Win some, lose some

Over the past two days we have witnessed two landmark events taking place in Anchorage as part of the annual Geographic Names Conference of the Council of Geographic Names Authorities (COGNA). The first event on April 29 was an encouraging moment for Alaska Native languages, showing how much progress is being made to increase awareness and appreciation of Native names. Unfortunately, the meeting of the US Board on Geographic Names the following day showed just how far we have to go. 

Alaska Native Place Names Workshop

Ron Chambers (Champagne-Aishihik First Nations)
drums while panel participants look on.

On April 29 more than 80 people gathered for the first ever statewide workshop devoted to Alaska Native place names. The program included presentations on several different place name projects and discussion of technology and infrastructure to support place name documentation. Representatives from the Yukon Geographical Place Names Board shared their insights, and many members of the US Board on Geographic Names and the Alaska Historical Commission attended. It was very encouraging to learn about all the great place name work that is going on around Alaska.

Everyone present shared a common respect for the value of Native place names. Mark John noted that in the process of creating the Yup'ik place names atlas "all those places became alive." He added that, "When you know a place and the stories behind it then you know what that place is for." Koyukon linguist Eliza Jones expressed a similar sentiment when she said, "It's not just the name of the place, it's the history that's important." Native place names are embedded in Native language, but place names are not mere linguistic artifacts. They are infused with meaning and cultural significance, connecting people to the land and to their history.

Ironically, it is this importance of place names which also makes them so fragile. That may seem counter-intuitive, but here's why I think that's the case. Because so many people recognize the importance of place names, there are many people involved in place names documentation. This includes Native organizations such as village and regional corporations; state agencies such as Department of Fish & Game; federal agencies including the Fish & Wildlife Service, Park Service, Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management; and linguists at the Alaska Native Language Center and elsewhere. Each of these organizations takes a different approach to documenting, preserving and distributing place name information. This leads to a lot of creative solutions but also means that materials can be easily lost. One presentation at the workshop described finding 40-year-old place name maps decaying in a closet; this situation is unfortunately all too common. Another presentation noted the numerous place name websites which have now become inaccessible. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that all of this place name documentation is not lost.

This was an absolutely incredible day for Alaska Native place names. We owe a great debt of thanks to Francisca Demoski for coming up with the idea for the workshop. And thanks are also due to Bristol Bay Native Corporation for funding the workshop so that we could waive registration fees for participants. Also many thanks to Wayne Furr, COGNA secretary and Jo Antonson, local COGNA organizer for assisting with planning and logistics.

US Board on Geographic Names

On April 30 the Domestic Names Committee of the US Board on Geographic Names held its 771st meeting in Anchorage. This federal inter-agency committee includes representatives of federal agencies including the USDA, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Interior, Homeland Security, etc. These folks get together and consider proposals for official names which have been put forward by individuals and groups. Anyone can submit a proposal for a new official name or a change to an existing name. There are certain guidelines, such as having to demonstrate local usage and having to wait five years before proposing a commemorative name. In general the guidelines have been getting more and more friendly to Native language. Names can now be spelled in traditional orthographies using unicode font, and the Board has recommended a new policy on Tribal Geographic Names which would require tribal consultation to honor the rights of federally recognized tribes.  

An example of the use of fonts is found in the recently-approved Tlingit name Tlax̱satanjín. Searching the Geographic Names Information Service (GNIS) you can now find this name listed with proper spelling. As the official name it is the name which must by law appear on any map produced (on paper or electronically) by federal agencies. (The story of this name proposal is interesting, as the Tlingit name was offered as a counter-proposal to an original proposal for a commemorative name.)

This is my fourth time attending the COGNA meeting, and I have grown to very much appreciate the difficult decisions the US BGN members must take. The Board is often called on to resolve disputes between competing name proposals, including disputes between proposals for Native and non-Native names. One might think that representatives of federal agencies so far removed from Alaska might lack an appreciation for Alaska Native place names, but I have not found that to be the case. These are people with a deep appreciation for names and their significance. Perhaps more than most people they understand the power of names. Last year the Board approved the Gwich'in name Draanjik River as a replacement for Black River. This became the first time a non-Native name for a major geographic feature had been replaced with a Native name. Yet the Board unanimously adopted the proposal in May 2014.

Fast forward one year and things aren't so rosy. At yesterday's meeting the Board considered proposals to change the names of four rivers in Gwich'in country to their traditional names:

• Teedriinjik for "Chandalar River" 
• Ch'idriinjik for "Middle Fork Chandalar River" 
• K'iidòotinjik for "Birch Creek"
• Tsèenjik for "Beaver Creek"

The proposals were submitted by Ed Alexander on behalf of the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Council and endorsed by the Tanana Chiefs Conference and the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments. Ed had submitted the previously-approved Draanjik proposal, and these four proposals followed the same pattern and offered similar justifications. Yet for some reason these proposals were not received with much enthusiasm. The US Board had previously asked the Alaska Historical Commission for comments, and the state recommended against approval, noting that they "did not see evidence of broad general support for the proposals from individuals, groups, and communities throughout the eastern Interior Alaska area." Funny that. One would think that an endorsement by TCC and CATG would constitute "broad general support" given that these groups represent more than ten thousand Native people in the Interior, and given also that these rivers are located in Native country, far from urban non-Native populations.  So, one can only interpret the justification provided by the Alaska Historical Commission as meaning that the name proposals didn't receive broad general support from White people.

If these rivers were located in urban areas such as Fairbanks, then more consultation with urban residents might be warranted. Admittedly, Birch Creek and Beaver Creek are indeed road accessible from Fairbanks, though still quite remote. And those rivers do get recreational use by non-Natives from Fairbanks. But should recreational use trump a long history of residence? How many non-Natives in Fairbanks can say that their ancestors have been recreating on Birch Creek or Beaver Creek for generations? Fairbanksans can hardly claim a deep connection to the land. According to the Alaska Dept of Labor more than one third of Fairbanks residents left the state between 1995 and 2000. One can quibble about antiquity of Gwich'in occupation in Alaska, but had Gwich'in outmigration been as great as that from Fairbanks there would likely be no Gwich'in left. These rivers flow through Gwich'in country.

The Chandalar River is even more remote, inaccessible by road and flowing through the heart of Gwich'in country. Few Fairbanksans have touched its waters, and even fewer realize that it is not actually a Native or an English name. The name actually derives from Gens de Large, the name given by French employees of the Hudson Bay Company to the Gwich'in people. It translates literally as 'vast people' or 'nomadic people'. The Gwich'in name Teedriinjik, meaning 'luminous river', seems a more appropriate name, reflecting a traditional Gwich'in view of the landscape rather than an arbitrary association with a foreigner's designation for the the local people. It comes down to this: whose vision do we want to capture with official place names? Do we want to reflect the vision of a mid-19th century French fur trader who didn't even bother to ask the local people what they called themselves and what they called their river? Or do we instead want to reflect the vision of the Alaskan people who did and still do inhabit that country?

There are those who are loathe to change the written record, and I think this may explain some of the reluctance to replace existing names with Native names. Chandalar may not have much connection with the land, but it does have a connection with history. It's written down. It's fact. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't even make it good. Change is also part of history, and the adoption of Native place names can be positive change, inspiring both Native and non-Native Alaskans to appreciate their environment. Some of those opposed to Native names worry that changes will create confusion, or that Native names will be difficult to pronounce. Yet we humans are more adaptable than these folks give us credit for. Countries, corporations, and even people regularly change their names without undue confusion. We adapt. We learn the new names, and we learn how translate between the old and the new. This argument that name changes will lead to confusion seems to be grounded in the same monolingual thinking that leads Americans to fear foreign languages. Yet most humans do speak more than one language. We adapt to new words, new names.

The argument about difficult pronunciation is equally specious. America is filled with "unpronounceable" place names which we somehow manage to pronounce on a daily basis. Names like Illinois or Schenectady or Louisiana would hardly trip off the tongue if they were adopted as new names today. And the state of Hawaii is filled with official names written in Hawaiian language which few people actually know how to pronounce correctly. And yet we figure it out. We are an adaptable species, and we are enriched by the Native languages around us. Native place names provide a constant reminder of those languages and help support the continuation of those languages.

Board Decision Deferred

I think the US Board appreciates the significance of Alaska Native names. In spite of the negative recommendation by the Alaska Historical Commission, the US Board did not outright reject the four Gwich'in river names but instead deferred decision. This led to some heated and impassioned discussion, with pleas from numerous language activists to endorse the name proposals. Hopefully these arguments will be taken into account when the Board next reconsiders the proposals.