Jeffrey L. Boyer, James L. Moore, Natasha Williamson, and Genevieve N. Head
Of the 629 archeological sites and 678 components recorded during the Pecos survey, 53 sites with 54 components are historic in date and Euro-American in origin. Euro-American artifacts are found on 50 of these sites. These historic sites reflect the significant presence and impact of Euro-American residents, short-term occupants, and users of the portion of the Upper Pecos Valley that now includes Pecos National Historical Park. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of the Euro-American sites and artifacts recorded by the survey, to relate them to the temporal and thematic structure of the Cultural Landscape Overview, and to place them in social and economic context.1
The chapter is divided into four sections. The first section, written by Genevieve Head, gives a general description of the kind of Euro-American sites in the park and a brief summary of the seventeenth and eighteenth century Euro-American sites recorded by the survey. The second section of this chapter reports on temporal analyses of Euro-American artifacts from nineteenth and early twentieth century sites recorded during the survey. It was researched and written by staff of the Office of Archaeological Studies (Museum of New Mexico OAS). Natasha Williamson performed data examination and manipulation of artifact data at the OAS. Williamson also recorded, in the field, additional artifact data from four sites, and re-recorded Euro-American artifacts collected during the survey for additional examination in the laboratory. Analyses of the data were performed by Jeffrey L. Boyer.
The third section of the chapter is a review of United States census records for San Miguel County for the years between 1860 and 1920. Natasha Williamson conducted the records review; Williamson also wrote all but the summary portion of this section. Although preliminary in scope, the census review shows the data potential of one group of documentary resources for illuminating population, social, and economic patterns within the Upper Pecos Valley and Pecos National Historical Park. It highlights the complex relations among the region's communities and between those communities and their regional, territorial/statewide, and national contexts. This review also illustrates the increasing integration of the Upper Pecos Valley into the region and the nation and subsequent changes in local community structure and economics.
The fourth portion of this chapter presents the results of an archeological examination of the Santa Fe Trail and trail segments within the Pecos Unit of Pecos National Historical Park. This study, which was directed by James L. Moore, was aimed at identifying remaining segments of the Santa Fe Trail that exist in the area. Other linear features were also examined to define their period of use and determine how they fit into the culture history of the Pecos area. Most linear features observed on aerial photographs were identified. Only two alignments were not identified from documentary sources and may represent trails associated with the occupation of Pecos Pueblo.
Description of Euro-American Components
Table 10.1 lists the Euro-American components recorded by the survey. This table differs from Table 5.1 presented in Chapter 5 in that it presents all recorded components attributed to Euro-Americans. Table 5.1 presents only those component types that are specifically Euro-American.
Table 10.1. Euro-American components recorded in the field.
As in prehistoric contexts, trash features are the most numerous. Trash Scatters differ from Trash Dumps in that Trash Dumps appear to have been the result of a single disposal episode of materials gathered from somewhere else. Trash scatters generally appear to have been deposited over a relatively long period of time in their original location. Features recorded as Euro-American Structures range from lean-tos to the Forked Lightning Ranch house and also include the Estancia/Casas Reales; Kidder's archeological field camp and lab building at Forked Lightning Pueblo; a grist mill with holding pond, flume and acequia; corrals and out buildings from the dude ranch of the Tex Austin era; and Kozlowski's Trading Post. Five Hispanic homesteads can be considered special cases of Euro-American Structures. They are discussed in detail in the following section of this chapter.
Indicative of the historical continuity at Pecos is the fact that 29 (57 percent) of these historic components are secondary components, meaning they occur on sites dominated by earlier materials, usually Native American. Only two are on sites with earlier Euro-American components. Three of the sites discussed in this chapter have historic Puebloan ceramics in their assemblages. All three are Hispanic homestead sites.
Seventeeth and Eighteenth Century Euro-American Sites
Coronado's troops passed through Pecos in 1541, but Spanish presence at Pecos was not permanent until the very early part of the seventeenth century, probably around 1617 when the Lost Church was established (Ivey 1996; Kessell 1979; Stubbs et al. 1957). The majority of seventeenth and eighteenth century sites in the park appear to be Native American in origin and so are discussed in the previous chapters of this report that focus on the Native American occupation of the park. Of the 178 sites dated to Period 5 (A.D. 1575-1700) using the chronology based on Native American ceramics (see Chapter 4), only ten (5 percent) show evidence of European influence, all through ceramic vessel forms (see below). Of the 58 sites dated to Period 6 (post A. D. 1700) only the three homesteads mentioned above (5 percent) contained Euro-American as well as Puebloan materials. These facts highlight the dominance of Native American material culture in early historic assemblages, despite the profound effects of European contact on the lives of the Pecos people (Levine 1999:58).
Documentary evidence, previous work, and analogy were used to date the four seventeentheighteenth century Euro-American sites recorded by the survey and to give them Euro-American affiliation.2 These methods were used because the sites had no or very, very few Euro-American artifacts on the surface. These sites are the Estancia/Casas Reales (PECO 64, LA 625) (Hayes 1974:53-58); Lost Church (PECO 213, LA 4444) (Stubbs et al. 1957); Square Ruin (PECO 35, LA 14114) (Nordby and Creutz 1993b); and the surface structure at Hoagland's Haven (PECO 53, LA 14154) (Nordby and Creutz 1993a). These sites are all in the vicinity of the Pecos Mission and are most likely related to mission activities (Figure 10.1). In addition, PECO 16 (LA 14091) is believed to be a construction of the Spanish Mission, though it has not been excavated. This feature has been called the "Ancient Walled Area," and is referred to by Bandelier (1881:89) as "huerto del pueblo [sic]," the fields of the pueblo inhabitants. It is probably one of the areas described by Dominguez as a kitchen garden or milpas in 1776 (Adams and Chavez 1956:213). Kidder (1958:118) refers to it as a reservoir, corral, or garden. The fact that the walls of this feature run counter to topographic contour, its size, and roughly square shape, as well as the fact that it appears to have been created using midden from the pueblo, suggest that it is probably a Spanish creation.
The early Spanish at Pecos apparently adjusted to many aspects of Puebloan material culture, using the same kinds of tools and general purpose ceramic vessels. There were some ceramic forms, however, that the Spanish missionaries could not do without. Their needs were met by native craftspeople as can be seen in the presence of European ceramic forms executed in native materials. Such items were found on the surface of several sites. Table 10.2 shows the forms, ceramic types, and the kind of sites on which they were found (see also Chapter 8). Most of these forms are soup bowls. At the Estancia/Casas Reales (PECO 64) a fragment of a plain red candle holder was also found. It is unclear if the candle holder and other Euro-American materials directly relate to this site, however, because the field crew noted that back-dirt from the convento excavations in the 1960s had been dumped nearby.
Table 10.2. European vessel forms made with native ceramics.
The small number of sites with Euro-American artifacts dated to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and their limited geographic distribution indicate that the early Spanish presence in the valley was focused on the mission complex and Pecos Pueblo itself. It also suggests that the residents of the mission relied heavily on the pueblo for material goods and that few European imports left the confines of the church/convento complex.
The reader is directed to the recent Historic Structures Report (Ivey 1996) for more detailed and informative consideration of the seventeenth and eighteenth century structures in the park. That document also details construction of the mission church and convento, structures that were not recorded by this survey (see also White 1996).
Temporal Analyses of Euro-American Artifacts
Fifty-one historic artifact assemblages were recorded during the Pecos survey (Figure 10.2; Table 10.3). As part of the site recording process, in-field analyses of surface Euro-American artifacts were performed at each site. These artifact data were collected in the field during the survey and were provided to the OAS for analysis and write-up. This discussion presents the results of in-field artifact analyses as they relate to site dating.
Table 10.3. Site numbers and descriptions of historic era sites with Euro-American artifacts.
When the Pecos survey was in the planning stages (1994), it was intended that historic artifacts would be analyzed using a hierarchical functional framework similar to that used by the OAS (Boyer et al. 1994; OAS 1994) and sampled following the same procedures as prehistoric artifacts (see Chapter 3). The functional framework groups artifacts by function rather than by material type, with the advantages that (1) artifacts can be related directly to human activities (Hannaford and Oakes 1983); (2) assemblages can be analyzed as a whole, on a single form, without having to be reconstituted from a plethora of material-specific forms; and (3) the problem of multimaterial items, so often found in historic contexts, is avoided.
This framework and sampling approach were used during the pilot survey for the project (Eininger et al. 1995) and the beginning of the first full year of survey (Eininger 1996). They were found to be cumbersome and time consuming in the field. The sheer number of artifacts in most historic contexts made the random sampling scheme inefficient and slow work. The in-field analysts spent considerable time recording large numbers of nondescript items. The functional recording system meant recording numerous null values for variables that did not apply to all artifact material groups. Also, few of the field crew were well equipped to quickly identify many of the details required for the functional analysis, slowing in-field analysis further as analysts referred to written sources and conferred with one another. The time spent on these tasks slowed survey coverage, outweighing the advantages of the random sampling and functional framework.
Consequently it was decided to focus the recording of Euro-American artifacts on items with time-diagnostic attributes that could be easily recognized. Analyzing "recognizable" artifacts in the field is best suited for gathering temporal data, because temporally sensitive characteristics of some items and material groups are often quickly identifiable. The recording framework was changed as well, to one that was material specific, rather than functionally oriented. Recording forms were created for individual material groups (cans/metal, glass, nails/miscellaneousceramics were recorded using the ceramic system used on all other sites). This paralleled the material specific recording methods used for prehistoric materials, which were separated into lithics, ceramics, and architecture.
These changes decreased the amount of time spent by National Park Service staff in the field, but in post-field data analysis the OAS staff found that these decisions seriously compromised the utility of the data for making generalizations about site function and for examining patterns of economy and production. The net effect of these decisions is that Euro-American artifact data obtained during the Pecos survey are not from representative samples. As such they are not appropriate for addressing questions requiring functional data, including distinguishing sites by on-site activities and looking for inter-site patterning of changing economic and land-use activities across space or through time. Therefore, issues of on-site activities and site functions and of economic and production patterns cannot be addressed in this chapter. Selected data on artifact types and functions and descriptive characteristics from the National Park Service database are presented in table form in Appendix F.
As a preliminary step toward mending the lack of functional information for the survey, OAS personnel used a hierarchical functional format to record surface artifacts on four sites during site visits on June 9, 1999. During these visits, readily recognizable artifacts were recorded. Recording focused on temporal data; artifacts selected were usually those whose characteristics had easily defined temporal parameters, although other functional and descriptive information were also recorded. The results of these analyses are presented in separate tables, one for each site, later in this discussion. These tables provide more reliable preliminary functional information for these sites, though artifact selection was not statistically random or systematic, and the results should not be taken as definitively representative of site assemblages.
The decisions to change the historic recording framework mentioned above also had some effect on temporal data. Use of artifact dates to derive accurate and precise dates for sites or intrasite proveniences or components requires "weighting" dates by frequency within material groups and artifact types, as well as within entire assemblages. This is not possible with the survey data, since they were not randomly selected and are not representative of the entire assemblage. However, the OAS examination of the temporal data collected during the survey revealed that the recorded artifact dates can be used to derive dates for some sites, if the following assumptions are made:
1. the recorded artifact dates are accurate or, if not, can be adjusted based on descriptive characteristics or analyst comments; and
2. the counts of artifacts with particular dates are accurate.
These assumptions appear to be warranted from the data. Though the data on Euro-American artifacts recorded by the survey cannot be used for considerations of site function, they can be used to provide dates for the sites. Site dating is a necessary foundation for defining site types and their distributions and for examining economic and production patterns. Combining temporal information with historical data and site descriptions allows these sites to be placed within the contexts of National Park Service-defined cultural periods.
Dating the Euro-American Sites
Pecos National Historical Park Cultural Periods
As part of the process of establishing a general management plan for the expanded Pecos National Historical Park, the National Park Service prepared a Cultural Landscape Overview of the Pecos Unit and Pigeon's Ranch Subunit of Pecos National Historical Park. The purposes of the Cultural Landscape Overview are stated as follows:
With these purposes in mind, the following objectives of the Cultural Landscape Overview are defined (Cowley et al. 1997:13):
1. Develop an understanding of the major changes over time that have created the cultural landscape of the majority of Pecos National Historical Park;
2. Apply this understanding to the development of a preliminary statement of significance;
3. Identify specific significant landscape characteristics and relationships;
4. Determine the extent to which these characteristics and relationships survive today, and the level of their integrity;
5. On the basis of this analysis, develop preliminary recommendations for planning and management, including a recommendation for overall landscape treatment; and
6. Recognizing the limitations of the project, identify future research and analysis needs.
As a result of pursuing these objectives, the National Park Service defined a series of "cultural periods" characterizing human occupation of the park and the surrounding portions of the Upper Pecos Valley (Cowley et al. 1997:23-125). Table 10.4 lists the cultural periods defined by the Cultural Landscape Overview (note that most sites recorded by the survey fall in the "Pre-Contact" cultural period, dated 10,000 B.C. to A.D. 1540, hence the temporal units devised for the Cultural Landscape Overview were not useful for organizing pre-historic materials. See also Chapter 1 for a review of the culture history of Euro-Americans in Pecos that makes use of these cultural periods).
Table 10.4. Cultural periods (Pecos unit only) from the Cultural Landscape Overview.
Dating the Sites
Analysis of temporal data obtained from the historic sites had two goals: to derive site dates that are as accurate and precise as possible and to use those dates to place the sites within the contexts of the Pecos National Historical Park cultural periods.
In order to derive dates for each site, artifact dates from three of the material and functional categories used in the analysis formatglass, ceramics, and canswere listed. Dates from nails and miscellaneous artifacts were not used due to the ambiguous identity of some artifacts in these groups.
Artifact dates are expressed as ranges with beginning and ending dates. In some cases, only the beginning or ending date could be recorded, usually due to a lack of sufficient datable characteristics to bracket the manufacturing periods of the artifacts. In those cases, date ranges were created by assigning an arbitrary length of 25 years for glass and cans and 50 years for ceramics.3 Thus, artifacts with ending dates of 1930 are assumed to date between 1905 and 1930 if they are glass or cans and between 1880 and 1930 if they are ceramics. When the number of datable artifacts in a group or site is too small to obtain a meaningful mean date, the simple date range of the artifacts is presented. In this situation, beginning and ending dates without actual ranges are presented as post- and pre-dates, respectively.
Mean artifact dates are determined for the different groups of artifacts by multiplying the midpoint of each date range by the number of artifacts with that date range. The resulting figures are added, and the sum is divided by the number of datable artifacts to obtain a mean date for the artifact group. This follows South's (1977) procedure for calculating mean ceramic dates. Adding and subtracting a single standard deviation figure from the mean date obtains a mean date range. Mean dates for the entire datable site assemblage are obtained in the same manner. However, by first obtaining dates for artifact groups, we can assess the impact of the different groups on the site date. This is important for determining the presence of different temporal components. Although there are exceptions, particularly the five homestead sites, mean dates for an artifact group were not calculated if there were fewer than 15 datable artifacts in the group. Mean dates for site assemblages were not usually calculated if dates were only obtained from one artifact group at the site.
In addition to mean artifact dates, dates were calculated for window glass fragments recorded during visits to four sites by OAS staff. These dates are determined according to thicknesses of window glass fragments, using formulas defined by Moir (1982) and Schoen (1990) (see also Roenke  and White ).
The results of artifact dating are presented in Table 10.5. Thirty-two of the 50 assemblages (64 percent) yielded artifact dates. Twenty assemblages (40 percent of assemblages, 63 percent of assemblages with datable artifacts) yielded enough artifact dates to obtain mean artifact dates. Twenty-seven assemblages (54 percent of assemblages) yielded glass artifact dates, five assemblages (10 percent of assemblages) yielded ceramic artifact dates, and 23 assemblages (46 percent of assemblages) yielded can dates. Although only one set of artifact dates was calculated for most sites, one site yielded three sets of dates. OAS in-field examination of PECO 541, identified as Homestead C and associated with Anicieto Rivera, suggested that an artifact concentration located on the terrace above the site's structural remains was not temporally or functionally associated with the structures. Consequently, artifacts in the concentration, which may represent a trash dump, were specifically analyzed in the field by OAS staff. The concentration was assigned the number PECO 10000, to distinguish it from the rest of the site. Artifact dates were calculated for the site assemblage as analyzed by National Park Service staff, for the PECO 10000 assemblage, and for the entire assemblage (Table 10.5).
Table 10.5. Assemblages with Euro-American artifact dates.
Euro-American Sites and Cultural Periods
The 20 sites whose assemblages allowed determination of mean artifact dates fall into two periods, the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period (A.D. 1812-1880; n=six sites, including the PECO 10000 portion of PECO 541) and the Railroad/Tourism period (A.D. 1880-1941; n=16 sites, including the rest of PECO 541). Table 10.6 presents these sites by defined cultural periods (see Table 10.4). Figure 10.3 shows the locations of sites dating to the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period and Figure 10.4 shows the locations of sites dating to the Railroad/Tourism period.
Table 10.6. Euro-American sites confidently assigned to a cultural period, based on assemblage artifact dates.
Twelve sites yielded dates from artifact groups but did not have sufficient dates for calculating an assemblage mean date and thus could not be securely assigned to a cultural period. Tentative period assignments were given to these sites based on the artifact group dates that were available. These sites are shown in Table 10.7. Eleven sites had no artifact dates but can be placed in a period based on documentary, association, or feature information. They are shown in Table 10.8. Seven sites could not be dated at all. They are shown in Table 10.9.
Table 10.7. Euro-American sites by cultural period, based on artifact group dates.
Table 10.8. Euro-American sites by cultural period, based on documentary, feature, or association dates.
Table 10.9. Euro-American sites that could not be assigned to a cultural period.
Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War Period (A.D. 1812-1880)
Of the sites that appear to fall within the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period (A.D. 1812-1880) (Table 10.6; Figure 10.3), two are not securely dated to the period. The mean artifact dates for PECO 425 and PECO 357 are conditioned by the can dates, which are not very precise. Without the can dates, dating these two sites relies on their glass dates, which clearly fall in the Railroad/Tourism period (A.D. 1880-1941). These sites could be included in the Railroad/Tourism period, although that conclusion cannot be confirmed without systematic data recovery investigations.
The mean artifact dates for PECO 270 suggest that the site has two distinct components. One, seen in the ceramic dates, falls in the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period (1812-1880), while the other, seen in the glass dates, falls in the Fogelson/Monument (1941-1991) period. Although it is common to find that ceramic dates are older than those of associated glass and metal artifacts, the difference in this case is about a century, which is too large to be accounted for by time lag or curation of ceramic items. It is reasonable to suggest, based on these data, that the older component is associated with the Benigno Quintana homestead at PECO 270 (Homestead A) and that the younger component is associated with the Fogelson (post-1941) occupation of PECO 495, the nearby Forked Lightning Ranch house and outbuildings. Reference to the survey site form for PECO 270 finds that the primary visible features of the site (cement structure pads) are remains of buildings constructed during the Tex Austin occupation (1925-1941) and dismantled during the Fogelson era (Gilbert Ortiz, former Forked Lightning Ranch foreman, personal communication 1995). Though this does not involve artifact dates, it would place use of PECO 270 during the Railroad/Tourism period (A.D. 1880-1941) as well.
As seen in Table 10.5, the PECO 10000 component of PECO 541 may have a slightly earlier date than the rest of the site assemblage. Based on this date, the PECO 10000 component is assigned to this period, while the structural portion of the site is assigned to the Railroad/Tourism period (A.D. 1880-1941).
During survey, PECO 175 (Homestead B) was thought to have two components. One, presumed older, was associated with the site's structural remains, while the presumed younger one was seen as road trash found between the Pecos River bank and a road that runs through the site. Analysis of temporal artifact data does not support multiple components. Rather, the artifact dates are remarkably consistent in showing that only one component is evident at the site.
Field observations at PECO 540 (Homestead D) during the survey and during a subsequent site visit by OAS staff, strongly suggested that this site does have two components. One appeared to date before the United States occupation of New Mexico and the other appeared to date near the turn of the twentieth century. Datable Euro-American artifacts, recorded during survey and during a subsequent site visit, were fewer than needed to precisely date two components. The dates in Tables 10.5 and 10.6 are for the entire assemblage. If we sort out the datable artifacts from the apparently earlier structural area in the northern part of the site, however, we can calculate a mean artifact date of 1860.11, with a standard deviation of 25.56 years, and a mean date range of 1834.55 to 1885.67. Clearly, these dates are older than dates for the site as a whole. The remaining artifact dates are too few to provide a date for the southern component of the site. Of all the homestead sites recorded during the survey, PECO 540 had the largest assemblage of "native" ceramic types, including Ogapoge and Powhoge Polychrome, Kapo Black, and Ocate Micaceous, as well as Euro-American pearlware sherds. In contrast, no "native" ceramics were recorded in the southern part of the site and Euro-American whiteware sherds are dominant. These differences are suggestive of pre-railroad (1880) and post-railroad components at the site. Window glass thickness points to two, or perhaps three, building episodes. One piece from the northern structure, with a thickness of 0.045 inch, suggests that initial construction could have occurred as early as 1830 to 1845. As the total assemblage dates show, the other component probably dates to the late 1800s or early 1900s. One dated artifact observed on the southern part of the site is a clock gear with stamped patent dates of August 1902 and January 1903.
Railroad/Tourism Period (A.D. 1880-1941)
All of the sites assigned to this period seem to unambiguously fall within the period, including PECO 541 (without the PECO 10000 component). Several other sites warrant brief discussions. PECO 329 is an artifact scatter associated with the Santa Fe Trail and is in the location of Camp Lewis, the 1862 camp of Union soldiers involved in the battle of Glorieta Pass. Mean surface artifact dates point to use of PECO 329 at about 1900, however, indicating that these surface materials are not associated with Camp Lewis. This both contrasts with and resembles data obtained by Haecker's (1998) remote-sensing survey of the Camp Lewis area. Haecker's project used a variety of remote-sensing techniques to define the actual location and spatial extent of Camp Lewis. Artifacts were located using metal detectors. Haecker identified 14-31 percent of recorded artifacts with Camp Lewis, with most of the remaining artifacts being non-military items dating to the principal years of the Santa Fe Trail, ca. 1830-1880.
The surface survey did collect two artifacts from PECO 329 that can be associated with Camp Lewis, however. One is a U.S. Army General Issue uniform button with a recessed, lined shield. Wyckoff (1984) states that this button type was made by 1847, possibly as early as 1840, and that they were phased out in 1880. Still, uniforms with this button may have been issued for many years thereafter. However, Wyckoff also states that the federal government finally quit issuing old Civil War uniforms in 1880. Prior to 1851, uniform buttons were silver, presumably over brass. (A U.S. Army General Issue uniform button was also found at PECO 398, an artifact scatter on the east side of the river. This button also has a recessed, lined shield, probably dating between 1847 [1840?] and 1880 and may be related to the Union army presence in the area, or to Hispanic use of the highlands.)
Another possible Camp Lewis artifact collected from PECO 329 is an extremely flattened lead bullet. It weighs 24.6 grams, or 380 grains (24.6x15.432 grains/gram). One groove is visible, but a second is not clearly present, and there is no indication of a third. These attributes suggest it was used in a rifled musket and places it in the Civil War era, roughly 1850-1870, but the flattening obscures other diagnostic information that would allow more precise dating (Charles Haecker, personal communication 2000).
The Jose Baca Mine site, PECO 548, consists of at least three adits and two shafts. Tailings piles and a thin scatter of artifacts sit outside the two openings to the mine. Local informants say the mine is the result of treasure and gold hunting (PECO 548 field notes, 1996) and is named for a prominent local judge and citizen of the area (see also Dobie 1931:233-237). It seems to have two temporal components, with glass artifacts pointing to site use at about 1900 and cans pointing to site use in the second and third quarters of the twentieth century. The length of the mean artifact date range reflects these two possible components. Without additional, systematic data collection, it is not possible to determine whether the dating disparity reflects temporal components, site and assemblage formation processes, or other factors.
Finally, the datable cans from PECO 495, the Forked Lightning Ranch house site, date to ca. 1925-1939, the Tex Austin era of the ranch. The ranch house was built in 1925 as the center of a dude ranch owned and operated by Tex Austin (born Clarence Van Nostrand), an early rodeo promoter and showman (Pecos National Historical Park interpretive materials, 1995). The building was designed by John Gaw Meem, a Santa Fe architect later credited as the originator of Pueblo Revival style architecture. Meem also designed the Laboratory of Anthropology in Santa Fe. Austin lost the ranch to creditors in 1933. It was purchased in 1939 by Colonel E. E. Fogelson, an oil man from Dallas, who married actress Greer Garson in 1941. The couple made the Forked Lightning Ranch their summer home.
Many of the glass artifacts recorded at the Forked Lightning Ranch House also date to the Tex Austin era, but the glass artifacts also have a longer mean date range. This may indicate that some glass dates push into the Fogelson era at the ranch (1939-1991), contemporaneous with the glass artifacts at PECO 270. It is rumored that the ranch house was built on the location of a razed Hispanic homestead. The artifact dates do not support this rumor, because the beginning dates of the glass and can artifacts coincide closely with the beginning of the Tex Austin occupation of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of an older Hispanic component, but that component, if present, is not visible in the datable Euro-American artifacts recorded during surface survey. In fact, survey crews intentionally did not sample the deep middens on the east/river edge of the site. Systematic data collection or excavation in this area could resolve these questions about the length and nature of occupation in this spot where the Glorieta Creek and Pecos River meet.
Sites Tentatively Associated with Periods or Unassignable to a Period
Twelve sites yielded too few artifact dates to calculate mean artifact dates. Although we cannot securely assign them to cultural periods, we can speculate as to the periods of some of these sites, based on the available dates for artifact groups (Figure 10.5, Table 10.7).
Based on the artifact dates that could be obtained, one site, PECO 504, should probably be assigned to the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period (A.D.1812-1881). Seven sites, PECO 249, 251, 294, 301, 560, 615, and 638, should probably be assigned to the Railroad/Tourism period (A.D. 1880-1941). PECO 249 is the site of the Cattanach grist mill. This mill was apparently constructed between 1905 and 1909 by Archibald D. Cattanach and operated by him until about 1918 (White and Porter 1996:2-4). It had a small capacity, only about 60 bushels per day (compared to 100-500 bushels for most merchant mills in New Mexico), but was probably the most modern and efficient grist mill between Santa Fe and Las Vegas at that time. As such it was an important element of the local economy. The railroad brought high grade flour to New Mexico from the Midwest, and by 1935 wheat was rarely grown in the state, and all the merchant mills in New Mexico had closed (White and Porter 1996:2-6). The mill was dismantled by Tex Austin in 1925, and the mill site probably flooded in 1929. Excavations in 1995 revealed little of the original structure, though a fragment of the bull wheel and two mill stones were recovered from the surface (White and Porter 1996).
The four remaining sites dated through artifact groups, PECO 339 (the Colonias Bridge), 439, 446, and 656, should probably be assigned to the Fogelson/Monument period (A.D. 1941-1991)
Seventeen sites cannot be assigned to a cultural period using artifact dates. Eleven of these can be tentatively assigned to a period based on documentary, feature, or association evidence at the sites. They are listed in Table 10.8. Among these is Kozlowski's Trading Post (PECO 553). Martin Kozlowski was a Polish immigrant who fled his homeland after participating in the revolution against the Prussians (Kajencki 1990:52). He joined the U.S. Army shortly after his arrival in this country and fought the Apache in southern Arizona and New Mexico. After his honorable discharge in 1858, Kozlowski used his 160-acre government bounty land warrant to purchase 600 acres of ranch land located near a spring on Glorieta Creek (then known as the Arroyo de Pecos) (Kajencki 1990:56). The stage stop run by Kozlowski and his Irish-born wife Elena was a popular tavern for travelers along the Santa Fe Trail where weary stage passengers could dine on freshly caught trout and wash the dust from their faces (Kajencki 1990:56). For two months in 1862 the Kozlowski's tavern served as the hospital for the Union troops that fought in the Battle of Glorieta Pass, and Camp Lewis is immediately adjacent to the trading post. In 1878 Martin Kozlowski shot and killed a man who was arguing with his sons and spent the next two years in the Las Vegas jail. The coming of the railroad to the Upper Pecos Valley in 1880 brought the end of the stage stop. Kozlowski lived at his ranch until 1898, when he joined three of his sons and their families in Albuquerque. He died in Albuquerque in 1905 (Kajencki 1990:63-64). The buildings of his trading post were later used to house staff of the Forked Lightning Ranch during the Tex Austin and Fogelson eras.
The remaining seven sites cannot be assigned to a cultural period. These sites are shown in Table 10.9.
Comparing Homestead Artifact Dates with Documentary Dates
In the following discussion, the five Hispanic homestead sites recorded during the Pecos survey are discussed in order of their artifact dates, from earliest to latest (see Tables 10.5 and 10.6 for dates). Figure 10.6 shows their locations and the locations of private land tracts along the river as identified on a map drawn in 1913 by Vincent K. Jones during his survey of the Pecos Pueblo grant for Gross, Kelly, and Co. (Jones 1913a). His field notes from that survey provide details of the features and improvements he observed within each tract (Jones 1913b). For each site a brief history of land tenure is presented, followed by a comparison of dates derived from documentary sources and those derived from artifactual analyses. Based on the comparison, conclusions are presented regarding the dates of occupation and the identities of site occupants.
PECO 540: Homestead D
PECO 540 is located in a tract of land that was unclaimed in the Jones (1913a) survey and is found between the Anicieto Rivera and Pedro Ruiz tracts (Figure 10.6). Figure 10.7 is a map of the site, Figure 10.8 is a photograph of the northern portion of the site. National Park Service survey records suggest that the early component at the site is associated with the Diego Padilla family. In 1813, Padilla, with two other petitioners, requested a grant to lands at Las Ruedas, located about four miles down the Pecos River from Pecos Pueblo (Kessell 1979:439). Their request was lost in bureaucracy, and in 1814, they applied for another grant, this time at Los Trigos, an ill-defined area along the Pecos River from near the eventual location of the Forked Lightning Ranch house south to the vicinity of Las Ruedas (Kessell 1979:443). This area extended well into the Pecos Pueblo grant. Their grant was approved the same year but was bounded on the north by the Pecos Pueblo grant. Hall (1984:20) states that Padilla "never established a permanent home at Los Trigos. He may have used the grant for a few years after receiving it in 1815. By the 1820s, he and his sons abandoned the Los Trigos grant in favor of more promising land upriver, in the Pecos Pueblo grant." In fact, they had begun occupying jacales "in the bends of the river" (Hall 1984:26) by 1816 and had stock and gardens there by 1821. This description suggests that the Padillas lived in the vicinity of PECO 540 and is the apparent reason for associating PECO 540 with Diego Padilla in the survey records. Comanche raiding drove off the Padillas by 1826, and no new settlers moved back in until 1842 (Hall 1984:26).
The 1842 date corresponds closely to the mean glass dates for the site (Table 10.5) and is within the dates from the earlier, northern structural area of the site. Hall (1984:63; parentheses and emphases added) states, "In 1841, the alcalde of San Miguel del Vado had traveled upriver, found the Los Trigos grant uninhabited, and had installed twenty-five new families on the grant. Those families had no legal connection to the original, 1814 grantees (i.e., Padilla and others); but they were living there. When asked. they said that the boundary of their Los Trigos grant extended all the way to the Arroyo de Pecos, almost to the ruin of Pecos Pueblo itself." The "Arroyo de Pecos" probably refers to what is now known as Glorieta Creek. This would place PECO 540 well within the area claimed by the second occupants of the grant. If Hall's information is accurate, and PECO 540 is related to the post-1841 reoccupation of the flexible Los Trigos grant, which the artifact dates support, then PECO 540 was not associated with Diego Padilla or his family. Since we do not have the names of the post-1841 occupants of the Los Trigos grant, we cannot, at this point, speculate about the identity of the site occupants, but it seems clear that it was not Diego Padilla. Resolution of the issues of the dates of the two components and the identities of the site occupants will require systematic archeological data recovery investigations and intensive review of documentary materials.
Table 10.10 lists artifacts from PECO 540 by functional category, as recorded by OAS staff. The high frequency of "Domestic routine" artifacts, mostly sherds, is appropriate to a Hispanic homestead, particularly the dominance of "native" sherds in the older, northern part of the site. It points out the economic interaction between Native American and Hispanic residents of northern New Mexico, even after the abandonment of Pecos Pueblo.
Table 10.10. PECO 540: OAS artifact counts by functional categories and proveniences.
PECO 270: Homestead A, Benigno Quintana
PECO 270 is located on the eastern edge of a tract, Tract G, identified by Jones (1913a) as belonging to Benigno Quintana (Figure 10.6). Figure 10.9 is a map of the site; Figure 10.10 is a photograph showing the location of the site. On August 6, 1909, Benigno Quintana filed a Declaration of Title, in which he states that his father, Cayetano Quintana, bought the land from Martin Kozlowski in 1853 and maintained possession until his death in 1898, when it passed to Benigno (San Miguel County Deed Record 67, pp. 206-207). Jones (1913b:12) states that Tract G, comprising 53.6 acres, with a house shown in the approximate location of PECO 270, "is claimed by Benigno Quintana, who has lived upon it, fenced it, and cultivated most of it for a great many years."
If Benigno Quintana was the person identified as Juan B. Quintana in a May 15, 1925 quit claim deed, then the land passed to Conferina Armijo de Quintana and Manual V. Quintana on that date (San Miguel County Deed Record 98, p. 177). On the same date, the land was sold to G. D. Hughes (San Miguel County Deed Record 98, p. 178), and then from Hughes to Tex Austin (San Miguel County Deed Record 98, p. 179).
Thus, the Quintana occupation of the land lasted from 1853 to 1925. Artifact dates suggest that occupation of PECO 270 began in the late 1870s or early 1880s, 20-30 years after Cayetano Quintana purportedly bought the land. This may indicate that PECO 270 was not the location of Cayetano's home and that the site was Benigno's home, beginning around 1880 (± five years). It is perhaps important in this regard that Benigno did not claim, in his 1909 title declaration, that Cayetano had lived on the tract, only that he maintained continuous possession of it. There is a remarkable correspondence between the 1925 date that ended Quintana ownership of the land and the end of the mean artifact date range (1928). It is also important to note that the beginning of the mean date range for artifacts recorded at the nearby Forked Lightning Ranch House site (PECO 495) is 1928.
Table 10.11 lists artifacts from PECO 270 by functional category, as recorded by OAS staff. The preponderance of "Foodstuffs" (bone) and "Domestic routine" items (mostly sherds) suggests that the portion of the site inspected was the location of a household midden.
Table 10.11. PECO 270: OAS artifact counts by functional category.
Several Euro-American artifacts were collected from PECO 270 during the survey. Three are stoneware sherds, one with a salt glaze over Albany slip; a stoneware bottle finish fragment with a glaze that is probably lead, since it exhibits an amber color, especially in the thicker sections; and a body sherd from a bottle of unknown function that was highly fired with a degree of vitrification that approaches a Chinese stoneware or heavy porcelain.
Other items collected from PECO 270 include a sponge-stamped whiteware saucer sherd with a repeated brown floral pattern,4 a possible porcelain second or early whiteware,5 a 1/4-inch thick fragment of flat glass that could be a piece of car windshield, shelving, mirror, or table top, and an unidentifiable rectangular copper plate, possibly cast, with holes in each corner.
PECO 175: Homestead B
PECO 175 is located immediately west of a tract, Tract F, identified by Jones (1913a) as belonging to Anaceto Rivera, probably the same person identified in other documents as Aniceto Rivera and Anicieto Rivera (Figure 10.6). Figure 10.11 is a map of PECO 175; Figure 10.12 is a photograph of one of the structures on the site. Based on the spellings in several other documents, Rivera's first name was probably spelled Anicieto. In reference to Tract F, Jones (1913b:12) states, "The only evidence of possession are an old deserted house and an old broken down fence near the road to Las Colonias by way of Los Trigos canon [sic]." Jones's map shows the Rivera house location, but it is farther south in the tract, approximately in the location of PECO 541. Thus, we have no documentary evidence of PECO 175 or an association with Anicieto Rivera. It seems reasonable to presume that if PECO 175 were occupied at the time of Jones's survey, an idea that can be supported with artifact dates, Jones would have known of it, particularly given the size and complexity of the site and its location along a road following the Pecos River south from Pecos, running through the Rivera tract. It seems reasonable to conclude that PECO 175 was not Anicieto Rivera's home and that it was already abandoned when Jones conducted his survey and well before the end of the mean artifact date range, 1927.61. Alternatively, the site, whose assemblage appears to represent domestic refuse, may have been occupied seasonally and, as such, was not recorded by Jones.
It is important to point out that the mean can date ends in 1879, while ceramic and glass dates are consistent with each other in showing a longer time range (Table 10.5). This is a situation in which it is good to keep in mind that the mean artifact date ranges are statistical figures expressing periods of time within which most datable artifacts could fall and do not necessarily express the actual dates of site use. It is entirely possible that the site was occupied for a much shorter period of time than is reflected in the mean glass, ceramic, and artifact date ranges and that the site was abandoned before Jones's survey. Resolution of this issue, if possible, will require systematic archeological data recovery investigations and intensive review of documentary materials.
Table 10.12 lists artifacts from PECO 175 by functional category, as recorded by OAS staff in June of 1999. In the table, 175.1 is the area around the structures, while 175.2 is the midden area between the road and the edge of the Pecos River canyon. The high frequency of Domestic Routine artifacts, mostly sherds, is appropriate to a Hispanic homestead. The single Entertainment/Leisure artifact is a bisque porcelain doll leg, whose style dates between about 1860 and 1880 (Noel Hume 1970).
Table 10.12. PECO 175: OAS artifact counts by functional categories and proveniences.
PECO 367: Homestead E, Pedro Ruiz
PECO 367 is located near the eastern boundary of Tract H, identified by Jones (1913a) as belonging to Pedro Ruíz (Figure 10.6). Figure 10.13 is a map of PECO 367; Figure 10.14 is a photograph showing the location of the site. Tract H represented only the cultivated lands claimed by Ruíz, and Jones's map shows two houses in the approximate location of PECO 367. Apparently, Gregorio Calabaza sold the land to José Mariano Ruíz on May 26, 1839, a transaction that was recorded on August 2, 1867 (San Miguel County Deed Book 4, p. 35). According to the deed, Calabaza was a Pecos Indian who was acting on behalf of himself and all the remaining natives of Pecos Pueblo. Pedro Ruiz claimed possession of the land by inheritance from Mariano Ruíz, his father, and his title was quieted, along with the other claimants recorded by Jones, in San Miguel County case number 7613 in 1919. In 1926, Pedro and Hermenegildo Ruiz sold the land to Tex Austin.
Artifact dates from PECO 367 (Tables 10.5 and 10.6) fall near the later end of the dates of the Ruiz occupation of the land established by documentary sources, 1839 to 1926. They suggest that the site recorded as PECO 367 was occupied from about 1890 to the 1930s, from which we could infer that Pedro built the house at PECO 367 around 1890, some 50 years after his father acquired the land. Interestingly, this date corresponds to an 1891 tax receipt given to Mariano Ruíz for taxes due in 1889 (San Miguel County Tax Roll 1889, Precinct No. 12). Based on the documentary records, it is probably reasonable to place the end date in the mid-1920s. Alternatively, the archeological record may indicate that Ruíz lived at the site until the mid-1930s, a decade after the land was sold to Austin. Resolution of this issue, if possible, will require systematic archeological data recovery investigations.
OAS staff did not visit PECO 367, so no functional artifact data can be presented.
PECO 541: Homestead C, Anicieto Rivera
PECO 541 is located in Tract F, identified by Jones (1913a) as belonging to Anicieto Rivera (Figure 10.6). Figure 10.15 is a map of the site; Figure 10.16 is a photograph of the lower portion of the site. As noted earlier, Jones (1913b:12) states, "The only evidence of possession are an old deserted house and an old broken down fence near the road to Las Colonias by way of Los Trigos canon [sic]." Jones's map shows the house location, which is approximately the location of PECO 541, allowing preliminary identification of PECO 541 as the Anicieto Rivera home.
As discussed earlier, OAS in-field examination of PECO 541 suggested that an artifact concentration located on the terrace above the site's structural remains was not necessarily temporally or functionally associated with the structures. Artifacts in that concentration, which may represent a trash dump, were specifically analyzed by OAS staff in the field. The concentration was assigned the number PECO 10000, to distinguish it from the rest of the site. The PECO 10000 component of PECO 541 may have a slightly earlier date than the rest of the site assemblage. Based on this date, the PECO 10000 component is assigned to the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period (A.D. 1812-1880), while the structural portion of the site is assigned to the Railroad/Tourism period (A.D. 1880-1941).
Interestingly, the ends of the mean glass and artifact dates for PECO 541 fall before Jones's survey, supporting Jones's observation that the house was abandoned before he saw it. We cannot determine how much earlier with existing data, but the issue might be resolved following systematic archeological data recovery. It is also interesting to note that the mean artifact dates suggest that PECO 541 had a relatively short life, approximately 20 years, beginning in the early 1890s. This may help explain the small size and simple plan of the house remains, particularly in comparison with those of nearby PECO 175, which may have been occupied for 40-50 years, based on artifact dates (or somewhat less, based on our understanding of documentary evidence).
Table 10.13 lists artifacts from the PECO 10000 component of PECO 541 by functional category, as recorded by OAS staff. Comparison of these data with those in Table 10.14, which lists artifacts from the rest of PECO 541 by functional category, indicates very different sets of items, probably from very different contexts. In Table 10.13, the Foodstuffs items are oyster shell fragments. Most of the Domestic Routine artifacts are Euro-American whiteware dish sherds and pressed glass sherds (amethyst in color). The absence of "native" sherds suggests a non-Hispanic context. The Furnishings items are cast iron stove parts and steel hinges. The Construction/Maintenance category is represented by three cut nails, two wire nails, and single pane window glass fragments. Pane thicknesses of 0.078 and 0.085 inch indicate construction between about 1865 and 1885, with 1870 as a likely approximate date. The Personal Effects category is represented by a fragment of a milk glass cold cream jar. Most of the Unidentified artifacts are amethyst, aqua, and green glass, probably belonging in the Domestic Routine and Indulgences categories. One ceramic item is probably an heirloom creamware fragment. It is a handle in the shape of a human figure. Taken together, these data indicate a non-Hispanic household with access to a wide range of relatively expensive goods.
Table 10.13. PECO 541/10000: OAS artifact counts by functional categories.
In contrast, the artifacts observed in the PECO 541 component of the site suggest a different context. Most of the Unidentifiable artifacts in Table 10.14 are bottle sherds, many of which are suspected of being from beer or liquor bottles. The Indulgences artifacts are remains of a Poor Boy flask (liquor) and a tobacco tin. The single Personal Effects artifact is a "Tar Wine" bottle fragment. Tar Wine was a medicinal with a high alcohol content. The single Furnishing item is a kerosene lamp chimney fragment. Construction/Maintenance items are nails (five cut and one wire, indicating pre-1890 construction) and a single window glass fragment, measuring 0.071 inch thick and probably dating between 1850 and 1870.
Table 10.14. PECO 541: OAS artifact counts by functional categories.
Summary of Analyses of Euro-American Artifacts
Using artifact dates recorded at the Pecos National Historical Park Cultural Resources Inventory Survey (CRIS) historic sites, we have been able to assign or tentatively assign two-thirds of the sites to cultural periods defined by the Cultural Landscape Overview for the park. Seven sites, including all or parts of four of the five homestead sites (PECO 540, 270, and 175, and the PECO 10000 component of PECO 541) and three artifact scatter sites date or probably date to the Spanish Colonial/Mexican/Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period (A.D. 1812-1880) (Tables 10.6 and 10.7). Two of these homestead sites can be identified through documentary evidence with particular families. PECO 270 can be tied to the family of Benigno Quintana, and PECO 367 to that of Pedro Ruiz, PECO 540 may be associated with the second occupation of the Los Trigos Grant, while PECO 175 may be associated with Anicieto Rivera. These sites reflect the expansion of Hispanic settlement along the Pecos River, both from the south and from the Hispanic community of Pecos in the north.
Twenty-three sites date or probably date to the Railroad/Tourism period (A.D. 1880-1941) (Tables 10.6 and 10.7). They include PECO 367, the Pedro Ruiz homestead, and PECO 541, the house identified with Anicieto Rivera in the Jones survey (1913a, 1913b). They also include the Jose Baca Mine (PECO 548), the Forked Lightning Ranch House (PECO 495), and Kidder's camp at Forked Lightning Ruin (PECO 226), as well as the grist mill, pond, and acequia at PECO 249, and numerous artifact scatters. Some of these artifact scatters are associated with the different residences, others are probably associated with railroad-related wood-cutting activities. The sites in this period reflect the continuing expansion of Hispanic settlement and land use, as well as the aggregation of land tracts into the large Forked Lightning Ranch. They also reflect construction, use, and maintenance of the railroad through the Upper Pecos Valley and the beginning of archeological investigations at sites in the area.
Four sites may date to the post-1941 Fogelson/Monument period (A.D. 1941-1991) (Table 10.7). The remaining 18 sites cannot be assigned confidently to a cultural period on the basis of recorded artifact dates.
Together, the Euro-American sites recorded by the Pecos survey and dated in the above discussion provide spatial and temporal data that elaborate the park's cultural history and landscape. In particular, patterns of Hispanic settlement and land use and interaction between those patterns and changing land tenure with the formation and growth of the Forked Lightning Ranch are evident in the survey records and data. Consequently, the survey data have helped to fulfill several objectives of the park's Cultural Landscape Overview:
As a result, the historic sites survey data can be used to develop planning and management recommendations and to identify research and analytical needs for Pecos National Historical Park (Cultural Landscape Overview objectives 5 and 6; Cowley et al. 1997:13), furthering the processes and goals of the park's management plans.
Review of Pecos Area Census Records
Census records are a primary source of information often overlooked by archeological researchers. The information contained in census records, while never the same from one census to the next, nevertheless allows broad social trends to be followed. It also allows the tracing of families and even individuals through time.
This discussion is a review of the United States census records for the Territory and State of New Mexico, San Miguel County, for the years 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, and 1920, which are housed at the New Mexico State Records Center and Archives (NMSRCA) (there are no census records for 1890 at NMSRCA). The census records reviewed here certainly do not exhaust the possibilities of this line of research. Pecos was not found in the 1850 census, which is not to say it cannot be found. Time did not permit examination of the Territorial census of 1885. Spanish and Mexican census records for the Pecos Pueblo/Spanish Mission period were not examined in this study, but excellent reviews of Spanish Pecos area demographics can be found in Kessell (1979) and Levine (1999). Thus, the following review focuses on the Hispanic Settlement, Santa Fe Trail, Civil War period from about 1860 to the Railroad/Tourism period to 1920 (see Table 10.4), a time frame that is sufficient to document the change in the Pecos area from a local agrarian economy to one increasingly tied to the sweeping changes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This review attempts to follow the Kozlowski (or Kozlowsky or Koslowsky) family, the Ruiz or Ruis family and the Quintana family. Benigno Quintana, the early occupant of PECO 270, was not found in the records, despite Jones's (1913b) assertion that he had been in the area many years. He may be the same person who is identified as J. B. Quintana in land records; this possibility was not checked in census records. Similarly, Anicieto Rivera was not found in the census records, although Riveras and Riberas are abundantly represented. He, too, may be referred to by a different name or a different spelling of his name.
In addition to these families, this review also attempted to follow Donaciano Vigil and Alejandro Valle, two important figures in Pecosand New Mexicohistory. In the 1840s, Vigil was secretary to the last Mexican governor, Manuel Armijo, then was named secretary of the new U.S. territory by General Kearney. As such he became the first registrar of documents related to land in New Mexico and was extremely influential in land dealings throughout the territory. Don Vigil moved to Pecos in 1854 and by the time of his death in 1877 his estate included the Los Trigos grant (south of the Pecos Pueblo grant) and almost all the irrigated land in the Pecos cienaga east of the Pecos River (Hall 1984:144,154). Born Alexander Pigeon, Alejandro Valle adopted his new name after he came to the Pecos area from St. Louis in the 1840s, He obtained the grant which bears his name, immediately north of the Pecos Pueblo grant, in 1851Don Vigil witnessed and registered the deed. Like Martin Kozlowski, Valle established a stage stop along the Santa Fe Trail, his at Pigeon's Ranch, near Glorieta Pass, just west of the Pecos Pueblo grant (Hall 1984:149).
The Pueblo of Pecos had stood empty, except for travelers, since 1838, so mention here of "Pecos" refers to the village, 2 mi (3.2 km) northeast of the pueblo.
1860: The Eighth Census of the Territory of New Mexico, San Miguel County
The 1860 census is especially valuable because it includes a census of livestock and agricultural products as well as people. The returns are for the whole county and time did not permit extracting more than a few known Pecosenos from the sample, but it does give an accurate picture of farming practices in the county. This review underscores the need for a thorough settlement history of the region, because many of the settlements listed in any given census never appear again. The 1860 census, for instance, lists "Settlements along the Pecos River from La Cuesta to El Pueblo." If El Pueblo were related to Upper Pueblo on the modern map, these settlements would be near Ribera, south of the park (Figure 10.17). Other useful information in the census, such as the morbidity tables, is compiled by church parish, information not available for this review. Pecos village did not have a resident priest in 1860.
"Anglo" money was already coming into the area. Most Hispanic farms were valued at between $100 and $3,000, while Anglo farms were valued from $1,000 to $18,000. In larger holdings, fewer acres were likely to be improved through clearing and possibly irrigation. Martin Kozlowski claimed 50 improved acres, a relatively high number, and two unimproved acres, on a farm valued at $1,500, with improvements and machinery valued at $200. Donaciano Vigil claimed only 12 improved acres at a value of $1,600, which suggests he had not yet begun accumulating the large landholdings mentioned in his 1877 will or that he reported most of this land as unimproved. Alejandro Valle claimed as much as 2,000 improved acres with a value of $6,000.
Most farmers kept some equine animalsa horse, mule, or ass. Many also kept working oxen, from 1 to 60. Many farmers also kept milch cows, with several farmers reporting herds of up to 100, although no butter or cheese production was reported in the census. It may be that all nonworking cattle were reported as milch cows. Most farmers kept a few pigs, usually only enough for on-site consumption. About half of the farmers kept sheep flocks, which varied widely in size from fewer than 10 to several thousand.
The census taker, Charles Emil Wesche, noted that crops were running only about 50 percent of expected yields and in some areas were total failures, from hail and locusts. A disease called "mal de lengua" by the locals caused high mortality among the mules. Frost wiped out almost all of the fruit. Only one farmer in the sample reported a fruit yield. The major crop was still corn. Almost all farmers reported corn crops of hundreds of bushels, with the range from 20 to 600. Some farms did even better. One Hispanic farmer reported 1,500 bushels from 25 improved acres, while an Anglo farmer reported 4,000 bushels from 250 improved acres. Wheat seems to have been grown in some sections of the county by most farmers and in other sections by virtually no one. In any case, wheat yields were in the tens to low hundreds of bushels. No one reported growing as much as 500 bushels of wheat. Surprisingly few farmers reported growing peas and beans, and no one in the sample grew even 20 bushels. Irish potatoes were also grown, but by even fewer farmers than grew beans, with never more than 15 bushels reported. It is interesting to note here that in the next year there would be comments in a Santa Fe newspaper lamenting the lack of potatoes and stating what a benefit it would be if someone in the territory were to grow some.
Among the industries listed were four mills, two of which were used to process both flour and lumber. One blacksmith did a large enough business to qualify as industry, processing about 6,000 pounds of iron. One carpenter also qualified, using 50,000 board feet. Evidently, none of these industries was near Pecos, although Donaciano Vigil is credited with setting up a molino in Pecos at some point in time (Hall 1984:146). The molino ground corn and survived into the 1940s (Cipriano Rougemont, personal communication 1999).
In the Pecos-Los Trigos area one blacksmith and one male domestic servant were recorded. All the rest of the men, out of a combined population of 488, were farmers, laborers, or farm laborers, a distinction that was apparently important at the time. The small scale and essential equality of the farming operations is shown in the fact that the farm laborers and farmers are nearly equal in number and many laborers also reported owning real estate. Many of the farm laborers were sons of the farmers. With one exception, shepherds were boys between the ages of 10 and 15, a practice that continued well into the twentieth century in Pecos (Sabino Varela, personal communication 1997).
Except for Juana Sena, a widow who described herself as a farmer, and one female servant, no Pecos women reported an occupation other than housekeeping. Yet, Los Trigos had a washerwoman and a female servant, perhaps indicating harder times in Los Trigos.
At this time, the only information on Martin Kozlowski and his family is from the agricultural census. It seems odd that Kozlowski would appear in the agricultural census on the same page as Donaciano Vigil and Alejandro Valle but not be found in the personal census. However, according to the census, Kozlowski kept very little livestock, one horse, four oxen, and eight swine. He harvested only 80 bushels of corn from his 50 improved acres and grew no wheat, beans, or potatoes.
There were no Ruiz families in the Pecos-Los Trigos area or in El Macho or the two big ranches listed in the area, nor in the Torreones Creek area, as Arroyo de los Torreones was called in the census. Nor were there any farmers named Ruiz or Ruis in the county sample, which included most of the county. This may simply mean they were missed by the census, but if so, the family name was very rare in the area. Alejandro Valle, 53, was listed as having a twenty-nine-year-old wife named Carmen and two children. The Valles, the Kozlowskis, and a New Yorker named James Bugges with a large farm were the only non-Hispanics listed in Pecos.
The census taker noted there was not a single public school in all of San Miguel County. Wealthier families sent their children to Santa Fe College, while other children marked as being at school had attended a sort of relic "Dames School," run two or three hours a day in the winter by several women who taught their neighbor's children reading and writing.
1870: The Ninth Census of the Territory of New Mexico, San Miguel County
Several very distinct changes are immediately apparent upon analysis of the 1870 census. The population of the area seems to have dropped, but that may be a function of definition of the area by the census takers. However, only eight farm owners survive, employing 57 farm laborers. This fact, coupled with the 52 women who reported occupations, make it look like hard times had come to the Pecos Valley in the aftermath of the Civil War. Indeed, without quantifying, it appears that personal worth and real estate values had dropped considerably. For instance, Valle, now called Alexander rather than Alejandro, saw his worth drop from $14,000 to $3,971, which might explain why he spent years trying to get the Federal Government to reimburse him for the damage done to his stage stop by the Civil War battle of Glorieta Pass (Oakes and Swanson 1995:16). Only eight people report a personal worth over $1,000, including Donaciano Vigil at $1,500.
In 1870, Valle had three children, including a son, Justo, eight, born since the last census. Valle's daughter, Delfina, is one of 33 women and one man who described themselves as seamstresses. The number of women taking in washing had increased as well, from one to 13.
Ten people are listed as domestic servants. Children as young as eight and nine are listed as servants. Interestingly, the three youngest servants were Indians living with unrelated families. In fact, many children were living with families other than their birth family. One of the young Indian children was living with the Catholic priest and his parents, all of whom were from France. Of the six Indians living in Pecos, all were too young to have been Pecos Pueblo Indians, so presumably these were members of other tribes.
In spite, or because of hard times, more occupations are represented among men as well as women. There is a musician, a carpenter from South Carolina, a wagon boss, a lumber sawyer, a blacksmith (not the same man listed in 1860), and a gardener, who was the father of the priest. A resident priest also appears to have been a change for the village of Pecos.
From the 1870 census, we learn for the first time some personal information on Martin Kozlowski. Kozlowski, 43, was from "Polland" [sic] and his wife Ellene, 42, was from Ireland. Their oldest son, Joseph, 16, had been born in Missouri, while Thomas, the next oldest at 14, was born in New Mexico. Thus, the family came to New Mexico sometime between 1854 and 1856. The Kozlowskis had six children, two of whom, Juana, 12, and Carlos, 2, bore names reflective of their adopted homeland. The other children were William, 10, and John, 8. The family had a live-in washerwoman and a male domestic as well as a 16-year-old girl, Maria Antonia Quintana, for whom no occupation was listed but who undoubtedly functioned in the household as nursemaid or scullery maid. Mrs. Kozlowski was famous for her cooking at the stage stop on their property. The stage stop may have made the economic difference in their lives. Certainly in the 1870 census, they appear more prosperous than they did in the 1860 farm census, when they reported the farm and improvements as worth $1,700. In 1870, Kozlowski had real estate valued at $2,000 and a personal estate valued at $800. His was one of the few families reporting an increase in value during those 10 years.
The Ruiz family may have been in El Macho or Machos in 1870, since that is where they show up in 1880.
1880: The Tenth Census of the Territory of New Mexico, San Miguel County
The 1880 census taker included the names of the communities he was recording within the Precinct of Pecos. Thus, we have records for Glorieta, Pecos proper, Los Vallecitos, Los Trancos, Machos, La Cueva, Los Alamitos, La Joya, and Baughl's Switch (also called Bowll's Switch or Baughl's Siding) (Figure 10.17). The year 1880 marked the coming of the railroad through the area, but the economic benefits were scattered. Many areas, such as Los Vallecitos and Los Trancos were unaffected, whereas in Glorieta, half the able-bodied men were employed cutting timber or ties. The pace of life had quickened enough to require two blacksmiths in Glorieta, a male cook, and a "licor dealer." An influx of "foreigners" and easterners had taken most of the new jobs, leaving the Hispanic population in the farm laborer jobs. The census lists one immigrant from Canada, three from England, three from Ireland, five from France, and two from "Europe." Curiously, not a single person in Pecos Precinct was described as a farmer, perhaps reflecting the census taker's opinions or understandings. It may also represent the end result of the hard times of the 1870s, which also saw the "Great Panic" of 1873. Many farmers may have lost their land.
Machos seemed to have largely escaped the influx of foreigners, but the census recorded a small French community there. Carmen or Carmel Valle was now a widow, but her daughter and younger son were still living at home. Another French priest is resident in Machos, as well as a French laborer. Also living in Machos is the Ruis family, whose oldest son Pedro, at age 14, described himself as a musician.
Only one or two men in Pecos were actively cutting ties, but there are other clues that the coming of the railroad was impacting the community. For example, far fewer women had listed occupations, although one man was listed as a "washing man." Further, there was a small merchant class in Pecos, including a saloon keeper and a restaurant keeper. One man found employment clerking, probably for the saloon keeper, since he lived in that household. Another blacksmith plied his trade in Pecos, making three within five miles of each other.
The best evidence of changes precipitated by the railroad is the new community of Baughl's Switch, where the "Koslowskys" [sic] were living in 1880. Joseph, now married with two children, went by Jose. He had married a woman from "Mesure," which could be a phonetic spelling of Missouri. His brother William, still living at home, was known as Julian (probably Julian, a more common New Mexican Hispanic name for William than Guillermo, the actual Spanish translation of William). Mrs. Kozlowski's name was spelled Helen instead of Ellene, Martin Kozlowski appears in the 1880 census as a resident of the jail in Las Vegas.
The most telling sign of the nature of Baughl's Switch, other than the name, is that the Kozlowski children and grandchildren were the only people listed as native New Mexicans, out of 80 residents living in the community. Two men gave their origin as Europe. Sixty-nine inhabitants, including Thomas Kozlowski, were making ties for the oncoming railroad, 10 others were contracting ties, and a den of six men gave their occupations as gamblers. Two contractors gave their names as August and Alexander Valles, of Ireland. Alexander would be of an age to be Alejandro Valle's eldest son, although the eldest son was listed as Rafael in earlier censuses. Thomas Kozlowski is listed as being from Colorado, yet we know from the 1870 census that he was born in New Mexico. The bustle of Baughl's Switch was short lived. In 1882, Adolph Bandelier traveled through the valley on the train and wrote in his journal that "the buildings at Baughl's have all disappeared" (Lange and Riley 1966:238).
1900: The Twelfth Census of the Territory of New Mexico, San Miguel County
Some 536 people were recorded in the Precinct of Pecos in 1900. The merchant class in Pecos had grown enough that specializations were listed, including whiskey salesman, jewelry salesman, grocery salesman, and others. Some of these men may not have had stores per se but were more likely peddling their wares out of the back of wagons around the area while making their homes in Pecos (George Adelo, personal communication 1995). Other specialties were freight-related occupations, including a teamster, a wagon driver, two express drivers, a simple freighter, and three freighters of railroad ties, showing that the region was still producing ties long after the railroad had come through, although only one man is listed as making ties, showing that the main production area was probably not in Pecos proper. The first miner and a miller made their appearance in the 1900 census in Pecos; the miller may have worked at Donaciano Vigil's molino. Farming had made a strong comeback, perhaps fueled by increasing access to a wider market as represented by the railroad and the teamsters. Twenty-four men reported that they were farmers, and 49 men were farm laborers, again many working on the family farm. Sixty-two men were day laborers. Women were not working as much as formerly. Only 16 laundresses were recorded and three milliners but no seamstresses. This may imply better economic times in Pecos.
There was also a school in Pecos by 1900, with three teachers, all locals. Two men, both Varelas, and a Rivera woman kept school, but evidently it was still a hit-or-miss proposition for most of the community's children. Virtually every child of eight and nine was in school, but only some five to seven year olds. Few teenagers attended, because by ages 10 to 12 many of them already had an occupation. It may well be that there was a subscription cost for schooling, because few families had all of their school-age children in attendance.
There were two priests in Pecos, both from France. Other sources indicate that most of the Kozlowskis had moved to Albuquerque and that Elena Kozlowski died there in 1895 (Kajencki 1990:63).
1910: The Thirteenth Census of the Territory of New Mexico, San Miguel County
In 1910, some 667 people were recorded as living on the Pecos Grant, and another 43 in the Precinct, which had changed its number from eight to nine. By this time, the railroad had become a major employer. Some 42 men described themselves as laborers or tie makers for the railroad, but even that is not the whole story. Several more described their place of occupation as the lumber camp, and one man described it as the tie camp, which makes it pretty clear that most of the loggers and saw mill employees were also working for the railroad, at least indirectly. In addition to the men who described themselves as working in the lumber industry, no doubt the man listed as a "driver" and many of the odd job laborers were also similarly employed, at least on a casual basis. There was still a strong agricultural base, as evidenced by 97 men employed as farmers, farm laborers, and herders. For the first time herders on stock ranches replaced individual or family shepherds as livestock operators.
Jose Varela was still teaching school, but his daughter had joined him, as had the daughter of one of the town merchants, J. W. Harrison, who may have been the predecessor of the Adelos at the Town and Country Store. There was another French priest at St. Anthony's Church in Pecos.
Fourteen women described themselves as laundresses or servants. Only two or three were servants, and they were young girls. The laundresses describe their clients as either "regular customers" or "private family" and one woman declared herself the laundress at the hotel, but no hotelkeeper was found. It may be that the hotel was a boarding house farther up the canyon.
One miner, the miller, a carpenter, and an independent blacksmith were the trades representatives. The merchant class included Antonio Tanuz or Taniz, who was from Syria and who would, sometime in the next decade, stake Samuel Adelo (ne Abdullah) to a wagon of goods to get his start in Pecos. The merchant business had become complex enough that one man made his living as a bookkeeper. There were a few clerks as well.
For the first time, many people report having their own income. Judging by the age of most of these individuals, some sort of pension program may have gone into effect.
Unfortunately, none of the people we have been following appeared in the 1910 census. We know from Jones (1913b) that Tomas (Thomas) Kozlowski reappeared in the community in 1911 and had rebuilt a portion of the old trading post.
1920: The Fourteenth Census of the Territory of New Mexico, San Miguel County
This decade may be the high-water mark for Pecos. Only 549 people appear in the census, but at least another 200 were up the canyon, working at the mine. Many of these are "foreigners," but about half the work force were New Mexicans. The area was known as San Antonio or San Antonio/Valley Ranch (Figure 10.17). This is the heyday of the mine. Ten men in Pecos reported working as miners, with many more in San Antonio, as well as the usual complement of chemists, engineers, diamond drill operators, cooks, muckers, and others.
In the Pecos Precinct (No. 9), the number of agricultural workers had dropped again. Thirty nine farmers, 32 farm workers, and seven shepherds (no herders) were active, and the Rivera and Barela Stock Co. got a line in the census. But, for the first time, some of the farmers report a second cash job, freighting or, also for the first time, stock raising.
Nineteen men worked in transport, as either freighters or teamsters, but the express driver seems to be a thing of the past. Railroad workers numbered 24 and lumber workers, who were probably supplying both the mines and the railroad, numbered 39. The lumber mill was developing more specialties, such as lathe operator. The grist mill was still in operation, and carpenters, a bricklayer, a stonemason, and blacksmiths represented the trades.
New professions in town included a barber, several telegraph operators, and for the first time, a doctor and a lawyer. Another indicator of good economic times was that virtually no women were listed as working outside the home. Schooling was not recorded, however, so there is no way to determine if schooling was growing in acceptance. Jose Varela had retired from teaching and was farming, but one of his daughters continued the family tradition.
Again, unfortunately, none of the families we have been following appeared in the 1920 census. Time did not permit resolving the question of whether they had left the area or if a restructuring of precinct lines had put them in another district. This may also have been the problem in 1910, since Pecos had a new precinct number.
Although non-Hispanic residents of the region were increasing in number following the United States' occupation of New Mexico in 1846 and annexation in 1848, ethnic and economic patterns shown in the 1860 census reflect the Hispanic roots and nature of Pecos and the other San Miguel County communities. The economy of the Pecos area was almost entirely agrarian, including the few industrial trades in practice.
By 1870, census records suggest an economic recession in the region, seen in decreasing personal and estate values, in changing occupations, particularly in "service" occupations (laborers, servants, seamstresses, etc.), and, perhaps, in increased employment of women. At the same time, there seems to be an increased presence of non-Hispanic residents, as well as practitioners of trades less clearly tied strictly to farming and stock raising. These trends suggest changes in the nature and structure of communities in the region.
The 1880 census was taken in the same year that the railroad reached the region, and economic changes associated with the railroad were quickly felt, judging by the fact that they are already apparent in the census. The Upper Pecos Valley communities were becoming linked to regional and national industries and markets, encouraging rapid and significant changes from local, subsistence-based, agrarian patterns to wage- and contract-based employment. Also of importance was the formation of an actual railroad community, Baughl's Switch, and, as seen clearly in the census of that community, continual and increased immigration of non-Hispanics.
The continued impact of the railroad on regional communities is seen in the growing connections to regional, territorial, and national populations evident in the 1900 census. Particularly, we see the increased presence of merchants of various kinds and of freighters of various goods and materials, both of which show the movement of goods and materials into and out of the region and the move away from localized, subsistence-based economics. The presence of a mail carrier is an indication of the extent to which the Upper Pecos Valley was becoming integrated into the territory and the nation.
These trends are still evident in the 1910 census. Census records point to another important economic shift that began with the advent of the railroad and climaxed in the first three decades of the twentieth centurythe growth of commercial pastoralism. This shift was created, in large measure, by the opening of eastern markets to ranchers and sheep pastoralists and resulted in the partidario (share-herding) system of herd management. It was prevalent across most of northern New Mexico before the Great Depression and impacted Native American, Hispanic, and Anglo herders and stockowners, changing their social and community structures and relations.
In the 1920 census, we see the continuing trend in which the Upper Pecos Valley is more strongly integrated into regional, statewide, and national industries, markets, and institutions. One very important aspect of this economic integration, beginning in the 1880s and continuing to the present, was the advent and growing dominance of a cash economy. Wage- and contract-labor appear to predominate occupations in 1920, as seen by the numbers of miners, freighters, teamsters, lumber workers, and railroad workers. The cash economy replaced the subsistence-based, agrarian economy that characterized the region before the railroad and before the rapid integration of Pecos into broader economic and social structures.
This review highlights, but does not exhaust, the data potential of one group of documentary resources, the census records, by examining briefly the information in those records concerning ethnicity and economy, as well as the lives of selected families. In combination with other documentary resources, particularly church records, a much more complete picture of the social and economic structure of the region can be revealed.
Ideally, the trends observed in this review are also visible in the archeological record of Pecos National Historical Park. Further, the archeological record can be expected to provide tangible data on the impacts of these trends on the residents of the Upper Pecos Valley.
An Examination of Trail and Road Segments near Pecos Pueblo
This study was aimed at identifying remaining segments of the Santa Fe Trail that exist in Pecos National Historical Park, but other potential roads and trails were also examined to define their period of use and determine how they fit into the culture history of the Pecos area. Aerial photographs were used to define linear features that might represent the remains of roads or trails near Pecos Pueblo. Most of these were located and examined in the field during May of 1999. Historic maps on file at the Public Room of the New Mexico Bureau of Land Management were used to identify road segments, as were historic accounts of the Pecos area. In this way, the functions of most of the linear features identified on aerial photographs and considered to be segments of roads or trails could be verified. Only two alignments were not identified from documentary sources and may represent trails associated with the occupation of Pecos Pueblo. No artifacts associated with the use of any of these trails in the nineteenth century were noted during the survey.
The Santa Fe Trail
The first trading expedition to use the general route of the Santa Fe Trail was that of William Becknell in 1821. The initial goal of Becknell's expedition was to trade with the Comanche, but they encountered some Mexican rangers and were persuaded to change their plans and trade in Santa Fe (Gregg 1954:13 ). Because of their favorable report, others soon followed. While the trail was opened in 1821, the amount of commerce moving over it to New Mexico was limited for the first several years of its existence, and there were only eight to 10 expeditions between 1821 and 1824 (Connor and Skaggs 1977:34). By 1824 the main routes followed by the Santa Fe Trail had begun to emerge (Figure 10.18), and both the Mountain branch and the Cimarron branch were in use (Connor and Skaggs 1977). Trade began in earnest after 1825, when the United States completed a survey of the trail to mark its route and secure safe passage through Indian Territory (Connor and Skaggs 1977).
The eastern terminus of the Santa Fe Trail was at Franklin, Missouri until 1828. From that year on the trail began at the new town of Independence, Missouri (Connor and Skaggs 1977). Expeditions tended to leave in small groups and form up later at Council Grove in Kansas, where they would elect leaders and agree on the rules to be followed (Connor and Skaggs 1977; Gregg 1954 ). Two main routes were used, the Mountain branch that followed the Arkansas River to Bent's Fort before turning south and the Cimarron branch that crossed the Arkansas River between the south bend and Fort Dodge, near present-day Dodge City, then headed southwest along the Cimarron river (Figure 10.18). The Cimarron branch was shorter than the Mountain branch, at 865 mi (1,392 km) from Franklin to Santa Fe versus 909 mi (1,463 km) for the latter (National Park Service 1990:14). After the move to Independence, the Cimarron branch was 753 mi (1,212 km) long, while the Mountain branch covered 797 mi (1,283 km) (National Park Service 1990:14). The Mountain branch was the more popular route during the early years of the trail because water was more readily available. It became less popular during the later years of the Santa Fe trade because of its length (Connor and Skaggs 1977).
The first ruts caused by traffic over the trail were seen after Becknell's second expedition to Santa Fe in 1822, in which goods were transported in three ox-drawn wagons (Connor and Skaggs 1977:33). Otherwise, most of the early expeditions carried goods on horse or mule back (Connor and Skaggs 1977:35). Most of the later expeditions transported goods in wagons drawn by mules or oxen, which could carry much heavier loads, often traveling four wagons abreast to avoid being strung out for miles in hostile territory (Duffus 1972:137; Gregg 1954:24 ). The Santa Fe trade was disrupted in the three years preceding the Mexican War (1846-1848), because of a Mexican embargo against American goods (Connor and Skaggs 1977:203). Trade picked up again after the end of that conflict, only to decline once again during the Civil War. There was a resurgence of trade over the trail following the end of that war (Connor and Skaggs 1977:204). This resurgence of trade helped doom the Santa Fe Trail because it showed railroad promoters the economic possibilities of overland routes to the west, and they began to develop finances to take advantage of that potential. The railroad reached Santa Fe by 1880, effectively bringing trade over the Santa Fe Trail to an end, since it was more economical to ship goods by rail.
Pecos Pueblo and the Santa Fe Trail
Several accounts by travelers over the Santa Fe Trail mention the Pecos important area, providing information about that part of the route. Duffus (1972:156) notes:
San Miguel was the official port-of-entry until New Mexico was acquired by the United States in 1846 (Figure 10.17). This account indicates that the last section of trail between the port-of-entry and Santa Fe had seen some improvements during the Mexican period. While there is no mention of what those improvements were, this section of trail passed close by Pecos Pueblo.
The close proximity of the Santa Fe Trail to Pecos Pueblo is confirmed by Gregg (1954:190 ), who states that in the 1830s travelers would often see residents of the pueblo standing on their roofs or leaning against a wall or fence. Pecos Pueblo was apparently commonly used as a campsite by travelers along the trail (National Park Service 1990:105). One of the most fascinating accounts of travel across the Santa Fe Trail is that of Susan Magoffin, who accompanied her husband Samuel just behind the detachment of American soldiers led by Stephen Kearney who took possession of New Mexico in 1846. Samuel Magoffin had been involved in the Santa Fe trade since 1828, when he joined his brother James who had been a Santa Fe trader since 1825 (Drumm 1982). In her journal, Susan Magoffin noted a visit to Pecos Pueblo on August 29, 1846, indicating that James Magoffin pointed out the room where he had occasionally stayed during some of his earlier trips when the village was still inhabited (Drumm 1982:101).
W. W. H. Davis came to New Mexico as the U.S. attorney for the territory in 1853 and provides a short description of Pecos Pueblo as seen during his journey over the Santa Fe Trail by mail coach (Davis 1982:54-55 ). The expedition camped a short distance from the pueblo, which Davis examined while the mule team was being harnessed. He notes that the church was roofless at the time of his visit, an important observation because Magoffin's journal seems to indicate that it was still in place during her visit six years earlier (Drumm 1982:101). Both visitors note that the pueblo was in ruins.
Some years after these visits, Martin Kozlowski and his wife, Elena, built a hostel and stage stop near a spring that had previously served as a campsite for travelers along the Santa Fe Trail (Hall 1984:122; National Park Service 1990:105). According to information supplied to Adolph Bandelier by Elena Kozlowski, their ranch was established in 1858 (Lange and Riley 1966:80). It served as headquarters for Union troops during the Battle of Glorieta Pass in 1862, and troops were billeted there for two months following the battle (Hall 1984; Kajencki 1990; Swanson 1988).
The Deterioration of Pecos Pueblo
The deterioration of Pecos Pueblo is an important facet of this study, because at least two of the identified trail segments may relate to removal of wood from the pueblo and mission. In an 1884 journal entry, Bandelier (Lange and Riley 1970:336) notes that Don Ramon Archuleta had come to Pecos in 1842 and that the buildings at the Pueblo were still intact at that time. Mariano Ruiz told him that the pueblo stood three stories high at the time of abandonment (Lange and Riley 1966:78). To follow up on this, Bandelier queried Elena Kozlowski about the condition of the ruins. She told him that she had:
Kozlowski used timbers from the mission and pueblo to build parts of his ranch (Lange and Riley 1966:412), though apparently not the main house. As Bandelier (1881:42) relates, Elena Kozlowski told him that the timbers from the mission were used to build outbuildings, apparently with the permission of the Archbishop of Santa Fe (Bandelier 1881:43).
Kidder (1924:87) indicates that local Hispanics were in the habit of removing timbers from the pueblo to use as firewood. He felt that the north building (Quadrangle) had retained its form for a few years following abandonment, since it was used as a temporary prison for a group of invading Texans captured by Governor Armijo in 1841 (Kidder 1924:87). Citing Emory's report concerning the conquest of New Mexico in 1846, Kidder (1924:87) notes that one of Emory's illustrations shows the kiva in the northwest part of the plaza, with the house walls behind it standing to a height of fifteen or twenty feet.
There are obviously some discrepancies between accounts. For instance, Elena Kozlowski told Bandelier (1881) that the mission's roof was intact when she and Martin arrived in 1858, yet Davis (1982 ) indicates that the church was roofless in 1853. Perhaps Elena Kozlowski's twenty-two year old memory of the mission's condition was faulty. It is doubtful that the pueblo and mission were "in perfect condition" at the time of abandonment, since the population of Pecos had been dwindling for decades. Still, we might expect much of the pueblo to have remained fairly intact until the end. As Kidder (1924) notes, use of the Quadrangle as a temporary prison suggests that the main structure was still in good repair in 1841. However, Magoffin in 1846 and later Davis in 1853 both noted that the buildings were in ruins. Locals probably began salvaging timbers from the pueblo and mission soon after they were abandoned, and within less than 10 years they appear to have been in ruins.
Descriptions of the Segments Investigated
Thirteen linear road and trail segments were defined using aerial photographs, and most were examined in the field. Only two segments were not inspected on the ground, one because it was too faint to follow and a second because its relationship to another segment was not identified until historic maps of the area were consulted. A single long alignment was sometimes broken into several shorter segments for ease of description. The alignments were defined on 1:6,000 scale aerial photographs (on file at Pecos National Historic Park). Most were then ground checked and marked on USGS topographic quadrangles when confirmed. Figure 10.19 shows the locations of all segments in relation to Pecos Pueblo. Several roads that are marked on historic maps of the area have been added and are shown in Figure 10.20.
Other than linear alignments representing segments of trail, no surface artifacts or features that could be directly attributed to the Santa Fe Trail were located in this study (but see earlier discussion of PECO 329, 251, and Haecker 1998). In most places alignments appeared as shallow swales, but on slopes they usually became gullies that varied in depth according to the steepness of the gradient. Segments are described separately but are grouped by alignment. When possible, any correspondence with routes marked on historic maps of the area is discussed.
Santa Fe Trail
Seven segments appear to be related to the Santa Fe Trail, and occur on the west side of the NM 63 right-of-way south of Pecos Pueblo. Multiple parallel swales were visible along all of these segments, both on aerial photographs and on the ground. This is especially true where drainages are crossed, with the parallel swales probably reflecting alternate crossings used during wet weather or because of a washout. Elsewhere the parallel swales may indicate that caravans continued to move in multiple lines through this area, even though they should have been fairly safe from attack. Conversely, they could simply reflect the use of alternate routes when sections of trail became overly rutted.
Segment 1 begins where the La Joya de la Padre Road turns west from NM 63 and extends to the Arroyo de los Torreones, a distance of 750 m (2,461 ft). Two to three parallel swales were visible along this segment. No evidence of the linear alignment was noted south of this segment, either on aerial photographs or on the ground.
Segment 2 begins at the north end of Segment 1 and extends 950 m (3,117 ft) north to an unnamed drainage that flows into Glorieta Creek just west of Forked Lightning Ranch. Measurements were taken of the swales on this segment (Measure Point 1) at a place where three parallel swales are visible. The eastern swale is 4.2 m (13.8 ft) wide and 0.15 m (0.49 ft) deep, the central swale is 6.4 m (21 ft) wide and 0.28 m (0.92 ft) deep, and the western swale is 6.9 m (22.6 ft) wide and 0.25 m (0.82 ft) deep. Overall, the trail is 32.3 m (106 ft) wide at this point. Two to three swales were visible along this segment.
Segment 3 begins at the north end of Segment 2 and extends north for 650 m (2,133 ft), disappearing at the south edge of Glorieta Creek because of erosion. This segment leads to an arroyo crossing, swinging west around Civil War era Camp Lewis (PECO 329), and turning back to the east as it approaches the south edge of the arroyo to take advantage of a moderate slope down to the arroyo bottom. Where the swales descend the slope they have been deeply incised and now resemble wide gullies. Just before the trail turns east to descend into the Glorieta Creek bottom at least four separate swales can be seen on the aerial photographs. Unfortunately, only two swales could be distinguished in this area on the ground. Measurements along this segment (Measure Point 2) show that the eastern swale is 4.6 m (15.1 ft) wide and 0.24 m (0.78 ft) deep. The western swale, which may represent more than one set of ruts, is 9.7 m (31.8 ft) wide and 0.20 m (0.66 ft) deep. Separate measurements near Segment 4 (Measure Point 3) found that the swale is 17.6 m (57.7 ft) wide and 0.20 m (0.66 ft) deep and represents at least two separate swales that are visible on aerial photographs but cannot be distinguished on the ground. The number of swales visible along this segment varied from six at the southern drainage crossing, down to two in the central part of the segment, then up to four as the trail begins its descent to Glorieta Creek.
Segment 4 represents a turnoff from the main trail into Kozlowski's. The takeoff point is between 400 and 450 m (1,312 and 1,476 ft) southwest of the ranch building and is shaped like a V, with the northern branch providing access to traffic moving south on the main trail and the south branch to traffic moving north. Measurements taken in this area (Measure Point 3) show that the northern swale is 7.3 m (24 ft) wide and 0.25 m (0.82 ft) deep, and the southern swale is 8.0 m (26.2 ft) wide and 0.23 m (0.75 ft) deep. Just east of the point where the branches meet the trail enters the west edge of the NM 63 right-of-way and is obscured until the east edge of the right-of-way is reached. From that point the trail heads northeast toward Kozlowski's. As it descends the high terrace edge it turns into a fairly deep and wide gully. The entire traceable length of this segment is about 375 m (1,230 ft).
Segment 5 begins at the north edge of Glorieta Creek and extends northwest for 450 m (1,476 ft). At that point it turns back to the north for 225 m (738 ft) where it ends at a divide into two separate trails. Segment 6 begins at the divide and trends toward the north-northeast for 325 m (1,006 ft) before ending at the current entrance road to the park. Presumably, it would eventually encounter Segment 9 at the north end of the park, but the projected route crosses a badly eroded area where the trail is no longer visible. This section of trail is 6.3 m (20.7 ft) wide and 0.19 m (0.62 ft) deep (Measure Point 4). Segment 7 also begins at the divide and extends toward the north-northwest for 375 m (1,230 ft) before ending just short of the current park administration building. This section of trail is 7.5 m (24.6 ft) wide and 0.20 m (0.66 ft) deep (Measure Point 4). Three to four parallel swales were visible on the aerial photographs along the segment of trail along Glorieta Creek, but only two could be followed up the slope and on top of the terrace to the north.
Segment 9 is at the north end of the park and parallels the west edge of NM 63 for 450 m (1,476 ft). Two separate swales are visible through most of this area but have largely been converted to erosional channels so no accurate measurements were available. As discussed below, this segment probably ties in with other segments assigned to the Santa Fe Trail, but does not actually represent a segment of the trail.
Segment 11 represents an abandoned section of the road to Lower Colonias, a small community in the Cow Creek drainage, east of the Pecos River. This portion of road consists of multiple parallel swales that cross a moderate slope on the north edge of a knoll that was used as a gravel quarry for the construction of Interstate 25. From the appearance of the swales, the road seems to have moved either upslope or downslope as erosion claimed each individual track. This is especially true at the northeast end of the segment, which contains numerous (eight+) channelized swales, some of which are incised up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep. The swales are much shallower at the southwest end of the segment and are considerably less visible on the ground. No measurements were taken along this segment, and no attempt was made to document the actual number of swales present. This segment is about 800 m (2,625 ft) long and was used to access a ford on the Pecos River before the more recent bridge (PECO 339) was built.
Segment 12 is visible on aerial photographs but was not examined on the ground because its significance was not recognized during fieldwork. This segment, which is about 800 m (2,625 ft) long, is part of an unimproved dirt road on the west side of the Pecos River. Sections of this road are still in use, and its original route is shown as Historic Road 1 in Figure 10.20. It exited the Colonias Road near the south end of Segment 11 and, in a broad curve to the west, headed toward a crossing on Glorieta Creek near the current location of the Forked Lightning Ranch house. This segment is often referred to in survey field notes as "the South Boundary Road."
Miscellaneous Trail Segments
Three segments could not be assigned to specific historic trails, two of which may represent sections of trails associated with the occupation of Pecos Pueblo. Segment 8 runs northwest from the edge of the terrace top above the Glorieta Creek floodplain, intersecting Segment 6 about 50 m (164 ft) from where it separates from Segment 5. This trail could be followed for about 175 m (574 ft) and measures only 4.8 m (15.7 ft) wide by 0.15 m (0.49 ft) deep, much smaller than nearly all of the swales associated with historic roads. The southern end of this segment is near IO-68, originally described as a linear pile of cobbles. In addition to this feature, our study encountered two stone circles measuring 1.5 to 2 m (4.9 to 6.6 ft) in diameter at this location, built of variably sized cobbles and boulders in a single course. The function of the linear cobble pile could not be determined, but the cobble rings resemble a type of shrine used from prehistoric times to the present day by Pueblo Indians (Douglas 1917; Ellis 1969; Goldfrank 1927; Starr 1900). Thus, this segment may have carried traffic from Pecos Pueblo to a complex of shrines.
Segment 10 is visible as a long linear alignment on the aerial photographs, but only the northern third could be followed on the ground with any confidence. This swale is about 750 m (2,461 ft) long and begins near the north end of the Mesilla de Pecos, running toward the north-northwest. Though no measurements were obtained along this segment, it averages about 2-3 m (6.6-9.8 ft) wide and is very shallow. This configuration resembles Segment 8 in that it is narrower and shallower than swales associated with historic roads. Thus, it is likely that this segment also represents a section of trail used during the occupation of Pecos Pueblo.
Segment 13 is visible on aerial photographs as two to three faint parallel alignments running from near the southern end of Segment 10 to an intersection with the southern end of Segment 9. This feature is about 725 m (2,379 ft) long, and could not be followed on the ground.
Discussion of Trail Segments
Santa Fe Trail Segments
While we have thus far assumed that Segments 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 represent a section of the Santa Fe Trail that runs past Pecos Pueblo, there are problems with some of our identifications that should become clear as this discussion proceeds. One of the earliest federal surveys of the Pecos area was completed by John W. Garretson in 1859. His map (Garretson 1859) shows the Santa Fe Trail passing through this area and labels it as the road from Independence to Santa Fe. It travels north into the Pecos Pueblo Grant, curving broadly to the west to skirt the north edge of Glorieta Mesa. This map tends to confirm our definition of Segments 1, 2, and 3. As the road curves to the west, it passes near the southwest corner of Pecos Pueblo, confirming our identification of the south half of Segment 5. Using the configuration of the Pecos River on this map as a guide, the curve to the northwest probably began right after the crossing on Glorieta Creek near Kozlowskis, turning west about where Segment 5 now turns to the north. A projection of this section of the trail is shown in Figure 10.20.
This interpretation appears to be substantiated by a sketch map drawn by Adolph Bandelier during his study of Pecos Pueblo (Bandelier 1881:Plate I). This plan shows the "Military Road from Santa Fe" (Santa Fe Trail) crossing Glorieta Creek between 500 and 550 m (1,640 and 1,804 ft) southwest of the Pecos Mission. This is the approximate distance from the mission to the Glorieta Creek crossing on our projected segment of the trail in Figure 10.20. A second track labeled "Road to Rio Pecos" crosses the same approximate area but was not identified during our survey. Bandelier (1881:40) noted that the road from Baughl's Siding traveled to the east-southeast along Glorieta Creek but had to remain about a quarter of a mile west of the stream because of deep parallel drainages. The ford south of Pecos was apparently the first good location for crossing the stream. Thus, after crossing Glorieta Creek at Kozlowski's Ranch, the trail almost immediately crossed back over. These juxtaposed fords were apparently made necessary by the terrain; it was easier to cross the stream twice than it was to avoid it to the west.
The Garretson Map shows no spur of the trail running north to Pecos Pueblo, as represented by Segment 7. Whether this is because it was not a major thoroughfare and therefore not necessary for inclusion on his map or because it did not exist at the time is unknown. However, as discussed earlier, Pecos Pueblo was often used as a campsite by travelers along the Santa Fe Trail, probably both before and after it was abandoned in 1838. Thus, a spur of the trail to the pueblo might be expected. Conversely, the north half of Segment 5 and all of Segment 7 could represent a haul road used by Kozlowski when removing timbers from the pueblo.
Segment 6 is almost certainly not part of the Santa Fe Trail. Instead, it seems to be a section of the old Santa Fe to Las Vegas highway that existed before that route was paved. The map from Jones's 1913 survey shows the section of this road adjacent to Pecos Pueblo following the same approximate route as several segments of the Santa Fe Trail (Jones 1913a). It diverges from the Santa Fe Trail where Segment 5 turns to the northeast, and includes Segment 6. By bearing northeast soon after crossing Glorieta Creek at Kozlowski's Ranch, this track avoided the Mesilla de Pecos. A plat produced by Wendell V. Hall during a 1929 federal survey of the area (Hall 1929a) shows the pre-NM 63 route of this road, which his field notes (Hall 1929b) indicate was paved when he did his survey. It appears to follow the basic course of the Santa Fe Trail, but sections of the earlier dirt track were apparently bypassed to the east when this road was built, including Segments 3, 5, and 6. Segment 6 appears to align with Segment 9 at the north end of the park, which probably represents another section of the same unimproved road.
Other than Pecos Pueblo, this section of the Santa Fe Trail passes two important associated sites within park boundaries. Kozlowski's has already been discussed in some detail; however, notes from the Jones survey provide important ancillary information. As he states, Tomas Koslowsky (Kozlowski) and his family had:
The rebuilt house was probably the main structure at Kozlowski's. This rebuilding of the house and Bandelier's (1881:42; Lange and Riley 1966:80) comments about Kozlowski using timbers from the Pecos Mission to construct outbuildings explain why tree-ring core samples taken from vigas in the main building at the ranch failed to provide dates consistent with the construction of the Pecos Mission (Appendix E). If timbers from the pueblo or mission were used in the main house, which is doubtful, they were probably removed prior to the rebuilding in 1911 or were replaced at that time.
The second important historic site associated with the Santa Fe Trail is Camp Lewis, which was used for a few days in March 1862 as a staging ground for the 1,350 Union soldiers that fought in the Battle of Glorieta Pass (Haecker 1998:1). A recent investigation of Camp Lewis by the National Park Service (Haecker 1998) showed that numerous artifacts related to that encampment exist adjacent to the Santa Fe Trail at the north end of Segment 3, where the trail swings to the west around a fairly level area before descending to Glorieta Creek. Several circular anomalies were defined by a proton magnetometer survey and infrared imagery and may represent positions where wagons were drawn into defensive circles. While Haecker (1998:49-50) notes that they could represent camps used by travelers along the Santa Fe Trail, he feels it is more likely that they were the locations of military supply wagons associated with the Battle of Glorieta Pass.
Turnoff to Kozlowski's Trading Post
Segment 4 (Figure 10.19) represents a turnoff from the Santa Fe Trail into Kozlowski's Trading Post. This segment is not documented on any of the maps of this area that were located. It may postdate the Garretson Map of 1859 and was most likely abandoned by 1913 when the Jones survey was conducted. Nevertheless, the location and configuration of this segment indicate that it functioned as the entrance into Kozlowski's Ranch and Trading Post from the Santa Fe Trail.
Section of the Colonias Road and Associated Tracks
Segments 11 and 12 represent an abandoned section of the Colonias Road and a related track. The more recent Colonias Road turns east at the point where these segments diverge. It passes to the south of the knoll that was once a gravel quarry, crossing the Pecos River at the bridge (PECO 339). Before the bridge was built, the road crossed the river at a ford north of the gravel pit, in the vicinity of PECO 541, and Segment 11 provided access to that crossing. There is also a ford south of the bridge, which may have been used as a contemporaneous crossing.
Garretson's (1859) map shows the Colonias Road leaving the Santa Fe Trail north of its modern exit from NM 63, running east and then curving north to cross the Pecos at the approximate location of the northernmost ford. A nearly identical route is shown on Jones's (1913a) map, but the plat produced by Wendell V. Hall shows the road following its more recent path (Hall 1929a). This indicates that the bridge was installed sometime between 1913 and 1929, and Segment 11 was probably abandoned at about the same time.
Segment 12 forms the south end of a road that separates from the Colonias Road as it turns east to cross the Pecos River (Figure 10.20). Because this road seemed modern it was not ground checked. However, upon locating historic maps of the area, it was determined that this road was present as early as 1913, when it appears on Jones's (1913a) map. Its approximate route is shown in Figure 10.20, where it is labeled Historic Road 1. After leaving the Colonias Road, this track runs north and crosses the lower end of Glorieta Creek near Forked Lightning Ranch, though it predates that complex. It then trends northeast, ending at the old Santa Fe to Las Vegas Highway at the north end of the park.
Two segments (8 and 10) do not appear on any of the maps that were consulted. These segments were distinct from sections of historic roads examined on the ground in that they are narrower than most road segments, and neither is as deeply incised. Only a single alignment is visible along these segments, both on aerial photographs of the area and on the ground. This contrasts with most road segments, which usually contain two or more parallel alignments. The presence of a probable ritual complex at the south end of Segment 8 suggests it was used to access that area. Segment 10 may begin near the north end of the Mesilla de Pecos, though no definite terminus was found. The configuration of this trail resembles that of Segment 8, except that no ritual features were found in association. Both segments are probably sections of trails used during the occupation of Pecos Pueblo.
A different function can be assigned to Segment 13. As noted earlier, this segment was too faint to be followed on the ground and was none too clear on aerial photographs of the area. A road is shown in this approximate location on Garretson's (1859) map and is labeled simply as "Old Road." This "Old Road" begins at the northeast corner of Pecos Pueblo and runs toward the northeast corner of the Pueblo Grant, crossing the Pecos River in the northeast quarter of Section 4 (T 15N, R 12E). Figure 10.19 shows the location of Segment 13, which has been projected a bit toward the east to show the approximate direction in which it heads. Basically, this road heads toward East Pecos, bringing to mind Kidder's (1924:87) comment about local Hispanics removing timbers from the pueblo for use as firewood. This faint track may be the remains of the road used for this purpose, and it may have fallen into disuse even before Garretson drew his map in 1859.
Four roads shown on Hall's (1929a) map are shown in Figure 10.20 because of their potential historic interest. Historic Road 2 begins southeast of Kozlowskis, runs along the south side of Glorieta Creek and continues northwest out of that valley, paralleling the AT&SF railroad line. No evidence of this road was noted during survey, but sections of it are visible on aerial photographs of the area, and some appear to have been in use until recently. Historic Road 3 leaves Historic Road 2 near the north end of Segment 3 and trends southwest then turns south. Most of this road was probably abandoned when I-25 was built through the canyon, but a short segment is still in use and parallels the north end of Segment 3, running around the edge of Camp Lewis.
Historic Road 4 left the Santa Fe to Las Vegas Highway at approximately the same point that the current entrance to Pecos National Historic Park exits NM 63, crossed the Mesilla de Pecos south of Pecos Pueblo, and continued to the northwest. It was joined to Historic Road 2 by a short segment of road (Historic Road 5) that paralleled the west side of Glorieta Creek. No evidence of Historic Road 4 was seen on aerial photographs, but part of Historic Road 5 is visible.
By combining archeological survey, examinations of historic maps, and accounts of travelers and early archeologists in the Pecos area, we were able to define and identify several segments of historic roads. A section of the Santa Fe Trail remains within Pecos National Historic Park and runs up the west side of NM 63, crossing Glorieta Creek at Kozlowski's Trading Post. It then swings to the west to cross back over the stream, and at that point could no longer be followed.
While use of the Santa Fe Trail as a commercial route ended around 1880 when the railroad reached central New Mexico, some segments probably remained in use for many more years. This is true of the section examined by this survey, which continued in use as a route between Santa Fe and Las Vegas. Adolph Bandelier traveled from Santa Fe to Pecos Pueblo in 1880 and provides a detailed account of his trip (Bandelier 1881:40). The road he took followed the AT&SF railroad line past Glorieta to Baughl's Siding, which was about 2 km (1.2 mi) northwest of Pecos Pueblo (Julyan 1995). That road was very rough, but a good road led from Baughl's Siding to Pecos Pueblo and was probably a section of the Santa Fe Trail. This route is important, because it bypassed the village of Pecos completely, suggesting that the main road did not yet connect Glorieta and Pecos, as State Road 50 does today.
Extension of what had been the Santa Fe Trail north to the village of Pecos probably did not occur until after 1880 and was certainly accomplished by 1913 when the Jones Map was drawn. By then, of course, this section of road was no longer considered part of the Santa Fe Trail but was instead known as the Santa Fe to Las Vegas Highway (Jones 1913a). Unimproved sections of highway were identified and include the north part of Segment 5 and all of Segments 6 and 9. When NM 63 was paved, it was straightened and moved a bit to the east, preserving the segments identified by survey. Thus, this section of the Santa Fe Trail continued to function as a thoroughfare for 30-40 years after the railroad ended its use as a commercial route from the east. Indeed, parts of the Santa Fe Trail probably exist under NM 63 south of the La Joya de la Padre Road and under I-25 along Glorieta Mesa, so it still functions as an important transportation route.
Parts of other historic roads were also identified. Some are visible on aerial photographs as well as on the ground, while others were too faint to be followed on the ground. An interesting aspect of this study was the identification of two possible pueblo trails, which seem to differ from the historic roads. These trails consist of swales that are shallower and narrower than most of those along the historic roads. They also occur as single alignments, as opposed to the historic roads that generally contain multiple parallel alignments. These observations are potentially important and suggest that the configuration of foot paths varies enough from that of roads used by wagons and motorized vehicles that they can be distinguished from one another, even when abandoned for decades or longer.
Through a variety of approaches, this chapter has presented an introduction to some of the Euro-American archeological resources at Pecos National Historical Park. As with prehistoric studies, previous historical research, both documentary and archeological, has focused on Pecos Pueblo and the mission church and convento while the surrounding areas of the park and the Upper Pecos Valley have received less attention.
Consideration of the patterning of Spanish Colonial sites and artifacts indicates that most seventeenth and eighteenth century Euro-American settlement in the park centers on the mission complex, and that despite the strong influence over pueblo life exerted by the Spanish church, Native American material culture dominates the record for this period.
Examination of the Euro-American artifact data suggest that it was not until the independence of Mexico from Spain, and even some time after, that Hispanic settlement began in the park. By using archeological data in conjunction with documentary sources, the identity of the occupants of two of the homestead sites has been confirmed and clues uncovered about daily life in early nineteenth century New Mexico. Census records augment these studies by providing insights into the economic and social status of the inhabitants of the local area and the extent to which the Pecos Valley became integrated with regional and national institutions. The Santa Fe Trail served as a conduit for many of the changes that occurred in the valley during the nineteenth century, and field research and examination of historic maps indicates that remnants of the trail still exist in the park. This combination of approaches also highlights trails that have a signature distinct from wagon roads, possibly the precursors of the historic trail that linked Missouri to Mexico and Pecos to the rest of the world.
Many questions remain to be asked of the Euro-American resources at Pecos National Historical Park. What effects did Mexican independence, the Santa Fe Trail, the Civil War, the two World Wars and the post-war years have on this high valley? Once the fulcrum of the frontier, does Pecos remain on the margins of broader systems? Future historical research in the Upper Pecos Valley would benefit greatly from combining documentary studies with those of material culture. Systematic archeological data recovery, including excavation and remote sensing, in tandem with the study of documents and oral histories, can provide great insight to the changes in land use, settlement, culture, and economy that have shaped the lives of people now living in the Pecos Valley and the American Southwest and will continue to influence our lives in the future.
1. In addition to the work presented here, the OAS also provided three additional products: (1) a list of primary historical documentary resources related to nineteenth and early twentieth century land use and occupation within Pecos National Historical Park and adjacent portions of the Pecos Pueblo grant and the Upper Pecos Valley (This list was compiled by Boyer from Hall's  footnote references), (2) additional information from Williamson on the Euro-American artifacts collected during the survey, and (3) a discussion of sites included in the component landscapes defined in the Cultural Landscape Overview, based on artifact dates. These materials are on file at Pecos National Historical Park and at the National Park Service, Santa Fe.
3. Ceramic manufacturing characteristics, such as decoration styles and techniques tend to change more slowly than do similar characteristics of most other artifact groups. Consequently, the associated temporal ranges are longer for historic ceramics than those for cans and glass.
4. Price (1979) shows an identical brown stamped vessel from a site in the eastern Ozarks occupied between 1815 and 1870 but suggests the ceramic type dates after the late 1840s, The Ozark piece also included the rim with a green band and leaves. Ketchum (1983) shows a bowl with the same floral motif in blue with brown and yellow. He first calls it transfer ware, which it is not, but then describes it as "cut sponge." He dates the type between 1870 and 1920.
5. The paste of this sherd is a highly vitrified whiteware or perhaps a soft porcelain. In addition, the glaze has enough cobalt to puddle blue at the interior rim. The exterior glaze is very poor, exhibiting runs and streaks that seem to be original to the piece, and is noticeably blue. In addition, the glaze is very pinholed and the painted design colors bubbled through the glaze. Noel Hume (1970) mentions the blue puddling effect on porcelains produced at Leeds, England, suggesting that blue puddling is not a reliable distinction between pearl-ware and whiteware. The glaze quality suggests that the vessel was "second" quality. It may have been a Leeds porcelain or an early whiteware.
Last Updated: 13-Feb-2006