Oliver, J. 2014. Native-lived Colonialism and the Agency of Life Projects: A View from the
Northwest Coast'. In N Ferris, R Harrison & M Wilcox (eds.), Rethinking Colonial Pasts
through Archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 76-102.
Chapter 3
Native-lived Colonialism and the Agency
of Life Projects: A View from
the Northwest Coast
Jeff Oliver
Introduction
If the burgeoning critical literature on colonialism is any indication, one might venture the
point that archaeology is reaching a certain stage of academic sophistication. Taking its cue
from disciplinary shifts across the social sciences and humanities, research priorities have
been moving palpably towards theoretically-informed studies that emphasize how
intercultural relations produced consequences that question the upward swinging plotline of
European expansion. Among indigenous peoples -- the ‘colonized’ of the world’s four
corners -- this has had a marked effect. Whereas ‘the Natives’ were once written out of
history, postcolonial revisionism has made a concerted effort to write them back in. The
‘savage’ dupe, virtually powerless to influence his inevitable decline, has been replaced by
the Indigenous resistance fighter, a potentially shrewd and reflective operator, who
thoughtfully negotiated the unsettling and sometimes violent upheavals of colonialism. In
terms of the history of thought, this represents an important milepost, because it has served to
deconstruct older stereotypes, to elicit a human face, a sense of agency and an embodied form
of encounter; what Neal Ferris (2009) fittingly describes as ‘Native-lived colonialism’.
2
However, taking a step back to view the contours of an emerging postcolonial orthodoxy,
where the pendulum of history writing swings the other way, can sometimes reveal a new set
of creeping essentialisms. With our common commitment to defining aboriginal agency,
particularly with respect to cultural reproduction, we risk an element of superficiality by
placing too much emphasis on the idea that cultural (or ethnic) identity was an inalienable
possession worn on the sleeve (cf. Comaroff and Comaroff 2009: 22). Yet, bluntly put,
culture and identity are not the same thing – as too many archaeological narratives imply.
Indeed, the knowing subaltern protagonist who intentionally polices ethnic boundaries in the
face of colonial pressures perhaps says more about academic fetishes and the ethnic politics
of contemporary decolonization movements, than it does about the multiple ways in which
people understood their place in the world in the past.
In this essay I argue that Native-lived colonialism is better understood by examining the
variable nature of different modalities of power as well as a more complex understanding of
agency. It begins by reviewing how prominent ideas within postcolonial thought have
influenced archaeological agendas and touches on some the problems that a narrow
conception of agency can produce. I then move on to develop a comparative approach that
better contextualizes power within a distinct colonial region. In particular, the argument
emphasizes how the agency of life projects, arising out of the conditions and affordances in
the colonial landscape, carved out spaces and temporalities of discourse, which challenge
these assumptions. Finally -- moving from theory to practice -- I compare and contrast three
case studies from late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century British Columbia on the
Northwest Coast of North America. Each provides a unique understanding of colonial
entanglements and new insights into the way that different life projects set up points of
3
reference that in turn gave rise to both ties of similarity and lines of distinction, which
emerged and dissolved in different social arenas.
Domination and Resistance in Postcolonial Discourse
The study of colonialism has become one of the most hotly debated issues of recent decades.
Spurred by decolonization movements from the Indian subcontinent to Africa and from the
Americas to Australia, an emerging postcolonial discourse has provided the language and
theoretical toolkit for analyses of, and critical responses to, the cultural legacy of colonialism.
Liebmann (2008: 4) provides a useful overview of the three principle intersections that
archaeology shares with postcolonial studies: as a way of opening up the discipline of
archaeology to a wider range of participants and voices; appreciating the role that
archaeology plays in constructing and deconstructing colonialist discourses; and finally, as
means of interpreting events and processes within the colonial past. It this latter area of
research – interpreting (indeed reinterpreting) the past – which most concerns the arguments
laid out here. Crosscutting all of these intersections, however, are two themes that have been,
and continue to be, influential to a broad spectrum of postcolonial writing: the politics of
domination and resistance.
Postcolonial theory emerged within a vanguard of literary scholars concerned with analyzing
cultural productions connected with the foundation and legitimization of European colonial
territories. Their conclusions made for unsettling reading. Spurred by Edward Said’s (1978)
now classic work, which exposed the unequal power relations bound up with the west’s
representation of the east, postcolonial theorists concluded that western authors portrayed
non-western peoples through the lens of an ethnocentric stereotype. Joined by an increasingly
wide spectrum of interdisciplinary scholarship, deconstruction of a variety of ‘texts’ from
4
maps (Carter 1987; Harley 1988) to ethnographic accounts (Clifford 1986; Crapanzano
1986), revealed these were not neutral accounts of colonized landscapes, but artifacts of
domination, which at best misrepresented Indigenous groups; at worst, erased them from the
landscape all together.
A second major area of research has sought to go beyond critiques of colonial oppression,
and toward an emphasis on the ways in which the ‘colonized’ responded to the challenges
posed. This strand of thinking has become particularly important in former colonies where
Indigenous revitalization movements have taken root, taking shape through what Deleuze and
Guattari (1988) term the ‘deterritorialization’ of colonialist narratives. Whereas earlier
traditions of scholarship assumed that the civilizing forces of European conquest would
disperse or assimilate the culturally inferior Native groups, closer examination of the
evidence suggested that local peoples did not passively accept their fate. When shifting scales
of analysis, from the grand narrative of colonial discourse to the ‘contact zone’ (Pratt 1992)
of cultural entanglement, the central focus has rested on the powers of human agency and the
ability to ‘act back’, despite colonial power structures. According to postcolonial dictum,
there are always spaces for resistance. Reactions to colonial processes may take a variety of
forms, from overt political acts of violence and dissent (Acheson and Delgado 2004; Lutz
2008: 135-136) to more habitualized forms of cultural reproduction.
It is the latter focus of research, on cultural reproduction, which has most concerned
archaeology. Based on the now well-accepted axiom that artifacts are invested with particular
values, attempts at eliciting resistance have focused on teasing out the ‘traditional’ within
hybridized or composite cultural forms as a means of demonstrating how certain cultural
imperatives were essentially sustained, despite assumed pressures to conform. Such
5
arguments have highlighted, for instance, how the enduring patterns of indigenous
architecture, from building materials to internal social organization, served to reinforce the
cultural identity of the group (e.g. Martindale 2006; Lefpofsky et al 2009). Similar
conclusions have been drawn by demonstrating that while Indigenous peoples eventually
became dependent upon mass produced products, their separateness as non-Europeans was
asserted through manipulating commodities in distinctly home-grown ways (Blackman 1976;
Carlson 2006; Lightfoot et al 1998; Jordan 2009; Marshall and Mass 1997; Martindale 2009;
Martindale and Jurakic 2006; Mass 2003). These ideas have served to redress the imbalances
typically embedded within colonial history by demonstrating how the colonial process was
intertwined with an important element of ambiguity.
A Warning about Indiginisms
Though the politics of domination and resistance continue to be important themes in
postcolonial debates, recent years have also seen calls to go beyond it (Gosden 2004;
Harrison 2004; Ortner 2001). In attempting to more clearly situate postcolonial accounts
within the legacy of colonialism, an established critique turns on the notion that the very
cultural categories that revisionist scholarship seeks to rescue from oblivion are themselves,
not uncommonly, distillations created through colonial encounters (Béteille 1998: 189; Kuper
2003; Liebmann 2008). In this context, we cannot ignore the efficacy that different forms of
representing the indigenous subject, notably ethnography and census taking, have had on
establishing the very orderly boundaries of culture and ethnicity (Dirks 1992) universally
employed to inform aboriginality in both the past and the present. This is not to suggest that
pre-colonial societies are unknowable, but rather it is to caution us that throwing lifelines to
the voices of cultural resistance can share a certain romantic naivety, which valorizes the
6
agency of the colonized, at least a particular kind of agency (more on this later), over other
affordances emergent in the colonial landscape.
The implications for archaeologies of colonialism can, therefore, be reductive, to the extent
that the ‘colonized’ becomes primarily defined by a single pole of experience: as a defender
of their cultural integrity. Rather than moving beyond the familiar caricatures of colonialist
history, we let them in again through the back door, only this time recast: while the colonist
raises his familiar sword of progress, the Native fights back with tradition. A bird’s eye view
of the postcolonial landscape is one where subalterns all inhabit the same theoretical space,
not because the structural relations of their oppression are the same, but because they have
been placed there by what Kaplan (1996: 87-88) calls “a kind of generalized poetics of
displacement”. With agency appropriated as a byword for ‘resistance’, a good deal of
emphasis focuses on the policing of boundaries between nativeness and colonial intrusions,
looking for what Jordan (2009) terms ‘indigenisms’; those aspects of Native culture, material
or otherwise, that seem to retain an element of distinctiveness. It is therefore perhaps
unsurprising that narratives of resistance can descend into objectifications about the status of
a group’s potency or viability given the constraints placed upon it by European expansion.
(see Silliman’s discussion of survivance, this volume, for a similar perspective.) As if social
existence could be summed up to a metaphor about health or well-being, words like
‘persistence’ (Lepofsky et al 2009; Tveskov 2007), ‘strength’ (Thornton 2008), ‘vitality’
(Miller 1997) and ‘coherence’ (Prince 2002) provide a new lexicon for measuring the status
of indigenous identities (Oliver 2009: 245) in a way eerily similar to certain nationalist
archaeology projects (see Jones 1997; Trigger 1984). While it is entirely understandable,
indeed justifiable, that contemporary Indigenous communities (or for that matter any
community), should make such affirmations within the shifting upheavals of the present --
7
where selectivity and intentionality can come into play for very good reasons (Clifford 2001;
Comaroff and Comaroff 2009; Lydon 2006: 296; for a good example see Schaepe 2007) --
the marshaling of these views to interpret past identities is far more controversial (cf.
Hillerdal 2009: 12-36).
Comparative Colonialism and the Agency of Life Projects
How might we move beyond these essentialisms? In this section I draw from two separate
bodies of literature to suggest a way forward. This involves a fine-grained comparative
approach on the structural relations of colonialism combined with a reconsideration of agency
in terms of the varied affordances embedded in the colonial landscape. The objective is to
move from abstract discussions of culture to a lived-sense of the ever-shifting issues and
tensions that gave definition to Native worlds.
Dissatisfied with the potential pitfalls of interpretation as outline above, increasingly calls
advocate a turn towards comparative research frameworks (Gosden 2004; Given 2004; Hall
1992; Lightfoot 2006; Silliman 2005; Webster 1997). Such approaches provide certain
advantages. Most importantly they sharpen our ability to make qualitative distinctions
between different forms of social and cultural interaction, which tend to be overlooked by the
micro-history model advocated by post-colonial discourse analysis. While a focus on the
interstices of colonial surveillance gains resolution on the grand narrative, by zooming in on
one particular (overlooked) contact zone, its downfall is that we learn little about how
colonialism and its consequences varied over time and space.
One approach, which is clearly gaining in appeal, involves separating out different modalities
of power and authority. As Silliman (2005; See also Jordan, this volume) suggests, not all
8
forms of cultural interaction are defined by an even playing field of power relations,
otherwise we risk creating an ‘ideology of harmony’ (Rowe and Schelling 1991: 18). A
plethora of examples within the social milieu of the North American fur trade suggest
relatively short-term encounters where the ability to influence outcomes were more or less on
an equal footing. From an Indigenous perspective this meant that local cultural logics
remained more or less unaffected and continued to shape the way outside worlds were
incorporated (e.g. Hammel 1987; Turgeon 2004; Saunders 1998). In contrast, colonial
regimes tend to be characterized by long-term forms of intercultural domination (Silliman
2005; for an example see Bedford 2004). In these contexts, western influences had more
marked effects. Of course, as Jordan (2009) points out in a helpful synthesis of cultural
entanglements from North America and Ireland, different contours of structural power
produce a what he terms a ‘continuum’ of consequences, from relative freedom, to limited
colonial control to contexts of overwhelming colonial domination.
A comparative methodology that crosscuts significant temporal and spatial scales provides a
degree of analytical purchase often lacking within the micro-history approach concerned with
‘deconstructing’ the local. Nevertheless, working within such broad frames of reference tells
us less about the vicissitudes, textures and ambiguities of Native-lived experience across a
particular region or colony in more restricted temporal frameworks. This is because colonial
power was itself met with certain obstacles from geographical barriers and ‘the struggle with
distance’ (Harris 1997) to the character of structural power, and its inconsistencies, which
hinged upon differing agendas, resources and materialities. Thus if we are to come to grips
with better resolution about the limits of colonial authority, it is towards a nuanced regional
assessment of its precise forms that we must work.
9
Critical appraisal of the developing colonial power structures is an important start; however,
it is not enough on its own. As postcolonial discourse has long advocated, an understanding
of indigenous agency must be central to any project of analysis. Where the approach
promoted here differs from a number of others is in its insistence upon the notion of agency
that is relational, rather than reactive (e.g. Herva 2009; Ingold 2000; Oliver 2011; Robb
2010). Here it is important to note that agency is grounded within the possibilities of place
that in turn informed choices, improvisations and enunciations about a multiplicity of
conversations (cf. Bender 2002). Such a position urges us to reconsider narrower definitions
of agency as resistance – the power to derail pathways to colonization according to freewill –
which all too often dominate our discussions. This is not to suggest that the subaltern was
unable to change things in their favor, only that such capacities are not infinite and are
themselves tied to normative (albeit changeable) structures within the colonial landscape
A number of points lead outward from this perspective if we are to move past a more
narrowly conceived sense of what Native-lived colonialism was all about. Responses toward
outside influences depended on the establishment of contingent sets of relationships among
people, and between people and things. These relationships acted not only to condition or
impact social life, but also served to enable other kinds of associations and other kinds of
meanings. Thinking about the consequences of colonialism in a creative light is not intended
to diminish the destructive power that it had, but doing so urges us to consider that such
transformations also had indelible side effects, which arguably formed the basis for novel
forms of social categorization (Clifford 2001; Comeroff and Comeroff 1997; Gosden 2004).
One of the most important forms of agency for the present discussion is the agency of life
projects (Ortner 2001: 79-80; Robb 2010). This is the kind that gives the ordinary life roles
people play and the careers they adopt a sense of purpose. In place of often short-term
10
rebellious ‘acts’ and spaces of dissent where resistance commonly plays out, the temporal and
spatial frameworks of life projects or social desires unfold as longer term social
responsibilities within routine landscapes of inhabitation. Such genres of activity are crucial
for the maintenance of certain institutions because they specify the boundaries and
obligations of practice defining who could be involved as much as how members should
conduct themselves. Articulated in this way, this conception of agency necessarily transcends
the arena of individuals to include collectives of people and things acting in concert, meaning
that undertaking these kinds of activities is itself a form of discourse (Robb 2010: 507;
compare with Silliman’s development of the idea of residence, this volume).
It follows on from this that agency is not so much a struggle for the maintenance of (a
unique) identity, but rather it describes the contingent emergence of an articulation of
resources (including people, ideas and objects), which in turn sets the stage for creating ties
of similarity and lines of difference (Jenkins 2005; see also Oliver 2010). I will argue that to
better understand the complexity of Native-lived colonialism, we need to examine the way in
which different social projects gave rise to multiple lines of tension and that these were
resolved at different scales of social existence. Keeping in mind my earlier discussion about
the variable effects of colonialism, the task at hand, then, is to see how responses differed
according to the issues that were at stake. As we shall see, the tensions that shaped cultural
(or ethnic) identity were not the only debate.
Comparative Case Studies
To illustrate the ideas raised above, the remainder of this essay compares three separate
contexts of colonial entanglement from coastal British Columbia, a one time colony of the
British Empire and more recently a Canadian province. The temporal frame for this
11
discussion is the second half of the nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth, a
period commonly viewed as exemplifying increasing colonial control with its assumed
correlate: indigenous submission (e.g. Fisher 1977; Duff 1997). However, as Adams (1981:
382) has noted, it would be a mistake to assume that colonialism was experienced evenly
across the extremely varied physical and human geography of this region, or that responses
towards it were in any way monolithic.
Fig. 3.1. Map of the British Columbia coast, showing places discussed in the text. Map drawn
by Jenny Johnston.
Christianity at Metlakatla
For many newcomers to the coast, the pathway to social advancement was through
establishing a respectable agrarian living; for others colonial labors were considered best
12
spent winning souls for Christ, rather than land for agriculture. The competition for converts
was fierce and by the turn of the century dozens of Catholic and Protestant missions were in
operation along the entire coastline (Duff 1997: 132-146). One site in particular provides
important insights into the agency of life projects arising out of the balancing act of Native-
lived colonialism. Founded in 1862 by the Reverend William Duncan, the Anglican mission
of Metlakatla played a crucial role in proselytizing the Coast Tsimshian. Initially founded
with a group of 50 converts, by 1879 it boasted a population around 1000 Indigenous
Christians and what was said to be the largest church west of San Francisco (Duff: 1997: 138;
Neylan 2000: 57-58).
With other Protestant missions it shared not only the common goal of religious education but
also sweeping transformations intended to inculcate its charges with the merits of European
civilization (Neyland 2000: 57-58). This included rituals appropriate to the strict timing and
spacing of Protestant work habits and a sense of discipline becoming of a working class fit
for an emerging capitalist economy. Transformations were best effected not through words
alone but through disciplinary techniques associated with the control of space. Persuaded by
the doctrine that there was no better education than “the object lesson of a good and well-
ordered Christian home” (Crosby 1914:74), Duncan encouraged his Tsimshian converts to
abandon their vice-filled communal plank houses in favor of hierarchically organized
nuclear-family dwellings (cf. Glassie 1987). The emerging ‘model’ community featured
houses patterned on British workers’ cottages, educational institutions, such as a schoolhouse,
and industrial facilities including a weaving house, blacksmith shop, cannery and sawmill.
However, the ideals of Duncan’s utopian venture were not necessarily replicated in practice.
By 1881, the population was re-housed within eighty-eight uniform semi-detached dwellings
13
organized within geometric blocks, each with fenced gardens. The houses featured three
bedrooms upstairs and two rooms on the ground floor (Duff 1997: 138; Perry 2003: 600).
And yet, if the outward appearance of civility seemed to reflect the success of the mission,
interior alterations to the plan suggested otherwise. Most of the houses had central family
rooms considerably enlarged in size, with only small end rooms for sleeping or storage.
Fireplaces were located ‘Indian Style’ in the centre of the room and in some cases a ‘guest
room’ was constructed connecting two houses and both families would sit around one fire,
leaving the rest of the rooms largely deserted (Neyland 2000: 81; Perry 2003: 604). As Perry
(2003: 603) puts it, “while the row houses…superficially replicated the abodes of the English
working class, their interiors demonstrated the persistence of Tsimshian models of kinship.”
Fig 3.2. Photograph of Metlakatla ‘row houses’ c. 1880s. Image C-08,105, courtesy of Royal
BC Museum, BC Archives.
14
How should we interpret such evidence? Perry’s (2003: 601-604) examination of the
correspondence of occasional visitors shows how the built environment could bring the issue
of cultural identity into sharp relief. For some, Metlakatla’s row houses were “solid evidence
of social transformation and spiritual conversion.” For others, who had witnessed the
continued preference for communal living, they amounted to a “clever scheme” for thwarting
“civilized and sanitary ideas”; objectifications that drew the line between civilized newcomer
and uncouth savage. But a more interesting question is whether such dwellings, as
accommodations of an older cultural logic, were marshaled as ciphers of cultural identity by
the Tsimshian themselves.
Neylan’s (2000) analysis provides an intellectual space for rethinking identity politics at
Metlakatla. A central pivot of her discussion hinges on how the mission encouraged
transformations within established Tsimshian institutions. Nevertheless, as she points out,
aboriginal viewpoints about conversion can only be understood vis-à-vis ‘traditional’ notions
of class. Christianity offered significant social advantages. It opened up new routes of
mobility that contoured prescriptions about how status distinctions might be reinforced and
who could participate in them. In common with other north coast societies, social rank was
typically inherited and pathways to esteem, such as conspicuous forms of gift giving, were
narrowly prescribed. Moreover, with limited access to symbolic capital, it was much more
difficult for commoners to climb the social ladder. What Christianity offered was the chance
to gain new spiritual and material resources.
As with the integration of mass-produced trade goods, at first experimentally, the
consumption of ‘Christianity’ within local cultural frameworks tended to begin with elites
and ended with commoners. Selectively in the beginning, and then more systematically with
15
the establishment of the mission and its disciplinary routines, Tsimshian elites gained
familiarity with the values of the church (albeit one refracted through local cultural logic)
because it provided a means through which to gain social leverage. Encouraged by their head
men, kin groups followed suit. This was more than just about religious authority. An ability
to perform using the knowledge competencies of western society, such as literacy, industrial
training and a capitalist mindset, brought with it important rewards. Notably it enabled entry
to and familiarity with the wage-labor economy (Lutz 2008), a strategy that not only brought
financial benefits and respectability within capitalist society, but was also used to fund
‘traditional’ Indigenous practices, such as the potlatch. In this way, the pursuit of the
respectable Christian life path became tied up with a host of other institutions, some with
older roots, and others with more recent ones.
Examining social distinctions through the prism of the Christian life project allows us to
move away from the tired language of domination and resistance. If the values of Metlakatla
were constituted by its social and material practices then the issue of cultural identity (or
‘Tsimshianess’) was not commonly at stake among the Tsimshian themselves, and would
appear to be the objectification of outsiders trying to make sense of a world they little
understood. Far more important among Metlakatla’s residents were issues that served to reify
older lines of demarcation in novel ways and to create new lines of distinction previously
unseen. For example, although the mission encouraged equality among its converts, not all
were viewed equally. The chief Paul Ligeex lived in a house noticeably larger than the others
(Neylan 2000: 81); an accommodation made by Duncan, which reified Ligeex’s role at the
head of one of Metlakatla’s most powerful kin groups. While its’ prim façade satisfied
protestant ideals of order, its size reproduced the architectural scale of lineage households of
noble birth. Within broader social arenas, the built environment of Metlakatla was mobilized
16
by other concerns as well. Duncan is known to have written home about attempts among the
non-converted to revive ‘heathenism’ among the local ‘Indians’ (Fisher 1977: 140). The
effect of Metlakatla was to divide the Tsimshian into pro- and anti-missionary factions. The
consequent hostilities that arose produced lines of fragmentation that split society in new
ways. This was a conflict between (Native) ‘Christians’ and (Native) ‘heathens’, a fault line
that tore the caricatures of colonizer and colonized from their assumed frame. Indeed, within
certain Indigenous circles, European style houses became “a sign of membership within an
elite cadre of the converted” (Perry 2003: 602). The point here is not to investigate such
material tensions in any detail, but rather to show how the agency of life projects represents a
flexible reworking of older structures, grounded in the improvisational nature of ongoing
relations with a wider world that were only ever temporally stable.
Burial and Treatment of the Dead at Kimsquit
Beyond the islands of colonial settlement and missionary activity, pressure to conform was
more limited. With its labyrinthine archipelagos, long and convoluted fjords and mountainous
terrain, many parts of the coast remained relatively inaccessible until later in the twentieth
century. One such place was Kimsquit, an Indigenous community among the Nuxalk people
located deep within the Dean Channel, over 100 kilometers from the outer coast and principal
routes of navigation. While historical records are thin on the ground, it is known that the
Kimsquit earned a reputation with the colonial government for being backward and stubborn.
Royal Naval vessels intervened in local affairs in the 1870s, once to protect railway
surveyors, and a second time to punish certain residents for allegations of piracy and murder.
In the 1880s, two decades after Metlakatla’s establishment, the Kimsquit Indian reserve was
surveyed and local residents began to participate in the wage labor economy, notably within
commercial fishing and logging (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990: 337). Although the Native
17
community accepted a number of imported conveniences, they were disinclined to alter their
subsistence economy or give up their communal plank-houses, though they did add a number
of frame-built cabins to the settlement. What is more, limited missionary contact meant that
the Kimsquit had an ambivalent relationship with Christianity, a situation which likely
prevailed until the village was abandoned in 1927 (Prince 2002: 51-52).
A recent interpretation of the changing burial traditions at the historic cemetery by Prince
(2002; 2003) provides a complex picture of how the Kimsquit experimented with objects and
ideas initially derived from an ‘outside’ world. However, the site also provides important
insights into the agency of certain life projects operating around the turn of the twentieth
century, which continued to be instrumental to local world views. Mid-nineteenth century
inhumations, the earliest and by far the most numerous, were characterized by placing a
squatting individual into a snug bent-wood box, which was lowered into a large hole and
covered over by earth. After the cedar box decayed and collapsed, burials resulted in a
circular depression. In contrast, late nineteenth and early twentieth century burials were
marked by the rapid integration of ‘European’ materials and methods. Notably, they were
characterized by elongated depressions, the result of a shift towards extended burial and the
use of coffins made of lumber, metal fasteners and nails (Hobler 1972; McIlwraith 1948).
Earlier interpretations put such changes down to acculturation (e.g. Hobler 1986; Fladmark
1973). However, as Prince’s assessment of form indicates, the Kimsquit simply integrated
these materials and ideas into a ‘mortuary system’ with longstanding social and ideological
structures (Prince 2002: 52).
This argument is supported by the range of associated burial features and artifacts, which
approximate in form central coast mortuary traditions. At least ten grave houses, cabin-like
18
dwellings for the ghosts of the dead, were found to incorporate non-traditional materials, such
as milled lumber, hinged doors, and glass windows. The adoption of objects like windows
might outwardly suggest an accommodation of European values, nevertheless, the overall
grave house form respected pre-contact burial architecture derived from their neighbors. In
addition, grave sites were often associated with two broad types of memorials. This included
wooden mortuary posts or planks carved with the crests of the departed, but also tombstones
depicting the name of the deceased with family names. Both were likely related to the status
of the dead and the rights and obligations of the lineage. Beyond these built structures, a wide
range of mass produced grave goods were located inside grave houses or loosely associated
with elongated depressions. This included items as varied as metal basins, ceramic table
wares, iron bed frames and sewing machines. If the large volume of mass-produced goods
suggests at least some degree of dependence on ‘modern’ materials, the fact that they were
treated as burial offerings is indicative of their significance within what might be described as
a non-European burial rite.
19
Fig. 3.3. Photograph of grave house, showing associated memorial. Photograph by John
William Clark. Image I-52,703, courtesy of Royal BC Museum, BC Archives.
The comparative value of the cemetery at Kimsquit serves to foreground a number of issues.
Beyond problematizing older arguments about the erosion of Native culture, it highlights the
variability of responses to colonialism given the unevenness of colonial power structures.
Unlike at Metlakatla, with its routine disciplinary techniques and more narrowly
accommodated forms of cultural negotiation, at Kimsquit colonial power was limited in
scope meaning that the community was able to experiment with non-local influences
20
according to locally mediated notions of acceptability. While we cannot ignore colonial
authority altogether, such as the infrequent visits by Indian agents and missionaries, who
encouraged western forms of ‘improvement’, their influence was nevertheless restricted. This
is reflected in the peculiar admixture of Indigenous and Christian symbols seen within the
cemetery. Indeed, the most conspicuous grave sites were characterized by grave houses and
western style headstones, suggesting an emphasis on cosmological syncretism (Prince 2002:
61). The fact that grave houses are thought to have been introduced through ties with the
neighboring Heiltsuk around 1900 (Kennedy and Bouchard 1990: 332), well after modes of
colonial surveillance came into practice, helps to confirm this pattern of relative
independence. It is for this reason that we might also cast doubt on Prince’s own conclusions,
which see cultural continuity as an indication of “the assertion and redefinition of native
identity in the face of acculturative pressure” (2002: 63). Ethnographic analogues have a long
history of establishing continuities between prehistoric and historic cultures on the coast (e.g.
Carlson 1983: 198; Ames and Maschner 1999). But, as the old archaeological maxim goes,
pots do not necessarily stand for people -- as if capable of summing up some core
characteristic (cf. Adams 1981: 375). What is more, given the relatively few limitations
imposed on the Kimsquit by this period, and the baggage of the term ‘native’ -- itself a
colonial label that we should not assume was used by local peoples as a means of self-
identification -- one wonders whether intentions were ever as volitional as this. More
convincingly, inferences like this one say more about the working practices of archaeologists
and relations of twentyfirst-century ethnic nationalism than they do about identity politics in
the past.
In place of a narrative of resistance, what the site does provide is an inroad to the agency of
community life projects seen within the social space of the cemetery: the proper burial and
21
treatment of the deceased. As recent arguments within mortuary archaeology advocate, burial
and commemoration were as much about the living as they were about the dead (Parker
Pearson 1999; Tarlow 1999). Indeed a socially efficacious burial and its complex of
associated rites and obligations often served to reaffirm not only the status of the departed
and their ancestry, but also the very cosmological foundations of existence. As far as we can
tell from the imperfect ethnographic record, Nuxalk burial rites at the turn of the twentieth
century afforded services for the underworld while at the same time giving protection and
purification for the living. As the possessions of the deceased were believed to be polluted,
relatives would burn them to prevent sickness. Possessions burned on the first day of the
funeral were distributed among the spirits of the underworld. On the fourth day, a second
burning was exclusively for the use of the deceased and all non-burnable items, such as metal
and ceramic objects were then laid at the grave side where they could be later reclaimed by
the ghost. After the burial, the relatives of the dead and others who had handled the corpse
were purified and payment was made to those who had assisted with the funeral (Kennedy
and Bouchard 1990: 332; McIlwraith 1948). These performances served to mark people out
in conspicuous ways, meaning that social identities would have come into focus over the
course of the funeral, and after, according to the different roles that people adopted (familial
versus non-familial, ritual specialists versus the uninitiated, etc.). The point to emphasize here
is that such activity was communal in nature and served to produce a space of discourse that
satisfied certain desires associated with the lifecycle. From the outside looking in, it is
tempting to acknowledge that traditions born of intercultural relations combine heterogeneous
elements of old and new and that this should have been significant to people in the past. But
from Kimsquit looking out, what had changed and what had stayed the same would have
mattered little – if even registered -- in the context of highly institutionalized practices (cf.
22
Silliman, this volume). Rather, of significance was conducting one’s self in a socially
efficacious manner.
Improvement and Agrarian Discourse in the Fraser Valley
Attracted by its rich agricultural soils and access to early supply centers, European settlement
formed an oasis of colonial interest in the Fraser Valley, on the south coast of British
Columbia. Consequently, the power structures of colonialism, including a land system that
served as a ‘disciplinary appendage’ of the colonial state (Harris 1997), developed more
quickly here than along other parts of the coast. This process commenced with the surveying
of a cadastre, which transformed ‘wilderness’ into parcels of ‘land’ for sale. At the same
time, an Indian reserve system was implemented, corralling local Halkomelem speakers to
the margins of this new colonial space. The first reserves were surveyed in the 1860s and
were soon followed by a government sponsored program of social engineering (Carlson
1996: 94; Harris 2002: 269-270). Among its most important goals was to convert the
‘savages’ from “roaming-about people” (Fisher 1977: 184) to settled agricultural producers.
Therefore it is not difficult to locate the root of tensions that served to mark out Natives as
being different and racialized as ‘Others’. If cultural and linguistic peculiarities were not
enough to draw the line, the fact that Natives lived, for the most part, behind the boundaries
of Indian reserves as wards of the state was certainly sufficient to reinforce their identities as
inferior. Given their systematic exclusion from many parts of colonial society, it is not
surprising that Indigenous peoples participated in different kinds of protest (Carlson 2001;
Harris 2002; Stadfeld 1999) and even novel formulations of ethnic identity, hinging on the
collective experience of colonial oppression (Oliver 2010: Ch 9, 2013).
23
However, as much as Native lives revolved around resistance, they were also concerned with
adapting their situations to make the most of changing circumstances. By the turn of the
twentieth century, many had lived their entire lives within the power structures of the colonial
state and had acquired a certain fluency with which to negotiate its demands. One of the most
important transformations to take place among the Halkomelem was in identifying that land
could be converted to symbolic capital through its improvement. For reserves endowed with
good agricultural soils and an appreciation of the social benefits that an agrarian living could
bring, social desires coalesced around being a good farmer. While social advancement
through agriculture was less accessible than via Christianity, because opportunities to obtain
access to land were far more restricted in the Fraser Valley, nevertheless, a number of
reserves became noted for their agricultural skills (Knight 1978: 175). In fact when
respectability turned on matters of harnessing the soil, Native and settler lifestyles were not
all that different (Kostuchencko 2000: 20). Both struggled to clear stands of old growth
forest, to work the land according to the rhythms of the season and to deal with the instability
of an emerging market. These kinds of comparisons were not usually raised at the broader
scale of race relations. However, in a number of instances Indigenous agricultural
‘prosperity’ helped to create life projects that set the stage for far more ambiguity than the
labels settler and Native normally imply.
One of the most successful Native farmers in this context, regarded highly by Natives and
settlers alike, was ‘Billy’ Sepass, Chief of the Scowkale Indian reserve (see also Oliver 2010:
195-199). Unlike the Tsimshian in the north, high status among the Halkomelem hinged more
upon the possession of particular bodies of cultural knowledge, such ancestral names or an
ability to manipulate important natural resources (Duff 1952: 80-87; see for example Oliver
2007), than it did on right of birth. But by the late nineteenth century access to ‘traditional’
24
forms of symbolic capital became increasingly destabilized. Rather than succumb to these
pressures, certain high ranking individuals appropriated the knowledge systems of
improvement traded upon by white society in order to help cultivate their positions of
authority. This does not mean a simple abandonment of Native values. On the contrary,
Sepass used his knowledge of agricultural practice, gained from experience as a farm hand
for a local white settler, to guide his own people towards agricultural security (Wells 1987:
36). His acquired knowledge would not only reinforce his position as chief, it also helped him
to gain social leverage within white society.
That his knowledge of agrarian discourse was substantial is demonstrated by certain
improvements he made to his land within the Scowkale reserve. For example, he constructed
a frame built house with steep gable ends and dormer windows. Around the house was a
white picket fence that created a zone of exclusion between the domestic space of the home
and the working space of the farm. Most importantly, social respectability was achieved
through the improvement of his land. Transformations here included a large barn, a fruit
orchard and well-tilled fields (Wells 1987: 36).
If Sepass’s role as respected farmer bolstered his stature among Natives, it was also the
medium through which he placed himself within broader social arenas. This is seen in a
biographical map drawn by Sepass in 1918, prepared with the assistance of local white
farmer and past employer, A. C. Wells (Wells 1987: 75). The map depicts a stylized and
exaggerated view of the rivers and sloughs of the upper valley, suggesting places as they
mattered to the lives of these prominent farmers. Among the many features shown are
English and Halkomelem toponyms, farmsteads, graveyards, roads, the Scowkale Indian
reserve and even the site of the Luckukuk Falls first picnic in 1871. A recent interpretation
25
suggests that its juxtaposed Native and English place names “captures the ever escalating
struggle between Natives and newcomers for land, resources and ‘place’” (Schaepe 2001:
126). To be certain, conflict was an important theme of this period. However, for Sepass the
map seems to have served other ends.
Figure 3.4. Billy Sepass’ map of the lower Chilliwack River c. 1918. Source: Oliver (2010).
Adapted from Wells (1987: 79), drawn by Ana Jorge.
Of particular interest is the vision Sepass possessed of his own farm. Tellingly, he chose to
depict his own space within the valley like the farms of white settlers, using the same
rectangular ideograms. Therefore, if the farmer-cartographer chose to make any distinctions
in this agrarian landscape, it was between his ‘property’ and the rest of the Scowkale reserve
village, which was represented by a single homogenous rectangle. A compelling argument is
26
that the separation on the map was linked to a separation in life, a further means through
which Sepass constituted his role as Chief vis-à-vis his lineage and the commoners who
revered him. The ideas portrayed by the map were no doubt ‘of-the-moment’ (Kitchen and
Dodge: 2007) and do not represent the complex relationships that served to define him in
different social arenas. Nevertheless, if we can ‘excavate’ intent from this particular
inscription, then it was more about building social bridges than cultural boundaries, a strategy
which placed him in good company with those who would mobilize agrarianism as a socially
transformative life project. The argument I am making is more akin to Denis Byrne’s
revealing, if unexpected, findings of the Aboriginal colonial experience in New South Wales,
Australia. Against the grain of common expectation, in that context some Aboriginals
developed a ‘tactical’ relationships with white farmers that resulted in the creation of a web
of friendly, or at least not hostile, relations towards them, often resulting in a good deal of
mutual respect and knowledge of each other’s family histories – of present generations,
parents and even grandparents (Byrne 2003: 180). Similar processes seem to have been at
work here. Even if one questions the more conciliatory tone I favor, we cannot ignore the fact
that Sepass had acquired a deep knowledge of the cultural grammar of two different social
worlds, a position that provided him with an important amount of security. So as much as
Native-lived colonialism was about conflict, it was also about compromise, about moving on
and making something with what you had.
Discussion
In this final section, I wish to draw out a number of more general observations and also to
point towards outlooks for future thinking. In place of a view of colonialism linked to the
concept of social inevitabilities, we see that it participated in creating an unanticipated variety
of intercultural ‘traditions’. Where colonial power was concentrated, principally at missions
27
and the few agriculturally productive regions where a settler landscape first achieved its
toehold, a significant portion of the Indigenous population enthusiastically engaged with the
possibilities of life presented by European newcomers (Lutz 2008: 161). This should not
necessarily be taken as evidence of acculturation. Indeed, as I have argued, European
institutions such as Christianity and agrarianism were rationalized and ‘accepted’, at least
initially, through locally mediated cultural frameworks and accordingly incorporated into
ways of living and working.
Of course, there are also some important differences between places like Metlakatla and the
Fraser Valley as well. Mission environments combined disciplinary techniques and close
social monitoring with an ostensibly ‘egalitarian’ experience (Neylan 2000; cf. Harkin 1997;
2005), which, although viewed through local power structures, did provide a certain degree of
social mobility to increasing numbers of individuals. This contrasts with the situation on
reserves, where the compulsion to change was not necessarily as systematic. What is more,
given that land was a finite resource and more easily acquired by newcomers, social
respectability through harnessing the soil was less possible. Indeed, this situation is reflected
to some extent in the fact that 90% of the aboriginal population of the province was
nominally Christian by 1904 (Duff 1997: 128), whereas only about 20% of the land
cultivated by Native peoples had been acquired off reserve by 1910 (Knight 1978: 184), a
process constrained by the significant hurdles Natives had to overcome to compete with
white settlers. Nevertheless, individuals like Billy Sepass remind us that agrarian living
brought people from different walks of life together in ways that cause us to revisit
assumptions about what ‘pioneering’ was all about.
28
Native lifeways at power centers of colonialism tend to be partly defined by the desire of
attaining proficiency with the cultural grammar of colonizers. By contrast in areas where
colonial power was more limited, such as at Kimsquit, life projects were mediated by more
local concerns, although with time, this too was apt to change. The threat of colonial
violence, such as ‘gunboat diplomacy’ (Gough 1984), could be used to soften the attitudes of
even the most recalcitrant Natives, but in terms of actually affecting change over the
conditions of everyday life, colonial power represented “little more than a thin white line
amplified by pomp and bluster” (Comaroff and Comaroff 2001: 104). This situation held at
least into the early twentieth century, when itinerancy encouraged by the opportunities of
wage labor began to tear at the fabric of even more remote communities. As we have seen
from the historic cemetery, non-European institutions continued to govern socially valued
practices, such as burial and the treatment of the dead. Viewed from the outside looking in,
agency in this context, enabled through local power structures, takes a more ‘traditional’ tone.
While objects and ideas that made up the cemetery encouraged people to think externally
about themselves in relation to others, we must be careful in suggesting that they necessarily
indicate a ‘Native’ identity. Such categories are the words of colonizers and would only have
begun to gain efficacy among Indigenous peoples once they had become objectified by the
sharp end of colonialism as a homogenous ‘Other’, and consequently felt the experience of
the label with its racialized overtones (Comeroff and Comeroff 1992: 57; Gosden 2004;
Jenkins 2005). A similar argument can be applied to ethno-linguistic nomenclature. Consider
the fact that older Northwest Coast ethnolinguistic maps never seem to agree on boundaries
or terms of definition (Thom 2009; Suttles 1990: 9-11). This is because the criteria used by
ethnographers and administrators frequently differed and could hardly capture the complex
web of overlapping and relational identities, which served to mark people’s affiliations in
different social contexts (cf. Scott 2009: 254-255). We would thus be wise to consider
29
carefully whether the sanitized ethnic boundaries adopted by many Indigenous peoples today
were the same as those operating in the past (e.g. Carlson 2007: 138; Colson 1953; Oliver
2010: 190).
Finally, the case studies also bring to mind a further question, one that tends to be avoided by
postcolonial discourse at all costs. Given time and the rising intensity of colonial forms of
control and cultural integration, should it be considered taboo to accept that in certain
contexts Native lifeways and the agency of life projects did in fact become more like those of
newcomers, so that being ‘Indian’ became a less important form of social distinction? If we
are to create truly sophisticated accounts of indigenous colonial experience, we must also be
prepared to accept that aboriginality, as a way of life, and as a form of self-identification, is
itself a contingent and existential issue. We should therefore cast serious doubt on its
uncritical and homogenous usage as if colonial society could be summed up by a single fault
line separating Native ancestry from everyone else.
While there were many spaces where the prying eyes of the state could not penetrate and
therefore police (e.g. Amoss 1978; Lutz 2008: 161; Martindale 2006; 2009), equally there
were other spaces, from growing towns to residential schools, which shaped life projects and
experiences of cultural learning according to a new and eclectic mix of social, cultural and
economic realities. How people objectified themselves, or were objectified by others, in these
highly varied spaces of interaction, once again brings us back to context, to power relations,
and what is deemed important and possible in any given place. Where and when the politics
of decolonization ground into gear, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, we
might expect to find a range of ‘indigenous articulations’ (Clifford 2001), from those that
mobilize the ‘old’ (Day 1985; Kennedy and Bouchard 1990: 337-338) to those that
30
appropriate the ‘new’ (Ingold and Kurttila: 2000; Townsend-Gault 2004). And yet, in other
social arenas, where the life projects of Native and Newcomer come together, where cultural
differences begin to blur, the tensions that defined Aboriginality could also dissipate.
Sometime momentarily, sometimes for longer, the relations that once brought cultural
objectification into sharp relief were sidelined by more pressing forms of social distinction,
those which continue to haunt humanity the world over. In these contexts, inequalities of
gender, age grade, employment, political affiliation, religion and the like, formed the
substantive issues that served to draw the line (cf. Silliman 2004). Billy Sepas and his
material articulations represent the thin end of the wedge of this kind of ‘Othering’, meaning
that we have much territory to cover. The archaeology of the recent colonial past must face
these issues head on; otherwise we risk historical revisionisms with only the slightest
relevance to the past landscapes we wish to breathe life into.
Conclusion
Native-lived colonialism was not constitutive of one set of relationships, but many. As John
and Jean Comaroff (1997: 5) put it, “it altered everyone and everything involved, if not all in
the same manner and measure.” While it brought endings to certain facets of Native life, it
also encouraged novel beginnings by reinventing older institutions and pioneering new ones.
The case studies reviewed here demonstrate that, as ever, the devil is in the detail. The
landscape of colonialism in coastal British Columbia represented a complex patchwork of
interests and power structures, phenomena that varied as much across space as through time.
My central argument, a lesson applicable to many colonial contexts, is that Native
experiences of the expanding webs of European power and influence did not produce a
monolithic effect. Rather, their responses were as varied as the different ideas and objects that
they encountered. Attempting to understand this variability, how it altered the way that
31
people made sense of their changing surroundings, requires us to move beyond the narrow
language of domination and resistance and towards an approach that begins to separate out
the different modalities of power and agency. Only by recognizing how the particularities of
place gave rise to agency will we begin to make of sense of the social distinctions that really
mattered. Native-lived colonialism at the turn of the twentieth century was many things, from
struggles for independence to opportunities for social advancement. What it was not was a
battle for cultural identity. That battle belongs to a different day: its time is now.
Acknowledgements
A number of people have provided valuable feedback on earlier incarnations of the present
essay. I would like to thank Ana Jorge for her tireless critical engagement with the entire
organization of the piece; Paul Ewonus for encouraging comments and pointing out certain
inconsistencies; and Neal Ferris and Rodney Harrison for their helpful thoughts and
references on the penultimate draft.
32
References
Acheson, Steven R. and James P. Delgado
2004 Ships for the Taking: Culture Contact and the Maritime Fur Trade on the Northwest
Coast of North America. In The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies, edited by
Tim Murray, pp. 48-77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Adams, John, W.
1981 Recent Ethnology of the Northwest Coast. Annual Review of Anthropology, 10: 361-
392.
Ames, Kenneth M. and Herbert D.G. Maschner
1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and
Hudson, London.
Amoss, Pamela
1978 Symbolic Substitution in the Indian Shaker Church. Ethnohistory 25: 225-249.
Bedford, Stuart H.
2004 Tenacity of the Traditional: The First Hundred Years of Maori-European Settler
Contact on the Hauraki Plains, Aotearoa/New Zeland. In The Archaeology of Contact
in Settler Societies, edited by Tim Murray, pp. 144-154. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Béteille, André
1998 The Idea of Indigenous People. Current Anthropology 39(2): 187-191.
Bender, Barbara
2002 Time and Landscape. Current Anthropology 43:S103-S112.
Blackman, Margaret B.
1976 Creativity in Acculturation: Art, Architecture and Ceremony from the Northwest
Coast. Ethnohistory 23: 387-413.
Byrne, Denis R.
2003 Nervous Landscapes: Race and Space in Australia. Journal of Social Archaeology
3(2): 169-193.
Carlson, Catherine C.
2006 Indigenous Historic Archaeology of the 19th
-century Secwepemc Village at
Thomson’s River Post, Kamloops, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of
Archaeology 30: 193-250.
Carlson, Keith Thor
1996 Early Nineteenth Century Stó:lō Social Structures and Government Assimilation
Policy. In You Are Asked To Witness: The Stó:lō in Canada's Pacific Coast History,
edited by Keith Thor Carlson, pp. 87-108. Stó:lō Heritage Trust, Chilliwack, BC.
2001 Indian reservations. In A Stό:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas, edited by Keith Thor
Carlson, pp. 94-95. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.
33
2007 Towards an Indigenous Historiography: Events, Migrations, and the Formation of
“Post-Contact” Coast Salish Collective Identities. In Be of Good Mind: Essays on the
Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, pp. 138-181. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Carlson, Roy
1983 Change and Continuity in Northwest Coast Art, In Indian Art Traditions of the
Northwest Coast, edited by Roy. Carlson, pp. 199-205. Archaeology Press, Simon
Fraser University. Burnaby, BC.
Carter, Paul
1987 The Road to Botany Bay: An Essay in Spatial History. London: Faber and Faber.
Clifford, James
1986 Introduction: Partial Truths. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of
Ethnography, edited by James Clifford and George E. Marcus, pp. 1-26. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
2001 Indigenous Articulations. The Contemporary Pacific 13(2): 468-490.
Comaroff, Jean and John L. Comaroff
2001 Revelations upon Revelation: After shocks, Afterthoughts. Interventions:
International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 3(1): 100-126.
Comaroff, John L. and Jean Comaroff
1992 Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
1997 Of Revelation and Revolution II, The Dialectics of Modernity on a South African
Frontier. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
2009 Ethnicity, Inc. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Colson, Elizabeth
1953 The Makah Indians. University of Manchester Press, Manchester
Crapanzano, Vincent
1986 Hermes dilemma: the masking of subversion in ethnographic description. In J.
Clifford and G.E. Marcus (eds) Writing Cultures. The poetics and politics of
ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Crosby, Thomas
1914 Up and Down the North Pacific Coast by Canoe and Mission Ship. Missionary
Society of the Methodist Church, the Young People’s Forward Movement Department,
Toronto.
Day, Lois
1985 Canadian North-West Coast Cultural Revival. Anthropology Today 1(4):16-18.
Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix
1987 A Thousand Plateaus. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis.
Dirks, Nicholas. B.
1992 Introduction: Colonialism and Culture. In Colonialism and culture, edited by Nicholas
B. Dirks, pp. 1-25. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
34
Duff, Wilson
1952 The upper Stalo Indians. Anthropology in British Columbia, memoir no. 1. British
Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.
1997 [1965] The Indian History of British Columbia: The Impact of the White Man. British
Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria.
Ferris, Neal
2009 The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great
Lakes. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Fisher, Robin
1977 Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774-1890.
UBC Press, Vancouver.
Fladmark, Knut
1973 The Richardson Ranch Site: A 19th
Century Haida House. In Historical Archaeology
in Northwestern North America, edited by Ronald M. Getty and Knut R. Fladmark,
pp. 53-95. University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary.
Given, Michael,
2004 The Archaeology of the Colonized. Routledge, London.
Glassie, Henry
1987 Vernacular Architecture and Society. In Mirror and Metaphor: Material and Social
Constructions of Reality, edited by Daniel W. Ingersoll and Gordon Bronitsky, pp
229-245. University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland.
Gosden, Chirs
2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gough, Barry M.
1984 Gunboat Frontier: British Maritime Authority and Northwest Coast Indians, 1846-90.
UBC Press, Vancouver.
Hall, Martin
1992 Small Things and the Mobile Conflictual Fusion of Power, Fear, and Desire. In The
Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, Essays in Honor of James Deetz, edited
by Anne E. Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry, pp. 373-399. C.R.C. Press, Boston.
Hamell, George R.
1987 Strawberries, Floating Islands and Rabbit Captains: Mythical Realities and European
Contact in the Northeast During the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Journal of
Canadian Studies 21: 72-94.
Harley, J. Brian
1988 Maps, Knowledge, and Power. In The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the
Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments, edited by Denis
Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels, pp. 277-312. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35
Harkin, Michael
1997 The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture and History on the Northwest Coast. University
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
2005 The house of Longing: Missionary-led Changes in Heiltsuk Domestic Forms and
Structures. In Indigenous People and Religious Change, edited by Peggy Brock, pp.
205-226. Brill, Leiden.
Harris, Cole
1997 The Resettlement of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver.
2002 Making Native Space: Colonialism, Resistance, and Reserves in British Columbia.
UBC Press, Vancouver.
Harrison, Rodney
2004 Shared Landscapes: Archaeologies of Attachment and the Pastoral Industry in New
South Wales. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
Hillerdal, Charlotta
2009 People in Between: Ethnic and Material Identity – a New Approach to Deconstructed
Concepts. Occasional Papers in Archaeology 50. University Uppsala, Uppsala.
Herva, Vessa-Pekka
2009 Living (with) Things: Relational Ontology and Material Culture in Early Modern
Northern Finland. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3): 388-397.
Hobler, Philip M.
1972 Archaeological work at Kimsquit. In R. Carlson (ed.) Salvage 71. Burnaby, B.C:
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, pp. 85-106.
1986 Measures of the acculturative response to trade on the central coast of British
Columbia. Historical Archaeology 20: 16-26.
Ingold, Tim
2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill.
Routledge, London.
Ingold, Tim and Terhi Kurttila
2000 Perceiving the Environment in Finnish Lapland. Body & Society 6: 183-196.
Jenkins, Richard
2005 Social Identity, Second Edition. London: Routledge.
Jones, Siân.
1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present.
Routledge, London.
Jordan, Kurt A.
2009 Colonies, Colonialism, and Cultural Entanglement: The Archaeology of Post-
Columbian Intercultural Relations. In International Handbook of Historical
Archaeology, edited by Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, pp. 31-49. New York,
Springer Science + Business Media.
36
Kaplan, Caren
1996 Questions of Travel: Postmodern Discourses of Displacement. Duke University Press,
Durham, North Carolina.
Kennedy, I. Dorothy, and Randy T. Bouchard
1990 Bella Coola. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast,
edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 323-339. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Kitchin, R. and Dodge, M.
2007 Rethinking maps. Progress in Human Geography 31(3):1-14.
Knight, Rolf
1978 Indians at Work: An Informal History of Native Labour in British Columbia. New
Star Books, Vancouver.
Kostuchenko, Amber
2000 The Unique Experiences of Sto:lo Farmers: An Investigation into Native Agriculture
in British Columbia. Masters Research Paper, Stό:lō Nation Archives.
Kuper, Adam
2003 The Return of the Native. Current Anthropology 44(3): 389-402.
Lefpofsky, Dana, David M. Schaepe, Anthony P. Graesch, Michael Lenert, Patricia Ormerod,
Keith Thor Carlson, Jeanne E. Arnold, Michael Blake, Patrick Moore, and John J. Clague
2009 Exploring Stó:lō-Coast Salish Interaction and Identity in Ancient Houses and
Settlements in the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. American Antiquity 74(4): 595-
626.
Liebmann, Matthew J.
2008 The Intersections of Archaeology and Postcolonial Studies. In Archaeology and the
Postcolonial Critique, edited by M. Liebmann and U. Rizvi, pp. 1-20. Altamira Press,
Lanham, MD.
Lightfoot, Kent G.
2006 Missions, Furs, Gold, and Manifest Destiny: Rethinking an Archaeology of
Colonialism for Western North America. In Historical Archaeology, edited by Martin
Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, pp. 272--292. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Lightfoot, Kent G., Antoinette Martinez and Ann M. Schiff
1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological
Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American
Antiquity 60(2): 199-222.
Lutz, John. S.
2008 Mukuk: A New History of Aboriginal-White Relations. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Lydon, Jane
2006 Pacific Encounters, or Beyond the Islands of History. In Historical Archaeology
Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, pp. 291-312. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
37
Maas, Alexandra
2003 Clocks, Lamps, Cups and Stuff: Nineteenth Century Ceramic Use among the
Heiltsuk. In Archaeology of Coastal British Columbia: Essays in Honour of Philip M.
Hobler , edited by Roy Carlson, pp. 253-232. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, B.C.
Marshall, Yvonne and Alexandra Maas
1997 Dashing dishes. World Archaeology 28(3): 275-290.
Martindale, Andrew
2006 The Tsimshian Household through the Contact Period. In Household Archaeology on
the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu Gahr, and Kenneth
M. Ames, pp. 140-158. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbour,
Michigan.
2009 Entanglement and Tinkering: Structural History in the Archaeology of the Northern
Tsimshian. Journal of Social Archaeology 9: 59-91.
Martindale, Andrew and Irena Jurakic
2006 Identifying Expedient Glass Tools in a Post-contact Tsimshian Village. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33: 414-427.
McIlwraith, Thomas
1948 The Bella Coola Indians, two volumes. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Miller, Jay
1997 Tsimshian Culture: A light Through the Ages. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Neylan, Susan
2000 Longhouses, Schoolrooms and Worker's Cottages: Nineteenth-century Protestant
Missions to the Tsimshian and the Transformation of Class through Religion. Journal
of the Canadian Historical Association 11: 51-86.
Oliver, Jeff
2007 Beyond the Water’s Edge: Towards A Social Archaeology of Landscape on the
Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 31(1):1-27.
2009 Review of Being and Place Among the Tlingit, by Thomas F. Thornton. The Northern
Review 31(Fall):242-246.
2010 Landscapes and Social Transformations on the Northwest Coast: Colonial
Encounters in the Fraser Valley. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2011 On Mapping and its Afterlife: Unfolding Landscapes in Northwestern North America.
World Archaeology 43(1): 66-85.
2013 Reflections on Resistance: Identity and Being Indigenous in Colonial British
Columbia. In Historical Archaeologies of Cognition: Exploration of Faith, Hope and
Charity, edited by J. Symonds, A. Badcock, and J. Oliver, pp. 98-114. Sheffield,
Equinox.
Ortner, Sherry B.
2001 Specifying Agency. Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 3(1):
76-84.
38
Parker Pearson, Michael
1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton, Stroud.
Perry, Adele
2003 From the “Hot-bed of Vice” to the “Good and Well-ordered Christian Home”: First
Nations Housing and Reform in Nineteenth-Century British Columbia. Ethnohistory
50(4): 587-610.
Pratt, Mary Louise
1992 Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge.
Prince, Paul
2002 Cultural Coherency and Resistance in Historic Period Mortuary Practices at Kimsquit.
Historical Archaeology 36:53-68.
2003 Culture Contact at Kimsquit in Long-term Regional C context. In R. Carlson (ed)
Archaeology of coastal British Columbia: essays in honour of Philip M. Hobler.
Burnaby, B.C.: Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, pp. 217-232.
Robb, John
2010 Beyond agency. World Archaeology 42(4): 493-520
Rowe, William and Vivian Schelling
1991 Memory and Modernity: Popular Culture in Latin America. Verso, London.
Said, Edward
1978 Orientalism. Pantheon, New York.
Saunders, Nicholas J.
1998 Stealers of Light, Traders in Brilliance: Amerindian Metaphysics in the Mirror of
Conquest. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 33 (1): 225-252.
Schaepe, David
2001 The Maps of K’hhalserten. In A Stό:lō-Coast Salish Historical Atlas, edited by Keith
Thor Carlson, pp. 126-127. Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver.
2007 Stό:lō Identity and the Cultural Landscape of S’ólh Téméxw. In Be of Good Mind:
Essays on the Coast Salish, edited by Bruce Granville Miller, pp. 234-259. UBC
Press, Vancouver.
Scott, James C.
2009 The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Silliman, Stephen W.
2004 Social and Physical Landscapes of Contact. In North American Archaeology, edited
by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren, pp. 273-296. Blackwell
Publishing, Malden, MA.
2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism: Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North
America. American Antiquity 70(1): 55-74.
39
Stadfeld, Bruce
1999 Manifestations of Power: Native Resistance to the Resettlement of British Columbia.
In Beyond the City Limits: rural history in British Columbia, edited by Ruth W.
Sandwell, pp. 33-46. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Suttles, Wayne
1990 Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast,
Wayne Suttles, pp. 1-15. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
Tarlow, Sarah
1999 Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality. Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford.
Thom, Brian
2009 The Paradox of Boundaries in Coast Salish Territories. Cultural Geographies 16: 179-
205.
Thornton, Thomas.F.
2008 Being and Place among the Tlingit. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Townsend-Gault, Charlotte
2004 Circulating Aboriginality. Journal of Material Culture 9(2): 183-202.
Trigger, Bruce
1984 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man 19: 355-370.
Turgeon, Laurier
2004 Beads, Bodies and Regimes of Value: From France to North America, c. 1500-1650.
In The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies, edited by Tim Murray, pp. 19-47.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tveskov, Mark. A.
2007 Social Identity and Culture Change on the Southern Northwest Coast. American
Anthropologist 109: 431-441.
Webster, Jane
1997 Necessary Comparisons: A Post-colonial Approach to Religious Syncretism in the
Roman Provinces. World Archaeology 28(3): 324-348
Wells, Oliver. N.
1987 The Chilliwacks and their Neighbours, edited by Ralph Maud, Brent Dougals
Galloway and Marie Weeden. Talonbooks, Vancouver:.
Top Related