Format: Online - pre-recorded
Author(s):

• Raini

  Bevilacqua

  - K’ómoks First Nation

Although archaeology is provincially protected, the lack of awareness of the Heritage Conservation Act, as well as the shortcomings of the Act itself, led the K’ómoks First Nation (KFN) to enact it’s Cultural Heritage Policy (CHP) in 2020, which states that the KFN “in the spirit of reconciliation … commit to working with the newcomers in the appropriate management of our cultural heritage. By enacting the [CHP], we are reconciling our Aboriginal rights and title to our territory, with the newcomers'’ desire to live in and modify our territory.” The CHIP program is a way for KFN to obtain free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) on ground altering projects. CHIPs are required for medium/large project within the designated area of archaeological potential, a zone created by buffering known archaeological sites and major waterways. The minimum requirement of a site survey (preliminary field reconnaissance) or construction monitoring prior to ground alteration, as well as CHIPs for Provincially permitted projects, has allowed for KFN to obtain FPIC, and has created avenues for early site detection, cultural heritage mitigation, and increased public and governmental awareness of provincial requirements and the importance of K’ómoks history, while decreasing site destruction, and project timelines and costs.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Linda

  Larcombe

  - University of Manitoba

The Connecting Land, Culture Heritage and Wellness (CLCHW) is a collaborative research project that is focused on Indigenous youth wellness and establishing Indigenous-led stewardship of archaeological sites in the Churchill, Manitoba. By engaging Inuit, Dene, and Cree youth with their ancestral lands, the program demonstrates how being on the Land, experiencing the cultural heritage at archaeological sites and strategizing for its preservation might serve as tools for youth and community health and identity. The project identifies a critical need for legislative reform in Manitoba to align with international Indigenous rights and prevent the loss of historical sites to erosion or development.

Researchers propose the creation of an Indigenous Cultural Heritage Trust to grant local communities’ authority over their own history and artifacts. Ultimately, the initiative seeks to transition from colonial management styles toward a model where cultural belongings are treated as living connections to relatives rather than static objects of study. Through technological mapping and land-based ceremonies, the project builds a sustainable framework for sovereign heritage management and future tourism opportunities.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Solène

  Mallet Gauthier

  - University of Alberta

I examine here the idea of academic archaeology as service through my experience at Chimney Coulee (DjOe-6) during my time as a PhD candidate. As an archaeological site with precontact and historic components located in a provincial park, the research undertaken there was subjected to both Saskatchewan parks and archaeology regulations. As part of a broader research project (EMITA project, lead by Dr. Kisha Supernant, University of Alberta), this work was also aligned with principles of Indigenous and heart-centered archaeology. A central theme emerged as a way to go beyond the basic requirements of regulatory frameworks: to embrace the fundamentally relational nature of archaeological work. I discuss the ways in which applying relationality as a framework allowed me to supplement conventional archaeological practice in the study of a late 19th century Métis overwintering site.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Natasha

  Lyons

  - Ursus Heritage Consulting; Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University
• Emily

  Hails

  - Ursus Heritage Consulting
• Colton

  Vogelaar

  - Ursus Heritage Consulting
• Ian

  Cameron

  - Ursus Heritage Consulting
• Roma

  Leon

  - Katzie First Nation
• Kimberly

  Armour

  - Katzie First Nation

Cumulative effects assessments (CEAs) evaluate the past, present and foreseeable future impacts of human and natural processes in proposed development areas, such as environmental stresses, loss of habitat and/or harvesting ranges. Many Indigenous communities are faced with multiple and intersecting claims to different resources and other forms of wealth within their territories, and are utilizing CEAs to assess impacts and inform decision-making about land use, rights and stewardship. In this paper, we consider the role that archaeology is playing in such assessments and how it connects to the growth of a service-oriented approach to compliance archaeology in British Columbia. We discuss the longstanding partnership between q̓íc̓əy̓̓ (Katzie First Nation), whose territory occupies the Fraser Delta of British Columbia, and Ursus Heritage Consulting, a BC-based CRM company. We illustrate with a case study from the sánəsaʔł (Alouette) watershed that shows Ursus’s role in compiling, analysing, mapping, and presenting cultural records and knowledge--including more than 175,000 belongings and 140 kilometres of paleo slough channels--in culturally-directed ways that demonstrate a cumulative picture of presence and flourishing at the site and landscape level. We discuss how this work was conceived and conducted to provide the groundwork to grow these analyses throughout the territory.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Gary

  Coupland

  - University of Toronto
• Terence

  Clark

  - University of Saskatchewan
• xwash

  Steve Feschuk

  - shishalh First Nation

Preliminary archaeological investigations at Kwenten Mak’wali (DjRw-14) in 2009 yielded evidence that suggested the possibility that shishalh ancestors may have been interred at the site.  When asked by the shishalh First Nation to verify this possibility, and to provide any and all information related to our findings, we proceeded with the unusual and unexpected step of excavating five ancestral burials.  The results of this work aided the shishalh in their negotiations with the Province of British Columbia for control of this site location.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• David

  Norris

  - Woodland Heritage Northwest

Duty to consult in Ontario has evolved through constitutional law rather than a single policy decision. Rooted in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the principle of the Honour of the Crown, this obligation was clarified through landmark Supreme Court decisions such as R. v. Sparrow (1990) and Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004), which established that governments must engage Indigenous peoples when actions may impact their rights. Archaeology and heritage management are closely tied to this framework, as they involve the protection and interpretation of Indigenous cultural landscapes, ancestral sites, and knowledge systems.

In 2011, Ontario introduced Standards and Guidelines to regulate archaeological assessments conducted under the Ontario Heritage Act. While these standards define field and reporting methods, they provide limited direction regarding meaningful engagement with First Nation communities. As expectations surrounding Indigenous rights, reconciliation, and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continue to evolve, the regulatory framework has struggled.

This presentation examines two major Hydro One infrastructure projects in northern Ontario—the Waasigan Transmission Line and Northeast Power Line—demonstrating how proactive, collaborative engagement with Indigenous communities is reshaping archaeological practice and establishing emerging best practices across the region

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Kurtis

  Blaikie-Birkigt

  - Blaikie Archaeological Consulting

In the Alberta oilsands, First Nations are systematically excluded from the Historical Resources Act compliance process. Since 2013 I have worked as an independent technical reviewer for several First Nations, providing comments on cultural heritage concerns as part of the project Consultation process. Although these technical reviews have no formal regulatory weight, they have exerted pressure and influence on project proponents to ensure HRA compliance and best practices.

This work supplements the Alberta regulatory framework by ensuring additional oversight on project HRA compliance, integrating an extensive TLU database into project reviews, and filling a regulatory capacity gap in long-term monitoring.  Over the years, I’ve attempted to transcend the “minimum regulatory requirements” status quo by communicating best practices, and working to develop First Nation cultural heritage policy and procedures. I have also had the opportunity to work collaboratively to address cultural heritage challenges that fall outside the routine regulatory process. I’ve also made efforts to subvert the project-based regulatory regime to address cumulative impacts, and the “rocks in boxes” mitigation model to address the real loss of local community heritage.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Karonhianoron Dallas

  Canady-Binette

  - McGill University

In Quebec, collaboration between professional archaeologists and Indigenous peoples is a rare and relatively recent phenomenon. Current legislation governing archaeology in the province does not include parameters for what collaboration should look like and renders almost all decision-making powers to the Minister of Culture and Communications. This disconnect is further exacerbated for English-speaking Indigenous communities due to the fact that most practicing archaeologists in the province are francophone.

This presentation offers a Kanien’keha:ka perspective on a unique attempt at a cooperative archaeological project at the Royal Victoria Hospital site in downtown Montreal, Quebec. Here, a number of diverse stakeholders converged including a university, the provincial government, and a collective of Indigenous women known as the Mohawk Mothers. Although the relationship between archaeologists and Indigenous stakeholders began positively, the work environment quickly became adversarial. While professional archaeologists conceptualized collaboration as accommodating cultural difference, Indigenous stakeholders repeatedly asserted their rights to sovereignty and self-determination and insisted on disrupting historical power dynamics. Drawing on ethnographic notes taken during my time as part of a team of Indigenous cultural monitors, I argue that this attempt ultimately failed due to a profound misunderstanding of what it means to collaborate with Indigenous peoples.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Kenneth

  Holyoke

  - University of Lethbridge
• Trevor

  Dow

  - Ecofor/University of New Brunswick
• Gabriel

  Hrynick

  - University of New Brunswick

Recent bibliometric research in New Brunswick suggests that following a peak in production in the mid-1980s, scholarly publication related to cultural resource management archaeology has declined. This is despite the increasing tempo and cost of both private sector and government-led CRM. Concurrently, many of the vehicles for public archaeology in the province, such as archaeological societies, have also floundered. As a result, rightsholders, stakeholders, and the public are confronted with an opaque respository of archaeological information. In this presentation, we report on two extra-governmental efforts to address this. The first, the New Brunswick Bibliography Project, seeks to inventory, and as a result render more useable, all of the published archaeological information about the province. The second, the New Brunswick Archaeology Podcast, provides accessible educational programming about the archaeology of the province. Absent robust government mandates for public archaeology, these initiatives help to increase transparency around archaeological research and indicate what sort of archaeological data may be available. 

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Sean P.

  Connaughton

  - Inlailawatash

Cultural resource management (CRM) archaeology is unrelenting: the pace is fast, the pressures proliferate, and a project’s success is often measured by one’s ability to “grind.” Legislation and regulators fall short, and institutional change is slow. When so much is out of our control, how can archaeologists maintain their composure? In the challenging context of CRM, I contend that values-driven direct action is not just possible but necessary. Archaeologists must centre themselves with a philosophical framework that guides their action, ethics, and creates meaning in the work they do each and every day. This talk presents such a framework for praxis — not abstract theory, but a lived, working set of codes, or values, and advocacy that archaeological practitioners can carry into the field, the boardroom, and the negotiating table. CRM isn’t going to change on its own. Stop waiting for permission.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Kisha

  Supernant

  - University of Alberta
• Talisha

  Chaput

  - University of Alberta

Collaborative and community-based archaeological practice is situated in a network of relationships between governmental bodies, educational institutes, private-sector companies, and the communities we serve. Each group in this network has complex priorities which often contradict the priorities of others involved in the regulation of archaeological practice and heritage management. In response to this, archaeologists are establishing protocols and practices that aim to creatively navigate these tensions and conflicts, working towards an ethical and informed practice that continues to advocate for the transformation of heritage practice. The Institute of Prairie and Indigenous Archaeology, based out of the University of Alberta, has recently developed a Guide to Good Relations; a living document that aims to provide an outline and overview of the principles of our work, and the concrete ways we enact those principles. Emerging from reflexive discussions around structural and theoretical issues within the practice of archaeology and how these pervade our academic spaces, the guide is an exercise in collaborative community-building and accountability. We are proud to share the development process and the public version of the IPIA’s Guide to Good Relations with our extended community, in the hopes that this encourages the development of similar documents in other institutions.

Format: In-Person
Author(s):

• Joshua

  Dent

  - TMHC Inc.
• Natasha

  Lyons

  - Ursus Heritage Consulting

Archaeological regulation is the engine of much of current archaeological practice in Canada. In this environment, archaeology is less about realizing any sort of inherent value and more about risk management. This paper discusses how and why archaeology cannot rely on regulation alone to justify the bulk of practice. Commercial archaeology especially, but other archaeologies as well, must innovate and cultivate the means to achieve heritage objectives outside of rote regulatory practice or seemingly narrow and introspective academic pursuits. A self-propelled archaeology is fueled by the value derived from its inherent mandate to better understand the past, but broadened to encompass the spectrum of interests invested in that understanding: to better understand the past in service of the present. Using macro and micro examples, this paper demonstrates that the present includes an array of rightsholders, stakeholders, and the public.