On May 10th 1911, several Interior Salish St’át’imc Chiefs, accompanied by ethnographer James A. Teit, drafted, signed and distributed the charter Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe in Spences Bridge B.C. to articulate clearly to developers, government and other settlers who they are, how their traditional territory has been impacted by colonial expansionist agendas and what their creative visions for a self-determined, just and healthy future is. Based on long-term ethnographic, collaborative and oral history research with St’át’imc elders, chiefs and community members, this paper explores the important messages and original context of the declaration. Building on this, our co-authorship and friendships spanning almost two decades now and drawing on interviews and observations made at an annual gathering to mark the Declaration’s 100 year anniversary, it highlights the consequential and powerful ways in which this signal document is currently mobilized to ensure the continuity of a St’át’imc way of life and fully realize nationhood vis-à-vis colonial doctrines and institutions.

The 100-year celebration of the charter position document at the annual St’át’imc Gathering in May 2011, which invited 100 St’át’imc drums and all descendants of the signatory chiefs to self-identify and be witnesses, provides a pivotal example. Here, we assess James Teit’s theories and methods as political activist, ethnographer, hunter and associate of Franz Boas and examine the importance of these relationships and representations in revisionist and historicist fashion. Together, we draw some critical and pertinent insights for action anthropological, collaborative and ethnohistorical research methods to better equip us to deal with the challenges of our times.

British Colonialism, Indigenous Political Protests and Scottish-Born, Interior Salish-based James A. Teit

At the end of the nineteenth Century, British Columbia’s policies were marked by the colony’s refusal, after the Douglas Treaties, to negotiate or to recognize any Indian title. St‘át‘imc Title and Rights regarding Interior Salish lands and resources were un-settled and unsettling. In the decades between the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1886 and the beginning of the First World War in 1914 tensions surrounding settler colonial expansion heightened. As a result of the growing settler population of British Columbia, Indigenous^[1]The terms “Indigenous”, “Native” and “Indian” will be used analogously in this text to accurately denote the historical periods in which they are and were mobilized politically, by other scholars and historians. communities worried about their loss of access to lands, resources, economic marginalization, and increasing institutionalized discrimination and racism (Cole 2006, 16; Wickwire 1998, 209; Galois 1992, 1). It was in this difficult context that James Teit came to Spences Bridge, ultimately becoming an important ally of Indigenous peoples in their struggles for rights, lands, livelihood and recognition. During this time of frontier-pushing, native political protest was becoming organized. Between the imposition of the Indian Act and federal and provincial disputes over the colonial reserve geography, the growing Indian Rights movement asserted a “nation-to-nation relationship” (Galois 1992; Ware 1983).

Engaging ethnographer and ethnologist James Teit as secretary-treasurer in 1909 (Galois 1992), the Interior Tribes of B.C. made a number of formal requests to the government, known as appeals to the Honour of the Crown. Teit had come to Spences Bridge in 1884 from the Scottish Shetland Islands to work at his uncle’s store. The main customers were local Nlaka’pamux families. Teit soon made friends with many and started to learn their language, joining hunting, fishing and land trips. In 1892 he married a Nlaka’pamux woman, Susanna Lucy Antko from Nkaitu’sus (Tswall Valley), acquiring a profound insider and nonconformist gender perspective onto Salish life (Ray Fogelson, personal communication, November 2016). His familiarity with the Nlaka’pamux ways and language brought him to the attention of Franz Boas in 1894, the then leading figure in North American anthropology. Teit became a close collaborator with Boas and soon affiliated with other major contemporary anthropologists. Under and beyond Boas’ mentorship, Teit meticulously collected field notes on songs and language, traditions, relationship terms, animal legends, mythology, comparative vocabularies, place names, personal names and ethnographic materials (cf. Teit 1906, 1909, 1912). St’át’imc author Joanne Drake-Terry highlights the fact that Teit’s engagement as secretary and interpreter for many Interior tribal chiefs established him as a key witness and advocate for native rights (1989, 246; cf. Wickwire 2019; Laforet et al. 2024)(see Figure 1).

Around this time, the Interior Chiefs decided to affiliate with the coastal Indian Rights Association to demand a settlement of their land question (Drake-Terry 1989, 246). Southern Interior Chiefs met at Spences Bridge in the summer of 1910 to study the demands of the Indian Rights Association. Galois (1992, 23) notes that in pursuing this resolution, native people took their protest activities beyond the bureaucratic channels of the Department of Indian Affairs, seeking access to the centres of political power in white society—imperial, federal and provincial governments. These endeavours involved the use of forms of protest that were readily intelligible to white politicians including letters, petitions and delegations while involving extensive, exhausting and expensive journeys (Galois 1992, ibid.). In the process two basic strategic alternatives for resolving the “Indian land question” were defined: a negotiated settlement—a treaty—or a court decision.

The Interior Chiefs understood how important it was for them to define, and speak for, their own concerns: their treaty rights, demands for compensation for lands appropriated, enlargement of reservations toward permanent and secure title. Overall there was a concern with defining and asserting their inherent rights. They had Teit “write it all down and in essence” in point-by-point form so it could be easily shared and understood (Qwa7yán’ak, personal communication, summer 2016; cf. Drake-Terry 1989; Laforet and York 1998). In the words of the late St’át’imc Elder Sam Mitchell, “the chiefs would get together and deliberate all night long with Teit listening” (quoted by an anonymous Elder, personal communication, August 2016).

The Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe, 1911

A formal and specific St’át’imc assertion of sovereignty over territorial lands and a strong opposition to the confiscation of land by non-St’át’imc settlers was drafted, narrated and written down as the Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe 1911 (see Figure 2), signed by seventeen St’át’imc Chiefs and witnessed by Teit, on May 10, 1911, in Spences Bridge. A key excerpt asserts:

We claim that we are the rightful owners of our tribal territory and everything pertaining thereto. We have always lived in our country; at no time have we ever deserted it, or left it to others. We have retained it from the invasion of other tribes at the cost of our blood. Our ancestors were in possession of our county centuries before the whites came. It is the same as yesterday when the latter came, and like the day before when the first fur trader came. We are aware the B.C. government claims our country, like all other Indian territories in B.C.; but we deny their right to it. We never gave it nor sold it to them. They certainly never got the title to the country from us, neither by agreement nor conquest, and none other than us could have any right to give them title. In early days we considered white chiefs like a superior race that never lied nor stole, and always acted wisely, and honourably. We expected they would lay claim to what belonged to themselves only. In these considerations we have been mistaken and gradually have learned how cunning, cruel, untruthful, and thieving some of them can be. We have felt keenly the stealing of our lands by the B.C. Government, but we could never learn how to get redress. We felt helpless and dejected; but lately we began to hope. We think that perhaps after all we may get redress from the greater white chiefs away in the King‘s country, or in Ottawa. It seemed to us all white chiefs and governments were against us, but now we commence to think we may get a measure of justice.

“The Ability to See Clearly, to See into the Future”: The Context, Spirit, Intent, Agency and Legacy of the Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe and James Teit, 1911 to the Present

Reflecting on the significance, context, spirit and intent of the Declaration, a variety of St’át’imc leaders and descendants’ perspectives emerge as follows. Tsal’alh Elder Desmond Peters Sr. (personal communication, June 2016) explained the implicit nature of the declaration as follows:

The Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe is about Tsciwalus—the ability to see clearly, the ability to see into the future. It reminds us of the natural boundaries of the land, not those on a map the way we map things today. The chiefs could see in the future and know that things would be taken, that which was their livelihood, and they could already see the destruction. The Declaration was about protecting the land. The chiefs all gathered at Spences Bridge because it was the most central point. They were all of hereditary descent. I think we called this declaration “Nt’ákmen‘kalha” which means using the good ways (Nt’ákmen), the laws and standards (Nxékmen) of the people of the land as passed down through the generations. The role of James Teit was his meticulous documentation and by writing in his journal he could compare all the differences between the people and how they belonged to the land and this way owned it while the other sama7s—the white men—just figured that the land was up for grabs. Teit translated from what people said and what they wanted and helped them phrase it into a “we declare”.

Similarly, Xwisten Elder Qwa7yán’ak (Carl Alexander) noted that James Teit did very well by the St’át’imc people (personal communication, August 2016; cf. Smith 1988). He said:

You have to remember that all Interior chiefs had interpreters for their declarations and that’s what they declared and they talked about the land. They did not have to have sama7s, white men, to state ownership, just someone to translate and write it with them. Teit could speak. He could talk. He spoke the language the way we did. That was one of his powers. He knew what the chiefs were saying. He helped us write our language down. He was a good person, an anthropologist.

100 Drums, 100 Years Later: The Declaration’s Significance in the 21^st Century

Moving forward in time: the 100-year celebration of the Declaration of the Lillooet Tribe in Tsal’alh during the annual St’át’imc Declaration Gathering on May 10^th 2011 was concurrent with the planned signing of a charter Hydro Settlement Agreement to compensate for past grievances. To celebrate 100 years of the Declaration, 100 drums were gathered in a large sacred circle (see Figure 3). The Declaration was read in its full length, and a 2011 commemorative Declaration attesting to its validity and continuous use was voiced loudly through the microphone. Many speeches were given regarding what it means to be St‘át‘imc and Úcwalmicw, a people of the land. Everyone who self-identified or was appointed by others as descendant of any of the signatory Chiefs of the Lillooet Tribe was invited onto the stage to explain their relations to the signatory Chiefs and their ancestry. Representatives of the Crown and of the electrical distributor and dam operator BC Hydro came on stage to express their respect and acknowledgement of the gathering and 100 years of the Declaration, speaking about an era of a “better” and “new” relationships based on a “small of measure of justice” as demanded by the Chiefs at the beginning of the twentieth Century.^[2]Co-author Qwalqwalten specifies: The Declaration speaks of “a measure of justice.” Grand Chief Saul Terry phrases this agreement as a small measure of justice for our people, and today, there is talk of “a small measure of a measure of justice”—an important difference. This one agreement does not mean that we have stopped pressing for redress, or compensation on the suite of issues that need to be dealt with between the St’at’imc and the other levels of Government. I am co-authoring this text via my current position as Political Lead for the Joint Planning Forum with St’át’imc Government Services and BC Hydro. It is only through that capacity that I am the political lead, or there would be more noise being made on several fronts.

Qwalqwalten, the political lead of St’át’imc Government Services (SGS), remarked quickly that “this is an acknowledgement of our ancestors and the Declaration, an incredibly strong statement of our people practising their St‘át‘imc Title and Rights” (personal communication, May 2011). Led by Qwalqwalten, the St’át’imc Constitution song was sung, a sovereignty tune composed in 1980 when eight hundred Indigenous people travelled to Ottawa to meet Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who was trying to take away native status, title and rights through the White Paper policy. Lines include, for example: “We don’t need your constitution! Canada is all Indian land! We are all in solidarity!” (See here: Constitution Song (St’at’imc)).

During the Declaration gathering in May 2011, many St‘át‘imc people echoed that “The Declaration is our law, it says who we are, where we‘re from and where our territory is” (personal communication, May 10^th 2011 at the St‘át‘imc gathering, see Figure 4). Similarly, Xwisten councillor Gerald Michel, regarding the Declaration’s significance, stated: “My biggest issue is with the B.C. modern treaty process and some of our people trying to go that way—how is that possible, they’re giving away their rights. Instead, the Declaration should be honoured like a treaty”(personal communication, July 2016).

Qwalqwalten (personal communication, October 2020) added that the St’át’imc political stance to reclaiming and maintaining land, labour, resources and nationhood demands a real treaty relationship:

In our case, we have the wealth, the resources in the land, but someone else is taking our wealth. We should be able to say, Canada, kiss our ass, we don’t need your transfer anymore. We need our fair share. Then we do agreements with BC as part of Canada but not as a separate entity. It could be a treaty with us as a nation. We don’t treaty with low levels of government. The prime minister said nation-to-nation which is Canada and BC is only a part of this. So we’d deal with Canada. It can’t call for extinguishment of our inherent right to our land base. It’s going to take some creative energy.

For this endeavour toward a nation-to-nation or treaty relationship, St‘át‘imc members held that the Declaration and James Teit’s legacy would be instrumental. “Teit’s knowledge, is our knowledge,” Tsal’alh hereditary chief Randy James reflectively stated (personal communication, July 2016, emphasis ours), and added, “it helps us reclaim what colonial forces are working to suppress” (cf. Introduction in Laforet et al. 2024; Wickwire 2019).

These revisionist St‘át‘imc discourses question a tokenistic and cursory Euro-Canadian rhetoric of reconciliation which establishes political legitimations through employing modernist notions built upon European enlightenment values (Cassirer 1951; Adorno and Horkheimer 1993; Asch 2002; Povinelli 2002). They highlight a genuine reconciliatory treatied or treaty-able relationship between equals (Borrows 1998; Noble 2009). Accordingly, Canadian anthropologist Michael Asch (2020, 2014) reminds us that a relationship established through treaty entails that the Indigenous parties agree to share their lands in perpetuity with those subjects of the British Crown who wish to settle on them by establishing an enduring partnership akin to one that exists between relatives in a family. More specifically, the partnership is based on an equality of political standing between the parties in which the kind of sharing and mutual aid that flows from kindness are foundational principles. In the ardent words of Sharon Venne (2007, 2) writing from a Cree Treaty 6 perspective, “[w]hen Indigenous Peoples talk about the land and the making of Treaty, we are talking about our life and the life of the future generations. Land is central to the process. We have a relationship with our Creation based on a legal system designed to protect and honour the land.” This aligns closely with the Declaration vision and the ongoing memory, reinterpretation, honouring and spirit of it.

One enquiry during oral history and life story circles posed to many Elders was “How can we honour the declaration now?” While replying, Elder Desmond Peters Sr. pointed at the interview camera, indicating it could be our role to help get his wisdom out and heard, with reference to the history of anthropology. He inspired us to think about how James Teit attended to the St’át’imc ways, respectfully applied himself alongside Franz Boas in solidaristic alliance while pursuing a variety of interests and supported the long battle for a “measure of justice” proclaimed with urgency in 1911 and the healthy treaty relationship that was envisioned when the first fur traders came. The example of Teit’s collaboration with St’át’imc Elders—pointedly recalled one hundred years later— now appears as an excellent example of a Taxian action anthropology approach following paradigms of truth, freedom, co-production of knowledge and non-interventionism (Smith 2015; Tax 1975). It models a relevant and admirable treaty praxis which protects the interests of the Indigenous communities and focuses on the results of the relationship and work being directly and reciprocally beneficial to their self-determination efforts (Asch 2014; Dinwoodie 2015; Laforet et al. 2024; Noble 2009).

Esteemed Xaxli’p Elder Isaac Adolph‘s words on the ongoing essence of the Declaration (personal communication, August 2011) provide us with an excellent conclusion for reflecting on more than a century of St’át’imc self-determination efforts and if not a good then at least a decent anthropology to support it: “The Declaration is the effort to sacrifice yourself today for the benefits of tomorrow because we have not forgotten the past.”

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the important contributions of many St’át’imc Elders, leaders and community members, many of whom are descendants of the Chiefs who co-drafted the Declaration in 1911. We also acknowledge the very constructive comments and feedback we have received from John Tresch and Richard Handler. The ideas, visions and stories outlined in this text have benefited greatly from conversations and insights with a diverse range of individuals and snúk̓wa7s with whom we have had the opportunity to interact, live and work. We further acknowledge the support from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Kukwstumúlhkacw.

---

Read another piece in this series.

Works Cited:

Asch, Michael. On Being Here to Stay: Treaties and Aboriginal Rights in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014.

———. “From Terra Nullius to Affirmation: Reconciling Aboriginal Rights with the Canadian Constitution.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 17, no. 2 (2002): 23–39.

———. “UNDRIP, Treaty Federalism, and Self-Determination.” Review of Constitutional Studies 24, no. 1 (2019): 1.

Blackburn, Carole. “Producing Legitimacy: Reconciliation and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Rights in Canada.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 13, no. 3 (2007): 621–638.

Boas, Franz. “James A. Teit.” The Journal of American Folklore 36, no. 139 (1923): 102–103.

Borrows, John. “Frozen Rights in Canada: Constitutional Interpretation and the Trickster.” American Indian Law Review 22, no. 1 (1997): 37–64.

———. “Re-living the Present: Title, Treaties, and the Trickster in British Columbia.” BC Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly 120 (1998): 99–108.

Cassirer, Ernst. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951.

Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Reimagining Home and Sacred Space. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2003.

Cole, Peter. Coyote and Raven Go Canoeing: Coming Home to the Village. Vol. 42. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006.

Coulthard, Glen. “Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the ‘Politics of Recognition’ in Canada.” Contemporary Political Theory 6, no. 4 (2007): 437–460.

Dinwoodie, David. “Anthropological Activism and Boas’s Pacific Northwest Ethnology.” In The Franz Boas Papers, Volume 1: Franz Boas as Public Intellectual—Theory, Ethnography, Activism, edited by Regna Darnell, Michelle Hamilton, Robert L. A. Hancock, and Joshua Smith, 17–42. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2015.

Drake-Terry, Joanne. The Same As Yesterday: The Lillooet Chronicle—The Theft of Their Lands and Resources. Lillooet, BC: Lillooet Tribal Council, 1989.

Galois, Robert M. “The Indian Rights Association, Native Protest Activity and the ‘Land Question’ in British Columbia, 1903–1916.” Native Studies Review 8, no. 2 (1992): 1–34.

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum, 1993.

Irlbacher-Fox, Stephanie. Finding Dahshaa: Self-Government, Social Suffering, and Aboriginal Policy in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2009.

Laforet, Andrea L., and Annie York. Spuzzum: Fraser Canyon Histories, 1808–1939. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1998.

Laforet, Andrea, Angie Bain, John Haugen, Sarah Carmen Moritz, and Andie Diane Palmer. The Franz Boas Papers, Volume 2: Franz Boas, James Teit, and Early Twentieth-Century Salish Ethnography. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2024.

Moritz, Sarah Carmen. “Tsuwalhkálh Ti Tmícwa (The Land is Ours): St’át’imc Self-Determination in the Face of Large-Scale Hydro-Electric Development.” Master’s thesis, University of Victoria, 2012. Available at: https://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8443/.

Noble, Brian. “Tripped up by Coloniality: Anthropologists as Agent/Tools of Indigenous Political Autonomy?” Paper presented at University of Victoria Colloquium, Victoria, BC, 2009.

Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge, 1993.

Povinelli, Elizabeth A. The Cunning of Recognition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002.

Smith, Joshua J. “Standing with Sol: The Spirit and Intent of Action Anthropology.” Anthropologica 57, no. 2 (2015): 445–456.

Smith, Trefor. Our Stories Are Written on the Land: A Brief History of the St’át’imc 1800–1940. Lillooet, BC: USCLES, 1988.

St’át’imc Chiefs Council (SCC). St’át’imc Code: Draft 3. Lillooet, BC: SCC, 2006. Available at: http://www.statimc.ca/about/statimc-chiefs-council.

Teit, James. The Lillooet Indians. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History 4, no. 4 (1906): 193–300.

———. “The Shuswap.” In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, edited by Franz Boas, 443–758. New York: AMS Press, 1909.

———. “The Thompson Indians of British Columbia.” In The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, edited by Franz Boas, 167–392. New York: AMS Press, 1900.

———. “Traditions of the Lillooet Indians of British Columbia.” Journal of American Folklore 25 (1912): 287–371.

Venne, Sharon. “Treaties Made in Good Faith.” In Natives & Settlers, Now & Then: Historical Issues and Current Perspectives on Treaties and Land Claims in Canada, edited by Paul W. DePasquale, 5–10. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 2007.

Ware, Reuben. Five Issues, Five Battlegrounds: An Introduction to the History of Indian Fishing in British Columbia, 1850–1930. Chilliwack, BC: Coqualeetza Education Training Centre for the Stólo Nation, 1983.

Wickwire, Wendy. At the Bridge: James Teit and an Anthropology of Belonging. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2019.

———. “‘They Wanted … Me to Help Them’: James A. Teit and the Challenge of Ethnography in the Boasian Era.” In With Good Intentions: Euro-Canadian and Aboriginal Relations in Colonial Canada, edited by Celia Haig-Brown and David A. Nock, 307–316. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006.

———. “‘We Shall Drink from the Stream and So Shall You’: James A. Teit and Native Resistance in British Columbia, 1908–22.” Canadian Historical Review 79, no. 2 (1998): 199–236.