new relationship between anthropologi - high plains society for

1High Plains Applied Anthropologist No. 1, Vol. 25, Spring, 2005

A New Relationship Between Anthropologists and the EeyouchPart Two: Meeting the Challenge1

Kreg Ettenger2

Abstract:

For more than 30 years, applied anthropologists have worked with the Eeyou (Cree) Nation of northern Québec,Canada, as they have fought to defend their lands, resources, and way of life from the negative effects of rapidregional development. In 2002, after three decades of conflict with Québec, Eeyou leaders signed a major agreementwith the province that calls for cooperation in the future development of the region’s resources. The agreementreflects the fact that employment, economic development, and community services have now become the major concernof Eeyou leaders and communities. In Part One of this article (Ettenger 2004) I described the role thatanthropologists have played in the past in the region and how recent trends require changes in our approaches. HereI provide concrete suggestions for revising our research questions, methods, and products to meet the emerging needsof Eeyou communities as they develop skills and resources needed to carry out anthropological research. A currentcommunity-based anthropology project is used to demonstrate these trends.

Introduction

The Eeyouch (formerly Cree) of Eeyou Istchee – theterritory east of James Bay and southeast of HudsonBay in northern Québec Province, Canada – have hada long relationship with applied anthropologists. Muchof this relationship has taken place in the context ofprolonged conflict and tension between the Eeyouchand the state, namely Québec and its corporateinterests, whose goals are the development of theterritory mainly for the benefit of the non-indigenousresidents of the province. While this conflict has neverescalated to the point of violence or armed standoffsseen in other parts of the province (such as the 1991Oka crisis), the relationship has been marked byanimosity, public criticisms, and a long series of legaland political battles. Anthropologists, especially thosefrom the anglophone academic community, havegenerally taken the side of the Eeyouch in thesedisputes, acting as advisors, interlocutors, and expertwitnesses in courts and negotiations, and elucidatingthe Eeyou positions in academic publications andconferences. They have also, for better or worse,helped to maintain the general perception that theEeyouch continue to live a more-or-less traditionallifestyle based on hunting and trapping, despite thevarious changes that have come to the region.

In Part One of this article (Ettenger 2004) Ichallenged this perception and suggested that ifanthropologists are to continue to have a meaningfulrole in Eeyou Istchee, major changes in our methodsand our perspectives will be needed. This includesjettisoning old views about the nature of huntingsociety, recognizing the profound extent of cultural

change that has occurred in recent years in the north,and acknowledging that the communities we studyalready accept this fact. This can be seen clearly byexamining recent developments in the region, especiallythe choices being made by Native leaders on behalf oftheir communities. In the case of the Eeyouch, thisincludes a major new development agreement signed in2002 with the province of Québec, which sets the stagefor further resource extraction in the region whileproviding needed financial support for expanded localdevelopment. Jobs, houses, industry, and services arethe main concerns of the agreement, and whileenvironmental protection is considered, preservation ofthe “traditional way of life” so prominent in earlieragreements is not a highlight.

As the Eeyouch and other indigenous peoples moveinto the 21st century, so must we. This article describessome fundamental aspects of our discipline that needto be reexamined as we make this transition. Theseinclude the problems we study as well as the way wework with communities and what they gain from theexperience. Collaboration, participation, local control,and training are all critical elements of this “newrelationship” between applied anthropologists and theEeyouch. As I show, such an approach is currentlybeing used in an archaeology and cultural heritageresearch project being undertaken at the site of a newhydroelectric project on the Eastmain River.

The Modern Eeyouch: A Brief Overview

Currently there are about 13,000 Eeyouch (the pluralof Eeyou) living in 9 communities in northern Québec(Figure 1), and another 1,000 or so living outside the

2 High Plains Applied Anthropologist No. 1, Vol. 25, Spring, 2005

Figure 1. Eeyouch Communities in northern Québec.

region but retaining legal band membership and otherlocal affiliations. Like many other northern Nativecommunities, the Eeyouch are undergoing rapid socialand economic change, primarily as a result of large-scale resource development (forestry, mining, andhydroelectric development) on their traditionalterritory, now known as Eeyou Istchee (The People’sLand). Unlike some indigenous groups, however, theEeyouch have substantial financial resources availableto help them make this transition, largely due to a seriesof negotiated settlements with provincial and federal

governments and public corporations like Hydro-Québec. The first of these was the 1975 James Bay andNorthern Québec Agreement (Secrétariat aux affairesautochtones 1998), which set the stage both for thedevelopment of the region’s resources and for thecreation of local and regional Cree administrativestructures (Salisbury 1986, Niezen 1998). These includeCree-run schools, health clinics and other services, aswell as village-level band offices, and regional entitiessuch as the Cree Regional Authority.


A more recent agreement between the Eeyouch andQuébec (but not Canada) provides additional fundingfor local and regional economic development,improvement of services, and other needs identifiedbut not fully met through earlier funding arrangements(Anon. 2002a). Often called the “New RelationshipAgreement” (and dubbed the Paix des Braves byCanadian media), this compact represents both newchallenges and new opportunities for the Eeyouch andtheir leadership. For example, it allows the creation ofadditional hydroelectric projects on two major rivers,which some Eeyouch reject, but provides guaranteedincome from these projects, something Eeyouchleaders have long called for. Other provisions give theEeyouch stronger control over logging and miningactivities, set goals for Native employment in variousresource sectors, and provide needed job training.Increased funding for housing and other communityinfrastructure, as well as new allotments fordevelopment of tourism and other emerging economicsectors, are seen as important benefits of theagreement. Altogether the New RelationshipAgreement provides the Eeyouch with roughly Can$ 4-5 billion over the next 50 years to fund immediate andlong-term needs in the communities.

Eeyou villages already share many characteristicswith non-Native communities of similar size in thenorth. They consist of modern houses neatly set alonggravel or asphalt roads in communities designed byengineers and land-use planners. The homes are heatedby furnaces and connected to municipal water andsewage systems and local or regional electric grids.Spacious band administration offices, sportscomplexes, and commercial centers with small shopsand restaurants are the norm. Near-daily air flightsprovide rapid transportation of people and goods, andall but one community is connected by roads to thesouth. Entertainment and recreation opportunities areample; many larger communities would love to have thesports facilities, for example, of Eastmain (pop. 550)with its indoor ice rink and sports complex. In short, theEeyou communities have made a great leap forward interms of material infrastructure, in large part due to theeconomic benefits of regional development and theability of Eeyou leaders to gain facilities and servicesfor their residents. On the other hand, the Eeyou facesocial, physical, economic and other problems relatedto rapid development (Niezen 1998; Hornig 1999). Thereare many serious problems to solve as the communitiesseek to balance economic development with the desireto retain key elements of their cultural heritage andsocial fabric.

In terms of needs, the 9 villages of Eeyou Istchee areremote, rapidly-growing communities with limitedeconomic development, a dependence on externalfunding, shortages of residential and commercial space,and young populations who need good jobs but wantto remain in or near their home communities. There arealso needs for improvement in education, health care,social services, and a host of other areas. In short,there is ample opportunity for those who wish tocontribut e their social science skills, experience, andtraining. How do we make a difference, and how do weconvince local and regional leaders that we havesomething worthwhile to contribute? The rest of thisarticle addresses this fundamental question.

The Anthropologist’s Changing Role: A PersonalExperience

My thinking is based in part on experience as a part-time research consultant to the Eeyou government overthe decade from 1994-2004. My work involveddocumenting local knowledge regarding land andresources for specific legal and political purposes. Inchronological order, the studies include: a communityconsultation for the Great Whale Hydroelectric Project(Scott and Ettenger 1994); an evaluation of remedialprograms related to fishery contamination (Ettenger1998); a study to document local use and knowledge ofa potential cultural heritage site (Ettenger 2002); a landuse and occupancy study for the Eeyou marine claim(Ettenger 2003); and a cultural heritage program relatedto a new hydroelectric project (Denton, Ettenger, andMoses 2003). In addition to these contracted projects,I spent roughly 8 months between September of 1994and June of 1995 in one Eeyou community conductingdoctoral dissertation research on hunters’ responses toenvironmental and economic change. In total, I havespent roughly 20 months in Eeyou Istchee over thepast 10 years and conducted some 150 formalinterviews with elders, hunters, and other localresidents. I have also had countless conversationswith Eeyou residents, leaders, advisors, andadministrators both in their communities and in officesin Montreal and Ottawa over this period.

Each successive project involved one or more of thefollowing: 1) an advancement in technology ormethods; 2) greater involvement of communityresidents; and 3) more direct and clear benefits to thecommunity from the research. The Great Whale Project“Cree Community Consultation,” for example, involvedme and senior researcher Dr. Colin Scott of McGillUniversity (and another team elsewhere) interviewingresidents of two communities about the social and


environmental impacts of the first phase of the JamesBay Hydroelectric Project (Scott and Ettenger 1994).T he work was carried out on behalf of the GrandCouncil of the Crees, and our report was submitted tothem and then to the project’s funding agent, Hydro-Québec. There was no local oversight of the work,although it was administered through the GrandCouncil who had final authority to approve the reportprior to submission to Hydro-Québec. The method wassimply conducting semi-structured int erviews usingtopographic maps as prompts, then transcribing thetapes and organizing the transcripts into a sort ofencyclopedia of residents’ comments. While bycontract we could not do additional interpretations ofthe data, it was clear that we (and especially Dr. Scott)were perceived as the experts and made virtually alldecisions regarding whom to interview and what topicsto explore.

Two smaller projects, one involving local knowledgeof eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds in James Bay(Ettenger 1995), and another evaluating communityfishing programs (Ettenger 1998) expanded mymethodology, the first by employing mappingtechniques, and the second by including field study ofharvesting sites. I used both in the next major projectI was involved with, a land use and occupancy studyin support of the Eeyou claim to offshore islands andwaters of James and Hudson Bays (Ettenger 2003). Inthis project the methodology included detailedmapping of islands and adjacent coastlines,incorporating local knowledge of toponyms,ethnoecology, camp sites, travel routes, and so on.Eventually LandSat 7 images were used in place of topomaps, and GIS was used to organize the data and createvarious maps which were verified and added to in laterinterviews. Communities played a considerable role inthis process, including organizing local consultationmeetings where users of the coast and offshore couldinspect maps, ask questions, and add informationbased on their own experience and knowledge. Still, theresearch itself was largely driven by myself as anoutside consultant working within constraints set bythe legal process and prior research on land claims inthe north. In terms of community benefits, while therehas been considerable discussion of creating materials(such as an interactive CD) that would make the datacollected available to local residents, this has not yetbeen done.

In 2002 I was asked to apply a similar methodologyto a study of Muskuuchii (Bear Mountain), a glacially-formed plateau southeast of James Bay that wasundergoing rapid commercial deforestation against the

wishes of the Eeyouch (Ettenger 2002). The mountainplayed an important historical role in the region,providing moose, caribou, black bear, and other gameto Native residents during times of famine in the early20th century. To some the mountain holds magical orspiritual propert ies; to others it is an important culturalsymbol and a prime example of Eeyou gameconservation practices. It was also identified in theNew Relationship Agreement as a potential culturaland ecological heritage site, and an area the Eeyouchspecifically wanted protected from furtherdevelopment . I conducted interviews withWaskaganish elders about the mountain’s ecology,history, and pas t use; this information was used tocreate reports, maps, and posters designed to promotethe Eeyou arguments and convince the province tomake the area off-limits to further logging.

As with the offshore research there was strong localinvolvement, and ultimately the Eeyouch prevailed.Muskuuchii (and several other sites) was proposed asa provincial “biodiversity reserve,” with protectionfrom further commercial logging (Environement Québec2003a, b). The next step of this process involved animpact assessment, which the community ofWaskaganish carried out on its own behalf, using thematerials I had collected (including map data andinterviews) to supplement their own work. Thisdemonstrates admirably the gradual devolution of suchresearch to the local level. Still, there was room forimprovement in terms of direct benefits to thecommunity, such as additional training or the creationof educational products. The most recent project I havebeen involved with in Eeyou Istchee, the NadoshtinACHP, addresses these concerns and represents auseful model for future research on cult ural heritage,traditional knowledge, and related topics.

The Nadoshtin ACHP

The Nadoshtin Agreement (Anon. 2002b), designedto minimize the negative impacts and maximize localbenefits from the EM-1 hydroelectric project, alsocreated an “Archaeology and Cultural HeritageProgram” (ACHP) to document Eeyou knowledge ofthe EM-1 site, about 50 miles upstream from theexisting Eastmain-Opinaca Reservoir (Figure 2). Thegoal was to collect and preserve the Eeyou culturalheritage of the river and surrounding area, includingboth archaeological and ethnographic materials. Theproject was devised by the Eeyou negotiators of theNadoshtin Agreement in response to concerns abouthow earlier archaeological studies in the project areaand at other sites had been done (Anon. 2002b: 89-90).


Figure 2. The ACHP and Muskuuchii study areas.

It requires that local knowledge play a major role in thedesign, implementation, and ultimate products of theresearch, and that local residents take part in allaspects of the project. The program is both progressive

from a methodological point of view and a powerfulstatement of inherent Eeyou rights over the productionand distribution of knowledge about their lands, cultureand history.


There are three components of the ACHP: anarchaeological program to complement Hydro-Québec’s; the documentation of “traditional Creeknowledge and values” pertaining to the project area;and information on Eeyou burial sites , as well as a planto commemorate and possibly relocate identified sites(Denton, Ettenger, and Moses 2003).

Archaeological investigations are designed tocomplement those carried out by the projectproponents (Hydro-Québec and SEBJ), which maintaincontrol over the majority of funding in this area.Documentation of traditional knowledge involves theuse of digital media to record stories and ecologicaland historical information about the river andsurrounding area, including such things as campsitesand harvesting locations. The burial site program isdesigned to help mitigate one of the major culturalimpacts of reservoir flooding, as identified in earlierprojects: the inundation of Eeyou graves. Known gravesites will be identified and protected from disturbancewhere possible, while unintentionally uncoveredhuman remains will be relocated to a community orother site for reburial.

The overarching goal of the ACHP is to compose apicture of the affected area based on local knowledge,integrate that with the prehistoric findings from varioussites, and create products that transmit that knowledgeto others, including future generations of Eeyouch. TheACHP also calls for a different approach toanthropological research than has been the norm in theregion, at least outside of projects run directly by CRAstaff (see Denton 2001 for a positive example). For onething, there is a clear emphasis on recording localknowledge in a way that ensures it will be accessible tofuture generations of Eeyouch, as well as tocontemporary audiences. This means using technologythat allows the creation of various educationalproducts, from books or magazines to video, audio andmultimedia applications. Text alone is not adequate torecord and transmit knowledge to an audience ofvarying degrees of literacy (in Cree or English) andeducation, or from different cultures. Photographs,video clips, audio recordings of stories, maps, exhibits,and other types of non-written material are seen asessential to providing an outlet for the wealth ofinformation to be collected. The project is thereforeemploying digital media devices, including mini-DVcamcorders, minidisk recorders, digital still cameras,and GPS (global positioning system) units to record theknowledge of elders and others about the EM-1 area.

The information collected is being organized usingGIS (geographic information system) technology to linkethnographic materials and archaeological informationdigitally to maps and other images of the affected area.This will foster the development of education productsdesigned to pass along the heritage of the land floodedby the EM-1 Project to future generations of Eeyouch.Almost a third of the budget and two to three years ofwork following the flooding are devoted to creatingbooks, videos, multimedia products, and othermaterials that can be used in schools, museums, andhomes to learn about the ACHP and its findings.Project staff are working with the Advisory Committeeand others to determine what are the most effectiveways of transmitting this knowledge to variousaudiences, including children and youth. The digitalapproach to documentation for the projects lends itselfto a variety of potential products, including interactiveDVDs and websites that combine maps and photoswith video, audio, and text.

Another priority of the ACHP is to developemployment opportunities for local residents, which isone of the major goals of the Nadoshtin Agreement ingeneral. A major goal of the ACHP is to train localresidents in the various tools and techniques ofcultural heritage research, including archaeologicalsurveys and excavations, ethnographic interviewing,mapping, and visual anthropology methods. Localresearchers are operating cameras and other recordingequipment, conducting interviews, and recordinginformation provided by local elders. By the end of thep roject, a dozen or more individuals will have gonethrough a series of training modules developed for theACHP. For example, a group of young Eeyouch fromthe four participating communities engaged in atraditional canoe journey down part of the EastmainRiver in August 2003, followed by nearly two monthsin field camps conducting archaeological survey workand research with elders. They received training inarchaeological and ethnographic research methods, aswell as in the use of digital media equipment. In March2004 a group of residents completed a snowshoejourney on the Eastmain River, and in the summer andfall additional local workers participated inarchaeological excavations, directed in part by thepreviously trained project staff. The long-range goal ofsuch activities is to provide local residents with theskills and equipment to be able to conduct futureresearch, either independently or with outsideassistance. In this way the communities will gain morecontrol over the type of cultural research that is done,how it is carried out, and the way that the informationand stories collected are presented.


A third way in which the ACHP stands out is itsemphasis on site-based activities that involve bothyouth and elders. This focus comes directly from theproject’s advisory committee, which wanted to use theproject to get more youth out on the land. Reasonsinclude their awareness of a general dislocation fromthe land on the part of Eeyou youth, and their beliefthat real transmission of traditional knowledge can onlytake place in situ. They believe that direct oraltransmission of knowledge and stories is more valuablethan books or classroom lectures, an attitude thatprevails among many Eeyouch today. Of course, wemay be able to have the best of both worlds, creatingopportunities for direct teaching of traditional skillsand knowledge in the bush while also recording thisprocess for the benefit of those Eeyouch who cannotbe there. Elders are becoming more comfortable withcameras and microphones, and the researchers arelearning how to ask questions and record activities ina way that will provide useful material for educationalproducts.

One clear goal of the ACHP was to achievecommunity goals regarding training and employmentwithout sacrificing the quality of research carried out.In this respect it has already proven a success: fieldsurveys done by local teams led by elders in the fall of2003 found more potential archaeological sites andartifacts than better-equipped and better-fundedHydro-Québec teams working in the same area. Workon the land also showed the depth of information aboutthe land and its history held by local elders. In apractical sense, therefore, the ACHP offers a valuablemodel for community-based archaeological and culturalheritage research. In a larger sense, the programrepresents how Native communities are reclaiming theright to control access to their cultural heritage, fromcollection of data to preservation of artifacts andcreation of communication products. The NadoshtinAgreement ensures that Eeyou communities, inparticular elders, maintain control over the methodsand products of research. The ACHP guidelines are notjust a response to development projects, they are alsoa rejection of traditional anthropological andarchaeological research methods. This comes at a timewhen Eeyouch are developing a major cultural researchand education institute in the community of Oujé-Bougoumou, and new guidelines for the control ofintellectual property. There is clearly a movementtoward greater control over the goals, methods andoutcome of research conducted in Eeyou Istchee,which will no doubt affect all researchers involved inthe region.

Future Anthropological Research in IndigenousCommunities

The ACHP helps define one possible role thatapplied anthropologists can play within the context ofan increasingly sophisticated and empoweredindigenous society like the Eeyou Nation.Anthropologists may become more like trainers anddevelopers of local capacity for social research, andless like researchers who collect data and producereports as acknowledged experts on a particular topicor society. This has been the evolution of my own workin Eeyou Istchee over the past decade, and I believesuch a shift in thinking and practice is generalizablewithin our field. Community reluctance to permit accessto those they see as one-sided collectors ofinformation may eventually force this change anyway;now is the time to pro-actively adapt our roles to thechanging needs of those we work with. The followingdiscussion outlines some other ways in which we canmaintain and improve our relevance to the changingneeds of developing Native societies.

Relevance of Research

As indigenous governments and communitiesincreasingly gain access to information aboutthemselves (through the internet, via repatriation ofintellectual property, or other means), as they procurethe tools and skills needed for anthropologicalresearch, and as the needs for “expert” anthropologicalevidence decline (for example, due to resolution ofoutstanding land claims), the need for outsideresearchers will diminish. Internal social scienceresearch institutes and departments could (and should)eventually displace to a large degree the academic andindependent research consultants who now conductmuch of the research in Native communities. Ourreaction should be not to block this trend, but to workto help build the local and regional capacity ofindigenous peoples to design, carry out, anddisseminate anthropological research. Discussions offuture prospects for anthropologists in Nativecommunities, therefore, should emphasize our roles aspotential trainers, capacity-builders, and promoters oflocal research efforts . To the extent that we still carryout funded research and use the findings for our ownpurposes, this should be done with an eye towardcreating something that the communities also findrelevant, whether educational materials for their ownuse or the employment and training of local residentsin meaningful capacities. It should also be done in truecollaboration with regional and local governments andresearchers.


Local Involvement and Benefits

Greater local control over anthropological researchis a necessary and desirable outcome of increasingaboriginal self-government. As the Eeyouch and otherNative peoples continue their paths toward autonomy,and as they assume greater control over both resourcemanagement and research agendas, outsiders willeventually be marginalized and perhaps unneeded.Currently the Eeyouch are in the process of planningand raising funds for an impressive cultural centercalled Aanischaaukamikw, to be located in thesouthern inland community of Oujé-Bougoumou. Thecenter will house archaeological and ethnographicmaterials and exhibits and provide funding and spacefor cultural and performing arts. There is also interestin carrying out research to document cultural heritage,traditional knowledge, and related topics. Some Eeyoucommunities are already engaged in such efforts, whileothers are developing the tools and skills needed to doso. The ACHP is an example of how Eeyou leaders areresponding to such demands by requiring localtraining, employment and capacity-building in newresearch projects. Data collection is done by localresearchers in their own language, leading to excellentresults that are more likely to be of interest to othercommunity members. The idea of communities owningresearch in all its dimensions, from its planning to theeventual products, is a key goal.

Many anthropologists tend to focus on theanalytical side of their research, assuming that thevalue they add to community problems is theirextensive theoretical and comparative base ofknowledge and their ability to understand and interpretlocal phenomena based on this experience. I think mostcommunities would disagree, at least for the type ofwork they are most interested in today, which includesdocumenting their cultural heritage and traditionalknowledge and developing educational materials topass this knowledge on to youth and futuregenerations. Such work can be done by localresearchers once they have the tools and skills neededto do so. Even more advanced methods, such as theuse of GIS or remote sensing products, can be done atthe local level by those with training in these areas. Apriority for applied anthropology, therefore, should beputting the tools of our trade into the hands of localresearchers, helping them develop the skills to usethem effectively, and promoting our field as a viableand engaging career choice for local residents. We canalso help create the demand for such workers byassisting communities in seeking funding for localheritage programs and institutions, ranging from

museums and cultural centers to radio or videoprogramming and website development.

A third benefit desired by communities is thegeneration of products that can be used in schools andelsewhere to deal with issues such as language changeand loss of traditional knowledge. No longer is itconsidered sufficient for researchers to produceacademic articles or dissertations that never find theirway back to the communities, or limit their writing toconsulting reports to which only a few officials haveaccess. Summary reports or other documents that canbe readily obtained by local residents and that arewritten in a style (and language) appropriate for localaudiences are increasingly desired, if not yet expected,as an outcome of research projects. Oral presentationsthat provide opportunities for communities to respondto findings are also appreciated. As anthropologistsembrace the tools of digital media, we should alsoprovide copies of audio and video recordings, at leastto those interviewed, and perhaps summary programsfor local broadcast or distribution. There is also theinternet; many communities now have their own webpages, and most residents can access the web either athome or in schools or band offices.

Major Topics of Research

The topics we study should clearly reflect localconcerns and priorities, not just our own esotericinterests or subjects that may be relevant from anacademic or legal perspective but have little directbearing on community life. Full-time hunters currentlymake up just a fifth of the residents of Eeyou Istchee, forexample, yet probably account for four-fifths of theliterature about Eeyou society. While the continued roleof hunting within the Eeyou communities is a valid areaof research, given its importance to both food securityand cultural identity, other topics may be even morecritical from a local perspective. Among the concernsidentified by Eeyou leaders and addressed in the NewRelationship Agreement and other recent policydecisions, for example, are the need for increased jobs inboth the resource and service sectors; the difficulty ofcreating sustained local economic development; thechallenges of language and education in an increasinglyfrancophone and industrialized region; the struggle tomaintain cultural identity in a globalized and media-influenced sett ing; chronic problems with drug andalcohol abuse, and with depression and other mentalhealth problems; and rapidly growing rates of diabetes,heart disease, and other health conditions related tochanges in diet and lifestyle. In terms of land use, manytopics transcend traditional ethnographic studies of


Eeyou hunting culture and could produce results morerelevant to the modern Eeyou hunter: the use of roadcorridors for hunting; changes with respect to theownership and division of family traplines; and recenttrends with respect to fishing, to name but a few. Anemerging topic of economic interest to the Eeyouch istourism and outfitting, and research to support thisinterest could be fruitful. These are just a few areas towhich anthropologists can devote their attention in thecoming years.

Documenting elders’ knowledge about the land isalso a focus of attention. A planned cultural centercalled Aanischaaukamikw, or “A Place for Passing onCulture,” reflects strong regional concerns aboutdocumenting Eeyou traditions (aanischaaihtuun) andlanguage (ayiimuun) and passing them on to futuregenerations. Knowledge of the land and its usecontinues to be an important topic in Eeyou Istchee,although the social and economic role of thisknowledge may be changing. As indigenousgovernments continue to gain control over their ownlands and resources, the systematic documentation oflocal knowledge and its integration into developmentactivities will become a fundamental part of theplanning process. This can be seen today with respectto the proposed EM-1A/Rupert River hydroelectricproject, where local knowledge of Eeyou hunters wasincorporated into project design and management. Asthis is a key priority area for Eeyou communities andleaders, I will expand on the need to make documentinglocal knowledge of the environment and land use a keyarea of future anthropological research.

Land-Based Knowledge: A Key Area of Research

The ACHP’s emphasis on recording traditionalknowledge for posterity highlights one of the mostpressing problems facing researchers in Eeyou Istcheeand other rapidly changing regions: the loss oftraditional knowledge ranging from place names andstories to ecological data. This is true whether the areain question is about to undergo major change, such asthe creation of a reservoir, or is being used less ordifferently by community members. Documenting thestories, memories, knowledge, and feelings of thosewho used these places is a vital part of creating apermanent cultural record of the cultural landscape.Responding to the loss of land and culture was apriority for those who negotiated recent developmentagreements affecting Eeyou Istchee. Projects fundedby these agreements allow the Eeyouch to implementtheir own strategies for recording cultural heritageotherwise lost to development. Residents interviewed

during earlier studies felt there was “lots of unsharedinformation” about places lost to earlier development(Scott and Ettenger 1994). New agreements likeNadoshtin and Boumhounan address this problemdirectly and provide opportunities for documentingcultural heritage in areas affected by new development.

The changes that have resulted from developmentof Eeyou Istchee mean that, inevitably, some of whattied former generations of Eeyouch to the land will belost. Evidence from projects I have worked on suggeststhat a sizable amount of traditional place-basedknowledge is already gone in Eeyou Istchee. Duringthe ACHP, for example, we were unable to documentplace names for many features in the EM-1 project area,although elders stressed that there were in fact Eeyounames for these places at one time. Other missinginformation includes campsites inhabited in the pre-modern era, travel routes used before the age ofskidoos and outboard motors, some harvesting areas,and even myths and legends of the landscape. All ofthese were identified by interviewees as indigenousknowledge that previous generations, including theirown parents, possessed. This was even said byhunters in their 70s and 80s, who themselves know theland much better than their children and grandchildren.

Many elders have an understanding of the landformed through direct experience, rather than stories orother indirect means. This cannot be said of mostyounger Eeyouch, who tend to measure their annualtime spent in the bush in days, not months. Most of thetime they are working or going to school in thecommunity, where their experiences of nature areframed within the physical boundaries of the village.Radical changes in the way hunt ing groups areorganized, where they go, and how they hunt are alsoaffecting transmission of traditional knowledge aboutthe land. The most profound and irreversible loss oflocal knowledge, however, comes when an area iscompletely destroyed, such as when a reservoir iscreated. As one elder said during the Great WhaleCommunity Consultation when speaking about an areainundated by the Eastmain-Opinaca Reservoir, “it is asif my memory of it has been wiped clean.” While totaleradication of places is the extreme in Eeyou Istchee,the gradual loss of knowledge as places are altered,such as by roads and forestry, has been recognized byEeyou leaders and elders alike (for example, see theguidelines for research in CEEC 1996). Competition withother users and other uses changes the land and theway it is perceived and used by Eeyouch, and thesechanges are reflected in losses in the transmission oflocal knowledge.


Some would argue that the Eeyouch continue to beactive users of their territory and are still a vital huntingsociety, building upon and modifying their corpus ofindigenous knowledge even as they react to changesin technology or their physical environment. Whilethere is some truth to this line of reasoning, in the endI think its misses the mark. Enormous amounts of place-specific knowledge are going to be lost, and havealready been los t, because of the disuse of certainplaces, their use in new ways, or their use by peoplewho rely on advanced technology rather than detailedecological knowledge in their hunting strategies. Thisall leads me to one conclusion: if there is to bepreservation of more than a small fraction of whatliving Eeyouch still know about the land, the process oftransmission and documentation cannot be limited toparticipation in traditional harvesting activities byfamily groups, or even to cultural activities created bycommunities to replace defunct traditions (such as thehistoric fur trade “canoe brigades” on the Rupert River,which are now done as a form of cultural recreation).Instead, there must be a concerted effort to documentthe traditional ecological knowledge and oral history ofthe remaining living elders who have direct experienceof the land. This process must be led by the Eeyoucommunities themselves, with the support of appliedanthropologists and others willing to train, advise, andencourage local researchers.

Conclusion

The Eeyouch of northern Québec, like manyindigenous peoples, face many complex challengeswhich applied anthropologists could help address. Ourfuture relevance, however, will be determined in largepart by our ability and willingness to adjust ourmethods, goals and theories to match the needs ofrapidly changing Eeyou communities. Local people areobtaining advanced research and communication tools,and are increasingly demanding and assuming controlover research agendas and processes. They are alsobecoming trained in methods ranging from audio andvideo production to mapping and ethnography. AsDyck and Waldram note, “The more thatanthropologists strive to make both the processes andproducts of their research open to scrutiny andinvolvement by aboriginal peoples, the greater thepossibility that particular anthropological researchtasks . . . may be gradually repatriated by Nativeresearchers” (1993: 15). The role of outside consultantsmay eventually be limited to supporting local efforts,rather than carrying out research independently oracting as expert analysts. Recent experiences(McDonald, Arragutainaq, and Novalinga 1997; Dei,

Hall, and Rosenberg 2000; Harrison 2001; Oakes et al.2003) show that collaborative models are possible, andthat greater local control over research can offer newinsights, economic benefits to communities, andprotection of indigenous values. Some local Eeyouchare already skilled researchers capable of producingacademic-level publications and reports on historical,legal, and environmental issues (cf., Pachano 2000).Stronger control over and involvement inanthropological research also supports the goals ofself-determination and autonomy through enhancedlocal capacity and ownership of indigenous knowledge.Research must be based on the true needs ofcommunities, and not just reflect preexisting modelsand research interests of established researchers.

In this shift of power, the trend toward community-d r iven knowledge p roduc t ion means tha tanthropologists may lose some of the status that hasheretofore increased their value to indigenouscommunities, such as when testifying as expertwitnesses in land-claim cases. According to Dyck andWaldram, this could result in challenges to our “claimsof exclusive possession of specialized professionalexpertise and knowledge [and] the abandoning of aprofessional posture designed first and foremos t t oenhance the prominence, rewards, and protectivedistancing of a discipline from those it studies” (1993:15). The price of a true working relationship with thecommunities we study, including respecting their needfor capacity-building and agenda-setting, may be adiminished role for ourselves in the arena of publicpolicy as we lose our status as exclusive brokers oflocal knowledge. I would argue, however, that we arealready at risk of becoming marginalized, as Nativeleaders and communities move forward with ambitiousagendas regarding their own development while manyof our research methods and interests remain rooted inthe past. Only by adapting to the changing landscapeof research needs in indigenous communities can wecontinue to contribute to their development and well-being.

Notes

1. This article is the second of a two-part series whichwas begun in the Spring 2004 issue of the High PlainsApplied Anthropologist. Part I was entitled, “A “NewRelationship” Between Anthropologists and the Creesof Québec, Part One: The Challenge.”

2. Kreg Ettenger is an independent research consultantwho works on environmental, land-use, and culturalheritage issues. He can be contacted at the Department


of Geography-Anthropology, 300 Bailey Hall,University of Southern Maine, Gorham, ME 04038. 207-780-5322. [email protected]. The author wishesto thank the Grand Council of the Crees (EeyouIstchee) and the Cree Regional Authority for their pastsupport.

References

Anonymous2002a Agreement Concerning a New Relationship

Between le Gouvernement du Québec and theEeyouch of Québec. Available as pdf file on theGrand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)website at http://gcc.ca.

2002b N a d o s h t i n A g r e e m e n t ( E n t e n t eN a d o s h t i n / N a d o s h t i n N i s k a m o n ) .Agreement By and Between the GrandCouncil of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), theCree Regional Authority, the Eastmain Band,The Cree Nation of Mistissini, the NemaskaBand, the Waskaganish Band, Hydro-Québec, and the Société de l’Énergie de laBaie James.

CEEC1996 Self-Determination: The Voice of a Nation

and People on Eeyou and Eeyou Estchee.Eeyou (Cree) Nation and People of EeyouEstchee (of Quebec). Final Report. CreeEeyou Estchee Commission.

Dei, George J.S., Budd L. Hall, and Dorothy GoldinRosenberg, eds.

2000 Indigenous Knowledges in GlobalContexts: Multiple Readings of Our World.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Denton, David2001 A Visit in Time: Ancient Places,

Archaeology and Stories from the Elders ofWemindji. Nemaska, Quebec: Cree RegionalAuthority.

Denton, David, Kreg Ettenger, and Donovan Moses2003 The Nadoshtin Archaeology and Cultural

Heritage Program. Eeyou Eenou Nation: TheVoice of the People Spring 2003:20-30.

Dyck, Noel, and James Waldram, eds.1993 Anthropology, Public Policy and Native

Peoples in Canada. Montreal and Kingston:McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Environnement Quebec2003a Muskuuchii Hills Biodiversity Reserve: In a

N u t s h e l l . Q u e b e c : M i n i s t è r e d el’Environnement. www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/reserves-bio/muskuchii/note-en.pdf.

2003b Muskuuchii Hills Biodiversity Reserve:Conservation Plan. Quebec Strategy forProtected Areas. Quebec: Ministère del’Environnement. www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/b i o d i v e r s i t e / r e s e r v e s - b i o / m u s k u c h i i/Psc_Muskuchii-en.pdf.

Ettenger, Kreg1995 Wemindji Cree Knowledge of Eelgrass

Distribution and Ecology. Report submittedto the Cree Regional Authority, Montreal, 42pp.

1998 Community Assessment of MercuryRemedial Programs in Chisasibi, Wemindji,and Eastmain. Report prepared for the CreeRegional Authority, Montreal.

2002 Muskuuchii [Bear Mountain]: Protectinga Traditional Iyiyuuch Wildlife Preserveand Sacred Site. Based on the Oral History,Knowledge and Values of the WaskaganishCree First Nation. December, 2002.Montreal/Ottawa/Nemaska: Grand Councilof the Crees (Eeyou Istchee). www.gcc.ca/cra/environment/Muskuuchii_LAST.pdf.

2003 Cree Knowledge, Use and Management ofNatural Resources in the Offshore Regionsof James Bay and S.E. Hudson Bay:Regional Synthesis Report. Montreal andNemaska: Grand Council of the Crees (EeyouIstchee)/Cree Regional Authority.

2004 A “New Rela t ionsh ip” Be tweenAnthropologists and the Eeyouch ofQuebec. Part One: The Challenge. HighPlains Applied Anthropologist 24(1): 77-92.

Harrison, Barbara2001 Collaborative Programs in Indigenous

Communities: From Fieldwork to Practice.Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.


Hornig, James F., ed.1999 Social and Environmental Impacts of the

James Bay Hydroelectric Project. Montreal& Kingston: McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress.

M cDonald, Miriam, Lucassie Arragutainaq, and ZackNovalinga

1997 Voices from the Bay: TraditionalEcological Knowledge of Inuit and Cree inthe Hudson Bay Bioregion. Ottawa &Sanikiluaq: Canadian Arctic ResourcesCommittee and the Environmental Committeeof the Municipality of Sanikiluaq.

Niezen, Ronald1998 Defending the Land: Sovereignty and

Forest Life in James Bay Cree Society.Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Oakes, Jill, et al. 2003 Native Voices In Research. Winnipeg,

Manitoba: Aboriginal Issues Press.

Pachano, Janie2000 Eeyouch’ Use of Islands off the Coasts of

James & Hudson Bays, 1750-2000.Background report prepared for theGCC(EI)/CRA, December 8, 2000.

Salisbury, Richard1986 A Homeland for the Cree: Regional

Development in James Bay, 1971-81.Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Scott, Colin, and Kreg Ettenger1994 Great Whale Environmental Assessment

Community Consultation: Final Report forWemindji and Eastmain. Parts A and B.Montreal: Grand Council of the Crees (ofQuebec)/Cree Regional Authority.

Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones1998 James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement

and Complementary Agreements (1998Edition). Saint-Foy: Les Publications duQ u é b e c . w w w . u a l b e r t a . c a/~esimpson/claims/jamesbay.htm

new relationship between anthropologi - high plains society for

Documents