northern coast salish fish traps and weirs

By Dana Lepofsky, Daniella LoScerbo, Heather Earle

Ancestral Connections & Geographic Extent Temporal Extent Biophysical Manipulations Target Species Ceremony & Stewardship Current Status

The ancestral Northern Coast Salish created and maintained the many traps and weirs of the northern Salish Sea, British Columbia. While oral traditions and the archaeological record indicate that in recent centuries and in the deeper past (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990; Springer et al. 2018) there has been contact between the Northern Coast Salish and the Kwakwakwakw to the north (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990; Springer et al. 2018), northern Coast Salish groups have been anchored to this region for millennia (e.g., Kennedy and Bouchard 1983). Today, this is reflected in place names, connections to ancestral lineages, and the considerable knowledge held by Northern Coast Salish communities members about how to act responsibly with their lands and seas (e.g., Kennedy and Bouchard 1983; Caldwell et al. 2012). 

Although detailed archaeological and ethnographic research is spotty, various kinds of marine management features are common throughout the region. In fact, in more intensively surveyed areas not impacted by recent industrial modifications, it is hard to find a beach without some kind of ancestral modification (Caldwell 2015; Caldwell et al. 2012).  Most modifications are within easy access of ancestral settlements (Hill et al. 2000; Caldwell 2015).  The abundance of marine features and their association with ancestral settlements is not surprising given the time depth and extent of Northern Coast Salish occupation.  Their proximity also reflects the fact that marine management features would have figured prominently in the sense of place of Northern Coast Salish peoples.

Oral traditions, language, and the ethnographic record speak to the age-old and intimate connections between the Northern Coast Salish and the beings of the sea (e.g., Kennedy and Bouchard 1983).  We expect that managing and creating marine ecosystems, in the form of cleared beaches, clam gardens, and fish traps and weirs in the northern Coast Salish region likely extends as far back as elsewhere on the coast (i.e., ~5500 BP; see Fish Traps of the Northwest Coast).   

Archaeological dating of these features, however, is biased towards the most recent use of these features.  This is due to both the preservation of datable (wood) materials as well as the constant refurbishing of these features over multiple generations.  Wooden stakes have been dated to as old as 1300 years ago (Greene et al. 2015), but many date to within the last 500 – 600 years (Caldwell 2015).  There have been no in-depth excavations of the stone features to locate wooden stakes that could be radiocarbon dated. Archaeological excavations of sites associated with Northern Coast Salish traps and weirs indicate a well-developed marine-oriented economy long before the first dated trap (e.g., Bilton 2014, Caldwell 2008, 2015).

Designing a fish trap and weir required detailed understanding of the ecological and physical setting, water flow, fish behaviour, as well as the social context in which the features were meant to operate. Detailed surveys of feature types indicate that a common set of elements were used in different combinations depending on these factors (Caldwell et al. 2012).  The features were constructed of both wood and stone (Caldwell et al. 2012; Green et al 2015). However, it is likely that many of the stone features are the foundations for wooden fences and traps of various kinds (Haíłzaqv Fish Traps). The “heart-shaped” element, so common in the Northern Coast Salish area, has also been identified in Alaska where they date up to 2300 years ago (Mobley and McCallum 2001).  This regional connection in form reflects both the prevalence and time depth of these ancestral fishing practices. 

Features vary in size and complexity, and thus in the labour required to build and maintain as well as the number of fish that could be captured. Some required a considerable amount of time and labour (Hill et al. 2020).  Furthermore, some traps seem to have been built to a specific template whose form was transferred among generations (Hill et al. 2000). This not only made for more easy repairs, but also signifies the specialist knowledge that went into making the features.  Importantly, constructing traps and weirs were part of larger ecosystem modification which often involved clearing beaches and creating terraces for clams cultivation or to attract other marine life (Caldwell et al. 2012, Caldwell 2015).  The blending of different management practices is reflected in the Northern Coast Salish language, which uses a single term for a clam garden and a fish barricade (Caldwell et al. 2012). 

The expansive remains of wooden traps on the Comox estuary are one of the better studied examples of Northern Coast Salish fishing innovations (see also OR coast example – link).  Here, the remnants of large wooden stakes of Douglas-fir, true fir, and western hemlock are scattered throughout the estuary, representing at least 1300 years of trap construction and refurbishing (see photos below). Two forms dominate the record: one with a heart element, and one that is a winged-chevron shape (Green et al. 2015; Hill et al. 2020).  Most of these were likely the supports for woven fences, such as the ~2 meter long, rigid wooden fence (of spruce and hemlock) recently found in the estuary that was probably used on a nearby chevron trap (Hill et al. 2020; see photo below). The rigidity of this particular fence suggests that it, unlike other ethnographically documented fences, may not have been moved between uses.  

Based on form, location, and schooling behavior, the heart-shaped traps likely targeted the capture of schooling herring (Caldwell 2015; Greene et al. 2015), whereas the chevron shape was designed primarily for salmon (Greene et al. 2015). Greene’s (Greene et al. 2015) extensive mapping and dating program in the Comox estuary suggests that ~700 years ago the Pentlatch of that area shifted their focus from herring caught in heart-shaped traps to salmon caught in chevron traps – perhaps associated with changes in climate. Based on local knowledge, the distance between laths (average 3.5 cm) also indicates a focus on salmon  (Kennedy and Bouchard 1974; Hill et al. 2020).

While the trap form and locations suggest that the primary focus of fishing was herring and salmon, the zooarchaeological record of fish bones from nearby settlements is overwhelmingly dominated by herring (Bilton 2014; Caldwell 2008, 2015). On-going analysis of the zooarchaeological record in the Comox Harbour dating specifically to the post 700-year-old time may indeed produce a larger record of salmon. A variety of other fish (e.g., anchovy, dogfish, ooligan, flatfish, greenling, lingcod, midshipman, perches, sculpin, and lingcod; Caldwell 2008, 2015) have been recovered in the zooarchaeological record and at least some of these could have been taken in the traps as well. In addition, seals sometimes swam into these features and were likely harvested (Hill et al. 2020).

The relationship with shellfish and finfish, including herring and salmon, is interwoven in Northern Coast Salish belief systems and heritage.  This is reflected in place names, oral traditions, and ceremonies such as the First Salmon ceremony, as well as protocols such as the returning of salmon bones back to the sea or keeping beaches clean (Caldwell et al. 2012).  The evidence of these deep beliefs and cultural traditions, however, are largely invisible in the wood and stone remnants of traps and weirs described here.  

What is evident is the huge role that these features played in the lives of the ancestral Northern Coast Salish. Large and ancient settlements in close proximity to the features suggest that they supplied food for those inhabitants and were part of people’s cultural landscape. The more complex features were likely owned and managed by chiefs of elite house groups.  This was the case for weirs across the Courtenay River, which was owned by a Pentlatch chief (Hill et al. 2020).  The fact that many ancient settlements were associated with only a single trap or weir (e.g., Caldwell 2015; Letham 2014), suggests that lower ranked family groups had access to the features through permissions from higher ranked families. 

The Northern Coast Salish fish traps are no longer actively used, though the descendent communities have a strong connection to them. In Sliammon village, for instance, people recount with pleasure that the extensive trap in the village (see photo above) occasionally traps fish. In Comox, Project Watershed is an educational organization that runs educational outreach to the local school district, bringing children to the wooden traps of the K’ómoks people to learn on the land (Project Watershed).

More Information:

See the following websites for more information:

• Tla’amin Archaeology - Fish Traps

• Project watershed - Ancient Fish traps

References

Bilton, D. H. 2014. Northern, central, diversified, specialized: the archaeology of fishing adaptations in the Gulf of Georgia (Salish Sea), British Columbia, PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.

Bouchard, K., D. Bouchard, and R. Bouchard. 1990. Northern Coast Salish. Pages 441–452 W. Suttles (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Caldwell, M. 2008. A view from the shore: interpreting fish trap use in Comox Harbour through zooarchaeological analysis of fish remains from the Q’umu?xs village site (DkSf-19), Comox Harbour, British Columbia. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba.

Caldwell, M. E. 2015. Northern Coast Salish marine resource management. PhD Dissertation, Department. of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Caldwell, M. E., D. Lepofsky, G. Combes, M. Washington, J. R. Welch, and J. R. Harper. 2012. A bird’s eye view of Northern Coast Salish intertidal resource management features, Southern British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7:219–233.

Cullon, D., H. Pratt, and R. McMillan. 2017, March 1. Archaeological fishing structures on British Columbia’s Northwest Coast. Poster presented at the Society of American Archaeology Conference. Vancouver, BC.

FoxAndBeeMedia. 2017. Fish trap experience. 2017, October 27. School District #71 

Greene, N. A., D. C. McGee, and R. J. Heitzmann. 2015. The Comox harbour fish trap complex: a large-scale, technologically sophisticated intertidal fishery from British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 39:161–212.

Hill, G., N. Morin, D. Greene, and D. McGee. 2020. Report on activities undertaken under permit 2017-0251. BC Archaeology Branch.

Kennedy, D., Bouchard, R. 1974. Utilization of fishes, beach foods, and marine animals by the Tl’uhus Indian people of British Columbia. Unpublished report on file at the Sliammon Treaty Society, Powell River, BC. 

Kennedy, D. I. D., Bouchard, R. 1983. Sliammon life, Sliammon lands. Talonbooks, Vancouver, BC.

Lepofsky, D., and M. Caldwell. 2013. Indigenous marine resource management on the Northwest Coast of North America. Ecological Processes 2:12.

Letham, B. 2014. Settlement and shell-bearing site diversity in the Sechelt Inlet System, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 38:280–328.

Mobley, C. M., and W. M. McCallum. 2001. Prehistoric intertidal fish traps from Central Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 25:28–52.

Monks, G. G. 1987. Prey as bait: the Deep Bay example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11:119–142.

Springer, C., D. Lepofsky, and M. Blake. 2018. Obsidian in the Salish Sea: an archaeological examination of ancestral Coast Salish social networks in SW British Columbia and NW Washington state. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 51:45–66.