Posts Tagged ‘Chinookan Peoples’

Or is it just a matter of semantics?

Thursday, June 27th, 2019

Map of Oyster Beds in Willapa Bay, 1889

In case you haven’t been keeping up, this blog is Installment #2  of my commentary on the article, “Oysterville, A Simply Lovely, Living Ghost Town” in the recently published Discovery Coast 2019-2020, ChinookObserver.com.

Paragraph two of the above named article states:  The Chinook Peoples came to the area that is Oysterville for untold centuries to harvest its bountiful oyster beds.    Probably true enough, though reefs of oysters were bountiful in many other areas of Shoalwater (now Willapa) Bay, as well.  (As an aside — did you know that in their natural state oysters form reefs; beds are created by commercial growers as a place for oysters to lie while growing to maturity.)

I had always understood that the Indians came to Leadbetter Point in the summer from all over the Shoalwater region to gather berries.  “Wild raspberries” is what I remember being told by Oysterville old-timers.  The redoubtable James Swan, in his book, Northwest Coast or Three Years’Residence in Washington Territory (Harper and Brothers,1857),  tells of spending one fourth of July at Leadbetter Point… where we found a number of Indians camped, and any quantity of berries — strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, and blueberries, black currents, and huckleberries.  These berries the Indian women and children picked when the tide was up, but at low water they collected clams for dring, while the men shot seals or caught sturgeon.

tiapsuyi or Tiyapshul – Village #4, top left

As I think about it, I guess I have no objection to Paragraph #2 in and of itself,  But in the context of the article it seems to intimate that the Chinooks “occupied” the area of Oysterville as in had a village here.  I don’t believe there is any archaeological evidence for that assumption.

In Figure 1 of  “Chinookan Villages of the Lower Columbia”, a monograph by Zenk, Hajda and  Boyd, there is only one village noted on the east side of Willapa Bay.  It is difficult to tell from their map exactly where the village was located but, since there are numerous references by early pioneers to an Indian village where the town of Nahcotta is now, I believe that was the only place of Chinook “occupancy” in our vicinity.

The name of that village was tiapsuyi or tiyapshul (a mixture of Chinookan and Salishan) according to the authors, and meant grass or grassy place.  That is of particular interest to me since my grandfather (who spoke some Chinook jargon) named this house Tsako-Te-Hahsh-Eetl and said it meant “place of the red-topped grass.”

Our Place

None of this, of course, should be confused with Uppertown which was a “village” (of sorts) built somewhat south of Oysterville.  My mother and her siblings remembered remnants of Uppertown which they said was built by early oystermen for the Indians.  Since Chinooks and Quinalts came to this area only seasonally, providing housing seemed a logical way of ensuring that they would stay year-round to provide a more stable work force.  I don’t know how effective the scheme was — only that by the time I came along, Uppertown was no more.

Since Paragraph #1 (discussed yesterday) spoke of “human occupants” and is followed by the paragraph currently under discussion, perhaps my concern boils down to a matter of semantics.   Some might say seasonal visitations qualify as occupancy.  To me, though, “…always had human occupants” infers a sort of permanence, as in a village. Before you weigh in, read the original article in its entirety.  Context also matters.