Navajo Administrative History

This effort, major in comparison to previous endeavors, foreshadowed changes in the immediate future of the monument. MISSION 66 made the Park Service affluent. Throughout the park system, much long-needed work finally occurred. At Navajo, the encroaching pavement meant a greater need for constant maintenance of ruins in the monument. Visitation levels had begun to climb, and the plans for a visitor center and a paved approach road meant that the number would increase exponentially.

The archeological discipline had entered a new phase as well. In response to the rapid infrastructural and industrial development sweeping the Southwest after World War II, archeologists had begun to conceive of saving some information from ruins in the path of progress. Destruction could not always be prevented, but archeologists could perform surveys and excavations before the bulldozers arrived, collecting artifacts and making records for the future. Labeled salvage archeology, this proactive response came to dominate the field. [35]

Because of the authorization of the Glen Canyon Dam by the Colorado River Storage Project, much of the salvage archeology work focused on the area near Navajo National Monument. Work both in the area to be flooded and in the surrounding highlands added measurably to the base of knowledge for the monument. It also influenced the approach of the Park Service to the ruins of the monument. [36]

In the 1960s, NPS sponsored similar archeological studies within the monument boundaries. The new work ended a thirty-year hiatus in excavation within the boundaries of the monument. The prospect of greatly increased visitation made this work necessary, as the NPS geared up to fulfill its dual mission. The construction of the Kayenta-Tuba City highway, the approach road to the monument, and later the new road through Marsh Pass signaled the end of an era of isolation. No longer would remote character be a guarantee of protection. Nor would above-ground structures be immune to depredation. Greater preservation efforts were necessary as was more comprehensive research to support interpretation.

Two distinct kinds of work were performed at Navajo. Examinations to address concern for the resource comprised one category of work. In the 1960s, the monument embarked on a program of stabilization for the smaller ruins within the monument. Examples of these include the stabilization efforts of Charles B. Voll and an eight-man Navajo crew at Betatakin and Kiva Cave in 1964, test excavations of David Breternitz at Turkey Cave, those of Keith Anderson at Betatakin and Keet Seel, and the salvage operations of George J. Gumerman and Albert Ward of the Museum of Northern Arizona at Inscription House. Three others moved toward an understanding of the archeology of the monument: Jeffrey S. Dean's chronological analysis of Tsegi Phase sites, Polly Schaafsma's survey of rock art, and Keith Anderson's examination of Tsegi Phase technology, which became his doctoral dissertation. These efforts led to better understanding of Anasazi life in the ruins that composed the monument. The two different directions of archeology at Navajo National Monument had been fused.

Dean's work had particular importance for the archeology of the monument. During the early 1960s, he conducted his research at Navajo under the auspices of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. The Park Service funded his research, as did the Arizona State Museum, and the work resulted in "Chronological Analysis of Tsegi Phase Sites in Northeastern Arizona." This effort, published in 1969 as a revision of Dean's doctoral dissertation, revised the chronology for occupation of the archeological sites within the monument. [37]

In his highly acclaimed study, Dean asserted that the Tsegi Phase Kayenta people did not move into the area in a comprehensive manner until about 1250 A.D., almost fifty years later than prior estimates. They found timber and other resources, and proceeded to make use of them, leading to a process of deforestation as trees were cut for construction. Dean discerned that the people who came to the Tsegi drainage had come from the Klethla Valley, Laguna Creek Valley, and Monument Valley areas, which had been nearly abandoned by 1250 A.D. The major factor that compelled their arrival was also what hastened their departure. Arroyo cutting as a result of their land practices made them search out Tsegi Canyon; the condition followed them, again forcing them to the south less than one hundred years later. [38]

More than twenty years after his research, Dean suggested a compelling reason for the construction of pueblos like Keet Seel and Betatakin under the ledges of caves. His own experience living in a pueblo convinced him that the primary reason was to limit the need for maintenance. Exposed, a pueblo required constant work. Wind, rain, and other elements made upkeep a struggle. The great ledges under which so many ruins were located protected them from much of the impact of weather, creating surplus time to devote to the necessities and amenities of prehistoric life. [39]

One of the most significant results of the explosion of archeological work that began at Navajo in the 1960s was a revision of the presumed age of the date on the wall at Inscription House. After extensive study, Albert E. Ward concluded that the year incised in the wall was more likely 1861 than 1661. He believed that members of a party of Mormons, who came to retrieve the body of a friend who had been killed by Navajos the previous year, carved the date. This reevaluation indicated that some changes in the historic chronology of the monument and possibly in the name of Inscription House site were appropriate. [40]

The Dean, Anderson, and Schaafsma studies laid the groundwork for the direction of archeological work at the monument. Stabilization and restoration remained critical features of NPS work at the monument, but broader knowledge was required to develop a more complete understanding of life at the monument.

During the 1960s, archeologists benefited from strong leadership at Navajo National Monument. Superintendent Art White and his successor Jack Williams were interested in the work of the archeologists and made sure that they received ample opportunity to do their research. "When I was in the archeology department, I did ranger work," White later remarked of his career as a park archeologist, "I didn't do any archeological work." He assigned ranger work to rangers, and let Keith Anderson function as an archeologist. Others on the staff sometimes resented this distribution of responsibility, but White deemed it necessary. [41] This luxury of workpower was a function of the affluence of the era, the unprecedented availability of resources that resulted from the MISSION 66 program. The increase in visitation compelled better research, protection, and interpretation. Superintendents who understood the need for new and different research helped lay the basis for the boom in archeology in the 1960s. Fortunately it occurred during MISSION 66, when the NPS had resources to spread around.

Protection also improved as a result of the activities of archeologists. Dean worked first at Betatakin, then spent two seasons at Keet Seel. White set up a camp at the outlier for Dean and regarded him as an additional ranger there, "with no salary and at no cost," White later recalled. [42] Someone in residence at Keet Seel, particularly a professional archeologist like Dean, meant that visitors and others were better supervised and educated there than they had been in the past.

The 1970s were dominated by efforts to maintain preservation, largely by controlling the number of visitors to the ruins. These reactive techniques were part of the first comprehensive program for resource management implemented at the monument. Efforts to determine a genuine carrying capacity for both Keet Seel and Betatakin figured prominently in the plans of the monument. The impact had to be considered from more than one perspective. Not only did the park need to find a maximum number of annual visitors, it also needed an individual trip and daily estimate of the number of visitors that could visit without having a significant negative impact on the ruins. Superintendent Frank Hastings undertook the project, regarding it as one of "greatest methods of protecting resources that could have been done." [43]

After the opening of the paved approach road, increased usage made stabilization a constant for administrators at Navajo. Natural wear and tear, human impact, and the need to present the resource to growing numbers of visitors meant an increase in stabilization efforts. Stabilization was carried out at Inscription House in 1977, 1981, and 1984; at Betatakin in 1975, 1981, 1982, and 1984; and at Keet Seel in 1975, 1981, 1982, and 1984. This pattern became an integral part of the process of managing the ruins at Navajo, although the elimination of the Navajo Lands Group limited the monument's access to stabilization resources. By the late 1980s, the only funds available for stabilization was special projects money from the Regional Office. Many parks requested such funding, and there was no guarantee of success for any individual park area.

After the mid-1970s, cultural resource management became increasingly proactive. The Park Service faced a growing demand for its services, and greater development of Navajo land and changes in law assured an increasing amount of archeological work in the Kayenta area. The extensive salvage work performed on Black Mesa typified the nature of such work. Called the "most massive archeological undertaking ever conducted in the region," the Black Mesa Archeological Project had implications for the interpretation of early inhabitation within the monument. [44] At the same time, NPS efforts were directed toward an integrated management plan that addressed preservation issues as well as a host of newer concerns that stemmed from higher levels of visitation, better technology to support collections, and changing perceptions of the function of the park. As yet, no consensus among priorities has been reached.

Yet the integrated approach has had an impact on the direction of NPS preservation efforts. Richard Ambler's archeological assessment of the monument, published in 1985, built on earlier studies and efforts and synthesized them to provide sound management recommendations. Ambler's primary recommendation was the initiation of an intensive archeological survey of the three units of the monument and the 240-acre agreement area. [45]

In the summer of 1988, Scott E. Travis of the Southwest Regional Office undertook the first comprehensive site survey of Navajo National Monument. The survey was designed to rectify prior omissions in the study of the archeology of the monument. Previously unexcavated and unknown sites from the prehistoric and historic periods were located and recorded, providing the kind of baseline data so critical to park management in the 1990s.

The collection of this information represented a major step forward for archeological knowledge and ultimately interpretation at Navajo National Monument. Clearly proactive rather than reactive, Travis's work provided a wide range of information that could become a beginning point. With a broader and comprehensive knowledge of the resources of the monument, the development of management strategies and planning documents took on an immediacy and an importance previously hidden. Finally, the Park Service had the beginning of information with which to create a future for Navajo National Monument.

By the early 1990s, the cultural resources of the monument had a long history that reflected the changing concerns of the Park Service and the archeological profession. Changing authorities and their different concerns affected the disposition of the resources of the monument. From the earliest excavations, museum-sponsored archeologists had a different reason for digging than did the Park Service or other government-sponsored excavators. The NPS in particular was most interested in the structures and the knowledge of them that could be gained from exploration. In contrast, the earliest museum-backed expeditions sought artifacts for collections. With the advent of broader surveys, outside excavators began to ask questions that had implications for interpretation. As visitation increased, its impact became an issue, and when resources became available, the NPS began to perform its own work to support interpretation. This began the process that led to a comprehensive and integrated approach to management of archeology at Navajo National Monument.