Corps de l’article

Inuit cultural material seen and visited in museums around the world has been mostly collected through the trade or selling of ethnographic material to collectors, or more nefarious methods of looting graves or collecting from people during times of duress. Although anthropology and archaeology cannot be separated from their colonial roots, there are efforts today towards a more respectful form of engagement (Mackenthun and Mucher 2021), including through community-based and Indigenous archaeology. The Institute of Prairie and Indigenous Archaeology at the University of Alberta (2023) is a shining example of the trailblazing work of Indigenous archaeologists in Canada today.

Krista Ulujuk Zawadski is Inuk and raised in Igluligaarjuk. She met Ericka, who is from southern Canada and not Inuk, in 1997 when Ericka moved to Rankin Inlet to volunteer and subsequently stayed in Nunavut for 14 years. Krista and Ericka’s paths would cross in several ways over the years and both found themselves on a similar path, loving archaeology and anthropology through Nunavut and their engagement with the Inuit Heritage Trust Inc. (IHT). They are first and foremost friends and have maintained their friendship based on this foundation, formed in large part by days and weeks in the field together. In their conversations, they realized that there was a time of intense field schoolwork, organized in large part by Ericka Chemko when she was a Program Manager at IHT (2003-2011) and during which time Krista went over time from being a field school student to a field and lab assistant in 2005. Although the stories of these field schools have not been documented, they are a critical piece of awareness and development in Nunavut’s archaeological outreach and engagement with Inuit youth (Figure 1).

Figure 1

 Naujaat Field School excavation

 Naujaat Field School excavation

-> Voir la liste des figures

In 2004, with financial support from the Government of Nunavut (GN), Inuit Heritage Trust (IHT) organized an archaeological field school at a site just north of the Hamlet of Naujaat, Nunavut. This was not Krista’s first field school, as she had participated in the 2002 field school at Kugluktuk, Nunavut—which was also organized by IHT, but not by Ericka. IHT brought 10 Inuit students from Nunavut to Naujaat, with Dr. Sue Rowley from the University of British Columbia (UBC) as head archaeologist. Three undergraduate students from UBC accompanied Dr. Rowley that field season. The archaeological site selected was from the Thule culture and one that we revisited from the Therkel Mathiassen (1927) excavation during the Fifth Thule Expedition (1921-1924).

The students excavated a qammaviniq—a semi-subterranean single-room dwelling used by Inuit and ancestral Inuit that is no longer in use—at the Naujaat site, first labeled as the “Naujan Site” by Mathiassen (1927). A few of the students were encouraged to do test pits outside of the main excavation area (Figure 2). Krista Ulujuk Zawadski was given the opportunity to revisit a qammaviniq that Mathiassen had excavated almost 100 years prior, and opted to test-pit the refuse heap, as Mathiassen called it. Zawadski recalls feeling a sense of empowerment with the task, and says it is one of the highlights of her training in archaeology, especially because she feels that the approach is in line with Inuit educational practices:

Although I was not trained extensively in archaeology at this point, I was entrusted to plan out a series of test pits and was given agency to conduct the small study, which is a way of learning that I was most familiar with in my own upbringing. There was no micromanagement, like that is often experienced in colonial structures of education, and there was trust given for me to learn from hands-on experience. Perhaps the idea of being able to make mistakes without devastating the overall project gave me confidence to go forward in my education. In other words, I was not turned off by the work, which might have happened had I been in a different situation where the learning atmosphere was less open and more stressful. I feel people can be easily deterred from fields because of a bad experience, like where people might be overworked with little reward, or they feel the environment is not aligned with our own educational practices. Inuit are often taught to observe first, listen to stories or instruction, and then are expected to go forward and do what they have learned. Generally, there is no micromanagement in Inuit teaching methodologies.

Zawadski 2021

Figure 2

Naujaat Field School. Mapping out the site together

Naujaat Field School. Mapping out the site together

-> Voir la liste des figures

Zawadski’s experience goes hand in hand with decolonial work in Indigenous academia. Although it was not labelled as Indigenous archaeology at the time, it was an important introduction to the budding field for Zawadski. Placing importance on the ways in which Inuit themselves educate each other, Zawadski was able to find a place for herself in Indigenous archaeology. Central to Indigenous archaeology is making space for Indigenous ways and methodologies (Gonzalez et al. 2006; Panich and Gonzalez 2021; Smith and Wobst 2005) and doing archaeology in a more community-oriented and informed way (Atalay 2012; Steffian et al. 2015; Supernant et al. 2020).

In 2005, again with the financial upport of the GN, IHT organized another field school with Dr. Rowley, bringing Inuit students from across Nunavut to Mittimatalik (Chemko, 2006). The sites chosen for excavation and mapping were Mittimatalik and Qilalukkat (Figure 3). The plan was to map both sites and excavate another qammaviniq. The first week of the field school focused on salvage archaeology in Salmon River, due to the erosion happening along the river. We then planned to tackle a qammaviniq after the local fishing derby that took place the first weekend of the field school. The weather was rainy the entire weekend, and coupled with the extensive foot and ATV traffic through the site as people made their way to the mouth of the Salmon River, the site became a huge mud pool. A local business opened shop selling goods and fishing gear to the fisherpeople in a shipping container, which they brought to the site using a loader. To our dismay and horror, the loader trampled through Qilalukkat, digging up the mud as its tires tore right down the middle of the Thule site. To our surprise, however, Rowley did discover burin spalls—a specific type of flake debitage that comes from the production of burins—on the surface of the loader tracks. Rowley and the team made the decision to change the field school from a Thule excavation to a Pre-Dorset excavation, since burin spalls were an indication that it was older than a Thule site.

Figure 3

Student excavating at the Qilalukkat field school

Student excavating at the Qilalukkat field school

-> Voir la liste des figures

The Qilalukkat field school was an exciting field school for Zawadski because Dr. Rowley and IHT had agreed to bring her as the lab and field assistant. The opportunity for Zawadski to participate in the planning, execution, and subsequent lab work of the field school was one way the field school incorporated Indigenous archaeology. Another way it incorporated Indigenous archaeological methods was to bring in the late Elder Cornelius Nutarak Sr, one of Nunavut’s earliest (and oldest) archaeologists. Nutarak did archaeology with Father Guy Mary-Rousselière decades prior to our field school, and was honoured by IHT in 1999 for his promotion and preservation of Inuit culture and language, as well as his contributions to archaeology (Webster 1999).

The IHT field schools were partly based on a series of field schools Dr.  Rowley had organized with Caroline McDonald in Iglulik in the 1990s. Dr. Rowley and MacDonald worked with the local school board to allow the students to get high school credits. They created a strong foundation for community-based and Indigenous archeology during this time, setting up precedents of how field schools could and should be organized in Nunavut. On one hand, by focusing on training local students, they fostered a strong community perspective on the field school, and on the other hand, the community was involved in the field schools through the invaluable engagement with Elders. A local exhibition was organized after each field season to further foster community engagement (Figures 4 and 5). This is certainly a step away from the colonial way of extraction that traditional archaeology is based on.

Figures 4 and 5

Qilalukkat Community Archaeology Exhibit

Qilalukkat Community Archaeology Exhibit

-> Voir la liste des figures

Through their many conversations, Ericka Chemko and Zawadski reflected on their experience, including discussing some of the highlights and challenges of the field schools over the years. The following is a transcription of excerpts of their conversations.

Pathway to Learning about Anthropology and Archaeology

  • Ericka: Krista, I think you went to university and then you did your first field school. I would love to hear how you first got interested or became aware of archaeology and what your early educational path was.

    Krista: When I went to Nunavut Sivuniksavut (NS), I knew instantly I wanted to study people and cultures. I wanted to study why people did things, and why cultures do things the way they do. I knew I wanted to be in the cultural field, but I didn’t know what anthropology was at that time. Part of it is you don’t know what you don’t know, as I’ve heard many times. I didn’t know what anthropology was, and I didn’t know what archaeology was, and I didn’t know what a collection was until I was exposed to them. As I was being exposed to these things it was always clear to me “yes, this is what I want to do” or “no, this is not the path I want to take.” After NS, I knew I wanted to study anthropology and declared it as my major. 

    Part of the reason why I wanted to study anthropology was that I realized that I wanted to study cultures, and in particular, my own culture. It was clear to me that I wanted to learn more about cultural practices from around the world and how people interacted with each other and their environment. There was no doubt that I wanted to study anthropology and I never wavered in my decision. However, it wasn’t until I went to my first field school that I realized that I loved archaeology.

    I don’t remember seeing an advertisement for the field schools from IHT, but I had seen it somewhere and applied to it. I went in and didn’t necessarily think “this is going to be my career path.” Maybe I thought it was just going to be a cool thing for the summer, and it would give me a chance to see friends in Kugluktuk.

    I started to learn about archeological methods, and it hooked me. It got me thinking, why did I enjoy it so much? In my reflection of the experience, I realized it was because we were outside, we got to travel, and we had interesting conversations with people that hooked me. I had the same experience with collections. It wasn’t until I was in a collection that I realized “wow, this is fun!”

    I first went to an archaeology field school in 2002 in Kugluktuk, with a handful of other Inuit students from Nunavut. This field school was organized by IHT, organized by Lynn Peplinski as a pilot project to make youth more aware of archaeology as a field and with Inuit cultural material. It wasn’t a particularly successful or exciting field school experience, personally. We excavated in the town itself, and we stayed at the local hotel. I don’t remember doing any sort of community engagement, but we took a small trip up the river to Bloody Falls as a field trip with an Elder. I remember the conversations we had in the boat, and I remember the interactions I had with my friends in the community. What has stuck with me are the stories my friends told me, during my free time in the community, about their hunting experiences in Kugluktuk and local ecological knowledge. It wasn’t exactly the Indiana Jones type experience for me in the field, but it still made me believe archeology was what I loved most.

    There were other field schools at the university that I had applied for, but they were cancelled for one reason or another, including one in Tunisia and one on Baffin Island. This didn’t deter me. I was determined to continue down the path of archaeology. My thinking was that archaeology accomplished two things that are important to me: research about Indigenous people and history, and spending time outdoors.

Archaeology Field Schools as the Entryway to Cultural and Museum Studies

  • Ericka: When you went into working with collections, your first exposure to a collection was perhaps at the field school when objects had been found, although the objects weren’t managed in community in a robust way. Can you give an overview of your pathway, where you’re at now, and some highlights along the way? Can you talk about some of the challenges or some of the biggest supports that you had on your path?

    Krista: As I said, it was NS that pushed me down the path of cultural studies, and then it was the field schools that pushed me down the path farther into archaeology. It was during the Mittimatalik field school, where I was able to work with Sue at UBC preparing for the field school and then do some of the lab work after the field school at the Laboratory of Archaeology at the Museum of Anthropology that really pushed me down the path towards collections-based work. Prior to that experience, as a student from Nunavut, you don’t know where belongings go to after excavation and what happens to them. It was the exposure to lab work and collections-based work that really made me think there are so many belongings in the collection and in museums that we, as Inuit, see a lot of photographs of or have seen glimpses of or we have heard about our cultural material, but are inaccessible to us. In the tangible sense, a lot of our cultural material heritage sits in museums and not always in our homes. I have had a lot of exposure to my tangible heritage, to Inuit cultural material in our homes, at my grandparents’ home, out on the land we use our cultural material, but there’s more out there in museums that I’ve never seen or heard of or don’t know how they work. We are disconnected from that material, and we have lost knowledge about some of the things that sit in museums. Being in the collection got me thinking “this is important, this is our culture, and they are outside of our lands.” I began to think “how do we access them? How do we bring students into this space to engage with them?” That’s what has really pushed me to continue in collections-based research. I want people to be in there engaging with the material. Whether they are familiar with the material or not, what’s important is just engaging with the material.

    The biggest challenge for me along the way, since I have been in post-secondary education for decades now, was always having to leave home to get an education. I have always been in a cycle of going away for the fall and winter for university and then spend summers at home either at field school or working. It’s challenging, and I think it really dissuades students from pursuing post-secondary education in the south. It’s hard to be away for school for so long.

    What has really brought me this far in education has been the support I have gotten from so many people and so many institutions. I have received never-ending support from family and friends (thank you!) but also support from people at my university, funding agencies and Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students (FANS). I would never have been in school this long if I didn’t get support from FANS. Everyone has made the work, the research, the hardships worthwhile.

    There have been many people who have made this possible for me, including yourself, Ericka! When I dropped out of my undergrad because I had my son and no childcare, it was you who supported the idea of me returning to finish my 4th year of undergrad. I knew I needed an honours degree to get into grad school, and I needed to get into grad school to be able to hold an archaeological permit in Nunavut. I was worried about the effects moving away to finish my degree might have on my three-year-old son, at the time. You said to me children are more resilient than we can imagine, and that’s what got me back into university. That little step, from your encouragement, led me to a Master’s degree, and now a PhD program. It’s people like you who have ushered—or dragged—me through the challenges of student life. 

    Ericka: I was also in the same shoes, going to school as a single mom with my oldest son when he was a baby, so I knew it is always helpful to encourage people to keep going. It’s often not just being a student but it’s everything else: being a parent, being a member of community, having spheres of obligation or responsibility, but then you also benefit from them as well so it’s not a negative thing. Perhaps being a parent while a student is more complex than the journey of other students.

    When you were in the archaeological field schools, did you feel supported academically and intellectually, logistically, and socially? Is there anything that worked well? Or could there have been improvements?

    Krista: I felt supported overall, and I think everything worked well. I think the students were supported. We were given opportunities to do different things. We did flint knapping. We did a field trip. We engaged with Elders. We engaged with the community. It was a well-planned and well-thought-out experience for us as students.

    I think the gap for me, personally, was figuring out how to transfer what I learned into something practical. How can I take these skills I learned and translate them into something I can do? I remember thinking “what do I do next?” I think IHT filled some of that gap, through the Heritage Leadership Program. The field school itself fulfilled what it was set out to do, and the other programs complemented the field school.

History of IHT’s Archaeological Field Schools

  • Ericka: In 2003, IHT decided that it was worth continuing to hold archaeological field schools, based on the success from 2002 in Kugluktuk, to raise the profile of archaeology and Inuit cultural material with Inuit youth in the territory. This direction was rooted in filling IHT’s mandate set out in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), Article 33.2.2, whereby “The archaeological record of the Nunavut Settlement Area is of spiritual, cultural, religious and educational importance to Inuit. Accordingly, the identification, protection and conservation of archaeological sites and specimens and the interpretation of the archaeological record is of primary importance to Inuit and their involvement is both desirable and necessary” and related in parallel to IHT’s purpose, in which “The Trust shall assume increasing responsibilities for supporting, encouraging, and facilitating the conservation, maintenance, restoration and display of archaeological sites and specimens in the Nunavut Settlement Area, in addition to any other functions set out in the Agreement.” (Article 33, Section 33.4.3). 

    IHT realized that no one else had the mandate nor the specific focus on increasing trained Inuit to lead archaeology projects and to be in positions of power that would help to bring Inuit perspectives, such as significant or sacred sites. It was the opinion that for Inuit youth to move into this space, Inuit would need exposure and education.

    At first, there wasn’t a robust plan to fill in gaps and how IHT could build, grow, and support Inuit so that they could step into positions of power, and that their voices would be the more dominant voices within archaeology. In theory, the field school was one pathway into supporting Inuit individuals and communities to learn more about archaeology and heritage work, and I think they were successful.

    The way that I’ve looked at how all these other IHT programs unfolded was organic. There was always that intention or goal to support Inuit to step into those positions, and to hopefully be the ones making decisions.

    I realized it wasn’t just one project or one season, and that it was a process. A long term process. Looking back, I feel that all the work was successful, but it wasn’t fast.

    In 2003 IHT organized a second field school in the Kugluktuk area. I, a new employee at the time, was assigned to the youth field school file for 2004 on. In 2004 in Naujaat, and in 2005 in Pond Inlet, IHT partnered directly with Rowley to provide the academic framework to the summer field school and to hold the archaeological permit that was required to conduct any archaeology in the territory. 

    IHT committed to holding annual field schools as one of the pathways into Inuit learning about and committed to becoming the dominant voice around Inuit culture and heritage. IHT realized one of the major gaps to Inuit employment within archaeology and the heritage sector in Nunavut was that they didn’t have the formal qualifications to hold positions of power. It was a difficult realization that Inuit could not be hired to key leadership roles within the current hiring processes unless they had university-level qualifications and degrees. This issue persists today across Canada, and not just in Nunavut. Becoming a qualified individual to hold a permit in Nunavut means they had to leave Nunavut and enter colonial institutions that, for the most part, would not be prepared to welcome Indigenous perspectives in classically colonial academic environments. The power dynamics at the time were unbalanced within academia as well as within hiring Inuit in the heritage sector within Nunavut (Figure 6).

    In 2005, 2006, and 2007, IHT partnered with the Government of Nunavut and the Territorial Archaeologist created the archaeological field school program. It helped some of the archaeological learning among Inuit youth be directly tied to building a relationship between the GN and IHT, both of which are responsible for supporting archaeological work in the territory.

    In finding the right formula for success, IHT worked to partner with an academic partner to create the archaeological program, to meet the requests IHT received from communities for more to be known about archaeological sites in their area, and to meet the need to be located close to a community so that it was possible to billet students and provide ongoing group and one-on-one support. IHT provided and applied for additional funding from the Government of Nunavut to help cover the costs and provide a small daily stipend to students for their participation. IHT developed an application process where community public schools helped to share the summer fieldwork opportunity and nominate students for consideration for the field school. Also, a key element of the field school was to bring Elders out to the site, where available, and to have opportunities for students to visit relevant organizations in the community to understand how their work fed into knowledge that was helpful to the field work. The students would present a basic exhibit at the end of the field school and hold an open community event where the community could share information they knew, learn what the students had found, and create further interest and dialogue around archaeology throughout the community and region.

Figure 6

Histories and cultures juxtaposed at the Sanirajak field school

Histories and cultures juxtaposed at the Sanirajak field school

-> Voir la liste des figures

  • The model used for the 2000s field schools was very similar to that of the 1990s field schools that Rowley and MacDonald held in Iglulik. Students from across Nunavut were brought into the community where the field schools took place, and the sites chosen for excavation were close to or within the community itself. I think this allowed for a larger cohort to be brought in, as bringing a large group of youth on the land would have been a huge logistical endeavour.

Lessons Learned and Elements of Success

  • Ericka: One of the biggest lessons that I learned from the field schools was around logistics. We always tried to go to communities that expressed interest to IHT for holding archaeology projects. Sometimes they had a site in mind, which helped us when we applied for the permit for that field season. There was a lot of relationship building in communities, and we looked for billets or for renting houses. My background is anthropology, not archaeology, so I could hold the project management logistics coordination aspect, but I could never hold the academic part of it. It was important that we developed those relationships with those who could hold the permits, the researchers. The last thing that we wanted was to hire someone who wasn’t really committed to the teaching and to the work with the community, as well as the legacy that we wanted to create with you and other students. That was one of the biggest lessons I learned, aside from the one where I realized you can’t excavate water. I kept trying to dig down into the water because I’m not an archaeologist, and I remember someone said “Ericka, what are you doing?” And I was like, “I’m trying to get in there,” and they said, “but it’s water, you have to stop!” That was perhaps the biggest field lesson I learned, much to the amusement of those around me.

    I remember some good times, and I’m thinking of some of the positive outcomes and proud moments. I’d say my proudest moment was that there were several people who came out of field schools who continued and have claimed their space in the areas that they were interested in. I remember a lot of great things, like when we had bad weather, and everyone crammed into the tent and talking or crying or just silliness around camp food and camp duties. I think that’s where I got my love of mac and cheese with hot dogs, it’s become one of my favorite meals.

    Krista: I remember one of the things that really impressed me in 2004 when the ice broke from Naujaat and people started to hunt narwhal (Figure 7). You and Sue said, “Let’s take a break from excavating so we can watch the hunting” because boats were whizzing by the site. You were more laid back than I anticipated. I thought you guys would be more uptight, and I liked this approach to education. You were not trying to smother students and forcing us to meet a daily quota of excavating.

    Ericka: I think that’s a big element of what learning is: learning on the land and learning from the land. The field school was structured with archaeological methods, but I was aware of different types of learning. And knowing that some of the students may not have access to those hunting or land experiences or opportunities. I think it’s really important to be flexible and allow people to have those different sorts of opportunities that present themselves because that may be someone’s story that they tell their kids when they’re old and letting the wisdom of the community or people come about in that way is important.

Figure 7

Narwhal hunting in Naujaat

Narwhal hunting in Naujaat

-> Voir la liste des figures

Challenges at the Field Schools

  • Ericka: Krista, going back to some of the challenges of the field schools (Figure 8), there were some challenges we could anticipate, and some we didn’t know about or weren’t as prepared for. For example, within a couple of days of excavating, the students realize the work is physically difficult. We knew that some people wouldn’t enjoy it, but I never fully thought that someone would want to completely withdraw from the field school, and then having to do the logistical parts of making that happen. Another big challenge was just finding ways to support students who needed mental health support. We aren’t trained in dealing with some of the complexity of that. Prior to arriving at the community, we would engage with the health centre and let them know there would be an influx of people, as a courtesy.

Figure 8

Sanirajak Field School near the old DEW Line Station

Sanirajak Field School near the old DEW Line Station

-> Voir la liste des figures

  • Krista: That is something that we don’t talk about enough. When we’re doing projects like this, there’s always a possibility that someone might need mental health support at some point. How do you prepare for that? How do you support the students? This issue comes up often in these types of scenarios, and I’m happy you brought it up. How do we prepare for those scenarios where mental health support is needed by someone?

The Way Forward

  • Ericka: In the planning of field schools, and any engagement with community, I think mental health and trauma-informed teaching needs to be embedded as a foundational principle. We need people to know how to respond to these situations and hold the space until you can connect them with someone who has the skills to help them. It is irresponsible to be willing to take people and only support them in some ways, but not take the whole person and commit to them and their journey. One person doesn’t have to know everything or have all the training, but they should be prepared to hold those spaces and to support people if they need support.

    Thinking about the future, how can we bring momentum back to training more Inuit in the heritage sector in Nunavut?

    Krista: We need to expand the training in Nunavut. Why isn’t there an introduction to archaeology course in high schools or Nunavut Arctic College? I know it can be taught in high schools; my friend taught it this fall in Rankin Inlet. She is teaching high school and asked me to give a guest lecture in her introduction to archaeology section of the course. Why isn’t it offered more broadly across Nunavut?

    What I’m trying to say is we need to focus on exposing youth to these fields. Remember, that’s what made a big impact on me: exposure. Another way is to continue the field schools. Even if people don’t go down the archaeology route, we are still exposing youth to education, to our heritage, to our stories, and our history. That’s what’s important here, giving people a sense of pride in identity through learning our history. I can’t stress it enough; we need to teach our history in Nunavut. It’s not taught widely enough through schools.

    This is in line with the field of Indigenous archaeology, where a big part of that field is to engage with and empower Indigenous people to preserve their heritage how they see appropriate. It is also a way to right the wrongs of archaeology’s colonial past. The work of people like Sven Haakanson Jr., Kisha Supernant, Margaret Bruchac, Sara Gonzalez and many others are excellent examples of the impact of Indigenous research and archaeology on communities and cultural groups. They show the impact their work has in their communities, across Indigenous academia and in the field of archaeology in general.

    Supporting students in leadership roles is important also. I would like to be in those roles and leadership positions, but I can’t. Part of it is because other people, Inuit and non-Inuit, are filling those roles, but the other part is they are not existent. They need to be created so that we can fill them.

    I’ve had discussions with other Indigenous archaeologists, and it’s the same for many of us. There are too many barriers that we come across in our journeys and in our work. How do we get Inuit permit holders? It was very difficult for me to get a Class 1 permit in Nunavut. I would like to see more support for students to get over some of the hurdles placed in front of us and help support students navigate the permitting system.

    It comes back to what we already discussed: How do we train Inuit in archaeological methods? Taking that one step farther, how do we train Inuit in Indigenous archaeological methods? To my knowledge, there is little talk about Indigenous or even Inuit archaeology in Nunavut. How do we support students to study Inuit archaeology in Nunavut? This is a big challenge today.

    Ericka: Going back to the history of the field schools, sometimes there comes a natural point where you pause and evaluate the program and reassess the structure. Perhaps we should think about how to re-start the field schools in a different way, such as a smaller cohort or a broader approach to see what might work better in the future.

    It’s also important to realize systemic issues that are barriers for youth. Filling roles that currently exist but a lack of imagination or commitment to create positions are barriers. What other roles and positions can we create that would really meet a larger mandate or vision of Inuit engagement with culture and heritage? 

    Krista: I have a specific skill set. I have training and education in archaeology, Indigenous archaeology, museum and collections-based work, curatorial work, academic research, and Inuit research. Yet, there is no position for me to fill in Nunavut, there is no space for me as a heritage leader in Nunavut.

    Ericka: That goes against the spirit of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). There’s a real opportunity to revisit the Spirit and the intent beyond just the words in the NLCA. There’s an opportunity to create a place of dreaming and contemplation and bring the wisdom from several different people and think about what this next phase or what the future could look like for Inuit in Nunavut. Krista, what do you want to do when you finish your PhD?

    Krista: My dream job is to work in collections with Inuit in Nunavut. There was a point when I realized that everything we excavate ends up outside of Nunavut. At that point, I made the decision to focus on existing collections until there is a museum and repository in Nunavut. To me, what is the point of excavating and extracting our tangible heritage if our belongings end up outside of Nunavut? I don’t want to contribute to the dislocation of our belongings outside of Inuit Nunaat.

Conclusion

Prior to the Nunavut field schools, archaeology did not have the same presence as it does today (Griebel 2010; Griebel and Kitikmeot Heritage Society 2013; Lyons 2013). People or communities were not as aware about archaeological projects and were not as involved as they were through the field schools. There was some early archaeology with Inuit like Nutarak (Figure 9) during the early days of settlement in Nunavut, as well as Deborah Webster’s work in the 1990s and onward (Webster and Bennet 1997). However, a lot of archaeology prior to the NLCA was of the colonial model, where Qablunaat (Inuktitut word for Euro-Western settlers; singular form is Qablunaaq) went to Nunavut and were granted a permit with no or little relationship building in the community. We believe this type of extractive and colonial archaeology influenced Inuit leaders when the NLCA was signed, where they wanted to ensure more Inuit control over Inuit tangible and intangible heritage. We feel reconnecting with the principles of the NLCA can guide the future of Inuit archaeology in Nunavut, especially by making space for Inuit archaeologists to be trained and to hold positions of leadership in the heritage sector.

Figure 9

Elder Cornelius Nutarak Sr.

Elder Cornelius Nutarak Sr.

-> Voir la liste des figures

Since the field schools in the early 2000s, one participant pursued anthropology in post-secondary education, and received a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology in 2012. She has since participated in other field schools in western Nunavut, and was a director of a heritage centre in her home community. Another participant of one of the field schools has participated in underwater archaeology with Parks Canada, and had a role in the excavation of one of the Franklin ships. One other participant from the field schools has been trained as a conservator and has since become Director of a local museum in Nunavut. In personal communication with these individuals, they have expressed the impact of the field schools in helping them navigate heritage work in Nunavut, whether it was to support a pre-existing interest in anthropology, archaeology, or other heritage work, or to help steer them toward the field. Like many Indigenous archaeologists have experienced (Bruchac, Hart, and Wobst 2010), there are many paths one can take toward archaeology.

The aspects of the field schools that have stayed with Zawadski are the moments of connection with her peers, Elders, and community members. These included sharing stories with other students about Inuit oral histories—such as those about the Tunniit, or the people who lived in the Arctic before Inuit—as well as learning about the preservation of language and culture through archaeological work, as exemplified by Nutarak. The three things that the field schools did that encompassed those aspects that have impacted Zawadski are the community exhibition of the excavations that were organized by the students (including the writing of labels in Inuktitut and English), seeing Nutarak work in the field and share stories after a morning of excavating alongside one of the participants, and the field trips with community members and Elders who shared knowledge and stories about the land surrounding their communities. Although not exactly archaeological methods, they were contributing factors to the success of the field schools.

Going forward, we believe that creating inclusive spaces for Inuit students to feel welcome in the field is of utmost importance, and that includes providing support while in the field, such as the inclusion of Inuit ways of teaching and being, not underestimating or tokenizing Inuit, teaching through a trauma-informed approach, offering mental health support if it is needed, and enabling students to explore their own individual interests and strengths within the broader project. A certain focus and approach in the field is important to accomplish time- and weather-sensitive work, but too much rigidity can also be the downfall of maintaining the interest of young people—and cause youth harm by continuously imposing colonial systems of structure, organization, and values. Lastly, creating a spectrum of long-term opportunities for students to pursue archaeology is important. We hope the colonial and antiquated “helicopter research” is a thing of the past, and look forward to seeing more Inuit become leaders in the heritage sector in Nunavut, Canada, and the world.