FINAL REPORT
Education, Protection and Management
of ezhibiigaadek asin (Sanilac Petroglyph Site)
March 12, 2016
2
Research Team
Co-Principal Investigators
Sonya Atalay
Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
202 Machmer Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
413-545-2652
Shannon Martin, Director
Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways, The Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe of Michigan,
6650 E. Broadway, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
989-775-4750
William Johnson, Curator
Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways, The Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe of Michigan,
6650 E. Broadway, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
989-775-4750
Graduate Student Research Assistants
Stacy Tchorzynski, Ph.D. student,
State University of New York, Binghamton, New York
Frank Raslich, Ph.D. student,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Nicole Raslich, Ph.D. student,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
3
This research is part of a collaborative community-based participatory research
project developed in partnership between the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan’s Ziibiwing Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways and the University of
Massachusetts Amherst.
Attribution and Copyright Notice
The narrative portions of this report can be made available online using the CC BYNC-
ND creative commons license. However, the appendices of this report contain
sensitive information and are not to be made public or available online and should
only be accessed and read only by the IPinCH Steering Committee.
This research was made possible, in part, through the support of the Intellectual Property Issues
in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) project, a Major Collaborative Research Initiative funded by the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. IPinCH explores the rights, values,
and responsibilities associated with material culture, cultural knowledge and the practice of
heritage research.
Cover image: Revised Signage to be displayed at the Sanilac Petroglyphs Historic State
Park at the location of ezhibiigaadek asin
4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 5
A Note about Culturally Sensitive Information ............................................................. 6
Context for our Work at Ezhibiigaadek Asin (Sanilac Petroglyphs) ................................ 7
Project Development, Initial Goals, and Evolving Approach to the Work ...................... 9
Initial Research Questions and Objectives .................................................................. 11
Protection from Exploitation and Commodification ........................................................... 11
Rehabilitating the Site through Re-etching ......................................................................... 12
Need for Flexibility in Research Goals and Questions ................................................. 12
Challenges Encountered, Delayed Start ...................................................................... 13
Grant Activities .......................................................................................................... 15
Participatory Planning – October 28, 2011 ......................................................................... 15
Meeting with Elders and Spiritual Leaders – June 23–24, 2014 ........................................... 18
Prioritizing Work to Reconnect Youth to the Site through Ceremonies ............................... 20
Forming a Central Michigan Chapter of the Michigan Archaeological Society ..................... 20
Opportunities for Cultural Education: Summer Solstice Gatherings .................................... 21
Review of State Docent Training Materials ........................................................................ 21
Signage at ezhibiigaadek asin ............................................................................................. 22
Research on Appropriate Care and Preservation ................................................................ 22
Peterborough – Sanilac Trip, September 15-19, 2014 ......................................................... 24
Educational Efforts ..................................................................................................... 30
Sharing Research with Academic Audiences ............................................................... 30
Key Lessons to Share .................................................................................................. 31
Future Directions ....................................................................................................... 34
Reflective Questions .................................................................................................. 35
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 37
A. Materials from Conference Presentations
B. Participatory Strategic Plan Packet
C. Event Flyers for Little People Gatherings and Summer Solstice Events
D. Material from Peterborough Trip
E. Tribal Membership Survey
F. Tribal Observer and other News Stories
G. Ezhibiigaadek asin New Signage Text
5
Acknowledgements
Our team wishes to thank the many individuals who contributed to our work and efforts
and who provided support along the way. We offer particular acknowledgement and
miigwech to the following individuals and groups…
Ziibiwing Center Team members who assisted and provided support for the grant
application, administration, travel and research.
The IPinCH Team for inviting us to participate in the grant and for assistance with the
challenging administrative tasks along the way.
Bonnie Ekdahl, former Director at the Ziibiwing Center, who initiated the project.
Elders, spiritual leaders and advisors who participated over the course of many years:
Bonnie Ekdahl, Charmaine Shawana, Sydney Martin, George Martin, Eddie Benton-
Banaise, Brian Corbiere, Steven Pego, Lorna Kahgegab, and Michele Stanley.
Vision Makers for facilitating a productive and very useful participatory planning session
for our project.
Snowbird Singers, who sang and hosted us at ezhibiigaadek asin for the 2014 summer
solstice.
State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources and State Historic Preservation
Office for working collaboratively with the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
and our IPinCH Team to restore access to ezhibiigaadek asin and work toward
meaningful co-management of the site.
Cranbrook Institute of Science for providing archival information related to
ezhibiigaadek asin.
Curve Lake First Nation for hosting our team in their aboriginal land while we visited
Kinoomaagewaabkong (“The Teaching Rocks”) and Parks Canada for assisting with our
visit to the Petroglyphs Provincial Park in September 2014.
Dr. Neal Ferris and the staff of Sustainable Archaeology for hosting us and providing a
tour for our team during our visit in September 2014.
Amy Roberts and Isobelle Campbell for sharing insights and lessons learned on their
work at Ngaut Ngaut, Southern Australia. We learned a great deal and found inspiration
in their work.
All participants and attendees of our 2015 Society for American Archaeology session
“Caring for Knowledge on Stone: Rock Art Co-Management with Indigenous and Local
Communities.”
6
A Note about Culturally Sensitive Information
Certain portions of this report refer to, or mention cultural topics that are sensitive. In
writing this report, we have made careful choices about what we feel is culturally
appropriate to discuss and share. As such, we note the sensitivity of certain
information/topics as they occur in the report without providing any further details.
7
Context for our Work at Ezhibiigaadek Asin (Sanilac Petroglyphs)
In what is today known as the State of Michigan, within the Aboriginal Land of the
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (SCIT) of Michigan, is a place of traditional teaching and
learning for the Anishinabek—the Anishinabe people. For the Anishinabek, this place,
located in the eastern thumb region of Michigan (Figure 1), holds importance as a
traditional cultural property—Anishinabe people call it ezhibiigaadek asin (“writings on
stone”). Archaeologists know this place as the Sanilac Petroglyph Site #20SL01.
Figure 1. Map of Michigan. ezhibiigaadek asin is indicated with a star and the Ziibiwing Center
is indicated with a circle. The Ziibiwing Center is 90 miles west of ezhibiigaadek asin.
Prior to colonization, the Anishinabek had the ability to manage our sacred sites and
landscapes as we saw fit. We were the sole keepers of knowledge about these places
and the teachings they were created to hold. The responsibility that comes with holding
this knowledge was securely in our hands, as we maintained sovereignty over the
production and reproduction of knowledge about our past, and the way it was best
preserved and shared for those in the future.
The concern for recording knowledge and preserving this knowledge for future
generations is attested to in the teachings at ezhibiigaadek asin. One of the petroglyphs
at the Sanilac site depicts a shkabewis, a spiritual helper or teacher. Oral traditions tell
us that this shkabewis image, which resembles an archer with drawn bow and arrow,
8
(Figure 2), depicts our ancestors shooting knowledge into the future for later
generations to benefit.
Figure 2. One of the petroglyph teachings at ezhibiigaadek asin depicting the shkabewis, a
spiritual helper or teacher.
Such images were recorded on stone because our ancestors knew a time would come
when our language, traditions, and practices would be threatened by colonization—
carving knowledge on stone ensured permanence. Caring for this place and for the
knowledge held there are both part of traditional knowledge stewardship practices.
Today, the Sanilac Petroglyph site is not under the control of the Saginaw Chippewa
Indian Tribe of Michigan—it is deeded to the State of Michigan and administered by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). However, the Ziibiwing Center, a
museum and cultural center built by the Tribe to share its history with the rest of the
world, has a positive working relationship with the DNR, and has been given permission
to host regular ceremonies at the site that focus on multiple forms of cultural
knowledge education and preservation. The Ziibiwing Center assisted in developing new
signage for the site, and is also interested in producing further educational materials
that share traditional knowledge about this place with visitors. The audience for these
materials is a diverse one, including SCIT Tribal Members, Anishinabe people from the
wider region, visitors to the region, and students of Anishinabe history and culture, as
well as local residents in the area where the site is located. ezhibiigaadek asin strongly
attracts both Native and non-Native Americans.
9
In our IPinCH community-based initiative—“Education, Protection and Management of
ezhibiigaadek asin (Sanilac Petroglyphs)”—the central question guiding our work has
been: what are the culturally relevant ways of providing educational information about
ezhibiigaadek asin to diverse public audiences while protecting the knowledge and
images from being co-opted and appropriated? This is an important question because
we found there to be a desire on the part of many traditional Anishinabe culture
keepers to share aspects of traditional cultural knowledge (when appropriate) with a
wider public, yet there has been limited understanding and, at times, even complete
disregard by some outside of Anishinabe communities for the cultural connections that
Anishinabe peoples have with this and other sacred sites in the region. Finding culturally
appropriate ways to share knowledge while at that same time ensuring it is protected
from exploitation became central.
Project Development, Initial Goals, and Evolving Approach to the Work
In 2001 and 2002, under the directorship of Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Member, Bonnie
Ekdahl, the Tribe’s Ziibiwing Cultural Society (which later grew to include the Ziibiwing
Center of Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways) started actively prioritizing the care and
protection of the ezhibiigaadek asin site. This was precipitated by a lack of state funding
to provide overall management of the site, docents, and interpretation, and to keep the
site open to the public. The preservation of ezhibiigaadek asin was also an important
concern. In 2002, Ziibiwing hosted a four-day fire at ezhibiigaadek asin in an effort to
reestablish the Anishinabek’s connection to that sacred site. At that time, Ziibiwing staff
worked diligently to put files together and gather as much information as they could
about the archaeological and anthropological work that had already been done on the
site. In hosting the four-day fire, Ziibiwing wanted to properly acknowledge the
grandfather stone at ezhibiigaadek asin in the way that was most culturally appropriate.
For Anishinabe people, the stone that holds the petroglyphs is considered a relative, a
grandfather. As an honored relative, there are cultural protocols and appropriate means
of caring for and respecting both the stone and the place where he (it) resides.
At that same time the care of ezhibiigaadek asin was being prioritized, Ziibiwing’s
permanent exhibit, “Diba Jimooyung: Telling Our Story,” was being planned.
Ezhibiigaadek asin has a prominent place in the exhibit, at the opening to “Our Story.”
This work required several site visits to ezhibiigaadek asin. As a team, the Ziibiwing staff
agreed that they needed to restore their spiritual connection to the site. Ziibiwing
planned a four-day fire for community members to come out and engage with the site.
This included a feast, an offering of food to grandfather stone and to the land. There
was also a sweat lodge ceremony. Fire keepers stayed at the site for four days and four
nights.
10
Strengthening the community connection to this site was the primary goal. Soon after,
Sonya Atalay, an Ojibwe-Anishinabe archaeologist and co-investigator on the IPinCHfunded
initiative, approached Bonnie Ekdahl to discuss the idea of partnering on
community-based research endeavors that were of interest to the Tribe and to the
Ziibiwing Center. Bonnie immediately brought forward the ezhibiigaadek asin site and
shared the importance of reconnecting with the site and how critical it was to prioritize
culturally appropriate care and protection of the grandfather stone, the teachings it
contains, and the surrounding cultural landscape. Sonya informed Bonnie about the
IPinCH Project and asked Bonnie if Ziibiwing would be interested in becoming involved
with IPinCH, with the eventual goal of co-developing a proposal for funding as an IPinCH
community-based initiative.
After several rounds of grant proposal applications to the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada, the IPinCH Project was funded in April 20081;
the submission phase for community-based initiatives within IPinCH followed soon
after. Just as the application process for IPinCH community- based initiatives was getting
started, Bonnie Ekdahl stepped down from her leadership role at Ziibiwing and a new
Director, Shannon Martin, took over. As many scholars who do community-engaged
scholarship know, leadership changes can pose challenges for community–university
research partnerships. Thankfully, this was not the case at Ziibiwing. As a member of the
Ziibiwing staff prior to being hired as Director, Shannon Martin had been involved in the
early planning discussions between Bonnie Ekdahl and Sonya Atalay. Shannon was in full
support of applying for IPinCH funding to develop a community-based initiative focused
on the protection and management of ezhibiigaadek asin. Shannon discussed the
project with the staff and gained Tribal Council approval to move ahead with the grant
proposal to IPinCH.
We share this history in this final report because we feel it demonstrates the way this
project developed in a truly community-based fashion. The issues we examined as part
of our IPinCH funded community-based initiative were not new to the Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan or to its Ziibiwing Cultural Society. These were
concerns that had developed over several years, as part of conversations and
occurrences involving multiple groups, including: State authorities who manage the
ezhibiigaadek asin site, the Michigan Archaeological Society (MAS)—an amateur
archaeology organization that previously owned the land where the site is located—and
Tribal Members who had an interest in using one of the petroglyphs images from the
site in a new business venture.
Fortunately for everyone involved, the timing, research focus, and community-based
methodological approach of the IPinCH project paralleled well with the emerging needs
of the Anishinabe community in relation to the protection and management of this
important traditional cultural property.
1 Beginning in 2004, four proposals were developed and submitted to SSHRC’s Major
Collaborative Research Initiative program. The final proposal was successful.
11
Initial Research Questions and Objectives
Working together, the three of us—Shannon Martin, Director of the Ziibiwing Center of
Anishinabe Culture & Lifeways; William Johnson, Ziibiwing’s Curator; and Sonya Atalay,
an Ojibwe archaeologist and University of Massachusetts Amherst faculty member—
developed a series of research objectives and a plan to carry out these objectives and
submitted it to IPinCH requesting project funding. Our initial objectives were to: 1)
develop and administer a community survey to assess the importance of and interest in
the Sanilac site; 2) engage with Anishinabe spiritual leaders living in both the United
States and Canada regarding appropriate knowledge to share and the relevant methods
for doing so; 3) develop and put forth a proposal to the DNR for joint management of
the Sanilac site; and 4) work collaboratively to create a culturally appropriate site
management plan that includes funding projections for the long-term protection of the
site.
Our proposal addressed three central IPinCH Themes and Working Group areas,
specifically (1) commodification and appropriation of images and other traditional
knowledge, (2) cultural heritage tourism and development, and protection and (3)
collaborative management of traditional cultural properties. What we did not know at
the time was that our project would also intersect in key ways with the IPinCH Research
Ethics Working Group (as described below) and how fundamental these issues of ethics
and research protocols and protections would be within our project.
Protection from Exploitation and Commodification
From the outset a key concern in this project has been how to best protect the
petroglyphs engraved in the stone at ezhibiigaadek asin from appropriation and
exploitation or misuse. This point of concern is not only directed at non-Native people
who may visit the site, but also at Tribal Members and other Native communities.
Visitors to this and other rock art sites have been known to draw, photograph, or even
utilize the images they see at these sacred places for economic pursuits, such as on tshirts
and other merchandise.
As described in greater detail later in this report, the Ziibiwing Center was in the
position of needing to provide cultural instruction to a Tribal business entity that
planned to utilize the shkabewis (“spiritual helper” or “teacher”) image from the Sanilac
site as the logo for a sporting goods store.2 As further development of the site
continues, bringing a greater number of visitors, the signage and other educational
materials must address this issue. Our team hoped to bring some understanding about
how we can best share knowledge about ezhibiigaadek asin, as we’ve been instructed to
do so by our spiritual leaders, while at the same time ensuring that such information is
appropriately protected.
2 This is discussed further on p. 19.
12
Clearly this concern reflects topics of central importance for the overall IPinCH project,
as issues of cultural appropriation and commodification crosscut many communitybased
initiatives and are the focus of several IPinCH working groups and other project
initiatives.
Rehabilitating the Site through Re-etching
A key question we identified as a research team, and one we initially thought we would
spend substantial time investigating as part of our case study work, is whether it would
be appropriate to “rehabilitate” the site. We noted that there were a number of
inscriptions on the stone from recent acts of vandalism and we were concerned that
some of the initial carvings had begun to wear away.
We planned to use grant funding to engage with spiritual leaders to learn whether reetching
is culturally appropriate. We anticipated that this would be a controversial issue
for archaeologists and perhaps also for the Michigan Archaeological Society (the land
donors) and the State agencies charged with managing the site. Yet we felt it was crucial
to ask: Would re-etching be a responsibility for present-day Anishinabek, as part of our
role as stewards of this knowledge? Or does it go against our traditional teachings and
appropriate cultural practices? If re-etching is appropriate and necessary, then we
wanted to consider how we might best work with the DNR to facilitate this.
We thus anticipated that the bulk of our efforts on this project would need to focus in
three areas: 1) understanding how to best keep the petroglyph images from being
appropriated and misused; 2) gathering guidance from spiritual leaders and Tribal
Members in relation to the issue of re-etching the petroglyphs; and 3) building
relationships with the DNR in an effort to lay the ground work for developing a comanagement
plan. Our initial proposal focused on developing and administering a
community survey to help us address Goals 1 and 2, coordinating a series of
consultation meetings and interviews with spiritual leaders, and holding conversations
with DNR personnel.
Need for Flexibility in Research Goals and Questions
As detailed in the sections below, we encountered several bureaucratic challenges that
kept us from having a timely start to this work, which held up our progress significantly.
As a result of these delays, when we were able to finally move forward with substantive
aspects of our research in June 2014, we found that some of the terrain had changed;
our initial questions and goals needed to be reworked, and our research priorities and
activities shifted accordingly. While these setbacks were frustrating at the time, it
turned out that the delayed start to our work allowed time for relationships between
the Tribe, State agencies, and the original land owner of the site to improve, and
significantly so (Goal 3, above).
13
Although our guiding questions and research design needed to shift somewhat over the
course of this collaborative research project, we found that our central questions and
areas of concern remained the same throughout: issues of protection from exploitation,
the need for co-management of and access to the site, and the development of
culturally appropriate approaches to education. Similarly, many of the final work
products (e.g., conference reports/presentations) are the same as we anticipated, yet
some have changed. As will be clear from the details below, flexibility in process and the
ability to adjust and evolve with the project, allowing it to “breathe” a bit and guide us
on the right path has been the absolute key to success and a positive outcome.
Challenges Encountered, Delayed Start
Unfortunately, we experienced several challenges that delayed our progress and kept us
from making any substantial progress on this project until much later than we had
anticipated. We detail these challenges here because we feel they shed light on
important issues related to ethics review within universities and, ironically, the
limitations and rigid restrictions that universities have in relation to how they view the
intellectual property rights of Indigenous peoples.
Upon having our proposal accepted by the IPinCH steering committee, our first step was
to undergo human subjects/ethics review. Our research design included holding
meetings with Tribal Elders and spiritual leaders to gain their insights and advice and
administering a survey to Tribal Members. It was required that the research undergo
ethics review at both Simon Fraser University (SFU) and Indiana University (IU), where
Co-Principal Investigator (PI) Sonya Atalay was, at the time, an Assistant Professor
because the research involved what universities consider to be “human subjects.”
It should be noted here that, in contrast to the view of academic institutions, as Co-PIs
on this project, we don’t view those who are engaged in this work with us (e.g., Elders,
spiritual leaders, or Tribal Members) as “human subjects.” We see these individuals as
community partners who are actively engaged in the research, not as resources or
subjects from whom we intend to extract knowledge, information or “data.”
SFU and IU required that, prior to starting any research, our team develop a human
subjects protocol and prepare the necessary documents for our proposed research to
undergo review by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Indiana University and the
Research Ethics Board (REB) at SFU. However, our research team felt it crucial that the
project undergo Tribal review first, so that our first step was for Co-PI Shannon Martin
to present the project to the Tribal Council of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan and receive approval to move forward.
After the research design was approved by IPinCH, Co-PI Sonya Atalay prepared the
ethics review materials for both SFU and IU. This posed a major challenge because the
IRB at Indiana University and the REB at Simon Fraser University had different
expectations in terms of acceptable ways to develop the protocol and the types of
14
verbiage and approach that was acceptable to carry out the research we had proposed.
In other words, we couldn’t simply prepare one ethics protocol and submit it to both
institutions; we needed to format our protocol very differently for each of the two
universities. Furthermore, even in cases where the questions from the two Review
Boards were similar, what was considered “acceptable practices” was different.
This process of reworking ethics protocols and moving documents through the IRB/REB
process ultimately took several years. Eventually, we were able to find verbiage and a
protocol process that was agreeable to both institutions. However, this took substantial
time, effort, and something of an emotional toll. Our research team started to lose
confidence that the process would ever be resolved; meanwhile, Elders and spiritual
leaders on the project became frustrated about our delayed start. They had set aside
time to work on this project and felt it was critical that we make progress in a timely
manner.
Finally, in 2012, IU and SFU both gave ethics review clearance for the project to move
ahead. Unfortunately, new challenges emerged when, in that same year, Co-PI Sonya
Atalay accepted a new faculty position at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Because the current system of IRB process requires ethics reviews to be tied to a faculty
member’s institution, this meant that the project would need to go through yet another
IRB review for UMass Amherst. Once Atalay was settled on campus, in summer 2012,
she inquired about the IRB review process and what would be required. Fortunately,
UMass Amherst agreed to accept the ethics review approvals from both SFU and IU, and
only a modified, streamlined version of review would be required. This was wonderful
news for our research team members, who were truly weary at this point.
The process of getting our project underway brought about yet another complication;
one that proved to be insurmountable for the current way we’d configured the
administration of our grant funds vis-a-vis IPinCH and UMass. While working through
the complications of IRB review, our research team gave several conference
presentations about the challenges we were encountering (see Appendix A). We also
attended several IPinCH-sponsored meetings and conference sessions. Through these
engagements with fellow IPinCH members, we learned of two complications faced by
the Penobscot Nation as they worked to consider how to best administer funds for their
IPinCH community-based initiative.3 The first related to intellectual property: if funds for
the project went through UMass (from SFU to UMass administering the funds), then
UMass would retain the rights to the intellectual property derived from the research.
3 See Developing Policies and Protocols for the Culturally Sensitive Intellectual Properties of the
Penobscot Nation of Maine, by Bonnie Newsom et al. (2014). The report and other information
on the Penobscot initiative available at: http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/projectcomponents/
community-based-initiatives/developing-policies-and-protocols-culturally-sensitiv
15
The second complication was that it was difficult to have grant funds directly
administered by the Penobscot Nation, rather than by UMass.
In learning of these complications, our team became concerned about the loss of
intellectual property rights over the data we would produce as part of this project. Co-PI
Atalay immediately investigated the situation at UMass and found that, indeed, the
university was not at all likely to give up intellectual property (IP) rights to the
knowledge/data produced through our work. Our team found this unacceptable, and we
chose to move forward as the Penobscot Nation had—we pushed to have the funds
administered by the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan through its Ziibiwing
Center. This arrangement actually made the most sense since Ziibiwing already had a
close working relationship with Tribal Elders and spiritual leaders with whom we would
be working. It would be much easier to handle travel, reimbursements, honoraria
payments, and other expenses if Ziibiwing administered the funds. Unfortunately, after
a long period of negotiation between the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan
and Simon Fraser University, it became clear that this arrangement was not possible for
several reasons. Despite concerted effort, SFU and the Tribe could not come to an
agreement that was acceptable to both entities concerning rights of intellectual
property and process in the event of a breach of contract.
This was incredibly frustrating and disappointing, particularly since the legal fees
incurred by the Tribe were quite substantial—more than the amount of the funds we
were to receive for the grant. Our team was determined to conduct this research and
knew that we would do so even without the IPinCH funding. However, IPinCH Director
George Nicholas was very supportive and worked closely with our team to find an
agreeable solution. Without a doubt, this project would not have been carried out as
part of IPinCH without the care, attention, and overwhelming effort of Dr. Nicholas and
Project Manager Brian Egan. Finally, in June 2014, after a series of multiple, complex
delays and restructuring, we were able to officially begin our work on the ezhibiigaadek
asin project.
Grant Activities
Participatory Planning – October 28, 2011
In October 2011, our team was at the end of the final round of ethics reviews through IU
and SFU. We felt confident at that point that both institutions would quickly approve
our ethics applications. We didn’t yet have funds transferred to IU for the project, and,
as it turned out, the grant would not be administered through IU because of Co-PI
Atalay’s move to UMass. Our team became concerned that it had been so many years
since we first conceived of the project and wrote the grant proposal. We decided it was
important for us to revisit the goals of our project and consider the best way to move
forward once the ethics review was final. In October 2011, we held a participatory
16
strategic planning session at the Ziibiwing Center in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan that
included all three Co-PIs, as well as Elders, spiritual leaders, and Tribal Members.
The strategic planning session was facilitated by VisionMAKERS, an internal entity within
the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan consisting of facilitators who have
received extensive training in conducting strategic planning efforts in a participatory
way. We spent two days together reviewing our research design and grant proposal
(Figure 3) and worked collaboratively to develop a clear plan forward that would allow
us to complete our project goals within about two years. The “IPinCH Strategic Plan:
SCIT Conservation and Management of the Ezhibiigaadek Asin” is presented as Appendix
B of this report. We felt this would provide us with adequate time to conduct the
research and ensure sufficient time prior to the end of IPinCH funding to reflect on our
work, share our progress within the Tribal community and with State agencies and other
stakeholders, present our work at academic conferences, and write the final report.
Figure 3. Sydney Martin discussing project goals during the October 2011 strategic planning
session held at the Ziibiwing Center.
Working together to develop that strategic plan in a truly community-based and
collaborative way was critically important to the success of this IPinCH-funded study.
17
Co-PI Shannon Martin recognized the importance of moving the project forward and
making progress, if only through meeting together and planning as a team. This was a
crucial step in helping us overcome the administrative setbacks and frustrations that we
faced from the very start of our project.
One of the most helpful aspects of the strategic plan that we developed was that it
provided our team with non-research tasks and goals that we could do to move our
work forward. These included continued communication with Tribal Council, sharing our
work with the Tribal newspaper Tribal Observer, encouraging each other and
acknowledging our accomplishments, and identifying ways to increase engagement of
Tribal youth with the site. It was also very important for us culturally to build spiritual
engagement with the site into our plan—this is an important acknowledgement that
spiritual practice is embedded within and not distinct from intellectual or researchrelated
practices.
The strategic plan documented our long-term goals and vision for the site and
reinforced our non-ending commitment to care for this sacred place. In essence, the
strategic planning session reinforced that this work requires long-term effort that will
not be complete at the end of this grant. We understand as Anishinabe people that we
have an enduring responsibility to care for such places and to allow them to care for us.
It’s clear in the strategic plan that the research we set out to accomplish as part of
IPinCH was only a very small part of what we envision and want for the site (Figure 4).
IPinCH was the spark that got things moving, but we recognized that our work would
progress with or without our involvement with the IPinCH project. In hindsight, the
money, time, effort, and energy put in to moving the project forward through academic
channels could have been much better spent by simply doing the research. While well
intentioned, the university relationships had dramatically held up our efforts and put
unnecessary barriers in the way of us conducting important and well-conceived
research.
18
Figure 4. Organizing and labeling goals for our work during the October 2011 Strategic
Planning session at the Ziibiwing Center.
Meeting with Elders and Spiritual Leaders – June 23–24, 2014
After we worked out the administrative and financial issues of funding our project, we
were able to begin research. When we first drafted the IPinCH proposal for this project,
we identified two graduate students who would assist us with this research: Frank
Raslich and his wife, Nicole Raslich. Frank is a Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Member. He and
his wife are both Anthropology Ph.D. students studying archaeology at Michigan State
University. At the Society for American Archaeology in Memphis in April 2012, Co-PIs
Sonya Atalay and Shannon Martin met Stacy Tchorzynski. Stacy is a Ph.D. student at
SUNY Binghamton who at that time had just been hired by the Michigan State
Archaeologist’s office. Stacy had heard about our work at ezhibiigaadek asin and was
enthusiastic to learn more.
Over the two years that followed, Co-PIs Shannon Martin and William Johnson met with
Stacy to discuss the site and our project goals. Stacy has been instrumental in helping to
build and strengthen the relationships of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
Michigan and Ziibiwing Staff with the State Archaeologist’s Office, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, and the Michigan Archaeological Society. As we
began work on the project in June 2014, it was clear that Stacy would be an ideal
research assistant. As a Ph.D. student she could lend her research skills to the project.
Her insights, experience, and connections with the State Archaeologist and long19
standing relationships with those involved with Midwestern archaeology were both
enormous assets. Stacy was already up to speed on our project, and so it was a smooth
transition for her to join our research team. In her role as an employee of the State
Archaeologist, Stacy had already worked with Co-PI Martin to author and present
several presentations about the ezhibiigaadek asin project, so she was very well-versed
in the research questions and what we hoped to accomplish with IPinCH funding.4
Our project team of three Co-PIs (Sonya, Shannon, and William) and three graduate
research assistants (Frank Raslich, Nicole Raslich, and Stacy Tchorzynski), together with
a group of Tribal Elders and spiritual leaders, met for two days in June 2014 to discuss
the appropriate care and management of ezhibiigaadek asin. Using the strategic plan
we’d developed in October 2011 as a starting point, we began to talk about key issues
and points of concern with regard to the site.
Primary points of discussion focused on aspects of cultural appropriation that had
already taken place at ezhibiigaadek asin and how we might protect the site—
particularly petroglyphs on the stone—from being further appropriated and used
inappropriately in the future. Shannon and William related to the group that a Tribal
employee had inquired about using the shkabewis image from the ezhibiigaadek asin
site (Figure 1) for the logo of the sporting goods store he was preparing to open. This
issue had raised concern for Shannon and William because the petroglyphs at the site
are spiritual in nature, and it is inappropriate to use them in a commercial way. In
particular, the shkabewis image depicts a spiritual message and does not relate to
hunting or sport.
This prompted the group to discuss the importance of education, not only for visitors
and non-Native or non-Anishinabe people, but education among Tribal Members. The
group looked closely at approaches to education and ways of protecting the site from
further appropriation. One key point was how we might consider restricting
photography at the site in order to lessen the chances of someone misusing the images.
Of course, images already exist of the petroglyphs online and in archival records held by
the State Archaeologist’s office and the Cranbrook Institute of Science, to name a few—
how could we control or limit the use of those images? Our group discussed this in
detail. A quick Google search turned up several images of ezhibiigaadek asin online,
most notably photos of the shkabewis petroglyph.
One image in particular caught the attention of our team. We noticed that the Michigan
Archaeological Society not only had an image of the shkabewis posted on their website
but that the image was copyrighted. This created great concern for us as we wanted to
know if copyrighting the photograph meant that MAS had, in fact, copyrighted the
shkabewis image itself. Our group also learned that a group of archaeologists had
inappropriately used the shkabewis image on the program material for their conference.
At the 2012 Midwest Archaeological Conference, held in Lansing, Michigan, an image of
4 Stacy soon after became an Associate member of IPinCH.
20
the shkabewis appeared not only on the meeting program cover, but also on a bag and
water bottle given to each conference participant.
Elders, spiritual leaders, Tribal Council Members, and Tribal Members who were present
at our June meeting all voiced concern over the inappropriate use of this image. We also
determined that we needed to look to other Tribal Nations who have faced similar
issues and consult them to learn how they handled the problem. We therefore began
planning a trip to Peterborough, Ontario for our group to meet with Curve Lake First
Nation Members who care for petroglyphs there. We felt that this would give our group
insights into concerns over appropriation of images and inappropriate treatment and
use of sacred places, and that we might also gain insights into co-management
strategies and how to best develop such a plan with State agencies.
Prioritizing Work to Reconnect Youth to the Site through Ceremonies
Another key point that emerged from this group meeting was the critical importance of
connecting Youth to ezhibiigaadek asin. Elders and spiritual leaders told us that we
needed to prioritize work that would connect Youth to the site as part of our grant. This
included acts such as holding fasting camps at the site and ensuring that Little People
bundles and spiritual ceremonies occurred at least twice annually. Little People hold an
important place within Anishinabe cultural teachings, and due to the sensitive nature of
the information related to them, we have chosen to limit the information shared about
them in this report.
As a result of the guidance we received at this meeting, the Ziibiwing team focused
energy on putting together a spring and fall Little People bundle and a spring fasting
camp for Native youth. On November 14, 2014, Ziibiwing brought together Tribal Youth
and adults to place a Little People bundle at the site. Preparation of the bundle occurred
over several weeks and a group traveled to the site to place the bundle and conduct the
needed ceremony for the Little People. Plans are underway to have this take place
regularly at the site, each spring and fall. This marks an important step forward toward
encouraging Youth to re-engage and strengthen their connections to this place.
Forming a Central Michigan Chapter of the Michigan Archaeological Society
During our strategic planning session in June 2014, the idea of engaging more directly
with the Michigan Archaeological Society (MAS) was a major point of discussion. The
importance of relationship building in this project cannot be overstated. This includes
developing stronger ties with State agencies that are currently involved in the care of
ezhibiigaadek asin, as well as improving our relationship and lines of regular
communication with MAS. The discussion of how to improve relations with MAS
continued at this gathering. Although the State of Michigan holds the deed to the land
where the site is located, MAS deeded the land to them with the restriction that the site
be protected and preserved. As Anishinabek, we have cultural understandings about
what it means to protect and preserve ezhibiigaadek asin. Unfortunately, some
21
members of MAS hold views about protection and preservation that conflict with Tribal
understandings.
We determined that the best way to do this was to start a central Michigan chapter of
MAS. Our research team took action on this and began researching the steps needed.
We found that the process is straightforward and requires us to draft and submit bylaws
along with the proposal for a new chapter. Progress is ongoing in this area, and we
anticipate having a new MAS chapter before the end of 2016.
Opportunities for Cultural Education: Summer Solstice Gatherings
At every meeting and in all discussions about ezhibiigaadek asin the need for ongoing
and increased engagement with ezhibiigaadek asin is discussed. A review of the
strategic plan makes that clear, and that same sentiment resounded throughout this
group meeting. Summer solstice gatherings at the site were a focal point, and we talked
at length about how we might use those gatherings as opportunities for education to
Tribal Members, Youth, and non-Native visitors as well. Some of the ideas we explored
include:
• News articles in Tribal newspaper
• Presentations to Tribal Council
• Inviting Tribal Youth to develop short films about the site
• Developing a glossary of Anishinabe terms related to the site and its teachings
• Work with site docents to share culturally appropriate information they can
share during tours
• Educational teachings during summer solstice gatherings
To this end, Ziibiwing staff organized and held educational teachings at ezhibiigaadek
asin on the summer solstice in 2014 and 2015.
Review of State Docent Training Materials
While the setbacks that delayed our work for so many years were frustrating, they also
had positive aspects. One major unanticipated benefit of the delay was that it allowed
time for the relationships of the Tribe with the State agencies that manage
ezhibiigaadek asin and with MAS to develop in very positive ways. As a result, there are
now strong and productive collaborations taking place between these groups. This has
allowed the Tribe to have substantive and meaningful input in multiple state-funded
projects related to ezhibiigaadek asin. One example relates to the training manual used
by DNR to train docents who give tours at the site. As a result of our conversations and
the work the Tribe has done in partnership with DNR, Ziibiwing is now in the process of
reviewing the docent training materials and providing DNR with comments and
suggestions for how the materials might best be revised and updated with regards to
the information and interpretation of the site that docents share with the public during
site visits.
22
Signage at ezhibiigaadek asin
The question of who gets to tell the story of ezhibiigaadek asin and how to explain this
in a culturally appropriate way to visitors was a key concern in our initial grant proposal.
This theme was always front and center at both the strategic planning session held by
our Co-PIs in 2011 and at the June 2014 meeting of Elders and spiritual leaders. One of
the most critical and immediate ways to address this point was for Ziibiwing to consider
the educational signage that is present at the site. As we were laying the groundwork
for this project, and again when our IPinCH work finally started in full force, the issue of
site signage was raised.
Fortunately, the relationship of the Tribe with the DNR and the State Archaeologist was
such that two of our Co-PIs (Shannon and William) were able to have direct input on the
collaborative process of re-designing the signage at the site, and new collaboratively
developed signage was installed at the site in spring 2016. This marks a critical step
forward in terms of having Anishinabe understandings of the site not only centrally
present at the site, but also presented in respectful and sensitive ways. Collaborative
outcomes such as this are a key highlight of this IPinCH project. At the start of this work,
none of us involved in this initiative could have anticipated the very positive progress
made in this area. Our work at ezhibiigaadek asin shows so clearly that relationships are
central in doing the work of caring for and managing sacred places and traditional
cultural properties. Once collaborative relationships were established and allowed to
grow, we have found that the care of sacred places improves too.
Research on Appropriate Care and Preservation
A key point of departure at the outset of our work on this project relates to the question
of what constitutes “preservation” and what are the appropriate methods of “care” at
ezhibiigaadek asin. When the four-day fire in 2002 (mentioned above) took place, it
marked the start of an annual cycle of cleansing at ezhibiigaadek asin. Elders came
forward at that time and explained that the four-day fire should not be a one-time
cultural spiritual event. They informed the group that such spiritual and physical care for
the site needed to continue. It was critical to continue honoring the site and to have a
spiritual presence there every year.
One Elder woman came forward and expressed to other women attending the event
that the stone needed to be cleansed to care for and protect the place. She instructed
that water needed to be used to give the grandfather (stone) a drink, something it had
not been given since the covering was placed over the site in 1981. Such actions are
important because they allow us to re-establish our connection to this place and let the
spirit of the stone know that Anishinabe are here again. These activities allow our blood
memories to connect again to ezhibiigaadek asin. Indeed, this teaching from Elders was
the catalyst for cedar bathing that took place at the site. Since then, every year it has
been important to reconnect and spiritually open the teachings on the stone so that our
blood memories could hear and see them again.
23
Over the years, this process has changed because of restrictions from MAS and DNR.
They became concerned about the amount of contact with ezhibiigaadek asin, and the
use of water and cedar brooms at annual solstice cleansings. Once those concerns were
voiced, Ziibiwing reduced contact with ezhibiigaadek asin. It has since been limited to a
few people walking barefoot on ezhibiigaadek asin, wiping off bird dung and bat
droppings5, and cleaning the stone with cedar water.
The question of how to address this difference in approach to care was raised at our
June gathering, where our research team posed these questions to Elders and spiritual
leaders. This discussion led to a larger inquiry: How quickly is the stone eroding? Are the
petroglyphs in danger of being lost? What can we do (or should we do) about the
erosion? How might we best preserve the petroglyphs? This discussion provided our
research team with some guidance on where to focus research time and effort. Our
graduate student researchers investigated multiple methods of preserving rock art and
examined possibilities for using LiDAR (a remote sensing method for mapping) and
various forms of photography to create a digital archive of the petroglyphs. The results
of this work were presented and discussed with the group during follow-up meetings.
We hoped to have guidance from this project on whether or not technological
approaches could tell us whether these petroglyphs had been previously re-etched in
the past. This brought our group back to a recurring conversation that has been present
from the earliest formations and start of this project: Should we engage in re-etching
these petroglyphs as a means of preserving them and passing on the knowledge they
carry? Due to the sensitive nature of the topic of re-etching, we have chosen not to
report the details of this conversation. What we are willing to share is that these
conversations were incredibly fruitful and provided our team with guidance on what is
culturally and spiritually appropriate at ezhibiigaadek asin.
Our conversations during this June 2014 gathering brought into clear view how
important it is to have comparative ideas to consider and draw upon. Spiritual leaders
and Elders wanted to know how other rock art sites, sacred sites more generally,
cultural landscapes of all sorts, and traditional cultural properties were being cared for
by other Indigenous peoples. How were other communities facing the challenges of comanagement?
Had they entered into Memoranda of Understandings or Memoranda of
Agreements with State agencies and/or landowners? Had they insisted on their own
cultural protocols of care, even in situations where those conflicted dramatically with
archaeological notions of care? In such cases, how did Indigenous communities navigate
those difficulties? After all, aren’t these clear challenges to Tribal sovereignty?
To address these questions, our research team divided up aspects of this research and
began looking for comparative cases. We collected publications and grey literature on
the topic, creating a small knowledge base of sorts via Dropbox, an online data storage
5 Birds and bats roost in the rafters of the shelter built by the Michigan DNR over ezhibiigaadek
asin.
24
system. This research continued over the course of the next six months, while our team
met regularly via conference call to share what we’d found and update each other on
our progress. We made use of a shared Dropbox where we placed articles and links to
online materials, and we used a shared task list to keep each other up to date on our
work efforts and progress. One of the next steps for our research beyond IPinCH will be
to provide a community report in which we share the results of this work. There is still
much to be done on this front. Our IPinCH-funded work at ezhibiigaadek asin was a
catalyst for this effort, but the work has much wider implications and uses. We
therefore need to think carefully about how to best report on and share the
information.6
As is clear from the above summary, our June 2014 meeting with Elders and spiritual
leaders was incredibly productive and provided us with clear directions to focus our
research efforts. It was evident that the most critical next step was to plan and carry out
a trip to Peterborough, Ontario (Canada) to meet with another Anishinabe community,
the Curve Lake First Nation, and learn from their experiences protecting and comanaging
the petroglyph site in their territory.
As our work progressed on the IPinCH initiative, we found it incredibly valuable to be in
conversation with Dr. Amy Roberts (Flinders University) and Isobelle Campbell (Mannum
Aboriginal Community Association Inc.), who are Co-PIs on the IPinCH-sponsored Ngaut
Ngaut case study in South Australia.7 Through regular conversations with Amy and
Isobelle, we realized that we had a tremendous amount to learn from talking with other
Indigenous communities involved in the care and management of their sacred sites and
traditional cultural properties, particularly those facing similar challenges with rock art.
This emerged quite clearly during our strategic planning as well. So it was really no
surprise that our meeting with Elders and spiritual leaders in June led us to the same
conclusions and highlighted the need for us to visit Peterborough.
Peterborough – Sanilac Trip, September 15-19, 2014
In 2014, our team set aside one week in September to meet in person, host another
meeting of Elders and spiritual leaders, travel to Peterborough, Ontario, and make a site
visit to ezhibiigaadek asin. On September 15th, our team met with Elders, spiritual
leaders, SCIT Tribal Members, and members of the SCIT Tribal Council. We discussed our
progress to date and updated the group on our research efforts. We had made
substantial progress since our last meeting in June and it was very useful to get further
feedback on our work.
6 For this reason, we have chosen not to make the appendices to this report publically available.
7 To learn more about Ngaut Ngaut and the IPinCH-related work carried out there, go to
http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/project-components/community-based-initiatives/...
project-providing-culturally
25
The entire group of 12 then traveled to Peterborough where we were joined by Three
Fires Midewiwin Grand Chief Bawdwaywidun Banaise and then spent one day meeting
with Elders, Youth, spiritual leaders, and Tribal leadership of the Curve Lake First Nation.
During this visit we were able to view the petroglyphs at Kinoomaagewaabkong (“The
Teaching Rocks”) at the Petroglyphs Provincial Park (Figure 5). We witnessed the
connections between the two sites in terms of the Anishinabe sacred knowledge each
carries and shared our practices and challenges of protecting and caring for these sacred
places.
Figure 5. Mary Deleary, Sonya Atalay, and Shannon Martin (left to right) discussing the
teachings at Kinoomaagewaabkong/Petroglyphs Provincial Park (Peterborough, Ontario)
during our September 2014 visit to the site.
The importance of this visit, both for our IPinCH project and the work we will do at
ezhibiigaadek asin and other sacred sites and cultural landscapes cannot be overstated
(Figure 6). This connection was critical and set the stage for what will be a long-lasting
collaborative relationship. We are very grateful to the Curve Lake First Nation for
sharing their experiences so openly. It gave us much to consider in terms of how we
move forward and work toward co-management.
26
Figure 6. Signage posted at Kinoomaagewaabkong/Petroglyphs Provincial Park
(Peterborough, Ontario).
Following the visit to Peterborough, our group went to ezhibiigaadek asin and held a
meeting at the site (Figures 7 and 8). We reflected on what we had learned from Curve
Lake Tribal Members and considered how we might best move forward at ezhibiigaadek
asin. We considered questions about the use of Anishinabe language at the site, issues
of re-etching, whether and how we might restrict photography at the site, and how to
best enact our Anishinabe protocols of care while balancing the desire to preserve and
protect the petroglyphs for the future.
27
Figure 7. Discussion group held at ezhibiigaadek asin in September 2014 to discuss
appropriate care, management and protection of the site. (Pictured from left to right: John
Graveratte, Charmaine Shawana, Nicole Raslich, Frank Raslich, Stacy Tchorzynski, Sydney
Martin, Bonnie Ekdahl, Shannon Martin, Alexis Bunten, Sonya Atalay, William Johnson,
George Martin, and Eddie Benton-Banaise.
The primary message that came from that final gathering of our group at ezhibiigaadek
asin was that the way to move these teachings forward and ensure the knowledge is
passed on is by using the site and connecting our Youth to the teachings there. With all
the high tech options available with which to capture images, preserve them, or even
re-etch them, the most critical action we must take at this time is a low-tech approach.
This is: Bring Youth to ezhibiigaadek asin. Allow them time to reconnect with their
grandfather/grandmother. Give them opportunities to learn from ezhibiigaadek asin
and with ezhibiigaadek asin. The work will flow from there.
28
Figure 8. Participants of the discussion group held at ezhibiigaadek asin in September 2014
pictured inside the gate at the site. (Pictured from left to right: Sonya Atalay, Stacy
Tchorzynski, John Graveratte, Sydney Martin, Brian Corbiere, Shannon Martin, Charmaine
Shawana, Frank Raslich, George Martin, William Johnson, Bonnie Ekdahl, Nicole Raslich, and
Marcella Hadden.
This brings us to a point that we have heard from the start with regards to ezhibiigaadek
asin and our efforts to properly educate, preserve, and manage the land and teachings
there. This work must always and without fail be spirit-driven. While our method is
community-based and firmly grounded at all times in core Tribal values, it must be
spirit-driven. With this in mind, we can and always do attempt to anticipate the
direction our research will take as we draft and carry out grant proposals and research
designs.
Over the course of this project we saw several examples of the importance of allowing
the work to be spirit-driven. Our Elder and one of our spiritual leaders, Sydney Martin,
shared with us at the IPinCH midterm conference in 2011 that IPinCH has a spirit. This
reminds us that, indeed, all of this work we carry out does have a spirit. The incredibly
possible and productive working relationships that now exist between the Tribe and the
29
DNR, as well as the steadily improving relationship with the MAS, would likely not have
happened if we had not had the many administrative setbacks we experienced getting
through ethics review and with the administrative hold-ups on this grant. In our initial
grant proposal, we planned to develop and carry out a survey of the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribal Membership to assess their knowledge and level of interest in ezhibiigaadek asin.
We developed the questionnaire for the survey, and set up times to administer the
survey to the Tribal Membership. Yet each time there were hold ups or circumstances
that kept the survey from going out.
At our final meetings, it became clear that people can carry a great deal of
embarrassment or shame related to not knowing or not carrying knowledge about these
sacred places. Issues of who holds or has access to sacred knowledge are so very
sensitive. Thus, the very act of surveying people about their knowledge points, often
glaringly so, to what has been lost, and on this project this recognition brought us all to
the question of who rightfully should have access to the sacred knowledge carried by
ezhibiigaadek asin? While we don’t pretend to have answered that complex and difficult
question, we do feel that by following a spirit-driven process that allows us to be flexible
and adjust our project goals to fit the needs as they arise, we have come somewhat
closer to the answer. If nothing else, we are much better off for finding ways to even
pose such questions as we work to reclaim and decolonize.
The importance of sharing experiences and knowledge with other Indigenous people is a
key take-away for us from this research. It is something we know and have experienced
in other areas of cultural preservation and revitalization as well, yet wasn’t clearly a
defined priority in our research agenda when we first proposed this project. At the close
of our final meeting in 2014, after our visit to Peterborough and Sanilac, our team
shared a meal with Elders, Youth, and spiritual leaders. We discussed at that time how
critical it has been for us to learn from each other and share experiences and challenges
with Tribal Members from Curve Lake First Nation, with our colleagues working at Ngaut
Ngaut, and with the cases we read about through our literature research.
It was during that conversation that we hatched plans for our next collaborative project.
We are looking for funding to travel and to host talking circles with our IPinCH
colleagues working at Ngaut Ngaut, with the Moriori 8 who are working to preserve their
r?kau momori (memorial trees), and other Indigenous communities in Australia and
New Zealand. The goal is to share experiences and knowledge about co-management of
these sacred places and to consider and share ethics practices and research guidelines
that we each use to guide our work. We had the opportunity to discuss this project and
take some next steps during a consultation meeting with Amy Roberts and Isobelle
Campbell at the November 2014 IPinCH meeting in Vancouver.
8 To learn more about the Moriori IPinCH community-based initiative, go to
http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/resources/reports/moriori_f...
30
Educational Efforts
Another key component of our work on this project has been education. We found it
critical to raise awareness about the role that ezhibiigaadek asin has as a sacred site and
traditional cultural property for Anishinabe people. The educational component of our
work was clear at the October 2011 strategic planning session we held, which placed
great importance on educating non-Tribal Members and non-Native people about the
ezhibiigaadek asin site. However, we also identified the need to keep Tribal Members
informed about and involved with the continuing efforts at ezhibiigaadek asin. We also
felt it was crucial to have an ongoing and rich flow of information to the Ziibiwing Center
Board of Directors and the SCIT Tribal Council.
To this end, Co-PI Shannon Martin provided regular reports on our progress to both the
Ziibiwing Center Board of Directors and the SCIT Tribal Council. This was important in
terms of the ethical responsibility we have to inform these Tribal entities and leadership
about our efforts, but it also raised awareness about the challenges the Tribe faces in
protecting the site from physical damage and deterioration, how the site may be (or has
been) appropriated in the past, and about the key IP issues and options for future
protection. Co-PI Martin drafted several articles about the IP issues involved at the site
and our work on this project for the Tribal newspaper (Tribal Observer) and Ziibiwing
Center’s electronic newsletter (E-Noodaagan). Both Co-PI Martin and Co-PI Johnson
discussed the ezhibiigaadek asin site and the IP concerns related to the site in verbal
reports at Tribal community events. This reporting took place over the course of the
project and will continue after IPinCH project funding is spent.
Sharing Research with Academic Audiences
As part of work during both the strategic planning and the June 2014 group gathering,
we came to recognize how useful it would be to have an international rock art
symposium to discuss issues of co-management of rock art. After researching the
budget and time required to host an international symposium, we decided that it was
more practical and a very solid first step to plan and organize a Society for American
Archaeology (SAA) conference session on this topic. Our session entitled, “Caring for
Knowledge on Stone: Rock Art Co-Management with Indigenous and Local
Communities” took place on a Saturday morning in San Francisco at the 2015 SAA
annual meeting. We video recorded the session and have added it to our project
resource archive.
We have also presented our work on this project at numerous scholarly conferences,
most notably at meetings of the Society for American Archaeology (April 2012), Central
States Anthropological Society (2012), American Anthropological Association (2008),
Inter-Congress of the World Archaeological Congress at Indiana University-Bloomington
(June 2011), and the Ohio State University World Heritage symposium (May 2011). In
addition, Co-PI Martin co-authored several presentations with Stacy Tchorzynski and
31
Michigan State Archaeologist Dean Anderson on topics related to ezhibiigaadek asin,
most recently on March 13, 2015 at the Historical Society of Michigan’s Local History
Conference. Co-PI Atalay has also given numerous presentations about this work,
including during invited lectures at Ohio State University in February 2014 and
University of Wisconsin in March 2015.
As a result of our efforts on the ezhibiigaadek asin project and our involvement with
IPinCH, we have developed many research connections and professional networks with
other IPinCH members, particularly those involved in examining IP issues on a global
scale (such as Jane Anderson and Kim Christen Withey) and the Ethics Working Group
(Alison Wylie). Co-PIs (Atalay and Martin) were part of a panel at the Native American
and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA) conference in June 2015, where we
discussed issues of research ethics and the key components of research design, output,
data ownership, and similar topics that should be discussed in developing partnerships
or MOU and MOA documents as part of community-based research endeavors. One of
the key outcomes of this discussion is that NAISA is now moving forward on developing
a set of research ethics guidelines for scholars working in the area of Native American
and Indigenous Studies.
Key Lessons to Share
Much useful data have come from this IPinCH project. In the final analysis of our
research we have identified six fundamental take-away lessons from this work.
The first is that as Anishinabe people we must ensure that our core Tribal values are
central to the research at all times. The planning and implementation of the work flows
from that central set of values. For Anishinabek, the Seven Grandfather Teachings are
fundamental: aakodewin (“bravery”), gwekowaadiziwin (honesty”), maanadiitowaawin
(“respect”), diibadendizowin (“humility”), debwewin (“truth”), nibwaakaawin
(“wisdom”), and zaagidiwin (“love”). We made every effort to rely on these teachings in
making decisions about the work process and research direction.
Second, in conducting the research, our team recognized from the start the key role that
Elders must play in guiding the research process. Their guidance proved to be essential
for the success of the project. We heard several times from Elders and spiritual leaders
that this work, because it relates to a site that is very sacred to Anishinabe people,
needed to be informed and guided by spirit. Ziibiwing’s former director, Bonnie Ekdahl
provided clear guidance on this during our final group meeting in September 2014. She
noted that we often become consumed in research projects and grant work with
protocols, procedures, budgets, etc. She reminded us that what is needed is to strip all
of that away so that the site and its spirit will lead us. We do need to address more
practical concerns and those answers will come in time, but if we hope to see this
project through to completion, the most fundamental thing we can do is to have the
site—the spirit of the site—lead us. We found that practical and procedural answers
32
came in time; for others, we are still working to find answers. It is through our
adherence to a spirit-driven process that we further build and strengthen our spiritual
connection to the site.
A third key lesson from our IPinCH work is the importance of connecting Tribal Youth to
ezhibiigaadek asin. Our ancestors chose this place to transfer knowledge into the future
for us, and we found, time and time again, that we must continue to use ezhibiigaadek
asin in a similar way today—as a place to pass on cultural knowledge and teachings to
Tribal Youth. The rekindling of regular ceremonies and rites of passage that involve
Youth through fasting camps and offering of Little People bundles are of the highest
priority. This is because these are the fundamentals of Anishinabe approaches to care
and preservation of this place.
A fourth lesson is that the most useful and meaningful models for co-management of a
sacred site such as this one come from other Indigenous communities. The IPinCH
funding we received gave us much more than just providing monetary support to
conduct this research. It also gave our research team rich opportunities to share ideas
and learn from the collaborative IPinCH research team working at Ngaut Ngaut in
Australia. From this we were able to consider what works in co-management and where
some of the stumbling blocks might be. The grant funding also allowed us to establish a
relationship with the Curve Lake First Nation so that we could also learn through their
experiences of working with Parks Canada. The Curve Lake First Nation also has direct
experience with balancing the need to protect sacred information with the desire to
share the site with larger audiences through cultural tourism. These relationships and
learning/sharing opportunities will continue years after the IPinCH funding is spent.
The fifth key lesson to share relates to ethics review and the IRB process. One of the
most frustrating aspects of this process of ethics review was that the whole point of
having an IRB/REB is supposed to be to protect those community members who are
“subjects” of the research. It seemed incredibly contradictory that the Tribal Council
review was not sufficient to allow the project to move forward. It is ludicrous,
presumptuous, and arrogant for any university to presume to be in a better position
to protect Tribal Members from exploitation than a Tribal community that has its
own Tribal citizens’ needs and well-being at the forefront.
Although fully unanticipated, this case study informed us and other IPinCH members in
important ways about the ethics of research and some of the shortcomings of the IRB
process. There are two key areas where this is particularly significant. It is problematic
that IRB/REBs do not place the highest priority, trust, and authority in Tribal entities and
governments who are reviewing research and capable of making their own
determinations about what is exploitative and how to best protect Tribal citizens. Tribal
IRB should be the most critical and first point of review, when applicable. Only in
situations when a Tribe or community doesn’t have it’s own ethics review process
should the university become the primary authority to deem what research is allowed
and the way it should be carried out. As it currently stands, universities are violating
33
Tribal sovereignty by putting themselves in a position of authority to determine how
Tribal governments protect its own citizens and how Tribal communities allow,
safeguard or condemn research that aims to take place within their Tribal territory/land.
Furthermore, in our experience, IRBs are not well equipped to handle situations in
which two or more institutions are involved in a research project (such as between SFU
and IU). This may have been further exacerbated by the fact that these two institutions
were working within university systems of two different countries. In such situations, it
makes most sense to require only one ethics review, and to have the other institution(s)
agree to allow the work to continue under the IRB review of that single institution.
Serious reworking of these ethics review systems is required to address the problems
we encountered in our case study.
Finally, one of the more unexpected key lessons to share from our work at ezhibiigaadek
asin relates to the issue of access. We came to this project knowing that questions
related to access and use of the site would be fundamental. We didn’t anticipate how
important it would be for us to consider questions of knowledge access among
Anishinabe people. We found that discussions about who has knowledge about the site,
what is appropriate to share and with whom, who determines what is appropriate to
share when it comes to sacred knowledge and cultural teachings are difficult but
essential questions. The answers can’t be determined by discussions of policy, but
rather they require ongoing conversations. The questions that are asked and how they
are answered may evolve over time.
IPinCH funds provided us with the opportunity to investigate aspects of each of the six
points above. Most importantly, we’ve found that many questions and areas of
investigation remain unanswered or unclear. The success of our project has been that it
allowed us the time to consider these questions carefully, the resources to come
together to discuss these questions and to ask more questions, and opportunities to
build relationships with scholars and other Indigenous people who we can rely upon to
help us find ways forward.
34
Future Directions
As we’ve noted throughout this report, we have accomplished a great deal in a relatively
short time. IPinCH provided us with the funds to build a strong foundation for what’s to
come at ezhibiigaadek asin. But our work continues, and we anticipate adding to this
solid start in the coming years in a number of ways:
• ezhibiigaadek asin-based Curriculum development for Tribal Youth;
• Further relationship building with State and MAS as we draft the first comanagement
plan;
• Developing a draft MOU for special use permit that will remain on file with DNR.
This includes a set of keys to the gate surrounding ezhibiigaadek asin;
• Developing a set of protocols on appropriate behavior to assist visitors in
respecting sacred nature and significance of ezhibiigaadek asin; and
• Finalizing plans for Tribal Youth summer training program (summer 2015) so that
Youth can participate in the internship program and serve as docents at
ezhibiigaadek asin
35
Reflective Questions
Reflections on Ezhibiigaadek Asin Project
by Sonya Atalay
1. What would you say are the most important reasons for protecting or safeguarding
cultural heritage?
SA: Aspects of cultural heritage play a critical role in community healing. Knowledge and
practices associated with tangible and intangible heritage (and the processes of
reclaiming such) help people to return to a place of balance.
2. What challenges face communities who wish to be caretakers of their cultural
heritage?
SA: Having recognized and enforceable decision making authority.
3. What, in your experience, seems to work best as a strategy (or strategies) for
protecting cultural heritage? Alternatively, what do you see as the main path in a
community’s journey to protect cultural heritage?
SA: Constantly working to assert the right to care for places and items of cultural
heritage as communities see fit.
4. What do you think are important guidelines or strategies for conducting communitybased
cultural heritage research (in your community, in general, or both)?
SA: Respect is primary, but along with that must be an understanding of what RESPECT
means.
5. What are key ingredients for good research relationships and research
outcomes? Also, what, in your experience, causes these relationships or projects to
break down?
SA: Regular and consistent face-to-face communication. The most important part of all
of this work is relationship building.
36
6. What fundamental values should guide a researcher working on heritage issues within
a community-based context?
SA: Respect, humility, honesty, sincerity. One must learn to be truly honest with oneself
about why you are there, what you (personally and professionally) hope/plan to get out
of the work.
7. What skills or capacities do researchers from outside a community need to be more
effective in their research relationships? What skills or capacities do communities or
other organizations with which you work need to be more effective in doing communitybased
research?
SA. Learning to listen and understanding that there are real and substantial limits to
what they (researchers) should know/ask/expect. Learn not to confuse friendliness and
hospitality in a professional context with friendship.
8. What legal frameworks, policies, protocols or other tools have you turned to help you
in your cultural heritage work? What approaches have been useful and which have not?
Does your community or any of the communities or organizations you work with have
laws, practices, expectations, protocol(s) or guidelines for research that may be shared
with others? If so, please provide copies of these in the appendices of your report if it is
appropriate for the IPinCH project to have them. What advice do you have for
communities regarding developing or using research guidelines or protocols?
9. What, if any, government or other institutions or authorities have oversight over your
work in this project? How has this affected planning, implementation, benefits, access to
results, consequences, etc.
SA: The university that employs me likely feels they have some authority of oversight
generally for my work as a researcher. It hasn’t affected my work any more or less on
this project than it has for others I’ve worked on.
10. What would the community you worked with like to see in place that would continue
to help support its future efforts in regard to similar issues or research initiatives?
11. What other experiences and perspectives can you share that illustrate examples of
good (or poor) practices, policies and lessons learned concerning community-based
studies of cultural heritage?
37
Appendices
At the request of the report authors, these are not included in the public version of
this report.
