Anthropology Today

2

A Note From Your Editors..................................2 Concerning Ethics……….………….…....3 “Through an Aboriginal’s Eyes”………………...….…4-5 “Losing Time and Money”………………...….....6 “8000 Year Long Culture Gone With the Scoop of A Shovel”………...................7-8 “Trouble Deep Down By the Bay …………..…9-10 “Trials, Tribulations, and Cooperation”…...…11-13 Featured in Next Month’s Issue.…………..…14 Acknowledgements…...15-16

Francis Recalma is a third year Theatre major, with a minor in Anthropology, and first time magazine editor. He is of First Nations descent from the Qualicum Bay area, with family relations to Kwakwaka'wakw, Coast Salish, and Pentlatch peoples. Francis is often a hands-on working guy, and hasn’t done much writing. This is his first time working with others to create a published research magazine, and looks forward to collaborating with his fellow editors.

Amy Gibb is a fourth year Anthropology

and History major who is a first time maga-zine editor. She loves to learn about different cultures, in the past and present, and found the intricacies of this magazine issue especially interesting. In high school she edited her class yearbook, has university experience researching, and has maintained a personal blog for class as well a professional blog for work. This is the first time Amy has transferred her research into a published magazine, and she looks forward to future issues. Happy reading!

Michael Mitchell is currently attending his

4th year at the university of Victoria and is working towards an undergraduate degree in anthropology and a minor in biology. He is inspired by the great diversity that is abundant in the world in which we live, and hopes to better understand the subtle connections between human culture and the biological world. Michael has a blog based around the two things that he loves the most, cars, and music, this desire to share his interests with the world is what brought him to this magazine. Enjoy.

INDEX A Note From your Editors

3

Honesty, integrity and devotion are the cinder blocks that constitute the foundation of anthropological research. People we study and people who rely on us for information must be able to confidently trust that our word is sound, and true. The fulfilling of this statement is without a doubt one of the most significant processes in which we continuously strive to maintain. Through honest research that is preformed without bias, it is our duty to help shape and develop our understanding of the human self. The initial flagstone of our inspiration is honest, credible conduct; this means that under no circumstances should we engage in activities that would diminish our value and credibility as ethical humans and as anthropologists. As active participants in the academic world we must follow our core principles, although these guidelines apply to most situations, they will not fit them all, so under circumstances such as these we must commit to upholding our integrity and do what is just.

These are our core principles: 1. Honesty We will not lie to our readers, colleagues, or sources. Through maintaining this core value of honesty we strive to provide current and factual knowledge that is applicable to today’s society. We will not exaggerate, manipulate, or create the information that we pass to you the reader. 2. Integrity All work is our own, and none is plagiarized. Credit will be given for all content which is not our own and our sources will be stated clearly, in order to allow others to be able to track the original content. 3. Community We will not be bought. We serve the people in which we study and the people in which we are a part of. This is to ensure that anthropology maintains its high standard and trust relationships with the community. 4. Equality We are fair, we will not be swayed, and regardless of our personal opinions on any matter we will not allow our feelings to

influence the facts.

Honesty

Integrity

Community

Equality

Concerning Ethics

4

Since time immemorial First Nations peoples have cared for the land given to them from the ances-tors at the creation of the world. With the influx of settler populations into British Columbia’s lower coast, many First Nations peoples, includ-ing the Coast Salish, were pushed from their traditional lands, and their traditional ways of life. This article will focus on the separation and destruction of these ancient peoples’ obligations and ties to their cemeteries. What developers and the pro-vincial and federal governments of Canada consider to be archaeo-logical sites containing human re-mains are important areas to the First Nations of Canada. These lands contain their ancestors, who laid down songs and prayers to protect the land as well as the flora and fauna of their territories (Galvin 2005; W. White personal communi-cation, March 27, 2013). Cultural and environmental problems within the community and arise when de-velopers want to destroy these sa-cred areas of the First Nations people. Issues surrounding

Perspective of the First Nations: Through an Aboriginal’s Eyes

Figure 1. Storm Crashing over Beach at Qualicum Bay.

Figure 2. Recalma Family Totem Pole in Graveyard.

5 Figure 3. View of Denman Island off Deep Bay Spit.

development and subsequent archaeological digs regarding First Nations cemeteries can in-clude: controversy of indigenous origin stories, testing/destruction of human ancestors, and loss of territory to development, among other prob-lems (Yellowhorn 2012:88-90; Galvin 2005; First Nations 2008). To the First Nations who have been placed on reserves often far away from many of the Brit-ish Columbian archaeological sites in question, it is a large fight to prevent the development of property containing the bones of their ancestors. How would you feel if someone decided to dig up your great-grandfather? Why is it okay to dig up the ancestors of people who have faced so much discrimination for the last century and a half? Through initiatives such as the Islands Trust, companies are encouraged to de-velop on the Gulf Islands off Vancouver Island; and the government often turns a blind eye to First Nations grave sites and ancestral territories (First Nations 2008; Galvin 2005; Yellowhorn 2012:93-94). The subsequent archaeological digs can uncovers data for archeologists to study, but they can also have an adverse affect on Indigenous cultures surrounding the excavated areas (Yel-lowhorn 2012:88). Though this data is seen as

important from an academic settler perspec-tive, it can cause doubt and contradicting views to the oral histories of the First Nations people who may not have any interest in knowing the pathologies and stresses that their ancestors suffered from; which is com-mon of archaeological research (Borrows N.d.:86-87; Yellowhorn 2012:88).

First Nations peoples also have a connection to the land and the spirits of their ancestors, which is not always realized by settler peoples. Speaking from personal ex-perience as a First Nations descendant, at the time of the excavations at Deep Bay of my ancestor’s remains, a shaman was un-covered. In our culture shamans had the power to control weather, among other things. As the dig continued, storms battered the area that we lived, until the remains of the shaman had been re-interred, and a burning had been performed to put the spirits to rest. The cross-cultural barricades, and often disrespect of First Nations requests and cul-tural taboos can lead to disagreements be-tween the developers looking to turn around their land, and the First Nations who are looking out for the well being of their ances-tors’ remains.

6

Perspective of the Developer: Time and Money

Time is money, and money is money. For private developers in British Columbia, valuable time and money can be rapidly lost if their land contains Coast Salish ancient remains, artifacts, or midden. Canadian and British Columbian leg-islature, like the Heritage Conservation Act (1996), protects ancient First Nations sacred sites. Despite promising to rebury uncovered an-cestors in the legislature, Coast Salish communi-ties do not want these sites to be disturbed. However a balance between Coast Salish com-munities, developers, and the Government has not yet been found, as different cases continue to result in different outcomes. Private real estate is limited to 5% of Brit-ish Columbia’s land, and this small percentage is threatened by the potential discoveries of Coast Salish artifacts and remains (Milke 2013:13). Al-though they are not all private properties, there are 38573 property sites in British Columbia that have been registered as archaeologically signifi-cant. A main disadvantage to property owners, as argued by Milke (2013), is that properties are de-valued and frozen because owners cannot afford to follow through with the legal process associ-ated with finding Coast Salish remains. In 2012 Gary and Fran Hackett of Mar-pole, Vancouver decided to develop their one acre property that their family had owned for the last half of the century. Unfortunately for them, Coast Salish human remains were discovered that proved First Nations ownership stretched back thousands of years. Despite the remains occupying only one-tenth of one percent of the property, the excavation was very expensive. The process of hiring archaeologists to excavate remains must be funded by private landowners, and the Hackett’s ended up paying upwards of $400 000. Analysis of Milke’s article (2013) uncovers bias however. The article is useful in understanding the developers’ perspective, but the bias also undervalues the legitimacy of the argument. For example, Milke

reports Musqueam protests of the Hackett de-velopment included calling the discovery a “bur-ial complex” (2013:14), which he calls an exag-geration. He states that “intact partial skeletal remains of one adult, two infants and a disarticulated adult (in essence, unattached bones)” (2013:14) were found, and undervalues their importance by focusing on quantity and not the cultural importance of the find. For Coast Salish people, culture and kin relations are experienced as a continuum, and human remains not only verify territorial ownership and identity; but are viewed as a part of the present. Coast Salish people today are connected to their ancestors through the land, and the pass-ing of time does not disintegrate relationships with ancestors, as it does in Western religion. Ignorance of the cultural significance of ancient remains is apparent in many British Columbian cases, however that ignorance is fueled by a $400 000 bill. If property developers cannot afford to continue excavations and de-cide to stop construction, they are left with a property that is then registered as an archae-ology site. This will be known to potential buy-ers, and possibly reduce the value or chance that the property will be sold, as the new owner will be aware that they may have to spend thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars on developing the property.

Figure 4. Foreman at Construction Site.

7

8000 Year Long Culture Gone With the Scoop of a Shovel

The ancient village of Cesna:m, also known as the Great Fraser Midden or the Mar-pole Midden is located in the territory of the Musqueam First Nation, and is partially on the current reservation. The Marpole Midden was considered in the twentieth century, by many archaeologists, to be “the single most important site on the Northwest Coast because of its tre-mendous size and extensive history of excava-tion and interpretation” (Roy 2006/7:68). Exca-vation of the site began in 1884, and since then it has become an example of how the relation-ships between First Nations in British Columbia, archaeologist, and the law has changed over the last century. In the 1890’s the site was excavated to provide skeletal remains and artifacts for a new exhibit that would feature “the remains of Indian life in British Columbia” (Roy 2006/07:74) in the American Museum of Natural History. The Musqueam First Nation, who originally occupied the territory before colonists removed them from their land, had no voice in the removal of their ancestors’ remains. The remains were collected purely to build an inventory in museums and research the race of the skeletons found; not to protect the discoveries for their current cultural significance. Many of the 700 plus skeletons

were discarded because of a lack in storage space, which reflects the European settler pro-fessional disregard of Coast Salish people. A common practice of museums, that still exists today, was to accumulate First Nations cultural items and present them as historical artifacts. This associated First Nations culture with the past as the Canadian Government assimilated Aboriginals and restricted their access to tradi-tional food sources, and customs such as the Potlatch. This period especially represents a time of dispossession of Coast Salish People by the Canadian Government. From the 1890s through the first half of the twentieth century, Marpole Midden remains were studied to determine what ‘race’ they be-longed to. Ancestry of the Musqueam people was refuted and professionals argued that the biology of current Musqueam people and the re-mains were significantly different. This was a common outlook of colonialist archaeology. Su-san Roy quotes a 1948 reporter asking who are the people that originally lived within the territory. The reporter claimed, "they were not Indians cer-tainly" (2006/07:70). Roy argues that this type of archaeology asked questions about migration and identity in order to delegitimize First Nations territorial claims and validate European settle-

ment (2006/07). In the 1930s clay facial replications were created from the skulls found at the site, and they were used as evidence that the current Musqueam Nation did not originate from the Asiatic looking ancient people. This discredited the Musqueam people from claiming the land because it was assumed that they had replaced the original inhabitants. It also silenced their voice in conversations of what to do with the discovered remains. As twentieth century infrastructure development in

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE….

Figure 5. Map of Musqueam Territory in Urban Vancouver.

8

Vancouver increased, archaeology teams began salvaging what they could on the Marpole Mid-den site. In 1933 the site was declared a Cana-dian National Historic Site, and this represents a shift in attitude towards First Nations culture that highlighted a growing respect. Between the 1950s and 1970s permission of the Musqueam Nation was required for archaeologists to exca-vate on their reservation, and Aboriginal commu-nity members, especially children, were involved in the process. Susan Roy (2006/07) claims this is because Canadian society was recognizing just how discriminatory and dispossessing the Government had been since colonial times, and Aboriginal Nations were protesting the treatment of their people more enthusiastically than before. During this time the Canadian Government still did not recognize Aboriginal title to the land; al-though the Musqueam Nation began to use the recovered artifacts as proof that their ancestors had owned and lived on the land for thousands of years.

In 2004 the federal government officially recognized Musqueam occupation of the Mar-pole Midden site for 8000 years, and therefore their title to the land. This is significant because it highlights the changing ideas about Coast Salish culture, and how the Canadian Government is evolving from its colonialist outlook of the past 120 years. However, recent development contin-ues to focus on the protection of remains and ar-tifacts under the Heritage Conservation Act due to their archaeological significance, instead of halting development and leaving Musqueam an-cestors in their cemeteries. Developers in Van-couver are still allowed to build on private prop-erty that only 200 years ago was a Coast Salish burial ground. At least legislature now declares archaeologists will safely remove discovered re-mains. But is that good enough for a Nation that had their land stolen less than 200 years ago? Is it good enough for a culture that never wanted their ancient family members disturbed in their graves in order to build condominiums?

Figure 6. Marpole Midden.

9

Trouble Deep Down by the Bay

At least 5,000 years ago, the Pentlatch village site of S'oksun, better known as Deep Bay, located forty-five minutes north of Nanaimo on Vancouver Island, was used as a winter residence, and gravesite for thousands of years for the people who cared for the land (Levitz and Willott 1997: 3; Wilson et al 2003: 83). The site of Deep Bay was well known to the descendants of the Pentlatch people, who now reside on the Qualicum Indian Reserve, as well as had been previously documented as an archaeological site in the mid-seventies (Wilson et al 2003: 1-2, 18; Yellowhorn 2012: 92). This area being a known archeological site causes the need for a permit to be obtained before any development may occur at the area in question (Heritage conserva-tion Act 1966; Yellowhorn 2012: 92).

At the site of Deep Bay, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Small Craft Harbours Branch had plans to develop the existing parking lot, create a larger turn-around for a pre-existing

Figure 7. Clan Chief Ewanuxdzi’s (Buddy Recalma) Grave on the Qualicum First Nations Territories.

Figure 8. Contemporary View from S'oksun, now the Deep Bay Harbour, at Sunset.

boat ramp, and excavating a trench along a boat ramp (Wilson et al 2003: 5-10; Yellowhorn 2012: 92). On March 11th, 2003, a company hired to excavate the hillside to be developed uncovered human remains (HR’s) and halted construction to alert the coroners office in Nanaimo, and awaited confirmation to continue working (Wilson et al 2003: 1). The HR’s in


10

question became identified as prehistoric in na-ture, and an archeological salvage was orga-nized (Wilson et al 2003: 1-2); at this time the lo-cal First Nations, the Qualicum Indian Band, was notified, and they began to prepare culturally and politically for the processes which would need to follow with the disinterment of ancestral remains (Yellowhorn 2012: 92).

A department of the federal government of Canada does not seem to see the need to do adequate research into land development, even though it appears to request that private land owners in British Columbia, and indeed all of Canada to do so before moving ahead with de-velopments (Blair 2005: 5-6; Heritage Conserva-tion Act 1996; Yellowhorn 2012: 92). The gov-ernment in this case did see fit to follow-up with the necessary steps to reconcile the mistakes noted previously, by which they informed the lo-cal First Nations claiming the territory, and initi-ated a salvage operation archeological dig (Wil-son et al 2003: 1-2; Yellowhorn 2012: 92). Though, as Terry Clark stated in an interview with Prince Rupert Daily New: “They broke the law as soon as soon as they put the backhoe in the ground”. The irony of the situation, as well, is the fact that not even a month before the devel-opment in Deep Bay, the former Lt. Gov. Iona Campagnolo had told British Columbians that a new era in reconciliation was upon them, in a speech from the throne (Hume 2004). Though the company hired to conduct the salvage dig

Figure 9. Site DiSe 7 at Deep Bay, Current Appearance of the Gravesite.

was aided by the assistance of the Qualicum First Nations, they noted this does not address traditional land use, nor does it constitute abo-riginal assistance (Wilson et al 2003: 4).

The events which took place around the development of Deep Bay demonstrate that though there is still a disconnect through devel-opment forethought, it is possible for the gov-ernment, and archaeologists to work with First Nations groups about the destruction of their an-cestral grave sites. After the events following the discovery of HR’s at the Deep Bay site, the ar-chaeological crew followed not only Provincial and Federal mandates about First Nations sites, but also were culturally conscious and respected the traditions of the First Nations peoples when it came to dealing with the spirits and remains of their ancestors (Yellowhorn 2012: 92-93). After the respectful dig had taken place, all individuals who had been removed for analysis were repa-triated back to the Qualicum First Nations, and a ceremony was held to reinter the ancestors, fol-lowed by a burning to honor the ancestors (Per-sonal Account 2003; Poirier 2004; Yellowhorn 2012: 93). The site to this day remains fenced off to avoid grave robbers from accessing it, and as far as is known plans for development have ceased. This case study shows a valuable ex-ample of the fact that though forethought does not always happen, reconciliation with First Na-tions groups can be possible where their ances-tor’s remains are concerned.

11

Trials, Tribulations and Co-operation: The Case of Coast Salish Burial Grounds and Poets Cove Resort.

Poets cove; a small luxurious Resort nestled in a picturesque bay situated on South Pender Island. Here the name poet’s cove per-fectly embodies the beauty that surrounds the resort; on three sides a wall of giant cedar trees surround the property accentuating the serene ocean view which is painted in crimson, and gold from the final rays of the setting sun. Al-though the beauty of this resort is spectacular, it did come at a cost, here the price was not only in dollars and cents, but also a manifesta-tion of cultural values and rights for the Coast Salish Indigenous which neighbor the resort. In 2003 a section of the waters edge was exca-vated in order to build a larger pool within the footprint of the previous one, and all was well and good until through developmental oversight

the excavation unearthed a Coast Salish burial ground containing 4000 years of cultural his-tory.

Once the local indigenous population knew this information, a legal confrontation en-sued between the Tseycum and Tsawout bands versus the resort, this legal battle lasted a period of six months before a resolution was found. Poets Cove resort did obtain the appro-priate permits issued by British Columbia’s Ministry of Natural Resource Operations that were needed to perform this upgrade.


Figure 10. Poet’s Cove Resort.

12

Although the area that was to be developed had previously been excavated to bedrock during the initial construction of the resort in the 1960’s, consequently removing and destroying all archaeological deposits that may have previously been there. Through Canadian law, the Heritage conserva-tion act and the Memoran-dum of understanding, are the two pieces of legislature that govern the protection and issuing of permits for development on culturally sensitive sites such as this. Through the Heritage Con-servation Act, laws are set in place to provide protection to sites such as this as well as providing the framework for the legal penalties for

destruction or unauthorized disturbance of significant archaeological sites. The consequence for desecrat-ing a sacred site is impris-onment up to two years and fines up to $1,000,000. Part of the reasoning as to why instances like this are sig-nificant to the Coast Salish people is their belief that the artifacts remain in posses-sion to the people who origi-nally created or used them; this influences their cultural laws concerning the dead and grave goods. One of the most significant cultural be-liefs is that the family of the deceased has the responsi-bility to ensure that their re-mains are given a proper funeral, as well as ensure that the remains are treated

with respect, this demonstra-tion of care to the remains is done to appease the ances-tors spirit. Through this belief that the deceased need to be cared for, the upheaval of a past gravesite caused great disturbance to the Tseycum and Tsawout bands spiritual wellbeing. Through the pro-ceeding court battles Poets cove resort agreed to make a $50,000 donation in order to promote archaeology in Brit-ish Columbia, poets cove was also credited for making dramatic changes to their building design at great ex-pense, Poets Cove even went so far as to build a wall surrounding the area in which human remains were found to ensure the future security of the ancestral remains.


Figure 11. Protesters Against Burial Ground Destruction.

13

Shortly following the legal proceedings Poets cove resort underwent an extensive sifting pro-gram in co-operation with archaeologists as well as local first nations consultants with the goal to separate culturally significant material, this was done so the Tseycum and Tsawout bands could perform the appropriate ceremonies and

rituals needed to appease the spirits of the deceased after relocation. Because of the re-sorts willingness to co-operate and fund this extensive program the first nations chief, Vern Jacks states that this procedure was a “model of neighborly co-operation” and all resentment has been set aside. Through this example of intercultural co-operation and understanding, we can see that our national, and provincial legislation surrounding the protection of in-digenous burial grounds and sacred sites is not yet complete. This rare instance worked out for all parties because of the joint willing-ness to co-operate, although the majority of cases in which an indigenous burial grounds are excavated for development leads to heated legal battles and leaves a bitter taste of resentment between the two parties. Be-cause of the great number of sites similar to the burial grounds at Poets Cove that are peppering our beautiful B.C. coasts we need to take more precautions in order to protect our neighbors and their culture, so we can live in harmony. “When does a graveyard cease to be a graveyard?” – Chief Vern Jacks

Figure 13. Map of Pender Island.

Figure 12. Sifting Dirt for Remains at Poet’s Cove.

14

Featured in Next Months Issue: Interviews

First Nations: In this month’s special issue we looked at the laws and reactions regarding the Deep Bay gravesite. We have managed to get in contact with the Chief-at-the-time of the Qualicum First Nations people, Ogwiloqwa, better known as Kim Recalma-Clutesi. Through our interviews we will find out how the development affected Band pro-ceedings, tension among reserve members, the cultural implications of uncovering a gravesite, as well as other affects an event such as this has on the local settler relationship with the Indigenous peoples. This first hand viewpoint on the events will give us all a better understanding on how First Nations bands feel about commercial de-velopments on the ancient sites of their ances-tors. Subscribe to Anthropology Today or pick up the next issue at a newsstand near you. Developers:

In this month’s special issue, you read about three case studies represented in the news

Figure 14. Caves At China Beach.

and analyzed in academic articles. You have read how the law has influenced the process of developing on private property when a Coast Salish burial ground is uncovered. What was not included in this magazine were the voices of the developers. What are the economic and social pressures developers feel once their construction is stalled due to uncovering a First Nations sa-cred site? What losses do they suffer through the process? How do developers respond to con-cerns from Coast Salish communities? And how does the new relationship with the First Nation community and the law contribute to the estab-lishment of the golf courses and vacation resorts that are built? Subscribe to Anthropology Today to receive the next issue, or look on stands for next month’s special issue. It will include inter-views with the developers of the resorts from Poet’s Cove and Deep Bay, as well as local Vic-toria developers who have uncovered Coast Sal-ish remains. Find out what developers have to say.

15

Acknowledgments (References)

Blair, Peggy J. 2005 The Non-Protection of Canadian Aboriginal Heritage (Burial Sites and Artifacts).

http://www.scowinstitute.ca/library/documents/RPHeritageSites.pdf, accessed March 3, 2013.

Borrows, John N.d. Nanabush Goes West: Title, Treaties, and the Trickster in British Columbia. N.p.

Canada. British Columbia. Ministry of Tourism Culture and the Arts, Heritage Conservation Act, [Victoria, B.C.] 1996. Retrieved from: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96187_01#part1 (ac-

cessed March 26, 2013)

Canada. British Columbia. Ministry of Tourism Culture and the Arts, Heritage Conservation: Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU'). [Victoria, B.C.], 2010.

Retrieved from: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/archaeology/external/!publish/web/Heritage_Conservation_MOU_Treaty_8_First_Nations.pdf (accessed March 20, 2013)

First Nations: Land Rights and Environmentalism in British Columbia

2008 Development: Coast Salish. http://www.firstnations.de/development/coast_salish.htm, accessed February 25 2013.

Glavin, Terry

2005 This Haunted Place. The Georgia Straight, August 25-September 1: 45-50. http://www.straight.com/article/this-haunted-place.

Hume, Stephen

2004 Ripping Up First Nations Gravesites is the Ultimate Betrayal. The Vancouver Sun, February 19: A13.

Knox, Jack 2004 Native Bones Put Neighbors to a Test.

Times Colonist, June 5: B1

Levitz, Rita and Leah Willott 1997 Images and Voices of Lighthouse Country. Bowser: Images & Voices.

Milke, Mark 2013 Aboriginal Activism & Hidden Archaeological Claims: The Newest Threat to Private Property in BC. Fraser Fo-

rum (January/February 2013): 13-16.

Nicholas, George P. 2006 Decolonizing the Archaeological Landscape: The Practice and Politics of Archaeology in British Columbia.

Special issue, "Decolonizing Archaeology," American Indian Quarterly 30(3/4), 350-380. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4139018 (accessed March 27, 2013)

Parmar, Peter. 2007 Poets Cove worked to protect sites.

Times Colonist, April 25: A15

Poirier, Genève 2004 Qualicum First Nation's Chief Says Site Maps May Prevent Future Dig Problems. Harbour City Star, August

21: B11.


16

Roy, Susan. 2006/2007 “Who Were These Mysterious People?" Cesna:m, The Marpole Midden, and the Dispossession of Abo-

riginal Lands in British Columbia. BC Studies 152:67-95. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. 2004 Project for the Protection and Repatriation of First Nation Cultural Heritage in Canada, Respecting the Ancestors: Report of the Hul'qumi'num Heritage Law Case Study. Victoria: Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group

Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/3018655/Alhut_tu_tet_Sulhween-_Respecting_the_Ancestors_Report_of_the_Hulquminum_Heritage_Law_Case_Study_by_E._McLay_K._Bannister_L._Joe_B._Thom_and_G._Nicholas (accessed March 24, 2013)

Wilson I.R., A.W. Hickok and M. Rogers 2003 Emergency Archaeological Salvage DiSe 7 Deep Bay, Vancouver Island. Unpublished HCA Permit Report

2003-71 on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC.

Yellowhorn, Eldon. 2012 Brave New Digs: Archaeology and Aboriginal People in British Columbia, Canada. The Canadian Journal of

Native Studies 32(1): 87-99.

Figure 1. Storm Crashing over Beach at Qualicum Bay. Recalma, Francis. Personal photos, 2013

Figure 2. Recalma Family Totem Pole in Graveyard. Recalma, Francis. Personal photos, 2013

Figure 3. View of Denman Island off Deep Bay Spit. Recalma, Francis. Personal photos, 2013

Figure 4. Foreman at Construction Site, Microsoft Office Clip Art, http://officeimg.vo.msecnd.net/en-us/images/MH900431659.jpg.

Figure 5. Map of Musqueam Territory in Urban Vancouver, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GVA-map.png. Figure 6. Marpole Midden, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Marpole_Midden. Figure 7. Clan Chief Ewanuxdzi’s (Buddy Recalma) Grave on the Qualicum First Nations Territories. Recalma, Francis. Personal photos, 2013 Figure 8. Contemporary View from S’oskun, now the Deep Bay Harbor at Sunset. Recalma, Francis. Personal photos, 2013 Figure 9. Site DiSe 7 at Deep Bay, Current Appearance of the Gravesite. Recalma, Francis. Personal photos, 2013

Figure 10. Poets Cove Resort Front View. http://saltspringair.com/tours/wp-content/themes/scrollider/functions/thumb.php?src=tours/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/pender090710_6779.jpg&w=2560&h=0&zc=1&q=90&a=c Figure 11. Protesting http://fnbc.info/blogs/judith-sayers?page=2 Figure 12. Dirt to be Sifted at Poets Cove, First Nations Archive, 2003 http://www.firstnations.de/development/coast_salish.htm Figure 13. Map of Pender Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gulf_Islands_map.png Figure 14. Caves at China Beach. Recalma, Francis. Personal photos, 2013

Anthropology Today

Documents

Transcript of Anthropology Today