Indigenous Archaeology at Dionisio Point on Galiano Island, British Columbia, Canada: Contemporary Impacts and Implications for Archaeological Research and Practice

INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY AT DIONISIO POINT ON GALIANO ISLAND,

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA: CONTEMPORARY IMPACTS

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

By

ANNETTE RUZICKA

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN ANTHROPOLOGY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology

DECEMBER 2013

ii

To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of ANNETTE RUZICKA find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. ____________________________________ Colin Grier, Ph.D., Chair ____________________________________ Andrew Duff, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Mary Collins, Ph.D.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my immense gratitude to the many people who

collaborated on this project, as well as those who guided and encouraged me along the

way. I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Colin Grier, whose years of dedicated

work with the Hul’qumi’num made this project possible. His guidance and commitment

to the project were essential. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr.

Andrew Duff and Dr. Mary Collins, for their comments and enthusiasm.

I would especially like to thank the Hul’qumi’num and Penelakut First Nations

for their lead role in this project. Thank you to the Penelakut members who collaborated

on this project for your guidance working on Hul’qumi’num ancestral land, especially

Chief Earl Jack, elders August and Laura Sylvester, and Robert Sam.

Thank you to the Washington State University field crew – Dr. Kelly Derr, Erin

Smith, Doug Beyers, and Maria Eugenia Orejuela – for being wonderful to work with.

Thank you also to Eric McLay for your help in the field and for your commitment to

working with the Hul’qumi’num.

Thank you to BC Parks, and Joe Benning in particular, for lending labor and

resources in helping to implement a long-term plan for site conservation and protection.

Lastly, I owe an enormous thank you to my family and friends for all of their love

and encouragement. I am extremely lucky to have such supportive people in my life.

iv

INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY AT DIONISIO POINT ON GALIANO ISLAND,

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA: CONTEMPORARY IMPACTS

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Abstract

by Annette Ruzicka, M.A. Washington State University

December 2013

Chair: Colin Grier

Indigenous archaeology represents an emerging framework that advocates

localized practices and encourages archaeologists to consider the broader relevance and

impacts of their research. This thesis presents indigenous archaeology as an approach that

enriches archaeological practice, while addressing root grievances at the heart of

contentious relationships between the colonial nation state and indigenous peoples.

Indigenous archaeology provides contexts in which archaeologists can transform their

practice and marshal archaeological research in service of descendant communities, as

the peoples for whom this research is most relevant and has the greatest impacts.

In this thesis, I present research conducted at the Dionisio Point locality (DgRv-

003 and DgRv-006) on Galiano Island, southwestern British Columbia, Canada as an

indigenous-focused, collaborative effort between the Penelakut and other Hul’qumi’num

First Nations, Washington State University archaeologists, BC Parks, and the local

Galiano community. This project brought together several actors and interests to salvage

v

and protect an important archaeological site on Hul’qumi’num ancestral land. We, the

collaborators, developed a methodology consistent with Hul’qumi’num traditions of

cultural heritage management as expressed in Hul’qumi’num customary law. I present the

basic tenets of Hul’qumi’num customary law that pertain to archaeological research and

illustrate how these tenets were incorporated and implemented in archaeological practice

in the 2012 excavation of the Parry Lagoon midden site DgRv-006 at Dionisio Point.

I place these efforts within broader contexts, demonstrating not only the

archaeological, but also the historical, political, and environmental significance of this

research. Through a contextualization of this case study, I demonstrate how

archaeological evidence can be marshaled in support of modern indigenous struggles for

political self-determination within ancestral territories, combat culture loss as a

consequence of colonization, and bolster indigenous efforts toward cultural persistence

and revival. While these efforts must be grounded in local context and practice,

indigenous struggles for sovereignty are a global phenomenon that questions the

foundations of Western imperialism and combats the cultural and political

homogenization that results from colonization. Indigenous archaeology is but one path

towards a more plural and rich future, in which our research achieves positive outcomes

for many actors.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 Indigenous Archaeology on the Northwest Coast .......................................6 Hul’qumi’num First Nations ........................................................................8 The Northwest Coast Study Region ...........................................................10 The Dionisio Point Locality .......................................................................13 Parry Lagoon Midden (DgRv-006) Case Study .........................................16 Organization ...............................................................................................17

2. INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY ...................................................................21 Colonial History .........................................................................................22 Political Context .........................................................................................24 Theoretical Foundations .............................................................................27 1. The Post-Modern Critique ...........................................................27 2. Decolonizing Theory ...................................................................29 Indigenous Archaeology as Practice ..........................................................31 1. Indigenous Centered ...................................................................31 2. Multi-Vocal ..................................................................................32 3. Culturally Sensitive ......................................................................33 4. Founded on Personal Relationships .............................................34 5. Process Driven .............................................................................35 6. Local and Contextual ...................................................................35 7. Concerned with Broader Implications .........................................36 8. Emphasis on the Importance of Education ..................................37 9. Emphasis on the Importance of Communication .........................37 3. CONTEXTUALIZING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN BRITISH COLUMBIA ......................................................................................39 Historical Context and Contemporary Articulations .................................39 Current Political and Legal Contexts .........................................................45 1. Relevant Federal Legislation .......................................................46 2. British Columbia Heritage Law ...................................................48

vii

3. The British Columbia Treaty Process ..........................................50 Threats to First Nation Cultural Heritage Protection and Preservation .....51 4. PARRY LAGOON MIDDEN CASE STUDY ..................................................56 Parry Lagoon Midden (DgRv-006) Excavation .........................................58 Hul’qumi’num Customary Law .................................................................61 Parry Lagoon Midden Excavation Strategy ...............................................64 Guiding Principles .....................................................................................69 1. Partnering for Project Co-Development and Implementation .....70 2. Incorporation of Traditional Preparations and Practices .............72 3. Minimal Approach to Excavation ................................................72 4. Shared Operational Responsibilities ............................................74 5. Embedding Protocols into Permits and Official Statements of Practice .................................................................................76 6. Foregrounding Long Term Heritage Conservation ......................76 Outcomes ...................................................................................................82 5. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION ...........................................................85 Archaeological Significance ......................................................................85 Historical Significance ...............................................................................86 Political Significance .................................................................................87 Environmental Significance .......................................................................88 Conclusion .................................................................................................89

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................................................91

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page

1 The Northwest Coast of North America culture region

(based on Matson and Coupland 1995:3) ......................................................2

2 Location of Dionisio Point in the southern Gulf Islands ...........................................4

3 Central Coast Salish Territory (from Angelbeck and Grier 2012:554) .....................9

4 Culture periods in the Gulf of Georgia region represented at the Dionisio

Point locality ................................................................................................14

5 Location of Parry Lagoon midden (DgRv-006) at the Dionisio Point locality ........15

6 Inverted Pear Model for Coast Salish class structure (from Suttles 1958:504) .......41

7 Recommended Global Sea Level Rise Curve for Planning and Design in BC

(from BC Ministry of Environment 2011:14) ..............................................55

8 State of Parry Lagoon midden erosion before excavation .......................................58

9 Signage developed by BC Parks and the Penelakut Tribe to identify and

educate about the Dionisio Point village site and midden ...........................60

10 On site meeting with the Penelakut at Dionisio Point ............................................65

11 Washington State University researchers and Penelakut Tribe members

screening previously eroded midden materials together ..............................66

12 Midden overhang removed to expose a smooth profile ..........................................67

13 Open units across the span of the midden face .......................................................67

14 Midden profile showing shell lenses, sand lenses, pits, and basal sands ................68

15 State of Parry Lagoon midden erosion preceding excavation ................................71

ix

Figure Page

16 Using Ground-Penetrating Radar to map the sub-surface of the midden and

gain an idea of possible sensitive contexts ..................................................73

17 Penelakut and Washngton State University archaeologists screening in situ

material together ..........................................................................................75

18 Using driftwood posts and backfill to reinforce the base of the midden ................77

19 Use backfill and geotextiles to rebuild and reinforce the slope of the midden .......78

20 Fence built by BC Parks to direct foot traffic past the site and

toward the beach ..........................................................................................79

21 Erosion of stabilized slope caused by 2012-2013 winter storms ............................80

22 Reinforcing weakened portions of the slope ...........................................................81

23 The slope naturally reseeding itself and increasing stability ..................................81

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Indigenous archaeology represents an emerging framework that advocates

localized practices and encourages archaeologists to consider the broader relevance and

impacts of their research (Silliman 2008; Smith and Wobst 2005; Watkins 2000). This

thesis focuses on indigenous archaeology as an approach that enriches archaeological

practice, while addressing root grievances at the heart of traditionally contentious

relationships between the colonial nation state and indigenous peoples. Archaeologists

and anthropologists are often viewed as agents of the colonial state, participating in the

appropriation and destruction of indigenous cultures (Atalay 2006; Deloria 1969; Moss

2011; Tsosie 1997). Indigenous archaeology provides new contexts in which

archaeologists can transform their practice and marshal archaeological research in service

of indigenous communities and descendant populations, as the peoples for whom this

research is most relevant and has the greatest impacts (Nicholas 1997).

The Northwest Coast of North America culture region (Figure 1) is a particularly

rich context in which archaeological research and indigenous interests can intersect in

powerful and meaningful ways (Forsman 1997; Nicholas 1997). Partnerships between

archaeologists and descendent communities enrich archaeological research and create a

context in which to combat the continued impacts of colonization. These partnerships are

significant in modern political contexts, in which many British Columbia First Nations

are engaged in modern treaty negotiations for aboriginal title and self-determination with

in ancestral lands (McLay et al. 2004, 2008; McKee 2009).

2

Figure 1. The Northwest Coast of North America study region (based on Matson and Coupland 1995:3).

3

Archaeological evidence can be marshaled in support of indigenous rights to self-

determination, control of cultural heritage, and repatriation efforts (Echo-Hawk 1997;

Nicholas 1997). While these efforts must be grounded in local context and practice,

indigenous struggles for sovereignty are a global phenomenon that undermines the

foundations of Western imperialism.

Indigenous archaeology, and indigenous research in general, honors the plurality

of cultural expressions that persist despite centuries of colonization and seeks to revitalize

the many voices and perspectives that Western imperialism has played a role in

discrediting and diminishing (Atalay 2006; Smith 1999). Indigenous voices provide

alternative perspectives to the Western narrative, including that of growth and

development. I argue that these perspectives are vital to confronting the dual problems of

global capitalism and environmental devastation that we collectively face as a species.

Through collaborative efforts, archaeologists and indigenous peoples can partner

to facilitate a richer understanding of the past, strengthen efforts toward indigenous

cultural revival in the present, and create space for the (re)emergence of indigenous

voices to help guide a more equitable, just, and diverse future. I advocate that indigenous

archaeology presents positive paths toward addressing intractable problems of historical,

political, and environmental natures: paths that are ultimately forged in local contexts

through personal relationships and practice.

I present research conducted at the Dionisio Point locality on Galiano Island,

southwestern British Columbia (Figure 2) as a case study in indigenous archaeology that

foregrounded the interests of the local indigenous community. The 2012 salvage

excavation of Parry Lagoon midden (DgRv-006) at Dionisio Point was the result of long-

4

term collaborations between the Penelakut and Hul’qumi’num First Nations, Washington

State University archaeologists, and BC Parks.

Figure 2. Location of Dionisio Point in the southern Gulf Islands.

5

The Penelakut and Hul’qumi’num First Nations are historically connected to this

region and are recognized as the descendants and rightful stewards of the ancestral record

at Dionisio Point. I will illustrate how this project developed a methodology consistent

with Hul’qumi’num traditions of cultural heritage management and Hul’qumi’num

customary law.

In presenting this case study, I demonstrate how the central tenets of indigenous

archaeology were implemented in this local context and guided the incorporation of

Hul’qumi’num customary law into archaeological practice. The salvage excavation of

Parry Lagoon midden addressed a long-identified problem of coastal erosion at an

ancestral site using a conservative excavation approach that foregrounded long-term

heritage conservation in accordance with Hul’qumi’num practices.

I also place these efforts within broader contexts, demonstrating not only the

archaeological, but also the historical, political, and environmental significance of this

research. Through an analysis and contextualization of this case study, I demonstrate how

indigenous archaeology as a framework, and indigenous research in general, provides

meaningful pathways for enriching archaeological practice and helps create the contexts

in which our research questions and goals can achieve positive outcomes for many actors.

A significant outcome of this project was the development of guiding principles

for conducting archaeological research on Hul’qumi’num land. Through such practice,

and the building of meaningful and long-term relationships, archaeologists increase the

relevance of their research, especially for the indigenous peoples whose ancestral pasts

they seek to understand. Through such collaborative efforts, archaeological research

becomes increasingly relevant in addressing the historical and contemporary impacts of

6

colonization, in supporting modern indigenous struggles for land and self-determination,

and ultimately in helping create the space toward a more plural and responsive future.

Indigenous Archaeology on the Northwest Coast

Archaeologists and First Nations share a common interest to protect and preserve

the cultural heritage of the region and can benefit significantly from working together to

do so. Research collaborations between archaeologists, anthropologists, and indigenous

Northwest Coast communities have increased in recent decades, with examples including

Fediuk and Thom (2003), Grier and Shaver (2008), McLay (2004), McLay et al. (2004,

2008), and Nicholas (1997, 2000, 2006). As First Nations gain increasing control of their

cultural heritage through legislation and repatriation efforts, researchers have the

opportunity to work with descendant communities to aid these efforts and to gain deeper

understandings of their study regions. Such research on the Northwest Coast exemplifies

broader trends in the field that emphasize indigenous-focused and collaborative

approaches. By working together, archaeologists and descendant communities can obtain

new insights into traditional land use, resource acquisition and processing, settlement

patterns, subsistence strategies, trade networks, and culturally significant landscapes.

Research collaborations can also support First Nations’ efforts to combat the

long-term impacts of colonization, including cultural assimilation, language loss, political

marginalization, and physical alienation from ancestral lands. The ramifications of

colonialism continue today in struggles for sovereignty, self-determination, repatriation

and control of cultural heritage, and access to traditional lands and resources. As First

Nations strive to perpetuate their cultures and regain political sovereignty in the face of

7

centuries of colonization, archaeologists gain new perspectives on the contemporary

significance of their research and the political contexts in which their research is

embedded.

Many British Columbia First Nations without signed historical treaties or with

limited treaties are currently engaged in modern treaty negotiations with Canadian state

and provincial governments for the right to self-determination and political autonomy

within ancestral territories (McLay 2004, 2008; McKee 2009). The goal of this treaty

process is to create new government-to-government relationships between the various

First Nations and Canada. The aim is to resolve questions of aboriginal title and treaty

rights that have persisted since colonization, when ancestral lands were appropriated and

indigenous populations were aggregated on to reserves. Through this process, First

Nations hope to gain autonomy from the colonial state and revitalize traditional forms of

cultural and political expression (Thom 2010).

Archaeological research informs this process by helping to establish the long-term

connections between First Nations and ancestral territories preceding European contact.

These ancestral connections are critical evidence supporting aboriginal title and must be

established in order to engage in the treaty process. Archaeological research also aids in

the protection, preservation, and interpretation of cultural and ancestral heritage that

connects contemporary First Nations with ancestral identities, and strengthens indigenous

peoples’ abilities to perpetuate these identities into the future. That indigenous cultures

have persisted in the face of colonization is a testament to their strength and adaptability

in the face of several centuries of forced assimilation. That archaeologists aid efforts

towards cultural revival is one step towards righting atrocities of the past.

8

Hul’qumi’num First Nations

This thesis focuses specifically on research conducted with the Penelakut and

Hul’qumi’num First Nations of southwestern British Columbia, Canada.

The Penelakut are one of the six member First Nations that make up the Hul’qumi’num

Treaty Group – along with the Cowichan, Chemainus, Lyackson, Halalt, and Lake

Cowichan (Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group 2013). The member First Nations of the

Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group are closely related and share an ancestral past that connects

them to the region. However, the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group is a contemporary

political unit that formed in 1993 to engage in the British Columbia Treaty Process and

does not represent a unified political entity in the past.

The Hul’qumi’num are part of the Central Coast Salish, whose ancestral lands are

centered in the Gulf of Georgia region of British Columbia and extend into Washington

state: including territories around the Strait of Georgia, the Juan de Fuca Strait, and the

lower Fraser River Valley (Suttles 1990a) (Figure 3). The Central Coast Salish are

comprised of five language groups: Squamish, Halkomelem, Nooksack, Northern Strains,

and Clallam (Suttles 1990a). The Hul’qumi’num are historically speakers of

Hul’q’umi’num, “the island dialect… of the language known in English as Halkomelem”

(Thom 2005:62-3). There are also Upriver and Downriver Halkomelem dialects, in

reference to location in relation to the Fraser River. Because of this, the Hul’qumi’num

are sometimes referred to as the Island Halkomelem (Grier 2003), but this term has been

supplanted by the term Hul’qumi’num.

9

Figure 3. Central Coast Salish Territory (from Angelbeck and Grier 2012:554).

The Hul’qumi’num understand themselves and their ancestors as inhabitants of

the Salish Sea since time immemorial, connected since the time of the First Ancestors to

the land and resources in Hul’qumi’num territory (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). The

Hul’qumi’num respect this enduring connection between the past and the present and

view themselves as stewards of their ancestors with an imperative to protect their cultural

heritage under the guiding principles of respect and reciprocity (McLay et al. 2004, 2008).

-124  -122 

48 

49 

50 

0 25 50 km

Northern Coast Salish

CENTRAL COAST SALISH

Southern CoastSalish

Southwestern Coast Salish

Vancouver

Island Gulf of

Georgia

PACIFIC

OCEAN

Fraser River

British Columbia, Canada

Washington, United States

10

The Hul’qumi’num derive their special connection to the land and to their

ancestors in part from their creation story. Archaeological sites embody ancestral lineages

that “descended from an ancestor left on the site by the Transformer, or dropped from the

sky,” (Suttles 1958:502). Obligations to respect and care for the region, its resources, and

ancestral heritage originate in this creation story, which tells that the Hul’qumi’num are

“all related to the living things and places that were touched by the transformations of the

Creator,” (McLay et al. 2004:4).

The Northwest Coast Study Region

The Northwest Coast of North America is an archaeologically rich and significant

study region, providing insights into the peopling of the Americas, the diversity of

cultural expressions among hunter-gatherers, and the emergence of social complexity and

inequality in small-scale societies (Moss 2011). Archaeological evidence suggests that

the Northwest Coast was first inhabited between 14,000 and 11,500 years ago (Matson

and Coupland 1995) and represents many centuries of relative cultural continuity and

development (Mitchell 1971a). Early inhabitants of the region are characterized as “a

generalized hunting-fishing-gathering culture,” (Mitchell 1971a:70) that over several

millennia developed social complexity and increased technological sophistication

(Mitchell 1971a).

More recent research emphasizes that the development of complexity would not

have occurred as a linear progression: it occurred at different times, different locations,

and in different incarnations along the coast (Moss 2011). Further, these various

expressions of social complexity were most likely contested over time (Schaepe 2009).

11

Archaeological evidence suggests that the emergence of social complexity may not have

been a regional phenomenon, but rather was more localized than previously thought

(Clark 2010).

By the time of European contact, indigenous cultures of the Northwest Coast had

developed many social characteristics commonly associated with agricultural societies,

but without a heavy reliance on plant or animal domestication. These cultural

characteristics included high population densities, seasonal sedentism, social

stratification, inequality, food storage, craft specialization, and increased warfare (Ames

1995; Clark 2010; Matson and Coupland 1995; Suttles 1990b). Archaeological evidence

suggests that status differentiation emerged in the region over 4,000 years ago, with an

elite class emerging by 3,000 years ago (Ames 1995). It is around this time that the

indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast developed the characteristics that have led

researchers to classify them as complex hunter-gathers (Ames 1994; Hayden 1990).

Northwest Coast peoples have also been classified as aquatic hunter-gatherers (Ames

2002), in acknowledgement of the abundant marine resources that are credited with

enabling the emergence of social complexity on the Northwest Coast. While there is

much regional variation amongst the various Northwest Coast cultures, they share many

cultural characteristics and are closely related through a regional social system that

includes kin-based networks of intermarriage, ritual, and exchange (Angelbeck and Grier

2012; Grier 2003; Suttles 1990b; Thom 2010).

In the Gulf of Georgia, fluctuating sea levels have had a significant impact on the

location of and modern access to archaeological sites, and thus our abilities to interpret

regional patterns (Cannon 2000; Fedje et al. 2009; Grier et al. 2009). Due to rising sea

12

levels, many coastal sites older than 3,000 BP may be submerged below the modern

coastline (Fedje et al. 2009). Fedje et al. (2009) built a sea-level history for the Gulf

Islands National Park Reserve, showing that between 12,000 and 3,000 BP the regional

sea level was considerably lower than it is today. Sea level fluctuations were at times

dramatic, but the rate of sea level rise appears to have slowed by 2,500 BP (Fedje et al.

2009).

After 3,500 BP, sites on the Northwest Coast increase in size and number (Moss

2011). Large, multi-family plankhouses emerged in the region between 2,000 to 3,000

years ago. They are archaeologically significant because they provide important evidence

and insights into the emergence of social inequality and hierarchy among Northwest

Coast hunter-gatherers (Chatters 1989; Grier 2001; Grier and Kim 2012; Lepofsky et al.

2009; Schaepe 2009).

The pre-contact Central Coast Salish were semi-sedentary, moving in the summer

months to exploit seasonally abundant resources, and settling in villages for the winter

months, where they subsisted on processed and stored foods, such as salmon (Grier

2003). Millennia of continual occupation of the region resulted in transformations of the

coastline through repeated cultural depositions that are reflected today in numerous

coastal shell middens.

I discuss pre-contact Central Coast Salish cultural characteristics to introduce the

history of the Hul’qumi’num people as known through archaeology. This discussion also

serves to highlight the many ways in which European contact and colonization

transformed traditional Coast Salish cultures and practices. While it is beyond the scope

of this thesis to provide a full review of the region’s pre-contact history, useful

13

summaries can be found in Ames and Maschner (1999), Matson and Coupland (1995),

Mitchell (1971a), and Moss (2011). For perspectives on post-contact indigenous history

in the region, see Arnett (1999), Carlson (2001), Miller (2007), and Suttles (ed. 1990).

The Dionisio Point Locality

There are over one thousand archaeological sites documented in Hul’qumi’num

territory, ninety percent of which are classified as shell middens (McLay et al. 2004,

2008). Shell middens are exceptionally complex coastal sites that are formed through

long-term cultural depositions. Archaeologically, shell middens are defined as

“conspicuous anthropogenic deposits of shells, gravel, sand, silt, charcoal, artifacts, and

other cultural and geological remains,” (Wells 2001:164).

Shell middens represent highly stratified and compressed records of the intimate

interplay between people and their environments. As such, the Hul’qumi’num believe the

term “midden” and its connotation of refuse is inappropriate and abstract, disassociating

the material from the human record (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). Although these

archaeological sites are referred to as middens for research purposes, these sites are far

more than refuse heaps. Shell middens are the remains of habitation, resource acquisition,

daily life, ceremonial practices, and inhumations. All of these elements are a part of the

material record at the Parry Lagoon midden site DgRv-006 at the Dionisio Point locality

on the northern end of Galiano Island. While I will use the term “midden” to refer to the

site in this case study, it is with this understanding and with ultimate respect for the

cultural and ancestral remains present at this location.

14

The Dionisio Point locality refers to the archaeologically-rich area of northern

Galiano Island that includes several archaeological sites and landforms that have similar

names. These include Dionisio Point landform, the Dionisio Point archaeological sites,

and the Dionisio Point Provincial Park (Grier 2001). The Dionisio Point locality

encompasses at least 1,500 years of history of Hul’qumi’num peoples and their

interaction with the landscape. It is the location of DgRv-003, a five household Marpole

Period (2,500 to 1,000 BP) village site that dates to between 1,500 and 1,300 cal BP; and

DgRv-006, a single household Late Period (1,000 BP to contact) site that dates to

between 1,000 and 650 cal BP (Derr et al. 2012). These archaeological culture periods

and their time spans are presented in Figure 4. Parry Lagoon midden extends from the

rear of the Late Period house at DgRv-006, south and back along the coast for many

meters (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Culture periods in the Gulf of Georgia region represented at the Dionisio Point locality.

15

Figure 5. Location of Parry Lagoon midden (DgRv-006) at the Dionisio Point locality.

While there is no contemporary memory of major village occupation at the

Dionisio Point locality, the Penelakut and other Hul’qumi’num First Nations are

culturally and historically connected to Dionisio Point and continue to use the area today

(Grier 2006b). Ethnographic references to Dionisio Point identify it as a temporary

summer campsite between Vancouver Island and the mainland (Rozen 1985), indicating

that the Hul’qumi’num continued to use the area at times when there was no specific

village habitation at the locality.

The provincial government of British Columbia and archaeological researchers

recognize the Hul’qumi’num as the descendents of the original occupants at this location.

This is reflected in the archaeological permitting process, which requires consultation

PARRYLAGOONMIDDEN

16

with Hul’qumi’num First Nations. This is also explicit in the Master Plan for Dionisio

Point Provincial Park, which was devised in consultation with the Penelakut. The Master

Plan emphasizes the protection of archaeological heritage and the continued involvement

of First Nations in the park’s management (BC Parks 1995).

Parry Lagoon Midden (DgRv-006) Case Study

I describe the 2012 salvage excavation of the Parry Lagoon midden (DgRv-006)

at the Dionisio Point locality as an example of an indigenous-focused and collaborative

archaeological project that brought together several actors and interests to salvage and

protect an important archaeological site on Hul’qumi’num ancestral land. The excavation

of the Parry Lagoon midden was made possible through collaboration in research design

and implementation. The excavation approach sought to enact Hul’qumi’num customary

law in archaeological practice through a methodology consistent with Hul’qumi’num

traditions of cultural heritage management.

The impetus for the project came from the Penelakut Tribe, and was guided by

elders August and Laura Sylvester. The primary research design was developed to

address a community concern over ancestral remains eroding from the coastal shell

midden at Parry Lagoon (DgRv-006). Parry Lagoon midden has undergone decades of

erosion due to rising sea levels, as well as increased severity of wind and wave action

associated with winter storms and elevated boat traffic. Ancestral remains have been

eroding from this coastal site on a semi-regular basis over several decades. This project

sought to address this problem by using a systematic approach to remove threatened

midden materials and develop a long-term conservation strategy for in situ preservation

17

for the rest of the site. Developing this approach took over a year, with planning meetings

occurring as early as the summer of 2011.

This approach was designed to reflect Penelakut cultural values and

Hul’qumi’num customary law that mandates the in situ protection of the ancestors first

and foremost. Archaeological excavation and the movement of ancestral remains are only

allowed in exceptional circumstances where it is unavoidable, such as due to natural

erosion or flooding. Hul’qumi’num customary law does not allow for the movement of

ancestral remains for the purposes of development or convenience. This is an important

distinction, especially in British Columbia where commercial and residential

development has contributed to the incremental and irreversible destruction of ancestral

sites.

Organization In the following chapters, I present indigenous archaeology as a particularly

relevant approach that can address historical and political grievances aimed at

archaeological practice and the greater process of European colonization. In Chapter

Two, I present the historical and political contexts to which indigenous archaeology is

responsive – including colonization and its impacts on indigenous peoples, modern

struggles for decolonization, and global indigenous rights movements. I also discuss the

theoretical background of indigenous archaeology and how this prescribes a specific type

of archaeological practice that is responsive to local circumstances but situates itself

within a global context.

In Chapter Three, I contextualize the Parry Lagoon midden case study and

archaeological research in British Columbia. I provide a discussion of the local historical

18

context and the contemporary articulations of colonization in this region. I then discuss

the current political and legal contexts in which this research takes place, introducing the

legislation and legal mechanisms relevant to archaeological heritage. Lastly, I identify

ongoing threats to First Nation cultural heritage protection and preservation in the region,

further illustrating contexts in which this research is relevant.

In Chapter Four, I present the details of the 2012 salvage excavation of Parry

Lagoon midden (DgRv-006). I begin with a history of archaeological research at Dionisio

Point and how this excavation emerged out of long-standing partnerships. I follow this

with a discussion of Hul’qumi’num customary law, and how we used this as a framework

to develop guiding principles for archaeological practice. I elaborate on these guiding

principles that we1 collectively developed to reflect local indigenous knowledge and

which were informed by the tenets of indigenous archaeology. I discuss the outcomes of

the project, identify the specific circumstances that enabled this research to take place,

and elaborate on ways in which it can provide guidance to other archaeologists working

with indigenous peoples amongst varied sets of interests.

I conclude this thesis in Chapter Five, where I expand upon the broader

implications of this research, and the many contexts in which it is implicated. Narrowly

defined, this thesis is about archaeological method. One of the goals is to demonstrate the

myriad of contexts in which archaeological research is significant and has both local and

global implications. Locally, this research is implicated in on-going treaty negotiations,

1 Unless specified otherwise, for the purposes of this thesis I will use the pronoun “we” to refer to myself and the other archaeological researchers involved in this project. Under the guidance of Dr. Colin Grier, the archaeologists on the project developed a collective approach. I will use the pronoun “we” only in reference to these collective efforts and understandings, and reserve the pronoun “I” for all instances where I am providing my own perspective and analysis of the project.

19

with developing long-term management plans for threatened coastal sites, with protecting

archaeological resources in the face of development activities, in helping First Nations

regain traditional knowledge, and with establishing ancestral connections with the land to

aid indigenous efforts at cultural persistence and revival. Globally, this research is

implicated in continued struggles towards decolonization, and for indigenous sovereignty

and self-determination in those regions of the globe entangled in colonial histories.

Indigenous archaeology as a framework, and indigenous research in general,

provides meaningful pathways for a more plural and rich future in which our research

questions and goals can achieve positive outcomes for many people – most importantly,

the descendant communities with which we work. I believe that this is expressly

important in combating the cultural, political, and economic homogenization that has

resulted from European colonization and Western imperialism. Amplifying indigenous

perspectives is vital to defining and realizing alternatives to the Western narrative of

growth and development that drives global capitalism and is resulting in global

environmental devastation. The ramifications of colonial histories continue to play out in

contemporary economic and political globalization. While state politics institutionalize

and homogenize human interactions, this is antithetical to an indigenous approach, which

is inherently local and contextual. This resistance to institutionalization is problematic for

state politics, which strives towards assimilation and codification of relationships and

responsibilities (Thom 2010) through legislation. However, this emphasis on a diversity

of approaches and the incorporation of indigenous voices is integral to combating the

many cultural, political, economic, and environmental injustices of the present.

20

I argue that as our world becomes politically and economically homogenized

through increased globalization, we lose diversity in local, autonomous, political

expressions that can develop and respond in context to the many threats posed by the

close association between global capitalism and environmental degradation. Just as

biodiversity is essential to secure and healthy ecosystems, so I argue that cultural

diversity is crucial and essential to the security of humanity’s future as members of these

ecosystems. Indigenous archaeology provides a path by which the diversity of human

cultures can be revitalized, and by which many paths can be defined to guide our futures.

21

CHAPTER TWO

INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY

Indigenous archaeology is defined as archaeology “for, with, and by” indigenous

people with historical connections to archaeological and ancestral sites (Ferris 2003;

Nicholas 1997; Nicholas 2008; Silliman 2008; Smith and Wobst 2005; Wobst 2010). It is

one of many emerging approaches within archaeology that recognizes the broader

impacts and implications of archaeological research, and the myriad of contexts in which

it takes place. Over the past several decades, many frameworks have emerged from

critiques of colonialism, the foundations of Western scientific thought and research, and

the colonial history of anthropological and archaeological practice.

In this thesis, I borrow from several different frameworks including indigenous

archaeology (Atalay 2006; Nicholas and Andrews 1997a; Silliman 2008; Smith and

Jackson 2006; Smith and Wobst 2005; Watkins 2000; Wobst 2010), collaborative

archaeology (Moser et al. 2002), community archaeology (Marshall 2002), covenantal

archaeology (Zimmerman 1997), and public archaeology (Lea and Frost 2011). While

different scholars may call these approaches by different names, they share many

commonalities. These approaches propose alternatives to “the traditional colonial model

of archaeological practice with… socially and politically self-conscious mode[s] of

research, aiming ultimately to incorporate different cultural perspectives in the

interpretation of the past,” (Moser et al. 2002:221). They focus on identifying and

sharing archaeological method and practice with wider audiences and recognize that

22

archaeology is the purview of the communities in which it takes place, and most

important to those most impacted by the research.

Zimmerman (1997) asserts that the emergence of these new approaches in

archaeology is part of a remythologizing of the field, in which archaeologists are

embracing new ethics codes, pursuing collaborative relationships with indigenous

peoples, and acceding to indigenous concerns on repatriation and burial issues. The

remythologizing occurs when archaeologists act as if this has always been common

practice. A short review of the connections between archaeology and colonialism in

North America show that this was not always the case.

Colonial History

The circumstances in which we investigate the material past are part of a

historical trajectory in which archaeology and anthropology are entwined and implicated

in Western colonization and imperialism. Many indigenous people see Western research

– with anthropology and archaeology at the center – as an extension of the colonial state,

engaged in a racist and essentializing enterprise that continues to marginalize and oppress

indigenous people through colonial politics of cultural decimation and assimilation

(Smith 1999).

Vine Deloria Jr. called anthropologists to account in Custer Died for Your Sins

(1969), expounding on the close relationship between anthropologists and colonialism.

Deloria argued that anthropologists objectified, experimented upon, and manipulated the

people they studied, ultimately contributing to their extinction.

23

At the same time, archaeologists excavated with disregard for descendant

populations: removing burials, collecting artifacts and sacred objects, and displaying

these in museums as testament to cultures lost and whose material remains were in need

of rescue. Archaeologists perpetuated the belief that the materials they studied were those

of dead or dying cultures, ignoring the many descendants with intimate, living

connections to these materials and places (Atalay 2006).

Historically, archaeology has committed several centuries of trespasses against

indigenous culture and heritage, imposing Western interests and interpretations onto

other’s ancestral heritage, while marginalizing indigenous voices and interests (Julien et

al. 2008). It is quite often the case that those who practice archaeology in North America

come from outside of the culture they are trying to understand – myself included. Thus,

we find ourselves exploring someone else’s history and heritage, which is of enduring

significance to them. For living descendent communities, the archaeological record

embodies ancestral relationships and histories. This does not preclude archaeologists

from valuing the archaeological record as an embodiment of our collective past and

resource for all humankind. However, it does recognize that this is only one aspect of the

archaeological record’s significance, and one that aspires towards an impersonal and

objective approach. For descendant communities, the archaeological record embodies

personal and intimate connections to ancestral identities.

Archaeology, and Western research in general, privileges Western ways of

understanding the world through scientific exploration that objectifies the world and

reduces it to component parts for the purpose of research (Atalay 2006; Smith 1999).

This is at odds with the ways that many indigenous peoples view the world (Harris 2005;

24

Smith 1999). By asserting that there is only one correct way of knowing, Western

scientific researchers are ultimately saying that any other ways of knowing – any

indigenous ways of knowing – are incorrect and invalid. This excludes traditional

knowledge, oral histories, and indigenous cosmologies from archaeological research and

interpretation. Thus, not only is traditional archaeological practice often offensive to

indigenous peoples, its interpretations discount indigenous voices.

Political Context

The civil rights movement and political upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s were

accompanied by the amplification of indigenous voices through indigenous rights

campaigns, protests, and struggles for reburial of indigenous human remains (Watkins

2000; Zimmerman 1997). Native Americans, First Nations, and Aboriginal populations

began insisting on greater respect for and control of their cultural heritage. Indigenous

rights movements call for the “recognition of basic human rights such as the right to

religious and spiritual fulfillment, and the right to control burial sites on ancestral lands,”

(Tsosie 1997). Indigenous people criticized archaeological practice as imperialist,

ethnocentric, and inherently destructive – not only to the archaeological record itself, but

to the living cultures with connections to archaeological sites as ancestral lands and

sacred places paramount to their cultural persistence and revival.

The impacts of indigenous rights campaigns are reflected in legislation. Many

archaeologists in the United States cite the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) as the driving force in the increasing development of

collaborative archaeological approaches that respect indigenous concerns (Silliman 2008;

25

Watkins 2000). This federal legislation requires the inventory and repatriation of funerary

objects and ancestral remains held in museum collections, and recognizes the rights of

Native Americans over their cultural heritage.

NAGPRA mandates that archaeologists consult with Native Americans about

archaeological projects on federal and tribal land. While federal legislation similar to

NAGPRA does not exist in Canada, the province of British Columbia has its own legal

mechanisms that call for consultation with First Nations, which I elaborate upon in

Chapter Three.

Because of a long tradition of relationships founded on mistrust and abuse, Native

Americans viewed the NAGPRA mandate for consultation as a token requirement that

archaeologists begrudgingly followed, but ultimately with no real consequence. In the

early years of this law Roger Echo-Hawk questioned if “mutually rewarding partnerships

[are] possible, since many Native American leaders are fundamentally unsympathetic

toward the discipline and some archaeologists are unsympathetic toward Indian political

agendas” (Echo-Hawk 1997:89).

Some archaeologists feared that NAGPRA would enable Native Americans to

restrict their access to the archaeological record altogether. However, archaeologists have

found that partnering with indigenous peoples in collaborative research has instead

resulted in increased access to the archaeological record (Zimmerman 1997). This is

partially due to partnerships that emphasize collaboration, which is understood to exceed

the narrow mandate of consultation (Atalay 2006; Silliman 2008). Those engaging in

collaborative research are exceeding the current legal mechanisms. They are establishing

26

new best practices by working toward truly equal partnerships and developing indigenous

archaeological approaches that identify and respect indigenous concerns.

That archaeologists took heed of indigenous critiques of archaeological practice is

apparent in the emergence of professional ethics statements. The Society for American

Archaeology’s 1996 Principles of Archaeological Ethics calls for archaeologists to

“consult actively with affected group(s)” in Principle 2: Accountability, and recognizes

Native Americans as one of many publics with interest in the archaeological record in

Principle 4: Public Education and Outreach (Society for American Archaeology 1996).

That same year the Canadian Archaeological Association published the Statement of

Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples: A Report from the

Aboriginal Heritage Committee (Canadian Archaeological Association et al. 1996).

Incorporation of indigenous rights and efforts at repatriation occur in a larger

global context focused on human rights. In 2007, the United Nations adopted the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The declaration defines the collective

and individual rights of indigenous people. These include the rights to self-determination

in Article 3, to self-government in Article 4, and “to maintain and strengthen their distinct

political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions,” in Article 5. Articles 11 and 12

relate to the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and revitalize cultural practice,

including protection and repatriation of ancestral sites and objects (United Nations 2008).

These mechanisms reflect larger trends in public opinion and academic thought that

increasingly recognize the injustices committed against indigenous peoples and seek to

help rectify them. Indigenous archaeologists seek this through archaeological practice

that embraces these global values and helps implement them in local contexts.

27

Theoretical Foundations

Indigenous archaeology seeks to be relevant with a developing theory and method

that is heavily intertwined in praxis, the act of putting theory into practice. Indigenous

archaeological theory emerges from the application of wider social theory to

archaeological research, including critical theoretical approaches such as Marxism

(Shanks and Tilley 1988). These critical approaches place archaeology within a larger

cultural context and question its foundations in scientific positivism and objectivism.

These approaches advocate self-reflexivity and cultural critique – seeing archaeology

itself as culturally situated in the present (Shanks and Tilley 1988). Indigenous

archaeology recognizes the many social contexts in which archaeological research is

embedded, including the context of colonialism, in which archaeologists are social actors

within colonial power dynamics.

The emergence of indigenous archaeological approaches is also closely related to

the postmodern critique of archaeological practice and interpretation that was grouped

broadly under the term post-processualism. Below I elaborate on postmodernism and

decolonizing theory, as they influence and inform indigenous archaeological theory and

method.

1. The Postmodern Critique

Indigenous archaeology emerged theoretically from a postmodern critique of

anthropological theory and archaeological practice in the late 20th century. Postmodern

philosophers, such as Derrida and Foucault, explored the nature of knowledge and reality,

especially as it is represented through language and discourse (Layton 2006).

28

Postmodernists argue that knowledge is subjective and that there is in fact no objective

reality (Trigger 2006). This rejection of an objective reality undermined Western

scientific positivism, identifying it as a cultural construction itself.

Postmodernism has had significant impacts on anthropological and archaeological

theory, and across the social sciences in general. A postmodern critique of traditional

anthropological practice argues that anthropologists impose a Western concept of

knowledge onto the various subjects they study (Layton 2006). Indigenous anthropology

reflects this postmodern critique, embracing perspectives and interpretations other than

those of researchers trained in the Western scientific tradition. The legitimacy of external,

Western interpretations over another culture’s internal interpretations demanded critical

evaluation.

In Archaeology, this postmodern critique developed as a post-processual

approach, providing several important new emphases to the field. Post-processualists

argued that the type of objectivity sought by processual archaeologists is not possible: all

interpretations are subjective and relative, and all are situated within a social and

ideological context (Trigger 2006). Post-processual archaeologists, such as Ian Hodder,

argue, “any reconstruction of the past is a social statement in the present” (1985:18). All

interpretations of the archaeological record reflect the cultural and personal biases of the

interpreter.

Postmodern and post-processual approaches often emphasize multivocality,

opening archaeology to new perspectives and voices previously overlooked or

disregarded (Nicholas and Andrews 1997b). Indigenous archaeology represents an

example of including these new perspectives that challenge traditional notions of

29

archaeology as a predominately Western discipline. Indigenous archaeology

reincorporates different types of knowledge into the study of archaeology, including oral

history and traditions (Anyon et al. 1997; Julien et al. 2008). It foregrounds the

perspectives of indigenous communities, that are too often considered the subject of

study rather than respected as collaborators in the pursuit of archaeological

understanding.

2. Decolonizing Theory

Indigenous archaeology or indigenous archaeologies emerged with the

understanding that “for many indigenous populations, the colonial encounter has never

ended” (Wobst 2010:21). The impacts of colonialism are still felt today in struggles for

sovereignty, self-determination, control of cultural heritage, and access to traditional

lands and resources; as well as the long-term impacts of loss of culture and language,

political marginalization, and separation from ancestral lands.

Indigenous archaeologies are responsive to and seek to rectify the fact that

colonial entities and archaeologists literally robbed indigenous peoples of their cultural

and material heritage. Given this history of colonization and Western imperialism, many

have called for a decolonizing methodology that deprivileges Western thought and

recenters research around indigenous concerns and understandings (Atalay 2006;

Nicholas 2006; Smith 1999; Smith and Jackson 2006; Smith and Wobst 2005).

An indigenous archaeology recognizes that the abilities of native populations to

pursue their various interests in the past and the present is contingent on unequal

positions within a power dynamic that favors Western notions of science and progress

30

over indigenous traditional knowledge and concepts of cultural heritage. This colonial

past undermines the ability of indigenous peoples to perpetuate and practice their cultures

into the present. Decolonizing methodologies recognize indigenous people as equals in

research, but acknowledge that they are more heavily impacted by its practice and

implications.

A decolonizing approach to archaeology first and foremost privileges the interests

and concerns of local descendant populations. Indigenous communities must be engaged

as researchers, not solely as the researched (Smith 1999). Indigenous research is

responsive to the needs of the community, asking what the community will gain from the

research and exploring both the positive and negative outcomes for all involved (Smith

1999). Above all, researchers are accountable to descendant communities.

This kind of approach is often characterized by the transformative nature of the

questions that it asks, such as: Who owns the past? (Atalay 2006), Who has authority

over the past? (Ferris 2003; Nicholas and Andrews 1997b), and Who has control over the

past? (Tsosie 1997). Indigenous archaeology “undermines the core assumption in

traditional archaeology that archaeologists – typically non-Native in ancestry – [have] the

primary authority to tell, evaluate, and control indigenous histories and heritage objects”

(Silliman 2008:1). In this way, indigenous research engages in the act of deprivileging

Western academic interests and assertions of scientific positivism, and recentering

research around indigenous concerns and traditional ways of knowing.

31

Indigenous Archaeology as Practice

In recent decades, indigenous archaeologies have gained momentum in achieving

their goal of building positive, collaborative relationships between archaeologists and

indigenous peoples in those swaths of the globe entangled in colonial histories and

engaged in contemporary struggles for self-determination. Examples of indigenous and

collaborative archaeologies can be found in the United States (Two Bears 2000; Watkins

2000), Canada (Grier and Shaver 2008; Julien et al. 2008; Nicholas and Andrews 1997a),

Australia (Roberts et al. 2005; Smith and Jackson 2006), and New Zealand (Allen et al.

2002), to cite but a few.

As archaeologists and indigenous peoples realize new approaches, the

methodology is being developed on the ground in local contexts through personal

relationships that foster communication, collaboration, and inter-cultural understanding at

all levels of research, ultimately transforming archaeological practice. While the above

sections theoretically orient indigenous archaeology within a postmodern and

postcolonial framework, this theory is most important in how it guides actual practices on

the ground. In the rest of this chapter, I identify key characteristics of an indigenous

archaeological practice.

1. Indigenous Centered

Indigenous archaeology advocates the primacy of descendant populations in

archaeological endeavors and the incorporation of indigenous concerns, beliefs, and

traditions in archaeological research (Julien et al. 2008; Silliman and Sebastian Dring

2008). The necessary involvement of indigenous peoples is apparent. Collaboration

32

between archaeologists and indigenous peoples is prescribed at all aspects of a project:

from research design, to implementation, interpretation, and publication (Atalay 2006).

Indigenous archaeology prescribes an ethnocritical approach (Zimmerman 1997), where

research is conducted in a culturally sensitive and culturally appropriate manner.

2. Multi-Vocal

Archaeologists have the opportunity to collaborate with Native peoples in an

indigenous archaeology that incorporates different types of knowledge, including oral

history and oral traditions – emphasizing the importance of the perspectives of

indigenous communities and respecting them as collaborators in archaeological research.

This will result in the broadening and enrichment of the field through the incorporation of

new perspectives and new information into interpretations of the ancient past. The

incorporation of oral traditions into archaeological interpretations can compensate for the

incomplete nature of the archaeological record, and the archaeological record can

corroborate oral traditions (Anyon et al. 1997).

Some archaeologists have descried this development as undermining

archaeology’s scientific foundations. Behind this claim is the assertion that archaeologists

have a better understanding of the past (Whiteley 2002) that is more true both because it

is founded in Western scientific inquiry and because it is written. Whiteley argues that

oral histories are dismissed as historical sources because they are densely coded, contain

mythological aspects, and because of the very fact that they are oral (Whiteley 2002).

Whiteley (2002) uses a Hopi example to demonstrate the archaeological value of

oral traditions. Hopi oral histories refer to specific migrations and place names that are

33

ultimately testable and usable in archaeological interpretations of the past. Whiteley

argues:

[I]nformation from several branches of oral history/tradition, supported by known ethnographic facts, could be the impetus for a different kind of culturally focused archaeological research…. [that] requires proactive cooperation between archaeologists and indigenous peoples. (Whiteley 2002:413) 3. Culturally Sensitive

Indigenous archaeology emphasizes our shared interests in preserving the

archaeological record. However, it also acknowledges that we may have different

concerns and beliefs when it comes to sharing cultural knowledge. Many tribes are

concerned about the sharing of private and sensitive information (McLay et al. 2004,

2008; Two Bears 2006). Traditional archaeology expects that indigenous people should

“publicly confess [their] intimate subjectivities,” (Paradies 2006:357) – especially if they

are to communicate their stake in the archaeological record. Traditional archaeology also

assumes that archaeologists have the right to publish their research and findings,

whatever they may be.

Many Native Americans and First Nations have cultural conflicts with this

Western emphasis on open access to cultural information. For the Hul’qumi’num First

Nations, there is protected information and restricted access to the ritual knowledge

concerning care for ancestral remains (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). This has put the

Hul’qumi’num in a difficult position, recognizing that communicating their customs and

beliefs is vital to protecting their ancestral heritage, yet having cultural codes that restrict

access to this knowledge that until recently only existed in oral form.

34

This further illustrates the priority that Western disciplines give to the written

over the oral record. In order for their concerns to be taken seriously, not only do the

Hul’qumi’num have to share intimate and private cultural knowledge, they must preserve

it in written form. Indigenous archaeologies respect the legitimacy of oral traditions and

seek to develop methodologies that are sensitive to indigenous concerns, cultural

practices, and beliefs.

4. Founded on Personal Relationships

Ultimately, indigenous archaeology is about engagement, collaboration,

partnership, and accountability (Wylie 2000). It focuses on building working

relationships based on personal commitment, trust, and respect (Roberts et al. 2005;

Silliman and Sebastian Dring 2008) so that we might move forward in productive,

indigenous-defined research. Archaeologists must develop personal relationships with the

indigenous peoples with whom they work (Allen et al. 2002), and communicate as equals

within emerging partnerships. Fostering trust, exhibiting personal dedication, and

demonstrating long-term commitment are key to building these relationships and can

only be accomplished through practice. Like many of these recommendations, personal

relationships and long-term commitment cannot be legislated. However, there are

limitations to legislation. As archaeologists, and individuals, we can define and enact new

best practices that go beyond legal mechanisms.

35

5. Process Driven

Indigenous archaeology focuses heavily on process (Silliman 2008). The act of

research and how it is conducted takes precedent over the product of research. Building

collaborative relationships is a central part of the process (Silliman and Sebastian Dring

2008). With a focus on process, indigenous archaeologies must seek to be flexible –

changing with changing circumstances, and allowing new directions to emerge from the

endeavor.

6. Local and Contextual

Practitioners characterize indigenous archaeology as evading attempts at

systemization and codification (Smith and Wobst 2005; Silliman 2008). The contexts in

which indigenous archaeology takes place are multi-faceted, nuanced, and inherently

local, more accurately termed “indigenous archaeologies” in recognition of the different

approaches that must be pursued and developed in each unique situation (Silliman 2008;

Smith and Wobst 2005; Wobst 2010). Just as indigenous archaeology respects a

multitude of voices in approaching and interpreting the archaeological record, so too does

it recognize a multitude of contexts in which archaeological research takes place. As

such, it must be flexible and fluid, allowing relationships and projects to emerge in

context.

36

7. Concerned with Broader Implications

At the same time that indigenous archaeologies are inherently local, their

realization has global applications (Atalay 2006): indigenous archaeologies develop in

the wake of European colonialism and modern struggles for indigenous rights.

Indigenous archaeologies recognize the social and political realities in which their

research is situated, and seek to address the broader implications of their research. This

occurs through repatriation efforts, protecting ancestral sites, participating in treaty and

land claims, and in general working towards a more equal and just world that respects

and values a multitude of perspectives and worldviews (Silliman 2008). Archaeologists

that embrace this approach “are… committed to developing, blending, and using this

framework to redirect contemporary archaeology in ways that are more methodologically

rich, theoretically interesting, culturally sensitive, community responsive, ethically

aware, and socially just,” (Silliman 2008:4-5).

Indigenous populations can marshal archaeological evidence to challenge

colonialism in its current incarnations. Archaeological evidence can be used to establish

ties to ancestral lands, acquire access to traditional resources, regain control of cultural

heritage, combat language and culture loss, and foster alliances in struggles for

sovereignty and self-determination after centuries of political and cultural

marginalization and assimilation.

37

8. Emphasis on the Importance of Education

Education is a key component to engage with indigenous people in archaeological

research in which they can ask their own questions (Nicholas 1997, Wylie 2000).

Indigenous archaeologists and others who espouse a decolonizing methodology,

emphasize the importance of mutual education in which the traditional roles of educator

and educated are dismissed and all participants engage in the process of learning (Moser

et al. 2002; Watkins 2000). Indigenous archaeologies advocate training interested

individuals in archaeological method and fostering a new generation of truly indigenous

archaeologists (Julien et al. 2008; Nicholas 1997). Through education and indigenous-

driven research, indigenous communities can develop and define their own research.

9. Emphasis on the Importance of Communication

Indigenous archaeologies seek new forms of inter-cultural communication. In

order for indigenous archaeologies to be relevant, they must communicate with wider

publics. A key criticism of archaeological publishing is that it is by archaeologist, for

archaeologists – and the information presented is veiled in technical jargon (Watkins

2006). Archaeologists cannot publish solely for the archaeological community. They

must use clear language that is accessible to the many other stakeholders that have

interest and investment in the archaeological record; a task I have found immensely

difficult in this thesis.

38

In this section I have attempted to illustrate that indigenous archaeological

approaches are a synthesis of historical, political, theoretical, and methodological

transformations in which local and global contexts mirror each other and define new

avenues for archaeological practice. In the next chapter I contextualize the case study in

the local historical, political, and environmental realities of British Columbia, Canada.

After which, I present the Parry Lagoon midden (DgRv-006) case study to illustrate how

indigenous archaeological theory was applied in this context and local circumstance to

develop an indigenous archaeological practice relevant to the region and its descendant

First Nations.

39

CHAPTER THREE

CONTEXTUALIZING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

As the previous chapter sought to illustrate, indigenous archaeologies are highly

contextual. In order to present the following case study in indigenous archaeology on

Galiano Island, I must provide the historical and political contexts in which this research

takes place. In so doing, I discuss the ways that the Hul’qumi’num were/are impacted by

colonization, and how this transformed indigenous realities and cultural practice. I

present British Columbia’s legal mechanisms dealing with cultural heritage management

and archaeological resources, as well as identify the many current threats to First

Nations’ cultural heritage in British Columbia that makes this research all the more

relevant.

Historical Context and Contemporary Articulations

Contact between Northwest Coast indigenous peoples and Europeans was first

documented in the last half of the 18th century (Boyd 1990; Carlson 2001; Cryer 2007;

Morales 2007). European expansion and colonization of North America heavily disrupted

the development and expression of indigenous cultures, including their traditional

practices of cultural heritage management (Atalay 2006). Indigenous responses to

European colonization were dynamic, and by no means passive, including active

resistance to European settlement of indigenous lands (Arnett 1999, Martindale 2003).

Martindale (2009) uses the term entanglement to characterize post-contact encounters

40

between colonial and indigenous parties, in recognition of the active and strategic actions

of indigenous leaders and individuals in the face of colonization. However, for

indigenous peoples, contact ultimately meant physical and cultural decimation.

Physically, Northwest Coast peoples experienced massive depopulations with the

introduction of European diseases and colonial violence. Boyd (1990) estimates that

within one hundred years of contact, indigenous populations on the Northwest Coast

decreased by more than eighty percent. Others cite estimations of population loss as high

as ninety percent (McLay et al. 2004, 2008) or even ninety-five percent (Carlson 2001)

for the Coast Salish specifically.

Culture loss occurred not only through the physical loss of peoples to perpetuate

and practice traditional lifeways, but also through colonial policies that pursued cultural

decimation through assimilation. Canadian cultural assimilation policies included

banning traditional cultural practices such as the potlatch, sending indigenous children to

residential schools where they were not allowed to speak their language or contact their

families, and separating indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands and traditional

resources through forced resettlement (Carlson 2001; Fediuk and Thom 2003).

Contact and colonization also transformed Coast Salish economic and political

organization. New European markets disrupted traditional networks (Moss 2011) that

were an expression of Coast Salish economic and political practices. This disruption

created new avenues for indigenous peoples to circumvent traditional networks and

provided new opportunities for wealth accumulation and elite entrenchment (Grier 2007;

Martindale 2003).

41

The pre-contact Coast Salish exhibited hierarchy and inequality in a distinct class

structure that Suttles (1958) characterized as an inverted pear (Figure 6). The Coast

Salish have three classes: a large upper class at the top, a relatively small lower class in

the middle, and a very small class of slaves at the bottom (Suttles 1958). Matson and

Coupland (1995) interpret these three classes as nobles, commoners, and slaves.

Figure 6. Inverted Pear Model for Coast Salish class structure (from Suttles 1958:504)

42

This model reflects the diffuse nature of power and authority amongst the Central

Coast Salish, who were socially complex but not politically centralized (Angelbeck and

Grier 2012). Power and authority existed at the level of the household or the village, and

was expressed locally, with autonomous households interacting at large regional scales

through geographically extensive kin-based networks. Archaeological and ethnographic

evidence illustrates that the Coast Salish exhibited organizational complexity that allowed

for flexible relations between many diffuse power centers.

Regional kin-based networks were critical to maintaining intraregional social and

economic ties, and were reinforced through short-term aggregations for the purposes of

trade, ritual, feasting, potlatch, marriage, sport, and defense (Angelbeck and Grier 2012;

Grier 2003; Thom 2010). Through regional networks, locally autonomous households

interacted and aggregated as necessary to take advantage of economies of scale. Thus

households could aggregate labor to harvest seasonally abundant resources but still

maintain relative autonomy (Thom 2010).

After contact, Coast Salish political organization began to change and became

increasingly centralized (Martindale 2003). Where household elites had been the highest

level of traditional authority, Suttles (1958) asserts that the Coast Salish political

structure became increasingly centralized and developed to resemble chieftainships post-

contact. Centralization may have occurred partially to take advantage of new

opportunities created by European contact (Martindale 2003), but it was also pursued

through Canadian nation state policies that sought to aggregate First Nations and

incorporate them into the state (Thom 2010).

43

The incorporation of indigenous peoples into the nation state was highly

disruptive of historical Coast Salish sociopolitical organization (Suttles 1963). This was

partially due to the ambiguous nature of the relationship between First Nations and

Canada, the terms of which have been defined and redefined by the state over time.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was the first recognition of aboriginal title and

of First Nations as self-governing entities. Aboriginal title refers to the “right of

Aboriginal peoples to occupy, use, and enjoy their land and… its natural resources. [It]

originates in the fact that Aboriginal peoples were in possession of what is now Canada

prior to European contact” (McKee 2009:9).

The Royal Proclamation specified that all land negotiations with aboriginal

peoples must be made directly with the Crown, as negotiations between governments

(Cassidy and Bish 1989). The fact that British Columbia was not a colony at this time

was later used to argue that the Royal Proclamation did not apply to the province, and

hence aboriginal title did not exist in British Columbia (McKee 2009). On the other hand,

the fact that the colonial government did not sign treaties with the Hul’qumi’num peoples

is now interpreted to mean that aboriginal title was never extinguished.

The Central Coast Salish Hul’qumi’num did not enter into treaties with the

colonial government, nor were they signatories to the Douglas Treaties of the 1850s,

which included fourteen land-sale agreements negotiated between Governor James

Douglas and various First Nations in British Columbia. It is arguable if the parties to

these treaties shared an understanding of their content (Carlson 2001). The colonial

government understood these treaties to extinguish aboriginal title, while Douglas

assured indigenous signatories that they would maintain use of traditional hunting and

44

harvesting grounds. Regardless, the Hul’qumi’num never signed treaties with Douglas,

thus maintaining aboriginal title (Morales 2007). Despite this, as settler populations

increased, so did the pressure to acquire land in Hul’qumi’num territory and the colonial

government instituted a pre-emption policy (Arnett 1999), selling Hul’qumi’num land to

white settlers (Morales 2007).

In the 1860s the colonial government of British Columbia changed its position

and rejected the concept of aboriginal title and land rights, claiming that the

Hul’qumi’num were not making use of these territories, as they were not being properly

developed or cultivated (Morales 2007). During this time, Hul’qumi’num First Nations

were relegated to increasingly smaller reserve lands, and indigenous opposition to

colonial government and policies was suppressed by colonial military force and the

execution of indigenous resisters (Morales 2007).

After confederation, Section 91 of the British North America Act – renamed the

Constitution Act – of 1867 granted the federal government jurisdiction over aboriginal

peoples and reserve lands (Cassidy and Bish 1989). These earliest laws illustrate the

ambiguous nature of aboriginal relationships with the Canadian government, with First

Nations addressed as self-governing entities that are also subjects of and ruled by the

Canadian government – an ambiguity that continues into present day.

The Indian Act of 1876 consolidated all legislation pertaining to First Nations and

granted Parliament the ability to manage aboriginal affairs, including efforts at

assimilation of First Nations people and their governments, and the creation of

aggregated Indian Bands (Cassidy and Bish 1989). Canada aggregated closely related

First Nation peoples and incorporated them into the state in an assimilative process that

45

created Indian Bands as new political entities that mirrored state organization (Thom

2010).

The aggregation of First Nations into Indian Bands codified and entrenched

relations between First Nations that were traditionally geographically expansive and

dynamic (Thom 2010). Further, many First Nations share ancestral lands in common,

with overlapping boundaries that result from their traditionally extensive kin networks

(Kennedy 2007). The fluid and overlapping nature of these boundaries is at odds with

state land politics that define static borders and private property boundaries. This

continues to complicate relations between Hul’qumi’num First Nations and the Canadian

nation state, as they engage in the modern treaty process that I describe below.

Current Political and Legal Contexts

Current indigenous struggles for political self-determination within ancestral

territories are a global phenomenon and a central context in which archaeological and

ethnographic evidence is exceptionally relevant. Nation states that share a colonial past

face similar questions of indigenous rights and aboriginal title. These problems are highly

complicated by the often-conflicting nature of indigenous and state interests, as well as

political realities, existing legislation, and the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms.

Despite state attempts at cultural decimation and assimilation, many descendant

communities continue to inhabit their ancestral lands and struggle to maintain traditional

lifeways (Moss 2011). As highlighted above, the defining characteristics of traditional

Coast Salish sociopolitical organization are that it is dynamic, flexible, decentralized, and

highly local. These characteristics make it such that incorporation of Coast Salish First

46

Nations into the Canadian nation state has involved significant conflicts between Coast

Salish and Canadian political organization and expressions, making it difficult for the

Coast Salish to articulate traditional forms of organization within the nation state

structure.

While First Nations of Canada work to define a meaningful new relationship with

the state, indigenous interests continue to conflict with state policies and land politics.

Current legal mechanisms are fragmented and decentralized, with pertinent legislation

existing under several different agencies. The current legislative framework dictates the

environment in which these negotiations take place and defines various avenues for

action.

1. Relevant Federal Legislation

Federal legal mechanisms and case law currently exist that recognizes indigenous

rights, aboriginal treaty rights, and the existence of aboriginal title to ancestral lands from

before colonization. The degree to which these legal mechanisms are effective in helping

First Nations pursue control of ancestral heritage management varies.

The first acknowledgement of aboriginal title to land pre-dating colonization

came as a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1973 case, Calder v. British

Columbia. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that aboriginal title existed at

the time of contact. The ruling determined that “‘Indian title’ was a legal right,

independent of any form of enactment, and rooted in Aboriginal peoples’ historic

‘occupation, possession and use’ of traditional territories” (Hurley 2000:2). Aboriginal

title recognizes that aboriginal peoples occupied and used the land before European

47

contact and that their rights to continue to do so were not extinguished by colonization

(McKee 2009).

Aboriginal rights were first enshrined in the Canadian Constitution in the

Constitution Act of 1982, Section 35: Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, which

affirms the existence of both aboriginal rights and aboriginal treaty rights. There is now

extensive case law regarding this one statute. In a 1991 decision by the Supreme Court of

Canada in R. v. Sparrow, the court held that “aboriginal rights not extinguished by clear

and plain legislative intent prior to 1982 were thereafter protected” (Johnston 2009:vii),

as is the case the Hul’qumi’num.

The lack of treaties between Canada and Hul’qumi’num First Nations means that

aboriginal title was not extinguished, however the ability to pursue aboriginal title and

land rights is limited by the political and economic realities on the ground. There has

been extensive land development in British Columbia and a majority of ancestral land is

held as private property. Eight-five percent of ancestral land in British Columbia is

currently owned as private property and the archaeological heritage at these sites is

continually destroyed by residential and commercial development, as well as logging and

natural erosion (Grant 2010; Grier and Shaver 2008; McLay 2004; McLay et al. 2004,

2008; Morales 2007). British Columbia refuses to use private land to settle treaty

negotiations in the British Columbia Treaty Process discussed below.

The Canada National Parks Act is another piece of legislation that applies to

aboriginal sites on public parkland, such as the Dionisio Point Park. The Act calls for

First Nation involvement in park administration when consistent with heritage

conservation principles (Ziff and Hope 2009).

48

2. British Columbia Heritage Law

The 1996 Heritage Conservation Act is an outgrowth of the new relationship

enshrined in the 1991 Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force. The purpose of

the Heritage Conservation Act is to “encourage and facilitate the protection and

conservation of heritage property in British Columbia” (Heritage Conservation Act 1996),

with heritage property including heritage objects and sites that have value to aboriginal

people. The Heritage Conservation Act aims for the protection of sites that are of cultural

and spiritual significance to aboriginal people (Ziff and Hope 2009).

The 1996 Heritage Conservation Act superseded previous legislation, such as the

1960 Archaeological and Historic Site Protection Act (AHSPA) and the 1977 British

Columbia Heritage Act. The AHSPA protected archaeological sites on Crown land and,

in some circumstances, on private land. The British Columbia Heritage Act of 1977

replaced the AHSPA. It provided for provincial heritage conservation, prohibited the

destruction of heritage sites and objects, and established the now-defunct British

Columbia Heritage Trust (Cullingworth 1987).

The 1996 Heritage Conservation Act is intended to apply to heritage sites on both

public and privately owned land, with developers required to acquire Site Alteration

Permits and conduct Archaeological Impact Assessments before development

commences on heritage sites. The degree to which BC Heritage Law is effective depends

on the degree to which it is enforced. The permitting process has proven ineffective many

times, with numerous examples of important ancestral sites destroyed by continual land

development where Site Alteration Permits were exceeded or the proper permits were not

acquired in the first place (McLay 2004).

49

Section 13 of the Heritage Conservation Act prohibits damage, desecration,

excavation, or alteration to heritage sites and objects except as authorized by permit.

Section 13 also calls for consultation with First Nations whose heritage would be

impacted by the granting of a Site Alteration Permit. However, Section 13 does not

require that the province take the recommendations of First Nations in this consultation

process. Thus, after consultation, the province has discretion to determine if a site has

sufficient heritage value to require conservation, and to what extant a site should be

protected. The province could define development activity as sufficient reason to grant a

Site Alteration Permit, however this does not meet Hul’qumi’num criteria for site

disturbance, which I will elaborate upon in the following discussion of the Parry Lagoon

midden case study. Weaknesses in heritage legislation and enforcement provide contexts

in which archaeologists can work beyond the parameters of the law to define new best

practices.

Supplemental agreements also exist that strengthen First Nation involvement in

heritage protection and conservation, such as the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) regarding First Nation heritage site conservation in Hul’qumi’num territory that

was signed between the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group and the provincial government. The

MOU places obligations on the Archaeology Branch of the provincial government in

British Columbia to involve Hul’qumi’num First Nations in reviewing archaeological

permit applications and Archaeological Overview Assessments (Minister of Tourism,

Sport and the Arts and Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group 2007).

50

3. The British Columbia Treaty Process

First Nations and Canada are currently engaged in treaty negotiations to define a

new relationship, “whereby aboriginal Nations will become self-governing entities within

the political structure of Canada” (Grier and Shaver 2008:33). The 1991 Report of the

British Columbia Claims Task Force calls for the new relationship between First Nations,

British Columbia, and Canada based on “recognition and respect for First Nations as self-

determining and distinct nations with their own spiritual values, histories, language,

territories, political institutions and ways of life” (Report of the British Columbia Claims

Task Force 1991:7). The British Columbia Treaty Commission was established in 1992

to carry out the recommendations outlined in this report as part of the British Columbia

Treaty Process. The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group was established in 1993 and continues

to be engaged in treaty negotiations with British Columbia. Treaty negotiations are a six-

stage process that begins with a Statement of Intent and ends with Treaty Implementation.

The Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group is currently in the fourth stage of the process:

Negotiation of an Agreement in Principle (Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group 2013).

The ability for the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group and the provincial government of

British Columbia to negotiate an agreeable treaty is complicated by the extent of private

land development in British Columbia. In many provinces land claims are settled by

granting Crown land to First Nations as aboriginal ancestral land. The extent of

development in British Columbia and the limited amount of land that the Crown will use

to settle indigenous land claims presents a very real problem for the First Nations of

British Columbia as they attempt to regain ancestral territory and establish aboriginal title.

51

Treaty negotiations have been ongoing now for two decades, with only a few

modern treaties signed in British Columbia, including the Nisga’a and Tsawwassen

treaties. If the outcomes of these new relationships are to be meaningful, it is possible

that negotiations may continue for decades to come (Grier and Shaver 2008). In the

interim, First Nations and archaeologists work within existing heritage law, and develop

new methods and ethics codes for partnerships that recognize First Nation control of

cultural and ancestral heritage. Capacity Initiative projects have funded archaeological

surveys of the region to establish pre-contact history, site use, and chronology (Grier and

Shaver 2008). Such partnerships may guide new legislation by defining new best

practices.

Threats to First Nation Cultural Heritage Protection and Preservation

The Penelakut and Hul’qumi’num First Nations experience a myriad of

challenges in protecting cultural heritage and preserving traditional knowledge. There has

been legislation in place requiring First Nation consultation and comments on

applications for permits for archaeological work since the 1970s (Lea and Frost 2011).

The degree to which developers carry out the required First Nation consultation process

is variable and has been interpreted by Hul’qumi’num peoples as an apparent resistance

to archaeological monitoring and disregard for First Nation cultural heritage (McLay et al.

2004, 2008). Further, violations of heritage legislation are not always prosecuted. McLay

(2004) presents development activities at Poets Cove on South Pender Island, Walkers

Hook on South Spring Island, and Harbour House on South Spring Island as indicative of

problems First Nations face in protecting their heritage sites. In these examples,

52

developers demonstrate a complete disrespect for First Nation ancestral remains and

artifacts, consistently exceed the parameters of Site Alteration Permits, and appear

willfully ignorant of the legal mechanisms in place to protect First Nation ancestral sites

(McLay 2004).

The Hul’qumi’num believe that disrespect for their ancestral heritage is endemic.

While the Canadian public claims to support aboriginal rights and title, as well as

repatriation efforts, Hul’qumi’num members believe that the public supports First Nation

heritage protection and preservation only where it does not conflict with private property

interests (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). Hul’qumi’num community members express that

developers and private landowners are only concerned with First Nation heritage to the

extent that it inconveniences them or prevents them from pursuing development projects.

Further, many believe that private landowners actively do not report archaeological sites

on their land (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). Though it is difficult to assess the accuracy of

this sentiment, it is one outcome of a historical trajectory in which indigenous peoples

have been marginalized, their lands and their pasts appropriated, and their traditional

lifeways interrupted in the ongoing struggle towards decolonization and positively

defining these new relationships.

Past archaeological excavation, as well as looting, is also responsible for the

destruction of ancestral sites through archaeological practices that did not reflect

indigenous cultural values or respect First Nation concerns for heritage protection and

preservation. Many Hul’qumi’num cultural heritage artifacts are held in museums or in

private collections, including sacred and burial objects. While there is no federal

repatriation legislation in Canada, provinces and museums are increasingly sympathetic

53

to repatriation concerns and engaged in a process of repatriation that will return these

objects to First Nations. The British Columbia Museum Act of 2003 was amended to

address repatriation efforts as they relate to modern treaty negotiations (Bell 2009).

However, there are long-term problems associated with repatriation, including the need

for increased capacity building and finding the resources to properly house returned

artifacts (McLay et al. 2004, 2008).

Capacity building is a very real concern for indigenous peoples as they reclaim

control and management of their ancestral heritage. Taking on the role of curation

requires funding that many First Nations do not have access to. First Nations may not be

able to direct funds towards curation when they are also trying to combat other very real,

contemporary consequences of European colonization. The United Nations Special

Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, James Anaya, recently concluded a visit to

Canada. In his “Statement upon conclusion of the visit to Canada”, Anaya concluded that

“Canada faces a crisis when it comes to the situation of indigenous peoples of the

country,” (Anaya 2013). Anaya cites several disturbing statistics as indicative of this

crisis, including an indigenous youth suicide rate that is five times higher than that of

other Canadians, and a murder rate that is eight times greater for aboriginal women than

non-indigenous women. Indigenous citizens also experience higher poverty and

imprisonment rates than the general population (Anaya 2013; Carlson 2001). These

statistics reflect the systemic discrimination that First Nations peoples are subject to and

the long-term consequences of physical and cultural alienation.

Disruption of traditional cultures undermined traditional institutions and continues

to have negative ramifications for descendant populations. After centuries of decimation

54

and assimilation, First Nations worry about their ability to take on the gamut of economic

and political responsibilities, not just of curation, but also of education and health care

once they become self-governing entities (Thom 2010). The ability to fund these

initiatives poses very real problems for First Nations as they attempt to regain political

and cultural autonomy from the Canadian state, and many worry about the consequences

of defining new relationships and losing access to those federal services currently

stipulated under the Indian Act (Thom 2010).

Hul’qumi’num community members also express a desire for increased

community and youth engagement and educational opportunities. Traditional knowledge

continues to be lost with each generation. Hul’qumi’num elders express concern about

the disinterest of Hul’qumi’num youth in learning indigenous cultural teachings and

express a desire for greater youth participation and involvement in their communities

(McLay et al. 2004, 2008). This sentiment is not new. In the 1930s, Mary Rice, Beryl

Cryer’s Hul’qumi’num informant, laments the youth not wanting to learn indigenous

culture even in the earlier days of colonization (Cryer 2007).

Lastly, there are larger environmental factors that pose threats to Hul’qumi’num

ancestral sites. Many of these sites are coastal and subject to erosion from wind and wave

action, increased storm activity, and rising sea levels. Increased destruction and loss of

coastal ancestral sites is imminent with an estimated one meter of sea level rise over the

next century due to climate change (BC Ministry of Environment 2011) (Figure 7).

Rising sea levels will cause increased coastal erosion and eventually submerge many

ancient sites. Ancestral sites subject to coastal erosion provide opportunities for

archaeologists to work with First Nations to protect and preserve their cultural heritage

55

through excavation and mitigation, where defined as necessary and desirable by the First

Nations themselves.

Figure 7. Recommended Global Sea Level Rise Curve for Planning and Design in BC (BC Ministry of Environment 2011:14). In the next Chapter, I present the excavation of Parry Lagoon midden (DgRv-006)

as an attempt by the archaeological researchers to address the concerns of local First

Nations and conduct archaeological excavation in a culturally-defined and culturally-

appropriate manner.

56

CHAPTER FOUR

PARRY LAGOON MIDDEN CASE STUDY

The Dionisio Point locality refers to an archaeologically-rich area of northern

Galiano Island within Dionisio Point Provincial Marine Park that extends from Stevens

Point north to the Dionisio Point landform and west to Maple Bay. It includes

archaeological sites DgRv-003 (commonly referred to as the “Dionisio Point” site),

DgRv-006 (commonly referred to as the “Coon Bay” site, and which includes the Parry

Lagoon midden) and DgRv-017 on Steven’s Point. The Dionisio Point locality has been

the subject of archaeological investigation since the 1960s. Archaeological excavations at

Dionisio Point first occurred in 1964 under the direction of Donald Mitchell (1971b).

Mitchell’s excavations focused on DgRv-003, the Marpole Period village site, and

concluded that the archaeological record at this site was of considerable time depth, with

the potential to add significant information to the culture history of the region (Mitchell

1971b).

In 1997 and 1998, Dr. Colin Grier conducted archaeological investigations into

the internal organization of a multifamily plankhouse in conjunction with a broader

investigation of the 5-house Marpole period village that is the central feature of the

DgRv-003 site (Grier 2001). This commenced fifteen years of archaeological research at

Dionisio Point by Grier and his colleagues that has in recent years expanded to include

excavation within and adjacent to a Late-period plankhouse at DgRv-006. Research

conducted at Dionisio Point provides significant insights into the Central Coast Salish

household and into Central Coast Salish social, economic, and political organization

57

(Grier 2001, 2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). For a brief overview and history of Grier’s

research at Dionisio Point, see Grier 2012.

Due to commercial and residential development activities in the region, many

archaeological sites and their surface signatures have been destroyed. The clear house

depressions at Dionisio Point provide the context in which archaeologists can confidently

investigate household organization. The multi-family household was the hub of Central

Coast Salish social, economic, and political activity. The internal organization of the

household, and how this changed over time, lends insights into the emergence of social

complexity and inequality on the Northwest Coast. As the site of both a Marpole Period

village and a Late Period plankhouse, the Dionisio Point locality is archaeologically

significant for addressing change in the Central Coast Salish household organization over

time.

Dionisio Point is also archaeologically significant because it provides a context in

which the direct association between a Late Period plankhouse and Parry Lagoon midden

is apparent. This association enriches archaeologists’ ability to study the Central Coast

Salish household, including insights into resource use, subsistence strategies, and

seasonality of occupation (Grier et al. 2012).

Grier continues to conduct research at this locality, as well as to engage with the

Penelakut and Hul’qumi’num First Nations in protecting their ancestral heritage and

developing research that is relevant to the community (Grier and Shaver 2008). As these

relationships have developed over time, so too have the research questions and

archaeological methods used at the site. The excavation and mitigation efforts at Parry

58

Lagoon midden were an outgrowth of these long-standing relationships and of

archaeological researchers’ demonstrated long-term commitment to the region.

Parry Lagoon Midden (DgRv-006) Excavation

Excavations at Parry Lagoon midden were conducted in the summer of 2012 at

the DgRv-006 site at the Dionisio Point locality. While generating archaeological data

useful for researchers, the impetus for the project came from the Penelakut First Nation,

and was guided by elders August and Laura Sylvester. The primary research design was

developed in collaboration with the Penelakut to address a community concern over

ancestral remains eroding from the coastal shell midden on the shoreline at Parry Lagoon

(Figure 8).

Figure 8. State of Parry Lagoon midden erosion before excavation

59

This shell midden has been eroding rapidly over the last twenty years, and had

been the subject of increasing salvage excavations in recent years, including in 2010 and

2011. While we do not know the exact amount of shoreline lost to past erosion, there may

have been as much as ten meters of recession. Hul’qumi’num customary law dictates

respecting the ancestors first by protecting ancestral remains in place, and second by

relocating ancestral remains to nearby locations, only when absolutely necessary and

unavoidable. Circumstances under which it is culturally appropriate to remove and

relocate ancestors include when the ancestral remains are threatened from natural erosion

or flooding. Appropriate circumstances do not include removal for the purposes of land

development or economic convenience.

The Penelakut identified the persistent erosion of Parry Lagoon midden as an

ongoing problem that archaeologists from Washington State University were in a position

to help address. At the same time we were also gaining important archaeological insights

into the Late Period village site at DgRv-006, so research dollars could be directed

toward a project that satisfied a number of objectives. The ultimate objective was to

address acute erosion issues and stabilize the shoreline to prevent future loss of ancestral

heritage, in accordance with Hul’qumi’num cultural heritage management practices.

The 2012 salvage excavation of the Parry Lagoon midden brought together the

Penelakut and other Hul’qumi’num First Nations, Washington State University

archaeologists, and BC Parks to salvage and protect this important archaeological site on

Hul’qumi’num ancestral land. DgRv-006 is located on public parkland, unlike most

Hul’qumi’num sites in British Columbia. A Master Plan for Dionisio Point Provincial

Park was issued at time of the park’s establishment. The Master Plan set the groundwork

60

for the collaborative process that we developed, including a co-management agreement

for the continued involvement of First Nations and the local Galiano Island community,

and a commitment to the protection of archaeological and heritage values (BC Parks

1995). Over the many years of research at Dionisio Point, BC Parks has been part of the

collaboration with Washington State University archaeologists and the Penelakut. In the

past, BC Parks has worked with the Penelakut to develop signage for the village site

(Figure 9). For this project, we were able to again collaborate with BC Parks as part of

the design for future site protection, which I elaborate upon below.

Figure 9. Signage developed by BC Parks and the Penelakut Tribe to identify and educate about the Dionisio Point village site and midden. The sign on the right reads: “QUELUS’ – A Place of Serenity

“Thousands of years ago, aboriginal people began to use the resources around Galiano Island. The site before you was a seasonal village, known as quelus’ in the Hul’qumi’num language – a place of serenity. “In the spring and summer, foods such as eggs, bulbs, plants, roots, and berries were collected. Clams and mussels were gathered from the beaches, while the salmon, other fish and seals were harvested from the surrounding waters. Village inhabitants likely travelled by canoe to the Fraser River area to fish the salmon runs before returning to their winter villages on Vancouver Island or other Gulf Islands. “Evidence of this culture is contained in these middens – layers of shell, ash, charcoal, bone, and fire-cracked rocks. Built on older middens, the shallow rectangular depressions you see here are all that remain of the large, plank houses that once stood in the village 1,500 to 2, 000 years ago. These important sites are fragile and are fully protected under the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act. “The native use and settlement of this area that began so long ago extends into the present as aboriginal people continue to live on Galiano Island.”

61

Parry Lagoon midden was well known by locals as a place where ancestral

remains were being exposed on a semi-regular basis. Due to the steady erosion of the

midden, the presence of ancestral remains, and the public location of the site, it was

imperative that the situation be addressed and a long-term plan for future site protection

be developed. In this, we sought to salvage and protect that which was in immediate

danger of erosion, while stabilizing the slope in front of the site to minimize future

disturbance and protect ancestral heritage in place as much as possible.

The following sections outline the nature of Hul’qumi’num customary law, and

how it sets forth principles for stewardship, collaboration, and an ethical indigenous

archaeology. Next, I develop a fuller discussion of the project and identify the guiding

principles by which we sought to operationalize Hul’qumi’num customary law as a

foundation for archaeological practice. Lastly, I discuss the outcomes of the project,

identifying the specific circumstances that enabled this research to take place, as well as

ways in which it can provide guidance to other archaeologists working with indigenous

peoples amongst varied sets of interests.

Hul’qumi’num Customary Law

Hul’qumi’num beliefs regarding relationships with their ancestors and ancestral

heritage are encoded in a strict customary law. Care for the ancestors and stewardship of

ancestral remains are inherited obligations that persist through the generations in an

enduring relationship. By incorporating oral knowledge into archaeological study,

archaeologists can collaborate with First Nations to gain a richer understanding of their

study areas and foster mutually beneficial relationships with descendant communities.

62

The traditionally oral and private nature of Hul’qumi’num customary law has

meant that it has historically been ignored, undervalued, or considered not to exist at all

by colonial interests. Cultural practices regarding care for ancestral heritage is restricted

knowledge amongst the Hul’qumi’num and is held by specific families, often skipping a

generation (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). The Hul’qumi’num tradition of privacy regarding

cultural practices of care for ancestral heritage proves problematic for contemporary

Hul’qumi’num peoples as they pursue heritage protection and preservation within

modern state contexts of private property and land development.

The Hul’qumi’num recognize that it has been detrimental in contemporary

contexts to keep traditional knowledge private, and have worked with researchers in the

region to codify Hul’qumi’num customary law and make its central tenets accessible to

the public and other interested parties. This resulted in two documents that present

Hul’qumi’num cultural practices and perspectives related to heritage management and

archaeological practice (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). The archaeologists involved in this

project developed an understanding of Hul’qumi’num customary law drawn primarily

from these documents, which synthesize the perspectives of elders and others in the

Hul’qumi’num community. We consider ourselves, and archaeologists in our region, very

fortunate to have access to these documents and respect the past collaborative efforts that

made such access possible.

63

As stated previously, the Hul’qumi’num derive their connection to the land and to

their ancestors from their creation story:

At the start of the world, the First Ancestors dropped from the sky. These First Ancestors were powerful people. They cleared the world of dangerous creatures and settled the original villages throughout Hul’qumi’num territory. These ancestors were imbued with the powers of transformation. Humans could change to animals. Common things had uncommon powers. Then the Creator, Xe’els, arrived. He went through the land making things as they are today. He transformed the First Ancestors to the deer, to the cedar tree, to the rocks which continue to be found in the land today. He taught the Hul’qumi’num people about the respect and obligations that were required to live in the world. Xe’els transformations live on today in the animals and places in the landscapes, which carry the history of his work in their Hul’qumi’num names. (McLay et al. 2004:3-4)

The Hul’qumi’num understand themselves as connected to the land and resources

since the time of the First Ancestors. A key theme of Hul’qumi’num customary law

regarding heritage resources is that there is little distinction between the past and the

present, between the archaeological and the historical, or between the living and the spirit

world. Cultural heritage is strongly associated with cultural identity. Archaeological sites

embody people, not objects. They reinforce the connections between the Hul’qumi’num

and their ancestors. Respect and reciprocity are the guiding principles that define

Hul’qumi’num relationships with their ancestors. Respecting and protecting ancestral

heritage means the ability for Hul’qumi’num to perpetuate this identity into the future.

Artifacts are considered the property of the ancestors who made or possessed

them and the care for these objects and their ancestors is pursued through non-

disturbance (McLay et al. 2004, 2008). Archaeological sites should be understood as the

ancient places of the ancestors and treated with the same respect and protections as

historical cemeteries. They are only to be disturbed under certain culturally defined

64

circumstances, such as when they are threatened by natural erosion or flooding, and

under these circumstances their disturbance is part of a salvage effort to ensure the safety

of the ancestors. The Hul’qumi’num believe it is not acceptable or respectful to move

ancestral remains for the purposes of convenience or development.

Parry Lagoon Midden Excavation Strategy

In this section I provide a brief overview of the Parry Lagoon midden excavation

strategy, before elaborating on the guiding principles of the project and how they

informed our approach. This overview of the excavation is meant to provide the context

for evaluating these guiding principles and measuring their relative success. Our

excavation approach embraced the primacy of Hul’qumi’num customary law and its

central tenet of non-disturbance. We would only excavate to remove portions of the

midden in immediate danger of erosion, with the ultimate goal of protecting the rest of

the midden from future erosion in situ.

The excavation and mitigation strategies were considered flexible throughout the

project, and were subject to alteration and improvement as the project developed. Many

decisions were developed in context during on site meetings between archaeologists and

Penelakut members (Figure 10). Through these meetings we agreed upon a flexible

excavation approach that would continue to develop as we discovered the nature of the

midden and its contents. What we discovered during the excavation itself continuously

informed the extent of the excavation and how we would proceed.

65

Figure 10. On site meeting with the Penelakut at Dionisio Point.

The first step was to assess the extent of erosion and identify any archaeological

materials and features exposed in the midden face, overhang, or previously eroded

deposits. We worked with the Penelakut to screen materials that had already eroded from

the midden face (Figure 11). This allowed us to assess and prioritize our excavation

efforts.

66

Figure 11. Washington State University researchers and Penelakut Tribe members screening previously eroded midden materials together.

After screening previously eroded midden materials to gain an initial

understanding of the midden contents and distribution, we removed the unstable portion

of the midden across the length of the roughly ten-meter undercut exposure to create a

relatively smooth profile (Figure 12). This approach allowed us to preserve the context of

the midden where it had not yet eroded and approach the midden through vertical

excavation from above. Controlled vertical excavation then involved the removal of in

situ but unstable midden back to roughly one meter from the exposed midden face. In

total, nine one-meter wide contiguous excavation units were excavated to sterile sands

that lie underneath the midden (Figure 13).

67

Figure 12. Midden overhang removed to expose a smooth profile.

Figure 13. Open units across the span of the midden face.

68

We excavated vertically using both arbitrary and natural levels, depending on the

variable contents of the midden deposits. The depth of the midden deposits varied, being

over one meter deep at its thickest point. Clam and mussel shell were ubiquitous

throughout the midden, with lenses (especially in the north portion of the midden)

composed entirely of shell. There were also many sand lenses identifiable throughout the

midden profile, and evidence of pits that had been previously dug into the midden and

then filled (Figure 14). Just above the culturally sterile basal layer of sand, there was a

thin basal layer of shell that stretched across the entire base of the midden.

Figure 14. Midden profile showing shell lenses, sand lenses, pits, and basal sands

Throughout the excavation we continued to meet with the Penelakut on site and

discuss how our findings might change our approach. We excavated only to the extent

necessary to recover threatened materials and protect the rest of the midden. We used the

sediment removed during excavations to rebuild a stable slope in front of the midden and

devised several types of protection for the slope. I will discuss our devised solution in

69

more detail below under the guiding principle of foregrounding long-term heritage

management.

The following guiding principles were designed to reflect Penelakut cultural

values and Hul’qumi’num customary law. They directed how we put these beliefs into

archaeological practice and are one of the major outcomes of this project.

Guiding Principals

Hul’qumi’num customary law provides a very useful and explicit framework for

archaeologists to guide their methodology. It enables archaeologists in the region to

understand constraints on their practice, as well as be active participants in

operationalizing this law. Hul’qumi’num customary law and British Columbia Heritage

law are complementary, as both are meaningful guides for approaching the record of the

past.

Hul’qumi’num customary law provided the framework and defined the

circumstances in which the salvage excavations at Parry Lagoon midden were determined

to be culturally appropriate and necessary. Developing a research methodology that

sought to incorporate Hul’qumi’num customary law into archaeological practice resulted

in an excavation strategy that was designed to reflect Penelakut cultural values of respect

and reciprocity. These values are demonstrated in the guiding principles of the research

and excavation approach discussed below.

In accordance with Hul’qumi’num customary law and the spirit of the partnership

between archaeologists and the Penelakut, my overview of our research only mentions

details relevant to this study. Below, I enumerate the general guiding principles and

70

practices that informed our methodology and set it apart from typical archaeological

practice so that others may have a sense of how and why this project was successful.

1. Partnering for Project Co-Development and Implementation

The excavation of Parry Lagoon midden was only possible through on-going

partner collaboration, an outgrowth of long-standing relationships between the Penelakut

and other Hul’qumi’num First Nations, Washington State University and other research

archaeologists, and BC Parks at the Dionisio Point locality. While the Hul’qumi’num

practice avoidance and non-disturbance of ancestral sites, the context of erosion (Figure

15) provided the imperative to act to develop an alternate and pro-active path for site

protection. The Penelakut and Hul’qumi’num First Nations, Washington State University

archaeologists, BC Parks, and the local Galiano community had a common interest and

desire to act to preserve and protect the heritage resources at DgRv-006 before more

midden was lost to erosion.

Throughout this collaboration, communication between the partners was ongoing.

There were regular meetings with Penelakut members and elders prior to the project to

develop and discuss excavation strategies. On site meetings were a regular occurrence

during the project to address sensitive and key issues as they arose. Archaeologists also

met regularly with BC Parks to discuss plans for future site protection. This level of

communication and its openness was, in our view, the most critical element of the

project.

71

Figure 15. State of Parry Lagoon midden erosion preceding excavation.

72

2. Incorporation of Traditional Preparations and Practices

The Penelakut have specific traditional preparations and practices that must occur

when working at ancestral sites. The Penelakut and archaeologists used several protective

measures that the Penelakut identified as important for those working in locations where

ancestral remains exist. These included the use of Tumulh – a red ochre preparation – for

spiritual protection, and the incorporation of cut cedar boughs into the storage of

appropriate material remains. We also conducted the excavation within the daylight hours

most appropriate to working in locations with ancestral remains. Such practices were, in

everyone’s view, equally as important as the measuring and recording practices that are

standard archaeological methods.

3. Minimal Approach to Excavation

Embracing the core principle of non-disturbance, we developed a minimally

invasive approach to excavation. We provided information directly to the Penelakut, who

determined how extensive the excavation would be. During the project, we discussed

alternate strategies for excavation and future site protection, choosing the approach that

the Penelakut favored as most consistent with Hul’qumi’num traditional practices.

We used non-destructive tools, such as Ground Penetrating Radar, to identify

subsurface anomalies and interpreted these as areas to be avoided during excavation

(Figure 16). This further helped us to determine how extensively we would excavate and

draw back the slope. The overall objective was to excavate only to the extent necessary to

rebuild and stabilize the slope of the midden, to preserve as much of the midden in place

as possible, and to protect the midden in situ against future site disturbance. We

73

successfully modified and adapted our own research design to be consistent with this

principle.

This minimal approach to excavation sets our project apart from standard

archaeological practice that prizes maximum data recovery. For our purposes, data

recovery came second to Penelakut concerns for in situ preservation. In this, we used our

role as archaeologists to facilitate Hul’qumi’num cultural practices over research

interests.

Figure 16. Using Ground-Penetrating Radar to map the sub-surface of the midden and gain an idea of possible sensitive contexts.

74

4. Shared Operational Responsibilities

In developing and implementing this excavation strategy, the various parties

involved shared operational responsibilities throughout the project. The excavation

strategy developed and was modified as circumstances arose through on-site

collaboration in decision-making, data-collection, and implementing appropriate

solutions. We conducted most of the excavation, while the Penelakut took the lead in any

situation that directly involved ancestral remains. We screened and removed in situ

materials together with the Penelakut in an effort to be consistent with the approaches and

needs of all parties (Figure 17).

75

Figure 17. Penelakut and Washington State University archaeologists screening in situ material together.

76

5. Embedding Protocols into Permits and Official Statements of Practice

Several protocols designed in accordance with Hul’qumi’num customary law

were embedded into permits and official statements of practice. The British Columbia

archaeological permitting process incorporates feedback from all First Nations who claim

the area as part of their traditional territory. Through this official process and more direct

agreements, the Penelakut and other First Nations were able to entrench key elements of

practice such as the minimal photographing and recording of any contexts in which there

were ancestral remains, and the importance of keeping ancestral remains on site. Analysis

of ancestral remains was highly limited and occurred on site as well. All ancestral

remains were safely housed until the end of the project, at which time the Penelakut

reburied the ancestors in the vicinity with appropriate cultural ceremony and practices.

6. Foregrounding Long Term Heritage Conservation

Our mandate in this excavation was to salvage and protect that which was in

danger of erosion. Beyond this, the agreed upon objective was to stabilize the slope in

front of the site and devise various protective measures to minimize future disturbance.

The midden had been slowly but steadily eroding, and targeted salvage operations had

been taking place increasingly over the last few years. Our job was to devise a long-term

solution that could be implemented with local materials, community labor, and with

minimal heavy equipment. The hope is that with long-term monitoring, this low-cost,

low-impact approach can provide a feasible strategy for the future protection of other

threatened coastal sites.

77

We reinforced the base of the slope beneath the midden at the shoreline, placing

driftwood posts approximately one meter deep in the ground and one meter apart (Figure

18). We used these to create a retaining wall to protect against future wind and wave

action. We used the backfill from the excavation and soil provided by BC Parks to

rebuild the slope of the midden and then covered the steepest section of the restored slope

with geotextiles (Figure 19). As part of the design to protect the site in the future, BC

Parks built a fence to direct public traffic past the site and towards the beach (Figure 20).

Figure 18. Using driftwood posts and backfill to reinforce the base of the midden.

78

Figure 19. Use of backfill and geotextiles to rebuild and reinforce the slope of the midden.

79

Figure 20. Fence built by BC Parks to direct foot traffic past the site and toward the beach

80

As a long-term strategy, continual monitoring of the midden and rebuilt slope is

required. This provides another pathway for the Penelakut, Washington State University

archaeologists, BC Parks, and the local Galiano community to work together – keeping

each other apprised of the condition of the slope and watching for further erosion. While

the 2012-2013 winter storms did cause some further erosion (Figure 21), additional fill

was added in the summer of 2013 where the shoreline defense proved weak (Figure 22).

While it appears that the slope is reseeding itself (Figure 23), further protection and

stabilization will be provided by the root systems of native vegetation that were recently

planted on the slope, such as rose and berry bushes.

Figure 21. Erosion of stabilized slope caused by 2012-2013 winter storms

81

Figure 22. Summer 2013 excavations to reinforce weakened portions of the slope.

Figure 23. The slope naturally reseeding itself and increasing stability

82

Outcomes

We were able to implement this solution at a local level, in partnership with many

interests and communities. Over time we will be able to monitor the efficacy of this

solution, and if effective apply it to other coastal shell midden sites that are threatened by

erosion or actively being eroded. With predictions of at least one meter of sea level rise

over the next century (BC Ministry of Environment 2011), the need to pilot local, feasible

solutions to protect threatened coastal sites is absolutely clear.

The success of this project can be measured in many ways; most obviously in the

long-term stability of the replanted slope. But just as importantly in the development of a

research design and methodology that identified the specific needs of the local First

Nations community and sought to address these in a context specific, culturally sensitive

manner. In doing so we were able to operationalize the central tenets of respect and

reciprocity that guide the Hul’qumi’num relationships with their ancestors. As

archaeologists, we are participants in this relationship and recognize ourselves as

privileged to play a role in protecting Hul’qumi’num ancestral heritage. The above

demonstrates the commitment that the project partners have shown to collaborative

efforts and to exploring where archaeological practice and Hul’qumi’num custom are

complimentary.

There were a variety of circumstances that allowed for the success of this project

that may not be shared by other situations where archaeological, aboriginal, and modern

land use interests intersect. First, such a project was likely only feasible because of a

long-standing history of collaborative research in the region between research

archaeologists, the Penelakut, and other Hul’qumi’num Tribes. That such a foundation

83

existed is critical and speaks to the importance of building on long-standing relationships.

Second, we had an explicit statement of Hul’qumi’num customary law on which to base

our work. This provided an invaluable backdrop for the creation of appropriate heritage

practices on the ground.

Third, unlike most archaeological sites in British Columbia, DgRv-006 is located

on public land, in a provincial park. The mostly urban, privatized nature of

Hul’qumi’num territory on adjacent Vancouver Island makes it difficult for the

Hul’qumi’num to carry out their customary law in caring for and protecting heritage sites.

The designation of the site locale as public parkland and the co-management agreement

developed at the park’s establishment meant that we were able to draw upon standing

relationships between the Penelakut, research archaeologists, and BC Parks to articulate

common interests and create mutually agreeable solutions.

Lastly, I would like to emphasize again that this project developed under

exceptional circumstances. For the Hul’qumi’num, removal of ancestral remains is only

culturally acceptable under strictly limited contexts. The continual erosion and location of

Parry Lagoon in a public location made it such that protection of the ancestors required

their removal and reburial in a safe location.

While I have discussed the exceptional circumstances within which this research

developed, I have also highlighted several programmatic recommendations for

conducting an indigenous-focused and collaborative archaeology. These emphasize the

centrality of the indigenous peoples with whom we work. While the specific context of

erosion created the imperative to act through which archaeological excavation and

salvage of ancestral remains was culturally appropriate, at the center of this project’s

84

success is the building of long-term, personal, committed, and reciprocal relationships. If

approached as a reciprocal relationship, we can build toward meaningful and positive

outcomes that enrich all of our cultural understandings.

Recognizing that indigenous archaeologies take place in highly local contexts, I

present the guiding principles upon which this project worked as relevant and applicable

to other projects in which indigenous peoples and archaeologists form new relationships.

Respect and reciprocity are central tenets of Hul’qumi’num customary law, and thus also

central tenets of our relationship with the Penelakut. By simultaneously incorporating and

integrating Penelakut members and Hul’qumi’num customary law into archaeological

practice, as well as working with BC Parks to stabilize and protect the midden from

future destruction, together we implemented a local community solution with a positive

outcome for all involved.

85

CHAPTER FIVE

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the previous chapters, I sought to present the excavation of the Parry Lagoon

midden as a case study in indigenous archaeology, and to illustrate its potential for

confronting problems of an archaeological, historical, political, and environmental nature.

I have highlighted many local, regional, and global contexts in which this type of

research is embedded. In this concluding chapter, I will further explicate the significance

of this research, with a vision towards a positive, collaborative, equitable, just, and

diverse future.

Archaeological Significance

Indigenous archaeological projects are relevant to understanding the impacts of

our research, both for the indigenous communities involved and for the discipline in

general. Archaeological research is important in British Columbia, and to the

Hul’qumi’num, because it establishes ancestral ties to the region and embodies cultural

heritage of lasting significance to contemporary indigenous identities.

With the Parry Lagoon midden, we were able to partner with the Penelakut and

other Hul’qumi’num First Nations to protect ancestral remains on an important

archaeological site, in accordance with the wishes and cultural practices of the local

indigenous community. Regionally, this project serves as a pilot study in developing

long-term preservation strategies for endangered coastal sites.

For archaeologists, indigenous research opens the doors to new research

86

questions, methodologies, and interpretations; it recenters the focus of archaeological

research on the interests of indigenous populations; and it provides new understandings

of the past through which we can transform our expectations for the future. By working

together, descendant populations and archaeologists can gain new and deeper

understandings of their regions.

Historical Significance

The impacts of colonization continue to be felt today and undermine the abilities

of indigenous people to perpetuate and practice their cultures in the present and into the

future. Nation states that share a colonial past face similar questions of indigenous rights

and aboriginal title. Collaborations between archaeologists and indigenous peoples can

help combat the long-term impacts of culture loss, political marginalization and

assimilation, and separation from ancestral lands.

Through approaches that center and magnify indigenous voices, we also create the

space for re-imagining a collective future. I believe that we will need the power of both

new and old narratives to guide a dynamic and responsive future, and that indigenous

perspectives hold very real and positive alternatives to Western practice. Indigenous

archaeologies can help indigenous peoples preserve and revive old narratives that may be

critical to moving beyond Western cultural and scientific imperialism.

Ultimately, indigenous and collaborative archaeologies provide the context in

which indigenous peoples and archaeologists can come together to address the past and

define our relationships in the present. Indigenous archaeology addresses the historical

and contemporary consequences of colonialism, while providing space to define a new

87

path beyond this impasse. Any path forward must be collaborative in nature and seek to

repair damaged relationships, in the interest of righting past and present injustices.

Political Significance

Current political struggles are a key context in which indigenous-focused and

collaborative archaeology has significant impacts. Archaeological evidence can be

garnered in support of modern struggles for indigenous rights, self-determination, control

of cultural heritage, aboriginal title, and access to traditional lands and resources.

Archaeological evidence helps establish ancestral connections to land and bolster claims

to aboriginal title. Resolution of current treaty negotiations in Canada will define the

future relationship between indigenous peoples and the nation state. These new

relationships can be developed to respect and reflect the political and cultural diversity of

indigenous peoples, and perhaps revitalize forms of political organization that were

disrupted with colonization.

Indigenous populations across the globe share similar struggles with the Coast

Salish for political autonomy within the nation state that allows for traditional forms of

social, political, and economic self-expression. That we create and fight for space outside

of the modern nation state is critical and must reflect the diversity of traditional, local

forms of political and cultural expression. This organizational and cultural diversity is

critically important to our abilities to respond in local context to problems of a global

nature. As our world becomes politically and economically homogenized through

assimilation and increased globalization, we lose diversity in local, autonomous, political

expression that can develop and respond in context to the many threats posed by the close

88

association between global capitalism and environmental degradation. Just as biodiversity

is essential to secure and healthy ecosystems, cultural diversity is crucial to the security

and health of humanity’s future as members of these ecosystems. A Coast Salish

approach to social and political organization is extremely salient to confronting these

problems in that it emphasizes the importance of local, small-scale, and flexible

organizations – attributes that we will need to face impending problems and find

equitable solutions.

First Nations are in the unique position of being able to define and carve out an

autonomous political space within the colonial nation state and, in so doing, redefine the

nature of global political and economic networks on radically localized scales. Like pre-

contact Central Coast Salish political organization, radical decentralization provides room

for local and autonomous organization, and creates space for meaningful forms of

expression and the ability to satisfy basic human needs on both a social and subsistence

level. Without room for social and political diversity, we both diminish our ability to live

well and threaten our ability to live at all.

Environmental Significance

Indigenous peoples often advocate for the rights of environmental stewardship.

By engaging and respecting indigenous voices and perspectives, we create opportunities

for creative and local responses to apparently intractable problems associated with

climate change. Industrial development, global capitalism, and the resulting

environmental degradation are problems of global importance. Where possible,

indigenous peoples have maintained connections with ancestral lands. Holistic

89

approaches, principles of stewardship, and traditional land management practices provide

local guides for future responses to environmental problems.

But not all environmental problems have a human cause or a human solution.

Rising sea levels will increase coastal erosion and ancestral sites will be lost. On the

Northwest Coast this provides opportunities for archaeologists and First Nations to work

together to protect and preserve cultural heritage through excavation and mitigation, and

to recover ancestral heritage that might otherwise be lost.

Conclusion

In this thesis, I have sought to illustrate how indigenous archaeology is significant

to the working relationships between archaeological researchers and indigenous

populations – both locally in British Columbia, and globally among other indigenous

cultures that exist at odds with Western colonialism and nation state politics. Indigenous

archaeology opens the doors to new research questions, methodologies, and

interpretations; it informs political struggles in the present for aboriginal title and self-

government; it creates new avenues for advocacy and preservation of archaeological and

cultural heritage; it recenters the focus of archaeological research on the interests of

indigenous populations and provides tools to combat culture loss; and it provides new

understandings of the past through which we can transform our expectations for the

future.

Indigenous archaeology provides a path forward. And can only do so by

confronting a past that is tarnished by a history of colonization as expressed in colonial

relationships and institutions, colonial methodologies, and ultimately the colonial nature

90

of Western thought and the very discipline of archaeology. In this way, indigenous

archaeology can address both concrete political and ephemeral theoretical realities.

As I have made apparent throughout this thesis, I argue for local, dynamic, and

diverse solutions to the various problems faced by archaeologists, indigenous peoples,

governments, the public, and humanity in general. Indigenous archaeology is only one

avenue through which we can reignite the plurality of indigenous cultures. I see the

diverse and contextual knowledge of indigenous cultures as a guide for a dynamic and

diverse future. While these ideas float in theory, indigenous archaeology is ultimately

about practice – the practice of building relationships founded on respect and reciprocity,

the practice of fostering trust and exhibiting personal dedication, and the practice of

critically evaluating our own methods to understand the implications of our research and

our position within the much larger context of global historical trajectories. That practice

is ultimately transformative is not simply a concept to be applied to past peoples, we must

apply it to ourselves as well. By transforming our practice we transform our relationships

and create new contexts in which we can move forward together and define our future.

91

Bibliography

Allen, Harry, Dilys Johns, Caroline Phillips, Kelvin Day, Tipene O’Brien, and Ngati Mutunga 2002 Wāhi Ngare (The Lost Portion): Strengthening Relationships between People and Wetleands in North Taranaki, New Zealand. World Archaeology 34(2):315-29. Ames, Kenneth 1994 The Northwest Coast: Complex Hunter-Gatherers, Ecology, and Social Evolution. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:209-229. 1995 Chiefly Power and Household Production on the Northwest Coast. In Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 155-187. Plenum Press, New York. 2002 Going by Boat: The Forager-Collector Continuum at Sea. In Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems, edited by Ben Fitzhugh and Junko Habu, pp. 19–52. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Ames, Kenneth, and Herbert D.G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson, New York. Anaya, James 2013 United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people Statement upon conclusion of the visit to Canada issued October 15, 2003. Electronic document, http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/statements/statement upon-conclusion-of-the-visit-to-canada, accessed November 18, 2013. Angelbeck, Bill, and Colin Grier 2012 Anarchism and the Archaeology of Anarchic Societies: Resistance to Centralization in the Coast Salish Region of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Current Anthropology 53(5):547-587. Arnett, Chris 1999 The Terror of the Coast: Land Alienation and Colonial War on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, 1849-1863. Talonbooks, Vancouver, B.C. Anyon, Roger, T.J. Ferguson, Loretta Jackson, Lillie Lane, and Philip Vicenti 1997 Native American Oral Tradition and Archaeology: Issues of Structure, Relevance, and Respect. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, pp. 77-87. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

92

Atalay, Sonya 2006 Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):280-310. BC Ministry of Environment 2011 Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use. Draft Policy Discussion Paper. BC Parks 1995 Master plan for Dionisio Provincial Park. Prepared by South Coast Region, North Vancouver, B.C. Bell, Catherine 2009 Restructuring the Relationship: Domestic Repatriation and Canadian Law Reform. In Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform, edited by Catherin Bell and Robert K. Paterson, pp. 15-77. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Boyd, Robert T. 1990 Demographic History, 1774-1874. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 135-148. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. British Columbia Claims Task Force 1991 Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force. Electronic document, www.bctreaty.net/files_3/pdf.../bc_claims_task_force_report.pdf, accessed April 30, 2012 Canadian Archaeological Association, Beverley A. Nicholson, David L. Pokotylo, and Ron Williamson 1996 Statement of Principles for Ethical Conduct Pertaining to Aboriginal Peoples: A Report from the Aboriginal Heritage Committee. Canadian Archaeological Association, Ottowa. Cannon, Aubrey 2000 Settlement and Sea-Levels on the Central Coast of British Columbia: Evidence from Shell Midden Cores. American Antiquity 65(1):67-77. Carlson, Keith (editor) 2001 A Stó:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver, B.C. Cassidy, Frank, and Robert L. Bish 1989 Indian Government: Its Meaning in Practice. Institute for Research on Public Policy, Nova Scotia, Canada.

93

Chatters, James C. 1989 The Antiquity of Economic Differentiation within Households in the Puget Sound Region, Northwest Coast. In Households and Communities, edited by S. MacEachern, D.J.W. Archer and R.D. Garvin, pp. 168-178. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary. Clark, Terence N. 2010 Rewriting Marpole: The Path the Cultural Complexity in the Gulf of Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. Cryer, Beryl Mildred 2007 Two houses half-buried in sand: oral traditions of the Hul'q'umi'num' Coast Salish of Kuper Island and Vancouver Island, edited and compiled by Chris Arnett. Talonbooks Ltd, Vancouver, B.C. Cullingworth, J. Barry 1987 Urban and Regional Planning in Canada. Transaction Inc., New Jersey. Deloria Jr., Vine 1969 Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. The Macmillan Company, Collier-Macmillian Limited, London. Derr, Kelly, Kaitlyn Scott, and Colin Grier 2012 The Old House and the Sea: Current Excavations as at Late Period Plankhouse in the Southern Gulf Islands, Coastal British Columbia. Poster presented at the Northwest Anthropological Conference, Pendleton, OR. Echo-Hawk, Roger 1997 Forging a New Ancient History for Native America. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, pp. 88-102. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Fediuk, Karen, and Brian Thom 2003 Contemporary and Desired Use of Traditional Resources in a Coast Salish Community: Implications for Food Security and Aboriginal Rights in British Columbia. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Ethnobiology, Seattle, WA. Fedje, Daryl W., Ian D. Sumpter, and John R. Southon 2009 Sea-levels and Archaeology in the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 33:234-253.

94

Ferguson, T.J. 2000 NHPA: Changing the Role of Native Americans in Archaeological Study of the Past. In Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited by Kurt E. Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehner, pp. 25-36. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Ferris, Neal 2003 Between Colonial and Indigenous Archaeologies: Legal and Extra-legal Ownership of the Archaeological Past in North America. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 27:154-190. Forsman, Leonard A. 1997 Straddling the Current: A View From the Bridge Over Clear Salt Water. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, pp. 105-111. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Grant, Peter R. 2010 Recognition and Reconciliation: The British Columbia Experience. Paper presented at Gestion des Revendications et Litiges Autochtones, Montreal. Grier, Colin 2001 The Social Economy of a Prehistoric Northwest Coast Plankhouse. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University. 2003 Dimensions of Regional Interaction in the Prehistoric Gulf of Georgia. In Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by R.G. Matson, Gary Coupland, and Quentin Mackie, pp. 170-187. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. 2006a Political Dimensions of Monumental Residences on the Northwest Coast of North America. In Palaces and power in the Americas: From Peru to the Northwest Coast, edited by Jessica J. Christie and Patricia J. Sarro, pp. 141-165. University of Texas Press, Austin. 2006b Temporality in Northwest Coast Households. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu Gahr, and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 97-119. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. 2006c Affluence on the Prehistoric Northwest Coast of North America. In Beyond Affluent Foragers: Rethinking Hunter-Gatherer Complexity, edited by Colin Grier, Jangsuk Kim, and Junzo Uchiyama, pp. 126-135. Oxbow Books, Oxford, U.K. 2007 Consuming the Recent for Constructing the Ancient: The Role of Ethnography in Coast Salish Archaeological Interpretation. In Be of Good Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce G. Miller, pp. 284-307. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.

95

Grier, Colin (continued) 2012 Thinking through Local and Regional Histories: Recent Research at Dionisio Point and in the Outer Gulf Islands. The Midden 44(1):6-9. Grier, Colin, Patrick Dolan, Kelly Derr, and Eric McLay 2009 Assessing Sea Level Changes in the Southern Gulf Islands of British Columbia Using Archaeological Data from Coastal Spit Locations Canadian Journal of Archaeology 33:254-280. Grier, Colin, Kelli Flanigan, Misa Winters, Leah G. Jordan, Susan Lukowski, and Brian M. Kemp 2012 Using Ancient DNA Identification and Osteometric Measures of Archaeological Pacific Salmon Vertebrae for Reconstructing Salmon Fisheries and Site Seasonality at Dionisio Point, British Columbia. Journal of Archaeological Science (2012), doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.07.013. Grier, Colin, and Lisa Shaver 2008 Working Together: The Role of Archaeologists and First Nations in Sorting Out Some Very Old Problems in British Columbia, Canada. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(1):33-35. Harris, Heather 2005 Indigenous Worldviews and Ways of Knowing as Theoretical and Methodological Foundations behind Archaeological Theory and Method. In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, edited by H. Martin Wobst and Claire Smith, pp. 33-41. Routledge, London. Hayden, Brian 1990 Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The Emergence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:31-69. Hodder, Ian 1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 1-26. Academic Press, New York. Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group 2013 Hul’qumi’num People. Electronic document, http://www.hulquminum.bc.ca/hulquminum_people, accessed July 8, 2013.

96

Hurley, Mary 2000 Aboriginal Title: The Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Research Branch. Electronic document, http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp459-e.htm, accessed April 30, 2012. Johnston, Darlene 2009 Preface: Towards Reconciliation. In Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform, edited by Robert Paterson and Catherine Bell, pp. vii-xii. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Julien, Donald M., Tim Bernard, and Leah Morine Rosenmeier, with review by the Mi’kmawey Debert Elders’ Advisory Council 2008 Paleo Is Not Our Word: Protecting and Growing a Mi’kmaw Place. In Archaeologies of Placemaking: Monuments, Memories, and Engagement in Native North America, edited by Patricia E. Rubertone, pp. 35-57. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Kennedy, Dorothy 2007 Quantifying “Two Sides of a Coin”: A Statistical Examination of the Central Coast Salish Social Network. British Columbia Studies 153:3-34. Layton, Robert 2006 An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lea, Joanna, and Karolyn Smardz Frost 2011 Public Archaeology in Canada. In New Perspective in Global Public Archaeology, edited by Katsuyuki Okamura and Akira Matsuda, pp. 57-76. Springer, New York. Lepofsky, Dana, David M. Schaepe, Anthony P. Graesch, Michael Lenert, Patricia Ormerod, Keith Thor Carlson, Jeanne E. Arnold, Michal Blake, Patrick Moore, and John J. Clague 2009 Exploring Stó:Lō-Coast Salish Interaction and Identity in Ancient Houses and Settlements in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. American Antiquity 74(4):595-626. Levy, Janet E. 2007 Archaeology, Communication, and Multiple Stakeholders: From the Other Side of the Big Pond. European Journal of Archaeology 10:167-184. Marshall, Yvonne 2002 What is Community Archaeology? World Archaeology 34(2):211-219.

97

Martindale, Andrew 2003 A Hunter-Gatherer Paramount Chiefdom: Tsimshian Developments through the Contact Period. In Emerging from the Mist: Studies in Northwest Coast Culture History, edited by R.G. Matson, Gary Coupland, and Quentin Mackie, pp. 12-50. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. 2009 Entanglement and tinkering: Structural History in the Archaeology of the Northern Tsimshian. Journal of Social Archaeology 9:59-91. Matson, R.G., and Gary Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, Toronto. McKee, Christopher 2009 Treaty Talks in British Columbia: Building a New Relationship, Third Edition. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. McLay, Eric 2004 The Preserve and Protect the Archaeological Heritage of the Southern Gulf Islands. The Midden 36(3/4):12-17. McLay, Eric, Kelly Bannister, Lea Joe, Brian Thom, and George Nicholas 2004 ‘A’lhut tu tet Sulhween “Respecting the Ancestors”: Report of the Hul’qumi’num Heritage Law Case Study. A Report of the Project for Protection and Repatriation of First Nation Cultural Heritage. Electronic document, http://www.law.ualberta.ca/research/ aboriginalculturalheritage/researchpapers.htm, accessed on November 5, 2013. 2008 ‘A’lhut tu tet Sul’hweentst [Respecting the Ancestors]: Understanding Hul’qumi’num Heritage Laws and Concerns for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage. In First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives, edited by Catherine Bell and Van Napoleon, pp. 150-202. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Miller, Bruce G. (editor) 2007 Be of Good Mind: Essays on the Coast Salish. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’): First Nation Heritage Site Conservation in Hul’qumi’num Tumuhw. Electronic document, http://www.hulquminum.bc.ca/pubs/HTGArchBranchMOU_ FINAL_2007.pdf, accessed on October 6, 2013.

98

Mitchell, Donald 1971a Archæology of the Gulf of Georgia area, a natural region and its culture types, Syesis 4, Supplement 1. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Vancouver, B.C. 1971b The Dionisio Point Site and Gulf Island Culture History. Syesis 4:145-168. Morales, Robert 2007 The Great Land Grab: Colonialism and the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Land Grant in Hul’qumi’num Territory. Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, Ladysmith, B.C. Moser, Stephanie, Darren Glazier, James E. Phillips, Lamya Nasser el Nemr, Mohammed Saleh Mousa, Rascha Nasr Aiesh, Susan Richardson, Andrew Conner, and Michael Seymour 2002 Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Eqypt. World Archaeology 34(2):220-248. Moss, Madonna L. 2011 Northwest Coast: Archaeology as Deep History. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Nicholas, George P. 1997 Education and Empowerment: Archaeology with, for, and by the Shuswap Nation, British Columbia. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. Andrews, pp. 85-104. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press, Burnaby, B.C. 2000 Archaeology, Education, and the Secwepemc. In Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited by Kurt E. Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehner, pp. 155-163. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):350-380. 2008 Policies and Protocols for Archaeological Sites and Associated Cultural and Intellectual Property. In Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform, edited by Catherine Bell and Robert K. Paterson, pp. 203-220. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews (editors) 1997a At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press, Burnaby B.C.

99

Nicholas, George P., and Thomas D. Andrews 1997b Indigenous Archaeology in the Postmodern World. In At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada, edited by George P. Nicholas and Thomas D. Andrews, pp. 1-18. Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press, Burnaby B.C. Paradies, Yin C. 2006 Beyond Black and White: Essentialism, Hybridity, and Indigeneity. Journal of Sociology 42(4):355-67. Province of British Columbia 1996 Heritage Conservation Act. Electronic document, http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/ 00_96187_01, accessed April 23, 2012. Roberts, Amy, Steve Hemming, Tom Trevorrow, George Trevorrow, Matthew Rigney, Grant Rigney, Lawrie Agius, and Rhonda Agius 2005 Nukun and Kungun Ngarrindjeri Ruwe (Look and Listen to Ngarrindjeri Country): An Investigation of Ngarrindjeri Perspectives of Archaeology in Relation to Native Title and Heritage Matters. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1:45-53. Rozen, David L. 1985 Place-Names of the Island Halkomelem Indian People. Master of Arts Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Schaepe, David M. 2009 Pre-Colonial Stó:lō-Coast Salish Community Organization: an Archaeological Study. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley 1988 Social Theory and Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Silliman, Stephen W. (editor) 2008 Collaborating and the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. Silliman, Stephen W., and Katherine H. Sebastian Dring 2008 Working on Pasts for Futures: Eastern Pequot Field School Archaeology in Connecticut. In Collaborating and the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, edited by Stephen W. Silliman, pp. 67-87. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

100

Smith, Claire, and Gary Jackson 2006 Decolonizing Indigenous Archaeology: Developments from Down Under: American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):311-349. Smith, Claire, and H. Martin Wobst (editors) 2005 Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. Routledge, London. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books Ltd, New York and University of Otago Press, Dunedin. Society for American Archaeology 1996 Society for American Archaeology Principles of Archaeological Ethics. American Antiquity 61(3):451-452. Suttles, Wayne (editor) 1990 Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7: Northwest Coast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Suttles, Wayne 1958 Private Knowledge, Morality, and Social Classes among the Coast Salish. American Anthropology 60(3):497-507. 1960 Affinal Ties, Subsistence, and Prestige among the Coast Salish. American Anthropologist, New Series, 62(2):296-305. 1963 The Persistence of Intervillage Ties among the Coast Salish. Ethnology 2(4):512-525. 1990a Central Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 453-475. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1990b Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 1-15. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Thom, Brian 2005 Coast Salish Senses of Place: Dwelling, Meaning, Power, Property and Territory in the Coast Salish World. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal. 2010 The Anathema of Aggregation: Toward 21st-Century Self-Government in the Coast Salish World in Anthropologica 52(1):33-48. Trigger, Bruce G. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, New York.

101

Tsosie, Rebecca 1997 Indigenous Rights and Archaeology. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, pp. 64-76. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Two Bears, Davina 2000 A Navajo Student’s Perception: Anthropology and the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department Student Training Program. In Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited by Kurt E. Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehner, pp. 15-22. The Society For American Archaeology: Washington, D.C. 2006 Navajo Archaeologist is Not an Oxymoron: A Tribal Archaeologist’s Experience. American Indian Quarterly 30(3&4):381-87. Watkins, Joe E. 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. AltaMira Press: Walnut Creek, CA. 2006 Communication Archaeology: Words to the Wise. Journal of Social Archaeology 6:100-118. Wells, Lisa E. 2001 Archaeological Sediments in Coastal Environments. In Sediments in Archaeological Context, edited by Julie K. Stein and William R. Farrand, pp. 149-182. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Whiteley, Peter M. 2002 Archaeology and Oral Tradition: The Scientific Importance of Dialogue. American Antiquity 67(3):405-415. Wobst, H. Martin 2010 Indigenous Archaeologies: A Worldwide Perspective on Human Materialities and Human Rights. In Indigenous Archaeologies: a Reader on Decolonization, edited by Margaret Bruchac, Siobhan Hart, and H. Martin Wobst, pp. 17-28. Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA. Wylie, Alison 2000 Forward. In Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited by Kurt E. Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehner, pp. v-ix. The Society for American Archaeology: Washington, D.C. United Nations 2008 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007. OHCHR: Geneva.

102

Ziff, Bruce, and Melodie Hope 2009 Unsitely: The Eclectic Regimes that Protect Aboriginal Cultural Places in Canada. In Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform, edited by Catherin Bell and Robert K. Paterson, pp. 181-202. UBC Press: Vancouver, B.C. Zimmerman, Larry 1997 Remythologizing the Relationship between Indians and Archaeologists. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon, and Alan S. Downer, pp. 55-56. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.