The Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project: Collaboration and mutually beneficial outcomes

Amy Roberts

Despite paradigmatic statements arguing for a collaborative archaeology, little agreement exists concerning how it should be practiced. In our experience, the relationships between archaeologists and the communities we serve are multi-faceted, and often develop under significant constraints concerning project goals and methodologies. Recognizing this, here we focus on the nature of relationships on the ground between archaeologists and indigenous communities. We argue that two principles should guide our practices. First, archaeologists should pursue horizontal relationships with First Nations that build and expand egalitarian contexts within the otherwise hierarchical political structures of modern nation states. Second, it is through building long-term relationships with communities, and the negotiations these require, that horizontal relations can best be established. Both can help improve archaeological practice. We outline two cases of collaboration involving Coast Salish and Interior Salish groups to illustrate our approach.

In this paper I take a pragmatic approach to discussing indigenous heritage, which constitutes the focus of most of the archaeology we do in North America. If descendant groups are denied direct and meaningful ways of engaging in decision making concerning their heritage, then heritage management policies are ineffective at best and harmful at worst. My position is based on three points: 1) that access to and control over one􏰎s own heritage is a basic human right essential to their survival; 2) that Indigenous peoples in 􏰌settler countries have historically been separated from their heritage, experienced little benefit from heritage-related research and suffered cultural and spiritual harms and economic loss as a result; and 3) that community-based heritage initiatives are capable of challenging colonial structures in the research process without compromising the integrity of archaeology. My goal here is to discuss the need for a theoretically, ethically and politically viable approach to heritage research with, for and by descendant communities.

SPECIAL FORUM: INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS the SAA archaeological record SEPTEMBER 2012 • VOLUME 12 • NUMBER 4 Winner, 2012 SAA Archaeology Week Poster Contest S O C I E T Y F O R A M E R I C A N A R C H A E O L O G Y INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS SPECIAL FORUM ON INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS EDITOR’S COMMENTS Kisha Supernant Kisha Supernant is an Assistant Professor at the University of Alberta and a member of the Committee on Native American Relations (CNAR). She may be reached at Kisha.supernant@ualberta.ca. C ollaborative approaches to archaeological practice have become increasingly common in the past 15-20 years (Atalay 2006; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2007; Moser et al. 2002; Nicholas et al. 2007). Archaeologists are engaging with descendant and stakeholder communities in ways that are radically transforming how we do archaeology (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2007). In the United States, much of the genesis for collaboration can be traced back to the passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). By legislating repatriation of human remains and burial objects, the law created opportunities where archaeologists and Native American groups could work together. Many members of the post-NAGPRA generation of archaeologists have been raised intellectually in an environment where consultation is a necessary part of doing archaeology (e.g., Silliman 2008). However, many collaborative archaeological projects, such as the ones presented in this forum, have arisen without any legislation structuring the relationship between descendant communities and archaeologists. The SAA Committee on Native American Relations (CNAR) is interested in exploring how collaborative projects form and transform in countries and context where legislation does not require consultation. With this in mind, we approached several scholars who are actively involved in collaborative projects in international contexts to reflect on how the collaborative project began and what the outcomes have been. We received submissions from around the world and highlight here are six different projects that include collaborative efforts in six different countries: Australia, Canada, New Caledonia, New Zealand, the United States, and Tanzania. Some projects, such as those in Tanzania and New Caledonia, are among the first in their respective countries, while others, such as those in Canada and Australia, are part of an ongoing national shift in archaeological practice. 28 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 A number of key themes connect these diverse projects and give some indication of the core principles of successful collaborations. The first is the importance of communication. Communication is essential to building relationships of trust and shifting communities’ perceptions about the purpose and practice of archaeology. For example, in Tanzania, the members of the research team experienced a very different reaction from residents of the local village after the archaeologists had made an effort to communicate, via posters, the purpose and importance of archaeological information and heritage. In the Inuit Living History Project, a collaborative ethic extended to how the different members of the team worked together, whether they were academics, researchers, or community members. A similar situation arose in Australia, where Smith and Jackson encountered early on the essential role of family relationships and connections in developing true collaborative research practices. Another theme is the emphasis by local or indigenous communities on education. Lyons et al. created the Inuvialuit Living History Project to address the desire of local communities to develop tools where knowledge could be passed on to younger generations. For Roberts, one of the key concerns of the Mannum Aboriginal Community Association was to educate tourists and visitors about their perspectives on the past. Education, in this case, was about the community members sharing their knowledge and changing perceptions about heritage. In Tanzania, the CHIRP project members are closely involved with the local school to provide support and materials that can be used in the classroom. In Australia, one of the major challenges facing the remote Aboriginal communities is access to education, so the project members worked with local communities to develop training programs. One final theme that runs throughout several of the articles is the importance of the intangible aspects of heritage that INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS can be negatively impacted via colonial histories. Reclamation of objects, knowledge, and landscapes are essential to the process of decolonization for many communities. The IPinCH project and related case studies explicitly address issues around the definition of cultural heritage in communities throughout the world. These articles are just a small sample of the diverse types of community-based archaeological research being undertaken around the world. Even without heritage legislation formalizing a responsibility to descendant communities, archaeologists are working toward the decolonization of the discipline and building strong collaborative relationships with descendant and local communities. References Cited Atalay, Sonya 2006 Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly 30(3/4):280. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson 2007 Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. AltaMira Lanham, MD. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson 2007 Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Ferguson, pp. 1–32. AltaMira, Lanham, MD. Moser, Stephanie, Darren Glazier, James E. Phillips, Lamya Nasser el Nemr, Mohammed Saleh Mousa, Rascha Nasr Aiesh, Susan Richardson, Andrew Conner, and Michael Seymour 2002 Transforming Archaeology through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt. World Archaeology 34(2):220–248. Nicholas, George P., John R. Welch, and Eldon C. Yellowhorn 2007 Collaborative Encounters. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Ferguson, pp. 273–298. AltaMira, Lanham, Maryland. Silliman, S.W. 2008 Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. ¡LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY FOR LATIN AMERICA! Fellow Latin Americanists, On behalf of the SAA Committee on the Americas, I write to request your support in broadening the distribution of the Society’s flagship journal for the region, Latin American Antiquity. If we can get the journal into more institutional libraries throughout Latin America, articles will find wider, more appropriately inclusive audiences. At the same time, more of our colleagues will be inspired to submit to the journal and to consider joining the SAA themselves. COA asks that you consider funding a gift subscription to Latin American Antiquity for a library at an institution with which you and/or your Latin American colleagues have a close relationship, or in a country or region in which you carry out your research. When you identify a library that you would like to support, you should write to them to determine whether or not they already receive LAA; if not, you will need the correct snail mail address for delivery. A gift subscription for Latin America costs US$65 per year and your commitment would be one year at a time. To order a gift subscription, please contact the SAA office at 1-202-789-8200 x109 or email subscriptions@saa.org for more information. Thank you for considering this opportunity to continue strengthening the intra-hemispheric relations that are so essential to American archaeology and so rewarding both personally and professionally. —Dan Sandweiss, Committee on the Americas Advisory Network member September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 29 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS COLLABORATIVE, COMMUNITY-BASED HERITAGE RESEARCH, AND THE IPINCH PROJECT George Nicholas and the IPinCH Collective George Nicholas is Director, Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project and Professor of Archaeology at Simon Fraser University. W hat does research on tangible and intangible heritage look like when done in collaboration with descendent communities—especially when they take a leading role? How does a more equitable decisionmaking process contribute to archaeological practices that are relevant, responsible, and mutually satisfying? And how can ensuring that communities benefit from research on their heritage improve their relations with archaeologists and heritage managers? These questions are currently being explored in the course of a seven-year international project on Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH), based at Simon Fraser University. This initiative brings together over 50 anthropologists, archaeologists, lawyers, ethicists, heritage and museum specialists with partners from 25 communities and organizations to explore intellectual property-related issues emerging within the realm of cultural heritage and their implications for theory, policy, and practice (www.sfu.ca/ipinch). We are supported by a major grant from Canada’s Social Science and Humanities Research Council. Descendant communities, archaeologists, and other stakeholders are today confronted by a sometimes bewildering set of challenges regarding the appropriate use of cultural images and designs; protocols for bioarchaeological research; fair and appropriate access to archaeological data, museum records, and other archives; cultural tourism and commodification issues; changing legal interpretations of cultural rights; and international heritage protection efforts that purport to incorporate local conceptions of heritage—to name just a few key topics. IPinCH aims to document and learn from the diversity of principles, perspectives, and responses that emerge from these and other contexts dealing with intangible aspects of heritage, and from this to compile and share examples of good practice and other resources. We approach these goals through three complementary components: (a) collaborative, community-based research initiatives (discussed here); (b) an online library to compile and distribute research materials, publications, and protocols; and (c) nine thematic Working Groups exploring the theoretical, practical, ethical, and policy implications of intellec- 30 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 tual property. Throughout IPinCH we ascribe to a critical theory approach that seeks to foster positive change in the lives of participants—including researchers, altering course as the research process proceeds based on feedback and ongoing critical reflection on intellectual property issues in cultural heritage. IPinCH Case Studies Our project has tried to take a ground-up approach by utilizing a community-based participatory research methodology (see Atalay 2012; Nicholas et al. 2011). We have been able to provide support for 11 community-based studies, now at different levels of completion, situated within Indigenous communities in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Kyrgyzstan. Each study begins with the community partner identifying issues of concern and then collaborating as a co-developer with one or more IPinCH team members to propose a research design and budget. Research methods may include focus groups, community surveys, archival research, interviews with elders, or other information-gathering activities. Such an approach prioritizes community needs, while also fostering relationships that address at least some of the long-standing issues surrounding academic research relating to mistrust, unequal power, and loss of control over the process and products of research. Once the study is complete, research products and data are reviewed at the community level to determine what information can be released to the IPinCH team to inform various meta-level research questions. Community retention and control of the raw data ensures another layer of protection for sensitive information or privileged knowledge. Each case study undergoes multiple layers of ethics review—at the community level, within the home institutions of academic researchers, and at Simon Fraser University. What is the nature of these case studies and what they are targeting? Here are five examples. How can we best collect and pass on knowledge about our land and lifeways for use in guiding future development policies and INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS unlock the protective fence that presently surrounds the petroglyphs (Figure 2). Figure 1. Young Chatham Islanders Jade Lomano and son Solomon alongside a rakau momori (tree carving), which Moriori believe to be the embodiment of ancestors. Photograph courtesy of Susan Thorpe. Photograph by Robin Atherton. decisions? The “Moriori Cultural Database, Chatham Islands, New Zealand” study was developed by Susan Thorpe and Maui Solomon from Te Keke Tura Moriori (Moriori Identity Trust), in affiliation with the Hokotehi Moriori Trust and Kotuku Consultancy. Their initiative has established a Moriori cultural knowledge database to record traditional knowledge and protect IP through appropriate protocols, and also contributed to a youth-focused Hokotehi mentorship program on knowledge recording and archaeological methods. Both initiatives contribute to management strategies and development decisions that protect Moriori land and cultural heritage (Figure 1). How do we protect, care for, and manage the sacred knowledge embodied in ancestral sites while also sharing their lessons in culturally appropriate ways with the public? This question is at the center of “Education, Protection and Management of ezhibiigaadek asin (Sanilac Petroglyph Site), Michigan.” Sonya Atalay (UMass-Amherst) with Shannon Martin and William Johnson of the Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan are working to determine culturally appropriate ways of providing educational information about a petroglyph site containing over a hundred indigenous teachings to diverse public audiences while at the same time protecting the knowledge and images from inappropriate use. The goal is to utilize Anishinabe values and advice from spiritual leaders in negotiations with Michigan State agencies. The Saginaw Chippewa are again gathering at ezhibiigaadek asin for ceremonies but at this time still must have a state employee What guidelines should apply to knowledge produced from analyzing ancestral remains? “The Journey Home: Guiding Intangible Knowledge Production in the Analysis of Ancestral Remains, British Columbia” is an initiative being collaboratively developed by The University of British Columbia Laboratory of Archaeology (LOA) and the Stó:lo Research and Resource Management Centre (on behalf of the Stó:lo Nation/Tribal Council). Susan Rowley (LOA), David Schaepe and Sonny McHalsie (both with SRRMC) are working with cultural advisers from the Stó:lo House of Respect Care-taking Committee to develop protocols for how to make decisions about the study of human remains. For the Stó:lo, knowing as much as possible about these ancestors informs their approach to repatriation and guides inquiry into multiple issues of scientific process, knowledge production, and intellectual property. The project aims to develop guidelines and protocols for repatriation and analysis of First Nation ancestral remains. These models may then be adopted by other groups as appropriate. How do we assure the protection and inclusion of our own cultural principles and ways of knowing in government consultations affecting our heritage? The “Yukon First Nation Heritage Values and Heritage Resource Management” study was developed by Sheila Greer, Catherine Bell, and Partners Figure 2. Members of the Saginaw Chippewa tribe hold regular ceremonies at Ezhibiigaadek asin, the Sanilac petroglyphs, but do not have a key to the protective fence surrounding the site. Photo courtesy of Stephen Loring. September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 31 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Champagne & Aishihik First Nations (CAFN) Heritage, Carcross-Tagish First Nation Heritage, and Ta’an Kwach’än Council. This study asks what heritage management based on Yukon First Nations (YFN) values looks like in order to improve their ability to fulfill their rights and obligations as established under their respective Land Claim and Self-Government Agreements. Community-based ethnographic research is being used to identify these values and how they compare to those expressed in western heritage resource management concepts and practices. The team is also examining how Yukon Indian values can reframe approaches to the management of the heritage resources by self-governing YFNs under their respective land claims. How do we establish protocols for outsiders who work with culturally sensitive sites or information? “Developing Policies and Protocols for the Culturally Sensitive Intellectual Properties of the Penobscot Nation of Maine” was developed by Bonnie Newsom (Penobscot Nation), Martin Wobst and Julie Woods (both with UMass-Amherst). Here the goal is to combine the tribal community voice and knowledge with ethnographic, archaeological and legal information to create policies, procedures and protocols that protect Penobscot intellectual property associated with their cultural landscape, while maintaining compliance with state and federal historic preservation and cultural resource management laws and regulations. Included in this plan are Intellectual Property (IP) and cultural sensitivity training workshops for outside archaeologists and researchers. The Penobscot Nation has established a community-based Intellectual Property (IP) working group to identify aspects of their heritage that are particularly sensitive. The working group is also creating a formalized tribal structure to address IP and other researchrelated issues. Other IPinCH-funded projects are “Cultural Tourism in Nunavik” (Nunavut, Canada) led by Daniel Gendron and the Avataq Cultural Institute; “Secwepemc Territorial Authority: Honoring Ownership of Tangible / Intangible Culture” (British Columbia, Canada), developed by Brian Noble (Dalhousie U.) and Arthur Manual (Secwepemcul’w); and “Grassroots Resource Preservation and Management in Kyrgyzstan: Ethnicity, Nationalism and Heritage on a Human Scale” (Kyrgyzstan), led by Anne Pyburn (Indiana U.) and Krygyz colleagues. Two other IPinCH case studies—Inuvialuit and Ngaut Ngaut—are reported on in this issue. In all of these studies, the incentive has come from the community, they develop and direct the study, and they are the primary beneficiaries. Benefits also flow to IPinCH researchers and team members, and from them to other academics, descendant communities, policy makers, and the public at large. insights into the different value systems relating to “heritage,” which can contribute to successful heritage management, especially when coupled with an ethnographic approach (Hollowell and Nicholas 2009). At the same time, we have found that the process of collaborative research can be as illuminating as what it produces. For example, we continue to learn from our community partners about the intrusive nature of research; they see this as an opportunity to teach us how to conduct research in a respectful manner. Constant critical reflection and willingness to respond constructively to critique are thus requisite. Beyond the anticipated results of each case study, other benefits accrue with IPinCH partners coming together, finding support for the challenges they face (e.g., archaeotourism) and launching initiatives of their own. These may include symposia and workshops on, for example, commodification of the past, which are designed to meet the needs of community partners affected by loss of control over their heritage. There are considerable challenges to collaborative research (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008). It requires considerable time and effort, even where participants are building on relationships previously developed between the community and one or more team members. Things take longer than expected, and there are unavoidable and unanticipated delays. And because the outcome may be uncertain, such research can be particularly risky for untenured scholars and graduate students. Finally, some of the biggest challenges our projects have faced involve the time and energy required to work with multiple institutions—often transnationally—to get funds flowing and ethics reviews completed. In some instances we have to have three separate ethics reviews for a single study. We have found that university financial officers and IRBs need and want to be educated about community-based research, which is generally unlike anything they have dealt with before—the same holds true for most archaeologists, who have not had to prepare an ethics application. Conclusions If we hope to comprehend the nature and impact of heritagerelated issues upon people’s lives, it makes sense to see how these play out on the ground, rather than limit this just to discourse between scholars. We also need ensure that benefits flow both ways between community partners and academic researchers. A deeper understanding of what is at stake will promote research relationships that are more equitable, responsible, and accountable. This can only be done by working collaboratively with descendant communities. What We Are Learning Collaborative research has the potential to reveal important 32 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 >NICHOLAS, continued on page 35 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS THE NGAUT NGAUT INTERPRETIVE PROJECT COLLABORATION AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL OUTCOMES Amy Roberts and Isobelle Campbell Amy Roberts is an archaeologist at the Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia and Isobelle Campbell is the Chairperson of the Mannum Aboriginal Community Association Inc. T his paper details a collaborative endeavor between Flinders University archaeologist, Amy Roberts, and the Mannum Aboriginal Community Association Inc. (hereafter MACAI). Together Roberts and MACAI began an interpretive project for a significant site known as Ngaut Ngaut to the Aboriginal community (named after an ancestral being). However, this place is invariably referred to as Devon Downs in archaeological textbooks. Indeed, one of the aims of the Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project has been to reinstate the traditional toponym in broader literature. This step is seen as just one way in which Indigenous peoples can counter colonialism. Located on the Murray River in South Australia this rockshelter site was the first in Australia to be “scientifically” excavated. The excavations, conducted by Norman Tindale and Herbert Hale, began in 1929 (Hale and Tindale 1930). Their research provided the first clear evidence for the longterm presence of Indigenous Australians in one place (Figure 1). Prior to Hale and Tindale’s excavations little systematic research had been conducted in the field of Indigenous Australian archaeology. In fact, the thinking of the day was that Indigenous Australians were recent arrivals to Australia and consequently it was generally believed that the material culture of Indigenous Australians had not changed over time. Hence, the research at Ngaut Ngaut provided a turning point in the way the Indigenous Australian archaeological record was viewed. The impetus for the Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project arose when Roberts was working as an “expert” anthropologist on native title issues in the region in 2007 and visited the site with MACAI representatives (although she had worked with the community since 1998). During subsequent discussions, it became clear that MACAI’s cultural tourism operations were being hampered due to the fact that the Director of National Parks and Wildlife had closed parts of the site as a result of riverbank erosion during the recent and severe drought suffered in many parts of the country. As a result, MACAI were in need of interpretive materials that could be used during such times—and so began the collaborative journey. MACAI had originally requested that Roberts provide photographic images they could use during park closures. However, as discussions developed it became clear that together Roberts and MACAI could create a suite of interpretive materials (for both off and on-site purposes) that would benefit the community’s cultural tourism ventures as well as their aspirations to educate the public about Aboriginal culture and to foster greater cross-cultural understandings (Figure 2). Funding was obtained for Stage 1 of the project (from the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division in South Australia) and interpretive signs, educational posters (to be used during closures) and brochures were produced. The content of the signs, posters, and brochures specifically incorporated the many tangible and intangible aspects and values of this significant place. It was important for MACAI that both tangible and intangible values relating to the site were addressed in the interpretive content. Indeed, whilst MACAI value the site’s archaeological history and the physical evidence of the excavations, they also wanted the site’s cultural importance to be presented to the public. In particular, they wanted to present to the public some of the cultural complexities relating to Ngaut Ngaut and to redress the standard, one-dimensional and arguably colonial archaeological story that exists in Australian textbooks. Some of the many intangible values attached to the site that required interpretation included: rock art interpretations and cultural meanings, “Dreamings,” oral histories, discussions about Aboriginal group boundaries, “totemic” issues and “bushtucker” knowledge (see also Roberts et al. 2010). The funding obtained for Stage 1 also allowed for the employment of a local artist to provide paintings to be used in the interpretive materials to enhance some of the areas listed above. Similarly, MACAI were engaged to produce the sign frames rather than contracting the work out to a non-Indigenous company. Indeed, throughout the project Roberts and September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 33 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS As a result of these concerns, and through discussions with George Nicholas and the IPinCH (Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage) group, a second stage of the project was devised and funded. Figure 1 The cliffs at Ngaut Ngaut. Photograph by Amy Roberts. Stage 2 has seen the development and near completion of an online interpretive book (to be hosted by the South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources) as well as a hard copy version, which will be published by IPinCH. Indeed, prior to the prevalence of the Internet MACAI were able to control the content shared with visitors to Ngaut Ngaut. However, the Internet now poses significant challenges to the presentation and regulation of cultural information, site images and copyright issues. As such the key differences between the IPinCH-funded work and other Internet resources is that the materials have been developed in a collaborative, structured and culturally sustainable manner. MACAI worked to create additional community benefits as further outlined below. Throughout Stage 1 of the project it became apparent that MACAI were becoming increasingly concerned about problematic online webpages about Ngaut Ngaut such as: 1. Brief, unfocused and/or inaccurate information on State government and/or tourism websites. For example, tourism websites often only highlight one or two values relating to the site and this information tends to be replicated. State government websites primarily discuss risk management issues or where detail is included (e.g., in management plans) some of this information is inaccurate (e.g., incorrect dates have been reported for the site) and again only certain aspects of the site are emphasised; or 2. Inaccurate and/or offensive information—generally blogged by tourists who have visited the site or websites that use images of the site and then claim copyright over them. Figure 3 L-R: Isobelle Campbell and Amy Roberts presenting a paper at the 2011 IPinCH conference in Vancouver. Photograph courtesy of IPinCH. However, as was the case with Stage 1 of the project, additional community benefits were incorporated into the Stage 2 funding. For example, funding was obtained through IPinCH for MACAI representatives to attend international and national conferences/symposia to talk about the Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project and to learn from their international and national Indigenous counterparts as well as from other archaeological projects and practitioners (Figure 3). Figure 2 Isobelle Campbell (MACAI chairperson) (left) talking about one of the interpretive signs at Ngaut Ngaut. Photograph by Amy Roberts. 34 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 Similarly, funds were used to enable MACAI members to visit the excavated Ngaut Ngaut collection, which is currently housed at the South Australian Museum. This visit proved to be a significant and emotional event for the community members who attended and excerpts from the interviews conducted afterwards have been incorporated into the online interpretive materials (Figure 4). Proceeds from the sale of the hard copy version of the book will also be fed back into INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Figure 4 L-R: Isobelle Campbell, Anita Hunter and Ivy Campbell inspecting the excavated Ngaut Ngaut collection at the South Australian Museum. Photograph by Amy Roberts and courtesy of the South Australian Museum. Hale, Herbert, and Norman B. Tindale 1930 Notes on Some Human Remains in the Lower Murray Valley, South Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum 4:145–218. Nicholas, George P., Amy Roberts, David M. Schaepe, Joe Watkins, Lyn Leader-Elliot, and Susan Rowley 2011 A Consideration of Theory, Principles and Practice in Collaborative Archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26(2):11–30. Roberts, Amy L., Mannum Aboriginal Community Association Inc. and van Wessem, A. 2010 The Ngaut Ngaut (Devon Downs) Interpretive Project – Presenting Archaeological History to the Public. Australian Archaeological Association Conference, Batemans Bay, 9-13 December 2010. Electronic document, http://www.australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/po ster_gallery. MACAI community initiatives and their management activities at Ngaut Ngaut. Given that the Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project has truly been a jointly conducted initiative it is situated at the progressive end of what Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson (2007) describe as the “collaborative continuum.” While such a collaborative undertaking requires a significant investment of time and energy (see Nicholas et al. 2011 for additional discussion) for both researchers and communities, this does not mean that such projects cannot be mutually beneficial. Indeed, as is clear in the discussion above all stages of the Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project were designed to include additional community benefits (above and beyond those relating to the central tenets of the project). Similarly, Roberts has also furthered her career as a researcher and academic by being able to publish various articles and a forthcoming book (often coauthored with MACAI or members of MACAI). However, Roberts and her home institution (Flinders University) have also benefited in other ways that should also be acknowledged—e.g., with MACAI approving graduate-level student projects on various aspects of the Ngaut Ngaut collection and by hosting field schools at the site. Indeed, university programs in Australia are now dependent on Indigenous communities to provide such approvals and their collaboration/participation in these programs needs to be accorded due recognition. References Cited Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson 2007 Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum. In Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities, edited by Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Ferguson, pp. 1–32. AltaMira, Lanham, MD. NICHOLAS, from page 32 < References Cited Atalay, Sonya 2012 Community Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities. University of California Press, Berkeley. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T.J. Ferguson (editors) 2007 Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Hollowell, Julie J., and George P. Nicholas 2009 Using Ethnographic Methods to Articulate CommunityBased Conceptions of Cultural Heritage Management. Public Archaeology 8(2/3): 141–160. Nicholas, George P., Amy Roberts, David M. Schaepe, Joe Walkins, Lyn Leader-Elliot, and Susan Rowley 2011 A Consideration of Theory, Principles and Practice in Collaborative Archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 26(2):11–30. September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 35 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS WORKING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND MANAGING CULTURAL HERITAGE IN IRINGA REGION, TANZANIA Katie M. Biittner and Pamela R. Willoughby Katie M. Biittner and Pamela R. Willoughby are with the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. S ince 2006, the Iringa Region Archaeological Project (IRAP) has been conducting field research on the rich archaeological and historic heritage of Iringa. IRAP is a rapidly growing team, composed of academics, researchers, and graduate students in Canada, the U.S., England, Australia, and Tanzania. The main goal is to investigate the Upper Pleistocene and later history, in relation to models of the African origins of Homo sapiens. Before our team arrives in Tanzania, extensive preparations are required including applying for research clearance from COSTECH (The Tanzanian Commission on Science and Technology). This is required for all participants, i.e., any individual who will be a part of our team regardless of nationality or position. We also notify the Director of the Division of Antiquities, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Government of Tanzania, of our intent to apply for COSTECH clearance. This is because Antiquities will review our file and provide our excavation license. Without COSTECH clearance we could not receive an excavation license and we will not receive COSTECH clearance without the approval of Antiquities, the division responsible for historic resources on the mainland of Tanzania. One of the requirements for receiving COSTECH clearance is that foreign researchers must work with a local collaborator, a Tanzanian national who “vouches” for the quality of your research and your character. This process of acquiring appropriate legal permissions to conduct archaeological fieldwork therefore necessitates successful (i.e., ethical and cordial) collaboration with local archaeologists, academics, and professionals. Once these two permits have been obtained we are assigned an Antiquities Officer who will accompany us for the duration of our field season and observe all aspects of our research. Our official duties and obligations continue upon our arrival in the field research area. We spend days greeting local officials from every branch of government and within every community we visit to introduce ourselves and to explain our reasons for conducting research in their jurisdiction. At any time we could encounter resistance to our research and find ourselves unwelcome; our acute awareness of the distrust and suspicion faced by foreign researchers was one of the 36 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 main motivations behind developing a research program focused on communication and local collaboration. Prior to IRAP’s investigations, little archaeological research had been undertaken in this region. In 2006, preliminary test excavations were undertaken at two rockshelters: Magubike and Mlambalasi. The purpose of this preliminary study was to determine the archaeological potential, artifact density, and stratification of rockshelter sites in the region (Biittner et al. 2007). Mlambalasi rockshelter is located next to the burial site of the nineteenth-century Uhehe Chief Mkwawa, a leader in the resistance against German colonial forces, and as such the site has important cultural and historic significance. Magubike rockshelter is located adjacent to the village from which the name is derived. Consequently, many local people visited the site on a daily basis while we were working and expressed a vested interest in what we were doing on their land and with their resources. Although from our perspective the field season was very productive and rewarding, it was clear that local communities had concerns about our presence and our motives. In 2008, IRAP returned to undertake a large-scale regional survey documenting the distribution of sites and stone raw material sources. Surface materials were collected at 12 locations, including a number of previously unrecorded archaeological and heritage sites. Test excavation at Magubike rockshelter was continued to determine the extent of the archaeological deposits. It was another successful field season but not just because of what we accomplished archaeologically. 2008 was the first time we brought along posters for distribution at local offices and museums. The posters were prepared in both English and Swahili, and described our research. Small handouts were also prepared of the posters to give out everywhere— offices, schools, museums, churches, and to anyone who asked who we were and what we were doing. The reception was astounding. We repeatedly heard comments like “many foreigner researchers promised to bring back the information they learned from working on our land, you are the first INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Figure 1: “The Archaeological Heritage of Iringa Region, Tanzania” poster distributed throughout Iringa region and on display in local schools, offices, museums, hotels, and restaurants. to actually do so.” Magubike village called a meeting and invited us to attend. At this meeting they indicated that they had previously been skeptical of what we were doing and why, but after taking the time to read the poster they now understood. We were formally invited to continue our work at the site and asked to continue to share our information with them. Many people commented on how they recognized us and our names from the posters. These posters marked our first huge step in earning the trust of the communities with which we hoped to collaborate. of human evolution, East African culture history, and, for the first time, cultural heritage management. The school children, in particular, were so excited by this poster of “their site.” At the ceremony where we handed over these posters to the school, the headmistress, teachers, and students all spoke about the sense of pride they all felt knowing they had such an important part of human heritage in their backyard. We returned in 2010 for more fieldwork and brought more posters. This time we created three posters: a regional one similar to that distributed in 2008 (Figure 1), an East African culture history overview (Figure 2), and one focused entirely on Magubike rockshelter (Figure 3). The East African Culture History poster was developed after recognizing that we were using terminology with which many local people were unfamiliar. We prepared this instructional tool particularly for the secondary school in Magubike, using images taken of artifacts, fossils, and skeletal specimens at the University of Alberta, photographs taken by Biittner of sites, or open source materials. We focused on Magubike rockshelter for another poster to continue to build a trusting and collaborative relationship with the village of Magubike. The poster emphasized the importance of Magubike rockshelter from the perspective The posters have proved to be only one small, but important, step in engaging local communities. Since we began our poster “campaign” we have been approached by various community members and groups asking for support and assistance in education and economic development. Our response to this request was to form the Cultural Heritage in Iringa Research Program (CHIRP). CHIRP is a long-term program which will involve the direct engagement of local communities using interviews, public meetings, and workshops at schools in the region towards the collective and collaborative management of cultural heritage. From Posters to Management: Cultural Heritage in Iringa Research Program (CHIRP) Through CHIRP we intend to: 1. provide support to local archaeologists, cultural, and September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 37 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Figure 2: “East African Culture History” poster prepared as an instructional tool for the secondary school at Magubike village. antiquities officers (including access to resources for the development of professional and conservation skills); 2. improve public awareness regarding conservation of movable and immovable cultural resources; 3. educate and work with local communities in fields related to cultural heritage and cultural tourism; 4. work with local communities in developing, documenting, and presenting their own local histories; and 5. work with educators to develop relevant curriculum connecting local archaeology with key events in human evolution. We will continue to prepare and provide posters based on information generated from both consultation with local peoples and the result of our ongoing archaeological research projects. We hope to expand our translations beyond English and Swahili to include local, threatened languages like Kihehe. As Magubike rockshelter is located so close to the secondary 38 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 school (you can see it from the classroom), it provides an excellent opportunity to give students hands on experience doing archaeology including laboratory analysis and interpretation. This means the people who have a vested interest in the information produced by our research will play a direct role in constructing the narrative (what does it mean, what are the implications of our findings) and in disseminating the results. We hope to work closely with local people to find more culturally relevant or appropriate ways of disseminating our results. Illiteracy is an issue in Iringa, which means our posters are not the best long term solution for outreach. We must make all aspects of our research and our discipline accessible. In the long term we will continue to document the historic and archaeological potential of Iringa, to improve conditions on heritage sites and in collections, and to alleviate poverty by supporting the cultural tourism industry in Iringa. By partnering with local artisans and tour operators, we can help to bring money into the local economy. A number of Magubike villagers commented that they could not understand why, if the sites in Iringa are so important, tourists are INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Figure 3: In response to concerns expressed by villagers of Magubike village, we prepared a poster highlighting the archaeological significance of their rockshelter. not flocking to Iringa as they do to Arusha (the starting point for safaris to Olduvai and the Serengeti). Much of the damage to existing sites across Tanzania can be attributed to poverty. Local villagers now regularly report looting activity stating that they understand the intellectual and cultural value of sites and their potential to draw tourists to the region because of our posters. Our posters are only the beginning of what we hope will be a successful outreach program to engage local people. Acknowledgments: Pamela Willoughby’s IRAP research has been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), by a Post-PhD research grant from the Wenner-Gren Foundation and by a Killam Research Grant from the Vice-President (Research), University of Alberta. Katie Biittner’s research has been funded by a Doctoral Fellowship from SSHRC, and by a Dis- sertation Fellowship from the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Alberta. We thank COSTECH and the Division of Antiquities, Government of Tanzania, and the people of the villages of Magubike, Kalenga, Wenda, Lupalama, Kibebe, and Iringa town for their continued support of both IRAP and CHIRP. Finally, we would like to thank our IRAP team members Pastory Bushozi, Ben Collins, Katherine Alexander, Jennifer Miller, Elizabeth Sawchuk, Frank Masele, Chris Stringer, and Anne Skinner for their ongoing contributions to the project. Asante sana. References Cited Biittner, Katie M., P.M. Bushozi, and Pam Willoughby 2007 The Middle Stone Age of Iringa Region, Tanzania. Nyame Akuma 68:62–73. September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 39 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH IN NEW CALEDONIA Ian Lilley, Christophe Sand, and Frederique Valentin Ian Lilley may be reached at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, University of Queensland 4072, Australia. Christophe Sand may be reached at the Institut d’Archéologie de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et du Pacifique, Nouméa, Nouvelle-Calédonie. Frederique Valentin may be reached at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR 7041, Maison de l’archéologie et de l’ethnologie, René Ginouvès, Nanterre, France. O ur project concerns the tiny, remote island of Tiga, smallest of the inhabited islands in New Caledonia’s Loyalty Islands. New Caledonia is a largely autonomous French territory some 1,200 kilometers off the northeast coast of Australia (Figure 1). The territory’s main island, Grande Terre, is geologically complex, while the Loyalties, which lie east of Grande Terre, are simple raised coral reefs. New Caledonia’s indigenous people call themselves Kanaks. Today, they share the islands with a substantial number of settlers of European, Asian (primarily Vietnamese) and Polynesian background, virtually all of whom live in and around the capital, Nouméa. Apart from one expatriate European family running the primary school and one long-term resident from Tahiti, Tiga’s permanent population of around 150 is entirely Kanak. There is no tourism and no commercial industry. People live by gardening, fishing, and hunting. Most people of Tigan descent live elsewhere, mainly on the neighboring and very much larger islands of Maré and Lifou in the Loyalties, or in Nouméa. Our work on Tiga includes local archaeologists and oral historians of Kanak, European and Asian descent as well as colleagues of European descent from metropolitan France and Australia. We communicate with the local community in French, which is New Caledonia’s lingua franca, as well as local island languages. We have been exploring the limits of ‘translatability’ of archaeological objectives and findings on the one hand and local conceptions of history on the other. We have found that we can mesh certain details of both in a way that works for archaeologists as well as local people. In doing so, we have come to realize that commonalities of perception on a higher plane of abstraction are ultimately more important to this process than lining up precise details. Archaeologically speaking, the project was motivated by the fact that New Caledonia is unique in Pacific prehistory. The founding human occupation some three thousand years ago occurred as part of the dispersal of the well-described Lapita 40 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 cultural complex, but differed in several critical respects from elsewhere in the Lapita distribution. Subsequent trajectories of change produced levels of cultural diversification unparalleled further East in Remote Oceania, the vast region beyond the main Solomon Islands chain. The problem for archaeologists is that their interpretations of New Caledonia’s dynamic human history conflict with local Kanak views. The latter are largely either versions of or a reaction to synchronic historical and ethnographic pictures developed before modern archaeology started in the region. These latter scenarios paint “traditional” Kanak society as a smallscale and semi-nomadic one governed through petty chiefdoms. Such descriptions have been completely undermined by the archaeological demonstration that the last millennium before European contact was characterized by a densely inhabited landscape of labor-intensive horticulture organized by strong chiefdoms, which collapsed as a result of profound demographic and cultural disruption between initial European contact in 1774 and the French takeover in the 1850s. This dramatic archaeological reappraisal of “traditional Kanak culture” deeply unsettles many indigenous New Caledonians as well as the expatriate scholars who promoted prearchaeological views. These sentiments also are felt in relation to the archaeological demonstration that there were major cultural shifts in the archipelago during the preceding three millennia of human activity. On this basis, exactly what archaeology is “for” in New Caledonia remains as unclear to most Kanak, as it does to many other indigenous people around the world. In reaction to attempts by settlers to characterize Kanaks as just another group of migrants who have no more claim to land and cultural rights than any other group in the modern population, Kanak activists and their European sympathizers have attacked the entire concept of history and long-term cultural change as a tool of neocolonial oppression. As in many other settler societies, activists promote a two-step model in which a static precolonial INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS demonstrated significant expansions in habitation and subsistence gardening on the raised parts of the island during the first and second millennium AD. This expansion extended into very rugged and difficult peripheral areas, in which living and working would have required great effort. This intensification suggests that there was a period of population and subsistence stress on the island, as there was elsewhere in New Caledonia at this time. Perhaps the most intriguing thing we have found is that people on Tiga overcame a complete lack of surface water by creating imaginative and highly effective water catchment systems in the island’s many caves (Figure 2). Figure 1. Location map of Tiga Island, Loyalty Islands Province, New Caledonia (showing selected sites not discussed in the text). “Golden Age” was destroyed by Western colonization. In this scenario, the population of New Caledonia is polarized as “indigenous” or “invaders.” This division emerged in the late 1970s. It led to a major political emergency, including periods of undeclared civil war in the 1980s, the after-effects of which have not entirely dissipated and make archaeology impossible in a few places. So, what have we done on Tiga against this backdrop? Over four major seasons of fieldwork as well as several shorter visits we have explored a significant part of the island including some of its many caves, and mapped and test-excavated a number of sites from different periods in the island’s history back to an initial Lapita settlement. Before the start of the archaeological fieldwork, the team’s Kanak oral historian recorded oral histories and mythological traditions in great detail. The archaeological survey started with the recording of the sites that the local clans considered important in their history, without any consideration for their archaeological significance. Although analysis is not complete, we have delineated a sequence of occupation that charts the movement of the population from an initial beach occupation in Lapita times up onto the higher parts of the island where nearly the entire population lived until European contact when missionaries encouraged people to move back down to the beach area where nearly everyone lives today. We have We have been attempting to integrate these archaeological findings with oral tradition and myth to produce long-term history that makes sense to local people and us alike. While there is certainly a reflective, theoretical dimension to our work, our primary interest is quite pragmatic: to get local people to engage with archaeology in whatever way best works for them. Rather than try to match specific archaeological and oral-historical/mythological details, which in our experience frequently bogs down in Melanesia in irreconcilable differences of opinion, we have chosen to meld our results with local historical perspectives on a more abstract, thematic level, emphasizing the sweep of history and the classes of events and processes within which the archaeological nitty-gritty is situated. Archaeological details are thus still crucial, providing the “beef” as it were, but they are framed in a larger context of meaning which better reflects the shared ‘meta-interests’ of locals and archaeologists. Such meta-interests are captured well by Tim Ingold (2000:189), who, quoting Adams, recognizes that “for both the archaeologist and the native dweller, the landscape tells—or rather Figure 2. Artificial subterranean water-harvesting feature, Tiga Island (Author’s (CS) hand and green torch for scale to left). September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 41 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Les chercheurs d’eau : Mythes, histoires et archéologie de Tokanod Préface Introduction : contexte Chapitre I. Premier peuplement – le souffleur de conque • Origine géologique de Tokanod • Mise en place de la dune • Première installation Lapita et ses caractéristiques 2500-2700 BP • Données de LTD018 Chapitre II. La montée sur le plateau – les explorateurs de l’eau • Données pédologiques et le gouano • Les plus anciennes datations des grottes 2100-2300 BP • Les données de Cholé et abri LTD076 Chapitre III. L’humanisation du plateau – Siwen • La traversée des animaux (rat et poule sultane) 10002000 BP • Transformations de la végétation • Les sites de plateau, en abri et en enclos, mise en place de tas • Liens avec Maré Chapitre IV. La côte est et les liens avec la Grande Terre – histoire des Dawas • Les données de l’abri des Dawas (dates et peintures murales) 1200-2000 BP • Données sur le plateau de la côte Est (zone sans sépultures, très peu de coquillages) • Liens archéologiques avec le Grande Terre (poteries, herminettes etc) Chapitre V. Conflits et évolutions sociales/environnementales – Les deux géants • Changements environnementaux (dune, tectonique) • Densification des occupations (datations sites et enclos plus récents) <1500 BP • Cimetières étudiés • L’implantation des Kiamu Xetiwaan Chapitre VI. Les dernières chefferies du plateau - La guerre de Ruet • Les données archéologiques (four du plateau, Cholé etc) <500 BP – ethnographique • La chefferie d’Umewac et la division du plateau • La christianisation et l’histoire du maïs • La descente vers le bord de mer Conclusion. La nature du lien entre mythes, histoires et archéologie ? ANNEXES. Textes en langue, mot à mot, traduction Figure 3. Tentative contents of Tiga community publication, showing integration of local and archaeological histories. 42 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 is—a story, ‘a chronicle of life and dwelling’ (Adam 1998:54).” To put it simply, we have discovered that historical particulars do not need to match exactly to match effectively. We have found that archaeology and local narratives can agree, for instance, that certain broad types of activity occurred, perhaps even in generically similar locations in roughly equivalent sequences. To use archaeological terms, on Tiga we have shared interest in the physical origins of the island, for example, as well as in first colonization, the introduction of domesticates and other exotic fauna, variations in population movement to the island and the shifting directions of such movement. We have been able to collate these shared interests together in our community publication, a tentative outline of which is shown in Figure 3 (Tokanod is the Maré word for Tiga). The first chapter concerns Tiga’s physical origins, where we recount the story of a man raising the island from the sea by blowing a conch trumpet before we relate geological understandings of the process, including the formation of the main beach area where first colonization occurred. That occupation is then discussed. The second chapter considers the movement to the plateau and the discovery or at least initial major harvesting of subterranean water sources, introduced by a local story concerning the latter. The remaining chapters move through the archaeological sequence tying in myth and oral history as appropriate, up to the “last chiefdoms on the plateau” and the return to the beach in missionary times. We are aware that much of the oral history and myth is not sequential in the way we have ordered it to blend with the archaeology. We are also well aware that once committed to print, such a sequential scheme may become cemented as the traditional truth of things. We have done no harm to the traditions and stories themselves though, and Tigans both on and off island are more than capable of understanding what we have done and why. They are comfortable with our approach and appreciate our efforts to “meet them halfway.” On that basis, we claim some success in helping them understand “what archaeology is for,” which in turn we hope will help us win greater acceptance of and interest in archaeology elsewhere in New Caledonia. Acknowledgments. We thank the people of Tiga for their friendship and collaboration. David Baret and Dan Rosendahl produced Figure 1. Reference Cited Ingold, T. 2000 The Perception of the Environment. Routledge, London. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS THE INUVIALUIT LIVING HISTORY PROJECT Natasha Lyons, Kate Hennessy, Mervin Joe, Charles Arnold, Stephen Loring, Albert Elias, and James Pokiak Natasha Lyons is a Ph.D and Partner in Ursus Heritage Consulting; Kate Hennessy is an Assistant Professor in the School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University; Mervin Joe is an Inuvialuit Resource Management and Public Safety Specialist, Parks Canada; Charles Arnold is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary; Albert Elias is an Inuvialuit Elder and professional interpreter; Stephen Loring is a Museum Anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution’s Arctic Studies Center; James Pokiak is an Inuvialuit Elder and big-game hunting outfitter. T he Inuvialuit Living History Project was initiated in November 2009 with a visit by Inuvialuit community members and non-Inuvialuit collaborators to the Smithsonian Institution’s MacFarlane Collection: 300 remarkably preserved ethnographic objects and nearly 5,000 natural history specimens. These items were acquired by Hudson’s Bay trader Roderick MacFarlane while running a fur trade post among Anderson River Inuvialuit in the 1860s (Figure 1). Elders, youth, seamstresses, anthropologists, archaeologists, educators, and media specialists traveled from the Western Arctic and other locations across North America to learn more about this ancestral collection, which few Inuvialuit or museum professionals have ever seen or studied (Figure 2; Loring et al. 2010; Morrison 2006). The MacFarlane Collection is not eligible for repatriation under NAGPRA because the Inuvialuit community resides in Canada, making alternative forms of access to the collection a priority. Our project seeks to generate and document Inuvialuit and curatorial knowledge about the objects in the MacFarlane Collection, with a wider view to sharing and disseminating this knowledge in the Inuvialuit, anthropological, and interested public communities. We have conducted extensive interviews with Inuvialuit Elders and knowledgeable community members, held workshops with Inuvialuit students and teachers in several Western Arctic communities, and carried out material culture research on the objects in the collection at the Smithsonian. These research activities have culminated in our recently launched website–– www.inuvialuitlivinghistory.ca––which brings together curatorial descriptions of the collection, Inuvialuit knowledge of objects, media documenting our trip to the Smithsonian in 2009, and subsequent community projects related to the objects (Figure 3) (Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre 2012). The website represents the MacFarlane Collection as a “Living Collection”––Inuvialuit Pitqusiit Inuuniarutait in Inuvialuktun––because the project has spurred many Inu- vialuit to begin discussing, re-creating, and using these historic objects in their everyday lives (Hennessy et al. 2012). The Inuvialuit Living History Project has depended on collaboration between team members, partners, and funders. We are particularly supported in our work by relationships to Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre, the Smithsonian’s Arctic Studies Center, the Museums Assistance Program, Parks Canada, the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, the School of Interactive Arts and Technology and the Intellectual Property in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) Project, both housed at Simon Fraser University. The present forum has created an opportunity for our team to collectively evaluate what processes and elements attend a successful collaborative research project, to identify the challenges that we continue to face, and to assess the response to our project so far. To this end, we developed a series of general questions about our project and interviewed our project team members, who comprise the authors of this paper. Below, we present a summary of responses rather than individual quotations due to the brevity of this article. What do you think has made our project successful? All of our team members noted the diverse strengths of individuals as a main contributor to the success of our project. Our team came together with a shared interest to learn more about the MacFarlane Collection, particularly from an Inuvialuit perspective, and to share this knowledge with the broader Inuvialuit community. Our team members have been dedicated to this purpose, and have taught one another a great deal about creating products and media that are appropriate, relevant, and interesting to the community (Lyons et al. 2011). While our team comes from different personal and professional backgrounds, we have significant overlap in skills and interests. These interests include community-based heritage, digital repatriation, material culture research, and anthropological and museum policy and prac- September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 43 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Figure 1. Communities of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in the Canadian Western Arctic. tice. Team members have provided access to their professional and community social networks, knowledge of funding opportunities, and technical resources. This combination of knowledge, perspectives, skills and resources has aided our work immeasurably, and allowed us all to do collectively what we could not achieve individually. Another element of our project’s success is our deliberate attention to group process (Lyons 2011, forthcoming). We have made effective communication a priority for our project team, and have created space for dialogue about all aspects of the project—our goals, how they are prioritized, and how we will achieve them. We discuss these issues on an ongoing basis as the project evolves. Part of our commitment to process involved setting the terms for our project team interactions, in the form of a project charter which specified individual and collective roles and responsibilities, and how we would resolve differences of opinion. The different perspectives of respective team members has led to a cross-fertilization of ideas and also raised important intellectual property questions related to access, control, and representation of Inuvialuit culture and ideas. 44 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 What have been the major challenges of the project? Our major challenges have revolved around time and expense, and issues of control and meaningful community engagement. Northern projects are exceptionally expensive due to northern cost of living, large distances between communities, and air travel. While our project has represented a long-term, well-funded, and wide-ranging effort, we have still had to work hard to keep our goals reasonable and to stay focused on them. We have coordinated interviews, discussions, meetings, and workshops with Inuvialuit Elders, youth, and other community members and their organizations from many towns and hamlets. Elders are frequently busy with their families and their work on the land. Accommodating their schedules has been a significant priority for the team. A particular challenge of producing a virtual exhibit is the amount of time required to manage and present the data collected. We have worked with both Inuvialuktun and English speakers, and have a great deal of raw data to transcribe, translate, and convert into a format suitable for the Inuvialuit Living History website. We have sought to reflect INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS munity presentation, a young woman called Mervin Joe a hero for making the collection accessible to Inuvialuit people. Other cultural communities have been inspired by our work and talked about pursuing the same kind of relationships with their ancestral collections. The tremendous interest in the website within the Inuvialuit community engendered considerable impatience for its completion. This is one of very few online projects representing Inuvialuit culture, and the community is anxious to use and circulate resources such as the virtual exhibit, lesson plans, and interactive place name maps. Figure 2. Elder Albert Elias sporting a pair of snow goggles from the MacFarlane Collection (Kate Hennessy photo). community goals and interests through the website, requiring extensive community consultation. This focus on local knowledge has required us to negotiate interpretive control with the Smithsonian establishment. We have also had to negotiate the requirements and constraints of major heritage institutions and funders. Once launched, obtaining meaningful community feedback and input on the site’s content has been an ongoing challenge, largely because teachers are busy, settlements are widespread, access to the internet is not universal, and not all of us live in the north to help with this work. We look ahead to the challenges of long-term hosting and preservation of digital information, and to ensuring that this valuable information will be accessible for generations to come. These factors have required us to be both creative and proactive in our consultation efforts, which are ongoing. How has the project been received in the Inuvialuit and anthropological communities? The Inuvialuit community has embraced this project with enthusiasm. Many Inuvialuit Elders once knew or used specific types of objects in the collection, and they are very interested in passing knowledge about these items, and the lifestyle they represent, to their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Inuvialuit hunters, seamstresses, and material culture specialists are actively studying objects in the collection and experimenting with making and using them. Seamstress Freda Raddi traced clothing patterns during our visit to the Smithsonian and sewed traditional boots for her grandchildren. One of our project team Elders, James Pokiak, carved a pair of snow goggles like those he’d seen in Washington for his daughter. Other project team members have had the opportunity to share our experiences with the MacFarlane Collection through lecture tours. After one com- Our project has also sparked interest in the archaeological and anthropological communities. The project has been widely presented and discussed in archaeological venues and meetings. Our relationship to the IPinCH Project, an international network of cultural heritage scholars and local practitioners, has provided a forum for critical discussions of community-based practice and intellectual property issues, as have other opportunities to present the project, such as the workshop “After the Return: Digital Repatriation and the Circulation of Indigenous Knowledge” at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in January 2012 (Christen et al. 2012). The launch of the Inuvialuit Living History website has led to many requests for information from scholars and communities worldwide about our work, methods, and deliverables. Conclusion Contemporary archaeology and ethnology are increasingly characterized by new approaches to the study of material culture, and by cooperative working relationships across cultural and disciplinary borders (Lyons forthcoming). Through the Inuvialuit Living History Project, we have sought to engage with a collection of ancestral objects and to share this knowledge in its source community. We have been very encouraged by the excitement with which Inuvialuit are re-creating and using these objects in a modern context. Community interest is also spurring us towards archaeological investigations at the Fort Anderson trade post, and mapping Inuvialuit knowledge and stories about the Anderson River landscape. For our research team, the Inuvialuit Living History project has represented a collaborative process, and a final product that we are proud of; however, we also see the website as a beginning, more than an end in itself. The digital platform that we have developed to show the MacFarlane Collection and its significance in Inuvialuit communities is designed for ongoing contributions and contextualization with local knowledge and media documentation. Our challenge will be to sustain the momentum of the project into the future and for our group to persist in the self-conscious negotiation of group priorities, responsibilities, and ethical research practices. September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 45 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Figure 3. Search page from the Inuvialuit Living History website. References Cited Christen, Kim, Joshua Bell, and Mark Turn 2012 Digital Return. Electronic document, http://digitalreturn.wsu.edu, Accessed April 1, 2012. Kate Hennessy, Ryan Wallace, Nicholas Jakobsen, and Charles Arnold 2012 Virtual Repatriation and the Application Programming Interface: From the Smithsonian Institution’s MacFarlane Collection to “Inuvialuit Living History”. Proceedings of Museums and the Web 2012, San Diego, edited by N. Proctor and R. Cherry. Archives and Museum Informatics, San Diego. Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre 2012 Inuvialuit Pitqusiit Inuuniarutait: Inuvialuit Living History. Electronic document, http://www.inuvialuitlivinghistory.ca ,accessed April 1, 2012. Loring, Stephen, Natasha Lyons, and Maia LePage 2010 Inuvialuit Encounter: Confronting the past for the future. An IPinCH Case Study. Arctic Studies Center Newsletter No. 17: 30–32. 46 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 Lyons, Natasha Forthcoming Where the Wind Blows Us: The Practice of Critical Community Archaeology in the Canadian North. The Archaeology of Colonialism in Native North America Series, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, in press. Lyons, Natasha, Kate Hennessy, Charles Arnold and Mervin Joe, with contributions by Albert Elias, Stephen Loring, Catherine Cockney, Maia Lepage, James Pokiak, Billy Jacobson, and Darrel Nasogaluak 2011 The Inuvialuit Smithsonian Project: Winter 2009–Spring 2011. Unpublished report on file with Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa. Online at: www.irc.inuvialuit.com Morrison, David 2006 Painted Wooden Plaques from the MacFarlane Collection: The Earliest Inuvialuit Graphic Art. Arctic 59(4):351–360. INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS SHARED LIVES A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP IN ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA Claire Smith and Gary Jackson Claire Smith and Gary Jackson are affiliated with the Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide. S.A. 5001. Australia, and may be reached at claire.smith@flinders.edu.au and gary.jackson@flinders.edu.au respectively. T his paper ruminates on the collaborative partnership that we have developed with the Barunga, Wugularr, Manyallaluk and Werenbun communities in the Northern Territory, Australia, over the last two decades. We use “Barunga” as a shortened term to refer to all of these communities, as we are usually based at Barunga. We have structured the paper around points of change to give a cumulative sense of how our collaborations have developed over time. The communities that we work in are located in a remote area of northern Australia (Figure 1). The populations of these communities are overwhelmingly Aboriginal, and range from 35 people at Werenbun (Rachael Willika personal communication 2012) to 511 at Wugularr (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012). The only non-Aboriginal people living in these communities are teachers, nurses and administrators, met almost invariably in formal situations. The first language in the region is Kriol, a creole that emerged during the contact period of the early to mid twentieth century (Smith 2004). Many community people are not fluent in English and are shy or reticent in their interactions with nonAboriginal people. The economic status of communities is very low, with under-employment or unemployment of around 50 percent and subsequently low incomes (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012), low levels of car ownership, infant mortality rates that are 1.8 to 3.8 times as high as those for non-Indigenous children and life expectancies that are 10–12 years shorter than those of non-Indigenous Australians (Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet 2012; Council of Australian Governments 2011). Starting Point: First Evening We went to Barunga in 1990 to conduct Smith’s (1996) doctoral research on the social and material variables of an Aboriginal artistic system. The first evening we agreed to drive a group of eight people forty kilometers to the neighboring community of Beswick. We agreed to do this partly because we wanted interaction with local people, and partly because we feared that no one would want to talk to us, that we would not be able to collect rich ethnographic data. The decision to drive people to Beswick was a mistake. It was the equivalent of putting a flashing neon light over our caravan, with the sign “taxi” or “free taxi,” and for many months we were given “humbug” at all hours of the day and night by people who wanted us to drive them somewhere, sometimes hundreds of kilometers away. This dilemma did not dissipate until we were accepted into the extended family of senior lawman, Peter Manabaru and his wife, Lily Willika. Then, at Peter’s suggestion we sent people to get permission from him, since he was “boss” for our car. We found ourselves under the auspices of a senior lawman, and the problem was resolved. Point of Change: From Researchers and ‘Informants’ to Family We started with a clear focus on Smith’s doctoral research on Aboriginal art (Smith 1996). Though he is an anthropologist now, Jackson started his academic foray as an English major accompanying Smith on her field trips, where he thought he could just stay in the background. Wrong! Smith would ask the old men questions and they would sit facing Jackson and give him the answers as though Smith wasn’t present. So we learned that there was no right to knowledge and that the transition of knowledge was determined by gender. Moreover, it seemed that our Aboriginal teachers saw Jackson’s casual or reluctant attitude to research as an attribute and so he was taught much without having to question people. The best teaching occurred when people were in the bush, which acted as a mnemonic that made questions unnecessary. Gary Jackson’s main teacher was Peter Manabaru. Over the years these two became best friends. Manabaru lived with September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 47 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS of the kinship system, Gela. She said “No, his Aboriginal name” ... and when we continued to look blank she said “His name is Lamjerroc, the same as my father.” At the time we were pleased, but we had no real idea of the honor we had been awarded. For the rest of her life, Phyllis demonstrated her acceptance of us to family, community, and strangers by reminding people that she had named our son after her father. She also told Lamjerroc that when he grew up he had to look after her people. He is the only person alive with that name. Looking back with the hindsight of twenty years, we understand that the naming of our son was a way of tying us to the community with gossamer threads that transcend generations. Point of Change: From One-way Research to Two-way Education Figure 1. Location of Study Area. Smith and Jackson whenever they were in the community and he stayed in their home away from the community for close to a year at a time. One difficulty of this situation is that you end up with middle class researchers talking with upper class Aboriginal teachers, so there is a class bias in the data. Also, the responsibilities of family means a lot of extra effort, as with any family: “Could you drive me to visit family in hospital tonight?” where the hospital is a 160 kms round trip. Or, “We have to take sticks and bash up that other family tomorrow because they went to the police about your nephew injuring one of their family.” These costs and benefits come together as part of the package of collaboration. Peter recently walked away. That is, he was called to join familiar spirits in the countryside and disappeared. No footprints are ever found as these “clever men” walk above the ground and the local police called Jackson to fly up to help in the search. Jackson spent two weeks searching the local bush in vain. Initially, he was very keen to find Manabaru but after a while he wondered what he would do if he did discover him in a cave. Manabaru was doing what was right and had told family members of a spirit wife, son, and daughter who lived in a cave and were presumably helping him on this adventure. Jackson is now pleased he did not have to decide what to do. Manabaru has never been found. Point of Change: Jimmy Becomes Lamjerroc When conducting Smith’s doctoral research we worked closely with the senior traditional owner, Phyllis Wiynjorroc. Towards the end of a year of living in the community, after one interview she pointed to our 18-month-old son and said “What’s his name?” We gave his name, Jim, but she said “No, his Aboriginal name.” We gave his “skin” name, as part 48 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 We started off conducting research into Aboriginal culture and society. Informed by the interests of the community, however, this developed into a philosophy of two-way education, in which knowledge is exchanged equally between members of two cultural groups: Aboriginal people teach about their culture and heritage at the same time that they learn about non-Aboriginal culture and heritage, and about the practices of non-Aboriginal communities. We have conducted many field schools on Jawoyn lands, giving students an opportunity to undertake archaeological work while experiencing our style of working with Aboriginal communities. The field schools include national and international scholars, and students in these field schools have had an opportunity to learn from people such as Martin Wobst, Bob Paynter, Heather Burke, Sven Ouzman, George Nicholas, Jane Balme, Ines Domingo, Didac Roman, Paul Faulstich, Graeme Ward, Cristina Lanteri, Alejandro Haber, Carol Ellick, and Joe Watkins. Many of these scholars developed their own relationships with members of the community. Community people travelling to other parts of Australia and to South Africa, France, the UK, and the USA have cemented these national and international relationships. A number of our Honors students have conducted their own research in the region, most recently Ralph (2012) and Slizankiewicz (2012). Some of our students have gone on to become strong community researchers themselves, and all have developed their own styles of collaborating with Aboriginal people, for the particular situations in which they find themselves. Point of Change: Manyallaluk Comes to Adelaide In January 2011 Rachael Willika, the daughter of Lily Willika, phoned us and told us that she was coming to live with us, and that she would be bringing two of her children and a INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS A practical outcome of this collaborative partnership is the development and trialling of a new method of training for Aboriginal communities in remote and regional areas, in which skills are transferred from one family member to another. This approach means that skills gap training is delivered with minimal embarrassment, and that it is cultural and linguistically literate and embedded in lifetime relationships. The critical innovation of this project is recognizing that Aboriginal people who have skills are uniquely placed to transfer their skills to other Aboriginal people—they have cultural and language literacy, know the limitations of family members, and have lifetime relationships of trust. Figure 2. Peter Manabaru and Gary Jackson, Barunga, 2005. grandson. She was living in Manyallaluk, a community of 105 people (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012), and wanted to come “south” to get a better education for her children. We turned one living room of our house into a bedroom for Rachael and the children. In the middle of the year, another grandchild joined her, so there were four children. In early 2012, two more children joined her and Rachael moved into a house of her own, a short distance from our house. We see each other on a day-to-day basis. Rachael’s actions are exceptional. Normally, community people do not attempt to live beyond the safe perimeters of family. The transition to living in a non-Aboriginal culture without the immediate support of family is challenging and most community people assume that defeat is inevitable. Rachael has demonstrated that it is possible to live away from the community, and to prosper in this situation. Over the last 18 months the children have learnt to speak English well, and they now go to school every day (Figure 2). During this period, Rachael obtained her driver’s licence, passed the Finders University Foundation Course, and became the first Jawoyn person to enroll in a university course. Rachael’s experience of living in “mununga” (European) society is a mirror to our own fieldwork with her mother and stepfather. As Lily and Peter helped us to understand the cultural practices of their society, so we have helped Rachael to understand the cultural practices of our society. The achievement of which we are most proud is that we were able to help Rachael and the children succeed in their forays into a nonAboriginal world. Innovations emerge from collaboration. Our proximity to Rachael allowed the three of us to develop new learning together. By pooling our respective knowledge we were able to identify barriers and enablers to Aboriginal people achieving success in a range of contexts—school, university, dealing with government—and to develop strategies that could be used to support Aboriginal success. The benefits of a family-based approach to training are twofold: teaching increases the confidence of those who teach at the same time that it imparts knowledge and skills to those who seek them. If successful, this project will form a first step in a very substantial contribution to the Australian Government priority of Closing the Gap of Indigenous disadvantage (Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet 2012; Council of Australian Governments 2011), by establishing the basis of a new approach to training, education and employment in remote and regional communities. It could constitute a genuine breakthrough in Indigenous training, education, and employment. This program would not have been envisioned if Rachael had not moved to Adelaide. Discussion Things have changed since our first evening at Barunga. Our ideas about research have changed, we have changed, and the people we work with have changed. What have we learned over the last 20 years? We have learned that it is important for a researcher to become part of a family in the community, and that this brings responsibilities and occasional difficulties as well as benefits. We found that we could not work with people without becoming engaged in their struggles, and using our skills for their purposes. We have learned that what you write has an impact at a community level, and that having a long-term commitment to a group and being patient will provide the best quality research results. We have learned that change is possible, that it is undertaken in small steps, and that small differences are large differences when compared to the nothing that would have happened otherwise. In this process, we have become a living archive for the history of the community, and our home and office a repository of historical and cultural knowledge, photos and articles. Our collaborative partnerships with people at Barunga started with a clear focus on Smith’s doctoral research into Aboriginal art, but developed into something much richer, with the capacity to make a difference to the lives of the people with whom we work, and to deepen our own lives in unex- September 2012 • The SAA Archaeological Record 49 INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS Figure 3. From Left: Kayla Willika, Rachael Willika, Claire Smith, Samuel Willika, Jessalina Rockman, Marlene Lee, Jasmine Willika, Adam McCale, Cristina Lanteri, Gary Jackson, Adelaide, 2012. pected ways. Our journey is documented in the products from our research and teaching, which range from books (Smith 2004), scholarly papers (Jackson and Smith 2005), and theses (Ralph 2012; Slizankiewicz 2012; Smith 1996) to opinion pieces in national media (Smith and Jackson 2008a), community publications and reports (Smith et al 1995; Jackson and Smith 2002), and submissions to government (Smith and Jackson 2008b). We started off doing research about Aboriginal culture but ended up doing research for Aboriginal people. In the process, we changed from going to Barunga to do research to doing research so we could go to Barunga. Our situation today is one in which our personal futures and those of people in the community are entwined. Our collaborations are such that it is impossible to imagine separate lives, lives that not do intersect and enrich each other’s. Acknowledgments. This paper emerges from our collaborations with many, many people, and we thank them all. The photos produced here are published with the permission of the people who are in them and, in the case of Peter Manabaru, with permission from Rachael Willika and Peter’s son Cedric Manabaru. References Cited Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012 Electronic document, http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home /data, accessed June 21, 2012. 50 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2012 Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet 2012 Closing the Gap, Web Resource on the Closing the Gap Commitments of the Council of Australian Governments, Electronic document, http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/closing-the-gap, accessed June 21, 2012. Council of Australian Governments 2011 http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/indigenous/key-indicators-2011 Electronic document, http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/indigenous/key-indicators-2011, accessed June 21, 2012. Jackson, Gary, and Claire Smith 2002 “A Good School with Good Teachers”: Educational Aspirations of Indigenous People in the East Katherine Region, Northern Territory. Report for the Jawoyn Association Aboriginal Corporation, Northern Territory. Available from the Northern Land Council Library, Darwin. Jackson, Gary, and Claire Smith 2005 Living and Learning on Aboriginal Lands: Decolonising Archaeology in Practice. In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonising Theory and Practice, edited by Claire Smith and H. Martin Wobst, pp. 326–349. Routledge, London. Ralph, Jordan 2012 Convenient Canvasses: An Archaeology of Social Identity and Contemporary Mark-Making Practices in Jawoyn Country, Northern Territory, Australia. Honours dissertation, Flinders University, Adelaide. Slizankiewicz, Michael 2012 Foot First. A Study of Regional Variation in Rock Art in Jawoyn Country, Northern Territory, Australia. Honours dissertation, Flinders University, Adelaide. Smith, Claire 1996 Situating Style: An Ethno-Archaeological Study of Social and Material Context in an Australian Aboriginal Artistic System. Ph.D dissertation, University of New England, Armidale. 2004 Country, Kin, and Culture: Survival of an Australian Aboriginal Community. Wakefield Press, Adelaide. Smith, Claire and Gary Jackson 2008a Income Management in the NT: Food for Taxis. ABC Opinion On-line. Electronic document, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/06/2382729.htm, accessed June 21, 2012. 2008b A Community-based Review of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Submitted to the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board. Electronic document, http://www.newcastle.edu.au/institute/research-institutefor-social-inclusion-and-wellbeing/risiwteam/conjoints/professor-claire-smith.html, accessed June 21, 2012. Smith, Claire, Lily Willika, Peter Manabaru, and Gary Jackson 1995 Looking after the Land: the Barunga Rock Art Management Programme. In Archaeologists and Aborigines, edited by Iain Davidson, Christine Lovell-Jones and Robyn Bancroft, pp. 36–37. University of New England Press, Armidale.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project: Collaboration and mutually beneficial outcomes

The Ngaut Ngaut Interpretive Project: Collaboration and mutually beneficial outcomes

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS