toponymic constraints in wemindji - connecting repositories · toponymic constraints in wemindji...

UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

Toponymic constraints in Wemindji

Gwilym Lucas EadesDepartment of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London

Research by Eugene Hunn (1996) suggested that toponymic density and population density are roughly equalfor a range of indigenous groups across North America. In Wemindji, Quebec, historic and current toponymicand population data support Hunn’s observation. I demonstrate that toponymic constraints are real by holdingthe number of traditional toponyms (898) as a background constant, and estimating the growth of Wemindji’spopulation from 1960 to 2010 based on knowledge held by local experts. Measurements from historic airphotographs assumed toponymic growth proportional to the area within the limits of Wemindji towndevelopment. A set of 78 new town place names provide a baseline for that measurement. Relative totoponymic density, population density steadily increased from 1960 to 2010, with a graph depicting the twodensities suggesting equality in approximately 1995.

Keywords: placenames, James Bay, toponymy, ethnoecology, indigenous mapping

Les contraintes toponymiques à Wemindji

Les travaux de recherche réalisés par Eugene Hunn (1996) ont pu démontrer que la densité toponymique et ladensité de la population chez divers groupes autochtones partout en Amérique du Nord sont sensiblementégales. Les observations faites par Hunn sont corroborées par les données relatives à la population et à latoponymie actuelles et historiques de Wemindji, Québec. L’importance bien réelle des contraintes top-onymiques est mise en évidence en considérant le nombre traditionnel de toponymes (898) comme uneconstante de fond et en se référant à une estimation de la croissance de la population de Wemindji entre 1960et 2010 qui provient des connaissances détenues par des experts locaux. Des mesures effectuées à partir dephotographies aériennes historiques tenaient pour acquis que la croissance toponymique était proportionnelleà la superficie du territoire urbanisé de Wemindji. Les 78 nouveaux noms de lieux apparus dans le villagefournissent une valeur de référence pour cette mesure. De concert avec la densité toponymique, la densité dela population n’a cessé de croître entre1960 et 2010. Les deux densités sont présentées sous forme d’ungraphique indiquant que l’égalité fut établie vers 1995.

Mots clés : noms de lieux, Baie James, toponymie, ethnoécologie, cartographie autochtone

Introduction

This article is part of a debate that goes back toHunn(1994) and Kelly (1994). Hunn examined the idea of a“magic number” of place names (500) an individualmay know, while Kelly, in a response to Hunn,critically examined studies claiming 500 as a magicnumber—or the maximum population a givenlandscape, constrained by climatic or other factors,may accommodate. Hunn provided evidence for the

real existence of a magic number (in his paper helooked specifically at toponyms), while Kelly pro-vided evidence against, citing earlier studies inanthropology that had used single-variable envi-ronmental factors to make claims about populationdensity constraints. It was precisely these over-simplified and methodologically flawed earlierstudies upon which Hunn based his own observa-tions and claims; this fact, according to Kelly,significantly weakened the former’s claims (Kelly,1994, 437).

Hunn (1996) also provided evidence for collectivetoponymic constraints with his graph showingequality between toponymic density (number oftoponyms, or place names, per unit area) and

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051

Correspondence to Addresse de correspondence: Gwilym LucasEades, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University ofLondon, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, Email/Courriel: [email protected]

The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien 2013, xx(xx): 1–11

DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2013.12060.x

© 2013 Canadian Association of Geographers / L’ Association canadienne des géographes

uxfa004

Approved

UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

population density (number of individuals per unitarea) across widely dispersed North Americanindigenous groups. Hunn speculated that the con-straining factor ultimately stems from individuallimitations in human cognitive (semantic) space. Theevidence presented in this article provides supportfor both individual and collective toponymic con-straints in Wemindji.

Scientific exploration of toponymic constraintsnecessarily bridges knowledge from an array ofacademic disciplines, including anthropology, ecol-ogy, geography, and cognitive science. A broadbackground of theoretical knowledge driven byunresolved debates or suggestions by Hunn (1994,1996) drives exploration of the following twoquestions: Do constraints affect the number ordensity of toponyms or populations within a given(bounded) region? What, if any, factors (i.e., area,population density, cognitive limitations) limitgrowth in the number of toponyms within thatregion? These questions are motivated by researchinto the transmission of intergenerational indige-nous knowledge about place in Wemindji, Quebec(Eades 2010); by unresolved aspects of the debatedescribed at the beginning of this article; and by therecent re-appearance of magic numbers in topony-my and ethnoecology (Hunn and Meilleur 2010).

During two stays in Wemindji (see Figure 1), in thesummer of 2008 and thewinter of 2010, I introducedmy topic—preservation and transmission of inter-generational knowledge and heritage—to key in-formants. At the same time, I incorporated myselfinto everyday life inWemindji. Communitymembersidentified local demand for discussions about placenames as indicated by local initiatives such ascultural heritage week, which includes a yearlycommemorative journey and return to the originalsite of a traditional settlement where ancestors ofpresent day Wemindji residents lived, 40 kilometressouth of the present Wemindji site. My placement inWemindji had been made in conjunction with amulti-disciplinary team of McGill and ConcordiaUniversity researchers led by Colin Scott, whosework and ties to the community extend throughthree decades. Mapping place names in Wemindjiwas identified as an essential part of the Paakum-shumwaau-Maatuskaau Protected Area Plan, a So-cial Sciences and Humanities Research Councilfunded project, the details of which our team wastasked with providing. From the start this plan wasidentified by Cree elders and community leaders as

essential to local sustainability in the face of large-scale mining and hydroelectric activity in easternJames Bay, to which Wemindji has remained rela-tively unexposed, compared to other eastern JamesBay communities (see Wilson 2008).

Advancement of traditional values is at theforefront of concern as the village experiences rapidchange, both demographically and culturally, espe-cially over the last 50 years (as described in the casestudy below). During my stay I was confronted by aclash of traditional and modern (see Eades 2012)values and these, in turn, were reflected by changingtoponymic structures. Where I had not thoughtmuch about ‘magic numbers’ or toponymic densitiesbefore, I began to see the applicability of these termsin an attempt to tease out the meanings oftoponymic change as indicator, or proxy measure,of greater changes in eastern James Bay.

Theoretical framework

With regard to the number 500, there seems to beconfusion betweenwhat I call the “placed individual”and the “individual place.”Toponymic density refersto a collection of places rather than a specific namedplace in which individuals are placed. Place namesrefer to individual (named) places. An abstractconcept of place as a category is not something wecan imagine (or draw) unless an actual place (i.e., notan abstract category) is specified by the use of aname for a place. Only through the use of a name is aconcrete place (as opposed to the abstract categoryof place) evoked (Basso 1996; Thornton 2008;Johnson 2010; Johnson and Hunn 2010).

Place names are tools for the evocation of specificplaces that in turn serve specific needs (e.g., thelocation of material or spiritual resources necessaryfor survival). Toponymic density, on the other hand,evokes an image of labelled data points on maps orgeographic information systems. Toponymic densityas a constraint does notmake sense at the level of theindividual. The latter is constrainedby two things: hisor her ability to move on the land and interact with(named) places; and semantic space in the brain(Hunn 1994, 1996) available for storing information(including names) about places. Hunn’s 1996 paperand his subsequent ethnoecological work go wellbeyond narrow focus upon quantity or correlationsin place naming, forging new conceptualizations offolk-biological and ecological classification (see

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051


2 Gwilym Lucas Eades

UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051 Figure 1

Wemindji


Toponymic Constraints in Wemindji 3

UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

Johnson and Hunn 2010). Likewise, researchersworking with Inuit elders have, through the produc-tion of gazetteers and academic works, demonstrat-ed and delineated precise senses of boundary asdefined not only by both toponymic extent anddensity in indigenous lifeworlds, lands, and develop-ments—but also byways inwhich toponyms are useddaily for life-sustaining activity (Muller-Wille1987, 2001; Collignon and Muller-Wille 2006).

Collective/individual aspects of toponymy arereflected in scales of toponymic clustering. Modernindividualized life (cf. Morantz 2002) in Wemindji isreflected in a very close, dense patterning of top-onyms. Individual homes are not, for instance,considered to be named places because they areprivate spaces. Collective traditional life is reflectedin a dispersed regional pattern of toponyms namedin accordance with ancestral respect for spiritualand material presences on the land (Basso 1996;Thornton 2008). Modern named places, on the otherhand, include public spaces such as malls, busi-nesses, arenas, roads, and other town sites. Com-monality between town and traditional namedplaces lies in the collective and resource-focusednature of both. Table 1 gives a representative sampleof both land- and town-based toponyms and theirmeanings.

It is the collective, functional nature of toponymsthat lends them to performance as replicable linkedsets, as in the case of the commemorative return tothe traditional settlement in Old Factory Bay,transmittable between generations of Cree individ-uals (Eades 2010). “Functional” in this contextmeansplace names have functions beyond tagging, muchlike a knife serves functions beyond cutting vege-tables. Using this analogy of functionality, the knifecould also be used as a screwdriver, and likewisethere are other uses for place names. Place namesserve as points of condensation around whichstories are told about the land, and when thosestories are told by elders in the presence of youth,intergenerational knowledge transmission is facili-tated at the same time.

There is a separation between the mind that holdsthe name and the place to which it refers. For theCree on the land, the place name will be meaningfulto the extent that it has been performed (i.e., theplace to which the name refers has been seenfirsthand and interacted with); as such there is asubjective aspect to place consciousness and indeedto the quality of what it means to be conscious in

general (cf. Edelman 1992, 2006). This qualitativeaspect of place is relevant to larger connectionsextending beyond the numeric analysis undertakenbelow, and provides a link between the latter,detailed analysis and a broader literature on cate-gorization, the mind, and spatial cognition (Lakoffand Johnson 1999; Levinson 2003; Mark et al., 2010;Johnson 2010), not to mention geographies of place(cf. Cresswell 2004) and political or power-ladenaspects of place naming practices (cf. Vuolteenahoand Berg 2009).

For the Cree on the land, the experience of what itis like to “be there” is evoked by the nameof the placereferred to, but only if the experiencing individual(i.e., a Cree individual) has actually been there (i.e., atthat place on the land) (cf. Basso 1996; Wood 2010;Johnson 2010). As amagic number, 500makes sensewithin a paradigm of the functional mind, but itcannot be divorced frommindfully embodied activ-ity. If, as I posit here, the area of collective action andembodied activity defines minds that combine top-onyms into meaningful patterns of activity, then the

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051

Table 1Representative toponyms and their meanings

Land-based:Lakes and Riverspaakumshumwaau siipii (Old Factory River)paakumshumwaau sakhiikiin (Old Factory Lake)mwaakatuu siipii (Loon River)Spiritual Placechipitukw (Ghost Dwelling)Human (body or part)utiikanistikw siipii (Shoulder Blade River)mitisiwaayaapiistikw siipii (Umbilical Cord River)Locational (proximity or topology)aapiitukamaach (parallel beside lake)maataasaakw (junction of rivers)Historical/mythicalsekaapaayaasuu saakihiikin (named after an old man who had onlyone good leg and travelled by sitting on a toboggan and pushingwith his good leg and one arm)

Town-based:TransportationGeorgekish Road (Wemindji chief, reigning from 1933––1958)Indoho Road (‘he is hunting’)BusinessSibi Gas (Sibi refers to river)Tawich Development Corporation (Tawich means the bay)Northern Store (food store)InstitutionalMaquatua Eeyou School (refers to both the Loon River and to the Creepeople)

SOURCE: (Eades, 2012)



UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

number of toponyms is limited also by technologiesthat enable (or constrain) that activity upon the land.Both cognitive and embodied constraints definetoponymic limits.

Case Study

Wemindji, one of twelve Cree communities innorthern Quebec, Canada, is located on the easternshore of James Bay which lies to the south of, and isjoined to, the much larger Hudson Bay. Thiscommunity, like others in the region, has seen aseries of transformations. These include contactwith Europeans, colonization, the building of fur-trade partnerships between theCree and theHudsonBay Company, Christianization, hydroelectric devel-opment, and struggles with provincial and federalgovernments for local control of traditional andeconomic activities on Cree hunting and trappingterritories (Francis and Morantz 1983; Hornig 1999;Morantz 2002). Combined, these processes andevents have produced a layer or apparatus ofpost-contact cultural materials, capabilities, andsensibilities thick enough to cause alarm aboutcultural obfuscation, loss, and assimilation, butnot thick enough to erase intact traces of continuousCree culture including, for our purposes here, placenames.

Place naming on Wemindji Cree lands is not, infact, a straightforward process of replacement of oldnames by new names, nor is the new cultural layerreally a layer at all. Rather, I suggest it is moreproductive to see it as a web (cf. Albert andLeTourneau 2007). Place names, both old and new,connect to each other in very complexways such thattraditional and more recent spatial practices ofmovement for the purposes of securing livelihoodson and with the land become entangled. In thefollowing study, conducted using data collectedduring the winter of 2010 in addition to an existingdatabase, I untangle place names as locally producedand observed from 1960 to the present day.

In 1960, living in a traditional settlement, ances-tors of the current residents of Wemindji movedapproximately 40 kilometres to the north, from anisland at the mouth of paakumshumwaaushtikwsiipii (Old Factory River), to a new location on higherground at the mouth of mwaakatuu siipii (LoonRiver). Isostatic rebound, an uplifting of the landafter the melting of continental glaciers, in part

necessitated thismove, as the depth of water aroundthe island became too shallow for navigation. As thiswas a Hudson’s Bay Company post, such a situationwas intolerable. Without intervention the localeconomy, dependent upon the fur trade (withshipping lanes along the James and Hudson Baycoasts), would have suffered. There was also in thetraditional settlement a catholic (residential) schooland it was felt that future generations would sufferalongside the economy should the residents stay atthe Old Factory site.

After the move, a process of sedentarization wasaccelerated. Traditional life was slowly transformedinto town life. While many families still spend aportion of the year on the land gathering traditionalfoods known to be present at places often named toindicate that presence, a good deal of food is nowobtained locally in stores. In the winter of 2010 Igathered place names of two types: town-based andland-based. This two-category system is not to beconfused with an unproblematized traditional/modern binary (cf. Eades 2012), but rather followsscaled realities of town- and land-based life. Mostplace names, town- and land-based alike, areassociated with securing resources for subsistencein the form of food, shelter or other spiritual andmaterial (including transportation) necessities. Inthis study, I examine numbers of place namesplotted against time from 1960 to 2010, trackingthe transition frommore traditional lifestyles on theisland to the south, to a more urban-inflected locallife on higher ground to the north. I justify anextensive focus on quantities based on, and in lightof, the observation above—that toponymic con-straints are theorized as primarily collective innature.

Methodology

Key informants (two local officials and members ofprominent local families whose ancestors were partof the relocation of Wemindji) provided lists offamilies who made the original move from thesouthern to the northern (more recent) site, allowingfor an estimation of the population of Wemindji in1960 (assuming that about 50% of Wemindji livedpermanently on the land at that time and that allpermanent residents of the traditional villagemade the move to the north). That information,combined with Statistics Canada town profiles

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051



UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

(1996, 2001, 2006), local statistics (Cree Nation ofWemindji 2010), and aerial photographs (dated1986, 2001, 2004 and 2008; obtained from the localband office, GIS department) allowed me to piecetogether a picture ofmovement from south to north,as well as movement from traditional to locallifestyles, using number of toponyms as a proxymeasure of those movements (see Table 2 andFigure 2).

Assuming the developed area in the town ofWemindji proper to be proportional to the numberof town toponyms, I directly measured the devel-

oped area of Wemindji at four points in time (seeFigure 3). The area for 1960 was calculated based onthe assumption, corroborated by the key informants,that the early Wemindji town site (i.e., by Loon River)consisted of what corresponds to the currentdowntown area only, including school, stores, bandoffice, and a few businesses, totalling 12 namedtown places. The area of downtown, the layout ofwhich has not fundamentally changed in 50 years,wasmeasured on the latest (2008) photograph. Arealmeasurements at four points provided the profileshowing growth in town-based place names. Townarea is, however, for the most part irrelevant tocalculations of both population and toponymicdensity, its relevance pertaining only to estimatesof number of town place names. The only exceptionis the second population estimate in which an aerialphotograph was used to provide an estimatedpopulation figure. The area used to calculatepopulation and toponymic densities was the areaof Wemindji territories as a whole (i.e., 30000 km2).This allows for direct comparison of densitieslongitudinally across the profile. Town place nameswere not included in toponymic density calculations,explaining the flatness of the toponymic density line.The number of townplace nameswas considered toosmall to have ameaningful effect on results, with thenumber of town place names ranging between 1 and9% of the total. As discussed below, however, thesignificance of town place names upon density isexpected to increase in the future.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051

Figure 2Population and place names vs. time

Table 2Statistical Sources

Year Source Town Population Total Population Land-based names

1960 Community Leaders 120 (estimated) 240 (estimated) 9001986 Aerial Photograph 428 (estimated) 500 (estimated) 9001996 Statistics Canada 1000 1000 9002001 Statistics Canada 1100 1100 9002006 Statistics Canada 1200 1200 9002010 Wemindji Web Site 1400 1400 900

Year Source Town Place Names Town Area (km2) Wemindji Terr. (km2)

1960 Aerial Photograph 12 0.11 300001986 Aerial Photograph 24 0.26 300001996 (interpolated) 38 0.46 300002001 Aerial Photograph 60 0.65 300002006 (interpolated) 69 0.75 300002010 Local directories 78 0.85 30000



UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

Townplace nameswere gathered using localmaps(Cree Nation of Wemindji 2010) and telephonedirectories. These were validated and verified bylocal experts including employees of a local con-struction crew. The construction crew memberswere considered the most appropriate experts toconsult regarding the current list of town placenames because these individuals and their ancestorshave been present continuously in the Wemindjitown site during the last 50 years. They havewitnessed and participated in the majority of newconstruction projects from Wemindji’s inception toits present form. These individuals are better placedto validate and verify the list of place names thanteachers, for instance, due to the former’s presencein, and interaction with, all of the named placesprovided in our list. The latter may also havecomprehensive knowledge of these sites but thisknowledge is usually and mostly obtained bydescription rather than experience of each site asit takes shape in situ.

Gaps in data introduce potential error into theanalysis, but these gaps, shown in Table 2 whereinterpolations or estimations are indicated, areeither alternated with known figures that providecontrol on uncertainty, or they alternate in source.The first two population estimates are based on: 1) alist of families provided by two community leaders(one a primary author of Wemindji Turns 50), and 2)an estimate/interpolation drawn from the 1986aerial photograph. It was also noted by the twocommunity leaders that in 1960 approximately halfof Wemindji Cree lived permanently in town (theother half continued to live on the land), and that themove to a permanently sedentary lifestyle wasgradual, allowing for the construction of the dottedline portion of population profile shown in Figure 2.Gaps in the datawere filled through the use of logicalassumption, interpolation, and, where necessary,estimation. Gaps were not considered seriousenough to prevent meaningful generalization fromresults, discussed below.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051

Figure 3Wemindji Change



UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

Results

As mentioned earlier, Hunn (1994, 1996) noted anequality of population density to toponymic densityin widely dispersed North American indigenouspopulations. The proportion on Wemindji Creelands, based on comprehensive toponymic surveys(898 place names) carried out by Colin Scott and hiscolleagues in the1970s, is, as of 2010, approximately0.045 (population density) to 0.03 (toponymicdensity) place names per square kilometre, fallingclose to the line generated by Hunn. As noted above,the area used for this calculation was the totalWemindji territorial extent, rounded to 30000 km2.

Figure 4 shows the growth of population densityfrom 1960 to 2010, with a crossover at equalitybetween population and toponymic density occur-ring in1995as townplace namesgrew in importance,and the population of Wemindji rapidly increased.Figure 4 also assumes both durability and constancyof traditional indigenous toponymy in Wemindji, asindicated by the horizontal dashed line showingtoponymic density. This assumption carries animplicit regard for the comprehensive nature of thesurveys mentioned above (Scott 1983; Basso 1996),and for the ability of the community to recover “lost”toponyms through commemorative and educationalinitiatives (Cree Nation of Wemindji 2010).

Figure 5 isolates growth in town place names.Figures 2, 4, and 5 suggest that population density inthe 1960s was low compared to toponymic density.Local populations had only just begun to reboundfrom economic hardship introduced in part by afaltering fur trade (influenced in turn by both global

demand and by animal scarcities), but also bylegacies of colonialism and government policiesthat had introduced disease (through the presenceof foreign viral strains against which local popula-tions were unprepared) and displacement (throughinstitutions such as residential schooling) (Francisand Morantz 1983; Preston 2002; Morantz 2002).

Discussion

The overall trend indicated by Figure 4 is upwardbetween 1960 and 2010 with population densitiesincreasing from 0.01 to approximately 0.045 acrossthat time period. This observation will guide discus-sion in two directions. The first deals with differ-ences between population and toponymic densitiesin the early part of the graph, while the second dealswith possible future trends indicated by the laterpart of the graph. After these two main points havebeen covered, the discussionwillmove to addressingtwo possible objections.

First, Figure 4 indicates that there was a largedifference (more than 0.02) between population andtoponymic density at around the time of theestablishment of the new town site of Wemindji.Some possible explanations for this difference werealluded to at the end of the results section, but theyremain speculative. Possible explanations such asthose mentioned above (i.e., economic or healthproblems attributable to the fur trade or to colonialand government policy) are for the most partqualitative observations and as such do not fit quiteproperly with the quantitative thrust of this article.

Figure 5Town place names versus time

Figure 4Population and toponymic densities (per square kilometre) vs. time



UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

On the other hand, where qualitative approaches areused (as described in the Methodology), the ap-proach is very much focused upon obtaininganswers to questions of a quantitative nature thatthey are not likely to illuminate questions of apostcolonial and critical nature. This is an inherentlimitation to the approach taken here, but it does notimpact the main finding, that of the equality ofpopulation and toponymic density in 1995.

Second, and flowing from that main finding, thereis reason to believe that the upward trend willcontinue, resulting in a large positive differencebetween population and toponymic densities in thefuture. Therewill be a continuedmove away from theline generated by Hunn (1996) as populationincreases, but it will not be as drastic as it might atfirst appear. The reason for this is that growth intown-based toponyms will continue to the pointwhere their inclusion in the calculation wouldbecome significant (i.e., when they make up greaterthan 10% of the total number of toponyms). Thiswould indicate both growing urbanization of indig-enous lifeworlds as well as a move away from land-based life. Urbanization and centralization are a factof life in northern indigenous villages in Quebec andin some places across Canada. While town- andland-based life are often held in delicate balance,there seems to be a point at which a village willcrossover to a predominant dependence upon wagelabour that supersedes the ability to be on the landasmuch aswould be desired. A possible proxymeasureof this crossover point is indicated by the point ofequality shown on Figure 4, where population andtoponymic densities were equal (i.e., 1995).

At this point in the discussion possible objectionsare addressed. Figure 4 suggests that the proportionof Wemindji’s toponymic densities with respect topopulation densities has been at or close to equalityin recent times. I anticipate and deal with twopossible objections (one hypothetical, and one thatcomes up in conversation with non-experts ontoponymy) to the suggested significance of thisobservation below. The first (hypothetical) objectionis that traditional and town place names representdifferent, distinct (and thus not comparable) top-onymies. This could be characterized as an applesand oranges problem.

The second objection (often heard in casualconversations about toponymy) refers to the ideathat an equality of toponymic and populationdensities means that for each person there corre-

sponds a place name, with the implication that thismust therefore be a coincidence. This would furtherimply that Hunn’s correlation (1996) for severalNorth American indigenous groups is a correlationwithout causation.

To address the first objection I return to theobservation above that place names serve functions.They should not necessarily be viewed taxonomical-ly as different kinds of categorical things. This viewis corroborated by Hunn and Meilleur (2010, 17––19)who note that place names act as place holders forthe formation of ecotopes which are in turn humanconstructions for efficient recall of large lists ofresources, primarily plants and animals. In theirwords, “given that this is a spatial partition, theformal properties will be ‘partonomic’ rather thantaxonomic …[and] relations of contiguity are morefundamental than relations of similarity” (Hunn andMeilleur 2010, 17). More fundamental, then, thansplitting place names between those that aretraditional and those that are modern (though thissplitting is useful for the purposes of this article) isthe idea that named places are grouped together, insome places more densely, in other places less so,due to the functional and ecotopic relations betweenthose places. Wierzbicka (1984, 321), with referenceto collections of named objects that serve functions,notes that “they stand for things of different kindsthat occur as groups, or collections, of things ofdifferent kinds kept in one place.”

To illustrate with reference to ecotopes, toponymsfit into the picture in the following way. Hunn andMeilleur (2010) use the number 500 to point out thatnamed places serve the function of keeping track oflocations of useful plants and animals. For 500named places, each of which contains 500 animalsand 500 plants, they point out that, using only thesetwo concepts (toponyms and plant/animal names),the cognitive load for an individual human would be500 place names times (500 plant namesþ500animal names) for a total of 500,000 pieces ofinformation. They posit that this is the impetus forindigenous delineation of ecotopes that occur acrossdifferent traditional societies in North America. Theecotopes serve as bridges for combining namedplaces with the resources located at those places.According to Hunn and Meilleur (2010, 18), “webelieve that naming ecotopes saves mental energyand enhances the efficiency of subsistence activitiesby facilitating the integration of these two massivedatabases, the ethnobiological and the toponymic.”

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051



UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

It does notmatter what kind of place name is used toadd to this “database,”whatmatters is the resources(and the functions they serve) that are located at thenamed place.

The second objection requires some counter-intuitive insight into the nature of toponymy vis-à-vis population and the areas in which both reside.The fact that there is a correlation (Hunn 1996)between toponymic and population density does notmean (as is often the first reaction to my introduc-tion of this observation in casual conversation) thatthe addition of an individual to a populationnecessitates the addition of a toponym within thearea inhabited by that population. During the courseof a lifetime, each individual in a given area—in thiscase in the traditional territories of the WemindjiCree—hasmeaningful interactions with hundreds ofnamed places. The number of named places withwhich any given individual interacts during alifetime is highly variable between individuals ofthe same community, and it also varies during thecourse of an individual lifetime, and as a cultureevolves over longer periods of time. Any easy notionof a place name for each person is easily confoundedby these observations.

Two further observations serve to address hesi-tations (by those, Cree and non-Cree alike, to whomthis study is mentioned in conversation) aboutequality between toponymic and population densi-ties and the perception that this necessitates thecreation of a new toponymwith the addition of a newindividual to a cultural area. The first is that culturalactivity is intense. This intensity can bemeasured bycarefully delineating meaningful areal units andcalculating the density of specific phenomena, orproxies thereof, that occurwithin those units. I arguehere that toponyms represent such proxies. Asindicated above, toponyms help with the efficiencyof recall toward locating resources. An area that isdense with names is therefore an area (or set ofplaces or ecotopes) that is rich with resources andassociated beliefs, transportation systems, andtechnologies designed to deal with the practicalitiesof the extraction and efficient use of those resources.The second observation follows, that while themeaning of place names may have subjectiveassociations, their significance is objective andcollective. It may be the case that each namedindividual has a name and a home, but the name ofthat home is variable, distributed, and ineluctablytied to intersubjective and cultural connotations of

meanings not only of homebut also of dwelling, skill,technology, and the environment (Ingold 2000,2007, 2010).

Conclusions

The beginning of this article alluded to a debate thatis old but that is both unresolved and, I believe, stillworthy of serious debate as indicated by recent (re)assertions that the number 500, for instance,remains not only viable but unproblematic (Hunnand Meilleur 2010). Using theoretical insights ofanthropologists such asHunn (1994, 1996) andKelly(1994) I have attempted to recover this lost debate bybringing to light new empirical data from easternJames Bay Quebec. Measurement of toponymicversus population densities over a 50-year periodin the town of Wemindji opened up new dimensionsof the debate, including variability over time.Colonization and incorporation into state andindustrial interests driven by globalization havebrought Wemindji into the modern world. Themovement of the original residents of Wemindji ispart of a greater movement towards town life thathas been repeated in various forms and to differentdegrees in other parts of James Bay, and also in otherparts of the world. The present analysis provides abenefit in the replicability of its methodology forother places and times where sufficient data exist toallow the use of this method.

The most significant findings of this study aretwofold: first, that toponymic and population densi-ties were equal in Wemindji in 1995; second that theupward trend of population density in Wemindji isexpected to continue, with the implication thatpopulation densitywill continue to exceed toponymicdensity well into the future as improvements inquality of life continue. These findings are qualifiedfirst by the fact thatWemindji in1995 representsonlyone location at one point in time and, while this pointconforms to equality of population and toponymicdensity and thus to Hunn’s line (Hunn, 1996), itremains to be demonstrated whether replication ofthe methodology achieves the same results in other(proximate or distant) locations. The second qualifi-cation is thatwhile thedifference betweenpopulationand toponymic density is expected to continue, thedifference will be less than that made apparent heredue to an increased significance (i.e., proportion) oftown-based toponyms.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051



UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

References

Albert, B., and F. M. LeTourneau. 2007. Ethnogeography andresource use among the Yanomami: Toward a model of‘reticular space. Current Anthropology 48(4): 584––592.

Basso, K. 1996. Wisdom sits in places: Landscape and languageamong the Western Apache. Albuquerque, NM: University ofNew Mexico Press.

Collignon, B., and L. W. Muller-Wille. 2006. Knowing places: TheInnuinait, landscapes, and the environment. Edmonton, AB: CCIPress.

Cree Nation of Wemindji. 2010. Wemindji turns 50. Milton, ON:Farrington Media.

Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A short introduction. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Eades, G. 2010.Geoweb: Indigenous mapping of intergenerationalknowledge. PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.

———. 2012. Cree ethnogeography. Human Geography 5(3):15––31.

Edelman, G. 1992. Bright air, Brilliant fire: On the matter of themind. New York: Basic Books.

———. 2006. Second nature: Brain science and humanknowledge. New Haven, CT and London, UK: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Francis, D., and T. Morantz. 1983. Partners in furs: A history of thefur trade in eastern James Bay 1600––1870. Montreal, QC andKingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Hornig, J. 1999. Social and environmental impacts of the JamesBay Hydroelectric Project. Montreal, QC and Kingston, ON:McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Hunn, E. 1994. Place-names, population density, and the magicnumber 500. Current Anthropology 35(1): 81––85.

———. 1996. Columbia Plateau Indian place names: What can theyteach us? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 6(1): 3––26.

Hunn, E., and B. Meilleur. 2010. Toward a theory of landscapeethnoecological classification. In Landscape ethnoecology:Concepts of biotic and physical space, ed. L. Johnson and E.Hunn. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.

Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: Essays inlivelihood, dwelling and skill. London, UK and New York:Routledge.

———. 2007. Lines: A brief history. London and New York:Routledge.

———. 2010. Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge anddescription. London, UK and New York: Routledge.

Johnson, L. 2010. Trail of story, traveller’s path. Edmonton, AB:Athabasca University Press.

Johnson, L., and E. Hunn. 2010. Introduction: Landscape ethno-ecology: Concepts of biotic and physical space. In Landscape

Ethnoecology: Concepts of Biotic and Physical Space, ed. E. Hunnand L. Johnson. New York and Oxford: Berghahn.

Kelly, K. 1994. On the magic number 500: An expostulation.Current Anthropology 35(4): 435––438.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: Theembodiedmind and its challenge toWestern thought. New York:Basic Books.

Levinson, S. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorationsin Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge, UK and New York:Cambridge University Press.

Mark, D., A. Turk, N. Burenhult, and D. Stea. 2010. Landscape inlanguage: Transdisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Morantz, T. 2002. White Man’s gonna getcha. Montreal, QC andKingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Muller-Wille, L. 1987. Gazetteer of Inuit place names inNunavik. Quebec, QC and Montreal, QC: Avataq CulturalInstitute.

———. 2001. Shaping modern Inuit territorial perception andidentity in the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula. In AboriginalAutonomyandDevelopment inNorthernQuebec and Labrador,ed. C. Scott Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Preston, R. 2002. Cree narrative. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Scott, C. 1983. Semiotics of life among Wemindji Cree hunters.PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.

Statistics Canada. 1996. Town profile for Wemindji, Population.http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Index.cfm?Lang¼E (archived content).

———. 2001. Town profile for Wemindji, Population. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang¼E&Geo1¼CSD&Code1¼2499050&Geo2¼PR&Code2¼24&Data¼Count&SearchText¼wemindji&SearchType¼Begins&SearchPR¼01&B1¼All&Custom¼ (archived content).

———. 2006. Town profile for Wemindji, Population. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang¼E (archived content).

Thornton, T. 2008. Being and place among the Tlingit. Seattle, WA:University of Washington Press.

Vuolteenaho, J., and L. Berg. 2009. Towards critical toponymies.In Critical Toponymies: The Contested Politics of Place Naming,ed. L. Berg and J. Vuolteenaho Burlington, ON: Ashgate.

Wierzbicka,A. 1984. Apples are not a ‘kind of fruit’: The semanticsof human categorization. American Ethnologist 11(2): 313––326.

Wilson, S. 2008. Research is ceremony: Indigenous researchmethods. Halifax, NS and Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood.

Wood, D. 2010. Rethinking the power of maps. New York:Guilford.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051



http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Index.cfm?Lang&x003D;E



http://www12.statcan.ca/english/Profil01/CP01/Details/Page.cfm?Lang&x003D;E&x0026;Geo1&x003D;CSD&x0026;Code1&x003D;2499050&x0026;Geo2&x003D;PR&x0026;Code2&x003D;24&x0026;Data&x003D;Count&x0026;SearchText&x003D;wemindji&x0026;SearchType&x003D;Begins&x0026;SearchPR&x003D;01&x0026;B1&x003D;All&x0026;Custom&x003D;














http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang&x003D;E




USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

Required software to e-Annotate PDFs: Adobe Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader (version 8.0 or

above). (Note that this document uses screenshots from Adobe Reader X)

The latest version of Acrobat Reader can be downloaded for free at: http://get.adobe.com/reader/

Once you have Acrobat Reader open on your computer, click on the Comment tab at the right of the toolbar:

1. Replace (Ins) Tool – for replacing text.

Strikes a line through text and opens up a text

box where replacement text can be entered.

How to use it

Highlight a word or sentence.

Click on the Replace (Ins) icon in the Annotations

section.

Type the replacement text into the blue box that

appears.

This will open up a panel down the right side of the document. The majority of

tools you will use for annotating your proof will be in the Annotations section,

pictured opposite. We’ve picked out some of these tools below:

2. Strikethrough (Del) Tool – for deleting text.

Strikes a red line through text that is to be

deleted.

How to use it

Highlight a word or sentence.

Click on the Strikethrough (Del) icon in the

Annotations section.

3. Add note to text Tool – for highlighting a section

to be changed to bold or italic.

Highlights text in yellow and opens up a text

box where comments can be entered.

How to use it

Highlight the relevant section of text.

Click on the Add note to text icon in the


Type instruction on what should be changed

regarding the text into the yellow box that

appears.

4. Add sticky note Tool – for making notes at

specific points in the text.

Marks a point in the proof where a comment

needs to be highlighted.

How to use it

Click on the Add sticky note icon in the


Click at the point in the proof where the comment

should be inserted.

Type the comment into the yellow box that

appears.

http://get.adobe.com/reader/

USING e-ANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

For further information on how to annotate proofs, click on the Help menu to reveal a list of further options:

5. Attach File Tool – for inserting large amounts of

text or replacement figures.

Inserts an icon linking to the attached file in the

appropriate pace in the text.

How to use it

Click on the Attach File icon in the Annotations

section.

Click on the proof to where you’d like the attached

file to be linked.

Select the file to be attached from your computer

or network.

Select the colour and type of icon that will appear

in the proof. Click OK.

6. Add stamp Tool – for approving a proof if no

corrections are required.

Inserts a selected stamp onto an appropriate

place in the proof.

How to use it

Click on the Add stamp icon in the Annotations

section.

Select the stamp you want to use. (The Approved

stamp is usually available directly in the menu that

appears).

Click on the proof where you’d like the stamp to

appear. (Where a proof is to be approved as it is,

this would normally be on the first page).

7. Drawing Markups Tools – for drawing shapes, lines and freeform

annotations on proofs and commenting on these marks.

Allows shapes, lines and freeform annotations to be drawn on proofs and for

comment to be made on these marks..

How to use it

Click on one of the shapes in the Drawing

Markups section.

Click on the proof at the relevant point and

draw the selected shape with the cursor.

To add a comment to the drawn shape,

move the cursor over the shape until an

arrowhead appears.

Double click on the shape and type any

text in the red box that appears.

toponymic constraints in wemindji - connecting repositories · toponymic constraints in wemindji...

Documents