I am a professional archaeologist in Brewster County, having practiced for 30 years, helping balance the need for development with its impact on cultural heritage. I recently conducted a study of archaeological sites that lie along the Chispa Road—a single, small segment of the larger proposed U.S. border barrier in the Big Bend. The road will be utilized for construction (probably modified or expanded), and the construction corridor for the wall will parallel the road for approximately 45 miles. I focused on this area because I am familiar with the landscape, having navigated through it to archaeological projects on adjoining ranches.
Archaeological sites are the physical remains of peoples’ activities in the past. Federal and state laws mandate that, in specific circumstances (such as the current wall project), project proponents (e.g., developers, contractors, federal or state agencies) must assess the potential for their projects to adversely affect (i.e., cause harm to) significant archaeological sites. Some of the more recent laws are the National Historic Preservation Act, Antiquities Code of Texas, Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
These laws are in place because policy makers understood that some archaeological sites are an important part of our culture, our identity, and sources of scientific knowledge; the laws codify that they warrant protection and preservation. Not all of them though. Under the laws, they must meet specific criteria and have qualities that make them significant. I set out to determine if sites along the Chispa Road meet these criteria, i.e., if they are significant. My study employed databases that are maintained by the state that describe the locations of archaeological sites, how they were studied (by whom and when) and the documentation that describes their content and condition. The research shows that there are 50 known archaeological sites along the road that will likely be impacted.
Many of the sites have artifacts and other remains that speak directly to the relationship between prehistoric indigenous cultures that lived in the Presidio Bolson (the large basin that encompasses the towns of Redford, Presidio, and the villages of Ruidoso and Candelaria) with the Puebloan farming communities farther upriver in what archaeologists refer to as the Jornada Mogollon culture area. This relationship is poorly understood, and the sites can provide important information about cultural interactions along the Rio Grande during prehistory.
Some of the ranches and homesteads (historical archaeological sites) were present during pivotal events in regional, state, and national history, such as the period of the Mexican Revolution when there was notable social unrest along the border. They have the potential to illustrate the ways community members interacted with one another and how they contended with social, political, and economic stress.
Another reason that some are important is that descendant communities maintain connections to sites such as these; they help define who they are, their sense of place, and the maintenance of their culture. The Tigua of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas are landowners in the region, and they are descendants of the more ancient Jornada Mogollon culture; the sites are a physical embodiment of their past. Moreover, there are individuals in Presidio County that are descended from the Jumano and Apache tribes that inhabited the area; they too are connected to the cultural landscape of which these sites are a part.
Most of these archaeological sites were recorded more than 30 years ago. Their conditions change, and new evidence of the past comes to light over time. While my research illustrates important information (many of the sites are significant), preservation laws dictate that proponents of projects such as county road improvement and construction of border infrastructure need to provide up-to-date assessments of archaeological sites in their path. Further field studies are necessary.
However, these venerated laws are being waived when there is no justifiable reason to move forward recklessly. This is dangerously short-sighted, and the imminent, irreversible damage to these aspects of our past is untenable. My research addresses only a small fraction of the larger border-wall project, and, at this rate, the loss will be untold because the proper studies may never be conducted. I urge the public to consider what is at stake and advocate for the valuable remnants of prehistory and history.
Sam Cason
Alpine