Developing heritage and burial protocol as a step towards decolonization

By Laurie Leclair

With the publication of the Anishinabek Nations’ Community Heritage & Burials Consultation Protocol Template (2019) alongside of the Anishinabek Nation’s Toolkit for Understanding Aboriginal Heritage & Burial Rights (2015), First Nations now have two additional resources to assist them in the important work of protecting ancestors and sacred sites. Communities can choose to consult these documents when creating or enhancing a preexisting Field Monitoring program, or to engage in actual archaeological work, or help guide them towards the development of a Code for Best Practices.

Shaping a protocol that reflects a First Nation’s beliefs and laws but also considers its membership’s capacity and interests will stand out from the existing Ministry of Heritage Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries’ Standards and Guidelines, primarily because the former demands a heightened level of respect and care for the ancestors. It is also an assertion of inherent rights. The Protocol reads, “Collectively we know how to look after our Ancestors, Sacred Sites and Sacred Items. It is not for another culture to tell us our responsibilities…. it is not for museums or others to decide the way of doing things.” Or what is sacrosanct. Red Rock Indian Band’s Terry Bouchard stated, “We determine what is sacred for the Anishinabek Nation, it is not the government that tells us”.

This conviction was voiced several times throughout the consultation process and reflects the need to question existing heritage legislation. This also makes sense to the Elders and the Knowledge Keepers who will be helping to create new pathways based on ancient rules and methods. Chippewas of Kettle & Stony Point First Nation Elder Mike Henry pointed out the pedigree of Indigenous over colonial law, “Why are we applying a law that is 50 years old when you have laws that are more than 50,000 years old?” Questions like Elder Henry’s lead to deeper discussions over decolonization.

Creating a heritage and burials consultation protocol becomes an assertion of Indigenous law, a jurisdiction based on the inherent right to protect ancestors, to keep them safe, and issue challenges to the accepted historical record through the repatriation and revisioning of the past. The template offers several issues for consideration. Beginning with the research and planning of its protocol, many of these issues are rooted in the question of agency. For example, the template asks each First Nation to consider what traditional knowledge, historical research, oral histories or impact studies it might have at its disposal that could help it design an informed and practical methodology. Next, once a protocol is drafted, the template suggests a degree of inclusion so that all of the membership will be comfortable with the language used in the document, the type of information shared with the outside community, and the process of approval and subsequent engagement.

The guide itself is concise, having only 14 subheadings, but in each, First Nation control is paramount. Inheriting communities reserve the right at any stage of the process to use ceremony and language in order to create a layer of protection between ancient loved ones and the sterility of science. It also supports a proactive community. Engagement and the desire to remain informed, including the demand for copies of all documentation, studies, mapping, supporting legislation and timelines which might accompany a project are also written into the template. Learning what has been gathered or stated about a First Nation becomes the first step in changing that narrative or what Curve Lake First Nation Elder Doug Williams referred to as “decolonizing our history” and the need to “introduce our own truth”.

Introducing, or restoring the truth, also comes with responsibility. In the regional engagement sessions, many participants spoke of the important responsibilities inherent in heritage and burials work.  Most importantly, there is a belief that the ancestors expect their descendants to look after them. The protocol states, “We have a collective responsibility to take care of our Ancestors, Sacred Sites, and Sacred Items. That relationship must be supported with the language as they are interconnected.” This bond extends beyond the original place of rest, to caring for ancestors in museums, or elsewhere, or to the sacred act of repatriation.

Best Practices for Heritage and Burials work also creates responsibility among First Nations. The template suggests that a community may consider, “Where the First Nation determines that the origin or significance rests with another First Nation, the First Nation will make its best efforts to have the other first Nation involved in the consultation process.  The First Nation shall accept responsibility for the Ancestors, Sacred Site or Sacred items until such time as the other First Nation is able to accept responsibility”. This type of exchange requires communication and trust between groups. Some communities will see this cooperation as Esther Osche from Whitefish River First Nation explained it as another means of correcting the past.

“We were a large family and worked together,” she told us. “We were a collective. Our traditional people need to be involved to understand our family obligations to one another… as a collective and not a separate entity.”

The act of sharing knowledge and ceremony helps define what it means to be Ngo Dwe Waangizid Anishninaabe (One Anishinaabe Family).  Respect, Good Faith, Relationships and Trust form the Anishinabek way and reflect the seven sacred gifts given by the Creator: Zaagidwin (Love), Debwewin (Truth), Mnaadendmowin (Respect), Nbwaakaawin (Wisdom), Dbaadendiziwin (Humility), Gwekwaadziwin (Honesty), and Aakedhewin (Bravery).

Lastly, the template requests that those who use it acknowledge that there is a necessity for self-care when enforcing Heritage and Burials policies. It cautions, “Be prepared for the emotional, physical, mental and spiritual responsibilities and effects that this work has”.

This preparation would also extend to an entire community that are either bearing witness to a reinternment or preparing to bring an ancestor home.

While a First Nation may be bound to adhere to federal and provincial Heritage and Burials legislation, possessing a custom protocol opens communication with the outside, or as Netmizaaggamig Nishnaabeg Elder Tony DePerry stated, satisfies a “need to learn to understand each other in a good way, accept our values, morals and ethics.” And the issue moves beyond discussion into action. The emphasis placed on Honour, Respect, Trust, Care, and the mandatory incorporation of language and ceremony set Anishinabek protocols apart from the Standards and Guidelines currently in use. When a First Nation insists that the proper execution of the science of archaeology must include these virtues and actions, it takes a sizable step towards decolonizing its history.