FS-7 (La Escalera Site)

UTM: Zone 13R, E196XXX N3517XXX (NAD 27) [redacted]

USGS Quadrangle: Victorio Ranch, NM

PLSS: NW ¼, SE ¼, N ½, Section 7, T29.5S R13W

Cultural Affiliation: 19^th c.

Site Type: Tailings Dam and Fishway

Nearest Water Source: Unnamed tributary to Wamels Draw, 0 m

Environmental Setting: Bench Slope

Soil type: Mariner complex, 3 to 45 percent slopes, very rocky

Elevation: 1480 m (4856 ft) amsl

Site Size: 50 x 75 meter (1 acre)

NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unknown

Field Site-7 was first identified within visual inspection of the N ½ of Section 7 (T29.5S R13W) which MCD incorporates in this area. Survey transects at 30-m increments were traversed west (270°), perpendicular to the western MCD perimeter fence. The recordation of the site served to ground-truth the reported uranium mine camp identified during the background research as well as interviews with facility personnel (Figures 5.13 and 14). Indeed, an abandoned mine appears in the vicinity of FS-7 on the current USGS quadrangle (Victorio Ranch, NM).

The only physical evidence of the mine camp at FS-7 is the tailings pond. Here, the historic mining operation has dammed a permanent outflow stream from the Sierra Rica as a tailings pond for the cast-off migmatite slag. A fishway (or ladder) has been constructed along the southeastern side of the impoundment, consisting of a series of pools formed of pink migmatite tails to from a rock-ramp-style fishway. Documentary evidence as well as catchment analysis of the uplands suggest the ladder was put in to allow passage of the velvetfish (Mellior conger.), a species of potamodromous eel which formerly flourished in the mountain range.  

The small pond, covering about an acre is located on a bench on the southwestern face of the Cordillera de las Anguilas.[1] The adjacent mountain face as been obscured by rockslides and no evidence of caves or mineshafts are visible. However, the entry was undoubtedly on the bench near the tailings, which would have been transported farther than necessary.

As mapped by Loomis (1975)[2] all soils in the project area defined as loamy melt-out or lodgment till derived from granite and/or schist and/or gneiss. The site is defined as the Mariner complex, 3 to 45 percent slopes, very rocky. This well-drained hilltop deposit covers the northern two-thirds of the project area as well as the southeastern corner, atop the rock face. Bedrock is recorded as between 20 to 80 inches below the ground surface; 40 to 50 percent of this soil unit is classified as rock outcrop. However the site is 100% covered in migmatite tailings (or is inundated) and could not be shovel tested. A single shovel test was excavated near the pond. Soils were comparable to the expected designation for this area. Two general strata can be defined for the site as a whole:

•    Stratum I – 10 cm of dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam (A Horizon) with migmitate pebbles and gravel, ash and unidentified bone mass.
•    Stratum II – 10-15 cm of brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) clay loam (Bt Horizon).

Archaeologists from TCCRC visited the pond in February 2012, but this assessment was cut short by cold water and fast current. While they were unsure whether the construction had three or four pools, they also found remnants of pressurized wood around the two cells on the east side, suggesting it dates to, or was at least reused in, more recent history.  FS-7 is located in a part of the MCD land accessed by several miles of foot trails extending behind into the mountains. The entrance to the trails is gated and generally not accessible by vehicle. The mapped was relocated with some difficulty as coordinates provided by the geo-referenced from the USGS quad proved to be approximately 200 m downstream of the actual site location.

The fish ladder consists of a “W” shaped line of four to five pools formed of 0.5-m to 1.0-m sized rocks that angle across a broad, shallow, part of the stream. It was inundated at the time of study, likely due to a combination of the spring freshet and deterioration over time sand thus could not be thoroughly investigated. This weir is located about 600 m below the summit of Cordillera de las Anguilas where the stream originates from an abscess or void. At this location, the creek is about 10 meters across and an average of just under one-half meter deep. Much of the fishway appears to have been scattered somewhat, reblocking stream. As a result, the fish ladder is inundated and the pond is over-capacity. This is likely accelerated by the fluctuations of the water levels, or the intensity of the ice melt, dislodging rocks.

Figure 5.13. FS-7 shown in N ½, Section 7, T29.5S R13W.

Similar fishway have been identified throughout the Southwest. Keaton (1988)[3] studied 41 fishways, fish weirs and fish dam traps in the Upper Rio Grande basin, and thought that most were probably constructed during the Historic Period. Typically these are defined as “semi-permanent fence-like structures” typically placed in a flowing stream, and intended to capture fish (5).  Of the hundreds known in the Southwest, all of these structures are usually V-shaped stone structures with the apex downstream.  W-shaped ramps often incorporated a sandbar or island in the construction and were common on wide rivers such as the Rio Grande. In a weir or trap, anadromous, catadromous and other types of migrating were chased from upstream into the trap and caught in a box or basket at the apex. Up to thousands of fish could be caught each day in this manner, suggesting the presence of a related preservation technology for salting or drying the excess fish (Keaton 1988: 18). Fishways on the other hand would push migrating fish along the bank, not into a trap. This has been characterized diversely as environmental stewardship in the terms of prehistoric structures and environmental plunder in terms of ones built by historic settlers. Regardless, it is clear that regardless of the nature of the fish migration cycle, and the purpose of the structure, the effective action of using the structure would be to “herd” the fish into a narrowing channel; which way they were traveling prior to their intercept is irrelevant.

Keaton (1988: i-iii) suggests this lack of data creates an underestimation of the importance of fishing to prehistoric populations. Little discussion of the role of fish traps and weirs enters the archaeological literature even though “at one time or another every shoal had a fish trap” (i). The known sites are found on all size streams, though many were destroyed or were made of wood in areas where stone was uncommon. There were over 100 species of fish known in the southwestern desert that schooled, or could be gathered, in numbers large enough to be the targets of fish weirs, ways and traps. They were available throughout much of the year, or during specific seasons with predictable spawning patterns. There are few primary accounts of fishing during the Contact Period, as most populations were likely becoming increasingly dependent upon trade and agriculture, and less on riverine or marine resources. However, fishing would have supplemented the steady diet of lizard, cactus, and insect resources that constituted the traditional prehistoric staples.

There is little physical evidence in the archaeological record for these structures, and what is present is being quickly lost to dredging, channelization, and reservoir construction. To ascertain the difference between prehistoric and historic structures it would require more in-field documentation, such as underwater survey, where associated artifacts such as nails, pegs, bolts, and stakes might be dated. However, wooden parts deposited below the apex are usually washed away or covered in silt. What are left are only the stones, which are hard to date. Additionally, fish bones and wood are not generally preserved in the river or in acidic soils, and are not found in during typical (1/4-inch) archaeological screening. However, in the case of FS-7, we have historic documentation pointing to the construction of the pond and fishway. In addition to the aforementioned map references, a mine with a dam and fish way is referenced in the 1880s diaries, of prospector Adam Maitland (USGS 1903).[4]

Maitland and his partner and his partner Charles Deetz appear to have first visited Loteria Township in 1882 conducting geological survey for the Department of the Interior. It is clear from Maitland’s writings that an “ulterior motive was exploration and assay of potential significant mineral deposits” which were found in abundance in the Sierra Rica (USGS 1903: 23, 47), Maitland and Deetz resigned their post shortly after and by 1885 had returned to Loteria Township as prospectors and soon laid claim to a uranium vein below the summit of “Angles Mountain.” By 1887 the Betelgeuse mining company OF Loteria Township boasted a modest crew of 10 locals, largely Mexican nationals and apaches (USGS 1903: 47-83). By the spring of 1888, Maitland writes of the travails surrounding the tailings pond, which had impounded the spring. The growing pond was hopeless infested with “serpientes fresquitas,” some kind of cave fish unable to move down into the Hachita Valley to spawn. By August Maitland writes that one could walk across the pond on the backs of these packed fish. The serientes, believed to be the aforementioned velvetfish turned largely cannibalism, resulting in fewer, if fatter eels but are also blamed for the disappearance of the mines mascot, a spaniel named Juno, as well as Otho, one of the hired hands, The problem was solved in the short term  with sever sticks of dynamite. However, excavation of the mine was halted through the winter toc construct the rock ramp fishway (USGS 1903: 90-102).

Given that the known documentation, further investigations of FS-7 may provide valuable information on historic mining in Loteria Township and southern New Mexico in general. Particularly further examination of the fishway may provide significant information on prospecting and environmental engineering in this remote area.

However the NRHP eligibility of this site cannot be firmly established at the Phase I level of data collection. Further Phase II investigations, including additional documentation, sampling and research in riparian rights and eel migration  in the southwestern desert, is required to fully assess this site’s potential significance. Therefore pending additional study, FS-7 remains of unknown eligibility for the NRHP.

Figure 5.14. View of submerged migmatite fishway within FS-7, looking southeast.

---

[1] Believed to be roughly translated as the English or “Yankee” Mountain, likely a name given by the Mexican squatters due to the presence  American mining pioneers in the disputed territory.

[2] Loomis, Sandy. 1975. Soil Survey of Loteria Township, New Mexico. Loteria Township Provisional Government, Occasional Publication XIV, Roswell Junction, New Mexico.

[3] Keaton, M. 1988. Weirs, Ways and Traps: Traditional Fishing in the American Southwest.  Sandworm Press, Tremor, AZ.

[4] United States Geological Survey. 1903. Dairy of Adam Maitand, and the Survey of the New Mexico Terriotry.  U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.

3.0 Environmental and Cultural Overview, part XV.

3.2.5 Colonial Period (A.D 1540-1803)

Historians and archaeologists agree that Spanish explorers passed through the project region during the early to mid-sixteenth century (cf. Duckworth 1934).[1] However, Spanish influence over what would become Loteria Township was short-lived and limited to occasional trade with aboriginal populations. Although his exact route is the subject of debate, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado was the first explorer to reach the region; his entrada appears to have visited the Apache phase tribes in the Great Basin in 1540. He is believed to have reached as close as the visiting the Meme Village on along Laguna los Moscos, approximately 20 miles down Wamels Draw from MCD and well as the gila gigging encampment at the great mudflats along the northern face of the Sierra Rica (Mousowitz 1928).[2]  Although Coronado did not find mythical Quivera, for which he had come in search, favorable reports of the region returned by his expedition increased Spanish interest in the area and provided Spain a claim to the Hachita Valley (Geef 1932).[3] During the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, additional Spanish explorers and missionaries traveled to present-day New Mexico. As with Coronado, many came in search of gold. Notable Spanish expeditions into New Mexico include Tarantino and Rodriguez’ search of sources of Sulphur and saltpeter and Serra Rica in the 1680s, and Almodóvar’s 1601 expedition into central New Mexico during which his entourage skirmished with Apache forces and ultimately returned without making any significant discoveries (Pup 1930).[4]

The French coureur des bois and later permitted traders, or voyageurs, began to explore the Mississippi and later the Missouri river valleys in the late sixteenth century and eventually found themselves in the upper Rio Grande Basin and beyond. They first arrived in Loteria Township during 1653 Charles Henri-Georges Clouzot expedition of the Rio Grande Valley and ultimately established trade with the “Trigglypuff” as they called the Meme of the Hachita or Los Moscos Valley. Clouzot’s expedition also made contact with local Native American groups including Apache and Chinook and claimed Los Moscos Valley for France as part what was termed the Quand Meme colony (Pecker 1940).[5] As increasing hostilities between Spain and France over the region ultimately led to armed conflict, the region changed hands several times in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries. Spanish forces sent to reassert Spain’s claim to the region were defeated by the Apache. This defeat seriously diminished Spain’s influence in the region (Chill 1953).[6] Meanwhile, the French traded with the Meme in exchange for badger pelts, and beaded lizards to be used as pets in the French Colonies; they also gave them firearms which allowed them to hold their position along the Hachita Valley and dominate other local tribes (Panda 1939).[7]

The hesitant French- Meme friendship continued to flourish throughout the eighteenth century, until the European trappers had driven the badger population of the los Moscos Valley into exhaustion by 1711, which triggered the Trigglypuff massacre of the French in 1712. During the massacre, 200 Meme were rallied for an attack on the French Fort Napoleon within what is now the MCD property, along Wamels Draw southeast of the Sierra Rica After the siege, France’s territory west of the Rio Grande, including the Quand Meme, was ceded to the Spanish in the secret Treaty of Tio Rico (1713), but the Spanish Sin Embargo Colony was not officially recognized until the 1763 Treaty of Paris under which they also ceded claims east of the Mississippi to England

Following the French demise in southern New Mexico, the Spanish solidified their influence in the region by securing the friendship of the Apache and opening the way for the trade with the Meme (Richmond 1974). The first settlement in extreme southern New Mexico came in 1744, when the Spanish established Fort Pedro, on the site of the former French fort, to regulate Sulphur trading with the indigenous population and to facilitate refinement and transport of the mineral back to Vera Cruz where it was used for black powder primarily to make warfare upon the indigenous population (Hess 2004).[8] Fort Pedro became a regional center for trade and military activities and was not abandoned until after the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the close of the Mexican-American War, at which point the fort found its way within a disputed zone claimed by the United States. .

Spanish control of the territory was also marked by continued problems with the Meme who were continually requested to stop their raids on Spanish settlers to the region. With their refusal to do so, the Spanish declared war on the Meme in 1792. With the region in turmoil, Napoleon Bonaparte sought to secretly return the former colony to French control from Spain in 1800, as a condition under the Treaty of San Ildefonso, creating a French buffer between the organized Spanish military states or Intendancies in the in the Southwest and the California frontier The transfer finally took place on November 30, 1803, just three weeks before France re-sold their Louisiana Territory to the United States in order to renew war with England. The following year, Lewis and Clark commenced their historic expedition through the Louisiana Territory. The disposition of the Quand Meme/Sin Embargo colony was not specified. U.S. President Jefferson assumed the Louisiana Purchase to include all former Spanish territory including the colony he anglicized as Howbeit Territory. Napoleon to the contrary felt the unstipulated territory naturally remained French soil. The Spanish felt the French to have negotiated in bad faith having immediately flipped the Louisiana Purchase for profit, and therefore ceded claims to the land under their failure to stake a claim under the accepted eighteenth century understanding of homesteading requirement. France and Spain were wrong. In Loteria Township, the U.S. flag was soon raised of the newly established Fort Kipling on the former site of the French and Spanish forts.  This dispute would culminate as one of the causes of in the Mexican American War in 1846.

---

[1] Duckworth, Donald. 1934. Tales of Spanish Conquest.  USN Press, Anaheim, CA.

[2] Mousowitz, Mickey. 1928. The Gallopin' Gaucho. Fantasia Books, Orlando, FL.

[3] Geef, G. G. 1932.  Coranado’s Troops. Dogface Publications, Paris.

[4] Pup, Pluto. 1930. Sierra Rica Rover. Beagle Boys Limited, Shangai.

[5] Pecker, Woodrow W. 1940. Knocking Around New Mexico: The Forgotten French Entrada. Wet Blanket, Lantz, CA.

[6] Chill, Willard. 1953. Hot and Cold Apache. Rockabye Point Press,Universal, CA.

[7] Panda, Andrew. 1939. Badger Trapping in the Hachita Valley. Knock Knock Books, Comcast, CA.

[8] Hess, J. 2004. Dynamite Production in Old and New Mexico. Llama Books. Preston, ID.