Mission San Jose de Tumacacori - Cultural Landscape Inventory - Tumacacori National Historical Park

i

National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 2010

Mission San José de Tumacácori Tumacácori National Historical Park

ii

Credits This document was prepared by the School of Landscape Architecture and Planning at the University of Arizona for the Intermountain Regional Office of the National Park Service and the Tumacácori National Historical Park. Research began in the fall of 2008, and the final draft was completed in the fall of 2010.

Cultural Landscape Inventory Coordinator: Project Manager: Author & Primary Researcher: Editor: Assistants:

Carrie Mardorf, ASLA Lauri Johnson, ASLA, Director of the School of Landscape Architecture and Planning Matthew Bossler, MLA Julia Roberts, MLA candidate Theresa Gredig, MLA Bethany Johannessen, MLA candidate

Special thanks to Jeremy Moss, Chief of Resource Management/Archaeologist; Don Garate, Chief of Interpretation; and other interpretive staff at Tumacácori National Historical Park for their expertise and help in acquiring and interpreting historic information; to Carrie Mardorf and Jill Cowley of the NPS Intermountain Regional Office for their support and guidance through the CLI process; and to George Binney of Binney/Mission Ranch for his insight into the inventory unit’s ranching history.

iii

Contents Page 1

Inventory Unit Summary and Site Plan

Page 4

Concurrence Status

Page 5

Geographic Information and Location Map

Page 9

Management Information

Page 11

National Register Information

Page 19

Chronology and Physical History

Page 85

Analysis and Evaluation

Page 250

Condition

Page 253

Treatment

Page 254

Biography and Supplemental Information

1

Inventory Unit Summary and Site Plan Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Landscape/Component Landscape Description: Mission San José de Tumacácori and the Tumacácori Museum, or in other words, the inventory unit, is the main component of Tumacácori National Historical Park. This inventory unit is located to the east of Interstate 19 and the East Frontage Road. It extends approximately one and a half miles north from Santa Gertrudis Lane in the direction of nearby Tubac, and includes a wooded portion of the upper floodplain of the Santa Cruz River between the Tumacácori and Santa Rita Mountains, mostly to the east of the river channel.

Prior to 2002-2004, the Tumacácori Inventory Unit was composed of three distinct land areas.

The first of these was Tumacácori National Historic Park, which at the time was 16.04 acres in size, and included the Tumacácori museum/visitor center, comfort station (restrooms), museum courtyard, a standing Franciscan church, convento, and associated structures, below-ground archaeological resources associated with use by Jesuit and Franciscan friars, and inhabitation of native American tribes, a portion of the mission orchard, and the contemporary fiesta grounds.

The second land area, to the east and south of the park, was the private ranch of George Binney, including ranch headquarters, active fields and orchards, and a segment of the Santa Cruz River System, The third land area, the privately-owned Ross property, lay to the north of the park and included portions of the Santa Cruz Riverine System further downstream and abandoned agricultural fields on the second terrace of the Santa Cruz River that had begun to re-naturalize to mesoriparian woody cover. In 2002-2003, Congress authorized the acquisition of the latter two parcels, a combined area of 310 adjacent acres, and the purchase was completed in 2004. These lands were used during the Mission Period of Significance as irrigated fields and orchards, and areas of residence, though all of these features have been significantly altered in the time since (Moss 2006, 11; Sheridan 2006, 235-236; Arendt et al, DRAFT 2009). The boundary of the Tumacácori unit for this CLI encompasses all three land areas including the remaining portion of the mission orchard, recently active or abandoned modern agricultural fields, irrigation infrastructure, flood headwalls, a pecan orchard, and ranch residences and support buildings.

Additionally, the full breadth of the lower floodplain of the effluent-charged and biologically active Santa Cruz River is included.

Two periods of significance have been identified at Tumacácori. The Mission period of significance extends from the establishment of the Mission of San José de Tumacácori in 1753, until the abandonment of the mission in 1848. The NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era period of significance extends from the first date of National Park Service Mission Revival construction in 1930, until the last design alteration of this style in 1959.

The built and natural features from the Mission Period of Significance are in various states preservation or decline. Most of the agricultural features have been eradicated, many of the residential features only remain as traces within the landscape, the mission’s main religious

2

infrastructure is well-preserved, and the biotic communities associated with the Santa Cruz River have returned to their historic lushness. As such, the inventory unit as a whole maintains partial integrity for the Mission Period of Significance.

The built and natural features from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance have been very well maintained. The Museum/Visitor Center Complex has received only minor repairs, its garden has been well-cared for, and in general, it is able to relate its designers’ intentions. As such, the inventory unit as a whole maintains a high level of integrity for the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Inventory Unit Size (Acres):

310 acres

Property Level:

Component

CLI Hierarchy Description:

Tumacácori National Historical Park contains three units: San Cayetano de Calabazas, Mission Los Santos Ángeles de Guevavi, and Mission San José de Tumacácori. This CLI addresses the latter.

3

Site Plan Graphic Information

Figure 1: Tumacรกcori Political Boundaries, before and after 2004 acquisitions. The aerial photo is from TNHP GIS files, specific year unknown, likely early 2000s. Boundary points 1-14 are in the NAD 83 12N projection.

4

Concurrence Status Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Inventory Status:

Incomplete

Completion Status Explanatory Narrative: Park Superintendent Concurrence:

(Required—I will fill this in, mjc)

Date of Superintendent Concurrence

(Required—I will fill this in, mjc)

National Register Eligibility:

This will fill in automatically from NR Section

National Register Eligibility Concurrence Date (SHPO/Keeper):

This will fill in automatically from NR Section

Concurrence Graphic Information

I will upload concurrence forms here

Revisions

5

Geographic Information and Location Map Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacรกcori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacรกcori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacรกcori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Inventory Unit Boundary Description:

The original 16.04 acres of Tumacรกcori National Historical Park, containing the church, visitor center, convento, fiesta grounds, and portions of the orchard/garden, was expanded in 2002-2004 to include vast areas of abandoned agricultural fields, mesquite bosques, and the bottom floodplain between the banks of the Santa Cruz River (see figure 1).

The eastern boundary contains lands within the first terrace on the east banks that have similarly been recolonized by mesquites. It does not, however extend as far as the eastern line of the floodplain.

The southern boundary is Santa Gertrudis Lane between the Eastern Frontage Road and the east bank of the Santa Cruz River. This portion of the inventory unit has an irregularly shaped boundary line because it traces a road and utility right-of-way, and does not include a private parcel directly to the north on the western terrace of the river.

The western boundary extends between Santa Gertrudis and the northern private property boundary along the western banks of the river.

North of the private property, the boundary of the park extends along the East Frontage Road to an access road which forms the southern boundary of the fiesta grounds. From this point, the western boundary diverges from the East Frontage Road along a steady line between the edge of the floodplain terrace and the rear property lines of the roadside homes and horse farms.

The northern boundary, delineated in full by a pipe fence, extends directly east across the river bottom, at which point it tracks to the southeast

6

until reaching the first eastern terrace, at which point it tracks directly east again until the boundary of currently productive agricultural fields.

Park Management Unit:

Tumacรกcori National Historical Park

Counties and States State:

Arizona

County:

Santa Cruz County

7

Location Map Graphic Information

Figure 2: Location of Tumacรกcori National Historical Park, in relation to other southern and central Arizona NPS units. Northern-most star represents the Tumacรกcori unit of TNHP (NPS 2009a).

8

Boundary UTM Boundary Source

Boundary Point Type

Boundary UTM Zone

Boundary UTM Boundary UTM Easting Northing

1. NAD 83

Point

12N

495140

3494177

2. NAD 83

Point

12N

495428

3494175

3. NAD 83

Point

12N

495456

3494107

4. NAD 83

Point

12N

495671

3493916

5. NAD 83

Point

12N

495825

3493916

6. NAD 83

Point

12N

495855

3492644

7. NAD 83

Point

12N

495683

3491905

8. NAD 83

Point

12N

495310

3491904

9. NAD 83

Point

12N

495308

3491910

10. NAD 83

Point

12N

495538

3491911

11. NAD 83

Point

12N

495567

3492055

12. NAD 83

Point

12N

495296

3492010

13. NAD 83

Point

12N

495120

3492501

14. NAD 83

Point

12N

495110

3492706

9

Management Information Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Mission San José de Tumacácori National Historic District (or just Tumacácori National Historic District)

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Management Category:

Must be preserved and maintained

Management Category Date:

09/15/1908

Management Category Explanatory Narrative:

The authorizing legislation for Tumacácori National Historical Park mandates the preservation of the Tumacácori mission. As a result, the landscape must be preserved and maintained.

Do Adjacent Lands Contribute?:

Yes

Adjacent Lands Description:

Five features associated with the Mission Period of Significance lie outside of the inventory unit.

Two of these are the Guevavi and Calabazas inventory units of TNHP. The mission sites preserved at these inventory units contribute to the integrity of the Tumacácori Inventory Unit because they were part of the original Tumacácori mission cluster.

Two are missing features of the agricultural landscape. The headgate of Tumacácori’s acequia madre lay at the confluence of Rock Corral Canyon and the Santa Cruz River, to the south of the inventory unit. Additionally, a single labor, or irrigated mission field, existed somewhere to the south of the inventory unit on the east bank of the Santa Cruz River in the vicinity of Josephine Canyon.

Finally, the presidio and pueblo of Tubac, which was integrally related to the Tumacácori Mission, lies a few miles to the north of the inventory unit, and is preserved and interpreted at the Tubac Presidio State Park.

10

Management Agreement Management Agreement:

None

Management Agreement Expiration Date:

N/A

NPS Legal Interest Type of Legal Interest:

Fee Simple

Fee Simple Reservation for Life:

N/A

Fee Simple Reservation Expiration Date:

N/A

Other Organization/Agency:

N/A

NPS Legal Interest Explanatory Narrative:

N/A

Public Access to Site Public Access:

With Permission

Public Access Explanatory Narrative:

Officially, visitors are required to enter, check in, and pay admission through the visitor center.

Many others enter the park from uncontrolled entrances located on all sides of the park.

These uncontrolled entrances include gates allowing access to the Anza National Historic Trail, and areas where hikers or migrants have pulled apart the fencing wires and passed through. Therefore, while staff encourages visitors to conclude their visit by the posted operating close time of 5:00 PM, visitation occurs at all hours of the day.

11

National Register Information Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

National Register Landscape Documentation:

Entered – Inadequately Documented

National Register Landscape Documentation Date: 1986 National Register Explanatory Narrative: March 30, 1984: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (AZ SHPO) concurs with National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination for Mission San José de Tumacácori National Historic District, including 10.15 acres of existing land (Correspondence, 1984).

September 5, 1986: Mission San José de Tumacácori National Historic District revision was submitted to include a total of 16.04 acres. It also expanded secondary historic buildings as significant to the “rustic” style NPS architecture (NRHP 1986). These lands were added primarily to include the “fiesta grounds.”

May 15, 2006: AZ SHPO concurs with Determination of Eligibility (contributing structure, period of significance: 1930-present) for Residence #2 and Cisterns within Tumacácori Mission Historic District (SHPO 2006, #1) September 5, 2006: AZ SHPO concurs with Determination of Eligibility (contributing structure, period of significance: 1930-present) for Residence #1 within Tumacácori Mission Historic District (SHPO 2006, #2) Mission San José de Tumacácori National Historic District contains structures and landscape elements that contribute to two separate periods of significance. Over time, as more lands have been acquired, and district features have been increasingly researched and understood, the National Register Documentation has been amended. With the nearly twenty-fold increase in acreage of the district in 2002, periods of significance need to be expanded to include periods of inhabitation prior to the current period of significance start date of 1748. Due to these major changes in both area and period of significance, a new nomination and consultation with AZ SHPO is required.

National Register Eligibility:

(Required), dependent on SHPO determination

National Register Eligibility Concurrence Date:

dependent on SHPO determination

National Register Concurrence Explanatory Narrative:

dependent on SHPO determination

12

National Register Significance Level:

International

National Register Significance Contributing/Individual:

Individual

National Register Classification:

District

National Historic Landmark Status:

National Historic Landmark Designation granted to Tumacácori Museum at Tumacácori National Monument, prior to its renaming as Tumacácori National Historical Park. This landmark was identified as a public, occupied building, with restricted access, with the present uses as a government office, a museum, and a visitor center.

National Historic Landmark Date:

May 28, 1987

National Historic Landmark Theme:

Architecture

World Heritage Site Status:

N/A

World Heritage Site Date:

N/A

World Heritage Category:

N/A

Statement of Significance: Tumacácori National Historical Park (TUMA) is the only National Park Service (NPS) unit displaying an entire, original, institutionalized Spanish mission landscape that still includes a one or more cabecera (head church with resident father), visita (frequently visited satellite mission without a resident Father; Guevavi, Calabazas), ranchería (semi-permanent Native American village), and ganadería (cattle ranch) with surviving structures. Tumacácori Mission is a nationally significant site in two ways. First, it is one of the northernmost Spanish mission settlements of New Spain, and, through the Jesuit and Franciscan religious orders of the Catholic Church, was instrumental in changing the culture and environment of what became Southern Arizona and the Southwest U.S, as a result of exploration and settlement. Second, the Tumacácori mission site contains Rustic Style structures built by the NPS in the 1930s that represent a unique era of NPS design in historic monuments that emphasized the style and craftsmanship of the historic structures.

Tumacácori Mission is internationally significant due to the culture and formative history it shares with northern Mexico. This is evidenced by the park’s participation in the Missions Initiative, “…an international, multidisciplinary partnership for cultural resource management. The Missions Initiative involves hundreds of Spanish Colonial Mission sites in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Representatives of both the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) and the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) are collaborating to protect cultural resources and promote heritage tourism through the re-establishment of historic links among Spanish Colonial missions” (NPS; Missions Initiative Website 2009). Within this framework, Tumacácori is significant according to the National Register Criteria A, B, C, and D for associations with historically important events, figures, architecture, and archaeological remains.

The Jesuit mission at Tumacácori, along with Calabazas and Guevavi, initially helped transform the culture and environment in the region through the slow process of acculturation and colonization by the Spanish Empire and Catholic Church. Mission Tumacácori was established at an existing ranchería, which minimized the impact on the O’odham, because the missionaries

13

allowed these Native Americans to remain at their traditional home site. However, the acculturation process changed the everyday lifestyle of the neophytes (new native converts). For example, the missionaries introduced them to new European crops and animals such as wheat and cattle, taught them Spanish farming and ranching techniques, and instructed them in common Spanish trades such as masonry. The goal of these efforts was to provide the neophytes the means necessary to become tax-paying citizens. In addition, the Jesuits conducted religious services and instructed the native residents in the lessons of the Catholic religion, with the ultimate goal of converting them. The combined effort of the Spanish Empire and Catholic Church to train the native population in the secular trades of Spanish citizenry and indoctrinate them into the Catholic religion were the two main aspects of colonization that changed the land use and cultures of Southern Arizona. This tumultuous process of cultural change continued through time with the replacement of religious orders in 1767-1768, Mexican independence in 1821, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1856, political upheaval, Apache raids, and exploratory capitalization. Tumacácori National Historical Park represents the fulcrum of change in southern Arizonans’ culture, settlement patterns, and response to the environment.

The District is located along a stretch of the Santa Cruz River that has run perennially for much of its human habitation. This rare desert water source has given life to multiple civilizations, including Native American agricultural villages of the Hohokam, O’odham, Yaqui, and other tribes.

After Jesuit missionary Father Eusebio Francisco Kino arrived to the existing rancheria, and founded Tumacácori as a visita in 1691, these inhabitants were systematically acculturated and colonized. Partly due to its proximity to the presidio of Tubac to the north, the mission at Tumacácori is the longest operating mission in the Tumacácori mission system. Though it served consistently as a village and a center of commerce and religious activities for many years, it was also a place of constant adversity through disease, warfare, and revolt.

The Tumacácori National Historic District’s (District) 1930’s visitor center complex, including the Tumacácori Museum, was designed in a “rustic” architectural style distinctive of the New Deal Era

by NPS Southwestern Monuments chief Frank “Boss” Pinkley, architects Scofield Delong and Charles Carter, and landscape architect Charles Vint. It was then constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration. The museum was made a National Historic Landmark in 1987 and was categorized as an “Architecture in the Parks Theme Study”.

The museum met Criterium #4 of the NHL Criteria (NR Bulletin 15), which requires that a significant site “embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction.”

The Visitor Center/Museum complex contributes to the understanding of the beginnings of the National Park Service in the Southwestern United States. The New Deal Era of park design strove to harmonize park facilities and visitor amenities both with the natural surrounding and the existing historic structures. In particular, park buildings and landscape features at Tumacácori were built in a style that translates the simple materials, physical density, and environmental harmony of “rustic” buildings meant to blend in with the natural landscape of other, mostly mountainous national parks to a landscape primarily defined by a ruined mission building. This style was made regionally appropriate by incorporating elements of Spanish mission architecture and southwest Sonoran Mexican house design (flat roofs, adobe,) and was also influenced by another major building trend within the park service at the time, that of Indian pueblos with ramada porches and roof vigas (NRHP 1984, p. 8-4). Following an architectural research trip to the remaining mission structures of the Kino chain in 1935 by a multi-disciplinary NPS team, including architects Leffler Miller and Scofield DeLong, and building upon expertise and craftsmanship developed at other Southwest monuments such as Bandelier, the structures of the comfort station, residences, visitor center, museum, and courtyard garden at Tumacácori were designed to enhance the visitor’s experience with the style of the period of significance. The resultant Mission Revival/rustic style architecture of built habitable and landscape features at Tumacácori is simple in nature and subordinate to existing historic structures in order to focus

14

attention upon and provide an interpretive setting for the primary resource of the park: the historic Franciscan mission complex.

For these reasons, Mission San José de Tumacácori Historic District is significant to the broad patterns of historical development of the Southwestern United States, with particular emphasis on missionization and the beginnings of the historic resource of national parks in the Southwest region. Upon its dedication, NPS Regional Director Hillory A. Tolson, of the Santa Fe office, remarked: “The American people are beginning to realize that the material remains of their predecessors, as evidenced by historic buildings and sites, are worth saving. Such sites tend to keep alive the great and dramatic events of our history and to indicate to us the economic, political, and social phases through which our forefathers passed.” While multiple parks, including Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon, preceded Tumacácori in their listing as historic resource national parks, Tumacácori does hold the distinction the first Spanish settlement to be made a national park, comparable to the earliest English settlements along the East Coast (Burns, 2009.)

Areas of significance which are currently evident and integral to these periods are agricultural, architectural, archaeological, community planning and development, engineering, and exploration and settlement. All four National Register Criteria are met.

Criterion A: Tumacácori is associated with several events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history. The establishment of Jesuit missions in the Pimería Alta, evidenced by mission remains, forever altered the cultural trajectories of Native American, Spanish, and Mexican peoples. The Pimería Alta is a region located in the upper Sonora Desert that encompasses approximately 50,000 square miles ¨stretching north from the Altar and Magdelena River Valley (in the Mexican state of Sonora) to the banks of the Gila River (in Arizona), and from the San Pedro River west to the Gulf of California¨ (Kessell 1970, 12). The Jesuit expulsion by the Spanish military, acting on behalf of the Crown, altered the ecclesiastical relationship between church and populace, as Franciscans became the official order of the Spanish empire. The abandonment of the mission due to disease, Apache attacks, settlement pressures by Anglo-Americans, and governance of the United States quickly de-emphasized centralized, church-dominated landscapes in favor of privately owned landscapes of speculative profit, and arguably-sanctioned homesteading.

Criterion B: Tumacácori is associated with two significant figures of American history: Father Eusebio Francisco Kino and Juan Bautista de Anza. Father Kino (1645-1711) is an important historical figure due to his role in the Spanish settlement of northern Sonora including the middle Santa Cruz River Valley. It was his introduction of Christianity and Spanish culture to the O’odham that began the significant changes to their culture and the landscape. Father Kino’s establishment of a visita, or religious site without a resident padre and served by travelling missionaries, at the ranchería Tumacácori on the east bank of the Santa Cruz River was one of the first components of the establishment of a Spanish and Catholic presence in the upper Pimería Alta. This Spanish presence in the middle Santa Cruz Valley eventually led to the establishment of a more entrenched visita on the west bank, which was later incorporated into a cabecera by the Franciscans. Father Kino’s charisma, diplomacy, agricultural innovation, and care for native peoples made him a venerated figure in multiple historic and contemporary cultures of Arizona and Sonora (Sheridan 2006, p. 76-77).

Juan Bautista de Anza was a military captain of multiple “presidios,” or garrisoned fortresses of the Spanish colonial frontier; one of these included the presidio of Tubac. Anza (1736-1788) became known for his campaigns of domination against the Comanche of Colorado, and the O’odham and Apache of the Pimería Alta. Following his time at Tubac, which included frequent interaction with the friars of Tumacácori, Anza led a group of Spanish settlers from Sinaloa through Tumacácori to the San Francisco Bay, establishing an overland route between the missions of the Pimería Alta and Central California (Kessell 1976b, p. 110).

15

Criterion C: The architecture of Tumacácori mission church is significant, because it is one of the few standing examples of Franciscan church design in the greater Colorado River watershed, and taken along with the mission church at San Xavier del Bac, illustrates unique architectural techniques and forms spearheaded by Fray Narciso Gutiérrez and designed by master craftspeople (Félix Antonio Bustamente) in response to the particular climate of the Sonoran desert, including domes, a barrel vault, thick thermal mass walls of sun-baked adobe bricks, and structural oven-fired adobe bricks (Sheridan 2006, pp. 76-78). This church holds additional importance as a physical remnant of the process of acculturation of Christian concepts such as redemption from sin to a people whose religious principles, such as a focus on the restoration of balance and the reverence of sacred outdoor spaces, differed greatly (Sheridan 2006, p. 79-80).

The spatial layout of the mission is also distinctive of the settlement period of the Spanish missions of Piméria Alta. The main acequia was diverted as far away from the river channel as possible by gravity flow and through the use of simple hydraulic lift structures which can still be seen in the form of the lavandería. The resultant lands in between were irrigated for the production of wheat, fruit, vegetables, herbs, and forage, and the church complex was located directly up-slope. This method of pueblo layout was common in both mission and presidial towns of the era (Urrutia, 1766.)

The visitor center, and associated buildings and landscape features, are also architecturally significant. They were masterfully designed to complement the ruins of the Franciscan church, include distinguishing architecturally designed features of the NPS Rustic Style and expert craftsmanship of the Civilian Conservation Corps which were built throughout the national parks of the United States (USDOI 1987, p. 8-4).

Criterion D: Aside from what remains above ground, multiple excavations of below-ground resources at Tumacácori have yielded important discoveries regarding the structural forms of Mission era life. In 1934, NPS archeologist Paul Beaubien exposed the foundations of the small adobe church created by the Jesuits in the years preceding 1751 (Moss 2006, p. 10.; Moss 2008, p. 1-6). Architects from a 1937 Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) drew the layout of the church (Moss, 2008, p.1-6). A series of excavations were undertaken in the years 1951, 1956, 1964-65, 1970, 1979-80, 1994, 2001, and 2004 that revealed a small Native American work area, sacristy, north convento, granary, cemetery, church “plaza,” deep well, Mendez homestead, and a possible cavalry camp (Moss 2008, p. 1-7). In 2004, investigations in the orchard/garden helped to increase archeological understanding of field layout, delineation by walls, irrigation, use of microclimate plantings, and secondary use as an element of defense against Apache attack (Moss, 2006, pp. 11, 14-20).

Ground surveys from such cases, surveys conducted in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and information gleaned from photographic and satellitegenerated aerial imagery, have continually added to the archaeological record at Tumacácori and suggest that much more lies buried underneath the ground. Therefore, it is likely that with further archeological research, more information regarding land use and spatial organization could be gleaned from the site.

16

NRIS Information Alpha Code/ NRIS Name (Number):

TUMA, Mission San José de Tumacácori National Historic District, #66000193

Other National Register Name:

Tumacácori Mission Historic District

Primary Certification Date:

1986

National Register Significance Criteria National Register Significance Criteria: A, B, C, and D

National Register Significance Criteria Considerations A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

National Register Period of Significance: Mission period Start Year:

1753 AD

End Year:

1848 AD

National Register Period of Significance: Rustic period Start Year:

1930 AD

End Year:

1959 AD

Historic Context Theme Historic Theme

I) Peopling Places

Historic Subtheme

B) Post-Archaic and Prehistoric Developments

Facet Southwestern Farmers Historic Subtheme

D) Ethno-history of Indigenous American Populations

Facet Establishing Intercultural Relations Native Cultural Adaptations at Contact Re-adaptation of Native Populations Varieties of Conflict, Conquest, or Accommodation Historic Subtheme

E) Colonial Exploration and Settlement

Facet Exploration and Settlement Spanish Exploration and Settlement

17

Historic Theme

II) Creating Social Institutions and Movements

Historic Subtheme

A) Ways of Life

Facet Farming Communities Ranching Communities Historic Theme

III) Expressing Cultural Values

Historic Subtheme

L) Architecture

Facet Vernacular Architecture Rustic Architecture Historic Subtheme

M) Landscape Architecture

Facet Colonial Traditions in the New World The Development of Transportation and Land Tenure Systems Historic Subtheme

N) Other

Facet Religion

Historic Theme

V) Developing the American Economy

Historic Subtheme

E) Trails and Travelers

Facet Exploration Trails Historic Subtheme

H) The Cattle Frontier

Facet Ranches Historic Subtheme

V) Agriculture

Facet Farm Orchards Farming for Local Markets Subsistence Agriculture Historic Theme

VII) Transforming the Environment

Historic Subtheme

A) Indigenous Peoples Use of and Response to the Environment

Historic Subtheme

B) The Industrial Revolution

Facet Degradation of the Natural Environment/Industrial Innovations Historic Subtheme

D) Historic Preservation

Facet The Federal Government Enters the Movement, 1884-1949; Archeological Preservation; The National Park Service and the New Deal

18

Historic Subtheme

E) Other

Facet Spanish Use and Transformation of the Land

National Register Areas of Significance Area of Significance Category

Area of Significance Subcategory

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

European and Native American Historic Non-Aboriginal European, Hispanic, Native American European Native American Hispanic, Native American, European, Historic-Aboriginal European and Native American European and Native American Hispanic, European Hispanic, European

Religion Agriculture Community Planning and Development Exploration/Settlement Archaeology-Prehistoric Archaeology-Historic

7. Ethnic Heritage 8. Social History 9. Architecture 10. Engineering

19

Chronology and Physical History Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Primary Historic Function - Major Category:

Religion

Primary Historic Function - Category:

Religious Structure

Primary Current Use - Major Category:

Education

Primary Current Use - Category:

Interpretive Landscape

Ethnographic Study Conducted:

No Survey Conducted

Ethnographic Explanatory Narrative:

Ethnographic research is beyond the scope of this CLI; the research team recommends that further research be conducted to capture oral histories from all cultural groups in order to document the process of landscape change that has occurred over time, as well as to document the position of the site in the spiritual and cultural landscape of the O’odham.

Cultural Landscape Types Cultural Landscape Type:

Historic Site, Historic Designed, Historic Vernacular, Ethnographic Landscape

Other Current and Historic Uses/Functions 1.

Other Historic Function – Major Category: Other Historic Function – Category:

Agriculture/Subsistence Agricultural Field Livestock Irrigation Facility Agriculture/Subsistence - Other

2.

Other Current Use – Major Category: Other Current Use – Category: Other Historic Function of Current Use Type:

Recreation/Culture Museum Exhibit

20

Ethnographic Associated Groups Akimel O’Odham, aka “Pima,” aka “Sobaipuri” Chiricahua Apache Euro-Americans Hispanic (Spanish Colonial & Mexican) Mescalero Apache Opata San Carlos Apache Seri Tohono O’odham, aka “Pápago,” Western Apache Yaqui

Current and Historic Names Name Tumacácori Mission San José de Tumacácori National Historic District Mission San José de Tumacácori San Cayetano de Tumagacori

Name Type (Historic, Current, or Both) Both Current Both Historic for site east of river

21

Chronology Start

End

Major Event

Pre Period of Significance Circa Circa Inhabited 9500 9000 B.C. B.C.

Circa 8000 B.C.

Circa 600 A.D.

Inhabited/ Exploited

Circa 3500 B.C.

Circa 272 A.D.

Inhabited/ Farmed/ Harvested

Circa 300 B.C.

Inhabited/ Established

Annotation

Clovis Paleo-Indians of the late Pleistocene, wide-ranging, nomadic bands of people that pursued large grazing animals, inhabit Sonora and northwestern Chihuahua, the San Pedro and Sulphur Springs Valley watersheds, and a small portion of the Santa Cruz River watershed including the Tucson Basin and on the San Xavier reservation. The Sonoran desert lowlands are inhabited by peoples of migratory hunter-gatherer lifestyles (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 92, 96, 317).

As the Pleistocene era concluded, the landscape became more arid, and much of the big game went extinct due to hunting and climatic pressures. Desert cultures, included migrants from the Amargosa people of California, based upon a more diversified economic base (generalized hunting patterns, greater food gathering, wild seed grinding,) proliferated from the previouslyinhabited areas to include areas the alluvial fans and terraces of the Santa Cruz River in the Tucson basin, and on the San Carlos Apache and Tohono O’odham reservations. (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 93-98, 111).

Inhabitation sites of roughly 25 individuals in the Tucson basin of the Santa Cruz River and the San Pedro River watershed began to be seasonally occupied, returned to with greater frequency, and built upon with shallow oval house floors with probable storage, ash, and burial pits. These cultures began planting early varieties of maize (Zea mays,) which had arrived from the Sierra Madre Occidental region of Mexico, beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and squash (Cucurbita pepo,) at the mouths of tributary streams within the floodplain, which allowed for the surplussing of food. Sites from this era also began to appear more commonly at higher elevations, perhaps due to ease of access to resources in canyons and mountains, and the overviews of valleys afforded by these promontory locations (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 105-106, 109-110, 112-113; Spicer 1962, 8).

The Hohokam Pioneer period, typified by dispersed villages/rancherías of brush dwellings in shallow elongated pits, maize agriculture irrigated by earthen and caliche-lined diversion canals, and higher degrees of social organization evidenced by the appearance of large settlements with ball courts and mounds, cremation of the dead, trade or the gathering of shell items from coastal areas, stone bowls, and clay figurines of animals and humans, arose in the Upper Gila River, Salt River, and San Pedro River Valleys, Also during this time, trail networks connecting the Hohokam to settlements of coastal Indian communities of northern Mexico developed as trade and resource-gathering routes, though this was not accompanied by economic specialization. The trincheras people of northwestern Mexico began to settle the tops of peaks adjacent to the the Santa Cruz River Valley and its tributaries, including Tumacácori peak to the west of TNHP. These sites took the form of “hilltop complexes of dry-laid stone

22

Circa 1400

Circa 1600

Abandoned

1540

1542

Explored

Circa 1466

Moved

1687

Planned

1691

Inhabited

1691

Explored

1692

Explored

walls often associated with terraces, stone rings, trails, rock art, and other features,” and were possibly used for defensive, ceremonial, and/or habitational purposes. The area between Nogales and Tumacácori on the Santa Cruz River became a contact zone between these two cultures, and archaeological sites in this area exhibit traits characteristic of each culture, with the notable absence of canal irrigation (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 115-16, 132-134, 155; Moss 2009; Reinhard 1978, 231252). Spicer 1962, 8; Sheridan 2006, 25; Udall 1987, xvii).

Hohokam abandon communities, which are shortly thereafter inhabited by their remaining descendants and/or northernmigrating ancestors of the Akimel and Tohono O’odham peoples (Sheridan 2006, 25).

Conquistador Francisco Vazquez de Coronado led an expedition of Franciscan friars and soldiers from the Compostela, Mexico through the San Pedro River Valley, over the Winchester mountain range, and beyond, in search of the seven “golden cities” of Cíbola, making contact with and describing aboriginal peoples along the way, whom they named “Pueblo,” or town Indians (Udall 1987, 3, 18, 54, 72).

The last prehistoric arroyo became entrenched about 530 years ago, but was filled by deposits by the time the Spanish arrived in 1691 (Parker 1996, 48).

Father Eusebio Francisco Kino, Jesuit priest of Italian descent, secured a special cedula, or policy decree, from the governing Spanish viceroy, to exempting missionized Indians of the Pimería Alta, or northern frontier of the Spanish empire inhabited by Piman-speaking peoples to which he had been assigned, from forced labor and tribute (Spicer 1962, 120).

Sobaipuri inhabited a small village, or “ranchería,” of brush houses on the east bank of the Santa Cruz River somewhere to the east of the TNHP mission ruins. The location of this village is in an area of private land that has been intermittently under cultivation since the arrival of the Spanish, creating a disturbed soil condition that has not been archaeologically studied (Horton 1998, 14).

Father Kino and Father Juan María Salvatierra, following contact by Sobaipuri headmen of San Xavier de Bac and San Cayetano de Tumagacori, as it was then known, in the pueblo of Tucubavia, to the south, first explored the Santa Cruz River Valley. In these visits, they “extensively” created demand for missionaries across widespread rancherías of the Pimería Alta, or northern frontier of the Spanish empire inhabited by Pimanspeaking peoples. Peoples along the Santa Cruz River and to the east were referred to as “Sobaipuri,” while others inhabiting the Santa Cruz River Valley and to the west were described as “Papago.” Kino described the “ranchería” of San Cayetano de Tumagacori (later renamed Tumacácori) at a “half-moon shaped bend [in the Santa Cruz River] lined with cottonwoods,” at which the resident Sobaípuri prepared three ramadas for his arrival (Burrus 1971, 31, 42-43, Kessell 1970, 25; Moss 2006, 10; Spicer 1962, 123).

Kino brought fifty pack animals from Dolores to San Xavier del Bac through a route including the Santa Cruz River Valley, and began to educate Sobaipuri there on the Christian faith and

23

1694

1701

Explored Colonized/ Ranched/ Grazed/ Settled

1697

Expanded

1701

Established

1711

1732

1732

1751

Ranched/ Grazed Built

1741

Inhabited

1751

Built/ Destroyed

Military Operation

Period of Significance: Mission 1753 Military Operation

1753

Settled

history, geography and cartography (Burrus 1971, 44).

Kino and Juan Mateo Manje, Spanish military captain who also participated in the suppression of Pima rebels in Caborca, and Kino’s military escort throughout the Pimería Alta, undertook nine expeditions through the region, establishing ranches with horses, sheep, and cattle (Burrus 1971, 46, 50; Spicer 1962, 106).

A small adobe house “with a hall and bedroom for Father Kino,” three small ramadas, church foundations and twenty-three houses comprised the village of Tumacácori, as noted by Manje, (Horton 1998, 15).

Kino designated San Cayetano a “visita,” or secondary mission village of the mission of Guevavi. In concert, these mission settlements aimed to “reduce” the dispersed ranchería Indian populations of the Santa Cruz River Valley into consolidated pueblos, or villages, under the ecclesiastic and productive control of Father Kino (Horton 1998, 15; Kessell 1970, 29; Spicer 1962, 119).

Stock ranching declined throughout the Pimería Alta mission system, and Jesuit priests were often in absentia (Horton 1998, 49).

A small house and plot of wheat were built by Capt. Juan Bautista de Anza, the elder, at San Cayetano (Horton 1998, 16).

Tubac/Tumagacori village referred to as “Santa Gertrudis de Tubaca” as recorded in Guevavi Mission baptismal records (Danson 1946, 26).

El Torreón, an adobe military fort, built approximately one mile south of Tubac presidio (two miles north of Tumacácori mission,) was likely destroyed in the 1751 Pima revolt (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, , date unknown, chapel file).

Luis Oacpicagigua led the Pima Revolt throughout O’odham territory, including San Cayetano de Tumacácori, sending Spanish settlers, including resident priests, and supportive Pimans and Apaches, south to Terrenate. All missions in the north and west of Pimería Alta were abandoned by the end of the year (Burton 1992a, 11; Horton 1998, 14; NPS, Tumacácori fact file, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

The Tubac presidio was created in the visita of the same name about three miles north of Tumacácori, which created a safer environment for the mission system and for settlers, ushering in an era of increased settlement (Kessell 1970, 126).

The village of San José de Tumacácori was established by Captain Thomás Belderrain at its present location on the western bank of the Santa Cruz River as a congegacion, or combined village of those Indians displaced by the replacement of the Tubac visita with the Tubac presidio, and those Indians of the visita of San Cayetano de Tumagacori, which had been on the opposite (east) bank of the river. The purpose of this move was to free up irrigable river bottom-lands for the Spanish citizen-farmers for the support of the presidio. The natives felt that there was not enough irrigable fields at Tumacácori to feed both Tubac and Tumacácori (Ivey 2007, 3; Moss 2006, 10;

24

1753

1757

Built

1755

1848

Altered

1761

1762

Farmed

1762

Built

1763

Inhabited

1763

1766

Abandoned/ Inhabited

1764

1772

Inhabited

1766

Vegetation

1767

1768

Land Transfer

1768

1774

Built/ Inhabited

Kessell 1970, 127; Horton 1998, 14).

Jesuit father Francisco Pauer led the construction of a small adobe church measuring 60 ft by 15 ft north of the site of the future convento/school house. This church was built on rivercobble foundations and originally included two adjacent rooms that were possibly used as a baptistery, sacristy, and/or temporary residence of visiting fathers, and a campo santo, or cemetery, enclosure, in front of the church. Assuming it was built similary to other Jesuit visita churches of the time, design was most likely very modest, without decorated facades or interior archways. Walls were white-washed, and, at some point, perhaps during later eras of inhabitation, also plastered.

It was later described in 1795 as “a very cramped and flimsy little chapel.” (Ivey 2007, 4; Moss 2006, 10, 12; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Areas within the area that later became the mission plaza and mortuary chapel were used as burial grounds of mission workers and residents (Ivey 2007, 62; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, cemetery file).

Tumacácori crops, farmed by Tubac presidial residents, depended upon seasonal rains and flooding, unlike the irrigated fields of Tubac, indicating that acequias had not been dug by this time (Anonymous, 1761-2, 192).

A church was built at Tubac by Inspector Generál Padre Tomás Ignacio Lazassoain and Capitán Juan Bautista de Anza, Junior (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, chapel file).

Father Pfefferkorn’s census revealed 72 families recorded at the village of Tumacácori (Tamarón y Romeral 1937, 391).

Many Pimas of the visitas of Tumacácori and Calabazas died in a Measles epidemic. The villages were repopulated with Papago neophytes, though many of them “had run away from” the visitas in 1763, a likely overstatement as these people live a comparatively more nomadic lifestyle than the more agricultural Pimas (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology; Bancroft 1889, 369 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Population at Tumacácori decreased from 199 residents in 1764-67 to 39 in 1772, partially as a result of a major Apache attack in 1769 (Bancroft 1889, 385 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Vegetative community of Santa Cruz River Valley between Guevavi and Tumacácori described as mesoriparian, “heavily populated” with cottonwoods and mesquite(LaFora 1939 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

The Spanish military, acting on behalf of the Spanish Crown, expelled the Jesuits. The missions were re-established by Franciscans one year later (Kessell 1976b, 181-182).

Adobe huts with doors were built for the neophyte “Pagan Papago” Indian residents and enclosed with an adobe wall for protection. Outside of these walls existed “very uncomfortable straw huts” (see figure 7.2.3 in Buildings and Structures)

25

1769

1784

Damaged/ Altered

1770

1800

Built/ Cultivated Built

1775

Expanded/ Inhabited

1772

1773

1775

Explored

1776

Destroyed

1777

Moved

1777

Planned

(Bronitsky and Merritt 1986; Habig 1937, 158-9 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; Ivey 2007, 65; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Arriving Franciscan friars described Pimería Alta missions as “demolished and all of them objectives of attack by the hostile Seris and Apache.” The original church building was repaired between these attacks, until as late as 1784 (Habig 1937, 158159 as qtd. in N.P.S., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology; N.P.S., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file ).

A small garden enclosure to the east of the Jesuit religious core was likely built during this time (Moss 2006, 16).

Compound at Tumacácori was described as “consisting of a church and a house for the padres-missionary” (Reyes, 758 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology).

Father Antonio Ramos examines feasibility of uniting the missions and visitas to reduce expenses. A census was taken along with a measure of the distances to the nearest missions and the dangers and difficulties associated with travel between the missions and visitas. The number of Pima residents counted in Tumacácori was 98 with some Pima being born there while others were from abandoned pueblos. In addition, 19 Spaniards were counted in Tumacácori. Guevavi was completely abandoned due to severe Apache raids. Many of its inhabitants and some from Calabazas moved to Tumacácori, which was now designated the cabecera, or main governing church, of the mission district, though “neither at the mission or at the visita do they have enough land under irrigation for their combined support…the constant hostility of the Apaches prevents it.” (Jackson 1973, 32; Sheridan 2006, 75; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Captain Juan Bautista de Anza led settlers through Tumacácori towards California via the first overland route connecting the Pimería Alta to the California settlements (Kessell 1976b, 110).

Tumacácori mission was raided and stolen from by Apaches, and the church was destroyed. Alferez of Tubac described it as, “Apaches had carried off everything and caused much damage“ (Caywood, date unknown, as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Father Pedro Font’s map of 1777 indicated Tumacácori church was on the east bank of the Santa Cruz River - either this is mistake or evidence of temporary relocation following the previous year’s attack (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

An agreement between Tumacácori Indians and Tubac settlers regarding agricultural diversion of the Santa Cruz River was finalized, allowing more water to flow through the river to Tubac, indicating that before, or perhaps at this time, one or more acequias were built to irrigate Tumacácori area fields (Horton 1998, 22).

26

1786

1806

Settled

1788

1791

Altered

1790

1820

Built

1793

1801

Damaged

1793

1801

Farmed/ Harvested

17934

Ranched/ Grazed

1797

Inhabited/ Maintained/ Grazed/ Ranched

1799

Altered

1801

Altered

1801

Ranched/ Grazed/ Damaged

1801

1805

Designed

1801

1805

Built

1801

1805

Inhabited

1801

1828

Built/

Two decades of peace with Apaches were achieved through appeasement, financial support, and a campaign of dependency on the part of the Apaches (Bancroft 1889, 378-9 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology).

Tumacácori church was renovated and re-roofed by “neophyte Indians” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology).

The convento, or residential quarters of mission personnel, was built (NPS 2006, Section “Convento,” 3).

Church falls into period of disrepair, counter to previous descriptions of this era as a period of prosperity and peace, and funds for improvements are not available. In addition, Indians were noted as continually being disturbed by their neighbors, (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Reports suggest that, lacking anyone from “a skilled line…

[Indians] lived only on the harvest of a field of wheat, corn and abundant squashes” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Mission owned 130 cattle and 1000 smaller animals (sheep and/or goats) which “a succession of ministers had brought from different areas.” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Census at Tumacácori revealed 102 Pimas, Pápagos, and Yaqui, the first two of whom are now known as the O’Odham, the latter of whom served as the supervisory craftsmen at the time; ¾ of the wheat fields were unable to be harvested due to drought, causing the mission to import purchased food; church and sacristy reported as being in good condition; due to subsided Apache threat, market of livestock recorded as being glutted (Kessell 1976b, 190, 195).

By this time, the first Tumacácori campo santo, or cemetery, had been subdivided to include a specific area for the burial of children (Ivey 2007, 70).

Multiple Apache attacks killed town residents who were then buried at the church cemetery (Unclear if this is the old church cemetery in the plaza used previously) (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Tumacácori sheep grazing (and thus weaving) operations significantly decreased following Apache attack that killed three herdsmen and “more than 1360 sheep” (Kessell 1976b, 201202).

In 1801, Father Narciso Gutiérrez hired a master mason to assist in the design and construction of a new church. This church was originally cruciform in shape, with a vaulted ceiling, and was loosely modeled on the church of San Xavier del Bac. (Ivey 2007, 5, 57; Kessell 1976b, 203).

The first wave of construction on the new church was undertaken (Ivey 2007, 5; Kessell 1976b, 203).

Construction of a new church, combined with increased prospecting of the Santa Cruz River Valley, temporarily increased the resident population by 63 persons, including some Spaniards (Ivey 2007, 5; Kessell 1976b, 203).

A 4.6 acre orchard/garden was cultivated and surrounded by a

27

1802

1822

Cultivated Built

1806

Land Transfer

1807

Developed

1807

Grazed/ Ranched

1817

Built

1821

Land Transfer

1820

1829

1822

1823

Built Built

1824

Demolished

1826

Explored

1827

Abandoned

1828

Land Transfer

1828

Cultivated

1829

Built

1830

Land Transfer

1832

Damaged

1834

Land

wall of river cobble and adobe (Moss 2006, 16).

Granary was built to northeast of new church to store grain (NPS 2006, section “Granary,” 3).

Juan Legarra, governor of the pueblo of Tumacácori petitions Don Garcia Conde to issue to the Indians a grant for four square leagues of land for the fundo legal (a Spanish designation for pueblo lands that included an architectural core with surrounding agricultural and pasturage lands) and two sitios for the estancia of the pueblo (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Land titles file).

Fundo legal of the Tumacácori land grant surveyed to include the approximate Santa Cruz floodplain from Carmen (just north of Tumacácori) to ten miles south, formalizing the farming and ranching lands of the mission (Horton 1998, 23-25).

Tumacácori herds grow to the extent that additional grazing lands of Calabazas are requested by governor of Tumacácori Pueblo, Juan Legarra (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Church was still uncompleted according to a note by Charles Ramsdell (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology).

Mexico won independence from Spain, resulting in a weakening of the mission system due to decreasing financial and military support (Kessell 1976b, 246-251; NPS 2006, section “Lime Kiln,” 2).

Mortuary Chapel built north of new church (NPS 2006, section “Mortuary Chapel,” 3).

Walled cemetery completed to the north of Franciscan church (Kessell 1976b, 253; NPS 2006, section “Campo Santo Walls,” 3).

The Jesuit religious core (church and convento) were torn down (Ivey 2007, 88).

First U.S. citizens (trappers, traders, bounty hunters, filibusters) arrived in Santa Cruz River Valley (Kessell 1976b, 268).

Franciscans were formally expelled from their churches, including Tumacácori, by Mexican decree, (Salpointe 1898, 180-181 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Administration of mission transferred from expelled Franciscans to a native governor (Spanish government recognized leader of native villagers) (Kessell 1976b, 270).

Two of four wheat fields at Tumacácori were leased to Ignacio Ortiz (Kessell 1976b, 278).

A stock corral was built inside Tumacácori mission for defense against Apache attacks (Kessell 1976b, 283).

The Franciscan order regained official administration of Tumacácori, which at the time consisted of 400 cattle, 800 sheep, feral horses, few herdsmen, and unplanted wheat fields due to threat of Apache attack and lack of demand; both church and convento were described as being in good condition (Kessell 1976b, 280).

Fray Rafael Diaz recorded that drought had prevented villagers from growing wheat; 18 recorded males were recorded at Tumacácori (Kessell 1976b, 288).

Secularization of mission lands removed control of missions

28

Transfer 1834

Moved

1834

1841

Abandoned

1841

1842

Abandoned

1841

Removed

1843

Neglected

1844

Land Transfer

1844

Naturalized

1848

Abandoned

1848

Altered

from Catholic church (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Santa Cruz River channel was noted by the Tubac commandant to have moved significantly away from Tubac presidio as a result of winter rains; first complaint of water not reaching Tubac acequia (Kessell 1976b, 288, 291).

Mexican Congress decreed the secularization of the missions, a change that apparently did not result in the departure of friars at Tumacácori until 1841 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Land title file).

Evidence supports the belief that Tumacácori was a functioning mission and pueblo with a resident priest as late as 1841. A note from November 1841 referenced the mission of Tumacácori as under the charge of the Friar Antonio Gonzales, possibly the last Franciscan padre to leave the mission (Kessell 1976b, 296-297; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Tumacácori land documents were removed from its native governor by grantee of Los Nogales grant to “learn the boundaries,” but were never returned (Kessell 1976b, 296).

A Tubac justice of the peace recorded a fallen and crumbling convento building, a standing church and two former communal fields, south of the mission and across the river, “unfenced and abandoned, full of mesquite and other bushes” (Kessell 1976b, 300).

Fundo legal of Tumacácori and estancia of Calabazas were sold by Sonoran government punlic auction to Francisco Alejandro de Aguilar, agent of Governor Manuel María Gándara, for $500 (Sheridan 2006, 101; Kessell 1976b, 302; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Records of a visiting parish priest indicated that mesquite had begun to establish cover surrounding the church (Kessell 1976b, 302).

O’odham abandoned the mission grounds due to Apache attacks and heavy snow which prevented wood gathering and caused livestock death. “Consecrated sacramental furnishings” were removed from the church and taken to San Xavier del Bac (Moss 2006, 11; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Lt. Couts of the U.S. Army dragoons, on reconnaissance following the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, noted that the Santa Cruz River disappeared near Tubac, and that the Tumacácori church was surrounded by “a few conical Indian huts, made of bushes, thatched with grass, huts of most common and primitive kind” inhabited by Pima Kessell 1976b, 307; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Between Periods of Significance: 1849 Built An Anglo visitor by the name of Hayes recorded that the corrals, as well as adobe houses, were still standing and also noted a large, walled burying ground on the north side behind the church. It was noted that not a living thing was seen; “It looks desolate indeed…” (Hayes manuscript as quoted by

29

Coy, “The Great Tank,” in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

1849

Cultivated

1851

1855

Altered

1851

1855

Circulation

1851

1855

Grazed/ Farmed/ Ranched/ Inhabited/ Abandoned

1852

Abandoned

1853

Settled

1854

Land Transfer

1855

Land Transfer

1855

Inhabited

1856

Settled

Multiple descriptions by 49ers included records of “some 50 peach trees” as well as quince, pomegranate, mulberry, and fig trees within the walled orchard, indicative of plantings and care within the preceding decades (Kessell 1976b, 310: ; Moss 2006, 13; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown).

Mission church building was used as a storehouse (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, pre-monument historic chronology).

A German magazine article described a traveler seeing “the white walls of the buildings of the Mission of Tumacácori,” “three miles from Tubac, at a little distance from the Santa Cruz Road,” which may have been an Anglo name commonly used at the time. The road between San Xavier and Tubac is described as being “one of the most dangerous roads in that section of the country”)(NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Manuel María Gándara, his son, 18 employees (including Germans Hulsemann and Hundhausen and a Frenchman,) 22 farm laborers, used the mission as a local headquarters for a sheep/goat-grazing, woolen production, and farming operation stretching from Tubac to Calabazas.. Fields of maize andwheat, and fruit trees were also cultivated during this time.

(Kessell 1976b, 314; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

U.S. Boundary Commissioner John Russell Bartlett noted that the Santa Cruz River Valley between Santa Cruz and Tucson had been depopulated at this time (Kessell 1976b, 312).

Tubac temporarily resettled by Mexican settlers and military, and “Apaches de paz,” a name used by the Spanish and Mexicans to describe Apaches who were integrated into their settlements; ( Kessell 1976b, 314).

Ratification of the Gadsden Purchase transferred many lands in current-day southern New Mexico and Arizona, including the former lands of the Tumacácori mission, from Mexico to the United States (Kessell 1976b, 316).

Manuel María Gándara gained title of Tumacácori lands from German employees and Pápago residents through theft and eviction (Kessell 1976b, 319).

Tumacácori was inhabited by thirty residents, including sheltered Sonoran political exiles, two or three Germans (likely the men previously under the employ of Gándara) and “the American squatter,” who became victims of repeated livestock thievery by the Apaches. (Jackson 1973, 58-59; Bent 1859, 119 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown).

Tubac was resettled as headquarters of the Sonora Exploring and Mining Company, under the direction of Charles Poston; U.S. Army dragoons arrive (Kessell 1976b, 317; NPS,

30

1857

Irrigated

1861

Abandoned

1863

Land Transfer

1864

Built

1864

Constructed

1864

Eroded

1864

Damaged

1864

Conserved

1877

Land Transfer Settled

1877

1880

1899

1880s

1880s

Cultivated

Built/ Inhabited

1940s

Damaged/ Exploited

Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Irrigation canals (plural) described at Tumacácori. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Poston abandoned Tubac as war with Cochise escalated, withdrawing big business enterprise from Tubac and a few Americans remained. A group of Mexicans determined to plunder Tubac, found it too heavily defended so they “fell back on Tumacácori, killing the one American still remaining there” (Bent 1948, 162 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Territory of Arizona was created by President Lincoln (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Evidence for road being on west bank and east of mission.

“Three miles beyond Tubac we made a halt to visit the old mission of San Jose de Tumacácori…The mission lies a little to the right of the road and is pleasantly situated on a slope” (Browne 1871, as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Remains of acequias were noted by a visitor (Browne 1871, as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown.

Cemetery was described as being the same as the corral, perhaps indicating lack of burial mounds at this time (Browne 1871, as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Mission buildings were defaced by weathering and possibly “vandalism of renegade Americans” (Browne 1871, as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

River banks were described as, “a luxuriant growth of cottonwood, mesquite, and shrubbery… and forms of delightful shade from the heat of the sun,” indicating continuity of mesoriparian biotic community (Browne 1871, as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Tumacácori land grant was purchased from Gándara by Colonel C.P. Sykes and John Curry (Sheridan 2006, 123).

Mormon missionaries spent 11 months in Southern Arizona and Sonora, establishing a headquarters at Tubac (Bents 1948, 188-189 as qtd. in NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Multiple accounts by visitors of mission orchard/garden bearing pomegranates, pears, peaches, apples, and apricots (Moss 2006, 13).

Tom Bourgeois built an adobe house (later used as park “storehouse”) southeast of the mission, likely with help from the Mendez family. Fernando Lopez was the first to inhabit the house, and later dug a well north of the building (NPS, Bourgeois file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Treasure hunters damaged the church nave, sanctuary, and convento, seeking “lost Tumacácori treasure,” continuing into early years of park creation (Moss 2008).

31

18811882 1884

Ranched/ Grazed Altered/ Ranched/ Grazed

1884

Built

1884

Cultivated

18841908

Homesteade d

1884

Planted/ Naturalized

1886

1889

Removed/ Damaged

1886

1908

Built/ Cultivated/ Farmed/ Harvested/ Ranched/ Grazed

1887

Damaged

1887

1908

1890

1907

1890

1892 1898

Built/ Cultivated/ Farmed/ Harvested/ Ranched/ Grazed Inhabited/ Grazed/ Damaged Land Transfer Land Transfer Land Transfer

New Mexico and Arizona railroad completed through the Sonoita Creek Valley significantly increased size of regional cattle population (Sheridan 2006, 127).

Joe E. Wise of Nogales, AZ, and J.M. Holt used the mission cemetery as a holding pen/roundup corral for ~1000 cattle, at which time no mission Indian grave mounds were evident (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, cemetery file).

Smooth double gate with high walls was made of wood in the southeast wall of the corner of the cemetery (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Punica granatum (pomegranate) trees were found east of mission – unclear if in the garden or orchard (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Carmen Mendez cleared and cultivated 30 acres of land, including the construction of a well, irrigation ditches, and fields just south of the church. His homestead included the construction of a small adobe house made from bricks of local mud or scavenged from the convento, and outhouses (Sheridan 2006, 174; U.S. General Land Office 1908).

Small mesquites established in the cemetery from cattle dung (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

The last beams over the nave were removed or fell (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file, PreMonument Historic Chronology).

Tomas Cota, born in the town of Calabazas, homesteaded lands within the northern portion of contemporary TNHP (northern abandoned agricultural fields and Santa Cruz Riverine System Landscape Character Areas, see figure 7.10.10 Spatial Organization). Cota moved into an existing small house, built a new house and well, wire-fenced and cultivated approximately 100 acres (some unirrigated) for crops and pasture (U.S. District Court of Arizona 1907-1908).

An earthquake cracked and structurally weakened the church (Moss 2010).

Gerardo and Maria Federico (ne: Maria Lowe) homesteaded lands within the northern portion of contemporary TNHP (northern abandoned agricultural fields and Santa Cruz Riverine System Landscape Character Areas, see figure 7.10.10 Spatial Organization; U.S. District Court of Arizona 1907-1908).

Stock-herding and inhabitation by ranchers and homesteaders occurred between the early 1890’s and 1907, hastening the deterioration of the convento block (Ivey 2007, 103).

The Tumacácori grant, minus the Calabazas town site and AZ Southern Railway Company’s right-of-way, was purchased by Santa Rita Mining Company (Sheridan 2006, 133).

Santa Rita Land and Cattle company began a seven-year lease on modified Tumacácori grant (Sheridan 2006, 133).

Lands of the Tumacácori grant were proclaimed public domain

by U.S. Supreme Court, Faxon v. United States, legally opening the Santa Cruz River Valley floodplain to an increase in homestead settlements, many of which included steam

32

1898

1920’s

1899

Inhabited/ Altered

Settled

1916

Altered/ Buried

1900s

1929

Memorialize d

1900

1908

Altered

1900

1916

Altered

Circa 1902

1908

Built/ Cultivated/ Farmed/ Harvested/ Ranched/ Grazed

Circa 1902

1908

Land Transfer

1906

Built

1908

Altered

1908

Established/ Land

pumps to extract groundwater for irrigation (Sheridan 2006, 136, 138).

Pedro Calistro and nephew Pedro Soto inhabited convento and church sacristy extension, altering both and patching holes in the church ( NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, cemetery file).

Carmen Mendez filed a homestead application on the lands on which the Tumacácori mission was located (see figure 7.10.10 Spatial Organization; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Four members of the Soto/Calistro family were buried in the mortuary chapel cemetery prior to 1916 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, cemetery file).

Pedro /Opata directed Semana Santa, an annual Easter Week pageant celebrated by Yaqui residents, in the early 1900’s until his death in 1929 or until Boundey arrived. The celebration was revived from 1936/7-1942 (Brownell 1986, 143-149; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Cemetery was used by “all of the families in the area” until 1908 when the mission became a national monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Deceased members of Alegria family and Calistro family, area residents, were buried in the north and south half of the cemetery, respectively, disturbing the previous graves of mission Indians. The last marked burial in the cemetery is of Juanita Alegria, daughter of area residents; permission was apparently given by the government to bury child there (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1972, Tumacácori file, Cemetery file ).

Jose Villa and family homesteaded lands within the northwestern corner of contemporary TNHP (northern abandoned agricultural fields and Santa Cruz Riverine System Landscape Character Areas, see figure 7.10.10 Spatial Organization,) and beyond. Improvements within the homestead included three or four adobe residences, two wells, and a corral were built and approximately 40-80 acres were cultivated for crops and pasture and surrounded by brush and wire fence, some of which were built outside of the TNHP boundary (U.S. District Court of Arizona 1907-1908).

40 acres of the Villa homestead were deeded to S.F. Noon, Nogales attorney, as payment for legal services (U.S. District Court of Arizona 1907-1908).

A map of the “Tumacacori Forest Preserve” prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture depicts a single road following a course directly south of Tubac on the west side of the Santa Cruz River channel, crossing to the east side at a point approximately ½ mile south of Tubac at the headgate of the Tubac irrigation canal, and continuing south past current southern boundary of TNHP (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1906).

Baptistery of the church was used for hay storage by Mexican residents (NPS, Tumacácori fact file, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology).

Mendez deeded ten acres to the U.S. government to create Tumacácori National Monument, established by the Forest

33

Transfer 1908

1908

Built

1910

1920

Inhabited

1910

1920

Damaged

1910

Built/ Graded

1913

Planned

1914

Land Transfer

Circa 1915

Circa 1923

1916 1917

1918

1917

1917

1918

Altered

Land Transfer Damaged

Land Transfer 1918

Excavated/ Restored

Land Transfer

Service and proclaimed by President Theodore Roosevelt through the American Antiquities Act; (Sheridan 2006, 175).

Garces National Forest employed Albert J. Abbott to build a four-wire cedar post fence around the church and cemetery (Jackson 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Tom Bourgeois moved into the house that he had built in the 1880s and leased to Fernando Lopez. He moved out during the 1920s (NPS, Bourgeois File, date unknown).

Tom Bourgeois and other men dug for treasure on Mission grounds (NPS, Bourgeois file, date unknown).

Twin Buttes Railroad and Tucson and Nogales Railroad Company completed a rail line between Calabazas and Tucson within the flood plain and east of the channel of the Santa Cruz River, significantly altering drainage patterns from the east (Sheridan 2006, 131).

A.O. Waha, Acting District Forester, sent a letter to the Forest Service recommending that a stock proof fence be constructed around Tumacácori National Monument. Estimated cost of fence $100 (Waha 1913, as qtd. in to NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

U.S. Supreme Court recognized Baca Float No. 3 land grant, ceding 99,298.39 acres, including the whole of contemporary TNHP, to heirs of the Baca family, ending homestead claims to these lands (Sheridan 2006, 138, 172).

Convento building was used as a schoolhouse and Sunday school for area residents led by Father Duval of Nogales (NPS, Bourgeois file, date unknown; NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori monthly reports).

National Park Service took over management of Tumacácori National Monument from the Forest Service (Moss 2006, 11).

Unconfirmed report by U.S. border guard Corporal Harold Kregar described bodies in the church and against the cemetery wall, possibly accounting for the bullet holes found in the cemetery wall (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Following ratification of Baca Float No. 3, James Bouldin and wife deeded ten acres of Mission Tumacácori to the National Park Service (Sheridan 2006 175).

Frank Pinkley, first non-resident custodian of Tumacácori National Monument, and A.S. Noon, Nogales contractor and blacksmith, partially excavated buildings of the religious core of the Tumacácori mission and began preservation of the Tumacácori church, mirroring original construction techniques as closely as possible and using similar or “in-kind” materials when not. They also experimented with adobe shaping and firing on site (Ayres 1991, 18; Moss 2008).

The Bouldins, through their attorney John Henry Campbell, offered to sell back most of the former homesteads for “$50 an acre for first-class land and $15.00 an acre for second-class land.” Upon consideration with their attorney, Duffy and Purdum, Tubac-Tumacácori area settlers of the float decided against buying back their lands, instead preferring to take resettlement assistance from the U.S. government. Many

34

1919

1921

Altered

1920s

1940s

Built

1921

Altered

1921

Land Transfer

1922

Altered

1929

Land Transfer

1929

Inhabited

1929

1936

Maintained

Circa 1929

1951

Established

resettled in the Goodyear, AZ area. However, of the homesteaders of contemporary TNHP, Manuel King did settle with the Bouldin family to regain ownership of his homestead (Sheridan 2004).

The nave of the church roof was repaired and weatherized (Jackson 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Electric distribution lines were built along the banks of the river to provide power for the operation of water wells (Binney 2010).

Pediment, downspouts, and stairs to bell tower of the church were restored (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

William Lowe purchased ~120 acres in the vicinity of the mission (see figure 7.10.10, Spatial Organization). (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Debris from west wall of church was cleared away in the spring. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

Talbot T. “Tol” Pendleton and F.M. Dougherty purchased all lands of Baca Float No. 3, excepting that which had been deeded to the National Park Service, from the Bouldins and Watts and Davis (Sheridan 2006, 172).

The first resident employee and family (the Boundeys) moved to Tumacácori, originally inhabiting the convento (Jackson 1952, NPS, Boundey file, date unknown).

Weeds and dead wood were regularly removed and burned by custodian Boundey (NPS, Boundey file, date unknown).

All visitors were escorted through mission grounds on guided tours (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Period of Significance: NPS Rustic/New Deal Era 1930 Planted Tamarix aphylla, (athel tamarisk) trees planted south of the church by Nogales Chamber of Commerce, according to Junior Landscape Architect Peterson’s report of 1930 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

1930s Altered A large wooden cross used in Semena Santa was kept in the church from year to year (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

1930s Farmed/ Corn was grown in the fields surrounding the mission (NPS, Harvested Boundey file, date unknown).

1930 Built Residence #1 (aka ‘superintendent’s residence’) was built; custodian Boundey and family moved from the convento to residence #1 (Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 2006a, 1; NPS, Boundey file, date unknown).

1931 Paved Nogales-Tucson highway was paved to within “one quarter mile” of Tubac, triggering redesign of the Tumacácori monument entrance. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1931, Tumacácori monthly reports).

1931 Altered Old adobe house (Bourgeois house) was repaired for continued use (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1931, Tumacácori monthly reports).

1931 Designed Residence #2 (aka ‘ranger’s residence’), tool and implement

35

1932

Plotted/ Surveyed/ Built

1932

Built

1932

Altered

1932

Damaged

1932

Altered/ Acquired

1932

Designed/ Surveyed/ Built

1932

Altered

1932

Altered

1933

Built

1933

Designed

1933

Excavated

1933

Developed

1933

Damaged/ Altered

1933

Built

shed, public comfort station and sewage disposal system were designed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1931, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Comfort station, Residence # 2 (aka ‘ranger’s residence’), Garage #3 (aka ‘residence area garage’), and tool shed were laid out and built (Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 2006b, 1; Jackson 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS, 1987, 7-3).

Sewage disposal system was installed for monument complex (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An adobe pit in the southeast corner of the monument was used to create bricks for new construction (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Four visiting Mexican youth were caught writing their names on the mission walls. Among them was Plutarch Elias Calles, Jr., son of a former President of Mexico (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Two cannonballs, one chain shot, and seven new mortars for corn grinders were acquired for the museum collection; some were placed in the landscape of the monument grounds as evidenced by historic photos (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A new parking area (aka “Parking Place”) was designed by Mr. Goodwin of the Engineering Division of the National Park Service, surveyed, and built to better accommodate visitors (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Prospectors worked arroyos within 100 yards of mission buildings (probably wash to north) with rockers and gold pans (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The convento was used as a park museum (Boundey 1932; NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

“Parking Place” was completed by engineers (Boundey 1933; Jackson 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1933, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Thomas C. Vint, chief landscape architect, sent master plans for the visitor center complex to Superintendent Pinkley and Custodian Boundey (WACC, source unclear, from file Tuma Master Plans 1933-1969).

Two cremation ollas (pottery Piman in origin) were excavated in the vicinity of the church and added to museum collection (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1933, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Water well/pump alternately ran off of wind power or gas generator (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1933, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Deck to water tank and cistern for old adobe house damaged and repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1933, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Electric lights installed in Residence #1 replacing Coleman lanterns. Lights run off of locally generated gas power (NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1933,

36

1934

1935

Designed/ Planned/ Excavated

1934

Excavated

1934

Altered

1934

Surveyed/ Designed/ Planned

1934

Altered/ Damaged/ Exploited

1934

Damaged/ Surveyed

1934

Cultivated

1934

1935

Built

1934

Surveyed/ Designed

1934

Cultivated/ Planted/ Removed

1934

Circa 1959

Built/ Ranched/ Grazed

Tumacácori monthly reports).

The NPS “landscape division” requested that the foundations of all mission buildings be located prior to landscaping and drainage installation. Excavations are carried out by Paul Beaubien to the extent that foundations are located.

Archaeological discoveries included the Jesuit church foundation north of the convento, and two burro-powered molinas or mill stones at the northeast corner of the patio (Moss 2006, 10, 13; Moss 2008; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, Sallie Brewer 1947, Molina file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

On February 21, following the unearthing of their graves underneath the church, the remains of Padres Carrillo and Gutierrez were escorted from Tumacácori to San Xavier del Bac (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A drainage ditch was dug through the patio east of the Franciscan church, revealing an old cemetery and disturbing burial sites (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

‘Front plaza’ area surveyed and grading plan made by engineers and Atwell. (unclear what “front plaza” refers to).

Cattle guards and culvert pipes planned from front area (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Severe drought impacted local streams, cattle herds, and planting. Conflict erupted over water resources between cattlemen and treasure hunters in region’s hill country.

Significant use of water for visitor center “cement work” lowers groundwater table considerably, causing furor among local cattlemen, and requiring well to be redug to lower position.

(Boundey 1934; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Treasure hunters damaged the park one night. In response, treasure hunters were allowed to trace foundations of buildings at monument to “forestall any night digging” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Peaches from the mission orchard were canned by park custodian George Boundey’s wife (Moss 2006, 13).

Parking area gates and west section of adobe perimeter wall constructed (Boundey 1934; Jackson 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Atwell’s crew of engineers survey and design “water system” and “refilling of the old adobe pit”, indicating the end of Phase 1 design and construction (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Pendleton Ranch, which extended into lands south and north of the mission, was planted with several hundred acres of peas, spinach, etc. Regrading and cultivation associated with this farming operation likely removed buildings and structures associated with previous homesteads (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Pendleton Ranch (managed under the name Baca Float Ranch, Inc.,) which included lands within contemporary TNHP, was progressively subdivided and built upon by wealthy friends of Tol Pendleton, many of whom were former

37

1934

1935

Planned

1935

Surveyed

1935

Planned

1935 1935

Built Built

1935

Excavated

1935

Built

1935

Altered/ Damaged

1935

Altered

1935

Damaged

1936

Altered

1936

Altered

1936

Built

1936

Built

1936

Cultivated

1937

Destroyed

executives of General Motors. Santa Gertrudis cattle were imported from Texas and were the primary form of stock animal on the ranch. Many of the residents of these “dude ranches” led the life of “gentleman ranchers,” in which cattleranching was pursued not as a profitable enterprise, but rather a preferred way of life that included socializing with movie stars and excessive drinking (Sheridan 2004; Simenon 1954; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Research trips to the chain of Piméria Alta missions were conducted by National Park Service staff, which informed the museum design. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The monument was surveyed by Hillory Tolson, NPS administrator, Thomas Vint, project landscape architect, and Pinkley, at this time NPS head of Southwestern monuments, likely for discussion of future monument complex expansion (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

“Our future museum at Tumacácori” was first mentioned in park records (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A windmill was built for groundwater well (Boundey 1935) A telephone was installed, in Residence #1 (NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Beaubien excavation was refilled and leveled (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

11,000 adobes were made for future repairs and construction at monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The water table was significantly lowered by ‘big irrigation pumps’ presumed to be associated with new farms of “California interests” and/or Pendleton Ranch (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Windmill and Westinghouse generator were repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Main altar and baptistery was damaged by treasure hunters (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Three buttresses of adobe were placed against adobe rooms southeast of church (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1936, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Two picnic tables were added to monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1936, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Drainage ditch was dug west of mission church (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1936, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Custodian Louis Caywood constructed “an old type arrastra (grinding mill) as a graphic exhibit” (Caywood 1936, 295, 298; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1936, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Lands within the walled mission orchard were cleared for cotton, indicating irrigation by well water (Moss 2006, 13).

Wind blew over the 1,000 gallon water tank atop the 30 ft.

38

1937

Altered

1937

Platted

1937

Built

1937

Altered

1937

1948

Built/ Grazed/ Ranched

1937

1939

Built

1938

Planted

1938

Exploited

1938 1938

Cultural Traditions Built

1938 1938

Altered Altered

1938

Destroyed

1938

Altered

1939

Altered

wooden tower, destroying the windmill in falling (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A temporary 250 gallon tank was placed on top of the tool shed and the pump was repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Captain Donald W. Page, Research Historian from Works Progress Administration, Lorenzo Moffett and Paul Rockwood from Museum Preparators at Berkeley, and “Mr. Wilkerson” spent four days making drawings, photographs, color notes, paintings, and movies of the mission, including a performance of parts of the Easter services formerly held here made by local Mexicans (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Power line and new water system, including a newly-dug well and electric pump, completed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Park museum was removed from convento building ( NPS 1987, 7-2).

E.T. Strong, retired president of General Motors, acquired lands to the south and east of the monument from Pendleton.

Upon this land was built a ranch house, designed by Hal Prince, who had previously run a ranch for Pendleton in 1933.

The “lean-to shed” was presumably built at this time, as well, based upon historic photos. The ranch was, at various times, run as a guest ranch and a working cattle ranch called the Upper S Bar S (Brownell 1986, 132; Sheridan 2004).

M.M. Sundt constructed the museum building, a Works Progress Administration project (Jackson 1952; NPS 1987, 72; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports;).

Black fig cuttings were planted in museum patio (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Santa Cruz River’s usual flow and canal flow through the monument stopped; irrigation wells were cited as the cause (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Easter services April 13-16 by Local Mexicans (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Under supervision of L.H. Tovrea, project engineer for the new museum and visitor center, cement foundations for a brick floor were laid in the mission church (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Residence #1 was remodeled (NRHP 2006b, 1).

Part of the Cemetery wall was reconstructed, others cleaned and capped with almost 1,000 adobe bricks. Niches were also repaired and replastered (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, 1939, Tumacácori monthly reports).

“Trees along the old canal,” including “sixteen peaches, one pomegranate, one walnut, one or two cottonwoods and two willows” were described as being likely to die (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Unfinished museum was first shown to monument visitors (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A cement covering/memorial was installed on top of the

39

1939

Altered

1939

Altered

1939

1940

1939

Built

1939

Cultural Traditions Established

1940

Removed

1941

Built

1941

Altered

1941

Retained

1941

Surveyed

1941

Altered

1941

Removed

1942

Altered

1943

Altered

1943

Built

1943

1944

Circa 1947

Altered/ Damaged Altered

Juanita Alegria grave by Romulo Alegria (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, Tumacácori files, cemetery file).

A brick floor was laid in the mission church (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1939, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A hole in the mission church was filled with adobes (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1939, Tumacácori monthly reports).

J.H. Tovrea, Landscape Architect Charles Carter and 16 Civilian Conservation Corps “boys” laid out and constructed the visitor center patio, including the installation of patio walk pavers and a fountain. Planting design was prepared and planted by the Tucson Botanical Garden and implemented along with the construction of a flagpole, and paving and curbing along the front of the museum (see figure 7.9.1 in Small Scale Features) (Jackson 1952; NPS 1987, 7-2, NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1939, 1940 Tumacácori monthly reports).

Easter pageant was held in April (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1939, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An emergency First Aid station was established at the monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1939, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Entrance steps to the museum were removed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1940, Tumacácori monthly reports) A hitching rack for horses was added to the parking lot (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports) Drains for the roof (building unknown) were replaced with tiles (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

A large copper kettle was loaned to mission by Dr. Emil Haury.

It had reportedly been used in the manufacturing of sugar from sugar cane. This is possibly the copper kettle found today in the museum garden (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Edward Danson surveyed an artifact scatter on the upper terrace of the Santa Cruz River near Tumacácori, determining that is was of possible Salado origin (AD 1200-1400) (Danson 1946, 43; Arendt et al., DRAFT 2009).

Seven drains through the parapet walls were replaced with sewer tile. Roof stabilization work began (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Door, windows, and iron roof were removed from south patio rooms (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Gas rationing significantly decreased visitation (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1942, Tumacácori monthly reports) The storehouse (a.k.a. caretaker’s residence) was repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1943, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A wire incinerator was constructed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1943, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Severe drought (worst since 1900) affected the Santa Cruz River Valley (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1943, 1946, 1947, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A large cottonwood on the southeast corner of the monument blew over (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1944, Tumacácori

40

1944

Damaged

1945

Damaged

1946

Built

1945

Established

1945

Maintained

1946

Stabilization 1946

Damaged

1946

Altered

1947

Altered

1947

Planted

1947

Reconstructe d Established

1947

1951

1948

Altered

1948

Destroyed

1948

Destroyed

1948

Built

1948

Built

1948

Built

1948

Built

1948

Stabilized

monthly reports).

A huge flood damaged the inside of the museum (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1944, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Skunks dug under the main altar (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A residential well was dug along the road to the north of field A, likely to provide water for the ranch-hand residence at the northeast corner of field A (Bossler and Gredig 2009).

A photo lab set up in one of the park buildings (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Weeds were sprayed with herbicide ammate (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The sanctuary and nave were stabilized (Tumacácori fact files 1946, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A significant drought ended (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1946 , Tumacácori monthly reports) Two new oil burning heaters were installed at the residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1946 , Tumacácori monthly reports).

Roofs of the residences and comfort stations were redone (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1947, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A cactus garden was established in the visitor center patio and a giant maguey (Agave) was planted in front of the museum (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1947, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In 1947, the roof of the Franciscan church was totally replaced (Moss, 2008, 2).

A first aid station was established and later abandoned (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1947, 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Parking areas were re-paved and a butane gas system was installed for the residence area (NPS, Tumacácori fact files,1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A giant spineless cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica) on the monument trails was destroyed by high winds (NPS, Tumacácori fact files ,1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A huge mesquite was brought down in the visitor center patio garden (NPS, Tumacácori fact files,1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A ramp was installed at the museum entrance door. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An adobe incinerator was built for burning garbage and trash (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Neighbors from the Strong Ranch south of the monument built a flood dike against the south boundary of the monument to protect the ranch from flooding (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Tucson-Nogales highway alternative was started, presumably in an area far from the Tumacácori inventory unit (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The mortuary chapel was stabilized (NPS, Tumacácori fact files,1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

41

1948

Built

1949

Altered

1949

Altered

1949

Damaged

1949

Damaged

1948

Exploited

1950

Altered

1950

Altered/ Paved

1950

Planned

1950

Built

1950

Built

1950

Removed

1951

Altered

1951

Altered

1951

Altered

1951

Altered

1951

Altered

1951

Altered

A “tiny space for picnickers, east of the patio garden, which contains two picnic tables, shaded by mesquites” was built (Jackson 1948).

Water-line valves to the fish pond in the visitor center patio were repaired. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files,1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Bitumuls and gravel on trail between patio garden and residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files,1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Frost killed or damaged a spineless pear cactus and the upper parts of tamarisk trees on the ruins trail. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files,1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Mission walls were vandalized by ‘post-rodeo festive drunks” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files,1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Groundwater was recorded as being 22’ below the soil surface – evidence of only 7-8’ drawdown over recent years. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An open trench in the mission patio was dug and lined with brick. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Stop signs were installed at the parking area exits and residence driveway. The trail to the museum was paved with bitumul gravel (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Widening of the highway was discussed between General Superintendent Davis, Landscape Architects Carter and Miller, Highway Maintenance Engineer Smith and Arizona Highway Department (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports).

“Mission screening” was discussed by architect Saunders and Archeologist Steen, and built by Lamar Cotten. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A new grate, a larger settlement box, and brick retaining walls on each side of the front walk were built. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The base of a life-sized arrastra that had been established by former custodians was removed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Santa Cruz River was altered to include a more steady flow of water provided by the construction and operation of the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant, 1.5 miles north of the international border. It has the capacity to return 1.6 million gallons per day to middle Santa Cruz River (Sprouse 2005, 5).

An entrance sign of masonite was made and installed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951).

The warehouse was re-roofed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951).

Residence #1 was given a new door frame and concrete sill (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951).

The vidalia beetle was applied to a pyracantha tree, presumably as a biocontrol agent (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951).

The west side of the monument was archaeologically trenched

42

1951

Built

1951

1953

Established

1951

1953

Maintained

1951

Planted

1951

Removed

1951

Removed

1952

Built/Altered

1952

Altered

1952

Altered

1952

Built

1952

1957

Designed

1952

Designed

1953

Altered

1953

Built

1953

Altered

1953

Altered

1954

Altered

1954

Altered

1954

Altered

1954

Altered

to prepare for the widening of the highway (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Highway approach signs were installed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A self-guiding system of touring the patio garden (1951) and the mission (1953) was developed, along with five easel exhibits on the trail (Tumacácori fact files 1951, 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Annual burning of brush in trash pit/weed burner occurred (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A Prunus caroliniana (cherry laurel) was planted west of the southwest corner of residence #2 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The “thunderbird” information sign was removed from the front of the museum. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A large Agave was removed from the front of the museum (Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A new parking lot was built. Water pump improvements and 200’ of water pipe were installed in the parking and planting island. Right angle parking stripes were installed in new parking lot. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Two picnic tables were rebuilt. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The west side of the church was plastered. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Highway 89 work began, presumably next to the Tumacácori inventory unit (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A “Master Plan Development outline” was prepared by Landscape Architect Harold A. Marsh and park superintendent Ray B. Ringenbach (Jackson 1952,1957).

Two women fell into the patio garden water drain, prompting a re-design (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The patio garden self-guiding system was improved. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A shelter roof was built over the church corridor (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The “mission trail” was seal-coated and the road was patched (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The superintendent’s residence (Residence #1) was rehabilitated (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Two additional rooms were added to Residence #2, connecting it to the nearby garage (NRHP 2006a,1).

General repairs were done to Residence # 1, (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Rest room entrances from the parking area were sealed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Visitor center museum garden was altered. New entrances to the bathrooms of the comfort station were installed in the

43

1954

Altered

1954

Altered

1954

Altered

1954

Altered

1954

Altered

1954

Built

1954

Destroyed

1954

Stabilized

Late 1950s

Late 1960s

Inhabited/ Built/ Ranched/ Grazed

1955

Altered

1955

Altered

1955

Built

1955

Built

1955

Built

1955

Built

1955

Expanded

1955

Removed

museum garden. Water drains of a pebble mosaic pattern were set in a cement base with tar paper between the brick and concrete. Museum garden benches and the fishpond were repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A barrel-type pit drain was installed in the “schoolhouse,” aka convento (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The trail was altered to include two easel stands (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An underground telephone line was built to residence (#1 or #2, not clear which one) (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The road in front of the garage was tarred (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A temporary protective cover was installed over “Spanish Arch” and schoolhouse/convento ruins (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Mission trail ‘cycle” was completed by paving the corridor to the “corn grinders” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In August, major flooding of the Santa Cruz River occurred, destroying $1 million of crops in the vicinity; the “warehouse” (a.k.a. caretaker’s residence, aka storehouse) was destroyed by the resultant wind. Later in the year, Santa Cruz County opposed a “critical” designation of the Santa Cruz River, which would have further regulated and controlled stormwater runoff, (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The inside cemetery wall was stabilized with plaster (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Mission Ranch south of the monument was inhabited by a Hispanic woman (name unknown), who built the stable barn and ranch house, and raised horses. During this time, this ranch was part of the Canto Ranch located on the east bank of the Santa Cruz River (Binney 2010).

The interior of the administrative offices of the museum/visitor center complex was renovated, including the installation of museum doors. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Evaporative coolers were added to the two residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A protective cover was installed over the “schoolhouse,” aka convento (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A clothesline was added to residence #2. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A “bedroom” was built (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A new “warehouse” was built (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

400’ of asphalt trail was added to the mission trail system (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The screened porch of residence #2 (aka ‘ranger’s residence’)

44

1956

Built

1956

Damaged

1956

Altered

1956

Maintained

1956

Expanded

1956

1957

Planned

1956

Stabilized

1957

Altered

1957

Altered

1957

1958

Land Transfer/ Built

1957

Altered

1957

Expanded

1950’s

1957

Paved

1957

Planted

1957

Altered

1958

Built

1959

Planned

1959

Altered

1959

Constructed

was torn down (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A sewer disposal pit was dug and put into operation (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The “monument wall” off of the parking area was damaged by a drunken driver (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Arizona Highway Department painted warning paint on parking island curbs. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The east boundary fence was repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

200’ of asphalt trail and 50’ of self-guiding trail was installed with new markers (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Mission 66 prospectus was approved by the NPS director, including monument construction plans by Marsh and Schroeder (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Mission cemetery plaster was stabilized (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

South boundary wall was plastered (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The two residences were re-roofed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Lime kiln land acquired by donation from Richard Ensign, Tumacácori, AZ - Quit Claim deeds from Baca Float and Ranch Inc. and Mr. and Mrs. John L. Kalb to clear easements A three-strand wire fence was built around the lime kiln (NPS, Tumacácori fact file, date unknown, Land Titles file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A protective canopy was built over the arch window of the schoolhouse (aka convento) (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An existing well located in the east wing of the visitor center building was re-drilled and cased 72 feet deep (Jackson 1957).

0.5 miles of surfaced roads and 0.3 miles of surfaced trails were reported at Tumacácori National Monument (figure 7.3.3 in Circulation) (Jackson 1957).

Grasses were seeded annually and weeds controlled by use of sprays (Jackson 1957).

Santa Cruz River was noted as flowing at the monument, indicating that at this was an irregular occurrence at this time (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A temporary office space was constructed south of the “well room” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1958, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Krupp and Sons Construction Company was awarded contract for a one-story addition to the visitor center to house museum specimens and administration work (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1959, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Office and storage space addition was added onto the visitor center and museum (NPS 1987, 7-2) A well was constructed within the monument boundaries.

45

Presumably, this well was later surrounded by the pumphouse of 1969, though the certain location of this well is unknown (ADWR 2010).

Post Period of Significance: 1960 Altered 1960

Damaged

1960 1960

Altered/ Planting Planned

1960

Planned

1960

Altered

1961

Planned

1961

Planted

1962

Planted

1962

Stabilized

1963

Altered

1963

Developed

1963

Maintained

1964

Altered

1964

Altered

1964

Designed/ Built

1964

Destroyed

1964

Destroyed

1964

1965

Excavated

All signs and labels were replaced or repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Adobe bricks were damaged at the mission entrance by treasure hunters (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Transplanting and soil rebuilding occurred in the patio garden (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports).

NPS regional architect and engineer met to discuss natural gas line on property (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Plans were made for additional “easels” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Record rains (greatest in 40 years) stranded park neighbors (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Project supervisor Dingry developed plans for a new residence, well pump and distribution system. Hoyt Wilcox and WODC make plans and choose site for “last residence” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1961, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Cacti specimens were obtained by Superintendent Cook and Naturalist Olin from Reddington Pass and planted at the monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1961, Tumacácori monthly reports).

New flowers were planted on the Alegria grave in the cemetery (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1962, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The granary walls were stabilized (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1962, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The flag pole was broken and replaced (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1963, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A study showed that visitors preferred self-guided tours over guided tours, which at the time were given by historian John Kessell; as a result, a self-guided trail booklet was developed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1963, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Monument trees were maintained by the “western tree crew” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1963, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The patio garden plant labels were modified. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Improved stop signs were installed by the highway department at each end of parking lot following an auto accident (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Cal Peters designed a scale model of the mission built on a table.

(NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A century plant was blown down. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Santa Cruz River flooded and washed out the Tumacácori foot bridge (Pimería Alta Historical Society 1967; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In October, Caywood, now with the Southwest Archaeological Center, began archaeological excavation of the east mission quadrangle, finding smelters and vasos. The subsequent excavation of the north tier was recorded as a “boon to the monument interpretation for the visitors” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964,

46

1964 Late 1960s

Inhabited 1979

Inhabited/ Ranched/ Grazed

1965

Altered

1965

Destroyed

1965

Planned

1965

Purchased

1965

2001

Excavated

1966

Altered

1966

Designed

1966

Excavated

1967

Altered

1967

Altered

1967

Planned

1968

1969

Built

1969

Altered

1969

Altered

1969

Altered

1969

Altered

1965, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A skeleton crew of as few as three employees “hold down the fort” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Dave Parker, of Amado, purchased the Mission Ranch south of the monument, which he used as a holding area for imported Mexican cattle. During this time, Parker built a septic holding tank and chicken coop at the ranch-hand residence at the northeast corner of field A, and used the open areas along on the first riparian terrace between the fields and the Santa Cruz River channel as a dump for wooden shakes and other ranch scraps (Binney 2010).

The visitor center, shop and storage buildings were re-roofed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Santa Cruz River flooded and washed out the Carmen Bridge 3 miles away (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The outline of the excavated wall foundations was planned to be covered above ground with burned adobe brick after backfilling (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Seven more easels were ordered (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Minor excavations along the Franciscan church foundations were conducted prior to stabilization work (Moss 2008, 7).

The patio fountain pool was filled with native Santa Cruz River fish (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1966, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Seven paintings of the Anza expedition were designed by Cal Peters for easel display (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1966, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In May, the excavated ruins were coated with the Texas Refineries product, “Sandstone and Adobe Coating” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1966, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The museum and church were black-topped (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1967, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A sign “Se Habla Español” was made for the front desk, and signs were translated to bilingual messages (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1967, Tumacácori monthly reports).

2 large entrance door signs were designed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1967, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A pumphouse was constructed within the mission garden/orchard, and included 6 hydrocells, metal cover to underground water valve box, and water valves, and sealed the pumphouse floor (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS 1975, 27).

Historic brick was used to restore the south convento floor (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The parking area was re-striped and ¾” gravel was spread over the old roadbed in the residence area. Worn brick was replaced with salvaged brick on the parking area sidewalk and the entire entrance walk was rehabilitated (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The lime kiln was modified with a 6-strand barbed wire fence and painted to blend with the boundary wall (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

New plant labels were installed in the patio garden. The patio garden “fishpond” was repainted (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

47

1969

Altered

1969

Altered

1969

Altered

1969

Excavated

1969

Inhabited

1969

Planted/ Altered

1969

Removed

1969

Removed

1970

Altered

1970

Maintained

1970

Maintained

1970

Altered

1970

Altered

1970

Excavated

1970

Altered

1970

Altered

1970

Altered

1970

Altered

1970

Altered

1970

Altered

1970

Altered

1970

Cultivated

Guide book depository was installed at the museum entrance (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Volatile chemical metal cabinets were installed by the residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

‘Easel displays” on the self-guiding trail were re-glossed, metal covers repaired, and brick display exhibit was modified with no-cast bricks (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Excavations were backfilled with compacting clay and sand (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Residence #1 was re-inhabited (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Patio garden was modified with pruning, spading, fertilization and 10 new plants. Pool received 30 tropical fish and aquatic plants (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Black plastic cover was removed from north convento after being determined to be ineffective. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Unused adobe walk at visitor center entrance removed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

New lettering was added to vandalized entrance signs (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Repairs were made to the “interior patio walk,” or the pathway through the museum garden (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Repairs were made to a “house trailer” at this time, indicating that one existed prior to this date (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Residence #1’s electrical, water, and sewer systems were modified to accommodate a clothes washer (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Residence #2 was renovated with tile flooring, HVAC, a ceiling for the porch, and plumbing and cement for washing machines (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Areas within the granary and cemetery were excavated preceding stabilization work and the erecting of a shelter that once stood over the granary (Moss 2008, 1:7).

Cemetery gate doors were replaced (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Evaporative coolers were added to two rooms of residence #2 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Trees in the public use area were pruned (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Experimental trenches to the west of the church were backfilled (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The entrance road gate was modified for locking to prevent illegal entry (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Two litter boxes (trash cans) were added to the parking area (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Sand and gravel was laid between the granary and stations 28 and 29, presumably easel stands along the interpretive (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The garden was trimmed and sprayed with insecticide. Patio garden noted as growing well due to resumption of “adequate fertilization

48

1970

Developed

1970

Planned/ Land Transfer

1970

Planned

1970

Removed

1970

Stabilized

1970

Altered

1971

Altered

1971

Altered

1971

Altered

1971

Altered

1971

Built

1971

Built

1971

Built

1971

Planned

1971

Planted

1971

Built

1971

Altered

and soil care” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A new self-guiding trail pamphlet was developed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A meeting occurred with the northern boundary land owner regarding extending the monument boundaries in that direction (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Interpretive planning team (S. Ray Price, Marc Sagan, Rick Krepela, William Ingersoll, Robert Barrel, L. Clapper and John Kessell) met for the interpretive prospectus and Museum Exhibit Plan. Discussion occurred about creating environmental study area (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

One exotic dead tamarisk tree was removed from the grounds at the schoolhouse (aka convento) ruins and cottonwood trees were removed from the visitor center entrance (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Trenches were dug to the east and west of the church building for a restabilization study (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A complaint was registered by the park to the Santa Cruz County Board of Health against the southern neighbor (precursor to George Binney) for drifting smoke from burning horse manure, hay, weeds, etc. arriving in the grounds (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The septic tank was filled (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An electric connection box was installed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Gravel was spread on the road between the residences. Foam roofing was installed on the visitor center, Residences #1 and 2, church and comfort stations (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The schoolhouse building (aka convento) was reroofed with 90 lb paper (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

House trailers, toilets, grading work, cement slab and two metal storage buildings were installed. A hot water heater was added to one of these storage sheds (aka “laundry room”; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A metal shelter was constructed over the granary (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A ramada was placed and painted (location unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Rick Krepela of Harpers Ferry was consulted for design of exhibit cases and an interpretive motion picture (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Native grass seed was sewn in disturbances around the church and trailer site. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An air compressor/storage tank was installed for air drying walls of the church (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

“Adjacent lands” to mission were used by park staff for a firearms training session/target shooting (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

49

1971

1972

Planned

1971

1972

Established

1972

Altered

1972

Built

1972

2010

Maintained

1973

Restored

1974

Altered

1977

Altered

1977

1983

1978

Abandoned Expanded

1979

Built

1979

Built/ Maintained

1979

Built

1979

Planted

1979

Land Transfer

1979

Planted

1979

Built

1979

Built

An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for the creation of Interstate 19 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971 or 1972, Tumacácori monthly reports).

“Fiesta” was established at Tumacácori. In 1971, the first “fiesta” was attended by $2,000 with financial support from the Knights of Columbus (Garate 2010; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The Santa Cruz River at Tumacácori began to receive more base flows of water as a result of the newly constructed Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant, constructed at the confluence of the Santa Cruz River and Nogales Wash, which increased the treatment capacity to be able to return 8.2 million gallons per day. Perennial base flows resulted in increased riparian vegetation of emergent plants, cottonwood trees, and mesquite bosque (Sprouse 2005, 5).

A new door was installed in the patio garden wall near the men’s restroom (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1972, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Mission buildings and structures were stabilized against further deterioration through the repair of exterior plaster and structural weaknesses, with methods generally shifting from the use of synthetic materials to traditional materials (Moss 2008, 7-24).

The lime kiln was restored and opened to the public (NPS, Tumacácori fact file, date unknown, Land Title file).

“Fiesta” was first held at fiesta grounds north of TNHP (Garate 2010).

Tropical Storm Heather stalled over the upper Santa Cruz River Valley, creating an October flood that was likely the largest since 1892, causing “widespread bank and channel erosion in Santa Cruz County and locally severe erosion through Tucson” (Parker 1996, 19).

Agricultural fields north/northeast of TNHP were abandoned (NPS, Photo file (prints), 1977, 1980, 1983).

Tumacácori National Historic Park (TNHP) expanded to include six acres of the “Fiesta grounds” north of the mission compound (U.S. Congress 2001, 1).

“Decorative well” between Binney Ranch house and horse ring was built prior to this date and was never used by Binney (Binney 2010).

Prior to this time, a corral was built on the second riparian terrace between the pole barn, field B, field C, and the Santa Cruz River first riparian terrace branding, emasculation, and tagging of cattle, with a chute for loading and directing cattle into adjacent fields. Binney updated the chute multiple times (Binney 2010).

Circular cattle trough and domestic well, tank and well pump to east of “lean-to shed” were built before this time (Binney 2010).

Softwood trees (other than pines, presumably cypresses) and chinaberry tree were planted before this time (Binney 2010).

George Binney purchased Mission Ranch (south of monument) from Dave Parker (Binney 2010).

Pines and eucalyptus trees planted around Binney ranch house (Binney 2010).

Horse runs were built off the back doors of the stable stalls. The southeastern stall was built a foaling stall with room for veterinary operations (Binney 2010).

A block wall was built between Binney ranch house, “lean-to shed”

50

1979

1980

Excavated

1979

1984

Expanded

1979

1984

Built

1979

1984

Planted

1979

1984

Planted/ Farmed/ Harvested

1979

1984

Built

1979

1987

Built

1979

1987

Cultivated

1979

2004

Ranched/ Grazed

1979

2004

Altered

1980

Inhabited

1982

Built/ Inhabited/ Planted Altered

Mid 1980s

Mid 1980s 1983

1984

1985

1992

Excavated Altered

Planted/ Farmed/ Harvested Destroyed

(block building to east of ranch house) and stables (Binney 2010).

Minor test excavations were conducted in the cemetery and “neophyte plaza” south of the church (1979, 1980,) where it was determined that artifact densities were concentrated at a point in the center of this plaza (Moss 2008, 7).

The “Lean-to shed” was structurally reinforced and enclosed (Binney 2010).

A swimming pool was built in ranch courtyard created by block wall enclosure (Binney 2010).

A row of pyracantha (Pyracantha sp.) was planted along the fenceline of stable stalls. A mesquite was planted at the southwest corner of the stable (Binney 2010).

Summer crops of the Binney ranch included white corn (sold locally, and via “you-pick”) and “Sudan” sorghum (used for cattle feed).

Winter crops rotated between beardless barley and cayuse oats (Binney 2010).

A septic system was installed in the courtyard of the Binney ranch (Binney 2010).

A fenceline was built at the boundary between the Santa Cruz River channel and the first riparian terrace to keep out local cattle (Binney 2010).

Rocks were removed from Binney Ranch fields by migrants traveling up the Santa Cruz River valley in return for food and money. Rocks were piled on first riparian terrace between fields A and B and the Santa Cruz River bottom. A mechanical rock picker was later used (Binney 2010).

Binney ranch originally was a “feeder operation”, in which steers purchased at auction in Tucson were fed and resold at the end of a year. In the last few years of Binney’s operation of the ranch, it was used as grazing land for Nogales-area rancher Cabot Sedgwicks (Binney 2010).

The pole barn at the southeast corner of field B was modified with side panels of corrugated metal to prevent water from soaking stored hay, which were sold to Matts Mierman, straw-bale housing pioneer, among others (Binney 2010).

George Binney and family move in to Mission Ranch (aka “Binney Ranch”) south of the monument (Binney 2010).

A trailer-home site to the west of four planted eucalyptus trees was inhabited by ranch hands. (Binney 2010).

Fields of Binney Ranch were regraded. Pipe and alfalfa valves were installed in place of deteriorated open-air concrete canals, which relied upon siphoning through plastic tubes to irrigate fields, in fields of Binney Ranch (Binney 2010).

A silage pit was dug on the first riparian terrace between field B and the Santa Cruz River channel (Binney 2010).

A flood of the Santa Cruz River caused extensive bank erosion and flood-plain destruction along the edge of TNHP, and brought in good top soil for fields of Binney Ranch (Binney 2010; Parker 1996, 52).

Pecans (from New Mexico) and peaches were planted and harvested from field F along the highway. This field was unable to be cultivated for row crops because it was too rocky (Binney 2010).

A flood of the Santa Cruz River ruined major estates of the Santa Cruz River floodplain, including the Canto Ranch on the east bank (Binney 2010).

51

1986

Expanded

Late 1980s Late 1980s 1987

Altered

Memorialized

1987

Built

1987

Altered

1989

Grazed/ Ranched

1990s

Planted/ Farmed/ Harvested Land Transfer

Built

Circa 1990 1992 1992

Altered 1993

1993 1993 Mid 1990s Mid 1990s

Built Altered

1994

Paved Altered Built

1994

Excavated

Late 1990s 1997

Built 2002

2001

2002

Ranched/ Grazed

Excavated

2004

Expanded

Tumacácori National Historic District expanded by six acres to include “Fiesta grounds” north of the mission compound (NRHP 1986; Sheridan 2006, 235).

Field A of Binney Ranch was regraded to improve distribution of water (Binney 2010).

A cattle feed shed was built on the first riparian terrace between field B and the Santa Cruz River channel (Binney 2010).

The museum of TNHP was listed as a National Historic Landmark (NPS 1987).

A small pond was dug in the northwestern corner of field F (pecan orchard) for geese and ducks, which were held here until a coyote killed them (Binney 2010).

The northern of two wells on the first riparian terrace of the Santa Cruz River east of field B, which had a pumping capacity of 600 gallons/minute, and had previously only run on electric power, was expanded with a diesel motor (Binney 2010).

Once pecans in field G had matured to a size in which they would not be damaged by browsing animals, this field was used as pasture for sheep from San Rafael rancher Bob Sharp. Lambs were sold to for use in the Arab and Greek communities of Tucson, and the University of Arizona “meat lab” (Binney 2010).

Garlic was planted and harvested from field G (mission orchard,) which was later used as a holding pond for the irrigation of other Mission Ranch fields (Binney 2010).

Abandoned agricultural fields north of fiesta grounds purchased by Roy Ross, Tubac realtor (Garate 2010).

US Route 89 was decommissioned as a federal highway from Nogales to Flagstaff (Cowlin 2006).

Metal barn (aka “maintenance barn”) built in SW corner of property

by Santa Gertrudis Lane by George Binney (Binney 2010).

A flood of the Santa Cruz River caused extensive bank erosion and flood-plain destruction along the edge of TNHP (Parker 1996, 52).

Mission Ranch driveway (formerly dirt) was paved (Binney 2010).

The white wooden picket fence surrounding the Binney ranch house was replaced by a white-painted steel fence (Binney 2010).

A research well was dug by the University of Arizona. Excess water from this well was directed into a 4” pipe and used to irrigate ranch fields (Binney 2010).

A sink hole developed southeast of the sacristy corridor, prompting an excavation that suggested that it was the remains of a Mission Period of Significance deep well (Moss 2008, 7).

Mission Ranch driveway gate (block and steel) was built (Binney 2010).

Fields F and G, which by this time contained mature trees that could not be damaged by browsing animals, were additionally used as pasture for boarded animals owned by others. Fencing surrounding these fields was erected at this time (Binney 2010).

Archaeological test excavations were undertaken across a large area of the fiesta grounds in order to mitigate damage for a proposed new visitor center that was not constructed (Moss 2008, 7).

In 2002, Congress authorized the addition of 310 adjacent acres to TNHP including the mission orchard/gardens, agricultural fields of Mission Ranch, and the Santa Cruz River channel, which were purchased in 2004. Binney moved out in early 2004 (Binney 2010; Moss 2006, 11; Sheridan 2004, 235-236).

52

2002

2010

Naturalized/Ma intained

2004

2006

Excavated

2004

2010

Built

2004

2010

Neglected

2005 2005

2006

Removed Excavated

2007

2007

Planted

2009 2009

Excavated 2010

Removed

Beginning in 2002, fields of the Mission Ranch were allowed to go fallow. Fields B, D, E, F, and G have been regularly mowed since this time, while field A has been allowed to naturalize (Drake et al.

2009, 41).

Archaeological investigations of a portion of the historic acequia, mission orchard/garden, and various prehistoric and proto-historic scatters on second terrace were undertaken by NPS staff (Moss 2006, 16; Moss 2008, 7; Arendt et al. DRAFT 2009).

A pink-colored concrete sidewalk was built to the east of the ranch courtyard between the east stable barn entrance and the north ranch house entrance, replacing 8’x8’ concrete stepping stones (Binney 2010).

Water-intensive, non-native cypress trees west of the ranch residence were taken off irrigation, leading to their death (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010; Moss 2009).

The swimming pool in the ranch courtyard was filled (Binney 2010).

In 2005, portions of the ranch horse ring were excavated, revealing the remains of the Mendez homestead, the Mission Period of Significance adobe firing kiln, and the possible remains of a U.S. Cavalry camp (Arendt et al. DRAFT 2009; Moss 2008, 7).

The remaining portion of the mission orchard was replanted with fruit tree cultivars from mission community orchards in Sonora, MX, and with other regional heirloom varieties (Desert Survivors 2008).

An adobe pit was located to the east of the southeast corner of the park compound (Moss 2009).

The pecan trees of field F were cut down following a few years of deteriorating health (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010; Moss, 2009).

53

Physical History “At the least, these mute physical vestiges of Hispanic Arizona are curiosities. They clash with the wastewater plants, the freeways, and the subdivisions. At best they cause us to ask questions about our historical environment. They force us to acknowledge cultural diversity as well as human continuity in the region. They bid us to read and to write history” (Kessell 1976b, p. 321).

Preface: The story of the landscape of the Tumacácori unit of TNHP is one of cultural transformation among aboriginal, Spanish, Mexican, and American peoples. It is a political story of one government’s creation of a frontier mission land grant of Native American inhabitation and Spanish control, a subsequent government’s dissolution of this grant and fraudulent creation of another, and an open era of homestead establishment, then eviction, in between (Sheridan, 2006.) It is a technological story of increasingly effective tools of water acquisition and control redefining the relationship between the agriculturalist and the Santa Cruz River floodplain (Logan, 2002.) As a result of these trends, the physical land use pattern shifted from a prehistoric Native-American quasi-agricultural village to a pre-industrial, productive, communal landscape managed by Hispanics and worked by Native Americans to a resettled, private, Hispanic homestead to an Anglo-controlled landscape of speculation, gentleman farming, and dude-ranching.

It is also a story of variable historical record. The earliest inhabitants stored and transmitted valuable cultural information through a strong oral tradition that has only minimally been transcribed in recent times to paper. From 1691 until 1821, the establishment and success of a frontier mission settlement was directed by educated friars who had been trained to record minute details of methods and measures of agricultural productivity and civil society, and report to an institutional overseer. This decreased after Mexican independence as the Catholic Church became a separate entity from the government. Following the Gadsden purchase, the details of survival mattered only to the individual homesteader, who was only required to “report” to another body when proving by testimony their claim to have improved and continuously occupied their homestead. The Hispanic homesteader, therefore, did not leave as meticulous of a historic record as the friars, or the Anglo-American lawyers, judges, and speculators who wrangled for sixty years over the potential bonanza of mining and development of the Baca Float no. 3 that none of them had physically altered during this time. It wasn’t until land ownership was settled, finally, in 1917, that the stage was set for two educated, Anglo men, Frank Pinkley and Tol Pendleton, to not only alter the land, but also record their physical changes, and report these to the federal government and investors, respectively. Even during the early days of ownership and management by the Forest Service and National Park Service, little was done with the original ten acres other than to prevent the looting and weathering of the cultural resources of the church, through the occasional intervention of a man living 100 miles away.

As a result, there are significant portions of time from which very little is known of the transmogrification of the land: prior to 1691 and between 1853 and 1917, before and after a true frontier mission, and before the creation of a new national park. This inventory, therefore, directly reports historically-recorded landscape changes and attempts to explain the appearance of others for which the origin is unknown through the analysis of general lifestyles, regional trends, on-site environmental data, and suggestion explanations based upon these component clues.

I.

Pre-Period of Significance: Prehistoric-1753

54

Prior to the earliest written historical record of the Spanish, at least two major periods of occupation occurred in the Santa Cruz Valley: The Hohokam (300 BC – 1400 AD, Classic Period 1200-1400 AD,) and Sobaipuri O’odham (after 1450 AD.; Horton 1998, p.10.)

The earliest inhabitants to southeastern Arizona in prehistoric times were the Clovis Paleo-Indians of the late Pleistocene, wide-ranging, nomadic bands of people that pursued large grazing animals from roughly 9,500 to 9,000 B.C, a time of greater rainfall. Surface lithic points typical of this culture have been located throughout the San Pedro and Sulphur Springs Valley watersheds, Sonora and northwestern Chihuahua. Areas to the east and south of the Santa Cruz River Valley. Significant sites of this assemblage of peoples have revealed artifacts representative of a hunter-gatherer society that paused only to craft stone tools, kill and process mammoth and other large game, and to grind wild plants. In the Santa Cruz Valley, few lithic points have been found in the Tucson Basin and on the San Xavier reservation, a phenomenon that may be indicative of the infrequency of the peopling of these areas or because late Pleistocene deposits have been buried by recent alluvium that is rarely exposed (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 92, 96, 317).

As the Pleistocene era concluded, the landscape became more arid, and much of the big game went extinct due to hunting and climatic pressures, desert cultures based upon a more diversified economic base (generalized hunting patterns, greater food gathering) proliferated from the previously-inhabited areas to include areas the alluvial fans and terraces of the Santa Cruz River in the Tucson basin, and on the San Carlos Apache and Tohono O’odham reservations. These cultures developed a more distinctive material culture of milling stones, basketry, improved ceramics for better cooking and storage of food, and implements of quarried rock. Labor tasks began to to be sexually divided, and inhabitation sites of roughly 25 individuals began to be seasonally occupied, returned to with greater frequency, and built upon with shallow oval house floors with probable storage, ash, and burial pits. From 5,500 to 3,000 BP, these cultures began planting early varieties of maize (Zea mays,) which had arrived from the Sierra Madre Occidental region of Mexico, beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and squash (Cucurbita pepo,) at the mouths of tributary streams within the floodplain, which allowed for the surplussing of food. Sites from this era also began to appear more commonly at higher elevations, perhaps due to ease of access to resources in canyons and mountains, and the overviews of valleys afforded by these promontory locations (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 93-98, 105, 112-113).

Between about 300 and 100 A.D., a more sedentary lifestyle of expanded plant exploitation (including the Opuntia genus,) and seed grinding began to emerge, perhaps influenced by the arrival of the Amargosa peoples of California. Continuous exploitation of resource locales from this time onward suggests that the modern O’odham may have descended from the Amargosa.

The Hohokam Pioneer period, typified by dispersed villages/rancherias of brush dwellings in shallow elongated pits, maize agriculture irrigated by diversion canals, and higher degrees of social organization evidenced by the appearance of large settlements with ball courts and mounds, cremation of the dead, trade or the gathering of shell items from coastal areas, stone bowls, and clay figurines of animals and humans, arose in approximately 300 B.C. in the Upper Gila River, Salt River, and San Pedro River Valleys, and is best preserved at the Snaketown site along the Salt River. During this time, settlements occurred outside of the Gila-Salt River Valley nucleus through a process that has been described as “range-budding,” whereby Hohokam groups moved to non-contiguous unoccupied territories, after which socialranking of family lineages developed as this surrounding land from these initial settlements was claimed. The largest villages, possibly seats of local chiefdoms,

55

have been described as “grandfather villages,” with smaller villages, possibly seasonally-occupied and agriculturally-specialized, between them, a description which is very similar to that which was encountered by the earliest Spanish explorers to the region (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 115-116, 132-134).

The Santa Cruz River Valley between Nogales and Tumacácori, at this time, was a contact zone between the Hohokam and the poorly-understood trincheras culture of northwestern Mexico. Trincheras sites, first noted by Kino’s military aide Manje and Father Pfefferkorn, consist of “hilltop complexes of dry-laid stone walls often associated with terraces, stone rings, trails, rock art, and other features,” and were possibly used for defensive, ceremonial, and/or habitational purposes, and have been found along the Santa Cruz River Valley and its tributaries, at the tops of adjacent peaks, including Tumacácori peak to the west of TNHP (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 155; Moss 2009; Reinhard 1978, 231-252). Trincheras, unlike the Hohokam of the Salt River Valley, have been noted to use cremation practices different than including the secondary cremation, whereby the ashes and bones of the deceased are collected from a primary cremation pit and collected into secondary vessels, the “killing” of secondary funerary urns, whereby a hole or notch is carved into the vessel, and the use of multiple cremations, whereby the remains of two individuals are placed within the same vessel. Secondary urn cremation does not appear at the Hohokam site of Snaketown until the Sedentary period and even then only occasionally. Cremation practices typical of the trincheras have been described at a sight in Nogales, AZ, the Paloparado site (see below,) and others within the Baca Float, suggesting that the Colonial/Sedentary period Hohokam along the Santa Cruz River Valley between Nogales and Tumacácori were influenced by the cultural practices of the trincheras. Additionally, many of the trincheras sites were re-used by cultures other than the builders, including the modern Tohono O’odham. In addition, the Baca Float sites contain ceramics and wares from both the Tucson Hohokam and trincheras. (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986; Fontana et al. 1959, p. 41-52; Moss, 2009).

In the Colonial Period of the Hohokam, beginning in 500 A.D., grandparent villages were established at the confluence of major streams, in braided channels, and areas of high water table, conditions optimal for floodwater farming. Significant sites have been found in the San Pedro Valley and at the confluence of the Santa Cruz and Rillito Rivers. During the late Colonial Period, from 700-900 A.D., dispersed, sedentary rancheria settlements were common in the middle and upper Santa Cruz River Valley. A typical structure consisted of a shallow pit, a square foundation outline with rounded corners, and four posts serving as roof supports, with two distinct rectangular or circular types of entry.

By the Sedentary Period, between 900-1250 A.D., villages existed all along the primary and secondary drainages of the Santa Cruz River Valley (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986). Analysis of the various Piman languages of contemporary native groups from south-central Arizona to northern Jalisco, has demonstrated a strong similarity of cognate density (a common linguistic analysis tool,) suggesting a split of these groups from a “Proto-Tepiman” root approximately one millennium ago, which would place the time of divergence during the Sedentary period. Further, many words originating from the Proto-Yuman language by the cultures of the Colorado River Valley were “borrowed” and incorporated into the Piman languages, suggesting an association between the Proto-Yuman and the Proto-Tepimans in the western Gila River area near the Colorado River around 1000 A.D. From A.D. 1000-1100, the Hohokam culture experienced a “retraction period,” abandoning settlements in the San Pedro River Valley and sites around Tumacácori (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986). From 1020 to 1160 AD, climate change caused many river channels in the region, including the Gila River from confluence with the Salt

56

River upstream 110 kilometers, to downcut and become entrenched, causing the washing out of some fields and the abandonment of canals. These effects, in turn, caused communities to disperse throughout rancherias and depend upon a more diverse combination of seasonal agriculture and wild plant harvest, and perhaps sent many people south into the Sierra Madre Occidental of contemporary Mexico (Sheridan 2006).

During the Classic Period (1150-1450 A.D.,) people settled in fewer, but larger villages with a high degree of social organization, such as at Casa Grande along the Gila River, which included monumental structures of multi-story houses, and ball courts, and advanced irrigation networks (Sheridan 2006). These settlements traded with neighboring tribes and coastal Indian tribes of northern Mexico and it has been suggested by some that these trade-trail networks were utilized by Coronado and later Spanish explorations to navigate the landscape (Udall 1987, xvii.) Tucson-area Hohokam sites, including the Sweetwater site, exhibit no prominent refuse, platform mounds, ball courts, or ornate material culture, and lesser irrigation canal evidence, Evidence of the Pioneer period of Hohokam culture has been located in the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley at the Paloparado site, along Potrero Creek near Nogales, and other sites within the Baca Float, in the form of potsherds resembling both the Sweetwater and Snaketown sites, though canal irrigation does not seem to have expanded further upstream than the Tucson basin (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986).

Rather, “along the Santa Cruz River a reliance on dry farming allowed the culture to continue at a lower level of social complexity” (Doyel, as quoted by Reinhard 1978).

In 1941, Edward Danson conducted a survey of archaeological sites along the Santa Cruz River Valley from its headwaters to the town of Tubac. In this survey, he identified remains of a “campsite…where prehistoric peoples have stopped for a short period, leaving little evidence of occupation,” just south of the town of Tubac, “house-ring sites,” “early sherd areas,” and “late sherd areas” dated to 700-1100 A.D., and other “compound sites” containing mounds, hearths, burnt rock mounds, and a long, 25-ft wide depression/ditch mounded by rock running perpendicular to the slope which he believed to be Salado dry-farming features of the Classic period (1200-1400 A.D.,) in the Tumacácori area (Danson 1946, 35). In 1954, Paul Frick surveyed the Santa Cruz River Valley between Tubac and Sahuarita and found “sherd ares, compounds, mesa-top enclosures, and miscellaneous sites,” and determined that they were Hohokam in origin, roughly dated between 700 and 1400 A.D. From 2004-2006, NPS conducted archaeological surveys of lands within TNHP on the second terrace of the Santa Cruz River, and found prehistoric artifact scatters both within the upper depths of agriculturally-tilled soil, and below this zone (Baumann et al. 2009). The results of this study are, at the time of this report, still under analysis.

In 1956, Charles DiPeso discovered, at the Paloparado site, a large village of multiple compounds on the alluvial bluff overlooking the Santa Cruz River just north of the confluence of Peck Canyon with evidence of inhabitation prior to and during the period of Spanish contact. Based upon analysis of maps and written record of the Spanish, DiPeso claimed that this was the Upper Pima village of San Cayetano de Tumacácori encountered by Father Kino, in which ramadas were erected for him (Dipeso 1956). Later analyses of this excavation, when compared to sites at the edges of the alluvial bluffs between Paloparado and Rock Corall Canyon sout of Tumacácori, excavated in 1976 prior to the construction of Interstate 17, however, suggest that it was more likely a Classic Period Hohokam site due to characteristic eastern-facing entries of structures, with some associated Papaguerian material, which is more consistent, from a regional perspective, with the archaeological record of the surrounding area.

57

These 1976 excavations, referred to as the “Baca Float sites,” contain stone-lined structures with entries in the center of east walls, nearby extramural hearths containing burnt deer and cottontail rabbit bones and surrounded by ceramics and lithic points, small stone platforms, and communal trash areas. More projectile points were found than ground stone assemblages, indicating that a subsistence pattern more reliant upon hunting than gathering and/or agriculture. Based upon similarities lithic and architectural assemblages found along the San Pedro Valley and in the Santa Rita mountains, which contain trade beads indicative of the protohistoric/historic time period, these sites were suggested to originate from a single, short occupation episode between 1500-1700 A.D. Pollen analyses of pits, floors, matates and manos of these sites, conducted by University of Arizona Anthropologist Diane McLaughlin, revealed abundant amounts of high-spine Compositae, and moderate amounts of low-spine Compositae (ragweeds, bursage,) Chenopodiaceae¸and Amaranthus, indicating that disturbance of vegetation caused by farming or natural forces led to weedy utilization os the floodplain, and young leaves and seeds were collected, ground, and used by inhabitants as food. Shells from a freshwater clam and marine shells from coastal areas (originally suggested by Father Kino to include the same blue abalone shells (Haliotis) abundantly growing along the coast of California,) were also found at these sites, in the form of beads, bracelets, rings, and pendants, similar to those found, and attributed to the Colonial and Sedentary Periods, at Snaketown. Evidence of shell manufacturing has also been found at the Hodges site in the Tucson basin, indicating that concerted trade with or personal expeditions to raw material sites in the Gulf of California existed at these sites during these periods, and finished shell products were provided to other, smaller villages in southern Arizona. Alternatively, these shells may have been trade items received from the recent Spanish colonists, or from prehistoric sites, as, during this time, the Upper Pimas were enemies of the Yumans, who controlled trade with California coast tribes (Doyel 1977, 132-137, 177).

The relationship between the Baca Float sites on the alluvial terraces overlooking the valley, and the Danson and NPS sites on the first and second riparian terraces is unknown, though it has been suggested that the former are more similar to small, dispersed habitation sites typical of the historic River Pima, rather than the historic O’odham dual village system, whereby a group seasonally alternated between sites in the foothills and farming sites along the drainages (Doyel 1977).

The historical relationship between Hohokam and Piman peoples within the Santa Cruz and San Pedro River valleys is a point of great archaeological and anthropological debate. Explanations for the collapse of Hohokam culture around 1450 A.D. vary from environmental to cultural causation, or a combination of the two.

In 1358 A.D., a flood of the Salt River may have destroyed the irrigation systems that sustained the communities (Doelle and Wallace 1990, as referenced by Sheridan 2004). Creation narratives of the O’odham describe a conquering by O’odham peoples “emergent” from the underground, and arriving from the east, of the Hohokam living along communities of the Gila River, resulting in either the death, flight to the north and west, or incorporation of the Hohokam peoples into the O’odham community (Sheridan 2006). Many contemporary O’Odham strongly believe that they are descended from the peoples who have inhabited the Piméria Alta from “time immemorial (Seiverston 1999, p. 34.)” The contemporary, and most common, O’odham dialect of Aji/Totoguañ corroborates these oral traditions, as they are somewhat different from the rest of the Proto-Tepiman languages. Combining linguistic, oral tradition, and archaeological evidence, it is believed by many anthropologists that ancestors of the Akimel and Tohono O’Odham, who had possibly left the Hohokam cultural nucleus of the Salt and Gila River Valleys during the times of environmental stress during the Sedentary Period, evolved as a culture independent of the Classic Hohokam in northern Mexico/lower Pimería, and,

58

sometime in the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries, migrated up the Santa Cruz or San Pedro River Valleys, overthrowing the remaining Hohokam elite, whose culture had been significantly weakened by forces that are unclear, and incorporating some peoples of this earlier culture into their own (Sheridan 2006, 25).

The first written record of the Pimería Alta appeared in the 1539 writings of a Franciscan priest, Fray Marcos de Niza, who entered the borderlands of what is now Southeastern Arizona on a reconnaissance mission of the lands of the Rio Grande valley that had been previously traversed by a group of survivors led by Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca following a disastrous exploration of what is now the state of Florida. These writings, describing the seven supposed “golden cities” of Cíbola, soon thereafter inspired the expedition of conquistador Francisco Vazquez de Coronado in 1540 (Udall 1987, 3). Men of Coronado’s expedition recorded their attempted founding of a town along the upper Sonora River, quick passage up the San Pedro valley, across the Winchester mountain range, and beyond, and describe their encounters with the aboriginal cultures encountered along the way, who they named Pueblo or “town” Indians, indicating a sedentary lifestyle differentiating them from ranchería peoples who inhabited seasonal villages and led a more cyclical migratory lifestyle (Spicer 1962, 92; Udall 1987, 18, 54). The expedition included four Franciscan priests, two of whom stayed behind and attempted to create missions within current-day New Mexico and Kansas and met either mortal or mysterious ends (Udall 1987, 186-191). On their return voyage, this expedition persuaded a group of several hundred Lower Pimas from rancherías of a tributary of the Middle Yaqui River to abandon their homeland, join them on their southbound voyage, and settle along the Sinaloa River, upon which they established a village called Bamoa, that was later missionized in 1591. These villagers, however, maintained ties to their brethren in their homeland to the north, advancing knowledge of the pros and cons of mission life to these Piman villages, who themselves were likely under hostile, expansionist pressure from the neighboring Yaqui and Opata. In fact, many Lower Pimas joined the Spanish in attacks on the Yaqui in 1609. While it was certainly the goal of the Spanish to bring these areas under mission or civilian authority, this relationship has also been described as two-sided, whereby villages along the frontier, uncontacted by missionaries, developed a demand for missionary intervention and requested their visitation. At times when the availability of Jesuit priests was insufficient for frontier expansion, Indian peoples who desired the mission lifestyle would often leave their homeland and move to mission settlements, as occurred among the Lower Pima of the Yaqui River Valley, who emigrated from their rancherías to an expanded Bamoa in 1615-1616 (Spicer 1962, 87).

This first step in the process of the “reduction” of rancherías into missions, whereby demand for the mission lifestyle was developed through minimal, infrequent contact with villages beyond the frontier via Spanish military assistance and visits by missionaries, has been described as an “extensive method” by historian Edward Spicer. Along with this extra-frontier inter-tribal knowledge of the Spanish came the first introduction of a European agricultural crops (melon,) which further diversified agricultural production, and disease (smallpox,) which decimated populations (Nabhan 1982, 42; Sheridan 2006, 33, 39). Between first contact and the establishment of an inhabited mission pueblo with a resident priest, leaders of Piman rancherías organized their people to build churches, and roving priests traveled across large territories to prostelitize and baptize Indians of both rancherías that desired a mission, and those who were reluctant (Spicer 1962, 88). These processes of missionization and reduction continued relatively peacefully through the Lower Pima territories, including the east side of the Yaqui River Valley and the western slopes of the Sierra Madre Mountains, from 1617 until 1740. Between 1740 and 1770, following unjust treatment of their leaders by the Spanish governor, the

59

Lower Pimas, at various times, joined the Yaquis, Mayos, and Seri in their revolts against the Spanish (Spicer 1962, 89).

This process was later perfected by Father Francisco Eusebio Kino in the Pimería Alta, or lands within and adjacent to the Altar, Santa Cruz, and San Pedro River Valleys inhabited by the Piman-speaking peoples, from 1687 until his death in 1711, with a marked decrease in the reliance upon aggressive military intervention.

Prior to his arrival, the At the time of his arrival, the relationship between the Spanish and the Upper Pima was tenuous, as some were being pressed into forced labor Following these writings, the next records of the Pimería Alta were made by Father Francisco Eusebio Kino, and Captain Juan Mateo Manje, his soldier escort, in 1691 (Seiverston, 1999, 50.) The term Pimería Alta is indicative of the Spanish conceptualization of the Piman peoples, as they were referred to by the Spanish at the time, or O’odham, as they refer to themselves, and are currently known, into an upper and lower geographical and cultural territory. The Pimería Alta, Of the four distinct Piman, or O’odham groups known to the Spanish at the time, Piméria Alta included the Pima proper, those Piman-speaking peoples first encountered by the Spanish between the Sobaipuri (Akimel O’odham,) and the Papago (Tohono O’odham). The Pima At the time of Kino’s arrival, the people of the middle Santa Cruz River Valley upon which the Guevavi/Tumacácori mission system was established were referred to as either Pimas or Sobaipuris. Along the Santa Cruz River. Geographically, a line running from the town of Tubac, along the Santa Cruz River, and the town of Fairbank, along the San Pedro River, has been described by historian Herbert Bolton as a general dividing point between these two groups. The Pima inhabited lands to the south of this line including the Upper Santa Cruz River drainage, as well as those lands to the southwest of the Santa Cruz and Gila Rivers in the interior of the most arid parts of the Sonoran desert to the southwest. The Sobaipuri inhabited the lands surrounding San Xavier del Bac and the Tucson basin along the Santa Cruz River, the lower San Pedro, and the Gila River from Casa Grande to Gila Bend (Sheridan 2006, 26; Spicer 1962, 119). Comparative studies of skeletal morphology, burial practices, linguistics, and plant and animal resources between peoples of the northern and southern areas of historic O’odham territories suggest that the Sobaipuris were a migratory culture inhabiting temporary “rancherías”, or small town sites, along seasonal routes supported by hunting, gathering, fishing, and streamside farming (Horton 1998, p. 11.) The fluid and temporary rancherías, located along the banks of the Santa Cruz River, often contained fields irrigated by diversion canals to grow such crops as corn and tepary beans. Furthermore, the O’Odham supplemented their diet with the harvest of wild foods such as saguaro fruit, agave hearts, high-protein mesquite bean flour, and wild game (Sheridan 2006, 35-38.)

In 1691, Father Kino and his superior, Father Visitor Juan Salvatierra, were invited by the Sobaipuri/O’odham to visit their rancherías of the Piméria Alta. These rancherías were located along the Santa Cruz River on the future sites of missions Tumacácori and Guevavi. Kino noted that a rancheria, which he named San Cayetano de Tumagacori, of “more than forty houses close together” existed on the east banks of the river when they arrived (Sheridan 2006, 28). The relationship between the observed archaeological remnants described on the west side of the river and the historical record of the rancheria on the east side is unclear. In particular, it is unclear whether brush weirs were used to divert water into canals and fields, at Tumacácori, as has been described elsewhere in the Santa Cruz valley (Sheridan 2006, 34). Recent evidence suggests that at the time of Kino’s arrival, the Sobaipuri of Tumacácori were of a migratory culture not dependent on intensive irrigation

60

(Horton 1998, 11.) This point of historical confusion is highly significant, as the development of sedentary agricultural practices was the technological development that allowed the O’odham to build long-term villages resistant to environmental change, and recordable by contemporary researchers. Historian Bill Seiverston explains of the early O’odham: Prior to establishing a sedentary agricultural based economy, the early Native Americans were closely linked with environmental changes. If the environment remained stable, they were able to remain in one general locale and continue to subsist on the available plants and animals. However if significant environment changes occurred, then they were forced to either follow the shifting flora and fauna patterns or adopt a new cultural model (Seiverston 1999, p. 30) Upon their arrival, Kino and his frequent traveling companion, military attaché Juan Mateo Manje, noted that the O’odham prepared three ramadas for them, “one in which to say mass, another in which to sleep, and the third for a kitchen” (Kessell 1970, 25). The genuine nature of the O’odhams impressed Kino, leading Father Salvatierra to pledge to send new missionaries to the area and establish missions for the natives. From this time, until 1753, the village and church at San Cayetano de Tumagácori served as a visita for Jesuit friars, on the east-bank of the Santa Cruz River channel, outside of the current NPS boundary. Additionally, beginning in 1697, at Kino’s introduction, San Cayetano began to serve as a central station of domestic livestock agriculture that supported the cabecera of Guevavi. Together, these are the first known instances of cattle ranching in southern Arizona (Sheridan 2006, 39). By 1701, the “cattle, sheep, goats, and horses… [numbered] more than seven hundred [livestock],” split between Tumacácori, Guevavi, and two other Santa Cruz locations (Kino, 357.) While this number of cattle would likely have significant impacts upon heavily grazed areas near natural water sources, (river channel, pools,) constructed water features, (acequias, or irrigation ditches, and “lavanderías,” or acequia diversion structures/bathing basins,) and corrals; grazing impacts from hoof action, grazing of grasses and forbs, and browsing of woody trees and shrubs, are difficult to estimate due to unknown density of grazing pressure (Horton 1998, p. 33).

The mission system of land management established under the Jesuits reflected practices that originated in Iberia and had been utilized throughout New Spain. The core of this system consisted of the church and other mission buildings that served as the center of the “pueblo,” or village. This core was surrounded by irrigated croplands, and perhaps pastures, within the floodplain. Even further form this core, the “estancia,” or stock-farm lands, surrounded the pueblo through foothills and side drainages (Horton 1998, 7). From relatively flat river floodplains were carved “entradas,” “caminos,” or roads, connecting settlements of the Piméria Alta, as indicated by maps of the presidios of Sonora, including Tubac, by Lt. Joseph de Urrutia in 1776 (Kessell 1970, 46, 176-177.)

Typically, following Spanish conquest, Indians were conscripted as slaves “entirely at the disposal of their lord,” forced to pay a capitation tax to the Spanish government.

To begin, all offices of settlements were bestowed upon Spanish natives, as part of a concerted effort to separate the ruling and servant classes (Walton 1900, 522.)

However, Father Kino disagreed with this norm, and while he still held conversion to Catholicism and the “civilization” of native peoples to an agricultural ideal, he argued for, and was allowed to keep his Piman subjects from forced servitude in the early years of the mission. It is perhaps this point which separates the founding of the Kino missions and helps explain the claims of Native American groups to the mission as their own and the continued productive inhabitation of the mission for a period of five years following the abandonment by Franciscan friars.

61

Reacting to increasing tension between Jesuit control and Spanish-appointed O’odham leadership, O’Odham leader Luis Oacpicagigua led a coordinated and deadly revolt in 1751 that triggered the temporary retreat of Spanish settlers, missionaries, and friendly O’odham throughout northern and western Pimería Alta (Sheridan 2006, 46-50). Following this threat, the town of Tubac, some two miles north on the Tumacácori road, was garrisoned in 1752, becoming the northern-most presidio in the Pimería Alta. Shortly thereafter, in 1753, Jesuit padres moved the rancheria and visita of Tumacácori to the west bank to provide Tubac with the lands they required to support a growing population.

II.

Mission period: 1753-1848 Soon after the relocation of the village of Tumacácori to the west banks of the Santa Cruz River in 1753, the missionaries quickly set about planning and building an adobe church. This church, completed in 1757, and its auxiliary buildings served as the center of the struggling mission.

The laws regulating, among other things, the layout of colonial towns within the Spanish Americas were first uniformly codified in a Recopilacion, or compilation, of civic code in 1661, at the order of Philip IV, and later modified into a more renowned version entitled Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (Laws of the Indies) by Charles II in 1681. The purpose of this compilation was to eliminate contradictions and clarify the laws of existing colonies and the development of future ones, and secure obedience of native populations inhabiting them (Walton 1900, 523.) These laws were periodically revised by edict of the Council of the Indies in Spain, and guided town development until Mexican independence in 1821 (Walton 1900, 526, 527; Horton 1998, 18.)

The pronouncements within the Recopilacion specifically directed the size, form, and use of settlement lands, and have been referred to as the unifying guidebook for settlement development by multiple generations of historians (Horton 1998, 18; Lemoine 2003, 355-356.) Orthogonal block and street layout, a characteristic of medieval Roman fortified cities, began to be applied to the layout of a number of Iberian cities from the 12th century onward, including the 1491 founding of Santa Fe de Granada. In 1502, Nicolás de Ovando, a witness to the foundation of this latter city, delineated the layout of the Santo Domingo, capital port city of the island of La Española, later to be known as the Dominican Republic and Haiti, and primary launching point for all American expeditions of settlement. The layout of this city differed from Iberian cities in that its streets were wider, flatter, and straighter, and quadras, or blocks, were roughly of the same square shape and located, like a chessboard, on a grid. Over the next twenty years, the gridiron layout demonstrated at Santo Domingo, which was remarked upon favorably by many visitors for its unique functional design, was repeated throughout the colonial cities of New Spain, including Santiago, Chile, Panamá la vieja, and Veracruz and Campeche, Mexico (Lemoine 2003, 359-362.) In response to royal decrees to found orderly cities, but without specific directions as to form, conquistadors of the Americas applied this grid layout to the settlements of Santiago de Léon, Nicaragua, Santiago de los Caballeros, Guatemala, expanding the basic design to include a central, empty, square plaza with roads emanating to north, south, east and west. Following the foundation of these cities, royal Instrucciones and Capitulaciones instructed the alcaldes, or captains, of new settlements, as in the case of Pizarro, to lay out “fortresses” wherein “neighbours and settlers are to be given lands and plots in relation to their position, according to what has been done and it is done in the said island of Santo Domingo.” By 1573, after decades of the repeated application of this “classical model,” the ‘Ordinance for New Discoveries, Conquests and Pacifications,’

62

codified this model, with an important exception calling for rectangular plazas of a 3:2 dimensional ratio. These Ordenanzas de Poblacione, have continued to provide the organizational blueprint to Spanish-American cities to this day (Lemoine 2003, 364.)

The degree to which the classical chess-board model directed territorial mission towns, is somewhat more obscure. Similar to military fortress towns, the missions of the Piméria Alta were laid out in rectilinear arrangement with internal spaces essential to town function surrounded by defensive walls, and external undefended spaces outside of these walls.

During the next decade, hardships steadily worsened as rampant disease ravaged the population and Apache raiders mounted increasingly frequent attacks. Sheridan describes the period of conscription of O’odham under the employ of surplusgenerating Jesuit padres during this period as “the critical first steps in the commodification of both land and labor in the Upper Santa Cruz Valley” (Sheridan 2006, p. 54).

In 1766, while surveying the northern defenses of New Spain, a Spanish nobleman, the Marqués de Rubí, and his men made several important observations of the middle Santa Cruz, that, while not precisely describing any particular change to the land, provide a descriptive snapshot of both the ecology and hydrology of the time.

One account, following remarks upon the grand cottonwood trees, states: “On the rest of the river plain are many mesquites and other bushes. The surrounding hills are rather bare,” (Rubí, 1766, pp. 108-109; Urrutia,1766.). Declarations of the soldiers at Tubac include gripes about the degree of overgrazing that was occurring as a result of the size of the settlers and missionaries’ herd.

One member of the survey party, Lieutenant Joseph de Urrutia, created a map of Tubac. This map depicts a diversion structure at the bend of the river just upstream of Tubac, from which an acequia drew water towards the western hills in order to irrigate fields located towards the river by the pull of gravity across the fields. This map also indicates the position of the Camino de Tumacácori, which appears to closely parallel the river channel, likely upon the first riverbank terrace, along stretches of the floodplain where there are no fields and then straying from the channel to parallel the main acequia downstream of the headgate as it approaches the townsite of the Tubac presidio (figure 7.10.5 in Spatial Organization). Another of the maps taken during this survey was of the presidial town of Fronteras, birthplace of Juan Bautista de Anza (Junior,) a pueblo that experienced similar harassment by Apaches. It also depicts the river-paralleling roadway (Camino de Janos) beginning at the hillside presidio and tracking north just uphill of the outer-most acequia. One possible explanation for the similar position of these roads is that they were located along the safest routes into the town; not only were visitors and townspeople travelling along these roads likely within a direct line of sight from the tallest towers of the presidio or mission, but they were also located within visual distance of the worked fields, and were likely paralleled on the side of the road closest to the river by a visually-protective line of trees growing along the unlined acequias.

Taken together, Urrutia’s maps of the Sonoran presidios provide a graphic of agricultural space that can be extrapolated to other non-military villages such as Tumacácori. By combining this line of reasoning with the archaeological record of the location of the lavandería, one is led to believe that the mission had the capacity to irrigate crops or pastures in an area approximately between the diversion structure of the acequia, on the west bank downstream 0-0.2 miles from the confluence of Rock Corral canyon, the lavandería, and the current low-flow channel of the river.

63

Jesuit administration at the mission came to an end in 1767, when Captain Bernardo de Urrea by order of the Crown evicted the order from the New World. The Society of Jesus had become unpopular with the minds of the European Enlightenment, and, in 1766, Spain became the last of the Western European powers to banish them from their empire (Kessell 1976b, p. 181-182.)

The mission of Tumacácori was re-occupied by Franciscans in 1768. This new era saw the re-use of the narrow adobe church built by the Jesuits and an increase in controversy regarding water allocations between the mission and presidio (Horton 1998, p. 22). In 1775, Captain Juan Bautista de Anza led a group of settlers from Sinaloa through Tumacácori on the way to Alta California via the first overland route crossing the Colorado and bridging the deserts between these regions of settlement (Kessell 1976b, p. 110). This trail has since been commemorated as the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. As the population at Tumacácori and Tubac grew, padres began to develop plans for a grander brick church to properly serve Tumacácori’s new position as the cabecera of the local mission complex, and between 1799 and 1841, a Franciscan church, modeled on San Xavier del Bac, was constructed (Moss 2006, p. 10; Kessell 1976b, p. 202). In addition to the construction of the church, by 1822, the convento, Campo Santa wall, and granary were probably completed, along with a walled cemetery (Kessell 1976b, p. 253).

The early 1800s seem to have been a time of stress at Tumacácori, as Apache attacks mounted, and tensions between settlers and Indian villagers increased. In 1801, Tumacácori sheep grazing (and thus weaving) operations significantly decreased following an Apache attack that killed three herdsmen and “more than 1360 sheep” (Kessell 1976b, p. 201-202). Church visits from 1805 note the original church building as being “very deteriorated” (Kessell 1976b, p. 203).

In 1806, fearing a “denuncia,” whereby uninhabited lands without proof of ownership could be seized and used for other purpose (in this case, by recent settlers,) Father Gutierrez and four Tumacácori Indians petitioned for a clear title to the mission lands (Horton 1998, p. 23). In 1807, the Sonoran Governor ordered a survey to be undertaken clearly delineating the fundo legal, or pueblo/townsite, at proportions of 382 chains long by 18 chains wide, or approximately half a mile, with an acreage of “some 6,700 acres plus the purchase lands,” an irregular legal shape created to increase the amount of valuable bottom lands as much as possible. The lands of the fundo legal, as articulated in the Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (Laws of the Indies,) were prescribed by size, form, and function into government buildings, public and private land, agricultural plots, and common orchard and grazing lands (Horton 1998, p. 18.) In addition to this, the survey party delineated two sitios ganada mayor, stock grazing lands, further upstream and including the sites of Calabazas and Guevavi, at one league each, comprising the estancia (Horton 1998, pp. 23-25). The results of this survey were later used in 1880 as the basis for determining the boundaries of the Tumacácori and Calabazas land claims, as depicted in figure 7.10.8 in Spatial Organization.

Beginning in 1826, with the first arrival of U.S. citizens (trappers, traders, bounty hunters, filibusters) in the Santa Cruz River Valley, the Franciscans began to lose control of the administration of the mission lands (Kessell 1976b, p. 268.) In 1828, administration of the mission was transferred from the Franciscan padres, who had been expelled by the new Mexican government, to the native governor, and two of four wheat fields at Tumacácori were recorded as being leased to Ignacio Ortiz (Kessell 1976b, p. 270, 278). Following a particularly violent Apache attack in 1829, the inhabitants constructed a stock corral within the mission to prevent further losses (Kessell 1976b, p. 283). However, this action seems not have been sufficient, as, by the time the Franciscans regained control in 1830, the productive landscape at

64

Tumacácori consisted of 400 cattle, 800 sheep, feral horses, few herdsmen, and unplanted wheat fields due to threat of Apache attack and lack of demand; both church and convento described as being in good condition (Kessell 1976b, p. 280).

In addition to Apache attacks, drought was a major stressor in the 1830s and 1840s.

This is possibly due to the increase in water use by new settlers, and changing river geomorphology, as noted by the Tubac commander. He describes the Santa Cruz River channel as having moved significantly away from Tubac presidio as a result of winter rains; this record coincides with the first recorded complaint of water not reaching the Tubac acequia (Kessell 1976b, p. 288, 291). By 1843, following the abandonment of Tumacácori by the Franciscans in 1841-1842, the Tubac justice of the peace described a fallen and crumbling convento building, a standing church and two former communal fields, south of the mission and across the river which was, “unfenced and abandoned, to be full of mesquite and other bushes” (Kessell 1976b, p. 300). While the O’odham villagers stayed until the winter of 1848, the ferocity and frequency of Apache attacks, along with the influx of U.S. explorers, had sealed the fate of the operational mission (Moss 2006, p. 11).

III.

Between periods of significance: 1848-1930 In the spring of 1851, the nadir of the Sonora mission frontier had been reached.

Three years prior, in the midst of a snowstorm and unrelenting hostile Apache attacks, the last of the inhabitants of the village of Tumacácori had abandoned the church and their fields for Bac, taking along with them the sacraments in hopes of returning (Moss 2006, p. 11). Multiple accounts from opportunist “49ers”, camping along the Santa Cruz River valley on their way to the Gila river, chasing the dream of the California gold rush, describe a still productive orchard, yet depict a crumbling church (see figure 7.10.9 in Spatial Organization) (Kessell 1976b, p. 310). Despite this, Sonora governor José de Aguilar proclaimed within his government that the missions would be reoccupied. In a sign of just how tenuous the hold of the missions was and had been, he wrote “these settlements would attract many colonists and provide better security to that border” (Kessell 1976b, p. 312). Soon thereafter, in 1853, the Gadsden Purchase was drafted and along with this political development came the permanent arrival of U.S. military dragoons (Kessell 1976b, pp. 316-318).

While Gándara’s efforts at capitalizing the landscape of the Tumacácori land grant focused upon ranching, Colonel C.P. Sykes, a New York entrepreneur, purchased the grant in 1878, quickly organized a group of San Francisco investors under the name Calabazas Land and Mining Company, and began generating interest in the land as the speculative location of mineral and commercial fortune (Sheridan 2006, p.

123). Advertisements for a planned agricultural, mining, and commerciallysupported town site development at Calabazas included glamorized artists’ depictions of the mission ruins and mountain vistas within the valley. These ads certainly increased the exposure of these landscapes to the east coast of the United States, as the ads appeared in periodicals such as the New York Daily Graphic (Sheridan 2006, p. 124).

In the absence of physical inhabitation of these landowners, and following the completion of the New Mexico and Arizona railroad through nearby Sonoita Creek valley, the regional cattle population significantly increased size and these herds likely overgrazed the bottomlands at Tumacácori (Sheridan 2006, p. 127). From 1884 to 1908, homesteader Carmen Mendez cleared and improved 30 acres of land, including the construction of a well, irrigation ditches, and fields, all immediately south of the church (Mendez 1908).

In 1908, Tumacácori National Monument was established from approximately ten acres of deeded land by the Mendez family. This signaled the beginning of federal

65

protection of the mission of Tumacácori. In 1916, the monument was taken over by the newly-founded National Park Service (NPS), an occasion that also corresponded with an apparent end to its use as a community graveyard, as evidenced by the last recorded burial date. During the period of federal ownership and management between 1908 and 1930, nothing was built either in the form of structures or landscape elements to protect the historical resources contained within. In 1936, Frank “Boss” Pinkley, NPS head of the Southwestern Monuments, noted that in 1921, treasure hunters with “hunches” were regularly vandalizing the church resources. “A scoundrel with a pick and a shovel seems to have felt free to walk into the church any day and dig here, there, and yonder without rhyme or reason.” During this time, NPS funding was applied to restore and weatherproof the roof over the nave of the church, and for the tower stairs to be repaired (Pinkley, 1936, pp. 261, 271.) From the 20s until until 1932, both the convento and the nave of the church were sporadically used as a Sunday school or public school (U.S.D.I., Boundey file, date unknown).

The first custodian at Tumacácori, George Boundey, arrived in October 1929, and originally inhabited the convento with his family (U.S.D.I., Boundey file, date unknown). At this time, and perhaps earlier, the adobe house formerly inhabited by Tom Bourgeois became the “storehouse” and de-facto office of the park (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1931, Tumacácori monthly reports).

IV.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: 1930-1959 Monument and Ranch establishment and development: 1930-1940 A.D. During the 1930s, two major events transformed the Tumacácori area from an infrequently visited antiquity to a rapidly changing, productive landscape. The first was the development of the surrounding Baca Float No. 3 into the Baca Float Ranch, also called the Pendleton Ranch. The second, a result of the Great Depression, was a series of constructed improvements associated with New Deal Era employment programs, including the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The U.S. government’s New Deal employment programs injected massive federal funding for the employment of unemployed Americans. This glut of labor resources, along with a directive to develop the tourist infrastructure of the nation, allowed the National Park Service to build many visitor centers, museums, and housing for park staff in a labor-intensive, highly crafted style during this period of time.

In 1929, Talbot T. “Tol” Pendleton, a Princeton-educated businessman with interests in the Texas oil industry, and his partner F.M. Dougherty purchased the Baca Float No. 3 from the Bouldins and Watts and Davis. Pendleton and Dougherty transformed the Baca Float No. 3 into a distinctive “dude” ranch by increasing plantings, introducing a new breed of Texas cattle, the Santa Gertrudis, and subdividing land for sale to other wealthy investors (Brownell 1986, 132; Boundey 1934, 228; Sheridan 2006, 172). Housing development was concentrated along the east side of the Santa Cruz River on Santa Gertrudis Lane. Pendleton established his headquarters approximately 1.3 miles south of the lane and sold lots clustered along the lane to some of his closest friends.

Alteration of the monument started slowly during the 1930s, as the nation staggered under the weight of the Great Depression. According to Junior Landscape Architect Peterson’s report, in 1930 the Nogales Chamber of Commerce planted tamarisk trees south of the church, likely as windbreaks, since topsoil loss had become a national crisis (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file). The record also shows that, at this time, corn was being grown in the fields surrounding

66

the mission, likely mirroring the customary crops of the homesteading era (NPS, Boundey file, date unknown).

In 1930, Residence #1 was constructed between the mission buildings, ranch buildings, and the river, and the family of monument custodian George Boundey moved in. Since the Boundey family was the first to inhabit residence #1, it is colloquially referred to by park staff in 2010 as the “Boundey house”. Soon thereafter, in 1931, the National Park Service began to develop plans for a ranger residence (Residence #2), tool and implement shed, visitor comfort station (bathroom,) and sewage disposal system in order to make visitor amenities more comfortable. The old adobe house, also known as the Bourgeois house, was repaired in order to continue using it. In addition, the paving of the Nogales-Tucson highway triggered the redesign of the Tumacácori monument entrance, which was undertaken by Mr. Goodwin of the Engineering Division of the NPS in 1932. The new parking area created as a part of this design was referred to as the “parking place” (Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 2006a, 1; Boundey; 1931; NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1931, Tumacácori monthly reports ; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In April of 1932, the monument was fenced, allowing a greater degree of protection.

Also in 1932, the convento building, which had previously been used as a schoolhouse, was made into a temporary museum, and Nogales contractors Holton and Wood completed the construction of the planned buildings (Boundey 1932). In addition, the Comfort Station, Residence #2, Garage #3 (aka, residence area garage), and the tool shed were laid out and built. An adobe pit in the southeast corner of the monument was used to create bricks for this new construction (Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 2006b, 1; Jackson 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS, 1987, 7-3; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1931, Tumacácori monthly reports).

George Boundey made several illuminating notes to Frank Pinkley over the course of 1932 which illustrate some of the considerations of these early buildings and landscape features. Regarding the effect of these first buildings upon the views from the site, Boundey remarked: “[He] was afraid the ranger quarters and garage would interfere with the view of the mountains to the south, but the landscaping is such that they rather add than detract from the view.” At the completion of the parking area, he remarked ““we have worked out the new parking area and visitors seem much pleased with the change. From this new parking space one has the very best view of the Mission buildings as he goes down the trail toward them.” In August of 1932, Boundey wrote to Pinkley that “I have seven new corn grinders and mortars to add to the collection also;” this is likely the origin of the grinding wheels that can be seen south of the granary today (Boundey 1932). Other actions first mentioned in 1932 are the mowing of the weeds on the property, the cyaniding of bats within the church, the installation of a sewage disposal system, and “prospectors with rockers and gold pans [who] are working the arrowos (sic) within a hundred yards of the Mission buildings with fair results” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1932, Tumacácori monthly reports). It is clear that, in the changes that occurred in 1932, both views on and offsite, and visitor experience with the mission lifestyle were prioritized.

By 1933, Thomas C. Vint, chief landscape architect, completed preliminary master plans for the visitor center complex and sent them to Superintendent Pinkley and Custodian Boundey, beginning a process that would transform the monument. Also during this year, engineers had completed the construction of the “parking place”; two cremation ollas (Piman pottery) were excavated in the vicinity of the church and added to museum collection; and electric lights that ran off of locally generated gas power were installed in Residence #1, replacing Coleman lanterns (Boundey 1933;

67

Jackson 1952; NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1933, Tumacácori monthly reports; WACC, source unclear, from file Tuma Master Plans 1933-1969). The record from this year also mentions a water well/pump that ran alternately off of wind power or a gas generator, and the damage and repair of the water tank and cistern deck for the old adobe house (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1933, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Soon thereafter in 1934, the NPS “landscape division” requested that the foundations of all mission buildings be located prior to landscaping and drainage installation.

Excavations were carried out by ranger Paul Beaubien, who found evidence of the Jesuit church north of the convento; 18 rooms to the south of the church; and two burro-powered molinas, or millstones, at the northeast corner of the patio. During the excavation of the church, the graves of Padres Carrillo and Gutierrez were discovered. On February 21, their disinterred remains were escorted from Tumacácori to San Xavier del Bac (Boundey 1935; Moss 2006, 10, 13; Moss 2008; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, Sallie Brewer 1947, Molina file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The other primary topic of discussion between Boundey and Pinkley during this period concerned the use of groundwater. In 1934, while the area was experiencing a severe drought, Boundey remarked that the lowering of the groundwater table as a result of cement work in the park had caused a furor among the local cattlemen (Boundey 1934). During this period, workers from the Civil Works Administration, and later, local workers paid by funds from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, repaired the foundation of the church, constructed an outer wall surrounding the park, and re-graded the entire plaza to aid in water drainage away from the base of the mission walls (NPS 2009b). During the re-grading, a drainage ditch was dug through the patio east of the mission, revealing an old cemetery and disturbing burial sites (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Awareness of, and excitement about, the formal excavations taking place at Tumacácori rose among the public as it became a major component of park interpretation. Unfortunately, this attention also caused a spike in looting by treasure hunters. After a particularly disruptive, night-time treasure hunting exploit, the park decided to allow treasure hunters to trace foundations of buildings at the monument, with the hopes that this would “forestall any night digging” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports). However, this did not put an end to the illegal activities. In 1935, the main Franciscan church altar and baptistery were damaged by further raids (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Beginning in 1934, and continuing until around 1959, Pendleton Ranch (managed under the name Baca Float Ranch, Inc.,) which included lands within contemporary TNHP, was progressively subdivided and built upon by wealthy friends of Tol Pendleton, many of whom were former executives of General Motors. Santa Gertrudis cattle were imported from Texas and were the primary form of stock animal on the ranch. Many of the residents of these “dude ranches” led the life of “gentleman ranchers,” in which cattle-ranching was pursued not as a profitable enterprise, but rather as a component of an ideal lifestyle that included socializing with movies stars and excessive drinking (Sheridan 2004; Simenon 1954; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Between 1934 and 1936, the fields of the Pendleton Ranch, which were located to the north and south of the mission, were re-graded and planted with several hundred acres of cotton, peas, spinach, and other vegetables (Moss 2006, 13; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports). It is likely at this time that the present-day forms of fields A and B were created (see figure 7.5.4, Constructed

68

Water Features). This expansion likely removed much of the remaining landscape evidence of the homesteading era, such as adobe homes, barbed wire fences, and earthen canals, since mechanized equipment allowed for larger-scale fields. With the expansion of the fields, groundwater use also increased. While the historic acequia continued to irrigate the orchard, and presumably the southern fields of the Pendleton Ranch, additional fields extending to the west of the historic acequia alignment and north of the monument were likely irrigated by gravity flow from a well located directly north of the church (see figure 7.5.4, Constructed Water Features, feature “well #1”). In April of 1935, Boundey again noted the effect of this increased groundwater usage, stating that “the big irrigation pumps in this vicinity are lowering our water table to a point where we will have to deepen our well in the near future.”

By June, a windmill had been constructed in the monument, replacing the gas pumps, to reach the lowered groundwater (Boundey 1935). This, and the area’s other “big irrigation pumps,” were noted by monument employees as the ultimate cause of the lowering of the Santa Cruz River channel and the drying up of the historic acequia in 1938 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports). This in turn probably necessitated the construction of an additional well to fill the historic acequia, and the lining of the canal itself with concrete in order to prevent infiltration seepage water loss.

Meanwhile, activity within the monument shifted from excavations and perimeter construction projects to the design and construction of the museum and visitor center complex. In 1935, the Beaubien excavation was refilled and leveled (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports). Also during this year, Hillory Tolson, NPS administrator; Thomas Vint, project landscape architect; and Frank “Boss” Pinkley, at this time NPS head of Southwestern monuments, surveyed the monument in preparation for future expansion. By the end of the year, “Our future museum at Tumacácori” was first mentioned in park records (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

While the early utilitarian buildings and structures of the monument were designed in a simplistic Spanish colonial style, the design of future buildings was taken to a higher degree of scholarship and craftsmanship. Their construction was heavily influenced by a NPS-funded case-study trip to the Kino chain of Sonoran missions in 1935 by NPS architects Leffler Miller and Scofield Delong. The information they gathered was an invaluable contribution to the history and archaeology of the southwest and was used to inform design decisions at Tumacácori (Scofield and Delong 1936). During this trip, the NPS team took exhaustive notes on the architectural elements of the Sonoran missions, including materials. Upon their return, 11,000 adobe bricks were made on site for future construction and repairs (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports.) During the subsequent design of the visitor center and museum, the historic architectural styles researched by this case study were synthesized by Delong with the popular architectural styles of Mission Revival, Territorial, and Pueblo Revival (NPS 1987, 8-2 - 8-4).

Small-scale maintenance, stabilization, and interpretive work also occurred during this time. In 1935, a telephone was installed in Residence #1, an action that also likely introduced telephone poles to the monument (NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports.) Also during this year, the windmill and the Westinghouse generator were repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1936, three adobe buttresses were placed against adobe rooms southeast of church; two picnic tables were installed; a drainage ditch was dug west of the mission church; and custodian Louis Caywood constructed “an old type arrastra (grinding mill) as a graphic exhibit”

69

(Caywood 1936, 295, 298;; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1936, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Two important events resulting in the construction of major buildings occurred in 1937. First, E.T. Strong, retired president of General Motors, acquired lands to the south and east of the monument from Pendleton. Upon this land was built a ranch house, designed by Hal Prince, who had previously run a ranch for Pendleton in 1933. The “lean-to shed” was presumably built at this time, as well, based upon historic photos (see figure 7.2.6, Buildings and Structures). The ranch was, at various times, run as a guest ranch and a working cattle ranch called the “Upper S Bar S” (Brownell 1986, 132; Sheridan 2004). Second, M.M. Sundt began constructing the museum building, with funding from the Works Progress Administration, and the old museum was removed from the convento (Jackson 1952; NPS 1987, 7-2; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In order to provide power and water to the busy work-site and to future buildings at the monument, it was necessary to construct and repair utility infrastructure. In 1937, a power line and new water system, including a newly-dug well and electric pump, was completed. Wind from a storm toppled the 1,000 gallon water tank atop a 30 ft. wooden tower, destroying the windmill in the process. Following this, the pump was repaired, and the tank was replaced with a temporary 250 gallon tank installed on top of the tool shed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Also in 1937, several scholars and artists used a variety of media to document the mission. Perhaps inspired by historical records, a performance of the Passion Play of Semana Santa (Holy Week) was conducted in and around the church by local Mexican and/or Yaqui townspeople. This performance temporarily revived the tradition, which continued annually until 1942 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1937, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS, TNHP, Semana Santa (Holy Week) Passion Play).

1938 marked the end of the major construction of the buildings of the museum and visitor center complex, with the exception of the museum garden. Under supervision of L.H. Tovrea, project engineer, cement foundations for a brick floor were laid in the mission church; Residence #1 was remodeled; part of the cemetery wall was reconstructed; other walls were cleaned and capped with almost 1,000 adobe bricks; and niches in the walls were repaired and re-plastered. Finally, in 1938, the unfinished museum was first shown to monument visitors (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports; NRHP 2006b, 1). Another lesser addition occurred in 1939, when an emergency First Aid station that persisted until 1951 was established at the monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1939, 1947, 1948 Tumacácori monthly reports).

The monument’s vegetation transformed dramatically between 1938 and 1940. As the historic acequia stopped flowing due to increased groundwater usage, the last of the Mission Period cultivars, including the “sixteen peaches, one pomegranate, one walnut, one or two cottonwoods and two willows” that comprised the “trees along the old canal,” were perishing. In addition, from 1938 to 1940, the museum patio garden was designed and built with a plant palette informed from mission records. A list of plants commonly grown by the colonial mission padres was translated by historian Herbert Bolton from Kino papers in Mexico City, and was provided to the landscape division of the Branch of Plans and Design, led by Thomas C Vint. Superintendent Pinkley and Tumacácori custodian Louis Caywood preferred that the garden should consist solely of historically accurate staples such as beans, squash, and corn in order to make an “ideal Spanish garden” that could be used for educational demonstrations (University of Arizona, The Landscape Architecture Program, School

70

of Renewable Natural Resources 1996, 1). However, Vint’s group preferred a more practical and lush design, and ultimately won out. This was likely in part due to the fact that Vint had employed NPS architect Scofield DeLong in the late 1920s and had thus already established a professional design relationship with him. Vint’s design included aesthetically appealing plantings that would provide visual interest throughout the cold season (NPS 1987, 8-4). Garden construction work, including the laying of brick within the walkways, and the planting of various plants, including black figs and olive trees, continued from 1938 until 1940 (Colby 1999, 17-18; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports). With the completion of the museum garden in 1940, the design and construction work at Tumacácori sponsored by the New Deal programs came to an end, and according to its master plan, the form of the visitor center and museum complex was complete.

Additions and Modifications: 1940-1959 A.D. Between 1940 and 1959, while the overall layout of the museum and visitor center complex did not change, features of it were modified, expanded, or removed. By this time, a new generation of designers and managers were overseeing day-to-day work at the monument, though Pinkley, Vint, and Tovrea remained important influences, and changes to the built environment continued to apply the design theme established earlier during the New Deal.

1940s Monument Buildings and Structures: The first of these changes occurred in 1940 with the removal of museum’s entrance steps (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1940, Tumacácori monthly reports). These were replaced in 1948 with a ramp, which resulted in a more direct and accessible entry from the parking place (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1941, a hitching rack was added to the parking lot in order to accommodate equestrian visitors (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports). Also during this year, a large copper kettle that had reportedly been used in the manufacturing of sugar from sugar cane was loaned to the monument by Dr. Emil Haury. It is possible that this is the copper kettle that is today placed prominently in the middle of the museum garden walkway (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports). Lastly during 1941, a door, windows, and an iron roof were removed from the south patio rooms, creating a more open passage through this portion of the visitor center (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports).

A series of practical modifications to the museum and visitor center buildings and structures also occurred throughout the 1940s. In 1943, the storehouse (a.k.a. caretaker’s residence) was repaired for continued use, and a wire incinerator was constructed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1943, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1945, a photo lab was set up in one of the park buildings (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1946, two new oil burning heaters were installed at the residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1946, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1947, roofs of the residences and comfort stations were redone (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1947, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1948, parking areas were re-paved, a Butane gas system was installed for the residence area, and an adobe incinerator was built for burning garbage and trash (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports). Finally, in 1949, waterline valves to the fish pond in the visitor center patio were repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

71

Meanwhile, the mission complex continued to be damaged and stabilized in various ways. In 1941, seven drains through the parapet walls of the church were replaced with sewer tile, and roof stabilization work began (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1941, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1943, the sanctuary and nave were stabilized (Tumacácori fact files 1946 , Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1944, a huge flood damaged the inside of the museum (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1944, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1945, skunks dug under the main church altar, and caused damage (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1947, the roof of the Franciscan church was totally replaced (Moss, 2008, 2). In 1948, the mortuary chapel was stabilized (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports). Finally, in 1949, mission walls were vandalized by “post-rodeo festive drunks” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Monument Landscape Elements: In addition to architectural modifications, modifications to the hardscape and vegetative landscape elements within the monument grounds also occurred during the 1940’s. In 1945, vegetation management came to include the use of herbicides, and weeds were sprayed with the ammate (aka ammonium sulfumate) (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In 1947, a cactus garden was established in the visitor center patio and a giant maguey (Agave sp.) was planted in front of the museum (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1947, Tumacácori monthly reports). It seems that during this time, aquifer drawdown continued, because in 1948, groundwater was recorded as being 22’ below the soil surface, indicating a 7 to 8 foot drawdown over recent years (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports). This drawdown, which was exacerbated by a drought that stretched from 1943 to 1947, likely stressed the native riparian vegetation within the contemporary TNHP (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1943, 1946, 1947, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1944, a large cottonwood on the southeast corner of the monument blew over (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1944, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1948, a huge mesquite was brought down in the visitor center patio garden, and a giant spineless cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica) on the monument trails was destroyed by high winds (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports). Also during this year, a “tiny space for picnickers, east of the patio garden, which contains two picnic tables, shaded by mesquites” was built (Jackson 1948). In 1949, bitumuls (an emulsified asphalt treatment for low-traffic areas) and gravel were laid on the trail between the patio garden and the residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports). Also in 1949, frost killed or damaged a spineless pear cactus and the upper parts of tamarisk trees on the ruins trail. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Outside of the Monument: Outside of the monument’s boundaries during the 1940’s, a few events of note occurred. In 1941, Edward Danson surveyed an artifact scatter on the upper terrace of the Santa Cruz River near Tumacácori, determining that is was of possible Salado origin (AD 1200-1400) (Danson 1946, 43; Arendt et al., DRAFT 2009). The Strong Ranch also expanded during this time. In 1946, a residential well was dug along the road to the north of field A, likely to provide water for a ranch-hand trailer residence at the northeast corner of field A (Binney 2010; Bossler and Gredig 2009). In 1948, just south of the monument’s southern adobe perimeter wall, a flood dike was built to protect the ranch from flooding (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori

72

monthly reports). In addition, construction of the Tucson-Nogales highway alternative, also known as US-89, was started at this time, presumably in an area far from the Tumacácori inventory unit (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports).

1950s In the 1950s, similar to the 1940s, the monument’s buildings were reconfigured, stabilization of mission resources continued, the ranch and Highway 89 continued to expand, and the Santa Cruz River was altered.

One new trend that occurred during this period of time was the creation of a self-guided interpretive trail throughout the park.

Mission buildings and structures: In the 1950’s, the covering of Mission Period of Significance features became a preservation trend. It is unclear in the record if this “covering” refers only to the installation of overhead awnings meant to protect buildings and structures from precipitation and sunshine, or if “coverings” also include treatments applied to the buildings’ façades. What is clear, however, is that many key mission buildings received some sort of “covering” in the 1950’s, and much of this “covering” was removed 15 years later.

The trend of “covering” began in 1950, when architect Saunders and archaeologist Steen proposed “mission screening,” presumably of the mission church, and Lamar Cotton built some kind of protective feature around the building (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1953, this protective feature was extended, and a “shelter roof” was built over the church corridor (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports). From 1954 to 1957, a temporary protective cover was installed over the schoolhouse/convento ruins, including its “Spanish Arch,” and its arch window (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, 1955, 1957 Tumacácori monthly reports). Plastering of various features also continued during this time, including the west side of the church (1952,) and the inside cemetery wall (1954, 1956) (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, 1954, 1956 Tumacácori monthly reports).

Also during this time, in 1954, the schoolhouse/convento was modified with a barrel-type pit drain (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

An essential piece of the productive landscape of the mission, the lime kiln, was acquired in 1957. The land containing this feature was donated by Richard Ensign of Tumacácori, AZ. To access the kiln, the park also acquired an adjacent easement through a series of real estate transactions with Baca Float and Ranch Inc. and Mr. and Mrs. John L. Kalb. Immediately thereafter, a three-strand wire fence was built around the lime kiln (NPS, Tumacácori fact file, date unknown, Land Titles file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Monument Buildings and Structures: Alterations, replacements, and reconfigurations of secondary features in the monument occurred during the 1950s. For the most part, changes were undertaken in order to improve the function of the new museum and visitor center complex, in response to a general increase in monument use, and followed the architectural theme of previously built features.

73

In 1950, multiple circulatory features received modifications. Inside the compound, the trail to the museum was paved with bitumul gravel (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports). As Highway 89 work near the monument began, stop signs were installed at the parking area exits and at the residence driveway. Between the parking area and the visitor center entrance, the front walk was modified with a new grate, a larger settlement box, and brick retaining walls on each of its sides (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports). Adjacent to this, in 1951, a masonite entrance sign was installed, replacing the “thunderbird” information sign (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports). Also in 1951, the warehouse was re-roofed, and Residence #1 was given a new door frame and concrete sill (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951).

In 1952, a new parking lot was built, creating a tangential vehicular approach to the monument more suitable for the highway’s high speeds. As part of this replacement, a planting island was created, a water pump and 200’ of water pipe were installed in the island, and right angle parking stripes were installed within the lot. (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952,Tumacácori monthly reports).

In 1952, two women fell into the museum garden water drain, prompting a redesign of this minor component (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1953, the superintendent’s residence was rehabilitated (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In 1954, two additional rooms were added to Residence #2, connecting it to the nearby garage. General repairs were done to it as well, and an underground telephone line was built to a Residence (#1 or #2, not clear which one) (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports; NRHP 2006a,1). Due to the reconfiguration of the parking area, entrances to the comfort station from the parking area were sealed, making entry to the bathrooms only possible from the enclosed museum garden (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports). Following the design of 1952, fountain water drains of a pebble mosaic pattern were set in a cement base with tar paper between the brick and concrete. The fountain, or “fish pond” itself received repairs, as did the garden benches (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In August of 1954, major flooding of the Santa Cruz River occurred, destroying $1 million of crops in the vicinity. The “warehouse” (a.k.a. caretaker’s residence, aka storehouse) was destroyed by the accompanying wind. Later in the year, Santa Cruz County opposed a “critical” designation of the Santa Cruz River, which would have further regulated and controlled stormwater runoff (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports). The next year, a new “warehouse” was built in a location that is unclear (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports). The interior of the “administration building” (likely the visitor center/museum) was renovated, including the installation of museum doors (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1955, evaporative coolers were added to the two residences, a clothesline was added to residence #2, the screened porch of residence #2 (aka ‘ranger’s residence’) was torn down, and a “bedroom” was built into one of the two residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In 1956, a sewer disposal pit was dug and put into operation (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports). The “monument wall” off of the parking area was damaged by a drunken driver, prompting the Arizona Highway Department to apply warning paint to parking island curbs

74

(NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1957, the two residences were re-roofed, and the south boundary wall was plastered (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports). An existing well located in the east wing of the visitor center building was re-drilled and cased 72 feet deep (Jackson 1957). In addition, a temporary office space was constructed south of the “well room” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1958, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Between 1952 and 1957, landscape architect Harold A. Marsh and monument superintendent Ray B. Ringenbach reviewed the monument’s master plan in order accommodate future growth (Jackson 1952, 1957). In 1956, the NPS director approved construction plans by Marsh and his associate Schroeder (possibly an architect) stemming from this master plan (1956, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1959, in response to the need for greater office, storage, and library space, a one-story addition was constructed by Krupp and Sons Construction Company on the eastern wing of visitor center. This addition housed museum specimens and administration work (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1959, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS 1987, 7-2). Its interior was mostly utilitarian in nature, containing a contemporary kitchen, office equipment, and flooring, and access to this space was restricted to park staff. In contrast, its exterior mirrored the richer architectural themes of the museum and visitor center building, and was not easily distinguishable as an addition from either the patio garden or the interior of the mission grounds.

Monument landscape elements: Outside of the monument’s built core, many landscape changes occurred throughout the 1950s. In general, these included the planting and removal of specific plants, advances in vegetation management, the construction of a network of self-guided walking paths connecting the visitor center and museum to the features of the mission, and several other minor changes.

In the early 1950’s, several minor changes involving vegetation took place.

From 1951 to 1953, annual burning of brush in a trash pit/weed burner occurred (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, 1953, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1951, a Prunus caroliniana (cherry laurel) was planted west of the southwest corner of residence #2, and a large Agave was removed from the front of the museum (Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports). In addition, the vidalia beetle was applied to a pyracantha tree, presumably as a biocontrol agent; grasses were seeded annually; and weeds were controlled by the use of sprays (Jackson 1957; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951).

During this time, improvements to the circulation system were also made.

From 1951 to 1953, a self-guided tour of the patio garden (1951) and the mission (1953) was developed, along with five easel exhibits on the trail. In 1953, this “mission trail” was seal-coated. Also in 1953, the monument road was patched, and, in 1954, the road in front of the garage was tarred (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1953, 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1954, the corridor to the corn grinders (arrastras) on the mission trail was paved, and two easel stands were added, completing the trail’s initial phase of construction (Tumacácori fact files 1951, 1953, 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports). This trail system was expanded soon thereafter, with 400 additional feet of asphalt trail being added in 1955. In 1956, 200 more feet of paved trail was added to the system, 50’ of which were installed with new markers for a self-guided tour (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1955, 1956, Tumacácori

75

monthly reports). By 1957, 0.5 miles of surfaced roads and 0.3 miles of surfaced trails were reported at Tumacácori National Monument (Jackson 1957).

Finally, several small-scale repairs and preservation actions were made in the 1950’s. In 1950, an open trench in the mission patio was dug and lined with brick, presumably to improve drainage (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1950, the base of a life-sized arrastra that had been established by former monument custodians was removed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1951, the west side of the monument was archaeologically trenched to prepare for the widening of the highway (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1952, two picnic tables were rebuilt (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1956, the east boundary fence was repaired (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Outside of the Monument: In 1950, general superintendent Davis, landscape architects Carter and Miller, highway maintenance engineer Smith and representatives of the Arizona Highway Department discussed widening the highway (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1951, highway approach signs were installed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports). Then in 1952, as previously mentioned, Highway 89 work adjacent to the monument began (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports).

At some point during the late 1950s, E.T. Strong sold his ranch to Hispanic lady (name unknown), who managed the ranch, in conjunction with the Canto Ranch on the east side of the river, in order to raise horses. From this time until some point during the 1960s in which the ranch was sold to Dave Parker, a stable barn was built within the ranch headquarters to house the horses, and a pole barn was built for the storage of hay in the southeast corner of field B (see figures 7.2.1 and 7.2.2, Buildings and Structures) (Binney 2010).

In 1951, water provided by the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant, 1.5 miles north of the international border, altered the Santa Cruz River, increasing and steadying its flow. The plant has the capacity to return 1.6 million gallons per day to the middle Santa Cruz River (Sprouse 2005, 5).

Nonetheless, in 1957, the Santa Cruz River was noted as flowing at the monument, indicating that this was an irregular occurrence (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1957, Tumacácori monthly reports).

V.

Post-Period of Significance: 1960-Present Since the final building additions of 1959, only minor architectural changes within the original monument boundaries have occurred, as evidenced by comparisons of historic photos to current conditions, monthly reports, and interviews of park employees. Outside of the monument, adjacent ranches continued to develop fields, buildings, structures, and constructed water features, adding a significant layer of modern era ranch development on top of the Mission Period of Significance agricultural landscape, and obscuring historic patterns of agricultural spatial organization. The park has since acquired these ranch lands and their component features. Aerial photographs of the floodplain—cross-referenced with records of

76

major flood events, infrastructural development, and interviews with the most recent rancher, George Binney—provide a close understanding of the ways in which the ranchers of these lands during the past fifty years have adapted to the depletion of the aquifer, arrival of treated wastewater, and periodic flooding in the Santa Cruz River Valley.

1960s Mission buildings and structures: Archaeological investigations and stabilization work also occurred during this time. Between 1964 and 1965, Luis Caywood, the former park custodian, and, at the time with the Southwest Archaeological Center, archaeologically excavated the east mission quadrangle, unearthing smelters and vasos, the northern room block, and portions of the convento colonnaded portico.

These activities were recorded as being a “boon to the monument interpretation for the visitors” (Moss 2008, 1:7; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports). At the time, these excavation remained exposed as an interpretive exhibit, though it was clear that their exposure subjected them to damage from the elements. In 1965, plans were made to cover the outline of the excavated wall foundations above ground with burned adobe brick after they were backfilled (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1966, the excavated ruins were coated with the Texas Refineries product, “Sandstone and Adobe Coating,” and left exposed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1966, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1969, a black plastic cover was removed from north convento after it was determined to be ineffective (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports). By 1969, it was clear that the exposure of these resources, regardless of any surface treatment, was causing them damage, and the excavations were backfilled with compacting clay and sand, without the proposed adobe brick outline covers (Moss 2008, 1:7; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Other minor alterations to the historic mission buildings and structures also occurred during the 1960s. In 1960, adobe bricks were damaged at the mission entrance by treasure hunters (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1962, the granary walls were stabilized (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1962, Tumacácori monthly reports). Beginning in 1965, and extending until 2001, minor excavations have been conducted along the Franciscan church foundations prior to regular stabilization work (Moss 2008, 7). In 1967, the church was black-topped (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1967, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1969, historic brick was used to restore the south convento floor (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports). Also during this year, the lime kiln was modified with a 6-strand barbed wire fence and painted to blend with the adobe perimeter walls (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Monument landscape elements: Within the original monument boundary during the 1960s, minor repairs and modifications occurred. Much of this was in the form of signage and print. In 1960, all signs and labels throughout the monument were replaced, including those labeling plants within the museum garden (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, 1963, Tumacácori monthly reports). Throughout the rest of the decade, more interpretive easel signs were installed along the interpretive trails (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, 1965, 1966, Tumacácori monthly reports). In conjunction, the self-guided tour booklet was updated, and copies were stored in a newly built book depository at the museum entrance

77

beginning in 1969 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1963, 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1967, two large signs were designed and installed on the visitor center entrance doors (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1967, Tumacácori monthly reports). A scale model of the mission mounted on a table was built and displayed in 1964 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1967, a sign “Se Habla Español” was installed at the front desk, and signs throughout the monument were translated to bilingual messages (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1967, Tumacácori monthly reports). Following an accident, improved stop signs were installed by the highway department at each end of parking lot (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In 1969, several minor alterations were made to the monument’s circulation features. The parking area was restriped, worn brick along the parking area sidewalk was replaced with salvaged brick, the entire walk in front of the visitor center entrance was rehabilitated, and an unused adobe walk at visitor center entrance was removed. Also during this year, ¾” of gravel was spread over the old roadbed in the residence area (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In 1969, the “brick display exhibit,” presumably demonstrating the process of constructing adobe bricks, was modified with no-cast bricks (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Various vegetation alterations occurred during this time as well. Plants of the museum garden were pruned and 10 plants were added. Soils of the museum garden were rebuilt, fertilized, and spaded. Aquatic plants and fish (first native Santa Cruz River fish, later tropical fish), were added to the fountain, and the fountain itself was repainted (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1966, 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports). Other plantings occurred outside of the museum garden. In 1961, cacti specimens were obtained by Superintendent Cook and Naturalist Olin from Reddington Pass and planted at the monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1961, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1962, new flowers were planted on the Alegria grave in the cemetery (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1962, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1964, a century plant was blown down (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Monument buildings and structures: In the early part of the decade, plans for expansion of the built core of the monument continued. These included planning and siting a third residence, a well pump and distribution system, and a natural gas line. While the infrastructural improvements seem to have occurred, the “last residence” was never built (ADWR 2010; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, 1961, Tumacácori monthly reports). The reasons for this halt in expansion are unknown, but, by 1964, budgetary restrictions seem to have affected park. In this year, the park operated under a skeleton crew of as few as three employees to “hold down the fort” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports). Only minor repairs, such as the re-roofing and/or black-topping of the visitor center, shop and storage buildings, replacement of the parking lot flag pole, and the installation of volatile chemical metal cabinets by the residences, occurred throughout this decade (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports). By 1969, it seems, staff numbers had rebounded to the extent that residence #1 was reinhabited (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

78

One major modification occurred during the decade that impacted the characteristics of integrity of Mission Period of Significance resources. In 1968, a pumphouse was installed within the historic bounds of the mission orchard/garden, surrounding an improved electric groundwater pump that had been active since at least 1960 (ADWR 2010; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS 1975, 27). This utilitarian building, while serving the purpose of expanding the monument’s well water capacity, clashed with the Mission Period of Significance buildings and lay directly in the line with the view from the mission compound towards the Santa Rita Mountains.

Outside of the monument: The Mission Ranch, as it was then known, was purchased by Dave Parker in the late 1960s. Parker owned and managed the ranch until 1979, at which time he sold it to George Binney. During this time, he used the ranch as a holding area for Mexican imported Mexican cattle. Though specific dates are unknown, he further developed the ranch headquarters and some features within the fields. These included a septic holding tank and chicken coop at the ranch-hand residence (trailer home-site #1) at the northeast corner of field A, a decorative well to the east of the ranch house, a domestic well and water tank to the south of the ranch house, a corral and circular cattle trough to the east of field B and south of field C, and various evergreen plantings by the ranch house. He also used the open areas along on the first riparian terrace between the fields and the Santa Cruz River channel as a dump for wooden shakes and other ranch scraps (Binney 2010). To the east of this point, on the edge of the second riparian terrace between the pole barn, field B, field C, and the Santa Cruz River first riparian terrace, either Parker or a previous rancher also built a corral for the branding, emasculation, and tagging of cattle, with a chute for loading and directing cattle into adjacent fields (Binney 2010). In addition, at some point before 1967, either during his tenure or those of the previous two ranch owners, fields E and D, south of the ranch house and west of field B, were cultivated (NPS, Aerial Photo file, 1936, 1967).

Also during the 1960s, flooding of the Santa Cruz River began to be a problem for area residents. In 1960, the greatest period of rainfall recorded within the previous 40 years stranded neighbors of the park (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1964, the Santa Cruz River flooded and washed out the Tumacácori foot bridge (Pimería Alta Historical Society 1967; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports). The following year, another flood of the river washed out the Carmen Bridge three miles downstream (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports).

1970s Within the monument, the period from 1972 onward has only minimal records of changes. One significant reason for this is that, by 1972, the Southwestern Monuments office in Coolidge, AZ had been disbanded, and as a result of the disbandment, monthly reports from the monuments it oversaw ceased to be written (Garate 2009). However, the general lack of written records for this period of time does not necessarily mean that no changes occurred. It is likely that, similar to the period of time from 1940 to 1972, minor changes to the museum and visitor center complex and to the residences continued. By roughly comparing what is known of the form of the mission and monument circa 1972 to its present condition, it seems that,

79

in general, very little change has occurred within the original monument’s boundary.

Mission buildings and structures: Records show that, throughout this decade, mission buildings and structures continued to be stabilized against further deterioration. In general, exterior plaster and structural weaknesses were repaired using traditional materials, as opposed to the synthetics and concrete that had been popular in the previous few decades (Moss 2008, 1:7-12, 2:1-12). In 1971, the convento building was re-roofed with 90 lb paper, a metal shelter was constructed over the granary, and an air compressor/storage tank was installed for air drying walls of the church (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1973, the lime kiln was restored and opened to the public (NPS, Tumacácori fact file, date unknown, Land Title file).

Archaeological excavations also continued during this time, including minor digs conducted prior to stabilization work along the Franciscan church foundations, granary, and cemetery (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). From 1979 to 1980, minor test excavations were conducted in the cemetery and “neophyte plaza” south of the church, where it was determined that artifact densities were concentrated at a point in the center of the plaza (Moss 2008, 7).

Monument buildings and structures: Minor changes to the monument’s residences occurred during this time. In 1970, residence #1’s electrical, water, and sewer systems were modified to accommodate a clothes washer (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). Residence #2 was renovated with tile flooring, HVAC, a ceiling for the porch, and plumbing and cement for washing machines (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Evaporative coolers were added to two rooms of residence #2 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1971, foam roofing was installed on the visitor center, Residences #1 and 2, shop, church and comfort stations (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1971, an area of the monument, possibly to the east or northeast of residence #1 in an area that was previously a septic field, was graded, a cement slab was built, and a house trailers, two metal storage buildings, and toilets were installed. Inside one of these storage sheds, referred to as the “laundry room,” was placed a hot water heater (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports). There is also record of a “house trailer” mentioned as early as 1970; the type of use and period of use of either of these mobile homes is unknown (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). Also in 1971, an electric connection box was installed somewhere within the monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Monument landscape elements: In 1970, new lettering was added to vandalized entrance signs (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1970, repairs were made to the “interior patio walk,” or the pathway through the museum garden (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Vegetation management seems to have continued through this time as well.

In 1970, trees in areas used by the public were pruned, the garden was trimmed, sprayed with insecticide, and fertilized, one exotic dead tamarisk

80

tree was removed from the grounds at the schoolhouse (aka convento) ruins, and cottonwood trees were removed from the visitor center entrance (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1971, perhaps for the first time, native grass seed was used to rehabilitate disturbance areas around the church and trailer site (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Roads and pathways received minor maintenance during the early 1970s, as well. In 1970, sand and gravel was laid between the granary and stations 28 and 29, presumably easel stands along the interpretive (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). A new self-guiding trail pamphlet was developed in the this year; it is not known whether this was associated with any changes in the route of the interpretive trail (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). The entrance road gate was modified for locking to prevent illegal entry and two litter boxes were added to the parking area (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1971, gravel was spread on the road between the two residences (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Other minor alterations to the monument’s landscape occurred during this time, too. In 1971, a ramada was placed and painted at an unknown location, potentially where the craft demonstration ramada stands today (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1972, a new door was installed in the patio garden wall near to the east of the men’s restroom of the comfort station to allow maintenance entry from the access road (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1972, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Fiesta grounds: In the early part of this decade, the Tumacácori fiesta, a celebration of the various cultures with connections to the Tumacácori mission and monument, began. In 1971, this was held in the Franciscan church and the “neophyte plaza.” In 1974, it was moved to lands north of the mission complex that were owned by a neighbor and had previously been irrigated fields of the modern ranch era (Garate 2010, NRHP 1986). As the fiesta grew to be successful and important event, the park decided to acquire the six acres of the “fiesta grounds” in 1978, a land transfer that had first been discussed in 1970 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports; U.S. Congress 2001, 1). Discussions in 1970 and 1971 also explored the possibility of creating an environmental study area at the monument, and expanding the interpretive program to include new museum exhibits and a movie (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

It is clear that, between 1974 and 2010, the park has developed the fiesta grounds, installing minor features (ramadas, utility outlets, bench posts, etc.) necessary to hold the annual celebration (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010; NPS, Aerial Photo file 1967; NPS, Photo file (digital), 2000).

Outside of the monument: Also during the 1970s, a few major changes occurred outside of the monument’s boundaries. First, Interstate 19 was constructed to the west of the monument. This was among the first developments at the park in which an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared prior to its creation (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971 or 1972, Tumacácori monthly reports). Its construction changed the circulatory function of route 89 from a highway to

81

something more akin to a frontage road, and likely reduced the amount of traffic passing by the monument.

Secondly, in 1972, a new facility of the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP) was constructed upstream, expanded its capacity to 8.2 million gallons per day. As a result, perennial surface base flows appeared in the Santa Cruz River at Tumacácori, the water table raised, and riparian vegetation, including emergent plants, cottonwood trees, and mesquite bosque, began to dramatically recover within the inventory unit (Sprouse 2005, 5).

Third, as discussed above, many major alterations also occurred at the Mission Ranch under Dave Parker’s tenure between the middle 1960s and 1979. In 1970, the park registered a complaint was registered to the Santa Cruz County Board of Health against the Parker for smoke from the burning of horse manure, hay, and weeds that had arrived in the park grounds (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Fourth, in 1977, the first of a series of severe storms over the next decade, Tropical Storm Heather, stalled over the upper Santa Cruz River Valley, creating an October flood that was likely the largest since 1892. The flood caused “widespread bank and channel erosion in Santa Cruz County and locally severe erosion through Tucson” (Parker 1996, 19). This likely contributed to the gradual abandonment of irrigated fields north of the mission that seems to have begun during this time (NPS, Photo file (prints) 1977, 1980, 1983).

Finally, one curious land use occurred outside of the monument at this time that is worthy of note. In 1971, “Adjacent lands” to the park were used by park staff for a firearms training session/target shooting (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

1980s As discussed above, regular monthly reports of physical changes and events at the monument ceased in 1972 and never resumed. Because of this, very little is known about landscape change in the park during this time. The only two park developments during this time which came to light through the course of research were in historic designation. In 1986, Tumacácori National Historic District expanded by six acres to include “Fiesta grounds” north of the mission compound, and, in 1987, the museum and visitor center was listed as a National Historic Landmark (NPS 1987; NRHP 1986; Sheridan 2006, 235).

In contrast, an interview with George Binney, owner of the Mission Ranch during this time, provided much information regarding the landscape change that occurred outside of the monument during the 1980s. In 1979, George Binney purchased the Mission Ranch from Dave Parker. Binney majorly overhauled the ranch, with most of the activity occurring within the first five years of his occupancy. The ranch house was planted with pines and eucalyptus and expanded with a swimming pool, block privacy wall, and septic system. The lean-to shed by the ranch house was enclosed with walls, and horse stalls were added to the stable. In 1982, a trailer-home site was built between the ranch house and field B as a residence for a ranchhand, and a row of eucalyptus was planted along this site for shade (Binney 2010).

82

In 1984, to the west of fields E and D and east of the highway, an orchard (field F) was built, and planted with pecans and peaches. After the trees had matured to a height in which they could not be significantly hurt by browsing, sheep were also kept within this orchard. In 1987, in the northeastern corner of this orchard, a small pond was dug for the keeping of domesticated geese and ducks (Binney 2010).

Between the mid 1980s and 1992, some or all fields were re-graded with the assistance of the Soil Conservation Service, and the open-canal irrigation system was replaced with a system of pressurized pipes and alfalfa valves.

Fields A, B, E, and D were planted with summer crops of either white corn, which was sold in local markets and straight from fields the field via “pickyour-own,” or “Sudan” sorghum, and grazed by cattle. Winter crops rotated between beardless barley and Cayuse oats (Binney 2010).

Binney generally described his ranch in the 1980s as being a “feeder operation” during this time. He first bought steers at auction in Tucson, and they were brought to the ranch. Cattle were branded, emasculated, and tagged in the corral to the east of field B, and directed into adjacent pasture fields (B and C) by a chute that Binney updated multiple times. After being fed at the ranch for a year, they were then re-sold. To control his herd and prevent other cattle from entering his fields, additional fences were erected to the east of the fields. To improve the field condition, he at first hired migrant workers, and later used a mechanical picker to remove rocks from the fields and pile them in the riparian terraces to the east. Also upon this portion of the first riparian terrace, in the middle to late 1980s, a pit was dug for the storage and fermentation of silage, a shed was built for the storage of cattle feed, and irrigation pumps were modified with diesel motors to improve their reliability. On the southeastern corner of field B, the pole barn was modified with side panels of corrugated metal to prevent rain from soaking the hay stored below it (Binney 2010).

While the historic record includes accounts of the movement of the Santa Cruz River channel from rain events throughout its inhabitation, (Kessell 1976b, 288, 291) it is likely that increased impermeable land cover and erosion-increasing agricultural practices prior to modern flood control efforts resulted in severe flooding in the late 70s and early 80s. Tropical Storms Heather and Octavia, in 1977 and 1983, respectively, and another large storm in 1985, caused extensive bank erosion and washed away large areas of residential and agricultural development in the upper Santa Cruz River Valley (Parker 1996, 19-20, 52). Analyzing a series of aerial photos taken from this period of time, it is appears that these storms washed out a portion of the cultivated fields on the west bank of the river in the northern portion of the inventory unit. Between 1977 and 1983, most of the fields on the irrigated agricultural fields to the north of the fiesta grounds were abandoned.

Though the reasons for this abandonment are unknown, it is possible that this was due to the destructive effects of the floods. It is also clear that these storms had the effect of pushing the Santa Cruz River channel significantly towards the east directly adjacent to the Tumacácori inventory unit. As a result, the Canto Ranch, an enclosed compound of residences and accessory buildings perched on a riparian terrace to the east of the channel prior to the floods, was destroyed (NPS, Aerial Photo file, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1990; Moss 2006, 14).

83

In 2009, just west of where the Canto ranch was located, along the eastern boundary of the park can be found a rubble pile containing demolished features of what was presumably the ranch: concrete culverts, alfalfa valves, reinforced (rebar) concrete slabs, a garage or stable door, metal pipe, a cattle drinking trough, and railroad ties. It seems as if the ranch, after it was destroyed by the flood, was bulldozed, perhaps along with some of the soil of the floodplain, to create a structural headwall against further flood damage (see figures 7.5.4 and 7.5.11, Constructed Water Features). Meanwhile, on the west bank of the river, to rancher George Binney, these events, and one in 1993, were viewed positively, as they brought nutrient-rich, replenishing soil to his fields, and, seemingly, did not cause any serious damage (Binney 2010).

Another major landscape change that is revealed by aerial photo comparative analysis is the naturalization of the agricultural fields to the north of the fiesta grounds. As of 1977, these fields are clearly still under cultivation, but by 1980, it appears that they had begun to naturalize, as indicated by the presence of what appears to be small shrubs and weedy growth within the natural drainage pattern of the fields (NPS, Aerial Photo file, 1977, 1980). As of 2010, a triangular clearing surrounded by fencing and containing features typical of a stock pasture remains un-vegetated, suggesting that this feature continued to serve in a productive capacity much later than fields directly to the south, perhaps as late as the time at which the park acquired it from 2002 to 2004 (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010).

1990s Throughout the 1990s, similar to the past two decades, record-keeping of regular landscape modifications within the park was poor. In roughly 1990, the abandoned agricultural fields north of fiesta grounds were purchased from the previous owner by Roy Ross, Tubac realtor (Garate 2010). In 1994, a sink hole developed southeast of the sacristy corridor, prompting an excavation that suggested that it was the remains of a Mission Period of Significance deep well (Moss 2008, 7).

Once again, in contrast to the park, details of the expansion of the Mission Ranch during this time are better known. From 1992 to 1993, an enclosed metal barn was constructed on the southwest corner of field D. From 1993 to 1994, the driveway between the highway and the ranch headquarters was paved, and, in the late 1990s, a gate of slump block and metal was built on its eastern terminus. In 1994, on the first riparian terrace near the other irrigation wells, a research well was dug by the University of Arizona, and the excess waters of this well were used in the ranch fields. In the mid 1990s, surrounding the ranch headquarters, a white picket fence was replaced by a white fence composed of rectangular metal posts and wooden slats. From 1997 to 2002, field F, the pecan orchard, was additionally fenced and used as a boarding pasture for the other peoples’ animals. At times in the decade, the remains of the mission orchard, field G, was planted with garlic for a period of time, and used as a holding pond for irrigation waters at others (Binney 2010). During this period of intensive irrigation and water storage, it is likely that the hackberries along the orchard wall grew significantly.

Two other changes of interest unrelated to park or ranch developments occurred during this time. In 1992, US Route 89 was officially decommissioned as a federal highway from Nogales to Flagstaff (Cowlin 2006). In 1993, another major flood of the Santa Cruz River caused

84

extensive bank erosion and flood-plain destruction along the edge of the park (Binney 2010; Parker 1996, 52).

2000s More is known of landscape changes in the park during the 2000s, as publications increased and park staff-members who worked during this decade were available for interview.

In 2001, archaeological test excavations were undertaken across a large area of the fiesta grounds in order to mitigate damage for a proposed new visitor center that was not constructed (Moss 2008, 7).

In 2004, TumacĂĄcori expanded to include a total of 310 acres. Acquisitions included the last portion of the former mission orchard/gardens, further naturalized agricultural lands to the north, agricultural fields of Mission Ranch (aka Binney Ranch,) and the Santa Cruz River channel (Sheridan 2004, 235236). These lands also included acreage north of the fiesta grounds that were previously irrigated modern pasture or crop land, as evident from historic aerial photographs, crumbled concrete acequias, and overgrown, field-delineating stone floodwalls (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010; NPS, Aerial Photo File, 1936, 1967, 1977, 1980). Immediately following the acquisition, excavations of portions of these lands began.

Beginning in 2002, fields of the Mission Ranch were allowed to go fallow.

Fields B, D, E, F, and G have been regularly mowed since this time, while field A has been allowed to naturalize (Drake et al. 2009, 41). In 2004, George Binney moved out of the ranch. From 2004 to 2006, a portion of the historic acequia, orchard wall foundations, and other features within the naturalized agricultural fields were excavated and mapped (Arendt et al.

DRAFT 2009; Moss 2006, 16; Moss 2008, 7). This led to the replanting of the remaining portion of the mission orchard with fruit tree cultivars from mission community orchards in Sonora, MX, and with other regional heirloom varieties (Desert Survivors 2008). In 2005, portions of the ranch horse ring were excavated, revealing the remains of the Mendez homestead, the Mission Period of Significance adobe firing kiln, and the possible remains of a U.S. Cavalry camp (Moss 2008, 7). In 2009, an adobe pit was located to the east of the southeast corner of the park compound (Moss 2009).

Features of the ranch headquarters were also quickly modified to serve as the administrative and maintenance nucleus of the park. Sometime between 2004 and 2010, a pink-colored concrete sidewalk was built to the east of the ranch courtyard between the east stable barn entrance and the north ranch house entrance, replacing 8’x8’ concrete stepping stones (Binney 2010).

Also during this period of time, water-intensive, non-native cypress trees west of the ranch residence were taken off irrigation, leading to their death (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010; Moss 2009). In 2005, the swimming pool in the ranch courtyard was filled (Binney 2010). In the winter of 2009-2010, the pecan trees of field F were cut down following a few years of lack of irrigation, after it was determined by an arborist that they were in poor health (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010; Moss, 2009).

85

86

7. Analysis and Evaluation of Integrity Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Analysis and Evaluation Summary: INTRODUCTION The cultural landscape at Tumacácori retains its integrity for both the Mission Period of Significance and the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. According to the National Register, the integrity of a cultural landscape, or its ability to represent a historic period of significance, depends upon the composite effect of the seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The majority of period of significance’s character-defining features, their spatial organization, and their historic association must be present and clearly understandable today, in order for the property to retain historic integrity. As such, a property’s period of significance becomes the benchmark for measuring whether changes outside the period of significance contribute to or alter its integrity.

SEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY Location Since its establishment, the location of the Tumacácori Mission and Monument/Park has remained unchanged. The bedrock underlying the inventory unit and its surroundings forces groundwater to the surface, resulting in what is known as a gaining reach of the Santa Cruz River. This oasis of water is responsible for the valley’s rich soils and lush riparian habitat, conditions that supported the hunter-gatherer and dry-land farming patterns of the middle to late Hohokan settlements and the Sobaipuri rancheria of San Cayetano de Tumagacori. Although the flow of the Santa Cruz River is more perennial than it was historically, the landscape is still able to demonstrate the factors that led to the establishment of Mission Tumacácori, and the inventory unit maintains its integrity of location for the Mission Period of Significance.

Tumacácori National Monument was established to preserve the architecture of the Tumacácori Mission. It has continued to do so, though its purpose has expanded to include the preservation of a greater part of the mission landscape. No buildings or resources have been moved, and so the inventory unit maintains its integrity of location for the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Design Design during the Mission Period of Significance The formation of the inventory unit’s cultivated fields, pasturage, and mission compound followed precedents of mission layout and design found throughout the southwestern United States and

87

northern Mexico. While the Church was designed to be the focus of mission life, Tumacácori was also a highly structured, agricultural and industrial society that fed, clothed, sheltered, and acculturated its inhabitants.

Design was also guided by the Laws of the Indies, whose collective goal was to create oases of inhabitation in the form of religious missions, military presidios, and civilian pueblos, all of which were to be “localized, defensible units of settlement.” The Laws of the Indies included specific directions for characteristics of size, form, and use of occupied lands. In addition, they included socio-political tools such as an adjudicated system of water rights and guidelines for labor relations with Indians (Horton 1998, 18; Verrege 1993).

Mission Period Urban, Architectural, and Industrial Design: The first buildings and structures constructed during the Mission Period of Significance included a modest church, associated structures, and an enclosed cemetery, designed and erected by Jesuit father Francisco Pauer. In essence, the built landscape at this time was simply a core of religious structures, with the church designed to be the focal point of the settlement (Graham 1998, 37-38; Ivey 2007, 62-65; Spicer 1962, 288).

Early Jesuit visita complexes did not represent the highest level of architectural craftsmanship and design that had been achieved in New Spain. In the more sophisticated urban areas, the availability of artists, craftsmen, and materials allowed for grandiose cathedrals and churches to be built in the style of the Spanish Baroque, with barrel-vaulted roofs, ornate façades, and painted interiors. In contrast, on the remote and resource-poor frontier, experienced craftsmen and engineers were scarce, and much of the architectural design was left to the missionary himself. As a result, the earliest churches took on a very squat, utilitarian, box-like form, with sun-dried adobe brick walls, low bell towers, and thatch roofs supported by wooden poles (Lee 1990, 45). In essence, these first buildings more closely resembled Sobaipuri pit-houses than the grand cathedrals of Spain or Mexico City.

In the late 1760s, when the Franciscan order assumed control of the missions of the Pimería Alta, the mission increased in complexity. Whereas the Jesuit visita simply functioned as a place for occasional sermons for resident Indians and overnight visits by the priests, under the Franciscans, Tumacácori began to function as a permanent mission pueblo, or village, complete “with a church, schools for religious instruction and crafts, [permanent] residences for priests, housing for native families, and indoor and outdoor work areas,” surrounded by a defensive perimeter wall (Ivey 2007, 65; Pregill 1999, 398).

From 1774 onward, the mission compound assumed the more defensive, rectilinear arrangement of an enclosed, “fortified plaza” to protect against Apache raids. It also began to acquire a more refined look and durable form, as plaster and paint were applied to walls and facades. The intramural space of the plaza, or patio, surrounded the original Jesuit religious core. As a flexible, multi-purpose open space, the patio was adapted as needed for “outdoor work space, stock pens, living and cooking spaces for native residents, church anteroom, or school” (Ivey 2007, 65-67, 69; Pregill 1999, 399).

From the late 1790s until 1820, Fray Narciso Gutiérrez, expanded upon the mission complex to create a mission and town site of much greater prominence. Together with a master mason, he designed a new church, convento, and mortuary chapel. The design of the Franciscan mission complex was strongly influenced by the mission at Cabórca built some thirty years prior (Moss 2006, p. 10; Kessell 1976, p. 202; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; NPS, Southwestern Monuments 1935, 49; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file). Per the plans of Gutiérrez, the Jesuit religious core was demolished, creating an open plaza surrounded by one-story buildings that were more ornate than their Jesuit predecessors. Once built, the interior walls facing the plaza were bordered by portales, or arcaded cloister walks, and were punctuated with benches, an “ideal [that] is described in Ordinance 115 of the Laws of the Indies.”

88

The original master plan of Gutiérrez and his master mason was mostly adhered to during later periods of construction, with the exception of plans for the church. Because of financial constraints, Fray Ramón Liberós and his hired master mason changed the building layout from cruciform to linear and installed a flat, viga-supported roof in place of the planned vaulting (Ivey 2007, 88).

In the later years of Franciscan inhabitation, the built environment at Tumacácori largely remained the same. Apache attacks, political turmoil, and financial difficulties prevented the mission from further expansion. Today, the above-ground remnants of the built core are representative of the major period of Franciscan design and construction undertaken between 1801 and 1824.

The industrial infrastructure installed at Tumacácori was utilitarian in nature. Crops, stock animals, and minerals from outside of the mission compound were brought within the mission walls for protective purposes and were then processed, a common occurrence in Spanish frontier missions. The resources and knowledge needed to construct the industrial infrastructure was scarcer on the frontier than in interior cities and towns, a constraint that limited potential complexity. That being said, based on the resources at hand, the industry that took place during Tumacácori’s early days represents an accomplishment in frontier engineering. For a more in depth discussion of individual components of the industrial infrastructure, see Buildings and Structures in Landscape Characteristics.

In addition to its role in production, the industrial infrastructure at Tumacácori was designed to serve as a tool for the acculturation of Indian neophytes. Indian neophytes were taught skills common to the Spanish citizenry through supervised instruction in crafts, construction, and industry (Ivey 2009, 67). As mentioned above, most of this activity occurred in workshops within the convento, under the watchful eye and supervision of the executive resident priest.

Mission Period Agricultural Design: The development of Tumacácori’s agricultural lands was seemingly guided by three main factors: in a regulatory sense, by the provisions for the settlement of Indian pueblos stipulated in the Laws of the Indies; in a defensive sense, by Spanish control of the resident Pima and the nearly constant risk of Apache attack; and in a physical sense, by the land’s topographic, hydrologic, and vegetative suitability for grazing and traditional Iberian canal irrigation. These three factors were shared by all missions of the Pimeria Alta, and so it is likely that agricultural production at Tumacácori took a form similar to that of missions and pueblos seen elsewhere in the region.

The Laws of the Indies governed the division of arable land in Spanish settlement at both the regional watershed scale and the local floodplain scale. At a regional scale, in the early years of the Tumacácori mission, fixed, clearly delineated boundary lines between mission landholdings and the surrounding countryside did not exist, due to a lack of land ownership conflicts. Then in 1806, the Laws of the Indies were invoked to settle a dispute caused by escalating competition for land and water rights between mission Indians and the settlement of Tubac. A survey was undertaken that clearly defined the boundaries of both a four-league fundo legal, or townsite with irrigated croplands, surrounding San Jose de Tumacácori, and an estancia, or grazing land grant, that included lands to the further to the south. The boundaries of Spanish land grants did not follow a grid pattern, but rather were formed in response to “local topography, vegetation, soils, hydrology and microbasin climate.” Sited to maximize productive and profitable acreage, they resulted in irregular shapes, such as the delineation of the fundo legal of Tumacácori (Horton 1998, 18, 22-23; Rivera and Glick unpublished, 5-6).

Ranchlands were another landscape component typical of missions throughout New Spain, and the ranchlands of Tumacácori follow the region’s prototypical layout patterns. While

89

essential to the overall design of the mission landscape, it is important to note that the early grazing lands of mission animals, which were likely concentrated around the abandoned Calabazas visita, are not within the Tumacácori inventory unit. Therefore they will not be discussed in detail in this document. Further description of the large-scale ranching activities of the Tumacácori mission cluster can be found in the Calabazas Cultural Landscape Inventory prepared in 2010.

Although the main ranchlands of Tumacácori were located outside of the inventory unit, some animal husbandry did occur within the inventory unit boundaries. Part of the communal irrigated acreage of the fundo legal was used as dehesa, or pasturage, particularly in years of fallow or drought-condition growth. Individual pastures, or suertes, were generally of an equal size (approximately 400 x 200 varas,) evenly grazed by the working animals, dispersed amongst the labores and milpas, and probably close to the mission complex “due to the need to maintain control and security” (Horton 1998, 45; Ivey 2007, 6, 8-9). In keeping with European tradition, the settlement also contained corrals integrated into the central core of the complex and at unknown distant locations outside of it. In addition, rooms of the convento were flexibly used as “stables or storerooms for husbandry supplies” (Horton 1998, 46-47; Kessell 1976b, 283). In summary, in terms of spatial organization, the grazing lands of the mission’s working herd were an integrated component of the agricultural landscape.

On a local scale, the socio-political organization of the mission determined the way irrigable land was partitioned, with large-scale mission farming assigned to communal fields called labores, and small-scale farming for personal/family consumption assigned to individual plots called milpas (Horton 1998, 40). All agricultural fields were sited near the mission compound in part to minimize vulnerability to Apache attack (Horton 1998, 40). The field closest to the mission, the mission orchard/garden, was completely encircled by a wall and was therefore the most secure. The labores and milpas were located further from the mission and outside of the mission wall, increasing their vulnerability. Labores and milpas were likely further subdivided into individual irrigation units or basins of similarly-sized rough squares (Urrutia 1766). The size and number of these types of basins is dependent upon the slope of the land between the acequia and the river channel. Basins could be individually inundated by breaching the small earthen berms that surrounded them. Berms were also likely used as field paths (see figure 7.5.1 and 7.5.3, in Constructed Water Features), (Kay 1986, 2-3, 30).

Hydrologic systems and topography dictated the location of the acequia madre, the “defining element in the mission’s agricultural program.” This irrigation canal persisted throughout the life of the mission as a physical boundary separating the productive lands from the rest of the mission (Horton 1998, 18, 20). In general, the components of the acequia system were “topographically engineered to provide water for the maximum amount of land possible” (Horton 1998, 20, 42).

The design of acequias, or canal-fed irrigation systems, in the arid lands of New Spain has roots in the “Roman-Visigothic-Muslim” conquests of southern Spain (Horton 1998, 19; Rivera and Glick unpublished, 5-6). These systems followed a typical sequence of water diversion and conveyance structures. Water would first be diverted from the source by either a wing dam, extending into the channel of larger rivers or streams, or a presa (diversion dam,) fully extending across the channel of intermittent streams to form a reservoir. From the headgates of either of these features, water was then transported by gravity flow into common-property acequia madres, or main canals, cut from 30 degrees away from or perpendicular to the direction of the source flow. Water would further be subdivided into sangrias, or lateral canals, by azudes, or small-scale diversion structures, into the cultivated fields further down slope. In some instances, compuertas, or hydraulic features that lifted water, were used to allow for the irrigation of up-slope lands. Desague, or drainage channels, would drain agricultural wastewater and stormwater from the fields and return them to the source channel (Rivera and Glick unpublished, 5-8.)

90

Much of what is known about the specific layout and design of Tumacácori’s acequia system can be gleaned from comparison to historic maps and reconstructed layouts of contemporary colonial pueblos at Tubac, Arizona; Bavispe/Bacerac and Fronteras, Sonora; and Janos, Chihuahua. Combining these comparisons with the historic and archaeological record at Tumacácori, the following postulations may be made. The acequia madre of Tumacácori may or may not have been subdivided into laterals emanating from the main branch at approximately 30 degree angles. Trees, commonly cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), were likely grown along these acequias for shade and windbreaks. Water was certainly diverted from the acequia into the mission orchard/garden, up to four labores, and to an unknown number of milpas by wooden diversion boxes at multiple points along its course. It was then likely returned to the stream from which it had been diverted through one or more desague channels (Rivera and Glick unpublished, 5).

The design of the walled agricultural spaces at Tumacácori has Old World roots. Walled gardens became an important part of the cloistered communities of European monasteries, including those of the Iberian Peninsula, in the 8th century. In Moorish Spain, small, enclosed patio gardens were seen as places that cultivated the “intimate and the within.” Cloister garden vegetation included “physic” plantings of medicinal herbs, orchards, and utilitarian “kitchen” herbs, fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Monastery gardens and Moorish aesthetics, horticultural practices, and irrigation technology combined to become the Andalusian form of cloister garden that “[transformed] a desert landscape into an earthly paradise,” and became the prototype for mission gardens of New Spain (Horton 1998, 29-30).

At Tumacácori, this “paradise” was enclosed by the convento complex to the east, and a fivesided wall in other directions, and was likely constructed by the Franciscans. The diagonal arrangement of this wall is curious in that it breaks the otherwise adherent rectiliniarity of the rest of the built landscape. This form is perhaps the result of financial constraints or an attempt to create a unique microclimate for plant growth (Moss 2006, 12, 14, 16). Fruit trees were planted along the walls of the orchard to achieve multiple benefits: to serve as windbreaks, to moderate temperature extremes during both day and night, to serve as ornament, and to demark a property, a Roman and Persian tradition (Horton 1998, 27). The mission orchard garden could be reached without leaving the defenses of the mission compound. It also contained a compuerta/lavanderia, that allowed for the irrigation of the terrace between the acequia and the mission compound, and within the mission orchard/garden (Horton 1998, 34). These characteristics made the mission orchard/garden the most protected and most highly valued fields of Tumacácori’s productive lands, and are another example of cultural hierarchy manifested in agricultural layout.

Integrity of Design of the Mission Period of Significance In summary of the Jesuit and early Franciscan development of Tumacácori, while it appears that precedents set by other Spanish frontier missions informed construction techniques, agricultural layout, and mission layout, it seems the mission landscape did not adhere to a strict master plan, but rather adapted to changing conditions. Designs responded to political change, availability of materials and skilled laborers, and periodic destruction by Apaches (Bancroft 1889, 378-9 as qtd. in U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology; Caywood, date unknown, as qtd. in U.S.D.I. Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file). The second wave of Franciscan construction, focusing upon the construction of a new church, was designed according to a master plan, and implemented with much greater resources. Nonetheless, it was also beholden to financial and political constraints that necessitated changes to original design plans.

In determining the integrity of the design of Mission Period of Significance resources in the inventory unit, it is important to remember that these resources represent multiple periods of inhabitation and construction. They were subject to alteration, weathering, and destruction

91

not only after the period of significance, but also during the Mission Period of Significance itself.

Integrity of the Design of Mission Period Architecture There were four principle factors that threatened the integrity of the design of Mission Period of Significance architecture. The first was the use of undurable building materials. The Jesuit religious core was built with organic materials and erodible adobe bricks, making it highly susceptible to weathering (Ivey 2007, 64-65). The second was repeated destruction inflicted by Apache raiding and war parties (Habig 1937, 158-159 as quoted in NPS, Tumacácori Fact Files, date unknown, pre-monument historic chronology). The third factor was the repurposing of mission compound buildings. During the Mission Period of Significance, the Franciscans recycled many of the Jesuit buildings and demolished others (Ivey 2007, 64-65, 68). Then, after abandonment, ranchers and homesteaders converted mission buildings into makeshift ranch and homestead infrastructure, altering many of the original structures and generally exposing the mission compound to the effects of continued use by people and cattle (Ivey 2007, 102). The fourth factor was treasure-hunting. From the time of abandonment until the 1940’s, treasure-hunters raided Tumacácori, regularly excavating portions of the walls and floors of the mission complex, hastening the crumbling of standing resources, and damaging the integrity of archaeological resources (Moss 2008, 46).

Stabilization efforts and security measures by the park have greatly slowed the degradation of above-ground architectural resources (Moss 2008, 5). However, stabilization efforts at Tumacácori did not begin early enough to save the Jesuit infrastructure, and today, almost all traces of the original Jesuit buildings and structures have been erased, making it virtually impossible to understand their design intent without examining archaeological reports. Thus, the integrity of the design of the Jesuit mission complex is very low. On the other hand, many of the original buildings from the Franciscan tenure at Tumacácori are still standing and demonstrate the spatial organization, form, and detail of architectural design during this period. Though somewhat altered by the impacts described above, these Franciscan resources retain a higher level of integrity than their Jesuit counterparts. As a whole, based on the lack of Jesuit architectural features and the presence of many Franciscan ones, the integrity of the architectural elements from the Mission Period of Significance retains partial integrity.

Integrity of the Design of Mission Period Agricultural Lands Similar to the architectural elements of the Mission landscape, the reuse of the agricultural landscape’s primary features (acequias, fields, corrals, garden walls, plants) threatened the integrity of Mission Period of Significance agricultural lands. Ranchers and homesteaders adapted these features, created new networks of irrigation canals, and expanded the cultivated acreage at Tumacácori (Garate, 2005; U.S. District Court of Arizona, 1907, 1908; U.S. General Land Office, 1908).

The re-use and cultivation that occurred after the Mission Period of Significance erased much of the surficial features of the labores, milpas, and acequias. The original acequia ceased flowing in 1936, at which time the last of the fruit trees associated with the mission perished (Moss 2006, 13). In the latter half of the 20th century, the irrigable lands between the acequia and the river were regraded, a change that re-oriented the direction of water flow and removed a large portion of the evidence of the acequia from the headgate to the compuerta (Binney 2009). The regrading also destroyed the northern portion of the garden wall and the majority of the end of the acequia (Moss 2006, 14; NPS, Aerial photo file, 1936; N.P.S., Tumacácori fact files, 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

While extremely detrimental to the integrity of the design of the agricultural lands, these disturbances did not completely eliminate it. As long as the land surrounding the monument

92

continues to be cultivated, the design of the Mission Period agricultural landscape will retain a low level of integrity.

Design During the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance Development at Tumacácori National Monument during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance was master-planned by Park Service administrators along with hired architects, engineers, and landscape architects. The purpose of the monument was to serve as a gateway for increased visitor understanding of the Mission Period of Significance, and to house the offices and residences of the park staff needed to operate it. The construction that occurred between the years 1930 and 1959 transformed Tumacácori from an archaeological site with minimal visitor interface into a full museum and visitor center complex able to interpret the historic resources. In general, the built landscape of the visitor center/museum complex is representative of the Rustic Style of NPS architecture common during the New Deal Era, mixed with elements of Mission Revival, Pueblo Revival, and Territorial Styles. Much of the design was intended to demonstrate architectural and landscape components that were likely present at Tumacácori during the Mission Period, as informed by archaeological investigations and a study of similar Sonoran missions.

The Rustic Style: Over the first three decades of the 20th century, the Rustic Style had “established itself as the architectural dialect of the national parks,” including Yellowstone, Yosemite, Crater Lake, Grand Canyon, and Glacier (Cutler 1985, 90). It was perfected through the design philosophy, practice, and support of landscape architect Thomas C. Vint, and subsequently summarized and documented in an NPS textbook, edited by Albert H. Good, entitled Park Structures and Facilities (Tweed et al 1997).

The Rustic Style’s major characteristics were the “use of native materials in proper scale,… avoidance of rigid, straight lines and over-sophistication,…[the] feeling of having been executed by pioneer craftsmen with limited hand tools,…[and] sympathy with natural surroundings and with the past” (Good, 1935, as quoted by Tweed et al, 1977). This was done through subordination of park buildings and structures to the overall park master plan and to the park’s natural, physical setting. Designers were to use appropriate scaling without monumental vertical elements and the harmonious application of native and planted vegetation. Walls of buildings were to take on a battered or buttressed appearance, with large stones being used towards the foundation, and smaller ones above. Additionally, the construction material palette was to be composed of natural-looking, minimally-processed stones and logs proportioned similarly to the materials of the surrounding natural environment (Tweed et al 1997).

Perhaps most importantly, “rustic structures were to achieve thematic harmony with other buildings in the same park or vicinity” (Tweed et al 1997). The designs were regionally sensitive and borrowed from local traditions, making each park’s built infrastructure unique.

The Rustic Style was flexible enough to create architectural themes individually tailored to a park that incorporated different traditional styles appropriate to the site and that were functional for contemporary uses (Tweed et al 1997).

Rustic Style ethos and methods generally guided design at Tumacácori during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. Tumacácori was built at the height of the Rustic Style, and was most strongly influenced by recently completed Southwestern park buildings. Its architectural theme borrowed elements typical of contemporary mainstream architecture, including Pueblo and Mission Revival, the Territorial Style, and vernacular, flatroofed adobe house construction of Sonoran Mexico (NPS 1983, 8-4). This mix was specifically informed by the style of standing and excavated buildings and structures at Tumacácori and at other missions of the Kino chain.

Archaeological Influences and a Sonoran Expedition:

93

Archaeological investigations played a crucial role in the design of buildings and structures during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. In the early 1930’s, NPS superintendent of the Southwestern Monuments, Frank “Boss” Pinkley drew upon his extensive knowledge of Tumacácori’s historic and archaeological resources to develop the functional concept of the visitor center and museum, described below. In addition, during the time that Pinkley was formulating these plans, park archaeologist Paul Beaubien regularly reported the archaeological findings of his excavations of the Tumacácori convento plaza to him, with specific emphasis on their ability to inform the design of the future museum (NPS 1935, 44-50).

In addition to archaeology, the study of above-ground historic resources found at other Sonoran missions played a crucial role in the designers’ decisions. In 1935, superintendent Pinkley sent a team of park service men to Sonora, Mexico to study the architecture of the remaining missions of the Kino chain. The goal of the expedition team, which included engineer Howard Tovrea, naturalist Robert Rose, official photographer George Grant, laboratory technician Arthur Woodward, and architects Leffler Miller and Scofield DeLong, was to improve stabilization and possible restoration methods, gather material for museum exhibits, and develop architectural ideas for the visitor center/museum (NPS 1987, 8-2; Pickens 1993; Scofield and Delong 1936).

Visitor Center and Museum Design: The design of the new facilities of the Tumacácori National Monument sought to “duplicate to the minutest detail the secular buildings which accompanied the Sonora-Arizona missions, always in the same quadrangles with the churches” (NPS 1939, 138-139). It is worthy of note that the chosen design strategy contained flaws. Its zealous degree of duplication, while perhaps effective in extending the built environment of interpretation, can confuse the visitor as to the date of the buildings’ construction.

As mentioned above, superintendent Pinkley developed the functional concept of the visitor center and museum. He envisioned a low building that complemented the historic mission complex in form and style. It would be close enough to the highway and parking lot so that visitors would be funneled through it before experiencing the view of the mission. Within this building, he wanted a procession of interpretive rooms whose doors, windows, and floor and ceiling structures reproduced those found in other Sonoran missions of the Kino chain. The procession of rooms would culminate in a final “view room” oriented towards the “knock-out” view of the mission complex (NPS 1987, 8-1).

From the investigatory trip to Sonora, architect Scofield DeLong, the representative of the Branch of Plans and Design (Vint’s design shop,) became the principal designer of the museum building. He was assisted by additional designers from Vint’s team, including Dick Sutton, Charles D. Carter, and others. Staff members from the Tumacácori and Southwestern Monuments offices also provided design support and local expertise (NPS 1987, 8-2).

DeLong incorporated many of the elements he had seen in the Sonoran missions into the museum’s design. First, he chose construction materials similar to those used in the Sonoran missions, including sun-dried adobe bricks for the walls and wooden grilles for the windows. Second, he modeled features of his design after precedents from the trip.

Features of the museum’s entrances, doors, ceiling, counters, and portals were borrowed from the church at Cocospera, the church at Oquitoa, and Bandelier National Monument (NPS 1938, 175-176; NPS 1987, 8-2, 8-3; Pickens 1993). For specific architectural details, see Buildings and Structures in the Landscape Characteristics section.

Museum Garden Design: The museum garden was laid out and constructed by J.H. Tovrea, landscape architect Charles Carter, and 16 Civilian Conservation Corps workers, from 1939 to 1940. The overall

94

layout of the garden was inspired by the form of traditional “paradise gardens” found throughout European monasteries and New World missions, with a central fountain that had pathways leading away from it along the four cardinal directions. Features of the design include a meandering, brick walkway; a centrally-located octagonal fountain with four small channel drains carrying trickles of water to the planting beds from the four corners of the surrounding walk; adobe benches that provide resting places on the east and west sides of the fountain; and historically illustrative plantings (NPS 1987, 7-2; Horton 1998, 30).

The Tucson Botanical Garden, working with Pinkley, park staff, and the design team from the Landscape Division, designed and installed the museum garden’s planting plan (Jackson, 1952; NPS 1987, 7-2, U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1939, 1940 Tumacácori monthly reports). Plant selection for the museum garden followed Mission Period precedents derived from mission records and information compiled by historians such as Herbert Bolton (Peterson 1930). Although not exactly what Pinkley originally had in mind—he preferred beans, squash, corn, and the like—the plants cultivated in the museum garden were all grown by colonial mission padres and achieved the cumulative effect of an “ideal Spanish garden” appropriate for educational demonstration (University of Arizona 1996, 1).

However, the plant palette represented in the museum garden was not entirely historically accurate. The lists from which the plant palette was derived represented cumulative records from multiple eras and multiple missions, and thus was probably more diverse than what existed at Tumacácori at any given point in time. The plants selected were also more aesthetically appealing than the principle staple crops suggested by Pinkley, particularly in the off-season (NPS 1987, 8-3, 8-4). Since the surrounding architecture and the hardscape used in the museum garden strongly resembled Mission Period features, it is possible for the visitor to mistake the relatively more abundant and diverse museum garden as an element of the Mission Period landscape. In this way, while the museum garden’s presence can enhance the interpretation of the Mission Period if properly explained, it also has the potential to somewhat diminish the integrity of the Mission Period, if it is taken at face value as a component of the Mission landscape, as, from observation of visitor experience, seems to commonly occur.

Other Landscape Features Various other park buildings and structures built between 1931 and 1935 followed Tumacácori’s architectural theme, including the perimeter walls, the parking place, the comfort station, Residences #1 and #2, and Garage #3.

In order to screen the view of the mission and enhance the security of the park and historic mission resources, NPS staff in the 1930’s designed and built perimeter adobe walls. While the configuration of these walls changed over the course of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, their primary function as viewshed creators and security measures remained the same. The style of these walls was influenced by examples of secular architecture found in Sonoran townsites. They are capped with flat and arched copings and punctuated with multi-paneled doors, though the entrances seem to be used infrequently by the park. Their concrete foundations, adobe core, and stucco finish, along with their massive scale, are commonly seen in walls surrounding secular buildings in Sonora, Mexico. To a certain extent, they are also typical of the scale of Rustic Style structures (NPS 1987, 7-2).

The original parking area, referred to as the “parking place”, was designed, surveyed, and built by a Mr. Goodwin of the Engineering Division of the National Park Service to better accommodate visitors (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori Fact Files, 1932, Tumacácori Monthly Reports).

It was completely enclosed by the western perimeter wall of the visitor center/museum complex, with entry from the road controlled by one or two wooden gates. The enclosure made the parking area feel like an outdoor room. As such, it served as the first “room” in a

95

procession of visitor experiences that continued into the visitor center and out into the mission complex.

In the 1950’s, alterations to the parking layout occurred. The parking lot was expanded, gates were removed, and it was no longer fully enclosed (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports). The loss of the full enclosure eliminated the parking area’s resemblance to an outdoor room and simplified the visitor approach. It also changed the parking lot from being an integrated feature of the park in which the visitor felt a sense of arrival, to something more akin to a road-side pull-off. In addition, the vehicular approach was altered. Originally, drivers had entered through a formal gate complete with columns and ornately carved doors, and approached the visitor center from a perpendicular direction, giving them a full view of it. The later configuration was more informal. The ornate gates were removed, and the new entrance, which approached from a tangential direction, no longer framed the entry view.

Among the park’s New Deal era buildings, the comfort station is the most basic. It reflects the style of vernacular Sonoran adobe houses, rather that of the southwestern missions.

Erected in 1932 as the first visitor-oriented facility, this adobe building was constructed on a concrete foundation and finished with cement stucco. It had a flat roof, took the form of a rectangular box, and was incorporated into the adobe walls of the patio and service road.

Finally, pipe canals and structural log vigas (or support beams) with sawn ends projected from the western exterior wall (NPS 1987, 7-2, 7-3).

The design of Residence #1 (aka, the Superintendent’s Residence,) Residence #2 (aka, the Ranger’s Residence), and Garage #3 (aka, the Tool and Implements Shed) differed from the design of the other NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance buildings and structures, in that it was influenced more heavily by the Rustic Style than by Sonoran mission architecture. These three structures were built prior to the Beaubien excavations and the Sonoran expedition, and at the time of their construction, (1930 to 1932), the combined architectural theme of Tumacácori described above had not yet been synthesized (Boundey, 1934; Jackson, 1952; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Features of these three buildings that resonate with the Rustic Style include their exposed, battered masonry footings; the use of wood in the construction of doors, windows, and floors; and log lintels (Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 2006a and 2006b). Features of these buildings taken from the Sonoran vernacular architecture include their adobe walls, stucco finishing, concrete foundations, recessed windows, flat roofs, and sides, and pipe canals. Elements of both styles were included in the design of the buildings’ ramada porches. The porches had a peeled-log roof, common in Rustic Style structures, and forkedtree-trunk posts holding up the roof, common to both the Rustic and Sonoran Styles.

Integrity of Design of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance The design of the visitor center/museum complex, museum garden, and residences as a whole has remained almost entirely unaltered since their original construction during the 1930s, and thus retains a high level of integrity. Although the parking area was significantly altered after its original construction, resulting in a change in the park’s entry sequence, the changes that took place followed the Tumacácori architectural theme, and did not alter the character of the visitor center/museum complex. Likewise, both the expansion of the Museum and the reconfiguration of the residences were done in a style true to the architectural theme of Tumacácori developed in the 1930s.

The replacement of a number of old plants with new ones of the same species has maintained the integrity of the original planting design. Other species, including broad-leafed exotic trees, tamarisk, and various cactus species, have been removed from the landscape and replaced by ones more appropriate to the Mission Period of Significance. The effect of this substitution is two-fold. First, replacing plants originally designed for the space diminishes the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance’s integrity of design. On the other

96

hand, the use of more regionally and historically appropriate vegetation enhances the integrity of feeling of the Mission Period of Significance.

The NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance trail system has also been altered. The system’s original asphalt trails were gradually replaced by paths of decomposed granite, and its interpretive easels, used for self-guided tours, were replaced by small, enumerated sandstone markers. Although these modifications are a departure from the original design, they corrected what were commonly accepted as poor design decisions, out of keeping with both periods of significance, and actually enhanced the inventory unit’s overall integrity.

The addition of the ranch headquarter buildings has the potential to reduce the historic integrity of the design of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. Because it is clear to the intrepid visitor that the ranch headquarter buildings are currently being used by park staff, without further explanation, the visitor may assume that they were built as part of the museum/visitor center complex. However, the funneling effect of the current parking area and the screening effect of the southern adobe perimeter wall prevent most visitors from seeing and exploring the ranch headquarters.

Finally, an abandoned utility pole visible from the museum’s “knock-out” view rises above the tree line behind the church and slightly diminishes the view’s historic value.

While these changes may affect the integrity of individual components of the landscape important to the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, their cumulative effect is not strong enough to seriously diminish the overall integrity of design. The designers’ original intent can still be interpreted by visitors to Tumacácori, and so the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance retains a high level of integrity of design.

Setting The Mission of Tumacácori was set in the Santa Cruz River Valley in the portion of the frontier of New Spain called the Pimería Alta. This rural setting was defined by both natural and cultural features. In regards to natural systems, the intermittent above-ground waters and variably-wide river terrace lands of the Santa Cruz River provided isolated stretches of irrigable lands that, in combination with the lush riparian vegetation, provided an oasis for the establishment of villages.

In regards to cultural conditions, the mission landscape was defined by a concentrated pattern of settlement centering around the mission of Tumacácori and the presidio of Tubac.

During the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, the Tumacácori National Monument was located in a small, agricultural community. Though the riparian system of the Santa Cruz River at this point in time was in poor condition, design decisions and new construction were not based on the state of the river, and so this feature of the greater landscape has little bearing on the integrity of the setting of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Aside from irrigable crop- and pasture-land, the arid and semi-arid hillsides surrounding the inventory unit display much of their original ecological structure. The riparian system of the Santa Cruz River, though it was mostly destroyed in the early 20th century, has been restored to a condition very similar to its Mission Period of Significance form, with above-ground water flow and accompanying riparian growth. Thus, in terms of natural systems, the setting of the Mission Period of Significance has retained a high level of integrity.

Similar to past conditions, the population of the Santa Cruz Valley near the inventory unit is concentrated around Tumacácori and Tubac. While there is no longer a village contained within the inventory unit itself, the contemporary town of Tumacácori has arisen outside of its boundaries, and this town retains a rural character. Other changes to the landscape that affect

97

the inventory unit’s cultural setting are the contemporary highway system and the development of the region’s tourism industry. These two factors slightly diminish the isolation of the inventory unit. Limited development within the surrounding hillsides and favorable on-site viewsheds that limit the visibility of contemporary roads, homesites, fields, and infrastructure, closely mirror the physical nature of both the Mission Period landscape and the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

In general, however, the simplicity of the built landscape within the park and the town, and relatively undeveloped 360-degree vistas create a setting that focuses on the Mission Period buildings, just as it was during both periods of significance. Thus, culturally speaking, the setting of the Mission Period of Significance has retained a moderate level of integrity, and the setting of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance has retained a high level of integrity.

Materials Mission Period Architectural Materials: There are great differences between the historic materials from the Mission Period of Significance and contemporary materials found within the inventory unit. Mission Period architectural and agricultural materials were limited by the scarcity of natural resources and by the crude fabrication technology available in the frontier at the time. Colonial Indian constructions used easily-available, organic materials historically used by Indian peoples of the area, including mesquite timbers, ocotillo branches, grasses and mud. Since these materials were very erodible, no standing historic examples of buildings constructed with them currently exist on the Tumacácori landscape. However, a reconstructed example of this building type is present within the mission grounds. In 1997, O’odham workers built a Muuro-ki, or traditional O’odham dwelling, on site using traditional hand tools. Despite this contemporary reconstruction, the integrity of the Indian material culture is very low, because none of the original materials exist within the inventory unit.

The Jesuits used both the materials of the local Indian population and very basic, unfinished, sundried adobe bricks. Because of the erodibility of sun-dried adobe, and the destruction and material recycling that took place during the tenure of the Franciscans, very few traces of original Jesuit material culture remain above ground today.

As designs for the Franciscan church building grew in height, so did the need for stronger building materials, and so adobe bricks and were adopted as the primary building material of the mission compound. Two varieties of adobe bricks were used: the common sun-dried variety, and the more labor-intensive oven-fired variety, with the latter being used for structural strength. In the interior of the church, the crown of the mortuary, and elsewhere, both kinds of original adobe brick are visible, contributing to the mission’s overall integrity of materials. The oven in which these bricks were fired has been archaeologically located, but because it still lies underground, it does not significantly contribute to the interpretation of Mission Period of Significance materials.

The Franciscans used a lime kiln to fire limestone rock mined from the Santa Rita Mountains, which was further slaked in another location to create lime plaster. The kiln serves as one of the few visible, historic, manufacturing features of the mission and ties the architectural prowess of the masons to the materials of the surrounding landscape. Original lime plaster, in some instances with significant help from park stabilization efforts, can be seen as a part of the built landscape, and therefore retains integrity as a material. Both the kiln and the plaster remnants contribute to the material integrity of the mission.

In summary, the architectural material integrity of the Mission Period of Significance is moderate.

98

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period Architectural Materials: The selection of materials for the museum, visitor center, and other buildings constructed during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, as well as the selection of materials used for stabilization of Mission Period resources during this time, was informed by a study of building materials in the Kino chain of missions in Sonora. Historically compatible, “in kind” materials such as adobe and plaster were supplemented with contemporary, more durable materials that, in most instances, did not detract from the appearance of the former. While introducing the craftwork of a contemporary person to the historic resource, these materials are very similar to the original craftwork and do not diminish their integrity.

Unfortunately, one stabilization method likely did more damage than it prevented. The Portland cement that the park used to stabilize exterior and interior walls immediately diminished resources’ historic integrity just by being a foreign substance. It also damaged the underlying historic materials (adobe and stone) because it is more permeable, traps water, and causes internal erosion of the walls (Moss 2008, 7).

As a whole, the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance buildings and structures have weathered well, and neither human traffic nor natural forces have significantly degraded their materials. Minor material changes include an interior remodeling of the museum, and noticeable weathering of the museum garden and entry sequence.

Ranch era Architectural Materials: Acquisition of the Ranch Headquarters as park buildings introduced a new building type and resource palette to the park. This included the use of slump block, mill-cut lumber, shingles, cement, glass, and steel. These materials detract from the integrity of both periods of significance, though they are rarely seen by the typical visitor. However, if the fields adjacent to the ranch headquarters are to become a more significant part of the interpreted mission landscape, this material anachronism would further diminish the mission period’s material integrity.

Agricultural and Landscaping Materials: In terms of vegetative materials, some plantings from at least a portion of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, including a cactus bed and tamarisk trees, as well as naturalized mesquites that had obscured the form of the mission patio, have been removed.

However, these plant materials were later determined to be either incongruous with the mission period plant palette and/or layout, or invasive, and were removed. Therefore, while their loss diminishes the material integrity of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, it has enhanced the material integrity of the Mission Period. Other plantings from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance consisted of a basic native xeriscape palette, and are still present. Fruit, pecan, and various exotic shade and ornamental trees were planted at the ranch headquarters and orchards over the active ranch period, and contemporary pasture and vegetable cultivars planted in the fields. While these plant materials detract from the plant material palette of both periods of significance, many have either been physically removed by the park, or perished from neglect, disease, or lack of continued irrigation. In 2007, with the assistance of the Desert Museum and Desert Survivors Nursery, quince, pomegranate, and fig trees grown from cultivars from mission community orchards in Sonora and other regional heirloom varieties were planted in the mission orchard. These varieties were chosen in order to most accurately represent the historic plant palette (Desert Survivors 2008). This recent development enhances the integrity of agricultural materials.

In the Mission Period of Significance, native soil and wood were used for canals and diversion structures, respectively. In contrast, during the homestead and ranch eras, concrete, in the form of canal linings, and metal, in the form of wells, pipes, and valves, served these functions. In addition, networks of barbed-wire fencing and railroad ties proliferated across the inventory unit, can still be seen today, and are totally foreign to the Mission Period of Significance material palette.

99

In summary, the material integrity of the Mission Period of Significance agricultural landscape is low, and the material integrity of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance vegetative palette is moderate.

Workmanship The buildings and other constructed features from the Mission Period of Significance that have been under NPS management since the establishment of the monument retain and display a moderate level of integrity of both utilitarian and decorative workmanship. In particular, the consistent, rhythmic, elegant forms hewn of plaster, fired brick, and paint within the mission church, mortuary, and granary demonstrate confident, skillful adornment that elevates these religious structures above their utilitarian counterparts. Buildings and structures such as the campo santo walls, cisterns, lime kiln, and compuerta, on the other hand, with the help of park stabilization efforts, demonstrate practical and durable workmanship.

During the end of the Mission Period of Significance, repeated Apache attacks, weathering, and simple disintegration of some building materials occurred. This disintegration continued between the periods of significance, through many decades of neglect and treasure-hunting, until the stabilization and security efforts of Frank Pinkley and his assistant A.S. Noon. The mitigation of these negative impacts helped preserve the integrity of workmanship at Tumacácori. On the other hand, the stabilization effort’s use of concrete does not accord with the original materials, and slightly diminishes the integrity of workmanship. Fortunately, by the beginning of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Period of Significance, stabilization techniques had evolved to utilize “in kind” materials, or, in other words, traditional materials true to the Mission Period of Significance.

Construction of the Tumacácori Museum and Visitor Center, which occurred within the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, demonstrated a high level of workmanship in wood, stone, brick, and stucco. The Rustic Style used in these buildings combined elements of traditional Sonoran construction used during the Mission Period of Significance with the popular architectural styles of Mission Revival, Territorial Revival, and Pueblo Revival. These buildings have been maintained very well since their construction, and are therefore in good condition.

Thus, they highly represent the integrity of workmanship of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, and partially contribute to the integrity of workmanship of the Mission Period.

Most features associated with the productive landscape of the Mission Period of Significance were obscured or demolished by later eras of agricultural development. The only physical remnants of the original Mission Period of Significance agricultural system are the compuerta, the down-slope remnant orchard, and the surrounding walls. The fact that most of these features are missing and unable to portray historic agricultural practices diminishes the integrity of agricultural workmanship at Tumacácori. The orchard from the Mission Period of Significance has mostly been repurposed through later eras of agricultural development as row crop farmland. However, a small portion of the historic orchard has retained its form, and was replanted in 2007 by the Park Service. The remnant orchard has been replanted in a grid pattern, and a drip irrigation system has been installed: two historically inaccurate developments that slightly detract from the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance. Fallow ranch fields from the modern era exhibit the use of technological advances such as grading by heavy machinery, concrete-lined irrigation and drainage canals, electric and/or diesel-driven wells for pumping water from the aquifer, barbed wire, steel water storage tanks, and aluminum pipes for water distribution. These examples of contemporary workmanship detract from the integrity of agricultural workmanship of the Mission Period of Significance.

Feeling

100

The degree to which a visitor feels as if he or she is within a historic scene of either the Mission or NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance depends upon their knowledge of the physical characteristics of both these two eras. While many features are clearly from one period of significance or another, other features are more complex, and relate to both periods of significance. For example, while an uninformed visitor may easily interpret both the museum garden and the fallow ranch fields as part of the Mission gardens and Mission fields, a visitor with a greater understanding of architectural and agricultural history would interpret these features as being from later periods of development. With further instruction from park staff, or perhaps through personal research and deduction, they may come to understand that the museum garden contains many of the same cultivars planted and harvested by Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries, and the fallow ranch fields are in approximately the same position as the fields of the Mission Period of Significance. Therefore, even though these two features were built in a more recent era, to the informed visitor, they would enhance the integrity of feeling of the earlier Mission Period of Significance. Because of this complexity, it can be concluded that the integrity of the feeling of the Mission Period has been obscured, and is dependent upon the knowledge level of the landscape’s observers.

Modern ranch infrastructural features created during and after the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance reduce the integrity of the feeling of the Mission Period of Significance.

For example, concrete irrigation ditches are evident throughout the fallow ranch fields and naturalized agricultural fields. The materials and technological systems represented by these concrete ditches have a negative impact on the feeling of mission era agricultural practices. That being said, the presence of any irrigation ditch enhances the agricultural feel of the property in general.

The integrity of the feeling of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance has been maintained, in the sense that the visitor center and museum blend in and contribute to the understanding of the Mission compound, as intended by the NPS/New Deal designers. The original intent of these designers, which is still evident today, was to echo the feeling of Mission era features. This was accomplished through the use of building materials and construction techniques informed by studies of other mission churches of the Kino chain in Sonora. Because of their more recent construction, these features are in better condition and are more noticeable than the buildings from the Mission Period of Significance. However, this might be seen as a point of confusion. Since the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance construction was similar to the Mission Period of Significance construction, it is possible for the visitor to confuse that which has been constructed by the park with that which was constructed by the missionaries and townspeople of Tumacácori. In other words, the visitor may mistakenly come away feeling like the accomplishments of the Mission Period of Significance architects were more grandiose than they actually were.

Association The Tumacácori Mission and Historical Monument/Park were primarily influenced by the people who established, managed, inhabited, and abandoned them, namely the friars, townspeople, and NPS leaders. Among these figures, Father Kino is the most prominent. Although there is no evidence to suggest that he was active within the boundaries of the inventory unit, the mission itself is a testament to his work and represents his legacy. Father Kino’s diplomatic, ecclesiastic, and exploratory work reduced the people of the seasonally occupied rancheria of San Cayetano to a permanent pueblo and laid the groundwork for the establishment of the mission of Tumacácori. Because of his efforts, later friars and townspeople were able to build a more advanced and productive mission town site. Therefore, there remains a strong integrity of association between Father Kino and Mission Tumacácori.

The accomplishments of regionally significant architects, planners, and park service leaders from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, on the other hand, are only minimally

101

interpreted in the inventory unit. These figures include Frank “Boss” Pinkley, the NPS southwestern monuments superintendent; J.H. Tovrea, Leffler Miller, Scofield Delong, the architectural team; and Thomas Vint, a landscape architect. As a combined result of the lack of interpretation, and the architectural similarity between buildings from the Mission Period of Significance and NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, visitors often mistake the New Deal era accomplishments of these historic figures as work from the Mission Period of Significance.

The current landscape at Tumacácori offers little above-ground, physical evidence of the period of Jesuit management. The only above-ground resource representative of that time is the cap created after the Beaubien excavations of the 1930’s that indicates the location of the foundation of a structure believed to be the Jesuit church. As such, the integrity of association between the Jesuit management of the mission and the present state of Mission Tumacácori has been only minimally retained.

The remaining above-ground resources at Mission Tumacácori, including the church, residential, and some productive buildings and structures, date to the era of Franciscan management, and represent the Franciscan and Indian construction, management, productivity, and inhabitation of the mission. Therefore, in contrast to the association with Jesuit management, the integrity of the association between the Franciscan period of management and Mission Tumacácori remains strong.

Interpretive tours, crafts booths, and annual events such as Semana Santa and the Tumacácori Fiesta help visitors gain a better understanding of some of the characters—including Father Kino and Juan Bautista de Anza—and customs—including foodstuffs, building techniques, and ceremonies of various cultural groups that inhabited the mission—associated with development during and after the Mission Period of Significance. With the exception of a few periods of relatively inactivity at the mission, these activities and events represent cultural continuity within the inventory unit and enhance the integrity of association.

102

Landscape Characteristics Thirteen landscape characteristics, defined as tangible and intangible aspects of an inventory unit which have either influenced the history of the development of the landscape, or are products of its development, respectively, are described in this section in order to illustrate that Tumacรกcori retains the ability to convey its significance. Since two periods of significance (Mission Period and NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period) have been defined for Tumacรกcori, this section will describe landscape characteristics, and answer, through an independent lens of each of these two periods, whether their component features contribute to, or are compatible with the ability of a particular characteristic to convey significance. In some instances, a feature may contribute strongly to the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period, but not contribute to the Mission Period, or vice-versa.

1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Archaeological evidence within the boundaries of the Tumacรกcori inventory unit of TNHP can be best understood in conjunction with those found in adjacent lands and from a regional perspective. Much of what is known about the cultural and technological evolution of human communities in the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley has emerged through comparison with prehistoric and proto-historic communities for which the archaeological record is more complete.

In this section, archaeological findings of the inventory unit from before, during, and between the major periods of significance will be discussed either specifically or generally, depending upon the sensitivity of the cultural resources.

Pre-Mission Period of Significance Sites: Contained within the inventory unit is a scatter of archaeological features identified by Danson in 1946 as DD:08:25 (ASM) and currently being studied by NPS archaeologists. DD:08:25 sites are located on the second riparian terrace of the Santa Cruz River and are arguably dated through material culture comparisons to multiple periods of inhabitation: from 700 to 1100 B.C.---late Colonial and early Sedentary period Hohokam (Arendt et al. 2009, 2-3, Danson 1946, 7-13).

These sites contain house-rings, hearths, and sherd areas. In addition, they exhibit questionable evidence of dryland farming, but do not contain any evidence of diversionary canal irrigation agriculture, such as is commonly seen in Hohokam sites in the Tucson Basin and further north.

However, pollen analysis of the hearths on the alluvial terraces adjacent to and overlooking the Tumacรกcori inventory unit that date to a brief Hohokam episode of occupation in the Rincon and/or Rillito phases (850-1125) suggests that Hohokam in the area possibly took advantage of and altered the rich soils, flat topography, and plant communities of the riparian terrace at Tumacรกcori to grow various wild plants (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 115-151; Doyel 1977, 132137, 177; Grebinger 1976, 39-45).

DD:08:25 and seven additional artifact scatters (TUMA 2004 A-1, TUMA 2004 A-2, TUMA 2004 A-3, TUMA 2004 A-4, TUMA 2004 A-5, TUMA 2004 A-6, TUMA 2004 A-7), located on the second riparian terrace within the inventory unit, were excavated from 2004-2006, and have been under analysis until the time of this report. The latter seven sites generally date from the Late Archaic to early historic periods, though further findings from these excavations have yet to be confirmed (Arendt et al. 2009, 21-24; Moss, unpublished). Due to the sensitive nature of these resources, their location cannot be described in further detail in this report.

Mission Period of Significance Sites: Various archaeological excavations have revealed the location of features built during the eras of Jesuit and Franciscan management within the inventory unit. The earliest excavations were undertaken by Pinkley and Noon in 1917-1918, though these were done only to the extent necessary to stabilize the church. On a national scale, the focus of archaeological excavations during this time had been on the prehistoric era, and stabilization of these resources was done to promote tourism. While excavations were extensive, little was published (Graham 1998, 34).

103

Pinkley and Noon’s work at Tumacácori, which extended until at least 1921, represented the first historic era site archaeological dig in Arizona and New Mexico, stabilizing buildings and structures of the Mission era, and partially excavating their interior and outdoor spaces.

The most significant archaeological investigation occurred from 1934 to 1935, when Paul Beaubien excavated the mission patio. These occurred after the NPS “landscape division” requested that the foundations of all mission buildings be located prior to landscaping and drainage installation of the museum and visitor center complex. This excavation uncovered room-blocks of a residential and workshop nature that, along with the Franciscan church, formed a roughly square enclosure surrounding an open patio (see figure 7.1.1 in Archaeology).

Contained within this patio was the foundation of what appeared to be a small church building built during the Jesuit era of management. Additionally, two burro-powered molinas, or mill stones, vasos, or large ceramic jars that contained water or other materials, and other features indicative of smelting and the presence of a foundry, were excavated from the room blocks (see figure 7.1.1 in Archaeology). From 1934 to 1936, drainage ditches were dug to the directly east of the Franciscan church, resulting in the disruption of an old burial area, and also to the west of it. In 1935, the Beaubien excavations were refilled, and, based upon the appearance of the compound today, the drainage ditches were refilled shortly after this time, too (Moss 2006, 10, 13; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, 1935, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Several excavations pertinent to the mission era took place between 1950 and 1965. From 19501951, Sally Brewer placed test trenches west of the church and discovered a small Indian work area. In 1956, Gordon Vivian of the Ruins Stabilization Unit found that the sacristy was not connected to the convento building until after the Mission Period of Significance. In 1964 and1965, Louis (aka Luis) Caywood conducted excavations in the north convento mound and elsewhere in the convento plaza in order to better document the vasos, roasters, and patio colonnade. One intention of this excavation was to make the north convento visible for interpretation, but this plan was scrapped when it was determined that exposure was significantly hastening the erosion of the adobe, and the mound was reburied.

From 1965-2001, most archaeology at Tumacácori was conducted to learn more about, and improve, the structural integrity of the church foundations and exterior walls. In 1970, prior to the stabilization and structural covering of the granary, portions of it and the cemetery (aka campo santo) surrounding it were excavated. In 1979 and 1980, minor test excavations were undertaken in the cemetery and the area south of the church entrance, the latter of which revealed a high density of artifacts. In 1994, a possible deep well was discovered to the southeast of the sacristy corridor, along the drain/ditch alignment emanating from the cisterns, by NPS archaeologist Jeff Burton (Moss 2008, 7).

In 2004, archaeological investigations of the mission orchard/garden, including the primary defining feature, its wall, were undertaken. These studies revealed that the wall’s subterranean foundation was made of mud and cobble, and the above-ground portion was made of adobe.

Based upon minor differences in construction type and rates of erosion between the wall segments, the findings of this investigation suggest that there were either multiple periods of wall construction, or that the foundation and above-ground portions of the wall were built differently to withstand varying levels of hydraulic force during floods of the Santa Cruz River (Arendt et al DRAFT 2009, 3; Moss 2006, 16).

In 2005, the mission’s adobe firing kiln was located in the southwest corner of the horse ring of the ranch headquarters (Moss 2008, 7). At some point prior to 1998, soil overtop of the compuerta/lavandaria of the historic acequia was removed by park staff, revealing this hydraulic feature for interpretation (Moss 2006, 19; Moss 2010).

Some buildings and structures constructed during the Mission Period of Significance, including the Jesuit church, housing and workplaces surrounding the convento patio, and the neophyte housing block, lie underneath earthen mounds or under flat-graded areas immediately adjacent to

104

the standing buildings and structures. Other non-durable archaeological features of the Mission landscape, including a reported Indian Village, an adobe kiln, portions of the mission orchard/garden walls, and portions of the historic acequia, are peripherally located in respect to the Mission compound (See figure 7.1.1), (Arendt et al. 2009; Horton, 1998, 70; Moss 2009).

Between Periods of Significance Sites: Several features dating to the homesteading era have been discovered in recent archaeological investigations. In 2001, the Fiesta Grounds were test-excavated to mitigate damage from a proposed new visitor center, and most features found were dated to a period of time after the Mission Period of Significance. In 2005, in the horse ring of the ranch headquarters, the Mendez homestead (see figure 7.1.3) and the remains of a possible Cavalry camp were excavated. The latter contained a sword scabbard dated to the 1840s, bullets, metal artifacts, and charred Pima corn possibly used as horse feed (Moss 2008, 7). A house built in the 1880s to the southeast of the church stood on the inventory unit until later in the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, and, though it has not been excavated, lies underground as an archaeological resource of the homestead era.

During the late 1800s, public interest in archaeological resources in the southwestern U.S. increased. At Tumacácori, from the time of abandonment until the 1940s, both church and convento were subject to severe treasure-hunting. Convinced of the existence of the “lost Tumacácori treasure,” treasure-hunters excavated portions of the walls and floors of the mission complex. In particular, the nave and sanctuary of the church were disturbed by these hunts (Moss 2008, 4). In general, this activity hastened the crumbling of standing resources and damaged the integrity of archaeological resources in terms of their ability to communicate the building sequence and architectural details (Moss 2008, 6).

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance Sites: Since none of the resources built during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance have gone to ruin, and there are no underground resources to uncover, archaeological investigations into the period have not been necessary and have not occurred.

That being said, the excavations of the 1930s informed the construction of NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance resources. The persistence of destructive treasure-hunting, in part triggered the park to excavate the convento plaza in order to pre-empt the damage that would occur if the same area was excavated by treasure-hunters (Moss 2008, 6). The secondary purpose of this excavation was to find material for exhibit purposes. Project Archaeologist Paul Beaubien was university-trained, and, as a result, these excavations were undertaken in a much more deliberate and purpose-driven fashion than previous excavations by Pinkley and Noon (Ayers 1991, 18). Concurrent with these excavations, the New Deal had begun to make financial and labor resources available for the establishment of NPS visitor centers, and Frank Pinkley had begun to organize a research and design team for this to occur at Tumacácori National Monument. As a result, Beaubien often recorded his findings of the layout and components of the Mission compound directly to Pinkley in terms describing how they might affect the future design of the museum and visitor center (NPS, Southwestern Monuments 1935, 44-50). In addition, the excavations created much interest from visitors, and were interpreted by park staff as they were being undertaken, though they were re-covered with soil following the excavation to prevent further erosion of adobe (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Post-Period of Significance: As has been discussed above, many excavations have been undertaken since 1959, both within the mission complex and, more recently, within the newly acquired properties of the ranch headquarters, the fallow ranch fields, and the naturalized agricultural fields to the north. These excavations have uncovered resources from before, during, and after the Mission Period of

105

Significance, but not associated with park improvements. Meanwhile, factors that have continued to obscure archaeological resources within the park during this time have been both natural (riverine sediment erosion and alluvial deposits) and anthropogenic (grading and cultivation of land, re-use of building materials). Like the Beaubien excavations, the Caywood excavations of 1964-65 exposed the adobe walls of the convento to erosion, and were therefore recovered with soil (Moss 2008, 7). Finally, one building of the ranch headquarters built during this time (trailer home site #2; figure 7.1.3) has since been removed, though below-ground resources likely still exist from this feature.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME DD:08:25

CONTRIBUTION MP: NC ND: NC TUMA 2004 A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 MP: NC ND: NC Jesuit church foundation/religious complex MP: contributing ND: NC Northern room block MP: contributing ND: NC Neophyte room block MP: contributing ND: NC Mission garden/orchard wall/mound MP: contributing ND: NC Adobe kiln MP: contributing ND: NC Possible cavalry camp MP: NC ND: NC Adobe house foundation MP: NC ND: NC Storehouse (aka Bourgeois house) MP: NC ND: contributing Trailer home site #2 MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

106

Figure 7.1.1: This NPS map has been adapted to summarize the location of all known archaeological features of the mission complex. It also shows the proposed acequia alignment and the projected location of the mission orchard/garden wall (graphic modified from: Moss 2006, 12).

107

Figure 7.1.2: This composite photo, taken from the bell tower towards the northeast during the Beaubien excavations of 1934-1936, shows the mission patio, archaeologically revealed and interpreted for the public, as it looked for a short time during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance (graphic modified from: Moss, unpublished).

108

Figure 7.1.3: This map shows the location of three below-ground resources within the mission complex or ranch headquarters that are not associated with the Mission Period of Significance.

While the adobe house foundation has been archaeologically excavated and found to be a feature of the Mendez homestead, the other two have not been archaeologically excavated.

109

2. BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES Buildings and structures currently standing within the boundaries of the Tumacácori unit of TNHP were constructed by three different groups in three different eras: the missionaries, the National Park Service, and the ranchers of the modern era. While those built during the mission era are clearly temporally distinct, those of the modern ranch era overlap the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, since their construction began during that period of significance and continued into the 2000s. The Mission Period of Significance and NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance buildings and structures are historically significant for the park, and thus both contribute to the integrity of these periods. The impacts which have lessened this integrity are described below. The buildings and structures of the modern ranch era are not historically significant to the park, but are intricately related to the integrity of the periods of significance, and will therefore be described in terms of their impact upon these periods’ integrities.

Before and during the Mission Period of Significance: Much of what is known about the built form of the Mission Period of Significance comes from standing, above-ground buildings and structures that have withstood impacts to their integrity, and are still present on the landscape. The degree to which the church and convento complex retain their integrity can be thought of in terms of the degree to which important features of their design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association are still intact. In order to assess their integrity, it is useful to review the history of their design and construction. As such, our analysis of the integrity of buildings and structures of the Mission Period begins by studying their original built form.

To begin, it is possible that dwellings, hearths, and ramadas, or shade structures, of the Hohokam and/or Sobaipuri existed on the inventory unit prior to the Mission Period of Significance. Archaeological scatters from various periods of inhabitation during this time have been located and are currently being studied by the NPS (Arendt et al DRAFT 2009). During the Mission Period of Significance, particularly during the periods in which missionary control was weakest, these traditional forms were likely present as detached units of the pueblo. Dwellings likely took the form of seasonally inhabited, oval-shaped “pit houses” typical of Pima peoples, including the Sobaipuri – a product of their seasonally mobile, rancheria lifestyle (see figure 7.2.3). Buildings of this form were composed of temporary materials that were not resistant to weathering and whose ruins were easily damaged by the cultivation (by plowing) of fields. As such, no standing examples of these dwellings exist on the inventory unit. However, the park supervised the construction of a Muuro-ki, or traditional O’odham dwelling, in 1997, that closely approximates a Sobaipuri dwelling, and contributes to the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance (see figures 7.2.2 and 7.2.4).

The mission’s original religious complex, built by the Jesuits, was utilitarian in nature and likely employed a mixture of rudimentary construction techniques and materials from both the Spanish and Sobaipuri traditions. Bricks during this time were sun-dried adobe, a material that is highly susceptible to erosion if left unfinished. While it is possible that the bricks used during this period were coated with plaster, no certain evidence of this finish has survived (Ivey 2007, 65). In addition, during later periods of time, bricks from the older buildings were removed and re-used elsewhere. As a result, the original Jesuit religious core retains low integrity. As there is no archaeological evidence of further residential or workshop buildings built during the Jesuit period of management, other than those located within the religious core, we may assume that the workers and residents of the town lived in impermanent structures typical of the Indian tribes of the Santa Cruz River Valley.

In contrast, the buildings and structures of the Franciscan era of construction employed highly durable materials and forms. The most prominent, the Franciscan church building, used fired adobe brick and logs for structural members, and had very thick walls of unfired adobe brick.

Construction of this building, however, did not conclude until the early 1820s, prior to which the Franciscans held services in the Jesuit church. In the late 1780s, Fray Francisco Barbastro,

110

father president of the Pimería Alta, urged all missions to improve their church buildings, and insisted that “all the churches be built with vaults” (Ivey 2007, 4). The friars at Tumacácori during this time, while desiring a new church in this style, did not have the financial resources to accomplish it, and, until 1798, were forced to make do with the deteriorating Jesuit church that had been severely damaged by multiple Apache attacks (Ivey 2007, 4-5).

The Franciscan church was partially completed during an initial wave of construction that began in 1798, but money ran out by 1805, and construction came to a halt. Attempts to acquire adequate funds from a local rancher were made in the following years, but the money was never fully secured. As it became apparent that the church would not have the financial resources to realize the original cruciform church design, Fray Ramón Liberós and a new master mason altered the master plan to allow for the construction of a comparatively more modest church. The changes to the original design resulted in the loss of the building’s cruciform footprint, “thinner walls above fourteen feet, a dome over the sanctuary as at San Ignacio de Caborica, and a flat, viga-supported roof in place of the planned vaulting” (Ivey 2007, 88). Under the direction of Fray Liberós, this altered design was completed in 1824, when it received its first service (Ivey 2007, 7-8). Even with these modifications, the Franciscan church was more ornate than its Jesuit counterpart, with distinctive details such as mortared canales, or drainage channels, which conveyed water from the roof to the ground (Ivey 2007, 95).

The convento complex also took on a more complex form, and was built with materials more durable than the Jesuit religious core, but not as durable as that of the Franciscan church. Similar to the Franciscan church, it was built incrementally. Like the Jesuit buildings, the primary building material of the Franciscan convento was sun-dried adobe brick. However, unlike earlier iterations of the convento, walls, including those of the original Jesuit religious core, were plaster-coated and painted white at this time. The lower four feet near the floors were then painted in red to form a dado. Additionally, by 1799, the first campo santo, or cemetery, had been subdivided to include a specific burial area for children, an indication of increasing townsite complexity (Ivey 2007, 6567, 69, 70; Pregill 1999, 399; U.S.D.I., 2006, Section “Convento,” 3).

It is important to note that many impacts to particular features occurred during the Mission Period of Significance. Attacks on the mission compound by Apaches periodically damaged its buildings and structures. A fluctuating population and changing demands for urban and agricultural function necessitated the expansion of the mission as a whole, and the repurposing of particular features. For example, late modifications included the repurposing of a room in the southwest of the convento as a portería, or formal entrance, covered with a dome (Ivey 2007, 96). As such, these impacts diminished the integrity of design of earlier Mission Period buildings and structures, but did not impact those buildings and structures built later during the Mission Period.

Between periods of significance: During the time between periods of significance, mission buildings deteriorated due to neglect and weathering. Homesteaders Carmen Mendez, Dolores Villa, Tomas Cota, María Lowe Federico, Inez Andrade, later resident S.F. Noon, mission “keeper” Pedro Calistro, and mission “caretaker” Tom Bourgeois built new adobe residences, wooden corrals, and brush and wire fences. While evidence of some of these adobe buildings still exists below ground, by 1954, they were no longer evident above ground due to fires, weathering, and intentional removal The men listed above also modified mission buildings and structures for their own use, repurposing them as residences and schoolhouses (see figures 7.2.5 and 7.2.6) (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1954; Moss, 2009; Garate, 2010.) Some materials of the church were recycled for the house of homesteader Henry Lowe (Ivey 2007, 103). These modifications, such as wooden reinforcements and shelving nooks, are still present in the extension to the east of the sacristy, and the convento building, for example (Moss, 2010.)

While portions of the Franciscan church have been damaged by the effects of weathering, reuse, and vandalism, stabilization efforts have been underway since the late 1910s. From 1918 to 1922, Frank “Boss” Pinkley, the first custodian of Tumacácori National Monument, and his

111

assistant A.S. Noon, restored large portions of the mission compound, progressively using more historically accurate construction techniques. In the first wave of restoration, the entrance archway and various walls were repaired, foundations were underpinned, and a cement floor was laid in the baptistery. “In-kind” materials, such as adobe bricks shaped and fired to mirror the existing mission materials, were used whenever possible. Although these repairs introduced the craftwork of a contemporary person to the historic resource, the materials and methods employed were very similar to the original craftwork and did not alter the original design.

Unfortunately, this was not always the case. During some restoration projects, the stabilization methods employed likely did more damage than they prevented. From the 1940s until the 1970s, restoration using only in-kind materials lost favor in the NPS and at Tumacácori, and was replaced by a concentration on rehabilitation and stabilization with synthetic and non-traditional materials such as ethyl silicate, poly-vinyl acetate sprays, and Portland cement. Not only does the introduction of these foreign substances immediately diminish the integrity of historic resources, but the use of one in particular, Portland, also damages the underlying historic materials (adobe and stone). It is highly permeable, traps water, and causes internal erosion of the walls (Moss 2008, 2, 5, 7).

During and after the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: The design and architectural theme of the buildings and structures of the visitor center/museum complex combined elements of the Rustic Style of NPS architecture common during the New Deal Era with elements of Mission Revival, Pueblo Revival, and Territorial Styles. Much of the design was intended to demonstrate architectural and landscape components that were likely present at Tumacácori during the Mission Period, as informed by archaeological investigations and a study of similar Sonoran missions. Material selection favored historically accurate, “in kind” materials such as adobe and plaster, but also included contemporary, more durable materials that, in most instances, did not clash with the traditional material palette. In addition, the layout and orientation of the new buildings and structures emphasized the church and mimicked the enclosed nature of Mission Period conventos and gardens. As such, most of these features are compatible with the Mission Period of Significance, though they do not contribute.

The design of the visitor center/museum complex, museum garden, and residences as a whole has remained almost entirely unaltered since their original construction during the 1930s, and thus retains a high level of integrity. While the museum building was expanded to include an office in the 1950s, and the residences were slightly altered, these modifications were done in a style true to the architectural theme of Tumacácori developed in the 1930s. As a whole, the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance buildings and structures have weathered well, and neither human traffic nor natural forces have significantly degraded their materials. Minor material changes include an interior remodeling of the museum, and weathering of the museum garden and entry sequence.

In addition to the buildings and structures associated with the two periods of significance, there are a great number of modern ranch buildings and structures, and small-scale, non-contributing park features, built during and after the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

These features, as a whole, obscure the integrity of the design, materials, and setting of Mission Period of Significance, and do not contribute to the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. However, because they are mostly outside of the visitor center/museum complex, they do not diminish the integrity of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Today, the Franciscan church, mortuary chapel, convento, campo santo walls, granary, cisterns, lime kiln, compuerta (hydraulic structure of the historic acequia) and portions of the historic orchard wall still stand in various stages of deterioration. Despite stabilization efforts, weathering continues to erode the integrity of these buildings and structures. Long-term effects of weathering include such processes as the washing out of runnels in the channels of the side of the church, while single events associated with rain storms have destroyed large portions of the church’s wall (Ivey 2007, 103).

112

Other buildings and structures, including the Jesuit church, housing and workplaces surrounding the convento plaza, the neophyte housing block, portions of the mission garden walls, and portions of the historic acequia lie underneath earthen mounds or under flat-graded areas, and are therefore addressed as archaeological features. While most of these buildings and structures are clustered within the mission compound or complex, the standing portion of the orchard wall is visibly separated by a dirt road that is used by park maintenance staff, and the lime kiln lies outof-sight and to the north of the main mission complex.

In summary, many major features of the Mission Period of Significance, particularly those of durable materials, still stand, but have been impacted by weathering, vandalism, and modification during later eras. However, they still contribute to the integrity of Mission Period of Significance design, workmanship, and materials. Other features, particularly those of erosive materials, have incurred greater impacts, are no longer visible above-ground, and do not contribute to the Mission Period’s integrity. Therefore, the buildings and structures of the Mission Period of Significance retain a moderate level of integrity.

In contrast, the buildings and structures of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, with few exceptions, still stand and greatly contribute to the integrity of this period’s design, workmanship, and materials. Therefore, the buildings and structures of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance retain a high level of integrity.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations LCS: List of Classified Structures MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing LCS ID & STRUCTURE NUMBER 00679; BL001

STRUCTURE NAME Visitor Center

06678; BL003

Comfort Station

58661; GR003

Museum Garden

58662; GR005

Adobe Perimeter Walls

06677; HS001

Residence #1

N/A; HS002

Residence #2

01343; RU001

Mission Church

06681; RU002

Convento

23433; RU003A

Campo Santo Walls

23435; RU003B

Granary

23434; RU004

Mortuary Chapel

06680; RU007

Lime Kiln

58660; RU012

Cisterns

CONTRIBUTION MP: NC/compatible ND: contributing MP: NC/compatible ND: contributing MP: NC/compatible ND: contributing MP: NC/compatible ND: contributing MP: non-contributing ND: contributing MP: non-contributing ND: contributing MP: contributing ND: non-contributing MP: contributing ND: non-contributing MP: contributing ND: non-contributing MP: contributing ND: non-contributing MP: contributing ND: non-contributing MP: contributing ND: non-contributing MP: contributing

113

58659l RU014

ND: non-contributing Historic Acequia (aka compuerta, aka lavanderĂ­a) MP: contributing ND: non-contributing Parking Area MP: non-contributing ND: contributing Residential Storage Shed MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Custodian Home Concrete Pad MP: non-contributing ND: contributing Rock embankment/Head-wall MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Orchard Wall MP: contributing ND: non-contributing Pole Barn MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Maintenance barn MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Storage building MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Muuro-ki MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Cobble headwall MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Trailer home site (#1) MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Canto Ranch ruins/headwall MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Binney Ranch debris piles MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Castration/branding corral MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Cattle feed shed MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Silage pit MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Footbridge MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Anza National Historic Trail kioskMP: non-contributing ND: NC/compatible Park pumphouse MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Ranch pumphouse MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing “Lean-toâ€? shed MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Ranch house MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing Stable Barn MP: non-contributing ND: non-contributing

114

Figure 7.2.1: While the northern portion of the inventory unit is mostly empty of buildings and structures, many ranch-era features are concentrated along the southeast side. Many more buildings and structures are located within the west, central nucleus of activity, outlined in the black dashed box seen above.

Note: the scale of the buildings and structures represented in this figure has been exaggerated for the purpose of visibility.

115

Figure 7.2.2: Most buildings and structures in the Tumacรกcori Inventory Unit are concentrated in the west-central nucleus of activity. Residences, utilitarian agricultural structures, and other features of this central area were constructed during the Mission Period of Significance, NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, and the modern ranch era.

116

Figure 7.2.3: Round houses “constructed of boughs” typical of the Pima were located at Tumacácori throughout, and perhaps before, the Mission Period of Significance (Haury 1976, as qtd. in Bronitsky and Merritt, 1988; Rensch 1934, p. 31).

117

Figure 7.2.4: In 1997 O’odham craftsmen built this Muuro-ki in the mission grounds from “mesquite timbers, ocotillo sticks, and mud”. It stands as a reminder of the O’odham and other Native American peoples who inhabited the village of Tumacácori. Though houses of “boughs” and “thatch,” as seen in figure 7.2.3, were more commonly built by the native residents of missions throughout the Pimería, native residents would sometimes build houses of adobe and thatched roofs, as depicted in this figure, “in order to please the fathers” (Bossler 2009; Damon et al 1998; Rensch 1934, p. 31).

118

Figure 7.2.5: Photo of buildings and structures taken during the NPS/New Deal Era Period of Significance, looking northwest.

From right to left: the adobe “caretaker’s house,” aka “storehouse,” aka “warehouse” with windmill and water tank, and the convento roof are no longer present. The Mission Period of Significance convento, the building in the center of the photo, was repurposed as a schoolhouse/residence during the early years of the NPS/New Deal Era Period of Significance. The church building, on the left, looks much the same today as in this photo (see figure 7.12.5 below, section “views and vistas,”; picture taken some time between 1935 and 1954; NPS Bourgeois photo file, unpublished.)

119

Figure 7.2.6: Buildings and structures constructed during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, and vegetation features present, can be seen in the top aerial photo, taken some time between 1937 and 1954. As evidenced by the 2007 aerial photo of the contemporary landscape of TNHP at bottom, some of these features have remained, others have been eliminated, and still others have appeared where none formerly existed. Features existent in the top picture that are no longer visible at bottom include, from right to left, (1) the original “parking place,” (2) multiple, dense shade trees between the convent and the museum, (3) the storehouse (aka Bourgeois residence; and (4) fields currently in the “naturalized agricultural fields”. New features, from right to left, include (5) field E, (6) horse ring, (7) trailer-home site, (8) stable barn, (9) the contemporary parking area, (10) canals/pipes separating fields A and B, (11) a mission patio area cleared of trees, (12) orchard trees within field G (aka mission orchard;) (13) park pump-house, and (14) features associated with the fiesta grounds (NPS, Aerial photo file, year unknown; NPS, Photo file (prints), year unknown).

120

3. CIRCULATION Pre-Period of Significance: As native peoples of the Tumacácori area began to establish permanent and semi-permanent communities, a network of trade trails took form. These trade routes connected inland villages with trading partners from both neighboring regions and more distant locales, including coastal settlements in northern Mexico.

Artifacts of this trade in shell and stone were found at the Baca Float and Paloparado archaeological sites on the edge of the alluvial hills to the east of the inventory unit. In order to connect these villages, a trail likely existed along the base of the bluffs, in the approximate location of the Highway 89/East Frontage Road. Other trails probably ran between the settlement sites above and the dry-farmed fields likely located below (see figure 7.10.1 in Spatial Organization). The trincheras settlements on Tumacácori peak to the west were also possibly connected to the villages below, though no archaeological evidence of these paths has been discovered.

These trails may have formed the basis of the exploratory routes taken by early Spanish expeditions, and may have been instrumental in revealing mountain passes and watering holes crucial to the explorers’ survival (Udall 1987, xvii). It is possible that Coronado’s expedition followed one such route northward along the San Pedro River Valley, an area that, at the time, was inhabited by the Sobaipuri, and had not yet been inhabited by migratory Apache (Udall 1987, 83, 84).

Mission Period of Significance: The routes that Father Kino, Father Salvatierra, and Captain Manje traveled through the greater Santa Cruz River Valley and its side drainages in the 1690s likely also followed Indian trade routes (see figure 7.10.3 in Spatial Organization). With greater Spanish exploration, shortcuts were discovered, and the regional circulation network expanded to connect the mission, military, and civilian settlements, that, for the most part, were located in the valleys (DiPeso 1956, 6-14).

On a local scale, circulation patterns during the Mission Period of Significance at Tumacácori can best be understood by looking at both routes to the Mission complex and within the Mission complex. As stated by historian John Kessell in Friars, Soldiers and Reformers, “socially and economically, Tubac and Tumacácori were in a sense one community (Kessell 1976a, 37).” In the Jesuit era of inhabitation during the 1760s, before the church of Santa Gertrudis de Tubac had been completed, Tubac residents commonly traveled to Tumacácori for baptisms, marriages, and burials, to gather animals of the mission herd, and to trade for excess Mission produce (Kessell 1976a, 37). This indicates that there were well-traveled trails between the two settlements.

Though no historic maps of the mission landscape at Tumacácori are available, an effective proxy for understanding the layout of the circulation features can be found by overlaying a 1766 historic survey map of Tubac by Joseph de Urrutia (figure 7.10.5 in Spatial Organization) on top of a contemporary aerial base of the presidial town. Urrutia produced remarkably accurate maps of approximately 22 presidios of New Spain, from 1766 to 1768, including those of the Fronteras and Janos presidios of the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua, respectively. Assuming the accuracy of the Tubac map, we can see that the Camino de Tumacacori and Camino de San Xavier de Bac emanated from the military compound. They were referred to as entradas, or entrances, to Tubac. Like the other presidios Urrutia drew, from the townsite, these roads paralleled the western edge of Tubac’s acequia madre, at times directly adjacent to it, and at times offset by a greater distance. Beyond the fields, the Camino de Tumacacori continued south along the edge of a riparian terrace of the Santa Cruz River, at the base of a slightly-elevated toeslope of the adjacent alluvial hills.

An additional source that is useful for understanding the position of the main valley roads comes from a map produced by Cynthia Radding for the 1997 book Wandering Peoples (see figure

121

7.10.4 in Spatial Organization). This map depicts the 1790 conditions of the mission of Bavispe and the mission/presidio of Bacerac, two communities from the Opata region of Sonora that shared a tightly-knit relationship similar to the one between Tumacácori and Tubac. The primary pathway connecting Bavispe and Bacerac is located upslope of the irrigable lands of the valley’s floodplain, with the offset distance between the acequia and the footpath varying from nothing to half a mile. Notably, this pathway is also shown to undulate in plan view, indicating that it likely curved according to the contour of the land (Radding 1997, 190-191).

Based upon the patterns observed in the maps of Tubac, Fronteras, Janos, Bavispe, and Bacerac, we can estimate the position of the Camino de Tumacacori as it approached the mission compound within the inventory unit (see figure 7.10.6 in Spatial Organization). According to these models, it can be assumed that the entradas at Tumacácori emanated from the compound; paralleled the acequia madre, sometimes directly adjacent to it, and other times farther away from it; and were located upslope of the irrigable lands. More specifically, by overlaying the 1766 map of Tubac and an approximation of Tumacácori’s acequia alignment and cultivated fields from a previous study (Horton 1998) onto a contemporary aerial photo base, we can approximately extrapolate the location of the Camino de Tumacácori (in brown-dashed line), extending it 2.5 miles off of the 1766 map to the south, until it reaches the mission compound.

Then, continuing south from the mission compound, the road or footpath could have taken two routes. It may have run on the west side of the acequia madre, reaching the headgate at Rock Corral Canyon, similar to what is seen in the contemporary town of Fronteras, Sonora, MX (see figure 7.12.2 in Views and Vistas). In this case, the road, or a spur of it, likely forded the river to the east side at some point within the next mile. On the other hand, the road may have split to the west through the fields and crossed the river before the headgate, as depicted at Tubac. In either case, this road would have allowed the farmers of Tumacácori to access a labor in the vicinity of the confluence of the Santa Cruz River with Josephine Canyon.

A finer-scale circulation feature can also be seen in the Urrutia maps. Almost all fields are depicted as being subdivided into a loose grid of roughly similar sized rectangles. These were likely the individual farm units, or basins. The fields within these farm units would have been separated from each other by raised earth bunds (embankments), which, in addition to serving as fine-scale irrigation controls, were used as seasonal pathways by farmers (see figures 7.5.1 and 7.5.3 in Constructed Water Features), (Kay 1986, 1, 30, 32, 34). For further explanation of the use of bunds as irrigation controls, see the Constructed Water Features section.

Within the convento, circulation patterns were relatively simple. Prior to its enclosure, residents probably formed well-worn pathways between the entrances to the primary buildings, which themselves faced outward towards the landscape. In later years, once the convento had been enclosed, this pattern was basically flipped, with the most highly traveled paths oriented towards the interior of the compound. Doorways faced inward towards the patio. To get from one room to an adjacent room, a resident likely just walked down a brick-lined walkway, shaded by the roof of an arcaded portico, or cut directly across the open patio (see figures 7.12.3 in Views and Vistas and 7.10.7 in Spatial Organization). The arches of the portico continued all the way around the patio, with the columns between them serving as the only obstacles of flow between any two points within the convento. Before the Jesuit church was removed, it too redirected traffic within the patio. It is unclear whether planted trees were additional obstructions to flow within the patio, as is shown in figure 7.12.3 in Views and Vistas. However, both before and after the removal of the Jesuit church, the enclosed, open courtyard, typical of those throughout New Spain, likely allowed for mission residents to easily cross it to get from one room to another if they were located on opposing sides of the square. Three openings existed from this convento. One, referred to as the porteria and located between the convento building and the Franciscan church, allowed a formal, domed passage in and out of the compound, “forming an entrance zaguan,” or entry hall, into the convento patio (Ivey 2007, 96). A second opening existed between the Franciscan church and the granary, allowing passage into the campo santo, which also contained a doorway to the outside of the compound in its southwest corner. A third opening was on the eastern side of the compound and opened into the mission orchard/garden. Finally, there were

122

two entrances into the church. The primary entrance to the church, on its south side, opened to a space outside of the compound, an area also known as the neophyte plaza. Another entrance to the sacristy of the church was located in the middle of the western side of the convento patio.

Between Periods of Significance: The 80 years between the periods of significance was a time of transition. Conflicts between the U.S. and Mexico, the factions of the American Civil War, and the U.S. Army and southern Arizonan Apaches resulted in the abandonment of much of the Santa Cruz River Valley. In addition, stage coaches and railroads arrived in the valley, and homesteads, ranches, and towns were established in new locations and forms. The combination of the population shift, the arrival of new modes of transportation, and the establishment of new settlements resulted in a regional reconfiguration of primary travel routes.

Homestead settlement first took hold in the Santa Cruz River Valley in the late 1870s (Mattison 1943, 16). Tumacácori, at this time, no longer held a position of local importance to the economy and culture of the society, and travel seemingly occurred on both sides of the valley. It is likely that regional traffic followed routes mainly located on the east bank of the Santa Cruz River, while local traffic followed routes on both sides of the river. The plat of Tumacácori and Calabazas land claim of 1880, prepared for land speculators, depicts a single road offset from the east bank of the Santa Cruz River, and no road on the west bank. This east-bank road, which was probably a dirt wagon road, begins at the confluence of Sonoita Creek with the Santa Cruz River, just northwest of Calabazas, and continues north past Tumacácori (see figure 7.10.8 in Spatial Organization). Two maps produced by the federal government in 1905 and 1906 similarly show this approximate alignment of the east-bank road, and no road on the west bank (Ingalls 1905; U.S. Department of Agriculture 1906). However, homestead proofs of the early 1900s provide evidence of a row of adobe houses clustered along an approximately north-south trending line slightly to the west of Tumacácori’s church (see figure 7.10.10 in Spatial Organization), (U.S. District Court of Arizona 1907-1908). It is possible that a road existed along this alignment of homes for local traffic, perhaps on a course corresponding to the earlier Camino de Tumacácori.

In 1910, Twin Buttes Railroad and the Tucson and Nogales Railroad Company completed a rail line between Calabazas and Tucson. The tracks were located within the flood plain to the east of the channel of the Santa Cruz River (Sheridan 2006, 131).

At some point during the establishment of the homesteads, Santa Gertrudis Lane formed on the south side of the Mendez Homestead property, running east to west on a quarter-section line of the Public Land Survey System (see figure 7.3.7). This lane likely served as a hauling road, connecting the Mendez farm and other homesteads to the larger, north-south running, east-bank road.

On a fine scale, degradation, naturalization, and re-use of both the mission compound and the mission fields likely resulted in the disappearance of small trails and paths from the Mission Period of Significance. Correspondingly, a newer network of trails and paths accommodating contemporary uses would have appeared.

NPS Rustic/New Deal Era Period of Significance: Following the 1925 passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act, the route of U.S. Highway 89 was delineated just to the west of the Monument, and, at some point during the early 1930s, paved in “oil or concrete” (Vyne 1936). By 1933, the comfort station and “parking place” had been constructed to receive visitors, though it is clear that the public had begun to visit the monument prior to this time. The “parking place” lay between the western adobe perimeter wall and the western walls of the museum and comfort station, and it was accessed from Highway 89 via a 90 degree turn, with entry from the road controlled by one or two wooden gates. The western adobe perimeter wall completely enclosed the parking lot, making it feel like an outdoor room. This outdoor enclosure served as the first “room” in a procession of visitor experiences that continued into the visitor center and out into the mission complex.

123

Once constructed, U.S. 89 served as the primary route between Tucson and Nogales, again refocusing valley travel onto the west side of the river, and allowing the Monument to gradually become more accessible to vehicles (Boundey, 1933; NRHP 1987, 7:3). In the early 1950s, a stretch of the highway next to the monument was widened, resulting in the installation of highway approach signs and alterations to the parking layout (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports). These alterations included an expansion in size, parking stripes set at right angles, the removal of an ornate entry gate, the creation of a large traffic island, and the removal of one of the sides of the enclosing perimeter wall (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports). These changes simplified the visitor approach, and changed the parking lot from being an enclosed, integrated feature of the park in which the visitor felt a sense of arrival, to an open parking area more akin to a road-side pull-off. In addition, the angle of vehicular approach was altered from a formal, perpendicular direction that framed the museum entrance to an informal tangential direction (see figures 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3, and 7.3.4).

Comparing a brochure map of the park from the middle 1930s to one produced in 1953, it can be seen that not only did the form of the parking area change within the period of significance, but internal pathways also expanded. These were incrementally created and improved between the years of 1929 and 1956, providing a network of trails and interpretive easels through which visitors could tour the features of the monument via staff-guided or self-guided tours, and allowing the safe travel of staff between the working buildings and their residences (see figures 7.3.1 and 7.3.3), (Jackson, 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, 1949, 1951, 1953-1956, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The design of pathways within the museum garden synthesized the typical formal mission garden of New Spain with a more asymmetrical, informal concept in which the visitor could casually amble and observe the plantings within. The result was a slightly symmetrical system of pathways responsive to the irregular forms of the surrounding buildings and structures (see figure 7.3.5).

Also, at some point during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, a foot bridge was built over the Santa Cruz River along Santa Gertrudis Lane, likely for traffic between the ranches of the area (see figure 7.3.6 and figure 7.2.1, Buildings and Structures). However, this feature was not associated with the monument.

Post Period of Significance: The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 eventually led to the design and completion of Interstate 19 between Tucson and Nogales throughout the 1970s. As a result, U.S. Highway 89 no longer carried the majority of traffic up and down the Santa Cruz Valley. It became a route chosen specifically for local travel, viewing scenery, and visiting the attractions of Tumacácori and Tubac.

In essence, the construction of I-19 lessened the importance of Highway 89 (now called the Eastern Frontage Road). However, increased traffic to the town of Tubac, which has become a center of tourism and arts, has probably increased visitation to Tumacácori. In general, the park has become more accessible, since the length of time to drive to it from nearby population centers has become much shorter than it was during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Within the monument itself, only minor changes to circulation patterns have occurred. The interpretive easel stands that once punctuated the self-guided trail have been replaced by simple, enumerated sandstone markers. Following an auto accident in 1964, the Highway Department installed improved stop signs at each end of the parking lot. Flooding of the Santa Cruz River in 1964-1965 washed out both the Tumacácori foot bridge along Santa Gertrudis Lane and the Carmen Bridge 3 miles downstream, once again limiting local traffic’s options for crossing the river (see figure 7.3.6), (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1965, Tumacácori monthly reports; Pimería Alta Historical Society 1967; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1967, a sign “Se Habla Español” was made for the front desk, signs were translated to bilingual

124

messages, and 2 additional large entrance door signs were designed (NPS, Tumacรกcori fact files 1967, Tumacรกcori monthly reports). Then, in 1969, a guide book depository was installed at the museum entrance (NPS, Tumacรกcori fact files 1969, Tumacรกcori monthly reports).

As the ranches of the inventory unit continued to be altered, ranch roads expanded within the ranch headquarters and around the fields. In particular, a working ranch road to the east of the fields on the first riparian terrace became more well-worn. As borders replaced basins as farm units in the ranch fields, circulation within the fields shifted from foot traffic along earthen bunds between basins to the passage of mechanized farm equipment on berms between borders (see figure 7.5.3 in Constructed Water Features).

Additionally, illegal immigrant traffic has increased along the Santa Cruz River, resulting in an ever-changing network of trails within the riparian area of the river (Binney 2010). These features have also been used by local tourists, and some were formally recognized as components of the Anza National Historic trail, though a definite path for this historic route has not been defined.

Summary In summary, the circulation patterns of the Mission Period of Significance retain low to moderate integrity. Regional pathways and pathways internal to the productive agricultural landscape are no longer evident, and have been replaced by highways, Santa Gertrudis Lane, and modern era ranch roads. Since the mission complex, and particularly the convento, has eroded, the enclosed, open circulation within it is no longer evident, and has mostly been replaced by trails created for visitor experience.

On the other hand, circulation patterns of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance within the original monument boundaries retain a moderately high level of integrity.

Both vehicular and pedestrian trails are still in much the same form as they were in 1959, though the removal of easel stands has slightly altered the character of this circulation network.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME Ranch Roads

CONTRIBUTION MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

Field Borders

MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

Parking Area

MP: NC ND: contributing

Museum Garden Paths

MP: NC ND: contributing

Visitor trails

MP: NC ND: contributing

Visitor Center/Museum Complex Access Road

MP: NC ND: contributing

Maintenance Rd through mission garden/orchard terrace MP: NC

125

ND: NC Anza National Historic Trail Network

MP: NC/compatible ND: NC

Immigrant trails

MP: NC ND: NC

Santa Gertrudis Lane

MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

Foot bridge

MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

126

Figure 7.3.1: This map from a visitor brochure circa mid-1930s, depicts simple, undefined internal circulation within the Mission/Park ground. In addition, it depicts the layout of buildings during the early NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. At this time, the museum garden had not yet been created. Features present here that were removed during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance include the Bourgeois house (labeled the Adobe Residence), a “cactus bed”, the original design of the “parking place” (1932, labeled “Parking Area”) within the western wall (1934-5), and the location of the adobe pit (WACC 2009).

127

Figure 7.3.2: This photo of the Tumacácori National Monument entrance, taken in 1940, depicts the enclosed nature of the original “parking place,” which was entered by taking a ninety degree turn from the highway (photo by George A. Grant, NPS, Fhoto files (prints)).

128

Figure 7.3.3: This map from a visitor brochure circa 1953 demonstrates the changes that occurred to circulation patterns during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

These included a rearranged parking area, traffic island, and western perimeter wall; and the addition of internal roads and trails between the museum, church, and superintendent’s residence. The “cactus bed” and a wing of the Bourgeois house (Adobe Building) are not depicted (WACC 2009).

129

Figure 7.3.4: This photo, taken in 2009, depicts the entrance to Tumacåcori National Historical Park since a major redesign of the parking area in 1952. The alterations in the 1950’s changed the vehicular approach to the monument from a hard turn into an enclosed area to a slight pull-off into an open area (Bossler and Gredig 2009).

130

Figure 7.3.5: The pathways of a typical mission garden in New Spain, such as at the Santa Barbara, CA mission at top left, were highly formalized, borrowing from European traditions of symmetry and order. Early conceptualizations of the museum garden at Tumacรกcori called for a more asymmetrical, informal form in which the visitor could casually amble and observe the plantings within. The final design of the museum garden synthesized tradition with concept to create a slightly symmetrical system of pathways responsive to the irregular forms of the surrounding buildings and structures (Colby 1999).

131

Figure 7.3.6: The Tumacácori foot bridge along Santa Gertrudis Lane across the Santa Cruz River channel was presumably built some time during the development of the Baca Float Ranch

by Tol Pendleton in the early 1930s. In 1964, a flood of the Santa Cruz River destroyed it, as depicted in the 1967 photo at top, looking southeast at the damage (Pimería Alta Historical Society 1967; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports). The bottom photo depicts this feature in 2010, just south of the southern boundary pipe fence, visible in the bottom corner of the photo, and Santa Gertrudis Lane, which is not clearly visible from this vantage point (Bossler and Gredig 2010). Since 1964, the riparian forest has become much thicker, likely as a result of increased flows from the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment plant.

132

Figure 7.3.7: Contemporary, informal circulation patterns within the Tumacรกcori Inventory Unit include trails and ranch roads. These are located within the riparian area of the second and first terraces of the Santa Cruz River, and between the recently abandoned fields of the Binney Ranch. As of 2010, these pathways are used by visitors seeking the Anza National Historic Trail, by illegal immigrants, and by park staff (Bossler and Gredig 2010).

133

Figure 7.3.7: Paved roads and unpaved roads and trails are found throughout the southern half of the inventory unit. These include highways, local roads, ranch roads, the Anza National Historic Trail, visitor trails of the mission/park grounds, and roads paralleling infrastructure.

134

4. CLUSTER ARRANGEMENT As discussed in section 7.2 (Buildings and Structures) above, the visible buildings and structures in the inventory unit of Tumacácori were constructed by three primary groups of people: the missionaries, the National Park Service and modern-era ranchers. Eight main cluster arrangements have been identified within the inventory unit (see Figure 7.4.1). These are the Mission Complex, the NPS Visitor Center and Museum Complex, the Fiesta Grounds, three clusters of features associated with the Strong and Binney Ranches, the Canto Ranch ruins, and a cluster of features in the triangular pasture of the Pendleton Ranch. The mission complex was constructed first, and though many of its features are visible above-ground and to the north of the NPS Visitor Center and Museum Complex, other, below-ground resources stretch through both the NPS Visitor Center and Museum Complex and the ranch headquarters of the Strong/Binney Ranch. Both the NPS Visitor Center and Museum Complex and the major features of the Strong/Binney Ranch, Canto Ranch, and the triangular pasture of the Pendleton Ranch were built concurrently, but in completely different styles and for independent purposes. In general, ranchera features are dispersed across the productive landscape, separated by major natural features (e.g. the Santa Cruz River) and agricultural fields.

Beyond cluster arrangements located within the inventory unit, it is also useful to consider the regional cluster arrangement of Pimería Alta frontier missions. Tumacácori’s relationship to other missions in this regional-scale cluster arrangement can be seen in figure 7.4.2 and figure 7.10.8, in Spatial Organization.

Both the inventory-unit-scale and regional-scale cluster arrangements are further described below in terms of their form and contribution to the integrity of the two periods of significance.

Pre-Period of Significance: Prehistoric-1753 Along the upper and middle Santa Cruz River, a series of loosely affiliated missions, including cabeceras (head churches with a resident father,) and visitas (frequently visited satellite mission without a resident father) were established by the Jesuits in the late 1600s and early 1700s, reducing Sobaipuri and Pima rancherias, or seasonally-occupied villages which spanned across valleys, into pueblos, or sedentary agricultural towns (figure 7.4.2). As Jesuit, and later, Franciscan, fathers inhabited these cabeceras, they also took on ecclesiastic and productive management responsibilities for nearby visitas. Tumacácori, along with Calabazas and Guevavi, formed a mission district in the Pimería Alta under the management of a single father during both Jesuit and Franciscan eras of control (see figure 7.4.2).

Mission Period of Significance: 1753-1848 Under Jesuit control, Guevavi served as the cabecera, or main governing church, of its mission district, while Tumacácori and Calabazas were its visitas. In 1773, following the transfer of power to the Franciscans, Tumacácori replaced Guevavi as the cabecera of the mission district. For the remainder of the Franciscan’s era of control of the mission district, their grasp on the Santa Cruz River Valley was tenuous, as “neither at the mission or at the visita do they have enough land under irrigation for their combined support…the constant hostility of the Apaches prevents it.”

(Jackson 1973, 32; Sheridan 2006, 75; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file).

As such, between 1775 and 1830, Guevavi and Calabazas were abandoned, and their inhabitants came to congregate at Tumacácori.

Neighboring missions further up or down the Santa Cruz River, such as San Xavier del Bac and Santa Maria, were inhabited by different peoples and administered by different friars, and so, during the Mission Period of Significance, they were not considered part of the Tumacácori cluster. The towns of Sonoita and Arivaca, in tributary drainages of the Santa Cruz River, also contained short-lived visitas loosely associated with the Tumacácori cluster during the time of Jesuit control. Notably, following Tumacácori’s abandonment, its residents congregated at the mission of San Xavier del Bac (Moss, unpublished).

135

The presidio of Tubac, located just a couple of miles north of Tumacácori, provided military defense to all missions along the Santa Cruz River. While it was operated independently from the mission district as a secular, civilian and military town, it is inextricably linked to the mission district by virtue of its defensive oversight and its frequent trade with the missions. In summary, while the mission at the Tumacácori inventory unit was connected to many other religious, civilian, and military settlements of the Pimería Alta, the operational unit and religious cluster of the Tumacácori mission district was restricted to the sites of Tumacácori, Guevavi, and Calabazas.

The above and below-ground features of the mission complex were built in the style of an enclosed or fortified compound that can be considered a single cluster arrangement. Because of the constant threat of Apache attack, and perhaps also to create a more tight-knit community, these built features were located directly adjacent to the irrigated agricultural fields and the acequia madre, the main irrigation channel and “engine” of the mission. In general, the most essential residences, workshops, and religious structures of the mission were located inside of the walled compound, while features of lesser significance, such as the neophyte room block, and some hazardous features of industrial production, including the adobe and lime kilns, were located outside of the compound. Roads and paths, including the Camino de Tumacácori that connected to Tubac, likely extended to the north and south from this central cluster. In general, the siting and organization of cluster arrangements during the Mission Period of Significance was dependent upon the natural constraints of the valley and architectural recommendations gleaned from the Laws of the Indies.

Between Periods of Significance: 1848-1930 From the late 1890s through the early 1900s, several homesteads arose within the inventory unit.

These homesteads were evenly distributed throughout the landscape and arranged in a grid pattern, as specified by the Public Land Survey System (see figure 7.10.10, in Spatial Organization). Because of their uniform distribution, they are not considered a cluster arrangement. That being said, the location of some of these homesteads set the stage for future cluster arrangements in the ranching era. As homesteads failed or thrived, their overall distribution across the landscape became more heterogeneous. Within the inventory unit, three former homestead sites were expanded, modified, and/or adapted into modern ranches, resulting in residential clusters depicted in purples and blues in Figure 7.4.1. Although features from the homesteading era have been obscured by subsequent development, features of the modern-era ranches will be discussed in greater detail in the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance section, and the Spatial Organization Landscape Characteristic section, below.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: 1930-1959 The park developments of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance are largely concentrated in an area just south of the mission complex. However, there is a slight overlap with the mission complex cluster arrangement, which has resulted in light diminishment of the cluster arrangement of some archaeological features (neophyte room block and adobe kiln) of the mission complex (see figure 7.4.1). At a finer scale, the visitor center/mission complex can be thought of as a nucleus of visitor-oriented buildings and a nucleus of staff residences (see figure 7.4.3) Portions of three ranches that were extant during this period are still visible upon the landscape.

The cluster arrangement of the Upper S Bar S Ranch, also known as the Strong, Mission, or Binney Ranch, is defined by three primary groups. The first, the ranch headquarters, is located just south of the NPS Visitor Center and Museum complex, and slightly overlaps a small portion of the mission complex cluster. This group contains a concentration of ranch residences, a stable, and various accessory structures. Another group of features lies to the east of the ranch fields and contains buildings, structures, and multiple constructed water features. The third group contains the remains of a ranch hand residence. Ruins of the Canto Ranch—destroyed by a

136

series of floods in the 1970s, demolished into fragments, and distributed along the river bank to serve as a headwall—are clustered along the south end of the eastern edge of the inventory unit.

Finally, a single pasture from the Pendleton Ranch that contains a cluster of vegetative and ranching features can be found on a northern portion of the second riparian terrace on the west bank of the river.

Post-Period of Significance: 1959-Present Portions of the afore-mentioned ranches were also developed during this time, and cumulatively, the existence of these ranching clusters slightly diminishes the cluster arrangement of the Mission Period of Significance, in that they can be mistaken for portions of the Mission Period landscape.

An additional cluster of modern features called the Fiesta Grounds began to take form as the park began to hold the annual TumacĂĄcori Fiesta just north of the mission complex. This heavilytrafficked cluster includes electrical outlets, spigots, seat posts, ramadas, and a maintenance storage yard for materials, features that are foreign to the Mission Period of Significance. As such, it diminishes the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME Mission Complex

CONTRIBUTION

MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible NPS Visitor Center and Museum Complex MP: NC ND: contributing Fiesta Grounds MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Strong/Binney Ranch clusters MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Canto Ranch Ruins MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Triangular Pasture (Pendleton Ranch) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

137

Figure 7.4.1: The TumacĂĄcori inventory unit contains clusters of features from three influences: Spanish colonization, National Park Service developments, and the establishment of ranches.

The Mission Complex, in yellow, was built during the Mission Period of Significance, and is concentrated along the eastern boundary. The National Park Service created two clusters, depicted in red: the historic NPS Visitor Center and Museum Complex, and the Fiesta Grounds.

The Visitor Center and Museum Complex, built during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, slightly overlaps a portion of the Mission Complex, and thus alters the Mission Complex’s integrity. The Fiesta Grounds were built at a later time, and are thus not historically significant. Though they only slightly overlap the Mission Complex, their adjacency perhaps diminishes the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance. The third category of cluster arrangements is comprised of ranching features, depicted in purples and blues. The Strong/Binney, Canto, and Pendleton ranches were mostly built during the 20th century, and, merely by their presence upon the greater landscape, slightly diminish the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance.

138

Figure 7.4.2: TumacĂĄcori, Guevavi, and Calabazas were administered jointly and are considered a mission district, (a cluster within the greater PimerĂ­a Alta landscape,) due to their proximity and the overlap of their neophyte populations. This district was militarily protected by the nearby presidio of Tubac (Moss unpublished).

139

Figure 7.4.3: The base map of this graphic depicts the “master development plan� of the park developed in 1938, as the major construction of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance was coming to a close. The visitor-oriented buildings are clustered in the southwest corner of the park and are circled in dark orange. They were laid out to connect to the mission compound and appear as an extension of it. The staff-oriented buildings, encircled by a rosecolored oval, are clustered in the southeast corner, and were designed to be mostly out of the way of the visitor experience. The third cluster, encircled in yellow and located to the north of the staff-oriented buildings and the museum complex, consists of features dating back to the Mission Period of Significance. Finally, in addition to highlighting these cluster arrangements, this graphic depicts the spatial organization of the clusters relative to Highway 89, on-site topography, vegetation, and natural features (Colby 1999, 98).

140

5. CONSTRUCTED WATER FEATURES Constructed water features at the Tumacácori inventory unit can best be understood by focusing upon the source of water and the methods by which it was extracted, transported, applied and infiltrated into the soil via irrigation systems. In general, water sources are greatly influenced by changes to natural systems and features (lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere) resulting from adjacent land use (surface water flow diversion, groundwater extraction, surface development,) and climate change. Extraction, transportation, application, and infiltration methods depend on environmental parameters and the dominant culture’s technology and knowledge of natural systems. The result is the construction of water systems unique to a particular locale, culture, and era. This section will therefore briefly refer to changes in hydrological systems and land use patterns described in detail in sections 7.8 and 7.7, respectively, and illustrate the technological changes that have occurred over the time in which the inventory unit has been inhabited.

In order to fully describe these irrigation systems, the form of farm fields and their location have been described in this section. In brief, fields are essentially complexes of plow-constructed, water-retaining basins in one form or another: subdivided into farm units that are each surrounded by embankments in order to detain water until it infiltrates into the flat growing medium. Further descriptions of the plants growing within these water infiltration areas are included in section 7.7, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation, and specific descriptions of the usage of and production yielded from them is described in section 7.8, Land Use. Much of the evidence for the location of constructed water features at Tumacácori comes from historic descriptions of irrigation practices; the Beaubien archaeological excavation of 1934; historic (modern-era) photos of the location of irrigated fields; homestead proof descriptions of improvements; remaining above-ground wells, ditches, and pipes; and the testimony of the most recent rancher, George Binney. Combining these pieces of evidence with what is known about irrigation and water use technology during different eras of inhabitation and agriculture, an understanding of constructed water features remaining on the inventory unit becomes clear.

Pre Period of Significance: While there is evidence of habitation by Hohokam peoples, a culture associated with canal irrigation at other Arizona sites, it is not thought that this technology was used in the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley near the inventory unit. Rather, an assortment of dry-farming techniques, with the use of structures such as check dams, was possibly used to retain water in small fields where various wild plants were grown. Among the most important wild crops were those of the Compositae family, whose seeds were ground for food (Doyel 1977). It is unknown to what extent the lands within the inventory unit were farmed in this way.

Period of Significance: Mission: In order to grow staple crops to support the mission and pueblo, irrigated agricultural fields were cultivated on the second riparian terrace of the Santa Cruz River, below the mission compound (see figure 7.8.1, 7.8.3 and 7.8.6 in Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation). The irrigation system used during this time was composed of a network of farm units called basins. This basin irrigation system was depicted in plan view by the 1766-1768 Pimería Alta presidio drawings of Urrutia (as seen in figure 7.10.5, Spatial Organization), and was presumably the form of agricultural layout also used at Tumacácori. Basin irrigation is still common throughout the world in communities in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Mexico today (see figure 7.5.1 and 7.5.3 in Constructed Water Features, and 7.12.2, Views and Vistas), (Kay 1986, 1, 30, 32, 34). In this form of irrigation, bunds, or earthen embankments, divide individual basins, allowing for a fine level of controlled irrigation of annual crops. They are most often temporarily created each season, and serve an additional function as pathways for farmers.

141

At Tumacácori, a portion of the above-ground flow of the Santa Cruz River was diverted at the confluence of Rock Corral canyon to the south of the mission, likely via the construction of a presa or brush weir (see figure 7.11.1, Topography), (Rivera and Glick unpublished, 7). From here, earthen acequias, or canals, conveyed these waters north. A system of check dams and/or weirs would have regulated water levels within the acequia (see figure 7.5.1 and 7.5.2). Canal water was then diverted into basins of the mission’s orchard/garden and other fields via breaches in the banks of the canal and/or wooden outlet gates. Basins were roughly square in shape, with two side perpendicular to the course of the nearest acequia. They were either directly adjacent to the acequias or offset by a distance equivalent to the width of two to five basins, suggesting that water was likely distributed from the acequia to each unit via feeder/farm channels with headgates perpendicular to the flow of the acequias (Urrutia 1766, 1767). Bunds, or earthen berms, that surrounded these basins and served as internal pathways for farmers could themselves be breached to allow for the passage of water between upslope basins to downslope basins. From the last, downslope basin of this series, water would usually pass into a drainage canal, or desague (see figures 7.5.1 and 7.5.3; Rivera and Glick unpublished, 5).

The precise location of the acequia madre, or main canal; possible lateral and drainage canals; and the fields that they irrigated is unclear, as the land in which they were located has been cultivated and re-graded by later periods of inhabitation and farming. However, park staff recently located one structural part of this canal, the compuerta (aka “lavandaria,”) between the mission patio, or courtyard, and current remnants of the mission orchard/garden. The compuerta provides a center point from which the spatial organization of the irrigated productive landscape can be inferred (see figures 7.5.2, 7.5.5; figure 7.1.1, Archaeology). The compuerta’s shape, which includes both a raise in the bottom level of the channel and a constriction of its width, suggests that it was used as a broad-crested weir and/or flume, slowing and raising the level of the water in the canal upstream for diversion into adjacent laterals and fields. It was also possibly used as a wash basin and a source of drinking water for the mission, hence the name lavandaria.

Furthermore, the missionaries may have measured the level of water behind the compuerta to gauge the volumetric discharge of the acequia madre, and subsequently estimate to a fairly high degree of accuracy the quantity of water that was being applied to the fields (see figure 7.5.2), (Hornsberger et al., 1998, chapter 4; USBR 2001, chapters 7, 8).

To the west and northwest of the compuerta lies a small terrace that is significantly lower than the convento patio further to the west. The proximate location of the compuerta to both this terrace and the historic orchard wall (as seen in 1936 aerial photo, figure 7.8.7, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation, figure 7.11.3, Topography, and figure 7.1.1, Archaeology) suggests that water was diverted immediately upstream of the compuerta through outlet gates to both the east and west and that, further, the lands contained within the orchard walls were the primary fields of the mission. Individual planting beds within the orchard/garden, in order to conserve water, were likely sunken, rather than raised like those in traditional monastic kitchen and medicinal gardens of Europe (Horton 1998, 34).

The extent of fields within the inventory unit during the Mission Period of Significance becomes less clear as one moves away from the compuerta and mission compound. Records indicate that four of the five labores, or communal mission fields, and numerous milpas, or private individual plots, were located on the west side of the river, presumably upstream and downstream of the compuerta along the acequia madre. An approximation of the location of these fields based upon the Opata mission complex of Bacerac-Bavispe (see figure 7.10.4, Spatial Organization,) an 1853 drawing of Tumacácori (see figure 7.10.9, Spatial Organization,) an 1860 report of the Santa Rita Mining Company regarding the Mission, and an aerial photo of the inventory unit from 1936 (see figure 7.8.7, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation), extends from the southeast to the northeast of the Mission compound, covering approximately 40 acres of land, and is depicted in figure 7.10.6, Spatial Organization (Horton 1998, 20, 40, 42).

Constructed water features for residential and commercial use were also built within the mission compound. During the 1820s, two shallow cisterns were dug to the south of the church to hold

142

water that was likely transported in ollas, or earthern jars, from the compuerta. A burned-brick drain leads away from these cisterns to a place underneath the buildings in the southwest corner of the mission patio. Lastly, a sinkhole discovered in 1994 next to the cisterns has been suggested to be the remains of a deep well, indicating that groundwater may have been extracted next to its site of use (Damon et al. 1998; Moss unpublished, 7).

Between Periods of Significance: During the era following the abandonment of the Mission, it is likely that many of the structures described above fell into disrepair and accumulated sediment. However, as late as 1934, peach trees in the orchard were still producing fruit, indicating that the original acequia alignment, which had possibly been maintained or altered by prior homesteaders, conveyed water above ground until this time. It is unknown whether the homesteaders used basins or borders as farm units.

Homestead proofs suggest that Carmen Mendez constructed a well and additional ditches during his time of inhabitation (U.S. General Land Office, 1908). Deep wells, or cylindrical bores deep into the earth, were used by Mendez and the early homesteaders of the inventory unit during the late 1870s-1910s. Many were likely motorized by the action of windmills, and adjacent tanks stored the water, which was used primarily for domestic purposes (Logan 2002, 128-129).

In 1891, steam-powered pumps began to be used to extract groundwater for agricultural purposes in the Tucson basin, though it was not until 1930 that groundwater pumping replaced surface flow as the primary source of irrigation water at Tumacácori and Tubac (Logan 2002, 142, 161). As pumping increased, the groundwater table lowered, requiring the re-boring of wells to greater depths (see figure 7.5.6).

Finally, in 1924, Frank ‘Boss’ Pinkley reconstructed the two Mission Period of Significance cisterns, which had previously been majorly eroded (Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 2006c).

Thus, in summary, the integrity of Mission Period of Significance constructed water features was only minimally impacted between periods of significance.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: Within the museum and visitor center complex, the most significant constructed water feature was the museum garden fountain (see figure 7.12.6 in Views and Vistas). This raised feature was modeled after similar orthogonal fountains of Persian/Moorish “paradise gardens,” and is the centerpiece of the museum garden (see figure 7.3.5 in Circulation), (Colby 1999, 4). It contains a central fountain surrounded by a square pool of water that trickles into four small drains at the pool’s corners. Water then flows across the pathway that surrounds the pool and into the garden.

In the early 1950s, after two women lost their footing on one of these drains, they were redesigned, presumably to reduce the risk of a fall (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

The modern-era ranches of the inventory unit dramatically overhauled the agricultural system.

Enclosed groundwater wells were bored deeper to extract increasing capacities of water (see figure 7.5.6), (Bossler and Gredig 2009; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports). At some point in time, wells were constructed on the first riparian terrace (wells # 3 and 4), some sort of system that pumped water up-slope onto the second riparian terrace was installed, and some significant re-grading resulted in a drainage pattern flowing away from the river channel. Other wells, such as well #1, were located within the second riparian terrace. The water they extracted was diverted into concrete-lined canals and then applied to fields that could be located in areas further upslope than was previously possible (fields D and E; see figures 7.5.4 and 7.5.7). The primary canal of the secondary terrace was located to the east of the fields.

Check-dams/hydraulic gates made of wood and steel were used to regulate the flow of water in these canals and to divert water into the farm units of the fields. Siphon tubes were also used to

143

apply water from these canals to the farm units, which were in the form of borders (see figures 7.5.3, 7.5.7 and 7.5.8).

In addition, the ranch to the south of the mission developed a headquarters that contained multiple constructed water features for residential, recreational, and agricultural uses. These included a decorative well (well #6,) and a residential well (well #7,) a cattle tank (cattle tank #3; see figure 7.5.5), and another residential well that supplied water to a ranch-hand residence on the northeast corner of field A (well #2, see figure 7.5.4).

This increased use of groundwater had the cumulative effect of significantly lowering the groundwater table significantly in the early part of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. This, in turn, lowered the level of the river, and resulted in the drying up of the historic acequia. Most of the historic acequia was subsequently plowed under during a series of agricultural expansions after 1936.

In summary, during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, the most significant constructed water feature built within the museum and visitor center complex was the museum garden fountain. Other constructed water features built during this time, including the ranches’ wells, concrete-lined canals, and border farm units, either had a neutral effect or diminished the integrity of water features from the Mission Period of Significance. Outside of the monument at this time, the vestiges of diversionary agriculture from the Mission Period of Significance were largely erased.

Post Period of Significance: Observing the trend of the groundwater table within recent years, the park installed a well within the mission garden/orchard around 1960, and improved it and enclosed it with a pumphouse in 1968 (ADWR 2010; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS 1975, 27). Due to its location on a raised earthen mound, this feature diminishes the relationship between the compuerta, and the adjacent lands of the mission orchard/garden that were irrigated by the acequia (see figure 7.5.5).

Minor changes to constructed water features conducted by the park have had minimal impacts to integrity. At various times, the fountain pool was filled with native Santa Cruz River fish, exotic tropical fish, and/or aquatic plants. Presently, it contains none, and therefore retains full integrity (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1966, 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports). Small-scale water features constructed by the park during this time include water spigots and fire hydrants located in the fiesta grounds, museum and visitor center complex, and parking lot.

Within the agricultural landscape, the above-ground, gravity-fed system of concrete canals was replaced by a system of pressurized pipes in the 1980s and 1990s. Wells #3 and #4 were upgraded with diesel backup generators, and a pressure release tower was constructed as a part of the pipeline (see figures 7.5.4, 7.5.9, and 7.5.10). In addition, re-grading of the existing fields was undertaken, aided by laser technology and the assistance of government agencies, and an orchard (field F) was created from the western portion of fields D and E. To the east of field B, a cattle tank (#3) was constructed within the castration pen, and a scientific well (well #5) was constructed by University of Arizona scientists. For a short period of time, the remainder of the mission orchard/garden, field G, was used as a storage pond for irrigation waters (see figures 7.5.4, 7.5.5, 7.5.9, 7.5.10; Binney 2010). At this point in time, on the riparian terraces east of the river channel, ranchers established a triangular pasture (field H) was and an associated cattle tank (#1). Additionally, at the north end of the inventory unit’s western boundary, and to the east of a newly constructed line of homes, a large drainage ditch was built (see figure 7.5.4).

Subsequently, after the park acquired the ranchlands, all of these features slowly naturalized and/or deteriorated.

Additional constructed water features of a recreational nature were also added to the ranch headquarters, including a small pond for domestic waterfowl pets, a swimming pool, and a horse

144

ring irrigated by a sprinkler system (see figure 7.5.5). The swimming pool has since been removed, and the rest of these features diminish the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance.

Sometime following major floods in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, flood protection measures were taken. To the east of the inventory unit, the remains of the Canto Ranch, which had been destroyed by the flooding, were bulldozed to the edge of the second riparian terrace. This demolition was seemingly reassembled into two headwalls to prevent further flood damage (see figures 7.5.4 and 7.5.11).

Finally, in 2007, the remaining portion of the mission orchard/garden (field G) was planted with fruit trees typical of the Mission Period of Significance, and arranged in a rectangular grid, with irrigation by drip.

In summary, by 1960, with the exception of the compuerta and cisterns, constructed water features from the Mission Period of Significance’s agricultural system had been completely compromised. They were even further obliterated by the agricultural practices of late modern era ranchers. The effect of this change is that the current landscape communicates recent ranch abandonment and implies that the land was more agriculturally productive during the Mission Period of Significance than it actually was. It also fails to demonstrate the technological constraints of above-ground water diversion, and gravity-driven canals and irrigation structures used during the Mission Period of Significance.

On the other hand, the restored mission orchard/garden, and its downslope location in relation to the acequia, does represent the agricultural form present during the Mission Period of Significance, though the lack of understory plantings, the regular grid layout of the trees, and drip irrigation system stray from this form. In addition, portions of the modern alignment of concrete drainage canals roughly follow the course of the Mission Period of Significance acequia.

Although the materials in the restored mission orchard/garden and in the modern drainage canals differ from their historic precedents, the similar alignment of their water-conveying features allows the visitor to get a sense of the historic location of the acequia system. The visitor can additionally observe the surrounding topography and infer the general relationship between the ground plane, the historic acequia, and the mission fields.

Finally, within the mission compound and visitor center and museum complex, the integrity of town-site constructed water features from the Mission Period of Significance, and interpretive constructed water features from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance have remained unchanged.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing

FEATURE NAME Drainage ditch Field H Cattle tank (#1) Cobble headwall

CONTRIBUTION MP: NC ND: NC/compatible MP: NC ND: NC/compatible MP: NC ND: NC/compatible MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

145

Well (#1)

MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Modern irrigation canal (mound, partially exposed) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Well (#2) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Field A MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Canto Ranch ruins/headwall MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Field C MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Modern irrigation canal/pipeline MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Field B MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Field E MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Field F MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Field D MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Cattle tank (#2) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Well (#3) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Pressure Release Tower MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Well (#4) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Well (#5) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Field G MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Park pumphouse MP: NC ND: NC Compuerta (aka lavandaria, aka historic acequia) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Cisterns MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Horse ring MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Cattle tank (#3) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Well (#6) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Well (#7) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Small pond MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Field border layout MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Metal checkdams MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

146

Alfalfa valves Water spigots and hoses Fire hydrants

MP: NC ND: NC MP: NC ND: NC/compatible MP: NC ND: contributing

147

Figure 7.5.1: During the Mission Period of Significance and homestead era, surface water from the channel of the Santa Cruz River was simply diverted into earthen acequias, or canals, which carried water towards the fields. A system of simple wooden check dams and/or weirs was used to maintain water depth in these canals. Water was diverted into flat basins, the form of farm unit used at the time, by opening holes in the channel banks or via simple wooden outlet gates.

Water flowed downhill from one basin to the next, likely through holes opened in the bunds, or earthen berms, that surrounded the basins. A drainage canal, or desague, was likely located at the bottom of this series of basins to carry away excess waters during storm events (images modified from Kay 1986, 12, 36, 99).

148

Figure 7.5.2: Within the historic mission garden/orchard, the compuerta of the historic acequia served as a weir that consistently raised the depth of upstream water within the canal for diversion into the fields (Moss 2010; NPS, Photo file (digital)). It was made of fired adobe bricks set in a mortar-like material called the cacho pesto finish, a mixture of hydraulic lime plaster and crushed brick (Moss 2006, 19-20). The volumetric discharge rate (Q, e.g. gallons/minute) through the canal can be determined as a function of the height of the weir (hweir,) or the distance between the top of the weir step and the water level directly above it, though it is unknown whether this knowledge was available to the missionaries (Hornberger et al 1998, 83-84; USBR 2001, chapters 2, 7, 8).

149

Figure 7.5.3: During the Mission Period of Significance, farm units took the form of rectangular infiltration basins that contained and infiltrated water for the growth of crops, as seen in the image at top. Individual basins were surrounded by bunds, or raised-earth berms that held water within the basin and also served as walking pathways for farmers. Breaches of these bunds allowed the passage of water across each basin and from one basin to the next downslope, an action that was aided by furrows located just inside the bunds. In the modern ranch era at Tumacรกcori, farm units were arranged as long rectangular borders, as seen in the bottom, contemporary image of Tumacรกcori. In this arrangement, water is spread across the whole length of the border, and separated from adjacent borders by earthern berms similar in shape to bunds. In contrast to basin irrigation, border irrigation system waters do not pass between individual farm units, but rather pass immediately from each border into the drainage canals. The integrity of the basin form of irrigation used in the Mission Period of Significance is thus low, having been replaced by border irrigation (images modified from: Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010; Kay 1986)

150

Figure 7.5.4: Constructed water features from the modern ranch era are visible across the inventory unit. These include elements of groundwater extraction (pumps,) distribution (canals and pipes,) application (numerous valves, not depicted,) and infiltration (fields, depicted in figures 7.8.6 and 7.8.7, in Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation). In contrast, constructed water features remaining from the Mission Period of Significance are clustered around the mission compound within the dashed box. The location of these features can be seen in greater detail in figure 7.5.5.

151

Figure 7.5.5: Only two constructed water features from the Mission Period of Significance are still visible in the inventory unit, and both (the compuerta and the cisterns) are located within the mission compound. Multiple constructed water features from the modern ranch era including devices of extraction (pumps,) recreation (pond and pool,) and infiltration (fields and horse ring) are clustered around the ranch headquarters.

152

Figure 7.5.6: During the Mission Period of Significance, groundwater was possibly acquired via a deep well to the southeast of the Franciscan church for domestic and industrial use, as seen at left. Deep wells were also used by the early homesteaders of the inventory unit during the late 1800s, and windmills began to be used to motorize their action, though the use of this water was primarily domestic. In the early 1930s, electric and diesel-motor pumping of groundwater wells began to be practiced both within the monument for construction and domestic use, and at the adjacent modern ranches for both domestic and agricultural use (Logan 2002, 129, 142, 161, 163, 217). Over the next 20 years, wells were, by necessity, periodically bored deeper to reach the receding water table, and their capacity increased, as seen at center (Bossler and Gredig 2009; NPS, Tumacรกcori fact files 1938, 1949, Tumacรกcori monthly reports). By 1951, the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant began to positively recharge the aquifer, though it was not until the 1960s-1980s that irrigation use tailed off after a series of floods destroyed local farms, and recharge exceeded use, raising the water table and reducing the need to drill deeper (Nelson 2007, 97-103).

153

Figure 7.5.7: Likely beginning in the early modern ranch era, earthen canals were replaced by concrete canals, and rectangular basin farm units were replaced by longer rectangular border farm units. During this time, water sources likely included both water diverted from the Santa Cruz River channel, as during the Mission Period of Significance, and groundwater extracted from the aquifer by steam- or windmill-driven pumps. From the concrete canals, water was applied to borders, possibly, in early times, through the use of metal gates, and, in later times, through the use of small sections of plastic pipe that siphoned water from the canals (Binney 2010; Kay 1986, 12, 44, 98).

154

Figure 7.5.8: Remnants of the system of open-air concrete canal irrigation employed during the early modern ranch era, as described in figure 7.5.7 above, can be found on the periphery of the Binney Ranch fields and in the naturalized agricultural fields to the north of the mission compound. These include, clockwise from upper right, the remains of a motorized well, a concrete flow distribution box (aka compuerta or diversion gate,) a concrete pathway and metal culvert along a concrete canal, and a metal check dam within a concrete canal (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010).

155

Figure 7.5.9: The most recent form of irrigation used in the fields of the Binney Ranch distributed irrigation waters via pressurized pipes, regardless of the direction of gravity flows. This arrangement employs motorized pumps to both extract groundwater and to pressurize the underground mainline and lateral pipes. In order to allow for the passage of air into and out of the pipes, one or more vents are located along these lines. These vents take the form of opentopped tubes and generally stand well above the surface of the ground to allow for the rise of water into them when the pipe system is filled with water in operation. Application of waters to the fields occurs through portable gated pipes that are connected to the outlets of the underground lateral pipes with a hydrant. This allows for controlled flow into rectangular farm units, or borders, within the fields. A common form of pipe outlet that was used at the Binney Ranch is the alfalfa valve, which sits on top of a riser pipe from the lateral and contains steel discs that can be opened by cranking a screw shaft attached to it (Binney 2010; Kay 1986, 105110).

156

Figure 7.5.10: Remnants of the late modern ranch era irrigation scheme employed at the Binney Ranch, and described in figure 7.5.9 above, can be found throughout the fields of the Binney Ranch. These include, clockwise from top right, electric/diesel operated pumps, metal pipe, a concrete vent, and alfalfa valves within the borders of the fields.

157

Figure 7.5.11: The Canto Ranch, seen above in an oblique aerial photo from 1936, was perched on the edge of the second riparian terrace during a time in which the width of the riverine system was very constricted (Moss 2006, 14). Floods of the 1960, 1970s, and 1980s destroyed this ranch compound, and the remains of it were seemingly bulldozed into a flood headwall, bolstering the bank against further flood damage.

158

6. CULTURAL TRADITIONS The Tumacácori inventory unit has been inhabited by many different cultures throughout its history: Native Americans, Hispanics, and Euro-Americans. As described in the other landscape characteristic sections, these peoples each had distinctive architectural, agricultural, and religious practices and materials. Today, some of these traditions are evident in the physical resources of the monument, while others are actively practiced at monument in annual and daily events. Still others are described in the historic record and interpreted for the visitor, but are no longer in practice.

Pre-Mission Period of Significance: Hohokam & Sobaipuri Architecture Prior to the establishment of the mission village of San Jose de Tumacácori, several small inhabitation sites of the Hohokam and Sobaipuri were built within the inventory unit and in other areas nearby. The first buildings erected for Father Kino at the village of San Cayetano de Tumagacori on the opposite bank of the Santa Cruz River, and subsequent detached Indian dwellings of the mission pueblo, used easily-available organic materials historically used by Indian peoples of the area, including mesquite timbers, ocotillo branches, grasses and mud (see figure 7.2.3, Buildings and Structures, and figure 7.10.2, Spatial Organization).

Hohokam & Sobaipuri Sustenance Practices Prior to the establishment of the mission, rancherias, or seasonal agricultural villages of the Hohokam, and later, the Sobaipuri and/or Pima and Papago, existed within the valley (Spicer 1962, 12, 119). Traditional dry-land agricultural practices likely included using check dams and berms to direct floodwaters to catchment basins on the riparian terraces, cultivating native plants (amaranth, chenopods, various plants of the Compositae family) in the basins, and grinding the harvest into gruel with simple hand tools (Nabham 1982, 5). In addition, hunting and gathering was practiced. Mesquite pods were collected and ground into a protein-rich powder, the fruits of various cacti and succulent were harvested from the alluvial hills, and game was hunted from the valley (Spicer 1962, 13). While some have suggested that the traditional staples of pre-contact Native American agricultural societies (corn, beans, and squash) were harvested at Tumacácori in irrigated fields, there is no evidence within the Upper Santa Cruz Valley to suggest that this was the case.

Hohokam & Sobaipuri Politics Politically, these communities were independent and self-sufficient. While some degree of trade occurred between communities in the valley and beyond, economic specialization did not occur. Although neighboring villages sharing similar languages sometimes banded together during wartime, there was no state, military, or administrative control of one community by another. It was precisely this lack of organization that made the Native Americans of the Santa Cruz River area more difficult to conquer than the hierarchical cultures of central Mexico (Spicer 1962, 9).

Religious Significance of the Santa Cruz River to the O’odham In a religious sense, the “gaining reach” of the Santa Cruz River and the lush floodplain it supports in the Tumacácori-Tubac area is considered a religious or spiritual site by contemporary O’odham. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the contemporary Tohono O’odham, Akimel O’odham, and some O’odham tribes of the Phoenix area are cultural descendants of the Sobaipuri, Papago, and Upper Pima peoples that lived near Tumacácori prior to the arrival of the Spanish.

Spanish Reduction of Native Communities (Acculturation)

159

Prior to the Mission Period of Significance, the Native Americans living and farming portions of the floodplain had been reduced and congregated into the villages of Tubac and San Cayetano de Tumagacori. Within these congregaciones, a highly structured social and economic order came to be formed. As described by University of Arizona Anthropologist Edward Spicer, “Spanish culture was one in which the specialization of labor, and therefore the differentiation of social roles, has been carried as far as in any culture in the world in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and Spaniards made some effort to introduce their craft and governmental specialties” (Spicer 1962, 6).

Spanish missionaries and military leaders presided, delegating responsibilities to the most loyal of the mission Indians, and appointing them with official titles such as governor (Spicer 1962, 124). These officials were meant to serve as easily-controlled intermediary leaders to ease the process of acculturation, but the desired result was not always accomplished. In 1751, opposition to the outside intrusion into the spiritual homeland and way of life of the Pima turned violent, and the Indians rebelled. This rebellion, named the Pima Revolt, was led by a former Spanish-appointed O’odham governor, Luis Oacpicagigua (Sheridan 2006, 46-49). After the Spanish suppressed the rebellion in 1753, they took the most productive lands of this spiritually-significant place for themselves, and reduced (forcefully moved) the Indians to the relatively poor-quality lands of the village of San Jose de Tumacácori. The long-standing O’odham tradition of opposing Euro-Americans’ efforts to forcefully acculturate and subsequently disempower them likely began at this time.

Mission Period of Significance: With the establishment of the mission of San Jose de Tumacácori, the acculturation of the native Sobaipuri/Pima/Papago accelerated, as the missionaries attempted to impress new lifestyles and world views upon the native residents. As before the mission’s establishment, Sobaipuri, Pima, and/or Papago continued to come to Tumacácori seasonally to farm, but unlike before, they began to incorporate the use of acequias, New World crops, and New World animals into their agricultural practices. In addition, as trade networks expanded, the mission came to be a place of cultural exchange and trading for the Native American visitors and mission residents (Duvall 2009, 46).

Construction Techniques As discussed in detail in Seven Aspects of Integrity: Materials, construction materials from the Mission Period of Significance were limited to the natural resources of the valley, given available technology. Materials and techniques used during this time combined building traditions of the Sobaipuri and other tribes of the region with those practiced in Europe and throughout the Spanish empire.

Acculturation through Education Through the teaching of reading and Spanish trades, the missionary influenced the world view of its residents, not only in terms of new materials and physical technologies, but also in the introduction of recorded history and communication via the Spanish language, waged labor, and the cash economy (Duvall 2009, 49). The creation of permanent structures, development of the land, and provision of supplies were intentionally implemented as tools in the acculturation process. As stated by Ivey, “A comparison of the development of the physical plant of a mission with the avowed purpose of the mission – the conversion of the Indians into productive, Christian, Hispanicized [sic] citizens – makes it clear that the construction effort was an integral part of the conversion process” (Ivey 2009, 67) New Agricultural Traditions The Spanish agricultural system, with its acequias, labores, orchards, gardens, milpas, and estancias, has been described in detail in Seven Aspects of Integrity: Design: Design During the Mission Period of Significance and section 7.5, Constructed Water Features. During this period of time, the processing of food through the use of a molino,

160

or mill, came to replace the grinding of grain with hand-tools. Additionally, the tending of a mission herd grazed upon the open range came to replace the hunting of wild game as the primary source of animal protein and other products. Horse-back riding came to be an essential skill among those mission residents who became cowboys (Duvall 2009, 49).

New Religious Traditions During the Mission Period of Significance, many traditional religious and artistic practices were lost, and others were established. A centralized society centered upon worship of the Judeo-Christian God and Jesus became the officially sanctioned way of life, and converts were asked to retract their traditional religious and spiritual practices. As stated

by Tumacácori historian Tracy Duvall, “this retraction of non-Catholic spirituality from public spaces might have led to the extinction of some aspects of O’odham belief” (Duvall 2009, 47). Many mission residents, however, never converted. Additionally, “nonconforming spiritual beliefs” held by the Native American residents of the mission who did convert were likely still practiced secretly, and as such, persisted through this period (Duvall 2009, 47). Because of the O’odham belief in the power of names given to them by shamans throughout life, many likely sought out and eagerly accepted baptism and the reception of a Christian name “to add power from a white shaman to what they already had” (Duvall 2009, 50, quoting Ruth M. Underhill, Papago Indian Religion, 1969, New York, ASM Press, 313). Additionally, it is likely that many religious ceremonies, such as the Passion Plays of the Yaquis, that combined the “old folk beliefs of the pagan religions and the everyday morality of the people” with the stories of the Bible, were begun at this time (NPS year unknown, 1). The Mission Period of Significance religious practices at Tumacácori, along with those of Guevavi, Calabazas, and San Xavier del Bac, combined to form the roots of what is today known as “Sonoran Catholicism” (Duvall 2009, 48).

Hispanic Artistic Traditions Lastly, many Hispanic artistic traditions were first practiced by the Indians at this time.

European missionaries and Spanish citizens likely introduced Old World musical instruments and styles, as well as elements of non-religious European folklore through dance and theatrical performance. By the end of the Mission Period of Significance, the mission was under the control of the newly created nation of Mexico, which by this time was developing its own identity in song, dance, and dress that combined older traditions from Spain and the various Native American tribes under its control.

Between Periods of Significance: Loss of Mission Culture With the evacuation of Tumacácori by the Catholic Church and its Native American residents, and the subsequent lawless and largely uninhabited state of the Santa Cruz River Valley for the next three decades, much, if not most, of the accumulated cultural traditions of the Mission Period of Significance were lost. As southern Arizona came to be settled by Euro-Americans, war was declared by the U.S. Army against the Apaches.

Following their defeat or otherwise subjugation, many Apaches and other Native American tribes of the area were relocated to reservations and displaced from many of their historic homelands. These reservations, under the control of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, like the missions before them, employed a technique of “penetrating articulation,” whereby the dominant culture appoints leaders from a controlled group in order to more effectively acculturate them, both within the political governance of the tribe and within the educational system (Duvall 2009, 59). In the process, as Native American beliefs and cultural traditions were even further pushed out of the public realm, and access to the Tumacácori landscape became restricted to a few private individuals, the cultural traditions of the O’odham and other Native American tribes that had lived at Tumacácori likely were significantly weakened.

161

Minimal Effect of the Industrial Revolution on Tumacácori Homesteaders By the late 1870s, families of Euro-Americans and Mexicans, many of whom were Yaqui, began to settle in and around the inventory unit, establishing homesteads. While it is possible that some of these people were descendants of earlier residents of the mission, most were likely from other areas of Europe, the U.S. and Mexico. While the areas from which these people emigrated were in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, the Tumacácori area was still the frontier, and did not partake of the architectural and technological developments. As a result, resources were still just as slim as in they had been in Mission Period of Significance, and homesteads not only renovated and reemployed the agricultural infrastructure of the Mission Period, but also maintained its very low-tech, vernacular, agricultural, and architectural practices. Farmhouses were commonly made of unfired adobe and brush roofs, and machinery was human or animalpowered. As the railroad arrived and the cities of Tucson and Nogales expanded, access to material technologies improved and windmills and barbed wire arrived upon the landscape.

Public Lands Survey System One of the most significant cultural changes that occurred during this time was the settlement of land according to the Public Lands Survey System. Large-scale land partitioning was no longer based on topography and resource availability, but rather on Euclidian geometry. By this system, the landscape of the inventory unit and beyond had been surveyed and divided into grids of six mile by six mile township squares. These squares were further subdivided into smaller squares, and individual homesteads were generally allotted 40-acre plots, side-by-side. This shifted the spatial organization of circulation patterns, agricultural lands, and buildings away from one that was more communal in nature and more responsive to the land’s contour to one that treated the land as a flattened plane of privately owned parcels (see figure 7.10.10, Spatial Organization; Farish 1916, 304). As the concept of private ownership began to take root, fencing also proliferated, and many portions of what had been a completely open range became enclosed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; Sheridan 2006, 174; U.S. General Land Office 1908; U.S. District Court of Arizona, 1907, 1908).

Religious Heterogeneity The homesteaders that arrived in the valley were of both Mexican and Euro-American roots. On one hand, the Catholic community likely recovered, and elements of Mexican culture, particularly those of the Yaqui, began to develop in the area. Semana Santa, or the holy week leading up to Easter celebrated by Catholics, was celebrated in the church and neophyte plaza at Tumacácori from 1900 to 1929, under the direction of a Yaqui or Opata man named Pedro Calistro and his sons (Brownell 1986, 143-149; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; NPS year unknown, 2).

On the other hand, Euro-Americans of various Christian denominations, and possibly other religions entirely, came not only to settle in homesteads, but also to work the newlyestablished Tumacácori National Monument. With them, they brought cultural practices that had developed in various parts of Europe and the eastern United States, including traditional folk music and the early roots of country-western music and dance.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: Refined Preservation Skills Beginning with early stabilization efforts, and extending throughout the excavations and preservation activities of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, highly specialized skills in historic preservation have become a working tradition of their own for park employees. This tradition evolved over Pinkley’s tenure to include a

162

specialization in applying “in-kind” materials and employing construction practices drawn from the traditions of various communities and eras throughout southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora (NPS 1987, 8-2; Pickens 1993; Scofield and Delong 1936). In addition, the techniques of archaeological excavation and study, and artifact preservation at the monument have significantly contributed to the formation of the Western Archaeological and Conservation Center in Tucson.

Introduction of Ranching Outside of the monument’s walls, the lands that previously contained the mission’s fields were repeatedly re-plowed and expanded. Concrete canals replaced unlined earthen canals, and cash and feed crops replaced the staple crops grown previously (see section 7.5, Constructed Water Features and section 7.8, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation). The modern ranch era agricultural traditions that took root during this period of time were not related to the historically-significant developments of the monument at this time, and are thus not considered to be historically significant.

Religious Ceremonies The church and grounds were still used for religious ceremonies during the early part of this period. In the spring of 1934, Indian planting ceremonies were held at the monument, though it is unknown what these entailed (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1937, spurred by a documentary film-maker, the Semana Santa celebration was revived, and repeated in 1938 and 1942 (NPS year unknown, 2). In the years between these celebrations, a large crucifix used in the ceremony was kept inside the church (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, PreMonument Historic Chronology). In the 1940s and 1950s, at least twice, Christmas parties were held at the monument. One such party, sponsored by local dude rancher and politician Hubert Merryweather, included a tree, coffee and donuts (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1946, 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Interpretation of the Mission Period of Significance for Monument Visitors With the creation of the museum and visitor center, the park acquired a medium by which to display some cultural traditions of the Mission Period of Significance that were not otherwise interpreted through the crumbling remains of the mission complex. The new buildings were designed and crafted according to the traditions of other mission towns established by Father Kino in Sonora, Mexico, and, as such, their materials, layout and spatial organization transmit what the mission may have perhaps looked and felt like before it fell into disrepair. The museum garden included many plants drawn from the writings of Father Kino that were no longer present elsewhere on the monument or in the adjacent fields. In doing so, the integrity of agricultural traditions was partially restored.

Elsewhere in the museum, exhibits, maps, paintings, and historic artifacts were displayed, connecting the visitor to the material and behavioral culture of the Mission Period of Significance. Along with the rise in physical interpretive features, a staff of park rangers slowly expanded, creating a workplace that fostered historic research and the art of verbal interpretation.

Post Period of Significance: Balance of Cultural Interpretation Today, the inventory unit retains cultural importance for three primary groups: Native Americans (O’odham, Yaqui, and Chiricahua and San Carlos Apaches); Hispanic/Mexican-Americans; and Euro-Americans. While the National Park Service owns and manages the land for all cultural groups of the U.S. public, there are “important distinctions between spiritually sanctioned stewardship of a landscape and legal control” (Duvall 2009, 7). Additionally, some members of various cultural groups still claim a “right to return” to absolute ownership of the property. They feel a usufruct right to the

163

land and perceive both their connection and their ancestors’ connection to it to be of greater importance than other groups’ claims. They interpret their culture’s relative exclusion from the interpretation of land to “symbolize unequal relations in other social domains,” or perceive the landscape’s potential to serve some sort of future purpose to one or more cultural groups (Duvall 2009, 6-9). While the park today must be constantly respectful of the various cultural perspectives of all stakeholder groups, as an institution of the people of the United States, it must also seek ways in which this land can be shared by all.

Traditional Crafts & Demonstrations Since 1960, the well-preserved buildings and structures of the mission, and the interpretive exhibits of the museum and visitor center, have continued to provide a link between contemporary visitors and the cultural traditions of the past. In addition, the crafts demonstration program and the Tumacácori fiesta have been established to provide a link between those cultures new to the Tumacácori landscape, and those with deeply connected traditions.

Between the church and the Museum/Visitor Center, since at least 1971, various Native American and Hispanic craftspeople from the Tumacácori area, Nogales, and the Tohono O’odham reservation have produced and sold their traditional wares to visitors with permission, encouragement, and sometimes, financial support and housing provided by the park. The purpose of this program has been to “focus on skills that were prevalent at Tumacacori historically”, including the production of O’odham basketry and pottery via the use of pit kilns, Mexican kick-wheel pottery, woodcarving, tortilla-making, and metalworking (Bleser 2010; Sheridan 2006, 236). In addition, at various times, traditional loom-weaving practices have been demonstrated by park volunteers within the visitor center.

Also during this time, “environmental and cultural live-ins for students” and teachers workshops began to be held at the park. At first, these focused on O’odham basketry.

Due to the popularity of these programs, and a desire among many participants for an increased interaction with the park, a volunteer group called Los Amigos de Tumacácori was formed (Bleser 2010). This group, though temporarily disbanded in the 1990s, was reformed as the Friends of Tumacácori, and today raises funds for the park’s operation (Badertscher 2010).

Tumacácori Fiesta Perhaps the most significant development in the preservation of cultural traditions related to Tumacácori also began during the 1960s. Throughout the decade, each year on a Sunday near Christmas, the Nogales Knights of Columbus sponsored a special mass held within the Franciscan church to celebrate the arrival of Father Kino (Bleser 2010, U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

By the end of the decade, it was recognized that there were more people desiring to attend this celebration than could be accommodated within the church (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1971, this “Kino mass” expanded to the area between the visitor center and the Franciscan church to become a one-day “fiesta” of approximately 2,000 people (Bleser 2010, U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1974, the “fiesta” moved from the mission grounds to the area north of the mission that today is referred to as the fiesta grounds (Garate 2010). In 1978, the park expanded to officially include these six acres (U.S. Congress 2001, 1).

The Tumacácori Fiesta, since its inception, has expanded beyond a celebration of Father Kino to include traditions of all of the cultures that have contributed to the community of Tumacácori (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports). As stated by Tumacácori ethnographer Tracy Duvall, “As no one’s home, the park has a

164

built-in effect of alienating everyone; at the same time, its universal welcome invites everybody to feel some type of affiliation with this landscape and to understand others’ connections” (Duvall 2009, 6). In essence, the fiesta has become the time when the various cultural connections to this place can be expressed and shared.

Today, the Fiesta has grown to include a weekend of demonstrations, concessions, performances, and ceremonies. Many craft booths are set up underneath mesquite and ocotillo ramadas and other temporary structures, throughout the fiesta grounds. From these, vendors sell traditional baskets, figurines, woodwork, children’s books, local produce (including traditional crops such as bottleneck gourds), quilts, stained glass, and Mexican food. Many booths are adorned with multi-colored Mexican crepe-paper flowers and garlands, and piñatas are hung from a tree and broken open by children. The park, other national land management agencies, and historical societies also set up booths to demonstrate historic customs, such as traditional craft-making, the grinding of grain with manos (pestles) and metates (mortars,) and the mixing and molding of adobe bricks.

Recreated artifacts, including Spanish military armor, weaponry, uniforms and saddles are displayed in an interactive fashion.

A stage is erected in the middle of the grounds and surrounded by benches for the audience. On this stage, various musical acts are performed, including O’odham drumming and singing, waila, mariachi, and old-timey bands, and a choral performance of the Avalon Garden Community. Various dances are performed on the stage and on the ground, including the Apache crown dance, traditional Mexican line dances and couples dances, and flamenco. The open ground-plane performing space is also used for a traditional Mexican equestrian performance showcasing riding skills, ornate clothing, and specially-adorned ceremonial saddles and tack. The local Boy Scouts have been involved in the fiesta since its inception as well, holding “Court of Honor” badge ceremonies and volunteering for the event (Moss 2010). The Fiesta also serves as an opportunity for individuals from the area with an interest in history to wear period attire and share historic photos, cultural artifacts, and other knowledge of cultural traditions important to them. In this way, the Fiesta is a chance for the different cultures of the community to meet, interact, and learn from each other.

On the Sunday of this event, a mass is held. A bell in the church’s bell-tower is rung to announce the beginning of this mass, as it likely was during the Mission Period of Significance. Participants parade from the parking lot through the visitor center and fiesta grounds, where a special ramada holds a santo, or sacred sculpture, of San Francisco. It then proceeds to the “neophyte plaza” in front of the church in which the service is held. A Catholic priest, often the bishop from Tucson, leads a multicultural mass that includes participation by a Mariachi band, and Navajo, O’odham, and Yaqui peoples. The latter group performs a series of sacred “deer dances” (Badertscher 2010).

Christmas Celebrations Another annual event that has become a cultural tradition at the park is a Christmas celebration in which luminarias, or votive candles placed in small white paper bags, are placed in and around the church (see figure 7.6.2). While informal Christmas gatherings at the monument prior to the establishment of the Fiesta included a small number of luminarias, the tradition of placing them across the mission complex and museum and visitor center complex began in the early 1970s. At that time, several hundred luminarias were placed within the mission grounds as part of this celebration, and the visitor center lobby was cleared to make way for a Christmas tree and Mexican decorations. A fire was lit within the fire place, and cookies and a drink called champurrado were served.

Participants included Euro-American and Hispanic park staff and people from the towns of Tumacácori and Nogales. The chief of interpretation at this time lived in one of the park residences and recalled the beauty of viewing the luminarias burning throughout the grounds all night long. At the beginning, he and the park staff had hoped to restrict this

165

event to a local affair. However, word got out and it became a tourist attraction for visitors from across southern Arizona and beyond. By 1990, approximately 500-700 luminarias were placed throughout the grounds, and just as many visitors attended the event (Bleser 2010). Today, in 2010, some 2,500 luminarias are placed throughout the visitor center, within the museum garden, along the path between the visitor center and church, and from the sacristy to the picnic area NE of the visitor center, creating a circular loop in which 2,000-plus visitors proceed each Christmas eve (Badertscher 2010).

Other Community Events (Special Use Permits) Special-use permits (SUPs) are granted by the park to outside organizations for a variety of events, in order to ensure that impacts to the integrity of historic resources are minimized. Permits generally restrict the size of party, location, type of activity, and use of decoration or other equipment. Since at least 1990, Tubac State Historic Park organizes a re-enacted horse ride commemorating the Anza party that passes through Tumacácori along the Anza National Historic Trail. As part of this special-use permit, a high mass is undertaken within the church. Several other religious events, including the fiesta mass described above, weddings, and baptisms, occur by special-use permit each year either within the church or in the “neophyte plaza” south of the church. Every year since 2002, a group of approximately 300 Catholic boy scouts has organized an “Anza trek,” camped for the weekend in the Fiesta grounds, and held mass inside the church (Badertscher 2010).

Living History Program The “Living History” program of the park’s interpretive staff is another way in which cultural traditions are communicated to visitors. In this program, park staff and volunteers assume the personalities of historic individuals from the mission’s history, including Father Kino, Father Pauer, Father Garces, and Captain Juan Bautista de Anza, Jr, as well as mission commoners, and give guided tours of the inventory unit from the perspective of this person. Volunteers organized under the Volunteers in Parks, or VIP program, not only give guided tours, but also have become docent stewards manning the front desk and assisting with office work. For the most part, these individuals are “active retirees fascinated by Tumacácori,” but do not otherwise have personal or ancestral connections to the mission or locale (Badertscher 2010).

New Museum Exhibits and the Muuro-ki Since the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, there have also been a couple static interpretive developments that improve the degree to which cultural landscape traditions are communicated to the visitor. Improved museum exhibits opened to the public in 2009 include descriptions of agricultural and architectural practices of the Hohokam and O’odham, as well as recorded stories of the importance of Tumacácori to contemporary Apache, Yaqui and O’odham individuals. In 1997, O’odham craftsmen reconstructed a typical Pima house called a Muuro-ki out of natural materials, providing a physical connection to the traditional materials and architectural styles employed by the mission’s Sobaipuri, Pima, and Papago residents (see figure 7.2.4 in Buildings and Structures), (Damon et al 1998).

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail & Horseback Riding Another interesting development is the formation of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. Spearheaded by TNHP historian Don Garate, this national historic trail was created in 1990 to commemorate the 1775-1776 journey of discovery of Captain Juan Bautista de Anza, Jr., Pedro Font, and a band of settlers from Mexico to the San Francisco Bay Area. This trail, while not totally defined in the inventory unit, generally passes to the east of the abandoned and naturalized agricultural fields. It can be followed along the riparian corridor of the Santa Cruz River to the south and north, and further northwest along the Gila River and on to California. To inaugurate this trail, a ride was undertaken by park staff and others re-enacting the Anza expedition. The park has

166

long been a popular destination for long and short horseback rides. In 1962, the “Los Charros” riding club made Tumacácori starting point for cross-country horseback ride (U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1962, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Continued Historic Preservation Finally, preservation and stabilization efforts, while suffering an era of inappropriate use of cement and synthetic materials, once again employs “in-kind” materials and techniques. Stewardship is highly valued. The accumulated expertise of the staff is passed down through multi-generational, park-staff families, and from staff member to staff member (Bleser 2010).

Integrity of Both Periods of Significance In summary, everyday, visitors are presented with opportunities to interpret the traditions of various Tumacácori cultures. They can observe the materials, craftsmanship, and spatial organization of historic and reconstructed resources; learn from museum exhibits; listen to guided and unguided tours; and interact with vendors of traditional products. Annually, at the Fiesta and the Christmas Mass, many more aspects of traditional Native American, Hispanic, and EuroAmerican architecture and construction, craftwork, agricultural practices, foodstuffs, and religious ceremonies are practiced and celebrated. Through these seasonal events and daily interpretations, the cultural traditions of both periods of significance are retained to a high integrity.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME Craft Demonstration Program

CONTRIBUTION MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Tumacácori Fiesta MP: contributing ND: contributing Christmas Eve luminarias MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Living History program MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Volunteers in Parks program MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Anza National Historic Trail and commemorative trail ride MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Muuro-ki MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Museum exhibits MP: contributing ND: contributing Special Use Permit activities (various) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Agricultural traditions MP: NC ND: NC/compatible

167

Figure 7.6.1: The Tumacรกcori Fiesta is an annual celebration in which communities with cultural connections to Tumacรกcori share traditional crafts, arts, and foods. Clockwise from upper left, these include the sale of vegetables grown within the Santa Cruz floodplain, the creation of adobe bricks from mud, equestrian skill performances in traditional Mexican dress, and the Apache crown dance (NPS, Photo file (digital), 2008).

168

Figure 7.6.2: Since the 1940s, increasing numbers of luminarias, votive candles within paper bags, are placed in, on, and around the Franciscan church, visitor center, and the connecting pathways (NPS, photo file (digital), year unknown).

169

7. LAND USE Land use patterns of the inventory unit can best be understood by dividing the inventory unit into zones and summarizing how each of these zones was used during, between, and after the historic periods of significance. As an organizing tool, the primary inventory unit of Tumacácori has been divided into six contiguous zones with consistent physical form, natural or cultural landscape-changing factors, and/or present or historical land use. The delineation of these zones also roughly follows the property boundaries of the successive additions to the park, and will therefore be a useful orientation tool for understanding land use change.

General descriptions of these six zones, found below, explain their location and the general trends of land development, continued usage, and the natural forces that have impacted them over time. For clarity, zone descriptions are divided into different periods of time where appropriate. Boundaries of these zones are depicted in figure 7.7.1, below. Detailed descriptions of fine-scale features within these zones can be found in other landscape characteristic sections.

Sections 7.1, Archaeology; 7.2, Buildings and Structures; and 7.4, Cluster Arrangement discuss individual features of the three zones in the built core (Mission/Park Grounds, Fiesta Grounds, and Ranch Headquarters). Sections 7.5, Constructed Water Features and 7.8, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation discuss the fields, terraces, and related vegetation of the agricultural and natural zones (Fallow Ranch Fields, Naturalized Agricultural Fields, and Santa Cruz Riverine System). Figures within these other landscape characteristic sections include historic maps, historic photos, contemporary photos, and summary maps of feature locations, and will be referred to in the text below. In addition, these zones will be referred to throughout the other twelve landscape characteristic descriptions. The six zones are the Mission/Park Grounds, the Fiesta Grounds, the Ranch Headquarters, the Fallow Ranch Fields, the Naturalized Agricultural Fields, and the Santa Cruz Riverine System.

Mission/Park Grounds: This area includes the church, visitor center and museum complex, convento, and a portion of the mission orchard/garden, and is mostly contained within the 10.15 acre boundary in effect prior to 1957-58. The zone’s west boundary runs along the East Frontage Road. Its northern boundary runs from the west along the northern adobe perimeter wall and an access road paralleling an electric power distribution line. From the access road, the eastern boundary runs south along the west side of the garden/orchard wall/tree-line, continues along a N-S trending access road, and terminates at the south adobe perimeter wall of the mission compound. Finally, this southern adobe perimeter wall serves as the zone’s southern boundary.

There are two major eras of development that have occurred within this zone: Mission Period of Significance developments and NPS construction and improvements from both before, during, and after the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Mission Period of Significance: At the start of the Mission Period, because the newly settled Indians of San Jose de Tumacácori had recently lived a more sedentary, agricultural lifestyle with regular direction from a Jesuit missionary, the hasty construction of a new church, and cultivated farm fields at their new village was necessary. These physical features were the elements necessary for the production of foods and crafts, the subsequent steady support of the resident population, and the creation of surplus and goods for sale. In addition, their prompt installation upheld the authority and credibility of the European missionary (Ivey 2007, 3; Spicer, 1962, 292).

The Mission/Park Grounds was the daily, religious, and industrial heart of Tumacácori.

As such, it contained the primary cluster of residences, religious structures, and industrial features. Essentially, this complex was constructed to house the missionaries and undertake “the avowed purpose of the mission – the conversion of the Indians into productive, Christian, Hispanicized [sic] citizens” (Ivey 2009, 67). While agricultural fields

170

and infrastructure, and grazing lands of the mission complex extended beyond the boundaries of this zone, the majority of the mission’s above-ground buildings and structures, and below-ground archaeological resources were constructed within it (see figures 7.1.1, Archaeology, and 7.2.2, Buildings and Structures). These include the Jesuit and Franciscan churches, convento, cemetery (campo santo), mortuary chapel, granary, and cisterns.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: During the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, the mission complex served as a historic site. In support of this role, the Museum and Visitor Center Complex, several residences, a parking lot, and perimeter walls were constructed to house park employees, provide them with office space, and serve as a visitor gateway.

Post-Period of Significance: Today, this zone serves as the primary public interface, and on a daily basis contains the most activity in the park. Residential, industrial, and public land uses dating to the Mission Period of Significance retain partial integrity. Some buildings and structures associated with historic uses still stand in various conditions, while others lie below ground. In all, the mission complex appears as more of an archaeological relic than an actively-inhabited compound.

The NPS constructions of the Museum and Visitor Center complex and associated structures still retain their residential, official, and public land uses. As such, the integrity of land use from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance is high.

In 1997, the muuro-ki was constructed in this area. While this traditional O’odham house is therefore not a historic resource, it does communicate to the visitor that areas outside of the mission’s walls included temporary residences.

Fiesta Grounds: This zone includes the land that the park acquired in 1957-58 (lime kiln area), and 1978 (fiesta grounds), and is approximately 4.89 acres in size. Its western boundary, for the purpose of the CLI, is defined by a pipe fence that runs north from the northwestern corner of the adobe perimeter walls, paralleling the East Frontage Road. The northern boundary begins at a wire fence that runs directly east (south of the gate for the Anza National Historic Trail trailhead along the East Frontage Road). It is roughly paralleled by an edge of dense mesquite trees that have not been subjected to the intensive use of the fiesta. The eastern boundary begins at a wire fence that runs directly south. It parallels both a line of trees and one of the more recognizable trails of the Anza National Historic Trail network. The southern boundary begins just west of the trail kiosk and runs east along an access road. It parallels an electric power distribution line (to the north of field G, the remains of the mission orchard/garden), continues to the east, runs south of the lime kiln and along the north of the adobe perimeter walls, and ends when it meets back with the pipe fence.

There are three major eras of development that have occurred within this zone: Mission Period developments associated with the lime kiln and mission orchard/garden and possibly other fields, modern-era irrigated crop- and pasture land usage, and seasonal usage by the NPS following the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period. It is also possible that the eastern portion of these lands was irrigated crop- and pasture land during the homesteading era.

Mission Period of Significance: During the Mission Period of Significance, this land’s main purpose was agricultural. The area was dissected in a north-south direction by the projected historic acequia alignment (see figure 7.1.1, Archaeology and figure 7.5.5, Constructed Water Features). A portion

171

of the mission orchard/garden and other mission fields, likely labores, lay downhill, or to the east of this alignment. It is also possible that lands to the west of the alignment were leveled and used as fields.

To the west of the irrigated fields was an area in which the mission herd likely grazed and which also may have contained the Camino de Tumacácori leading to Tubac (see figures 7.10.5 and 7.10.6, Spatial Organization). This zone therefore may have also contained part of the circulation network, since a roadway may have run through it.

Some industrial activity also took place here. The lime kiln has been included in this area because it lies beyond the mission compound and outside of the adobe perimeter walls of the monument. While it is included in the self-guided walking tour of the park, and contributes to the Mission Period of Significance, it lies out of view of the features of the Tumacácori Mission Grounds, and within view of most of the features associated with the fiesta grounds.

Between Periods of Significance: Between periods of significance, this area was at first abandoned, during which time much of the Mission Period of Signifiance agricultural fields naturalized, and were used as dryland pastures. As homesteaders resettled the area in the late 1800s, the historic acequia system was repurposed, and the fields to which it carried water were once again cultivated. This agricultural use was short-lived, though, as the homesteaders were evicted in the 1910s, and the lands likely lay fallow until the 1930s.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: Beginning in the early 1930s and extending through the remainder of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, this area was used by “Tol” Pendleton and other ranchers to grow corn and cash crops. Field acreage expanded to the west as concrete canals were constructed and groundwater use escalated.

Post-Period of Significance: Agricultural use of these lands ended at some point prior to 1974, at which time the park acquired the land. Beginning in the first weekend of December, 1972, and every year since, this land has held the Tumacácori Fiesta, a celebration of the many cultures associated with the mission and town of Tumacácori. The high level of activity during this weekend (dances, music, equestrian performances, food and craft vendors, high pedestrian traffic, and the use of vehicles for setup and take-down), takes a heavy toll on the grounds. For most of the year, it is a dusty lot with sparse vegetation and a curious smattering of ramadas (shade structures of mesquite and ocotillo), water and electric hookups, concrete pads, picnic tables, and legs for temporary benches used during the fiesta.

There is also a storage area within the zone. To the east of a dense row of trees growing along an irrigation canal mound, the park is haphazardly storing various ranch items, including a dilapidated residential trailer and segments of irrigation pipe.

Summary In summary, today, the primary land use apparent within this area is public use as an annual events ground, and maintenance use as a materials holding area. The integrity of agricultural land use practices from the Mission Period of Significance is low, and the integrity of land practices from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance is inconsequential, as this ares was not a part of the monument at the time.

Ranch Headquarters:

172

This land use zone includes the residences, stable barn, and associated features of the modern ranch (aka “Mission”, “Binney,” “Strong,” or “Upper S Bar S” ranch), that have been converted for NPS use. It was acquired in 2004 and is approximately 3.52 acres in size.

The boundaries of this zone, for the purpose of the CLI, are defined on the west by a fence with white metal posts and wooden boards that runs parallel to the East Frontage Road in a northnorthwestern direction until meeting the southwest corner of the adobe perimeter walls. The northern boundary runs east along the southern side of the adobe perimeter wall until reaching a dirt access road that, to the north, separates the ranch fields from a row of trees delineating the eastern boundary of the Mission/Park Compound zone. The eastern boundary continues south along the western side of field B until a point at which an extension of a line following the northern side of field F (aka “goat pen”) intersects it. This line also serves as the the southern boundary of the zone, paralleling a wire fence, until it intersects the western boundary.

There are four major eras of development that have occurred upon in this zone: Mission Period developments associated with an adobe firing kiln, homesteading-era residential use, modern-era ranch structures and horse ring, and modified use of buildings and lands by the NPS since 2004.

Mission Period of Significance: During this period of time, the area contained an adobe firing kiln (industrial use), grazing animals of the mission herd (agricultural use), and, possibly, a major road leading to the south (circulatory use).

Between Periods of Significance: During a portion of this period of time, this zone contained the house/s of the Mendez homestead (residential use) and possibly associated areas of agricultural storage and processing (agricultural use).

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: During the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, this zone came to house the “Upper S Bar S” ranch of E.T. Strong (residential and agricultural uses).

Post Period of Significance: This zone continued to house the headquarters of a working or gentleman ranch (residential and agricultural uses) from 1960 until 2004.

Today, this area is characterized by the hustle-bustle of park staff (administrative use) and maintenance. It is an area that visitors are not directed to explore, as it contains no features that contribute to the Mission Period of Significance, though they are not prohibited from doing so. The experience of walking around and through the ranchhouse, stable barn, horse ring, and associated vegetation is pastoral. The landscape has maintained the feeling of the dude-ranching era in the Santa Cruz Valley. Given a knowledge of the Mendez homestead that preceded it, exploring this zone can help the visitor better understand these eras of inhabitation and agriculture, though this is not an intended goal of the park.

Summary Because of the many years and layers of change that took place over the history of this zone, it is difficult to gain a good understanding of the land use practices from the Mission Period of Significance. Therefore, the integrity of land uses from the Mission Period of Significance is low. The integrity of land uses from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance is inconsequential, as this zone was not a part of the monument at that time.

Fallow Ranch Fields:

173

This zone is approximately 54 acres in size and includes the southern fields on the second, or upper, terrace of the floodplain, most of which were irrigated. They were used for crops or pasturage until 2004, the year the park acquired them from rancher George Binney. Associated ranch structures, including a trailer home-site, two barns, a corral, wells, and other small-scale features, are present along the periphery of these fields.

The western boundary of this zone begins at the NW corner of a private property along the East Frontage Road, and continues NNW along the East Frontage road until reaching the northern side of field F, which is delineated by a wire fence. The boundary follows this fenceline to the east until reaching an access road, at which point it turns north and follows the eastern edge of this road. It continues along this road between the compuerta and field G and ends at a E-W trending electric power distribution line road. The northern boundary runs east along the power line road, then gently curves to the south to follow the eastern edge of the recently-farmed fields of the Binney ranch. It follows the fence-line on the edge of the fields, until it terminates at the southern boundary. The southern boundary is defined by an E-W trending road that follows the northern property line of a small, private, residential property.

There are four major eras of development that have occurred in this zone: Native American agricultural and residential use prior to the Mission Period of Significance, agricultural use during the Mission Period of Significance, agricultural use by homesteaders between periods of significance, and agricultural use by modern-era ranchers during and since the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Pre-Period of Significance: Prior to the Mission Period, this area was inhabited by prehistoric peoples of the Classic/Late Classic Hohokam, and, after them, the Sobaipuri (or Pima, depending upon the source) (Arendt et al. Draft 2009; Bronitsky and Merritt 1986). Evidence from a brief Sobaipuri occupation that took place some time between 1500 and 1700 suggests that they likely took advantage of the rich soils, flat topography, and plant communities of the second riparian terrace at Tumacรกcori to dry-farm wild edible plants without the use of irrigation canals (Doyel 1977, 132-137, 177). Their subsistence pattern also included harvesting foodstuffs from a wide variety of plants and hunting native grazing animals from the riparian area, grasslands and evergreen forests of adjacent hills and mountains (Horton 1998, 10-11). These hunting, gathering, and agricultural land uses required a high degree of understanding of the complexity and seasonality of environmental resources.

Father Kino introduced animals, grain seeds, and likely irrigation practices to these seminomadic Sobaipuri villages. However, they seem to have only supplemented their traditional subsistence strategies with domesticated grain and animals prior to the establishment of the village of San Jose de Tumacรกcori (Horton 1998, 15-17). At the time that these agricultural techniques were practiced in San Cayetano de Tumagacori, it is possible that the inventory unit was used as grazing land for the early Mission herd, though no historic evidence confirms this supposition.

Mission Period of Significance: During the first twenty years after the establishment of San Jose de Tumacรกcori, prior to the construction of the acequia, dryland farming and grazing of the mission herd were the primary land uses of what is today the fallow ranch fields.

Both before and after the construction of the acequia, and thus the arrival of irrigated agriculture, soil quality and water availability greatly influenced the layout of the agricultural lands. The most fertile and most easily irrigated lands were under the highest degree of control by the missionaries, were sited closest to the mission compound, and/or were used for communal agricultural pursuits, while less suitable lands were set

174

aside for the individual agricultural pursuits of mission Indians, and were located farther away from the compound. This zone likely fields of both types.

Between Periods of Significance: During the homestead era, the fields and earthen acequias from the Mission Period of Significance were re-used for the production of crops and pasturage. It is possible that their cultivated acreage increased during this time. It is also possible that homesteader Carmen Mendez constructed a well to irrigate them. In either case, the fields retained their agricultural purpose.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance & Post Period of Significance: The modern ranch era extended from the early 1930s until 2002-2004. During the early part of this era, concrete canals were constructed adjacent to the fields, and fed by multiple wells that conveyed water by gravity flow. In addition, the fields were regraded and expanded. In the 1980s, following the installation of pipes and alfalfa valves, water was transported uphill by pressure. This technology allowed for the expansion of the fields, including two additional cropland fields (fields D and E), and an orchard of peaches and pecans (field F; see figure 7.5.4, Constructed Water Features). A small portion (field G) of the orchard/garden from the Mission Period of Significance was repurposed as row crop farmland, and as a holding pond for irrigation waters (see figure 7.5.5, Constructed Water Features). Also during this era, accessory structures and one trailer home-site were built around the periphery of the ranch fields (see figure 7.2.1, Buildings and Structures). These agricultural and residential uses eliminated all evidence of agricultural land use patterns from the Mission Period of Significance except for the features in and around field G. However, because the fields and canals of the modern ranch era are located in approximately the same location as the historic Mission Fields, they do contribute to the feeling and spatial organization of Mission Period of Significance agricultural land use.

Since being acquired from the NPS, these fields have lain fallow, orchard trees have been removed, and barns have been repurposed for maintenance storage (see figure 7.8.7, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation). Field A has been allowed to naturalize. Field G was replanted by the park in 2007 with fruit tree cultivars similar to those present during the Mission Period of Significance. In addition, the barns are centers of activity for the park maintenance staff, and contain various construction materials and equipment.

In summary, today, this zone is today characterized by recently fallow (since 2004) fields that strongly convey the agricultural land use of the modern ranch era. In addition, this zone contributes to the integrity of feeling and spatial organization of the agricultural uses of the Mission Period of Significance throughout. The recent improvements within field G contribute to the material and design integrity of agricultural use during the Mission Period of Significance, as well. This technologically-altered understanding of Mission Period of Significance irrigation and farming practices, taken as a whole, represents a moderately low degree of integrity of agricultural land use from the Mission Period of Significance. Finally, because this zone lies outside of the monument as it was delineated during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, the integrity of land use practices from this period of time is inconsequential.

Naturalized Agricultural Fields: At various times in the history of the landscape, this zone was used for irrigated agriculture or pasturage, and it is approximately 68 acres in size.

The western boundary of the Naturalized Agricultural Fields begins at the intersection of the pipe fence paralleling the Eastern Frontage Road, and the wire fence that serves as the northern

175

boundary of the Fiesta Grounds zone. From this point, the western boundary follows a line directly north along the eastern rear property lines of the roadside homes and horse farms of the town of Tumacácori. The northern boundary is marked by a pipe fence which trends directly to the east. The eastern boundary of this zone follows the edge between a riparian terrace to the east of the river, and the river bottom, a boundary discernible by a sudden drop in elevation. This feature is particularly recognizable along a line of cottonwood trees that are growing on and around a rock headwall that parallels the flow of the Santa Cruz River Channel, and marks the edge of the first riparian terrace. This terrace edge continues south in varying states of distinction from the surrounding landscape until reaching an intersection with the dirt access road that parallels an electric power distribution line. This road serves as the southern boundary towards the west until the intersection with a more-recognizable segment of the Anza National Historic Trail, at a point where there is an interpretive kiosk. At this point, the zone trends to the north along a wire fence/row of trees, until reaching the wire fence that serves as the northern boundary of the Fiesta Grounds zone; this fence also serves as the southern boundary of the Naturalized Agricultural Fields zone.

There are five major periods of development on this zone: agricultural and residential by Native Americans prior to the Mission Period of Significance, agricultural use during the Mission Period of Significance, agricultural and domestic use during the homesteading era, agricultural use by modern-era ranchers, and natural area use by the NPS. Additionally, this zone has likely contained circulation features throughout all these periods of time.

Pre-Period of Significance: Like the “Fallow Ranch Fields” zone described above, this area contained small-scale residences and dryland farming fields of the Hohokam and/or Sobaipuri.

Mission Period of Significance: During the Mission Period of Significance, it is possible that the historic acequia extended through the southern portion of this zone, irrigating mission fields (labores and/or milpas; see figures 7.10.6 and 7.10.9, Spatial Organization). Portions of this zone were also likely used as dryland pasturage for the Mission herd. In addition, the Camino de Tumacácori likely passed through this area on its way from the mission complex to Tubac (see figure 7.10.5 and 7.10.6, Spatial Orgnanization).

Between Periods of Significance: Between the mission’s abandonment and the middle 1880s, this zone fell out of cultivation, but was likely used as dryland pasturage by ranchers.

Between the late 1870s and the early 1910s, as discussed above, homesteaders reactivated the agricultural system in this zone. They also likely expanded the zone’s cultivated acreage. In addition, at least one residence was built on the eastern edge of this zone during this time (see figure 7.10.10, Spatial Organization). These agricultural and residential uses were abandoned in the middle 1910s after the eviction of the homesteaders.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance and Post Period of Significance: During the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, irrigated agriculture intensified and expanded to encompass the entire zone. This agricultural relied upon great amounts of pumped groundwater, which was carried through concrete canals (see figures 7.8.4 and 7.8.7, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation).

Since the early 1970s, these fields have been sequentially abandoned and have returned to mesquite bosques through the process of natural succession (see figures 7.8.4 and 7.8.7, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation). Since 1990, the zone has come to contain multiple segments of the Anza National Historic Trail network. In essence, it is being managed as a natural area by the park for both habitat and visitor-focused land

176

uses. Remaining features of previous periods of agricultural use, while scattered throughout this zone, are minimally visible. These include modern alignments of concrete canals and wire fences and a cattle tank. Currently, while this area lies within the approximate local floodplain as determined by the Santa Cruz County Flood Control District, it is separated along some stretches of the Santa Cruz River bottom by flood headwalls composed of cobble.

In summary, the integrity of agricultural and circulatory uses of the Mission Period of Significance in this zone is low. Because this zone was not a part of the monument during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, the integrity of its land use during that period of time is inconsequential.

Santa Cruz Riverine System: This zone includes lands along the Santa Cruz River bottom and first terrace, and is approximately 187 acres in size.

The western boundary of the zone begins on the bottom of the second riparian terrace in the northwest corner of the inventory unit. It runs south along this terrace’s edge just east of a cobble flood headwall and associated line of cottonwoods, past the terminus of a road that forms the northern boundary of the mission/park grounds, and continues along the east side of morerecently used fields of the Binney/Mission Ranch. The west boundary ends when it intersects an E-W trending road that follows the northern property line of a small, private, residential property.

At this road, the boundary jogs to the E-NE, descending a gentle, wooded slope until reaching the first terrace where the Anza National Historic Trail is located. The western boundary of the zone then runs south along the eastern side of a line of thick mesquites until reaching Santa Gertrudis Lane, which serves as the southern boundary. Santa Gertudis Lane fords the Santa Cruz River channel to the east. Approximately 125 feet east of the center line of the Santa Cruz River channel, the eastern boundary of the zone (and the park) follows a meandering line that likely paralleled the eastern side of the Santa Cruz River bottom at the time when the Binney/Mission Ranch property line was last modified. At a point roughly east of the electric power distribution line, the eastern boundary follows a direct line north roughly paralleling the western extent of adjacent irrigated fields, though at times dipping down into wooded thickets of the river bottom.

The northern boundary is demarked by a pipe fence which crosses the Santa Cruz River bottom.

This hydrologically and biologically dynamic zone is located in the 100-year floodplain and contains hydroriparian and mesoriparian vegetation. Features within it include the river itself, associated biological zones, Santa Gertudis Lane, a footbridge, and the ruins of the Canto Ranch, which were combined with other materials to make flood headwalls. It also contains various structures and debris from the Binney/Mission Ranch, including a silage pit, three wells, linear piles of rock removed from the fields, piles of other cast-off ranch debris, and multiple levels of fencing, features which are mostly evidence of modern ranch landscape modifications.

Lastly, it includes recently-constructed footpaths and signage of the Anza National Historic Trail.

This area has experienced the landscape-altering energies of the flooding of the Santa Cruz River throughout its existence. Therefore, its primary land use is as natural floodway.

Secondarily, it functioned as a circulation corridor and as a utilitarian area that supported adjacent inhabitations and agricultural pursuits. Physical alterations by the cultures living in this zone have been minimal and short-lived (see figures 7.8.4 and 7.8.7, Natural Systems and Features and Vegetation; figures 7.5.10 and 7.5.11, Constructed Water Features). Features remaining in this area date from land uses of the modern ranch era during and since the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, at which time this zone was not part of the park. Therefore, the integrity of natural land use of the Mission Period of Significance is moderately high, and the integrity of land uses during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance is inconsequential.

177

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME Residential use

CONTRIBUTION MP: NC ND: contributing Office use MP: NC ND: NC Maintenance use MP: NC ND: contributing Fallow agricultural/naturalization use MP: NC ND: NC Natural riverine use MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Visitor/interpretive/historic use MP: NC ND: contributing

178

Figure 7.7.1: Six land use zones are depicted above. These zones are contiguous areas with a with one or all of the following characteristics in common: 1) consistent physical form, 2) affected by the same natural or cultural, landscape-changing factors, 3) consistent functions, either presently or historically . In general, the developed core of residential, commercial, and public uses is clustered near the center of the western boundary and the Fiesta Grounds, Mission/Park Grounds, and Ranch Headquarters. Surrounding this core are two zones that have previously contained intensive agriculture, the Fallow Ranch Fields of the Strong/Mission/Binney Ranch, and further Naturalized Agricultural Fields to the north. The Santa Cruz Riverine System is a zone of largely undeveloped usage.

179

8. NATURAL SYSTEMS AND FEATURES / VEGETATION In order to understand the changes that have occurred to the natural systems and features of the Tumacácori inventory unit, it is first useful to subdivide and generally describe the natural environment into four interrelated natural systems: the lithosphere (the earth’s crust and mantle), atmosphere (the surrounding air), hydrosphere (water systems), and biosphere (living systems).

As described by Santa Cruz River environmental historian Michael Logan, “to thoroughly understand the human relationship with nature, the processes of change in the nonhuman world must be understood to establish a sort of baseline data point from which to measure the impact of human society” (Logan 2002, 14).

Note: Because of the interaction between agricultural systems and these natural features, and for simplicity, the Natural Systems and Features narrative will also include anthropogenic modifications to the natural systems and will describe the “Vegetation” landscape characteristic as part of the biosphere. Also, because of varying amounts of available information, and different amounts of change that a particular natural system underwent during a certain period of time, not every natural system will be discussed to the same extent in each of the following sections.

Pre-Period of Significance: Lithosphere Basin and Range Between approximately forty and fifty million years ago, the movement of the continental plates resulted in the expansion of the lithosphere and created the basin and range topography present today in the southwestern United States. In the years after this event, erosion and sediment transport shaped the lithosphere, moving alluvium down hillsides and along drainages, respectively (Logan 2002, 16).

Watershed Formation On a more local scale, these processes created the Santa Cruz River watershed, a hilly and mountainous area that drains towards the Santa Cruz River. In the valley of this watershed, approximately a half-million years ago, enough sediment had accumulated to allow an above-ground stream of water, the proto-Santa Cruz River, to begin to form (Logan 2002, 16). Transported by the movement of water along the surface drainages of the valley, near-surface alluvial sediment (mostly cobble-sized and smaller grained lithic and organic material, aka soil) has been and remains the most dynamic component of the lithosphere.

The topographic profile of the near-surface soils and other river alluvium is in a constant state of reformation, with most change occurring during large storm events at the end of the monsoon, or late summer-early autumn rainy period, once soils have become saturated by uninterrupted preceding storms (Logan 2002, 221). Any given storm will disturb and transport alluvial sediment across a width of the floodplain in which its waters are contained. The actions of storms of varying size have had the cumulative effect of creating a series of riparian terraces stretching from one side of the floodplain to the other, each providing a unique microclimate for varying riparian ecosystems (see figures 7.8.1 and 7.8.2). The soils resulting from this alluvial transport and biological activity within the riparian area consist of deep sandy loams and clay loams of the Pima and Comoro associations, ideal soil types for cultivation (Horton 1998, 7).

Atmosphere Climate Change

180

In general, the atmosphere of the Santa Cruz River watershed underwent significant change at the end of the last ice age approximately 8,000 to 6,000 years ago, shifting the climate from cool, wet and humid to semiarid (Logan 2002, 20, 25). Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have risen along a strikingly similar trend, a correlation that climate scientists suggest reveals a cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures (Guido 2008). This climate shift, in turn, has lowered the recharge potential of the aquifer, causing the riverine system to change from “broad, shallow, meandering or braided,” and lush, as was seen when the valley was first settled, to much narrower and drier (Logan 2002, 21).

Hydrosphere It is convenient to divide the hydrosphere between surface water, groundwater, and atmospheric water, as, in these three realms, water is in contact with significantly different substances and subject to distinctly different physical processes. The inventory unit lies entirely within the active floodplain of the Santa Cruz River. The amount of surface water present in the river’s course is both a function of the amount of rain falling from the atmosphere (or being added to the surface from other sources), and the water table, or top level, of the groundwater aquifer, at any given time.

Gaining Reach The river’s above-ground flow is also a function of the proximity of bedrock layers to the surface. A gaining reach of a river is a segment in which groundwater is forced to the surface by underlying bedrock (see figure 7.8.3). One such gaining reach of the Santa Cruz River exists in the Tumacácori-Tubac area, and has been the location of various agricultural pursuits throughout its period of inhabitation. Throughout the period of human inhabitation, or the past 12,000 years, the bedrock of the Santa Cruz River watershed has changed only negligibly (Logan 202, 27). In contrast, the aquifer between these layers of bedrock has changed dramatically. As will be discussed in greater detail below, the varying depth to groundwater as a result of groundwater extraction and effluent recharge has resulted in the disappearance and reappearance of surface flow.

Biosphere Life within the Santa Cruz River Valley is inextricably tied to the availability of water, and the ecological zones present in or near the river are defined by it. These zones are classified as hydroriparian, or obligate wetland; mesoriparian, or obligate riparian; xeroriparian, or facultative riparian; and upland, all of which will be defined and explained below.

River Bottom: Hydroriparian and Mesoriparian Zones Of the alluvial zones of the inventory unit, the Santa Cruz River bottom is the most frequently disturbed by storm events, and as a result, it contains mostly small aquatic and terrestrial plant species typical of obligate wetlands and obligate riparian areas, or those that require perennial (continuous) surface water and root-zone groundwater, respectively. The biotic communities present within this zone are also called hydroriparian (requiring above-ground water or saturated surface soils), and mesoriparian (requiring root contact with subsurface water), respectively. The river bottom contains marshlands, interior strand communities (those existing on the banks of the perennial water sources), and riparian deciduous forest communities. The species within the river bottom mostly complete their life cycle within a year and are adapted to take advantage of the water, nutrients, and minerals available to in the perennial stream of the river or the sandy, mostly inorganic soil of its banks (Brown 1994, 268-273, 278-279, 282-283).

Mature cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) are the general exception to this rule, with a lifespan that can last over a hundred years. They are either found individually or clustered in swooping lines along point bars, or sand bars in the middle of a river channel running parallel to its flow. The cottonwood’s growth pattern suggests that the species

181

self-replicates after floods. The growth rate of cottonwoods has been shown to roughly double in gaining reaches of alluvial floodplains, such as within the inventory unit, versus losing reaches, as the upwelling of nutrient-rich groundwater (aka hyporheic flow) creates a preferable growing environment (Harner and Stanford 2003, 1453-1458). This particular condition likely contributes to the rapid growth and large stature of cottonwoods at the site. At the time of Spanish contact, large sycamores (Platanus wrightii) also likely were part of the mix of species in the river bottom (Logan 2002, 23). Structurally speaking, the river bottom contains a partially-enclosed deciduous canopy (aka gallery forest), an open understory, and a bottom surface of either flowing water or a forest floor that is alternately thick with growth or open with deadfall, depending upon the season (see figure 7.8.2).

First Riparian Terrace: Mesoriparian Zone To the west and east of the river bottom is a riparian terrace that is approximately 3 feet higher in elevation. In some locations, this rise in elevation occurs along a cut bank, while, at other points, the transition is gradual. This first riparian terrace, like the river bottom, contains large open areas of annuals surrounded by linear arrays of woody material, including a canopy of cottonwoods, roughly paralleling the flow of the river. As it is less hydrologically active than the river bottom, it also contains shrubbier, slighterstatured hardwood tree species, including elderberry (Sambucus nigra), acacias (Acacia spp.), velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), wolfberries (Lycium spp.), and hackberries (Celtis spp.). Historically, these areas also likely contained nearly impenetrable swaths of big sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) that would have slowed the passage of water down the floodplain and increased infiltration to the groundwater table (Drake et al. 2009, 42-43).

Taken as a whole, the species of the first riparian terrace are considered to be either obligate riparian, meaning that their roots require perennial contact with water, or facultative riparian, meaning that their roots contact groundwater for a portion of each year, but can survive periods of time without root-water contact.

Second Riparian Terrace: Mesoriparian and Xeroriparian Zones The second riparian terrace, even more sheltered from the ecologically-resetting effects of floods, is dominated by velvet mesquite. Generally, the biotic community transitions from a mesoriparian mesquite bosque, or forest, to a xeroriparian mesquite scrubland.

Within a mesquite bosque, the tree canopies typically overlap, a condition indicative of plentiful soil nutrients and easy access to near-surface water. The shade created by this nearly uninterrupted canopy prevents most other plant species from establishing. Within a mesquite scrubland on the other hand, nutrients and water are relatively scarce, resulting in a more porous canopy cover that allows light to reach other xeric, or dryland, species.

Alluvial Hills Within the alluvial hills adjacent to the riverine system, between the time of arrival of the first humans and the arrival of the Spanish, biotic communities have generally shifted from one containing many oaks, pinyon pine, junipers, grasses, and few cacti to a system containing semi-arid grasses and Upper Sonoran Desert cacti and succulents (Logan 2002, 22).

Fauna Fauna of the inventory unit either specialize in one biotic community or are dependent upon resources from more than one. Taken as a whole, the biotic communities in the Santa Cruz River Valley have historically provided niches for a wide variety of species, including aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates; four species of fish (Gila topminnow, desert sucker, Sonora sucker, and longfin dace); hundreds of species of birds (hummingbirds, songbirds, and raptors); many species of frogs, salamanders, lizards, and snakes; and many mammals (beavers, packrats, mice, cottontail rabbits, jackrabbits, skunks, raccoons, coatimundis, bobcats, grey foxes, coyotes, whitetail deer, mule deer,

182

bighorn sheep, pronghorns, and Mexican wolves) (Logan 2002, 207; Sheridan 1998, 37; Sonoran Institute 2009, 15). There is some evidence to suggest that the northern range of javelina (aka peccaries) may not have extended into the Upper Santa Cruz Valley before human contact, though they are certainly a part of the ecosystem today (Sheridan 1998, 38). In addition, at the time of human contact, megafauna including “ground sloths, bison, camels, horses, and mammoths” roamed these lands, and, in addition to the mammals described above, served as the original source of easily-available protein for early inhabitants.

Human Impacts Native American Sustenance Patterns The effect that the earliest Native Americans had on the natural systems of the Santa Cruz River Valley is somewhat unknown. While many have attributed the disappearance of the megafauna described above to overhunting by archaic cultures, it is also likely that drying and warming cycles played a major role in their decline (Logan 2002, 25).

The agricultural practices of early Indians and the later Hohokam and Sobaipuri cultures of the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley were minimal and did not include diversionary agriculture. Rather, they relied upon the shallow water table to grow native plants, perhaps creating fields using check-dams and terraces. Cultivated plants included amaranth, chenopod grains, and “other vitamin- and mineral-rich greens” (Sheridan 2006, 35, 37). Additionally, it has been speculated that the understory may have been periodically burned to promote the growth of food-bearing annuals. However, because no trees in the riparian area of the Santa Cruz River from that time are still alive, and archaeological evidence is highly obscured, it is impossible to confirm this suggestion by analysis of fire scars or archaeological resources (Drake et al 2009, 6; Moss 2010).

These cultures also dug shallow wells near their residences and gathered plant materials from the riparian area and hillsides, including walnuts, “mesquite pods, saguaro fruit, and agave hearts,… cholla buds, prickly pear fruit, yucca fruits and shoots, acorns, and chiltepines, the tiny, fiery, wild chilis,” and hunted game (Horton 1998, 12; Sheridan, 2006, 37). The cumulative effect that these practices had upon the hydrosphere or biosphere of the river, however, was minimal (Logan 2002, 33; see section 7.1, Archaeology).

Spanish Agricultural Practices As the Spanish colonized the Southwest, they introduced new crops and agricultural practices. Before Father Kino arrived in 1691, it is clear that several agricultural cultivars were actively being harvested by Sobaipuri outside of the Santa Cruz River Valley, including New World species (tepary beans, kidney beans, pumpkins, bottlegourds, squash, maize, tobacco, and cotton), and some Old World species (watermelon and muskmelon) (Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 104-114; Horton 1998, 12). However, analyses of the pre-contact hearths of Hohokam and Sobaipuri within the vicinity of the inventory unit, combined with descriptions of the village of San Cayetano de Tumagacori, suggest that these agricultural varieties only began to be harvested in the area after Kino arrived (Doyel 1977, 132-137, 177; Sheridan 2006, 40). Wheat, fava beans, anise, pepper, mustard, Castilian roses, white lilies, “peaches, pomegranates, figs, pears, quinces, grapes, sugar cane, chickpeas, lentils, bastard chickpeas, cabbage, lettuce, onions, leeks, garlic, cilantro, anise, and perhaps mint” were also introduced to the region after Kino arrived, and were cultivated in unplowed fields (Sheridan 2006, 40-41). Which varieties Kino introduced specifically to his congregacion at San Cayetano de Tumagacori is unknown. In addition to plants, he also introduced stock animals, including sheep and goats (Sheridan 2006, 39).

183

In summary, the above description fully illustrates the composition and dynamic nature of the four natural systems, or “spheres” of the natural environment, before and including the arrival of the Native Americans and the Spanish. This information will be used as a baseline to show how subsequent settlement within the inventory unit, Santa Cruz River watershed, and world at large altered these natural systems and features.

Mission Period of Significance: The establishment of the Tumacácori mission complex and civilian settlements within the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley, while having minimal impacts upon the lithosphere and atmosphere of the valley, had a major impact on the hydrosphere and biosphere. Settlers diverted surface flows of the river for diversionary agriculture, displaced portions of the riparian system for the development of villages, mines, and roads between them, and introduced many non-native flora and fauna to the ecosystem. The following paragraphs will describe the conditions present when the mission was established and then explain the changes to the natural systems that occurred as a result.

Hydrosphere Undetermined Hydrologic Impact of Colonial Agriculture Diverting water from the Santa Cruz River for agriculture may or may not have lowered the water table during the earliest years of the mission. A water-use agreement between Tumacácori Indians and Tubac settlers downstream dating back to 1777 could indicate that diversionary agriculture at Tumacácori reduced the flow downstream to Tubac.

However, natural climatic cycles may have had just as much to do with this fluctuation in water levels (Horton 1998, 22). At various points in time, for example, it was recorded that droughts at Tumacácori led to minimal harvests, which in turn suggests that the water level within the Santa Cruz River channel was naturally so low at times that it was not able to regularly fill the acequia (Kessell 1976b, 190, 195). Historic records also indicate that flooding significantly altered the course of the river channel during this time, resulting in the drying of the Tubac acequia (Kessell 1976b, 288, 291).

The extent to which the combination of the settlers’ water use and naturally-occurring droughts affected the health of the riverine biotic communities is unknown. However, if filling the acequia noticeably reduced downstream flow even periodically, hydroriparian vegetation, containing species dependent upon perennially saturated soil and/or aboveground water, would have diminished or perished.

Biosphere Early Records of Mesoriparian Habitat The clearest record of the state of the biotic community within the Santa Cruz River in the early Mission Period of Significance was written in 1766, around the time that the fields and acequia madre of Tumacácori were being constructed. At this time, the vegetative community of Santa Cruz River Valley between Guevavi and Tumacácori was described as “heavily populated” with cottonwoods and mesquite, the two major indicator species that today typify a mesoriparian habitat (LaFora 1939 as qtd. in U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology).

Riverine Communities & Mission Development The clearing of land for the construction of the mission compound and associated agricultural fields also altered the riverine communities. During these preparations, the missionaries completely removed what was likely a mesquite bosque and replaced it with cropland. These crops, in turn, would have been foraged by wildlife. The streams diverted in the acequias to water the crops also doubled as a source of wildlife drinking

184

water, and the mesoriparian trees (such as netleaf hackberry) growing along the acequia were used as roosting sites (see figure 7.12.2, Views and Vistas; and figures 7.10.5 and 7.10.6, Spatial Organization). In essence, while native riparian habitat was eliminated, it was replaced by a lush agricultural system that supported native fauna in a different manner.

Crops Within the mission orchard/garden and labores, or communal mission, fields were predominately planted with wheat, garbanzos, and lentils (Old World crops), and corn and beans (New World crops) (Horton 1998, 43). More traditional staples of the Native American diet were likely grown within the milpas, or individual plots of the mission inhabitants (Horton 1998, 36). Grazing lands may have been planted with non-native grasses, though native range grasses are excellent forage for stock animals.

Micro-Organisms Finally, Old World micro-organisms were introduced by the Europeans. This is evidenced by the outbreak of measles and smallpox that swept through the New World, decimating Native American populations (Horton 1998, 35-37; Sheridan 2006, 33).

Overall, the biotic communities at Tumacácori underwent the most change during the Mission Period of Significance. The composition of plant species within the inventory unit significantly changed, new habitat was created, livestock was introduced, and new diseases emerged.

Between Periods of Significance: Lithosphere & Hydrosphere Surface Water, Groundwater, and Development Probably around the late 1880s, land use and water extraction practices throughout the watershed began to impact the availability of surface water and lower the water table.

Surface development at this time was widespread. The Twin Buttes Railroad and Tucson and Nogales Railroad Company built a rail line and accompanying settlements on the east side of the valley, overgrazing “denuded” the headwaters of the river, and American and Mexican homesteaders built numerous small farms along the river’s course (Logan 2002, 157, 160; Sheridan 2006, 131). In addition, domestic and agricultural use of groundwater rapidly increased in the Ambos Nogales area (Nogales, Sonora and Nogales, Arizona), as well as the Calabazas and Tubac locales (Logan 2002, 157, 162163). These developments lowered the infiltration capacity of soils within the watershed and disrupted the flow of tributary drainages, reducing the aquifer recharge potential, increasing the severity of floods, and further lowering the groundwater table. Many groundwater wells were built to provide waters for these developments, to the extent that, between 1915 and 1930, the volume of groundwater extraction in the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley increased approximately ten-fold (Konieczki and Heilman 2004, 14; see figure 7.8.4). On the other hand, the eviction of most Tumacácori homesteaders in 1914, coupled with improved range practices in the upper watershed, likely resulted in a brief period of recovery for the aquifer (Sheridan 2006, 138, 172).

Atmosphere Precipitation Severe droughts in the 1890s and between 1918 and 1921 majorly impacted the aquifer.

The latter caused many of the homesteaders in the valley to abandon their farms (Logan 2002, 161). These droughts were typical results of natural cyclical variation of ocean currents and storm patterns. Since rainfall conditions improved before, between, and

185

after these events, the overall rainfall patterns do not appear to have significantly changed during this period of time, or at all over the last 1000 years (see figure 7.8.5; Ni et al. 2002, 1655-1660).

Temperature & Greenhouse Gasses While rainfall levels seem to have remained steady, a record of mean annual temperatures for Santa Cruz County from 1895 to 2010 depicts a significant warming trend that has resulted in a rise of approximately four degrees Fahrenheit (see figure 7.8.5). This is equivalent to a climatic change from conditions similar to present-day inland northern California agricultural areas to conditions similar to southern California.

While the globe had been on a general warming trend since the end of the previous ice age, the rate of change was negligible until the 1890s. Atmospheric scientists generally concur that this rapid rise in temperatures is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels that began in the late 1700s during the Industrial Revolution. Burning fossil fuels released massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and created the phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. More specifically, the greenhouse effect occurs when fossil fuel pollutants and naturally-occurring gases trap solar energy within the lower troposphere. Pollutants and gasses involved in the process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), water vapor (H2O), ozone (O3) and volatile organic compounds (aka VOCs).

Biosphere Naturalization of Mission Agricultural Lands The mission labores and milpas probably naturalized significantly between 1849 and the late 1870s, while they were abandoned, resulting in the replacement of agricultural crops with native species of annuals, shrubs, and mesquite. A drawing from 1853 and records from 1860 describe the mission compound as being surrounded by approximately 40 acres of fields, to the east of which stood riparian canopy trees that seem to be cottonwoods or other similarly-statured trees (see figure 7.8.6; 7.10.9, Spatial Organization).

Reactivation of Agricultural Lands by Homesteaders Beginning in the late 1870s and continuing well into the 20th century, homesteaders reactivated the agricultural lands and acequia system within the inventory unit. By 1908, homesteader Carmen Mendez had seemingly returned the mission fields to steady cultivation, reporting approximately 30-35 acres in his homestead proof. The groundwater pumps mentioned above allowed the homesteaders to expand cultivation further upslope onto the second riparian terrace. This resulted in the removal of many acres of mesoriparian and xeroriparian vegetation (see figures 7.8.6 and 7.8.7, and figure 7.10.10, Spatial Organization). For example, Jose Villa cultivated 40-80 acres and Tomas Cota cultivated approximately 100 acres of irrigated and non-irrigated land in the northern portions of the inventory unit, replacing more of the native vegetation of the riparian terraces with agricultural crops (U.S. District Court of Arizona, 1907-1908).

Remnant Fruit Trees It seems that some established fruit trees from the mission orchard/garden may have survived between the Periods of Significance. Early park employees mention peach trees persisting along the historic acequia during the early 1930s (Moss 2006, 13).

These employees described these trees as being from the Mission Period of Significance, perhaps due to their size and location. However, it is certainly possible that these trees were planted by the early homesteaders in a similar location, and had grown to a large size in the roughly fifty years in between.

Animal Husbandry

186

In addition, between the 1850s and 1907, the mission compound was intensively used as a stockyard by ranchers and homesteaders (Ivey 2007, 103). In general, at the turn of the century, herds in the Santa Cruz River Valley were extremely large and the valley range was largely overgrazed. It is therefore likely that cattle caused damage in the unfenced acreage of the inventory unit by grazing its grasses and annuals, browsing upon the new growth of woody trees and shrubs, and trampling (compressing) the soils of the riparian system.

Tamarisk (Shrubby Varieties) One species of particular importance that was likely introduced to the biotic communities of Tumacácori between Periods of Significance was shrubby tamarisk. Recent evidence suggests that shrubby tamarisk (Tamarix spp., other than Tamarix aphylla) first arrived to North American nurseries on the East Coast in the early 1800s, and was first recorded in the western U.S. in a California nursery catalog in 1856 (McDaniel year unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact file, date unknown, Tumacácori file). Records from the University of Arizona herbarium and the Rocky Mountain herbarium suggest that it was found both within the cultivated collections of the University of Arizona managed by Thornber and in the wild by the early 1910s (SEINET various years). By the 1920s, it was common throughout Southwestern waterways, and since that time, the acreage to which it has spread has increased by at least 100 times (McDaniel year unknown). What this combination of sources suggests is that shrubby tamarisk was transported from any number of U.S. cities to the Santa Cruz River and the Tumacácori inventory unit at some point between the abandonment of the mission and the establishment of Thornber’s “botanical plant introduction garden” at the University of Arizona around 1910 (SEINET various years).

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: Hydrosphere Groundwater Shortages During the 1930s and 1940s, the Santa Cruz River Valley experienced a groundwater shortage. This was in part due to increased extraction, and in part due to severe droughts in 1934 and 1940. Beginning in 1930 in the Tumacácori area, a flurry of groundwater wells were constructed (ADWR 2010). At some point during the 1930s after a brief and unexplained dip in extraction (see figure 7.8.4), groundwater replaced channel diversion as the main source of irrigation in the valley (ADWR 2010; Logan 2002, 161162). Construction within the monument, irrigation, ranching, and even treasure hunting taxed the water supply, and competition for water was heated (Boundey 1934; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports.) As the water table lowered and the droughts continued, farmers and other users dug deeper and deeper wells, drawing the water table further down, reducing above-ground flow, and increasing their dependence on groundwater. In 1938, the gaining reach of the Santa Cruz River adjacent to the monument stopped flowing. Consequently, water also stopped flowing through the historic acequia (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports). Thus, as demand increased, supply decreased, and the water shortage became more severe.

Political / Scientific Response to the Water Shortage In the 1950s, following years of falling water tables and vernacular, technological, and political endeavors to reach and use increasing amounts of water, aquifer overdraft finally began to be recognized. In 1952, the U.S. Geological Survey declared that the lower basin of the Santa Cruz River below Tucson was a “critical ground-water area”. It also reported major overdrafts in the upper basin, and served as the first sober assessment of the state of water resources in the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley. Then,

187

in 1957, the University of Arizona hydrology department explicitly called overdraft a problem, recognizing a more than doubling of groundwater extraction since 1941, and describing an “imperative” need for greater information regarding the aquifer (see figure 7.8.4; Logan 2002, 196-197). However, while scientific understanding of the effects of rampant groundwater extraction were beginning to be understood and wrestled with in Tucson and at the state level, local policies left current practices unchecked. For example, in 1954, Santa Cruz County successfully opposed a “critical” designation of the upper basin, which would have prevented the creation of new irrigated agricultural lands and further regulated and controlled storm-water runoff (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Biosphere Transition from Farming to Ranching As new users acquired the productive lands within the inventory unit, the type of agriculture practiced there changed. In 1930, corn was commonly grown in the fields surrounding the mission as a summer crop, and it is likely that another traditional grain was grown during the winter (NPS, Boundey file, date unknown). By 1934, under the new ownership of “Tol” Pendleton, fields to the north and south of the mission were planted with several hundred acres of peas, spinach, and other vegetables, shifting the growth of agricultural crops away from staple grains for local consumption to cash crops for export (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Between 1934 and 1959, Pendleton’s ranch was subdivided into smaller dude ranches.

Santa Gertrudis cattle were imported from Texas and became the primary form of stock animal on the ranch. It is likely that, as the number of smaller “gentleman” ranches increased, the crops within the fields shifted from grains, beans and vegetables for sale, to hay, other cattle feed crops, and cotton (Moss 2006, 13; Sheridan 2004; Simenon 1954; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Tree Death Farmers and ranchers also altered their surroundings by destroying the local cottonwood population. During the droughts of the 1930’s, they began to see cottonwoods as greedy water-users. Throughout the rest of the decade, to combat this perceived threat, farmers systematically cut circles of bark away from thousands of giant trees, preventing the flow of nutrients from roots to shoots and causing them all to perish by the end of the decade.

One tree from the area was measured as being thirty-five feet in circumference.

Following their death, to prevent their re-sprouting, cottonwood stumps were burned (Logan 2002, 182). Thus, at this time, any trees dating to the Mission Period of Significance within the riverine system were lost.

In 1938, after water stopped flowing through the historic acequia, the “trees along the old canal,” including “sixteen peaches, one pomegranate, one walnut, one or two cottonwoods and two willows” were described as being likely to die (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports). As the groundwater table continued to drop beyond the reach of their root systems, smaller trees and shrubs within the riverine system also perished, leaving no surface flow and only a xeroriparian biotic community.

In 1944, as predicted, the large cottonwood on the southeast corner of the monument died after being blown over (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1944, Tumacácori monthly reports). This abusive condition continued for the next 30 years.

New Mission Garden The most significant new planting during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance was the orchard/garden installed in the new museum and visitor center complex. This feature was intended to demonstrate the plants of the Mission Period, an “ideal Spanish garden,” in the words of park superintendent Frank “Boss” Pinkley

188

(University of Arizona 1996, 1). In 1930, a list of plants likely used by Father Kino was prepared by junior landscape architect Charles E. Peterson, based upon a translation of mission records prepared by historian Herbert Bolton (Colby 1999, 12). The landscape division of the NPS who were in charge of the general design wanted the space to demonstrate the plant palette used by the missionaries and provide a place of shade, beauty, and refuge for the visitors year-round (see figure 7.3.5, Circulation, and section 2, Design: Design During the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: Museum Garden; Colby 1999, 13). The resultant plant palette included staple crops, herbs, fruit trees and shrubs, mesquites, and palo verdes, the latter two being included for aesthetics and functionality (Colby 1999, 13). Between 1939 and 1940, the planting design was prepared and planted by the Tucson Botanical Garden (Jackson 1952; NPS 1987, 7:2, NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1939, 1940 Tumacácori monthly reports).

Ornamental Plantings A few other areas within the monument were also planted with ornamentals. At some point before the mid-1930s, a “cactus bed” was planted to the west of the adobe residence south of the convento building (see figure 7.3.1, Circulation). This feature was partially destroyed in the late 1940s, and seemingly removed altogether by 1953 (see figure 7.3.3, Circulation; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, 1948, 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1947, a cactus garden was established in the museum garden and a giant maguey (Agave) was planted in front of the museum; in 1951, the maguey was removed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1947, 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports). Lastly, a cherry laurel (Prunus caroliniana) was planted west of the southwest corner of residence #2 (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Vegetation / Pest Management Throughout the monument/park’s history, vegetation has been managed in a variety of ways by the park’s custodial/maintenance staff. Beginning in 1929, and extending through today, park employees have regularly removed weeds and dead wood from the monument and either burned them in an incinerator or otherwise disposed of them (NPS, Boundey file, date unknown; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1943, 1951-1953 Tumacácori monthly reports). Beginning in the 1940s or earlier, herbicides, including ammate, were also used to control weeds (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1951, the vidalia beetle was applied to a pyracantha tree, presumably as a biocontrol agent (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1951). In the late 1950s, and perhaps during other periods of time, grass was annually seeded (Jackson 1957).

Tamarisk (Arborescent Variety) A notable, semi-invasive species, the athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), was planted in the monument during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. Professor J.J. Thornber promoted this more arborescent variety as a windbreak and ornamental tree in rural homesteads in the early 20th century (Backer et al 2004, 6). A report in 1930 by junior landscape architect Peterson mentions that athel tamarisk trees were planted in the monument south of the church by the Nogales Chamber of Commerce (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file). While this species was not thought to pose a significant invasive threat to the native riparian ecosystems of the Sonoran region due to seed sterility, it has recently been observed to be naturally establishing from seed in the wild, and hybridizing with the more invasive shrubby tamarisk species (Backer et al 2004, 5).

In summary, during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, the integrity of the hydrosphere and biosphere of the riverine and acequia systems of the Mission Period of Significance was completely destroyed. Within the mission complex, little change occurred. The museum garden partially mitigated the loss of integrity elsewhere, providing an interpretive space for the plant materials used during the Mission Period of Significance and creating one of the most beloved spaces of monument.

189

Post-Period of Significance: Lithosphere Erosion & River Channelization Alluvial material in the Santa Cruz River watershed has continued to be transported through drainages by perennial and storm-driven surface water flows, and has been majorly impacted by the changes in the surface properties of the watershed caused by development. Construction of many homes, maquiladoras (factories co-operated by Mexicans and Americans), and warehouses within the Ambos Nogales and Rio Rico areas upstream has resulted in increased erosion, and this disturbed material is washed into the river bottom. In addition, geomorphologic change has occurred within the watershed. Many stretches of the Santa Cruz River have been channelized, which has likely removed large silt deposits from the riparian terraces along its banks (Nelson 2007, 6). In other words, settlement of the region has significantly impacted both the lithosphere and hydrosphere in an interconnected fashion.

Atmosphere Temperature & Precipitation As described above, annual temperatures since the late 1800s, including the time period between the end of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance and today, are generally on a rapid warming trend. These warmer conditions have likely shortened the portion of each year that snowpack exists within the watershed’s mountains to recharge the aquifer, and affected the plant composition found within the valley ecosystem. On the other hand, precipitation levels, while highly variable from year to year, have remained steady (see figure 7.8.5).

Carbon Dioxide & Methane Carbon dioxide and methane levels have continued to rise globally. Comparison of levels of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to Antarctic temperatures over the past 350,000 years shows a very strong correlation between the two. Over the past 350,000 years, carbon dioxide concentrations cycled from approximately 180 to 300 parts per million, yet, in 2007, they were recorded at 380 parts per million. Another significant greenhouse gas, methane, cycled within a range of 320 to 790 parts per billion during this same period of time, yet was recorded at levels of 1,775 parts per billion in 2005 (Guido 2008). In summary, this suggests that the rise in atmospheric levels of fossil fuel pollutants is responsible for significant rise in temperatures in Santa Cruz County which has occurred over the last 115 years, and perhaps earlier.

Hydrosphere Recovery of the Santa Cruz River The hydrosphere since the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance has changed dramatically. In 1972, after approximately 35 years of little surface flow and mostly xeric (dry) conditions, the gaining reach of the Santa Cruz River at TumacĂĄcori began flowing regularly once again. While some have attributed the return of surface flow in the Upper Santa Cruz River in the late 1960s and early 1970s to several large floods and the resultant spread of cottonwood seedlings, it is more likely that the newly constructed Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant (NIWTP) was responsible. It is also possible that there was a slight decrease in the amount of groundwater being extracted (see figure 7.8.4), (Logan 2002, 209-210; Sprouse 2005, 5, 6).

Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant

190

The NIWTP was constructed at the confluence of the Santa Cruz River and Nogales Wash upstream from the inventory unit in 1951, and, in 1972, its treatment capacity increased to a return of 8.2 million gallons per day. Shortly thereafter, perennial base flows were observed in the Santa Cruz River at Tumacácori, resulting in the recovery of riparian biotic communities, discussed in further detail below, in Biosphere. The capacity of NIWTP has steadily increased since the improvement in 1972. In the 1990s, development upstream of the plant increased as rural areas became subdivided and Ambos Nogales expanded. This increased the amount of sewage arriving to the plant from pipes and Nogales Wash (Logan 2002, 237). In addition, 30% of incoming sewage is piped to the plant from domestic and industrial sources from the Los Alisos/Magdalena watershed to the south (Sonoran Institute 2009, 6). As of 2009, the plant discharged up to 15 million gallons per day into the streambed of the Santa Cruz River (Sonoran Institute 2010, 7).

Wells & Groundwater In conjunction with above-ground flow, groundwater levels in wells throughout the valley rose significantly between the early 1960s and middle 1970s and have remained steady since that time (Nelson 2007, 7, 129). At the primary well of the monument, the water table rose from approximately 14 feet below the surface in the early 1960s to 8 feet below the surface from the late 1960s to today (ADWR, 2010).

Return to Mission Period of Significance Riverine Conditions Thus, while the river flow was likely more variable during the Mission Period of Significance, the existence of above-ground flow, a near-surface groundwater table, and the biotic community composition and density that these waters support possibly approximates the riverine system that was found during the Mission Period of Significance. As stated by Santa Cruz River environmental historian Michael Logan, “although one might take exception that the flows of treated effluent are “artificial” and thus should not be considered part of the historic river, such a judgment would clearly emanate from a distinct perception of the river, and would not be shared by residents of the valley approaching the river with a different vision” (Logan 2002, 228). Further, it is possible that perennial water flow in the inventory unit, as of 2002 and to this day, exceeds historic levels, instead approaching a riparian nature similar to the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago, “at the dawn of human existence” (Logan 2002, 239).

Flooding, 1967 – 1983 AD Perhaps the most significant events within the inventory unit since the conclusion of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance were a series of floods from 1967 to 1983. These floods damaged much of the inventory unit and many other properties in communities along the river, which in turn influenced water-management policies. The floods were caused by several large tropical storms and were exacerbated by increased runoff from impermeable surfaces. More specifically, this runoff was the result of a decrease in the absorptive infiltration potential of the upstream watershed caused by increased urban development.

The floods raised water levels well into the second riparian terraces and destroyed many farms and mature riparian communities of the Upper Santa Cruz River valley (Logan 2002, 220). On the east side of the inventory unit, the river channel migrated eastward, consuming farmland acreage and the headquarters of the Canto Ranch (see figure 7.5.11, Constructed Water Features). The floodwaters also reached the Mission/Binney Ranch. However, their effect was not destructive but rather constructive, as nutrient-rich soils were deposited across the fields (Binney 2010). Along the riparian terrace of the northern boundary of the monument, a triangular pasture was seemingly washed out by the inundation (see figure 7.8.7). Following these events, headwalls of river cobble or demolished ranch debris were constructed along the edge of the triangular pasture and

191

the remaining fields of the Canto Ranch, and, since this time, large cottonwoods and other large exotic trees have grown along these features.

Political Response to Increased Water Flow The return of surface flows of effluent, coupled with the damage caused by flooding, caused a shift in both scientific understanding and environmental policy of the Santa Cruz River. Before these events, floodplain soils had been graded, bridges and house had been built, and the river had been channelized based upon an ethos of ever-increasing resource consumption and a faith in the security of civil engineering solutions. After the graded fields, bridges, houses, etc, had been destroyed, the wisdom of these longstanding ways of thinking was questioned. As a result, much research was devoted to improving hydrologic models of the river, and flood control and groundwater use policies began to change.

In 1973, 100-year floodplains were delineated throughout the Santa Cruz River Valley, and setbacks for the construction of buildings and structures were mandated, depending upon their use. In 1980, the State of Arizona created Active Management Areas (AMAs), including the Santa Cruz AMA, to slow the proliferation of new wells, particularly for new or expanded agricultural use, and to promote conservation. This designation also required the registration of all active wells and regulated surface flow within the river channel near Tubac in order to preserve its flow. These policies, in conjunction with the destructive flood events, are likely responsible for the decreased extraction of groundwater in the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley observed since the late 1970s (see figure 7.8.4).

River Monitoring & Waterborne Pollutants Monitoring and regulation became the tools of an expanding “environmental ethos” regarding water resources and their relationship with surface development and groundwater extraction (Logan 2002, 220-226). In the early 1990s, river monitoring began to be shared with the Tubac-based, non-profit organization called Friends of the Santa Cruz River, who have measured and recorded indicators of water quality ever since. By the mid 1990s, major pollutants began to be found in the wells along Nogales Wash, including Trichloroethylene (TCE), and other industrial chemicals (Logan 2002, 237). Also in the mid 1990s, a research well was constructed on the first riparian terrace to the east of the river channel near the south boundary by the University of Arizona, though analysis of this data is unavailable (Binney 2010). Recently, the Tucson-based non-profit Sonoran Institute has expanded monitoring of the river to include stretches of the river both upstream and downstream of Tumacácori and a wider range of chemical and biotic indicators (Sonoran Institute 2009, 9).

Recently, the Sonoran Institute released a report of their findings during the 2008 water year. This report revealed that, near the inventory unit, ammonia levels were well above Arizona Department of Environmental Quality standard values for effluent dependent streams, E. coli colonies were often present at levels unsafe for full body contact, and surface flow extended a few miles north of the inventory unit. Very high levels of ammonia were blamed for the eutrophication within the river. Eutrophication is defined as algal growth caused by nutrient-rich runoff from over-fertilized lands. A high amount of algae has two negative effects: it leads to the depletion of dissolved oxygen; and it can form impenetrable mats that coat the bottom of the river, separate surface flow from nearsurface groundwater, and decrease water infiltration into the riparian subsurface soils.

This phenomenon has been partially blamed for another mass die-off of cottonwoods along the river upstream of the inventory unit (Sonoran Institute 2009, 7; Villareal 2009, 20-21; Zugmeyer 2010). In addition, ammonia is toxic to fish, and it has caused a reduction in hatching success. Within the measured stretch of the river that included the inventory unit, only one juvenile longfin dace, a native fish was found in 2008 (Sonoran Institute 2009, 13-14; Zugmeyer 2010).

192

In the summer of 2009, NIWTP overhauled their treatment system to lower the amount of ammonia released into the river and increase concentrations of dissolved oxygen. The changes in the river since this upgrade are striking. Algal growth seems to be occurring at a lesser rate, improving infiltration into the soils along the floodplain between the plant and Tumacácori. In addition, the river’s surface flow now extends only to the inventory unit, and no further north. Finally, native fish populations seem to be on the rebound as a result of this change. Over the summer of 2009, 46 longfin dace were found. Non-native fish populations of Western Mosquitofish, Green Sunfish, and Largemouth Bass have been variable over the past ten years (Davis 2010; Sonoran Institute, 2009, 15; Sonoran Institute, 2010, 10; Zugmeyer, 2010).

Biosphere Fauna The richness (number of species) of fauna in the inventory unit has decreased since the Mission Period of Significance, though it is probably greater than it was during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. Regarding avian populations, National Park Service reports indicate that three non-native birds (house sparrow, European starling, and Eurasian Collared-Dove), are present on the inventory unit in addition to the 70-80 native species observed in the 2008 and 2009 water years (Sonoran Institute 2009, 16; Sonoran Institute 2010, 17). Beaver, pronghorn, Mexican wolf, and bighorn sheep are no longer regularly found within the unit. In regards to aquatic life, as mentioned above, the longfin dace population was all but eliminated due to eutrophication, but has since started to make a recovery.

Vegetation in the Museum / Visitor Center Complex Vegetation within and around the Museum and Visitor Center has mostly stayed the same since the complex’s construction. Overall, plants within the museum garden are much the same as they were described during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, while various individual plants have been lost (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1964, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1970, an exotic dead tamarisk tree, presumably one of those planted prior to 1930, was removed from the grounds at the schoolhouse (aka convento) ruins, and cottonwood trees were removed from the visitor center entrance (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970). Also, several agaves have died.

Other plants have been added. In the 1960s, cacti specimens were obtained by Superintendent Cook and Naturalist Olin from Reddington Pass and planted at the monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1961, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Landscape Maintenance within the Mission Complex Vegetation management has also continued into the present day. Monument trees have been pruned or otherwise maintained by park staff, the “western tree crew,” and the fire/fuels unit of Saguaro National Park (Moss 2010; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1960, 1963, 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). The Tucson Botanical Garden has maintained the museum garden, fertilizing, spraying insecticide, and replacing individual plants when needed (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1971, native grass began to be used to revegetate disturbed sites around the church and “trailer site” (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1971, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Fallow and Active Agricultural Lands North of the mission complex, it is clear from the analysis of aerial photos that irrigated fields previously cultivated and harvested by Pendleton and later farmers were abandoned between the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance and 1990, mostly between 1977 and 1980, and have progressively succeeded to nearly mature mesquite bosques (see figure 7.8.6 and 7.8.7; Garate 2010; NPS, Photo file (prints), 1977, 1980).

193

Surrounding the headquarters of the ranch south of the monument, prior to 1979, softwood trees, presumably a small row of cypresses, and a chinaberry tree were planted (Binney 2010). After George Binney acquired the ranch south of the monument in 1979, he dramatically changed the plant composition of both the headquarters and fields of his “Mission Ranch.” At some point between 1979 and 1984, he planted a row of pyracantha shrubs (Pyracantha sp.) along the fence-line of the stable stalls of the ranch headquarters, and a mesquite at the southwest corner of the stable. Pines and eucalyptus trees were planted around the ranch house and four eucalyptus trees provided shade to a ranch hand residence between the ranch house and field B. Summer crops within the fields included white corn (sold locally, and via “you-pick”) and “Sudan” sorghum (used for cattle feed). Winter crops rotated between beardless barley and cayuse oats. Pecan varieties from New Mexico and peaches were planted in an orchard (field F) along the highway. In the 1990s, garlic was planted in field G, or what remained of the historic mission orchard. For a short time, field G was also used as a holding pond for irrigation water. During these times, and perhaps in previous periods of flood irrigation, it likely that a row of mesquites and netleaf hackberries along the crumbling orchard wall grew heartily (see figure 7.5.4 and 7.5.5, Constructed Water Features; Binney 2010; McCoy 2010).

Shortly after the acquisition of the Binney parcel by the park between 2002 and 2004, all fields of annual crops (fields A, B, E, D, and G; see figure 7.5.4 and 7.5.5, Constructed Water Features) were made to lay fallow. These fields, with the exception of field A, have been regularly mowed since this time. Field A has been allowed to re-naturalize, and, as of 2010, contains many herbaceous annuals, shrubs, and small mesquite trees (Drake et al. 2009, 41). Field G, or what remains of the historic mission orchard, was replanted in 2007 with fruit tree cultivars from mission community orchards in Sonora, MX, and with other regional heirloom varieties (Desert Survivors 2008). In 2009-2010, after it was clear that the health of the pecan orchard was poor, the trees were removed.

Individual, non-native, ornamental trees of the ranch headquarters have also been removed since the park’s acquisition of these lands.

Wildfires In recent years, wildfire has been a component of the riparian ecosystem. The Mission Fire of 2009 began on the southeast corner of the park, possibly by arson, and spread across 120 acres of the monument, scorching many mature cottonwoods east of the river channel. The Apache Fire of 2009 started outside of the monument and ran through approximately 60 acres of the river bottom and terraces in the northeast corner of the park (see figures 7.8.1 and 7.8.8; Moss 2010). Fire scars from this event are clearly evident on the trunks of mesquite and cottonwood trees. While in some instances, these scars only extend a few feet up the trunk, indicating a low-severity burn of the forest floor, in other instance, the scars reach approximately 10-15 feet up the trunk, and have caused tree mortality, indicating that a flammable understory surrounded these trees and burned intensely. Landscape features resulting from these wildfires and controlled brush burns include the presence of many scorched, dead trunks and surface spots resembling fire pits along the river bottom, and riparian terraces east of the Santa Cruz River channel (Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010).

Shrubby Tamarisk and other Non-Native Vegetation Shrubby tamarisk is an aggressive competitor to native vegetation for available soil moisture, and, due to its flammability, can serve as a major fuel source for extremely hot fires (Moss 2010). Because of its high flammability, it probably provided some of the understory fuel for the 2009 fires. A vegetation inventory completed in 2008 identified a stand of shrubby tamarisk along the northern boundary (see figure 7.8.8; Drake et al 2009, 13-14). Since 2007, this approximately one acre stand of 2-3m tall trees has been

194

controlled by cutting the trunks from the stump, applying herbicide to the stump, and burning the piles of resultant brush.

In addition to the flammable species listed above, four other non-native species have become significant components of the landscape. A recent vegetation survey revealed that Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), has become dominant along many riverbank stretches (strand communities) in the river bottom, and along large portions of the first riparian terrace (see figure 7.8.8). Nicotiana glauca, or tree tobacco, was also commonly found within debris piles along the riparian corridor, and after identification, it was removed. Russian thistle (Salsola kali), a species that commonly invades cattle pastures in Arizona, was found in multiple locations along the river bottom (Drake et al 2009, 714). Finally, poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) has also been reported within the inventory unit (Drake et al 2009, 42).

The combination of intense wildfires and invasive species can lead to the displacement of native riparian vegetation. Today, the park is undergoing restoration studies to determine how to restore the river’s vegetative structure once tamarisk has been removed (Moss 2010). In addition, the athel tamarisk trees that were planted within the monument in the 1930s appear to have been removed.

Return of Mission Period of Significance Biotic Communities Even though groundwater pumping has continued to extract water from the aquifer, recharge from the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant has raised the water table, and many fields of the TumacĂĄcori area have been decommissioned, resulting in the recovery of the riparian ecosystem since the 1930s. Today, similar to the Spanish accounts of 1766 and the drawing of the riparian area made in 1853, the riparian area around the river includes emergent wetlands, cottonwood forests, and mesquite bosques. More specifically, a thick canopy of cottonwoods, hackberries, and elderberries surrounded by a dense understory and forest floor thickets, parallels the flow of surface water, and mesquite bosques extend across the second riparian terrace, even in places that were fields during the Mission Period of Significance (see figures 7.8.6 and 7.8.7). In addition, the density of native biomass is similar to that which was described during, and shortly after, the Mission Period of Significance.

Mission Period of Significance plant materials can minimally be found in field G and within the well-maintained NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance museum garden, but are not to be found within the completely fallow fields.

Summary of Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation Integrity In conclusion, many, but not all characteristics of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere from the Mission Period of Significance are present within the inventory unit today, while the atmospheric characteristics are different. Therefore, natural systems and features / vegetation of the Mission Period of Significance retain moderate integrity. While natural and vegetation characteristics of the areas outside of the original monument boundary have dramatically changed since the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, within the original monument boundary, little has changed. Therefore, the integrity of natural systems and features / vegetation of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance is high.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing

195

FEATURE NAME Temperature (atmosphere)

CONTRIBUTION

MP: NC ND: NC Precipitation (atmosphere and hydrosphere) MP: contributing ND: contributing Santa Cruz River surface flow (hydrosphere) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Groundwater table (hydrosphere) MP: contributing ND: contributing River bottom (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible First riparian terrace (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Second riparian terrace (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Museum garden (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: NC/compatible ND: contributing Mission garden/orchard (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Ranch fields (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Ranch headquarters grounds (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Museum and Visitor Center grounds (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Mission complex grounds (lithosphere and biosphere) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible

196

Figure 7.8.1: Alluvial material in the Santa Cruz River watershed originates from the ridgelines and alluvial hills, and is transported to the floodplain by tributary drainages. This alluvial sediment is transported within the floodplain by small and large storm events and distributed across a series of flat terraces.

197

Figure 7.8.2: This typical cross-sectional profile of the Santa Cruz River depicts the relationship between topographical profile, depth to groundwater, and native biotic community. In general, as one moves away from the river channel, both the depth-to-groundwater and the drought tolerance of common plant species increase (Image modified from Pima County Regional Flood Control District, “Species change with increasing depth to groundwater in a Sonoran riparian ecosystem,�

2010).

198

Figure 7.8.3: In an abstract sense, the aquifer of the Santa Cruz River at Tumacácori is recharged by runoff from the surrounding hills and mountains of its watershed infiltrating back into the ground. Sometimes, the top of this aquifer, or water table, lies below the ground in areas where the underlying bedrock is far below the ground surface. This results in a “losing reach” of the river, where surface flow is non-existent, and resultant riparian vegetation is sparse. In contrast, when the bedrock underlying the aquifer is close to the ground surface, a condition common in mountainous canyons with large upstream watersheds, groundwater is forced to the surface. The resulting surface flow and dense riparian vegetation is referred to as a “gaining reach,” one of which roughly occurs from upstream of Tumacácori to downstream of Tubac.

Water table drawdown occurs where groundwater is pumped to the surface, usually for agricultural use, faster than it can be recharged.

199

Figure 7.8.4: Between 1915, at which time groundwater pumping became popular in the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley, and the beginning of a severe drought in the early 1930s, the valley’s aquifer was increasingly pumped. During this time of drought, the majority of the Tumacácori Monument’s concrete work was completed, requiring large amounts of groundwater resources, and contributing to tensions in the local area. Groundwater withdrawal continued to increase until the late 1970s, corresponding with observations at the Monument of lowering water tables and required re-drilling of wells (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1949, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1954, the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley was considered to be a “critical” watershed by the state of Arizona, a designation that was successfully opposed by Santa Cruz County, allowing for further lands to be brought into irrigated agricultural productivity (Logan, 202, 195; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1954, Tumacácori monthly reports). A series of disastrous floods from 1967 to 1983 destroyed much of the agricultural infrastructure of the valley, likely accounting for the dip in use during these years seen above. (graphic from Konieczki and Heilman 2004, 14, figure 5: “Groundwater withdrawal in Arizona and the Upper Santa Cruz Basin and annual and meanannual precipitation at the National Weather Service rain gauge in Tucson, Arizona”).

NOTE: Precipitation data is from National Weather Service rain gauge in Tucson.

200

Figure 7.8.5: Since 1895, when records of climatic conditions first began to be recorded in Santa Cruz County, average annual temperatures have risen approximately four degrees. Over this same period of time, average annual precipitation has varied yearly, but when these amounts are averaged, overall precipitation has remained constant (Desert Research Institute, 2010).

201

Figure 7.8.6: The riparian area of the inventory unit has varied in extent and stature from 1853, shortly after the mission’s abandonment, to the present day as agricultural practices have varied and the groundwater table has fluctuated.

202

7.8.7: Cultivated acreage of the inventory unit took many different forms and arose in different locations throughout the modern ranch era and the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. In 1936, fields can be seen in the approximate location of the historic mission fields to the east of the monument, and along the northwestern corner. In 1977, by which time the historic acequia had been abandoned, many fields extended into previously undeveloped areas north of the mission complex. The rectangular fields of the northwestern corner appear to have been abandoned by this time, though a patch of land to the east of them appears to have been cleared. This area also seems to have been affected by the flood of 1977. These fields became the triangular pasture defined by a headwall seen in the 1990 photo. By 1990, the fields to the north of the monument were largely abandoned and were in the process of naturalization, with the exception of the triangular pasture. By 2008, all northern fields were in various stages of naturalizing into to mesquite bosques, while the ranch fields to the southeast of the mission compound, though fallow, were still recognizable as fields (NPS, Aerial photo file (digital), various years).

203

Figure 7.8.8: Vegetative communities of the Tumacácori inventory unit were mapped in 2008.

Polygons delineated are dominated by different plant associations, varying from developed woodlands, cropland and pastures, sparse riparian strand communities, stands of exotic shrubs and native forests, woodlands, and shrublands (graphic from Drake et al 2009, 14, figure: “Figure 2.2-1. Vegetation map of the Mission unit of Tumacácori National Historical Park’).

204

9. SMALL SCALE FEATURES While the other twelve landscape characteristic sections describe large-scale, thematic features of the inventory unit, this section will seek to summarize the small features of each section that are too numerous to individually describe, as well as other features that are not easily characterized. While these types of features, due to their size, can be easily forgotten, they greatly contribute to the integrity of the landscape. A few of these features that are small in scale but greatly important to other landscape characteristic sections have been described in those sections and are not included in this section. In general, these are constructed water features, barriers, townsite/industrial features, domestic features, circulation features, or interpretive features.

Mission Period of Significance: Water Features As discussed in detail in section 7.5 (Constructed Water Features), the earthen acequia system of the Mission Period of Significance included small lateral canals; basin field units with bunds, or earthen berms, separating them; and weirs, gates, and dams made of wood and brush to control the flow of water inside of and emptying out of the canals.

None of these features remain on the landscape, because their materials break down easily, and the area was completely plowed under by later eras of agricultural development.

Fencing Wood and brush also were used to create various barriers to control stock animals. In an account of his time at Tumacácori during the early 1760s, Father Ignacio Pfefferkorn refers to the stock “stalls” of Tumacácori, and in an 1860 account by William Wrightson, “8 large corrals” were reported (Horton 1998, 46, 47). While some of these eight stalls were likely the enclosed spaces of the mission compound, it seems that more were located external to it (Kessell 1976b, 283). Pfefferkorn otherwise described the “patch” in which wheat was threshed by describing this feature as being surrounded by “strong and deeply embedded posts fastened to one another with small cross pieces” to create an enclosure in which “twenty-five to thirty horses may be driven around” (Horton 1998, 43, quoting Ignacio Pfefferkorn, Sonora: A Description of the Province, 1989, trans. Theodore E. Treutlein, (reprint), University of Arizona Press). It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the description of this style of stock-enclosing fence was the general form employed in the corrals and stalls employed to manage and enclose the mission herd. Other than these enclosures, it is unlikely that individual pastures or other fields were enclosed by fencing, as the mission and the presidio of Tubac were the only pastoralists of this stretch of the river and open range characterized grazing lands at this time. Once again, because of the materials used and the subsequent plowing of the agricultural areas, none of these small-scale features remain on the landscape.

Industrial Features The mission townsite, as a place in which agricultural goods and natural resources were collected, refined, and processed into useful items of food, clothing, and other dry goods, contained many small scale receptacles, fire pits, and rudimentary machines. One of these was an arrastra, or molino, in which a mill-stone was rotated by mule power to grind grain and other materials. This feature was later discovered in one of the rooms of the northern room block of the convento. Manos, or pestels, and metates, or mortars, were also used to grind grain, perhaps by mission neophytes and before the construction of the arrastra. From a workshop area east of the church that was likely a foundry, in which various metals were likely refined and hewn into useful items, such as the church’s bell. Vasos, or large ceramic jars, contained water or other useful materials, or were perhaps used for some other industrial process. Numerous baskets and ceramic pots

205

likely also were common within the buildings, structures, and throughout the landscape, for use in the various industrial and agricultural pursuits of the mission.

Architectural Features Within the mission complex, architectural features were constructed with a degree of craftsmanship that included a fair amount of superficial ornamentation in the building façades and doors, and overhanging, arcaded portales. These included plaster-lined drains along the walls of the church, small indentations dug within internal benches of the granary to store ceramic pots, and white-plaster wall finishes with dark red dados along the bottom two or three feet. Wooden doors into buildings and gates between external spaces fully enclosed the compound and controlled circulation.

Circulation Features Surrounding the mission complex, and within it, there were likely countless footpaths eroded into the earth by constant traffic between rooms and outdoor features (see figure 7.10.7, Spatial Organization). In addition to the Camino de Tumacácori extending to Tubac, additional footpaths likely extended to the mission fields on both sides of the river, and possibly into the foothills (see figure 7.10. 6, Spatial Organization). These smallscale features likely naturalized after abandonment or were otherwise obscured by future developments.

Between Periods of Significance: Lost Features Many small-scale architectural and industrial features were lost between the mission’s abandonment and 1930, as a result of weathering, theft, erosion and modification by resident homesteaders and ranchers, and other visitors. William Wrightson, whose Santa Rita Mining Company “purchased the old ranch of Tomacacori [sic]” in 1859, wrote that, in 1860, “to the east of this square of sumptuous residences was an oblong of a building, where the metallurgical operations were carried on. Here are still the remains of furnaces and quantities of slag, attesting the purposes for which this was formerly used” (Clemensen 1977, 12). By 1930, this building had eroded to become an archaeological feature, and the small-scale features of industry (vasos and possible smelters) lay underground. In 1884, a smooth wooden double gate was constructed in the southeast wall of the corner of the cemetery in order for it to be used as a cattle corral. At this time, grave mounds from the Mission Period of Significance were not evident, indicating that, if they ever were evident, they had eroded since the mission’s abandonment (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, cemetery file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology). Between 1900 and 1916, many graves were dug within the north and south portions of the historic cemetery for members of Hispanic families from the town of Tumacácori. These burials likely disturbed the previous graves of mission Indians, and contained above-ground memorial structures (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1972, Tumacácori file, Cemetery file).

Further small-scale features typical of domestic and agricultural pursuits of this era undoubtedly existed in the homesteads of settlers Carmen Mendez, Tom Bourgeois, Fernando Lopez, Tomas Cota, and Gerardo and Maria Federico. Among these were wire fences, which were also built by the forest service to surround the monument in 1908 (Jackson 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; U.S. District Court of Arizona 1907-1908). The posts of these fences, though, were typically made of wood, and so likely have not persisted to this day.

Likewise, small-scale features of the earthen canal system used during this time were probably made of wood and are no longer present on the landscape.

Historic Preservation Features

206

Beginning in 1917, stabilization of the historic resources of the Mission Period of Significance began under the direction of Frank “Boss” Pinkley. Under his direction, many small scale features of the church, including the pediment, downspouts, and stairs to the bell tower, were repaired.

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: Stabilization Features Stabilization and excavation of the historic Mission complex escalated during this time. In 1936, the adobe rooms southeast of the Franciscan church were stabilized with three buttresses of adobe (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Tumacácori file; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1936, Tumacácori monthly reports). In the late 1930s, the cemetery wall and its niches were partially reconstructed, and capped with adobe brick and plaster (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, 1939, Tumacácori monthly reports). In general, these have been maintained or modified with different materials since their original installation.

Residential features Associated with the construction of residences #1 and #2, and the interpretive offices of the visitor center, various small-scale domestic features were built adjacent to the buildings. These included natural gas tanks, outdoor cabinets, dumpsters, electric distribution lines and breaker boxes, septic fields, and various other features of utility infrastructure. The residences themselves were built with an intermediate level of craftsmanship that includes wall drains and rustic porches. The museum and visitor center complex was more highly crafted with various architectural details including wainscoting and ornate carved entry doors (Colby 1999).

The ranch house south of the monument was likely modified with domestic improvements similar to the park residences during this time, as well. Finally, the domestic area of trailer site #1 northeast of field A included a septic and/or trash pit, the cover of which can still be seen today. Concrete canals, wells, metal hydraulic gates, and fences of barbed wire and railroad ties proliferated throughout fields.

Museum Complex Features Aside from the buildings, structures, circulation features, and major spaces of the museum and visitor center complex, many small-scale circulatory, public, and interpretive features characterized the museum and visitor center complex during this time.

Sidewalks within the original “parking place” and museum garden were composed of brick pavers. The “parking place” also contained a flag pole, wooden entry gates, and various signs (see figures 7.3.2, in Circulation; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1963, Tumacácori monthly reports) In 1952, with the redesign of the parking place, newlyconstructed curbs and sidewalks used a different style of pavers, cast-in-place concrete, and warning paint striping (see figure 7.9.1). It is likely that a simple swinging gate was installed on the west end of the monument’s southern service road at this time, as well.

Within the grounds of the church, along the network of pathways depicted in figure 7.3.3 (Circulation), interpretive easels were placed, so that the visitor could learn more about the features observed without a guide (Jackson, 1952; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1945, 1949, 1951, 1953-1956). Benches and picnic tables were placed within the museum garden and in a space to the east of the visitor center (see figure 7.12.6, Views and Vistas).

Post Period of Significance: Myriad small-scale features exist throughout the inventory unit today. Because a complete listing, description, and analysis of these features would be prohibitively long, these have been organized by general type and described below, with a few remarks regarding their origins and contributions to the integrity of the two periods of significance.

207

Water Features: Numerous small-scale constructed water features and other agricultural features have been constructed during this time. In and around the fiesta grounds, residential area, museum and visitor center complex, and parking island are several spigots, fire hydrants, hoses, and circular metal covers of septic fields. Within the naturalized agricultural fields to the north of the mission complex, various berms and rock piles have formed where canals or possibly headwalls once stood. Along the first riparian terrace between the ranch fields and river bottom, piles of river cobble removed from the fields, a pile of wooden shakes, and brush piles remain from the modern ranch era. Within and adjacent to the abandoned fields, and along a headwall east of the river bottom are various aluminum and steel pipes, alfalfa valves, concrete irrigation culverts, scattered pieces of concrete canals and culverts. Small irrigation basins surround the pines along the northern fenceline of field F, and sprinkler heads can be found throughout the horse ring. These are all remnants of the modern ranch era, which though it overlapped with the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance of the monument, is not historically significant.

Barriers: In addition, modern era ranchers erected many fences composed of wire, metal T-posts and/or mesquite poles, and railroad ties; it is also possible that some of these fences originated in the homesteading era. Gates along these fences are constructed of metal pipe. Mostly, these features are found surrounding and within the ranch fields. Trashed railroad ties and portions of a metal stable gate of the Canto ranch can also be found in the headwall described above. The park has erected a fair amount of metal pipe fencing and gates during this time as well. These demark the boundaries of the inventory unit, and, in multiple locations, display signs identifying it as National Park Service Land and/or the Anza National Historic Trail. Wooden screening fences have been constructed around the residential gas tanks and painted dark brown to match the building trim of the museum and visitor center complex. Wooden barrier fences restrict entry to the convento building and segments of the church. In 1970, the gate doors within the western campo santo wall were replaced, and the entrance road gate was modified for locking to prevent illegal entry (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). In the 1990s, a driveway gate of slump block and steel was constructed along the ranch driveway. Since the park’s acquisition, this feature has been modified with a National Park Service seal (see figure 7.9.2). Also in the 1990s, slumpblock walls were constructed between the buildings of the ranch headquarters, and a white wooden picket fence along the eastern boundary of the ranch headquarters and fields was replaced by fences with white-painted steel posts and wooden cross-beams (see figure 7.9.2; Binney 2010). Since the park’s acquisition of the ranch headquarters, colored concrete sidewalks have been installed between the ranch-house and ranch stable, replacing an earlier pathway of paving stones. In general, all these barriers have been erected by modern era ranchers or park staff unassociated with either periods of significance, and thus slightly diminish their integrity.

Maintenance Features In addition, the ranch stable and barns, and the eastern portion of the fiesta grounds have been used by the park in recent years as maintenance yards. Two port-a-johns, a simple storage shed, trash, brush, rubble, and a horse trailer, features originating from the modern ranch era or recent park activities, can be found within these areas. These are, for the most part, out of sight of the average visitor. However, the materials storage area within the fiesta grounds is located in an area that was likely a portion of the mission orchard or other fields and thus diminishes its integrity. Elsewhere throughout the mission/park grounds, various piles of block, adobe brick, and other materials can be found, and these particularly detract from the integrity of their surroundings. In one case,

208

a cobble wall had formed on eastern edge of the residential area over years of maintenance practice, though this was recently removed for historical accuracy.

Museum/Visitor Complex Architectural Features Small-scale architectural features of the museum and visitor center complex and park residences that are present today are very similar to what was constructed during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. Out-of-reach features of the interior of the museum and visitor center complex (such as wainscoting, ornate carved entry doors, etc), are in very good condition, while exterior building details have only slightly weathered.

Residential Features Outside of these buildings, various domestic features have been added since the original design and construction of the complex. White bollards have been constructed around multiple natural gas tanks, seemingly to prevent vehicular damage. Around residence #2, which is still used as residence, ladders are stored on the outside walls, a small fence encloses a small yard to the northeast of the building, and a small concrete pad leads to the porch on the northwestern side. It is unknown whether these small-scale features date to the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance or are more recent alterations. A concrete pad for an RV, a dumpster surrounded by wooden privacy screens, and simple storage shed have been constructed at an unknown time to the east of residence #2. South of this grouping, on the northern side of the southern adobe perimeter wall, two lockers for the storage of volatile liquids was set upon a small concrete pad at an unknown time. Another storage shed has been placed on a concrete pad to the east of residence #1.

Other small-scale features related to domestic use can be found within the mission complex, ranch headquarters, and naturalized agricultural fields. The graves from the early 1900s within the historic cemetery are still marked with stones, crosses, and flowers. Within the ranch headquarters can be found a couple of electric utility boxes.

Guy wires can be seen intertwined with the branches of trees surrounding the ranch house. Just east of the line of homes along the northwestern boundary of the inventory unit, trespass burn pits and trash piles, seemingly from neighboring homes, can be found.

Circulation Features Many circulation features of the mission/park grounds originating in the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance are also present today in slightly modified form. Walkways, benches, and brick walls of the museum garden and portico north of the building have slightly weathered or have eroded due to traffic since their construction.

Segments of interpretive trails between the museum and visitor center complex and the mission complex have been modified with surface treatments of asphalt blacktop or synthetic stabilized decomposed granite. Within the residential area, lines of cobble parallel paved roads, a modification seemingly undertaken by park staff. As such, the component material integrity of these NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance built circulation features is moderately high.

Within the ranch fields and the naturalized agricultural fields, a confused network of trails following natural topographical features, and delineated by modern ranch era fences, NPS signage, brush barriers, and lines of stones paralleling the trails, makes up the Anza National Historic Trail. These “official� trails are vaguely separated from myriad smaller trails created by the trespass traffic of cattle and migrants. While the park has attempted to restrict traffic to certain trails, the confusing nature of this trail network can be frustrating to the typical visitor of the park’s riparian area, and lead one to question which was the route followed by Anza in his historic trek. The use of the migrant/cattle trails is marked by manure and trash. While the trash certainly diminishes the integrity of the periods of significance, stock animal manure was certainly present throughout the

209

agricultural landscape during the Mission Period of Significance, and therefore contributes to its integrity as a productive landscape.

Today, the island of the parking lot includes many small-scale features (flag pole, picnic table/s, trash cans, bike rack, and entrance signs), that announce the park and enhance the visitor’s approach experience. These originate from the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance and later. The original flagpole that was likely installed in the 1930s was destroyed and replaced in the early 1960s (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1963, Tumacácori monthly reports). In 1970, two litter boxes were added to the parking area, presumably within the parking island (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1970, Tumacácori monthly reports). A modernist polished metal sign now stands near the visitor center entrance explaining the historic landscape of the Pimería Alta and a brief history of Tumacacori, and it is clear that this feature differs from a sign in a similar position during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. It is not known whether other small-scale features of the parking area were included within the original design of the parking lot renovation. Therefore, in general, small-scale features of the parking area retain moderate integrity for the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Stabilization Features In addition to designed features of the museum and visitor center complex, small-scale stabilization features abound on the tops, surfaces, and bases of walls of the historic mission complex. An example of this is the retaining walls composed of block or adobe that supports the southwestern portion of the northern room block of the convento. When done well, these stabilizations are virtually indistinguishable to the untrained eye from the historic resource they are protecting and such is the case at Tumacácori. However, for those with education and training in archaeology and preservation, these small-scale details of an early era of southwestern U.S. stabilization not only contribute to the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance resources they protect, but also greatly contribute to the integrity of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance.

Visitor-Oriented Features Various small-scale visitor-oriented features present in the landscape today are either replacements for similar features of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance or have been constructed since this time. Interpretive easels along the visitor pathways that once described historic features have been replaced by sandstone placards engraved with numbers corresponding to feature descriptions in an interpretive guidebook (Damon et al 1998). In addition to the constructed water features described above, concrete pads, bench bases, small ramadas (brush shade structures), and electric hookups for RVs have been constructed within the fiesta grounds since this area’s first use in 1974. These improvements are mostly located to the west, and thus upslope, of the alignment of the historic acequia. It is possible that a portion of this area was irrigated acreage during the Mission Period of Significance. Within the museum garden a large copper bowl, possibly the “large copper kettle” donated to the park in 1941, is prominently displayed along the pathway, and a metate, or mortar, of unknown origin, can be seen in the planting beds. Ceramic pots filled with plants are found along the museum garden trails and hanging from its arcade; it is unknown whether these date to the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance or were installed at a later point in time. Two mill-stones of non-historic origin were placed at some point within the convento plaza. While these features are likely similar to the mill-stones used in the arrastras of the Mission, their inclusion in the mission complex causes them to be easily misinterpreted as Mission Period of Significance resources. Northeast of the “view room” of the visitor center stands another small ramada, underneath of which is a cooking hearth and prep tables used for craft demonstrations. Taken as a whole, while these functional small-scale features of various interpretive programs may enhance the visitor experience and, in some cases, demonstrate aspects of life during the Mission Period of

210

Significance not represented elsewhere within the park, they are not historic resources.

Therefore, they are non-contributing, but compatible features to this period’s integrity.

Scientific Features Finally, there are numerous small-scale features of scientific research throughout the inventory unit. These include meteorological instruments on the first riparian terrace and within the picnic grounds east of the office addition to the visitor center, metal survey markers, and flagging.

In conclusion, today, the integrity of small-scale features of the Mission Period of Significance is low, as most of these features lie underground or have been otherwise obscured or removed from the landscape. Small-scale features of design, construction, and stabilization of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, on the other hand, retain high integrity within the parking lot, museum and visitor center complex, residences, and mission complex. Other smallscale features from between periods of significance, the modern ranch era, and recent park maintenance activities abound throughout the inventory unit, and diminish the integrity of both periods of significance.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME Spigots

CONTRIBUTION MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Fire hydrants and hoses MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Circular metal covers of septic fields MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Berms and rock piles of naturalized agricultural fields MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Piles of river cobble removed from the fields, MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Pile of wooden shakes MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Brush piles MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Irrigation infrastructure (modern ranch era) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Small irrigation basins (pines) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Sprinkler heads (horse ring) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Wire fences (and posts) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Metal pipe fences and gates MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Canto Ranch ruined fences and gates MP: NC

211

ND: NC/compatible MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Wooden barrier fences (mission complex) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Western campo santo (cemetery) wall gate door MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Ranch HQ driveway gate with NPS seal MP: NC ND: NC/compatible White fence surrounding ranch HQ MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Colored concrete sidewalks in ranch HQ MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Maintenance material yards MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Architectural details of the museum and visitor center complex MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Natural gas tanks (and surrounding bollards and screening fences) MP: NC ND: unknown/compatible Residence #2 exterior features MP: NC ND: unknown/compatible Residential area storage sheds MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Residential area dumpster MP: NC ND: unknown/compatible Residential area RV site MP: NC ND: unknown Volatile liquids lockers MP: NC ND: unknown Cemetery graves MP: NC ND: NC Electric utility boxes in ranch HQ MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Guy wires in trees of ranch HQ MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Trespass burn pits and trash piles (naturalized agricultural fields) MP: NC ND: NC Walkways, benches, and brick walls of the museum garden and portico MP: NC ND: contributing Interpretive trail materials MP: NC ND: NC Cobble rows along residential area roads MP: NC ND: NC Anza National Historic Trail borders and signage MP: NC NPS signs on fences

212

ND: NC/compatible Migrant and cattle trails (and associated refuse) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Parking island flag pole MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Parking island trash cans MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Parking island bike rack MP: NC ND: unknown Parking island entrance signs MP: NC ND: unknown Modern interpretive sign (visitor center entrance) MP: NC NC: NC Mission complex stabilizations MP: NC/compatible ND: contributing Sandstone placards along interpretive trail MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Fiesta grounds event infrastructure MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Museum garden copper bowl MP: NC ND: unknown Museum garden metates MP: NC ND: unknown Museum garden ceramic pots MP: NC ND: unknown Mill-stones in convento plaza MP: NC ND: unknown Craft Demonstration (cooking) ramada MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Meteorological instruments MP: NC ND: NC Metal survey markers MP: NC ND: NC Flagging MP: NC ND: NC

213

Figure 7.9.1: Above, brick pavers are laid by a workman into a pathway at the museum patio (NPS, Photo file (prints), 1939). In the picture below, the dividing line shown in blue delineates original pattern of brick pavers of the 1932 “parking place” design (below) from the parking area redesign and sidewalk extension of the early 1950s, which seemingly used a combination of grooved concrete sidewalks, grouted brick paver curbs, and sloped cast concrete curbs. In 1969, worn brick was replaced with salvaged brick on the parking area sidewalk and the entire entrance walk was rehabilitated (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1969, Tumacácori monthly reports).

214

Figure 7.9.2: Fences and gates abound throughout the inventory unit in various styles, including the pig-wire and pipe gate type, slump block driveway columns, metal bar, metal post and wooden board, as seen from left to right above. These features, while they were constructed by modern ranch inhabitants, do not diminish or contribute to the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, as they are clustered in entirely different areas. In some instances, they have been modified to appear as more seamless components of the park. In contrast, these small-scale ranch era features significantly diminish the integrity of Mission Period of Significance, during which time none of these forms existed.

215

10. SPATIAL ORGANIZATION The three major eras of development within the inventory unit (Mission Period of Significance, NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, and modern ranching era) were spatially organized according to some similar, but mostly differing environmental and social constraints.

While certain physical aspects of the natural landscape of the Santa Cruz River Valley, such as soils, topography and climate, remained very similar, others, including water table levels and vegetation characteristics, varied over time. Similarly, the social landscape of the valley came to be composed of many different groups of people with differing goals, technologies, and traditions of agricultural and building layout.

Similarities in the settlement patterns of the various periods of development within the inventory unit and adjacent lands indicate the degree to which the natural landscape was a universally limiting factor. Differences can be attributed to evolving technologies and social patterns. Often, these developments obscured the remnants of earlier times. In general, the spatial organization of the Mission Period of Significance retains partial integrity, obscured by both the spatial organization of both the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance and the modern ranch era. The NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, on the other hand, retains nearly complete integrity.

Pre-Period of Significance: Prehistoric-1753 The most-intact early Hohokam and pre-contact Sobaipuri village sites in the Tumacácori area have primarily been found along the edge of alluvial terraces overlooking the floodplain, outside of the inventory unit, including the Paloparado site and the Baca Float sites (see figure 7.10.1).

Additionally, at least one trincheras compound from this time has been found at the top of Tumacácori peak to the west. Though archaeological evidence shows scatters of inhabitation and possible dry-farming along the floodplain in the inventory unit, these have been greatly obscured by flooding and cultivation (Arendt et al. 2009, 2-3; Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 115-151; Danson 1946, 7-13; Doyel 1977, 132-137, 177; Grebinger 1976, 39-45). The degree to which the sites within and above the floodplain were interconnected is not fully understood, though it appears that there were multiple, separate periods of inhabitation.

Compared to the Sobaipuri and trincheras sites, the spatial organization of the Hohokam sites (Paloparado and Baca Float) is best understood. The Paloparado site is located on an alluvial terrace overlooking the Santa Cruz River four or five miles south of Tumacácori. It is possible that the village of the Paloparado site served as a large, semi-permanent, central village of a local Hohokam band that included smaller, seasonally-occupied, inhabitation and dry-farming sites in the valley, and defensive and/or ceremonial inhabitation sites on the peaks. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Paloparado site described above may have also been temporarily inhabited by the Sobaipuri. One Hohokam compound of the village of Paloparado, through archaeological study, has been characterized as a loose assemblage of simple pit houses, with a single possible water reservoir, a ramada, or brush shade structure, various deep pits clustered near the houses, a burial of human remains, and a simple, open plaza, all surrounded by low walls of rock and dirt, with an entrance delineated by a log wall (Bronitsky and Merrit 1986, p.

242; see figure 7.10.2). While it is impossible to describe the spatial organization of the inhabitation sites within the Tumacácori inventory unit, it may have been similar to that of thePaloparado site.

By around the mid 1400s, the Hohokam were no longer present in the Santa Cruz River Valley, and by the time of the arrival of the Spanish, Piman cultures had taken their place. Like the Hohokam, these groups, including the Papago and the Sobaipuri, took advantage of the resources associated with the Santa Cruz River and erected their settlements in the floodplains and alluvial hills along its local gaining reaches. A “gaining reach” is an area of a river or stream in which groundwater is forced to the surface by a layer of impermeable bedrock, creating aboveground flow and an associated riparian habitat. These areas are abundant in natural resources (see figure 7.8.3 in Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation). In other words, because of

216

these advantages, close proximity to the Santa Cruz River’s above-ground water supply was a typical characteristic of the spatial organization of both the Hohokam and Piman settlements.

Although early archaeologists postulated that the Hohokam and Sobaipuri of the Middle and Upper Santa Cruz River Valley practiced diversionary irrigation agriculture within the gaining reach at Tumacácori, more recent evidence suggests this is not the case, and that, at the time of Kino’s arrival, the Indians of Tumacácori established impermanent and semi-permanent, migratory settlements not dependent on intensive irrigation (Horton 1998, 11). Originally, their settlements, or rancherías, were seasonal in nature and were fairly evenly distributed throughout food-bearing, ecological niches of the Santa Cruz River Valley (see figure 7.10.3). As contact with the Spanish increased, and Spanish agricultural practices began to shift their method of food production away from hunting and gathering and towards diversionary agriculture and the production of surplus, more sedentary ranchería villages appeared, and their distribution throughout the Upper Santa Cruz River Valley became more clustered. By the 1750s, the Indians at two rancherías in the area, San Cayetano de Tumagágori and Tubac, had adopted diversionary agriculture and abandoned their migratory lifestyle.

Mission Period of Significance: 1753-1848 Segregation between the Spanish and the Indians was reinforced by the spatial organization of settlements within the Santa Cruz River Valley. In 1753, in response to increased Spanish settlement and war with the region’s Indian populations, the Indians residing at the villages San Cayetano de Tumagágori and Tubac were relocated. The Spanish citizenry and military settled into the pre-established village at Tubac, and the displaced Indian groups were combined into a congregación, or combined village, at the mission of San Jose de Tumacácori (from here on referred to as Tumacácori). This forceful movement of people laid the framework for future development patterns within an approximately three-mile long stretch of the Santa Cruz River.

The respective settings of Tubac and Tumacácori differed in two main ways: in their stage of agricultural development and in their defensibility. The land surrounding Tubac at the time of the relocation was already cultivated into irrigable farmland. Contrastingly, the land upon which the new pueblo of Tumacácori was established was completely undeveloped, forcing the missionaries to cultivate it from scratch. In terms of military advantage, Tubac, like all presidios of northern New Spain, was situated at the edge of alluvial foothills overlooking the valley, a promontory and defensive position. Unlike Tubac, the Tumacácori townsite was sited within the floodplain, a position more vulnerable to attack. The siting of Tumacácori likely had to balance defensive positioning with proximity to the agricultural landscape, since, unlike at Tubac, there is a significant stretch of land between the cliff-bottom of the alluvial hills and the irrigable acreage of the first and second terraces of the Santa Cruz River.

In contrast to the racial tension manifested in the physical separation of the Indian populations from the Spanish military and general citizenry, the spatial organization of the mission of Tumacácori itself reflected a more amiable relationship between the Indians and the Spanish missionaries. The location of the mission compound, high upon the second terrace of the river, protects it from frequent flooding that is common upon the first terrace, but is still not high enough to be considered an easily defensible position. Despite its defensive disadvantage, it is possible that, given the unique goals of befriending and building community with the Indian population, as opposed to defending against them, the founding Jesuit fathers found that placing their headquarters at the same elevation as the Indian inhabitations and workplaces sent a stronger egalitarian message than separating themselves and building their headquarters at a lordly, loftier height.

In general, during the Mission Period of Significance, spatial organization within the Tumacácori mission followed the layout typical of other contemporary missions and presidios of northern New Spain (see figures 7.10.4, 7.10.5, and 7.10.6). As described by Verrege, “the physical environment that existed in places like Tucson and Santa Fe in 1821 was an expression of the institutions of Spanish imperial colonialism as embodied in the Laws of the Indies and the

217

limitations imposed by a frontier culturally and economically impoverished by great distance from its center” (Verrege 1993).

Spanish frontier town sites, similar to prehistoric and protohistoric Sobaipuri and Hohokam settlements, were typically located either along the flat-topped edge of promontory neighboring alluvial terraces, as in the defensive presidios of Fronteras and Tubac and the missions of Guevavi and Calabazas, or within the river valley floodplain, as at Tumacácori and San Xavier del Bac. Where possible, these town sites were located as close to the acequia madre and irrigated fields as possible, to serve as a place of refuge and defense during attacks. There are multiple records of the killing of Indian field workers and livestock at Tumacácori by Apache raiders, who were likely entering the valley from undefended, uninhabited, and invisible eastern tributary drainages such as Josephine Canyon, from the Santa Rita and Patagonia mountains, and the Sonoita Creek drainage. Occasionally, walls and other defensive features were erected to protect vulnerable agricultural assets. Following a particularly brutal attack at Tumacácori, some fields/pastures were abandoned, and a more easily defended corral was built. Another possible defensive feature is the orchard wall, which would have been on the edge of a thicket of dense riparian vegetative growth, through which the sighting of Apache raiders would have been impossible. In addition to the defensive clustering, the close proximity of fields to the mission compound also placed them in a convenient location for maintenance.

In both missions and presidios, the friar or military captain resided in the most prominent, centrally-located building in town, while townspeople resided either within the designed complex or outside of it, likely depending upon their allegiance or their importance to the survival and wellbeing of the settlement. This was the case at Tumacácori, where the missionaries resided in the centrally located convento, and the Indian neophytes lived in dwellings on the perimeter of the mission compound walls.

As the mission compound of Tumacácori grew, its spatial organization grew in complexity, changing from a simple cluster arrangement containing a church and accessory structures to an enclosed convento containing a variety of religious, residential and productive buildings and structures (see figure 7.10.7).

Roads emanated from the mission compound towards other settlements within the valley, and were generally located between the acequia madre, river channel, or first riparian terrace, and the base of surrounding alluvial foothills (see figure 7.10.6), (Radding 1997, 189-191; Urrutia 1766).

In the early years of the Tumacácori mission, fixed, clearly delineated boundary lines between mission landholdings and the surrounding countryside did not exist, due to a lack of land ownership conflicts. In 1806, due to escalating competition for land and water rights between mission Indians and the settlement of Tubac, a survey was undertaken that clearly defined the boundaries of a fundo legal, or farming lands, and an estancia, or grazing lands, of the mission (see figure 7.10.8). The four leagues of land granted to the mission in this survey were measured in linear leagues, instead of square leagues, in order to provide the maximum acreage of arable land and maximum access to water. This choice of surveying technique speaks to the regional inhabitants’ recognition of the limitations of living in an arid climate and their adaptation to the scarcity of water (Horton 1998, 23).

In keeping with the Laws of the Indies, the fields of the fundo legal were subdivided into labores, or communal mission fields, and milpas, or the fields of individual Indian farmers (Horton 1998, 41). There is some evidence to suggest that crop rotation was employed by missionaries, allowing certain fields to periodically either lay fallow or be used as a pasture for the mission herd (Horton 1998, 45, 46; Radding 1997, 191). Four labores are described in the historic record at Tumacácori: three adjacent to the mission compound, and one south of the mission, “half a league away across the river” (Kessell, 1976b, 278, 300; see figure 7.10.6). While the location of the milpas is unknown, it may be presumed that they surrounded the labores between the

218

acequia madre and the river bottom as at Bavispe, allowing them to be irrigated (Horton 1998, 42; Radding 1997, 189-192).

Between Periods of Significance: 1848-1930 In the first decades following Tumacáori’s abandonment as a mission, the Santa Cruz River Valley was mostly uninhabited. Apache attacks continued until 1876, preventing all but squatters and the hardiest individuals from inhabiting the mission (Clemensen, 1977, 18; Ivey 2007, 102).

While little physical change occurred during this time, the descriptions and drawings of visitors, including well-known author J. Ross Browne and mining entrepreneur William Wrightson, have been highly valuable in reconstructing the physical layout of the mission landscape, as described above. In particular, a drawing prepared by Charles Schudard in 1853 suggests that the mission compound was mostly surrounded by clearings, presumably irrigated fields, dry pasture, and/or roads (Clemensen 1977, 8; see figure 7.10.9). It also depicts the state of decay of some of the buildings and structures at this time.

Beginning in the 1880s, the lands of the inventory unit began to be developed as homesteads.

The siting of homesteads in the Tumacácori inventory unit followed the Public Land Survey System (PLSS). Used for land surveying and ownership by the United States, this system divided the landscape into a grid of townships dimensioned six miles on each side. It has roots in both Meditteranean and Mormon urban design, and was enacted in Arizona in 1865 with the delineation of the Gila and Salt River Meridian (Farish 1916, 304). The boundaries of farms and ranches within these townships were generally laid out in squares down to the size of 10 acres.

On the Tumacácori inventory unit, homesteaders were allotted 40-acre plots, each containing separate irrigation canals, fields, fenced pastures, and one or more adobe houses (NPS, Tumacácori fact files, date unknown, Pre-Monument Historic Chronology; Sheridan 2006, 174; U.S. General Land Office 1908; U.S. District Court of Arizona, 1907, 1908).

In general, during this period of homesteading, settlement was diffuse, with many small clusters of one or two houses and accessory structures defining a homestead. While these homesteaders partially altered and deconstructed the buildings and structures of the mission compound, they did not significantly impact its spatial organization (Clemensen 1977, 16-18). Today, all buildings and structures constructed during this period of development have been erased from the landscape. However, it is important to note that the agricultural pursuits of these homesteads began the process of cultivating and reformulating the agricultural landscape. In addition, though the buildings and structures from the homesteading period are gone, some more specific effects of the PLSS are still present. The contemporary location of Santa Gertrudis Lane follows the southern boundary of the Mendez homestead, the eastern boundary of the Tumacácori inventory unit follows a quarter-section line from the PLSS system, and the linear arrangement of nearby housing cluster on the east side of the river reflects the historic PLSS trend (see figure 7.10.10), (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1906).

In the early 20th century the location of fields was no longer restricted to lands downslope of a diversion canal of the Santa Cruz River. A number of new fields were located further up-slope on the second terrace of the river, because electric and diesel-powered pumps and pressurized piping increased the quantity of water available and the extent of the floodplain that could be irrigated (see figures 7.5.4, 7.5.5, and 7.5.9 in Constructed Water Features). Irrigation canals built during this time, both earthen and concrete, likely followed, to some extent, the alignment of the historic acequia (Horton 1998, 43).

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: 1930-1959 During the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, the Monument’s new buildings were designed and built to seamlessly extend from the mission compound. On one hand, this contributes to the Mission Period of Significance by creating an L-shaped room block in the approximate location of the Mission Period of Significance neophyte room block. On the other hand, the new design of the visitor center/museum building, museum garden, and adobe perimeter walls diminishes the integrity of the mission compound, in that these features can be

219

easily mistaken for Mission Period artifacts, obscuring the spatial organization of the historic features. This effect that can be better understood by viewing the master development plan of 1938 (see figure 7.4.3, in Cluster Arrangement).

Buildings and structures built during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance are mostly concentrated around the adjoined visitor center and museum. Attached to this is an enclosed museum garden, comfort station, and adobe perimeter walls. As seen in figure 7.10.11, the design of this complex evolved from a simple cluster of three equally-sized, disconnected buildings along the highway to one of more complexity. The complex was meant to serve multiple functions, and guide the visitor through a procession of experiences. First, it was meant to shield the view of the mission compound from the highway approach. Second, it was meant to welcome visitors and formally funnel them into a single entry, the visitor center door. Third, it was meant to funnel the visitor through a reception area, past a recreation of an idealized Spanish garden (the museum garden), and through a brief series of interpretive displays. Fourth, the view room was aligned on axis with the mission compound to create a “knock out” view of the church, the first glimpse that the visitor had received. Fifth, the visitor is meant to have the option of either immediately entering the museum before exploring the grounds of the mission, or after.

Finally, the park offices and residences were meant to be located outside of this visitor procession. In summary, the visitor center/museum complex was spatially organized to guide the visitor through a concentrated, designed procession, and keep park functional accessory structures “behind the scenes.”

The office expansion of the 1950s, while changing the form of the complex, does not affect the integrity of its spatial organization. Instead, the historic buildings of the visitor center/museum complex were made to be totally dedicated to the visitor experience, and the office addition was able to fully house the park’s library, archives, and offices of the interpretive staff.

Outside of the monument, ever-improving irrigation technologies and transfer of land ownership to wealthy, large-scale land owners increased the scale of agricultural production. Multiple dude ranches formed from subdivisions of “Tol” Pendleton’s Baca Float Ranch, including the Upper S Bar S or Strong Ranch located immediately south of the mission compound (see figure 7.2.6 in Buildings and Structures). Similar to the mission, this ranch complex was and is still defined by a concentrated ranch headquarters, including residences, a stable, and outbuildings, adjacent to and upslope of irrigated fields. As part of the development of this ranch, at some point after 1949, concrete canals were built to the east of the field area of the ranch, which was re-graded to drain from east to west, expanding the area under cultivation to the west (see figure 7.5.4 in Constructed Water Features). This action and similar agricultural improvements northeast of the mission complex plowed under, and thus destroyed most of the historic acequia and mission/orchard wall and the spatial relationship between these features and the mission complex (see figures 7.8.6 and 7.8.7 in Spatial Organization), (Moss 2006, 14; NPS, Aerial photo file, 1967; U.S.D.I., Tumacácori fact files, 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports). These agricultural activities also likely removed many landscape features of the homestead era.

Post-Period of Significance: 1960-Present From 1960 to the present day, the spatial organization of the constructed park features has not majorly changed, though building usage has. Between 1960 and 1979, a few buildings and structures were added to the ranch headquarters, and, in 1979, these were connected with a slump-block wall to make an enclosed compound (Binney 2010). The repurposing of these ranch headquarters buildings as park office and maintenance buildings has reduced the staff usage and enhanced the visitor experience of the visitor center/museum complex. Essentially, by moving all administrative and maintenance staff of the park to the ranch headquarters, which are not seen by the typical visitor, visitors are able concentrate on the features of two periods of significance, without being confused by modern ones.

Unlike the architectural resources, the re-use of the agricultural lands by ranchers and farmers continued until approximately 1978 (fiesta grounds and naturalized agricultural fields) and 2004

220

(ranch headquarters and fields). During this period of time, electric power lines were strung to additional groundwater pumps, which were further supplemented by diesel generators. Ranchhand residences, barns, a castration and branding pen, silage pits, cattle troughs, piles of rocks picked from the fields, and various other outbuildings and structures were built by multiple generations of ranchers and their workers at the guest/dude/working cattle ranch to the south and east of the mission from 1935 until 2004, extending the built features of the ranch landscape away from the ranch headquarters. Fields were re-graded once again, and updated with pressurized irrigation pipes, completing divorcing the layout of the agricultural fields from the constraints of topography (see figure 7.5.5 in Constructed Water Features), (Binney 2010; Brownell 1986, 132; Sheridan 2004).

In conclusion, the spatial organization of the Mission Period of Significance retains partial integrity. The relationship of buildings and structures within the mission complex is still quite apparent, but the relationship between the mission complex and its associated agricultural lands, and circulation features to nearby communities, is only minimally represented by contemporary analogs. The spatial organization of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, on the other hand, retains complete integrity, as little substantive landscape change has occurred within the grounds of the original monument.

221

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME CONTRIBUTION Mission complex (cluster of buildings and structures; circulation patterns) MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible Fallow ranch fields (including associated irrigation canals, pipes, circulation patterns) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Naturalized agricultural fields (including associated irrigation canals) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible Museum and Visitor Center Complex (cluster of buildings and structures; circulation patterns) MP: NC ND: contributing NPS residential area (cluster of buildings and structures; circulation patterns) MP: NC ND: contributing Terraces and topography of Santa Cruz River floodplain MP: contributing ND: contributing Ranch Headquarters (cluster of buildings and structures; circulation patterns) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Eastern Frontage Road (adjacent lands) MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible

222

Figure 7.10.1: Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, settlements of the Hohokam, Sobaipuri, and trincheras cultures occurred within the floodplain, on the edge of adjacent alluvial hills, and on the peaks of nearby mountains. Though these settlements were not all contemporary, some overlap likely did occur. The Paloparado site, because of its size, may have served as a settlement of local importance to which people from neighboring inhabitations clustered. Travel between these sites likely concentrated in a north-south direction along the base of the alluvial hills in the approximate position of highway 89. East-west travel also likely occurred between settlements on the mountains and hills and growing and harvesting areas in the floodplain below (graphic modified from Doyel 1997, 3, figure: “Baca Float Project location map�)

223

Figure 7.10.2: Because the inhabitation sites of the Tumacåcori inventory unit have been obscured by natural and anthropogenic forces, it is necessary to examine nearby sites in order to theorize the physical form of the Tumacåcori sites. This artist’s rendition of the archaeological findings of compound B of the nearby Paloparado site depicts the forms and spatial organization of a typical Hohokam village compound. In general, Paloparado compound B was a loose assortment of pit houses, accessory residential structures, earthworks, including a low perimeter wall. Note that while this image indicates an adjacent diversion canal, no clear evidence has been found to indicate that the inhabitants of this compound, or any local site, used irrigation technology (image modified from DiPeso 1956, fig. 19, as reproduced in Bronitsky and Merritt 1986, 242).

224

Figure 7.10.3: This graphic shows the relative distribution of Spanish and Indian settlements in the Santa Cruz River Valley and vicinity around 1700. The rancherías along the Santa Cruz River between Nogales and Tumacácori, from south to north, included Guebabi (aka Guevavi), Calabazas, Ramanote, Paloparado, Tumacácori (aka Tumagacori), Tubac, Canoa, Sahuarita, Punta del Agua, and San Xavier. At the time of Spanish contact, the rancherías were relatively evenly distributed along the course of the river. By the late 1700s, these rancherías had been consolidated into a single congregación at the Mission of Tumacácori (graphic modified from Dipeso 1956).

225

Figure 7.10.4: This drawing shows the Bacerac mission from the Opata region of Sonora, Mexico as it appeared in 1790 and depicts the spatial relationship between the pueblo, primary path, flour mill, mission fields (labores,) and individual fields (milpas) typical of the northern frontier of New Spain. While not depicted, the acequia madre of this landscape paralleled the footpath, irrigating both the milpas and labores located down-slope (graphic modified from Radding 1997, 191, figure: “Mission labores and indian milpas in Bacerác and Bavispe, 1790”).

226

Figure 7.10.5: This map, prepared by Lieutenant Joseph de Urrutia, depicts the Tubac presidio as it appeared in 1766, and is the only map that has been found of the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley at a scale depicting a townsite, acequia system, and circulation features. Note that all land between the acequia madre and the Santa Cruz River channel (here labeled Rio de Tubac) is under cultivation and is subdivided into a checkerboard pattern of regular farm units (Urrutia 1766).

227

Figure 7.10.6: This image of Tumacácori and the nearby presidio of Tubac depicts the spatial organization of the primary, defining, interconnected features of this landscape. Both the Tumacácori and Tubac townsites, shown above as maroon suns, lay immediately adjacent to their respective acequia madres (1 and 2) and the irrigated agricultural landscape, providing a place of nearby refuge for field workers during Apache attacks. The Tumacácori townsite lies within the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River, while the Tubac townsite is located just behind the edge (3) of an alluvial hill overlooking the valley. The location of the Tubac townsite, roads emanating from it (4), acequia madre, and irrigated fields (5) are demarked in a map produced in 1766, and are useful in approximating the location of features at Tumacácori (Urrutia 1766).

Three of the four labores (6), or communal fields, of Tumacácori were located between the acequia madre and the Santa Cruz River channel, and a fourth (7) was located “half a league away across the river,” (approximately 2.5 miles) somewhere to the south of the mission (Horton 1998, 40-42). Following the general pattern of road construction seen in other mission and presidio systems of northern New Spain, an educated guess can be made as to the location of the Camino de Tumacácori. Presumably, this road connecting Tubac to Tumacácori would have been located on the west side of the river channel, on the second riparian terrace of the Santa Cruz River Valley, at the base of adjacent alluvial hills, and upslope of the acequia madres of the two towns. It likely would have passed just north of Tumacácori (8), and may have split (9) or held one of two positions south of the Tumacácori’s acequia madre.

228

Figure 7.10.7: The mission complex at Tumacรกcori began as a nucleated cluster of buildings under the Jesuits and was expanded by the Franciscans to become an enclosed, roughly rectangular compound. Solid lines in light gray reference the locations of future buildings and structures, and dashed lines indicate the projected, estimated location of wall segments during the time in which they are drawn. Mission complex circulation evolved from directed perimeter flow between external doors, likely along well-worn paths, to a more complex arrangement that included open internal flow (hatch), directed flow along the arcade, and external perimeter flow (figures modified from Ivey 2007).

229

Figure 7.10.8: The Tumacรกcori and Calabazas land claim plat of 1880 depicts spatial relationship between the fundo legal (agricultural and pasturage, shown in green) and estancia (stock grazing, shown in yellow) of the Tumacรกcori and Calabazas land grants that were originally delineated in 1806. Note that the road between Calabazas and Tumacรกcori is depicted as being on the east side of the Santa Cruz River at this time (graphic modified from Horton 1998).

230

Figure 7.10.9: This drawing of Tumacåcori in 1853, made by Charles Schuchard, depicts the relationship of the mission’s built and agricultural landscapes to the surrounding environment looking east across the mission. The Santa Cruz River Valley’s floodplain is defined to the east by the Santa Rita Mountains and their alluvial foothills. Closer to the mission, a band of hydroriparian growth marks the location of the Santa Cruz River. Between the church/convento complex and the hydroriparian thicket (aka the river), visible to left and right of the church (2), lay clearings presumed to be croplands (6) irrigated by the historic acequia. Assuming that this drawing is accurate, these fields existed to the east and northeast of the church. The clarity of this view was important defensively, as those fields closest to the church and convento were least vulnerable to Apache raids from adjacent areas of dense riparian vegetative growth and foothills of the Santa Ritas. The church at this time was surrounded by the campo santo/cemetery and mortuary chapel, features that are still standing in 2010. It was also attached to convento by a wall (4), and was closely approached by a neophyte housing block (3 and 5). Neither of these two features still stands as of 2010. One final feature of note is the clearing that existed to the west of the church and campo santo that may have either been a dryland pasture or a road. Today, this feature is partially obscured by the East Frontage Road (graphic modified from Clemensen 1977, 9).

231

Figure 7.10.10: Between the Mission and NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Periods of Significance, Anglo and Hispanic homesteaders settled the Santa Cruz River Valley around Tumacรกcori, built residences, and improved the lands for agricultural production. All lands to the east of the dashed red line were included in the Baca Float, resulting in the eviction of homesteaders from these lands in 1914. Contemporary TNHP boundaries are depicted in a blue, dash-dotted line (Garate 2005; Ingalls 1905; U.S. Department of Agriculture 1906; U.S. District Court of Arizona, 1907; U.S.D.I. 1908).

232

Figure 7.10.11: The spatial layout of the visitor center/museum complex built during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, as preliminarily conceptualized by architect Howard Tovrea, was nearly symmetrical and centrally aligned on a “mission view” axis directed towards the church, as directed by Frank “Boss” Pinkley. This plan included a wrap-around loggia that formed a museum “patio” on the northern side of the complex, and a smaller “mission orchard” on the southern side. The final plan of museum complex, like the preliminary plan shown in figure 7.10.5, focuses attention upon the mission church and is designed to include an enclosed courtyard typical of other missions of Pimería Alta. Unlike the preliminary plan, the final plan is much more informal, removing most of the right wing of the preliminary plan, resulting in a more open L-shaped building. Additionally, a single, expanded courtyard combining the patio and orchard types exists on the southern side of the complex, resulting in the “Spanish colonial garden” seen in the museum garden today. (Colby 1999, 10-14; NOTE: this image has been modified from its original to disinclude illegible section drawings contained within the same plan).

233

11. TOPOGRAPHY The three-dimensional configuration of the surface features of Tumacácori can best be understood by first describing the naturally-occurring topographical features of the surrounding Santa Cruz River Valley watershed. On a regional scale, this area’s variations in topography controlled the settlement patterns throughout the history of the site. At the scale of the inventory unit, it is further useful to describe both the slightly perceptible variations in the slope of the Santa Cruz River’s bottom, and the riparian terraces. These features specifically influenced the development of architectural and agricultural features during, between, and after the periods of significance. Clustered at an even finer scale near the mission and original monument, individual mounds, depressions, and level expanses rising above or excavated below the site’s natural topography represent buildings, structures, and graded areas from both periods of significance and contribute to the periods’ integrity to varying degrees. At this scale, the topographical features of greatest importance include natural and manmade drainages, graded fields, and archaeological mounds of ruined buildings, structures, and constructed water features.

Pre-Period of Significance: The mission and park of Tumacácori are set within the fertile floodplain of the upper Santa Cruz River Valley, a watershed that drains the mountainous Pimería Alta straddling the current U.S.Mexico border. The steep ranges of the region, including the Santa Ritas, Tumacácoris, and San Cayetanos, arose approximately fifty million years ago (Logan 2002, 16). Since then, they have slowly eroded, producing flanking alluvial hills whose slopes become less extreme (approaching 2.5%) as they move away from the peaks. The Santa Cruz River cuts through the region and has carried both floodwaters and sediment from the watershed since its formation. In recent geologic time, it has incised a mild canyon from the ends of the alluvial hills of the surrounding mountains.

The resultant alluvial hill edges have slopes in the range of 9-25%.

Directly up-river from Tumacácori, two tributaries, Josephine Canyon (B) and Rock Corral Canyon (D), join the main channel of the Santa Cruz River (see figure 7.11.1). These streams transport great amounts of finer sediments from the mountains and alluvial hills to the river’s banks and riparian terraces (see figure 7.8.1, Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation).

In general, in an east-west, or cross-sectional direction in relation to the river, the riparian terraces of the floodplain gently slope (~1%) towards the river channel. However, noticeable drops (~25-50%) are present between the second and first riparian terrace, and between the first riparian terrace and the river bottom. In a longitudinal direction, parallel to the river channel, from the confluence of the tributaries mentioned above, for more than a mile on each bank, these terraces slope very slightly downwards (less than 1%) towards the north. The resultant long, flat, wide floodplain, with convenient access to the river upstream, is the ideal combination of topography and natural features to allow for successful diversionary agriculture (see figure 7.11.1).

Mission Period of Significance: At both the village of San Cayetano de Tumagacori on the east bank of the Santa Cruz River, and later the village of San Jose de Tumacácori on the west bank, missionaries and mission residents took advantage of the favorable topography described above and constructed productive agricultural landscapes. Features of the former village are no longer evident as topographical features, and are located outside of the inventory unit, so they will not be discussed further. The mission pueblo of San Jose de Tumacácori was located along the upper riparian terrace of the river. While this placed the town close to the agricultural fields, it also put it at a defensive disadvantage, compared to settlements such as Tubac that were built higher up on the edge of alluvial hills, affording them expansive views of the lower elevations. From Tumacácori’s elevation, it was impossible to view much of the floodplain or the low hills on the opposite side of the river, because they were blocked by a mass of riparian trees.

234

During the Mission Period of Significance, little earthwork was done within the townsite. There is no evidence that any substantial contouring of the land occurred, with the exception of a ditch or drain emanating from the cisterns, and possibly a deep well to the southeast of the Franciscan church southern entrance (see figure 7.1.1, in Archaeological Sites).

The acequia madre, which is discussed in greater detail in the constructed water features section of this document, was a shallow ditch with steep sides that ran parallel to, and upslope of the Santa Cruz River channel (see figure 7.1.1 in Archaeology and figure 7.5.5 in Constructed Water Features). Between it and the edge of the second riparian terrace, mission fields were likely subdivided into a series of rectangular basins, each of which was flat-bottomed, surrounded by slightly-sloped berms or bunds, and slightly lower in elevation than the previous basin (see figure 7.5.1 and 7.5.3 in Constructed Water Features). The flow of water through these fields likely ran from the west, or the location of the acequia madre, to the east, or the location of the Santa Cruz River, following the natural contour of the valley. The close proximity of the acequia to the mission compound suggests that the location of the mission compound was almost certainly chosen so as to be adjacent to productive fields without consuming irrigable acreage.

It is interesting to note that the excavation and implementation of the irrigation network was postponed for many years after the establishment of the mission. The historic record shows that by 1761-62, the crops at Tumacรกcori depended upon seasonal rains and flooding, unlike the irrigated fields of Tubac, indicating that acequias had not been dug by this time (Anonymous, 1761-2, 192). It was not until approximately 1777 that acequias were present at San Jose de Tumacรกcori (Horton 1998, 22). The gap in time between the establishment of the mission and the excavation of the acequia system indicates that the siting of the religious core of the mission was possibly informed by plans for future agricultural development.

Another topographical feature that has been the subject of investigation is a flat terrace between the eastern edge of the convento patio and the historic acequia alignment. Its location relative to the mission orchard/garden wall and the compuerta, or floodgate, suggests that this terrace was an irrigated portion of the mission orchard/garden. Based upon its roughly square shape and the existence of a relatively steep drop-off between it, the convento patio to the west, and an older Franciscan room block to the south, it seems possible that this terrace was graded by the missionaries for farming (see figure 7.11.3). However, an archaeological investigation of the terrace from 2004 to 2006 revealed no information about its origin, and concluded that the terrace is just as likely to be a natural feature of the floodplain as it is to be a man-made feature (Arendt et al DRAFT 2009, 3-4; Moss 2009). If natural, the drop-off was likely a cut bank between riparian terraces, a condition that would have prevented further diversionary irrigated agriculture to the west and protected the mission complex from flooding. However, until more evidence is available to clearly understand this feature, hypotheses of the extent to which Mission residents altered the topography of the floodplain to their advantage are mostly conjectures.

In summary, during the Mission Period of Significance, topographical change was likely minimal within the Mission compound, and, within the agricultural landscape, all fields gently sloped from the ditch of the acequia madre towards the river, except for the small terrace to the west of the compuerta.

Between Periods of Significance: Homesteaders likely re-used and expanded the acequia system and down-slope fields of the Mission Period. They also drilled wells, though it is not clear whether these were solely for residential purposes or whether they also were used to supply water to the irrigation canals (Logan 2002, 161). While general descriptions of the acreage under cultivation and the improvements associated with the homesteads is known, little is known about the exact dimensions of the fields and canals during this time. Thus, in summary, impacts to the integrity of topography of the Mission Period of Significance were slight.

235

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: The construction of the visitor center and museum complex, for the most part, did not result in any significant re-grading of the land. The footprint of the complex was contained within a flat area of the second riparian terrace that, during the Mission Period of Significance, may have also contained a southern portion of the neophyte housing block and other, less permanent buildings and structures of an associated neophyte Indian village (see figure 7.10.11, in Spatial Organization), (Colby 1999, 7). At the time of the museum and visitor center complex’s construction, though, it seems that these Mission Period features were not evident as aboveground mounds.

To the south, east, and north of the monument, modern era ranchers expanded and re-graded the fields using mechanized equipment (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1934, Tumacácori monthly reports). In addition, in the 1930s, ranchers drilled even more wells and further expanded the system of irrigation canals (see figures 7.5.4, 7.5.5, 7.5.6 and 7.5.7, in Constructed Water Features). Because these high-capacity wells were located upslope of lands on the second riparian terrace that were not irrigable by gravity-fed diversionary agriculture, irrigable acreage expanded to the west and north. At some point in time prior to 1936, the primary tributary drainage that dissects the inventory unit (figure 7.11.2, feature A) was seemingly diverted into irrigated fields to the north (see figure 7.5.7, in Constructed Water Features; NPS, Aerial photo file, 1936, 1967).

In 1938, the Santa Cruz River’s usual above-ground flow stopped, causing the historic acequia to dry up (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports). Following its abandonment, this visible ditch likely began to accumulate silt.

Flooding in the 1940s incited monument staff and the inventory unit’s ranchers to excavate flood control features, slightly altering site-scale topography. Shortly after a destructive flood in 1944 that damaged the museum and likely damaged or threatened the Strong Ranch, a brick-lined ditch was constructed through the mission patio, and the residents of the ranch built a flood dike against the south boundary of the monument (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1944, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1948, Tumacácori monthly reports; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1950, Tumacácori monthly reports).

In the early 1950s, highway 89 was widened adjacent to the monument, and the parking area was reconfigured, a construction effort that likely included a little bit of grading and the installation of an improved drainage ditch between the road and the monument that is still present today (see figure 7.3.4 in Circulation; figure 7.9.2 in Small Scale Features), (NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1952, Tumacácori monthly reports).

Post-Period of Significance: Today, at the scale of the viewshed and watershed, topographical features are very similar to their Mission Period of Significance and NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance form, with the minor exception of road-cuts and leveled development sites. At the scale of the inventory unit boundary, the topographic profile of the Santa Cruz River bottom and first riparian terrace is likely similar to what was seen in the Mission Period of Significance or earlier, with a wide floodplain and a slightly sinuous course. This condition is very different than what was typical during the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance, during which time the river channel was squeezed between irrigated farmland.

On the second riparian terrace within of the inventory unit, topographic features of the agricultural landscape are mostly representative of more recent developments and retain very little integrity of the form that was present during the Mission Period of Significance. The crumbling remains of concrete irrigation canals from the early ranch era and linear mounds outlining their general location can be found surrounding the ranch fields and the naturalized agricultural fields, while the trough of the historic acequia is not visible. Farm border forms are still evident from the late

236

modern ranch era, while the basin farm units employed by the missionaries are nowhere to be seen.

At some point prior to 1967, the fields to the north of the primary dissecting drainage were abandoned and began to naturalize. A ditch associated with these fields is still evident along the western property line (see figure 7.5.4, in Constructed Water Features and figure 7.8.7 in Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation), (Bossler and Gredig, 2008-2010; NPS, Aerial photo file, 1967). Beginning in the early 1980s and extending through at least 1990, a flat triangular pasture began to take form between this ditch and the river bottom, and, at some point, a steep drop-off of river cobble either formed naturally or was built as a headwall to protect this pasture from the flooding of the river (Bossler and Gredig, 2008-2010; NPS, Aerial Photo file, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1990).

According to George Binney, the rancher during the period of 1979-2004, the flow of water in the ranch’s fields was always from south to north and from west to east. During the early period of his ownership, field borders, which run in a southeast to northwestern direction, were at first irrigated via siphons from a concrete canal located to the east of the fields, indicating that the fields had been re-graded so as to flow away from the river at some point between the last year of recorded flow within the historic acequia, 1938, and the first year of Binney’s ownership, 1979 (see figures 7.5.3, 7.5.4, and 7.5.7 in Constructed Water Features), (Binney 2010; NPS, Tumacácori fact files 1938, Tumacácori monthly reports). In the 1980s and 1990s, fields of the Binney Ranch were re-graded using laser levels and the expertise of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (later named the Natural Resource Conservation Service). Both before and after the park’s 2004 acquisition, the graded fields of the modern ranch era have slowly naturalized and become less visible (see figure 7.8.6 and 7.8.7, in Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation).

Within the Mission compound, linear earthen mounds exist as archaeological remains of the buildings and structures of the convento. These contemporary topographical features contribute to the integrity of the built form of the compound, and do not diminish the integrity of Mission Period of Significance topography unless they are misinterpreted. A single swale is evident a few yards south of the cisterns and the convento building; it is unknown whether this feature is naturally-occurring or anthropogenic.

In conclusion, the topography of the region has undergone very little change since the earliest periods of inhabitation. The topography of the built landscape of both the mission and monument has also been minimally altered, and thus retains high integrity. The topography of the agricultural landscape, on the other hand, has been continually altered since the Mission Period, and thus retains low integrity.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing

FEATURE NAME Room block mounds

CONTRIBUTION MP: NC/compatible ND: NC

Irrigation canal mounds

MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible

Orchard/garden terrace

MP: contributing ND: NC

237

Modern ranch fields

MP: NC/compatible ND: NC/compatible

Drainage ditch (in naturalized agricultural fields) MP: NC ND: NC/compatible Santa Cruz riverine system profile

MP: contributing ND: NC/compatible

238

Figure 7.11.1: The Tumacácori Inventory Unit, depicted in blue dashed/dotted line, lies in the bottom of the Santa Cruz River Valley at an elevation of 3250’. The surrounding watershed and viewshed includes, clockwise from northeast, (A) the Santa Rita Mountains (9453’ highest peak), (B) Josephine Saddle (~ 4508’), (C) San Cayetano Mountains (6007’ highest peak), (D) Rock Corral Canyon, and (E) the Tumacácori Mountains (5634’ highest peak) (data from National Elevation Data Set, USGS Seamless Server 2009).

239

Figure 7.11.2: Land within the Tumacรกcori Inventory Unit generally is slightly sloped towards the east-northeast towards the Santa Cruz River. Because the riparian terrace upon which the Mission was located, south of point A, is not significantly dissected by any tributary drainages, it was possible to transport diverted river water in a northern direction through the force of gravity (Horton 1998, 70). One slight side-drainage (A), dissects the flat lands of these riparian terraces in the northern portion. The channel drainage of the Santa Cruz River (B) roughly parallels east boundary (data from National Elevation Data Set, USGS Seamless Server 2009).

240

Figure 7.11.3: Tumacรกcori Mission lies within an upper terrace of the Santa Cruz River that gently slopes to the east-northeast towards the river channel. One notable topographic feature (A) is a rapid elevation change between the eastern edge of the mission patio and the land immediately to the east. While it is not known whether this drop is natural or was graded during the Mission Period of Significance, the land between it and the compuerta (B), or hydraulic lift structure of the historic acequia, and the projected alignment of the acequia, could have easily been irrigated and was likely a portion of the mission orchard/garden.

241

12. VIEWS AND VISTAS As discussed in the sections “Topography,” and “Natural Systems and Features / Vegetation” above, the Tumacácori inventory unit includes the Santa Cruz River bottom and its mostly flat riparian terraces. Surrounding the inventory unit are the foothills of the Tumacácori Mountains to the west and the San Cayetano and Santa Rita Mountains to the east. These features have remained practically unaltered as background components of on-site views since the time of earliest inhabitation of the landscape, except for minor potential changes in vegetation resulting from climate change. In contrast, middle ground and foreground features have been significantly altered since the Mission Period of Significance, and are thus the focus of this section.

Mission Period of Significance: During the Mission Period of Significance, anywhere outside of the mission compound and within or adjacent to the fields, at least half of an individual’s 360-degree view would have included a foreground of irrigated fields, possibly with animals of the mission herd, a middle ground of riparian growth, and a background of hills and mountains. Because of the constant threat of Apache attack, maintaining views of the fields and herds was an important safety measure (see figures 7.12.1 and 7.12.2).

Depending upon the period of time, the view within the mission compound was either open (Jesuits and early Franciscan) or enclosed (middle to late Franciscan). The foreground view from the open compound would have included a portion of the buildings, well-used, cleared soil, and perhaps a few mesquites or other trees growing along the acequia. Middle-ground views, visible between gaps in the buildings and vegetation, were of irrigated fields and/or riparian growth, and background views consisted of hills and mountains (see figure 7.12.2). During the Franciscans’ tenure, the high walls built to enclose the mission compound truncated the views within it.

Middle-ground views of the fields were eliminated, completely obscured by a foreground of singlestory, arcaded room blocks, and the taller church, convento, and granary buildings; and background views of the mountains were limited (see figure 7.12.3).

NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance: The visitor center and museum complex built at the beginning of the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance was designed to restrict views towards the mission via the strategic placement of internal and perimeter walls. The western adobe perimeter wall, measuring at six and a half feet high, stretched north and south, parallel to the eastern edge of Highway 89, and offset from the western walls of the museum and comfort station by approximately 60-100 ft. The wall screened all but the upper portions of the mission ruins from the road, and allowed a clear view of the front of the museum and visitor center (see figure 7.12.4). By presenting a uniformly impassible physical and visual barrier, it concentrated the visitor’s attention on the museum/visitor center entrance and directed them towards the site’s indoor interpretive elements. This built anticipation and saved a full view of the mission complex until it could be seen from its most impressive vantage point, the museum’s View Room (see figure 7.12.5). The “knock out” view from this room, as it is commonly known, is a designed vista that was one of the primary organizing features of the museum and visitor center complex, at the insistence of Frank “Boss” Pinkley.

In the 1950s, the western adobe perimeter wall was moved. The expansion of Highway 89 increased visitation, and traffic accidents made it necessary to redesign the parking area. This redesign resulted in a realignment of the wall itself. In its new configuration, which is visible today, it appears that the northern portion of the original wall was retained, but somewhere to the south, the wall was rebuilt so as to more closely approach the front of the museum/visitor center building. Only part of the southern portion of the original western adobe perimeter wall was destroyed. A disconnected remnant still exists in the contemporary parking lot island. This remnant is shorter than the rest of original perimeter wall, and represents the area specifically lowered in order to create a view of the museum/visitor center from the road. In its new alignment, the western adobe perimeter wall no longer fully encloses the parking lot (see figure

242

7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in Circulation). While this change in form significantly changed the circulation pattern of the parking area and the view of the park from the road, the walls’ function as screens that control parked visitors’ views remains unchanged.

Two additional walls are located on the southern end of the museum/visitor center complex. The first encloses the museum garden, and the second serves as a perimeter wall, similar to the western adobe perimeter wall. The former wall separates the museum from the park access road and greatly restricts the views towards the road and ranch, focusing visitors instead on the garden and buildings in the foreground. The latter wall also obstructs the view of the ranch headquarters and further concentrates the visitor’s view onto the mission compound and the visitor center/museum (see figure 7.12.6).

The east end of the southern wall terminates at what was the eastern boundary of the park until 2004. Directly north of this point lies a row of shade trees that has seemingly been a part of the landscape both before and since 1938, the last year in which the historic acequia still carried water past this point. The view from the eastern side of residence # 2 (ranger’s residence), since its construction, has been framed by these trees, and is perhaps the most complete view spanning the entirety of the irrigated agricultural landscape and beyond. It includes a foreground vegetation feature associated with the acequia, a wide expanse of fallow fields and hydroriparian vegetation in the middle ground, and a background of Josephine Saddle and the foothills of the Santa Rita Mountains and San Cayetano Mountain (see figure 7.12.2).

Post Period of Significance: The construction of Interstate 19 after the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance opened another view onto the site. This view onto the inventory unit, seen primarily from automobiles traveling at high speeds, is fleeting, and is recognizable as distinct from the surrounding Santa Cruz River Valley only by those already familiar with the site. Therefore, a figure depicting this less impactful view has not been included.

Views from the agricultural landscape of the inventory unit have been altered by modern-era ranching, but these views still closely approximate what was seen during the Mission Period of Significance (see figures 7.12.1 and 7.12.2). In addition to disturbances from ranching, the removal of cattle and the fallowing of fields have further diminished the view from residence #2 to the east across the agricultural landscape. Compounding the visual changes inherent in the removal of flood irrigation techniques (no water, no crops, no grazing animals,) this view has also lost the sensory association with the smells of moist earth, cow manure, and the sounds of wafting fields of wheat, corn, or other crops.

Throughout the inventory unit, the hydroriparian growth associated with the Santa Cruz River bottom and first terrace has returned to its historic lushness as a result of increased discharge of treated effluent from the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant. This visual vegetative cue signaling the presence of water is representative of the feeling and association of the Mission Period of Significance. In summary, as water levels have risen and fallen, this view has changed both positively and negatively, and today with current water levels relatively high, it transmits a high degree of integrity for the Mission Period of Significance.

Views from within the mission compound have lost integrity, since the room blocks of the convento have eroded to slightly recognizable mounds, opening up middle-ground and background views of riparian vegetation, foothills, and mountains (see figure 7.12.3).

Limited development within the surrounding hillsides and favorable on-site viewsheds that limit the visibility of contemporary roads, homesites, fields, and infrastructure, closely mirror the physical nature of both the Mission Period landscape and the NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance. One notable exception is an electric power distribution line, the sole interruption of the historic “knockout view” from the visitor center towards the north/northeast (towards the Elephant Head rock formation; see figure 7.12.5). In general, however, the

243

simplicity of the built landscape within the park and the town, and relatively undeveloped 360degree views, create a setting that focuses on Mission Period of Signficance buildings, just as they did during both periods of significance.

CONTRIBUTING AND NON-CONTRIBUTING FEATURES: Abbreviations MP: Mission Period of Significance ND: NPS Rustic Style/New Deal Era Period of Significance NC: Non-Contributing FEATURE NAME CONTRIBUTION Mission Complex (buildings and structures) MP: contributing ND: contributing NPS Visitor Center and Museum Complex (buildings and structures) MP: NC ND: contributing Ranch fields MP: NC/compatible ND: contributing Santa Cruz riverine system MP: contributing ND: contributing Adjacent hillside/mountains MP: contributing ND: contributing Electric power distribution line MP: NC ND: NC

244

Figure 7.12.1: The view from the first riparian terrace of the Santa Cruz River, also the location of the Anza National Historic Trail, towards the west is today very similar to what would have been seen during the Mission Period of Significance. It includes fields, the roof of the church, and the largely uninterrupted Tumacรกcori Mountains beyond. However, remaining foreground features of modern ranch infrastructure, including barbed wire fence and concrete canals, diminish the integrity of this view, as does the fallow nature of the fields (Bossler and Gredig 2009). As a whole, this view closely approximates the historic one and contributes to the feeling and association of the Mission Period of Significance.

245

Figure 7.12.2: The view along the acequia between the architectural core and the productive landscape during the Mission Period of Significance was likely similar in form to what is seen in the contemporary village of Fronteras, Sonora, MX, (top image) (The Tejido Group 2009, 29).

The acequia, likely lined with native riparian trees such as cottonwood, netleaf hackberry, and mesquite, was bordered upslope by one or more pathways, and downslope by irrigated fields.

The view from the western boundary of the original monument boundary just east of the residences (center image), while seemingly not intentionally designed, is framed by a row of shade trees and directs the attention of the visitor across a foreground irrigated pasturage, over a middle-ground hydroriparian area and alluvial foothills, and beyond to a background of Josephine Saddle and San Cayetano Peak (just to the right of the picture). This view also generally approximates the view from the mission compound prior to its enclosure. This photo, from the record of former park historian John Kessell, was presumably taken during his tenure in the 1960s, and depicts the appreciation of this view by a group of landscape painters at a time after which the historic acequia was no longer present (NPS, Tumacรกcori National Historic Park, John Kessell, date unknown). Today, this view has been slightly changed in two ways: thicker hydroriparian growth more typical of the Mission Period of Significance, and the fallowing of fields (image at bottom; Bossler and Gredig 2008-2010).

246

Figure 7.12.3: The view from within the convento plaza towards the northeast (top image) was entirely enclosed by the convento room blocks during the Mission Period of Significance, as depicted in this 1952 painting by Jimmie Trujillo (Moss 2008, 9; NPS, Church Files (digital), 1952). A photo of this view taken from the same vantage point in 2009 (bottom image) sharply contrasts this enclosed and controlled vista. Today’s open, undefined view includes a cleared patio in the foreground, the northern room block mound and a row of meso-riparian trees in the middle-ground, and the Santa Rita Mountains in the background. It is unknown whether the grouping of mesquite trees seen today is similar to the Mission Period of Significance. As another point of contrast, today this view is generally observed by the visitor in an atmosphere of silence and near solitude, dissimilar to the Mission Period, when they would have been standing in the center of noisy activity (Bossler and Gredig 2009).

247

Figure 7.12.4: The adobe perimeter walls separate the parking area from the mission compound and visitor center/museum complex. These walls block the approaching visitor’s view of all but the top of the church (Bossler and Gredig, 2009).

248

Figure 7.12.5: The “knockout view” of the mission church, seen here in repair, was designed during NPS/New Deal era to give a dramatic first vista of the mission church and patio from the last room of the visitor center prior to entry into the outdoor grounds of the mission complex. An important aspect of this vista is the lack of obstruction across the full fore-ground to middleground, which were presumably kept free of vegetation during the time of inhabitation. One feature, a power pole that skylines above the background row of native trees (seen in inset photo at bottom left) is possibly no longer in use and takes away from the purity of this vista from the visitor’s perspective. The scaffolding that crosses the opening in the foreground of the photo is a temporary maintenance feature, and is not a typical part of the visitor experience.

249

Figure 7.12.6: The southern adobe perimeter wall and a portion of the museum garden wall shield the visitor’s view to the south throughout much of the garden (top image), preventing them from seeing the ranch headquarters, except for when they are sitting or standing on a bench directly next to the garden wall (bottom; Wolfe 2010).

250

Condition Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Stabilization Cost:

I will complete this section / MJC

Stabilization Cost Date: Stabilization Cost – Level of Estimate: Stabilization Cost Estimator: Stabilization Measures Description: Stabilization Cost Explanatory Narrative:

Condition Assessment Condition Assessment

Fair

Assessment Date

Condition Assessment Explanatory Narrative

(blank for now)

(blank for now)

Impacts to Inventory Unit Impact Type Impact Type

External/Internal

Adjacent Lands

External or Internal External

Agriculture

Internal

Deferred Maintenance

Internal

Earthquakes

Both Internal and External Internal

Erosion

Impact Explanatory Narrative

Impact Explanatory Narrative The East Frontage Road (Historically called Highway 89) separates the mission complex from lands to the west that were likely part of the mission landscape.

Past agricultural practices impacted the archaeological resources in the fields surrounding the mission complex (Moss 2010).

Due to insufficient staffing, monitoring, and money, there is a backlog of preservation maintenance needs (Moss 2010).

An earthquake in 1887 cracked the church and structurally weakened it (Moss 2010).

Erosion from rainfall is the primary cause of

Display Sequence 1

2

3

4 5

251

Exposure to Elements

Both Internal and External

Fire

Internal

Improper Drainage

Both Internal and External

Inappropriate Maintenance

Internal

Operations on Site

Internal

Pests/Diseases

Internal

Planting Practices

Internal

Pollution

External

Poor Security/Lighting

External

Release to Succession

Internal

Structural Deterioration

Internal

Soil Compaction

Internal

Vandalism/Theft/Arson

External

integrity loss in the inventory unit (Moss 2010).

The exposure of inventory unit features to the elements, most significantly to rainfall, has greatly contributed to their loss of integrity (Moss 2010).

Tamarisk stands, which are susceptible to fire, have caught fire within the inventory unit in the past and altered the surrounding ecology.

Improper drainage from culverts located to the west of the park fence line in the right of way between the park and the road has repeatedly caused flooding around the Visitor Center (Moss 2010).

The use or experimentation with synthetic preservation materials such as cement and silicones, coupled with replacement using nonhistoric materials and techniques, have resulted in decreased historic integrity (Moss 2010).

Maintenance vehicles commonly drive between the acequia and the convento, creating a historically inaccurate circulation pattern. Additionally, there is an unofficial maintenance yard/ material deposit area within the Fiesta Grounds that hinders the interpretation of this spot as a component of the historic landscape.

Rodent activity is currently impacting buried archaeological resources, but the extent of its damage is unknown (Moss 2010).

The irrigation methods and general layout of plant materials within the Mission Garden are not entirely historically accurate, and impact the integrity of the Mission Period of Significance.

Treated effluent discharge from the waste water treatment plant upstream of the inventory unit has changed the water chemistry of the Santa Cruz River. This has likely altered the flora of the riparian system.

Migrant traffic along the Santa Cruz River regularly extends into the inventory unit, and occasionally damages fences, creates foot trails, and creates litter.

Portions of the agricultural fields located outside of the riparian zone have been allowed to go fallow, and no longer portray a connection between the built and agricultural landscape.

Exposure to the elements and the resulting erosion has damaged architectural features within the inventory unit. Their ability to demonstrate historic construction techniques and contribute to the overall physical history of the property has been diminished, and in some cases, has been lost entirely, negatively impacting the inventory unit’s integrity (Moss 2010).

In some areas, soil compaction can impact buried cultural/archaeological resources (Moss 2010).

Vandalism in the form of graffiti has affected the

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 18

252

Vegetation/Invasive Plants

Both Internal and External

integrity of the interior plaster, and theft/looting in the form of treasure hunting has diminished the information obtainable through archaeological investigation (Moss 2010).

Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), an invasive tree/shrub, is found throughout the Santa Cruz River bottom. While the park is actively controlling it, tamarisk stands within the inventory unit have caught fire in the recent past and altered the surrounding ecology.

19

253

Treatment Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacรกcori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacรกcori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacรกcori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Approved Landscape Treatment:

I will complete this section / MJC

Approved Landscape Treatment Document: Approved Landscape Treatment Document Date: Approved Landscape Treatment Cost: Approved Landscape Treatment Cost Date: Approved Landscape Treatment Level of Estimate: Approved Landscape Treatment Cost Estimator: Approved Landscape Treatment Explanatory Narrative: Approved Landscape Treatment Completed: Approved Landscape Treatment Cost Explanatory Narrative:

254

Bibliography and Supplemental Information Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori

Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850102

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Parent Cultural Landscape Inventory Number:

850101

Park Name:

Tumacácori National Historical Park

Park Alpha Code:

TUMA

Park Org Code:

8690

Bibliography The order of this bibliography, per the instructions of the professional procedures guide for cultural landscape inventories, is alphabetical by the author’s last name.

A Citation Title: Rudo Ensayo Citation Author: Anonymous (written presumably by Fr. Juan Nentwig, S.J) Year of Publication: 1761-2 Publisher: American Catholic Historical Society Other Source Name: translation by Eusebio Guitéras, Other Source Name: Vol. V, No. 2, June 1894 Citation Title: DRAFT Report on TUMA 2004 Archaeological Project (2004-2006) Citation Author: Nicole Arendt, Steve Baumann, Melissa Markel, and Jeremy Moss Year of Publication: DRAFT, 2009 Publisher: unpublished, Tumacácori National Historical Park, Tumacácori, AZ. Citation Title: Well Registry Web Maps Citation Author: Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Year of Publication: 2010 Publisher: unpublished Arizona Department of Water Resources Citation Location: online resource: retrieved October 18, 2010, from Arizona Department of Water Resources website: https://gisweb.azwater.gov/waterresourcedata/ Citation Title: Determination of Significance, Tumacácori National Historical Park, Residence #1 Citation Author: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Year of Publication: 2006a Publisher: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Source Name: S.H.P.O. document number: 2006 – 1717 (30221) Citation Title: Determination of Significance, Tumacácori National Historical Park, Residence #2 Citation Author: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Year of Publication: 2006b Publisher: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Citation Title: Determination of Significance, Tumacácori National Historical Park, Cisterns Citation Author: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Year of Publication: 2006c Publisher: Arizona State Historic Preservation Office

255

Citation Title: Historical Archaeology in Arizona and New Mexico Citation Author: James E. Ayres Year of Publication: 1991 Publisher: Society for Historical Archaeology Source Name: Historical Archaeology Other Source Name: volume 25, number 3, 18-23 B Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Anita Badertscher Year of Publication: 2010 (unpublished) Additional Information: Interpretive Park Ranger, TNHP Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Binney, George Year of Publication: 2010 Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Nick Bleser Year of Publication: 2010 (unpublished) Additional Information: Former Chief of Interpretation, TNHP (1973-1990) Citation Title: Kino’s Historical Memoir of Pimería Alta: A Contemporary Account of the Beginnings of California, Sonora, and Arizona, By Father Eusebio Francisco Kino, S.J., Pioneer Missionary Explorer, Cartographer, and Ranchman, 1683-1711.

Citation Author: Herbert Eugene Bolton Year of Publication: 1919 Publisher: The Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland Citation Title: Photographs Citation Author: Matthew Bossler and Theresa Gredig Year of Publication: 2008-2009 Publisher: unpublished Citation Location: University of Arizona Department of Landscape Architecture Citation Title: Superintendent’s Reports, Southwestern Monuments Citation Author: George Boundey, Louis Caywood Year of Publication: 1932-1940 Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Coolidge, AZ Citation Location: National Park Service, Western Archaeological Conservation Center, Tucson, AZ. Citation Title: The Archaeology of SE Arizona: A Class I Cultural Resource Inventory.

Citation Author: Gordon Bronitsky and James D. Merritt Year of Publication: 1986 Publisher: Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office Citation Type: Cultural Resource Series, Monograph No. 2 Citation Title: Adventures in Apache Country: a Tour through Arizona and Sonora, with Notes on the Silver Mines of Nevada Citation Author: J. Ross Browne Year of Publication: 1871 Publisher: Harper and Bros.

Citation Title: They Lived in Tubac

256

Citation Author: Elizabeth R. Brownell Year of Publication: 1986 Publisher: Westernlore Press Citation Title: The National Parks: Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Best Idea Citation Author: Ken Burns Year of Publication: 2009 Publisher: Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Citation Title: Kino and Manje: Explorers of Sonora and Arizoan, Their Vision of the Future Citation Author: Ernest J. Burrus, S.J. Year of Publication: 1971 Publisher: Jesuit Historical Institute, St. Louis, MO C Citation Title: Historic Structure Report: Visitor Center Complex, Tumacacori National Historical Park Citation Author: Catherine Colby Year of Publication: 1999 Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Santa Fe Citation Title: A Brief History of US Route 89 Citation Author: James Cowlin Year of Publication: 2006 Publisher: US Route 89 Appreciation Society Citation Location: online resource: retrieved October 28, 2010, from: <<http://www.panoramicnaturephotography.com/pdf/US%2089%20History.pdf>> D Citation Title: In the Footprints of the Past Citation Author: Meffie Damon et al.

Year of Publication: 1998 Publisher: Western National Parks Association Citation Title: An Archaeological Survey of the Santa Cruz River Valley from the Headquarters of the Town of Tubac, AZ Citation Author: Edward Bridge Danson Year of Publication: 1946 Publisher: unpublished MA thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson Citation Location: Arizona State Museum Library, Tucson, AZ Citation Title: An Archaeological Survey of the Santa Cruz River Valley from the Headwaters to the Town of Tubac, AZ Citation Author: Edward Bridge Danson Year of Publication: 1946 Publisher: unpublished MA thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson Citation Location: Arizona State Museum, Tucson, AZ Citation Title: Report: Native fish return to the Santa Cruz Citation Author: Tony Davis Year of Publication: 2010 Publisher: Arizona Daily Star Citation Location: online resource: retrieved September 30, 2010, from USBR website: <<http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/article_98bdde5f-6ba7-524d-97e44b4fb49deeb1.html>>

257

Citation Title: Architecture of the Sonora Missions; Sonora Expedition—October 12-29, 1935 Citation Author: Scofield Delong and Leffler Miller Year of Publication: 1936 Publisher: National Park Service Citation Title: Westmap: Climate Analysis and Mapping Toolbox Citation Author: Desert Research Institute Year of Publication: 2010 Publisher: unpublished, Desert Research Institute Citation Location: online resource: retrieved October 20, 2010, from Westmap website: http://www.cefa.dri.edu/Westmap/ Citation Title: Kino Heritage Fruit Tree Project Citation Author: Desert Survivors Year of Publication: 2008 Publisher: online resource: << http://www.desertsurvivors.org/Nursery/KinoTrees.html>> Citation Title: The Upper Pima of San Cayetano del Tumacacori Citation Author: Charles C. DiPeso Year of Publication: 1956 Publisher: The Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, AZ Citation Title: Excavations in the Middle Santa Cruz River Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Arizona State Museum, contributions; Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizona: 44 Citation Author: David E. Doyel Year of Publication: 1977 Publisher: University of Arizona, Tucson Citation Title: Vegetation Classification, Distribution, and Mapping Report: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Author: Sam Drake, Steve Buckley, Miguel Villarreal, Sarah Studd, J. Andrew Hubbard, Year of Publication: 2009 Publisher: National Park Service Additional Information: Natural Resource Report NPS/SODN/NRR—2009/148 F Citation Title: Mission of Sorrows: History of Arizona, Volume IV Citation Author: Thomas Edwin Farish Year of Publication: 1916 Publisher: The Filmer Brothers Electrotype Company Citation Title: Cool-Season Precipitation in the Southwestern USA Since AD 1000: Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Techniques for Reconstruction Citation Author: Fenbiao Ni, Tereza Cavazos, Malcolm K. Hughes, Andrew C. Comrie and Gary Funkhouser Year of Publication: 2002 Publisher: International Journal of Climatology 22: 1645–1662 Citation Title: A Fortified Arizona Mountain Citation Author: B.L. Fontana, J.C. Greenleaf, and D.J. Cassidy Year of Publication: 1959 Source Name: The Kiva Other Source Name: volume 25, number 2 Citation Title: Coronado National Forest: Heritage Citation Author: Forest Service, Coronado National Forest

258

Year of Publication: October 25, 2005 Publisher: online resource: <<http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/forest/heritage/heritage.shtml>> G Citation Title: Map: “Sections 19 to 32” Citation Author: Don Garate Year of Publication: 2005 Publisher: unpublished Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Don Garate Year of Publication: 2008-2010 Citation Title: The Iberian Origins of New Mexico’s Community Acequias Citation Author: Thomas F. Glick and José A. Rivera Year of Publication: unpublished Publisher: Taos Valley Acequia Association Citation Type: website Citation Location: < http://www.taosacequias.org/Documents/GlickRivera409.pdf > Citation Title: Mission Archaeology Citation Author: Elizabeth Graham Year of Publication: 1998 Source Name: The Annual Review of Anthropology Other Source Name: volume 27, pp. 25-62 Citation Title: Salado --- Perspectives from the Middle Santa Cruz Valley Citation Author: Paul Grebinger Year of Publication: 1976 Source Name: The Kiva Other Source Name: volume 42, number 1 Citation Title: Past and Present Climate Citation Author: Zack Guido Year of Publication: 2008 Publisher: Southwest Climate Change Network Citation Location: online resource: retrieved October 12, 2010, from Southwest Climate Change Network website: http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/climate/global/past-present H Citation Title: Differences in Cottonwood Growth Between a Losing and a Gaining Reach of an Alluvial Floodplain Citation Author: Mary J. Harner and Jack A. Stanford Year of Publication: 2003 Publisher: Ecology 84(6): 1453-1458 Citation Title: Elements of Physical Hydrology Citation Author: George Hornsberger, Jeffrey P. Raffensperger, Patricia L. Wiberg, and Keith N. Eshleman Year of Publication: 1998 Publisher: The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London Citation Title: Tumacácori National Historical Park Cultural Landscape Documentation Study Citation Author: Tonia Woods Horton Year of Publication: 1998 Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service

259

I Citation Title: Diagram to accompany Report of Frank S. Ingalls. U.S. Surveyor General for Arizona under direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Ofice. Dated July 21, 1905.

Citation Author: Frank S. Ingalls Year of Publication: 1905 Publisher: U.S. General Land Office Citation Title: Historic Structures Report: Tumacácori, Calabazas, and Guevavi units, Tumacácori National Historical Park, Arizona, History Data Section Citation Author: James E. Ivey Year of Publication: 2007, Final DRAFT Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service, History Program, Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe Citation Title: Of Various Magnificance: The Architectural History of the Missions of San Antonio, Texas in the Colonial Period and the Nineteenth Century Citation Author: James E. Ivey Year of Publication: 2009, Final DRAFT Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Santa Fe J Citation Title: Master Plan Development Outline: Tumacácori National Monument, Arizona Citation Author: Earl Jackson Year of Publication: 1948-1957 (multiple drafts) Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service Citation Title: Tumacácori’s Yesterdays Citation Author: Earl Jackson Year of Publication: 1973 Publisher: Southwest Parks and Monuments Association K Citation Title: Surface Irrigation: Systems and Practice Citation Author: Melvyn Kay Year of Publication: 1986 Publisher: Cranfield Press Citation Title: Mission of Sorrows: Jesuit Guevavi and the Pimas. 1691-1767 Citation Author: John L. Kessell Year of Publication: 1970b Publisher: The University of Arizona Press Citation Title: Franciscan Tumacacori, 1767-1848: A Documentary History Citation Author: John L. Kessell Year of Publication: 1976a Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Western Regional Office Citation Title: Friars, Soldiers, and Reformers, Hispanic Arizona and Sonora Mission Frontier Citation Author: John L. Kessell.

Year of Publication: 1976b Publisher: University of Arizona Press Citation Title: Memoir of Pimería Alta Citation Author: Kino, Eusebio Francisco

260

Year of Publication: unknown Publisher: unknown Citation Title: Water-Use Trends in the Desert Southwest – 1950-2000: Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5148 Citation Author: A.D. Konieczki and J.A. Heilman Year of Publication: 2004 Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey L Citation Title: Spanish Missions Citation Author: Antoinette J. Lee Year of Publication: 1990 Publisher: Association for Preservation Technology International Source Name: Association for Preservation Technology International Bulletin Other Source Name: volume 22, no. 3, 42-54 Citation Title: The Classical Model of the Spanish-American Colonial City Citation Author: René Martínez Lemoine Year of Publication: 2003 Source Name: The Journal of Architecture Other Source Name: volume 8, Autumn 2003 Citation Title: The Frontiers of New Spain: Nicolás de LaFora’s Description, 1766-1768, Citation Author: Nicolás de LaFora, trans. Lawrence Kinnaird Year of Publication: 1958 Publisher: Berkeley, Quivira Society Citation Title: The Lessening Stream: An Environmental History of the Santa Cruz River Citation Author: Michael F. Logan Year of Publication: 2002 Publisher: The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona M Citation Title: The National Park Service: A Brief History Citation Author: Barry Mackintosh Citation Year: 1999 Publisher: National Park Service Additional: online resource, accessed 09-08-10, <<http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/NPShistory/briefhistory.htm>> Citation Title: A History of the Land Titles of the Tumacacori Mission 1807-1918 Citation Author: Ray Mattison Citation Year: 1943 Publisher: Tubac Historical Society Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Amy McCoy Year of Publication: 2009 (unpublished) Additional Information: Project Manager, Sun Corridor Legacy Program, Sonoran Institute Citation Title: Weed Information: Saltcedar Information: Introduction and Spread Citation Author: Kirk McDaniel Citation Year: date unknown Publisher: New Mexico State University

261

Additional: online resource, accessed 10-06-10, << http://agesvr1.nmsu.edu/saltcedar/Introduction&Spread.htm>> Citation Title: The Tumacácori Mission Garden and Orchard: Past, Present, and Future Citation Author: Jeremy Moss Year of Publication: 2006 Publisher: Southwestern Mission Research Center Source Name: SMRC Revista Other Source Name: volume 40, number 146 Citation Number: ISSN 0584-5025 Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Title: Of Adobe, Lime, and Cement: The Preservation History of the San José de Tumacácori Mission Church Citation Author: Jeremy Moss Year of Publication: 2008, date accessed: 12/4/2008 Publisher: N/A (online) Source Name: NPS Archaeology Program: Research in the Parks Other Source Name: http://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/npSites/tumacacori1.htm Citation Type: website Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Jeremy Moss Year of Publication: 2009 Citation Title: Looking NE from Bell Tower (photograph) Citation Author: Jeremy Moss Year of Publication: 2010 Publisher: unpublished Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Title: A History of Archaeology at San Jose de Tumacacori Citation Author: Jeremy Moss Year of Publication: unpublished Publisher: N/A Citation Type: powerpoint presentation Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Title: Plant Assessment Form: Tamarix aphylla Citation Author: D. Backer, J. Brock, D. Casper, J. Hall, K. Klementowski, H. Messing, B. Munda, F. Northam, J. Ward Citation Year: 2004 Publisher: USGS Additional: online resource, accessed 10-06-10, << http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/research/projects/swepic/SWVMA/PLANTPDF/Tamarix_aphylla_ AZ_PAF.pdf>> N Citation Title: The Desert Smells Like Rain: A Naturalist in O’odham Country Citation Author: Gary Paul Nabhan Citation Year: 1982 Publisher: The University of Arizona Press Citation title: Southwestern Monuments monthly reports Citation Author: National Park Service, Southwestern Monuments

262

Year of Publication: 1935 Publisher: National Park Service, Southwestern Monuments Office, Coolidge, AZ Citation title: Southwestern Monuments monthly reports Citation Author: National Park Service, Southwestern Monuments Year of Publication: 1938 Publisher: National Park Service, Southwestern Monuments Office, Coolidge, AZ Citation title: Southwestern Monuments monthly reports Citation Author: National Park Service, Southwestern Monuments Year of Publication: 1939 Publisher: National Park Service, Southwestern Monuments Office, Coolidge, AZ Citation Title: Draft Master Plan: Tumacacori National Monument, Arizona Citation Author: National Park Service Year of Publication: 1975 Publisher: National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO Citation Title: National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, (Number not included, Tumacรกcori Mission Historic District) Citation Author: National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Year of Publication: 1983 Publisher: National Park Service, Washington D.C Citation Title: National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, #66000193 Citation Author: National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Year of Publication: 1986 Publisher: National Park Service, Washington D.C Citation Title: National Historic Landmark Nomination Form, #87001437 Citation Author: National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Year of Publication: 1987 Publisher: National Park Service, Washington D.C Citation Title: Tumacacori National Historical Park List of Classified Structures Citation Author: National Park Service Year of Publication: 2006 Publisher: National Park Service, Washington D.C. Citation Title: Foundation for Planning and Management: Tumacรกcori National Historical Park Citation Author: National Park Service Year of Publication: 2009a Publisher: National Park Service Citation Title: Preservation Efforts: A Legacy in Ruins Citation Author: National Park Service Year of Publication: website, accessed October 8, 2009b Publisher: online resource: <<http://www.nps.gov/archive/tuma/Pres_Efft.html>> Citation Title: Aerial photo file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacรกcori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: various years Source Name: includes scanned photos from various sources Citation Location: Tumacรกcori National Historical Park

263

Citation Title: Boundey file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Source Name: includes source “Tumacácori as I knew it,” apparently written by one the Boundey sons, and “Tom and Lola Bourgeois,” apparently prepared by a park historian for internal use Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park, Tumacácori Fact Files Citation Title: Bourgeois photo file* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Source Name: includes scanned photos from various sources Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Title: Chapel file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation Title: Church file (digital)* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, various years Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park intranet, “Tuma” folder Citation title: Cemetery file* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation Title: Kessell photo file* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, John Kessell Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Source Name: includes scanned photos from of slides Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation title: Land title file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation title: Measurement file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

264

Citation title: Metalurgy file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation Title: Mission Initiative website, Citation Author: National Park Service Year of Publication: 2009 Citation Location: Online Resource: Retrieved on 8-23-2009, << http://missions.arizona.edu/>> Citation title: Molina file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation Title: Photo file (digital)* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, various years Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park intranet, “Tuma” folder Citation Title: Photo file (prints)* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, various years Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, photo files drawer Citation Title: Pre-Monument Historic Chronology* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation Title: Semana Santa (Holy Week) Passion Play Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Year: year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation title: Tumacácori file Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, year unknown Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation Title: Tumacácori monthly reports* Citation Author: National Park Service, Tumacácori National Historic Park, various, unidentified park staff Year of Publication: unpublished, compiled 1931-1971

265

Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park archives, historical files cabinet, fact files drawer.

Citation Title: Groundwater Flow Model of the Santa Cruz Active Management Area Along the Effluent-Dominated Santa Cruz River, Santa Cruz and Pima Counties, Arizona, Modeling Report No. 14 Citation Author: Keith Nelson Year of Publication: 2007 Publisher: Arizona Department of Water Resources Citation Location: online resource: retrieved September 30, 2010, from ADWR website: <<http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/WaterManagement/AMAs/SantaCruzAMA/default.htm >> P Citation Title: Geomorphology and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River, Southeastern Arizona Citation Author: John Travis Chesluk Parker Citation Year: 1996 Publisher: University of Arizona Department of Geosciences, Dissertation Citation Location: electronic resource, University of Arizona library catalog Citation Title: Geomorphology and Hydrology of the Santa Cruz River, Southeastern Arizona Citation Author: John Travis Chesluk Parker Year of Publication: 2009 Publisher: unpublished, University of Arizona dissertation Citation Title: Memorandum to Mr. Thomas C. Vint Citation Author: Charles E. Peterson Year of Publication: 1930 (March 6) Publisher: unpublished, Record Group 79 Citation Title: The Missions of Northern Sonora, A 1935 Field Documentation Citation Author: Ed. Buford Pickens Year of Publication: 1993 Publisher: The University of Arizona Press Citation Title: Photo, Santa Gertrudis Lane Citation Author: Pimería Alta Historical Society Year of Publication: 1967 Publisher: unpublished Citation Location: Nogales, AZ Citation Title: Superintendent’s Report, Southwestern Monuments, Supplement for October, 1936, No. 10, Repair and Restoration of Tumacacori-1921 Citation Author: Frank Pinkley Year of Publication: 1936 Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Coolidge, AZ Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historic Park R Citation Title: Prehistoric Creations from Nogales, Arizona Citation Author: K.J. Reinhard Year of Publication: 1978 Source Name: The Kiva Other Source Name: volume 43, number 3-4

266

Citation Title: Chronology for Tumacacori National Monument, with Bibliography.

Citation Author: H.E. Rensch Year of Publication: 1934 Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service, Field Division of Education. Berkeley, CA. Citation Title: Inspection of the Northern Presidios Citation Author: Marqués de Rubí Year of Publication: 1766 Publisher: N/A Citation Location: Archivo General de Indias, Audiencia de Guadalajara, legajo 274 S Citation Title: page 14 Citation Author: A.F. Salas, A.F. Salas., and L.P. Urrestarazu Year of publication: 2008.

Citation Location: online resource: Retrieved September 30, 2010, from ocwus Web site: <http://ocwus.us.es/ingenieria-agroforestal/hidraulica-yriegos/temario/Tema%208.Riego%20por%20superficie/page_14.htm.> Citation Title: Tamarix specimen list Citation Author: SEINET (Southwestern Environmental Information Network) Citation Year: various years Publisher: online resource, accessed 10-06-10 << http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php>> Citation Title: Historical and Cultural Ecology of the Tohono O’Odham Nation Author: Bruce Lynn Seivertson Year of Publication: 1999 Publisher: unpublished, University of Arizona PhD Dissertation Citation Title: Historic Resource Study: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Author: Thomas E. Sheridan Year of Publication: 2004 Publisher: U.S.D.I. National Park Service (online) Citation Location: <http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/tuma/hrs/> Citation Title: Landscapes of Fraud: Mission Tumacácori, The Baca Float, and the Betrayal of the O’Odham Citation Author: Thomas E. Sheridan Year of Publication: 2006 Publisher: The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona Citation Title: The Bottom of the Bottle Citation Author: Georges Simenon Year of Publication: 1954 Publisher: Doubleday, New York, New York Citation Title: A Living River: Charting the Health of the Upper Santa Cruz River, 2008 Water Year Citation Author: Sonoran Institute Citation Year: 2009 Publisher: Sonoran Institute Citation Title: A Living River: Charting the Health of the Upper Santa Cruz River, 2009 Water Year Citation Author: Sonoran Institute

267

Citation Year: 2010 Publisher: Sonoran Institute Citation Title: Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533-1960 Citation Author: Edward H. Spicer Year of Publication: 1962 Publisher: The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona Citation Title: The Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant: History and Current Issues Citation Author: Terry Sprouse Year of Publication: 2005 Publisher: Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona Source Name: Presented for Water Resources on the Santa Cruz River Panel, September 9, 2005 T Citation Title: Demostración del vastísimo obispado de la Nueva Vizcaya, 1765, introducción bibliográfica y acotaciones por Vito Alessio Robles (Biblioteca histórica Mexicana de obras inéditas, VII) Citation Author: Pedro Tamarón y Romeral Year of Publication: 1937 Publisher: unknown Citation Location: México, D.F., Anitgua Librería Robredo Citation Title: Fronteras Revitalization Plan: A Conceptual Design for the Community of Fronteras, Sonora Citation Author: The Tejido Group, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Arizona Citation Year: 2009 Publisher: University of Arizona College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Citation Location: University of Arizona College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Citation Title: Rustic Architecture: 1916 – 1942 Citation Author: William C. Tweed, Laura E. Soulliere, and Henry G. Law Year of Publication: 1977 Publisher: U.S.D.I., National Park Service, Western Regional Office, Division of Cultural Resource Management Citation Location: <<http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/rusticarch/introduction.htm>> U Citation Title: To the Inland Empire: Coronado and Our Spanish Legacy Citation Author: Stewart L. Udall Year of Publication: 1987 Publisher: Doubleday and Company, Inc. Citation Title: Tumacacori National Historical Park: Design Concepts for the Administration/Visitor Center Courtyard and the Mission Landscape.

Citation Author: University of Arizona, The Landscape Architecture Program, School of Renewable Natural Resources Year of Publication: 1996 Publisher: Doubleday and Company, Inc.

268

Citation Title: Plano del Presidio de S. Ignacio de Tubac en la Provincia de Sonora situado en 32 grads y 3 minutos latititud boreayal 252y24de long.cont.da. desde al Meridiano de Tenerife Citation Author: Joseph de Urrutia Year of Publication: 1766 Publisher: unknown Citation Location: British Museum (courtesy Arizona State Museum), Additional Manuscripts, 17, 662, no. 8, reproduced online at <http://www.nps.gov/tuma/historyculture/santa-rosa-decorodeguachi-alias-fronteras.htm> Citation Title: Plan of the Presidio of San Phelipe y Santiago de Janos, subject to the government of Nueva Vizcaya, located at 31 degrees and 18 minutes latitude north, and 258 degrees and 24 minutes longitude counted from the Tenerife meridian (translated into English by NPS) Citation Author: Joseph de Urrutia Year of Publication: 1767 Publisher: unknown Citation Location: British Library, reproduced online at <<http://www.nps.gov/tuma/historyculture/san-felipe-y-santiago-de-janos.htm>> Citation Title: USBR Water Measurement Manual Citation Author: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Year of Publication: 2001 Publisher: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Citation Location: online resource: retrieved September 30, 2010, from USBR website: http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/wmm/ Citation Title: Statement of Dr. Michael Soukup, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, National Park Service, Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands of the House Resources Committee, concerning H.R. 2234, to revise the boundary of Tumacacori National Historical Park in the State of Arizona Citation Author: U.S. Congress. House. Resource Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, 107th Congress Year of Publication: November 13, 2001 Publisher: online resource: << http://www.nps.gov/legal/testimony/107th/tumacori.htm>> Citation Title: Map: “Tumacacori Forest Reserve, Arizona: Gila and Salt River Meridian and Base Forest Service” Citation Author: U.S. Department of Agriculture Year of Publication: 1906 Publisher: U.S. Department of Agriculture Citation Location: University of Arizona Library, Special Collections Citation Title: Homestead Proof – Testimony of Claimant, Mendez Homestead File Citation Author: U.S. General Land Office Year of Publication: 1908 Publisher: unpublished Citation Location: Tumacácori National Historical Park Citation Title: Presidential Proclamation of September 15, 1908 Citation Author: U.S.D.I., General Land Office Year of Publication: 1908 Publisher: U.S.D.I., General Land Office, Washington, D.C.

269

Citation Title: James E. Bouldin et al., v. Joseph de Aguayo et al., Homestead Proofs, Campbell Papers, Ms. 117, folder 8 Citation Author: U.S. District Court of Arizona Year of Publication: 1907-1908 Publisher: N/A Citation Location: Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, AZ. V Citation Title: Transformations of Spanish Urban Landscape in the American Southwest, 18211900 Citation Author: Nina Verrege Year of Publication: 1993 Source Name: Journal of the Southwest Other Source Name: volume 35, no. 4 Citation Title: A great north and south highway, U.S. 89 Citation Author: Ray N. Vyne Year of Publication: 1936 Publisher: Yavapai County Immigration Commissioner and Yavapai County Chamber of Commerce W Citation Title: The Civil Law in Spain and Spanish-America including Cuba, Puerto Rico and Phillipine Islands, and the Spanish Civil Code in force, annotated and with references to the Civil Codes of Mexico, Central and South America, with A History of all the Spanish Codes, and Summary of Canonical Laws, of the Principal Fueros, Ordenamientos, Councils and Ordenanzas of Spain from the Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century, including The Spanish, Mexican, Cuban and Puerto Rican Autonomical Constitutions, and A History of the Laws o the Indies – Recopilacion de Leyes de Los Reynos de las Indias Citation Author: Walton, Clifford Stevens Year of Publication: 1900 Publisher: W.H. Lowdermilk & Co. Citation Title: Tumacácori file Citation Author: Western Archaeological and Conservation Center (WACC) Year of Publication: 2009 Publisher: Western Archaeological Conservation Center Citation Location: Tucson, AZ Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Vicki Wolfe Year of Publication: 2010 Z Citation Title: Personal Communication Citation Author: Claire Zugmeyer Year of Publication: 2010 (unpublished) Additional Information: Research Assistant, Sun Corridor Legacy Program, Sonoran Institute

270

Supplemental Information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplemental Information Title: Aerial photo file Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains digital copies of aerial photos, both birds eye (directly overhead) and oblique, from various times during the park’s existence.

Supplemental Information Title: Bourgeois photo file Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains digital copies of "Photo files (prints)" from the park, as well as from historical society records of Tom Bourgeois, his family, home, activities, and acquaintances.

Supplemental Information Title: Cemetery file Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains descriptions of conversations between park staff and the professional or lay public regarding uses and alterations within the mission cemetery and burial grounds, interpretation of this information by park staff, and selected excerpts from the Tumacacori Monthly Reports.

Supplemental Information Title: Church file (digital) Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains digital files (.jpg, .tif, .gif) of photos, drawings, and paintings of the church and convento complex produced at various periods of time since the mission’s abandonment.

Supplemental Information Title: Kessell photo file Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains digital copies of slides produced by 1960s TNHP historian John Kessell, received by the park some time in the decade of the 2000s.

Supplemental Information Title: Photo file (digital) Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains digital files (.jpg, .tif, .gif) of photos from the park’s history, including photos of the Tumacácori fiesta.

Supplemental Information Title: Tumacacori Monthly Reports Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains monthly reports by monument custodians and superintendents, detailing events, policy changes, and physical changes both within the monument and in the region. These reports were delivered to the Southwestern Monuments office in Coolidge to Frank Pinkley and later administrators from 1931, just after the first resident custodian inhabited the park until 1971, when the Southwestern Monuments office was eliminated.

Supplemental Information Title: Photo file (prints) Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains physical prints of historic photos from the park and region's history, with many images of construction in the NPS Rustic-New Deal Era period of significance.

Supplemental Information Title: Pre-Monument Historic Chronology Supplemental Information Narrative: This file contains excerpts from other published resources, and summary descriptions of historical eras and/or trends, organized by year or era.