North Cascades An Ethnographic Overview and Assessment of North Cascades National Park Service Complex

Based on the ethnographic and ethnohistoric information reviewed above it appears that the NOCA-associated tribes are likely to have concerns over park lands that involve the traditional uses of natural resources, including hunting, fishing and gathering of plants for food, medicine and other purposes; sites associated with spiritual and mythological activities; and sites associated with transmontane travel and interaction among and between the various tribes and bands. These activities are protected by treaty or federal law and therefore identification, evaluation and interpretation of these properties is essential. Seven contemporary tribes and bands have been demonstrated to be NOCA-associated. On the following table they are identified by country and predecessor.

What is evident from the discussion of the ethnographic and ethnohistoric data base is that changing purposes have influenced the ways in which information about Native people has been collected and analyzed. Earlier ethnographers could not have anticipated the needs for site-specific information essential to management of National Park lands in the late twentieth century. Most of the works reviewed meet the professional standards of their day and for the purpose for which they were produced. In the discussion above the data was organized into general categories that reflect the historical development of Native American oriented, academic anthropology.

The historical particularist approach dominated the first half of the 1900s. Native cultures were discussed as if they were an extinct, or soon to become extinct, phenomenon of the past. There was little attention to the dynamics of culture change and the remarkable tenacity with which Native cultures adapted to domination by the United States and Canadian society. The picture of Native cultures that emerges from this approach is one of an unchanging past. Cultures are frozen in time as if they did not change before European contact and all change after contact was in the direction of assimilation into the dominant culture. By today's standards these are unacceptable assumptions.

Two basic methodological problems become apparent if we accept the limitations of the early ethnographies. First, archaeological research that utilizes ethnographic analogy is working from the false assumption that the cultural patterns described in the early 1900s can be extrapolated back in time to a prehistoric period. Ethnographic analogy has to be used with considerable caution. Which traits are indicative of a distant past and which traits are introduced or adaptations to changing circumstances must be assessed with some attention to their usefulness for comparison. This is, perhaps, less a problem for park management then park interpretation. The second problem is the assumption that the cultures described in the ethnographic literature are accurate depictions of how the Native people were actually living at the time immediately before contact. Teit, for example, discusses horses as if they were a part of traditional Interior Salish culture but selectively culls out observations of European-style clothing and other adaptations that existed at the time (Tepper 1987). This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the early ethnographies must be used with discretion and cross- checked with other sources in order to assess the validity of specific ethnographic statements. Unfortunately the ethnographic survey of the North Cascades (Smith 1988) reiterates the ethnography with little critical analysis.

Similarly the materials presented in the Indian Claims Commission hearings were gathered by anthropologists with a specific goal. The materials were collected on behalf of a client. While the research aims for objectivity there is always the understanding that client needs are incorporated into the interpretations. Chalfant, writing on behalf of the federal government, would have down-played the extent of traditional territories, whereas Ray, writing on behalf of the tribes, would have tried to make a strong case for territorial control of as large an area as possible. None of these works, however, are clear on the extent of territory nor specific about boundaries. I suspect that is an artifact of the data utilized and Ray's (1939:16) assertion that peripheral areas were more common areas then areas delineated by hard and fast boundaries. Ray produced several of the reports and Chalfant primarily depended on Ray's earlier works so that the Indian Claims Commission ethnographic work on the Plateau was primarily shaped by Ray's influence.

Contracted projects and other specific research, because of its narrow focus, often has even more limited applicability. While the studies of plant use give us some idea of the extent of plant gathering in respect to the species utilized and the types of environments in which specific plants are found, there is no identification of specific locations within park boundaries. Whether this is due to the historic restriction of plant gathering areas is difficult to assess with the present data base.

The Canadian land claims research is not yet available for assessment and evaluation. The research completed thus far is narrowly focused on specific sites. We can anticipate further site-specific research to meet legislative and legal needs on both sides of the border. Perhaps the land claims cases in Canada and research into natural resource use and traditional cultural properties will stimulate the collection of further ethnographic information to flesh out this gap in the data base.

There is a paucity of good historical analysis of NOCA. While the ethnohistorical data base is rich, mention of Native people is conspicuously absent. Luxenberg (1986) has done an admirable job of synthesizing the historic information. This work provides an excellent starting point for resources available and her topical synthesis offers a good descriptive overview of park lands history. Where available, primary source documents have been copied and submitted to National Park Service - Pacific Northwest Region as an accompaniment to this overview and assessment. There is undoubtedly a wealth of information still available to the diligent researcher. Two notable examples that were not accessed by earlier researchers were the maps prepared for the boundary commission by Native guides in Henry Custer's employment and by George Gibbs.

While the secondary sources should be reviewed for any ethnographic or ethnohistoric research project on NOCA, their usefulness is limited. References to Native people are few and generally pejorative. The fact that Native people were present in areas of exploration and settlement is more authoritatively noted in the primary sources and the amateur attempts at synthetic history add nothing to our data base.

Federal resource management obligations include the directive to include Native American concerns in the decision making process.

Recognizing that its resource protection mandate affects human use and cultural context of park resources, the National Park Service will plan and execute programs in ways that safeguard cultural and natural resources while reflecting informed concern for the contemporary peoples and cultures traditionally associated with them.

To successfully carry out this management program reliable information on park uses by Native people is a must. At present the data base consulted for this study has found that insufficient information exists to adequately assess Native American uses of NOCA lands by the park-associated groups. National Park Service management policies require appropriate anthropological research to insure that plans and actions reflect contemporary knowledge about the cultural context of sites, landscapes and resources.

The purposes of this research will be to meet management needs for information about such groups; to develop inventories of traditional ethnographic resources associated with them; to determine the effects of their traditional ceremonial and consumptive uses of park resources; to evaluate the factors guiding their traditional systems for managing natural resources and creating cultural properties; to define their traditional and contemporary relationships to these resources; and to assess the effects of NPS activities on these groups. Research findings will be used to support planning, resource management decisions, and activities; to develop interpretive programs accurately reflecting Native American and other cultures; and to facilitate consultation with and meet management responsibilities to park-associated communities.

Each of these six needs can be met by instituting an appropriate program of research designed to gather the type of data needed to adequately incorporate these needs into NOCA planning. Thus far the ethnographic and ethnohistoric data base can guide the research in two important ways. It is clear that there are seven park-associated groups. For these groups it has been demonstrated that the use of natural resources for hunting fishing and plant gathering took place within NOCA boundaries. The data further suggest that the use of NOCA lands for spiritual and ceremonial purposes and well-documented routes of access for trade and travel hint at extensive use of NOCA lands. What is lacking is site-specific information and the documentation of post-reservation uses.

The post-reservation history of the Native People of NOCA has not been examined. There exist studies of the reservation populations (e.g., Schuster 1975 on the Yakama and Dahl 1990 on the Colville) but these studies are focused on the reservations and not the ceded lands. Hunn's (1990) work serves as an excellent example of an approach that could be followed for NOCA. Hunn has systematically analyzed land use practices along the Columbia River by some of the bands associated with the Yakama Reservation. His approach utilized ethnographic and ethnohistoric data but depended more heavily on oral traditions and oral histories to flesh out the experiences of Native people in the period of time shunned by earlier ethnographers.

Oral histories and oral traditions are not the same thing. Oral histories are reminiscences or accounts of events which occurred during the lifetime of an individual. Oral traditions are a form of "emic history," statements about the past that have been passed by word of mouth. It is generally accepted that Northwest Native cultures are rich in oral tradition. This is precisely the type of data that could be used to fill the lacunae in the ethnographic and ethnohistoric data base for NOCA.

Federal guidelines for the management of traditional cultural properties outline the types of information necessary to adequately evaluate, protect and interpret eligible sites. The first step is to determine that the entity is a property with identifiable boundaries. Second, consider the integrity of the property. And third, evaluate the property with reference to National Register criteria (Parker and King 1990:9-11). For the types of uses identified for the park-associated Native American populations this type of information is simply not available. To identify park uses the first task that must be completed is to identify NOCA uses and inventory the locations that are significant culturally and/or historically. The identification of tangible resources such as trails can be determined from ethnohistorical data. However, other sites commonly associated with trail use, such as berry grounds, camping locations, cemeteries, and supernatural phenomena generally cannot be identified with the present data base.

Other NOCA uses such as hunting, fishing, gathering and religious use may not be activities which utilize sites that could be determined eligible under National Register criteria. Nevertheless these sites may be protected under other federal obligations such as treaty rights and legislated action.

It would seem that the first logical step would be to inventory Native uses of NOCA in a systematic manner. It must be understood that inventories are not definitive. Further information might become available, needs may change and new requirements may be legislated. Therefore an inventory must be approached as a working document enabling upgrades and periodic reassessments when deemed necessary by the Park or the user groups. With these general ideas in mind a suggested program of action is recommended to answer basic research questions necessary to meet NOCA management needs. This research program involves a five-step process.

1. Consultation with tribes and bands.
2. A program of oral history research.
3. Site visits as necessary.
4. Incorporation of oral histories into existing data base.
5. Develop a program of monitoring site use.

No program of research will be possible without full tribal cooperation. The need to interview tribal members and to identify potentially sensitive sites can only be facilitated by tribal liaisons. All park-associated tribes and bands have a designated cultural resource specialist. Initial contacts should be with these individuals with whom a program of research can be modified to fit particular tribal guidelines and culturally-mandated approaches to information gathering. The research would be further facilitated by the use of tribal members as interviewers. The project director would be responsible for seeing that all interviewers were seeking the same types of information so that the data could be integrated into a comprehensive report and inventory.

The collection of oral histories (including oral traditions) would commence with the identification and initial contact made by tribal liaisons. The interviews would then seek the pertinent data and suggest subsequent interviews, and/or possible site visits. Interviewees would be asked to recommend other knowledgeable individuals and through this process of "networking" a reasonable effort will be made to contact all potential interviewees. At the conclusion of each interview a "debriefing" should take place with the project director and tribal liaison to identify potentially sensitive data and to suggest the direction of subsequent interviews. This process would insure tribal input at every stage of the data collection process. The information should be coded and entered into a data base for easy retrieval and sorting. Through this means information could be easily retrieved from the data base by categories such as tribe, site type, and use area. Information could also be coded for sensitivity and protected from indiscriminate access.

Once the collection of oral histories is complete the data can be integrated with existing ethnographies of NOCA. Smith (1988) has sorted ethnographic and ethnohistoric data according to classic anthropological categories. Each of his chapters include comparable information on such things as subsistence, technology, religion, social structure, and so on. This data could be expanded based on the new ethnographic information to produce a fuller account of the post-reservation and contemporary life-ways of the park-associated groups. This study offers a step towards that goal by including discussion on the limited information available for the groups Smith did not include (Nooksack, Sauk-Suiattle, Methow, Entiat and Wenatchi).

The National Park Service has established communications with the United States tribes identified in this study. Further research would necessarily be incorporated into that on-going relationship and could only be completed with tribal direction.