Explore the Issues:

Native Americans

Wildlife and Sportsmen

Oil and Gas Exploration

Protecting the Past

Interview with Kevin Jones Archaeologist, Utah State Division of History

Ken Verdoia: Kevin, help me understand. Why is Range Creek special?

Kevin Jones: Range Creek is a real special place because of the record it provides us of people who lived here in the past. Utah has been inhabited for a thousand years, but in the last 150 years or so, we've built roads, we've built big cities and farmed, we've destroyed much of the information that remains of the people who lived here. They didn't leave libraries. They didn't leave books. Our only way of learning about them is to see the traces that they left on the landscape; to find their homes that they lived in, to find the art that they created on the walls. And Range Creek has a tremendous concentration of those things, and above the concentration is the degree to which it's been protected. The Wilcox family kept people out for a long time, so there haven't been people driving ATV's all over the place. Coming out for afternoons of arrowhead hunting, shooting their guns at the rock art and things that take place on many of the other more publicly accessible places in Utah. So, the combination of the concentration of archaeological sites and the absolute pristine preservation of the sites makes it really a national, perhaps international treasure.

Ken Verdoia: One of the assumptions is that when people heard of the land transfer, they assumed that the entire canyon was part of the transfer, but actually the Wilcox Ranch is a very small percentage of the total land here in Range Creek. Tell me who the other major players are in terms of the landscape at Range Creek.

Kevin Jones: Like most other places in the arid west. If you can control the creek and the access to a place you can control a tremendous amount of land, so the homesteaders, who homesteaded down here homesteaded the minimum amount of land that they had to to actually get possession of in order to control the canyon. So, the Wilcox family really only owned 1500 acres stretched out over 12 miles in this canyon, but it controls access to over 75,000 acres--most of which is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, a lot of which is owned by School and Institutional Trust Lands, Utah school lands and some is owned by other private concerns, but those are the main land owners in the area.

Ken Verdoia: Archaeologists are schooled in science and patience and yet, so much archaeology is done with a sense of rush because of construction, home development moving in, major highway construction, dam construction. We have to move these things along. Range Creek seems to be a different animal. Help me understand time being on the side of serious archaeological movement.

Kevin Jones: As everybody knows, time, when you are taking on an important project, is an important component. A lot of times as archaeologists in the modern era we don't have a lot of time. Roads, construction, oil and gas development force us to do our work very quickly in order to protect sites from imminent destruction. We're often working right in front of bulldozers or backhoes. In a case like Range Creek, we don't have that rush. The pressures that are perhaps coming to Range Creek are for public access, for the citizens of the state to come in and see this wonderful place, which we want to have them be able to appreciate it. That's why I work as the state archaeologist. Not to hide sites away from people, from the citizens of the state, but to let them enjoy them and learn from them, get a sense of that deep history. So, we want to be able to make this place as accessible to people as we can, without compromising the resources.

We do have time, we do have time to study, we do have time to research this place in ways that we often don't in other places, and my vision of Range Creek is that in another 100 years, it would still be a very pristine place. The archaeology would still be very accessible and, and undisturbed and undamaged. So, that the techniques and archaeologists of 100 years or 200 or 500 years from now will be able to be used and to study the people who lived here a thousand years ago, so that we don't come in and destroy this wonderful place just because everybody wants to see it. Kind of the way I think of it is that we've been given the keys to a vast library, a library full of unread, one-of-a-kind books. And our citizens have a great interest in what's in those books, but if we just open the doors and let everybody start thumbing through them, they would fall apart. They would be destroyed. So, the archaeologists have to in and copy those books and extract the information that's from them and make that accessible to people, so that everybody can share in it, but it's a painstaking process.

It takes time, an archaeological site, and we've recorded well over 300 sites in this canyon. We expect that there are 10 times that many. The University of Utah's been working here. They could easily spend 5 summers working on just one of those sites to understand it. Whereas looters and people who have ill intensions towards the place could destroy that entire site in a weekend if they came in and worked at it. So, time is something that we have, but we need to use it carefully. We need to make sure that these sites aren't damaged by other reasons. It doesn't appear that there are bulldozers at the door right now, but we can't see into the future.

Ken Verdoia: 100 years ago, it seems archaeology itself as a science was very different in practice. There was a lot of digging if a site was discovered--bring out the picks, let's get out the shovels, let's dig into it. And a premium was placed on pulling out the perfect whole pot. Grab it as quick as you can, get it back to the museum to show that we've got the product of our labors. Tell me the down side of that and help me understand how we may be in a better place now.

Kevin Jones: A hundred years ago archaeology was about discovery, it was about, "oh, look what I found, look at this, look at this pot, look at this, look at this big village on the side of the cliff." It was about spectacular discoveries that awed the public. We have some of those today, but the way we approach it is a little bit different. We realized that the pot is a fine piece of art and a wonderful artifact, but if we don't carefully collect information about that pot, about the context in which it was buried, about the people who made it, about the environmental conditions that existed at the time, we haven't really learned much about it. We just have a piece that we can put in a museum. So, we're much more in tune to trying to understand the context, the human and the environmental context of everything that we do as archaeologists.

So, the work we do today is much more painstaking then it was 20 or 50 years ago and I expect that as our field progresses, we will use a lot more techniques that are more non-invasive. I mean many of the things that we use today were unheard of years ago that we can examine a small little portion of the site and learn a whole lot more about that site then we could have 50 years ago by digging a whole site. We're using things like ground-penetrating radar and other remote sensing tools that enable us to look under the ground in ways that we didn't have the ability to just recently. So our field is progressing, one of the things to always keep in mind is that just as a bulldozer may destroy an archaeological site when they go through it, so does an archaeologist. We tear it apart. We take the stones away. We dig into the fire pit. And the only thing that remains is the quality of the notes, the quality of the records that we've kept, the quality of the analyses that we do. So, the site's destroyed. If I dig a site now and do it by the best techniques that I have, in 20 years some archaeologists could come by and say, "boy, I wish they hadn't dug that site because what I could do now with this new technique that we have would give me 10 times the information that they got." So, we're cognizant of the way things change through time and we don't want to come in here and dig every site. I mean, as I said, I would love to have most of the resources in Range Creek still be here in 100 or 200 years, as part of that library, as part of that, that important library of our collective human past.

Ken Verdoia: When we first met to discuss this project and describe our documentary project, we went to a conference and sat around the table with the stakeholders. It was a big table with lots of stakeholders. I can't recall if I've been in a setting where more concerned or involved agencies with a finger in the management were involved. That must present extraordinary challenges for each group.

Kevin Jones: It does. I mean management by committee is tough and the bigger the committee the harder it is to reach consensus. But the good side of that is that we have representatives of many different state agencies coming to the table to determine how to best manage this place, and all of our agencies don't have similar goals, but I think by working together in that way we can come up with a reasonable management plan for this place. I would rather have a lot of agencies taking an interest in the management of Range Creek than none. It shows the importance and I think the importance of the place has made itself clear to the State of Utah. We have several different departments involved and the governor's office is very interested. So, the importance of this place has resonated within state government. It may be cumbersome, but at least I don't think we're making quick and rash decisions that are going to compromise the place.

Ken Verdoia: And yet there are forces at work, as there are in any setting that could loom large in the future of Range Creek. I noticed that we're not that far from Nine Mile Canyon, an area that's been the site of great activity when it comes to testing the oil and gas. Are you concerned that that activity may one day find a home or a target in the Range Creek area?

Kevin Jones: Well, there is a lot of interest in oil and gas, especially natural gas up in the Nine Mile area right now, and Range Creek is adjacent to Nine Mile Canyon--similar geologically. And I think there will probably be similar interest down here. One of the challenges of managing a place like this is maintaining a balance between the various interests and the various resources that are here. That's the roll government in owning significant resources is to figure out how to best manage for a variety of resources and of course my greatest interest is the archaeology, but there are other legitimate reasons that people may want to do some things down here. We'll just have to see. I don't think the archaeology necessarily precludes oil and gas exploration in this area. Needs to be done carefully I think, very carefully. But you know, we'll just see what the interest level is and what is proposed and try to be a reasonable in dealing with those demands.

Ken Verdoia: So what can we find out about people who lived here 1200 years ago?

Kevin Jones: Well, people have always been interested in our history. We've always been interested in where we come from. I think very many of us are drawn to trying to understand the deep past because there are parts of our modern civilization that we don't understand, and that we gain a greater understanding of ourselves by knowing about the past. But, you know, it is in some ways a luxury to be able to look at archaeological sites and try to learn from them. I mean, we're not feeding people, we're not saving too many people from disease, but I think we do learn things, important things that are valuable in our lives today. Learning about how people effected their environments in the past I think can give us important lessons about how we should proceed in the future. We learn about dramatic environmental changes in the past that I think we ought to include in our planning today. About places where we should and shouldn't build homes for instance and should and shouldn't build highways. We learn a lot about the use of natural resources from the past. Plants and medicinal herbs and things that people used in the past…that knowledge has been long since lost. We can recover some of that knowledge through archaeological studies.

So I think there are some practical things that we can contribute to modern society through our studies, but I think it is the larger sense, the sense that we all want to understand our place in history. We'd like to understand our deep history and I think Americans are more and more very interested in the ancient history of our continent and knowing about it, understanding it and appreciating the art, appreciating the beauty, appreciating the way of lives of people who lived here 1000 or 5000 years ago.

Ken Verdoia: We've talked with representatives of the Native American tribes and nations and they say their concerns, at least at the outset, were dismissed. They were left out of the mix. They were ignored. These are our people. These are our histories. How do you respond to that concern that contemporary Native Americans are included, and to the spiritual and cultural arguments that they offer about sites such as Range Creek?

Kevin Jones: I think it's very important to include the Native Americans in doing archaeological work. We can learn a lot from their cultural knowledge of their ancestors. And we can gain a fuller appreciation of the archaeological sites that we dig. And of course they're interested because it is the record of their ancestors. So, I think they should be involved. As far as Range Creek goes, when the information got out to the media about Range Creek and it suddenly became international news, we had only begun very basic investigations down here. So there really hadn't even been an opportunity to involve very many players. We were first just on a mission of kind of discovering what was here. So, the whole timetable of consultation with not only Native Americans, but with other groups and other agencies got sped up a whole lot once everybody in the world found out about it.

I think there were some unfortunate misconceptions that came out as a result of that initial media attention that was drawn to the place. Mr. Wilcox talked about some mummies that had come from Range Creek in a way that gave the impression that there were Native American remains all over the place in Range Creek ,and when the Native Americans read that they thought "Why aren't they consulting with us about dealing with these remains?" And it has taken us a while to talk with those representatives and so forth and, and let them know that that really isn't the case. That there're not human remains all over the place that we're not digging up human remains, that we're not desecrating the graves of their ancestors and to involve them. So there was a little bit of misunderstanding that came as a result of some of the initial media attempts, but we have brought Native groups into the area and we're doing consultation with more. We're definitely involving them as much as they want to be involved in creation of a management plan for the place. So, there is an important role for that the Native groups can play in developing plans for Range Creek and in influencing how the place is cared for.

Ken Verdoia: What's the best case scenario in your opinion for Range Creek? What do you hope will be the future of this location?

Kevin Jones: What I would love to see in Range Creek is the establishment of a long term, viable research educational center in Range Creek that would be host to a small number of scientists and educators who would carry on studies of the place. Not only the archeology…the wildlife, the flora, fauna, the geology, the paleontology, even artists, and provide a presence in the place that would a provide for security so that we don't have to worry about people coming in and picking up artifacts and things like that, but also provide a structure for involvement of school kids and visiting groups in reasonable numbers. So that the citizens of the state could come down and see the place, appreciate its beauty, appreciate the scientific value of the place, but do it in a way that doesn't damage it. I'd love to bring groups of school kids down here, who could participate in a fish count in the stream, in an archeological study, artists studying the rock art, groups of kids, college students, citizens, senior citizens, in ways that would provide them access to the resources and the beauty of the place, but without compromising and damaging the resources at the same time. I think that a sustainable research and educational center in this place would just be a fantastic asset to our state. It could be an economic asset to the state as well as a cultural asset.

Ken Verdoia: What you're in fact talking about is drawing a line around Range Creek and saying let's hold on to what we have.

Kevin Jones: I think drawing a line around Range Creek is something that was already done over 50 years ago by the Wilcox family and their predecessors. The place is remote and inaccessible because of the steepness of the sides of the canyons and the cliffs on both sides. So, there are only two points of access, the north and the south and if you put a gate at both of those ends, which the Wilcox family did, you can effectively keep people out and control access to the place, which is why the archeology is in such pristine condition, that's why the wildlife is in good shape, and I think we should continue that as government owners of the place. Not to keep everyone out, but to control the access so that the citizens can come in, but just not freely and wander around and pick up whatever they want. I mean we do that in a lot of other places. We don't let people come into our museums and just handle everything that's in the museum, because those things are too valuable for that. There are special places in our libraries were access is controlled. Where there are special books, there are rare books and you have to behave in a certain way to have access to those things. All of our government buildings, people just can't walk in and walk around and, and look through things.

So we recognize as government, there're some places where citizens should have free and unfettered access to, and that there are other places where it's best if they have limited access and it's controlled and their etiquette can be enforced and controlled and they can have a good experience without damaging the thing that they came to visit. If we just threw open the gates to Range Creek and let everybody who would have an interest in coming here come through what makes this so special would be eroded very, very quickly and it would be like any other place, any other canyon throughout the west. The archeology wouldn't be as complete, it wouldn't be as beautiful, it wouldn't be as interesting, it wouldn't be as scientifically valuable as it is today. So, we want to try to make certain that those things that make this place very special, we don't damage by poor management practices.

Ken Verdoia: We're sitting in a wilderness study area right now for this interview. Is that an asset or a liability?

Kevin Jones: I think it is an asset. I think it's an important asset. Range Creek is actually is the dividing line between two wilderness study areas and as long as they remain wilderness study areas or if they become wilderness, vehicular access is restricted, so a lot of the things that could compromise some of those resources are restricted now. And I would hope that that designation would continue because it helps to protect those resources in a way. It doesn't keep people from hiking in, doesn't keep people from riding horses in it, it doesn't preclude hunters, doesn't preclude a lot of the kinds of multiple use of this land that are so important to all of us. But it does keep vehicles out and it does give us a way of kind of controlling how people behave when they come into this place.

Ken Verdoia: There are hundreds of sites in Utah, and we visited several significant ones, where looters had gone in and literally robbed it blind. If the gates were taken down, if there wasn't a monitoring presence here, is that a virtual certainty that that would occur in Range Creek?

Kevin Jones: It's not a virtual certainty. It is a certainty. All you have to do in this canyon is to go outside the gate that was protected by Waldo Wilcox. The pit houses are dug out. The rock art has bullet holes in it, names scrawled on it. There're beer cans and soda cans and things littered about. The surface artifacts are all gone. But inside the protected area it's a different situation. Those sites are much as they have existed for the last thousand years so that the information that they contain is still available. It hasn't walked off in somebody's pockets. The context of those artifacts hasn't been destroyed by something, someone coming and digging through it. The analogy of a library is a very good one, each of these sites is a unique, one of a kind book. It's a record of the family that built that home. It's a record of the artist who created the art. That's the only record that exists that will ever exist and once that's destroyed, once the pages are cut out of that book or it's torn up, no one will ever be able to read it. No one will ever be able to have access to the information that was there. No one will ever know the story of that family or that group of people. And so they're important to protect. I think they're valuable to our heritage and they will be valuable to the heritage of people who live a thousand years from now. And it's an important part of my task as the state archaeologist to see to the orderly development and protection of archaeological sites straight from our statute. So it is my job in the name of the citizens of the State of Utah, to see that we don't destroy things like this, because they are important to a lot of our citizens.

Ken Verdoia: Not everybody likes that role for you, do they?

Kevin Jones: No, they don't. They despise it.

Ken Verdoia: What are the moments that give you concern, that would not be the best case…that could be the worst case scenario in Range Creek. How we might botch it as bad as it could be botched?

Kevin Jones: Well, there are plenty of ways to botch it. One of the ways would be if there was a steady stream of traffic going up and down this road, semi's, jeeps and motorcycles and people racing up and down. The special character of the place would clearly have been compromised and would be irretrievably lost at that point. Clearly, the pristine nature of the archaeological sites, were that the case, would no longer be something that we needed to discuss cause that would've been compromised at that point. So I would hope that that doesn't come to pass and I would hope that what we do see in 20 years from now is maybe a group of people riding in on horses that have hired a local outfitter to bring them in on a guided tour of some of the sites. I would hope that we would see a high clearance van full of elder hostel visitors coming to visit Range Creek. I would hope we'd see a shorty school bus coming down this road full of school kids from Emory County, coming in to study the fish and the archaeology and to learn about the place for the day. A place that gets used for what it has to offer the citizens of the state and country. An educational introspection, artistic opportunities, visually stunning place, should be kept as a special place and should be treated as a special place. We don't drive our motorcycles up and down in a cathedral and we shouldn't drive our motorcycles up and down a place like this, which I think is in effect a natural cathedral.