GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS An Administrative History

CHAPTER X: CULTURAL RESOURCE ISSUES (continued)

Archeological Issues

Humans have utilized the lands that make up Guadalupe Mountains National Park for at least 10,000 years. In prehistoric times, nomadic people hunted game and gathered plant foods available at both low and higher elevations. Until modern ranchers utilized water from drilled wells and the larger springs of the area to irrigate crops, the southern Guadalupes had no permanent settlements or sedentary farmers. However, the archeological evidence of human use of the Guadalupes is rich. [32]

Caves or rockshelters, middens, and open campsites were the most common types of sites found in the southern Guadalupes and many are found in association with roads and trails. Park programs to aid in the protection of wide-spread archeological resources included non-disclosure of site locations, public education about the value and vulnerability of the resources, controlled access to caves, and ranger patrols. Fortunately, most of the archeological sites in the park were not discernible to the untrained observer and, therefore, were not apt to be wantonly damaged or pilfered. [33]

Archeologists began investigating the southern Guadalupes in the 1930s, but park-related surveys did not begin until 1970. In that year Harry J. Shafer of the University of Texas headed a preliminary survey conducted by the Texas Archeological Society. The volunteers visited 150 sites, 139 of which were previously unrecorded. The next year the Society conducted a field school in the vicinity of Pine Spring. Students excavated a terrace southwest of the barn and corral associated with the Houser house. In addition to this excavation, the field school also confirmed an area on the north side of the drainageway from Pine Spring as the site of an army bivouac area. In May 1973 Rex Gerald of the El Paso Centennial Museum made a professional field survey of the Pine Springs campground area and the route of the proposed tramway. The following summer Paul and Susanna Katz of Texas Tech conducted a six-week field school excavation in the Pine Spring campground area, continuing earlier efforts to analyze a site that would be negatively affected by visitor use and park development. [34]

In 1976 the Katzes completed the necessary field work to produce a complete inventory and assessment of archeological sites in the high country of the park, work they performed under a contract with the Park Service. They assessed a total of 85 sites, including previously recorded sites as well as ones identified during their survey. The report, published in 1978, listed 16 sites that the Katzes believed to be eligible for nomination to the National Register. The Katzes also developed specific criteria by which archeological sites could be evaluated to determine eligibility for listing, criteria that the legislative mandates did not make clear. The sites they believed to be eligible for listing were primarily ones that contained multiple middens, but also included three lithic scatters, two single middens, and one cave with a midden. As of 1987, researchers had recorded a total of 299 archeological sites in the park. Although they had recommended that 29 of the sites appeared to be eligible for listing in the National Register, by 1988 Regional historians had made no formal determinations of eligibility of any of the sites. [35]

Since the survey by the Katzes, most archeological resource management has taken the form of clearance surveys prior to prescribed burns or construction. In 1978 the Regional Office sent an archeologist to examine prescribed burn plots as park managers worked to develop a plan for fire management. The next year, prior to construction of the new access road into Dog Canyon, Regional Archeologists Bruce Anderson and Jim Bradford surveyed the area and found one midden mound in the path of the proposed road. They excavated and salvaged the mound and in 1980 published their findings in a report titled "Upper Dog Canyon Archeology." In that document Bradford outlined the precautions that were necessary during construction to protect other cultural resources near the roadway. He also expressed his concern that one of the archeological features of Dog Canyon had recently been damaged, either as a result of road construction or maintenance. He asked park managers to include archeological consultation in development projects as early as possible. Bradford returned to Dog Canyon in 1985 to assess the impact of a proposed expansion of the parking lot. His survey revealed that a midden mound would be directly affected, necessitating changes in the plans for expansion. During that visit Bradford also began to train the park's Resources Management Specialist to conduct small-scale archeological assessments in emergency situations that might occur in the day-to-day operation of the park. [36]

From 1979 to 1982, as development of the trail system took place, archeologists visited the park several times to give clearances before construction began. In some cases planners had to realign trails to avoid unrecognized archeological sites or to avoid creating erosion patterns that would affect archeological sites. [37]

The impact of natural forces such as the freeze-thaw cycle, wind, wildfire, soil erosion, burrowing animals, and grazing ungulates may be as harmful to archeological resources as the impacts of humans. Among the archeological resources, park managers have recognized the particular fragility of rock art. Although sites containing rock art comprise only four percent of the identified sites in the park, they typify the problems associated with managing archeological resources. Mere protection from intentional or unintentional human damage does not mean the resource will be preserved. Rock art, and all archeological resources, become part of the fabric of the land and are affected by the same natural phenomena that affect natural resources. As of 1987, the lack of in-depth research relating to the park's archeological resources had prevented park managers from developing long-term management plans for these cultural resources. [38]

CONTINUE >>>