Corps de l’article

Community archaeology has had a lengthy, albeit sporadic history in northern Labrador but has become the predominant model for archaeological research in the region since the formalization of the Nunatsiavut Land Claims Agreement in 2005. With self-governance, the Nunatsiavut Inuit Government (NG) took on the responsibility of permitting and overseeing archaeological work in the territory by establishing the Nunatsiavut Archaeology Office as part of the Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism (now Language, Culture, and Tourism). This office also works closely with the five constituent communities of Nunatsiavut to help ensure their heritage concerns are addressed (Figure 1).

Since 2010, the annual Nunatsiavut Heritage Forum, a community-initiated, multi-day meeting of Nunatsiavummiut heritage specialists, interested community members, and invited guests (including archaeologists) —which is budgeted and managed by the NG Archaeology Office—has been the primary venue to discuss heritage matters. The Tradition & Transition Research Partnership, a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)-funded partnership grant between the Nunatsiavut Government and Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador (MUNL), was first conceived during the Heritage Forum as a vehicle to invest much needed research skills, training, and assistance to address community heritage issues. More than that, the multimillion-dollar partnership aimed to formalize a model of Indigenous research that was inclusive and balanced by the co-management of projects and the co-creation of academic and Traditional Knowledge, with its primary goals being to enrich Inuit communities and support the continuing vitality of Labrador Inuit culture. The scope of projects supported by the Tradition & Transition Research Partnership was massive, focusing variously on artistic performance, story-telling and oral tradition, language, archival access and data management, politics, leadership, deep history, and the intersection of these components as daily-lived Inuit experience and tradition. Multiple archaeology projects were proposed and supported over the duration of the grant.

Figure 1

Map of Nunatsiavut

Map of Nunatsiavut

-> Voir la liste des figures

This paper examines the impact that both the Nunatsiavut Heritage Forum and the Tradition & Transition Research Partnership have had on the practice of archaeology in Nunatsiavut, with focus on archaeological work undertaken in Rigolet and Hopedale, two communities that developed substantial archaeological projects during this constructive partnership between 2015 and 2022. We incorporate a narrative discussion between the archaeologists and community members involved in the two projects over the course of seven years to reflect on what has been learned and accomplished and how we might move forward together to address the challenges and best practices of archaeological research in Nunatsiavut.

From the Heritage Forum to Archaeological Project Implementation

The first Nunatsiavut Heritage Forum was held in Nain in the winter of 2010 at the suggestion of Joan Andersen, chair of the museums committee of Makkovik’s White Elephant Museum. At the time, the people of Nunatsiavut were facing several challenging heritage-related issues. In the spring of 2009, a heritage building containing an extensive cultural archive burned to the ground in Nain. About the same time, the collections of Nain’s former Moravian Mission Museum were re-discovered in a dilapidated mission building. Although Nain’s museum had burned in 2000, the collections survived through the efforts of Nain’s volunteer fire brigade, Torngâ·sok Cultural Centre staff, and provincial government conservators who flew in to provide emergency services immediately after the fire, at the request of the Director of Torngâ·sok. Then the Torngâ·sok Cultural Centre itself was consumed by fire in 2005, resulting in a tremendous loss of cultural materials of all types. With the causes of the fires undetermined, there was ongoing concern about the potential for fire elsewhere on the Nunatsiavut coast, particularly in the community of Hopedale where extremely important collections of both artifacts and archival materials are kept in historic Moravian mission buildings.

In 2009, Joan Andersen and Jamie Brake (the Nunatsiavut Government’s archaeologist at the time) discussed how best to handle these challenges. Joan suggested holding a heritage forum with representatives from all five Labrador Inuit communities as a way to begin to resolve these issues. The NG Archaeology Office was able to secure funding through the Tasijujasoak Trust to hold a forum, and when it took place a few months later, one of the most important outcomes was the unanimous decision by participants that this become an annual event. It is now part of the NG Archaeology Office’s annual budget as the most important event for public engagement on heritage issues and archaeological matters in the region.

The first brief discussion on the possibility of a SSHRC Partnership Program grant to support heritage-related work in Nunatsiavut took place during the 2012 forum in Makkovik. At that time, Dr. Hans Rollmann, who studies Moravian/Inuit history at MUNL, mentioned the SSHRC-funded Community-University Research Alliance project (led by Lisa Rankin) in which he collaborated with communities in southern Labrador, and he suggested that something similar might be worth considering for Nunatsiavut to address its heritage concerns. In 2014, the possibility of a long-term research partnership took a step forward when the Nunatsiavut Government’s Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism signed a memorandum of understanding on collaboration in culture-related research and capacity building with Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. Following this agreement, Dr. Tom Gordon, the Dean of Music at MUNL and scholar of Inuit-Moravian music traditions, was invited to the 2014 Heritage Forum to present the opportunities associated with a SSHRC Partnership Grant. Project development funds had been acquired by this time, and engagement toward the design of a long-term research partnership was the major topic of discussion during the 2014 forum. These discussions provided the foundations for numerous collaborative projects that would be developed and implemented by the Tradition & Transition Research Partnership. Archaeological research was considered a priority by many community members from the beginning of the partnership, and there was a history of successful community archaeology projects to provide inspiration and models to build on (Table 1).

Table 1

Examples of Community Archaeology Projects in Northern Labrador

Examples of Community Archaeology Projects in Northern Labrador

-> Voir la liste des tableaux

Since 2014, all of Nunatsiavut’s Heritage Forums have included substantial discussions about the Tradition & Transition Research Partnership and its constituent projects. Indeed, the Forums have provided crucial opportunities for engagement between community members and researchers, for delegates from one community to learn about the successes and challenges in other communities, for networking, suggesting new projects, and identifying important issues being faced by the region or by individual municipalities, and for participants to report back and provide updates on research activity. They have also provided opportunities for students and researchers to visit the region and learn something about Nunatsiavut, its people, and their goals. To top it off, it has been a chance to celebrate and explore the unique history and contemporary context of the host community and to focus on its particular needs and aspirations.

Ultimately, 15 archaeological projects were supported by the Tradition & Transition Partnership. These projects were situated along the spectrum of what might be considered community-archaeological projects (Atalay 2012; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2010). A minimal number of projects were conceived and managed almost entirely by academic archaeologists (with largely academic priorities) who hired and trained Inuit youth in field and lab techniques and engaged with Nunatsiavut communities during presentations and workshops at the end of each season. Other initiatives were run almost exclusively by Nunatsiavummiut and NG archaeologists to address colonial trauma directly through internalist methodologies (Davies 2020; Yellowhorn 2006). Initially, the archaeology projects in Rigolet and Hopedale fell somewhere toward the middle of the spectrum, perhaps indicative of Silliman’s “hybrid practice” (2009) of collaborative archaeology with the research requested specifically by Inuit communities, co-managed by community and academic leads, and undertaken with both Inuit and academic outcomes in mind (Rankin et al. 2022).

All projects, regardless of level of integration and engagement, were subject to numerous oversights. Every project team first submitted a proposal for funding to a partnership-initiated Project Management Committee (PMC) composed of equal numbers of academic and Nunatsiavummiut members, including youth and Elders (Tradition and Transition 2015). Here, projects were discussed at length and their value to both Inuit and academia debated. Proposals were often returned to authors for multiple revisions to address concerns. Following PMC funding approval, projects were routed for ethical clearance, approval by the Nunatsiavut Government Research Advisory Committee, and permits through the NG Archaeology Office. Each of these committees received annual progress reports, which were similarly scrutinized. The entire Tradition & Transition Partnership was ultimately subject to a series of external reviews, including a mandatory SSHRC mid-term review and two privately commissioned evaluations undertaken by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) (the first of which was completed mid-way through the partnership prior to the release of ITK’s National Strategy on Inuit research). The second ITK review was released in the spring of 2022.

The archaeology projects undertaken in Rigolet and Hopedale were initially conceived by local Inuit Community Governments as part of the Nunatsiavut Government’s 2014–2020 Tourism Strategy. During the winter of 2011–2012, the Rigolet Historical Society invited then NG Deputy Minister Dave Lough and NG archaeologist Jamie Brake to the community to discuss their vision for local tourism. They proposed to engage day-trippers from expedition cruises and local ferries, as well short-stay tourists using Rigolet as a gateway to the Mealy Mountains National Park (Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak) through a series of local activities that would celebrate Inuit culture and contribute to the local economy (Brake 2013; Rankin and Gaulton 2021; Rankin et al. 2022). Their ideas included the development of an eight-kilometre-long coastal boardwalk from the present village and culminating at the Double Mer Point Archaeological site, an 18th century Inuit village that could be excavated and reconstructed. They also requested archaeological survey work in the area to learn more about their history and potential heritage resources in the region that could be added to their list of tourist activities (Brake 2013). These projects were brought to the NG Heritage Forum for further discussion, where archaeologist William Fitzhugh of the Smithsonian Institution and Lisa Rankin of MUNL were invited to participate in the survey and excavations, respectively. Community consultations as well as some initial survey work and site testing began immediately (Brake 2013; Rankin 2014), but work began in earnest following joint submissions to the Tradition & Transition Partnership in 2015.

Hopedale’s contribution to the NG Tourism Strategy initially revolved around the development of the already well-known Hopedale Mission National Historic Site, in partnership with Parks Canada (Nunatsiavut Government 2014). However, after hearing about the archaeology underway in Rigolet at the 2016 Heritage Forum, Hopedale requested archaeological research to further the development of an application for inclusion on Canada’s Tentative List for World Heritage sites. Their plan required archaeological excavation within the current community, which is constructed on top of the 16th–18th-century Agvituk Inuit whaling village (Bird 1945), as well as further archaeological exploration of the many Inuit sites surrounding the community to provide context for the application. Rankin and her students were invited to assist in this research effort (Gaulton and Rankin 2018; Rankin and Gaulton 2021; Rankin et al. 2022).

Although both projects were initiated and co-managed by Inuit communities, they began with relatively traditional archaeological objectives. This presented a challenge to both the communities and the archaeologists to find ways to elevate these goals in keeping with the mandate of the Tradition & Transition Partnership to be inclusive, merge academic inquiry with Traditional Knowledge, enrich Inuit communities, and support the vitality of Inuit culture in ways that might transcend the tourism strategy. This process is ongoing and has followed different trajectories in the two communities, reflecting differences in community history, culture and demographics, ultimately leading to different activities and priorities in each hamlet (Atalay 2012; Colwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson 2008; Lyons 2013).

The archaeology in Rigolet began simply as excavation and survey where local youth were hired to work alongside the archaeologists in the field and lab, but even this presented obstacles. There was an abundance of archaeological work to be undertaken, but given that Rigolet is a small village of fewer than 250 residents, there were few youths available to participate. This was countered by the strong local heritage society who assisted the project. From the first year of archaeological work, the Rigolet Heritage Society prioritized local lab space for the excavation team in the Netloft Museum—a community heritage building where families had traditionally stored fishing gear—so that locals would be able to see the results of daily excavation work. The Netloft is located in a very accessible space adjacent to the town grocery store, craft shop, ferry dock, and boat launch. Each day, part of the archaeology team opened the doors of the Netloft to the village while they cleaned and catalogued finds from the excavation. We immediately had many visitors, some spending the day. It was the perfect place for community members and archaeologists to get to know each other and learn from one another, and for members of the community to exchange knowledge. In this manner, local knowledge was firmly integrated into the archaeological analyses through direct interaction with artifacts, researchers, and one another. At the same time, the survey team working with the Nunatsiavut Department of Health and Social Development began using the Smithsonian research vessel to take youth and Elders to visit significant places they could not easily access on their own. These trips became a much-anticipated event, contributing to the health and well-being of these community members, while the archaeologists learned much about Inuit life in the region (Jolicoeur et al. 2016).

Over time, more activities were added to increase local contributions and shift important decision making to the community. For example, graduate student Kayley Sherret worked with community members to select archaeological objects for 3D scanning that could be displayed in the Netloft. This was significant, as current NG policy does not consider the Netloft or any other facilities in Rigolet to be safe repositories for collections. We also worked together through many community meetings to design informational plaques to be placed at the archaeological site to provide interpretation that reflected community knowledge. Social media promoting the project locally and beyond were overseen by the archaeological crew and local students. Where possible, we hired local expertise to enhance the archaeological work. Birdseye Inc., a Rigolet Inuk-owned-and-operated drone company, was hired to produce beautiful imagery and 3D models of the excavation. In the end, participation in the annual Nunatsiavut Heritage Forum gave Rigolet community members the opportunity to take ownership of their “archaeology project” by speaking to fellow Nunatsiavummiut about the research results and providing ideas for the direction of the work. Today, the archaeological projects in Rigolet continue as we attempt to complete the excavations in line with Rigolet’s vision for tourism. However, the work is much less about an archaeological excavation and tourism strategy and more about community pride in living and sharing their culture and history.

Having learned about the Rigolet archaeology projects through the Heritage Forum, the community of Hopedale expressed interest in a similar project designed to kick-start their application for inclusion on Canada’s Tentative List for World Heritage designation. The application entitled The Three Ages of Hopedale outlined three significant periods of local history, including: the 16th–18th-century Inuit settlement known as Agvituk and other regionally important Inuit settlements; the 18th–19th-century Moravian mission and associated Inuit village; and the contemporary role of Hopedale as the legislative capital of Nunatsiavut. Archaeology was requested to determine what remained of the original Inuit village that had been impacted by recent community growth. A survey of adjacent Inuit settlements occupied in the same era would also be undertaken to provide regional context. Ground-penetrating radar was also called for in the Moravian cemetery which had fallen into disrepair. Hopedale was aware of the focus on the knowledge transmission taking place in Rigolet and thus specifically requested that knowledge exchange between youth and Elders be a significant element of the work to be undertaken. In Hopedale, the co-management team began with the premise that we could integrate several of the successful strategies we had developed in Rigolet—specifically, using an open lab to create opportunities for knowledge exchange. The Hopedale Heritage Society, Apvitok Sivumuak, provided the archaeology team with access to laboratory space in the beautiful historic mission house located in the heart of the community. Because Hopedale is much larger than Rigolet, with a population of approximately 600, many youths applied to work with us. Nevertheless, it became clear after the project began in the summer of 2017 that we would need to adjust the strategy we had used in Rigolet to create a successful community project in Hopedale that better suited both the archaeology and the local culture.

Unfortunately, little remained of the Agvituk village to excavate, and boat access to the regional sites and survey areas was not often available. Furthermore, the open-door lab in the Moravian Mission complex was seldom visited, as many community members believed that the space was haunted (Rankin et al. 2022; Rankin and Ramsden, forthcoming). As a result, the Agvituk archaeology project had to quickly adapt to new circumstances and identify new ways to meet Hopedale’s goals. To do this, we had to use archaeology in new ways and take archaeology out of the lab and into other community spaces, while continuing to provide opportunities for local youth to complete work terms, learn from Elders, and gather scientific archaeological data for the Tentative List application.

In the first year, team member Dr. Laura Kelvin worked with students to determine their interests and what they would like to learn over the summer. They decided as a group to interview Hopedale Elders about traditions related to the few archaeological finds we had, such as items related to hunting, sewing, kayak making, and dog teams. The team worked together to develop interview questions and identify local Elders having knowledge about different traditional activities. These interviews were filmed and edited by the students to create short movies. This format was continued over the course of three years, and the Agvituk Archaeology YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE7rjhJFWhVbnHqXC7ueqbA) was used to share these films in the community. This project has become the primary source of knowledge exchange between youth and Elders and from a community perspective has proved to have lasting rewards. Indeed, youth involved in the projects say they are now much more comfortable visiting Elders when they have questions about their history and culture and Elders continue to express their pride in youth who have welcomed the initiative to learn about traditions (Rankin et al. 2022).

We incorporated similar learning experiences on trips to nearby sites. We were never certain what archaeological remains we would find on these surveys, so alongside archaeological reconnaissance we built in other traditional activities, such as berry picking, where everyone could spend time together and learn through experience on the land. The traditional archaeology has continued and youth are involved in excavation, GPR, and lab work, but it is secondary to the facilitation of knowledge exchange that it helped to create. As with Rigolet, the details of the Agvituk Archaeology project have been shared at the Heritage Forum, often with local youth taking the lead in presentations. In Hopedale, what started as a traditional archaeology project has now become more about community well-being and cultural continuity (Rankin et al. 2022).

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, neither of the Rigolet or Hopedale projects have reached a satisfactory conclusion, thus work is likely to continue for at least one more season. Furthermore, the pandemic prevented the 2020 Heritage Forum meeting. As a result, the following discussion was initiated at the 2021 Heritage Forum held in Nain, and continued over the summer as the authors were slowly able to meet and discuss the results of the archaeological partnerships. The importance of the relationships that have developed—for both researchers and community members—is evident in our conversations, as is the immense potential for continuing collaboration.

“When are the Archaeologists Coming Back?”: A Narrative Discussion

I think it’s very important because we learn so much from all the things that community archaeology is. With youth involved, and with Elders involved, it just gives everyone a better appreciation of each other, and we learn so much about the past. I think it’s very important.

Joan Andersen, Makkovik

Joan Andersen, curator of the White Elephant Museum in Makkovik and the person who initiated the Heritage Forum, believes that archaeology projects that are community-oriented can have a positive impact in Nunatsiavut. Joan was introduced to archaeology through her involvement in two early community archaeology projects in the late 1990s and early 2000s in Makkovik with local youth (Cary 2004; Loring and Rosenmeier 2000). One of these projects, which focused on an 18th-century Inuit winter settlement on the Adlavik Islands (Loring and Rosenmeier 2000; 2001), not only involved local youth in fieldwork over several years but also provided them with opportunities to attend conferences, explore museum collections, and interact with professional archaeologists and other researchers. Consequently, these experiences fostered an interest in archaeology that resulted in some local students choosing to study the discipline at university. In fact, author and current NG archaeologist Lena Onalik is an alumnus of one such program. Joan’s personal experience with these archaeology projects contributed to her desire to develop the annual Heritage Forum so more Nunatsiavummiut could have the opportunity to learn about their history.

Joan noted that both the forums and the partnership broadened her knowledge of archaeology and provided her with opportunities to meet other researchers, such as William Fitzhugh and Lisa Rankin. While no archaeology was undertaken in Makkovik by the Tradition & Transition Partnership, “learning about the projects underway in Rigolet and Hopedale at the Heritage Forums had provided ideas for Makkovik community members who have now been in touch with Rankin about conducting GPR surveys in the community in the coming years.” Similar thoughts were echoed by other authors. Marjorie Flowers, AngajukKâk of the Hopedale Inuit Community Government and member of the Agvituk Archaeology Project management team, stated that “the forums were a good way to find out what was going on in other communities and provide ideas on what could be done in Hopedale” and that the archaeology she learned about at the Forums served as a reminder that Inuit once lived all over Nunatsiavut and not just in the villages occupied today: “The archaeology helps to fill in the gaps between the current communities. We know we lived in them, and if the archaeological sites are alive then so are we.” Jack and Inez Shiwak, a father and daughter from Rigolet who were involved in the management of the Rigolet Archaeology Project, had similar praise for the Heritage Forum as “a way to meet people, find out about projects and funding sources, and come together to learn and support each other,” and both noted that archaeology was an important tool for learning more about their history and “where they came from.” Jack, who is now 70, lamented that archaeology was one of the only ways to learn their history because “they had never asked their fathers and grandfathers enough questions.” Nicholas Flowers, a Nunatsiavut Language Program community worker and youth participant in the Agvituk Archaeology Project, attended his first Heritage Forum in 2018 with his parents and grandmother, where “they all became fascinated by archaeology at the same time.” “Learning about the archaeology projects through the Heritage Forum inspired me to continue learning about my past, not only through archaeology but spending time with Elders and learning Inuttut—there is so much more to archaeology than discovering artifacts; for us, it’s about restoring connections, restoring traditions.”

In our conversations it was clear, however, that many of the authors (both community members and archaeologists) did not fully comprehend the scope of the partnership goals when they first requested archaeology projects to be undertaken through Tradition & Transition and were perhaps unaware that these archaeology projects were meant to be more than commissioned research. David Igloliorte, curator of the Apvitok Sivumuak Society in Hopedale and member of the Agvituk Archaeology Project management team, thought “archaeology was something done in remote places by archaeologists who ‘owned’ a research area.” He had “no idea that archaeologists were interested in protecting sites. I thought you just dug them up, but now it is about the thoughts of local people and helping us to save and share their culture.” Joan and Marjorie both mentioned that “community consultation is so respectful and so important” and “what a delight it was to be asked permission and opinions.” Inez stated that “Tradition & Transition started to help with funding to get the boardwalk archaeology project going, but it has actually helped the community to validate its sense of identity and given us a sense of pride in that history.” Her father, Jack, was equally delighted that his knowledge played a role in the archaeological interpretations because “we have information to share about our history and know so much more about the past than researchers who are only in town for a few weeks.” For Nicholas, who had never been involved in archaeology prior to the Agvituk project, “the work was about equal opportunity and access to information to learn and understand who we are as a people and where we came from. It provided a chance to share experience and make memories and create stories with archaeologists, community, Elders, and ancestors that now connect us and give us pride, that we can now share with our children.”

With regard to the outcomes of the two archaeology projects, Joan mentioned that “the Hopedale archaeology videos as really useful teaching tools” and that “the local youth got so much out of working on community archaeology projects—that exchange between Elders and youth is important too. That’s community archaeology.” She also mentioned the opportunities for local people to visit active sites during excavations and to see collections and presentations with interpretations of the archeological record. Marjorie mentioned “how proud the community of Hopedale was to see the students working together and the Elders are so proud that the youth are learning the traditions.” Inez mentioned that “it was wonderful to see the archaeologists in the schools” while Jack stated that the archaeology “had really piqued the interest of the kids who want to know much more about the culture now.” Inez also appreciated the 3D printing of artifacts: “It was good because we can store those safely and share them in the community and with tourists, plus it had community input.” Like elsewhere, there is likely to be a diversity of opinions about the role and contributions of archaeology in Nunatsiavut, but among our group, everyone mentioned how happy they were to contribute and have community knowledge be such a big part of the projects.

Everyone also wants to see Tradition & Transition or a partnership like it continue. Jack claimed that he was regularly asked “when are the archaeologists coming back?” and everyone insisted that there was so much more to do. Interestingly, there was no mention of the Tourism Strategy in this context. Our community authors all envision an archaeology for Nunatsiavummiut. Jack claims that “he has so much more to learn,” while David mentioned that more archaeological work is imperative “now that we are losing sites to climate change.” Joan mentioned the momentum associated with all of the activity and how “there are so many research directions that local people are interested in going in, and how great it would be if partnership research could continue.”

Several authors commented on what could be done in a new partnership. Inez would like to see archaeology programs expand beyond youth and Elders and “provide more opportunities for middle generations to learn about their culture and history.” Jack also feels that archaeology programs are a “perfect opportunity to engage youth with disabilities with a certificate program.” David is concerned about losing Inuit sites to climate change, and Joan would like to see us work together toward developing a repository “as it is sad when artifacts need to be taken out of the region.” Nicholas thinks “the next step should be reconstructions—whether sod houses or kayaks—as it would provide many more opportunities to work with knowledge holders and reclaim traditions.” Everyone agreed that community archaeology is the way forward and that the equity of the contributions and knowledge sharing was worth so much more than ‘digging’—at least for now, until, as Jack says “one day our kids take over.”

Discussion and Conclusion

The Tradition & Transition Research Partnership was initiated to help Nunatsiavut communities address heritage concerns originally raised at the annual Nunatsiavut Heritage Forum. The Forum also provided an opportunity for partnership participants to discuss the governance, management, and results of its constituent projects (including archaeology), address Nunatsiavummiut concerns, and ensure benefits as we progressed. But community archaeology is more than just governance and management, and sometimes the goals are not the ones you set out with. We have found that the real heart of community archaeology lies in its ability to enrich and uphold Inuit communities. There is no blueprint to accomplish this goal; each of the aforementioned projects followed different routes. The Rigolet Archaeology Project began as a traditional excavation to meet tourism needs but became a genuine and organic community archaeology project, as archaeologists and community members got to know one another. The Agvituk Archaeology Project in Hopedale was initiated with a clear community goal to use archaeological heritage to connect youth and Elders. In truth, neither project became a real community archaeology without a myriad of changes along the way. Our projects benefitted immensely from having several years of dedicated funding, which gave both archaeologists and community members enough time to not only develop relationships of trust but also gain a deeper understanding of archaeological processes and community culture. This enabled us to learn how best to work with one another and pursue goals with lasting community impact. Nunatsiavut’s annual Heritage Forum was central to this process and gave everyone—especially the communities—opportunities to speak about and evaluate the progress of the archaeological projects with an audience of peers as well as gain insight from the input of Nunatsiavummiut heritage workers and Elders from other communities. It would be deceptive to suggest that this process was easy. Sometimes, decisions were time-consuming and the discussions difficult, but everyone was committed to work together to create something of value. Without this annual meeting, much less would have been accomplished in Rigolet and Hopedale, and certainly the projects would have been undertaken with less confidence.

A final meeting of all Tradition & Transition research partners took place on October 25th and 26th, 2021 with over 80 participants (the majority representing Nunatsiavut) who presented the conclusions of their various research projects. The event was clearly a celebration not only of how much had been accomplished but how it had been done. Community members were eager to discuss the value of research consultation and approval and the benefits of community-based research projects that centre equity in decision making, knowledge sharing, and cultural revitalization. The participating academic researchers were delighted by how much these new pathways to community research had enriched their own knowledge. Yet even as we acknowledged our successes, it was clear that much more remained to be done.

As the projects draw to a close, publications arising from the work are rapidly emerging. With this, questions regarding intellectual property and the equity of dissemination must be addressed. The co-management teams associated with both Rigolet and the Agvituk Archaeology projects made an early decision to include traditional academic publications and thesis writing because they believed these documents would further the aims of their tourism strategies. However, the approach to publishing the experiential work undertaken with youth and Elders is less clear. For example, this past summer, Lena Onalik was faced with questions about the publication of toponyms associated with one of the youth/Elder projects in Hopedale, given that this Traditional Knowledge would be accessible to resource development companies. As we wade through these emerging issues, the Rigolet and Hopedale teams have begun to jointly author publications wherever possible to demonstrate what can be accomplished when working in partnership. We are particularly excited to share the less traditional aspects of our work together—such as the open labs and YouTube channels that were developed to ensure that youth, Elders, and archaeologists all had opportunities to learn from one another—and which really influenced the direction of the archaeological work (see, for example, Edmunds et al. 2019; Flowers et al. 2018; Kelvin et al. 2020; Rankin et al. 2022).

Apart from one final season to complete the work delayed by the pandemic, the future of archaeological research in Rigolet and Hopedale also remains uncertain, for the time being. After spending years developing relationships, it is sad and somewhat intimidating to think that these partnerships might end. However, the communities have many more projects in mind that they would like to pursue and are hopeful that Tradition & Transition, or something similar, will continue. Climate change and the development of a Nunatsiavut artifact repository have become important topics at the Heritage Forum, since the partnership was first conceived. Addressing these issues might well be part of a future community archaeology partnership. Recently, some of us have been awarded a SSHRC development grant to study a community-based strategy for the repatriation of archaeological collections to Nunatsiavut. What is certain is that the archaeologists and community members feel much more connected to one another than we were before the partnership. As Nicholas stated, “we have shared experience and created memories because of archaeology” and “we can now share those stories with our peers and families.” These lessons will inevitably influence how we all approach archaeological research in the future. For Nunatsiavummiut, that means greater self-determination in making informed decisions about archaeological research, what research will take place, what the goals will be, and who will be involved. Thankfully, the Nunatsiavut Heritage Forum continues to provide a place where these decisions can be addressed.