Community-based Archaeology in Canadian Archaeological Practice

What is Community-Based Archaeology?

     Community-based (public) archaeology has been evolving into an ever growing field within archaeology for many years now. Community-based archaeology emphasizes collaborations between archaeologists and the public which are used not only to establish a better understanding of what is being analyzed, but also to build relationships within the community in order to develop closer bonds with the public. Furthermore community-based archaeology can be used as a tool to empower communities to have more control over their past by becoming more engaged in the present. This is done through community engagement that focuses on establishing public interest and hands-on involvement in the research that is being conducted. Ideally, in practice it places some, if not all of the control over the project into the hands of the participants involved. This practice is especially beneficial because of the fact that in general, archaeology has primarily benefited from its colonialist ways. It is more important than ever to establish new methodologies and practices that move past this and give back to the public in order for archaeology to further grow as a discipline. As a discipline we clearly need to continue to follow through with growing community based archaeology – “not because it is politically correct, but because it enriches our discipline” (Marshall 2002:218). It gives us the ability to and inspires us to be critical of the past and to ponder new connections between the past and the present (Marshall 2002). This could pose great value in Canadian archaeological practice. Canada is a nation with a rich historical past that is encompassed by a largely diverse population. By establishing a collective framework which looks at the issues surrounding community-based archaeology and potential mitigations and solutions; this research project will explore what it requires to successfully engage in and take a community-based research approach in a Canadian archaeological context. This will frame some key issues (ethics, research and funding) that surround this research approach, and it will look to provide a platform for establishing possible solutions, while creating a forum in which to further discuss the practice as a whole.

Analysis of Case Studies

     In order to properly frame the methods that will be used to analyze and establish possible remedies and solutions to issues surrounding community-based archaeological practice in the context of Canada, it must be first established that the analysis surrounding community-based archaeological practice that will take place will primarily focus on a single research project that has taken place within Canada. This stems from the lack of strongly documented community archaeological projects within our nation.

What sort of value is provided by taking a community-based approach?   

     Before posing some possible methods in which to promote and establish a stronger use of community-based archaeology in Canada it is important to frame some of the key issues that come along with community-based archaeology and general archaeological practice. For instance, there is the ever pressing issue of using archaeology as a tool to in which to promote community engagement especially amongst indigenous groups within Canada. Brendan Gabriel (2010), a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto explored the intersections between archaeological community-based practiced and those of a community in Nunavut. He found that it was a necessity to utilize community-based archaeology based on provincial policy established by the Nunavut government (Gabriel 2010). This has established community-based archaeology in Nunavut as not only an idealistic practice, but also one that is required based on policy (Gabriel 2010).

     One of the fore fronting issues we are left with as archaeologists is what sort of value do we provide outside of the generalized scope of analyzing the past from what is found. In a place though like Nunavut, where there is this engagement between the locals and the elders, and the fact that they are able to recollect on their own past, it is more difficult as archaeologists to establish some form of intrinsic value that we can bring to the table (Gabriel 2010). As noted by Gabriel (2010), it is our role now to reconstruct the image of archaeologists and to provide new value as a discipline, especially if we want to continue to evolve.

     In one aspect many see this as a golden opportunity and welcome the collaborative work with indigenous communities. It provides us the ability to learn and teach at the same time. But on the other hand, it can pose a problematic and detrimental issue due to the sheer logistical practices that manifest from taking such an approach (Gabriel 2010). Furthermore it challenges our general understanding of what archaeology is and whether or not it should still rely on scientific truths or move towards a new basis of understanding that incorporates more of the social realm of understanding.

     As established by Gabriel (2010) in his case study, the basic practices behind archaeological practice can be altered to establish and promote community-based engagement. In order to overcome the generalized lack of community engagement and interest, Gabriel sought out to find what sort of procedures or practices could be created in order to steer interest. Through his research it was concluded that community engagement was a possibility, it just needed to be framed in the correct manner. Through his work, numerous workshops were created that allowed for reconstruction and reconnection with the past. This engagement whether through the rebuilding of a kayak boat in a traditionalized style of the Copper Inuit or by creating replicas of collected artifacts from the area allowed for group discussion, engagement, and it gave a forum to the community members to be able to re-tell and reflect on the past (Gabriel 2010).

     This community-based archaeology was extremely beneficial. It is re-established archaeology outside of the general norm for this community by providing value outside of the known. It allowed individuals to reflect on facets of their life and heritage that are general ignored or forgotten. It also re-conceptualized history as a tool which can be used to critically evaluate the world around them while deconstructing the generalized notions of archaeology and framing it more as a beneficial tool that can be used to contribute to our understanding of the past (Gabriel 2010).

     Based on this case study by Gabriel (2010) it should be clearly noted that in order for community-based archaeology to succeed in archaeological practice it is necessary for archaeologists to be able to sell archaeology as a beneficial tool to the stakeholders that are involved. If archaeology can be framed and move beyond the generally preconceived notions that many have with regards to it, it can be sold as a useful tool that allows us to reconnect and analyze our understandings and connections with the past and present.

The Ethics Behind Community-Based Archaeology

     Ethically, the shift towards taking a community-based research approach is inherently necessary. Archaeologists in places such as Canada that have a colonized past have a duty to be ethically responsible while working with communities. These community members have a right to “access and be part of the production of knowledge about ‘their’ past” (Simpson 2008:4). Furthermore it creates a tool for developing more culturally beneficial reconstructions of the past (Marshall 2002). Objectively, this may move beyond the traditional way of contributing towards more academic interests but in turn it creates community engagement (Moser et al. 2002). In order for community-based archaeology to succeed it must at first be ethically sound. Therefore, ethical standards for community-based projects should be established in a more centralized manner, that being, what is the purpose of the project taking place?, what are the possible outcomes of the project?, what value does it have?, what does the involved community get from this engagement?, and what sort of possible issues may occur and how can they be overcome? If this cannot be established, then it would be hard to justify and sell the value of the project.

Possible Research and Funding Issues

     Selling community-based archaeology can be problematic in practice especially in an academic manner. A main caveat of community-based archaeology stems from the need for funding to provide employment and/ or training to locals within the community the research is taking place in order for them to play an important role in the projects development and up taking (Moser et al 2002). Unfortunately as seen in practice and as observed by Field et al. (2002), it can be quite difficult to establish and secure funding of employment designed for these endeavours. One way to overcome this, especially in the context of Canadian archaeology is to establish and grant funds through the government via The Ministry of Tourism and Culture amongst other governmental organizations. This could be seen as a job creation method used to help combat against the negative economic outlook we are currently faced with in archaeology. Aboriginal people in Canada have statistically faced a greater rate of unemployment (13.9%) vs (8.1%) for non-Aboriginal people in 2008 (Stats Can 2012). This should be used as a tool to help combat against unemployment, while providing beneficial and engaging learning opportunities at the same time.

Conclusion and Points for Further Discussion

  To further grow Canadian community-based archaeological practice a centralized forum should be established in order to connect archaeologists with various communities who would consider participating in this form of research. This forum such as a website would allow for further community engagement and would allow for greater connections to be established between archaeologists and community groups. It would also establish a more effective manner for archaeologists to highlight the key benefits of community archaeology and in turn this would aide in helping to solidify community-based archaeology as a beneficial and obtainable practice in Canada.

     Based on the established findings it is clear that community-based archaeology has inherent value in modern practice, especially in the context of Canada. Furthermore it can be noted that by establishing a collective forum for generalized community-based engagement and practice it would help aide in growing this sub-field within archaeology. These collective methods are beneficial in helping spur more discourse within the realm of Canadian archaeology while providing an engaging research and learning forum for modernizing the way archaeology is conducted as a whole.