Thesis + Dissertation by Marina La Salle
This dissertation investigates the ideology of Pacific Spirit Regional Park, an urban forest adja... more This dissertation investigates the ideology of Pacific Spirit Regional Park, an urban forest adjacent to the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Using the tools of archaeology and anthropology, I analyse the history, landscape, performance, and discourse of the park to understand Pacific Spirit as a culturally-constructed place that embodies an ideology of imperialism. Central in this dynamic is the carefully crafted illusion of Pacific Spirit as a site of “nature,” placed in opposition to “culture,” which naturalizes the values that created and are communicated through the park and thereby neutralizes their politics. They remain, however, very political. The park as nature erases the history and heritage of the Indigenous peoples of this region, transforming Pacific Spirit into a new terra nullius—a site to be discovered and explored, militaristic themes that consistently underlie park programs and propaganda. These cultural tropes connect to produce a nationalistic settler narrative wherein class ideals of nature and community are evoked in the celebration of Canada’s history of colonialism and capitalist expansion—paradoxically, the very processes that have caused the fragmentation of communities and ecosystems. The park as nature also feeds into the portrayal of this space as having been saved from development and, as such, an environmental triumph. In this context, the park is viewed as escape from the psychological trauma and alienation of city living and is celebrated and revered as a sacred place. This portrayal enables the forgetting of injustice and promotes a collective amnesia through the creation of a fairy-tale version of reality. The result is to disperse emotion and energy that otherwise could be mobilized against capitalism to prevent ongoing global ecological devastation. The ideology of the Pacific Spirit as nature therefore constitutes social violence by rewriting both the past and present of this land and its peoples, thereby hindering recognition of and rebellion against power. Pacific Spirit is thus a hegemonic space that reproduces colonial relationships and naturalizes capitalism. Exposing the park as a cultural place and illuminating the ideology that it perpetuates may be a crucial first step towards disrupting power through the creation of counter-narratives.
Papers by Marina La Salle
CLEBC’s Practice Points , 2022
With the Supreme Court of Canada recently recognizing that climate change “is a threat of the hig... more With the Supreme Court of Canada recently recognizing that climate change “is a threat of the highest order to the country, and indeed the world,” this paper focuses on climate change as it is unfolding in the Pacific Northwest, particularly in British Columbia, reviewing recent examples and the most pressing concerns for Indigenous communities.
The authors address the unique challenges and legal questions that Indigenous peoples face, drawing on their experience working for the Council of the Haida Nation and foregrounding the ways that Indigenous communities are pursuing climate adaptation and mitigation to ensure the resilience of their communities.
Revista de Arqueologia, 2021
Scholars have been contemplating archaeology’s demise for two decades. In this paper, we examine ... more Scholars have been contemplating archaeology’s demise for two decades. In this paper, we examine their critiques and predict that archaeologists will continue promoting archaeology—while ignoring its core problems—until such time that governments stop empowering archaeologists and archaeology becomes socially and economically untenable. While not in imminent peril, archaeologists have begun restorying archaeology’s future by recasting themselves as enchanted missionaries that are healing the world.
Antiquity, 2019
The primary objective of sustainable archaeology is to maintain the profession of archaeology—tha... more The primary objective of sustainable archaeology is to maintain the profession of archaeology—that is, to sustain itself. An effort to rebrand the discipline as virtuous, sustainable archaeology is self-serving and reflects larger institutional anxieties around an unethical past and an uncertain future. An example of futurist rhetoric and doublespeak, sustainable archaeology exists because archaeology is unsustainable.
Taking a critical heritage approach to late modern naming and placemaking, we discuss how the pow... more Taking a critical heritage approach to late modern naming and placemaking, we discuss how the power to name reflects the power to control people, their land, their past, and ultimately their future. Our case study is the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve (MABR), a recently invented place on Vancouver Island, located in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Through analysis of representations and landscape, we explore MABR as state-sanctioned branding, where a dehumanized nature is packaged for and marketed to wealthy ecotourists. Greenwashed by a feel-good “sustainability” discourse, MABR constitutes colonial placemaking and economic development, representing no break with past practices.
BC Studies, 2013
On the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America, labrets are often described as markers of social... more On the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America, labrets are often described as markers of social status that were commonly worn by women. While this gender correlation is challenged by both osteological and ethnohistorical evidence, the association of labrets with "status" remains the default interpretation of these objects offered by archaeologists. This article describes efforts to clarify the social role of labrets, and it uses typological analysis combined with contextual, temporal, and geographic information to reveal patterns relating to social identity. Although hindered by a lack of available data, broad patterning indicates that the social role of the labret as observed ethnographically differs from the role assigned it in archaeological interpretations. Further, the heterogeneity of form observed is irreconcilable with any simplistic social meaning, suggesting that labrets conveyed context-specific social identities at several scales. I therefore suggest that the relationship between body modification and identity is too complex for archaeological methodologies alone, and I discuss my attempt to overcome this by speaking with those for whom the labret continues to hold meaning.
Antiquity, 2018
The authors respond to the recent debate piece in Antiquity by González-Ruibal et al., which they... more The authors respond to the recent debate piece in Antiquity by González-Ruibal et al., which they claim misrepresents public archaeology by ignoring the dominant practice of cultural resource management (CRM).
Journal of Canadian Studies, 2018
Archaeologies, 2017
Abstract: North American archaeology is evaluated in light of state and heritage crime theory. Wh... more Abstract: North American archaeology is evaluated in light of state and heritage crime theory. When analyzed with preexisting typologies, the practice is shown to meet the threshold for state-sanctioned heritage crime. This study also demonstrates how current models of heritage crime do not adequately account for (1) the pivotal role states and state-sanctioned heritage experts play in committing heritage crime and (2) the implications of heritage crime for living descendant communities, not just physical artifacts and buildings. Typically thought of as crime against the state, seeing a state heritage regime as organized heritage crime opens the door to a host of theoretical and practical possibilities, including legal remedies for affected communities. Despite these opportunities, major impediments to meaningful change exist.
Re´sume´: L’arche´ologie nord-ame´ricaine est e´value´e a` la lumie`re de la the´orie des crimes contre l’E´tat et le patrimoine. Lorsqu’elle est analyse´e a` l’aide de typologies pre´existantes, la pratique semble respecter le seuil en vigueur pour les crimes contre le patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat. La pre´sente e´tude de´montre aussi comment les mode`les actuels d’examen des crimes contre le patrimoine ne tiennent pas ade´quatement compte (1) du roˆ le central que jouent les E´tats et les experts en patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat en commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine; et (2) des implications que les crimes contre le patrimoine ont sur les communaute´s parentes vivantes et pas seulement sur les artefacts et baˆtiments physiques. Ge´ne´ralement conside´re´s comme des crimes contre l’E´tat, le fait d’associer un re´gime d’E´ tat commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine a` un re´seau de crimes organise´s ouvre la voie a` une gamme de possibilite´s the´oriques et pratiques, dont l’acce`s des communaute´s touche´es a` des recours en justice. Plusieurs obstacles d’envergure au changement existent pourtant malgre´ ces possibilite´s.
Resumen: La arqueologı´a norteamericana se evalu´ a a la luz de la teorı´a del estado y del crimen contra el patrimonio. Cuando se analizan con las tipologı´as preexistentes, se muestra que la pra´ctica satisface el umbral del crimen contra el patrimonio sancionado por el estado. El presente studio demuestra tambie´n co´mo los modelos actuales de crimen contra el patrimonio no explican de manera adecuada (1) el papel crucial que los estados y los expertos en patrimonio sancionados por el estado desempen˜ an en la comisio´n de crı´menes contra el patrimonio y (2) las implicaciones de los crı´menes contra el patrimonio para las comunidades de descendientes vivos, no so´ lo de artefactos fı´sicos y edificios. Visto normalmente como un crimen contra el estado, ver un re´gimen del patrimonio estatal como un crimen organizado contra el patrimonio abre la puerta a un monto´n de posibilidades teo´ ricas y pra´cticas, incluidos remedios legales para las comunidades afectadas. A pesar de estas oportunidades, existen impedimentos de importancia para un cambio significativo.
Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 2015
We provide a critical response to Andrew Martindale and Natasha Lyons’ 2014 special section on Co... more We provide a critical response to Andrew Martindale and Natasha Lyons’ 2014 special section on Community-Oriented Archaeology (Canadian Journal of Archaeology Volume 38, Issue 2), discussing the authors’ definitions, interpretations, and motivations around archaeology and community. By not defining archaeology in terms of how it is most commonly practiced, we argue the collective work misses the mark, with serious consequences for descendent communities. We show how Community-Oriented Archaeology appropriates the challenge posed to archaeologists to make their discipline relevant and responsive to Indigenous communities; instead, the authors foreground archaeology itself and reaffirm the privilege of non-Indigenous archaeologists, especially academic archaeologists. By considering what is excluded and taken-for-granted, we examine the special section in terms of selection bias and revisionist history. We suggest Community-Oriented Archaeology coopts aspects of Indigenous, critical, and radical discourses to legitimize the institution and practice, in the process forgetting what is at stake for Indigenous peoples. Rather than focusing on the needs of archaeology and archaeologists, we emphasize the interests of Indigenous communities and address uncomfortable truths about institutional racism and systemic inequality. As the editors had hoped, Community-Oriented Archaeology makes us “squirm,” but not for the reasons they intended. // Nous offrons une réponse critique à Andrew Martindale et Natasha Lyons sur leur section spéciale de 2014 concernant l’archéologie axée sur la communauté (Journal canadien d’archéologie volume 38, numéro 2) en évaluant les définitions, interprétations et motivations des auteurs à propos de l’archéologie et la notion de communauté. En évitant de définir l’archéologie par la façon dont elle est la plus souvent pratiquée, nous soutenons que le travail collectif manque la cible, non sans conséquences pour les communautés descendantes autochtones. Nous démontrons comment l’archéologie axée sur la communauté s’approprie le défi lancé aux archéologues de rendre leur discipline pertinente et sensible aux communautés autochtones; à la place, les auteurs mettent à l’avant-plan l’archéologie elle-même et réaffirme le privilège des archéologues non-autochtones, particulièrement des archéologues académiques. En considérant ce qui est exclus et pris pour acquis, nous examinons cette section spéciale sous les plans du biais en sélection et d’histoire révisionniste. Nous suggérons que l’archéologie axée sur la communauté combine des éléments de discours autochtones, critiques et radicaux pour légitimer l’institution et sa pratique, en oubliant dans le processus ce qui est en jeu pour les peuples autochtones. Plutôt que de se concentrer sur les besoins de l’archéologie et des archéologues, nous mettons l’emphase sur les communautés autochtones et adressons les inconfortables vérités sur le racisme institutionnel et l’inégalité systémique. Comme les éditeurs l’avaient espéré, l’archéologie axée sur la communauté nous met dans l’embarras, mais pas pour les raisons dont ils en avaient l’intention.
New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry , 2013
Drawing on ethnographic research based in Gitxaała, British Columbia during 2007, I focus on the ... more Drawing on ethnographic research based in Gitxaała, British Columbia during 2007, I focus on the theory and practice of consultation undertaken for development in British Columbia. I specifically address the local impact of the consultative process on the Indigenous community, and relate this to larger themes of capitalism and colonialist expansion.
Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2015
The statement “we are all archaeologists now” is an assertion of archaeology’s democratization th... more The statement “we are all archaeologists now” is an assertion of archaeology’s democratization thus goodness. It is also a gross misrepresentation of how archaeology is practiced daily, especially in colonized settings like the United States and Canada. Archaeology is today—as it has always been—an elite undertaking that serves elite class interests. Since 1950, archaeology has become increasingly bureaucratized and corporatized, and today the vast majority of archaeology is state-sanctioned but highly privatized cultural resource management. As a technology of government designed to control living Indigenous people and their resources, we suggest archaeology is becoming radically less democratic, not more, and ask why archaeologists so routinely misrepresent their profession.
The statement “we are all archaeologists now” is an assertion of archaeology’s democratization th... more The statement “we are all archaeologists now” is an assertion of archaeology’s democratization thus goodness. It is also a gross misrepresentation of how archaeology is practiced daily, especially in colonized settings like the United States and Canada. Archaeology is today—as it has always been—an elite undertaking that serves elite class interests. Since 1950, archaeology has become increasingly bureaucratized and corporatized, and today the vast majority of archaeology is state-sanctioned but highly privatized cultural resource management. As a technology of government designed to control living Indigenous people and their resources, we suggest archaeology is becoming radically less democratic, not more, and ask why archaeologists so routinely misrepresent their profession.
Collaborative and community-based archaeological research encompasses a broad spectrum of approac... more Collaborative and community-based archaeological research encompasses a broad spectrum of approaches; however, there are often discrepancies between how researchers ‘sell’ the collaborative endeavour in theory and how it is actually practised. Over the past several years, I have had the opportunity to participate in several projects, ranging from those that claimed to be ‘truly collaborative,’ to research that maybe should have asked, ‘what community?’ These experiences raised difficult and disturbing questions concerning the nature and practice of collaborative and community-based archaeology. In this paper, I confront these issues as I have experienced them personally. While community-based practices aim to redress a historical and ongoing power imbalance between the researcher and the researched, constant vigilance is required lest the ‘good intentions’ of anthropologists inadvertently mask an exploitation that may be inherent in the structure of research itself. In considering the corporate nature of academia, I query whether the collaborative research model represents a break with the past, or is instead simply the same old practice dressed up in fashionable new language.
International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 2015
Archaeology is a form of disaster capitalism, characterized by specialist managers whose function... more Archaeology is a form of disaster capitalism, characterized by specialist managers whose function is the clearance of Indigenous heritage from the landscape, making way for economic development. When presented with this critique, archaeologists respond strongly and emotionally, defending archaeology. Anger emanates from and revolves around the assertion that archaeologists are not just complicit in but integral to the destruction of the very heritage they claim to protect. In what we believe is an act of philosophical and economic self-preservation, mainstream archaeologists actively forget the relationship between archaeology, violence, and the global heritage crisis. Securely defended by its practitioners, archaeology therefore remains an imperial force grounded in the ideology of growth, development, and progress. // A arqueologia é uma forma de capitalismo do desastre, caracterizado por gestores especializados cuja função é a “liberação” da herança indígena da paisagem, abrindo o caminho para o desenvolvimento econômico. Quando confrontados com esta crítica, os arqueológicos respondem de maneira forte e emocional, negando e defendendo a indústria da arqueologia comercial. Sua fúria provém e gira em torno da ideia de que os arqueólogos não são apenas cúmplices, mas tomam parte da destruição do mesmo patrimônio que clamam proteger. No que acreditamos ser um ato de autopreservação filosófica e econômica, a maioria dos arqueólogos propositalmente “esquece” a relação entre arqueologia, violência e a crise do patrimônio global. Seguramente defendida por seus praticantes, a arqueologia permanece por este motivo uma força imperial, fundada na ideologia do crescimento, desenvolvimento e progresso.
Archaeologies, 2014
Archaeology is deeply troubled, but students are unlikely to learn about it in their ARCH 100 cla... more Archaeology is deeply troubled, but students are unlikely to learn about it in their ARCH 100 class. Our experience with ‘World Prehistory’ and ‘Introductory Archaeology’ courses and reviewing common textbooks charts a discipline securely anchored in the 19th century ideological harbour that is science, evolution, imperialism and progress. This includes so-called ‘middle road’ and ‘post-colonial’ approaches, which reinforce the status quo by limiting political action. In our search for an alternative, we discuss here our attempts to teach an anti-colonial archaeology rooted in critical pedagogy, political activism and anti-oppressive practice. At its core are three tenets: archaeology is personal, political and all about the present. While we are gratified by the many students who relish this opportunity for critical enquiry, we are faced with this lingering problem: most people do not want to hear the “negative reality” of archaeology. // L’archéologie est en grande difficulté, mais il est peu probable que les étudiants l’apprennent dans leur classe ARCH 100. Notre expérience des cours de « préhistoire mondiale » et d’ « introduction à l’archéologie » ainsi que l’analyse des manuels courants dessinent une discipline bien enracinée dans le champ idéologique du 19ème siècle entre science, évolution, impérialisme et progrès. Même les approches dites « intermédiaire » et « postcoloniale » sont concernées, car elles renforcent le statu quo en limitant l’action politique. Dans notre recherche d’une alternative, nous exposons ici nos tentatives pour enseigner une archéologie anticoloniale nourrie de pédagogie critique, d’activisme politique et de pratique antioppression. Elle se fonde sur trois principes : l’archéologie est personnelle, politique et centrée sur le présent. Bien que nous félicitant du nombre d’étudiants qui savourent cette opportunité d’étude critique, nous sommes confrontés à un problème persistant : la majorité ne veut pas entendre la « réalité négative » de l’archéologie. // La arqueología está profundamente preocupada, pero no es probable que los estudiantes sepan de esto en su clase ARCH 100. Nuestra experiencia con los cursos sobre "Prehistoria Mundial" e "Introducción a la Arqueología" y la revisión de los libros de texto comunes trazan una disciplina firmemente anclada en el puerto ideológico del siglo XIX que es la ciencia, la evolución, el imperialismo y el progreso. Esto incluye los enfoques denominados "moderados" o "postcoloniales", que refuerzan el statu quo limitando la acción política. En nuestra búsqueda de una alternativa, tratamos aquí nuestros intentos de enseñar una arqueología anticolonial enraizada en la pedagogía crítica, el activismo político y la práctica antiopresiva. En su núcleo encontramos tres premisas: la arqueología es personal, política y tiene que ver con el presente. Aunque nos sentimos gratificados por los muchos estudiantes que disfrutan de esta oportunidad de indagación crítica, nos vemos enfrentados a este problema persistente: la mayoría de las personas no quieren oír hablar de la "realidad negativa" de la arqueología.
Uploads
Thesis + Dissertation by Marina La Salle
Papers by Marina La Salle
The authors address the unique challenges and legal questions that Indigenous peoples face, drawing on their experience working for the Council of the Haida Nation and foregrounding the ways that Indigenous communities are pursuing climate adaptation and mitigation to ensure the resilience of their communities.
Re´sume´: L’arche´ologie nord-ame´ricaine est e´value´e a` la lumie`re de la the´orie des crimes contre l’E´tat et le patrimoine. Lorsqu’elle est analyse´e a` l’aide de typologies pre´existantes, la pratique semble respecter le seuil en vigueur pour les crimes contre le patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat. La pre´sente e´tude de´montre aussi comment les mode`les actuels d’examen des crimes contre le patrimoine ne tiennent pas ade´quatement compte (1) du roˆ le central que jouent les E´tats et les experts en patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat en commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine; et (2) des implications que les crimes contre le patrimoine ont sur les communaute´s parentes vivantes et pas seulement sur les artefacts et baˆtiments physiques. Ge´ne´ralement conside´re´s comme des crimes contre l’E´tat, le fait d’associer un re´gime d’E´ tat commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine a` un re´seau de crimes organise´s ouvre la voie a` une gamme de possibilite´s the´oriques et pratiques, dont l’acce`s des communaute´s touche´es a` des recours en justice. Plusieurs obstacles d’envergure au changement existent pourtant malgre´ ces possibilite´s.
Resumen: La arqueologı´a norteamericana se evalu´ a a la luz de la teorı´a del estado y del crimen contra el patrimonio. Cuando se analizan con las tipologı´as preexistentes, se muestra que la pra´ctica satisface el umbral del crimen contra el patrimonio sancionado por el estado. El presente studio demuestra tambie´n co´mo los modelos actuales de crimen contra el patrimonio no explican de manera adecuada (1) el papel crucial que los estados y los expertos en patrimonio sancionados por el estado desempen˜ an en la comisio´n de crı´menes contra el patrimonio y (2) las implicaciones de los crı´menes contra el patrimonio para las comunidades de descendientes vivos, no so´ lo de artefactos fı´sicos y edificios. Visto normalmente como un crimen contra el estado, ver un re´gimen del patrimonio estatal como un crimen organizado contra el patrimonio abre la puerta a un monto´n de posibilidades teo´ ricas y pra´cticas, incluidos remedios legales para las comunidades afectadas. A pesar de estas oportunidades, existen impedimentos de importancia para un cambio significativo.
The authors address the unique challenges and legal questions that Indigenous peoples face, drawing on their experience working for the Council of the Haida Nation and foregrounding the ways that Indigenous communities are pursuing climate adaptation and mitigation to ensure the resilience of their communities.
Re´sume´: L’arche´ologie nord-ame´ricaine est e´value´e a` la lumie`re de la the´orie des crimes contre l’E´tat et le patrimoine. Lorsqu’elle est analyse´e a` l’aide de typologies pre´existantes, la pratique semble respecter le seuil en vigueur pour les crimes contre le patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat. La pre´sente e´tude de´montre aussi comment les mode`les actuels d’examen des crimes contre le patrimoine ne tiennent pas ade´quatement compte (1) du roˆ le central que jouent les E´tats et les experts en patrimoine sanctionne´s par l’E´ tat en commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine; et (2) des implications que les crimes contre le patrimoine ont sur les communaute´s parentes vivantes et pas seulement sur les artefacts et baˆtiments physiques. Ge´ne´ralement conside´re´s comme des crimes contre l’E´tat, le fait d’associer un re´gime d’E´ tat commettant des crimes contre le patrimoine a` un re´seau de crimes organise´s ouvre la voie a` une gamme de possibilite´s the´oriques et pratiques, dont l’acce`s des communaute´s touche´es a` des recours en justice. Plusieurs obstacles d’envergure au changement existent pourtant malgre´ ces possibilite´s.
Resumen: La arqueologı´a norteamericana se evalu´ a a la luz de la teorı´a del estado y del crimen contra el patrimonio. Cuando se analizan con las tipologı´as preexistentes, se muestra que la pra´ctica satisface el umbral del crimen contra el patrimonio sancionado por el estado. El presente studio demuestra tambie´n co´mo los modelos actuales de crimen contra el patrimonio no explican de manera adecuada (1) el papel crucial que los estados y los expertos en patrimonio sancionados por el estado desempen˜ an en la comisio´n de crı´menes contra el patrimonio y (2) las implicaciones de los crı´menes contra el patrimonio para las comunidades de descendientes vivos, no so´ lo de artefactos fı´sicos y edificios. Visto normalmente como un crimen contra el estado, ver un re´gimen del patrimonio estatal como un crimen organizado contra el patrimonio abre la puerta a un monto´n de posibilidades teo´ ricas y pra´cticas, incluidos remedios legales para las comunidades afectadas. A pesar de estas oportunidades, existen impedimentos de importancia para un cambio significativo.
Keywords: collaborative archaeology, Indigenous archaeology, cultural resource management, decolonization, appropriation, community-oriented archaeology, colonialism, applied archaeology, public archaeology
benefits and how also to avoid the pitfalls of misappropriation. While these issues are faced by all cultural groups, there is a
long history of Indigenous cultural heritage being used by non-Indigenous people for commercial and other purposes.
The study guide is designed to help teachers and students develop an understanding of Indigenous history, heritage and contemporary artistic tradition. Discussion points, classroom activities and assignments, and additional resources are provided to assist in delving deeper into some of the issues raised in “Tracing Roots,” including: the links between heritage and the perpetuation of culture; the concepts of stewardship and caretaking; the protection of and control over artistic works as intellectual property; and the role of Elders in teaching and learning traditional cultural practices.