Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Culture Rights Indigeneity and Intervent
Culture Rights Indigeneity and Intervent
George P. Nicholas
The questions of who is indigenous and whether that status offers any special
rights within heritage claims beyond those of other members of the nation are of
considerable importance today. As others have noted, the term itself
indigenous is also problematic, as it is necessarily defined in relation to
something (someone) else. Some also challenge the term, pointing out that
everyone is indigenous to somewhere. Indigeneity has thus become a focus of
scrutiny (e.g., Devey et al. 2009; Hokowhitu et al. 2010; Miller 2003).
Making sense of indigeneity and the power relations it includes or obscures is a
task of some urgency, with considerable social, economic and political
consequences. This is particularly so within multicultural societies where the
indigenous population has often been subjected to centuries of
disenfranchisement, assimilation and other threats. In such situations, allowing
certain groups to have privileges (e.g., fishing rights) not afforded to others is
at once a necessary means of restitution but also highly contentious and
politically charged, especially in the context of unresolved land claims.
What is at stake are not just economic interests but the identity, well-being,
sovereignty and indeed survival of Indigenous peoples and their cultural
traditions. There have been discussions of culture-based rights by scholars and
legal experts at a relatively high level of theorizing and legal analysis (e.g.,
Cowan 2006, 2013; Kapchan 2014; Kuper and commentaries 2003; Strathern
2006). This is part of much broader discussions concerning a suite of related
topics, including race, culture and identity (Brooks 2002; Tallbear 2013), the
legitimacy of traditional knowledge and indigenous research (Irlbacher-Fox
2014; Widdowson and Howard 2008), human rights (Donnely 2013; Goodale
2009) and the more encompassing epistemological debates relating to the
Culture Wars or Science Wars (Boghossian 2005; Kuznar 2008).
Theorizing aside, discussions of indigeneity and indigenous rights often have
very real and irreparable consequences, while also exacerbating Western
stereotypes and potentially supporting racialist perspectives. For example, while
the claim of some Europeans that they are indigenous has merit, it nonetheless
detracts from the situation of Aboriginal peoples in the Americas, Australia or
Africa, who may have much more at stake than political recognition.
1
Archaeologists today are increasingly cognizant of the need to more fully engage
with descendant communities in issues pertaining to their heritage. Nonetheless,
there continues to be a significant power imbalance regarding who has access to,
benefits from and controls heritage. Archaeologists, situating themselves as
stewards of the past, have become the gatekeepers of other peoples heritage.
This has consequences for individual well-being, group identity and cultural
sovereignty. A continuing challenge for postcolonial archaeology (Lyons and Rizvi
2010) is therefore identifying and addressing those inequalities affecting
descendant communities both in the practice of archaeology and in the ability to
access and benefit from its tangible and intangible products.
Stewardship policies and practices are also problematic because they are based
largely on Western values (and presumptions), with only limited accommodation
of local heritage values and needs. Often within an indigenous worldview, the
material elements of heritage (artifacts, archaeological sites, places) cannot be
separated from the knowledge, beliefs and stories associated with them;
ancestral beings and supernatural forces may be understood to reside in material
things and places still today (see Table 1). In these cases, a lot more than
economic value or historical and archaeological significance is at stake when
heritage sites are threatened or when traditional objects, images and knowledge
all elements of intellectual property are used in inappropriate and unwelcome
ways.
A critical analysis of the situation makes it apparent that a substantial source of
tension has been the unequal power relationship that exists between Indigenous
peoples and archaeologists in settler nations. It is clear that archaeologists have
monopolized the means of knowledge production (not always intentionally) and
benefited from this more than others (Hollowell and Nicholas 2009). Or, they
have been unwilling or unable to give up control of the research process, which
amounts to much the same thing. I do not think it a stretch to view
archaeologists as historically being the bourgeoisie, monopolizing the means of
knowledge production and being the primary beneficiaries, and Indigenous
peoples as the proletariat, still with limited access to the benefits arising from
that knowledge production (although in some contexts today those roles may be
reversed).
When Burial Grounds are Archaeological Sites
The fact that in settler countries the heritage sites of the colonizers and
colonized may be treated differently reveals unequal power dynamics. In British
Columbia, Canada, burial grounds dating to before 1846 2 fall under the
protection of the Heritage Conservation Act; those after that date are protected
by the Cemeteries Act. The Heritage Act states that a person must not damage,
desecrate or alter a burial place that has historical or archaeological value.
2
This date reflects the start of British (and later Canadian) sovereignty over
what is now British
Columbia.
There is an implication here that not all burial places have historic or
archaeological value, never mind other values inherent in such places. A critical
point is that, with some exceptions, the act requires interpretation of the value of
such sites, thus raising questions about who decides the value of such burial
places, or what sites are worthy of protection (Nicholas et al. 2015).
Not only is the Heritage Act subject to divergent interpretations, but when
heritage sites require protection in a particular instance, the mode of
preservation may still be inadequate or indeed irresponsible. It is the
government and its representatives that ultimately decide what constitutes
acceptable mitigation when disturbance or destruction of significant heritage
properties is unavoidable. When the majority of heritage sites are those of
Indigenous peoples, preservation practices are often more contentious than
congruent. In the case of a house being built on Grace Islet (Figure 1), a 1-ha
island in coastal British Columbia with 16 recorded burial cairns, construction
was initially allowed to proceed by literally building around several of the cairns
(Nicholas et al. 2015). Thus, while the burial ground remained technically intact,
considerable harm was nonetheless done according to local First Nations. For his
part, the landowner satisfied all requirements of the heritage legislation.
Although construction was eventually stopped, it is greatly disturbing that such a
mitigation plan was ever considered acceptable in the first place.
Was harm done in the Grace Islet case? If so, to whom? And were those harms
acknowledged and recompensed? Based on the terms of the provinces purchase
of the property in early 2015, 3 it was judged that harm had been done to the
landowner. The province of British Columbia paid him $5.45 million, of which
$840,000 was for the property itself, and $4.6 million for losses suffered. It was
reported that
the price tag covers [the landowners] costs over two decades to install
utilities, hire archeologists, architects and other professionals, and to begin
construction of the house, which is partially completed [and] also
compensates for the loss of future enjoyment of the property. (Kines 2015)
In this case (and others like it), the province clearly acknowledged that the owner
did suffer various losses, including future enjoyment. What has been
conspicuously absent, however, is any consideration given to the local First
Nations, not for lost enjoyment, but for the losses suffered from the
disturbance of a historic place they consider sacred or otherwise important.
Heritage Harms as Violence
For many archaeologists, one of the darkest moments in memory was the
destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001 until that event
3
was eclipsed by the far wider destruction of artifacts and heritage sites by ISIS in
2014 and 2015.4 Highlighted in such instances of wanton destruction is the loss
of history and scientific potential, 5 which can be interpreted as violence against
history. However, this raises a more general question: do the types of cultural
harms evident at places like Grace Islet denigration, destruction of heritage
sites, misappropriation constitute a similar form of violence?
The World Health Organization defines violence as
the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against
oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either
results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological
harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.
Without wanting to detract attention from more explicit forms of harm, the loss
of access to, or more obviously, the destruction of heritage sites has significant
adverse effects upon Indigenous peoples for whom those sites are considered
necessary not only to their historical continuity and worldviews but also their
well-being. This is articulated well by a First Nations community member in
British Columbia:
Ruby Peters believed that the disturbance of the ancient burial ground at
Somenos Creek not only offended and disrupted relations with the deceased
but also resulted in physical danger for the living. Only by conversing with
the deceased and using her ritual knowledge could she at least partially
restore the requisite balance of relations between the world of the living
and the world of the dead. (McLay et al. 2008: 155)
When used to describe harms resulting from disturbing heritage sites, violence
is seldom in the vocabulary of archaeologists, except when it involves (in an
abstract way) acts of violence against their (shared worldly) heritage, such as
the Bamiyan Buddhas. But by looking at this through the lens of indigeneity, we
must acknowledge that real harm occurs to people in these situations. As
Kapchan (2014: 4) observes, violence is an abrogation of human rights.
Heritage Protection Through Innovation or Intervention
One important trajectory of change in the realm of heritage has been indigenous
archaeology, defined (in part) as
4
Community-Based Initiatives
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) engages the community fully in
the process and works to ensure they are primary beneficiaries (see Atalay 2013;
Bell and Napoleon 2008; Smith 2012). In recent years, CBPR has made inroads in
archaeology and heritage studies as a way to ensure that the research is
designed to be relevant, respectful and beneficial to involved communities and
other stakeholders.8 An integral aspect of such projects is a commitment to learn
about core local values and concerns through interviews, ethnographic studies
7
But see the Supreme Court of Canadas 1997 Delgamuukw decision (Canada
1998).
10
11
11
In 2014, the IPinCH Project became involved with this case with the hope of
helping to achieve a resolution. Project members first sent an open letter 15 to
provincial authorities and others, pointing to the need to view the local
controversy more broadly, and arguing that the minimal level of protection
offered by British Columbias heritage legislation runs contrary to emerging
trends in Canadian Aboriginal rights law. We noted that the privileging of land
and site alteration over the protection of Aboriginal rights and interests was
inconsistent with the intent of international Indigenous rights and cultural
heritage law, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. Our intention was to highlight how British Columbias current
legal and policy framework for heritage failed to reflect emerging national and
international norms related to the recognition of and respect for Indigenous legal
and cultural traditions.
Although the letter was acknowledged by provincial representatives, construction
continued on Grace Islet. It was apparent that a stronger intervention was
required. A larger group of IPinCH team members subsequently developed the
Declaration on the Safeguarding of Indigenous Ancestral Burial Grounds as
Sacred Sites and Cultural Landscapes (see Figure 2).16 This document articulated
the growing global consensus around the importance of protecting Indigenous
ancestral burial sites and called on all levels of government, heritage
professionals and others to work together to ensure such sites are not subject to
alteration or damage. It also served to remind non-Indigenous governments in
Canada of their existing legal and ethical obligations with respect to First Nations
sacred sites in which human remains of cultural and spiritual significance are
interred.
The declaration was released on 10 December 2014, International Human Rights
Day, with copies sent directly to key provincial officials as well as local
governments, First Nations authorities and conservation groups involved in the
Grace Islet controversy. The declaration has now received endorsements from
such organizations as the Society for American Archaeology, the American
Anthropological Association, the BC Association of Professional Archaeologists,
the International Society of Ethnobiology, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, and
others.
As noted earlier, the Grace Islet case was resolved through the purchase of the
property, and construction was halted to the satisfaction of local First Nations
groups. However, this particular form of resolution has done nothing to change
15
http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/news/ipinch-news/open-letter-grace-islet [accessed
March 6,
2016]
16
The declaration, complete with the names of the 27 signatories, and a list of
private individual and organizational endorsements can be found at:
http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/resources/declarations/ancestral-burial-grounds
[accessed March 6, 2016]
12
Conclusions
Archaeology is how we learn what happened in the past, while heritage is that
set of values given to or possessed by objects, places and information derived
from archaeology and other means. We are most familiar with the scientific and
historic meanings ascribed to these, but less so with local values and specific
needs of descendant communities.
Many Indigenous peoples are interested in engaging with the wider world, but on
their own terms and in ways that preserve cultural values and help protect
identity, well-being and worldview. Projects developed in partnership with
Indigenous communities especially those on topics relevant to them enhance,
not limit, the research results, thus providing a deeper understanding of local
heritage values along with equitable benefits sharing derived from cultural
heritage. Indeed, national research funding agencies are now starting to see the
value of collaborative and community-driven initiatives as a means of breaking
away from the traditional research methods that have been successful for
academics, but less so for others. This points to a new era of communityinformed and -oriented heritage research and more effective policies, one that
seeks to move beyond the legacy of scientific colonialism and outdated
attitudes.
Sadly, this optimism is at odds with continuing disputes over heritage sites, such
as Grace Islet. While a Canadian example, it nonetheless exemplifies how little
say some have over ancestral burial grounds and other places of great
significance to them. Until Indigenous peoples and other descendant groups
regain at least a significant degree of control over their own affairs, there will be
no full resolution regarding culture-based rights issues. The challenges are not
small, especially when trying to ensure equality in how, for example, ancestral
remains are treated, while also respecting cultural differences in what are still
not postcolonial contexts. Nonetheless, the examples of innovations and
interventions discussed hopefully contribute incentive to developing more
meaningful dialogue and actions.
Acknowledgements
I am most grateful to Charlotta Hillerdal, Anna Karlstrm and Carl-Gsta Ojala for
their invitation to participate in the Uppsala University symposium, International
workshop
Archaeologies of Us and Them Debating the Ethics and Politics of Ethnicity
13
References Cited
Atalay, Sonya. 2006. Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. American
Indian Quarterly 30(3): 280-310.
2012. Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous
and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Atalay, Sonya, Lee Clauss, Randall McGuire, and John Welch, editors. 2014.
Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press.
Bell, Catherine, and Val Napoleon, editors. 2008. First Nations cultural heritage
and law: Cases studies, voices and perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Boghassian, Paul. 2006. Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and
constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, James F., editor. 2002. Confounding the color line: The Indian-Black
experience in North America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Brown, Michael. 2003. Who owns native culture? Cambridge, MA.: Harvard
University Press.
Canada, Supreme Court. 1998. Aboriginal Title: The Supreme Court of Canada
Decision in Delgamuukw V. British Columbia. URL:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp459-e.htm [accessed
March 6, 2016]
Christen, Kim. 2015. Tribal archives, traditional knowledge, and local contexts:
Why the s matters. Journal of Western Archives 6(1): article 3.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/westernarchives/vol6/iss1/3/ http://digitalcommons
.usu.edu/westernarchives/vol6/iss1/3/ [accessed March 6, 2016]
Christie, Gordon. 1998. Aboriginal Rights, Aboriginal Culture, and Protection
(1998). Osgoode Hall Law Journal 36: 447-484.
Cowan, Jane. 2006. Culture and rights after culture and rights. American
Anthropologist 108: 9-24.
2013. Before audit culture: Towards a genealogy of international oversight of
rights. In The gloss of harmony: The politics of policy making in multilateral
organisations. Edited by Birgit Muller, pp. 103-133. London: Pluto Press.
Devy, Ganesh N., Geoffrey V. Davis, and Kalyan K. Chakravarty. 2009.
Indigeneity: Culture and representation. Bangalore: Orient BlackSwan.
Donnelly, Jack. 2013 Universal human rights in theory and practice, 3rd ed.
Cornell, Cornell University Press.
14
15
Lowenthal, David. 1998. The heritage crusade and the spoils of history.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, Jane, and Uzma Rizvi, editors. 2010. Handbook of postcolonial
archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Lyons, Natasha. 2013. Where the wind blows us: Practicing critical community
archaeology in the Canadian north. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
McGhee, Robert. 2008. Aboriginalism and the problems of indigenous
archaeology. American Antiquity 73(4): 579-597.
McLay, Eric, Kelly Bannister, Leah Joe, Brian Thom, and George Nicholas. 2008.
Alhut tu tet Sulhweentst Respecting the ancestors: Understanding
Hulquminum heritage laws and concerns for protection of archaeological
heritage. In First Nations cultural heritage and law: Cases studies, voices and
perspectives, edited by Catherine Bell and Val Napoleon, 158202. Vancouver:
UBC Press.
Mason, Ronald J. 2006. Inconstant companions: Archaeology and North American
Indian oral traditions. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Miller, Bruce G. 2003. Invisible indigenes: The politics of nonrecognition. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Murray, Tim. 2011. Archaeologists and Indigenous people: A maturing
relationship? Annual Review of Anthropology 40(1): 363-381.
Nicholas, George P. 2008 Native peoples and archaeology (Indigenous
archaeology). The encyclopedia of archaeology, edited by Deborah Pearsall, Vol.
3: 16601669. Oxford: Elsevier.
2014a. Indigenous cultural heritage in the age of technological reproducibility:
Towards a postcolonial ethic of the public domain. In Dynamic fair dealing:
Creating Canadian culture online, edited by Rosemary J. Coombe, Darren
Wershler, and Martin Zeilinger, pp. 213-224. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
2014b. Indigenous archaeology (Archaeology, Indigenous). In Oxford
bibliography of anthropology, edited by John L. Jackson. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
2014c. Reconciling inequalities in archaeological practice and heritage
research. In Transforming archaeology: Activist practices and prospects, edited
by Sonya Atalay, Lee Clauss, Randall McGuire, and John Welch, pp. 133-158.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
2014d Why Heritage is Not Just About Things. (TEDx Yellowknife talk).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=HbPLXTJwVMY&index=1&list=PLjMPDTlr8hYk3cIx-Xa00FR3uAde6VnK6
[accessed March 6, 2016]
Nicholas, George, Brian Egan, Kelly Bannister, and Emily Benson. 2015.
Intervention as a strategy in protecting indigenous cultural heritage. SAA
16
17
Susanne Kcheler, Mike Rowlands, and Patricia Spyer, pp. 447462. London:
Sage.
Stottman, M. Jay, editor. 2011. Archaeologists as activists: Can archaeologists
change the world? Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Tallbear, Kimberly. 2013. Genetic articulations of identity. Social Studies of
Science 43(4) 509533.
United Nations. 2007. Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. United
Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
http://undesadspd.org/indigenouspeoples/declarationontherightsofindienouspeop
les.aspx [accessed March 6, 2016]
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
2007. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. URL
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [accessed March
6, 2016]
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2005. The Anarchist in the Coffee House: A Brief
Consideration of Local Culture, the Free Culture Movement, and Prospects for a
Global Public Sphere. Social Science Research Network:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=791507 [accessed March 6, 2016]
Watkins, Joe. 2011. Indigenous archaeology as complement to, not separate
from, scientific archaeology. Jangwa Pana 10: 46-62.
Welch, John, and Neal Ferris. 2014. We have met the enemy and he is us':
Transforming archaeology through sustainable design. In Transforming
archaeology: Activist practices and prospects, edited by Sonya Atalay, Lee
Clauss, Randall McGuire, and John Welch, pp. 91-114. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.
Widdowson, Frances, and Albert Howard. 2008 Disrobing the Aboriginal industry:
The deception behind indigenous cultural preservation. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queens University Press.
Wilson, Richard A. 2008. Human rights. In A companion to the anthropology of
politics, edited by David Nugent and Joan Vincent, pp. 231-247. New York: WilleyBlackwell.
Wilson, Richard A. (editor) 1997. Human Rights, Culture & Context:
Anthropological Perspectives. London: Pluto Press.
18
19
from
Nicholas
20
Figure 2: Declaration on the Safeguarding of Indigenous Ancestral Burial Grounds as Sacred Sites and Cultural
Landscapes
(www.sfu.ca/ipinch/resources/declarations/ancestral-burial-grounds ).