Yellowknives Dene First Nation Land and Environment Proposed Dinàgà Wek'èhodì Protected Area YKDFN Traditional Knowledge Report From: Yellowknives Dene First Nation Fax: (867)766-3497 To: Conservation Network Planning Environment and Natural Resources Government of tHe NortHwest Territories March 31, 2018 YKDFN YKDFN Land & Environment This report is a compilation, from data in our Traditional Knowledge Data Base and workshops held with Yellowknives Elders on November 17, 2017 and December 5, 2017, of Yellowknife Dene past and present use of the proposed Dinàgà Wek'èhodì Protected Area. Details of places in the North Arm for which Elders gave information is proprietary and while it will form a useful part of YKDFN’s participation in future management of the Dinàgà Wek'èhodì Protected Area it is not included in this pubic report. Details of the spatial extent of known cultural assets, along with additional historical information, will be gathered through fieldwork planned for the summer of 2018. Fieldwork is necessary to complete this project but will only happen if funding is made available. 2 Introduction THe NortH Arm of Great Slave Lake, including tHe far northwest portion, the proposed Dinàgà Wek'èHodì Protected Area, is a very important place for us. We are the Yellowknives Dene whose occupation and use of tHis entire area dates back many, many generations, to a time long before the Tłı̨chǫ came to tHis area. We are descendants of Tetsǫt’ı́ né (“copper or metal people”), the indigenous CHipewyan-related people living around Great Slave Lake and referred to in exploration and fur trade records as Copper Indians, Yellow-knife Indians, Red-Knife Indians, Couteaux Jaunes, etc. THese names all refer to tHe copper tools we were using when first encountered by Europeans. Some members of tHe Łutsel K’e Dene First Nation of Łútsëlk'é, and tHe Deninu K’ue First Nation of Fort Resolution, are also descendant from the Tetsǫt’ıné.́ The common ancestry of these three First Nations is the reason we joined together, under the name AkaitcHo Dene First Nation (ADFN), to negotiate a land claim with the Federal and Territorial Governments. AkaitcHo was a powerful Tetsǫt’ıné́ leader wHo we remember today as man who played an important role in protecting Tetsǫt’ıné́ traditional lands during a time when the arrival of the fur trade resulted in significant competition for ricH resource areas and tHe shifting of once stable boundaries between many First Nations across Canada. Two Hundred years ago the area nominated by the Tłı̨chǫ for protected status was one of tHe areas on tHe western edge of our traditional lands where fur trade pressures brought us into conflict with the Tłı̨chǫ. For us documentation of tHe occupation and use of a huge traditional exploitive range around Great Slave Lake is a significant part of our participation in the Akaitcho Process. Beginning in the late 1960s Elder’s interviews, backed by exHaustive researcH in Historic records, Have revealed a history that definitively links the people who occupied these lands over millennia with their descendants, tHe Yellowknives Dene. Digitization, in our Trailmark Traditional Knowledge Database (http://www.trailmarksys.com/), of the record of our land use became a priority more than ten years ago. Now, witH hundreds of Elders interviews; many tHousand data points, lines, polygons and traditional place names; and, a considerable volume of botH arcHival and publisHed Historical data, we now have much better understanding of wHo we are. 3 This map, generated from our Trailmark Traditional Knowledge Database, gives a powerful visual representation of tHe extent of our past and current land use: 4 Who We Are For more tHan a Hundred years, we Have endured commonly Held misperceptions of wHo we are descendant from, the extent of our traditional lands, and our historic relationsHip witH neigHbouring First Nations. Thirty years ago tHe Prince of Wales NortHern Heritage Centre distributed brochures telling of the history of each of the NWT’s Dene, Inuit and Inuvialuit groups. THe one for tHe “Yellowknife Indians” claimed tHat tHey were “extinct”, tHe last Having died in tHe influenza epidemic of 1928. THe explanation given for tHe existence of tHe indigenous people of Yellowknife, DettaH and Rainbow Valley (Ndilo) was simple, tHey were Tłı̨chǫ (Dogrib) who Had moved, in the late 1800s, into the void created by tHe extinction of tHe “Yellowknife Indians”. The source for tHe information in tHis brocHure came from the often-referenced SmitHsonian Institution’s Handbook of North American Indians. During tHe 1960s and 70s University of Iowa antHropologists June Helm and Beryl Gillespie conducted field work among tHe Dogrib (Tłı̨chǫ) of “Fort” Rae (BehcHoko). THey publisHed tHe results of tHeir work in academic journals and, most significantly, in tHe SmitHsonian’s Handbook. June Helm edited Subarctic, Volume 6 (1981) of tHis series, and also autHored tHe Dogrib chapter. Beryl Gillespie was tHe autHor of tHe Yellowknife chapter, the factuality of whicH Has been vigorously disputed by the Yellowknives Dene. In Her Dogrib chapter Helm makes some extraordinary claims about tHe traditional use area of tHe Dogrib people, sHe said their range is: … between 62° and 65° north latitude and between 110° and 124° west longitude … south to north, Dogrib land lies between Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake and extends, west to east, from the lowlands on the east side of the Mackenzie River to Contwoyto, Aylmer, and Artillery lakes … in the northwestern sector of their range, Dogribs meet Bearlake Indians; in the western and southwestern sector, Slaveys; along the eastern edges, Chipewyans; and in the Contwoyto Lake region at the northeastern apex, they have occasionally encountered Eskimos. NeigHbours on all sides of tHe Dogrib, including tHe descendants of tHe Tetsǫt’ıné́ (also written Taltsąot'ıné)́ currently living in Yellowknife Bay, would strongly dispute tHis greatly exaggerated territorial claim. Beginning in tHe late 1960s Helm sent Her ResearcH Associate Beryl Gillespie on several trips to Yellowknife to conduct fieldwork among the ‘Dogrib’ of Yellowknife Bay. Elders remember Beryl Gillespie’s work in our community. THey say sHe spent weeks conducting interviews in Ndilo, DettaH and Yellowknife and that she was accompanied by a Dogrib interpreter from Rae. THis interpreter only knew the Tłı̨chǫ language and Elders claim tHat He only took Gillespie to interview individuals wHo spoke Tłı̨chǫ and wHo Had strong ties to tHe Tłı̨chǫ from Fort Rae. No interviews were conducted in Tetsǫt’ıné,́ a language that more recent researcH Has demonstrated would Have been known to most if 5 not all the individuals interviewed, a language that we know was the first language they learned as children and a strong indication of tHeir cultural history and affiliation. Gillespie’s field notes are Held by tHe NWT ArcHives but access is restricted until 2032. From tHe accession description we know tHe family names of eacH interviewee, but not wHicH individuals from those families were interviewed. THe following accession description gives an overview of the collection and states tHat tHese restricted field notes were: … generated by field work conducted by Beryl Gillespie, an anthropologist who visited the communities of Detah, Rae, Yellowknife, Fort Norman (Tulita) and Fort Franklin (Deline) between 1968 and 1972. The photographs, slides and negatives depict the people she interviewed and the communities that she visited. The textual material consists of field notes containing information and stories collected from the following families: Clement, Lennie, Andrew, Norwegian, Wright, Naedzo, Gladue, Karkagie, Gully, Sangris, Thomas, Abel, Potfighter, Crapeau, Drygeese, Fishbone, Blondin, Bruno, Martin, Mackenzie, Liske, Tobie, Betsina, Charlo, Baillargeon, Hetchile, Vital, Pochat, Yakeleya, Bernard, Mendo, Yukon and Etchinele. What questions did Beryl Gillespie ask Her informants? Interviews were conducted in Tłı̨chǫ but were there any questions concerning other languages the informants spoke? Were questions asked concerning self-identity? WHat about family History? Answers to tHese questions won’t be known until 2032 but we can surmise what answers Gillespie would Have expected to receive Had sHe followed this line of questioning. Clues to wHat Gillespie expected to find wHen sHe came to Yellowknife – an expectation tHat likely played a role in guiding the nature of the questions she asked – can be found in tHe final paragrapH of her Yellowknife chapter. Her work was guided by Her belief tHat “the ‘disappearance’ of the Yellowknife [Indians] in the twentieth century precludes any research other than with historical materials”. Gillespie knew empHatically tHat she wouldn’t find any Yellowknives living in Yellowknife Bay so it may not have occurred to her to ask questions that would challenge that belief. Concerning the question of who the indigenous inHabitants of Yellowknife Bay were, Gillespie appears to Have gone with the simplest answer. It’s one tHat’s been given over and over again, tHat because the Yellowknives generally speak a form of tHe Dogrib (Tłı̨chǫ) language tHey must be Dogrib. In 1991 tHe Yellowknife B Band Council began efforts to change the perception that the public, governments and academics Had about wHo we are. The Council “made a landmark decision … to adopt the name Yellowknives Dene Band instead of Yellowknife B Band, since the people are descended from the Yellowknives or ‘Copper’ people.” For many non-Dene this didn’t seem to fit the ‘facts’ as printed in the Smithsonian’s Handbook. It was not only common knowledge among many of the residents of Yellowknife, among Federal and Territorial government officials, among tHe academics and specialists employed at tHe PWNHC, and even among many otHer First Nations throughout the north, that the Dene of Yellowknife Bay were 6 Dogrib (Tłı̨chǫ). THey spoke Dogrib and were, up until 1991, not publicly denying the misperception that they were Dogrib.