Rewriting Marpole: The Path to Cultural Complexity in the Gulf of Georgia

Chapter 3. Ethnographic Summary

23 3 ETHNOGRAPHIC SUMMARY Introduction The culture history of the Gulf of Georgia region shows strong continuities with the ethnographically described Coast Salish First Nations, suggesting that prehistoric populations were likely ancestral to modern Salish groups (Ames and Maschner 1999:249; Jorgensen 1969; Matson and Coupland 1995; Mitchell 1971b, 1990; Suttles 1990; Suttles and Elmendorf 1963).The boundaries of the natural region correspond with the cultural region of the Coast Salish. Several explanations of prehistoric culture change focused on past population replacement (Borden 1950, 1951; Burley and Beattie 1987; Drucker 1943; Hill-Tout 1895, 1948; Smith 1907), but the preponderance of archaeological, linguistic, and osteological data and the vast majority of researchers support continuity (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995; Mitchell 1990), as further discussed in Chapter 4. As also discussed further in the following chapter, the exception to this rule occurs along the northern and western boundaries of the region, where prehistoric and historic population replacement is believed to have occurred (Mitchell 1988, 1990; McMillan 1998, 2003;McMillan and St.Claire 1982,1991,1996).Strong prehistoric affiliations do not equate to ethnographically distinct cultural interfaces between the Salish and the neighbouring Kwakwaka’wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth.Artifact assemblages are similar between the areas in early prehistory but differ greatly in the proto-historic period.The expansion of Wakashanspeaking peoples has been previously noted in linguistic studies (Newman 1974; Jorgensen 1969;Suttles and Elmendorf 1963;Swadesh 1950,1952).Since this book deals with the time period of approximately 3500 to 1000 BP,the cultural boundaries of the Gulf of Georgia are larger than the natural region and the ethnographically defined limits of Coast Salish territory. Ethnographic Northwest Coast cultures have traditionally been identified by groups with names such as Haida,Tsimshian,and Coast Salish,among others.These culture terms are useful descriptors that indicate a certain level of similarity between the people encompassed within them and bear some statistical strength (Jorgensen 1980). It is important to note, however, that each culture group did not have unified political organization, nor were they homogenous culturally.The Coast Salish did not have a paramount chief nor did they even have overarching chiefs for cultural groups within the Coast Salish area. Social organization and leadership was more locally determined and reflected local histories and environments. With this in mind, the variation within the ethnographic region will be explored. The most comprehensive and widely accepted scheme for describing internal variation among ethnographic Coast Salish groups comes from the Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast (Suttles 1990a), which separates the region into three segments based on geography and overall cultural and linguistic similarity.The northern Coast Salish (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990), the central Coast Salish (Suttles 1990b), and the southern 24 ETHNOGRAPHIC SUMMARY Coast Salish (Suttles and Lane 1990) are shown in Figure 3.1 below. For the sake of clarity, this three-part division of the ethnographic cultures will be followed in this book. Mitchell (1971b) proposed an alternate means of subdividing the area based solely on economy. His system provided four sub-regional economic strategies. His “Northern Gulf Diversified” is roughly contiguous with Suttles’s (1990a) northern Coast Salish culture area. The central Coast Salish area was split into two separate economic patterns. Halkomelem groups, who had owned resource areas along the banks of the Fraser River, were labelled “Fraser River Fishermen” by Mitchell (1971b). The Straits Salish, who ethnographically used reef-netting technology in lieu of direct access to the salmon fishery, were called “Straits Reef-net Fishermen” (Mitchell 1971b). Lastly, Mitchell’s (1971b) “Puget Sound Diversified” followed the southern Coast Salish grouping of Suttles (1990a).This map is present below in Figure 3.2. The main difference between Suttles’s (1990a) and Mitchell’s (1971b) model is the separation of the central area into two economic strategies based on owned access rights. In the ethnographic period the Halkomelem and Straits Salish were culturally similar overall (Suttles 1990a) but Mitchell (1971b) suggests the variation in economies may have differentially affected their prehistory. Reference to the Mitchell (1971b) subdivisions will be made throughout the chapter where appropriate. Figure 3.1 Ethnographic Areas Map 25 TERENCE N. CLARK This research will not assume the level of cultural similarity or difference was static in the past,nor that it was necessarily consistent with the ethnographic pattern.Use of ethnographic data will aid in interpretation of archaeological data but links...