The most pressing concerns of the Arctic region are the future of governance, shipping and navigation opportunities, a commitment to greener stewardship and, perhaps most pointedly, which nation(s) wield the most influence.
The question of who holds that influence is controversial. Do claims exist via proximity, economic ability, or through some form of traditional presence and activity? While today the international community may see geopolitical proximity through a seat at the Arctic Council as sufficient credentials enough, what role does cultural or historic precedent play?
Cultural Resource Management (CRM) can, in some cases, appear to be able to cement a winner in a geopolitical game of finders-keepers. The discipline is taught to students as a field of cultural interpretation, employed to understand the physical representations of who we are and where we have come from.
While it is certainly this, Cultural Resource Management is often practically employed as a stopgap for business expansion and commercial gain, with resource and building companies going to lengths to ensure no cultural heritage protected by law is damaged in pursuit of that expansion.
But what role can cultural and heritage resource management play in Canada’s (and other nations) attempts to cement their claims of sovereignty over the rapidly warming and opening region?
The case of the HMS Erebus and Terror
The wrecks of the ill-fated British Franklin Expedition to discover the Northwest Passage present a window into the world of Arctic territorial control. Captained by Sir John Franklin, the two state of the art, reinforced hulled ships sailed from Greenhithe, England on May 19th, 1845. After wintering on Beechy island, the expedition sailed south where, in September of 1846, the ships became trapped in thick ice and are thought to remained so. Subsequent calls for rescue by Lady Franklin to the British Admiralty, their respective attempts, including questioning the local Inuit, yielded scant physical trace.
Britain and Canada signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 1997 that transferred ownership of the wrecks (as of then not found) to the Canadian government. Interestingly, five years earlier in 1992, the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that the wrecks would become National Historic Sites upon their discovery (LaBarge 2019, p.82).
In 2014, Parks Canada, in association with an expanded joint Canadian Navy and Coast Guard training presence in the arctic, Operation NUNALIUVIT, utilized sonar imaging technologies in a bid to locate the wrecks. In a moment that Underwater Archaeologist Ryan Harris exclaimed was “like winning the Stanley Cup”, the unmistakable image of a shipwreck sitting on the ocean floor north of King William Island came into view. Vital to this effort were centuries of Inuit oral traditional telling of approximate location of these wrecks, physical ship remains on land and even stories of encountering the Franklin men themselves (Paris 2014, np). But what weight does oral traditional carry?
The response of the Harper government at the time was one of self-congratulation. One could see in the language of both Stephen Harper and then environmental minister John Baird evidence of Canadian sovereignty stretching back at least until 1845 (Tétu et all 2019, p. 72). But who was to steward the wrecks? As the wrecks lie within the 12 nautical mile boundary of territorial seas, Canada has firm international precedent to control. While Britain transferred control of the ships themselves, the finders keepers law failed to appropriately weight oral history as a meaningful claim for Inuit groups to have ownership rights over the wrecks.
In 2018, the Canadian government acknowledged that the Franklin wrecks were discovered on Inuit traditional lands and that a shared effort would go into effect to jointly own artifacts and steward the wrecks. Such late recognition showcases a longstanding state of affairs in Canada, however.
It may be a belaboured and well understood point, but a once indifferent view of the Indigenous populations and disbelief in any claim to land these populations lived on by European explorers and settlers has traditionally been fashioned into the tip of the spear of Canada’s international claim to the Arctic region. Hopefully, decolonized attitudes continue to govern Canada’s northern decision making.
Will a bid to strengthen Canada’s claim that the Northwest Passage is an inland waterway hold up under the presence of two historic and culturally relevant shipwrecks? While that reason alone seems tenuous, can effective joint stewardship generate public and international support?
Cultural Resources: A tool of sovereignty?
Both the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have (vague) provisions regarding a coastal states ability to control sunken material within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf (LaBarge 2019, p. 111). The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France, Norway, Russia and the United States have called into question how compatible UNCLOS is with UNESCO’s charter (Tétu et al 2019, p. 76). Specifically, the United States continues to differ in opinion with Canada over the designation of the Northwest Passage, the former claiming it instead to be international waters.
So, if international legal dispute continues, does a pathway to effect stewardship exist by promoting the worth of Arctic regional history and cultural heritage to a broader public perhaps indifferent due to relative remoteness or lack of perceived value?
Comparatively, following recommendations laid out in the governmental contexts of Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard, physical cultural heritage sites should be protected and promoted in such a way that stewards the cultural and historic importance at a local, regional and national level (Nielsen 2006, p. 12). As seen with the National Historic Site designation for the Franklin wrecks, this includes sunken heritage material, often invisible to interpretation and easy tourist access.
Does such stewardship require tourism? As the Franklin ships are currently off limits to anyone without written permission from the government, virtual tours and museums are available to bring the meaning of Canada’s Colonial Arctic exploration heritage into our homes.
It can be said that we humans interact with place most effectively by identifying some shared common purpose or value. If we as a nation seeking sovereignty over Arctic waters truly want such control, fair, rights based and equitable stewardship of our shared cultural past and diverse present needs to take centre stage.
Revitalisation to aid Sovereignty?
It can go without saying that sovereignty and the leadership of non-Indigenous groups, particularly in the field of cultural resource management, can be seen to be present day colonialism. Archaeology, the basic fieldwork function of CRM, has a long history of perpetuating colonialism through words like “discovery” and “ownership”.
Sovereignty can sometimes be a dirty word, considering Canada’s long history of systematic physical and cultural genocide against Indigenous groups stretching back to the arrival of the first Europeans. What is required moving forward is continued acceptance of this past and a willingness to move forward with a Canadian government accepting this historical role. One way to do this is through a united front to revitalise the Arctic region through localized place-based understanding.
To avoid continued western dominated archaeological interpretation of Canada’s Arctic that began in the 1920’s, The Northern Heritage Society, along with other schools and groups throughout the 1970’s – 1990’s developed archaeological field schools for northern youth with an attempt to bring together “oral history and the archaeological record, and attempting to open a dialogue between Inuit and western ways of knowing about the past.” (Hodgetts, 2013, p.71) Since the 1990’s, governmental and institution-funded initiatives to engage Inuit of all ages show a continued effort to develop a sense of stewardship for a culturally significant region.
The shared stewardship of the Franklin wrecks represent a positive step in the right direction. In 2019, the second international Arctic Arts Summit (AAS 2019), attended by all the Arctic countries, met in Finland to discuss united action designed to “strengthen international interaction, the vitality of the arts and culture sector and implementation of art in other sectors of society such as regional development” (Huhmarniemi & Jukela, 2020, 11) within the Arctic circle. Revitalisation was a centrepiece.
Arts promotion be a way, according to AAS 2019, to promote sustainability in global politics, environmental and biodiversity issues, and shifting demographic and cultural realities. Looking at revitalization and place-based understanding as a means to promote Canada’s sustainable sovereign role in the Arctic, stewarding sunken cultural resources through effective cooperation with Inuit communities in interpretation is key.
Interpreting the lands and waters we call home requires effective communication. Indeed, “place-conscious and place-responsive teaching contribute to sustainability by strengthening connections between people and the worlds they inhabit.” (Huhmarniemi & Jukela, 2020, 12).
While the Franklin wrecks are physical relics of a time when disrespect, dehumanization and ambivalence towards the traditional stewards of present-day Canada was rampant, how our governments work toward continued decolonization and cooperation with northern populations represent a model for lasting and sustainable sovereignty of a region requiring fair and environmental conscious traversal rules.
In Conclusion: Going forward
Western culture likes empirical evidence to verify truth and claim. It also values physical displays of power. However, what has traditionally been the purview of the Inuit, a sense of knowledge, stewardship and place, illuminates a point of view that should be central to Canada’s role in stewarding its own relationship with the Arctic region, cultures and international partners both on and off the Arctic Council.
It is not just through evidence of early occupation, military presence or desire for resources that will have the most lasting effect on Arctic sovereignty, but rather an educated and engaged governance and population understanding the weight of interpreting the region’s history and its place in a warming world, both above and below the seas.
If the Northwest Passage is to become a well-trafficked route in the decades to come, let us invoke the rules of a museum. Pass through and marvel. Look, but do not touch.
Much easier said than done, but just as necessary.
About the Author: Ben McTaggart
