Background:
For this working group, I will be using an ethnohistory and oral history report of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ use of Department of Energy lands in southeastern Idaho as a case study. The report was produced for and in collaboration with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the Department of Energy. This case study centers on the lands of the Snake River Plain in southeastern Idaho, which are the traditional homeland of the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes. Since the 19th century, this region has been a site of both conflict and interaction between the Tribes and the US federal government.
In the mid-20th century, this dynamic evolved with the establishment of a federal nuclear research facility. In 1949, the Atomic Energy Commission withdrew 890 square miles of public land to create the National Reactor Testing Station, now called the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) or often simply the “Site.” Since its creation, the Site has been used for weapons testing, nuclear research and, at the close of the Cold War, the storage of nuclear waste. Crucially, the Fort Hall Reservation, where the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have resided since its creation in the late 19th century, is only 60 miles south of the Site. To this day, the Shoshone-Bannock continue to travel and hunt across the Snake River Plain.
In the 1990s, the US government began transporting nuclear waste to INL via railroad lines that crossed the Fort Hall Reservation. Concerned about the potential harm to their community, the Tribal Council took a stand by parking a patrol car on the tracks to stop a shipment. This act not only attracted media attention but also initiated negotiations between the Tribes and the US federal government about the impacts of INL activities on Tribal lands. This project is a direct result of those negotiations in the 1990s, and of the efforts of the DOE to better the nation-to-nation relationship between the DOE and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
Project Description:
As with other federal land managers, the DOE must follow Section 106 to mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources. As the cultural resource management team at DOE worked on a precontact context study for the region, the Tribal Council asked for a report that would be of direct benefit to the Tribes. The DOE contracted the American West Center (AWC) to produce an oral history and ethnohistory report on Shoshone-Bannock land use along the Snake River Plain from precontact to current day. Under the direction of Professor Greg Smoak (project PI), I conducted archival research and collected dozens of oral histories with Tribal elders over the past two years. Last fall, I drafted a 350-page confidential report for the Tribes, and I am currently revising the draft into an abbreviated public report. Throughout the duration of the project, we collaborated with the staff at the Tribes’ Language and Cultural Preservation Department (LCPD) and Heritage Tribal Office/Cultural Resources to conduct oral histories.
Key Takeaways:
1. The Importance and Complexity of Shared Authority
One of the biggest insights from this project is the importance and nuances of shared authority. This project was only feasible because all parties involved were fully committed and invested in the project. Sharing authority also means the US federal government must respect tribal sovereignty. Since this case study involves a tribal government and a federal land manager, the best practice for sharing authority means that the DOE and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes interact through a nation-to-nation dynamic. These two subsequent points further explore the best practices of shared authority.
–Collaboration
Collaboration between all stakeholders was key to the success of this project. We were only able to conduct so many oral histories because of the support from the Shoshone-Bannock LCPD. In each oral history interview, there were two researchers from the AWC and 2-4 Shoshone-Bannock members to facilitate the interviews. This resulted in a more comfortable atmosphere for narrators (who were primarily Tribal elders). Notably, the DOE’s decision to step back during this phase respected the privacy of the process and reinforced Tribal ownership of the project. So, collaboration meant different things for the Tribes and the DOE. While the DOE was invested in the project, they were not directly involved in the interviews. The Tribes, on the other hand, played a direct role in collecting oral histories.
This raises the question: what does collaboration look like between land managers, tribes, and historians?
–Respecting Tribal Knowledge and Sovereignty
An additional insight is the way that federal land managers approach, use, and respect tribal knowledge. This project produced numerous oral histories full of deep tribal, family, and personal stories. This information is paramount in preserving tribal history and cultural heritage, but also contains deeply sensitive material as well. Therefore, while this report could provide valuable information for CRM officials working on Traditional Cultural Properties and Section 106, it was created first and foremost as a confidential document for the Tribes. This meant that the DOE not only had to respect proprietary tribal knowledge, but accept that, despite funding the project, they may not be able to access the report. A unique insight from this specific case study is that the DOE was willing to relinquish access to the report in order to respect tribal sovereignty. This is an important reminder that when dealing with tribal nations and the federal government, there needs to be a nuanced understanding of what exactly shared authority means, and an acknowledgement of the historically unequal power dynamics between tribes and the government.
This leaves us with the question: How can land managers use tribal oral histories in their land management plans while respecting proprietary knowledge?
2. A Broader Understanding of “Public Lands”
One last takeaway I would like to highlight is the broad definition of public land. In the US, the agencies like the Department of Defense and DOE are also land managers, although the lands they manage are starkly different from the public lands we may typically think of, such as crown jewel national parks or expansive national forests. Therefore, this case offers a unique insight for public historians working with land managers other than the NPS, BLM, or USFS. While engaged in historic preservation and interpretation, agencies like the DOE produce internal rather than public facing documents. I hope that this last point can bring up discussions of audience and how different land managers utilize the work of public historians, especially those land managers that oversee restricted lands.
What is the “public” in public lands? How do various land managers (NPS, DOE, USFS) differ in their use of history in management plans and interpretation?