<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#note>
"       SHISHALH RESPONSES TO THE COLONIAL CONFLICT (1791-PRESENT):  RESILIENCE IN THE FACE OF DISEASE, MISSIONARIES AND COLONIZATION     by   Peter S. Merchant  B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1991   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Anthropology)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)          September 2012    \u00A9Peter S. Merchant, 2012   ii Abstract Anthropological research regarding Coast Salish responses to the colonial conflict has held a central place in Northwest Coast anthropology for decades. Recently, it has been argued that \u201Cinordinate\u201D attention has been given to these developments as processes of assimilation, rather than as strategic responses. This process has been viewed by the Crown as the inevitable absorption of the Coast Salish into what would become Canadian society: a result that has been facilitated by the forces of colonialism, including missionization, removal of the Coast Salish from their land, and its resources and the perceived desire of the Coast Salish to adopt Euro-Canadian practices and institutions. Through the exploration of ethnographic accounts, oral narratives, historical documents, and archaeological evidence, I illustrate how one Coast Salish people, the shishalh, have responded to and (when possible), resisted the political, social and economic stresses of the colonial conflict. I argue that shishalh resistance can be observed in the complex pattern of population redistribution from the period immediately prior to and following the smallpox epidemics of the late 18th century, and subsequent European contact and colonization. Through the use of oral narratives I situate the identified changes in population distribution within the broader framework of shishalh history, allowing for the contextualization of population restructuring in the post-contact period, not as an isolated response to the calamitous effects of contact, but more accurately as the latest in a long line of shishalh responses to changing circumstances throughout their history. Post-contact shishalh history is poorly understood by outsiders, and little academic research has been dedicated to this period of rapid, social and political reorganization. Privileging shishalh accounts provides an emic perspective and an alternative to standard scholarly interpretations of the colonial conflict that has traditionally relied on outsiders\u2019 perspectives. By foregrounding shishalh oral history my approach includes a distinctive shishalh voice to the interpretation of this seminal event.                iii Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ v Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vi Dedication .................................................................................................................................... vii  Chapter 1:  Responses to the Colonial Conflict .......................................................................... 1    Chapter 2:  Research Context  ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1       Physical and Cultural Setting .............................................................................................. 5 2.2       History of Research ............................................................................................................. 6 2.3       Archaeology ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.4       Historical Data ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.5       Ethnographic Research ........................................................................................................ 10  Chapter 3:  Methodology and Analysis ....................................................................................... 13 3.1       Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 13 3.2       Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 16  Chapter 4:  Results ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.1       Pre-Contact .......................................................................................................................... 17 4.2       Contact (Late 18th Century) ................................................................................................. 20 4.3       The Catalyst-Smallpox ........................................................................................................ 25 4.4       Post-Contact ........................................................................................................................ 27 4.5       Oral History - Contextualizing the Empirical Data ............................................................. 34  Chapter 5:  Conclusions and Implications .................................................................................. 39  References ...................................................................................................................................... 41              iv List of Tables Table 1. List of ethnographic sources, time period covered and described settlement pattern .............................................................................................................................................. 15  Table 2. Radiocarbon dates for sites presented in Figure 2. Ordered by site and descending order of age ................................................................................................................... 20  Table 3. Locations at which Blenkinsop (1876) and Royal Commission on Indian Affairs (British Columbia 1915) recorded shishalh population in late 19th and early 20th centuries. ................................................................................................................... 34                      v List of Figures Figure 1. Map of shishalh Territory, major water bodies and adjacent First Nations ............................. 4  Figure 2. Map of shishalh Territory indicating clusters of archaeological sites (black bold), shishalh band lands (red polygons), and currently known range of site occupation (based on 2 sigma calibration, radiocarbon dates presented as cal BP) ................................................................................ 9  Figure 3. Clusters of archaeological sites (black bold), shishalh band lands (red polygons), currently known range of site occupation (based on 2 sigma calibration, radiocarbon dates presented as cal BP), and routes of Narvaez (1791) and Vancouver (1792) ........................................................................... 24  Figure 4. Distribution of small pox during the late 18th century. Based on Boyd (1990) and Harris (1994) .................................................................................................................................................... 26  Figure 5. Shishalh seasonal movements during the mid 19th century (adapted from Barnett 1955) ....................................................................................................................................... 29  Figure 6. Map identifying three OMI chapels located at ch\u2019atelich, ts\u2019unay and xenichen and the consolidated villages of sexw\u2019amin and slhalt. ..................................................................................... 31  Figure 7. Locations at which Blenkinsop (1876) and Royal Commission on Indian Affairs (British Columbia 1915) recorded shishalh population in late 19th and early 20th centuries. (see Table 1 for description of each location) ....................................................................................... 33                              vi Acknowledgments This project could not have been conducted without the cooperation of various members of the shishalh Nation; Mrs. Violet Jackson and the entire Jackson family, Mus Swiya (Jamie Dixon), the family of Mr. Gilbert Joe, Robert Joe, Darryl Jackson, Tyrone Joe-Mayes and of course Keith Julius. Research was facilitated by the shishalh Nation, both in terms of their support in allowing me access to their community and extensive archive collection. Dr. Michael Blake and Dr. Andrew Martindale provided invaluable advice and contributed extensively to the writing of this thesis, providing insight into the use of oral history in conjunction with the archaeological record. Although unaware, Dr. Bruce Miller, Dr. Rudy Reimer/Yumks and Dr. Keith Carlson provided invaluable examples of how to approach research within the Coast Salish world, and a model upon which this thesis is structured. Thanks are also extended to my fellow students Chris Arnett, Lisa Dojack and Kenzie Jessome for their support, humor and editorial skills, lastly, I would like to thank Heidi Brown, Sam Merchant, my parents and to my tireless canine field assistants Paco, Miles and Ben for their advice, support, and patience.                    vii This thesis is dedicated to Mrs. Violet Jackson.                         1 Chapter 1:  Responses to the Colonial Conflict  Born on the beach at \u00FAlhk\u00E1yem1 (Snake Bay) in 1930 Vi Jackson (n\u00E9e Williams) of the shishalh Nation and her family would, for the next decade, travel by canoe throughout shishalh2 territory, fishing, hunting and gathering; practicing what can be described as a semi-sedentary lifestyle (Figure 1). Her parents\u2019 intent was not to maintain a pre-contact way of life; rather it was a decision made to prevent Vi\u2019s internment in Saint Augustine\u2019s Residential School.3 Although they were successful for a decade, tragedy would befall the family on Christmas Eve 1940. Under cover of darkness, Vi and her parents entered ch\u2019atel\u00EDch4 to visit family. However, during the visit, the Williams were discovered by the Provincial Constable and Vi\u2019s parents, under threat of imprisonment, were forced to turn their daughter over to the colonial authorities. Soon after, Vi entered Residential School, never to see her parents again, as within two years both had died.5  The Williams family\u2019s decision to maintain a mobile lifestyle, in an attempt to prevent Vi\u2019s internment in residential school is reflective of typical responses made by the shishalh in reply to the stresses inflicted on their culture over centuries, including the colonial conflict. Vi\u2019s eventual capture and her separation from her family illustrates the potential consequences of the colonial conflict on individual shishalh families. Their oral history is replete with accounts of individual and collective shishalh responses to environmental calamities (including the great flood, the great snow and the great land-slide), as well as socio-political stresses in the period prior to European contact. These stresses have inspired shishalh leaders and individuals to respond, both through the restructuring of their society and relocation of communities, thereby demonstrating a long history of shishalh agency. In contrast, historical and ethnographic accounts of shishalh interactions with Europeans portray the shishalh as passive actors in the process of assimilation, rather than active participants in their own history, who responded to and (when possible), resisted the political, social and economic stresses of the colonial conflict (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990; Lemert 1954; Maud 1978).  Anthropological research regarding Coast Salish responses to the colonial conflict has held a central place in Northwest Coast anthropology for decades (Carlson 2007, 2007a; Duff 1964; Hawthorne 1958; Miller 1989, 2007; Miller and Boxberger 1994; Fisher 1990). More recently, it has                                                  1 ?\u00FAlhk\u00E1yem is one of the many shishalh villages located in Porpoise Bay at the head of Sechelt Inlet. 2 Shishalh is the word by which the Sechelt Indian Band and its citizens refer to themselves. 3 St. Augustine\u2019s Residential School was established on Sechelt Band Land No. 2 ch\u2019atel\u00EDch in 1904 by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate at the location currently occupied by the shishalh Nation administration complex (Keller and Leslie 1996:38). 4 ch\u2019atel\u00EDch means \u201Coutside waters\u201D in she sh\u00E1shish\u00E1lhem (the shishalh language) and is typically used to refer to the contemporary consolidated shishalh community located at Trail Bay adjacent to the District of Sechelt. 5 This childhood story has been repeatedly recounted to me during the last decade by shishalh Elder Vi Jackson.    2 been argued that \u201Cinordinate\u201D attention has been given to these developments as processes of assimilation, rather than as strategic responses (Carlson 2007:139). A process viewed by the Crown as the inevitable absorption of the shishalh into what would become Canadian society (Armitage 1995:19; Plant 2009:iii), a result to be facilitated by the forces of colonialism, including missionization, removal of the shishalh from their land, and its resources and the perceived desire of the shishalh to adopt Euro-Canadian practices and institutions (Lemert 1954).  Following Carlson (2007), I examine one example of Coast Salish response to the colonial conflict. Through the exploration of shishalh ethnographic accounts, oral narratives, historical documents, and archaeological evidence, I will illustrate how the shishalh have responded to stresses throughout their history. I argue that changes to shishalh population distribution (Bishop 1974; Carlson 2007) from the period immediately prior to and following the smallpox epidemics of the late 18th century (Carlson 2007:139), and subsequent European contact, are a continuation of a pattern of strategic responses (as opposed to a passive process of assimilation), whereby the shishalh first consolidated as a means of surviving the initial calamity, followed by population dispersal after the initial passing of the event.  An examination of the evidence presents a picture of a population in constant change, from immediately prior to contact through to the present. Archaeological data clearly indicate that prior to contact with Europeans the major focus of shishalh winter and multi-seasonal residences was along the southern coast of the Malaspina and Sechelt Peninsulas (the outer coast). The failure of late 18th century European naval expeditions to identify populations along this coastline or at the major fishing camps located in l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) (with the exception of x\u00E9nichen) suggests that large segments of the resident populations had died during epidemics that pre-dated European arrival with the survivor population resettling at locations not observed by these initial expeditions. As we will see, the archaeological record shows evidence that many shishalh settlements temporarily relocated from the outer coast to the protected bays of kalpilin (Pender Harbour) and ?\u00E1lht\u00FAl\u00EDch (Sechelt Inlet). Boas (1966:46-7) observed a similar pattern of population redistribution among the Kwakwaka\u2019wakw to the north, suggesting that as a result of either population decline or a need for defence (or both) the Kwakwaka\u2019wakw left \u201Ctheir former home and joined another community\u201D (Boas 1966:46-47). He also describes how some communities split, leading to the development of new villages (1966:46-47). The process of population redistribution continued through to the early 20th century as the shishalh occupied not only the consolidated villages but also resource procurement camps that had formerly been occupied only seasonally (Blenkinsop 1876; British Columbia 1915). The evidence of population consolidation and dispersal shown by the various lines of data was by no means uniform. Census data provided by Blenkinsop (1876) indicates that by 1876 the shishalh village of ch\u2019atel\u00EDch  3 located at Trail Bay (Figure 1) had become the main residence of the majority of the shishalh, however, many chose to avoid this location, continuing to practice their traditional economy throughout the territory\u2019s northern reaches (Blenkinsop 1876). Recognizing this resilience and the difficulties it imposed on missionary work, Oblate missionary Father Thomas Francois (OMI) (Table 1) in 1898 put in a request to his superiors that he be allowed to live among the shishalh \u201C\u2026 to follow them as they practiced their nomadic life \u2026\u201D (Thomas 1898:263-268):    A good part of the year they spend in the bush or up in the mountains, sleeping in tents at night, following the hunt for deer, which together with fish, constitutes their daily bread, and also the hunt for bear which provides them with pelts for sale\u2026  The accounts of Violet Jackson and Father Thomas are examples of how the shishalh continued to resist colonial administration from the late 19th century through to the present. Both narratives describe recent responses to an ongoing conflict. Whereas Carlson (2007) describes recent events such as the establishment of fur trade posts and smallpox epidemics in the oral narratives of the Coast Salish peoples to the south, shishalh narratives, like the one recounted by Vi Jackson, describe responses to the threat of Residential Schools. In doing so they not only illustrate how the shishalh have continued to respond to the colonial conflict, they also demonstrate the individuality of Coast Salish people\u2019s responses to their particular experience within this conflict. Post-contact shishalh history is poorly understood by outsiders, and little academic research has been dedicated to this period of rapid, social and political reorganization. Privileging shishalh accounts, such as Vi Jackson\u2019s, provides an emic perspective and an alternative to standard scholarly interpretations of the colonial conflict that has traditionally relied on outsiders\u2019 perspectives (e.g., ethnohistoric documents). By foregrounding shishalh oral history my approach includes a distinctive shishalh voice to the interpretation of this seminal event.           4     Figure 1. Map of shishalh Territory, major water bodies, and adjacent First Nations.   5 Chapter 2:  Research Context 2.1 Physical and Cultural Setting The shishalh have been ethnographically described as the southernmost group of the Northern Coast Salish (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990:442).6 Their territory is located along the southwest coast of British Columbia, and includes all the lands and waters draining into ?\u00E1lht\u00FAl\u00EDch (Sechelt Inlet), l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min  (Jervis Inlet), stl'\u00EDxwim (Narrows Inlet) and sk\u00FApa  (Salmon Inlet) (Figure 1). Shishalh Elders describe the territorial boundary as being as \u201Cfar as the eye can see\u201D (Merchant 2008a), literally following the mountain tops from xw\u00E9s\u00E1m7 (Roberts Creek) in the southeast, north to the height of land above x\u00E9nichen (head of Jervis Inlet), proceeding southwest to kw\u00E9kwenis8 (Lang Bay), crossing tsa\u00EDn-ko (Georgia Strait), and terminating at sp\u00EDlksen (Texada Island) in the south. The territory encompasses approximately half a million hectares, however passage from its southern extent at ch\u2019atel\u00EDch9 (outside waters) to x\u00E9nichen (head of Jervis Inlet) in the north can be quickly accomplished through travel by water along a 105 km long network of inlets and fjords (Figure 1). The natural landscape is comprised of steep-sided fjords, and a rocky coastline with occasional sheltered bays typically nestled beside a fresh water creek or river. Located between kw\u00E9kwenis (Lang Bay) and xw\u00E9s\u00E1m (Roberts Creek), these bays offer a myriad of abundant and reliable natural resources that supported large villages and extensive populations. Access points to shishalh territory are few; on the tsa\u00EDn-ko (Georgia Strait) side, marine access is gained through Agamemnon Channel, a narrow north-south waterway connecting tsa\u00EDn-ko (Georgia Strait) to l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) and \u00E1lht\u00FAl\u00EDch (Sechelt Inlet) or by way of the Sechelt isthmus, a narrow strip of land separating tsa\u00EDn-ko (Georgia Strait) from \u00E1lht\u00FAl\u00EDch (Sechelt Inlet). In the late 18th to early 19th century, shishalh relations with their Coast Salish neighbours to the south, west, and east was inhibited due to the presence of the Letwiltok in tsa\u00EDn-ko (Georgia Strait) (Maud 1978:99). Consequently, shishalh focus turned inland (Maud 1978:99), a shift that was facilitated by easily accessible trade routes that traversed the mountain passes, connecting the shishalh with their neighbours the Kla Ah Men (Sliammon Nation) to the northwest, the Skwx\u00FA7mesh (Squamish Nation) to the east, and the Lil\u2019wat (Lillooet) to the northeast (Figure 1).                                                   6 The vast majority of ethnographic and historic sources used in this section were accessed through the shishalh Nation\u2019s Our Story Database. Archaeological data were obtained from the shishalh Nations Title and Rights Department, and the Province of British Columbia\u2019s Remote Access to Archaeological Data Database (RAAD).  7 Xw\u00E9s\u00E1m is she sh\u00E1shish\u00E1lhem (the shishalh language) for \u201Cfat fish\u201D and refers to the location of the contemporary community of Roberts Creek. 8 Kw\u00E9kwenis is she sh\u00E1shish\u00E1lhem (the shishalh language) word that refers to Lang Bay located approximately 20 kilometers south of the Municipality of Powell River. 9 ch\u2019atel\u00EDch means \u201Coutside waters\u201D in she sh\u00E1shish\u00E1lhem (the shishalh language) and is typically used to refer to the contemporary consolidated shishalh community located at Trail Bay adjacent to the District of Sechelt.  6 2.2 History of Research Previous research concerning the shishalh can be broadly categorized into four main fields: archaeological, historical,10 ethnographic and linguistic.11 Although the reconstruction of shishalh responses in the pre-contact era is best accomplished through the review of the archaeological record, the post-contact period, from 1791 to present, is much harder to understand using an archaeological framework (because few archaeological sites have been identified within shishalh Territory that can positively be assigned to this period). Limitations imposed by the paucity of available archaeological data similarly extend to the ethnographic and historical records (Peacock 1998). These limitations, a consequence of the dependency of ethnographers on a narrow selection of shishalh advisors, has lead previous studies to create mere temporal snapshots of shishalh culture, and stimulated little debate of uniquely shishalh topics or questions (Peacock 1998:15). The difficulties imposed by the limitations of individual data sets are overcome through the use of multiple data sets, and foregrounding indigenous oral narratives (Martindale 2006, 2009; Martindale and Marsden 2003). This approach illuminates specific aspects of shishalh history and creates a broader temporal understanding of changes in aspects of shishalh culture.  2.3 Archaeology Archaeological research throughout the Gulf of Georgia, particularly the southern region has been extensive. This has resulted in the development of two archaeological sequences, one for the southern Strait of Georgia roughly corresponding to the Central Coast Salish culture area, and a second for the northern Strait of Georgia, Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Strait, with shishalh territory roughly lying at the boundary of the two (Pegg 2007).  With the exception of the work of Francis J. Barrow and Harlan I. Smith (1935), archaeological research among the shishalh, until recently, has been limited to cultural resource management (CRM) studies.12 Of the approximately 130 studies/projects conducted within (and adjacent to) the territory only seven are directly relevant to this work. Even though small in number, these latter few works are critical because they have identified the majority of archaeological sites and                                                  10 A small number of \u201Cpopular\u201D works have also been published both with and without the participation and/or consent of the shishalh. The most notable of these publications for its use of shishalh Elders is Lester Peterson\u2019s The Story of the Sechelt Nation (1990), which chronicles the history and oral traditions of the shishalh people. 11 Linguistics will not be discussed further due to its limited relevance to the research questions posed here.  12\u00A0Cultural resource management (CRM) studies are archaeological projects conducted on behalf of the private sector and/or government agencies by consulting archaeologists. \u00A0 7 generated the total suite of radiocarbon dates for the territory, forming the basis for the reconstruction of pre-contact shishalh population distribution. Greg Monks\u2019 1971 excavation of archaeological site DkSb-2 at Saltery Bay Provincial Campsite (Monks 1971) was the first systematic archaeological investigation conducted in shishalh territory. The objective of the project was to confirm whether DkSb-2 was a summer camp, obtain data on a reported shishalh summer habitation, and explore the chronological aspects of the \u201Ccultures\u201D that had existed at the site (Monk 1971:2). The second archaeological project was initiated in the 1970s when Steven Acheson and Sid Riley conducted a systematic site survey of the Powell River and Sunshine Coast Regional Districts for the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board of B.C. (Acheson and Riley 1976). The study area, roughly 214 square miles in size, was located between Desolation Sound in the north and Howe Sound in the south, and was limited to two areas; (1) the coast of Malaspina Peninsula south of Grief Point including Copeland, Hernando, Savary and Harwood Islands, and (2) Pender Harbour and the lower end of Agamemnon Channel (Acheson and Riley 1976:214). In 1977 Acheson and Riley conducted a second survey focusing on lower Jervis Inlet. Their two inventories recorded 347 previously unidentified archaeological sites (Acheson and Riley 1976, 1977).   In 1989, the CRM firm I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. conducted an inventory and impact assessment of the Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline on behalf of Pacific Coast Energy (Wilson 1991, 1991a). The study identified eight archaeological sites on or immediately adjacent to the Sechelt isthmus ranging from small lithic scatters to a small inland shell midden (DiRw-16) and provided the first radiocarbon dates for shishalh territory (Wilson 1991). The frequency of CRM research continued at a slow pace throughout the 1990s. The McIntyres (McIntyre and McIntyre 1995) conducted an archaeological impact assessment of DjRx-10 located at the head of Oyster Bay in k\u00E1lpil\u00EDn (Pender Harbour), and were the first to synthesize ethnographic and archaeological data.  In 1998, with the increased involvement of the shishalh in the management of the archaeological process, the nature of research shifted. Two consequences of this shift were (1) a dramatic increase in the number of CRM studies and (2) a focus on gathering of data directly related to the shishalh peoples\u2019 own research objectives\u2014objectives that required the gathering of archaeological data to support the successful conclusion of an aboriginal title case as opposed to the facilitation of the needs of industry through the CRM process.  In 2002, the shishalh Nation continued to decolonize the archaeological process, a practice brought about by their control of the research agenda and access to the archaeological record, ensuring that their community benefited directly (financially, intellectually and through employment) from the archaeological process (Merchant 2011; Nicholas et al. 2011). This increased involvement  8 was directly expressed through the initiation of a dual phase, multi-year, archaeological research program (Merchant 2002). The program included preliminary excavation at three residential sites (shell middens); DjRw-1, DiRw-27 and DiRw-28, all located on or adjacent to the Sechelt isthmus. The objective of this study was to identify, map and determine when abandonment of these sites occurred. Phase two consisted of the survey of high elevation areas, within the alpine and sub-alpine zones of the various mountain ranges located throughout the territory. These surveys identified 16 sites between 152 and 1600 m above sea level, ranging from isolated lithics, to small hunting camps with lithic assemblages composed of bifaces, scraping tools and imported (exotic) raw material types. Five years later Golder Associates (Pegg 2007) conducted the systematic excavation of site DkSb-30 located at Saltery Bay near the entrance to Jervis Inlet. Radiocarbon samples submitted for AMS dating returned five dates ranging from 7620 to 520 cal BP (at the 2\u03C3 level) (Pegg 2007:ii), indicating the site had been occupied almost continually for more than 7,000 years (Pegg 2007:44) (Figure 2). Over a five year period between 2008 and 2012, Gary Coupland and his team of graduate students from the University of Toronto conducted a SSHRC-funded research program in collaboration with the shishalh Nation. The objective of this program of research was to \u201C\u2026investigate and elucidate the organization of complexity among the hunter-gathers of the region\u201D (Coupland 2008:2), through comparing the results of research from other regions of the coast (Bilton n.d.; Coupland 2008:7; Johannesen 2010; Letham 2011). Propelling shishalh archaeology beyond the realm of CRM studies, the University of Toronto project employed marine-based survey and the excavation of large residential sites and complex human interments dating to 4000 BP, making it the most significant research project yet to be conducted within shishalh territory.               9  Figure 2. Map of shishalh Territory indicating clusters of archaeological sites (black bold), shishalh band lands (red polygons), and currently known range of site occupation (based on 2 sigma calibration, radiocarbon dates presented as cal BP).  10 2.4 Historical Data  The first European account of shishalh territory is provided by Spanish Captain Jos\u00E9 Narv\u00E1ez, who on or about July 1, 1791 (Wagner 1933:38-39) anchored south of ?\u00E1lht\u00FAl\u00EDch (Sechelt Inlet) between kw\u00E9tl'l\u00EDch (Trail Bay) and Chapman Creek (Figure 3). Although this is the first recorded visit of Europeans to shishalh territory no contact appears to have occurred between the two parties (Wagner 1933).  Less than a year later, in June 1792, British Captain George Vancouver entered shishalh Territory. Anchoring his ship the Discovery and the accompanying armed tender Chatham in Birch Bay off present day Washington State, Vancouver preceded to survey by launch and cutter the coastline north into present day Canada, arriving in southeastern shishalh Territory on June 16, 1792 (Vancouver 1801:199). Over the next five days Vancouver and his crew travelled along the coast of the Sechelt Peninsula arriving at x\u00E9nichen13 on June 18, 1792 (Vancouver 1801:202-204).14 Upon his arrival, Vancouver and his crew observed \u201C\u2026two Huts and some Indians curing Fish, some of which they procured for small Trinkets\u201D (Newcombe 1923:61) (Figure 3).  Limited contact between the shishalh and Europeans occurred over the next half century and very few historic documents relating to shishalh and European interactions from that time period exist. However, beginning in the late 1800s, government agents, surveyors, and missionaries started producing a wide range of administrative records. These provide important data regarding shishalh population size and distribution (Blenkinsop 1876). Most useful for historical research is Blenkinsop\u2019s Census of Indian Tribes winter 1876 and 1877 (Blenkinsop 1876), the Royal Commission on Indian Reserves (Province of B.C. 1915), the numerous correspondences between the shishalh and the Crown and the records of the missionary Order the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI). Blenkinsop\u2019s records provide important details of the number and distribution of shishalh residences and population totals in the late 19th century, describing the continued occupation of the territory\u2019s periphery. Similarly the Royal Commission on Indian Reserves 1913-1916 provides data on early 20th century residential patterns\u2014descriptions that are supported by additional OMI records (Table 1; Figure 7).  2.5 Ethnographic Research  The arrival of Franz Boas with the Jessup Expedition on the Northwest Coast marked the commencement of professional ethnographic research among the shishalh (Boas 1886, 1888).                                                  13 x\u00E9nichen is the she sh\u00E1shish\u00E1lhem word for head or end and refers to the end of Jervis Inlet.  14 Captain George Vancouver arrived in shishalh Territory on June 16, 1792 departing via the most westerly entrance to Jervis Inlet on June 20, spending a total of 5 days in the territory.  11 Although Boas did not travel to shishalh territory, he did conduct limited interviews while in B.C., with shishalh advisors determining that she sh\u00E1shish\u00E1lhem (the shishalh language) was a Salish dialect (Boas 1888; Curtis 1913). However, it was his set of observations relating to population redistribution (in the form of consolidation and dispersal) among the Kwakwaka\u2019wakw located to the north of the shishalh that are of most significance to this work (Boas 1966), as they provide an early, comparative data set that is otherwise absent for the shishalh. In spite of this early ethnographic work, there was minimal interaction between ethnographers and the shishalh during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and, in typical Boasian style, the research that did take place focused on language (Boas 1888, 1926), territory (Curtis 1913; Jenness 1935; Maud 1978; Smith 1935) and artwork (Smith 1923, 1935). Charles Hill-Tout (Maud 1978) and Homer G. Barnett (1955) are considered by scholars to have been the principal ethnographers of the shishalh during this period. In 1904 Hill-Tout was the first to provide a detailed (if limited) account of shishalh culture in his Report on the Ethnology of the Siciatl of British Columbia, a Coast Division of Salish Stock (Maud 1978). This report, largely based on interviews with shishalh advisers Charles Robert and Jack Isidore, provides the first detailed account of shishalh culture. The account describes the old divisions of the Siciatl (Sechelt) tribe: Qunetchin located at the head of Queen\u2019s Reach; Tsonai located at Deserted Bay the junction of Queen\u2019s Reach and Princess Royal Reach; Tuwaneko located at the head of Narrow\u2019s Arm; Sqaiaqoa, with many settlements and no fixed abode (Maud 1978:95).15 Over two field seasons between 1935 and 1936 Homer G. Barnett conducted fieldwork among twelve Coast Salish groups, including the shishalh (Barnett 1955). On the direction of Dr. S. Klimek, his supervisor, Barnett focused on describing Coast Salish material culture, within which he identified two lines of cleavage (Barnett 1955): the first between the northern and southern groups with a second between the mainland and island groups (Barnett 1955). Although his descriptions were generalized, they do provide a starting point for understanding the distinctive differences among Coast Salish peoples. Barnett\u2019s focus was primarily on material culture, including residential patterns, village structure, ownership and use of specific lands, and patterns of seasonal movement:   The winter homes of the Sechelt (siceLt) were in Pender Harbour. Near the hospital on the present-day reserve was tsxwamen. There were seven big houses there; four of them stood one behind the other while the other three ran crosswise close to their ends. Farther away, on each side of the harbour, were the small houses: the cluster on the south was called e:lahan; that on the north, tsa:qalas. Although they may be thought of as separate villages, all three divisions made up one functioning unit. The two end communities, like those on the headlands at Nanoose Bay and perhaps Chemainus, were composed of commoners socially and politically subordinate to the families living in the big houses, but nonetheless important to them.                                                  15 Maud provides no discussion of the basis for the divisions of the shishalh other than they each had their own settlement, hunting and fishing grounds. Barnett (1955) provides more detail regarding this matter, portraying the divisions as extend families.  12 From this focus the Sechelt scattered for their summer activities. One group stayed at Pender Harbour or travelled a few miles northwest to the stream which empties Sakinaw Lake (tskwena). Another divided its time or its members between Thunder Bay (tatkwotetan; on the north side of Jervis Inlet at its mouth), Hotham Sound (the smaller of the two northern arms of Jervis Inlet), and Stillwater Bay (a few miles to the north of the mouth of the inlet). Another went to the river mouths at the head of Jervis Inlet (hune:tcan); two more to Deserted Bay (Tsonai) and Vancouver Bay (skwakwiem). The largest group of all occupied the creek and river mouths on Narrows Arm (kLiL,wem), Salmon Arm, and Sechelt Inlet. The location of present-day Sechelt was not an important site (Barnett 1955:30). Generally speaking, contemporary ethnographers have typically relied on Barnett (1955) and Hill-Tout (Maud 1978) for information, choosing to summarize and re-evaluate previous work rather than conduct independent fieldwork (Beaumont 2011; Kennedy and Bouchard 1990; Peacock 1998). Gaps in these ethnographies have been partially filled through research conducted over the last ten years by ethnographers working for the shishalh Nation.16 This collaborative partnership has resulted in the interviewing of over one hundred shishalh members, documenting land use and occupancy patterns from the late-19th century through to the contemporary era. Correspondingly, oral narratives have documented significant events in the collective history of the shishalh Nation (including those provided by Vi Jackson), and illustrate both individual and collective shishalh responses to political, social, and economic stresses both prior to and following contact with Europeans (Table 1).17                                                              16  During the last two decades numerous researchers, including; Ron Beaumont, Andrew Peacock, John Pritchard, Peter Merchant and Adam Solomonian have collected ethnographic information in collaboration with the shishalh Nation. 17 These data are held by the shishalh Nation Rights and Title Department and is currently not available to the general public or external researchers.  13 Chapter 3:  Methodology and Analysis 3.1 Data Collection To test my hypothesis that changes to shishalh population distribution (Bishop 1974; Carlson 2007) during the post-contact period were a continuation of the historical pattern of strategic shishalh responses to stresses; I have reconstructed shishalh population distribution in the pre-contact era relying on data from previous archaeological research. This was accomplished through a review of over 130 CRM (cultural resource management) studies conducted between 1971 and 2011, and the results of my own fieldwork conducted in collaboration with the shishalh Nation between 1998 and 2011. Although regional surveys recorded extensive numbers of archaeological sites,18 the absence of any attempt to reconstruct population distribution at the territorial or regional level has left a void in our understanding of shishalh response strategies during the period of the colonial conflict (1791- present); a deficiency amplified by the lack of radiocarbon dates. Following the review of CRM literature, all archaeological sites currently recorded within, and up to one kilometer beyond, the shishalh territorial boundary were obtained from the shishalh Nation GIS Department.19 These data include the location and dimensions of each site and provide a description of the nature of the archaeological deposits, and associated radiocarbon dates. Together, these records provide a solid baseline from which the present study could be launched.  A review of the ethnographic and historical literature was conducted using the shishalh Nation\u2019s Our Story database (Table 1). During this phase of research I identified and used sources that contained information about population distribution, response strategies, and political authority in both the pre- and post-contact periods. Barnett (1955) is an essential source, providing detailed descriptions of shishalh population consolidation at s\u00E9xw?\u00E1min (Garden Bay), and both maps and text illustrating the seasonal movements of individual shishalh families. Hill-Tout (Maud 1978) is similarly important to my research as his work provided a description of shishalh population distribution as well as a description of shishalh responses to Letwiltok expansion into tsa\u00EDn-ko (Georgia Strait).  It is difficult to determine the exact nature of the changes that took place in shishalh social structures in the post-contact period, however, the consequences of contact with Europeans, the associated introduction of disease, and the resultant population decline undoubtedly had far-reaching effects (Roberts 1975:147). In the immediate post-contact era, in response to population decline and                                                  18 Over two field seasons, between 1976 and 1977, Steve Acheson and Sid Riley recorded 347 archaeological sites within an area of 214 square miles from a location south of the Grief Point area of the Malaspina Peninsula south to Pender Harbour on the Sechelt Peninsula. 19 As of December 31, 2011 480 archaeological sites have been recorded within and up to one kilometer of the shishalh Territorial boundary.  14 increased raiding (Miller and Boxberger 1994:269), village aggregates composed of individual households, united by bonds of kinship to other similar households (Barnett 1955:1; Drucker 1983:87; Miller and Boxberger 1994:270; Roberts 1975) appear to have developed a broader regional consciousness, in part stimulated by a need for mutual defense (Roberts 1975:149). The increased interaction between villages enlarged the sphere of friendly relations, permitting the increased formation of alliances through the established practice of \u201C\u2026interfamily marriages\u201D (Roberts 1975:150). The formation of defense alliances and the expansion of kinship ties represented an increased level of unity on a territorial level, facilitating the implementation of collective responses throughout the post-contact period (Angelbeck 2009; Angelbeck and McLay 2011; Arnett 1999; Roberts 1975:151). While a collective territorial consciousness appears to have increased, village identity appears to have become less important, allowing for increased mobility of individuals between villages, along with increased individual agency (Roberts 1975:152). There are six useful historical sources that have been reviewed for this work: Narv\u00E1ez (Wagner 1933), Vancouver (1801), Menzies (Newcombe 1923), Blenkinsop (1876), Royal Commission on Indian Affairs 1913-1916 (British Columbia 1915), correspondence between the shishalh and the Crown, and the records of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI) (Table 1). These sources provide important information concerning the shishalh population distribution\u2014both where settlements occurred as well as places that may have had no settlement at the time of contact.  For example, no settlements were described from xwesam (Roberts Creek) to kw\u00E9kwenis (Lang Bay), nor do they mention a village at kw\u00E9tl'l\u00EDch (Trail Bay) on the south side of the Sechelt isthmus. In contrast, the archaeological record shows that places such as Trail Bay, the site of the largest present- day shishalh community, was the location of an extensive settlement spanning many millennia prior to the arrival of Europeans.20 Over the last decade the shishalh have obtained a substantial number of important documents from the archives of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI). Despite the OMI\u2019s initial reluctance to expose their archives (due to potential litigation arising from their role in the operation of Residential Schools), the records provide detailed accounts and personal observations of the Oblate missionaries who established and operated the Sechelt Mission (Table 1). These documents comprise an invaluable source of information, providing insight into a variety of aspects of pre- and post-contact shishalh society, including; population distribution, political structures, economic system, and shishalh responses to missionization.                                                  20 Radiocarbon dates obtained from DiRw-28 located at Trail Bay, Sechelt indicate a maximum occupation age of 2850 BP (+/-40 [2 sigma calibration]) for this location. As of 2012 no terminal occupation date has been obtained for the site, though it appears to have been continuously occupied right up to the time immediately before the first seafaring Europeans arrived.  15 Table 1. List of ethnographic sources, time period covered and described settlement pattern.   Source Source Date Years of Research Time Period Settlement Pattern Barnett 1955 1930-1950 1800-1940 Consolidated and dispersed Barnett 1935-1936 1930-1950 1800-1940 Consolidated and dispersed Beaumont 2011 1970-2011 1800-2011 Consolidated Blenkinsop 1877 1876-1877 1876-1877 Dispersed Blenkinsop 1876 1876 1876 Dispersed Boas 1966 1926 1800-1926 Consolidated and dispersed Boas 1926 1926 1800-1926 Consolidated and dispersed Boas  1888 1926 1800-1926 Consolidated and dispersed Boas 1886 1926 1800-1926 Consolidated and dispersed British Columbia 1915 1913-1916 1910-1916 Consolidated and dispersed Curtis 1913 1913 ? Consolidated Dawe 1990 1960-1990 1860-1980 Consolidated Durieu 1873-1874 1873 1873 Dispersed Foquet 1868 1868 1868 Consolidated Grekoff 1965-1967 1960-1970 1960-1970 Consolidated Hill-Tout 1978 1890-1910 1800-1900 Consolidated and dispersed Kennedy and Bouchard 1990 1960-1990 1800-1890 Consolidated Kennedy and Bouchard 1986 1960-1990 1800-1890 Consolidated and dispersed Lemert 1954 1950-1960 1860-1920 Consolidated Menzies 1923 1791 1791 Consolidated Merchant 2008 1998-2012 1900-2012 Consolidated and dispersed Merchant 2008a 1998-2012 1900-2012 Consolidated and dispersed Narv\u00E1ez 1933 1790 1790 Consolidated Peacock 1998 1990-2000 1880-2000 Consolidated Peterson 1990 1950-1980 1800-1960 Consolidated and dispersed Puget 1795 1791 1791 Consolidated Thomas 1898 1898 1890-1900 Dispersed Vancouver 1801 1791 1791 Consolidated  The final phase of data analysis consisted of a review of recorded shishalh oral narratives. Previous researchers have warned that the use of oral narratives in archaeological interpretation can be problematic, a condition brought about by the \u201Chistory and context of their preservation through the colonial era\u201D (Martindale 2006:160). The vast majority of shishalh oral narratives were recorded by ethnographers of the late 19th and early 20th century (Maud 1978; Peacock 1998; Peterson 1990). With few exceptions (Maud 1978) these works have drawn on the second hand accounts of pre- contact shishalh cultural patterns provided by shishalh advisors who had no direct experience of this pre-contact way of life. We must be aware, when utilizing oral narratives, that the \u201Cmining of these texts for historical facts\u201D (Martindale 2006:162) by the original ethnographers may have altered their nature through the \u201Cimposition of a Western-scientific epistemology\u201D (Martindale 2006:162). An additional inherent limitation of oral history is that some of the specific events described (creation stories, the great flood, and so forth) occurred in the far distant past, and their accuracy cannot be assured (Martindale 2006:162). Despite these limitations, NWC oral historiography is demonstrably reliable over millennia (Carlson 2007, 2007a; Marsden 2002; Martindale 2009; Martindale and Marsden 2003; Miller 2011).  Embedded within a cultural practice of sacred knowledge (Suttles  16 1987) and ritual, oral texts are legal documents that define what to Western observers constitutes secular knowledge: rights, titles, history, and case law.  However, they do so in a manner sufficiently distinct from Western cultural experience that they are frequently interpreted as solely spiritual (Oliver 2010) or as metaphorical meditations on cultural meaning (Cruikshank 1994). This is not inaccurate, but as a focal point, it draws our gaze away from the historical, legal, and geopolitical implications.  Thus, oral texts can be used to define history in Western terms, but doing so requires attention to the non-Western cultural logic of its historiography (Cruikshank 2005; Miller 2011; Martindale in press).  When used in this work oral narratives situate the identified changes in population distribution within the broader framework of shishalh history, rather than developing a chronology of change. This allows for the contextualization of population restructuring in the post- contact period, not as an isolated response to the calamitous effects of contact, but more accurately as the latest in a long line of shishalh responses to changing circumstances throughout their history.  3.2 Data Analysis In order to develop an understanding of pre-contact shishalh population distribution, the locations of all archaeological sites identified during the data collection phase were plotted on a 1:20,000 scale map of shishalh territory. Typically, sites containing shell midden deposits were considered to be associated with winter/year round residential sites and these were colour coded to differentiate them from non-midden sites. Following the plotting of sites, radiocarbon dates were added to the project map.21  After plotting all archaeological sites and radiocarbon dates, their distribution was compared to population distribution described in the ethnographic accounts.  The next stage of analysis focused on identifying post-contact population distribution. This was accomplished by analyzing the historical documents, principally Narv\u00E1ez (Wagner 1933), Vancouver (1801), Blenkinsop (1876), correspondence between the shishalh and the Crown, and the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs 1913-1916 (British Columbia 1915).   The location of concentrations of shishalh population identified by the Royal Commission, shishalh correspondence, and the OMI was similarly plotted on the project map. The objective of this phase of research was to develop a preliminary understanding of shishalh population distribution in the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. These results were compared with the reconstruction of pre- contact population distribution to develop an understanding of changes in shishalh population during the period of study.                                                  21 As of December 31, 2011 43 radiocarbon dates have been processed from shishalh Territory. These have been collected by the shishalh Nation, the University of Toronto and various CRM firms.  17 Chapter 4:  Results 4.1 Pre-Contact The results of my research help to outline the changes that occurred to shishalh society from the period immediately prior to shishalh-European contact (AD 1792), through the period of colonization and missionization, to the contemporary period. A synthesis of available archaeological, ethnographic and historic data allows for a general spatial and temporal reconstruction of shishalh population distribution and, therefore, provides insight into shishalh strategic responses during this period.   By 2011, 480 archaeological sites have been recorded in shishalh territory: 342 (71%) of these are located along the southern shore of the Sechelt and Malaspina Peninsulas, clustering in five distinct nodes between xw\u00E9s\u00E1m (Roberts Creek) and kw\u00E9kwenis (Lang Bay). The remaining sites (n=138) are located throughout the fjords, inlets, and mountain ranges that comprise the territory\u2019s interior (Figure 2).   Significantly, shell midden deposits, typically associated with multi-seasonal or year round winter villages have been identified at 314 of the recorded sites, once more the majority (n=268 [71%]) are located between xw\u00E9s\u00E1m (Roberts Creek) and kw\u00E9kwenis (Lang Bay), only one site (DlRx- 9 skw\u00E1kwiy\u00E1m) containing shell midden deposits has currently been identified in l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet).22 Prior to 2002 archaeological research within shishalh Territory was primarily CRM driven, facilitating the requirements of the twin forces of development and industry. Archaeological research therefore, focused on those areas most affected by these forces: the southern shore of Sechelt and Malaspina Peninsulas. However, my own research conducted over the last eight years in l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) and the recent survey of sk\u00FApa (Salmon Inlet) and stl'\u00EDxwim (Narrows Inlet) by the University of Toronto during the summers of 2009 and 2010 (Letham 2011), when combined with the ethnographic evidence provided by Hill-Tout (Maud 1978), Barnett (1955), and Kennedy and Bouchard (1986 and 1990) and historic accounts provided by Durieu (1935:2), Grekoff (1965-1967), and Peterson (1990) strongly suggest that the pattern of site distribution is a function of shishalh residential strategies rather than survey bias. Confirming that pre-contact shishalh multi-seasonal and year round occupation was primarily focused along the territory\u2019s southern coastline and southern inlets (Figure 2).  Residential sites are typically represented by extensive archaeological complexes, composed of multiple archaeological site types, and sometimes extending over several kilometers. One of the                                                  22 Of the 479 archaeological sites currently recorded within shishalh Territory, 342 are located on the coastline between xw\u00E9s\u00E1m (Roberts Creek) and kw\u00E9kwenis. Fourteen sites containing shell midden deposits are located in Sechelt Inlet, 16 are located in Salmon Inlet, 15 are located within Sechelt Inlet, and 1 is located in Hotham Sound.   18 largest of these is located on the Sechelt isthmus, partially situated within the contemporary shishalh community of ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt Band Land 2), and the adjacent District of Sechelt. This complex extends along the north shore of kw\u00E9tl'l\u00EDch (Trail Bay) for approximately two kilometers and is dominated by site DiRw-28. First recorded in 2002 (Merchant 2002), DiRw-28 is at least 1400 m long (E-W) by 100 m wide (N-S), with archaeological deposits consisting of eleven depressions representing potential remnants of long houses, extensive shell midden deposits, burial mounds and a vast human ossuary (Merchant 2002). Radiocarbon dates demonstrate that DiRw-28 was inhabited from at least 2860 to 900 cal BP.23 Complexes similar to ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt) are situated along the southern coast of the Malaspina and Sechelt Peninsulas: 15 km west of ch\u2019atel\u00EDch is stl'\u00EDtl'ku (Secret Cove) and sxw\u00E9lap (Thormanby Island) composed of at least 36 recorded sites, a further 13 km northwest is k\u00E1lpil\u00EDn (Pender Harbour) containing over 62 recorded sites, near the territory\u2019s western boundary is y\u00E9lk\u00EDn (Thunder Bay) where there are 31 sites, and finally, 3 km to the north of ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt) is ts\u00FAl\u00EDch (Porpoise Bay), the location of site DjRw-1 and a further 17 recorded archaeological sites. Archaeologically, ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt) and ts\u00FAl\u00EDch (Porpoise Bay) could be considered a single complex, as the archaeological deposits of the two are virtually indistinguishable. When compared with the ethnographic data, these archaeological complexes roughly correspond with the location of the winter residences associated with the known divisions of the shishalh. There are least four descriptions of the various divisions. During his 1902 visit Hill-Tout recorded the names of what he described as the \u201C\u2026old divisions of the tribe\u2026\u201D (1) Qunetcin, at the head of Queen\u2019s Reach; (2) Tsonai, at Deserted Bay,\u2026; (3) Tuwanekq, at the head of Narrow\u2019s Arm; Sqaiaqos, many settlements but no fixed abode\u201D (Maud 1978;95). Kennedy and Bouchard provide a similar description also associating each group with a \u201C\u2026particular geographic area\u2026\u201D (Kennedy and Bouchard 1986:5 and 1990:443). Homer Barnett similarly provides a list of four subgroups; however, these vary somewhat from those provided by the previous researchers. For the people residing at the head of Jervis Inlet he gives the name klalamklatc, he also identifies the hane:tcan as another sub- group traveling to the head of Jervis Inlet. He identified the Tsonai as the sub-group that used Deserted Bay, the third group he identifies as the tewankw (same as Maud and Kennedy and Bouchard) who occupy the head of Narrows Arm. The final group he identifies as the xexoats who occupy Thunder Bay and Hotham Sound. The records of the OMI identify five sub-groups, these include the; (1) Klaya-kwose who resided at Pender Harbour and Thunder Bay, (2) Tsoh-nye located                                                  23 The chronology described is based on 2 sigma calibrated dates obtained between 2009 and 2010 by the University of Toronto Sechelt Archaeology Program and between 2002 and 2011 by the shishalh Nation Title and Rights Department \u2013 Archaeology. As of 2012 only a small portion of the site had been investigated, ongoing research by the University of Toronto and the shishalh Nation in other areas of the site may provide additional dates indicating a more recent occupation.  19 at Deserted Bay, (3) the Hunae-chin located at the head of Jervis Inlet, (4) Twank who resided in Sechelt Inlet and the Gulf of Georgia south of Pender Harbour, and (5) the Klye-kwim who may have been a fifth group residing in Narrows Arm (Durieu 1935:2). Despite this general concordance between these two classes of data, the character of Coast Salish bilateral kinship and its facilitation of residential mobility combined with various ethnographic portrayals of the pre-contact divisions of the shishalh (Barnett 1955; Grekoff 1965-1967; Maud 1978; Kennedy and Bouchard 1986; Durieu 1935:2; Peterson 1990) make it difficult to definitively establish a correlation between complexes of archaeological sites and ethnographically defined divisions. What we can conclude with a high degree of certainty from these lines of data is that prior to contact the shishalh practiced a typical coastal residential pattern whereby major multi-seasonal or year round villages were located along the south coast of the Malaspina and Sechelt Peninsulas from kw\u00E9kwenis (Lang Bay) to xwesam (Roberts Creek) on the lower Sunshine Coast. Typically, these village sites are located within sheltered bays, providing protection from inclement weather, defense against attack, and close proximity to seasonably available resources (Kennedy and Bouchard 1986:4).  Radiocarbon dates obtained from these complexes, suggest almost 7500 years of continuous occupation (Merchant 2002; Pegg 2007) of the coastline of Malaspina and Sechelt Peninsulas. However, the paucity of radiocarbon dates from this region dating to the post-contact period (with the exception of DjRw-1 and DjRx-34) suggests that by contact a redistribution of the population had occurred (Figure 3).24                                                                 24 The oral record will be examined in a future section, this allows for the contextualization of the presented empirical data within the long span of shishalh history.   20 Table 2. Radiocarbon dates for sites presented in Figure 2. Ordered by site and descending order of age.  Site Number  Site Type Material  Delta 13C (per mil) C14 Years  BP (SD) Calibrated Age- Range(Years BP) (2\u03C3) Lab. No. (Beta)      Upper Lower  EbRx-81 Large resource  Wood -25.0 820 \u00B1 80 650 920 186340 EbRx-81 procurement village with rock shelter burials  and wooden fish trap Bone collagen -13.6 870 \u00B1 40 690 910 148781 DkRv-32 Small village Bone collagen -20.5 900 \u00B1 40 730 920 286183 DjRw-142 Large village with  Bone collagen -12.9 2040 \u00B1 30 4440 4780 308224 DjRw-142 burials Charred material -22.3 2570 \u00B1 40 2540 2760 286178 DjRw-142  Bone collagen -21.8 2800 \u00B1 40 2790 2990 286179 DjRw-142  Bone collagen -27.8 3520 \u00B1 30 3770 3880 309493 DjRw-142  Bone collagen -14.9 4040 \u00B1 40 4420 4790 286180 DjRw-142  Bone collagen -20.2 5650 \u00B1 30 6350 6490 309492 DjRw-11 Large village with   Charred material -26.5 220 \u00B1 50 0 420 169947 DjRw-11 house depression Bone collagen -13.6 830 \u00B1 40 680 790 169946 DjRw-12  Bone collagen -26.5 830 \u00B1 40 680 800 255656 DjRw-12  Charred material -23.3 900 \u00B1 40 730 920 270115 DjRw-12  Charred material -25.9 920 \u00B1 40 740 930 255655 DjRw-12  Charred material -24.1 2880 \u00B1 40 2880 3150 270113 DjRw-12  Charred material -23.0 3690 \u00B1 40 3910 4150 270114 DiRw-282 Large village with two Charred material -24.0 1000 \u00B1 40 800 970 270111 DiRw-282 rows of houses and  Bone collagen -13.5 1310 \u00B1 40 1170 1300 270109 DiRw-281 palisade Charred material -28.5 1470 \u00B1 40 1300 1420 169948 DiRw-281  Bone collagen -13.5 2510 \u00B1 40 2380 2740 200334 DiRw-281  Bone collagen -13.5 2540 \u00B1 40 2480 2750 200335 DiRw-282  Charred material -28.1 2600 \u00B1 40 2710 2770 270112 DiRw-282  Charred material -23.3 2700 \u00B1 30 2750 2850 309494 DiRw-281  shell -3.3 3350 \u00B1 70 2600 2860 169949 DjRx-341 Small village with palisade Bone collagen n/a 310 \u00B1 40 290 490 249729 DjSa-482 Large village with stone fish trap Charred material -24.6 550 \u00B1 40 510 640 286181 DjSa-482  Charred material -24.6 1300 \u00B1 40 1170 1300 286182 DjRx-11 Wooden fish trap Wood -27.4 570 \u00B1 40 520 650 173354 DjRx-11  Wood -22.6 1240 \u00B1 40 1060 1270 194364 Notes: 1. Source: shishalh Nation Rights and Title Department. 2. Source: Bilton n.d.  4.2 Contact (Late 18th Century) The records of Narv\u00E1ez (McDowell 1998; Wagner 1933), Vancouver (1801), Puget (1795), and Menzies (Newcombe 1923) are the primary sources that can be used to reconstruct population distribution during the contact period. Individually they provide only passing reference to both population and building structures (Newcombe 1923:63) at locations identified as having such, either archaeologically or ethnographically. When viewed collectively, they present a pattern of pre-contact population distribution that contrasts sharply with that suggested for the contact period.  21 The earliest of these accounts is provided by the Spanish expedition of Francisco Eliza. As part of this expedition, between July 10th and 12th, 1791 Jos\u00E9 Mar\u00EDa Narv\u00E1ez led two small boats along the southern coast of the Sechelt and Malaspina Peninsulas, from Howe Sound northwest to the southwest point of Hardy Island (McDowell 1998:58; Wagner 1933:38-39) (Figure 3).25 Reconstructing Narv\u00E1ez\u2019s voyage from brief reports and charts prepared for the Eliza expedition (Kew 1998:32), McDowell recounts how Narv\u00E1ez anchored in close proximity to the archaeological complex of ch\u2019atel\u00EDch at a location described as Rio de la Aguada26 (Wagner 1933:38), and at a second location on the west side of sxw\u00E9lap (Thormanby Island) (Wagner 1933:38). His account, although brief and only partially reconstructed, provides no mention of either indigenous population or structures at any of the locations he cruised by or at which he anchored (Figure 3). Seasonal movement of population to fishing locations up l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet), stl'\u00EDxwim (Narrows Inlet), and Sk\u00FApa (Salmon Inlet) could account for the absence of population, however, George Vancouver\u2019s journal from the following year (1792) illuminates the picture further. Captain George Vancouver and his First Officer Lieutenant Peter Puget provide the most detailed descriptions of shishalh territory for this period. Over five days between June 16th and 20th, 1792 Vancouver and his crew initially followed a route similar to Narv\u00E1ez, eventually proceeding further north to x\u00E9nichen at the head of l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) (Figure 3). During their visit, they passed a landscape that today contains several hundred archaeological sites, including the previously mentioned complexes of ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt), stl'\u00EDtl'ku (Secret Cove) and kalpilin (Pender Harbour), camping on the west coast of the latter on the evening of June 16th:27  Along this rocky shore of the main land we passed in quest of a resting place for the night, to no effect, until after dark; when we found shelter in a very dreary uncomfortable cove near the south point of an island, about a mile long, and about two miles to the S.S.E. of a narrow opening leading to the northward (Vancouver 1801:200).  The following day (June 17th), at a location near tchah-n\u00E1yt-chun (Egmont Point) at the entrance to l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) Vancouver encountered people for the first time, \u201Cwe had seen about seventeen Indians in our travels this day, who were much more painted than any we had hitherto met with\u201D (Vancouver 1801:201). Over the next four days Vancouver would either pass by,                                                  25 McDowell was unable to identify a copy of Narv\u00E1ez original journal, noting that it was either lost, sold or sits unrecognized in a private collection. Alternately he believes it may lie in uncatalogued collections in Mexico or Madrid (91-95).  26 This location may either be Wilson Creek or Chapman Creek, both located approximately 5 km southeast of the present District of Sechelt. Throughout this area there are numerous large archaeological sites represented by extensive shell midden deposits, the most notable for its size is DiRu-10 located at the mouth of Wilson Creek. 27 Based upon the latitude and longitude coordinates provided in his journal this location is likely Francis Bay, a small cove on the west shore of present day Francis Peninsula.   22 or camp within, a series of deep and well-protected bays located at the mouths of large salmon bearing rivers, each identified within shishalh oral narratives, and ethnographic accounts as important locations for the procurement of resources during the spring and summer months (Figure 3) (Barnett 1955; Maud 1978).  The first of these was skw\u00E1kwiy\u00E1m (Vancouver Bay) located approximately one-third of way up l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet)28 on its east side.29 After spending the evening of June 17th camped within or close to the bay, the following morning, Vancouver proceeded north passing ts\u2019unay Deserted Bay),30 the second of these bays, eventually arriving at x\u00E9nichen (Huneachin) at the head of l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) were he encountered people for a second time:31  This valley much excited my curiosity to ascertain what was beyond it. But as the streams of fresh water were not navigable, though the tide had risen up to the habitations of six or seven Indians (Vancouver 1801:204-205).  Following the purchase of fish in exchange for items of iron, Vancouver proceeded south, spending the evening of June 18th at or near Patrick Point, in clear sight of ts'\u00FAnay (Deserted Bay) four km to the east (Vancouver 1801:205-207). Continuing south on the morning of June 19th Vancouver spent the evening near skw\u00E1lutsin (Goliath Bay) at the entrance to l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet), departing the inlet the following morning (Figure 3). With the exception of the encounters described, no further observations were provided concerning population or settlements. The significance of this                                                  28 l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) is an 87 km long fjord extending from Malaspina Strait in the south, north to its termination at xenichen (Head of Jervis Inlet). It is characterized by steep sided mountains extending from the ocean to the height of land, large to moderate rivers flowing into it from both the east and west and few beaches. 29 Identified by Barnett (1935-36:16) as the summer home of the division of the shishalh headed by tc\u00E9:tcoe, skw\u00E1kwiy\u00E1m is today the location of archaeological site DlRx-9. Shishalh oral history recognizes the importance of skw\u00E1kwiy\u00E1m as an important salmon harvesting site (Peacock 1998), a narrative consistent with the archaeological data. Excavations conducted in 2010 (Merchant n.d.) at the north end of the bay near High Creek recovered extensive quantities of modified and utilized slate, flaked stone, and fish remains displaying evidence of processing in the form of cut marks. In contrast Vancouver describes neither population nor structures at this site. 30 Identified by Barnett (1935-36:16) as the summer home of the division of the shishalh headed by t\u2019kae yu,  Tsonai is recognized in shishalh oral narratives as being an important salmon harvesting site and the head of a trail network linking shishalh Territory with Squamish Territory to the east. Shishalh oral narratives describe the existence of a large wooden fish trap located at the mouth of the Deserted River and archaeological excavations that I conducted in 2009 identified extensive quantities of worked and used slate along the north side of the mouth of the Deserted River. Mineralogical characterization of the slate, conducted at Simon Fraser University in 2011, indicated that it originated from a large quarry located 2.3 km to the south. 31 Shishalh oral narratives recount that x\u00E9nichen is the location at which one of the shishalh original ancestors descended bringing knowledge of the construction of fish traps (Peterson 1990). Identified by Barnett (1935- 36:16) as the summer home of the divisions of the shishalh headed by l\u00FAx\u00FAleohw\u00FAl\u00FAk and \u00FAnkwa:tci, x\u00E9nichen is today the location of the spiritual site of Chenawestan (Merchant 2001), and a large wooden fish trap located at the mouth of the Huneachin River as well as the head of a trail network connecting the shishalh with Toba Inlet to the north and the Lil\u2019wat to the northeast.  23 absence was not lost on Vancouver\u2019s crew.32 For example, upon their return to the Discovery on June 23rd, Peter Puget recounted his impressions of his time in the northern inlets (Jervis Inlet) to the expedition\u2019s naturalist Archibald Menzies:  The shore of the great North West Arm33 as far as they went is in general rocky with a border of lowland stretching along it producing pines of immense dimensions. They found but few Inhabitants in the Northern34 branches but if they might judge from the deserted Villages they met in this excursion, the Country appeared to be formerly much more numerously inhabited than at present, tho they could form no conjecture or opinion on the cause of this apparent depopulation\u2026(Newcombe 1923:63).                                                  32 From April to mid-August the shishalh dispersed throughout their territory conducting a variety of subsistence activities, including; digging for clams, fishing for salmon and herring and a variety of other species. These activities would have taken them to seasonal procurement camps located at skw\u00E1kwiy\u00E1m (Vancouver Bay), Tsonai (Deserted Bay) and x\u00E9nichen (Huneachin) prior to Vancouver\u2019s arrival. Population was only observed by Vancouver at x\u00E9nichen.  33 The Great North West Arm refers to Malaspina Strait. 34 The Northern branches refers to Jervis Inlet or possibly both Jervis Inlet and Howe Sound.  24   Figure 3. Clusters of archaeological sites (black bold), shishalh band lands (red polygons), currently known range of site occupation (based on 2 sigma calibration, radiocarbon dates presented as cal BP), and routes of Narvaez (1791) and Vancouver (1792).   25 4.3 The Catalyst-Smallpox Currently no direct historical accounts of smallpox occurring among the shishalh have been identified from the pre-contact era, although there are accounts from the post-contact period (Chirouse 1887-1889). Its presence in the pre-contact period and its potential effects have been inferred based on evidence derived from neighbouring First Nations (Boyd 1985; Carlson 2007; Galois 1994). The discrepancy between the pre- and post-contact pattern of shishalh population distribution has never been examined in great detail; nor has any formal explanation been offered to account for this discrepancy in the literature. To the north (Galois 1994:34) and south (Carlson 2007) it has been suggested that similar patterns of population re-distribution are a consequence of the smallpox epidemics of the late 18th century (Figure 4). Evidence suggests that smallpox arrived on the Northwest Coast in the early historic period prior to the establishment of the maritime fur trade in 1785 (Galois 1994:39). Visiting Euro-Americans observed smallpox among survivors at several locations, including Puget Sound, Nitinat, Sitka, and Parry Passage. Based on this evidence Boyd (1985) has argued that sometime during the 1770s smallpox affected the entire coastal region.35 Alternately, Harris (1994) argues that smallpox arrived in about 1782 and was more localized around Puget Sound and the Georgia Straits region, extending as far as the northern end of Georgia Strait and Nitinat on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Galois 1994:39; Harris 1994) (Figure 4).  History is currently silent regarding the presence of smallpox among the shishalh during this period. Vancouver and his crew were aware of its presence on the west coast and could identify its devastation; observing its effects among the Coast Salish communities to the south of shishalh territory: [A]t the extremity of the inlet\u2026about sixty [people]\u2026: one or two had visited us on the preceding Thursday morning [at Port Discovery]; particularly one man who had suffered very much from the small pox. This deplorable disease is not only common, but it is greatly to be apprehended is very fatal among them, as its indelible marks were seen on many; and several had lost the sight of one eye\u2026owing most likely to the virulent effects of this baneful disorder (Vancouver 1801:241).  Similarly, Puget alluded to its possible presence in shishalh territory: They found but few Inhabitants in the Northern36 branches but if they might judge from the deserted Villages they met in this excursion, the Country appeared to be formerly much more numerously inhabited than at present, tho they could form no conjecture or opinion on the cause of this apparent depopulation\u2026(Newcombe 1923:63).                                                   35 Ethnologist James Mooney identified four major epidemics in the Northwest (1781-82, 1836-37, 1852-53, and 1862) (Mooney 1928:13-14, 27,30), while Robert Boyd identifies evidence of a fifth in 1801-2 and a possible sixth in the winter of 1824-25 (Boyd 1999:22). 36 The Northern branches refers to Jervis Inlet or possibly both Jervis Inlet and Howe Sound.  26  Figure 4. Distribution of small pox during the late 18th century. Based on Boyd (1990) and Harris (1994).   27 Despite the few historical descriptions of shishalh population and the lack of direct accounts of the devastating impact that smallpox had on them, they were clearly located within the zone of smallpox effect described by both Boyd and Harris. Drawing on this evidence I think it highly probable that the shishalh had already been severely impacted by the smallpox epidemic prior to the arrival of the European naval expeditions\u2014in effect providing an answer to Archibald Menzies\u2019 question about why there were so many depopulated villages visible during the summer of 1792. The shishalh responded as they had done when faced with earlier calamities, through strategic responses, which included the redistribution of population, shifts in collective identity and political authority. These are the same patterns identified among the Kwakwaka\u2019wakw (Galois 1994:34) to the north and the St\u00F3:l\u014D to the south (Carlson 2007).  4.4 Post-Contact The main documentary sources useful for understanding post-contact shishalh life can be split into four basic categories; ethnographic (Barnett 1955; Maud 1978), shishalh correspondence with the Crown, missionary accounts and census data (Blenkinsop 1876; British Columbia 1915).37 These sources provide at best isolated accounts or snapshots of individual residential sites; however, when examined collectively, within the broader temporal framework of the post-contact period (1791 to present) they help to illuminate the transformation that was occurring in shishalh society. Hill-Tout (Maud 1978:99), through his description of Kwakiutl expansion eastward into tsa\u00EDn-ko (Georgia Strait) and the resulting shishalh shift of focus inland, reveals how the shishalh were forced to continue management of their relationship with historic rivals while simultaneously responding to European incursions. Although, not specifically referencing population distribution, Hill-Tout noted a collective strategic response that must have been employed during the early period of the shishalh-European encounter, whereby more frequent intermarriage with neighboring groups was an attempt to counteract the effects of depopulation brought about by so many decades of disease:   The war-like division of the Kwakiutl stock which ruled the waters of the Strait, and kept the Sechelt isolated from other influences, effectually hindered the acquisition of foreign ideas or conceptions from those quarters; and the large influx of Lillooet blood in the present Sechelt suggests close relations with that tribe, if not original descent from it (Maud 1978:99).  In 1860 missionaries belonging to the Order of Mary Immaculate (OMI) arrived in s\u00E9xw?\u00E1min (Garden Bay), prompting yet another collective response from the shishalh;                                                   37 Recently collected archaeological evidence in the form of radiocarbon dates obtained from site DjSa-48 located in kalpilin and site DjSa-1 (Porpoise Bay) provide additional data supporting the existence of consolidated villages in these two locations in the post-contact period.  28 The first contact between these mainland Salish tribes and missionaries occurred in 1860 when two priests of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate made a brief reconnaissance of the Sechelt and, significantly, were driven away because the Indians \u201Cknew what white men are\u201D (Lemert 1954:23).  Responding two years later, this time to the threat of what appears to be another epidemic, the shishalh collectively invited the OMI to return. Viewed against their initial response, this about-face could be interpreted as acceptance of one of colonialism\u2019s pillars: missionaries. Viewed in the context of the smallpox epidemics that struck the west coast in 1862, this decision should be interpreted as having been guided by pragmatic politics, whereby the shishalh obtained access to medicine in exchange for the OMI\u2019s presence in their community (Lemert 1953:5).  Two years later a delegation from the same tribe arrived at New Westminster entreating the Oblate fathers to establish a mission among them. A small chapel was promptly constructed at the Pender Harbour potlatch grounds to serve as a focus for mission activities. At first only a small nucleus of the converted Sechelt met for confession, mass, and guidance, but progress in conversion was so rapid that by 1871 the sacrament of confirmation was administered to the entire Sechelt tribe (Brabender 1935:37-41).  Collective responses were in part facilitated by the dramatic redistribution of population that had occurred among the shishalh. Population consolidation appears to have occurred in at least two locations. A description of the consolidated village of s\u00E9xw?\u00E1min (Garden Bay) as it existed in the mid-19th century was provided by shishalh advisor Joe Le Dally to Homer Barnett (1955).38 Barnett\u2019s description illustrates how these groups continued to return to their summer homes, maintained access and control of their territory and its resources--a practice that ensured the continuation of their traditional economy (Figures 4 and 5).  The records of the OMI provide evidence of a second consolidated village, likely located at present day Sechelt Band Land 5 ts\u00FAl\u00EDch (Porpoise Bay) (Figure 5). While on a mission to the shishalh in 1868 Father L\u00E9on Fouquet (OMI) described his entrance to this village and his departure the following day:39 \u201COn New Year\u2019s Day we crossed an isthmus which separated us from a small bay, a little further stood the village of Sechelt. Two canoes were waiting for us at the entrance to the bay\u201D (Dawe 1990). That same day he left the village and proceeded to the \u201Csecond camp Sechelt\u201D located at ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (present day Sechelt), from which he departed on January 2, 1868 (Dawe 1990)40.                                                  38 s\u00E9xw?\u00E1min (Garden Bay) is where the OMI first arrived in 1860 and were ultimately repelled by the shishalh. 39 It is likely that this village was located at Sechelt Band Land No. 5 ts\u00FAl\u00EDch located on the east shore of the head of the Porpoise Bay. Archaeological evidence in the form of radiocarbon dates and artifacts indicates that this location was occupied in the post-contact period. 40 Refers to Father L\u00E9on Fouquet (OMI).  29 While Barnett (1955) and the records of the OMI described population consolidation, correspondence between the shishalh and the Crown, the records of the OMI, Blenkinsop\u2019s census of 1876 and the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs 1913-1916 provide a rich source of data relating to the dispersal of the population during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When looked at together, they detail a pattern of individual and collective responses to the dual forces of missionization and colonization\u2014responses that have continued to the present.    Figure 5. Shishalh seasonal movements during the mid 19th century (adapted from Barnett 1955).  30 At the same time, they provide insight into the process of consolidation and dispersal that occurred throughout this period. For example Father Paul Durieu (OMI) during his trip to Sechelt in 1873 counted 300 Sechelt and identified small chapels at three widely dispersed locations (ch\u2019atel\u00EDch, Tsonai and x\u00E9nichen) (Durieu 1873-1874) (Figure 6).41 The presence of these chapels helps document a permanent shishalh population residing throughout the territory in the late 19th century.  Blenkinsop\u2019s census conducted in the winter of 1876 reveals a similar picture to that presented by the OMI. Blenkinsop identified 167 shishalh, various huts, burial grounds, orchards and potato patches located at 17 locations (Figure 7, Table 1). Although shishalh population had decreased to dangerously low levels, in the latter stages of the 19th century, these records illustrate how the shishalh continued to occupy locations throughout the periphery of their territory, with large segments of the population choosing to avoid the Mission located at ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt).   In 1913 Chief George along with three fellow Chiefs wrote to the Royal Commission on Indian Reserves protesting the trespass and occupation of their lands at Skookumchuk by a \u201Chalf- breed\u201D (George et. al. 1913):  We Indians at Sechelt are assembled here and want to expose to you a case that touches us very closely. We have been living at Skookum Chook for long years. Our forefathers had the land there for centuries. About forty years ago we were obliged to move from one place to another and we have cleared that last place from bush. There are 23 (twenty three) houses built there, gardens are made and apple-trees planted. We always believed that this place was ours, till we hear lately that a half-breed, by the name of Alfred Jeffrey has taken up that land. We cannot understand this, and we ask for our rights. How is it possible that other people can take this land from us? How is it possible that we can be deprived of our living? We cannot all make our living at Sechelt, since we only go there for our spiritual nourishment, as the church and priest is there. We are five camps, Sechelt, Jervis Inlet, Pender Harbour, Deserted Bay and Skookum Chook. Sechelt is our Centre, because our church is there, but we always had our land at other places. Skookum Chook is absolutely necessary for us, because it is there we fish the most and if we the old reserve were taken from us we would not know where to stay there and to make our living.  This letter is remarkable because not only does it discuss population and land use in 1913, but it also refers to practices from four decades earlier: previous movements of the shishalh, the specific locations that the shishalh occupied, the length and permanence of this occupation (as evidenced by the construction of houses and planting of orchards), and their unwillingness to venture to Sechelt, unless required by spiritual necessity.                                                    41 Established by the OMI to facilitate the missionization of the shishalh, these chapels were administered by Oblate priests travelling by boat to the various shishalh communities, a pattern that continued into the late 19th century when the establishment of the Sechelt Mission and the consolidation of the shishalh population at present day ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt) made them redundant (Durieu 1935:2).  31      Figure 6. Map identifying three OMI chapels located at ch\u2019atelich, ts\u2019unay and xenichen and the  consolidated villages of sexw\u2019amin and slhalt.  32 In 1915 The Royal Commission met with the shishalh and noted (British Columbia, 1915:246-279) their continued occupation of their territory. From interviews with the \u201CHead Chief of the Sechelt Band\u201D the commission established that the shishalh population was 260, divided between 60 families (British Columbia 1915:250), and had 23 reserves with the population residing on 15, and with houses identified on 16 reserves. Although Sechelt Reserve No. 2 was the primary residence for all the shishalh, people continued to live on 15 other reserves, dwelling in a total of 63 houses, making the total number of houses 113, or almost 2 houses for every one of the 60 families (Kew 1998:40) (Figure 6, Table 1).  33  Figure 7. Locations at which Blenkinsop (1876) and Royal Commission on Indian Affairs (British Columbia 1915) recorded shishalh population in late 19th and early 20th centuries. (see Table 3 for description of each location).  34 Table 3. Locations at which Blenkinsop (1876) and Royal Commission on Indian Affairs (British Columbia 1915) recorded shishalh population in late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Map Reference shishalh Name Blenkinsop 1876 Royal Commission 1913-16 1 xenichen occupied/1 small church/4 huts intermittently occupied/garden/fishing station 2 sw\u00EDwel\u00E1t occupied/1 hut intermittently occupied/garden/fishing station 3 sch\u00EDl\u00FAtsin occupied intermittently occupied/garden 4 sp'\u00EDk'ilhxan occupied/hut intermittently occupied/garden/fishing station 5 ts'\u00FAnay occupied/3 huts occupied/fishing station 6 slh\u00EDlhem occupied/2 huts occupied/fishing station/garden 7 skw\u00E1kwiy\u00E1m occupied intermittently occupied/camping ground/fishing station 8 che\u00E9ch-kwaht occupied intermittently occupied/camping ground/cranberry marsh 9 stl'\u00EDxwim occupied/2 huts (could also be 10 or 11) intermittently occupied/garden/fishing station/hunting base 10 stl'\u00EDxwim  unoccupied/wild land on western side of narrows arm 11 stl'\u00EDxwim  occupied/camping place/garden 12 ch\u00E1chl\u00EDlhtenam occupied/2 small huts/potato patch occupied/garden plot 13 slahlt occupied/burial ground occupied/garden plot/fishing station/camping ground 14 ch'atel\u00EDch occupied/burial ground/12 cottages/small huts to dry firewood/vegetable patch/apples/1 horse/9 cattle/12 fowl occupied/village/cultivatable tract of land/roman catholic church/meeting house 15 ts'\u00FAkw'um  occupied/fishing station/camping ground 16 sw\u00EDk'als occupied/potato ground occupied/garden/fishing station 17 \u00FAlhk\u00E1yem occupied/potato patch occupied intermittently/garden/fishing station 18 s\u00E1l\u00E1lus  occupied/camping ground/garden 19 s\u00E1l\u00E1lus occupied/1 hut/potatoes occupied/fishing station 20 kway-ah-kuhl-ohss occupied  21 sm\u00EDshalin occupied  22 s\u00E9xw?\u00E1min  intermittently occupied/fishing station/hunting base/garden 23 sts\u00E9xwena  intermittently occupied/fishing station/garden 24 s\u00E9x\u00E1l\u00EDten  intermittently occupied/fishing station/camping ground 25 kw\u00E9kwenis  occupied/orchard/fishing station   4.5 Oral History - Contextualizing the Empirical Data  Shishalh oral narratives describing the great flood, the great snow and the great landslide speak to significant events in the collective history of the shishalh, illustrating the central theme of population redistribution brought about by calamitous events, a theme recognized by Carlson among the Coast Salish of the Fraser Valley (2007). The account of the great snow provided by shishalh Elder Joe Dally to ethnographers Charles Hill-Tout (Maud 1978:117-118) and Homer Barnett (1935- 1936:20) describes this event:  A great snow which covered the area up to the tops of the trees (a marker put there by t\u2019kai yu is still stuck on top of tall trees near Pender Harbour \u2026 snow level then) caused a famine which killed off all the Sechelt people except t\u2019kaiyu and his family and his wife and 5 daughters and 2 of these went over the mountains and the rest stayed and gave birth to the Sechelt.  35  Similarly, the story of the great flood recounts how a great cataclysm affected the shishalh world when floodwaters rose deluging tems swiya (our world), forcing the shishalh to seek refuge in a cave on k'els42 located at the head of l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) (Peterson 1990:4-5). When the floodwaters receded the shishalh exited the cave, repopulating their territory, returning to the villages they had previously deserted (Merchant 2008).  On a literal level these narratives recount responses to environmental catastrophes; they also illustrate the spectrum of responses that we can expect to identify within the various historical sources. A central theme of these narratives is the constant pattern of population redistribution, first consolidation as a means of surviving the initial calamity, followed by population dispersal after the passing of the event, a practice that facilitated the maintenance of title to their land and access to its resources. These narratives also illustrate a continuity of practice and shishalh agency with regards to the development of strategic responses. The story of the great snow describes the response of t\u2019kaiyu and his family, a parallel to the response of the Williams family. The great flood represents a collective response of the shishalh Nation, similarly paralleling the collective resistance to the arrival of the Oblates in 1860, and as we will observe, the incursion of loggers in 1874. These ancient narratives also illustrate how the shishalh could draw upon a historical catalogue of successful strategic responses that had proven useful throughout their history, as did other Coast Salish peoples (Carlson 2007).  The previously described response of the Williams family to the threat of Vi Jackson\u2019s internment in residential school is a dramatic yet understandable reaction. This clear illustration of contemporary agency practiced by one shishalh family is reflective of the themes encapsulated by the ancient narratives. Vi Jackson\u2019s personal history, recounted repeatedly in both the private and public arena, and recorded within the context of the continuing legal conflict over aboriginal title, has resulted in its transformation from a personal memory to a collective oral narrative, one that describes a response to a catastrophic administrative policy: the colonial requirement that children be forcibly taken from their families after the establishment at ch\u2019atel\u00EDch (Sechelt) of St. Augustine\u2019s Residential School. Vi Jackson demonstrates individual shishalh strategic responses, one in which her family abandons the consolidated community located at ts\u00FAl\u00EDch, deciding instead to travel throughout their territory (dispersal), rather than succumb to their family\u2019s destruction brought about by their daughter\u2019s internment.                                                   42 K'els is shishalh for Anchor Mountain located at the head of l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet). Mount Victoria is the English name for K'els is.   36 Whereas the Williams family\u2019s response represents the actions of an individual family, other shishalh oral narratives speak to the collective response to catastrophic events. Shishalh collective resistance and agency during the last century and a half are similarly illustrated by narratives provided by contemporary Elders. A central theme of these narratives are shishalh attempts to maintain control of their territory and its resources. In 1999 shishalh Elder Gilbert Joe first described to me events in 1874 when the shishalh forcibly removed white loggers from Narrows Inlet\u2014an act conducted to ensure the shishalh maintained control and access to their timber (Merchant 1999). This narrative was documented both in newspapers and the personal correspondence of colonial administrators from that period:  It appears that three men John Thomas, I.A. Culver, and C. Gerrin have been handlogging for the past Eighteen months on certain land situated on Narrow [Narrows] Arm, Jervis Inlet\u2014land, a portion of which I.A. Culver claims as a preemption and other portions of which Messers Moody, Nelson Co. hold under a Timber Lease\u2014John Thomas at times picking up handy logs along the shore\u2014as [best?] he could find them. A short time ago a party of Seashells\u2014armed\u2014and that is the worst feature of the case\u2014 warned them off the land, telling them that the land was theirs and that they could no longer work there. The white men instead of resisting very prudently left the ground and laid their complaint before the proper authorities. (Bushby 1874:1)  The response of the colonial administration was to dispatch to Sechelt Magistrate A. T. Bushby, aboard the gunboat HMS Myrmidon, in order to deal with the \u201C\u2026tribe of Indians situated at Trail Bay\u2026\u201D (Bushby 1874:1). The display of force ended the confrontation when the shishalh Chief Scheel promised to desist with any further defensive actions (Bushby 1874:2-4). Bushby, however, did persuade the colonial administration to allocate reserves to the shishalh, which until then had not been granted. Although Trail Bay had been the site of a large shishalh community prior to contact and the location of the Oblate Mission since 1868 it was not formally established as a reserve until 1876. In that year the Indian Reserve Commission formally established eighteen reserves (Sproat 1876:7) for the shishalh, ensuring the shishalh access to the timber on these lands and thereby resolving the central cause of the 1874 conflict. Shishalh Elder Mus Swiya (Jamie Dixon) has described to me in great detail how, as a young boy growing up in l\u00E9kw'\u00E9min (Jervis Inlet) during the first half of the 20th century, he and his family maintained a traditional economy based on hunting, fishing and the harvest of plants while simultaneously engaging in the capitalist market economy through their participation in the logging industry. This dual engagement was not isolated to Mr. Dixon\u2019s family nor was it a development of the 20th century; rather it is a practice similarly described by Mr. Dixon\u2019s contemporaries (Merchant 1999) and one recognized by 19th century chroniclers (Thomas 1898:263-268; Blenkinsop 1876, British Columbia 1915). So intent were the shishalh on maintaining their pre-contact way of life that by 1910 many of the shishalh were leaving the consolidated village at Trail Bay, returning to their old  37 villages closer to the logging camps where it was easier for them to work and live (Keller and Leslie 1996:37). A different example of shishalh response to the pressures of the broader market economy comes from the present-day.  In 2005, in response to plans by an outside corporation to develop two open pit mines in their territory, the shishalh opposed the project. In a declaration signed by shishalh Elders (including both Mrs. Jackson and Mr. Dixon), the Elders declared that the mines would cause irreversible damage to both their environment and their culture\u2014two concepts that they consider to be inseparable) (tl\u00E1x- tl\u00E1x\u2013min 2006). The shishalh vowed to use all means at their disposal to defeat the project and maintain the integrity of their territory for future generations. In a referendum, over 80 percent of the shishalh Nation voted to oppose the project, galvanizing their community and securing the support of the neighboring non-indigenous population in defeating the project.  The contemporary accounts of Vi Jackson, Gilbert Joe and Jamie Dixon, when juxtaposed with the ancient narratives that predate the beginning of the colonial project, illustrate both collective and individual responses and the ongoing processes of resistance and agency. Unfortunately, the period between the initial contact with European explorers in the late 1700s and the large-scale arrival and settlement by European colonists some 60 years later, evades the illumination of oral history, and for now must be reconstructed from alternate lines of evidence, including archaeology. The precedent of ancient responses as described in the oral narratives and the more recent accounts of Vi Jackson and her contemporaries clearly illustrate how the shishalh have and continue to respond, both individually and collectively. It would be na\u00EFve to assume that, during the intervening period between these points, specifically during the period following the initial smallpox epidemics and the subsequent European settlement, shishalh responses would be embodied with any less agency than indicated by the accounts of the distant past or demonstrated in the personal histories of Vi Jackson, Jamie Dixon and Gilbert Joe. Rather, the ancient narratives that exist among the Coast Salish, like the account of the great flood recounted by Katzie tribal historian to anthropologist Diamond Jenness in 1936 (Carlson 2007:169), or Amy Cooper\u2019s description of the great famine that occurred among the Soowahlie near present day Chilliwack (Carlson 2007:176) have become recognized by scholars of the Coast Salish World as evidence of pre-contact precedent of Coast Salish responses to significant events (flood and famine). This recognition has reframed our understanding of the Coast Salish experience with regard to the colonial conflict (Carlson 2007:167) and its inevitable conflicts and calamitous impacts (disease, population decline, settlement, and missionization). Earlier generations of scholars viewed the colonial conflict as an unprecedented event that Coast Salish peoples were culturally ill equipped to deal with and to which they were unable to respond. More recently, scholars  38 including Keith Carlson (2007:167) and Bruce Miller (2011) have viewed this event as another in a series of events to which the Coast Salish response was guided by experience and precedent.                            39 Chapter 5:  Conclusions and Implications Throughout this work I have attempted to illustrate, through the exploration and synthesis of various lines of data, how the shishalh have neither been assimilated nor remained unaffected by the events of the colonial conflict. I have argued that, through a series of strategic responses that have precedent (Carlson 2007) throughout their history, and are described both in their ancient and contemporary narratives, the shishalh have resisted, and continue to resist (where possible and with diverse effects) the varied forces of colonialism. The ancient narratives detail how the shishalh have responded to previous calamities, (including the great flood, the great snow and the great landslide), first through consolidation of their population as a means of surviving the initial event, followed by population dispersal after the calamity has ended. Tragically, the colonial conflict, unlike those calamities described in the ancient narratives, appears to be infinite. Its seemingly endless impacts neither allow for a cessation of vigilance or the termination of strategic responses on the part of the shishalh if they are to maintain title to their lands and access to its resources. This situation is all too clearly illustrated by their contemporary response to the threat of mineral exploration. The political and economic forces that characterize the contemporary colonial conflict often dwarf those faced by shishalh leaders of the 18th and 19th centuries. These contemporary forces will continue to have deleterious effects, both on individual shishalh and their Nation as a whole. It is apparent to me that Vi Jackson\u2019s story will not be the last of its kind, her story is destined to be repeated in many forms. The continued intransigence of the Crown and its agencies, and their inability to accept and recognize shishalh title in particular (and aboriginal title in general) to their lands and resources will ensure that events like those recounted by Gilbert Joe and Jamie Dixon will be repeated. It is also apparent that the colonial conflict and its effects are not ubiquitous across the Coast Salish world. Whereas Carlson (2007) describes recent events such as the establishment of fur trade posts and smallpox epidemics in the oral narratives of the Coast Salish peoples to the south, shishalh narratives, like that recounted by Mrs. Jackson and her contemporaries, describe responses to the threat of Residential School, loss of resources and the establishment of a mission. In doing so they not only illustrate how the shishalh have continued to respond to the colonial process, they also demonstrate the individuality of Coast Salish people\u2019s responses to their particular experience within this encounter.  Future research should endeavour to focus on the effects of the colonial conflict on shishalh and Coast Salish socio-political structures. The constant physical relocation of population would have forced the shishalh to \u201Csocially and politically reconstitute themselves\u201D\u2014the same pattern recognized by Carlson among the Coast Salish peoples of the Fraser River (Carlson 2007:168). Although it is  40 difficult to identify changes in the these social structures in the pre-contact period, the united front presented by the shishalh to the initial arrival of the Oblate missionaries to kalpilin in 1860, the unified request for the OMI\u2019s return in 1862 and the removal of loggers from Narrows Inlet in 1874 suggest that some form of common front, if not unified political structure, was established prior to the arrival of the Oblates in the mid-19th century. The reconstitution of shishalh society from one based on village aggregates composed of individual households, united by bonds of kinship to other similar households (Barnett 1955:1; Drucker 1983:87; Miller and Boxberger 1994:270) to \u201Cextended clusters of villages\u201D (Roberts 1975:152) with an increased collective territorial consciousness (Roberts 1975:152) would have facilitated the collective response to regional threats, such as the arrival of missionaries and logging. However, the increased mobility and agency described by Roberts among the Skagit Coast Salish (1975), continued to facilitate individual responses to threats posed against the individuals and families, as evidenced by the response of the Williams family.  In identifying and understanding the varied responses to the colonial conflict and its effects on Coast Salish socio-political structures we can begin to appreciate the distinctiveness of each people while simultaneously situating their experience within the broader regional framework of the Coast Salish and, in doing so, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of the affects of the ongoing and seminal historic event that is the colonial conflict.                        41 References  Acheson, Steven and Sid Riley 1977   An Archaeological Resource Inventory of the Northeast Gulf of Georgia Region.  Submitted to the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board, Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1977-017. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria  1976   Gulf of Georgia archaeological survey: Powell River and Sechelt Regional District. Submitted to the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board, Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1976-07. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.  Angelbeck, Bill 2009   They Recognize No Superior Chief: Power, Practice, Anarchism, and Warfare in the Coast Salish Past. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.  Angelbeck, Bill and Eric McLay 2011   The Battle at Maple Bay: The Dynamics of Coast Salish Political Organization through Oral Histories. Ethnohistory 58(3):359-392.  Armitage, Andrew 1995   Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. UBC Press, Vancouver.  Arnett, Chris 1999   The Terror of the Coast. Land Alienation and Colonial War on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, 1849-1863. Talonbooks, Vancouver.  Barnett, Homer G. 1955   The Coast Salish of British Columbia. University of Oregon Press, Eugene.    1935-1936 Original unpublished field notes for the Sechelt. Manuscript on file, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.  Beaumont, Ron C. 2011   Shishalh Language Dictionary. Shishalh Nation Education Department SBL2 Chatelich.  Bilton, Dave n.d.   The prehistory of Northern Gulf diversified fishermen: archaeological research in shishalh territory. Dissertation in preparation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto.  Bishop, Charles A. 1974   The Northern Ojibwa and the Fur Trade: An Historical and Ecological Study. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto.      42 Blenkinsop, George 1877   Abstract of the census and inventory of livestock.  Joint Indian Reserve Commission. Submitted to the Government of Canada. Copies available with the National archives of Canada, Hull.  1876   No. 1: Census of Indian Tribes winter 1876 and 1877. Joint Indian Reserve Commission. Submitted to the Government of Canada. Copies available with the National archives of Canada, Hull.  Boas, Franz 1966   Kwakiutl Ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Codere, Helen (editor).  1926   Map of Salish tribes.  Canadian Museum of Civilization, Franz Boas Coll. (VII-G-1M), Box 17, file 7.  1888   The Indians of British Columbia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Section 11:47-57. Ottawa.  1886   The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Diaries of Franz Boas written on the Northwest Coast from 1886-1931. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.  Boyd, Robert 1999   The Coming of the Spirit Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population Decline Among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874. University of Washington Press, Seattle.  1985   The Introduction of Infectious Diseases among the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, 1774- 1874. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.  Brabender, William 1935   Mission de Seschelt Ses Penibles, Ses Epreuves, Ses Succes,\" Missions des Missionaires Oblates,  253:37-41.  British Columbia 1915   Transcripts of evidence, Royal Commission on Indian Reserves for the Province of B.C. Vol. 17, 246-279. Submitted to the Government of British Columbia. Copies available with the shishalh Nation archives, SBL2 Ch\u2019atelich.  Bushby, A. G. 1874   Letter from A. G. Bushby, A. G. to I. W. Powell, Dec. 18, 1874.  Carlson, Keith T. 2007   Toward an Indigenous Historiography: Events, Migrations, and Formation of \u201CPost- Contact\u201D Coast Salish Collective Identities. In Be of Good Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, pp. 138-181. UBC Press, Vancouver and Toronto.  2007a   Precedent and the Aboriginal Response to Global Incursions: Smallpox and Identity Reformation Among the Coast Salish. Online Journal of the CHA 18(2): 165-201.  Chirouse, E.C. 1887-1889   Report on the Missions of the St Charles District. Codex Historicus, pp. 1-57, 71-88, 113-154. Deschatelets Archives, PC 101.N56D 1-5.  43 Coupland, Gary 2008   Application for Permit to conduct research investigations during 2008-2011 at archaeological sites DiRx-0028, DjRw-0001, DjSa-0002, and DjSa-0048, supplemented by archaeological survey of the Sechelt Peninsula and the drainage area around Jervis Inlet in shishalh First Nation traditional territory. Submitted to the Shishalh Nation and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.  Cruikshank, Julie 2005 Do Glaciers Listen? Do Glaciers Listen?: Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagination. UBC Press, Vancouver.  1994   Oral Tradition and Oral History: Reviewing Some Issues. Canadian Historical Review 75(3): 403\u2013418.  Curtis, Edward S. 1913   North American Indian: being a series of volumes picturing and describing the Indians of the United States, the Dominion of Canada, and Alaska. F.W. Hodge, New York, NY.  Dawe, Helen 1990   Helen Dawe\u2019s Sechelt. Harbour Publishing, Madeira Par.  Drucker, Philip 1983   Ecology and Political Organization on the Northwest Coast of America. In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America. 1979 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Elizabeth Tooker, ed. Washington, DC.  Duff, Wilson 1964   The Indian History of British Columbia; Vol. 1. The Impact of the Whiteman. Anthropology in British Columbia Memoir no. 5. B. C. Provincial Museum, Victoria.  Durieu, Paul 1935   Mission de Seschelt Ses Penibles, Ses Epreuves, Ses Succes,\" Missions des Missionaires Oblates,  253:2.  1873-1874 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, Archives, GR1 S1 Box 2 F2 1873-1874.  Fisher, R. 1990   Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890. UBC Press, Vancouver and Toronto.  Galois, Robert 1994   Kwakwaka\u2019wakw Settlements, 1775-1920 A Geographical analysis and Gazetteer. UBC Press, Vancouver.  George et al. 1913   Letter to Royal Commission of 1913-1916 from Chief George, Chief John, Captain George, Chief Thomas, and Chief Johnson. NAC, RG10, vol. 10898, file 167/1013-1947, Ottawa    44 Grekoff, George 1965-1967 Sechelt linguistic field notes. Manuscript on file with Shishalh Nation Rights and Title Department, SBL2 Chatelich.  Harris, Cole 1994   Voices of Disaster: Smallpox around the Strait of Georgia in 1782. Ethnohistory 41(4):591-626.  Hawthorne, H.B., C.S. Belshaw, and S.M. Jamieson 1958   The Indians of British Columbia: A Study of Contemporary Social Adjustment. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.  Jenness, Diamond 1935   List of Tribes and Villages. CMC, ethnological records Coll. VII-G-9M Box 39, file 1, pp. 18-25. Hull.  Johannesen, Lisa 2010 The Salmon Inlet Survey Project: A Preliminary Assessment of How Regular Boat Use for Travel and Transport Affects Settlement Patterns and Subsistence Resources Utilized in Salmon Inlet, British Columbia, Canada. Unpublished Masters Research Paper, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.  Keller, Betty and Rosella M. Leslie 1996   Bright seas, pioneer spirits: The Sunshine Coast. Horsdal &amp; Schubart, Victoria.  Kennedy, Dorothy and Randy Bouchard 1990   Northern Coast Salish.  In Handbook of the North American Indian: Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles, pp. 441-452.  Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.  1986   The Sechelt People and their lands: an ethnographic overview. Manuscript on file, B.C. Indian Language Project. Shishalh Nation Rights and Title Department, Shishalh Nation, SBL2 Chatelich.  Kew, Michael 1998   Sechelt Culture and Territory. Confidential report prepared for the shishalh Nation. On file shishalh Nation Rights and Title Department, 5555 Highway 101, Sechelt B.C.  Lemert, Edwin M. 1954   The Life and Death of an Indian State. Human Organization 13(3):23-27.  Letham, Bryn 2011   The Ancient Cultural Landscape of the Sechelt Inlet System. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto.  Marsden, S.    2002   Adawx, Spanaxnox, and the Geopolitics of the Tsimshian. BC Studies 135: 101\u2013135.  Martindale, Andrew In Press   Archaeology Taken to Court: Unraveling the Epistemology of Cultural Tradition in the Context of Aboriginal Title Cases.  45 2009   Entanglement and Tinkering. Structural history in the archaeology of the Northern Tsimshian. Journal of Social Archaeology 9(1):59-91.  2006   Methodological Issues in the Use of Tsimshian Oral Traditions (Adawx) in Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 30(2):158-92.  Martindale, A., and S. Marsden 2003   Defining the Middle Period (3500 BP to 1500 BP) in Tsimshian History through a Comparison of Archaeological and Oral Records. BC Studies No. 138.  Maud, Ralph (editor) 1978   The Salish People, The Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout Vol. IV. The Sechelt and the South-Eastern Tribes of Vancouver Island. Talonbooks, Vancouver, British Columbia.  McDowell, Jim 1998   Jose Narv\u00E1ez: the Forgotten Explorer. Arthur H. Clark, Spokane.  McIntyre, Kenneth G., and M. C. McIntyre 1995   An Archaeological Impact Assessment Study Conducted in Accordance with Archaeological Impact Assessment Permit 1995-009 at Block B, DL1025, Plan 6879 Situated at The Head of Oyster Bay Arm of Pender Harbour, British Columbia. Submitted to the Archaeology Branch Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1995-09. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.  Merchant, Peter S. 2011   Re-Inflicting the Past: Reflections on Personal Experiences in Collaboration. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26 (2):45-58.  2008   Original unpublished field notes of conversations with Jamie Dixon. Manuscript on file with Peter Merchant, Sechelt.  2008a   Original unpublished field notes of conversations with Jamie Dixon. Manuscript on file with Peter Merchant, Sechelt.  2002   Shishalh Nation Archaeological Inventory and Site Evaluation Phase I.  Submitted to the Shishalh Nation and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Heritage Conservation Act Permit 2002-0262. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.   1999   Original unpublished field notes of conversations with Gilbert Joe. Manuscript on file with Peter Merchant, Sechelt  Miller, Bruce G. 2011   Oral History on Trial Recognizing Aboriginal Narratives in the Courts. UBC Press, Vancouver.  2007   Introduction. In Be of Good Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, pp. 1-29. UBC Press, Vancouver and Toronto.   46 1989   Centrality and Measures of Regional Structure in Aboriginal Western Washington. Ethnology 28: 265-76.  Miller, Bruce G., and Daniel Boxberger 1994   Creating Chiefdoms: The Puget Sound Case. Ethnohistory 41(2):29-67.  Monk, G. 1971   Excavations at Saltery Bay Provincial Campsite DkSb-2, May 31-July 18, 1971. Submitted to the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board, Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1971-027a. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.    Newcombe, C. F. 1923   Menzies\u2019 journal of Vancouver\u2019s voyage. Memoir No. 5. Irving K. Barber Learning Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.  Nicholas, George P., Amy Roberts, David M. Schaepe, Joe Watkins, Lyn Leader-Elliot and Susan      Rowley  2011   A Consideration of Theory, Principles and Practice in Collaborative Archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26 (2):11-30.  Oliver, Jeff M. 2010   Landscapes and Social Transformations on the Northwest Coast: Colonial Encounters in the Fraser Valley'. Archaeology of Colonialism in Native North America. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.  Peacock, Andrew 1998   Traditional Use Study Sechelt Indian Band 1996-1998. Sechelt Indian Band Resource Management Department. Submitted to shishalh Nation Chief and Council. Copies available from shishalh Nation Rights and Title Department, SBL 2 Chatelich.   Peterson, Lester 1990   The story of the Sechelt Nation.  Harbour Publishing, Madeira Park.  1962   The Gibson\u2019s landing story.  Peter Martin Associates, Toronto.  Pegg, Brian 2007   Archaeological mitigation of DkSb-30, Saltery Bay B.C. Telus North Island Ring Project.  Golder Associates. Submitted to the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Heritage Conservation Act Permit 2004-120. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.  Plant, Byron K. 2009   The Politics of Indian Administration: A Revisionist History of Intrastate Relations in mid- twentieth century British Columbia. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Department of History, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.      47 Puget, Peter 1795   Log of the proceedings of His Majesty\u2019s Sloop Discovery, George Vancouver Esqre, Commander, kept by Lieutenant Peter Puget from the 4th day of January. Public Records Office, National Archives, Great Brittain.  Roberts, Natalie 1975   A History of the Swinomish Tribal Community. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.  Smith, Harlan, I. 1935   Notes on Archaeology and pictographs on Jervis Inlet.  Canadian Museum of Civilization, Harlan Smith Collection Box 6, file 3:34-50. Hull.  1923   British Columbia Coast, Sculptures of Stone in, Album of Prehistoric Canadian Art - Legends plates I \u2013 LXXXIV.  Canadian Museum of Civilization, Harlan Smith Collection Box 25, file 10.  Sproat, Gilbert Malcolm 1876   Letter to Minister of Interior, Ottawa, from Camp Thunder Bay Jervis Inlet, Dec. 7, 1876.  Suttles, Wayne 1987   Coast Salish Essays.  Talonbooks, Vancouver.  Thomas, Francois 1898   Petites Annales de la Congr\u00E9gation des missionnaires oblats de Marie-Immacul\u00E9e, 263-268. Paris.  Tl\u00E1x-tl\u00E1xmin 2006   Press release describing the Shishalh Nation Elders opposition to Pan Pacific aggregates proposed mining operations. Advertisement placed by Shishalh elders. Sechelt, British Columbia.  Vancouver, George 1801   Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World. Vol II. John Stockdale, London.  Wagner, H.R. 1933   Spanish Explorations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.  Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana, California.  Wilson, Ian 1991   Heritage resource inventory and impact assessment Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline, Vol 1. I. R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. Submitted to the Ministry of Municipal affairs and Recreation, Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1989-077. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.  1991a   Heritage resource inventory and impact assessment Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline, Vol 2. I. R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. Submitted to the Ministry of Municipal affairs and Recreation, Heritage Conservation Act Permit 1989-077. Copies available from the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Victoria.  "@en
<https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0073223>