A History of the Native People of Canada: Genesis of a Synthesis J.V

4 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 62, 1996 1996 OAS Symposium - The Ridley Lecture A HISTORY OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF CANADA: GENESIS OF A SYNTHESIS J.V. Wright The process which led to writing of A History doubtedly involves certain inherent personality of the Native People of Canada involved four traits moulded by the influences of particular stages. First, there were the subtle influences people and situations. My family upbringing, of past interpersonal relationships and experi- for example, emphasized the importance of ences that have compelled me during retire- striving to contribute more to society than one ment to write such a synthesis. Second, a received. Although I was not aware of it at the growing awareness of the need to inform a time, the influence of my teacher and long time larger audience than just professional archae- friend, Dr. J. Norman Emerson, undoubtedly ologists of the findings of archaeological had much to do with preconditioning my atti- research led to the initiation of the Canadian tudes regarding the importance of sharing Prehistory Series by the National Museum of archaeological knowledge with a broad spec- Man. Third, my responsibility on the editorial trum of society. Norman Emersons humanist board of Volume I of the Historical Atlas of orientation is apparent in his role as founder of Canada for the archaeological content of the the Ontario Archaeological Society, a society Volume set in place much of the structure of made up of amateurs and professionals work- the current three volume synthesis of the pre- ing in cooperation and dedicated to the ad- European Native history of Canada as re- vancement of the interests of archaeology in vealed by archaeological evidence. And, the Province of Ontario. It is also apparent in fourth, the specific requirements of A History of his summer field excavations where interested the Native People of Canada as a reference organizations and people from local communi- work intended for a wide audience had to be ties were encouraged to participate. This met. ranged from the participation of members of A synthesis is a "Putting together of parts or the Ontario and Quebec archaeological soci- elements to make up a complex whole" (The eties and local people from the City of Corn- Oxford Illustrated Dictionary 1985:860), while wall in the 1957 salvage excavation of the Ault genesis is derived from the Greek word for Park site on the St.Lawrence River to the in- origin or creation. All syntheses encompass a volvement of a large number of Ojibway chil- number of variables that include the nature dren in the 1960 excavation of the Pic River site and the stage of development of a discipline, on the north shore of Lake Superior. Certainly the scope of the synthesis and whether its my many years as a museum archaeologist intended audience is narrow or broad, and the made me aware of the interest of people in individual inclinations of the author. Such a archaeology and the need to be sympathetic to complex mix of interrelated factors assure that their desire for information. Initially, however, syntheses are more or less unique in charac- my focus when I joined the National Museum ter. Indeed, a synthesis is a very personal of Canada in 1960 was on the production of exercise whereby no two scholars addressing technical articles and monographs. This was the same subject matter will produce identical only natural as most syntheses are produced products. by older scholars who have been through a Only a small percentage of archaeologists long school of professional maturation. Such are inclined to popularize their subject matter technical reports, ill suited to even an inter- in order to reach audiences beyond that of ested public, however, are the foundation upon other professionals. Why it is that just a handful which any synthesis rests. of scholars from all disciplines take on what is Before writing a synthesis a blunt question generally a difficult but thankless task un- must be asked: Who needs it? There are a WRIGHT A HISTORY OF THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF CANADA ... 5 number of answers to this question. Archaeol- ancestors had made tools and ornaments from ogy tends to be a parochial discipline in that copper for 7,000 years before Europeans most archaeologists focus their attention on a appeared on the scene and ornaments of relatively restricted piece of geography or time silver for 2,000 years and that the working of period. In contrast, an archaeological synthe- copper and silver thus represent legitimate sis requires a broad overview of the subject areas for native craft development or lawyers matter whether the synthesis applies to a who need to check the evidence of a native province or to an entire country. A person band territorial land claim against the archae- writing a synthesis is forced to both generalize ological record. The main point is that all of the and to cast a broad comparative net. General- potential uses of an archaeological synthesis izations, of course, expose the author to criti- intended for a broad audience cannot be cism, particularly when the toes of regional predicted. specialists are trod upon. As has been co- The launching of the Canadian Prehistory gently noted, One of the problems confronting Series by the National Museum of Man with those who venture to bring together evidence the publication of Ontario Prehistory (Wright from separate fields is that they are certain to 1972) was followed by other regional volumes offend those who prefer specialization within a on Newfoundland and Labrador Prehistory limited and safer pasture" (Davidson 1988: xi). (Tuck 1976), Canadian Arctic Prehistory (Mc- The process of writing a synthesis often chal- Ghee 1978), Quebec Prehistory (Wright 1979), lenges local archaeological interpretations Maritime Provinces Prehistory (Tuck 1984), that have gone unquestioned and can encour- British Columbia Prehistory (Fladmark 1986), age people to view their subject matter from a and Western Subarctic Prehistory (Clark 1991) broader perspective. A synthesis provides a as well as the topical volumes consisting of Six teacher with a fine educational tool for the Chapters of Canadas Prehistory (Wright 1976), critical evaluation of students. It can also lead The Burial at L'Anse-Amour (McGhee 1976), to unpublished evidence being made available and The Dig (MacDonald and Inglis 1976). if for no other reason than to correct state- While a number of other regional syntheses ments made in the synthesis. At a pragmatic were produced by provincial societies and level, archaeologists need to inform a wide agencies, such as in Saskatchewan (Epp and audience of what they are doing as in most Dyck 1983), Southern Ontario (Ellis and Ferris cases their research funding depends upon 1990), and Alberta (Helgason 1987), the Cana- the public. If people do not know what you are dian Prehistory Series had a particular influ- doing they are not likely to be too concerned ence on considerations relating to the writing with your funding problems, particularly during of a national synthesis. This was mainly due to lean economic times when everyone is com- the fact that I was intimately associated with peting for shrinking resources. In terms of the the Canadian Prehistory Series and was able expansion of knowledge it is necessary that the to assess how the books were being received evidence from archaeology become incorpo- by the public. Ontario Prehistory, for example, rated with other disciplines such as history, went through three printings and became a geography, medicine, and the biological and best-seller. It became clear that a market earth sciences. With reference to history, for existed for general works in Canadian archae- example, it is unacceptable that the 12,000 ology. The uses to which the books have been years of native human history in Canada prior put are of interest. Ontario Prehistory, which to the arrival of the Europeans has been large- was never intended as an academic work, was ly ignored simply because there are no pre- used as an archaeology text at Simon Fraser European written records. History based upon University. When I asked "why?", the answer archaeological evidence has severe limitations was that "there is nothing else " . In a different but that is no reason for the record of past instance the book played a role in preserving human behaviour to be ignored or rejected as an important segment of the archaeological irrelevant. An archaeological synthesis can heritage. Thanks to the cooperation of the late also act as a reference work where a wide Dr. William E. Taylor, Jr., then Director of the range of esoteric interests can be met. Such National Museum of Man, copies of Ontario specific interests, for example, include native Prehistory were sent to each Native band in craftsmen learning for the first time that their the Province of Ontario with an enrollment of 6 ONTARIO ARCHAEOLOGY No. 62, 1996 50 or more people. A direct reaction to this applying five absolute time periods across the institutional gesture of informing Native people entire country: Period I (10,000-8,000 BC); of what archaeology was able to say about Period II (8,000-4,000 BC); Period III (4,000-1,000 their ancestors was not expected but there BC); Period IV (1,000 BC-AD 500); and Period V were indrecti responses. These included the (AD 500-European contact). Discrete cultures Pic River Ojibway bands negotiations with the based upon the patterning of archaeological Federal Government regarding the ceding of evidence were designated by distinct names, land for a bridge right-of-way over the Pic River although it was recognized that such "cultures" in order to provide public access to Pukaskwa would have been composed of many inde- National Park.

Load more