SHARING THE PAST: ABORIGINAL PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY-BASED y\ItCIDlE()lJC)(IY IN CANADA by Sarah Carr-Locke B.A., Trent University, 1998 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DE(jIlEE(:MF MASTER OF ARTS in irfT^EüRICiPSCDII^LIISLAJR/ÏZSTriIiyiEKS THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH (ZClIJUhdBI/l February, 2005 © Sarah Carr-Locke, 2005 1^1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliothèque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de l'édition 395 W ellington Street Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada 395, rue W ellington Ottawa ON K 1A 0N 4 Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 0-494-04685-6 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 0-494-04685-6 NOTICE: The author has granted a non­ exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­ commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. AVIS: L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Canada Abstract This thesis is about the relationship between Aboriginal People and archaeology in Canada. Aboriginal involvement in Canadian archaeology has been limited by the failure o f archaeology to include Aboriginal interests within its research agenda. This failure has been due in part to a colonial bias embedded in the discipline. In order to disrupt this bias, a process o f “decolonization” must be undertaken. Many academic disciplines have begun to assess the value o f research done “on” Indigenous communities and have suggested ways that research can be done “by” and “for” these communities with benefits to both the academic and social causes. Community-based methods have been and are being used in Canada, yet without much formal discussion or sense o f shared goals. This thesis suggests that the problem o f limited Aboriginal involvement in archaeological undertakings can be addressed by applying community-based methods to archaeology. These types o f projects also bring many added benefits to both archaeology and Aboriginal communities as a whole. The examination o f community-based archaeology in Canada in this thesis is done through theorizing, examining practical examples and presenting common themes. 11 Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents üi List of Tables and Figures v Acknowledgements vi Chapter One - Archaeology and Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: O verview of the Study 1 Chapter Two - A B rief Overview o f Canadian Archaeology 9 Imperialism and Early Archaeology 13 Early Archaeology in Canada 14 Approaching the Twentieth Century 18 The Influence o f Processualism/New Archaeology 22 The Ethnohistorical Movement and Postprocessualism 26 Chapter Three - What is Community-Based Archaeology? 33 Community-Based Participant Action Research 36 Community-Based Participant Action Research and Aboriginal People 38 Community-Based Participant Action Research and Archaeology 39 Examples o f Community-Based Archaeology in Canada 44 International Examples 51 The Difficulties o f Aboriginal Community-based Archaeology 54 Chapter Four - The Upper Similkameen Indian Band and Archaeology S'gttmg 62 67 OMf/ tAe JWzoM 6P 77 Tntervigwf 73 76 111 87 Chapter Five - Common Themes of Community-Based Archaeology 7%e f^Mtwre CofM7Mwn;(y-Bayeaf^rcAaieo/ogy in Canoak 93 707 FaZwg q/^tAw 8tw(7y 703 Personal Reflections 105 R eferences Cited 108 IV List of Tables and Figures Figure I : Map o f British Columbia with Detail o f Upper Similkameen Territory 68 Table 1: Andrews' (1997) Principles for Collaborative Research 88 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people without whom this thesis would not have been possible. My thesis supervisor Dr. Richard Lazenby for his guidance, patience, and friendship. My thesis committee members past and present: Dr. Heather Smith, Dr. Jim McDonald, Farid Rahemtulla, Dr. Mary-Ellen Kelm, for academic support. I gratefully acknowledge Dr. George Nicholas who acted as my external committee member. My fellow UNBC graduate students and the UNBC Graduate Student Society for support and a beautiful office space. A special thanks to The Geek Group (Andrea Lebl, John Bogle and Dan Watt) for moral support, intelligent distraction, and proof-reading. My 8* Ave family and Shawn Hall for stress relief and for looking after me. The Upper Similkameen Indian Band council for approving my research on USIB archaeology. A debt o f gratitude to all the interviewees from the band - Dannette Whitney, Charlene Allison, Ramona Holmes, Philippe Batini, and Hazel Squakin. Special thanks to Brenda Gould for her guidance and help with my research and to her family as well for making me a guest in their home. Stan Copp for granting me not one but two interviews. David Pokotylo and Phil Hobler who granted me informal interviews. Participants o f the UNBC/CTC Soda Creek Field School 2001 for allowing me to sit-in. A special thank you to Michael Klassen who provided me with ongoing encouragement and insight. I acknowledge the Anthropology Society o f Northern British Columbia (ASANBC) for funding for conference travel. I would like acknowledge the financial help provided by the Carlson family for their Ame and Lesley Carlson memorial scholarship fund for archaeology students at UNBC. VI Chapter One - Archaeology and Aboriginal Peoples^ in Canada: Overview of the Study This thesis is about the relationship between archaeology and Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This relationship is not always a positive one, as a variety o f factors have limited Aboriginal peoples’ involvement in archaeological undertakings. This thesis will argue the case that projects between Aboriginal communities and archaeologists which follow a collaborative, community-based method engage this relationship in a positive fashion. The idea o f involving local peoples in order to undertake “community archaeology” has been explored in a variety o f international and community contexts (Marshall 2002). Aboriginal Community-based archaeology is a method o f doing archaeology that engages with the local community in a respectful, empowering, and ongoing fashion. It is a method o f collaboration between archaeologists and Aboriginal peoples whereby the community is involved as active participants in every step o f the process. This type o f archaeology is also one example o f what Nicholas and Andrews (1997:3) define as Indigenous Archaeology, which is “archaeology done with, for, and by Indigenous peoples”. Community-based archaeology that engages with Indigenous people in a colonial or post-colonial context is a growing field particularly within the United States and Australia (Marshall 2002). While there are several examples that demonstrate an adherence to comm unity-based methods in Canada, there is limited Canadian literature that seeks to develop and define it. This thesis identifies and ' In this thesis I have chosen to use the term “Aboriginal people” and occasionally “Native people” to describe the Indigenous people living in Canada. By this term, 1 mean to include not only those individuals recognized as “status Indians” by the Canadian government, but also Inuit, Métis, and non-status Indians. In much of Western Canada, the term “First Nation” is preferred; however this term is not inclusive o f Inuit and Métis communities and thus is only used in this thesis in reference to Aboriginal communities within British Columbia. discusses examples o f community archaeology, and explores those themes within it that are relevant to the Canadian Aboriginal context. The desire to undertake this research stems from my experience as a student o f both Native Studies and anthropology/archaeology. 1 approach this topic as a non-Aboriginal person who has been educated within a Western academic setting. I have witnessed first hand, in classroom and conference settings, the variable tensions in the relationship between Canadian archaeology and Aboriginal peoples and their interests. I began this research focusing on this tension and making assumptions about its pervasiveness. Over the course o f my studies, however, 1 have traveled to communities and spoken with many people involved in Aboriginal community-based archaeological projects. Once I realized that cooperation between many individual archaeologists and Aboriginal communities was more frequent than I first assumed, my focus began to change. I did found that it was difficult to learn about Canadian projects and the methods used within this type o f work, as there was a lack o f published material on this topic. The need for more discussion o f the benefits o f Aboriginal community-based archaeological w ork led me to pursue this topic as my thesis. Tensions between Canadian archaeologists and Aboriginal people have arisen due to the assumptions made by all parties that no common agenda exists between these two groups (Trigger 1980). These assumptions are a result o f a lack o f mutual education between archaeologists and Aboriginal people. Given that there has been tension in the past between archaeology and Aboriginal peoples, as well as a lack o f communication and understanding, it is imperative that the relationship be examined in an ongoing manner. In recent decades, Canadian archaeologists have formed many positive alliances and undertaken many community-based projects that present opportunity lor cooperation and mutual education (for example, Andrews 1997; Friesen 2002; Nicholas 1997; Yellowhom 1993; Yukon Heritage 2002). It is vitally important that the methods, results, and knowledge that these interactions bring be shared publicly with Canadian archaeology at large. This thesis attempts to define community-based archaeology by briefly examining various cooperative projects, noting the common themes between them, and attempting to place these in the context o f a growing national trend. Academic inquiry into Aboriginal involvement in archaeology is lacking in past Canadian archaeological publications. However, many archaeologists have been exploring the dynamics o f this relationship by engaging with it in the field since the early 1990s (Friesen 2002; Nicholas 1997; Stenton and Rigby 1995). There is a discernable gap between the reality o f practice and what has been published within archaeological literature. Writing on this topic has lamented the lack o f Aboriginal participation in the archaeological enterprise (De Paoli 1999; Sioui 1999;Yellowhom 1993,2002), while others have pondered the implications o f archaeological work within Aboriginal communities, both positive and negative (De Paoli 1999; Dongoske et al 2000; Ferguson 1996; Jamieson 1999; Kehoe 1991, 1998; McGuire 1992,1997; Nicholas and Andrews 1997; Pokotylo 1997; Smith 1994; Swidler 1997; Yellowhom 1993,1996). Nicholas and Andrews' (1997) groundbreaking work is notable as the only Canadian volume which deals explicitly with the subject o f cooperative ventures between archaeologists and Aboriginal groups. They explore instances o f what they call "Indigenous archaeology" done "with, for and by Indigenous peoples" (Nicholas and Andrews 1997:3). The examples presented in their book demonstrate that many communities and archaeologists are undertaking cooperative projects, and this survey forms the beginnings o f a dialogue between individuals involved in Aboriginal community-based archaeology projects. The importance o f Aboriginal people's involvement in archaeology has also garnered increasing attention from such organizations as the Canadian Archaeological Association (CAA) (Nicholson et al. 1996), The World Archaeological Congress (WAC), and the Society for American Archaeology (SAA)^. This is also evidenced by the proliferation o f conferences that examine this topic^. The Archaeology Forum in British Columbia is o f particular note as a yearly ongoing conference that brings Aboriginal communities and consulting and academic archaeologists together since 1992. Many o f the papers in the sessions o f the 2001 Forum that 1 attended noted the divergent agendas under which archaeologists and Aboriginal communities operated in the past. This yearly conference represents a move towards convergence o f these differing research goals by presenting the results o f successful collaborations. ^ The Canadian Archaeological Association set up an Aboriginal Heritage Committee in 1993 to explore the relationship between Aboriginal Peoples and archaeology (see: http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/ahc/estatement.html). Similarly, the Society for American Archaeology sponsors a Committee on Native American Relations, which lists as their charge working to “increase understanding by archaeologists o f the issues o f concern to Native Americans, to promote understanding by Native Americans of the value and relevance o f archaeology, and to foster better relationships between both groups” (see: http:/7www.saa.org/Aboutsaa<''Committees/o-dnar.html). Worldwide concern for ethics with respect to Indigenous peoples is seen in the 1989 code o f ethics for the WAC: http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/archive/content/ethics.html ^Some examples include the 25th Annual Ontario Archaeological Society symposium, "Archaeologists and First Nations: Bridges From the Past to a Better Tomorrow", Woodland Cultural Centre, Brantford, Ontario, October 16-18,1998, and the 32nd Annual Chacmool Conference, "Indigenous People and Archaeology: Honoring the Past, Discussing the Present, Building for the Future," University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, November 11-14, 1999. The Canadian Archaeological Association’s annual conference has also seen an increase in papers presented on this topic. One o f the main roadblocks to successful collaborations are the assumptions on the part o f both archaeologists and Aboriginal people about what the other has to offer. Archaeology has been slow to address issues o f Aboriginal importance. Certainly, popular stereotypes o f Aboriginal people within the mainstream media have had an influence on archaeology. Bruce Trigger (1980) first introduced the idea that an "Image o f the Indian” is likewise created through the archaeological enterprise. The stereotype according to Trigger (1980:662-3) is that North American Aboriginal People are thought of as inherently unprogressive. He goes on to explain that this image has been based on European racial and religious myths and is a result o f limited direct interaction between Aboriginal people and archaeologists. I argue this shifting image has been, and continues to be negotiated and informed through the development o f archaeological theory and practice. Since the 1980s, however, this “image” has been increasingly shaped by Aboriginal people themselves. This has been a result o f Aboriginal people becoming more active within the discipline and securing a louder voice within mainstream society. This image is important, as it contributes to both the public and, in turn, policy makers’ understandings o f Aboriginal identity and history. Aboriginal healing and empowerment though self-determination in Canada depends in part on their ability to negotiate the terms o f their own public image and control how their past is presented and understood. Whether or not one believes that direct cultural links exist between cultural groups observable in the archaeological record and Aboriginal people today, 1 hope to show that archaeology does have consequences for Aboriginal peoples. For this and other reasons, it is vital that archaeology as a discipline addresses the politics o f the present in its examination o f the past (Nicholas 2004b). By directing the "Image o f the Indian" within archaeology, Aboriginal People regain control over views o f their past, which constitutes a defining aspect o f culture. This inquiry deals with the nature o f ethics in Canadian archaeology with respect to Aboriginal people. While some ethical guidelines with respect to Aboriginal peoples have already been developed for archaeology (Nicholson et al 1996), Canadian archaeologists may begin to put these principles into action by developing a communitybased model which includes Aboriginal peoples in the research programme. Despite being an appropriate methodology for many reasons, McDonald and Lazenby's (1999) survey suggests that many archaeologists working in Canada lack understanding o f what “community-based” implies in the context o f archaeology (McDonald and Lazenby 1999). Robinson (1996:126), for example, notes that while many collaborative comm unity-based archaeology projects are being undertaken in Canada, there is a lack o f articles dealing with this topic within peer-reviewed literature. While this type o f project is clearly practiced, the model lacks an expressly articulated set o f premises and principles outside o f the newly developed statements o f ethical codes. This thesis seeks to show how community-based archaeology might be conducted by integrating critique, theory, and practice. The research presented here is intended to contribute to the development o f these community-based methods by adding to the discussion. While archaeology's involvement in direct and overt colonial activities is debatable, there is no doubt o f its Western origins, or o f the fact that most archaeological work in Canada has been initiated and undertaken largely by non-Aboriginal peoples. This has often served to alienate Aboriginal people from every aspect o f the archaeological enterprise, from the formulation o f research questions, through excavation and interpretation, to the stewardship o f material remains (Yellowhom 1993, Trigger 1980). Archaeologists must understand the nature o f the grievances in order to respond to these concerns as new types o f collaboration arise. Sioui describes this problem as follows; fee wcAaeofogMtJ fAezr ' AoMgj: aW facre^f m a// a / ^ T T z a y can a«(y v;gw fAw a.; a fy/M^aZfc repetition o f the way in which their ancestors were sacrificed by earlier Europeans and Euroamericans, and therefore as a reaffirmation o f white superiority and moral ascendancy. On the other hand, the incredible moral alienation o f the two civilizations that has developed over time prevents archaeologists fro m believing in the real usefulness o f creating a professional and ideological relationship between themselves and living Amerindians. [Sioui 1999:47] The specific organization o f the thesis is as follows: In Chapter Two, 1 examine how the “Image o f the Indian” has been affected throughout the development o f archaeology in Canada. 1 illustrate how some o f the colonial assumptions embedded in early archaeological work have influenced archaeology to the present day. The main developments in archaeological theory are also reviewed and discussed as to their relevance to the relationship between archaeology and Aboriginal people. In Chapter Three 1 examine elements o f community-based methods and their application to archaeology prefects. This includes a discussion some common themes o f communitybased methods with some examples that are already in use. In Chapter Four I provide a practical example o f band-controlled archaeology &om the Upper Similkameen Indian Band (USIB) in order to illustrate some o f the themes outlined in the previous chapter. Excerpts from interviews with members o f the USIB who are involved with archaeological projects are presented here. In Chapter Five, the main elements o f what constitutes community-based archaeology for Canada are presented. These themes are based on the examples presented in Chapter Three and Four, as well as the principles outlined at the beginning o f Chapter Three. A brief conclusion follows in order to assess the value o f this study and place it in a personal context. As the debate continues over Indigenous rights in Canada and elsewhere, the opportunity exists for archaeology to make a positive contribution to the struggle. By working closely with Aboriginal communities and developing a rich cross-cultural understanding, archaeologists may become their advocates. Indeed, the exploration o f archaeology as a tool for de-colonization has only just begun (Yellowhom 1993:108-9). Through the writing o f this thesis, I will demonstrate some ways in which community-based archaeological programs and projects affect the relationship between Aboriginal people and archaeology, as well as impacting on the wider archaeological discourse. Chapter Two - A Brief Overview of Canadian Archaeolo^ fFg TMWjf wfZZmg fo ejcamfMe fAe A/f/dle» idlga; oW wA:cA wWerZ/g archaeological work and its interpretation and to ask how what is hidden helps to authenticate, collaborate, and thus preserve stereotypes o f Indian peoples. [Handsman 1989:4] foo q/?gM OMfAe f^w gfA q / fAe;r fecAM/coZ ore ;gMore ^Ag;r TMoraZ rejpow/AfAfy VM-à-vw fAe Zrvzng q/^fAe prehistoric and historic peoples they are studying. One may justifiably accuse arcAago/ogy.q/^Ae/Mg rgjpowfA/e /o r a «ega^â'e wcfaZ percepf/oM q/v^fMennfyzoMj:. [Sioui 1999:45-6]. This chapter argues that stereotyping and hidden assumptions within archaeology have limited Aboriginal involvement in Canadian archaeology. This bias has been an impediment to the development o f archaeological projects that involve cooperation between archaeologists and Aboriginal communities and individuals. In order to create positive cooperative environments for the future, the past must be explored and assumptions within archaeology must be laid bare. An historical overview o f the development of Canadian archaeology will be presented alongside the description o f several main theoretical developments. This chapter will help to explain why the authority over archaeology has rested in the hands o f Western academics rather than Aboriginal communities. This chapter takes as its theme the idea, as put forth by postprocessualists (such as Gero et al. 1983, and Trigger 1989), that archaeologists cannot escape the socio-political influences that surround them. Many scholars have acknowledged the political nature o f archaeological practice and interpretation (Gathercole and Lowenthal 1990; Gero et al. 1983; Layton 1989; Tilley 1989). Since the 1980s, both historians and archaeologists have begun to consider more readily how images and stereotypes o f Aboriginal people have shaped popular understandings o f both history and "pre-" history in Canada (Burley 1994, Bordewich 1996, Cole 1985, Dickason 1984, Francis 1992, Klimko 1994, Mason 1990, Trigger 1980, Wylie 1993). These stereotypes and images are acknowledged as being based in the dominant socio-political beliefs o f the present, and have led to biased interpretations about Aboriginal history made by non-Aboriginals. As these assumptions have guided the development o f archaeology in Canada and have helped to dictate the level o f Aboriginal people’s involvement in Canadian archaeology, it is important to take a closer look at this issue in an historical context. The mechanisms and motivations behind the production o f images o f the “Indian”’*must be closely studied in order to explore the existence o f a colonial bias that directly influences the practice and theory o f archaeology. In fact, some even suggest that the concept o f archaeological and anthropological study itself is fundamentally a European undertaking - colonial in nature and necessarily tied to the imperial enterprise (W olf 1982, Wylie 1993). This chapter will explore some o f the intersections between archaeological theory, the image o f the “Indian”, and Canadian Indian policy. In this way, I will establish that archaeological theory and practice in Canada has had consequences for the living descendants o f the cultures that archaeologists study. If archaeologists wish to develop a healthy and equitable relationship with Aboriginal people, they must critically examine their discipline’s past legacy in order to understand how knowledge is produced and disseminated to the larger public. I use this term in order to separate the idea o f “Indian” as a false and abstract concept from real Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Since even the term itself conveys a faulty European idea o f who the inhabitants o f the Americas were and are, I think that it an appropriate term to use for the purposes of deconstruction and illustration o f an image. 10 Contemporary ideas about society and culture influence the way archaeology portrays the past, which in turn affects how Aboriginal people and their history are viewed. Archaeology, in essence, functions as “an ideological industry that produces ideas about ourselves" (Blakey 1983:6, emphasis in original), therefore telling us as much about present-day society as it does about the past. Leone (1981:7) notes that archaeology is in a unique position, as it is able to explore contemporary cultural beliefs about the past by examining how the past is given meaning. A critical examination o f archaeological ideology is not only the first step towards revamping the discipline, but may also help initiate change in larger society, whether it be the ongoing decolonization o f Western research, or the advancement o f alternative ways o f knowing the world (Gero et al. 1983:3; Leone et al. 1987). Several authors believe it important to explore the specific history o f Canadian archaeology (Jenness 1932a; Kelley and Willamson 1996; MacDonald 1976; Noble 1972; Wright 1985) rather than homogenizing the North American experience as others have done (Trigger 1989; Willey and Sabloff 1980). Although there has been limited literature in Canada, writings and ideas from archaeology in the United States and Britain were influential in its development. There is some suggestion that it might be counter­ productive to look primarily to the United States for inspiration with respect to shaping policies for cultural resource management (Girouard 1976:161 ;Taylor 1976:154). There are two primary reasons for this. First and most obvious is that the two countries have followed different paths in the development and practice o f archaeology. Canada is less populated, has fewer universities, and less resources to put into developing 11 archaeological work. More important, 1 would argue, is the difference in social and political ideologies that have guided the development o f both countries. If archaeological ideas are to be understood within the political and social context in which they were developed, then it is critical to consider Canada as a distinct locale. The problem, however, is that there has not been extensive writing dealing directly with the history o f Canadian archaeology, and so some extrapolation must be undertaken from sources (such as Trigger 1989) that attempt to deal with North America as a whole. Wright (1985: 425) suggests that the fact that Aboriginal people in Canada are more likely to occupy traditional territory, demonstrating a level of cultural continuity, makes the practice o f archaeology in Canada unique. This continuity provides an exciting opportunity for Aboriginal people to engage with archaeology in a way that reflects and enriches their known cultural histories. It would be naïve not to recognize the regional differences within Canada, particularly since the way in which Euro-Canadian individuals and governments have interacted with Aboriginal people differs considerably in different geographical regions. The CAA Heritage Committee reports (Nicholson et al. 1996) demonstrate some o f the regional differences in the relationship between Aboriginal people and archaeology. Due to the shared experience o f colonization between theses groups, a national survey o f their collective situation remains valid. Kelley and Williamson (1996:6) argue that our national situation with respect to archaeology is more analogous in places such as Australia or N ew Zealand, rather than the United States. 12 When Europeans Erst arrived in the Americas, whether to trade or to explore, they encountered peoples who had worldviews and lifestyles that were alien to those o f the Western world. The first impressions Europeans formed o f the Aboriginal people in the Americas were often based on European folklore, legends, and myths (Dickason 1984). The period o f European colonial expansion was marked by an increasing interest in human origins as well as a fascination with the material culture o f past peoples (Trigger 1989). Many have shown that European images o f Native Peoples in colonial settings were both the result o f European-Aboriginal relations and the cause o f their further actions, as popular images changed to reflect new relations (Bordewich 1996; Dickason 1984; Fisher 1978; Francis 1992; Mason 1990). Mason (1990:8) suggests that European understanding o f Aboriginal people was closely tied to their ideas about what Europeans themselves were not, projecting traits onto any “others” they encountered as a method to distinguish Imperialists from Indigenous populations. British, (and subsequently North American), studies in “antiquarianism” were aligned early on with natural science (Wright 1985:422). Geological research gave way to an understanding o f stratigraphy and an idea as to the age o f the earth. Archaeology then provided links with this history and served to demonstrate the comparatively short length o f human existence (Daniel Wilson, cited in Kehoe 1991:468). Another reason for this alignment was that the European psyche associated "native" cultures with the natural world, due to the popular conception o f Aboriginal people as living in the wilderness and having a closer relationship with it (Dickason 1984). As the Euro-Canadian population in 13 the post-fur trade period grew, and their new governments created Indian policy, they both consciously and unconsciously promulgated these stereotypes (Francis 1992). Trigger (1980) shows how stereotyping affected the entire development o f archaeology in the N ew World, by causing archaeologists to ignore the connections between the archaeological past and the ethnographic present. XrcAaeo/oigy fw Cawmfa Archaeology has only been a discipline in Canada since the 1960s, yet earlier writings on archaeological and anthropological topics do have a bearing on the development o f ideas that would later help shape the basis o f these studies (Burley 1994, Taylor 1976, Wright 1985). Jenness (1932a:72) notes that the first articles published about archaeology in Canada were published in the 1880s, and some key ideas formed in this time period would be central forces in the development o f later theories. Early Canadian archaeological investigations in the late nineteenth century began with the most obvious o f archaeological features - the mounds that occurred in Southern Manitoba (Jenness 1932a:74). The period between 1850 and 1900 saw an increasing number o f articles and papers written on archaeological subjects appearing in Canadian journals such as The Cawzf/ioM JVaAzraW oMz/ and the CawazZza» Jbarma/ (Jenness 1932a:72). By the turn o f the century, newly formed organizations and societies concerned with human history provided a forum to discuss and develop archaeological concerns and research strategies (Wright 1976). Early ethnological and archeological research in Canada in the 1860s and 1870s were grounded in imilinear cultural evolution developed in the UnitedStates and Britain. This 14 notion was popularized through the writings o f John Lubbock^, who took his lead from Charles Darwin and applied evolutionary ideas to human societies (Trigger 1989:110). Supporters o f cultural evolution believed that human cultures, when left to develop “naturally,” would move through several stages, from simple to complex in a teleological fashion. The dominant assumption was that Aboriginal people in North America and, indeed, other cultures with which the European colonists came into contact, represented a childlike stage in social development that placed the English model at the apex. George Dawson’s (1880) book “Fossil Men and their Modern Representatives” illustrates this belief. Likewise, Daniel Wilson, a Toronto scholar originally from Scotland, was interested in learning about human origins, the migration o f human cultures, and the clash between “civilization” and “savagery” in the New World (Kehoe 1991). It was Wilson who coined the term “prehistory” and thus created the split between “real” history as understood through written records, and “prehistory” for those cultures that had no written records. The resulting view was that so-called “primitive” societies, whose historic records were unrecognized by Europeans, had no real history to speak o f and hence their past could only be understood through the practice o f archeology. For Europeans, this "prehistoric" era was much more distant in time, as there exists written historical records dating to before the Classical period in Greece. Consequently, to learn about others who seemed to live the same way as ancient Europeans was to gain a better understanding o f the European past. Canada could therefore be used as a kind o f laboratory for the study o f human cultural development (Cole 1973:34). Thus, even in its Tubbock authored Prehistoric Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs o f Modern Savages (1856) and The Origin o f Civilisation and the Primitive Condition o f Man (1870). conception, archaeology had great social and political relevance and took on an imperialistic slant (McGhee 1989:13, Kehoe 1991, Trigger 1980). Early work in Canadian archaeology was thus greatly influenced by its development as a sub-discipline o f anthropology (Kelley and Williamson 1996). W olf (1982:7-9) sees the compartmentalization o f the social sciences as a major factor that has clouded Western academic understanding o f culture, society and human history in general. By separating these studies, he argues the connections between them are overlooked, and disciplines such as archaeology are undertaken without analysis o f their contemporary social context. In this regard, many have noted that archaeology has played the role o f “handmaiden” to ethnology (Noble 1972; Wright 1985). As Noble (1972:49) states, “[archaeology’s] prime purpose was often to provide a prehistoric dimension to known indigenous cultures”. The precedence o f ethnology over archaeology occurred for several interrelated reasons. Aboriginal peoples were thought to be directly analogous to an earlier stage o f development o f Europeans. As Trigger (1989:110) notes, early investigators “believed that ethnology revealed almost everything that they wished to know about prehistoric times." The study o f European past and contemporary Aboriginal cultures could therefore occur concurrently. This favoring o f ethnology is also explained by Jenness (1932): 7%e TWzoM tAof mAaAftecl tAe Dommion [Canada] at tAe ft/MC q/"ft; (Jwcovery ore wftA zty to-dqy, tAowgA in dimmMAgff nw/MAer.;, aw / tAe ftWy tAeir cwsto/M.; aw / Ag/ze^ Ae/brg tAgy z/wappgargz/ or Agcamg wgrgge/ wztA EwrqpgaMf tooA ^rggg(/gMgg ovgr tAg zwgj^t/gat/o» q/^tAg/r awr/gnt rg7Maz/w...tAg s^tomg A»;vg.y aw / poftg/y tAat /qy /» tAg groizw/ wow/z/ g»(/wrg^r ggMtar/g& [Jenness 1932b:71] 16 The general idea that, while the artifacts would stay undisturbed in the ground, the living peoples were on the verge o f extinction (either actual or cultural) gave greater urgency to ethnographic study. The idea o f the "vanishing Indian" is one that would endure through the decades and influence the direction o f both anthropological work and Indian policy. Although early researchers into human behavior and ancient history were undertaking research for the greater good o f humanity, an implicit goal was to justify recent actions by European Colonial populations towards Indigenous people worldwide (Kehoe 1991). The examples above illustrate the assumed analogy between early stages o f European development, as uncovered through archaeology and the societies and cultures that were encountered and studied by European descendants in the colonies. By ignoring the temporal and geographic specificity o f cultural manifestations, and expecting cultures to “develop” in the same linear pattern as Western civilization, Europeans were able to demonstrate their apparent superiority as the adult and developed version o f the "childlike" races (Kehoe 1991:469). These ideas about the level o f development o f Aboriginal North Americans would have helped to justify European intentions towards them. By "civilizing the natives," Europeans believed they were hurrying along an inevitable process, rather than destroying valuable cultural traditions. As Trigger (1992) notes: DanvMZOM evo/wffoMwrn way wtrZrzgff to dgnrgrate tAe cap a c rty (fe v e /o p /» e M t o/^ aAongzma/ pepp/ey co/f^anyo» w/tA EwrppeaMy aW to provtdle a «ew, ycfCMtr^c rgjpgctaAt/tty to tAc racta/ pre/wcftcey tAat coZowüty Aacf /o»g (f;rectg(/ agafTMt tAe fWra/w. [Trigger 1992:268] 17 The general belief that Canadian governmental directives such as the Indian Act o f 1876 or that the residential school programs were good policy was part o f the colonial ideology that it was the duty o f Europeans to "civilize" the "primitive" peoples on what they decreed to be Canadian land. ydfiproacAmg fAg DegMffg/A Cgwffffy Franz Boas’ ethnographic work in particular, both in the Arctic and the Northwest Coast had a lasting impact on both archaeology and anthropology. Like Daniel Wilson, Boas was greatly influenced by the socio-politics o f his time, and his theories about culture were tied up with larger contemporary questions about human society. Boasian anthropology provided the “intellectual template” for Canadian archaeology and aimed to trace the cultural history o f historically recognized native groups, but also sought to deal with larger questions such as Pleistocene migrations to the New World (Wright 1985:424). While Boas promoted cultural relativism, he also believed that Aboriginal people existed in a pure and untouched form before the arrival o f the Europeans®, supporting popular notions about culture. Boas’ cultural relativism and rejection o f racial interpretations o f human behavior "encouraged the view that Indians were copaA/g o f change" (i.e. o f becoming more like Europeans if given opportunity). Archaeologists at this time were driven to create cultural chronologies to delineate small-scale changes (Trigger 1980:667). This culture-historical approach arguably was one o f the most ®For example, see his treatment o f culture in his 1888 work Central Eskimo. He spent the entire book recording minute details about Inuit movements and traditions with the expectation that these were in the process of dying out rather than simply adapting. He viewed culture as something finite and concrete that could be preserved in a written form (without oral history) and through objects, does not study long term patterns o f change, but rather sees change as deterioration o f culture, belief in ability o f outsider (European) to be able to record culture in entirety. 18 influential and lasting tenets o f Canadian archaeology, and today still constitutes a m^or part o f the discipline. The idea that Aboriginal people were "capable o f change" led Canadian policy-makers to create Indian policy based on assimilationist principles. The Indian Act o f 1876 for example, imposed a European model o f democracy onto Aboriginal groups that had hitherto been following their own various systems o f governance. The policies that were enacted at the turn o f the century became more aggressive in the 1920s and 1930s when important Aboriginal cultural practices (such as the potlatch on the Northwest Coast) were banned, and forced enrolment o f Native children into residential and industrial schools was continued (Miller 1989:206). Yet by the pre-World War II period, there was a general sense that assimilation was not working efficiently as Aboriginal populations were growing rather than diminishing as expected by policy makers (Miller 1989:21113). Although most would label him an ethnologist, Diamond Jenness also influenced the development o f archaeological theory in Canada during much o f the twentieth century. His seminal work fW zow CoModo (1932b) had particularly long- lasting impact, standing alone for many years as the only national survey o f Aboriginal cultures in Canada. His opinions are important because o f the role he played in influencing Canadian Indian policy. During a career that lasted from 1913 to 1969, Jenness was employed by the Canadian government to work as the Dominion 19 Anthropologist in the Department o f Mines and Resources, which housed Indian Affairs (Kulchyski 1993:27). Jenness made Indian policy recommendations during hearings for a review o f the Indian Act in 1947, and authored several books between 1962 and 1968 on "Eskimo Administration" (Kulchyski 1993:27). These books laid out a programme o f assimilation for the Inuit and Eskimo populations into non-Aboriginal society. They portrayed these cultures as non-adaptive, and suggested that through the influence o f European culture would erode Aboriginal rather than continuing to adapt and change. In 1951, alterations were made to the Indian Act that reflected these new concerns, yet the basic policy still effectively emphasized assimilation through education (Miller 1989:213). The boom in resource expansion in the 1950s led Euro-Canadians into country that had previously been left to the Aboriginal people - and thus they again needed to be displaced and managed (Miller 1989:223). Due in part to the lack o f funds during the depression o f the 1930s and the Second World War, the practice o f archaeology in Canada came to a standstill until more money was available to undertake excavations on a larger scale (Wright 1985:424-5). By the late 1940s and early 1950s, both professional archaeologists and the resources for archaeological teaching and excavation were still scarce. Most Canadian graduates received training in the United States, yet often returned to posts in Canada upon graduation (Taylor 1976:152; Wright 1985:425). The post-war boom o f the 1950s led to a dramatic shift for Canadian archaeology in the decade that followed - the first period o f 20 substantial archaeological development as both a subject for study and a practice (Burley 1994; Noble 1972; Taylor 1976; Wright 1985). The first national archaeological association (the Council for Canadian Archaeology) was established in 1966, yet it was not long lived due elitist policies that caused conflict within the wider archaeological community (Simonsen 2000). The founding o f the Canadian Archaeological Association (CAA) in 1968 is significant because it remains a key archaeological institution, and the only national association in the country. The Canadian Historic Sites Service (later to become the Canadian Parks Service), established in 1961, became the primary push behind historic archaeology in Canada (Burley 1994:82). The goal o f this service was to reconstruct sites o f “national significance”, thus increasing tourism and bolstering national pride (Burley 1994:82-3; Klimko 1994). The emphasis placed on specific historic sites as “markers o f Canada’s past” is telling in the picture they create o f the country’s history. Burley (1994:83) notes that the focus was on sites with Euro-Canadian significance rather than Aboriginal (or “prehistoric”) significance. If the priority o f this branch was to uncover and illustrate sites o f primary importance in Canada's past, the omission o f Aboriginal peoples history is a significant one, for it symbolically demonstrated that Aboriginal people were not important players in Canada’s development. This was an ethnocentric and imperialist version o f history, formed and supported by archaeological work commissioned by the government. 21 While the Canadian government was concerned with salvage archaeology to save its historic sites, it leA the excavation and research o f pre-contact Aboriginal history to the universities (Klimko 1994). The emerging opposition between Aboriginal history on one hand, versus European history on the other, is a trend that has continued to the present day, as has the dichotomous discourse between salvage archaeology/cultural resource management, versus "pure" applied science-oriented research. The management, inventory, and protection o f cultural resources are now often left to private consulting agencies, and research-oriented archaeology is the job o f academics working within a university setting (Jamieson 1999). This also creates a schism between the consulting archaeologists and the academics. The reality o f post-secondary education in this country dictates that those pursuing a degree in archaeology are taught by academic, rather than consulting archaeologists, although there is some overlap. Archaeology has therefore traditionally been taught by professionals who might have had little long-term experience working with bands as consultants, although this is changing (David Pokotylo, personal communication 2003). This split within archaeology, which manifested in the mid 1970s (Burley 1993:82), is also implicated within the entrenched regionalism in Canada, because in some parts o f the country, such as the Western provinces and the Arctic, researchers work more closely with Native Peoples through various consulting projects (Kelley and Williamson 1996:11). The 1950s in North America presented a social milieu o f economic prosperity and Mth in technological progress, which led social scientists to a renewed interest in evolutionism (Trigger 1989:289). Within archaeology, this interest manifested as 'Ahe new 22 archaeology," a.k.a. processual archaeology, that focused on seeking patterns in human history to explain differing rates o f technological progress. In his seminal paper entitled "Archaeology as Anthropology," Binfbrd (1962) blames the lack o f knowledge that archaeology had brought to anthropology on the lack o f science and process in archaeology. He saw culture as a functional adaptation to environmental stimuli, stating that there is a “systematic relationship between the human organism and his environment in which culture is the intervening variable”( 1962:220). Binford and his contemporaries called for the search for universal and non-historically specific processes that would be predictive, rather than focusing on descriptive, typological culture histories. The processualist movement would indeed have an impact on many aspects of archaeological work and theory, whether causing archaeologists to take a more scientific and systems approach or to take a reactionary stance opposing it. What cannot be denied is that the processual movement caused many archaeologists to take a closer look at the motivations that were and are guiding archaeological work. Binford (1989) has seen the use o f science as a way to escape the bias that archaeologists bring to studies o f culture history. Wylie (1985), Trigger (1992), and others have shown that the way the science is applied and used in the social sciences is far from value free. While the scientific method is not biased, the impossibility o f removing the researcher's bias makes the idea o f neutral science a myth. "Scientific" research has at times served a colonialist agenda and has helped create false images o f Native peoples. Klimko (1994:200) demonstrated how processual archaeology creates an image o f Aboriginal people that downplays the role o f culture and history. By looking for universal adaptationist processes, processualism 23 normalizes cultures and does not demonstrate the uniqueness and variety o f cultural experience. Trigger (1980:671) notes that the generalizations about human culture that were developed through processual archaeology hold little relevance to Aboriginal people as the cultural material becomes "data" used to test hypotheses which ultimately serve the broader interests o f Euroamerican society. "Culture" in processual archaeology is seen as a system that responds to changes in the environment in a functional-adaptive fashion, rather than from historical events. It is a slight to Indigenous culture, and perhaps all human societies, to suggest that its development is purely a functional response to environmental stimuli. 1 would hazard a guess that Aboriginal people see historical events (particularly those concerning European contact) as vital to shaping their culture and experience as a society. There is some suggestion that processualism held less importance in Canada than it did south o f the border. Kelley and Williamson (1996:9) point to the fact that Canada has often taken a “middle o f the road” approach in terms o f theory, and they identify the continued use o f culture history and ecological models as still dominating archeological research in Canada. Canadian archaeologists were perhaps more able to take what they wanted from the processual model without wholly subscribing to it, or leeling it necessary take a reactionary stance to it. Elements o f processual practice such as predictive modeling and statistical analysis remain present in many archaeological projects that are not necessarily wholly processual in their interpretative framework. 24 In the late 1960s, changes began to take place in Canada with regards to the public voicing o f issues surrounding Native Rights and land claims. An increased awareness o f equal rights in general during this period occurred partly due to the civil rights movements in the United States. The so-called “White Paper” policy developed by Jean Chrétien in 1969 (then M inister o f Indian Affairs) marked a pivotal moment in the struggle for recognition o f Aboriginal rights in Canada. The premise o f the White Paper was that Aboriginal peoples’ poverty and social problems stemmed from their “unique” legal status with respect to the rest o f Canada, rather than the acknowledgement that governmental and Euro-Canadian societal racism and colonialist policies had created it (Miller 1989:226). This body o f proposed legislation caused the consolidation of various Native organizations across Canada in a united struggle to (successfully) oppose it (Miller 1989:32; Park 1993:49). The rise o f awareness and Aboriginal political activism in Canada was coupled by a worldwide struggle for Indigenous rights through the 1970s. By 1984, the “Declaration o f Principles” outlined by the World Council o f Indigenous Peoples recognized the Aboriginal Title to material and archaeological culture (McGhee 1989:15). Through their struggle for rights and recognition, Aboriginal people were able to influence not only public opinion, but also their popular image. The biggest critic o f the image o f the “Indian” as seen through anthropological research is Vine Deloria Jr. who in 1969 authored the seminal work D W T b w r 5";»^. As an Aboriginal scholar, he attacks the practice o f anthropology as being colonial in nature and not benefiting Native 25 cultures in any way. Although his understanding o f modem anthropology is not entirely accurate, his work is significant as hallmark critique o f anthropological work from a Native perspective. What began as a two-way mutually influenced and reinforced relationship between archaeological theory (applied in Canada) and the popular image of the “Indian” (as an abstract concept) became a tripartite relationship including Aboriginal people’s voices through the 1970s and 1980s. The Pan-Indian political movement served as an alternative discourse that became noticed at this time. The Ethnohistorical M ovement and Postprocessualism The 1970s saw a shift in the way both colonial and pre-contact history was presented and studied. The late 1970s and early 1980s witnessed the development o f an ethno-historical movement (see for examples Dickason 1984; Fisher 1978; and Trigger 1985). Popular conceptions o f Canadian history began to change along with the image o f Aboriginal people as mere pawns in the European’s game. This Euro-Canadian revision o f history was coupled by a “cultural renaissance” in Aboriginal communities and an increased public interest in their history, both pre- and post-contact (Trigger 1980). Due to an emphasis on theoretical debate and lack o f funding for practical training, archaeology tended to lag behind history in terms o f responding to Aboriginal concerns that were increasingly heard. The rise o f a strong and coordinated Aboriginal political voice at this time began to make some archaeologists question the power relationships between researchers and Aboriginal people in Canada. This situation was also exacerbated by the potential for successful land claims by Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia and the North, and some archaeologists realized that they would need to 26 change some o f their practices in order to successfully conduct research on these lands. These were trends that would continue to the present day, as projects that involved Aboriginal co-management grew more prolific. While this time period was dynamic in terms o f the development o f new ideas, Carlson (1973:67-9) laments the lack o f funding and energy put into archaeology with respect to training programs and museum research, as well as a lack o f individuals with Ph.D.s to carry out this work. The postprocessual movement o f the late 1970s arose as a critical response to processualism that was highly influenced by the postmodern critiques seen in other disciplines at the time. While it should be noted that there is no unifying theoretical design in postprocessual writing, one main feature is a critique o f the positivist foundation o f processualism (Preucel 1991a:4). This critique focused on acknowledging the existence o f subjectivity within the scientific method thus demonstrating that there was no way o f “proving” truth and fact as the processualists believed. This questioning however, should not be understood as an outright rejection o f all aspects o f processualism (Hodder 1992:88). This appraisal o f the social sciences included an analysis o f power and authority over knowledge production and dissemination, an examination o f the power o f text and a réévaluation o f scholarly aims, and a closer look at the ethics and value o f social sciences in general. Within archaeology, two agendas fell under the deconstructivist gaze. The first was a endeavor to explore how meaning is ascribed to material remains (interpretation) and the second project dealt with exploring the general ideology behind the discipline, including 27 asking questions about the usefulness o f archaeology in the present. Self-analysis within archaeological discourse was seen by many, and particularly feminist archaeologists, as a way not only to encourage awareness o f social inequalities within archaeology but also to promote these changes within a larger sphere (Gero et al. 1983:3). The most radical group o f postprocessualists were inspired by critical theory that originated in the Frankfurt School o f Philosophy in the 1920s, in an attempt to develop and apply some o f M arx’s ideas to studies o f human society (Leone et al 1987:283, Preucel 1991b:23). A Marxist influence can be seen in archaeological discourse through certain streams o f postprocessual writing (Pinsky and Wylie 1989; Preucel 199 la, 199lb; Leone et al. 1987; Wilkie and Bartoy 2000). These scholars felt that social and political concerns (particularly the treatment o f gender in archaeological research and women in the archaeological profession) were not adequately accounted for in processualist writing. As Leone et al. (1987) describe: Almost invariably, one o f the reasons given fo r employing critical theory is to describe and deal with the factors - social, economic, political, and psychological - fAa/ Aave Age» aw / fAgfr .yoc/a/ wfgf fAaf ww/er mawy off/mafy rw/g.; fAowW «of 6g ^ng.ygMA [Leone et al. 1987:284] These methods also imply a desire for change through this critical self-consciousness (Preucel 1991b: 23). Wylie (1985:137) describes the two ways in which postprocessual theory is critical. The first is that it involves a critical reflection o f the knowledgeproduction enterprise itself once this critical understanding o f social context is met. The second element is laying this criticism bare and taking action. 28 Unfortunately, the critical gaze and attempted self-awareness o f postprocessualism in archaeology did not lead archaeologists to recognize or address the unequal power relationship that has existed between Aboriginal peoples and the archaeological past. Despite its analysis o f power and its relativistic bent, postprocessualism is perhaps just as likely to stereotype Aboriginal people and alienate them from archaeological practice and discourse. Wylie (1983:122, also Gero 1983) believes that in order to “avoid obsolescence,” the discipline o f archaeology must devote more time and energy into “theoretical problem formulation” that uses recovered archaeological evidence while at the same time engaging with political concerns. However, postprocessualists did not often address the “problem” o f Aboriginal people’s involvement in archaeology. Some scholars have put time into theoretical problem formulation with respect to working with North American Aboriginal populations. Scholarship by Duke (1995), Bandsman (1989), McGuire (1992), Nicholas (2000, 2004a, 2004b), Smith (1994) and Yellowhom (1993, 1996, 2002) demonstrate an interest in theorizing what some call “indigenous” archaeology. Duke (1995), for example, suggests that the most appropriate model for working with Aboriginal communities involves a synthesis o f various theoretical streams. He combines culture-histoiy and processual archaeology, as well as elements from postmodernist practice within postprocessual work. When asked about his theoretical influences with respect to cooperative efforts with First Nations in British Columbia, Phil Hobler (personal communication 2003) says that archaeology involving Aboriginal communities should not be dominated by any particular theory, as it can skew work. He notes that “First Nations do not like their history to be used to prove someone’s 29 theory," which indicates the need tor this type o f open use o f different theories. Nicholas (2004a) sees indigenous archaeology as being informed by postprocessual theory, but that archaeology will continue to focus on the creation o f culture-histories. Nicholas and Andrews (1997) describe the examples contained in their edited volume as “Indigenous Archaeology," noting that “ ...currently there is no clear theoretical framework within which this operates although it is strongly but not entirely postprocessual" (Nicholas and Andrews 1997:3). Smith (1994) notes that cultural resource management that engages with Aboriginal people on the community level can be interpreted as a form o f postprocessual practice. The nature o f archaeological theory is that hard data, in the form o f artifacts and features, are the starting point o f any theory building and make archaeological theory unique to the discipline. Thus, theory must be developed internally and must continue to be discussed and renegotiated within the discipline. In Y ellowhom ’s (2002) model for “internalist" archaeology, theory-building emanates from the community itself. This means that ideas and theories are borrowed from processual and postprocessual approaches and are altered to suit the needs o f Aboriginal archaeologists. Traditional Aboriginal knowledge is also implicated in this theory formulation by allowing its development from within the community. McDonald (2004:5, 2003:xii) distinguishes between community-placed research, where research occurs within the community and community-centered research, which engages with the community and responds to its agenda, culture and experiences. Ultimately, the practice o f community-centered archaeology would require community-centered theory formulation. 30 Ideas and images regarding Aboriginal peoples have doubtlessly been created through archaeological work throughout the years. Following the establishment o f EuroCanadian cultural hegemony, Canadian governments have been able to manipulate the public's views about histoiy and culture in order to support Indian policies (Dickason 1984:xii). W olf (1982:388) similarly notes that those v^dio control the power to name and describe events in history are able to guide public opinion. While it is a stretch to blame archaeologists for the creation o f damaging policies, the point made is that archaeological work has consequences for Aboriginal peoples which fall outside o f the discipline itself. At this point in time, most o f the authority over the telling o f the past within the dominant discourse still rests more securely in the hands o f academics than in the possessors o f Indigenous histories and knowledge (Smith 1994:305). Therefore, archaeologists have a responsibility to examine the underlying bias in their work in terms o f what images it portrays o f Aboriginal peoples. In this chapter, I have demonstrated that ideas about archaeological cultures have a bearing on how the contemporary descendents o f these cultures are viewed. This stereotyping is a result not only o f developments within archaeology and other social sciences, but especially by the politics o f Aboriginal/settler relations in Canada at large. One main reason that Aboriginal people have not been more involved in archaeology is the discipline's failure to see archaeological cultures as still living - resulting in a failure to engage with contemporary Aboriginal communities. In order to encourage moves toward equal partnerships between Aboriginal peoples and archaeologists, these stereotypes and biases must be deconstructed and overcome. Those Aboriginal 31 communities that have worked with archaeologists, and also those that have developed heritage management programmes, demonstrate the ways in which different types o f knowledge systems can come together. The examples in the following chapter will demonstrate that this is already being done. 32 Chapter Three - What is Community-Based Archaeology? ...fAe gxfgMf wAfcA arcAaeo/ogy Maccepfgc/mafrve co/M/Mww^;gf /arge(y OMfAg vcf/Z;»gMgj^a^ q/^arcAago/ogüf^ fo Aegm ckco/oMizfMg TW/aw AMfoyy a»(f !Mfegra^mg7M(/;aM aap;raf;oMa ;»fo fAeir rearearcA oZygcfrve& [Yellowhom 1993:109] The last chapter presented an overview o f Canadian archaeology and considered how this development helped alienate Aboriginal involvement in archaeology. Many archaeologists working in Canada have realized the need for this involvement, as well as the mutual benefits that increased cooperation brings (Andrews 2001; Ferris 2003; Friesen 2002; Hanks and Pokotylo 1989; Jamieson 1999; Nicholas 1997, 2002; Nicholas and Andrews 1997; Nicholson et al. 1996; Pokotylo 1997; Reimer 1998; Robinson 1996; Stenton and Rigby 1995; Trigger 1996; Yellowhom 1993, 1996, 2002). In order to further develop good relations between Aboriginal people and the discipline o f archaeology, the body o f w ork pertaining to Aboriginal involvement in both practice and theory must be heeded and further developed. This chapter will explore how a community-based approach in archaeology addresses the issue o f Aboriginal agency. The cooperative practices described in this thesis are only just starting to be adopted by academic archaeologists in Canada on a wide scale. Within the cultural resource management (CRM) field, however, community-based methods have been used to a greater degree. Cultural resource managers tend to be those hired to do archaeological impact assessments for industry or occasionally by Bands or First Nations. The difference between this and academic archaeology is that the excavations are chosen on the basis o f assessing or salvaging what is about to be destroyed by development, rather than being chosen as a site to test a specific theory or question about the past. Sometimes 33 this simply means managing natural resources in a way that does the least damage possible to archaeological and cultural sites. While archaeological methods and theory are taught through the University system, this is less often the case with CRM as it is seen as more o f an industry. However this does show signs o f changing as more courses are being taught on the topic o f Indigenous archaeology (Yellowhom 1993, 2002). Aboriginal community involvement in CRM undertakings has been a topic o f discussion for many years, for example at the yearly Archaeology Forum in British Columbia, yet these discussions have rarely reached an academic audience. The academic community could certainly benefit from learning more about the cooperative process that cultural resource managers employ. A movement towards community-based methods in archaeology would be comprised o f methods from both academic archaeology and CRM. It is perhaps because o f the alignment o f CRM and community-based methods that community-based archaeology has not been identified as a tradition within academic archaeology, as academic and CRM archaeology are often seen as oppositional (Marshall 2002:215). In order to establish a definition for "community-based archaeology" involving Canadian Aboriginal people, some key components will be fleshed out. C huter Five will explore this practical aspect by looking at community-based, participant action research models and will explore their potential use for a decolonizing archaeology. While communitybased archaeology is being undertaken in Canada, there has been very little effort put into placing it in a national or international context. In the introductory article in the issue devoted to "community [-based] archaeology", Marshall (2002:212) 34 notes that it "appears to be more explicitly articulated as a specific set o f practices within the disciplines o f Australia and "New Zealand" and that out o f the two papers that were chosen from North America, "neither author has chosen to locate their work within a North American tradition o f community archaeology". Two o f the three papers from Australia in the volume (Clarke 2002 and Greer et al. 2002) spend several pages describing the development o f community archaeology in Australia and place their work within the movement. Thus, although Marshall (2002) acknowledges that Friesen’s (2002) paper in the volume is indeed what she defines as community-based archaeology, what is missing from Canadian archaeology is an articulation o f what community-based archaeology means and looks like within a Canadian context. This chapter will demonstrate that such a tradition does indeed exist in Canada and will illustrate common themes within this work while underscoring the need for its further development. The goal here should not be interpreted as an attempt to find a universal methodology that will work for every instance in Canada, but rather as an exploration into certain aspects o f community-based practice which are beneficial to the future o f Canadian archaeology vis-à-vis its relationship with Aboriginal peoples. As demonstrated in the previous chapter, this idea o f archaeology by and for communities whose past is being studied is precisely what is being called for by some postprocessual archaeologists (Leone 1990). If archaeological knowledge is conveyed among archaeologists through national and local archaeological journals, then it is vitally important that it reflect the actual state o f Canadian archaeology. This literature is also a place for assessing the discipline’s thoughts on Aboriginal participation in archaeology 35 and for constructive debate. Clearly, a stronger presence and visibility for communitybased projects is needed within this literature. Participatory Action Research (PAR) was developed in Tanzania in the 1970s by scholars and communities as an exercise o f resistance to colonial or neocolonial research practices that were less than beneficial to the communities they studied (Hall 1993:xiii). It was seen then as different from previous research models, as the community is involved in the research in an ongoing, meaningful fashion where local education and action as an end result o f the research were key factors (Hall 1993: xvi). Sol Tax’s concept o f Action Anthropology and Paulo Freire’s pedagogy o f the oppressed contributed to the development o f such community-based action research within anthropology (McDonald 2004:3). Indigenous or local community knowledge is key to community-based methods as it endeavors to “empower popular knowledge” (Park 1993:17). This is done by recovering practical skills, collective wisdom, and traditions that are often submerged within traditional social science research and in society at large. It is flexible in the sense that, while there is an accepted body o f tenets or principles for both the community and the "research facilitator", they are adaptable and therefore applicable to many different research scenarios (Ryan and Robinson 1996:7). This methodology does not support the ’’ Participant Action Research is also known as Community-Based Research, Community Participation Research, or Community-Based Participatory Research (Ryan and Robinson 1996). While there may be subtle differences between these terms, the main goals and themes are similar. To include all o f these ideas, I use the term Community-Based Participant Action Research, which is sometimes shortened to community-based research. 36 idea o f research for research's sake, but rather incorporates an action or change that the research will initiate. The outside researcher thus becomes an "external research facilitator" in this model, whose role is to bring their educational expertise to share with the community (Ryan and Robinson 1996). This individual is often seen as training themselves out o f a job by not only sharing knowledge, but by building capacity within the community so subsequent research and projects may be initiated and administered internally (Ryan and Robinson 1996:8). The role o f the external researcher is a delicate one; they must for example be self-critical in order to avoid reproducing colonial relationships within the research programme. W hat makes community-based participatory research unique is the issue o f the community’s control over the interpretation, outcome and eventual use o f the results (Hoare et al. 1993:52). Hall (1975:25) describes the key elements o f PAR as it was conceived in the field o f adult education: 1. [Participant Action Research] involves a whole range o f powerless groups o f people—exploited, the poor, the oppressed, and the 2. A im'o/vgj: tAe/wZ/ a W ocffve j. TAg offAe m tAe o f ZAe rgfeorcA ongzMotgj: m tAe oom/MWMfty Aa^e/foncZ tAe j^roAZgy» w owZ .yoZveA Ay t/K co/»mwMZ(y. 'Z. TAe wZtZmote gooZ Zf zAg roAZcoZ Zrow/brmoZZoM o f wcZoZ rgoZZZy owZ zAg ZmprovgmgMt o f zAg ZZvgf o f zAg /w qpZg zAgwMgZvga'. TAg A gn^gZ w fgj^ o f ZAg rg.ygorgA o rg ZAg /»g7MAgr.y o f ZAg gom/MwrnZZy. J . 2Ag proggf.y o f porZZgÿwZo/y rga^gorcA c o n crgoZg a grgaZ gr awargMgj^a^ Z» zAg /w qpZg o f zZ^Zr o w » rgaow rgga a» A moAZZZzg zZzgm ag^ygZZawZ (ZgvgZqp/MgMZ. 6. fZ Za a /» o rg agZgMZi/?g TMgZAoA o f rg ag arcA Z» zAaZ zAg /^arZZcZpaZZon o f zZ)g go/MTManZZy Z» zAg rgagargA ^ ro g g a a fügZZZZaZga a ynorg aggw aZ g a W aaZAgwZZg aaaZyaZa o f aogZaZ rgaZZZy. 7. TAg rg ag argA g r Za a go/»f»ZAg(ZparZZgZpaaZ a W Z g aragr Z» ZZ^ /?roggaa o f rgagargA , Z.g. a TMZZZZawZ raZ Z ^r zZza» a AgZagAgA 37 [Hall 1975:35]. These principles are easily applicable to the contexts o f Canadian Aboriginal communities, who have been disen&anchised Ifom Canadian society as a whole, and Canadian archaeology in particular. It is also interesting to note that one o f Hall's key claims (item 7) is what Wylie (1992) noted regarding the involvement o f different political agendas within archaeology - namely, that more self-analysis leads to a more rigorous and scientific outcome. This programme deliberately includes subversive characteristics that empower disenfranchised communities and places the academy’s interests as secondary to those o f the community (Hall et al. 1982). As a transformative methodology, community-based participatory research attempts to destabilize biased elements o f the status quo, and is therefore a practice that challenges the Western colonialist paradigm. Community-Based Participant Action Research and Aboriginal People Community-Based Participant Action Research has been acknowledged as particularly useful in the Canadian context because it is consistent with the values o f Aboriginal people (Hoare et al. 1993). The appropriateness o f applying the PAR methodology to Aboriginal communities in Canada has been noted by several scholars: Kurelek (1992) writes about the Innu o f Labrador; Ryan and Robinson (1990, 1996) have done work with the Gwich'in within the Arctic Institute ofNorth America; and the general application o f this method to Aboriginal research has been noted by Castellano (1993); Hoare et al. (1993); Jackson et al. (1982); St. Denis (1992); and Warry (1990). Indeed, Jackson (1993:61) posits that participatory research has been the Canadian Aboriginal movement's "way o f working" since the 1980s. Research in Canada's North 38 demonstrates an adherence to these principles, as community-based methods are incorporated into many ofRcial ethics documents (Evans et al. 1999). Despite this, there seems to have been a lack o f writing about the benefits and key elements o f participant research in the country at large. Aboriginal people in Canada have a shared experience o f colonialism, and many communities and individuals have had a negative experience with social science research that has been conducted on them which has had larger consequences in their lives (Sioui 1999; St. Denis 1992:51). Com m unity-Based Participant A ction Research and Archaeology Elements o f this methodology are already in use in many cases but that it is difficult to find any articles in the peer-reviewed literature (Robinson 1996:26). While few researchers have written about their community-based research with Aboriginal people in Canada, even fewer have discussed outright its applicability for archaeology. Robinson (1996) and Stenton and Rigby (1995) note the potential for community-based principles within archaeology, the latter paper providing a practical example o f how this was done. It is a regrettable oversight as many elements o f community-based research hold great potential value for archaeology for a number o f reasons. The value o f the principles o f cooperation and community involvement for example, are clearly applicable to archaeology. In terms o f the "action" aspect o f PAR, community-based archaeology project could lead to local education, the subsequent undertaking o f excavation imdertaken wholly by the community, or even the development o f heritage management programs for the band. It is necessary to outline some o f the guidelines that deserve consideration in the application o f CBPAR to archaeology and to look at some examples 39 o f how elements o f these methodologies have been applied to various archaeology projects. Tom Andrews (2001), who undertakes archaeology projects with communities in the Northwest Territories, lists the following as "Components o f a Successful Collaboration" for heritage related work with Aboriginal people: 1. M utual Respect (Between research partners in terms o f cultural differences, modes o f discourse, dispute resolution, concepts o f time and worldview) 2. Building Relationships (Long-term commitment usually required between smaller communities and outside researcher involves personal contact) 3. Collaborative research design and project planning (often using a communitybased steering committee, equality in decision making) 4. Willingness to subordinate academic objectives (Local concerns placed before academic ones) 5. Flexibility (ability to adjust and change project to unforeseen problems) 6. Willingness to localize project benefits (training, local exhibits etc) 7. Sharing credit and voice (joint copyright between eommunity and outside researcher/researching body, opportunity to express different interpretations) 8. Willingness to partieipate in corollary projects (Traditional Use Studies, oral history projects) 9. Willingness to share expertise, resources, and access to resources (between research partners/groups) [Andrews 2001]. Andrews’ list o f components clearly reflects a CBPAR methodology, yet neither Andrews nor others working in this type o f applied archaeological field tend to describe their work as such. While not developed for a Canadian Aboriginal context, Moser et al. (2002) likewise present seven research objectives for collaborative practice: 7. Co/M/MWMfco/fon OMùl co/M/MWM/ty and of every ftep q / tAe proee.;.^ 2. E/Mp/qymeMt a W tram/mg (provzcfmgyûf/ fime wo r As ^ o r me /oeaf ^ q p Z e m areA aeo /o g y , wAA tA eir acqam Y ioM q /^ ^ r m a / q u a /i^ e a tio rw ) j . fw A /zc /zrefeMtatzoM a r e A a e o / o g z e a Z t A r o w g A exAzAztzorz a W zMterwe^) 7Atervzew.y a W oraZ Azj^tory (ivztA ZocaZ /reqpZe, eapeezaZZy e/cZer e o 7»/MWMz(y memAerj) 40 J. vw/^y 6y a^cAoo/ cA;/(frg«, f/ze ^6/M A m g q/cAz/(/rgM ,y 6ooty aw / wa^Mg a /zazf/a/ a /Y ^ c f zWa6afe ovaz/a6/g /o ^Ag pw6/z(^ (f. f/zo fo g rq p /zzc a w / v/z/eo arcA /v e (rggaz-z/m g fAe A /jfozy q/^/Ag go/MZMWMZ(y fo Ag Ag/(/ Ay fAg gozMwa»f(%) 7. Community-controlled merchandising (as an alternative to traditional tourist trinkets) [Moser et al. 2002:229-242] Both A ndrews’ and Moser et al.’s lists may be helpful as a way to assess projects for their qualification as collaborative or community-based. The solutions to problems that arise throughout community-based projects, such as disagreements over historical interpretations, are often not simple to deal with - the issue o f how to mediate local politics for example is a difficult one. Yet those who undertake this kind o f methodology explain that it is the process o f pursuing cooperation and consensus that is important (Devine 1994; Ryan and Robinson 1990, 1996). A key characteristic o f any community-based project or enterprise is capacity-building for historically disenfranchised groups (Hall 1993). Ideally, members of Aboriginal communities would possess the skills, finances, and resources to practice their own archaeological research on their own territories, as well as the resources and professionals to participate in Canada-wide heritage projects and repatriation programs. This should not be limited to field-oriented training, but should also include academic training as well. Currently, however, few Aboriginal individuals hold degrees in archaeology, although this is certainly beginning to change (Phil Hobler, personal communication 2003; Reimer 1998). Remedies to this situation lie with the development o f localized training and community empowerment and education, as much as with the choice o f Aboriginal youth to pursue degrees in archaeology (Yellowhom 1993). Therefore, when 41 applying CBPAR methods to archaeology, there is ample opportunity for differing manifestations o f community-based archaeology which develop following different local community situations. Thus, a wide range o f projects may be labeled "communitybased” if they follow the basic principles as quoted by Andrews (2001). Formal community-based methods involve a carefully planned approach that includes ongoing critical assessment o f the project as it progresses. This assessment will ensure that community interests are addressed within the project and allow the Aboriginal collaborators a chance to raise concerns and give feedback at every phase o f the project. The fourth step in Andrews’ (2001) list notes that academic and research-oriented archaeology will be eclipsed, yet this need not be the case (see Evans et al. 1999). As long as the community’s interests are respected, and benefits are seen through the project in general, research problems that are traditionally pursued within archaeology could still emanate from the academy. Obviously these points need to be critically examined for application to an archaeological setting. Yellowhom (1996,2002) presents an "indigenous" or "internalist" community-based model for archaeology that responds to the needs o f his own Aboriginal community. His model appropriates archaeological methodologies, but requires the work be carried out centered upon local concerns and grounded in local knowledge and worldview, in an attempt to make the discipline more locally meaningful. Decolonization is even more evident in the internalist model than in the community-based one, since the research facilitator is a community member and not external to the community. Smith (1999) 42 explains this idea o f creating a new scholarship that is more inclusive o f Aboriginal interests by blending different types o f knowledge: DecoZoMzzahoM... wot TMeaw owZ Aaj Mof zMgant a foW oZ/ tZzeo/y or research or Western knowledge. Rather it is about centering our concerns and worZcZ vzewj' a W fZzeMco/»Zmg to OMzZWMzZerfmwZ fZzeo/y owZ refgarcZz our own perspectives and fo r our own purposes. [Smith 1999:39] Internalist archaeology allows for community guidance in terms o f theoretical problem formulation, making the community not only participants in the fieldwork, but partners in theory building as well. The local community benefits on a practical level by being involved in reconstructing the past through archaeology that compliments, instead o f contrasts, with more traditional methods. This allows for Aboriginal people’s input in archaeology, resulting in reinforcing their right to be involved in the telling o f their own past. The result is that the community benefits from archaeological research, and internalist projects can then re-inform archaeological practice through the theory-building that occurs. Yellowhom (1996) includes a cautionary note: The construction o f theory is typically seen as a hallmark o f academic freedom, but unrestrained theory-building can be hostile to the well-being o f Native people who fin d their p a st being manipulated fo r goals unrelated to their concerns. [Yellowhom 1996:41] Thus the project o f theory building for a non-colonial nationalist archaeology must be closely monitored for relevance to Aboriginal People’s social, political, and historical interests. Nicholas (2004a) notes that others are proposing similar models for Indigenous archaeology; this seems to be an avenue o f research that has only just begun to be explored. 43 The need for Aboriginal involvement is demonstrated not only in the archaeological excavation itself but also in the interpretation and (re)presentation o f this past to a larger audience. jw m r q /o rcA o eo Z o g y w mot mereZy to /M te/yret fZze /m r t Zo cAowge ZZzg /MùTMMer ;» wAZcA ZAe ZMZgrprgZe^ZZ» ZAg a^e/vZcg q/wcZaZ recowZrwcZZo/w Z» the present ...[reconstructions] require judgm ents in terms o f the practical co/wgqwgMce.9 q/^wcZmeoZogZcgZ Z/Kory awZ/?racZZce coMZe/^^orayy fOcZaZ change. [Shanks and Tilley 1987a: 195] The practical consequences for Aboriginal People involve the ability to negotiate their own histories. The social change would be to further the struggle for Aboriginal selfdetermination. Feminist archaeologists have acknowledged the potential o f archaeology to be a powerful tool for social justice. One self-defined goal o f feminist postprocessual archaeologists was not only to promote self-awareness in archaeology, but also to "advance change in the larger social context" (Gero et al. 1983:3). Similarly, Wylie (1985:140) notes that work o f the type that Leone et al. (1987) and Handsman (1989) discuss will lead to a “systematic criticism o f our current myths about the past,” and may cause us to explore the social conditions that led to this false image creation, leading to larger societal changes. Community-based archaeology is a way to put postprocessual theory into practice in the real world, by addressing contemporary social and political concerns. ExwrgyZa; q/^ Cb#Mm*f/fZZy-AKgd XrcAggo/qgy Z« Cawoda While examples o f cooperative archaeology are mentioned in Nicholas and Andrews (1997) work, it is difficult to uncover the beginnings o f this trend. As mentioned above, few practitioners or advocates o f CBPAR methods for archaeology seem to publish in peer-reviewed literature, or on public domains such as the World Wide Web. It is 44 difficult to ascertain the frequency o f community-based projects o f this kind due to this lack o f publication. It is likewise difficult to get an idea o f how theory is being conceived and utilized through these projects. The following is an overview o f some specifically Canadian examples that were found in the literature and through first-hand experience. Chapter Four will provide a more in-depth study o f one such example. As early as 1986, a cooperative project between archaeologists and the Iroquois community at Oneida o f the Thames. Mayer and Antone (1986:21) suggest that the practice o f Native participation in the decision-making process, organization and administration o f self-directed archaeology programs was at the time an increasing trend (Mayer and Antone 1986:21). The authors point out that these projects are .not merely ‘research for research sake’... but are specifically structured towards creating end products that have practical applications by Native people” (Mayer and Antone 1986:21). The Oneida project entailed a training and research program funded by the Oneida o f the Thames Socio-Economic Development Department (i.e., the local band) and it displayed many aspects o f community-based PAR methods as the positive benefits to the community are mentioned. These positive benefits include: tourism through the establishment o f a community display facility, cultural resource centre, preservation o f sites for future development, rediscovery o f lost prehistoric heritage (Mayer and Antone 1986:26-27). Another example is the Alberta Department o f Education (ADE) project to develop their Native Education policy through a community-based Native Education Team (Devine 45 1994). The ADE's goal in this project was to encourage the disenfranchised Aboriginal population to participate in and assert ownership over the way their culture and history were being presented. The power structure o f this project reflects Ryan's (1995) PAR method as the authority rested with the Aboriginal people who worked as partners through a steering committee. In the case o f any arguments/discrepancies between the ADE and steering committee, the Native point o f view would be chosen (Devine 1994:480). Devine notes that there was some ambivalence towards archaeology by the Aboriginal people involved in the project, and discusses the need to encourage the Native youth o f Alberta to become interested in archaeology in order that this skepticism towards archaeology be voiced within the discipline. Field Schools Archaeology field schools are prime candidates for the community-based participant research model. This is largely due to the educational aspect o f field schools that provide opportunity for localized training within the program. Archaeological field schools occurring on Aboriginal territory have the opportunity to parallel many o f the principles o f community-based participant research. As McDonald and Lazenby (1999:8) note, "...professional archaeologists are bom, for the most part, in post-secondary departments o f Anthropology and Archaeology, and teething takes place in the context o f the field school. The field school thus becomes an important locus o f de-colonization." There is some indication that these elements o f integrating these three educational aspects (the academic, the technical and the traditional/spiritual), as well as training for local Aboriginal youth, is becoming standard for field schools, particularly in Western and Arctic Canada. In order to follow the community-based principles, however, the 46 institution undertaking the field school must be committed to working with the community on a long-term, ongoing basis over many field seasons. Stenton and Rigby describe the Tungatsiwik Archaeological Project in the Eastern Arctic as community-based since "it has actively involved Inuit in the project design, in conducting research, and in interpreting and applying the information collected to community-directed heritage programs” (Stenton and Rigby 1995:54). The intent o f the project was to involve the community in the excavation and research, and to ensure that the information collected would serve the community’s needs and interests (Stenton and Rigby 1995:48). The project included training in cultural resource management for students in the Arctic College, the integration o f oral history and archaeological versions o f the past, development o f heritage management tools for the community, and reinforcing o f community identity and pride through these endeavors (Stenton and Rigby 1995:54-55). Susan Jamieson (1999) discusses Trent University’s Cooperative Archaeology Field School Program which has been in operation since 1996. Jamieson states outright that she believes that research-oriented archaeology into the indigenous past is colonialist and could be considered racist (Jamieson 1999:8). She calls for an archaeology that, rather than being research oriented, responds to the needs and interests o f Aboriginal peoples. An ultimate goal o f the Ontario field school is the training o f Aboriginal students so that they can "regain control o f their past and how it is presented" (Jamieson 1999:9). The description below o f the goals o f the Trent University field school demonstrates a 47 community-based focus. According to the Trent University Web Site , the field school "incorporates the teachings o f a Native cultural advisor, an elder, and an archaeologist." The field school is designed to explore some o f the issues between Aboriginal communities and archaeologists; fartzcw/or ezMp/Kww M/z/acezf on zngfAmg JVdtzve aW arcAago/ogzca/ worW v/gws and beliefs where possible and reflecting on the divergent beliefs and pasts presented by Natives and archaeologists where this is not possible. The rationale fo r this is that non-Native students learn to recognize, respect, and heed the traditions o f the groups, both p ast and present, with whom they are working. The short and medium range goals o f the Cooperative Archaeology Program are: to provide future band managers with the technical knowledge required to evaluate the quality o f archaeological fieldw ork and reports presented by consulting firm s as one component o f land claims or environmental disputes; and to train archaeology students as anthropologists who can relate to the sensitivities and concerns o f Native peoples regarding excavation, analysis, and interpretation. The ultimate intent o f the Trent program is to sensitize students to the reality that Native peoples must regain control o f their p a st and how it is examined by, and presented to the larger Canadian society. [Trent University 2002] The Secwpemc Cultural Education Society/Simon Fraser University (SCES/SFU) field school is a highly publicized example o f a community-based field school, as well as being the longest-running indigenous archaeology program in Canada (Nicholas 1997, 2000, 2002, 2004a). The Secwpemc, also known as the Shuswap, are interior-Salish people who are comprised o f 17 bands. A Native-administered, Native-run, post­ secondary institute was setup on the Kamloops Indian Reserve as a collaborative educational project between SCES and SFU in 1989 (Nicholas 1997:88). Nicholas (1997:88) notes that previous to the 1980s, archaeology in the Kamloops area was executed by non-Aboriginal archaeologists for a non-Aboriginal audience, and that the last two decades have been marked by archaeology which has been done with full cooperation and resulting benefits to the band. Nicholas (1997:89) describes the intent to ' http://www.trentu.ca/anthropology/Ontariol.html 48 "enhance the quality o f life for Native people; preserve, protect, interpret and promote their history, language, and culture; and provide research and developmental opportunities to enable Native people to control their own affairs and destiny." This educational body has been involved in archaeological and resource management undertakings since 1991 by offering many courses in archaeology and related subjects such as cultural resource management and anthropology. The field school course forms the basis o f the hands-on training for Aboriginal students. Nicholas (1997) notes that the project is careful to balance practical archaeology field methods with critical thinking and research-oriented work. Traditional Secwepemc values are incorporated into the field school through the Elders and other community members that are involved with teaching aspects o f the course, and local protocols such as leaving tobacco offerings at the site are observed (Nicholas 1997:91). This training project clearly has benefits for the local Kamloops band as well as other Aboriginal people that have been involved with the course, and has arguably played a central role in encouraging other community-based projects in British Columbia. As a school that has a mandate to undertake community-based Aboriginal education. University o f Northern British Columbia followed this philosophy when designing its archaeological field school. The UNBC field school model was developed around the SCES/SFU archaeology field school, with the goal o f incorporating community values into the programme (McDonald and Lazenby 1999). In the 2000 and 2002 field seasons, the University ofNorthem British Columbia (UNBC) ran two successful communitybased archaeology field schools in partnership with the Cariboo Tribal Council (CTC) at 49 Soda Creek. The student participants were from the five local bands o f the CTC and from UNBC. The course was again designed to incorporate critical academic knowledge, archaeology field methods, and traditional Indigenous knowledge taught by local Elders, "accepting the equality o f the sources o f knowledge" from both the university students as well as the local participants. Both the students and the instructors o f both field schools participated in many local community cultural events, including special visits by Elders and other community members who shared cultural knowledge with the group. Public Education Community-based archaeological initiatives can bring benefits to the community that extend beyond the project itself. Through the knowledge and material remains that archaeology might uncover, the community members have the opportunity to be involved in the presentation o f this past to the public through community-run heritage programs or local museums. Below are some examples o f using community-based archaeology for public consumption. The Heritage Resources Unit o f the Cultural Services Branch o f the government o f the Yukon Territory runs a program to "facilitate Heritage Resources-First Nations cooperation in the research and documentation o f Yukon's prehistoric past" (Yukon Heritage 2003). This project has been developed over the last 10 years and provides community participation and student training. Public awareness o f Aboriginal history is raised through the publication o f several booklets jointly published by the First Nation and the Yukon government. The Yukon Heritage Web Site (2003) contains twelve online booklets, eight o f which list the First Nation involved in the project as publishers o f the 50 text. A closer look at these booklets demonstrates adherence to a community-based participant action methodology. All o f the projects involve an "external research facilitator", (usually the Yukon territory archaeologist), who acts as project manager in consultation with the community. An advisory board is set up to ensure formal consultation with Elders and other community members. The excavation is undertaken primarily by community members, providing archaeological field training to youth and others. The Yukon government and the First Nation, allowing the community to have a voice in the presentation o f results, jointly publish the booklets that are a result o f these undertakings. These publications demonstrate an effort to present history in a way that balances both traditional knowledge and Western archaeological interpretation. Discussion o f archaeological theory is absent from any o f this literature, however, making it difficult to gauge the theoretical influences o f the work. Unfortunately, the publications also do not discuss whether the research problems emanated from the bands or from the research agendas o f the archaeologists involved. Aifgr/ig/fowa/ The development o f Australian archaeology in terms o f Aboriginal involvement have much in common with Canada. Marshall (2002) notes that Australian archaeologists are more likely than North Americans to place their research in the category o f a national community-based tradition. Thus, Canadian archaeologists might look to Australia for inspiration for the development o f community-based projects. Greer et al. (2002: 266) explain that the rise o f Aboriginal community consultation within archaeology occurred "as a response to broader developments in the Australian nation's recognition o f indigenous rights". They credit Australian archaeologists with not only developing the 51 practice o f community-based archaeology with Aboriginal peoples, but also o f developing the analysis o f how this involvement transforms archaeology itself (Ucko 1983). Clarke (2002) suggests that this collaborative trend occurred as a response to criticism o f archaeology by Aboriginal Australians. Ross and Coghill (2000) present a unique report o f their community-based project in the form o f a dialogue between community member and archaeologist. They describe their Lazaret Midden project on Peel Island as comm unity-based for the following reasons; the Aboriginal community is involved at all levels o f the project’s development, the results of the project include three jointly authored publications, there is a mutual respect and learning process, and the benefits range beyond field research, reporting back to the community through public presentation o f results (Ross and Coghill 2000). In their descriptions o f specific community-based projects, Clarke (2002), Greer et al. (2002) and Moser et al. (2002) all include a brief description o f the history o f Australian communitybased archaeology. While Australian archaeology demonstrates a more developed understanding and set o f principles o f community-based methods than Canadian archaeology, Greer et al. (2002) argue that this participation is often in the form o f token explanation to communities rather than the community-centered approach advocated in this thesis. Despite this, Australia may be ahead o f Canada in terms o f the development and recognition o f collaborative Aboriginal Archaeology. Within the United States, a restructuring o f the relationship between archaeologists and Native Americans occurred in the period leading up to the passing o f the Native 52 American Greaves Protection and Repatriation Act (Downer 1997). This legislation has enforced a change within American archaeology that led to increased debate, and sometimes cooperation. In 1989, Handsman noted the lack o f Native American voices within American archaeology and called for an increase in collaborative archaeology and mutual dialogue between these two parties. A few years later, Ferguson (1996) also published a paper that discussed the changing relationship between archaeologists and Native Americans, noting that there was an increase in the participation o f Native peoples in archaeological activities. He also noted however that more changes would be needed within the discipline to respond to Native concerns. What is clear is that the NAGPRA legislation heralded a new period o f cooperation between Native Americans and archaeologist. This cooperation is perhaps best illustrated in Swindler et al.’s (1997) book which presents many examples o f cooperative work. As is the case in Canada, American archaeologists do not often describe their work with Native peoples as “community-based” (Marshall 2002). One exception is provided by Kerber (2003), who describes a community-based project with the Oneida Nation o f New York Youth/Work Program that provided over 100 teenagers with archaeological training. Much o f the development o f the principles and practices o f community-based archaeology in the United States has occurred within projects that involve "descendant” communities rather than Indigenous ones. There are several examples o f communitybased historic archaeology in cooperation with African American communities (McDavid 2002; Young and Crowe 1998). Young and Crowe's (1998) description o f the "Digging 53 for the Dream" project in Mound Bayou, reflects all the same principles and methods used in many Aboriginal community-based projects. Layton's (1989) work demonstrates that the practice o f involving local communities in archaeology has become widespread, and that it is useful to encourage an international dialogue on methodology. In an example from Egypt, Moser et al. (2002) present a methodology for community archaeology that was developed in their project at Quseir. These examples demonstrate other uses for community-based archaeology that fall outside o f the Indigenous archaeology arena, yet many o f the strategies and structures employed on these projects could be used to develop principles for Aboriginal community-based archaeology in Canada. The Difficulties o f Aboriginal Community-based Archaeology Obviously, there are some difficulties to overcome while working within this type o f community-based context. The first is the need for cross-cultural understanding and for promoting different worldviews within the archaeology projects. The second is to utilize both Western academic knowledge and traditional Indigenous knowledge in an effort to decolonize archaeology (Smith 1999). TraWatfMg ITbrZf/wfew The differences in how Aboriginal and Western people conceive the world and understand history are sites for potential confusion and conflict. Western concepts o f time and history contain a bias that can be limited, as they do not allow for multiple interpretations o f the world. Fabian (1983:146) explains that Western conceptions o f 54 time (which we use to understand the archaeological record) are inextricably linked to "the emergence o f new conceptions o f Time [sic] in the wake o f a thorough secularization o f the Judeo-Christian idea o f history." Thus, an unconscious Western bias is contained within the very &amework that we use to understand the archaeological record (also see Walsh 1990). Zimmerman (1995) points out the differences and contradictions between Western conceptions o f time and Native North American conceptions (see also Sioui 1999, Smith 1999:55, Yellowhom 1993). Zimmerman suggests that archaeologists’ notions o f time are in conflict with the non-linear understandings o f time that comprise a Native worldview: I f the p ast lives in the present fo r Indians and does not exist as a separate entity, then archaeologists stating that the p a st is gone or extinct, send a strong, although unintentional message to Native Americans to the effect that the latter themselves are extinct. Acceptance o f the past as archaeologists construct it would actually destroy the present fo r Indians. [Zimmerman 1995:34] An awareness and an open-mindedness to the inclusion o f other conceptions o f time will strengthen archaeology, by making it more relevant to non-Western cultures and accessible to a wider variety o f non-academic audiences. One problem with the application o f the PAR methodology is the question o f how community is defined. Jackson (1993) notes that while PAR is supposed to benefit the community as a whole, it is the Aboriginal middle class that often reaps most o f the financial and educational benefits o f research projects. When anthropologists and other researchers discuss their use o f PAR, one has to wonder how fully the opinions o f all o f the local population are being considered. Ryan’s (1995) Community Advisory Council worked on consensus, yet who had the authority to choose this council? Since it is 55 unrealistic to think that there would ever be a community or band with no dissenting opinions, it is problematic to state that any research has the approval o f the entrre community. Consensus should be strived for, but not always expected. fower awtAonty over rAe (mwZrfvoco/ftx) Community-based archaeology helps to place the authority over the telling o f local histories back with the local communities. If part o f the community-based process involves a critique o f the status quo, the players in these projects must also assess their own role and the power relationships that surround them. Postprocessual models o f archaeology that seek to critique current power relations in society must also explore their own role within this power structure (Leone et al. 1987; Shanks and Tilley 1987a, 1987b). Wylie (1992) disputes the idea that one model for the past will suit all groups that have an interest in the past, thus supporting the common postprocessual agenda of multivocality. As mentioned above, this is a positive development towards multivocality in archaeological discourse, yet the expression o f multiple views on the past does not necessarily lead to a more equitable archaeology for Aboriginal people. Simply because multiple interpretations o f the past are heard does not mean that they are given equal time or weight within archaeological discourse. In order to avoid simply replicating current power imbalances, these alternative voices must include an analysis o f the reasons for their marginalization. Even in this time o f change, archaeologists must acknowledge that much authority over the telling o f the past still rests securely in the hands o f academics, rather than in the possessors o f indigenous histories and worldviews about the past (Smith 1994:305). There is still a need for non-Aboriginal archaeologists to act as 56 advocates o f band-directed archaeology as well as critics o f archaeology that disregards Aboriginal issues. Students o f First Nations/Native Studies will understand the contradiction o f using Western academic institutions to promulgate Aboriginal voices, when the institutions are somewhat historically responsible for this lack o f credibility (see Chapter Two). Part o f the reason that community-based methods are not more prevalent within the university context is that self-determination for Aboriginal people is not often a recognized right within mainstream academia (Warry 1990:63). The political stand o f archaeologists working with Aboriginal communities should be for Indigenous self-rule and against further colonial or assimilationist practices, because it is empowering to Aboriginal people. PAR is acknowledged as part o f a counter-hegemonic movement (Hall 1993:xviii), and this may occasionally put archaeologists in conflict with federal and provincial governments and, sometimes, even the academy. As Ryan and Robinson (1990:59) note, “ ...participatory research represented the democratization o f research and a rejection o f the domination and hegemony o f an intellectual elite." Many o f the theorists discussed in Chapter Two (e.g., Leone et al. 1987; Tilley 1989) are also clearly anti-establishment in their political views, yet this does not necessarily mean that CBPAR is only used by those seeking to overthrow the powers that be. There must be a balance between criticism and realism. By making clear the political objectives o f the parties involved in CBPAR projects, they avoid following any hidden agendas that might be counter-productive to the self-determination movement. Rejection o f hegemony and domination does not mean an end to academic institutions; it simply requires academics 57 to relinquish exclusive power over the images presented o f the past (Andrews 2001, Wany 1990). The comm unity-centered model for archaeology that has been presented here requires archaeologists to act as advocates o f Aboriginal self-determination and increased control over archaeological undertakings. The potential problem with this model is that it can set up a paternalistic relationship between the outsider archaeologist and the community with whom they are working. Community-based archaeology represents a step on the road towards full Aboriginal control over archaeological work. While community-centered work involves engaging with the community in a cooperative fashion, a model whereby the initiation o f the archaeology project and research questions originate within the community might not fit within this model. The discipline o f archaeology stands to benefit much from closer relationships with Aboriginal communities. Those undertaking “ethnoarchaeology” have understood the benefits o f this kind o f collaboration for decades in terms o f using contemporary peoples as informants. Deeper understanding o f the culture and the environment that shaped the archaeological record would be achieved by closer contact with the land and the local community. Living Aboriginal informants are a rich source o f information about the past as it relates to archaeological findings. Through these prefects, archaeology demonstrates its usefulness and application to contemporary societal issues. 58 Through the profound self-analysis o f the discipline that is required for CBPAR archaeology, a deeper understanding o f archaeology itself will be achieved. Warry (1990) believes that participatory research in general 'Svill force us to explicitly recognize the interchange o f knowledge between the researcher and the researched." PAR-based archaeology thus helps us gain deeper anthropological understanding; ggrwfva/gMt mvorgMgM. For fAot rgofom, i/^wo otAgr, a^Aow/gf 6g regarded as a mandatory component o f our science. [Warry 1990:70] Archaeological benefits extend beyond scholarly ones as well, to include increased public awareness and support for archaeological work by making archaeology more accessible and relevant to contemporary issues. By involving the Aboriginal public, communitybased archaeology projects demonstrate a response to the modem social context o f Canada. This type o f cooperation provides new perspectives into how and why archaeology is undertaken and causes archaeologists to consider the ethical consequences o f their discipline. I believe that this questioning will lead to the building o f a stronger archaeology. ^g/!g/&g FgqpZg In order for it to work effectively, CBPAR archaeology must demonstrates direct benefits to Aboriginal communities. These may include financial benefits such as training and job creation in the heritage management field, encouraging youth to pursue these types o f careers. Local historical knowledge may increase and some communities may choose to use archaeology as a teaching tool or to expand the projects to encourage tourism in the form o f a community-run museum or heritage centre that can be used as a teaching tool to 59 the local as well as International non-Aboriginal public. Benefits to the wider Aboriginal community are also possible through a closer and more equitable relationship with archaeology. Small-scale partnerships may be the first step in creating larger and more permanent national heritage management programs. Popular images and tales o f Canada’s past may also begin to be rewritten by encouraging and aiding Aboriginal historians and archaeologists to write both academic and traditional histories (Nicholas 1997:93). Downum and Price (1999:4) note that Aboriginal archaeology stands to revitalize cultural traditions that have been undermined by Euro-American contact, and that community solidarity and cultural vitality is enriched by the preservation o f cultural material history. Nationalism Yellowhom (1996) suggests that the “nationalist” phase outlined by Trigger (1996) may hold some interest for Aboriginal archaeology projects in Canada. Nationalist archaeology is described as a contrived method o f glorifying the national past and is “probably strongest amongst people who feel politically threatened, insecure or deprived o f their collective rights by more powerful nations..." (Trigger 1996:620). This ongoing nationalist process also involves the display o f recovered material culture for the purposes o f educating and informing the public though tourism (Kohl 1998:240). While both Trigger (1996) and Kohl (1998) see nationalist archaeology as a potentially dangerous form o f politics, it has potential to be a beneficial model for Aboriginal people in Canada who are managing their heritage. Yellowhom (1993:26) sees this nationalist ideology as playing a role in the ongoing development o f Aboriginal national identities. 60 In this context, the concept o f bolstering national pride becomes one not o f glorifying a colonial past, but o f resisting a colonial present. By localizing the benefits o f research and training, community-based research empowers the community and encourages selfdetermination (Jackson et al 1982; Smith 1999; Warry 1990). Many Canadian researchers have noted the benefits o f using community-based methods for work with Aboriginal communities (St. Denis 1992; Warry 1990). If Canadian archaeologists wish to develop better relationships with Aboriginal peoples, and to encourage more Aboriginal youth to undertake degrees and become involved in this field, it would be wise to borrow from methods that have already proven effective. Benefits well beyond those listed above are possible if more effort is put into cooperative projects between archaeologists and Aboriginal communities. While community-based methods offer a way to involve the community more fully in the research process, those undertaking this type o f research must be critical o f their place in the study and ensure that paternalistic relationships do not exist. This chapter has outlined what communitybased archaeology might look like and some examples o f how this works on the groimd have been presented. Many o f the examples are o f public heritage projects and field schools. This model demonstrates the emphasis on local training as well as the use o f this type o f archaeology to change public ideas about history. The following chapter is a case study o f community-based archaeology that will be used to explore some o f the issues presented above in more detail. 61 Chapter Four - The Upper Similkameen Indian Band and Archaeology The last chapter discussed the principles o f community-based participant action research and provided several examples o f community-based archaeology. This chapter provides a study o f an example o f this type o f archaeology. The Upper Similkameen Indian Band’s (USIB) archaeology experience is used to illustrate how one Aboriginal community in British Columbia negotiates these theoretical and historical considerations within a community-based setting. My goal is to provide closer analysis o f communitybased archaeology “in action” and to glean some understanding o f how the community participants feel about this kind o f work. The intention o f this case study is clearly not to pass judgm ent on the USIB and its Archaeology Department or to make an assessment o f how their archaeology is undertaken. This example will provide deeper understanding into the functions o f community-based archaeological projects. While the USIB do undertake cultural resource management, their archaeology is certainly not limited to management. It extends beyond CRM because the USIB uses archaeology as a tool for enriching cultural and historical knowledge, as well as tourism, rather than simply managing it as a resource. Every Aboriginal community is unique and any archaeological undertakings that follow a community-based participant action methodology will reflect their individuality. Thus, what works for one band will not necessarily work for others. The USIB community and territory are 6irly small, comprising 50 band members, making communication with the band as a whole straightforward. The importance o f the fact that the band manager and council are open to the idea o f archaeology should not be downplayed, as resistance from 62 this political sector could inhibit any archaeological management programs h"om ever occurring. The USIB have an Archaeology Department that is housed under the band structure. It is run by archaeologist and non-band member Brenda Gould and employs several band members, the most involved being Charlene Holmes who is also a band councilor. The administration and protection o f heritage objects and archaeological sites is high on the band’s list o f priorities, which is often not the case for Aboriginal communities with pressing economic and social concerns. The USIB territory is also rich in visible archaeological sites including many pictograph sites. These elements combine to create a situation fertile for community-based archaeology. Scope and Limitations o f Study This study was conducted on the Upper Similkameen territory (primarily surrounding the town o f Medley, British Columbia) and took the form o f several interviews with band members and archaeologists working with the band. This research can be considered a “case study” for the reasons laid out by LeCompte and Schensul (1999); the focus o f the study is on a single unit for investigation, it involves a consideration o f people and events in their natural settings, and that it uses participant observation and interviews. In this case, the unit o f investigation is an e)q)loration o f the USIB’s archaeological activities and the ways in which this archaeology has influenced local views o f history. Ironically, the case study format places the researcher in a position o f power that does not encourage community participation. While the interviewees had a chance to say whatever they wanted due to the open ended nature o f the questions, I developed them without consultation with the members o f the band or the band archaeologist. The nature o f this kind o f case study posits the researcher/anthropologist as the outside expert who uses the 63 participants to answer questions and further the researchers work. In this way, the case study may be labeled community-placed, but does not follow a community-centered method (McDonald 2004:5). Brenda Gould presented a summary o f the purpose and goals o f my study to the Chief and Council during a band meeting and the band subsequently approved my research. Despite the fact that I was an outsider seeking to solicit opinions from band members for my own research, there are some ways in which this research was o f interest to the band, particularly its archaeology department. The people who were interviewed were curious and excited by the idea o f being part o f a community-based archaeology “movement”, since their way o f working in the past had been to follow their own instincts about how to run things rather than comparing their community-based methods with those o f other bands. While the USIB Archaeology Department has spent a lot o f time developing their own heritage strategies, they had not had the opportunity to compare their methods with those o f other bands. I wanted to demonstrate that the USIB are part o f a growing trend and to outline what their experience had in common with others. This is one benefit that my research would bring to the band. Before 1 arrived on USIB territory, 1 had little knowledge o f the area, the band or their archaeology. My experience o f archaeology consist o f several years o f academic training, some field experience outside o f the Canadian context, and a general idea o f First Nations issues, primarily from an Eastern Canadian perspective. This meant that my knowledge o f the USIB situation could have benefited &om much more knowledge o f 64 British Columbian legalities surrounding archaeology and First Nations. I did learn much about this during the course o f the study and while undertaking additional research for this thesis. My academic background caused me to make two m^or flaws in method. The first was that 1 did not expect to find the interviewees had definitions for archaeology that were different from my academic one. The second flaw was that 1 did not know that the Elders would be against being taped and would expect me to make repeat visits. Because o f my lack o f knowledge on these two fronts, my study was thus limited in ways that could have been avoided. The intention o f this case study was not to undertake community-based or participant action research. As an outside researcher, I wanted to study the way the USIB does archaeology. My actions as a outsider in this case were not damaging to the community, but neither should they be considered an example of community-based research as the community was not involved enough in the research design. Due to my lack o f knowledge and contacts within the community, I relied heavily on Brenda Gould who was my primary contact in the band, my host, and my liaison to the other band members. As the director o f the archaeology department, who holds a Bachelor o f Arts in archaeology and the permit for excavation with the British Columbian government, she was also my primary source o f information. Brenda is both stakeholder and gatekeeper in my research design. LeCompte and Schensul (1999:176) define the stakeholder as ".. .people or groups that are involved with the project or program and have a vested interest in its outcome", and gatekeeper as "...people who control access to information or to the research site its e lf. Brenda fulfilled both o f these 65 roles, as she spoke on my behalf to the chief and council in order that my research permit be approved, also playing the role o f an advocate with respect to my research. While Brenda herself is not a band member, she is a full-time employee o f the band and the level o f authority that she has been granted in her job speaks for the chief and council's trust and confidence in her work. Following Ryan and Robinson's (1996) model for PAR, Brenda Gould can also be seen as the “external research facilitator” as she is a non­ band member who is academically trained and is undertaking a long-term commitment o f undertaking archaeology with the band. She is therefore an appropriate contact for this research. While the archaeology department has an official office in Keremeos, Brenda’s house in Hedley functions as an unofficial archaeology department office where meetings with colleagues are conducted and communications through phone, fax, and email are sent and received. My relationship with Brenda and her relationship to the band had an influence on the results o f my study. Brenda has had a central role in developing the archaeological department in USIB and therefore her bias in introducing it to me is clear; she is understandably proud and committed to the work she is doing and this came through in our discussions. While this bias certainly filtered through into this thesis, 1 believe that Brenda's input was more helpful than not, and I owe her a debt o f gratitude for spending so much time with me and providing me with the information I was seeking. Since all my contact with community members was mediated through her, it makes it hard to gauge what the community as a whole thinks o f her work and the archaeology department in 66 general. This means that I had little access to those community members who were opposed to or merely ambivalent towards archaeology. Other than the two flaws in method mentioned above, there are other factors that limited this research. Time, finances, and resources are common limiting factors in research and in this case it is certainly true. The ten days spent on the territoiy undertaking six interviews did not allow me time to make community contacts independently or to develop meaningful rapport with community elders and other band members. After my initial visit, I realized that uncovering the true idea o f what community members thought o f archaeology would have taken multiple visits that were not possible. This study does not therefore represent “true” insight into how many different members o f the community feel about and how they understand the archaeology programs occurring on their territory. The study should be seen as a glimpse into some o f the views o f some o f the band members with regards to archaeology. The primary role o f the study is in its presentation o f an example o f community-based archaeology in action that demonstrates some o f the value in band-controlled archaeology. .ÿgAmg USIB territory is located in the South Okanagan Valley between the towns o f Keremeos and Hedley, south o f Princeton on Highway 3 just north o f the United States border (see fig. 1). According to USIB (2003), there are approximately 55 band members living on the territory. The most populated area is Chuchuwayha Reserve No. 2, located ac^acent to the town o f Hedley, British Columbia. USIB territory is rich in archaeological sites and features, including an extensive and dense assembly o f pictographs (Brenda Gould, 67 aWIlKAMEUCH Figure 1: Map o f British Columbia with Detail o f Upper Similkameen Territory personal communication). The USIB forms a part o f the Okanagan Nation Alliance along with seven other nations. There is some suggestion in the early ethnographic literature that there was a linguistic and cultural distinction between the people in the Similkameen Valley and those in the surrounding area (Copp 1997:5-6). The Upper Similkameen separated from the Similkameen Band (subsequently called Lower Similkameen) in the 1960s. Their political structure follows the guidelines laid out in the Indian Act. I was initially alerted to the USIB's archaeology work through a field school announcement from Langara College, as well as by word o f mouth from Michael Klassen, a heritage consultant who has done some work with the band. The Langara archaeology field school is directed and taught by Stan Copp in close cooperation with the USIB. Given to the cooperative approach o f this field school, it appeared to be an appropriate example o f cooperation between a First Nation and an academic institution. 1 contacted Stan Copp who encouraged me to use the field school as a case study for my thesis. 1 subsequently found out that in addition to directing the Upper Similkameen field 68 school, Stan is a director o f Itkus Heritage Consulting and has been working within Upper Similkameen territory for about 30 years in this capacity. Stan put me in touch with Brenda Gould. All o f my further contact with the band until my arrival was through Brenda by email and phone. The administrative bodies from the University o f Northern British Columbia (UNBC) and the USIB approved my research proposal. The bulk o f the research was undertaken during a six-day stay in Hedley British Columbia, in July 2001. Brenda generously allowed me to be a guest at her house for the duration o f my research. Two informal interviews (band manager Philippe Batini and band member and elder Ramona Holmes) and four formal tape-recorded interviews (Brenda Gould, band member Danette Whitney, band councilor Charlene Allison and Stan Copp) were conducted at this time. As the initial interview with Stan Copp was inadequate due to technical problems with the audio recording, a second interview was undertaken at Simon Fraser University on October 27*, 2001. A second research trip to USIB occurred from October 28th to 30*, 2001, and again 1 stayed with Brenda and her family. An interview with Elder Hazel Squakin occurred at this time. This trip also gave me the opportunity to present the participants with transcripts o f their interviews for their review. Given the size o f the community, 1 believed that the identities o f the participants would be clear to the other members o f the band. I therefore requested and was granted permission from the participants to use their names in print. Copp (2001) notes that most, if not all, o f the archaeological projects that have occurred in the Similkameen Valley have been guided by industrial and resource management 69 concerns rather than focusing on academic study or community needs. Copp's (2002) own Ph.D. work that has been ongoing since 1990 also follows this trend by featuring multiple applications that rest outside o f strictly academic research. As a consulting archaeologist, Copp has been commissioned to undertake various archaeological impact assessments on the territory in order to plan for natural resource economic development projects by industry. The USIB archaeology department was officially created in 1999, when the band paired up with the Nicola Tribal Association to undertake the Tulameen Fire Archaeology/ Traditional Use Overview project. The goal o f the creation o f this department was to manage the archaeological resources o f the band allowing USIB increased participation in their own archaeology. Charlene Allison (2001) notes that this move was made partly in response to the Delgamukw decision that required the crown to consult with the band. This, combined with a desire to take more o f an active role in the management o f USIB heritage, led to the development o f a Heritage Resource Policy (HRP) by the band in 2000 and put into effect on April 1, 2001. The Policy states: a// q/owr rgj:owrggf. TAg ^fcAagoZogy DgparAmg»/ rgjpowiA/g fAg prqpgr awfAonffgj^ wAg« MOM-rg/^rra/ rgZa^grf ûkvg/qpmgM/f arg fAowgA/ Ag f/MpagffMgpo/gM^aZ Ag/ifagg rgwarcga^ gwcA a.; /Aoj:g fAaf oggwr an pnva^g /amdly. rgWa/za» if rgacAgrf fAg» fAg maffgr w;Z/ Ag rg/grrgtf to tAg CAfg/^aW CowMgf/ q/^tAg %pgr 5"f/MfZAa/MggMfW faa BaW. [USIB 2000] The band also requires that any archaeologist or archaeological firm conducting work on their territory apply for a USIB permit (Allison 2001). Allison goes on to note that this policy does not conflict with the Bntza^A CoZamAza AZgntagg CozwgrvatzoM but rather "enhances this legislation in light o f the consultation obligations arising out o f the 70 Delgamukw decision" (Allison 2001). In this way, the USIB assert their rights to administer and control any activities involving their cultural heritage by expanding on provincial legislation. Band controlled heritage resource policies are commonplace in British Columbia, and while they are often not legally binding in Canadian court, they are usually followed. Research Design Initially, my intent was to use a field school run jointly with Langara College on USIB territory as my case study. As my understanding o f the structure o f the USIB’s Archaeology Department grew, the focus o f my inquiry began to change. I soon realized that the Archaeology Department itself was an apt example o f community-based archaeology, demonstrating many aspects o f the elements outlined in the previous chapter. While the field school could be studied in terms o f how an outside archaeological institution interacts with the community, I began to feel that I could gather more information about how the community viewed and used archaeology by examining its relationship to its own archaeology department. The Langara field school can be seen in this context as another related example o f community-based archaeology. I began my study with certain assumptions about the USIB archaeology department and the community involvement in the Langara field school. After having conducted some research on commimity-based projects, I expected to find that: # There would be a fair amount o f consultation with Elders concerning protocols for archaeology as well as a method o f feedback to keep the community members aware o f archaeological work and findings; 71 # Archaeology would be helping to enrich local knowledge about history and that this knowledge would be seen as complimentary to traditional knowledge; # Archaeology was bringing other benefits in terms o f job training to some o f the youth o f the Upper Similkameen; # USIB had taken steps to manage and administer any archaeology on their territory. This would include the ability to give some input into the topic and methods used in these projects. These were working assumptions, rather than hypotheses that would be tested during the course o f the research. In order to gauge if these assumptions were correct, it was important to explore the opinions o f band members involved with the department in differing capacities. I wanted to have my questions answered from several points o f view and developed a list o f several types o f individuals with whom I would like to speak: 1. Young community member with archaeological experience acquired on territory; 2. Community Elder with some knowledge o f USIB archaeology; 3. Archaeological project director. The first “type” was a band member who had benefited from localized training initiatives, through the field school or who had otherwise been exposed to archaeology solely within their community. The opinions o f local Elders were important, since their roles as keepers o f tradition and culture in the community, as well as their longer term experience in the Similkameen region meant that they would have a unique perspective on the potential merits and drawbacks o f archaeological work. Interviewing what Ryan and Robinson (1993) would call the “outside researcher" was also important as their sense o f what was going on in the community could help to round out the other information. I outlined three lists o f questions, one for each “type" o f individual (archaeology project 72 director, archaeology student, community member/Elder). The questions were designed to uncover the following: 1. How is the larger community involved or informed about the archaeological work that occurs on their territory? 2. Has the archaeology enriched local historical knowledge, and is this is complimentary to traditional ways o f understanding the past or contradictory to them? 3. What are the other benefits that archaeology is bringing to the community (as a whole or band members individually) through the work o f the archaeology department? 4. W hat steps has USIB taken to control and direct the nature o f archaeological inquiry on their territory? The specific questions that I had developed were used only to guide the interviews. Many o f the questions were answered in the course o f conversation, and did not need to be asked directly. My proposal and questions were submitted to University o f Northern British Columbia Research Ethics Board and were subsequently approved. An information sheet and a Upper Similkameen Research Permit application were submitted to the USIB and my research was also approved by the band. jhfervfgwf The following are descriptions o f all the interviews (both casual and formal) that I conducted for this case study along with additional information about each individual. Philippe Batini is the Band Manager for the USIB. Brenda had spoken to him about my research. Before I began the interviews, he wished to speak to me personally in order to understand what this research entailed before I undertook any formal interviews. Our 73 informai interview lasted 45 minutes while we spoke about my research and his sense o f the band's views on archaeology. Charlene Allison Charlene Allison is employed full-time as an archaeology field technician in the Band’s Archaeology Department. She has been a band councilor since 1990 (minus one twoyear term), and became involved in archaeology through this role. She was also a student in the Langara field school in 2000, but otherwise had had no post-secondary academic education. Since the development o f the archaeology department, she has worked very closely with Brenda and has been instrumental in the development o f archaeology programs for the band. Charlene is a lifelong resident o f Hedley, but stated that she was not exposed to much “traditional” culture growing up. She has been making up for this in recent years by seeking out cultural, ethnobotanical and archaeological knowledge about the Upper Similkameen people. Our interview took place on July 10* in the Gould residence. Danette Whitney's introduction to USIB territory occurred as a child when her family spent every summer there. She settled permanently on reserve in 1996. After observing the archaeology department's excavation in 1999, she decided to take the Langara field school the following year. She was also employed to help with some excavation later that summer. Danette had been exposed to traditional history and material culture as a child through some o f her relatives, but undertook no formal training in archaeology before 1999. Danette's interview was conducted on July 12*, 2001. 74 Ramona Holmes is a USIB Elder who has not worked closely with the archaeology department. 1 spoke to Ramona on July 12*^, 2001, in the Holmes residence. She declined to be audio taped, so 1 took notes after the interview. Stan and Charlene later explained to me that it was common for the Elders to oppose taping as it encouraged careful listening. They preferred instead to be visited several times if more information was needed or points were missed. Brenda Goidd Brenda Gould holds an Honours degree in archaeology from Simon Fraser University (SFU) completed in 1997. She gained extensive archaeology field experience during the course o f her undergraduate degree through the Langara College Study in Africa Program in 1994; the Langara College Fort Langley Field School in 1995; and the SFU Bella Coola Field School in 1996. From 1995 to 1997, Brenda was employed by Stan Copp’s Itkus Heritage Consulting during which time she participated with the excavation o f the Stirling Creek Bridge Site on USIB territory. She had also done some work with Norcan archaeological consulting in 1997, and was an archaeology crew trainer for the Toosey Indian Band in the summer o f 1998. Brenda moved to Hedley and began working in the USIB as a secretary and cultural/heritage site advisor in 1998. As the heritage work increased, the archaeology department grew around her position. Brenda is currently employed as full-time archaeologist for the USIB. She is the only non-band member who works in this department. I conducted a formal interview with Brenda in the evening o f July 12, 2001. 75 Stan Copp's primary employment for the last 20 or so years has been as an anthropology instructor at Langara College in Vancouver, British Columbia. During this time he has taught several archaeology field schools with Langara and other lower mainland colleges. Stan has also been heavily involved in running Langara's Field Studies in Africa program in Kenya. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree at Simon Fraser University, where he completed both his B.A. and M.A. degrees. He has worked in the consulting field both under his own company, Itkus Heritage Consulting, as well as for other consulting firms. My initial interview with Stan occurred on July 11, 2001 at the Gould residence, but was unusable due to technical difficulties. The second interview was conducted at Simon Fraser University on October 27, 2001. Hazel Squakin Hazel Squakin is a USIB elder who works closely with the archaeology department. She was heavily involved in the development o f the Heritage Policy. As my interview during the initial research excursion, the interview with Hazel took place on October 29*, 2001, at her residence. It consisted o f an hour and a half o f conversation that was not audio taped at her request. In presenting the results o f the study, I keep the voices o f the interviewees intact by quoting them at length. Long transcribed passages sound informal as a result. 76 An interesting, yet somewhat unanticipated restriction that became obvious as I conducted the interviews was apparent ambiguity o f the meaning o f the concept o f “archaeology” itself. While 1 was advised by a member o f my thesis committee to ask the interviewees to define archaeology in their terms, 1 did not expect that there was such a range o f answers. Archaeology as defined in the university setting is limited to the study o f the human past through the analysis o f material remains, yet I found that archaeology to the USIB members seemed to include a wide variety o f concepts covering all aspects o f culture and heritage, present and past and that this definition varied between individuals [Ramona Holmes, Dannette Whitney]. While 1 may have anticipated some disparity or different understanding and alternative view o f the term, 1 did not expect it to be expanded and redefined for me. 1 was left wondering if these local more holistic definitions for archaeology fit more accurately with traditional concepts o f history and heritage that were comprised in the local Upper Similkameen worldview. My talk with Hazel Squakin was very interesting in terms o f understanding a community perspective on archaeology. My visit with her lasted an hour and a half and the topics that we covered ranged far and wide from the specifics o f archaeology at USIB. She began by speaking about archaeology. Rather than interrupt and remind her to keep on track, I let her talk about everything and anything she thought was relevant. This also emphasized the fact to me that in her mind her life story and experiences were connected to the community's heritage. We spoke a lot about her work teaching language to the school-aged children. Hazel acknowledged archaeology's value as a tool for educating 77 youth about their cultural history, yet also noted that this should not be the only source o f cultural knowledge. 7. ffow if /Ag /Aa/ occwrs ow /Ag/r /grrAofy? fw w W d o r oAow/ /Ag wcAago/og/co/ worA Although some o f the consultants that worked on the territory did not make the effort to do any public outreach regarding their work, the band has seen a transition take place to a more open communication between any consultants working on the territory. Charlene described the fashion by which many consulting archaeologists involved the band in the past. While she says that many people have studied the landscape and people o f the Similkameen Valley, she points out that, “almost all o f this research was done without consultation and, in many cases without our knowledge” (Allison 2001). She goes on to say that it has only been due to her recent interest and subsequent research that the band came to find out that many o f the studies had taken place. She describes her early interactions with the consultants working on the band territory: When I did go out with the consultants, I really w a sn ’t quite sure what was going on and why I was doing what 1 was doing because they ju s t had me follow them arowmd aW yK9/ mg aW g/vg mg a yiay cAgg^ag a/ /Ag gmf /Ag dlay am/ "/AanAyou vgyy mwcA " am/ "wg '// fggya" .../(//yAo ZwZ(Z /Zzg Zq/br/MO/ZoM /Zw/ o r g m y o g g MOW, ,y/ZZZ Z:oZ(Z /Zzo/ A Z ggrw d^g o g o /fw / /Zzg ^ q p Z g o W o rg wAZcA o r g Z/f wm o«(Z y g / /Agy AoZfZ o Zo/ q/^ZM/brmo/ZoM oM(Z /Z ^y o rg ^ o r g f Z Aw/ / yZgwrg / / 7 c o n understand and learn to talk to them, where some o f these people hold some, its MO/ fg c rg /, ,yo/Mg q/^/Z% AMOwZgd^g, /Zzg /roùZZ/ZoMoZ wqya^ OM(Z cwZ/wroZ wqy,y OM(Z w Z y /AfMgg o rg (ZoMg ZM ggr/oZM wqyj^ OM(Z /A o/ Z/ wZZZ Ag A g//gr /o /gocA /Mg A gcow fg like I say I did n ’t participate in any o f those, but yet I know people my age that d id go out with their grandparents and did go out with their aunts and uncles to do the hunt, to do the berry picking that all has a spiritual aspect to it in giving thanks and giving respect and honoring the plants and animals and ultimately wZ/A orcA ogoZogy, /A o / \ w A o /'f AqqpgMZMg ZM /Ag ;% » /, Z/ w ay, /Agy Ao(Z /o /MoAg the tools and the p its and the house dwellings and throughout all that it was always based on honor abide by the natural laws o f the land at that time and so because it is all tied hand in hand and way hack then and w h a t’s happening today, the philosophy is the same, its ju s t kind o f some o f i t ’s been lost or forgotten, so where I ’m concerned, I really want to learn a n d fin d out more and through this process, its like starting at the beginning and working up to today and how can I change that to be better fo r the future fo r tomorrow. [Charlene Allison, July 10, 2001] The importance fo r me to have the willing[ness] and the drive to learn more about our past and our future and how its going to bring everybody’s self-esteem and pride back to where it should be. [Charlene Allison, July 10, 2001] J. ZPAa/ o/Agr AgMg/Z/f orcAagoZqgy Ar/Mg$ /o /Ag co/M/MWMZ/y (dg o wAo/g o r AoM/Z /Mg/MAgry ZMdfvZdffoZZyZ /ArowgA /Ag worA q/^/Ag orcAogoZogy dg/orZ/Mg/*/ Educational benefits fZdvZMg /Ag_/?gZd ygZzooZ Agrg Zf Mo/ f o /MwcA, wgZZ Z/y // o r / q/^/Ag co/M/MWMZ/y A oygd //rogro/M ZM /Zw/Z Z/ /oA gf //Zogg ZM /Ag oo/M/MWMZ/y, Aw/ rgoZZy /Z/g^gZd a^cA ooZ ^r /Z;g go/M/MWMZ/y Zy OM o w /Z g /^ r gdwco/ZoMy ô r //gqpZg wAo wowZd M O / o/AgrwZyg g g / /Z^ gdwoo/ZoM. v4M(Z /A o/ Zy /Z% FZry/ZVd/ZoMy wZ/o o rg ZM /Ag Ao/idk, o/wZ gvgM MgZgAAorZMg AoMdy... PFg vg /roZMgd oZ/Moy/ g v g /y oAZg-AodZgd Ao/wZ /Mg/wAgr ZM orcAogoZogy. v4M