-
A Cultural Resource Inventory of 247 acres of the Old Fort
Lewis,
La Plata County, Colorado
By
Mona C. Charles
James Gustine
Danielle Sheptow
Alexis Schank
Department of Anthropology and Office of Community Services
Fort Lewis College
1000 Rim Drive
Durango, CO 81301
Report Prepared for the State Historic Fund
SHF 2007-02-019
Deliverable 3
Denver, CO
September 2008
-
i
Abstract
A cultural resource inventory of 247 acres surrounding and
including the Old Fort Lewis
Complex near Hesperus, Colorado, was undertaken by the
Anthropology Department at Fort
Lewis College. The archaeological inventory was but one
component of a larger State Historical
Fund grant awarded to the Office of Community Services, at Fort
Lewis College. The goal of the
project is to establish a multi-year program to protect the
historic and archaeological resources at
the Old Fort Complex while accommodating the existing use of the
facility. The other
components of the assessment and preservation plan include a
historic buildings survey of
standing architecture and a structure conditions assessment of
the buildings. As a result of the
cultural resource inventory, 21 newly recorded archaeological
sites were identified, 14 isolated
finds were recorded, and a single site 5LP1968 was reevaluated.
One prehistoric site was
recorded and the remaining sites are historic. The dominant
historic site type is general artifact
scatters. The sites are related to the use of Fort Lewis from
its incipient occupation in 1881 as a
military outpost through its tenure as a junior college until
the college moved to its present
location in Durango in 1956. The 21 newly recorded sites are
recommended as contributing to a
potential historic district under Criterion A of the National
Register of Historic Places. Each site
is also evaluated individually for potential nomination to the
National Register of Historic
Places. The 14 isolated finds are not recommended as eligible
for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic places. The Old Fort Lewis Complex, which
includes both the educational
and military facilities, is assigned one site number-Smithsonian
number 5LP1968. Twenty-eight
features were recorded within the Complex. These include
building foundations, side-walks,
artifact scatters, ski-lift, skating pond, rodeo grounds,
entrance gates, and a retaining wall.
-
ii
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Culture History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Prehistoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Protohistoric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 11
Conclusions and Management Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Appendix I Feature Msps, 5LP1968
Appendix II Site Forms
-
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. General location of the Old Fort Lewis archaeological
inventory . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Cultural resources documented for the Old Fort Lewis
archaeological survey 12
Figure 3. Site 5LP1968, Educational Complex, Old Fort Lewis . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 4. Conversion of survey data to the GIS Geodatabase . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 5. Southern entrance gates (Feature 1) looking north at
5LP1968 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 6. Portion of sidewalk on the main campus (Feature 4) at
5LP1968 . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 7. Portion of the old ski lift (Feature 5) at 5LP1968 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 8. Foundation of Feature 8 at 5LP1968 (old carriage house
in background) . . . 24
Figure 9. Grass outline of foundation of Feature 9 at 5LP1968 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 10. Unknown foundation of Feature 12 at 5LP1968 . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 11. Feature 13, experimental farm at 5LP1968 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 12. Feature 18, former faculty residence at 5LP1968 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 13. Foundation attached to a sidewalk (Feature 19) at
5LP1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 14. Headgate of the H & H Ditch (Feature 1) . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 15. Plan map of Feature 1, site 5LP8426.1 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 16. Headgate for the H & H Ditch (Feature 2) . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 17. Recording Station for the H & H Ditch (Feature 3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 18. View of 5LP8427 looking east . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 19. Plan map of 5LP8427 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 20. View of 5LP8428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 21. Plan map of 5LP8428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 22. View of 5LP8429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
-
iv
Figure 23. Plan map of 5LP8429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 24. View of 5LP8430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 25. Plan map of 5LP8430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 26. Site overview of 5LP8431 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 27. Plan map of Locus A at site 5LP8431 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 28. Overview of 5LP8432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 29. Plan map of 5LP8432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 30. View of 5LP8433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 31. Plan map of 5LP8433 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 32. View of rock-lined features (graves?) at 5LP8434 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 33. View of depression features (graves?) at 5LP8434 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 34. Plan map of old cemetery, site 5LP8434 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 35. Overview of the main dump area, 5LP8435. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 36. Plan map of 5LP8435 with Features A through D . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 37. Wooden structure (Feature 1) at 5LP8436 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 38. Plan map of 5LP8436 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 39. Site overview of 5LP8437 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 40. Plan map of 5LP8437 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 41. View of 5LP8438, looking north toward Red Mesa Power
Station . . . . . . 57
Figure 42. Plan map of 5LP8438 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 43. View of 5LP8439 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figure 44. Plan map of 5LP8439 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 45. View of 5LP8440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
-
v
Figure 46. Plan map of 5LP8440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Figure 47. Concrete and cobble feature at 5LP8441 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 48. Plan map of rock and concrete feature, 5LP8441 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 49. Site overview of 5LP8442 from the east . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Figure 50. Plan map of 5LP8442 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Figure 51. Overview of broken down plow at site 5LP8443 . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 52. Plan map of 5LP8443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 53. Lory Spring gate, site 5LP8444 . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 54. Plan map of headgate at Lory Spring site 5LP8444 . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 55. Site overview of 5LP8445 looking southwest . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Figure 56. Plan map of 5LP8445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Figure 57. Overview of target staging area at site 5LP8446 . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Figure 58. Plan map of 5LP8446 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
List of Tables
Table 1. Cultural Resources documented, Old Fort Lewis
archaeological survey . . . . . 14
Table 2. Collected Artifacts from the Old Fort Lewis
archaeological survey. . . . . . . . . . 17
.
-
1
1.0 Introduction
A cultural resource inventory around and including the Old Fort
Lewis complex was
conducted in May through July of 2007 as part of State
Historical Fund grant 2007-02-019
awarded to the Office of Community Services (OCS) at Fort Lewis
College (FLC). The first
documented use of the Old Fort Lewis in Hesperus, Colorado was
as a U.S. military post. In
August of 1880 the original Fort Lewis in Pagosa Springs moved
to the Hesperus location where
it was active until it was decommissioned in 1891. At this time,
the land and the buildings were
transferred to the Secretary of Interior to be used as an Indian
boarding school. The boarding
school operated until 1911. Declining enrollment in boarding
schools in general along with the
construction of schools on the reservations brought a close to
the period of Indian boarding
schools. Many of the buildings constructed by the military were
reused during the boarding
school tenure while others were demolished. New buildings were
constructed to accommodate
the boarding school staff and students. In January 1911, the
boarding school closed and the
6318-acre military reservation and infrastructure were
transferred to the state of Colorado where
it was converted to a rural high school. In 1927, college
courses were added to the high school
curriculum and it became a two-year college in 1933. The
two-year college was housed at the
Old Fort Lewis until 1956 when it moved to its present location
in Durango. Throughout this
time, many new buildings were added and a few older ones were
destroyed or remodeled. Today
the campus houses Colorado State Universitys San Juan Basin
Research Center (SUBRC), one
of ten experimental stations in the state. Other uses of the
campus include hands-on teaching by
the biology and physics departments at Fort Lewis College and
general use of the campus by
members of the community at large. The Mesa Verde Interagency
Helitak fire crew and the San
Juan Hot Shots used the property for office space, living
quarters, and training grounds.
Prior to the militarys presence, this part of the La Plata
Valley was used extensively
during prehistoric and protohistoric times. Archaic,
Basketmaker, and Puebloan sites are found
on the terraces and mesas above the La Plata River. Previous
archaeological work shows that the
heaviest prehistoric occupation was in the lower reaches of the
river near its confluence with the
San Juan River during the Pueblo II and Pueblo III periods.
Earlier, the Basketmaker and Pueblo
I people preferred the higher elevations of the upper La Plata
River where a series of stepped
terraces with deep, well-drained soils, adequate water supplies,
land for crops, and plenty of fuel
and construction materials were readily available and inviting.
The Ute and Navajo camped in
the valley and their sites, although much less visible than the
earlier settlers, are present in the
form of lithic and ceramic scatters and scarred Ponderosa pine
trees. It is even rumored that early
Spanish explorers passed through the valley very near the site
of the Old Fort Lewis.
Given this long history of use, reuse, and abandonment it was
anticipated that the 247
acre survey area surrounding and including Old Fort Lewis would
yield a high number of sites
most of which would relate to the historic occupation.
Additionally, it was predicted that a
number of prehistoric sites would be encountered on the terraces
above the river.
The survey area includes land on either side of the La Plata
River on the floodplain, the
T1 terrace, and some areas on the T2 terrace (Figure 1). A
somewhat arbitrary polygon
encompassing approximately 247 acres is designated as a local
historical district (Francis 2006).
-
2
-
3
2.0 Culture History
Prehistoric
The prehistory of this project falls within the broader
prehistory of the Colorado Plateau and
adjacent cultural regions including the Greater Southwest and
the Great Basin. The earliest Paleo
Indian presence is from groups described by Pitblado (1993) as a
Foothills/Mountain adaptation.
A study of projectile points from the San Juan National Forest
(SJNF) north of the Old Fort
Lewis site suggests that resident populations possessed a
material culture inventory that
evidenced the influences of both Great Basin and Oshara
complexes (Charles 1998). Black
(1991) argues for an in situ origin for the mountains of
Colorado, which he names the Mountain
Tradition. Regardless of the specific origins, Native American
occupation and utilization of the
project area began with the end of the last glacial retreat
about 13,000 years ago and continued
until the late 1800s with the arrival of the large numbers of
EuroAmericans.
Paleo Indian
The earliest definitive human occupation in North America is
referred to as the Paleo
Indian period (9500-6000 BC). Seasonal occupation, a subsistence
economy of large game
hunting, gathering wild plants, and a distinctive flaking
technology define this period. There is
little evidence of Paleo Indian occupation in the project area,
although projectile point fragments
of Paleo Indian points are reported from the nearby SJNF
(Charles 1998; Charles and Curtis
1997; Pitbaldo 1993; York 1991). Bonnie Pitblado (1993) analyzed
166 projectile points from
110 locations in both public and private collections from 13
counties in Western and Southwest
Colorado. She concluded that Paleo Indian occupation in
southwest Colorado developed from
resident Foothills-Mountain adapted groups, who practiced a
generalized subsistence strategy, as
opposed to the specialized big-game hunters of the Plains.
Unfortunately, the Paleo Indian period
is inconclusive in the archaeological record for the immediate
area around the Old Fort Lewis,
and it can only be assumed that the paucity of Paleo Indian
artifacts from the area reflects,
among other things, a sampling bias. Perhaps further work will
lend insight into this little known
period in Southwestern Colorado.
Archaic
The next major period of human occupation is referred to as the
Archaic period (6000
BC 500 BC). The Archaic period is separated into three
sub-periods: early, middle, and late.
The Archaic economy was chiefly based on hunting and gathering.
Archaic hunters relied on a
diverse flaked-lithic tool kit, increased social organization
and seasonal sedentism. The Archaic
period is known for an increase in population as well as overall
population dispersion. The
Archaic period is well represented from Ridges Basin, near the
present study area, with
temporary hunting and gathering sites, as well as seasonal
habitation sites (Charles 1992;
Nickens and Chandler 1981; Smiley 1995, Winters et al. 1986) and
in the San Juan Mountains to
the north (Charles 1998, Duke 1998, Hibbets and Wharton 1980)
where it has been suggested
that projectile point types loosely reflect Oshara typologies
(Charles 1998). In the nearby
Durango area, terminal dates for the Archaic period occur around
300 - 500 BC (Charles 2000;
Smiley 1995).
The three periods are not equally represented in the area or in
the nearby San Juan
Mountains. Instead, there is a relatively small number of sites
that are attributed to the Early
Archaic Period. Presently, there are very few Early Archaic
sites recorded in the area.
-
4
Beginning with the Middle Archaic Period, there is a substantial
increase of sites over
that of the Early Archaic. Most of the diagnostic projectile
points assigned to the Middle
Archaic most closely resemble the Bajada points of the Oshara
Tradition to the south and large
side-notched varieties (Sudden Side-Notched and San Rafael
Side-Notched) from the Great
Basin (Charles 1998). It has been speculated by many (Benedict)
that the increase in Middle
Archaic sites from the mountains and higher elevations coincides
with the Altithermal (Antevs
1955), a period of warmer temperatures and less effective
moisture on the surrounding lower
elevations. The Late Archaic Period in the area is perhaps the
least well understood of any of the
three, particularly because of the confusion surrounding the
terminal Archaic/Basketmaker II
transition. Irwin-William (1973) introduced the En Medio phase
(800 BC to AD 400) of the
Oshara Tradition to include the Late Archaic. It is certainly
the case that many projectile points
from the immediate area resemble the En Medio types. However, if
one considers a date of circa
300 to 500 BC for the emergence of the Baskemaker Tradition,
then many sites previously
considered to be Late Archaic could be reassigned to the
Basketmaker II period. There are sites
that lack evidence for cultigens but date to the period under
discussion (Fuller 1988) in the
immediate area.
Basketmaker II (BM II)
The project area witnessed a major transitional development
known as the Basketmaker
II period, beginning perhaps as early as 500 BC but no later
than 300 BC and extending through
AD 450. This period is significant in the prehistory of the
Southwest (Matson 1991) and
specifically in the Upper San Juan Drainage (including the Pine,
Piedra, Animas, La Plata, and
San Juan Rivers and their tributaries), which includes the
project area. Sites around Durango
specifically represent the largest settlements of Basketmaker II
thus far known for Southwest
Colorado. Other nearby areas of concentrated Basketmaker II
sites include the Navajo Reservoir
(Charles, Hovezak and Sesler 2006; Sesler and Hovezak 2006; Eddy
1966), less than 30 miles
from Durango. Scattered Basketmaker II habitation sites were
excavated in the La Plata River
Valley (Reed and Horn 1988; Brown 1991) and in the Dolores River
Valley (Gross 1988). This
period is defined by use of domesticated crops for subsistence
(namely corn, and squash), which
may have led to permanent, year-round settlements. If the sites
were not occupied year-round,
they were at least occupied for longer periods of time than the
preceding Archaic habitations.
The Basketmaker II period is viewed as a developmental phase in
southwest agriculture
from mobile hunters and gatherers of the Archaic period to
sedentary farmers of later
Basketmaker and Puebloan periods. The transition from forager to
farmer in the American
Southwest assumes a pivotal role in understanding the American
agricultural system, and in the
Durango area, this transition is visible at sites such as Talus
Village (Morris and Burgh 1954),
the Darkmold Site (Charles 2000), and the Falls Creek Shelters
(Morris and Burgh 1954).
The Basketmaker II of the Durango area was first identified by
Zeke Flora and Earl
Morris in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The work by Morris
(Morris and Burgh 1954) resulted
in bringing to the discipline a more comprehensive view of
Basketmaker II culture than was
available from the works of Kidder and Guernsey (Kidder and
Guernsey 1919; Guernsey and
Kidder 1921). Up to this time, Basketmaker II sites were mostly
represented by cave sites in
southwestern Utah (Grand Gulch) and northeastern Arizona (Atkins
1993; Blackburn and
Williamson 1997). The presence of habitation structures at the
open site of TalusVillage and the
-
5
along with those from the Falls Creek Shelters suggested that
habitation was either year-round or
at least semi-permanent indicating a greater subsistence upon
cultigens that previously thought.
Morris and Burgh (1954) recognize differences between the
Durango Basketmaker II and
those to the west in Utah and Arizona. These distinctions
involve architecture, landscape
position, and artifact styles. Nevertheless, Morris and Burgh
defend general cultural associations
by demonstrating that eastern and western groups possess 70%
shared traits. Matson (1991)
recognizes the distinctions first identified by Morris and Burgh
(1954) and notes that distinctive
differences in material culture and symbolic markers associated
with architecture, projectile
point morphology, basketry, cordage, and rock art are sufficient
to consider these two groups as
different but related traditions. More recently, Florence Lister
(1997) reports early radiocarbon
dates for corn at the Falls Creek Shelters and notes the
possibility of a relationship with Archaic
hunter-gatherers of the Uncompahgre Complex (Wormington and
Lister 1956; Buckles 1971).
Charles and Cole (2006) believe that the Basketmaker II all
across the American Southwest are
typical of a large population with individual differences that
reflect their Archaic origins rather
than representing distinctively different ethnic groups.
Basketmaker III (BMIII)
Around AD 450, the area witnessed the end of the Basketmaker II
period, which was
accompanied by an overall decrease in population that minimally
lasted until AD 650 and
probably more like AD 700 to 750. The main cause for this drop
in population has been
interpreted as climatic. It is generally accepted that pottery
was introduced during this period,
although there is increasingly convincing evidence that pottery
may have been introduced a bit
earlier during the Basketmaker II period (Wilson and Blinman
1993; Hovezak 2001). Two
sherds were found in the fill of a Basketmaker II burial from
the Darkmold Site (Charles 2000).
Charcoal from this fill was dated to 1,78050 years BP (AD
120-390). Basketmaker III pottery
was either plain gray wares (Rosa Gray), lead-based glaze wares
(Rosa Black-on-White), or
plain brownwares (Sambrito Brown). It is generally held that the
bow-and-arrow replaced the
atlatl during this time period (see Reed and Kainer 1978 for an
opposing argument). Pit
structures became larger and deeper for the most part, with more
complex entryways and
antechambers. This period is known as the Basketmaker III period
(AD 450-AD 700).
While there are Basketmaker III sites from the La Plata River
valley, most of these are
further downstream and closer to the confluence of with the San
Juan River. The Basketmaker III
occupation of the Animas Valley is equally scarce from the upper
reaches. There are, however, a
few sites from the general area that date to the Basketmaker III
period and certainly as one
travels west and south this occupational period becomes much
better represented (Wilshusen
1999 b, c). The lack of well-dated sites has led to an inability
to separate the defining qualities of
Basketmaker III from Pueblo I periods in the Durango area. This
confusion has resulted in the
commonly accepted term Basketmaker III Pueblo I transitional
period to categorize most sites in
this area. Lastly, not disregarding the above, there appears to
have been a valid hiatus at this
time. Although, recent work by Curtis (1998) suggests the
Durango area was not entirely
abandoned at this time, the archaeological evidence indicates
that the area most certainly
witnessed a major period of reduced population if not
abandonment.
-
6
Basketmaker III (BMIII) Pueblo I (PI) Transitional and Pueblo
I
The most visible occupational period represented in the area
occurs between about AD
725 and AD 800. (Charles 1994; Charles and Schriever 1999; Duke
1985; Fuller 1988; Gooding
1980; Gregg et al. 1995; Hibbets 1976; Wilshusen 1999 c; Winter
et al. 1986). We have chosen
to lump Basketmaker III/Pueblo I Transitional with Pueblo I
because it is becoming ever more
obvious that sites originally referred to as BMIII/PI
Transitional should be singularly designated
as Pueblo I period sites based on architecture, social
integration, and chronology. This period is
defined by aggregation into larger village communities
consisting of two or more pit structures
and increased surface structures most likely used for storage.
This period of aggregation is
believed by many to have occurred because of continued climactic
stress. According to Gooding
(1980), these villages are primarily situated on higher
elevations, most likely to take advantage
of increased moisture. This period is most conspicuous in Bodo
Industrial Park (Applegarth
1975; Charles 1994; Gooding 1980; Hibbets 1975), in Ridges Basin
(Duke 1985; Fuller 1988;
Nickens and Chandler 1981; Smiley 1995; Winter et al. 1986),
along Blue Mesa (Fetterman and
Honeycutt 1982; Hibbets 1975), in Hidden Valley (Carlson 1963),
and along the La Plata River
Valley (Morris 1939; Wilshusen 1999 c).
The ceramic assemblage continued to be dominated by Rosa Gray
and Rosa Black-on-
White with the introduction of neck-banded varieties.
Hunting undoubtedly played a major role in the lives of the
Pueblo I population, and
almost certainly it is assumed that during this period there was
a commitment to agriculture as
well. The importance of hunting (wild game may have supplied a
smaller proportion of the total
diet), socially or politically should not be underestimated.
Possibly the population participated in
limited residential mobility as suggested for other groups with
similar subsistence and economic
strategies (Kent 1989). Regardless of subsistence strategies or
mobility patterns, local Pueblo I
populations were fairly healthy (Martin and Goodman 1995).
Dental data show frequencies of
caries to be consistent with other agricultural groups, but also
that diet varied and was not
exclusively reliant upon maize.
Perhaps with continued climactic stress the inhabitants of the
Durango area left to seek
areas where moisture was more abundant or where communal support
was available. The La
Plata canyon, the Dolores River Valley, Navajo Reservoir, and
Mesa Verde are all examples of
areas that were inhabited during later Pueblo I times ([AD
800-AD 900] Eddy 1966; Eddy et al.
1984; Hovezak 2001; Fuller 1988; Wilshusen 1999 c; Winters et
al. 1986) after the Durango area
was abandoned. There is controversy over the presence of late
Pueblo I occupations in the
Ridges Basin and Bodo Industrial Park areas, however, more
terminal dates of occupation for the
region and additional clarifying information are still
needed.
Pueblo II (PII) and Pueblo III (PIII)
The next time periods established for the Four Corners region
are Pueblo II and Pueblo
III (AD 900-AD 1300) periods. These periods are associated with
the monumental architecture
of Chaco Canyon, Chimney Rock Pueblo, and Mesa Verde. There are
no major habitation sites
associated with these time periods in the immediate vicinity of
the project, but as one travels
south and west, sites belonging to these period become common.
The lower reaches of the La
-
7
Plata River and the Mancos and Johnson canyons are host to
numerous large and small Pueblo II
and Pueblo III sites. The sites of Aztec Ruins, Solomon Ruins,
and Mesa Verde are but a few of
the more popular of these. The La Plata River valley itself is
home to several large sites
including the Holmes Group, Morris 39, and Morris 41 (Morris
1939). Most of these large sites
were heavily vandalized during the latter part of the 19th
century and first part of the 20th
century.
Protohistoric
After the major exodus of the Four Corners region about AD 1300,
the area was likely
populated by Ute and Navajo tribes into the Protohistoric (AD
1500 - AD 1800) and historic
periods (Baker et al. 2007). This information is speculative
because few archaeological remains
have been documented (Duke 1998; Hibbets and Wharton 1980;
Heikes 1979; Morris and Burgh
1954). Historic accounts document the presence of Weeminuche and
Capote Utes in direct
contact with Navajos in the vicinity of the La Plata Mountains
(Hibbets and Wharton 1980;
Winter et al. 1986). Perhaps the lack of documented
protohistoric sites is in part the result of the
inability of archaeologists to recognize these sites in the
archaeological record (Duke and
Charles 1994). Early Navajo (Dinetah) sites are common in the
surrounding areas, and sites with
probable Navajo affiliations have been excavated in the Navajo
Reservoir District (Hester 1962),
lower in the La Plata Valley (Brown 1991; Reed and Horn 1988)
and in the vicinity of Aztec,
New Mexico (Honeycutt and Fetterman 1994; Wilshusen 1995). Site
LA49498, located on
properties leased by the La Plata Mine, was recorded by the
Division of Conservation
Archaeology, Bloomfield, New Mexico as a possible burned hogan.
The site was
subsequently excavated by Nickens and Associates and the remains
of burned construction
beams produced radiocarbon dates with a range from AD 1437 to AD
1466 (Reed and Horn
1988:286). It has been argued, however, that these dates reflect
the old wood problem and that
more appropriately the region was settled by the Navajo in the
16th
to 17th
centuries and by the
Ute closer to the 17th
century.
Historic
Early Historic
The project area began to be developed by Anglos and Hispanics
beginning around the
1870s because of extensive mining operations in Durango and
farther to the north in Silverton.
The city of Durango was established in 1880 by the Denver and
Rio Grande Railroad.
Originally, the railroad had intended to make Animas City its
destination, but when Animas City
failed to grant the railroad the demanded concessions, the
railroad bought land to the south and
established the town of Durango in September of 1880 (Duke and
Matlock 1999:53). Durango
soon became a primary economic center for the region. A
narrow-gauge railroad (still in
operation today) linked Durango with Silverton to carry ores and
supplies to and from this
isolated mining town. In addition, Durango claimed two smelters,
San Juan and New York. Coal
was mined from La Plata and nearby counties to supply the
smelters. A series of toll roads
connected Durango to the coal fields and to Silverton. These
were quickly replaced by rail lines.
The history of the property on which Old Fort Lewis is located
is discussed in detail in
the complementary report by Jill Seyfarth. The reader is
referred to this report for the historical
overview of the project area.
-
8
3.0 Literature Review
The culture history of the project area is discussed in several
large reports including early
works by Earl Morris along the La Plata District (Morris 1939)
and archaeological mitigation
reports for the La Plata Highway (Toll no date). Several
archaeological surveys of substantial
size provide a very thorough section on environment and culture
history of Ridges Basin in their
survey report for the first Animas-La Plata Project. Complete
Archaeological Service Associates
[CASA (Fuller 1988)] produced an excellent report summarizing
the results of excavations from
several sites within the uranium tailings relocation project
just north of the Bodo alluvial fan
between Ridges Basin and the Bodo Industrial Park. John D.
Gooding (1980) edited a report on
the excavations of two Late Basketmaker III sites located within
the highway relocation project
for Federal Highway 550 near the Bodo Industrial Park. These
reports provide excellent culture
overviews of the Durango area.
The Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists (CCPA)
sponsored a series of
regional culture resource contexts intended to serve as
guidelines for archaeological work within
the areas. The Southern Colorado River Basin prehistoric context
(Lipe et al. 1999) is the source
for a broad cultural/historical perspective while providing
details on specific sites throughout
southwestern Colorado including sites in the La Plata river
valley. An older version of the
Colorado Prehistoric Context for Southwest Colorado (Eddy et al.
1984) provides useful
information as well even if it is a bit dated.
An excellent seven-set volume on the Animas-La Plata project in
Ridges Basin is
available from Northern Arizona University. These volumes
include synthetic reports of data and
literature research from previous investigations, including but
certainly not limited to the
reexamination of cultural remains from the collections at FLC
and the analysis and
interpretations of ceramics and flaked-lithic artifacts from
surface collections performed since
the initial cultural resource investigations for the Animas-La
Plata Project.
An overview of the archaeological resources for the United
States Forest Service (USFS)
was spearheaded by Philip Duke of the Department of Anthropology
at FLC. In this report Duke
(1998) provides an overview of the current state of knowledge
regarding the cultural resources
located on USFS lands in southwest Colorado. Among its other
valuable contributions are
several chapters devoted to quantifying and explaining the
various culture historical periods
represented in the region.
Other reports that have synthesized information for specific
time periods in and around
Durango include those written by Charles (2000, 2002a, 2002b),
Charles and Schriever (1999),
Fetterman and Honeycutt (1982), McAndrews, et al. (2000), and
Woods Canyon Archaeological
Consultants (1999). Two recent publications one by Lister (2000)
and one by Duke and Matlock
(1999) are written for the general public and focus on the
prehistory of Durango specifically. The
aforementioned reports are available at Reed Library on the FLC
campus, the Durango Public
Library, or through interlibrary loan, and they are recommended
for those interested in more
detailed information.
-
9
It is anticipated that the forthcoming multi-volume report by
SWCA on the results of
survey, testing, and data recovery for the Animas La-Plata
project will project much needed data
to our growing information on the prehistoric settlement of the
Animas Valley. This multi-year
project emphasized sites dating to the Pueblo I period and how
these sites fit in the overall
scheme of the settlement and abandonment of the upper portions
of the Animas river drainage.
4.0 Methods
Archival work for the survey began in April and May of 2007 with
a site file search from
the Colorado Historical Society (CHS), a search of the archives
at the Center of Southwest
Studies (CSWS) and a visit to the Old Fort Lewis. The CHS search
on Compass showed only
two sites had been recorded in the 247 acre tract. Site 5LP1968
and 5LP1969 were both recorded
in 1974. No information was provided on who recorded these sites
nor was there any substantial
information on the sites themselves. 5LP1968 is named as the CSU
Agricultural Experiment
Station and the site type is listed as Educational Complex with
a date range from 1910 to 1919.
5LP1969 is recorded as a Fort with a date of 1880 to 1889. The
name on the site form was Fort
Lewis Old No. 2, CSU AG Experiment.
The Center of Southwest Studies at FLC is the repository for
most of the Fort Lewis
archival information including the military and boarding school
records. Several maps are
housed in the Delaney Library along with historical photographs
and various written records that
pertain to the Old Fort. Several days were spent with the maps
and written documentation before
the field work.
Field work began with a reconnaissance of the property by Dr.
Catherine Ortega and
myself. Dr. Ortega had spent a significant amount of research
time at the Old Fort. The primary
objectives of our visit were to look over the project area, find
some of the survey boundaries, and
to begin formulating a plan for conducting the survey. This
visit was especially important to
decide on an area for the archeological field school to
survey.
Field work followed on May 24th
with the FLC archaeological field school. We spent
four days conducting survey, site documentation, and remote
sensing at Old Fort Lewis. William
Tsosie and Danielle Sheptow served in the capacity of teaching
assistants along with Mona
Charles as the field school director. Participating field school
students included the following:
Melissa Goade, James Gustine, Jon Hedlund, Kevin Lacy, Katherine
Miterko, Marin Millen,
Cimarron Peterson, Jesse Robbins, Jonathan Sanford, Alexis
Schank, Gerry Swickard, and
Crystal Tewell. Survey was conducted in transects with spacing
about five meters apart. When
an artifact was found, the students were pulled from their
transects to pin flag significant
artifacts, features, and the site boundaries. Maps were made of
the sites with compass and tape.
Maps were drawn to true north, which was declinated to 14
degrees east. This was taken from
the Kline, CO. 7.5 U.S.G.S. quadrangle map. Map scales were
variable and depended on the
size of the site and how much detail was needed. Each site datum
and each isolated find were
mapped with both a Trimble III and a Garmin GPS. Students were
trained in the use of both
instruments. Colorado Cultural Resource Survey forms for sites
and isolated finds were
completed in the field. The appropriate supplemental forms were
also completed. Site and
-
10
isolated find locations were plotted on the Kline, CO.
7.5U.S.G.S. quadrangle map as well as on
the aerial photograph provided by OCS. Black- and-white
photographs were taken of each site
and each feature. Digital images were taken of individual
artifacts.
In general, this same methodology was followed during the formal
survey. The transect
width, however, was increased to 15 meters for the formal
survey. Most of the survey was
conducted by following azimuth angles that corresponded to the
angle of the survey block.
The inventory included sites, features, and isolated finds. An
isolated find was usually
defined as a concentration of less than five artifacts. Sites
were defined as loci of cultural activity
that are represented by more than five artifacts and/or features
that indicate human presence.
Features could also include structures, foundations, graves,
etc. Diagnostic artifacts or unusual or
exotic items were sketched in the field or photographed. A few
diagnostic artifacts were
collected for further study in the lab.
The formal survey began on July 9th
and continued until July 26th
. Four crew members
and Mona Charles, the principal investigator, completed the
survey. The crew members included
Danielle Sheptow, William Tsosie, James Gustine, and Alexis
Schank. At the end of the survey,
we had completed a pedestrian survey of all 247 acres. Some
areas were not surveyed if the
vegetation was too thick to see the ground such as along the
river, or if the ground was too
swampy to walk. It should be noted that the heavy spring rains
and winter snowmelt resulted in
thick grass and weed cover making visibility difficult.
Undoubtedly we missed artifacts due to
this heavy vegetation. In particular cheatgrass was ubiquitous
and other tall grasses obscured the
ground surface in some areas.
It became readily apparent that one adjustment had to be made
during the formal survey.
It was decided that we would use one site number for the Old
Fort Lewis Educational Complex,
whether discussing the military or the educational. In a few
cases, the buildings of the earlier fort
were reused during the educational period. More often, however,
buildings were torn down and
new ones constructed on the same location. A concerted attempt
was made to locate any remains
of the buildings or features present on the historic maps and
historic aerial photographs. In most
cases, nothing remained except for sidewalks, artifact scatters,
and less commonly, left-over
foundations. We used our judgment to determine if the
structures/features were part and parcel of
the original Old Fort Lewis Complex and whether they appeared on
the historical maps which
would indicate their use and time range. In these cases, we
recorded each feature/structure as a
Historic Feature within the larger Old Fort Lewis Complex.
Historic Archaeological Component
forms were completed for each of these. We did not, however, map
in any standing architecture
as this was the task of Jill Seyfarth, who conducted the
standing architectural assessment survey.
Judgment was used to designate specific areas as sites rather
than as features of the larger
complex. Reasons for deciding that an area was a site instead of
a feature were based on
proximity to the complex, on whether it could be identified on
any historic map, whether it was
used by members of the community at large and not specific to
the Old Fort Lewis Complex, or
if we could not determine the use or function of the area. These
areas include the shooting range,
the cemetery, the large dump, the prehistoric site, the H&H
ditch, and several general artifact
scatters.
-
11
Laboratory work on the survey began with the field school
results. Site forms that were
completed in the field were digitized into Word by the field
school students and maps were
scanned and digitized into AutoCad. The GPS waypoints were
differentially corrected and were
exported to ArcView shapefiles and then brought into ArcGIS.
Location maps were made in
ArcGIS and individual sites maps were printed from the AutoCad
drawings.
As a rule, artifacts were not collected. In many cases they were
drawn or photographed in
the field. However, we did collect artifacts which we considered
as temporally or culturally
diagnostic, that were unique and could provide more information
about the function of the site or
that were in danger of begin lost, collected or eroded.
Collected artifacts were given field
specimen (FS) numbers by site and/or feature number. Each
artifact to be collected was bagged
separately, given the appropriate FS number, and the location
taken with a GPS.
All collected artifacts were studied, photographed and/or drawn.
Standard laboratory
procedures were implemented to adequately document these
artifacts. The majority of artifacts
collected were glass, cartridges casings, and buttons.
Miscellaneous artifacts collected included a
curry comb, metal spike, ceramics, a projectile point, a casket
handle, and other miscellaneous
items. A spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel was created to record
all of the important information
from the artifacts.
5.0 Results
Results of archaeological inventory are summarized in Tables 1
and 2. A total of 21 sites
were recorded along with 15 isolated finds (Figure 3). During
the four days of field school we
recorded five sites and four isolated finds and the remainder
was recorded during the formal
survey. All but one of the sites is historic and all most likely
relate to the occupation of the Old
Fort Lewis Complex at some point throughout its 126 years of
occupation. One site number,
5LP1968, was applied to the Old Fort Lewis Complex. Originally
there were two site numbers
for the Old Fort Lewis Complex5LP1968 and 5LP1969. One was used
specifically for the two
remaining military buildings. In discussion with Mary Sullivan
at the OAHP, we made the
decision to use only site number 5LP1968 and to disregard the
second number. We recorded a
total of 27 features that belong to 5LP1968 (Figure 4). Most of
these are the ephemeral remains
of buildings that were destroyed or that burned. Examples of
features within the Old Fort Lewis
Complex, 5LP1968 include the following: the skating pond, the
tennis courts, the football field,
noted grounds, the entrance gates, the ski tow, the experimental
farm, the side walk system, and
others.
A total of 76 artifacts were collected from the field for more
detailed analysis. Table 3
summarizes the collected artifacts and provides date ranges,
place of manufacture, and other
pertinent information when possible.
-
12
Figure 2. Cultural resources documented for the Old Fort Lewis
archaeological survey.
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
FS # Northing Easting Site No.
1 4124315 762312 5LP8428
2 4124315 762312 5LP8428
3 4124285 762284 5LP8428
4 4124293 762291 5LP8428
5 4124288 762285 5LP8428
6 4124286 762285 5LP8428
7 4124323 762309 5LP8428
8 4124292 762287 5LP8428
9 4124294 762258 5LP8428
10 4124315 762312 5LP8428
11 4124308 762302 5LP8428
1 n/a n/a 5LP8429
2 n/a n/a 5LP8429
1 4124170 762202 5LP8431
2 4124174 762189 5LP8431
3 4124170 762189 5LP8431
4 4124170 762189 5LP8431
5 4124154 762170 5LP8431
6 4124193 762203 5LP8431
7 4124212 762222 5LP8431
8 4124206 762211 5LP8431
9 4124175 762209 5LP8431
10 4124232 762258 5LP8431
11 4124239 762262 5LP8431
1 4123833 761754 5LP8432
2 4123834 761766 5LP8432
3 4123843 761771 5LP8432
4 4123839 761763 5LP8432
5 4123840 761765 5LP8432
6 4123835 761759 5LP8432
7 4123866 761806 5LP8432
8 4123903 761859 5LP8432
9 4123897 761816 5LP8432
17
OFL-011
OFL-011
OFL-011
OFL-011
OFL-011
OFL-07C
OFL-07C
OFL-011
OFL-011
OFL-011
OFL-011
OFL-07A
OFL-07A
OFL-07B
OFL-07B
OFL-07B
OFL-07B
OFL-02
OFL-03
OFL-03
OFL-07A
OFL-07A
OFL-07A
Unknown
OFL-02
OFL-02
OFL-02
OFL-02
OFL-02
OFL-02
OFL-02
OFL-02
OFL-02
Unknown
Mid-late 1900s
Whiskey Bottle
W.F. Murray and CO., Glasglow, 1870-1898
May 1886, Rifle: Frankfort Arsenal
Late 1800's-Early 1900's
Looks Reworked
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Civil War Era
Serving Bowl pre-1920
Unknown
32 oz Vitreous Stone Ink Bottle Circa 1862
Possible Derby pottery, Salt Glaze pre-1920
Unknown
Unknown
April,1882:Carbine Rifle: Frankford Arsenal
Unknown
Unknown
Blue Willow Pattern
Unknown
Whiskey Bottle Top
Possible Inkwell Top 1885-1917
Unidentified White Ball
OFL-02 1930-Present
California Fig Syrup Co. 1880's
Unknown
45 Colt Government Benet Primer
Bead neck Finish 1985-1917
BR: Owens Illinois Glass Co. 1929-1930
Unknown
Unknown
Metal Stake
Curry Brush
Brown Bottle Top
Stamped Crockery
Cartridge Casings
Milk Glass Button
Projectile Point
Shell Fragment
Decorative Cast Iron Piece
Ax Head Fragment
Ceramic Bottle Tops
Blue and White Crockery
Cast Iron Piece with Lettering
Crockery Fragment w/mark
Crock Lid w/Handle-Unknown Object
Cast Iron Piece with Lettering
Keyhole
Cartridge Casing
Piece of a Marble
Decorative Cast Iron Piece
Blue and White Porcelain
Worked Clear Glass
Brown Bottle Top
Solarized Glass Bottle Neck
Clear Bottle Bottoms
Brass Cartridge Casing
Solarized Glass Bottle Neck
Brown and Clear Bottle Bottoms
Porcelain Doll Head
Crockery with Mark
Table 2. Collected artifacts from the Old Fort Lewis
archaeological survey.
Artifact Temp No. Research Information
Plastic Button
Glass with Writing
-
FS # Northing Easting Site No.
10 4123891 761829 5LP8432
11 4123893 761840 5LP8432
1 4124504 762271 5LP8434
2 4124540 762287 5LP8434
1 4124483 762358 5LP8435
1 4124026 761690 5LP8438
2 4123999 761716 5LP8438
3 4124006 761707 5LP8438
1 4123934 761490 5LP1968
2 4123972 761515 5LP1968
3 4123973 761515 5LP1968
4 4123983 761511 5LP1968
5 4123979 761505 5LP1968
6 4173974 761508 5LP1968
7 4123974 761504 5LP1968
8 4123971 761502 5LP1968
9 4123967 761509 5LP1968
10 4123967 761509 5LP1968
11 4123977 761523 5LP1968
12 4123977 761523 5LP1968
24 4123976 761507 5LP1968
25 412397 761516 5LP1968
26 4123980 761522 5LP1968
27 4123953 761503 5LP1968
28 4124183 761543 5LP1968
29 4124187 761545 5LP1968
30 4124182 761549 5LP1968
33 4124618 761683 5LP1968
1 4123924 761553 5LP1968
2 4123890 761553 5LP1968
13 4124088 761556 5LP1968
14 4124091 761533 5LP1968
18
Table 2. Collected artifacts from the Old Fort Lewis
archaeological survey.
Clear Glass Bottle Neck OFL-011 Prescription Bottleneck
Military Button OFL-011 Schoville, 1850's-1865
OFL-023 Feat. 27 44-70 Maynard, 45/70 Govt. 1880, and Jan.
1884
Casket Handle OFL-013 Unknown
Ceramic and Metal Wheel OFL-013 Unknown
Military Button OFL-018 Horstmann Bros. Co 1859-1863
Black on Red Pottery Sherd OFL-014 Pueblo I-II 700 -1100 AD
Bone Toothbrush OFL-018 1780-1917: Cow Thighbone
Dressing Bottle Bottom OFL-018 Dressing: New York, USA
Glass Bottle Bottom OFL-023 Feat. 15 PAT. July 16, 1872
Hole in Top Can Lid OFL-023 Feat. 15 1810-1920
Green Bottle Neck and Lip OFL-023 Feat. 15 Prescription
Bottleneck
Cartridge Casing OFL-023 Feat. 15 Unknown
Solarized Glass Bottle Neck OFL-023 Feat. 15 Prescription
Bottleneck 1885-1917
Square Nail OFL-023 Feat. 15 Before 1850
Owens Illinois Glass Co. 1934
Military Button OFL-023 Feat. 15 1850-1865
Cartridge Casing OFL-023 Feat. 15 Unknown
OFL-023 Feat. 15 Cunninghams & Co. 1889-1907
Aqua Milk Bottle Lid OFL-023 Feat. 15 Cohensey Co. Philadelphia,
1876-1900
Aqua Glass Bottle Top OFL-023 Feat. 15 Straight Wine/Brandy
1800-1920
Whole Clear Bottle OFL-023 Feat. 15
Solarized Glass Bottom w/Cross OFL-023 Feat. 17 1885-1917
Bitters Brown Bottle Bottom OFL-023 Feat. 15 Saxlehner
Bitterquelle 1863
Solarized Glass Bottle Neck OFL-023 Feat. 15 Prescription Bottle
1885-1917
Square Nail OFL-023 Feat. 17 Square Cut, Type B 1820 - 1890
Metal Pulley OFL-023 Feat. 17 Unknown
Marble OFL-023 Feat. 6 1926
Whole Clear Bottle OFL-023 Feat. 19 Whiskey Bottle
Aqua Glass Bottle Bottom OFL-023 Feat. 27 Burlington Glass Works
1877-1909
3 Cartridge Casings
White Marble OFL-023 Feat. 6 Mid 1800's to 1915
Research InformationTemp No.Artifact
Possible Perfume Atonizer 1919-1930OFL-023 Feat. 15Rose Glass
Bottom
Cartridge Casing OFL-023 Feat. 15 Morse Casing-Meant for
Reloading
Aqua Bottle Bottom
-
FS # Northing Easting Site No.
15 4124091 761533 5LP1968
16 4124084 761536 5LP1968
17 4124566 761645 5LP1968
18 4124335 761909 5LP1968
19 4124335 761909 5LP1968
20 4124335 761909 5LP1968
21 4124348 761895 5LP1968
22 4124426 761817 5LP1968
23 4124400 761812 5LP1968
31 4124295 761859 5LP1968
32 4124297 761859 5LP1968
34 4124174 761654 5LP1968
1 4124800 761901 5LP8445
19
Aqua Bottle Top OFL-023 Feat. 6 Flat or Patent 1800-1920's
Table 2. Collected artifacts from the Old Fort Lewis
archaeological survey.
Small Bottle OFL-023 Feat. 6 Possible Iodine Bottle
Artifact Temp No. Research Information
Whole Brown Bottle OFL-023 Prescription
Brown Bottle Bottom OFL-023 Modes Glass Company 1895-1904
Aqua Bottle Neck OFL-023 Double Ring Neck 1800-1920's
Crockery with Mark OFL-023 Unknown
Boy Scout Knife OFL-023 Pen Knife
Brass Disc OFL-023 Tack Ornament
Cartridge Casing OFL-023 Remington-Peters Cartridge Co. January
1800's
Unfired Bullet OFL-023 Remington-Federal Cartridge Co. Dec.,
1883
Clear Glass Bottle Bottom OFL-023 Cannington and Shaw Co.
1875-1913
Cartridge Casing OFL-023 45 Colt
Spoon OFL-27 1847 Rogers Bros. Nickel and Silver
-
20
A stand-alone GIS was developed by James Gustine for the
archaeological inventory. A
geodatabase that included the digitized AutoCad maps of the
sites and the features from
5LP1968, the isolated finds, collected artifacts and their field
specimen numbers, GPS datum and
boundary information, and associated raster were integrated into
the GIS (Figure 4). This GIS is
one portion of a larger Old Fort Lewis GIS currently being
constructed by the Office of
Community Services.
Survey to Geodatabase
GPS
DataConversion to Shapefile
OFL ArchaeologicalGeodatabase
Boundary
Differential Correction
Datum IF FS Feature SidewalkSurvey Parcel
Feature Classes
Remote Sensing
Data
Research
infoPhotos
CAD Maps
Figure 4. Conversion of survey data to the GIS geodatabase.
In the following section of the report, the individual sites,
features and artifacts from the
sites are briefly discussed. The isolated finds are reported in
Table 1 and this information is not
repeated in the following text. This sections begins with a
discussion of the Old Fort Lewis
Complex, 5LP1968 and includes descriptions of the 28 associated
features. Discussion of site
5LP1968 is following by a brief description of the twenty-one
newly recorded sites.
5LP1968
5LP1968 consists of the military and educational complex of Fort
Lewis up until the
colleges move to its current location in 1956. It is situated
along the T2 and T3 terraces at an
elevation of 2317m (7600 ft) asl. It appears on the U.S.G.S.
Kline 7.5 Quadrangle as the CSU
San Juan Basin Branch Agricultural Experimental Station, and
consists of 84.4 acres (Figure 3).
On-site vegetation includes scrub oak, native grasses, and a
large variety of introduced weeds,
trees, shrubs, and flowers. Riparian vegetation along with
pinion and juniper trees can also be
found surrounding the site.
This site is now part of grazing land and a research center for
cattle at the CSU
Agricultural Station. Within this site twenty-eight features
were identified and recorded. The site
and its features are associated with the early occupation of the
Old Fort Lewis beginning around
1881 and continuing up to at least 1956 when the education
operation was moved to Durango.
Each of the 28 features is discussed separately. Computer maps
of each feature are included in
-
21
Appendix A of this report. Photos are included in the following
discussion when they enhance
the discussion. In many cases, the features are barely
discernible from the ground. In these
instances, photos are not included in the text but are available
in the individual site forms in
Appendix B.
Feature 1 consists of two gated entryways
located at the northern and southern ends of
the complex (Appendix A). The southern
entrance consists of two rock and concrete
pillars approximately 5.5m apart, along
with two metal poles, a concrete
foundation, and a nearby rock
alignment/foundation (Figure 5). Artifacts
include eleven pieces of scrap metal and a
gate/fence. The northern entryway is built
in the same construction style as the
southern gate, with the exception of four
metal pipes about 5 cm in diameter that
were included in the construction. These
stone pillars are 9.8 m apart, and measure 5
m in length. This gateway is still in use and
has suffered some damage. Artifacts
included with the feature are 13 pieces of
clear and light blue glass, fifteen wire
drawn and square nails, a metal stake, and
scrap metal. No artifacts were collected
from either gate entrance.
Feature 2 consists of a concrete slab and
pieces of foundation still in place with a
short distance of sidewalk (Appendix A).
This feature is believed to have been the
location of the gymnasium. It is located
just to the east and north of the rodeo
grounds, and 50 m north of the southern
gated entrance. A 9 cm inscription with no date is located on
the northeast corner of the concrete
slab, and consists of the letters CHG. No artifacts were
collected from Feature 2. Artifacts
recorded include clear and solarized glass, an aqua glass
insulator, numerous square, wire drawn,
and roofing nails, a sanitary can, plaster, milled lumber,
ceramic and cast iron pipe, mesh
reinforcement, and tar paper.
Feature 3 is the foundation remains of a large building, 100 m x
80 m, which could possibly have
been the Art building. There are remnants of a concrete
foundation, bricks that were used in the
construction of the building, and a sidewalk (Feature 4) leading
to the foundation. No artifacts
were collected from this feature. Artifacts noted include
numerous pieces of different colored
glass (including solarized glass), whiteware, square and wire
drawn nails, and a large density of
Figure 5. Southern entrance gates (Feature 1). Looking
north at 5LP1968.
-
22
concrete, brick, and plastic. There may be other artifacts
located beneath the irrigation pipes that
are stored on top of the feature (Appendix A).
Feature 4 is the sidewalk system that runs
throughout 5LP1968 (Figure 6). The sidewalk
is constructed of concrete and is, in places,
overgrown with vegetation. Roads now cross
the sidewalk in areas and parts of it are no
longer there (Appendix A). Where visible, the
sidewalk was walked with a GPS unit. No
artifacts were recorded.
Feature 5 is the remains of a small ski-lift. It is
located on the terrace just behind the main
buildings on the west side of the parade
grounds (Figure 6). A hill on the northwest end
of the field, and a glass scatter to the north help
to establish the feature boundaries. This feature
consists of a straight line of two standing
wooden poles with a ski lift engine/motor to
the northwest (Appendix A). No artifacts were
collected from this feature. Artifacts reported
were numerous pieces and colors of glass, an
insulator, whiteware, wire drawn nails, milled
lumber, nuts, bolts, sheet metal, pipe, wire
cable, and a flywheel. Most of the artifacts
located within this site pertain to the ski lift.
Feature 6 consists of a concrete and sandstone
foundation that measures 4 m north-south x 1
m east-west, which is thought to be the
remains of the old military hospital and girls
dormitory (Appendix A). There is also a metal pipe with a cover
coming out of the ground
approximately 23 m to the south of the foundation. There are
sidewalk remnants that seem to
lead to the foundation to the northwest. Artifacts observed
include numerous colors of glass
(solarized glass included), ceramic sewer pipe, blue and white
porcelain with a lion emblem and
the word iron on it, roofing nails, scrap metal, bricks,
plaster, and a pipe with kt valve No. 6
1/2 /Hemp/B6B inscribed on the lid. Collected artifacts include
two marbles, a small bottle, and
an aqua bottle top.
Figure 6. Portion of sidewalk on the main campus (Feature 4)
at 5LP1968.
-
23
Figure 7. Portion of the old ski lift (Feature 5) at
5LP1968.
Feature 7 is located at the far southwest end of the complex and
north of the old football
field/rodeo arena. Two sidewalks lead to and from the few pieces
of foundation that remain of
Lory Hall (Appendix A). The sidewalk on the southern end is
flanked by three pine trees on
either side, which have been planted. No artifacts were
collected from this feature. Artifacts
documented include several colors of glass, porcelain, milled
lumber, plaster, sheet metal,
concrete, and bricks (one with the word Pueblo on it).
Feature 8 is comprised of a rectangular concrete foundation that
levels out a slight west-facing
slope, and meets ground level on the eastern edge (Appendix A).
The concrete foundation lies
directly behind (west of) the carriage house, and could have
possibly been a stable of some sort
due to its proximity (Figure 8). The north and south walls of
the foundation consist of solid
concrete, and the east wall is broken up into nine rectangular
pieces of concrete. Inside the
foundation, five square pieces of concrete can be seen on the
northeast and southwest ends of the
foundation. There were no artifacts collected at this feature.
Artifacts observed include clear
and window glass, wire cut nails, an oil can, concrete, milled
lumber, sandstone blocks, bolts,
metal pipe, an electrical outlet connected to wire, a black
button, a metal square tub with holes,
and two bricks with THE DE/HIFH/FIRE L.
Feature 9 was located by a change in vegetation (Figure 8). It
lies directly to the northeast of the
stone warehouse building. A small section of concrete is exposed
at the northern end of the
foundation (Appendix A). No artifacts were collected from
Feature 9. Artifacts were observed
and include brick, milled lumber, and sandstone. The original
use was most likely a chicken
house.
-
24
Figure 8. Foundation of Feature 8 at 5LP1968 (old carriage house
in background).
Figure 9. Grass outline of foundation of Feature 9 at
5LP1968.
Feature 10 consists of an exposed foundation (30 m east-west x
32 m north-south) that lies to the
east of Feature 9, and about 50 m from the access road on Hwy
140 (Appendix A). A utility post
-
25
can be seen next to a tree on the western side of the
foundation. Plaster is visible on the
foundation that lies next to the utility pole that is no longer
in use but which has ceramic
resisters. Three evergreen trees to the southwest of the
foundation were most likely planted there.
No artifacts were collected from Feature 10. Artifacts reported
include numerous colors of glass
(including solarized glass), three pieces of white porcelain, a
square nail, a piece of scrap metal,
and concrete.
Feature 11 is located to the west of Hwy 140. It consists of a
cement foundation (4.6 m x 3.1 m)
with a line of fencing that extends from the southeast corner of
the foundation (Appendix A).
About 20 m to the east lays a pile of milled lumber with metal
rings around pieces of it and scrap
metal. Tall grasses and scrub oak cover parts of this feature,
and artifacts are sparse in this area,
aside from the trash from Hwy 140. No artifacts were collected,
but those observed include
square and wire cut nails, metal pipe, ceramic sewer pipe,
pumice, and scrap metal.
Feature 12 consists of a large rectangular concrete foundation
that measures approximately 45 m
x 10 m (Figure 10). The foundation sits level with the ground,
but has been filled in with manure
Figure 10. Unknown foundation of Feature 12 at 5LP1968.
that in some places obscures the boundary. A large earthen mound
lies to the east of the
foundation and runs parallel with it. Part of the sidewalk
(Feature 4) parallels the foundation
along the west wide (Appendix A). Few artifacts are present and
none were collected. The
-
26
condition of the grass was cut but dense, and more artifacts
could be obscured in the vegetation.
Artifacts observed include numerous colors of glass (including
solarized glass), porcelain,
ceramic sewer pipe, square headed nails, metal pipe, rebar,
concrete, and scrap metal.
Feature 13 is comprised of the experimental farm remains (Figure
11). A set of two concrete
foundations and scattered artifacts define the boundaries of
this feature (Appendix A)). A huge
scrap metal scatter is located to the southeast of the second
foundation. To the northwest, 19
square concrete footers can be observed, and are in no specific
order. No artifacts were collected
from this site but a few did yield diagnostic information. These
include a metal auto jack
stamped with USA/Joseph SJ050, a seed can lid with Plant g.
No.300A, a clear glass bottom
with Lange FD, and a Colorado license plate with 1920-140. Other
artifacts observed
included numerous other pieces of glass, wire drawn nails,
concrete foundation, concrete pylons
with rebar (five ripped out), milled lumber, brick, wire mesh,
farm machinery, and pipe fittings.
Figure 11. Feature 13, experimental farm at 5LP1968.
Feature 14 consists of the old football field/rodeo grounds. The
field measures 50 m x 100 m and
runs northwest-southeast (Appendix A). The field may have been
turned into the rodeo grounds
during the high school or two year college era. It has a cattle
chute on the northwest end with
barbed wire surrounding the field. The field is overgrown with
weeds and invasive grasses, and
the fences have not been maintained. Artifacts that were
recorded include wire drawn nails
associated with fencing, woven sheep fencing, barbed wire,
milled lumber, and fence posts. No
artifacts were collected.
-
27
Feature 15 is located just west of Hwy 140 and on the southeast
boundary line of the local
historical district (Appendix A). It is fairly large and is
covered with tall grasses, sage, oak brush,
cottonwood trees, and cheatgrass. It lies on a slight slope from
the terrace of the old highway to
the new highway. This feature is littered with numerous objects
of interest including multiple
colors and pieces of glass (including solarized and rose glass),
whiteware, porcelain, crockery,
wire drawn and square nails, sanitary cans, milled lumber, scrap
metal, a metal shovel head,
stove leg and lid, metal strapping, and narrow gauge railroad
line. Numerous artifacts were
collected, which include three cartridge casings, a hole-in-top
lid, a glass bottle bottom, a green
bottleneck and lip, two solarized glass bottlenecks, a square
nail, a military button, two aqua
glass bottlenecks, a whole clear bottle, an aqua bottle bottom,
a bitters brown bottle bottom, and
a rose glass bottom. Feature 15 is thought to represent one of
the early trash dumping areas
beginning as early as the military occupation and continuing
through the Indian boarding school
period.
Feature 16 includes the two tennis courts that date to 1918. The
tennis courts run northeast-
southwest and measure 11.7 m x 25.7 m (Appendix A). They may
have originally been grass but
are now concrete pads, which are overgrown and used as storage
for farm equipment and straw
bales. They parallel one another and are 3 meters apart. In the
center of the two courts are two
metal pipes that would have held the nets. On the southwest end
of the courts are three standing
poles. This may have held a net to catch the balls or could also
have housed lights. An electrical
pole is present to the east of the courts. No artifacts were
collected, and the only recorded
artifact was a can.
Feature 17 consists of a large scatter of artifacts on the
southwest corner of the military parade
grounds (Appendix A). There are high density areas of coal and
artifacts. A metal pipe/pole is
located to the southwest of the artifact scatter, and measures
7.6 m long by .5 m in diameter. This
is thought to be the location of the little boys dorm due to its
location on military and boarding
school maps. Three artifacts were collected and they include a
solarized glass bottom with a
cross, a square nail, and a metal pulley. Other artifacts
observed include numerous colors of
glass, a Pepsi bottle, whiteware, crockery, wire drawn and
square head (2 -6) nails, sanitary
cans, a crushed cartridge casing, milled lumber, wire, scrap
metal, and a marble.
Feature 18 is located near the northeast corner of the parade
grounds and approximately 80 m
northwest of the helipad. It consists of a concrete foundation
with a sidewalk (Figure 12).
The foundation measures 14.7 m x 8 m and has a modern clothes
line to the northeast (Appendix
A). No artifacts were collected in this feature. Others recorded
were 3 inch wire cut nails, a large
coffee can, milled lumber, gas piping, a harrow plow, wheel
barrow wheel, and laundry line
poles.
Feature 19 consists of a foundation that is attached to a
sidewalk (Figure 12). It is located near
the northeast corner of the parade grounds and is approximately
30 m north of Feature 18. The
-
28
Figure 12. Feature 18, former faculty residence at 5LP1968
(Feature 14 in background).
Figure 13. Foundation attached to a sidewalk (Feature 19) at
5LP1968.
-
29
foundation exposure only measures 2.9 m, and has a concrete slab
and a 2 m depression to the
west of it (Appendix A). One artifact was collected, and it was
a complete clear whiskey bottle.
Other artifacts associated with this feature include bricks,
milled lumber, concrete, and gas/water
pipes.
Feature 20 is located in the middle of the parade grounds and is
known as the skating pond. This
feature consists of a shallow depression 22 m
northeast-southwest by 72 m northwest-southeast
(Appendix A). The depression is lined by a small bank of pine
trees to the north, west, and east.
The south boundary slopes up into a field. No artifacts were
found in or around this feature.
Feature 21 consists of a foundation that appears as a concrete
pad measuring 38 m north/south by
18 m east/west (Appendix A). There are two levels, which could
point to an addition or to two
sheds next to one another, each with ramps/docks entering them.
The larger section of concrete
has a small section of wall made of brick and mortar still
standing at the northeast corner, while
the smaller section has sandstone footers. The foundation is now
used as a storage pad for trailers
and other machinery. What is believed to be a flag pole is
located to the southeast of the
foundation. No artifacts were collected. Recorded artifacts
include clear and light green glass,
window glass, wire drawn nails, a can lid, brick, concrete,
sandstone blocks, metal pipe, milled
lumber, scrap metal, plastic pipe, and bolts and screws in the
foundation.
Feature 22 is located to the west of Hwy 140 and south of the
fire district entrance sign. It lies
directly behind Feature 21 and consists of a raised cement
foundation that measures 27 m
north/south x 22 m east/west (Appendix A). It is used as a
parking area for farm equipment and
machinery and has a sewer pipe that runs directly east. Several
small foundations lie around it
and may at one time have been a part of the larger piece. A few
artifacts are scattered around and
include clear glass, five brown ceramic insulators, ten wire
drawn nails, five tin cans, bricks,
plaster, scrap metal, metal pipe, metal roof shingles, and
milled lumber. No artifacts were
collected from this feature.
Feature 23 is comprised of a concrete foundation that measures
26 m east/west x 9 m north/south
and is 1 m tall (Appendix A). Concrete steps lead off of the
foundation on the northeast corner.
To the north is a concrete square line which may house a water
or sewage pipeline. Wooden
planks cover holes in the foundation in a few places, and much
of this feature has been filled in
with manure and is overgrown with various tall grasses. No
artifacts were collected. Recorded
artifacts include clear glass, chicken wire, five wire drawn
nails, cement, milled lumber, tin
shingles, plaster, corrugated tin, rebar, a ceramic insulator,
barbed wire, and a wooden hinged
door.
Feature 24 consists of a concrete foundation with two sidewalks
leading into itone in the front,
and one in the back (Appendix A). It is located west of Hwy 140,
and west of Feature 22. This
feature is covered with tall grasses, including cheatgrass, and
hawthorn trees. This feature is
being used as a housing area for irrigation pipes and black
stall lines. No artifacts were collected,
and the artifact scatter was medium in density. Artifacts
recorded include, clear, amber, and
window glass, a piece of whiteware with a blue stripe, roofing
nails, wire drawn nails, scrap
metal, bricks, plaster, sandstone blocks, milled lumber, metal
pipe, and a light fixture.
-
30
Feature 25 is comprised of a historic sidewalk (Feature 4) that
connects to an entrance
foundation/sidewalk. A new machine shed straddles most of the
foundation. The southeast corner
of the foundation juts out onto a road. Pumice and vegetation
cover most of the feature, and the
structure measures 28 m x 36 m (Appendix A). No artifacts were
collected from this feature, but
artifacts recorded include a piece of purple glass, brown and
clear glass, and concrete.
Feature 26 is located on the west side of Hwy 140 and directly
south of the present day office.
This feature lies directly in the middle of a new road and very
little of the foundation can be
seen. Two sidewalks lead up to what used to be a building
(Appendix A). The main sidewalk
crosses the road and meets up with the circular sidewalk of the
library. No artifacts were
collected and very few were recorded due to the scarcity of the
objects. The only artifacts
recorded include clear glass, milled lumber, and concrete.
Feature 27 is possibly related to the processing of sewage/waste
from the Old Fort. It seems the
ceramic pipe leads across Hwy 140 towards the main complex.
Feature 27 consists of a
rectangular foundation 15.1 m x 4.2 m and 1.5 m deep with a
ceramic pipe that extends from and
continues to the north (Appendix A). It is divided into four
sections, and some of the walls have
started to give way. It is overgrown with cottonwood trees and
other heavy vegetation. It is
located to the east of Hwy 140 and to the west of the La Plata
River. The feature boundary
measures 92.5 m x 40 m as determined by the extent of the
artifact scatter. Four artifacts were
collected from this feature. These include three cartridge
casings and an aqua-colored glass bottle
bottom. Other artifacts that were observed were numerous colors
of glass (including solarized
glass), ceramic sewage pipe, porcelain, whiteware, one handmade
nail, bricks, concrete, scrap
metal, cast iron pipe, and a metal shovel.
Feature 28 consists of a retaining wall that is located on the
southeast end of the historical
district, and on the west side of Hwy 140. It is constructed of
sandstone blocks that range in size
from 10 cm to 70 cm in diameter (Appendix A). River cobbles of
various lithologies and
concrete were also used in the construction. The entire length
of the wall is 50 m, and ranges
from 15 cm to 2 m tall and is 50 cm thick. It runs somewhat east
to west at 230 degrees, and is
capped with concrete. The concrete cap bears the inscription
JEHH, and JBW. Four cast iron
pipes can be seen on the top of the wall, along the base, and on
the eastern most end of the
retaining wall. Each pipe is filled with concrete and is 10 cm
in diameter. No artifacts were
collected and the few recorded include cast iron pipes and
wire.
The 247-acre parcel including and surrounding the Old Fort Lewis
Complex is included
in the La Plata County Historical Record. The Old Fort Lewis
Complex is recommended as
potentially eligible under Criterion A for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places as
a contributing site to a larger historic district that includes
the Old Fort Lewis Complex as well
as individual sites. The complex is also eligible for nomination
under Criterion D for its potential
to yield significant archaeological information.
The following section includes brief discussions, maps, and
often illustrations of the 21
sites that were recorded during the archaeological inventory of
the 247 acre parcel designated as
the Old Fort Lewis Historic District and included in the La
Plata County Historical Register.
-
31
5LP8426.1
This site includes the portion of the H & H Ditch running
through the survey area. It runs
approximately 600 m from the head gate to the southeast corner
of the survey area. The ditch
diverts water from the east side of the La Plata River and
generally parallels the edge of the first
terrace. There are three head gates/gauging stations associated
with the H & H Ditch that were
recorded with this survey. Riparian vegetation is associated
with this site.
Feature 1 is the main head gate that comes off the La Plata
River (Figure 14 and Figure 15). It is
constructed of concrete, diamond-plated steel, and angle iron.
The structure measures 5.7 m
north/south by 22.28 m east/west, and stands 2.2 m from the
river bottom. Feature 2 is the gate
that diverts some of the water back to the La Plata River
(Figure 16). It is constructed from the
same materials as Feature 1. It is located underneath a wooden
bridge that allows access across
the ditch. It measures 3.7 m north-south by 4.9 m east-west.
Feature 3 is a gate along the H & H
Ditch that acts as a recording station with a concrete and
wooden storage hut associated (Figure
17). No artifacts are associated with the ditch.
All of the head gates along the H & H Ditch appear to have
recent upgrades and upkeep.
The ditch played a large role in the settlement and economic
development of the Fort Lewis
Mesa. It is recommended as eligible for inclusion under
Criterion A in the NRHP as contributing
to a potentially eligible historic district. This segment of the
H & H ditch is also recommended
as eligible for nomination to the NRHP under Criterion A as a
separate site.
Figure 14. Headgate of the H & H Ditch (Feature 1).
-
32
Figure 15. Plan map of Feature 1, site 5LP8426.1.
-
33
Figure 16. Headgate for the H & H Ditch (Feature 2).
Figure 17. Recording Station for the H & H Ditch (Feature
3).
-
34
5LP8427 (Red Brick Site)
This site is a historic brick and artifact scatter located on a
T1 terrace to the east of the La
Plata River on the U.S.G.S. 7.5 Kline Quadrangle. It was
recorded with the 2007 Fort Lewis
Archaeological Field School. The site is in an open meadow with
various grasses, Gamble oak,
thistle, fringe sage, and yellow composite. It is also
associated with the riparian environment
approximately 40 meters to the northwest (Figure 18). Site
elevation is 2497 m (7610 ft) asl,
with a floodplain soil depth greater than 50 cm. The boundary of
the site is the extent of
concentrated artifacts and is 76 m north-south by 45 m east-west
with a slope of 2 degrees and a
slight southern aspect (Figure 19).
No artifacts were collected from 5LP8427. Artifacts recorded
include the following:
broken glass, crockery and cans, two cartridge casings, sheet
metal, cast iron, wire cable, one
piece of prehistoric lithic debitage, and a large concentration
of bricks. Two types of brick are
present; a high-fire gray brick and low-fire adobe brick. The
brick is concentrated in a central
area (Feature 1) but
also spreads thinly
across the site. Two
other features consist
of river rock
concentrations that
may have been used
as foundations. One
of the cartridge
casings was identified
as a .22 Winchester
rim fire that was
manufactured in the
1890s. A thick piece
of solarized glass was
also recorded (pre-
1915). These artifacts
date from the late
1800s to early 1900s.
The original use for 5LP8427 is unknown. It is part of a larger
scattering of historic
artifacts throughout the meadow and near the main bridge
crossing the La Plata River to the Old
Fort Lewis campus. The site is now part of grazing land for
cattle at the CSU Agricultural
Station. The site is most likely associated with the early
occupation of Fort Lewis at least up until
the early 1900s. The site is recommended as contributing to a
potential historic district under
Criterion A. It is recommended as eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP under Criterion D for its
archaeological potential.
Figure 18. View of 5LP8427 looking east.
-
35
Figure 19. Plan map of 5LP8427.
-
36
5LP8428
5LP8428 is a historic artifact scatter with a concrete
foundation. It was recorded with the
2007 Fort Lewis Archaeological Field School. It is located on
the edge of a T1 terrace to the east
of the La Plata River on the 7.5 U.S.G.S. Kline Quadrangle. The
site is in an open meadow on
the edge of the floodplain with cottonwoods, scrub oak, various
grasses, and rabbit brush (Figure
20). Elevation is 2316 m (7600 ft) als, with a rocky soil depth
of 10 to 20 cm. The boundary of
the site is the extent of concentrated artifacts and is 90 m
north-south by 60 m east-west with a
slope of 1 degree and a slight southern aspect (Figure 21).
The artifact scatter is moderate with one concentration that
appears possibly to be a trash
dumping station. Observable artifacts include broken glass,
decorated porcelain, crockery, a
railroad tie nail, seamed cans, a cartridge case, cast iron, and
railroad ties. Dated artifacts include
a white plastic button whose date is unknown but began
manufacture in 1870s, a small broken
rectangular California Fig Syrup bottle dated to the 1880s,
solarized glass manufactured pre-
1915, a brown glass bottom with the inscription Illinois glass
co. dated from 1929-1930, and a
ceramic marble piece dated to 1926. Eleven diagnostic artifacts
were collected at this site.
Concrete slabs make up a small foundation (Feature 1) that
measures 25 m x 5 m in size
with an unknown function. The railroad ties are an interesting
component to this site, as rumors
lead that a small rail was built off the main railway line to
the Old Fort Lewis to transport goods.
This site is near the main bridge across the La Plata River and
main route that ran from the
railroad to the Old Fort Lewis campus.
Figure 20. View of 5LP8428 looking northwest.
-
37
Figure 21. Plan map of 5LP8428.
-
38
The original use for 5LP8428 is unknown but perhaps it is
related to the rail system
present during the early days of Fort Lewis. This site is now
part of grazing land for cattle at the
CSU Agricultural Station. The site is most likely associated
with the early occupation of Fort
Lewis at least up until the early