Traditional Land Use in the Modern World

After a week's "vacation" from blogging, due to the demands of Thanksgiving, I wanted to write a piece about Traditional Knowledge and its place in archaeology - and indeed, in science in general. My purpose here is to help prepare myself for a Telus Science Cafe, which I have been asked to participate in. The Cafe is held the Ironwood Stage and Grill tomorrow, on October 25th. Four Inuit Elders are visiting Calgary for this event, at the invitation of the Telus World of Science. They are: Jamesie Mike, Simon Nattaq, Annie Nattaq and Meeka Mike. All belong to Tusaqtuut, an organization they established that is dedicated to preserving traditional Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit or knowledge.

Archaeologists have been using traditional knowledge for as long as the discipline has existed. David Boyle, Canada's First professional archaeologist, visited Huron villages over 100 years ago, asking questions about the artifacts he was finding at Archaic and Woodland sites in southwestern Ontario. Sadly, in the intervening decades, many First Nations and Inuit communities were subjected to residential schools and government modernization programs which forever changed many aspects of their traditional lives. But, what impact does this have on the validity of traditional knowledge? Does decades of the pressures of assimilation mean that traditional knowledge has been lost? How much of this knowledge has been passed onto younger generations of indigenous people?

As archaeologists, traditional knowledge offers many potential insights into the past. When I began my own traditional knowledge project in the Arctic, I was amazed at the amount of information many Elders were providing. They recalled thousands of place names, stories, and events - all of which they could spatially reference on NTS Topo Maps. They also remember specific ways of doing things - such as hunting seals, preparing hide clothing, making kayaks, and so on. These do not appear to be half remembered random facts - rather they are hung on an elegant conceptual framework involving three basic principles - Life, Technology, and Environment. You can listen to Joe Karetak explain these principles in the accompanying video clip, which I will be posting later today.

Today, Inuit ride snow machines, hunt using GPS and high powered rifles, watch satellite television, and life in Euro-Canadian style houses. Yet my research has led me to conclude that this veneer of technological similarity with mainstream Euro-Canadian culture obscures the continuation of important cultural values and ways of doing things.

Many of the Elders I work with were born into a traditional life on the cusp of change. Their concern is that the knowledge they possess will not be passed on to their grandchildren. May Elders see this knowledge as providing moral guidance to young people who are confronted with many challenges in today's world. Therefore, rather than simply use Traditional Knowledge for the purposes of interpretation, archaeologists can make a positive impact in aboriginal communities by documenting this information for the next generation to access. In my case, this has led me to conceptualize Traditional Knowledge research as a form of social capital and community outreach, and not just as a source of analogies for interpreting archaeological data. I believe this is one of the ways that archaeology can positively impact on the socioeconomic and cultural lives of indigenous peoples.

Are You Being Trained Adequately in Archaeology?

Departments of Anthropology and Archaeology throughout the world are struggling to provide students with the right kind of training. This is often predicated on the kinds of careers available to newly minted archaeologists. Decades earlier, the standard career paths were museum curators, and university and college professors. More recently, careers in Cultural Resource Management have emerged, along with opportunities to work with First Nations and Inuit communities on archaeology and traditional land use projects. As heritage legislation kicks in due to development in provinces like Alberta, Government archaeologists are also needed to manage and protect cultural resources through permitting, etc. Parks Canada has also increased its focus on visitor experience, employing archaeologists to raise awareness of the cultural heritage resources present in the National Park System. But have university programs kept up with these changes, or do they continue to reflect the more traditional career paths from decades ago?

The subject of this week's blog, then is to ask you some basic questions about your training. Do you feel you are being trained in:

1. Stewardship?
2. Preservation of the archaeological record?
3. Advocacy for the archaeological record?
4. Promoting the understanding and support for preservation of heritage sites/resources?
5. Use of cultural resources for public benefit?

Do you think training in these areas would be useful to you, or would you rather see course focus more on technical skills such as lithic analysis, remote sensing, zooarchaeology, ancient DNA, etc? What kind of career path do you see yourself pursuing in archaeology? If you decide to embark upon another career, what benefit do you see your archaeology degree as having (if any)?

Glenbow Museum Sells First Nations Artifacts.

On Friday, September 30, 2011, Glenbow Museum curator Gerry Conaty appeared on the CBC Radio 1 program "As It Happens" to defend and explain concerns over a recent auction of First Nations artifacts. As with many museums around the world, the Glenbow is strapped for both space and cash. In order to curate its 'core' collection, selected artifacts are being auctions off. The proceeds for this will go back into the museum to help curate existing collections. As curation is extremely expensive, this is one of the ways that Glenbow can circumvent the effects of decades of funding cuts at the provincial and federal level.

However, several First Nations leaders have complained that they were not consulted by Glenbow officials. They also accuse the museum of selling sacred objects such as tobacco pipe bags and eagle feathers (the latter cannot be sold or even collected under provincial law). In response, Conaty has explained that the consultation guidelines put in place by the province of Alberta require only that that the museum contact other cultural institutions to notify them of the auction. He went on to explain that many of the objects are unprovenienced - meaning that they were acquired in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's from collectors who did not provide such vital information like cultural affiliation, name of craftsperson, etc.

Aboriginal leaders have countered by saying that stylistic attributes such as beadwork patterning and makers marks could be used to identify families associated with the objects. These stylistic attributes would be analagous to the tartans that identify Scottish clans. The Glenbow has response to these criticisms by stating that it will investigate the matter further, and consult more widely before the rest of the objects are put on the auction block.

Please listen to the interview here:

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/2011/09/30/friday-september-30-2011/

Go to Part Three of the audio feed. The interview with Dr. Conaty starts at 17.55 min.

I would be interested to hear your comments on this story. Did the Glenbow museum do all it could in contacting First Nations communities to notify them of the auction? Did it go far enough in its' attempts to find families associated with these objects? Should museums auction off their collections to make up for budget cuts to cultural institutions at the Federal and Provincial Levels?