A Summary of Research

by Larry Boyd

Controversy, misunderstanding, and faulty interpretation have dogged Palliser's exploration of the Kananaskis for many years. His Expedition reports are written in clear, precise prose and in a simple, attractive style. Unfortunately, his personal journal and papers were lost in a fire at his home, Comeragh House, in Tipperary, Ireland, not long after his return from Canada.

The Palliser Papers, published by the Champlain Society, have become the accepted authority on the Palliser Expedition. Despite a scholarly style, they are often difficult to understand and sometimes incomprehensible. Heavily edited, highly speculative, and unreliably researched, they leave western heritage a legacy of confusion rather than enlightenment, although certain passages are pertinent to Palliser's exploration of the Kananaskis. By sharp contrast, Palliser's Report of October, 1858, to Lord Stanley is a positive and clear narrative.

"I am rejoiced to say that I have completely succeeded in discovering not only a pass practicable for horses, but one which, with but little expense, could be rendered available for carts also ... "

At the Expedition's campsite on Boundary Flats, which Palliser called Kananaskis Prairie, he recounts the folklore story of the Indian, Kananaskis. And this is how the name became popular for many geographic features in the area, even to the point that the name Kananaskis was later appropriated for the larger Kanananskis Recreation Area.

From the campsite on the Kananaskis River of August 20, it would appear Palliser climbed to roughly the grade of Highway 40, for The Palliser Papers contain the following quote:

"Two very conspicuous mountains at a distance of about 12 miles to the south of us flank the height of land across which we shall have to pass to gain the western side of the watershed."

The only two prominent peaks which can be seen from this position and appear to flank the height of land are Mount Fox on the north and Mount Aosta to the south. Not only is present day Elk Pass identified as the pass Palliser crosses, but The Palliser Papers quote Palliser as declaring, 'This pass I have called Kananaskis Pass."

So, there rests the mystery! Palliser crossed present day Elk Pass, which he named Kananaskis Pass.

Corroborating entries support the identification of Palliser's Kananaskis Pass as present day Elk Pass. At the time in The Papers when Palliser reached the Kananaskis Lakes, is the first mention of a height of land to the west that the Kootanie Indians crossed. So what is a logical explanation of Palliser's movements from the campsite of August 21 ?

Latitudes and longitudes suggest that Sullivan, the Expedition's surveyor and secretary, with the sextant, crossed the height of land to the west, descended a tributary of the Kootanie River, which he named Palliser's River, then followed the Kootanie to Canal Flats-there to wait for Palliser.

Taking the barometer and accompanied by one man, Palliser made a reconnaissance of the base of the low ridge that forms Elk Pass and the Continental Divide before ascending to West Elk Pass. His barometric measurement of the altitude was 5,985 feet, which, when I repeated the experiment, corresponds favourably with the readings of my altimeter, which varied up to 200 feet in different weather conditions. The descent was given as 960 feet. At one point they led their horses for the first time.

These altitudes are entirely compatible with Elk Pass. A map of 1905 in the book Campfires in the Canadian Rockies shows Kananaskis Pass at the north end of the Elk River Valley as 6,200 feet altitude-absolutely correct for present day Elk Pass.

Palliser also gives an authentic description of the Elk Lakes. Although entirely out of sequence,

The Palliser Papers accurate continuation of the previous quote reads:

"From a lake at the base of the more southerly mountain [one of the two prominent peaks-Mount Aosta] a large tiributary [Elk River] of the Kootani has its source; and after an almost due southerly course joins the mainstream..." Relative to the above quote, Footnote 2 on the same page observes "a vivid description of the valley" but then fatuously concludes, "Perhaps Palliser rode over Elk Pass while the men were busy."

After descending the pass, Palliser encountered no difficulty in the mountains other than, "Our route continued for several days [down the Elk River] through dense masses of fallen timber .. and at length reached the Columbia portage [Canal Flats] on the 27th of August."

Palliser rested the horses on the 28 th, climbed a mountain, spotted Sullivan's camp, walked into his camp the morning of the 29 th, and all immediately rode south to the Tobacco Plains. Later Palliser reported, "Mr. Sullivan and I [which implies both separately] explored and discovered a route connecting the Kananaskis's Pass [Elk Pass] ... with... the Hudson's Bay Company's trail over the Cascade Range..."

Finally in Palliser's Report of July 8, 1860, he recommends a route to the Columbia Valley and westward.

"I consider the Kananaskis Pass the preferable one, both on account of its direct course through the mountains and easier ascent. 'The ascent to the height of land from the east is through a gently sloping valley, and the immediate watershed is formed by a narrow ridge which, if pierced by a short tunnel, would reduce the summit level to about 4,600 feet [more likely, 5,200 feet] above the sea. The descent to the west, into which Kananaskis Pass opens, is comparatively easy."

Based on my historical research and field studies, I am absolutely convinced that what Palliser is here describing as the Kananaskis Valley is present day Elk Pass, and the Elk Valley.

Reactions to Larry Boyd's viewpoint (above)

Palliser's Kananaskis Pass

I noted on your website the so-called controversy about Palliser's Kananaskis Pass and the research by Larry Boyd. Based on his "historical research and field studies", Mr. Boyd says he is "absolutely convinced that what Palliser is describing as the Kananaskis Valley is present day Elk Pass, and the Elk Valley". Very clearly, and with due respect, Mr. Boyd is wrong in his interpretation, and in the process he does great injustice to the exceptionally reliable research and extensive field work conducted by Professor Irene Spry in the early 1960s.

It is very clear from Palliser's description on August 20th, 1858 that he was aware of the Elk Pass and the Elk River that flowed south to join the Kootenay River near the 49th parallel. He did not take this route. Instead all of his positions taken over the week from August 21 to August 28 show that he was above latitude 50 degrees and that in the first three days, he was trending north ( e.g. 50 37, 50 37 40, 50 38 55) before trending slightly south (e.g. 50 30 14 on Aug 24, 50 27 21 on Aug 26, and 50 10 12 on August 28.) These observations were made by his assistant Sullivan and it is clear that he was travelling with Palliser who made the journal notes. They parted briefly on August 28th while Palliser ascended a mountain ( probably Mount Sabine north of Canal Flats) to overlook the Columbia River. If he had followed the Elk River way out of the way to near the 49th parallel, he would have had to return far to the north to get to Canal Flats, and there is no indication that he did this. Palliser's journey over the Divide was followed by H.S. Patterson in the 1930s "On the Trail of Palliser" and verified by Spry.

Not only is it disrespectful to label Spry's comments "fatuous" - given her enormous contributions to Canadian History - but it is truly fatuous and erroneous for Mr. Boyd to state that the 'Palliser Papers' are "Heavily edited, highly speculative, and unreliably researched, they leave western heritage a legacy of confusion rather than enlightenment.." I have read it carefully and have followed in Palliser's and Spry's footsteps across western Canada. It is not edited but verbatim, not speculative but observant and accurate, and it is meticulously researched. In contrast Mr. Boyd's commentary is fraught with errors ( e.g. Comeragh House is not in County Tipperary and Pallisers papers were lost in the fire LONG after he returned from Canada - in the "Troubles" of 1921).

In conclusion Mr. Boyd should eat his own words. He leaves "western heritage a legacy of confusion rather than enlightenment".

Sincerely

James K. Finley

Subject: Palliser Expedition
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010

I read your article expounding Larry Boyd's theory on the Palliser Expedition. I know Larry and have talked with him a number of times, but having traveled through the North & South Kananaskis Passes and Elk Pass I can say with some confidence that the description in the Palliser Papers most closely matches the route to and from North Kananaskis Pass. Maude Lake drains neither east nor west at the present time, but is one of many lakes in the rockies that drains underground. There is a large talus and scree slope at the western end that could have easily grown to dam off the smaller lake in the 50 years between Palliser's crossing and the boundary survey. The boundary survey awarded the lake to Alberta for reasons of their own, and thereafter map makers drew a little blue line for a creek heading east from the lake, though no such creek exists.

The question that Larry doesn't answer is why the description of the height of land reads:

"Very little vegetation appears along the summit of the watershed, which is overspread with masses of stones and rocks, and the only animal which we have seen is the siffleur, whose shrill whistle we heard for the first time close to our encampment of to night.

Towards dark the summits of the mountains became wrapped in misty clouds; this, combined with our proximity to the glaciers on either side, and the scarcity of wood for our camp fire, caused us to pass a chill and uncomfortable night."

This describes conditions near the treeline, which occurs between 7400 and 7600' in the southern Rockies (and is consistent with N Kananaskis Pass). Elk Pass is well timbered and over 1500' below the treeline. I would contend that Palliiser's barometric calculation of altitude was wrong, whether by error or deliberate understatement.

He raises the interesting notion that Palliser himself went South via the Elk River, and Sullivan or another scribe went West to the Kootenay. Maybe, but the papers we have left to study describe the route to the Kootenay with amazing accuracy, so that is all we know of the expedition.

Cheers,

Neil MacLaine

Moose Mountain Horseback Adventures
Bragg Creek, AB