| AT A CROSSROADS: ARCHAEOLOGY
AND FIRST PEOPLES IN CANADA George Nicholas
and Thomas Andrews (eds) 1997. Burnaby,
British Columbia, Canada: Archaeology Press,
Simon Fraser University. ISBN 0-86491-181-5
Pb. Pp. 303 + xvi. $CAN37.00.
Amy Roberts (Flinders University, Australia).
amy.roberts@flinders.edu.au
This edited volume comprehensively covers
a range of issues which should be of great
interest and importance to all archaeologists
working with Indigenous peoples in Canada
and elsewhere in the world. The volume arose
in response to the 27th Canadian
Archaeological Association’s (CAA) annual
meeting, which was held in May 1994. Many
of the chapters employ a self-reflexive
approach to deconstruct the archaeological
discipline. This approach is still desperately
needed if we are to solve or at least improve
on the philosophical, ethical and practical
problems that ‘Indigenous Archaeology’ faces
today. Indeed, in the words of Nicholas
and Andrews (p. 3), “In both the sociopolitics
and epistemologies of archaeology, it has
long been clear that we can not and should
not avoid the self-reflexive glance that
has served ethnographic anthropology so
well...”. The chapters comprising Part 1
of this book add to the literature of positive
interactions between archaeologists and
Indigenous peoples (e.g., Davidson et
al. 1995). These positive interactions
provide good examples of how archaeologists
can work ethically and relevantly with Indigenous
communities. The chapters in Part 2 discuss
the positives, problems and challenges associated
with incorporating or integrating traditional
knowledges with archaeology. The final section
of this edited book, Part 3, addresses the
curation, presentation and ownership of
the past. This section should be of great
interest to anyone in the fields of museology
or Indigenous property title. The familiar
refrain of respect rings out as a common
theme and necessity in all of the chapters
and is perhaps best summed up by Nicholas
and Andrews (p. 12):
We must earn the trust of Aboriginal peoples
by being honest with them, by respecting
their views and traditions, and by taking
the time and care to explain to them why
we do archaeology in the first place. We
must be honest about our own motivations
and realize that we often gain more from
the Native community than we return...
The book begins with an insightful foreword
by Bruce Trigger, in which he outlines the
chapters that follow and sets the philosophical,
ethical and practical problems confronting
Indigenous archaeology into a historical
and theoretical framework. This theoretical
analysis of the discipline will be useful
to any researcher conducting a reflexive
theoretical and historical analysis in his
or her own region. This foreword is followed
by an introduction written by George Nicholas
and Thomas Andrews. In this introduction,
“Indigenous Archaeology in the Postmodern
World”, Nicholas and Andrews (p. 3) address
the very real problems of cross-cultural
interpretation and multivocality:
Moreso, the tensions that are exposed by
such “multivocality” may frame productive
arenas of fresh thought; working at the
interface of “opposing” theoretical premises
may be challenging, frustrating, and seemingly
counterproductive, but, when successful,
the results may be innovative and illuminating
(e.g., Handsman and Richmond 1995, Spector
1993).
Part 1, entitled “Working Together”, as
previously stated provides good examples
of how archaeologists can work ethically
and relevantly with Indigenous communities.
The first chapter, written by Helen Kristmanson,
discusses her experiences in working with
the Fort Folly Band in southeastern New
Brunswick. This paper also provides a thoughtful
review of archaeology and anthropology’s
interaction with Indigenous people and the
status of Indigenous people in the development
of archaeological method and theory (p.
19):
The purpose of archaeology is now actively
challenged by a once passive Native population,
and new questions arise as some archaeologists
are motivated to reassess the intellectual
framework of their profession. As some turn
towards a more self-reflexive archaeology,
one which is critically self-conscious of
its epistemological status, in order to
achieve an understanding of the context
in which archaeology is practised, others
continue to adhere to a science-based methodology.”
Indeed, the continued adherence to the
science-based methodologies by some archaeologists
is surely going to be increasingly challenged
in the future by Indigenous peoples who
are looking for more humanistic and community
relevant projects.
Kimberley Lawson, in the ensuing chapter,
identifies important cultural factors that
contribute to different views of, and approaches
to, the past by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous
cultures as well as providing some suggestions
for improving the effectiveness of cultural
interpretation in times of change (p. 35).
Lawson skillfully highlights the diversities
in cultural interpretations through multiple
series of quotes that exhibit differing
points of view or world views on the same
topic. In addition, Lawson’s discussions
of cross-cultural communications highlights
the need for more education in this area
in the archaeological discipline. Indeed,
if we as a discipline are to improve our
cross-cultural communication skills it is
imperative that we increase training in
these areas at universities, particularly
in undergraduate archaeology programs.
E. Leigh Syms, in the third chapter from
Part 1, discusses the increasing awareness
and involvement of Indigenous people in
their heritage preservation. Syms (p. 53)
also discusses the benefits and issues that
arose from involving First Nations people
in heritage preservation at the Manitoba
Museum of Man and Nature:
The involvement of First Nations members
in the management of archaeological resources
has been accompanied by, among other things:
the changing attitudes of some non-Native
archaeologists; the emergence of a diversity
of Aboriginal view which are undergoing
change; a variety of stereotypes (many of
which are incorrect); various levels of
legislative responsibilities; cross-cultural
differences; and variations in language,
perceptions, and concepts.
Indeed, one hopes that more museums will
seriously take on the challenges of including
Indigenous peoples in their programs as
well as designing specific programs to cater
for the needs of Indigenous communities.
The fourth chapter in this section of the
book, written by Margaret Hanna, primarily
discusses the workshops put on by the Saskatchewan
Association of Professional Archaeologists
(SAPA) which brought together First Nations
elders and archaeologists. The workshops
were intended to begin the process of developing
an atmosphere of mutual respect in which
Indigenous people and archaeologists would
discuss issues of mutual concern (p. 69):
We have another option, that of viewing
these challenges as a door being opened
to us. Accepting this option means that
we must be concerned with more than mere
self-preservation; we must challenge ourselves
to reconsider fundamental issues of why
and for whom we do archaeology. This is
not an issue of theory and methodology;
it is an issue of philosophy.
George Nicholas’ chapter, “Education and
Empowerment: Archaeology with, for, and
by the Shuswap Nation, British Columbia”,
addresses the evolving roles that education
and research have as potentially important
components of cultural resource management
on First Nations lands, and focuses on the
First Nations-oriented educational program
that Nicholas was involved with in Kamloops,
British Columbia (p. 85). In addition, this
chapter examines the growing role that archaeology
has within the context of applied anthropology,
and identifies certain problems confronting
First Nations understanding and application
of archaeology as well as concluding with
a commentary on how archaeology and education
may serve as tools of empowerment (p. 85).
Nicholas (p. 98) points out that as archaeologists
we cannot empower anyone, but what we can
do is present the means of empowerment through
education.
Part 2, entitled “Traditional Knowledge
and Archaeology”, provides insightful discussions
on the positive ways in which traditional
knowledge can be incorporated into archaeology
and the inherent problems associated with
the perceived ‘assimilation’ of this knowledge
into the Western science world view. These
papers will again be of use to any archaeologists
working within the field of Indigenous archaeology.
David Denton’s paper on the integration
of Indigenous knowledge and history into
archaeology primarily discusses his personal
experiences with this issue while working
with the Cree people. This paper also highlights,
however, the philosophical problems associated
with this approach (p. 106):
Interpretive integration of oral traditions
and archaeology raises many questions and
no clear rules exist on how this should
be done: How do we deal with cases of apparent
disjunction between the archaeological information
and oral traditions?...Are we always obliged
to adopt a relativist position in presenting
parallel and equally valid stories about
the past, or can some historical facts be
derived by looking for congruence in diverse
data sets?...How do we determine what should
be read as literal historic account vs.
metaphorical statements?
The second paper in the “Traditional Knowledge
and Archaeology” section details traditional
knowledge and heritage studies carried out
by Ingrid Kritsch and Alestine Andre with
the Gwichya Gwich’in elders. The authors
discovered that the oral history helped
to inform the archaeological record by identifying
potential sites. In addition, their ethnoarchaeological
studies demonstrated the importance of the
information shared by the elders. Indeed,
the authors state that without the elders’
knowledge they would have had little understanding
of the river’s human history. Kritsch and
Andre believe that this use of traditional
knowledge and archaeology together by the
Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute became
a small but important part of their nation-building
(p. 141).
The third chapter in Part 2 is presented
by Sheila Greer and examines the role of
traditional knowledge in western Canadian
subarctic archaeology. Like the previous
paper this chapter discusses the contributions
that traditional knowledge has made to site
recognition and in doing so gives a good
overview of the integration of traditional
knowledge in archaeological reports in the
western Subarctic from the 1930s onwards
(p. 145). Greer, like Denton, also asks
the important question of how we integrate
traditional knowledge into archaeology without
assimilating it (p. 146). In addition, this
paper addresses the epistemological basis
of the traditional knowledge involved (p.
149).
Thomas Andrews and John Zoe, in their contribution
to this volume, “The Idaà Trail:
Archaeology and the Dogrib Cultural Landscape,
Northwest Territories, Canada”, also outline
the importance of using traditional knowledges
in archaeology and the benefits that
can result. In addition to addressing similar
points as the previous papers in Part 2
the authors also discuss the point of archaeological
invisibility (p. 172):
Without belabouring the point of archaeological
invisibility, sacred sites of this nature
are often extremely difficult to identify,
and virtually impossible to interpret without
reference to the oral tradition. Often these
sites fall outside the definitions of archaeological
site or historic site found in existing
heritage legislation, and point to the need
for expanded definitions of these resources
(cf. Downer 1989).
Christopher Hanks’ paper provides an intriguing
look at the Dene’s traditional knowledge
of natural events and attempts to understand
and relate this knowledge to archaeological
and geomorphological literature thereby
outlining two very different and yet equally
insightful and important cultural perspectives.
Through his analyses, Hanks challenges archaeologists
to incorporate their data more relevantly
than has been done in the past.
Heather Harris’ paper recounts the remembered
histories of the Gitksan. These remembered
histories are related to archaeological
and palaeoenvironmental evidence in a very
powerful way. As Harris recounts the Gitksan’s
adaa’ox (this word translates literally
as truth, but Harris also calls them oral
histories), she incorporates both of her
ways of knowing, the Indigenous way and
the Western way, by interspersing scientific
dates and facts with the adaa’ox of
the Raven and Wolf Clan ancestors.
The last paper in Part 2 is presented by
Lyle Henderson. This chapter discusses Henderson’s
participation in the Arvia’juaq and Qikiqtaarjuk
Oral History Project. Henderson like Andrews
and Zoe demonstrates how resources which
are significant to local Indigenous communities
can easily be missed when research is directed
only by archaeological method and theory.
This paper also challenges archaeologists
to incorporate a communities suggestions
and concerns into a project’s research design.
Part 3, entitled “Curation, Presentation
and Ownership of the Past”, incorporates
eight chapters that discuss and address
the ethical issues associated with museology,
Indigenous self-government and archaeology
and notions of underlying title. Issues
which fit into these categories, although
not widely discussed in these chapters,
include the reburial and repatriation of
cultural and human remains. These are perhaps
the most pertinent and immediate issues
facing Indigenous archaeology today and
need to be not only discussed but acted
upon if we are to reconcile the current
differences between the archaeological discipline
and Indigenous peoples that hinder new and
relevant research. The first paper in this
section, by Barbara Winter and Diana Henry,
discusses how the Saanich Native Heritage
Society and the Simon Fraser Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology worked together to prevent
the export of a seated human figure bowl.
The Saanich Native Heritage Society and
the Simon Fraser Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology succeeded in keeping this significant
object in Canada and in doing so highlighted
the complexities of cooperative actions
(p. 214). Indeed, both the Saanich Native
Heritage Society and the Simon Fraser Museum
had to compromise on ethical, moral, intellectual
and even legal rights to accommodate the
needs or wishes of the other to make the
project work (p. 214).
The second chapter in Part 3, again by
E. Leigh Syms, discusses the Indigenous
internships that were conducted at the Manitoba
Museum of Man and Nature. Syms highlights
how programs as this can impact not only
the individuals involved, but also benefit
the individual’s community. Syms also reiterates
how much non-Indigenous researchers can
learn from Indigenous colleagues, thereby
emphasizing the need for more Indigenous
people in the archaeological discipline.
Robert McGhee provides the third chapter
in this section and discusses the present
and past problems in the presentation of
Indigenous history. McGhee, in particular,
addresses the problems with the ongoing
perception and presentation of Indigenous
peoples as “prehistoric” and the problems
that arise when Indigenous people are not
consulted when preparing for exhibitions
(e.g., the Spirit Sings exhibit produced
by the Glenbow Museum). McGhee then goes
on to explain how the First Peoples Hall
at the Canadian Museum of Civilization was
conceived through a process of consultation
with Indigenous peoples and the interesting
outcomes of this project. Indeed, the author
of this paper believes that in changing
their approach to include Indigenous peoples
the museum exhibits were stronger and more
challenging than they would have been if
they were based on traditional patterns
of interpretation (p. 239).
The next paper in Part 3 moves away from
discussions of the presentation of the past
and on to discussions of the impact that
the settlement of Indigenous land claims
will have on the way that archaeological
research is conducted. Thomas Andrews, Charles
Arnnold, Elisa Hart and Margaret Bertulli
address in detail the ways in which the
final land claim agreements in the Northwest
Territories will affect archaeological practices
in the area (p. 245).
The implication for practicing archaeology
in the future involves accepting the political
reality of working on private land or on
crown land within the boundaries of settlement
areas. This will require a closer working
relationship with communities and may involve
changes to the way research projects are
designed and executed.
Deborah Kigjugalik Webster and John Bennett,
in the fifth chapter from Part 3, discuss
the Ittarnisalirijiit Conference
on Inuit Archaeology, held at Igloolik,
Northwest Territories in 1994. This conference
brought together Inuit archaeology and culture
specialists from across the Canadian Arctic.
This conference aimed to listen to what
Inuit, especially the elders, know about
their heritage, and to discuss how Inuit
can direct the course of archaeology in
their homeland (p. 147). This conference
produced a list of guidelines and recommendations
on how Inuit would like to see archaeological
projects being conducted.
The fifth chapter in this section, by Eldon
Yellowhorn, examines the Sechelt Indian
Band Self-Government Act and its “silence”
on issues of negotiations, heritage sites
and archaeological concerns (p. 252). In
this paper Yellowhorn also explores ways
in which the current act can be interpreted
to include archaeological concerns.
Michael Asch, explores, through the utilization
of a Western legal framework and anthropological
theory, the concept of “ownership” solely
in relationship to the issues of “underlying
title” (p. 270):
Who really owns this cultural property?
Clearly, as I stated above, it is not Canada
or the provinces. A better answer, drawing
on contemporary anthropological theory,
is The First Nations, for it is based
on the premise of cultural relativism rather
than ethnocentric comparison. Further, this
answer enables us to disconnect Canadian
concepts such as jurisdiction over cultural
property and underlying title from colonial
justifications.
Asch challenges archaeologists, and rightly
so, to assist governments in recognizing
legislatively the fundamental principle
regarding jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples
over their cultural property (p. 270). Clearly,
archaeologists and anthropologists with
their heightened understanding of the needs
and wishes of Indigenous communities need
to start taking a stand against out-dated
legislation and the representation of Indigenous
peoples in the public domain if we are to
improve not only the relations between archaeologists
and Indigenous peoples, but also to put
our efforts and knowledge to a constructive
use and to maintain relevance in the modern
world (Hedican 1995).
Ethel Blondin-Andrew, in her paper, entitled
“Native People and Archaeology”, supplies
the last paper in Part 3 of this edited
volume. She discusses the Shùhtagot’ine’s
protection of their cultural heritage
and their involvement with archaeological
exploration. Blondin-Andrew, a Shùhtagot’ine
herself, recognizes the role that archaeology
can play within Indigenous communities,
however, she provides some provisos for
the way in which archaeologists should conduct
their research (p. 272):
As archaeologists, I ask you to remember
the people whose history you are excavating.
I ask that you respect their traditions
and more importantly, that you involve as
many as possible of those people who are
connected with the site. It is important
that in doing your research you involve
all the members of the community. Young
people need opportunities to be connected
to their heritage. Hands-on experience is
the vehicle that will connect them with
their cultural heritage and history.
The afterword is provided by George Nicholas
and Thomas Andrews. The authors reiterate
points made throughout this volume and acknowledge
that this collection represents mainly the
positive aspects of archaeological-Aboriginal
relations (p. 277). The authors choose to
discuss in the last few pages, however,
what they term the “dark side” of archaeology.
This dark side is, they believe, the accounts
of incompetence, conflicting interests,
double standards and unprofessional behaviour.
They also warn that in some situations it
may be impossible for reputable and respectable
archaeologists to continue their work due
to political manoeuvring. Andrews and Nicholas
(p. 277) also recognize the fear among academics
of both censorship and revisionism.
The danger of revisionism looms large and
represents a particularly troublesome topic.
Past peoples may be presented, by both Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal People, as being totally
in harmony with each other and their environments,
when the reality may be much different...
Following this look at the uncomfortable
side of Indigenous archaeology the authors
turn towards new perspectives and highlight
the emerging role of Indigenous women in
Canadian archaeology, the new emphasis on
co-management programs and the important
analyses that will hopefully enable us to
answer the basic question, which is posed
by the authors, “Why do we do archaeology
and for whom?” (p. 279).
Little criticism can be levelled at this
volume in terms of its content, however,
in relation to the technical aspects there
are a few areas which could use improvement.
This book contains upwards of twenty to
thirty typing and grammatical errors all
of which could be easily corrected in a
second edition. More problematical, however,
are some of the plates and figures. The
black and white printing does not do justice
to some of the photographs and indeed makes
some features almost indistinguishable.
In addition, some of the chapters could
use maps, especially for those readers who
are unfamiliar with the regions being discussed.
Overall this edited volume is a useful
and important addition to archaeological
literature. Both the practicing archaeologist
and the new student desperately need examples
and ideas on how to work ethically and relevantly
with Indigenous people and should be earnestly
directed towards collections such as these.
The ethical, practical and philosophical
debates raised in some of the chapters outline
the many challenges that the discipline
is yet to face, but with archaeologists
such as those represented here there is
certainly hope for the future. It is also
refreshing to see that there are a number
of Indigenous archaeologists and researchers
represented within this volume. There is
no denying the uncomfortable fact that morally,
ethically and philosophically the discipline
of archaeology still has quite a bit of
ground to cover. However, as long as there
are archaeologists and Indigenous peoples
working together there is still hope for
a new and exciting archaeology of the future
(p. 278):
Regardless of whatever form it may take,
the archaeology of coming decades will be
as different from its present form as contemporary
archaeology is from the archaeology of earlier
this century, and it will be composed of
many more voices, concerns, and understandings
than it does today.
References
Davidson, I., Lovell-Jones, C. and Bancroft,
R. (eds) 1995 Archaeologists and Aborigines
Working Together. Armidale: University
of New England Press.
Hedican, E. J. 1995. Applied Anthropology
in Canada: Understanding Aboriginal Issues.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin