Bandelier Administrative History

In 1909, the Department of the Interior and the GLO had two options when it came to reserving archeological areas: a national park bill and the Antiquities Act of 1906. Hewett authored the latter, which allowed the president to reserve sections of public land as national monument without obtaining congressional sanction. Because it circumvented Congress, the Antiquities Act offered greater flexibility than a national park bill.

Even at the turn of the century, there were assumptions about the nature of national parks. Yosemite and Yellowstone were the models for the category. Although "porkbarreling" in Congress before 1906 led to a number of inferior national parks, afterwards Congress held to a rudimentary if ambiguous standard. Like Mount Rainier and Crater Lake, two turn-of-the-century additions, national parks had to include spectacular scenery. [18]

National monuments were less clearly defined. Most of the ones created prior to 1909 were areas that the GLO withdrew before the passage of the Antiquities Act. They were often small areas, with archeological values or scenery less impressive than that in the national parks. More important from the local point of view, commercial use of natural resources was rarely restricted. Local ranchers could usually graze their animals within the boundaries of a nearby national monument.

As the author of the bill, Hewett was aware of the differences. Late in November 1909, he suggested that the Department of the Interior commission a survey of the region with an eye towards establishing a national monument. With a smaller area reserved in a national monument, the GLO could terminate the temporary withdrawal. Brook and the other homesteaders could then perfect their land patents. Such a compromise indicated that homesteaders and archeologists could co-exist upon the plateau. The homesteaders would continue their lives at the base of the Jemez Mountains, and the national monument would protect the most important ruins. It was precisely for cases like this that Hewett and Lacey created the Antiquities Act. The Department of the Interior concurred and sent the United States Examiner of Surveys, William B. Douglass, to the Pajarito Plateau. [19]

Douglass was an important figure in the evolution of preservation in the West and Southwest. Responsible for land surveys in the Southwest, he was an ardent supporter of Federal attempts at the preservation of ruins. One of the first Anglos to see the Natural Bridges and Rainbow Bridge in Utah, he also visited Navajo National Monument as soon as the Government was informed that there were ruins there. In 1909, Douglass made an enemy of Edgar L. Hewett when he forced Hewett and Byron Cummings to cease their excavation in the newly established Navajo National Monument. Douglass felt that Hewett's use of the national monument as a place to train his students in archeological technique was nothing short of criminal. In essence, Douglass called the man who developed the label "pot-hunter" an officially sanctioned "pot-hunter." Hewett never forgave him. Their rivalry complicated the process of establishing a national park on the Pajarito Plateau. [20]

When Hewett discovered that Douglass planned to survey the portion of the Pajarito Plateau outside of the Jemez National Forest, he surmised that another attempt to take the Puye ruins away from the Santa Clara Indians was brewing. He immediately used his influence to stop Douglass. While in Washington, D.C. in the spring of 1910, he informed Frank Bond, the Chief Clerk of the GLO, that he strenuously objected to the idea of a national monument at Puye. [21] On July 10, 1910, Hewett warned Clinton J. Crandall at the Santa Fe Indian School that Douglass was again surveying the Puye region. "Without my knowledge or consent," Crandall wrote the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, "Mr. Douglass proceeded to the vicinity of the Santa Clara Indian Reservation and spent some days or weeks surveying the Puye and other ruins." Crandall continued the objections he made in 1903, arguing that a national monument would abridge the rights of the Santa Clara Indians.

Hewett's sentiments had an important impact upon Crandall, and the two men obstructed the aims of the Department of the Interior. Crandall and the leaders of the Pueblo approved of Hewett's excavations, and he had nothing to gain from a change in status. His dislike for Douglass had not cooled. If Douglass advocated the reservation of Puye, then Hewett would oppose it. "Mr. Hewett . . . would regret very much to see any change made in the present management of these cliffs," Crandall informed his superior. "As a national monument there are no funds available for a custodian or caretaker, that they can be much better handled under the present arrangement. In order [to establish the monument,] it would be necessary to take away from the reservation some of the grazing land and upland timber." [22] Hewett's support for area Indians was widely acknowledged, and if the most important archeologist in the Southwest believed that a national monument was not a worthy enough prize for the transfer of land away from the Pueblo, then Crandall agreed.

Hewett worked hard to stymie Douglass' efforts, and as a result, the General Land Office needed the concurrence of other Government agencies if it was to continue the project. As Hewett expected, Douglass filed a report on July 27, 1910, that recommended the establishment of a national monument which included the Puye ruins. Hewett's influence at the Bureau of Indian Affairs led that agency to oppose the project. On October 8, Assistant Commissioner for Indian Affairs F. H. Abbott requested that Puye and the other ruins on the Santa Clara reservation be eliminated from the proposed national monument. This left the proposed monument without its most important archeological feature. GLO Commissioner Fred Dennett referred the matter to the Secretary of the Smithsonian, W. D. Walcott, explained the conflicting claims, and asked Walcott to decide whether there ought to be a national monument at Puye. [23]

Hewett was also influential in Smithsonian Institution circles, and he continued to battle the monument idea. He communicated his objections to Walcott, who informed the GLO on October 26, 1910, that he thought a national monument was unnecessary. Walcott echoed Hewett's perspective, asserting that the ruins were managed responsibly and intimated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was clearly cognizant of the need to preserve the ruins. Two days later, Dennett informed Walcott that he planned to drop the proposal. [24] Without Frijoles Canyon, Navawi, Tschirege, and Puye, there seemed little point in pursuing the idea.

The effort to preserve the Frijoles Canyon and Puye ruins fragmented into attempts to reserve each area separately, foreshadowing the later establishment of the Bandelier National Monument. The Ramon Vigil Spanish land grant separated Puye and Frijoles Canyon, and there was already a consensus that non-contiguous areas ought not to be established as national parks. Without the cooperation of the United States Bank and Trust Company, which held title the grant, the project to unite Puye and Frijoles Canyon in a national park could not proceed.

Douglass' proposal for Puye was the first attempt to preserve discreet archeological features instead of the entire plateau. The history of failed national parks in the region and the urgent need for some form of archeological preservation induced the GLO to consider Douglass' idea. Its interest meant that the GLO committed itself to a broader ideal, articulating the belief that preservation of some of the ruins was better than none at all.