Colonialism within the discipline of archaeology can be traced back to the Missionary Era, where explorers and missionaries encountered indigenous peoples during their travels \cite{hancock2006}. The HMS Investigator was an example of this, sailing in search of the Franklin expedition that went missing in 1845 looking for the North-West Passage.  During their voyage, they became trapped in the ice of Mercy Bay and abandoned ship in 1853.  The crew cached most of their remaining supplies onshore where tins and barrels were discovered and utilized by Inuinnait (Copper Inuit) groups from neighbouring islands.  Ethnocentric attitudes towards indigenous peoples were prevalent during this time and there was no exception within the crew members of the Investigator.  The journals of Captain Robert McClure, surgeon Alexander Armstrong, Inuktitut translator Johann Miertsching, and seaman James Nelson described the Inuit to be primitive, immoral, filthy, and simple children of nature \cite{hodgetts2012}.  
     These attitudes displaying Indigenous inferiority greatly influenced early archaeological interpretation.  Clifford Hickey, an archaeologist who studied the Inuinnait groups in the 1980s proposed that their culture underwent a significant transformation due to the influx of goods from the Investigator.  He argued that groups closest to Mercy Bay had exclusive access to these objects in which created an unfair advantage in trading and led to significant differences between the Inuinnait and other Inuit groups.  Archaeological interpretations such as these showed a unidirectional approach; a one-way flow of ideas and change from colonizers to colonized.  In the case of the HMS Investigator, we see a focus on how the goods found from the Investigator were portrayed to have ‘transformed’ Inuit culture instead of examining the ways in which those goods were incorporated into or resisted by existing cultural practices.  Today, archaeologists strive to recognize the complexities of the individual and group identities \cite{hodgetts2012} . 
      The Amateur Era was quite influential towards Iroquoian archaeology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  While these amateurs were largely unprofessional, they were essential towards the archaeological process in documenting sites, excavation, and the interpretation of human remains.  Unfortunately due to their lack in experience, costly mistakes were made in retrieving archaeological material from the sites.  Excavators would often fill ossuaries with stones and logs, or break bones from digging with shovels.  There were also issues with the public’s interpretation of the archaeological record, often portraying First Nations as noble savages or evil barbarians.  The media would add to this stigma by publishing articles that would place past Indigenous populations in constant warfare, thus interpreting ossuaries as a result of large battles.  Artifacts were also described through a colonial lens where the material was viewed as “rough”, “rude”, or “unfinished” \cite{hamilton2006}
     The National Museum Era brought about important figures such as Edward Sapir and Marius Barbeau.  Edward Sapir was greatly influenced by Franz Boas, an American cultural anthropologist who brought about theoretical approaches such as historical particularism and cultural relativism.  During this time, Boas was extremely concerned about the extinction of Native North American cultures and introduced salvage ethnography \cite{murphy2008}.  This method of ethnographic analysis inspired Marius Barbeau, who worked to preserve “authentic” traditional cultures.  His work mainly focused on oral traditions, songs, and genealogies from various Indigenous cultures, as well as legends, old furniture, wood carvings, and other materials from rural French Canada.  Barbeau believed that early-twentieth-century Canadian anthropologists saw themselves as “pioneers” in correcting popular misconceptions about Indigenous cultures and preserving cultural records and artifacts that would be forever lost \cite{nurse2006}.  
     Barbeau took this colonial methodology one step further and proposed a series of research tactics in recovering authentic elements of supposedly dying cultures.  The requirements for Barbeau’s fieldwork needed an approach to efficiently collect cultural traits for archives and museums, in other words, for collection not observation or understanding.  He approached this task by producing steps in acquiring material such as finding an effective research site with trustworthy informants.  These individuals had to be uneducated because he believed that educated informants failed to understand their heritage and were not authentic.  They also needed to be elders, from lower social classes, and those with little to no contact with surrounding cultures.  Barbeau made it very clear that he was not interested in the informants’ oppinions or social views, just their memories \cite{nurse2006}. He was influenced by these colonial methods where he kept a distance between himself and his informants as he believed they devalued his research - Delaney, added this short point to highlight early anthropologists' colonial influences)