When the Records Change the Story: Royal Alberta Museum Returns 77 Artifacts to Fort McKa

By Chevi Rabbit, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

(ANNews) – The return of 77 archaeological artifacts to Fort McKay First Nation began with something that can be easy to overlook in a museum collection: the records.

While reviewing documentation connected to objects held in its Archaeology Collection, the Royal Alberta Museum discovered that a group of artifacts originally collected during an archaeological excavation in the 1970s had been recovered from land located on the Fort McKay reserve. That discovery changed the legal status of the objects.

Under Alberta’s Historical Resources Act, archaeological artifacts discovered in Alberta, except those found on federal lands, are protected and become part of the province’s archaeological collection. But artifacts found on First Nation reserve land do not fall under that legislation.

As a result, RAM determined that the Fort McKay artifacts were legally the property of the Nation. The museum then contacted Fort McKay First Nation and began working with the community to arrange their return. To date, 77 artifacts have been returned, with arrangements underway for the remaining objects.

Meaghan Patterson, Executive Director of the Royal Alberta Museum, said the distinction is straightforward: “Archaeological artifacts found on reserve land do not fall under the Alberta Historical Resources Act, and therefore remain the property of the nation.”

For Fort McKay, the significance of the return extends beyond the number of objects involved. The artifacts include stone tools, animal bones and other materials left by people who lived in the region over many generations and thousands of years.

Rather than determining how those objects should be displayed, preserved or interpreted, RAM says those decisions now belong to Fort McKay. “It is up to the Nation to choose what to do with the items,” Patterson said.

A Question of Ownership

The Fort McKay return raises a larger question about the thousands of Indigenous archaeological objects held by museums and institutions. Could other collections contain artifacts that were also collected from reserve lands and therefore legally belong to the Nations from which they originated?

RAM says it cannot speak for other organizations in Alberta. However, Patterson said ensuring appropriate cultural care and stewardship of Indigenous belongings is a priority for the museum. “If we discover that there are other archaeological objects in our collection that were collected on reserve lands, similar to the circumstances of the objects that are being returned to Fort McKay, we would get in touch with the relevant First Nation to arrange a return,” she said.

That statement places particular importance on provenance – the historical record documenting where an object came from, when it was collected and under what circumstances. In the Fort McKay case, those records ultimately provided the information necessary to determine that the objects did not belong to the province.

The museum’s discovery also demonstrates why historical documentation matters when dealing with Indigenous cultural belongings. An artifact may have been sitting in a collection for decades, but its presence in that collection does not necessarily determine who legally owns it.

Two Different Collections

The Fort McKay artifacts were part of RAM’s Archaeology Collection. That collection is separate from the museum’s Indigenous Collection, which is stewarded by RAM’s Indigenous Engagement team.

The distinction is important because the return of the Fort McKay artifacts does not represent a plan to remove older Indigenous objects from the museum and simply replace them with contemporary items.

RAM’s Archaeology Collection continues to grow through archaeological work conducted in Alberta. At the same time, the Indigenous Engagement team works directly with Indigenous communities to collect contemporary stories and objects through donations, commissions and purchases from individuals. Patterson emphasized that the two collections have different purposes and stewardship models.

The museum has also worked with Indigenous communities for decades to return sacred objects to active ceremonial use through the First Nations Sacred and Ceremonial Object Repatriation Act, legislation passed in 2000. That process, known as FNSCORA, applies to sacred and ceremonial objects within RAM’s Indigenous Collection and is separate from what happened with the Fort McKay artifacts.

In the Fort McKay case, the central issue was not a repatriation application under that legislation. It was ownership.

Returning What Belongs to the Community

For Indigenous communities, the return of cultural belongings can carry meaning that goes far beyond their material value. Stone tools, animal remains and other archaeological materials can provide connections to ancestors, territory and the generations of people who lived on the land long before the modern province of Alberta existed.

In Fort McKay, the Nation will now determine what happens to the returned objects. That decision is significant in itself. Rather than a provincial institution deciding how objects connected to Fort McKay’s history should be interpreted or presented, the Nation has authority to determine their future.

The return also illustrates the importance of examining collections through the lens of Indigenous ownership and jurisdiction. For decades, museums and archaeological institutions have accumulated objects through excavations, donations, purchases and other means. But as historical records are revisited and relationships between institutions and Indigenous Nations continue to evolve, questions about provenance and ownership can take on new significance.

In Fort McKay’s case, the answer emerged from the museum’s own records. The artifacts had been collected during an archaeological dig in the 1970s. Decades later, a review of the documentation revealed that the excavation had taken place on reserve land.

Once RAM recognized that the Alberta Historical Resources Act did not apply, the museum contacted the Nation. Seventy-seven artifacts have now made their way home. The remaining artifacts are expected to follow as arrangements are made between the museum and Fort McKay First Nation.

For Patterson and RAM, the process demonstrates the importance of continuing to examine the museum’s collections and working directly with Indigenous communities when questions about ownership and stewardship arise.

For Fort McKay, it represents the return of objects connected to generations of people who lived on the land – objects that, according to the museum’s own determination, belonged to the Nation all along.