The spotlight in archaeology naturally tends to shine on the field archaeologists.
However, archaeologists often lean heavily on other specialists to both provide analysis and interpret their research and help us tell the story of the sites we work on.
The preliminary findings we have received to date for the Big Bar project have been quite interesting.
They mostly seem to support the general story of use in the Big Bar area that has been unfolding as we work through the project. There are some surprises though.
What follows touches very briefly on some of these research efforts.
Though historical research is not technically “analysis,” it helps set the stage for what we are seeing during fieldwork. We engaged a researcher who has delved into the BC Archives, searching for old maps, surveyor’s notes, historical photos and historical accounts.
She has uncovered a trove of information from the settler era at Big Bar reaching back to the 1850s.
There were several findings that we will be following up in more detail in our final report that paint a rich picture of activity in the area into modern times.
A trading post on the west side of the Fraser River north of Big Bar Ferry was established in the 1850s near the location of the home of a current landowner.
A severe smallpox outbreak in the First Nations community at Big Bar was also recorded at this time, describing burials north of Big Bar, in locations that were also reported to the field crew.
Two trails on the north and south sides of French Bar Creek, north of Big Bar, were shown on maps extending west into the mountains, then connecting north to Taseko Lakes in the Chilcotin and south to Bridge River.
Portions of these trails are still visible today. The majority of the animal remains analyzed by the faunal experts in Victoria came from the excavations at the “fin” overlooking Big Bar slide.
The analyst uses a comparative collection of known bones and shellfish to help determine which species are present at a site.
Deer, mountain goat and salmon were the most abundant types encountered, with very little in the way of small mammals or birds.
The type of salmon bones recovered were skewed to the skull and abdomen, with almost no tail bones present.
This is consistent with the salmon being processed at this location but being eaten elsewhere.
Interestingly, marine shellfish fragments including horse clam, California mussel and possibly dentalium, were observed, implying trade with the coast.
Tools were also examined for animal protein and plant residue. Unfortunately, not much was recovered, though there were “hits” on grouse, deer and sheep (mountain goat).
Four artifacts had conifer wood fragments, along with microscopic use wear consistent with cutting, scraping and wedging.
A selection of flakes and debris debitage resulting from the manufacture of stone tools was examined by a local specialist.
Interestingly, almost a quarter of the fragments observed resulted from bipolar percussion, a technique where the rock is placed on an anvil and then struck with a hammer.
This technique is often used to break up challenging rocks like rounded river cobbles and smaller pieces such as pebbles or old worn tools.
The examination of the assemblage also suggests that the artifacts made here tended to be more general use expedient tools suitable for fishing and food processing, as opposed to more specialized tools.
What is left to do?
We have not yet received results back from the X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis that is used to help determine the sources of raw material from stone tools.
The results of the debitage analysis suggested that locally sourced river cobbles were being used to make expedient tools, as well as modify worn out specialized tools brought in from other locations; we are hoping that the XRF work will help with this interpretation.
Sediment samples are also being examined to look for plant remains such as pollen to help discern what times of the year the area was occupied.
Reaching out to other specialists helps extend our abilities to tell the story of an archaeological site.
Often this work tends to support and amplify what we have already learned through our fieldwork.
Sometime, when we are very lucky, this analysis brings up unexpected results that challenge our thinking and extend our understanding of how people used to live in the past.
Clinton Coates is an archaeologist in the Kamloops area.