Michael Kelleher Changing Approaches to Management at the Mesa of Bandelier National Monument

s demonstrated by a special section of The George Wright Forum titled “Taking Stock: Changing Ideas and Visions for Parks” (Volume 17, Number 2), both the park idea and approaches to managing parks Ahave changed greatly over the past century. Parks have been “man- aged, exploited, enjoyed, glorified, or left alone, depending on the ideals espoused” during a specific period (Carr 2000, 16). This is particularly true of the national parks, which have been, seemingly contradictorily, developed for mass and preserved in a relatively unaltered state depending upon the management approach taken by the Service (NPS). The Tsankawi unit of Bandelier National Monument in can stand as a particular- ly relevant example of the agency’s changing concept of park stewardship. Throughout much of its history as part of a protected national monument, this mesa was to have been developed to accommodate large numbers of visitors, similar to the principal area of Bandelier, Frijoles Canyon. Because NPS never followed through on these plans, Tsankawi was preserved as an intact cultural landscape containing the remains of an unexcavated , ceremonial , cavates, pictographs, and a prehistoric footpath worn deeply into the rock of the mesa. Recently, it has become a focal point for a new approach to park manage- ment: NPS and other land management agencies now recognize such areas as indigenous ancestral sites that are important to contemporary Native American culture, and are engaged in efforts to consult with tribes on their preservation and interpretation. It is remarkable that an area that NPS wanted to intensively develop for much of the last century could now be a model for sensitive man- agement. However, this new approach only came about recently and Tsankawi was preserved more because of a lack of funding for development than as a result of a conscious preservation effort. Establishing Representative John E. Lacey, chair- a National Monument man of the House Public Lands Efforts to protect Tsankawi and Committee, Hewett helped draw up other archeological sites on New several proposals for a park of between Mexico’s Pajarito Plateau began as 150,000 and 250,000 acres, called early as 1899, when the archeologist either Pajarito Plateau National Park recommended that or the National Park of the Cliff Cities. a substantial part of the region become Hewett and Lacey were joined by a national park. Working with those who saw a national park as a

58 The George Wright FORUM boon to tourism and a means to park placed under its jurisdiction. In enhance the image of the territory — anticipation of a future land transfer, and, beginning in 1912, state — of on two separate occasions the agency New Mexico. As was often the case sent to the region representatives who with proposals for national parks, reported on the resources and made opposition came from proponents of recommendations for their manage- development who did not want to see ment. These early reports displayed such a large area put off limits to graz- NPS’ seemingly contradictory goals of ing, timber cutting, and home- protecting resources while promoting steading. They had allies in the feder- development to accommodate visi- al government, particularly the then- tors. Following his inspection tour in young Forest Service the summer of 1919, Herbert Gleason (USFS), which managed much of the wrote that NPS would be a better pro- Pajarito Plateau as an area dedicated to tector of the archeological sites within the utilitarian use of natural resources. the national monument than USFS, By 1916, USFS had to contend with but would also make these sites more the new NPS, which joined the move- accessible to visitors. Of the detached ment for a national park. USFS coun- Tsankawi and Otowi mesas, Gleason tered the park movement with a pro- complained that the “Forest Service, posal for a smaller national monument apparently, takes no pains to protect that would protect some of the archeo- these ruins from irresponsible relic- logical resources in the area but avoid hunters or to maintain in proper shape putting a large tract of land off limits to the roads leading to them” (Gleason development. On February 11, 1916, 1919, 6). NPS criticism of USFS’ fail- three discrete areas containing signifi- ure to provide for visitation to cant archeological sites were pro- Bandelier was countered by the USFS claimed as Bandelier National argument that it was a better steward Monument by President Woodrow of the archeological sites because it Wilson through executive powers would not build roads that made them granted by the . The more accessible to looting, nor would new monument totaled 22,400 acres it construct a hotel in Frijoles Canyon, and included the major sites at Frijoles as NPS proposed (Rothman 1988, 29- Canyon and the separate Otowi and 30). Tsankawi mesas. The new monument The report on a 1930 inspection came under the management of USFS, carried out by senior NPS officials displeasing NPS, which continued to Jesse Nussbaum, superintendent of advocate the creation of a national , M.R. park (Rothman 1988). Tillotson, superintendent of National Park, and Roger NPS Development Plans Toll, superintendent of Rocky During the period that Bandelier Mountain National Park, was even was under USFS management, NPS more visitor development-oriented. continued its efforts to have the monu- The superintendents concluded that ment included within a larger national much of the land around Bandelier

Volume 20 • Number 1 2003 59 was not of sufficient scenic value to Bandelier, the inspection party offered warrant inclusion in a national park seemingly contradictory recommen- and argued that NPS take over only dations, stating that it was “of great the national monument. Then, it importance that as many as possible of could begin new developments for vis- these prehistoric ruins should be pro- itors, most importantly the construc- tected and preserved in their present tion of a road into Frijoles Canyon condition, for future generations,” but where the most significant archeologi- also recommending new excavations cal sites were located. They noted that “with a view of acquiring all possible while Frijoles Canyon received 3,000 information from the ruins, and of to 4,000 visitors a year, the detached protecting the structures from further Otowi and Tsankawi sections of the deterioration and making them avail- monument received far fewer people, able for public inspection and instruc- as there was little at each site to attract tion.” The party recommended that the public. However, this could be Otowi and Tsankawi “be developed remedied by their development. Of and made features of interest to visi- Otowi, they wrote that there was “little tors,” who would be able to “combine to interest visitors at the site of the a trip to these ruins with a visit to” main pueblo. It could however be Frijoles Canyon, “thus making a com- made of interest by re-excavation.” bination trip, which would present The inspection party found the more features of interest than would Tsankawi mesa more interesting, both one area alone.” (Nussbaum, because of the spectacular view from Tillotson, and Toll 1930, 29-30 , 67) the top and because the “ruins of Clearly, NPS was interested in devel- Tsankawi have been only partly exca- oping Bandelier National Monument vated and offer almost their original for the sake of visitation. value for scientific excavation and With Nussbaum, Tillotson, and development for visitors” (Nussbaum, Toll recommending that NPS take Tillotson, and Toll 1930, 12, 16). over the management of Bandelier Although the superintendents favored National Monument rather than seek the excavation of Tsankawi, they want- to have a national park established in ed to preserve certain aspects of the this region, the agency temporarily site. The road to the mesa ended a abandoned its park proposal. In 1931, half-mile away and the party did not USFS agreed to transfer the monu- believe it “desirable to build a road all ment, along with additional land that of the way, since visitors should would allow the Otowi and Tsankawi approach the ruins on foot, over the mesas to be combined into one area, worn used by the prehistoric which was then referred to as the inhabitants.” As for the ruins, few Otowi Unit of Bandelier National people visited them because “they Monument. The transfer was made on have been but partly excavated, and no February 25, 1933, but the idea of cre- effort has been made to bring out the ating a national park on the Pajarito features that would be of interest to Plateau remained alive within NPS, visitors.” Like the 1919 report on which made additional park proposals

60 The George Wright FORUM later in the 1930s and again in the Bandelier that led NPS to consider 1960s. developing Tsankawi into a major des- Despite the recommendations of tination in the national monument. In the 1930 inspection party that 1956, officials from the NPS regional Tsankawi be excavated, after NPS took office in Santa Fe noted that the “ over Bandelier National Monument to Tsankawi is increasingly popular,” development was limited to Frijoles but a lack of funding prevented the Canyon. Here, using Civilian park from providing visitors with any- Conservation Corps labor, a road was thing more than a self-guiding inter- constructed to ease access to the pretive trail (NPS 1956). At this time, canyon, and a visitor center, adminis- NPS was planning , a ten- trative facility, and lodge were con- year effort to make all of the areas in structed on the valley floor near the the National Park System capable of major archeological ruins. Tsankawi handling the huge numbers of people was, however, considered to be among visiting them in the post-war era. In the more important archeological sites most cases, under Mission 66 the in the park and remained in consider- response of NPS to increasing visita- ation for future development. In the tion was to build more roads and visi- 1940s, when NPS was planning a land tor facilities in the parks. Bandelier exchange with its new neighbor on the was to have been no exception, as here Pajarito Plateau, the Los Alamos the “problem” was a “dual one involv- National Laboratory,it wanted to hold ing protection for the detached Otowi on to Tsankawi even though other section and the lack of space for parts of the detached Otowi Unit expansion of existing facilities in the could be exchanged for laboratory main visitor area” in Frijoles canyon. land on the rim of Frijoles Canyon. To remedy this, NPS planned to con- Writing about the possible exchange struct a visitor center along the high- of land in the Otowi Unit of the mon- way near Tsankawi, as well as for the ument, Erik Reed, the chief archeolo- pueblo to be “excavated and stabi- gist for the Southwest Region of NPS, lized” and the prehistoric foot-path to reiterated earlier observations, stating the mesa top “reconstructed with that of all the ruins here, Tsankawi was appropriate exhibits installed along the “most important from the archaeo- the trail.” The development of logical and interpretive viewpoints” Tsankawi, which was called the “most (Reed 1948). important part of the Mission 66 pro- The Tsankawi section of Bandelier gram for Bandelier,” would serve three was clearly recognized as significant goals. First, it would “provide the nec- by NPS, but through the 1940s and essary protection of this very impor- 1950s park management continued to tant section of the monument.” focus on Frijoles Canyon even though Second, development would “provide with increased visitation to Bandelier, the proper kind of interpretation” in the outlying unit became a destination order to “make it possible for the visi- for growing numbers of people. It was tors to obtain the maximum benefits this change in the habits of visitors to from the features” found here. Third,

Volume 20 • Number 1 2003 61 making this area more attractive to vis- large piece of the Otowi Unit, the itors would “relieve the overcrowded Otowi mesa itself, was transferred to condition of the Frijoles Canyon by a Los Alamos National Laboratory in dispersal of monument visitors” 1963 in exchange for additional land (NPS, undated). adjacent to Frijoles Canyon. Following The Mission 66 plan for Tsankawi the land transfer, the Frijoles Canyon was not carried out, but support for section of the monument grew to new development at this part of the 31,911 acres as compared to monument continued through the Tsankawi’s mere 826 acres. The fact 1960s and 1970s. In 1962, the acting that the Tsankawi mesa was retained superintendent of Bandelier wrote to in 1963, despite its being a detached the director of the NPS Southwest unit of the park with the inherent man- Region about planned excavations agement difficulties that this repre- and visitor-oriented developments sented, reflects the importance of the that were a “high priority” for the resources there to NPS. However, as monument (Widmer 1962). Proposals far as the allocation of funds for devel- for the excavation of the pueblo were opment, the new land adjacent to included in the 1973 and 1977 master Frijoles Canyon became a priority. plans for Bandelier. Unlike earlier Here, a new campground and plans, the excavation would not be amphitheater were constructed, there- carried out simply to expose the ruins by allowing an overcrowded camp- for interpretive purposes but “allow ground to be removed from Frijoles visitors to observe an excavation in Canyon itself. In addition, much- progress and to learn how archaeolog- needed employee housing was built. ical materials are used to reconstruct the past.” Once excavated, it could be A New Approach determined “how the ruins can be best toward Tsankawi used and interpreted” (NPS 1977). Because NPS failed to carry out its The 1960s and 1970s were periods plans to excavate and develop when NPS was relatively flush with Tsankawi, the mesa remained a rela- cash as a result of congressional tively pristine area in which visitors appropriations for park development could have a different experience than under the Mission 66 program (in the that found in the developed and over- 1960s), and to prepare for the crowded main section of Bandelier. At American Bicentennial (in the 1970s). Tsankawi, visitors could hike along the Why, then, did nothing happen at prehistoric foot-path rather than over Tsankawi? No clear answer exists, but the asphalt and pipe-railed pathways it may be the case that despite the installed near the ruins in Frijoles development plans that existed for this Canyon. Climbing to the top of the part of Bandelier, and the numerous mesa, one passed numerous petro- examples of managers stating that the glyphs before finding the expansive area was a priority for the monument, 360-degree view of the Pajarito this detached piece of land actually Plateau, Rio Grande Valley, and became less important to NPS after a Sangre de Cristo Mountains. There

62 The George Wright FORUM was the unexcavated pueblo, which ration of cavates. In response, the allowed visitors the opportunity to agency explored options for the area gain an appreciation for archeology by but clearly rejected the development seeing what an archeologist has to plans of previous decades because this work with before beginning an excava- would be “detrimental to the site’s tion. On the far side of the mesa, scenic, natural, and cultural where visitors began the return hike, resources.” However, the fact that for cavates and line the mesa decades NPS had planned to develop wall. All of this provided visitors to Tsankawi but instead left the area Tsankawi with a feeling of discovery, largely alone meant that there was away from the controlled exhibits and “[n]o guiding management philoso- crowds that have come to typify a visit phy” for the mesa (NPS 1995). Here to Frijoles Canyon. Granted, the inter- was an opportunity for NPS to devel- pretation at Tsankawi could have been op and apply a new management improved, but the fact that people approach. came to this area despite the lack of Rather than see the mesa as con- visitor facilities testified to the impor- taining a collection of archeological tance of this type of national park features of interest to visitors, in the experience. 1990s Tsankawi was recognized both By the 1990s, NPS recognized that as an intact cultural landscape that was an undeveloped Tsankawi was a valu- significant because of its unaltered able resource for Bandelier. The 1992 state and an indigenous ancestral site interpretive plan made this quite clear, that remained significant to contem- stating: porary in the area. This new In contrast to the paved trails, full- approach was, in part, the result of an service, multi-media facilities of ethnographic study of the traditional Frijoles Canyon, Tsankawi will not be developed for mass visitation. Instead, use of resources within Bandelier, it will remain a less developed discov- which developed into active consulta- ery site where people can have the tion on the management of these thrill of walking in paths used by pre- historic people. In this quiet, unexca- resources with Pueblos historically vated site it is easy to have a personal associated with indigenous sites with- encounter with the cultural resources, in the monument (Merlan, Panteah, maybe even sense the presence of the former inhabitants. It is an aesthetic and Gonzales 2000). It was also the and emotional experience rather than result of a new effort to study preser- an intellectual one, or has been one in vation issues at Tsankawi by Bandelier the past (NPS 1992). management, the NPS Santa Fe office, During the same period that NPS and the Graduate Program in Historic made the conscious decision not to Preservation at the University of Penn- develop Tsankawi, the site experi- sylvania, which had been carrying out enced an increase in visitation that led technical conservation work for sever- to a number of management problems, al years at Mesa Verde National Park particularly the rapid erosion of the and other NPS sites in the Southwest. prehistoric foot-paths to the top of the Beginning in 1998, Tsankawi became mesa and the uncontrolled explo- the focus of an annual program that

Volume 20 • Number 1 2003 63 brought together park managers, Penn were becoming heavily eroded from professors and students, and members the increased visitation to the mesa of the Cochiti and San Ildefonso (Matero 2000). Consultations Pueblos to determine the appropriate between managers and management of the mesa and under- historically associated indigenous take the technical conservation of its peoples is presently taking place features. Over the course of several throughout much of North America, summer field programs, Penn students but the history of the Tsankawi Mesa joined with Pueblo students to carry stands as an example of how this is out conservation treatments, such as only a recent development in the evo- backfilling the historic footpaths that lution of public lands management.

References Carr, Ethan. 2000. Parks, forests, and . The George Wright Forum 17:2, 16-30. Gleason, Herbert W. 1919. The proposed Park of the Cliff Cities. Unpublished manuscript, Bandelier National Monument Archives. Matero, Frank. 2000. Beyond compliance: Planning heritage preservation for Native American ancestral sites. CRM 23:9, 4-8. Merlan, Thomas, Loren Panteah, and Myron Gonzales. 2000. Maintaining traditions: The importance of neighboring tribes in the effective management of national park resources. CRM 23:9, 9-13. NPS [National Park Service]. Undated. Mission 66 for Bandelier National Monument. Unpublished man- uscript, Vertical File, Bandelier National Monument Library. ———. 1956. Area management study, Bandelier National Monument. Unpublished manuscript, Vertical File, Bandelier National Monument Library. ———. 1977. Final Master Plan: Bandelier National Monument. Santa Fe: National Park Service. ———. 1992. Interpretive Prospectus, Bandelier National Monument New Mexico. Santa Fe: National Park Service. ———. 1995. Development Concept Plans, Frijoles Canyon and Tsankawi, Bandelier National Monument. Santa Fe: National Park Service. Nussbaum, Jesse L., M.R. Tillotson, and Roger W. Toll. 1930. Report on the Bandelier National Monument and proposed Cliff Cities National Park. Unpublished manuscript, Bandelier National Monument Archives. Reed, Erik K. 1948. Letter to the regional director, September 1. File NPS BAND A63, NPS Southwest Office Archives, Santa Fe. Rothman, Hal. 1988. Bandelier National Monument: An Administrative History. Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers no. 14. Santa Fe: National Park Service. Widmer, Edward J. 1962. Memo to the regional director, December 18. Miscellaneous Correspondence Regarding Otowi Section, 1938-1967, Bandelier National Monument Archives.

Michael Kelleher,U.S. Department of State, 5740 Sofia Place, , D.C. 20521-5740; [email protected] K

64 The George Wright FORUM