In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

144 8 Inuvialuit Identity and the Material Past I began this volume by naming the injustices (sensu Leone 2003, 2010) I saw in the one-sided representation of Inuvialuit in the written historical record, despite their ample, if untapped, archaeological history. My motivation, and that of my Inuvialuit and non-Inuvialuit project partners, has been to create a conscious dialogue with this community about the past, and to enfranchise their voices into the process of writing about that past. Through this process, my goals have been to gain a greater understanding of an insider’s perspective on the Inuvialuit past, and its attendant material culture, and to maintain a critical and reflexive approach to observing and documenting the process of building a relationship with this community. I discuss both of these objectives in this chapter. In formulating my thoughts for this discussion, I kept returning to a series of common threads that have run through my conversations with Inuvialuit . Inuvialuit Elders, as well as the succeeding generations of community leaders and decision makers with whom I have conversed, did not hesitate to express who they are as a people and where they have come from. They had a clear sense of their identity, its tie to the land, and the authenticity of their knowledge about their singular and collective pasts. Friedman (1992:854) tells us that “history is the discourse of identity, the question of who ‘owns’ or appropriates the past is a question of who is able to identify him- or herself and the other at any given time and place.” Writing from a vantage point in the dawn of postmodern thought in archaeology, he goes on: “If the fragmentation of a world order implies the multiplication of cultural identities [Friedman 1989:67], the latter is expressed in a proliferation of histories. Multiple identities imply multiple histories.” Despite the passage of time, Friedman’s words still ring true and, in the case of the Inuvialuit , articulate the ties that bind people to place and constitute what it means to be Inuvialuit. Inuvialuit whom I have spoken with always seem certain, but never forceful, of where they stand in relation to others. Their inuvialuit identity and the material past 145 narratives were shared with me as an outsider, constructed in the present to meet the occasion of our present circumstances (cf Leone 1995). The Elders charted me through the waters of their histories, tracing the relationships of families, the landscapes they frequented, and the changes witnessed in social, economic, and technological realms vis-à-vis the cultural others that entered and settled in their lands. The relationship of their children to cultural others has grown perhaps more intense and complex, but the defining us-versusthem dichotomy remains strong. In the critical analysis of Inuvialuit representation (chapter 2), we are drawn through many of the radical transformations that transpired in Inuvialuit territory in the twentieth century, largely through the eyes of outsiders. In chapter 6, Inuvialuit Elders’ knowledge about the world of their forebears is on display. Here, we see their admiration for the ingenuity, adaptability, creativity, and cultural strength of their parents, grandparents, and the generations before them. In the first part of this chapter, I wish to stay in the present through a discussion of Inuvialuit views about practices related to archaeology and cultural heritage. Both Elders and Inuvialuit community leaders spoke eloquently and at length about various facets of archaeological and cultural heritage practices. Below, I summarize their views on the transmission of cultural knowledge in the Inuvialuit community and their ideas concerning Inuvialuit identity and the material past. My intention in this first portion of the discussion is to listen to Inuvialuit talk about archaeology and cultural heritage, because the greatest potential for enfranchising Inuvialuit into the process of representing their own past(s) comes from hearing and documenting their views about themselves (Lyons 2007:222–231). Similarly, the greatest potential for social action and change with respect to increasing Inuvialuit self-representation comes from educating younger generations about where they come from, a task very close to the hearts of many Inuvialuit Elders, leaders, and educators. Both Inuvialuit Elders and community leaders1 talk below about how they see such processes unfolding, at least in an ideal sense. The latter part of this chapter is used as a site to reflect on the process of building a localized critical theory tailored to the Inuvialuit Archaeology Partnership. I revisit the criteria for Habermas’s (1989) “ideal speech situation ” and...

Share