomorphic
figures with vulvic imagry.
242
186), Umiq was impregnated by a supernatural being and gave birth to four
children whose origins were from the sun, including a boy whose "face was of
dazzling brilliance" (Curtis 1916:184).The location and nature of this pictograph
strongly suggest that it depicts an element of Umiq's story.
The two inland petroglyphs, located on lakes in the Alberni Valley, differ
from other rock art in the study area. At Sproat Lake, a group of mythical
marine creatures, with x-ray vision showing internal details, give the illusion of
movement across a vertical rock face at the edge of the water (Figure 32).
Stylistically, they closely resemble images a t sites on the east side of
Vancouver Island, such as the famous Nanaimo petroglyphs. Although
Newcombe (1907) interpreted them as representations of the Nuu-chah-nulth
kiy 'itl'iik(Lightning Serpent), these finned creatures with sinuous bodies lack
any counterparts in Nuu-chah-nulth rock art but are closely paralleled in the
Nanaimo images (see Hill and Hill 1974:102). They provide yet another cultural
link to the Strait of Georgia, and likely predate Nuu-chah-nulth arrival in the
Albemi Valley. Sproat (1868:268) was unable to gather any specific information
on these images fiom Tseshaht and Opetchesaht informants, who could tell him
only that "Quawteaht [Kwatyat] made them." Similarly, Boas, in an early
article in a Germanjournal, noted that the rock bluff into which the images were
carved was said by his informants to be "the house of Quotiath [ ~ w a t ~ a t ] "
(Lundy 1974:312).
Although none of the rock art sites have been dated, they do not give an
impression of great age. Few of the petroglyphs show signs of extensive erosion.
Some of the pidographs are faded and indistinct, but others are still clear. Most
images are assumed to date to the late precontact period. Ellison (1977), in an
analysis of the petroglyphs near Ozette, links the style and motifs of the rock
Fig. 32. Detail of the Sproat Lake petroglyphs (DhSf l),showing mythical
marine creatures.
Fig. 33. Sailing ship and vulvic image carved on beach boulder, Wedding Rocks
site (45CA31).
244
art to the late precontact artworks excavated in the buried house deposits.
Some images, however, clearly post-date contact with Europeans. Several
glyphs, at Clo-oose Hill and Ozette, appear to have been cut with metal blades
(Lundy 1974:330; Ellison 1977:52), while others display items introduced by
Europeans. Depictions of men on horseback occur in a pictograph at the end of
Muchalat Inlet (Marshall 1992a:79; 1993:60) and a petroglyph at the Clo-oose
Blowhole site (Hill and Hill 1974:76).An image at Wedding b c k s appears to be
a man using a firearm (Hill and Hill 1974:66; Ellison 1977:43). Four detailed
depictions of sailing ships occur on the rock ledge a t the Clo-oose Blowhole site
(Hill and Hill 1974:72-73;Ellison 1977:135),while another is carved on a boulder
at Wedding Rocks (Figure 33). The Clo-oose Blowhole site also contains the
detailed image of a steamship, almost certainly the Beaver, a Hudson's Bay
Company ship which first appeared along the west coast in 1836 (Hill andHill
1974:77; Lundy 1974:326). The arrival of this first steamer, belching black
smoke as it traversed the coast, must have seemed an event worth
cornmcmorating among the other images on the rock.
Once again, the Sproat Lake petroglyphs may be an exception. Carlson
(1993) has attempted to establish a chronology for rock art styles based on
comparison with art from dated archaeological contexts. The bold curvilinear
style of carving which characterizes the Sproat Lake and Nanaimo images is
linked to art recovered from Marpole period sites in the Strait of Georgia.
Through this analysis, Carlson (1993:S) places the Sproat Lake petroglyphs in
the period between 2500 and 1000 B.P.
Questions of the function and meaning of rock art defy complete
resolution, and certainly no one explanation encompasses all known rock art
sites. Shamanism undoubtedly provides the underlying motivation behind the
creation of many rock art images (Carlson 1993; Hill and Hill 1974). Shamanic
rituals, however, involved secret knowledge, and many of the rock art sites are
in such prominent and public locations that other explanations must be sought.
A similar motivation involves ritual attempts to gain supernatural control over
the creatures and wealth of the sea (Hill and Hill 1974:283; Ellison 1977:172).
This fits well with the Ditidaht and Makah petroglyphs, with their open-ocean
locations and frequent depictions of whales and fish, but cannot explain all
images a t these sites. One of the Nootka Sound pictographs (DjSo 1)is on a
prominent rock face overlooking a rockshelter burial site and may have served
as a grave marker or memorial (McMillan 1969:45-46,50,53;Marshall 1993:60).
The large prominent petroglyph sites near the villages of Clo-oose and Ozette
could possibly have finctioned as boundary markers. Whatever the immediate
motivation, the rock art sites symbolized the fundamental values of Nuu-chahnulth, Ditidaht, and Makah society, including the vital role of whaling, sexuality,
and the myths of founding ancestors.
Regional and TemporalVariation
The West Coast culture type, as defined by Mitchell (1990), was based
almost entirely on artifacts from Yuquot and Hesquiat. As additional excavation
projects on the west coast of Vancouver Island are completed, variation in the
culture type is becoming evident. Excavated data from Makah territory on the
Olympic Peninsula, not considered in Mitchell's original formulation, can also
now be encompassed within the culture type. Regional differences are discussed
below and are shown in Tables 15 and 16. These differences, however, should not
obscure the basic similarities in West Coast artifact assemblages, which are
heavily dominated by small bone points, bone bipoints, bone splinter awls, the
valves and points of composite toggling harpoon heads, and abrasive stones.
Typical artifacts of the later West Coast culture type are shown in Figure 34.
The Shoemaker Bay site remains outside the culture type for its entire
period of occupation. The most recent component, Shoemaker Bay 11, begins
about 1500 B.P. (McMillan and St. Claire 1982). Abrasive stones are by far the
most common artifacts, comprising 27.6% of the total for that component.
Chipped stone points, ground stone points, and ground stone knives suggest
close ties to sites of equivalent age in the Strait of Georgia. In fact, Shoemaker
Bay I1 is best considered a component of the Strait of Georgia culture type.
There are a few traits, however, such as the presence of bone fishhook shanks,
that give this assemblage a distinct "West Coast" flavour.
Table 15 summarizes the artifact assemblages from five major
excavated West Coast sites. Only Zone I11 at Yuquot, dating from about 1200
B.P. to the beginning of European contact, is considered here. T'ukw'aa and
Hesquiat Village are contemporaneous large sites, both with initial dates of
roughly 1200 B.P. Although Ch'uumat'a has dates as early as 3900 B.P. for its
oldest deposits, only the period from 2000 B.P. to European contact is included
here. The Ozette midden trench dates to roughly the same time span, although
its initial date may be somewhat less. For comparability, some changes had
be made to the original investigators' artifact typologies. Reclassification has
resulted in a certain amount of "lumping,"reducing the total number of artifact
categories. Differences in analytical procedures have also inhibited comparisons.
At Yuquot and Ozette, for example, where artifacts were categorized according
to presumed function, fragments which could not be assigned categories were
eliminated from the analysis. As most of these fragments would have been bone,
Fig. 34. Artifacts of the later West Coast culture type: a, stone celt (Yuquot);b, stone
fishhook shank (Yuquot);c, bone fishhook shank (Ch'uumat'a); d, mussel shell
celt (T'ukw'aa); e, bilaterally barbed harpoon head (Ch'uumat'a); f, channeled
valve for composite harpoon head (T'ukw'aa); g, slotted valve for composite
harpoon head (Yuquot);h,i, bone bipoints (T'ukw'aa); j, bone point, probably a
fishhook barb (T'ukw'aa); k, bone point, probably for arming a composite toggling
harpoon head (T'ukw'aa); 1, bone splinter awl (T'ukw'aa); m, barbed bone point,
possibly an arrow point (Yuquot); n, single barb point, probably a fishhook barb
(T'ukw'aa); o, bone needle (Ch'uurnat'a); p, canine tooth pendant (T'ukw'aa); q,
bone comb (T'ukw'aa). Length of 'a' is 7.1 cm; rest are drawn to same scale. Yuquot
artifacts are redrawn from Dewhirst 1980; all others are drawn from originals.
this reduces the total percentage of bone in relation to other raw material
categories as compared to the other three sites.
One of the distinguishing features of the West Coast culture type as
originallydefined is "the near absence of any flaked stone artifacts or flaking
detritus" (Mitchell 1990:356).No such materials came from Zone 111 at Yuquot.
They are also rare at T'ukw'aa and the upper portion of Ch'uumat'a. Although
still only a small portion of the total, chipped stone was more abundant at
Hesquiat Village. This site also had a wider range of items and materials,
including a chipped jasper projectile point fragment, quartz crystal core
fragments and possible microblade, and a cobble tool. Of the five sites, the
Ozette midden trench had the largest numbers of chipped stone objects,
consisting primarily of scrapers and other tools based on cortex flakes. Cores,
scrapers, cobble tools, and other chipped stone implements were also relatively
common a t the late period Hoko River Rockshelter (D. Croes, pers. comm.
1995).
Gmund stone tools, with the exception of numerous abrasive stones, were
described as "comparativelyinfrequent"by Mitchell (1990:356). Stone celts and
fishhook shanks occur in most West Coast sites. Ground stone points are
restricted to the Toquaht sites, where they are found in small numbers. Ground
slate knives are found at Ozette and are considered to be characteristic of la&
prehistoric shell middens on the Olympic Peninsula (Wessen 1990:414).
Major differences are evident in the relative importance of stone in the
artifact assemblages of the five sites. At Yuquot and Hesquiat Village
implements of stone make up over 50%of the artifact totals, while stone objects
comprise only six to 15%of the total at the other three sites. The elimination of
unclassifiable worked bone fragments from the artifact totals at Yuquot would
have raised the relative importance of stone somewhat, but this was not the
case at Hesquiat. The high values for stone in these two sites is almost entirely
attributable to the great quantities of abrasive stones that were excavated.
Abrasive stones alone make up almost 55% of the artifact total at Yuquot and
48% at Hesquiat. By comparison, abrasive stones at the other three sites range
from 3.7 to 5.2%of the totals. If abrasive stones were removed, stone artifacts
would drop to very modest levels at all five sites.
The great importance of bone and antler, particularly the former, in the
manufacturing technology is clearest at T'ukw'aa, where 92.5% of all excavated
artifacts were of these materials. Particularly abundant are bone points of
several styles and presumed functions, bipoints, bone splinter awls, and pointed
bone fragments from such implements. At T'ukw'aa these together comprise
over 70% of the artifact total. Bone bipoints, most presumably used as gorges
for fishing although some may have served as barbs on composite fishing hooks
or teeth on herring rakes, were particularly abundant at T'ukw'aa and Ozette,
comprising 24.5% and 33.7% of the artifact totals, respectively. Valves for
composite harpoon heads, of varying sizes and styles, were also common
artifacts at all five sites.
Mussel shell artifacts also occurred in four of the five sites listed in Table
15, although in small numbers. At the Hoko River rockshelter, however, mussel
shell knives were one of the most common artifact types. Ethnographically,
mussel shell was an important raw material for knives and harpoon cutting
blades. The comparative rarity of mussel shell tools at most excavated sites
almost certainly stems from problems of recognition and recovery in middens
consisting largely of mussel shell, often in a very poor state of preservation. Red
21
8
knives1 scrapers
picks
17
fishhook shanks
' bird bone beads
4
bird bone tubes
combs
1
pendants
zoomorphic antler fig.
misc. decorated bone
hafts
whorls
whalebone bark beater 1
"
bark shredder
1
whalebone clubs
11
'rnisc. bone and antler
2.0
0.5
0.1
2
3
3
2
8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
12
0.9
7
2.0
2 0.4
3 0.5
1 0.2
1 0.3
1 0.3
'
12
4
0.1
1
3.7
1.4
2.1
0.7
0.1
1 0.3
12 2.1
5 0.9
61 17.6 4 0.7
0.1
3
0.2
1.3 175 19.4 157 11.2
Subtotal - BoneIAntler 336 39.0 410 45.4 1302 92.5 309 89.1 470 81.7
'
Tooth
beaver incisor tools
decorated beaver teeth
canine tooth pendants
harpoon valve
misc. worked teeth
Subtotal - Tooth
'
Shell
mussel shell celts
mussel shell knives
mussel shell point
misc. mussel shell
dentaliurn shell beads
Olivella shell beads
other shell artifacts
2
0.2
11
2
0.2
1.3
5
7
0.8
1
4
0.4
0.1
0.3
20
2.3
0.1 12
0.9
1
1
1
0.1
0.1
2
1
0.2
0.1
2
1
2
0.2
0.1
0.2
Site totals
1
1 0.1
1 0.1
I
Subtotal - Shell
1 0.1
I
I
I
2
0.21 2
I
861
1
1
1
1
1 0.3
11
1.9
0.3
14
2.4
1 0.2
1 0.3
2
0.4
0.31 3
0.5
I
0.61 1
I
904
0.5
I
0.21 8
I
3
I
1407
I
347
575
*Ch'uumatia- deposits post-dating 2000 B.P. only.
(sources: Dewhirst 1980; Haggarty 1982; McMillan and St. Claire 1992, 1994;
McKenzie 1974)
ochre stains on a large clam shell h m the Ozette midden show the use of such
objects as containers, but this rarely can be detected archaeologically.
Dentalium shells, presumably used as ornaments, were rare in these sites, as
was discussed earlier in this chapter. Single examples came from the two
Toquaht sites considered here, although they were more frequently encountered
in the late precontact house deposits at Ozette. Olivella shells, with one end
groundoff to allow stringing as beads, came only from T'ukw'aa in this sample.
These were widely used by the Makah for their ornamental value, and were
found in some quantity in the Ozette house deposits (Wessen 1994b:352) and
the Hoko River rockshelter (D. Croes, pers. comm. 1995).
Artifacts from the five sites listed in Table 15, plus the assemblage from
Shoemaker Bay I1 (see McMillan and St. Claire 1982: Table 29), are further
compared in Table 16. This table uses a Spearman correlation matrix, based on
the ranked order of each artifact class. As expected, the two Toquaht sites of
T'ukw'aa and Ch'uumat'a show relatively high correlation. Yuquot (Zone 111)also
demonstrates considerable similarity with the two Toquaht sites. Hesquiat
Village correlates most strongly with Ch'uumat'a, then with Shoemaker Bay 11.
Shoemaker Bay I1 also shows moderately high correlation with Ch'uumat'a,
although the correlation with T'ukw'aa is much lower. The artifact assemblage
from the Ozette trench excavation is not closely linked to that from any of the
Vancouver Island sites, appearing particularly dissimilar to Shoemaker Bay I1 .
Multi-dimensional scaling of the correlation matrix in Table 16 produced
the plot shown in Figure 35. The degree of similaritybetween the assemblages is
indicated by the distance separating them in this diagram. As the stress in two
dimknsions is 38, the position indicated for the six sites is considered to be 97%
consistent with the original correlation matrix. Although there is considerable
253
;
Table 16
Spearman Correlation Coefficients from Six Nuu-chah-nulthArea Sites
-
Yuquot
(2. III)
-
I
I
Hesquiat T'ukw'aa Ch'uumat 'a
Yuquot
Hesquiat
T'ukw'aa
Ch 'uumat'a
Ozette trench
Shoemaker
DIMENSION
2
T ' ukw
YUq
Ch ' u
0
+
Ozette
Hesq
Shoe
Fig. 35. Multi-dimensional scaling of six Nuu-chah-nultharea sites.
254
clustering, the Ozette trench assemblage is clearly differentiated from the
others, as is, to a much lesser extent, Shoemaker Bay 11.
Unfortunately, faunal analysis is incomplete for most sites, frustrating
attempts at broader comparisons than simply artifact types. Differing levels of
intensity of maritime adaptation were noted earlier in this chapter. At Yuquot,
the most abundant mammalian remains were from coast deer (Dewhirst 1979),
while whale and fin-seal dominate the mammalian fauna from Hesquiat Village
(Calvert 1980) and Ozette
(Huelsbeck 1988, 1994a, 1994b). Resources from the
I
-
land, such as deer and elk, played only a very minor role in the economy at
Ozette. The outer-coast Toquaht sites are also thought to have had a highly
maritime economy, although no data yet exist for the full range of species
exploited.
Some change over time is also evident, although most tools that
characterized this area at contact were present at the beginning of the period
considered here, about 2000 B.P. Chipped stone implements almost totally
disappeared from Ch'uumat'a shortly after 2000 B.P. On the Olympic
Peninsula, however, chipped stone tools declined in importance over the two
millennia of midden accumulation at Ozette, but continued in small quantities
into recent levels and were common at the late period Hoko River rockshelter.
Stone fishhook shanks appear relatively late in Zone I11 a t Yuquot,
substantially later than shanks of bone. At Ch'uumat'a, however, stone
fishhook shanks occur somewhat earlier than at Yuquot and are about the same
age as bone examples, while all fishhook shanks at Hesquiat Village and the
Ozette midden trench are of stone. Stone celts greatly decline in numbers over
time at the Toquaht sites. The large excavated sample from T'ukw'aa, all postdating 1200 B.P., contains a single stone celt, a reworked greenstone example
which differs considerably from all other stone celts found. Stone celts were
much more abundant in the smaller artifact sample from Ch'uumat'a, with all
but one found in levels which predate the earliest deposits a t T'ukw'aa. I t is
possible that stone celts were largely replaced in Barkley Sound during the late
period by celts of mussel shell, although only a few such implements were
recovered, while a t Yuquot stone celts continued into the historic period.
Similarly, bone needles in Barkley Sound came only from Ch'uumat'a and only
from deposits which predate the other excavated Toquaht sites, while they are
found into historic levels at Yuquot.
The minor nature of temporal changes within the last two millennia can
be seen at one of the Hesquiat sites, DiSo 9, a habitation cave in the upper
harbour. Two precontact components have been defined within the midden
deposits underlying historic surface burial materials (Calvert 1980; Haggarty
1982). Component I has four radiocarbon dates clustering around 1800 B.P.,
while component I1 has three clustering around 1200 B.P. (Table 5). Faunal
analysis shows few differences between the two components. Fish elements
dominate the faunal remains by bone count, with herring comprisingjust over
half the total in each case. Salmon elements increase slightly from component I
to I1 a t the expense of midshipman. Among the birds, ducks increase at the
expense of loons from component I to 11. Sea mammals make up only a very
small portion of the total bone count in both components, but are marginally
more important in component I. The two components also contained basically
the same artifact assemblages. However, although the small sample sizes
make any comparisons tentative, implements of the food quest, such as
bipoints and the valves and points of composite harpoon heads, were more
abundant in component 11.
Excavated materials from West Coast sites of this age reflect Nuu-chahnulth culture prior to the disruptions of the early contact period. The temporal
changes which can be shown to occur in this late period are, in general, few and
gradual. After contact with Europeans late in the eighteenth century, cultural
change became abrupt, pronounced, and, for some groups, catastrophic. The
nature of these changes is discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 6:
THE TRANSITION TO RECORDED HISTORY
The late-18th century arrival of European ships off the west coast of
Vancouver Island brought profound changes to the aboriginal inhabitants. It
also brought a new concept of history, as something based on written
documents. Aboriginal concepts of their history, maintained through oral
narratives, received little attention. History became the study of European
achievements, as recorded in written documents, while indigenous populations
around the globe became "people without history" (Wolf 1982; see also Trigger
1984:360; 1985:17, 34), relegated to the subject matter of anthropology and
perceived as essentially unchanging. Trigger (1980,1984, 1989a, 1989b) rejects
the "traditional dichotomy" between history and anthropology, characterizing
such outdated views as "colonialist archaeology." Instead, he advocates an
holistic approach to native history that incorporates all available knowledge,
whether obtained through historic records, archaeology, linguistics, or native
oral traditions.
A definitive historical treatment of the early contact period is far beyond
the scope of this study. This chapter examines the impact of the early contact
period on the Nuu-chah-nulthpeople and the nature of the cultural adaptations
pursued by the Nuu-chah-nulth in these changing circumstances. It integrates
data from historic records, indigenous oral histories, and archaeological research
in an historical anthropological perspective to understand the events and
cultural adjustments following contact. In assessing the magnitude of change
over the past two centuries, it evaluates the applicability of ethnographic
information collected in the early 20th century as analogy in the reconstruction
of late precontact and early contact period lifeways.
The Meeting of Two Cultures
Brief History
The first recorded encounter between Nuu-chah-nulth and Europeans
occurred on 8 August 1774, as the Spanish ship Santiago, under the command
of Juan Perez, anchored somewhere near Estevan Point a t the entrance to
Nootka Sound (Howay 194159; Gunther 1972:ll; Cook 1973:63; Pethick
1976:42-43; Beals 1989:144-149).This early meeting became incorporated into
native oral histories, which were recounted to subsequent European arrivals
(Haswell in Howay 1941:59; Ingraham in Beals 1989:216; Mozifio 1970:65-66).
Although initially fearful, some Nuu-chah-nulth soon paddled their canoes out to
examine what they perceived as a huge floating house with people walking on
top (Moser 1926:164; Efrat and Langlois 197859-60).1The Spanish conducted
a brisk trade with these natives, exchanging iron knives and abalone shells from
California for sea otter skins and native garments, including the distinctive Nuuchah-nulth woven hats (Gunther 1972:12; Pethick 1976:43; Beals 1989:89;
Moser 1926:162).This was a brief encounter, after which the Spanish departed
without entering the sound or observing a native village. A second Spanish
voyage in 1775 passed the west coast of Vancouver Island well out to sea and in
poor weather, without coming into contact with native people.
I t was the arrival of Captain James Cook on 29 March 1778 that
ushered in the period of intensive contact between the Nuu-chah-nulth and
1 In the Nuu-chah-nulthlanguage the word mamalhni, meaning "livingon the water,"is still
the term applied to any person of European descent.
259
outsiders. The famed British mariner, on his third voyage of discovery, spent
nearly a month in Nootka Sound. He and his officers became the first
Europeans to enter and describe a native village on the Northwest Coast, and
the journals from this expedition provide invaluable observations on Nuu-chahnulth life at this early period of contact. The Nootka Sound natives showed not
"the least mark of fear or distrust" (Cook in Beaglehole 1967:295), eagerly going
out in their canoes to guide Cook's ships into the harbour. Trade was the basis
for much of the subsequent interaction between the two races. In exchange for
metal objects so desired by the native people, the British obtained furs,
artworks, and items of food. The extent of the native concept of ownership soon
became clear to the British, as payment was demanded for wood, water, and
any other use of the land, and John Webber, the expedition artist, had to
surrender the brass buttons from his jacket before he was allowed to sketch the
carved figures inside a house. Cook's initial impression that a profitable fur trade
could be established was confirmed when the ships reached China and it was
discovered that the thick, soft pelts of the sea otter obtained from the Nuuchah-nulth could be sold at high prices. This was a discovery of momentous
consequence for Northwest Coast peoples, turning Nootka Sound into a scene of
international commerce in only a few years.
By the mid-1780s the rush for fur trade wealth had begun. The first of the
commercial traders to arrive was Captain James Hanna in 1785, in a ship
fittingly renamed the Sea Otter.Anchoring in Nootka Sound, he soon procured a
"valuable cargo of Furs" (Gibson 1992:23), stimulating further commerce.
British, French, Spanish, and American vessels soon were vying for pelts along
the coast, but the trade was dominated by the British (called "King George Men"
by the coastal peoples) and the Americans (known as "Boston Men" for their
home port). Nootka Sound remained the major trade centre, although the
American captains favoured Clayoquot Sound. In the 20 year period between
1785 and 1805, nearly fifty trading expeditions arrived at Nootka Sound (Inglis
and Haggarty 1987).
Hunting for sea otters was an ancient practice for the Nuu-chah-nulth,
who highly valued the soft fur for their own robes or cloaks. These garments are
described in several early historic accounts, which note that they were held in
highesteem and were generally the mark of the noble class (Meares 1790:251;
Mozifio 1970:14; Jewitt 1967:38). Ethnographic accounts also associate such
clothing with high status or wealthy individuals (Koppert 1930:51; Drucker
1951:103). These items virtually disappeared along the coast, however, as the
fur trade made them too valuable to wear. Hunting techniques also changed, as
single hunters with harpoons or bows and arrows were replaced by communal
hunts under the direction of the chiefs, using lines of canoes to sweep across a
broad area and to surround the animals (Drucker 1951:46-48; Mills 1955:38;
Moon 1978:71; Arima 1983:47; Brabant 1977:94; Gibson 199223). As the Nuuchah-nulth were already traders and sea otter hunters at contact, they required
only the intensification of long-established skills to take advantage of the
European desire for furs.
As early as Cook's arrival in Nootka Sound it was clear that NUU-chahnulth chiefs regarded the newcomers as an owned economic resource, in the
same way that they would claim drift rights over anything that floated into their
territory. Cook was well aware that the presence of his ships was causing some
dispute between the people at Yuquot and their neighbours and that the former
were monopolizing the trade, requiring others to go through them to obtain items
of European manufacture. It also became evident that the people of Yuquot
were immediately exchanging the items they received from the British for
additional trade commodities. As Cook (1784:278)noted:
. . . many of the principal natives, who lived near us, carried on
a trade with more distant tribes, in the articles that they
procured from us. For we observed, that they would frequently
disappear for four or five days at a time, and then return with
fresh cargoes of skins and curiosities.
Walker (1982:110), at Nootka Sound in 1786, noted the same control of the
trade as Cook had earlier:
These Savages wished to secure all the advantages of our
Commerce to themselves. They claimed the exclusive
priviledge of buying or selling any thing. They carefully
watched and excluded Strangers from any intercourse with us.
At last indeed after they had sold all their own commodities,
and exhausted the resources of the Sound, they admitted the
other Neighbouring tribes to a Share in the Trade. But even
this was done under restrictions. They constituted themselves
the Agents or Brokers, and assumed the prerogative of
introducing the new Comers to us.
Walker (1982:llO) also reports the harsh measures taken by the residents of
Yuquot when other natives attempted to violate this trade monopoly. Similarly,
Meares (1790:142) describes the violent retribution exacted by Wickaninish at
Clayoquot Sound when a stranger attempted to trade directly with the ship.
Three powerful native leaders, each controlling a large trade block,
emerged early in the maritime fur trade period. Maquinna consolidated his
political and economic power through his trade monopoly in Nootka Sound. He
also dominated the trade of the more northerly Nuu-chah-nulth. In Clayoquot
Sound, Wickaninish had expanded his power and territory through a series of
aggressive wars. Even the important Chief Hanna of Ahousaht had to surrender
his furs to Wickaninish before they could be sold (Meares 1790:146).
Wickaninish controlled the trade at least as far south as Barkley Sound. As a
result, this area was never able to emerge as a trading centre like Nootka or
Clayoquot Sounds as few furs were available, most being gathered by
Wickaninish for his own trading purposes (Howay 1941:79; Magee 1794; Bishop
1967:106; Gibson 1992:115). According to Meares (1790:230), Wickaninish's
domain extended as far south as "~itta-natt."2
The third major economic force
was Tatoosh, the powerful leader of the Cape Flattery villages. These three
prominent chiefs maintained close social ties; their frequent visits to each
others' villages are remarked upon in the 18th century accounts. Furthermore,
they were all linked by ties of marriage (Marshall 1993:213), which served to
consolidate alliances. Maquinna had acquired nine wives by 1803, each
symbolizing the formation of an alliance with another group (Wike 1951:99).
Ritual elements featured prominently in the Nuu-chah-nulth view of the
fur trade, at least at its inception. Canoeloads of people met Cook's ships, giving
them a ceremonial welcome to Nootka Sound through speeches, songs, and
dances. Cook (1784:266) noted a large decorated canoe carrying a prominent
individual who appeared to be a chief, who shook a rattle carved in the form of a
bird. This individual is described by one of Cook's officers (King in Beaglehole
He stood upright in the middle of the boat, & upon a plank laid
across to be more conspicuous; the naked parts of his body &
arms were painted with a red, & his face with a whitish paint,
his head was wildly Ornamented with large feathers, which
were tyed to a stiff string or sinew & fastened to the hair, so
that they hung in differentdirections projecting from the head.
Another individual danced in his canoe, using two masks and wearing a wolf skin,
while others sang, shook rattles, and threw feathers and red ochre on the water
(Cook 1784:266; King in Beaglehole 1967:1394; Samwell in Beaglehole
1967:1089-90; Gunther 1972:19-20). Such actions must have seemed
%'his, of course, would be the Nuu-chah-nulth pronunciation of "Ditidaht",referring to the
large open-ocean villages of Whyac and Clo-oose.
incomprehensible to the British, who had no knowledge of native rituals for
welcoming guests. As new groups arrived, each initiated trade with a ceremonial
greeting.
On their first coming, they generally went through a singular
mode of introducing themselves. They would paddle, with all
their strength, quite round both ships, a Chief, or other
principal person in the canoe, standing up with a spear, or
some other weapon, in his hand, and speaking, or rather
hollowing, all the time. Sometimes the orator of the canoe
would have his face covered with a mask, representing either a
human visage, or that of some animal; and, instead of a
weapon, would hold a rattle in his hand. . .After making this
curcuit round the ships, they would come along-side,and begin
to trade without further ceremony. Very often, indeed, they
would fwst give us a song, in which all the canoe joined, with a
very pleasing harmony.
(Cook 1784:273-4)
A formal protocol, involving ceremonial greetings, gift exchange, and
negotiations over price, characterized the actual trading. In 1788, Wickaninish
honoured Meares with a feast and presented him with prime sea otter skins
(Meares 1790:139-142). Such generosity required reciprocal gift-giving. The
Europeans began attempting to evade such gifts, as they cost more than those
received in trade (Howay 1941:265). Formalities might also involve the
exchange of names; an Ahousaht chief took the name Hanna after such an
exchange with the first of the European traders to arrive. The traders often
resented such formalities as time-consuming and unproductive, but for the Nuuchah-nulth trade had important political and social elements, rather than
consisting merely of commercial transactions.
As European goods became commonplace, native demands shifted. Cook
(1784:267) remarked that the natives of Nootka Sound "were more desirous of
iron, than of any other of our articles of commerce." The market quickly became
glutted, and by 1787 sheet copper was about the only article in steady demand
at Nootka Sound (Wike 1951:39).In 1791 an American trader on the Columbia
ruefully stated that "iron they would scarcely take as a gift" (Howay 1941:187).
Colnett (1940:202) in 1790 was trading sheets of copper, blankets, and "ear
shells" (almost certainly abalone from California), along with muskets. Boit, on
the Columbia in 1791, noted that they "got many Sea Otter and Land furs"
from the Chicklisaht "for Copper, Iron and Cloth," and also bartered with beads
and fishhooks for food supplies (Howay 1941:371). At Tatoosh Island the
natives demanded copper for their furs, and exchanged halibut and salmon for
nails and beads (Howay 1941:371-2).
Firearms also became major items of trade, supplied primarily by the
American traders. The demand for muskets and gunpowder was such that
Colnett (1940:202), at Clayoquot Sound in 1790, noted that "few Bargains can
be made without it."By 1791Wickaninish had acquired over 200 firearms and a
large quantity of ammunition (Howay 1941:312). Maquinna had sufficient
muskets to trade them, along with other European goods, across Vancouver
Island by the overland trail, receiving additional furs in return. Menzies, with
Vancouver in Queen Charlotte Strait in 1792, observed that the
Kwakwgka'wakw were well supplied with muskets, which he determined had
been obtained through trade with Maquinna, the "grand agent" of commeke
(Newcombe 1923:SO). Mozifio (1970:48), at Nootka Sound in 1792, noted that
firearms had replaced the bow and arrow for hunting land animals and shore
birds. The new weapons also made inter-tribal warfare more deadly and posed a
threat to the European traders.
Relations between the Nuu-chah-nulth and outsiders worsened
considerably in the decades following Cook. This was to a large degree a result of
highhandedand violent tactics employed by some of the traders. Driven by the
desire to make a large profit in a short period of time, some unscrupulous
traders stooped to plundering native villages for their furs (Ingraham 1971:225;
Kendrick 1991:87; Jane 1930:22; Jewitt 1967:92) or for supplies (Howay
1941:53),leaving the next arrivals to face the hostility of the victimized natives.
The Spanish in Nootka Sound also stole house planks from native villages to use
in their own buildings (Mozifio 1970:79; Cook 1973:285). Native thefts from
European ships also led to violent retribution from the traders. After the theft of
a chisel, Captain Hanna fired on native canoes in Nootka Sound, reportedly
killing upwards of 20 people and forcing Maquinna to leap overboard and swim
for his life (Jewitt 1967:92). In Barkley Sound, thefts from their ship led the
crew of the Jefferson to attack the native village of Seshart, killing several
people, ransacking the houses, and taking several of the best canoes (Magee
1794). On several occasions chiefs were forcefully held as hostages aboard the
ships (Magee 1794; Colnett 1940:191; Howay 1941:186, 188). Many
"unprovoked attacks" reported by traders stemmed from such behaviour by
their predecessors in the area. Jewitt, held as a captive in Nootka Sound after
such an attack, was well aware that his misfortune was largely a result of such
native grievances.
I have no doubt that many of the melancholy disasters have
principally arisen from the imprudent conduct of some of the
captains and crews of the ships employed in this trade, in
exasperatingthem by insulting,plundering, and even killing
them on slight grounds.
(Jewitt 1967:93)
Even more disastrous for the Nuu-chah-nulth was the traders' violent
reaction to perceived threats to their ships. When Colnett (1940:201) feared in
1790 that canoeloads of natives in Clayoquot Sound planned to attack his
vessel, he drove them off with a volley of musket shot, then fired his cannon into
the major village of Opitsat. Much greater destruction came at the hands of an
American trader, Captain Gray of the Columbia, in 1792. In response to a failed
plot against his ship, Gray ordered the complete destruction of Opitsat by
cannon fire (Howay 1941:390-91).Later, he used his cannon against "a large
Canoe with at least 20 Men in her" and "no doubt kill'd every soul in her" (Howay
1941:395). He also attacked a village in Esperanza Inlet, killing several natives
and taking their sea otter skins after a dispute over trading rates (Gibson
1992:163; Cook 1973:343;Jane 1930:22).
The destruction of Opitsat deserves special comment. Meares (1790:203)
visited this village in 1788 and described it as "very large and populous," with
houses "commodiously constructed, possessing a greater share of their rude
magnificence than any which we had yet seen." The latter refers to his earlier
observation of another of Wickaninish's villages, where he had been astonished
at the vast size of the chiefs house, and commented on the "gigantic images,
carved out of huge blocks of timber" that supported the "rudely carved and
painted" rafters (1790:138). The American traders stated that the Clayoquot
villages were "larger and more numerously inhabited" than those at Nootka
Sound (Howay 1941:69), with about 200 houses a t Opitsat in 1792 (Howay
1941:391). The house occupied by Wickaninish was so large that Hoskins (in
Howay 1941:263) estimated that 600 persons attended a ceremony there, with
nearly twice as many observing from outside. Boit, who was charged by Gray
with carrying out the destruction, expressed his regret:
I . . . am greived to think Capt. Gray should let his passions go
so far. This Village was about half a mile in Diameter, and
Contained upwards off 200 Houses, generally well built for
Indians ev'ry door that you enter'd was in resemblance to an
human and Beasts head, the passage being through the
mouth, besides which there was much more rude carved work
about the dwellings some of which was by no means
innelegant. This fine Village, the Work of Ages, was in a short
time totally destroy'd.
(Howay 1941:390-91)
In addition to such attacks, in some cases land was usurped by the
European arrivals. An area at one end of the village of Yuquot was appropriated
in 1788, when Meares set up an on-shore facility for building a boat. In the
following year the Spanish under Martinez established a gamson at Yuquot in
an attempt to enforce their claims to sovereignty over the coast. The seizure of
British ships in Nootka Sound at that time precipitated an international
incident. When Maquinna and his people moved to another village on the outer
coast, the Spanish took over the village site, taking some building materials
from the abandoned native houses. Martinez's autocratic manner alienated the
native occupants of the sound, and his murder of Callicum, the second-ranked
chief, led to the complete abandonment of the site by Maquinna, who went to
Wickaninish for protection (Mozifio 1970:75-76;. Colnett 1940:62; Wagner
1930:162).Not until the Spanish finally departed in 1795 did Maquinna and his
people reclaim the site and rebuild their village. A second Spanish fort,
constructed at Neah Bay in 1792, also led to hostilities with the local people. In
retaliation for the death of a Spanish pilot, the commander fired on two canoes,
killing most of the occupants (Wagner 1933:64; Howay 1941:409; Cook
1973:351). The Neah Bay fort was also short-lived,being abandoned after only a
few months.
Such incidents fostered native desires for vengeance, leading to two wellknown incidents of fur trade violence. In 1803, Maquinna reacted to being
insulted by Captain Salter of the Boston by seizing the ship and killing all on
board, with the exception of John Jewitt, the ship's armourer, and one other
(Jewitt 1967, 1988; Brathwaite and Folan 1972). Maquinna's reduced economic
situation following his prolonged expulsion from Yuquot may have stimulated
this attack as much as Salter's insult. The capture of this ship with its full
trading cargo provided Maquinna with new wealth for trading and potlatching,
restoring his diminished status. Jewitt (1967:38-40) describes the arrival of
other Nuu-chah-nulth groups and the distribution of goods from the Boston:
When the ceremony was concluded, Maquina invited the
strangers to a feast at his house, consisting of whale blubber,
smoked herring spawn, and dried fish and train oil, of which
they eat most plentifully. . . On this occasion Maquina gave
away no less than one hundred muskets, the same number of
looking glasses, four hundred yards of cloth, and twenty casks
of powder, besides other things. . . In this manner tribes of
savages from various parts of the coast, continued coming for
several days, bringing with them, blubber, oil, herring spawn,
dried fish and clams, for which they received in return,
presents of cloth, &c.
In 1811 the American ship Tonquin was attacked in Clayoquot Sound, but
exploded and sank with loss of life of all aboard.
By this time the fur trade had long been in decline. Fewer skins and higher
prices resulted in the trade gradually shifting northward. As early as 1793
Moziiio (1970:91) noted that the natives of Nootka Sound had killed so many
sea otters that they had destroyed the basis of the trade. Yuquot had become
primarily a safe port to take on water and supplies. The massacre of the crew of
the Boston may have temporarily enhanced Maquinna's economic position, but
it put an end to Nootka Sound's reputation as a safe haven. Few ships passed
this way in the ensuing several decades and the Nuu-chah-nulth lived in nearisolation until the mid-19th century, when a demand for dogfish oil to service the
growing logging industry brought about a resumption of trade.
The Toquaht Case
I t was the maritime sea otter trade that first brought the Nuu-chahnulth of Barkley Sound into contact with Europeans. The first to arrive was
Captain Charles William Barkley in the British trading vessel Imperial Eagle,
who sailed into the sound in 1787. He named the sound after himself, and a
number of prominent landmarks, such as Cape Beale, after members of his
ship's company. Both Barkley and Captain John Meares, who arrived the
following year aboard the Felice Adventurer, anchored in the Broken Group near
the large native village ofHuumuuwa, where they traded for furs.
The earliest information which pertains directly to Toquaht traditional
territory comes from the Spanish explorations under the command of Don
Francisco Eliza in 1791. In May of that year the vessel Santa Saturnina,
commanded by Jose Maria Narvaez, entered Barkley Sound, which they termed
the "Boca de Carrasco" (Wagner 1933:146). The map of the sound produced by
this expedition is reasonably accurate, showing such features of Toquaht
territory as the Stopper Islands, the George Fraser Islands, and the lower
portions of Toquart Bay and Pipestem Inlet (Archives of British Columbia,
Maps Collection). Five native villages are shown in the sound, one of which is in
Toquaht territory. It is placed about halfway along the western shore of the
sound, immediately south of a major river. It seems likely that this would be the
Macoah, the major ethnographic Toquaht village. However, as Macoah is not
situated on a river, this may have been the small ethnographic fishing camp
near the mouth of the Maggie River.
In 1793 Captain Josiah Roberts arrived in the ship Jefferson and wintered
over near the head of Toquart Bay. An unpublished journal kept by his first
officer, Bernard Magee, describes a village on the west side of the Sound ".. .still
270
larger than any we had before visited" (Magee 1794). Magee described visits to
the ship by "Hiuquis3the Cheeff of Tooquot." He noted that furs were difficult to
obtain as trade throughout the area was controlled by Wickaninish, the powerful
chief of Clayoquot Sound to the north. Wickaninish himself, along with several of
his brothers, appears among Magee's list of important chiefs who arrived in
Toquaht territory to trade with the ship, as does Hanna, chief of the Ahousaht.
He also reports the visit of "a Canoe from Clahaset," showing that the Makah
were traveling this far to trade. Relations between the European traders and the
Nuu-chah-nulth were occasionally uneasy, and at one point the chiefs "Hiuquis"
and "He:che:nook"were seized and held until restitution was made for various
items stolen from the ship.
The next ship to arrive was the Ruby under Captain Charles Bishop in
1795. Sailing into the western edge of the Sound, they were met by Chief
"Hyhocus"who came out to the ship ". . . in a Large cannoe attended by many
Smaller ones." "Hyhocus"acknowledged that he was subject to "Wiccannanish
at Cloaqoit," who arrived within a few days to take part in the trade (Bishop
1967:106).
Several decades elapsed before another trading vessel is known to have
entered western Barkley Sound. Pressures of the fur trade drove the sea otter to
near extinction on this part of the coast, forcing the trade to move north. Even
within Nuu-chah-nulth territory, Barkley Sound saw few trading vessels
compared to the major fur trade centres of Nootka and Clayoquot Sounds.
Ethnohistoric documents for the Toquaht area are lacking until resumption of
contact in the second half of the 19th century. By this time the fur trade was
long over, and contact centred on European settlement, commercial exploitation
3~lsewhe1-ein the journal this name is written as "Hyuquis".
271
of the land, and restriction of native people to small reserves within their
traditional territories.
A brief resumption of trade by the 1850s was brought about by the
demand for dogfish oil, required for lubrication by the developing lumber mills in
the Fraser Valley and Puget Sound. A number of trading schooners, primarily
American, visited Barkley Sound, and the various Nuu-chah-nulth groups there
industriously caught and processed large quantities of dogfish for this trade.
William Eddy Banfield, a British trader and later a colonial government agent,
wrote a series of letters and articles describing the country and people of
Barkley Sound. These provide comments and population estimates for all native
groups in the sound. He refers specifically to ". . .a small tribe of Indians. . .called
Taquats", noting with approval the natural abundance of their territory
(Banfield 1858). By 1860 the first trading store in Barkley Sound was
established in Ucluelet. The same year saw logging operations begin for the first
export sawmill in British Columbia, which was established at the head of Alberni
Inlet.
After British Columbia entered confederation, attention turned to the
Indian land issue. In 1874 George Blenkinsop was sent to Barkley Sound by the
federal Indian Commissioner to gather information on native needs and desires
in regard to land. The account of his three-month sojourn among the Nuu-chah-
nulth of Barkley Sound is filled with interesting observations. A map of tribal
territories which he prepared shows the boundaries of Toquaht territory as
confirmed by modern informants. "Hi.yoo.meek"is listed as chief of the Toquaht.
Blenkinsop commented favorably on the resources in Toquaht territory, stating
that, "Fish and game are abundant: their country is without exception beyond
anything in this respect I have yet seen" (1874:34).
Peter O'Reilly, the Indian Reserve Commissioner, visited the various
Barkley Sound groups to allocate reserves in 1882. He described the Toquaht as
"solelyfishermen,gaining their living by sealing and selling fish oil; in addition to
which they subsist largely on salmon, halibut and herring, which are found here
in profusion" (OIReilly1883:lOO).Five reserves were laid out for the Toquaht, led
by a chief named "New-cha-na,"who at this point numbered only 25 individuals.
These reserves include their main villages of Macoah and Tukw'aa, plus their
major salmon fishery on the lower Toquart River and two other fishing stations,
but not the large village site of Ch'uumat'a, which had lapsed into disuse by this
time. O'Reilly considered it unnecessary to allocate any further lands, as the
people looked to the sea for their existence.
The Twin Spectres: Disease and Warfare
Encounters with the new arrivals during this early period of trade were to
have unforeseen and catastrophic effects on the Nuu-chah-nulth.
Intensification of indigenous patterns of warfare, plus a number of disastrous
encounters with European cannons and muskets, claimed many native lives.
Even more deadly was exposure to a variety of introduced diseases, which
exacted a great toll of native life from earliest contact. The resulting
depopulation forced major changes in fundamental aspects of Nuu-chah-nulth
culture.
Various afflictions brought by early European explorers and traders
plagued aboriginal communities. The most deadly, however, was smallpox, which
had a catastrophic effect on native populations throughout the Americas (see,
for example, Ramenofsky 1987). On the Northwest Coast this lethal disease
began its destruction of native life shortly after initial contact with Europeans
(Boyd 1990, 1994; Harris 1994). It was present among the Ditidaht prior to
1791, when Hoskins (in Howay 1941:196) noted smallpox scars on Cassacan,
the chief of "Nittenat" (the Ditidaht village of Whyac). Boit (in Howay
1941:371),on the same vessel, noted that "these Natives had been visited by
that scourge of mankind the Smallpox,"indicating that the evidence was fairly
widespread. The first documented epidemic, which Boyd (1990, 1994) dates to
the late 1770s and Harris (1994) to 1782, affected the Ditidaht and their
Halkomelem and Straits-speaking Salish neighbours on Vancouver Island.
There is no evidence that the Nuu-chah-nulth and Makah were impacted this
early, but they were not to be so fortunate in subsequent epidemics which swept
the coast. An epidemic in 1852-53 reduced an already depleted population
(Drucker 1951:12; Boyd 1990:141). As late as 1875 Brabant (1977:38-41)
described an outbreak of smallpox among the Mowachaht and Hesquiaht, which
presumably affected other Nuu-chah-nulth groups.
Other infectious diseases, such as measles and influenza, spread rapidly
among all coastal groups. Measles played a major role in reducing the Makah
population throughout the 1840s, and an 1848 outbreak also affected the
northern Nuu-chah-nulth (Boyd 1990:145). Tuberculosis also made an early
historic appearance among the Nuu-chah-nulth (Schulting and McMillan 1995).
Although this disease is known to predate European arrival in the Americas
(Buikstra and Williams 1991), there is no convincing evidence from the
Northwest Coast prior to the early historic period (Boyd 1990:137; Cybulski
1990:57; 1994:83).Tuberculosis is known to have been present among Captain
Cook's crew at Nootka Sound in 1778, and a Nuu-chah-nulth individual with this
disease was observed at this same location by Menzies in 1793 (Boyd
1990:137). As late as 1887 Brabant (1977:104-105; Moser 1926:116) was
lamenting the loss of many Hesquiaht and Mowachaht children to measles,
noting that many of the survivors then succumbed to "consumption"
(tuberculosis).
Venereal diseases, transmitted by European seamen, were also rampant
in this early period. Hoskins (in Howay 1941:196) noted in 1791 that Chief
Cassacan of "Nittenat" was "troubled with the venereal." In the following year
the Spanish at Nootka Sound observed that the Nuu-chah-nulth there were
"beginning to experience the terrible ravages of syphilis" (Jane 1930:115).
Venereal diseases not only killed many, but rendered large numbers of others
infertile (Duff 1964:43; Moziiio 1970:43), further contributing to a declining
population.
Intensification of warfare in the early historic period, stimulated by the
introduction of firearms and new trade rivalries, as well as by a destabilized
economy as many groups concentrated on hunting sea otters and trading furs,
also resulted in widespread and catastrophic loss of life. Groups such as the Tlao-qui-ahtwere able to expand militarily at the expense of their neighbours due to
their early superiority in firearms. In a war text dating to the late 18th century,
at a time when the Barkley Sound groups did not yet have muskets, the
Ucluelet used their alliance with the Tla-o-qui-aht to seize Effingham Inlet and
eliminate the former occupants (Swadesh 1948:79; Sapir and Swadesh
1955:373-377). In a well-documented war of expansion, the Ahousaht nearly
exterminated the Otsosaht and absorbed their territory early in the 19th
century (Drucker 1951:344-345; Arima 1983:107-117; Webster 198359-64;
Bouchard and Kennedy 1994:224-141). The Barkley Sound groups became
embroiled in a deadly series of hostilities known as the "Long War," dating to
around the 1840s (Swadesh 1948:79-80; Sapir and Swadesh 1955:412-439; see
Chapter 1).Intergroup warfare resulted in extinction of some groups and forced
amalgamation of others, greatly reducing the number of independent political
units among the Nuu-chah-nulth.
Population levels at European contact are unknown. Recent intensive
archaeological surveys on western Vancouver Island (eg. Inglis and Haggarty
1986; Marshall 1992a) give the impression of a "filled landscape" prior to
contact, with populations greatly exceeding those of the ethnographic period,
although the problem of demonstrating site contemporaneity is a difficult one.
An important early historic population estimate comes from Meares (1790:229231), who in 1788 calculated the number of people under the authority of each of
the major chiefs. Maquima, in his estimation, had about 10,000subjects, while
Wickaninish had 13,000; Hanna and Detootche, two Ahousaht chiefs, were
consideredindependentand credited with 1500 subjects each; Tatoosh, at Cape
Flattery, had another 5000. This makes a total of about 31,000 people for the
three "Nootkan"divisions. Arima et al. (1991:l-2) accept Meares's estimates as
reasonably accurate, concluding that the early contact population was
approximately 30,000. Boyd (1991) takes a more conservative approach,
estimating that at contact the Nuu-chah-nulth population was at least 6000,
while the Ditidaht and Makah together had another 4320 people. Epidemic
diseases and intensified warfare rapidly resulted in great population losses. By
1885, when the first accurate census data became available, the combined
Nuu-chah-nulth and Ditidaht population was about 3500 (Duff 1964:39). The
population continued to decline until 1939, at which time the Nuu-chah-nulth
and Ditidaht were reduced to a total of only 1605 people (Duff 1964:39).
Turning to Barkley Sound, and more specifically the Toquaht, we get a
glimpse of the magnitude of destruction wrought by warfare and disease. The
Toquaht loss of life is detailed in several of the war texts recorded by Sapir.
Kwishanishim, Sapir's Ucluelet informant, tells how the Toquaht had "become
few" prior to the end of the 18th century, through warfare with the Effingham
Inlet tribes (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:373). By the end of the mid-19th century
"LongWar" in Barkley Sound, Kwishanishim notes that, "There were only a few
Tukwaa [Toquaht] people now" (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:430).Throughout the
late 19th century, Euro-Canadian observers noted the diminished state of the
Toquaht and their neighbours and were well aware of the forces which caused
1
their reduced numbers. Banfield (1858) stated that the Toquaht were "once a
much larger tribe, but some ten years since they were engaged in an intertribal
war with the Nitnats [Ditidaht], and in consequence were reduced to their
present small number." Blenkinsop (1874:lO) commented on the "numerous old
village sites,"which he felt "prove incontestably that the population of Barclay
[sic] Sound must have been at no very remote period ten times its present
number." He attributed this great population loss to "war in former years, and
disease.
. . in latter
years." Turning specifically to the Toquaht, Blenkinsop
(1874:32-33)commented that they were "dwindling away from a once powerful
tribe to scarcely a tenth of what they were fifty years since." He hrther stated
that:
Continual wars with their more powerfd neighbours and
disease have reduced them to their present weak state. On one
occasion Dysentery swept off more than half the tribe, and
smallpox and measles decimated them frequently. They are
now the smallest tribe on the Sound.
Sproat (1868:104-5)refers to the "ancient . . . tribe of Toquahts, now reduced by
war to a comparatively small number" and describes them as "the remnant of a
large tribe distinguished formerly in war." In addition, the former presence of the
eleven Toquaht political subdivisions recorded by Boas (1891584; see Table 2,
Chapter 1) indicates that the population must once have been substantial.
Table 17 lists population estimates for the Toquaht, beginning in the mid-19th
century. By this time, however, immediately following the Long War, the
Toquaht already had been greatly reduced in numbers.
Table 17
Toquaht Population Estimates
year
source
1853
1858
1860
1874
1882
1914
1921
1963
1994
Douglas 1853
Banfield 1858
Mayne 1862
Blenkinsop 1874
O'Reilly 1883
British Columbia 1914, 1916
Sapir n.d.
Duff 1964
Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs 1995
Political and Settlement Pattern Changes
Depopulation forced major cultural adjustments, particularly in the
political and economic realms. One of the most evident effects was the
disappearance of many independent political groups. Some were forcefully
incorporated into other polities by warfare, while others sought voluntary
alliance with related groups when their populations sank to levels that could not
be sustained. In the latter case they oRen retained their name and a sense of
separate identity, becoming a ranked component group of a larger political unit.
The number of independent political groups among the Nuu-chah-nulth and
Ditidaht continued to drop throughout the historic period, in a process extending
well into the twentieth century.
The amalgamation of small local groups into larger "tribal"units brought
about shifts in resource use and settlement pattern. Independent local groups,
the basic Nuu-chah-nulth political form (see Chapter I), tended to exploit a
relatively small, culturally constrained territory from a year-round base.
Amalgamation of several local groups produced a larger consolidated territory
that could not be managed effectively from a single location. The development of
the ethnographic seasonal round, with a fixed pattern of movement to specific
locations to exploit seasonal resources, was an outcome of such amalgamations.
This seasonal round became particularly pronounced when "outside" groups
obtained rights to salmon rivers on the "inside,"establishing late summer and
fall camps at such locations. This stimulated further warfare, as groups lacking
productive salmon streams attempted to acquire them by force. A Nuu-chahnulth ideal became the control of a variety of resource areas, including both
Ynsidettand "outside"locations. Expansion of group territories by the forceful
seizure of such resource areas is a dominant theme in Nuu-chah-nulth oral
traditions spanning the late 18th and first half of the 19th centuries (Swadesh
1948; Sapir and Swadesh 1955; Drucker 1951:37; Inglis and Haggarty
1986:321; St. Claire 1991:81-84).
While the above was a common pattern throughout the Nuu-chah-nulth
area, considerable variation existed. The people of Hesquiat Harbour and
'
Muchalat Inlet remained at the local group level of political organization until
late in the 19th century, while those from Kyuquot Sound to Nootka Sound
formed confederacies. In Barkley Sound a series of bitter wars and conquests
shaped the nature of the five existing "tribal" groups and their ethnographic
territories, while amalgamation to form the modern Ditidaht appears to have
proceeded primarily through peaceful means. Two specific areas, Nootka Sound
and Barkley Sound,with differingpatterns of post-contact political adaptations,
are examined here.
Nootka Sound
The four northern Nuu-chah-nulth political units
-
the Mowachaht,
Ehattesaht, Nuchatlaht, and Kyuquot - all formed confederacies early in the
historic period. Such federated polities characteristically emerged after a period
of warfare, when peace was established and rights to residential and resource
locations were exchanged. Joint residence at a confederacy village during the
summer months enhanced group solidarity, as did an integrated ranking of the
chiefs, but individual political units within the confederacy maintained
considerable autonomy and held their own village locations, to which they retired
during much of the year.
Warfare continued to play a role in confederacy formation, as once such
groups emerged their neighbours were either forced to form similar political units
or were absorbed. The Nuchatlaht confederacy, for example, appears to have
been created from the groups that remained after the Ehattesaht and
Mowachaht confederacies emerged (Drucker 1951:228). Surrounded by these
two newly-formed and powerful confederacies, the groups which comprise the
historic Nuchahtlaht would have had little choice but to amalgamate for
common defense. The Chicklisaht in the north and the Muchalaht in Nootka
Sound survived as independent groups into the late 19th century, but ultimately
joined the Kyuquot and Mowachaht, respectively.
The history of the Mowachaht confederacy is complex and occurred in a
number of stages. Its formation, however, is better documented than that of
any other Nuu-chah-nulth confederacy (Drucker 1951; Folan 1972; Dewhirst
1990; Marshall 1993).It provides a good example of the role of both warfare and
alliances in creating more complex polities. It also illustrates the state of flux in
political organization and territorial holdings experienced by Nuu-chah-nulth
groups in the first century of contact.
Legendary history gives a dominant role to groups on the "outside" of
Nootka Island. These were the people who invented whaling techniques and who
received from the Wolves the major Nuu-chah-nulth ceremony (Drucker
1951:228). These also were the people who took the first steps in confederacy
formation. Through alliances with independent local groups on Tahsis Inlet, each
living year-round at a village on a salmon river, they gained their first holdings
on the "inside"of the sound. Control of the upper portion of Tahsis Inlet, with its
major salmon rivers and the entrance to the overland trail across Vancouver
Island, was bequeathed to a chief of the outer coast people when the former
occupants moved into Esperanza Inlet to join the Nuchatlaht confederacy
(Drucker 1951:228; Dewhirst 1990:39; Marshall 1993:198).Warfare also played
a role, as the outer coast people forcefully seized Yuquot (Folan 1972:43;
Dewhirst 1990:38; Marshall 1993:197), driving out a group that formerly had
been "the sole owners of Yuquot, and the largest tribe on the sound" (Curtis
1916:184). The resulting consolidated territory stretched from upper Tahsis
Inlet to Yuquot and the open ocean sites of Nootka Island. Chiefs exchanged
rights to build houses at the major villages of Yuquot, Kupti, and Tahsis, and an
economic round of seasonal movement between them developed. Folan (1972)
and Dewhirst (1990) refer to this consolidated group as the tYuquotaht,"while
Marshall (1993)terms this "the Yuquot-Tahsis confederacy."
This confederacy, along with a seasonal pattern of movement throughout
the consolidated territory, was established before the arrival of Europeans in
Nootka Sound (Curtis 1916:185; Folan 1972:42). In fact, Marshall (1993:156160, 198) argues that it emerged as early as 300 to 400 years ago. She notes
archaeological evidence for the expansion of Kupti and possibly Yuquot in the
late precontact period, attributing this to seasonal occupation by a larger
confederated population. At the same time, Etas, one of the original "outside"
villages, appears to have declined in importance as the economic focus of the
confederacy shifted to resources of the sound and inlet. Certainly the early
historic descriptions make clear that the people of Yuquot in the late 18th
century were engaged in a seasonal round of movement that took them from the
outer coast beaches to upper Tahsis Inlet. Cook in 1778 speculated that the
houses he observed at Yuquot were only seasonally occupied, stating that "one
I
I
cannot look upon their houses to be any thing more than temporary habitations
I
for the summer season when the fishery calls them down to the Sea coast, And
it is very probable . . . that they have others farther inland which they retire to
in the winter" (Cook in Beaglehole 1967:318).This speculation was confirmed by
subsequent visitors to Nootka Sound, such as the American traders on the
I1
Columbia who visited Tahsis in 1789, describing it as "the winter village of the
1
Uquat CYuquot] Inhabitants" (Haswell in Howay 1941:83).
The relative rank of the chiefs of the confederated groups, publicly
expressed through the order of seating in potlatches, became fixed. The highest
ranked position belonged to the head of a lineage from E'as, one of the "outside"
villages (Drucker 1951:230).Throughout the early historic period the chief who
held this position took the hereditary name of Maquinna. The second ranked
position belonged to Callicum, who traced his origin to Tahsis, an "inside"
location (Dewhirst 1990:43). Visitors to Yuquot in the 1780s noted the chiefly
authority of both men, but recognized that Maquima held the superior position
(Walker 1982:67-68; Meares 1790:108). The other component groups also held
ranked positions within the confederacy, retaining their individual identities and
some measure of influence within the larger polity.
At the time of the early European observations at Yuquot, the villages in
the eastern part of the sound were politically separate from the Yuquot-Tahsis
confederacy. In fact, a state of warfare existed for at least part of this period, as
Haswell (in Howay 1941:55) commented in 1788 that the inhabitants of Yuquot
were at war with "the people of the opposite side of the sound." The villages in
Tlupana Inlet had also politically amalgamated, bringing together a number of
formerly independent local groups, each associated with a village at the mouth
of a salmon stream. This tribal organization emerged as one group became
dominant and offered its neighbours residential rights at the village of O'wis, in
the upper sound (Drucker 1951:230). An integrated system of ranking for its
chiefs and joint occupation of O'wis during the winter months consolidated this
tribal grouping. Its chief, the head of the dominant local group, was Tlupananutl,
who is frequently mentioned in the early historic documents for Nookta Sound.
Tlupananutl's village is shown at the head of Tlupana Arm in a Spanish map of
1791 (in Mozifio 1970: plate 4). Menzies, at Yuquot with Vancouver in 1792,
refers to an "aged Chief named Floopannanoo [Tlupananutl], whose Tribe
occupied one of the North west branches of the Sound" (Newcombe 1923:115).
Vancouver's account of his 1794 visit to Tlupananutl's village of "Mooetchee"
(Muwach'a) clearly recognizes the people of Tlupana Inlet as distinct from those
at Yuquot, noting "the superiorityof Maquinna's authority, when compared with
that of the neighbouring chiefs; amongst whom Clewpaneloo [Tlupananutl] was
reputed to be one of the first in wealth and power" (1984:1406).
The Mowachaht confederacy emerged through political amalgamation of
the Tlupana Inlet people with the Yuquot-Tahsis confederacy. Tlupananutl was
linkedby marriage to Maquinna and it was through transfer of marriage rights
at a potlatch that the Tlupana Inlet people acquired house sites and potlatch
seats at Yuquot (Drucker 1951:230-31; Folan 1972:45; Marshall 1993:257).
They continued, however, to winter separately at O'wis and to retire seasonally
to their fishing stations in Tlupana Inlet. This union appears to have taken
place early in the 19th century, as Jewitt's descriptions of visitors to Yuquot
from Tlupana Inlet indicate that these were still separate polities as late as
1804 (Dewhirst 1990:41), yet the Tlupana people are said to have moved to
Yuquot during the time of Tlupana~utl(Curtis 1916:l83), an aged chief when
described by Vancouver and the Spanish in the 1790s. It took a considerable
period of time, however, to work out an integrated series of ranking for their
chiefs. In fact, Drucker (1951:230-31) states that it was not until the middle of
the 19th century, when people began to live at Yuquot for much of the year and
the occupants were invited as a single group to potlatches held by other Nuuchah-nulth, that this was finally achieved. At this point the Mowachaht
confederacy, as known through ethnographic descriptions, was established. Why
the confederacy derived its name from Tlupananutl's village of Muwach'a is
unknown (Drucker 1951:231; Folan 1972:37; Dewhirst 1990:40; Marshall
1993:257), but it reflects the shift in emphasis from outside resources to those
of the inner sound and inlets.
A late stage in political union involved the Muchalaht, whose villagemere
along Muchalat Inlet at the eastern side of the sound and along the major rivers
near its head. These villages existed as independent local groups, occasionally
warring among themselves, until forced by outside aggression to consolidate
(Drucker 1951:232). Around the mid-19th century the Mowachaht initiated a
lengthy war of attrition, with the rich salmon fisheries of the Gold and Burman
Rivers on Muchalat Inlet providing the incentive for attempted conquest. A
leadingfigure in these hostilities was Shewish, the Mowachaht war chief who
had taken political leadership when his elder brother, who held the title
Maquinna, had died. The beleaguered Muchalaht faced additional threats, as the
Opetchesaht crossed overland to attack villages on Gold River, as did the
Namgis (Nimpkish) Kwakwakg'wakw from across the island, while the
Ahousaht were raiding villages along Muchalat Inlet (Drucker 195l:234, 354,
356,359).The death of Shewish at the hands of a Muchalaht war chief removed
one of the chief instigators of the war and possibly saved the Muchalaht from
annihilation. By the time the hostilities came to an end around the early 1870s,
the Muchalaht survivors had consolidated at the village of Ahaminaquus
(Aa7aminh; DkSm 4), at the mouth of Gold River, where they had built a
palisaded fort of cedar timbers (Drucker 1951:234, 363). The two small
defensive sites (DkSm 2 and 3) recorded by Marshall (1992a:17-18; 1993:51-52)
on either side of Gold River may also relate to these hostilities, particularly since
at the time Shewish was killed the Muchalaht were living "at an old site just
across the river [from Ahaminaquus] which they considered more defensible"
(Drucker 1951:361). After building a large house a t Ahaminaquus, the
Muchalaht chief invited the Mowachaht and Ahousaht to a potlatch, at which
he sprinkled eagle down on his guests and formally established peace (Drucker
1951:353-365).
In the final decades of the 19th century the Muchalaht who had survived
the war consolidated into a single group, although without an integrated ranking
of potlatch seats (Drucker 1951:235). The marriage of a Muchalaht chiefs
daughter to the second-ranking Mowachaht chief led many of her relatives to
follow her to Yuquot (Drucker 1951:231). When the primary Mowachaht chief
died early in the 20th century, the position, including the name of Maquinna,
passed to a Muchalaht man and most of the remaining Muchalaht joined the
Mowachaht at Yuquot (Drucker l95l:23 1;Marshall 1993:263).The Muchalaht
were never formally integrated into the Mowachaht confederacy, however,
instead establishing and maintaining their own ranked series of potlatch seats.
As joint residence encouraged continued intermarriage, individuals came to
acquire potlatch seats and other privileges from both groups. Finally, in 1951
the Muchalaht formally joined the Mowachaht as a single band under the
Canadian administrative system. Later, the federal government encouraged the
entire band to move to the former Muchalaht site of Ahaminaquus a t Gold
River. Even today, however, traditions of separate histories are strong, and in
1994 the band was formally renamed the Mowachaht/Muchalaht4 (Canada,
Indian and Northern Affairs 1995).
Marshall (1993:166, 265) maintains that historic settlement patterns in
Nootka Sound remained relatively stable compared to Nuu-chah-nulth areas to
the south. Archaeological survey of Nootka Sound revealed that most large shell
A similar situation exists among the northernmost Nuu-chah-nulth.The Chicklisaht
formally merged with the Kyuquot band under the Canadian legal system, but continued to
maintain their own chiefs and identity. Today both groups are members of the Kyuquot band,
but they have begun to refer to themselves as the KyuquotXhicklisaht.
midden sites continued to be occupied into the historic period, often into the 20th
century. Furthermore, most ethnographic village locations had archaeological
evidence of earlier use, indicating that few new sites had been established in this
late period. People continued to return to previously established village locations,
although the intensity and duration of occupation would have changed over time,
as would the political composition of the site residents. The lack of evidence for
widespread abandonment of older sites and the rarity of ethnographic sites with
no archaeological presence suggests a different pattern of events than that seen
from surveys in Hesquiat Harbour and Barkley Sound. It seems likely that the
more complex political organization achieved by the northern Nuu-chah-nulth
allowed them to make a more orderly transition to the contractions and
amalgamations caused by historic depopulation, as opposed to the violent and
disruptive events which characterized the early historic period in Nuu-chahnulth areas to the south.
A prominent theme running throughout these early historic changes is
the shift in emphasis from outer ocean resources to those of the protected inner
sound and inlets. Outer coast sites such as E'as, formerly dominant in legendary
history and the home of the highest-ranked division of the Mowachaht, declined
in use throughout the historic period. Archaeological evidence comes from
Yuquot, where excavation in the historic levels shows that less emphasis was
placed on the procurement of open ocean fauna. Albatross, the dominant avian
fauna throughout earlier levels, is reduced in importance while Canada goose
remains become much more common, and mussel shells, which form much of
the midden matrix from precontact levels, are largely replaced by clams of
several species (Dewhirst 1979; McAZlister 1980; Clarke and Clarke 1980).
Large quantities of land mammal bones also show the historic importance
placed on hunting deer (Dewhirst 1980:347). The name of the 19th century
confederacy, taken from the Tlupana Inlet village of Muwach'a, indicates the
increasing importance of the upper sound and inlet locations. The Mowachaht,
literally "the People of the Deer," were by this time focused on deer and salmon,
while the whales which had preoccupied their ancestors played a role only in the
oral traditions of a glorious past.
Barkley Sound
The first century of contact was a tumultuous period for the Barkley
Sound Nuu-chah-nulth,who were devastated by warfare and disease. Most of
the independent political units occupying the sound at contact were eliminated
by these catastrophic forces. The few surviving political units are primarily
19th century amalgamations of formerly autonomous groups. Such
amalgamations resulted in the abandonment of many large, formerly yearround village sites, while the larger territorial holdings of each amalgamated
group stimulated an economic round of seasonal movement.
Unlike Nootka Sound, no single polity assumed control over all of Barkley
Sound. In the late 18th century, however, Wickaninish exerted a trade
hegemony over the sound. Captains Barkley in 1787 and Meares in 1788 were
able to trade successllly for furs in the sound (Meares 1790:180; Hill 1978:37),
but after that time Wickaninish forced local chiefs to trade their furs through
him. Many of the early European visitors noted this control of trade exerted by
the powerful Tla-o-qui-aht chief (Magee 1794; Bishop 1967:106; Haswell in
Howay 1941:79). Wickaninish enforced his control through military power,
telling the crew of the Jefferson at Barkley Sound that he had been forced to kill
40 people locally to keep them in line (Magee 1794). The list of tributary groups
given by Wickaninish to Meares (1790:230) in 1788 includes the Ucluelet and
Uchucklesaht, with "Qu-quaet"probably referring to the Toquaht. Wickaninish's
overlordship may not have extended to the eastern shores of the sound,
however, as Bishop (1967:108)observed in 1795:
we where visited by two Chiefs from the East shore, their
Names where Yapasuet & Annathat. They made some trade
with us, and Promised to return. . . I believe these People are
independant of Wiccannanish, but speak the same language
and are of the Same Manners. . .
This trade hegemony seems to have collapsed when the maritime fur trade
came to an end. Wickaninish is not mentioned in the written accounts of the
next period of contact in Barkley Sound, which began around the mid-19th
century, nor is his influencerecognized in the ethnographic traditions.
Evidence for extensive disruption and displacement shortly after contact
is evident in the archaeological landscape of Barkley Sound. The areas which
have been intensively surveyed provide evidence for a shift in settlement
pattern in the recent period. In Toquaht territory, a number of ethnographically
important village locations, occupied seasonally while fishing for salmon, have
no archaeological deposits (McMillan and St. Claire 1991:69-70),suggesting a
late development of the ethnographic pattern of seasonal movement. The same
may be true for Alberni Inlet (McMillan and St. Claire 1982:32).In the Broken
Group islands of the central sound, a number of large shell midden sites lack any
ethnographic information (Inglis and Haggarty 1986:265, 279), suggesting early
historic abandonment. Other large village sites, remembered by informants as
origin places of various Tseshaht sub-groups, were reduced to occasional
seasonal use when the surviving occupants left to join other groups. During the
process of amalgamation, sites which offered superior defensive capabilities or
the best access to valued economic resources continued to be occupied, while
289
those less favoured fell into disuse. By the time the Reserve Commissioner
examined native land use patterns late in the 19th century, many large village
sites in the Broken Group were no longer being used, as was also the case for the
important Toquaht site of Ch'uumat'a.
The Tseshaht (Ts 'ishaa7at?z) offer the best-documented example of the
process of amalgamation in Barkley Sound. At least six formerly independent
political groups coalesced in the century following contact to form the modern
Tseshaht. Inglis and Haggarty (1986:279) suggest that there may once have
been as many as 15 separate local groups in the Broken Group islands, based on
the presence of that number of large village sites, indicating that the
ethnographic data may refer only to the later stages of a lengthy process of
amalgamation. From a small area in the outer islands of the Broken Group
occupied by the original Tseshaht local group, the amalgamated Tseshaht grew
to become one of the dominant political units in the sound, occupying all of the
Broken Group, the western portion of the Deer Group islands, most of the
northern shore of Barkley Sound, and much of the Alberni Inlet and the lower
Somass River in the Alberni Valley (Figure 3). Sapir (1922:307) describes the
Tseshaht as:
. . . a cluster of various smaller tribal units, of which the
Ts'isha'ath, that gave their name to the whole, were the
lea*
group. The other subdivisions were originally
independent tribes that had lost their isolated distinctness
through conquest, weakening in numbers, or friendly removal
and union. Each of the tribal subdivisions or "septs"had its
own stock of legends, its distinctive privileges, its own houses
in the village, its old village sites and distinctivefishing and
hunting waters that were still remembered in detail by its
members. While the septs now lived together as a single tribe,
the basis of the sept division was really a traditional local one.
The process of amalgamation which brought the component groups
known ethnographically into the larger Tseshaht polity began shortly after
contact. The M&tli7ii7at?z, neighbouring the original Tseshaht in the outer
islands of the Broken Group, were among the first to be absorbed, probably in
the late 18th century (St. Claire 1991:26).Wars with the &chfaa7ath had so
reduced their numbers that they could no longer sustain an independent
existence. The &xh1aa7ath wars also nearly destroyed the Waanin7atft,
originally an offshoot of the Ma&tli7ii7ath (Golla 1987:83, 88; St. Claire
1991:40),who were forced to rejoin their parent group and then move with them
to merge with the Tseshaht. Somewhat later, wars with the Hach1aa7athand
possibly the Tseshaht brought the Nash7as7atft of the upper sound into the
Tseshaht polity (St. Claire 1991:41-44).All these groups lost their autonomy,
becoming subordinate to the Tseshaht, and their former territories were
incorporated into the holdings of the larger political unit.
At the beginning of the historic period the &h1aa7ath were a large and
successful group, waging wars of expansion against most of their neighbours in
Barkley Sound and raiding as far away as the Ahousaht and Ditidaht (St. Claire
1991:28).Their territory included some of the eastern Broken Group islands and
the Vancouver Island shore along Sechart Channel, including the important site
of Hiikwis. A war of subjugation against the A7uis1atbreduced the latter to a
subordinate group and added Efingham Inlet to &h1aa7ath territory. Along
with the neighbouring Ekoolthaht (Hikwuulh7at&),the Hachfaa7ath expanded
up Alberni Inlet, seizing by conquest the rich salmon fishery of the lower
Somass River (McMillan and St. Claire 1982:14; Inglis and Haggarty 1986:13031; St. Claire 1991:30). After some conflict between the two groups, the
~ach1aa7athoccupied the eastern bank of the Somass River, while the
Ekoolthaht took the western bank. Before the end of the 18th century, however,
&ach1aa7athfortunes dramatically turned. In warfare with the Toquaht over
the location of their boundary, the Hach'aa7ath inadvertently killed a Ucluelet
man. This brought the Ucluelet, along with their powerful Tla-o-qui-aht allies,
into the war (Sapir and Swadesh 1955373-377).Using trade muskets recently
acquired by the Tla-o-qui-aht,the allies struck a devastating blow against the
Hachtaa7ath. The few survivors eventually joined the Tseshaht, leaving the
Hpch'aa7ath to exist only as a component group of the larger polity.
The final group to join the amalgamated Tseshaht was the Ekoolthaht
(Hikwuulh7ath).This once powerful group held territories in the upper sound
and along the lower Somass River, which it had taken by conquest. The
Ekoolthaht had become greatly weakened by warfare, losing many in the
Qualicum Salish raids against the Opetcheshaht and other residents along the
Somass River (St. Claire 1991:37). Blenkinsop (1874:41) referred to them in
1874 as "once a large tribe now numbering only forty eight men, women and
children."As their population dropped they became increasingly associated with
the Tseshaht, but still were considered a separate and independent group when
observed by Blenkinsop in 1874 and Brabant (197752-53) in 1876. Blenkinsop
(1874:41) described their situation:
About sixty years since being hard pressed by the other
Indians, and having through sickness and war become unable
to cope with their enemies, they of their own accord joined the
Se.shah.ahts [Tseshaht], as they say for protection only and
did not at the time surrender the right to control their own
lands. The latter however seem to look on them as a conquered
race. .
The Ekoolthaht complained to Blenkinsop that the Tseshaht had sold the
Ekoolthaht land near the mouth of the Somass River to the new mill company
without their consent, leaving them "livinga wandering life and having no village
they can call their own either for summer or winter" (Blenkinsop 1874:41).
Blenkinsop recommended that they be assigned a separate reserve adjacent to
that of the Tseshaht on the lower Somass River. Despite this recommendation,
when Reserve Commissioner O'Reilly (1883) laid out the reserves in 1882 he
failed to provide separate land for the Ekoolthaht, forcing their final
amalgamation with the Tseshaht.
Although these formerly independent local groups were absorbed into the
Tseshaht, they did not disappear. They retained their names and separate
traditions, with their chiefs holding ranked potlatch seats within the larger
grouping. The primarily role these component groups played among the
amalgamated Tseshaht, however, was as ceremonial units. Sayaach'apis,
Sapir's main Tseshaht informant, described the ceremonies taking place at
Hiikwis:
When living there, when all had come together, someone gave
a potlatch. They went to dance with the other divisions
possessing names in the village. When a Nashas
[Nash7as7atlz] person gave a potlatch, the whole Tsishaa
[Tseshaht] Band danced into the house. . .Then the Wanin
[Waanin7athJ Band danced in. . .Then the large Maktlii
[ik&li7ii7athJ Band would all dance in. And they gave gifts to
the Nashas. The Nachimwas [Nach'imuuwas7athJ Band also
danced in. The Hikuuthl [Hikwuulh7athJ people also danced in.
The Hachaa &1.ch'aa7athJ people also danced in. That was
the complete number of bands in the village of Hiikwis.
(Sapir and Swadesh 1955:43-44)
Even after the Tseshaht became an amalgamated group, considerable
changes took place in their territories. During the Long War around the 1840s,
when the Tseshaht were greatly suffering from losses a t the hands of the
Ucluelet, they largely abandoned the Broken Group islands, instead wintering at
a village on Sarita River in modern Ohiaht territory (Inglis and Haggarty
1986:133, 137). The site of Hiikwis at this time was held by the Ucluelet, as
Sayaach'apis indicated that "the Ucluelet houses filled the space from end to
end at Hiikwis" (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:412). By the end of the war the
Tseshaht had regained Hiikwis and made it their main winter village site. From
Hiikwis people moved to Huumuuwa, a former &&tli7ii7a& site in the outer
Broken Group which became the major summer village of the amalgamated
Tseshaht. Sayaach'apis described how the people stayed together because of
fear of the Ucluelets:
We always moved away [from Hiikwis] when the herring
finished spawning. We would go to Huumuuwa (Village Island),
the whole Tsishaa Tribe staying together because the war had
ended only recently. We did not want to get separated.
(Sapir and Swadesh 195539)
As tensions eased in the following years the individual component groups
began to revisit their origin places in the Broken Group islands, using them as
seasonal resource camps, while Hiikwis and Huumuuwa continued as the
amalgamation sites (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:44-45; Inglis and Haggarty
1986:137). As the Tseshaht acquired rights to the Somass River through
amalgamation with the Ekoolthaht and Hach'aa7atb they began to winter along
the Somass, reducing Hiikwis to a seasonal camp used in the spring (St. Claire
1991:135). By the end of the 19th century the amalgamated Tseshaht were
spending the winter on the Somass River at the Tsahaheh reserve, near the
growing Euro-Canadian community of Port Alberni, and traveling to various
seasonal resource locations along Alberni Inlet and the Broken Group islands
from springto fall. This set of activities was the seasonal pattern of movement
that has been documented ethnographically (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:27-46;
McMillan and St. Claire 1982:17-23). It reflects, however, only a late stage in a
changing pattern of political organization and resource use in central Barkley
Sound.
The modern Ucluelet (Yuulhuu7ilh7ath) are also the result of historic
amalgamations, incorporating at least six formerly independent local groups
(Inglis and Haggarty 1986:142; St. Claire 1991:56). Three of these groups once
occupied the open ocean shores of the Ucluth Peninsula and as far north as
Green Point on Long Beach, where they bordered on the Tla-o-qui-aht. The
remaining three had villages along the sheltered water of Ucluelet Inlet. That
these were year-round villages is made clear by Kwishanishim, who told Sapir:
They were called the Ucluelet Arm Tribe because they lived
there all the time. They only occasionally moved outside of
that place.
(Sapir and Swadesh 1955:362)
Once again it was an "outside" local group that gave its name to the
amalgamated polity, yet residence shifted to an "inside"location, in the territory
of the Hitats 'u7ath local group.
Early in the historic period, the Ucluelet embarked on several aggressive
wars of expansion. Allied with the Tla-o-qui-aht, the Ucluelet destroyed the
E f i g h a m Inlet people and seized their territory (Sapir and Swadesh 1955373377). Their search for a productive salmon river also led the Ucluelet to wipe out
the Namint7at&,an independent local group at the mouth of the Nahmint River
on Alberni Inlet, in a series of raids (Sapir and Swadesh 1955362-367). That
this was carried out primarily by the Hitats1u7at&,prior to full amalgamation of
the Ucluelet, is clear in Kwishanishim's comment that, "Only the Ucluelet Arm
people without the other Ucluelets went on the war party" (Sapir and Swadesh
1955:363). The long journey to fish at Nahmint River hastened the process of
amalgamation as it made the Hitats1u7at&vulnerable to attacks from the
Ohiaht. The Hitats1u7at&offered the outer coast groups fishing rights a t
Nahmint and house sites at their village of Hitats'u in exchange for assistance
against the Ohiaht (St. Claire 1991:60; Inglis and Haggarty 1986:157). The
amalgamated Ucluelet then developed a seasonal pattern of movement
throughout their consolidated territory, from the outer coast beaches to Alberni
;
Inlet. During the Long War of the mid-19th century the Ucluelet seized portions
of Tseshaht territory and began to winter at the village of Hiikwis. These lands
were lost by the end of the war and the Ucluelet, considerably reduced in
numbers, consolidated a t Hitats'u. By the late 19th century this was their
principal community, although the outer coast villages were still seasonally
occupied for halibut fishing and Nahmint remained their primary salmon
fishery. Today the entire band resides on Ucluelet Inlet at the Ittatsoo (Hitats'u)
reserve.
The modern Ohiaht (Huuzii7ath), whose territory covered all of eastern
Barkley Sound (Figure 3), also formed through amalgamation of independent
local groups. According to Sapir's informants, this process had begun prior to
European arrival (St. Claire 1991:68-69; Inglis and Haggarty 1986:179). A war
text collected by Sapir, "Uchucklesits Exterminate Kiihin" (Swadesh 1948:78;
Sapir and Swadesh 1955:339-341), describes a war of expansion by the
Uchucklesaht (~uuchu~wtlis7at?z)
against the Kiix7in7at?z, who occupied the
coastline from Banfield Inlet nearly to Cape Beale. In fact, the war affected all
the groups of eastern Barkley Sound, who were defeated and made into subject
peoples, while the Uchucklesaht seized the entire eastern coastline of the sound
to Cape Beale and along the outer coast as far as Tsusiat River, well within
modern Ditidaht territory (Inglis and Haggarty 1986:186, 189; St. Claire
1991:75; Clamhouse et al. 1991:231). Several of the outer coast local groups
disappeared as independent polities at that time, either due to losses in warfare
or as a result of a natural catastrophe, an earthquake and tsunami which
destroyed a village in Pachena Bay (Clamhouse et al. 1991:230-231). By the
time the Uchucklesaht were driven out, only two separate polities remained, the
Kiix7in7ath along the coastline and the Ohiaht in the Deer Group islands and
along the Sarita River. Later, a bitter war with the Clallum further reduced their
numbers and forced the survivors to retreat to the Sarita River (Inglis and
Haggarty 1986:190; Clamhouse et al. 1991:209). The Long War in Barkley
Sound brought further losses, primarily at the hands of the Ucluelet. By this
time the Ohiaht were a single amalgamated polity. When Blenkinsop described
them in 1874 they were wintering at "Noo.muk.em.e.is" (Numakamiis), at the
mouth of Sarita River, and spending the summers at "Keh.ahk.inM(Kiix7in),the
former village of the Kiix7inuth near Banfield Inlet. Shortly after, Xix7in was
abandoned as the Ohiaht moved around the trading post at Dodger Cove in the
Deer Group islands. In recent times the Ohiaht have resided a t the Anacla
reserve at Pachena Bay.
Like the Uchucklesaht, the Toquaht saw their former dominance greatly
diminishedinthe early historic period. Formerly the most powerful group in the
western sound, their fortunes declined as their population dwindled through
disease and warfare and as they became eclipsed by the rising power of the
Ucluelet. Modern Toquaht informants maintain, as discussed in Chapter 1,that
the Toquaht once protected the inhabitants of Ucluelet Inlet. Certainly their
large fortified village of T'ukw'aa, controlling the entrance to Ucluelet Inlet, put
them in a position of dominance. However, this likely refers to a period prior to
the amalgamation of the Ucluelet Inlet groups with the outer coast people. After
amalgamation sometime early in the historic period, the Ucluelet presented a
much more formidable political and military force. It was likely at that time that
the Toquaht shifted their main village from T'ukw'aa, which was reduced to use
as a seasonal resource camp, to Macoah, which is further up the sound and
more distant from the Ucluelet. This move also would have allowed the Toquaht
to protect their major salmon fishery on the Toquart River. Despite moving
further away from the Ucluelet, however, continued close relations with that
group and declining Toquaht numbers nearly led to the disappearance of the
Toquaht as a separate polity. During the Long War the Ucluelet had settled with
the remaining Toquaht at a village on the Toquart River (see Chapter 1).
Kwishanishim, who was himself half Ucluelet and half Toquaht, noted that the
two groups "had now become one tribe" (Sapir and Swadesh 1955:427). Had the
Ucluelet not initiated further fighting in an attempt to take ownership of the
Toquart River, the Toquaht may have been absorbed peacefully by their larger
neighbour.
The Toquaht may have been at a competitive disadvantage as other
groups in Barkley Sound amalgamated. It is not clear whether Toquaht history
involved amalgamation of independent local groups. Certainly their
ethnographic territory is as large as several of the known amalgamations.
Sayaach'apis told Sapir (1910-1914; St. Claire 1991:54) that the people of
Macoah, the Ma7a&wuu7atlz,were once a distinct group which amalgamated
and became subordinate to the Toquaht. Arima (19835) also states that the
Ma7a~wuu7at~
were a separate group, joining the Toquaht only in the 19th
century, but does not indicate the basis for this claim. Another of Sapir's
Tseshaht informants, William, credited the Ch'uumat'a7atlz, at the large village
of Ch'uumat'a, with once being a separate tribe. Unlike the other Barkley Sound
groups, however, no oral traditions of amalgamation remain among the Toquaht,
nor are there separate ranked chiefly positions or potlatch seats. The relative
lack of large abandoned shell midden sites, particularly when compared to the
Broken Group islands, also suggests that amalgamation, if it occurred at all,
involved only a few component groups. Opportunities for further peaceful
amalgamation and consolidation of territory dwindled when the people of
Ucluelet Inlet joined with those of the outer coast of the Ucluth Peninsula. The
Toquaht were then caught between two powerful and expansionist
amalgamations, the Ucluelet and Tseshaht, contributing to their early historic
decline in population and influence.
In summary, the post-contact period in Barkley Sound, as at Nootka
Sound, was marked by a shift from outer coast locations and resources to those
of the upper sound and inlets. The original Tseshaht were a small local group
occupying several outer coast islands. Eventually they became part of a much
larger amalgamated polity with a greatly increased territory, shifting their
winter residence first to the upper sound and then to the end of Alberni Inlet,
along the Somass River. The limited nature and extent of archaeological
deposits along Alberni Inlet suggest that this pattern of seasonal movement
developed only recently. The Ucluelet, who also take their name from an outer
coast local group, consolidated on Ucluelet Inlet while maintaining their
important salmon fishery on Alberni Inlet. The Toquaht moved from the large
outer coast village and fortress fi-omwhich they derive their name to their 19th
century principal residence on the upper sound. These shifts of residence
entailed changed patterns of resource use, requiring development of a seasonal
round of movement.
Barkley Sound and Nootka Sound were examined here as specific
examples of a more widespread pattern. Similar changes, involving a reduction
in the number of independent local groups and a shift from outer coast to
"inside"locations, were taking place throughout the territories of the Nuu-chahnulth and their relatives. The Ditidaht retained a number of independent polities
and outer coast villages into quite late times, but eventually consolidated at
their modern village on Nitinat Lake. Even the Makah, whose territory lacks
"inside"sounds or inlets, eventually abandoned the outer coast villages such as
Ozette and Tsoo-yess for the comparatively sheltered location on Neah Bay
where their modern community is situated.
Culture Change and the "EthnographicPresent"
Pioneering anthropologists among the Nuu-chah-nulth, as among other
native peoples, assumed the presence of an earlier "traditional culture" that
could be recovered and recorded through the knowledge held by elderly
informants. Working early in the 20th century, anthropologists such as Sapir,
Drucker, Curtis, and Koppert viewed themselves in a race with "progress" to
record the traditional knowledge of native communities before it was
irretrievably lost. The memories of their oldest informants, however, could
extend back only to the middle or late 19th century. This period of time then
became the "ethnographicpresent," characterized by an essentially unchanging
"traditional culture,"minimizing changes that had occurred earlier in the historic
period. In fact, as the "ethnographic present" floated in a timeless state,
indigenous cultures were rarely viewed in an historical perspective. Little
recognition was accorded to cultural changes that occurred before the late
advent of extensive acculturation to Em-Canadian society.
Yet, as outlined in this chapter, aspects of native cultures were subject to
constant restructuring throughout the period following European contact.
Disease and warfare were driving factors, as declining populations destabilized
economies and forced new political accommodations. Small local groups living
year-round in one place were transformed into amalgamated units with larger
territories, requiring a seasonal round of activities to manage resources
effectively. In the "traditional culture" as it became ethnographicallyknown, the
seasonal round was a universal Nuu-chah-nulth pattern. Even the political
units of ethnographic study, such as the Mowachaht and Tseshaht, were 19th
century amalgamations which do not represent the nature of the societies
encountered in the same areas during the first decades of recorded contact.
Similar patterns of change were occurring among other coastal groups
during the early contact period. Galois (1994) has documented extensive early
historic shifts in settlement pattern among the neighbouring Kwakwgka'wakw.
Recent archaeological research among the Haida of the southern Queen
Charlotte Islands also shows a shift from numerous small year-round
settlements in the period prior to contact to the large seasonally-occupied
villages that were recorded ethnographically (Acheson 1995).
The ethnographic documentation of a fured pattern of seasonal movement
is suspect even for quite late periods. Among the Makah, for example, Swan
(1870) lists five "winter villages," yet, through analysis of faunal remains
recovered archaeologically, Huelsbeck and Wessen (1995) argue that a t least
some people were living at these sites throughout the year. Even place name
research with modern Nuu-chah-nulth informants suggests that the pattern
was more flexible than that indicated by the ethnographies. For example, a
Toquaht informant maintained that some people lived a t Macoah year-round, as
"a sort of headquarters for all the creeks around" (St. Claire 1991:71). Although
populations certainly would have fluctuated with the availability of seasonal
food resources in other locations, it is likely that many of the major Nuu-chahnulth villages had a permanent core of residents.
Recognition of extensive cultural change in the early contact period
debunks the myth of an unchanging "traditional culture" stuck in the
"ethnographic present." Although few would argue that native life had been
static, the ahistorical nature of these concepts discouraged consideration of the
nature and extent of culture change. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic
observations spanning a considerable period of time frequently have been
conflated into a single description of "traditional" native lifeways (Stahl
1993:246; Lightfoot 1995:204). Sahlins (1985:xviii), in advocating a more
historically aware anthropology, dismisses the long-held anthropological view of
a timeless "ethnographic present" as "a kind of occupational and theoretical
hazard." Anthropological perceptions of the "ethnographic present" implicitly
served to perpetuate the colonialist myth of the "unchanging native" so
effectively attacked by Trigger (1980, 1981, 1984, 1985).
Evidence of early historic cultural change challenges the use of
ethnographic data in interpreting the archaeological past. As argued in this
chapter, the cultures observed by Cook and Vancouver differed markedly from
those carried in the memories of elderly Nuu-chah-nulth individuals interviewed
by Curtis and Drucker. Imposition of ethnographic data on the archaeological
past precludes recognition of differing earlier patterns, a problem that Wobst
(1979) refers to as "the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology."
4
Similarly,Marshall (1990:124) maintains that such an exercise serves only "to
colonize the past from the present." Trigger (1981:13; 1985:28) argues that any
"ethnographic present," if it is meant to describe cultures prior to Europeaninduced changes, will have to be defined archaeologically.
Clearly the lack of historical perspective inherent in the concept of the
"ethnographic present" must be countered and caution must be exercised in how
ethnographic data are used in archaeology. Despite these concerns, however,
there are many aspects of Nuu-chah-nulth culture that appear to have a
I
I
1
I
lengthy continuity. As discussed in Chapter 3, many archaeological discoveries
at Yuquot, for example, have direct counterparts among the historic Nuu-chahnulth occupants of Nootka Sound. While the Nuu-chah-nulth pattern of
resource use across the landscape appears to have changed considerably during
the historic period, the technology of resource procurement remained relatively
constant until very recent times. Belief systems, ceremonial practices, rules for
tracing descent, and other basic aspects of Nuu-chah-nulth life seem to have
survived the tumultuous years of rapid change relatively intact. Even political
groups which had lost their independence survived as ceremonial units within
the larger polities. Oral traditions collected by the ethnographers also hold great
value, providing insights into history from a native perspective. Although
ethnographic information cannot be extended uncritically into the past, such
data provide a rich body of knowledge for comparison with that generated
archaeologically. The integration of these distinct sets of data, along with
contributions from fields such as historical linguistics, provides the basis for an
holistic archaeology.
CHAPTER 7:
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Trigger's "holistic archaeology" provides the theoretical framework for
this dissertation. In this approach, all relevant sources of knowledge must be
integrated in a multi-faceted reconstruction of aboriginal history. Archaeology,
historical linguistics, and aboriginal oral traditions play vital roles in
investigating the Nuu-chah-nulth past, with ethnography and ethnohistory
enriching our knowledge of the later time periods. Geological factors must also be
taken into consideration,particularly in interpreting the limited evidence for the
earliest sites on western Vancouver Island. Integration of such approaches
allows a broad perspective on the unique culture history of the Nuu-chah-nulth,
Ditidaht, and Makah peoples.
Linguistic evidence allows speculative reconstruction of Nuu-chah-nulth
origins and spread. Through several lines of analysis the Wakashan homeland is
suggested to have been on northern or northwestern Vancouver Island (see
Chapter 2). Several scholars, on both linguistic and archaeological grounds,
argue t h a t the northern branch, containing the ancestors of the
Kwakwaka'wakw and the Heiltsuk, expanded to the adjacent mainland,
disrupting a Salishan continuum and isolating the Nuxalk in the Bella Coola
valley. Mitchell (1988:282-285)has suggested, based on changes in artifact and
faunal assemblages at sites along Queen Charlotte Strait, that a population
replacement took place sometime between 500 B.C. and A.D. 300.
The southern branch, which ultimately gave rise to the Nuu-chah-nulth,
held western Vancouver Island at least as far south as Nootka Sound, as
indicated by the evidence of continuity at Yuquot. As the ancestors of the Nuuchah-nulth expanded down the coast to around Barkley Sound, a series of
dialectal differences emerged. Linguistic and ethnographic evidence suggest that
the Vancouver Island coastline south of Barkley Sound was formerly held by
members of the Salishan family, while the northern Olympic Peninsula was
occupied by Chemakuan peoples (see Chapter 2). A final southern Wakashan
expansion dislodged these groups and gave rise to the Ditidaht and Makah.
These closely related languages, with little dialectal variation, represent a fairly
recent split from Nuu-chah-nulth. Their arrival on the northwestern corner of
the Olympic Peninsula seems to have occurred prior to 2000 B.P., based on
initial dates from Ozette and Neah Bay (see Chapter 3). Claims for cultural
continuity a t Ozette, however, are based on data recovered from the main
excavation trench, which is poorly dated. Linguistic evidence (see Chapter 2)
suggests an even later arrival, at about 1000 B.P., a time which would appear to
be somewhat too late to account for the archaeological evidence. According to
the oral traditions, the ancestors of both groups may have lived on the Olympic
Peninsula until the people who were to become the Ditidaht moved to the
adjacent coast of Vancouver Island. Only these southern groups have traditions
of having lived elsewhere, with Ditidaht oral histories, in particular, telling of
various earlier villages and relocations, prior to settling around Nitinat Lake and
the adjacent outer coast.
I
The evidence from Barkley Sound is inconclusive, but it too may have
been occupied by non-Nuu-chah-nulth people prior to a late Nuu-chah-nulth
expansion, perhaps about 2000 B.P. (see Chapter 4). Evidence comes from the
Little Beach site at Ucluelet and the lower component of the Shoemaker Bay
site in the Alberni Valley. Both are linked by distinctive forms of lithic artifacts
1
to the Locarno Beach culture type in the Strait of Georgia region. However,
Shoemaker Bay, at the end of the long Alberni Inlet, is only a short distance
from the Strait of Georgia and Nuu-chah-nulth arrival is known to have been
recent, perhaps around the time of European contact (McMillan and St. Claire
1982; St. Claire 1991; see Chapter 2). The Little Beach site has too small an
artifact sample to make conclusive statements. Comparison with the lower
portion of the nearby Toquaht site of Ch'uumat'a failed to resolve the issue (see
Chapter 4). Although Ch'uumat'a contained chipped stone objects like Little
Beach and Shoemaker Bay, the majority of artifacts recovered were the bone
points and other objects typical of the West Coast culture type. The Nuu-chahnulth would have arrived in Barkley Sound from the north, first settling in what
became ethnographic Toquaht territory. This may explain the ethnographic
tradition that the Toquaht were the original Barkley Sound group, from which
the others emerged (Sproat 1868:19).
The Hoko River wet/dry site on the Olympic Peninsula offers a challenge
to this speculative scenario. Like Shoemaker Bay and Little Beach, this site,
which was first occupied about 2800 B.P., contains distinctive stone tools which
are characteristic of the Locarno Beach culture type in the Strait of Georgia
region. Croes (1987, 1988, 1989, 1992a, 1992b), however, maintains that such
artifact types mark only "adaptive plateaus," and that basketry and cordage
provide much better insights into ethnicity in material culture (see Chapter 3).
His identificationof the Hoko River perishables as ethnically Makah places the
Makah on the Olympic Peninsula earlier than the linguistic or other
archaeological data. One possibility is that the expanding southern Wakashan
population that gave rise to the Makah leap-frogged over a still-Salish coast
fi-om about Barkley Sound south to settle on the Olympic Peninsula. Only later,
in this view, did the Ditidaht split off from the Makah to take over the southern
portions of the west coast. Perhaps a t this time Nuu-chah-nulth expansion
reached Barkley Sound. Another possibility is that the basketry and cordage at
Hoko River actually represent the handiwork of Chemakuan peoples, distantly
related to the Wakashans according to Powell (1976).
A basic problem is that the archaeological record provides only limited
insights into past ethnicity. Items of material culture cannot be expected to
correspond exactly with any distinct ethnic group. Integrating archaeology,
linguistics, and oral traditions provides a multi-faceted approach that may
partially surmount this problem, although any correlation of specific linguistic
groups and objects recovered archaeologically remains speculative. The most
convincing claims involve direct continuity in the archaeological record from
known historic occupants back in time. Such is the case at Yuquot, where
Dcwhirst (1978, 1980) has argued that most culture change involves more
complex artifacts emerging from earlier and simpler forms. This demonstrated
cultural continuity allows a direct look at evolving Nuu-chah-nulth material
culture as early as 4200 B.P. Such lengthy cultural persistence cannot be
demonstrated at more southerly Nuu-chah-nulth sites. We still have very
limited knowledge of the period prior to about 2000 B.P. throughout Nuu-chahnulth, Ditidaht, and Makah territory.
All of the earliest sites in the study region, with the exception of the
culturally distinct Shoemaker Bay site, are on or near the open ocean shores.
Increased efficiency in technology for taking such open ocean resources as
whales and fur seals allowed and promoted expansion along the outer coast.
Clusters of defensive sites in outer coast locations, particularly guarding the
entrances to the major sounds, were established to control access to individual
group territories (see Figure 24). Some may date to the initial population
movements along the outer coast, although many clearly featured in later
conflicts. In the oral traditions collected ethnographically, outer coast groups
frequentlyheld a dominant position.
A shift to "inside" locations can be documented late in Nuu-chah-nulth
culture history (see Chapter 6). In a process which continued into historic times,
outer coast groups, through warfare or alliance, acquired important "inside"
resource locations, particularly salmon rivers. The depopulation brought about
by historic warfare and diseases resulted in new amalgamated social units,
holding a variety of local environments that had previously been the exclusive
territories of their constituent groups. A seasonal pattern of movement
developed to exploit the resources of these larger and more diverse territorial
holdings. The Nuu-chah-nulth cultures documented ethnographically by
Drucker, Curtis, and others reflect this late period of amalgamated polities with
seasonal economic rounds.
Table 18 presents a summary of Nuu-chah-nulth culture history as
interpreted from information presently available. Gaps in our knowledge are
clearly evident, particularly for earlier time periods. The nature and timing of the
Wakashan expansion south, ultimately giving rise to the Makah and Ditidaht,
are still poorly understood. Few sites provide evidence on the period prior to 2000
B.P. and most excavated data are restricted to the final 1200 years of Nuu-
chah-nulth culture history. Relatively few sites have been excavated and even
fewer have been analyzed and reported in any depth.
The changes evident over time in Nuu-chah-nulth culture history
challenge a basic element of the West Coast culture type as presently conceived
(Mitchell 1990).The West Coast culture type, encompassing over four millennia
Table 18
Summary of Nuu-chah-nulthCulture History
present
100 B.P.
200 B.P.
Modern political concerns, including land claims and treaty negotiation:
Formation of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council
Canadian government administration and establishment of reserves
Historic epidemics and population decline, amalgamations to form
the modern political units,shift of residence to "inside" locations and
adoption of a seasonal round
Contact with Europeans - Perez (1774) and Cook (1778)
500 B.P.
1000B.P.
1500B.P.
2000 B.P.
Intensive reliance on open-ocean resources indicated by large
toggling harpoon heads and stone fishhook shanks
Increase in number of occupied sites (initial dates for Hesquiat
Village, Kupti, T'ukw'aa, and others)
Initial occupation of Ozette and Neah Bay (Wakashan arrival on the
Olympic Peninsula?)
Nuu-chah-nulth expansion south?
2500 B.P.
3000 B.P.
3500 B.P.
1000B.P.
Initial occupation at Yuquot
1500B.P.
5000 B.P.
Surface discoveries of chipped stone tools in the Alberni Valley may
date to this time (possibly also beach discoveries in Nootka Sound)
iOOO B.P.
------------
10,000B.P.
Coastal British Columbia and adjacent Washington are occupied, but
no sites of this age have been found in Nuu-chah-nulth territory
309
of Nuu-chah-nulth culture history, is essentially ahistorical. A single set of
defining characteristics is applied to this lengthy culture type, which is described
as a period "of relatively little change" (Mitchell 1990:357). This masks or
minimizes the temporal aspect to Nuu-chah-nulth culture history. As described
in earlier portions of this study, significant cultural changes over time are
discernible in the archaeological record. Such temporal changes are reported for
Yuquot, DiSo 9 at Hesquiat, Ch'uumat'a and Ozette. Some artifact types, such
as toggling harpoon valves and stone celts, changed gradually over time. New
technological items, such as large toggling harpoon heads and stone fishhook
shanks, appeared in relatively late times, indicating increased reliance on openocean resources. Between 2000 and 1200 B.P. there was a great increase in the
number of occupied sites, many of which continued in use into historic times.
This suggests a region-wide increase in population and substantial shifts in
settlement patterns. The pace of change increased dramatically in the early
historic period, as disease, warfare, and the resultant declining populations
forced substantial cultural restructuring, as discussed in Chapter 6. Such
changes took place within the framework of evolving Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht,
and Makah cultures, with continuity to the historic occupants evident at many
sites.
The ahistorical nature of the West Coast culture type regrettably (and
inadvertently) perpetuates the outdated stereotype of the "unchanging native,"
so strongly challenged by Trigger (1980,1981,1984,1985). An assumption that
the native past would exhibit little evidence of change or cultural development is
a characteristic of what Trigger calls "colonialist archaeology." Even as recently
as the mid-20th century, as discussed in Chapter 2, the Nuu-chah-nulth were
being described as conservative and unchanging, tenaciously retaining elements
of early coastal cultures.
Dewhirst (1980:336) suggests that the term "tradition" would be
appropriate for the long period of cultural continuity demonstrated at Yuquot.
Such traditions can then be divided into site-specific stages or "periods." While
the concept of the culture type should be retained for comparability with
surrounding regions, the lengthy period represented by the West Coast culture
type should be redefined in terms of an evolving tradition. Strong continuity
could then be emphasized within a perspective of change over time.
The approach advocated here calls for an integrated, holistic, and
humanistic perspective in the investigation of Nuu-chah-nulth culture history.
The Nuu-chah-nulth, Ditidaht, and Makah are today the inheritors of a rich
cultural tradition, which spans a period in excess of four millennia. Native oral
traditions, as well as archaeology and linguistics, provide unique insights on
earlier populations. The integration of such sources of knowledge best
illuminates the aboriginal past in this area, encompassing Nuu-chah-nulth
culture history since transformers such as Kwatyat shaped their world.
REFERENCES
Abbott, Donald N.
1972 The Utility of the Concept of Phase in the Archaeology of the Southern
Northwest Coast. Syesis 5267-278.
Acheson, Steven R.
1995 In the Wake of the Iron People: A Case for Changing Settlement
Strategies Among the Kunghit Haida. The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 1(2):273-299.
Ackerman, Robert E.
1992 Earliest Stone Industries on the North Pacific Coast of North America.
Arctic Anthropology 29(2):18-27.
Alfred, Braxton M., T.D. Stout, John Birkbeck, Melvin Lee and N. L. Petrakis
1969 Blood Groups, Red Cell Enzymes, and Cerumen Types of the Ahousat
(Nootka)Indians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 31:391-398.
Alley, Neville F. and Steven C. Chatwin
1979 Late Pleistocene History and Geomorphology, Southwestern Vancouver
Island, British Columbia. Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences l6(9):16451657.
Ames, Kenneth M.
1981 The Evolution of Social Ranking on the Northwest Coast of North
America. American Antiquity 46(4):789-805.
1994 The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter-Gatherers, Ecology, and Social
Evolution.Annual Review ofAnthropology 23:209-229.
Andrews, Rebecca W.
1989 Hiaqua: Use of Dentalium Shells by the Native Peoples of the Pacific
Northwest. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Apland,Brian
1982 Chipped Stone Assemblages from the Beach Sites of the Central Coast.
In Papers on Central Coast Archaeology, edited by Philip M. Hobler, pp. 1363. Publication No. 10, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby.
Arcas Associates
1984 Meares Island Aboriginal Tree Utilization Study. Report on file,
Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1986 Native Tree Use on Meares Island, B. C. Unpublished report in four
volumes prepared for the Ahousaht and Clayoquot Indian Bands, Ahousat
and Tofino (on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria).
1988 Native Settlements on Meares Island, B.C. Report on file, Archaeology
Branch, Victoria.
Arcas Consulting Archeologists Ltd.
1991 Archaeological Investigations a t Little Beach Site, Ucluelet, B.C. Report
on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1993 Archaeological Impact Assessment of Proposed Cheesish Campground:
Hanna Channel, Nootka Sound, Vancouver Island, B.C. Unpublished
report prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Campbell River,
and Mowachaht Indian Band, Gold River. Copy on file, Archaeology
Branch, Victoria.
1994 Archaeological Impact Assessment, Block H-1000, Allman Lagoon,
Nootka Sound, Vancouver Island, B.C. Unpublished report prepared for
International Forest Products Limited, Tofmo. Copy on file, Archaeology
Branch, Victoria.
Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd. and Archeotech Associates
1994 Cultural Heritage Resource Overview, Clayoquot Sound Land Use
Decision Area. Report prepared for Archaeology Branch and Heritage
Conservation Branch, Victoria.
Archer, Christon I.
1993 Seduction Before Sovereignty: Spanish Efforts to Manipulate the
Natives i n Their Claims to the Northwest Coast. I n From Maps to
Metaphors: The Pacific World of George Vancouver, edited by Robin Fisher
and Hugh Johnston, pp. 127-159. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Arima, Eugene Y.
1983 The West Coast (Nootka) People. B.C. Provincial Museum, Vidoria.
1988 Notes on Nootkan Sea Mammal Hunting. Arctic Anthropology 25(1):1627.
Arima, Eugene and John Dewhirst
1990 Nootkans of Vancouver Island. I n Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 39 1411. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Arima, E.Y., D. St. Claire, L. Clamhouse, J. Edgar, C. Jones, and J. Thomas
1991 Between Ports Alberni And Renfiew:Notes on West Coast Peoples.
Canadian Ethnology Service, Mercury Series Paper 121, Canadian
Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.
Atwater, Brian F.
1987 Evidence for Great Holocene Earthquakes Along the Outer Coast of
Washington State. Science 236:942-944.
Ayers, Jennifer
1980 Computer Summary of the Hoko River Artifacts. In Hoko River: A 2500
Year Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast ofNorth America, edited by
Dale R. Croes and Eric Blinman, pp. 125-151.Reports of Investigations
No. 58, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman.
Banfield,A.W.F.
1974 The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Banfield,William E.
1858 Vancouver Island: Its Topography, Characteristics, etc. Victoria
Gazette, Aug. - Sept. 1858. Victoria.
Barton, Andrew John
1994 Fishing for Ivory Worms: A Review of Ethnographic and Historically
Recorded Dentalium Source Locations. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Bates, Ann M.
1987 Mdiation and Differentiation: Intertribal Interactions Among the
Makah and Ditidaht Indians. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, Indiana University.
Beaglehole,J.C. (editor)
1967 The Journals of Captain James Cook on His Voyages ofDiscovery (4
volumes). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
.
Beds, Herbert K. (translator and editor)
1989 Juan P6re.z on the Northwest Coast: Six Documents of His Expedition in
1774. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland.
Bernick, Kathryn
1987 The Potential of Basketry for Reconstructing Cultural Diversity on the
Northwest Coast. In Ethnicity and Culture, edited by R. Auger, M.F. Glass,
S. MacEachern, and P.H. McCartney, pp. 251-257. Proceedings of the
18th Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association,
University of Calgary.
Biersack, Aletta
1989 Local Knowledge, Local History: Geertz and Beyond. In The New
Cultural History, edited by Lynn Hunt, pp. 72-96. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
1991 History and Theory in Anthropology. In Clio i n Oceania: Toward a
Historical Anthropology, edited by Aletta Biersack, pp. 1-36. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washugton and London.
Bishop, Charles
1967 The Journal and Letters of Captain Charles Bishop on the North-West
Coast of America, in the Pacific and i n New South Wales, 1794-1799
(edited by Michael Roe). Hakluyt Society, Cambridge University Press.
Blenkinsop,George
1874 Report to J.W. Powell, Indian Commissioner. Manuscript, National
Archives of Canada, RG10, v. 3614, f.4105, Ottawa.
Blinman, Eric
1980 Stratigraphy and Depositional Environment. In Hoko River: A 2500
Year Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by
Dale R. Croes and Eric Blinman, pp. 64-89. Reports of Investigations No.
58, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Boas, Franz
1891 The Nootka. In Second General Report on the Indians of British
Columbia. Report of the Sixtieth Meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1890,pp. 582-715. London.
1905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Proceedings of the International
Congress of Americanists, Thirteenth Session, pp. 91-100.
1907 Clubs Made of Bone of Whale. In Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and
Puget Sound, by Harlan I. Smith, pp. 403-412. Jesup North Pacific
Expedition,Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 4(6): 301:
441. New York.
1916 Myths of the Nootka. In Tsimshian Mythology, pp. 888-935. Thirty-first
Annual Report of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington. (Johnson Reprint, New York, 1970).
1927 Primitive Art. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. (Dover
Publications Reprint, New York, 1955).
1930 A Nootka Ceremonial House. In The Religion of the Kwakiutl Indians,
pp. 261-269. Contributions to Anthropology 10, Columbia University, New
York (AMS Press Reprint, New York 1969).
1974 Legends of the Nutka [Nootka], in Indian Legends of the North Pacific
Coast of America, pp. 159-208. Unpublished manuscript, translated by
Dietrich Bertz for the British Columbia Indian Language Project, Victoria.
(originallypublished as Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifischen Kiiste
Amerikas, Berlin, 1895).
Bobrowsky, P.T. and J.J. Clague
1991 Neotectonic Investigations on Western Vancouver Island, British
Columbia (92Fl4). In Geological Fieldwork 1990, pp. 307-313. British
Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Paper
1991-1,Victoria.
1992 Neotectonic Investigations on Vancouver Island (92B,F). In Geological
Fieldwork 1991, pp. 325-329. British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines
and Petroleum Resources, Paper 1992-1,Victoria.
Borden, Charles E.
1951 Facts and Problems of Northwest Coast Prehistory. Anthropology in
British Columbia 2:35-52.
1975 Origins and Development ofEarlyNorthwest Coast Culture to About
3000 B. C. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 45, National
Museum of Man Mercury Series, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
1979 Peopling and Early Cultures of the Pacific Northwest. Science 203:963971.
Bouchard, Randy
1971 A Proposed Practical Orthography for Nootka-Nitinat. Unpublished
manuscript, British Columbia Indian Language Project, Victoria.
Bouchard, Randy and Dorothy Kennedy
1990 Clayoquot Sound Indian Land Use. Report prepared for MacMillan
Bloedel Limited, Fletcher Challenge Canada, and the British Columbia
Ministry of Forests.
1991 Preliminary Notes on Ditidaht Land Use. Report prepared for Millennia
Research, Ditidaht Indian Band, and British Columbia Heritage Trust.
Copy on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Boyd, Robert T.
1990 Demographic History, 1774-1874.In Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 135148. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
1994 Smallpox in the Pacific Northwest: the First Epidemics. BC Studies
101:5-40.
Brabant, Augustin Joseph
1977 Mission to Nootka: 1874-1900,edited by Charles Lillard. Gray's
Publishing, Sidney, B.C.
Brathwaite, Jean and W.J. Folan
1972 The Taking of the Ship Boston: An Ethnohistoric Study of NootkanEuropean Conflict. Syesis 5259-266.
British Columbia
1914 Royal Commission on Indian M a i r s for the Province of B.C., West
Coast Agency - Evidence from Hearings. National Archives of Canada1
British Columbia Archives and Records Service, RG 10, Vol. 11025, File
AH13.
1916 Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of
British Columbia. Acme Press, Victoria.
British Columbia Ministry of Crown Lands
1894 Plan of the To-quart Indian Reserves, Clayoquot District, British
Columbia. Manuscript, Maps and Plans Vault, Surveyor General Branch,
B.C. Minsitry of Crown Lands, Victoria.
Brolly, Richard P.
1992 Little Beach Site, Ucluelet, B.C.: 1991Archaeological Investigations.
TheMidden 24(1):2-4.
Brown, R.F., M.M. Musgrave, D.G. Demontier, D.E. Marshall and M.J. Comfort
1979 Catalogue of Salmon Streams and Spawning Escapements of Statistical
Areas 22 & 23 (Nitznat & Barkley Sound). Canadian Data Report of
Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences No. 167, Enhancement Services Branch,
Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver.
Buikstra, Jane E. and Sloan Williams
1991 Tuberculosis in the Americas: Current Perspectives. In Human
Paleopathology: Current Syntheses and Future Options, edited by D.J.
.
Ortner and A.C. Aufderheide, pp. 161-172. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Burley, David V.
1980 Marpole: Anthropological Reconstructions of a Prehistoric Northwest
Coast Culture Type. Publication Number 8, Department of Archaeology,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
1981 Inter-Regional Exchange in the Gulf of Georgia During the Marpole
Phase, 490 B.C. to A.D. 500. In Networks of the Past: Regional Interaction
i n Archaeology, edited by Peter D. Francis, F.J. Kense, and P.G. Duke, pp.
397-410. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Chacmool Conference,
Archaeological Association, University of Calgary.
Burley, David V. and Owen B. Beattie
1987 Coast Salish Origins: Ethnicity and Time Depth in Northwest Coast
Prehistory. In Ethnicity and Culture, edited by R. Auger, M.F. Glass, S.
MacEachern, and P.H. McCartney, pp. 199-207. Proceedings of the 18th
Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association, University of
C ~ k w .
Burley, David V. and Christopher Knusel
1989 Burial Patterns and Archaeological Interpretations: Problems in the
Recognition of Ranked Society in the Coast Salish Region. Paper
presented a t the Circum-Pacific Prehistory Conference, Seattle.
Buxton, Judith M.
1969 Earthworks of Southwestern British Columbia. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary.
Calvert, Sheila Gay
1980 A Cultural Analysis of Faunal Remains from Three Archaeological Sites
in Hesquiat Harbour, B.C. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia.
Calvert, Gay and Susan Crockford
1982 Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Shoemaker Bay site (DhSe 2).
Appendix IV in Alberni Prehistory:Archaeological and Ethnographic
Investigations on Western Vancouver Island, A.D. McMillan and D.E. St.
Claire, pp. 174-219. Theytus Books, Penticton.
Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service
1982 Canadian Climate Normals, Temperature and Precipitation, 1951-1980.
Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs
1995 Indian Register Population by Sex and Residence 1994. Ottawa.
Cannon, Aubrey
1991 The Economic Prehistory of Namu. Publication No. 19, Department of
Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Carlson, Catherine
1979 The Early Component a t Bear Cove. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology
3:177-194.
Carlson, Roy L.
1979 The Early Period on the Central Coast of British Columbia. Canadian
Journal ofArchaeology 3:211-228.
1983a Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. In Indian Art Traditions of the
Northwest Coast, edited by R.L. Carlson, pp. 13-32. Archaeology Press,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
1983b The Far West. In Early Man in the New World, edited by Richard
Shutler, Jr., pp. 73-96. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume
7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 60-69. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington.
1991 The Northwest Coast Before A.D. 1600. In Proceedings of the Great
Ocean Conferences, Vol. 1,pp. 109-136. Oregon Historical Society Press,
Portland.
1993 Content and Chronology of Northwest Coast (North America) Rock Art.
In Time and Space: Dating and Spatial Considerations in Rock Art
Research, edited by Jack Steinbring and Alan Watchman, pp. 7-12.
Occasional AURA Paper No. 8, Australian Rock Art Research
Association, Melbourne.
1994 Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric British Columbia. In Prehistoric
Exchange Systems in North America, edited by Timothy G. Baugh and
Jonathon E. Ericson, pp. 307-361. Plenum Press, New York.
1996a Prologue to British Columbia Prehistory. In Early Human Occupation
in British Columbia, edited by Roy L. Carlson and Luke Della Bona, pp. 310. UBC Press, Vancouver.
1996b Early Namu. In Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, edited
by Roy L. Carlson and Luke Della Bona, pp. 83-102. UBC Press,
Vancouver.
Carlson, Roy L. and Philip M. Hobler
1976 Archaeological Survey of Seymour Inlet, Quatsino Sound, and Adjacent.
Localities. In Current Research Reports, edited by Roy L. Carlson, pp. 115141. Publication No. 3, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby.
1993 The Pender Canal Excavations and the Development of Coast Salish
Culture. BC Studies ( Special Issue, Changing Times:British Columbia
Archaeology in the l98Os, edited by Knut Fladmark):25-52.
Carmichael, Alfi-ed
1922 Indian Legends of Vancouver Island. Musson, Toronto.
Carneiro, Robert L
1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169:733-738.
Carter, Lionel
1973 Surficial Sediments of Barkley Sound and the Adjacent Continental
Shelf, West Coast Vancouver Island. C a d i a n Journal ofEarth Sciences
10:441-459.
Cavanagh, Deborah May
1983 Northwest Coast Whaling: A New Perspective. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British
Columbia.
Chapman, Margaret Winnifred
1982 Archaeological Investigations a t the O'Connor Site, Port Hardy. In
Papers on Central Coast Archaeology, edited by Philip M. Hobler, pp. 65132. Publication No. 10, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby
Chapman, Robert, Ian Kinnes, and Klaus Randsborg
1981 The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chard, Chester S.
1960 Northwest Coast - Northeast Asiatic Similarities: A New Hypothesis.
In Men and Cultures:Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of
Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, edited by Anthony F.C.
Wallace, pp. 235-240. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia.
Clague, J.J.,J.E. Armstrong, and W.H. Mathews
1980 Advance of the Late Wisconsin Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Southern British
Columbia Since 22,000 Yr B.P. Quaternary Research 13:322-326.
Clague, John J . and Peter T. Bobrowsky
1990 Holocene Sea Level Change and Crustal Deformation, Southwestern
British Columbia. In Current Research, Part E, Geological Survey of
Canada, Paper 90-lE, pp. 245-250.
1994a Tsunami Deposits Beneath Tidal Marshes on Vancouver Island,
British Columbia. Geological Society of America Bulletin lO6(lO):12931303.
1994b Evidence for a Large Earthquake and Tsunami 100-400 Years Ago on
Western Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Quaternary Research
41: 176-184.
Clague, John J.,Peter T. Bobrowsky and T.S. Hamilton
1994 A Sand Sheet Deposited by the 1964 Alaska Tsunami a t Port Alberni,
British Columbia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 38:413-421.
Clague, John, John R. Harper, R.J. Hebda, and D.E. Howes
1982 Late Quaternary Sea Levels and Crustal Movements, Coastal British
Columbia. Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences 19:597-618.
Clamhouse, Louis, Joshua Edgar, Charles Jones, John Thomas and E.Y. Arima
1991 From Barkley Sound Southeast. In Between Ports Alberni and Renfrew:
Notes on West Coast Peoples, pp. 203-315. Canadian Ethnology Service,
Mercury Series Paper 121, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.
Clarke, Louise R. and Arthur H. Clarke
1975 Mollusk Utilization by Nootka Indians, 2300 B.C. to A.D. 1966. Bulletin
of the American Malacological Union, 1974:15-16.
1980 Zooarchaeological Analysis of Mollusc Remains from Yuquot, British
Columbia. In The Yuquot Project, Volume 2, edited by W.J. Folan and J.
Dewhirst, pp. 37-57. History and Archaeology 43, Parks Canada, National
Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Ottawa.
Clutesi, George
1969 Potlatch. Gray's Publishing, Sidney, B.C.
Coates, Clinton D. and Morley Eldridge
1992 Bamfield Highways Agmlar Point Road Allowance Impact Assessment:
70:ts'0:7a,Aguilar Inn Site, DfSg-2. Report on file, Archaeology Branch,
Victoria.
Codere, Helen
1950 Fighting WithProperty:A Study of Kwakiutl Potlatching and Warfare
1792-1930. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.
Cole, Douglas
1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest Coast Artifacts. Douglas
& McIntyre, Vancouver.
Colnett, James
1940 The Journal of Captain James Colnett Aboard the Argonaut From April
26,1789 to Nov. 3,1791 (edited by F.W. Howay). The Champlain Society,
Toronto.
Colson, Elizabeth
1953 The Makah Indians: A Study of a n Indian Tribe i n Modern American
Society. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Cook, Captain James
1784 A Voyage to the Pacific 0cean:Undertaken by the Command of His
Mawawesty,
For Making Discoveries i n the Northern Hemisphere; Performed
Under the Direction of Captain Cook, Clerke, and Gore, in His Majesty's
Ships the Resolution and Discovery, i n the Years l776,l777,l778 and
1780. W. and A. Strahan, London.
Cook, Warren L.
1973 Flood Tide of Empire: Spain and the Pacific Northwest, l5#-1819. Yale
University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Coupland, Gary
1989 Warfare and Social Complexity on the Northwest Coast. In Cultures i n
Conflict: Current Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Diana Claire
Tkaczuk and Brian C. Vivian, pp. 205-214. Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Chacmool Conference, Archaeological Association, University of Calgary.
Cowan, Ian McTaggart and Charles J. Guiguet
1965 The Mammals of British Columbia (3rd edition). Handbook No. 11,
British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.
Crockford, Susan
1992 Where Have All the Tuna Gone?: The Real Significance of Archaeological
Bluefin Tuna Remains from the West Coast. Paper presented a t the 45th
Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, B.C.
1994 New Archaeological and Ethnographic Evidence of a n Extinct Fishery
for Giant Bluefm Tuna (Thunnus thynnus orientalis) on the Pacific
Northwest Coast of North America. In Fish Exploitation i n the Past:
Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the ICAZFish Remains Working Group,
edited by W. Van Neer, pp. 163-168. Annales du Musee Royal de 1'Afrique
Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques, Tervuren.
Croes, Dale R.
1976 An Early 'Wet' Site a t the Mouth of the Hoko River, the Hoko River Site
(45CA213).I n The Excavation of Water-SaturatedArchaeological Sites
(Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale R.
Croes, pp. 201-232. National Museum of Man Mercury Series,
Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 50, Ottawa.
1977 Basketry From the Ozette Village Archaeological Site: A Technological,
Functional, and Comparative Study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
1980a Cordage From the Ozette VillageArchaeological Site: A Technological,
Functional, and Comparative Study. Project Reports No. 9, Laboratory of
Archaeology and History, Washington State University, Pullman.
1980b Basketry Artifacts. In Hoko River: A 2500 Year Old Fishing Camp on
the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale R. Croes and Eric
Blinman, pp. 188-222. Reports of Investigations No. 58, Laboratory of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
1980c Cordage. I n Hoko River: A 2500 Year Old Fishing Camp on the
Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale R. Croes and Eric
Blinman, pp. 236-257. Reports of Investigations No. 58, Laboratory of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
1987 Locarno Beach a t Hoko River, Olympic Peninsula, Washington:
Wakashan, Salishan, Chimakuan or Who? In Ethnicity a n d Culture, edited
by R. Auger, M.F. Glass, S. MacEachern, and P.H. McCartney, pp. 259283. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological
Association, University of Calgary.
1988 The Significance of the 3000 B.P. Hoko River Waterlogged Fishing
Camp in Our Overall Understanding of Southern Northwest Coast
Cultural Evolution. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy,
pp. 131-152. Telford Press, Caldwell, N.J.
1989 Prehistoric Ethnicity on the Northwest Coast of North America: An
Evaluation of Style in Basketry and Lithics. Journal ofAnthropologica1
Archaeology 8: 101-130.
1992a An Evolving Revolution in Wet Site Research on the Northwest Coast
of North America. I n The Wetland Revolution in Prehistory, edited by
Bryony Coles, pp. 99-111. WARP (Wetland Archaeology Research Project)
Occasional Paper 6, Department of History and Archaeology, University
of Exeter, UK.
1992b Exploring Prehistoric Subsistence Change on the Northwest Coast. In
Long-Term Subsistence Change in Prehistoric North America, edited by
Dale R. Croes, Rebecca A. Hawkins, and Barry L. Isaac, pp. 337-366.
Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6. JAI Press, Greenwich,
Conn.
1993 Prehistoric Hoko River Cordage: A New Line on Northwest Coast
Prehistory. I n A Spirit of Enquiry: Essays for Ted Wright, edited by John
Coles, Valerie Fenwick, and Gillian Hutchinson, pp. 32-38. Wetlands
Archaeology Research Project (WARP) Occasional Paper No. 7,
Department of History and Archaeology, University of Exeter, Exeter,
England.
Croes, Dale R. and Eric Blinman (eds.)
1980 Hoko River: A 2500 Year Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast of
North America. Reports of Investigations No. 58, Laboratory of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Croes, Dale R. and Jonathan 0. Davis
1977 Computer Mapping of Idiosyncratic Basketry Manufacture Techniques
i n the Prehistoric Ozette House, Cape Alava, Washington. In The
Individual in Prehistory: Studies of Variability in Style i n Prehistoric
Technologies, edited by James N. Hill and Joel Gunn, pp. 155-165.
Academic Press, New York.
Croes, Dale R. and Steven Hackenberger
1988 Hoko River Archaeological Complex: Modeling Prehistoric Northwest
Coast Economic Evolution. In Prehistoric Economies of the Pacific
Northwest Coast, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 19-85. Research in
Economic Anthropology, Supplement 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.
Curtis, Edward S.
1913 The North American Indian (Volume 9: Salishan Tribes of the Coast;
The Chimakum and the Quilliute; The Willapa). Johnson Reprint
Corporation, New York (1970).
1916 The North American Indian (Volume 11:Nootka and Haida). Johnson
Reprint Corporation, New York (1970).
Cybulski, Jerome S.
1978 An Earlier Population ofHesquiat Harbour, British Columbia. Cultural
Recovery Papers No. 1,British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.
1980 Osteology of the Human Remains from Yuquot, British Columbia. In
The Yuquot Project, Volume 2, edited by W.J. Folan and J. Dewhirst, pp.
175-192. History and Archaeology 43, Parks Canada, National Historic
Parks and Sites Branch, Ottawa.
1990 Human Biology. I n Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 7:
Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 52-59. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington.
1994 Culture Change, Demographic History, and Health and Disease on the
Northwest Coast. In I n the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to
Conquest, edited by G.R. Miller and C.S. Larsen, pp. 75-85. Wiley-Liss,
New York.
Dahm, Inge R.
1994 Cultural and Social Dimensions of the Prehistoric Gulf Islands
Soapstone Industry. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Daugherty, Richard D.
1988 Problems and Responsibilities i n the Excavation of Wet Sites. In Wet
Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 15-29. The Telford
Press, Caldwell, N.J.
.
Daugherty, Richard and Janet Friedman
1983 An Introduction to Ozette Art. In Indian Art lFaditions of the Northwest
Coast, edited by R.L. Carlson, pp. 183-195. Archaeology Press, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
Daugherty, Richard D. and Roald F'ryxell
n.d. Archaeological, Geochronological,and Ecological Investigations of the
Ozette Village Site Complex on the Northwest Coast of Washington: 11.
Research proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation.
Manuscript in possession of the author.
Davis, Stanley D.
1990 Prehistory of Southeastern Alaska. In Handbook of North American
Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 197202. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Densmore, Frances
1939 Nootka and Quileute Music. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 124,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
DePuydt, Raymond T.
1994 Cultural Implications of the Avifaunal Remains Recovered from the
Ozette Site. In Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume I.,
Fauna, edited by Stephan R. Samuels, pp. 197-263. Reports of
Investigations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington State
University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Seattle.
Dewhirst, John
1969 Yuquot, British Columbia: the Prehistory and History of a Nootkan
Village - Part 2, Prehistory. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes
3(2): 232-239.
1977 The Origins of Nootkan Whaling: A Definition of Northern and Central
Nootkan Ecological Orientation for the Past Four Millenia. Unpublished
paper presented a t the 10th Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Archaeological Association, Ottawa.
1978 Nootka Sound: a 4,000 Year Perspective. In Nu.tka. The History and
Survival ofNootkan Culture, edited by Barbara S. Efrat and W.J.
Langlois, pp. 1-29. Sound Heritage, Volume VII, No. 2. Provincial Archives
of British Columbia, Victoria.
1979 An Archaeological Pattern of Faunal Resource Utilization a t Yuquot, a
Nootkan Outside Village: 1000 B.C. - A D . 1966. Unpublished paper
presented a t the 44th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Vancouver.
1980 The Indigenous Archaeology of Yuquot, a Nootkan Outside Village.
National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.
1988Yuquot Sequence. In Historical Dictionary ofNorth American
Archaeology, edited by Edwarad B. Jelks and Juliet C. Jelks, pp. 543-544.
Greenwood Press, New York.
1990 Mowachaht Ownership and Use of Salmon Resources of the Leiner
River and Upper Tahsis Inlet, Nootka Sound, B.C. Unpublished report
prepared by Archeotech Associates, Victoria (in possession of the author).
Dolmage, V.
1921 West Coast of Vancouver Island Between Barkley and Quatsino
Sounds. Canada, Geological Survey, Summary Report, 1920, part A:12-22.
Donald,Leland
1983 Was Nuu-chah-nulth-aht (Nootka) Society Based on Slave Labor? In
The Development ofPolitica1 Organization in Native North America, edited
by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 108-119.American Ethnological Society,
Washington, D.C.
Donald,Leland and Donald H. Mitchell
1975 Some Correlates of Local Group Rank Among the Southern Kwakiutl.
Ethnology 14(4):325-346.
Douglas, Sir James
1853 Original Indian Population, Vancouver Island. Private Papers, Second
Series, Bl2011853. British Columbia Archives and Records Services,
Victoria.
Drucker,Philip
1950 Culture Element Distributions: 26, Northwest Coast. University of
CaliforniaAnthropological Records 9:3.
1951 The Northern and Central Nootkan Tribes. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 144, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
1955a Sources of Northwest Coast Culture. In New Interpretations of
Aboriginal American Culture History, pp. 59-81. Anthropological Society
of Washington, Washington, D.C.
1955b Indians of the Northwest Coast. Anthropological Handbook No. 10,
American Museum of Natural History, N. Y. (reprinted 1963by Natural
History Press, Garden City, N.Y.)
Duff, Wilson
1964 The Indian History ofBritish Columbia, Volume 1, Impact ofthe White
Man. Anthropology in British Columbia Memoir No. 5, Provincial Museum
of British Columbia, Victoria.
1965 Thoughts on the Nootka Canoe. In Provincial Museum ofNatura1
History and Anthropology: Report for the Year 1964, pp. 24-31.
Department of Recreation and Conservation, British Columbia, Victoria.
Earle, Timothy K.
1994 Positioning Exchange in the Evolution of Human Society. In Prehistoric
Exchange Systems in North America, edited by Timothy G. Baugh and
Jonathon E. Ericson, pp. 419-437. Plenum Press, New York.
Earle, Timothy K. and Jonathon E. Ericson
1977 Exchange Systems i n Archaeological Perspective. In Exchange Systems
in Prehistory, edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. Ericson, pp. 312. Academic Press, New York.
Efrat, , Barbara S. and W.J. Langlois
1978 The Contact Period a s Recorded by Indian Oral Tradition. In Nu.tka.
Captain Cook and the Spanish Explorers on the Coast, edited by Barbara
S. Efrat and W.J. Langlois, pp. 54-61. Sound Heritage, Volume V11, No. 1.
Provincial Archives of British Columbia, Victoria.
Eldridge, Morley
1989 Bligh Island, Nootka Sound Forest Service Road Archaeological Impact
Assessment. Unpublished report to the Ministry of Forests and Lands,
Campbell River.
1992 Ditidaht Tribal Heritage Resources: An Inventory and Management
Plan. Report prepared for the Ditidaht Band Council, Port Alberni, and the
B.C. Heritage Trust, Victoria. Copy on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Ellis, David W. and Luke Swan
1981 Teachings of the Tides: Uses of Marine Invertebrates by the Manhousat
People. Theytus Books, Nanaimo.
Ellison, Jeffrey
1977 The Ozette Petroglyphs. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Elmendorf, William W.
1990 Chemakum. I n Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest
Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 438-440. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.
Ernst, Alice Henson
1952 The Wolf Ritual of the Northwest Coast. University of Oregon Press,
Eugene.
Fedje, D.W., A.P. Mackie, J.B. McSporran, and B. Wilson
1996 Early Period Archaeology in Gwaii Haanas: Results of the 1993 Field
Programme. I n Early Human Occupation in British Columbia, edited by
Roy L. Carlson and Luke Della Bona, pp. 133-150. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Ferguson, R. Brian
1983 Warfare and Redistributive Exchange on the Northwest Coast. I n The
Development of Political Organization in Native North America, edited by
Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 133-147. American Ethnological Society,
Washington.
1984a Studying War. I n Warfare, Culture, and Environment, edited by R.B.
Ferguson, pp. 1-81.Academic Press, New York.
1984b A Reexamination of the Causes of Northwest Coast Warfare. I n
Warfare, Culture, a n d Environment, edited by R.B. Ferguson, pp. 267-328.
Academic Press, New York.
Fisken, Marian
1994 Modifications of Whale Bones. Appendix D in OzetteArchaeological
Project Research Reports, Volume II, Fauna, edited by Stephan R. Samuels,
pp. 359-377. Reports of Investigations 66. Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman, and National Park Service,
Seattle.
Fladmark, Knut R.
1975 A Paleoecological Model For Northwest Coast Prehistory. Archaeological
Survey of Canada Paper No. 43, National Museum of Man Mercury
Series, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America,
American Antiquity 44( 1):55-69.
1982 An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian
Journal ofArchaeology 6:95-156.
1986 British Columbia Prehistory. National Museum of Man, National
Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
Fladmark, Knut R., Kenneth M. Ames, and Patricia D. Sutherland
1990 Prehistory of the Northern Coast of British Columbia. I n Handbook of
North American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles,
pp. 229-239. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Flenniken, J. Jefiey
1980 Systems Analysis of the Lithic Artifacts. In Hoko River: A 2500 Year
Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale
R. Croes and Eric Blinman, pp. 290-307. Reports of Investigations No. 58,
Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
1981 Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz
Artifacts From the Hoko River Site. Reports of Investigations No. 59,
Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Folan, William J.
1969 Yuquot, British Columbia: the Prehistory and History of a Nootkan
Village - Part 1,Introduction and Ethnohistory of the Village. Northwest
Anthropological Research Notes 3(2):217-231.
1972 The Community, Settlement and Subsistence Patterns of the Nootka
Sound Area: ADiachronic Model. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Folan, William J. and John T. Dewhirst
1970 Yuquot: Where the Wind Blows from all Directions. Archaeology
23(4):276-286.
Foster, Michael K.
1982 Canada's First Languages. Language and Society 7:7-16.
Fournier, Judith A. and John Dewhirst
1980 Zooarchaeological Analysis of Barnacle Remains from Yuquot, British
Columbia. In The Yuquot Project, Volume 2, edited by W.J. Folan and J .
Dewhirst, pp. 59-102. History and Archaeology 43, Parks Canada,
National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Ottawa.
French, Diana E.
1990 Archaeological Investigations at Chesterman Beach, Tofino, and
Amphitrite Point, Ucluelet, Vancouver Island. Report on file, Archaeology
Branch, Victoria.
Friedman, Edward
1976 An Archaeological Survey of Makah Territory: A Study in Resource
Utilization. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman.
1980 Avian Faunal Remains From Archaeological Middens, Makah Territory,
Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes l4(l):91-106.
Friedman, Edward I. and Carl E. Gustafson
1975 Distribution and Aboriginal Use of the Sub-order Pinnipedia on the
Northwest Coast as Seen from Makah Territory, Washington. Paper
presented a t the 28th Annual Northwest Anthropological Conference,
Seattle.
Friedman, Janet L.
1975 The Prehistoric Uses of Wood at the Ozette Archaeological Site.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington
State University, Pullman.
1976 Archaeology and Wood Technology at the Ozette Archaeological Site. In
Primitive Art and Technology, edited by J. S. Raymond, B. Loveseth, C.
Arnold and G. Reardon, pp. 109-120. Archaeological Association,
University of Calgary.
F'riele, Pierre A.
1991 Holocene Relative Sea-Level Change: Vargas Island, British Columbia.
Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser
University.
Friele, Pierre A. and Ian Hutchinson
1993 Holocene Sea-Level Change on the Central West Coast of Vancouver
Island, British Columbia. Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences 302332-840.
Fyles, J.G.
1963 Surficial Geology ofHorne Lake and Parksville Map-Areas, Vancouver
Island, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir 318,
Ottawa.
Galois, Robert
1994 Kwakwgkg'wakw Settlements, 1775-1920. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Gibson, James R.
1992 Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: The Maritime Fur Trade of
the Northwest Coast, 1785-1841. McGill - Queen's University Press,
Montreal and Kingston.
Gleeson, P a d F.
1980 Ozette Woodworking Technology. Project Reports No. 3, Laboratory of
Archaeology and History, Washington State University, Pullman.
Gleeson, P a d and Gerald Grosso
1976 Ozette Site. In The Excavation of Water-SaturatedArchaeological Sites
(Wet Sites) on the Northwest Coast ofNorth America, edited by Dale R.
Croes, pp. 13-44. National Museum of Man Mercury Series,
Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 50, Ottawa.
Golla, Susan
1987 He Has a Name: History and Social Structure Among the Indians of
Western Vancouver Island. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia
University, New York.
1991 A Tale of Two Chiefs: Nootkan Narrative and the Ideology of Chiefship.
Socikte'desAm'ricanistes, pp. 107-123.
Green, Roger C.
1986 Some Basic Components of the Ancestral Polynesian Settlement
System: Building Blocks for More Complex Polynesian Societies. In Island
Societies:Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and lYansformation,
edited by Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 50-54. Cambridge University Press.
1994 Trigger's Holistic Archaeology and Pacific Culture History. Unpublished
paper in possession of the author.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1987 Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner I1 and Stephen L. Zegura
1986 The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of Linguistic, Dental,
and Genetic Evidence. Current Anthropology 27:477-497.
Guinn, Stanley J.
1963 A Maritime Village on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Report of
Investigations No. 22, Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State
University, Pullman.
Gunther, Erna
1942 Reminiscences of a Whaler's Wife. The Pacific Northwest Quarterly
33:65-69.
1960 A Re-evaluation of the Cultural Position of the Nootka. In Menand
Cultures: Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of
Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, edited by Anthony F.C.
Wallace, pp. 270-276. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
1972 Indian Life on the Northwest Coast ofNorth America as Seen by the
Early Explorers and Fur Traders during the Last Decades of the Eighteenth
Century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Gustafson, Carl E.
1968 Prehistoric Use of Fur Seals: Evidence fiom the Olympic Coast of
Washington. Science 161:49-51.
Gustafson, Carl E., Delbert Gilbow and Richard D. Daugherty
1979 The Manis Mastodon Site: Early Man on the Olympic Peninsula.
Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 3:157-164.
Haggarty, James C.
1982 The Archaeology of Hesquiat Harbour: the Archaeological Utility of an
Ethnographically Defined Social Unit. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University.
Haggarty, James C. and Richard I. Inglis
1981 An Archaeological Survey of the Brooks Peninsula: Brooks Peninsula
Refugium Project. Ms. on file, Archaeology Division, Royal B.C. Museum,
Victoria.
1983a Westcoast Sites: An Archaeological and Macroenvironmental
Synthesis. In Prehistoric Places on the Southern Northwest Coast, edited by
Robert E. Greengo, pp. 11-33. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State
Museum, University of Washington, Seattle.
1983b Archaeological Survey of the Brooks Peninsula Yields Ten Sites. The
M&n 15(2):1-6.
1984 Preliminary Results of the Archaeological Survey of Pacific Rim
National Park, West Coast of Vancouver Island. TheMidden 16(3):2-5.
1985 Historical Resources Site Survey and Assessment, Pacific Rim National
Park. Unpublished report, Parks Canada, Calgary.
Haggarty, Jim and Gay Boehm
1974 The Hesquiat Project. TheMidden 6(3):2-12.
Harris, Cole
1994 Voices of Disaster: Smallpox around the Strait of Georgia in 1782.
Ethnohistory 41(4):591-626.
Hatler, David F., R. Wayne Campbell and Adrian Dorst
1978 Birds of Pacific R i m National Park. Occasional Paper No. 20, Provincial
Museum of British Columbia, Victoria.
Hebda, Richard J. and Glenn E. Rouse
1979 Palynology of Two Holocene Cores fi-om the Hesquiat Peninsula,
Vancouver Island. Syesis 12:121-130.
Hill, Beth
1978 The Remarkable World of Frances Barkley: 1769-186.Gray's
Publishing, Sidney, B.C.
Hill, Beth and Ray Hill
1974 Indian Petroglyphs of the PacificNorthwest. Hancock House Publishers,
Saanichton, B.C.
Hobler, Philip M.
1990 Prehistory of the Central Coast of British Columbia. In Handbook of
North American Indians, Vol. 7:Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles,
pp. 298-305. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Hodder, Ian
1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture.
Cambridge University Press.
1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation i n Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press.
1991 Interpretive Archaeology and its Role. American Antiquity 56:7-18.
Hoff, Ricky
1980 Fishhooks. In Hoko River: A 2500 Year Old Fishing Camp on the
Northwest Coast ofNorth America, edited by Dale R. Croes and Eric
Blinman, pp. 160-188.Reports of Investigations No. 58, Laboratory of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Holland, Stuart S.
1964 Landforms of British Columbia: A Physiographic Outline. British
Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Bulletin 48,
Victoria.
Howay, Frederic W. (editor)
194iSVoyages of the "Columbia" to the Northwest Coast, 1787-1790 and 17901793. The Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.
Howes, Donald W.
1982 Spatial Analysis at a Northwest Coast Fishing Camp: The Hoko River
Site. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington
State University, Pullman, Washington.
Huelsbeck, David R.
1980 Analysis of the Fish Remains. In Hoko River: A 2500 Year Old Fishing
Camp on the Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale R. Croes
and Eric Blinman, pp. 104-111;Reports of ~nvesti~ations
No. 58,
Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
1981 Utilization ofFish a t the Ozette Site. Project Reports No. 11,Laboratory
of Archaeology and History, Washington State University, Pullman.
I
I
1988a The Surplus Economy of the Central Northwest Coast. I n Prehistoric
Economies of the Pacific Northwest Coast, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp.
149-177. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 3. JAI Press,
Greenwich, Conn.
1988b Whaling in the Precontact Economy of the Central Northwest Coast.
Arctic Anthropology 25(1):1-15.
1989 Food Consumption, Resource Exploitation and Relationships Within and
Between Households a t Ozette. I n Households a n d Communities, edited
by Scott MacEachern, David J.W. Archer and Richard D. Garvin, pp. 157167. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological
Association, University of Calgary.
1994a Mammals and Fish in the Subsistence Economy of Ozette. I n Ozette
Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume 11,Fauna, edited by
Stephan R. Samuels, pp. 17-91. Reports of Investigations 66. Department
of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, and National
Park Service, Seattle.
199413 The Utilization of Whales a t Ozette. In Ozette Archaeological Project
Research Reports, Volume 11,Fauna, edited by Stephan R. Samuels, pp.
265-303. Reports of Investigations 66. Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman, and National Park Service,
Seattle.
Huelsbeck, David R. and Gary C. Wessen
1994 Twenty-Five Years of Faunal Analysis a t Ozette. In Ozette
Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume 11,Fauna, edited by
Stephan R. Samuels, pp. 1-16. Reports of Investigations 66. Department
of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, and National
Park Service, Seattle.
1995 Late Prehistoric Settlement Seasonality in Makah Territory.
Archaeology in Washington, in press.
Hunt, Lynn (editor)
1989 The New Cultural History. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hupquatchew (Ron Hamilton)
1981 Yahtshulthaht. In The World is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in
Honour of Wilson Duff, edited by Donald N. Abbott, pp. 304-306. British
Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.
Inglis, Richard I. and James C. Haggarty
1983 Provisions or Prestige: A Re-evaluation of the Economic Importance of
Nootka Whaling. Paper presented a t the symposium on Megafauna of the
Seas, 1lth International Conference of Anthropological and Ethnological
Sciences, Vancouver.
1984 The Yuquot Whalers Shrine: Rediscovery of Its Original Location. Paper
presented a t the 17th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological
Association, Victoria.
1986 Pacific Rim National Park: Ethnographic History. Unpublished report,
Parks Canada, Calgary.
1987 Cook to Jewitt: Three Decades of Change in Nootka Sound. In Le Castor
Fait Tout: Selected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade
Conference, 1985, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, Toby Morantz, and Louise
Dechene, pp. 193-222. Lake St. Louis Historical Society, Montreal.
Ingraham, Joseph
1971 Voyage to the Northwest Coast ofNorth America, 1790-92, edited by
Mark D. Kaplanoff. Imprint Society, Barre, Massachusetts.
Irvine, Albert
1921 How the Makah Obtained Possession of Cape Fhttery (translated by
Luke Markistun). Indian Notes and Monographs, Museum of the
American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
Jacobsen, William H., Jr.
1979 Wakashan Comparative Studies. In The Languages ofNative America,
Historical and Comparative Assessment, edited by Lyle Campbell and
Marianne Mithun, pp. 766-791. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Jane, Cecil
1930 A Spanish Voyage to Vancouver and the North- West Coast ofAmerica
Being the Narrative of the Voyage Made in the Year 1792 by the Schooners
Sutil and Mexicana to Explore the Strait of Fuca. Argonaut Press, London.
Jewitt, John R.
1967 Narrative of the Adventures and Sufferings of John R. Jewitt, Only
Survivor of the Crew of the Ship Boston, During a Captivity of Nearly Three
Years Among the Savages of Nootka Sound. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield,
Washington. (Reprint of the 1815 manuscript)
1988 A Journal Kept at Nootka Sound. Ye Galeon Press, Fairfield,
Washington.
Jonaitis, Aldona
1988 From the Land of the Totem Po1es:The Northwest Coast Indian Art
Collection at the American Museum of Natural History. American Museum
of Natural History, New York, and Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.
Jones, Chief Charles with Stephen Bosustow
1981 Queesto,Pacheenaht Chief by Birthright. Theytus Books, Nanaimo.
Jones, Olive
1981 Glassware Excavated at Yuquot, British Columbia. In The Yuquot
Project, Volume 3, edited by W.J. Folan and J. Dewhirst, pp. 3-77. History
and Archaeology 44, Parks Canada, National Historic Parks and Sites
Branch, Ottawa.
Jorgensen, Joseph G.
1969 Salish Language and Culture:A Statistical Analysis of Internal
Relationships, History, and Evolution. Language Science Monographs,
Indiana University Publications, Bloomington.
Kaeppler, Adrienne L.
1978 "Artificial Curiosities":An Exposition of Native Manufactures Collected
on the Three Pacific Voyages of Captain James Cook, R.N. Bishop Museum
Press, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Kane, Paul
1968 Wanderings of a n Artist Among the Indians of North America. Hurtig
Publishers, Edmonton.
Kendrick, John (translator and editor)
1991 The Voyage of the Sutil and Mexicana 17%: The Last Spanish
Exploration of the Northwest Coast ofAmerica. The Arthur H. Clark Co.,
Spokane, Washington.
Kenyon, Susan M.
1980 The Kyuquot Way:A Study of a West Coast (Nootkan) Community.
Canadian Ethnology Service, Mercury Series Paper 61, National
Museums of Canada, Ottawa.
King, J.C.H.
1981 Artificial Curiosities fiom the Northwest Coast ofAmerica: Native
American Artefacts in the British Museum Collected on the Third Voyage of
Captain James Cook and Acquired Through Sir Joseph Banks. British
Museum Publications, London.
Kinkade, M. Dale
1990 History of Research in Linguistics. In Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited b y Wayne Suttles, pp. 98-106.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
1991 Prehistory of the Native Languages of the Northwest Coast. I n
Proceedings ofthe Great Ocean Conferences,Vol. 1,pp. 137-158. Oregon
Historical Society Press, Portland.
Kinkade, M. Dale and J.V. Powell
1976 Language and the Prehistory of North America. World Archaeology
8(1):83-100.
Kirch, Patrick V. and Roger C. Green
1987 History, Phylogeny, and Evolution in Polynesia. Current Anthropology
28(4):431-456.
Kirk, Ruth with Richard D. Daugherty
1974 Hunters of the Whale:An Adventure in Northwest Coast Archaeology.
William Morrow and Co., New York.
Kool, Richard
1982 Northwest Coast Indian Whaling: New Considerations. Canadian
Journal ofAnthropology 3(1):31-44.
Koppert, Vincent A.
1930 Contributions to Clayoquot Ethnology. Catholic University of America,
Anthropological Series No. 1. Washington.
Krajina, Vladimir J.
1969 Ecology of Forest Trees i n British Columbia. Ecology of WesternNorth
America 2(1):1-146.
Kroeber, A.L.
1923 American Culture and the Northwest Coast. American Anthropologist
%(I):1-20.
1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Langdon, Steve
1976 The Development of the Nootkan Cultural System. Paper presented a t
..,
the Northwest Coast Studies Conference, Simon F'raser University,
Burnaby.
Lantis, Margaret
1938 The Alaskan Whale Cult and Its M i t i e s . American Anthropologist
40:438-464.
Lightfoot, Kent G.
1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship Between
Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2):199217.
Lueger, Richard
1981 Ceramics from Yuquot, British Columbia. In The Yuquot Project, Volume
3, edited by W.J. Folan and J. Dewhirst, pp. 103-170. History and
Archaeology 44, Parks Canada, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch,
Ottawa.
Lundy, Doris Marion
1974 The Rock Art of the Northwest Coast. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Luternauer, J.L., John J. Clague, K.W. Conway, J.V. Barrie, B. Blaise, and R.W.
Mathewes
1989 Late Pleistocene Terrestrial Deposits on the Continental Shelf of
Western Canada: Evidence for Rapid Sea-Level Change at the End of the
Last Glaciation. Geology 17:357-360.
Mackie, Alexander
1983 The 1982 Meares Island Archaeological Survey: An Inventory and
Evaluation of Heritage Resources. Report on file, Archaeology Branch,
Victoria (and Nuu-chah-nulthTribal Council, Port Alberni).
1986 A Closer Look at Coastal Survey Results. TheMidden 18(1):3-5.
1992 Nuu-chah-nulth Culture History - Is Something Missing? Paper
presented at the 45th Annual Northwest Anthropology Conference, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
Magee, Bernard
1794 Log of the Jefferson.Unpublished manuscript. Photocopy held in
University of British Columbia Library, Vancouver.
Marshall,Yvonne
1989a The House in Northwest Coast, Nuu-chah-nulth, Society: the Material
Structure of Political Action. In Households and Communities, edited by
Scott MacEachern, David J.W. Archer and Richard D. Garvin, pp. 15-21.
Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool Conference, Archaeological
Association, University of Calgary.
198913 Whaling, Subsistence and Settlement Among the Westcoast People of
Vancouver Island. In Saying So Doesn't Make It So: Papers in Honour of B.
Foss Leach, edited by Douglas G. Sutton, pp. 258-276. New Zealand
Archaeological Association Monograph 17,Aukland.
1990 The Mowachaht Archaeology Project, Phase 1,1989. Unpublished
report, British Columbia Heritage Trust and Archaeology Branch,
Victoria.
1992a MowachahtMuchalat Archaeology Project: Final Report. Unpublished
report, British Columbia Heritage Trust and Archaeology Branch,
Victoria.
199213 Surveying in Nootka Sound: The Man in the Sun and Other Stories.
TheMidden 24(2):7-10.
1993 A Political History of the Nuu-chah-nulth People: a Case Study of the
Mowachaht and Muchalaht Tribes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Marshall, Yvonne and Heather Moon
1989 Fieldwork in Nootka Sound. TheMidden 21(5):6-9.
Mathews, W.H., J.G. Fyles, and H.W. Nasmith
1970 Postglacial Crustal Movements in Southwestern British Columbia and
Adjacent Washington State. Canadian Journal ofEarth Sciences 7:690702.
Matson, R.G.
1983 Intensification and the Development of Cultural Complexity: The
Northwest Versus the Northeast Coast. In The Evolution of Maritime
Cultures on the Northeast and the Northwest Coasts ofAmerica, edited by
Ronald J. Nash, pp. 125-148. Publication No. 11,Department of
Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
1992 The Evolution of Northwest Coast Subsistence. In Long-Term
Subsistence Change i n Prehistoric North America, edited by Dale R. Croes,
Rebecca A. Hawkins, and Barry L. Isaac, pp. 367-428. Research in
Economic Anthropology, Supplement 6. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.
1996 The Old Cordilleran Component at the Glenrose Cannery Site. In Early
Human Occupation i n British Columbia, edited by Roy L. Carlson and
Luke Della Bona, pp. 111-122. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Matson, R.G. (editor)
1976 The Glenrose Cannery Site. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No.
52, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, National Museums of
Canada, Ottawa.
Matson, R.G. and Gary Coupland
1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego.
Mauger, Jeffrey E.
1982 Ozette Kerf-Corner Boxes. American Indian Art Magazine 8(1):72-79.
1991 Shed-Roof Houses a t Ozette and in a Regional Perspective. In Ozette
Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume 1, House Structure and
FloorMidden, edited by Stephan R. Samuels, pp. 29-173. Reports of
Investigations 63. Department of Anthropology, Washington State
University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Seattle.
Mayne, R.C.
1862 Four Years in British Columbia and VancouverIsland. John Murray,
London.
McAllister, Nancy M.
1980 Avian Fauna from the Yuquot Excavation. I n The Yuquot Project,
Volume 2, edited by W.J. Folan and J. Dewhirst, pp. 103-174. History and
Archaeology 43, Parks Canada, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch,
Ottawa.
McKenzie, Kathleen H.
1974 Ozette Prehistory - Prelude. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Archaeology, University of Calgary.
McLeod, Ann and Mark Skinner
1986 Analysis of Human Remains: Bamfleld Teacherage Site Burial (DeSg
47). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
McMillan, Alan D.
1969 Archaeological Investigations a t Nootka Sound, Vancouver Island.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology,
University of British Columbia.
1975a Preliminary Report on Archaeological Survey in the Alberni Valley and
Upper Alberni Inlet. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1975b Archaeological Survey in the Alberni Valley. TheMidden 7(4):6-10.
1979 Archaeological Evidence for Aboriginal Tuna Fishing on Western
Vancouver Island. Syesis 12:117-119.
1981 Archaeological Research in Nootka Territory: Barkley Sound to the
Alberni Valley. B.C. Studies 48236-102.
1992 Recent Research in Barkley Sound: the Toquaht Archaeological Project,
TheMidden 24(2):3-5.
1996 Early Surface Collections from the Alberni Valley. I n Early Human
Occupation in British Columbia, edited by Roy L. Carlson and Luke Della
Bona, pp. 211-214. UBC Press, Vancouver.
McMillan, Alan D. and Denis E. St. Claire
1977 An Archaeological Resource Inventory in the Alberni-Barkley Sound
Region of Vancouver Island. I n Annual Report for the Year 1975:Activities
of the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board and Selected Research Reports,
edited by B.O. Simonsen, pp. 154-192. Government of British Columbia,
Victoria.
1982 Alberni Prehistory: Archaeological and Ethnographic Investigations on
Western VancouverIsland.Theytus Books, Penticton, B.C.
1991 The Toquaht Archaeological Project: Report on the 1991 Field Season.
Unpublished Report Submitted to the British Columbia Heritage Trust
and Archaeology Branch, Victoria, and the Toquaht Band, Ucluelet.
1992 The Toquaht Archaeological Project: Report on the 1992 Field Season.
Unpublished Report Submitted to the British Columbia Heritage Trust
and Archaeology Branch, Victoria, and the Toquaht Band, Ucluelet.
1994 The Toquaht Archaeological Project: Report on the 1994 Field Season.
Unpublished Report Submitted to the Toquaht Nation, Ucluelet, and the
Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
McPhatter, Blair
1986 Analysis of Found Human Remains: Toquart Bay Historic Period Box
Burial (DgSi 1). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Meares, John
1790 Voyages Made in the Years 1788 and 1789, From China to the North West
Coast of America. J.Walter, London.
Miller, David Glen
1984 The Hoko River Rockshelter: Intertidal Resources. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman.
Mills,John Edwin
1955 The Ethnohistory of Nootka Sound, Vancouver Island. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Mitchell, Donald H.
1968 Excavations a t Two Trench Embankments in the Gulf of Georgia
Region. Syesis 1:29-46.
1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of GeorgiaArea, a Natural Region and its Culture
Types. Syesis, Vol. 4 , Supplement 1, Victoria.
1981 Test Excavations at Randomly Selected Sites in Eastern Queen
Charlotte Strait. B. C. Studies 48:103-123.
1983 Seasonal Settlements, Village Aggregations, and Political Autonomy on
the Central Northwest Coast. In The Development ofPolitica1
Organization in Native North America, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 97107. American Ethnological Society, Washington, D.C.
1984 Predatory Warfare, Social Status, and the North Pacific Slave Trade.
Ethnology 23:39-48.
i
1988 Changing Patterns of Resource Use in the Prehistory of Queen Charlotte
Strait, British Columbia. In Prehistoric Economies of the Pacific Northwest
Coast, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 245-290. Research in Economic
Anthropology, Supplement 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.
1990 Prehistory of the Coasts of Southern British Columbia and Northern
Washington. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7:Northwest
Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 340-358. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.
Monks, Gregory G.
1981 Seasonality Studies. In Advances i n Archaeological Method and Theory,
Vol. 4, edited by Michael Schiffer, pp. 177-240.Academic Press.
1987 Prey as Bait: the Deep Bay Example. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology
11:119-142.
1992 Preliminary Faunal Report. In The Toquaht Archaeological Project:
Report on the 1992 Field Season, by Alan D. McMillan and Denis E. St.
Claire, pp. 76-91. Unpublished report submitted to the B.C. Heritage
Trust and Archaeology Branch, Victoria, and the Toquaht Band, Ucluelet.
Moogk, Susan Rosa Tovell
1980 The Wolf Masks of the Nootka Wolf Ritual: A Statement on
Transformation. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology
and Sociology, University of British Columbia.
Moon, Barbara J.
1978 Vanished Companions: The Changing Relationship of the West Coast
People to the Animal World. In Nu.tku. Captain Cook and the Spanish
Explorers on the Coast, edited by Barbara S. Efrat and W.J. Langlois, pp.
71-77. Sound Heritage, Volume V11, No. 1.Provincial Archives of British.
Columbia, Vidoria.
Morgan, Robert Christopher
1980 The Economic Basis and Institutional Framework of Traditional Nootka
Polities. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Victoria.
Moser, Rev. Charles
1926 Reminiscences of the West Coast of Vancouver Island. Acme Press,
Victoria.
Moss, Madonna L.
1993 Shellfish, Gender, and Status on the Northwest Coast: Reconciling
Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Ethnohistorical Records of the Tlingit.
American Anthropologist 95(3):631-652.
Moss, Madonna L. and Jon M. Erlandson
1992 Forts, Refuge Rocks, and Defensive Sites: The Antiquity of Warfare
Along the North Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology
29:73-90.
Moziiio, Jose Mariano
1970 Noticias de Nutka: An Account ofNootka Sound in 1792 (translated and
edited by Iris Higbie Wilson). McClelland and Stewart, Toronto.
Muller, J.E.
1980 Geological Outline of the Nootka Sound Region, with Notes on Stone
Artifacts from Yuquot, British Columbia. In The Yuquot Project, Volume 2,
edited by W.J. Folan and J. Dewhirst, pp. 3-14. History and Archaeology
43, Parks Canada, National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Ottawa.
Nagorsen, David W., Grant Keddie, and Tanya Luszcz
n.d. Archaeological Cave Bones of the Vancouver Island Marmot.
Unpublished manuscript submitted to British Columbia Parks Occasional
Papers Series.
Nelson, Erle
1975 Uses of X-ray Fluorescence Analysis in Archaeology. Syesis 8:91-95.
Nelson, D.E., J.M. D'Auria, and R.B. Bennett
1975 Characterization of Pacific Northwest Coast Obsidian by X-ray
Flourescence Analysis. Archaeometry 17(1):85-97.
Newcombe, C.F.
1907 Petroglyphs in British Columbia. Victoria Daily Times, Sept. 7 .
Newcombe, C.F. (editor)
1923 Menzies' Journal of Vancouver'sVoyage,April to October, 1792. Archives
of British Columbia Memoir No. 5, Victoria.
Nootka Sound & Picture Co.
1994 The Washing of Tears. Videocassette, Nootka Sound & Picture Co.1
National Film Board of Canada.
Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council
1991 Our World - Our Ways: T'aat'aaqsapaCultural Dictionary (compiled and
edited by J a y Powell). Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, Port Alberni.
;
Olson, Ronald L.
1927 Adze, Canoe, and House Types of the Northwest Coast. University of
WashingtonPublications in Anthropology 2(1). Seattle.
O'Reilly,P.
1883 Letter to the Superintendent General of Indian AfFairs. In Annual
Report of the Department of Indian Affairs 1882, pp. 100-101. MacLean,
Roger and Co., Ottawa.
O'Shea, John
1984 Mortuary Variability. Academic Press, San Diego.
Peebles, Christopher S. and Susan M. Kus
1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies.American
Antiquity 42:421-448.
Pethick, Derek
1976 First Approaches to the Northwest Coast. Douglas & McIntyre,
Vancouver.
Piddocke, Stuart
1965 The Potlatch System of the Southern Kwakiutl: A New Perspective.
Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology 21(3):244-264.
Powell, James V.
1976 Chimakuan-Wakashan:Evidence of Genetic Relationship. Paper
presented at the Conference on Northwest Coast Studies, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby.
1990 Quileute. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest
Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 431-437. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.
Ramenofsky, Ann F.
1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology ofEuropean Contact. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Renker, Ann M. and Erna Gunther
1990 Makah. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest
Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 422-430. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.
Riley, Carroll L.
1968 The Makah Indians: A Study of Political and Economic Organization.
Ethnohistory 15:57-95.
.
St. Claire, Denis E.
1975 Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Barkley Sound area. Report
on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1991 Barkley Sound Tribal Territories. In Between Ports Alberni and Renfrew:
Notes on Westcoast Peoples, E.Y. Arima a t al., pp. 13-202. Canadian
cw
Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service
Paper 121, Ottawa.
1992 An Interface of Ethnography and Archaeology on Vancouver Island. The
Midden 24(1):6-8.
Sahlins, Marshall
1983 Other Times, Other Customs: The Anthropology of History. American
Anthropologist 85:5 17-544.
1985 Islands of History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Samuels, Stephan R.
1989 Spatial Patterns in Ozette Longhouse Floor Middens. I n Households and
Communities, edited by Scott MacEachern, David J.W. Archer and
Richard D. Garvin, pp. 143-156. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Chacmool
Conference, Archaeological Association, University of Calgary.
Samuels, Stephan R. (editor)
1991 Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume 1, House
Structure and Floor Midden. Reports of Investigations 63. Department of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, and National Park
Service, Seattle.
1994 Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume I., Fauna.
Reports of Investigations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington
State University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Seattle.
Samuels, Stephan R. and Richard D. Daugherty
1991 Introduction to the Ozette Archaeological Project. I n Ozette
Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume 1, House Structure and
FloorMidden, edited by Stephan R. Samuels, pp. 1-27. Reports of
Investigations 63. Department of Anthropology, Washington State
University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Seattle.
Sapir, Edward
1910-1914 Field Notes on Barkley Sound Native Groups. Ms. on file,
American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. (Microfilm copy at
Provincial Archives of British Columbia, Victoria).
1911 Some Aspects of Nootka Language and Culture. American
Anthropologist 13:15-28.
1912 Language and Environment. American Anthropologist 14:226-242.
1913 A Girl's Puberty Ceremony Among the Nootka Indians. Royal Society of
CanacEa,Proceedings and Transactions, Series 3, pt. 2:67-80.
1915 Abnormal Types of Speech in Nootka. Geological Survey of Canada,
Memoir 62:l-21.
1916 Time Perspective in Aboriginal North American Culture: A Study in
Method. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir 90. Ottawa. (Reprinted in
Selected Writings ofEdward Sapir, edited by David G. Mandelbaum, pp.
389-462. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1949.)
1922 Sayach'apis, a Nootka Trader. In American Indian Life, edited by Elsie
Clews Parsons, pp. 297-323. B.W. Huebsch, New York.
1924 The Rival Whalers: A Nitinat Story. International Journal ofAmerican
Linguistics 3:76-102.
1929 Central and North American Languages. Encyclopedia Britannica (14th
ed.) 5:138-141. (Reprinted in Selected Writings ofEdward Sapir, edited by
David G. Mandelbaum, pp. 169-178.University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1949.)
1959 Indian Legends from Vancouver Island. Journal of American Folklore
72(284):106-114.
n.d. Census of Nootka Bands, 1920-1921. Unpublished Nootka field
notebooks. Boas collection, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
(copy held a t Provincial Archives of British Columbia, Victoria - #497.3
B63c W2a.18 33)
Sapir, Edward and Morris Swadesh
1939 Nootka T a t s . Linguistic Society of America, University of
Pennsylvania.
1955 Native Accounts of Nootka Ethnograpy .International Journal of
American Linguistics, Vol. 21, No. 4, Pt. 2.
Savage, Howard
1973 Faunal Changes Through Time in British Columbia Coastal Sites and
the Implications Thereof. Unpublished paper presented at the 6th Annual
Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Burnaby, B.C.
Schulting, Rick J. and Alan D. McMillan
1995 A Probable Case of Tuberculosis From a Burial Cave in Barkley Sound,
Vancouver Island. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 19:149-153.
*
Scott, R. Bruce
1972 Barkley Sound: A History of the Pacific R i m National Park Area. Sono
Nis Press, Victoria.
Simonsen, Bjorn 0.
1990 A Site Survey and Preliminary Archaeological Impact Assessment of
Site DfSg 2, Bamfield, B.C. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Singh, Ram Raj Prasad
1966 Aboriginal Economic System of the Olympic Peninsula Indians, Western
Washington. Sacramento Anthropological Society Paper No. 4,
Sacramento State College, Sacramento CA.
Sneed, Paul G.
1972 A Report of Archaeological Research Activity in Hesquiat Harbour,
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Summer 1971. Report on file,
Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Spaulding, Albert C.
1955 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Eastern United States. In New
Interpretation. of Aboriginal American Culture History, pp. 12-27.
Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.
Sproat, Gilbert Malcolm
1868 Scenes and Studies of Savage Life. Smith, Elder and Co., London.
(Reprinted as The Nootka: Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, edited by
Charles Lillard, Sono Nis Press, Victoria, 1987.)
Spuhler, James N.
1979 Genetic Distances, Trees, and Maps of North American Indians. In The
First Americans: Origins, Afinities and Adaptations, edited b y W.S.
Laughlin and A.B. Harper, pp. 135-183. Gustav Fischer, N.Y.
Stahl, Ann Brower
1993 Concepts of Time and Approaches to Analogical Reasoning in Historical
Perspective. American Antiquity 58(2):235-260.
Stewart, Hilary
1984 Cedar: Tree of Life to the Northwest Coast Indians. Douglas & McIntyre,
Vancouver.
Stewart, Hilary (editor and illustrator)
1987 TheAdventures and Sufferings of John R. Jewitt, Captive of Maquinna.
Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.
Stryd, Arnoud H. and Morley Eldridge
1993 CMT Archaeology in British Columbia: The Meares Island Studies. B.C.
Studies (Special Issue, Changing Times:British Columbia Archaeology in
the 1980s, edited by Knut Fladmark) 99:184-234.
Suttles, Wayne
1952 Notes on Coast Salish Sea-Mammal Hunting. Anthropology in British
Columbia 3:lO-20. (Reprinted in Coast Salish Essays, pp. 233-247.
Talonbooks, Vancouver, 1987.)
1962 Variation in Habitat and Culture on the Northwest Coast. Proceedings
of the 34th International Congress ofAmericanists, pp. 522-537. (Reprinted
in Coast Salish Essays, pp. 26-44. Talonbooks, Vancouver, 1987.)
1968 Coping With Abundance: Subsistence on the Northwest Coast. In Man
the Hunter, edited by Richard B. Lee and Irven DeVore, pp. 56-68. Aldine,
Chicago. (Reprinted in Coast Salish Essays, 45-63. Talonbooks,
Vancouver, 1987.)
1987a The Recent Emergence of the Coast Salish - the Function of an
Anthropological Myth. In Coast Salish Essays, pp. 256-264. Talonbooks,
Vancouver.
198% Northwest Coast Linguistic History - a View from the Coast. In Coast
Salish Essays, pp. 265-281. Talonbooks, Vancouver.
Suttles, Wayne and William W. Elrnendorf
1963 Linguistic Evidence for Salish Prehistory. In Symposium on Language
and Culture: Proceedings of the 1962Annual Spring Meeting of the
American Ethnological Society, edited by Viola E. Garfield and Wallace L
Chafe, pp. 41-52. American Ethnological Society, Seattle.
Suttles, Wayne and Aldona Jonaitis
1990 History of Research in Ethnology. In Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 73-87.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
.
Swadesh, Morris
1948 Motivations in Nootka Warfare. SouthwesternJournal ofAnthropology
4(1):76-93.
1949 The Linguistic Approach to Salish Prehistory. In Indians of the Urban
Northwest, edited by Marian W. Smith, pp. 161-173. Columbia University
Press, N.Y.
1953 Mosan I: A Problem of Remote Common Origin. International Journal of
American Linguistics 19:26-44.
1954 Time Depths of American Linguistic Groupings. American
Anthropologist 56:361-364.
1955 Chemakum Leximi Compared with Quileute. International Journal of
American Linguistics 21(1):60-72.
Swan, James G.
1870 The Indians of Cape Flattery, at the Entrance to the Strait ofFuca,
WashingtonTerritory. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge Vol. 16.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Swanson, Earl H.
1956 Nootka and the California Gray Whale. Northwest Quarterly 4752-56.
Szathmary, Emoke J.E.
1979 Blood Groups of Siberians, Eskimos, Subarctic and Northwest Coast
Indians: The Problem of Origin and Genetic Relationships. In The First
Americans: Origins, w n i t i e s and Adaptations, edited by W.S. Laughlin
and A.B. Harper, pp. 185-209. Gustav Fischer, N.Y.
1993 Genetics of Aboriginal North Americans. Evolutionary Anthropology
1:202-220.
Taylor, Herbert C., Jr.
1974 Anthropological Investigation of the Makah Indians Relative to Tribal
Identity and Aboriginal Possession of Lands. In Coast Salish and Western
WashingtonIndians, Volume 111,pp. 27-89. Garland Publishing, New York
and London.
Thomas, Alexander and E.Y. Arima
1970 t'a:t'a:qsapa - A Practical Orthography for Nootka. Publications in
Ethnology 1,National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada,
Ottawa.
Thompson, Laurence C. and M. Dale Kinkade
1990 Languages. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest
Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 30-51. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1980 Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity
45:662-676.
1981 Archaeology and the Ethnographic Present. Anthropologica 23(1):3-17.
1984 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man
(N.S.) 19:355-370.
1985 The Past as Power: Anthropology and the North American Indian. In
Who Owns the Past?, edited by Isabel McBryde, pp. 11-40. Oxford
University Press, Melbourne.
1989a A History ofArchaeologic&lThought. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
1989b History and Contemporary American Archaeology: A Critical
Analysis. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by C.C. LambergKarlovsky, pp. 19-34. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1991 Constraint and Freedom - A New Synthesis for Archaeological
Explanation. American Anthropologist 93(3):551-569.
Turner, Nancy J. and Barbara S. Efrat
1982 Ethnobotany of the Hesquiat Indians of Vancouver Island. Cultural
Recovery Papers No. 2, British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.
Turner, Nancy J., John Thomas, Barry F. Carlson, and Robert T. Ogilvie
1983 Ethnobotany of the Nitinaht Indians of Vancouver Island. Occasional
Papers Series No. 24, British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.
Vancouver, George
1984 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World
1791-1795 (4 vols.), edited by W.Kaye Lamb. The HaMuyt Society,
London.
Vayda, Andrew P.
1961 A Re-examination of Northwest Coast Economic Systems. Transactions
of the New York Academy of Sciences, series 2, 23(7):618-624.
1968 Hypotheses about Functions of War. In War: The Anthropology of
Armed Conflict and Aggression, edited by Morton Fried, Marvin Harris and
Robert Murphy, pp. 85-91. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
Virden, Jenel and Maureen Brinck-Lund
1980 Ethnohistory. In Hoko River: A 2500 Year Old Fishing Camp on the
Northwest Coast of North America, edited by Dale R. Croes and Eric
Blinman, pp. 32-46. Reports of Investigations No. 58, Laboratory of
Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Wagner, Henry R.
1933 Spanish Explorations i n the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Fine Arts Press,
Santa Ana, California.
&-
Walker, Alexander
1982 An Account of a Voyage to the North West Coast of America in 1785 and
1 786 (edited by Robin Fisher and J.M. Bumsted). Douglas & McIntyre,
Vancouver.
Ward, R.H.
1989 Mitochondria1 Diversity Within and Between Tribes: Implications for the
Peopling of the Americas. Paper presented a t the Circum-Pacific
Prehistoryconference, Seattle. *
Ward, R.H., Barbara L. Frazier, Keny Dew-Jager and Svante Paabo
1991 Extensive Mitochondrial Diversity Within a Single Amerindian Tribe.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 88:8720-8724.
Ward, R.H., A. Redd, D. Valencia, B.L. Frazier, B. Matsumara and M. Santos
1992 Molecular Evolution and Linguistic Differentiation in the Americas.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement l4:l7O- 171
(abstract of paper presented to the 61st annual meeting of the American
Association of Physical Anthropologists).
Waterman, T.T.
1920 The Whaling Equipment of the Makah Indians. University of
Washington Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Webb, Robert Lloyd
1988 On the Northwest: Commercial Whaling in the Pacific Northwest 17901967. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Webster, Peter S.
1983 As Far As I Know: Reminiscences of an Ahousat Elder. Campbell River
Museum and Archives, Campbell River, B.C.
Weissner, Polly
1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points.
American Antiquity 48(2):253-276.
Wessen, Gary C.
1982 Shell Middens as Cultural Deposits: A Case Study From Ozette.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington
State University, Pullman.
1984 A Report on Preliminary Archaeological Investigations a t 45CA201: A
'Second Terrace' Shell Midden Site Near Sand Point, Olympic National
Park, Washington. Report prepared for National Park Service, Pacific
Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
1988 The Use of Shellfish Resources on the Northwest Coast: The View From
Ozette. In Prehistoric Economies of the Pacific Northwest Coast, edited by
Barry L. Isaac, pp. 172-207. Research in Economic Anthropology,
Supplement 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.
1990 Prehistory of the Ocean Coast of Washington. I n Handbook ofNorth
American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne S u t t l p , pp.
412-421. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
1991 Archaeological Testing at the Presbyterian Church in Neah Bay
(45CA22), Washington. Reports of Investigations No. 1,Makah Cultural
and Research Center, Neah Bay, Washington.
1992 Recent Archaeological Investigations on the Makah Indian Reservation,
Washington. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Northwest
Anthropology Conference, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
1993 Archaeological Activities a t and near Sand Point (45CA201), Olympic
National Park, Washington. Report prepared for National Park Service,
Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
1994a Subsistence Patterns as Reflected by Invertebrate Remains
Recovered a t the Ozette Site. In Ozette Archaeological Project Research
Reports, Volume II, Fauna, edited by Stephan R. Samuels, pp. 93- 196.
Reports of Investigations 66. Department of Anthropology, Washington
State University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Seattle.
1994b An Account of the Ozette Shellfish Taxa. Appendix C in Ozette
Archaeological Project Research Reports, Volume II, Fauna, edited by
Stephan R. Samuels, pp. 333-358. Reports of Investigations 66.
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman, and
National Park Service, Seattle.
White, Brian P.
1974 Pacific Rim National Park: Human History Study (Volume 1).Report on
file, National and Historic Parks Branch, Department of Indian and
Northern Affairs, Ottawa.
Wigen, Rebecca J. and Barbara R. Stucki
1988 Taphonomy and Stratigraphy in the Interpretation of Economic
Patterns a t Hoko River Rockshelter. I n Prehistoric Economies of the
Pacific Northwest Coast, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 87-146. Research in
Economic Anthropology, Supplement 3. JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.
Wike, Joyce
1951 The Effect of the Maritime Fur Trade on Northwest Coast Indian
Society. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, Columbia
University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1958 Social Stratification Among the Nootka. Ethnohistory 5(3):219-241.
Willemar, Rev. J.X
1870 Report of the Columbia Mission for the Year 1869. I n Annual Reports of
the Columbia Mission. Rivingtons, London.
4
Wilson, Ian R.
1990 Archaeological Investigations at DgSl61, Chesterman Beach, West
Coast Vancouver Island. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1994 Archaeological Investigations at DgSl67, Chesterman Beach, West
Coast Vancouver Island. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Wobst, H. Martin
1978 The Archaeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or The Tyranny of the
Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43(2):303-309.
Wolf, Eric R.
1982 Europe and the People WithoutHistory. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Yesner, David R.
1980 Maritime Hunter-Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current
Anthropology 21(6):727-750.