Arts and Social Sciences, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Elvidge, Michael Peter
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Westbank First Nation, a self-governing syilx nation, and its members have individual and community rights to cultural heritage and have adopted policies regarding heritage management. As the province of British Columbia aims to bring its heritage legislation into alignment with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration), this research critically examines the provincial heritage data ecosystem, its alignment with Westbank/syilx heritage policies and with the Indigenous Data Governance (IDG) principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) and CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), and the closely related data-centered FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. Long-term management and curation of archaeological data is an ongoing area of interest for Indigenous communities, Canadian archaeologists, and government agencies. Recent social developments such as the Province of British Columbia, and Government of Canada’s adoption of the UN Declaration, and the identification of unmarked graves at former Indian Residential School sites, shift scholarly focus to IDG, which centers the rights of Indigenous peoples in the collection, management, analysis, sharing and curation of archaeological heritage. Canadian heritage legislation and laws typically underestimate Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in governance of their heritage, and often distances them from archaeological heritage. Through focus group discussions, anonymous surveys, and interviews with Westbank archaeologists, syilx Elders, and Knowledge Keepers, and commercial archaeologists operating within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility, this study examines how archaeology and cultural heritage is differentially understood and how these understandings influence the application of provincial commercial archaeological policies, legislation, and best practices. I show that policies, such as Bulletin 17, and technologies such as the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) and the BC electronic identification (BCeID) systems limit access and control over cultural heritage data, and prevent assessments of quality of data, which in turn, have impacts on decision making within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. I demonstrate that IDG principles can support Westbank and other Indigenous nations and communities in deriving value and collective benefit from archaeological data in the digital age and show how these principles can inform ethical practice and policy making in British Columbia.
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF COMMERCIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE AND THE PROVINCIAL DATA ECOSYSTEM IN WESTBANK FIRST NATION’S AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY by Michael Peter Elvidge BA (Hons)., Simon Fraser University, 2014 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) (Digital Arts and Humanities) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) October 2024 © Michael Peter Elvidge, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: A Critical Examination of Commercial Archaeological Practice and the Provincial Data Ecosystem in Westbank First Nation's Area of Responsibility submitted by Michael Peter Elvidge in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts . Dr. Neha Gupta, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisor Dr. Christine Schreyer, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Eldon Yellowhorn, Simon Fraser University Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Lisa Hodgetts, Western University University Examiner Sd iii Abstract Westbank First Nation, a self-governing syilx nation, and its members have individual and community rights to cultural heritage and have adopted policies regarding heritage management. As the province of British Columbia aims to bring its heritage legislation into alignment with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration), this research critically examines the provincial heritage data ecosystem, its alignment with Westbank/syilx heritage policies and with the Indigenous Data Governance (IDG) principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) and CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), and the closely related data-centered FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. Long-term management and curation of archaeological data is an ongoing area of interest for Indigenous communities, Canadian archaeologists, and government agencies. Recent social developments such as the Province of British Columbia, and Government of Canada’s adoption of the UN Declaration, and the identification of unmarked graves at former Indian Residential School sites, shift scholarly focus to IDG, which centers the rights of Indigenous peoples in the collection, management, analysis, sharing and curation of archaeological heritage. Canadian heritage legislation and laws typically underestimate Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests in governance of their heritage, and often distances them from archaeological heritage. Through focus group discussions, anonymous surveys, and interviews with Westbank archaeologists, syilx Elders, and Knowledge Keepers, and commercial archaeologists operating within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility, this study examines how archaeology and cultural heritage is differentially understood and how these understandings influence the application of provincial commercial archaeological policies, legislation, and best practices. I show that policies, such as Bulletin 17, and technologies such as the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) and the BC electronic identification (BCeID) systems limit access and control over cultural heritage data, and prevent assessments of quality of data, which in turn, have impacts on decision making within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. I demonstrate that IDG principles can support Westbank and other Indigenous nations and communities in deriving value and collective benefit from archaeological data in the digital age and show how these principles can inform ethical practice and policy making in British Columbia. iv Lay Summary Westbank First Nation (Westbank), a self-governing syilx nation, has its own cultural heritage policies and digital infrastructure and I aim to assess how provincial heritage laws align with these policies and Indigenous Data Governance (IDG) principles. This research examines the management and preservation of archaeological data, highlighting Indigenous peoples’ role in implementing IDG principles in archaeology. Recent societal changes, like the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the discovery of unmarked graves at former Indian Residential Schools, shift focus to recognizing Indigenous rights in digital archaeological heritage. Historically, Canadian laws have excluded Indigenous peoples from managing their heritage, and digital tools have amplified these exclusions. Engaging with Westbank community members and archaeologists, the research identifies barriers in current Canadian policies and explores opportunities for Westbank’s heritage data governance, suggesting enhancements for ethical practices and heritage policies in British Columbia. v Preface Jen Bellingham, director of Intergovernmental Affairs/Title and Rights Department of the Westbank First Nation, provided a letter of support to conduct this research (see Appendix A: WFN Letter of Support). Project objectives and its design were jointly developed by me, my graduate supervisor Dr. Neha Gupta, and Nancy Bonneau of the Westbank First Nation Archaeology Office (WFNAO). The WFNAO supported connection to Westbank archaeologists and community members. I collected data from anonymous surveys and conducted focus group discussions with Westbank archaeologists and community members. I analyzed the survey data, transcribed focus group discussions, shared transcriptions with focus group participants, and summarized results for the research study. I interpreted the research findings and wrote thesis chapters and gathered feedback on initial drafts from the WFNAO and my committee. While this research was conducted in collaboration with the WFNAO, the statements made here are not the official position of the Westbank First Nation or the broader syilx community. This thesis is an original intellectual product of Michael Peter Elvidge conducted under the supervision of Dr. Neha Gupta and supported by Drs Christine Schreyer (UBC Okanagan) and Eldon Yellowhorn (Simon Fraser University). Research questions and thesis drafts were reviewed by Nancy Bonneau of the Westbank First Nation Archaeology Office. Prior to data collection, this project was reviewed by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board and the research was subsequently approved under the certificate number: H22-02199. As part of my ethics requirements, all participants provided formal consent to their involvement in the study and were represented anonymously upon request. Any Indigenous Knowledge represented in this document belongs to individuals who shared that knowledge with the project. No generative artificial intelligence was used during this preparation of this thesis. vi Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xii Dedication .............................................................................................................................. xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 3 1.2. Background .............................................................................................................. 6 1.3. stqáʔtkʷɬniw̓ t sqilxʷ (Westbank First Nation) and the syilx Nation ............................ 7 1.3.1 Westbank’s Self-Governing Agreement ........................................................... 8 1.3.2 Heritage Caretaking in Westbank’s Area of Responsibility .............................10 1.4. Project History .........................................................................................................11 1.5. Situating Self in the Research ..................................................................................13 1.6. Contextualizing Research Concepts ........................................................................14 1.6.1 Criticality of Colonial Language ......................................................................15 1.7 Chapter Progression ................................................................................................17 Chapter 2: Legislation, Heritage Policy, and Commercial Archaeology in British Columbia ................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.1 The Indian Act .........................................................................................................21 2.1.1 Heritage Policy Under the Indian Act ..............................................................23 2.2 The Development of Cultural Heritage Legislation in BC..........................................24 2.2.1 Commercial Archaeology In BC .....................................................................27 2.2.2 Cultural Heritage Repositories in BC ..............................................................29 2.2.2.1 Digital Repositories ....................................................................................30 2.3 Commercial Archaeology and the UN Declaration ...................................................31 2.3.1 The Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project (HCATP) ..................32 2.3.2 On-Going Colonial Perspectives in BC Archaeology ......................................35 2.3.2.1 Scenario One .............................................................................................35 2.3.2.2 Scenario Two (A Fictional Vignette) ...........................................................36 2.4 Summary .................................................................................................................37 Chapter 3: The Truth Shows Itself ......................................................................................... 39 vii 3.1 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................39 3.1.1 Project Design ................................................................................................40 3.2 Strategies of Inquiry .................................................................................................41 3.2.1 Community Collaboration ...............................................................................41 3.2.2 Ethical Review ...............................................................................................43 3.2.2.1 COVID-19 Safe Research Plan ..................................................................43 3.2.3 Participant Selection ......................................................................................43 3.2.4 Anonymous Survey ........................................................................................44 3.2.5 Focus Group Discussions ..............................................................................45 3.2.6 Analytical Practices ........................................................................................46 3.3 Key Findings ............................................................................................................46 3.3.1 Anonymous Survey ........................................................................................47 3.3.1.1 Views on the Purpose of Archaeology and Heritage ...................................47 3.3.1.2 Perspectives on the Ownership of syilx Data ..............................................50 3.1.1.3 Training, Experience, and Capacity ............................................................51 3.3.1.4 The Use of Digital Tools and Software .......................................................52 3.3.2 Focus Group Discussions ..............................................................................53 3.3.2.1 Understanding syilx nakwulamən ................................................................53 3.3.2.2 Experiencing syilx nakwulamən ...................................................................55 3.3.2.3 syilx Perspectives on BC Archaeology .......................................................56 3.4 Summarizing and Contextualizing Key Findings ......................................................58 Chapter 4: Examining Policy, Practice, and Data Use in BC Archaeology ......................... 61 4.1 Contextual Information .............................................................................................63 4.2 The Heritage Conservation Act ................................................................................65 4.2.1 Heritage Conservation Act Section 4 Pilot Project ..........................................66 4.3 The Ministry of Forests and the Archaeology Branch ...............................................68 4.4 Interacting with Cultural Heritage .............................................................................70 4.4.1 Assigning Site Significance in BC ...................................................................71 4.4.2 Culture Areas, Documented Experience, and Barriers in Permitting ...............74 4.5 Accessing Cultural Heritage Data ............................................................................80 4.5.1 The Provincial Archaeological Reports Library ...............................................84 4.5.2 Remote Access to Archaeological Data .........................................................84 4.6 Interacting with Heritage Data using RAAD..............................................................86 4.7 Redirecting the Benefits of Commercial Archaeology to the Westbank First Nation .90 viii 4.8 Summary .................................................................................................................92 Chapter 5: Bridging Theory, Practice, and Ethics in a Digital World ................................... 94 5.1 Indigenous Data Governance ..................................................................................95 5.1.1 The First Nations Information Governance Centre and the OCAP® Principles 96 5.1.2 The Global Indigenous Data Alliance and the CARE Principles......................98 5.1.3 The FAIR Principles ..................................................................................... 101 5.1.4 IDG and Archaeology ................................................................................... 102 5.2 Digital Archaeology ................................................................................................ 104 5.2.1 Data Accessibility, Big Data, and Open Science in Archaeology .................. 105 5.3 Data Quality and Commercial Archaeology............................................................ 107 5.3.1 Case Study: The Okanagan-Shuswap Forest District Archaeological Overview Assessment ................................................................................................................. 108 5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 112 Chapter 6: Supporting Community-Led Governance of syilx nakwulamən ....................... 115 6.1 A syilx-Informed Critique of the BC Heritage Data Ecosystem ............................... 119 6.2 Listening to syilx Voices ......................................................................................... 125 6.3 Future Directions and Conclusions ........................................................................ 126 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 130 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 145 Appendix A WFN Letter of Support ................................................................................. 145 Appendix B Anonymous Survey Questions ..................................................................... 147 Appendix C Focus Group Discussion Questions ............................................................. 150 Appendix D COVID-19 Safety Protocols .......................................................................... 151 ix List of Tables Table 1. Early amendments to the Indian Act were used to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples to restrict their cultural, spiritual, and social practices, and to restrict Indigenous peoples from taking legal actions against the Crown (Parrott, 2022). .............................................................22 Table 2. Legal statutes enacted in the province of British Columbia concerning Indigenous cultural heritage. Statutes initially focused on controlling access to Indigenous burial grounds and spiritual sites. .....................................................................................................................25 Table 3. Key findings of the provincial Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project’s Stakeholder Engagement sessions reveal fundamental differences between First Nations and other organizations feedback, interests and concerns. (Province of British Columbia, 2023b, pp. 3–4, 2023a, p. 3) .......................................................................................................................34 Table 4. Responses to survey questions aimed to evaluate the ethics of use of syilx data by external parties. ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5. Reported overall satisfaction in training and quality of work provided. .........................52 Table 6. Archaeological site significance criteria as defined by the Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (1998, emphasis added). .....................................................................72 Table 7. Field Director and Permit Holder eligibility according to Bulletin 17 and the HCA Permitting Process Policy (Archaeology Branch, The, 2020). ....................................................76 Table 8. Constructive action must occur across various scales within the BC heritage ecosystem to ensure that the rights of Indigenous peoples to and over their data are respected and incorporated into daily practice. .................................................................................................91 Table 9. Community Rights as outlined in an Indigenous Data Governance Framework (Hudson et al 2023) .................................................................................................................................99 Table 10. Following (Hudson et al., 2023), a syilx-informed Indigenous Data Governance critique of the provincial heritage ecosystem and its impact of syilx community rights. ............ 122 x List of Figures Figure 1. Westbank First Nation’s Area of Responsibility within the syilx Traditional Territory is in the Southern Interior region of British Columbia. ........................................................................ 8 Figure 2. Excerpt from the WFN Self-Government Agreement indicating Westbank’s jurisdiction over Culture and Language (Westbank First Nation, 2005, p. 41). ............................................10 Figure 3. Visualization of the term “Archaeology” based on survey responses (BCAPA Respondents; n=12 respondents). ............................................................................................48 Figure 4. Visualization of the term “Heritage” based on survey responses (BCAPA Respondents; n=12 respondents). 49 Figure 5. Visualization of the purpose of archaeology based on survey responses (BCAPA Respondents; n=12 respondents). T .........................................................................................50 Figure 6. The location of the Great Bear Rainforest (center red; (Great Bear Rainforest Education and Awareness Trust, 2020)) and the overlapping First Nations territories within its boundaries (various colours; (Native Land, 2024)). ...................................................................70 Figure 7. Culture area boundaries as defined by province of British Columbia (Archaeology Branch, The, 2020). .................................................................................................................75 Figure 8. An illustration of the province’s archaeological database systems, management, and access. .....................................................................................................................................81 Figure 9. The provincial Grant of License is within the Heritage Permits Policy. It indicates that the province may use archaeological data for the protection of heritage (Archaeology Branch, The, 2020). 82 Figure 10. Presented Terms and Conditions Concerning Access to Archaeological and Heritage Information (Archaeology Branch, 2023). .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 11. Users of RAAD may perform ‘quick searches’ using site or project specific information as well as toggle the visibility of publicly available layers. .......................................86 Figure 12. The feature select tool allows RAAD users to query spatial layers according to their layer attributes, but the spatial extent of the query is scale dependent. .....................................88 Figure 13. The “Where” dropdown box allows users to select from specific attributes associated with a spatial layer. ...................................................................................................................88 Figure 14. A query of the Archaeological Sites layer for sites that contain “picto” in their typologies across portions of syilx territory. ...............................................................................89 Figure 15. The provided Okanagan-Shuswap AOA metadata details the general study area, the location of the associated report, and information to interpret study results. ............................ 108 xi Figure 16. Moderate (reddish orange) and high (orange) archaeological potential zones and registered archaeological sites (red) as observed on RAAD (August 2, 2024) in the sntsk’il’ntən (Black Mountain) region .......................................................................................................... 111 xii Acknowledgements I live, recreate, study, and work in the unceded and occupied territory of the syilx Nation which informs my responsibility to learn about, respect, and uphold syilx knowledges, laws, rights, and practices. This research marks part of my work to uphold that responsibility and to advocate for disciplinary change to uphold the rights of my friends, colleagues, and collaborators. I acknowledge that while I am the listed sole author of this research it has been shaped by many voices. I am grateful to the many days of survey with Jasmine Peone and the long discussions about plants, the landscape, and rants about the government. To Pamela and Grouse Barnes for sharing their wisdom and welcoming me into their home. To my friend Zena, for challenging me every day we work together to push beyond the ‘standard’ to broaden how I practice archaeology in more inclusive ways. I am grateful to my research team for the help in shaping my ideas and forming this document. To Nancy Bonneau for providing support and guidance while working so tirelessly at the Archaeology Office. To my supervisor, Neha Gupta, for her endless kindness and support – your mentorship continues to shape me to be a better person and archaeologist. To my committee members, Christine Schreyer and Eldon Yellowhorn for their insights and questions. To my partner Carmyn for always being there to encourage and support me during coursework and in writing. To my friends Dr. Nick Waber and Megan Harris for their humour and encouragement to return to school and to grow. And to the countless others that have helped me. limləmt and thank you to everyone. xiii Dedication To Carmyn, for always challenging me to grow as a person. You are and will always be my teammate. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction Westbank First Nation and the syilx peoples have rights and interests in archaeology and cultural heritage, including the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their culture, including archaeological and historical sites, and artifacts. Yet, there is no clear guidance in extant provincial law to balance the interests of Canadian archaeologists with the aspirations of Indigenous people for a role as stewards of the archaeological record, which embodies their heritage. Moreover, Canadian archaeologists often express support for First Nations, such as Westbank First Nation, that wish to contribute their knowledge for public policy directives. Thus, assessing the role of industry, represented by Cultural Resource Management (CRM), and data governance, now that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is codified into law, will be central to this thesis. stqáʔtkʷɬniw̓t sqilxʷ, or Westbank First Nation (Westbank), is a self-governing syilx nation and is one of eight members of the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA), which includes the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington state. Westbank’s Area of Responsibility is in the Okanagan Valley in the southern interior of British Columbia. Westbank’s self-governing agreement with the federal government provides the community greater legal and political autonomy over its reserve lands, which were previously fully governed by the Indian Act and under federal jurisdiction. Westbank maintains a dedicated Archaeology Office under its Title and Rights department and has laws and policies that prescribe the manner of interacting with Westbank’s cultural heritage on its lands. Currently, the Indian Act (1876-present) is the only statutory instrument allowing Indigenous people to manage their cultural heritage under reserve lands and is limited in its application in policy making, heritage protection, and supporting self-determination (Yellowhorn, 1999). This situation is changing. In 2019, the province of British Columbia became the first province to codify the UN Declaration into law and in 2021, the federal government followed suit. Ostensibly, Indigenous Peoples’ have rights to their cultural heritage, including archaeological sites. They also have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and to maintain, protect, and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their culture (Article 11(1)), to participate in decision-making matters which would affect their rights (Article 18), and the right to maintain, control, and develop their cultural heritage (Article 31). Enacting 2 or implementing these rights in archaeology is an on-going process and typically occurs at an individual level. While this is an important start, it does not address systemic issues in archaeological and cultural heritage management practices. Nor can Indigenous people use it as a shield against the development plans of governments and industry, especially when terrain altering activities (e.g., mining, forestry, and real estate development) constitute a greater economic ‘good’ for the country. Indigenous Data Governance (IDG) creates space for Indigenous peoples in research and enables their control over its outcomes. IDG draws directly from and is a way to implement the UN Declaration by situating Indigenous jurisdiction over data use, management, and curation of cultural heritage as a fundamental human right for Indigenous Peoples. It is a transdisciplinary research framework that centers “control of data, data ecosystems, data science, and data narratives” to focus on collective benefit and equity for Indigenous peoples (Carroll et al., 2020, p. 2). The data ecosystem refers to the infrastructure, architecture, analytics, and applications that are used to collect, process, analyze, store, and present data (Demchenko et al., 2013). IDG fundamentally recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have been historically and systemically excluded from deriving equitable benefits from research that Canadian scholars carry out in their nations and communities. Such researchers had career plans as their motive, and so, they presented the data they collected and analyzed to benefit themselves regardless of the harm brought to the subjects of study. In light of these lived experiences, the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) developed and promoted the CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) Principles for Indigenous data governance, which seek to transform Indigenous Peoples and communities “from subjects of data that perpetuate unequal power distributions to self-determining users of data” (Carroll et al., 2020, p. 2). The principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession) developed by the First Nations Information Governance Centre (2016) and CARE, developed by GIDA, assert that Indigenous communities have control over data collection processes, and they own and control how this information can be used and re-used. Archaeologists interact with Indigenous heritage sites, objects, and data, and IDG offers a framework for the ethical and equitable sharing of benefits of research and reconnecting archaeological information with Indigenous communities with the intent to support community governance of cultural heritage. Until recently, the integration of IDG into archaeological practice 3 has been limited but is gaining traction (Gupta, Bonneau, et al., 2022; Gupta et al., 2020, 2023; Gupta, Nicholas, et al., 2022; Kansa et al., 2021; Laluk et al., 2022). Growing numbers of commercial archaeologists are interested in these efforts (Connaughton & Herbert, 2017; Gupta et al., 2023; Lyons et al., 2022). Commercial archaeology consists of contract-based archaeological studies or assessments typically conducted within a legislative framework. In the province of British Columbia, commercial archaeologists participate in the ‘natural resource’ economy by conducting archaeological impact assessments or archaeological mitigation studies under the direction of the province and in coordination with First Nations. Commercial archaeologists typically work in private sector firms referred to as Cultural Resource Management companies. Such employers hire the vast majority of archaeology graduates in Canada (Ferris & Welch, 2014). Profit-driven firms generally seek expediency and efficiency in the completion of their contracts to optimize financial benefits of the corporations and consultancies that are contracted and for their clients. In such situations, Indigenous people’s interests are perceived as standing in the way of land development activities (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000). Unless corrected, these perspectives will maintain systemic barriers to Indigenous archaeologists’ equal participation in archaeology and will foster distrust between Indigenous Peoples and the archaeologists that work within their territories. 1.1 Research Questions My research project takes an innovative approach by bringing the principles of the UN Declaration and Indigenous Data Governance to bear upon digital and commercial archaeology. As noted above, the UN Declaration reaffirms the rights of Indigenous Peoples to ownership of their heritage, which includes information about the land, resources, traditional and cultural information, cultural sites, and belongings (UN Declaration, 2007). Three key questions guide my research regarding the use and management of archaeological data: 1) How is archaeological data currently collected, managed, thought about, and assessed within the Westbank First Nation’s Area of Responsibility? 2) How does the provincial data ecosystem align with the OCAP® and CARE principles and with the Westbank First Nation’s cultural protocols around heritage? 3) How do existing provincial cultural heritage management policies and practices align with those of Westbank First Nation? 4 By exploring these questions, I seek to examine current professional practices that distance the Westbank First Nation from full participation and control over the process of archaeology. At present, the Crown’s interests are reflected in provincial legislation and policies that define Indigenous heritage as an extractable resource, which commodifies it and integrates it into the province’s resource economy. This in turn, alienates the Westbank community from their own heritage, protections and protocols associated with heritage data and the processes of archaeology. An IDG framework begins to challenge the motivations of commercial archaeology. While regulatory compliance governs archaeological practice, there is room to define benefits for community partners and build long-term relationships of trust. This enables research that strengthens connections to heritage and advances local efforts to assert control over it. Archaeologists also become cognizant of their responsibility when conducting research or fulfilling a contractual relationship. When in alignment with IDG, commercial archaeology is an instrument that Westbank can use to reclaim syilx knowledge and data. They can wield it to resist the colonially imposed systems and reorient community interests to emphasize their long-term existence in the Okanagan (Westbank First Nation, 2024). Three major events have influenced the development of this research. First, in the spring of 2020 the United Nation’s World Health Organization declared the global COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in Canadian government bodies enacting social distancing measures, vaccination programs, and travel restrictions. COVID-19 drew attention to troubled relationships between Indigenous Peoples and medical professionals, particularly regarding their data (Carroll et al., 2021; Power et al., 2020). Second, on May 27, 2021, Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc presented findings from a geophysical survey at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School revealing the presence of 215 geophysical anomalies consistent with human burials (Dickson & Watson, 2021). This public report is commonly called “215” signifying unmarked graves of Le Estcwicwéy1 – the 1 This term specifically refers to the missing children identified within the grounds of the Kamloops Indian Residential School and has been used by media (Aylward, 2022; Hemens, 2024) and by some organizations (Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, 2022) across Canada to broadly signify the missing children at other residential schools and may not be universally appropriate. Indigenous Peoples across Canada describe their communities experience of the Indian Residential School System and their missing children in their own words and languages. The Kamloops Indian Residential School was one of the largest such ‘schools’ in Canada and forcibly held children from the Secwépemc, syilx, and Stá̓ti̓mc nations as well as Indigenous children from communities in other provinces (National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, 2024). 5 Secwepemctsín term for “the missing” children identified at the former residential school in Kamloops on Tk‘emlúpsemc territory. Since then, many more First Nations across Canada have begun the painful process of bringing attention to their children and each report has drawn considerable local and international media attention. First Nations across Canada work in close collaboration with each other (National Advisory Committee, 2023), researchers (Montgomery & Supernant, 2022; Wadsworth et al., 2021), and international organizations (Amato, 2024) at former residential schools to locate the Le Estcwicwéy (the missing children), with the potential of returning them to their communities and families. Since the initial announcement, residential school denialism across Canada has grown, and groups of Canadians have attacked efforts to document and recover the missing children. Denying narratives of the maltreatment seeks to diminish the experience of survivors, and minimizes the role of Church officials and Canadian governments in systemic racism and cultural genocide (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015, p. 1). As such, denialists typically dismiss the geophysical findings (Supernant & Carleton, 2022), and deny the existence of graves (Frogner, 2023). These actions obscure and subvert the responsibility of Canadian institutions to respond to the TRC’s Calls to Action. In one grievous example, denialists attempted to conduct unauthorized excavations in Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc to ‘disprove’ geophysical findings (Wyton, 2023). This reveals the pervasiveness of anti-Indigenous racism and its dismissal of persistent, extant colonialism across Canada. Continuing efforts to identify the missing children and inform their relatives has influenced how Indigenous peoples engage with researchers. Nancy Bonneau of the Westbank First Nations Archaeology Office (WFNAO) shared that the discoveries on the campus of the Kamloops Indian Residential School affirmed the importance of the inclusion of Indigenous voices in Western research practices. This approach highlighted how Indigenous communities consider research and its benefits (personal communication, December 20, 2023). Furthermore, the search for lost children is influencing the practice of archaeology in Canada. For example, the Canadian Archaeological Association has established a working group to provide resources to advise and offer support to community-led investigations. Researchers increasingly draw attention to shifts in the discipline’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, wherein archaeology is a platform to consider restorative social justice (Montgomery & Supernant, 2022; Wadsworth et al., 2021). 6 Third, in 2019, the British Columbia government became the first province in Canada to start the process of incorporating the UN Declaration into provincial law. Yet, as my research will show, current efforts fall short and underestimate the rights and interests of Indigenous governments in ownership and governance of cultural heritage (Carroll et al., 2020) and knowledge generation from digital archaeological heritage (Kansa et al., 2021). However, reorienting archaeology within the IDG framework can help address these issues and operationalize the UN Declaration in archaeological practice. IDG shifts Indigenous Peoples from being objects of study to active contributors, data stewards, innovators, and policy makers within the data ecosystem (Carroll et al., 2020). Indigenous Data Governance must consider two concurrent issues that define the ambit of their discussions. First, Indigenous Peoples use systems which uphold community-specific protocols to ensure that data collected by, and for them remain connected with their community and assert their control through data protections and permissions or through data use and data sharing agreements. Second, scholars, government agents, and corporations must reconnect Indigenous Peoples to the data they have generated, stored, and curated that are used during decision making. When data are collected without Indigenous participation or are used to make policies that impact Indigenous Peoples, scholars, governments, and corporations must take steps to reconnect them with data collected about them. 1.2. Background The syilx Nation considers me kʷúkʷaʔ (an outsider) even though I have worked closely with their archaeologists over the past five years. As a kʷúkʷaʔ, my knowledge, experiences, and interpretations are coded according to my own Western cultural upbringing, and I must consciously challenge these perspectives to understand my position within a research relationship (Wilson, 2008). This creates space for me to listen, reflect, and learn from the perspectives of syilx peoples as I collaborate with them. I recognize that my role as an outsider means that not all information is appropriate for me to hear and analyze and that the knowledge shared with me was done so with trust that it will be respected. Maintaining this trust is part of my accountability to my research partners. My experience positions me to critically examine the process of commercial archaeology in BC. Thus, my work with syilx colleagues aids their efforts and to offers reflection on their experiences on the problematic nature of the discipline and how it impacts their community. My reflection on syilx perspectives is a necessary step to develop ways to enact and build on current disciplinary shifts. 7 1.3. stqáʔtkʷɬniw̓ t sqilxʷ (Westbank First Nation) and the syilx Nation Westbank is a self-governing syilx Nation and is one of eight members of the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA), which includes the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington state. Westbank has its own administration, and the cities of West Kelowna and Kelowna are within its Area of Responsibility. As a result, these municipalities and other organizations require coordination with Westbank when projects such as land development and watershed protection and other earth-moving activities arise. The University of British Columbia’s (UBC) Okanagan campus is also located within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility and the institution has a Memorandum of Understanding with the ONA (The University of British Columbia, 2023a). This agreement creates space for educational and research opportunities between UBC Okanagan and member communities of the ONA. The Westbank First Nations Archaeology Office (WFNAO) has an on-going project with UBC Okanagan researchers (Bonneau & Gupta, 2023; The University of British Columbia, 2023b). Westbank’s Area of Responsibility is located east of the province’s major financial, urban, and research centers (Figure 1). Political focus, financial investment, and researchers within public institutions can guide policy and research programs that influence legislative development to emphasize the interests of coastal First Nations. These interests do not necessarily reflect the interests of other nations and can contribute to pan-Indigenous conceptualizations (Minet, 2021); I return to this concept throughout this thesis. The WFNAO is part of the Title and Rights Department of the Nation and supports the referral process for any such development projects, which includes archaeological assessment specific to land development projects within its Area of Responsibility. The WFNAO maintains and manages archaeological data collected on reserve lands. Westbank’s community values and priorities are integrated into assessments conducted within its Area of Responsibility. This study will focus on archaeological practice and data systems in Westbank’s “Area of Responsibility within the syilx (Okanagan) territory” (Westbank First Nation, 2024). Most of 8 Westbank’s Area of Responsibility is situated within lands under provincial jurisdiction commonly referred to as ‘Crown’ land. Figure 1. Westbank First Nation’s Area of Responsibility within the syilx Traditional Territory is in the Southern Interior region of British Columbia. It is east of the dense urban, economic, academic, and administrative centers such as Vancouver and Victoria, located in the province’s southwest coast. While major economic centers (West Kelowna and Kelowna) and one research institution (UBC Okanagan) are within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility, most universities are located within the Capital Regional District and the Metro Vancouver area. (1. Thompson Rivers University; 2. University of British Columbia, Okanagan; 3. University of British Columbia, Vancouver; 4. Simon Fraser University; 5. Capilano University; 6. University of Victoria; 7. University of Northern British Columbia; 8. Kwantlen Polytechnic University; 9. Vancouver Island University; 10. University of the Fraser Valley). This means that Westbank has fewer opportunities to engage with researchers within its Area of Responsibility while First Nations in Metro Vancouver have more opportunities. This can influence how and where research is conducted across the province. 1.3.1 Westbank’s Self-Governing Agreement Westbank’s membership ratified a self-governing agreement on May 24, 2003, and implemented it on April 1, 2005. This agreement establishes Westbank as a legal entity, with the “capacity, rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person” and provides Westbank with the power to govern itself and to enter agreements with other levels of government “concerning 9 delivery of programs and services on Westbank Lands” (Westbank First Nation, 2003). Under this agreement, Westbank may establish its own laws, a constitution, and determine its own membership. Westbank’s Self-Governing Agreement is made without prejudice to other syilx nations and Westbank maintains its position as a member of the Okanagan Nation Alliance. This agreement pertains to Westbank’s relationship with the federal government and applies only to Westbank’s reserve lands, yet, as heritage can be both movable and immovable, management and definitions of Westbank’s heritage may be subject to both provincial and federal legislation. My thesis argues that Westbank must remain the rightful steward of its own cultural heritage, regardless of its current resting place. This perspective challenges colonial power structures within cultural heritage legislation that situate the state as the arbiter of a Nation’s ‘cultural affiliation’. Rather, the Westbank First Nation can assert community sovereignty over their objects, data, and knowledge regardless of where they are kept (Laluk et al., 2022; Tsosie, 2000, 2020). In the self-governing agreement, Westbank established protocols on the management of natural resources and its heritage. Contrary to Canadian governments, Westbank does not define its heritage as a non-renewable resource. Rather, Westbank asserts its jurisdiction over the “preservation, promotion, and development of Okanagan culture and language” including the management of sites, locations of spiritual and religious significance, and its “sacred connection with Okanagan artifacts regardless of whether such artifacts are held by Westbank First Nation or by Canada” (Westbank First Nation, 2005, pp. 41–42) (Figure 2). The Self-Government Agreement (2005) outlines that Canada is to make reasonable efforts to repatriate, establish custodial relationships, and identify Westbank’s belongings held at federal repositories such as the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now called the Canadian Museum of History). The Agreement notes that the Canadian state will make “efforts to facilitate Westbank First Nation’s access to Okanagan artifacts held in other public or private collections” (2005, p. 42). However, activating this phrase is vague as no explicit processes or practices related to access are outlined by Canada or by Westbank within this agreement. Moreover, it did not anticipate digital heritage data, but within its ambit, Westbank has jurisdiction and authority to define its heritage and the protection of both tangible and intangible heritage. 10 Figure 2. Excerpt from the WFN Self-Government Agreement indicating Westbank’s jurisdiction over Culture and Language (Westbank First Nation, 2005, p. 41). 1.3.2 Heritage Caretaking in Westbank’s Area of Responsibility Westbank considers “cultural materials, areas of historical significance, cultural gathering sites, sacred and spiritual sites, medicinal plants, traditional foods, and traditional use areas” in its definition of cultural heritage (Westbank First Nation, 2018). On December 15, 2022, Westbank Chief and Council approved its On-Reserve Archaeology Directive, which builds on the 2018 iteration that articulated procedures for heritage management across its Area of Responsibility (Westbank First Nation, 2018, 2022). Under the 2022 directive, Westbank expanded its heritage investigation permitting process to enable decision-making about field-methods. The WFNAO is the place to submit reports, and it authorizes analyses as needed, for example extracting samples from identified remains. It reserves the right to refuse activities that are counter to its interests, for example disturbing the burial places of səsʕaws (ancient ancestors). Further, all recovered heritage 11 materials are to be held within the Sncəwips Heritage Museum and Repository and Westbank will maintain its own electronic database of these collections. Under the directive, Westbank asserts ownership over all archaeological research and data (i.e., all reports, records, field notes, pictures, maps, and other information) (Westbank First Nation, 2022, p. 19). This directive is limited to lands under the self-government agreement, yet it highlights Westbank’s rights and interest in control over research and decision-making, its ownership, possession of, and control over Westbank’s cultural heritage data and objects. In other words, Westbank has made Indigenous Data Governance integral in the management of cultural heritage. As such, this thesis argues that to uphold Westbank’s rights and interests, archaeologists should respect the Westbank On-Reserve Directive throughout Westbank’s Area of Responsibility, not simply on reserve lands. However, this is not how commercial archaeologists currently operate, and this divergent understanding of the situation will be discussed in depth in subsequent chapters. 1.4. Project History Westbank archaeologists have expressed to my supervisor, Dr. Neha Gupta, as well as to me, deep interests in generating, analyzing, and sharing knowledge about their heritage, ancestors, and ancestral lands using digital methods and tools. Prior to this research, my relationship with the WFNAO, and with syilx peoples, was in commercial archaeology. During this period, I worked for a local consulting firm, first as a field-based supervisor, and eventually as a project manager. I engaged in archaeological fieldwork with Westbank archaeologists and would actively listen to the frustrations and challenges they faced and the obstacles in the way of their recognition as experts on their own culture and history. These connections with field archaeologists grew into lasting friendships. My relationship with the WFNAO was initially transactional and defined by the consulting firm, by client requirements, and by project budgets. Such constraints hampered my interests in closer collaboration and in engaging in the self-reflexive research practices that were part of my undergraduate degree. While requests internal to the consulting firm for greater collaboration or more comprehensive research practices were never ‘rejected’ outright, they were always hedged with the caveat of ‘when the appropriate project comes up.’ This is a phrase commonly known amongst commercial archaeologists, which typically means that when ‘best practices’ are in the financial interest of the firm, they will be considered, but that these practices can increase risk for contract competitiveness. I soon realized that collaborative research practices are not business as usual. So, in the fall of 2021, I enrolled in graduate studies to begin working 12 with Dr. Neha Gupta who maintains a reciprocal research relationship with the WFNAO. Through my graduate research I participated and interacted with them in a manner unknown in the consulting milieu. Academia allows me greater latitude to explore my personal and professional connections, but my emphasis and focus are on the community. I have worked on hundreds of commercial archaeological assessments, and I have observed practices in commercial archaeology that prioritize corporate interests over those of Indigenous communities. Developers hire consulting firms to conduct impact assessments, so they own the final report and are not obligated to share their data with anyone but the provincial government, which means consistent and complete participation in archaeological analyses and reporting is at best aspirational (Connaughton and Herbert 2017). Archaeological assessments are a key part of the provincial regulatory framework assisting industry, since land disturbances are part of the extractive activities of construction, oil, gas, mining, and forestry companies (Province of British Columbia, n.d.). Since consulting firms are contractors that serve a clientele that pays them to do the impact assessment, they typically underestimate the rights of Indigenous Peoples and their perspectives on heritage. For example, one approach First Nations employ in heritage management, promotes collaboration in an effort “to protect [heritage sites] and use them in a manner that respects and honours [their] traditions, values, and laws” (Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, 2013, p. 13). Indigenous Peoples must have equal participation and decision-making about any archaeological assessment that occurs in their lands. While the province has a duty to consult and many archaeologists include First Nations cultural monitors on their projects, these actions typically relate to the field-based components of an assessment. The process of archaeology involves research design, planning, archival research, data collection through the application of field and analytical methods used to understand human cultural behavior, the interpretation of archaeological data, the preparation of reports, the management and sharing of data and communication of archaeological knowledge. Variations in how data are collected, documented, and described (i.e., metadata) require significant scholarly effort and digital skills to ‘tidy’ such data and make them machine readable and re-usable, which can create a barrier to ethical data use and long-term curation (Gupta, 2020, p. 24). Community technical training and capacity development relies on investment from First Nations and individual archaeologists and is not a requirement of commercial practice. Accordingly, my research originated in conversation and in coordination with the WFNAO. My 13 goal is to better understand the perspectives of Westbank archaeologists and syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap (Elders) and Knowledge Keepers about their heritage. My role is to use my expertise to identify the challenges and opportunities for Westbank as they develop practices, processes and policies, so they can reap the benefits of archaeological research. 1.5. Situating Self in the Research I am a Euro-Canadian male settler born and raised in the unceded territories of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam Nation), the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish Nation), and the səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh Nation) in what is now known as Vancouver, British Columbia. I had the privilege to achieve a university education and to build a career without experiencing racial or cultural barriers to my success and as a white, male I continue to benefit from these systems disproportionately from my colleagues (Hunter & van der Westhuizen, 2021). Redressing these systems to balance its benefits with those who are disadvantaged under it continues to be a professional and personal objective. I was educated at Capilano and Simon Fraser universities between 2009 and 2013 in archaeology where I received training from Indigenous and settler scholars, who emphasized the importance of honest collaboration, ethics, methodological rigor, and the political nature of archaeology (Wylie, 2019). These values were affirmed through my coursework, my undergraduate capstone project, and in my involvement in undergraduate student societies. I carry these values into my professional career as an archaeologist. As a commercial archaeologist, I have had the opportunity to work throughout British Columbia, and I apply honesty, trust, and respect in my professional practice. In 2021, I was elected as an executive of the British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists (BCAPA). I continue to hold this position, which has led me to a deeper connection to the professional community and to provincial regulatory agencies while providing me opportunities to explore inequities and power imbalances in the local commercial archaeological community. In 2021, I co-designed a study seeking to document and identify gender-based wage inequity within the commercial archaeological sector in BC. My research collaborators, Megan Harris and Jeffey Wilson and I analyzed the survey results, which showed an overall 8.54% inequity between male and female respondents (British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists, 2022a). This study examined the perception of gender bias where women have fewer professional and economic opportunities and experience barriers in commercial 14 archaeology when compared with their male counterparts. Respondents in the study relayed their frustrations with the challenges encountered by the commercial archaeological community. In 2022, I took over as chair of the BCAPA Reports Committee, which is mandated to reproduce and expand upon this study on a biennial basis. In 2023, the survey was expanded, and redistributed to explore inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous, and Persons of Colour and 2SLGBTQIA+ archaeologists. Redressing practices and systems that are barriers to equitable and fair collaboration or participation in the profession is central to my interests in practicing a constructive, rather than destructive, archaeology. 1.6. Contextualizing Research Concepts Research requires the clear and consistent use of language, terms, and definitions to be effectively communicated. Archaeologists typically use terms such as culture, heritage, artifact, and archeological site2 to identify, differentiate, and define places, peoples, customs, and beliefs. How these terms are used, understood, and defined is as important as is who defines them. During the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (‘the World Heritage Convention’) in 1972 in Paris, France (UNESCO, 1972), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the term cultural heritage to refer to the tangible monuments, groups of buildings, or sites with “outstanding universal value” (UNESCO, 1972). Subsequently, in 2003 UNESCO’s definition of cultural heritage was expanded to include both tangible and intangible elements through the adoption of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Following the 1972 convention, UNESCO established the World Heritage Committee which, between 2002 and 2007, adopted five strategic objectives aimed to (1) strengthen the credibility of the World Heritage List, (2) to support global cultural and natural heritage conservation, (3) to promote capacity building measures for states seeking access to the World Heritage List, (4) to increase public awareness for world heritage, and (5) to enhance the role of communities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 2024). The World Heritage List privileges locations of ‘outstanding universal value’ but participation is restricted to only UN member states. Vrdoljak (2018, p. 13) notes that UNESCOs policies and guidelines have, and 2Following Muntean et al (2015) and Schaepe et al (2017), throughout this thesis, cultural belonging or objects will replace the term ‘artifact’ and archaeological sites will be referred to as ‘sites.’ These terms will be inclusive of the tangible and intangible elements of heritage. 15 continue to, privilege the role of states and exclude Indigenous peoples from participation in decision-making over their cultural heritage, which limits the ability to fully realize Article 41 of the UN Declaration. Access to, and participation with culture is enshrined in Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a nation-state-oriented declaration which states that “everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” Who holds these rights is important as this declaration gives authority to recognized nation-states to exercise and protect these rights. Article 1 of same declaration states “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity in rights.” Yet, this declaration does not recognize differences in power, especially in settler-colonial societies that dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their lands and rights. The UN Declaration addresses this tension by taking a community-centered perspective to Indigenous rights and self-determination so that Indigenous People do not rely on a nation-state (e.g., Canada) to recognize or assert Indigenous rights. Marie Battiste and James (Sakej) Youngblood (2000, p.60) state that “by denying dignity, equality, and respect to Indigenous peoples, colonialism has created a violent world” and Gupta, Bonneau, and Elvidge (2022) indicate that the failure to recognize the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ of colonized Indigenous Peoples distances these groups from asserting their self-determination. Specific protocols for protecting and recognizing Indigenous heritage emerged in 1995 with the UN Economic and Social Council’s report on the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous Peoples, although the fundamental human rights of Indigenous Peoples were not formalized until 2007 with the adoption of the UN Declaration. The UN Declaration was initially rejected by four settler-colonial states: Canada, the United States, Australia, and Aotearoa/New Zealand and was not formally recognized by Canada until 2021. Gupta et al (2022, p. 629) describe how these developments “reflect the pervasive nature of Eurocentrism and racism within international institutions.” 1.6.1 Criticality of Colonial Language Opaskwayak Cree scholar Greg Younging notes that “the paramount purpose of literature focusing on a specific cultural group should be to present the culture in a realistic and insightful manner” arguing that literature about Indigenous peoples fails to do this (2018, p. 1). Younging (2018, p. 1) suggests that this failure is a result of a colonial practice of transmitting 16 “information” about Indigenous peoples rather than their perspectives about themselves - a practice influenced by early anthropologists and colonial agents (Trigger, 1980). In other words, language should uplift the perspectives of Indigenous peoples using their own words and narratives rather than imposing outsider terminology and perspectives. Following Younging (2018), syilx terms will be used throughout this research to refer to the practices, places, and terms to denote the specific application of this research to syilx peoples. ‘syilx’ (nsyilxcən speaking persons and Okanagan people and territory) or ‘sqilxw’ (an Indigenous person) are intentionally presented in their uncapitalized version as in nsyilxcən, all voices – not just human voices – are unique and have value and humans are not central to a syilx worldview (Johnson, 2012). Internationally, Indigenous Peoples is a legal term that is not formally defined by the United Nations as under the UN Declaration “self-identification as Indigenous is a fundamental criterion” and that Indigenous Peoples have the “right to determine their own identity or membership” (United Nations, 2024). This term generally includes the culturally and socially distinct “groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy, or from which they have been displaced” (The World Bank, 2024). In the Canadian context, the use of Indigenous Peoples refers to all First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples collectively, while Indigenous peoples refers to the collective of people who identify as Indigenous (Younging, 2018). Yellowhorn (1993, pp. 107–109) notes that the commodification of Indigenous heritage emerged from the discipline’s role in the colonial formation of Canada through the incorporation of culture “into a resource dependent economy” and that “[just] as the colonial enterprise in North America marginalized the Indians in their own country, the colonization of the past has served to marginalize them in their own history.” Therefore, under the provincial CRM model, Indigenous peoples are distanced from their cultural heritage. In light of this Euro-Canadian colonial structure and with a view to problematize colonial conceptualizations as noted above, I will refer to the sector as commercial archaeology and the ‘resources’ as cultural objects or belongings or sites of descendant communities (Muntean et al., 2015; Schaepe et al., 2017). Muntean et al (2015, p. 60) note that this reframing “emphasize[s] the continuity of intangible forms of knowledge that are intrinsically connected to belongings”. Schaepe et al (2017) argue this reframing can therapeutically reconnect the past to the present in situations where this connection has been severed. This critical understanding provides an opportunity to reflect on 17 the use of language by Western archaeologists and draws attention to their ideas about Indigenous peoples and their rights and connection to their cultural heritage. 1.7 Chapter Progression This chapter has introduced three key concepts that guide the remainder of this thesis: first, that Indigenous Peoples, specifically, the Westbank First Nation, have the right to control the process of archaeology to support community governance and foster cultural revitalization; second, that Indigenous Data Governance provides a framework to enact these interests by directing the methodological and epistemological focus of commercial archaeology to align with Westbank First Nation’s rights and interests; and third, that archaeology is an inherently political and commercialized tool used by the colonial state to legitimize its interests, which acts to perpetuate oppressive colonial experiences for Indigenous peoples. I have presented the guiding research questions for this study, which aim to weave together these concepts and begin to identify pathways forward for commercial archaeologists. In chapter 2, I contextualize the discipline of archaeology’s relationship with Indigenous peoples in the Canadian context. Through an examination of the Indian Act, I present the development of cultural heritage management practices in Canada to show how these practices continue to distance Indigenous peoples from their heritage and create tensions between Indigenous peoples and the Crown. Then, I reflect upon the state of commercial archaeology in the era of the UN Declaration and the province of British Columbia’s recognition of its colonial history in heritage management. In chapter 3, I present the strategies of inquiry that shaped my research process and how I applied these strategies to work with syilx Knowledge Keepers, ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap (Elders), and archaeologists to begin to present syilx perspectives on heritage, archaeology, and how these differ from commercial archaeological perspectives. I describe my research methodology, and I present the results of focus group discussions, interviews, and an anonymous survey that were collaboratively designed with the WFNAO to gain insights into the practices of commercial and syilx archaeologists working within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. Chapter 4 then applies these insights to critically evaluate the provincial heritage data ecosystem and explores the systemic barriers that inhibit Westbank’s control over the management of its heritage and data. I examine the accessibility of key components of the 18 provincial heritage ecosystem to show that it is intentionally structured to support the management of archaeological ‘resources’ under its ministerial mandate rather than to facilitate Westbank’s control and access to cultural knowledge. This maintains a colonially imposed system where its legislative framework, and by extension, digital infrastructure are intentionally designed to prioritize state interests above Indigenous rights and interests. In chapter 5, I examine the development of Indigenous Data Governance principles and their relationship to digital archaeological praxis to show how conversations in North American archaeology regarding data (re)use, quality, and access have historically, and continue to, largely exclude and underestimate Indigenous voices and interests in control over their data. I will provide an example of how archaeological data are maintained by the province and how they are used in decision-making within state-imposed management systems. This example presents Westbank’s opposition to the province’s on-going use of these data. This reflects provincial aims to “assist the development industry” despite growing concerns about its impacts to Indigenous people’s values (Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, 2013, p. 13). Chapter 6 concludes with a research summary and examines the on-going initiatives of the WFNAO in creating community connections to and control over syilx heritage and how commercial archaeologists working within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility can support community governance of archaeological information. I discuss the ways in which individuals, institutions, corporations, and governments can begin to integrate a syilx-informed IDG framework to redirect the benefits of archaeology towards syilx peoples. Through this, I discuss how practicing archaeology in ways that prioritize the short to long-term community benefits of research is a responsibility of all researchers, including commercial archaeologists, and how these responsibilities can transform disciplinary practices. 19 Chapter 2: Legislation, Heritage Policy, and Commercial Archaeology in British Columbia Archaeology is used to completely disregard the fact that we’re sovereign. This is occupied territory. And… archaeology gives them [Canada] the… pretense… that they’ve done something that then makes it okay [to] go through and absolutely obliterate our existence: past, present, and future. Pamela Barnes, syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and Knowledge Keeper (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:30:43). In 2019, the province of British Columbia became the first Canadian jurisdiction to begin the process of bringing provincial law into alignment with the UN Declaration (UN Declaration, 2007). On June 21, 2021 the Government of Canada recognized the UN Declaration with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Canada, 2021), fourteen years after Canada and three other settler-colonial states (Aotearoa/New Zealand, Australia, and the United States) rejected the initial United Nations Resolution. Western archaeologists continue to grapple with archaeology’s colonial foundations (Atalay, 2006; Trigger, 1980), and its relationship with Indigenous Peoples is central in reflecting upon and changing archaeological practice (Ferris & Welch, 2014; Gupta, Bonneau, et al., 2022; Gupta et al., 2020; Hogg et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2022; Martindale et al., 2016; Welch & Ferris, 2014; Wylie, 2019). As Pamela Barnes, syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap (Elder) and Knowledge Keeper describes in the quote above, syilx peoples feel their sovereignty is dismissed by Canadian archaeologists and that the discipline is part of a deliberate colonial agenda to assert Crown interests and diminish syilx physical existence in the past, present and future. Canadian protection and preservation of Indigenous heritage draws from two related Euro-centric ideas: first, that Indigenous peoples are diminishing communities, and they therefore must be documented before their traces are ‘lost’ entirely; and second, that Indigenous communities themselves are not capable or do not have the capacity to care for their heritage. Bruce Trigger, a Euro-Canadian archaeologist and theorist, notes that early archaeologists and anthropologists paid little attention to cultural change on a scale lesser than “one major stage to the next as from…the Neolithic to the Bronze Age” reinforcing public perceptions that Indigenous cultures had “not advanced at all” (1980, p. 664). Further, early archaeologists believed that Indigenous peoples were not interested in their early history, that they had experienced few major developmental changes and that Indigenous peoples were incapable of change (Trigger, 1980). Thus, the Canadian public typically view Indigenous 20 peoples, and by extension, their heritage as static, object-centric entities that have value as a relic or something from the past, with a minimal presence today, and an inevitable grim future (Schreyer, 2015) . Today and throughout the 20th century, Western media has popularized anti-Indigenous rhetoric through movies, television shows, and comics that conceptualize a ‘noble savage’ and on the internet through memes that work to “reveal both the existence of and violence toward the people ’missing’ [Indigenous people] in the workings of colonialism” (Frazer & Carlson, 2017, p. 9). Nation-building myths purported Canada to be a prosperous, benevolent entity that brought ‘civilization’ westward through a “gentler version of colonialism” when contrasted to practices in the United States (Chalmers, 2019; Ward, 2014, p. 3). This view continues to influence Canadian socio-politics, education systems, and national conceptualizations of what it means to be a Canadian and considers colonialism as an historic, rather than an on-going experience for Indigenous peoples (Chalmers, 2019; Chamberlain, 2021; Gurski, 2017; Schreyer, 2015). In effect, this places the responsibility of colonialism on past ‘bad actors’ and blurs public opinion surrounding present day responsibilities to reconcile and provide restitutions to Indigenous peoples. Settler historians argue that citizens are accountable for the actions of the Canadian government due to the colonial mentality of “benevolent paternalism” used to justify the dispossession of Indigenous lands (Regan, 2011, p. 4). In a 2017 speech, former-Canadian Senator Jean Lynn Beyak said that Canadian politicians had “excellent intentions” for Indigenous peoples and that the Indian Residential School System did an “abundance of good”. She further commended the “kindly and well-intentioned [settler] men and women…whose remarkable works, good deeds, and historical tales in the residential schools go unacknowledged” (Chalmers, 2019, p. 1). Beyak held the appointed position of senator between 2013 and 2021 when she retired from her position. Her opinions continue to influence a small segment of her fellow citizens. This chapter examines the contemporary relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown and the state of commercial archaeology in light of the UN Declaration, including with the province of British Columbia’s recognition of its colonial authorities in heritage management (Province of British Columbia, 2023a). I demonstrate how colonial legislation, policies, and processes continue to pervade archaeological practice and define their relationship to the 21 broader BC commercial archaeology community (e.g., practitioners, regulators), and in the development of heritage law and commercial archaeology in BC (Klassen, 2013). Canadian history is the dispossession of Indigenous peoples, and the Indian Act (first enacted in 1876), is the primary legislative tool used to control the lives of status Indians (Borrows, 2008; Steckley, 2016). It is the only statutory instrument that contemporary First Nations leadership can use to create heritage management options for Indigenous communities to protect their cultural heritage (Yellowhorn, 1999). Much scholarship exists on how the Indian Act impacts upon the lives of Indigenous families, communities and individuals (Borrows, 2008; Parrott, 2022; Steckley, 2016; Yellowhorn, 1993). My examination focuses on how the Indian Act facilitated the formation of a ‘cultural resource’ economy (Yellowhorn, 1993). After a brief overview of the Indian Act, I show that Crown interests in control over cultural heritage are maintained through legislation and policy that continue to cause harm to Indigenous peoples by dispossessing and disconnecting First Nations from their cultural heritage. Yet, this situation is changing as growing numbers of First Nations negotiate self-governance agreements with the Canadian federal government and are asserting their rights to archaeology and heritage management through on-reserve policies. 2.1 The Indian Act The Indian Act received royal assent in 1876 and continues to be the principal law used by Canadian governments to interfere, sever and manage Indigenous people’s identities, lives, livelihoods, families and communities, as well as their languages, cultures, cultural heritage, knowledges and lands and waters (Borrows, 2008; Parrott, 2022; Steckley, 2016; Yellowhorn, 1993). Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act (1867) empowered the Canadian federal state to assign ‘Indian status’ through the Indian Act so as to administer Indigenous peoples. “Indian” as defined by the Indian Act, refers to “a person who pursuant to [the] Act is registered as an Indian or is entitled to be registered as an Indian;” registration and eligibilities are detailed in Sections 5 to 17 of the Act. Crucially, ‘Indian’ is vaguely defined and subject to the Crown’s determination. This means that Indigenous peoples do not administer Indian status, nor do they define the terms of registration as ‘Indian’ or their rights under this status. Moreover, the Indian Act was “purposely designed to assimilate us [Indigenous peoples]. It is meant to sever the generations. The Act is working its purpose through provisions concerning land, elections, memberships, and education” (Borrows, 2008, p. 2). 22 Canadian cultural hegemony anticipated the assimilation of Indigenous men, women, and children into the body politic, and the Indian Act was the legal vehicle to reach that outcome (Table 1). Its amendments have attacked and supplanted the natural autonomy of Indigenous peoples, while imposing Canadian jurisprudence to undermine autochthonous legal practices (Borrows, 2008; The Indian Act, 2019). Table 1. Early amendments to the Indian Act were used to disenfranchise Indigenous peoples to restrict their cultural, spiritual, and social practices, and to restrict Indigenous peoples from taking legal actions against the Crown (Parrott, 2022). Later amendments were introduced to redress disenfranchisement and to transfer the authority to define community membership to individual Nations. Year Scope of Amendment 1884 Restrictions placed on religious ceremonies and introduced the potlatch ban (1884-1951) 1914 Restrictions on any festivals, dances, or ceremony 1920 Requiring Indigenous children to attend residential schools 1925 Outlawing dancing of any kind by Indigenous peoples 1927 Forbid the solicitation of funds to pursue Title and Rights negotiations 1951 Authority to revoke Indian status from children born to ‘non-status’ mothers and to directly connect an Indigenous woman’s status to that of her husband 1985 Removed all enfranchisement clauses and permitted communities to define their own membership codes 2011 Provided status rights to women and children impacted by earlier policies 2015 to 2019 Removed all known gender-based inequities from the Act Colonial officials, referred to as Indian Agents were charged with the implementation and enforcement of policies under the Indian Act and other legislation between the 1800s to the 1960s. Indian Agents were authorized to designate Indian status, to determine who belonged to a particular Band, and to govern how a status Indian could interact with their belongings, crops, or timber (Steckley, 2016, p. 4). Furthermore, they held veto powers over Band councils, resolutions, and appointments, and they approved the expenditure of a status Indian’s personal finances (which were held ‘in trust’ by the government) and determined what regalia a status Indian could wear off-reserve. In effect, Indian Agents controlled every aspect of an Indigenous person’s existence and wielded the full authority of the Crown under the Act. Euro-Canadian governments designed public policy to advance colonialism, so settlers were granted rights to occupy, settle, and develop Indigenous lands. The Indian Act stripped 23 status Indians of their agency while confining them on federally controlled ‘Indian Reserves’ where they felt the tension of the Crown’s assimilationist laws and policies (Borrows, 2008). Canadian colonial system is the true “villain” in the national historical narrative as it “rewarded those that especially believed in it” and suppressed the actions of compassionate individuals (Steckley 2016, pp. 185). A comprehensive review of the colonial experiences of Indigenous peoples in Canada is beyond the scope of this research but Sections 2.2 to 2.4 explore Canadian settler-colonialism through the lens of cultural heritage and commercial archaeology. 2.1.1 Heritage Policy Under the Indian Act The authority of Indigenous peoples to directly manage and control their cultural heritage objects and sites within reserve lands is outlined in the Indian Act. Although status Indians have right to use and occupy reserve lands, the Crown, and therefore the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in right of Canada, is the true titleholder of reserve lands. While the Indian Act asserts “reserves [are] to be held for use and benefit of Indians,” the power to control and dispose these lands is articulated under Section 18(1) which states: Reserves are held by Her Majesty [the Crown] for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band. (The Indian Act, 2019 emphasis added) Since Indigenous Peoples do not own reserve lands, managing these lands and the values contained within, including cultural heritage, is contingent on gaining approval from the federal government. While the Indian Act serves as the only means for legal heritage protection within the reserve system, those provisions are limited (Yellowhorn 1999, p. 110). For example, it requires express permissions from the Minister of Indigenous Services of Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in cases where extractive and/or construction activities result in the destruction, mutilation, desecration, and the removal of poles, houses, graves, or pictographs. Thus far, documentation of such tangible heritage is the only mode of preservation. While fruitful, local action to conserve these sites will find no guidance for the actual caretaking and appropriate use of above ground, tangible heritage on the landscape. Heritage regulations under the Indian Act reflect a bias towards the definition of Indigenous heritage as above ground or built elements, thus excluding tangible and intangible aspects of a 24 culture that may not be visible on the surface. This limits the efficacy of the Indian Act’s use as a management framework. Individual nations receive the power to establish bylaws to inventory, document, and monitor on-reserve heritage and for community councils to oversee these inventories. Yet significant power imbalances exist between Indigenous communities and Canada, which has the final say to approve bylaws passed by local councils to protect heritage sites on reserve lands. Upon review “the Indian Act may not be the ideal statute for protecting heritage sites, but, for the present, it is the only one” ( Yellowhorn 1999, p. 115). Thus, outside of comprehensive agreements, such as Nunavut, or modern treaties, such as with the Nisga’a, the Indian Act remains the only option for Indigenous Peoples to protect on-reserve cultural heritage. 2.2 The Development of Cultural Heritage Legislation in BC The province of British Columbia usurped the many traditional territories Indigenous peoples who now live on Indian reserves belonging to 203 First Nations. Consultative requirements with Métis or Inuit nations are not present in BC. Only 0.4% of the provincial landmass is classified as Indian Reserve, 5% is privately-owned, and 0.6% is managed by other federal agencies meaning that approximately 94% of the province is subject to provincial legislation and policies. Legal ordinances concerning the management of First Nations heritage predate Confederation in 1871 and were introduced when the province now known as British Columbia was still a colony of Britain. Since then, there have been four statutes in British Columbia concerning the management of Indigenous heritage objects and sites. Yet, only in 1996 did provincial lawmakers begin to consider Indigenous perspectives on heritage (Table 2). 25 Table 2. Legal statutes enacted in the province of British Columbia concerning Indigenous cultural heritage. Statutes initially focused on controlling access to Indigenous burial grounds and spiritual sites. Over time the statutes were expanded to include a broader scope and to develop a formal permitting system that authorized and controlled interactions with these sites. Statute Date Enacted Governing Agency Scope Penalties Permitting System Indian Graves Ordinance 1865 Colony of British Columbia; The Crown Limitations on the stealing or unauthorized destruction of images, bones, articles, or things associated in or near an “Indian Grave.” £100 fine or imprisonment up to 6 months No Historic Objects Preservation Act (HOPA) 1925 Lieutenant Governor in Council, Province of British Columbia “[Any] primitive figure or legend cut in or painted upon rock, or any group of such figures or legends, or any structure, or any natural object existing within the Province” $500 No Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act (AHSPA) 1960 Archaeological Sites Advisory Board, Province of British Columbia “Indian kitchen-midden; Indian shell-heap; Indian house-pit; Indian cave; other Indian habitation; cairn; mound; fortification; structure; painting or carving on rock; grave or other burial place; or other prehistoric or historic remain” Fines not more than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both fine and imprisonment. Yes Heritage Conservation Act 1979 Heritage Conservation Branch/The Archaeology Branch Objects or locations of “historic, architectural, archaeological, palaeontological or scenic significance to the Province or a municipality” whether designated or not. The crown may “order the person to restore the property to its condition prior to its alteration within a period specified in the order” Yes Heritage Conservation Act*† 1996 The Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests “Whether designated or not, land, including land covered by water, that has heritage value to British Columbia, a community or an aboriginal people” Individuals: A fine not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 2 years, or to both. Corporations: A fine not more than $1,000,000** Yes *The provincial Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project began in 2021 and intends to align the Act with the provincial DRIPA Action Plan. **Employees, officers, directors, or agents of a corporation are liable as individuals. †An administrative amendment to the HCA occurred in 2019 but did not expand the legislative scope. 26 The scope of early legislation narrowly focused on First Nations burials and “primitive figures or legends cut in or painted upon rock,” which were viewed as property of the Crown (Historic Objects Preservation Act, 1925). These views reflected cultural evolutionary thinking that dichotomized ‘primitive’ and ‘civilized’ within sociocultural hierarchies. Cultural evolutionary theories legitimated western imperialism and justified the seizure of Indigenous lands and control over the people themselves (Kuper, 2005). Thus, the classification of cultural heritage objects and art as primitive signifies them as relics of an archaic past and lesser than ‘modern art.’ Specifically, Indigenous cultural heritage was considered inferior to western art. This Euro-centric view did not consider Indigenous cultural expressions as unique and having great value to the culture that nurtured the artists (Myers, 2009). Anishinaabe-Ojibwe archaeologist Sonya Atalay argues these anthropological concepts influenced legislators, archaeologists, and anthropologists to “collect and save remnants of a dying race,” which justified “behaviors such as robbing graves, plundering battlegrounds for human skulls, and collecting, studying, and storing body parts against the will and desires of Native populations” across the Americas (2006, p. 281). Early statutes in British Columbia (1865 to 1960) established protocols for managing burials, spiritual objects, and sites, and defined penalties for non-compliance. These statutes did not establish a formal system to identify or inventory these sites and restricted interaction to sanctioned government officials. Later statutes (1960s onwards) were co-developed by scholars and expanded the scope of protected sites to include tangible cultural heritage sites and objects. Heritage management policy shifted to include advisory boards, regulatory bodies, site inventories, and permitting systems aimed at identifying areas of concern before land development activities. Initially, government-funded regional site inventory studies were conducted by academic and provincial archaeologists. Since the early 1980s, however, commercial archaeological consultants have become dominant actors in archaeology, and their focus is on location-specific impact assessments. Commercial archaeologists are mandated to collect or record any object or feature known or presumed to pre-date 18463 including lithic debitage and tools, faunal remains, culturally modified trees, cultural depressions, spiritual sites (e.g., rock art), burial locations, and earthworks. Archaeologists are not authorized to protect spiritual or cultural landscapes or locations or ‘traditional use features’ which includes gathering, 3 This date refers to the signing of the Oregon Treaty which demarcated the boundaries between the United States and the British Colony. 27 hunting, ceremonial or other locations where cultural activities occur. Their mandate does not extend beyond tangible heritage. The scope of BC heritage law is narrow and was historically limited to include cultural heritage objects and sites typical to the Pacific Northwest Coast such as cultural middens (formerly referred to as ‘shell midden’), cultural fortifications, and structures4. Current heritage policies remain object-focused but include a broader range of tangible material culture commonly identified across the province (e.g., trails, cultural object scatters, resource extraction/procurement areas, etc.). Yet, they offer limited or no protection for intangible heritage, such as ceremonial or religious sites, and songs, dances, or stories, which continue to be appropriated by the general public (Brunk & Young, 2009; Eaton & Gaskell, 2009; G. P. Nicholas & Wylie, 2009; Young & Haley, 2009). Western jurisprudence uses trademarks, privacy and trade secret laws, and contract law to manage Intellectual Property which are not designed to accommodate Indigenous intangible heritage (Paterson & Karjala, 2003). Discussion on issues related to intellectual property issues in cultural heritage are abundant in archaeological literature though few scholars focus on the legal protection of intangible cultural heritage sites (C. E. Bell et al., 2015). Indigenous heritage is subject to the interests and definitions of the Canadian state, but irregular consultation efforts act to exclude them from developments in policies and legislation directly affecting them. 2.2.1 Commercial Archaeology In BC Academics note that “over 90% of archaeological activity is undertaken as [archaeological resource management] archaeology” (Ferris et al., 2018, p. 6). Moreover, the commercial archaeology sector employs the majority of archaeology graduates and conducts most of the archaeological survey and documentation across Canada (Ferris & Welch, 2014; Hogg et al., 2017; Welch & Ferris, 2014). Yet its very definition as ‘resource management’ is problematic and underpins tensions between Indigenous peoples and the discipline of archaeology. Commercial archaeology operates within the boundaries of federal and provincial 4 Fortifications and standing structures are not exclusive archaeological features from the Northwest Coast, but these features are considerably more prevalent in this region and are well documented. Notable sites include SG̱ang Gwaay Llnagaay on Haida Gwaii and Gitwangak Battle Hill on the Kitwanga River which are under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada. 28 law, and prioritizes resource extraction, which in turn, maintains and reinforces power relations that distance Indigenous peoples from control over their heritage (Yellowhorn, 1993). The language of extraction, and extractive practices became entangled with the archaeological lexicon during the early years of commercial archaeology (Spurling, 1986, 1988). Over thirty years ago, archaeologists in Canada faced several challenges, namely: [To] ensure the discipline has a future, that our [discipline’s] primary resource base (in situ sites, objects, and contexts), is expended wisely and conservatively… and that archaeology becomes useful to the Indian, Métis, and Inuit peoples whose prehistories and early histories archaeologists appropriate, interpret, construct, and legitimize to the middle and upper classes of Canadian society. (Spurling, 1988, p. 65 emphasis added) This view of the management and curation of archaeological sites and objects pointed to an existential crisis for the discipline where qualified archaeologists must act as responsible stewards of a diminishing resource base. Spurling suggested that the discipline had not been useful to Indigenous peoples despite its ‘resource base’ consisting of Indigenous cultural heritage, and that maintaining the capacity of archaeologists (rather than Indigenous peoples), is important to maintaining these ‘resources’ and to be ‘useful’. This view reflects an unbalanced and one-sided relationship between Indigenous peoples and western archaeologists (Ferris & Welch, 2014; Welch & Ferris, 2014). One of the province’s first commercial archaeological projects exemplified these perspectives wherein western archaeologists advocated for broader heritage protection due to perceived rapid loss to cultural heritage sites across the province. Charles Borden’s 1951-1952 ‘salvage’ archaeology survey of the Nechako River in Central British Columbia was a catalyst for the development of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act (AHSPA, 1960) (Pokotylo & Mason, 2020). Borden’s survey was conducted to mitigate loss to the archaeological record from the Kenny Dam project on behalf of the Aluminum Company of Canada (Alcan) (West, 1995, p. 28). The Alcan dam project involved the flooding of nearly 400 square kilometers of land which forced the rapid evacuation of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation from their ancestral villages and destroyed numerous villages, burial grounds, and gathering sites (Hosgood, 2022). The Nechako survey, and subsequent policy development was carried out without consultation or engagement with First Nations. 29 Following the Nechako survey, Borden and Wilson Duff lobbied government and private developers to take responsibility for the protection of archaeological heritage and worked to promote public awareness for the need for legislation (Pokotylo & Mason, 2010). AHSPA was the province’s first comprehensive heritage management legislation designed to incorporate a process to document, interact with, and protect archaeological and historic sites. This act became a province-wide model to develop heritage legislation and provided the basis for contract-based, commercial archaeology to emerge in the province. (Pokotylo & Mason, 2020). It permitted the province to designate any “Indian kitchen-midden; Indian shell-heap; Indian house-pit; Indian cave; other Indian habitation; cairn; mound; fortification; structure; painting or carving on rock; grave or other burial place; or other prehistoric or historic remain as an archaeological site.” Only individuals issued an AHSPA permit were authorized to interact with these sites. The AHSPA Advisory Board included the director of the provincial museum, the provincial archivist, and a representative of the appropriate department (i.e., anthropology or history) from the University of British Columbia, but it had no Indigenous representation nor an engagement strategy. This meant that cultural heritage management projects prioritized Euro-Canadian values and interests, all the while ignoring Indigenous peoples, their values, and concerns. Such projects have had lasting and painful impacts on them, including permanent loss of cultural and religious sites and the forceful displacement of Indigenous communities (Linklater, 1994). 2.2.2 Cultural Heritage Repositories in BC In the commercial archaeological process, cultural heritage belongings are collected, and they are required to be submitted to an approved repository (e.g., a museum) for long-term curation. According to the Museum Act (Museum Act [SBC 2003], 2003), provincial repositories are mandated to “(a) secure, receive and preserve specimens, artifacts and archival and other materials that illustrate the natural or human history of British Columbia” and “to manage cultural and heritage facilities designated by the government.” To be approved as a repository, an institution must first prove it has (1) appropriately trained curatorial staff, (2) adequate physical security, (3) adequate financial stability, (4) a valid dissolution plan should it be unable to continue operations, (5), confirmation that it will accept all submitted materials, (6) an acceptable access policy for First Nations, researchers, and other interested parties, and (7) a preventative conservation policy to address object deterioration (Archaeology Branch, The, 2023b). Those interested in maintaining an authorized repository must 30 obtain provincial approval through an application process that includes submitting a cover letter, documentation of these standards, relevant plans, photos, and the résumé of key personnel. The provincial Statutory Decision Maker, a non-elected provincial staff member who supports permitting and compliance with appropriate legislation, maintains unilateral authority to determine if the repository is suitable for cultural heritage objects or not (Archaeology Branch, The, 2023b). Muntean et al (2015) argue the formation of museums is part of the intentional fragmentation of Indigenous cultural heritage. Following the Indian Act, collecting Indigenous cultural heritage was justified by “a salvage paradigm based on assumptions on the part of the colonizers that Indigenous peoples were doomed to vanish” (Muntean et al., 2015, p. 61). This practice is maintained through provincial control over the systems and institutions that determine access to cultural objects and information. The Museum Act and the role of repositories within the broader heritage data ecosystem is beyond the scope of this thesis, but Westbank’s right to manage its cultural heritage extends to these areas of interest. This is demonstrated in the Okanagan through the Sncəwips Heritage Museum located in Westbank, and Nk’mip Desert Cultural Centre in Osoyoos, which are provincially approved syilx repositories, specifically aimed to provide space to celebrate and embrace syilx cultural heritage and to foster its revitalization. 2.2.2.1 Digital Repositories Commercial archaeologists are also obligated to submit geospatial data and reports to government agencies, and deposit them in repositories for future use. Yet, at present, they are not required to submit all field-observations, multimedia data, and associated metadata to the Indigenous communities with interest in these data. Commercial archaeologists typically transfer these archaeological data to the provincial Archaeology Branch – a branch of the Ministry of Forests mandated to maintain and distribute archaeological information and to oversee compliance with the Heritage Conservation Act. The province manages and stores archaeological information in the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) system, the Provincial Archaeological Reports Library, and in internal databases. The Archaeology Branch and its databases are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. To reuse archaeological datasets, particularly digital archaeological datasets, archaeologists typically need metadata. Metadata is ‘data about data’ intended to provide contextual information to assist users in understanding or locating a dataset including descriptive information (who, what, why, where, how), administrative information (e.g., 31 associated intellectual property rights, long-term file management procedures, and data decoding or rendering), structural data (e.g., relationships of parts of the data to another), and markup languages (Riley, 2017). However, provincial data management practices currently do not require archaeologists to submit metadata. This is a concern because scholars accessing these datasets will not have information to assess how, why, and when data are manipulated (Gupta, 2020). Furthermore, the absence of metadata constrains the re-use and interoperability of datasets for decision support, especially when non-archaeologists and members of the public interact with archaeological datasets. Many Indigenous peoples regard digital data as equal in significance to physical belongings. Therefore, ensuring the accessibility and reusability of digital data to Indigenous communities is an integral component of the complex process of decolonizing data practice across all Canadian institutions and agencies (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2016). 2.3 Commercial Archaeology and the UN Declaration Under Article 11 of the UN Declaration, Indigenous Peoples have the right to “to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, [and] artifacts.” In 2022, the province presented its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan (2022) and in 2023 the Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project (HCATP) to reevaluate and realign legal definitions of heritage and its management with the UN Declaration. In BC, First Nations have long called for changes to legislation and commercial archaeological practices with many calls demanding Free, Informed Prior Consent (FIPC) and active participation of Indigenous peoples in archaeological assessments (Aird et al., 2019). Yet, collaboration with Indigenous communities throughout the lifecycle of an archaeological assessment, including the analysis and reporting stages remains limited (Connaughton & Herbert, 2017). This indicates that despite recognition of the UN Declaration, there remains significant room to integrate it into Canadian jurisprudence, and to implement Indigenous rights in the management of their cultural heritage. At a federal level, the Department of Justice Canada’s Draft Action Plan (Canada, 2023, p. 1) intends to “ensure federal laws are consistent with the [UN] Declaration.” Indigenous cultural heritage is considered in the federal action plan including the development of shared governance over heritage sites and archaeological research and to “enhance recognition of the 32 roles and responsibilities of Indigenous peoples in the stewardship of natural and cultural heritage”. However, these actions are restricted to Parks Canada administered lands and no details regarding “shared governance” are provided (Canada, 2023, p. 13). Indigenous community authority of cultural heritage management is not currently considered in the federal draft action plan. 2.3.1 The Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project (HCATP) As part of the Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project, in 2022 and 2023, the province of British Columbia organized discussions with First Nations, commercial archaeologists, academics, municipalities, and provincial government staff (Province of British Columbia, 2023a, 2023b). The results of these discussions were compiled into two separate reports – one for First Nations and one for other organizations (Province of British Columbia, 2023b, 2023a). The HCATP initially proposed completion of the process and the introduction of legislative changes for the Spring 2024 legislative session. However, on February 1, 2024, the Province announced an extension to its engagement phase and that proposed legislation changes are to be deferred indefinitely (B. Ralston, personal communication, February 1, 2024). The project’s engagement phase opened discussions between Indigenous leaders, commercial archaeologists, and municipalities to help shape the proposed legislative changes. Sixty (60) First Nations and 15 First Nations organizations participated in the early engagement process. Of these, 60% of the First Nations and 53% of Indigenous organizations represent coastal Indigenous Peoples (Province of British Columbia, 2023b). Only two syilx communities (SnPink’tn and Lower Similkameen Indian Bands) were present during the engagement sessions. Three of the five in-person engagement sessions were held on the southwest coast, one in Prince George, and one in Kamloops. The Assembly of BC First Nations represents 203 distinct nations within the province. Only 29.5% of the First Nations communities present in BC participated in the engagement process, yet all will be directly impacted by proposed legislative changes. Under the UN Declaration, every Nation has the right to self-determination and to control the management and expression of their culture according to their own cultural systems. The key findings of these reports reflect differing values and concerns that groups hold about provincial heritage legislation (Table 3). 33 First Nations Public Stakeholders • Colonialism underpins the HCA. First Nations laws, protocols, values and traditional/Indigenous knowledge must be better reflected in the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA). • Decision-making needs to recognize and respect First Nations laws, protocols, and customs. • First Nations as decision-makers • First Nations should have the authority to define heritage, including intangible heritage, and to specify sites for protection. • More comprehensive protections are needed to include sites identified as possessing intangible heritage and cultural importance, and better protections are necessary for First Nations burial sites and ancestral remains† • Greater consideration should be given to cumulative effects on heritage sites. • Protections should be proactive rather than reactive† • Resources are needed to support First Nations in heritage management, including the availability of suitable repositories. • Insufficient resourcing at the Archaeology Branch and within the Compliance and Enforcement Branch continues to have significant impacts to heritage management in B.C. • The HCA lacks adequate compliance and enforcement tools. • Consideration of heritage sites must be done earlier in project and land use planning processes to alleviate potential impacts but also to identify potential conflicts prior to significant investment. • Need tools, inventories, and support for local governments, public education resources, and improve publicly available information on heritage sites†. • Scale the levels of protection based on heritage value and site significance†. • Protections should be proactive rather than reactive, by incentivizing a greater understanding of the probability of sites and rewarding effective stewardship†. • Current permitting process is burdensome and needs to be better coordinated amongst government agencies. • Insufficient resourcing at the Archaeology Branch continues to have a major negative impact on first nations, private landowners, developers, local government, and natural resource proponents. • Resources are needed to support First Nations in permit review, guardian programs (site identification, monitoring, management, and protection), heritage conservation activities, and to build archaeological capacity within Nations. • Collaborative decision-making is required between First Nations and the province that 34 First Nations Public Stakeholders • First Nations should have a greater role in compliance and enforcement†. is respectful of local laws, protocols, and customs†. • More holistic and comprehensive protections are needed to include sites identified as possessing intangible heritage and cultural importance†. • Greater seriousness about compliance and a more comprehensive enforcement toolkit. • Evaluation and review of archaeological assessment work. †Further discussion related to this topic is provided in Chapters 3 to 5. Table 3. Key findings of the provincial Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project’s Stakeholder Engagement sessions reveal fundamental differences between First Nations and other organizations feedback, interests and concerns. (Province of British Columbia, 2023b, pp. 3–4, 2023a, p. 3) While the province acknowledges the on-going colonial experience of First Nations related to archaeology in its report, the authors do not cite on-going colonialism in their report to the other agencies and organizations. Rather, the report merely mentions a “legacy of colonialism” that resulted in “disturbance and destruction of cultural heritage resources and ancestral remains” (Province of British Columbia, 2023b, p. 5). Furthermore, the province notes this legacy has caused “significant and cumulative spiritual, cultural, social, and economic impacts” to First Nations (2023b, p. 5). The province is not aware or is unwilling to acknowledge that its current policies and legislative framework are part of the colonial experience of Indigenous peoples encounter daily. Its report, in effect, exculpates the public from their on-going role. The key findings of the report to First Nations clearly show their rights and interests in control, enhanced collaboration, and respect for pre-existing Indigenous laws and management frameworks. Commercial archaeologists’ interests reflect a desire for more efficient cultural heritage management, permitting, and resourcing to ensure efficient workflows. Given their proximity to power, they should respectfully include Indigenous peoples in the interaction with cultural heritage and encourage their participation in decision-making. Yet these efforts fall short of advocating for any involvement over the process of archaeology. These perspectives are discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters, but noting that the province continues to 35 diminish Indigenous peoples’ experiences with colonialism by framing it as a ‘legacy’ of past actors as opposed to an on-going crisis and conferring on commercial archaeologists the power to assume the role of ‘stewards’ of the past despite its deeply problematic roots (Welch & Ferris, 2014). 2.3.2 On-Going Colonial Perspectives in BC Archaeology In this section, I present two scenarios (one real, and one fictional) that demonstrate pervasive and harmful perspectives and actions based on my experiences as a commercial archaeologist working in BC. These examples are not meant to single out any individual, community, institution, or company. Rather they are meant to show how a belief in self-assigned archaeological ‘stewardship’ (Welch & Ferris, 2014) is operationalized in archaeological practice, and how it impedes on Indigenous peoples’ rights and agency. Further, these actions are morally and ethically reprehensible, yet they are not unlawful, which reflects problematic realities in provincial heritage management practices and policies. Two themes emerge from these scenarios; first, the perception that Indigenous peoples asserting their rights and interests interferes with commercial archaeological practices, and secondly, that Western archaeologists can unilaterally determine the management of First Nations’ ancestral remains, which obstructs Indigenous peoples’ agency in caretaking of their own ancestors. 2.3.2.1 Scenario One At the 2023 biennial BC Archaeology Branch Community of Practice5 meeting in Victoria, an unnamed consultant publicly requested that the Archaeology Branch intervene in negotiations between their consultancy and a first nation that had issued ‘cease and desist’ letters to the consultancy. A cease-and-desist letter is a written notice issued to stop an illegal or allegedly illegal activity. In this case, the Archaeology Branch’s public response to the consulting archaeologist was that there was no legal basis for the first nation to expel the consultant from their territory if an archaeological permit had been issued, noting that continuing to work is a “business decision.” This response received immediate ire by first nation-led archaeological firms at the 5 The biennial Community of Practice meeting is a 1-day event in which commercial archaeologists and consulting firms meet with the Archaeology Branch to reflect on current practices and recent events. 36 meeting who insisted that continuing the work when a first nation has issued a cease and desist is an unethical decision. The Archaeology Branch’s response seems to contradict its stated efforts to engage with First Nations as it disregards the nation as a decision-maker over its own cultural heritage and the province’s responsibility to recognize and respect First Nations laws, protocols, and customs (as stated in its own HCATP report). When shared in public forums, the Archaeology Branch’s responses set the tone for commercial archaeological practice for decisions on project designs, the implementation of fieldwork, and the development of site-specific recommendations. They seem to suggest that work can continue even when it conflicts with the legal rights of an Indigenous Nation. In practice then, such responses and assertions disregard the UN Declaration and Indigenous people’s rights to self-determination (Article 3), to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions (Article 11(1)), and to revitalize, use, develop and transmit their heritage to future generations (Article 13(1)). 2.3.2.2 Scenario Two (A Fictional Vignette) The identification of ancestral remains is commonplace in the process of commercial archaeological fieldwork. Most First Nations maintain strict cultural protocols and policies regarding respectful interaction with their ancestors. Standard practices for the recording of ancestral remains are integrated into every provincial archaeological permit by default, which include consultative protocols, minimum documentation requirements, and shared decision making related to the care of the ancestor. It is surprising then, how frequently ancestral remains and community cultural protocols are overlooked or ignored by commercial archaeologists. The following fictional vignette draws attention to these practices. A consultancy has identified multiple ancestors during the course of a field project on a major capital works project. Administrative capacity of the first nation was limited due to the significant volume of work and referrals received by their office. Upon identification of these ancestors, proper protocol was maintained, and a collaborative recovery program was developed with full first nation community involvement. The first nation agreed to temporary sheltering of these ancestors within a corporate office pending determination of a suitable location and plan for reburial. Reburial plans and locations were the responsibility of the first nation in coordination with the Archaeology Branch. 37 After internal deliberations in the consultancy about access to the ancestors and belongings, senior management gives access to staff to view images of the ancestors and belongings, even though the nation has not authorized such documentation or viewing. Senior management explained that the images are for ‘educational purposes’ and that approval from the nation was not necessary. Shortly thereafter, due to staffing changes at the nation and the continued demand on the consultant to complete new contracts, negotiations regarding the management of the remains is stalled for several years. Commercial consulting firm staff frame discussions regarding repatriation as ‘awkward’ and ‘uncomfortable’ due to the length of their possession by the consultant. In this example, western commercial archaeologists have prioritized contract completion and deprioritized their responsibilities to the affected Nations to safeguard and support the caretaking of their ancestors. Further, by allowing staff to interact with images of ancestors and their belongings, the consultancy has broken trust with the first nation and failed to uphold their relationship. Lastly, the consultant deferred discussions regarding repatriation due to personal discomfort, yet their actions prevented the Nation from providing care for ancestors and denied the descendant community from practicing their cultural protocols for reburial. This example demonstrates a key challenge faced by First Nations: decisions regarding their ancestors are made unilaterally and once their cultural heritage and “data” are collected, community control and management is limited. This situation results in lasting harm to Indigenous communities. 2.4 Summary This chapter has introduced and contextualized the colonial foundations of cultural heritage management policies and legislation and the experiences of Indigenous peoples with the discipline of archaeology. Many of these policies, such as the Indian Act, continue to be in effect and negatively impact Indigenous peoples across Canada. Yet, Canadians continue to view colonialism as an historic event rather than an on-going pervasive societal issue. This is inherited from beliefs that Indigenous peoples are diminishing and fragile groups with limited interest in their own heritage. These views justified western control of Indigenous pasts. These perspectives have been instrumental in shaping the development of BC’s heritage management system, which continues to legally dispossess and restrict Indigenous control over their cultural heritage belongings, ancestors, and information. Despite this, First Nations continue to exercise 38 their rights through self-governing agreements and heritage policies. Their archaeologists also continue to participate in and shape the intellectual foundations of the discipline and emphasize research approaches that center its benefits around the interests of their community. Indigenous peoples rightly feel distanced from the practice of commercial archaeology rather than as equal partners in the process. Westbank’s rights and interests in control, in enhanced collaboration, and to have their laws and values respected are described in the following chapters, which aim to identify how commercial archaeology can reform its practice to support the revitalization, rather than obliteration, of syilx past, present, and future manifestations of their cultural heritage. 39 Chapter 3: The Truth Shows Itself We’re syilx and when I say stəɬtaɬtet that means that it’s the truth, right? So, how can we tell the truth when it is being misconstrued as something else Grouse Barnes, syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and Knowledge Keeper (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:14:51) This chapter presents the strategies that guided the development of my research methods, including focus group discussions and an anonymous online survey, as well as interviews with WFNAO staff and syilx/Westbank ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap (Elders) and Knowledge Keepers to explore and understand perspectives of heritage and its management within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. I also discuss the results of my data collection. The framework within which I approached my research is through following “the truth”. Westbank First Nation defines syilx stəɬtaɬtet as the collective Aboriginal title and rights held by the syilx Peoples. Grouse Barnes, a syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap explains this word as “truth that reveals itself as a fog lifts” (personal communication, December 20, 2022). This is important because, contradictory understandings of syilx nakwulamən (the things syilx peoples have been doing since time immemorial), laws, and knowledge between syilx peoples, archaeologists and the Crown can lead to lasting impacts on syilx stəɬtaɬtet. In this chapter, I present information shared by Knowledge Keepers relating to Westbank/syilx perspectives on heritage and archaeology and I contrast these teachings with perspectives of commercial archaeologists operating in the Okanagan. In my research, I observed disparate definitions of heritage and archaeology and perspectives on how archaeology should be conducted. This situation can cause tensions and distrust between interest groups, yet I learned that syilx peoples continue to express interest in meaningful collaboration that respects syilx jurisdiction. The syilx community members in Westbank have rights and interests in controlling the process of archaeology. Westbank expects to assert its rights through its archaeology directives (Westbank First Nation, 2018, 2022). Westbank wants to use archaeology as a tool to support community culture and language revitalization and the long-term existence of Okanagan peoples in Westbank. 3.1 Theoretical Framework In western contexts, it is important that the archaeological research process is universal, definable, objective, and importantly, reproducible. However, this is often challenged by the very 40 nature of archaeological excavation, which is destructive (Roosevelt et al., 2015) and by the political nature of the discipline (Wylie, 2019). In contrast, Opaskwayak Cree scholar Dr. Shawn Wilson (2008) challenges western concepts of methodologies and methods by referring to them as ‘strategies of inquiry’ that are applied to generate knowledge within a research relationship that can then be applied to the community’s broader epistemological and ontological framework. Indigenous scholars suggest that the application of intuitive learning, participant observation, and conversational practices that encourage researchers to engage in critical self-reflection and immersion within research relationships enables mindfulness and intentionality in the research process (Kovach, 2021; Wilson, 2001). In my research, my strategies grew and adapted over time as the specific needs and interests of my research partners changed. In the end, three core strategies were integrated into my research approach: 1) relationship building, 2) self-reflection and education, and 3) intentionality of analysis. Following Kovach (2021) and Wilson (2008), I aim to situate my strategies of inquiry within the formation of my research relationships so that I can contextualize the decisions, approaches, and conclusions of this project and challenge ‘objective’ western methodological frameworks. By centering my role within this relationship, I begin to explore how this research has enabled personal growth and prioritized the needs of my community research partners. Personal growth must be an integral element of the research process and there must be an awareness that knowledge is most valuable when it allows ethical collaborations that seek to make a positive change in the world (Kovach 2021, Wilson and Wilson 2013, Wilson 2008). These strategies help me to understand my relational accountability (Wilson, 2008), which is central to an Indigenous Data Governance framework (Hudson et al., 2023) and align with current best practices in collaborative archaeological research such as community-based participatory action research (PAR) (Cornish et al., 2023; Martindale et al., 2016; Martindale & Lyons, 2014; G. P. Nicholas, 2014; Wylie, 2019). These practices begin to support research that prioritizes community-based, experiential knowledge that can be used to challenge and redress harmful social structures that disenfranchise Indigenous peoples (Cornish et al., 2023). 3.1.1 Project Design The objectives of this research were collaboratively developed by the research team, which included staff from the WFNAO, my graduate supervisor Dr. Neha Gupta, and myself. Building upon an existing research relationship between Dr. Gupta and the WFNAO, this 41 research began with conversations between myself, Dr. Gupta, and Stephanie Paul of the WFNAO. Stephanie Paul held the position of interim supervisor of the WFNAO while supervisor Nancy Bonneau was on personal leave. As the needs of the WFNAO fluctuated, so did the objectives of this research. Initial goals included research into digital data collection practices and tools and how these may be implemented at the WFNAO to enable consistent, user-friendly data collection practices. When Nancy Bonneau returned to work with the WFNAO, she joined the project as a key study team member and contributed to its intellectual development. For example, discussions with Nancy Bonneau determined that an anonymous survey, targeted focus groups, and interviews would best engage the community and that the survey should be designed to directly compare the perspectives of syilx and western archaeologists. From here, the project shifted focus from data collection practices to a critical examination of the heritage data ecosystem, open discussions on syilx perspectives on heritage and archaeology, and how to support community-led governance of digital cultural heritage. Collaboration and coordination with the WFNAO and syilx archaeologists were central in all phases of this research including research design, data collection, analysis, and in the presentation of results. 3.2 Strategies of Inquiry Strategies of inquiry are unique to each research relationship and embrace subjectivity as the experiences of researchers and their relationships will form unique knowledge that must be understood within the context of the relationship. This self-reflexive process provides a description to future users to understand decision-making processes in research. Strategies of inquiry should not disproportionately focus on the quantification or adherence to western methodological rigor. Rather they should be targeted to emphasize the self-determination and benefit of the community who maintains their own analytical processes and protocols (L. T. Smith, 2021). The following sections provide the contextual information necessary to understand my research approach, its implementation, and inform on decision-making practices throughout the research process. 3.2.1 Community Collaboration My research creates space to ensure that the inclusion of Westbank/syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap, syilx, and Knowledge Keepers occurs throughout the research process. As a result, my research 42 process began with engagement with the WFNAO to collaboratively develop the research objectives and how my research could support the office. As internal staffing changed, and the pressures of external factors influenced the office’s specific needs, so too did the direction of my research. This led to the revision of the project’s primary objectives during the research proposal stage while I engaged in my studies to continue my graduate coursework. My studies challenged theoretical practices in digital archaeology and western research practices. Dr. Shawn Wilson educated me in Indigenous research practices and relayed the importance of being in relation with research and its participants, which greatly influenced my research. I was introduced to new approaches to research centered on relationship building and in supporting community self-determination by Dr. Wilson. This enabled me to engage in the social and political challenges facing contemporary archaeological research and reflect on the inherent biases and power imbalances within the digital ecosystem and their relation to commercial archaeology. I also completed OCAP® training through the First Nations Information Governance Center and Algonquin College, which provided technical understanding of Indigenous data governance principles and applications to research. Finally, I participated in a syilx cultural education program, presented at the Laurel Packinghouse, a City of Kelowna Museum, where I learned of the on-going colonial experiences of syilx peoples, the importance of family, community, and language to syilx revitalizations, and paths forward that align with syilx interests in self-determination. This program also brought me into relation with syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and educators who shaped my research. These opportunities brought me into relation with my research partners and fostered personal growth, which is central to the research process (Wilson, 2008; Wilson & Wilson, 2013). Building upon existing and new relationships, I worked closely with research collaborators to provide space to review and collaborate on interview transcripts and interpretations. Therefore, research collaborators reviewed and commented on my interpretations, recommendations, and the use of their words to ensure they are fairly represented. Transcripts, audio/visual recordings, and drafts of my thesis were also shared with my collaborators to ensure their access to these study outcomes. Collaboration and discussions with my research partners are on-going and will continue beyond this thesis as I continue to listen, work closely with, and offer support to my research partners. These experiences have 43 and continue to shape the development of my research relationships and inform me of my responsibilities to these relationships. 3.2.2 Ethical Review In collaboration with the WFNAO, I developed a UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) application for the project. BREB review required the development of specific research questions and objectives and defined that the WFNAO would participate in decision making over the formation of research questions, objectives, methods, and data considerations. As part of this research, all data was returned to Westbank First Nation and the research participants to ensure their continued access to these data for their future use. WFNAO was included in the research design before Westbank First Nation’s On-Reserve Archaeology Directive, which formalizes this process. Westbank participated in the research design, and I received a letter of support for my study from the Westbank First Nation’s Intergovernmental Affairs department. 3.2.2.1 COVID-19 Safe Research Plan As part of the BREB application, the research team developed a COVID-19 safe research plan. The safe research plan included confirmation of the research team’s vaccination status, the assurance that social distancing protocols (i.e., 2 m minimum separation) were in place, and that participants of in-person discussions used protective personal equipment (e.g., N95 face masks). Face masks were made available to research participants when necessary. The safe research plan also met Westbank First Nation COVID-19 protocols. 3.2.3 Participant Selection I employed a network sampling strategy to identify community members with an interest in archaeology and cultural heritage protection and caretaking practices. Nancy Bonneau of the WFNAO further supported the identification and coordination of voluntary participants from her staff. Interested WFNAO staff were invited to participate in both the anonymous survey6 and in 6 Physical surveys were distributed to WFNAO staff in person by Nancy Bonneau and myself. The WFNAO employs a small staff (n < 5) of syilx community members who I maintain personal connections to. This challenged assurances of ‘anonymity’ for WFNAO staff; however, efforts were made to ensure that responses were as anonymous as possible, and the information protected. This included in-depth conversations regarding data use, access, and curation as well as the provision of BREB-approved consent forms and documentation regarding the overall purpose of the project. No WFN employee was required or obligated to participate in the voluntary survey. 44 focus group sessions. WFNAO staff interested in participating in the survey were provided digital and physical copies by Nancy Bonneau and myself. As previously discussed, understanding the perspectives of both syilx and western archaeologists operating within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility was important to the WFNAO. To facilitate this, I connected with Raelene Danks, administrator of the British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists (BCAPA), who distributed the digital survey to the BCAPA membership with an objective to identify archaeologists with experience working within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. In all, three WFNAO staff contributed to the survey and 13 archaeologists from the BCAPA responded to the survey. Concurrently, I participated in an in-person syilx cultural education program, hosted by Pamela and Grouse Barnes, who are both syilx ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and Knowledge Keepers. Their daughter, Jasmine Peone, a syilx archaeologist and friend supported the education program and helped connect me to Pamela and Grouse. The ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and Knowledge Keepers expressed interest in participating and they introduced me to their son, Dennis Barnes who is a syilx archaeologist employed by the WFNAO. Focus group sessions involved past colleagues, friends, and teachers who welcomed me into their home to share their knowledge with me and allowed me the opportunity to continue to listen to their words. Five individuals participated in these discussions, including one who requested to remain anonymous in transcripts and throughout this thesis. 3.2.4 Anonymous Survey I conducted the anonymous survey in two formats. Hard and digital copies (via Qualtrics) of the questionnaires were provided to Westbank First Nation archaeologists. Commercial archaeologists in the Okanagan region were able to participate through a digital version of the survey, which I made using the UBC survey tool Qualtrics. I chose to use a digital tool for commercial archaeologists because, in part, this reflects the remote connections archaeologists have in terms of where they live and work. For instance, a significant portion of archaeologists that work within the Okanagan do not actually live in the region. Rather they live in the Greater Vancouver area or in the Capital Regional District and travel to the region for work contracts (Elvidge et al., 2024). 45 The questions the survey asked (e.g., When did you start this job? What did you think this job would be before or when you started? What did you think the purpose of your work was at the beginning?) were intended to understand individual perceptions of the discipline and to encourage self-reflection. Response formats included scaled, open-text, and selection-based responses. The targeted audience of this survey was only archaeologists who work or have experience working within the Okanagan to begin to understand how their perspectives align with those of syilx archaeologists. The survey was launched on November 9, 2022, in collaboration with the WFNAO and supported by the BCAPA. The survey was closed to responses on December 8, 2022. A copy of the survey questions is provided in Appendix A of this document. 3.2.5 Focus Group Discussions Following the survey, between December 19th and 20th, 2022, I held small community focus group sessions. These sessions included five syilx archaeologists, ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap, and/or Knowledge Keepers. My research partners were free to identify themselves within the research data or remain anonymous in transcriptions, academic publications, and this thesis. These discussions were held both virtually and in person. In person discussions used talking circles to ensure that each individual had the opportunity to speak in turn and reflect on each other’s words (Wilson, 2008). These discussions were framed by six structured questions, which opened broader conversation on syilx perspectives on archaeology, heritage, the resource management system, and the challenges that syilx peoples continue to face from colonialism and its institutions. I recorded the in-person discussion with a Zoom 2020 H6 Portable handheld audio recorder and virtual discussions were recorded using a UBC Zoom account. I then personally transcribed each conversation without the use of an automated transcription service. This provided an opportunity to apply close listening practices to personally reflect on the words, intonations, and responses provided to me during these discussions and to reflect on my own positionality and participation in the conversations (Hoffman, 2021). Interview transcriptions were provided to each participant to review their words, and I requested changes or clarifications. A copy of the discussion questions is provided in Appendix B of this document. 46 3.2.6 Analytical Practices I worked closely with the voices of my interview participants, focusing closely on their words. I also compared these with the responses from the survey to visualize, digest, and interpret the information according to my own experiences and knowledge. Following Hoffman (2021), I applied close listening and reading to the focus group interviews to aid in interpretation. To visualize these focus group discussions, survey data, and to explore data themes, I integrated Cirrus word clouds hosted by Voyant Tool, a web-based text reading and analysis environment (Sinclair & Rockwell, 2024). Cirrus word clouds allowed for a visual representation of the textual data using the frequency of word use within survey responses. This allowed me to directly compare and visualize responses and concepts. Frequently used terms are centrally positioned and scaled to be larger than infrequently used terms and the intent is to draw the observer towards the central term of the image. Voyant Tools has a corpus of ‘stop words’ which are words used widely that carry little interpretive information (e.g., “a”, “the”, “this” etc.). These terms are automatically removed by the program. As word clouds only present the frequency of terms, they are limited in capturing the context of word use. In this thesis, I present word clouds to illustrate overall patterning of thoughts rather than specific concepts. Limited data was obtained from syilx/Westbank archaeologists for this visualization because of the small number of survey respondents. Accordingly, I present these key concepts using descriptive text, while I use word clouds for the more robust dataset obtained from BCAPA archaeologists. Following my analyses, I produced a document including the key themes from the data, and I distributed the document for review to all focus group participants, my research committee, and to Nancy Bonneau, the WFNAO supervisor. 3.3 Key Findings Project findings emerged from review of survey results, focus group transcripts, and on-going discussions with the research team and with research participants. The findings presented within this chapter were collaboratively developed between research participants and me. I have chosen to organize this section by first presenting the results of the anonymous survey (Section 3.3.1) followed by key excerpts and points from focus group discussions (Section 3.3.2). This is followed by a brief discussion focusing on key themes that emerged from the data: (1) the challenges faced by syilx peoples when considering differing understandings of 47 cultural heritage and (2) the on-going experience of colonialism felt by syilx peoples. These results and subsequent discussion are used to inform a critical evaluation of the provincial heritage data ecosystem (Chapter 4) and current practices in digital archaeology (Chapter 5). 3.3.1 Anonymous Survey A total of 15 respondents completed the anonymous survey; respondents consist of three (n=3) Westbank First Nation archaeology staff and twelve (n=12) commercial archaeologists affiliated with the BCAPA (“BCAPA archaeologists”). An additional 35 BCAPA archaeologists opened the survey but failed to record partial or complete responses. The survey was designed to allow for greater understandings of perspectives of syilx archaeologists employed with the WFNAO and commercial archaeologists operating within the Okanagan. Additional questions evaluated the experience and training received by each party, their interaction with and use of digital tools and software, and how this relates to their overall practice and engagement in their work as well to evaluate the use of digital methods by commercial archaeologists. 3.3.1.1 Views on the Purpose of Archaeology and Heritage syilx and commercial archaeologists each uniquely conceptualize the purpose of archaeology. syilx respondents describe archaeology in broader, community-focused and culturally-informed terms, using terms such as community, oral, ancestors, and language, history, recording, and walking. This highlights the importance of community in the process of archaeology and its relevance to to support syilx cultural narratives in ways that make it relevant to syilx cultural revitalizations. Commercial archaeologists responses represented archaeology using terms like stakeholders, assessment, survey, work, industry, monitoring, and inventory (Figure 3). 48 Figure 3. Visualization of the term “Archaeology” based on survey responses (BCAPA Respondents; n=12 respondents). Economically oriented terms (e.g., work, industry, stakeholders) were frequently used by BCAPA archaeologists to explain their understanding of ‘archaeology.’ Both groups identify a visual element to archaeology (looking, survey, walking, recording) and used terms that describe the discipline as a tool to record past events (e.g., ancestors, history, recording, survey, ‘precontact’). BCAPA archaeologists used terms such as protected, inventory, potential, monitoring, and assessment, framing archaeology within an economic and industrial lens. syilx archaeologists used terms that speak to the importance of land-based archaeology to the community, in connecting to ancestors, in supporting Oral Traditions, in doing crafts to connect this knowledge, and its connection to the present through hand-oriented creating. This creates a space for nakwulamən in the present to support cultural revitalization. Views on heritage between syilx and BCAPA archaeologists appear similar. To syilx archaeologists, heritage includes the people, their crafts and stories, tools, the land, and importantly, heritage it is lived and living. To BCAPA archaeologists, functional aspects of heritage (traditions, objects, and places) and its living, dynamic nature are recognized through terms like stories, memories, traditions, and inherited (Figure 4). This situates heritage as a connection to the past that continues to be shaped by interactions in the present day. While the sample size of syilx archaeologists limited the usefulness of a word cloud, the presented values align with the insights learned from focus group discussions presented in Section 3.3.2. archaeologicalworkcanadaassessmentworkingsurveystandardinventorysitesindustrytraditionaltestterritorystakeholdersshovelremoteprotectedprecontactpotentialpoliticaloverviewmonitoringlookingjobinclusive49 Figure 4. Visualization of the term “Heritage” based on survey responses (BCAPA Respondents; n=12 respondents). While BCAPA respondents describe heritage in terms that recognize its living and dynamic elements, the frequent use of terms like past, memory, stories, inherited, things, objects, remnants, preserving, and restoring indicate the importance of ‘stewardship’ of a fragile past to commercial archaeologists (Welch & Ferris, 2014). Survey responses indicate BCAPA archaeologists’ view the purpose of archaeology as a functional tool that is part of a larger process of global heritage preservation, curation, and in the recording of history through terms like heritage, history, and protect (Figure 5). To this group, archaeology is a job intended to catalog, evaluate, and control heritage within a larger, extraction-focused resource management system as seen in the use of terms such as proponent, development, potential, and work/working. It is about the identification, recording, and understanding of objects and spaces and managing these data without consideration to the people connected to the data. To BCAPA archaeologists, archaeology is a scientific practice that is conducted for the benefit of all humanity and heritage should be managed by archaeologists. Framing archaeology as part of a global process of heritage preservation reflects problematic views of pan-Indigeneity (Minet, 2021) where a ‘one size fits all’ solution for cultural heritage management practice is possible rather than respecting the rights and specific interests of syilx peoples within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. This view overlooks the impacts of 50 structural inequalities, both historical and in the present-day that prevent First Nations peoples from practicing their culture, including craft handwork, song, dance and other expressions of cultural heritage, and sharing what they deem appropriate with people outside the community. The survey therefore, suggests that archaeologists consider themselves as stewards of a collective past, a situation that continues to distance Indigenous peoples from knowledge of their ancestors and control over their cultural narratives (Welch & Ferris, 2014). syilx respondents did not provide a significant corpus of terms to populate a word cloud. Figure 5. Visualization of the purpose of archaeology based on survey responses (BCAPA Respondents; n=12 respondents). Terms like “archaeological” and “sites” were frequently used together thus occupy a greater proportion of the visualization. Interestingly, BCAPA respondents associate the purpose of archaeology strongly with extractive, industrial language (e.g., proponent, development, potential, working) which diverges from disciplinary understandings which seek to understand human cultural change through time. 3.3.1.2 Perspectives on the Ownership of syilx Data Understanding the perspectives of ownership and access to archaeological and cultural information is critical to identifying the need for implementing an Indigenous Data Governance framework. All syilx archaeologists indicated that the external storage and handling of syilx 51 heritage data is of great concern. On this question, BCAPA respondents were divided and they had limited awareness of what the WFNAO does with its information (Table 4). Table 4. Responses to survey questions aimed to evaluate the ethics of use of syilx data by external parties. syilx (n=3) BCAPA (n=14) Are you concerned about Westbank’s cultural heritage being handled away from Westbank such as at a provincial museum/institution? • Yes (100%; n=3) • Yes (57%; n=4) • No (43%; n=3) What do you think the Archaeology Office does with the data you collect in the field?† • Prepare the data for use by other WFN entities (n=1) • Land and resource mapping (n=1) • Data Stewardship (n=1) • Misunderstanding of what the WFNAO represents (50%; n=6)†† • Nothing (16%; n=2) • WFN is a data repository (16%; n=2) • Unaware of its existence (8%; n=1) • To monitor the Area of Responsibility (8%; n=1) †This open text question was intended to understand individual perceptions of the WFNAO’s data use practices. Provided information in this table are synthesized from larger text responses. ††These respondents typically misidentify the “Archaeology Office” as the provincial Archaeology Branch. 3.1.1.3 Training, Experience, and Capacity Access to tools, resources, training, and professional experience supports the capacity of a researcher to conduct their research. Uneven access to these capacities can be a limitation in asserting control over the process of archaeology. Education and professional experience play crucial roles in fostering the professional development of archaeologists from junior to senior positions and are prerequisites for obtaining authorization as research leads by the province. Most BCAPA archaeologists indicate having at least a bachelor’s degree and a working understanding of geographic information systems, survey methods, and analytical techniques. BCAPA archaeologists working within the Okanagan averaged 15.75 years of experience paired with university education, professional development programs, and on-the-job training. syilx archaeologists averaged 7.6 years of experience and typically receive only Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC) training and internal training programs. RISC is a provincial field-training program designed to provide fundamental skills to participants in the identification, recording, and interpretation of archaeological sites and introduces workers to the 52 process of commercial archaeology (Province of British Columbia, 2023c). RISC is a 5-day long course and costs 75$ per participant. BCAPA and syilx archaeologists overall felt satisfied with the level of training provided, although BCAPA archaeologists reported being overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the quality of work (Table 5). syilx archaeologists were satisfied with the quality of work they conduct (7.0 / 10) despite not being in control of project budgets, methods, or analytical quality. Rather, commercial archaeologists who have the power to do better do not feel empowered to do so. Follow up questions to clarify professional satisfaction, expectations, methodological standards, and the capacity for staff to relay concerns to their supervisor were not asked and warrants further investigation in a future study. These follow-up questions are of interest to the Westbank First Nation Archaeology Office. Table 5. Reported overall satisfaction in training and quality of work provided. syilx Archaeologists (n=3) BCAPA Archaeologists (n=5) Overall satisfaction with provided level of training 7.3 / 10 7.6 / 10 Overall satisfaction with the quality of work 7.0 / 10 3.5 / 10 3.3.1.4 The Use of Digital Tools and Software BCAPA archaeologists report the use of digital tools 89% of the time, while syilx archaeologists reported that they use digital tools 66% during their work time. syilx respondents cited the lack of internal training opportunities, functional unfamiliarity, and/or lack of access to digital tools as obstacles to their regular use. Some BCAPA archaeologists use these tools regularly and have training with them. syilx archaeologists report obstacles to digital practices include unfamiliarity with specific devices causing confusion in the data transfer process, steep digital learning curves make in-field navigation and data organization challenging, and incompatible/outdated equipment or software were tensions. While all WFN staff reported that the provided training was adequate to conduct their job, 66% indicated that further training during onboarding on note/data collection processes and in-field training for digital tools would be beneficial to new and returning hires. 53 3.3.2 Focus Group Discussions The syilx Knowledge Keepers and archaeologists I worked with shared their concerns about the imposition of colonial systems, laws, and definitions that represent syilx heritage as ‘ancient’ and static. Yet, as Grouse Barnes explained, “heritage is who we are. And we are still here, and the book has not ended” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:15:37). All participants relayed concern with how western archaeologists interact with syilx peoples and their heritage and how these inform narratives about syilx communities in the past and present. Conversations centered around the imposition of provincial archaeological systems, terminology, and practices upon syilx people and syilx forms of resistance. Resistance requires community relationship building and family support, which are necessary to ensuring the revitalization of syilx culture and language and to combat the on-going practices that distance syilx peoples from connection to their families, community, culture, and language. In the following sections, I summarize these discussions to begin to lay the foundations necessary to understand syilx perspectives on their heritage and on archaeology. 3.3.2.1 Understanding syilx nakwulamən Expressing syilx perspectives on heritage in their own words is fundamental to understanding syilx experiences and perspectives on archaeology and cultural heritage. As an kʷúkʷaʔ (outsider), I do not have the authority to define syilx nakwulamən, however, I can share my interpretations of the knowledge shared with me. syilx heritage is, in part, nakwulamən (the things that syilx people have been doing since time immemorial). nakwulamən (syilx heritage) is a truth that can only be understood within the context of nsyilxcən (language) and syilx nakwulamən must be controlled and owned by syilx people. Grouse Barnes shared that “our language is so precise that there are no need for lawyers” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:04:25). This means that translating syilx law and knowledge from nsyilxcən to English dilutes intended values, definitions, and concepts which are at risk of loss or misuse. Grouse Barnes explained that there is no word in nsyilxcən that is cognate with heritage and that defining or creating a term in nsyilxcən requires discussion across the syilx Nation, but that the space to do so has yet to be created. According to the Knowledge Keepers I worked with, nakwulamən is the on-going story of syilx peoples. It is a living and breathing being that exists within the syilx Nation, and maintains its own past, present, and future which is affirmed through language, custom, spaces, captikwł 54 (sacred stories), stories, and objects. It connects generations of syilx people, and can be strengthened through family, ceremony, language, and practices. Family is central to the syilx governing structure and must be part of syilx revitalizations. nakwulamən is the spiritual and ceremonial connection to the spaces, objects, plants, animals, air, water, and the tangible and intangible landscapes that they exist within. It is intentional and was laid down by past syilx persons to be engaged with by the current syilx generation who have a responsibility to safeguard and manage it for future generations. It is communal and is to be shared with, understood, and lived by each syilx person. nakwulamən has not been extinguished and Pamela and Grouse Barnes expressed that syilx nakwulamən is not Westbank, or Penticton, or Osoyoos heritage, rather it is the communal experience of all syilx peoples. Grouse Barnes explained “we’re talking the whole Nation. So, even that reserve system is an imposed system. When we talk, we should be talking as one syilx Nation” later indicating that not engaging with the syilx Nation as a collective is part of plans to “divide and conquer” (Personal Communication, December 20, 2022, 00:48:18). From this perspective, Pamela Barnes relayed that the state-imposed Indian Act reservation structure seeks to dismantle, discredit, and divide syilx peoples and heritage into individual band organizations, which limits recognition and interaction with the syilx Nation, including the syilx communities across state jurisdictions, such as within the Colville Confederated Tribe in Washington state. From a syilx perspective, ‘heritage’ (including cultural heritage, heritage information) is a colonially imposed concept that restricts the agency of syilx peoples by objectifying and categorizing ‘heritage’ as a static past. Heritage does not reflect syilx values or understandings of lived and living cultural practice. Western conceptualizations remove syilx agency in the present and limits syilx control over the future. Settler archaeologists who uncritically apply the term heritage may not interact with the full breadth of syilx nakwulamən, which Jasmine Peone indicated contributes to syilx perceptions of archaeology as part of an effort by the Crown to continue the assimilation syilx peoples into the Canadian-Settler cultural system. To the Canadian state, heritage is an extractable and definable resource that can be commodified and controlled. This conceptualization of heritage discredits syilx understandings and removes the ability of syilx persons and the community to control its narrative which impedes sovereignty. 55 3.3.2.2 Experiencing syilx nakwulamən Participants shared that nakwulamən and cultural knowledge is communally owned by all syilx peoples, and its management requires the participation of each syilx person. When discussing the importance of controlling narratives about syilx nakwulamən, syilx archaeologist Dennis Barnes shared that control over the narrative of syilx past, present, and futures is “crucial because if you want to sustain a culture, having an understanding of what made it…is very important” indicating that without this control, ceremonies, practices, and “the little things” in the community will get “washed over time” (Personal communication, December 20, 2022, 01:48:53). The syilx narrative must be controlled by specific ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap or Knowledge Keepers with support and input from the broader syilx community. Control of this narrative is an act of defiance against colonialism as it is affirming syilx sovereignty and is a recognition of syilx jurisdiction. Currently, ownership of nakwulamən is split by colonial agents through the reserve system. Participants indicated that when shared with outsiders, nakwulamən must come from Knowledge Keepers and ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap entrusted with its caretaking and must only be provided to trusted parties. When nakwulamən is interacted with or collected, trusted outsiders may participate but involvement with Knowledge Keepers, ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap, and the community must occur for this to be done according to syilx law. In this way, colonial structures become obstacles to true community management of nakwulamən and cultural knowledge. This is exemplified by the province’s archaeological ecosystem, such as the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD), which is discussed in detail in chapters 4 and 5. During an interview with Nancy Bonneau, it was relayed that in her 23 years of commercial archaeological work (primarily with syilx communities), she has not yet had access to RAAD and still must make data requests for specific site data. This indicates that colonial impositions and control over syilx information continue to restrict and inhibit syilx agency and control over their own cultural narratives, data, and practices. Participants shared that nakwulamən and syilx cultural knowledge is living and breathing, and it falls upon all syilx peoples to participate in caretaking. It is a communal responsibility of syilx people to engage in their culture and to look after each other, the community, and the lands for future generations. To do so heritage caretaking must consider the next seven generations and their access to their heritage. Community support for heritage care taking can 56 be achieved through fostering a reconnection and revitalization of language, culture, family, community, practices, and law. 3.3.2.3 syilx Perspectives on BC Archaeology All participants voiced that archaeology is not part of syilx cultural practices, but that there is a space for archaeology if conducted responsibly. By responsibly, from the responses I received, I gather that they meant the inclusion of syilx peoples in the development of research questions, objectives, and methods and in the analytical and reporting phases of research to allow for archaeology to respect the broader cultural, physical, and social context in which it operates. One participant pointed out that archaeology has been used as a tool against syilx peoples to wrongly legitimize state jurisdiction over syilx lands. Pamela Barnes described how it is “a completely foreign, colonial term that tries to define, confine, and…pin us to a specific artificial time” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:07:26). Participants indicate that archaeology is an adversary to syilx nakwulamən as conventional archaeology is a tool used to justify state-imposed extraction, false definitions, and the erasure of syilx identities. In this context, Grouse Barnes shared his experience working in archaeology on behalf of Westbank First Nation. He spoke about travelling to a timber harvesting area where he experienced a strong connection to his ancestors, yet the archaeologist directing the work implemented traditional survey and sampling techniques and did not note or engage with Grouse’s experience. Because no ‘physical’ remains were found, the development was permitted with ‘no concerns’. Grouse Barnes went on to ask me: What’s the difference between our bones and the bones of a cemetery? Those are protected, ours ain’t…All the remains of humans should be protected, not just the white man’s bones… I’ve seen bones with stamps and numbers on them too – skulls…they’ve even been sold, you know? They are a commodity. (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:26:28) Pamela Barnes shared that she feels archaeology and its definitions of cultural heritage are tools used by the colonial government to justify its interests in controlling syilx səsʕaws (ancient ancestors) and culturally significant sites. During a follow up interview to discuss my interpretations, Pamela Barnes explained that resource extraction, land development, and archaeology are colonial tools that have “damaged, mutilated, and desecrated” syilx objects, spaces, and knowledge, and as a result, there are missing pieces, and the story must be 57 “reassembled” (personal communication, April 17, 2023). For syilx peoples, archaeology is an outsider concept that extracts specific elements of nakwulamən but does not recognize or interact with the full breadth of syilx worldview and knowledge. Focus group participants shared their thoughts on collaboration and inclusivity, which are of genuine interest to many commercial archaeologists. During a meeting with Nancy Bonneau to discuss focus group findings, she indicated trust between commercial and syilx archaeologists varies as some commercial archaeologists create logistical barriers that inhibit equal participation in analytical practices. On this topic, Jasmine Peone shared that, as a syilx archaeologist, she often feels “used as a pawn by governments and companies” and that syilx peoples are used to “check the box that “oh the First Nations looked at this site and there’s no artifacts here, so we have the green light” to proceed with development (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:29:36). To Pamela Barnes, this enables archaeology to be used to “completely disregard that we’re [syilx peoples] sovereign” and that this is “occupied territory” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:30:43). Nancy Bonneau shared an example of a corporate entity inviting Westbank archaeologists to participate in the analysis of syilx nakwulamən and in the documentation of a səsʕaws. But the corporation required the syilx archaeologists to travel to Kamloops, BC (outside of Westbank’s Area of Responsibility and within the traditional territory of Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc). She also noted that the corporation had housed syilx səsʕaws in culturally unacceptable conditions such as closets and storage cabinets. Jasmine Peone shared similar sentiments suggesting that settler archaeologists often see themselves as “the PhD” and act as self-imposed experts who try to educate syilx people “even in regard to [their] own culture” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 01:58:26). Another syilx archaeologist shared with me that they are “worried about our ancestors being dug up” and that “there’s no respect from the people that like to do that” further noting that “the place, that’s what our story is” (personal communication, December 19, 2022, 00:15:57 to 00:17:29). Jasmine Peone notes that object-centric approaches in archaeology reinforces a situation where “if you’re only seeing a skeleton, you’re missing so much of the person and only capturing the skeleton” adding “we are a living person and they [archaeologists] still only [see] us for our dead bones” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:20:56). 58 Archaeologists operating according to province-established standards with a duty to consult do not necessarily engage with or respect syilx nakwulamən and protocols. Rather, western archaeologists tend to consider syilx nakwulamən a barrier to collaboration, and they disregard cultural knowledge, and assert their ‘expertise’ over syilx archaeologists. This dismissal limits possibilities for the Crown and its archaeological actors to build “respectful and Indigenous-inclusive” relationships (Archaeology Branch, 2023). When syilx voices are not being heard in the field, and Westbank archaeologists are being disingenuously invited to participate in analysis or are not required to be part of the formation of project designs (methods and objectives) or in mitigative strategies, syilx nakwulamən will continue to be a resistance to western control. In such a situation Jasmine Peone note that syilx people will be stuck in a “never-ending struggle of trying to pick up the pieces of what’s continually being destroyed” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 01:28:03). 3.3.2.3.1 syilx Interests in Archaeology Pamela Barnes shared that if “archaeology could be done in the way I would like to see it, I want my grandkids to be some of the first ones to be working alongside [it]” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 01:56:59). Based on the responses shared, I gather the correct way involves respect of syilx laws and practices, an awareness of syilx jurisdiction over their nakwulamən and that the extraction of natural resources would be controlled by the syilx Nation. Pamela Barnes and Jasmine Peone relayed the importance of intergenerational education between syilx x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and Knowledge Keepers and syilx youth who will assume roles in archaeology to ensure that syilx laws and values extend into future generations of archaeologists framing this as ‘training the troops’. When I asked about collaboration with outsiders, participants shared that collaborating with respectful, trusted non-syilx archaeologists is of interest so long as syilx peoples control the research process. In these circumstances, a syilx archaeologist shared with me that “trust is the main thing” and that collaborators must be “interested in our way of life” (personal communication, December 19, 2022, 01:24:25). syilx peoples continue to see value in the process of archaeology, but its colonial foundations and harmful practices must change to align with syilx values, so that syilx peoples have voice and control in the whole process. 3.4 Summarizing and Contextualizing Key Findings Jasmine Peone describes Canadian archaeology as destructive and as “one of the swords leading the charge of continuing genocide and colonialism” (personal communication, 59 December 20, 2022, 00:23:47). By focusing only on pre-colonial events, Canadian archaeologists ignore the historic and contemporary context of syilx experiences with the colonial government, which erases physical expressions of these historic elements and their connection to syilx peoples today. This suggests that archaeology as a discipline does not show the appropriate respect to the people, landscapes, or story behind the objects, and prioritizes physical objects over the peoples to whom the heritage relates and represents. In its focus on physical cultural materials, archaeologists ignore the importance of place, which are the sociocultural connections with, and understandings of land. syilx archaeologists expressed to me the importance of building trust in the research relationship and this is foundational to the CARE principle of Responsibility (Carroll et al., 2020). Building trust enables archaeologists to understand their relational accountability within the research relationship (Wilson, 2008) and it must be earned and cultivated, it cannot be assumed. Focus group discussions support syilx survey respondent data by emphasizing the importance of participation in the process of data generation and management. The perspectives of commercial archaeologists operating within syilx territory differ in their perspectives on heritage and archaeology as they view archaeology as a job intended to catalog, evaluate, and control heritage within a broader, extraction-focused resource management system. The process of archaeology is about the identification, recording, and understanding of past objects and spaces to determine their management in the present. Commercial archaeologists typically do not ask what archaeology or heritage means to the communities they work in and establish consultative relationships with Indigenous government offices that do not foster broader participation or conversation in the discipline. In these consultative relationships, commercial archaeologists show a limited awareness in how data is used by syilx community entities, like the WFNAO, and they do not express great concern over the management of syilx data by the provincial government, rather they express concern over the lack of communication received from the province. These perspectives highlight the interests of commercial archaeologists which focus on communicating with government agencies, having access to data, and in the efficient completion of heritage management contracts, which does not align with syilx cultural protocols and distances commercial archaeology from its alignment with an Indigenous Data Governance framework. These differences highlight interests in this discussion: syilx archaeologists seek careful attention to the use of data, accurate metadata, ownership, and show great concern over its control while 60 commercial archaeologists want efficiency in communication and access to data to improve their understandings of the territory. The results of the survey and focus group discussions suggest that commercial interests and legislative, procedural, and cognitive barriers keep commercial archaeologists in the Okanagan from aligning with syilx cultural values. This situation maintains power imbalances in the process of archaeology. Jasmine Peone notes that full control of the system and true syilx jurisdiction over lands is “not happening anytime soon so we…have to play the game of…moving through these colonial systems, but…the eye always has to be on the end game in order to ever get there” (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 01:53:47). The ‘game’ refers to the posturing of syilx peoples within the western sociopolitical system to establish space for syilx perspectives and laws to be considered in legislation, land-use planning, and in society at large. To Jasmine Peone, the “end goal” is to have syilx and settler communities live and work together in ways that assert and recognize syilx cultural values in inclusive ways. The following chapters applies these understandings to critically evaluate the barriers, challenges, and opportunities for syilx peoples in supporting community-led governance of syilx nakwulamən. 61 Chapter 4: Examining Policy, Practice, and Data Use in BC Archaeology It [archaeology] has nothing to do with me or my people. It’s those people with the money with the greediness. It all rolls back - ties back to them. syilx archaeologist (name withheld upon request, personal communication, December 19, 2022, 01:29:01) syilx peoples have long expected equal participation in decision making relating to their lands, peoples, and cultural heritage. A 1910 letter to former Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier signed by fourteen syilx, Secwépemc, and Nlaka’pamux chiefs stated their “desire that every matter of importance to each tribe be a subject of treaty so we may have a definite understanding with the government on all questions of moment between us and them” (Teit, 1910). Despite their expressed desire to begin treaty discussions at that time, Canadian governments have yet to sign any treaties with the syilx Nation. In 2005, Westbank First Nation signed a self-governing agreement with the federal government. The self-governing agreement is limited in authority to reserve lands under Westbank First Nation’s Area of Responsibility, which was defined in Chapter 1. Westbank’s self-governing agreement allows Westbank to create laws over its lands. In 2022, Westbank’s on-reserve archaeology directive received approval from Chief and Council. This directive requires archaeologists to adhere to community permits, to collaborate on the development of research designs and reports, and to ensure Westbank maintains authority over decision-making. The directive requires that archaeologists transfer all data to the community. In effect, this integrates Indigenous Data Governance into Westbank’s cultural heritage policies, and it is the intent of Westbank to enact this directive into law reflecting Westbank’s interest in controlling the practice of archaeology and ensuring that syilx peoples have access to, authority to control, and may use syilx cultural information according to syilx policies and that their cultural knowledge is under their physical possession. Yet Westbank/syilx archaeologists continue to feel excluded from decision making about their lands and nakwulamən outside of reserve lands. syilx and Indigenous rights and interests do not stop at the delineated boundaries of reserve lands as defined by the federal government, rather they extend across the entirety of their territory as defined by these nations. Cultural heritage continues to be framed by the state as a ‘non-renewable resource’ with ‘rich’ value to the province reflecting provincial frameworks of resource extraction and interests in 62 control over Indigenous peoples’ heritage. State and Indigenous perspectives on heritage remain diametrically opposed and Eurocentric views reflected in policies and procedures are imposed upon Indigenous communities in the current heritage legislative framework. However, there is room for change if non-Indigenous archaeologists invest in building relationships of trust with First Nations communities. Understanding how First Nations and their governments navigate heritage legislation and policy is important as it centers the challenges that syilx/Okanagan communities experience in exercising their rights and in practicing community governance of cultural heritage in alignment with Indigenous Data Governance. As the above quote from a syilx archaeologist suggests, syilx archaeologists frequently face challenges, such as racism, voicelessness, and greed in commercial archaeology. During our conversation, this syilx archaeologist indicated they felt the current heritage management system does not intend to contextualize recovered syilx cultural belongings and explore syilx practices, rather archaeology is used to identify and delineate management boundaries to authorize development. Our conversation centered on fostering trust, open-communication, and empathy as grounds to begin to make meaningful change in how archaeologists engage with syilx nakwulamən at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels. Current legal frameworks that govern heritage do not recognize long-standing Indigenous legal systems, traditional land-management practices, and cultural protocols that are under threat from continued development of unceded Indigenous territories (Aird et al., 2019). Rather, state-imposed management systems often contradict Indigenous land governance practices (Grey & Kuokkanen, 2020). In 2013, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs released the Heritage Toolkit (2013) to support “First Nations in the development of heritage related capacity and their own heritage conservation plans or policies” (p.9). The toolkit details the steps that a First Nation can take if it opposes aspects of the heritage process, although these are limited to advocacy and political pressure as “it is difficult to stop the destruction of an archaeological site and it may take the support of your entire community” (Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, 2013, p. 35). Further, McLellan and Woolsey (2024), suggest that Indigenous archaeologists’ feel that commercial archaeology outpaces the capacity of Indigenous Peoples to meaningfully engage with archaeologists and interested parties. Community capacity and inclusion in decision-making over First Nations heritage are critical areas of concern for ethical cultural heritage management practices. 63 This chapter critically examines the policies and systems of BCs commercial archaeology sector that can restrict, distance, and disconnect syilx peoples from nakwulamən. I examine Bulletin 17 and the Heritage Permitting policy and how these create obstacles to Westbank’s control over the process of archaeology and maintain colonial concepts of pan-Indigeneity. Then I critique the digital tools and databases used by the province to control access to and use of heritage data and how use of these systems requires considerable investment (time, money, education) for Westbank archaeologists to interact with their nakwulamən. I show that Westbank archaeologists must rely on the ethics of individuals or corporations to respect their policies and to meaningfully engage as this is not a legal responsibility for archaeologists under the Heritage Conservation Act. Moving forward, intervention is required through the development and application of policy that upholds, rather than ignores, the inherent rights of an Indigenous Peoples to self-determination and to governance of their data (Hudson et al., 2023). 4.1 Contextual Information Section 35 of the Constitution details the Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous Peoples where its actions may adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights (Government of Canada, 2011), and, while issues with this system are not solvable through my research, there are several key points that must be addressed. First, the development of this policy grew from key legal interventions by Indigenous peoples to defend their rights from infringement by the Crown. Three Supreme Court of Canada decisions centered around Aboriginal and/or Treaty Rights have influenced this policy. First, Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1973) determined that Indigenous title existed before the Royal Proclamation of 1763, thus existing outside of colonial law, which established systems for Title negotiations with the Crown (Indigenous Foundations, 2009); second, Guerin v. The Queen (1984) ruled that the Crown has a fiduciary obligation to protect Aboriginal Title and has a duty to consult and accommodate, which subsequently led to changes to the Constitution Act and established grounds for Indigenous Peoples to sue for monetary damages for federal mismanagement of their lands (Reynolds, 2020, pp. 188–192); and third, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) determined that provinces do not have the authority to extinguish a Nation’s rights to their ancestral territories and that Aboriginal Title is an exclusive right to the land affirmed under Section 35 of the Constitution (Borrows, 1999). Second, these Supreme Court decisions led to the development of federal policies and regulations regarding consultation, but tensions between provincial heritage policies and Indigenous peoples persist in BC (Klassen et al., 2009). For example, the Kitkatla Band v. British 64 Columbia (Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism, and Culture), 2002) and Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. British Columbia (Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011) cases specifically argued that the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) is unconstitutional resulting in the BC Supreme Court ruling that while there is a duty to consult where alterations to sites may infringe on established rights, it is the minister authorizing the infringements that is responsible. Furthermore, the Act is a law of general application for provincial matters thus largely exempting the provincial Archaeology Branch from consultative obligations (C. Bell, 2001; Klassen et al., 2009; Ross, 2005). Tensions began with the establishment of colonial heritage law and persist today through the policies, infrastructure, and legislation that restricts Indigenous peoples from their cultural heritage and their inherent rights over it. Lastly, over the approximate 60 years of commercial archaeology in BC, there has been a steady progression towards legislation to protect ‘heritage’ as defined by the state using definitions and standards of practice that do not align with Indigenous worldviews and perpetuate Eurocentric concepts (McNiven & Connaughton, 2020). The HCA (1996) defines heritage belongings as “personal property that has heritage value to British Columbia, a community, or an aboriginal people.” The HCA also defines heritage value as “the historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific, or educational worth or usefulness of a site or object.” By law, heritage sites and belongings are valued according to the interests of the state and settler communities over those of First Nations, who in reality hold rights and interests in and deep connection to these values. This chapter explores the values reflected in provincial heritage policies and legislation and discusses who receives these benefits. Battiste and Youngblood Henderson (2000, p. 38) argue that the “Eurocentric strategy of universal definitions and absolute knowledge has made its [Western] scholarship unable to know and respect Indigenous knowledge and heritage.” Additionally, through its emphasis on ‘worth’ or ‘usefulness,’ heritage may be valued on a sliding scale to the province according to its current interests which influences management practices. Thus, by classifying rather than understanding heritage, the state imposes colonial, Eurocentric concepts on Indigenous communities (Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000). Yellowhorn (1993) observes that the designation of Indigenous heritage as a resource commodifies and incorporates it into a cultural economy that can be disassociated from Indigenous peoples for its extraction and sale by the province. It is important to note that Indigenous heritage is controlled by numerous colonially imposed laws, decisions, 65 and jurisdictional boundaries that incorporate different definitions and management practices. To the syilx, this maintains a system that restricts community governance and also restricts the implementation of community-informed heritage management policies on Crown land – lands or land covered by water ‘owned’ by the provincial government and ‘available’ for public use (Province of British Columbia, 2024a). 4.2 The Heritage Conservation Act In 2024, heritage in BC falls under the jurisdiction of the HCA, which received Royal Assent in 1979 and had amendments in 1996 and 2019. Under the HCA (1979), heritage “means of historic, architectural, archaeological, paleontological, or scenic significance to the province or a municipality” which included heritage objects or sites “whether designated or not” and was intended to “encourage and facilitate the protection and conservation of heritage property in the Province” (HCA, 1979). The HCA requires the province to maintain a registry of designated sites and objects though only locations with documented significance to the province were initially eligible for protection. Currently, individuals may not ‘damage, desecrate, or alter’ provincial heritage sites including objects, burials, ceremonial rock art sites with ‘archaeological value’, shipwrecks, or any location with direct material evidence indicating human habitation before 1846 without a valid permit (HCA, 1996). This date reflects the signing of the Oregon Treaty, which demarcated the border between the colony of British Columbia and the United States. Following the Delgamuukw decision, amendments to the HCA in 1996 reflected provincial effort to ‘consider’ Indigenous interests in cultural heritage. Legal definitions of heritage objects and sites were revised to now consider their value to Indigenous communities. Further, the HCA introduced Section 4 authorizing the province to: Enter into a formal agreement with a First Nation with respect to the conservation and protection of heritage sites and heritage objects that represent the cultural heritage of the Aboriginal People who are represented by that First Nation (HCA, 1996). Additionally, the HCA notes that “for greater certainty, no provision of this Act and no provision in an agreement entered into under Section 4 abrogates or derogates from the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of a First Nation or of any Aboriginal Peoples.” While primarily concerned with legal liabilities, these were the first formal considerations of Indigenous rights in provincial heritage legislation since the introduction of heritage law in BC. However, these inclusions are limited in 66 scope as the province maintains decision-making over alterations to archaeological sites, site registration, permit issuance, and in authorizing qualified individuals. In 2019, the HCA was amended with administrative procedures that did not expand the authority of the Act or transfer authority to First Nations. Contravention of the Act may result in fines, stop-work orders, and incarceration, yet few demonstratable cases of violators being convicted of damaging or destroying heritage sites are known. The provincial Archaeology Branch defers all investigations to the provincial Natural Resource Compliance and Enforcement branch – an agency that employs natural resource officers and conservation officers to enforce and investigate reports of non-compliance to policies that govern provincial ‘natural resources’ including registered archaeological sites. At the 2023 Archaeology Branch Community of Practice meeting held in Victoria, BC, the Archaeology Branch announced recent convictions under the Act. During the meeting, the province announced the successful conviction of two private citizens who were found to have knowingly impacted archaeological sites. Monetary penalties (<CAD 10,000) were levied against the individuals with no additional incarceration. The province indicated that their presentation materials would be made public for review, though no progress has been made in releasing this information. These convictions are important, as historically, few convictions have occurred under the Act, as noted above. Until recently, when damage and other impacts to culturally significant sites occurred, out-of-court settlements, remediation agreements and community-collaboration have been the preferred means to enforce the Act (Yellowhorn & Hickok, 2012, p. 93). Yellowhorn notes that in many instances, these remediation solutions are permissible to communities so long as inclusive and cultural protocols are incorporated into the process. 4.2.1 Heritage Conservation Act Section 4 Pilot Project The Joint Working Group on First Nations Heritage Conservation (JWG) called for the implementation of a Section 4 Pilot Project to provide systems to protect cultural heritage spaces not currently considered by the Act. A pilot project is a small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate the feasibility of a project. The JWG was established in 2007 by the BC Assembly of First Nations (BCAFN), the First Nations Summit (FNS), and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) to “explore options and provide recommendations to improve the protection, management, and conservation of First Nations cultural and heritage sites” (The First Nations 67 Leadership Council, 2011, p. 7). Section 4 establishes the legal means to protect spiritual, ceremonial, or culturally significant landscapes not afforded automatic protection by the HCA. This can include intangible heritage as well as culturally significant hunting, fishing, or food-gathering spots that may not contain a visible archaeological component. Under Section 4, Indigenous communities are required to provide suitable rationale in writing to the Lieutenant Governor to establish protection over these sites and the state then decides if it is agreeable. The S’ólh Téméxw Stewardship Alliance (STSA) entered into an agreement with the province after the First Nations Leadership Council Report (2011) to explore the management of intangible heritage within its operational area and to establish and define a consultative area in which the agreement may operate. They began its implementation in 2019 (S’ólh Téméxw Stewardship Alliance, 2022). This pilot project operates within the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the District of the Fraser Valley in the southwestern portion of the province. Limited information regarding the role of STSA in the management of these values is publicly available and as this pilot project remains an on-going initiative no summary report or conclusions have been provided. During the 2023 Community of Practice meeting, the Archaeology Branch indicated that this agreement has enabled Stó:lō Nation (the governing nation of the STSA) to participate in further shared decision-making agreements and that a consultative process now exists for the First Nation and government organizations. Few details were provided to elaborate on this process; however, the agreement involves shared decision-making power in the form of “shared decision-making boards” which may incorporate Indigenous community partners in discussion processes. Yet, the province maintains ultimate decision-making authority as a government agent will review, refute, or accept the boards’ decisions (Tim Turner, Personal Communication, February 24, 2023). Thus, if results from consultation do not fit the mandate of the provincial government or satisfy the needs of its interest groups, the province reserves the right to veto decisions and assert its authority over the claim. Section 4 does not explicitly detail decision-making authority, although Section 12(1) requires all potential alterations to be authorized by a Section 12.2 (Inspection) or 12.4 (Alteration) permit. This implies that intangible heritage protected under Section 4 would be managed according to the Archaeology Branch’s guidelines and permitting system. Therefore, associated reports and data fall under the provincial copyright and Grant of License to maintain the province’s statutory decision-making authority over these data. The provincial copyright and Grant of License are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.5. 68 4.3 The Ministry of Forests and the Archaeology Branch The introduction of the HCA placed archaeological sites under the purview of the Heritage Conservation Branch (HCB) under the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. Later, the HCB was renamed as the Archaeology Branch, and it was transferred to the Ministry of Forests, Land, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (FLNRORD). In 2022, FLNRORD was separated, and the Archaeology Branch was situated within the Ministry of Forests (MoF). Ministerial changes can reflect the fluctuating mandate of the province towards cultural heritage. All First Nations in BC coordinate archaeological activities on Crown land with the province’s Archaeology Branch, which issues archaeological permits and sets standards for collection, management, and storage of archaeological data collected under provincial jurisdiction. The Archaeology Branch office is located on the unceded territories of the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples in the City of Victoria. The Capital Regional District is near the Vancouver Metropolitan Area, where several research institutions, such as the Universities of British Columbia’s Vancouver campus, the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University, Capilano University, are located (see Figure 1 in Chapter 1). Researchers at these public institutions can guide policy and research programs which influences the scope of archaeological research and legislative development to emphasize the interests of coastal First Nations, which does not necessarily reflect the interests of other Nations and can perpetuate problematic perspectives of ‘pan-Indigeneity’ (Minet, 2021). The Archaeology Branch receives its funding through the MoF. The 2024/2025 provincial budget allocated $83,141,000 to the MoF Integrated Resource Operations (including the Archaeology Branch). This accounts for 9.2% of the MoF operating expenses (the specific values provided to the Archaeology Branch are not listed) - 40% of the total MoF operating budget is reserved for maintaining and expanding resource extraction through the office of the Chief Forester and BC Timber Sales (a Crown corporation). The Archaeology Branch applies its funding towards staff capacity, to operationalize and review legislation, to maintain its systems, and to support MoF’s strategic goals of “building a secure, clean, and fair economy” and to “continue working toward true and meaningful reconciliation” as it fulfils its mandate to be an “agency responsible for natural resource management services that supports resilient forests” (Ministry of Forests, 2023, p. 5). To First Nations, limited provincial resourcing is thought to have caused significant impacts to the overall purpose of heritage management in BC (Province of 69 British Columbia, 2023a, p. 3). This is in contrast to industry stakeholder perspectives which argue it impacts the economic interests of “First Nations, private landowners, developers, local government, and natural resource proponents” (Province of British Columbia, 2023b, p. 3). This mirrors sentiments shared to me by syilx archaeologists who feel that corporate interests are prioritized above the management of their nakwulamən, and that the archaeology is purposefully supporting extraction and development over fostering connections to cultural heritage. MoF is “responsible for the stewardship of provincial Crown land and ensures the sustainable management of forests, wildlife, water, and other land-based resources” including archaeology (2023b). The Minister’s mission statement states that it seeks to work with Indigenous and rural communities to “strengthen and diversify their economies,” but does not make explicit what kinds of ‘economies’ are strengthened, or how they are diversified. Some insights can be gained from the mandate letter, which suggests that MoF seeks to modernize and expand the forestry sector, develop new approaches to old-growth logging, develop new fiscal relationships with First Nations that enables revenue sharing, and to support its own capacity to respond to climate, economic, and social issues that fall within its mandate (Eby, 2022). Interestingly, the letter only mentions heritage in relation to aligning the HCA to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) action plan, a five-year plan to align provincial policy with the UN Declaration including the Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project, and to strengthen Indigenous protection of cultural heritage within the Great Bear Rainforest Agreement area, which is located on the north-Central Coast of the province and is home to 26 First Nations (Figure 6). While fruitful, in effect, this focus leaves out the vast majority First Nations in the province from decision making about cultural heritage protection and management. 70 Figure 6. The location of the Great Bear Rainforest (center red; (Great Bear Rainforest Education and Awareness Trust, 2020)) and the overlapping First Nations territories within its boundaries (various colours; (Native Land, 2024)). Importantly, MoF’s standing mandate does not include aims to build community capacity, to conserve natural or cultural values, nor does it seek to revitalize natural and cultural spaces. Building community capacity is an area of keen interest to First Nations communities (Gupta, Bonneau, et al., 2022). It is within this extractive sector that the Archaeology Branch operates, and this situates government perspectives of heritage as a cultural resource akin to lumber that should be quantified, commodified, and extracted. But for First Nations communities, heritage is not a tangible ‘resource’ to be collected, counted, and put away, which places the MOF mandate in opposition to Indigenous interests in, and connection with their heritage. 4.4 Interacting with Cultural Heritage The HCA gives the province the unilateral authority to define the standards, policies and guidelines related to archaeological data and how archaeological work is to be completed. While the province maintains that it engages in full consultation in accordance with established agreements with First Nations (Dent, 2016),the province can establish and enforce policies 71 under the Act without direct consultation unless (1) the province has real or constructive knowledge of the potential or actual existence of an Aboriginal or Treaty right and (2) is contemplating authorizations that might adversely affect those rights. This means that outside of established agreements, the province is not explicitly required to consult with First Nations for general applications such as the approval of professional archaeologists or in the development of policies that outline field, analytical, or reporting methods. These policies define who may legally interact with Indigenous heritage, how they may interact with it, and who controls the information associated with archaeological investigations. Further through examining cultural trail features, Armstrong et al (2023, p. 365) argue that current policies that focus on the recording of tangible cultural heritage and “implicitly discounting the ethnographic and historical accounts, invariably fail to identify the full extent” of cultural heritage during an archaeological assessment. This can have serious ramifications for First Nations and the management of Indigenous heritage. 4.4.1 Assigning Site Significance in BC The archaeological impact assessment guidelines detail the required content, scope, and guiding management strategies for archaeologists and were established in 1989 and revised in 1998 (BC Archaeology Branch, 1998). The guidelines are a framework for all provincially permitted projects such as archaeological impact assessments, systematic archaeological excavations and inventories, or site alterations on provincial land (private or public), but do not specifically detail appropriate methods or data quality expectations. The guidelines provide limited direction for Indigenous inclusion stating, “among those who should be consulted are Aboriginal groups, local museums, archaeological or historical societies, long-time residents, and specialists” (1998, p.9). Direct consultation with First Nations is suggested, but is not expressly required for commercial archaeologists. The intent of the guidelines is to inform the reader that “local perceptions and attitudes may have a significant bearing on resource management decision-making” (1998, p.9). Indigenous peoples are referenced three times in the guidelines: first, that the Archaeology Branch has a responsibility to ensure that First Nations can have their concerns considered; second, in passing regarding direct consultation; and third, in the consideration of “Aboriginal food sources” as part of site survey and sampling. The guidelines provide suggestions and directions for site evaluations and site significance derivation. The province requires archaeologists to consider the “scientific, public, 72 ethnic, historic, and economic” significance of a site (1998, p. 14) (Table 6). “Ethnic” significance is cognate to Indigenous in the guidelines and the limited criteria imply that archaeological sites are only relevant to First Nations in this limited capacity, rejecting First Nations rights and interest in their histories, scientific research, public education, or the economic values of their heritage. Scientific significance is only considered high if the site substantively enhances understandings of the archaeological record as defined by settler archaeologists. Archaeologists evaluate site significance according to its overall integrity, density of cultural objects and features, and its overall representation within the existing archaeological record. However, significance does not determine a site’s protection status under the Act, rather it factors into management direction and decision-making. For example, while an isolated cultural belonging identified in a disturbed context and an in situ cultural feature (e.g., hearth, cultural depression), are equally protected under the Act, the province may require systematic data recovery (e.g., ‘archaeological excavation’) of the cultural feature to mitigate loss to the archaeological record prior to the issuance of a Section 12.4 Alteration permit. This may not be a requirement for isolated belongings. Consultation with Indigenous communities is not explicitly detailed regarding evaluation of the significance of a site, rather, when evaluating ‘ethnic significance’ archaeologists are encouraged to ensure the assessment is done by “someone properly trained in obtaining and evaluating such data (i.e., ethnologists, behavioural scientists, etc.)” (1998, p.14). Table 6. Archaeological site significance criteria as defined by the Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (1998, emphasis added). Indigenous interests are only directly considered by the province in relation to a site’s ‘ethnic’ significance and not the economic, historic, scientific, or public values. Significance Criteria Economic a) What value of user-benefits may be placed on the site (e.g., visitors’ willingness-to-pay and/or visitors’ travel costs) Ethnic a) Does the site presently have traditional, social, or religious importance to a particular group or community? Historic a) Is the site associated with the early exploration, settlement, land use, or other aspect of British Columbia’s cultural development? b) Is the site associated with the life or activities of a particular historic figure, group, organization, or institution that has made a significant contribution to, or impact on, the community, province, or nation? 73 Significance Criteria c) Is the site associated with a particular historic event whether cultural, economic, military, religious, social or political that has made a significant contribution to, or impact on, the community, province or nation? d) Is the site associated with a traditional recurring event in the history of the community, province, or nation, such as an annual celebration? Public a) Does the site have potential for public use in an interpretive, educational or recreational capacity? i. Visibility and accessibility to the public ii. Ability of the site to be easily interpreted iii. Opportunities for protection against vandalism iv. Economic and engineering feasibility of reconstruction, restoration and maintenance v. Representativeness and uniqueness of the site vi. Proximity to established recreation areas vii. Compatibility with surrounding zoning regulations or land use viii. Land ownership and administration ix. Local community attitude towards site preservation, development, or destruction x. Present use of site b) Does the site receive visitation or use by tourists, local residents, or school groups? Scientific a) Does the site contain evidence which may substantively enhance understanding of historic patterns of settlement and land use in a particular locality, regional or larger area? b) Does the site contain evidence which can make important contributions to other scientific disciplines or industry? In practice, there are numerous challenges faced by archaeologists when evaluating or comparing site significances. For example, there are no provincial standards that guide cultural material analyses used by archaeologists to evaluate the ‘scientific’ significance of a site. Under provincial permits, commercial archaeologists are required to collect, analyze, report, and curate cultural belongings and to analyze these belongings with the intent to define “site function, activity areas, and cultural chronology” (Archaeology Branch, The, 2024). Yet, no standard cataloguing processes exist to determine what data is collected and how. Therefore, individual commercial archaeologists may choose their preferred methods or develop proprietary practices. McLellan and Woolsey (2024) indicate that individualized methods and practices are 74 a key theme of concern raised by Indigenous archaeologists and land managers when reflecting on commercial archaeology. Individualized methods can result in disparate datasets that cannot be readily aggregated for use creating labour challenges for future data users. These users must attempt to re-categorize and merge these datasets into internally consistent formats or regather the physical assemblage and re-analyze the belongings (Batini et al., 2009). Further, merging data without review of metadata can introduce error (observation, human, clerical) to the dataset if it is not adequately understood. Re-analyzing an assemblage and/or substantial ‘tidying’ efforts require considerable investment (financial and time) by the researcher (Gupta, 2020). Introducing analytical standards that align with Westbank’s values and revisions to the archaeological impact assessment guidelines would support the generation of consistent datasets that are reusable, interoperable (Wilkinson et al., 2016), and support community access to information. 4.4.2 Culture Areas, Documented Experience, and Barriers in Permitting The Archaeology Branch divides the province into ‘culture areas’ that are defined by: drainage basins that flow into the Pacific Ocean (Interior Plateau), drainage basins that flow into the Arctic Ocean (Subarctic Boreal Forest), or lands within approximately 100 km of the coast (Northwest Coast) (Figure 7). Culture areas are also loosely defined by the Handbook of North American Indians (Sturtevant, 1978) according to culturally ‘similar’ practices, yet the Subarctic Boreal Forest and Interior Plateau represent massive geographic areas where numerous socially, politically, culturally, and linguistically distinct Indigenous Peoples live. This areal view can perpetuate problematic pan-Indigenous perspectives in the application of provincial policy. The province approves archaeologists based on experience and academic credentials to direct fieldwork under a permit (i.e., field director) or to be issued a heritage permit (i.e., permit holder). These authorizations are specific to each cultural area and must be reconsidered each time an applicant seeks approval in a new area. The requirements for receiving field director accreditations are provided in Bulletin 17 and requirements for permit holders are detailed in the Heritage Permits Policy. Field directors act with the authority of a permit holder in the field, while permit holders are held responsible for the quality of work and adherence to provincial regulations. All heritage permits are distributed to First Nations for thirty calendar days as part of the Archaeology Branch’s referral policy. 75 Figure 7. Culture area boundaries as defined by province of British Columbia (Archaeology Branch, The, 2020). The three major culture areas are Interior Plateau (brown), Subarctic Boreal Forest (yellow) and Northwest Coast (green). Under Bulletin 17 (Province of British Columbia, 2024b), applicants are expected to have a postgraduate degree in archaeology, anthropology, or a relevant specialty degree or a bachelor’s degree in these fields with commensurate experience (Table 7). Analytical, laboratorial, or curatorial experience is not a requirement for field director or permit holding status even though these groups generate and curate physical and digital cultural heritage data. Currently, data preparations and considerations for long term data reuse (e.g., metadata, version tracking) is an individual (person or corporate) decision. Permit holder status is granted to any field director that has additional documented experience drafting major archaeological reports and engaging with the Archaeology Branch on site mitigation recommendations. In practice, ‘documented experience’ is not formally tied to a record of archaeological site recording or mitigation rather it is a subjective criterion. A new applicant that satisfies the professional requirements for a permit may apply and risk rejection by the province. Challenges for acquiring permit holding status can continue even after a permit is issued. 76 ‘Novice’ permit holders are restricted from acquiring additional permits until they have successfully completed three permits and shown compliance with the HCA. Hidden requirements, such as the recording and management of archaeological sites or conducting systematic testing programs, are considered on a permit-by-permit basis to determine if an applicant is eligible for each additional permit or if probationary periods require extension. These requirements are not explicitly stated in the Heritage Permits Policy, but the province may ‘consider’ an archaeologist’s “compliance with all requirements and conditions of previous permits held (if any)” on any permit (Archaeology Branch, The, 2020). As of April 2024, the province cites a 20-to-40-week issuance timeline for HCA permits and closing a permit may take an additional 1-2 years. This means that permit holders may require several years before they are eligible to hold multiple permits simultaneously. Table 7. Field Director and Permit Holder eligibility according to Bulletin 17 and the HCA Permitting Process Policy (Archaeology Branch, The, 2020). Strict education and documented professional experience are required however no experience with object or data analysis or curation and no evaluative framework to ‘prove’ knowledge is required. Requirements Field Director Permit Holder Educational MA or BA in archaeology of anthropology or equivalent experience* MA or BA in archaeology of anthropology or equivalent experience* General Experience 360-days in the applicable cultural area No additional experience required Supervising Experience 40-days in the applicable cultural area (can be included in the above 360 days) No additional experience required Excavation Experience 60-days (can be included in the 360 day requirement) No additional experience required Analytical, Laboratory, or Curatorial Experience None required None required Other Experience Demonstrated understanding of regional archaeological site types and their management. Must be the sole author of a major archaeological report that has been accepted and reviewed by the Archaeology Branch or the BC Energy Regulator Other Details A current Curriculum Vitae A current Curriculum Vitae *Equivalent experience is not defined by the province and is determined on a case-by-case basis. 77 Bulletin 17 also contains hidden requirements for field director approval. One such requirement is to identify and manage for a representative sample of expected archaeological sites within a culture area and the jurisdiction of the documented work. Archaeological fieldwork conducted on reserve lands directed by First Nations does not satisfy the supervisory requirements (e.g., 40-days) for permitted archaeological impact assessments as the province only considers works held to their standards in an application. Works on reserve land do apply to an applicant’s general professional experience. First Nations are not consulted when field director applications are reviewed, but First Nations may object to individual permit holders on a permit-by-permit basis. Still, the province does not have the authority to withhold an individual’s permit. The Union of BC Indian Chiefs (2013, p. 23) indicates that “the HCA does not allow them [the Archaeology Branch] to prohibit an archaeologist from working in your territory and they are not in a position to enforce your First Nation’s decision” and that “although currently there is no legal framework to support or enforce your decision, industry and developers who are hiring the archaeologist may have incentive to respect your First Nation’s decision.” In other words, First Nations communities vocalizing objections to individual archaeologists must rely on industry stakeholders to uphold their interests. The representative sample of identified archaeological site types is problematic and I will use the Interior Plateau culture area as an example (Figure 2:Brown). The Interior Plateau includes all portions of syilx territory within Canada and spans from the southeastern border of BC with Alberta westward to the District Municipality of Hope, and northwards to Fraser Plateau near Prince George and Terrace, BC. This culture area spans the traditional territories of numerous culturally distinct First Nations whose heritage may be expressed in unique ways upon the landscape. Archaeologists working within the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa Nation, in Southeast BC (Figure 2: Cranbrook), may interact with sites unique (in the context of BC) to the Ktunaxa, such as tipi rings or pottery. These site types are not known to be present within Dakelh territory in north-Central BC. In Dakelh territory, archaeologists may interact with sites where Dakelh writing, known as Déné Syllabics, may be identifiable on trail marking trees (‘message trees’). These are largely absent outside of Dakelh territories, yet commercial archaeologists working in Ktunaxa territory may be denied their status as a field director unless 78 they have documented knowledge of working with culturally modified trees despite the reduced potential to interact with these features. The diversity of site types, communities, and heritage values that are present in the Interior Plateau culture area is vast and the province expects archaeologists to have documented experience across the region to be ‘authorized’ to direct work. This broadly paints each community within the Interior Plateau as archaeologically homogeneous and static entities within the province’s framework (Dent, 2019). Further, this creates a challenge for Indigenous archaeologists employed by their nation who are seeking to gain professional accreditation as their operating area may not be geographically expansive enough to acquire experience and record site types. Specific criteria for recorded site types and regions of employment, if they exist, are not publicly available and is a topic of considerable tension between the BCAPA and the province. BCAPA executives meet with the directors of the Archaeology Branch on a quarterly basis and relay membership concerns regarding current professional challenges. Raelene Danks, administrator of the BCAPA indicated that clarity on Bulletin 17 and the Heritage Permits Policy are amongst the most frequently requested topics of discussion and that the province no longer addresses this topic (personal correspondence, April 13, 2024). These policies create economic and labor barriers that can impact an Indigenous archaeologist’s professional development. They incentivize corporations to ensure that their staff are recorded on provincial site records and reports as supervising archaeologists and to maintain sole authorship on reports to ensure that they may develop their staff. Further, First Nations archaeologists are often given a sub-contractor role, and as a result, they are typically not recognized in reports for holding supervisory positions even when their field responsibilities included supervising crew. From a corporate liability perspective, this ensures that the prime contractor holds responsibility for the quality of the work to be held accountable. Yet, from the perspective of a First Nations archaeologist, this results in the erasure of their authorship and field experience. This situation means that their expertise is not “documented experience” and thus they have difficulty meeting the requirements to hold permits. Further, when an archaeologist is designated as a field director, their flexibility to be transferred to other culture areas for contracts may be restricted as their employer may not view their transfer as financially viable as field directors typically receive higher remuneration (British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists, 2022a). Therefore, corporations apply 79 higher charge-out rates for field directors and employing them in junior roles reduces their individual profitability. This limits professional mobility outside of areas of specialization. Therefore, for an archaeologist to diversify their experience, they need to work for companies that maintain broad operational areas or seek alternative employment in a different culture area. In my personal experience, due to the high demand for field directors within the Interior Plateau culture area at previous firms, numerous professional opportunities to work outside of this area were offered and subsequently rescinded as corporate interests are prioritized over individual interests. Additionally, Indigenous archaeologists must be appropriately recognized by consulting firms in associated reports to document their experience to provincial standards. The WFNAO has flagged the need to recognize staff authorship in reports (discussed in Chapter 3). The field director and permit holder system restrict equal First Nation participation within the commercial archaeological sector which in turn, reinforces an uneven and unbalanced power relationship in fieldwork. Connaughton and Herbert (2017) note that First Nation inclusion in commercial archaeology is often limited to field-based participation under the direction of commercial archaeological firms. First Nation engagement in reporting, analysis, and management decisions is limited and varies between firms. This normative behavior in commercial archaeology typically prevents First Nations archaeologists from equal opportunity to contribute to heritage reports, be credited for their work, or have a say in what knowledge and skills are relevant in gaining archaeological training and experience which impacts their career progression into director and leadership positions. Educational requirements may also inhibit First Nations archaeologists from equal participation as they continue to face discrimination and structural barriers that create significant educational gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations in Canada (Ottman, 2017). Ottman (2017, p. 98) notes that non-inclusive curricula, intergenerational legacies of mistrust from the IRSS, the absence of financial resources, and the absence of role models with higher education have led to comparatively lower rates of enrolment and completion of higher education programs. Carr-Stewart et al (2013, p. 29) observe that mistrust persists in the post-secondary education system as it is seen to sever the connection of Indigenous peoples to their community and like IRSS, seeks to assimilate Indigenous peoples into settler society. Furthermore, as Indigenous archaeologists or heritage workers typically work within their traditional territory, they may not have the opportunities to interact with, record, or excavate the diversity of site types that the province expects field directors to have. These barriers 80 disadvantage Indigenous leadership in commercial archaeology in BC and serve to uphold the current power structure. Through this, settler archaeologists continue to influence the methods employed within permitted studies, control who enacts those methods, and then draft summary reports thus maintaining disproportionate decision-making and power over the management of First Nations cultural heritage. 4.5 Accessing Cultural Heritage Data The following sections explore how barriers in the digital ecosystem restrict Westbank First Nation from their data. The province of BC’s archaeological data ecosystem maintains three primary systems: the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD), the Provincial Archaeological Report Library (PARL), and the Archaeological Permit Tracking System (APTS) (Figure 8). Access rights to archaeological records is contingent upon adherence to the provincial Grant of License (Figure 9) and the Access to Archaeological Information policy (BC Archaeology Branch, 2012). While APTS stores and transmits archaeological data, its primary purpose is to facilitate the provincial permit process, as such, I do not specifically examine it. Access to data repositories is controlled by the Archaeology Branch and only available to authorized users through the provincial BCeID program. The BC electronic IDentification (BCeID) program connects users to over 95 government online services and has three types of accounts: businesses, individual where their identity must be verified, and a basic account for non-identifying personal use. Businesses and individuals must request registration via the BCeID online tool, and the Archaeology Branch may grant, or revoke users’ access to one or all of its data repositories via the BCeID. 81 Figure 8. An illustration of the province’s archaeological database systems, management, and access. Hashed lines represent partial permissions, while solid lines represent full permissions. The BCeID process is controlled by the provincial government and applied to all individuals, agencies, and organizations shown in this figure. Arrows directed up indicate a user has upload permission, while arrows directed down indicate download permissions. 82 Figure 9. The provincial Grant of License is within the Heritage Permits Policy. It indicates that the province may use archaeological data for the protection of heritage (Archaeology Branch, The, 2020). To enact IDG, the province could amend its Grant of License to include provisions to redact culturally sensitive information following consultation with interested First Nations to begin integrating IDG principles to existing policies. Digital archaeological information and archaeological literature generated under provincial permits are fully or partially owned by the province and protected under copyright. Permitted archaeologists are required to agree to a non-exclusive copyright agreement with the province to conduct their activities. The terms and conditions for RAAD indicate the province is the copyright owner of digital data contained within this database (Figure 10). Refusal of provincial copyright agreements may not directly impede an archaeologist’s permit eligibility, but it may restrict the archaeologist from continued access to provincial archaeological databases. Discontinued access can limit an archaeologist’s ability to accurately identify, document, and evaluate regional archaeological sites, thus increasing their risk of inadvertent impacts to known archaeological sites and the subsequent revocation of their permit eligibility. In this way, the province politely forces archaeologists to adhere to its policies or face professional and economic risk. Agreeing to these permit conditions enables the province to access archaeological information within the report for use in heritage management efforts, and makes no reference to the redaction of information about First Nations sites or the use of data sharing 83 agreements with First Nations to co-manage these data. The province could amend its Grant of License and copyright to begin to address these issues. For example, statements indicating that culturally sensitive information may be redacted from reports, multimedia, and maps, and use of unredacted information by commercial archaeologists might be assessed case-by-case, following engagement and requests from First Nations. This engagement must be conducted by the province and not First Nations. Figure 10. Presented Terms and Conditions Concerning Access to Archaeological and Heritage Information (Archaeology Branch, 2023). Note bullet four which asserts provincial ownership over digital cultural heritage data contained in its systems. 84 4.5.1 The Provincial Archaeological Reports Library PARL is an online repository of permitted archaeological reports for heritage inspection or alteration permits issued between 1960 and 2024 (at the time of writing). Access to PARL is granted only to professional archaeologists, accredited researchers, members of a First Nations government office, or a relevant provincial or federal government official. Approved users may freely download available reports. Only reports reviewed and approved by the Archaeology Branch are available on PARL. The Archaeology Branch does not host a registry of non-permitted archaeological reports on this server and, currently, there is no provincial registry or database for non-permitted assessments thus it is difficult to ascertain how frequently they are conducted beyond personal observations. Proponents often request non-permitted assessments (and their summary reports, memos, or letters) including desk-based archaeological overview assessments and preliminary field reconnaissance surveys during a project design phase to minimize archaeological concerns. In my professional experience, non-permitted studies are amongst the most frequently conducted study types in BC resulting in consultants, corporate entities, and private citizens holding large volumes of archaeological data. Registered professional consulting archaeologists with the BCAPA are expected to adhere to the Association’s Code of Conduct which requires archaeologists’ to “make reasonable efforts to inform those Indigenous and descendant communities who have identified an interest in an area, prior to conducting archaeological studies” (British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists, 2022b). Therefore, the responsibility to engage with and consult First Nations under non-permitted studies is a personal and/or corporate decision. The absence of a registry of non-permitted studies raises three key concerns: (1) that archaeological research is done without the knowledge of First Nations or the province thus circumventing the entire heritage management system, (2), that First Nations cannot readily identify or acquire the reports or data from assessments conducted within their territory to review them or raise their concerns, and (3), that cultural data (in the reports) are withheld from Indigenous peoples who have a right to access these data. 4.5.2 Remote Access to Archaeological Data The Archaeology Branch manages a registry of approximately >60,000, primarily digital, archaeological site records using RAAD. RAAD is a web-based geographic information system (GIS) used to store, visualize, and query provincial archaeological multimedia and/or geospatial data (Gupta 2020). RAAD is accessible to professional consulting archaeologists, accredited 85 researchers, local, provincial, and/or federal government staff, and accredited researchers. Some users (e.g., government or public planners) have restricted access to RAAD content. RAAD utilizes numerous provincial data layers including administrative data, transportation networks, crown land use, and archaeological and heritage data and users may upload geospatial data for use within RAAD (see Figure 8). Users with BCeID can access and download individual site records including site reports, photos, cultural material catalogues, technical reports, and geospatial data. RAAD is used for mapping tasks, queries based on site category, type, and location, and it displays the geographic location of archaeological sites, historic sites, and provincially approved GIS-based archaeological predictive models. Predictive models incorporate topographic, ecologic, environmental, archaeological, and ethnographic data to predict the potential presence of archaeological sites upon the landscape. The Archaeology Branch maintains a registry of forty locally focused models that are approved for resource management activities, although no province-wide model exists. Provincial models currently cover coastal regions, portions of the central, northern and southern Interior, the Kootenay region, and the Peace-Liard region. The methods, parameters, precision, and outputs of these models are unique to each project area. As such, the quality and accuracy of these models and the inclusion of First Nations’ participation in their development varies. In November of 2023, the province made its Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) Guidelines document public. Chapter 5 specifically discusses the development and use of an AOA model within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. The design of RAAD assumes that the typical user has prior knowledge of GIS to navigate, interact with, and understand data stored in the system. Users must first be permitted access to RAAD to interact with these data, which can be an obstacle for many Indigenous peoples. Then, because RAAD assumes users have prior knowledge of GIS tools, the burden of labour shifts to the user, who must manually navigate and evaluate data for quality and suitability. While GIS training is not a requirement of archaeology or anthropology degrees, many archaeologists have a professional familiarity with these tools. Formal GIS training at provincial research institutions can cost thousands of dollars in tuition and take between 6 months (e.g., certificate) to 2 years (e.g., diploma) to complete and continued use of GIS software is required to maintain familiarity. This maintains hegemonic Euro-Canadian 86 dominance in the commercial archaeological sector and can restrict Indigenous peoples’ inherent rights to self-determination and to engage with their cultural heritage. 4.6 Interacting with Heritage Data using RAAD RAAD hosts a help document in its graphical user interface, which provides image-based, step-by-step instructions for the systems functions (Figure 11). This document is written in clear and accessible language, but it requires a basic understanding of GIS systems and concepts. Terms like ‘polygon,’ ‘shapefile,’ ‘layer,’ and ‘intersect’ have specific geospatial definitions which are not explained in the glossary of terms. The first seven pages of the document guide users through the search function for site records, the export of site or archaeological overview assessment data, and on establishing areas of interest, and lastly by the ‘feature search’ tool, which allows users to query specific data attributes contained in a layer. Additional details related to specific archaeological layers such as the layer description, currency (e.g., frequency of update), data origins, key attributes, and in some circumstances, commentary on data quality follows. Data quality information is not comprehensive, and is only available for the archaeological site, archaeological site buffers (50 m), unreviewed site record updates, areas of potential, subsurface test areas, and archaeological study areas (e.g., studies conducted under an HCA permit). Figure 11. Users of RAAD may perform ‘quick searches’ using site or project specific information as well as toggle the visibility of publicly available layers. The RAAD Help button redirects users to a web-based 87 help document where they must seek out the specific information; help information on individual functions is not available within the application. Data quality information related to the archaeological site layer is strictly descriptive and directs users to “always verify digital site locations against related site maps before making land-use decisions” noting that “spatial errors are corrected as they are identified and reported”. However, no record detailing these corrections is maintained for independent review by archaeologists (Archaeology Branch, The, 2023a, p. 16). This means that data users must trust the quality of provincial data or devote staff resources to review associated field data, maps, reports, and potentially re-digitize data for their own use. It is important to note that depending on when a site was recorded , associated maps, field notes, and reports may not be digitally available or digital versions may be low resolution scans of reports and maps requiring interested parties to obtain physical copies. This can increase labour investment related to archaeological data preparation for use by a First Nation (Gupta, 2020). The use of RAAD as an analytical tool is a cumbersome process. To explain, I use an example of a Westbank archaeologist looking to conduct a basic spatial query to identify culturally sensitive sites (in this example, ‘pictographs’) within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. Nancy Bonneau, supervisor of the Westbank First Nation’s Archaeology Office, indicated that the WFNAO has worked to remove physical copies of books that detail the location of these spiritual sites from the public domain and that restricting access to this data is of significant interest to the WFNAO. Yet digital records of these sites are still accessible on RAAD, and the associated reports may be viewed on PARL. In an IDG framework, syilx peoples have control over what information is available, to whom, and what its permissible uses are. If culturally sensitive information is presented, cultural metadata or knowledge labels that embed cultural protocols or consultation information could be used to guide the ethical use of these data (Gupta et al., 2023). This is not how the system currently operates. It is important to note that Nancy, who has worked with a First Nations government office for over 20 years still does not have access to RAAD and must submit individual data requests to the province. The province controlling access to RAAD for Westbank archaeologists is emblematic of the hoops that they must jump through to use the systems that house the information they have inherent rights to access, manage and use to their community’s collective benefit. 88 An authorized Westbank archaeologist would need to navigate to Appendix A of the provincial Site Form and Mapping Requirements (BC Archaeology Branch, 2024) to identify and confirm the ‘typology’ of the site (“Traditional Use – Rock Art – Pictograph”). Then, they would need to use the “feature search” tool where they would select a layer, an attribute, and a variable to direct their query (Figure 12 and Figure 13). A limited number of records (n=200) may be queried using this tool. Figure 12. The feature select tool allows RAAD users to query spatial layers according to their layer attributes, but the spatial extent of the query is scale dependent. Figure 13. The “Where” dropdown box allows users to select from specific attributes associated with a spatial layer. 89 RAAD’s detailed search parameters are not connected to imported areas of interest7 (AOI) and are scale dependent. Scale refers to the ratio between measurements made on a map view and measurements in the real world and RAAD users may select from twenty-six pre-established scales. While AOI on RAAD may be used to select general records, selected results cannot be queried or refined by the system resulting in manual (de)selection. So, if a Westbank/syilx archaeologist wanted to query specific records about (within) Westbank’s Area of Responsibility, they would need to set their map view to an appropriate scale (1:1,100,000) on RAAD which captures Westbank’s Area of Responsibility for the query. This search results in site records outside of the Westbank’s Area of Responsibility that must be manually deselected (Figure 14). This process adds additional time for the user to complete their query. Connecting RAAD’s search function to an AOI could expedite the data selection and navigation process for users, and therefore increase the system’s functionality as a research tool for Westbank archaeologists. Figure 14. A query of the Archaeological Sites layer for sites that contain “picto” in their typologies across portions of syilx territory. The presentation of individual layers on RAAD is scale dependent, which can make regional visualizations of registered spiritual sites in Westbank’s Area of Responsibility difficult for users of this system. RAAD users can select the map scale using a dropdown menu in the bottom-left corner of the screen. 7An AOI refers to the specific spatial extent of a particular study and in a GIS and are typically a vector layer (line, polyline, or polygon). 90 Once the user has manually verified that only the site records of interest are displayed, they may select the “Site Data Export” tool and download the files. The number of files users may download per request is limited (100 site records, 100 documents, and up to 500 datapoints in a shapefile)– even though the query may capture up to 200 records, meaning this process must be manually repeated if greater than 200 records are identified. This involves intensive data management that can create obstacles to the efficient use of archaeological data (Gupta, 2020). Alternatively, users that are trained in or have access to dedicated geographic information systems (discussed in Chapter 5) in their offices may select all sites within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility via an AOI, download the files, and use scripted workflows within a GIS to identify, separate, and interact with these sensitive site records. While both options require a degree of manual interaction, training in a GIS enables users to interact with RAAD more efficiently and with less risk of user error. Training with a GIS often requires study at a university or technical institute and carries significant financial and personal investment. Further, overall quality of the data is variable, and this can add to the labor burden of users who must manually verify the data quality. The province expects RAAD users to evaluate the quality of its data prior to its use. This is problematic, as not all RAAD users have deep understandings of the nuances and limitations in archaeological datasets, or the accuracy of geospatial projections and there is trust that the presented data is of suitable quality. Significant management challenges arise when these data are used by untrained individuals to inform decision-making, which can cause lasting harm to Indigenous peoples and their heritage. I discuss the impacts of data quality in depth in Chapter 5. 4.7 Redirecting the Benefits of Commercial Archaeology to the Westbank First Nation I present key interventions that can be adopted into commercial archaeological practices to support the development of relationships of trust. In turn, these practices can bring benefit to syilx peoples and foster sustainable research practices that prioritize community interests and respect inherent community rights to, and over their cultural information. Redirecting the benefits of research to Indigenous peoples is a core element of an IDG framework (Carroll et al., 2020; Hudson et al., 2023). When applied to BC’s commercial archaeology sector, this begins with commercial archaeologists centering decision-making authority regarding the design of the 91 archaeological project, including management, preservation, and curation of heritage with the communities in which archaeological work is conducted. This ensures that current and future generations maintain connection to research data and have the authority to control the manifestations of their heritage. Community management of heritage means the acknowledgement and recognition of Westbank jurisdiction over their lands, resources, and manifestations of their heritage. This would enable Westbank to control and manage their resources and heritage sites or objects, and the narratives of their past, present, and future to heal from generational trauma. This supports the revitalization of syilx lands, language, and culture. This begins to enact IDG in, and redirects the benefits of, commercial archaeology from the state to Westbank. Redirecting benefits requires intentional change by archaeologists at an individual, consultancy, and provincial level (Table 8). Focus group discussions and survey results presented in Chapter 3 have informed these specific changes and only represent some of the options available to commercial archaeologists. Table 8. Constructive action must occur across various scales within the BC heritage ecosystem to ensure that the rights of Indigenous peoples to and over their data are respected and incorporated into daily practice. Provincial Consultancy Individual Action IDG Principle* Action IDG Principle Action IDG Principle* Legislative changes (e.g., HCATP) Ownership, Control; C3, A1, R1, E1, E2 Inclusive budgeting and research design Control; C1, C3, A1, R1, R2, E1 Education of on-going impacts of colonialism C3, R1, E1, E2, Implementing policies that influence permitting and establish data standards Control; C3, A1, A2, A3, E1, E2, E3; FAIR Broader participation and inclusion of Indigenous peoples/perspectives throughout a project lifecycle Control, Access; C1, C2, C3, A1, R1, R2, E1 Self-reflection on personal motivations and relationships R1, E1 92 Provincial Consultancy Individual Broader application and access to HCA Section 4 Agreements Ownership, Control, Access; C3, A1, R3, E2 Recognition of Indigenous staff in reports C1, C2, R1, R2, E3 More equal and comprehensive collaboration Control, C1, C3, A1, A2, A3, R1, R2, R3, E1, E3, Legal recognition of intangible heritage Control, A1, R1, R3, E2, Inclusion of technical and cultural metadata Control, Access; A1, A2, A3, R3, E3; FAIR Open a dialogue with community partners C1, C3, R1, E1, E2 *Additional information regarding these principles is provided on pages 120-124. 4.8 Summary Westbank First Nation has expressed interest in connection to data associated with syilx nakwulamən and ancestors, yet provincial policies (Bulletin 17, AIA guidelines, and Heritage Permits Policy) and digital systems (BCeID and RAAD) enforce systemic barriers that restrict syilx people’s (re)connections to their data. There are three key takeaways from this chapter: first, cultural heritage is under the ministerial purview of the MoF which seeks to incorporate heritage into the provincial natural resource economy. This reflects the state as a self-appointed steward of syilx nakwulamən to legitimize its actions in resource management. Second, the province continues to control decision-making authority over heritage permitting, project approval, site definitions and designations, access permissions for heritage databases, and who may create, modify, or use heritage data. This serves the interests of the state and maintains barriers for the leadership of Indigenous peoples in archaeology and upholds exclusionary and economically focused colonial practices. And third, Indigenous Peoples have had to first establish in Canadian courts and then defend their constitutionally protected Rights and Title against government schemes aimed to erode these rights via land displacement and resource extraction. Contemporary Indigenous leaders continue the practice of earlier Indigenous leaders to establish organizations and working groups that aim to foster collaboration and representation of Indigenous peoples in the decision-making process to engage with the Crown on equal nation-to-nation terms. This has influenced heritage management practices through legislative changes, the implementation of community-supported programs (e.g., Section 4 of 93 the HCA), and in the formation of the government-to-government JWG. Through its legislation, policies, and control over the data ecosystem the Crown continues to exert total control over cultural heritage. This chapter reflects a need for commercial archaeologists to act as citizens and advocates to the province to repeal or restructure existing policies and replace them with community-informed policies that foster Indigenous access and control over the process of commercial archaeology. This can include establishing data collection and curation standards, policy amendments that provide greater clarity or more inclusive criteria for education or experience requirements for field directors and permit holders, and for the province to recognize community-led archaeological work conducted outside of provincial jurisdiction. In turn, this would create space for Westbank/syilx archaeologists operating within the labour market to be recognized for their knowledge and to build community capacity to conduct archaeological studies within existing frameworks. Legislative requirements that compel commercial archaeologists to adhere to community heritage permitting processes and to list community archaeologists as analysts, supervising archaeologists, or report authors would also support the professional development of Westbank/syilx archaeologists and position them to control the management their nakwulamən under the current legislative framework. As the province aims to implement its DRIPA action plan, continued advocacy to establish a new legislative framework that enables full community control of cultural heritage is required by all archaeologists as the current system is founded on exploitative, colonial concepts that have disadvantaged Indigenous peoples (Province of British Columbia, 2023a, 2023b). Without intervention, Westbank’s inherent rights to self-determination and to governance of their data (Hudson et al., 2023) will be ignored and restricted. 94 Chapter 5: Bridging Theory, Practice, and Ethics in a Digital World Us as First Nations and First Nations communities working in archaeology or just in general – we’re very limited in what we can even do…We’re very much forced to be reactive… We get a very limited ability to challenge or alter projects in order to preserve and protect our areas. Jasmine Peone, syilx archaeologist (personal communication, December 20, 2022, 00:23:47) Previous chapters have introduced the sociopolitical context and standards of practice for commercial archaeology in Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. Here, I shift focus to frameworks of collaborative archaeological research and digital archaeology. Collaborative, community-focused archaeological research focuses on the examination of the researcher-participant relationship and in the development and application of specific research practices that challenge the relationship of the researcher to the communities with whom they conduct research with, for, and on (Wylie, 2019). Community-oriented, collaborative approaches to archaeology have been recognized as a key part of archaeological practice in British Columbia for several decades (Carlson, 1979; Klassen, 2013; Lyons et al., 2021, 2022; Mohs, 1976; G. Nicholas, 2001; G. P. Nicholas et al., 2016), yet these practices are not uniformly employed within the commercial sector (Connaughton & Herbert, 2017). When these approaches are applied, Indigenous archaeologists often continue to feel like the “subaltern that shakes the screens and takes direction” (Yellowhorn & Hickok, 2012, p. 89) from predominantly white, settler archaeologists. The subaltern refers to a socioeconomically and politically marginalized group whose agency is restricted within a colonially-imposed political, economic, or social structure (Thomas, 2018). Indigenous archaeology is a theoretical component of post-processual archaeological thought (Atalay, 2006; G. P. Nicholas & Andrews, 1997) that the majority of current commercial archaeologists in BC have likely been exposed during their education (La Salle & Hutchings, 2012). Yet, as Jasmine Peone, a syilx archaeologist, notes in the above quote, syilx archaeologists continue to feel trapped within an imposed system that requires them to be reactive to the practice of commercial archaeology. This feeling of exclusion extends to the reporting and datafication – the transformation of information into digital formats that can be tabulated and analyzed, often for its economic value (Mejias & Couldry, 2019) –-of archaeological information in digital environments as Indigenous perspectives are typically excluded from this area (Connaughton & Herbert, 2017; Gupta et al., 2020). 95 Digital archaeology is a subdiscipline of archaeology that prioritizes the development of reusable, reliable data and the use of digital techniques or inquiries to explore human behavior, to engage with digital heritage, and to participate in storytelling (Watrall & Goldstein, 2022), yet discussions of the ethics of working with Indigenous peoples is still limited (Gupta et al., 2023; Gupta, Nicholas, et al., 2022). With an increasing reliance on digital databases and the accumulations of volumes of digitally borne data generated by commercial archaeologists, bridging these approaches is critical to conduct ethical and sustainable research that supports community stewardship and decision-making over archaeology and heritage. An Indigenous Data Governance (IDG) framework can connect digital and collaborative archaeological practices and help Indigenous Peoples in exercising their rights in archaeology and digital heritage. This chapter introduces the key guiding principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2016), CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) (Carroll et al., 2020), and the closely related FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) (Wilkinson et al., 2016) for the use, management and sharing of digital data. I examine how current archaeological practice that focuses on community-led, collaborative approaches must extend to datafication and digital research ethics or they will continue to distance Indigenous peoples and scholars from knowledge and data about their heritage and ancestors. This is followed by a discussion of digital archaeology to explore how ethical considerations of the use and re-use of archaeological data must center Indigenous stewardship of data about themselves, their lands, waters, and heritage. In the absence of IDG principles, digital archaeology can reinforce colonial practices that ignore inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples under the UN Declaration. Practicing archaeology within an IDG framework centers the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and thus provides opportunities to transform commercial archaeology. 5.1 Indigenous Data Governance Indigenous Data Governance (IDG) centers the reclamation of “control of data, data ecosystems, data science, and data narratives” to focus on collective benefit and equity for Indigenous peoples. In so doing, Carroll et al. (2020, p. 2) seek to transform Indigenous communities “from subjects of data that perpetuate unequal power distributions to self-determining users of data.” Globally, focus on Indigenous data sovereignty gained traction in the late 2000s and early 2010s after the adoption of the UN Declaration by member states of the United Nations. The UN Declaration reaffirmed the rights of Indigenous peoples’ self-96 determination, and to decision-making about their heritage. These developments reflect discourse in Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights and research ethics (Carroll et al., 2020, p. 2). Central to IDG is Indigenous data which Carrol et al (2020, p. 3 emphasis added) define as: 1. Information and knowledge about the environment, lands, skies, resources, and non-humans with which they have relations. 2. Information about Indigenous persons such as administrative, census, health, social, commercial, and corporate; and, 3. Information and knowledge about Indigenous peoples as collectives, including traditional and cultural information, oral histories, ancestral and clan knowledge, cultural sites, and stories, belongings. IDG has been intellectually influenced by Indigenous-led initiatives that establish community-specific and/or generalized research frameworks such as the Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty (Te Mana Raraunga, 2018), the Indigenous Data Sovereignty Communique (Maiam nayri Wingara, 2018), the United States Data Sovereignty Network Indigenous Data Governance Principles (USIDSN, 2020), OCAP® (FNIGC 2018), the Principles of Ethical Métis Research (Métis Centre, 2011), and the National Inuit Strategy on Research (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2018). The International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group, later the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA), incorporated these practices into the formation of the CARE principles, which reflect “high level actions applicable within research, government, and institutional data settings” aimed to integrate Indigenous data sovereignty into research (Carroll et al., 2020, p. 5). CARE enables Indigenous Peoples to operate within community protocols related to their heritage rather than superseding existing systems. CARE and principles of OCAP® assert Indigenous rights to their information and these two sets of principles are integral components of an IDG framework in the Canadian context. 5.1.1 The First Nations Information Governance Centre and the OCAP® Principles In the Canadian context, discussion of IDG arose from the absence of legislation that recognizes inherent community rights and the interests in the generation, manipulation, curation, and destruction of data that pertains to First Nations. In the 1990s, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) took initial steps in developing data governance practices through the First Nations and Inuit Regional Health Survey (RHS). The RHS was developed with the intention to collect on-reserve health data of Indigenous peoples and included a steering committee formed by First Nations representatives who took control over the project from the federal government. 97 This “helped secure the environment for data and information sovereignty that fundamentally changed the way that research on and with First Nations was conducted in Canada” (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2016, p. 139). Over time, the RHS steering committee transitioned to the First Nations Information Governance Committee and later to the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). The FNIGC is a non-profit and apolitical organization operating under a special mandate of the AFN’s Chiefs-in-Assembly that “every First Nation will achieve data sovereignty in alignment with its distinct world view” (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2024). The approach of the FNIGC is an important counter-narrative to Canadian jurisprudence where the recognition of, and alignment to a Nation’s distinct world view is a necessity of research and not simply a best practice. The FNIGC established the principles of OCAP® as a response to First Nations peoples “being researched to death” by non-Indigenous scholars and governments, and First Nation communities receiving at best little or no benefit from these research activities (2016, p. 148). Originally just OCA, Possession (P) was added to recognize the “importance of considering possession of First Nations’ data and the rights and limitations associated with it under Canadian law” (2016, p.148). The principles include: • Ownership refers to the relationship of Indigenous peoples to their cultural knowledge, data, and information – regardless of where it is housed – and asserts that a community or group owns information collectively in the same way individuals own their personal information. • Control refers to the Nation’s rights to define what data can and should be “collected, used, and disclosed” and extends to information management including the “use, disclosure, and ultimate destruction of data” (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2016, p. 149). • Access asserts that Indigenous peoples must have access to their information and data about themselves and their community and refers to the right of Indigenous peoples to manage and make decisions regarding access to their collective information. • Possession refers to the physical control of data and is a mechanism by which ownership can be asserted and protected. 98 The FNIGC implements OCAP® through the FNIGC Code of Research Ethics (FNIGC, 2016), a Cultural Framework (FNIGC, 2004), and through the OCAP® certification program. The Code of Research Ethics emerged from the RHS and has been used as a template for Indigenous information governance systems. The Code of Research Ethics outline that Indigenous communities and organizations must approve or give consent to any research in their communities (FNIGC 2016, p.150). The Cultural Framework (FNIGC 2004) provides supports to reconcile Indigenous worldviews with the need to collect data and conduct research and how these data can be collected, used, and presented in ways that are meaningful to Indigenous peoples (FNIGC 2016, p.151). Lastly, the OCAP® certification program establishes “OCAP® credentials for research projects or information management systems” (FNIGC, 2016, p.152) and supports the distribution of literature to raise OCAP® awareness. In these ways, the FNIGC and OCAP® position First Nations and Inuit as authorizing agents and as regulators of research in their territories to ensure that the benefits of research are understood and returned to the community in which it is conducted, and that research is conducted on their terms. 5.1.2 The Global Indigenous Data Alliance and the CARE Principles GIDA’s CARE principles connect global Indigenous-led initiatives to establish a framework for research practices (Carroll et al., 2020). GIDA manages the development and distribution of educational materials related to the CARE principles and the acronym GIDA is also the Basque8 (a culturally and ethnically distinct community in what is now northeastern Spain) word for “guide” which reflects GIDA’s aim to provide supports for the practice of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (Global Indigenous Data Alliance, 2024). GIDA provides literature and resources in numerous languages including Māori, English, Spanish, Khmer, Vietnamese, and German and its research partners argue that “Indigenous Peoples’ right to sovereignty forms the foundation for advocacy and actions toward greater Indigenous self-determination” and that as the “research environment is increasingly oriented toward open access there is a need to ensure that data systems and practices operate in a manner consistent with the 8GIDA recognizes the longstanding commitment of the Basque people to self-determination, language revitalization, and cultural continuity and the use of the term stems from a workshop titled “International Law, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and Indigenous Data Sovereignty” hosted by the International Institute for the Sociology of Law in Oñati, Spain (GIDA, 2023). Oñati is located within Basque territory. 99 Indigenous aspirations for data sovereignty” (Hudson et al., 2023, pp. 1, 6). Hudson et al (2023, pp. 3–5) identify twelve rights central in IDG based on discussions of Data for Governance and Governance of Data (Table 9). Table 9. Community Rights as outlined in an Indigenous Data Governance Framework (Hudson et al 2023) Concept Right Data for governance Right to Self-Determination: the ability to organize and control data in relation to a collective identity Right to reclaim: the right to reclaim, retain, and preserve data, data labels, and data outputs that reflect Indigenous Peoples’ identities, cultures, and relationships Right to possess: the ability to exercise jurisdictional control over the ways that data flow/move/are queried Right to use: the ability of individuals and collectives to use data for their own purposes Right to consent: the expression of digital autonomy and the ability to assess risks and accept potential harms Right to refuse: the right to say “no” to certain uses of data Governance of Data Right to govern: the right to lead and collaborate in the development and implementation of protocols in decisions about access to data Right to define: the right to define lifeways of knowing and being including how they are represented in data Right to privacy: the protection of collective identities and interests from undue attention, also including the possibility of requesting omission and/or erasure Right to know: the ability to track the storage, use, and reuse of data and who has had access to them Right to association: the recognition of provenance and terms of attribution Right to benefit: the opportunity to benefit from the use of data and equitable benefit sharing from derivatives of data When applied to research, the CARE principles begin to incorporate these rights into project methodologies to support research done in accordance with a specific community’s laws and customs that aligns with their specific research methodologies and interests. The CARE principles include: • Collective Benefit to achieve inclusive development and innovation (C1), improve governance and citizen engagement (C2), and to realize equitable outcomes (C3). Collective benefit is accrued when data ecosystems are designed to support Indigenous use and reuse of data, policy decisions and evaluations of services, and for the creation of data that reflect community values. • Authority to Control acknowledges, recognizes, and affirms Indigenous rights and interests in their data as a human right (A1), that they have the authority to 100 use these data for governance (A2), and the ability to govern data (A3). Authority to Control requires Indigenous peoples to have access to data that supports governance and self-determination and that they must be the ones to determine data governance protocols and stewardship decisions. • Researchers and Indigenous data users have a Responsibility to nurture positive relationships with those with whom the data originate (R1), to expand and invest in community data capabilities and capacity development (R2), and to embed data within Indigenous languages and cultures (R3). • Ethics centers the wellbeing and rights of Indigenous people in research and that they should be the focus across data ecosystems and lifecycles to minimize harm and maximize benefit (E1), for justice (E2), and for future use (E3). Hudson et al. (2023) integrate the Indigenous research concept of relational accountability (Wilson, 2008) to the recognition of community rights to data and in the application of an IDG framework. Relational accountability is directly connected to the CARE principle of Responsibility. An effective IDG framework, by default, must situate itself within the specific methodological, ontological, and epistemological practices of the community. A core element of many Indigenous research practices is the positioning of oneself within the research process by recognizing that the individual is inseparable from the research process (Saxe, 2019; L. T. Smith, 2021; Wilson & Wilson, 2013). This challenges western scientific frameworks that disembody knowledge from self and deny Indigenous worldviews and practices that are systematic, ethical, scientific, and are situated within specific community cultural values (Ali et al., 2022; L. T. Smith, 2021; Wilson, 2001, 2008). This builds the foundation for an understanding of relational accountability. Relational accountability is the responsibility of researchers to fulfil their role and obligations in the research relationship and to be held accountable to these relations (Wilson, 2008). Respect, reciprocity, and responsibility in the research process are fundamental to meaningfully engage with community partners in order to begin to understand the duties of researchers within this relationship (Reich et al., 2017; Wilson, 2008). Focusing on the development of these relationships rather than prioritizing research outputs supports the building of relationships of trust (Smith, 2021; Wilson, 2001, 2008). Wilson and Wilson (2013) argue that research must respect the communality of knowledge, emphasize relational accountability, enact reciprocity, and acknowledge that we are the relationships formed with our partners and not simply participants within them. 101 In research contexts, relational accountability can draw attention to the ownership of data by Indigenous peoples who maintain control and responsibility over data, and the responsibilities of researchers to collaboratively design research that center Indigenous sovereignty over data, and to ensure that Indigenous Peoples have possession of data, and remain connected to data that are shared with external researchers, that the data are in useable formats to aid in governance and that the community builds capacity to use data towards the betterment of its citizens. These are integral to supporting the Right to Self-Determination (Carroll et al., 2020; First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2016; Gupta et al., 2023; Hudson et al., 2023; Reich et al., 2017). 5.1.3 The FAIR Principles The FAIR principles provide a data-centered approach to the effective management of digital information that compliments the IDG principles of OCAP® and CARE. Wilkinson et al (2016) introduced the FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship, which aim to support researchers and to ensure that research and its objects are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. The FAIR principles state that data should be accessible to both humans and machine. To be FAIR, data is: • Findable o F1: (meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier o F2: data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1) o F3: metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data it describes o F4: (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource • Accessible o A1: (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardized communication protocol o A1.1: the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable o A1.2: the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure when necessary o A2: metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available • Interoperable o I1: (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation. 102 o I2: (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles o I3: (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data • Reusable o R1: meta(data) are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes o R1.1: (meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license o R1.2: (meta)data are associated with detailed provenance o R1.3: (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards FAIR does not directly aim to consider the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to their data. However, Nicholson et al (2023, p. 69) note that when applied in conjunction with the CARE principles FAIR can increase access to archaeological information generated about Indigenous peoples and their lands by Indigenous peoples which will “enhance tribal sovereignty” and “[maximize] benefits for tribal communities.” Further, GIDA argues that research should be both FAIR and CARE to maximize benefits to Indigenous Peoples and communities. 5.1.4 IDG and Archaeology Archaeological research has typically been carried out by, and for those outside of the group being studied, which means that cultural heritage and the ‘history’ of most Indigenous nations is written and interpreted by dominant groups, and outsiders to Indigenous communities. This situation is changing. Indigenous archaeology critiques archaeology’s colonial foundations and aims to center the perspectives and interests of Indigenous Peoples in archaeological theory, practice and ethics (Atalay, 2006). However, archaeological knowledge historically serves the interests of dominant groups, and therefore the field continues to cater to a predominately White, cis-male, non-Indigenous public audience and is dominated by western scholars, though many aim to work directly with Indigenous peoples (Martindale et al., 2016; Martindale & Lyons, 2014; G. P. Nicholas, 2006; Wylie, 2019). Archaeological research with Indigenous communities should support capacity building and provide the tools and resources for the community to lead and direct their own archaeological research. Doing so can counter situations in which archaeologists act as self-appointed advocates (Ferguson, 2014; Gupta, Bonneau, et al., 2022; Lyons et al., 2022). While 103 institutional critiques of the process of archaeology, the practice of archaeologists, and guiding legislation are abundant (Gupta et al., 2020; Hogg et al., 2017; Hutchings & La Salle, 2017; G. P. Nicholas, 2006), few examples provide tangible application of the daily practices of commercial archaeologists and the industry’s relationship with Indigenous communities (Connaughton & Herbert, 2017). Further, these critiques do not explicitly discuss community rights over their data. Archaeological training opportunities in digital scholarship outside of intellectual property (Brown & Nicholas, 2012) are limited. Yet, there is growing interest from Indigenous communities in these areas (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2016) and in asserting inherent community rights to control their data ecosystems (Gupta et al., 2023; Gupta, Nicholas, et al., 2022). Archaeologists are beginning to engage more deeply with these developments in the Canadian context as is suggested in a session on the topic at the Canadian Archaeological Association’s 2023 annual conference (Indigenous Data Sovereignty in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, 2023). Recent scholarship by Gupta et al. (2022) observes the silencing of Indigenous and racialized voices owing to limited and differential access to training opportunities, which highlights the importance of the principles of Responsibility and Ethics to archaeological research. These two principles aim to expand the capacity of Indigenous researchers and to develop data governance practices that minimize harm and maximize benefits from data to Indigenous communities (Carroll et al., 2020). Further, Gupta et al. (2023) remark that the implementation of cultural protocols in archaeological research can minimize the misuse of heritage information when it is shared and re-used. For example, the use of cultural metadata that includes the provenance, permissions, and protocol as permanent machine-readable components of the data lifecycle is one way to keep Indigenous Peoples connected to their data, wherever they are shared and housed. As archaeologists recover, use, and manipulate data that is of significant interest to Indigenous communities, the discipline must align itself with the CARE principles and recognize the rights of Indigenous peoples in regard to their data (Hudson et al., 2023) to begin enacting elements of the UN Declaration and to develop research practices where Indigenous communities maintain authority over, and self-determination of, their data (David-Chavez & Gavin, 2018; Gupta et al., 2023). Merging these principles with archaeological theory and practice is integral to ensuring Indigenous data sovereignty is prioritized. The limitations and 104 opportunities in present archaeological practice in digital archaeological discourse will be discussed in subsequent sections. 5.2 Digital Archaeology Digital archaeology centers on the application of information technology and digital media to archaeological investigations, ethical discussions surrounding data use and accessibility, and the use of digital tools in the revitalization, restoration, or visualization of heritage objects, spaces, or cultural practices (Evans & Daly, 2005). Early applications of digital tools to supplement archaeology included the use of geographic information systems (GIS). GIS are commonly used for the management, visualization, and analysis of spatial data to produce cartographic representations and interpretations of data and to model spatial phenomena (Gupta & Devillers, 2017). Although these technologies were being used in government resource and lands management in the 1960s, (McHarg, 1969), they did not gain broad use in academia until the 1980s. This was spurred by the increased availability and affordability of personal computers and by the 1990s, GIS was routinely used in archaeology (Gaffney et al., 1995; Lock & Stančić, 1995). While the use of GIS to aid decision-making is common in archaeology, Gupta and Devillers (2017, p. 26) argue that archaeologists “sometimes [underestimate] the limitations of GIS and their impact on the practice of archaeology” as traditional GIS do not easily support a temporal dimension which is central to very definition of archaeology which examines change through time. The book Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory (Evans & Daly, 2005) formalized the subfield of digital archaeology with a focus on the application of information technology and computation in archaeology and its theoretical limitations. Digital archaeology has grown to include a wide spread of archaeological practices and research topics such as the application of technology to examine human-digital landscapes and object interactions (Eberl et al., 2023; Masson-MacLean et al., 2021; Reinhard & Zaia, 2023), data sharing and management practices (Fletcher, 2023; Lindsay & Mkrtchyan, 2023), and supporting First Nations digital heritage management and storytelling (Gupta, Bonneau, et al., 2022) among others. In conversations between Nancy Bonneau and myself, Nancy has expressed that the WFNAO is interested in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, photogrammetry, and digital data collection software (an initial focus of this research project). These can assist site mapping and 105 interaction as photorealistic 3D models provide deeper contextual information for sites. Models can also support site accessibility for ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and Knowledge Keepers where remote locations are difficult to access. 3D modelling and printing of cultural objects can also support object repatriation from settler institutions or private collections. In turn, this supports syilx reconnections to objects, spaces, and knowledge to support syilx/Westbank futurisms while supporting Westbank’s capacity in digital archaeology. 5.2.1 Data Accessibility, Big Data, and Open Science in Archaeology In the mid-2000s, archaeologists began to have discussions related to data accessibility and reusability as ‘legacy’ archaeological data (i.e., analog field notes) was increasingly combined with born digital data (Snow et al., 2006). Kintigh (2006) notes funding from the United States National Science Foundation grant to Arizona State University, enabled the development of a workshop entitled Enabling the Study of Long Term Human and Social Dynamics: A Cyberinfrastructure for Archaeology. Thirty-one international participants participated in this workshop to discuss the ethics of archaeological data management, storage, and curation. Yet none of the participants were from Indigenous communities or organizations. Participants included archaeologists (21) within regulatory, academic, commercial, and the museum sectors, a physical anthropologist, and individuals (9) from computer science and ecological backgrounds. Kintigh (2006, pp. 573–574) determined that an information cyberinfrastructure must be developed and it must include (1) a web-based interface, (2) sophisticated search capabilities with concept-oriented queries, (3) data integration tools that use machine-readable digital metadata to integrate disparate data sources, (4) it must have reporting capabilities with outputs in forms susceptible to further analysis, and (5) software tools that minimize the human effort and expertise needed to incorporate new datasets. This discussion would subsequently inform the development of a key American archaeological database, the Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR). The need for archaeological cyberinfrastructure is a result of the increasing volume of data generated primarily, although not exclusively, through the regulatory archaeological assessment system (‘commercial archaeology’). This is part of a global technological and ideological shift in how data are generated, stored, and interacted with, known as Big Data. Specifically, Big Data refers to the massive volumes of generated data that can provide greater insights into the specific contributory elements to an observation which can inform interpretations of human behavior, natural phenomenon, or social trends (George et al., 2014). 106 The use, reuse, sharing, and accessibility of this data has made it a global resource that is incorporated into decision making processes, research and innovation, and the commercialization of knowledge (Carroll et al., 2020). George et al (2014, p.322) summarize the sources of Big Data to be (1) public data (i.e., data held by government institutions), (2) private data (i.e., data held by private institutions that is not readily available to the public), (3) data exhaust (i.e., ambient data that is passively collected such as the use of a smart phone), (4) community data (i.e., the distillation of unstructured data into dynamic networks to capture social trends), and (5) self-quantification data (i.e., data revealed by individuals through quantifying personal actions such as personal e-health trackers). Archaeologists interact with public, private, and exhaust data through how data are generated (e.g., smartphone data collecting applications) and their sources (e.g., RAAD). Importantly, corporate, government, and non-government organizations generate and curate these data, requiring careful consideration for their use, as Big Data has become increasingly commercialized by governments and corporations (W. Thomas & Leiponen, 2016). Ethical considerations of data use and accessibility and the democratization of knowledge (e.g., ‘open access’) have emerged alongside Big Data. This is known as the Open Science (OS) movement. While OS has broad aims, specific disciplinary definitions vary. Vicente-Saez and Martines-Fuentes (2018, p. 435) conducted a systematic interdisciplinary literature review regarding OS to develop its definition as: “transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks” and includes open coding, citizen science, open peer review, and open data among other elements which aim to democratize data and create accessible digital research spaces. In archaeology, OS discussions center on the ownership of knowledge, accessibility of data, analytical best-practices, and research transparency (Boettiger et al., 2015; Esteva et al., 2010; Kansa, 2012; Marwick, 2017). Digital archaeological researchers integrate research transparency by incorporating reflexive archaeological practices through data collection software (Ballsun-Stanton et al., 2018; Esteva et al., 2010). While open and accessible data are positive aspirations, these OS concepts rarely consider, or typically underestimate, the interests of Indigenous governments in ownership and governance of digital heritage (Carroll et al., 2020) and knowledge generation from digital archaeological heritage (Gupta et al., 2020; Kansa et al., 2021). 107 5.3 Data Quality and Commercial Archaeology Data quality and accessibility are central components in digital archaeology (Clarke, 2015; Geser et al., 2022; Kintigh, 2006; Snow et al., 2006). Batini et al (2009, p. 16:6-8) include accuracy, completeness, consistency, and timeliness/currency are key dimensions in evaluating data quality. Accuracy refers to the measure of a data value to a ‘real world’ or ‘true’ observation; completeness refers to “the degree to which a given data collection includes data describing the corresponding set of real-world objects” (Batini et al., 2009, p. 16:7); consistency refers to the tendency for data to be internally consistent within and between datasets; currency refers to the date of data generation and its update frequency. The ramifications of poor data quality to commercial archaeological investigations receive significantly less attention (Peixe, 2022) and in the North American context, few scholars address data quality concerns and its impacts to Indigenous peoples (Nicholson et al., 2023). In previous chapters, I introduced the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) system, which primarily functions as a data visualization and navigational tool but contains archaeological data such as the archaeological overview assessment layer - a geospatial layer containing multiple archaeological predictive model outputs. Archaeological predictive models are GIS-based tools that require routine maintenance, often with high costs (labour and financial), to ensure they do not become outdated (Whitley & Burns, 2007). Data from these predictive models are used to inform decision-making and can have considerable impacts to cultural heritage values. The Union of BC Indian Chiefs observes that a poorly functioning model can have “long lasting and unanticipated impacts” on heritage sites as a model presenting “low potential" can be misunderstood by local government to mean the absence of Indigenous heritage concerns (2013, pp. 31–32). Jessica Chillihitzia, archaeological project coordinator for the WFNAO informed me that the WFNAO objects to the use of ‘low potential’ in assessments and requests that reports within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility omit the term and provide additional justification for why further investigations are not warranted (Personal communication, March 22, 2024). This is because the WFNAO has identified archaeological sites and belongings in areas classed as ‘low potential.’ Commercial archaeologists commonly use terms like ‘low potential’ and ‘archaeologically sterile’ to justify the termination of a test pit/sampling unit or to ‘write-off’ study areas due to their perceived lack of association with archaeological sites (as defined by the HCA) often with limited supportive evidence. 108 5.3.1 Case Study: The Okanagan-Shuswap Forest District Archaeological Overview Assessment In syilx territory and throughout the majority of Westbank’s Area of Responsibility, the province uses the regional Okanagan-Shuswap Forest District Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) (Arcas Consulting Archeologists, 1997). The model was initially designed for timber harvesting activities in syilx and Secwépemc territories (Figure 15). The authors indicate that specific consultation, collaboration, and interviews with Indigenous Knowledge Keepers is vital to understand community heritage concerns, but that “the terms of reference for this study precluded such work” (Arcas, 1997, p. 20). Representatives of the Okanagan Indian Band, Upper Nicola Indian Band, Lower Similkameen Indian Band, and Upper Similkameen Indian Band levied complaints over the AOA process during its development and in the report, they were merely acknowledged for having “concerns” (1997, p. vi). Figure 15. The provided Okanagan-Shuswap AOA metadata details the general study area, the location of the associated report, and information to interpret study results. The model incorporated ‘Indigenous perspectives’ with Euro-Canadian collections of ethnographic materials, historical documents, and archaeological research. It is important to note that the authors of the report acknowledge concerns over the exclusion of Indigenous 109 Knowledge Keepers, but that they still proceeded to conduct the study. The province and commercial archaeologists use this model to aid in decision-making processes and in conducting archaeological studies that focus on resource management activities rather than community-based conversations (G. P. Nicholas, 2006). Under this model, lands within 250 m of a registered archaeological site are considered to have moderate to high archaeological potential and it recommends further archaeological review and/or HCA permits prior to development in these areas. Potential is further refined using proximity to hydrological features, topography (slope, aspect, and terrain ruggedness9), association with ethnographic information, and vegetated land cover. A measure called Kvamme’s Gain is used to test the quality of a predictive model. Kvamme’s Gain provides a ratio between the precision of a model against its accurracy and returns a result between -1 and 1 where a positive result indicates the model ‘works’ according to its own input parameters (Nicu et al., 2019). The Okanagan-Shuswap AOA returned positive Kvamme Gain results for each forest district it covers. The model removed “Class 1” areas which comprise “lands with low potential for archaeological sites” which “usually do not require additional assessment” while “some reconnaissance (not necessarily including a field survey” is recommended” in “Class 2” areas (Arcas Consulting Archeologists, 1997, p. ii). Class 3 and 4 areas should have “some form of field reconnaissance” and a “formal impact assessment,” respectively (ibid). Authors of the model acknowledge the presence of registered archaeological sites within both Class 1 and 2 areas. Formal impact assessments are only recommended for developments within 9.4% of the total study area. In this example, lands not covered by orange, or red polygons (i.e., “Class 1” areas) therefore do not require further review or permits unless requested by an external group (e.g., Westbank First Nation) during the project’s engagement phase. This discrepancy can place registered and as-yet unregistered sites at risk of destruction. Further, if the model does not recommend further assessment, then there may be limited community engagement unless required during the development permit application stage. 9 These terms have GIS-specific definitions in this context. Slope refers to the gradient or steepness between raster cells, aspect refers to the slope direction, and terrain ruggedness refers to the elevation difference between cells. These geospatial analyses require a digital elevation model. 110 The province’s RAAD help document indicates that the last substantial update to the “Archaeological Overview Assessment” layer was in 2011 (Province of British Columbia, 2023d) and the Okanagan-Shuswap AOA model was not updated to adhere to revised standards set by the province in 2008/09. It is unclear to what extent the Okanagan-Shuswap AOA model was updated in 2011 or what these updates involved, as provincial AOA standards from this time are not publicly available. This is problematic as since 2011, over 5050 provincial archaeological permits have been issued across the province and the necessity for a heritage permit may be influenced by the availability of an AOA model (Thorogood, 2022). Data currency refers to the intentional practice of maintaining and updating data within a database or in a system to ensure its accuracy and longevity. Access to high quality, reliable data is necessary for archaeologists to understand complex cultural phenomena (Gupta & Devillers, 2017) and data quality is central to the effective use of GIS-based tools (Gupta, 2020). Therefore, when a GIS-based predictive model is used for resource management and decision-making purposes, routine data maintenance and updates must be of key concern. As archaeological studies are conducted and sites are recorded, this information can play a vital role in evaluating the effectiveness of a model or in the maintenance of the system. Therefore, a lack of model maintenance results in registered sites occurring outside of modelled areas of archaeological potential (Figure 16). Ideally, these sites should be automatically buffered by a 250 m radius to define areas of potential around them according to the initial model parameters (Arcas 1997, p.107). Yet, the fact that registered sites occur outside modelled areas shows that the model does not receive maintenance as new archaeological data is generated within its study area. This is clearly problematic. 111 Figure 16. Moderate (reddish orange) and high (orange) archaeological potential zones and registered archaeological sites (red) as observed on RAAD (August 2, 2024) in the sntsk’il’ntən (Black Mountain) region, a culturally sensitive landscape east of Kelowna. Isolated purple polygons reflect the resolution of the original predictive model (100 m x 100 m per pixel). Fourteen of the 31 visible archaeological sites fall outside of modelled areas of archaeological potential. In the presented example, registered archaeological sites occur within sntsk’il’ntən (Black Mountain Provincial Park) east of the City of Kelowna, an area that is increasingly exposed to residential and agricultural development. A model that is not subject to routine maintenance should be accompanied by statements on data limitations and should not be used for decision-making without careful consideration. This creates a situation where users who are unfamiliar with archaeological information (e.g., municipal land managers) might place trust in the institution (e.g., the province) that the provided resources are reliable and accurate. In practice and as shown in Chapter 4, the province expects data users to evaluate data quality prior to its use in planning. Yet, to be effective as a management tool, the RAAD AOA layers must be routinely maintained by the Archaeology Branch to update the models and include newly registered archaeological site information. Further, to implement the province’s DRIPA Action Plan, these models should be reviewed to ensure they align with community understandings of cultural heritage. The Okanagan-Shuswap predictive model is routinely used, yet it does not adhere to current 112 provincial standards, and as a result, it presents an inaccurate model of archaeological potential that favours resource extraction and development in locations of high archaeological and cultural significance. This situation directly impacts Westbank’s rights and interest within their Area of Responsibility. At the 2023 Community of Practice meeting, the province indicated plans to replace old predictive models across the province with new models although limited information was provided. syilx archaeologists have expressed an interest in the use of geospatial visualizations to showcase syilx nakwulamən in ways that are appropriate for public distribution and that will support and enhance community decision making (Gupta, Bonneau, et al., 2022). The IDG framework enables the development of digital tools that are culturally appropriate and collaboratively designed to ensure that the rights of syilx peoples are central to their use. This can include considerations such as the inclusion of cultural metadata to model outputs to inform users of its appropriate use (Gupta et al., 2023), the application of FAIR principles to support data evaluation and access (Wilkinson et al., 2016), and by incorporating community capacity development in the use, maintenance, and development of these tools (Gupta, Bonneau, et al., 2022). Moving forward, commercial archaeologists must collaborate with syilx peoples when new predictive models are developed to ensure adherence to an IDG framework and for parties to understand and enact their relational accountability (Hudson et al., 2023; Wilson, 2008). 5.4 Summary Collaborative and Indigenous archaeologies and their proponents promote that research must benefit the communities in which it is conducted, but they do not explicitly consider inherent community rights to data and the interests of Indigenous peoples in the use of their data (Gupta et al., 2020, 2023; Gupta, Nicholas, et al., 2022). Conversely, digital archaeology broadly considers digital research ethics relating to the data ecosystem, yet, these efforts do not comprehensively acknowledge the historic inequities and exploitation of Indigenous peoples and their data and have limited application in how to engage with and integrate Indigenous ways of knowing in digital research (Carroll et al., 2019, 2020; First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2016; Kukutai & Cormack, 2019). Crucially, as outlined in Chapters 2 and 4, commercial archaeologists are not required to collaborate with First Nations or to incorporate digital research ethics, yet commercial archaeologists conduct the vast majority of archaeological data 113 generation (Ferris & Welch, 2014; Hogg et al., 2017; Welch & Ferris, 2014). This discordance is a critical gap in archaeological practice that must be redressed, or the discipline will maintain its problematic colonial practices and continue to cause harm to Indigenous peoples. I argue that the IDG framework provides the means to bridge these two archaeological subfields and to incorporate the collaborative, anti-colonial practices of Indigenous archaeology with the focused attention to the data ecosystem of digital archaeology. This begins by engaging with Indigenous scholarship and applying critical self-reflection to draw archaeological attention to inherent community rights to and over the Indigenous data ecosystem and how commercial archaeological practice can begin to address these gaps. syilx scholars have begun to enact these principles within their territory and now, settler scholars must align their practices to uphold and assert the rights of all syilx peoples to self-determination, self-governance, and control over their cultural heritage. By examining the Okanagan-Shuswap model, I present key issues in the provincial heritage management system: syilx people were not involved in its development and have directly vocalized opposition to the predictive model. Yet the model is not subject to routine maintenance or upheld to current standards. Its continued use for land management across syilx territory for nearly 30 years is therefore problematic. syilx communities were not invited to participate in the development of these models or in discussions on their appropriate use or potential harm, and they did not give Free, Prior, and Informed Consent to the on-going use of their data. Furthermore, the sharing of syilx nakwulamən is the decision of syilx Knowledge Keepers and ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap and not that of outsiders. Instead, Euro-Canadian collections of cultural information about syilx peoples were used to define syilx heritage values. Hollowell and Nicholas (2009, p. 77) note that historic ethnographic research focused on “local, short-term behaviors internal to a specific community” which can create a false depiction of a static culture that exists outside of external influence and that modern ethnographic research presents broader understandings of the social, political, and historical contexts of a community. By only considering colonially informed historic and ethnographic records and physical environmental factors, this model views syilx nakwulamən as static, object-focused, and of the past and does not consider the broader context of syilx culture or its relevance to future 114 generations and positions the use of this model strictly for resource management activities. This challenges syilx inherent rights to define, to consent, and to refuse. Through its public availability on RAAD, commercial archaeologists and government planners can make permanent land-altering decisions without interacting or consulting with syilx communities, such as Westbank. Westbank has a right to benefit from the use of their data and a right to consent to its use, but the benefits of this AOA have been unevenly distributed and have primarily served the interests of the state in fulfilling its extractive mandates. Westbank has a Right to Association, that is, they have a right to understand how the data within the AOA model was or will be used. The provincial metadata associated with this model does not provide adequate information to understand the data within the model, its origins, how it will be used, or any cultural access protocols that may be associated with its use. Moving forward, commercial archaeologists must advocate against the use of outdated predictive models by the province and must collaborate with First Nations communities as new models are developed. The province and its data users will benefit from a model designed within an IDG framework that incorporates the FAIR principles by facilitating access to higher quality and ethically produced data that supports more effective mitigation strategies that consider the interests of all parties (Nicholson et al., 2023). In the last chapter of this thesis, I reflect on the knowledge shared with me and its interaction with the provincial heritage data ecosystem and summarize the benefits and best practices that are central to a syilx-informed IDG framework in archaeology. 115 Chapter 6: Supporting Community-Led Governance of syilx nakwulamən You’re living my life, put yourself in my shoes. It’s your life, it’s your family… what do you see yourself wanting to do to help protect and preserve your heritage and your culture? syilx archaeologist (name withheld upon request, personal communication, December 20, 2022, 01:26:34) This research began by acknowledging the inherent collective rights of the Westbank First Nation (Westbank) and the syilx peoples to maintain, protect, and develop the past, present, and future manifestations of their culture and questioned how setter governments and commercial archaeologists can enact these rights in their practice and support Westbank in regaining stewardship and decision making over their data. Three specific research questions explored the relationship between commercial archaeology and syilx rights to cultural heritage: 1. How is archaeological data currently collected, managed, thought about, and assessed within the Westbank First Nation’s Area of Responsibility? 2. How does the provincial heritage data ecosystem align with the OCAP and CARE principles and with the Westbank First Nation’s cultural protocols around heritage? And, 3. How do existing provincial cultural heritage management policies and practices align with those of Westbank First Nation? Delving into these questions required a critical self-reflection and drawing attention to the problematic language and practices used in commercial archaeology that are rooted in colonialism. The language and policies used or upheld by international organizations, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) reflect the problematic colonial underpinnings that restrict the rights of the Indigenous peoples who are not recognized under these charters. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration, 2007) provides a community-centered rather than nation-state centered approach to recognizing the fundamental human rights of Indigenous peoples. I then introduced how the Indigenous Data Governance principles (IDG) can be used to redress colonial impositions to these rights and to identify a path forward for ethical commercial archaeological practice. Chapter 2 begins to address research question 1 by examining the federal and provincial legal frameworks that control cultural heritage and how laws, such as the Indian Act, continue to 116 distance Indigenous peoples from their heritage and maintain negative and harmful sociocultural stereotypes across Canada. Object-focused heritage legislation has existed in BC since 1865 which has imposed Eurocentric language, management practices, and ‘superiority’ over syilx nakwulamən despite longstanding efforts by syilx peoples and leaders to collaborate and work with settler communities. Euro-Canadians often view colonialism as an historic event rather than an on-going pervasive societal issue. Early anthropological perspectives portrayed Indigenous peoples as diminishing and fragile groups that were disinterested in their cultural heritage. These views influenced commercial archaeological practice in the context of BC through the development of the provincial cultural heritage management system. Commercial archaeology is used to legally dispossess and disconnect Indigenous peoples from control over their cultural heritage belongings and information. Yet, I show that Indigenous peoples continue to champion collaborative, community-informed approaches to heritage management that center benefits around the interests of a community. To challenge these colonial policies and practices and answer research question 1, Chapter 3 shows how I worked with syilx archaeologists, Knowledge Keepers, and ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap (Elders) to explore how archaeology and heritage is understood by syilx peoples, what community-management of heritage looks like, and how this compares and contrasts from the perspectives of commercial archaeologists operating in the Okanagan. To syilx peoples, nakwulamən (the things syilx peoples have been doing since time immemorial) is a living, breathing part of the community that is communally owned and shaped, and nakwulamən must be accessible to all syilx peoples to ensure it is available for the next seven generations. syilx archaeologists shared that archaeology is an outsider concept that does not recognize the full breadth of syilx nakwulamən and that the discipline has been used by colonial governments to distance, discredit, and destroy syilx connections to their land, practices, and culture. Yet, there is a strong community interest in participating and controlling the process of archaeology as it can help reconnect syilx peoples with their ancestors and allow syilx control over their futurisms. As a syilx archaeologist notes in the above quote, the future of commercial archaeology with syilx peoples requires empathy and self-reflection to understand how archaeologists may be effective allies to syilx peoples and allyship begins with intentionally listening to syilx voices. In part, empathy, communication, and self-reflection are central to a 117 commercial archaeologist’s relational accountability when working with Indigenous peoples. This empathetic baseline must be used as a foundation to develop standards of practice that begin to redress the colonial imbalances that restrict syilx peoples from community management of their nakwulamən. Conversely, commercial archaeologists interacting with syilx nakwulamən view archaeology as a component of a broader process of global heritage preservation and curation that catalogs, evaluates, and controls heritage under extraction-focused resource management systems. They emphasize the tangible elements of heritage (objects and spaces), which maintains Eurocentric ideas about Indigenous heritage as static with a value that can be defined according to its “historical, cultural, aesthetic, scientific, or educational worth or usefulness” (HCA, 1996) rather than its connection to Westbank First Nation’s past, present, and future cultural manifestations. Building upon these understandings, in chapter 4, I address research question 3 by critically examining the provincial heritage data ecosystem and the colonial barriers that restrict Westbank decision-making in the process of commercial archaeology. I showed that despite Westbank rights and interests in and over their nakwulamən, the province continues to hold absolute authority over the heritage data ecosystem, and it determines who may create, modify, use, or interact with heritage data according to provincial interests in natural and ‘cultural’ resource management. This creates barriers for Westbank/syilx peoples and upholds exclusionary and extractive economic practices that maintain power imbalances and perpetuate syilx experiences with on-going colonialism. To begin to bring heritage management practices into alignment with existing Westbank policies and interests, I identify key preliminary interventions that can be implemented at a personal, institutional, and legislative level. These steps represent partial actions towards achieving true data sovereignty, but are useful to enact changes within the current system as legislative changes are considered. These include (1) early and continued collaboration with Westbank throughout a project lifecycle; (2) accurately crediting the contributions of Westbank archaeologists in summary reports to support professional development; (3) advocating for analytical standards to support data community (re)use of data; (4) establishing more inclusive and transparent criteria for archaeological accreditations (e.g., field directors and permit holders); (5), amending provincial copyright and Grant of License to establish provisions to 118 redact culturally sensitive information; (6) establish intuitive and user-friendly digital databases that support community connection to data; and (7), to amend policies that control access to cultural heritage data, such as the BCeID and Access to Archaeological Information, to support community access to data. In turn, these interventions will increase community involvement and control over the process of commercial archaeology and will support ethical development within Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. In chapter 5, I contextualized the theoretical frameworks of digital archaeology and collaborative research practices and show how Westbank/syilx perceptions of being excluded extend to the datafication of archaeological information. Through an IDG lens, archaeologists may begin to incorporate collaborative, anti-colonial practices that challenge existing data ecosystems by prioritizing inherent community rights over heritage data and maximizing benefits to Indigenous communities represented in those data. I showed that the provincial archaeological predictive models are outdated, infrequently maintained, and are still used in decision-making by local and provincial governments. This results in portions of culturally significant locations, like sntsk’il’ntən (Black Mountain Provincial Park), being presented to have ‘low archaeological potential’ despite the presence of registered archaeological sites, which can influence decision making relating to the need for additional archaeological assessments or consultation with Westbank First Nation. Further, I showed that the Okanagan-Shuswap AOA model was developed without syilx archaeologists despite their vocal opposition to the use of the model for land management purposes. Instead, syilx cultural knowledge is represented only through colonial ethnographic records. This shows in response to research question 2 that decision-making over syilx heritage has, and continues to be conducted, without the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of syilx peoples which shows that the existing heritage data ecosystem is not in alignment with OCAP and CARE principles nor with Westbank policies. I argue that FPIC is fundamental to an IDG framework and that through this, commercial archaeologists can make interventions in standards of practice. These include (1) engagement with Westbank to identify and support their interests in building capacity in digital archaeology; (2) inclusion of cultural metadata that inform the ethical (re)use of cultural heritage data; (3) advocating for data standards and policies that support the production of high-quality data that is reusable, interoperable, and aligns with Westbank values; (4) reflecting on and replace colonial language in reports with terms that are supported by Westbank; (5) stopping the use of outdated and unreliable predictive models as 119 management tools and replace these systems with tools that are collaboratively developed with and support the interests of Westbank First Nation. First Nations have rights to and over their data and control over the research process and its products is, by definition, part of an Indigenous Data Governance framework. These rights have been codified into Canadian and British Columbian law through the Declaration Act and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, respectively. Therefore, engaging in an IDG framework in commercial archaeology is not simply a ‘best practice’ but a legal requirement to ensure that the inherent rights of a First Nation are respected and upheld. Here, I reflect more deeply on my research questions and the challenges faced by the existing cultural heritage ecosystem in BC and how commercial archaeologists can move forward building relationships of trust that support Westbank’s rights and interests in community-led governance of archaeological information. 6.1 A syilx-Informed Critique of the BC Heritage Data Ecosystem Evaluating the alignment of the provincial heritage data ecosystem to Westbank/syilx policies and practices is central to research questions 2 and 3. Currently, no provincial heritage database aims to foster community connection to commercial archaeological data, and data may be held by various organizations. This creates challenges for Westbank/syilx archaeologists seeking to reconnect to their data and assert their sovereignty. Data are maintained in access-controlled databases (RAAD, PARL) and many physical objects are stored at the Royal British Columbia Museum collections. These systems are managed by two separate government agencies (i.e., Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture, and Sports) and are physically separated from each other, which means building connections between data and cultural objects requires time, money, and labor. Currently, it is the decision of an individual commercial archaeologist to repatriate data directly to Westbank as there are no legal requirements to do so. Further, databases that incorporate commercial archaeological data (e.g., RAAD) have logistical challenges to their continued use. First, they require significant financial support to maintain; second, they have digital infrastructure (e.g., staff, data storage centers, software) that must be maintained; and third, they require users to commit to their use and to submit data that is of sufficient quality. Further, they require legal frameworks to compel data actors to ensure 120 data accessibility and quality and these frameworks must consider the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples in accessibility or participation. Westbank/syilx peoples have inherent rights to access and control their data according to the UN Declaration and DRIPA. Therefore, legislative change to the Heritage Conservation Act is required to ensure that data produced by commercial archaeologists is both FAIR and CARE and that infrastructural changes to the data ecosystem are implemented to create accessible, community-controlled databases where access to data, its use, and how it may be credited are controlled by Westbank First Nation. Unless corrected, the current ecosystem (RAAD, PARL, legislation, and policies) will maintain outdated and undermaintained tools that were developed without the consent of Westbank/syilx peoples, and that enforce state interests in resource extraction. This positions, as syilx archaeologists argue, archaeology as a destructive, colonial tool that has been intentionally used against the syilx Nation to discredit and disconnect syilx peoples from their land and information about their ancestors. Therefore, when examined through a Westbank/syilx-informed IDG framework, the BC heritage data ecosystem restricts the inherent rights of Westbank/syilx peoples through the digital infrastructure and guiding legislation and policies (Table 10) (Hudson et al., 2023). Westbank does not have the authority to control how their data is presented, what data are presented, and how their data may be used, which impedes their control of their own cultural narratives. Further, the province controls access to these data and syilx peoples do not have say over who accesses or how they use this information when accessed through government websites. Lastly, the province asserts its ownership over these data through the provincial copyright and it physically possesses cultural objects and heritage data within its repositories. Under this system, Westbank/syilx peoples’ rights to data for governance and for governance of their data are restricted. This contradicts the provinces’ own commitments to “’[uphold] the human rights of Indigenous peoples” as it enacts its DRIPA Action Plan (Province of British Columbia, 2022, p. i). I have provided examples, such as the Okanagan-Shuswap AOA model, which show the province intentionally ignored (and continues to ignore) syilx community protests to the use of this model and that they use these tools despite lacking the FPIC of all Okanagan Nation Alliance member nations. Current practice therefore contravenes Westbank/syilx inherent rights to consent and to refuse the use of their information. Community rights to possess are directly 121 impacted by the provincial BCeID system, its copyright, and in the Access to Information Policy as the province directly controls and asserts its jurisdiction over syilx nakwulamən. Other rights, such as the right to self-determination and the right to define, are hindered by outdated systems (e.g., the Impact Assessment Guidelines) that restrict Westbank/syilx participation in the formation of methods, in developing assessment reports, and in conducting analyses. Lastly, Westbank/syilx rights to reclaim their data are challenged in the existing system as data are not centrally stored and are not attributed or returned to syilx peoples. This situation must change to ensure that the Crown, commercial archaeologists, and other interested parties adhere to the UN Declaration, which has been codified into both federal and provincial law, but implementation has only recently been started (e.g., the HCA Transformation Project). 122 Table 10. Following (Hudson et al., 2023), a syilx-informed Indigenous Data Governance critique of the provincial heritage ecosystem and its impact of syilx community rights. Right RAAD, PARL, and the BCeID Bulletin 17, the Heritage Permits Policy, the Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines Right to Self-Determination • syilx peoples do not currently have the authority to determine what data is presented about them, how it is presented, or how it is used by the province outside of community lands. • No policies or bulletins issued by the province require commercial archaeologists to engage or consult with Indigenous peoples on the development of research designs, during fieldwork, nor during the data analysis and reporting phases of an assessment. This continues to be an ethical decision made by individual commercial archaeologists. This limits the opportunity of syilx peoples to express their interests in greater collaboration. Right to Reclaim • Non-permitted archaeological assessments, their data, and the associated reports are held by corporations, governments, and individuals and data are not regulated or centrally stored, which limits syilx access to these data and their ability to review and assess them and engage in decision-making. • The repatriation of archaeological information to syilx peoples is central to Westbank’s On-Reserve Archaeology Directive, yet there are no provincial requirements to return data to Westbank First Nation or to involve syilx peoples in the generation or use of data. Right to Possess • The province asserts its possession of all archaeological data through the provincial copyright, the RAAD Terms and Conditions, and through the Access to Archaeological Information policy. • The province maintains complete decision-making authority over the formation of archaeological methods, evaluative criteria for site significance, and in the use of data generated under permitted studies. The province reserves the right to use these data to further its mandate. Right to Use • syilx peoples cannot use their data unless they prove ‘legitimate research’ need under the Access to Archaeological Information policy or are employed by a syilx government organization. • The province reserves the right to use any data generated under a permitted study to further its ministerial mandate under the Heritage Permits Policy. The province does not need to engage with syilx peoples to do so, providing its use does not infringe upon known Aboriginal Title and Rights. Right to Consent • Archaeological overview assessments were developed without the free, prior, and informed consent of all ONA member nations and • syilx peoples are not consulted when field directors are authorized by the province despite the potential for these to cause lasting impacts to Aboriginal Title and 123 Right RAAD, PARL, and the BCeID Bulletin 17, the Heritage Permits Policy, the Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines continue to be used in decision-making about syilx lands Rights. In this way, syilx people may not determine who conducts archaeological work within their territory. Right to Refuse • While some data is restricted (e.g., Ancestral Remains), users continue to have access to culturally significant information such as the location and details of ceremonial and religious sites. • The province maintains decision-making authority about who may receive access to RAAD and PARL and does not engage with syilx Nations for these approvals. • syilx peoples may object to a permit application during its referral period or to the qualifications of individual archaeologists, but they do not have veto authority nor equal participation in decision-making. This is held by the province. Right to Govern • syilx peoples do not have the authority to restrict access to or control the use of archaeological information on RAAD or PARL. • The province maintains full control over the establishment of evaluative criteria for field director and permit holders • The province holds decision-making authority of permit issuance. • The guidelines were established in 1989 without participation from Indigenous Peoples and have not been updated to require participation of Indigenous peoples during an assessment. Right to Define • Outdated and poorly maintained predictive models continue to be used despite protests from syilx member nations. • Hosted reports present colonial narratives of syilx lifeways that do not reflect syilx cultural values or understandings which maintains colonially informed narratives of a static past. • Systemic barriers restrict syilx peoples from gaining recognition and certification for their knowledge and experience. • syilx Peoples are not provided suitable information or time to evaluate permit applications, applicants, or potential impacts to their Rights and Title. • The province defines the appropriate methods, terminology, site typologies, and management tools for all archaeological sites. This influences how archaeological sites are interpreted, described, and interacted with. Right to Privacy • Culturally sensitive information is readily available to permitted users despite strong • syilx peoples are not provided the authority to define access protocols for culturally sensitive spaces or data. 124 Right RAAD, PARL, and the BCeID Bulletin 17, the Heritage Permits Policy, the Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines interest by syilx Peoples to establish restrictions to private and sensitive information Right to Know • Permitted users are free to download any data without engagement with syilx Peoples or the province. • No policies currently exist that require commercial or academic archaeologists to define how data is to be generated, processed, or represented and these data may be used to inform assessment reports or academic publications which may potentially be deleterious to syilx interests. This remains a personal ethical decision. Right to Association • No cultural protocols or metadata to signify its relation to a syilx peoples or to determine its origin or appropriate use is provided and all data are claimed as property of the Crown. • Information regarding the provenance, permissions and use protocols of data stored within RAAD and PARL is not provided by the province or a requirement for data submissions by commercial archaeologists • No provincial policies or guidelines exist that require commercial archaeologists to generate data with appropriate provenance metadata or signify its relationship to a syilx community. Right to Benefit • Data about syilx peoples are used by government and organizations to inform decision-making and to fulfil commercial contracts, often without syilx participation. • No policies exist that regulate data sharing between commercial archaeologists and syilx Peoples; all data sharing is controlled by the province. 125 6.2 Listening to syilx Voices The WFNAO and syilx archaeologists continue to work within the existing provincial heritage management system to establish space for syilx voices, to assert syilx sovereignty, and to build connections between the community and their nakwulamən. Further, syilx archaeologists and ƛ̕x̌əx̌ƛ̕ap have interest in working with commercial archaeologists to reform legislation and policy and to use digital archaeological tools to produce high quality data and support community-informed archaeological interpretations. My research brought together focus groups which created a space for syilx archaeologists to relay their experiences with commercial archaeologists and to share practices they feel would foster stronger relationships that respectfully engage with syilx nakwulamən. First, all focus group participants spoke on the importance of developing relationships of trust between syilx peoples and commercial archaeologists. Trust and respect in our relationships maintain accountability, which does not end with the completion of a contract, rather accountability extends to supporting the long-term management of data to foster community culture and language revitalization efforts. Trust can be built through transparency and engagement with both community members and Westbank/syilx organizations throughout a project’s lifecycle to foster collaboration and build connections to heritage for youth and Knowledge Keepers. This interaction yields two key benefits: it engages community Knowledge Keepers to let them share their stories; and it enables commercial archaeologists to incorporate meaningful insights into their project to foster holistic recommendations. Education, self-reflexivity, and humility in the research process were central to the ways in which syilx archaeologist feel commercial archaeologists can foster better working relationships. Community cultural training provides a recognition of the contemporary nature of syilx heritage and how syilx people interact with it. This is followed by the self-reflection of professional relationships and motivations with syilx community partners. Commercial archaeologists must collaborate with their community partners as equals and recognize that syilx archaeologists do not work for these consultancies. This begins to challenge existing systems where syilx archaeologists continue to feel tokenized by commercial archaeologists despite their training and experience. Westbank has indicated interest in having their contributions to commercial archaeological work credited in reports. This builds space for 126 broader inclusivity. Participation of syilx archaeologists must occur from the project’s earliest phase through to its completion to ensure syilx peoples are involved in decision-making, project designs, and that they are accurately credited for this work. 6.3 Future Directions and Conclusions Westbank/syilx peoples have rights and deep interests in being connected to, generating, analyzing, and sharing knowledge about their heritage, ancestors, and ancestral lands and in controlling the datafication of their knowledge. The increasing datafication and commercialization of Big Data poses serious risks to Indigenous peoples and without intentional change, these data are likely to be commodified and incorporated by the Crown for its economic interests. The current regulatory framework and heritage data ecosystems support state interests in efficient resource management and extraction and reinforce barriers to syilx participation in, and control over, the decision-making process over their nakwulamən and infringes upon their inherent rights. There must be a shift in these systems to enable Indigenous communities to engage with and manage their own heritage according to their own cultural values, protocols, and laws. I have argued this can be achieved through an IDG framework as it will support more inclusive systems that are centered around community interests and facilitate community control over how their heritage data is generated, accessed, interacted with, and managed. This begins to redirect the benefits of commercial archaeology from settler-state institutions to Indigenous peoples and communities. In turn, a syilx-informed IDG framework in commercial archaeology can create honest, transparent, and reciprocal relationships focused on the emergent needs of the community to support Westbank/syilx stewardship and decision-making over archaeology and heritage. An IDG framework is, by definition, guided by the Indigenous community in which research is conducted. I have already presented the interests of Westbank archaeologists in building capacity in digital archaeology and in controlling the research design and outcomes of archaeology and when archaeologists begin to engage with the above concepts, the benefits of research include: • Enabling greater syilx control over archaeological research design and authority in the decision-making process. 127 • Inclusion of syilx archaeologists and Knowledge Keepers throughout the process of archaeological research to develop holistic interpretations that respect and fairly attribute syilx knowledge in archaeological research to develop mutually beneficial research recommendations. • Providing greater recognition of syilx archaeologists as experts and participants in the research process. • Enabling the use and training of tools (such as photogrammetry or 3D modeling) to make syilx heritage more accessible to the community, which builds digital archaeological capacity. • Supporting the repatriation of syilx data and objects through a recognition of the communal syilx ownership. • Ensuring the generation of high-quality data that is embedded with cultural access protocols to ensure future re-use aligns with community interests (Gupta et al., 2023). In turn, these actions yield long-term benefits to the community that can influence broader system change. By providing training workshops and documentation in the use of digital archaeological tools, syilx communities can build capacity in digital archaeology, which in turn can support syilx interests in ownership and control over data use. Further, this provides syilx communities with knowledge of their ancestors that they may use to shape community futurisms in the digital world. This can support on-going initiatives that assert data sovereignty, Title and Rights, and aim to revitalize syilx culture unencumbered by colonial agents, policies, or impositions to enable syilx communities to heal from the on-going experiences of colonialism. Lastly, an IDG framework in archaeology positions archaeology as a tool to be used by syilx communities to support syilx cultural and economic interests in addition to asserting Aboriginal Rights and Title. Relational accountability is a core component of an IDG framework as it draws upon all elements of the CARE principles with a key focus on the Responsibility of a researcher and the Ethics of research (Carroll et al., 2020; Hudson et al., 2023; Wilson, 2008). Relational accountability requires researchers to enact and fulfil the terms of their research to help develop relationships of trust. Being in relation with research participants is a strength of this research and relationships of trust are central to a syilx-informed research framework. This means that I am accountable to continue to learn about, respect, and engage with syilx peoples, their nakwulamən, their experiences with colonial systems, and to foster the relationships I am now 128 part of. In turn, this will yield a deeper understanding of the interests in connections to their cultural information and data and how I may support these interests as effective, IDG-centered research must be community-led, prioritize community interests, and respect and uphold community rights to their data. A key limitation of this research is that the perspectives, policies, and practices I have discussed are limited to those of Westbank/syilx peoples and not the broader syilx Nation. Thus, the interpretations presented within this research may broadly align with syilx perspectives, they should not be assumed to represent the entirety of the syilx Nation. Likewise, the limited sample of survey participants (both from WFN and the BCAPA) restricts understandings of how archaeologists operating outside of Westbank’s Area of Responsibility interact with cultural heritage and conceptualize archaeology. Therefore, perspectives shared to me represent a first step into understanding how commercial archaeology can begin to align its practices with IDG and Westbank/syilx policies to center practices around community rights to heritage and the responsibility to uphold these rights. The WFNAO has expressed interest in the development of community-capacity development tools (e.g., workshops, standard operating procedure documentation) and inclusive research practices (e.g., inclusive budgeting, inclusion in reporting, analysis, and research design). As I shift my research focus from academic to commercial practice, it is part of my relational accountability to foster this research relationship and to support on-going and future Westbank First Nation initiatives. In this way, a key strength of this research is that it makes meaningful contributions to archaeological discourse as it provides tangible practices that can bridge the divide between theory and practice in the commercial sector and begin to redirect benefits of archaeology towards syilx peoples. Future directions of this research may include developing or implementing digital tools (e.g., photogrammetry, 3D modelling, or digital data collection tools) that support the generation of high-quality, reliable data that is both FAIR and CARE. Additionally, the use of digital tools, such as photogrammetry and 3D modelling at colonial institutions (e.g., museums or repositories) or in private collections to reconnect syilx peoples to cultural belongings and to support knowledge and object repatriation. Further, engagement between the provincial Archaeology Branch, Indigenous-led organizations focused on cultural heritage (e.g., the Joint Working Group), and the British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists is needed to identify ways to track and centralize non-permitted archaeological data in accessible databases that support community connections. This can be through the implementation of a standardized system such 129 as a digital object identifier that can be used to track and connect users to these data. Lastly, a key future direction of this research is in the advocacy for the establishment of a digital archaeological database or restructuring of existing systems to be both FAIR and CARE and supportive of community connections to heritage. Incorporating an IDG framework into commercial archaeology requires critical evaluation of daily practices and will help develop Westbank community capacity and control over their heritage to support on-going efforts to assert sovereignty over cultural heritage. Redirecting interactions with syilx community members and organizations from transactional project-focused discussions towards critical self-reflection of archaeological practices establishes dialogue between all parties that support the formation of relationships of trust. In turn, these relationships enable commercial archaeologists to act as allies in Westbank/syilx community data sovereignty to support governance and to build fruitful research connections centered around community interests in controlling their cultural heritage. 130 Bibliography Aird, K., Fox, G., & Bain, A. (2019, September). Recognizing and Including Indigenous Cultural Heritage in B.C. First Peoples’ Cultural Council. https://fpcc.ca/resource/heritage-policy-paper/ Ali, T., Buergelt, P. T., Maypilama, E. L., Paton, D., Smith, J. A., & Jehan, N. (2022). Synergy of systems theory and symbolic interactionism: A passageway for non-Indigenous researchers that facilitates better understanding Indigenous worldviews and knowledges. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1876300 Amato, S. (2024, January 24). Cree Leaders, scientists to excavate “communal grave” near former Alberta Residential School. CTV News, Edmonton. https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/cree-leaders-scientists-to-excavate-communal-grave-near-former-alberta-residential-school-1.6740504?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar Arcas Consulting Archeologists. (1997). Okanagan Timber Supply Area: Archaeological Overview Assessment. Ministry of Forests. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/aoa_-_okanagan_tsa_-_report.pdf Archaeology Branch, The. (2020, April 20). Heritage Conservation Act Permitting Process Policy Guide. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/hca_permitting_process_policy_guide.pdf Archaeology Branch, The. (2023a, June 23). RAAD User Guide 1.5. King’s Printer. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/raad3_help.pdf Archaeology Branch, The. (2023b, September). Archaeological Repository Guidelines. King’s Printer. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/repository_guidelines.pdf Archaeology Branch, The. (2024, July 22). Archaeology In BC [Government]. Archaeology in B.C. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology Armstrong, C. G., Spice, A., Ridsdale, M., & Welch, J. R. (2023). Liberating trails and travel routes in Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Territories from the tyrannies of heritage resource management regimes. American Anthropologist, 125(2), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13817 Atalay, S. (2006). Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. The American Indian Quarterly, 30(3), 280–310. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2006.0015 Aylward, C. (2022, September 30). Aylward: It’s time to properly search all former residential school sites for graves [News]. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/aylward-its-time-to-properly-search-all-former-residential-school-sites-for-graves Ballsun-Stanton, B., Ross, S. A., Sobotkova, A., & Crook, P. (2018). FAIMS Mobile: Flexible, open-source software for field research. SoftwareX, 7, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2017.12.006 131 Batini, C., Cappiello, C., Francalanci, C., & Maurino, A. (2009). Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(3), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541880.1541883 Battiste, M., & Youngblood Henderson, J. (Sa’k’ej). (2000). Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge. UBC Press. BC Archaeology Branch. (1998). Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines. King’s Printer. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/archaeological_impact_assessment_guidelines.pdf BC Archaeology Branch. (2012). Access to Provincial Archaeological Information Policy. King’s Printer. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/access_to_information_policy.pdf BC Archaeology Branch. (2024, July 23). Site Form, Mapping, and Spatial Requirements (V8.1). King’s Printer. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/site_form_mapping_and_spatial_requirements.pdf Bell, C. (2001). Protecting Indigenous Heritage Resources in Canada: A Comment on Kitkatla v. British Columbia. International Journal of Cultural Property, 10(2), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739101771329 Bell, C. E., Lai, J. C., Skorodenski, L. K., & Kerbiriou, A.-H. (2015). Lois autochtones, loi sur la propriété intellectuelle et politiques muséales: Des diverses méthodes de protection du patrimoine immatériel autochtone. Anthropologie et Sociétés, 38(3), 25–59. https://doi.org/10.7202/1029017ar Boettiger, C., Chamberlain, S., Hart, E., & Ram, K. (2015). Building Software, Building Community: Lessons from the rOpenSci Project. Journal of Open Research Software, 3(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.bu Bonneau, N. J., & Gupta, N. (2023, April). Preserving and sharing syilx digital heritage: Westbank First Nation and UBCO collaborate on interactive web map. UBC Community Engagement. https://communityengagement.ubc.ca/news/westbank-first-nation-and-ubco-collaborate-on-interactive-web-map/ Borrows, J. (1999). Sovereignty’s Alchemy: An Analysis of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 37(3), 537–596. Borrows, J. (2008, May). Seven Generations, Seven Teachings: Ending the Indian Act. National Centre for First Nations Governance. https://epub.sub.uni-hamburg.de/epub/volltexte/2012/12723/pdf/john_borrows.pdf British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists. (2022a). BCAPA 2021 Wage Survey Summary Report (Technical Version 1.0; p. 23). The British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists. British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists. (2022b, December 8). Bylaws of the British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists. British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists. https://www.bcapa.ca/wp-content/uploads/Bylaws-filed-December-8-2022-at-1.34-pm-01094056.pdf 132 Brown, D., & Nicholas, G. (2012). Protecting indigenous cultural property in the age of digital democracy: Institutional and communal responses to Canadian First Nations and Māori heritage concerns. Journal of Material Culture, 17(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183512454065 Brunk, C. G., & Young, J. O. (2009). ‘The Skin off Our Backs’: Appropriation of Religion. In J. O. Young & C. G. Brunk (Eds.), The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation (1st ed., pp. 93–114). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444311099.ch5 Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (Supreme Court of Canada January 31, 1973). Canada. (2021, December 10). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Department of Justice Canada; https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/about-apropos.html Canada. (2023, March 23). UNDA Draft Action Plan. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/declaration/ap-pa/ah/pdf/UNDA_Draft_Action_Plan.pdf Carlson, R. L. (1979). Archaeology: Public and Academic. In A. W. Rasporich (Ed.), The Social Sciences and Public Policy in Canada (pp. 143–148). The University of Calgary. Carroll, S. R., Akee, R., Chung, P., Cormack, D., Kukutai, T., Lovett, R., Suina, M., & Rowe, R. K. (2021). Indigenous Peoples’ Data During COVID-19: From External to Internal. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, 617895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.617895 Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19, 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043 Carroll, S. R., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., & Martinez, A. (2019). Indigenous Data Governance: Strategies from United States Native Nations. Data Science Journal, 18(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-031 Carr-Stewart, S., Balzer, G., & Cottrell, M. (2013). First Nations Post-Secondary Education in Western Canada: Obligations, Barriers, and Opportunities. Morning Watch (St. John’s), 40(3–4), 25–34. Chalmers, J. (2019). National Myth in Canada: Reproducing and Resisting Settler Colonialism at Memorial Sites [Dissertation]. University of Alberta. Chamberlain, S.-P. (2021). “Changing Stinking Thinking”: A Comparative Case Study of the Enactment, Embodiment, and Emplacement of Social Citizenship in the Pacific Northwest [Dissertation]. University of Edinburgh. Clarke, M. (2015). The Digital Dilemma: Preservation and the Digital Archaeological Record. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 3(4), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.3.4.313 Connaughton, S. P., & Herbert, J. (2017). Engagement Within: An Anthropological Exploration of First Nations Engagement and Consulting Archaeology Within a Transnational Corporation. Archaeologies, 13(2), 306–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-017-9317-7 Cornish, F., Breton, N., Moreno-Tabarez, U., Delgado, J., Rua, M., de-Graft Aikins, A., & Hodgetts, D. (2023). Participatory action research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00214-1 133 David-Chavez, D. M., & Gavin, M. C. (2018). A global assessment of Indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 123005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 23799 (Supreme Court of Canada December 11, 1997). Demchenko, Y., Ngo, C., & Membrey, P. (2013, September 12). Architecture Framework and Components for the Big Data Ecosystem. Universiteit van Amsterdam. http://www.uazone.org/demch/worksinprogress/sne-2013-02-techreport-bdaf-draft02.pdf Dent, J. (2016). Accounts of Engagement: Conditions and Capitals of Indigenous Participation in Canadian Commercial Archaeology [Dissertation, University of Western Ontario]. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4287 Dent, J. (2019). Conceptual Boxes and Political Borders: Considering Provincial and Territorial Archaeological Site Inventories. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d’Archeologie, 43, 1–23. Dickson, C., & Watson, B. (2021, May 27). Remains of 215 Children Found Buried at Former B.C. Residential School, First Nation says. CBC News.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tk-eml%C3%BAps-te-secw%C3%A9pemc-215-children-former-kamloops-indian-residential-school-1.6043778Eaton, A. W., & Gaskell, I. (2009). Do Subaltern Artifacts Belong in Art Museums? In J. O. Young & C. G. Brunk (Eds.), The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation (1st ed., pp. 235–267). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444311099.ch10 Eberl, M., Bell, C. S., Spencer-Smith, J., Raj, M., Sarubbi, A., Johnson, P. S., Rieth, A. E., Chaudhry, U., Estrada Aguila, R., & McBride, M. (2023). Machine Learning–Based Identification of Lithic Microdebitage. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11(2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.35Eby, D. (2022, December 7). Honourable Bruce Ralston, Minister of Forests. [Mandate Letter]. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/ministries-organizations/premier-cabinet-mlas/minister-letter/for_-_ralston.pdf Elvidge, M., Harris, M., Wilson, J., & Anderson, E. (2024, August). BC Association of Professional Archaeologists 2023 Wage Survey Summary Report. British Columbia Association of Professional Archaeologists. Esteva, M., Trelogan, J., Rabinowitz, A., Walling, D., & Pipkin, S. (2010). From the Site to Long-term Preservation: A Reflexive System to Manage and Archive Digital Archaeological Data. Proceedings of the Archiving Conference, Vol. 7: Den Haag, the Netherlands, 7, 1–6. Evans, T., & Daly, P. (Eds.). (2005). Digital Archaeology: Bridging Method and Theory. Routledge. Ferguson, T. J. (2014). Archaeologists as Activists, Advocates, and Expert Witnesses. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire, & J. R. Welch (Eds.), Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects (pp. 239–253). Routledge. Ferris, N., Canon, A., & Welch, J. R. (2018). Objects as Stepping Stones: Sustainable Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d’Archeologie, 42(1), 4–12. Ferris, N., & Welch, J. R. (2014). Beyond Archaeological Agendas: In the Service of a Sustainable Archaeology. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire, & J. R. Welch 134 (Eds.), Transforming Archaeology: Activist Approaches and Prospects (p. 24). Routledge. First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2016). Pathways to First Nations’ data and information sovereignty. In T. Kukutai & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty (1st ed.). ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016.08 First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2024). About FNIGC [Education]. First Nations Information Governance Centre. https://fnigc.ca/about-fnigc/ Fletcher, E. C. (2023). Creating a Software Methodology to Analyze and Preserve Archaeological Legacy Data. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.44 FNIGC. (2004). Cultural Framework. First Nations Information Governance Centre. FNIGC. (2016). Code of Research Ethics. First Nations Information Governance Centre. fnigc.ca/sites/default/files/ENpdf/RHS_General/ rhs-code-ofresearchethics-2007.pdf. Frazer, R., & Carlson, B. (2017). Indigenous Memes and the Invention of a People. Social Media + Society, 3(4), 205630511773899. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117738993 Frogner, R. (2023, May 8). Residential-school Denialism Doesn’t Stand up to Reality. National Cenre for Truth and Reconciliation. https://nctr.ca/residential-school-denialism-doesnt-stand-up-to-reality/ Gaffney, V., Stančić, Z., & Watson, H. (1995). The Impact of GIS on Archaeology: A Personal Perspective. In G. Lock & G. Stančić (Eds.), Archaeology And Geographic Information Systems A European Perspective (First, pp. 211–230). CRC Press. George, G., Haas, M. R., & Pentland, A. (2014). Big Data and Management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.4002 Geser, G., Richards, J. D., Archaeology Data Service, Massara, F., Central Institute for the Union Catalogue of Italian Libraries, Wright, H., & Archaeology Data Service. (2022). Data Management Policies and Practices of Digital Archaeological Repositories. Internet Archaeology, 59. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.59.2 Global Indigenous Data Alliance. (2024). GIDA: Global Indigenous Data Alliance [Education]. GIDA: Global Indigenous Data Alliance. https://www.gida-global.org/ Government of Canada. (2011). Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation: Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult. Minister of Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Great Bear Rainforest Education and Awareness Trust. (2020). [Education]. The Great Bear Rainforest Education and Awareness Trust. https://greatbearrainforesttrust.org/ Grey, S., & Kuokkanen, R. (2020). Indigenous governance of cultural heritage: Searching for alternatives to co-management. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26(10), 919–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1703202 Guerin v. The Queen, 17507 (Supreme Court of Canada November 1, 1984). Gupta, N. (2020). Preparing Archaeological Data for Spatial Analysis. In M. Gillings, P. Hacıgüzeller, & G. Lock (Eds.), Archaeological Spatial Analysis (1st ed., pp. 17–40). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351243858-2 Gupta, N., Blair, S., & Nicholas, R. (2020). What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 135 an Age of Big Data. Journal of Field Archaeology, 45(sup1), S39–S50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1713969 Gupta, N., Bonneau, N., & Elvidge, M. (2022). Connecting Past to Present: Enacting Indigenous Data Governance Principles in Westbank First Nation’s Archaeology and Digital Heritage. Archaeologies, 18(3), 623–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-022-09466-x Gupta, N., & Devillers, R. (2017). Geographic Visualization in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(3), 852–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9298-7 Gupta, N., Martindale, A., Supernant, K., & Elvidge, M. (2023). The CARE Principles and the Reuse, Sharing, and Curation of Indigenous Data in Canadian Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.33 Gupta, N., Nicholas, R., & Blair, S. (2022). Postcolonial and Indigenous Perspectives in Digital Archaeology. In L. Goldstein & E. Wattral (Eds.), Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism (pp. 241–274). University Press of Florida. muse.jhu.edu/book/101232. Gurski, K. (2017). Guilty by Design: A Critical Race Analysis of the Over-Incarceration of Indigenous Peoples in an Era of Reconciliation [Master of Arts]. University of Alberta. Hemens, A. (2024, April 3). Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc signs ‘sacred covenant’ with the Catholic Church, marking ‘new journey of truth’ [News]. IndigiNews. https://indiginews.com/news/tkemlups-te-secwepemc-signs-sacred-covenant-with-the-catholic-church-marking-new-journey-of-truth Heritage Conservation Act, RSBC 1996 27 (1996). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96187_01 Historic Objects Preservation Act, 1 (1925). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/hstats/hstats/2104761699 Hoffman, A. (2021). Close Listening: Approaches to Research on Colonial Sound Archives. In M. Cobussen & M. Bull (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Handbook of Sonic Methodologies (pp. 529–539). Bloomsbury Publishing. Hogg, E. A., Welch, J. R., & Ferris, N. (2017). Full Spectrum Archaeology. Archaeologies, 13(1), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-017-9315-9 Hollowell, J., & Nicholas, G. (2009). Using Ethnographic Methods to Articulate Community-Based Conceptions of Cultural Heritage Management. Public Archaeology, 8(2–3), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355309X457196 Hosgood, A. F. (2022, November 7). 70 Years after the Flood: Cheslatta’s Fight to Reclaim Its Territory. The Tyee. https://thetyee.ca/News/2022/11/07/Devastation-Nechako-Reservoir/ Hudson, M., Carroll, S. R., Anderson, J., Blackwater, D., Cordova-Marks, F. M., Cummins, J., David-Chavez, D., Fernandez, A., Garba, I., Hiraldo, D., Jäger, M. B., Jennings, L. L., Martinez, A., Sterling, R., Walker, J. D., & Rowe, R. K. (2023). Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Data: A contribution toward Indigenous Research Sovereignty. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1173805. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1173805 Hunter, S., & van der Westhuizen, C. (Eds.). (2021). Routledge Handbook of Critical Studies in Whiteness (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429355769 136 Hutchings, R. M., & La Salle, M. (2017). Archaeology as State Heritage Crime. Archaeologies, 13(1), 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-017-9308-8 Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1-5) (2019). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/ Indigenous Data Sovereignty in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. (2023, May 4). [Session]. 55th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Membertou, NS. Indigenous Foundations. (2009). Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1973) [Education]. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/calder_case/ Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2018). National Inuit Strategy on Research. https://www.itk.ca/ wp-content/uploads/2018/03/National-Inuit-Strategy-on-Research.pdf Johnson, M. K. (S?imla?xw). (2012). kwu_sqwa?qwa?alx (We begin to speak): Our Journey within Nsyilxcn (Okanagan) Language Revitalization. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 35(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.14288/cjne.v35i1.196545 Kansa, E. (2012). Openness and archaeology’s information ecosystem. World Archaeology, 44(4), 498–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.737575 Kansa, E., Kansa, D., Anderson, J., Wells, K., Noack, M., & Yerka, S. (2021). Access to Government Information and Inclusive Stewardship of America’s Archaeological Heritage. In J. B. Hess (Ed.), Digital Mapping and Indigenous America (pp. 121–135). Routledge. Kintigh, K. (2006). The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Integration. American Antiquity, 71(3), 567–578. Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism, and Culture), 27801 (Supreme Court of Canada March 28, 2002). https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1970/index.do Klassen, M. A. (2013). Indigenous Heritage Stewardship and the Transformation of Archaeological Practice: Two Case Studies from the Mid-Fraser Region of British Columbia [Dissertation]. Simon Fraser University. Klassen, M. A., Budhwa, R., & Reimer/Yumks, R. (2009). First Nations, Forestry, and the Transformation of Archaeological Practice in British Columbia, Canada. Heritage Management, 2(2), 199–238. https://doi.org/10.1179/hma.2009.2.2.199 Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous Methodologies: Characterstics, Conversations, and Contexts (Second). University of Toronto Press. Kukutai, T., & Cormack, D. (2019). Mana motuhake ā-raraunga: Datafication and social science research in Aotearoa. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(2), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2019.1648304 Kuper, A. (2005). The Reinvention of Primitive Society. Taylor & Francis Ltd. La Salle, M., & Hutchings, R. M. (2012). Commercial Archaeology in British Columbia. The Midden, 44(2), 8–16. Laluk, N. C., Montgomery, L. M., Tsosie, R., McCleave, C., Miron, R., Carroll, S. R., Aguilar, J., Thompson, A. B. W., Nelson, P., Sunseri, J., Trujillo, I., DeAntoni, G. M., Castro, G., & Schneider, T. D. (2022). Archaeology and Social Justice in Native America. American Antiquity, 87(4), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2022.59 Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 33581 (Supreme Court of Canada November 10, 2011). https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7972/index.do 137 Lindsay, I., & Mkrtchyan, A. (2023). Free and Low-Cost Aerial Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Overview of Data Sources and Recent Applications in the South Caucasus. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11(2), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2023.3 Linklater, E. M. M. (1994). The footprints of Wasahkacahk: The Churchill River Diversion Project and destruction of the Nelson House Cree historical landscape [Masters of Arts]. Simon Fraser University. Lock, G., & Stančić, G. (Eds.). (1995). Archaeology And Geographic Information Systems A European Perspective (First). CRC Press. Lyons, N., Hoffmann, T., Miller, D., Martindale, A., Ames, K. M., & Blake, M. (2021). Were the Ancient Coast Salish Farmers? A Story of Origins. American Antiquity, 86(3), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2020.115 Lyons, N., Leon, R., Peone, J., Hazell, S., Miller, D., Dens, J., & Hoffmann, T. (2022). Decolonizing Archaeology: Decolonizing CRM is about the Power to Decide. The SAA Archaeological Record, 22(5), 4. Maiam nayri Wingara. (2018, June 20). Indigenous Data Sovereignty Communique. Indigenous Data Sovereignty Summit, Canberra, Australia. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3043afb40b9d20411f3512/t/5b6c0f9a0e2e725e9cabf4a6/1533808545167/ Communique%2B-%2BIndigenous%2BData%2BSovereignty%2BSummit.pdf. Martindale, A., & Lyons, N. (2014). Community-Oriented Archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d’Archéologie, 38(2), 425–433. Martindale, A., Lyons, N., Nicholas, G. P., Angelbeck, B., Connaughton, S. P., Grier, C., Herbert, J., Leon, M., Marshall, Y., Piccini, A., Schaepe, D. M., Supernant, K., & Warrick, G. (2016). Archaeology as Partnerships in Practice: A Reply to La Salle and Hutchings. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d’Archeologie, 40(1), 181–204. Marwick, B. (2017). Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of their Implementation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(2), 424–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9 Masson-MacLean, E., O’Driscoll, J., McIver, C., & Noble, G. (2021). Digitally Recording Excavations on a Budget: A (Low-Cost) DIY Approach from Scotland. Journal of Field Archaeology, 46(8), 595–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2021.1970444 McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with Nature. Natural History Press. McLellan, A., & Woolsey, C. A. (2024). Thematic Analysis of Indigenous Perspectives on Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management Industries. American Antiquity, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2024.7 McNiven, I., & Connaughton, S. P. (2020). Cultural Heritage Management and the Colonial Culture. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Second, pp. 2967–2075). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30018-0 Mejias, U. A., & Couldry, N. (2019). Datafication. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1428 Métis Centre. (2011). Principles of Ethical Métis Research. National Aboriginal Health Organization. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/30555/1/2011_04_ethics.pdf 138 Minet, C. M. (2021). “We Stick Out Our Tongues” De-essentializing fof Decolonization: A Storywork Study on Indigenous Relationality [Master of Arts, University of Calgary]. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113690 Ministry of Forests. (2023, February). Ministry of Forests 2023/24—2025/26 Service Plan. King’s Printer. https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2023/sp/pdf/ministry/for.pdf Mohs, G. (1976). Spiritual sites, ethnic significance and native spirituality: The heritage and heritage sites of the Sto:lo Indians of British Columbia. [Masters of Arts]. Simon Fraser University. Montgomery, L. M., & Supernant, K. (2022). Archaeology in 2021: Repatriation, reclamation, and reckoning with historical trauma. American Anthropologist, 124(4), 800–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13778 Muntean, R., Hennessy, K., Antle, A., Rowley, S., Wilson, J., & Matkin, B. (2015). ʔeləw̓k̓w – Belongings: Tangible interactions with intangible heritage. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 59-69 Páginas. https://doi.org/10.7559/CITARJ.V7I2.159 Museum Act [SBC 2003] (2003). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/03012_01 Myers, F. (2009). ‘Primitivism’, Anthropology, and the Category of ‘Primitive Art.’ In C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands, & P. Spyer (Eds.), Handbook of Material Culture. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607972 National Advisory Committee. (2023). Navigating the Search for Missing Children and Unmarked Burials: An Overview for Indigenous Communities and Families. National Advisory Committee on Residential Schools, Missing Children, and Unmarked Burials. https://nac-cnn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/NAC_Navigator_Report_EN.pdf National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. (2024). Kamloops (St. Louis). National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. https://nctr.ca/residential-schools/british-columbia/kamloops-st-louis/ Native Land. (2024). Native Land Digital [Education]. Native Land Digital. https://native-land.ca/ Nicholas, G. (2001). The past and future of Indigenous archaeology: Global challenges, North American perspectives, Australian prospects. Australian Archaeology, 52(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2001.11681703 Nicholas, G. P. (2006). Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia. The American Indian Quarterly, 30(3), 350–380. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2006.0031 Nicholas, G. P. (2014). Reconciling Inequalities in Archaeological Practice and Heritage Research. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire, & J. R. Welch (Eds.), Transforming Archaeology: Activist Practices and Prospects (pp. 133–158). Routledge. Nicholas, G. P., & Andrews, Thomas. D. (1997). Indigenous Archaeology in the Postmodern World. In G. P. Nicholas & Thomas. D. Andrews (Eds.), At a Crossroads: Arcaheology and First Peoples in Canada (pp. 1–18). Simon Fraser University Archaeology Press. Nicholas, G. P., Bonneau, N. J., & Westfall, L. (2016). Archaeological Approaches to Long-term Secwepemc Plant Use in the Interior Plateau, British Columbia. In M. B. Ignace, N. J. Turner, & S. L. Peacock (Eds.), Secwepemc Peoples and Plants: Research Papers in Shuswap Ethnobotany (pp. 67–125). Society of Ethnobiology. 139 Nicholas, G. P., & Wylie, A. (2009). Archaeological Finds: Legacies of Appropriation, Modes of Response. In J. O. Young & C. G. Brunk (Eds.), The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation (1st ed., pp. 11–54). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444311099.ch2 Nicholson, C., Kansa, S., Gupta, N., & Fernandez, R. (2023). Will It Ever Be FAIR?: Making Archaeological Data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.40 Nicu, I., Mihu-Pintilie, A., & Williamson, J. (2019). GIS-Based and Statistical Approaches in Archaeological Predictive Modelling (NE Romania). Sustainability, 11(21), 5969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215969 Ottman, J. (2017). Canada’s Indigenous Peoples’ Access to Post-secondary Education: The Spirit of the ‘New Buffalo.’ In J. Frawley, S. Larkin, & J. A. Smith (Eds.), Indigenous Pathways, Transitions and Participation in Higher Education (pp. 95–117). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4062-7 Parrott, Z. (2022, September 23). Indian Act [The Canadian Encyclopedia]. Indian Act. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act#:~:text=Bill%20C%2D31%3A%201985%20Amendments%20to%20the%20Indian%20Act&text=The%20bill%20fully%20removed%20all,band%20membership%20for%20two%20years. Paterson, R. K., & Karjala, D. S. (2003). Looking Beyond Intellectual Property in Resolving Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples. Cardozo Journal of International And Comparative Law, 11, 633–670. Peixe, A. R. (2022). Improving the usability of Commercial Archaeology data through semantic integration. [Master of Arts, University of Twente]. https://essay.utwente.nl/92889/1/Peixe_MA_ITC.pdf Pokotylo, D., & Mason, A. (2010). Archaeological Heritage Resource Protection in Canada: The Legislative Bias. In P. M. Messenger & G. S. Smith (Eds.), Cultural Heritage Management (pp. 48–69). University Press of Florida. https://doi.org/10.5744/florida/9780813034607.001.0001 Pokotylo, D., & Mason, A. (2020). Canada: Cultural Heritage Management and First Nations. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Second, pp. 1729–1736). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30018-0 Power, T., Wilson, D., Best, O., Brockie, T., Bourque Bearskin, L., Millender, E., & Lowe, J. (2020). COVID‐19 and Indigenous Peoples: An imperative for action. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(15–16), 2737–2741. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15320 Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). British Columbia archaeological resource management handbook. King’s Printer. Retrieved December 16, 2023, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/archaeological_handbook_for_local_governments.pdf Province of British Columbia. (2022, March 30). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan. The Kings Printer. https://declaration.gov.bc.ca/ Province of British Columbia. (2023a). Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project Phase 1 What We Heard Report: First Nations. King’s Printer. 140 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/hca_wwhr_stakeholders.pdf Province of British Columbia. (2023b). Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project Phase 1 What We Heard Report: Stakeholders. King’s Printer. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/hca_wwhr_first_nations.pdf Province of British Columbia. (2023c). Inventory Standards: Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC). https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/laws-policies-standards-guidance/inventory-standards Province of British Columbia. (2023d, June 23). RAAD User Guide 1.5. King’s Printer. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/forms-publications/raad3_help.pdf Province of British Columbia. (2024a, January 31). Crown Land and Water Use [Government]. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/crown-land-water/crown-land Province of British Columbia. (2024b, July 30). Bulletins and Policies [Government]. Bulletins and Policies. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/archaeology/bulletins-policies Ralston, B. (2024, February 1). Update on Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project [Letter]. Regan, P. (2011). Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada (1st ed.). University of British Columbia Press. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774817790 Reich, J., Liebenberg, L., Denny, M., Battiste, H., Bernard, A., Christmas, K., Dennis, R., Denny, D., Knockwood, I., Nicholas, R., & Paul, H. (2017). In This Together: Relational Accountability and Meaningful Research and Dissemination With Youth. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 160940691771734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917717345 Reinhard, A., & Zaia, S. (2023). Photogrammetry and GIS in Human-Occupied Digital Landscapes. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.30 Reynolds, J. (2020). From Wardship to Rights: The Guerin Case and Aboriginal Law. University of British Columbia Press. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774864589 Riley, J. (2017). Understanding Metadata: What is Metadata, and What is it for? National Information Standards Organization. https://groups.niso.org/higherlogic/ws/public/download/17446/Understanding%20Metadata.pdf Roosevelt, C. H., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B. R., & Ünlüsoy, S. (2015). Excavation is Destruction Digitization: Advances in Archaeological Practice. Journal of Field Archaeology, 40(3), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000004 Ross, M. L. (2005). First Nations Sacred Sites in Canada’s Courts. UBC Press. Saxe, A. B. (2019). Alliances and Accomplices Rise: A Critical Look at a Partnership with a School Serving an Indigenous Community [Dissertation]. University of Denver. 141 Schaepe, D. M., Angelbeck, B., Snook, D., & Welch, J. R. (2017). Archaeology as Therapy: Connecting Belongings, Knowledge, Time, Place, and Well-Being. Current Anthropology, 58(4), 502–533. https://doi.org/10.1086/692985 Schreyer, C. (2015). Messages from Mtigwaki: Lynn Johnston’s cartoons and their impact on Canadian culture. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 34(2), 181–196. Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2024). Voyant: See Through Your Text (Version 2.6.14) [Voyant Tools]. https://voyant-tools.org/ Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing Methodologies Research and Indigenous (Third). Bloomsbury Publishing. Snow, D. R., Gahegan, M., Giles, C. L., Hirth, K. G., Milner, G. R., Mitra, P., & Wang, J. Z. (2006). Cybertools and Archaeology. Science, 311(5763), 958–959. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1121556 S’ólh Téméxw Stewardship Alliance. (2022). Heritage Conservation Act S4 Pilot Project [Government]. Heritage Conservation Act S4 Pilot Project. https://thestsa.ca/resources-relations/agreements/heritage-conservation-act-s4-pilot-project/ Spurling, B. E. (1986). Archaeological resource management in western Canada: A policy science approach [Masters of Arts]. Simon Fraser University. Spurling, B. E. (1988). Archaeology and the Policy Sciences. Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d’Archeologie, 12, 65–80. Steckley, J. L. (2016). Indian Agents: Rulers of the Reserves (Vol. 3). Peter Lang. https://lccn.loc.gov/2016028448 Sturtevant, W. (Ed.). (1978). Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 1). Smithsonian Institution. https://lccn.loc.gov/2022360915 Supernant, K., & Carleton, S. (2022, June 3). Fighting “Denialists” for the Truth about Unmarked Graves and Residential Schooling. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-residential-schools-unmarked-graves-denialism-1.6474429 Te Mana Raraunga. (2018). Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty Brief #1. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d3799de845604000199cd24/t/5d6f940cc5442b00013 e4dab/1567593484780/TMR%2BMa%CC%84ori%2BData%2BSovereignty%2BPrinciples%2BOct %2B2018.pdf Teit, J. (1910, August 25). To Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of the Dominion of Canada [Letter]. https://iitio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/1910-Letter-to-PM-from-Secwepemec.pdf The First Nations Leadership Council. (2011). First Nations Heritage Conservation Action Plan. The First Nations Leadership Council. https://heritagebc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Heritage-Conservation-Action-Plan-for-discussion.pdf The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. https://nctr.ca/records/reports/ The University of British Columbia. (2023a, October 5). Okanagan Nation Alliance and UBC Okanagan recommit to formal agreement [Blog]. UBC Okanagan News. 142 https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2023/10/05/okanagan-nation-alliance-and-ubc-okanagan-recommit-to-formal-agreement/ The University of British Columbia. (2023b, December 14). Indigenous Engagement. Indigenous Engagement. https://ok.ubc.ca/about/indigenous-engagement/ The World Bank. (2024). Indigenous Peoples. The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples#:~:text=Indigenous%20Peoples%20are%20distinct%20social,which%20they%20have%20been%20displaced Thomas, P. D. (2018). Refiguring the Subaltern. Political Theory, 46(6), 861–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591718762720 Thorogood, P. (2022, September 15). Archaeological Resource Management and Available Tools [Ministerial Conference]. Integrated Resource Operations Division, Whistler, BC. https://www.ubcm.ca/sites/default/files/2022-09/1%20Thr%20730-815%20Garibaldi%20B%20Thorogood%20Paula%20-%20UBCM%20-%20Archaeological%20Resource%20Management.pdf Trigger, B. G. (1980). Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian. American Antiquity, 45(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/280140 Tsosie, R. (2000). Land, Culture, and Community: Reflections on Native Soveriegnty and Property in America. Indiana Law Review, 34(1), 1291–1312. Tsosie, R. (2020). The Legal and Policy Dimensions of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS). In M. Walter, T. Kukutai, S. R. Carroll, & D. Rodriguez-Lonebear (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (1st ed., pp. 204–225). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429273957 UNESCO. (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage [Convention Report]. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-concerning-protection-world-cultural-and-natural-heritage UNESCO. (2024). The World Heritage Convention [Government]. World Heritage Convention. https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. (2013, April). The First Nations Heritage Planning Toolkit. Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ubcic/pages/1440/attachments/original/1550261777/312_UBCIC_HeritageBook.pdf?1550261777 Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. (2022, May 23). UBCIC Honoured to Attend Tk’emlúps Memorial for Le Estcwicwéy̓; Calls on Canada and Pope for more Action. Union of BC Indian Chiefs. https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/ubcic_honoured_to_attend_tk_eml_ps_memorial_for_le_estcwicwe_y_calls_on_canada_pope_for_more_action United Nations. (2024). Indigenous Peoples. United Nations: Fight Racism. https://www.un.org/en/fight-racism/vulnerable-groups/indigenous-peoples United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution / Adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/61/295 (2007). https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html USIDSN. (2020). The US Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network Indigenous Data Governance Principles. The US Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network. 143 Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043 Vrdoljak, A. F. (2018). Indigenous Peoples, World Heritage, and Human Rights. International Journal of Cultural Property, 25(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739118000218 W. Thomas, L. D., & Leiponen, A. (2016). Big data commercialization. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 44(2), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2016.2568798 Wadsworth, W. T. D., Supernant, K., Dersch, A., & the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. (2021). Integrating Remote Sensing and Indigenous Archaeology to Locate Unmarked Graves: A Case Study from Northern Alberta, Canada. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 9(3), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2021.9 Ward, K. (2014). ‘The Land of Rape and Honey’: Settler Colonialism in the Canadian West [Dissertation]. University of Edinburgh. Watrall, E., & Goldstein, L. (2022). Digital Methods, Data, and Ethics: Framing a more Thoughtfully Open, Public, and Generous Approach to Digital Heritage and Archaeology. In E. Watrall & L. Goldstein (Eds.), Digital Heritage and Archaeology in Practice: Data, Ethics, and Professionalism (pp. 1–12). University Press of Florida. Welch, J. R., & Ferris, N. (2014). “We Have Met the Enemy and It Is Us": Transforming Archaeology through Sustainable Design. In S. Atalay, L. R. Clauss, R. H. McGuire, & J. R. Welch (Eds.), Transforming Archaeology: Activist Approaches and Prospects (p. 24). Routledge. West, R. G. (1995). Saving and Naming the Garbage: Charles E. Borden and the Making of B.C. Prehistory, 1945-1960 [Masters of Arts]. University of British Columbia. Westbank First Nation. (2003). Summary of Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement. https://www.wfn.ca/docs/self-government-agreement-summary.pdf Westbank First Nation. (2005). Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement between Her Majest the Queen in Right of Canada and Westbank First Nation. https://www.wfn.ca/docs/self-government-agreement-english.pdf Westbank First Nation. (2018, December 10). Westbank First Nation Archaeology Directive. Westbank First Nation. Westbank First Nation. (2022, December 15). Stqáʔtkwɬniw̓ t sqilxw (WESTBANK FIRST NATION) ON-RESERVE ARCHAEOLOGY DIRECTIVE. Westbank First Nation. https://www.wfn.ca/docs/22-12-15_on_reserve_arch_directive_approved_by_council.pdf Westbank First Nation. (2024, August). About Westbank First Nation [Government]. Our Community: About Westbank First Nation. https://www.wfn.ca/our-community/about-westbank-first-nation.htm Whitley, T. G., & Burns, G. (2007). Conditional GIS Surfaces and their Potential for Archaeological Predictive Modelling. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, Ij. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., … Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data 144 management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 Wilson, S. (2001). What is an Indigenous Research Methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175–179. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishing. Wilson, S., & Wilson, A. (2013). Neyo way in ik issi: A Family Practice of Indigenist Research Informed by Land. In D. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous Pathways into Social Research: Voices of a New Generation (pp. 333–352). Left Coast Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315426693 Wylie, A. (2019). Crossing a Threshold: Collaborative Archaeology in Global Dialogue. Archaeologies, 15(3), 570–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09385-4 Wyton, M. (2023, June 17). Residential School Denialisits Tried to Dig Up Suspected Unmarked Graves in Kamloops, B.C., Report Finds. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/denialists-tried-to-access-unmarked-gravesite-tkemlups-report-1.6879980#:~:text=Residential%20school%20deniers%20tried%20to,according%20to%20a%20new%20report. Yellowhorn, E. (1993). Since the Bad Spirit Became our Master [Masters of Arts]. Simon Fraser University. Yellowhorn, E. (1999). Heritage Protection on Indian Reserve Lands in Canada. Plains Anthropologist, 44(170), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/2052546.1999.11931972 Yellowhorn, E., & Hickok, A. (2012). Brave New Digs: Archaeology and Aboriginal People in British Columbia, Canada. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 32(1), 87–99. Young, J. O., & Haley, S. (2009). ‘Nothing Comes from Nowhere’: Reflections on Cultural Appropriation as the Representation of Other Cultures. In J. O. Young & C. G. Brunk (Eds.), The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation (1st ed., pp. 268–289). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444311099.ch11 Younging, G. (2018). Elements of Indigenous Style: A Guide for Writing By and About Indigenous Peoples. Brush Education. 145 Appendices Appendix A WFN Letter of Support This page intentionally blank. Intergovernmental Affairs/Title & Rights #301 – 515 Highway 97 South, Kelowna, BC V1Z 3J2 September 22, 2022 To Whom It May Concern Dear Review Board Chair and Members, Re: Behavioural Research Ethics Board Application ID: H22-02199 I am writing this letter in support of the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (“BREB”) application by Dr. Neha Gupta (primary investigator) and Michael Elvidge (co-investigator) as part of Michael’s Master’s research titled: Community-led Governance of Digital Archaeological Information in Westbank First Nation. The Westbank First Nation Archaeology Office (“WFNAO”) is aware of, and supports the proposed research project. I understand that this research involves the participation of WFNAO office and field staff in assisting the investigatory team to conduct this research. To facilitate this research, the WFNAO will assist the research team through the distribution of survey questionnaires to willing WFNAO field staff and in the coordination of focus groups within the broader Westbank community. As the Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and Title and Rights of the WFN, I have read the research proposal and support the involvement of the WFNAO in this project. Sincerely, WESTBANK FIRST NATION Jen Bellingham Director of Intergovernmental Affairs/Title & Rights Department 147 Appendix B Anonymous Survey Questions 1) When did you start this job? Is this your first time working as field staff? a. If no, when and how long have you done this work? 2) What did you think this job would be before or when you started? a. What did you think the purpose of your work was at the beginning? b. What do you think the Archaeology Office does with the data you collect in the field? c. Do you consider archaeology as your heritage? If no, what do you see it as? d. What do you consider to be heritage? 3) On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being very satisfied, 1 being unsatisfied), how satisfied are you with the work you do and the orientation/training you received? a. Now that you have some experience with this work, what advice would you give to new field staff? b. What are some things that prepared you for the job? c. What are some things that could better prepare new staff for the job? d. Was there anything in your training that you found unneeded or overstated? 4) What sorts of training and support did you receive to collect field data? To manage them, to use them? (Note: this can include formal education, WFNAO training, in-field/on-site training, or the Resources Information Standards Committee (RISC) Archaeological and CMT Inventory Training offered by the province)(List) a. Are there aspects of this work that cause difficulties, that take up a lot of time, a lot of effort to complete, a lot of back and forth with another expert, or with another department? Yes/No If Yes - what are they? – and go to B If No, go to C b. What would be ways to change this situation? c. Do you feel that the training you received was helpful in your day-to-day work? Yes/No 5) Can you describe your process for collecting data, managing and using data? Include as much detail as you feel necessary. 148 a. Does this process differ from others at Westbank or other archaeology offices? Yes/No If Yes, go to B If No, go to C b. What stands out for you? And why? (might be multistep, difficult, needing care and detail, etc) c. Does any part of data collection, managing and using data process feel unnecessary or unnecessarily complicated? Yes/No d. What are some suggestions to help streamline the process?? 6) The Westbank Archaeology Office manages and maintains archaeological data (sites of significance, physical belongings, maps, drawings, etc) collected in Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. Are you concerned about Westbank’s cultural heritage being handled away from Westbank such as at a provincial museum/institution? Yes/No a. What are some steps that you take to make sure the data you collect are handled carefully? b. Did you learn these steps in orientation? Yes/No c. Based on your experience, what other steps do you think are needed to handle, manage, and take care of Westbank’s archaeological information? 7) How often to you use digital tools and software in your job? (scale) a. Which ones, and for what purpose? b. Did you expect to use these digital tools and software in the job? Yes/No c. Did you receive training to use the tools as part of your orientation? Yes/No d. Which tools and software do you find useful? What is most useful about the digital tool/software? e. Which tools and software do you experience difficulties with? What are the difficulties? f. How do you resolve them, whom do you go to, what do you do? 8) After this field season, how your understanding of your job and its purpose changed? a. What was something you expected, and it met your expectations? b. What was something you didn’t expect and surprised you? c. Anything else about your experience that you can share? 149 9) What challenges did you face this season regarding data collection and management? d. How did you resolve the challenges? e. What could be done to improve the situation? 10) On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being very satisfied, 1 being unsatisfied), how satisfied are you with the work you did and the orientation you received? f. Now that you have finished the field season, what advice would you give to new field staff? g. What are some things that prepared you for the job? h. What are some things that could better prepare new staff for the job? i. Anything in your training that you found unneeded?? j. Do you plan on returning to this type of work again next field season? 11) Do you feel that the training you were provided was adequate for you to conduct your work? k. If no, what changes or additional training would make you feel better prepared for the job? 12) Has your relationship to your heritage changed since starting this work? If yes, how so? 13) From the time you started to today, did you make adjustments to the process for collecting data, managing and using data? Include as much detail as you feel necessary. l. Why did you make the adjustments? m. How easy or difficult were they to make? n. Would you recommend making the adjustment(s) a permanent part of the process? 14) After this field season, what aspects of the job consistently caused difficulties that took up a lot of time, a lot of effort to complete, a lot of back and forth with another expert, or with another department? 15) Thoughts on your experience that are important but I haven’t asked about 150 Appendix C Focus Group Discussion Questions 1) What do you consider syilx/Westbank cultural heritage? a. What do you think about when you hear ‘heritage’ or ‘heritage information’? b. What do you think of when you hear ‘archaeology’? Is archaeology part of heritage? (prompts for tangible heritage and intangible heritage) 2) Are there rules around who owns heritage, about who can explain what syilx heritage is, and who can collect heritage things, data, and or make laws? Who can protect heritage and share it? Can anyone do it? a. How do you apply these rules on a daily basis? b. How are the rules being used in archaeology and heritage work in Westbank? 3) The Westbank Archaeology Office manages and maintains archaeological data, heritage data collected in Westbank’s Area of Responsibility. a. What are appropriate ways to manage and maintain heritage data? b. What are appropriate ways to share heritage data? 4) (follow up from 3) There are many ways to keep and take care of Westbank’s heritage. Some are through offices (e.g. Archaeology Office, Title and Rights department, museum), Elders and community members, the school a. What are some ways to support heritage care taking in Westbank? b. Are the voices of community members heard in heritage care taking? What are some steps to take so that the interests and voices of community members can be better heard? 5) What does community management of heritage mean to you? 6) How (or in what ways) do you think that White archaeologists and university researchers might support community management of heritage? 151 Appendix D COVID-19 Safety Protocols In-Person Behavioural Research Safe Research Plan for new and resuming research Please Note 1. The purpose of the Safe Research Plan is to demonstrate to the Behavioural Research Ethics Board that the necessary precautions and protocols are in place to protect research participants as well as the research team from unintentional transmission of COVID during research. See Safe Research Guidelines. 2. The Safe Research Plan is not intended to replace any safety protocols required by UBC or its faculties, departments, etc. for non-research academic activities. 3. If a section is not applicable, indicate n/a. 4. Include the version date in the footers before uploading to Box 9.7 of your Ethics Application. A. Introduction PI name (and student name, if applicable) Dr. Neha Gupta (PI) Michael Elvidge (Primary Contact) Dept/Faculty PI: UBCO Community, Culture, and Global Studies PC: Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies – Digital Arts and Humanities Start Date Upon Ethical Review Approval (approximately October 15, 2022) Ethics ID# H22-02199 B. Vaccination Status i. Is your ethics application for student course-based projects? (For general guidance). ☐ Yes ☒ No ii. If you answered No to B.i, are all members of the research team fully vaccinated? This refers to those who will have face-to-face interaction with other researchers and/or participants. ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Prefer not to answer iii. If you answered Yes to B.i, please ensure you have reviewed the requirements on the COVID webpage (You are submitting or amending an ethics application for course-based research projects) and confirm whether the course syllabus or other course documentation attached to the ethics application, includes: - Notice that students conducting in person research for course-based projects are required to be vaccinated - Options for students to conduct their research projects remotely or in person ☐ Yes ☒ No If No, please explain This is not part of a course based project; the study allows for Zoom meetings as interviews in the case that COVID safety protocol changes C. Population Risk Profile Describe the risk profile of the research participant group/s in relation to the COVID pandemic. Other risks and their mitigation should be described in Box 6.2 of the ethics application and do not need to be repeated here. 152 1. Is age a significant risk factor? ☐ Yes ☒ No 2. Are there any underlying medical conditions in the population that may increase the risk of COVID-19? ☐ Yes ☒ No If Yes, please explain. N/A 3. Are there any other factors that might elevate the risk of exposure to COVID-19 during research activity, e.g., medical setting, high case load or outbreak area, etc.? 4. ☐ Yes ☒ No If Yes, please explain. N/A 5. Will rapid antigen testing be used by the research team to test for asymptomatic or symptomatic status? ☐ Yes ☒ No If Yes, describe who will test and the strategy for testing. N/A D. Research Location/s If your research will be conducted in multiple sites or geographic locations, you may be required to submit a separate form for each distinct location. 1. Location: (provide a brief description of the location): Westbank First Nation facility 2. Health jurisdiction: (include the region/province/state/country that sets the public health guidelines for your research location): Interior Health 3. Describe the ventilation and physical distancing options available during interactions with participants (select all that apply): ☒ Rooms are well-ventilated (windows and doors can be opened to allow fresh air to circulate; the air exchange rate is greater than 4 ACH though mechanical ventilation). ☐ Ventilation is unknown or poor ☒ Minimal distance of 2 metres can be maintained between all researchers and participants ☐ Minimal distance of 2 metres between all researchers and participants CANNOT be maintained or is unknown ☐ Meetings will occur outdoors only ☒ Other Westbank First Nation maintains a COVID-19 safety plan (https://www.wfn.ca/news/covid19.htm) that will be implemented during in-person interviews or meetings during this study. E. Types of interaction For each type of participant interaction, indicate which of the listed safety precautions will be in place (select all that apply): One-on-one interactions may occur during the study to review audio transcriptions of focus group settings with individual participants. These interactions may require in-person discussions or may be held virtually depending upon the needs of the participants and researchers. ☒ One-on-one ☒ N95 or KN 95 masks will be worn by researcher ☒ N95 or KN 95 mask will be provided to participant ☒ Other safety measures (provide explanation): A COVID Health Check (https://covidcheck.gov.bc.ca/) will be used for all participants prior to in-person activity. 153 Interviews will be conducted in locations where social distancing of a minimum of 2 m may be maintained. ☒ Gatherings (3 or more attendees) ☒ N95 or KN 95 masks will be worn by researcher ☒ N95 or KN 95 mask will be worn by – and provided to – participants ☒ Number of participants at one time limited to 4 total (3 participants, one researcher) ☒ Duration of event limited to 3 hours ☒ Other safety measures (provide explanation): A COVID Health Check (https://covidcheck.gov.bc.ca/) will be used for all participants prior to in-person activity. Interviews will be conducted in locations where social distancing of a minimum of 2 m may be maintained. Interviews will be conducted in locations where social distancing of a minimum of 2 m may be maintained. ☐ Naturalistic Observation indoors only (no interaction with people being observed) N/A ☐ N95 or KN 95 masks will be worn by researcher ☐ Other safety measures (provide explanation): N/A F. Off-campus, Community Based Research 1. Does this research involve in-community engagement? ☒ Yes ☐ No. (If no, leave the rest of this section blank.) 2. How many community groups will be involved in the research? Community members with interest in cultural heritage management and archaeology from Westbank First Nation will participate in focus group interviews. 3. Who has been involved in developing the Safe Research Plan? Dr. Neha Gupta (PI), Michael Elvidge (PC), and Nancy Bonneau and Joe Kruger (Westbank First Nation’s Research Collaborators) 4. How many community members will the research team be in contact with? Anticipate less than 10 members in the focus group(s) 5. Will the research team be required to self-isolate before beginning research? ☐ Yes ☒ No. If Yes, provide details (location, duration, testing protocols): N/A 6. What safety protocols will be in place during research events? (select all that apply): ☒ N95 or KN 95 masks will be worn by researchers ☐ N95 or KN 95 mask will be worn by participant/s ☒ N95 or KN 95 mask will be provided to participant ☒ Number of participants gathering at one time limited to 4 total (3 participants, one researcher) ☒ Duration of event/s limited to 3 hours ☒ Other safety measures (provide explanation): Interviews will be conducted in locations where social distancing of a minimum of 2 m may be maintained. G. Research Involving Indigenous Communities 154 Please complete Section F above and answer the following question. If you are unable to affirm any of the statements below, we will only be able to provide conditional approval until arrangements have been confirmed. ☒ Current letter/s of agreement have been attached to the ethics application (required before ethics approval can be granted). ☒ The community has confirmed its capacity to accept research activity at this time ☒ The community has confirmed its guidance/policy related to COVID-19. H. Travel and Accommodation 1. Will the research team need to travel to any research sites? ☒ Yes ☐ No. 2. Are any travel or health advisories in effect in the location you are travelling to? ☐ Yes ☒ No. 3. Will the research team be required to self-isolate before beginning research? ☐ Yes ☒ No. 4. If Yes, provide details (location, testing protocols, etc.): n/a I. Unanticipated events Have contingency plans been developed to address if a study team member or participant becomes sick or develops COVID-19 symptoms? ☒ Yes ☐ No. If No, please explain why no contingency is needed: N/A If Yes, please check all that apply: ☒ Self-isolation ☒ Rapid antigen testing ☒ Other: In case a study team member develops symptoms, they will complete the COVID Health Check and will self-isolate if they test positive for COVID-19. Prior to resuming participation in the study, and the study member will test themselves, and complete the COVID Health Check. They will continue to follow the Westbank First Nation’s COVID-19 protocols related to potential exposure to COVID-19 including self-isolation, rapid antigen testing, and reporting to the Westbank First Nation’s office to minimize risk of transmission. J. Communications and Reporting ☒ I confirm that Safety issues will be reported via a Request for Acknowledgement to the BREB. ☒ I confirm that the Notice of COVID-Related Risks during research will be provided to invitees/participants before they are asked to consent. ☒ I confirm that research participants will be required to complete a COVID-19 Health Check before each interaction. ☒ I confirm that I will be responsible for maintaining the safety protocols; that changes to the Safe Research Plan will be submitted to the REB for approval and will be shared with the research team. Principal Investigator Signature: Neha Gupta Date: October 7, 2022
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Gupta, Neha
A critical examination of commercial archaeological practice and the provincial data ecosystem in Westbank First Nation's area of responsibility
Text