DeepDyve requires Javascript to function. Please enable Javascript on your browser to continue.
Historical ecology of forest garden management in Laxyuubm Ts’msyen and beyond Historical ecology of forest garden management in Laxyuubm Ts’msyen and beyond
Armstrong, Chelsey Geralda; Lyons, Natasha; McAlvay, Alex C.; Ritchie, Patrick Morgan; Lepofsky, Dana; Blake, Michael
2023-12-31 00:00:00
ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2023, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 2160823 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2160823 RESEARCH Historical ecology of forest garden management in Laxyuubm Ts’msyen and beyond a b,c d e c Chelsey Geralda Armstrong , Natasha Lyons , Alex C. McAlvay , Patrick Morgan Ritchie , Dana Lepofsky and Michael Blake a b c Indigenous Studies, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada; Ursus Heritage Consulting, Vernon, BC, Canada; Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada; Institute of Economic Botany, The New York Botanical Garden, The Bronx, NY, USA; Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 27 April 2022 Cultural land-use is an important driver of ecosystem change, influencing the composition of Accepted 16 December 2022 species across landscapes and through time. Recent research in northwestern North America has shown that historical Indigenous land-use and forest management has resulted in relict forest EDITED BY gardens dominated by edible fruit, nut, and berry producing trees and shrubs – many of which John Parrotta continue to grow adjacent to archaeological village sites today. Our research combines archae- KEYWORDS ological and ecological methods to better understand the historical ecology of seven forest Archaeology; forest gardens; gardens in the Pacific Northwest. Vascular plant communities at all sites are evaluated for historical ecology; distinctiveness using ANOSIM, NMDS, and indicator species analyses. We identify 15 forest garden paleoethnobotany; indicator species, all of which are culturally significant edible fruit or root-bearing species. We traditional resource and then present the results of an intensive historical-ecological study of one site in Laxyuubm environmental management Gitselasu (Ts’msyen). Paleoethnobotanical data, soil and tree ring analyses, and radiocarbon dates show that forest management in the Gitsaex forest garden of Gitselasu pre-dates settler colonialism and shows that people likely modified soils and otherwise enhanced their immediate environment to increase the productivity of desired plant species. Given the importance of Indigenous peoples’ role in sustaining forested foodsheds, there is an ongoing and urgent need to support their revitalization and management and better understand the integrated cultural practices and ecological processes that result in these vast cultural landscapes. 1. Introduction Land-use scientists increasingly recognize that eco- for millennia (Ford and Nigh 2009; Garnett et al. logical and anthropogenic forces have long inter- 2018; Fa et al. 2020). Given the importance of acted in complex ways, forming many of the Indigenous peoples’ role in sustaining forested landscapes we observe today (Hammett 1992; landscapes and the realities of colonial legacies, Munoz et al. 2014; Pavlik et al. 2021), including ever-encroaching industrial development, and cli- some of the most desirable ecosystems for human mate change impacts on terrestrial ecosystems, use and occupation (McCune et al. 2013; Coughlan there is an urgent and ongoing need to understand et al. 2018). Under certain circumstances, varied these integrated cultural practices and ecological Indigenous land-use and management of forests processes (Grenz 2020; Fletcher et al. 2021; have resulted in the expansion of healthy (e.g. bio- M’sɨtno’Kmaq et al. 2021; Sultana 2022). logically diverse) ecosystems (Levis et al. 2017; Globally, historical and ancient forest manage- Odonne et al. 2019). In fact, such cases demon- ment has been well-documented using various strate that the perceived ‘wild’ or ‘untouched’ for- archaeological, ethnographic, and paleoecological ests in many parts of the world are direct methods – this is especially true in Neotropical reflections of past human activity (Fairhead and and Afrotropical regions (Alcorn 1984; Fairhead Leach 1995; Casas et al. 2007; Ross 2011; Warren and Leach 1995; Ford and Nigh 2009; Ekblom and Crawford 2016) and that many biodiverse sys- et al. 2011; Neves and Heckenberger 2019). tems require continued and active management to However, we know less about the long-term devel- persist. For example, globally, over one-third of opment, effects, and relationships that have formed biologically diverse and intact forests with the between people and forests in temperate regions, highest conservation values have been formed and for example, in the Pacific Northwest of North maintained by Indigenous peoples, in some cases America (for the Northeast see Black et al. 2006; CONTACT Chelsey Geralda Armstrong chelsey_geralda@sfu.ca This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 C. G. ARMSTRONG ET AL. Abrams and Nowacki 2008; see also MacDougall challenging to document (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2003). Managed landscapes near archaeological vil- 2008; Lepofsky and Armstrong 2018). Second, the lage sites on the Pacific Northwest Coast, such as industrialization of logging and other resource clam gardens, intertidal marsh gardens, and extraction practices has transformed countless eco- Wapato (Sagittaria latifolia Willd.) gardens have systems in Northwestern Canada, erasing many been the highlight of recent ethnoecological and Indigenous peoples’ living archives embedded in archaeological literature (Deur and Turner 2005; forested landscapes. For example, in our study region, Lepofsky et al. 2015; Deur et al. 2015; Hoffmann logging, mining, and linear developments (highways, et al. 2016; Toniello et al. 2019). Much less atten- railways, pipelines) have led to extensive and com- tion has been given to forested ecosystems in the pounding environmental impacts (slope failures, soil region, where people lived in relatively dense popu- erosion, extreme hydrological discharges, and inva- lations for thousands of years and are known to sive species), often resulting in drastic changes to the maintain and manage a variety of wild plant species geophysical and vegetal landscape (Gottesfeld and (Turner 2014). Rabnett 2008). A final challenge to overcome is that Here, we present historical-ecological research on settler-colonial narratives about Indigenous peoples’ Indigenous forest gardens – forests managed by land-use tend to either erase or minimize the legacies Indigenous peoples in the past that continue to of people within their lived environments. For exam- grow adjacent to archaeological villages in British ple, in global land-use literature, some scholars hold Columbia (BC, Canada). Untold centuries, perhaps that Indigenous peoples had little to no effect on their millennia, of Indigenous forest management has lived landscapes (Oswald et al. 2020) or that they resulted in broadleaf edible fruit/nut trees and shrubs generally exhausted and degraded it (Krech 1999). which contribute to heterogeneous landscapes in Increasingly, and with thanks to Indigenous teachers otherwise conifer-dominant woodlands of the and researchers (e.g. Geniusz 2009; Grenz 2020; see Pacific Northwest. Forest gardens in the Pacific also Turner and Neis 2020), these previously attrib- Northwest have only recently been recognized and uted (and racist) tropes have been thoroughly characterized as significant landscapes in scientific debunked. Indigenous land-use is unquestionably literature but have long been recognized in pervasive, complex, and varied, and grounded in Indigenous communities (McDonald 2005; intricate frameworks of localized management, gov- Armstrong et al. 2021, 2022; Vanier 2022). To date, ernance, and ideology – all of which change, rear- our surveys show that they grow along the coastline range, and are reinscribed through space and time or in river valleys within a few hundred kilometres of (Anderson 1996, 2014; Menzies 2006). the coast and are located exclusively in association Forest gardens have tremendous heritage, environ- with archaeological village sites. Previous research mental, and relational value. Their recognition across highlights how, compared to naturally occurring con- British Columbia is timely, as industrial land-use, ifer forests, forest gardens are more biologically particularly logging and oil and gas development, diverse, more functionally diverse (contributing to has erased important traces of Indigenous land-use overall ecosystem health and resilience), and have and as such, they have not been adequately documen- a higher proportion of animal dispersed/pollinated ted and protected. Other concerns, including conifer species, therefore providing important habitat and encroachment, fire suppression, and conservation resources for wildlife (Armstrong et al. 2021). While parks, which do not allow for Indigenous-led man- we know about the species composition of some agement, have also motivated communities in forest gardens, we know little about their size, age, Ts’msyen, Gitxsan, and Coast Salish territories to structure, variability, and their legacies and occur- study and promote forest garden management. To rence throughout the region. The lack of data is help achieve these goals of greater documentation unsurprising given that Indigenous land-use practices and protection, the present project offers succinct have long been overlooked or de-emphasized in and replicable methods for studying the history and archaeology, plant community ecology, and climate ecology of Indigenous forest gardening and manage- change research (Goring et al. 2009; Lepofsky and ment. With this aim, a historical-ecological approach Armstrong 2018). and assessment of seven forest gardens and adjacent The reason the study of forest gardens has been archaeological sites was undertaken in northwestern downplayed in research and management contexts is and southwestern BC between 2016–2021. More threefold. First, archaeologists and historical ecolo- intensive historical-ecological fieldwork and analyses gists are hampered by the scant material evidence were undertaken at one forest garden in Ts’msyen left behind by ancestral gardeners. Indigenous man- territory to determine baseline ecosystem metrics agement practices (e.g. burning, transplanting, clear- (including spatial extent, soil properties, species com- ing, etc.) often leave subtle signatures which tend to position and structure) and ascertain archaeological mimic many natural biophysical processes and can be contexts (through mapping and paleoethnobotanical ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 3 analyses). The new appreciation for, and re-discovery GPS tracks, walking the potential perimeter of each of, managed forest gardens means that we are only forest garden to distinguish them from surrounding beginning to tackle experimental methodologies and conifer forests (hereafter, periphery forest). the logistics of ‘how to study’ these unique cultural- Archaeological features, such as house platforms ecological systems in relevant and respectful ways. and cultural depressions within or adjacent to forest gardens, were mapped. In some cases, previous archaeological research was collated and used for spatial reference (McMurdo 1975; Coupland 1988; 2. Methods Ritchie and Lepofsky 2020). 2.1. Study sites and field surveys At each of the seven archaeological village sites, we conducted botanical inventories within the for- In total, seven archaeological village sites (Figure 1) est gardens and adjacent periphery forests (periph- with potential forest gardens were selected for survey ery forest controls were used to characterize the based on: (1) the prior knowledge of colleagues who ambient environment). Plants were inventoried in learned about plant stewardship legacies at particular 5 × 5 m plots, selected by composite (grab) sam- sites from their teachers, extended families, and other pling across the site. The number of plots per site community members; (2) observable archaeological was based on a stratified (proportional to site size) features (e.g. cultural depressions, village sites); (3) sampling strategy resulting in an average of seven the recent occupation of the village site within the last plots per site, for a total of 79 plots across all sites. several hundred years; and (4) relatively low levels of Tree, shrub, and herbaceous species were recorded local forest disturbance which could otherwise in each plot. Tree species were counted and shrub obscure signatures of pre-colonial management. and herbaceous species were tallied based on To identify forest gardens and their edges (i.e. size a percent coverage of the plot. Abundance data and extent), we first reviewed historical air photos for each plot were converted to presence-absence and satellite imagery. Forest gardens are composed of data for analysis. Presence-absence data have the broadleaf species that are distinct from naturally potential to better represent some plant commu- occurring conifer forests in the region and since nities than abundance data, especially when organ- forest gardens are sometimes visible in aerial imagery, isms included in analyses have dramatically Bing Maps and Google Earth can be useful for dis- different life strategies such as forbs and trees, tinguishing potential canopy boundaries. Pedestrian which may otherwise be heavily biased toward and mapping surveys were then carried out using Figure 1. Forest gardens identified to date and included in this study (British Columbia, Canada). 4 C. G. ARMSTRONG ET AL. patterns of forb diversity due to their tendency to 2.2. Gitsaex forest garden (Laxyuubm Gitselasu, occur in relatively greater numbers (Hirst and Ts’msyen) Jackson 2007; Bastow and Podani 2012). To better characterize the history and ecology of forest We expect that tree, shrub, and herbaceous spe- gardens, an in-depth investigation was undertaken at the cies composition will differ significantly between Gitselasu village of Gitsaex between 2017–2021. The forest gardens and periphery forests, but that forest Gitsaex village is one of five archaeological village sites garden species composition across all sites will be in the Kitselas Canyon on the Skeena River in significantly similar. However, given that our study northwestern BC. The site itself was believed to be rela- area covers over five degrees of latitude and tively recently occupied (ca. 250 years BP), but the encompasses some 1000 square kilometres, we Canyon spans over 6000 years of Gitselasu occupation anticipate that latitudinal variations and general (Inglis and MacDonald 1979; Coupland 1988). Our floristic trends will be apparent in both forest gar- research at Gitsaex was solicited on behalf of the den and periphery forest vegetation inventories Kitselas government; many families continue to live and (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). make their livelihoods around the Canyon today and To test whether the co-occurrence of species across all there is a desire to better understand and restore these plots was non-random in terms of plot location, we used edible forests. Gitsaex is the largest archaeological village the multipart function in the R (R Core Team 2013) in the Canyon and consists of 17 (~10 m × 12 m) house package indicspecies ver. 1.7.9 (De Caceres et al. 2016) platforms arranged in two rows on a terraformed (human with 9999 permutations. To visualize similarities and modified) terrace above the Skeena River. Ethnographic differences in the vegetation present in putative forest and ethnohistoric research compiled by one of the gardens and peripheral forests, we carried out a non- authors, in collaboration with Kitselas Lands and metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis using Resources Department, was evaluated for specific men- the R package vegan ver. 2.5–7 (Oksanen et al. 2020) with tions of Gitselasu use and management of forest garden the Jaccard dissimilarity index. The results were illu- species (Armstrong 2022). strated using the R package ggplot2 ver. 3.3.3 (Wickham The Gitsaex landscape is characterized by (1) 2011). Finally, to test for statistical differences across all a terrace of clustered house platforms with extensive forest garden sites (and their corresponding control midden deposits whose edges are being eroded plots) we conducted an analysis of similarities against the Skeena River, which transitions to, (2) (ANOSIM) with the same version of the R package a second, higher terrace with scattered cultural vegan, the Jaccard dissimilarity index, and depressions, radiating out towards (3) a periphery 9999 permutations. conifer forest (Figure 2). The boundaries between Figure 2. Profile representation of Gitsaex landscape. Botanical inventories, excavation units, and paleoethnobotanical sampling was conducted within the 3 contexts of the site (periphery forest, forest garden, house platforms). ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 5 these sites are indistinct and blend into one another sediments and release plant remains, samples were along ecotonal gradients. Over time, forest garden soaked in a 10% solution of baking soda for periods of species have likely encroached onto the village time ranging from 20 minutes to 48 hours prior to flota- house platforms, and coniferous trees are evidently tion. Two samples had to be partially water-screened due encroaching into the forest garden community. to the high organic matter. Light fractions consisted of We expect that conifer intrusion into forest gar- modern and charred botanical remains and some micro- dens is relatively recent. To test this, tree cores were fauna. Heavy fractions were sparse and consisted mostly taken to create a relative chronology for conifer of pebbles. establishment. Tree cores were sampled at breast Standard paleoethnobotanical techniques were used in height with an increment borer, or in the case of the sorting and identification of all plant remains Pacific crabapple, cookie cross-sections were taken (Pearsall 2016). Samples were sorted into their constitu- 10–20 cm from ground level. Pith-rot is common in ent parts under a dissecting microscope (7–30 × resolu- Pacific crabapples and their trunks are often recum- tion), identified using a comparative collection and both bent, making good core samples difficult to obtain. published and online sources (Cappers et al. 2006; Cores and cookies were dried, mounted, bisected, Klinkenberg 2020; USDA 2022). Plant remains were sanded, and polished, and rings were counted to then quantified. Since uncharred plant parts do not pre- date the trees and establish a relative chronology of serve well in the low pH and active microbial soils char- establishment. acteristic of the region, we assumed that uncharred Excavation units were dug to characterize the sub- remains were recently deposited and therefore only surface soil structure of the Gitsaex landscape. charred remains were included in our analysis. Three Excavation units (0.5 × 0.5 m) were dug within the paleoethnobotanical specimens (chosen because they village (n = 3), forest garden (n = 5) and conifer forest were forest garden indicator species) were sent to the periphery (n = 3) for a total of 11 units. Soil profiles André E. Lalonde AMS Radiocarbon Laboratory were measured, drawn, photographed, and described. (Ottawa, Canada) for radiocarbon dating. While we do Cultural materials consisting mainly of fire-altered not expect that these radiocarbon dates will directly date rock and chipped or ground stone artifacts were forest garden sites per se, we do expect the dates to counted and photographed. We expect soil formation demonstrate the presence of forest garden species prior processes to differ between the immediate village, the to the onset of colonization when forest gardening and human modified forests (forest gardens), and natu- local fruit production was common. rally occurring forests (periphery forests). Paleoethnobotanical specimens were collected from excavation units representing four distinct contexts: (1) 3. Results a cultural depression within the village (between two 3.1. Forest garden community composition house platforms), (2) two cultural depressions within the forest garden, (3) a forest garden sample with no A total of 155 species were recorded across all seven cultural feature, and (4) a conifer forest periphery sample sites. In comparison with periphery forests, forest gar- with no cultural feature. We anticipate that cultural fea- dens have a much more diverse assembly of tree, shrub, tures in the forest garden and near house platforms will and herbaceous layers. Vegetation surveys confirmed exhibit plant macrofossils reflecting past human plant- our preliminary observations, that forest garden species use, especially those species used for preserving and consisted predominantly of broadleaf edible fruit/nut cooking. Specifically, we hypothesize that plant remains trees and shrubs, with an understory of herbaceous in cultural features will include at least a subset of forest species including a suite of ground level root foods. garden indicator species, and that these specimens will Fifteen species are statistically significant (p < 0.05) represent a relatively significant time-depth (i.e. speci- indicators of forest garden communities, all of which mens will reflect pre-colonial plant-use). are (or once were) important edible and medicinal nut, Bulk sediment samples for extracting plant remains root, and fleshy-fruited species (Table 1). As expected, ranged in volume from 0.35–2.0 litres. To sort plant conifer forests surrounding forest gardens consisted of remains and other materials, we used a standard flotation old growth or second growth conifers with little to no method (Pearsall 2016); sediment was measured then understory or shrub layer. mixed with water in a bucket and light fraction plant The NMDS and ANOSIM analyses indicated clear remains floated to the surface. Heavier fractions (pebbles differentiation between forest garden and periphery and other materials) sank to the bottom of the bucket. forest botanical plots (Figure 3). The NMDS analysis The light fraction was poured into 1.0 mm and 0.425 mm converged with a stress value of 0.146 in two dimen- screens and the heavy fraction into the 1.0 mm screen. sions. With the exception of a single plot at the Tsleil- The sediments from Gitsaex (except the conifer forest Waututh village of Shxwpópélem and one plot in the periphery sample) were lumped with silts and clays and Gitsm’geelm village of Dałk Gyilakyaw, there is no required de-flocculation. To gently disperse the overlap of the plot types (forest garden vs. periphery 6 C. G. ARMSTRONG ET AL. Table 1. Forest garden and periphery forest species list: indicator species for all sites, ubiquity of paleoethnobotanical remains at Gitsaex, and ethnobotanical significance at Gitsaex. Indicator Species Plant Fossil Remains Ethnobotanical Significance Species (P values) (Context) (Food Only) Forest Garden Amelanchier alnifolia, Saskatoon berry 0.0003 x Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Kinnikinnick VF, FGF x Asarum caudatum, Wild ginger 0.255 x Chenopodium, Chenopod spp. VF x Cornus canadensis, Bunchberry VF x Cornus sericea, Red-osier dogwood 0.025 Corylus cornuta, Beaked hazelnut 0.0001 VF X Crateagus douglasii, Black hawthorn 0.0001 VF, FGF X Fragaria virginiana, Wild strawberry VF x Lonicera involucrata, Black twinberry 0.0105 Mainthemum racemosum, False Solomon’s seal 0.205 x Malus fusca, Pacific crabapple 0.0001 VF, FGF X Prunus spp., Wild cherry VF, FGF X Rosa nutkana, Nootka rose 0.0001 VF, FGF X Rubus spp. Bramble berries VF, FGF X R. spectabilis, Salmonberry 0.0018 X R. parviflorus, Thimbleberry 0.222 x Sambucus racemosa, Red elderberry 0.0001 VF, FGF X Shepherdia canadensis, Soapberry 0.0018 X Sorbus sitchensis, Sitka mountain-ash VF x Vaccinium spp., Blueberries VF, FGF X V. ovalifolium, Oval-leaved bluberry 0.0046 X Viburnum edule, Highbush cranberry 0.0003 Conifer Periphery Forest Abies spp. True fir VF, FGF, FGN x Alnus rubra, Red alder 0.0022 Epilobium angustifolium, Fireweed 0.0328 x Goodyera oblongifolia, Rattlesnake plantain 0.0486 Picea sitchensis, Sitka spruce VF, FGF, FGN Pinus contorta, Lodgepole pine Thuja plicata, Western redcedar 0.001 VF Tsuga heterophylla, Western hemlock 0.001 VF, FGF, FGN, PCF x Indicator species (p < 0.05) for all forest garden and conifer forest periphery sites. Presence/absence of plant macrofossils at Gitsaex. Village Feature (VF), Forest Garden Feature (FGF), Forest Garden Non-Feature (FGN), Periphery Conifer Forest (PCF). Ethnobotanical significance of plant foods based on Gitselasu-specific indices (Armstrong 2022). X = abundant use; x = moderate use. Figure 3. Non-metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) of forest garden and periphery (control) plots across seven sites. forest plots) on the NMDS1 axis. The analysis of periphery plots across all sites (p < 0.0001). Our com- similarities (ANOSIM) tests supported the distinction parison of forest garden and periphery forest plots on between forest garden plots and conifer forest a site-by-site basis provides strong evidence for the ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 7 difference between the two types of forest [Gitselasu cores did not reach the pith and were omitted, mak- 1; Gitsaex (p = 0.0076), Gitselasu 2; Wiln’aba (p = ing a total of 29 samples, representing 22 individual 0.0019), Tsleil-Waututh (p = 0.0152), Gitsm’geelm trees (Figure 4). (p = 0.0028), Sts’ailes (p = 0.0038), Luutkudziiwus (p Dendrochronological analysis demonstrated that = 0.0042), and Gitlut’saaw (p = 0.0022); Appendix conifer trees living around the forest garden edge S1]. The NMDS and ANOSIM analyses also sug- were established beginning 81 years ago, whereas the gested some differentiation between northern and oldest living Pacific crabapple tree in the forest gar- southern forest garden sites. The NMDS analysis den was 108 years old. This indicates that some forest coarsely separated sites latitudinally, with the south- garden species pre-date conifer tree establishment at ern sites (Sts’ailes and Tsleil-Waututh) toward the the intersection of both ecosystems and that those bottom of NMDS2 and the northern sites (Gitselasu, conifer trees are likely encroaching on the forest Gitsgm’geelm, Luutkudziiwus) generally toward the garden ecosystem. This interpretation is supported top of NMDS2. The northern sites also tended to by observations of conifer saplings growing on the have greater distinction between forest garden and edge of the forest gardens at all sites. Our dendro- periphery forest plots than the southern sites, with chronological data cannot confirm the long-term pre- all R values over 0.60 and reaching 1.0 at Gitsaex, and sence of hazelnuts in forest gardens as their average the two southern sites having values that were lower, age is only 46 years old. However, this relatively though they were still highly significant (0.48 recent age is likely attributed to the life history of and 0.49). hazelnuts. In particular, beaked hazelnut reproduces clonally from a single long-living root crown but shoots typically do not live past 50–60 years (Kurmis and Sucoff 1989). Thus, while the genotype 3.2. Gitsaex forest garden historical ecology or genetic individual may be older, above-ground 3.2.1. Relative dendrochronology stems that were available for dendrochronological While dendrochronological analyses can provide sampling were relatively young. Paleoethnobotanical absolute dates (in calendar years), they also provide evidence (described below) confirms a significantly comparative dates that can be useful in revealing longer time depth for hazelnut at Gitsaex. recent landscape history, such as the relative timing of the establishment of different tree communities. At Gitsaex, 5 Pacific crabapple trees (3 cookies and 2 3.2.2. Soil and paleoethnobotanical analyses cores) and 5 beaked hazelnut shoots (2 cookies and 3 We expected that the soil structure in excavation cores) were sampled within the forest garden. The units would reflect different types of land-use and largest conifer trees in or at the edge of the forest site history. In the peripheral conifer forest, all three gardens were cored (8 hemlock and 5 balsam fir). excavation units exhibited intact forest floor struc- A total of 31 tree cores and cookies were sampled; 3 ture, with a predominantly matted organic horizon Figure 4. Age of the 21 individual tree and shrub species dated by dendrochronology within forest gardens and conifer forest periphery. The top of each bar represents the first year of growth. 8 C. G. ARMSTRONG ET AL. and sharp transition to mineral soil (Figure 5). In apparent. In two excavation units, ground stone contrast, the three units excavated directly in the tools were uncovered, indicating that food processing Gitsaex village (within ~20 m of house platforms may have occurred within the forest garden land- and in one cultural depression) reflected an inten- scape. Taken together, anomalies in soil formation sively occupied landscape. These sediments consisted processes within the forest garden are clearly distinct of thick (~80 cm) midden deposits, composed of shell from both large midden deposits in the immediate free, charcoal-rich matrices, with cultural material village and soil formation processes in naturally including fire-altered rock, lithic tools, and flakes. occurring forests. Forest garden species, including beaked hazelnut, The recovery of plant remains from paleoethnobo- red elderberry, and highbush cranberry currently tanical samples confirmed that people were proces- grow directly on the house platform surfaces upon sing, cooking, and preserving plant species associated which plank houses once stood. Their presence on with forest gardens. A total of 19 plant taxa from 10 the former house sites indicates relatively recent suc- botanical families, encompassing 4 coniferous and 15 cession, where pioneer forest garden species were deciduous taxa, were identified in 6.65 litres of sedi- established after people left the village within the ment from all excavation units. From this inventory, last 110 years or more. seven forest garden indicator species from the vegeta- Five excavation units located within the forest tion inventories were identified in the paleoethnobo- garden exhibited neither natural edaphic structure tanical record of Gitsaex (Table 1). Based on our nor the cultural midden deposits that were found experience with paleoethnobotanical samples col- adjacent to house platforms. All forest garden units lected elsewhere in the region (Lepofsky and Lyons were located on a level terrace above the Skeena 2013), the present samples from both the village and River, with similar elevation and aspect to the conifer the forest garden cultural depressions were, for their forests; no units were in areas exposed to periodic size, very rich in paleoethnobotanical remains, flooding. Apparent in all units was a mixing of including both high-value plant foods (beaked hazel- organic material with mineral soil – characteristic of nut, Pacific crabapple, red elderberry, and various a mull humus form typical of mixed deciduous forest species of Rubus) and weedy species deposited by stands. However, the degree of Ah formation was seed rain. Few plant remains (only some charred largely out of character for local humus forms in conifer needles) were recovered from both the non- the absence of humans (or European earthworms) feature excavation units in the forest garden and the (Figure 5). The thickness and darkness of the Ah periphery forest. The lack of plant remains outside of layers, and evidence of mixing, indicates that people cultural contexts supports our expectations, given likely modified these soils. Periphery forest soils char- that uncharred plant macrofossils do not typically acteristic of the region are deficient in the types of preserve in conifer-dominant forests of the Pacific organic content required for many fruit and nut Northwest (Lepofsky and Lyons 2013). species to thrive. In some units, relatively thin (2–5 We expected paleoethnobotanical remains to cm) lenses of midden-like material, characteristic of reflect a significant time-depth (at least pre- a paleosol or other anthropogenic influence, were colonial) at the site, corresponding with the age of Figure 5. Plan view of Gitsaex village. Note the continuum between (A) totally altered sediments (dark-black midden and fire- altered rock beside platforms), to (B) moderately altered sediments in the forest garden, to (C) natural soil formation processes in the conifer periphery forest. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 9 the village, or even pre-dating it. Radiocarbon dating whose ancestors created and maintained these spaces, is of three plant specimens from the house contexts vital. Due to ecological and cultural connectivity in the confirmed our predictions – a charred Pacific cra- Pacific Northwest, we expect that future research will bapple seed and a charred hazelnut shell fragment reveal the presence of forest gardens in more regions were dated to 407 ± 26 cal. BP and 480 ± 25 cal. BP, throughout the province of BC and north and south respectively. A fragment of ancient fruit leather (a into the United States (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, common form of fruit preservation in the region) and northern California). from the village cultural feature was dated to 292 ± Data from the Gitsaex village in Laxyuubm 28 cal. BP. While these results do not indicate that Gitselasu show that the landscape is composed of either species was necessarily growing at the site dynamic forest ecosystems, with patchworks of 300–500 years ago, since seeds and shells could have fruit/nut/berry productivity, and mosaics of localized been transported to the site from distant locations, it disturbances and regenerating vegetation (forest gar- does indicate both species were being used well dens, conifer forests, conifer-broadleaf ecotones). The before the onset of settler invasions in the early encroachment of conifers into the forest gardens 19th century. Furthermore, these dates suggest an likely reflects that Gitsaex forest gardens have not earlier occupation of Gitsaex, which was previously been tended, cleared, and/or burned in recent gen- thought to have been around 250 years ago erations – all of which are important management (Berthiaume 1999). practices that help to maintain these ecosystems – and that secondary conifer succession is occurring under highly localized conditions. Remarkably, forest 4. Discussion gardens persist after over a century of management Contemporary forest structure and composition can and research has indicated that these complex sys- reflect peoples’ ancient cultivation and management tems may be able to withstand a certain level of strategies even centuries after those practices have conifer encroachment (Armstrong et al. 2021). ceased. Historical-ecological evidence of such legacies A major challenge for historical ecologists is the par- sing out of anthropogenic and biophysical factors that were identified at all seven sites in Coast Salish, Ts’msyen, and Gitxsan territories. While some might influence forest species composition and vigour. anthropogenic ecosystems appear ‘wild’ or ephem- Here, we used standard historical-ecological methods, eral, historical-ecological methods can be effectively including botanical inventories and soil analyses (see used to identify anthropogenic ecosystems such as also Lepofsky et al. 2003; Isendahl and Stump 2019; forest gardens in the Pacific Northwest. Odonne et al. 2019) to distinguish human signatures from naturally occurring forest formation processes in Gitsaex. These results show a correspondence between 4.1. Ecological patterns and paleoethnobotany plant remains excavated from cultural features within the Botanical analyses presented here strengthen previous village site proper (adjacent to house platforms) with findings (e.g. Armstrong et al. 2021, 2022; Vanier 2022), forest garden species composition, indicating that people showing that forest garden ecosystems are structurally were intensively using and processing plant foods that distinct from ambient or dominant ecosystem types for were growing nearby. While paleoethnobotanical ana- lyses are useful for understanding a wide range of plant- the region (e.g. coastal and interior cedar-hemlock for- ests). The current study builds on earlier research to uses in cultural contexts, they are less helpful in recon- include more study sites and introduces NMDS and structing ancient environments due to the poor preserva- ANOSIM analyses, both of which strongly support the tion of uncharred plant remains outside of cultural unique composition of forest gardens as distinct from feature contexts (conifer forests or forest garden). Our surrounding forest controls. Although some species research confirms this, suggesting that pollen and/or represent statistically significant forest garden indicators phytolith analysis may be a productive avenue for future (hazelnut, Pacific crabapple), more generally, the com- research in reconstructing forest garden environmental bined forest garden data shown on the NMDS analysis history. vary along a latitudinal gradient, suggesting that the composition of forest garden species can be variable, 4.2. Anthropogenic soils and appears to be influenced by local vegetation patterns, geophysical settings, and/or cultural preferences. This Results from Gitsaex indicate that a continuum of latter point is important for researchers seeking to include heavily altered middens (around house platforms) forest gardens in their field surveys since universal ‘spe- graded to altered (mixed) soils in the forest gar- cies lists’ alone will likely not result in conclusive identi- dens, and then to less visible human signatures in fications. A more holistic and concerted approach that periphery forest soils. Certainly, people used con- considers archaeological and ethnographic data, and ifer species extensively, as indicated by the abun- engagement with (and consent from) communities dance of culturally modified trees in the Kitselas 10 C. G. ARMSTRONG ET AL. Canyon landscape, spanning at least 800 years failed to protect the types of heritage that many (Armstrong 2022). The lack of large stumps (e.g. Indigenous communities deem important; especially from logging) and presence of charcoal in periph- living heritage like forest gardens (Lepofsky et al. ery forests may indicate consistent clearing (e.g. for 2020). There are underlying issues with heritage man- fuel, enhanced viewsheds) over relatively large time agement in British Columbia, stemming from the spans. However, the intensity of impacts to the deeply rooted colonial history of discipline, systemic vegetation, or intensity of use (as indicated by soil racism, power imbalances in decision-making, and modifications alone), decreases as one moves for-profit models that underpin most practices farther away from the village. (Schaepe 2018; Lyons et al. 2022). While these are The creation and modification of forest garden soils is bigger issues not directly addressed here, we argue significant given that previous studies in the Pacific that expanding the scope (literally the boundaries) of Northwest noting the concentration of plant foods grow- the archaeological landscape may be one avenue for ing at archaeological sites only focus on plants growing a more just approach to archaeological management. directly on shell-bearing middens (Trant et al. 2016; Cultural landscapes do not start and stop at the walls Fisher et al. 2019). These previous studies provide an of a longhouse; people are sustained by and thrive in opening for the interpretation that succession of edible the entirety of the landscape. The close association of plant species occurs only after people leave (or are for- forest gardens with archaeological villages, their cibly removed) from their villages. The aggregation of unique soil signatures, and composition of species forest garden species outside of the immediate village are a starting point for researchers and managers context (i.e. not directly on middens), has not previously attempting to identify these historical and ancient been studied. After people left or were forcibly removed ecosystems and integrate them into their cultural from Gitsaex, the open canopy and nutrient-rich mid- heritage assessments and land-use planning practices. dens in and around the house platforms would have been Indigenous peoples’ cultivated landscapes are also primed for succession and expansion of some forest not recognized in environmental management con- garden species. Indeed, at Gitsaex, forest garden species texts. Legislation focusing on rare or endangered thrive directly on house platforms, which certainly would plant species does not account for peoples’ use and not have been the case at the height of occupation. What labour in managing plant communities which may be our data demonstrate, however, is that forest gardens otherwise rare, hard to get to, or are in a legacy state thrived outside of the immediate village area, reflecting from the cessation of historical and ancient manage- intensive forest management that influenced plant spe- ment practices. Forest garden research recognizes the cies and soils across a much larger landscape area than the crucial role of Indigenous peoples in forest manage- ‘village boundaries’ typically ascribed by archaeologists. ment and the legacies that these practices can con- The Gitsaex forest garden likely resulted from tribute to contemporary forest conservation and generations of clearing around the village and land-use decision-making. This research is situated encouraging, and likely transplanting, fertilizing, within the context of present-day Gitselasu forest and controlled burning of, edible plant species. management strategies and community desires to Regular harvesting of the forest garden, and the revitalize these culturally relevant foodsheds. importance of the plant foods for Gitselasu people, Ongoing and future forest garden research will be is implicated by the paleoethnobotanical remains focused on reclamation and restoration as all partner- recovered from cooking pits within the forest gar- ing communities have underscored the importance of den and settlement area. The relatively large (~40 forest gardens in their food sovereignty initiatives. cm) dark earth deposits in the forest gardens are The recognition of forest gardens is one avenue for characteristic of a mull humus form, with evidence promoting traditional environmental management of anthropogenic mixing between organic matter practices in the face of industry and colonial govern- and mineral soil. These soils are unlike anything ments that tend to limit ongoing Indigenous land encountered in the ambient, surrounding conifer management. forest and future research may indicate the extent of anthropogenic activity on soil formation 5. Conclusion processes. This research challenges long held assumptions about Indigenous land-use and resource management in the 4.3. Policy and management Pacific Northwest, which depicts Indigenous peoples To date, traditionally managed ecosystems (e.g. orch- as principally relying on marine and riverine ards, berry patches) are not recognized by archaeolo- resources (e.g. for shellfish, salmon, or herring), gical practitioners in British Columbia. Although only intermittently ‘gathering’ edible plants from the provincial heritage management laws intend to pro- bounty of naturally productive forests. This tect archaeological heritage, in practice they have entrenched perspective has oriented archaeological ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 11 the eastern USA. Holocene. 18(7):1123–1137. doi:10. research for decades, so that we are only now compil- 1177/0959683608095581. ing the data required to learn about the diversity, Alcorn JB. 1984. Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany. Austin, TX: nuance, and complexity of ancient human-forest University of Texas Press. interactions, and implications relating to land-use, Anderson EN. 1996. Ecologies of the heart: emotion, belief, food revitalization efforts, and climate change. This and the environment. E. N. Andersen, editor. Oxford, can be a frustrating exercise for many people who UK: Oxford University Press. Anderson EN. 2014. Caring for place: ecology, ideology, have always known the extent to which their land- and emotion in traditional landscape management. 1st scapes were managed. While this research has impli- ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Routledge. cations for communities leading conservation and Armstrong CG. 2022. Silm Da’axk: historical ecology and management efforts which seek to better integrate Ethnobotany in Gitselasu Lahkhyuup. Vancouver, BC: biodiversity values with traditional food management Mitchell Press. Armstrong CG, Earnshaw J, McAlvay AC. 2022. Coupled strategies (e.g. Joseph and Turner 2020; Dick et al. archaeological and ecological analyses reveal ancient 2022), it also comes with important lessons for settler cultivation and land-use in Nuchatlaht (Nuu-Chah- scholars. Nulth) Territories, Pacific Northwest. J Archaeol Sci. Forest gardens may be a new term in the Pacific 143:105611. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2022.105611. Northwest, but it is not a new concept. Since the Armstrong CG, Miller J, McAlvay A, Ritchie PM, onset of settler colonialism, people have managed, Lepofsky D. 2021. Historical indigenous land-use explains plant functional trait diversity. Ecol Soc. 26 maintained, and cared for their lands, learning valu- (2):6. doi:10.5751/ES-12322-260206. able lessons along the way (Wright 1962). These Bastow WJ, Podani J. 2012. Species presence/absence lessons have often been ignored, overlooked, or sometimes represents a plant community as well as appropriated by settlers, scholars, and government species abundances do, or better. J Veg Sci. 23 (Geniusz 2009; Grenz 2020), only recently now (6):1013–1023. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01430.x. being held up and acknowledged. This form of Berthiaume R. 1999. The Gitselasu: the people of Kitselas Canyon. Terrace, BC: First Nations Education Center. colonial gaslighting is common, and as researchers, Black BA, Ruffner CM, Abrams MD. 2006. Native consultants, and others increasingly look to American influences on the forest composition of the Indigenous peoples to save the planet from wicked Allegheny Plateau, Northwest Pennsylvania. Can J for problems like biodiversity loss and climate change Res. 36(5):1266–1275. doi:10.1139/x06-027. (e.g. Wildcat 2010), it is important to recognize and Cappers RTJ, Bekker RM, Jans JEA. 2006. reflect on the colonial legacies and practices that Digitalezadenatlas van Nederland = Digital Seed Atlas of the Netherlands. Netherlands: Barkhuis have exacerbated these problems. Publisher and Groningen University Library. Casas A, Otero-Arnaiz A, Pérez-Negrón E, Valiente- Banuet A. 2007. In Situ management and domestica- Acknowledgments tion of plants in Mesoamerica. Ann Bot. 100 We dedicate this paper to the late Web Bennett, keeper of the (5):1101–1115. doi:10.1093/aob/mcm126. Kitselas Canyon and Gitselasu historian (1966–2021), t’oyaxsut Coughlan MR, Nelson DR, Lozano S. 2018. Influences of ‘nüün for your work; this research would not be possible with- Native American land use on the colonial out you. We would like to thank Kitselas, Sts’ailes, Euro-American settlement of the South Carolina Luutkudziiwus, Gitsmg’eelm, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. Piedmont. PLOS ONE. 13(3):e0195036. doi:10.1371/ A special thanks to CJ Bennett, Chris Apps, Darren Bolton, journal.pone.0195036. Travis Freeland, Christina Stanley, Willie Charlie, Stephanie Coupland G. 1988. Prehistoric culture change at Kitselas Leon Riedl, and Sierra Spencer. We also thank and acknowl- Canyon. Mercury Series. Ottawa, ON: University of edge Kenny Rabnett, Ken Lertzman, and Paul Sanborn for their Ottawa Press. help on the methodology and the manuscript. De Caceres M, Jansen F, De Caceres MM. 2016. Package ‘indispecies’. Indicators. http://www2.uaem.mx/r-mir ror/web/packages/indicspecies/indicspecies.pdf. Disclosure statement Deur DE, Dick A, Recalma-Clutesi K, Turner NJ. 2015. Kwakwaka’wakw ‘Clam Gardens’: motive and agency No potential conflict of interest was reported by the in traditional northwest coast mariculture. Hum Ecol. author(s). 43(2):201–212. doi:10.1007/s10745-015-9743-3. Deur DE, Turner NJ. editors. 2005. Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the north- Funding west coast of North America. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Dick CA (Kwaxsistalla Wathl’thla), Sewid-Smith D, Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) under Grant Recalma-Clutesi K, Deur D, Turner NJ, Popp J. 2022. [430-2021-01057]. “From the beginning of time”: the colonial reconfigura- tion of native habitats and Indigenous resource practices on the British Columbia Coast. FACETS. 7:543–570. References doi:10.1139/facets-2021-0092. Abrams MD, Nowacki GJ. 2008. Native Americans as Ekblom A, Gillson L, Notelid M. 2011. A historical active and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in ecology of the Limpopo and Kruger National Parks 12 C. G. ARMSTRONG ET AL. and lower Limpopo Valley. J Archaeol Anc Hist. 1 systems in northwestern North America. Front Sustain (1):1–29. Food Syst. 4:59623. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.596237. Fairhead J, Leach M. 1995. False forest history, complicit Klinkenberg B. 2020. E-Flora BC: electronic Atlas of the social analysis: rethinking some West African environ- plants of British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: Lab for mental narratives. World Dev. 23(6):1023–1035. doi:10. Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, 1016/0305-750X(95)00026-9. University of British Columbia. eflora.bc.ca. Fa JE, Watson JEM, Leiper I, Potapov P, Evans TD, Krech S. 1999. The ecological Indian: myth and history. Burgess ND, Molnár Z, Fernández-llamazares Á, New York, NY: WW Norton & Company. Duncan T, Wang S, et al. 2020. Importance of Kurmis V, Sucoff E. 1989. Population density and height Indigenous peoples’ lands for the conservation of intact distribution of Corylus cornuta in undisturbed forests of forest landscapes. Front Ecol Environ. 18(3):135–140. Minnesota: 1965–1984. Can J Bot. 67(8):2409–2413. doi:10.1002/fee.2148. doi:10.1139/b89-308. Fisher JA, Shackelford N, Hocking MD, Trant AJ, Lepofsky D, Armstrong CG. 2018. Foraging new ground: Starzomski BM. 2019. Indigenous peoples’ Habitation documenting ancient resource and environmental man- history drives present-day forest biodiversity in British agement in Canadian archaeology. Can J Archaeol/ Columbia’s coastal temperate rainforest. People Nat. 1 Journal Canadien d’Archéologie. 42:57–73. (1):103–114. doi:10.1002/pan3.16. Lepofsky D, Armstrong CG, Mathews D, Greening S. 2020. Understanding the past for the future: plants and first Fletcher M-S, Hamilton R, Dressler W, Palmer L. 2021. nations’ land use and rights. In: Turner NJ, editor. Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Indigenous peoples’ land rights and the roles of ethnoe- PNAS. 118(40):e2022218118. doi:10.1073/pnas. cology and ethnobotany: strategies for Canada’s future. Montreal, QB: McGill-Queen’s Press - MQUP; pp. Ford A, Nigh R. 2009. Origins of the Maya forest garden: 86–106. Maya resource management. J Ethnobiol. 29(2):213–236. Lepofsky D, Heyerdahl EK, Lertzman K, Schaepe D, doi:10.2993/0278-0771-29.2.213. Mierendorf B. 2003. Historical meadow dynamics in south- Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, west British Columbia: a multidisciplinary analysis. Conserv Molnár Z, Robinson CJ, Watson JEM, Zander KK, Ecol. 7(3):5. doi:10.5751/ES-00559-070305. Austin B, Brondizio ES, et al. 2018. A spatial overview Lepofsky D, Lertzman K. 2008 2. Documenting ancient plant of the global importance of indigenous lands for management in the northwest of North AmericaThis paper conservation. Nat Sustainability. 1(7):369–374. doi:10. was submitted for the special issue on Ethnobotany, 1038/s41893-018-0100-6. inspired by the Ethnobotany Symposium organized by Geniusz WM. 2009. Our knowledge is not primitive: deco- Alain Cuerrier, Montréal Botanical Garden, and held in lonizing botanical Anishinaabe teachings. Syracuse, N.Y: Montréal at the 2006 annual meeting of the Canadian Syracuse University Press. Botanical Association. Botany. 86:129–145. https://doi. Goring S, Pellatt MG, Lacourse T, Walker IR, Mathewes RW. org/10.1139/B07-094. 2009. A new methodology for reconstructing climate and Lepofsky D, Lyons N. 2013 October. ‘The secret past life of vegetation from modern pollen assemblages: an example plants’: paleoethnobotany in British Columbia. BC from British Columbia. J Biogeogr. 36(4):626–638. doi:10. Studies. Autumn 2013(179):39–83. 1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02021.x. Lepofsky D, Smith NF, Cardinal N, Harper J, Morris M Gottesfeld AS, Rabnett KA. 2008. Skeena River fish and Gitla (Elroy White), Bouchard R, Bouchard R, their habitat. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Kennedy DID, Salomon AK, Puckett M, et al. 2015. Press. Ancient shellfish mariculture on the Northwest Coast Grenz JB 2020. Healing the land by reclaiming an indi- of North America. Am Antiq. 80(2):236–259. doi:10. genous ecology : a journey exploring the application of 7183/0002-7316.80.2.236. the indigenous worldview to invasion biology and Levis C, Costa FRC, Bongers F, Peña-Claros M, ecology Doctoral dissertation. University of British Clement CR, Junqueira AB, Neves EG, Tamanaha EK, Columbia. Figueiredo FOG, Salomão RP, et al. 2017. Persistent Hammett JE. 1992. The shapes of adaptation: historical effects of pre-columbian plant domestication on ecology of anthropogenic landscapes in the southeastern Amazonian forest composition. Science. 355 United States. Landsc Ecol. 7(2):121–135. doi:10.1007/ (6328):925–931. doi:10.1126/science.aal0157. BF02418943. Lyons N, Leon R, Peone J, Hazell S, Miller D, Dent J, Hirst CN, Jackson DA. 2007. Reconstructing community Hoffmann T. 2022. Decolonizing CRM is about the relationships: the impact of sampling error, ordination power to decide. SAA Record. 22:5. approach, and gradient length. null. 13(4):361–371. MacDougall A. 2003. Did native Americans influence the doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00307.x. northward migration of plants during the Holocene? Hoffmann T, Lyons N, Miller D, Diaz A, Homan A, J Biogeogr. 30(5):633–647. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003. Huddlestan S, Leon R. 2016. Engineered feature used 00842.x. to enhance gardening at a 3800-year-old site on the McCune JL, Pellatt MG, Vellend M. 2013. Multidisciplinary Pacific Northwest Coast. Sci Adv. 2(12):e1601282. synthesis of long-term human–ecosystem interactions: doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601282. a perspective from the Garry Oak ecosystem of British Inglis R, MacDonald GF. 1979. Skeena River prehistory. Columbia. Biol Conserv. 166(October):293–300. doi:10. Mercury Series 87. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press. 1016/j.biocon.2013.08.004. Isendahl C, Stump D. editors. 2019. Oxford handbook of McDonald JA. 2005. Cultivating the northwest: early accounts historical ecology and applied archaeology. Oxford of Tsimshian horticulture. In: Deur DE Turner NJ, editors. Handbooks. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford Press. Keeping it living: traditions of plant use and cultivation on the northwest coast of North America. Seattle, WA: Joseph L, Turner NJ. 2020. ‘The old foods are the new University of Washington Press; pp. 240–273. foods!’: erosion and revitalization of indigenous food ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 13 McMurdo J. 1975. Archaeological resources and culture history Ritchie M, Lepofsky D. 2020. From local to regional and Kitwanga-Meziaden highway corridor. Archaeological back again: social transformation in a coast Salishs set- impact assessment. Victoria, BC: Archaeological Sites tlement, 1500–1000 BP. J Anthropol Archaeol. Advisory Board of BC. http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/ 60:101210. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2020.101210. Response_Package_FNR-2018-87690.pdf. Ross NJ. 2011. Modern tree species composition reflects Meidinger D, Pojar J. 1991. Ecosystems of British ancient Maya ‘Forest Gardens’ in Northwest Belize. Ecol Columbia. Special Report Series 6. Victoria, BC: BC Appl. 21(1):75–84. doi:10.1890/09-0662.1. Ministry of Forests; p. 0843–6452. Schaepe D. 2018. Public heritage as transformative experi- Menzies CR. 2006. Traditional ecological knowledge and ence: the co-occupation of place and decision-making. natural resource management. Lincoln, NB: University In: Labrador AM, and Silberman NA, editors. The of Nebraska Press. Oxford handbook of public heritage theory and practice. M’sɨtno’Kmaq, Marshall A, Beazley KF, Hum J, Joudry S, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 257–281. Papadopoulos A, Pictou S, Rabesca J, Young L, Zurba M. Sultana F. 2022 March. The unbearable heaviness of cli- 2021. ‘Awakening the sleeping giant’: re-Indigenization mate coloniality. Polit Geogr. 99:102638. doi:10.1016/j. principles for transforming biodiversity conservation in polgeo.2022.102638. Canada and beyond. FACETS. 6:839–869. doi:10.1139/ Toniello G, Lepofsky D, Lertzman-Lepofsky G, facets-2020-0083. Salomon AK, Rowell K. 2019. 11,500 y of human–clam Munoz SE, Mladenoff DJ, Schroeder S, Williams JW, relationships provide long-term context for intertidal Bush M. 2014. Defining the spatial patterns of historical management in the Salish Sea, British Columbia. Proc land use associated with the Indigenous societies of Natl Acad Sci. 116(44):22106–22114. doi:10.1073/pnas. Eastern North America. J Biogeogr. 41(12):2195–2210. 1905921116. doi:10.1111/jbi.12386. Trant AJ, Nijland W, Hoffman KM, Mathews DL, Neves EG, Heckenberger MJ. 2019. The call of the wild: McLaren D, Nelson TA, Starzomski BM. 2016. rethinking food production in ancient Amazonia. Annu Intertidal resource use over Millennia enhances forest Rev Anthropol. 48(1):371–388. doi:10.1146/annurev- productivity. Nat Commun. 7(1):12491. doi:10.1038/ anthro-102218-011057. ncomms12491. Odonne G, van den Bel M, Burst M, Brunaux O, Bruno M, Turner NJ. 2014. Ancient pathways, ancestral knowledge: Dambrine E, Davy D, Desprez M, Engel J, Ferry B, et al. ethnobotany and ecological wisdom of indigenous peo- 2019. Long-Term influence of early human occupations ples of northwestern North America. Vol. 2. Montréal on current forests of the Guiana Shield. Ecology. 100 QB/Kingston ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press. (10):e02806. doi:10.1002/ecy.2806. Turner NJ, Neis B. 2020. From “taking” to “tending”: learning Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, about Indigenous land and resource management on the McGlinn D, Minchin PR, Solymos P, Wagner H, Stevens Pacific Northwest Coast of North America. ICES J Mar Sci. MH, et al. 2020. ©Package ‘Vegan’: community ecology 77(7–8):2472–2482. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsaa095. package. Online Document. https://cran.r-project.org/ USDA. 2022. The PLANTS database. Greensboro, NC: web/packages/vegan/vegan.pdf. National Plant Data Team. http://plants.usda.gov. Oswald WW, Foster DR, Shuman BN, Chilton ES, Vanier S 2022. Entangled legacies: the historical ecology of Doucette DL, Duranleau DL. 2020. Conservation impli- a Sts’ailes First Nation Forest Garden, SW British cations of limited Native American impacts in Columbia [master’s thesis]. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser pre-contact New England. Nat Sustainability. 3 University. (3):241–246. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0466-0. Warren RJ, Crawford GW. 2016. Ghosts of cultivation Pavlik BM, Louderback LA, Vernon KB, Yaworsky PM, past-native American dispersal legacy persists in tree Wilson C, Clifford A, Codding BF. 2021. Plant species distribution. PLOS ONE. 11(3):E015070707. doi:10. richness at archaeological sites suggests ecological legacy 1371/journal.pone.0150707. of indigenous subsistence on the Colorado Plateau. Proc Wickham H. 2011. Ggplot2. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Natl Acad Sci. 118(21): doi:10.1073/pnas.2025047118. Stat. 3(2):180–185. doi:10.1002/wics.147. Pearsall DM. 2016. Paleoethnobotany: a handbook of pro- Wildcat DR. 2010. Red alert! Saving the planet with Indigenous cedures. New York, NY: Routledge. knowledge. Wheat Ridge, Colorado: Fulcrum. R Core Team. 2013. R: a language and environment for Wright W. 1962. Men of Medeek, Wars of Medeek. statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Kitimat, BC: Northern Sentinal Press.
http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png
Ecosystems and People
Taylor & Francis
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/historical-ecology-of-forest-garden-management-in-laxyuubm-ts-msyen-Lj2XexaI0Q
