Nez Perce National Historical Park Administrative History

CHAPTER FIVE:
INTERPRETATION

Planning the Interpretive Program

Park planning began with an analysis of visitor use trends. Tourism in Idaho was increasing at a rapid rate in the 1960s. Armour Research Foundation's report projected that the number of tourists passing through Nez Perce country would grow from 593,000 in 1963 to 822,000 in 1970 on the way to 989,000 in 1975. [215] NPS planners were more cautious in their projections, pointing out that the major "tourist paths" between eastern population centers and destination parks in the Pacific Northwest crossed the state of Idaho via Interstate 80 and Interstate 90. These highways carried four times the volume of traffic on U.S. 95 and twelve times the volume on U.S. 12, the two traffic corridors that traverse the park. It seemed to NPS planners that the park would primarily attract local day-use. Therefore, the planners believed that consideration of the amount of population within a two-hour radius of Nez Perce mattered most. They noted that Idaho was one of the last remaining states still classified as rural by the U.S. Bureau of Census. Rather than suggesting ways to "capture" a certain percentage of out-of-state traffic so that these travelers would spend money in the local economy, NPS planning teams focused on the needs of the local day-user first, the weekend vacationer second, and the long distance traveler last. [216]

The Park Service's emphasis on the day-user had important implications for the interpretive program. Whereas the Armour Research Foundation envisioned a main visitor center that would present an overview of Nez Perce country and entice the visitor to spend an extra day or two exploring the various historical sites, the Park Service wanted to make each park site meaningful on its own merits and representative of the larger complex. Park planners were mindful that this would not be a destination park. "Since there are many other interesting day-use activities readily available in and around the Nez Perce county [sic]," the master plan stated, "the historical park will be placed in a position of competing for the visitor's time." [217]

After identifying the probable visitor use pattern, the planners turned to the more difficult question of what the national historical park was about. The concept of Nez Perce country was central. The Nez Perce Development Advisory Committee, the Armour Research Foundation, the NPS feasibility study team, and finally Congress itself used this term to define the park's scope and meaning. The term was deliberately vague, giving the Park Service some room for interpretation. [218]

Historian Erwin Thompson suggested that Nez Perce country comprised "great and varied scenery" as well as "the story of two cultures in close contact." He considered the history of the Nez Perce people to be "a continuous thread that must be woven throughout the length and breadth of the tapestry," yet the history of white settlement, which had so altered the land and the native culture, "must also receive emphasis." [219] Thompson allowed that the park story would be a complex and challenging one to interpret, and he envisioned a main visitor center with exhibits that would tie it together.

The study team for the master plan hewed closely to Congress's statement on the purpose of the park:

The Nez Perce National Historical Park protects and provides interpretation for various component sites relative to the early Nez Perce country of Idaho, the Lewis and Clark expedition through the area, the fur trade, missionaries, gold mining and logging, and the Nez Perce war of 1877, as they depict the role of the Nez Perce country in the westward expansion of the Nation. [220]

The master plan did, however, prioritize these various historical themes as of primary or secondary importance. The primary theme would embrace early Nez Perce culture; the tribe's first contact with the American explorers, Lewis and Clark; the Christian missionaries and their influence on the Nez Perce culture; and the War of 1877. The secondary theme would address the effects of American expansion on the native people and the land. Evident here was an effort to sharpen the focus, develop a central plot line with a consistent point of view, in order to make the park story comprehensible to the day-user.

The authors of the park's first Interpretive Prospectus (1970) took this further. "This is essentially the story of a people — a people and the land," they wrote. Wherever possible, the story elements should be presented from the Nez Perce point of view. The mining frontier, for example, should be considered primarily in terms of the pressure that it placed on the Nez Perce homeland and resources. Explorers, traders, miners, settlers, and soldiers would be kept in the wings while the Nez Perce were given center stage. These non-Indian groups would appear, "but only in relationship to the Nez Perce and their activities and life values on this land." [221]

Finally, after identifying probable visitor use and defining the park story, the Park Service tied the interpretive program into the development plan for the park. Arguably, the unusual land ownership pattern of Nez Perce National Historical Park posed an even greater challenge to interpreters than its complex story. Without a contiguous land base to work with, the Park Service had virtually no influence over how visitors would circulate around the far-flung park. Ideally, the interpretive prospectus stated, the NPS would direct all visitors to a main visitor center at Spalding and expect them to "fan out from there" (essentially the same visitor circulation pattern that the Armour Research Foundation had envisioned). Realistically, however, the NPS had to prepare for receiving the visitor at each site or several sites in whatever order the visitor chose. The most it could do would be to develop three "major entry points" at Spalding, East Kamiah, and White Bird Battlefield. [222] Consequently, the interpretive prospectus called for visitor centers at these locations with each one orienting the visitor to the whole park as well as a particular theme. At White Bird the theme would be the War of 1877, at East Kamiah it would be Nez Perce traditions, and at Spalding the visitor center would introduce the over-arching theme of Nez Perce cultural change from prehistory to the present.

The park's land ownership pattern posed another challenge to interpretation. Although it was Congress's intent that the Park Service serve as the lead agency for interpreting the park story, this could not be accomplished without the cooperation of a multitude of landowners. [223] On-site interpretation of the 19 cooperative sites required consent and in some cases a commitment of resources from the landowners. Most of the cooperative sites already had historical markers that had been developed by the State Highway Department. It would take many years to bring on-site interpretation of these sites up to national park standards. Signalling the fact that these sites would receive lesser priority, the Interpretive Prospectus commented simply, "It would be nice to be able to influence the design, placement, and texts of the State markers." [224]

Eventually it became apparent that the cooperative sites would provide the greatest challenge for park interpretation. At each site interpretation had to accomplish two things: reveal the historical significance that was intrinsic in the site, and provoke the visitor to think about how that site related to the broader park story. In many cases, nothing was left of a site but the memory as recorded in a state historical marker. As the park's creators freely admitted, many of the sites did not possess national significance on their own merits; it was only by bringing them into association with one another (through interpretation) that they acquired national significance. In other words, the creators of Nez Perce National Historical Park intended this unique park to be more than the sum of its parts. It was about historical ideas and the character of a region as much as it was about physical objects and specific geographical locations. In order to be a success, the park had to reveal each site's significance in relation to the whole park. Failing that, the Park Service would then be in the errant position of guiding visitors to 21 separate sites that did not have national significance.