Conclusions

The conclusions that I am able to draw from the spatial analysis conducted of my data points are many, particularly in providing insight into the lived cultures of pre-contact Indigenous peoples in the region, and in supporting my own research.

Vancouver encountered the natives of Puget Sound in the summer, which, unbeknownst to him, was when they were most concentrated along the shoreline. During the summer months, Indigenous villagers would deconstruct their longhouses, leaving only the structural uprights behind, and move towards the coasts to fish and hunt. The pieces of their longhouses they brought with them would help construct temporary residences there; and, when winter came, these peoples would return to the original village site, reconstruct their longhouses, and live together in large, consolidated communities. Vancouver’s convenient arrival in early May meant that he was more likely to encounter native peoples, which presents researchers with a more comprehensive account of their culture at the time. Even more so, it confirms the semi-nomadic practices of Coast Salish peoples, as their distribution at the time of Vancouver’s account aligns with what is now known of their lifestyle.

In a similar vein, Vancouver’s description of the region’s resources in Chapter V of his logs helps offer a greater understanding of what drew Indigenous peoples to the places they occupied. The peoples of the Pacific Northwest are somewhat atypical of other Indigenous cultures in the continental United States insofar as they hardly, if at all, practiced agriculture. Their communities were sustained almost entirely by fish, game, and foraging. As such, access to these resources was absolutely essential to survival. The visualization of my data illustrates that areas with a high concentration of fish, flora, and fauna, as noted by Vancouver, typically had a commensurately high amount of native activity near them. While the fact that Indigenous peoples gravitated towards resource-rich areas may seem obvious at face value, it is less obvious how this manifested spatially. By visualizing Vancouver’s otherwise independent observations of resources and native peoples, we are able to truly see this cultural reality.

The least-cost path analysis between the data points sheds light on how natives peoples interacted with one another and moved from place to place. As indicated above, the peoples of Puget Sound were very much tied to the coast. The water dictated seasonal migration patterns and the pursuit of resources. Likewise, it dictated travel. As the elevation data shows, inland Washington becomes very rugged very quickly. Moving from village to village overland meant carefully traversing between areas of high cost. However, as my map demonstrates, traveling between points is almost always more efficient by water. This, of course, makes sense in light of the aforementioned seasonal movement towards and reliance on the water. It is also indicative of why so many of Vancouver’s encounters with native peoples were with individuals in canoes. He met them as they traveled in the most efficient manner available. In this respect, the textual evidence supports the spatial analysis and vice versa.

Lastly, for the sake of my own research, I have previously worked on a separate project arguing that Puget Sound can and should be classified as an “urban” space based on the lived cultures of the Indigenous peoples there. A crux of this argument is the spatial distribution of and movement between native settlements. In doing this project, I was taken aback by the level of interconnectedness of native settlements. I therefore believe that this project can be a remarkably useful piece of supporting evidence in my other research, especially if this piece grows into a Master’s thesis.

Moving Forward

I am altogether pleased with the current state of my project. I am incredibly proud of myself to have put together such an output, especially in light of my inexperience with ArcGIS. Though, I will not go as far as to call it a ‘final copy.’ My project, for all of its triumphs, is not perfect, nor is it the full realization of what I believe it can be. There are a great number of things, both big and small, that I hope to improve upon.

I am content with the accuracy of my points on the map. But, there is little room for complacency in a mapping project. As such, using more sources to help plot my points with greater accuracy is something I am interested in doing long-term. Not only will this help reconstruct Vancouver’s path through Puget Sound more faithfully, but also better represent Indigenous presence in the region. This may be easier said than done given the limited information available. I may have to consult local historians who may have more insight on specific locations. There is also a certain sense that this project can only get so precise. At a certain point, honing down specific coordinates may be impossible. It is nevertheless a worthwhile pursuit, as greater accuracy can only benefit this project.

One improvement I would like to make in terms of visualization (aside from much-needed beautification) would be including the route of HMS Discovery alongside the points and least-cost paths currently presented. I believe that this would help users who are not as familiar with Vancouver’s voyage understand the sequence of his travels. While my data points do have numerical values assignned, in my work’s current state, these values are not readily apparent. A visual synthesis between my old map and my current map, such that Vancouver’s movement between points is presented clearly, would do well to place my work in context. And, this would be especially helpful as my project grows in scale.

In the long-term, I hope to proceed further into Vancouver’s logbook. The current map is based on Chapter IV and Chapter V. These chapters account for little more than two weeks in the Puget Sound region. Proceeding to Chapter VI and beyond, so as to map the totality of Vancouver’s encounters with Indigenous peoples in Puget Sound, is where I first see my project heading. I have not even mapped Seattle yet, which is both the de-facto capital of the Pacific Northwest region and was a critical site of cultural crossover for Indigenous peoples. Once I fully map Vancouver’s expedition through the sound, I would then like to re-run the spatial analysis, as the far larger data set would produce more informative results. These results may urge me to explore a certain facet of Indigenous peoples more closely (say, seasonal movement patterns or resource competition), and thus guide the overarching ‘so what?’ of my project.

Once the totality of Vancouver’s Puget Sound expedition is mapped, I could see myself mapping Vancouver’s movements beyond Puget Sound, into Vancouver Island and Alaska, or charting the accounts of other explorers of the region, such as James Cook and Juan de Fuca. I would perhaps have these explorers’ voyages and interactions with Indigenous peoples appear as separate layers on the map, color-coded differently than Vancouvers but taking on the same general visual format. Keeping the project’s focus on the Pacific Northwest geographically, whilst expanding the chronological scope to other explorers, strikes me as an appropriate way to upscale my current work. While, again, this is long-term and perhaps overly ambitious, I am nonetheless excited that my project has so much room to grow.