Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:15 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

ADMINISTRATIVE

HISTORY:

CANYON DE CHELLY NATIONAL

MONUMENT

ARIZONA

by

David M. Brugge

Raymond Wilson

January 1976

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

TABLE OF CONTENTS

cach/adhi/adhi.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhit.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:26 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER

PREFACE

CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 1: THE EARLY YEARS TO 1919

CHAPTER 2: THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL MONUMENT, 1919-1931

CHAPTER 3: CHANGES IN THE MONUMENT BOUNDARIES

CHAPTER 4: EARLY DEVELOPMENT, 1931-1941

CHAPTER 5: THE LEAN YEARS, 1941-1945

CHAPTER 6: MEREDITH GUILLET AND THE NAVAJOS, 1945-1950

CHAPTER 7: THE LULL, 1950-1957

CHAPTER 8: DEVELOPMENT AND NAVAJO TROUBLES, 1958-1962

CHAPTER 9: THE RETURN OF GUILLET, 1963-1966

CHAPTER 10: SONIC BOOMS AND PEOPLE PROBLEMS, 1966-1974

CHAPTER 11: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: CUSTODIANS AND SUPERINTENDENTS, 1932-1974

APPENDIX 2: TRAVEL STATISTICS, 1931-1966

APPENDIX 3: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS LET SINCE 1960

APPENDIX 4: ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD WORK, 1902-1974

APPENDIX 5: HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY, CANYON DE CHELLY, 1300-1960

APPENDIX 6: ACT AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF CANYON DE CHELLY NM

APPENDIX 7: PROCLAMATIONS ESTABLISHING CANYON DE CHELLY NM

APPENDIX 8: FEDERAL REGULATIONS: CANYON DE CHELLY NM
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhit.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:26 PM]

APPENDIX 9: NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, 1925 AND 1930

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAPS

1: THE REGION

2: THE MONUMENT

3: HEADQUARTERS AREA BOUNDARY

RECOMMENDED: Superintendent, Canyon de Chelly

APPROVED: General Superintendent, Navajo Lands Group

This administrative history is a pilot document, based largely on research of an

archival nature, whereas the area itself has a history based primarily on verbal

understandings. Consequently, additional input can be expected that may alter the

report. To facilitate the collection of such information, a single depository will

be maintained at the library at the Canyon de Chelly National Monument

headquarters. Submissions should be sent to that location, identified as to source,

date, etc.

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service NPS 577

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Table of Contents)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhit.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:26 PM]

cach/adhi/adhit.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Preface)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi0.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:29 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

PREFACE

The need for an administrative history of Canyon de Chelly National Monument has been

recognized for several years. As early as Meredith Guillet's first incumbency as

superintendent in the 1940s, if not before, sporadic work was done to compile materials that

could be used for this purpose. The unique character of this monument, which remains in the

ownership of the Navajo Nation while park matters are administered by the National Park

Service, has created an interrelated series of problems that have arisen as the canyon

residents and the Park Service personnel work to adapt to each other's presence and to the

ever-increasing stream of visitors attracted by the archeology, Indians, and exceptional

scenery. The story of Navajo-Park Service relations forms a unifying theme for all the

diverse events that have influenced the development of the area as a national monument.

This study originated in a new Park Service master-plan project that will attempt to gather

and evaluate the viewpoints of all the peoples and agencies interested in the area. Active

research did not begin until June 1974 when the senior author was able to spend 3 weeks

searching for source materials in the National Archives. Further work was not possible until

late summer when the junior author was employed to assist with the research and writing.

Sources were scattered in several depositories and offices. The requirements of other duties

limited to some degree the thoroughness with which various collections could be researched,

and this work should not be considered definitive. Several of the questions raised herein may

be resolved by further work in collections already utilized. The following list indicates

abbreviations used in the text citations and reveals to some extent the amount of attention we

were able to give the various collections.

Collection Abbreviation Utilized

Southwestern National Monuments

Monthly Reports, Arizona

Archeological Center,

Tucson, Arizona

SWMR fully

National Archives, Record Group 75,

Office of Indian Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

NA, RG 75, OIA partially

National Archives, Record Croup 79,

NPS, National Monuments,

Canyon de Chelly,

Washington, D.C.

NA, RG 79, NPS C de C fully

Canyon de Chelly National Monument files,

Chinle, Arizona

C de C partially

Denver Federal Records Center, NPS,

Canyon de Chelly,

Denver, Colorado

DFRC partially

Arlington Federal Records Center,

NPS, Canyon de Chelly,

AFRC partially
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Preface)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi0.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:29 PM]

Arlington, Virginia

National Archives, Record Group 48,

Department of The Interior,

Washington, D.C.

NA, RG 48, ID slightly

Fort Defiance Letterbooks,

extract copies at Navajo Tribal

Research Section (originals in

Bell Federal Records Center,

Bell, California).

FD— slightly

Historical Files, Hubbell Trading Post

National Historic Site,

Ganado, Arizona

---- partially

Vivian Archives, Chaco Center, NPS,

Albuquerque, New Mexico

CA fully

Denver Service Center, files,

Denver, Colorado

DSC slightly

Our data come primarily from the above sources. Scattered odds and ends were available in

published form and a number of individuals were willing to assist us with information in

short interviews. These include Dr. Edward B. Danson of the Museum of Northern Arizona;

Dr. David L. De Harport of Denver, Colorado; Dr. Stephen C. Jett of the University of

California at Davis; Robert W. Young of the University of New Mexico; Martin A. Link,

Navajo Tribal Museum; Verner Mayes, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dilkon, Arizona; George

W. Miller and Charlie R. Steen of Santa Fe; and Sam Day III of the Navajo tribe. In addition,

John A. Aubuchon, Meredith Guillet, Ora Jo Puckett, William G. Binnewies, Chauncey

Neboyia, Robert L. Morris, Clarence Gorman, and Herbert Yazhe—all of whom are current

or former Park Service employees at Canyon de Chelly—deserve special consideration.

Several Navajo residents of the area talked with the senior author, and though they added

little in the way of specific data, they enabled us to gain a much better insight into their

problems.

Many people supplied information through correspondence at our request, sometimes at the

expense of considerable time and effort. Special recognition for assistance of this sort should

go to Ora Jo Puckett, whose familiarity with the Canyon de Chelly files made our work much

easier. Others deserving special mention are Carol Holleuffer, Dr. Mary Shepardson, Dr.

Charlotte J. Frisbie, Marcella Sherfy, Gay Ann Mayes, and James T. Rock.

For aid in finding materials in various collections we are indebted to J. Lee Correll of the

Navajo Tribal Research Section, Judy R. Reis of the Arizona Archeological Center, Maria

Joy and others at the National Archives, and Linda Cochran at the Federal Records Center in

Denver.

All of the people at the Chaco Center, where we did most of the compilation of data, should

be mentioned for their favors great and small, from those who merely shared their space with

us to Dorothy Cassidy, Alden C. Hayes, Natalie Patterson, Thomas Mathews, Delmar

Petterson, and Dr. Robert C. Lister, who helped with many kinds of problems. Special

commendation is extended to Dr. Richard N. Ellis of the History Department at the

University of New Mexico for recommending the junior author to assist in this project.

The manuscript has been critically read by Charles Voll, Bill Jones, Linda Greene, and

William Germeraad, all of whom offered valuable suggestions. The authors take full

responsibility, however, for all interpretation and errors. Final typing of the manuscript was
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Preface)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi0.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:29 PM]

done by Barbara Hudson. Last, but not least, special thanks go to Bill Jones of the Denver

Service Center, who, as head of the current master plan team, has made it all possible.

DMB

RW

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1974

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi0.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi1.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:39 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 1:

THE EARLY YEARS TO 1919

The name Chelly, under the form Chegui, first appeared in the 1770s on maps drawn by Don

Bernardo de Miera y Pacheco. The most readily available is his map of 1778, which has been

published in color. [1] These maps show the headwaters of the Chinle Wash, erroneously

depicted as draining into the Moenkopi Wash, but otherwise located in the proper relation to

the Hopi villages, Zuni, and other clearly identifiable places. Surrounding the headwaters of

the stream are little mesas surmounted by hoganlike structures. We do not know whether Don

Bernardo ever visited the canyons (his errors suggest that he did not) or whether he relied

solely upon the reports of others who had penetrated the area, perhaps as members of the

poorly documented military operations during the war of 1774-75 that ended over half a

century of peace between the Spaniards and Navajos. [2] In any case, the name Chelly with

various spellings and used with reference to the canyon, the mountain range to the east, and

nearby mesas, appears occasionally on documents from that time on. In 1786 Chelli was

listed as one of the five "divisions" of the Navajo tribe, [3] while a 1796 list of ten Navajo

settlements includes Chelle. [4] We do not know just how long Navajos had occupied the de

Chelly area prior to these accounts nor exactly when the first Spaniards visited the area. The

first mention of Spanish penetration of the canyons in extant documents is by Narbona during

the war of 1804-5, [5] a campaign generally considered to have caused the Massacre Cave

battle. While troops repeatedly passed the mouth of the canyons in later wars, actual entry

into the canyons themselves is reported only occasionally. Many of the early Spanish and

Mexican operations are so poorly documented that invasions cannot be entirely ruled out.

The first recorded Anglo-American entry into the canyons was that of the Walker expedition

of 1847, which marched about 6 miles up the canyon. [6] The earliest description and

illustration of the ruins appeared in Simpson's journal and Kern's drawings as a result of

Washington's 1849 expedition. [7] Henry L. Dodge, accompanied by Navajo guides in 1853,

was probably the first Anglo-American to traverse the full length of the canyon. [8] The

earliest known license to trade at Cheye was granted in 1854 to Agustin Lacome, an itinerant

trader with permission to conduct business in several localities. [9]

The first scientific expedition to enter the canyons was a part of the Hayden geological survey

in the 1870s. A photographer with the survey, F. H. O'Sullivan, photographed White House

in 1873 and the picture was subsequently published—backwards unfortunately. [10]

Scientific investigation of the ruins did not begin until the next decade. James Stevenson

visited the canyons in 1882, recording 46 sites and giving Canyon del Muerto its name, using

the form "Canon de los Muertos." [11] Cosmos Mindeleff continued the work the following

year, increasing the number of known sites to 134 and producing a map. [12] Mindeleff's

work resulted in a detailed report. [13]

Secondary sources suggest that permanent trading at Chinle began in a tent store established

about 1882 by a Spanish-American, known today only by his Navajo name of Nakai Yazhi.

[14] Van Valkenburgh indicates that several other traders located at Chinle in the 1880s, but

the earliest documentation found thus far dates from 1885 when C. N. Cotton bought J. L.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi1.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:39 PM]

Hubbell's interest in a post there. [15]

The earliest visit by a journalist was probably that of J. H. Beadle in 1871, who subsequently

published a popular account in book form in 1873. [16] In 1890 F. F. Bickford discussed the

area in a magazine article. [17] Visitation by sightseers was soon to follow, resulting in

looting of the ruins and rock shelters for artifacts for private collections and for sale to

museums.

The first recorded attempt by the Federal Government to protect the antiquities of the canyons

was made in 1903. In April Professor Henry Mason Baum, president of the Records of the

Past Exploration Society, wrote the Department of the Interior to report that he had visited

Canyon de Chelly the preceding summer. He felt that the scenic values of the canyon rivaled

the Grand Canyon, but was disturbed by the vandalism of the ruins by relic collectors, some

of whom were digging for "commercial purposes." Because the Navajo agent was stationed

too far from the ruins to give them protection, he recommended that "Mr. Day," the trader at

Chinle, be appointed custodian of the ruins. [18] As a result of this communication, Charles

L. Day was appointed custodian of the ruins by G. W. Hayzlett, Navajo agent at Fort

Defiance. Day received an annual salary of $120 and was vested with authority to arrest

violators. [19] Despite Baum's recommendation, Charles Day may not have been the best

possible choice for this position. By early fall of the same year it was reported that he and his

father, Samuel Day, had collected a large amount of "plunder" from the cliff dwellings,

which the elder Day sold to Stewart Culin of the Brooklyn Museum. [20] A much later report

suggests that not only the Days, but Richard Wetherill as well, had removed mummies from

ruins in or near the canyons. [21]

Charles Day was not relieved of his post, because the following year he was still reporting to

the agent in his capacity as custodian, but he may well have been reprimanded. In any case,

he began dutifully reporting finds in the canyons and, in compliance with instructions,

shipping them to the U. S. National Museum. He was also engaged in guiding visitors into

the canyons. [22]

The Day family sold their trading post at Chinle in 1905, moving to Cienega Amarilla,

present-day St. Michaels, Arizona. [23] The position of custodian seems to have lapsed,

although the Indian Service continued to exercise jurisdiction. The Antiquities Act was

passed June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. L. 225). In a report on the preservation of antiquities, submitted

in 1909, the Navajo agent referred specifically to the ruins of Canyon de Chelly, among

others, and stated that for some time the Government farmers stationed at various points on

the reservation had been designated custodians of the ruins nearby. He reported that persons

who intended to "examine closely these ruins" were required to exhibit the proper permit and

even "mere sightseers" had to obtain a permit from his office, at which time they were

informed of the regulations protecting the ruins. He noted that there was an increase each

year in the number of "tourists and curiosity seekers" who came into the area. [24]

Publicity in the form of popular accounts, such as Charles L. Lummis's "The Swallow's-Nest

People," [25] undoubtedly stimulated visitation. Lummis's visit appears to have been made

with guides supplied by J. L. Hubbell, who was interested in promoting the tourist trade. By

1915 his two-story trading post with accommodations for tourists was in operation at Chinle.

[26]

The Indian Service found that protection of the ruins entailed problems beyond the mere

regulation of visitors. By 1917 there were threats of natural erosion. [27] Peter Paquette, then

agent, investigated and confirmed a report that White House was endangered by the wash. He

submitted an estimate of $1,000 for its protection. [28] There is no indication that the Indian

Service was able to provide funds for this purpose, however. In 1919 Herbert W. Gleason
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi1.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:39 PM]

repeated an earlier recommendation that the canyon be made a national monument, but did

not identify the originator of the proposal. [29] There was apparently no immediate follow-up

on the idea, and ultimately the influence of those involved in the tourist industry would be

required to stimulate concerted Government action.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi1.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:49 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2:

THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL MONUMENT, 1919-1931

Although the existence of Canyon de Chelly had been known by Anglo-Americans since at

least 1847 and National Park Service interest in its subsequent development was long

standing, it was not until after the Gleason report of 1919 that serious consideration was

given to establishing it as a national monument. Four years passed with little or no action

being taken. In 1923 Hunter Clarkson, who operated transportation services in the Southwest

in cooperation with the Santa Fe Railway, wrote Assistant Director of the National Park

Service Arno B. Cammerer concerning such a proposal. Clarkson had previously discussed

that matter with National Park Service Director Stephen T. Mather. An investigation was then

made by Cammerer, and findings indicated that "a high degree of erosion" was setting in at

several of the archeological ruins. [1] Moreover, numerous reports were being circulated

regarding vandalism and the destruction of ruins by visitors to the area. [2]

As a result, Cammerer wrote to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Charles H. Burke on

September 17, 1924, about the possibilities of establishing a national monument there; he

cited the Antiquities Act in stressing the need to protect the ruins and offered Park Service

assistance if desired. [3] The Bureau of Indian Affairs requested that H. J. Hagerman,

commissioner of the Navajo tribe, consult with the Navajos about the proposal. Hagerman's

first reports indicated unfavorable reactions from the Indians and traders. "The Canon de

Chelly and the contiguous canons appear to be," wrote Hagerman, "looked upon by the

Indians more or less as sacred ground. . . ." Trader resistance appeared to be due to fear of

the loss of their "special or privileged position." [4] It was decided to drop the matter until

the Navajo Tribal Council met at the Charles H. Burke School at Fort Wingate, New Mexico,

on July 7-8, 1925. [5]

It was not until the second day of the council that the topic of Canyon de Chelly came up.

Hagerman addressed the group, stating that the Government wanted to establish a national

monument there "in order to preserve the ruins and to prevent depradations from tourists and

outside people, and at the same time permitting it to be visited. . . . He compared it to other

national monuments, such as Inscription Rock, and declared that

in no way would it interfere with the grazing rights of the Indians or other

residents there, but rather would protect them in their rights. The title would not

be taken away in any way from the Indians or their treaty rights interfered with,

but it would be merely set aside and protected as a monument—a national park

—so that the ruins would be preserved and outsiders would be prevented from

going in and looting the ruins.

The chairman of the council, Henry Chee Dodge, inquired if the Government would have

someone stationed there, if visitors would be charged, and if the Government would put in

new roads. Hagerman assured the Indians that the Government man and roads would not

infringe on Indian rights and that visitors would probably not be charged. [6]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:49 PM]

After fully discussing the matter, the tribal council unanimously agreed to accept the

establishment of a national monument at Canyon de Chelly "providing the grazing and other

rights of the Indians are in no way interfered with." Moreover, the Indians around Chinle

wanted the exclusive right to furnish horses for tourists. In addition they stipulated that

should a road be built to the monument, no tribal funds would be expended for that purpose

or for any other park purpose. [7] On July 11 Hagerman reported these results to his superiors

in Washington. [8]

Both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Park Service viewed the tribal council

vote with enthusiasm. Letters exchanged by the two governmental agencies indicated their

desire to aid each other in any way possible. [9]

Shortly afterwards, the National Park Service prepared a draft for a Presidential proclamation

and submitted it to Hagerman. [10] Commissioner Burke advised Hagerman to read it over

and then submit it to the tribal council for their approval. [11] Hagerman reported that the

boundary question needed to be restudied, because there were inaccuracies in the existing

boundary surveys and maps. The Park Service heeded this advice and postponed its efforts to

get the proclamation signed. Because of insufficient knowledge about the area, the granting

of national monument status to Canyon de Chelly was delayed for 6 years. [12]

It was not until 1929 that a report submitted by Dr. A. V. Kidder and Earl H. Morris, two

noted archeologists working for the Carnegie Institute, revived the issue. [13] They wrote that

Canyons de Chelly and del Muerto, Arizona, constitute a center of unique

importance in the study of the prehistoric peoples of the Southwest. All

authorities agree that in the Southwest there is to be obtained a record of the

cultural progress of a group of mankind from savage nomadism to relatively

advanced stage of civilization with an unbroken sequence and completeness of

detail, that in so far as is known, can not be duplicated in any other part of the

world. [14]

They also commented on the need to protect the ruins from erosion and vandalism.

Because of the importance of these findings, the president of the Carnegie Institute, Dr. John

C. Merriam, transmitted the report to Director Horace M. Albright, National Park Service, on

March 12, 1929. [15] A series of letters exchanged between Merriam and Albright discuss

the possibilities and problems of creating the monument. The ultimate aim was to overcome

the difficulties of 1925. Therefore, Morris and W. B. Lewis were assigned to determine

definite boundaries. [16] After the submission of surveys and maps, the Park Service again

drafted a Presidential proclamation.

This draft was sent to the BIA and on April 23 Commissioner Burke stated that "no provision

is made for the protection of the grazing and other rights of the Navajo Indians," which had

been agreed to in 1925. In addition, because of a law passed by Congress on March 3, 1927

(44 Stat. 1347), an act of Congress was now required for changes in the boundaries of Indian

reservations. [17]

Several months passed before any definite action was taken. A bill was written by the Park

Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that corrected the omissions and took into

consideration the fact that the land involved was on the Navajo treaty reservation.

Commissioner of Indian Affairs Charles J. Rhoads, who had replaced Burke, advised that the

new text be submitted to the Navajo Tribal Council because of the revision of the boundary

description. [18]

Prior to the council meeting Hagerman examined the bill. Here marked that it appeared to be
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:49 PM]

more than adequate and predicted that "if my understanding is correct and it is clear that the

Indians lose no rights or interest which they now have in the lands themselves, I think there

will be no difficulty in securing the consent of the coming Tribal Council. . . ." Rhoads,

pleased with this report, once again assured Hagerman that "the proposed legislation, if

enacted, will not in any way affect their title to the lands involved," and he directed

Hagerman to stress this to the council. [19]

The Navajo Tribal Council convened on July 7 and 8, 1930, at Fort Wingate. Hagerman

addressed the council explaining the proposed bill. He reminded them that previous councils

had accepted similar bills but due to technical problems they were not acted upon. [20] This

present bill, Hagerman opined, "is better than any bill which has been presented to you

before." He traced its history and discussed the jurisdiction to be exercised by the National

Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Park Service was to have authority over

the ruins and the Bureau over the Indian lands. In addition, Hagerman showed them a map of

the monument area and assured the council that their rights were protected. [21]

Specifically citing Section 2 of the draft of the bill on this matter, Hagerman read

That nothing herein shall be construed as in any way impairing the right, title,

and interest, of the Navajo Tribe of Indians which they now have and hold to all

lands and minerals, including oil and gas and the surface use of such lands for

agricultural, grazing and other purposes, except as hereinafter defined, and the

said tribe of Indians shall be and is hereby granted the preferential right, under

regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior of furnishing riding

animals for the use of visitors of the monument.

He then read Section 3 relating to Park Service jurisdiction.

That the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of Interior, is

hereby charged with the administration of the area of said monument, so far as it

applies to the care, maintenance, preservation and restoration of the prehistoric

ruins or other features of scientific or historical interest within the area, and shall

have the right to construct upon the lands such roads, trails or other structures or

improvements as may be necessary in connection with the administration and

protection of the monument, and also the right to provide facilities of any nature

whatsoever required for the care and accommodation of visitors to the

monument. [22]

Hagerman did not read the boundary description, but stated

It starts in the neighborhood of Chinle and takes in the Canyon de Chelly and the

Monument Canyon and the Canyon del Muerto, up to the edges of the cliffs, so

the canyons and the cliff dwellings are included in the area proposed. Well, you

will have to take our word for it that this description is all right because it is

technical and hard to understand. . . . [23]

The first Navajo delegate to speak was Todechenie Chescille, [24] alternate from the

Southern Navajo Jurisdiction. He was concerned about a trader in the area abusing his

privileges and renting horses to visitors. He also feared that the Indians would have to move

out of the canyon. Hagerman assured him that the trader's actions would be investigated, that

Indians would have the exclusive right to rent horses if the bill passed, and that the Indians

would not be removed from the canyon. [25]

Albert G. ("Chic") Sandoval, delegate from the Southern Navajo Jurisdiction, suggested that

the Navajos discuss the matter "outside, at our recess time." Hagerman replied that if the
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:49 PM]

council so desired it was fine with him. Jacob C. Morgan however, delegate from the

Northern Navajo Jurisdiction, declared "that the bill as read to us is plain enough" and moved

that a resolution accepting the proposal be adopted. The resolution, prepared by Hagerman

and Rhoads, read as follows:

Resolved: that the Navajo Tribal Council assembled at Fort Wingate on July 8,

1930, approves the following bill to authorize the President of the United States

to establish the Canyon de Chelly National Monument within the Navajo Indian

Reservation, Arizona.

The vote was 16 for, 1 against, and 3 abstentions. Sandoval was among those not voting. [26]

It was now up to Congress to accept or reject the establishment of Canyon de Chelly National

Monument.

Before the bill was introduced in Congress, however, local opposition to the bill arose among

the Navajos of the canyon area. Shortly after the council meeting, Sandoval wrote Hagerman

requesting further information regarding the proposal. [27] Hagerman replied by reiterating

most of the statements made to the tribal council. Of particular interest are his statements on

roads and trails. He wrote that the Park Service would have charge of roads and trails but no

road would be built in the canyon bottom. He felt that creation of the monument would

undoubtedly result in the construction of a better road from Fort Defiance or Ganado to

Chinle. He also promised that the wishes of the Indian Office and the Navajos would be

considered when appointing a custodian. [28] It seems likely that he also enclosed a map of

the proposed monument boundaries with this letter.

On September 8 the local people addressed a petition to John G. Hunter, superintendent of

the Southern Navajo Jurisdiction, stating as follows:

The Navajo understood at the Tribal Council that the proposed National

Monument in Canyon de Chelly was to extend from rim to rim not including

anything on top of the rim. This they agree to. They now understand that the bill

before Congress includes side canyons and quite a bit of territory on top of the

rim. This they object to, as they fear that grazing and taking of wood will be

forbidden in that territory.

The /sic/ also think that a part of the money taken as admission fees to the

Monument should go to the tribal fund.

The signers of this petition wish your influence in keeping the bill from passing

as it now stands.

Sandoval's signature was first, followed by the signatures or thumb-prints of another 80 tribal

members, most of them men, but including a few women. [29] Hunter forwarded the petition

to Hagerman, saying he thought he could overcome the Navajo objections to the monument,

but asking for any specific information that Hagerman could send him regarding the Park

Service's plans for the area. [30]

Hagerman thought that Leon H. ("Cozy") McSparron and Hartley T. Seymour, traders at

Chinle, were behind the petition, because he had recently received complaints about the

excessive prices charged tourists who rented rooms from them. Among the visitors who had

complained was "a young lady named Miss Laura Gilpin." Hagerman felt that Seymour, the

former son-in-law of prominent Gallup businessman C. N. Cotton, was principally to blame.

He did not believe that the Navajos would have thought of the issue of lands outside the

canyon without assistance. [31]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:49 PM]

Hunter, in compliance with Hagerman's requests, met with the Navajos at Chinle on October

8. He explained the outside boundary and said that some territory was needed beyond the

rims, but "the rights now enjoyed by the Navajos would not be impaired. . ." [32] A new

petition was drawn up by which the local people "fully and wholeheartedly" concurred in the

action taken by the tribal council. This petition was signed or thumbprinted by 152 Navajos.

[33] Meanwhile Hunter reported that he found no evidence that the traders had taken part in

the drafting of the first petition. [34]

J. Henry Scattergood wrote Hagerman advising him that the Washington office viewed the

monument proposal as beneficial to the Navajos, providing them with added income from

guiding tourists, renting horses to visitors, and selling more handicrafts. He suggested that

these advantages be pointed out to the Indians. [35] Because his ideas were written after the

signing of the second petition, it does not seem likely that they were ever relayed to the local

community. Hagerman's suspicions regarding the influence of the traders was not abated by

Hunter's report, but the securing of local acceptance of the monument proposal was all that

was necessary to clear the way. [36]

A bill authorizing the President to establish the monument was first introduced in the Senate

on January 7, 1931, by Senator Carl Hayden of Arizona (S.5586, 71st Cong., 3d sess.). After

being read twice it was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On January 28 the

committee recommended "that the bill do pass without amendment." The bill had the support

of the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and the Director of the

National Park Service; their letters of recommendation were attached to the committee report

(SR 1395, 71st Cong., 3d sess.). After the report was read, however, action was indefinitely

postponed on February 2.

Another bill had been introduced in the House of Representatives by Lewis W. Douglas of

Arizona on January 9 (HR 15987, 71st Cong., 3d sess.). It was referred to the Committee on

Indian Affairs and favorably reported on January 27 (HR 2329, 71st Cong., 3d sess.). The

next day, January 28, the House passed the bill. It was then sent to the Senate and that august

body passed it on February 10. The act authorizing the President to establish the monument

was signed by Herbert Hoover on February 14. [37]

On April 1, President Hoover issued a proclamation for the creation of Canyon de Chelly

National Monument. He cited the approval of the Navajo Tribal Council and the Congress.

Furthermore, he believed that "the public interest would be promoted" and that monument

status would preserve the ruins for future archeological interest and activities. Nothing was

said in the proclamation, however, about the rights and privileges of the Navajos. [38]

This brought an immediate response from Hagerman. He wrote Associate Director Cammerer

of the Park Service:

I am a little surprised that the President's proclamation did not specifically state

that the status of the lands as far as ownership and control by the Indians, was

not changed by the establishment of the monument, but I presume that that is

thoroughly understood, as that was of course the basis upon which the matter was

accepted by the Indians. May I ask you if I am correct in this? [39]

Director Albright, answering Hagerman, replied that

as far as ownership and control by the Indians are concerned /it/ was not changed

by the establishment of the monument. It was considered only necessary to have

the proclamation refer to the resolution adopted by the Navajo Tribal Council

which clearly protects the Indians in the ownership of their lands. [40]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2.htm[11/6/2012 2:46:49 PM]

Thus, Canyon de Chelly National Monument was established. It includes three major

canyons: Canyon de Chelly, approximately 27 miles long; Canyon del Muerto, about 18 miles

long; and Monument Canyon, around 10 miles in length. The entire area is about 83,840 acres

or 131 square miles. [41]

Canyon de Chelly National Monument has a unique position among areas controlled by the

National Park Service. It is the only monument that the Park Service does not own,

jurisdiction being based solely on Section 3 of the Congressional act that charges the Service

with administration of the ruins and other features of scientific and historical interest. The

Service also has rights to construct roads and trails and provide visitation facilities.

The Navajos, on the other hand, were promised that they would lose no rights whatever and

gained one privilege—that of furnishing horses to visitors. In the future the rights and duties

of the National Park Service would become more precisely established by administrative

needs and by both formal and informal agreements with the local Navajos and various

Government agencies.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi2.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3:

CHANGES IN THE MONUMENT BOUNDARIES

Not long after the original establishment of the monument, an error in the boundary

description was noted. Range 5 West had been omitted, throwing off the locations along the

east-west axis and leaving most of the side canyons especially Canyon del Muerto and

Monument Canyon, largely outside the monument. [1] In order to correct this situation and

because of uncertainty as to the accuracy of the townships surveyed in 1870 on the old

Navajo Prime Meridian, it was proposed that a new description be proclaimed based on the

terrain itself. The most obvious topographic features were the canyons, all of which would be

included in the new description. All land within one half mile of the canyon rims would be

shown, despite an objection by one engineer that in places the rims would be difficult to

define. [2] A survey was needed to locate the western boundary before development of a

headquarters area could begin, [3] but this was postponed until the new boundary could be

obtained. [4]

It was concluded that new legislation would be necessary and the General Land Office

drafted a new description for a boundary based on the topography. [5] F. A. Kittredge, chief

engineer for the Park Service, felt that the new description did not adequately provide for a

headquarters area at the mouth of the canyon, [6] but it was felt that changing the description

as suggested by Kittredge would extend the boundary into another township and make it too

different from the boundary and acreage described in the original legislation and

proclamation. [7]

A more serious problem at the time was whether Navajo tribal approval would be required by

the change. The Director wrote the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for his opinion on the

matter. [8] The Commissioner opined that the land description in the original bill had been

presented to the tribal council in terms of "the main canyons and the smaller ones tributary

thereto" and that because this was merely corrective legislation it would not be necessary to

resubmit the matter to the council. [9]

In the meantime a bill had been introduced into the Senate by Senator Hayden on December

8. [10] An identical bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Douglas on December

29. [11] Both bills were intended to amend the original boundary, and the new description

read as follows:

All lands in Del Muerto, De Chelly, and Monument Canyons, and the canyons

tributary thereto, and the lands within one-half mile of the rims of the said

canyons, situated in unsurveyed townships 4 and 5 north, range 7 west; townships

4, 5, and 6 north, range 8 west; townships 4 and 5 north, range 9 west; and in

surveyed townships 4 and 5 north, range 6 west; townships 3, 6 and 7 north,

range 7 west; township 6 north, range 9 west, and township 5 north, range 10

west, embracing about eighty-three thousand eight hundred and forty acres, all of

the Navajo meridian, in Arizona. [12]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

The Secretary of the Interior submitted to both houses a copy of a joint memorandum from

the Director and the Commissioner explaining the need for the new legislation and

recommending favorable consideration. [13] The House bill was passed on February 20 and

sent to the Senate, [14] where it was approved 5 days later. [15] It was signed by the

President on March 1, [16] and the proclamation establishing the new boundary was signed

on March 3. [17]

The necessity of surveying the western boundary of the monument had not been forgotten. In

fact the matter had been given some priority, and even before the proclamation was signed,

Frank Pinkley, superintendent of Southwestern National Monuments, had been instructed to

contact the Phoenix field office of the General Land Office about carrying out the survey as

had been arranged in Washington. Assistant Director Demaray described the work he wanted

done in the following terms:

The thought behind the discussion here in the Washington Office was that instead

of surveying a township line, pick out the boundary line in the field and actually

locate the nearest section line, this section line to be monumented and become

the actual west boundary of Canyon de Chelly National Monument. [18]

Pinkley reported that he would contact the land office as soon as possible, but that bad

weather would delay the actual field work. [19] When finally completed, the survey plat

showed the south and west boundaries of Section 15, T5N, R10W, [20] the west line of

Section 15 apparently being considered the western edge of the monument.

A Canyon de Chelly Chapter, the local level of community organization among the Navajos,

was organized in the spring of 1934, and one of its first official acts was to pass a resolution

giving local approval to the Park Service's presence:

We the Navajo Indians of Canyon De Chelly National Park, as a Chapter

Organization do consent and welcome the Government to make any kind of

improvements in our Park. Trails, roads, soil erosion, range control and improve

our ruins (we agree to cooperate fully). We as a Chapter organization authorize

our Chapter officer to sign this agreement as our representatives.

/s/ Hosteen Tonah

President

/s/ Jake Brown

Vice President

/s/ Dannie Bia

Secretary

/s/ Tom Allen

Chapter adviser [21]

While it would appear that the new national monument was well established with adequate

boundaries, the higher levels of tribal government and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were

having second thoughts about the advisability of having the National Park Service on the

reservation. This change in attitude was apparently stimulated by the new Commissioner of

Indian Affairs, John Collier. In July the Navajo Tribal Council passed a resolution [22]

asking for the return of all National Park Service lands within the reservation. [23] In a

follow-up memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior, Collier requested that custody of

Canyon de Chelly be returned to the Navajo tribe. Acting Director Demaray, responding to a
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

memorandum from the Secretary on the matter, explained Park Service plans for the area and

concluded:

It is submitted that the National Park Service is the proper agency to protect and

interpret archaeological areas such as that at Canyon de Chelly. It is felt that the

rights of all American citizens in these areas transcend those of any individual or

group of individuals, just as in other cases where the Nation, by action of The

Congress or of the Executive, has set aside sites because of their national scenic,

historic, or scientific importance.

It is recommended that no effort be made to amend the Canyon de Chelly Act to

return the area to the custody of the Navajo Tribe as suggested in Mr. Collier's

memorandum which is returned herewith in accordance with your instructions.

[24]

Secretary Harold Ickes wrote former Director Albright asking his opinion in the controversy.

Albright emphasized the care that the Service had taken in securing Navajo approval of the

monument and his view that the tribe would not be able to provide adequate protection and

visitor services. He strongly opposed any removal of the area from National Park Service

jurisdiction. [25]

Collier did not give up easily, however. At a conference between the Service and the Bureau

in September, after advocating complete Indian management of the monument, he

expressed the feeling that the Canyon de Chelly matter was "railroaded" not by

the Park Service but by former Indian Service officials, and that the tribe's views

were not adequately presented in Washington. The Indians, he said, feel that way

and he also indicated that the Indians thought too many visitors would be fatal to

their well being. [26]

Ickes apparently made a decision in favor of the Park Service and the rivalry was passed on

to bureaucratic disputes in the field, as detailed later; the issue of the monument itself,

however, was to surface again very shortly.

In the meantime, concern again arose over the precise western boundary of the monument.

The Park Service engineers, using the General Land Office survey, prepared a new map.

Basing their opinion on the new boundary description, they concluded that the monument did

not extend beyond the mouth of Canyon de Chelly, about one-half mile northeast of

Thunderbird Ranch, and that both the Thunderbird Ranch as a putative concessioner and the

proposed monument headquarters were outside the monument area. A. W. Burney, the acting

chief engineer, recommended that steps be taken either to acquire the land needed or to make

an agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for its use. [27] Cozy McSparron, now full

owner of the Thunderbird, was refusing to renew his concessioner permit and Pinkley feared,

due to the uncertainty of his being within the monument boundaries, that there was little the

Service could do about it. [28]

I hope that this Office will be given an opportunity to consider and comment on

any bill, sponsored by your Service, and relating to lands within Indian

reservations. You are aware, I know, of the resolution passed in July, 1934, by

the Navajo Tribal Council, urging the Secretary of the Interior "to take

immediate steps to have the National Park Service relinquish any rights that they

may have acquired to any of our areas." Under the circumstances, I feel strongly

that any plans for the Canyon de Chelly should also be brought to the personal

notice of the Secretary. [33]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

Work had gone ahead on the headquarters and the concessioner contracts in spite of the

uncertainties in Washington, and the matter was forgotten for a while. The Bureau of Indian

Affairs continued its efforts to develop a case for the return of the monument to its

jurisdiction. J. M. Stewart, Director of Lands for the Bureau, addressed a memorandum to

Collier early in 1936 in which he argued that the Park Service would be building roads all

over the reservation from its surrounding areas to connect them with Canyon de Chelly,

thereby bringing in great numbers of tourists who would disturb and exploit the Navajos. He

further stated that a number of Navajos had talked to him about the return of the area, citing

various reasons but being principally concerned with the canyon's sacred character. Assistant

Commissioner William Zimmerman, Jr., endorsed the memo. [34]

Stewart's memorandum and another from Collier supporting Stewart's ideas [35] were sent to

Pinkley for comment. After briefly summarizing the history of the establishment of Canyon

de Chelly National Monument with emphasis on the earlier tribal council approvals, Pinkley,

implying that he had been present when the more recent resolution had been passed asking

the return of Park Service areas within the Navajo Reservation or at least had access to

firsthand information regarding the council session, stated that the resolution had been

"railroaded through" and that the support for return of the area was based on a desire to

operate it for profit rather than motivated by a concern for its sacred qualities. [36] He argued

that tourists were certain to increase in numbers regardless of developments at the canyon

and that the Park Service was far better qualified than the tribe to control them and provide

them with services. [37]

A. E. Demaray, acting director, replied to the Secretary. The first draft of his memorandum,

unsigned and dated May 11, is strongly worded and based in large part on Pinkley's report.

[38] A Navajo delegation was expected in Washington soon [39] and the Secretary was

pressing for a reply to the questions raised by Collier. [40] Demaray took time to consider his

response, however, and the first draft was apparently never sent. The next day he drafted a

shorter and more conciliatory text in which he argued that the objectives of the National Park

Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs were not necessarily in conflict and that both had

legitimate interests in the area. He gave special emphasis to the importance of the

archeological remains and the policy of the Service to respect the Indians' rights and

cooperate with the Bureau. [41] The Bureau's attempt to regain control of de Chelly was

considered sufficiently threatening that it became a factor even in dealings with the

concessioner. [42] Secretary Ickes had already made his decision, however, having written

Collier upon his receipt of Demaray's views that "it seems to me that the position of the

National Park Service with reference to Canyon de Chelly has much to commend it." [43]

Nothing more seems to have been done for several years. The Park Service and the BIA

learned to live with each other and the western boundary question was ignored. Precisely why

the matter was again taken up in 1941 is not clear, except that the marking of a boundary on

the ground "was desireable from an administrative standpoint." This time, however, the two

agencies were willing to work together; the higher levels of the bureaucracy supported the

effort and delegations of both agencies met on September 29 at Chinle. Custodian Wyatt and

Charles A. Richey, assistant superintendent of Southwestern Monuments, were present on

behalf of the Park Service. Representing the Bureau of Indian Affairs were Willard Brimhall,

district supervisor; Paul Philips, head of the planning section; and W. Berry, head of the

engineering section. The Navajo tribe was not represented. The brief summary available of

their discussions is quoted in full because it was the basis upon which the boundary question

was settled:

It was explained to Navajo Service representatives that the proposed boundary

establishment would make no changes in the present land use, but was desireable

from an administrative standpoint in connection with visitation, operation and
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

maintenance, and would clarify our position concerning the public operator

/concessioner/ and the expenditure of maintenance and operation funds. When

this matter was clearly understood by them, they advised that they would be quite

willing to accept a location which would be satisfactory to us. They did mention,

however, that they saw little reason for enlarging the area as it is now interpreted.

It was pointed out that we had no desire to take in additional lands here, and that

the main purpose was to clarify the intent of the original proclamation and

outline a boundary which would be easy to identify. They seemed somewhat

concerned about whether we might desire fencing our boundaries at some future

date. In reply to this question, it was pointed out that there would be no

advantage to the Service in fencing off a small strip along the rim, that it would

be expensive and undesirable in appearance from our standpoint. It was

mentioned, however, that we might desire to fence off a small piece around our

development, to exclude stock from the vicinity of buildings; they were quite

agreeable to this minor fencing should it be necessary. Should this be undertaken

at some future date, the matter should be referred to the Navajo Service before it

is started.

In the course of defining the boundary and afterwards, a few other matters were also

discussed:

Representatives of the Navajo Service pointed out that it would be helpful to

them to have the entire boundary marked, since it would establish a definite line

around the rims of the canyons and give them definite points to tie to in

connection with locations, issuing permits, etc. They stated that they did not wish

to have any woodcutting done along the rims of the canyons.

It appears that it would be desirable to establish the boundary lines for the entire

area at this time since a proclamation will be required to set forth the new

boundaries as soon as they are surveyed. The boundaries of the remaining

portion of the monument on the south, east and north were discussed with the

Navajo /Service/ representatives, and they agree to the general metes and bounds

lines as outlined on the above-mentioned geological survey print recommended

by the General Land Office. It was generally agreed, however, that it would be

desirable to eliminate some of the odd angles and shapes, and conform the

boundary line to known topographic features so that it could be easily identified.

This line as surveyed is to be marked at angle points, every mile and half-mile

point, the markers to be permanent points established at the locations mentioned.

Out of courtesy to the Navajo Service it is suggested that they be notified when

the survey is started so that they can make suggestions concerning the exact

location of the boundary as generally shown on the USGS print.

. . . . .

It would be practically impossible to move the line farther west to include Mr.

Garcia's buildings, since they are adjacent to the extensive development of the

Indian Irrigation Service. Furthermore, the Navajo Service now plans a low dam

across the de Chelly Wash a few hundred feet west of the proposed boundary

line. This makes it almost. mandatory that we exclude this proposed development

from the monument. . . . [44]

Initial approval by Superintendent E. Reeseman ("Sy") Fryer and the acting superintendent of

Southwestern Monuments was reported for the boundary described by Richey, Fryer altering
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

the field agreement slightly by asking that only this part of the boundary be marked on the

ground. [45] There were subsequent changes in the boundary description, although it is not

clear who made them. In any case, on March 5, 1942, National Park Service Director Newton

B. Drury and John Collier submitted a joint memorandum to the Secretary announcing their

agreement on a new boundary description, expressing their opinion that their actions were

"properly within the meaning" of the act and proclamation establishing the monument so that

new legislation was unnecessary, and requesting departmental approval. On May 25, 1942, E.

K. Burlew, First Assistant Secretary, approved the agreement and an attached description that

read:

Beginning at section corner common to sections 15, 16, 21 and 22, Township 5,

Range 10 West; thence northerly to section corner common to sections 9, 10, 15

and 16; thence easterly to one-quarter corner between sections 10 and 15; thence

northerly to the center of section 10; thence easterly to one-quarter corner

between sections 10 and 11: thence northerly to section corner common to

sections 2, 3, 10 and 11; thence easterly along the south line of sections 2 and 1

to the southeast corner of section 1. Beginning again at section corner common to

sections 15, 16, 21 and 22; thence southerly to one-quarter corner between

sections 21 and 22; thence easterly to the center of section 22; thence southerly

to one-quarter corner between sections 22 and 27; thence easterly to one-quarter

corner between sections 23 and 26; thence southerly to the center of section 26;

thence easterly to the center of section 25; thence southerly to one-quarter corner

between sections 25 and 26; thence easterly to the southeast corner of section 25.

[46]

Thus shortly after the beginning of World War II the National Park Service and the Bureau of

Indian Affairs had worked out their major differences and the future of Canyon de Chelly

National Monument seemed assured. Navajo participation in the various agreements had been

limited, and in many cases Navajo opinion seems to have reflected the opinions of whites,

officials or otherwise, who were involved in the actions taken. In two cases opponents of

Navajo Tribal Council resolutions accused the other side of having "railroaded" the matters

concerned through the council. The only apparently independent action by Navajos was

suspect as having been unduly influenced by white traders, and at least two Bureau officials

who dealt with Park Service matters tried to get positions in the "opposing" agency. One of

these was Tom Allen, who signed the Canyon de Chelly Chapter welcoming resolution as

"chapter adviser" [47] and who was then contending for appointment as custodian at the new

monument. [48] The other was Willard Brimhall, who helped negotiate the western boundary

agreement [49] and who, at an earlier date, had applied for a similar position. [50]

The Navajos certainly did not lack their own opinions regarding these issues, but such data as

exist suggest that they also differed among themselves. Thus any white desiring a Navajo

opinion supporting his own position had only to search until he found those Navajos who

already had come to similar conclusions. The assertion that the opinions of certain selected

Navajos represented tribal views when arguing a case before a white audience and the

presentation of one's own views as those of "Washindon" to Navajo audiences were certainly

methods utilized to advance various ideas. Whites were not sufficiently knowledgeable about

the traditional Navajo political process to discern whether or not the Navajo attitudes

reported were fully accepted by the people most immediately concerned, nor were they able

to allow the time needed for a true Navajo concensus to develop. Navajo cultural flexibility

was such that even under the pressures of the Federal bureaucracy they could and did take

actions that established policy, but conflict between local and tribal interests is clearly a

feature of Navajo decision-making even during this period. While the tribal council was

approving the establishment of the monument, a strong movement was underway in the

canyon area opposing the idea. When the council later was trying to retract its earlier
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

resolution, the newly formed local chapter welcomed the Park Service and appeared desirous

of some potential programs that the Bureau of Indian Affairs under Collier did not favor and

that may have been equally in disfavor with some council members.

Many Navajo statements, those recorded by whites particularly, seem to reflect quite strongly

the opinions of the whites who reported them. For this reason, it is not entirely certain that

the Navajo reasons for taking one position or another are adequately represented in the

documentation. While Collier opposed roads and some Navajos seem to have supported his

resistance to the monument because they also opposed road building, Collier's objections

appear to have had a somewhat different basis than those held by the Navajos. The

Commissioner feared that improved roads would lead to exploitation of the Navajos by

whites, while those Navajos who objected to new roads seem to have done so because of a

desire for privacy. On the other hand, local Navajos were apparently eager to have better

access both within their own community and to the outside world, and a constant theme in

their requests for Park Service assistance and in their complaints about Park Service failures

has been that of roads and trails. Although the documented arguments and agreements of the

time show only that the Park Service was granted the right to build such roads and trails as

might be needed for handling visitation, Navajos have regularly cited an understanding that

the Service was obligated to build or improve these access routes. For example, in 1958 a

Navajo informant told Mary Shepardson that "The Government told them they would make

three or four trails up to the rim like the White House Trail. That's why they let them come

in." [51] Similar statements, sometimes mentioning roads as well as trails (the two not being

routinely distinguished in Navajo), are frequently heard by Park Service personnel at Canyon

de Chelly.

The Navajos at Canyon de Chelly have apparently also found themselves caught in the

classic dilemma that faces the Park Service in all its areas, that of the conflict between

preservation and use. The protection of sacred localities to preserve their holy character is a

real and continuing motivation, as the concern for Spider Rock detailed later illustrates. On

the other hand, the vast majority of the people in the tribe have very low incomes by white

standards and while Collier was worrying about white exploitation of the Navajos, the

Navajos seem to have been looking forward to exploiting the tourist trade. Early Navajo

expectations were probably limited to supplying horses and perhaps guide service to the

visitors, with some increase in craft sales anticipated. The potential for jobs implicit in

planned park development was certainly realized at a relatively early date, although just how

soon this became a motivating factor is quite unclear in the record. The Collier era quickly

expanded their horizons in regard to Navajo opportunities, and the question now is no longer

the limitations of Navajo aspirations, but the limitations of their resources for accomplishing

their desires. The influence of opposing policies of preservation and use is expected to be a

recurring factor in the diversity of Navajo opinion in regard to the management of the

canyons, just as it has been within the National Park Service.

The general climate of Navajo-white relations throughout the period of the creation and

change of the monument boundaries should be considered. The problem of overgrazing was

becoming steadily more serious during this time. The early method of range management had

consisted simply of making additions to the reservation as the population of the tribe and the

herds increased. This method came to a virtual end during the Collier administration,

although the Navajo aim to gain control of more of the land they had occupied in the historic

past did not cease. With a relatively static land base, the methods next employed were

erosion control and stock reduction. The Navajo public opposed stock reduction and Navajo

resistance necessitated the Bureau's use of increasingly harsh methods to impose this policy,

which further alienated the tribe and the Bureau. Early in his administration Collier had used

tribal council support to oppose Park Service programs within Navajo country. Toward the

end of his incumbency the stock reduction issue had so colored every aspect of Navajo-
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:00 PM]

Government relations that Collier approved the delineation of the western monument

boundary without any apparent concern over what Navajo opinion might have been. The

Collier era marked the peak of white domination of Navajo affairs, however. Increasingly in

the future Navajo opinion, in all its bewildering complexity, would become an unavoidable

factor in all programs concerning Navajo country. [52]

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi3.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:10 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4:

EARLY DEVELOPMENT, 1931-1941

Pursuant to a suggestion made by Dr. Clark Wissler, a Committee on Canyon de Chelly was

organized to consider future plans for land development in the national monument. The

meeting was held at the Laboratory of Anthropology library in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on

September 5, 1931. Members of the committee were Neil M. Judd, A. V. Kidder, Clark

Wissler, and Earl H. Morris, with Jesse L. Nusbaum serving as chairman. Frank Pinkley was

also to serve on this committee, but he became ill and was unable to attend. [1]

The first item of business was a discussion of the scientific development within Canyon de

Chelly National Monument. Morris stated that the monument "offered opportunities for the

development of an educational and scientific exhibit that would be distinctive and unique."

[2] Furthermore, he believed:

There is nowhere else an opportunity of so thoroughly exemplifying conditions

early culturally and of displaying in a restricted locality a very long cycle in the

gradual ascent of a primitive people toward civilization. These canons have been

a nucleus not only of the old Pueblo domain, but more recently of the Navajo.

They were occupied, I believe, continuously from the time that man first appears

in the Southwest, barring possibly the Folsom Quarry-Gypsum Cave horizon,

that is, from Basket Maker II, to the close of Pueblo III, insofar as the latter

relates to the San Juan drainage. The late masonry Cliff House phase is amply

exemplified elsewhere, notably in the Mesa Verde National Park. In contrast the

Canon de Chelly National Monument is particularly rich in remains that date

from the beginning rather than the end of the culture cycle. The greatest number

of remains represent Basket Maker III. I could not say definitely, at this moment,

how prevalent Pueblo I remains may be, but there are good chances that Pueblo I

type sites exist in some of the caves.

In a number of pueblos that stand at the level of the valley floors, particularly in

Canon de Chelly, Pueblo III remains are plentifully represented, and it is to be

expected that careful search for them would bring to light characteristic Pueblo II

sites. Perhaps by careful analysis of Mummy Cave it would be possible in this

one shelter to develop certain features of the intermediate phases between Basket

Maker III and Pueblo III. The probable criticism of the detailed plans for the

development of the de Chelly Monument which have shaped themselves in my

mind would be that they are too far-flown and too ideal to be possible of

realization because of the expenditure that their materialization would entail. [3]

The members agreed that some type of chronological display should show this development

in situ, and Judd suggested a small local museum could be helpful.

Kidder and Morris thought that Mummy Cave might be used to exemplify this sequence,

although because of the activities of later occupants, Basket Maker II was almost non-
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:10 PM]

existent. Wissler suggested that "the first objective is to present a chronological sequence in

one place, then select a site elsewhere that best presents each phase." [4] The costs of

developing such exhibits in situ would be expensive, according to Morris. Mummy Cave

needed a wall "to hold back the area where the Cliff House stands, in order that the talus

could be dissected. . . ." Morris also believed that repair work was essential for other

aboveground structures, as well as for Antelope Cave. [5]

Morris stressed that because a Basket Maker II site was not accessible anywhere in the

Southwest, he would like to see a site prepared for the public. He believed such a place was

available near Antelope House and the cost would not be prohibitive. [6]

In the ensuing discussion, Wissler stated that National Park Service Director Albright

advised him that the Government should provide all excessive work and

maintenance incident to the scientific development of educational features in

such areas. He further stated that since this area is under the guardianship of the

Government, rangers must be provided for its protection and for the purpose of

conducting visitors to and through archaeological features thereof, and to tell the

story connected there with. He further recommended that it would be advisable

for the Government to have some qualified person there constantly seven days a

week to work with such scientific agencies as might cooperate with the

Government in developing the educational program contemplated, in order that

he might be in a position to pass on to the public the full fruits of the campaign.

[7]

Discussion then turned to the development of archeological resources within Canyon de

Chelly National Monument. The committee unanimously agreed that a qualified institution

that would be willing "to cooperate with the National Park Service in the development of this

educational program" should be invited to work in this area. When asked if the Carnegie

Institute would be interested in participating, Kidder replied "it would depend upon two

points: Whether there are problems of sufficient scientific interest within this region to

require a period of years to work them out, and, secondly, whether Carnegie Institution would

care to obligate its Southwestern activities to that area over a period of years." [8]

Morris offered his services to work on the scientific development of the monument until the

culture sequence could be worked out, which he estimated would take 5 years. Morris said

that it would be expedient to develop sites representative of each major period. He wanted to

give attention first to Basket Maker II and III and then work through to Pueblo I, II, and III,

the latter best exemplified by Mummy Cave Cliff House. He believed most "finds" should be

left in situ and all should receive necessary repairs. He advised that provisions should be

made to protect the in situ finds from destruction by visitors. [9]

In evaluating the expenses of this project, Morris believed that they "would not necessarily

be enormous." He stated that nothing should be done until the Government declared its

degree of supervision and attention. "Each particular site," opined Morris, "would have to be

watched just as carefully as a city museum is guarded. It would mean somebody present at

the site all of the time." [10]

In regard to roads and access routes to the monument, Morris preferred that nothing be done

at present in order "to avoid overrunning by too many visitors at the commencement of

work." He said that the present condition of the roads afforded access to only the "better

class" of visitors. By this he meant visitors who were interested in the area and who would

not interfere with work being done. In addition Morris believed that the Navajos should

continue to occupy the canyon and were "part of the picture." The committee unanimously
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:10 PM]

concurred with Morris's suggestions. [11]

Further discussion centered upon the minimum amount of excavation needed "to satisfy all

immediate demands from an educational point of view." A few sites were agreed upon for

thorough examination from a scientific standpoint, and the committee believed "that an

extensive program was justified since this monument promised a longer and more continuous

sequence than any other areas under Park Service jurisdiction." [12] Kidder posed the

question of unforeseen difficulties that might arise over funds secured through the Park

Service by a non-Governmental employee. Nusbaum assured him that if such a situation

arose, a non-Governmental employee "could be empowered to expend funds so secured, or

could be appointed a representative of the National Park Service at a nominal salary in

qualifying as the disbursing agent for government funds." [13]

Because the American Museum of National History had previously carried out archeological

work in the area, Wissler was asked if they would be opposed to the Carnegie Institute

excavating there. Wissler replied that the museum would not be opposed and that having the

Carnegie Institute handle it "might be the most advantageous way to accomplish it, since the

American Museum has committed itself to development work in the Dinosaur National

Monument." [14]

Discussion then turned to the selection of a superintendent or custodian for the area. Wissler

wondered if an "outstanding archaeologist" would be the best man for the job. "There is a

great deal of business in handling a monument of this type that is not scientific, and it seems

advisable to separate the purely administrative and maintenance activities from the scientific

and educational activities in this particular development." The group agreed that the

superintendent or custodian should be an administrative person and that a naturalist—"a high

type of archeologist"—should also be appointed. Nusbaum concluded that "we should have a

superintendent who is sympathetic to this educational and scientific development, but not too

intimately concerned therein." [15]

In defining the role of the National Park Service in the development of a scientific exhibit in

Canyon de Chelly, the committee decided that the Park Service "should not undertake the

development through its own forces," but should have organized scientific bodies handle the

matter. Furthermore, the Park Service should assign a naturalist, acting as an assistant to the

head of the scientific body, to help in the archeological work. [16]

Judd then moved that Nusbaum write Director Albright informing him of the following prime

objectives that the committee agreed to:

(1) That the de Chelly National Monument be made an outdoor museum,

exemplifying the history of the aboriginal life of the northern Southwest and that

type sites within it be kept available to the public, and, at the same time,

carefully protected from the public.

(2) That a small local museum be established, when feasible, in which limited

exhibits can be displayed of material taken from the ruins, and showings made of

such synoptic series of sherds and other materials as will best illustrate the

various phases of the aboriginal life and other features of the area. (Guidecontrol of visitors to and through ruins is fundamentally necessary to their

preservation. Therefore, the local museum development and quarters for the

custodian should be near the entrance in order to maintain traffic control, with

the museum to hold the attention of visitors until guides are able to make trips

with them.)

(3) That we welcome proposal from some scientific institution to make such
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:10 PM]

investigations in the canons as may be necessary to develop an educational

program.

(4) That we recommend appointment of superintendent or custodian as

administrative man, and a qualified naturalist for this particular phase of the

work who can take part in excavations as they progress. [17]

Judd, then asked the committee how these objectives should be attained. The following

answers were supplied: that the staff should include at a minimum a custodian

(administrative man) and a naturalist (archeologist), and that Nusbaum suggest to the Park

Service which institutions might be interested in cooperating with them. Moreover, any

monies alloted by the Government would be made immediately available to allow the Park

Service to work with the scientific institution when arrangements were made. Morris believed

that the best time of year to work would be in August and September after the summer rains.

[18]

In regard to restoration and repairs, the committee followed a conservative policy. They

recommended that "a minimum amount of restoration" be done on archaeological sites in

order to protect and preserve them. They did not want restorations erected on the sites

because of confusion and detraction from the actual ruins. [19]

Before the meeting adjourned, Judd suggested the following two tentative programs for the

ensuing year, which the committee unanimously approved.

(1) The appointment of custodian who will take control, guard ruins, study

administrative and traffic problems, and recommend such surveys as are

necessary.

(2) Pending development of scientific programs, certain immediate protective

measures should be taken at Antelope House and Mummy Cave where the tower

is in very immediate danger. In this connection, it was suggested that Mr. Morris

act as consultant because of his very intimate knowledge of the problems

involved, and his broad experience in accomplishing such work. [20]

Following the instructions of the committee, Nusbaum wrote to Albright presenting the

consensus of the committee's opinion on the prime objectives established. He referred to

Kidder's suggestions that the Carnegie Institute might allot $6,000 per year for a 5-year

period. This amount would be Morris's salary and expenses for the most part. However, under

this plan the Park Service would supply $5,000 per annum for 5 years also. If it could not get

the $5,000 appropriation from the Government, Nusbaum thought that the Rockefeller

Foundation might be a possible source. [21]

Albright's reply to Nusbaum was far from encouraging. He believed the committee's report

"most helpful to the Service," but the plan was "a bit ambitious" in wanting both a custodian

and a park naturalist, although Albright believed it would be ideal to have such an

arrangement. He stated that the recommendations provided a goal toward which to strive, but

immediate results were "almost out of the question at the present time." Referring to the

funding, Albright was pleased that the Carnegie Institute might supply $6,000 per annum, but

he was unable to figure where the Park Service could get $5,000 to help in the cooperative

plan. He believed Rockefeller could not be a source of revenue because of his other

commitments. Albright did, however, write to Dr. Merriam requesting him to consider the

program even though the Park Service could not fulfill its part of the scheme. Albright

"pledged all the support we can give from this end." [22]

Although the above plan of funding did not materialize, Morris did do needed repair work at
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:10 PM]

Mummy Cave. This was decided upon at a meeting at Canyon de Chelly National Monument

on July 1, 1932. Present at this gathering were Horace M. Albright, Director, NPS: C.

Marshal Finnan, superintendent, Mesa Verde National Park; C. J. Smith, superintendent,

Petrified Forest National Monument; Frank Pinkley, superintendent, Southwestern

Monuments; Jesse Nusbaum, archeologist for the Department of Interior; and Earl Morris,

representing the Carnegie Institute. [23] The Carnegie Institute supplied Morris's services and

transportation, while the Park Service furnished a fund of $400 to cover materials, supplies,

and salaries for workers. Morris began work in September 1932. [24]

Morris and his crew (which did not include any Navajo workers) worked on the tower wall in

Mummy Cave. They rebuilt and bonded the corners of the tower and did needed ceiling

repairs; numerous photographs were taken. Morris terminated his work in Mummy Cave in

October 1932. [25]

The selection of an archeologist and a custodian also did not proceed according to the plans

and recommendations of the Canyon de Chelly Committee. Pinkley, who was unable to

attend the meeting because of illness, took issue with Nusbaum over the custodian's and

archeologist's duties. Pinkley, in a letter to Albright, wondered who paid the archeologist's

salary and if he would be involved in public relations. [26]

Pinkley felt that there were three aspects of development in Canyon de Chelly National

Monument: the research activities, which would be under the direction of an archeologist; the

administrative affairs, which would be handled by the custodian; and the educational matters,

which would be under the National Park Service Educational Division whose duty would be

to "translate the results of the archaeologist for the benefit of the visitors." [27] Pinkley

believed that the hiring of a permanent archeologist was unnecessary because the Educational

Division could handle most of the duties, and if any "strictly" archeological problems arose,

he suggested that the staff of the Bureau of Ethnology of the U.S. National Museum be

consulted. [28]

Nusbaum answered Pinkley's criticism by stating that the appointed archeologist would not

only supervise expeditions for a few months of the year but would also serve in the

Educational Division. Nusbaum believed that "Pinkley will gain an additional archaeologistnaturalist in his forces for permanent service in a restricted national monument area, and his

whole educational division, will be greatly strengthened thereby." [29]

In reply, Pinkley stated that "Nusbaum somewhat misses the point I was aiming at." [30]

Pinkley reiterated that "What I am objecting to is the calm assumption that only a fieldexcavating archaeologist is capable of handling the educational work at an archaeological

monument." [31] Furthermore, Pinkley believed that the real work was not what an

archeologist found but the dissemination of the findings to the public, and since, according to

Pinkley, archeologists were habitually slow in publishing their results, this would leave the

Educational Division without materials to present to the public. In sum, Pinkley was saying

that "it is not necessary to have a field-digging archaeologist in our Educational Division."

[32] Therefore no permanent archeologist was appointed at Canyon de Chelly National

Monument.

The appointment of a custodian also did not materialize as quickly as the committee

recommended. The aforementioned meeting at Canyon de Chelly on July 1, 1932, recognized

that someone needed to be on hand at the monument for security purposes. Consequently,

they empowered the proprietors of the Thunderbird Ranch to be "placed upon the rolls of the

Park Service as nominally paid Park Rangers, which would give them the power of arrest and

a general control over the problem of vandalism inside the monument." This was to be a

temporary measure until the appointment of a permanent custodian, whose salary was
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:10 PM]

included in the 1934 fiscal budget. [33]

Several men were nominated for the position of custodian between 1930 and 1934.

Representative Douglas recommended that L. H. McSparron, owner of the Thunderbird

Ranch, be appointed custodian as long as it would not be a full-time job. [34] Another

request for the position came from W. H. Clark on January 28, 1931. [35] Pinkley, in charge

of hiring, considered Clark too old and lacking the technical training needed for such a

position. [36] Other candidates included O. C. Havens, L. C. Boies, Tom Allen, and Louis R.

Caywood. [37] Caywood received a probational appointment as custodian at Canyon de

Chelly from Demaray. [38] Pinkley did not want Caywood to go to Canyon de Chelly but

rather to Casa Grande. [39] Pinkley favored Robert Budlong, custodian at Casa Grande, for

the position at de Chelly. [40] Since Pinkley was responsible for the hiring of a new

custodian, Robert Budlong was chosen, beginning his duties as the first custodian of Canyon

de Chelly National Monument on August 18, 1934. [41]

Although Canyon de Chelly National Monument now had a custodian, it lacked a

headquarters and residence for him. According to a reconnaissance report of de Chelly in

1932 conducted by J. B. Hamilton, an engineer, the best site for a headquarters was near the

mouth of Canyon de Chelly. Hamilton favored this location because it would be

advantageous for preventing unauthorized travel up the canyon and because it would be less

expensive. [42] Hamilton did not give the actual cost of the headquarters project, but he did

include the following estimates on some of the work involved: road from Thunderbird Ranch

—$2,500, water supply (including plant for lights)—$750, and sewers—$350. [43]

The actual construction of the custodian's residence began on September 28, 1935, [44] and a

5,000-gallon water storage reservoir was completed on December 13. Helping Hamilton in

the construction of the reservoir were local Navajo workers. [45] The total cost of the water

storage reservoir and the sewer line, completed earlier, was estimated at $2,860. [46] A well

to supply water was completed in January 1936; it was 98 feet 5 inches in depth. [47]

Budlong, who had moved his "residence" six times since being appointed custodian at de

Chelly, was elated over the progress of the building. He described the residence as having 2

bedrooms, 1 bath, an enormous living room, an office, a dining alcove, a kitchen, and a

service porch. [48] In June 1936 Budlong and his wife moved into their new quarters at

Canyon de Chelly. [49]

The Budlongs did not stay very long in their new home because on November 30, 1936, he

was transferred to El Morro. [50] Replacing him at Canyon de Chelly was Johnwill Faris,

who was custodian from December 1, 1936, to November 14, 1938. [51]

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi4.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:21 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5:

THE LEAN YEARS, 1941-1945

The entrance of the United States into World War II resulted from the Japanese attack on

Pearl Harbor and other American interests in the Pacific on December 7, 1941. The effects of

the war were felt in many aspects of the National Park Service's programs. Shortages of

gasoline and tires limited both visitation and official travel. Manpower shortages caused

reductions in staffing or prevented expansion. At remote areas, such as Canyon de Chelly, the

drop in visitation was especially noticeable. Early in the war Custodian Charles D. Wyatt

reported that those visitors who did come stayed longer. He speculated that "perhaps it is to

save tires or because the strife rampant in the world today seems distant out here." [1]

Visitation by Japanese-Americans from a relocation center was reported in 1943. [2] Navajo

work in the war industry and enrollment in the armed forces created prosperity even with few

people at home. Traditional craft and ceremonial activity declined. [3]

Despite the lower visitation, work was required on many of the same sorts of projects that

were current before the war. The natural forces of erosion were unaffected by Man's troubles,

and in January 1942 the need for emergency work on Antelope House was noted. [4] Charlie

Steen was dispatched to supervise stabilization work there and at Mummy Cave in May. [5]

The work was done quickly and Steen had submitted his reports on the work by the end of

the following month. [6]

Erosion by the Rio de Chelly presented more formidable problems and the process of

building revetments and other structures and planting seedlings along the stream was of

longer duration. In the spring of 1942 work was begun at White House, [7] apparently

including willow plantings, and by autumn a similar project was begun at Antelope House.

[8] Photographs of both ruins in 1942 show no trees screening the sites yet. [9] Inspection of

the work done at the two ruins in 1944 revealed that it was still in good condition. [10] In the

spring of 1945 the Bureau of Indian Affairs provided the Park Service with 2,000 seedling

trees, including sand cherry, peach, and plum, [11] which were presumably used in the

canyons or around the headquarters area. Heavy runoff did some damage to irrigation systems

in Canyon del Muerto that year, [12] but there was no damage reported at the ruins.

Work on special projects was limited. The seasonal ranger in 1942, Marvin H. Frost, Jr.,

arrived in May [13] and did some work on the multiplex exhibit that was under construction,

[14] but he was drafted in August. [15] Not only were tourists fewer in number, but many

Navajos left for war work or the service. [16] Wyatt finally took employment in war industry

and was replaced by Ted C. Sowers as acting custodian. [17] Meredith Guillet did not begin

his first period of managing the monument until June. [18] Work lagged on the new exhibit,

but Guillet hoped to have it in use during 1944; [19] however, it was not installed on the

headquarter's porch until early in the 1945 tourist season. [20]

The need for storage and a shortage of materials and manpower apparently were the motives

for the construction of a cribbed-log hogan. Sowers undertook the project early in 1943 with

the assistance of a Navajo laborer, Tuly Bia. Bia instructed Sowers in the art of erecting a far
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:21 PM]

more complicated structure than the novice hogan-builder had anticipated. [21]

Sowers, during his short incumbency, seems to have had good relations with his Navajo

neighbors. Aside from his hogan project, he was invited to a Navajo wedding held in the

canyon. The McSparrons were also invited, and it is of interest to note that this was the first

Navajo wedding that Cozy had attended in his 30 years at Chinle. [22] Guillet, therefore,

arrived at a time when the Park Service and the local Navajo community were on especially

good terms. His familiarity with the Navajo language and the commencement of his duties at

such a time gave Guillet an unrivaled opportunity to get to know the local people and

develop friendships that would be of great importance later. While his reports often included

wry observations of Navajo affairs, such as: "The Navajos who have been away on

agricultural work are drifting back for the winter. The bulk of their savings from summer

wages will soon be in the hands of the best gamblers," [23] he was not at all unsympathetic

to their problems and consistently considered their views when recommending policy. He

could accept with equanimity the need to control the bear and coyote populations when they

threatened Navajo fields and flocks and received considerable information on the wildlife of

the canyon area from its residents. [24]

With the reduced activity of Government operations and with so many Navajos away from

their homes, there was little conflict between Park Service and Navajo objectives. The

installation of horseback patrols doubtless allowed for much closer contact with the people

living in the canyon. [25] One activity of the white man did bring about a need for a policy

decision, however.

Even in the midst of war, for Hollywood the old saying "The show must go on" held true and

two movies were produced on location near Chinle. The first, Desert Song, filmed by MGM

in 1942, seems to have had little impact on park operations. [26]

The second, Queen of The Nile, caused complications in cleanup. Filming was done at the

sand dunes, where a set was erected. The company left the set behind, but gave it to Guillet

who dismantled it and brought the materials to headquarters where they would be available as

needed. The company also hired 150 Navajos, who were paid each night. In order to be close

to their temporary job the Indians camped around the Thunderbird Trading Post and bought

most of their supplies from McSparron. The result was a massive littering problem.

Complaint from the regional office led Guillet to write a spirited defense of his handling of

the matter, not by stressing his limited resources, but by emphasizing the need to adapt to the

conditions found in Navajo country:

You, of course, are familiar with conditions here at Canyon de Chelly. There is a

cleanup job all year-round and will be as long as there is a trading post and

Navajos. I cannot see how a great deal can be done about it. Navajos . . . have

been throwing their bottles, and bread wrappers around the trading posts for

years, and although some are careful, the majority will continue to do it. . . . A

northerly wind cleaned out the area adjoining the monument fairly well. The big

job was cleaning up after the 150 Indians and their families who camped around

the store. . . .

Practically all of their wages were spent with Cozy. If I had started making each

one pick up their cans, papers, and bottles, they would have moved over to

Garcia's store, and . . . there would have been a considerable loss to Cozy. . . . It's

just a situation that always results when large numbers of Navajos get together.

If a large Yei B'chai dance should be held in the canyon, the same thing would

happen I would resign my job before I would go in and start making myself what
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:21 PM]

to the average Navajo would be the laughing stock of the country. I would much

rather do the work myself. I know that I am winning the regard of the Navajos

here. I believe they will be more careful when they see that they are merely

causing me extra work. . . . At present there is no clause requiring them [the

movie companies] to clean up in the permit issued by the Office of Indian

Affairs. . . .

The Navajos regard the taking of Moving Pictures as a good thing, and I would

not like to have them think that I was trying to discourage it. [27]

Assistant Regional Director Charles A. Richey, after visiting the area and discussing the

matter with Chee Dodge, the tribal chairman, realized that a decision on this subject was

important to preserve good community relations. After noting that the land did belong to the

Navajos and had been occupied for generations by individual Indian families, he

recommended that the Park Service issue permits that charged no fee for the filming but that

required that money for cleanup be deposited in advance by movie companies. He concluded:

Although I am generally opposed to the filming of moving pictures in National

Park areas where professional casts are used, it seems to me that this is an

entirely different problem on which the thoughts of the Navajo Indians should be

considered. [28]

Acting Director Hillory A. Tolson, after reviewing Guillet's and Richey's recommendations

and considering the complications inherent in Park Service regulations in this regard,

suggested that because the land belonged to the Navajos, permits should be issued by the

superintendent of the Navajo Reservation once it was determined that filming would not

affect the ruins or other scientific or historical features under Park Service care. The need for

a cleanup clause might be brought to the attention of the superintendent. Tolson asked for

further recommendations from the regional director and Guillet before making a final

decision, however. [29]

In November Guillet, who had had occasion to discuss with Commissioner Collier the need

for protection of the scenery and ruins and for cleanups, summed up the situation as it then

stood:

In view of all that has gone before, it would now seem that the payment of any

fee to the National Park Service for filming rights in Canyon de Chelly is out of

the question. If it were apt to damage any protected feature, we could not issue a

permit, and if it were not . . ., it would come under Indian Service permit. . . .

[30]

In July of the following year the Navajo Tribal Council passed a resolution asserting its right,

in conjunction with the agency superintendent, to collect fees for filming on tribal lands. [31]

Even this did not entirely settle the matter, and new complications would arise in the future,

but a start had been made in developing a policy for this seemingly minor problem.

The question of water rights arose in 1943, apparently during a routine review of water

needs. [32] The major concern raised was that McSparron, if his older well became dry,

might have a claim against the Service's well. [33] The Park Service made its water freely

available to the Navajos and a review of the laws applying in the area, especially since the

Service well had been drilled under the provisions of the act authorizing establishment of the

monument, led to the conclusion that there was no cause for concern. [34]

McSparron was suffering from ill health, however, [35] and toward the end of the war tried

unsuccessfully to sell the Thunderbird Ranch. [36] When he failed to get his asking price, he
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:21 PM]

petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for permission to move his trading post outside the

monument, planning to continue offering guest facilities and running a curio store at the

Thunderbird. [37] Guillet hoped for a change in ownership, writing:

If Cozy sells, it would be of a direct benefit to the Park Service to let the new

buyer know approximately what he could expect in the way of help from the

Park Service in future development, Etc. Although My relections [sic] With

Cozy have been good, we sort of walk a tight rope that was spread in the past. A

new operator would give us a better chance of establishing a firm foundation in

almost every phase of concession operation. [38]

Two other policy decisions affecting park operations during the period deserve notice. In

1944 the Bureau of Indian Affairs asserted in the following terms the jurisdiction of tribal

courts over certain offences committed within the monument boundaries:

the Act of Congress establishing the Monument did not divest the Navajo Tribe

of its vested rights to the land included in the Monument. This being so, the

Tribe retains an interest in the land as to give the Tribal Court jurisdiction and

make the law and order code of the Navajo Reservation applicable within the

Monument area.

The section of the law and order code referred to above is the proper section

under which prosecution can be had of Indians injuring public property of the

Tribe, such as trees, within the area. [39]

In 1945 justification was given for expending Park Service funds to fight fires "that occur on

or threaten lands within Canyon de Chelly National Monument." Basing his opinion on the

act authorizing the establishment of the monument, Chief Counsel Jackson E. Price wrote:

As the administrative agency in charge of the area, I think that it would be the

duty of the National Park Service to take all possible steps to prevent or

minimize damage to monument features or lands from fires occurring within the

area or on adjacent lands. It seems inconceivable that such action would violate

or injure the rights of the Navajo Indians. On the other hand, the advantages to

the Indians of preventing fire damage seem altogether obvious. [40]

Again Guillet seems to have been in advance of decisions at higher bureaucratic levels or

perhaps influential in obtaining the needed authority. The following month the regional

forester, Harold M. Ratcliff, reporting on an inspection trip to de Chelly, wrote:

The cooperation between the Navajo Service and the National Park Service is

good. Custodian Guillet has assisted in conducting fire training meetings for the

Indian Service at Chinle and a new cooperative agreement is being drawn up to

fit local conditions. [41]

The war ended in August 1945 with Japan's surrender. By October Guillet reported the return

of many Navajos to their homes and the holding of numerous ceremonies, a Mountaintopway

and four Nightways being held within a 20-mile radius. [42] There was a good pinon crop

that fall and with the advent of peace all seemed well with the world. [43]

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:21 PM]

cach/adhi/adhi5.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6:

MEREDITH GUILLET AND THE NAVAJOS, 1945-1950

The end of the war brought many changes. Some were sudden, such as the increase in

visitation. In July 1945 only 68 visitors came to the monument, but in August the total

reached 248, the greatest number since 1942. [1] By October Guillet had to contend finally

with a problem that had troubled his predecessors: that of unauthorized entry into the canyon.

[2] He was to remain at the monument throughout the decade—the longest tenure of any

custodian—and would have ample opportunity to experience the problems caused by tourist

visitation. But he would also contribute greatly to the development that became possible once

the wartime restrictions were gone. McSparron revived his concessioner operations, although

he could not get tires for his canyon car and thus fully resume his earlier activities until the

spring of 1946. [3]

Stabilization and conservation work had slowed during the latter years of the war. Inspection

in September 1945 revealed that while White House was still well protected from runoff,

plantings at Antelope House had suffered flood damage that summer. [4] New work was

begun the following spring with construction of another revetment at Antelope House. [5]

The job was completed early in July, in time to offer needed protection from summer floods.

[6] In the fall another planting project was begun by Soil Conservationist Balch with

Chauncey Neboyia as lead laborer over a crew of nine men. [7] By Christmas they had set

out 10,000 willows and "luka" reeds (Phragmites communis) and had raised the height of the

revetment at Antelope House. [8] Minor repairs were made at White House; the willows there

were growing so well that they had to be cut back from the ruin to prevent root damage to

the structure. Road repairs were also undertaken. [9]

An old problem was faced again in June 1946. Metro-Goldwin-Mayer arrived to film Sea of

Grass. A Secretarial order had drastically changed the policies established during the war,

and Guillet found himself required to enforce all Park Service regulations in the matter.

Protesting, he explained at length the problems he had encountered:

It is still my firm belief that as these lands belong to the Navajo tribe of Indians

and as the act that set aside this area as a National Monument retained for the

Indians all rights of surface use of the land, that any fees collected by the

National Park Service should go into the appropriate tribal fund.

He collected the required $150 from the company, however, because the Navajos,

anticipating employment, wanted the filming done there. These jobs did not materialize,

however, and the Navajos then asked him to cancel the permit.

The only alternative for me to preserve good public relations on both sides was to

suggest to the Location Manager that they make a donation to the local Tribal

[Chapter?] Fund. They were very cooperative and everything turned out

smoothly. . . . In the future I will require the written permit signed by local tribal

leaders before I will consider issuing a permit. [10]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

The Secretarial order, which has not been located, but as quoted by Guillet, granted the Park

Service "full custodial and administrative control of Canyon de Chelly." [11] Thus, while

Washington had made one decision at the departmental level, the field man found it

necessary to take actions and institute policy that completely reversed the effect of that

decision in matters in which the Navajos felt a strong interest.

That summer saw also a large number of rodeos and so many Enemyway ceremonies (most

probably held for returning servicemen) that there was a labor shortage. [12] For the Navajos

the purification of the returning warriors was a matter of great concern. At Chinle there had

been plenty of jobs for those who needed them to raise money to help their families with the

costs of the ceremony.

The monument also acquired a full-time ranger that year with the hiring of John S. Benson in

December. He was housed temporarily at the Bureau of Indian Affairs club, but the following

month a trailer was brought in and his family joined him. [13]

The new year had a slow start with limited visitation and development work restricted to road

maintenance and minor repairs, [14] but the increased resources led finally to a busy year.

The trailer, a well-used structure that had been utilized previously as an office, required

thorough remodeling and reconditioning. With a permanent ranger on hand Guillet had time

to investigate reports of an "undiscovered" ruin near Three Turkey House and of a Navajo

shrine used in the rain ceremony. A measles epidemic also struck that winter, and Guillet

helped transport sick children to the hospital and bury one child in February. The Navajos

had no natural resistance to the disease nor any effective techniques of dealing with it. [15]

An epidemic of flu, which often developed into pneumonia, followed, and Guillet continued

his improvised ambulance and undertaking services through March, burying one more child

and transporting a total of 30 children to the hospital during the 2 months. [16] Two more

emergency trips were made into the canyons in May [17] and four in June, one of which

involved carrying a sick child over a hand and toehold trail. [18]

During the spring considerable road work was accomplished; within the canyons vehicle

access to Mummy Cave was created to facilitate trail building and minor stabilization in that

area. [19]

Despite a 2-week absence from the area to attend a forest fire training conference in May,

Guillet found time to initiate a site survey with volunteer assistance from Dr. and Mrs.

Thomas B. Noble.

The fire training and extra personnel were needed, because five fires occurred during the

summer. The first, on June 2, was a 4-acre fire near the head of Monument Canyon, which

started from a poorly extinguished campfire left by a party searching for a lost child. The

Bureau of Indian Affairs sent a fire truck with three men, and Guillet with a ranger and two

Bureau school employees came from Chinle. They did not get back to headquarters until

midnight and a little additional work was even required the next day. The fire was entirely

within the monument boundaries, so the Bureau wanted the Park Service to pay the entire

cost of its suppression. Guillet agreed to pay the wages of the men he brought and "did not

argue too much [about the rest] as I thought that this might give us a wedge into the position

of perhaps getting some control over timber cutting permits." [20]

The second fire, near Black Rock, was reported on June 27. Guillet and Benson had to drive

around the canyons to get to the peninsula area, and by the time they arrived the one man

sent by the Bureau had already extinguished the blaze. An area of only "5 paces by 15 paces"

had burned. The Park Service crew again included two Bureau employees, and Guillet did

not know where to get funds to compensate them. He felt that because the Park Service did
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

not control timber cutting and wood hauling, it should not be required to stand the total cost

of all fires within the monument, but he could get no clear cut agreement from local Indian

Service people. As the matter then stood, in Guillet's view,

they will dispatch men to the fires in the upper areas and Bill [sic] the Park

Service. We in turn will take the canyons and the land easier to get to from this

side and will bill the Indian Service. [21]

On July 8 Guillet visited Window Rock and discussed the problems with Chief Forester Carl

Rawie of the Bureau, but no firm agreement on the funding of fire fighting was reported. [22]

Lightning struck and started a fire near Monument Canyon on July 28. Guillet and Benson

left Chinle shortly after 5:00 P.M. to join six Bureau fire fighters in putting it out. They did

not get home until 2:00 A.M. The next afternoon another fire was reported near Black Rock

Canyon. Guillet went on this call with his seasonal ranger, Richard K. Thomas. Guillet's

report illustrates vividly the difficulties encountered in the remote portions of the monument

at that time.

We were stuck in the sand for about an hour crossing the wash. We drove

around the Head of Del Muerto and down to Black Rock. I found the [BIA] fire

truck at Chauncey Neboyia's hogan and he told me that three men stopped and

took out on foot for the fire but he didn't think they could get to it from the

direction they started. I took Neboyia with me and we walked to where we could

see the fire at the rim. The three Indian service men arrived at the fire about that

time so as it was getting to [sic] dark to find our way safely over the canyon

walls and up the other side I decided to drive around the head and take in water

and back pack pumps for mop up work. Neboyia said he knew a road which

would take us almost to the fire. We started out but one hill was too much for the

equipment. I started back and met Fire dispatcher Alfred Hardy. He wanted to

get his car to the fire so Neboyia said that there was another road that we could

get in on by driving about 10 miles. We took off and arrived at the fire at 11:30

P.M. The fire fighters had left without doing a very good mop up job as several

spots were burning inside the line.

Neboyia, Thomas, Hardy and I worked until one o'clock of the next morning

mopping up. We left then and arrived at Headquarters at 4:30 A.M. on the 30th

of July.

He concluded by predicting more fires if the dry weather should continue. [23] On August 5

lightning caused another fire near Black Rock, but Bureau personnel were able to handle it

themselves. [24] August brought the needed rains, however, and fire problems were no

longer serious. [25]

Travel continued to increase steadily. In addition to the routine orientation and information

talks given at headquarters and guided trips to White House and Spider Rock, a new program

of campfire talks in the campground was begun in July. [26] Increased protection of the ruins

was attempted by placing signs supplied by the tribe informing visitors of the Antiquities Act

at trading posts and other "strategic areas." [27] The rains increased as the summer wore on

and eventually washed the roads so badly that traffic diminished somewhat. Travel in the

canyons became impossible and the approach road from Chinle was flooded and a detour

required. [28] Full repairs could not be completed until November. [29] In the same month

more stream control work and planting of willows began at Antelope House and White

House. [30] This work was finished early in December. [31]

A special visitor of considerable interest was Earl Morris. He told Guillet stories of his early
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

experiences in the canyons and assisted in the salvage of a mummified turkey discovered by

Seasonal Ranger Thomas near the mouth of Canyon del Muerto. [32]

In December Guillet recommended that ruins in White Powder Canyon and Slender Canyon,

including Three Turkey Ruin and Little White House, be added to the monument, stipulating

that any additions should be of the ruins only. [33]

In the fall of 1947 the decrease in Navajo income resulting from the return of servicemen and

war workers was being felt throughout the tribe. Lacking resources to expand their traditional

economy and being ineligible for state welfare programs, many of the more disadvantaged

families were in desperate circumstances. [34] In October Guillet reported that the local

Navajos were "better off economically than normal," [35] and in December he wrote that

they were "better off than they have been for some years." [36] The effect of the crisis was

apparently minimal at the monument, the primary result being the arrival of journalists doing

news stories on the situation. [37]

Cold wet weather that winter kept visitation at a minimum, necessitated increased

maintenance work on the roads, and at times allowed canyon patrol only by horseback. [38]

An infestation of cottonwood leaf beetle (Chryromel scripta) was so severe in the spring that

spraying was needed to save trees in the area. [39] Also in the spring a situation occurred that

would affect the park's policy making and its relations with the Navajos more than any other

happening for some time. As initially reported by Guillet,

A resolution adopted by the Navajo Tribal Council on March 20, 1948 to control

prices and collect rental fees based on percentages of gross sales is causing

considerable furor among the traders and Navajo indians [sic]. It will directly

affect the operation of our operator at Canyon de Chelly, and indirectly the

administration of this National Monument. [40]

Among the traders concerned was Cozy McSparron, who went personally to Santa Fe to see

the regional director, M. R. Tillotson. Cozy admitted that his trading post operation, even

though within the monument boundaries, would come under the tribal regulation, but felt that

his tourist business, licensed by the Park Service, should not be affected. Tillotson felt that

the Park Service right "to provide facilities of any nature whatsoever required for the care and

accomodation of visitors" at Canyon de Chelly was in conflict with the council resolution and

wrote Washington for a legal opinion. [41] Initially a reply was drafted that asserted that

while the Thunderbird Trading Post would be subject to the new regulations, the tourist

services would not; this was never sent, however. [42] Information was received from the

Bureau to the effect that several legal problems had been raised by the resolution and a

solicitor's opinion was being prepared to cover all of them. [43] The solicitor's opinion held

that while the tribe did not have the power to regulate traders, this being an exclusive power

of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, it did have the power to attach whatever conditions it

wanted to leases of tribal lands for business purposes. [44] The council resolution was to be

disapproved by the Commissioner, but the issue had become so important that the Bureau

planned to review and revise trading regulations for the Navajo Reservation. It was

recommended that General Superintendent Stewart of the Navajo Agency be consulted so that

any new regulations might take into account the dual nature of the Thunderbird operation.

[45] This seemed to settle the matter for the time, but the concession problem and Navajo

resentment of white ownership of the concession were to become increasingly significant

factors in the management of the area.

In the meantime the most important archaeological undertaking in the canyons since the days

of Earl Morris was being planned. David L. De Harport, a graduate student at Harvard
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

University, proposed an intensive survey of the archaeology of the main canyon under the

supervision of Dr. J. O. Brew, curator of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.

Nusbaum advised Brew that the only permit required would be the usual Antiquities Act

permit from the Federal Government and that the concurrence of the tribal council would not

be needed. [46] The permit was issued on June 18 with the following special conditions:

1. That, prior to the commencement of field work, Mr. deHarport consult with the

custodian of Canyon de Chelly National Monument to determine jointly the proper

location for camps, and to consider the scope and manner of conducting specified

surface investigations.

2. That diggings be restricted to sites, the character of which cannot be adequately

determined from surface evidence alone; and that they be limited both in number and

size to the minimum essential for archeological needs.

3. That the permittee furnish the National Park Service with a duplicate set of survey

sheets and cards within a reasonable period following the conclusion of this project.

4. That, when laboratory studies are completed, such important and unique archeological

specimens as may be encountered and collected in the course of surface survey or

testing be shared with the National Park Service whenever proper facilities for exhibit

and storage are provided for Canyon de Chelly National Monument and the National

Park Service requests the return of typical or unusual specimens to meet its interpretive

needs. [47]

The date of De Harport's arrival at de Chelly is not recorded, but he "continued" his survey in

August, recording 124 sites by August 25. [48] He completed his first season's work on

September 6, [49] having mapped 145 sites in the lower 11 miles of the canyon. [50]

Another event that would be significant much later to the interpretive program was the arrival

on June 6 of a young anthropology student from the University of New Mexico, Zorro A.

Bradley, as seasonal ranger. [51]

Other temporary employees included a crew of four to five men, probably all Navajos, hired

in the spring to repair roads, trails, and buildings. Special projects, such as reconditioning

White House Trail, renovating the ranger trailer, repairing the revetment at Antelope House,

adding more plantings at Antelope House and White House, and spraying to protect plantings

from the cottonwood leaf beetle, kept this crew busy throughout the spring. [52] A decrease

in reported maintenance work during the summer suggests that the crew was laid off toward

the end of June or perhaps early in July. [53]

Guillet twice was called on to transport sick Navajos to the hospital, one a child and the other

a young woman. Both patients died shortly after arrival. Only one Enemyway is mentioned in

the monthly reports, but this was held in the main canyon near White House and thus was a

happening of special interest. [54]

Windsor Pictures Inc. spent a week filming in the canyon for When a Man's a Man. Guillet

issued a permit, required a bond, and kept close watch on their work; [55] thus it appears that

previous requirements for movie making were still in force.

It is not certain just when Benson left, but in October he was replaced in the permanent

ranger position by Robert L. Morris. Two Navajos also were hired in temporary laborer

positions to reroof the old storage hogan and help with preparations for winter. [56] They

continued on the payroll into November. Late in the month two loads of peach leaf willows

were received and five Navajos hired to help plant them at Antelope House and White House.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

[57] In December the chief architect for the storage hogan, Tuly Bia, a singer (medicine

man), and an occasional employee of the Park Service over many years, died of a heart attack

while working at Sawmill. [58]

The spring session of the Navajo Tribal Council discussed trading posts and considered a

resolution that included a provision to tax traders. Guillet reported widespread opposition to

the proposal at Chinle, the traders having influenced the Navajos in this regard. He had a

long talk with Zhealy Tso, tribal vice-chairman, explaining to him the obligations and rights

of the Park Service in regard to the regulation of concessioners, and reported events as they

then stood to the regional director. [59] Despite Guillet's meeting with Tso, the resolution

passed by the tribal council was thought to impinge on Park Service rights and a legal

opinion was sought. [60] It was learned that the Bureau also questioned "several legal

aspects" of the resolution, and so action was deferred until the departmental solicitor could

consider these objections. [61]

McSparron had had an operation early in the year, [62] and the problem of regulations

affecting his business had caused considerable worry.

In December Cozy decided again to sell out. [63] Guillet's report on the situation revealed

increasing problems as a result of the dual regulation of Thunderbird:

He [Cozy] stated that he did not expect to renew his concession contract and that

in a discussion with Mr. Stewart, Superintendent of the Navajo Service, had been

led to believe that we have no authority over the use of lands and that the

charging of concession fees might not even be legal. It is quite obvious that we

can give our concessioner no protection from competition and should Mr. Garcia

decide to put in guest operations, he could do so without any sort of permit from

the National Park Service.

I believe that it is now time to find out just where we stand. If we are to regulate

the operation of the concession, we should know, and let our concessioner know,

just what authority we have and how far it goes.

There should also be a clear-cut understanding with the Office of Indian Affairs.

Cozy does not even want to bother with it under the new type of contract. If he

sells his interests the main business is the Indian Trading post over which we

have no jurisdiction, and it is doubtful if the buyer would want to take over the

guest concession. If he doesn't, can we force him to? Or if he decides to take

guests without a concession permit, could we stop him as long as he had an

Indian Service Permit. . . . [64]

Cozy was a businessman and may well have been playing the Government agencies off

against each other and perhaps even bluffing a little as well, but he did succeed to a degree in

obtaining a modification of his concession permit. Regional Director Tillotson's reasoning in

the matter differed somewhat from McSparron's contentions, however:

This permit specifically authorizes the occupancy of ten acres of land in an exact

square and the center of which shall be the southwest corner of the Thunderbird

Trading Post. I question our control over this ten-acre tract and I doubt seriously

our authority to issue a permit of any kind for the occupancy of this particular

tract or to control concession operations in any way on this land. It will be noted

that by condition 13 of the permit we specifically disclaim any right to regulate

operations of the trading post and provide that this shall be operated under the

regulations of the United States Indian Office.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

According to the best records and surveys available in this office, the

Thunderbird Ranch, covered by this business concession permit, and the

adjoining trading post are located in the N1/2 of section 22, T. 5 N., R. 10W.,

which subdivision was definitely included in Canyon de Chelly National

Monument by the original proclamation of April 1, 1931. However, a later

proclamation dated March 3, 1933, and which is now effective, states that it is in

the public interest that the lands included in the monument "be more accurately

described" and provides that the monument boundary shall be located one-half

mile from the rims of del Muerto, de Chelly, and Monument Canyons. This

proclamation of March 3, 1933, states also that the original proclamation of April

1, 1933, "is hereby accordingly modified."

With a boundary line so indefinite as that described in the proclamation of March

3, 1933, it is extremely difficult to state whether the Thunderbird Ranch and

trading post are inside or outside the national monument. In this connection,

reference is made to drawing NM-CDC-4953, prepared in the Office of the Chief

Engineer in March 1935, two years after the date of the effective proclamation.

The title of this map states that it shows a suggested addition to monument in

order to take in Thunderbird Ranch area" (underscoring supplied). This plainly

indicates the belief that the area in question was at that time and still is, outside

the monument, since the "proposed addition" was never effected. The same map,

by an enlargement of the proposed addition, shows "approximate location of

boundary" and "assumed limit of boundary" barely touching the northeast corner

of section 22 and located in such a way that the Thunderbird Ranch is a good

half mile outside the monument.

In view of this doubt as to the location of the Thunderbird Ranch within the

monument, and in fact the preponderant evidence that it is well outside, I

recommend that business concession permit I-20p-924 be not renewed in its

present form beyond December 31, 1948, and that there be issued to Mr.

McSparron instead a new business concession permit providing only for the

transportation of visitors up Canyons del Muerto and de Chelly. This would

leave the operation of the Thunderbird Guest Ranch in the same status as the

operation of the trading post and the operation of the nearby Garcia place; that is,

under the control of the Indian Service.

. . . . .

Since there is a possibility that Mr. McSparron will sell and we may be dealing

with a new concessioner, a decision on my recommendation should be reached

as early as possible. . . . [65]

Tillotson appears to have been unaware of the earlier agreement between the Park Service

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs defining a boundary, but if, as Cozy intimated, the Navajo

Agency was to question the validity of that agreement, grave issues would arise. In any case,

the Washington office accepted Tillotson's ideas and approved the issuing of a new permit

covering only transportation service up the canyons. [66] A new concessioner contract was

drawn up before January 25. [67] The Washington office was still considering a proposed text

for a new permit 6 months later, however—a permit covering only "transportation service up

Canyons del Muerto and de Chelly . . . by means of automobile, saddle horses, or otherwise,

during 1949." [68] It should be noted that although the rental of horses was mentioned in

permits and rate schedules regularly, Guillet had reported that the Navajos "retained all rights

to the rental of horses, etc. and Cozy merely acts as a go-between, and realizes no direct
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

profit from rental of horses or guide service"—a right reserved to the Navajos when the

monument was established. [69]

The winter of 1948-49 was a severe one and bad roads limited tourist travel to a mere 12

people in January and none at all in February. At higher altitudes the snow was exceptionally

deep and the Bureau undertook an emergency program to deliver supplies in snowbound

areas. Bad weather kept Guillet and Morris in the office more than usual and work on a

historical fact file was begun. Dr. Noble returned and spent a month recording Navajo chants

and prayers. As the weather improved, the Navajos and the Park Service both began making

repairs and preparing for possible floods in the canyon caused by rapid melting of the heavy

snows. Guillet hired one Navajo to assist with this work. [70] With further moderation of the

weather, Guillet undertook patrols, not only of the canyons but also of Three Turkey and

other ruins outside the monument to check on possible violations of the Antiquities Act. For

the first time a canyon resident, Joe M. Carroll, was nominated for the position of delegate to

the Navajo Tribal Council and Guillet felt that Carroll would be favorably inclined toward

Park Service interests if elected, [71] which he was. By this time the area had a regular "trail

crew," who kept busy maintaining and repairing roads and White House Trail and doing

channel diversion work at White House in anticipation of floods. For the latter job large

cottonwood trees cut from Joe Carroll's cornfield were utilized. [72] High water in the

canyons and muddy roads made travel difficult and into May patrols had to be made on

horseback. More plantings, this time of 1,000 small trees at the mouth of the canyon, were

made. Morris enjoyed good relations with the Navajos under Guillet's tutelage and during the

superintendent's absence was called upon to assist with the burial of an elderly Navajo

woman. [73] In June protective work for the ruins continued, probably at White House, with

the completion of a revetment and the planting of 7,000 willow cuttings. Insect infestations,

both of the cottonwood leaf beetle on the trees and of grasshoppers on Navajo crops, posed a

serious threat. [74] Wet weather continued into July and four heavy runoffs through the

canyons were recorded. A particularly heavy flow down del Muerto on July 4 damaged

plantings and erosion control spiders at Antelope House. [75]

David De Harport returned to the canyons on the day of the big flood to continue his survey.

[76] He spent a major part of this field season making a more detailed photographic record of

the sites recorded the previous year, but also extended his survey another 2 miles up the

canyon, adding 55 sites to his total. [77] During his first season's work he had discovered a

site, thought to be rather small, that was being badly eroded. Guillet requested emergency

funding to do work at the site, and as a result Charlie R. Steen was sent to conduct,

excavations there. [78] He began work on July 18 with three Navajo laborers. [79] After 2

weeks of digging he realized that there was far more beneath the surface than had been

anticipated. His project not only lasted throughout the summer and into the fall until October

10, but was resumed the following year. [80] By August he was able to get a tent and

brought out his family. [81] Dr. Noble took transparency photographs at the site for

interpretive use. [82]

Scientific work in the area was not restricted to archaeology that year. In August Dr. Edwin

H. Colbert of the American Museum of Natural History, with Richard Van Frank assisting,

carried out paleontological investigations in the region and included Canyon de Chelly in his

explorations. [83]

As the season for visitation and research drew to an end, work on improvements and

maintenance was increased. A 1,000-gallon water storage tank was brought from Bandelier

National Monument and installed in October. [84] In November and December more living

willow post cuttings were set out at White House and Antelope House. [85] A local Navajo,

David Gorman, was hired to fill a permanent maintenance man position. [86]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

The first winter of the 1950s was a dry one and there was concern about moisture needed for

summer range and crops. The mild weather permitted more maintenance of roads and

grounds, however. A blacksmith shop was set up and a small storage shed built with pine

slabs purchased from the tribal sawmill. Other winter work included further corrections to the

multiplex exhibit and preparation of two audiovisual programs using the slides donated by

Dr. Noble and the tape recorder he had loaned for use with them. [87]

Guillet's long tenure in charge of the monument was drawing to an end. In February he made

a trip to regional headquarters in Santa Fe "to discuss his status with the National Park

Service" and began to put things in order so that a new superintendent might take over with

ease. [88]

As spring arrived, road maintenance, especially on the south rim, was accelerated and

Gorman was placed in charge of a small crew of Navajo laborers for this work. Some tree

planting was also begun. Guillet continued to keep himself informed of tribal affairs and

reported that the spring session of the tribal council had passed a resolution authorizing tribal

suits "to recover or get rental fees from Government Agencies occupying Tribal lands,"

which he thought might affect the National Park Service's status at the monument. [89]

Cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Navajos was the general rule,

however. In April Guillet spent a week on a joint survey with Navajo Agency personnel

planning conservation work. [90] The following month the Bureau began receiving

applications from Navajo farmers in the canyons for jetties to protect their fields. [91] The

Park Service was also doing erosion control work and planted 4,000 willow seedlings and

cuttings at Tse Ta'a in April. [92] Navajos living below the first overlook complained that

tourists were throwing "objects" over the cliff, and a sign was promptly erected in an effort

to prevent further occurrences. [93] Sometime during the year Guillet also found it necessary

to prevent visiting Boy Scouts from carrying off old saddles marking graves in the cemetery

near headquarters. [94]

Cozy continued his efforts to sell Thunderbird Ranch and there were reports that the tribe

itself might take it over. Guillet reported that at a recent meeting in Chinle "some objection

was raised as to our right to issue a permit for Canyon trips." He felt that it would not be

possible for a concessioner to operate successfully if he had to conform to both tribal and

Park Service regulations and stated that one or the other should have full authority in the

matter. He lacked faith in the ability of the tribe to manage the concession itself without Park

Service regulation, and suggested that if the tribe should acquire the property it would be best

to exclude it from the monument. [95]

In any case, it was felt that the question of the division of authority between the Park Service,

the Bureau, and the tribe with regard to regulation of the business should be resolved. The

agreement and Secretarial approval of the western boundary of 1942 had come to light in the

regional office, causing Tillotson to reconsider his earlier recommendations concerning the

concessioner permit. Upon receipt of Guillet's report he wrote the Director explaining the

sequence of events as he understood them, concluding his memo with the following

paragraph:

In any event, it seems apparent that Mr. Burlew by the boundary description

which he approved on May 25, 1942, did not have the authority to extend the

boundaries of a national monument established pursuant to an act of Congress as

outlined above. I take it, therefore, that the boundary description of May 25,

1942, merely had the effect of transferring administrative jurisdiction over

certain lands from the Indian Service to the National Park Service and that in

such circumstances the rights of the Navajo Tribal Council over the lands so
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

transferred would still prevail. I should like to have your decision on this

particular point and especially to know whether monument headquarters and the

Thunderbird Ranch, located in the NW1/4 of Section 22, are inside or outside the

legal boundaries of Canyon de Chelly National Monument. Also, just what

agency has authority to regulate the operations of the Thunderbird Ranch and

Trading Post? [96]

The regional director had raised a serious question and nearly a month passed before a

decision was made, one that brought Cozy's operations back under more complete Park

Service regulation but that did little to ease Tillotson's doubts. Associate Director Demaray

wrote:

My memorandum to you of January 17, 1949, which authorized cancellation of

Mr. McSparron's concession permit No. 1-20p-924, approved March 26, 1945,

was in error as his ranch and trading post are within the national monument.

Inadvertently, neither my memorandum nor yours of December 22, 1948, on the

same subject came to the attention of the Land Planning Division, which is

familiar with the boundary situation at Canyon de Chelly. Permit No. 1-20p-924

should not have been canceled, and the continued regulation of the operation of

these facilities should continue under this Service. This would not, of course,

waive the necessity of the Trading Post operation being licensed by the proper

Indian authority . . . .

In response to your questions concerning the legality of the west boundary of

Canyon de Chelly National Monument as approved by Mr. Burlew on May 25,

1942, we can find no basis to support your view. Because of the general

boundary description given in the Proclamation establishing the national

monument, there has been question as to its exact location. For most of the area,

this made little difference as the lands continue to be Indian lands and are under

National Park Service jurisdiction only so far as they relate to the administration,

protection and use of the national monument as provided in the act of February

14, 1931, authorizing its establishment. At first, it was considered that

Thunderbird Ranch was within the boundary, but later on there was a

controversy, even among the geographers, as to just where the rim of Canyon de

Chelly terminated at its mouth. . . . It was finally decided that the only way this

boundary matter could be resolved would be for a joint study to be made by the

National Park Service and the Indian Service to be terminated in an agreement

between the two Services. Mr. Richey represented the National Park Service in

this study and his recommendations are contained in Report of Inspection,

Canyon de Chelly National Monument, September 29-30, 1941. During the

study, it was decided that it was important for the National Park Service to have

within its boundary the portion of the Rim Road from Thunderbird Ranch to

White House Overlook, the Rim Road from Thunderbird Ranch toward the

Lukachuka [sic] Mountains as far as Antelope House Overlook, and Thunderbird

Ranch itself, since this was a strategic area for handling of visitors and protection

and administration of access to the canyons. It was also generally agreed during

the study that the west boundary should follow section lines for ease of

administration.

When the headquarters development was started at Canyon de Chelly, the first

building was located on the 10-acre area authorized for the Thunderbird Ranch

and Trading Post, since this was the only suitable parcel of land not claimed or

in use by individual Navajo Indians. It was the concensus [sic] of the Indian

Office representatives and Mr. Richey that the west boundary as recommended
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

and finally approved by Mr. Burlew included within reasonable limits the area

which was intended for inclusion in the national monument as authorized by the

act of April 1, 1931. The line was accepted by both the Office of Indian Affairs

and the National Park Service, and it is assumed that the line was referred to the

Indian Tribal Council by the Indian Office. It was also necessary to include

Thunderbird Ranch and the access roads to the rims of both canyons so that the

National Park Service would have authority to expend funds for the maintenance

of these roads and the headquarters area. If Thunderbird Ranch is eliminated

from the national monument, then the headquarters would be eliminated also,

and it would be necessary for us to enter into a special agreement to maintain the

buildings, grounds and roads.

It seems to us that it is extremely desirable to maintain the west boundary as

approved by Mr. Burlew to insure proper administration, protection, and use of

Canyon de Chelly National Monument. Since this boundary was agreed to by the

Office of Indian Affairs and since there has not been subsequent question by that

Office concerning the boundary location, we feel that the Service should not now

inject such a question into the administration of the area.

We have covered this subject rather fully, but we feel it is extremely important

that it be fully understood.

In a postscript Demaray instructed that Cozy's last two permits be canceled and that a new

permit covering the full range of tourist services at Thunderbird Ranch be issued effective

retroactively from January 1, 1949. [97]

Tillotson felt that it would be futile to try to make McSparron apply for a retroactive permit

for 1949, so he asked the director to authorize requiring a new permit for the current year

only. [98] Even this raised questions that Guillet did not feel qualified to answer when

instructed to contact Cozy, so he asked that a representative of the regional office come to

Chinle to explain the matter to Cozy directly. [99]

Legal requirements could not be waived beyond a certain point, however, and in due time

Guillet received instructions to inform McSparron that he must also have a retroactive permit

for 1949, being excused only from having to submit a rate schedule and monthly reports for

that year, although he would have to present an annual financial report. The 1950 permit

would require monthly reports both for the period it covered retroactively and for the

remainder of the year. [100] On the same date a second memo was sent in reply to Guillet's

plea for help in explaining. the complications to McSparron. The acting regional director,

John M. Davis, would not be able to visit before June 15, but in the meantime he thought it

best that Cozy have a copy of the new permit so that he would be prepared to raise any

objections he might have. [101]

As instructed, Guillet delivered the new concession contract draft to Cozy, but found him far

from receptive. Cozy stated he would operate under the regulation of only one agency or not

at all and threatened to close down his tourist services completely, keeping only his trading

post open. [102] Davis did not visit the monument until after Guillet had left, and it was then

up to Guillet's successor to carry on the effort. [103]

The research field season was inaugurated by a United States Geological Survey project

studying the de Chelly formation. [104] Guillet would not be around to welcome De Harport

and Steen back, however. The incoming superintendent, Everett W. Bright, spent 4 days at

the monument early in June to learn about "the background and other information on

administration, maintenance, public relations with the Navajo, etc." from Guillet. Morris
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:31 PM]

would serve as acting superintendent until Bright was moved to his new post. Guillet left on

June 15, but drafted the June monthly report before leaving, blank spaces remaining where

Morris could insert statistics that could not be tallied until later. Guillet closed with the

following:

It is with deep regret that I submit this, my last, report as Superintendent of

Canyon de Chelly National Monument. I have come to think a great deal of our

Southwestern National Monuments organization and its members and can only

hope that it will not be too long until I may be with it again. [105]

The relaxation of wartime restrictions had allowed Guillet during his first incumbency to

make many minor improvements in facilities, but a small budget had not permitted the kind

of development that increasing visitation would soon demand. He had been able to initiate

some useful research efforts and to upgrade interpretation, while two especially significant

research projects, those by De Harport and Steen, had benefited from his presence. His chief

legacy, however, was the enhancement of relations with the Navajos, especially at the local

level, where he was not to be forgotten.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi6.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:42 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 7:

THE LULL, 1950-1957

Everett Bright, the new superintendent, arrived at Chinle toward the end of June 1950. He

expressed gratitude for Guillet's careful preparations for the change in administration and was

soon busy continuing improvements and maintenance and serving the visiting public. The

major addition to monument facilities in July was a new half-ton pickup, increasing to three

the number of vehicles available for work. [1]

David De Harport returned on July 3. [2] His first two seasons of work had been done on foot

from Chinle, but this year he had an old army jeep and camped, [3] enabling him to extend

his survey further up the canyon. In 20 miles of the main canyon he had a grand total of 342

sites by the end of the 1950 season on September 15. [4]

Charley Steen arrived on July 25 to resume his excavations at Tse Ta'a. [5] He again hired

Navajo workers, and this season had Chauncey Neboyia on his crew. [6] He closed down the

dig on September 22 [7] and spent another week preparing his collections for shipment to

Santa Fe. [8] His was the first major published report to appear on the archaeology of the

monument. [9]

Bright devoted considerable energy to physical improvements. In August he installed a

grease rack for the maintenance of the vehicles and graded a parking area behind

headquarters for Government vehicles. In September he hauled flagstone from the deposits

near Ganado and used it in front of the headquarters building and in construction of a

drinking fountain. [10] What was left over was used for a walkway around the living

quarters. [11] While the picnic areas had been used for camping by visitors for some time, a

campground with ten tables and ten fireplaces was now being planned. [12] Bright was

unable to secure bids on the project and so began work on it himself. [13] The job progressed

slowly because low temperatures hindered the concrete work. [14]

Cooperative work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on watershed problems was also

undertaken. In November Paul Balch visited the canyon to determine what was needed. [15]

By the end of the year the Bureau had built 500 jetties to protect fields; of these, 200 were at

Twin Trails in del Muerto and 300 not far above White House. The cooperative Bureau-Park

Service project was awaiting the opening of bids. [16]

John M. Davis, now general superintendent of Southwestern Monuments, visited McSparron

in June and apparently resolved some of the issues relating to the concession permit, for in

July he sent a revised draft for signatures by McSparron and Bright. The only change

mentioned appears to be minor-exclusion of a provision regarding saddle horses because

Cozy merely acted as an agent for Navajos in the matter under the terms of the act of

February 14, 1931. [17] Bright was able to return the signed copies a week later and reported

that he was getting on quite well with Cozy. He also reported that representatives of the tribe

had visited Cozy to inquire about purchasing Thunderbird Ranch. McSparron had quoted a

price and thought the prospects for selling his business were good. [18]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:42 PM]

This new proposal raised legal questions that the Bureau wanted answered. The Window

Rock Area Office wrote the regional director of the Park Service asking whether Cozy paid

the Park Service any fees and whether, if he did, Cozy might conclude that he was entitled to

a refund of rent he had already paid the tribe. The possibility of excluding Thunderbird

Ranch from the monument if purchased by the tribe was also suggested in order to avoid Park

Service regulation of a tribal operation. The advisory committee of the council was asking

why the tribe had only been granted concession rights to horse rentals in the first place. [19]

Personnel changes in the regional office delayed replying to these questions until October.

The regional director's answer seems to have been based on the premise that the Park Service

owned the lands within the monument boundaries. He wrote, in part,

I am not familiar with the details of the ordinance referred to by Mr. Fister as

passed by the Navajo Tribe requiring traders occupying tribal lands to pay to the

Navajos a percentage of gross sales in the form of rentals. However, it is obvious

that the Thunderbird Ranch cannot be within Canyon de Chelly National

Monument . . . and at the same time on tribal lands. Mr. McSparron is paying a

fee for his concession permit No. I-33np-263, issued by the National Park

Service, authorizing him to operate a "trading post and guest ranch, furnishing

motor transportation services up the canyons del Muerto and de Chelly, and such

other services necessary for the convenience of visitors. . ." Irrespective of what

his concession fee for that permit might be, it seems that, during the same period,

he should not have been required to pay to the Tribal Council a fee of any kind

since he could not have been occupying tribal lands if he were occupying

national monument lands."

. . . . .

In Mr. Fister's letter of August 9 he refers to the possibility of relinquishing that

portion of the monument on which Thunderbird Ranch and Trading Post are

located.

. . . . .

Without competent legal advice I could not . . . say whether in this case the lands

on which Thunderbird Ranch and Trading Post are located could be eliminated

from the monument without Congressional action.

Neither the Proclamation of April 1, 1931, nor that of March 3, 1933, makes any

provisions as to the preferential rights to be granted to Navajo Indians. The

provision to which you refer is, however, included in the basic act of February

14, 1931. I cannot answer your specific inquiry as to why that Act did not grant

preferential concession rights as well to Navajo Indians, since our files do not

contain a record of the background information leading to the passage of the Act.

. . . [20]

Hagerman's fears of the ignoring of Navajo rights would seem to have been well founded.

The effects of this communication on Park Service-Navajo relations were to be seen the

following year, but the immediate result was Cozy's refusal to pay any further rental to the

tribe. [21]

Local community relations continued to be good through the year. Guillet had started Bright

out well with the Navajos apparently and when, in his first month as superintendent, Bright

faced the problem created by a tourist's dog killing a Navajo sheep, the matter was settled by
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:42 PM]

the visitor's payment of $25 as compensation. [22] The established policy of Park Service aid

to Navajos in time of crisis was continued. Morris, acting superintendent while Bright was on

leave, helped with the burial of an elderly Navajo man. [23]

By January 1951 the new concrete picnic tables were being installed, as were five of the ten

fireplaces. [24] The following, month everything was in place. They were divided among

three campgrounds: at headquarters, at White House Overlook, and at Spider Rock Overlook.

The Spider Rock Trail was shortened from 900 yards to 100 yards when the road was

extended to the new camp area. [25] With the setting up of trash disposal containers and new

signs, the monument was ready for a record season of visitation and camping. [26] Other

changes during the year included construction of a low stone retaining wall behind the

headquarters/living quarters building and of a new display rack and case for publication

sales, and removal of the fireplace in the office when an oil heater was installed. [27] David

Gorman evidently continued as maintenance man, because there is mention of his breaking an

ankle while moving the new concrete tables. [28]

De Harport was the only researcher to work in the canyons that year. He arrived on July 2

and before leaving on November 5 had extended his survey another 3-1/2 miles up the main

canyon, adding 20 sites from that area and two from lower reaches of the area for a grand

total of 364. He also excavated two small sites and salvaged a burial eroding at Standing Cow

Ruin at the request of local Navajos and the Park Service. [29]

Locally Navajo relations seemed to be good. Monument employees joined local school

personnel in sponsoring an Easter egg hunt in the headquarter's campground for 300

schoolchildren. [30] An Enemyway held in August near Antelope House was attended by

many visitors. [31]

The exceptionally heavy visitation, which diverted so much time to interpretation and guide

work that maintenance work fell behind, [32] filled the Thunderbird's guest accommodations

to capacity and brought Cozy higher revenues than ever before. [33] This increasingly

profitable business was duly noted by the Navajo Tribal Council. Cozy's adamant refusal to

continue paying rent to the tribe and Tillotson's assertion of NPS ownership of the land at

Canyon de Chelly, however, were doubtlessly the primary stimuli for strong council action.

[34] On October 2 the advisory committee of that body passed a resolution stating:

1. It is the opinion of the Committee, that the Navajo Tribe, through the establishment of

the Canyon de Chelly National Monument on Tribal lands within the Navajo

Reservation, retained full ownership and control of the lands.

2. The action of the National Park Service in granting a concession for trading and hotel

purposes is not proper or within the authority of the Park Service.

3. Should the National Park Service claim rights to grant concessions within the area, the

Committee hereby requests the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of

the Interior to cause the boundaries of the monument to be changed to exclude that

portion of the lands on which the Thunder Bird Ranch is located.

4. An understanding be worked out with the National Park Service and the Navajo Tribe

relative to the use and control of the Tribal lands within the monument.

The resolution was approved by Walter O. Olson for Alan G. Harper, area director of the

Bureau of Indian Affairs. [35]

No follow-up correspondence on the matter has been found, and a routine boundary status

report showed no Park Service concern with the tribal action. On November 8 Bright
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:42 PM]

recommended "no change" in the monument boundaries with no qualifying comments. [36]

The regional landscape architect and the regional engineer both suggested that the narrow

wedges of land created by the sinuous boundaries be utilized in road building. [37] Tillotson,

in forwarding the report to the Director, felt that there would be no difficulties involved in

working out agreements with the Bureau when needed for road construction and maintenance

and supported Bright's original recommendation, which had been agreed to by Guillet and

Southwestern Monuments General Superintendent John M. Davis. [38]

In September a young Navajo man, Paul Anagal, committed suicide by jumping from a 700-

foot cliff. [39]

The last event involving Navajos with which the Park Service had any concern that year was

a minor international incident that lightened the somber mood with a touch of humor. As

reported by Bright:

On December 6, a Mr. Anderson an experienced mountain climber from

Norway, went down the White House Trail to do some hiking and return by

coming out at the mouth of the canyon near our headquarters. About a mile and a

half from his destination, for some unknown reason, he turned around and started

in the other direction. On the 7th, the de Chelly staff tracked him until dark and

returned for flashlights. In the mean time, Mr. Able Garcia, from the Canyon de

Chelly Trading Post, was informed by a Navajo that the man was seen in upper

del Muerto still going the other way, away from home. Just before we were

ready to leave for a continued search Mr. Garcia came in with the lost party. Mr.

Anderson admitted he was lost, but he thought there was just one canyon, de

Chelly. He was very hungry and glad to be back with his wife and small child

who were staying at the Catholic Mission. He had spent the night in a hogan

where he had borrowed an overcoat and some extra shoes. When found he had

forced his way into another hogan . . . Navajos do not live in the canyons in the

winter . . . and was prepaired [sic] for the second night. The overcoat was badly

burnt, evidently he had fallen asleep too near the fire. After some bickering the

Navajo got a new overcoat from the Catholic Mission and a $5.00 bill from his

overnight guest, so all parted company friends. Strange as it may seem, he had

entered two hogans that belonged to the same family, they were four miles apart.

[40]

The new year brought "rain, snow, sleet, hail, and blizzard," closing all roads except the one

to Ganado, and even that was not passable part of the month. As a result, there were no

visitors. Cold weather interfered with maintenance projects, but work was begun on a flood

diversion wall west of the headquarters building. [41] The cold damp weather damaged the

roads, which deteriorated rapidly under heavy use by the Navajos, who were hauling more

firewood than usual. Because of light tourist visitation, most of February was devoted to

maintenance of roads and other facilities. [42] In March the increased soil moisture helped

precipitate slides blocking White House Trail in three places. [43] The damage turned out to

be quite extensive, and work on the trail continued throughout the year. [44] A special horsedrawn cart was employed to transport materials along the narrow access. [45] Road

maintenance continued despite the wet weather, which lasted all year, and seems to have

been accomplished through a pragmatic division of responsibility among the Park Service,

Bureau, and perhaps the county. [46] Work began in the fall on a paved road from Window

Rock to Ganado. [47]

Concern for a formal agreement, particularly if major road building should be authorized,

was still felt, however. In March, National Park Service Director Conrad L. Wirth again

raised this matter in relation to the monument boundary in a memorandum to the regional
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:42 PM]

director:

I would agree that ordinarily it is desirable and important that our boundaries fall

outside of whatever developments are necessary for a park or monument.

Canyon de Chelly seems unique, however, in that there would be no Monument

at all if the Indians had not been willing to agree to let us administer a portion of

their lands for monument purposes. In view of the past involvements, surveys

and approvals required to establish the present jurisdictional boundary, I am

inclined to agree that we might well complicate rather than gain from any

attempt to convert the Indians to a boundary extension at this time, especially

when the need for it appears to be more technical than real. Of course, this does

not preclude the possibility that the boundary might eventually be adjusted.

. . . . .

I am requesting the Chief Counsel, by copy of this memorandum, to seek

appropriate provision in the next point of order legislation to cover any necessary

Monument road construction, maintenance or improvement on lands situated

outside the present Monument Boundary. Please advise whether you concur in

this or whether you can work out some alternative arrangement with the Bureau

of Indian Affairs. . . . [48]

The matter, however, seems to have remained unresolved at this time.

Erosion control was especially important as a result of the heavy precipitation. In March 150

"native" Russian olive and Chinese elm trees were planted around the headquarters area. [49]

Dale S. King, then acting general superintendent of Southwestern Monuments, suggested that

the use of truly native species, such as cottonwood, would be preferable, but conceded that

the canyons already harbored many exotic plant and animal species. [50] About this time

Bright took delivery of 3,000 pounds of assorted grass seed for use in the watershed project.

[51] No information exists as to what species were introduced at this time, but it seems quite

probable that new exotics were included.

Work on the construction of masonry water control drops along the south rim of the main

canyon began on May 19. [52] As this progressed, the grass seeding was also done, and the

Navajos were reportedly pleased with the results. [53] In August further building of jetties

was done in both del Muerto and de Chelly. By September 26 some 300 out of a planned

total of 350 were completed. [54]

In the spring and summer, new record levels of visitation were again set. A great deal of time

was therefore devoted to interpretive work and cleaning the campgrounds. [55] A new

wayside exhibit telling the legend of Spider Rock was erected at that overlook and an exhibit

was planned for the White House Overlook also. [56] Due to the increased demand for such

items, new slides and postcards were exhibited in a new display, and sold rapidly. [57] In

June the area got its first 4-wheel-drive vehicle, a new jeep, which greatly facilitated

patrolling the canyons and accomplishing other work in sections difficult to reach. [58]

Relations with the Navajos fluctuated. In March the Bureau stationed two Navajo police

officers at Chinle because of increased drinking in the area. This move was greeted with

approval by Bright. In the same month Bright was elected president of the Chinle group of

the National Federation of Federal Employees, most of whose members were Bureau

workers. [59] About 250 turned out in April when the area staff again helped sponsor an

Easter egg hunt for local schoolchildren. [60] An Enemyway held at the foot of White House

Trail in August was witnessed by many visitors. [61]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:42 PM]

Thunderbird Ranch had enjoyed another very busy season and Bright thought that they should

expand the facilities. [62] Because the mild fall weather kept visitation at a high level the

ranch agreed to keep its guest accommodations open beyond the regular closing date of

October 15. [63] Tribal interest in the operation had not diminished. In November Bright

went to Window Rock to arrange for a meeting with tribal and Bureau officials, [64] but it

was not held until 3 months later. [65]

Toward the end of November Morris was transferred; the ranger position was not to be

refilled and perhaps would be allowed to lapse. [66] Bright, with record visitations each year,

would have to manage with long-term seasonal assistance. Because of Chinle's remoteness,

however, winter visitation was very low and other matters could be handled at this time. In

January 1953 Bright was able to complete a diversion wall to protect a section of the road to

the White House Overlook that had frequently suffered damage in the past. [67] Various

maintenance jobs could be easily tackled. [68] By April, however, nearly half of Bright's time

was required for interpretive services and even more was devoted to these activities in May.

[69] Two new wayside exhibits were installed at the White House Overlook and a selfguiding trail to the ruin was planned to relieve the pressure on the personnel. [70] By the end

of the year work on the self-guiding booklet was well underway at Southwestern Monuments

headquarters. [71] Seasonal Ranger John T. McConville reported for duty June 8 and was

very much needed, for visitation more than doubled and time spent with tourists almost

doubled. [72] Bright was transferred to Craters of the Moon National Monument and left

September 1; McConville was acting superintendent until relieved by John A. Aubuchon on

November 19. McConville was terminated on December 3. [73] It seems likely that under

these circumstances much of the knowledge of the unique problems of the area gained by

Guillet and passed on to Bright was lost.

However, Aubuchon remembers his relations with the Navajos as being generally cordial, as

the records of his administration indicate. He joined the local Presbyterian church, his

admission being approved by an all-Navajo, non-English-speaking board. He recalls

numerous occasions when transportation was supplied to individual canyon residents in times

of need. His memories of the place and of his stay there seem to be generally pleasant ones.

[74]

Little in the way of permanent improvements was accomplished by the local staff. In addition

to the diversion wall to protect the road, the only significant change was the conversion of a

toolroom into public restrooms by Eugene Mott. [75] Erosion control was continued under

the joint Bureau-Park Service project with the planting of another 2,500 pounds of grass

seeds and of willow cuttings taken from the flourishing stands at White House and Antelope

House, [76] the willows having been used at the jetties built in 1952.

Bright continued his efforts at improving community relations with the annual Easter egg

hunt, but there is generally little mention of Navajo or community affairs in the monthly

reports for the year. [77]

Consideration of the road and boundary problem moved with extreme slowness. Not until

February 12 did P. P. Patrow, acting regional director, reply to Tillotson's memorandum of

March 29, 1952, giving regional concurrence to the suggestion that special legislative

authority be sought to permit road building outside the monument's boundaries. [78]

A report by Bright in July on utilities shows the interrelatedness of the Park Service, the

concessioner, and local Navajos. Cozy supplied electricity from a private generator for both

his own use and for the Park Service. His rates, while considered high, were lower than the

cost would have been if the Service were required to generate its own power. A 5,000-gallon

water reservoir constructed by the Service provided water for the Thunderbird, the Park
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:42 PM]

Service, and local Navajos, both for domestic use and for watering livestock. This was not

adequate for the demand, especially in view of the need to maintain a reserve for fire

fighting. In 1936 the Park Service had put in a gas engine to pump the water and a meter so

that Cozy could be charged for water supplied to the Thunderbird. Mechanical problems with

the meter and the small capacity of the pump caused so much trouble that about 1947 or 1948

Cozy installed an electric pump. Since that time he had pumped the water at his own expense

in the daytime and the Park Service took over at night. This was the only method possible to

meet the demands created by the increased visitation and by the growing needs of the

Navajos. [79]

Perhaps the major accomplishment of the Government, in its effect on both monument

operation and the local Navajos, was work done by the Bureau of Indian Affairs some

distance away. In October the paving of the road from Window Rock to Ganado was

completed. [80] This cut the distance from Chinle to a paved road by 30 miles, making

access to goods and services not locally available easier for all residents and facilitating

tourist access to the monument.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi7.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 8:

DEVELOPMENT AND NAVAJO TROUBLES, 1958-1962

On May 4, 1958, Paul A. Berger began his duties as superintendent at Canyon de Chelly. [1]

Informal slide shows and talks were presented to visitors around a "small campfire circle"

completed during the previous month. Aiding in these presentations as well as in patrols

along the rim roads was Seasonal Ranger Martin A. Link. David Gorman was still the

maintenance man, although he was on sick leave during the end of May due to sciatic

rheumatism. [2]

A tragic event also occurred in May with the death of John R. Nelson, partner and manager

of the Thunderbird Ranch, who had a fatal heart attack. His wife, aided by John Wade, took

over his duties. [3] In June, Mrs. Nelson decided to sell the Thunderbird. [4]

An interesting report was filed in May by Franklin Smith, regional museum curator,

concerning the museum at de Chelly. He wrote:

The monument collections are small, consisting primarily of specimens of

cordage, basketry, and pottery picked up from the archeological sites in the area.

Much of this material is without provenience, and might well be culled for

exhibit material and then discarded. There are no records on the collections at the

monument, but some data is available at Southwest Archeological Center. [5]

In the months of June, July, and August, almost 8,000 visitors were recorded at Canyon de

Chelly. [6] Two automobile accidents occurred during this period. One involved a

Government vehicle, which hit a tree in an effort to avoid a sheep, and another involved the

collision of two privately-owned cars on the canyon floor. [7]

Berger also reported in June that a contract was signed between the Bureau and the Pecos

Construction Company to pave the remaining 16 miles of road between Chinle and Ganado

Junction. The contract was to extend for about 1 year, and at its completion the 35 miles

between the two points would be a paved surface. [8]

Berger was also confronted with a problem relating to a proposed well drilling by the

Navajos. Reed Winnie, president of the Chinle Chapter, stated that permission to drill a well

and place a windmill in the area known as Peach Orchard—about 2 miles beyond White

House Overlook road and approximately one-quarter mile from the rim of the canyon—was

granted to the tribe by the original bill establishing the monument. [9] Berger, however, felt

that they could not drill a well "within at least one-half mile of the Canyon rim since that is

considered the Monument boundary and any development, other than National Park Service

development, would not be permitted." [10]

Improvements at the monument included three new fire extinguishers placed at the

Thunderbird and two new easel exhibits placed at White House Trail and White House Ruin.

Regular patrols also continued and included, besides the rim roads, the Spider Rock picnic

grounds and trips up the canyon when possible. [11]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

Concerning the proposed selling of the Thunderbird Ranch, Berger reported that there were

two parties interested. Mrs. Nelson was asking $150,000 for the Thunderbird, and Berger

thought that the price was perhaps too high, because interest was lagging. [12]

The month of August was a busy one. Over 3,600 people in 955 automobiles were counted

from 41 states and 10 foreign countries. Work on the road between Chinle and Ganado

Junction, which was subcontracted to the Witt-Ross Company, was progressing. Other road

work included grading and placing drainage structures from Chinle Junction north to Many

Farms and grading and sub-base work on the road south of Chinle Junction to Pinyon

Junction. [13]

Park personnel were involved in repairing the tread of the White House Trail, improving the

South Rim Road, and inspecting for "Ips" infestation in the pinon trees at de Chelly—of

which a few scattered areas were found. A forest fire was reported on August 10 "in the tree

cabling area on the Tsaile drainage." [14] Berger, Don Boileau, park ranger, and Don

Lyndholm, range management supervisor, Bureau of Indian Affairs, helped in fighting the

conflagration, along with approximately 75 other men. The fire did not threaten the park

boundary, and by August 13 was under control, having destroyed from 1,200 to 1,500 acres.

"All timber burned," wrote Berger, "was in the cabled tree area and did little damage to any

timber of value." [15]

The slide shows and evening programs ended in September, and the seasonal personnel—

Link, Boileau, and Richard P. Draper—left. [16] Also during the month jetty work was done

at the ruins: 240 jetties were placed at Standing Cow Ruins, 160 constructed at Antelope

Ruins, and 240 built at Tse Ta'a Ruins. [17]

Berger also reported that he had reviewed the "Site Development, Residential and Utility

Area" drawings for Canyon de Chelly and approved them. He was, however, concerned over

the need for an additional 50 feet of land, which was being used by a Navajo lady for grazing

purposes. He hoped that he could get permission from the tribe and lady for access to this

area. [18]

A report made by Regional Director Hugh Miller, who was at de Chelly from August 31 to

September 1, reveals much about the operations there. Miller's inspection was made in

relation to Mission 66 master planning. Some of his remarks on pertinent subjects follow:

Organization: This is another small organization, flexible in operation and

efficient in fact. The organization consists of the superintendent, a park ranger

GS-5, and a full time maintenanceman.

Personnel: The present staff is probably adequate; that is to say it would be

adequate with the addition of an administrative assistant when we get an

employee's residence to put him in. We are asking for four additional months of

park ranger service in the 1960 estimates.

Plant: This is a large monument with many maintenance problems; however, its

total powered equipment is limited to one Dodge power pickup, 1957, one-halfton rated capacity; one Ford pickup truck, one-half-ton 1956; one two-ton Ford

dump truck, condition good, and one light Gallion road grader, condition poor. . .

. the superintendent should be provided with a passenger automobile.

The layout of offices, workshops, warehouses, etc., is not conducive to efficient

work. . . . There is no housing for any employees except the Superintendent. This

situation will, however, be very substantially improved when we realize the
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

construction program schedules for the 1960 Fiscal year. It includes a new visitor

center, three employees' residences, necessary related utilities, etc. [19]

Commenting on specific items, Miller found the office, which adjoined the superintendent's

residence, tiny; the public campground small yet "delightful," with excellent maintenance; the

rim drive unsurfaced, yet "remarkably free from trash, no easy achievement in the Indian

Country." [20] Concerning overlooks, he believed the view from Tsegi Overlook

"magnificent," and noted that the safety barrier and interpretive treatment that were needed

were being planned for. The Junction Overlook received the same comments. The White

House Overlook, on the other hand, which received the most visitors, had only limited

interpretive devices in the form of self-guiding trail leaflets. [21]

Commenting on the relations with the Navajos, Miller believed them to be good. He stated

that

Superintendent Berger's estimate of the situation is that so far as the individual

members of the National Park Service at Canyon de Chelly are concerned, the

Navajo are very friendly. However, he believes that the Navajo resent the

presence of the National Park Service as an invasion of their traditional holdings.

This seems to be wholly apart from economic reasons but to be imbedded in the

traditions and pride of the Navajo Nation. The Superintendent believes that the

younger generations will be readier to perceive that actual economic benefits

accrue from our presence and that the present resentment may slowly be toned

down and perhaps forgotten. Such improvement he feels will be a matter of

many years. [22]

Miller also made remarks on the Thunderbird Ranch, which he felt was doing its job; on

relations between the Park Service and the Bureau, which he believed to be excellent; and on

Berger's administrative qualities, which he believed to be of the highest order. [23]

Aside from this report, Berger commented on campfire interpretive programs at de Chelly

and shed light on how things were done there. Berger believed the campfire programs, which

consisted of 35 slides and ended with a question and answer session, were very beneficial.

[24]

In October the park ranger position was reclassified from GS-5 to GS-7. Also during the

month the Park Service cooperated with the Navajo police in apprehending two drunken

Navajo boys who had an accident in their pickup on the south rim of the canyon.[25]

Stabilization work under contract was done at the foundation and base of White House Ruins.

The work consisted of putting grout into the sand and debris under the ruins to prevent water

from shifting and heaving the base material. [26] Evidently, this was a new pumping method

of subsoil stabilization seldom used before. [27] The total cost of the project was $6,189.50.

Archeologists Steen and Richert were to make periodic inspections to see how the work was

progressing and the results. This process had been employed successfully in other

stabilization projects, and it was hoped that it would be effective at the White House Ruins.

[28]

Berger was still concerned over the proposed developments at de Chelly, especially the

problem of a right of way for the proposed south rim road. He believed that a boundary

change would not be necessary. [29] He did, however, fear "a great deal of opposition" from

the Navajos because the proposed road crossed a section of Navajo farm land. [30]

In November the Navajo tribe did work on the Twin Trails into Canyon del Muerto. This was

a Navajo work project for the unemployed and gave jobs to 10 Navajos. The Park Service
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

gave advice when it was requested. Berger commented that "the work was accomplished by

hand labor and a satisfactory job resulted." [31]

Also during November, Berger spent several days in Santa Fe at the regional office at a

meeting concerning relations with the Navajos. [32] Also present at the meeting were

Guillet, then superintendent of Walnut Canyon National Monument, and Arthur H. White,

superintendent at Navajo National Monument. [33] This meeting was a result of National

Park Service Acting Director E. T. Scoyen's request for a study of the "Navajo's apparent

suspicion of planning assistance that the Service has offered from time to time." [34]

The result of this meeting was a report by Berger, Guillet, and White. They traced the early

background of Navajo-United States Government contact from 1868 and the histories of the

establishment of Canyon de Chelly [35] and Navajo national monuments. Then they turned to

the main problem facing the Park Service: "How can we overcome this inbred distrust of

government agencies and establish an atmosphere of mutual trust in our dealings with the

Tribe?" [36] In answering this question, they felt that the choice of men to deal with the

Navajos must be made wisely. They made some rather negative remarks about McSparron,

who had owned the Thunderbird Ranch. They believed he had had a great deal of influence

with the Navajos and served as a "local news dispensing agency, ward boss and general

informer and advisor." He also interfered, according to Berger, Guillet, and White, with Park

Service policies he did not agree with. [37]

In recent discussions with the Navajo Tribal Council and their representatives

they have stated (a) that we took Rainbow Bridge away from them when it was

established as a national monument, (b) that we have in effect taken the Canyon

de Chelly and Navajo National Monument lands away from the Indians, and (c)

that we have driven them out of Chaco Canyon.

Thompson to Rogers, Apr. 11, 1958, ibid.

They felt that the Navajos had no ill feelings toward the Service personnel who had been

stationed at de Chelly. "Without exception, the local people speak well of the monument

custodians and superintendents." [38] Slight differences would arise, they said, but this was

true of all Government agencies operating on reservations. They believed the Navajos had an

"inherited distrust of all people," and hoped that the younger and better educated Navajos

"might gradually lose some of this distrust." [39] Concerning the rapid shifting of monument

personnel, they believed this to be a hindrance to building confidence and rapport between

the Park Service and the Navajos. [40]

In concluding their report, they made six recommendations: 1) they wanted to establish a

position of liaison man between the Park Service and the Navajos and suggested Tom Dodge,

son of the late Chee Dodge, for the slot. Dodge was employed as superintendent of San

Carlos Apache Agency; 2) they hoped that the Park Service personnel in Navajo country

would be better informed about the area; 3) they wanted the Navajos to be able to collect fees

at the monuments, though for what was unclear; 4) they suggested setting up a booth at the

Navajo Tribal Fair on an annual basis; 5) they hoped more Navajos would be employed by

the Park Service in trainee positions; 6) they recommended that "superintendents of areas in

Arizona and New Mexico be made aware of the problems of the service with the Indian

Tribes and further recommend that they be requested to handle under their jurisdiction

matters which concern the Indians with discretion and caution." [41]

In December 1958, 433 visitors arrived at de Chelly in 130 cars. The total visitation for 1958

was 15,844 as compared to 13,235 for 1957. [42] Work was progressing on roads from

Ganado Junction to Many Farms and from Chinle to the south. The maintenance man,
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

Gorman, who was once again suffering from rheumatism, returned to work after 60 days of

treatment. [43] Work was also done on a revision of the White House Trail guide. [44]

The Thunderbird had accommodated 2,776 overnight guests during the year. It still had no

buyer. [45] The Navajo tribe was not interested in becoming the owner, Paul Jones, Navajo

Tribal Council chairman, stating that "the Navajo Tribe is not interested at this time in

purchasing the possessory interest in the Thunderbird Ranch and trading post, and hereby

waives its option to purchase such interest in accordance with the Navajo Tribe's lease." [46]

Berger informed the regional director of the tribe's decision and said he felt that the proposed

prospectus for the Thunderbird should be distributed to all parties "interested in purchasing a

concession with the Park Service." [47]

Berger then wrote to Mrs. Nelson and stated that the Navajos were not at present interested

in buying the Thunderbird. He believed that the Navajo tribe would not interfere in the sale

and informed her of the concession prospectus. In concluding his letter, Berger said that "the

present contract, which runs until December 31, 1973, will operate until that date without

interference from the tribe." [48]

The prospectus included an invitation to "all persons or corporations interested in acquiring

and operating the Thunderbird Ranch and Trading Post. . . ." [49] It further stated that an

applicant must be acceptable not only to the Park Service but also to the Navajo Tribal

Council. [50]

Contents of the prospectus included a description of the Canyon de Chelly area, park

visitation, and concession and Government operations. The Thunderbird Ranch was described

as follows:

The Lodge has a large room which at present functions as a dining room and

lounge, a kitchen, cook's room with bath, and living quarters for the concessioner

consisting of two bedrooms each with bath and a large living room. Also in this

building are two guest rooms, each with bath. There are two large porches on the

main building. The manager's cabin has two bedrooms, each with bath, a living

room and a kitchen. [51]

There were also two cabins for employees, a utility and storage building, a barn and storage

building, and three guesthouses. The guesthouses totalled ten double units. [52]

Besides discussing such matters as rates, insurance, and bonding, the prospectus contained

information on Mission 66, "the ten-year program undertaken in 1956 by the National Park

Service to bring the National Park System up to the standards which the American people

want and have a right to expect." Included in the Mission 66 project at Canyon de Chelly

were improvements on roads and trails. [53]

The proposal for a water and sewage system at de Chelly caused problems because the

proposed sewage lagoon was on fenced Indian land. [54] Berger was instructed to "take

preliminary steps to obtain the authorization." [55] The acting regional director also wrote

Berger and informed him that the sewage lagoon was definitely within the Canyon de Chelly

National Monument boundaries and "this will provide a more advantageous position for us in

negotiating for the release of the land needed since the act creating the Monument provides

that land required for developments may be so used." [56] Furthermore, Berger was advised

that

It is particularly important to avoid a situation which will create a

misunderstanding between Indians and the Service which I am sure you

understand. Nevertheless, it seems clear that we have a clear legal right to use
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

the land. Adequate notice and due consideration of the Navajo who is using the

land are a courtesy we should observe meticulously. [57]

Berger, in turn, began negotiations with the Navajo owner of this land who was to receive a

"permit for the use of the field . . . [and] will have the privilege of a 3/4-inch water line so

that water may be taken into his house in return for permitting the National Park Service to

construct the sewage lagoon in the field." [58] However, the negotiations apparently were not

finalized, because the site for the sewage lagoon was moved to a new, less conspicuous

location. [59]

Following the recommendations made at the meeting in Santa Fe pertaining to Navajo-Park

Service relations, space for a Park Service booth at the Navajo Tribal Fair, which was to be

held September 11-14, was obtained from the fair committee. [60] National Park Service

Associate Director Scoyen was very pleased with most of the recommendations and believed

them worthwhile. He took exception, however, to the recommendation concerning the

collection of fees, because this would necessitate legislation and because the expenses

involved in collecting the fees would exceed the amount of money collected. [61]

Responding to Scoyen's remarks, Miller stated that plans were underway to put the

recommendations into effect. [62]

During the month of April, relinquishment rights of tribal Indian land within Canyon de

Chelly National Monument needed for road construction was obtained from Anson Bahe, an

elderly Navajo woman. Berger wrote to the District 10 Grazing Committee at Chinle

requesting consideration "of a problem which involves a strip of land at least fifty (50) feet

wide and the length of the fenced field just east of the present Monument Headquarters." [63]

Berger said that the existing fence would be removed and a new fence constructed further to

the east. The approximate area needed would be one and one-fourth acres. "We urge the

Grazing Committee," concluded Berger, "to consider the problem involved and to advise the

party concerned to withdraw from the land, without prejudice toward the National Park

Service, so the land may be used for development purposes." [64]

The relinquishment agreement obtained from Anson Bahe as was follows:

I, Anson Bahe, Census No. 50978, Hereby relinquish all use rights to the

approximate one and one-fourth acres of land which lie within a fifty (50) foot

strip of land along the entire western edge of the above described fenced field

and further assert that all use rights acouring [sic] to myself or to my heirs and/or

dependents will be satisfied, and that we shall enter no protest to the use of these

relinquished lands for Monument purposes, upon the following terms and

conditions:

The National Park Service agrees to build and maintain a sheep-proof fence

along the eastern edge of the above mentioned fifty foot strip of land. The

existing fence along the western edge of the strip will be removed and the

salvaged materials will be turned over to Anson Bahe.

It is further agreed that Anson Bahe grants permission to the National Park

Service to divert surface water away from the proposed residential area upon

land used by Anson Bahe. The water will be diverted eastward and northward

across land used by Anson Bahe and the National Park Service will construct

____ spreaders or diversion dams to prevent erosion of the remaining land used

by Anson Bahe. [65]

Also during March, the annual Easter egg hunt was held in the Cottonwood Campground,

and approximately 350 people attended. That month 1,614 visitors arrived in 372 cars. [66]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

In April 1959 an article on Canyon de Chelly with vivid color illustrations appeared in

Arizona Highways. It outlined Canyon de Chelly's history and contained information on the

various ruins. [67] Also during April and extending into May a flu epidemic struck the area.

In addition to numerous Navajos, Berger, the ranger, and Guy Tso, the laborer, were

afflicted. [68]

In May Berger received a compilation by Edmund B. Rogers entitled "History of Legislation

Relating to The National Park System Through the 82nd Congress." It contained valuable

legislative material relating to Canyon de Chelly. [69]

John B. Anderson, assistant project engineer, and four engineering students arrived at de

Chelly in June to work on new construction projects. [70] Berger reported that the sites for

the proposed visitor center, sewage lagoons, and entrance road from the monument boundary

to the new parking area had been cross-sectioned and staked. [71] In addition, Anderson and

his crew mapped out extensions for the electrical distribution system. [72] Although no bids

had been received for this construction by July 16, a low bid was finally received for

"Additions to the Electrical Distribution System" on July 21. [73]

Berger pointed out to the chief, Western Office for Design and Construction, that a fence was

not included around the proposed sewer lagoons. Berger considered it essential in order to

protect small children as well as wandering livestock. [74] The office approved this

suggestion. [75]

An interesting report was filed in June by Berger summarizing the most significant events at

Canyon de Chelly during the past 12 months. The following three items were listed:

1. Realignment and reconstruction of approach road to Canyon de Chelly.

2. Stabilization of White House Ruin.

3. Reconstruction of Twin Trail leading into Canyon Del Muerto from the north rim. [76]

Visitation for the month of July totaled 3,328 people. Many attended the interpretive talks at

the campground, which covered some of the following topics: "Our National Parks and

monuments," "Early Inhabitants of the Southwest," "The Navajo, Past and Present," and

"Highlights of the Four Corners Area." [77]

Work was also done during July on jetty building and tree planting. The Park Service and

Bureau were working well together on these projects, and Berger and Boileau felt that the

two Government agencies had a good relationship with the Navajos during the construction

work. [78]

A complaint was lodged against the Thunderbird Ranch in August by two visitors from

Sweden. They complained of the accommodations, listing such items as no curtains, no

hangers, and no door lock in their room. They also complained of the lack of a towel rack,

the inoperativeness of both bedlamps, and bad toilet facilities. In closing, they complained of

the paper thin walls and stated that

We regret that we must complain, especially since we are foreigners and dislike

creating badfeelings [sic] On the other hand, we feel that our extensive travels

both here and abroad give us a good basis for comparison. [79]

Answering this complaint, John Wade, manager of the Thunderbird, stated that curtains,

hangers, and a towel rack were put in the room. He said that none of the rooms had locks,
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

just screen door latches. The lamps were repaired, but at present, said Wade, no plans were

being made to expand the toilet facilities. He concluded that "we do not plan changing the

'paper thin' walls . . . at this time." [80]

Work proceeded in September on the museum exhibit plans for the proposed visitor center.

These plans called for 18 exhibits in the exhibit room and lobby. [81]

Also during the month "Ips" infestation was said to be almost in the epidemic stage in areas

adjacent to the monument, and a 15-year-old white girl reported an assault by a Navajo boy.

Investigation revealed that he tore the girl's blouse. The boy was drunk at the time and was

taken by the Navajo police to the Fort Defiance jail. [82]

A great deal of design and construction work began in October. Don Marley, engineer, Carl

Alleman, landscape architect, Jerry Riddell, architect, and Harold Marsh, landscape architect,

accomplished work on the proposed residential area related to flooding, road location, and the

location of the proposed three residences. [83] They also studied a proposed campground

entrance road and future campground expansion. [84]

Work was also begun on the access road and parking area as well as on the water and sewage

systems. The work on the electrical distribution system was about 65 percent completed;

plans for laying an underground cable to the visitor center site and the residential area hinged

on the road contractor's progress. [85]

Zorro Bradley, archeologist, submitted a report on the major ruins toward the end of October.

He was primarily taking pictures for use in the area's archeological handbook, but he also

commented on the need for some stabilization work due to heavy visitor traffic. He said that

David De Harport, a Harvard graduate student who had been doing archeological work at de

Chelly since 1948, told him of increased vandalism and "pothunting." [86]

In November De Harport was writing archeological site descriptions that were included in his

Ph.D. dissertation. [87] During the same month a plane table survey was completed of the

campground and the area intended for expansion and was sent to the Washington office.

Another survey also mapped the "control points of the Navajo cemetery located at the foot of

the hill where the Visitor Center will be located. . . ." It was also sent to Washington. [88]

Berger reported in December that the total visitation for 1959 was 21,148. At the Thunderbird

there had been 3,661 overnight guests during the year. Berger also reported that construction

of the access road and parking area was progressing, and plans for the three new residences

had been received and reviewed. [89]

The annual wildlife report for 1959 revealed that during the summer two bears were killed by

the Navajos in retaliation for losses of sheep. Skunks were on the increase, as were

porcupines and coyotes. Rabbits, however, were on the decline due to Navajo hunting. [90]

Unusually cold weather struck at the beginning of 1960 and hampered visitation and

construction work. Toward the end of January Berger made some interesting comments on

the interpretive services at de Chelly. He stated that all visitors who stopped and registered

received orientation talks and also could partake in tours (a 12-person minimum requested)

and campfire talks. There were informational and directional signs on highways leading to

the monument as well as signs on all the overlooks except Tsegi Overlook. In addition, a

self-guiding trail booklet was available at the White House Overlook. [91]

Progress on construction of the parking area and access road to the visitor center was

approximately 75 percent completed by the end of February, and the installation of water and

sewage systems was about 90 percent completed. [92]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

Justin La Font, from Prewitt and Albuquerque, New Mexico, visited the Thunderbird Ranch

in March as a possible buyer. [93] A financial report issued for the Thunderbird estimated its

net worth at $98,113.50. [94] Other information revealed that the Thunderbird could

accommodate 24 overnight guests each evening. [95]

Also during March, Berger stated that there were no traffic counters at de Chelly because of

the large amount of local Indian traffic. He also received a request from David Dornan to

climb Spider Rock. [96] Berger stated that Spider Rock had previously been scaled in 1956

by a group from the Sierra Club. He refused this later request because certain "superstitions"

surrounded Spider Rock, and the Navajos "in the immediate Spider Rock area are still

working on the 'Spook' or 'Hex' placed upon them during the 1956 climb." [97] However

Berger did record that a successful ascent of Spider Rock was made on April 13 by two other

individuals from the Sierra Club. [98] The two had failed to register or to get permission for

the climb. [99]

On May 31 the Thunderbird Ranch was sold to La Font, who assumed ownership on June 1.

[100] La Font still needed approval from the Park Service and the Navajo Tribal Council,

however. He reportedly paid $110,000 for the Thunderbird. [101]

Construction work was forging ahead. Bids had been received and accepted for the

following: residence and bulk l.p. gas systems—$60,075, completed on May 23, 1960;

parking areas and access roads—$85,721.12, completed on July 12, 1960; and the comfort

station—$11,684, completed on June 8, 1961. [102] Concern also existed over the

campground road extension. Apparently a change in the plans had been suggested and the

regional director, Thomas J. Allen, was against such a move. He stated that "previous plans

called for extensions by constructing an additional loop to the northwest and by adding a

short section of road through the center of the existing loop." He wanted to keep this scheme.

[103] Furthermore, Allen stated that "although the existing Indian cemetery is not located on

the drawing, it is our recollection that the road line shown for future expansion enters that

restricted area." [104]

Four pinon trees were removed in June from the Spider Rock area because of "Ips"

infestation. [105] Also during the month a complaint was made against the physical facilities

at Canyon de Chelly by J. P. Dods, who had previously visited the area in 1913. [106] Dods

complained of the lack of signs, the bad roads, the bad accommodations at the Thunderbird,

the bad rim road, the shabby and old cars used for canyon trips, and the disinterest of the

superintendent and ranger toward him. He asked if something could be done to improve these

deficiencies. "Present conditions," he said, "are a disgrace to the National Park System."

[107]

Berger replied to the criticism by stating that due to the construction going on at the time of

Dod's visit, several things were abnormal. He said that the Thunderbird had recently

purchased two Jeep station wagons that were in good condition, and apologized for any

inconvenience. [108]

During September Berger assisted with the Park Service exhibit at the Navajo Tribal Fair at

Window Rock, Arizona. The exhibit explained the Park Service-Navajo relationship and

cooperation on certain matters. Berger reported that the exhibit attracted many people. [109]

An interpretation service change also occurred during September. The White House Trail

pamphlets were discontinued, and in their stead, a lettered interpretive device was to be

placed at the stand on White House Overlook. [110]

Visitors who came to Canyon de Chelly to camp overnight could utilize the 14 tent sites or
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

the four trailer sites. There were no water, sewer, or electrical hookups for the trailers, but

there were tables, fireplaces, refuse containers, and restroom facilities. [111]

Two additional reports filed in September described facilities at de Chelly. On the office

porch were interpretive displays consisting of a map of the area, photographs, and

instructions on "what to do and see at Canyon de Chelly National Monument." Another

display contained cards and publications for sale. [112] In addition, there was the sevenpanel multiplex display containing 14 exhibits on such things as geology, plant life, the early

navajo country, photographs of the major ruins, campaigns and treaties, maps of the Navajo

country, Navajo handicrafts, and Navajo ceremonials and sites. [113] Commenting on

Berger, Regional Director Thomas J. Allen remarked that he "has a good relationship with

the Navajos and officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs." [114]

The other report contained information on the physical plant, personnel, and future plans. It

described the superintendent's office, a 10- by 12-foot room, as "not conducive to efficient

work." The superintendent lived in the only residence, built in the 1930s, and the ranger lived

in a trailer. [115] The maintenance man and a laborer, both Navajos, lived in their own

homes nearby. In addition, there were comments on the new construction that would greatly

improve the area. [116]

The Thunderbird Ranch underwent some remodeling after its new owner, La Font, was duly

authorized and accepted by the National Park Service. The front porch of the lodge was made

into an office and waiting room for guests. Other changes consisted of new cement flooring

and new shelving. [117] An inspection was made of the Thunderbird in September, and

findings indicated that most of the operation was satisfactory, except that greater care in

cleaning the meat cutting equipment and in cleaning the tables in the cafe was needed. [118]

The problem of broken bottles was being solved by ordering soft drinks in cans. Also, La

Font stated that he was planning to eliminate the family-style service in the lodge dining

room because of a reduction in the number of overnight guests. [119] La Font still had not

received permission from the Navajo Tribal Council for a concession contract, although

Berger expressed satisfaction at and approval of La Font's management. [120]

Finally the Navajo tribe consented to the concession contract. [121] La Font's plan of

changing family-style dinners to restaurant-style dinners was approved. However, Berger

was cautioned that if La Font planned new construction or structural changes at the

Thunderbird, he needed the approval of the Park Service. [122]

The contract contained the requirement that "the concessioner pay to the Navajo Tribe a

franchise fee of 1-1/2% of gross receipts or $300, whichever is greater." [123]

In November two events occurred pertaining to Indian affairs. The first concerned a search for

a Hopi shrine carried out in Canyon de Chelly and Monument Canyon by Dr. Ned Danson

and two Hopi Indians. The discovery of the shrine was necessary to substantiate their claim

in a Hopi-Navajo lands case that was before a Federal court. The shrine was not found. [124]

The other incident revolved around an Indian woman who sold a cup to a visitor for $4. This

violated Park Service rules, and the cup was confiscated. It was later found to be an artifact

from the 13th or 14th century. It was kept at Canyon de Chelly and later sent to the

archeological center in Globe. [125]

At the end of November, proposals were made for future research projects at Canyon de

Chelly. Among the work was a continuation of De Harport's survey and Tse-Ta'a salvage,

salvage and stabilization work at Mummy Cave, and an ecological study of the Navajos'

adaption to the Canyon de Chelly region. [126]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:52 PM]

As the year ended, 20,544 visitors to de Chelly were recorded. The three new residences were

completed, and the new comfort station was almost finished. [127] An agreement also was

made with the Bureau to work on a hazardous section of the south rim road in Canyon de

Chelly, especially because a school bus carried 60 or more children to and from school on

this road. [128] Another Bureau project involved paving the road between Chinle and

Canyon de Chelly. Berger believed that this would be a "very worthwhile project." [129]

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi8.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 9:

THE RETURN OF GUILLET, 1963-1966

The crisis in relations between the Park Service and the Navajo tribe came to a head late in

1962. A retrospective account, which Meredith Guillet sent to the new director, George

Hartzog, in December 1964, provides an overall picture of conditions and how the Service

tried to meet them:

Lack of success in negotiations with the Navajo Tribe over the last twelve years,

and antagonism toward the National Park Service by a certain faction of the

Tribal Council had caused some concern to former Director Wirth. At the

dedication ceremony for the Four Corners Monument in the Fall of 1962,

Secretary Udall was approached by certain members of the Navajo Tribal

Council seeking his support for legislation to return Canyon de Chelly National

Monument to the Tribe. The apparent antagonism to or distrust of National Park

Service Policy had led to several Tribal Council resolutions, among which were

one prohibiting the establishment of any more National Parks or Monuments on

Tribal Lands, and one to use every effort possible to return Navajo, Rainbow

Bridge and Canyon de Chelly National Monuments to the Tribe. There was an

apparent breakdown in our relations with the Tribe that was forming a

formidable barrier to acquisition of additional lands needed for development of

Navajo and Rainbow Bridge National Monuments as well as right-of-way over

certain Tribal Lands. The above, coupled with complaints by other interested

parties, led to my being called to Washington in late November 1962, by

Secretary Udall and Director Wirth. I was chosen because many years of my life

had been spent among the Navajo People both before and after I entered the

National Park Service, and it was felt that I was best qualified for this

assignment.

The duties of my new assignment, as broadly stated by Secretary Udall, were to

improve the image of the National Park Service, and establish (or re-establish)

good 'grass roots' relations with the rank and file of the Navajo People. One

primary objective was the facilitating of land exchange legislation and

cooperative agreements at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

It was agreed that an Assistant Superintendent position (GS-11) would be

established to handle the 'leg work' of running the [Canyon de Chelly National]

Monument allowing me more time for Indian Relations work. The Secretary

requested and Director Wirth concurred, that in matters of enough importance

there might be a bypassing of regular channels of communication, although such

has not occurred to date. It was agreed that the success of this assignment

required a broader leeway in choice of personnel, as well as other action

concerning relations with the Tribe, than would ordinarily be granted. I was

specifically instructed to encourage the employment of Navajo Indians whenever

and wherever qualified applicants were available.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

I was in Washington for a week during which time I was briefed on the status of

certain land negotiations, etc., and prepared a memorandum of recommendations

on certain items which I felt necessary for the success of the assignment. These

recommendations were approved by the Director and Secretary Udall. I will not

enumerate them. [1]

With the return of Guillet in January 1963, conditions at Canyon de Chelly underwent a

radical change. Relations with the Navajos especially on the local level, improved

dramatically. Guillet's primary responsibility was to be the handling of relations with the

Navajos. He would have his son-in-law, John E. Cook, as his administrative assistant so that

he could devote more time to the problems encountered. [2]

Until Guillet arrived, Ranger Roy Rainey was acting superintendent. [3] There had been

changes at Chinle since Guillet was last stationed there, but it was still a relatively remote

area. The only shopping facilities were trading posts with limited merchandise. Public Health

Service medical facilities were available only in cases of extreme emergency, and all other

medical services had to be obtained at Ganado, while dental care was available no closer than

Gallup. The only churches were the Catholic, Mormon, and Presbyterian missions. Television

reception had recently been made possible by a relay translator. [4]

There are hints in Guillet's early monthly reports that more than Navajo relations had

suffered during the months preceding his return. For February he reported merely that "a

great deal has been accomplished in generally improving the administration of the area,

particularly as related to improved relations with the Navajo Tribe and others." [5]

His monthly report for March was somewhat more explicit:

A great deal of time has been consumed in straightening out the general

administration of Canyon de Chelly from accounting to filing. . . .

We have requested authority for 6 additional WAE laborers in order to get long

needed maintenance accomplished while it can be done. [6]

He was allowed the increase in maintenance personnel, thus doubling his force, and also

secured a promotion for David Gorman. For April he mentioned the "continued improvement

of administrative control and training of employees." [7]

In all this there is a strong implication that Berger, frustrated in his efforts to maintain good

relations with the Navajos and unable to understand why he failed, had become so

discouraged that other aspects of management had also suffered.

There was little that Guillet could do for relations at the tribal level at first. In an upset

election Raymond Nakai had recently replaced Paul Jones as tribal chairman and it would

take some time for the new administration to become settled, particularly since many of the

old delegates to the tribal council had been reelected and were expected to oppose great

changes. Guillet felt that it would be well to wait until the political situation stabilized before

approaching tribal officials. [8]

In the meantime he reestablished his friendships with the Navajos he had known before and

made a horseback trip up del Muerto to assess wind damage to homes and irrigation ditches

by a recent storm. [9]

There was very little that happened at the monument that did not affect the local Navajos in

one way or another, however, and Guillet turned his attention to building rapport at the grass-
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

roots level.

An interagency cleanup campaign was initiated in February. Guillet did not assume that

merely because the local Bureau and Navajo agencies were involved he would automatically

have cooperation from local Navajo residents. Before attempting to clear the rim of old car

bodies and other trash, he got permission from the people living along the rim drive. [10] By

the following month he was able to report success:

General cleanup of the area was accomplished with the cooperation of the

Indians and the BIA. Many of the old car wrecks and bodies scattered near the

Hogans along the Rim Drive were hauled off and the general appearance of

roadways improved by cleaning up all trash. [11]

The reorganization of the interpretive program reflects his imagination in taking Navajo

matters into consideration in all facets of his administration while trying to improve services

to the general public. Expansion of services included assigning a ranger to guide tours of the

canyons for visitors who came in their own 4-wheel-drive vehicles and initiating interpretive

talks on the rim. The interpretive staff was also given the job of training drivers for the

Thunderbird tours and the local Navajos who served as guides for parties entering the

canyons by foot, horseback, and wagon. It was even proposed that campfire talks be given in

both English and Navajo. Guest speakers, including Navajo tribal rangers, would be invited

to participate in evening programs. [12] A special permit was instituted to better control

travel within the canyons. [13] The regional office, however, felt that the continued

requirement of a permit for this purpose would necessitate a change in the established

regulations. [14] Guillet explained his reasons for instituting the procedure and apparently

continued to use the permit system. As he described the situation,

Many people read articles concerning travel in Canyon de Chelly by Navajo

wagons. Several of the articles even list the names of local Indians who have

wagons available for this type of experience, and due to this many people have

dealt directly with those same Indians. Accordingly they are entering the canyons

within the law: either with a guide (most of the Navajos who provide these

services are also authorized guides) or as a personal guest of the Navajo

providing the service. The latter we now have no control over. The proposed

permit would allow us to get a chance to contact these people, inform them of

regulations and provide interpretive services as well as preventive law

enforcement.

Another problem is our local "Sunday" travel from surrounding communities.

These people do not consider themselves visitors and thus create a situation

which our proposed permit, added to existing regulations, can help overcome. At

present a new sign appears at the mouth of the canyon which quates [sic] the

regulation. [15]

His arguments were convincing, and so the regional director recommended changing the

regulations. [16] Whether further action was taken is not known. The only formal visitor

complaint—a very mild one—to this increased vigilance came from John W. Kennedy, an

Indian trader in Gallup, and Guillet was able to explain his need for new restrictions to this

longtime friend with little difficulty, noting that

We do not believe our restrictions will in any way detract from the enjoyment of

the canyon by visitors not interested in vandalizing ruins. It [sic] will also serve

to prevent misunderstandings with, and irritation of the Navajo Indians residing

in the canyons. [17]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

A report on illegal digging for archeological relics had been received from De Harport, and

Guillet requested information on the problem from the canyon residents. He thought De

Harport's allegations exaggerated, but conceded that there was some basis for concern. [18] In

April Guillet and Cook had accompanied De Harport on tours of Canyon de Chelly and del

Muerto as well as of the Hosbidibito outside the monument to investigate "possible violations

of the Antiquities Act." The result of this inspection was an effort by the Bureau and the tribe

to have a United States commissioner assigned to the reservation to try violations of Federal

laws. [19] This effort was not successful, although Guillet supported the idea in various later

reports. To further control travel within the canyons, daily patrols were instituted. [20]

The empty parking lot next to the site of the planned visitor center was apparently a natural

place for the tourists to congregate. Guillet obtained a trailer, which he parked there as a

contact station so that all visitors could be given orientation. [21]

All of these initial innovations showed early signs of success. New markers were needed to

inform the visitors. The trailer station not only gave Archeologist Archer W. Stewart more

space for his work, but met the need for better contact with visitors. The patrols did bring

about a reduction in uncontrolled entry into the canyons. Guillet and Cook joined with Tribal

Ranger Larry Benally in presenting a program to the local PTA explaining the new policies.

It was so well received that they were asked to repeat the performance in the fall. [22]

Most dramatic of the changes was that made in personnel policies. Guillet made a real effort

to hire Navajos not only in maintenance positions, but also as rangers. The first to enter on

duty was Seasonal Ranger Jimmy Begaye on April 30. [23] In June he was able to add

Shirley Sells and Leon Shirley to the seasonal staff of rangers and hire Helen Draper as

seasonal clerk-typist. [24]

A new tribal program gave him further opportunity to expand Navajo representation: This

was a student trainee program by which the tribe hired college students and assigned them to

work in tribal and governmental agencies that requested them. [25] Through this program he

hired Frank Pablo in accordance with a letter of agreement negotiated between the Park

Service and the Tribal Division of Personnel on June 21. [26]

Guillet also initiated a thorough training program for all personnel, both white and Navajo,

which gave special attention to Indian affairs. [27] With this increased staff, Guillet was able

to offer additional interpretive services as visitation increased. On June 22 a ranger was

stationed at White House to meet tourists who hiked to that point. At first this was done on

an experimental basis, but was received so favorably that it became a regular feature

whenever manpower was available and visitation warranted it. Seasonal personnel were also

assigned to accompany parties on extended (apparently overnight) trips into the canyons.

Regular programs were not neglected and campfire talks were given every evening. [28]

When Supervisory Park Ranger Roy Rainey resigned in July, Leon Shirley was assigned his

duties in an acting capacity and performed very well. [29]

In August a new overlook was established on the south rim at White Sands by grading a new

access road and parking area. [30]

The success of Guillet's efforts in hiring young Navajos in interpretive positions is best

attested by Regional Archeologist Charlie Steen's observations resulting from a visit to the

canyon in August:

The thing which impressed me most at the monument was the 100% Navajo

seasonal interpretive force. These young people, one woman and two men, are

pleasant and personable and apparently are doing an outstanding job. They seem
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

to typify the completely changed atmosphere at the monument. [31]

Archeologist Stewart had much to do, but one job required a considerable portion of his time,

although travel restrictions limited what he could accomplish. [32] This involved assisting in

the preparation of exhibits for the future visitor center. Early in the year Steen had gone to

Boulder to select items from the Morris Collections at the University of Colorado Museum

that would be included in these exhibits. In May, Joe Ben Wheat issued these—a dozen

artifacts, including perishable specimens of wood and fiber as well as pottery, stone, and

shell specimens—on indefinite loan to the monument, shipping them to the Park Services's

western museum laboratory in San Francisco, where the exhibits were being prepared. [33]

Jenkins requested that the area send him up-to-date reference materials on the Navajos for

use in exhibit preparation, [34] and so he was sent the last issue of the Navajo Yearbook on

loan. Guillet had requested further material from the tribe, but when it was not provided he

judged the political scene at Window Rock was still too unsettled, and decided not to push

the request. [35]

Stewart's duties in this regard were next devoted to a search for the photographs needed by

the museum laboratory. [36] In this he had some success, but by October the work had

lagged so that Supervisory Ranger Franklin Wallace, who had replaced Rainey, was given a

week free of all other duties in order to acquire the remainder. [37] The laboratory was

having difficulties with the Anasazi exhibits and various changes were suggested. [38] While

on annual leave Stewart visited the laboratory and discovered that changes had been made in

exhibits and texts without informing the area staff, and so he obtained copies for Guillet. [39]

Additional work to expand the interpretive program was apparently being accomplished in

the regional office where, it was reported, an area history handbook was to be "reworked."

The monument lacked any copy of this manuscript or knowledge of it, but suggested that a

manuscript entitled "Anasazi, Din'ne, Bellicanah," by Wesley Hurt, Jr., and James Spuhler,

might serve the purpose if properly edited. [40] Little seems to have come of this project at

this time, however.

A completely new element in visitor handling resulted from building the Tsaile Dam on the

headwaters of Canyon del Muerto. Guillet reported briefly on the matter in June:

The new Tsailie Dam on Tsailie Creek above Canyon del Muerto is progressing

rapidly and has started backing up water. This dam is for Recreation purposes

primarily, but should serve also to control flood waters in Canyon del Muerto. It

will undoubtedly accellerate [sic] road construction from the lake to Chinle and

will probably follow the present location of the North Rim Road near Canyon del

Muerto. This will hasten the need for a bridge over the canyon near our new

Visitor Center. [41]

The dam was completed about July 1. A large part of the lake was within the monument

boundary, but its construction was done by the Bureau and the tribe, the Park Service having

no jurisdiction over any aspect of the lake. The lake was well stocked with trout and the tribe

was publicizing it in an effort to develop the area for tourists. [42] Guillet reported increased

use of the rim areas of the upper portions of the canyons by July because of the lakes,

implying that Wheatfields Lake, outside the monument boundaries, was also a factor. [43]

Early in August a complaint was received from Navajo farmers in "the canyon" that "large

cottonwoods were drawing moisture from their farm lands," and thinning was recommended

to reduce the ground moisture loss. [44] The report does not specify which canyon was

involved, but it seems a reasonable assumption that if it were del Muerto the major cause

might well have been the interference with the normal flow of water by the new dam rather

than transpiration by the trees, although reduction of the canyon vegetation probably
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

alleviated the situation somewhat.

By August the monument staff was giving serious thought to the problems posed by the

growing visitation at the upper ends of the canyons. It was concluded that rangers would be

required at Tsaile Lake and upper Canyon de Chelly in 1964, and two trailers were requested

to make this feasible. While ultimate establishment of districts within the monument was

contemplated in the master plan, events were moving too rapidly to permit a delay. [45]

Shortly after this an inspection report by Charlie Steen supported the recommendation:

The tribe has practically surrounded the monument with a Recreational Area and

one feature of this is a dam on Tsali [sic] Creek which will create a lake large

enough for boating and fishing. The dam is within the monument boundaries and

only a few miles above Mummy Cave. We will soon need both interpretive and

protective personnel on the Canyon del Muerto arm of the Monument. [46]

In September the monument still reported that the Park Service was not involved in any

aspect of the activities at Tsaile Lake. [47] Just after the end of the year Guillet's summary of

the matter as it then stood appeared in an "Annual Fishery Resources Report-1963":

This dam was constructed, legally, within the boundary of Canyon de Chelly

National Monument by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under an APW program and

the Navajo Tribe. Upon its completion all jurisdiction as to use of the water, etc.

was assumed by the Tribe. This service has no jurisdiction in any respect as it

pertains to this lake. However, since this development greatly effects [sic] our

own planning etc. we are submitting the narrative portion of the above subject

report.

. . . . .

Since the Service has no jurisdiction we take no part in enforcement of fishing

regulations which are a combination of State and Tribe in nature.

. . . . .

Since we are not, and prefer it so, consulted or often even informed of activities

as to fishing within the area's boundary this report is for information purposes.

In summary we:

1. Have recreational fishing within the area,

2. Have nothing to do with its management

3. For now prefer it that way. [48]

The growth of the Chinle community was also a subject of concern, although it was not yet

an immediate problem. In June Guillet mentioned in connection with "Tribal relations" that

Committees for the Overall Economic Development Program have been

established and are busily engaged in establishing zoning and other regulations,

Federal Housing Developments and other necessary steps to make the investment

of outside capital attractive. Chinle has been chosen for a pilot area in Urban

Development. Assistant Superintendent Cook is a member of the local

committee. [49]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

Enthusiasm at Window Rock and locally at least among whites apparently ran high, for

Steen, in his investigation report in August, said that a new town, "Chinle City:" was being

developed, which would include "a large tourist center." [50] Cook's duties in this regard

seem to have brought him more in contact with Bureau personnel, such as Chinle Subagency

Superintendent Krause, and potential investors, including Del Webb Enterprises, which was

contemplating building a "super deluxe motel," than with local Navajos. [51] It was reported

that Sam Day III had "purchased" the surface use of 6-1/2 acres of the grazing allotment of

Anson Bahe Benally (Anson Bahe) for the site of a service station, [52] but in general local

Navajo involvement in these plans seems to have been minimal.

Guillet waited until May 6 to write Nakai and attempt to establish a working relationship

with the new tribal administration, explaining that he realized that he (Nakai) had been busy

with his new responsibilities, and asking for an appointment with him. [53] The meeting was

delayed, but the Navajo Tribal Parks Commission, under Chairman Sam Day III, visited the

park and was given a tour of the canyons and of Navajo National Monument by Guillet and

Cook, and Park Service programs and policies were explained. Guillet believed that this

resulted in "a definite change in their general attitude toward the National Park Service." [54]

Guillet also worked with Day on plans for the development of the Manuelito area as a park

under the tribe's supervision. [55] It was not until October 8 that Guillet was actually able to

meet with the chairman himself, and the meeting served to accomplish little more than

allowing the two men to become acquainted. Political turmoil within the tribe reached a peak

when Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall suspended the tribal attorney Norman Littell,

and the Bureau seized some tribal records in the same month. [56] This was followed by a

court injunction obtained by Littell, and Nakai's issuing of a "white paper" to explain his

actions against the attorney. Despite the furor, Guillet was able to arrange for a meeting,

tentatively scheduled for the following year, which would bring together the Service, Bureau,

and tribal officials. [57]

In the meantime many more routine affairs needed and received attention. When Chauncey

Neboyia applied for permission to dig a well on his farm in the canyon, Guillet wrote the

tribal water development office that

Section "2" of the act establishing Canyon de Chelly National Monument states

that these rights are reserved for the Navajo Tribe, and no special use permit will

be needed from the National Park Service unless the well encroaches on an

Archeological site or other object of Historical or Scientific interest. Since this

well does not encroach on any of the above, we recommend that your office

issue Mr. Neboyia a permit. [58]

Regulation of the concession operation at the Thunderbird Ranch continued under split

jurisdiction. In April Marlow Glenn, regional chief of concessions management, conducted an

inspection of the establishment with Guillet. He reported, erroneously, that prices at the

trading post were regulated by the tribe, apparently due to confusion regarding tribal and

Bureau roles. His primary concern was the inspection of a new 12-unit motel site. He found

some discrepancies between prices charged and the approved schedule for the tourist

services, for which he initiated corrective measures. Otherwise he was well satisfied with

what he found and believed the La Fonts to be "eager to acquaint themselves with the

Service's policies and abide thereby." [59] The amendments to the rate schedule were

approved without difficulty, construction of the new motel proceded rapidly, and business

was booming. [60] Cook's annual fire hazard inspection found that the former poor practices

at the concession buildings had been largely corrected, and he complimented the La Fonts on

their improvements. [61]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

Thunderbird Ranch was getting its water from the Bureau, and with meters recently installed,

would be charged for full use, which was estimated to run about 2,050,000 gallons once the

new motel was in operation. La Font began to consider drilling his own well, but Guillet

believed that when he figured the costs he would not do so. [62] La Font did go ahead with

his plan and submitted a request for permission to put in his own water system. Guillet

phoned the regional office to inquire about it on September 8. He received a reply shortly that

the proposal was not approved. Besides stating that they considered the existing rates

reasonable and the supply ample, the region made three other points: (1) La Font would still

have to pay for sewage disposal, which was a part of the charge for water; (2) his well would

be the property of the Federal Government; and (3) the tendency of such a project to give a

concessioner a proprietary interest made strong justification necessary before approval would

be given. [63]

The tourist season was not far advanced when a complaint was lodged against La Font's

operation pertaining to the hours that the dining facilities were open, the prices charged for

"junk" curios, and the cost of tours up the canyon bottoms. [64] The regional director

suggested that a graduated rate scale based on the number of passengers for the jeep tours

might help avoid repetitions of the complaint regarding canyon trips. [65] Cook found this

suggestion reasonable and defended Thunderbird policies in the other matters. He concluded

by stating that the concessioner was not without faults, but that the complaints in question

were unjustified. [66]

The new motel was completed in July and the Thunderbird enjoyed a profitable year. [67]

Offsetting the one formal complaint were the lithographs sent as tokens of thanks to both the

concessioners and the National Park Service by a visiting artist, who had found everything he

encountered at the monument especially good. [68]

Maintenance and construction activities continued, although it was difficult to keep up with

the work load imposed by the heavy visitation. Cleaning of the campground was especially

burdensome, and the repairing of wear and tear on easel exhibits at the overlooks had to be

postponed until after travel slackened. [69] Gorman was in charge of the maintenance

program and his work was highly praised, the difficulties encountered being duly recognized.

[70]

Work on trails received special attention, which was gratifying to both Navajo residents and

tourists. White House Trail was rehabilitated and work was also begun on Twin Trails. [71]

The major project initiated was the construction of the visitor center and another residence.

An advertisement for bids was released June 3. [72] No bids were received, however, and it

was decided to remove the restriction limiting bidders to "small businesses" in hopes that a

large contractor then doing work at Chinle would submit a bid. [73]

The completion of Navajo Route 1, The Navajo Trail, and the opening of an all-weather road

to the north, plus tribal plans in the tourist industry, caused concern on Guillet's part because

of the effect the delays and the cancellation of all construction for Fiscal Year 1965 might

have on tribal relations. He wrote

If our development to date and administration of this area had been such that the

Navajo Tribe could have pointed to it with pride rather than viewing it with

alarm, our position would be better in other areas of negotiation.

I feel that it is of extreme importance that we keep pace and even surpass other

developments if we are to try to improve our relations and gain prestige for our

Service. We now have the greatest opportunity yet presented to show the Tribe

the economic benefits of a National Park area to their overall development. We
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

will be "on the spot" so to speak and we had better make the best of it. If we fall

down here, we will find ourselves in no position to gain any future concessions

from the tribe. [74]

The rapidly increasing visitation and slow progress brought strong criticism from Guillet,

who wrote early in October:

This visitor center being 1963 F. [iscal] Y. [year] should have been constructed

and occupied in 1963—actually much sooner, since the road pattern was

developed to the site and has had a visitor flow to a vacant lot for over three

years. [75]

The contract was awarded that month to the Flaugh-Slavens Company of Cortez, Colorado,

not to the large contractor originally contemplated, and ground was finally broken on October

22. [76] Good weather continued into November and the work proceeded well. [77]

The soil and moisture program was also continued in the spring with the planting of 5,000

additional cuttings and the trimming of trees, whose brush was piled on new spider jetties.

[78] The work continued to be done under the old agreement with the Bureau. [79] Other

accomplishments under this program were the building of an erosion control dam at the head

of Twin Trails and of 147 jetties protecting about 900 feet of stream bank. [80]

Protection became most urgent in the late afternoon of June 17 when the Navajo tribal

forester in Window Rock called in to report a fire in the canyon. Guillet and Cook scouted

the area and found the fire at Mule Trail. An initial force of five men, including Cook as fire

boss, traveled up the canyon floor 14 miles and then hiked 3 miles to reach the blaze, which

was so large that they sent for help. Dan Carroll brought equipment in by packhorse the next

morning and was immediately added to the crew, although the fire had been brought under

some control during the night. The reinforcements led by Ranger Rainey did not arrive until

mid-morning, but the combined crews were able to control the fire by noon. The Bureau was

not represented until a half hour later when William Ashley showed up with food for a 20-

man, mop-up crew. The crew never did appear but the Park Service crews enjoyed a meal at

Bureau expense. The men continued work until 6:00 P.M., June 20, when the fire was fully

extinguished. As a result of this experience the area personnel thought that the agreement

with the Bureau for fighting fires should be renegotiated. [81]

Wildlife control was performed by tribal employees. Two beavers doing extensive damage in

the upper part of Canyon del Muerto were caught and transplanted to a remote mountain

area. Bobcats bothering sheep in the same canyon also received tribal attention, but the

trapper was unsuccessful. [82] An all-out effort by the Bureau, the Public Health Service, the

tribe, and the public school district to round up stray dogs both inside and outside the

monument received Park Service assistance, the dogs not faring as well as the bobcats. [83]

Pure research activity was limited to a visit by Roy L. Carison of the University of Colorado

museum, who took photographs and made notes for use in the preparation of a report on Earl

Morris's earlier work in the canyons. [84] Stabilization at Mummy Cave, however, begun on

August 1 by Archeologists Richert and Voll, resulted not only in further repair and protection

of the ruins, but in new archeological observations, including the finding of prayersticks in

the tower. [85] Steen visited, the job and reported their work "first rate," but he believed that

more extensive stabilization was required. [86] The work was finished on September 2. [87]

Damage by livestock was reported by Richert and was again noted in November, indicating

the need for a fence. [88]

A final note on the events of the year should be on the apparent ability of the new ranger,
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

Franklin Wallace, to get along with the local Navajos. Without specifying what was involved,

Guillet in November praised him for handling with firmness and tack "situations which could

have become unpleasant." [89] Later duties did definitely involve the Navajos, however,

when he assisted two members of the Navajo Tribal Police investigating the shooting of three

cows in Canyon de Chelly. [90]

The next year, 1964, brought greater involvement by Guillet in Navajo relations at the tribal

level, but continual dissension within the tribal council and between the Secretary of the

Interior and the tribal attorney hindered real progress on any of the more controversial issues

facing the Service. [91]

Guillet's duties brought him a wide variety of matters for consideration. Early in the year he

was asked to review plans for exhibits for a visitor center museum at Wupatki, and found it

necessary to recommend changes that would prevent the Park Service from being suspect as

taking sides in the conflicting land claims of the Navajos and Hopis. [92]

By the end of January he had completed arrangements for the meeting with tribal officials to

explain Park Service policies. His programming suggests the source of some problems in

tribal relations:

It was our concensus of opinion that some of the Tribal officials might get a

better understanding of our policies and objectives by letting them listen and

perhaps change their thoughts on certain things before presenting their talks,

particularly Chairman Nakai. For this reason we scheduled them during the

afternoon session. [93]

No report on the outcome of this meeting has been located, but the results were probably

limited if the degree of Navajo participation in the master planning field study conducted

from March 9 to 20 is any indication. The only Navajo participant and only representative of

the tribe to take a significant part was Sam Day III, chairman of the Navajo Tribal Parks

Commission. Bureau representation was considerably better, four delegates being present.

[94] Despite the failure of tribal representatives to take a greater part in the planning process,

tribal interests were not slighted, Sanford Hill noting that:

The memorandum of November 27, 1963 from Regional Director Beard to the

Director emphasized the importance of preparing a complete planning study for

Canyon de Chelly in order to correlate Service activities with those of the Navajo

Tribal Council. The importance of this relationship was discussed in considerable

detail during all phases of the study, which included a special meeting with

representatives from The Bureau of Indian Affairs and from The Navajo Tribal

Council. Evidence of the close interrelationship appears throughout the package.

It is our understanding that Mr. Beard expects to use the approved plan as the

instrument for encouraging cooperation with the Tribal Council in the solution of

any mutual problems. [95]

Beard's hopes were not without foundation. Guillet's concerns, however, were more

immediate and he continued to advocate developing the monument along lines that would

impress the Navajos with what the National Park Service could do and the benefits of having

the area under its administration. He also believed that the tribal park system was providing a

good channel for communication at the tribal level through the National Park System's role as

advisor, a role that he felt would become more important as time passed.

Implementation of Guillet's ideas was hindered by financial constraints. The most urgent

need, a bridge across the wash at the mouth of the canyon, had been postponed and only

through personal contact with the director at a cocktail party at Grand Canyon was he able to
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9.htm[11/6/2012 2:47:56 PM]

expedite the project. There were several reasons why this bridge had high priority, according

to Guillet.

Not only will it serve to better relations with the Tribe, but I believe that it may

ultimately pay for itself in the portions of road along the North Rim that may be

constructed by the BIA and the Navajo Tribe. The construction of this bridge

would allow the closing of the Canyon del Muerto School as busses could then

bring the students to Chinle. It would also possibly completely eliminate costly

winding road construction necessary to stay within our boundaries. It might also

eliminate right-of-way negotiations with the Tribe if roads might of necessity

have to go outside Park boundaries.

Although unofficial, we have assurance that once the bridge was constructed, the

BIA would see that at least the first nine miles of this road was built in order to

save the cost of operating a separate school plant at Del Muerto [sic], and to

provide all-weather school bus service to the Navajo children to Chinle. [96]

He gave further justification for the need to assign priorities to planned programs 2 days later:

With the development of Tsaile Lake Recreation Area at the head of Canyon del

Muerto this previously relatively inaccessible area now presents an additional

protection problem. This fiscal year (1964) it will be necessary to place a house

trailer and Seasonal Ranger there. Without the bridge and when the wash is

running, the 'attack' time is more than doubled from headquarters in the event of

any emergency situation. Last, but no means least, is the public-Navajo relations

aspect. This should perhaps rate first in our justification criteria. Prior to, and

ever since the establishment of this area as a National Monument, the Service

has been obligated to construct this bridge. This project was promised as early as

1931. Inasmuch as our actions here at Canyon de Chelly reflect the image of the

Service throughout the Navajo Reservation and will have far reaching affects in

our dealings elsewhere with them, this bridge assumes great importance. [97]

While these last arguments were quite reasonable, they imply events that it should be noted

did not necessarily happen. The stationing of a ranger at Tsaile Lake had to be postponed

another year, probably due to lack of adequate staffing. The promise to build the bridge at the

time of the establishment of the monument is a more uncertain matter. Nothing to this effect

appears in the contemporary documentation of the 1920s and 1930s, but the full extent of

verbal commitments made by various Park Service and Bureau officials at that time is far

from clear in the records of the period. It is most probable that Guillet received his

information in this regard from local Navajos. While a commitment to build a bridge at that

time seems rather improbable, it may well have been made, and the reliability of Guillet's

source must be left to his judgement in the absence of more detailed data.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi9.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 10:

SONIC BOOMS AND PEOPLE PROBLEMS, 1966-1974

John E. Cook took over as superintendent on August 14, 1966. He was not only the

superintendent of Canyon de Chelly, but also of Hubbell Trading Post, which was made a

national historic site in 1967. The rationale given for this was as follows:

to improve management and manpower. . . . Both areas continue as separate

units of the National Park system under a single manager. From a field point of

view this is working out very satisfactorily. It is resulting in a reduction in the

overall combined grade structure and better utilization of appropriated funds. [1]

Ranger Wallace reported that the National Park Service and the Navajo police had a good

working arrangement and were assisting each other in curbing law violators. [2] In addition,

a new Polaroid camera was obtained "for use in Protection patrols, accident investigation and

reporting." Cook believed that it would "no doubt prove to be of great value in the field of

protection." [3]

As the year ended at Canyon de Chelly, 344,347 visitors had been recorded for 1966. This

was a sizeable increase over the 1965 total of 182,785. Visitor contacts for interpretive

services totaled 89,842. [4]

One of the major problems during the late 1960s and early 1970s was that of sonic booms.

Correspondence on this subject practically dominated the source material used during this

period. The major concern of the Park Service and Canyon de Chelly officials was damage to

the ruins. Beginning on August 11, 1966, a record was kept of the exact time and date that the

sound barrier was broken over the canyons. Just from that date through October 6, 26 sonic

booms were recorded. [5] The Navajos were aiding in this record keeping. One of them

reported that a shock in Canyon del Muerto caused a large portion of overhanging cliff to

fall, which damaged a cliff dwelling below. Cook was deeply concerned over this and

recommended that "a full scale investigation should be made." [6]

Responses to this plea were encouraging. Chief Archeologist John M. Corbett stated:

We have discussed the matter with the Bureau of Land Management, and they

are investigating to determine how much of a problem it may be on their lands.

We also will explore this matter with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

It is possible that a coordinated plea from several Interior agencies might have

some effect on the Department of Defense. [7]

In addition, Regional Archeologist Albert H. Schroeder stated:

Apparently our suggestion that protection of the ruins from sonic booms is being

explored with other agencies. We hopefully look forward to results that will

reduce hazards of this type as a result of activities of the Department of Defense.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

[8]

The booms continued, however, and Cook reported that they were increasing. He submitted a

report of the exact times and dates of the booms from August 11 to December 22. It revealed

that there were 8 booms in August, 13 in September, 16 in October, 24 in November, and 22

in December. He concluded by stating that visitors and Navajos reported that the cliffs

"vibrated" with each boom and furthermore, he was not only concerned with damages to the

ruins and cliffs, but also feared for the fragile structures at Hubbell Trading Post. [9]

In January 1967 the sonic boom question at Canyon de Chelly finally received publicity, first

a story in the January 10 issue of the Albuquerque Journal, which carried a front-page

headline. Then the Associated Press and United Press International picked up the story and it

received national coverage. Moreover, Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall held a news

conference on the problem. [10] Cook reported that the Department of the Interior, the United

States Air Force, and the Federal Aviation Agency were discussing the situation. [11]

Secretary Udall's view on this issue was revealed in a letter to Secretary of the Air Force

Harold Brown. Udall believed that

This is a growing problem, and one that carries with it the alarming threat of

destruction or defacement of some of this nation's priceless natural and

archeological heritage, as well as exposing thousands of visitors to possible

injury.

Pending the outcome of planned discussions with the Air Force and the Federal Aviation

Agency, he believed that

positive steps can be taken to ameliorate the impact of supersonic flights over

National Park areas, and to outlaw low-level flights, which are also capable of

causing damage to fragile geologic formations and prehistoric structures. . . . [12]

Yet the number of booms continued to mount. Wallace, as acting superintendent, reported

that 29 booms were recorded in March. "Evidently," he wrote, "our protests in the past were

not worthy of consideration." He was especially worried about the chance of injury to visitors

from falling rock or collapsing walls. He said that if such a thing happened, it would not be

"due to our lack of concern or lack of positive measures." [13]

By September Cook could report a total of 190 sonic booms recorded from August 11, 1966,

to August 24, 1967. He stated that "although damage to structures and scenic features since

that time cannot be definitely attributed to this activity, we remain genuinely concerned about

this continuing problem and the possible long range effects." [14] In November Wallace

reported on further possible sonic boom damage, which he had observed near Standing Cow

Ruin on August 12. A large block of the cliff had broken loose and bounced twice on the way

down with such force that only an expanse of fine white powder was left at the bottom.

The break occurred approximately 1/4 mile from the one reported on August 11,

1966, in which case Navajos reported a sonic boom at the time of the break. In

both instances the slides occurred on the farm of Guy Yazzie Teller, a Navajo

resident.

Upon investigation and questioning of the local Navajo people, the slide

occurred "during the noon hour" on Thursday, November 9, 1967, at which time

they observed a large cloud of white dust at the site. Our records show a

recorded sonic boom at 12:50 P.M. of extreme density on that day.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

Ironically, the latest slide happened above and partially covered one of the few

main trails from the canyon floor to the rim. This trail has been used by local

Navajo people almost daily during the summer months for many years. The slide

did not obliterate the trail and it can be used; however, danger from falling rock

is now extreme and continued use would not seem feasible.

. . . . .

Another factor that might well be taken into consideration is the very strong

feeling of the resident of the farm below the slides. Mr. Guy Yazzie Teller feels

that he should abandon the farm for the protection of himself and his family. He

also has a strong feeling that he has committed some terrible wrong and this is

his punishment. If he abandons the farm his ability to support his family is in

question. [15]

Cook forwarded Wallace's report to Santa Fe with the recommendation that it be passed on to

Washington, noting

15. Wallace to Supt., Nov. 15, 1967, C de C, W4618.

Mr. Teller is a non-English speaking Navajo who believes in the old ways and

he is now quite worried. Thus, even in this "remote" country, possible sonic

boom damage affects not only physical features but human relations. [16]

The July 5, 1968, issue of the New York Times carried an article on the effects of sonic

booms in national parks in Arizona. Chief Ranger Kevin McKibbin was quoted as saying:

"I've even seen them (the booms) move our front glass doors. Sometimes when they're really

intense, they'll open a door." It was hoped that the booms would cease, and apparently, the

article did help rouse people in high places, for very few booms were recorded after

November 1969.

On March 28, 1972, Acting Director Raymond L. Freeman was able to report that "the United

States Air Force has issued a regulation prohibiting supersonic operations over all national

parks." [17] For the year 1972 Rodney W. Harris, acting superintendent at Canyon de Chelly,

could report no "physical damages due to sonic booms." [18] As late as January 1974

Assistant Director of Park Historic Preservation Robert M. Utley urged each region to

forward information on sonic booms, stating:

It is strongly recommended that any adverse effect suspected to result from sonic

booms be referred immediately to the office of the Chief Scientist. [19]

The monument has continued to keep records of each sonic boom as of the date of this

writing.

Another movie company visited Canyon de Chelly from May 31 to June 8, 1967. The movie

was McKenna's Gold, starring Gregory Peck and Omar Sharif. Approximately 75 people

were included in the cast and crew. Cook reported that 16 local Navajos would be in the film.

Filming took place at Spider Rock, White Sands, White House Trail, Canyon Junction, Tsegi

Overlook, and at the canyon mouth. When describing the film, Cook wrote that the portion

being filmed was

the end of the movie when McKenna and his girl friend find the Canyon of Gold,

are chased by Apaches (played by Navajos), and are caught in an earthquake just

after the gold is discovered. The earthquake is NOT being filmed here. [20]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

Special activities in the Chinle area included two rodeos. The first, held on April 29, resulted

in $200 worth of damage to the campground comfort stations. [21] When the annual 4H

Rodeo was held in May, the tribal police and rangers cooperated in a 24-hour patrol of the

campground. [22]

The establishment of a justice of the peace court in Chinle had made arrests possible for

traffic violations for some time, but this court was not utilized by the Park Service until May

1967. In that month two citations for speeding were issued to local high school students (both

apparently non-Navajos), one of which resulted in a conviction and a $10 fine. [23]

In 1967 the Code of Federal Regulations was amended to include a section pertaining to

visitor use of the canyons. The purpose of the amendment was

to control public access to the canyons of Canyon de Chelly National Monument

by requiring that all visitors be accompanied by National Park Service employees

or authorized guides, except in such areas as the Superintendent may designate.

[24]

In forwarding the draft for consideration at the area, the assistant to the Director, Frank E.

Harrison, admonished:

Of course, the Superintendent is aware that Navajos exercising their statutory

rights are not subject to the requirements of this regulation. Our regulations,

whether general or special, cannot be applied to prohibit rights given by treaty or

statute. [25]

The proposed draft was published after the addition of a paragraph specifying that the

"regulation in no way impairs or modifies the rights of the Navajo Tribe of Indians as already

provided by Treaty and/or Statute." [26]

In March 1967, about the time that two new pits for trash disposal were dug, each 10 feet

deep, 12 feet wide, and 500 feet long, Chief Ranger Wallace held a meeting in his office with

chapter president Walker Norcross and a delegation of members of the Chinle Chapter to

discuss trash disposal and sanitation. [27] Precisely what agreements were reached is not

recorded, but it appears likely that the Park Service offered to allow families close to the

headquarters area to use the pits in exchange for permission to locate the pits within

traditional use areas of the Navajos. [28]

A special use permit for 1967 was issued to Marjorie Kaye Wilson, a Navajo, to rent horses

to visitors. The permit was reissued yearly. It was issued with no charge, because Navajos

had exclusive rights to rent horses according to the original legislation creating the

monument. [29] Rental rates for horses were $2.00 per hour. The tribe would not approve

any permits unless the permittee had liability insurance. [30] In June Cook reported that the

new permittee, doing business under the name of Canyon de Chelly Riding Stables, had

recorded 157 rentals during the month. [31]

In June 1967 the final monthly report for Canyon de Chelly National Monument was

submitted. Apparently this practice was becoming too burdensome and consumed too much

"time and manpower." Cook was happy with the discontinuance of this responsibility, but felt

a bit nostalgic about it also. [32] With the elimination of these reports, however, a valuable

source of information for future researchers was lost.

Continuing to work closely with the Bureau, the Park Service signed an agreement for a joint

road development project on the north rim of Canyon del Muerto. The distance was

approximately 26 miles plus spur roads leading to three overlooks and the Tsaile Ranger
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

Station. Each agency was to finance the main road equally, but the spur roads were to be

financed solely by the Park Service. The plans and specifications for the rim drive were to be

prepared by the Bureau, while the Park Service would prepare those for the spur roads. All

right of way acquisitions, contracting, and construction supervision were to be the

responsibility of the Bureau, which was also obligated to maintain the roads, while the costs

of maintenance for the spur roads were to be charged to the Park Service. The main road

would be carried on the real property records of the Bureau and the spur roads on the records

of the Park Service. [33]

Cook also wanted to extend road construction of the south rim road another 11 miles to the

Spider Rock Overlook, but needed approval of an easement from the Navajo tribe for 3 miles

that were outside the monument. [34] The Bureau obtained the necessary right of way from

the Navajo tribe, [35] but with stipulations. The tribe had presented the matter to the Chinle

Chapter, which "consented to the granting of the right-of-way—with the understanding that

the road will be left open to the general public, to improve and enlarge the school bus

service, and to develop economic potential of recreation and tourism." The tribe incorporated

these requirements into its own grant of easement. [36]

At the end of 1967 Cook reported on the recreational opportunities available to visitors at

Canyon de Chelly. He considered driving and sightseeing the outstanding activities and felt

that existing facilities were adequate "only in minimal terms." There was fishing at Tsaile

Lake, but the area was being used to capacity and besides was under tribal control. Water

skiing, boating, and swimming were of little importance, the first two because of tribal

regulations and the latter because of a "viral snail." Picnicking and camping were available,

but these facilities saw little use in the winter. Not many people took nature walks or went

horseback riding, and hiking was necessarily under very restrictive regulations. [37]

One activity that he did not mention was mountain climbing, but he may have considered this

part of hiking. The restrictions on this particular pastime were very important, especially in

regard to Spider Rock. In October he had had occasion to deny a request from the editor of

ASCENT Magazine for permission to climb this spire. In explaining his refusal he stated that

he was aware of five previous climbs, in 1956, 1960, 1961, 1964, and 1967, but noted that the

last two were done illegally. He pointed out that all requests since 1961 had been denied

not because of danger, but in respect for the wishes of the Navajo people who

consider this a sacred rock. The 1961 and 1967 ascents generated considerable

bad feeling among many traditionalist Navajos who feel that their religious rights

are being violated or made a mockery of. Both the National Park Service and the

Navajo Tribal Rangers have been requested by the Navajo people to make every

effort to eliminate all further ascents on this classic feature. [38]

Nonetheless, on November 24 another illegal climb was made. A visitor reported seeing a

man on top of Spider Rock. Chief Ranger Wallace and Maintenance Man Kelly went to the

site and apprehended the two violators. They were informed of their rights and agreed to sign

a waiver and to talk. They said they were not associated with any specific organization and

were unaware of the restrictions. Cook, in his report, said he believed them and let them go

with just a warning.

To remedy the situation he planned to place more off limits signs at the base of Spider Rock

and recommended that a letter be sent to ASCENT Magazine in hopes that they would carry

an article about the illegality of climbing there. [39]

Subsequently a letter was written to ASCENT Magazine and also to SUMMIT Magazine. It

explained why the climb was prohibited and asked that the magazines present this
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

information to their readers. [40]

An article by O. F. Oldendorph, containing information on Canyon de Chelly, appeared in the

May 1968 issue of National Parks Magazine. The sentiments of the author were reminiscent

of those expressed in the 1930s concerning visitation. The author appeared to be upset with

the influx of visitors because of paved roads. He believed that if roads to national parks were

dirt highways, this would discourage the type of visitor who littered and caused unnecessary

trouble. He declared:

Nothing discourages the overnight campground-hopper as much as fifteen miles

of dirt road. Nothing else is so welcome to the truly interested visitor, for he

knows that at the end of the rough road he will be camping with people who

share his interest in the park. [41]

Progress can not be stopped so easily, however. Oldendorph, despite his recent visit to

Navajo country, had failed to notice that the Navajos were no longer traveling by wagon and

that their pickups were as much benefited by paved roads as were the tourists' vehicles; more

so in fact, for the Indians traveled these roads regularly, while for most tourists the trip was

made once in a lifetime.

Early in 1968 the Navajo Lands Group was organized with John Cook as general

superintendent. [42] The group office was maintained at Chinle for some time, but was

eventually moved to Farmington, New Mexico, when Arthur H. White succeeded Cook.

With the creation of the group office the new general superintendent had responsibility for

many aspects of Navajo relations formerly handled by the area superintendent. This was

especially true as long as the office remained in Chinle throughout Voll's tenure as

superintendent. Later superintendents, from Cammack on, necessarily had to give more

attention to local Navajo relations, but the general superintendent at Farmington retains

considerable responsibility in local affairs and is most accountable for relations at the tribal

level. [43]

A question arose over whether Canyon de Chelly was affected by the Wilderness Act of

1964. Cook believed that "Canyon de Chelly can never really receive wilderness

consideration because of the legal status and because of the Navajo use thereof." [44] The

director of the Southwest Region agreed with Cook. [45] These opinions were accepted in

Washington and Canyon de Chelly was excluded from the provisions of the act. [46]

Several applications for land use permits were received by Cook and other superintendents of

the monument. When one was sent in by Willie Willson, the Navajo Lands Group was asked

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to concur in the permit request. In doing so, the group's

general superintendent stated:

We concur with the following stipulation; which is general for new permits

within the monument and specifically for those so adjacent to the core visitor use

area. "Any improvements or changes to or in this site are subject to the prior

approval of the National Park Service, Canyon de Chelly National Monument,

Chinle, Arizona."

This is really not a restriction but is just something that gives us the opportunity

to review and be involved in any developments in the general headquarters area

of the National Monument. [47]

Cook was disappointed over another permit issued to Amos Kee Yazzie to build on lands

occupied by Anson Bahe Benally, across from the Park Service housing area, because he said
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

that the Bureau in 1964 had assured the Service that "no additional development would take

place in this general vicinity." He requested that "the subject lands be earmarked for eventual

administrative withdrawal for National Park Service development purposes and that no

further building be permitted on said lands." [48]

Superintendent William G. Binnewies received a homesite application from William and

Mabel Hunter for an area 1-1/2 miles east of the Thunderbird Lodge. Binnewies had no

objections, since "the home will not infringe on park resources or values." [49] Therefore, the

homesite grant was given to the Hunters. [50]

Other problems involved hookups to the Park Service water system. Binnewies reported that

he denied two requests from Navajos for such hookups because

parks cannot sell or give away water unless it is for the direct or indirect use of

the park or park visitor, and also because all local water hookups in the Chinle

area are handled through the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. [51]

He said that the Tribal Utility Authority was unable to provide water hookups to Navajo

homesites east of the headquarters area because their distribution system stopped between the

Thunderbird Lodge and the campground. If possible, they would furnish water service, but in

these cases it could not be done. [52]

Problems arose due to misunderstandings about the water service. Bennewies informed

certain Navajo applicants, such as Alice Hunter, Amos Yazzie, and Edith Yazzie, that the

Park Service could not provide water for their homesites and recommended that they apply to

the Tribal Utility Authority. [53]

Binnewies also granted temporary access to the homesite of Elizabeth B. Kelsey, which was

east of the Park Service residential area and inside the farm lands of Irene Benally. Access

was to be by way of the Park Service residential road and through the south end of the fence

around Irene Benally's land. He said that an alternative route "should be worked out as soon

as possible as the residential road is not designed for, nor designated as a public

thoroughfare." [54]

On June 17, 1969, LaFont received permission from Raymond Nakai, Navajo tribal

chairman, to close his trading post operation. LaFont was to continue the

"remaining,operation in accordance with the present lease." [55] Closure of the trading post,

which included ending gasoline and oil sales, was due to the incurrence of financial losses.

To ensure that the Indian customers would not undergo hardships, Garcia's Canyon de Chelly

Trading Post was to acquire all the remaining stock at full wholesale value after the

Thunderbird closed officially on July 31. [56]

The closing of the trading post was to have an effect on tribal relations beyond the mere

matter of shopping convenience. In 1970 negotiations were begun for renewal of the

concessioner contract, the one then in force expiring on December 31, 1973. Frank F.

Kowski, in a letter to Navajo Tribal Chairman Peter McDonald, explained the matter in some

detail:

On July 26, 1972, a meeting between your representatives, the Concessioner and

this office was held at Window Rock to discuss counter proposals made by the

Navajo Tribe and the Tribe's further involvement as a party to the contract.

It is apparent that the Navajo Tribe became a third party to the original contract

primarily due to the existance [sic] at the time, of a trading post operation by the

concessioner. By letter of June 17, 1969, Raymond Nakai, Chairman of the
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

Navajo Tribal Council, authorized closure of the trading post.

Since the old trading post no longer exists, the primary interest of the Navajo

Tribe as a third party to the contract has been eliminated. Therefore, any

renegotiated contract should not include the Navajo Tribe as a third party

thereto. This is borne out by the July 2, 1964, opinion rendered by Field Solicitor

Gayle E. Manges wherein he states in part concerning the Act of February 14,

1931, establishing Canyon de Chelly National Monument: "It is my opinion that

Congress stated in clear and unambiguous language that one of the exceptions to

the Tribe's right to use the surface of the land for 'other purposes' is the right to

use the surface of the land for the care and accomodation [sic] of visitors to the

monument. To read into the clear language of Sections 2 and 3 of the act that the

Indian retained the rights and duties of the Government set forth in Section 3 of

the act is to ignore the unambiguous exception in Section 2 of the act, which

reserved to the Indian the use of the surface of the land for purposes '***except

as hereinafter defined***' The right of the National Park Service to provide for

the care and accomodation of visitors to the monument is set forth in Section 3

of the Act of August 25, 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C., Sec. 3), as

well as Section 3 of the Act of February 14, 1931. Solicitor's Opinion, 60 I.D.

214 (1948)".

Moreover, there is no authority by which the franchise fee which ranged between

four and six thousand dollars annually, may be paid to the Navajo Indian Tribe.

Therefore, under any renegotiated contract any such fee must be deposited into

the Treasury to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, as set forth in 16 U.S.C. 452.

With the elimination of the Tribe as a party to the contract, this concessioner

should be on the same basis as any other concessioner with respect to the

franchise fee. . . .

. . . . .

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, it should be pointed out that the

existing contract vested certain rights in the Tribe, including the right to the

franchise fee thereunder. These rights cannot be terminated except upon

expiration of the contract by limitation of time on December 31, 1973. Therefore,

the proposed new contract with Justin's, Inc. should be effective January 1, 1974,

rather than to supersede and cancel the existing contract as originally proposed.

[57]

Thus, with the expiration of the old contract, the concession came under exclusive Park

Service regulation.

With increasing visitation and a growing local population, travel within the canyons has

increased markedly. In a report prepared in April 1971, Cammack summarized the growth of

this travel during the preceding few years. Navajos were estimated to make about 7,000 trips

up the canyon per year, with an annual increase in their travel of about 10 percent. Travel by

others, including both the concessioner's guided tours and those visitors who had their own 4-

wheel-drive vehicles and hired guides, increased from 380 trips involving 3,800 people in

1965 to 1,060 trips involving about 9,000 people in 1970. An overall projected annual

increase of 15 percent was predicted. Despite this volume of travel, only 6 illegal entries were

noted for 1970 and the requirement that guides accompany all non-Navajos within the

canyons kept trespass on Navajo farms to a minimum, although there was some concern

expressed for possible damage to the ruins. Routine ranger patrols of the canyon seemed to
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

curb the potential problems. [58] Spider Rock was still considered sacred and a new petition

from the Navajos requesting that the Park Service continue to refuse permission to climb

there was received. [59]

In 1973 Superintendent Binnewies submitted a proposed "back country management plan" for

the area. After noting that the Park Service lacked any legal authority to regulate Navajo

activities within the canyons, he listed the following rules for visitors:

1. Canyon Trails—A permit and and authorized guide are required for visitor use of all

trails except White House Trail. No motorized vehicle use of any trails is allowed.

2. Camping—Overnight camping permitted only at Cottonwood Campground and Spider

Rock Overlook campground. Camping within the canyons is not permitted unless the

camper is the personal guest of a resident Navajo.

3. Vehicular Access—Access by vehicle will be through the mouth of the canyon by

permit, and limited to 4-wheel drive vehicles. No vehicular traffic will be permitted

beyond the Draper Ranch in Canyon de [sic] Muerto nor beyond a point approximately

2 miles up canyon from Spider Rock in Canyon de Chelly.

4. Cliff Dwellings—Access into cliff dwellings without a guide is allowed only at White

House and Standing Cow ruins.

The objectives of these rules were as follows:

1. Protection of property rights and privacy of Navajo residents of the canyon.

2. Protection and interpretation of archeological resources.

3. Provide accurate data on visitor use of various parts of the park as a basis for impact

studies.

4. Limit use of more primitive areas by practical controls for the purpose of minimizing

impact.

5. Minimize adverse visitor exposure to unfamiliar natural hazards by requiring a guide

familiar with canyon travel. [60]

Local population growth has caused new problems and aggravated old ones throughout the

monument area. In a report submitted in August 1973 Binnewies pointed out that law

enforcement in the campground was a growing problem requiring more regular patrols, that

the demand for homesites was increasing both in the Chinle area and along the rims, that

Navajo improvement of old foot trails into the canyons was sometimes destructive of scenic

values, and that the Park Service was being blamed for the inability of the Utility Authority

to provide water service to Navajo homes near the headquarters area. While he suggested

solutions to some of these problems, he hoped that the forthcoming master-planning study

would be a means of getting all the various local agencies and population segments together

and of informing them of Park Service objectives. [61]

Only one other event of the last few years should be mentioned here: the major archeological

project of stabilization and excavation at Antelope House under Don P. Morris, which began

in 1970.

The Antelope House work was the result of an increased emphasis on archeological resource

management under Cook and Voll, which has provided impetus for the better programming
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:07 PM]

of maintenance and stabilization work at the ruins. [62]

This very brief survey of the years since the end of Guillet's second tenure as superintendent

concludes the history of the monument at this time. These years are so recent that no true

historical perspective is yet possible, and whether the issues that we have selected to mention

here will indeed prove to have a significant effect on the future course of park operations at

Canyon de Chelly can only be determined by future events.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi10.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi11.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:10 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 11:

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

As has doubtless become apparent in the preceding chapters, the unifying theme in the story

of Canyon de Chelly National Monument has been that of relations with the Navajos—with

the canyon residents, the tribe as a whole, and at various levels between these extremes.

Many events that would seem to have had no bearing on this theme, such as the problem of

the Air Force and its sonic booms, seem inevitably to have involved the native population.

Even those developments that do not evidence Navajo involvement must often have been

subject to the scrutiny of Navajo observers, who, albeit, often felt they had no way to inform

the distant powers in "Washindon" of any objections or suggestions they might have had.

Conditions have changed greatly through the years, but the essential elements of cultural

differences, the conflicts these are capable of generating, and the means by which they can be

resolved have not been altered in any basic manner. Effective and honest exchange of ideas

and feelings between Navajos and non-Navajos remains the vital factor for any policy or

program in which the two peoples are to work successfully together for any extended period.

When the monument was established most Navajos spoke only their own language. In 1920

only about 25 percent of school-age Navajo children were actually enrolled students and as

late as 1930 the figure had increased to only 46 percent. [1] Today the majority of Navajos

are literate in English, but there are many who have little or no skill even in spoken English.

Navajo is still the household language for most Navajo families. While a high degree of

ability in the use of English can be a valuable asset to Navajos who aspire to leadership

positions, many very influential and knowledgeable leaders function, on the local level

especially, with little or no knowledge of the national language. It will remain important to

the monument to have personnel fluent in Navajo for quite some time to come if it is to

maintain good communication with the local people. When the area had only one permanent

position, the custodian himself worked so closely with his Navajo maintenance man that he

was able to keep in touch with Navajo affairs to the degree necessary. With the

overwhelming growth of visitation, the increasing complexity of problems to be dealt with,

and a larger staff the need for a Navajo speaker at a higher level appeared, even if it was not

fully realized at first. One of the keys to Guillet's success was his ability to communicate with

local Navajos in their own language. This is not especially apparent in the documented

history, but interviews with Navajos who remember his superintendency or who spoke of

current Park Service affairs frequently emphasized the importance of this. [2] It should be

remembered that ability to speak a foreign language does not necessarily give a person

confidence to use it in stressful or business situations. Even Navajos with a fair command of

English for social use will sometimes insist upon the aid of an interpreter if they feel a matter

requires precise communication and understanding.

Linguistic capability alone cannot assure smooth relations in intercultural dealings. When the

time comes that all Navajos speak at the very least good colloquial English, differences in

values and world view will still exist. These differences may well be far more subtle than

they are today, but they will nonetheless influence the degree of intercultural understanding
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi11.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:10 PM]

that can be achieved. While more Navajos will be full converts to Christianity, there will

probably always be those who are adherents of their own faith and some who will give some

allegiance to both. For all, the past, as expressed both in the sacred lore of the tribe and in

history, will be significant. The availability of Navajo religious tradition in published works

in both languages, coupled with an increasing level of literacy, will probably result in more

Navajos having a greater familiarity with this body of knowledge than ever before. Places

considered holy because of associations with the Navajo deities and those significant in the

history of the tribe will continue to be meaningful to almost all Navajos. Canyon de Chelly

and its environs will not lose their importance in this respect.

The patterns of residence within the monument may undergo drastic alterations, but there will

still be Navajos for whom the canyons are home. Respect of their right to privacy and to

follow whatever lifestyle they may choose will still be required as long as the National Park

Service administers the area. Any attempt to tailor the Navajo way of life within the canyons

to what is thought to be the tourists' expectations will inevitably lead to serious complications

and perhaps to charges of manipulating the local population for devious ends.

The line between cooperation and manipulation can be extremely hazy for an administrator

who must show some results for the approval of superiors—men who sometimes lack an

understanding of the patience and time required in gathering together and studying all views

before decisions are made and actions taken in cross-cultural contexts. Under these pressures

tact can gradually fade into diplomacy, thence to manipulation, and ultimately to coercion.

Despite the problems of poverty, health, education, and discrimination that face so many

Navajos, perhaps the one trait that Navajos most resent in whites is their tendency to take

over and run things in their own way. The present movement toward Navajo control of more

and more of the activities in Navajo country is the expression of very deep-seated emotions

and even if it should suffer setbacks will not be a passing fad. [3]

The policies implemented by Guillet in improving Park Service-Navajo relations in the 1960s

may not be entirely applicable in situations that will arise in the future, but contemplation of

their success suggests that certain basic features can be guidelines even in changing

situations. Guillet has been criticized for being paternalistic in his dealings with the Navajos.

In some ways the charge does have a degree of truth, but the conditions under which he

worked and the nature of white-Navajo relations at that time and place doubtless justified

many actions that in Anglo eyes are judged paternalistic. It may safely be assumed that he

also found himself entering situations so fully Navajo in cultural content that, even with his

extensive knowledge and experience in the Navajo world, had not certain Navajo friends

dealt with him in a paternalistic fashion, realizing his shortcomings in such circumstances, he

would have suffered at the very least discrimination and perhaps failure in some of his

undertakings. When some whites comment that some Navajos are "like children" they fail to

realize that the behavior on which they base this conclusion is that of Navajos poorly

educated in Anglo ways trying to function in a society not their own. Even less understood is

the reciprocal fact that if they were to take part in internal Navajo affairs of any sort they

would soon find themselves reduced to an equally childlike role in which their dependency

on guidance from sympathetic tribesmen would become very important. Any who doubt this

can be quickly convinced if they make a sincere effort to participate fully in a Navajo

religious ceremony.

There is indeed a difference between paternalism and actions that give reassurance and aid to

one of another culture. In some cases identical actions can be either one or the other. The

difference lies not entirely with the action itself, but also with the attitudes of those acting

and the values of the recipient culture. An important question must be answered in order to

fairly judge Guillet's work. That is, did he give various sorts of aid to Navajos in order to buy

their support and make them feel dependent upon him and the National Park Service, or did
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi11.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:10 PM]

he do so in order to create the kind of symbolic kin relationship that is so important in much

interpersonal action in Navajo society and to reaffirm Park Service acceptance of Navajo

residency in the canyons?

Given the conflict of values that is inherent in any intercultural relationship, Guillet himself

might find it difficult to honestly answer this question. Only if he were motivated by the

second alternative, however, could he have developed a personal concern for the Navajos as

individuals. Such limited evidence as exists in the documentation suggests that he did feel

this concern, but did not consider it an appropriate subject for full expression in official

reports. It is not so important here to make a judgment on Guillet's record in this regard as it

is to note the need for awareness of factors of this sort when dealing with peoples of a

different cultural background.

Even more necessary for those who might attempt to utilize the data presented here will be an

awareness of changes that will have taken place in their own culture and especially in Navajo

culture. He who tries to apply today too uncritically perhaps, or too mechanically, or too

enthusiastically, to Navajo affairs what he has learned in reading about Navajo ways of the

1930s is destined for trouble. He must deal with the people as they are now and to do so he

must know them now. It is very valuable to know their past for it will help in understanding

the present, but it will not suffice by itself.

A knowledge of aboriginal Navajo material culture can enhance one's appreciation of modern

Navajo arts and crafts, but it should not lead to the belief that a person of Navajo ancestry

must deny his heritage if he drives a new pickup or modern sports car. A knowledge of

Navajo religion may give a better understanding even of Navajo Christians, but it is equally a

mistake to expect a Christian to accept all aspects of Navajo dogma or to dismiss his

tribesmens' religion as mere superstition. Knowledge of traditional Navajo social structure

will help a supervisor evaluate his subordinates' needs for time off in terms of kin obligations

that are often very powerful forces in Navajo society, but he must not assume that a man who

observes these obligations is any less competent to carry out jobs requiring formal education

or knowledge of Anglo-American culture. A knowledge of the history of Navajo political

development can be particularly valuable to someone dealing with Navajo communities or

the tribe itself, but it is probably a mistake to expect consistency from any politician

regardless of culture. In short, Navajos have doubtless always been, are today, and will

certainly continue to be individuals whose degree of conformity to their native culture or to

that of the Anglo-American world varies almost infinitely according to the advantages

offered by either society at any particular time. There are regularities in the differences

between Navajo and Anglo culture, but they are most irregularly distributed. One who deals

with a different culture should learn all that he can about it and then use his knowledge as

though he doubted its validity, continually but unobtrusively testing its applicability in each

situation he encounters. He must learn not to feel surprised by or disdainful of what appear to

him to be incongruous or illogical juxtaposition of old and new or of Navajo and Anglo.

What may seem inappropriate from a purely Anglo view-point is often the expression of real

and pressing personal or collective efforts to reach accommodation between the two ways of

life. Above all one should not revert to stereotypes.

Navajo culture once succeeded quite well in meeting the needs and desires of most of the

people most of the time. To state this is not the same as accepting the romantic myth of the

"noble savage" concept. There were conflicts and inequities even under aboriginal

conditions, but alternatives did not exist in the bewildering complexity they do today. Not

only did the system work, but it helped the individual define his own goals, providing him

with a value system that matched cultural realities. Culture change, while more rapid than that

in many traditional societies, was slow compared to the rate of change today and there was

strong continuity in most aspects of life. The importance of a degree of continuity in any
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi11.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:10 PM]

society should be self evident, but it is easy to ignore it in the presence of the very great

forces for change that exist in the modern world. It is equally easy for the Anglo

administrator to fail to recognize a problem as resulting from a conflict in cultural norms.

Many Navajos are quite understandably reluctant to reveal to Anglos customs and beliefs that

they know will most likely be met with incredulity, derision, or moralizing in terms of Anglo

values.

Thus it is apparent that considerable care must be taken in the assignment of personnel to an

area such as Canyon de Chelly. Not only should people transferred to the area be either

knowledgeable in Navajo matters or possessed of the skills and temperament that will allow

them to learn and to deal effectively with the Navajos, but they must be people in whom

superiors can have confidence, because it is likely they will have to undertake actions that

will not be entirely in accord with established policies if they are to be able to maintain

smooth working relationships with the local community.

The frequent changes in personnel in any widespread organization such as the National Park

Service create unique problems that a more localized institution does not face. Personal

associations are much more important in Navajo-white relations than in relationships

between whites alone. A factor of significance here is that most Navajos view the white

world as a whole with some degree of suspicion. They can be quite perceptive in identifying

individual differences among various whites, particularly in regard to the individual's

attitudes toward and tolerance or acceptance of Navajos and Navajo ways. They are no more

infallible than the rest of us, however, and furthermore Navajo tradition teaches that nonNavajos are inherently dangerous. Therefore tradition and personal experience often combine

to reinforce suspicion of outsiders so that trust is not easily gained and can be easily lost by

one who has not established his worth over a long period. The high potential for failure in

intercultural personal relations is well documented. [4]

Another complication that arises from personnel transfers is the result of the continuation of a

strong pre-literate tradition within the tribe. Preservation of knowledge depends more upon

human memory than upon written documentation. Verbal agreements are the basis of most

local cooperation, and a special effort is made to remember the details of such agreements

and to pass these on when an agreement is in force beyond one lifetime. Verbal agreements

made by early administrators, undocumented or recorded on documents no longer in the area

files, will doubtless cause complications for years to come. Because of increasing literacy

among tribal members, problems of this sort undoubtedly will decline, but it remains

imperative that all agreements with Navajos be documented in as precise detail as possible

for future reference. Definition for the Navajos of who can speak with authority on behalf of

the National Park Service no longer seems as much of a problem as it once was. The Service

appears to be committed, in Navajo eyes, to promises made by Bureau of Indian Affairs

officials in the early negotiations that established the monument, some of whom may have

been speaking with little or no real authority in the matter, others of whom, such as

Hagerman, were representing the interests of the Federal Government as a whole and of the

National Park Service in particular.

Today, after the passage of over a generation in time and the administrations of 14 custodians

and superintendents, plus various acting custodians and superintendents, any of whom may

have made verbal commitments of various sorts to individual Navajos or to official Navajo

entities, even a study of the documented history of the monument leaves considerable

uncertainty as to the validity of many Navajo assertions. Unquestioning acceptance of any

claim of any Navajo regarding past promises by officials long departed would be a rash

course to pursue, yet summary dismissal of claims made in good faith would not be

conducive to good community relations and might lead the Service to violate moral

obligations that do exist. Each case must be considered on its own merits and settled in a
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 11)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi11.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:10 PM]

manner that will leave all concerned fully aware of the reasons for the decision ultimately

made. Where the means to evaluate a Navajo claim are not readily at hand, Navajo

participation in resolving an issue may be especially important. Misunderstandings that

originated during the difficult process of translating English to Navajo or vice versa are

sometimes among the causes of claims made today and often cannot be discovered without

the aid of someone who knows both languages. Judgment of the reliability of an individual

across cultural borders can be very difficult, and if this judgment must be made regarding a

deceased ancestor, only the community knowledge of his memory can serve the purpose.

More important, community and general Navajo participation in the operation of the

monument are needed to preserve the values that made it a national monument and

significant to the Navajo people. It is one of the few areas, if not the only one, in the National

Park system whose continuation as a part of that system has been seriously questioned

despite the fact that no one seems to question its value as a park as such. There is a very real

possibility that sooner or later its administration will revert to the Navajo tribe. If, when, and

how this might occur will be determined in large measure by Navajo opinion of the National

Park Service's record as administrator of the monument. Navajo participation is the one way

to teach the techniques and responsibilities of such management while increasing Navajo

appreciation of the value and potential benefits of the canyon area as a park. Only if the

Navajos have the opportunity to cultivate their own interest in the canyons as a park area will

they resist the temptation to take over its administration prematurely and continue to preserve

it well should they in time acquire the entire responsibility.

The desirability of tribal administration of Canyon de Chelly National Monument is an issue

beyond the scope of the present study, but the history of the monument shows that tribal

control is an alternative that cannot be completely ignored. For the sake of the monument

itself and of the people who make their homes within it, the National Park Service needs to

administer the area in such a manner that the higher aims of this administration will endure

even if there should be a change in the governing authority.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi11.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia1.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:21 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX I:

CUSTODIANS AND SUPERINTENDENTS, 1932-1974

List of custodians and superintendents, Canyon de Chelly National Monument compiled from

monthly reports and other sources. Personnel serving in an acting capacity are listed only

when there was no regularly assigned incumbent.

Name Title Dates

L. H. ("Cozy") McSparron Acting Custodian 28 July 1932—

W. Verde Watson Acting Custodian March 1934

Robert R Budlong Custodian 1 Aug. 1934-30 Nov. 1936

Johnwill Faris Custodian 30 Nov. 1936-13 Nov. 1938

Theodore Cronyn Acting Custodian 14 Nov. 1938—30 Nov. 1938

Theodore Cronyn Custodian 1 Dec. 1938-10 Sept. 1940

Quintin Bradley Acting Custodian 11 Sept. 1940-31 Oct. 1940

Charles D. Wyatt, Jr. Custodian 1 Nov. 1940-20 Jan. 1943

Ted C. Sowers Acting Custodian 21 Jan. 1943-21 June 1943

Meredith M. Guillet Custodian,

Superintendent 22 June 1943-15 June 1950

Everett W. Bright Superintendent 24 June 1950-1 Sept. 1953

John T. McConville Acting Superintendent 2 Sept. 1953—28 Nov. 1953

John A. Aubuchon Superintendent 29 Nov. 1953—19 May 1956

Albert G. Henson Superintendent 21 May 1956-3 Apr. 1958

Paul A. Berger Superintendent 4 May 1958-14 Jan. 1963

Roy G. Rainey Acting Superintendent 15 Jan. 1963—19 Jan. 1963

Meredith M. Guillet Superintendent 20 Jan. 1963-14 Aug. 1966

John E. Cook Acting Superintendent 15 Aug. 1966—22 Oct. 1966

W. Franklin Wallace Acting Superintendent 11 Feb. 1968— Mar. 1968

Kevin McKibbin Acting Superintendent Mar. 1968-5 Oct. 1968

Charles B. Voll Superintendent 6 Oct. 1968—4 Apr. 1970

Kevin McKibbin Acting Superintendent 5 Apr. 1970-30 May 1970

Leslie W. Cammack Superintendent 31 May 1970-24 June 1972

William G. Binnewies Superintendent 25 June 1972-18 Aug. 1974

Herbert Yazhe Acting Superintendent 19 Aug. 1974—29 Sept. 1974

William Germeraad Superintendent 29 Sept. 1974—

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 1)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia1.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:21 PM]

cach/adhi/adhia1.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 2)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia2.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:31 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 2:

TRAVEL STATISTICS, 1931-1966

Travel statistics, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, compiled from DFRC, C de C,

A2621, SWNM monthly reports, and other sources.

Year Visitors Year Visitors

1931 423 1950 3,715 or 3,989

1932 395 1951 4,688

1933 435 1952 5,661

1934 650 1953 7,222

1935 988 1954 8,125 or 8,400

1936 1,136 1955 7,988 or 8,183

1937 1,422 1956 11,025 or 11,900

1938 1,573 1957 13,480 or 13,200

1939 2,128 1958 15,800

1940 2,738 1959 21,000

1941 1,916 1960 20,544

1942 1,549 1961 26,487

1943 403 1962 25,354

1944 501 1963 30,036

1945 600 1964 167,000

1946 1,839 1965 182,785

1947 2,232 1966 344,347

1948 2,239

1949 2,818

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia2.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia3.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:34 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 3:

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS LET SINCE 1960

1. Construct 3 Residences and Bulk L.P. Gas System

Contract: No. 14-10-0333-616

Completed: May 23, 1960

Cost: $60,075.00

Contractor: Clyde V. Hutchisan

2. Parking Areas and Access Roads

Contract: No. 14-10-0333-536

Completed: July 12, 1960

Cost: $85,721.12

Contractor: Sanders Construction Co. Ltd.

3. Comfort Station

Contract: No. 14-10-0333-671

Completed: June 3, 1961

Cost: $11,684.00

Contractor: W. H. Elliott

4. Visitor Center

Contract: No. 14-10-0333-1128

Completed: August, 1964

Cost: $118,209.68

Contractor: Flough-Slavers Co.

5. South Rim Road Stage 1 (Includes 1st and Junction Overlooks), Utilities, Bridge over

Canyon de Chelly, Campground Road Extension, and Concessioner Road and Parking.

Contract: No. 14-10-0333-1581

Completed: July 18, 1966

Cost: $395,727.53

Contractor: Neilson, Inc.

6. Comfort Station and Campfire Circle

Contract: No. 14-10-3-930-14

Completed: September 20, 1967

Cost: $25,299.00
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 3)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia3.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:34 PM]

Contractor: W. D. Powell

7. Construct Residence (Duplex) and Rehabilitate Residence No. 1 (Adobe)

Contract: No. 14-10-3-930-15

Completed: September 20, 1967

Cost: $43,553.50

Contractor: Stangle Construction Inc.

8. South Rim Road Stage II (5 Miles)

Contract: No. 14-10-3-930-28

Completed: May 10, 1968

Cost: $417,002.16

Contractor: Neilson, Inc.

9. South Rim Road Stage III

Contract: No. 14-10-7-971-143

Completed: March 20, 1969

Cost: $412,422.10

Contractor: Neilson, Inc.

10. BIA-NPS Joint Road Development on the North Rim of Canyon del Muerto

Contract: No. N00 C 1420 4889

Completed:

Cost: $5,344,476.05

Contractor: Wylie Brothers Contracting Co.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia3.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia4.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:44 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 4:

ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD WORK, 1902-1974

Ethnographic field work done at Chinle, in Canyon de Chelly National Monument, and in

immediate vicinity

Date Worker Subject Source

ca. 1902-05 Samuel E. Day, Jr. Sandpaintings Wyman, 1960, p. 27;

Wyman, 1962, p. 282

ca. 1923-25 Gladys A. Reichard Social Structure Reichard, 1928

1932 Father Berard Haile Religion Wyman, 1962, p. 75;

Wyman, 1965, pp.

282-83

ca. 1933-35 W. W. Hill Material Culture &

General Ethnography

Hill, 1937;

Hill, 1938; Hill, 1948

ca. 1935-36 Gordon B. Page Architecture Page, 1937

1934 Father Berard Haile Religion Wyman, 1970, p. 19

ca. 1939-40 Richard F. Van

Valkenburgh

Place Names Van Valkenburgh,

1941, pp. 17-26

1940 Charles McC. Reeve Sandpaintings Watkins, 1943;

Wyman, 1962

Nov. 1940 Henry Dendahl Sandpaintings Dutton, 1941

1946 Mary C. Wheelwright Religion Wyman, 1965, p. 211

May 1947 Mary C. Wheelwright Religion Wyman, 1970, p. 19;

SWNM, Jan.-

Feb.1949

July-Feb. 1949 Thomas B. Noble Religion SWNM, Jan.-

Feb.1949

early 1950s Ruth E. Underhill Social Structure Frisbie, 1974

1954-59 Mary Shepardson Political & Social

Structure, Religion

Shepardson, 1974

1957-58 Verner Mayes Ethnographic filming Mayes, personal

communication

1957-59 David P. McAllester Blessingway Music Frisbie, 1974

1961 Leland C. Wyman Windway Wyman, 1962, p. 283

May 1962 Clifford R. Barnett Health Frisbie, 1974

1963-64 Samuel Barrett Filming of Kinaalda Frisbie, 1974

Oct.-Nov. 1964 Sallie Van

Valkenburgh

Local oral tradition Guillet to Dir., 10

Nov. 1964;

Guillet to Dir., 10
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia4.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:44 PM]

Dec. 1964

Aug. 1965 Minor Van Arsdale &

Peter Snyder

Urban relocation Cook to Dir., 9 Sep.

1965

June-Aug. & Oct.-

Nov. 1965

Sallie Van

Valkenburgh

Local oral tradition Guillet to Dir., 9 Nov.

1965,

Chaco Archives

#1337,1338

Fall 1965 Chien Chiao Transmission of tradition Frisbie, 1974; Chiao,

1971

1965 Mary Shepardson Settlement patterns, Law Shepardson, 1974,

Guillet to Dir., 5 Nov.

1965

1966 Mary Shepardson Law enforcement Shepardson, 1974

ca. 1967-69 Carl Gorman Local oral tradition Frisbie, 1974

late 1960s James McNeley Linguistic concepts McNeley, personal

communication

ca. 1971-74 Stephen C. Jett Ethnogeography,

Architecture

Frisbie, 1974

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia4.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 5:

HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY, CANYON DE CHELLY, 1300-1960

1300-1500: Sometime during this period the Apaches de Nabajo arrived in the Southwest.

Exact time of arrival and routes of travel are still uncertain and various writers, basing their

ideas on the best evidence available, (which is very limited), have quite divergent theories.

All we can say with certainty is that they came ultimately from the North. Just how rapidly

they spread over the country and occupied places such as Canyon de Chelly are matters on

which we need further data.

1582: First mention of people who were probably Navajos, encountered at the base of Mount

Taylor by the Espejo Expedition. This group was perhaps ancestral to the present-day

Canyoncito Navajos. They were referred to as "Corechos" or "Querechos," traded and

apparently also fought with Acoma, grew corn and hunted. Supplied Espejo's men with food

on his way west to Hopi, but on his return fought him with bows and arrows to free Corecho

women received as slaves from the Hopis.

1598: Arrival of Spanish colonists in New Mexico and first efforts by missionaries to convert

the various Apache groups, including no doubt some of the Apaches de Nabajo.

1625-29: Fray Alonso de Benavides, Custodian of the New Mexico missions, arranged peace

with the Apaches de Nabajo, who had been at war with the Spaniards, and made further

efforts at missionary work among them. He described them as farmers, hunters, and valiant

warriors, and as a very numerous people extending far to the west of the settlements, which

might imply that Canyon de Chelly was already within their territory.

1626: Earliest surviving use of the name "Apaches de Nabaju" in Relacion of Zárate

Salmerón.

1678: First definite documentation that the Navajos were using horses, although there is less

explicit evidence that they had horses by 1653 if not earlier. Considerable warfare with the

Spaniards and taking of Navajos as slaves during this century.

1680: The Pueblo Revolt, which drove the Spaniards from New Mexico. The Navajos aided

the Pueblos in the revolt and obtained some captives, who were founders of new clans.

1692-93: The Reconquest of deVargas, subjecting all Pueblos except the Hopis to Spanish

rule again.

1696: An unsuccessful second revolt by some of the Pueblos. Flight of numerous refugees to

Navajo country, founding several new clans, settling mostly in the Dinetah area east of

Farmington, N. M.

1700: Destruction of Awatovi, the easternmost Hopi town, by the other Hopis, in part due to

willingness of the Awatovians to allow the missionaries to return. Some refugees from this

event also joined the Navajos and founded one or more new clans. A part of them settled in
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

Canyon de Chelly, but apparently sometime later.

1706: Earliest known mention of sheep and weaving among the Navajos, probably introduced

by the Pueblo refugees.

1716: Last campaign against the Navajos during the early part of this century. There followed

more than a half century of peace between the Navajos and the whites.

1740s: Another effort to convert Navajos, accomplishing only the establishment of two

missions, which lasted less than a year, near Mount Taylor.

1749-53: Navajo population of the Dinetah, of mixed Athabaskan and Pueblo ancestry,

moved out due to drought and Ute raids, spreading over the area to the southwest as far as

Manuelito, Ganado, and Nazlini by 1764. Some of these people probably arrived in Canyon

de Chelly about the same time.

1750s-1760s: Spanish settlement within the eastern fringes of Navajo country, especially

around Mount Taylor and along the Rio Puerco of the East (Cuba, N. M. to the AcomaLaguna region).

1774-75: Navajo war against the Spaniards, driving the settlers from their settlements.

1777-78: Earliest Spanish mention of Canyon de Chelly appears on maps made by Don

Bernardo de Miera y Pacheco. On one of his maps dated 1778 it is spelled "Chegui" and is

surrounded by several little hogan-like symbols. The mountains immediately to the east are

called the "Sierra de Chegui." I suspect that the Canyon de Chelly area was penetrated by

troops during the war of 1774-75, giving rise to better knowledge of it among the Spaniards,

but thus far no campaign reports have been located in any archival collections.

1780: Juan Bautista de Anza made an expedition to Hopi to bring 40 families of Rio Grande

refugees back to their missions. On arriving he learned that the 40 families had gone to join

the Navajos instead. According to reports the Navajos killed the men and kept the women

and children. This was during a war between the two tribes. It is sometimes assumed that

these families went to Canyon de Chelly.

1786: "Chelli" was listed as one of the "five divisions" of the tribe.

1794: Mention of Canyon de Chelly as a place where Navajos pastured their livestock.

1796: "Chelle" was listed as one of ten Navajo settlements.

1804: New war by Navajos against renewed Spanish expansion into eastern Navajo country.

1805: The war continuing, Lieutenant Antonio Narbona brought troops and Opata Indian

allies from Sonora late in 1804. On being joined by some New Mexican troops and Zuni

Indians, he attacked the Navajos in Canyon de Chelly (or del Muerto) in January 1805,

killing 115 people and taking 33 captives. This was probably the battle at Massacre Cave, but

there are a number of discrepancies between Narbona's report and the Navajo tradition. He

reported the canyon bottom as being fertile, but did not mention cornfields or orchards,

perhaps merely because at that time of year they were not especially obvious.

1807: Gila Apaches visited the Navajos in Canyon de Chelly and invited some Navajos to go

back with them on a return visit, but on the return trip stole the Navajos' horses, thus starting

a war between the Apaches and the Navajos.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

1816: Navajos from the Mount Taylor area moved temporarily to the de Chelly area because

of war with the Comanches.

1818-19: War with the Spaniards, caused in part perhaps by Navajo belief in Spanish

complicity in Comanche attacks. It is probable, but not certain, that Spanish troops operated

part of the time in or near Canyon de Chelly.

1821: Another war with the Spaniards with inconclusive results. Mexico gains its

independence.

1822: A war with Mexico caused by the killing by treachery of several Navajo emissaries at

Jemez.

1823: Vizcarra' s campaign into Navajo country. On the outward march the army camped one

night at the mouth of Canyon de Chelly after scouting some side canyons. In the morning

Navajo skirmishers attacked the camp, wounding one of Vizcarra's men and suffering no

losses themselves. This was on July 13. From here Vizcarra went west to the Hopi area and

beyond. The baggage train seems to have stayed behind and was still there on August 8 when

a Mexican soldier was killed at the mouth of the canyon. It is possible that troops assigned to

protect the baggage penetrated the canyon, but if so they did little damage, because all

Navajo casualties are accounted for in the journals of the main column and other

detachments. On August 18 Vizcarra returned to this base camp, which he called Tierra

Blanca, and was joined on the same day by another detachment, coming up the Chinle Wash

from the north, which had been harassed by Navajo warriors until it arrived about at Many

Farms. The army rested at Tierra Blanca most of the next day, getting a late start, and began

a slow return to New Mexico, taking 2 days to reach Little Canyon de Chelly—probably on

its upper portion.

1825: Another campaign into Navajo country, route unknown.

1833: Still another campaign, route unknown.

1834: And again.

1835: A campaign that got only as far as Washington Pass, where it was defeated when the

Navajos ambushed it. Three of the officers, including Blas de Hinojos, the leader, were

killed. Navajos from Canyon de Chelly may well have participated in this battle, one of the

tribe's major victories in the wars with Mexico.

1836: Three campaigns invaded Navajo country, but places visited unknown.

1836-37: Another campaign in the winter that camped at least one night at a place called Ojo

del Carrizo near Canyon de Chelly.

1838: A campaign into the Tunicha Mountains, but whether it got close to de Chelly is not

known.

1839: Campaign by three columns of troops. Two columns operated in the Canyon de Chelly

area early in November. On the 5th a party of 500 men under Captain Juan Cristobal Armijo

was sent to explore Canyon de Chelly. On the 7th a second detachment of 100 men was sent

to assist him. He returned on the 8th, having detached 300 men to lay siege to a mesa on

which Navajos were holding out. The mesa was apparently near the canyon and a second

detachment was sent by way of Little Canyon de Chelly to attack the mesa after the others

returned without having had any success. They managed to catch a half dozen stray Navajo

horses and mules, but also failed to take the mesa. Setting out toward the Carrizo Mountains,
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

one column then had an encounter with "a multitude of Navajos" at the mouth of the canyon,

which resulted in no action, the troops camping there for the night. Marching northward,

various small detachments were sent to scout the country, one of which made an attack on

some Navajos on the "Mesas de Chelly" in which they killed a man and captured a woman

and 160 sheep but had four men injured in a fall over a precipice.

1840: Two columns of troops again invaded Navajo country. One operated east of the

mountains and the route of the other is unknown. The Navajos held a Naach'id or tribal

assembly that winter near de Chelly, probably somewhere in the Chinle Valley, to discuss

making peace with Mexico. Negotiations took most of the winter, but a treaty was made in

the spring of 1841.

1843: Two campaigns, routes unknown.

1846: U.S. war with Mexico. Major Gilpin visited Canyon de Chelly in November, inviting

Navajo headmen to the council with Doniphan at Bear Springs (present Fort Wingate) where

the first treaty between the United States and the tribe was signed. Which, if any, headmen

from the canyons attended the treaty negotiations is not reported in the surviving records.

1847: Major Robert Walker led the first U.S. expedition to enter Canyon de Chelly. They

marched only 6 miles up the canyon and seeing no Navajos, turned around and marched out,

noticing a few Navajo spies only on the rims of the canyon.

1849: Treaty signed at mouth of canyon with Col. John Washington and part of canyon

explored by Lt. James Simpson.

1850: A private campaign led by Ramon Luna, after attacking the Navajos on Black Mesa, on

their return journey camped at the mouth of Canyon de Chelly, where six men who strayed

from camp were killed.

1851: Navajos reported planting extensively at Canyon de Chelly. Colonel Sumner's

expedition, with the rather unsuccessful entry into Canyon de Chelly and his precipitous

withdrawal, but resulting in the establishment of Fort Defiance.

1853: Agent Henry L. Dodge and Maj. Henry L. Kendrick, with troops from Fort Defiance

and the post chaplain, Rev. John Shaw, visited Canyon de Chelly in an effort to settle

differences between the whites and the Navajos. They found the crops good and the Navajos,

who supplied them with green corn, melons, milk and cheese, friendly. It was about the end

of July and they were invited to return when the peaches were ripe. The headmen

encountered in the canyon were Fairweather and Amagoso, the latter a war chief. As they do

not appear in later reports under those names, they cannot be identified with known leaders.

There are indications that Amagoso died later that year, apparently of natural causes.

1854: A Navajo, said to be from Canyon de Chelly, killed a soldier at Fort Defiance. A

Mexican captive, said by the Navajos to be the murderer, was executed, but he may have

been substituted for the real culprit and the army deceived in the case.

1856: Treaty negotiated by Governor Meriwether, never ratified by Congress however.

Mariano Martinez of Canyon de Chelly, who had signed the Treaty of 1849 with Colonel

Washington, also signed this treaty. Whether he was the man called Fairweather by Dodge is

uncertain.

1857: Ute raid between the mouth of Canyon de Chelly and the Carrizo Mountains, in which

eight Navajos were killed. The Navajos retaliated, killing five Utes.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

1858: January—Another Ute attack, in which the headman Pelon, a wealthy stockman, was

killed. This is perhaps the raid depicted in the famous Ute raid pictograph panel.

April—Navajos of Cuentes Azules' ("Blue or Turquois Beads") band raided Abiquiu, taking

some sheep, which they drove to the vicinity of Canyon de Chelly.

June—A major meeting was held at Canyon de Chelly by the Navajos to decide whether to

have peace or war, the major trouble being disputes with Major Brooks at Fort Defiance over

grazing land used by military livestock, and perhaps other matters.

July—Killing of Major Brooks's slave at Fort Defiance, leading to war.

September—Colonel Miles led troops of his command into the upper end of Monument

Canyon and westward through the canyons to the mouth of de Chelly. He reported cornfields

and peaches in the canyon, but the invasion accomplished little with regard to the war, the

main action taking place in other locations.

November—Miles's troops, after a roundabout march east of the mountains and crossing to

the west to Lukachukai, marched southward to the mouth of Canyon de Chelly where they

camped, using nearby hogans for firewood. Here they were met by Barboncito who tried to

arrange a truce to end the war and a day was spent in camp negotiating and planning for

Barboncito to bring a delegation of headmen to Fort Defiance to meet with the agent. The

next day the troops marched for the fort. A second column under Major Backus passed

southward across the headwaters of the canyon to the east.

1859: Winter to Spring, exact dating uncertain. The last Naach'id was held at Tsin Sikaad,

about 12 miles northwest of Chinle. The Treaty of 1858 was rejected, but Zarcillos Largos

and Manuelito split on the issue of war and peace and no definitive consensus was reached.

Although the decision for war was made, Zarcillos Largos walked out and warfare did not

break out for several months. Tribal leadership remained split, and the traditional political

organization of the tribe was no longer effective.

July—Capt. John G. Walker led troops on an exploring trip to the canyon, entering at the

head of Canyon de Chelly and emerging at the mouth, passing cornfields and wheatfields in

the canyon and, at the mouth, holding a meeting with about 200 Navajo men and their

families. The new Navajo agent, Silas F. Kendrick (not to be confused with Capt. Henry

Kendrick who commanded Ft. Defiance a few years earlier) accompanied this expedition and

later wrote that he ate, drank, and danced with the Navajos.

September—Captain Walker, on his return march from another exploring trip over Black

Mesa and back through Marsh Pass camped again near the mouth of Canyon de Chelly. He

reported the Navajos busily engaged in harvesting their corn, some drying it "in kilns heated

with hot stones." He saw some horses and sheep and was given peaches.

1860: July—A private campaign from Abiquiu passed near the mouth of Canyon de Chelly

to pursue herds seen to the west on Black Mesa, where Navajos in great numbers drove them

back.

October—Canby's troops, on campaign, marched in two columns, one north and one south of

the canyons, from east to west and met at the mouth of de Chelly, from there turning

northward toward Marsh Pass.

1861: Navajos which attended horse races at Fort Wingate in September, which ended in an

attack by the troops, were said to include people from Canyon de Chelly.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

1863: August—Kit Carson led his troops on a march that went north past the mouth of

Canyon de Chelly, near which place they destroyed over 100 acres of corn, thence east

around the northern side of the canyons and south over the headwaters. He reported only a

few Navajos, all very poor, in the vicinity.

October—Navajos stole 89 sheep from the corral of an army grazing camp at Black Lake and

successfully got away with them to Canyon de Chelly.

1864: January—Carson's famous invasion of Canyon de Chelly. He and his troops arrived

near the mouth of the canyon on the 12th, where he scouted the south rim for 10 or 11 miles,

a detail scouting the night before attacking some Navajos with livestock as they were about

to enter the canyon, killing 11 and taking four captives and a herd of sheep and goats. Having

sent Capt. Albert Pfieffer directly to the eastern end of the canyon, he next scouted both rims

of the canyon on the 13th and 14th. Pfieffer's command entered the upper end of Canyon del

Muerto on the 11th, reaching the mouth of de Chelly on the 13th. His column spent two

nights in the canyon and engaged in a number of minor skirmishes, during which they killed

three Navajos. The fighting prevented them from destroying orchards observed on the way.

Following this on the 16th, Capt. A. B. Cary led a column of troops up the main canyon.

After accepting the surrender of 150 Navajos at his camp 18 miles up the canyon that night,

he marched another 2 miles the next morning to a trail leading out to the south and proceeded

thence directly to Fort Defiance. While no major battle took place in the canyons, the

penetration of them and the fact that Carson and his officers were able to convince the

starving Navajos that they could surrender without being killed soon led to the surrender of

large numbers destined for Fort Sumner.

August—Capt. John Thompson led a small force into Canyon de Chelly and destroyed the

peach orchards. He also accepted the surrender of Barboncito and his few remaining

followers.

1865: It was reported in March that only about 60 Navajos were still trying to hide out in

Canyon de Chelly.

1866: March—Captain S. A. Gorman marched from Ft. Wingate to the mouth of Canyon de

Chelly. He found evidence that many Navajos were hiding in the canyons but, having a small

force and having used most of his ammunition before reaching that point, turned back.

1868: Return of the Navajos from Fort Sumner.

1871: Death of Barboncito following a long illness. J. H. Beadle, a newspaperman and

writer, visited Navaho country. Leaving Ft. Defiance with a young Navajo man as guide, he

visited the mouth of Canyon de Chelly, where he found some 2 or 3 square miles of land

under cultivation but doing very poorly due to drought.

1873: Visit to Canyon de Chelly by T. H. O'Sullivan, photographer for the Wheeler Survey.

1878: Hastiin Biwosi, a signer of the Treaty of 1868 and a resident of Canyon del Muerto,

killed as an alleged witch near Ganado.

1880-82: Building of A&P (A.T. & S.F.) Railway through southern part of Navajo country.

1882: Nakai Yazhi, a Spanish-American, legal name not known, traded from a tent at Chinle.

First archeological survey, by James Stevenson.

1883: Agent Dennis M. Riordan and Henry Chee Dodge arrest Klah in Canyon de Chelly.

Klah was a Navajo accused of killing a trader named Tracy near Aneth. Further
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

archeological survey by Cosmos Mindeleff.

1883-84: Various evidence suggests trading at Chinle by Samuel E. Day, Anson C. Damon,

and John Lorenzo Hubbell.

1885: C. N. Cotton bought out J. L. Hubbell's interest in a trading post at Chinle and hired

Charles Hubbell to run it for him.

1886: Cotton was unable to get a license to trade at Chinle. Michael Donovan took over the

post, with former Navajo agent John H. Bowman as his clerk. First Government efforts to

develop irrigation in the area.

1887: Donovan died and Cotton again took over the store, with John W. Boehm as his

manager.

1888: Cotton still operating the store with a "Mr. Hubbell," probably Charles, as his

manager, but unable to get license.

1889: John W. Boehm had the license and was trading at Chinle. [Note: All these early

changes in traders were the result of the political intrigue involved in getting a trading license

at this time. Other traders at Chinle in this period seem to include two brothers, Washington

P. Lingle and Thomas J. Lingle, about 1888-89, and Bernard J. Mooney and James F. Boyle

in 1889.]

1892: "The Trouble at Round Rock"—Black Horse and his followers beat up Agent Dana

Shipley in protesting the kidnapping of children for the schools.

1902: Samuel Day I built a trading post at Chinle.

1903: Catholic missionary, Father Leopold Osterman, assigned to Chinle.

1905: Catholic mission at Chinle built. Day sold his post to Charles Weidemeyer, who hired

Charles Cousins to operate it. Agent Reuben Perry beat up at Chinle by supporters of Tol

Zhin when he tried to arrest him on a charge of rape. Tol Zhin and six others were later

arrested by troops from Ft. Wingate and spent short periods in jail. The others involved were

Winslow, Dlad or Linni Dlad, Ts'osini' Biye', Dinetigai, Doyatti and Ush Dilly, most being of

the Taachii'nii Clan.

At this time the Government already had an agency farmer and two field matrons stationed at

Chinle. Just when the first Government personnel were assigned there is a bit uncertain.

Reportedly the field matrons ran a small school rather informally.

1909: Construction was begun on a Government boarding school in the fall. Opened in 1910.

ca. 1915: J. L. Hubbell built the two-story trading post that stood where the Chinle Post

Office now is. Mike Kirk and Cozy McSparrow ran it.

ca. 1917-18: Hubbell sold his trading post in Chinle to C. N. Cotton who hired Camille

Garcia to operate it for him.

1919: Flu epidemic.

1923: Camille Garcia, Cozy McSparrow, and Hartley T. Seymour (Cotton's son-in-law)

bought all three stores then operating in Chinle.

July—first tribal council meeting.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 5)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia5.htm[11/6/2012 2:48:54 PM]

1928: Dourine epidemic among horses; many killed, others vaccinated.

1930: First major efforts at erosion control. (Probably local programs earlier.)

1932: First clinic at Chinle.

1933-34: First effort at stock reduction by purchase of sheep during this winter.

1934: Second effort at stock reduction, summer into fall, by purchase of goats and some

sheep.

1936: Grazing districts layed out.

1940: Stock permits issued.

1954: Trailer school opened at del Muerto.

1955: July—Chinle Subagency established. Many Farms Clinic opened by PHS - Cornell.

1959: Opening of the new PHS Clinic at Chinle.

1960: New BIA boarding school at Chinle completed.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia5.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia6.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:05 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 6:

ACT AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF CANYON DE CHELLY NM

"8. Canyon De Chelly National Monument

An Act to authorize the President of the United States to establish

the Canyon De Chelly National Monument within the Navajo Indian

Reservation, Arizona, approved February 14, 1931 (46 Stat. 1161)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress, as assembled, That with the

consent of the tribal council of the Navajo Tribe of Indians the

President of the United States is hereby authorized to establish by

presidential proclamation, the Canyon De Chelly National

Monument, within the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona, including

the lands hereinafter described.

Canyon de

Chelly

National

Monument,

Ariz.

Established,

within

Navajo

Indian

Reservation,

with

consent of

their

council.

Township 4 north, range 7 west, north half section 5, and northeast

quarter section 6; township 5 north, range 7 west, south half section

15, section 19, south half section 20, section 21, section 22, south

half section 28, sections 29, 30, 31, and 32; township 3 north, range 8

west, section 4, east half section 5; township 4 north, range 8 west,

sections 6 and 7, southwest quarter section 17, sections 18 and 19,

west half and southeast quarter section 20, sections 29 and 30, north

half section 31, sections 32 and 33; township 5 north, range 8 west,

section 7, section 13, south half section 14, south half section 15,

south half and northwest quarter section 16, sections 17 to 24,

inclusive, north half section 25, north half section 26, section 27,

north half and southeast quarter section 28, north half section 29,

north half section 30 and southwest quarter section 31; township 6

north, range 8 west, north half section 3, sections 4 to 8, inclusive,

west half section 18 and northwest quarter section 19; township 7

north, range 8 west, south half section 33, section 34 and west half

section 35; township 4 north, range 9 west, sections 1 to 3, inclusive,

east half section 4, north half section 10, north half section 11,

sections 12 and 13, east half section 24 and east half section 25;

township 5 north, range 9 west, sections 4 to 31, inclusive, east half

section 33, and sections 34 to 36, inclusive; township 6 north, range

9 west, sections 1 to 3, inclusive, sections 10 to 15, inclusive,

sections 21 to 23, inclusive, north half section 24; north half section

26, sections 27 to 29, inclusive, southeast quarter section 30, and

sections 31 to 34, inclusive; township 5 north, range 10 west sections

Description.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia6.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:05 PM]

1 to 18, inclusive, north half section 22, sections 23 to 25, inclusive,

north half section 26, and north half section 36; township 6 north,

range 10 west, east half section 34, section 35, and south half section

36, embracing about eighty-three thousand eight hundred and forty

acres of unsurveyed land, all west of the Navajo meridian, in

Arizona. (U.S.C., 6th supp., title 16, sec. 445.)

SEC. 2. That nothing herein shall be construed as in any way

impairing the right, title, and interest of the Navajo Tribe of Indians

which they now have and hold to all lands and minerals, including

oil and gas; and the surface use of such lands for agricultural,

grazing, and other purposes, except as hereinafter defined; and the

said tribe of Indians shall be, and is hereby, granted the preferential

right, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the

Interior, of furnishing riding animals for the use of visitors to the

monument. (U.S.C., 6th supp., title 16, sec. 445a.)

Rights of

Indians

reserved.

SEC. 3. That the National Park Service, under the direction of the

Secretary of the Interior, is hereby charged with the administration of

the area of said national monument, so far as it applies to the care,

maintenance, preservation and restoration of the prehistoric ruins, or

other features of scientific or historical interest within the area, and

shall have the right to construct upon the lands such roads, trails, or

other structures or improvements as may be necessary in connection

with the administration and protection of the monument, and also the

right to provide facilities of any nature whatsoever required for the

care and accommodation of visitors to the monument. (U.S.C., 6th

supp., title 16, sec. 445b.)

Control, etc.

An Act To amend the description of land described in section 1

of the Act approved February 14, 1931, entitled "An Act To

authorize the President of the United States to establish the

Canyon De Chelly National Monument within the Navajo

Indian Reservation, Arizona," approved March 1, 1933

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the

description of the tract of land described in section 1 of the Act

approved February 14, 1931, entitled "An Act to authorize the

President of the United States to establish the Canyon De

Chelly National Monument within the Navajo Indian

Reservation, Arizona" (U.S.C., title 16, secs. 445, 445b), be,

and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:

Canyon de Chelly

National

Monument, Ariz.

Amends land

description

contained in sec.

1, 46 Stat. 1161.

(See p. 313.)

'All lands in Del Muerto, De Chelly, and Monument Canyons,

and the canyons tributary thereto, and the lands within one-half

mile of the rims of the said canyons, situated in unsurveyed

townships 4 and 5 north, range 7 west; townships 4, 5, and 6

north, range 8 west; townships 4 and 5 north, range 9 west; and

in surveyed townships 4 and 5 north, range 6 west; townships 3,

6, and 7 north, range 7 west; township 6 north, range 9 west;

and township 5 north, range 10 west; embracing about eightythree thousand eight hundred and forty acres, all of the Navajo
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 6)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia6.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:05 PM]

meridian, in Arizona."'

From Hillory A. Tolson, comp., Laws Relating to the National Park Service The National

Parks and Monuments (Washington: GPO, 1933), pp. 313-15.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia6.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia7.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:15 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 7:

PROCLAMATIONS ESTABLISHING CANYON DE CHELLY NM

"11. Canyon De Chelly National Monument

Page

Establishment: Proclamation (No. 1945) of April 1, 1931 133

Boundaries revised: Proclamation (No. 2036) of March 3, 1933 134

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

[No. 1945—Apr. 1, 1931—47 Stat. 2448]

WHEREAS Congress by act of February 14, 1931 (Public, No. 667—71st Cong.),

entitled "An act to authorize the President of the United States to establish the

Canyon De Chelly National Monument within the Navajo Indian Reservation,

Arizona," authorized the President of the United States, with the consent of the

Tribal Council of the Navajo Tribe of Indians, to establish the said Canyon De

Chelly National Monument by Executive proclamation;

WHEREAS the Navajo Tribal Council Assembly at Fort Wingate, N. Mex., on July

8, 1930, adopted a resolution approving the establishment of the Canyon de Chelly

National Monument; and

WHEREAS it appears that the public interest would be promoted by including the

lands hereinafter described within a national monument for the preservation of a

great number of cliff dwellings and for their archaeological interest;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America,

by virtue of the power in me vested by the said act of Congress approved February

14, 1931, do hereby proclaim and establish the Canyon De Chelly National

Monument and that the following described lands in Arizona be, and the same are

hereby, included within the said national monument:

NAVAJO MERIDIAN

Unsurveyed T. 4 N., R. 7 W., 1/2 sec. 5 and NE. 1/4 sec. 6;

Unsurveyed T. 5 N., R. 7 W., 1/2 sec. 15, sec. 19, 1/2 sec. 20, secs. 21, 22, S. 1/2

sec. 23, N. 1/2 sec. 26, N. 1/2 sec. 28, secs. 29 to 32 inclusive;

Unsurveyed T. 3 N., R. 8 W., sec. 4 and E. 1/2 sec. 5;
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia7.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:15 PM]

[SEAL]

Unsurveyed T. 4 N., R. 8 W., secs. 6, 7, SW. 1/4 sec. 17, secs. 18, 19, S. 1/2, NW.

1/4 sec. 20, secs. 29, 30, M. 1/2 secs. 32 and 33;

Unsurveyed T. 5 N., R. 8 W., secs. 7, 13, S. 1/2 sec. 14, S. 1/2 sec. 15, S. 1/2, NW.

1/4 sec. 16, secs. 17 to 24 inclusive, N. 1/2 sec 25, N. 1/2. SE. 1/4 sec. 28, N. 1/2

sec. 29, N. 1/2 sec. 1/2 sec. 26, sec. 27, N. 30, and SW. 1/4 sec. 31;

Unsurveyed T. 6 N., R. 8 W., N. 1/2 sec. 3, secs. 4 to 8 inclusive, W. 1/2 sec. 18,

and NW. 1/4 sec. 19;

Unsurveyed T. 7 N., R. 8 W., S. 1/2 sec. 33, sec. 34, and W. 1/2 sec. 35;

Unsurveyed T. 4 N., R. 9 W., sees 1, 2, 3, E. 1/2 sec. 4, N. 1/2 sec. 10, N. 1/2 sec.

11, sees. 12, 13, E. 1/2 sec. 24, and E. 1/2 sec. 25;

Unsurveyed T. 5 N., R. 9 W., sees. 4 to 31 inclusive, E. 1/2 sec. 33, sees. 34, 35, and

36;

Surveyed T. 6 N., R. 9 W., sees 1, 2, 3, sees. 10 to 15 inclusive, sees. 21, 22, 23, N.

1/2 sec. 26, sees. 27, 28, 29, SE. 1/4 sec. 30, and sees. 31 to 34 inclusive;

Surveyed T. 5 N., R. 10 W., secs, 1 to 18 inclusive, N. 1/2 sec. 22, sees. 23, 24, 25,

N. 1/2 sec. 26, and N. 1/2 see. 36;

Surveyed T. 6 N., R. 10 W., E. 1/2 sec. 34, sec. 35, and S. 1/2 sec. 36, contained

approximately 83,840 acres.

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate,

injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this monument and not to locate or settle

upon any of the lands thereof.

The Director of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the

Interior, shall have the supervision, management, and control of this monument as

provided in the act of Congress entitled "An act to establish a National Park Service,

and for other purposes," approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), and acts

additional thereto or amendatory thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand the caused the seal of the

United States to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this 1st day of April, in the year of our

Lord nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and of the Independence of the

United States of America the one hundred and fifty-fifth.

HERBERT HOOVER.

By the President:

 WILBUR J. CARR,

 Acting Secretary of State."

"BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia7.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:15 PM]

A PROCLAMATION

[No. 2036—Mar. 3, 1933—47 Stat. 2562]

WHEREAS Congress by act of February 14, 1931 (Public, No. 667—71st Cong.),

entitled "An act to authorize the President of the United States to establish the

Canyon De Chelly National Monument within the Navajo Indian Reservation,

Arizona," authorized the President of the United States, with the consent of the

Tribal Council of the Navajo Tribe of Indians, to establish the said Canyon De

Chelly National Monument by Executive Proclamation; and

WHEREAS Congress by act of March 1, 1933 (Public, No. 404—72nd Cong. 2nd

Session), entitled "An Act To amend the description of land described in section 1

of the act approved February 14, 1931, entitled 'An Act To authorize the President of

the United States to establish the Canyon De Chelly National Monument within the

Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona,"' amended the description of the land described

in section 1 of the act of February 14, 1931; and

WHEREAS the Navajo Tribal Council Assembly at Fort Wingate, New Mexico, on

July 8, 1930, adopted a resolution approving the establishment of the Canyon De

Chelly National Monument; and

WHEREAS it appears to be in the public interest that the cliff dwellings and other

features of scientific and educational interest desired to be preserved be more

accurately described by amending the description of the land for the Canyon De

Chelly National Monument as established by Proclamation No. 1945 dated April 1,

1931;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America,

by virtue of the power in me vested by the said acts of Congress approved February

14, 1931, and March 1, 1933, do proclaim that the Canyon De Chelly National

Monument as heretofore established by proclamation shall comprise the following

described lands:

"All lands in Del Muerto, De Chelly, and Monument Canyons, and the

canyons tributary thereto, and the lands within one-half mile of the rims

of the said canyons, situated in unsurveyed townships 4 and 5 north,

range 7 west; townships 4, 5, and 6 north, range 8 west; townships 4 and

5 north, range 9 west; and in surveyed townships 4 and 5 north, range 6

west; townships 3, 6, and 7 north, range 7 west; township 6 north, range

9 west; and township 5 north, range 10 west; embracing about eightythree thousand eight hundred and forty acres, all of the Navajo meridian,

in Arizona,"

and the proclamation dated April 1, 1931, heretofore issued for the establishment of

the said national monument is hereby accordingly modified.

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate,

injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this monument and not to locate or settle

upon any of the lands thereof.

The Director of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the

Interior, shall have the supervision, management, and control of this monument as

provided in the act of Congress entitled "An Act To establish a National Park

Service, and for other purposes," approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), and acts
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia7.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:15 PM]

[SEAL]

additional thereto or amendatory thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the

United States to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this 3d day of March in the year of our

Lord nineteen hundred and thirty-three and of the Independence of the

United States of America the one hundred and fifty-seventh.

HERBERT HOOVER.

By the President:

 HENRY L. STIMSON,

 Secretary of State."

From Thomas Alan Sullivan, comp., Proclamations and Orders Relating to the National Park

Service Up to January 1, 1945 (Washington: GPO, 1947), pp. 133-35.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia7.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia8.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:25 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 8:

FEDERAL REGULATIONS: CANYON DE CHELLY NM

"7.19 Canyon de Chelly National Monument.

(a) Visitors are prohibited from entering the canyons of Canyon de Chelly

National Monument unless accompanied by National Park Service employees or

by authorized guides: Provided, however, That the Superintendent may

designate, by marking on a map which shall be available for public inspection in

the Office of the Superintendent and at other convenient locations within the

monument, canyons or portions thereof which may be visited or entered without

being so accompanied.

(b) The Superintendent may issue permits to properly qualified persons to act as

guides for the purpose of accompanying visitors within the canyons.

[32 F.R. 13129, Sept. 15, 1967]"

From Code of Federal Regulations: Public Property (Washington: Title 36—parks, Forests,

and GPO, 1974), p. 58.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia8.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia9.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:28 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

APPENDIX 9:

NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS, 1925 AND 1930

"M I N U T E S

of the

NAVAJO TRIBAL COUNCIL

held

July 7, 1925

The meeting was called to order by Hon. H. J. Hagerman, Commissioner to the Navajo Tribe,

at 9:00 A. M., July 7, 1925.

Delegates and alternates were present as follows:

I. San Juan Jurisdiction (Shiprock)

 (a) Delegates:

1 Deshna Clahcheschillige

2 J. C. Morgan

3 Robert Martin

 (b) Alternates:

1 Hugh Lapaiae

2 Bob Bekis

3 Jimmie Curley

II. Navajo Jurisdiction (Fort Defiance)

 (a) Delegates:

1 Todechene Bardony

2 Hosteen Usahelin

3 Hosteen Yazzi Jesus

4 Louis Watchman

 (b) Alternatives:

1 Sam James

2 Ches-chille

3 Dugalchee

4 Claw Tsoi

III. Western Navajo Jurisdiction (Tuba City)

(a) Delegates:

1 George Bancroft
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia9.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:28 PM]

2 Zangenitzo

 (b) Alternates

1 Tsagenayazzie

IV. Leupp Jurisdiction (Leupp)

 (a) Delegate:

1 Hosteen Begoiden Bega

 (b) Alternate:

1 Perle La Kai Etsetty

V. Hopi Jurisdiction (Kaams Canon)

 (a) Delegate:

1 Hosteen Nez

 (b) Alternate:

1 Clah

Meeting called to order at 9:20 A.M. Wednesday, July 8, 1925.

Mr. Hagerman: I spoke to you about the matter of the possible desire of the government to

make out of the Canon de Chelly a national monument; that is to set aside that canon and the

Canon del Muerto and the other contiguous canons there as a national monument, in order to

preserve the ruins and to prevent depredations from tourists and outside people, and at the

same time permitting it to be visited, under regulations by an overseer, by people who could

go in there and see it without taking the pottery and other remnants out of there. If that was

done, it would be in the same position as the Inscription Rock is down there, and other

national monuments under the supervision of the Department of the Interior, and in no way

would it interfere with the grazing rights of the Indians or other residents there, but rather

would protect them in their rights. The title would not be taken away in any way from the

Indians or their treaty rights interfered with, but it would be merely set aside and protected as

a monument—a national park—so that the ruins would be preserved and outsiders would be

prevented from going in and looting the ruins.

Chee Dodge: The government would probably have to have a man there to look after it?

Mr. Hagerman: They would have to have a man there to look after it; but of course it would

in no way interfere with the Indians but just prevent the other people from coming in and

looting the ruins.

Chee Dodge: They are not going to charge the visitors for going in to look, are they?

Mr. Hagerman: No, I don't think so. But they will put someone in charge.

Chee Dodge: The government would put in roads there, would they?

Mr. Hagerman: 'Probably so. They would have to put someone in charge so those who go in

could do no damage.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia9.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:28 PM]

The matter of making a national monument out of the Canon de Chelly and contiguous

canons was brought up and fully discussed by the Council, and on being put to vote it was

unanimously agreed by the Councilmen that in their opinion it would be a good thing to bring

this about, provided the grazing and other rights of the Indians are in no way interfered with.

The Indians around Chinle, through their delegate, stated that they would like to have the

privilege of furnishing horses for tourists for the Canon de Chelly in case it is made a

national monument. They stated that the horses are now furnished by the trader there, and it

was requested that this matter be called to the attention of the Indian Office.

Deshna Clahcheschillige: Mr. Chairman, in regard to this National Monument at Canon de

Chelly, I would like to bring up a point or two. In case a road should be built to this

monument, we refuse to let out any of the tribal money for this road building, or for any

other purpose around there.

Mr. Hagerman: Well I think that is right.

APPROVED:

s/ Chee Dodge

Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council.

s/ H. J. Hagerman

Commissioner to the Navajo Tribe.

s/ Mrs. A. C. Stone

Secretary of the 1925 meeting of the

Navajo Tribal Council."

"RESOLVED: That the Navajo Tribal Council assembled at Fort Wingate on July 8,

1930, approves the following bill to authorize the President of the United States to

establish the Canon de Chelly National Monument within the Navajo Indian Reservation,

Arizona.

A BILL

To authorize the President of the United States to establish the Canyon de Chelly National

Monument within the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED:

That with the consent of the Tribal Council of the Navajo Tribe of Indians, the President

of the United States is hereby authorized to establish by presidential proclamation, the

Canyon de Chelly National Monument, within the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona,

including the lands hereinafter described.

Township 4 N., R. 7 W., N 1/2 Section 5, and NE 1/4 Section 6; T. 5 N., R. 7 W., S 1/2

Section 15, Section 19, S 1/2 Section 20, Section 21, Section 22, S 1/2 Section 23, N 1/2

Section 26, N 1/2 Section 27, N 1/2 Section 28, Sections 29, 30, 31, and 32; T. 3 N., R. 8

W., Section 4, E 1/2 Section 5; T. 4 N., R. 8 W., Sections 6 and 7, SW 1/4 Section 17,
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Appendix 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhia9.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:28 PM]

Sections 18 and 19, W 1/2 and SE 1/4 Section 20, Sections 29 and 30, N 112 Section 31,

Sections 32 and 33; T. S N., R. 8 W., Section 7, Section 13, S 1/2 Section 14, S 1/2 and

NW 1/4 Section 16, Sections 17 to 24 inclusive, N 1/2 Section 25, N 1/2 Section 26,

Section 27, N 1/2 and SE 1/4 Section 28, N 1/2 Section 29, N 1/2 Section 30 and SW 1/4

Section 31; T. 6. N., R 8 W., N 1/2 Section 5, Section 3, Sections 4 to 8 inclusive, W 1/2

Section 18 and NW 1/4 Section 19; T. 7 N., R. 8 W., S 1/2 Section 33, Section 34 and W

1/2 Section 35; T. 4 N., R. 9 W., Sections 1 to 3 inclusive, E 1/2 Section 4, N 1/2 Section

10, N 1/2 Section 11, Sections 12 and 13, E 1/2 Section 24 and E 1/2 Section 25; T. 5 N.,

R. 9 W., Sections 4 to 31 inclusive, E 1/2 Section 33,, and Sections 34 to 36 inclusive; T.

6 N., R. 9 W., Sections 1 to 3 inclusive, Sections 10 to 15 inclusive, Sections 21 to 23

inclusive, N 1/2 Section 24; N 1/2 Section 26, Sections 27 to 29 inclusive, SE 1/4 Section

30 and Sections 31 to 34 inclusive; T. 5 N., R. 10 W., Sections 1 to 18 inclusive, N 1/2

Section 22, Sections 23 to 25 inclusive, N 1/2 Section 26, and N 1/2 Section 36; T. 6 N.,

R. 10 W., E 1/2 Section 34, Section 35 and S 1/2 Section 36, Embracing about 83840

acres of unsurveyed land, all west of the Navajo Meridian in Arizona.

SECTION 2. That nothing herein shall be construed as in any way impairing the right,

title, and interest of the Navajo Tribe of Indians which they now have and hold to all

lands and minerals including oil and gas and the surface use of such lands for agricultural,

grazing and other purposes, except as herein after defined, and the said tribe of Indians

shall be and is hereby granted the preferential right, under regulations to be prescribed by

the Secretary of the Interior, of furnishing riding animals for the use of visitors to the

monument.

SECTION 3. That the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the

Interior, is hereby charged with the administration of the area of said national monument,

so far as it applies to the care, maintenance, preservation and restoration of the prehistoric

ruins, or other features of scientific or historical interest within the area, and shall have

the right to construct upon the lands such roads, trails or other structures or improvements

as may be necessary in connection with the administration and protection of the

monument, and also the right to provide facilities of any nature whatsoever required for

the care and accommodation of visitors to the monument.

We, the undersigned, Deshne [sic] Clahcheschillige, Chairman of the Navajo Tribal

Council, sitting at Fort Wingate, New Mexico, on July 7th and 8th, 1930, and H. J.

Hagerman, Special Commissioner to Negotiate with Indians, charged by the

Commissioner of Indian Affairs with the conduct of said Council, do hereby certify that

the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the resolution passed at said Navajo

Tribal Council at its meeting on July 8th, 1930.

s/ Deshna Clah Cheschillige

Chairman Navajo Tribal Council

s/ H. J. Hagerman

Special Commissioner to Negotiate

with Indians."

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhia9.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhib.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:38 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Archival Sources

Arlington Federal Records Center

National Park Service: Canyon de Chelly

Arlington, Virginia

Canyon de Chelly National Monument

Current Files

Chinle, Arizona

Denver Federal Records Center

National Park Service: Canyon de Chelly

Denver, Colorado

Hubbel Trading Post National Historic Site

Historic Files

Ganado, Arizona

National Archives

Record Group 48

Department of the Interior

Washington, D.C.

National Archives

Record Group 75

Office of Indian Affairs

Washington, D.C.

National Archives

Record Group 79

National Park Service: National Monuments, Canyon de Chelly

Washington, D.C.

National Park Service

Chaco Center

Vivian Archives

Albuquerque, New Mexico

National Park Service

Denver Service Center

Current Files

Denver, Colorado

New Mexico State Records Center and Archives
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhib.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:38 PM]

Mexican Archives

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Southwestern National Monuments

Monthly Reports

Arizona Archeological Center

Tucson, Arizona

Navajo Tribal Research Section

Fort Defiance Letterbooks, extract copies (originals in Bell Federal Records Center, Bell,

California)

Window Rock, Arizona

2. Books

Aberle, David F. Aldine Publishing Co., 1966. The Peyote Religion Among the Navaho.

Chicago: Aldine Publshing, Co., 1966.

Adair, John, and Deuschle, Kurt W. The People's Health, Anthropology and Medicine in a

Navajo Community. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.

Beadle, J. H. The Undeveloped West; or Five Years in the Territories. Philadelphia: National

Publishing Company, 1873.

Boyce, George A. When Navajos Had Too Many Sheep: The 1940's. San Francisco: The

Indian Historian Press, 1974.

Brandon, William. The American Heritage Book of Indians. New York: American Heritage

Publishing Company, 1961.

Brugge, David M. Navajos in the Catholic Church Records of New Mexico, 1694-1875.

Research Report No. l. Window Rock, Ariz.: The Navajo Tribe, Research Section, 1968.

Chiao, Chien. Continuation of Tradition in Navajo Society. Academia Sinica, Monograph

Series B, no. 3. Nanking, Taipei: Institute of Ethnology, 1970.

Frisbie, Charlotte Johnson. Kinaaldá: A Study of the Navaho Girl's Puberty Ceremony.

Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1967.

Gregory, Herbert E. The Navajo Country. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961.

Hill, W. W. Navajo Pottery Manufacture. University of New Mexico Bulletin,

Anthropological Series, vol. 2, no. 3. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1937.

_____. The Agricultural and Hunting Methods of the Navaho Indians. Yale University

Publications in Anthropology, no. 18. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938.

Johnston, Denis Foster. An Analysis of Sources of Information on the Population of the

Navaho. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 197. Washington: Government Printing

Office, 1966.

Lister, Florence C., and Lister, Robert H. Earl Morris and Southwestern Archaeology.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1968.

McNitt, Frank. The Indian Traders. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhib.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:38 PM]

________. Navajo Wars. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972.

Mindeleff, Cosmos. The Cliff Ruins of Canyon de Chelly, Arizona, in Powell, J. W.,

Sixteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution, 894-1895. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897.

Morris, Ann Axtell. Digging in the Southwest. New York: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1934.

Navajo Tribal Council. Navajo Tribal Council Resolutions, 1922-1951. Window Rock, Ariz.:

The Navajo Tribe, 1951.

________. Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council Meeting (February 8-12, 1954). Window

Rock, Ariz.: The Navajo Tribe, 1954.

________. Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council Meeting (Oct. 22-Nov. 2, 1956). Window

Rock, Ariz.: The Navajo Tribe, 1956.

The Navajo Tribe. Navajo Tribal Code, 2 vols. Orford, N. H.: Equity Publishing Corporation,

1962.

Navarro García, Luis. José de Gálvez y la Comandancia General de las Provincias Internas.

Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos de Sevilla. Sevilla, Spain, 1965.

Newhall, Beaumont, and Newhall, Nancy. T. H. O'Sullivan, Photographer. New York:

George Eastman House and Amon Carter Museum of Western Art, 1966.

Powell, J. W. Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution, 1882-1883. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1886.

_________. Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution, 1883-1884. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1887.

Reichard, Gladys A. Social Life of the Navajo Indians. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Rogers, Edmund B., comp. History of Legislation Relating to the National Park System

Through the 82nd Congress. Washington: National Park Service, 1958.

Shepardson, Mary. Navajo Ways in Government, A Study in Political Process. American

Anthropological Association, Mon. 96. Menasha, Wisc.: American Anthropological

Association, 1963.

Simpson, James H. Journal of a Military Reconnaissance from Santa Fe, New Mexico to the

Navajo Country. 31st Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 64. Washington: U.S. Senate, 1850.

Steen, Charlie R. Excavations at Tse Ta'a. Archeological Research Series No. 9. Washington:

National Park Service, 1966.

United States. The Congressional Record. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1933.

________. Federal Register, vol. 32. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967.

________. Code of Federal Regulations, vol. 36. Washington: Government Printing Office,

1973.

Watkins, Frances E. The Navaho. Southwest Museum Leaflet No. 16. Los Angeles:
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhib.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:38 PM]

Southwest Museum, 1943.

Williams, Aubrey W., Jr. Navajo Political Process. Smithsonian Contributions to

Anthropology, vol. 9. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1970.

Wyman, Leland C. Navaho Sandpainting, the Huckel Collection, Colorado Springs: The

Taylor Museum of the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center, 1960.

________. The Windways of the Navaho. Colorado Springs: The Taylor Museum of the

Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center, 1962.

________. The Red Antway of the Navaho. Santa Fe: Museum of Navaho Ceremonial Art,

1965.

________. Sandpaintings of the Navaho Shootingway and the Walcott Collection.

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 13. Washington: Smithsonian Institution

Press, 1970.

Young, Robert W. The Navajo Yearbook, 1951-1961: A Decade of Progress. No. 8. Window

Rock, Ariz.: Navajo Agency, 1961.

3. Articles

Anonymous. "Canyon de Chelly: Arizona's Canyon Maze." Sunset 113 (July 1954):30.

"Footsteps of History at Canyon de Chelly." Trailer News (May 1960).

________. "Navajo's Canyon History." Sunset 143 (July 1969):52-57

Armer, S. "Secrets of the Canyon de Chelly." Travel 63 (June 1934):46.

Bickford, F. F. "Prehistoric Cave-Dwellings." The Century Magazine 40 (1890):896-911.

Budlong, Betty. "Navajo Sand Painting - de Chelly." Southwestern Monuments (August

1935):133-36.

De Harport, David L. "An Archeological Survey of Canon de Chelly: Preliminary Report of

the Field Sessions of 1948, 1949, and 1950." El Palacio 58, no. 2 (1951):35-45.

________. "An Archaeological Survey of Canyon de Chelly: Preliminary Report for the 1951

Field Season." El Palacio 60, no. 1 (1953):20-25.

________. "Origin of the Name, Cañon del Muerto." El Palacio 67, no. 3 (1960):95-97.

Dunlop, R. "After Six Centuries of Silence: Life Again in Mummy Cave." Popular

Mechanics 118 (August 1962):76-81.

Dutton, Bertha P. "The Navaho Wind Way Ceremonial." El Palacio 48, no. 4 (1941):73-82.

Edgerton, Robert B. "Some Dimensions of Disillusionment in Culture Contact."

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21, no. 3 (1965): 231-43.

Frisbie, Charlotte Johnson. "The Navajo House Blessing Ceremonial." El Palacio 75, no. 3

(1968):26-35.

Gardner, W. A. "Canyon de Chelly, Place of the Gods." Natural History 45 (January 1940):
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhib.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:38 PM]

40-43.

Gould, Charles N. "Second Geological Report Canyon de Chelly National Monument."

Southwestern Monuments (February supplement, 1938): 173-75.

Guillet, Meredith, "Nature and Man in Canyon de Chelly." National Parks Magazine 39 (July

1965): 9-11.

Hill, W. W. "Navaho Trading and Trading Ritual: A Study of Cultural Dynamics."

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 4, no. 4 (1948): 371-96.

Johnson, Charlotte I. (Frisbie). "Navaho Corn Grinding Songs." Ethnomusicology 8, no. 2

(1964): 101-20.

Kidder, A. V. "The Museum's Expeditions to Canon de Chelly and Canon del Muerto,

Arizona," Natural History 27, no. 3 (1927): 203-9.

Lake, Thomas P. "Seeing Canyon de Chelly From Below." Ford Times 51 (June 1959): 42.

Lummis, Charles F. "The Swallow's-Nest People." Outwest 26, no. 6 (1907): 485-505.

Matson, Daniel S., and Schroeder, Albert H., eds. "Cordero's Description of the Apache."

New Mexico Historical Review 32, no. 4 (1957): 356.

Measeles, Evelyn Brack. "Canyon de Chelly: A Wagon Is the Way To Go." Arizona

Highways 35 (April 1959): 10-29.

Morris, Earl H. "Exploring in the Canyon of Death," National Geographic Magazine 48

(September 1925): 263-300.

_______. "Mummy Cave." Natural History 41-42 (1938): 127-38.

_______. "Tomb of the Weaver." Natural History 57, no, 2 (1948): 66-71, 91.

Oldendorph, O. F. "Some Observations On Canyon de Chelly National Monument." National

Parks Magazine 42 (May 1968): 4-6.

Page, Gordon B. "Navajo House Types." Plateau 9, no. 9 (1937): 47-49.

Reeve, Frank D. "Navaho-Spanish Diplomacy, 1770-1790." New Mexico Historical Review

35, no. 3 (1960): 206-9.

Vandiver, Vincent W. "Geologic Report, Canyon de Chelly." Southwestern Monuments (July

supplement, 1937): 55-68.

Woodward, Arthur. "The First Americans Through Cañon de Chelly." Masterkey 13, no. 4

(1939):136-38.

4. Manuscripts

Brugge, David M. "Indian Control of Educational and Medical Institutions in Navajo

Country." Paper read at Western History Association meetings, October 3, 1974, at Rapid

City, S. D. MS.

Colbert, Edwin H. "Paleontological Field Work by the American Museum of Natural History

in the Triassic Sediments of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, 1949," MS. 2 pp. Canyon de
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Bibliography)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhib.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:38 PM]

Chelly Files, N3019. 1949.

De Harport, David L. "An Archaeological Survey of Cañon de Chelly, Northeastern Arizona:

A Puebloan Community Through Time." Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1959.

________. "A Report on Illegal Excavations in Canyon de Chelly National Monument and

Adjacent Portions of the Chinle Valley, Arizona." MS. Copy in the Research Section, Navajo

Parks and Recreation, The Navajo Tribe, Window Rock, Arizona. 1963.

Hurt, Wesley R., Jr. "Report on Fossil Bones Found at Canyon de Chelly." MS. 2 pp. Canyon

de Chelly Files. 1949.

Van Valkenburgh, Richard F. "Diné Bikéyah (The Navajo Country)." Navajo Agency,

Window Rock, Arizona, 1941.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>>

cach/adhi/adhib.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/images/map1.jpg[11/6/2012 2:49:39 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/images/map1.jpg[11/6/2012 2:49:39 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/images/map2.jpg[11/6/2012 2:49:41 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/images/map2.jpg[11/6/2012 2:49:41 PM]
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/images/map3.jpg[11/6/2012 2:49:42 PM]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Maps)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhim.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:52 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

MAPS

Map of the Region. (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Maps)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhim.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:52 PM]

Map of the Monument. (click on image for an enlargement in a new window)
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Maps)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhim.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:52 PM]

Map of the Headquarters Area Boundary. (click on image for an enlargement in a

new window)

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhim.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 1 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi1n.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:56 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 1:

THE EARLY YEARS TO 1919

1. William Brandon: The American Heritage Book of Indians (New York: American

Heritage Publishing Company, 1961), pp. 130-31; Luis Navarro Garcia, Jose de Gálvez y la

Comandancia General de las Provincias Internas (Sevilla, Spain: Escuela de Estudios

Hispano-Americana de Sevilla, 1965), plate 110.

2. Frank D. Reeve, "Navaho-Spanish Diplomacy, 1770-1790," New Mexico Historical

Review 35, no. 3 (Albuquerque, 1960): 206-9; David M. Brugge, Navajos in the Catholic

Church Records of New Mexico, 1694-1875, Research Report No. 1, Research Section

(Window Rock, Ariz.: Navajo Tribe, 1968), pp. 45-47.

3. Reeve, "Navaho-Spanish Diplomacy," p. 204.

4. Daniel S. Matson and Albert H. Schroeder, eds., "Cordero's Description of the Apache,"

New Mexico Historical Review 32, no. 4 (Albuquerque, 1957): 356.

5. Antonio Narbona to Fernando Chacón, Jan. 24, 1805, New Mexico State Records Center

and Archives, Mexican Archives, Santa Fe.

6. Frank McNitt, Navajo Wars (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972), p.

126.

7. James H. Simpson, Journal of a Military Reconnaissance from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to

the Navajo Country, 31st Cong., 1st sess., 1850, S. Doc. 64.

8. Arthur Woodward, "The First Americans through Canon de Chelly," Masterkey 13, no. 4

(Los Angeles, 1939): 136-38.

9. Bond of Agustin Lacome, Mar. 4, 1854, NA, RG 75, OIA, NM Field Papers.

10. Cosmos Mindeleff, The Cliff Ruins of Canyon de Chelly, Arizona, in J. W. Powell,

Sixteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution, 1894-1895 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897), p. 80;

Beaumont Newhall and Nancy Newhall, T. H. O'Sullivan, Photographer (New York: George

Eastman House and Amon Carter Museum of Western Art, 1966).

11. J. W. Powell, Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution, 1882-1883 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1886), pp.

xxxiv-xxxvi.

12. J. W. Powell, Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the

Smithsonian Institution, 1883-1884 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1887), p.

xxiv.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 1 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi1n.htm[11/6/2012 2:49:56 PM]

13. Mindeleff, Cliff Ruins, p. 80.

14. Richard F. Van Valkenburgh, "Dine Bikeyah (The Navajo Country)," mimeographed

(Window Rock, Ariz.: Navajo Agency, 1941), p. 39.

15. Cotton to Deputy Collector, Int. Rev., June 29, 1885, Cotton Letterbook, 1884-89,

Historical Files, Hubbel Trading Post NHS, Ganado, Ariz., p. 138.

16. J. H. Beadle, The Undeveloped West; or Five Years in the Territories (Philadelphia:

National Publishing Company, 1873).

17. F. F. Bickford, "Prehistoric Cave-Dwellings," The Century Magazine 40 (New York,

1890): 896-911.

18. Actg. CIA to Sec. of Int., May 1, 1903, NA, RG 48, ID, Off. of the Sec., 3945/03.

19. Hayzlett to Day, May 29, 1903, Navajo Agency Letterbook, FD-29, Federal Records

Center, Bell, Calif., p. 28.

20. Linengood, Supt., Navajo Boarding School, Ft. Defiance, to CIA, Sept 30, 1903, NA, RG

75, OIA, 65782/03; See also the Culin Journals, Brooklyn Museum.

21. William T. Shelton to CIA, Feb. 22, 1905, NA, RG 75, OIA, 16559/05.

22. Day to Reuben Perry, July 20, 1904, NA, RG 48, ID, Off. of the Sec., Ind. Div. 733,

7997/04, encl. 1; Perry to CIA, July 27, 1904, NA, RG 48, ID, Off. of the Sec., Ind. Div. 733,

7997/04, encl. 2; Tanner to Sec. of Int., Aug. 5, 1904, NA, RG 48, ID, Off. of the Sec., Ind.

Div. 733, 7997/04.

23. Frank McNitt, The Indian Traders (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962), p. 251.

24. Peter Paquette to CIA, June 7, 1909, Navajo Agency Letterbook, FD-47, FRC, pp. 27-28.

25. Outwest 26, no. 6 (1907): 485-505.

26. Anonymous, "Canyon de Chelly of Arizona," Scientific American Supplement 87 (Feb.

15, 1919): 100-101.

27. Hannah Fox to Dir., U. S. Nat. Mus., Feb. 9, 1917, NA, RG 75, OIA, Classified Files,

Navajo, 21634-17-042.

28. Paquette to CIA, Aug. 9, 1917, ibid.

29. Report by Herbert W. Gleason, Part 7, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi1n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:06 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 2:

THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL MONUMENT, 1919-1931

1. Verne E. Chatelain to Horace Albright, Mar. 10, 1933, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de

C, Central Classified Files 1933-49, encl., pp. 4-5.

2. Charles Davis to Hubert Work, Sept. 3, 1924, NA, RG 75, OIA, Class. Files, Nay., 69601-

1924-044.

3. Cammerer to Burke, Sept. 17, 1924, ibid.

4. Chatelain to Albright, Mar. 10, 1933, encl., pp. 8-9.

5. Hagerman to CIA, Dec. 16, 1924, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Gen., 1923-34;

Burke to Mather, Dec. 31, 1924, NA, RG 75, OIA, Class. Files, Nav., 69601-1924-044.

6. "Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council held at Fort Wingate, New Mexico, July 7-8,

1925," NA, RG 75, OIA, Central Files 1907-39, Nav., 37534-1925-054.

7. Ibid.

8. "Extract from report of H. J. Hagerman, Commissioner to the Navajo Tribe, dated July 11,

1925," NA, RG 75, OIA, Class. Files, Nav., 69601-1924-044.

9. Merritt to Mather, July 24, 1925, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2; Cammerer

to Merritt, Aug. 25, 1925, NA, RG 75, OIA, Class. Files, Nav., 69601-1924-044.

10. "A Proclamation," n.d., NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2; Burke to Hagerman,

Aug. 27, 1925, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

11. Burke to Hagerman, Aug. 27, 1925, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

12. Chatelain to Albright, Mar. 10, 1933, encl., pp. 11, 14.

13. Memo by Kidder and Morris, n.d., NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

14. Ibid.

15. Merriam to Albright, Mar. 12, 1929, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

16. Albright to Merriam, Mar. 18, 1929, ibid.; Merriam to Albright, Mar. 19, 1929, ibid.

17. Burke to Albright, Apr. 23, 1929, ibid.

18. Rhoads to Albright, Mar. 4, 1930, ibid.

19. Hagerman to Rhoads, June 19, 1930, NA, RG 75, OIA, Class. Files, Nay., 69601-1924-
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:06 PM]

044; Rhoads to Hagerman, July 1, 1930, ibid.

20. Despite Hagerman's statement, no evidence has been found that more than one earlier

council voted in favor of the establishment of a national monument at Canyon de Chelly or

even considered the matter.

21. "Minutes of the Eighth Annual Session of the Navajo Tribal Council held at Fort

Wingate, New Mexico, July 7-8, 1930," NA, RG 75, OIA, General Services, 054-1929-

34664 to 054-1931-35878, pp. 65-66.

22. Ibid., pp. 66-67.

23. Ibid., p. 67.

24. This name is written "Todechenie Cheschille" in the council minutes, but appears as

"Toadin Chischilli" on a later petition. Sandoval et al. to Hunter, Oct. 8, 1930, NA, RG 75,

OIA, Class. Files, Nav., 69601-1924-044. This later rendering, appearing also as "Tohglai

Chischile" in a typescript of the signatures (ibid.), is closer to the name remembered by

present residents of the canyons-To'ahedlinii Chiishch'ili, or "Curley-Haired Junction-ofwaters Clansman." The council minutes transcription is misleading because it is very close to

the name of the Todich'ii'nii or Bitterwater Clan.

25. "Minutes of the Eighth Annual Session of the Navajo Tribal Council," pp. 68-69.

26. Ibid., pp. 70-73; Navajo Tribal Council, Navajo Tribal Council Resolutions, 1922-1951

(Window Rock, Ariz., 1951), p. 40; See also NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1923-34.

27. Sandoval to Hagerman, July 19, 1930, NA, RG 75, OIA, Gen. Serv., 39005-1930-044.

28. Hagerman to Sandoval, July 24, 1930, ibid.

29. Sandoval et al. to Hunter, Sept. 8, 1930, ibid.

30. Hunter to Hagerman, Sept. 19, 1930, ibid.

31. Hagerman to Hunter, Oct. 2, 1930, ibid.; Hagerman to CIA, Oct. 2, 1930, ibid.

32. Hunter to Hagerman, Oct. 10, 1930, ibid.

33. Patterson et al. to Hunter, Oct. 8, 1930, ibid.

34. Hunter to Hagerman, Oct. 10, 1930, ibid.

35. Scattergood to Hagerman, Oct. 16, 1930, ibid.

36. Hagerman to Nusbaum, Nov. 10, 1930, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1923-34.

37. Edmund B. Rogers, comp., History of Legislation Relating to the National Park System

Through the 82nd Congress (Washington: National Park Service, 1958), C de C, p. 1.

38. Ibid.

39. Hagerman to Cammerer, Apr. 27, 1931, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

40. Albright to Hagerman, May 2, 1931, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 2 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi2n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:06 PM]

41. Chatelain to Albright, Mar. 10, 1933, encl., p. 1.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi2n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:16 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 3:

CHANGES IN THE MONUMENT BOUNDARIES

1. Wirth to Demaray, Aug. 22, 1932, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1923-34;

"Exhibit C," map, n.d., ibid.

2. "Exhibit B," map, n.d., ibid.; "Extracts from Mr. J. B. Hamilton's Reconnaissance Report,

Dated Nov. 15, 1932, on Canyon de Chelly," ibid.; Demaray to Nusbaum, Nov. 30, 1932,

ibid.

3. Pinkley to Dir., Nov. 11, 1932, ibid.; Kittredge to Dir., Nov. 22, 1932, ibid.

4. Cammerer to Pinkley, Oct. 25, 1932, ibid.; Albright to Supt., SWNM, Nov. 26, 1932, ibid.

5. Wirth to Dir., Nov. 12, 1932, ibid.

6. Kittredge to Dir., Dec. 5, 1932, ibid.

7. Actg. Dir. to Kittredge, Dec. 17, 1932, ibid.

8. Albright to CIA, ibid.

9. Rhoads to Albright, Dec. 28, 1932, ibid.

10. U.S., Congress, Senate, 72d Cong., 2d sess., 1932, S.5190, Calendar 1306, S. Rept. 1211,

ibid.

11. U.S., Congress, House, 72d Cong., 2d sess., 1932, HR 13960, Calendar 344, H. Rept.

2037, ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. U.S., Congress, House, 72d Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 5, 1933, H. Rept. 2037, ibid.; U.S.,

Congress, Senate, 72d Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 13, 1933, Calendar 1306, S. Rept. 1211, ibid.

14. The Congressional Record (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Feb. 20,

1933).

15. The Congressional Record (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Feb. 25,

1933).

16. The Congressional Record (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, Mar. 4, 1933).

17. Richey, Sec. to the Pres., to Sec. of Int., Mar. 3, 1933, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de

C, Part 2.

18. Demaray to Pinkley, Mar. 2, 1933, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:16 PM]

19. Pinkley to Dir., Mar. 8, 1933, ibid.

20. Parrott, Actg. Asst. Dir., GLO, to Dir., NPS, July 2, 1934, ibid.

21. Hunter to Kitteridge [sic], May 2, 1934, and encl., Resolution of Canyon de Chelly

Chapter, Apr. 28, 1934, ibid.; This organization undoubtedly corresponds at least in part to

the present-day Chinle Chapter. During the political turmoil created by the Government's

stock reduction program many chapter organizations, all still relatively new, failed to survive.

Aubrey W. Williams, Jr., Navajo Political Process, Smithsonian Contributions to

Anthropology, vol. 9 (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1970), p. 40. It has not

been ascertained whether the Chinle Chapter is a direct continuation of the older Canyon de

Chelly Chapter or whether it was more recently organized under the later tribal program.

22. The preamble to the resolution stated some justifications for Navajo ownership that were

ahead of their time and that probably had little real influence in 1934, but they are worth

quoting here because of their relevancy today:

Whereas, there are within the Navajo jurisdiction many areas of tremendous

scenic beauty and great historical and archaeological interest, which thousands of

people from all over the United States are eager to visit, and

Whereas, some of these visitors will be inconsiderate enough to desecrate and

even ruin the scenic and scientific value of these areas unless they are protected,

and

Whereas, the Navajos have a greater love for their country than any other people

can possibly have, and wish to guard against any changes that may make any

part of their country less beautiful, and

Whereas, the Navajos know more about their country and always will have

greater interest in its welfare than any other people or organization, and

Whereas, the management of our own scientific and scenic areas would give us

an additional source of income necessary to maintain our ever-increasing

population.

Navajo Tribal Council, Title 19, Chapt. 1, Section 1, p. 235.

23. Navajo Tribal Council, Navajo Tribal Code, 2 vols. (Orford, N.H. : Equity Publishing

Corporation, 1962), Vol. 2, Title 19, Chapt. 1, Section 1.

24. Demaray to Sec. of Int., Aug. 14, 1934, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

25. Albright to Ickes, Sept. 3, 1934, ibid.

26. Bryant to Dir., Oct. 10, 1934, ibid.

The problem received quick attention in Washington. At first it was thought that the best plan

would be to return a revision of the boundary description to Congress. [29] The Director

asked the General Land Office to prepare a new description that could be used in drafting

another bill. [30] The assistant commissioner of the land office, Antionette Funk, thought the

current description a good one and suggested that only a survey on the ground could

ascertain and correct any problems. Because the land was on an Indian reservation, the

survey would have to be requested and paid for by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:16 PM]

estimated cost being $15,000. [31] Cammerer forwarded Funk's letter to the Bureau and

asked whether they could arrange for the survey. [32] He was informed that no funds were

available and warned in the following terms of probable Bureau opposition to any bill

submitted to Congress:

27. Burney to Pinkley, Mar. 22, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

28. Pinkley to Dir., May 6, 1935, ibid.

29. Tolson to Cammerer, May 9, 1935, ibid.

30. Cammerer to Dir., GLO, June 1, 1935, ibid.

31. Funk to Dir., July 8, 1935, ibid.

32. Cammerer to CIA, July 12, 1935, ibid.

33. Zimmerman, Asst. CIA, to Cammerer, Aug. 14, 1935, ibid.

34. Stewart to Collier, Feb. 29, 1936, ibid.

35. Collier to Ickes, Mar. 13, 1936, ibid.

36. It should be noted that as early as 1901 the Navajos had registered strong protests against

the fencing of a certain tract of land near the mouth of Canyon de Chelly on the grounds that

it was holy. Because the objections were sustained by headmen from over a wide area, the

agent concluded that only by acceding to their desires could long term trouble be avoided.

Hayzlett to CIA, NA, RG 75, OIA, Class. Files, 45797/ Nav 01, copy in files of Navajo

Tribal Research Section.

37. Pinkley to Dir., Apr. 10, 1936, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

38. Actg. Dir. to Sec. of Int., May 11, 1936, unsigned, ibid.

39. Collier to Ickes, May 6, 1936, ibid.

40. Ickes to Demaray, May 9, 1936, ibid.

41. Demaray to Sec. of Int., May 12, 1936, ibid.

42. Cammerer to Pinkley, June 29, 1936, ibid.

43. Ickes to Collier, May 13, 1936, ibid.

44. Richey to Supt., SWNM, Oct. 16, 1941, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Central

Classified Files 1933-49, Boundaries (General), 602.

45. Actg. Supt., SWNM, to Dir., Dec. 30, 1941, ibid.

46. Drury and Collier to Sec. of Int., May 5, 1942, and "Proposed Western Boundary,

Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Arizona," Apr. 16, 1942, both approved by Burlew,

May 25, 1942, ibid.

47. Resolution of Canyon de Chelly Chapter, Apr. 28, 1934, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C

de C, Part 2.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 3 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi3n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:16 PM]

48. Kittredge to Dir., June 11, 1934, ibid.

49. Richey to Supt., SWNM, Oct. 16, 1941, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, CCF, 602.

50. Burlew to Denman, Nov. 8, 1937, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

51. Shepardson to Brugge, Aug. 14, 1974, encl., NALA files, Chaco Center.

52. For more detail on the general history of Navajo affairs during this period see Williams,

Navajo Political Process; Mary Shepardson, Navajo Ways in Government, A Study in

Political Process, American Anthropological Association, Mon. 96 (Menasha, Wisc., 1963);

David F. Aberle, The Peyote Religion among the Navajo (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.,

1966), especially Chpts. 3 through 6; and Robert W. Young, The Navajo Yearbook, 1951-

1961; A Decade of Progress, No. 8 (Window Rock, Ariz., 1961).

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi3n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4:

EARLY DEVELOPMENT, 1931-1941

1. H. C. Bryant to H. M. Albright, Feb. 26, 1931, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C,

1923-34; "Minutes of the Meeting on the Canon de Chelly National Monument, September 5,

1931," NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

2. "Minutes of the Meeting on the Canon de Chelly National Monument, September 5, 1931,"

NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Nusbaum to Albright, Dec. 23, 1931, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

22. Albright to Nusbaum, n.d., ibid.

23. Memo, July 28, 1932, ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Florence C. Lister and Robert H. Lister, Earl Morris and Southwestern Archaeology

(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1968), pp. 144-46.

26. Pinkley to Albright, Dec. 30, 1931, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Nusbaum to Albright, Jan. 6, 1932, ibid.

30. Pinkley to Albright, Feb. 4, 1932, ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Memo, July 28, 1932, ibid.

34. Douglas to Albright, Dec. 22, 1930, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1923-34.

35. Clark to Albright, Jan. 28, 1931, ibid.

36. Pinkley to Hayden, Feb. 17, 1931, ibid.

37. Judd to Albright, Jan. 16, 1932, ibid.; Kittredge to Albright, June 11, 1934, ibid.;

Cummings to Chatelain, June 21, 1934, ibid.

38. Telegram, Demaray to Supt., Mesa Verde, July 2, 1934, ibid.

39. Telegram, Pinkley to Dir., July 12, 1934, ibid.

40. Pinkley to Albright, July 2, 1934, ibid.

41. R. H. Holmes to Pinkley, Aug. 3, 1934, ibid.; SWMR, 1934, pp. 58-59.

42. "Extracts from Mr. J. B. Hamilton's Reconnaissance Report, Dated Nov. 15, 1932, on

Canyon de Chelly," NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

43. Ibid.

44. SWMR, October 1935.

45. Ibid., December 1935.

46. A. W. Burney to Pinkley, Oct. 1, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon. C de C, Part 4.

47. SWMR, January 1936.

48. Ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

49. Ibid., June 1936.

50. Ibid., November 1936.

51. Ibid., November 1936, 1938.

52. Memo, July 28, 1932, NA, RG 79, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

53. "Extracts from Mr. J. B. Hamilton's Reconnaissance Report, Dated Nov. 15, 1932, on

Canyon de Chelly," ibid.

54. Ibid.

55. SWMR, Sept. 18, 1932.

56. Ibid., August 1933.

57. Ibid., February 1934.

58. Ibid., November Supplement, 1931-32.

59. Nusbaum to Pinkley, Feb. 15, 1933, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. Kittredge to Dir., NPS, Apr. 28, 1934, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Pinkley to Dir., June 29, 1934, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

66. Pinkley to Vreeland, July 11, 1934, ibid.

67. Vreeland to Pinkley, July 13, 1934, ibid.

68. Pinkley to Vreeland, July 18, 1934, ibid.

69. Winter to Chatelain, July 30, 1934, ibid.

70. SWMR, June, July 1934.

71. Collier to Cammerer, Aug. 3, 1934, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

72. Telegram, Demaray to Kittredge, Aug. 13, 1934, ibid.

73. Memo, Demaray to Sec. of Int., Aug. 14, 1934, ibid.

74. Memo, Sec. of Int. to Demaray, Aug. 13, 1934, ibid.

75. Memo, Demaray to Sec. of Int., Aug. 14, 1934, ibid.

76. Ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid.

81. Ibid.

82. Telegram, Demaray to Kittredge, Aug. 21, 1934, ibid.

83. Telegram, Kittredge to Dir., Aug. 30, 1934, ibid.

84. SWMR, August 1934.

85. Ibid., October, November 1934.

86. "Station Boss Broadcasting," July 13, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

89. Cammerer to Collier, Mar. 19, 1936, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Central

Classified Files 1933-49.

90. Collier to Cammerer, Mar. 26, 1936, ibid.

91. Faris to Dir., NPS, Dec. 19, 1937, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

92. Ibid.

93. SWMR, March 1939.

94. Ibid., April 1939.

95. Memo to Actg. Reg. Dir., Reg. III, May 9, 1939, DFRC, NPS, L3415.

96. SWMR, July 1940.

97. Ibid.

98. Ibid., November 1932.

99. Copy of L. H. McSparron's trading license, Feb. 28, 1933, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon.,

C de C, General, Part 2.

100. Hotel or camp permit, Sept. 18, 1933, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

101. Demaray to Pinkley, Oct. 11, 1933, ibid.

102. Pinkley to Dir., Off. of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations, Nov. 10, 1933, ibid.

103. Ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

104. Demaray to Pinkley, Nov. 20, 1933, ibid.

105. Signed statement by McSparron and witnesses, Dec. 5, 1933, ibid.

106. SWMR, September 1934.

107. Ibid., January Supplement, 1936.

108. McSparron to Pinkley, Mar. 26, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49.

109. Pinkley to Dir., NPS, May 6, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

110. Pinkley to Dir., May 14, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49.

111. Demaray to Pinkley, May 21, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

112. Gable to Knox, June 4, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49.

113. Moskey to Supt., SWNM, Aug. 19, 1935, ibid.

114. [Budlong] to Pinkley, June 5, 1935, Canyon de Chelly, C3823.

115. Proposed schedule of rates for the 1935 season, approved by Oscar L. Chapman, Asst.

Sec. of Int., Aug. 28, 1935, ibid.

116. Hayden to Cammerer, Apr. 23, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49.

117. Murphy to Budlong, Oct. 11, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

118. Ibid.

119. Budlong to Pinkley, Oct. 28, 1935, ibid.

120. Permit for McSparron, 1936, signed by Pinkley, Jan. 2, 1936, approved by Demaray,

Feb. 21, 1936, ibid.

121. Cammerer to Pinkley, June 29, 1936, ibid.

122. Ibid.

123. Ibid.

124. Demaray to Supt., SWNM, Aug. 3, 1936, ibid.

125. Pinkley to Dir., Aug. 14, 1936, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49;

Amendments approving revisions, Sept. 9, 1935, ibid.

126. Memo, Tolson to "The Washington Office," Dec. 9, 1936, ibid.

127. Permit for Cozy (L. H.) McSparron, approved Mar. 5, 1937, ibid.; L. H. McSparron,

schedule of basic rates for the 1937 season, Mar. 10, 1937, ibid.

128. Demaray to Pinkley, June 26, 1937, ibid.

129. Miller to Faris, July 19, 1938, Canyon de Chelly, C3823.

130. Cronyn to Miller, Apr. 20, 1940, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

131. Miller to Cronyn, May 10, 1940, ibid.

132. Cronyn to Hubbell, May 17, 1940, ibid.

133. SWMR, September 1941.

134. NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49, 666-01 Canyon de Chelly Electric

Lights.

135. SWMR, April 1941.

136. "Extracts from Mr. J. B. Hamilton's Reconnaissance Report, Dated Nov. 15, 1932, on

Canyon de Chelly," NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

137. Ibid.

138. Demaray to Dir., Feb. 15, 1933, ibid.

139. Ibid.

140. Merriam to Pinkley, Feb. 15, 1933, ibid.

141. Albright to Supt., Grand Canyon NP, Oct. 17, 1932, ibid.

142. J. V. Lloyd, Actg. Supt., Grand Canyon NP, to Dir., NPS, Dec. 14, 1932, ibid.

143. Kittredge to Dir., NPS, Apr. 28, 1934, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 1933-49.

144. Ibid.

145. Ibid.

146. Agreement by Navajo Chapter at Canyon de Chelly, Apr. 28, 1934, NA, RG 79, NPS,

Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

147. Kittredge to Dir., NPS, May 8, 1934, ibid.; Kittredge to Hamilton May 19, 1934, ibid.

148. Kittredge to Hamilton, May 21, 1934, ibid.

149. Kittredge to H. G. Calkins, Dir., SES, Oct. 4, 1934, ibid.

150. Ibid.

151. Ibid.

152. Kittredge to Dir., NPS, Oct. 26, 1934, ibid.

153. Collier to Hugh H. Bennett, Dir., SES, Nov. 1, 1934, ibid; Collier to Cammerer, Nov. 1,

1934, ibid.

154. Kittredge to Dir., Nov. 8, 1934, ibid.

155. Actg. Dir., NPS, to Ass. Sec., Dec. 26, 1934, ibid.; Actg. Dir. to Kittredge, Dec. 21,

1934, ibid.; Cammerer to Kittredge, Dec. 21, 1934, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

156. Kittredge to Dir., NPS, Dec. 4, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

157. Ibid.

158. Pinkley to Dir., NPS, Dec. 31, 1935, ibid.

159. Ibid.

160. Pinkley to Dir., NPS, May 4, 1936, ibid.

161. Ibid.

162. Demaray to Supt., SWNM, May 12, 1936, ibid.

163. Budlong to Pinkley, May 15, 1936, DFRC, NPS, C de C, N16.

164. Pinkley to Dir., NPS, May 19, 1936, ibid. Navajo Service was the term used to denote

the BIA office at Window Rock, Ariz.

165. Faris to Pinkley, Apr. 7, 1937, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

166. Cooperative Agreement, Apr. 10, 1937, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y14.

167. Pinkley to Faris, Apr. 15, 1937, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5039.

168. "Specific Fire Agreement Made Pursuant To The General Cooperative Agreement . . .

June 1941," DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y14.

169. Murphy to Fryer, June 5, 1941, ibid.

170. Ibid.

171. SWMR, October 1939.

172. Ibid., January 1940.

173. Ibid., April 1940.

174. Ibid., June 1940.

175. Ibid., March, May, June 1941.

176. Ibid., September Supplement, 1932.

177. Ibid., September Supplement, 1933.

178. Ibid., September 1934.

179. Ibid., August 1935.

180. Ibid., July 1935.

181. Ibid., September 1935.

182. Pinkley to Dir., NPS, July 17, 1935, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

183. Budlong to Pinkley, Oct. 28, 1935, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

184. "Minutes of the Meeting on the Canon de Chelly National Monument, September 5,

1931," NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 2.

185. Bryant to Dir., NPS, Oct. 10, 1934, ibid.

186. SWMR, January Supplement, 1935.

187. Ibid.

188. Ibid., January 1936.

189. "Rules and Regulations For Canyon de Chelly National Monument, 1936," NA, RG 79,

NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Part 4.

190. SWMR, June 1936.

191. Ibid., September 1936.

192. Budlong to Pinkley, Mar. 25, 1936, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5027.

193. Ibid.

194. Pinkley to Kittredge, Apr. 7, 1936, ibid.

195. Kittredge to Pinkley, Apr. 22, 1936, ibid.

196. Ibid.

197. Burney to Pinkley, Apr. 14, 1936, ibid.

198. Pinkley to Budlong, Apr. 27, 1936, ibid.

199. Ibid.

200. SWMR, May, August 1937.

201. Ibid., October 1937.

202. Ibid., January 1939.

203. Ibid., July, August, November, December 1939.

204. Ibid., August 1939.

205. Ibid., January 1939.

206. Ibid., February 1939.

207. Ibid., July 1939.

208. Ibid., August 1939.

209. Ibid., September 1939.

210. Ibid., June, July, August 1939.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:19 PM]

211. Ibid., November 1939.

212. Cronyn to Pinkley, Oct. 30, 1939, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L3415.

213. Ibid.

214. SWMR, August, September 1940.

215. Ibid., September, November 1940.

216. Ibid., April, July, October 1941.

217. "Annual Wildlife Report for Canyon de Chelly National Monument, 1941,"Oct. 1, 1941,

DFRC, NPS, C de C, N2623.

218. This is a frequent misconception. Actually the Navajos use fox skins in such

ceremonies.

219. "Annual Wildlife Report," Oct. 1, 1941, DFRC, NPS, C de C, N2623.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi4n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:23 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 4:

EARLY DEVELOPMENT, 1931-1941 (continued)

Roads and Trails

One of the conclusions reached at the July 1, 1932, meeting at de Chelly concerned roads and

trails. All agreed that it would not be necessary to build a road on the floor of the canyon.

They believed that some rim roads would be needed and proper trails should be built to the

various ruins. In addition, it was agreed that Navajo workers should be employed in all road

and trail construction. [52]

Hamilton's reconnaissance report of 1932 also agreed that roads were unnecessary in the

lower portions of the canyon. He "suggested that visitors be taken through lower canyons in

greatly oversized balloon-tired cars, using the sandy bed of the wash as a highway. Traces of

the travel would be washed away after every flood, leaving the canyon as natural as before."

[53]

Concerning rim roads, Hamilton believed that most visitors would rather view the canyon

from above. He stated that "the view from the rim is well worthy of exploitation." Visitors

could view the ruins, peach orchards, gardens, and Indians themselves from the rim. He

estimated that the cost would be $20,000 for rim roads and trails. [54]

Another problem existed regarding highways to the monument. The best way to reach de

Chelly was to drive north from Highway 66, but the road from Ganado to Chinle was not

surfaced nor did it contain proper drainage systems. [55] The unsurfaced road, of course,

deterred visitors from visiting the monument in bad weather. However, a bridge was

constructed over the Nazlini Wash near Chinle which, in addition to another bridge at

Ganado, helped keep the road open to de Chelly. [56] An engineer working at de Chelly, C.

A. Weintz, summed up the advantages of attracting people to the monument with a good

road: "what this country needs is a good road; it can then hold its own with any of the show

places of the Southwest." [57]

Consideration was still being given to construction of a road on the canyon floor, even

though many believed it impractical because of annual flooding. However, some of the

arguments against the project neglected this fact. George Grant, a Park Service photographer,

not only opposed roads in the canyon but also wanted to restrict the number of visitors. He

believed that "if dudes are permitted to travel up this Canyon they will cause the Service a lot

of grief. And if large numbers of dudes go up there the Navajos will probably move out and

that would be a mistake. It is too rich a sight to see them travelling up and down the Canyon

on their ponies." [58]

Nusbaum also advocated keeping roads out of the canyon floor, stating that "if a highway or

a well-traveled road is developed along the canyon floor, the naturalness and primitiveness of

the region will be seriously influenced and a considerable part of the original values lost."

[59] He was also worried that traffic on the canyon floor would badly "scar" the sand. [60]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:23 PM]

Regarding possible routes of higher roads, Nusbaum suggested one that followed the north

rim of Canyon del Muerto. He felt that a road built away from the rim, which occasionally

neared exceptional viewing areas, would also serve a purpose. Visitors could then leave their

vehicles and approach the sites. [61]

In 1934 plans were laid to work on White House Trail, and a meeting was held at de Chelly

to discuss such a project. Attending the meeting were Superintendent John G. Hunter,

Southern Navajo Indian Agency; Hugh Calkins, regional director, Soil Erosion Service; Tom

Allen, lay assistant, Bureau of Animal Industry; F. A. Kittredge, chief engineer; Budlong; and

McSparron. [62] Discussion revealed that the 1930 census showed an Indian population of

365 living in Canyon de Chelly. They had about 4,000 sheep and goats grazing in the canyon.

Superintendent Hunter said that Bureau of Indian Affairs Commissioner John Collier

instructed him "to undertake development work and Indian relief in Canyon de Chelly at the

earliest moment." [63] Erosion work and trail work were to be conducted.

All agreed that the canyon rim opposite White House Ruin "must become a Lookout point,

reached by automobile, and that a horse and pedestrian trail must be constructed from this

point to the canyon floor." A second trail was also considered from the canyon floor near the

junction of Canyon de Chelly and Canyon del Muerto to the rim. Both planned trails were

studied and surveyed by engineers. [64]

Pinkley sent the Park Service Director the plans and profile for White House Trail that he had

approved and signed. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was funding the project, and since they

could not authorize funds for building a tourist trail, they approved the project as a path for

sheep and goats. [65]

Opposition to the proposed trail was voiced by Frederick K. Vreeland of Santa Fe. Pinkley

sent him a letter expressing his reasons for favoring the trail and stressing that it would not

lead to an increase in vandalism. [66] Vreeland, however, was unhappy with Pinkley's

reasons for the trail and declared that the Park Service was not sufficiently concerned with

preservation. [67] Pinkley replied that the Service would soon have a full-time person

stationed there. In addition the inhabitants of a Navajo farm at the foot of the trail would

watch to see if visitors descended, which Pinkley doubted they would. [68] The historical

assistant of the Park Service, W. J. Winter, supported Pinkley in this controversy. [69]

A Mr. Gray conducted surveys for the trail. By July 1934, with 33 Navajos under a white

foreman working on it, the trail was 80 percent completed. [70]

Collier, hesitant to approve a road from Chinle to White House Overlook, was impressed

with Gray's work on the trail but objected to plans of asphalting it on the grounds it would

destroy the natural beauty of the canyon. [71] Collier also questioned the tunnel work there,

[72] and in fact, asked that the Canyon de Chelly National Monument be returned to Bureau

of Indian Affairs jurisdiction. [73]

The Secretary of Interior wrote Demaray asking for a report on road work at de Chelly. [74]

Responding to this, Demaray stated that the trail work and erosion work were "the result of a

development program drafted more than a year ago." [75] He stated that

no plans have been considered for the building of roads on the floor of either Del

Muerto or Monument canyons. During periods when the canyons are dry visitors

may be transported in automobile over the sandy floors with oversize tires. Such

traffic should not interfere seriously with the Indian life in the canyon, which the

National Park Service is extremely anxious to maintain in unimpaired condition.

[76]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:23 PM]

Furthermore, Demaray stated that there was already a rim road (which needed improvement)

and that the White House Trail was being built from this road into the canyon in order to

"permit closer access to this ruin [White House] when cars cannot get up the floor of the

canyon." [77] He explained that the project was set up by the Indian Service ECW project

and utilized Indian labor under the direction of Park Service engineers. He said "the project

was considered and agreed to in principle by both the Indian and National Park Services."

[78]

In explaining the trail and tunnel, he stated that they were "planned with the safety and

convenience of the traveler in mind, and according to the best Park Service standards." The

tunnel was built "to prevent excessive scarring, as well as [to] pass dangerous points with a

maximum of safety." He stated that oil surface treatment was proposed in order to eliminate

dust. [79]

Citing the recent appointment of a custodian for de Chelly, Demaray said that the area would

be properly protected and the custodian would "coordinate the various interests of the Indians

with those of the visitor." In addition, he believed

that the National Park Service is the proper agency to protect and interpret

archeological areas such as that at Canyon de Chelly. It is felt that the rights of

all American citizens in these areas transcend those of any individual or group of

individuals, just as in other cases where the Nation, by action of the Congress or

Executive, has set aside sites because of their national scenic, historic, or

scientific importance. [80]

In closing, Demaray recommended that "no effort be made to amend the Canyon de Chelly

Act to return the area to the Navajo Tribe as suggested in Mr. Collier's memorandum. . ."

[81]

Collier, in turn, approved route 1 of section c for the trail, but objected to oiling or asphalting

the path. [82] Collier then agreed to the reallocation of $6,000 from the erosion control

project to trail work. [83]

Meanwhile, Budlong was very pleased with the work on the trail. He believed it was the

"main gateway" to the canyon. [84] By October the trail was 3,419 feet in length and the

tunnel was almost completed. In November Budlong reported that the White House Trail was

completed. It was 4,085 feet long with a descent of approximately 548 feet. [85]

Budlong had several ideas on road development at de Chelly: (1) he did not "want to see this

Monument have any roads which will connect at any halfway points with any main

highway"; [86] (2) he wanted all visitors to check in and out at headquarters; (3) he frowned

on having rim roads located too close to the Indians who lived on the rims during the winter;

and (4) he believed that seeing cars along the rims from the bottom of the canyon would

detract from the area's beauty. [87] Stressing the need to build roads carefully and consider

their possible effects, Budlong hoped that the Park Service would follow his suggestions and

use foresight in their planning. [88]

In 1936 Cammerer wrote to Collier commenting on the poor condition of the road from the

Thunderbird Ranch to the "Lookout" and on to Ganado. He stated that he was against

overdevelopment of roads in the area, but this road was so in need of repair that the Park

Service would provide $500-$1,000 if agreed to by him. Cammerer ended his letter by

lamenting about his car getting "hung up" and scraped badly on this road. [89] Collier

thought that work on this road was justified but wanted to check with his superintendent first.

He added that he had never had trouble with his car on that road but supposed that the new

"low-slung" cars might have a harder time. [90]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 4)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi4a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:23 PM]

As the years progressed, more work was done on roads leading to de Chelly as well as on

roads and trails within the monument. In 1937 the second custodian of Canyon de Chelly,

Johnwill Faris, wrote the Park Service Director in reference to a complaint about a stretch of

road within de Chelly's boundaries. Both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of

Agriculture said that the road was under Park Service jurisdiction, which made Faris happy

because the actual ownership was hazy. A Mr. H. H. Collins complained of the inherent

hazardous conditions of the road, and Faris mentioned in his letter the numerous blind curves,

high centers, and bad mud holes. [91] Besides recommending that repair work be done on the

Lukachukai road north of headquarters, Faris hoped that it would be finished quickly because

of the fact that more and more Indians were driving vehicles. He believed that many of them

were poor drivers and if one drove off the rim, "it would be most embarrassing to our

Service." [92]

By 1939 several fairly easy routes to Canyon de Chelly were suggested: one was from Gallup

or Chambers on Highway 66; another was from Kayenta and the Hopi Villages; and a third

was from Shiprock by way of Sweetwater and Round Rock. [93] The road from Chinle to

Lukachukai was considered less preferable because of the wash at Chinle. [94] The best

route, however, seemed to be from Gallup. Pinkley wrote that the road had been improved

greatly and it took only about 2 hours to make the trip. [95]

However, in direct opposition to Pinkley's remarks were the sentiments of Ranger Quintin

Bradley at de Chelly. He said visitation was low because of the bad roads leading to the

monument and said that people told him that the road from Gallup to Canyon de Chelly was

"little more than wagon tracks." Furthermore, rangers at Grand Canyon declared that traveling

on roads via the Hopi Village to de Chelly was "practically suicide." [96]

During the years 1940 and 1941 work was done by the Civilian Conservation Corps-Indian

Division services on White House Trail, the roadway from Twin Trails to Mummy Cave, and

other rim road and trail projects. [97] As the war years approached, there was still a great

deal of work needed on roads and trails.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi4a.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:26 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 5:

THE LEAN YEARS, 1941-1945

1. SWMR, September 1942.

2. Ibid., March 1943.

3. Ibid., September 1943.

4. Ibid., January 1942.

5. Ibid., May 1942.

6. Charlie R. Steen, "Excavations at Antelope House and Mummy Cave River, Canyon de

Chelly National Monument," June 1942, and Charlie R. Steen, "Ruins Stabilization at Canyon

de Chelly National Monument, 1942, Antelope House and Mummy Cave Ruins," NA, RG

79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 740-02 Archaeology.

7. SWMR, May 1942.

8. Ibid., November 1942.

9. Series of photos, dated March-June 1942, of revetments, tetrahedrons, and plantings near

White House, and series of photos, dated December 1942, of willow spiders at Antelope

House, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 601-18 Soil and Moisture.

10. Bradley to Reg. Dir., Oct. 17, 1944, ibid.

11. SWMR, March 1945.

12. Ibid., July 1945.

13. Ibid., May 1942.

14. Ibid., June, July 1942.

15. Ibid., August 1942.

16. Ibid., October 1942, September 1943.

17. Ibid., January 1943.

18. Ibid., June 1943.

19. Ibid., December 1943.

20. Ibid., June 1945.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:26 PM]

21. Ibid., March, April, June 1943.

22. Ibid., February 1943.

23. Ibid., November 1943.

24. "Annual Wildlife Report for Canyon de Chelly National Monument, 1943," and "Annual

Wildlife Report for Canyon de Chelly National Monument, 1944," NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat.

Mon., C de C, N2623.

25. SWMR, February 1945.

26. Ibid., June 1942.

27. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Aug. 7, 1944, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 901 Privileges

and Permits.

28. Richey to Dir., Sept. 12, 1944, ibid.

29. Tolson to Reg. Dir., Oct. 7, 1944, ibid.

30. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Nov. 18, 1944, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 503-10

Pictures, Moving.

31. Navajo Tribal Council, Navajo Tribal Council Resolutions, 1922-1951 (Window Rock,

Ariz., 1951), p. 363.

32. Albert L. Johnson to Dir., Apr. 2, 1943, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, L54 Water

Rights.

33. A. van V. Dunn to A. W. Burney, May 23, 1945, ibid.

34. Actg. Reg. Dir., Reg. III, to Reg. Dir., Reg. IV, Aug. 7, 1943, ibid.

35. SWMR, February 1942, May 1945.

36. Ibid., June 1945.

37. McSparron to J. M. Stewart, Sept. 25, 1945, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 900-

02 Rates McSparron Canyon de Chelly.

38. Guillet to Reg. Dir., May 16, 1945, C de C, C3823.

39. Stewart to Fred C. Maxwell, Sept. 23, 1944, DFRC, NPS, C de C, W34.

40. Price to Cook, June 4, 1945, NA,RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, Central Classified Files

1933-39, 883-01 Fires.

41. Ratcliff to Reg. Dir., July 2, 1945, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y2523.

42. SWMR, October 1945.

43. Ibid., November 1945.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 5 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi5n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:26 PM]

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi5n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:37 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 6:

MEREDITH GUILLET AND THE NAVAJOS, 1945-1950

1. SWMR, July, August 1945.

2. Ibid., October 1945.

3. Ibid., May 1946.

4. Bradley to Reg. Dir., Oct. 5, 1945, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 601-18 Soil and

Moisture.

5. SWMR, June 1946.

6. Ibid., July 1946.

7. Ibid., November 1946.

8. Ibid., December 1946.

9. Ibid., June 1946.

10. Guillet to Reg. Dir., June 16, 1945, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 503-10

Pictures, Moving.

11. Ibid.

12. SWMR, August, September 1946.

13. Ibid., December 1946, January 1947.

14. Ibid., January 1947.

15. Ibid., February 1947.

16. Ibid., February, March 1947.

17. Ibid., May 1947.

18. Ibid., June 1947.

19. Ibid., May 1947.

20. Guillet to Reg. Dir., June 3, 1947, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y2523; SWMR, June 1947.

21. Guillet to Reg. Dir., June 27, 1947, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y2523.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:37 PM]

22. SWMR, July 1947.

23. Guillet to Reg. Dir., DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y2523.

24. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Aug. 6, 1947, ibid.

25. SWMR, August 1947.

26. Ibid., July 1947.

27. Ibid., August 1947.

28. Ibid., September 1947.

29. Ibid., November 1947.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., December 1947.

32. Ibid.

33. Guillet to Reg. Dir., DFRC, NPS, C de C, L1417.

34. Young, Navajo Yearbook, pp. 291-93; George A. Boyce, When Navajos Had Too Many

Sheep: The 1940's (San Francisco: The Indian Historian Press, 1974), pp. 220-24.

35. SWMR, October 1947.

36. Ibid., December 1947.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid., January, February, March 1948.

39. Guillet to Reg. Dir., May 18, 1948, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y22.

40. SWMR, March 1948.

41. Tillotson to Dir., Apr. 2, 1948, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 900-02 Rates

McSparron Canyon de Chelly.

42. Demaray to Reg. Dir., May 4, 1948, ibid.

43. Demaray to Reg. Dir., May 12, 1948, ibid.

44. Mastin White, Solicitor, to Ass. Sec. Warne, May 20, 1948, C de C, W3823.

45. Demaray to Reg. Dir., May 28, 1948, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 900-02 Rates

McSparron Canyon de Chelly.

46. Nusbaum to Brew, Feb. 27, 1948, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 901 Privileges

and Permits.

47. C. Girard Davidson, Actg. Sec. of Int., to Donald Scott, Dir., Peabody Museum, June 18,

1948, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:37 PM]

48. SWMR, August 1948.

49. Ibid., September 1948.

50. David De Harport, "An Archeological Survey of Canon de Chelly: Preliminary Report of

the Field Seasons of 1948, 1949, 1950," MS, Chaco Archives, No. 681, p. 2.

51. SWMR, June 1948.

52. Ibid., April, May, June 1948.

53. Ibid., July 1948.

54. Ibid., August 1948.

55. Ibid., September 1948.

56. Ibid., October 1948.

57. Ibid., November 1948.

58. Ibid., January 1949.

59. Guillet to Reg. Dir., ca. spring 1948, C de C, C3823.

60. Reg. Dir. to Dir., Apr. 2, 1948, ibid.

61. Demaray to Dir., May 12, 1948, ibid.

62. SWMR, January 1948.

63. Ibid., December 1948.

64. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Dec. 13, 1948, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 900-02 Rates

McSparron Canyon de Chelly.

65. Tillotson to Dir., Dec. 22, 1948, ibid.

66. Assoc. Dir. to Reg. Dir., Jan. 17, 1949, ibid.

67. SWMR, January 1949.

68. Wilson H. George to Chief of Development, Chief Counsel, and Chief of Concessions,

July 27, 1949, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, 900-02 Rates McSparron Canyon de

Chelly.

69. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Feb. 11, 1947, ibid.

70. SWMR, January, February 1949.

71. Ibid., March 1949.

72. Ibid., April 1949.

73. Ibid., May 1949.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:37 PM]

74. Ibid., June 1949.

75. Ibid., July 1949.

76. Ibid.

77. De Harport, "An Archeological Survey of Canon de Chelly: Preliminary Report of the

Field Seasons of 1948, 1949, and 1950," El Palacio 58, no. 2 (1951): 35.

78. Charlie R. Steen, Excavations at Tse Ta'a, Archeological Research Series No. 9

(Washington: National Park Service, 1966), p. 1.

79. SWMR, July 1949.

80. Steen, Excavations at Tse Ta'a, pp. 1-2.

81. SWMR, August 1949.

82. Ibid., September 1949.

83. Ibid.; Edwin H. Colbert, "Paleontological Field Work by the American Museum of

Natural History in the Triassic Sediments of New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, 1949," MS, 2

pages, NA, RG 79, NPS, Nat. Mon., C de C, N3019.

84. SWMR, October 1949.

85. Ibid., November, December 1949.

86. Ibid., December 1949.

87. Ibid., January, February 1950.

88. Ibid., February 1950.

89. Ibid., March 1950.

90. Ibid., April 1950.

91. Ibid., May 1950.

92. Ibid., April 1950.

93. Ibid., May 1950.

94. Guillet, personal communication, n.d., but ca. October 1974.

95. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Mar. 14, 1950, C de C, C3823.

96. Tillotson to Dir., Mar. 22, 1950, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L1417.

97. Demaray to Reg. Dir., Apr. 19, 1950, ibid.

98. Reg. Dir. to Dir., May 2, 1950, C de C, C3823.

99. Guillet to Reg. Chief of Public Services, May 15, 1950, ibid.

100. Actg. Reg. Dir. to Supt., May 25, 1950, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 6 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi6n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:37 PM]

101. Ibid.

102. Guillet to Gen. Supt., May 26, 1950, ibid.

103. SWMR, June 1950.

104. Ibid., May 1950.

105. Ibid., June 1950.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi6n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:47 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 7:

THE LULL, 1950-1957

1. SWMR, July 1950.

2. Ibid.

3. De Harport, "An Archeological Survey of Canon de Chelly: Preliminary Report of the

Field Seasons of 1948, 1949, and 1950," p. 35; De Harport, personal communication, n.d., but

ca. November 1974.

4. De Harport, "An Archeological Survey of Canon de Chelly: Preliminary Report of the

Field Seasons of 1948, 1949, and 1950," pp. 35-36; SWMR, September 1950.

5. SWMR, August 1950.

6. Steen, Excavations at Tse Ta'a, p. 8.

7. SWMR, September 1950.

8. Ibid.; Steen, Excavations at Tse Ta'a, p. 2.

9. Steen, Excavations at Tse Ta'a, pp. 2-4.

10. SWMR, September 1950.

11. Ibid., October 1950.

12. Asst. Reg. Dir. to Supt., Sept. 18, 1950, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L3415.

13. SWMR, October 1950.

14. Ibid., December 1950.

15. Ibid., November 1950.

16. Ibid., December 1950.

17. Davis to Supt., July 7, 1950, C de C, C3823.

18. Bright to Gen. Supt., July 13, 1950, ibid.

19. R. G. Fister, Actg. Asst. Supt. of Resources, to Reg. Dir., Aug. 9, 1950, ibid.

20. Tillotson to Area Dir., Oct. 27, 1950, ibid.

21. Navajo Tribal Council, Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council Meeting (Feb. 8-12, 1954),
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:47 PM]

Feb. 11-12, 1954, pp. 115-18, 143-45.

22. SWMR, July 1950.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid., January 1951.

25. Ibid., February 1951.

26. Ibid., March 1951.

27. Ibid., March, May, November 1951.

28. Ibid., January, February 1951.

29. David De Harport, "An Archaeological Survey of Canyon de Chelly: Preliminary Report

for the 1951 Field Season," El Palacio 60, no. 1 (1953): 20-25.

30. SWMR, March 1951.

31. Ibid., August 1951.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid., June, August 1951.

34. Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council Meeting, Feb. 11-12, 1954, pp. 115-18, 143-45;

Tillotson to Area Dir., Oct. 27, 1950, C de C, C3823.

35. Navajo Tribal Council Resolutions, 1922-1951, p. 41.

36. Everett W. Bright, "Boundary Status Report for Canyon de Chelly National Monument,"

Nov. 8, 1951, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L1417.

37. "Comments on Boundary Status Report for Canyon de Chelly National Monument," Nov.

27, 1951, ibid.

38. Reg. Dir, to Dir., Nov. 29, 1951, ibid.

39. SWMR, September 1951.

40. Ibid., December 1951.

41. Ibid., January 1952.

42. Ibid., February 1952.

43. Ibid., March 1952.

44. Ibid., December 1952.

45. Ibid., November 1952.

46. Ibid., various months, 1952. Only Bright mentions the use of county equipment on

reservation roads. While it is possible that the county did some work here in the 1950s, it
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:47 PM]

seems more likely that Bright misidentified equipment he saw working on the approach

roads.

47. Ibid., November 1952, October 1953.

48. Wirth to Reg. Dir., Mar. 25, 1952, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L1417.

49. SWMR, March 1952.

50. King to Supt., Apr. 18, 1952, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D32.

51. SWMR, April 1952.

52. Ibid., May 1952.

53. Ibid., June 1952.

54. Ibid., August, September 1952.

55. Ibid., April, May, June, July, August, September, October 1952.

56. Ibid., April, May 1952.

57. Ibid., July, August 1952.

58. Ibid., June, October 1952.

59. Ibid., March 1952.

60. Ibid., April 1952.

61. Ibid., August 1952.

62. Ibid., September 1952.

63. Ibid., October 1952.

64. Ibid., November 1952.

65. Ibid., February 1953; Cozy is said to have vacillated in his preference for Park Service,

tribal, or Bureau administration according to his perception of changing regulations as

favorable or unfavorable. Robert L. Morris, personal communication, Sept. 27, 1974.

Whether he had these changes of opinion in order to stimulate bureaucratic rivalries to his

own advantage is uncertain. At the regional director's request, the chief counsel sent copies of

the Navajo Tribal Council Resolution of July 8, 1930, Rhoads's instructions to Hagerman of

July 1, 1930, and the western boundary agreement of March 5, 1942, for possible use at the

forthcoming meeting. Chief Counsel to Reg. Dir., Nov. 7, 1952, C de C, H14.

66. SWMR, November 1952.

67. Ibid., January 1953.

68. Ibid., February, March 1953.

69. Ibid., April, May 1953.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:47 PM]

70. Ibid., October 1953.

71. Davis to Dir., Jan. 11, 1954, in SWMR, December 1953.

72. SWMR, June 1953.

73. Ibid., September, December 1953.

74. Aubuchon, personal communication, Nov. 19, 1974.

75. SWMR, May 1953.

76. Ibid., February, November 1953.

77. Ibid., April 1953.

78. Patrow to Dir., Feb. 12, 1953, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D30.

79. Bright to Gen. Supt., July 8, 1953, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

80. SWMR, October 1953.

81. Ibid., February 1953.

82. Ibid., June 1953.

83. Ibid., January, February, March 1954.

84. Ibid., March, April 1954.

85. Ibid., June, August 1954.

86. Ibid., November, December 1954.

87. Ibid., May 1954.

88. Ibid., June 1954.

89. Ibid., July 1954.

90. Ibid., September, October 1954.

91. Ibid., December 1954.

92. Ibid., February 1954.

93. Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council Meeting, Feb. 11, 1954, pp. 115-18.

94. Ibid., pp. 143-45.

95. SWMR, March 1954.

96. Ibid., April 1954.

97. Gastellum to Dir., Nov. 9, 1954, in SWMR, November 1954.

98. SWMR, January 1954.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:47 PM]

99. Ibid., April 1954.

100. Ibid., July 1954.

101. Aubuchon to Gen. Supt., July 21, 1954, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L3415.

102. SWMR, August 1954.

103. Ibid., November 1954.

104. Ibid., December 1954.

105. Aubuchon to Gen. Supt., Nov. 2, 1954, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K1815.

106. Aubuchon to Gen. Supt., Nov. 19, 1954, ibid.

107. SWMR, January, February 1955.

108. Ibid., January 1955.

109. Ibid., January, February, March 1955.

110. Ibid., February 1955.

111. Davis to Dir., May 10, 1955, in SWMR, April 1955.

112. SWMR, December 1955.

113. Ibid., May, June 1955.

114. Davis to Dir., Aug. 10, 1955, in SWMR, July 1955.

115. SWMR, February 1955.

116. Ibid., March 1955.

117. Ibid., June 1955.

118. Ibid.; Aubuchon to Gen. Supt., June 21, 1955, C de C, Y22.

119. SWMR, July 1955.

120. Ibid., September 1955.

121. Ibid., August 1955.

122. Aubuchon to Gen. Supt., May 14, 1955, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L1415.

123. SWMR, June 1955..

124. Ibid., June, July 1955.

125. Ibid., June 1955.

126. Ibid., October 1955.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:47 PM]

127. Ibid., December 1955.

128. Ibid., July 1955.

129. Miller to Supt., Aug. 4, 1955, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L58.

130. Aubuchon to Reg. Dir., Aug. 17, 1955, ibid.

131. Gastellum to Dir., Dec. 8, 1955, in SWMR, November 1955; Gastellum to Gen. Supt.,

Nay. Agency, Nov. 25, 1955, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

132. Gastellum to Gen. Supt., Nay. Agency, Nov. 25, 1955, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

133. Spaulding to Asst. Gen. Supt., SWNM, n.d., ibid.

134. SWMR, November 1955.

135. Ibid., December 1955.

136. Ibid., January 1956.

137. Ibid., February 1956.

138. Ibid., February, March, December 1956.

139. Ibid., May, June, July 1956.

140. Ibid., August 1956.

141. Ibid., September, October, November 1956.

142. Davis to Dir., Dec. 13, 1956, in SWMR, November 1956.

143. SWMR, July, August, September, October, November 1956.

144. Ibid., March 1956.

145. Ibid., December 1956.

146. Ibid., August 1956.

147. Maxwell, Chinle Subagency Supt., to Colliflower, Asst. Gen. Supt., Nay. Agency, Nov.

14, 1956, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

148. SWMR, December 1956.

149. Ibid., October 1956.

150. Ibid., May 1956.

151. Ibid., November 1955.

152. Gastellum to Dir., Jan. 9, 1957, in SWMR, December 1956.

153. SWMR, March 1956.

154. Ibid., March, June 1956.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7n.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:47 PM]

155. Ibid., August 1956.

156. Aubuchon to Gen. Supt., Apr. 4, 1956, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L3423.

157. Aubuchon to Gallawas, Wilson, and Powell, Apr. 16, 1956, ibid.

158. Navajo Tribal Council, Title 5, Chapt. 11, Sections 921-923.

159. Henson, "Narrative Report," n.d., DFRC, NPS, C de C, A7623.

160. Navajo Tribal Council, Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council Meeting (Oct. 22-Nov. 2,

1956), Nov. 1-2, 1956, pp. 390-94.

161. Henson to Reg. Dir., May 25, 1957, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A7015.

162. "Canyon de Chelly Travel Statistics," DFRC, NPS, C de C, A2621.

163. L. R. Kerst to Henson, Aug. 7, 1957, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A9015.

164. Henson to Kerst, Sept. 6, 1957, ibid.

165. Erik K. Reed to Henson, Sept. 11, 1957, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K1815.

166. Thomas to ed., July 30, 1957, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K34.

167. Henson to Reg. Dir., Sept. 30, 1957, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3615.

168. Chief, Branch of Communications, BIA, to Area Finance Office, BIA, June 11, 1957,

DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

169. Ratcliff to Actg. Reg. Chief, Branch of Park Forest and Wildlife Protection, Oct. 30,

1957, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5427.

170. Henson to Gen. Supt., July 28, 1957, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L1417.

171. Harold M. Ratcliff to Supt., Feb. 4, 1957, ibid.

172. Henson, "Boundary Status Report," Feb. 11, 1957, ibid.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi7n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 7:

THE LULL, 1950-1957 (continued)

With the prospects of ever-increasing visitation, official tribal interest in the concession

continued to grow. A meeting was held at Window Rock on February 12 and was attended by

Bureau and tribal officials; Bright; Davis of Southwestern Monuments; Koehler, representing

the region; and Cozy, to discuss "the future status of the McSparron concession contract in

relation to the ownership of the land and buildings. . . ." [81] No new decisions seem to have

resulted from this effort and in June it was reported that the tribe would erect its own motel

and restaurant near the monument. [82] That the report was at the very least premature could

not have been known, and both Cozy and the Service were doubtlessly concerned.

Aubuchon began the year of 1954 at Canyon de Chelly experiencing low visitation, a trend

that lasted through March and gave him a good opportunity to become acquainted with his

new area. [83] Much of the time seems to have been spent in routine work preparing for the

tourist season, which began suddenly in April. Visitation jumped from 104 in March to 1,125

the following month. [84] Work on the self-guiding booklet for the White House Trail

progressed slowly and guided tours were continued to the ruin until late in July when the

booklet was available and put into use, although it was not fully completed until early

August. [85] The trail was considered a success and in November work was begun on another

booklet to be used with the Thunderbird tours. [86]

A new sewer line was completed in May, [87] and in June a stile was erected over the stone

jetty in front of White House to give visitors better access to the ruin. [88] July brought the

delivery of a new trailer house. [89] By late summer, storms and vandalism had damaged

both White House Trail and the interpretive markers along it, requiring considerable repair

work. [90] Increased road maintenance by the Bureau helped keep roads in better condition.

[91]

Much that happened involved the Navajos. The major event was the sale of Thunderbird

Ranch. Cozy's continuing efforts to dispose of his business finally bore fruit, but he became

seriously ill just at the time the sale was being consummated. [92] His prospective purchasers

were John Nelson, A. B. Nelson, and Ida Mae Borum. Transfer of the lease required tribal

approval, and, because of the complications involved in the three-way administration of the

area, the tribal attorney, Norman M. Littell, felt that it should be acted upon by the full

council. He had a resolution prepared for that purpose and presented it to the council on

February 11. Howard Gorman, the councilman from Ganado was curious as to the identity of

the purchasers, who were not present at the council session. Dick Clark, trading supervisor,

identified A. B. Nelson as vice-president of Babbitt Brothers of Flagstaff and John Nelson as

his father and also a Babbitt employee. Mrs. Borum was former owner of the Leupp Trading

Post. Clark thought that the Babbitts would have no direct interest in the Thunderbird, but

thought that the business would do most of its wholesale trade with them. At that point a short

recess was taken, and when the council reconvened Littell apologized for not knowing of the

Babbit involvement. It was decided to redraft the resolution and action was postponed until

the following day. [93]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

The new resolution merely provided that

The officers of the Tribe be and they hereby are authorized and empowered to

approve on behalf of the Tribe a lease submitted by the National Park Service, to

L. H. McSparron or to any purchasers approved by the Advisory committee, the

said lease to be subject to such changes, alterations, terms and conditions as the

Advisory Committee in its discretion deems advisable and in the best interests of

the Navajo Tribe.

The resolution was duly moved, seconded, and passed without opposing votes. In the

discussion preceding the vote, however, Annie D. Wauneka stated at some length her views

regarding the monument, which are worth quoting because they seem to reflect fairly well the

feeling on the tribal level at this time:

Over a period of time we have heard complaints against the operators of the

Monument around Canyon De Chelly. There are many Navajo lands involved.

These Navajos have been using lands on the floor of the canyon, on the mesas

above the canyon for a long time. We have heard these complaints and while we

have not made an immediate study or surveys, but we have heard complaints that

these Monument authorities have taken it upon themselves to tell how these

Navajos should live in the Canyon or on top of the mesas of the Canyon. I do not

know how many of you have heard it, but I am sure that you all have been aware

of the situation and over a period of time you can go over there and see and

investigate and see how the Monument authorities are operating and how to

reconcile the Navajo livelihood in that area. In the withdrawal of these

Monument lands there were certain provisions made which we have never heard

of or know very little about. It is possible that we can revise the provisions of

that withdrawal order so that we can satisfy the Navajos who are living in that

area. In the first place, we have to have the interest of the Navajo in the

acquisition of lands on how much rental we can receive from any concession in

that area. We have to look after the livelihood of the Navajo first.

George Hubbard, a councilman from the area, challenged her statements, claiming that he

had not heard any complaint from the people. A thorough discussion of the matter did not

ensue, however. [94]

Somehow the council's objections to the Nelsons were overcome and the following month the

advisory committee voted approval of the sale to all three prospective purchasers. [95] On

April 20 Cozy McSparron left Chinle after 41 years, the manager for the new owners, Miles

Hedrick, having arrived the day before. [96] Absentee landlords at the guest ranch caused

some inconvenience in administration. In November Luis A. Gastellum of the Southwestern

Monuments office had to visit Winslow in order to discuss business matters with A. B.

Nelson. [97]

As suggested by Hubbard's speech to the tribal council, local Navajo interests were not

entirely coincident with those of the tribe, but relations within the area seem to have

continued smoothly in most respects throughout the year. Aubuchon reported the

construction of a fence to keep sheep out of White House Ruin in January. [98] The next

month CBS was taking photographs in the canyons for a television show, Navajos being

included and no problems reported. [99] A survey was made of use of electricity in order to

determine whether the monument and the Thunderbird should obtain their power from the

Bureau. [100] Planning for a new campground entailed getting local permission for use of the

land. Aubuchon had canvassed all but one of the local leaders when a visiting Bureau official

suggested going over their heads and getting authorization from the advisory committee if he
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

should encounter opposition, a suggestion that Aubuchon did not reject. He was able,

however, to contact the remaining man, Joe Carrol, and found him receptive to the idea,

especially when told that the old tables would be moved to "the pump house site for Navajo

use." [101]

Of interest in regard to Navajo affairs is Aubuchon's report on a visit to Massacre Cave in

search of bones for study by physical anthropologists. Perhaps fortunately for his continued

good rapport with the Navajos he failed to find any suitable for this purpose. An enigmatic

mention is made of shellacked bones supposedly returned to the cave previously and his

failure to find them on this visit. [102]

The planting program with the Bureau of Indian Affairs resumed for 2 weeks in November

with removal of more cuttings from White House and Antelope House, where the abundant

growth threatened to invade the ruins. Navajo interest was so high that they did all the labor

free. [103] By the end of the year Aubuchon felt so close to his Navajo neighbors that he was

gathering material on their legends and trying to authenticate the Spider Rock story. [104]

This was probably an outgrowth of his continuing work to expand the self-guiding

interpretive program by the use of easel displays at Junction and Spider Rock overlooks and

on the White House Trail [105] and to develop a booklet for use on the Thunderbird tours.

[106]

The normal low visitation of the winter season was even less than usual due to severe

weather. [107] Two visitors were stuck on the Sawmill Road and had to hike 18 miles

through snow over 2 feet deep to reach headquarters. A white man employed by the trader at

Nazlini and several Navajos were frozen during the cold weather. [108] Work at the

monument consisted largely of what could be accomplished indoors. Work on the guidebook

for the canyon progressed considerably and a rough draft was submitted in March. [109] It is

interesting to note that monument personnel finally learned that Canyon del Muerto had been

named by Stevenson rather than after the Massacre Cave incident. This was 3 years after Park

Service archaeologist Albert H Schroeder had uncovered the fact in an old Bureau of

American Ethnology report. [110] Published in cooperation with the concessioner, the

guidebook was edited and sent to the printer in April. [111] The initial edition of 500 copies

was successfully utilized and the supply exhausted before the end of the season. [112] In

spite of the increased use of self-guided trails and wayside exhibits, guided tours were still

given, but at a rate of only once a week on the average. [113]

The yearly increase in visitation had put a strain on the facilities of most Park Service areas.

By 1955 funding was beginning to catch up with needs and Mission 66 was inaugurated to

stimulate this trend. [114] The first major project for Canyon de Chelly was the new

campground. Work began as early as February with the removal of trees and fencing. [115]

In March the roads were staked and materials hauled. Equipment rented from the Bureau

helped cut costs and Eugene Mott, supervisor of construction and maintenance, was sent to

oversee the work. [116] Although the area was not complete, visitor use of the campground

seems to have begun in June. [117] Ants in the new area were so bothersome, however, that

three parties of tourists were forced to abandon their campsites after nightfall. [118] Dr.

Massey of the Forest Insect and Disease Laboratory in Albuquerque came to look over the

situation and recommended spraying with chlordane, which proved to be an effective

solution. [119] The completion of the campground on September 3 put the monument in good

shape for future years. It was already being used and Aubuchon enthusiastically reported that

on one night he had counted five trailers there. [120]

August brought heavy rains and floods in the canyons. Several hogans and an orchard were

destroyed by the high runoff, and many of the oak jetties built in the canyons were also

washed out. On August 10 Seasonal Ranger Delmar A. Dyerson got the Park Service jeep
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

stuck in quicksand in the main canyon. The Thunderbird's canyon car came to the rescue and

both were hit by a wall of water before the jeep could be pulled out. It was necessary to leave

the vehicles overnight, and they were found half-buried the next day. The jeep was

considered a total loss by the Government, but the concessioners decided to dismantle their

vehicle completely and attempt to clean it. [121]

Relations with the Navajos were variable, but they were quite good with the Bureau of Indian

Affairs. Early in the year Aubuchon recommended no changes in the boundaries, believing

that any road matters could be easily worked out with the Bureau. [122] In June a three-way,

20-year contract between the new concessioners, the Park Service, and the Navajo tribe was

signed. [123] Details of the negotiations leading to this contract have not been uncovered.

David Gorman was still on the staff at de Chelly and he and Aubuchon joined a new

volunteer fire department organized in Chinle in June, attending monthly fire drills. [124]

Probably this organization was primarily the work of white residents of Chinle and Navajo

participation was limited to a few of the more educated tribal members in the area, many of

whom were likely not members of the local chapter.

Vandalism had become a problem after the installation of interpretive devices away from the

headquarters area. While some of the damage may well have been done by white visitors,

Aubuchon was inclined to blame most of it on Navajo activities. Whether any of this resulted

from local resentment of Park Service operations is difficult to determine. In June it was

necessary to replace seven of the stakes marking stations on the self-guiding trail to White

House. Aubuchon commented, "If our neighbors use their feet to break the new stakes it is

my belief and fondest hope that a toe bone or two will also suffer." [125] The problem did

not occur again until October, when six markers were replaced with heavier ones. In the

same month the drain plug chains were stolen from the campground comfort stations and

only locks prevented the theft of two garbage cans. [126] In December Aubuchon decided

that replacement of all the White House Trail markers with larger and stronger ones was

needed. He blamed the repeated loss on "young Navajo vandals." [127]

His relations with Navajo adults seemed unmarred by these incidents. In August he received

Navajo assistance during a survey of Navajo place-names and trails in the canyons. [128] In

the same month Hugh M. Miller, regional director, asked him to assist in Park Service efforts

to work out "a plan for the development of the recreation resources of Monument Valley." A

proposal had been made in October 1954 to the Advisory Committee of the Navajo Tribal

Council, which was reportedly well received. Council action was awaited, but in the

meantime the tribe had set up an Office of Land Use and Surveys, and until this action was

approved by the Bureau and subsequently funded by the tribe nothing could be done. Richard

F. Van Valkenburgh was to be head of the new office and Miller wanted to know whether he

was on duty in this capacity yet. Miller felt that he had received his information under

confidential circumstances and he hoped that Aubuchon could give him an official report

without disturbing the good relations that existed with the tribe. [129] Aubuchon contacted

Robert W. Young, assistant to the superintendent at Window Rock, and learned that Van

Valkenburgh would probably not be placed in the new position until the end of September

after approval of the budget. He did confirm the fact that Van Valkenburgh would be the man

to deal with regarding developments at Monument Valley. [130]

In November Luis A. Gastellum, assistant general superintendent of Southwestern

Monuments, Thomas R. Jones, architect, and Aubuchon met in Gallup with various Bureau

officials including C. Warren Spaulding, general superintendent of the Navajo Agency, to

discuss the details of obtaining electric power and water from the Bureau at Chinle. [131]

The Park Service representatives explained their needs: current consumption of water reached

a peak of 166,000 gallons in the summer months, and increased use was expected as
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

visitation grew; electricity was used at a rate of fifteen kilowatts, with a similar increase

anticipated. The Bureau thought that they could meet this demand. The Park Service was to

pay for these services at cost or at rates comparable to those in some nearby community, but

they wanted to compare this proposed agreement with a similar one already in effect between

the Bureau and the Atomic Energy Commission. [132] The Bureau also reserved the right to

discontinue service at any time should the Bureau's facilities require extra power, but

Spaulding thought this event unlikely, especially if the Park Service would help fund the

development of additional generating capacities. [133] Aubuchon judged the meeting

successful, but felt that final agreement and actual delivery of utility services were still a few

years in the future. [134]

The year ended with the monument under Navajo management for the first time when

Aubuchon took a vacation and left David Gorman in charge. [135] Gorman took care of the

visitors by himself during this period, and because the tourists had little knowledge of and

great curiosity about the Navajo way of life, he was so successful that he was inspired to

recommend expansion of this aspect of the interpretive program by constructing a hogan to

show "just how they live." He aroused the interest of other Navajos, who offered to assist in

its construction. [136]

Aubuchon was receptive to the idea and planned to submit a construction proposal, but

nothing more seems to have been done. [137]

Work on improvements in the interpretive program continued, however, and several changes

in display arrangements were made at the visitor contact station at monument headquarters.

[138] The most significant innovation was the development of a program of slide talks for

evening programs. Albert G. Henson, who replaced Aubuchon as superintendent in May, and

his seasonal ranger, Norman Thomas, began to collect slides for this use in June and July.

[139] Two such programs were presented in August and seem to have been well received.

Apparently they had to use their own equipment for the presentations, because the projector

and screen ordered from Globe were late in arriving. [140] Three more of the evening talks

were given in September and a few each month into the fall, reflecting the limited time the

two men could devote to this activity. [141] One of the slides, combining the Park Service

emblem with a statement of the purpose of the Service, brought Henson a $20 incentive

award. [142] Personally conducted tours were still being given, but again their number

depended on the amount of time that could be programmed away from other activities. [143]

Expansion of the self-guiding concept helped compensate for the required absence of

personnel. A dispenser for the White House Trail booklet was erected at the head of the trail

along with an easel display, [144] and toward the end of the year stands were built for three

new wayside exhibits. [145]

Visitation again reached record highs and the new campground was sometimes filled to

capacity. Patrolling of the rim and the canyons was possible only on the days when both

Henson and Thomas were on duty. [146]

Negotiations with the Bureau for water and power dragged on throughout the year. One

bottleneck was the lack of sufficient generating capacity at Chinle, and once this had been

solved a slowdown occurred during the administrative processes. [147] Final permission and

allocation of funds came in December. [148]

Work on a new master plan for the area included a visit to the monument on September 27-

30 by General Superintendent Davis, Landscape Architects Jerome C. Miller, Paul Thomas,

and Glenn Hendrix, Architect Harold A. March, Archeologist Albert H. Schroeder, and

Naturalist Earl Jackson. The party covered the area by air, car, jeep, and on foot, and felt that
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

they had solved their problems as a result. [149]

There was some soil and moisture work in the spring. Again the lush vegetation at White

House needed thinning and provided stock for planting elsewhere in the canyons. Surplus

poles and supplies were given to local Navajos who wanted to do protective work of their

own. [150]

In November Gordon Vivian, with Richert as his assistant, brought Navajo stabilization

crews from Chaco Canyon to do work on Antelope House and White House, the projects

lasting about 2 weeks. [151] Richert prepared a report on the White House work in December

and January. [152]

Tribal relations were again rather variable. Early in the year it was necessary to replace

sixteen markers along the White House Trail, and Aubuchon hoped that the new dispenser

for the trail booklets would not be molested. [153] Van Valkenburgh had assumed his duties

with the tribe and began a program designed to improve enforcement of the Antiquities Act

on tribal lands, but his work also included research within the monument area for the tribal

land claims case. [154] Monument personnel put up warning signs based on the Antiquities

Act, perhaps supplied by the tribe. [155]

Aubuchon's administration ended with an act that was undoubtedly offensive to many

Navajos, although he probably had no intimation of its complications because no protests

were noted at the time. In March three members of the Sierra Club, Mark Powell, Jerry

Gallawas, and Don M. Wilson, arrived to attempt an ascent of Spider Rock. The climb

required 3 days, March 27-30, one night being spent on a ledge about halfway up the spire.

[156] Aubuchon gave them full Park Service cooperation in this undertaking and issued them

a "certificate of accomplishment" attesting to the success of their venture and commending

their "splendid cooperation . . . in regard to National Park Service rules and regulations."

[157] The long-range effect of this climb on Navajo attitudes would not become apparent for

some time.

In May the tribal council passed a resolution making it "unlawful and a trespass" for anyone

other than a Navajo to guide visitors for compensation within the reservation without paying

for a license and giving 10 percent of the receipts to the tribe. [158] Whether this new

regulation was applied to the Thunderbird tour operation is not known from available

documentation.

A joint investigation of an accidental death resulting from a fall over the canyon rim was

made by the Park Service, the Bureau, the Navajo Tribal Police, and the Public Health

Service in August. [159]

An event that did not apply directly to Canyon de Chelly did, nonetheless, reveal a

developing current of thought in the tribal council that had to be given consideration in all

Park Service areas in Navajo country. Congress was considering legislation to establish

roadless areas. There was the possibility that this legislation would permanently establish as

roadless those areas on the Navajo Reservation designated by the Secretary of the Interior in

1937, apparently as an aspect of Collier's opposition to road building. The council was well

aware of the importance of roads in bringing services to their people and in facilitating

economic development, and unanimously opposed any limitations on road building. The third

section of the resolution, however, was directed toward the park program and deserves

quotation in full:

3. The Navajo Tribal Council approves in principle the establishment and

maintenance of National Parks in various areas of the United States where all

American citizens, including Navajo(s) may go on vacations to enjoy scenic
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

grandeur untouched by development for economic purposes. However, the

Navajo Tribal Council feels that such public parks should be established only on

publicly owned land and under conditions that will not deprive the customary

users of such land for their livelihood. The Navajo Tribal Council points out that

the Navajo Indian Reservation is the private property of the Navajo people upon

which they are dependent for their sustenance and that consequently it is not

available and should not be taken for national park purposes or similar public

recreational purposes. [160]

The burgeoning growth of the tribal government, fueled by oil money, rising educational

attainments and expectations, and increasing tribal nationalism, was beginning to make itself

felt in ways that more and more frequently did not coincide with Federal policies.

Expectations that the Bureau could manipulate tribal support for all of its plans were no

longer valid, and the diversity of opinion within the tribe, and at times between tribal and

local chapter and district council levels, were more likely to indicate strengths than

weaknesses as the Navajos asserted a new spirit of independence.

Henson was to be the last superintendent to escape the necessity of devoting a sizeable

portion of his time to Navajo relations. The shortness of his incumbency may well have been

a factor in this, for much of the groundwork laid by Guillet had been lost through turnovers

in personnel. He had the advantage of a somewhat larger number of Navajo employees than

many of his predecessors, but his was still the only permanent position. David Gorman was

still the maintenance man, with two laborers, Guy Tso and Francis Tayah, working under

him. [161] Visitation continued to grow, reaching a new record again in 1957. [162]

The work load was as much as the small staff could handle and perhaps more. Early in

August Henson received a request from Anthony-Worldwide Productions to do some filming

for the movie The Big Country in Canyon de Chelly. The proposed work was not to involve a

major portion of the production, but the firm wanted the proper permission in time for

filming in October. [163] Henson found that he had to settle "certain jurisdictional aspects of

the issuance of such a permit" before he could reply. His answer, sent almost a month later,

stated his determination of current policy for such matters:

To obtain the permit it will be necessary to submit an application, following the

form of the sample enclosed, to Mr. G. Warren Spaulding, General

Superintendent, Navajo Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of

The Interior, Window Rock, Arizona, and to Mr. Paul Jones, Chairman, Navajo

Tribal Council. One application should be made out to the above individuals

jointly and provision for their separate approval should be made at the close of

the application.

. . . . .

If a set will be required or if the prehistoric ruins of this Monument will be

involved, other than simply photographing them, please include information in

detail concerning this phase on an addendum sheet. . . .

. . . . .

Nothing which would endanger or damage the ruins in any way will be

permitted.

All rules and regulations of The National Park Service, . . . will be in force and

must be adhered to. [164]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

The weather interfered with interpretive activities that summer and on several occasions the

evening slide program was rained out. Henson was advised to keep a record of these

occurrences in order to justify an assembly room in the future visitor center. [165]

Norman Thomas was back as seasonal ranger. He also found "the pressures of routine and

special activities" a hindrance to getting everything done and found it necessary to apologize

for late submission of a publicity article to the Gallup Independent for their special

ceremonial edition. [166] That the pressures were increasing is further evidenced by the

receipt of a visitor complaint against Thomas toward the end of the season—the first such

complaint registered against him in 5 years of work as a seasonal ranger. [167]

Cooperation with the Bureau continued to be close. The construction of a power line to the

headquarters area from the Bureau's power plant in Chinle was reported in June, with the

Park Service being allowed to deduct the cost of quarters furnished the workers from their

share of the expenses billed them by the Bureau. [168] The soil and moisture program being

carried out by the two agencies was also working satisfactorily. [169]

A major problem raised by the Mission 66 and new master planning proposals was the old

issue of boundaries. The new utility area was mapped in the southwest quarter of Section 22,

a location outside the boundary description agreed upon by the Bureau and Park Service in

1942. Henson went to the files in hopes of finding a solution to the problem. He found the

correspondence that suggested "point of order legislation" to permit the expenditure of Park

Service funds on roads outside the monument but could not determine whether the matter had

been carried to completion or, if so, just what effect it might have. [170] No evidence that the

legislation had been achieved could be found and it was suggested that the Washington office

initiate such legislation when the new boundary status report had been received. A field study

was also recommended to determine a satisfactory new boundary. [171] Henson, apparently

still unsure of the legal requirements of a boundary change or the nature of point of order

legislation, included the following in his report that was submitted shortly after receipt of

Ratcliff's memorandum:

A master plan study made on the ground in September, 1957, determined that the

most logical and suitable location for the headquarters development will require

a boundary extension to include the SW1/4 Section 22, T5N, R10W, Navajo

Meridian.

The boundary, outside of the above mentioned township, follows the rim of the

canyon in all its meanderings. This results in a very long and tortuous boundary

which is almost impossible to accurately locate and mark on the ground. It also

results in narrow wedges of non-monument land between tributary canyons.

These wedges effectively block logical and economical road alignments.

In order to determine a satisfactory boundary which can easily be defined and

marked and which will include all land needed for the proper and necessary

developments, a field study should be made. [172]

Thus Henson, poorly informed on trends among the Navajos and ignorant of the implications

of his recommendations, was setting a course for his successor that would collide with

developing tribal policy. Two rapidly growing organizations—the Navajo tribe, seeking selfdetermination, and the National Park Service, under Mission 66—were gradually but

inevitably approaching a confrontation.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 7)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi7a.htm[11/6/2012 2:50:51 PM]

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi7a.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 8:

DEVELOPMENT AND NAVAJO TROUBLES, 1958-1962

1. Berger to Dir., June 2, 1958, C de C, A2823.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Berger to Dir., July 3, 1958, ibid.

5. Smith to Reg. Chief of Interpretation, May 28, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C.

6. Berger to Dir., June-August, C de C, A2823.

7. Berger to Dir., July 3, 1958, ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Berger to Reg. Dir., June 11, 1958, C de C, L54.

10. Ibid.

11. Berger to Dir., Aug. 3, 1958, C de C, A2823.

12. Ibid.

13. Berger to Dir., Sept. 2, 1958, ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Berger to Reg. Forester., Aug. 13, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y14.

16. Berger to Dir., Oct. 6, 1958, C de C, A2823.

17. Ibid.

18. Berger to Superv. Landscape Architect, Sept. 2, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D32.

19. Miller to Reg. Dir., Sept. 11, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5427.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

23. Ibid.

24. Berger to Reg. Chief of Interpretation, Sept. 21, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K1815.

25. Berger to Dir., Nov. 3, 1958, C de C, A2823.

26. Ibid.

27. CA, No. 1346.

28. George J. Johnston to Reg. Engineer, Nov. 26, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5427.

29. Berger to Reg. Dir., Oct. 15, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L1417.

30. Berger to Dir., Oct. 30, 1958, C de C, D30.

31. Berger to Dir., Dec. 2, 1958, C de C, A2823; Berger to Dir., Jan. 3, 1959, ibid.

32. Berger to Dir., Dec. 2, 1958, ibid.

33. Miller to Berger, Nov. 3, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

34. Scoyen to Reg. Dir., n.d., ibid. Scoyen's concern was apparently aroused by a

memorandum dated April 11, 1958, from Ben H. Thompson, chief of the Division of

Recreation Resource Planning, to Edmund B. Rogers, special assistant to the Director,

requesting historical data on Navajo relations because

35. An interesting assertion with regard to the original headquarters building appears in this

report:

The first development at Canyon de Chelly was the construction of an

administration-residential building which was completed during 1935. This

building was constructed on the site of a Navajo family hogan. Apparently the

family moved without incident and have no adverse feeling regarding the

National Park Service. In fact, they are particular friends of the Service.

Berger, Guillet, and White, "Review of the Relationship between the National Park Service

and the Navajo Tribe," n.d., encl. in Bowen to Dir., n.d. but ca. Nov. 17, 1958, ibid.

36. Bowen to Dir., ca. Nov. 17, 1958, ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Berger to Dir., Jan. 3, 1959, C de C, A2823.

43. Ibid.

44. George G. Downes to Berger, Dec. 15, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K3823; Berger to
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

Reg. Publ. Dir., Dec. 22, 1958, ibid.

45. Berger to Dir., Jan. 3, 1958, C de C, A2823.

46. Jones to Berger, Nov. 24, 1958, DFRC, NPS, C de C, C3823.

47. Berger to Reg. Dir., Dec. 2, 1958, ibid.

48. Berger to Nelson, Dec. 10, 1958, C de C, C38.

49. Invitation and Prospectus, Jan. 5, 1959, C de C.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid.

54. Richard T. Montgomery to Reg. Dir., Jan. 14, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5039.

55. Miller to Berger, Feb. 4, 1959, ibid.

56. Harthon L. Bill to Berger, Feb. 9, 1959, ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Bill to Chief, Mar. 2, 1959, ibid.

59. Bill to Chief, Mar. 3, 1959, ibid.

60. Berger to Dir., Mar. 3, 1959, C de C, A2823.

61. Scoyen to Reg. Dir., Feb. 9, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

62. Miller to Dir., Feb. 19, 1950, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3823.

63. Berger to Grazing Committee, Mar. 25, 1959, C de C, L1425.

64. Ibid.

65. "Relinquishment of Use Rights on Tribal Indian Lands Within Canyon de Chelly National

Monument," n.d., enclosure, Bill to Dir.. Sept. 10, 1959, ibid.

66. Berger to Dir., Apr. 1, 1959, C de C, A2823.

67. Arizona Highways, April 1959.

68. Berger to Dir., May 4, 1959, C de C, A2823; Berger to Dir., June 1, 1959, ibid.

69. Rogers to Berger, May 19, 1959, C de C.

70. P. E. Smith to John Anderson, May 26, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D22; Lewis D. Farr

to Berger, May 22, 1959, ibid.

71. Berger to Dir., July 2, 1959, C de C, A2823.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

72. Berger to Dir., Aug. 10, 1959, ibid.

73. Acting Reg. Chief of Operations to Chief, July 16, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D22;

Berger to Dir., Aug. 10, 1959, C de C, A2823.

74. Berger to Chief, Western Office for Design and Construction, June 30, 1959, DFRC,

NPS, C de C, D5039.

75. Donald L. Bressler to Berger, July 31, 1959, ibid.

76. Berger to Dir., June 5, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A26.

77. Berger to Dir., Aug. 10, 1959, C de C, A2823.

78. Radcliff to Reg. Chief, July 29, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5423.

79. C. Ulf Runfors and Agnes Lagerstedts to Berger, Aug. 25, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C,

A36.

80. Wade to Berger, Sept. 7, 1959, ibid.

81. Berger to Dir., Oct. 10, 1959, C de C, A2823.

82. Ibid.

83. Berger to Dir., Nov. 3, 1959, ibid.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid.

86. Bradley to Reg. Chief of Interpretation, Oct. 20, 1959, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5427.

87. Berger to Dir., Dec. 2, 1959, C de C, A2823.

88. Ibid.

89. Berger to Dir., Jan. 10, 1960, ibid.

90. "Annual Wildlife Report For Canyon de Chelly National Monument, 1959," DFRC, NPS,

C de C, N2623.

91. C de C files, Jan. 26, 1960.

92. Berger to Dir., Mar. 2, 1960, C de C, A2823.

93. Berger to Dir., Apr. 5, 1960, ibid.

94. Asst. Reg. Dir. to Dir., Mar. 7, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, C2615.

95. C de C files, Mar. 8, 1960.

96. Berger to Reg. Chief, Mar. 14, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A88.

97. Berger to Dornan, Mar. 16, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L3423. Whether the terminology

used here by Berger is indicative of his general attitudes toward Navajos is not entirely
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

certain, but it definitely shows a lack of understanding of their religion.

98. Berger to Dir., May 2, 1960, C de C, A2823.

99. C de C files, Apr. 15, 1960.

100. Berger to Dir., June 2, 1960, C de C, A2823.

101. Acting Reg. Dir. to Berger, May 6, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, C3823.

102. C de C files; See Appendix 3.

103. Allen to Berger, May 6, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D30.

104. Ibid.

105. Berger to Dir., July 8, 1960, C de C, A2823.

106. Dods to Conrad A. Wirth, Dir., NPS, June 29, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3615.

107. Ibid.

108. Berger to Dods, July 18, 1960, ibid.

109. Berger to Dir., Oct. 5, 1960, C de C, A2823.

110. Ibid.

111. C de C files, Sept. 13, 1960.

112. Allen to Dir., Sept. 16, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5427.

113. Ibid.

114. Ibid.

115. Miller to Reg. Dir., Sept. 26, 1960, ibid.

116. Ibid.

117. Berger to Dir., Nov. 2, 1960, C de C, A2823.

118. Victor H. Nash to Reg. Chief of Operations, Oct. 7, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5427.

119. Ibid.

120. Ibid.

121. Miller to Berger, Dec. 2, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, C3823.

122. Ibid.

123. Section 9 of Contract, C de C files, July 26, 1960.

124. Berger to Dir., Dec. 2, 1960, C de C, A2823.

125. Berger to Reg. Dir., Nov. 22, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, W34; Berger to James E.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

Weinel, Dec. 1, 1960, ibid.

126. Erik K. Reed to Berger, Nov. 30, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, N2623.

127. Berger to Dir., Jan. 2, 1961, C de C, A2823.

128. Berger to Reg. Dir., Dec. 6, 1960, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D30.

129. Berger to Reg. Dir., Dec. 18, 1960, ibid.

130. Berger to Dir., Feb. 2, 1961, C de C, A2823.

131. Ibid.

132. Berger to Reg. Chief of Operations, Jan. 26, 1961, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5027.

133. Berger to Dir., Feb. 2, 1961, C de C, A2823.

134. Berger to Dir., Apr. 3, 1961, ibid.

135. Berger to Dir., May 2, 1961, ibid.

136. Ibid.

137. Irving M. Terzich, Environmental Health Survey Canyon de Chelly National

Monument, Apr. 17, 1961, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5031.

138. Ibid.

139. Berger to Dir., May 26, 1961, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A26.

140. Berger to Dir., July 3, 1961, C de C, A2823.

141. Donald Pierce to Berger, June 5, 1961, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y22; Berger to Dir., July 3,

1961, C de C, A2823.

142. Berger to Dir., July 3, 1961, C de C, A2823.

143. Berger to Dir., July 1961, ibid.

144. Erik K. Reed to Chief, July 19, 1961, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215.

145. Berger to Dir., August 1961, C de C, A2823.

146. La Font to Senator Hayden, Aug. 31, 1961, DFRC, NPS, C de C, C3823.

147. CA, Sept. 26, 1961, No. 1327.

148. Steen to Reg. Chief, Sept. 29, 1961, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5427.

149. National Park Service Programs and Schedule of National Park Service Programs, 1961,

DFRC, NPS, C de C, K3015.

150. Ralph J. Tangney to Berger, Nov. 30, 1961, ibid.

151. Philip H. Wohlbrandt, Reg. Engineer, to Berger, Feb. 7, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C,

D5027.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

152. Berger to Dir., Mar. 2, 1962, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

153. Erik K. Reed to Supts., Canyon de Chelly, Capulin Mountain, Tonto, and Walnut

Canyon, Mar. 8, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215.

154. Berger to Reg. Dir., Mar. 21, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5039, XD46.

155. Berger to Reg. Dir., Apr. 1, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, N2623.

156. Berger to Reg. Dir., May 8, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

157. Ibid.

158. Ibid.

159. Navajo Tribal Utility Authority electric service contract, June 6, 1962, ibid.

160. Berger to Dir., July 2, 1962, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

161. Philip E. Shero to Berger, July 2, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

162. Berger to Reg. Dir., July 5, 1962, ibid.

163. George W. Miller to Berger, July 16, 1962, ibid.

164. Land Use Permit, C de C, July 13, 1962.

165. Philip E. Shero to Berger, Nov. 8, 1962, DFRC , NPS, C de C, D5015; Berger to Dir.,

Dec. 1, 1962, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823; Berger to Dir., Jan. 1, 1963, ibid.

166. Berger to Reg. Dir., Nov. 9, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5015.

167. Berger to Branch of Soil and Moisture Conservation, Sept. 13, 1962, C de C, D54.

168. Berger to Reg. Dir., Sept. 26, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A40.

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid.

171. Herbert L. Keller to Subagency Supt., Sept. 14, 1962, ibid.

172. Ibid.

173. Ibid.

174. Ibid.

175. Reg. Dir. to 12 Supts., Dec. 14, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A6423.

176. Rainey to Berger, June 7, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A7631.

177. Berger to Exec. Sec., June 25, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K3015.

178. Jack Slack to Berger, July 5, 1962, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

179. Joseph H. Fraser to Berger, Dec. 17, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K3019.

180. Berger to Yellowstone Park, Dec. 27, 1962, ibid.

181. Berger to Dir., Sept. 4, 1962, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

182. Berger to Dir., Aug. 2, 1962, ibid.

183. Berger to Dir., Nov. 1, 1962, ibid.

184. Press release, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, Aug. 22, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de

C, K3415.

185. Ibid.

186. Berger to Chief, Sept. 4, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215; Chief to Berger, Sept. 7,

1962, ibid.

187. Berger to Asst. Dir., Dec. 10, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D46.

188. Ibid.

189. Danson to De Harport, May 29, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A90.

190. De Harport to Berger, May 31, 1962, ibid.

191. Erik K. Reed to 10 Supts., June 7, 1962, ibid.

192. Ibid.

193. Reed to De Harport, June 26, 1962, ibid.

194. Bannister to Berger, June 15, 1962, ibid.

195. Berger to Bannister, June 14, 1962, ibid.

196. George W. Miller to Berger, July 18, 1962, ibid.

197. Ibid.

198. Berger to Asst. Reg. Dir., July 24, 1962, ibid.

199. Ibid.

200. De Harport to Berger, July 20, 1962, ibid.

201. De Harport to Berger, July 23, 1962, ibid.

202. De Harport to Berger, July 30, 1962, ibid.

203. Berger to Dir., Aug. 2, 1962, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

204. Reed to Archeologist Caywood, Aug. 3, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A90.

205. Schroeder to Miller, Oct. 2, 1962, ibid.

206. Steen to Miller, Dec. 3, 1962, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:01 PM]

207. Thomas J. Williams to Miller, Dec. 5, 1962, ibid.

208. Telephone conversations with De Harport, Aug. 6, 1974, and with Arthur H. White,

Edward B. Danson, and Sam Day III, Sept. 5, 1974.

209. Danson to De Harport, Aug. 3, 1962, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A90.

210. De Harport to Miller, Aug. 7, 1962, ibid.

211. Miller to De Harport, Aug. 9, 1962, ibid.

212. De Harport to Berger, Aug. 8, 1962, ibid ; De Harport to Berger, Aug. 20, 1962, ibid.

213. Reed to De Harport, Sept. 6, 1962, ibid.

214. De Harport to Berger, Sept. 10, 1962, ibid.

215. De Harport to Berger, Oct. 15, 1962, ibid.

216. Ibid.

217. Berger to De Harport, Nov. 28, 1962, ibid.

218. De Harport to Berger, Dec. 2, 1962, ibid.

219. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 6, 1963, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

220. The causes of Berger's troubles with the Navajos are not readily apparent in the

documentation. Participants in the events of that period have diverse views regarding the

matter. According to one official then in the regional office, Berger was merely caught in the

changes brought on by the growing Navajo nationalism of the time. At the other extreme are

those who found themselves in opposition to his policies who assert that he had as little as

possible to do with the Navajos, that he was afraid of them, and even that he disliked them.

In particular he is said to have brought a gun to protect himself from the Indians, to have not

ventured out from headquarters any more than absolutely necessary to the extent that after

some months at the monument he still did not know where White House Ruins was, and to

have handled the refusal of permission to drill a well in such a way as to cause strong ill

feelings.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi8n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 8:

DEVELOPMENT AND NAVAJO TROUBLES, 1958-1962 (continued)

Two Navajo-related problems were settled at de Chelly in January 1961. The first concerned

unwanted or stray dogs. Because of the appearance of several dogs in the area, it was decided

that such animals would be held for a period of 5 days at the pound, and if they were not

claimed within that time, they would be put to sleep. This was a policy accepted by Berger,

the Bureau, and the Navajos. [130]

The other problem concerned a Navajo ordinance that stated that all sanitary inspections of

concession facilities within Park Service areas be done by the Navajo tribe. Since the Public

Health Service conducted such inspections at de Chelly, the Navajos accepted their findings

and did not conduct a separate examination. [131]

Berger also reported that Canyon de Chelly had procured three FM radios: one base station

and two mobiles. The radios were "obtained free of charge from excess property." Berger

hoped to install the system immediately. [132]

Canyon de Chelly received national recognition in an article in the February 24 issue of Life

magazine. The article concerned vacation areas in the Southwest, and two pictures of Canyon

de Chelly National Monument with brief descriptions were included. [133]

Preliminary plans for the building of a "10 Unit Motel type building" at the Thunderbird were

sent to Washington and the regional director on March 17 for approval. La Font hoped that it

would be in operation in time for the busy summer months. [134]

Special Easter sunrise services were held for the Chinle community at the White House

Overlook on April 2. Over fifty people attended what Berger thought was "a very impressive"

affair. [135]

Construction of the new comfort station was virtually complete. The staking of 23 camping

units for the campground expansion was under way and several trees were marked for

clearing purposes. [136]

An environmental health survey on de Chelly was conducted by Irving M. Terzich, National

Park Service sanitary engineer, and his report contained valuable information on the

facilities. Berger accompanied Terzich on his tour of the monument. Listed in this work were

visitation figures from 1954 to 1961. They indicate an increase of 210 percent since 1954:

1954 — 8,400

1955 — 8,000

1956 — 11,900

1957 — 13,200

1958 — 15,800
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

1959 — 21,000

1960 — 20,500

1961 — 26,500 [137]

Studies were conducted on the water supply and on sewage disposal. Several

recommendations were made to improve the quality of the facilities. [138]

In 1961 Berger again reported the most significant events at de Chelly for the year:

1. Addition to the Navajo Reservation Road Network by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

2. Completion of Water and Sewer Systems and Electrical Distribution Systems.

3. Approval and Completion of Sale of Thunderbird Ranch and Trading Post on

December 8, 1960.

4. Construction of Three Residences and filling of 2 additional positions as a result of

housing facilities.

5. Construction of a Campground Comfort Station and expansion of the Campground by

23 sites. [139]

Interpretive services in the form of illustrated evening programs resumed on June 10. That

month, 1,220 people attended the talks, which were presented seven nights a week. Aiding in

the program was Seasonal Ranger Frank L. Plettenberg. The nightly programs were:

Sunday — Indian Burials

Monday — Hopi Kachinas

Tuesday — Prehistory of Canyon de Chelly

Wednesday — Southwestern National Monuments

Thursday — Navajo Weaving and Silver

Friday — Points of Interest near Canyon de Chelly

Saturday — Photographic Tour of Canyon de Chelly [140]

Besides a somewhat favorable report on the decrease of "Ips" infestation, construction on the

roads and camping spurs for the 23 additional camping sites was almost completed. [141]

Drives, walks, and patios were also completed and paved for the three new residences. [142]

An unusual flash flood occurred at de Chelly on July 21 and caused undue misery. Two

vehicles were completely covered by the oncoming water, but fortunately the occupants were

able to get to high ground. The vehicles were later recovered: one was salvageable while the

other was a complete loss. [143]

A wealth of knowledge about the proposed 15-exhibit plan for Canyon de Chelly was

contained in a report submitted on July 19. The program was alloted $30,000 for construction

and installation of exhibits. Each display was detailed and the titles included: "The

beginnings of Pueblo Life: about A.D. 1 to 450," "Cliff Dwellings: about A.D. 1200 to

1300," "The Long Walk," and "The Navajos Today." Artifacts, photographs, and other

illustrative matter were to be contained in the cases. [144]

Visitation was very good during August, with 4,580 people counted. The Thunderbird Ranch

had 720 overnight guests, and 437 people took jeep tours into the canyon. [145] La Font

wrote Senator Carl Hayden at the end of the month describing the operation and inviting him
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

to visit the "beautiful Canyon." More specifically, however, La Font wrote the Senator in

regard to the electrical service prices. The electrical service was furnished by the Bureau at

Chinle, and La Font believed the rate of 7¢ per kilowatt "exhorbitant [sic] and works a real

hardship. The power bill for the preceding 12 months at the Thunderbird was $4,714.54. He

hoped that the Senator would assist in trying to reduce the rate. [146]

Stabilization work was done by Roland Richert and Joel Shiner at Mummy Cave in

September. Aiding them in their work were eight Navajo laborers. Their work included repair

of breaks at the base and of the walls and ceiling. When they left, they said that another

season was needed to finish up. [147]

A report on the major ruins at Canyon de Chelly was made by Regional Archeologist Charlie

Steen at the end of September. He commented on the erosion and subsequent repairs needed

at Mummy Cave, White House, and Antelope House. [148]

As the year ended, the Park Service presented a series of 15 programs that were filmed in

National Park Service areas. These were shown on television stations throughout the United

States and were included in the "What's New" series on the National Education Television

Network. Included among the programs was "Navajo Life at Canyon de Chelly National

Monument." [149] Berger received a letter from the director of special projects concerning

the Canyon de Chelly program, which he felt was "one of the very finest in the series. . . ."

[150]

Berger received authorization at the beginning of February 1962 to use frequency 32.02

MC/S for his two mobile units. The call signs assigned were KB7898 and KB7899, and

Berger was asked to supply the license numbers of the vehicles that would be using these

numbers. [151] Supervisory Ranger Homer A. Robinson began installing the radio equipment

in the ranger vehicles, having already installed the base station at the administration building.

[152]

In order to assure success in acquiring specimens for the proposed museum exhibits, Berger

was advised to make a list of the items already at Canyon de Chelly. In addition, he was

asked to

arrange a schedule for obtaining the necessary photographs, especially those of a

seasonal nature, such as flower and plant pictures; and please submit to us, as

soon as possible, a complete list of the items or photographs which may be

difficult for you to obtain. This will make it possible for us to give you the

maximum help without having to spend extra money on crash programs or rush

jobs. [153]

The Navajo Tribal Council adopted a set of regulations pertaining to trailer parking on the

Navajo Reservation, which would be effective on December 21, 1961. Berger surmised that

the reason behind the Ordinance was the great number of Construction Camps

with the resulting mess scattered about the reservation. They are also interested

in the construction of Trailer Courts and are trying to include the National Park

Service Campground at Canyon de Chelly under the Tribal Ordinance. The

Tribal Sanitarian is trying to give us some static regarding our campground

meeting the standards as stated in the Ordinance. The local Public Health Service

Sanitary Engineer agrees with us regarding the Jurisdiction of the Navajo Tribe

within the Monument boundaries however, the Tribal Sanitarian is inclined to be

a bit officious. [154]

Navajos also reported the killing of sheep by black bears, although no one on the de Chelly
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

staff had seen any. The Navajo Tribal Park Service and a Government trapper hunted

unsuccessfully for the animals. Another incident involved an Indian killing a beaver, which

was a violation of regulations. The tribal ranger prosecuted the case, and the Indian received

a $25 fine. [155]

Berger reported in May that the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority of Window Rock was going

to furnish electricity to the Chinle Subagency. This was to be done by July 1 or sooner.

Berger said that "at that time the Chinle Sub-agency generating plant will cease operations

and Canyon de Chelly will be furnished electricity by NTUA." [156] In addition, the Utility

Authority planned

to tie their lateral to the Canyon de Chelly power line at Garcia's store and in

order to have uninterrupted power at the Monument, NTUA is asking for a Use

Permit allowing NTUA to connect to the Canyon de Chelly Power distribution

line, take over the Maintenance and Operation of the system and to bill the

occupants of existing quarters, Offices etc. and the Thunderbird Ranch

individually. [157]

The Utility Authority rate schedule for power at Chinle had not yet been approved by the

Bureau, but Berger said that he had been "assured by NTUA officials that it will be

considerable [sic] less than we are presently paying to the Bureau of Indian affairs, Chinle."

The proposed rate was estimated at .04 per kilowatt-hour. [158] The contract was signed on

June 6, 1962, and the minimum charge was $3 per month per meter installation. [159] As a

result, Berger observed that "electric power supply is greatly improved at the Monument."

[160]

The Thunderbird requested that the Utility Authority install two streetlights as a preventive of

vandalism and as a safety factor. [161] Berger conveyed this request to the regional director,

and also included an appeal from Ray and Bessie Martin, Navajos, to connect their home to

the power line at the Thunderbird Ranch. [162] Berger was informed that La Font could

install the two lights and that "the alignment proposed for carrying power to the Ray and

Bessie Martin quarters appears satisfactory." [163] A "Land Use Permit " was issued to the

Martins for their hookup. [164]

The Utility Authority, after many petitions and requests from residents living near the

Canyon del Muerto community, extended electrical service to that area. [165] It would supply

a 14,440-volt transmission, which would cross the wash "between the Garcia Trading Post

and the Presbyterian Mission," a distance of approximately 1,090 feet. Berger stated that

due to the length of the span, there will be two H structures, one on each bank

which will be on the horizon looking West from the Park service proposed

Visitor Center. From the H structure on the northeast bank of the wash, the

transmission line will follow in a minor wash for about one half mile. From that

point it will be on high ground and will be constructed on the North side of the

Del Muerto road to the Del Muerto community. There will undoubtedly be

laterals that will cross the road onto Monument lands to consumers along the

route. [166]

After a flood in Canyon del Muerto destroyed an irrigation structure above Twin Trails, the

Navajos requested that the structure be repaired. The cost was estimated at $900, and local

Navajos were to be employed as workers. [167]

On September 9, Philleo Nash, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, arrived in Chinle. He was to

tour Canyon de Chelly and inspect the Chinle Boarding school, the Compound, and the

Subagency area. He never got to de Chelly, because he was "hauled to the Chapter House by
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

the local Chapter President." This meeting lasted until 5:10 P.M., and Nash was due at Gray

Mountain, 200 miles away, at 7:30. [168]

At the meeting, the question of returning Canyon de Chelly to the Navajos was brought up.

Nash responded with the following remarks:

1. Were the Navajoes [sic] able to take care of and operate an area of this kind? He

understood that their Monument Valley Project had to have $40,000 in addition to the

revenue taken-in at the entrance station during 1961.

2. Since Canyon de Chelly was authorized by Congress and belonged to the people of the

United States as well as the Navajo Indians, Congress would have to authorize its

return to the Navajoes [sic].

3. The proposition must be agreeable to the Director of the National Park Service and the

Secretary. [169]

Berger concluded that "Commissioner Nash was friendly, patient, and cooperative during the

entire day, but did not seem to be entirely in sympathy with the proceedings. The meeting

was arranged by the Navajo Tribal Officials with the Bureau personnel as advisors and

escorts." [170]

Nash requested information about Canyon de Chelly from Berger, "the Monument

Concessions Contractor, and others with knowledge of the monument and the canyon." [171]

His first question concerned the concessions contract at de Chelly and how it related to the

Navajos. They were to receive 1-1/2 percent of the gross income and were to be employed

"whenever possible." During the peak of 1962, 19 Navajos were employed out of a total of

27 employees. During September, 14 of the 21 employees were Navajos, of whom 3 worked

at the trading post, 9 worked in the lodge and cafe, and 2 were drivers of the guided tours

into the canyon. It was further reported that the Park Service employed 6 Navajos out of a

total force of 12 employees at the monument. [172]

Concerning the Navajo right to rent horses for canyon rides, figures showed that five Navajos

rented horses to tourists during the 1962 season. Their maximum income from one day's

rental of horses was approximately $50. [173]

Finally, the last bit of information requested by Nash concerned domestic water development.

There was no restriction on Navajos drilling wells for domestic water. However, the Park

Service furnished about 75,000 gallons of free water monthly to Navajo families in the

canyon area. [174]

On December 14, 1962, Meredith Guillet was assigned to Canyon de Chelly as assistant

superintendent. His main duty was to handle Navajo affairs. The reasoning behind such an

appointment was as follows:

The Secretary of the Interior and the Director are desirous of coordinating all

mutual interests of the Navajo Tribe and the National Park Service. Meredith

Guillet with his knowledge of and previous experience with the Navajos, his

interest in those people and his reasonable ability to converse in their own

language is a natural choice to handle such an assignment. [175]

A fire hazard inspection was held on June 7 by Supervisory Park Ranger Roy G. Rainey and

Seasonal Ranger Larry Thomas. Most of the buildings were found to be satisfactory, but

some had substandard wiring. [176]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

Berger, in order to improve the slide collection at de Chelly, wrote to the Southwestern

Monuments Association for new slides on various national parks and monuments in Utah,

Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. They were to be used in the evening campfire

programs. [177] In July Berger received 97 slides free of charge from the association, and

five more were promised at a later date. [178]

Besides acquiring new slides, Berger received a request from Yellowstone National Park for

slides on Canyon de Chelly. [179] Berger supplied two slides with a synopsis of each one.

The first slide was of White House and was accompanied by information on its history. The

other slide was a fall scene at Canyon de Chelly and emphasized the fall colors and the

Navajos living in the canyon. [180]

Canyon de Chelly received recognition in an article entitled "After Six Centuries of Silence:

Life Again In Mummy Cave." The article was written by Richard Dunlop and appeared in the

August 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics. [181] Dunlop was sent by the magazine to join

Archeologists Richert and Shiner and their Navajo crew, who were undertaking stabilization

work at Mummy Cave. Besides providing excellent pictures of the work being done there,

Dunlop presented information on Canyon de Chelly's history.

La Font opened his new 10-unit motel at the Thunderbird on July 15. Each of the new units

contained two double beds. [182] Apparently the new operation was very successful, because

La Font was planning to construct a 12-unit motel for the 1963 season. [183]

Canyon de Chelly was included in the NPS Billionth Visitor Day observance on August 22.

The plan was to select simultaneously, at precisely 12:35 P.M., the billionth visitor to the 192

areas administered by the National Park Service. Berger explained

that while it was virtually impossible to determine exactly which visitor to the

National Park System was actually the billionth, statistical data maintained by

the Service permit us to draw a reasonably reliable conclusion that today the

billionth visitor will actually enter one of the parks. [184]

The fortunate visitor was Perry White and his family from Bluewater, New Mexico. White

was taken on a personally conducted tour of Canyon de Chelly, entertained at the

Thunderbird Lodge, and presented a certificate "naming him as the one selected to represent

CANYON DE CHELLY NATIONAL MONUMENT on this occasion" at a special evening

program. [185]

A question arose over the exclusion of the Adahoonligii, the Navajo-language newspaper,

from one of the planned museum exhibits entitled "The Navajos Today." Because it was no

longer published, having been superceded by the English-language Navajo Times, and

because it really did not tie in with the theme of the exhibit, it was eliminated from

consideration. [186]

Berger submitted a report in December about picnicking at Canyon de Chelly. He viewed it

as an "important activity due to the lack of eating establishments in the general area." [187]

Picnickers consisted of whites and Navajos in family parties and organized groups. Berger

stated that 75 percent of the picnickers were local and 25 percent were visitors. In addition,

Berger said that there were special areas at the headquarter's campground (six tables and

water) and near Spider Rock Overlook (six tables, fireplaces, and restrooms) for picnicking.

There was no real policy regarding picnicking activities at de Chelly, although campers and

picnickers were segregated. [188]

One of the major incidents, besides one of the most unfortunate, of 1962 was a dispute that

arose between Superintendent Berger and David De Harport, who was working for the
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

Navajo tribe at the time. It lasted for over 6 months, and a large amount of correspondence

was exchanged between the parties involved.

De Harport received from Director Edward B. Danson of the Museum of Northern Arizona a

permit to do work under their auspices at Canyon de Chelly. [189] He then wrote to Berger

notifying him of the permit. [190]

The permit was "a non-exclusive departmental permit for calendar year 1962" for

"archeological and paleontological research, excavation, and collecting on Interior

Department lands in all of Mohave, Yavapai, Coconino, Navajo, and Apache Counties,

Arizona and portions of San Juan, Kane, and Garfield Counties, Utah, along the Colorado

River and the San Juan and southern tributaries." [191] However, before work could be

started by one holding such a permit, advance approval from the superintendent of the area

was required relative to:

1. The scope and manner of conducting such survey.

2. The sharing of scientific survey data, including duplicate paleontological material if

desired. [192]

This was the crux of the dispute. Even though Berger received word that De Harport was

working under such a permit, apparently De Harport did not in the beginning submit the

required prerequisites for such work. Also, De Harport needed to have some type of titular

appointment that connected him officially with the museum. [193]

Moreover, De Harport wrote Dr. Bryant Bannister at the University of Arizona requesting

him to write Berger authorizing De Harport to do some dendrochronological work. [194] This

was done. Berger's reply, however, stated that De Harport had to get a special collecting

permit which he did not have. If he got such a permit, said Berger, he could do the work.

"Any work that Deharport [sic] does in the Canyon," declared Berger, "other than as a

regular Monument visitor, is without permission and is unauthorized." [195]

Berger apparently was under pressure to allow De Harport to do the work anyway. The

assistant regional director wrote him and said he should allow De Harport to do his work

because cooperation of the Park Service "with both the Navajo Tribe and the Museum of

Northern Arizona is obviously essential." [196] He asked Berger to justify his "reluctance" in

not letting De Harport do his field work and "if necessary" to include a "confidential

memorandum outlining any background factors causing your opposition." [197]

Berger's reply was as follows:

We have hesitated to issue a collecting permit to Dr. David Deharport due to the

fact that he will not or cannot present any documentation relating to his status

with the Museum of Northern Arizona; second, his extremely careless attitude

regarding the stipulations of the museums permit and; third; the fact that he

appears to feel that the permit gives him complete authority to excavate and

collect other than surface materials. [198]

Berger said that he had tried to cooperate with De Harport and would continue to do so.

However, De Harport had not classified the scope and purpose of his work as required by the

permit issued to him. [199]

In the meantime, De Harport apparently believed everything was all right and wrote Berger

that he would be at Canyon de Chelly to begin work. [200] Berger, however, refused to allow

him to commence activities, and De Harport later wrote Berger that he was sorry that he "left
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

the impression of being hostile to the U.S. National Park Service," apparently the result of

trouble between the two men over this incident. [201]

De Harport, towards the end of July, brought up the issue of illegal excavation activities by

pothunters at de Chelly. [202] The only mention of this dispute in the superintendent's

monthly reports appeared in July, when Berger wrote:

Considerable time has been spent with Dr. David Deharport, archeologist and

Land Claims representative of the Navajo Tribe to prevent unauthorized

collecting of artifacts from the Canyons. Dr. Deharport claims to be working for

the Museum of Northern Arizona but can produce no permit to show any

connection with the Museum. [203]

Pursuant to this charge of illegal excavations, the regional chief advised an archeologist to go

immediately to Canyon de Chelly and see if "unauthorized collecting or digging" was going

on. [204] Reports later submitted, on the whole, discredited De Harport's charges.

Archeologist Albert H. Schroeder found one site that was "hit hard" by vandalism. [205]

Other reports were less favorable to De Harport's claim. Regional Archeologist Charlie R.

Steen stated that although De Harport reported vandalism at a half dozen sites, the damage

was of a minor nature. De Harport's report of large-scale digging at Duck Rock Site was also

disproved. Steen did admit there was frequent illicit digging at de Chelly, but doubted if any

"large groups of pottery or other materials" were taken from the canyons. In concluding his

report, Steen said "I am fairly confident, however, that no consistent or large scale pot

hunting is going on within the Monument." [206] A similar report was submitted by the

regional chief of ranger services who contended that "it was apparent to me that Mr. De

Harport had 'an axe to grind' and at times was abusive in his contacts with Superintendent

Berger." [207]

In defense of De Harport's accusations of pothunting, which may or may not have been part

of a personal vendetta against Berger, there was pothunting going on, although perhaps not

on the scale that he suggested. Personal inquiries by the authors indicate this to be true. [208]

Meanwhile, De Harport was still trying to get approval to conduct his work at de Chelly.

Danson wrote him in August about his appointment as a research associate of the Museum of

Northern Arizona. He also approved of his wish to photograph, draw plans, make sherd

collections, and collect wood for Bannister. Danson hoped that De Harport would "inform

Superintendent Berger of your presence on the Monument and tell him when you plan to

work there and where you will be going." [209]

De Harport then wrote the assistant regional director. He stated the above information and

presumed that Berger had been notified. He stated:

As has always been my custom during the past fifteen years which I have done

field work in Canyon de Chelly National Monument the superintendent or other

authorized personnel of the Monument, are notified when I enter the canyons,

where I intend to work, and when I expect to be out. The area is entirely too

dangerous to work alone without taking these simple precautions. [210]

The assistant regional director responded that he was pleased to hear of his appointment and

work proposals. However, Miller stated that De Harport had to secure "the approval of the

Superintendent, in advance, as to the scope of any work proposed within a National Park

Service area, not merely notifying him as to when and where you propose to work." [211]

De Harport, however, did not heed this procedure and repeatedly wrote to Berger for
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

permission. [212] Finally, the regional chief wrote De Harport, spelling out what he had to

do and reiterating that a simple notification was not enough. De Harport was advised to write

a prospectus "as to the scope and manner of your field work," and to submit it beforehand to

Berger. The regional chief was "baffled" as to why De Harport had not done this. [213]

De Harport saw the light and sent a detailed prospectus to Berger on September 10. He

concluded that "it is offered to satisfy any administrative requirements for formal issuance of

a permit to work in the area." [214]

By October 15 De Harport still had not received the "go ahead" from Berger. De Harport

wrote Berger, stating that "I have complied with all legal requirements for the issuance of a

permit" and wondering where the approval was. [215] He also stated that he had made

several unsuccessful attempts to meet with Berger personally at Canyon de Chelly. He

declared:

and I have waited and waited. Yet, I have not received one word from you about

my permit. Surely, Mr. Berger, there can be no rational reason for this behavior

on your part. May I hear from you by return mail? [216]

The approval was finally mailed by Berger on November 28. The permit expired at the end of

December. Berger advised De Harport to report when he entered and left the canyons as a

safety measure and also in order to "advise others of your work when they report seeing

activity at any of the ruins." [217]

The hostile feelings did not subside. On December 2 De Harport declared to Berger that

Last July 21 you refused to issue this permit and in a notable abuse of your

authority ordered certain surveylance [sic] of my activities in an apparent attempt

to restrict my investigation of illegal digging in archaeological sites in the

Monument. You [so] informed Mr. Justin La Font at that time. You will now

inform him that you have issued a permit for my archaeological research in

Canon de Chelly. [218]

Moreover, De Harport again wrote a report on illegal excavating at Canyon de Chelly and

submitted it to the tribal lawyers. [219]

Thus, the De Harport-Berger controversy was apparently a clash of personalities and

misunderstandings. The actions of both men caused considerable headaches for others

indirectly involved. Who was to blame? Perhaps they both were guilty.

In sum, an overview of the Berger years at Canyon de Chelly reveals a growing alienation

between the Park Service and the Navajos. Examples are indeed numerous: the meeting in

Santa Fe of Berger, White, and Guillet to study Park Service/Navajo relations; the request

made to Commissioner Nash by the Navajos to have Canyon de Chelly returned to them; and

alleged vandalism and pothunting activities. Moreover, the Navajos were probably upset over

encroachments on their sacred lands—the ascents of Spider Rock and the possibilities of a

road passing through their cemetery. One of their greatest fears was their potential loss of the

entire area due to Park Service expansion during these years. A prime example of this was

the Anson Bahe case. The situation was extremely critical and needed rectifying. [220]

These accusations must be viewed with some suspicion because they come from people who

disliked him, but at the same time they were first hand observers. Comments by others who

may have received part of their information second-hand, but who were close enough to be

considered well-informed, allege that he did allow the bulldozing of the Navajo cemetery

near headquarters and that the interpretive programs declined drastically in quality under his
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 8)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi8a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:05 PM]

administration. None of these allegations can be documented in sources that the writers have

examined, but it is apparent that Berger did fail to maintain good relations with the Navajos.

Whether this was merely because he tried too zealously to perform his duties without regard

for consequences, or because he lacked tolerance and understanding of a people different

from himself, he was quite obviously the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi8a.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 9:

THE RETURN OF GUILLET, 1963-1966

1. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 11, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

2. Guillet, personal communication, n.d., but ca. October 1974.

3. Acting Supt. to Reg. Chief, Jan. 16, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y2621.

4. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Mar. 5, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, F7423.

5. Guillet to Dir., Mar. 7, 1963, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

6. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 8, 1963, ibid.

7. Guillet to Dir., May 8, 1963, ibid.

8. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Apr. 19, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A44.

9. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 8, 1963, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

10. Guillet to Dir., Mar. 7, 1963, ibid.

11. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 8, 1963, ibid.

12. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 25, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K1815.

13. Guillet to All Uniformed Personnel, Apr. 15, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A9031.

14. Reg. Dir. to Supt., Apr. 25, 1963, ibid.

15. Guillet to Reg. Dir., May 3, 1963, ibid.

16. Reg. Dir. to Supt., May 13, 1963, ibid.

17. Guillet to Kennedy, June 5, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A70.

18. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 6, 1963, AFRC, NPS, C de C, A2823.

19. Guillet to Dir., May 8, 1963, ibid.

20. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

21. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 25, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K1815.

22. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

23. Ibid.

24. Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, ibid.

25. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, ibid.

26. Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, ibid.

27. "Narrative Statement, Orientation and Induction," typescript, C de C, 1964.

28. Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, C de C, A2823.

29. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 6, 1963, ibid.

30. Moran to Supt., Oct. 9, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D30.

31. Steen to Miller, Aug. 28, 1963, C de C, A5415.

32. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

33. Wheat to Jenkins, May 14, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Museum Records.

34. Jenkins to Supt., May 22, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215.

35. Guillet to Chief, July 5, 1963, ibid.

36. Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, C de C, A2823.

37. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 6, 1963, ibid.; Supt. to Dir., Nov. 12, 1963, ibid.

38. Reed to Chief, Dec. 9, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215.

39. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 9, 1963, C de C, A2823.

40. Cook to Reg. Dir., May 15, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A66.

41. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

42. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Jan. 2, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, N1423.

43. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

44. Robert J. Smith to Miller, Aug. 8, 1963, C de C, A5415.

45. Cook to Reg. Dir., Aug. 20. 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D3415.

46. Steen to Miller, Aug. 28, 1963, C de C, A5415.

47. Cook to Reg. Dir., Sept. 25, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A7615.

48. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Jan. 2, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, N1423.

49. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

50. Steen to Miller, Aug. 28, 1963, C de C, A5415.

51. Supt. to Dir., Nov. 12, 1963, C de C, A2823.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

52. C de C files, Sept. 17, 1963.

53. Guillet to Nakai, May 6, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A44.

54. Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, C de C, A2823.

55. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 6, 1963, ibid.

56. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 12, 1963, ibid.

57. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 9, 1963, ibid.

58. Guillet to Tule Davis, May 4, 1963, C de C.

59. Glenn to Miller, May 8, 1963, C de C, A5415.

60. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

61. Cook to Reg. Dir., June 3, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A7631.

62. Guillet to Reg. Dir., June 14, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D5039.

63. Miller to Supt., Sept. 13, 1963, C de C, L54.

64. Cook to Reg. Dir., June 28, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3619.

65. Allen to Supt., June 28, 1963, ibid.

66. Cook to Reg. Dir., June 28, 1963, ibid.

67. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 6, 1963, C de C, A2823; Guillet to Dir., Dec. 9, 1963, ibid.

68. Prentiss Taylor to Guillet, Oct. 7, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C.

69. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823; Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, ibid.; Supt. to

Dir., Aug. 6, 1963, ibid.; Steen to Miller, Aug. 28, 1963, C de C, A5415.

70. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

71. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, ibid.; Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., Aug.

6, 1963, ibid.

72. Press release, June 3, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, K34.

73. Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, C de C, A2823; Carpenter to Webster, Aug. 13, 1963, DFRC,

NPS, C de C, D3415.

74. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Sept. 14, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D22.

75. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Oct. 1, 1963, ibid.

76. Supt. to Dir., Nov. 12, 1963, C de C, A2823.

77. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 9, 1963, ibid.

78. Guillet to Dir., June 6, 1963, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

79. Cook to Reg. Dir., Sept. 12, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D54.

80. "1964 Annual [Fiscal Year] Soil and Moisture Conservation Report, Narrative," n.d., C de

C.

81. "Mule Trail (Class C) Fire, Narrative Report," June 17-20, 1963, DFRC, NPS, C de C.

82. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 6, 1963, C de C, A2823.

83. Supt. to Dir., Nov. 12, 1963, ibid.

84. Supt. to Dir., July 11, 1963, ibid.

85. "Mobil Unit Monthly Report, August 1963", CA, No. 1347.

86. Steen to Miller, Aug. 28, 1963, C de C, A5415.

87. "Mobil Unit Monthly Report, August 1963," CA, No. 746.

88. Ibid., No. 1347; Guillet to Dir., Dec. 9, 1963, C de C, A2823.

89. Supt. to Dir., Nov. 12, 1963, C de C, A2823.

90. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 9, 1963, ibid.

91. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 11, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

92. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Jan. 13, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215.

93. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Jan. 29, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A40.

94. "Notes on Preparation of Canyon de Chelly Packaged Master Plan," Hill to Asst. Dir.,

July 8, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D18.

95. Hill to Asst. Dir., July 13, 1964, ibid.

96. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Mar. 25, 1964, ibid.

97. "Recommended Priority Construction Program, 1966," Guillet to Reg. Dir., Mar. 27,

1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D22.

98. Beard to Chief, Apr. 3, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D18.

99. Guillet to Park Planner, May 11, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L145.

100. Guillet to Reg. Dir., May 18, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C.

101. Beard to Dir., Sept. 1, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D18.

102. Guillet to Dir., Sept. 9, 1964, C de C, A2823; Guillet to Dir., Oct. 9, 1964, ibid.

103. Westley to Asst. Reg. Dir., Oct. 8, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D18.

104. Guillet to Hatathli, Oct. 9, 1964, ibid.

105. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Nov. 23, 1964, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

106. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 11, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

107. Guillet to Park Planner, May 11, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L145.

108. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Jan. 28, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D18.

109. Wallace to Supt., Aug. 5, 1964, C de C, A2823.

110. "Report on Management Improvement," Guillet to Reg. Dir., Aug. 26, 1964, DFRC,

NPS, C de C, A6423.

111. "1964 Annual [Fiscal Year] Soil and Moisture Conservation Report, Narrative," n.d., C

de C.

112. Wallace to Supt., Aug. 5, 1964, C de C, A2823.

113. Ibid.

114. Lampi to Asst. Reg. Dir., June 29, 1964, C de C, A5415.

115. Miller to Supt., July 2, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, Y22.

116. "Pesticide Project Proposal," Guillet to Reg. Dir., July 9, 1964, ibid.

117. "Report on Management Improvement," Guillet to Reg. Dir., Aug. 26, 1964, DFRC,

NPS, C de C, A6423.

118. Wallace to Supt., Aug. 5, 1964, C de C, A2823.

119. Ibid.

120. Guillet to Dir., Sept. 9, 1964, ibid.

121. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 9, 1964, ibid.

122. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 10, 1964, ibid.

123. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Nov. 23, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

124. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 10, 1964, C de C, A2823.

125. Guillet to Dir., Jan. 6, 1965, ibid.

126. Guillet to Principal, Apr. 8, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D30.

127. Guillet to Reg. Dir., May 1, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D22.

128. Guillet to C de C staff, May 8, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A5639.

129. Wallace to Supt., Aug. 5, 1964, C de C, A2823.

130. Ibid.; Guillet to Dir., Sept. 9, 1964, ibid.

131. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 10, 1964, ibid.

132. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Nov. 23, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

133. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 10, 1964, C de C, A2823.

134. Guillet to Dir., Jan. 6, 1964, ibid.

135. Guillet to Dir., Sept. 9, 1964, ibid.

136. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Sept. 25, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

137. Cook to Reg. Dir., Aug. 25, 1964, ibid.

138. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 10, 1964, C de C, A2823.

139. Wallace to Supt., Aug. 5, 1964, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., Dec. 10, 1964, ibid.

140. Guillet to Reg. Museum Curator, Apr. 16, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215; Guillet to

Reg. Dir., Oct. 1, 1964, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., Oct. 9, 1964, C de C, A2823.

141. Guillet to McKee, Apr. 29, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, N3035.

142. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 10, 1964, C de C, A2823.

143. Gorman, personal communication, n.d., but ca. September 1974.

144. Guillet to Dir., Dec. 10, 1964, C de C, A2823.

145. Reg. Dir. to Chief, Apr. 3, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D18.

146. Guillet to Park Planner, May 11, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L154.

147. Reg. Chief of Concessions Management to Asst. Reg. Dir., May 26, 1964, C de C,

A5415.

148. Reg. Architect to Asst. Reg. Dir., May 5, 1964, ibid.

149. Reg. Chief of Concessions Management to Asst. Reg. Dir., May 26, 1964, ibid.

150. Wallace to Supt., June 15, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A7631.

151. Bernard R. Meyer, Asst. Solicitor, to Dir., July 22, 1964, DSC, F-64-2136.18.

152. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Nov. 24, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, L3415.

153. Guillet to Chmn., Nov. 10, 1964, C de C, C2615.

154. Cook to Reg. Dir., July 31, 1964, C de C, C50-CC0.

155. Jacobi to Sec. of Int., Aug. 4, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3415.

156. Guillet to Hounsell, June 24, 1964, C de C, K14.

157. "Report on Manpower Utilization," Guillet to Reg. Dir., Aug. 26, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C

de C, A6423.

158. Stewart to Supt., June 8, 1964, C de C, A2823.

159. Mahan to Supt., July 17, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

160. Wallace to Supt., Aug. 5, 1964, C de C, A2823; Guillet to Dir., Sept. 9, 1964, ibid.

161. La Fayette to Supt., Sept. 10, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D6215.

162. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 9, 1964, C de C, D2823; Guillet to Dir., Nov. 10, 1964, ibid.

163. Wallace to Supt., Aug. 5, 1964, ibid.; Stewart to Supt., June 8, 1964, ibid.

164. Stewart to Supt., June 8, 1964, ibid.

165. Reg. Dir. to Dir., Sept. 1, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, D18.

166. Reg. Dir. to Supt., Nov. 18, 1964, DFRC, NPS, C de C, A3815.

167. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

168. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 10, 1965, C de C, A2823.

169. Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report-April 1965," n.d., ibid.; Wallace to Supt.,

June 10, 1965, C de C, A2827; Wallace to Supt., July 6, 1965, C de C, ibid.

170. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, C de C, A2827.

171. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, ibid.; Wallace to Supt., Dec. 6, 1965, C de C, A2616.

172. Wallace to Supt., July 6, 1965, C de C, A2827.

173. Cook to Dir., Sept. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

174. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, ibid.

175. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 7, 1965, ibid.

176. Wallace to Supt., July 6, 1965, C de C, A2827.

177. Wallace to Supt., June 8, 1965, C de C, L34.

178. Guillet to Reg. Dir., June 9, 1965, C de C, L2415.

179. Miller to Gatlin, June 18, 1965, ibid.

180. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

181. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Jan. 6, 1966, C de C, N2621.

182. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, C de C, A2615.

183. Guillet to Reg. Dir., Aug. 20, 1965, C de C, W34.

184. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 10, 1965, C de C, A2823.

185. Guillet to Dir., Mar. 8, 1965, ibid.

186. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 7, 1965, ibid.

187. Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report-April 1965," n.d., ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

188. Wallace to Supt., June 10, 1965, C de C, A2827.

189. Wallace to Supt., July 6, 1965, ibid.; Cook to Dir., Sept. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

190. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, C de C, A2615.

191. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 10, 1965, C de C, A2823; Wallace to Supt., June 10, 1965, C de C,

A2827.

192. Guillet to Dir., Mar. 8, 1965, C de C, A2823.

193. Wallace to Supt., June 10, 1965, C de C, A2827.

194. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

195. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, ibid.

196. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, ibid.

197. Wallace to Supt., Dec. 6, 1965, C de C, A2616.

198. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 10, 1965, C de C, A2823; Cook to Dir., Sept. 9, 1965, C de C,

A2615.

199. Guillet to Dir., May 11, 1965, C de C, A2615.

200. Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report-April 1965," n.d., C de C, A2823.

201. Wallace to Supt., July 6, 1965, C de C, A2827.

202. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

203. Wallace to Supt., Dec. 6, 1965, C de C, A2616; Guillet to Dir., Jan. 12, 1966, ibid.

204. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, ibid.

205. Wallace to Supt., Dec. 6, 1965, ibid.

206. Supt., Chinle Subagency, to Supt., Canyon de Chelly, Apr. 7, 1965, C de C, L3027.

207. "Relinquishment of Use Rights on Tribal Indian Lands Within Canyon de Chelly

National Monument," n.d., C de C, W14.

208. Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report-April 1965," n.d., C de C, A2823.

209. Guillet to Dir., Jan. 12, 1966, C de C, A2615; Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, ibid.

210. Guillet to "The Staff," June 22, 1965, DFRC, C de C, A6415; Guillet to Dir., Aug. 9,

1965, C de C, A2615.

211. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 10, 1965, C de C, A2823; Guillet to Dir., Mar. 8, 1965, ibid.

212. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 7, 1965, ibid; Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report-April

1965," n.d., ibid.

213. Wallace to Supt., July 6, 1965; C de C, A2827.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

214. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

215. Cook to Dir., Sept. 9, 1965, ibid.

216. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, ibid.

217. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 10, 1965, C de C, A2823; Wallace to Supt., June 10, 1965, C de C,

A2827; Cook to Dir., Sept. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

218. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, C de C, A2615.

219. Cook to Dir., Sept. 9, 1965, ibid.

220. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 5, 1965, ibid.

221. "SWAC Monthly Report, September 1965," CA, No. 1338; "SWAC Monthly Report,

October 1965," CA, No. 1337; Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

222. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 10, 1965, C de C, A2823; Guillet to Dir., Apr. 7, 1965 ibid.; Guillet

to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report- April 1965," n.d., ibid.

223. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615; Cook to Dir., Sept. 9, 1965, ibid.; Guillet

to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., Jan. 12, 1966, ibid.

224. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, ibid.

225. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, ibid.

226. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 7, 1965, C de C, A2823.

227. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, C de C, A2615.

228. Guillet to Dir., Nov. 9, 1965, ibid.

229. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 7, 1965, C de C, A2823.

230. Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report-April 1965," n.d., ibid.

231. Ibid.

232. Eddy to Gillette [sic] Apr. 22, 1965, C de C, W14; Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative

Report-April 1965," n.d., C de C, A2823.

233. Guillet to Dir., "Monthly Narrative Report-April 1965," n.d., C de C, A2823; Guillet to

Dir., Aug. 9, 1965, C de C, A2615.

234. Guillet to Dir., Oct. 12, 1965, C de C, A2615.

235. Guillet to Dir., Jan. 12, 1966, ibid.

236. Wallace to Supt., Dec. 6, 1965, C de C, A2616.

237. Guillet to Dir., Aug. 9, 1966, C de C, A2615.

238. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 8, 1966, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., May 11, 1966, ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:15 PM]

239. Guillet to Dir., May 11, 1966, ibid.

240. Guillet to Dir., June 10, 1966, ibid.

241. Ibid.

242. Guillet to Dir., July 11, 1966, ibid; Weaver to Dir., Aug. 9, 1966, ibid.

243. Guillet to Dir., Feb. 8, 1966, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., May 11, 1966, ibid.

244. Wallace to Dir., Jan. 11, 1966, ibid.

245. Guillet to Dir., May 11, 1966, ibid.

246. Guillet to Dir., June 10, 1966, ibid.

247. Wallace to Dir., July 11, 1966, ibid.

248. Weaver to Dir., Aug. 9, 1966, ibid.

249. Cook to Dir., Sept. 12, 1966, ibid.

250. Guillet to Dir., May 11, 1966, ibid.

251. Guillet to Dir., Apr. 4, 1966, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., June 10, 1966, ibid.; Wallace to Dir.,

July 11, 1966, ibid.

252. Ibid.

253. Weaver to Dir., Aug. 9, 1966, ibid.

254. Cook to Dir., Sept. 12, 1966, ibid.

255. Guillet to Dir., Mar. 7, 1966, ibid.

256. Guillet to Dir., May 11, 1966, ibid.

257. Wallace to Dir., July 11, 1966, ibid.

258. Wallace to Supt., Apr. 4, 1966, ibid.

259. Guillet to Dir., May 1966, ibid.; Guillet to Dir., June 10, 1966, ibid.

260. Wallace to Dir., July 11, 1966, ibid.; Cook to Dir., Sept. 12, 1966, ibid.

261. Guillet to Dir., June 10, 1966, ibid.; Wallace to Dir., July 11, 1966, ibid.

262. Cook to Dir., Sept. 12, 1966, ibid.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi9n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 9:

THE RETURN OF GUILLET, 1963-1966 (continued)

Guillet participated in the regional director's staff review of the proposed master plan;

revisions suggested were relatively minor, although some are significant in terms of the light

they shed on local and tribal Navajo relations and may reasonably be assigned to Guillet's

influence. A proposal that two campgrounds be established within the canyons for horseback

visitors was deleted, allowing the superintendent administrative leeway to designate locations

for such use as might be dictated by events within the area. A proposed exclusion of the

concession from the monument area by boundary change was toned down. It was pointed out

that the plan would have to be "thoroughly discussed with the Navajos" after approval in

Washington and that this might impose further changes. [98]

Guillet remained wary of trying to accomplish too much too fast with the tribal

administration at that time, hoping to build up good relations locally that would later have an

effect on tribal policy. As he explained his view of the matter:

The failure of the National Park Service to adhere to assurances and

commitments made to the Navajo Tribe before their consent was given for the

establishment of this National Monument, has given self-seeking Navajo

Politicians ample material and some justification for their attempt to return

Canyon de Chelly to the Tribe. We are at present making what I believe is good

headway in winning back the confidence of the local Navajos and re-establishing

more friendly relations. Present overall economic development plans of the Tribe

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are working to our advantage in pointing out

the value of a National rather than Tribal Park area to the local economy. The

Federal Government footing the bill rather than the Tribe also has certain

attraction. [99]

Tribal desires to construct a large motel within or adjacent to the monument made it

necessary to work as closely as possible with tribal officials, however. [100] Approval of the

master plan was received in due time and it then had to be presented to the tribe. [101]

Continued cooperation with the Tribal Parks Commission on planning developments at Lake

Powell provided one avenue of approach, particularly in view of the involvement of ViceChairman Nelson Damon, but continued political factionalism at Window Rock and the

organization of responsibilities within the tribal offices led to a somewhat different approach.

[102] A review of the master plan with tribal representatives was finally held on October 6 at

Window Rock. Guillet was joined at the meeting by Park Planner David Jones, Assistant

Superintendent John Cook, and Regional Chief of Master Plan Coordination Volney J.

Westley. Attending on behalf of the tribe were Ned Hatathli, director of the Resources

Division, and certain members of his staff—Edward O. Plummer of the Land Investigations

Department, Willard Fraser of Agriculture and Livestock, Woody Isaac of Tribal Parks, and

Freeman E. Taber, who was then on detached assignment to the tribe from the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

After briefing the tribal officials on the plan, giving emphasis to the problems involved in

protection and interpretation of the ruins, settlement of land use conflicts, and improvement

of Navajo-tourist relations, a discussion followed, which Westley reported upon in some

detail:

Questions asked by Messrs. Hatathli and Plummer are listed below with our

replies shown in parentheses.

1) What are the specific objectives and guidelines in this plan that represent

change in policy compared to previous plans? (Employment of Navajos and

training them for higher level positions on the staff; closer cooperation between

[sic] NPS to solve problems and achieve mutually desirable objectives in the

monument; recognition that Canyon de Chelly is a historic site to Anglos, but a

historic shrine to Navajos).

2) Do these policy changes apply only to Canyon de Chelly or will they apply to

other NPS areas in the vicinity of the Navajo Reservation? (General policy will

apply to other NPS areas).

3) Does the NPS intend to restrict the activities and mode of life of Navajos

resident in the canyons? (NPS has no authority over Navajos resident in [the]

canyons and their way of life, except with respect to protection of sites and

furnishing of services to visitors. Tribe and NPS must face the problem and act

together).

4) Is the NPS or the tribe in charge of the concession operation at Thunderbird

Lodge? (NPS had administrative control over the concession operation.

However, the tribe receives the franchise fees from its operation).

5) Will the NPS object to a tribal concession operation in the monument, such as

at a rim overlook? (The NPS will not object to tribal concession operation on the

rim but the Service must approve the location, size and type, and exercise

administrative control over the concessioner).

The specific problem of controlling unauthorized access into the canyons from

the Chuska Parkway was recognized and discussed, especially from Tsaile and

Wheatfields Reservoirs. Mr. Hatathli believes that some arrangement can be

made so that Tribal rangers can accomplish this for us. Mr. Taber . . . suggested

it might be better for the NPS to construct and man these district stations and

train Navajos to do the job. No specific conclusions were reached, and this is

typical of the problems that will require joint study and action. Mr. Hatathli

stated that a new head of the tribal parks department will be employed shortly

and that this will be part of his job.

This is the best meeting with the Navajos I have attended. It was a businesslike

one, perceptive questions were asked, and no conflict in attitudes was evident.

Mr. Hatathli complimented the Service on the scope and quality of the plan and

the imagination it reflects. . . . It was evident at this meeting that Superintendent

Guillet is doing an excellent job, but that he needs to be kept better informed by

other area superintendents of Navajo matters. The recent shooting of a horse at

Chaco Canyon was criticized, a matter that Mr. Guillet learned of indirectly.

[103]

Westley had little knowledge of tribal politics and probably failed to realize what Guillet

doubtless understood all too well. At the meeting they were dealing with young, well-
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

educated, and accomplishment-oriented Navajo administrators, who were holdovers from the

previous administration. While their influence with the new chairman was limited, they could

give the kind of tribal recognition and approval to the master plan that Washington required

and that would improve tribal relations in many respects. On the other hand, future

developments were largely beyond their control. Guillet, did, however, send copies of the

master plan to Hatathli asking that he give it his endorsement. [104] Action on this was

delayed at Window Rock and it is not certain whether Hatathli ever gave formal approval.

[105] Guillet had occasion to restate his assessment of tribal affairs not long after and

expressed his views of the best policy to pursue as follows:

The . . . "upset" election of Raymond Nakai as Chairman of The Tribal Council

in March resulted in turmoil and dissension among Tribal leaders and the legal

battle between Secretary Udall and Tribal Attorney Norman Littell has created a

more difficult and challenging aspect to this assignment. It has been my policy

and recommendation to proceed quietly with the winning of the confidence and

respect of the Navajo People without great fanfare, striving to attain their support

in matters of benefit to both the Service and the Tribe. It is my firm belief that

we should keep any National Park Service proposals or matters that might prove

controversial until such time as the Tribal political climate is more propitious for

successful negotiations. [106]

In a broad-ranging memorandum on Indian policy written earlier in the year, Guillet had set

forth his more general policies, which help place his recommendations in better perspective:

Each tribe or cultural group has its own distinct way of life including a code of

behavior or ethics, if you will. An appreciation of these and an attitude of

friendliness and respect as well as personal efforts to try and [sic] understand

their way of thinking and use of logic will go a long way. Only personnel who

have tolerance and a genuine liking and understanding of primitive peoples

should be chosen to deal with them, or administer the areas in which they have

retained rights.

He listed some specific policies that required special attention in Navajo relations and that he

thought should apply when dealing with any tribal group:

1. That there be full documentation of, and strict adherance to all assurances,

commitments, or agreements given to, or entered into with the Navajo Tribe.

2. That interpretive programs, facilities and other developments be made with the interest

of local inhabitants as well as visitors in mind. That whenever possible, force account

projects be utilized to provide work and training for the Navajo People. . . .

3. That care we [sic] exercised in choosing supervisory and management personnel to

administer the area. Only those with proven experience in dealing successfully with

primitive or unacculturated people or possessing those characteristics which indicate

tolerance and understanding should be chosen.

4. That liaison be maintained by the Regional as well as area officers with leaders of the

Tribe so that difficult situations arising can be settled before they assume dangerous

proportions.

One remark on conditions then current is also pertinent here:

It is my opinion that we are beginning to sell the National Park Service ideas and

principles to the Navajo people and are gaining ground rapidly through
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

assistance to, and cooperation with the Tribe and other agencies concerned with

Navajo Affairs. The Navajo are an unpredictable people but if we regain and

retain their liking and respect of our integrity, I do not believe that they would

propose other than one change. . . . [107]

It is in relation to these ideals and policies that Guillet's,specific actions and decisions can

best be comprehended and evaluated. In most matters his primary focus was upon local

effects or upon gaining rapport at a "grass-roots" level throughout the tribe and avoiding

involvement in the political conflicts at Window Rock, while carrying out official liaison

with tribal officials. While relations on the tribal level may have been uncertain as a result of

internal political factors, he was able to accomplish a good deal in programs limited to

dealings within tribal administrative subdivisions. A more or less chronological narrative of

events during 1964 will illustrate the day-to-day applications of his philosophy.

When a new radio system was to be installed for the area he was able to persuade the Navajo

Tribal Utility Authority to submit a proposal for building a power extension to a repeater

station and providing the power. [108] The Park Service did award the contract to the NTUA,

which performed the work using an approach road bladed out by Maintenance Foreman

David Gorman. [109] By August the new FM system was in use and was considered a

success. [110]

While cooperation with the Bureau, a sister agency under the Department of Interior, was at

least in theory more routine though not necessarily conducive to better relations with the

Navajos, some joint programs seem to have had full local support and suffered criticism only

when too little was done. A joint undertaking of this sort was the soil and moisture program.

Erosion and flooding within the canyons were serious problems for the Navajo farmers and

their interest in works to alleviate these threats ran high. Plantings used to stabilize stream

banks during April and May consisted of 16,300 Russian olive, golden leaf willow, and

cottonwood seedlings. An 80 percent survival rate was reported for these. [111] In July

applications were processed for the building of more spider jetties in Canyon del Muerto, but

these may not have been built until much later due to the heavy runoff during succeeding

months that hampered travel within the canyons. [112]

Insect infestations, which attacked both the protective plantings and Navajo crops, were also

handled under this program. The Bureau began spraying early in the spring or summer

because of a particularly bad onslaught that year. [113] On June 23-25 Regional Forester

Melie H. Lampi inspected the area. He found extreme defoliation of cottonwoods and

willows, especially in the vicinity of Antelope House where about 60 percent of the trees had

been killed. He reported that the tribe had sprayed in this last area with a mixture of five

insecticides, so that "there was not a living critter in that section of the grove!" The villain in

the story was identified as the cottonwood leaf beetle, Lina scripta Fabr. Lampi found natural

predators of the organism present in the canyons and felt that the serious damage was over

for the season. However, he recommended that Guillet be prepared to control any future

outbreaks by using spraying procedures approved by the Federal Pest Control Review Board.

[114] The acting regional director relayed Lampi's recommendations to Guillet and advised a

judicious attempt to encourage tribal observance of the rules governing the use of pesticides.

[115] Guillet submitted the necessary request for clearance to spray when needed. His

proposal contained much specific information on the nature of the problem and the necessary

involvement of the Navajos on various levels:

For hundreds of years many Navajo people have made Canyon de Chelly their

home. They have cared for and enlarged orchards which date to near Southwest

pre-history. They also plant and harvest annual crops of corn, squash, etc. The

same insects which are destroying the Cottonwood and Willow Trees can and are
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

destroying the orchards and farm crops.

If we stand idly by while the insects destroy the trees our not too shiny image

tarnishes that much more. However, worst of all, should the Navajo people

succeed in talking their appropriate Government branch into taking action we

have placed ourselves in a position of double jeopardy. They have every right to

spray within the Canyons and are not subjected to pesticide controls, thus paving

the way for dual criticism of the National Park Service.

He obviously felt that in order to maintain the proper controls over pesticide use, it was

preferable that the Park Service initiate action and work within the regulations rather than

allow the Bureau or the Navajos to do the work and use methods that perhaps would be

ecologically detrimental. He was careful not to suggest that the Service take over unilaterally,

however, and listed the procedures needed to accomplish his aims in a cooperative manner

that did not exclude other interested parties. He first described the probable role of the Bureau

in any spraying that the Park Service might do:

The branch of Land Operations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which assists in

the administration and management of Tribal Lands is automatically involved

here. They will assist in logistical support and probably provide the special

vehicles needed to transport the mist blower up the Canyons.

With regard to both the tribe and the chapter he stated:

The local chapter and appropriate branch of the Navajo Tribal Government will

be advised and invited to participate. It is doubtful if they will go beyond the

observing point and this is what we prefer for this project.

In contrast, he expected and hoped for a close working relationship with the Navajo farmers:

The individual Navajos who's [sic] land will be affected will be automatically

and obviously involved. To encourage full cooperation these individuals will be

fully informed, briefed on and to the extent possible hired to perform this

project.

He ended with a warning that failure to take action in an emergency of this sort would be

detrimental to local public relations. [116] The threat of the leaf beetle seems to have

diminished on its own, but the administrative groundwork had been laid and procedures

planned in the event it should return in the near future.

The cooperation of the Bureau and Park Service in the soil and moisture program was not

only conducive to better public relations, but resulted in savings in money and manpower.

Similarly, cooperation with the tribal police and park rangers resulted in more law

enforcement at the monument and allowed the hiring of one less seasonal ranger. [117]

Because the Navajos who resided in the canyons were subject to tribal law, much of the law

enforcement was, of course, a matter of internal tribal concern and of little relevance to the

Park Service. The administration of this aspect of law enforcement would have brought the

Park Service into areas that were not really of any concern to it and that it was ill-prepared to

handle. Monument personnel did have primary responsibility for controlling visitors,

however, and undertook to meet this responsibility. Whenever weather conditions permitted,

daily patrols were made of the canyons, and unauthorized visitors lacking permits or guides

were escorted from the canyons regularly. [118]

The most effective cooperation with tribal police was displayed when more serious problems

arose. On the 4th of July, a busload of tourists stranded at Three Turkey House, outside the
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

monument, were rescued by Chief Ranger Wallace. When a visitor's car rolled over the edge

of the cliff at the White House Overlook, Wallace and tribal police attended to the matter

together. One of the major disasters of Chinle history occurred in July. A flood in the Nazlini

Wash destroyed the bridge connecting Chinle with the Ganado highway, leaving the dirt

roads over the Defiance Plateau as the only access to or from the monument. One car with

seven Navajo occupants was lost. National Park rangers assisted in the emergency along with

tribal police and Bureau personnel, taking part in search and rescue and traffic control,

helping find the bodies of those killed, preventing further loss, and guiding the stranded

tourists to Sawmill over the back roads. Park Service maintenance workers and heavy

equipment assisted in the building of a temporary crossing of the wash as soon as the flood

waters subsided. [119] Subsequent floods in the same wash took out the temporary crossing

twice in August, resulting in two more caravans of stranded tourists being escorted to

Sawmill. [120]

Vandalism by local teenagers in the headquarters area was investigated in September. [121]

Wallace and the Navajo police worked together on the case and it was learned that, at least in

one instance, the culprit was the son of a Government building inspector at Many Farms,

where a school was under construction. The father promised to discipline his boy and no

charges were filed. [122]

In a general report on Navajo affairs submitted in November Guillet was able to note

additional areas of cooperation with the Navajo parks, including assistance in protecting land

adjacent to Park Service holdings, offering training for tribal rangers at the Horace Albright

Training Center, and participation by Park Service personnel in tribal ranger training sessions.

[123] On the last day of the month a small fire outside the monument near Spider Rock was

extinguished by Park Service workers before it could spread. [124] In December a second

vehicle rolled over a cliff, this time at the sand dunes outside the monument boundary, and

the Park Service participated in the accident investigation. [125]

The effect of Park Service programs on local affairs remained major concern. In April the

principal of the Del Muerto School wrote requesting Service assistance in keeping the road

open across the Canyon de Chelly Wash. Guillet noted that

no one is more appreciative of the problem than we are as we have pulled 117

cars out during the last month at all times of day and night. However, the real

spring runoff has not yet begun. . . . Any lasting work will have to be

accomplished when the wash is not running. . . .

As soon as the new Tsaile Lake and Wheatfields Lake reach their required

storage capacity, in the next week or two, all of the normal runoff will be

released and the wash will be running bank to bank covering or taking out any

stopgap measures we might make now.

The National Park Service has tentatively scheduled the construction of a bridge

for 1966, but of course this depends upon whether Congress gives us the money.

When this bridge is constructed, the need for the Del Muerto School will no

longer exist as school busses could then bring the children to Chinle.

As to the present situation, we are willing to assist other agencies with our

equipment, but just do not have any roads and trails funds for the buying of

materials or hiring of men. [126]

While fighting to retain approval of the bridge project, Guillet found that the only way to

save the Park Service's reputation in local eyes was to rescue all vehicles stuck at the

crossing. When pleading his cause for early construction of the bridge, he sent pictures of a
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

stuck tribal vehicle. [127] The extraordinary number of stranded vehicles imposed a real

burden on the staff, and Guillet found it necessary to issue guidelines in hopes of avoiding

any tort claims: (1) no assistance was to be given to intoxicated drivers; (2) Government

equipment was not to be used outside of the monument boundaries except with special

approval of the superintendent; (3) in cases where the Park Service had no "moral

obligation," assistance would be obtained from a Chinle garage; (4) a form releasing the

Government from any claim due to damage or injury should be signed by the owner of any

vehicle towed by a Government vehicle; (5) regular procedures might be by-passed in cases

where failure to render assistance might endanger "life or limb"; (6) no payment or tip could

be accepted for assistance given with Government equipment; (7) tribal police and rangers

should be given all assistance needed when their duties required them to enter the canyons;

and (8) aid to Navajo residents in cases of sickness and distress imposed moral obligations

under which certain regulations could be ignored. [128] Assistance to Navajos in such

emergencies was considered routine, [129] and the rescue of vehicles stuck in quicksand and

dry sand was a regular duty. [130] In October it was possible to rebuild the crossing near the

visitor center by using culverts and constructing protective jetties. [131]

Personal relations with local Navajos resulted in assistance that, at times, was far from

emergency in nature but that was necessary for good rapport with monument residents, many

of whom were people with a strong traditional orientation and little understanding of the

difference between "official" and private acts. Guillet's description late in the year illustrates

the wide range of situations encountered:

The staff at this area and I am sure that at Navajo National Monument and

Chaco Canyon there are almost daily contacts with members of the Navajo Tribe.

Contacts much like the following:

Here we assist them in a great many ways. From the neighborly act of feeding

Grandma Benally's goat and chickens when she is away, helping sick people get

care at the PHS Clinic, to rescuing goats and sheep that have become 'rim

rocked' in the canyon. Instances of this type are too numerous to mention but

they are aimed at establishing good 'grass roots' relationships with the individual

Navajos who make up the community and establish a better understanding of the

policies and aims of the National Park Service. [132]

While most such services were not detailed in the monthly reports, an occasional more

dramatic episode might be briefly mentioned, as when the chief ranger "beat the stork by only

minutes" in November. [133] More emphasis was given to these incidents late in the year,

and in December the successful treatment of a presumably dead Navajo girl with artificial

respiration, an unsuccessful attempt to bring a sick woman over a steep ice-covered trail, and

the rescue of eight goats from a ledge were noted. [134]

An annual event that was carried out at the tribal level, but that was aimed at personal contact

with individual Navajos as much as at the promotion of relations with tribal officialdom, was

the Park Service exhibit at the tribal fair each fall in Window Rock. A new slide presentation

was prepared for this in 1964 with a taped talk in both Navajo and English. [135] The Navajo

text was translated by Clarence Gorman with assistance from some of his family and required

a great deal of work, but was exceptionally effective. The slide show was given in the library

of the tribal museum, there being 40 presentations a day and very good attendance. Many in

the audiences sat through more than one showing and members of the tribal council were

especially interested. Postcards and souvenirs were passed out, with each one given to a

Navajo having an olivella shell, used in certain Navajo ceremonies, stapled to it. Particular

emphasis was given to stating the value of National Park Service programs to the reservation

economy, especially in regard to the jobs they provided for Navajos. [136]
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

The employment of Navajos had been one of Guillet's major concerns and the impression

that this aspect of his program made at the tribal fair was undoubtedly very encouraging. That

summer he had 18 Navajos on the payroll at de Chelly. While there was still only one

permanent position filled by a Navajo, it was as head maintenance man. In August the range

of titles was indicative of the varied roles Navajos were now able to fill, including Park

Ranger (General), Park Ranger (Archeologist), Clerk-Typist, and Operator General and

Laborer. [137] Later the position of Truck Driver was added to the list. [138]

Contribution to the local economy was not restricted to employment. Guillet found that he

could contract some work to Navajos also. Damage to ruins by livestock had long been a

problem, resulting in fencing work by the Ruins Stabilization Unit and regular maintenance

crews, but the fencing of Big Cave Ruin was done under contract by Johnson Hunter and

Thomas Bia in November. [139]

Earlier in the year Robert Draper, a young Navajo artist, was commissioned to do a series of

drawings for use in metal photo exhibits. These were obtained through a purchase order,

[140] and thus technically were not obtained by letting a contract, but the procedure may

well have led to the later innovation.

Another project that would involve Navajos was planned for the spring. This was to be a

study of Navajo history and culture. The historical research was to be done by Robert Utley

and Albert H. Schroeder of the regional office, but Sallie Van Valkenburgh was to begin in

August on a study of the legends, place-names, and traditional history of the canyons. [141]

For unexplained reasons she did not arrive until October 5, when, evidently accepted by the

Navajos, she immediately began work. [142] She taped her interviews, working in the main

canyon with Clarence Gorman as her assistant. [143] It was, perhaps, the ideal time of the

year, because many of the mythological episodes that she wanted may not properly be told in

the summer. Guillet's hope of organizing an interpretive program that gave adequate

recognition to the Navajos seemed well under way. Van Valkenburgh completed the first

phase of her project in November, having collected several tapes, translations, and

photographs. She was to return in the spring to continue the work. [144]

The four-way relationship between the Service, the concessioner, the tribe, and the Bureau

continued to produce complex problems. These became so bothersome that in the new master

plan it was even proposed that the monument boundary be adjusted to exclude the

Thunderbird Ranch from the area. [145] Guillet believed that his efforts had had such success

that this was the only change the tribe would propose for Canyon de Chelly at this time. He

felt that all concession fees should properly go to the tribe, and perhaps thought that this

action would settle any question in the matter and perhaps end the controversy over whether

the tribe had the right to construct its own motel at the canyon mouth. [146] La Font feared

this competition, and a field solicitor's opinion was requested. [147]

The water supply for the Thunderbird was still in question. La Font had not given up his

desire to have his own well, and Guillet had had second thoughts in this regard, fearing that

the heavy demand at Thunderbird during the peak travel season would leave the monument

without adequate pressure for fire fighting. [148] A visit by Marlow Glenn, regional chief of

concessions management, resulted in a discussion that seemed to convince La Font that he

would not be able to effect any savings by having his own well.

Glenn's inspection covered many problems such as the use of approved prices, fire safety,

and the like, but his report was primarily concerned with the quality of the Thunderbird's

bookkeeping. An audit had noted many "deviations from normal bookkeeping practices." The

heart of the matter appeared to be the low price paid the accounting firm in Gallup that kept

La Font's books. Glenn was able to convince both the head of the firm and La Font that
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

increased service for increased pay was expected. [149]

A detailed inspection of the concession buildings for fire hazards was made by Chief Ranger

Wallace in June. He found many deficiences in wiring, fire extinguishers, and employee

training. Indicative of the status of Park Service-concessioner relations at that time was his

concluding complaint that he was unable to make as detailed an inspection as he wanted

because of the concessioner's lack of cooperation. [150]

In July a solicitor's opinion was rendered on two questions that had been raised regarding the

concession and the tribe. These merit quotation in some detail.

The first question was whether the Service had any authority over the proposed tribal motel if

built within monument boundaries. The answer was as follows:

As to the first issue presented it is our view that unless and until the National

Park Service specifically authorizes the establishment of motel service within the

monument boundaries no one is authorized to establish and operate such a

service. . . .

The act of February 14, 1931, 46 Stat. 1161, as amended, 16 USC S455,

established the monument and governs the rights of the Service and the Tribe.

Section 2 declares that nothing contained in the act is to be construed to impair

the Tribe's right, title and interest ". . . to all lands and minerals, including oil and

gas and the surface use of such lands for agriculture, grazing and other purposes

except as hereinafter defined. . . ." Section 3 then provides: . . . That the National

Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, is hereby

charged with the administration of the area of said National Monument . . . and

also the right to provide facilities of any nature whatsoever required for the care

and accommodation of visitors to the monument.

Consequently, until the Service exercizes [sic] its right, specifically with respect

to motel operations within the monument, no motel could be established or

operated by anyone including the Tribe. The terms of the concession contract

seem to be in accord with this view.

The contract itself is silent as to the operation of motel service within the

monument boundaries. Subsection 2(a) of the contract makes provision for the

concessioner to furnish ". . . guest ranch accomodations [sic]." Subsection 2(c)

declares that:

the tribe shall not establish, without prior approval of the Secretary,

any guest ranch accomodations within five miles of the boundary of

said monument, provided, however, that a motel and restaurant for

services to transients shall not be considered as guest ranch

accomodations.

The effect of these provisions is seemingly to protect the concessioner's guest

ranch from competition by another guest ranch, established by the Tribe

anywhere within five miles of the monument boundary. A motel could be

constructed by the Tribe closer than five miles from the monument boundary; it

could be constructed and operated next to the boundary. However, neither a

motel nor a guest ranch could be constructed or operated by the Tribe within the

monument if it is not authorized by the Service, in view of the delegation of

authority to the Service under Section 3 of the 1931 act to make provision for

visitor accomodations.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

The second question, in view of a later reversal of policy (see Chapter 10) and its effects on

tribal relations, is also significant. This concerned whether the Service had the right to

reconsider the franchise fee at the end of the fifteenth year of the concession contract. The

solicitor stated that:

it is our view that this question is governed by the contract provisions to which

all of the parties have agreed. Section 9 of the contract deals entirely with the

concession fee. Subsection 9(a) requires that the concessioner pay the fee to the

Indian Tribe; a basis for determining the amount of the fee and a time of

payment are also stated. Subsection 9(c) asserts that "within 60 days after the end

of the 5th, 10th, and 15th years of the contract, either party hereto may request a

reconsideration of the amount and character of the fee provision provided for in

subsection (a) of this section." (underscoring added). The term "either party" as

used in subsection 9(c) seems to mean one or the other of the two parties directly

concerned with the franchise fee. If all three parties had been intended to be

included the words "any party" would probably have been used. In addition,

section 9 with its subsections should be read together and subsection 9(c) refers

to subsection 9(a) which concerns only the concessioner and the Indian Tribe.

Therefore, in our view only the Tribe or the concessioner could request a

reconsideration of the amount and character of the concession fee at the end of

the fifteenth year of December 31, 1968. [151]

The fee policy had broad implications, applying to other areas besides the concessions. In

November Guillet, in recommending that no fees be collected for use of the campgrounds and

picnic areas, stated:

Two immediate problems . . . arise:

One is the question of "Who would get the fee?" Since title to the land rests with

the Navajo Tribe it is assumed that they would feel that any user fees collected

would be rightfully theirs. Inasmuch as the concession franchise fee goes to the

Tribe we assume other NPS collected fees would follow this pattern.

The other problem and the one to cause the are[a] the most headache is "Who to

charge?" A large number of our campers and/or picnickers are Navajo Indians,

both local and visitors from some distance. If we charge or attempt to charge

them, we will create a public relation problem of severe proportions. If we do not

charge them but do other visitors, we are accused of discrimination and unequal

treatment. [152]

The status of concessioner payments to the tribe is a bit confused, however. The major

payment was 1-1/2 percent of the gross receipts for both the guest ranch and the trading post.

In 1964 this amounted to $5,455.79. The franchise fee as such was only $300 and was kept

on deposit as a guarantee of operation, although deposited in the name of the tribe. [153] The

fact that a major portion of the business generated by the Park Service presence at Canyon de

Chelly profited a non-Navajo businessman was to be an obstacle to good relations on both

the tribal and local levels for many years to come. It must also have severely complicated the

administration of concessioner management, contributing to the touchy relations often hinted

at in accounts such as the safety inspection report noted earlier and the rate negotiations

discussion mentioned below.

In July the rate schedule for the Thunderbird Ranch was submitted. Aside from relatively

minor changes in prices and the use of a new system of "a la carte" listing, there was little

difference, except that no rate control was included for the trading post, this part of the
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 9)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi9a.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:26 PM]

operation henceforth being entirely regulated by the Bureau and the tribe. The curio store,

however, did remain under Park Service regulation. Again, there was mention of the lack of

full cooperation on the part of the concessioner when devising the new schedule. [154]

Despite Guillet's efforts to train the guides who operated in the canyons, there was a

complaint that summer that La Font's drivers on the jeep tours, having "extremely limited

educations," were poorly informed on the history of the area; college students, it was

suggested, would make better guides. [155]. The drivers were not identified and it is

uncertain what follow-up resulted at Canyon de Chelly.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi9a.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:37 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 10:

SONIC BOOMS AND PEOPLE PROBLEMS, 1966-1974

1. "Highlights of the Calendar Year," C de C.

2. Wallace to Actg. Supt., Oct. 4, 1966, C de C, A2615.

3. Cook to Dir., Dec. 12, 1966, ibid.

4. Cook to Dir., Jan. 7, 1967, C de C, A2615.

5. Cook to Reg. Dir., Oct. 12, 1966, C de C, W4618.

6. Ibid.

7. Corbett to Reg. Dir., Nov. 15,. 1966, C de C, L24.

8. Schroeder to Supt., Nov. 29, 1966, ibid.

9. Cook to Reg. Dir., Dec. 22, 1966, C de C, W4618.

10. Cook to Dir., Feb. 9, 1967, C de C.

11. Cook to Rev. Wallace R. Cromwell, Jan. 19, 1967, C de C, W4618.

12. Udall to Brown, Jan. 25, 1967, ibid.

13. Wallace to Dir., Mar. 8, 1967, C de C, A2615.

14. Cook to Reg. Dir., Sept. 8, 1967, C de C, L24.

16. Cook to Reg. Dir., Nov. 16, 1967, ibid.

17. Freeman to All Field Directors, Mar. 28, 1972, C de C, L24.

18. Harris to Asst. Dir., Operations, SWRO, Jan. 8, 1973, ibid.

19. Utley to Reg. Dirs., Jan. 4, 1974, ibid.

20. Cook to Dir., June 6, 1967, C de C, A2615.

21. Cook to Dir., May 11, 1967, ibid.

22. Cook to Dir., June 6, 1967, ibid.

23. Ibid.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:37 PM]

24. Dir. to Reg. Dir., Aug. 10, 1967, encl., C de C.

25. Asst. to the Dir. to Reg. Dir., Aug. 10, 1967, ibid.

26. Federal Register 32, no. 179, p. 13129, Sept. 15, 1967.

27. Wallace to Dir., Apr. 11, 1967, C de C, A2615.

28. Brugge to Gen. Supt., July 15, 1974, NALA, H30.

29. Special Use Permit No. 3:334-1, approved Mar. 30, 1967, C de C; also Nos. 3:334-2 et

seq., 1968-74, ibid.

30. Cook to Reg. Dir., May 16, 1967, C de C, L30.

31. Supt. to Dir., July 10, 1967, C de C, A2615.

32. Ibid.

33. "Memorandum of Agreement between the National Park Service and the Bureau of

Indian Affairs Relating to Joint Road Development on the North Rim of Canyon del

Muerto,"approved by Actg. Reg. Dir., SWRO, Sept. 18, 1967, and by Asst. Area Dir., Nay.

Area Off., Nov. 21, 1967, C de C.

34. Cook to Hand, Jan. 15, 1968, C de C, L3027.

35. Area Dir. to Cook, Jan. 31, 1968, ibid.

36. Chmn., NTC, to Nay. Area Off., Jan. 25, 1968, ibid.

37. Cook to Reg. Dir., Dec. 28, 1967, C de C, L7423.

38. Cook to Roper, Oct. 27, 1967, C de C, W34.

39. Cook to Reg. Dir., Nov. 27, 1967, ibid.

40. Reg. Dir. to ed., SUMMIT Magazine, Dec. 20, 1967, ibid.

41. O. F. Oldendorph, "Some Observations on Navajo and Canyon de Chelly Monuments,"

National Parks Magazine 42, no. 248 (1968): 4-6.

42. Cook to Clark, Mar. 27, 1968, NALA, A8027.

43. Voll, personal communication, June 14, 1974.

44. Cook to Reg. Dir., June 16, 1969, C de C, L48.

45. Reg. Dir, to Dir., Apr. 30, 1971, ibid.

46. Deputy Dir. to Reg. Dir., July 7, 1971, ibid.

47. Gen. Supt. to Supt., Chinle Agency, June 9, 1969, C de C, L30.

48. Cook to Hand, July 14, 1970, ibid.

49. Binnewies to Supt., Chinle Agency, Jan. 21, 1974, C de C, L3035.
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 10 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi10n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:37 PM]

50. Archeologist, Albuquerque Office, NPS, to Area Dir., Nav. Area Off., Mar. 22, 1974,

ibid.

51. Binnewies to Gen. Supt., Mar. 21, 1973, C de C, L54.

52. Ibid.

53. Binnewies to Eberhard, July 26, 1973, ibid.; Binnewies to Eberhard, Feb. 21, 1974, ibid.;

Binnewies to files, May 23, 1974, ibid.

54. Binnewies to Kelsey, June 4, 1974, and encl., C de C, L3027.

55. Nakai to La Font, June 17, 1969, DSC.

56. "Memorandum of Agreement," signed by Charles B. Voll and Gereald La Font, July 28,

1969, ibid.

57. Kowski to McDonald, Jan. 24, 1973, ibid.

58. Cammack to Dir., Apr. 23, 1971, C de C, L34.

59. Cook to Clinch, June 17, 1970, C de C, L3423.

60. Binnewies to Gen. Supt., Mar. 29, 1973, encl., C de C, L34.

61. Binnewies to Gen. Supt., Aug. 6, 1973, C de C, L3035.

62. Voll, personal communication, June 14, 1974.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi10.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004
Canyon de Chelly NM: Administrative History (Chapter 11 Endnotes)

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/cach/adhi11n.htm[11/6/2012 2:51:40 PM]

Canyon de Chelly

Administrative History

CHAPTER 11:

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

1. Denis Foster Johnston, An Analysis of Sources of Information on the Population of The

Navaho, BAE Bulletin 197 (Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 49.

2. Curator to Gen. Supt., July 15, 1974, Chaco Center, H30.

3. David M. Brugge, "Indian Control of Educational and Medical Institutions in Navajo

Country," paper read at the Western History Association Conference, Rapid City, South

Dakota, Oct. 3, 1974.

4. Robert B. Edgerton, "Some Dimensions of Disillusionment in Culture Contact,"

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21, no. 3, pp. 231-43. Edgerton, basing his theses on

observations among the Menomini in North America and among four tribes in Uganda,

Kenya, and Tanganyika in East Africa, holds a very pessimistic view of the durability of

"European-Native" friendships. While much of what he writes is quite true, the implication

that such relationships are impossible does not fit all Navajo-white relationships and may

have been unintended on his part. He contrasts two extreme types of relationships, one in

which both parties adhere rigidly to socially sanctioned roles based on the political

subordinance of the native group and one that he calls "pseudo-friendship," in which the

"European" makes condescendingly energetic efforts to befriend the "native," motivated by

intense idealism but with neither party having a very realistic view of the cultural demands of

such a relationship in terms of the other culture. Intermediate degrees of friendship that allow

for greater flexibility and that build on creative modifications of socially defined roles rather

than on either strict conformance or total rejection seem to be those that have the best

prospects of success, at least between whites and Navajos at the present time (1974).

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

cach/adhi/adhi11n.htm

Last Updated: 08-Mar-2004