Okanagan Archaeology

Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA)
of New Monaco Property in Peachland, B.C.
Heritage Inspection Permit #2010-237
Prepared on Behalf of:
Paul Tsang
New Monaco Enterprise Corporation
3599 Hwy 97N
P.O. Box 1180
Peachland, B.C. V0H 1X0
Prepared by:
Ian Cameron, MSc, RPCA

Ursus Heritage Consulting
514 Terrace Drive
Coldstream, B. C. V1B 2X2
© Ian Cameron 2010
October 23rd, 2010

Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) of New Monaco Property in Peachland, B.C.
Grant of License
I, Ian Cameron, confirm that I am the copyright owner (or a copyright owner) of this report, and for
good and valuable consideration I irrevocably grant a non-exclusive license to the Province of
British Columbia, for a term equal to the life of the copyright commencing on the date of execution
below, to make copies of the reports, including all appendices and photos, and to provide such copies to
anyone, at the discretion of the Province, either at no charge or at the cost incurred by the Province in
making and distributing the copies. All parties, except the party for whom the report was prepared,
acknowledge that any use or interpretation of this report is at the sole risk and liability of the subsequent
user(s).
Executed this 23rd day of October, 2010, by
Signature of Copyright Owner
Ursus Heritage Consulting
Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

- ii -
Credits
Project Coordinator .............................................................................................Ian Cameron, M.Sc., RPCA
Principal Investigator ................................................................................................................. Ian Cameron
Field Personnel.................................................................................................. Meghan McGill, BA (Ursus)

Kaine Alexis (Okanagan Indian Band)
Keona Joe (Okanagan Indian Band)
Report Author ............................................................................................................................ Ian Cameron
Report Editor/Quality Assurance ................................................................................... Natasha Lyons, PhD
Report Drafting .............................................................................................................. Bill Angelbeck, PhD

Kisha Supernant, PhD (ABD)

- iii -
Management Summary
This report presents the results of the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) of the New Monaco
property in Peachland, B.C. (Figure 1). The AIA was conducted at the request of Paul Tsang, President
of the New Monaco Enterprise Corporation. The proponent intends to construct a mixed commercial-
residential-recreational development in the District of Peachland. The New Monaco property is
approximately 52 ha in area and is located between Highway 97 and Highway 97C. The New Monaco
property is located within the asserted traditional territory of the Westbank First Nation and Penticton
Indian Band (both members of the Okanagan Nation Alliance).
The objectives of the AIA described in this report are: (1) to identify and evaluate the significance of
any archaeological sites located within the boundaries of the parcels of land, (2) to identify and assess
possible impacts by any proposed developments within the parcels of land on any protected
archaeological sites, (3) to provide recommendations regarding the need and appropriate scope of further
archaeological studies prior to the initiation of any proposed developments, and (4) to recommend
appropriate impact management actions for protected archaeological sites (where necessary). The AIA
took place in accordance with the British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines
(Archaeology Branch 1998) issued by the Archaeology Branch, at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
the Arts. The current AIA was not intended to identify areas in which no physical remains of past human
activities can be found, such as berrypicking sites and fishing locations, as the identification of these types
of sites is more appropriately addressed in Traditional Use and Traditional Knowledge Studies
(TUS/TKS).
The field component of the AIA was conducted between June 29th and July 5th, 2010. The field crew
consisted of Ian Cameron, Meghan McGill (Ursus), Kane Alexis and Keona Joe (Okanagan Indian Band).
Unfortunately, representatives of the Westbank First Nation were not available to be part of the field crew
for the field assessment. The project area was subjected to a combination of judgementally selected and
systematic survey transects and a subsurface testing program. Two archaeological sites were identified
during the field assessment. Site DkQw-40 was previously identified (Arcas Associates 1986) and
relocated during this AIA. DkQw-40 consists of a sub-surface lithic scatter including one piece of basalt
debitage. The site is located on a southern aspect terrace remnant overlooking Highway 97 and the north
shore of Okanagan Lake. Site DkQw-40 has been impacted by past highway construction and orchard
activities.
Site DkQw-44 was newly identified near the northern edge of the property. This site consists of a sub-
surface lithic scatter including eight pieces of chert and basalt debitage. The site is located on a southern
aspect terrace remnant overlooking Highway 97 and the north shore of Okanagan Lake. Site DkQw-44
has been impacted by past orchard activities.
The following is recommended for sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44.
* Avoidance of further disturbance to sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44; and

* Application for a Section 12 alteration permit if it is necessary to disturb ground within sites
DkQw-40 and DkQw-44. The Section 12 permit application will also address monitoring of
DkQw-40 and systematic data recovery at DkQw-44 if any land disturbance or
construction is to take place in vicinity of the sites.
The potential for locating undiscovered archaeological sites within the project area is considered to be
low. In the event that any unanticipated archaeological remains are discovered within the project area, it
is recommended that the proponent halt all activities in the immediate vicinity of the previously

- iv -
unidentified site(s) and promptly inform, the Archaeology Branch, Ursus Heritage Consulting, and the
appropriate First Nations of the location of the site(s) and the nature of the disturbance. Management
recommendations regarding emergency impact mitigation will then be determined in consultation with the
Archaeology Branch, and the appropriate First Nations.
It is also recommended that the proponent inform the purchaser and any potential developers and/or
contractors that archaeological remains are protected by the Heritage Conservation Act (1996) and may
not be altered, damaged, moved, excavated in, or desecrated in any way without a permit issued under
Section 12 or 14 of the Heritage Conservation Act.
Acknowledgements
Ursus Heritage Consulting (Ursus) would like to thank Paul Tsang for the opportunity to conduct this
study. Ursus would also like to thank the Westbank First Nation and the Penticton Indian Band for the
opportunity to work within their asserted traditional territories and claim areas. Ursus would also like to
thank Meghan McGill (Ursus), Kane Alexis and Keona Joe (Okanagan Indian Band) for all their hard
work during the field component of the project. Thanks also to Nancy Bonneau at Westbank First Nation
for assisting with project details and arranging for field assistants. Ursus acknowledges Jim Spafford and
Beth Weathers of the Archaeology Branch for their assistance.
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author. The authors are solely responsible
for its contents and any omissions and errors that it may contain. The author accepts no responsibility for
uses other than those intended and stated in this report.

-v-
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Proposed Development Type and Facilities ................................................................................ 3
2.0 Background Information .................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Definition of the Study Area and its Physiographic and Environmental Setting ........................ 3
2.2 Ethnographic Background ........................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 The Okanagan .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Regional Prehistory ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Previous Archaeological Work Conducted Near the Study Area ................................................ 6
2.5 Expected Types of Sites .............................................................................................................. 7
3.0 Methodology and Procedures .......................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Background Research .................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 Communications with First Nations ............................................................................................ 8
3.3 Archaeological Potential Assessment .......................................................................................... 8
3.4 Archaeological Inventory ............................................................................................................ 8
4.0 Study Results ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Archaeological Potential Assessment .......................................................................................... 9
4.2 Archaeological Impact Assessment ............................................................................................. 9
5.0 Site Significance Evaluations ........................................................................................................ 23
6.0 Impact Assessments and Management Recommendations ............................................................ 24
6.1 Data Gap Analysis of the Literature Consulted ......................................................................... 25
7.0 References Cited ............................................................................................................................ 26
8.0 Appendix I – Artifact Tables ......................................................................................................... 32

- vi -
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Project Area and Previously Recorded Nearby Archaeological Sites........................ 2
Figure 2a: Area examined archaeological sites and subsurface test locations. ........................................... 12
Figure 2b: Area examined archaeological sites and subsurface test locations. ........................................... 13
Figure 2c: Area examined archaeological sites and subsurface test locations. ........................................... 14
Figure 3: Site map of DkQw-40.................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 4: View S at site DkQw-40. ............................................................................................................. 16
Figure 5: View SW at site DkQw-40. ......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 6: Positive shovel test (#4) at site DkQw-40 (0-40 cm dbs). ........................................................... 17
Figure 7: Dacite flake retrieved from DkQw-40 (0-5 cm depth below surface). ........................................ 17
Figure 8: Site map of DkQw-44.................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 9: View N at site DkQw-44. ............................................................................................................ 19
Figure 10: View S at site DkQw-44. ........................................................................................................... 19
Figure 11: Flakes from St# 19 (5-10 cm dbs) at site DkQw-44. ................................................................. 20
Figure 12: Chert flake and dacite utilized flake from St#11 (5-10 cm dbs) at site DkQw-44. ................... 20
Figure 13: Utilized chert flake from St#18 (5-10 cm dbs) at site DkQw-44. ............................................. 20
Figure 14: View SE at St Location #5. ....................................................................................................... 21
Figure 15: View S at St Location #7. .......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 16: View SE in centre of project area. ............................................................................................. 22
Figure 17: View S at St Location #11. ........................................................................................................ 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Shovel Test Locations for New Monaco Resort AIA. .................................................................. 10
Table 2. Trench Locations for New Monaco Resort AIA. .......................................................................... 11
Table 3. Site Signficance Evaluation for Sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44 Recorded under Heritage
Inspection Permit 2010-237. .............................................................................................................. 23
Table 4. DkQw-40 Metric Attributes of Artifacts. ...................................................................................... 32
Table 5. DkQw-44 Metric Attributes of Artifacts. ...................................................................................... 32

- vii -
1.0 Introduction
This report presents the results of an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) of the New Monaco
property project area located in Peachland, B.C. The legal description of the lands included within the
project area are: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, District Lot (DL) 449 shown on Plan 3358 O.D.Y.D.,
except Plans 5947, H783, and 41470, and DL 2690, O.D.Y.D., except Plans B3052, 14369, 14611,
31627, and 41470 (Figures 1-2). The AIA was conducted by Ian Cameron, M.Sc., RPCA of Ursus
Heritage Consulting (Ursus) on behalf of Paul Tsang, New Monaco Enterprise Corporation. The
assessment was carried out in accordance with Heritage Inspection Permit 2010-237, issued by the
Archaeology Branch at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and the Arts, to Ian Cameron of Ursus pursuant
to Section 14 of the Heritage Conservation Act. The project area is situated within the asserted traditional
territories of the Westbank First Nation and the Penticton Indian Band.
This report provides background data regarding the context of the research in terms of its biophysical
and cultural setting, describes the objectives of the research, details the methodology, presents the results
of the fieldwork, and provides recommendations regarding the need and appropriate scope of future
archaeological research within the areas examined.
1.1 Definitions
An Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) is concerned with the identification and management of
archaeological sites. An archaeological site can be defined as any location that contains identifiable
physical traces of past human activities and/or behaviours. Many different types of archaeological sites
may be found in the study area and more than one line of archaeological evidence may be present at these
sites. The types of sites that may be found in the study area include village sites, temporary camps, lithic
scatters, isolated finds, rock art sites (pictographs and petroglyphs), remains of temporary shelters, lithic
raw material quarry sites, burials, trails, and Culturally Modified Trees (CMTs). The current AIA was not
intended to identify areas in which no physical remains of past human activities can be found, such as
berrypicking sites and fishing locations, as the identification of these types of sites are more appropriately
addressed in Traditional Use and Traditional Knowledge Studies (TUS/TKS).
Archaeological sites that pre-date 1846 are automatically protected under the Heritage Conservation
Act (HCA) whether on public or private land. Sites that are of an unknown age and that have a likelihood
of dating prior to 1846 (i.e., lithic scatters) as well as aboriginal pictographs, petroglyphs, and burials
which are considered to have historical or archaeological value are also automatically protected. Sites
that are protected under the HCA may not be altered, damaged, moved, excavated in, or desecrated in any
way without a permit issued under Section 12 or 14 of the HCA.
1.2 Study Objectives
The objectives of the AIA described in this report are: (1) to identify and evaluate the significance of
any archaeological sites located within the project area, (2) to identify and assess possible impacts by any
proposed developments within the two blocks on any protected archaeological sites, (3) to provide
recommendations regarding the need and appropriate scope of further archaeological studies prior to the
initiation of any proposed developments, and (4) to recommend appropriate impact management actions
for protected archaeological sites (where necessary). These objectives were in accordance with the
objectives of an AIA as they are described in the British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment
Guidelines (Archaeology Branch 1998).

-1-
Figure 1: Location of Project Area and Previously Recorded Nearby Archaeological Sites.

-2-
1.3 Proposed Development Type and Facilities
The New Monaco Enterprise Corporation proposes to construct a commercial-residential-recreational

development within a part of the former Ryder family holdings in the District of Peachland. The project
area is approximately 52 ha (130 acres) in area, and is located between Highway 97 and Highway 97C,
east of their junction and overlooking Okanagan Lake to the south. The property is vacant but an active
orchard is present in DL 2960, and other orchards existed in DL 449. A Terasen gas pipeline runs east to
west along the northern part of DL 449.
Proposed facilities within the project area include a boutique hotel, skating rink, a mix of single-
family and multi-family residences as well as office and village retail. Land altering activities which may
negatively affect any archaeological sites present within the boundaries of the project area include: (1)
landscaping and the felling and yarding of trees, (2) the construction of buildings and footings for those
buildings, (3) the laying of waterlines and sewer pipes, and (4) the construction of access roads.
2.0 Background Information
2.1 Definition of the Study Area and its Physiographic and Environmental Setting
The study area is located on the south slope of Mount Drought and overlooks Okanagan Lake. The
elevation of the project area is between approximately 400 and 520 metres above sea level. The study
area is 2500 m from east to west and varies between 300-400 metres north to south. Terrain within the
study area ranges from moderate to steep slopes with intermittent benches, terrace remnants and breaks-
in-slope that have gently sloping to level terrain.
Bedrock in the study area consists of Eocene-aged dacite and trachyte of the Kitley Lake formation
(Templeman-Kluit 1989). Fine grained dacite from the Pennask Lake area is known to have been used by
Aboriginal people for tool-making (Roed 2004). Sandstone, siltstone and cherty siltstone of the White
Lake formation are located north and east of the study area (Templeman-Kluit 1989, Roed and Greenough
2004). These rocks would also have been sought out by Aboriginal people for tool-making. Surficial
geology of the area indicates that the landscape is characterized as a glacial kame terrace with meltwater
channels (including the Drought Creek valley) (Nasmith 1962). Detailed mapping of surface sediments
(Surveys and Resources Mapping Branch 1989) indicates that most of the sediments in the study area are
of glaciofluvial origin (sand and gravel).
The study area is located within the Okanagan Basin Ecosection of the Thompson-Okanagan Plateau
Ecoregion (Demarchi 1996). The study area is encompassed within a single biogeoclimatic subzone as
defined by the biogeoclimatic classificatory system utilized by the Ministry of Forests (see Meidinger and
Pojar 1991). The study area is located within the Very Dry Hot Ponderosa Pine biogeoclimatic subzone
(PPxh1). This subzone has forests dominated by Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, with the latter
occurring usually at higher elevations and on north facing slopes (Hope et al. 1991).
The study area was significantly modified by Pleistocene glaciations (Fulton and Smith 1978).
Between 19,000-17,000 BP, valley glaciers began to cover the entire Fraser Plateau. The initial stages of
glacial growth occurred in the mountains followed by the coalescence of valley glaciers (Fulton and
Smith 1978; Fulton 1991). By 15,000 BP, the Cordilleran Ice sheet was approximately 500-1,000 m thick
over the Thompson-Okanagan Plateau. Approximately 14,000 BP, the glaciers began to recede with low
elevation areas of the Interior Plateau being entirely ice free by 11,500 BP and higher elevation areas

-3-
being ice-free by 10,200 BP (Fulton and Smith 1978; Clague 1991). The Okanagan Lobe of the Fraser
Glacier was the last glacial advance in the study area (Kershaw 1978, Roed and Greenough 2004).
Hebda (1982, 1995) outlines the late Pleistocene and Holocene climate, vegetation, and lake level history
for the Thompson-Okanagan Plateau. Based on such evidence the late-Quaternary paleoenvironmental
record of the study area can be divided into five discrete periods: Fraser glaciation, glacial retreat, the
Xerothemic Warm Interval, Holocene Neo-glaciations, and the onset of modern climatic conditions
(Hebda 1982, 1995).
2.2 Ethnographic Background
The New Monaco property is located within the asserted traditional territory of the Westbank First
Nation, and Penticton Indian Band (both members of the Okanagan Nation Alliance).
Understanding the traditional lifeways and land use systems of First Nations peoples is of crucial
importance towards gaining an understanding of the archaeological record of this culturally and
physiologically unique region. Sources of information on these peoples are generally derived from
contemporary First Nation accounts of the past and the ethnographic record. Several caveats must be
attached to the use of the ethnographic record to understand past lifeways. First, the historical context of
the period and second, the amount of exposure to these cultures that ethnographers experienced during the
tenure of their research. In general, ethnographers spent relatively little time with First Nations, spoke
with relatively few informants, and constructed their understandings of aboriginal lifeways within
academic and political frameworks that were affected by a number of ethnocentric and colonial
assumptions (see Klassen 2002 and Wickwire 2005 for a more detailed review of bias within regional
ethnographies). The following brief discussion of traditional First Nation lifeways draws on both types of
source material focusing primarily on subsistence practices, mobility strategies, and settlement patterns in
an effort to provide the reader with a basic context in which to understand the archaeological record of the
region. It is by no means intended to serve as a comprehensive review of these cultures or lifeways, past
or present.
2.2.1 The Okanagan
The study area is situated within the asserted traditional territory of the Westbank First Nation and
Penticton Indian Band, both member groups of the larger Okanagan Interior Salish ethno-linguistic
family. The Interior Salish language family includes four major sub-divisions in Canada: the Okanagan,
Secwepemc (aka Shuswap), Nlaka’pamux (aka Thompson), and Stl’atl’imx (aka Lillooet) languages (Duff
1969). The Okanagan language group, also known as the Okanagan-Colville language group (Turner,
Bouchard, and Kennedy 1980), has seven major dialects (Northern Okanagan, Similkameen Okanagan,
Southern Okanagan, Methow Okanagan, Sanpoil-Nespelem, Colville, and Lakes). The Okanagan peoples
occupy a large geographical area centered on the Okanagan Valley and Highlands, Thompson Plateau,
and the Similkameen River Valley in southern British Columbia and northern Washington State.
Knowledge and appreciation of the traditional lifeways and land use systems of the Okanagan peoples
is of crucial importance towards gaining an understanding of the archaeological record of this culturally
and physiologically unique region. Sources of information on the Okanagan past are generally derived
from contemporary Okanagan accounts of the past and the ethnographic record.
Two early anthropologists in the region, Charles Hill-Tout and James Teit, spent considerable time in
the larger region researching the society and culture of neighbouring Nlaka’pamux peoples. The resulting
seminal ethnographies, Hill-Tout (1978) and James Teit (1930), reflect this focus and as such, there has
been some question as to the accuracy of these ethnographies in regards to the Okanagan peoples.

-4-
Hudson (1990:55) notes that the Okanagan reject Teit’s (1930) early ethnography as “superficial and
inaccurate”. Geologist George Dawson (1892) wrote a brief ethnographic account, while Leslie Spier
(1938) edited a description of southern Okanagan culture. More recently, linguistic ethnographers
Dorothy Kennedy and Randy Bouchard conducted several seasons of fieldwork among Okanagan
informants, much of which is summarized in Kennedy and Bouchard (1998). A generalized summary of
traditional Plateau cultures is provided by Ray (1939).
The following brief discussion of traditional Okanagan lifeways draws on both contemporary
Okanagan accounts of the past and the ethnographic record. A brief description of subsistence practices,
mobility strategies, and settlement patterns is presented to provide the reader with a basic context in
which to understand the archaeological record of the region. It is by no means intended to serve as a
comprehensive review of Okanagan culture or lifeways, past or present.
The Okanagan practised a semi-sedentary hunting-gathering-fishing economy incorporating

logistical forays by task groups over wide territorial areas in order to acquire specific resources.
Subsistence for the Okanagan was based on fishing, the hunting of terrestrial mammals, and the gathering
of various floral resources according to a complex annual cycle (Hill-Tout 1978; Hudson 1990; Teit
1930). Winter villages were generally located in enclosed creek valleys and consisted of variable
numbers of pithouses and/or matt or bark lodge dwellings with associated storage facilities (cache pits,
etc.) for processed food resources (Hudson 1990:68; Kennedy and Bouchard 1998:242-243). Smaller
mat lodges were constructed above ground for summer residence, housing no more than two families
(Hudson 1990; Teit 1930:227). Resource collection entailed family-based forays to specialized base
camps and other resource procurement locations in order to gather seasonally available plant resources,
and to hunt and fish (Hudson 1990; Kennedy and Bouchard 1998).
Okanagan peoples living in the northern part of the Okanagan Valley traveled to fish seasonal
salmon runs, either at Okanagan Falls or north of Shuswap Falls (Bouchard and Kennedy 1984; Hunn et
al. 1998; Kennedy and Bouchard 1998; Teit 1930:247). For these northern Okanagan peoples, other
species of fish such as trout, greyling, Dolly Varden, and white sturgeon were also important subsistence
resources (Hudson 1990:60). Resource procurement areas differed by seasonal availability of particular
species and by clinal variation in elevation, biogeoclimatic zone, and distance to water. The seasonal
round for the Okanagan included but was not limited to: (1) winter village residence from early-to-late
winter with mid winter hunting for deer, and late winter hunting for sheep, (2) spring and early summer
fishing for trout, hunting of deer and sheep, and the gathering of food plants such as a variety of roots and
berries, (3) hunting sheep and the gathering of berries during the summer and early fall, and (4) deer, elk,
sheep, and bear hunting in the late fall (Kennedy and Bouchard 1998; Hudson 1990; Post 1938; Teit
1930; Turner 1978). Many different plant resources were utilized by Interior Plateau First Nations
(Lepofsky and Peacock 2004). The most important food plants in the Okanagan were yellowbells,
balsamroot, bitterroot, “wild carrot” or biscuitroot, chokecherry, saskatoon berry, huckleberries,
blueberries, and soapberry (Turner 1997, Turner et al. 1980). All of these species are locally abundant
throughout the study area.
A variety of plant resources were harvested and utilized for the making of baskets and mats,
including the bark of birch, balsam, cedar, spruce, pine, cottonwood, and various rushes (Turner 1997).
Bark and wood from a variety of trees also served as construction material for pithouse dwellings, mat
and bark lodges, and temporary shelters. Canoes were generally constructed from balsam bark in the
Okanagan Valley but dug-out canoes were also carved from pine, cottonwood, Western redcedar, and fir
(Kennedy and Bouchard 1998; Teit 1930). Cordage for sewing, nets and ropes were made from a variety
of materials including willow, hemp, animal sinew and hide, and bear and goat hair. Clothing was made
from the hide and fur of deer, elk, caribou, moose, beaver, marmot, rabbit, squirrel, and otter. These

-5-
materials utilized for the production of traditional Okanagan material culture were available in specific
eco-niches and were exploited on a seasonal and/or opportunistic basis.
Interior Plateau material culture consisted of products derived from a variety of raw materials
(Andrefsky 2004). The Okanagan utilized a sophisticated range of chipped as well as pecked and ground
stone tools (e.g., scrapers, knives, projectile points, celts, chisels, wedges, mauls) which they
manufactured from a wide variety of lithic raw materials (e.g., basalt, jasper, obsidian, slate, sandstone,
soapstone) (Ewonus et al. 2004). The type of raw material selected reflected the fit between the
properties of the raw material and the design and function of the tool being manufactured. Bone, antler,
and wood were also employed in making tools, ornaments, utensils and containers of a variety of forms.
Okanagan socio-political organization at the time of contact included a kin and village-based socio-
political system with both ascribed and achieved status positions falling to a minority of individuals.
Political authority appears to have been invested primarily in individuals whose status was achieved
through merit and/or task organization in a particular field (hence war chiefs, hunting chiefs, salmon
chiefs, shamans, etc.) (Hudson 1990; Teit 1930). Many subsistence resources and associated places of
procurement (e.g., fishing locations, berrypicking and root-digging areas, hunting locales) appear to have
been the common property of a given band or family group with their access and use directed by family
group leaders and community chiefs in consultation with elders (Hudson 1990). Exactly how far back
into prehistory the ethnographic pattern described above extends is open to question. A full account of
the ethnographic subsistence, economic and socio-political pattern of the Okanagan peoples is beyond the
scope of this report. Further accounts of Okanagan ethnography, mythology, language, subsistence
practices, ceremonial life, and material culture can be found in a number of primary and secondary
sources regarding the Okanagan including but not limited to: Curtis (1911), Hill-Tout (1978), Hudson
(1990), Kennedy and Bouchard (1987, 1998), Louis (2002), Post (1938), Teit (1930), Turner, Bouchard
and Kennedy (1980), Robinson and Wickwire (1989, 2005), and Wickwire (1992).
2.3 Regional Prehistory
The culture history of the Okanagan region has been divided into three periods, each with one or
more cultural phases (Grabert 1974; Copp 1979). These periods are identified on the basis of changes in
cultural attributes, in particular, stone tools and projectile point forms. The initial peopling of the study
area and the surrounding landscape likely commenced between ca. 11,000 and 10,000 BP (Stryd and
Rousseau 1996). The Early Prehistoric Period, which dates from about 9,000 to 6,000 years B.P. (before
present), consists of the Okanagan Phase. The Middle Prehistoric Period (dating between 6,000 and 3,000
years B.P.) consists of the Indian Dan Phase. The Late Prehistoric Period has been divided into two
phases, the Chilliwist Phase (dating to approximately 3,000 to 900 years B.P.) and the Cassimer Bar
Phase (dating to around 900 to 150 years B.P.). This is followed by the Protohistoric Period (identified
by an indirect influx of European goods), which then becomes the Historic Period at direct contact with
Euro-Canadians. It should be noted that some typological differences in projectile points do exist in the
Northern Okanagan Valley (i.e., north of Okanagan Falls). The North Okanagan Valley region’s
chronology is distinguished as a variant established by Grabert (1974) and Copp (1979) for the southern
part of the valley (Pokotylo and Mitchell 1998).
2.4 Previous Archaeological Work Conducted Near the Study Area
There are 24 recorded pre-contact archaeological sites located within approximately 5 km of the New
Monaco project area (Figure 1). No recorded historic sites (usually heritage buildings) are located within
this area. Two archaeological sites (DkQv-42 and DkQw-40) were previously identified and according to
RAAD, were located within the project area. Archaeological site DkQv-42 was initially identified and

-6-
recorded by Rousseau and Kuijt (Arcas Associates 1986) during the impact assessment for the proposed
Okanagana Connector (97C). The site was comprised of an intact section of the HBC Brigade Trail, a
petroform, pre-WW1 household refuse and three prehistoric lithic artifacts (Ibid.). The site was identified
on the west side of Highway 97 and was almost entirely within the impact zone for the proposed Highway
97/Okanagan Connector junction. Follow up visits by Zacharias (1990) and during this study, failed to
reveal any additional cultural materials attributable to this site. The author believes the site is actually
located east of the project area and has most likely been destroyed by highway construction. Site
DkQw40 was relocated along the northern boundary of the project area and its location was re-mapped
during this study by a handheld GPS device (Garmin GPSmap 60Cx). The majority of this site is
believed to be heavily disturbed (see Section 4.0 Results). Other work completed within or near the
project area includes an inventory and impact assessment by Wilson and Thomson (1985).
Along the shoreline of Okanagan Lake, many sites were recorded during the archaeological surveys
of the 1970s (Lawhead and McAleese 1976, Rousseau and Wales 1977). Excavations at several
habitation sites along the Okanagan Valley (Copp 1974, 1979; Roberts 1973, 1974; Rousseau and Howe
1979) have documented past village life, as well as resource and land use in Okanagan territory. Several
other studies involving survey and excavation along the Similkameen and Okanagan River valleys and
shores of the many prominent lakes within Okanagan territory have documented archaeological sites and
offered interpretations regarding past lifeways and land use in the region (e.g., Arcas 2007a ; Bailey and
Rousseau 1994; Baker 1975; Bussey 1986, 1993, 1995; Caldwell 1975; Golder 2008, 2009; Grabert 1968,
1974; Lawhead and McAleese 1976; Muir and Rousseau 1991; Points West Heritage Consulting 1985;
Rousseau 1979, 1984a, 1984b; Rousseau and Wales 1977; Vivian 1989, 1992).
2.5 Expected Types of Sites
Based upon the literature review and the previously recorded sites in the study area, the types of sites
expected within the study area include village sites, lithic scatters, artifacts scatters, quarry sites, forest
utilization sites comprised of CMTs, land mammal hunting camps, pictograph sites, petroglyph sites,
special use campsites (menstrual huts, vision quest sites, plant resource processing sites, etc.), burial sites,
fishing sites, trap sites, trails, historic remains, etc.

-7-
3.0 Methodology and Procedures
3.1 Background Research
Prior to conducting fieldwork, the study team engaged in an extensive background research program
designed to assess existing documentary information pertaining to past uses of the study area. Several
sources of information were consulted during this phase of the study including; the Archaeology Branch
Site Inventory Forms, consultant reports, aerial photographs, and other relevant published and
unpublished reports, theses and dissertations.
3.2 Communications with First Nations
During the early planning stages of this project, representatives from the Westbank First Nation were
contacted by phone and email. The Westbank First Nation was involved through the employment of field
crew and a Westbank Heritage Investigation Permit (2010-010) was obtained prior to commencement of
fieldwork. Keona Joe and Kaine Alexis participated in the fieldwork. Copies of this permit report will be
sent to all First Nations involved.
3.3 Archaeological Potential Assessment
The archaeological potential for the study area was evaluated using several methods. First the
Provincial Heritage Register was searched via the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) online
application administered by the BC Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, to
determine if any previously recorded archaeological sites are located within or nearby the study area.
Second, a review of the regional archaeological, ethnographic and palaeoenvironmental literature was
undertaken. Third, topographic maps, aerial photographs, Google Earth images and TRIM maps were
examined. Finally, the preliminary reconnaissance completed several years earlier was also consulted
(Arcas 2007b).
Variables considered in the archaeological potential assessment included: proximity to known

archaeological sites, terrain attributes (distance to water, relict drainages, prominent landforms, slope,
aspect, elevation, soil characteristics), past land disturbances, historic land uses, biogeoclimatic
information, forest stand characteristics and proximity to traditional resource areas and transportation
corridors such as Okanagan Lake and the historic Brigade Trail (Harris et al. 1989; Holt et al. 1986).
3.4 Archaeological Inventory

Field investigations involved a combination of systematic ground surface inspection and a judgmental
subsurface testing program intended to locate and assess cultural deposits or features that may be present.
Areas that were to have subsurface tests were selected judgmentally by criteria such as suitable landform,
level of disturbance, availability of water, and proximity to known archaeological sites. These areas were
then systematically tested with a combination of shovel tests and machine excavated trenches. The results
of the archaeological field investigations are included in Section 4.0 of this report.

-8-
4.0 Study Results
4.1 Archaeological Potential Assessment
After assessing the variables listed in Section 3.3, the project area was given a pre-field
archaeological potential assessment of moderate to high. The proximity of the project area to the historic
Brigade Trail, Okanagan Lake and many nearby archaeological sites (Figure 1), gave the project area this
rating.
4.2 Archaeological Impact Assessment
Between June 29th and July 5th 2010, an archaeological impact assessment was carried out by Ursus
on the project area. The project area includes approximately 52 hectares of land located on the north slope
above Okanagan Lake. The project area was surveyed systematically by a crew of four crew members
using parallel pedestrian traverses with five metre spacing (Figure 2). Close to 70% of the project area
was surveyed by this method. Evidence of cultural materials on the surface was sought, including but not
limited to: stone, bone, antler, or other artifacts; fire-altered rock; cultural features (e.g., depressions or
cairns) and historic cultural remains and debris. Existing subsurface exposures (e.g., tree throws, road
cuts, etc.) were also examined for evidence of cultural deposits.
The terrain in the project area is primarily gentle to steeply sloping with an overall southern aspect.
Forest cover is composed of Ponderosa pine, cottonwood, trembling aspen and domestic fruit trees (apple,
plum, cherry, peach). Shrubs throughout the property (outside of the orchards) include Oregon-grape,
snowberry, Saskatoon berry, rabbitbrush, wild roses, western sumac, Rocky Mountain maple and some
poison ivy. Balsam root, biscuit root, prickly pear and wild buckwheat were also present. The area has
been disturbed by past orchard activities and highway construction (both Highway 97 to the south and
Highway 97C to the north). In the western project area, bedrock is either exposed or located at very
shallow depths (̴ 20 cm dbs). Due to the past disturbance and general lack of soil development, the
majority of the western project area is rated as having low potential for subsurface archaeological
remains.
A subsurface testing program was conducted systematically in areas that were judgmentally identified
as having high potential (terraces or similar suitable landforms). Subsurface tests were conducted every 5
m in a grid pattern where possible. Due to the shallow depth of the soil above the bedrock, most shovel
tests were very shallow. Shovel tests were excavated to an average depth of 30 cm. The removed
matrices were screened through 6 mm (1/4”) mesh. Shovel tests were an average of 40 x 40 cm in
dimension. Machine excavated trenches using a backhoe with a 1.2 metre wide finishing bucket were
also placed at several locations throughout the project area. Trenches were an average 2.5 m long x 1.2 m
wide x 3.2 m deep in dimension.
Shovel testing took place in twelve locations (See Table 1) and nine trenches were excavated using a
backhoe (See Table 2). Subsurface testing consisted of 188 shovel tests and 9 machine excavated
trenches. The subsurface tests were located on terraces, breaks-in-slope, knolls and level areas in a 5
metre grid pattern where possible. Cultural materials were identified in subsurface tests at Shovel Test
Locations #4 (DkQw-44) and #6 (DkQw-40). No cultural materials were visible on the ground surface.
DkQw-40
Site DkQw-40 is located near the northern edge of the property at Shovel Test Location #6 (Figure
2a) and was previously identified during the Okanagan Connector impact assessment (Arcas Associates
1986) and relocated during this AIA. The site is about 100 m north of the northwestern corner of the
eastern most orchard. It was described as consisting of a small surface scatter of unmodified dacite flakes
amidst an ad hoc automobile graveyard on a south aspect high terrace remnant (Ibid). The Ryder family

-9-
reported that a small projectile point had previously been found at the site. A subsequent visit to the site
concluded that it had been destroyed by the construction of the Okanagan Connector (Zacharias 1990).
At this time, DkQw-40 consists of a sub-surface lithic scatter including one piece of dacite debitage
(Figures 3-7). The site has a 20 metre diameter and is located on a southern aspect terrace remnant
overlooking Highway 97 and the north shore of Okanagan Lake. This site is likely the remains of a
hunting camp or temporary habitation site. An old truck wreck lies northeast of the site boundary,
perhaps a remnant of the automobile graveyard. Site DkQw-40 has been heavily impacted by past road
construction and orchard activities. See Appendix I for a table of lithic metric attributes.
DkQw-44
Site DkQw-44 was newly identified near the northern edge of the property and was located at Shovel
Test Location #4 (Figures 2b, 8-10). This site consists of a sub-surface lithic scatter including eight
pieces of chert and dacite debitage (See Figures 11-13). The site has a 25 metre diameter and is located
on a southern aspect terrace remnant overlooking Highway 97 and the north shore of Okanagan Lake. The
site is likely the remains of a hunting camp or temporary habitation site. Site DkQw-44 has been
impacted by past orchard activities.
Table 1. Shovel Test Locations for New Monaco Property AIA.
Location # Landform Reason for In-field Potential Matrix description

# Tests description # of tests potential after testing
St Loc# 1 N=4 S aspect 5 x 10 m Moderate Low 0-2 cm = duff, 2-10 cm= semi-compact
break-in-slope light brown silty sand with bedrock
fragments, 10+ cm = compact broken
bedrock fragments and bedrock
St Loc# 2 N=12 Level area on 22 x 15 m Moderate Low 0-2 cm = duff, 2-13 cm = light brown
north side of sandy silt, 13+ cm = compact bedrock
knoll fragments and bedrock
St Loc# 3 N=36 S aspect 20 x 40 m High Low 0-4 cm = duff, 4-45 cm= semi-compact
terrace light brown silty sand with pebbles, 45+
cm = bedrock fragments
St Loc# 4 N=41 level area 20 x 40 m High High 0-4 cm = duff, 4-15 cm= compact mid
(site brown silty sand with pebbles, 15-30
DkQw-44) cm+ = compact silt and bedrock
fragments
St Loc# 5 N=15 S aspect 10 x 35 m High Low 0-3 cm = duff, 3-20 cm = compact mid
bench brown silty sand with pebbles, 20-30+
cm = compact yellow brown silt
St Loc# 6 N=32 S aspect 15 x 35 m High High 0-2 cm = duff, 2-35 cm = compact mid
terrace (site brown silty sand with pebbles, 35-40+
fragment DkQw-40) cm = compact silty sand and bedrock
fragments
break-in-slope light brown silty sand with pebbles, 30+
cm = bedrock
fragments, 20+ cm = bedrock
St Loc# 9 N=4 S aspect 7x7m Moderate Low 0-1 cm = duff, 1-20 cm= semi-compact
fragments, 20+ cm = bedrock
St Loc# N=8 S aspect 7 x 20 m Moderate Low 0-2 cm = duff, 2-10 cm= semi-compact
10 bench dark brown silty sand, 10+ cm = compact
dark brown silt and pebbles
St Loc# N=13 S aspect 15 x 20 m Moderate Low 0-10 cm = duff, 10-25 cm = compact
11 bench sand with pebbles, 25+ cm = compact silt

- 10 -
St Loc# N=11 Break-in- 10 x 15 m Moderate Low 0-3 cm = duff, 3-15 cm = semi-compact

12 slope light brown silty sand, 15-20+ cm =
compact gravel and whitish silt
Table 2. Trench Locations for New Monaco Property AIA.
Location # In-field Potential UTM 11U Matrix description

potential after testing
Trench# 1 Moderate Low 307787E 0-2 cm = duff, 2-30 cm= semi-compact grey brown silty sand with
5520154N pebbles, 30-200 cm = semi-compact cobbles, 200-270 cm = grey
brown loose silty clay, 270-290 cm = loose coarse beach sand,
290-330+ cm = loose fine light grey sand
Trench# 2 Moderate Low 307877E 0-5 cm = duff, 5-70 cm = dark brown semi-compact silty sand, 70-
5520143N 150 cm = grey sandy clay, 150 cm = big-O pipe, drainage pipe
Trench# 3 Moderate Low 307891E 0-5 cm = duff, 5-30 cm= dark brown silty clay, 30-70 cm = light
5520163N brown silty sand, 70-150 cm = grey semi-compact clay, 150-300+
cm = grey brown loose sand
Trench# 4 Moderate Low 308034E 0-5 cm = duff, 5-18 cm= dark grey brown silty sand, 18-40 cm =
5520197N grey compact sandy silt, 40-60 cm grey compact sandy silt with
cobbles, 60-390 cm = compact white grey silt, 390—400+ cm =
loose fine white grey sand
cobbles, 60-190 cm = compact white grey silt, 190-200 cm =
coarse beach sand, 200-215 cm = compact white silt, 215-225 cm
= coarse beach sand, 225-235+ cm = compact whitish silt
cobbles, 60-190 cm = compact white grey silt, 190-200 cm =
coarse beach sand, 200-215 cm = compact white silt, 215-225 cm
= coarse beach sand, 225-235+ cm = compact whitish silt
Trench# 7 Moderate Low 307914E 0-5 cm = duff, 5-20 cm= dark brown silty sand with pebbles, 20-
5520094N 57 cm = mid brown compact silty sand with cobbles, 57-120 cm =
white grey compact silt,120+ cm = white grey compact silt with
boulders and cobbles
Trench# 8 Moderate Low 307909E 0-5 cm = duff, 5-20 cm= semi-compact mid brown silty sand with
5520118N pebbles, 20-100 cm = light grey compact silt, 100-220 cm = grey
brown coarse beach sand and cobbles, 220-300+ cm = dark grey
brown silty sand with cobbles
Trench# 9 Moderate Low 307969E 0-5 cm = duff, 5-25 cm= semi-compact light brown silty sand, 25-
5520106N 75 cm = light grey compact silt, 75-280 cm = coarse beach sand
with loose gravel and cobbles, 280+ cm = compact cobbles

- 11 -
Figure 2a: Area examined, archaeological sites, and subsurface test locations.

- 12 -
Figure 2b: Area examined, archaeological sites, and subsurface test locations.

- 13 -
Figure 2c: Area examined, archaeological sites, and subsurface test locations.

- 14 -
Figure 3: Site map of DkQw-40.

- 15 -
Figure 4: View S at site DkQw-40.
Figure 5: View SW at site DkQw-40.

- 16 -
Figure 6: Positive shovel test (#4) at site DkQw-40 (0-40 cm dbs).
Figure 7: Dacite flake retrieved from DkQw-40 (0-5 cm depth below surface).

- 17 -
Figure 8: Site map of DkQw-44.

- 18 -
Figure 9: View N at site DkQw-44.
Figure 10: View S at site DkQw-44.

- 19 -
Figure 11: Flakes from St# 19 (5-10 cm dbs) at site DkQw-44.
Figure 12: Chert flake and dacite utilized flake from St#11 (5-10 cm dbs) at site DkQw-44.
Figure 13: Utilized chert flake from St#18 (5-10 cm dbs) at site DkQw-44.

- 20 -
Figure 14: View SE at St Location #5.
Figure 15: View S at St Location #7.

- 21 -
Figure 16: View SE in centre of project area.
Figure 17: View S at St Location #11.

- 22 -
5.0 Site Significance Evaluations
Site significance assessments are a major component of the impact assessment process. Assessments
of this nature are conducted in order to ensure that appropriate management recommendations are
proposed. The British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (Archaeology Branch
1998) defines several types of significance in relation to archaeological sites. The sites identified in the
development areas were assessed using the checklist of criteria for site evaluation presented in the British
Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (Archaeology Branch 1998). The scientific,
public, ethnic, economic, and historic significance of the sites identified were assessed and rated as high,
moderate, or low. Definitions of the types of significance assessments conducted are as follows:
Scientific Significance is based on the potential of a site to contain evidence which could
substantively increase understanding of culture history and cultural processes, its ability to contribute to
various scientific disciplines, and its ability to contribute to an understanding of local and regional
prehistory.
Public Significance is based on the potential of a site to be used by the public in an educational,
interpretative, or recreational capacity.
Ethnic Significance is determined by the local First Nation(s) and refers to the traditional, social, or
spiritual importance of a site. Sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44 are located in the asserted traditional
territory of the Westbank First Nation and the Penticton Indian Band, who both consider archaeological
sites to be of high ethnic significance.
Economic Significance refers to the potential financial benefits that could be derived from the
public’s use of a site as an educational or recreational facility.
Historic Significance refers to the possible association of a site with an important historic person or
event.
The significance ratings for sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44 are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Site Significance Evaluation for Sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44 Recorded under Heritage
Inspection Permit 2010-237.
Scientific Public Ethnic Economic Historic
Site
Significance Significance Significance Significance Significance
DkQw-40 Low Low High Low Low
DkQw-44 Moderate Low High Low Low
The low scientific rating for DkQw-40 reflects the high level of disturbance, lack of diagnostic
artifacts and of datable materials identified at the site to date. The moderate scientific rating for DkQw-
44 reflects the variety of lithic materials located at the site, the moderate amount of disturbance, lack of
diagnostic artifacts and of datable materials identified at the site to date. The low historic rating for both
sites reflects the absence of known historical associations with these sites. A full evaluation of the
cultural and ethnic significance of the sites is beyond the scope of the current study and could be
determined in consultation with the Westbank First Nation and the Penticton Indian Band.

- 23 -
6.0 Impact Assessments and Management Recommendations
One newly identified protected archaeological site (DkQw-44) and one relocated but previously
identified and protected archaeological site (DkQw-40) were recorded near the northern boundary of the
project area, just south of Highway 97C. The sites were recorded under Permit 2010-237. The sites
consist of lithic scatters and are believed to pre-date 1846 and are therefore protected under Section 13 of
the Heritage Conservation Act.
There are four principle strategies available to manage conflicts between archaeological sites and
development projects in British Columbia, as described in the Guidelines (Archaeology Branch 1998).
These strategies are:
(1) Site conservation by avoidance is the most effective strategy for significant sites or portions of
sites threatened with destruction.
(2) Mitigation in the form of systematic data recovery (i.e., archaeological excavation) is usually
recommended for vulnerable, significant sites, or portions of sites which cannot be protected by
other strategies.
(3) Archaeological monitoring, as one condition of a Site Alteration Permit, is another type of
mitigation, often recommended for construction within sites or portions of sites to ensure that
appropriate emergency impact management actions are carried out if unanticipated and
significant archaeological remains are encountered.
(4) Lastly, compensation refers to direct monetary payments made by a development proponent to
finance the costs of data recovery or other archaeological investigations on parts of a site not
directly affected by a particular activity or development.
Heritage resources are non-renewable, and mitigative measures such as project design changes and
site protection are preferred where conflicts between heritage sites and proposed developments have been
identified.
Upon consultation with the New Monaco Enterprise Corporation management, it appears that the
sites can be avoided through project redesign. The sites will be incorporated into green spaces within the
project area and will not be subject to ground disturbance within the 10 m site buffer.
It is recommended that the New Monaco Enterprise Coproration:
(a) Avoid the site through alteration of project design, or if site avoidance is not possible;
(b) Obtain a Section 12 Site Alteration Permit prior to any land altering activities within either of the
sites’ boundaries; this Permit may include requirements of systematic data recovery and/or
archaeological monitoring.
Users of this report should be aware that even the most thorough investigation may fail to reveal all
archaeological remains, including sites protected by the BC Heritage Conservation Act, that exist in an
area. All users of this report should also be aware that: (1) archaeological remains in BC are protected
from disturbance, intentional or inadvertent, by the Heritage Conservation Act; (2) in the event that
archaeological remains are encountered, all ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity must be
suspended at once; (3) it is the individual’s responsibility to inform the Archaeology Branch, and
appropriate First Nations as soon as possible, about the location of the archaeological remains and the
nature of the disturbance; and (4) the Heritage Conservation Act may incur heavy fines and imprisonment
for failing to comply with these requirements.
The study area is located within the asserted traditional territory of the Westbank First Nation and the
Penticton Indian Band. The sole purpose of this study was to identify archaeological sites, or the

- 24 -
potential for sites, located within the study area. This study does not address Traditional Use Sites nor
does it consider possible infringements of aboriginal rights and title within the assessment area.
6.1 Data Gap Analysis of the Literature Consulted
Detailed information concerning how First Nation peoples utilized the study area and interacted with
other groups is lacking in the ethnographic literature. This comparative lack of information may be partly
due to the fact that many historical observers, including ethnographers, arrived in the area after First
Nation groups had been heavily impact by smallpox and other post-contact epidemics (see Duff 1964;
Harris 1997). As such, much of the traditional knowledge of the area may have died with the people who
succumbed to these epidemics. In addition, it should be noted that many of the ethnographers working in
the area did not start their work until well into the 20th century. Many of the First Nation groups had been
in contact with Europeans for more than a century, and their lifeways had already been heavily impacted
by the effects of the fur trade, cash economy, missionaries, firearms and other influences. Many of the
ethnographic accounts concentrate on the more permanent village settlements and do not pay as much
attention to only seasonally occupied areas such as the majority of the study area.
In terms of the archaeological literature review, the majority of the previous archaeological work in
the area has consisted of development related surveys of limited extent (though see Copp 1974, 1976,
1979, 2006). Many of the archaeological survey reports are very brief and provide few details of
methodology, background research and results.

- 25 -
7.0 References Cited
Andrefsky, W. Jr.
2004 Materials and contexts for a culture history of the Columbia Plateau. In Complex Hunter-
Gatherers: evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of North
America, edited by W.C. Prentiss and I. Kuijt, pp. 23-35. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City.
Arcas Associates
1986 Coquihalla Highway Project, Merritt to Peachland, B.C.: Detailed Heritage Resource Inventory
and Impact Assessment. Unpublished report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Arcas Consulting Archaeologists

2007a Bear Creek North Graving Dock – DlQv-78: Archaeological Impact Assessment and Site
Alteration. Unpublished report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
2007b Archaeological Overview Assessment of the New Monaco Resort Development, Peachland, B.C.
Unpublished report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Archaeology Branch
1998 British Columbia Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines [3rd revised edition]. Ministry of
Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Archaeology Branch. Victoria.
2001 Culturally Modified Trees of British Columbia: A Handbook for the Identification and Recording
of Culturally Modified Trees [version 2.0]. Archaeology Branch and Resources Inventory
Committee, Province of British Columbia. Available on the Internet at
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ric.
Bailey, J. and M. Rousseau

1994 An Archaeological Assessment of Prehistoric Site DkQ-36 in Okanagan Mountain Park, near
Naramata, South-central B.C. Permit 1993-0137. Report submitted to B.C. Parks, Summerland.
Baker, J.
1975 Okanagan College Archaeological Research Project: Report of the First Stages of a Multi-stage
Research Project Including Report of Okanagan Valley Random Quadrat Survey by Stephen
Lawhead. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Bouchard, R. and D. Kennedy

1984 Indian History and Knowledge of the Similkameen River-Palmer Lake Area. Report submitted to
the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.
Bussey, J.
1986 Heritage Resource Impact Assessment, Highway Revisions Between Kelowna and Vernon, 1985.
Report on file at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and the Arts, Victoria, B.C.
1993 Archaeological Investigations for the Proposed BC Gas South Okanagan Natural Gas (SONG)
Pipeline Project. Report submitted to Westland Resource Group, Victoria. Permit 1993-0053.
Report on file at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and the Arts, Victoria, B.C.
1995 Excavation at DiQv-17, Okanagan Falls, for the South Okanagan Natural Gas (SONG) Pipeline
Project. Permit 1994-0053. Report submitted to BC Gas Utility Ltd., Vancouver. Report on file at
the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and the Arts, Victoria, B.C.

- 26 -
Caldwell, W.W.
1954 An archaeological survey of the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys of British Columbia.
Anthropology in British Columbia 4: 10-25.
Clague, J.J. [compiler]

1981 Late Quaternary Geology and Geochronolgy of British Columbia Part 2: Summary Discussion of
Radiocarbon Dated Quaternary History. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 80-35. Ottawa.
1991 Quaternary Geology of the Canadian Cordillera. In Quaternary Geology of Canada and
Greenland, edited by R.J. Fulton, pp. 15-96. Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada,
No. 1. Ottawa.
Copp, S.A.
1974 An Archaeological Site Survey of Okanagan-Similkameen Regions in the Interior of British
Columbia, 1974. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1976 An Excavation and Site Survey in the South Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, 1975. Report
on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1979 Archaeological Investigations at the McCall Site, South Okanagan Valley, B.C. Unpublished
M.A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
2006 Similkameen Archaeology (1993-2004). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
Curtis, Edward S.
1911 Salishan Tribes. In North American Indian: 43-114, 162-166, 179-189. Norwood.
Dawson, G.M.
1892 Notes on the Shuswap people of British Columbia. In Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal
Society of Canada, 9(2): 3-44.
Demarchi, D.A.
1996 Introduction to the Ecoregions of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Victoria. Available on the Internet at:
http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/ecology/ecoregions/index.html.
Duff, Wilson
1964 The Indian History of British Columbia: Volume 1: The Impact of the White Man. Anthropology
in British Columbia Memoir No. 5. Provincial Museum of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C.
1969 The Indian History of British Columbia: Volume 1, The Impact of White Man. Anthropology in
B.C., Memoir 5, Victoria.
Ewonus, G., P. Ewonus and J. Baker

2004 Ancient Peoples of the Okanagan. In Okanagan Geology, British Columbia, edited by M.A. Roed
and J.D. Greenough, pp. 71-83. Kelowna Geology Committee/Sandhill Books, Kelowna.
Fulton, R.J., and G.W. Smith

1978 Late Pleistocene stratigraphy of south-central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences 15: 971-980.
Golder Associates Ltd.

2008 2007-002 Archaeological Impact Assessment for Proposed Highway 97 Upgrades Between
Winfield and Oyama, BC, Kamloops, BC. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
2009 Archaeological Mitigation for Proposed Highway 97 Investigations, Winfield to Oyama, BC.
Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.

- 27 -
Grabert, G.
1968 An Archaeological Survey of the Upper Okanagan Valley, British Columbia: 1967. Permit 1967-
6. Report submitted to the National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
1974 Okanagan Archaeology. Syesis 7, Supplement 2. Victoria.
Harris, Cole
1997 The Settlement of British Columbia: Essays on Colonialism and Geographic Change. UBC Press,
Vancouver.
Harris, R., H. Hatfield, and P. Tassie

1989 The Okanagan Brigade Trail in the South Okanagan, 1811 to 1849. Wayside Press, Ltd.
Hebda, R.J.
1982 Postglacial history of grasslands of southern British Columbia and adjacent regions. In Grassland
Ecology and Classificaiton Symposium Proceedings, edited by A.C. Nicholson, A. McLean and
T.E. Baker, pp. 156-191. Ministry of Forests, Victoria.
1995 British Columbia vegetation and climate history with focus on 6 Ka BP. Geographie Physhique et
Quaternaire 49(1): 55-79.
Hill-Tout, Charles
1978[1906] The Salish People: The Local Contribution of Charles Hill-Tout Volume I: The
Thompson and Okanagan. Edited with and Introduction by Ralph Maud. Talonbooks, Vancouver.
Holt, R., A. Jahnke, and P. Tassie

1986 The Okanagan Brigade Trail, Central and North Okanagan: A Field Guide to the Remaining
Sectiosn of the Trail. Okanagan Historical Society, Vernon Branch.
Hope, G., D. Lloyd, R. Mitchell, W. Erickson, W.L. Harper, and B.M. Wikeem
1991 Ponderosa Pine Zone. In Ecosystems of British Columbia, edited by D. Meidinger and J. Pojar,
pp. 139-152. Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Special Report Series 6, Victoria.
Hudson, D.
1990 The Okanagan Indians of British Columbia. In Okanagan Sources, edited by Jean Weber and the
En’owkin Center, pp. 54-89. Theytus Books, Penticton.
Hunn, Eugene S., Nancy J. Turner and David H. French

1998 Ethnobiology and Subsistence. In The Plateau, Handbook of North American Indians: Volume
12, pp. 525-545. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Kennedy, D.I.D. and R.T. Bouchard

1986 Indian History and Knowledge of the Aspen Grove to Peachland Corridor of the Coquihalla
Highway. Appendix II in Coquihalla Highway Project, Merritt to Peachland, B.C.: Detailed
Heritage Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment, by Arcas Associates. Report on file at the
Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1998 Northern Okanagan, Lakes and Colville. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12,
Plateau, edited by D.E. Walker Jr., pp. 238-252. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Klassen, Michael A. (Klahanee Heritage Research)

2002 South French Bar Creek MoF SBFEP TSL A52517 CP-A & CP-C: Archaeological Field
Reconnaissance. Permit 2001-267. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch at the Ministry of
Tourism, Sport, and the Arts, Victoria.

- 28 -
Lawhead, S. and K. McAleese

1976 Interior Lakes Archaeological Inventory (Okanagan Lake Survey: 1976). Report on file at the
Lepofsky, D. and S.L. Peacock

2004 A question of intensity: Exploring the role of plant foods in Northern Plateau Prehistory. In
Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities on the
Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited by W.C. Prentiss and I. Kuijt, pp. 115-139.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Louis, S. [editor]
2002 Q’sapi: A History of Okanagan People as Told by Okanagan Families. Theytus Books,
Penticton.
Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar

1991 Ecosystems of British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. Special Report Series 6.
Victoria.
Ministry of Forests Research Branch

2003 Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Subzone /Variant Map for the Penticton Forest District,
Kamloops Forest Region, [map]. Available online at:
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/papermap/Wall/DPE_Penticton_wall.pdf.
Muir, R. and M. Rousseau

1991 An Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Similkameen River Hydroelectric
Project, near Princeton, South-Central British Columbia. Permit 1992-0103. Report on file at the
Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and the Arts, Victoria, B.C.
Nasmith, H.
1962 Late Glacial History and Surficial Deposits of the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. B.C.
Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Bulletin 46. Victoria.
Points West Heritage Consulting

1985 1985-022. Heritage Resource Impact Assessment: Highways Revisions between Kelowna and
Vernon. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.
Pokotylo, D.L. and D.H. Mitchell

1998 Prehistory of the Northern Plateau. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12,
Plateau, edited by D.E. Walker Jr., pp. 81-102. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Post, R.
1938 The Subsistence Quest. In The Sinkaietk or Southern Okanagan of Washington, General Series of
Anthropology 6, edited by W. Cline. Mennasha.
Ray, V.F.
1939 Cultural Relationships in the Plateau of North-western America. In The Southwest, Publications
of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund, Volume 3. Los Angeles.
1942 Cultural Element Distributions, XXII: Plateau. University of California, Anthropological
Records, 8(2) 99-257.
Roberts, G.
1973 The Osoyoos Indian Branch Reserve No 1. Report submitted to the Archaeological Sites

- 29 -
Advisory Board of British Columbia, Victoria.

1974 The Inkameep Archaeological Project 1973 and 1974. Permit 1974-0009. Report submitted to the
Archaeological Sites Advisory Board of British Columbia, Victoria.
Robinson, Harry and Wendy Wickwire

1989 Write it on Your Heart: The Epic Work of an Okanagan Storyteller. Talon Books, Vancouver.
2005 Living by Stories: A Journey through Landscape and Memory. Talon Books, Vancouver.
Roed, M.A.
2004 Geological features of Boucherie mountain. In Okanagan Geology British Columbia, edited by
M.A. Roed and J.D. Greenough, pp. 190-193. Kelowna Geology Committee/Sandhill Books,
Kelowna.
Roed, M.A. and J.D. Greenough (eds)

2004 Okanagan Geology British Columbia. Kelowna Geology Committee/Sandhill Books, Kelowna.
Rousseau, M.K.
1979 Thompson Okanagan Impact Assessment, 1979, Final Report. Report on file at the Archaeology
Branch, Victoria.
1984a A Preliminary report on the Activities and Findings of the Westbank Indian Council Heritage
Project – Phase II: A General Heritage Site Inventory, Excavation Summaries and
Recommendations for Site Management. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1984b Heritage Investigations on Tsinstikepteum Indian Reserve No. 10, Westside Locality, North
Okanagan Valley, British Columbia. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
1987 The History and Prehistory of Tsinstikeptum Indian Reserves No. 9 and 10 in the North
Okanagan Valley Region of B.C. Okanagan Historical Society Fifty-first Report: 29-37.
Rousseau, M. and G. Howe

1979 Test Excavations at DhQv-6, South Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, 1979. Permit 1978-
0008. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Rousseau, M.K. and D. Wales

1977 Interior Lakes Archaeological Inventory: Okanagan Lake Survey: 1977. Report on file at the
Spier, L. [Editor]
1938 The Sinkaietk or Southern Okanagan of Washington. General Series in Anthropology, No.6,
George Banta Publishing, Menasha, Washington.
Stryd, A.H. and M.K. Rousseau

1996 The Early Prehistory of the Mid Fraser-Thompson River area. In Early Human Occupation in
British Columbia, edited by R.L. Carlson and L. Dalla Bona, pp. 177-204. UBC Press,
Vancouver.
Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch

1989 Surficial Materials: 82E.094 [map]. Prepared by Digital Mapping Group Ltd.
Teit, James
1930 The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateau. Edited by Franz Boas. Extract from the Forty-fifth
Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington.

- 30 -
Templeman-Kluit, D.J.
1989 Geology, Penticton, British Columbia [map]. Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1736A. Ottawa.
Turner, Nancy, J.
1978 Food Plants of British Columbia Indians. Part II. Interior Peoples. British Columbia Museum
Handbook No. 38, Victoria, B.C.
1997 Food Plants of the Interior First Peoples. Royal B.C. Museum Handbook. UBC Press.
Vancouver B.C.
Turner, Nancy, J., R.T. Bouchard and D.I.D. Kennedy

1980 Ethnobotany of the Okanagan-Colville Indians of British Columbia and Washington. British
Columbia Provincial Museum, Occassional Papers, No. 21, Victoria.
Vivian, B.
1989 Survey and Assessment of the Prehistoric Cultural Resources of the Similkameen Basin, Upper
Similkameen Valley, British Columbia. Permit 1987-0009. Report on file at the Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria, B.C.
1992 Similkameen Valley Prehistory: Cultural Interaction Across the Interior Plateau of British
Columbia and Washington State. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Archaeology,
University of Calgary, Calgary.
Wickwire, Wendy
1992 Nature Power: In the Spirit of an Okanagan Storyteller. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
2005 Stories from the Margins: Toward a More Inclusive British Columbia Historiography. Journal of
American Folklore 118(470):453-474.
Wilson, I.R., and D. Thomson

1985 Penticton to Peachland Proposed 4-Lane Highway: Heritage Resource Inventory and Impact
Assessment. Report on file at the Archaeology Branch, Victoria.
Zacharias, S.
1990 Archaeological Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment of Highways Projects in the
Thompson-Okanagan and Kootenay Highways Regions. Report on file at the Archaeology
Branch, Victoria.

- 31 -
8.0 Appendix I – Artifact Tables

Table 4. DkQw-40 Metric Attributes of Artifacts.
Artifact# Material Type Width (mm) Length (mm) Thickness (mm) Location Comments
1 Basalt Flake 10.3 15.6 1.9 St4
Table 5. DkQw-44 Metric Attributes of Artifacts.

Artifact# Material Type Width Length Thickness Location Comments
1 Basalt Flake 15.6 22.1 4.4 St11 utilized

2 Chert Flake 7.5 9.2 1.1 St11
4 Chert Flake 11.4 13.1 1.9 St18
5 Chert Flake 11.8 16.4 2.1 St19
6 Chert Flake 9.6 10.0 1.3 St19

- 32 -

Okanagan Archaeology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Okanagan Archaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA)

of New Monaco Property in Peachland, B.C.

Heritage Inspection Permit #2010-237

Prepared on Behalf of:

Ian Cameron, MSc, RPCA

© Ian Cameron 2010

October 23rd, 2010

Executed this 23rd day of October, 2010, by

Signature of Copyright Owner

Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Project Coordinator .............................................................................................Ian Cameron, M.Sc., RPCA

Principal Investigator ................................................................................................................. Ian Cameron

Field Personnel.................................................................................................. Meghan McGill, BA (Ursus)

Report Author ............................................................................................................................ Ian Cameron

Report Editor/Quality Assurance ................................................................................... Natasha Lyons, PhD

Report Drafting .............................................................................................................. Bill Angelbeck, PhD

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

The following is recommended for sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44.

* Avoidance of further disturbance to sites DkQw-40 and DkQw-44; and

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

1.2 Study Objectives

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

1.3 Proposed Development Type and Facilities

The New Monaco Enterprise Corporation proposes to construct a commercial-residential-recreational

2.0 Background Information

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

2.2 Ethnographic Background

2.2.1 The Okanagan

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

The Okanagan practised a semi-sedentary hunting-gathering-fishing economy incorporating

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

2.3 Regional Prehistory

2.4 Previous Archaeological Work Conducted Near the Study Area

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

2.5 Expected Types of Sites

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

3.0 Methodology and Procedures

3.1 Background Research

3.2 Communications with First Nations

3.3 Archaeological Potential Assessment

Variables considered in the archaeological potential assessment included: proximity to known

3.4 Archaeological Inventory

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

4.0 Study Results

4.1 Archaeological Potential Assessment

4.2 Archaeological Impact Assessment

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Table 1. Shovel Test Locations for New Monaco Property AIA.

Location # Landform Reason for In-field Potential Matrix description

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

St Loc# N=11 Break-in- 10 x 15 m Moderate Low 0-3 cm = duff, 3-15 cm = semi-compact

Table 2. Trench Locations for New Monaco Property AIA.

Location # In-field Potential UTM 11U Matrix description

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Prepared by Ursus Heritage Consulting

Figure 3: Site map of DkQw-40.