Big Hole National Battlefield Administrative History

Chapter Six:
Research and Interpretation

Although the Museum Branch advocated redesign of interpretive displays every five years ("to keep pace with developing knowledge and tastes") funds were rarely available for any but minor variations. The battlefield interpretive prospectus remained static in its identification of the primary interpretive theme – "the Nez Perce War of 1877 and the clash and confrontation of individuals and cultures" – and the most appropriate means of communicating that theme – the audio-visual auditorium, museum exhibit room, information desk, sales desk, self-guided trails, and wayside exhibit of the howitzer capture site. Within this general outline established in 1964, however, Schulmeyer's impact on the interpretive focus and research effort is evident. In the 1984 interpretive prospectus Schulmeyer wrote: "without followers there can be no leaders" and urged an interpretive focus that respected the individuals involved. The Cultural Resources Management Plan includes a recommendation for continued effort to identify "the names of the battle participants on both sides and learn something about them before and after" and to organize and analyze the McWhorter research collection in an effort to learn more about the individual Nez Perce who participated in the battle. The management plan also urged continued study of the soldier uniforms and accoutrements worn in the field at the time of battle, in an effort to retain a "balanced" rather than Nez-Perce focused interpretive presentation. Schulmeyer also recommended continued analysis of the leadership of the Seventh Infantry to explain "why Gibbon chose certain companies and officers to fight and why certain companies performed better than others under stress." Each of these projects was to be continued "on a low key, as a supplemental duty but without rigid goals or required annual production." As such, these were personality-driven rather than contract-driven projects, absolutely dependent upon the time, energy, and commitment of those assigned to the battlefield. [31]

In 1984, NPS historian Jerome Green and Chief Historian Edwin C. Bearss protested that the hat and feather markers along the Siege Area trail were more appropriate to Disneyland than to a battlefield site. In a dramatic example of the impact of changing taste and methodology on static goals, Acting Associate Director for Cultural Resources Rowland T. Bowers chided Harpers Ferry Center and Big Hole officials to find a more "dignified treatment of a battlefield, where men, women, and children of both races made the supreme sacrifice." [32] The markers, however, remained.

Controversy that would define the next phase of the interpretive program was introduced in 1985, when a Rocky Mountain Region Operations Evaluation Team (with the support of Big Hole Park Ranger Phillip Gomez) criticized the interpretive program as slanted to the Nez Perce point of view. The focus of the Centennial-era interpretive program (particularly the audio-visual program), Gomez complained, was a "relic of the 1960's and the Civil Rights Movement," and did not reflect 1980s public sensibilities. Schulmeyer objected strongly to the operation team's criticism of the content and focus of the AV program, noting previous positive evaluations and visitors' approval. He agreed, however, that the presentation and text were outdated, and urged funding of a new program, developed by Harpers Ferry Center in collaboration with Big Hole personnel. [33]