University of Alberta Tse Keh Nay-European Relations and Ethnicity 1790s-2009 by Daniel Sims A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Department of History and Classics ©Daniel Sims Spring 2010 Edmonton, Alberta Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission. Examining Committee Gerhard Ens, History and Classics David Mills, History and Classics Christian Andersen, Natives Studies Robert Irwin, History and Classics, Grant Macewan University Abstract This thesis examines Tse Keh Nay (Sekani) ethnic identity over three periods of Aboriginal-European relations: the fur trade period, the missionary period, and the treaty and reserve period. It examines the affects these three periods have had on the Tse Keh Nay as an ethnic group in four chapters, the first two dealing with the fur trade and missionary periods, and the last two with the treaty and reserve aspects of the treaty and reserve period. In it I argue that during the first two periods wider Tse Keh Nay ethnic identity was reinforced, while during the latter period local Tse Keh Nay identities were reinforced through government policies that dealt with Tse Keh Nay subgroups on a regional and localized basis. Despite this shift in emphasis, wider Tse Keh Nay ethnic identity has remained, proving that Tse Keh Nay ethnic identity is both situational and dynamic. Table of Contents Introduction Page 1 Chapter 1 Page 31 Fur Trade Perceptions of the Tse Keh Nay Chapter 2 Page 68 Missionary Perceptions of the Tse Keh Nay Chapter 3 Page 93 Treaties and the Regionalization of Tse Keh Nay Identity Chapter 4 Page 120 Reserves and the Localization of Tse Keh Nay Identity Conclusion Page 140 Bibliography Page 151 Appendix A Page 164 Using Fur Trade Records and Naming practices to establish Tse Keh Nay Territory 1891-1922 Appendix B Page 174 Tse Keh Nay Statement of Intent Maps Appendix C Page 179 Miscellaneous Maps List of Tables Table A-1 – Guy Lanoue’s List of Tse Keh Nay Surnames Page 167 (Historic & Variations in Italics) Table A-2 – Elsie Pierre’s List of Tse Keh Nay Surnames with Page 167 Tsay Keh Dene Surnames Added by Author Table A-3 – McLeod Lake Post Journal Arrivals and Departures: Page 169 Fort Grahame and McLeod Lake Tse Keh Nay Table A-4 – Fort Grahame Post Journal Arrivals and Departures: Page 171 Bear Lake and Fort Grahame Tse Keh Nay Table A-5 – Fort Grahame Post Journal Arrivals and Departures: Page 172 Fort Nelson Indians and McLeod Lake Tse Keh Nay List of Figures Figure A-1 – McLeod Lake Arrivals and Departures Page 170 McLeod Lake Tse Keh Nay Alone Figure A-2 – Fort Grahame Arrivals and Departures Page 173 Fort Grahame Tse Keh Nay Alone List of Maps Map B-1 Page 174 Carrier Sekani Tribal Council Statement of Intent Map Map B-2 Page 175 Kaska Dena Council Statement of Intent Map Map B-3 Page 176 McLeod Lake Indian Band Statement of Intent Map Map B-4 Page 177 Takla Lake First Nation Traditional Territory Map Map B-5 Page 178 Tsay Keh Dene Statement of Intent Map Map C-1 Page 179 Approximate Tse Keh Nay Territory 1820s-1920s Map C-2 Page 181 “J.A. Macrae” 1900 Map of Treaty No. 8 Map C-3 Page 182 Indian Treaties 1850-1912 Terminology Dakelh – Carrier Dene – Athapaskan Denesoline – Chipewyan Dene Tha – Slave Kwadacha – Fort Ware Kwakwaka’wakw – Kwakiutl Nehiyawak – Cree Niitsitapi - Blackfoot Secwepemc – Shuswap T’atsaot’ine – Yellowknife Tli Cho – Dogrib Tse Keh Nay – Sekani Tsilhqot’in – Chilcotin Tsuu T’ina – Sarcee 1 Introduction In 1999 the McLeod Lake Indian Band signed an adhesion to Treaty No. 8. They cited as justification for this action the location of their traditional territory within the boundaries of Treaty No. 8.1 They saw this act as the redressing of a historical oversight, namely that the Treaty Commissioners had failed to visit McLeod Lake to sign an adhesion, and therefore had never properly gained surrender, or given compensation for their land.2 Their decision to pursue this course of action, however, raises many questions, because the McLeod Lake Indian Band is part of the Tse Keh Nay First Nation. Historically known as the Sekani, the Tse Keh Nay are a nomadic Dene (Athapaskan) speaking people that live in northern British Columbia, and are currently subdivided into four First Nations and corresponding communities: Kwadacha/Fort Ware, McLeod Lake, Takla Lake and Tsay Keh Dene. If one accepts the continental divide as the western boundary of Treaty No. 8, (as early federal maps indicated) then all four First Nations’ traditional territory are at least partially within the boundaries of Treaty No. 8.3 (See Appendix B and Appendix C, Map C-2) Despite this, apart from some Tse Keh Nay who signed the Fort Nelson adhesion in 1910, no other 1 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, (INAC) “Backgrounder: The McLeod Lake Indian Band Final Agreement,” http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2000/00115bk_e.html (accessed 3 June, 2003; site not discontinued). 2 Ibid. 3 BC Treaty Commission, (BCTC) “Statement of Intent: Traditional Territory Boundary: Carrier Sekani Tribal Council,” http://bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Carrier_Sekani_SOI_Map.pdf (accessed 8 March, 2009); BCTC “Statement of Intent: Traditional Territory Boundary: Kaska Dena Council,” http://www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Kaska_Dena_Council_SOI_Map.pdf (accessed 8 March, 2009); BCTC, “Statement of Intent: Traditional Territory Boundary: McLeod Lake Indian Band,” http://www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/McLeod_Lake_SOI_Map.pdf (accessed 8 March, 2009); BCTC, “Statement of Intent: Traditional Territory Boundary: Tsay Keh Dene Band,” http://www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Tsay_Keh_Dene_SOI_Map.pdf (accessed 8 March, 2009); Library and Archives Canada, (LAC) RG 10M 78903/45, “Map Showing the Territory Ceded under Treaty No. 8 and the Indian Tribes Therein.” 2 Tsay Keh Nay has signed Treaty No. 8, despite the fact a Fort Grahame adhesion was suggested in the same year.4 This difference in regards to treaty among the Tse Keh Nay has continued in the modern comprehensive treaty process, (which includes a land claims aspect) where each Tse Keh Nay First Nation has taken a separate approach to it.5 The decision of the Tse Keh Nay to pursue their treaty and land claims separately raises important questions regarding their ethnic identity. Indeed, two groups (Takla Lake and Kwadacha) have opted to enter the modern British Columbia treaty process in largely non-Tse Keh Nay tribal organizations (the Kaska Dena Council/Kaska Nation for Kwadacha and the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council for Takla Lake).6 One would assume that since they all self-identify as Tse Keh Nay (and share a common language and culture) that they would work together towards a common aim in both the historic and modern treaty periods.7 That this is not the case makes Tse Keh Nay identity multifaceted and complex. My thesis is an attempt to examine some of these issues and in doing so analyze Tse Keh Nay ethnic identity. It is part of a wider ethnohistorical 4 LAC, RG 10, Volume 8595, File 1/1-11-5-1, Indian Treaties – Correspondence Regarding Western Treaty No. 8 and the Fort Nelson Adhesion 1909-1972, untitled Fort Nelson Adhesion, 15 August, 1910; LAC, RG 10, Volume 8595, File 1/1-11-5-1, Indian Treaties – Correspondence Regarding Western Treaty No. 8 and the Fort Nelson Adhesion 1909-1972, Memorandum for Deputy Minister from Indian Commissioner D. Laird, Ottawa, 11 January, 1910. 5 BCTC, Changing Point: Treaty Commission Annual Report 2005 (Vancouver: BC Treaty Commission, 2005), 24, 29, 31, 35. 6 BCTC, Changing Point, 24, 29, 31, 35; BCTC, Where Are We? Treaty Commission Annual Report 2003 (Vancouver: BC Treaty Commission, 2003), 27; Kaska Dena Council, “The Kaska Dena,” http://www.kaskadenacouncil.com/overview.html (accessed 3 September, 2009). 7 McLeod Lake Indian Band, “McLeod Lake’s History,” http://www.mlib.ca/about_us.htm (accessed 8 March, 2009; site now discontinued); Tse Keh Nay, “Our Communities,” http://tsekehnay.net/index.php?/communities (accessed 8 March, 2009). 3 movement of analyzing ethnic identity, rather than just accepting it.8 In particular, it is a major departure from previous academic works dealing with First Nations, which have perceived them in rather simplistic terms as the “Indian” other, who are more a part of nature than of society in general.9 Beyond its significance for understanding treaty and land claims, this topic should be of interest to anyone studying ethnic identity. Understanding how Tse Keh Nay ethnic identity has been shaped by circumstances and outside influences reveals the dynamic nature of not only Tse Keh Nay ethnic identity, but also ethnic identity in general. I argue Tse Keh Nay ethnic identity is situational and dynamic in nature, and that this is the reason why four different First Nations could pursue four separate goals (in the treaty and land claims processes) and yet still self-identify and identify each other as Tse Keh Nay.