Strength-Based Approaches to Involving Inuit Youth In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Strength-Based Approaches to Involving Inuit Youth in Archaeological Research Laura Kelvin†, Emma Gilheany‡, Nicholas Flowers§, Denver Edmunds£, Mackenzie Frieda¥, Claire Igloliorte¶, Halle Lucy#, and John Piercy¤ Abstract. In this collaborative paper riques Agvituk—et la recherche de disserta- between university-based archaeologists tion d’Emma Gilheany portant sur l’histoire and Nunatsiavummiut youth, we discuss récente de Hopedale. Nous incorporons des our attempts to unsettle our research while aspects-clés de ces approches, notamment : working on community-oriented projects in nous concentrer sur la personne dans son Hopedale, Nunatsiavut, through the applica- ensemble et reconnaître son contexte social; tion of strength-based approaches. We out- faire en sorte que les participants jouent line the need for strength-based approaches un rôle actif dans la prise de décisions; for involving Nunatsiavummiut youth in reconnaître les points forts et l’expertise archaeology and the ways we apply these des participants afin que tous soient à la fois approaches to Kelvin’s research project, enseignants et apprenants; et encourager the Agvituk Digital Archive Project, and Gil- des expériences pour lesquelles les membres heany’s dissertation research on the recent du groupe sont susceptibles de réussir. Nous history of Hopedale. We incorporate key soutenons qu’une approche déstabilisée axée aspects of these approaches, including: focu- sur les points forts nécessite une archéologie sing on the whole person and recognizing orientée vers l’avenir. their social context; actively involving parti- cipants in decisions; recognizing strengths Isumagijaujuk. Tâpsuminga ikajuttigegi- and expertise of participants so that everyone jaujumut allakkasâjammik, akungani ilinniv- is both a teacher and a learner; and encou- itsuamit-ilinganiKajuk itsasuanittaligijiujunut raging experiences where group members ammalu Nunatsiavut inosittunginnut, can be successful. We argue that an unsett- uKâlautiKavugut piniannigigasuattatinnik led, strength-based approach necessitates a pijagegasuagiamut Kaujisajattinik suliaKatil- future-oriented archaeology. luta nunalinni-ilinganiKajunut sulianginnik Hopedale, Nunatsiavummi, taikkutigona Résumé. Dans cet article produit en colla- ottugautikkut sangijottisigasuagiamut-ilin- boration par des archéologues rattachés à l’université et des jeunes Nunatsiavummiuts, † Corresponding author: Department of Anthro- nous discutons de nos tentatives visant à dés- pology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg MB tabiliser notre recherche tout en travaillant [[email protected]] sur des projets communautaires à Hopedale, ‡ [[email protected]] Nunatsiavut. Nous mettons l’accent sur la § [[email protected]] nécessité d’adopter des approches axées £ [[email protected]] sur les points forts pour faire participer les ¥ [[email protected]] Article jeunes Nunatsiavummiuts à l’archéologie ¶ ainsi que sur les manières dont nous appli- [[email protected]] quons ces approches au projet de recherche # [[email protected]] de Laura Kelvin—le projet d’archives numé- ¤ [[email protected]] Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 44:83–104 (2020) 84 • KELVIN ET AL. ganiKajunut piniannigigasuattatinnik. in archaeology projects to connect youth Allasimavugut atugialittinik sangijottisiga- to their past and help alleviate these chal- suagiamut-ilinganiKajunut piniannitinik lenges and ensure cultural continuity. ilautitsigiamut Nunatsiavut inosittunik itsasuanittaliginimmiut ammalu Kanuk tam- Archaeologists have typically employed akkuninga ilisigajammangâtta pinianisanik youth as field and lab technicians, and taipsumunga Kelvin-iup Kaujisajamminik have looked to Elders to gain intellectual sulianganut, tânna Agvituk Kagitaujannut insight of the past (i.e., oral histories ilijaumajut Piulimajaujunut Suliangujuk, or traditional knowledge), while the ammalu Gilheany-iup ilinniagutigijangata intellectual contributions youth can nalunaikkutattâgiamut Kaujisajamminik make to archaeology have often been ilinganiKajumut taimangasuaniusimajuk overlooked. Our projects aim to involve Hopedale-imi ilinganiKajumut. Ilisisima- youth in archaeological projects in ways vugut atuniKatsiatunut takunnâtaujunut taikkuninga pinianniujunut, ilautillugit: that go beyond limiting their role to takunnâlugit iluingajumut inummut ammalu assisting in traditional archaeological ilitatsilugit ilonnanginnik inosingita pit- work. To effectively engage youth as agijanginnik; ilautitsiluni ilauKataujunik learners, researchers, knowledge hold- kajusiutiliutillugit, ilitatsilutik sangijojunik ers, and teachers, we have needed to ammalu ilisimallagijunut ilauKataujunut build projects that understand archae- imailinganiammat tamâgik ilinniatitsijiunia- ology as more than survey, excavation, mmata ammalu ilinnialutillu; ammalu and lab work. This approach means pikKujigasualluni atujangit ilonnatik kat- learning to do archaeology differently ingaKatigejut ilaliutilet kajusitsiaKullugit. kiumajiutiKavugut pijagettausimangituk, and expecting different outcomes and sangijuk-ilinganiKajuk piniannik atuttaugi- products from our research. alet sivunittini-Kaujimagettunillu itsasuanit- This paper is a collaborative effort taliginimmik. between Laura Kelvin, a postdoctoral fellow from Memorial University, n this paper, we discuss our Emma Gilheany, a PhD student from I attempts to unsettle our research, the University of Chicago, and Denver while working on youth-focused com- Edmunds, Nicholas Flowers, Mackenzie munity-oriented archaeology projects in Frieda, Claire Igloliorte, Halle Lucy, and Hopedale, Nunatsiavut (Figure 1). Our John Piercy, Nunatsiavummiut youth research stems from the acknowledge- from Hopedale. Throughout this paper, ment of the special role that youth have direct quotes from the authors are used in Indigenous communities and the to properly acknowledge their intel- contributions they can make to research lectual and emotional contributions to projects. Colonial policies that aim to the understandings of the work being destroy Indigenous ways of knowing and presented. In this paper, we outline the being are often designed to sever the tie need for strength-based approaches for between youth and community knowl- involving Nunatsiavummiut youth in edge holders, so traditions and culture archaeology and the ways we apply these are not carried forward. As a result, approaches to Kelvin’s research project, Indigenous youth are often the target the Agvituk Digital Archive Project, of colonial structures, creating physical, and Gilheany’s dissertation research social, and emotional challenges for on the recent history of Hopedale. An their growth and well-being. Communi- underlying goal for our research is to ties often request that youth be involved help empower Nunatsiavummiut youth Canadian Journal of Archaeology 44 (2020) STRENGTH-BASED APPROACHES TO INVOLVING INUIT YOUTH • 85 Figure 1. Map indicating the location of Hopedale. Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 44 (2020) 86 • KELVIN ET AL. through archaeology, so together we resources, relying heavily on Inuit can continue to work towards disman- cultural skills and knowledge of the tling the settler colonial structure, not landscape. Moravian missionaries gave just within archaeology but in all aspects sermons and provided formal education of our lives. By looking to the past, we in Inuttitut. Although they encouraged work towards keeping youth future- Inuit to carry on some aspects of their oriented by applying an approach that culture, they were still very much a encompasses education, employment, colonial force—bringing about not only and healing. spiritual change in the community, but social, economic, and political change History of Hopedale as well. They encouraged traditional Agvituk (also spelled Avertok) is the activities like hunting, which ultimately original Labrador Inuttitut dialect name economically benefitted the mission, for the area now called Hopedale. It while discouraging many aspects of expresses that it is a place of bowhead Inuit ways of being as they were deemed whales. During the sixteenth to eight- unchristian (Arendt 2011; Kaplan 1985; eenth centuries, Agvituk was a large Loring 1998). In the early twentieth cen- gathering and whaling site that was an tury, Moravians began to face financial important part of the Inuit-European hardships and eventually transferred coastal trade network (Arendt 2013; Bird control of their economic affairs in 1945). The importance of Agvituk was Labrador over to the Hudson’s Bay Com- not lost on early Moravian missionaries, pany, but continued to operate their who likened it to London or Paris within missions. When Newfoundland and Inuit society (Kennedy 2009:29). In Labrador joined Canada in 1949, educa- 1782, Moravians settled a mission next tion, healthcare, and other services fell to Agvituk and named it Hoffenthal, under the control of the Provincial and meaning “the vale of hope”, which was Federal Governments (Brice-Bennett eventually anglicized to Hopedale. Over 2003). This new government structure time, the occupants of Agvituk joined made the residents of Hopedale sub- the mission settlement, and Agvituk was ject to colonial policies similar to those eventually abandoned in 1807 (Brice- operating throughout Canada at that Bennett 2003). As the settlement of time, including the residential school Hopedale grew and spread over the system, which had a profound negative landscape, houses