Indigenous Archaeology - Archaeology, National Politics and Self-determination

Archaeology, National Politics and Self-determination

The importance of archaeological sites and materials to Indigenous peoples’ case for their uninterrupted occupation of colonized lands cannot be overestimated: "control of cultural property is central to the struggle of decolonization, aboriginal self-government, and in some areas, First Nations cultural survival" (Walker and Ostrove 1995: 14). Providing as it does an incontrovertible material signature of past events, First Nations peoples are beginning to find in archaeology a productive ally rather than a colonialist project or bureaucratic millstone. Archaeological places and objects are a good fit for the philosophy and process of decolonization—serving in land-claims negotiations, promoting cultural cohesion—and their control is indispensable to Indigenous groups in the transition toward self-determination (Walker and Ostrove 1995). The relationship between archaeology and nationalism is all but unavoidable and, despite accusations that Indigenous peoples have wielded heritage concerns in a politically expedient way, is "not necessarily corrupt or intrinsically suspect" (Kohl and Fawcett 1995: 3; also Trigger 1983).

There is little room for debate over the rights of Indigenous peoples to the sites and materials created and used by their ancestors. Canadian First Nations, and others in like circumstances, "hold better jurisdictional title", thus legislative authority, to heritage resources than either Canada or the provinces (Asch 1997: 66). Yet the disposition of these areas continues to challenge governments: “given the intellectual and political traditions of historically and colonially established behaviour still influential in nominally post-colonial societies, any change becomes an issue of national and inherently contested politics” (Boyd et al. 2005: 92). So while the care and management of heritage materials and sites is often among those areas first offered up by colonial governments at modern negotiating tables, few accommodations are made for the attendant financial demands and regulative license required for these transfers of responsibility (Mohs 1994).

In once-colonial nations, the shifting of the political landscape towards reconciliation with First Nations people is having direct and immediate effects on practical and legal aspects of stewardship of archaeological resources. Waves of globally and federally endorsed recognition of Aboriginal rights in general, and of heritage stewardship in particular, are pounding the shores of nominally post-colonial governments (see, for example, Ritchie on Australia, Watkins and Wylie on Canada and the United States, and Whitelaw on South Africa). Domestic commitments to honourable negotiation (e.g., Canada’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and British Columbia’s New Relationship with Aboriginal Peoples ) and a flush of heritage-specific pledges to more fully accommodate Native interests (e.g., World Archaeological Congress 1990, Canadian Archaeological Association 1997, Society for American Archaeology 1990) are reinvigorating the debate about the values, roles and responsibilities related to heritage stewardship.