Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from Research with Tl’azt’en Nation, British Columbia KAREN HEIKKILÄ ANd GAIL FONdAHL Heikkilä, Karen & Gail Fondahl (2010). Indigenous toponyms as pedagogical tools: reflections from research with Tl’azt’en Nation, British Columbia. Fennia 188: 1, pp. 105–122. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010. Apart from conventional understandings of its utilitarian function as spatial la- bels (often eponymous in character), toponymy is seldom appreciated as pal- impsest or for the layers of meaning it assumes, conveyed in place-name ety- mologies and local knowledge associated with the named places. Over the years, a growing body of literature has emerged on the use of toponymy in sev- eral research fields: the range spans from linguistic investigations into place- names and naming practices to the use of place-names in tracking environmen- tal change, locating places of archaeological interest, and understanding the knowledge possessed by local communities about the natural environment. The latter focus describes place-names research with Tl’azt’en Nation, the dakelh- speaking people whose territory lies in the Stuart-Trembleur watershed of central British Columbia, Canada. From the perspective that indigenous place-names communicate knowledge about the natural world, indigenous language and (oral) history, this paper will draw upon examples of dakelh place-names to demonstrate the value of indigenous toponymy in education. Key words: British Columbia, toponymy, First Nations, indigenous, participatory research, culturally sensitive education. Karen Heikkilä, University Of Eastern Finland Gail Fondahl, University Of Northern British Columbia Introduction Ethnographic studies of how children acquire knowledge have indicated multiple literacy and numeracy practices (Baker et al. 1996), and with indigenous peoples in particular, knowledge seems to be based on the socio-cultural as well as the ecological, internalized, practiced and trans- mitted in a “habitus”1 governed by the subsistence way of life (Sarangapani 2003: 203). Schooling, however, does not necessarily represent the multi- plicity of epistemologies, and is thus perceived as problematic by indigenous peoples who view state-sponsored, introduced western-modeled ed- ucation as antithetical to the values and knowl- edges that define their communities’ worldviews. “Western” standardized education, after all, has often played a part in the marginalization of these peoples, perpetuating the idea that indigenous peoples, their knowledges and ways of life have no place in the present (Urion 1993). To remedy the alienating and homogenizing in- fluences of formal education, there is a pressing need for schools to accommodate other, non- dominant (and often non-“western”) ways of knowing. The need for indigenous ways of know- ing in the curriculum is underscored by a dearth of ancestral knowledge among younger aboriginals, at the root of which is insufficient exposure to their community’s oral tradition and to life on the land (Rosenberg & Nabhan 1997). One means of intro- ducing such knowledge into formal education is through the use of indigenous toponymy to dem- onstrate the “knowledge-practice-belief” (Berkes 1999) basis of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).2 As an articulation of TEK, toponyms “repre- sent a complex body of knowledge… accumulat- ed over long periods of being part of specific natu- URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa2531 106 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl ral environments and ecosystems” (Müller-Wille 2000: 146), and “…constitute a detailed encyclo- pedic knowledge of the environment, [telling] much about how native people perceive, commu- nicate about, and make use of their surroundings” (Afable & Beeler 1996: 185). As well, the role of indigenous toponymy in cur- riculum is recognized to be liberative, serving as a medium to reflect on the indigenous ancestral past for guidance on living “right” in the present (Basso 1996:59). Beyond their capacity for relaying envi- ronmental information, place-names possess the potential to be employed in a post-colonial explo- ration and reclamation of identity (Nash 1999). Places that are referred to by their indigenous names anchor indigenous identity to those places, replacing histories of dispossession and erasure of cultural knowledge with accounts grounded in precise locations (Cruikshank & Argounova 2000). In other words, the symbolically rich resources of place-names and place-based narratives serve to re-establish meanings locally and affirm a sense of continued indigeneity. This is seen most clearly in efforts concerned with the construction of cultur- ally appropriate curriculum, where the transmis- sion of culture is active and the use of cultural knowledge is emphasized over the need to amass and protect it for reasons of posterity (see Cruik- shank 1981; Cruikshank & Argounova 2000). From research with Tl’azt’en Nation (see Heikkila 2007), we propose that indigenous toponyms can serve as valuable tools to sensitize education and to increase its accessibility and appeal to indige- nous students. Tl’azt’en Nation The Tl’azt’enne are dakelh (Carrier)-speaking people of the Stuart-Trembleur Lakes watershed in central interior British Columbia, Canada. Their territory, comprising some 6 500 square kilom- eters north of Fort St. James, is embedded in a re- gion that experiences a continental climate and a short growing season. The region straddles the up- per watersheds of two major rivers, the Fraser and Skeena, which support numerous fish species, in- cluding several types of salmon. Migrating water- fowl descend upon the region’s lakes to nest in the spring, returning in late summer to molt in prepa- ration for migration southward (Morice 1897; Hall 1992; Sam 2001). The territory’s lakes, ponds, riv- ulets and rivers are home to beavers and muskrats, prized for fur and meat. The territory is densely blanketed with spruce, fir, pine, aspen and birch, and along alluvial systems, with black cottonwood and willow. In addition to serving as habitat for game such as moose, mule deer and black bear, and fur-bearing animals such as marten, fisher and lynx, the forest exists as a source of edible plants, and materials for shelter, medicines, and imple- ments such as nets, baskets and canoes (Hudson 1983; Hall 1992). Traditionally hunter-gatherers and foragers, the Tl’azt’enne led a generally mobile way of life and adhered to a social organization consisting of pat- rilocal hunting bands (Morice 1895; Jenness 1943; donahue 1977; Hudson 1983; Fiske 1987). Thor- ough understandings of their surroundings were crucial for survival, and similar to other Atha- paskan peoples, the Tl’azt’enne employed a sub- sistence technology that “depended on artifice rather than artifact” (Ridington 1990: 12). Knowl- edge of the land and its resources was valued over material accumulation: crucial to semi-nomadic survival was the know-how to hunt, fish, and trap and to construct dwellings, weaponry and tools in unpredictable and severe conditions. Yun and dune, the two main knowledge systems in the Tl’azt’en worldview, pertain respectively to the mastery of utilitarian skills and ritual (ceremonial and customary) conduct (deborah Page, Tl’azt’en Youth Meeting, 27/02/04). These systems of knowledge represented the necessary guides to life in a hunter-gatherer society: understanding the habits of game animals, adhering to proper har- vesting methods, observing rituals and taboos, and following etiquette befitting social relations (Jen- ness 1943). Stories, vision quests and dreams took on a kind of meta-level importance, where their motifs and morals provided a means to connect present reality to myth time (Jenness 1943; Furniss 1986; Ridington 1990), and in turn, to place indi- viduals communally as well as within the physical environment that sustained the community. From pre-contact trading relations with the northwest Pacific coastal indigenous nations, cul- tural borrowing is evident among the Tla’zt’enne. Rather than a replacement of the basic paternal Athapaskan3 group structure of the dakelh bands, northwest coastal enculturation was absorbed as an addition to the prevailing structure (Ives 1990). A conspicuous vestige of coastal influence that continues to play a role in Tl’azt’en culture is the matrilineal system, which “function[s] solely in the area comparable to a social welfare system, FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 107Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … i.e., the potlatch system” (Walker 1974: 380). This coastal import remains an appendage to the basic Athapaskan identity of the Tl’azt’enne. Over time, the ancestors of present-day Tl’azt’enne became gradually less mobile. Perma- nent villages at lake outlets began to emerge, where salmon harvesting was carried out from late-summer to mid-fall. As people congregated at village sites for the salmon harvest, they fulfilled the key social obligations of participating in pot- latches and other clan ceremonies (Kobrinsky 1977; Furniss 1986; Carlson and Mitchell 1997). In time, family-owned hunting and gathering ter- ritories known as the keyoh emerged (Hudson 1983; Morris 1999; Brown 2002). The balhats (potlatch) and clan systems regulated rights to re- sources within the keyoh, and permission had to be sought of keyoh-owning families to hunt and trap within these territories (Morris 1999). The bal- hats was carried out in order to affirm property rights and resource use in the keyoh (Morris 1999; Brown 2002). The advent of European presence and settle- ment in Tl’azt’en territory further intensified per- manent villages, especially in the vicinity of trad- ing posts, missions and homesteads (see Morris & Fondahl 2002). As their ancestral lands progres- sively fell under state control and ownership, the Tl’azt’enne were forced to settle on government reserved land (i.e., parcels of “Indian land”, under federal jurisdiction, within Tl’azt’en traditional ter- ritory) (Morris & Fondahl 2002). The current on- reserve population of Tl’azt’en Nation (approx. half of the total 1 500 members) is concentrated in three villages: Tache, Binche, and dzitl’ainli (Mid- dle River). despite the hegemonic legacy of the reservation system, Tl’azt’en access to and use of land was assiduously negotiated between Tl’azt’en leaders and the state (see Morris & Fondahl 2002). Even today, the Tl’azt’enne still depend on subsist- ence hunting for their livelihood on their tradition- al territory, supplemented by wage employment and government subsidies. A challenge that is implicitly linked to the injus- tices of the reservation as well as a residential school system, and one that is frequently expressed by Tl’azt’en elders, is the limited amount of time youth spend on the land and their limited knowl- edge of their ancestral language and culture. At present, the dakelh language is introduced in a pre-school program at the on-reserve school but is spoken fluently in few households, which poses an obstacle to the younger generation relearning it. Over the years, the Tl’azt’enne have sought to improve the socio-economic well-being of their community through negotiated power arrange- ments. An instance is the Tl’azt’en Nation – Uni- versity of Northern British Columbia co-manage- ment of the 13 000 ha John Prince Research For- est, located on Tl’azt’en traditional territory.4 Fur- ther, in 2003, members from Tl’azt’en Nation and the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC), as part of their on-going co-management partnership, formed the non-profit Chuntoh Edu- cation Society, mandated to expand culturally ap- propriate educational opportunities for Tl’azt’en Nation, especially through on-the-land program- ming involving Tl’azt’en cultural experts. This so- ciety developed the Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh pro- gram (see Mitchell 2003), a land-based culture camp program that aims to connect the learning of natural sciences to Tl’azt’en culture.5 Elders teach traditional skills in a seasonally-based program of- fered to both Tl’azt’en and other local children in late elementary school grades. In 2004, Tl’azt’en Nation and UNBC launched a five-year co-managed research project, “Partner- ing for Sustainable Resource development”, with several areas of investigation, including the docu- mentation and perpetuation of Tl’azt’en TEK, and the investigation of culturally appropriate means of enhancing science education to improve Tl’azt’en student retention and achievement (see http://cura.unbc.ca).6 The toponymy research de- scribed below was envisioned as addressing both of these areas, and having potential for inclusion in the Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh program. “Indigenizing” science education: a case for indigenous toponymy and on-the-land camp programs The literature on aboriginal education in Canada cites science as a curricular area requiring consid- erable reform to help indigenous students suc- ceed. Low rates of enrollment in senior secondary- level science courses amongst indigenous students appear to correlate with insufficient exposure to these subject areas during elementary school, where many students are placed in remedial pro- grams with limited science instruction (MacIvor 1995). A weak foundation in science is also due to a lack of proper facilities and equipment (particu- larly in rural schools), few indigenous role models in the field of science, and the mistrust many par- ents have towards institutionalized education that 108 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl limits family support for science learning (MacIvor 1995: 84). A significant factor contributing to low attainment in science is insufficient representation of indigenous lifeways in the curriculum (Mackay & Miles 1995; Battiste 2000; Cajete 2000). The sense of cultural discontinuity experienced by indigenous students in learning science is root- ed in interpretations of the world based on “a tra- ditional frame of reference (...that may include the physiography and natural history of their home- lands), [within which] cognitive and even moral conflicts may limit or preclude any effective en- gagement with western science” (Semken 2005: 150). Undoubtedly “the scientific” has negative connotations for many indigenous nations, whose territories and ways of life have been disrupted by resource extraction and the wastage and contami- nation that often result from land development ac- tivities; opposed to place-specific knowledge sys- tems such as TEK that assume the interrelatedness of beings and a spiritual commitment to local ecologies, western science seems a totalizing force toward the construction of universal understand- ings of phenomena based on paradigms (see Smith 1999; Battiste & Henderson 2000; Howitt 2001; Semken 2005). The objectivity and analytical de- tachment of the paradigmatic authority is indeed incongruous with the personal authority that pro- pels the initiation of several indigenous led on-the- land programs across Canada.7 These programs seem to provide a much-needed space for experi- mentation into ways in which to introduce TEK to children and youth, and can be understood as a transition step to revamping the formal curriculum followed in community or band schools. The pro- grams could be also called laboratories of learn- ing, as the successes and failures experienced through the running of such programs can prove to be important lessons for informing how a cultur- ally appropriate education should be modeled. Additionally, on-the-land programs provide a nat- ural venue for increased community and parental involvement, more representative of traditional ways of imparting knowledge (Yamamura et al. 2003). In fact, the idea of on-the-land programs can be best encapsulated by remarking that when indigenous communities play a part in the devel- opment of their own curriculum projects and teach in a manner they determine, they increase their chances for cultural advancement and conti- nuity (dean 2004; Enkiwe-Abayao 2004). A significant part of the Tl’azt’en-initiated Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh culture-based outdoor science camp program lies in its goal of creating an opportunity for youth to become immersed in the land and the Tl’azt’en culture. To teach about the land in the context of the Tl’azt’en culture, it is crucial to introduce learners to Tl’azt’en concep- tions of the landscape and their sui generis rela- tionship to the land. These elements are intricately bound with that which indigenous peoples recog- nize to be at the core of their epistemologies: the investment of self in knowing and protecting one’s surroundings. Hence, there is a need to include TEK in science education to bring about a more critical and de- colonizing approach to the teaching and learning of science. This has been stressed in the literature as a means to problematizing science to uncover its inherent Eurocentric biases and to balancing the western scientific literacy that is taught in schools with other knowledge traditions (see for example Aikenhead 1997; Snively & Corsiglia 2000; Smith 2000). In comparing and contrasting TEK and western science, Battiste and Henderson instruct on the functioning as well as the possible complementarity of both systems of knowledge: The traditional ecological knowledge of Indige- nous peoples is scientific, in the sense that it is empirical, experimental, and systematic. It differs in two important respects from Western science, however: traditional ecological knowledge is highly localized and it is social. Its focus is the web of relationships between humans, animals, plants, natural forces, spirits, and land forms in a particular locality, as opposed to the discovery of universal “laws”. It is the original knowledge of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have ac- cumulated extraordinarily complex models of species interactions over the centuries within very small geographical areas, and they are reluctant to generalize beyond their direct fields of experi- ence. Western scientists, by contrast, concentrate on speculating about and then testing global gen- eralizations, with the result that they know rela- tively little about the complexities of specific, lo- cal ecosystems (Battiste & Henderson 2000: 44) While allowances are increasingly made in the curriculum for the teaching and learning of indig- enous languages and culture (see for example BC Ministry of Education 2006), indigenous perspec- tives remain largely absent from the core subject area of science. It is a reality that the inclusion of TEK in science education is problematic, with ab- original culture and knowledge content treated as tangential to standard curricular mandates. The concept of TEK as a “tried and tested” system of FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 109Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … acquiring and validating information about the world is simply not acknowledged. Where part of the curriculum, TEK is mostly relegated to indige- nous language classes, to the learning of tradition- al stories as part of Language Arts activities or to segregated hunting, fishing, trapping and gather- ing trips that entail a break from school (McCaskill 1987; Aikenhead 1997; Aikenhead & Huntley 1999). Alternatively, an effective indigenous school curriculum has been defined as one that is place- based, engages learners in “studies associated with the surrounding physical and cultural envi- ronment” and involves increased contact time with “elders, parents and local experts” (Barnhardt & Kawagley 2004: 63). From this perspective, in- digenous cultural content is regarded as being complementary, rather than subsidiary, to science, entailing a shift of focus from “teaching about cul- ture to teaching through culture” (Barnhardt & Ka- wagley 2004: 62, emphasis added). Such a phi- losophy has evoked inspiration for teaching TEK outside the drawn-out and prohibitive process of educational reform. On-the-land learning pro- grams, effected on a small-scale level and commu- nity-led, offer an opportunity for local empower- ment where culture-based education can be en- couraged without the bureaucracy and red-tape associated with either adjusting to or reforming the formal school curriculum. From a broader standpoint, such programs sym- bolize the reclamation of education – an institu- tion historically linked to paternalism, racism and cultural dispossession – as a means to transmit cul- tural knowledge and values. This sentiment may well be the driving force behind the initiation of on-the-land programs, which seek to integrate “the indispensable role of the land as the classroom in which the heritage of each Indigenous people has traditionally been taught” (Battiste & Henderson 2000:53). In this light, place-names have a signifi- cant role to perform as aids in making the land accessible in human terms, as signs, pathfinders, containers of knowledge (e.g. environmental, his- torical, geographical), and meditations of events and people of long ago. In teaching Tl’azt’en youth to re-connect with the land, place-names have an inestimable importance because they are tangible markers of places on the land that give substance to the culture of their people. Therefore, incorpo- rating dakelh toponymy in educational programs, such as the Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh program, has the effect of re-instating dakelh names on the map, of keeping the land from being lost to Tl’azt’enne (Pauline Joseph, CPNIS, 19/05/04). Methods In view of the ongoing negotiations in Canada be- tween the state and indigenous communities over aboriginal and treaty rights8, as well as the prece- dential aboriginal land claims settlements in north- ern Canada, the onus of proving aboriginal pres- ence on and utilization of ancestral lands rests with indigenous communities: evidence of use and occupancy of these lands must be proved by the communities in order to secure future rights to them. To this end, many communities have chosen to conduct land use and cultural heritage surveys known as Traditional Use Studies (TUS) (see for ex- ample Freeman 1976; Castonguay 1979; Wonders 1987, Müller-Wille 2000; Tobias 2000; Collignon 2006). At the time of our research with Tl’azt’en Nation, the community had already completed a TUS, which included the documentation of 640 dakelh place-names. Given Tl’azt’en Nation’s in- terest in toponyms beyond land claims, our col- laborative work shifted focus from the recording and mapping of place-names to the analysis and verification of names. One aim of our research was to establish a rigorous and reproducible meth- odology to collect additional cultural information about place-names that Tl’azt’en researchers could use over time to enrich their place-name data banks. A second objective was to consider the place-names’ pedagogical potential. Thus a limited number of toponyms (nine) were chosen for our study, by Tl’azt’en member Beverly Bird9 (Table 1). A key criterion used by Ms. Bird in selecting the toponyms was location: as it was likely that topo- nyms would initially inform the Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh program’s curriculum, rather than formal educational curricula (given bureaucratic obsta- cles), Ms. Bird chose places on or near the John Prince Research Forest land base (Fig. 1) where the Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh program is held, so that children who participate in the program can visit or at least see these places. Another criterion used by Ms. Bird was the physiographic or cultural-use descriptiveness of place-names. Several types of watercourses, for example, were chosen because segments of their names contain information on the direction of the flow of water. Place-names based on the types of resources found on or near 110 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl D ak el h na m e & g lo ss O ffi ci al na m e A lt er na te n am e G eo gr ap hi - ca l f ea tu re Lo ca ti on ( se e Fi g. 1 ) C hu zg hu n “A d ow n fe at he rs p la ce ”( w he re d uc ks a nd g ee se m ou lt) . A ls o re fe rs to th e tr ee d sh or el in e of th e la ke . ch uz = s no w fla ke ; s of t o r ho llo w w oo d. -g hu n (fr om b un gh un ) = la ke , l ak e ar ea . Te zz er on La ke C hu zg hu n bu n La ke N or th er n- m os t b ou nd s of th e Jo hn P ri nc e R es ea rc h Fo re st . Pa ra lle l t o an d no rt h of P in ch i a nd St ua rt la ke s. C hu z ti zd li Th e po in t a t w hi ch th e w at er s of C hu zg hu n di sc ha rg e. tiz dl i = th at fl ow s ou t; st ar tin g to fl ow ; fl ow in g cr ee k; w at er r un ni ng o ut o f a la ke ; be gi nn in g of a r un ni ng r iv er ; r iv er r un ni ng o ut o f a b od y of w at er ; r un ni ng w at er ; w he re w at er r un s ou t; flo w in g aw ay fr om a b od y of w at er . _ _ La ke o ut le t Fa r w es te rn e nd o f T ez ze ro n La ke . K uz kw a R iv er fl ow s ou t o f Te zz er on L ak e vi a C hu z tiz dl i. K ’u z ko h K ’u z (fr om ‘u ’k ’u z) = h al f; pa rt s th at m ak e a w ho le ; h al f a s id e of fi sh . -k oh (f ro m ‘u ko h) = c re ek , r iv er , s tr ea m . K uz kw a R iv er _ R iv er /c re ek Fl ow s ou t o f T ez ze ro n La ke , i n th e no rt h- w es te rn p ar t o f t he Jo hn Pr in ce R es ea rc h Fo re st . H ad oo da te lh k oh d es cr ib es th e so ft qu al ity o f t he b ed o f t he la ke it ta ke s its n am e. H at du da te hl C re ek N in gw us k oh (li t. “s oa pb er ry c re ek ) R iv er /c re ek Fl ow s ou t o f H at du da te hl L ak e in to th e m id dl e of T ez ze ro n La ke at it s no rt he rn s ho re . C hu zg hu n ko h Te zz er on C re ek Yu ts ’u zu k Ya t’s uz ak (b ot h na m es r ef er to th e ac tiv ity o f l an di ng a bo at o r ca no e) C hu z ko h R iv er /c re ek M ea nd er in g cr ee k at th e fa r ea st er n en d of T ez ze ro n La ke . Fl ow s ab ov e Ya tz ut zi n La ke . Te sg ha R ef er s to th e m os sy q ua lit y of th e la ke be d, w hi ch is p ri m e w hi te fis h ha bi ta t. A ls o de sc ri be s th e la ke a re a as a r ef ug e or “ re st in g ar ea ” fo r m ig ra tin g w at er fo w l. Te s = b ed ; b ed di ng . -g ha = h ai ry , f ur ry o r m os sy . Pi nc hi L ak e B in k oh B in ch e bu n Te sg ha b un Q ez -r en [ Ju zg hu n] La ke Li es b et w ee n St ua rt a nd T ez ze ro n la ke s. B in t iz dl i Th e po in t a t w hi ch th e w at er s of T es gh a di sc ha rg e. _ B un t iz dl i La ke o ut le t So ut hw es t p or tio n of P in ch i L ak e. B in tl ’a t no o Is la nd a t T es gh a’ s fa rt he st e nd (f ar th es t u ps tr ea m e nd o f t he la ke ). -t l’a t = p os te ri or ; b ac ks id e (in di ca tin g ba ck w at er a re as , u ps tr ea m fr om s et tle m en ts ). _ B in ta to h (“ am on g la ke w at er s th at s ho al ”) B in ta t tl ’a t Is la nd Fa r ea st er n en d of P in ch i L ak e. K ’a zy us -y us = r id ge (a rc ha ic d ak el h fo rm ). Pi nc hi M ou nt ai n K ’u z yu s B in ch e D zu lh Te sg ha D zu lh N at ad ilh t’ o* (“ w at er r is in g” , r ef er ri ng to th e m ul tit ud i- no us p on ds , l ak es , s w am ps a nd s tr ea m s su rr ou nd in g th e m ou nt ai n) M ou nt ai n Lo ca te d be tw ee n Pi nc hi a nd Te zz er on la ke s. *S p el li n g t o b e ve ri fi ed b y th e C ar ri er L in gu is ti c C o m m it te e. Ta b le 1 . d ak el h t o p o n ym s in cl u d ed i n t h e st u dy FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 111Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … named features provided a third criterion. The study place-names included two lakes (Chuzghun and Tesgha) one mountain (K’azyus), one island (Bintl’at noo), two creeks (Hadoodatelh koh and Chuz koh), two lake outlets (Chuz tizdli, Bin tizdli) and one river (K’uz koh). The research methods and procedures, devel- oped in adherence to Tl’azt’en Nation Guidelines for Research in Tl’azt’en Territory (Tl’azt’en Nation 1997), were approved by both the UNBC Research Ethics Board and Tl’azt’en Nation Chief and Coun- cil (Band Council Resolution no. 0520). To ensure community participation in the planning, execu- tion and evaluation stages of the research, a steer- ing committee made up of community elders and researchers was struck. Extant sources of Dakelh toponymic information As a first step in this study, existing sources of dakelh toponymic information were reviewed. Through Tl’azt’en Nation’s history, the band has authorized and conducted numerous studies con- cerning place-names, resulting in a “Tl’azt’en Na- tion Place-Names database”. A “Tl’azt’en Place- Names Study” (1996) and “Tl’azt’en Place-Names Project” (2003) specifically documented dakelh toponymy. Two broader studies conducted by the Tl’azt’en Treaty office, the “Elders’ Interviews” (1984-1995)10 and the “Tl’azt’en Traditional Use Study” (TUS) (1998–1999), also included the doc- umentation of some dakelh place-names. A Fig. 1. dakelh toponyms researched and their locations in the vicinity of the John Prince Research Forest, British Columbia, Canada. 112 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl project carried out under the auspices of the Yinka dene Language Institute (YdLI) in 1994 to com- pile a dakelh language lexicon (see Poser 1998) involved verifying some place-names culled from the early twentieth century works of the Oblate missionary, Adrien Gabriel Morice, and the re- cording of additional place-names in interviews with dakelh speakers. Transcripts of interviews from the latter four studies were available for re- view, for references to the chosen place-names and their surroundings and associated legends, stories, environmental, cultural and traditional use information. Maps created by the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council11 such as the 1: 50 000 “Carrier- Sekani Territory Southern Section” (1995) and “Tl’azt’en Nation Traditional Territory” maps (2004) also provided information on dakelh place- names and their locations. In the past, individuals with an interest in the history of their family’s subsistence areas also col- lected keyoh place-names from their oldest living family members and used them to construct maps of their hunting and trapping territories. While the maps were not available,12 many research partici- pants talked of there being such a thing as keyoh place-names, exclusive to family members who hold the territory. Along with those materials collected by Tl’azt’en Nation, published sources containing information on dakelh place-names were reviewed (Morice 1897, 1978 [1904], 1907, 1932, 1933; Carrier Linguistic Committee 1974; Kobrinsky 1977; Hall 1992; Akrigg & Akrigg 1997; Poser 1998; Sam 2001). Copies of notes from Julian Steward’s re- search of the mid twentieth century were also con- sulted (Steward 1940). These works provided background information on several of the study place-names.13 However, the information from these sources was minimal and fragmented. A review of archival and published information on the study place-names exposed gaps and dis- crepancies. Several facets of the chosen place- names had to be verified, including spelling, dia- lect, location, translation, meaning and whether the places were associated with any stories or leg- ends. Thus interviews were required with Tl’azt’enne knowledgeable about the dakelh lan- guage, traditions and life on the land. Interviews To gain an understanding of the Tl’azt’en-led place-name studies that had been previously un- dertaken, interviews were carried out with the community researchers who directed these stud- ies, about the purpose of the Tl’azt’en place-names research projects, methodology employed, and ar- eas of interest within the Tl’azt’en traditional terri- tory.14 The Tl’azt’en researchers were also asked for suggestions as to which elders to interview on the toponyms; each person provided the names of a number of Tl’azt’enne who are members of fami- lies on whose keyohs the toponyms occur and/or who are regarded by the Tl’azt’en community as having authoritative knowledge of the dakelh lan- guage and the Tl’azt’en culture. Participants were then recruited from this list of names. Using a “snowballing” technique based on a peer recom- mendation process (Sherry & Fondahl 2004), a to- tal of 12 individuals were identified, ten of whom were available for interviewing. The individuals were mostly elderly males.15 An interview guide, consisting of open-ended questions (Johnson 1992; Hart 1995; Grenier 1998; Tobias 2000) was devised, reviewed by Tl’azt’en colleagues, pre-tested and revised. It was designed to verify and expand on information from the earlier place-name projects. Formal inter- views were then conducted with Elders Pierre John, Walter Joseph Sr., Robert Hanson, Sophie Monk, Frank duncan, Louise Alexis, Elsie Alexis, Catherine Coldwell, Stanley Tom and Alexander Tom.16 Morris Joseph, a Tl’azt’en member fluent in dakelh, assisted with the interviews. during inter- views, the participants were shown maps17 of the study area, and the places of interest were either pointed at or referred to by their English or French toponyms. A 1: 125 000 map of the study area was specially commissioned by Tl’azt’en Nation for use in the interviews; a mylar sheet placed over the map served as a way to mark events, the set- tings of stories and legends, trails and additional locations and place-names. The participants were then asked for the traditional dakelh names of the places, any alternate names, dialectal affinity, and literal translations and glosses.18 They were asked to expound on translations and interpretations in light of the eco-cultural attributes of the places, to share stories about the places, and to focus espe- cially on those places they knew most about. Once interviews were transcribed, content analysis was performed (Kitchin & Tate 2000; Sil- verman 2000; McCracken 1988; Holland 1995). The analysis was presented to the community for verification and feedback. Community review of the content analysis was vital in terms of ensuring FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 113Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … that the information was accurate and interpreted properly. A panel of elder experts, known as the Tl’azt’en Place-Names Committee, verified the findings on each of the nine place-names.19 This protected the indigenous concepts, terms and place-names from being misconstrued, misrepre- sented or ignored altogether. Several Tl’azt’en Na- tion members identified by Beverly Bird because of their knowledge of the Tl’azt’en culture and their experience in the conduct of qualitative re- search, reviewed the written analysis: Renel Mitchell, Beverly Leon, and deborah Page, as well as Ms. Bird herself.20 Feedback from the Tl’azt’en Place-Names Committee was incorporated, and guidelines were developed for the inclusion of the toponymic information into the Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh culture-based outdoor science camp pro- gram (see Heikkila 2007). Dakelh Toponyms: Repositories of Tl’azt’en Knowledge Tl’azt’en traditional toponyms exist as more than place designators. If the Tl’azt’en ancestral territo- ry is analogized to a history book or family tree, a memoryscape (see Nutall 1992) upon which the performance of place routines keep alive ancestral knowledge of the land, the toponyms can also be understood to function as symbolic resources, in- corporating information on the specific attributes of places and often highlighting a place’s role in navigation and its resource potential. Place-names also convey teachings and practices about the re- lationship between the Tl’azt’enne and their an- cestral territory. Father Morice, one of the first missionaries to come to Tl’azt’en territory, summed up his obser- vations of the terrain as “par excellence a land of lakes” (1933: 646). Journeying through the land, one appreciates the aptness of this statement – riv- ulets, creeks and rivers crisscross the land, feeding into or draining lakes and ponds of various sizes. Since water is such a major entity in Tl’azt’en ter- ritory, its prominent role in survival and identity for the Tl’azt’enne is unsurprising. People have fished in streams and lakes, hunted and trapped along shorelines, and depended on water for transport. Water has also played a symbolic role in people’s lives; hydronyms, usually of river mouths and lake outlets and paired with the suffix – whut’enne (meaning “people of a certain place”), function to describe the different dakelh commu- nities (see Kobrinsky 1977). Nak’azdli whut’enne and Tache whut’enne are examples of ethnonyms that define as well as distinguish the groups of dakelh speakers living by the outlet of Nak’al koh (Stuart River) and at the mouth of duzdli koh (Tachie River). As bodies of water have been a means of sustenance, mobility and social life for dakelh-speaking peoples, the significance of wa- ter in their worldview is appreciable from under- standing the names given to places on or along water bodies as well as the water bodies them- selves. As the research was based on assembling Tl’azt’en TEK associated with the study sample of nine place-names, there was a need to examine the geographical terms expressed in place-names and to document the topographic, biotic, and cul- tural use descriptions for each place. The result was a discovery of patterns in the gathered infor- mation that were indicative of the logic behind Tl’azt’en place-naming. One pattern, in particular, concerns the role of referents in lake place-names as orientating devices for water travel. Toponyms as Tools for Teaching Navigation Study toponyms were found to exhibit particles that act as directionals. For instance, place-names with the particles, -che and tizdli indicate direc- tion into or out of a lake system. Thus, the main Tl’azt’en village, Tache, is where a river flows into Nak’al Bun (Stuart Lake); Chuz tizdli is the place where the Kuzkwa River flows out of Chuzghun (Tezzeron Lake). These particles, unlike the global direction given by a compass, give direction from a local vantage point. In the Tl’azt’en culture, where rivers and creeks were the primary mode of travel in the past, these particles intimate people’s reliance on waterways to leave and return to their home territory. Another example of a directional is -tl’at, a suf- fix sometimes found in lake place-names, denot- ing “the end of the lake”. This particle seems to indicate to travelers on water a movement away from a settlement into more remote areas. For in- stance, Nak’al Bun (Stuart Lake), Tesgha (Pinchi Lake) and dzinghubun (Trembleur Lake) host sites that contain tl’at as part of their names. Nak’alat, Bintl’at, and dzintl’at are located away from the outlets of the lake systems to which they belong, as well as from principal villages on these lakes. The ending tl’at signifies that traveling to the “end” of the lake is to move upstream, and away from settlements – an orienting function in traveling the 114 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl waters of Tl’azt’en country. Together with the aid of other landforms (such as mountains, hills, is- lands and coves), knowledge of the -che, tizdli and -tl’at parts of lakes guided travelers on water to both up- and downstream places. Toponyms as Tools for Teaching Concepts of Ecology Biotic information that hints at the resource poten- tial of places was also found to reside in the study place-names. Chuzghun (Tezzeron Lake) includes the root chuz, which translates as “snowflake” (Poser 1998: 71), and refers to the idea that the lake is a “down feathers place”, commonly regard- ed as a nesting place for waterfowl (Catherine Coldwell & Betsy Leon; CPNIS21, 31/03/04; CPN- VS, 27-28/04/05). Chuz, in this context, refers to the molting process water birds undergo after the nesting period. The appearance of bird down in water resembles snowflakes (Catherine Coldwell CPNI, 25/06/04). Indeed, Elder Robert Hanson (CPNIS, 03/06/04) felt that the prefix of the place- name, chuz, was amiss, and that it should rather read as ts’uz, meaning “feather”. As ts’uz is also the prefix of the word tsuzchus, meaning “down feather”, this observation conforms to the idea of a “molting lake”, the term noted by Akrigg and Akrigg (1997: 265) to describe Tezzeron Lake as a place “where ducks and geese molt”.22 An alternate interpretation for the etymology of Chuzghun was provided by Stanley Tom and Alex- ander Tom (CPNI, 21/12/04), keyoh holders in the area of this lake, who maintain that the place- name refers to old, hollow trees that line the lake- shore. Since these trees grow thickly on the shore- line, they give the lake the appearance of a basin when viewed from a distance, as from on top of an incline. The trees were described as “getting old and …soft… [they are] hollow and fall apart when [struck]”. The interviewees gave the meaning of the prefix, chuz, as “soft wood” and the suffix, -ghun, as “area”, subsequently translating the whole name as “a body of water surrounded by trees” (CPNI, 21/12/04). Also significant is the consideration of the short forms or contractions of place-names that are used by dakelh speakers as an alternative to the com- plete forms of names. Stanley Tom and Alexander Tom suggest that Chuzghun derives from a special term, chunzool, “hollow wood”, which is con- tracted to chuz in the place-name Chuzghun (CPNI, 21/12/04). Stanley and Alexander Tom’s description of the trees that grow along the lake suggests black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), which can be found growing on low to medium elevation, on moist to wet soil (Mackinnon et al. 1999: 19). Containing whitish, wispy-like hairs, cottonwood seeds drift through the air like “giant summer snowflakes” to germi- nate (Mackinnon et al. 1999: 19). This phenome- non may correspond to the idea behind “Snow- flake Lake”, Poser’s etymology for Chuzghun (1998: 67).23 As well, the reference to black cot- tonwood is reconciled with the interpretation “soft wood” when viewed in the light of Tl’azt’en mate- rial culture: the wood of this tree species is highly pliable and was used to make dugout canoes and paddles (Hall 1992). The various interpretations of the toponym suggest lessons in the multiplicity of resources that a location may offer, as well as the multiplicity of interpretations that language may engender. Toponyms as Tools for Exploring the Seasons and Subsistence Round Clues to the Tl’azt’en subsistence round appear in certain toponyms. Place-names carrying the -che and tizdli particles, as well as the place-names Chuzghun and Tesgha contain environmental in- formation pertaining to faunal life cycle and criti- cal habitats such as nesting and refuge sites. While serving as navigational aids, -che and tizdli place- names also suggest opportunities for hunting, snar- ing and fishing by the very nature that the places marked by these names are typically those that re- main open or ice-free during the winter. River mouths and lake outlets attract birds and mam- mals, and allow for fishing even when lakes are mostly frozen. In some cases, as with the toponym Chuzghun, stages of the life cycle of animals are evoked. Chuzghun summons up the yearly migra- tion of waterfowl northwards, the birds’ need for shelter in lakes and slow-moving rivers and creeks, and the processes of molting and nesting that the birds undergo after they find refuge. This informa- tion on waterfowl is part of Tl’azt’en knowledge relating to subsistence. Through observing the sea- sons, habits and habitats of the birds, it was possi- ble to predict their arrival, to locate when and where they nest, and to develop efficient harvest- ing strategies. At the time of the molt, waterfowl are at their most vulnerable, being largely ground- ed and awkward away from water. Accounts of the traditional means of clubbing or netting waterfowl FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 115Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … in the molting stage are given in Morice (1897) and Hall (1992). Tesgha (meaning “hairy or furry bed or bedding” (Morris Joseph, pers, comm, 10/06/04/; Alexander Tom, CPNI, 21/12/04)), the lake that lies parallel to Chuzghun, is also associated with waterfowl, in terms of it serving as an “overnight resting” place (Betsy Leon, CPNIS, 31/03/04). Geese and ducks flock on this lake before flying off to other lakes in the vicinity to nest because parts of Tesgha are shallow enough for grasses and other semi-aquatic plants to flourish. Such an ecosystem sustains a va- riety of waterfowl as well as whitefish fry, which typically use the blades and stalks of the grasses to hide (CPNVS, 27-28/04/05). According to Tl’azt’en knowledge, the shallow eastern portion of Tesgha is habitat for whitefish (Robert Hanson, CPNI, 10/06/04). The island, Bintl’at noo, located at the eastern end of Tesgha, once served as a fishing and hunting camp: this lake system was associated with the autumnal activities of harvesting white- fish and waterfowl. Historical information on subsistence is also part of dakelh place-names. The toponym Bilhk’a (Whitefish Lake) translates literally as “snare and arrow”24 (Walter Joseph and Pierre John, CPNI, 02/06/04), indicating the kinds of traditional tech- nology used in subsistence activities. From the 1900s to 1940s, Bilhk’a played an important role as a source of whitefish to people from throughout the Stuart-Trembleur watershed (Hudson 1983). Bilhk’a was also associated with hunting and trap- ping (Robert Hanson, CPNI, 10/06/04). The name of the lake emphasizes the value of the lake and its surrounding environs as a place where it is possi- ble to hunt, trap and fish. People traveled to this lake in the fall, when whitefish were plentiful in areas of the lake where spawning occurred (So- phie Monk, CPNI, 03/06/04). The wooded recess- es of the periphery of the lake contributed to Bilhk’a’s significance as they provided access to small and large game. Toponyms Exploring Environmental Consciousness The place-name interviews yielded particular in- sights into the way knowledge is recalled in a cul- ture that has relied on the oral transmission of in- formation. For Tl’azt’enne, routes to keyohs and other resource important areas were memorized and unraveled as needed with the help of place- names and their attendant narratives. People re- lied upon mental maps that contained detailed information about places on the land, gained from knowledge inherited from elders, personal experi- ence or the experiences of others (cf. Brody 1981; Müller-Wille 1984; Collignon 2006). Occasional- ly, place-names evoke narratives bordering on the mythic and/or involving the superhuman. These accounts, in providing the context needed to un- derstand the significance of places-names and the places they mark, give toponyms depth. Explain- ing the origins of places and phenomena, being prescriptive and cautionary, or allowing a momen- tary view of mystical power, these stories carry a subtext that demonstrates the strong spiritual ties between people and the places on which they de- pend. The sentiment that emerges from these sto- ries can be termed “environmental conscious- ness”, a moral awareness to honor and engage with places on the land. The two examples below provide an understanding of this ethic. One instance of environmental consciousness is glimpsed in place-name narratives that involve mythic beings. The place-names Chuzghun and Bin tizdli, for instance, are associated with ac- counts of giant animals that tell not only of medi- cine power but demonstrate the sacredness of the land. The presence of animals such as giant dolly Varden trout and frogs in these places suggests an offsetting of human might and a creation of bal- ance in the interactions between humans and ani- mals. Giant animals serve as powerful reminders that not all things in nature can be controlled or known with surety. It is in this regard that places exude a kind of importance or sacredness, which creates awareness and respectfulness in people as they travel through the land. With regard to place-name narratives involving giant animals, a cautionary message often under- lies these stories. An episode of the story of the giant frog of Bin tizdli tells of a time when a man came to seek the frog with the intention of captur- ing and selling it (Robert Hanson, CPNI, 03/06/04). What ensued was a catastrophe, where the man drowned during a sudden squall that blew in over the lake. The story warns of the consequences that can befall those who trespass or exceed the bounds of another’s space and privileges. Place-name nar- ratives dealing with giant animals seem to also re- late a time in the past when animals were extraor- dinary and endowed with special powers that could either aid or thwart humans. For fear of suf- fering misfortune, people travelled with caution through places associated with such animals, re- 116 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl specting their existence and space. Such stories emphasize the importance of respect for all life and for the land. Giants, human and animal, are also featured in narratives relating to the origins of places. Ulhts’acho, an island upriver from the village of Nak’azdli on Stuart Lake is the namesake of an ogre whose tragic death caused its formation (Catherine Coldwell, CPNI, 25/06/04). The story not only tells of the origin of the island and a near- by islet, but relays a moral about respect for life and nature. Gluttony made Ulhts’acho kill his dog – his only companion – to get at the lingcod livers in its stomach. After carelessly flinging its carcass into the lake, Ulhts’acho realized the heartless deed he had committed. He waded out to retrieve the body of his dog, but never returned. His body, and his dog’s, after being tossed by the waves and swept along by the current, finally settled and be- came an island. The story of Ulhts’acho exempli- fies the interdependence between humans and animals, and cautions against impulsivity, greed and mistreatment. It touches on the continuity be- tween life and the earth – people and animals can be transformed after death into landscape features that endure through the seasons, and ever remind of proper behavior. Toponyms as Tools for Discussing Local Governance Environmental consciousness is also intimated in the workings of the keyoh system and related toponymies. Keyoh or family territories are de- fined according to both physical and social bounds. On a material level, keyoh limits are marked by “posts”, or “topographical partitions” by way of hills, mountains, watersheds, meadows, and trails (Margaret Mattess, CPNIS, 19/05/04). Lakes and islands, which can also be claimed as part of a family’s keyoh, are also used as posts (Stanley Tom & Alexander Tom, CPNI, 21/12/04). Although keyohs are thus demarcated, there re- mains a degree of reciprocity in sharing land and resources. This is observed in the social ties be- tween keyoh holders and others. On a social level, keyoh boundaries are maintained through respect and deference towards the family members who have disposition rights to the piece of land. In interviews, participants were reluctant to talk about places in somebody else’s keyoh. This reluc- tance was apparently steeped in anxiety of tres- passing on and misrepresenting another’s authori- ty over and knowledge of a specific area used for subsistence. The unwillingness to discuss anoth- er’s keyoh was explained cogently by Walter Joseph (CPNI, 02/06/04), who remarked that talk- ing about places in someone else’s keyoh is an in- trusion synonymous to crossing or cutting through the keyoh without having first informed the owner. While keyoh boundaries are not absolute, there is an unspoken rule between keyoh holders and oth- ers that obtaining permission to use or travel through the keyoh is obligatory. This is a tacit ac- knowledgement of the keyoh holder’s tenure and authority over the keyoh. Even conversing about the place-names in another’s keyoh is a breach of respect and trust: the place-names can be specific to the keyoh in which they belong, forming not only a part of the owner’s knowledge of the keyoh but standing also as authoritative symbols of that knowledge. Through the keyoh system, use of land is controlled, keeping harvesting and regeneration of resources in balance. The place-name content presented in this sec- tion illustrates the wealth of meanings to be ap- preciated from studying indigenous toponymy. Because dakelh toponyms often depict physiogra- phy or the fecundity of places in the context of the Tl’azt’en seasonal subsistence round, their appli- cation in curriculum can serve to enrich under- standings of local ecologies, including particular TEK associated with specific places or ecosystems. Furthermore, because of the metaphoric power of place-names to transform places in the physical landscape into places that feed and instruct the moral imagination, the important questions of en- vironmental consciousness, connected to sense of place, cultural survival and self-determination, arise for reflection. Such content is important in the makings of culturally-appropriate curriculum to inculcate a strong sense of self and to build ap- preciation for ancestral teachings. Conclusion dakelh toponyms continue to occupy an impor- tant place in the make-up of Tl’azt’en identity – place-names aid remembrance of people and events in the past, and are markers of a continued Tl’azt’en presence on the land. Knowledge of top- onyms demonstrates personal experience with the land, and to learn place-names is to learn about the land. Tl’azt’enne who were interviewed during the course of the research have indicated that FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 117Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … place-names represent much more than the places themselves: to know place-names is to be also ac- quainted with the narratives and memories linked to the places marked. In this way, toponymy con- tributes to the continuity of oral tradition: place- name referents, meanings, attendant narratives and memories are relayed when people know and use toponyms. An interesting point that interviewees brought up time and again during the research was the no- tion that traveling to named places is of utmost importance to appreciate the essence of place- names. This point supports the idea that to truly know place-names, one must have a relationship with the land: traveling and harvesting are ways of establishing a personal connection with the land. Travel entrenches patterns or systems of place- names in people’s consciousness, binding them with places on the landscape, which serve as re- positories of ancestral knowledge. For Tl’azt’enne, to whom the land is an inalien- able part of cultural identity and heritage, the link between rights to land and rights to language and culture is embodied in the idea of remembering places and using dakelh place-names. Place- names provide the opportunity for dakelh lan- guage maintenance and the learning of oral tradi- tion, both vital issues underlying Tl’azt’en cultural continuity. Knowing the place-names and stories of one’s homeland is part of knowing one’s lan- guage and heritage. But the intensity of the con- nection between knowing the toponymy and sto- ries of one’s homeland and knowing one’s lan- guage and heritage depends on the health of the land and the intactness of places on the land. The well-being and completeness of places are vital not only for place-names to be known and stories to be remembered but ultimately for the continuity of TEK and indigenous identity. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of the subject matter of the study place-names (i.e., navigational, environ- mental, historical, ethical, political), we believe that the information will find relevance to environ- mental, science and social studies applications in outdoor science camp programs. As importantly, utilizing indigenous toponymy in a community- driven educational project like the Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh science camp program promotes knowing, cherishing and protecting places through direct, personal involvement with the land. ACKNOWLEdGEMENTS This paper is dedicated to the memory of Robert Han- son, esteemed Tl’azt’en elder and teacher. We are indebted to the Tl’azt’en members who facilitated this research through their willingness to share infor- mation. Special thanks are due to Beverly Leon, Bev- erly Bird, Morris Joseph, deborah Page, Catherine Coldwell, Pierre John, Walter Joseph Sr., Stanley Tom, Alexander Tom, Margaret Mattess, Pauline Joseph and dr. William Poser. We are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. This manuscript was submitted to Tl’azt’en Nation for review prior to its initial submis- sion to Fennia. NOTES 1 Borrowed from Pierre Bourdieu (1977) to mean a framework for the objects of knowledge consisting of a society’s social, historical and political structures, perpetuated through performance. 2 Three terms used in Canada to refer to aboriginal peoples’ knowledge systems are: Traditional Ecologi- cal Knowledge (TEK), Indigenous Knowledge (IK), and Traditional Knowledge (TK). There is no absolute definition for these terms (see Berkes 1993, Mc- Gregor 2000) other than they indicate the knowledge held by a particular aboriginal community that has been transmitted through time and that assumes an emotional and spiritual connection with the local landscape. At times, the usage of the terms IK and TK is observed in contexts where there is a need to dis- tinguish knowledge specific to indigenous communi- ties from knowledge stemming from the western sci- entific tradition. TEK is used to refer more specifically to indigenous peoples’ knowledge of their local envi- ronments, including their values concerning sustain- able and responsible use of natural resources (see Grenier 1999). TEK is the term that Tl’az’ten Nation has chosen to use to identify the knowledge of its people (see Tl’azt’en Nation n.d. a; Tl’azt’en Nation and UNBC CURA 2005); hence, out of deference to this choice, TEK is used in this publication when dis- cussing aboriginal knowledge, including the knowl- edge shared by Tl’azt’enne. (Tl’azt’enne is the plural collective noun for Tl’azt’en.) 3 The term Athapaskan refers to a branch of the Na- dene speech family that subsumes languages such as Gwich’in, dogrib, Slave, dakelh, Western Apache and Navajo. Each of these languages belongs to one of the three Athapaskan subfamilies – northern, Pa- cific and Apachean – representing the range of Atha- paskan speakers from interior Alaska to western Can- ada, the Pacific Northwest, northern California and the American southwest. Na-dene expansion oc- curred across the Bering Strait into present-day Alas- ka toward the end of the final great glacial period 118 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl (c. 10 000 BC) (Vanstone 1974). In the postglacial period an east- and southward spread took place into what is today the Yukon Territory and interior British Columbia, where the ancestral Na-dene became adapted to a subarctic environment abounding in large and small game and fish. The new environments catalysed considerable cultural change as observed in the distinct cultural make-up of the various Atha- paskan sub-families: linguistic evidence suggests a common Athapaskan lineage (Vanstone 1974). 4 For more information on this research forest see Fondahl and Atkinson (2007) and Grainger et al. (2006). 5 The Yunk’ut Whe Ts’o Dul’eh (We Learn from Our Land) program, developed mostly by Renel Mitchell, is held on the John Prince Research Forest. For more in- formation see Mitchell (2003) and http://www.cstc. bc.ca/cstc/69/the+chuntoh+forest+education+society. 6 This project was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, under their Community-University Research Alliance (CURA) program. It built on several years of previous collabo- rative research between Tl’azt’en Nation and UNBC. 7 Some examples include: the Reconnecting with the Land program in Manitoba, the Big Trout Lake land- based program in Ontario, the Nutchimiu-Attuseun Training Centre on-the-land program in Quebec, the Avataq Cultural Institute Inukjuaq and Kuujjuaq sum- mer camps in Nunavik, the Mi’kmaq and Wuastuk- wiuk (Maliseet) cultural-enrichment summer camp in New Brunswick, and Rediscovery summer camps held in several parts of Canada (INAC 2006). These programs deliver traditional land-based skills and en- vironmental and cultural education to children and youth of aboriginal ancestry, and include the partici- pation of community elders as instructors. On-the- land programs are in some instances initiated by schools – in the Northwest Territories, for instance, schools such as Sir Alexander Mackenzie School (In- uvik), Chief Julius School (Fort McPherson), and Paul William Kaeser School (Fort Smith) organize outdoor experiential camps as part of their curricula to teach students bush survival skills, environmental aware- ness and traditional knowledge. 8 Tl’azt’en Nation has been in treaty negotiations with the provincial and federal governments since 1993. A treaty, which would result in recognition of aboriginal land ownership, governance, resource management and economic independence, has yet to be signed. 9 Beverly Bird, a respected Tl’azt’en member, had long-time involvement in Tl’azt’en cultural and treaty research, and was Tl’azt’en co-leader of the co-man- aged CURA project’s TEK research stream. She sug- gested place-names as a topic for a thesis project in which Tl’azt’en Nation would be interested. 10 A series of interviews conducted to produce Tl’azt’en and Nak’azdli elder biographies. 11 Tl’azt’en Nation is a member of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, along with seven other dakelh- and Sekani-speaking First Nations. 12 Tl’azt’en Nation has chosen to restrict access to some of its internally-generated maps and documents during treaty negotiations, due to the potentially sen- sitive nature of these materials. 13 No published information was available on four of the chosen place-names: Chuzghun koh, Hadoo- datelh koh, Bin tizdli, and Bintl’at noo. 14 Interviewees included Beverly Bird (Researcher, Tl’azt’en Place-Names Study 1996), Renel Mitchell, (Researcher, Traditional Use Study 1999), and Marga- ret Mattess and Pauline Joseph (Researchers, Tl’azt’en Place-Names Project 2003). 15 Several people explained that knowledge of the keyoh and livelihood related to hunting and trapping is passed down from father to son. The pool of pre- test and formal interviewees involved individuals ranging from 40 to 80 years old, with the majority of individuals being male. Only one younger interview- ee was nominated; he was considered to be “an ex- ception to the rule”, as most youth do not know the dakelh language or the land as well as their fathers and grandfathers. 16 Tl’azt’en researchers feel strongly about giving credit to Tl’azt’enne who have contributed their knowledge or perspectives to research projects, rath- er than preserving anonymity, on condition that the participants are comfortable with having their identi- ties revealed. The consent form used in this study gave interviewees the option of electing to have their name either mentioned or withheld in publications; all interviewees chose to be identified. 17 An aerial photograph of the John Prince Research Forest area was also available to research participants as an extra recall aid; most participants preferred the map as a way to locate and remember places over the aerial depiction. 18 Beyond a literal translation of a place-name, it is useful to obtain a gloss or meaning based on its root words. This is important in making the place-name understandable to the non-native speaker. An exam- ple is the dakelh place-name Tsinteltehnoola, liter- ally “burbot [lingcod]-underwater-island” (Poser 1998: 302). A gloss, “island where lingcod are found underwater”, enables speakers of English to form a general understanding of this toponym’s meaning. 19 The Committee consisted of Catherine Coldwell, Mildred Martin, Pierre John, Sophie Monk, Helen Johnnie, and Betsy Leon. Mrs. Coldwell and Mrs. Leon are members of the Nak’azdli Band, whose traditional territory borders that of Tl’azt’en Nation’s to the south; many individuals of the two communities are related and do possess extensive knowledge of places in both territories. Mrs. Coldwell is a founding member of the Carrier Linguistic Committee. She collaborated with various linguists on dictionary, place-name and tradi- tional plant use projects, and continues to be involved in dakelh language and cultural programs. Beverly Bird, a Tl’azt’en member, is her daughter. 20 All four women have worked in various capacities in Tl’azt’en-led and Tl’azt’en–UNBC joint research projects. FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 119Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … 21 CPNI, CPNIS and CPNVS stand for CURA Place- Names Interview, CURA Place-Names Information Session and CURA Place-Names Verification Session, respectively. The interviews and sessions were taped and coded by date. 22 “Tezzeron” was unanimously regarded by research participants as a corruption of the native name, Chuzghun. Many instances of the kinds of corrup- tions produced by the early surveyors and travelers in Carrier territory are found in Morice (1902, 1933). Some corruptions are based in inaccurate transcrip- tions of the native name, which have the effect of distorting or excluding the original sounds of the name. Other corruptions are mistakes in interpreta- tion such as designating whole geographical features by a name reserved for a part on or within them, or giving a native geographical term of a feature as its proper name. 23 Father Morice’s rather different interpretation of the etymology of Chuzghun is also worthy of note. He gives the meaning of the name as “paddle after lake” or Paddle Lake (1933: 648). discrepancies, however, exist between Morice’s translation and that espoused in more recent dakelh language and cul- tural research. Morice transcribed the prefix of Chuz- ghun as tces, which corresponds to chus rather than chuz (Poser 2000). The word chus does mean “pad- dle” and may reflect Morice’s familiarity with local knowledge of the lake as a place to obtain wood for making canoes and paddles. This may have had an influence on how he transcribed and interpreted the name. Another discrepancy is Morice’s recording of the name of the lake as Tces-ra-ñ-pen [Chus-gha-ng- bun], whereas the Carrier Linguistic Committee (1974) and Poser (1998) give it as Chuzghun. The suffix -ghun was a point of obscurity in the place-name verification process, as none of the Tl’azt’en Place-Names Committee members could confidently explain the meaning of the term (CPNVS, 27-28/04/05). Speculations were made about -ghun being a short-form for bunghun (lake). However, while -ghun, bun and bunghun all are designators in lake names, bun and -ghun are both representative of big lakes (e.g. Nak’al bun and Chuzghun), while bun- ghun is a designator for smaller lakes found within keyohs (Morris Joseph, pers. comm., 26/03/04). Maps of dakelh place-names (CLC 1974; CSTC 2004) show bun and -ghun referencing lakes of considera- ble breadth, and bunghun, the smaller lakes that in- termittently dot the landscape. The suffix -ghun was also thought to denote a lake located along a ridge (CPNVS, 27-28/04/05; CPNVS, 16/12/05). 24 Bilh or “snare” is an all-embracing term for any de- vice that snags or catches, and includes such imple- ments as snares, snare wire, nets and webs (Poser 1998: 60). REFERENCES Afable PO and Beeler MS 1996. Place-names. In Goddard I (ed). Handbook of North American In- dians 17, Language, 185–199. Smithsonian Insti- tution, Washington, dC. Aikenhead G 1997. Toward a first nations cross-cul- tural science and technology curriculum. Science Education 81, 217–238. Aikenhead G and Huntley B 1999. Teachers’ views on aboriginal students learning western science and aboriginal science. Canadian Journal of Na- tive Education 23, 159–174. Akrigg GPV and Akrigg H 1997. British Columbia place names. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Baker d, Clay J & Fox C (eds). 1996. Challenging ways of knowing in English, maths and science. Falmer Press, London. Barnhardt R and Kawagley O 2004. Culture, chaos and complexity. Cultural Survival Quarterly 27, 59–64. Basso KH 1996. Wisdom sits in places: landscape and language among the western Apache. Uni- versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Battiste M 2000. Maintaining aboriginal language, culture, and identity in modern society. In Battiste M (ed). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vi- sion, 192–208. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Battiste M and Henderson H 2000. Protecting indig- enous knowledge and heritage. Purich Publishing Ltd., Saskatoon. Berkes F 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In Inglis JT (ed). Traditional eological kowledge: concepts and cases, 1–9. International development Research Centre, Ottawa. Berkes F 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia. Bourdieu P 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. British Columbia Ministry of Education 2006. Shared learnings: integrating BC aboriginal content K-10. Aboriginal Education Initiative, British Columbia Ministry of Education. . 19.09.2009. Brody H 1981. Maps and dreams: Indians and the British Columbia frontier. douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver. Brown d 2002. Carrier Sekani self-government in context: land and resources. Western Geography 12, 21–67. Cajete G 2000. Indigenous knowledge: the Pueblo metaphor of indigenous education. In Battiste M (ed). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision, 181–191. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Carlson AK and Mitchel LS 1997. Cultural heritage review of a portion of Fort Saint James Forest Dis- 120 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl trict B.C. Report commissioned by the British Co- lumbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. [CLC] Carrier Linguistic Committee 1974. Central Carrier Country. Carrier Linguistic Committee. PG Printers, Fort St. James. [CSTC] Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council 1995. Carrier- Sekani territory southern section map. 1: 50 000. Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council. Accessed from the Tl’azt’en Natural Resources Office Collections, Tache. [CSTC] Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council 2004. Tl’azt’en Nation traditional territory map. 1: 50 000. Carri- er-Sekani Tribal Council. Accessed from the Tl’azt’en Natural Resources Office Collections, Tache. Castonguay R 1979. The relevance of native topony- my in illustrating land occupancy in the Canadian North. Onomastica 56, 1–12. Charters-Vogth O 1999. Indian control of Indian edu- cation: the path of the Upper Nicola Band. Cana- dian Journal of Native Education 23, 64–100. Collignon B 2006. Knowing places. The Inuinnait, landscape, and the environment. CCI Press, Ed- monton. Cruikshank J 1981. Legend and landscape: the con- vergence of oral and scientific traditions. Arctic Anthropology 18, 67–93. Cruikshank J and Argounova T 2000. Re-inscribing meaning: memory and indigenous identity in Sa- kha Republic (Yakutia). Arctic Anthropology 37, 96–119. dean B 2004. Indigenous education and the pros- pects for cultural survival. Cultural Survival Quar- terly 27, 14–18. donahue P 1977. 4500 years of cultural continuity of the central interior plateau of British Columbia. Thesis, (Phd). University of Wisconsin. Enkiwe-Abayao L 2004. Ifugao knowledge and for- mal education. Cultural Survival Quarterly 27, 26–29. Fiske J 1987. Fishing is women’s business: changing economic roles of Carrier women and men. In Cox BA (ed). Native people, native lands: Cana- dian Indians, Inuit and Metis, 186–198. Carleton University Press, Ottawa. Fondahl G & Atkinson d 2007. Re-making space in north-central British Columbia: the establishment of the John Prince Research Forest. BC Studies 154, 67–95. Freeman M (ed). 1976. Inuit land use and occupan- cy project. Ministry of Supply Services Canada, department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ot- tawa. Furniss E 1986. The Carrier Indians and the politics of history. In Morrison RB & Wilson CR (eds). Native peoples: the Canadian experience, 508–546. Ox- ford University Press, Toronto. Grainger S, Sherry EE and Fondahl G 2006. The John Prince Research Forest: evolution of a co-man- agement partnership in northern British Colum- bia. Forestry Chronicle 82, 484–495. Grenier L 1998. Working with indigenous knowl- edge: a guide for researchers. International devel- opment Research Centre, Ottawa. Hall L 1992. The Carrier, my people. Friesen Printers, Cloverdale. Hart E 1995. Getting started in oral traditions re- search. Occasional papers of the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife. Heikkila K 2007. Teaching through toponymy: using indigenous place-names in outdoor science camps. Thesis, (MA). University of Northern Brit- ish Columbia. Herman RdK 1999. The Aloha State: place names and the anti-conquest of Hawai’i. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89, 76– 102. Holland T 1995. Words to live by: investigating Nav- ajo naming practices. Names 43, 275–293. Howitt R 2001. Rethinking resource management: justice, sustainability and indigenous peoples. Routledge, London. Hudson d 1983. Traplines and timber: social and economic change among Carrier Indians of north- ern British Columbia. Thesis, (Phd). University of Alberta. [INAC] Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2006. Youth. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. . 01.09.2006. Ives JW 1990. A theory of Northern Athapaskan pre- history. University of Calgary Press, Calgary. Jenness d 1943. The Carrier Indians of the Bulkley River: their social and religious life. In Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 133, 469–586. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, dC. Johnson M (ed). 1992. Lore: capturing traditional en- vironmental knowledge. dene Cultural Institute and International development Research Centre, Ottawa. Karjala M & Sherry E 2003. The aboriginal forest planning process: a guidebook for identifying community level criteria and indicators. . 07.07.2005. Kitchin R & Tate N 2000. Conducting research into human geography: theory, methodology and practice. Prentice Hall, Essex. Kobrinsky V 1977. The Tsimshianization of the Carri- er Indians. In Helmer J, Van dyke S & Kense F (eds). Problems in the prehistory of the North American subarctic: the Athapaskan question, 201–210. University of Calgary, Calgary. MacIvor M 1995. Redefining science education for aboriginal students. In Battiste M & Barman J (eds). First nations education in Canada: the circle unfolds, 73–98. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Mackay R & Miles L 1995. A major challenge for the education system: aboriginal retention and drop- out. In Battiste M & Barman J (eds). First Nations Education in Canada: the Circle Unfolds, 157– FENNIA 188: 1 (2010) 121Indigenous Toponyms as Pedagogical Tools: Reflections from … 178. University of British Columbia Press, Van- couver. Mackinnon A, Pojar J & Coupé R (eds). 1999. Plants of Northern British Columbia. Lone Pine Publish- ing, Vancouver. McCaskill d 1987. Revitalization of Indian culture: Indian cultural survival schools. In Barman J, He- bert Y & McCaskill d (eds). Indian Education in Canada – Vol. 2 The Challenge, 157–178. Univer- sity of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. McCracken G 1988. The long interview. Sage Uni- versity Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods 13. Sage, Beverly Hills. McGregor d 2000. The state of traditional ecological knowledge research in Canada: a critique of cur- rent theory and practice. In Laliberte, R, Sette P, Waldram J, Innes R, Macdougall B, McBain L, Barron, F (eds). Expressions in Canadian Native Studies, 436-458. University of Saskatchewan Ex- tension Press, Saskatoon. Mitchell R 2003. Yunk’utw whe ts’o dul’eh (We learn from our land). discussion paper and culture- based science camp curriculum development prepared for the Chuntoh Education Society, Tache, British Columbia. Morice AG 1895. Three Carrier myths. Transactions of the Canadian Institute 5, 1–36. Morice AG 1897. In the land of the black bear – among the natives of B.C. Narratives of a mission- ary by the Rev. Fr. Morice – oblate missionary of Mary Immaculate. Translated from French by dwight dodge. delhomme et Briguet, Paris. Morice AG 1902. British Columbia maps and place names. In A First Collection of Minor Essays, Mostly Anthropological by the Rev. A.G. Morice, 44–54. Stuart’s Lake Mission, Quesnel. Morice AG 1907. The great dene race. Anthropos 2, 1–34, 181–196. Morice AG 1910. The great dene race. Anthropos 5, 113–142, 419–443, 643–653, 969–990. Morice AG 1932. The Carrier language. Anthropos. Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift, Mödling bei Wien, St. Gabriel, Austria. Morice AG 1933. Carrier onomatology. American Anthropologist 35, 632–658. Morice AG 1978. The History of the Northern Interior of British Columbia, 1660–1880. Interior Statio- nery, Smithers (Originally published in 1904). Morris P 1999. Negotiating the production of space, Tl’azt’en territory, 1969–1984. Thesis, (MA). Uni- versity of Northern British Columbia. Morris P and Fondahl G 2002. Negotiating the pro- duction of space in Tl’azt’en territory, northern British Columbia. The Canadian Geographer 46, 2, 108–125. Müller-Wille L 1984. The legacy of native toponyms: towards establishing the Inuit place name inven- tory of the Kativik Region (Quebec). Onomastica Canadiana 65, 2–19. Müller-Wille L 2000. Nunavut – place names and self-determination: some reflections. In dahl J, Hicks J & Jull P (eds). Nunavut: Inuit region con- trol of their lands and their lives, 146–151. Inter- national Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Co- penhagen. Nash C 1999. Irish placenames: postcolonial loca- tions. Transactions of the Institute of British Geog- raphers 24, 457–480. Nuttall M 1992. Arctic homeland: kinship, commu- nity and development in Northwest Greenland. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Poser W 1998. Nak’albun/Dzinghubun whut’en bug- huni (Stuart/ Trembleur Lake Carrier lexicon). Yinka dene Language Institute, Vanderhoof. Poser W 2000. Carrier transcription correspondence chart. . 11.11.2004. Ridington R 1990. Little bit know something: stories in a language of anthropology. douglas & Mc- Intyre, Vancouver. Rosenberg J & Nabhan G 1997. Where ancient stories guide children home. Natural History 10, 54–61. Sam L (ed). 2001. Nak’azdli t’enne yahilduk (Nak’azdli elders speak). Theytus Books Ltd., Penticton. Sarangapani P 2003. Indigenising curriculum: ques- tions posed by Baiga Vidya. Comparative Educa- tion 39, 199–210. Semken S 2005. Sense of place and place-based in- troductory geoscience teaching for American In- dian and Alaska Native undergraduates. Journal of Geoscience Education 53, 149–157. Sherry E & Fondahl G 2004. Methods for developing local level criteria and indicators of joint forest management. draft report, University of Northern British Columbia. Silverman d 2000. Analyzing talk and text. In denzin N & Lincoln Y (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Re- search, 821–834. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Smith LT 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: re- search and indigenous peoples. Zed Books, New York. Smith GH 2000. Protecting and respecting indige- nous knowledge. In Battiste M (ed). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision, 209–224. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Snively G & Corsiglia J 2000. discovering indigenous science: implications for science education. Sci- ence Education 85, 6–34. Steward JC 1940. Field notes and other material. Car- rier national anthropological archives Smithsonian Institution file 7053. Accessed from the Tl’azt’en Natural Resources Office Collections, Tache. Thornton, TF 1997. Know your place: the organiza- tion of Tlingit geographic knowledge. Ethnology 36, 1–12. Tl’azt’en Nation 1997. Tl’azt’en Nation guidelines for research in Tl’azt’en territory. < http://cura. unbc.ca>. 14.09.2005. Tl’azt’en Nation 1995. Tl’azt’en culture and lan- guage program – statement of philosophy. Tl’azt’en Free Press June 1–9, 3–6. 122 FENNIA 188: 1 (2010)Karen Heikkilä and Gail Fondahl Tobias T 2000. Chief Kerry’s moose: a guidebook to land use and occupancy mapping, research de- sign and data collection. Union of British Colum- bia Indian Chiefs & Ecotrust Canada, Vancouver. Urion C 1993. First Nations schooling in Canada: a review of changing issues. In Stewin I, McCann L & Stewart J (eds). Contemporary educational is- sues: the Canadian mosaic, 97–107. Copp Clark Pitman Ltd., Mississauga. Vanstone J. 1974. Athapaskan Adaptations: Hunters and Fisherman in the Subarctic Forests. AHM Publishing, Arlington Hills. Walker S 1974. Kinship. In Antoine F, Bird C, Isaac A, Prince N, Sam S, Walker R & Wilkinson d (eds). Central Carrier bilingual dictionary, 379–393. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Fort St. James. Wonders W 1987. Native claims and place names in Canada’s western Arctic. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 7, 1, 111–120. Yamamura B, Netser S, and Qanatsiaq N 2003. Com- munity elders, traditional knowledge and a math- ematics curriculum framework. Education Cana- da 43, 44–46. York G 1990. The dispossessed: life and death in na- tive Canada. Little, Brown and Company Ltd., To- ronto.