Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 12-8-2016 12:00 AM Accounts of Engagement: Conditions and Capitals of Indigenous Participation in Canadian Commercial Archaeology Joshua Dent The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Neal Ferris The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Anthropology A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Joshua Dent 2016 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Dent, Joshua, "Accounts of Engagement: Conditions and Capitals of Indigenous Participation in Canadian Commercial Archaeology" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 4287. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4287 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i Abstract Indigenous engagement in Canadian archaeology encompasses jurisdictional variances, microcosmic colonial/resistance implications and the promise of mutually-beneficial heritage management practices. Drawing from literature commentary, primary document review, surveys and interviews, this dissertation explores consistency and uniqueness in the relationship between commercial archaeology and Indigenous peoples in Canada. Four Conditions of engagement and four Capital properties of engagement emerge and are theorized as constituting a framework capable of considering the diversity of engagement practice in Canada. Conditions include: Regulation, Capacity (Developer and Community) and Relationships. The regulatory heritage regimes governing engagement are considered across provincial/territorial boundaries together with a host of legislation, policy documents, treaty settlements, and other State/Indigenous agreements. The reasons for developers to instigate and maintain Indigenous community engagement components of cultural resource management (CRM) and the infrastructures within communities capable of realizing community-centric heritage management outcomes are defined and explored. The importance of interpersonal and institutional relationships and the identities of participants and proxies in the course of these relationships are emphasized in detail by those involved in archaeological practice. Drawing from Bourdieu’s cultural and social capital marketplaces, the four capitals in this dissertation include: embodied, objectified, collective (social/institutionalized), and economic. Embodied cultural capital represents the skills, knowledge and experiences acquired and transmitted during engagement and as a product of the archaeological process. Objectified cultural capital represents the varyingly ascribed values attached to objects/artifacts and places/sites by archaeologists and Indigenous peoples. Objectified capital also represents the various ways heritage is commodified in commercial/development transactions. Collective capital represents both the social (group/community affiliation) and institutionalized (institutional affiliation/certification) ii capitals. Collectively, these capitals define and perpetuate the proxy roles of engagement participants, emphasizing that Indigenous engagement in archaeology is about more than just the individuals involved. Finally, economic capital represents the tangible monetary component of engagement. Together, these conditions and capitals are defined and combined as Indigenous and critical heritage epistemologies synthesize a fluid interpretative framework considering the dynamics of Indigenous engagement in contemporary archaeology. Keywords Cultural Resource Management, Bourdieu, Cultural Capital, Social Capital, Indigenous Engagement, Archaeology iii Acknowledgments First, thank you to my family for their patience and support during this process. Kerry, Cecily and our newest addition, Iris. Cecily, you inspire me to do better; Iris, even as newborn you exude peacefulness and I look forward to seeing you develop into your own; Kerry, you are a partner I do not deserve but one I am tremendously grateful for. I love you all. Thank you also to my parents, brother, grandparents and circle of family friends with whom I grew up, you have lifted me up and pushed me forward all while keeping me grounded for which I cannot sufficently express my gratitude. Second, thank you to my supervisory committee Dr. Peter Timmins, Dr. Regna Darnell and, most of all, my supervisor, Dr. Neal Ferris. This research would also not have been possible without the generous and most appreciated support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship - Doctoral). Thank you also to the defense committee for patiently wading through this hefty volume. To the many people I have had the pleasure of working with in archaeology over the years: the experiences and moments in time from those periods are reflected in this work and in who I am as an individual and for that I am forever grateful. Finally and especially, thank you to everyone who participated in this research project. Your contributions were insightful and valuable despite being freely given. To Carrie Dan, Jo Brunsden, Bill Fox, Carolyn King, Ingrid Kitsch, and Tom Andrews thank you for sharing your narratives and situating your experiences. Special thanks to Tom, Ingrid and the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre who were the most gracious of hosts; if you have never visited the facility, I strongly recommend doing so. Carolyn and Fred King, you are wonderful travel companions, thank you for a trip I would not hesitate to repeat. I am not an individual in isolation as much as I am a motley collection of gifts given to me by the people I have known and the places I have been. Mahsi cho! Chi-miigwetch! Yerí7 skukwstsétsemc! iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii List of Plates .................................................................................................................... xvi List of Appendices .......................................................................................................... xvii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2 Historical Background ................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Indigenous Perspectives of the Past ...................................................................... 13 2.2 Archaeology in Canada ......................................................................................... 16 2.3 The Rise of CRM in Canada ................................................................................. 17 2.4 Indigenous Activism and Cultural Resource Management .................................. 24 2.5 The Contemporary Engagement Setting ............................................................... 28 2.5.1 The People ................................................................................................ 28 2.5.2 The Pathways, Paradigms and Epistemologies ......................................... 31 2.5.3 Other Forces and Contemporary Summary .............................................. 37 3 The Many Ways of Regulating Indigenous Engagement in Archaeology ................... 39 3.1 The Lay of the Engagement Landscape ................................................................ 39 3.1.1 In the beginning-ish… .............................................................................. 39 3.1.2 The Constitution and the Court ................................................................. 42 3.1.3 The Pre-Emptive Logic for Engagement .................................................. 48 3.1.4 Canadian Heritage Jurisdictions ............................................................... 48 v 3.2 Newfoundland and Labrador ................................................................................ 49 3.2.1 Governance Context.................................................................................. 49 3.2.2 Authority ................................................................................................... 50 3.2.3 Communication ......................................................................................... 50 3.2.4 Participation .............................................................................................. 51 3.2.5 Disposition ................................................................................................ 52 3.3 Nova Scotia ........................................................................................................... 53 3.3.1 Governance