President's Message
September/October 2007
(as published in Arch Notes New Series 12(5))
Soon, the annual OAS Symposium in Kingston will be at hand. I hope that you have already made plans to attend this meeting which is being organized for us by the Cataraqui Archaeological Research Foundation. The sessions and papers sound like they will offer good food for many thoughts.
You couldn't ask for a better setting with the meeting being held in Kingston's historic downtown located on the edge of Lake Ontario, within earshot of the remains of Fort Frontenac whose founder, Louis de Buade, comte de Frontenac, is so well known for having returned envoys back to the British Admiral Phipps who had demanded the surrender of Québec City with the message that he would answer their admiral 'by the mouths of his cannon.' When first established, Fort Frontenac was on the frontier of New France but history would eventually roll over it like a wave and it would become a bastion of the British Empire and eventually the capital city of a fledgling colony. Today, Kingston is a vibrant community in eastern Ontario which has preserved much of its historic past while continuing to provide Canada with important new military and academic leadership.
Recently, two events have graphically reminded me of a looming crisis in Ontario archaeology. This revolves around the long-term management of archaeological collections in the province of Ontario. Of course, the topic is not new, but these two instances make it clear that just because it is not a hot topic of discussion, it remains one of the more serious threats to our discipline that is rapidly creeping up on us.
The first case involves a small eastern Ontario museum which requested information from me regarding the mechanisms for repatriating an archaeological collection they have been storing since the late 1970s. It turns out that at that time, they had had an archaeological excavation around the foundation and in the basement of the building which houses their museum. I can only imagine the great local interest in such a project. It was probably the first time an ìarchaeological digî had ever taken place in their community. However, the excavations generated more than 70 bankers boxes of artifacts; XIXth/XXth century pieces. They now want the space back. They don't use much of the collection. Who could they send them to? Well, when informed that repatriation meant sending them back to their point of archaeological origin, they realized they were on the hook. Could they simply rebury them, they wondered?!#@*/!
So what does it mean when a piece of legislation says that ìThe Minister may direct that any artifact taken under the authority of a license or a permit be deposited in such public institution as the Minister may determine, to be held in trust for the people of Ontarioî (section 66(1), Ontario Heritage Act). I think that many small museums, while well-intentioned at first, did not foresee how long perpetual care of these collections might really be. I suspect that many more small institutions across the province are also suffering under the burden of these collections which usually only include a few exhibit-quality pieces. Similarly, consulting archaeologists must also be starting to feel the pinch of acting as repositories for the extensive collections they continue to gather and store for the people of Ontario. Surely their accountants will soon be, if they haven't already, instructing them to find alternate arrangements for their financial wel-being. And what will happen to collections if, or more correctly, when some consulting firms cease operations? Where will these collections go? What kind of access currently exists to these collections even if somehow we know where the materials are housed? These are all critical questions with regards saving the past for the future. It may be long passed time for the Minister to take a more active role at this level if the past is to have a future at all.
The second element that I alluded to above involves the Algonquin of Pikwàkanagàn. This summer I received a letter from Kirby Whiteduck, the Chief of the Algonquin of Pikwàkanagàn, requesting that the OAS place the establishment of better relations with First Nations higher up on our list of principles (it currently is the 8th one) to which our members adhere, as published in our 'Statement of Ethical Principles' (please read Kirby's letter to the Board of Directors elsewhere in this issue of Arch Notes). While I do not believe our list is structured from most important to least, I wholeheartedly agree that a place must be made within the archaeological licensing system in Ontario to include First Nations who wish to participate in a more meaningful way. What might that be? It could involve some kind of real consultative process, overseen by the ministry. Another very important function has been suggested by Kirby Whiteduck. The Algonquin of Pikwàkanagàn already have a Temporary Archaeological Repository for collections from their traditional lands. They aim to upgrade this facility. If there is a crisis looming, they are offering a potential solution.
I am certain that the question of archaeological repositories is a lot more complex than I realize (and I am can already hear the Ministry of Culture staff who would gladly outline this complexity for me!). These two situations (1-small museums that lose interest, run of space or cease to exist, and 2-a First Nation that is eager and willing to participate in the archaeological process), and of course the mere fact that hundreds of site collections are created every year by consultants, point in a direction that must be explored, i.e. the creation of regional repositories for archaeological collections or at the very least, a collections management strategy for the province of Ontario. If the ultimate responsibility for the safe keeping of archaeological collections is a ministerial prerogative, then it should be exercised sooner, rather than later. That there will be significant costs associated with the creation, maintenance and staffing of such regional repositories goes without saying. One certainty is that the longer it takes to begin to properly address the situation, the greater will be the price, not only in terms of eventual tax dollars, but to the credibility of the practice of archaeology in Ontario and the very survival of these mute witnesses of times past that we claim to be of such great value and significance to our collective sense of place and being.
Jean-Luc Pilon