False Frontiers: Archaeology and the of contemporary archaeology is complicit in Myth of the Canadian Wilderness the maintenance of an element of colonialism through its perpetuation of the Joshua Dent myth of the Canadian wilderness. Despite Indigenous assertions to the contrary, Introduction coupled with extensive research on how the The contribution of archaeology to Canadian landscape is, and was, populated the formation of nationalist identities is well and made meaningful by Indigenous groups documented in various countries (Bar-Yosef for millennia (Aporta 2009; Guernsey 2008; & Mazar 1982; Daniel 1950; Kohl 1998; Oetelaar and Oetelaar 2006; Oliver 2007; Kristiansen 1981; McGuire 2008). Whitridge 2004), the wilderness myth Nationalist archaeology, as characterized by remains a central theme in the creation of Trigger (1984), supplements the Canada’s nationalist narrative or founding development of a national narrative myth. Landscape archaeology has the benefiting, or justifying the positions of an potential to deconstruct this myth. ethnic or national group using archaeological fieldwork and research. In Questioning the wilderness/frontier Canada, any nationalist archaeology in Canada is not a novel subject in the social (excepting perhaps Indigenous archaeology) sciences and humanities (Furniss 1997; also assumes Trigger’s second form of Guernsey 2008; Klimko 1994). However alternative archaeology, colonialist this discourse often focuses on the results archaeology: and consequences of these myths or their institutional origins. This paper therefore In these countries, archaeology was initially treads well-covered territory, practised by a colonising population pulling examples from existing literature to that had no historical ties with the explain and give evidence of the peoples whose past they were studying. pervasiveness of the concept of wilderness While the colonisers had every reason in Canadian society. Where it begins to to glorify their own past, they had no depart the beaten path is in attempts to reason to extol the past of the peoples conceptualize the pervasiveness of they were subjugating and supplanting. wilderness using a theoretical framework Indeed, they sought by emphasising the drawn from the field of landscape primitiveness and lack of archaeology and in attempts to Indigenize accomplishments of these peoples to not only the Canadian landscape but justify their own poor treatment of research concerning wilderness (Findlay them. (Trigger 1984:360) 2000). It is tempting to consign the above statement Landscape archaeology can be traced to the historical trends in archaeology from back to the 1920s, but it is only with the last whence it came, extolling the virtues of two decades that the subject has achieved an contemporary post-modernism, post- intellectual authority of its own (Anschuetz, processualism and reflexivity in exorcising Wilshusen and Scheick 2001; Stoddard and the discipline of its colonial demons. If this Zubrow 1999). The subfield maintains a were true then the participation of fairly open definition essentially concerned archaeology, active or otherwise, in with how land was perceived and perpetuating any particular colonial myth manipulated by past peoples; although this should be anathema to contemporary openness has been the subject of some adherents of post- processualism. Yet, much

59 debate (Anschuetz, Wilshusen and Scheick Terra nullius 2001). Within this intellectual clearing the The significance of the concept of paper closes with the positing of one terra nullius, no man’s land, in Canadian potential solution to the wilderness question legal and historical frameworks is pervasive. located in the field of cultural resource The roots of the contemporary Canadian management (CRM). wilderness myth, along with the origin of almost every Treaty dispute and land claims Contemporary CRM focuses on the settlement in the country, lie in this government-mandated preservation of antiquated legal tradition (Bell and Asch heritage (built and archaeological) in the 1997). The concept of terra nullius was preliminary phases of land development. developed during the 17th century as part of However despite decades of CRM fieldwork the continuing colonization of Indigenous identifying heritage sites on the Canadian territories by the imperial powers in Europe landscape little is publicly known or (Venne 1997). According to Bennett, “it available. followed that such territories would vest automatically in the first civilized power that The sheer amount of this chose to occupy them, regardless of the archaeological research could be construed wishes or resistance of the Indigenous as evidence of the discipline’s rejection of population” (quoted in Venne 1997: 185). the wilderness myth. However, the English thinker John Locke was responsible restrictions placed on the dissemination of for the initial ideas of terra nullius, archaeological information in CRM developing it from the Roman concept of res perpetuate the wilderness myth by not nullius or “empty land” (Gosden 2004:27). adequately representing the extent of Essentially the concept entailed that all Indigenous landscapes to the Canadian unoccupied lands were common property public. A similar critique could be levelled at academic archaeology and its seeming until developed in some way (Gosden 2004). unwillingness to engage and refute these While no longer explicitly present in wilderness myths in the public sphere. Other the Canadian public consciousness, the considerations must also be highlighted, spectre of terra nullius continues to haunt especially the extent to which descendant Indigenous peoples in the form of the term Indigenous groups wish their dwelt (Ingold wilderness: 1993) landscapes be known to other Canadians. The potential for looting and First Nations landscapes were never other intentional forms of destruction to read or interpreted within their own archaeological sites must be addressed when particular cultural contexts, but were considering the means and ramifications of read and interpreted through the publicly debunking the wilderness myth. colonial lens of a wilderness. Erasing This paper will examine the origins of the First Nations landscapes and replacing Canadian wilderness myth, outline a more them with a preconceived representative concept of the Canadian understanding of “wilderness” allowing landscape, and document archaeology’s role the landscape to be physically, socially, in perpetuating and its potential to debunk conceptually cleared for the colonial the colonial holdover that is terra nullius. settlement of the land. (Guernsey 2008:121-122)

60 Conceptions of wilderness paralleled the Development companies and notion of terra nullius during the initial Environmentalists European settlement of the Canadian The forestry, mining and oil and gas landscape, but while terra nullius faded development sectors all operate under from use, wilderness continues. The legal specific legislative restrictions and concept of Crown Land, that is government bureaucratically imposed guidelines, most of (provincial and federal) administered which concern development on Crown, as territory (non-private and often undeveloped) opposed to private land. These Acts and within Commonwealth countries including guidelines stipulate that heritage, including Canada, also perpetuates the wilderness archaeological sites, must be considered myth assigning a broad concept to describe a before any development impacting the land diverse area, an oversimplification of past proceeds. These guidelines are often met and present uses of that area. through the contracting of CRM firms specializing in built and archaeological Contemporary Wilderness heritage preservation. Notions of wilderness, Wilderness, the contemporary supported by the blanket term of Crown concept, is pervasive in the Canadian Land, reinforce the validity of resource context. This concept is best probably removal from areas perceived as never defined as codified and normalized inhabited by, and with no significance for (Bourdieu 1991) in the public imagination contemporary Indigenous communities (See by the dictionary: below). wilderness: a (1): a tract or region Similar to the development uncultivated and uninhabited companies they often oppose, environmental by human beings (2): an area movements also minimize not only the essentially undisturbed by physical effect Indigenous groups had on the human activity together with landscape, but also their construction of a its naturally developed life “domesticated”, significant landscape community (Conte 2007). Explicit in the language on websites of environmental organizations b: an empty or pathless area including the Sierra Club Canada and the or region (Merriam-Webster Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Online Dictionary) (CPAWS) are perceptions of certain These regions are perceived as uncultivated landscapes as being pristine or untouched and uninhabited, subject to colonial wilderness and minimizing any traditional settlement and other forms of economic and Indigenous utility: political exploitation, all while retaining the Canada's Boreal forest represents 25% wilderness moniker. Resource development of the world's remaining frontier conducted by forestry, mining and oil and forests, while southern forests in gas companies, the rhetoric of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes environmental movements and wilderness form a surprisingly wild network of tourism, and forms of Canadian nationalism, wilderness, despite encroaching all benefit when vast tracts of land are development. considered perpetually pathless and uninhabited (see Joy Baker’s 2002 article for Forests are of enormous value a more in-depth discussion of wilderness to Canada, providing: and economic/class issues).

61 • vital wildlife habitat and the price people are willing to pay to • a filter for air and water experience the wilderness drives the • a hedge against climate change, wilderness tourism industry in Canada. by storing carbon Perceived Indigenous presence on these • a place for recreation “wild” landscapes slips into themes similar • a source of pulp and paper, to those of environmentalists, mistakenly ideally with responsible logging viewing them as non-entities whose practices (Canadian Parks and millennia in North America had little to no Wilderness Society; emphases impact on the desired wilderness. Attracting added) people to different regions of Canada via wilderness tourism also contributes to The use of the words frontier, encroaching Canada’s use of the wilderness landscape to and wilderness and the absence of build a nationalist identity. Indigenous values of Canada’s boreal forests, explicitly denies Indigenous perspectives, The Canadian national wilderness activities or narratives attached to these identity is nowhere more evident than in areas (MacDonald 2005). This contradiction National Parks designated by Parks Canada is often expressed through attempts to which are, so the narrative goes, vast incorporate Indigenous groups into expanses of pristine, untouched land set conceptions of the wilderness, trivializing aside for the enjoyment of future generations the effect Indigenous groups had on the (Byrne 1968, Payne 2007). Even national landscape and reinforcing colonial historic sites are placed in such a way that stereotypes. The confusion that can ensue is they emphasize the historic placement of probably best exemplified by a heading on European culture in an “empty” landscape the Green Party of Canada’s website, (Klimko 1994). When creating a Canadian Greens Support First Nations and Arctic identity during the centennial, Euro- Wilderness (Green Party of Canada 2010). Canadian accomplishments took precedence: Equating the Arctic with a pathless region The advent of Canada’s centennial in while simultaneously voicing support for 1967 provided an opportune time to First Nations seems hypocritical as Arctic flaunt EuroCanadian achievements. Indigenous (Inuit peoples distinguishing Although Native sites were considered themselves from First Nations) paths have for tourist development they most great time depth, are still frequently frequently had some connection with travelled and historically meaningful EuroCanadian events, such as Cut (Aporta 2009). The perception that these Knife Hill or Batouche both associated “wild” areas are untraveled also resonates with the 1885 Riel Rebellion (Taylor with environmentalists and ecotourists. 1990:89). In this nationalistic scenario Tourism and Canadian nationalism Native people provided the important Wilderness tourism is a booming contrast between “savagery/wilderness” industry in Canada. In 2004 the Yukon and civilization a contrast needed to government estimates that 57,000 demonstrate EuroCanadian wilderness-associated tourists spent $34 achievements (Francis 1992). (Klimko million in the territory (Yukon 2008). The 1994:184) fascination with “wild” areas is well Klimko (1994) demonstrates, through her documented (Dean 2007; Frome 1974; analysis of reconstructed fur trading forts, Harvey 2007; MacLaren 2007; Miles 2009)

62 that First Nations were, and arguably still contributing to this perception (Klimko are, presented as minor characters, or what 1994). The original fort was located in what Ewers refers to as “mere bit players in this is now the Canadian Pacific rail yards in important wilderness drama” (1972:1). The Thunder Bay (Figure 1) but was rebuilt in a placement of Fort William nine miles inland forested (wilderness) area inland and out of from its original location may be seen as context (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Original location of Fort William (Google Earth)

Figure 2. Contemporary location of the reconstructed Fort William (Google Earth) A fur-trading fort in the middle of inconvenience of relocating the rail yards the City of Thunder Bay may not impart the were also factors in the ultimate location of desired sense of remoteness and early the reconstruction. Another great example of pioneering spirit that drives this form of the rendering of the Indigenous past as Canadian nationalism and drives Canada’s invisible can be found in Furniss’s (1997) founding myth; doubtless the costs and examination of school curricula, literature

63 and public places in the William’s Lake area any land development. Resource extraction of central British Columbia. Furniss found companies are therefore one of the primary that a frontier mythos focusing on European vehicles of funding for CRM archaeological settlement and subsequent subjugation of an surveys prior to any environmental impacts. untamed wilderness dominated Consequently, archaeologists have located conceptualizations of the region and its past. numerous archaeological sites in large tracts This domination came at the expense of of Crown land meant for far-ranging Indigenous narratives and the reality that the resource extraction and delivery – forestry, region was, and in fact still is, a hub of mining, and oil; roads, transmission lines activity between the Tsilhqot'in (Chilcotin) and pipelines. Anyone with access to British and Secwepemc (Shuswap) peoples (Ball, Columbia’s Remote Access to Storey and Dent 2009). Archaeological Data (RAAD) can see the extent to which these archaeological sites Contemporary characterizations of a are distributed across the British Columbian past wilderness can be contrasted with and landscape. negated through researching and disseminating the past and contemporary Access to this data is restricted to narratives of Indigenous groups in an individuals with provincially designated unbroken continuum of dwelling on the permissions and therefore, the extent of past landscape (Ingold 1993). Archaeologists, Indigenous occupation of areas widely seen viewed as “experts” on the past by colonial as wilderness is not publically known as tradition, have a responsibility to disrupt the further evidenced by Furniss’s (1997) work Canadian wilderness myth, not only in the in this same region (Figure 3). Additionally, interests of social justice but because the CRM practitioners, through expedited extent of wilderness is a quantifiable fallacy. survey, “clear” development areas of archaeology or the potential of archaeology The Role of Archaeology in compliance with the provincial legislation Landscape archaeology can concerning heritage (Smith 2008). Simply contribute to debunking the notions of because no archaeological sites were located wilderness expressed above. Landscape in the course of a necessarily efficient archaeology can assist in identifying the survey, does not mean that surveyed areas physical remains of past Indigenous were neither inhabited nor considered activities and people in the Canadian significant at any point in the past. In order wilderness. It can also address how to accommodate this discrepancy, many wilderness as a settler-idealized landscape provincial jurisdictions require some form of came about and contrast this with the consultation with local Indigenous groups to realities of a landscape constructed and account for activities, such as traditional conceptualized by Indigenous peoples land-use, that may not be evident (Knapp and Ashmore 1999). archaeologically (British Columbia Heritage Archaeology, through CRM survey, is required by provincial legislation before

64 Figure 3. The Eastern Chilcotin Plateau on Google Earth showing four contemporary settlements; hundreds of archaeological sites including major villages are also in this area (Google Earth). Conservation Act 1996; Ontario Ministry of CRM. Largely due to its reliance on private Tourism and Culture 2010). Whether this funding, which is usually disinterested in information should be made publicly developing theory, CRM subsists on accessible and the benefits and hazards of government-imposed methodologies as doing so is something else entirely. opposed to developing innovative, if Landscape archaeology is often employed in expensive, techniques (i.e. remote sensing, CRM through the development of regional although this is beginning to change as predictive models and the use of geographic technologies become more affordable). information systems (GIS) but landscape When considering the “wilderness” and archaeology can contribute much more to acknowledging that much, probably all, of CRM than methodologies. Canada is a “contested space” (Bender 1998) it is helpful to use landscape archaeology to Landscapes understand how these landscapes are created. Although employing similar Several concepts of particular use include methodologies (ground survey, GIS, Ingold’s (1993) notions of dwelling and regional modelling), the prevailing theories taskscape, and Knapp and Ashmore’s (1999) of CRM and landscape archaeology three types of landscape: constructed, nonetheless differ. In distancing itself from conceptualized and ideational. a purely quantitative area of research, landscape archaeology has developed a Landscape, in the context of this diverse and valuable foundation of theory paper, refers to the coordination of the combining etic (objective) and emic conceptual, constructed and ideational in (subjective) data that distinguishes it from interpreting the physical world (Knapp and other areas of archaeology, particularly

65 Ashmore 1999). Integral to this definition is In other words, tasks are the a caveat provided by Whitridge: constitutive acts of dwelling. No more than features of the landscape, however, There is no imaginative place-world are tasks suspended in a vacuum. Every wholly apart from quantifiably real task takes its meaning from its position landscapes, bodies, and things, but within an ensemble of tasks, performed neither is there a material world that is in series or in parallel, and usually by not thoroughly invested with many people working together… It is significance as a precondition of to the entire ensemble of tasks, in their human thought and action. (2004:216) mutual interlocking, that I refer by the concept of taskscape. Just as the In a very direct way this latter concept landscape is an array of related features, precludes the very existence of wilderness, so - by analogy - the taskscape is an since the simple human perception, or array of related activities. (Ingold acknowledgement, of a space immediately 1993:158) imbues that space with significance. Therefore, by this definition, a landscape Temporality is central to the development of cannot be a wilderness. The allowance that dwelling through the establishment of a these landscapes can be simultaneously continuum of past, present and perceived perceived in multiple and different ways is future tasks or taskscapes (Ingold 1993). also critical to understanding how spaces Incorporating Knapp and Ashmore’s three and places become and stay contested. varieties of landscapes, constructed, conceptualized and ideational, with Ingold Ingold’s contribution to the theory of creates a useful environment for discerning landscape archaeology relevant to this the landscapes of settlers and those of discussion consists of the concepts of Indigenous peoples (1999:10-13). The dwelling and taskscape. Ingold suggests the following are paraphrased definitions of formation of a “dwelling perspective” in each of three varieties of landscape: anthropology: according to which the landscape is • Constructed Landscapes: Physically constituted as an enduring record of - created by humans. and testimony to - the lives and works • Conceptualized Landscapes: Not of past generations who have dwelt physically created by humans (i.e. within it, and in so doing, have left natural features) but nonetheless there something of themselves. (Ingold imbued with significance. 1993:152). • Ideational Landscapes: Imaginary and emotional. Symbolic and Conceptualizing this “dwelling perspective”, representative. The least linked to Ingold has incorporated the task, “defined as physical reality of the three. any practical operation, carried out by a skilled agent in an environment” (1993:158), Using this landscape archaeological as the formative process through which framework, we can contemplate how the dwelling occurs: Canadian landscape came to be perceived by its non-Indigenous population and why “wilderness” persists as a defining feature.

66 Wilderness Perspectives forests of northern British Columbia Two conceptions of the Canadian landscape and how their very identity was linked help lay the foundation for why settlers and to the land (Guernsey 2004)… Prior to their descendents see the colonized contact with Europeans, the landscapes landscape from a pioneering civilization of the Americas were understood versus the wilderness perspective, as through Indigenous/Aboriginal represented in the Canadian founding myth. perspectives and worldviews. The first, as already alluded to above, (Guernsey 2008:120-121) involves the “cleared” or “emptied” landscape (Gazin-Schwartz 2008; Smith The significance of this disconnect is 2008). The second is Gosden’s “widowed” evidenced in the prevalence of the term landscape (2004:117). The first relates that wilderness in past and contemporary the landscape was prepared for settlement Canadian discourse. In some cases there was with the removal of First Nations to no continuum that connected the taskscapes reservations; the second is that due to of Indigenous groups with the developing disease, the Indigenous population was taskscapes of European settlers because of significantly reduced by the time systematic the cleared, emptied and widowed settlement began. Both “cleared” and landscapes they encountered. The result is “widowed” landscapes likely account for two parallel sets of constructed, many of the areas encountered by European conceptualized and ideational landscapes settlers. When these settlers arrived in the occurring in the same space. First, the settler vicinity of former Indigenous settlements, sees a wilderness to be developed, inhabited, the habitations were both already empty and exploited and protected, however, in reality, quickly developed over or they quickly this wilderness is strictly an ideational, became overgrown and forgotten. Any imaginary landscape and it overlays the memory of the former settlements and their country, masking the Indigenous missing occupants would fade as subsequent significance beneath. The Indigenous colonial generations dwelt in the landscape. perspective however, sees a landscape The disconnect between the millennia of containing millennia of significance and taskscapes and Indigenous dwelling in the introspectively recognizes the repercussions landscape and the self-perceived pioneering of using the term wilderness: of European colonizers is characterized in New words are the key. They can’t be Guernsey’s Constructing the Wilderness and just technical or scientific words … Clearing the Landscape: A Legacy of They’ve got to be words that are Colonialism in Northern British Columbia attached to the land. And it is the case (2008): with this refiguring wilderness. You’ve First Nations landscape perspectives grown from it, your descendents have are products of long-held, traditional grown from it, you’ve been part of this land-use values that were at one time growth from the land as well. There is completely unconnected from colonial- no such thing as “wilderness” … driven understandings of the North Wilderness is now losing the meaning American landscape. In my it had for colonial purposes … Words ethnographic work with the Tsimshian are the key that dismantles us, and community of Kitsumkalum, people words are the keys that can build us up spoke about how their families for as well. So it is very important that this generations had a living from the refigured vocabulary and meaning be

67 used (Potts 1998:194). (paraphrased by preservation in finding proof of previous Guernsey 2008:121). activities. Even with the limits of archaeology in Canada, much of what is The role of archaeology in dispelling the widely considered wilderness actually settler ideational landscape of wilderness includes thousands of archaeological sites lies in publicly emphasizing the rediscovered through decades of CRM. geographical breadth and temporal depth of the Indigenous taskscape and the However, this information must be corresponding dwelt landscape. used cautiously in dispelling the Canadian wilderness myth given Indigenous and Clearing the Mask archaeological concerns about looting and Archaeologically debunking other forms of intentional destruction to wilderness involves the dispelling of another these sites should their locations become myth in addition to the consideration and widely known. Other forms of Indigenous incorporation of contemporary Indigenous heritage considered sacred and not meant for perspectives. particular engagement could also be subject to disturbance should the extent of The myth that undeveloped land is Indigenous landscapes become common devoid of significance until it is altered knowledge (Battiste and Youngblood parallels the concept of wilderness and, can Henderson 2000). Archaeologists and in fact be associated with the etymological Indigenous peoples must engage in active origin of terra nullius: res nullius, “empty dialogue to determine how or even if, land” until developed in some way, usually Indigenous taskscapes should be widely through agriculture (Gosden 2004). Res publicized (Findlay 2000). nullius assumes that constructed landscapes carry significance and serve a function, Conclusion whereas conceptualized landscapes have no The persistence of the notions of purpose and are just constructed landscapes wilderness in the Canadian context is in-waiting. Simply putting it into the maintained by several aspects of Canadian theoretical framework of Knapp and society: the resource development sector, the Ashmore should serve to dispel the myth, environmental movement, the wilderness but, for the sake of clarity, an example is tourism industry, and Canadian nationalism required. Parks Canada serves to emphasize generally. Whatever benefits these areas the pristine and the untouched, and also to draw from this myth come at the expense of demonstrate how undeveloped land can have Indigenous communities and resurrect the meaning and significance even within antiquated colonial concept of terra nullius. contemporary Canadian society. Not Archaeologists in Canada are, at least considering that past Indigenous groups had partially, more aware than the broader this same ability to create meaning without public of the extent of Indigenous immediately apparent development and engagement with the landscape that became subsequently claiming that areas without Canada. Speaking from positions of proof, archaeological or otherwise, of authority within academia and the provincial Indigenous activities are insignificant and legislative framework (CRM), we are in an without meaning to Indigenous peoples optimal position to dispel the wilderness subjects us to hectares of hypocrisy. This is myth to the wider Canadian public. This especially true given the limits of action would seek to re-establish a archaeological fieldwork and artifact continuum of Ingold’s “dwelling

68 perspective,” acknowledging the shift from a of Precedent in Aboriginal Rights dominant Indigenous taskscape to a Litigation. In Aboriginal and Treaty colonially influenced one: acknowledging Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, that the land ceased to be wilderness from Equality, and Respect for Difference, the moment the first human engaged with it, Michael Asch, ed. Pp. 38-74. at which point it became a landscape. Vancouver, UBC Press. However, archaeologists must dispel the wilderness myth in concert with Bender, Barbara. 1998. Stonehenge: Making contemporary Indigenous communities or Space. Oxford: Berg. otherwise be doomed to simply repeating the Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and past and perpetuating an exclusive, flawed, Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Mass.: colonial perspective. Harvard University Press. References Cited British Columbia, Province of. 1996. Anschuetz, Kurt, Richard Wilshusen and Heritage Conservation Act. Victoria: Cherie Scheick. 2001. An Queen’s Printer. Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal Byrne, A. Roger. 1968. Man and Landscape of Archaeological Research 9(2): 157- Change in the Banff National Park 211. Area Before 1911. Studies in Land Use History and Landscape Change, Aporta, Claudio. 2009. The Trail as Home: National Park Series No. 1. Inuit and Their Pan-Arctic Network of Routes. Human Ecology 37: 131-146. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. 2010. Forests. (retrieved from Baker, Joy. 2002. Production and http://cpaws.org/campaigns/forests). Consumption of Wilderness in Algonquin Park. Space and Culture Conte, Christopher. 2007. Creating Wild 5(3): 198-210. Places from Domesticated Landscapes: The Internationalization of the Ball, Bruce, Alice Storey, and Joshua Dent. American Wilderness Concept. In 2009. Final Report: Post Impact American Wilderness: A New History, Inspection: Farwell Canyon Gravel Michael Lewis, ed. Pp. 223-241. New Storage Area. Permit 2008-271. Ms. York: Oxford University Press. On file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria. Daniel, Glyn. 1950. A hundred years of Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Amihai Mazar. 1982. archaeology. London: Duckworth. Israeli Archaeology. World Archaeology 13(3): 310-325. Dean, Bradley. 2007. Natural History, Romanticism and Thoreau. In Battiste, Marie and J. (Sa'k'ej) Youngblood American Wilderness: A New History, Henderson. 2000. Protecting Michael Lewis, ed. Pp. 73-89. New Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: York: Oxford University Press. A Global Challenge. Saskatoon, SK: Purich Press. Ewers, John. 1972. The Influence of the Fur Trade upon the Indians of the Bell, Catherine and Michael Asch. 1997. Northern Plains. In People and Pelts, Challenging Assumptions: The Impact

69 Malvina Bolus, ed. Pp. 1-26. Landscapes of Clearance: Winnipeg, MB: Peguis. Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives, Angèle Smith and Amy Findlay, Len. 2000. Always Indigenize! The Gazin-Schwartz, eds., Pp. 112-123. Radical Humanities in the Postcolonial Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Canadian University. ARIEL: A Review of International English Harvey, Mark. 2007. Loving the Wild in Literature 31 (1&2): 307-326. Postwar America. In American Wilderness: A New History, Michael Francis, Daniel. 1992. The Imaginary Indian: Lewis, ed., Pp. 187-204. New York: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Oxford University Press. Culture. Vancouver, BC: Arsenal Pulp Press. Ingold, Tim. 1993. The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2): Frome, Michael. 1974. Battle for the 152-174. Wilderness. New York: Praeger. Klimko, Olga. 1994. The Archaeology of Furniss, Elizabeth. 1997. Pioneers, Progress Land Based Fur Trade Posts in and the Myth of the Frontier: The Western Canada: A History and Landscape of Public History in Rural Critical Analysis. PhD dissertation. British Columbia. BC Studies 115/116: Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser 7-44. University. Gazin-Schwartz, Amy. 2008. Abandoned, Knapp, A. Bernard and Wendy Ashmore. Avoided, Expelled: The Creation of 1999. Archaeological Landscapes: “Empty” Landscapes. In Landscapes Constructed, Conceptualized, of Clearance: Archaeological and Ideational. In Archaeologies of Anthropological Perspectives, Angèle Landscape, W. Ashmore and A.B. Smith and Amy Gazin-Schwartz, eds. Knapp, eds. Pp. 1-30. Oxford: Pp. 25-26. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Blackwell Publishers. Coast Press. Kohl, Philip. 1998. Nationalism and Gosden, Chris. 2004. Archaeology and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Colonialism: Cultural Contact from Nations and the Reconstructions of the 5000 BC to the Present. New York: Remote Past. Annual Review of Cambridge University Press. Anthropology 27: 223-246. Green Party of Canada. 2010. Greens Kristiansen, Kristian. 1981. A social history Support First Nations and Arctic of Danish archaeology (1805-1975). In Wilderness. (retrieved from Towards a History of Archaeology, G. http://greenparty.ca/media- Daniel, ed. London: Thames and release/2010-12-09/greens-support- Hudson. first-nations-and-arctic-wilderness). MacDonald, Samuel A. 2005. The Agony of Guernsey, Brenda. 2008. Constructing the an American Wilderness: Loggers, Wilderness and Clearing the Environmentalists, and the Struggle Landscape: A Legacy of Colonialism for Control of a Forgotten Forest. in Northern British Columbia. In Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

70 MacLaren, Ian 2007. Introduction. In Smith, Angèle. 2008. Landscapes of Culturing Wilderness in Jasper Clearance: Archaeological and National Park: Studies in Two Anthropological Perspectives In Centuries of Human History in the Landscapes of Clearance: Upper Athabasca Watershed, I.S. Archaeological and Anthropological MacLaren, ed., Pp. XV-XLIII. Perspectives, Angèle Smith and Amy Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Gazin-Schwartz, eds. Pp. 13-24. Press. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. McGuire, Randall H. 2008. Archaeology as Stoddard, Simon and Ezra Zubrow. 1999. political action. Berkeley, CA: Changing Places. Antiquity 73: 686– University of California Press. 688. Miles, John C. 2009 Wilderness in Taylor, C.J. 1990. Negotiating the Past: The National Parks: Playground or Making of Canada’s National Historic Preserve. Seattle: University of Parks and Sites. Montreal: McGill- Washington Press. Queen’s University Press. Ontario, Province of. 2010. Standards and Trigger, Bruce. 1984. Alternative Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Archaeologists. Ministry of Tourism Imperialist. Man 19(3): 355-370. and Culture. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Venne, Sharon. 1997. Understanding Treaty 6: An Indigenous Perspective. In Oetelaar, Gerald and D. Joy Oetelaar. 2006. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in People, Places and Paths: The Cypress Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Hills and the Niitsitapi Landscape of Respect for Difference, Michael Asch, Southern Alberta. Plains ed. Pp. 173-207. Vancouver, BC: Anthropologist 51(199): 375-397. UBC Press. Oliver, Jeff. 2007. Beyond the Water’s Edge: Whitridge, Peter. 2004. Landscapes, Houses, Towards a Social Archaeology of Bodies, Things: “Place” and the Landscape of the Northwest Coast. Archaeology of Inuit Imaginaries. Canadian Journal of Archaeology Journal of Archaeological Method and 31:1-27.Payne, Michael. 2007, The Theory 11(2): 213-250. Fur Trade on the Upper Athabasca River, 1810-1910. In Culturing Yukon, Government of the. 2008. Yukon Wilderness in Jasper National Park: Wilderness Tourism Status Report: Studies in Two Centuries of Human Summary. Whitehorse, YK: History in the Upper Athabasca Department of Tourism and Culture. Watershed, I.S. MacLaren, ed. Pp. 1- 39. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Potts, Gary. 1998. Bushman and Dragonfly. Journal of Canadian Studies 33(2): 186-195).

71