Anishinabek Nation Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. want to hear from citizens

Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. has started a review of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists in order to ensure that Anishinabek perspectives are included in upcoming revisions to Ontario policy concerning heritage and burials. – Photo supplied

Working on behalf of Anishinabek Nation, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. has started a review of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (or “S&Gs”) in order to ensure that Anishinabek perspectives are included in upcoming revisions to Ontario policy concerning heritage and burials. This review was conducted in advance of consultation between the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) and Anishinabek Nation. While the review has only begun, there are some notable issues that have already been identified.

To begin with, it is impossible to discuss matters of heritage policy in Ontario without acknowledging its Colonial nature. Under the Ontario Heritage Act (or “OHA”), the province of Ontario has claimed the right to “…determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of Ontario.” In practice, the province has used to the OHA to assert several rights which are both problematic, and an irritant, from an Indigenous perspective. Let us consider them in detail:

1) The right to manage the totality of Ontario’s archaeological and historical past.

The Indigenous history of the province of Ontario stretches back at least 12,000 years. Europeans arrived at the beginning of the 17th Century. To put that into perspective: If the history of the province were represented by a 30-metre-tall white pine, then Canada since Confederation would occupy only the top 38 cm of the tree. Furthermore, any system that puts Settlers in charge of management decisions over the cultural heritage of peoples that they displaced, denigrated, and continue to marginalize is a textbook example of Colonialism.

2) The right to determine who is qualified to explore the archaeological past.

The system by which individuals are licensed to perform archaeological fieldwork is administered by the province. Since the current licensing system was put into place in 2003, the province has issued 807 licences to professional archaeologists. To their knowledge, only three (or 0.5%) of those licences have been issued to Indigenous persons (far short of the 2.8% of the population that identifies as Indigenous). Any system that, by accident or design, bars Indigenous peoples from the exploration of their own pasts would seem to have a Colonial problem.

3) The right to determine how that archaeological past should be explored (through the S&Gs for Consultant Archaeologists).

The S&Gs form the “recipe book” by which all terrestrial archaeology is done in Ontario. While the document appears to have been written with the best of intentions, it is unclear as to whether the standards in the document were developed with any input from Indigenous communities. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine within the document what, exactly, the province is hoping to achieve with Indigenous archaeology. Many of the standards appear to be arbitrary while others are clearly aimed at saving money in the development process. In short, they seem to form a system that was meant to please everyone and, in doing so, pleased nobody.

4) The right to determine which archaeological finds have cultural heritage value or interest (CHVI).

The S&Gs outline a 4-stage process for the exploration of any potentially significant archaeological site. At the end of each, the document offers criteria for determining whether further work is required. However, there is no evidence that the criteria employed were developed in coordination with any Indigenous communities or that they reflect Indigenous values regarding heritage. In the development process, this means that many archaeological sites are/can be deemed “insignificant” without any Indigenous input whatsoever.

5) The right to determine how the artifacts and documentation from each archaeological site is curated/stored.

Since the advent of the archaeological consulting industry in the 1970s, the artifacts recovered from archaeological sites have been entrusted to the keeping of archaeologists themselves. However, standards for the storage of these cultural items have only been in place since 2011 and the degree to which they are enforced is unclear. Furthermore, only 16 of the over 6,000 collections in existence have been repatriated to Indigenous communities. Once again, the optics of the situation appear Colonial.

6) The right to determine when Indigenous communities should be consulted about matters related to their archaeological heritage.

Currently, the S&Gs do not require Indigenous consultation until the end of the third stage in the four-stage research process. This means that many archaeological finds deemed lacking in cultural heritage value or interest have already been written off or allowed to be destroyed before any Indigenous community has been informed of their existence. This is far short of the “gold standard” for consultation set by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and well short of the Duty to Consult and Accommodate that the Supreme Court of Canada has identified as flowing from Section 35 of the Constitution Act.

All told, from an Indigenous perspective, the system by which Indigenous heritage and archaeology is managed in Ontario is deeply Colonial – evoking the dubious “bargain” at the heart of the Crown/Indigenous relationship in which the Crown’s promise to “take care” of the interests of Indigenous peoples ends up being both self-serving and nothing of the kind. Since the dawn of the Colonial era, the Settler Society has destroyed thousands of Indigenous archaeological sites – even while there was ostensibly a system in place that was designed to “conserve” them. Indeed, it is unclear whether the system by which Indigenous heritage is managed does so – or merely creates a veneer of administrative legitimacy as that heritage is systematically removed from the landscape.

If you would like your voice to be heard in the review process, we urge you to participate in the Anishinabek Nation Survey available here: Anishinabek Nation Survey: Review of the Archaeological Standards & Guidelines

It takes no more than a few minutes to complete, is worded in plain language, and does not require that you be an archaeologist to express your opinion. We encourage you to take the survey since more participation means the final submission to the province will carry more weight.