Year:
2016
Website or link to PDF:
PDF The Journey Home - Guiding Intangible Knowledge
Production in the Analysis of Ancestral Remains
An Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Community-Based Initiative
Final Report
by
David M. Schaepe,1 Susan Rowley,2 Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip (Stó:l? House of
Respect Committee) Members,3 with Darlene Weston,4 and Mike Richards5
July 17, 2015
1 Director, Stó:l? Research and Resource Management Centre, Stó:l? Nation; Dave.Schaepe@stolonation.bc.ca
2 Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia; srowley@interchange.ubc.ca
3 Natch (Farley) Antone, the late Ivan McIntyre, Allen Williams, Helen Joe, Herb Joe, Dalton Silver, James Leon, Jeff Point,
Patricia Raymond-Adair, Frank Malloway, Mabel Point, Rose Peters, the late Joe Aleck, Betty Henry, Rhoda Peters, Rose
Peters, Darwin Douglas, Shane John, Alice Thompson, Josette Jim, Andy Phillips, Wendy Ritchie, Amy Victor and Albert
‘Sonny’ McHalsie
4 Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia; dweston@interchange.ubc.ca
5 Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia; mrichards@interchange.ubc.ca
Attribution and Copyright Notice
CCM Attribution NonCommercialMNoDerivs CC BYMNCMND
This research was made possible, in part, through the support of the Intellectual
Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) project, a Major Collaborative
Research Initiative funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada. IPinCH explores the rights, values, and responsibilities
associated with material culture, cultural knowledge and the practice
of heritage research.
www.sfu.ca/ipinch
Lab of Archaeology
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
iii
Table of Contents:
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT METHODS .............................................................................................................. 4
Discussions and Dialogue: Consultation between Cultural / Spiritual Leaders and
Bioanthropologists ...................................................................................................................... 4
Timeline ...................................................................................................................................... 5
METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 6
Journey Home Project Community Forum Presentation – October 23, 2014 ................................. 6
Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip (Stó:l? House of Respect Caretaking Committee) .......... 15
Transcript of a portion of a committee meeting held on March 6th,2013 .................................... 15
Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip (Stó:l? House of Respect Caretaking Committee) .......... 25
Transcript of portion of committee meeting held on 23rd, April, 2015 ........................................ 25
A CONCLUDING THOUGHT ................................................................................................. 48
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... 49
REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................. 49
APPENDIX A – Journey Home PowerPoint – Community Presentation – Oct 23rd, 2014 ..... 51
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
1
INTRODUCTION
This Intellectual Properties in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) case study focuses on issues of
intangible intellectual property rights and knowledge production associated with the
repatriation and analysis of Stó:l? ancestral remains in British Columbia, Canada. It
contributes to the IPinCH project theme of bioarchaeology, specifically. Including associated
burial goods in this project expands its scope to the treatment of tangible as well as
intangible cultural and intellectual properties. The Stó:l? Nation and Stó:l? Tribal Council, via
the Stó:l? Research and Resource Management Centre (SRRMC), worked with the Laboratory
of Archaeology (LOA) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) on the Journey Home
Project, which was a repatriation of their ancestral remains 6(Rowley and Hausler 2008). This
project was motivated by LOA asking the basic question “What does the community want to
do with the remains of their ancestors held at the institution?”
Ancestors in Boxes (2010 David Campion)
Bringing ancestors home is important cultural work in which the Stó:l? have actively engaged
for over a decade (Gough 2004; Schaepe and Joe 2005). It has also been recognized
internationally as one of the rights of Indigenous Peoples throughout the world. Article 12 of
66 The Laboratory of Archaeology at UBC Journey Home Project was started by Susan Rowley in 2004 in order to
engage with communities and discuss, through action, proactive repatriation. This project is carried out in the
Canadian context where repatriation is seen as a moral and ethical expectation of museums based on the 1992
Task Force Report: Turning the Page: Forging New Relationships between Museums and First Peoples (Hill and
Nicks 1992).
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
2
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifically identifies the
“right to the repatriation of human remains” noting that
“2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and
human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms
developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned” (United Nations 2007).
In many cases, the repatriation of ancestral remains has resulted in the interment, without
further research, of the ancestors in their traditional homelands (Rowley and Hausler 2008).
In other cases, especially in the United States, the courts have been asked to determine the
rights of scientists to carry out research on human remains, most famously exemplified in
the Kennewick Man controversy (Burke et al. 2008). In still other cases, authority has been
given to the community to determine what tests can and cannot be run on the remains prior
to repatriation.7
In 2006, LOA representative Susan Rowley asked the Stó:l? what they wanted to do with
their ancestral remains being cared for at LOA. This essential question stimulated years of
discussions over the process for returning these ancestors to their home(s). Dialogue on this
took place and continues to take place at numerous levels and among numerous Stó:l? First
Nations, including those associated with the Stó:l? Nation (SN) and Stó:l? Tribal Council
(STC), and those between organizations, including a Stó:l? cultural advisory body Stó:l?
Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip (The House of Respect Care?taking Committee), the SRRMC
acting for SN and STC, and LOA. At issue here was not the question of whether the remains
should be returned. Instead, the central community?based concern was one of doing things
right, regardless of time frame.
We discussed issues of
protocols surrounding inter?
First Nation interests and
involvement, communityinstitutional
relations,
research, and intellectual
properties derived from
potential scientific analyses of
these ancestors. Control,
authority, and process were
raised as substantial issues
surrounding research
questions. What range of analyses is applicable? Metric? Isotopic? Strontium? DNA?
Radiocarbon dating? Even the simple act of establishing a radiocarbon date has important
cultural considerations. Whose interests does it serve? If a community knows they lived in
the land “since time immemorial” what is the purpose of the radiocarbon date? Is it a
7 For examples, see Agnaiyaaq (Zimmerman et al. 2000), the ancestor from On Your Knees Cave (Sealaska 2005,
Kemp et al. 2007), and Kwaday Dän Ts'inchí (Richards 2007).
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
3
requirement for repatriation or could it alter a determination in favour of repatriation? Who
analyzes the data and who controls the results? What real or perceived impacts could such
“scientific” information have on the community, considering their situation as Aboriginal
peoples without resolution of rights and title issues in British Columbia? 8
This case study thus focused on providing information and developing research guidelines
useful in informing community?institutional relations, the application of research, the
identification of intellectual properties issues, and the sharing of knowledge. An objective of
this work was to provide practical guidelines and protocols serving to identify and navigate
points of common interest and points of contention between scientific and cultural
communities in bioarchaeological analysis and the production of intangible knowledge
derived from the analysis of ancestral remains. Through the identification and clarification of
these issues, the outcomes of this study promise to inform and strengthen this sometimesawkward
relationship on a broader scale.
We especially wanted to present words “as spoken” in this report. Therefore the bulk of the
report consists of verbatim, or lightly edited transcripts of presentations and meetings.
There are four sections. In the first, Project Methods, we outline about the process followed
in this case study. We also discuss the project timeline, the repatriation from LOA, and
decision to undertake non?destructive and destructive analysis.
The next section, The Journey Home Project Community Presentation–October 23rd, 2014, is
an edited transcript of a presentation made to Stó:l? community members. During this
presentation, the process of the project and the biographies of the ancestors, illuminated
through the research of bioanthropologists guided by the Committee and the ancestors,
were shared. The evening began with a meal. Next, Herb Joe introduced the Journey Home
Project, and Dave Schaepe presented the biographies on behalf of the project team.
Afterwards, community members asked questions and the representatives attending from
the Laboratory of Archaeology and the Museum of Vancouver were offered an opportunity
to share the meaning of the project both personally and to their institutions.
The two final sections of the report are Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip (Stó:l? House
of Respect Caretaking Committee), which is a transcript of a portion of a committee meeting
held on March 6th, 2013 and Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip (Stó:l? House of Respect
Caretaking Committee), a transcript of portion of committee meeting held on April 23rd,
2015. These verbatim records provide the reader with a rare opportunity to hear the words
of community members as they reflected on the process, the knowledge gathered, the
relationships developed and the project as a whole.
8 The vast majority of what is now British Columbia is unceded territory of many First Nations. The land was
simply taken over by the Crown and settlers without discussion or treaties.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
4
PROJECT METHODS
Due to the nature of this project and the sensitivity of the subject matter, our project design
remained flexible and fluid. Primarily, we engaged in a long?lasting dialogue among the
members of the project (Dave Schaepe, Sue Rowley, and Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw
Sq’éq’ip Committee). The IPinCH?based project joined with a longer?standing discussion of
repatriating Stó:l? ancestral remains from LOA. A fuller description of the overall
repatriation, coined The Journey Home Project, is provided below.
Discussions and Dialogue: Consultation between Cultural / Spiritual Leaders and
Bioanthropologists
Over the course of the project we engaged in an on?going dialogue among the project
members, including community?based researchers, cultural leaders, practitioners and
shxwlá:m (“Indian Doctors” / spiritual practitioners) from a broad cross?section of Stó:l?
tribes and organizations, together with anthropologists (archaeologists and
bioanthropologists from LOA), to discuss protocols surrounding access, research, health and
safety of researchers and community members, removal and processing of samples, and
appropriate disposal of any samples remaining after analysis. We met on a regular, nearly bimonthly
basis between 2011 and 2015. Questions mentioned above, derived from prior
meetings between these groups, were the focal points of this ongoing dialogue. Meetings
were held both at Stó:l? Nation’s Stó:l? Resource Centre and at UBC’s Laboratory of
Archaeology. The parties worked together to define options for recording, transcribing, and
drafting outcomes of our dialogue for the purpose of sharing knowledge at various levels
ranging from private to public viewership. Permission was also given by the parties for photo
documentation of some of these meetings by professional photographer David Campion for
potential use in this project.
The desire expressed as
“doing things is a good way”
superseded timelines
throughout the project.
Therefore, we were able to
have many lengthy candid
conversations where
learning took place around
the table. Committee
members would share their
knowledge, each listening
carefully to the other, and
building on each others’ words, as they wrestled with thinking through the repatriation and
research process and reframing it in a Stó:l? way.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
5
The on?going dialogue and relationships that developed over time with the researchers
provided an opportunity to discuss issues until a consensus could be reached. Some of our
earliest conversations were information?sharing sessions. What questions did committee
members have about their ancestors? The responses we received included: Who were they?
What family did they belong to? What did they eat? How long ago did they live? Are they our
ancestors? We would rarely respond immediately. Instead we thought about the questions
and the different methods required to answer them. At meetings that followed, the
researchers would share information about the techniques that could be used, both
destructive and non?destructive, to assist with answering their questions.
The difference between non?destructive and destructive analysis led to lengthy discussions
within the committee about cultural protocols. Many members remembered the words of
late Grand Chief Archie Charlie, who said that he would be willing to “give up the tip of his
thumb” to prove his fishing rights. Additionally, committee members communicated directly
with the ancestors, which was accomplished through a burning ceremony, overseen by
shxwlá:m Steven and Gwen Point. After these conversations and lengthy deliberations, the
committee decided to go ahead with destructive analysis of the ancestors’ remains to the
extent needed for both radiocarbon dating and isotope analysis, but only after the ancestors
were resting at home. The committee’s later reflections of this decision can be found in
portions of the transcripts of the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip meetings held on
March, 6th, 2013 and April, 23rd, 2015.
Timeline
Discussions about the journey home of the ancestors commenced in 2006. The formal notice
of intent to repatriate was sent to LOA in September of 2009. A Community Notice
discussing the ancestors returning home was distributed in April of 2011. In September of
2011, LOA sent faxes to relevant First Nations outlining the Stó:l? request. Several First
Nations responded to LOA with questions about the ancestors. One community objected to
the return of a number of the ancestors and so, under LOA policies and with the
understanding of the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip, these ancestors were not
included in the final repatriation request. LOA met to discuss and agree to the repatriation in
October of 2011. The transfer agreement documents were drawn up and signed by UBC
Legal Counsel in the spring of 2012. The repatriation occurred on October 19, 2012. Only
once the ancestors were housed at the SRRMC, did the detailed analysis and removal of
samples for destructive analysis take place. Sampling and analyses were carried out by Dr.
Darlene Weston and Dr. Michael Richards, faculty members of the UBC Department of
Anthropology. Samples were respectfully removed by Dr. Weston, observed by Stó:l?
Nation?SRRMC Cultural Advisor Albert ‘Sonny’ McHalsie. She also carried out the nondestructive
analysis. Dr. Richards was responsible for submitting the samples for both
radiocarbon dating and isotope analysis. Results of the analysis were presented to the
community on October 23, 2014.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
6
METHODS
Journey Home Project Community Forum Presentation by David Schaepe – October 23,
2014
(see Appendix A)
In 2006, the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee was formed as a committee
comprised of individuals from the Stó:l? community throughout S'ólh Téméxw. Members
were selected for their knowledge about Stó:l? culture and traditions. Committee members
since 2006 to the present (September 2015) included: Farley (Natch) Antone, the late Ivan
McIntyre, Allan Williams, Helen Joe, Herb Joe, Dalton Silver, James Leon, Jeff Point, Darwin
Douglas, Patricia Raymond Adair, Frank Malloway, Mabel Point, the late Joe Aleck, Betty
Henry, Rhoda Peters, Rose Peters, Shane John, Alice Thompson, Josette Jim, Andy Phillips,
Wendy Richie, and Amy Victor. Stó:l? First Nations represented by committee?members
include: Kwantlen, Seabird Island, Scowlitz, Tzeachten, Sumas, Sts’ailes, Chawathil, Cheam,
Leq’á:mel, and Skowkale, along with the Stó:l? Nation House of Elders and the Coqualeetza
Cultural Education Centre. The committee was facilitated by staff including David Schaepe
(Director and Senior Archaeologist) as the Chair, Sonny McHalsie (Cultural Advisor and
Historian), and Tia Halstad (Archivist and Librarian).
The purpose of the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee is to take care of
everything that belongs to us. This is a principle and a teaching among the Stó:l?, and in
Halq'eméylem the saying is “S'ólh Téméxw te íkw'élò. Xólhmet te mekw' stám ít kwelát.” This
can be transliterated as “This is our land, we have to take care of everything that belongs to
us.” This key statement provides guidance and direction for the committee’s work in bringing
back or returning things, and undertaking repatriation. The committee also oversees and
provides input into the implementation of the Stó:l? Heritage Policy. Part of this policy looks
at the caretaking of Stó:l? heritage, including ancestral remains, cultural objects and
intellectual properties held in institutions outside the Stó:l? community. Taking care of
things and curating things is linked to the Halq'eméylem term xólhmet, pertaining to Stó:l?
heritage, including the development and implementation of cultural protocols,
organizational frameworks, and other things as needed. The committee also supports the
administration and on?going development of the Stó:l? Heritage Policy and legislation, again,
particularly as it pertains to aspects of repatriation of Stó:l? culture and heritage and to the
interpretation and public presentation of Stó:l? culture and heritage—in large part linked to
our relationships with museums.
The Journey Home project began in 2005, through collaboration with UBC’s Laboratory of
Archaeology, which at the time was holding a number of Stó:l? ancestral remains, taking
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
7
care of them. LOA was involved in a major project with the Museum of Anthropology called
the Partnership of Peoples Project. Stó:l? Nation and Stó:l? Tribal Council were partners in
this project, through the SRRMC. When LOA needed to move the ancestors owing to
construction involving the UBC Museum of Anthropology and LOA repository they reached
out to First Nations including Stó:l? about appropriate ways of doing that. This was the first
step that led to the repatriation of 11 ancestral remains from UBC.9 The outcome of this
initial discussion in 2005 led to the formation of the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip
Committee as a group of cultural knowledge holders who could inform and advise UBC on,
first, what steps to take for the interim relocation of the ancestral remains, and second, on
the type of housing to bring them back to as part of the renovation. Two additional—and
very significant—questions posed by LOA were what do the Stó:l? want to do with the
ancestral remains, and would they be interested in bringing them back home and having
them repatriated? The clear answer to that question was “Yes.”
And so, from 2006 onward, the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee became an
officially formed entity supported by the Stó:l? Tribal Council and Stó:l? Nation. The
committee reached out to LOA with a formal letter requesting the return of ancestral
remains being held. The 11 ancestral remains from UBC were returned to the Stó:l? through
the oversight of the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee. This took a very long
time and significant amounts of work and involvement and discussion around how to do this,
both in terms of addressing questions linked to matters of bioarchaeology and in terms of
analysis and finding out who these individuals are. Ancestors from the Lower Fraser Canyon
who were initially included in the repatriation request to LOA were not able to be returned
due to internal relationships amongst Stó:l? communities. As a result there wasn’t
agreement on bringing those ancestors home. This remains an outstanding issue still to be
addressed, and there is a developing relationship between Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw
Sq’éq’ip Committee and Yale First Nation. We hope that these ancestors will return and be a
continuation of this work.
Five additional ancestors were repatriated from the Museum of Vancouver. This was
accomplished very quickly thanks to the protocols and process developed and established by
the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee in their long and detailed
consideration, prior to the repatriation of ancestors from LOA. In addition to the five
ancestors repatriated from the Museum of Vancouver, and the 11 ancestors recovered from
LOA, there were 11 ancestors already at the Stó:l? Resource Centre. Some of these were
returned from the coroner’s office, some from non?Stó:l? individuals who had them in their
possession, and some from archaeological recovery carried out through Stó:l? Nation in
Stó:l? Territory. All of these individuals were included in the analysis carried out as part of
the Journey Home Project.
9 These ancestors are now in their temporary housing here in Chilliwack at the Stó:l? Resource Centre.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
8
A key question that guided
the committee’s discussions
was: Who are these
individuals? This was an
important question in
formulating the final step of
the journey home since such
knowledge informs us about
how to put these ancestors
away in a respectful way
and in a good way. So the
key question was oriented
to the individuals—Who are they? What can we say about them based on their physical
skeletal remains? Whose family are they a part of, what community are they a part of?
Where do they come from? And what do we need to do to bring them back and
accommodate them as individuals, returning them to a final resting place?
Working with the ancestors was done under strict cultural protocols as determined by the
Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee. These included burning ceremonies and
other ceremonial practices to address the ancestors directly and bring them in the
conversations to get their input in a direct manner.
We also wanted to build biographies for each of these ancestors so we can talk together
about who they are, how they should be put to rest again, and where their final resting
places should be. The committee chose to use certain bioarchaeological methods to help
with this task. Radiocarbon dating provided information on how long ago someone lived.
Isotope analysis gave us insight into the kinds of diet people had. Measurements, x?rays, and
visual analysis helped us to learn about some of their physical attributes, such as height, sex,
physical condition, and health. Additionally, the records associated with these individuals
informed us about where they came from, in some cases quite detailed locations; in other
cases, somewhat more general.
Results
In total, we worked with 27 individuals. In terms of age and sex, there were 13 adult males
or possible males; 9 adults females or possible females; one infant of an unknown sex; two
children of unknown sex; and two adults of unknown sex. The dates give us a range of ages
for these individuals from 500 to 5,500 years ago. And the locations they’re from are all
throughout the central Fraser Valley, in large part up the Chilliwack Valley, from areas
around Scowlitz—communities that are associated with what now would be the
Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe up in the Chilliwack Valley, and along the Fraser Valley along the
Chilliwack River in the vicinity of Yakweakwioose and Skowkale reserves and bands, Sumas
reserve, the main reserve at Sumas Mountain along the River, the Fraser River, the
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
9
community of Scowlitz, along the Harrison River in a few places, the Agassiz area, the base of
Agassiz Mountain, Chawathil in Hope, Chawathil First Nation, in the vicinity of Hope (see final
slide in Appendix A).
Below we share what we learned about these individuals relative to the questions posed
above—Who are these ancestors?; and What did they eat?—to illustrate the type of rich
information enabled by this community?informed approach.
Who are these ancestors?
So who are these ancestors? What can we find out that describes them as people? We
carried out work in collaboration with UBC researchers, Darlene Weston and Mike Richards,
to create biographies for these individuals. These were based on the following information: a
description of physical remains (including age, sex, size or stature, and physical condition);
an analysis of bone chemistry to provide information about diet at the level of a marine or
terrestrial diet; a determination of age by using radiocarbon dating to find out how long ago
they died; and information on how and where the remains were recovered. None of the
ancestors were complete: some are only represented by a single bone. Some information,
such as sex or height can only be determined with particular bones, meaning that the
biographies vary in detail. What follows is a brief biography of each individual, organized by
the area where they were located:
Líyómxetal
From Líyómxetal 10 also known as Devil’s Run, there are three ancestors. The first individual
dates to about 2,579 years ago. He was an adult male with large muscle attachments on his
arms, meaning he was very muscular.
The second individual, whose remains included a skull and foot bones, died about 2,397
years ago. He was between 36 and 45 years old when he died. He had a shaped skull, a
flattened forehead from the use of a cradleboard. This man’s remains were identified and
recovered through archaeological work carried out in 2002 by Stó:l? Nation (Schaepe et al
2002). He was reburied at the Sumas cemetery on the eastern point of Sumas Mountain in
2002. Samples of bone taken in 2002 and housed in the Stó:l? Repository since then for the
purpose of future study were processed as part of our analyses.
The third individual is represented only by one right lower second molar. These teeth erupt
when a child is between 7 and 9 years old. While we do know that this child lost a tooth we
do not know if she/he lived or died as it is possible to lose a tooth and live.
10 Borden Number DgRm?1 (Borden Numbers are a Canada?wide numbering system for archaeological sites).
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
10
Abbotsford Area
From Sumas Reserve on the south side of Sumas Mountain11 we have a skull from an
individual who passed away about 989 years ago. He died as an adult male when he was
about 30+ years old. He also had a shaped skull, flattened from the use of a cradleboard. A
second individual from the Sumas Mountain area, near the Sumas Reserve for whom we had
a skull only, dated to 1,413 years ago. This person, possibly a male, was between 36 and 45
years old when he died. The skull was purposefully shaped with a flattened forehead from
the use of a cradleboard.
From the Abbotsford area west of Sumas Mountain, we have the remains of an individual
that included a skull, arm bones, rib fragments, and parts of a spine. This person passed
away about 679 years ago. He was an adult male between 26 and 35 years old, and was
about 164 cm (5’, 4.5”) tall. He had a cradleboard?flattened forehead. The muscle
attachments on his arms indicate that he had powerful arm muscles. There is evidence of
some arthritis of the spine. His teeth were extremely worn and there were indications of
dental disease: a pulp cavity had become exposed resulting in two abscesses.
Also from the Abbotsford area was a skull fragment from an adult of unknown sex, dating
back to 849 years ago.
Another individual was a child between 4 and 5 years old who passed away about 884 years
ago. There is only a jaw fragment from this child. Also from the Abbotsford area is an
individual who was returned from the coroner’s office. There are only jaw fragments from
this individual. This ancestor is a child who was about two years old and died about 620
years ago.
The last from the area is individual returned from the coroner’s office as found human
remains including a skull and long bone fragments. This is an adult, possible male, between
36 and 45 years old. This person was 156 cm (5’,1.75”) tall. The teeth were extremely worn.
This person passed away about 2,840 years ago.
Scowlitz / Harrison Mills Area
From Scowlitz12 there are two individuals. The first is probably an adult female who passed
away about 213 years ago. She was 153 cm (5’,0.23”) tall. The second is an infant. The few
teeth we have tell us that this infant passed away at an age of 3?6 months.
Two people were recovered from burial mounds in Harrison Mills. From them we were able
to determine longer biographies. The first lived about 1,292 years ago. He was an adult male
who passed away when he was older than 46 years old. He had poor dental hygiene, as
revealed by lots of tartar on his teeth, which were very worn. In addition he had severe
osteoarthritis; the upper six vertebrae of his neck were fused to his skull and he would have
11 Borden Number DgRn?2.
12 Borden Number DhRl?16.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
11
had mobility issues. He was buried with dentalia shell beads; copper staining inside his lower
jawbone also indicates that he was buried with copper in his mouth.
The second person from Harrison Mills was an adult female who lived about 1,189 years ago
and was 36?45 years old when she passed away. Her skull had been shaped by flattening the
forehead with a cradleboard. Her teeth were very worn. She also had copper staining on the
inside of her mouth and on the outside of her face indicating her status and high respect
paid to her.
Agassiz
From the Agassiz area there is one ancestor, an adult female who passed away about 793
years ago. She had a shaped skull from the use of a cradleboard to flatten her forehead. Her
arm bones indicate that she had powerful arm muscles.
Chilliwack
From the Chilliwack area there are four ancestors. The first was possibly male and died
between the ages of 26–35 years old. Some of his teeth show heavy wear. He died about 873
years ago.
The second was an adult woman who was between the ages of 26 and 35 when she died.
She lived about 907 years ago.
The third ancestor is known only from leg bones. We know this person was an adult who
died about 887 years ago. This person had a condition known as osteochodritis dessicans.
This means the blood flow to their knee joint was disrupted at some time due to trauma,
circulation problems, developmental problems, a genetic condition, or a combination of all
these factors. In addition, this individual suffered trauma just above the ankle causing bone
spurs to grow.
The fourth individual is an adult woman who lived about 1,019 years ago. Although we only
have a leg bone form this woman, much can still learned about her life. For example, she had
a long?lasting bone infection with a small hole in her lower leg bone (which allowed the body
to drain pus). She would have required long?term care because of this condition. An x?ray
revealed that her infection was not caused by a broken bone.
Chilliwack River Valley
There are four individuals from caves in the Chilliwack Valley. These are the oldest
individuals in terms of how long ago they lived. The first was recovered from Sepulcher
Cave.13 He is an adult male who had lost all of his upper teeth by the time he passed away
and an age of over 46 about 5,173 years ago.
13 Borden Number DgRk?8a.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
12
The other three individuals were recovered from Renaissance Cave.14 They are three adults.
One is an adult woman who was between 26 and 35 years old when she passed away about
5,286 years ago. She still had her baby teeth at that time. Another is an adult male who died
about 5,318 years ago. The last is a young adult woman who died when she was between 18
and 25 years old. She was 151.7 cm (4’11.6”) tall. Her teeth were worn from use. Dating lets
us know that she died about 5,259 years ago.
Hatzic
A single individual comes from Hatzic. She was a woman whose forehead had been flattened
using a cradleboard. Her skull also showed signs of a possible well?healed fracture. Her teeth
were very worn. She passed away when she was between 26 and 35 years old about 2,054
years ago.
Whonnock
This ancestor was a young adult between 18 and 25 years old when she died about 889 years
ago. Her skull had been shaped using a cradleboard. Around her eye sockets the bone shows
signs of something called cribra orbitalia, which is an indication of a nutritional deficiency in
her diet.
Hope
A possible male, aged 25?36 was recovered from the Hope area. This individual died about
891 years ago and had very pronounced skull shaping from a cradleboard. Several stone
tools were found nearby, which may have been buried with him.
Lower Fraser Canyon
From X?elhálh is another ancestor, a possible male who was over 30 when he passed away.
Only skull fragments were recovered. He lived about 1,212 years ago.
“Fraser Valley”
One individual has a very general location. All we know is that this individual is from the
Fraser Valley. This ancestor is a possible male, aged between 26 and 35, who passed away
about 761 years ago.
What did these ancestors eat?
All but one of the ancestors had a diet of 75% or more marine protein. Marine protein in
this region come from from salmon. The isotopic analyses we carried out show that these
ancestors had a similar diet, including the most ancient of the individuals dating to about
5,400 years ago, and who were from the Chilliwack River Valley.
14 Borden Number DgRk?8a.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
13
One ancestor—an adult female from Scowlitz—had a diet that was terrestrial in nature and
showed no signs of eating salmon. As is the case now, individuals have particular dietary,
patterns, and so this is a point of interest. Why did she not eat salmon? In her case, having
such a distinct diet, this information helps determine what is appropriate in the process,
protocols and ceremonial requirements needed to bring this individual home and put her
away for good. In her case, we wouldn’t be providing salmon in the ceremonial burning of
food. This is a consideration relating to decisions about their final return and commitment to
resting place. For all of the other ancestors, burning salmon in the fire and feeding them
salmon would be an appropriate type of meal that they would be familiar with and
appreciate.
At this time (July, 2015) all of these ancestors have been brought back to the Stó:l? Resource
Centre as the next step in the Journey Home. The information from these analyses now can
inform the communities about what they want to do in taking the final step in bringing the
ancestors back to where they need to be put away for good, final resting place.
Still to complete the journey are seven ancestors from the lower Fraser Canyon, the remains
of those whom are still in the care of LOA. Accomplishing this requires working together with
the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee and Yale First Nation to bring them
home.
Post?script to the Presentation
As a result of the community presentation in October 2014, a positive connection was
established between groups attending the gathering, leading to a suggestion to sit and talk
and work out ways in which the individuals from the Canyon, like the others, could be
repatriated back home. The final steps of the journey home are to be completed soon for the
27 individual who have been repatriated and for whom we created bioarchaeological
biographies. Based on input from the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee and
the Stó:l? communities at large, as well as the ancestors we’re dealing with, the work that
was carried out was done in a very good way. This work has resulted in the creation of new
information that has informed this process as it progressed. This information has also proved
useful to the Stó:l? communities, community?based researchers, and academic researchers
in a variety of ways.
Taking Stock of Accomplishments
The interaction and relationships among the researchers, the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw
Sq’éq’ip members, and the communities at large led to a set of questions being asked.
Information was then gathered around the context, the life and biographies of the
individuals, and the information coming from the skeletal remains of these ancestors, not
only pertaining to them but also to the larger population of individuals in this area. This
knowledge was derived from questions and interests that were developed collectively by
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
14
community members and researchers. The relationship ultimately led to a greater gathering
of information than would have been possible with either group working in isolation. The
process of including intangible knowledge and intangible heritage, and also of creating
knowledge through the process of addressing and dealing with ancestors and applying
archaeological methods and analyses, has been transformed by the relationship between
community?based and academic researchers, Stó:l? community members and the individual
ancestors themselves. These parties stimulated each other’s thinking in ways that went
beyond the initial framework of each of those groups.
To demonstrate this important outcome, what follows are the transcripts of two meetings of
the Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip Committee. The first was held on March 6th, 2013,
during which members discussed the process to date, the second on April 23rd, 2015, when
the committee reflected on the Journey Home.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
15
Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip
(Stó:l? House of Respect Caretaking Committee)
Transcript of a portion of a committee meeting held on March 6th,201315
Present at this meeting: David Schaepe, Tia Halstad, the late Ivan McIntyre, Allen Williams,
Frank Malloway, Jeff Point, Mabel Point, Patricia Raymond?Adair, Andy Phillips, Albert
(Sonny) McHalsie, and Lou Hall.
Dave Schaepe (SRRMC; Committee Chair): As we write this up, it would be helpful if
everyone is okay, with recording this conversation—as we talk about questions—as a group
interview. We’ll likely also come back to talk about this individually with folks—some of
these points as we work up more questions. Does anyone here have any concerns with being
recorded? Is everybody okay with being recorded today?
Tia Halstad (SRRMC; Committee Support Staff): I’ll get people to sign this [consent form],
please, and I’ve [started] the recording. So I’m just going to pass this piece of paper around
to be signed. [Consensus was that it would be okay to record and everyone signed the
consent form.]
Ivan McIntyre (Seabird Island First Nation): Just wanted to mention about what Frank was
talking about [in an earlier part of the meeting]. I was kind of concerned about it too, [about]
ownership of these ancestors and information that we can use. Because today they tell us
that we don’t own nothing and all this information that we’re gathering here, like what Frank
said, he wants to use it with the treaty. This would be something it would be good for, real
helpful, for trying to get our rights back for our children. It won’t really benefit us, but would
benefit our children. This is something we should be thinking about: using this information.
Especially if it is over 5,000 years old—that proves more ownership than anything. We
should go a little bit farther with it, especially the information that we can use.
Allen Willams (Scowlitz First Nation): Not knowing our history, this [new information] would
be really good for teaching our young ones too if we get this maybe put on paper or
something like that.. My nephew works in the school district in Mission; they really want to
know about our people, especially the young Natives that are there. Because it’s not being
taught at home anymore. The only real people that know about our history and everything is
our elders, like we had to learn through the sxwó:yxwey, our mask; and everything we need
to know we had to go back to our elders and learn. A lot of our young children nowadays,
they get to learn a little bit of the language in school. They have a few people that go in and
teach them for a while. It’s just like everything else that we learned—they teach us for a
15 Transcribed by Tia Halstad, SRRMC, Archivist & Librarian. When a section of the tape is inaudible it is
indicated by “...”. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
16
while and then they quit. A lot of things that come to us are taught to us a little bit and all of
a sudden there’s nothing there. And where do we go? We’ve had our language, our culture
taught to us to a certain extent and [then] all of a sudden there’s nothing, nobody there to
teach us anything anymore. But it breaks down to them dollars. A lot of our people put their
hands out before they want to bring different stuff. … When I was on chief and council, they
had information that they wouldn’t bring forward that they got from different places. Unless
the people brought them money, they hide that information. Don’t know whatever
happened to it; a lot of it was language, a lot of our place names were written in native and
stuff like that. I don’t know where it disappeared. I just hope we can find some way of
passing all this information that we learn on to our young ones. That was the reason I
brought up saying our prayer in our native tongue. That will help us to learn it; maybe we
can pass it on to the younger ones, our younger ones. You know, we got a lot of learning to
do ... our language, a lot of us know a bit about our culture but [it] seems every time we talk
something comes up that we’re learning more. O Si:yá:m.
Dave: Great. There’s a couple of big questions, one of which is, What are the benefits? This is
new information coming from your ancestors’ bones directly, provided by their bones. It’s
new information; we get at it through analysis. One of those questions then is of this new
information, What benefit is it to you? How can it be used in a way that’s useful, in a positive
way? Another question is what are the concerns around bringing this new information out?
So I think there are two major questions in my mind that I’m hearing you speak of, both of
you, Ivan and Allen, speaking to parts of the usefulness of the information, the benefit of the
information… What are the benefits of this new information that we have now coming from
the ancestors? I’ll put that out there for others to think about and talk to… if anyone else has
anything else to share.
Frank Malloway (Yakweakwioose First Nation): Couldn’t we have a press release on the age
of that skull that was found?
Dave: Certainly, that’s an outcome.
Frank: Wouldn’t mind seeing it in the Chilliwack paper. But it’s something that we’ve been
trying to prove for so long. That’s where we come from, the Chilliwack Tribe.
Dave: So that would be useful—to let the public know.
Frank: Yeah, they always say, well, “You don’t belong up there, you got no reservation up
there”… just...my ancestor.
Dave: Certainly, we can do that. That information allows us to put a piece together that we
can put out in the press to let people know that there’s this evidence that goes back now
5,000 years, at least, if not possibly 7,000 years of occupation in the Chilliwack Valley. What
I’m hearing you say is that’s useful to you, useful to the Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe in bringing
attention to that long?term occupation and use… that physical evidence of long?term
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
17
occupation of the Chilliwack Valley, [because] there isn’t an understanding of that history [at
present].
Frank: I’d like to see a write up so we can have it on file in the Chilliwack Tribe office. You
know, you’d see how they can use it.
Dave: What do you think, Siyémches [aka, Frank], in terms of how you see this information
being used generally? How could it be used by the tribe to benefit the tribe?
Frank: I think it would have been really useful when we were trying to protect Sweltzer
Creek to know that was a cultural site.
Jeff Point (Skowkale First Nation): And the army base.
Frank: Yeah, the army base up there. The forestry... you know we’ve got pretty well mostly
control in the forestry now but, you know, there’s a lot of work to be done yet. I think Matt
Wealick said we’ve got control of 85% or something of the forestry. Pushed two logging
companies out. Only got one to deal with because of pushing our tribal territory. They sold
their logging outfits just to get away from fighting with us. And I think that using that
information we could prove that our people were there, long before Columbus came.
Jeff: Long before they made reserves. That’s what the court would say.
Ivan: I think it would be useful to all of our people, not just certain tribes...all over North
America.
Jeff: I wonder if it would be a good idea to get permission, or some sort of permission from
the others if we’re going to use this information publicly. Do we need their right to do that?
Dave: Whose right?
Jeff: The individuals that belong to different bands.
Dave: That’s a good question. Putting this out there publicly, using the information, brings
up the question of how can we use the information? Who, what do you need for consent?
Do you need anybody? Whose consent do you need to put this out there publicly? That’s a
question to the board, [to] you guys really. What do you think? I mean, you’ve got… let’s
look at some examples. We have ancestors from Scowlitz, clearly they come from the area.
Scowlitz, come from the area of Semá:th, come from the area of the Ts'elxwéyeqw Valley.
What are your thoughts? Is there a need to get permission to use information from the
ancestor from Semá:th from the Semá:th community or is it just generally available for
people to use?
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
18
Allen: That’s a toss?up because we were all one people at one time, we were all Stó:l?
...[including] Yale [First Nation].
Mabel Point (Sts’ailes First Nation): We just got broken up when they made the
reservations.
Dave: […] How would you look at this to decide that? Is there a way to look at this where
there’s any kind of principles behind it? Anything you can relate it to today that works?
Where you know clearly that you have to go talk to somebody about using information? Is
there something you see as a similar process or something similar to what we’re looking at
here with ancestral remains?
Jeff: I think we have to. We learned something here when we first started, like Yale pulling
out. I think that’s a very touchy situation that we’re in and I know Siyémches, he would have
probably [have needed] clearance from the tribe just for the information to be brought out
front for the treaty process. Whether I want to use any of Semá:th’s information is another
thing. I mean, do I need their permission to do it? So we went down this road already and we
got stopped. I assume, that just to be on the proper road, this information is, right now, is
concealed, right? It’s not exposed, it’s just to us right here.
Dave: At this point, it’s private, so the question is, then… can it be made public, how can it be
made public?
Jeff: I think the rest of the Bands that’s involved will have to sign up to say it’s [ok]… Well,
I’m sure it’s going to go into the archives here for others to use at some point right?
Dave: The information could come and we could house it in the archives, however the
archives is generally a public thing unless it’s identified as confidential or restricted.
Jeff: And that’s where it lies, right?
Dave: Yeah
Tia: But I would need direction from the committee or from the bands that yes, this is public
information, I can share it with researchers or no, this is private information for your band
only. So that’s a decision that would have to be made at this level. I wouldn’t feel
comfortable doing that as the archivist.
Jeff: I like what Allen said. We were all one people before. A lot of people don’t think like
that, a lot of bands don’t think that way. We’ve been down that road so, I mean, if we can
get a clear direction from each one that signed up for this repatriation committee that
information is educational and can be used as a public…
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
19
Allen: It’s pretty tough right now—anybody’s on the other side of our reserve boundary,
you’re not part of us, you can’t have any say in what anybody does on this side of that line…
kind of thing. How do we bring everybody together to work on something like this? It’s even
hard getting information out to the people that we have already.
Jeff: I think our committee here wasn’t blindfolded when we came into this. We knew it was
going to go into the archives and be shared with the people for education.
Dave: Right, I’ve heard you say that clearly, that this group wanted these biographies to be
written, to be shared with the youth particularly, as part of the process, part of bringing
these ancestors home, and what you had envisioned as part of the next step, of launching
the next step. When we get everything together we’d have a celebration of sorts, […] or at
least a gathering, where we would bring out these biographies and share them with whoever
is in attendance, so in a public forum, at least orally, for the sake of educating people and
particularly the youth. I guess the question would be what makes it private vs public to begin
with. I’m hearing you talk about a community’s relationship to an ancestor and the
information that comes from the ancestor. Is it a matter of where the ancestor is found,
where they’re buried, so where that ancestral remains come from? Is it a matter of the age
of the ancestor? Or is it a combination of things like that? So you have, you can take for
example, […] those skulls from those ancestors in the Chilliwack Valley, found in those caves,
we know definitely that’s where they’re from. We know their age is at least 5000 years old.
[…] We know where they come from, Chilliwack Valley—it’s a link to the Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe.
Does the age then matter – 7000, 5000 years old? Does that make a difference in whether
you see it as linked directly to the Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe or is that something that’s a factor,
that makes it more broadly connected to the Stó:l? as a whole? How do you determine
whether something is individually owned, or family owned or tribally owned or [owned by]
everybody?
Jeff: I think that the Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe would want it to be known as theirs, from the way
that they’re moving their tribe along, how they’re situated. So they’d want this information
for themselves, but if they wish to share it. It’s a real sticker, isn’t it? Especially when we got
stung by Yale already. I don’t think anybody else would do that but ...
Dave: So what is it about that? What do you see that makes it a sticking point? Can you talk a
bit more about your thinking when you say “the Yale issue”, what [is] in that issue that you
don’t want to repeat or that you’d want to avoid?
Jeff: Well, they didn’t want us taking their private information that was all theirs; they said,
stay away.
Dave: Why do you disagree with that?
Jeff: Well, if we’re all one people we should have been able to do this, right? If we think that
way? But somebody drew a line because it is an Indian Band.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
20
Ivan: Myself, I kind of see it ... everybody, one people, one family.
Jeff: Hopefully we still see it that way.
Ivan: But this is partly the fear you’re talking about. They wonder: where are we going?
That’s out there too. So it has to be brought out to the Bands to get their support.
Dave: Can you talk to us more about the fear side? What is it that’s behind the fear of this
information? Of what we’re doing?
Ivan: Well, just like, something like the ownership, the way Frank’s talking about the
Chilliwack Tribes, or Yale’s. Little bit of talk out there about “what are they doing?” This is
the information we’ve got to get out to the people to get them onside because I see this
benefitting everybody. If we go to the government now they tell us we don’t own nothing.
So this information ... that we were here before anybody else was around, if that’s not
ownership what else is? You see, in the past, before contact, we had laws too. As far as I’m
concerned as an elder, our laws should supersede anybody else’s laws—this is the way I look
at it. That’s been coming across spiritually through the ancestors. Right now, today, we’re
getting back our ancestors...
Dave: So part of the fear is people not knowing what’s going on
Allen: Yeah, that is the biggest fear out there I think. A lot of the bands that don’t participate
in this table don’t really know what we’re doing. It’s like when we tried to send that letter
out nobody responded. “What is this?” they were probably saying. So it hit somebody’s desk
and it stayed there.
Ivan: They don’t even know where to get it.
Dave: So, we have this thing where new information is coming out that causes some fear in
communities because they don’t know, they don’t have the information about what’s
happening with this new information. So new information requires communications to
inform people what’s happening.
Patricia Raymond?Adair: I think that’s what the idea of this committee was too. Each of us is
responsible to share that information out into the community and the bands, where it’s not
just two people that are doing that, but that we all have a responsibility to share what we’ve
been working on the past number of years, to bring it out too.
Ivan: But we also have to careful what we bring out—can’t just go out there and talk about
it.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
21
Patricia: Nope, but if people are asking questions, that opens the conversation too. If they’re
making comments or statements, that then engages us to making the discussion, opening
discussion.
Dave: So, if there’s a need to be careful, there’s a need to bring information out, but there’s
also a need to be careful of what information is brought out, what’s the part we need to be
careful [about]? Is there something particular that you see as the careful part?
Jeff: Well, I think being careful about the whole thing, is that… Chilliwack Tribes has the right
to that information, to share it the way they want to, but somebody from Semá:th maybe
don’t have that right, or from somewhere else, unless they say it, give that right to them to
use. Especially the 5,000 year thing. We all need to hear that. It’s all information for
everybody to share that, that is a big moving stone right there, a big stepping stone for us, to
know that over 5,000 years ago this whole valley belonged to the First Nations because of
that one. It’s very important but I believe that lies with them to share that.
Andy: So it sounds like what you guys are saying is that you want to have this information
out there, but you’re afraid [that] if some people get a hold of it they’re going to claim it as
theirs and then use it as a land claim. That’s what I hear from that, you’re…
Jeff: And which is totally their right because it belongs to them; if they’re willing to share
that with the rest of us that’d be good. Like we’re saying, we’re all one people.
Ivan: Because it should benefit everybody.
Allen: Yeah, we’re trying to be one people but we can’t quit making lines. There’s always
them lines—“there to there, that’s his, that’s mine, that’s yours” kind of thing. Whenever we
can wipe those off and be one people again that’s when we’re going to start really working
together.
Frank: I don’t think we can ever erase those lines because they’ve been there from time
immemorial, because you know, we’re all one people, we’re Stó:l?, but you know we still
held our tribal territories. You can go read in the archives, there are stories told by our
elders, maybe 75 years ago, that the Sumas and Chilliwack Tribe had a war. You know the
Sumas tribe were fighting for more territory and the elder that was telling the story, he said:
“he was your own cousin, he was related to us but he come up here raiding us.” You know,
but the coast tribes, they come together as one and they fought the coast tribes. But you
know, you get home, and you put that line there—that’s my territory—because we
recognized each tribe, and I’m glad they did because we wouldn’t [know] who the hell are
we today if they didn’t do that, you know. There’s a Tait, or Tít, we’re proud of that. I’m
Ts'elxwéyeqw and I’m proud of that, and he’s [Jeff Point] Ts'elxwéyeqw and Sumas—he’s
fighting himself. But just for the ones that are sitting here and listening, coming up with
different names… the Chilliwack Tribe, you know, we weren’t really organized until Steven
Point brought us together about 30 years ago because the Department of Indian Affairs were
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
22
leasing out land that belonged to all the bands, seven Chilliwack Tribe Bands and two Pilalt.
And he brought us together to discuss things that the Department of Indian Affairs was
doing, leaving us out of the decisions. So we started with the Grass Reserve, started as
committee, and kept going, getting more things done here. But even our Chiefs at our
circle… we had a chief from down below, you know, we were talking about, Chilliwack Tribe
members were going to back out of the Stó:l? Nation, Tribal Council. One of the chiefs from
down there said if Chilliwack Tribe wants to jump out, jump out. And we’re looking around….
there was nine members, or eight members, or seven members in the Chilliwack Tribe. If we
all walked out the door [there would be] only two at the table, two chiefs at the table, or
three with Popkum. There was Sumas, Matsqui and Popkum, that was the only ones would
have been left at the table if the Chilliwack Tribe walked out. So there was a lot of education
to do, [about] who is Chilliwack Tribe—there’s seven Bands and I don’t like to use the word
Band. I know Tia was just finished talking about Bands. I’m trying to educate everybody ?
tribal members, tribes. But you know, those lines, those tribal lines, they’re important; even
when Kenny Malloway was doing specific claims, he knew where the Sumas line was, and it’s
before you get to Vedder Canal. A lot of people thought the Vedder Canal was the boundary,
and Kenny said no, it’s before you get to Vedder Canal; the canal’s in Sumas territory.
Allen: Leq’á:mel, supposed to be.
Frank: Leq’á:mel, well at one time they were just one—Sumas—then old Sam Kelly told me it
was around 1924 the Department of Indian Affairs split them up. Leq’á:mel got most of the
land on this side of the river, three reserves, four reserves right in Bowman’s area. That was
what I wanted to express you know, that those tribal territory lines are good, and I hope they
never get moved. Because we all know we’re Stó:l?, but we still have our own tribal territory
to protect.
Dave: Question then is, if I could ask, when does it become a family matter? I’m hearing you
say there is a tribal relationship for where an individual comes from and within a time frame
going back 5000 years. At what point does it become a family—move to the family to
become the group—the people who decide whether the information can be shared, how
and if it can be shared?
Frank: I think that when you’re talking about family you’re talking about a really extended
family. When T’xwelátse was moved here, we had people from the United States, way up
island, the grandmothers. That’s a large area to cover, [to] talk about family.
Jeff: If we only can tie that to one family. If you can do that, you’ve got something going
there.
Patricia: ... DNA ...
Mabel: I think family rights become spiritual rights, that’s where we’re kind of dividing the
line there.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
23
Albert (Sonny) McHalsie (SRRMC, Cultural Advisor & Committee Support Staff): I think
what we need to do is look at how: how do we do, when we lose a loved one now, what
happens now? So we talk about family. To me it seems like ancestors from thousands of
years ago, if they’re in Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe, it seems like the Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe would be
the family. Because you’re not going to be able to go and say, okay, it’s a Point ancestor, it’s
a Malloway ancestor, or whatever; it’s probably all of them. I’d see them as the family. And
so, today, when we lose a loved one, then it’s the family that decides what they’re going to
do, how they’re going to take care of their loved one. And everybody, you have people that
will go to visit the family, and try to guide them, speak to them, telling them this is how we
should do it, but in the end, the family is the one that decides what they do with a loved one,
how they’re going to deal with it, whether they’re going to cremate them, whether they’re
going to bury them, whatever. You can go and talk to them as much as you want but
whatever they decide it seems to me that the family has the ultimate authority to decide
what they’re going to do with it. But, it still crosses over; because family [is] still is obligated
to recognize that in their mourning, they can’t take care of everything themselves, and that’s
why today you have all these other relatives from other places coming to the home and
helping out, and same with the funeral. The family backs up and lets all these other people ...
the family sits there and watches the other people bury their loved one.
So I think that’s what, that seems to me what should happen now—so we look at that
ancestor from Ts'elxwéyeqw Tribe, they’re the family, they decide what they’re going to do,
but in the end they step back and they count on the rest of the relatives from all over to
come over and help them do their work. That’s the way I see it.
Lou: This committee that you have here right now, you’re helping all these other tribes,
you’re trying to get information out there as best as you can, learning more knowledge, and
hopefully it’ll get back. So that’s kind of like the same thing you’re saying. This is what you’re
doing here, you’re educating the people which is a good thing. Too bad border lines are
there, it’s really touchy.
Sonny: Because that’s how I look at it with the Yale ancestors. I think it’s the Tít, the Tít is the
family not the Yale Indian band and the Yale Indian Band shouldn’t have been able to stop us
taking care of our ancestors because those ancestors... that’s where my great?great?greatgrandfather
was buried, in the same spot where they found that [ancestral remains], and I
have ancestors all over, relatives all over in Seabird and Popkum, Chawathil, Ruby Creek, all
over the place. So all those, all my relatives, go right back to that same place where those
ancestral remains were taken from. And yet, to have some of my relatives—because the Yale
members are my relatives as well—being able to stop that, it’s not right to me.
Jeff: That’s the way I thought, because I’ve got uncles up there. I thought that very strange
how they could do that to us. Don’t want to repeat it again. We’ve done that. It happened to
us already so we’ve got to be very careful how we move ... the information.
Allen: That’s our relatives up there too.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
24
Mabel: And yet we have no say on what’s going on up there.
Jeff: And you see where the stone lies, could end up in the same problem again. Hope not.
Got to have the best thoughts we can about the whole thing.
Dave: So is it important then if the tribe is acting as the extended family, taking care of these
ancestors, making decisions, deciding what to do, that they’re also considering the effect on
others? Is that an important consideration?
Jeff: Each member tribe should be that way.
Dave: One question, maybe it’s a question for another time, but talking about the
importance of having the information, the importance of sharing the information, the
importance of proper decision making around the use of that information ... why was it
important to gather the information to begin with? We talked about that there wasn’t a
need to do this. It wasn’t a requirement in bringing these ancestors home to gather this new
[knowledge], to do the work that resulted in this new information. Having done that, it
triggers all these other questions. To go back to the original decision to gather the
information, can you talk a bit about why that was important? What was it that caused you
to decide that we needed to do that, to do the work to gather this information about those
individuals?
Jeff: I think Allen hit a nerve there about teaching, our ways, of [how] our people used to live
this [way], and I think that this sheds a lot of light on what did they eat, where did they
travel, are they originally from there or did someone just bury somebody there or put
somebody there because of a war or something, or passing through? It’s real good
information to find out [about] the Chilliwack tribes ?? that’s a real important thing there;
they can relate to that, to how far back they [go]..., to me it’s real good information for them
to come together as a family and say look, we’ve been here over 5,000 years.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
25
Stó:l? Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip
(Stó:l? House of Respect Caretaking Committee)
Transcript of portion of committee meeting held on 23rd, April, 201516
Present at the meeting: David Schaepe, Jeff Point, Herb Joe, Dalton Silver, Rose Peters.
Rhoda Peters, Jeffrey Point, Herb Joe, Siyémches (Frank Malloway), Tia Halstad, Naxaxalhts’i
(Sonny McHalsie) from Shxw’owhamel , Patricia Raymond?Adair, and Susan Rowley
David Schaepe: This is Dave Schaepe, it’s April 23rd, here with the House of Respect
Caretaking Committee, and we are with Sue Rowley [and] myself, as co?directors of the
IPinCH Journey Home Project, carrying out a wrap up interview with the committee
members. We’re going to do a verbal consent to being interviewed, recognizing that the
information provided by any of the individuals here in this group interview will be
maintained by those individuals and that everyone will have a chance to review a transcript
of the interview, make comments on it, edit it and exclude any information that they feel is
inappropriate to be put into the public realm. The goal today is to do a wrap up summary
interview to conclude the Journey Home project—the IPinCH side of the project—and to get
the views of the members who have been involved in this as key to the whole process from
the very beginning, and to use that information in the final report which will be put out into
the public realm to inform everybody out there in the world who is interested in this work,
particularly other Indigenous peoples who have similar interests in working with ancestors
and ancestral remains. So if there’s any concern with that, please express that concern at
this point, and if there isn’t any, we’ll carry on.
Okay, so we’ve got a ‘Stó:l? nod’ [i.e., silent approval] from around the table: all in
agreement with consent to carry on. We’ll start with ... I’ll put some questions out there,
some thoughts for conversation. To begin with, this one:
What were your biggest concerns moving forward with the idea of doing analyses on your
ancestral remains for the sake of gathering information about their diet, their age, and so
on? What were you biggest concerns when we first brought this up and introduced the idea
to you?
Jeff Point: Exactly what Siyémches (Frank Malloway) said about disturbing the remains of
our ancestors, that something would come back on us. But after we kept on going through it,
it felt like, when we went out there to see them, every time we went there, they were
comfortable with our ideas. That’s what I gathered. And so, then we had a burning, [...] it
made it more obvious that they were okay with us doing this. It’s not like we went in there
intentionally and started chopping them up. I think our minds asked if we could do it
somehow or another. But that was my concern.
16 Transcribed by Robby Smoker?Peters (SRRMC, Research Assistant) and Tia Halstad (SRRMC, Archivist &
Librarian). The transcription has been lightly edited for clarity.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
26
Herb Joe: I think my main concern was not so much about us on the committee participating
and working towards having our ancestors back home. I was more concerned about our
general Stó:l? population and some of the beliefs that they have about being involved with
the ancestors. Mostly fear mongering, and that kind of issue in the community. And again,
once we got going, and we had a couple of instances to inform the communities of what we
were doing and how we were doing it, that concern of mine was cleared up pretty quickly.
When we didn’t get any real negative feedback from our communities … other than Yale
refusing to participate, I don’t think there was any negative feedback at all. So at that point, I
was completely okay with what we were doing and how we were doing it. Like our House of
Respect, that whole, I guess, concept of what this committee was put together [for], and
how we were going to do the work, and it was based on respect, universal respect. Respect
for our communities and their beliefs, as well as our ancestors. The two elders here were
talking about our belief systems with regard to how we respect and treat the ancestors.
There are potential negative consequences if we don’t follow that traditional way of
approaching our ancestors—and of course that is with respect. I’m okay with that.
Dave: What kind of consequences could there be if things aren’t done properly?
Herb: Well, like Siyémches was saying, it’s like if you don’t respect the protocols and
traditions and customs of the people with regard to taking care of our ancestors. Like a
simple thing—like you lay them to rest and you leave them there, and you don’t disturb
them and if they’re disturbed, there are negative consequences that could happen. The
ancestors might misinterpret what was going on, and negative things could happen to the
ones who [work with] the ancestors. Siyémches just described one of the things that could
happen to families, and in talking to my wife’s family not too long ago, because we did a
memorial for my wife’s nephew, we had occasion to bring a very large portion of her
biological family together, extended family, and that was one of the issues that were talked
about: about the negative things happening to those who choose to disturb or disrespect the
ancestors. And one of the stories was, “ Oh yes, there’s this one family went in and they
were all drunk and they went into a cemetery and they were sitting on the graves drinking,
and they actually ended up pushing over one of the headstones, and they were all partying.
And within a year, two, I think it was two. Two of those young people were dead. They
joined the ancestors.” So that’s the kind of really, really negative stuff that could happen.
But, other than that, like Siyémches was saying, a series of really bad luck, what we today
would call bad luck, happening to a single family that isn’t happening to everybody else in
the community. So our ancestors tell us, our elders tell us, that there has to be a reason why
it’s just this family that’s experiencing all of this bad luck. So, those are some of the things
that I remember being told about what could happen if we disrespect the ancestors.
Dave: Just to follow that for a second, is there then an existing spiritual connection to the
remains of these ancestors, or are they just bones?
Jeff: There is a spiritual.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
27
Herb: Yeah.
Jeff: The ones that cross over to the other side, from this world to the other, that’s the
spiritual connection. And it will always remain that way, no matter what. Even if it’s just a
fragment left of that one ancestor, there is still that connection. But it’s the ones on the
other side [who] don’t like you disturbing them no matter how old that is. And if they don’t
get you in this world, they’ll do it in the other one. They won’t accept you—you or your
family. That was the worst thing that could happen, and that still rests on our shoulders. But
after the burning, I felt that was a relief—that you go follow through with what you’re doing
[...], let the people on this side rest from where they come from, and find out what you can
find out. That’s one of the dangerous parts because, well, I don’t want to go that [too] far.
And sure, things will happen physically. My mom’s great aunt passed away and her daughter
went into the box that they had her in, and cut a piece of hair off of her head to keep it. And
that young girl, they didn’t know what was wrong with her because she just went into a kind
of coma and started shrinking, wouldn’t eat or anything. Just about passed away until her
uncle came from up Shxw’owhamel, came in and went into her room, and lifted up the bed
and found that hair and brought it to where it was supposed to be. Then that girl started
waking up. This is what was passed down to us: to not to take anything, and if you put
something in there, you leave it there. Or you don’t take their thought and write it in your
mind. Anything, those kinds of things, we really kind of pay attention to. That story stuck in
my mind when we were doing this because we don’t want to take anything from them, no
matter how long it’s been sitting there. Anyway.
Dave: Is there a difference ... so this is interesting around taking things from the ancestors.
The work we’ve done, do you think, have we taken anything from them? Or have we asked
them to contribute to what we’re doing?
Jeff: [That’s] kind of that we asked, when we did the burning. Because that was what was
focused on. I think it was Steven and Gwen [Point] did it?
Dave: That’s right.
Jeff: At that time we were feeding them, but at the same time we were asking them if we
could do this.
Dave: Is that a critical difference?
Jeff: It is a critical difference. Even if that one—those ancestors that we have there—didn’t
answer us, it was the ones on the other side that owned them. And it could go thousands of
years back.
Dave: So, the information we’re gaining, who does that belong to?
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
28
Jeff: It belongs to whoever that we took the information from, that sample from. Maybe it
never belonged to us, but it’s information that I believe that we need to know. And they
were quite comfortable with that to settle our minds [about], like, where they come from,
you know, many things, you know, what they ate, those kinds of things. That will tell you
where they came from, kind of described by going through this process. If they ate a lot of
shell food, it might have been somebody from way out that way that came through here and
passed away.
Dave: So, the need to know if the ancestors own the information. Are they also the ones
who need to give permission to use it?
Jeff: Well, they have given us permission to use it. From that burning that Steven and Gwen
did, from what I understand. I don’t know if they said anything to you guys, but that’s the
way I see it. And we approached it that way.
Herb: Yeah, I agree with what Jeff said. What Steven and Gwen did, I think, the way it was
worded, was it was to prepare the way for the work that was going to be done. And, all that
that means, and in this particular case, I don’t remember Steven or Gwen talking anything
about ownership, but … if I can use the example of Steven saying that this ground was
sacred, our ancestors walked this ground. And when we put up permanent buildings on top
of that ground, we need to inform them that this is what we’re doing. And when we prepare
the ground for construction on that ground then what you’re doing, as Steven explained to
us, what you’re doing, is just that. First, of course, you feed them, you invite them to the
table with a burning, and you feed them, and once the feeding is done, you inform them that
this is what we’re going to do. We don’t mean any harm. We don’t mean any disrespect, but
this current generation of people need to have this land for use for today. It’s informing
them about the use so that they don’t get upset about using something that is sacred. And I
think the same thing applies to the work that we were doing. As Jeff was saying, we
informed them that this is what we’re doing, and there was no negative feedback, so we can
assume that they gave us permission to do the work, and to follow through with the work
that we were doing. That’s the way I interpret it.
Dave: Who was here at the burning, of the [committee] members? Most folks. Before we go
any further, if you could start [by] introducing yourselves for voice recognition for when we
are transcribing. Who you are, where you’re from. Let’s go around the table.
Lemxyaltexw Semá:th,, Dalton Silver, Chief of Sumas
Rose Peters from Chawathil
Rhoda Peters from Chawathil
Jeffrey Point from Skowkale
Herb Joe from Tzeachten
Siyémches (Frank Malloway) from Ts’elxwéyeqw
Dave Schaepe as Chair of this group
Tia Halstad, SRRMC Archivist and Librarian
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
29
Naxaxalhts’i (Sonny McHalsie) from Shxw’owhamel
Sue Rowley UBC Laboratory of Archaeology
Patricia Raymond?Adair Manager Coqualeetza Cultural Education Centre
Dave: Thank you. I recall this at the burning, that what Steven recalled, recounted to us was
that the ancestors said that they would be returning or providing some gifts to the
community because of the work that was being carried on. And I always wondered what kind
of gifts those might be.
Jeff: They’re actually telling us that in a way like you give a Christmas present away to your
kids because they’re doing a good job, or they behaved well. And we’re behaving in a good
way of what’s supposed to be done here. So, somewhere along the line, our people, doesn’t
matter if it’s from this group or where, gifts could be anything.
Herb: What comes to mind for me is the gift of knowledge [and] awareness that is
happening for us, and working with the ancestors. The amount of knowledge that we’re
acquiring and will continue to acquire with the DNA samples and all that, that’s going to be a
gift to the Stó:l? people. They’re going to know more about their ancestors and, of course,
once they know that then they’ll have a better of idea of how our ancestors lived. That old
saying about you have to know where you’ve been in order to know where you are, so that
you know where you’re going? I think that applies to our following generations, our children,
grandchildren and great grandchildren. They’re going to be healthier people with the gift of
this knowledge about who they are and where they came from. So that’s a gift as I see it.
Frank: Ask Rhoda.
Rhoda: I agree with Herb but the other thing is also that we are bringing back to our
communities the knowledge that you’re talking about, but also the traditions. And we’re
working to do this work in a good way, in a cultural way. And I think our people are maybe
moving away from that and I really feel that that history is important. And when we had the
gathering, that was a real eye opener and it was something that we wanted, was to find out
where these people were from, if they were our own, if they weren’t just explorers going
through or whatever. And that was one of the questions that we had—that I had—when I
went back and reported at one of the meetings, was that how do we know that it’s our Stó:l?
people? But we did know because of the forehead, the slanted forehead. So, leaving that
meeting we felt a lot better about the work that we were doing. And when we were doing
the work and we went down to get our ancestors in Vancouver, we had asked some of our
men to carry the boxes. And they jumped at the chance. They were really interested in the
work that was taking place. They wanted to know more about it, and, if we were doing
anything else, they wanted to be involved. So, that told us a lot: that they are interested,
that they will be involved, and we’ll take direction and do good work.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
30
Tia: Yale came to the meeting17—I think that’s a gift. We’re seeing some progress there.
Dave: Jeff you mentioned earlier that we need to know ... why? I guess that’s two questions:
Why do you need to know—what’s behind the need to know? And what is it that’s the most
important to know about these ancestors?
Herb: I think Rhoda just hit the nail on the head. It’s for the benefit of our future generations
to know who they are, because if you don’t know who your ancestors are, and the land that
they came from, then you don’t know who you are either. You’re one of those lost souls who
wander around lost. And in our traditions, you lose all of your value— your self?value, your
community value—if you cease to be a part of…. Having someone kicked out of our villages,
it said to all of the other people: these people are of no value, that’s why they are no longer
with us. So if they don’t have any value then everyone’s going to look down upon them
negatively. I think that this is one of the things that comes to mind immediately when we
start talking about what’s the value to it all. I think, like Rhoda was saying, our people today
are losing their way. We’re separating ourselves from our traditions and our customs that
identify us as being Stó:l?. And if we lose that, then who are we? So, this project can help to
solidify that history. I think that’s good.
Jeff: And also that the ones [the ancestors] on the other side, you know they know they’re
not in the right place. They shouldn’t have been down there.18 And it’s not our fault here
that they’re there. And so they wanted us to know where they belong, and if this is one way
of doing that, then maybe that’s the answer to this. That’s why we needed to know—it’s
because they’re the ones that are saying those people shouldn’t be down there, our
ancestors shouldn’t be there. Bring them home, put them where they belong. And that’s
where the disappointment from Yale came from, because they were in that. We were talking
about them at the time, that’s the scary part that [the ancestors are] down there still.19 But
now, it’s going to be settled. They’re here. They might be coming home now. Or there is a
chance for them to be here.
And that’s, you know, our people here even though there was a war20 on, and some of them
got left over in Europe, some of our people went over there to put their minds at rest—the
rest of our people here, their minds—because we’ll never see those people again. So a lot of
our spiritual people went over there and did some offerings to the ones that were over
there—could not identify them—but they’re laying over there somewhere, scattered all over
the place, because they were hit by bombs. But that settled our people to believe, “Okay,
that’s okay now.” But if the other side is still disturbed because their remains are down
there, then things will always be shaking like an earthquake to our people down here. That’s
why we need to know.
17 Refers to the Journey Home Project Community Meeting of October 23rd, 2014 presented in its entirety
above.
18 Meaning that they shouldn’t be at the UBC Lab of Archaeology (LOA) or Museum of Vancouver (MOV).
19 Refers to ancestors from the lower Fraser Canyon that weren’t repatriated owing to the disagreement.
20 World War II
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
31
Dave: [...] What I’ve heard you talk about, is who they are, where they’re from. So then, is
that the work we’ve done? Is that accurate to say it’s been about trying to find out who they
are as individuals?
Jeff: Yep, yep. I know that Chawathil has stepped forward to bring [them home], once
they’re ... well they’re here right? They’re going to take them—that’s a good move, because
they know who they are and where they come from. Then the ancestors will start settling
down more. And the longer, I mean, the longer the people—the ones that were supposed to
be over there, that are down in Vancouver — the longer they stay there ... like you say, I
think Herb hit it right on the head there, you know, we’re losing a lot of young people, all
over the valley. Even our elders, but more younger people that shouldn’t even be leaving.
And, this comes to my mind every time I hear, because we haven’t fulfilled this promise that
those ones [our ancestors] were going to come with us. That’s the way I thought it.
Sonny: I have a few things to mention. This is Sonny, or Naxaxalhts’i. I know when we’re
talking earlier asking about the communicating with the ancestors’ spirits, I know there’s a
number of ways that we do that, and one is through—for those of us that can’t directly
communicate with them—we have our shxwlá:m, our Indian doctors that can provide us
with messages from the ancestors. Or else our lhálhewels people that do our burnings,
provide messages to us from the fire. But also, there are dreams too; if you dream about
ancestors or deceased people and whatever messages they tell us in our dream, to us, they
are considered to be a real message about what we have to do. The other connection is
through our shxwelí. The late Rosaleen George explained shxwelí [as] within us and our
parents and grandparents, great grandparents, great, great grandparents, and the rocks, and
the trees, and the grass, and the ground. And so that’s a connection that we have there with
all of the ancestor spirits. Also, it is our belief too [that] our ancestors’ spirits are still out
there on the land wherever they’ve been, wherever they fished, wherever they hunted,
wherever they gathered berries, they’re still out there. And when we go out to those places
to do those different activities we’re with our ancestors’ spirits, we’re there with them,
they’re watching over us as we take care of those different places. So to me then, that’s the
feeling I get when I think about, specially the ancestors from Floods because of my close
connection to Chawathil. My mother was from Chawathil, Rhoda is my sister, Rose is my first
cousin, and so on, right? And I know the oral history of the people from Floods. There’s no
reserves over there right now but there’s at least three different village sites that were
situated over there, according to the archaeological records anyways. There might be more,
but those three villages, they’d all been wiped out by smallpox. And the few survivors [...]
were there moved into Hope, to Ts’qó:ls. And so they became part of Chawathil because
that’s where Chawathil First Nation was. That’s why our ancestors all come from Hope [...]
Valley, Welqámex.
So to me, I feel a close connection to those ancestors, and I feel there’s some obligation to
take care of them. And of course the other ones are the ones that are still sitting down there,
you know the ones from Aselaw—that’s where three of us ... our great, great grandfather
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
32
comes from that place and our great, great, great grandfather is buried in the cemetery
there at Aselaw. It’s now known as IR 21. So I feel a close connection to those ones as well,
and I’m really glad that Yale is stepping forward because they’re the ones that are kind of
holding those bones back, holding those remains back down there. I’m glad we can do
something with that.
Another thing too, I think, when we start talking about gifts—what is it that we’re getting
back? To me, I can’t remember which elder, one of our famous leaders, talked about the
hole in our heart, the hole in our hearts, and to me what that represents to me is all of the
loss of culture and traditions that we had through the smallpox epidemic, the residential
school experiences, assimilation policies of the government. There’s a lot of stuff about our
culture that we lost, and it’s still there, we just need to get it back. To bring it back. And to
me, the more we learn about the stuff that we’re doing, it fills in that hole that we have in
our hearts. That’s how I feel. The stuff that we’re doing, we’re actually filling that hole,
learning more about our culture and about our traditions, about our history.
You know, in the beginning, I shared the same concern that Jeff and Herb talked about, and
Siyémche’s. That was my first concern—was if we do something wrong, is something going
to come back, come back on us because there is a big connection that we have. And when I
was talking to the late Rosaleen George, or Yamelot, she doesn’t just talk about us as
individuals. Like, to me, if we did something wrong with what we’re doing, it wouldn’t just
come back on us, but also come back on family, extended family. Because of that shxweli, I
think that’s what it is that connects us all. Because when the former anthropologist that
worked for us had his ancestral remains, he got these ancestral remains, he didn’t take care
of them, he just left them. There was a canoe shed out here and he just put them inside that
canoe shed, and they were sitting there for a couple of years before I finally started
consulting with the elders, asking them what to do with those ancestral remains. The story
that Rosaleen George, Yamelot, talked about, really gives a good example of how connected
it is, how connected we are. So she said that what was happening was, at night time she was
dreaming of these, of little people, coming through the walls, walking through the wall of her
house, and coming up to her while she’s sleeping, poking her at her sides and grumbling at
her, mad about something, right. She didn’t know, and after she’d wake up and they’d
continue walking, walk out the other wall. And so then she talked to one of her cousins down
in Musqueam, and the same thing was happening to her cousin down there. She phoned her
cousin down there and they talked about it, and then she said she called one of her cousins
up in Chehalis, and the same thing was happening to her as well. They were having these
little people visit them, grumbling, poking them in the side. Then not long after that, that’s
when she heard about the ancestral remains that were sitting there, and she was
instrumental in helping us get those remains reburied. She said that after the reburial of
those remains, she said that those little people quit coming around, and quit bothering her,
quit bothering her cousin down in Musqueam, quit bothering her cousin in Chehalis. So you
look at the huge area there, right. There’s spirits everywhere; it’s all connected. We don’t
just have to worry about ourselves; we have to worry about all our family too, to make sure
that what we do, we have to do in the proper way. And I still feel bad because I haven’t
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
33
found that one phrase that Rosaleen George expressed in Halq’eméylem, the importance of
bringing the ancestors back home to where they come from.
I always use the two examples, our great grandfather, Dennis Peters who passed away back
in 1945 down in Yakima, and it was really important to bring him back home, you know, and I
still have the paper showing a list of names and the amount of money. I’m quite sure that list
is the people who contributed money to bring their great grandfather back home so that he
can be properly buried at his home. And even more recently, our niece who passed away
down in Mexico a few years back, and it was really important to bring her back too. I know
the family spent quite a bit of money to bring her back home. So it’s still something that is
still alive, it is still something that is important to us when you lose someone—to bring them
back home. I’m looking to find that ... I’ve been through a number— I have 25 or 30
notebooks—going through my notebooks trying to find that phrase. There is a Halq’eméylem
phrase that Rosaleen talked about. I think it would be an important phrase for us to have.
Dave: What I’m hearing is that there’s a whole bunch of relationships that you have to deal
with to make sure that this work gets done in the right way. And what I’m hearing you say is
that there are relationships with the ancestors themselves, and there’s relationships with
the community, with the families. And in the community today there’s a relationship that
leads to the youth, and one of the needs is to inform the youth about culture and their
heritage. There’s the relationship with the community as a whole to try to maintain the value
of the individuals in that community and the value of the community as a whole. So there’s a
whole bunch of relationships that I’m hearing that are important to be aware of, that need
to be taken care of throughout the process. There is a relationship that I want to introduce
which is the relationship with the researchers. To do the work that we’ve done, we’ve been
dependent on the researchers at UBC, the bioanthropologists, the people that do the
sampling and the analyses, and [that] interpret the results and come back to us with
information that makes sense to us. Can you speak to … what about that relationship? We’re
dependent upon those people to do this work. Were there any issues or concerns about that
relationship? About their interest in the information, about their use of the information, that
was all a big part of the work that’s been done over the past few years?
Sonny: To me that seems to be like, that’s our way. That’s how we do things. When we have
gatherings or a naming ceremony or whatever we’re not supposed to use our own speaker,
not supposed to use our own family members, we have to reach out and humble ourselves,
and reach out to other people throughout the valley to come and help us do the work that
needs to be done. Same with funerals, immediate family members can’t be helping with the
funeral, putting away our loved one. We have to reach out and ask for other people to come
and do that sort of work for us. Anything like that seems like we always have to humble
ourselves and reach out for other people, so to me it makes sense that we reach out to our
friends down in the universities. We’re collaborating a lot with them now; it’s really
important for education purposes, I guess, to collaborate with the universities. To me, I think
it’s the right thing to do.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
34
Herb: There’s an old teaching that goes along with what Sonny is talking about. When
human beings were first created, Chíchelh Siyá:m gave each of the human beings a special
gift that differentiated them from their brothers and sisters and made them unique and
special. The teaching is that if we each exercise that special gift, make it strong, as you
exercise a muscle ... and once that gift is strengthened, then you’re taught to share it with
everyone else. And again, that goes to the whole concept of family, of interdependence, and
if we don’t have that gift in our little family that we have here at the table, then we have to
depend on [an]other family to help us out. And that’s what Naxaxalhts’i was talking about.
We accepted these people as part of our committee, our group, our family, in order to get
the work done, because they were given a special gift by Creator. It’s a gift that wasn’t given
to anyone of us as individuals. So we each have our own different gifts that we contribute to
our families, to our communities. Like the Chiefs sitting here at the tables—they’re here,
contributing their expertise and their knowledge, their strengths. And there’s others of us
that are community workers, that know the people of the communities, and we’re here to
share that. So I think that the relationship that we have with these experts has been a good
one and the only concern that I can recall being talked about was how are they going to use
that information other than to give it to us? That was the only concern I could remember
being talked about.
Jeff: When you bring up that, at the burning, that they were going to give us gifts, and that
relates to that word, doing ... okay, [the ancestors] are going to give us something. We’re on
the right way. We’re on the right path. Otherwise, they would have said, “we’re going to
take something from you.” You’re on the wrong path then. But no, they’re pleased with us!
They’re going to give us something in the future. And the only reason why they’re going to
give us something is because we’re going in the right direction. And what we do—they’re
pleased with what we’re doing. And there’s no harm going to come to anyone; they’re going
to give us something at the end when this is all ... whether it’s five years down the road,
maybe our great grandchildren will benefit. This is the thing that we don’t look forward to
anyway, I mean a gift is a gift. To whom it comes to, that is another thing. But one day, good
things are going to happen to our people; now it’s kind of shaky. But according to them,
they’re going to give us a gift for the way, for what we’ve been doing, and it’s all voluntary,
that’s the best thing about it! And the minds that ... we have to keep on going, we have to do
it in a good way. So they accepted the way we done it up to this point. Now, once we get
those other ones, that’s when we have to do the same process, have another burning, to see
what the outcome of it is.
Dave: [...] Darlene Weston was doing some of the analyses for us. Her interest, as we talked
about it with her, as we understood it, is quite different than your interest; your interest
being in the individual, who they are, where they’re from specifically. That wasn’t helpful to
her in her academic work and research. Her interest was to take the information from the
individual and put it into a much, much larger pool of, of a population, and that’s what she
was interested in doing. She explained that, and you guys were okay with her using the
information that way. Again, was there anything in particular that you that was key to your
being comfortable with her using that information?
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
35
Rhoda: Well I don’t know so much about the information, but to get back to the people that
we’ve been dealing with down that way, I think the work that we’ve been doing has been
really good and we’re moving forward, I think because of their respect for [...] the work that
they do, and for the work that we do, and for our culture. They’re respectful in allowing us to
take the lead when, you know, they came to us and wanted to know how we wanted the
process to go, I mean when we took our ancestors back. And I think respect is a real big area
that we have to keep in mind when we’re working with people. [...] are they respectful? Do
they have good hearts? And I feel that all the people that we’ve worked with ... I was
comfortable with every one of them that we’ve met, and we didn’t know them. They’re
doctors, they’re intellects, and you know, and we were treated as equal. So I was really
happy with that. It made the work, I think, move along smoothly.
Dave: So Darlene had the same interest, the same question: can I use this for my purposes,
being included in my big study. If she were a nasty wicked person, came here and like,
ARRGH [pirate noise], ugly, disrespectful, would that affect your decisions?
Various people: Probably would. I think so. Yeah! Oh, yes.
Rhoda: Why would we want to work with somebody like that?
Sonny: You always have to have a good heart.
Frank: You’re just describing somebody I know.
Dave: But, is he in this room? You were looking at me when you said that.
Rhoda: You’re blushing Dave!
Sonny: I just want to follow up on Chief Peters’ comment because I think we need to
mention that we have come a long way since. We look back on the days of Herman Leisk and
the work that Charles Hill?Tout did and those guys, and you know, we’ve come a long way
since then, you know. I know [...] only like 15 years ago or so now, when I was asking
Rosaleen [George] for a Halq’eméylem word that we could use for an archaeologist. Because
we didn’t have archaeologists, we didn’t have people who go digging in the ground, pulling
up artifacts and kind of understand our histories, since we had historians that knew that and
passed that down. So we didn’t need archaeologist. But the closest word she could come up
with—or the word that she came up with—was a word for thief. That was her view of an
archaeologist.
Herb: Uncle Vince called them “dig?ologists.”
Sonny: I know, even our Elders ... like I know Evangeline Pete used to go and stand at the ...
watched the work that was done there at east end of Chawathil; it wasn’t really approved of,
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
36
didn’t have any approval of the work as well. And I know the same with Howard Paul from
Skwah when the archaeologists were doing that work down, just below New Westminster.
What’s that place called just above the Alex Fraser Bridge?
Dave: St. Mungo.
Sonny: Yeah, that site. They were doing their work down there, he was going down there
every day, grumbling at them too because of what they were doing.
Dave: Or Glenrose Cannery, in that area.
Sonny: Come a long way. I remember even when I was involved with the Hope archeology
project, Coqualeetza elders came out to visit the site as we were working. They weren’t
grumbling at us but they seemed supportive of the work.
Dave: So what’s a thief?
Sonny: Oh!
Dave: What do you understand that to be? If that’s the word, that’s important to
understand—that’s the description of archeologists.. that was put up in the past. What you
understand to be a thief … Rhoda?
Rhoda: When you’re working on the island [Greenwood Island – Welqamex/DiRi?15] like four
years ago? [...] The students, they discovered that longhouse and the [ancestor’s] remains
that were there. And if Anthony [Graesch] and his crew had just taken the bones, and uh, not
said anything ... but they’re very respectful, they let us know. And we had the burning on the
island early that morning. The students were there and we had some of our youth there. You
would have been a thief if we weren’t [made] aware of [the bones]. And I remember them
putting the cloth, all the remains they had taken, out back in there and just seeing the
remains was really ... you know, you ask: is there a connection to the spirit? I think we felt it
that morning, and we were just elected the night before. So, that was my first I guess, duty,
as a chief, that next day, and I remember we came away from that and although we had to
be there at a godawful hour, to get over there, the burning and everything. But it was good
and we had the breakfast and everything. And I think that was a really good experience for
our council, and then when we all got to speak, the emotions that were going around,
because we felt good about the work. And we said: put the remains back, we don’t [want]
them disturbed. And I remember everything going back in there, every bone, every part that
was taken out.
Herb: The same thing happened over at Scowlitz [DhRl 16], it was done with the utmost
respect. For instance, [...] they, the students and the professors that were heading that
archaeological dig, they asked for the expertise from the community, from the family. And
the family at Scowlitz, of course they’re connected with an elder down in Musqueam— his
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
37
name was Vincent Stogan—so they immediately went to him and invited him up to help
with, first of all, the opening up of the ground, and then the closing of the ground, and then
taking care of the ancestors. That part I know a lot, well, because Uncle Vince invited my
wife and I to go over and help him with that work, and ... I think Kat [Clarence] Pennier was
chief then. He was there, or he had other people there to observe all of the work that was
going on. And it was done with the utmost respect. I think that would take away the title, the
label of thief.
Dave: Are we thieves if we’re taking this information from these ancestors without their
permission?
Jeff: I think that we got their permission.
Sonny: I think that word comes from the earlier days of the archaeologists like Gus Milliken
for instance, right? They named the Aselaw site after him, the Milliken site, but yet he was
one of those people who used to go and raid. Annie York said that they caught him right
there, right at I:yem Memorial, digging at the back. You can go to the back and still see that
little hole he was digging. He got caught. I can’t remember who Annie York said caught him
but they told him to get out of there. He was digging there looking for artifacts. He did have
quite a huge artifact collection. I’m not sure ... I think it is in the Hope Museum collection
now?
Dave: Or Yale [Museum}.
Sonny: So the way he acquired that collection—I don’t think he did it through archaeology. I
think he did it through grave digging and grave robbing and that sort of thing. And so I think
that’s what that refers to. Now those archaeologists that just went in there and took things
... like Herman Leisk was another one, down in Vancouver, just going in there.
Patricia: And that’s all our people saw and experienced was that, so they associate that
with...
Sonny: Because the other thing too is, I know when I first started this job back in 1985, we
went to meet with the Coqualeetza elders to ask them because we were working on the
Twin Tracking court case. And we knew that the proposed CNR twin tracking was going to
interfere with a lot of the archaeological sites, and so we went to ask them what to do with
these artifacts. We were surprised because the response that we got back from them was to
leave them alone and [they] said that “they’re not yours.” They’re not ours. And of course
you know, from the sense, from an aboriginal right and title perspective, when you look at it,
anything that our ancestors left out there is ours—it belongs to us more than anybody else,
right. So we were kind of surprised they said: leave it alone, it’s not yours, it’s not ours. Until
they provided some context to it, and what they meant was that the person that owned that
artifact still owned that artifact, still owned that tool. Their spirit still owned it. So because
we told them, you know, we wanted to use these artifacts as an opportunity or a way to
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
38
teach our young people about our culture and about our history. And so what they said was
then, “Okay when you go out there and you grab these artifacts, when you pick them up, say
a prayer to the person that owned it. Speak to the spirit of that ancestor that owned it. Let
them know that it’s still theirs. You’re not taking it away from them, it still belongs to them,
and you’re only going to use it as a way to teach our young people about our culture and our
history.” So, that’s what the elders at that time expressed—this was back in 1985. And the
other thing they said at that time was really important; they said “By no means, do not let
children handle these artifacts. Do not let children handle them.” Right, so, that’s basically
what they were getting at, was that the owner, the spirit of that person who made that tool,
who used it, is still the owner and we all know that when we lose a loved one, the things that
they own, the material things are passed over the fire so they can ensure that they can take
those things with them.
Dave: That seems to be key, and you’re talking about that around material culture, and then,
this whole project is around intangible, so intangible culture, intangible knowledge. The
same principles then apply, to not take what doesn’t belong to you, to pay respect to the
owner of that information. And Jeff, as you mentioned, as we’ve done, the burning then
seems to be a critical piece to that communication, that relationship, to maintain the
ownership and respect that, but to be able to use that information in a good way, and not be
seen as thieves. It seems like the critical piece there is that relationship, spiritual connection
to the knowledge, tangible or otherwise. And it still belongs to another person, somebody
else, but it’s here potentially to be used for specific reasons. And sharing it is another thing.
So the collaboration, the aspect of sharing within what you’re saying, I’m hearing, is that an
important principle? We’ve talked about that in the past, it’s an important principle: to
share, not to keep it to yourself. So, I just want to put that out there. That goes hand in hand
with what you’re saying and what I’m hearing.
Sonny: I keep mentioning Rosaleen George, but she had so much stuff that she left, and one
of the things she said again was, she said, “Knowledge means nothing if you don’t share it.
You could be the smartest person in the world but if you don’t share that knowledge it’s
nothing.” So, she said, “The more you share it then that’s when it becomes ... when it makes
more sense,” or “more meaningful,” I guess.
Dave: So that applies to Darlene’s use of the information, her sharing it? Your use of the
information, your sharing it. I know it was important, and the reason why we did that
October 23rd presentation was to share the information once we got it all put together, share
that with the communities and to make that available. Some of our obligations as people
working on this ... certainly we understood that obligation and worked to put that together,
and we’ll continue to do that. I think it’s interesting the way this has been used already. I can
point to a couple of examples of the information and its use and in a couple of very good
ways. I know recently, Siyémches, your biography—film documentary about you and your
life—I went to see that opening [...]. I thought it was very cool—one of the first things that’s
in that is you making reference to this [Journey Home] project and the ages of the ancestors
from the Chilliwack Valley that we now know go back 5,000 years. So that’s, that right there,
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
39
that’s one example of the way in which this information was used, and clearly that made
sense to you. And you’re putting it out there, and that’s now in the system; it’s now out
there for everyone to hear. You’ve shared that with everybody in that audience, including all
the youth, and that information is out there. It’s something we didn’t know before. It’s
something we know now, and you’ve been able to put that out in a public way to share that
information. That was great. And secondly, it has been used in a land claims case. So
something as a foundation for supporting the occupation and use of the area. And it was
ultimately something that led to a positive outcome. But you know there are those aspects
of its use already, of where it’s useful and affected the community in a positive way. Frank
[...] what was it about this ... did you have a reason for putting it out there? Was there
something you thought about this information, why you spoke about it in your
documentary?
Frank: I think it’s important for, like, general public to know how long we were here. A lot of
people, they wondered why we’re in land claims you know, they felt they defeated us in war
you know; they get their Native education from the movies. I don’t know. We were all
defeated, you know. Because we never had any wars; they just moved in, and because we
were decimated by diseases, we never had the population to really fight back, you know. I
think it was proof how long we were around this area, you know? And especially the
Chilliwack River Valley—when they gave us reserves they never gave us any land in the
Chilliwack River Valley. You know, [...] when I give the history of our tribe to the BCBC,21 you
know, they controlled the British Columbia land, or the government land, and I told them at
that time, when they gave us reserves our people were down in the valley here. They didn’t
know whether we came from up Chilliwack River Valley. This was really important for me to
express that to them, that our people were there 5,000 years ago and yet we didn’t get any
land in that area. I made that presentation to BCBC, and I never really thought it would go
anywhere, but they came back and said, “you can have that land for a dollar.” That’s what I
offered them, I said, “Just to make it legal; I’ll give you a dollar for that piece of land.” They
came back, accepted my dollar, then they turned around and gave me three million dollars—
renovated, renovated the buildings.
Dave: You can do the negotiating for me then.
Frank: But that was, and they— what’s her name?—Sandra Bonner?Pederson. I didn’t know
she was going to insert that part in the autobiography, biography, whatever it was, but she
had Premier Campbell in there, giving us a certificate for the property. That was something. I
didn’t know she was going to do that.
Dave: Here’s one thing, too. In our meeting minutes, there’s an expression of concern that
municipalities might use the map we produced to present [...] in our October 23rd meeting—
the one that shows all the locations of the ancestors, where they were found, where they’re
21 British Columbia Building Corporation.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
40
from— that that might be used against us. That’s the quote in our notes here. What is that
about? Is that a concern that was shared? Can anyone speak to that point of that concern?
Jeff: Where did that question come up?
Dave: I think it’s come up a couple times—[...] that expression of concern that municipalities
might use such a map against us. I do recall that being brought up at the very, very early
stages, before we knew what could be coming of this; this could be used against it because
of the land claim issue. So I mean, I just wanted to touch on that, to revisit that. I know it
came up very early on, it was sort of touched on at the later stages of the project. Is that
something that really was a concern? Is it still a concern in any way? What are your thought
about that? Anybody thinking about that? I guess the way I’d put that into context: [...] it’s
very clear that it’s important to understand your history, where you come from, and that
these ancestors are providing more information about that. Is there a concern that
information could come that could somehow, you know, not have a positive impact but a
negative impact on people’s understanding of history?
Jeff: Well you know, if there is sites up there that, you know, like, contain burial mounds or
anything like that, they could turn around say and refuse us, maybe? And say, well, send
someone up there and plough them all over and say there’s nothing there or whatever. And
deny us the right to enter. I don’t know, maybe that’s a possibility. And not recognize us and
not allow anybody to go in there to do anything, to show that there is burial mounds here
and remains here.
Dave: What about DNA? DNA is something we’ve talked about. We haven’t done it. It’s
something we’re going to talk about [...] shortly with our other guests who have just arrived.
Are we good to go with that or are there concerns you have around the finding of
information, about the findings of DNA analysis? Or, just put it out there? I’m just trying to
explore this piece; are there concerns about the use of the information or the nature of the
information? Or is it more the concern about the process by which you go about gathering
that information?
Jeff: Well, if we can get a DNA sample from, let’s say, Frank, you know, find out who’s
connected to those remains, hey? And same with people from Chawathil. Those remains
there, might want to know who directly they come from. Could be a DNA sample for that; if
you want to bring it that far. But you got to get the people to volunteer, eh?
Rhoda: I think it’s interesting, I really do. When I think of the remains and, Tel?tít, I’m sorry,
off of Tel?tít on the island there [Welqamex], I wish we had thought at the time to keep [...]
something and look at DNA. That would have been interesting. But I think there is interest
regarding DNA because we spoke at some of the other meetings ... I don’t think it would
hinder the process taking place, I think it would add interest. Give people a real connection?
I think it would just strengthen all the work that’s taking place.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
41
Jeff: Yeah, that ice man that found what 10 years ago, or something?
Dave: Up in northern BC.
Jeff: They connected [him] to DNA, right?
Dave: Kwaday dan Ts’inchi. Yeah, they did genetic work.
Dalton: Connected [him] to Dave Joe’s community.
Dave: That’s right, Champagne Aishihik. Given, this has been excellent. I think we have, we’ll
just...
Dalton: I’m sorry I didn’t ... I kind of clamped up here when we started talking earlier [about]
things of a spiritual nature. I’m not comfortable talking with in ... I might be kind of old
school or something, but even listening to Siyémches, Naxaxalhts’i, T’xwelátse, and
Ey:ilí:seleq ... I feel sometimes I’m a little young to be talking about some of these things.
Some may not think so, it’s … some of the things of a spiritual nature … I was taught fairly
young we keep these fairly close, but I hear what they’re saying you know, and we need ...
And all this work that we do in concern with our ancestors, I just say we need to move
forward carefully, and we have been. And someone talked about the repercussions and
things like that that could happen. I was taught, you know, you need to be careful. The ones
you really need to be careful about are your loved ones. It’s the ones closest to you that may
be affected unknowingly. That’s something my grandfather taught in the past, that anything
of a spiritual nature you really have to be careful of, and look after in a good way. I think,
too, the information that we gain from this ultimately belongs to our people, to educate the
young ones about our histories. And I wonder too, how it’s used by others. It has to be done
with a lot of respect and acknowledgment of our people.
It’s all been pretty interesting. I said back, I’m really reluctant to say anything sometimes,
especially when it comes to things of a spiritual nature, right? I hear what Naxaxalhts’i is
saying, that there are times when some of the things that we’ve been taught, that we do
need to share, we need to pass these on, and there are certain places that we do that
amongst ourselves. It’s just … it’s good though, I think. You know, well you and Sonny were
there, I was there with you when we went and got the remains of our ancestors from
Líyómxetel, and I think it was good to look at the carbon dating and things, you know, to look
at how far back our ancestry goes in that place. I kind of wonder a little bit about the DNA
thing; I am kind of reluctant there, because I think about, amongst our Coast Salish people,
when you talk about over 10,000 years of history, and how much our people moved amongst
each other ... and you know, in thinking about that, some of the ancestors here are that—are
thousands of years old. We may have somebody, say at Lummi or as even as far down as
Skokomish or over on the island, at Halalt, or Cowichan or something, that the DNA may be
closer to some of these ancestors than some of our own people that are right here in the
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
42
valley now. Because of how extensively we moved amongst each other in the past, you
know, and how connected our people were.
Herb: Sepass family, like the Sepass family—old man Sepass came over the mountains.
Frank: Yeah.
Dalton: Just some thoughts, I just wanted to say why I just kind of sat back and listened to
what was going on, a little bit reluctant to say something about the subjects we’re talking
about this morning.
Herb: Maybe I can respond to what Lemxyaltexw [Dalton] was saying. For a number of years,
I too, [I] can empathise with you. I’ve been very reluctant to say a lot, but then, over the past
couple of years, I’ve been reminded a number of times that, “You’re in your fourth cycle of
your life.” That’s the cycle of the sialeqwas where the expectation, the historic expectation,
was to share all of the gifts of knowledge that was shared with you during your lifetime,
during this fourth cycle of your life it’s time to give back. And, Lemxyaltexw, I’m going to say
that you’re getting towards the edge of that, the beginning of that stage where it’s going to
be your turn to give back. And you have much to give, I think. In talking with your mom and,
of course, your grandpa, through the years, I know the training that you got from your
family, from Siyémches’ family, from Th’elachiyatel. So I would say to you that the
knowledge that you carry, while it is precious, as your teachers told you, I think, when you
get to this fourth cycle of your life you’re supposed to have gained enough wisdom by that
time to know how to appropriately share the knowledge that we’ve acquired. Being careful
about how you share that is, I think, the way it was meant to be. It’s been very recently that
I’ve been able to get comfortable with sharing a lot of things, particularly about the
spirituality part. The lives that we live from our Smokehouse life. When we first joined that
life, in 1969, we were told you don’t talk about this to anybody, nobody! I remember your
grandpa saying, if they really want to know, you send them to see me, I’ll initiate them.
Frank: “I’ll put them in.”
Herb: He’ll put them in, yeah. So, I think that sharing of knowledge that you have, you’ll
know which part of it is appropriate for you to share. Don’t be afraid. Hoi’ch ka.
Sonny: I just want to express my own ... I think I’ve seen my own personal growth in this as
well, because I know when I first started this job back in 1985, and Gordon Mohs had these
photographs of burials and ancestral remains, I couldn’t even look at them. He was trying to
show me that, and I’d say, “No, I don’t need to look at them,” because I just thought—it’s so
disrespectful to look at pictures of ancestral remains. And I [still] think that, but as the years
have gone by, and with the work that we’ve done here, the better understanding, better
respect for the ancestral remains, for the things that we need to do, I surprised myself when
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
43
I was invited to sit with Darlene and witness the work that she was doing22, you know.
Twenty?five years ago I would have said, “No way, I’m not even going in there.” But to me it
felt like somebody had to be there. And so I felt, I guess, it’s me ... so I sat in there with her—
this is when she was breaking teeth off and cutting chunks of the bone out and doing all that
stuff—but to me I felt like I needed to be there, needed to be there with that ancestor. It’s a
way of supporting, you know, paying respect to the ancestor as this worker was taking all the
different pieces off.
Frank: There are a lot of things you’re taught not to share, but I think in this circle, because it
[the knowledge] is not going too far away, you know, I could share things that you all
thought was private, you know, but there’s other things that were talked about in the circle
today that I wanted to comment on and I didn’t know what part of the meeting I should. But
Dave was asking questions about, you know, the handling of remains and the discovering of
remains. When the Scowlitz Band asked [an archaeologist] to unearth those mounds to see
what really were there, because they were all told they were burials, and they were trying to
protect that part of the land, [he] said, “I’m not going to do that myself.” So he got the UBC
and Simon Fraser University to come in and ... but what happened you know when they
discovered that skeleton, [name] traded things with that thing you know. He took stone
beads, and he put glass beads there. And then a copper bracelet and he put another bracelet
there, you know and after a while, he started talking funny. He was making weird comments
all the time. The late Herman Peters, Chief Herman Peters, I said [to him], “I wonder what’s
happened to [name]?” He says, “The spirits got him. The spirits have twisted his mind
around. He shouldn’t have been fooling around with that stuff that he did, taking away from
the grave, you know.” But, anyway, I learned a lot from [name] and I, you know, I shared a
lot that I had learned with him. When he did his thesis he dedicated it to me, you know,
because my dad and myself helped him out in gaining all that knowledge. But you know,
there’s other things that we didn’t tell him, you know. And that was our mistake I guess, not
to get ... to remove things from the grave. I have, you know, something Melvin Malloway
told me about this in the Fraser Canyon. One of the boys that live up there, he used to
discover old graves up there in the canyon, and he’d dig them up and he’d do that—he’d
take the beads out, a lot of the other stuff. Nothing happened to him yet I hope. But he was
one of the [name] boys you know, the younger boys. Melvin used to say, “That guy’s a grave
robber, something’s going to happen to him.” But that was a long time ago, and I don’t think
anything happened to him.
Sonny: I know who it is too because he was actually selling some of those beads quite a
while ago—ten years ago or something.
Dave: If I could ask a question, sort of towards closing things up which is, I think, Siyémches,
what you’re talking about, Dalton what you mentioned: [...] what kind of person does it take
to do this kind of work? What does it take to do this kind of work? And I’m hearing all kinds
22 Darlene Weston took all samples for testing. Samples were only taken after the ancestors were repatriated. A
community member would accompany her while she undertook this work.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
44
of cautions around doing this kind of work, and I kind of ask this as part of, what advice you
would give to other communities? We got this group together out of need. [...] What does it
take to do this work properly? What kind of person does it take to do this kind of work
properly?
Frank: I don’t know how this person is chosen or I don’t what training he gets but my
grandfather—my dad always told me—my grandfather, Julius, that was his job. You know, to
open the boxes and change the blankets. They used to do that every four years, and he said,
“It was my job, my dad’s job to do that.” Or when somebody died, it was his job to bathe the
person, get them ready for burial. And that was my dad’s job. What he inherited was to
make the box, but he never told me how they trained or what gift they have, you know.
Whether he was born into it, some families, you know, are born into doing things, you know;
no other family can do it except the descendants of that person. Maybe it comes in the
bloodline, you know? They’re not chosen by what they can do, but they’re chosen because
they belong to that bloodline. It’s the same as the [unclear word] ceremonies in the East
Saanich, you know. Victor Underwood, the late Victor Underwood…. his boys or girls,
daughters, you know, used to spread the feathers when they were going to stand the dancer
up, and the last trips I was making over there it was his grandchildren, Victor Underwood’s
son and daughter. And they had to spread the feathers because it just ran in the family. They
didn’t get trained. They were just told by their parents, you know, “You watch what they’re
doing and you better do that.” So, I think it just comes in the family line.
Herb: The one thing, one word that comes to me if I were to give advice to an anthropologist
or archaeologist that came here is honorable. If you are an honorable person and you do
things in an honorable way, then the people are going to reciprocate. I think that’s to me the
most important thing.
Dave: What about you guys? What about other Indigenous peoples, communities? Are there
qualities [...] how would you describe the qualities of the people from the community itself?
Hearing that others coming in, yes, being honorable, being respectful, that’s key. What about
you guys?
Herb: I think that the word Siyá:m tells it all. The old Si:yá:m [plural]. How did you become a
Siyá:m? Well, what Th’elachiyatel told me was the people chose you, the people chose to
follow you. The people knew you were the Siyá:m, so that’s the title they gave you. So I think
that’s ... from our communities’ perspective, you have to—like Siyémches says—if you’re
born with a gift, it’s a gift you have to exercise, and by exercising that gift, the people will
become aware of it. Like Naxaxalhts’i was saying, the people who do the burnings—people
recognise them. And there are many that are pretenders in this age. And you know, they
always will tell us, “How do you stop that?” Well, the people will take care of that, they just
won’t go to them anymore. They won’t hire them to do the work, so they’ll just fall out of
sight, and the ones who are recognised, like a Siyá:m, they’ll continue to be sought after to
do that particular work, like burnings, like spiritual work, shxwlá:m, those kind of things,
people know who they are.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
45
And it’s, I guess, by experience and by word of mouth, that that knowledge gets spread
throughout our peoples. For instance, if I was a young person who wanted some help with a
burial, I would ask family and they’d say, “Oh yeah, you go see so and so.” So, I would follow
their advice, and then when someone asks me, [I would say], “Oh, my elders told me to go
see [name], you go see them they’ll help you.” That’s how the natural selection process
happens in our communities as far I’m aware. You know, we’re told that we’re all born with
specific gifts, and it’s up to us to exercise those gifts, and it’s up to our elders and our family
to support us, and teach us how to exercise those gifts so that that gift can get strong. And
once that gift is strong, of course then the elders teach us that you need to share that gift
with your family and with everyone who’s in need.
It’s just like Th’elachiyatel told us—once you commit to being a helper, we commit here and
we commit here, you lose all right to ever say no again. So that’s again part of the approach
from our communities about selecting the people that we want to work for us, do work for
us. It’s a natural process of selection. Does that make sense?
Others: Yeah, yeah.
Frank: That’s the same like when Steven Point was Lieutenant Governor, is that the right
term, Lieutenant Governor?23 That, you know, he couldn’t give up his spiritual life because
the people demanded his services and, like Herbie said, he couldn’t say no. So five years
working seven days a week, you know, weekends for his people, you know…
Dave: I could ask questions all day, and would love to do that.
Frank: We could talk to you all day.
Dave: I’m all ears, I’m all ears.
Dalton: We were talking about one thing, showing the map of where the remains …
[microphone static]. I think there’s a worry that some people may use that against us and say
that, well, your people were here, your people were there, and they’ll try and pinpoint, and
say, “Yes, there’s evidence that shows that your people were there.” And that’s what’s
happened in some court cases and in title cases, but there’s one thing that I think that needs
to be shared, and it was reminded to me by Xwelixweltel [Steven Point] at a burning we had
at Semá:th. And the message was that we could use this. We need to use this. And what it
was that, you know, we talked about— Siyémches talked about, and others— about taking
the bones of our ancestors and rewrapping them. And, you know, when we lost loved ones
in the past, and it was widely practiced that they put them in cedar boxes and put them in
the trees, and at the time the boxes weren’t air tight. And the remains were put in those
boxes, and, you know, we’re mostly made up of water. So the remains of our ancestors
23 Steven Point was Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia from 2007–2012.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
46
would dissolve there. And run down those trees and into the ground. Until such a time as the
bones were dried out, and then our people would go back and rewrap them, right? But it
was reminded us that through that practice, over thousands of years, that the very flesh and
blood of ancestors run down those trees and into the ground that we live on. It’s throughout
our territory. All the vegetation, everything that grows on our lands, we harvested all that.
We harvested it for foods; we harvested for buildings, for everything. The animals ate the
grasses and things that grew, and how they grew. You know, you think about it—the flesh
and blood of our ancestors is throughout the territories that we live on. And we’re a part of
that. We think about that and that’s how we talk about how close we are connected to the
land itself, S'ólh Téméxw. You know, Xwelixweltel and I talked about that, and he said, you
know, that we need to use this, when we talk about the land and how connected we are to
it. I just think that that’s something that we should remind ourselves of. It’s something that,
you know, we need to pass on. And they can’t pinpoint us to little small areas within our
territories and say, “Oh, we found some of your ancestors buried here or some ancestors
there,” because we know it’s more extensive than that. I just felt that that’s something that
needed to be shared. Thanks.
Herb: Ey Siyá:m.
Dave: Thanks.
Sonny: That’s a good example of how, I think, how teachings that Elders express sometimes
doesn’t seem to make sense to you? And then as the years go by all of sudden it makes
sense. To me, Rosaleen George, or Yamelot [her Halq’eméylem name], was talking about the
burial ground across from Yakweakwioose there. She said they were in big maple trees, and
she said the boxes were tied only to the branches that touched the ground. And I often
wondered why? And then you just expressed why. I didn’t know why they had to be on the
branches that touched the ground.
Dave: And some of these ancestors are from that place. I think as much as I hate to do this,
this is probably an appropriate time to conclude our interview. Does anybody else have any
final thoughts they’d like to share, before we wrap it up
Rose: I just wanted to say it’s been a learning experience for me, and since I’ve been coming
to these meetings—I’ve only made a couple of meetings—and I thought the gathering was
really good and I … it’s an honour for me to sit amongst our elders with so much knowledge
and stuff. I was kind of, like, hesitant to, like ... felt kind of wary, you know, about talking or
giving answers about ... listening to the answers that were talked about today. And
somehow, someway I feel that [the ancestors are] here because we talked about them. And
they’re waiting because there’s one item, it’s still [an] action item and it’s not done yet. It’s
the wrapping, the cutting and the wrapping and it’s ... I have a lot of respect for everybody
that sits at the table. I brought a couple youth, and I was thinking about those youth and
what they learned and how exited they were. The respect they showed for our elders and
stuff, you know, getting up and shaking everybody’s hand. Where they are today—one’s on a
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
47
good road, and the other one’s kind of, like, in between there. And our people really need to
know, like Chief Rhoda said about the loss of identity and the respect and our culture—stuff
that’s coming back to us. But yeah, I just wanted to say that it’s been great being part of this
committee and I think the name suits everybody that’s here and the people that I saw
brought in, like the experts, the caring and respect that they showed for what our people are
trying to do for our loved ones was there. And when you talk about the map and maybe the
fear of how it’s going to be used against us, all we can do is just stand as a group and
somehow turn that around where it’s going to be against them. So, it’s been good; so, thank
you.
Dave: Thank you Rose. I just want to thank everybody for their contributions, and we’ll
conclude this interview. Of course, the work will continue. Sue and I will take this and write
this up into our work, and share that back with the group here. So I just want to, on behalf of
Sue and myself particularly, and this piece of the project, I just want to thank you all for your
wisdom, for your sharing of your wise words, thoughts, and feelings. It is tremendously
valuable and I appreciate that greatly.
Sonny: Before I forget, Dave, you forgot to say the year, so its April 23rd, 2015.
Dave: Right, because this did start about 2006, so the years have slipped by pretty quickly.
2015, April 23rd. House of Respect Committee signing off.
[laughing in background]
Post?Script to the Committee?meeting Transcripts
This is reality. The transcripts of the Journey Home presentation and Committee meetings
shared above are insights into the conversations held between 2006 and 2015; into the
reality constituting the heart of community and bioarchaeological relationships in this
instance. They provide only a glimpse of the depth of dialogue held among Stó:l?
communities, community members, community?based researchers, and bioarchaeological
experts over that course of time. These transcripts do not do Justice to the range of topics
or depth of interactions and sharing of knowledge addressed and shared throughout those
prolonged conversations. The full transcription of our conversation over the decade of
discussions would be result in hundreds of pages of content. This is prohibitive and
impractical as an outcome to this aspect of our work. In light of the need to provide
concluding remarks we defer to the words of Siyemches that the young people must “listen
and learn.” We can only encourage those with interest to read – in lieu of direct
participation – and re?read the passages presented above. Struggle through the language.
Try to understand the meaning. Extract whatever may be possibly gained as helpful
conclusions drawn from the knowledge shared by the participants in this work. In our
pursuit of bioarchaeological interests and production of knowledge, we are all in many ways
‘young people.’ This is our reality.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
48
By its very nature, our dialogue allowed for the comprehension and expression of
community?base, individualism – a multiplicity of perspectives without contradiction. We all
engaged in and accepted a process of ‘listening and learning’ as a means of sharing and
understanding; by which knowledge emerged. To ‘listen and learn’ is a person journey of
knowledge production that we realized as an outcome of the Journey Home. Inherent in this
process is a balance between knowing and not knowing ?? in what people say, mean, believe,
perceive, intend – and the resulting dynamic, founded on trust and openness, of learning.
The dynamics of our dialogue opened avenues of knowledge production, based on
bioarchaelogical processes that emerged from of intersections of our participants. The
outcome was a creation of knowledge that vastly exceeded the scope of results of our
radiocarbon, isotopic and descriptive analyses of the remains of these 27 individuals. The
participation of those ancestral individuals, themselves, was a particularly poignant
revelation among the bioarchaeologists involved in this work. They became part of the
dialogue.
This is an emerging relationship. One in which none of us, of any party involved, cannot
presume to be the ‘elder’. Rather, it is by way of creating a forum for personal engagement,
expression and open dialogue that we open a doorway to creating trust, sharing and building
a foundation for expanding our knowledge base – particularly one that is beneficial to all. A
fundamental element of this project is a question about the production of knowledge
through bioarchaeology. Based on the results of the Journey Home Project, the fullest
possible production of knowledge results from an inclusive, respectful, honorable and deep
commitment to dialogue. Our primary conclusion is that stepping through this threshold of
dialogic process treads down the pathway to the expansion of knowledge, relative and
meaningful to each community of engagement.
A CONCLUDING THOUGHT
As a concluding thought, we present an over?arching principle fitting to the Journey Home
repatriation process provided by Herb Joe at an earlier House of Respect Committee
meeting:
The work needs to be done. There is no right way to do this work, there is only a good way.
We have to work together in a good way to do the best we can.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
49
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people assisted in many ways in this project, too many to fully list here. We specifically
want to recognize the Stó:l? communities and leadership associated with the Stó:l? House of
Respect Caretaking Committee?members (as identified above); George Nicholas and the
Steering Committee of the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) Project
and SSHRC for providing the funding supporting this project; UBC Lab of Archaeology (LOA)
members including Patricia Ormerod and LOA work?learn students ? Naomi Goldman and
Elle?Maija Tailfeathers; Museum of Vancouver Board and staff including Bruce Miller, curator
Joan Seidl; Tia Halstad and Sonny Mchalsie from the SRRMC who acted as key support staff
for the House of Respect Committee; shxwlá:m Steven Point and Gwen Point; Musqueam
Elders and community members who assisted with these repatriations; Yale First Nation
Chief Ken Hanson and Councillors Pedro Moreno and Vanessa Peters; photographer David
Campion; our beloved Caterers; additional SRRMC staff particularly Tracey Joe and Rachel
Anderson; Fidel Point; and all of our friends and supporters who helped in the repatriations
and steps of the Journey Home completed to date.
REFERENCES CITED
Burke, Heather Daphne, Dorothy Lippert, Joe Edward Watkins, Larry Zimmerman, and Claire
Edwina Smith (editors)
2008 Kennewick Man: Perspectives on the Ancient One. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Hill, Tom., and T. Nicks
1992 Turning the page: Forging new relationships between museums and First Peoples. Task
Force Report of the Assembly of First Nations and the Canadian Museums Association.
Gough, Meagan
2004 Repatriation as a Reflection of Stó:l? Cultural Values: We Are Building a House of
Respect. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa,
ON.
Kemp, Brian M., Ripan S. Malhi, John McDonough, Deborah A. Bolnick, Jason A. Eshleman,
Olga Rickards, Cristina Martinez?Labarga
2007 Genetic analysis of early Holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for
the settlement of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132(4): 605?621.
Richards, Michael P., Sheila Greer, Lorna T. Corr, Owen Beattie, Alexander Mackie, Richard P.
Evershed, Al von Finster, and John Southon
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
50
2007 Radiocarbon dating and dietary stable isotope analysis of Kwaday Dän Ts' inchí.
American Antiquity 72(4): 719?733.
Rowley, Susan and Kristin Hausler
2008 The Journey Home: A Case Study in Proactive Repatriation. In Utimut: Past Heritage ?
Future Partnerships, edited by Mille Gabriel and Jens Dahl, pp. 202?212. IWGIA Document
No. 122. Copenhagen.
Sealaska Heritage Institute
2005 Kuwoot yas.ein: His Spirit is Looking Out from the Cave. Video accessed from
http://www.archaeologychannel.org/video?main?menu/video?guide?main/video?guidesummary/
97?kuwoot?yasein?his?spirit?is?looking?out?from?the?cave on July 8, 2015.
Schaepe, David and Herb Joe
2005 Stone T’xwelátse Repatriation Report ? Part II. Unpublished report, Stó:l? Archives,
Chilliwack, BC.
United Nations
2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Accessed from
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html on May 25, 2010.
Zimmerman, Michael R., Anne M. Jensen and Glenn W. Sheehan
2000 Agnaiyaaq: The Autopsy of a Frozen Thule Mummy. Arctic Anthropology 37(2): 52?59.
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
51
APPENDIX A
Journey Home PowerPoint – Community Presentation – Oct 23rd, 2014
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
52
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
53
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
54
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
55
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
56
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
57
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
58
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
59
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
60
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
61
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
62
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
63
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
64
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
65
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
66
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
67
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
68
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
69
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
70
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
71
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
72
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
73
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
74
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
75
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
76
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
77
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
78
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
79
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
80
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
81
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
82
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
83
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
84
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
85
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
86
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
87
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
88
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
89
IPinCH ? Journey Home Case Study Report – July 2015
90
