As a public historian engaged in the environmental and indigenous history of the American West, public lands have been central to my work. For the past 36 years I have worked with Indigenous Nations and land management agencies to research and write histories that have been used in litigation and for land management and interpretive purposes. Some of the projects were initiated directly by tribes, largely to defend sovereign rights and access to resources, while others were funded by agencies such as the US National Park Service (NPS) and Department of Energy (DOE) which sought to incorporate an understanding of Indigenous practices and history into their operations. Rather than focus on a single project I want to speak to several considerations that my personal experience has raised and suggest some best practices for doing public lands history in relationship to Indigenous Nations.
First, some general thoughts on the relationship between Native peoples and public lands history. While public lands and tribal lands are not the same, they are linked in fundamental ways. Native peoples shaped the American landscapes that Europeans and their descendants encountered. Understanding those actions and their impacts is essential for any good public land history. This is an underlying reason that land management bureaucracies have increasingly sought to incorporate Native knowledge and history into interpretation and management. The renewed recognition of tribal sovereignty since the mid-twentieth century is another factor, with federal agencies bound to respect the standard of “government-to- government” relations and many state governments following suit. Moreover, in the United States the “public domain” was created out of Indigenous lands and when Native peoples ceded territory to the United States, they often retained rights to utilize lands and resources outside of reservation boundaries. Thus, public lands are commonly spaces where tribal peoples continue to exercise their treaty rights. The intersection between traditional uses, treaty rights, and modern tribal sovereignty has been a constant in my work.
When working for or with tribes it is as first and foremost essential to respect tribal sovereignty. This means securing official approval for the project as well as keeping tribal leadership informed as your work continues. Generally, tribal councils (sometimes known as business councils) are the ultimate authority and have the final say. THPO’s, heritage offices, tribal museums, and cultural preservation committee’s might be your collaborators, but you must ensure that they have council approval to proceed. In my experience, getting initial approval has not been overly difficult, but ensuring that lines of communication and authority between tribal offices and entities remain clear can sometimes become an issue. It is also critical to remember that having individual tribal members willing to participate in your project is not the same as having official approval of the tribe.
Once approval has been secured and clear lines of communication and authority established, tribal research protocols must be followed. For example, I completed an oral and ethnohistorical study for Pipe Spring National Monument in collaboration with the Navajo Nation. As this was an NPS funded project initiated by a park service unit, we followed the agency’s established protocols for government-to-government consultation. Working directly with the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, I secured a research permit that allowed me to conduct oral histories with tribal members on the reservation. This tribal permit superseded any of my own university’s IRB considerations. In addition, I sought and received the approval of the Navajo Nation’s Attorney General to access land claims files which contained older oral histories. While such protocols may take additional time they must never be circumvented. Respect begets respect and is essential in establishing the trust necessary to complete a project effectively and ethically.
It is also essential to ensure that tribal partners get something of value out of any collaboration. This is perhaps the most important aspect of “shared authority” in such projects. Of course, this has never been an issue in projects where I have worked directly for tribes and addressed their historical questions. Indeed, most of those products/reports remain the property of the tribes and are not accessible without the approval of tribal officials. But in other cases, federal agencies have sought tribal knowledge for management or interpretive purposes, and in these instances, it is critical that your project is not just “taking.” In the case of the Pipe Spring project, the final product and all research materials is co-owned by the Navajo Nation. Similarly, I am currently directing an archival and oral history study of Shoshone-Bannock traditional land use practices on what is today the Idaho National Laboratory. The project is funded by the DOE on behalf of the tribes, with the understanding that the final product will be the property of the tribes, and they will have control of how any tribal knowledge will be used or disseminated.
Project timeframes and the necessity of building relationships over time is another factor that impact shared authority. For projects initiated by federal or state agencies (again, projects initiated by tribes are in a different category) it is best to build flexibility and extra time into the project. Tribal officials and employees can be stretched thin and should not be expected to drop everything and facilitate your project. Remember, you need them, but it might not be true the other way around. Over the past three years I have directed a project funded by the NPS National Trail Office which seeks to enhance the interpretation of Indigenous history along the trails. To the office’s credit we have approached this as a relationship building project, one in which tribes are invited to participate in an interpretive planning process. We have asked tribes first if they wish to participate and if so, what are the aspects of their history they want to teach to public audiences. This is very different from the more standard approach of developing interpretation and after the fact seeking tribal approval for what has already been done. Progress so far has been slow, but I hope that the measured, respective approach becomes more common.
These are just a few ideas about the intersections of Indigenous and public lands history. I look forward to your thoughts and to discussing your projects and approaches in our session.