March  24,  2010  

 
The  Honorable  Robert  Bennett  
The  U.S.  Senate  
Wallace  Bennett  Federal  Building  
125  South  State,  Suite  4225  
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah  84138-­‐1188  
 
Dear  Senator  Bennett:  
 
  Thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  public  land-­‐use  designations  
and  policies  in  San  Juan  County.      My  comments  are  based  on  my  interests  in  and  
long  experience  with  the  archaeological  resources  in  this  part  of  Utah,  and  on  my  
concern  that  they  be  preserved  and  managed  over  the  long  term  for  beneficial  uses  
such  as  research,  public  education,  and  cultural  heritage.        
 
  I've  done  archaeological  field  research  in  the  Four  Corners  area  of  the  
Southwest  for  over  50  years,  including  work  in  San  Juan  County  (Glen  Canyon  area  
1958-­‐1961;  Cedar  Mesa  area  1967-­‐1976  and  2009).    Although  most  of  my  work  
since  the  late  1970s  has  focused  on  southwestern  Colorado  (mostly  in  collaboration  
with  researchers  from  the  Crow  Canyon  Archaeological  Center  in  Cortez),  I've  
continued  to  publish  articles  that  include  information  from  southeastern  Utah;  since  
the  mid-­‐1980s,  I've  also  led  a  number  of  educational  programs  for  the  Crow  Canyon  
Center  that  have  focused  on  sites  in  San  Juan  County.    From  2003  to  2008  I  was  a  
member  of  the  citizens  advisory  committee  for  the  Canyon  of  the  Ancients  National  
Monument  in  Colorado  during  the  preparation  of  its  resource  management  plan,  
and  from  1995  to  1997  I  served  as  president  of  the  Society  for  American  
Archaeology.  
 
  As  I  am  sure  you  are  aware,  San  Juan  County  has  been  home  to  Native  
Americans  for  at  least  12,000  years,  and  after  the  introduction  of  maize  farming  in  
the  last  millennium  BC,  it  supported  a  population  numbering  in  the  multiple  tens  of  
thousands,  peaking  in  the  AD  1200s.    More  recently,  Navajo,  Ute,  and  Southern  
Paiute  people  occupied  the  area  and  have  left  a  variety  of  archaeological  sites.    The  
settlement  and  economic  development  of  the  area  by  Anglo-­‐Europeans  since  the  
late  19th  century  are  also  well  documented  by  the  archaeological  record.  
 
  The  result  of  all  this  history  is  that  San  Juan  County  has  tens  of  thousands  of  
archaeological  sites,  many  of  them  on  federal  and  state  lands.  The  value  of  these  
sites  has  been  recognized  regionally  and  nationally  since  the  1870s  and  this  
evaluation  has  only  grown  over  the  decades.    The  abundant  archaeological  sites  in  
San  Juan  County  collectively  constitute  an  exceptionally  rich  resource  that  has  
supported  and  can  continue  to  support  research,  cultural  heritage,  and  public  
education  and  recreation.    Because  of  the  distinctiveness  and  national  importance  of  
these  resources,  there  are  numerous  stakeholders  based  outside  of  as  well  as  within  
San  Juan  County  who  have  interests  in  how  these  archaeological  resources  are  to  be    
protected  and  managed.    Therefore,  the  proposed  discussions  should  include  
individuals  and  organizations  willing  to  provide  broad-­‐based  perspectives  on  the  
treatment  of  archaeological  resources  in  any  land  use  plan  that  is  forthcoming.    I  
urge  you  to  invite  participation  by  archaeological  societies  and  councils  from  the  
other  Four  Corners  states  as  well  as  from  Utah,  and  it  also  is  important  that  the  
several  Indian  tribes  that  trace  their  cultural  heritage  to  southeastern  Utah  be  
invited  to  participate.  
 
  Your  letter  of  March  3  states  that  you  are  initiating  these  discussions  with  the  
goal  of  developing  "comprehensive  legislation  for  land  use  in  San  Juan  County,  
Utah."    This  is  a  very  broad  objective,  and  any  new  legislation  governing  public  land  
uses  has  the  potential  to  affect  archaeological  resources  for  better  or  worse.    I  have  
high  hopes  that  the  results  of  this  process  will  be  better  protection  of  the  county's  
rich  archaeological  resources  as  well  as  management  policies  that  enable  these  
resources  to  yield  public  benefits  through  sensible  use  for  research,  education,  
recreation,  and  cultural  heritage  purposes.  
 
  My  comments  and  priorities  are  in  two  categories.    First,  I'll  try  to  prioritize  
what  I  think  are  the  main  archaeological  resource  issues  that  need  to  be  considered  
in  any  comprehensive  land  use  plan,  and  second,  I'll  make  some  comments  on  what  
areas  might  be  most  suitable  for  special  land  use  designations,  from  the  standpoint  
of  protecting  and  managing  their  archaeological  resources.    My  comments  are  from  
the  perspective  of  an  advocate  of  archaeological  resource  values;  I  understand  of  
course  that  one  objective  of  the  process  you  have  set  in  motion  is  to  hear  from  
multiple  perspectives  about  the  multiple  values  present  on  the  public  lands  of  San  
Juan  County.  
 
I.  Management  issues  for  archaeological  resources.,  ranked  from  higher  to  lower  
priority  
 
1).  Economic  development  issues  (energy,  minerals,  grazing).      
  Economic  development  is  usually  compatible  with  preserving  the  research  
potential  of  the  archaeological  resources,  provided  there  is  compliance  with  Section  
106  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act.    Exceptions  will  occur  where  
economic  development  is  very  intense  (e.g.,  multiple  closely  spaces  well  pads  and  
access  roads)  so  that  cumulative  impacts  develop  that  affect  sites  previously  
thought  to  have  been  preserved.      
  With  regard  to  the  educational  and  recreational  potential,  the  archaeological  
sites  that  generally  have  the  greatest  appeal  for  this  type  of  use  are  the  ones  that  are  
best  preserved  (i.e.,  have  standing  structures,  rock  art  panels,  large  rubble  mounds,  
etc.)..    Even  though  such  sites  are  a  small  minority  of  the  total  archaeological  
resource  base,  there  must  be  hundreds  if  not  thousands  of  such  sites  in  San  Juan  
county.    The  sites  that  are  well  suited  to  educational  and  recreational  uses  generally  
occur  in  canyon  settings,  or  they  are  large  upland  sites  that  have  easily  interpretable  
masonry  rubble  mounds  and  kiva  depressions.    Some  types  of  economic  
development  may  need  to  be  curtailed  or  relocated  if  the  educational  values  of  such  
sites  are  to  be  preserved.  
  For  sites  with  specially  important  cultural  heritage  values,  it  is  best  to  ask  for  
advice  from  representatives  of  groups  that  consider  particular  sites  or  places  to  be  
important  to  their  cultural  heritage  and  in  some  cases  to  their  religious  practices.    
Sites  having  special  cultural  heritage  values  may  include  shrines,  trails,  and  other  
fairly  subtle  features  in  addition  to  some  habitation  sites,  etc.      
  Since  only  a  modest  percentage  of  the  archaeological  resources  of  San  Juan  
county  have  been  officially  recorded,  most  of  the  potential  conflicts  between  
archaeological  values  and  economic  development  will  be  defined  when  the  Section  
106  process  is  applied  to  areas  and  locations  slated  for  economic  development.  
Given  the  density  of  archaeological  sites  in  many  areas  of  the  county,  it  is  imperative  
that  whatever  land  use  plan  is  established  is  also  accompanied  by  increased  agency  
budgets  for  cultural  resource  management  compliance  activities.  
 
2.  Looting  and  vandalism  of  archaeological  sites.      
  This  has  been  a  pervasive  problem  in  San  Juan  County  for  a  very  long  time.    A  
major  impetus  for  passage  of  the  Antiquities  Act  of  1906  (more  than  100  years  ago!)  
was  to  attempt  to  curtail  the  widespread  digging  in  archaeological  sites  of  the  Four  
Corners  area,  including  SE  Utah.    The  impetus  for  this  initial  wave  of  digging  around  
the  turn  of  the  20th  century  was  to  provide  artifacts  for  a  growing  national  and  
international  market  for  southwestern  artifacts.    This  market  still  exists,  enhanced  
by  easy  access  to  items  offered  over  the  internet.    Today,  sophisticated  looters  often  
target  the  rare  dry  sites  that  have  basketry,  sandals,  and  other  perishable  items.  The  
more  run-­‐of-­‐the-­‐mill  looting  typically  targets  Native  American  graves,  where  whole  
pots  and  other  complete  artifacts  can  sometimes  be  found.  This  type  of  activity  has  
serious  impacts  on  the  research,  educational,  and  cultural  heritage  values  of  the  
sites  that  are  targeted.  
  Any  land  use  plan  that  emerges  from  this  process  should  include  programs  of  
increased  patrol  and  law  enforcement  to  protect  sites,  coupled  with  efforts  to  
increase  community  support  for  curtailing  these  activities.    Volunteer  site  stewards  
drawn  from  San  Juan  county  communities  can  be  very  effective  in  demonstrating  
that  people  who  live  in  the  area  care  about  these  sites.    Local  archaeological  and  
historical  societies  can  also  contribute  to  the  perception  that  archaeological  sites  are  
a  source  of  pride  for  the  San  Juan  County  community  as  a  whole  rather  than  places  
to  be  exploited  for  the  benefit  of  a  few.    New  land  use  legislation  should  include  
funding  for  grants  to  local  groups  and  for  site  steward  supervisors  as  well  as  a  
budget  for  increased  patrols  by  agency  personnel.  
 
3.  Outdoor  recreation  
  Ordinarily,  foot-­‐based  outdoor  recreation  has  little  impact  on  archaeological  
sites,  unless  it  is  accompanied  by  collecting,  digging,  or  acts  of  vandalism  (e.g.,  
shooting  at  or  spray-­‐painting  rock  art  figures;  pushing  down  masonry  walls).      
However,  ORV  use  may  cause  direct  physical  impacts  on  fragile  sites  if  these  
vehicles  run  across  them.    Furthermore,  the  greater  access  provided  by  such  
vehicles  does  make  the  kind  of  looting  and  vandalism  noted  above  easier  for  those  
who  would  wish  to  engage  in  such  activities.    Any  land  use  plan  that  emerges  from  
this  process  should  include  reasonable  controls  on  ORV  use,  (e.g.,  allocating  such  
use  to  designated  trails),  as  well  as  funding  for  a  (preferably  community-­‐based)  
educational  component  that  will  help  ORV  users  and  club  members  recognize  and  
protect  archaeological  sites.      Outdoor  recreationists  who  understand  and  care  
about  the  values  of  archaeological  sites  can  be  very  effective  in  communicating  these  
values  to  others.  
 
II.  Geographic  areas  of  special  importance,  ranked  from  higher  to  lower  priority  
 
1.  The  Cedar  Mesa  region,  from  Comb  Ridge  to  the  western  edge  of  Cedar  Mesa.      
  This  area  does  not  have  the  site  sizes  and  site  density  seen  farther  east  in  the  
county,  but  it  does  have  a  number  of  attributes  that  make  it  important  for  
archaeological  research  and  for  outdoor-­‐recreation-­‐based  educational  visits  to  
archaeological  sites.    The  area  is  especially  rich  in  sites  of  the  Basketmaker  II  period  
(BC  500-­‐AD  500)  as  well  as  sites  of  the  later  Pueblo  periods  (AD  500-­‐1300).    It  is  
important  in  the  history  of  archaeological  research,  starting  with  the  expeditions  of  
the  Wetherills  in  the  1890s.    It  has  world-­‐class  rock  art  resources,  as  well  as  
numerous  well-­‐preserved  small  cliff  dwellings  with  standing  masonry  walls.    The  
canyon-­‐and-­‐mesa  setting  makes  it  very  attractive  for  back-­‐country  hikers  who  are  
also  interested  in  seeing  the  archaeology.  
  Wilderness  designation  for  much  of  this  area  would  serve  both  to  help  
protect  its  archaeological  resources  and  to  maintain  (and  probably  increase)  the  
kind  of  outdoor  recreational/archaeological  education  use  it  now  receives.    If  
wilderness  designation  is  conferred,  it  should  include  substantial  amounts  of  the  
mesa  uplands  as  well  as  the  canyon  systems.      Although  the  best-­‐preserved  and  most  
visible  archaeological  sites  are  generally  in  the  canyons,  the  great  majority  of  the  
region's  archaeological  sites  are  on  the  mesa,  because  that  is  where  the  arable  soils  
are  more  extensive.    The  canyon  sites  are  part  of  the  facilities  occupied  by  dispersed  
communities  that  were  primarily  based  on  the  mesa  itself.  
  From  an  archaeological  standpoint,  whatever  land  use  designations  are  
considered  for  this  area  can  be  evaluated  in  terms  of  how  well  they  would  protect  
the  archaeological  resources  while  providing  access  for  recreation,  education,  
research,  and  cultural  heritage  uses,  and  avoiding  incidents  of  looting  and  
vandalism.    Because  of  the  importance  of  this  area  for  recreational  and  educational  
uses,  some  types  of  economic  development  (e.g.,  for  minerals  and  energy)  may  need  
to  be  curtailed  or  be  done  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  an  unobtrusive  as  possible,  and  
restrictions  on  off-­‐road  vehicle  use  would  certainly  be  appropriate.    Increased  
investment  in  ranger  staffing  and  in  volunteer  site  steward  programs  would  also  be  
appropriate.    If  some  special  designation  is  chosen  for  this  area,  the  enabling  
legislation  or  policy  statement  should  explicitly  designate  the  beneficial  uses  to  be  
permitted  in  the  area,  including  archaeological  research  and  education,  as  well  as  
access  by  descendant  groups  for  cultural  heritage  purposes  such  as  visiting  shrines  
or  ancestral  sites.  
 
2.  Areas  of  eastern  San  Juan  County  that  would  have  supported  significant  
populations  of  farmers.        
  These  are  areas  that  have  fairly  extensive  deposits  of  deep  soils  and  receive  
enough  rainfall  (uplands)  or  runoff  (canyon  systems)  to  have  supported  substantial  
amounts  of  small-­‐scale  subsistence  agriculture  in  the  past.    These  include  both  
upland  areas  (e.g.,  Alkali  Ridge,  Mustang  Mesa,  Squaw  Point)  as  well  as  the  major  
valleys  (e.g.,  Montezuma,  Recapture,  Cottonwood  and  Comb  Washes).      Figure  1  
below  shows  the  density  of  known  archaeological  sites  from  the  Pueblo  III  period  
(AD  1150-­‐1300).    These    sites  of  course  represent  only  the  latest  manifestations  of  
the  intensive  Puebloan  occupation  of  this  area.      This  figure  shows  that  a  portion  of  
eastern  San  Juan  County  is  effectively  a  westward  extension  of  the  area  of  high  site  
density  that  forms  the  basis  for  the  Canyons  of  the  Ancients  National  Monument  in  
neighboring  Colorado.    Figure  2,  below,  shows  just  the  large  community  center  sites  
that  were  occupied  during  the  Pueblo  III  period;  most  of  the  known  sites  that  are  
represented  by  the  dots  in  Figure  1  were  smaller  ones  built  close  to  farm  fields  in  
the  general  area  around  the  community  centers.    Most  of  the  community  center  sites  
shown  in  Fig.  2  were  residential  and  range  from  50  to  325  rooms  in  size.    Some,  
however,  were  primarily  community  gathering  places  marked  by  a  great  kiva,  plaza,  
etc.  
 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________  
 

 
 
Figure  1.    Distribution  of  known  Pueblo  III  period  (AD  1150-­‐1300)  sites  in  the  
Northern  San  Juan  region.    The  second  grouping  from  the  left  covers  the  eastern  
part  of  San  Juan  County.    The  western  edge  of  this  grouping  is  at  Comb  Ridge  and  the  
eastern  edge  is  approximately  at  the  Utah-­‐Colorado  line.    The  sites  shown  on  this  
map  represent  only  the  later  part  of  the  population  of  known  sites,  and  that  
population  of  known  sites  depends  on  the  areas  that  have  been  surveyed,  often  in  
conjunction  with  energy  development  projects.    The  site  density  shown  here  is  
probably  a  reasonably  good  guide  to  the  actual  density  of  the  much  larger  total  
population  of  Pueblo  III  sites.    (From  Glowacki,  Donna.    The  Social  Landscape  of  
Depopulation:  The  Northern  San  Juan,  A.D.  1150-­‐1300.    Unpublished  Ph.D.  
dissertation,  Department  of  Anthropology,  Arizona  State  University,  Tempe,  AZ,  
2006).  
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
 
 

 
 
Fig.  2.    Distribution  of  large  Pueblo  III  period  community  center  sites  in  the  
Northern  San  Juan  region.    The  second  site  group  from  the  left  extends  from  Comb  
Ridge  on  the  west  to  approximately  the  Utah-­‐Colorado  state  line  on  the  east.    The  
community  center  sites  range  in  size  from  an  estimated  50  rooms  to  over  200  
rooms.    These  would  have  been  central  sites  for  dispersed  communities  composed  
of  many  smaller  farmsteads  and  hamlets.  (From  Glowacki,  Donna.    The  Social  
Landscape  of  Depopulation:  The  Northern  San  Juan,  A.D.  1150-­‐1300.    Unpublished  
Ph.D.  dissertation,  Department  of  Anthropology,  Arizona  State  University,  Tempe,  
AZ,  2006).  
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________  
 
  The  areas  of  high  site  density  shown  in  these  two  figures  supported  far  larger  
populations  at  some  periods  of  the  past  than  did  any  of  the  other  areas  of  San  Juan  
County,  including  Cedar  Mesa.    This  high-­‐site-­‐density  portion  of  eastern  San  Juan  
County  has  a  number  of  rock  art  panels,  sites  with  towers  or  other  standing  walls,  
and  large  easily  interpreted  masonry  rubble  mounds,  that  are  useful  for  
archaeological  education.    However,  this  area  does  not  seem  to  me  to  have  all  the  
qualities  that  make  the  Cedar  Mesa-­‐Comb  Ridge  area  a  high  priority  focus  for  
combined  archaeological  research,  education  and  outdoor  recreation  uses.      The  
research  potential  of  the  high-­‐site-­‐density  portion  of  eastern  San  Juan  county  is  
tremendous,  however.      I  cannot  speak    to  its  value  for  cultural  heritage,  except  to  
say  that  if  Pueblo  groups  trace  their  ancestry  to  archaeological  sites  in  San  Juan  
County,  it  is  likely  that  many  of  these  sites  are  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  county,  
because  that  is  where  the  greatest  prehistoric  populations  were.  
 
  It  seems  to  me  that  some  type  of  special  designation-­‐-­‐perhaps  a  National  
Conservation  Area-­‐-­‐should  be  considered  to  recognize  the  outstanding  
archaeological  values  of  the  high  site  density  portion  of  eastern  San  Juan  County.  
Presumably  this  would  permit  multiple  uses  of  the  area,  but  would  provide  greater  
protection  for  the  archaeological  sites.    Deciding  on  the  boundaries  of  such  a  unit  
would  require  pulling  together  relevant  site  records  and  information-­‐-­‐not  a  small  
task.    Enabling  legislation  for  such  an  area  should  specifically  designate  that  
research,  education,  and  cultural  heritage  uses  are  among  those  for  which  the  sites  
are  being  protected.      Establishment  of  such  an  area  should  be  accompanied  by  
increased  staffing  and  budget  for  cultural  resource  management.  
 
 
3.  The  remainder  of  San  Juan  County.      
  I  don't  feel  I  have  a  comprehensive  enough  understanding  of  the  kinds  and  
distributions  of  archaeological  resources  in  the  remaining  areas  of  the  county  to  
make  any  concrete  recommendations.      Locales  that  might  be  looked  as  perhaps  
needing  special  attention  include  the  old  Lake  Pahgarit  and  Lake  Canyon  down  to  
Lake  Powell,  as  well  as  Moqui  canyon  from  the  Lake  Powell  arm  to  the  road  that  
now  comes  down  the  sand-­‐slide  into  the  canyon.    There  also  is  quite  a  concentration  
of  sites  near  the  base  of  the  Windgate  Mesa,  some  with  standing  walls.    Certain  areas  
in  the  northern  portion  of  the  county  also  come  to  mind  as  probably  needing  to  be  
considered  for  special  designation  or  for  enhanced  protection  under  existing  
multiple  use  practice.    These  might  include  Hammond  Canyon,  and  the  east-­‐facing  
slope  between  upper  Cottonwood  Canyon  and  the  Kigalia  Ranger  Station,  where  
there  is  a  high  density  of  sites.    Certainly  Beef  Basin  and  Fable  Valley,  as  well  as  
Woodenshoe  Canyon  and  portions  of  the  Dark  Canyon  Plateau  should  be  reviewed.      
 
  Again,  if  this  is  to  be  a  comprehensive  land  use  planning  process,  the  group  
that  is  assembled  probably  needs  to  have  a  more  systematic  review  of  the  nature  
and  distribution  of  the  archaeological  record  in  the  county  than  I  can  provide  in  a  
letter  written  on  the  basis  of  a  subjective  recall  of  my  own  personal  knowledge  of  SE  
Utah  archaeology.  
 
  In  conclusion,  thank  you  again  for  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  these  
important  issues  and  my  apologies  for  going  on  at  such  length.    I  hope  these  
comments  can  make  a  useful  contribution  to  the  discussions  you  are  initiating.    I  
believe  it  will  be  necessary  for  these  discussions  to  take  into  account  the  effects  on  
San  Juan  County's  great  wealth  of  archaeological  resources  with  regard  to  most  if  
not  all  options  for  land  use  designation  and  management.  
 
Sincerely,  
 
 
William  D.  Lipe  
Professor  Emeritus  of  Anthropology   Member  of  the  Board  of  Directors  
Washington  State  University     Crow  Canyon  Archaeological  Center