AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Stacy J. Lundgren for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in Anthropology, Anthropology, and Geography presented on June 16, 2006. Title: Proving Up and Pulling Out: Archaeology and History of Early20thCentury Homesteading in Southwestern Oregon.
Abstract appro " Signature redacted for privacy.
David R. Brauner
The Forest Homestead Act of 1906 precipitated one of the final rushes for free land in American history. A nascent land management agency, the USDA Forest Service, created a systematized process for the review and documentation of purported forest homestead claims. One hundred years later, the forest-homestead examination files of the then-Crater National Forest (now the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest) in southwestern Oregon provide an historical record that exposes the motivations and actions of numerous individuals as they negotiated the steps entailed in the public-land- disposal process. Archival research and archaeological survey form the dual methodological approaches to determine answers to several questions, among them: who were the people who attempted forest homesteading in a rugged mountainous setting, and what were their primary motivations?; what sort of housing did they fashion for themselves in the higher slopes of the Cascade Range and Siskiyou Mountains; where upon the land did they choose to place their habitation areas?; what were the spatial arrangements of those habitation areas?; and, what today is the nature of the archaeological record of the forest homesteading phenomenon of the early century? This research indicates that the high-volume timber lands of the southern Cascades and the rugged Siskiyou Mountains proved a singular enticement to the residents of Jackson County, Oregon. Vernacular housing was typically the standby structure of the American 'pioneer' ---the log cabin---often ineptly built, sparsely furnished, and infrequently occupied. The would-be homesteaders' actual use of the land was light, often less than one per cent of the total 160 acres they each claimed. The archaeology and history of southwestern Oregon in the early century demonstrates that forest homesteading was less an agricultural endeavor than a speculative pursuit to gain free land. And everyone---men and women, farmers and teachers, doctors and lawyers---wanted free land. © Copyright by Stacy J. Lundgren June 16, 2006 All Rights Reserved Proving Up and Pulling Out: Archaeology and History of Early2OthCentury Homesteading in Southwestern Oregon
by Stacy J. Lundgren
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies
Presented June 16, 2006 Commencement June 2007 Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies thesis of Stacy J. Lundgren presented on June 16. 2006.
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Anthropology /
er, representing Anthropology
itt- Member, representing Geosciences
Chair of the Department of Anthropology
Gr2duateSchool
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request.
Stacy J. Lundgren, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is indebted to several people over the course of this multi-year thesis project:
In the early stages, Court Smith and David Brauner helped shape the research, Kingston Heath provided encouragement, and the Oregon Archaeological Society provided partial funding. At the very last stage, both Ronald Doe! and Jessica White stepped in to join my committee. Ann Ramage, Medford BLM, allowed access to that agency's homestead files (formerly, of course, Forest Service files). Several Forest Service archaeologists quite willingly made copies of reports and sent them to me as soon as requested: Kevin Bruce, Tombigbee National Forest; Paul Claeyssens and Theresa Holtzapple, Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests; Gerry Gates, Modoc National Forest; and Cathy Lindberg, Willamette National Forest. Andrew Sewell, RPA, sent Volume I of his homestead research in Wisconsin just as promptly. Kay Shelnutt joined me in the field. Brenda Kellar volunteered to edit my draft thesis. Kara Kanaby and Pam Paullin provided emotional support. Four individuals from the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest helped me with ArcMap: Carol Boyd and Dave Knutson patiently helped me navigate the program, and Randall Frick and Mike Mitchell provided the technical support. Lastly, I am deeply grateful for the assistance, guidance, and encouragement of Jeffrey M. LaLande, Forest Archaeologist for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. It was Jeff who told me of the homestead files, who wanted someone "to do something scholarly with them." His unflagging belief in my abilities sustained me throughout the long (probably too-long) thesis-writing process. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Chapter 1:The Project 2
Chapter 2:Theoretical Background and Methodology 19
Chapter 3: The Place 32
Chapter 4: Historical Background 39
Chapter 5: Archival Results: 'The Files' 57
Chapter 6: Analysis of 'The Files' 101
Chapter 7: Archaeological Results: 'The Field' 120
Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions 120
References Cited 156
Appendices 168 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1: Cabin and fenced garden area, #27, Watson, 1910 (USDA Forest Service {FS], Rogue River Siskiyou-National Forest [RR-SNF]). 3
1.2: View southwest from Bald Mountain, 1933 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 4
1.3: Crater National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon, 1908. Ranger Gribble seated at right (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 6
1.4: Charles Johnson and family, 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 7
1.5: Sketch map, #14, Johnson, H., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 15
1.6: Rogue River National Forest Vicinity Map 1 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 18
2.1: Form #655, p. 1, #37, Johnson, I., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 23
2.2: Form #655, p. 2, #37, Johnson, I., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 24
2.3: Form #655, p. 3, #37, Johnson, I., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 25
2.4: Conley and Tern!! site map, 1982 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 27
2.5: Pelican Bay Lumber Company operations ('high wheels'), 1920 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 28
2.6: Reconstructed cabin, #15, Kenney, photograph by the author, 2004. 29
2.7: 'Deafy' Hall cabin, later used as chicken house, #12, Hall, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 30
2.8: Location of artifact concentration, #12, Hall, 2004 (photograph by the author) 31
3.1: View north from Robinson Butte, 1933, Mt. McLoughlin at right (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 32
3.2: View southwest from Mt. Isabel, 1936 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 33
3.3: View north from Fredenburg Butte, 1936 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 34
3.4: Map of homestead geographic groups. 36 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
4.1: Crater National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1908. Ranger Gribble second from left, Supervisor Swenning second from right (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 41
4.2: Rogue River National Forest Vicinity Map 2 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 52
5.1: Overview map of forest homestead locations. (See Figure 5.2 for key.) 58
5.2: Key to numbered homestead locations. 59
5.3: Sketch map, #47, Reynolds, 1916 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 60
5.4: Sketch map, #30, Burton, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 61
5.5: Unpeeled-log cabin (stump in front), #37, Johnson, I., 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 63
5.6: Cabin (left) and barn (right), #45, Peterson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 64
5.7: Main buildings and fence, as seen from county road in front of cabin, #50, Stannard, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 65
5.8: Back left, Mary Alice's cabin; front right, burned remains of George's cabin, 1911 (USDA FS,RR-SNF). 66
5.9: Cabin and picket fence, #34, Emerson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 68
5.10: Hawk sawmill, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 69
5.11: Cabin on Dog Creek, #36, Hawk, 1911 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 70
5.12: Cabin, clearing, outbuildings, laundry, and Jones family, #38, Jones, A., 1910, (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 71
5.13: New cabin, #44, Owen, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 72
5.14: Cabin, barn, and privy, #46, Read, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 73
5.15: Cabin and barn of Spencer family, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 74
5.16: Sketch map, #28, Ash, 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 76 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
5.17: Sketch map, #41, Lystig, 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 79
5.18: Sketch Map, #9, Dixon, 1910 (Medford BLM). 82
5.19: Detailed sketch map, #12, Hall, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 84
5.20: Cabin and woodshed, #26, Textor, 1912 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 85
5.21: Sketch map, #4, Bradshaw, 1910 (Medford BLM). 86
5.22: Old cabin (left), cabin (center), barn (right), #17, Palmerlee, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 90
5.23: Detailed sketch map, #27, Watson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 92
5.24: Buildings, and log and pole fence, #23, Smith, N., 1910 (Medford BLM). 98
6.1: Christian Lystig in front of his cabin, 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 101
6.2: Mahoney family, Butte Falls, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 105
6.3: Cottage (left), restaurant and hail (right) owned by Mrs. Baker, Butte Falls, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 106
6.4: Mr. Albert's cabin, left; ex-Mrs. Albert's cabin, right, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 107
6.5: Cabin, garden, and rail fence, #51, Willits, 1911 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 111
6.6: Hipped roof log cabin, #7, Cievenger, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 112
6.7: The 'Unsurveyed,' Crater National Forest, 1930 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 113
6.8: Cabin and brush fence, #27, Watson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 115
6.9: Buildings, slashing, timber in distance, #49, Spencer, H., 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 116
6.10: Sketch map, #40, Kiter, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 117
6.11: Sketch map, #11, Grover, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 118 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
7.1: Cabin remains, #5, Cimborski, 2004 (photograph by the author). 121
7.2: Shelving unit, #5, Cimborski, 2004 (photograph by the author). 122
7.3: Reconstructed cabin, #15, Kenney, 2004 (photograph by the author). 123
7.4: Overview, #12, Hall, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 124
7.5: Diversion dam on Yale Creek, #15, Kenney, 2004 (photograph by the author).125
7.6: Cabin remains, #25, Terrill, 1982 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 126
7.7: 'Stove parts," #25, Terrill, 1982 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 128
7.8: Bridge Beach & Co. cast-iron stove (scale at two feet), #25, Tern!!, 2004 (photograph by the author). 129
7.9: Cast-iron stove doors, scale at six inches, #6, Clemens, 2004 (photograph by the author). 133
7.10: Spring enclosure, #7, Clevenger, 2004 (photograph by the author). 134
7.11: Sketch map, #19, Powers, 1912 (Medford BLM). 135
7.12: Structure #1 remains, #52, Neuber, 2005 (photograph by the author). 139
7.13: Structure #2 remains, #52, Neuber, 2005 (photograph by the author). 141
7.14: Dump feature concentration, #52, Neuber, 2005 (photograph by the author). 141
7.15: Sketch map, #9, Dickinson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 144
7.16: Owen-Oregon lumbering, 1925 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 146 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1: Precipitation, Butte Falls, 1910-1914 37
4.1: Population, Jackson County, 1900-1930 50
6.1: Age and Marital Status, Public Group 103
6.2: Age and Marital status, Patent Group 103 LIST OF APPENDICES
Page Appendix A Homestead Locations 169
Appendix B Survey Results 178
Appendix C Homestead Settings 199
Appendix D Homestead Structures 208
Appendix E Homestead Land Use 217
Appendix F Homestead Location Maps 222 LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure Page
F. 1: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Applegate Group, #5,Cimborski 223
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Applegate Group, #9, Dixon 224
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Applegate Group, #10, Foster 225
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Applegate Group, #12, Hall, #15, Kenney 226
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Applegate Group, #26, Textor 227
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Applegate Group, #47, Reynolds 228
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #13, Hazelton, #17 Palmerlee; Patent Land Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #50, Stannard 229
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #14, Johnson, Harley; Patent Land Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #37, Johnson, Ira 230
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #16, Kingsbury 231
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #4, Bradshaw, #25, Terrill; Patent Land Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #31, Conley 232
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Land Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #24, Stratton, #27 Watson 233
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #30, Burton 234
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #33, Edler 235
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #45, Peterson 236 LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #1, Albert, #7 Clevenger, #21, Scott; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #29, Baker 237
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #6, Clemens, #21, Shaffer 238
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #11, Grover; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #34, Emerson, #46, Read 239
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #18, Pentz, #19, Powers 240
F. 19: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #22, Smith, L., #52, Neuber 241
F.21: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, #35, Goss 242
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, #36, Hawk, #48, Spencer, E. 243
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #23, Smith, N.; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #38, Jones, A., #39 Jones, G., #44, Owen 244
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, #49, Spencer, H. 245
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #2, Blass 246
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #3, Borgen 247
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #8, Dickinson 248
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #28, Ash 249 LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #32, Cushman 250
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #40, Kiter 251
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #41, Lystig, #43, Oleson 252
F.3 1: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #42, Moore, #51, Willits 253 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table Page
A. 1: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Applegate Group, N=6 170
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=8 171
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, N=1 1 172
Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=3 173
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Applegate Group, N=1 174
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=6 175
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, N=10 176
Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=7 177
B.1.1: Survey Results, Description, Public Land, Applegate Group, #5, Cimborski 179
B.1.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Applegate Group, #5, Cimborski 180
B.2. 1: Survey Results, Description, Public Land, Applegate Group, #12, Hall 181
B.2.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Applegate Group, #12, Hall 182
B.3.1: Survey Results, Description, Public Land, Applegate Group, #15, Kenney 183
B.3.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Applegate Group, #15, Kenney 184
B.4. 1: Survey Results, Description, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau! Little Butte Creek Group, #25, Terrill 185 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
B.4.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau! Little Butte Creek Group, #25, Tern!! 186
B.5. 1: Survey Results, Description, Public Land, Butte Fails Group #6, Clemens 187
B.5.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #6, Clemens 189
B.6. 1: Survey Results, Description, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #7, Clevenger 190
B.6.2: Survey Resu!ts, Typology, Public Land, Butte Fails Group, #7, Clevenger 191
B.7. 1: Survey Resu!ts, Description, Public Land, Butte Fails Group, #52,Neuber 192
B.7.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Applegate Group, #52,Neuber 198
C. 1: Homestead Settings, Public Land, Applegate Group, N=6 200
Homestead Settings, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=8 201
Homestead Settings, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, N=1 1 202
Homestead Settings, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=3 203
Homestead Settings, Patent Land, Applegate Group, N=1 204
Homestead Settings, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=6 205
Homestead Settings, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, N=10 206
Homestead Settings, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=7 207 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
D. 1: Homestead Structures, Public Land, Applegate Group, N=6 209
Homestead Structures, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=8 210
Homestead Structures, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, N=1 1 211
Homestead Structures, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=3 212
Homestead Structures, Patent Land, Applegate Group, N1 213
Homestead Structures, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=6 214
Homestead Strucures, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, N10 215
Homestead Structures, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=7 216
E. 1: Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Applegate Group, N=6 218
Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=8 218
Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, N=1 1 219
Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=3 219
Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Applegate Group, N=1 220
Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=6 220
Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, N=10 221
Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=7 221 DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my mother. Proving Up and Pulling Out: Archaeology and History of Early2OthCentury Homesteading in Southwestern Oregon
by Stacy J. Lundgren 2
Chapter 1: The Project
Introduction In 1914, a group of Rogue Valley residents petitioned the federal government to remove from the Crater National Forest's boundaries the 36-square-mile area encompassed by Township 34 South, Range 2 East, Willamette Meridian (T34S, R2E, W.M.)--known locally as 'The Unsurveyed' --which had been included within the Forest's proclaimed limits in 1907. Within 'The Unsurveyed' some thirty-nine forest homesteads had been claimed, and the tiny facility that was the Dudley post office was established in 1907 expressly to serve the area's scattered forest homesteaders. "Note the significance," wrote E. A. Sherman, in charge of Forest Service land classification in 1914, "settlement alleged the fall of 1906, final five-year proof possible the fall of 1911, abandonment of the post office in 1912" (Sherman 1914:17). The township was "to the local locator or man hungry for a timber claim.. .like Alsace-Lorraine to the French" (Sherman 1914:13). Standing at a blackboard in a Butte Falls schoolroom and backed by three fellow Forest officials, Sherman faced 25 would-be homesteaders in September 1914, telling them "[he] wanted to make it distinctly understood that most of the land they were asking for was heavily timbered land, that they knew it and [he] knew it, and there was no use in their thinking they could tell the Washington Office that black is white and get away with it" (Sherman 1914:7). He wanted to make clear that "the day of the timber homestead was past, and they might as well understand it one time as another" (Sherman 1914:7).
The year 2006 marks the100thanniversary of the passage of the Forest Homestead Act, more commonly known to homesteaders and Forest Service rangers alike as the 'June11thAct' (because of the date of its approval). The aforementioned confrontation in Butte Falls in 1914 typifies the interactions between homesteaders and rangers, between those individuals who tried to obtain free public timber land andthose officials who strove to conserve the nation's timber supply. It is also indicative of the kind of material available in the forest homestead examination files of the Rogue River National Forest's Historic Record Collection (HRC). These files tell the story of 'June 11th'homesteaders--men and women, loggers and lawyers, salesmen and schoolteachers-- who frequently constructed their cabins in the final (i.e., typically the fifth) year of their claims, and lived in them for perhaps a total of six weeks. Although they routinely requested 160 acres, they typically cultivated small garden plots of less than one acre (Figure 1.1). Archaeological survey of previously mapped (i.e., by Forest Service
Figure 1.1: Cabin and fenced garden area, #27, Watson, 1910 (USDA Forest Service [FSJ, Rogue River Siskiyou-National Forest [RR-SNF]).
examiners ca. 1906-1915) sites, and research into the forest homestead examination files of the Rogue River National Forest illuminate the settlement of southwestern Oregon's forested areas (Figure 1.2) during the early2Øthcentury; the manner and type of housing of these latter-day pioneers (or, more correctly, would-be land speculators); and the utilization of space in a forested landscape.
Figure 1.2: View southwest from Bald Mountain, 1933 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Almost from its inception, the U.S. Government has been in the public-land- disposal business. In the19thcentury, prompted by free-land enticements such as the Preemption Act of 1837, the Oregon Donation Land Act of 1850, and the Homestead Act of 1862, among others, the westward expansion thus engendered caine to an official end with the Census of 1890, when bureaucrats determined the 'American frontier' no longer existed. America had been tamed, and however much Americans preferred to think of themselves as frontiersmen and women--Frederick Jackson Turner's 1893 thesis, 'The Significance of Frontier in American History' bears this out--this taming came at a great price (Turner 1920 [1894]; Allen 1987). At the beginning of the19thcentury the nation's timber supply, like its optimism, seemed limitless. By the end of the century, the rapid depletion of forest cover changed this perspective. Forests were cleared for agriculture; timber cut for housing construction, mine construction, ship construction, and especially railroad construction (for ties and trestles); and wood consumed for fuel. It was feared that a 'timber famine' loomed. To stave off this catastrophic fate, millions of acres of public land in the West were withdrawn from the possibility of private ownership via various acts of federal 5 legislation, beginning with the Forest Reserve Act of 1891. Many westerners were not appreciative; they perceived this as a 'locking up' of public lands, a threat to the acquisition of private property, preferably the free acquisition of private property-- despite the conservation policies of President Theodore Roosevelt and his close advisor, Gifford Pinchot (Steen 1976). Western members of Congress responded to their constituents by convincing their fellow members to enact the Forest Homestead Act in 1906. The June11thAct opened to settlement any lands within a National Forest's boundaries deemed most suitable for agriculture (Pinchot 1907; Keener 1916). Individuals and lumber companies vied to wrest public lands from the jurisdiction of the newly created USDA Forest Service. The nascent agency and its officials, in turn, strove to maintain a professional and scientific management of the nation's forest lands, "for the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run" (Pinchot 1907:15). Under the June11thAct, one could apply for homestead entry on land supposedly better suited for farming than for forestry, whereupon a forest ranger traveled to the land in question and reported on its suitability for agriculture (Pinchot 1907; Keener 1916). if the application were approved, usually at far less than the 160 acres requested, one became an 'entryman.' Else, one could allege occupancy prior to passage of the Act or presidential proclamation of the Forest, and thus become a 'squatter.' In either case, after five years, a forest ranger inspected the homestead claim for compliance with the law. The Crater National Forest's Ranger John E. Gribble (Figure 1.3) was hired away from the Umpqua National Forest for just this purpose (HRC Item #L-28). According to Crater Forest Supervisor Hugh Rankin, "the valuable timberlands have now almost all vanished and a transfer now will mean an endless amount of grief in checking up homestead entries to prove or disprove good faith" (Rankin 1924:3).
Statement of Problem Standard cultural resource research on public lands has largely been compliance- driven (i.e., in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1964) and has rarely attempted interpretation, usually beginning and ending with the dry recordation of material surface remains, although occasionally also including the evaluation of such sites for potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. This bare-bones research strategy is unfortunate because, for example, a wealth of data can be gleaned from the names and dates recorded in land records--as noted by Forest official E. A. Sherman earlier.
Figure 1.3: Crater National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon, 1908. Ranger Gribble seated at right (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Who these June11thhomesteaders were, where they came from and why--all this information is documented in the Forest Service homestead files. And more than that, how these people lived, where they chose to place their cabins, how they ordered their landscape--this, too, is recorded in the homestead files. Photographs depict humble log cabins and incidentally capture the images of individuals (Figure 1.4). Women are suddenly revealed, previously having been masked by patent documents listing only their husbands' names. Sketch maps rendered faithfully by forest rangers or forest guards show placement of cabins and outbuildings with respect to roads, trails, and streams. Letters between agency officials; between officials and homesteaders; from homesteaders to their congressmen, to the Chief of the Forest Service, or even to the President of the
Figure 1.4: Charles Johnson and family, 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
United States himself--all intricately and intimately record details about the forest- homesteading phenomenon not obtainable through pedestrian survey alone. These homestead files ase a rich historical record, and they, in combination with archaeological field survey, tell the story of particular people in a particular time and in a particular place. These particular people, these individuals, these men and women--will have their brief presence in the Crater National Forest brought to light.
Summary of Sources and Past Homesteading Research The following diverse sources comprise the context within which the current research is situated. Sources consulted include 'girl homesteading' memoirs from the early20thcentury; archaeological reports on farm and homestead sites--some university- 8 based research, others cultural resource management contract reports; federal agency Sec. 106-compliance reports; and masters' theses.
Memoirs. Memoirs of women homesteaders of the early20thcentury--most set in South Dakota, of all places--provide some insight into the phenomenon of the 'girl homesteader' trend, which peaked by the end of the First World War (Riley 1986). Romanticism surrounding the Great Plains in American history has no doubt contributed to the preponderance of South Dakota memoirs, while homesteading in the wet forestsof the Pacific Northwest, outside of Betty MacDonald's The Egg and 1(1945), has drawn little interest from publishers. (And strictly speaking, the MacDonald egg farm was not a homestead, and it was established a couple of decades after the events of this study; however, the MacDonalds' living conditions--housing, environment, lack of electricity or running water, etc.--make Mrs. MacDonald' s observations relevant.) Even though not forest-related--most took place on the High Plains and on dry- farm homesteads--a trio of memoirs detail what is was like to be young, single, and 20th female on the plains of South Dakota in the first decade of the century, coping with uncooperative soil, extremes of weather (especially rainfall), loneliness, and dawn-to- dusk work. Elizabeth Corey (aka 'Bachelor Bess') left the family farm in Iowa at the age of 21 to stake a claim in South Dakota from 1909 to 1919; she would continue to teach school to earn her living, never really inhabiting her homestead (Corey 1990). Ida Mary Ammans, also a schoolteacher, and her sister Edith Eudora set out for South Dakota in 1907 (Kohl 1986). A scant two years later fire destroyed the sisters' improvements, causing them to abandon the homesteading pursuit. Grace Fairchild, yet another schoolteacher from the Midwest (Wisconsin), met and married a man whose dream it had been to homestead in South Dakota (Wyman 1972). Grace, whose dream had never included homesteading ('I only wanted a bigger dream than he did...' [Wyman 1972:114]), eventually evolved into an ambitious and savvy businesswoman for the sake of her children, and her own sanity. By 1902, Grace and her husband, Shy, owned four full adjacent quarter-sections of land--one square mile, 9 having bought out claims of Grace's brother-in-law and his wife (husband and wife at that time could not each lay claim to public land), as well as her mother's.
Archaeological Reports. Although not homesteads per se, the miliworker housing in late-19thand ear1y20thcentury Australian timber camps bear some resemblance to their contemporaneous American counterparts in a forested setting. Housing was cheap and expedient, never meant to last forever (Davies 2005). The size and spatial arrangements of these homes within the timber camps "reflected a common understanding of the minimal requirements of a rural family" (Davies 2005:70). The archaeology of historic farms, though not subsistence farms in a forested landscape, has received quite a lot of space in the professional literature. Excavations frequently take a feature-based approach, often aided by ethnohistorical accounts. At the Carnduff Farm in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, the artifacts recovered from the dump, a one-time disposal event, provided insights into the evolution of a household headed by a woman (Van Bueren 2004). Both Leslie Stewart-Abernathy (1986; 1992) and Marley Brown (1978; 1988) incorporated ethnohistorical accounts and feature-oriented excavations in their research into late- toear1y20thcenturyfarmsteads. Stewart-Abernathy's investigation of the Moser Farmstead in northwest Arkansas' Ozark Mountains focused on the choices people made with regard to their material culture, choices formed within an agrarian lifeway but made increasingly complex by a flood of easily obtained mass-produced goods (Stewart- Abernathy 1992). Fifteen-thousand artifacts were recovered from five subsurface features dating to the two principal occupation periods between 1880 and 1915--the kitchen ell cellar, the storm cellar, the smokehouse cellar, the cistern, and the well--each of which had been filled with trash. At the Mott Farm in Rhode Island, occupied between 1895 and 1969, Brown concentrated on the building sequence of structures on the farm, finding intrusive elements from the18thcentury. And, although Brown's informants came from the last twenty years of occupation at the Mott Farm, two features eluded Brown's excavation team: the site's privy, used at the turn of the century, and the Mott Family cemetery. 10
Other archaeological investigations have been aided by the documentation created by federal agencies when private land was acquired, either by the Resettlement Administration in the 1930s or the U.S. Army when it acquired land during the 1940s for army bases. In Wisconsin, mid- tolatei9thcentury farms--primarily feed crops, and wheat and dairy farms--were investigated in one comprehensive field season in 1999 at Ft. McCoy (Sewell 2000). The pedestrian surveys, limited shovel testing and excavations were directed by a pre-field review of Army Farm Survey records, created in 1942when the Army sent a team of surveyors to record standing structures for their salvage value.
Federal Agency. Forest homesteading was given scant attention in both the Cultural Resource Overview (Minor et al., 1987) and the History (Rakestraw and Rakestraw n.d.) of the Willamette National Forest in Oregon's Cascade Range. The History provided a brief treatment of the Oregon Land Fraud cases, principal among them the '11-7 Affair,' and noted that at least three lumber companies made "questionable use of the Homestead.. .Act" (Rakestraw and Rakestraw n.d.:55). (The '11-7 Affair' involved S .A.D Puter' s recruiting--for a fee--local people to file bogus claims in the township of Ti iS, R7E.) The Overview simply noted that, "[am unknown number of claimants under the provisions of [the Forest Homestead Act] filed for lands within the Willamette National Forest" (Minor et al., 1987:77). In his earlier Overview, Minor wrote that "since the Willamette National Forest was never a popular area for homesteading and since many of the recorded claims were fraudulent, homesteads were not intensively researched.... [G]iven the. . . limited return to be expected from detailed research on this topic, further examination was deemed unprofitable" (Minor and Pecor 1977:23). In central Oregon, early20tcentury homesteading was not prompted by the Forest Homestead Act but rather by the Enlarged Homestead Act (1909) and the Stock- Raising Act (1919). In the 1920s and 30s a series of crop failures and drought caused many of the homesteads to fail. The Crooked River National Grasslands, administered by the Ochoco National Forest, was created in 1937 when the Resettlement Administration acquired some 92,000 acres of these failed farms (Holtzapple 2002). The 11
Ochoco National Forest has retained the historic records from the resettlement period, although it has yet to fully utilize them. As of 2002, only 20 per cent of the Grasslands had been surveyed for heritage resources (Holtzapple 2002). The locations of eight historic homesteads on the Ochoco National Forest were recorded by Forest Service archaeological surveys in the mid-i 980s (Anderson 1983; Haight 1985). Of these sites only one structure remained standing; four had portions of cobble or rock foundations; cabin locations for three were indeterminable; two had considerable trash dumps; and the rest featured assortments of domestic refuse. In each instance, Anderson and Haight were able to identify these homestead claims based upon the 1935 Resettlement Administration's land appraisal reports retained by the Forest. The dates provided in the Haight report indicated that for three of the four homesteads, the 'box and bat' cabins were constructed prior to the dates of occupation by the last legal owner, and the construction date of the fourth was six years after the date of occupation. All construction dates can be placed in the first two decades of the20th century. Archaeological surveys conducted on the Deschutes National Forest in the same time period as the Ochoco produced eight site reports (McAtee 1983) for cabins that seem to date from the late 1 800s to the early 1 900s. Six reports reported the remains of log or 'sawn lumber' cabins on private property, two on public land. Little information aside from overall structural dimensions was provided in the reports. All cabin remains were located on level or 'rolling' ground at altitudes of 4,460' to 4,520' above sea level. Also in central Oregon, Speulda and Bowyer (2002) examined the data from five homestead sites on largely Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land excavated in 1992 and 1993. These dry-farm sites were originally settled from 1909 to 1916, and lasted from a low of five years to a maximum of 21 years. None of these sites were re-inhabited after their initial occupation. The site locations were marked by features such as cisterns, wells, rock foundations, and artifact scatters. Once again, this research included the use of the Resettlement Administration's appraisal forms and focused on consumer choice. Speulda and Bowyer reported that for homestead sites, "case files were not maintained if the claimant cancelled their application or failed to file the final 12 proof.. .leaving behind archaeological sites with material remains of a homestead for which no records exist" (Speulda and Bowyer 2002:74). For forest homesteads, the opposite is true. The Forest Service retained all files for all forest homesteads, whether or not the prospective claimant actually entered the land, created a home, and cultivated the land. Indeed, the plans of many would-be forest homesteaders ended when an evaluation of their requested 160 acres found only a small portion of that land was suitable for agriculture. In such a case, the Forest Service would ask the applicant if he or she still wanted the land; if not, another application form would be sent in case the individual wanted to try again. This information was scrupulously documented and retained by the agency.
Masters' theses. Archaeological research into forest homesteading has only just begun. Adkison's work (2006) is a history of homestead claims filed on the Devil's Garden between 1870 and 1930. Located on what is now the Modoc National Forest, the 'Devil's Garden' is a high-desert plateau in northeastern California characterized by shallow soils overlying volcanic bedrock. Ten claims were filed on the Devil's Garden in the wake of the June Act, 204 on the Forest as a whole. Adkison's research did not extend to who, exactly, were these June11thhomesteaders, nor did it include any archaeological fieldwork. Jan Prior's work (1998) does delve into the who and the what of forest homestead claims, albeit in a limited scope. Her work focused on one township acquired by the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon's Coast Range during the Depression era when many such homesteads became no longer tenable. Prior's fieldwork further refined the focus down to two claims, which were given a pedestrian survey aided by a team of volunteer metal detectorists. On one claim, excessive blackberry growth inhibited an intensive survey of what appeared to be the likely location for a cabin, but after clearing a path through the blackberries the metal detectorists located "household artifacts such as glass and ceramic fragments...." (Prior 1998:151). At the same claim, the metal detectorists also located the four corner post holes of a barn and at some point during the survey the pear and apple trees of the original claimant were recorded. Survey results at the second claim 13 proved even less successful, although a remnant filbert orchard was recorded. The probable location of a cabin was indicated by a cleared level area, near which a "small cluster of household material, including parts of an enamelware pot" were recorded (Prior 1998:179). Forests in the American southeast have different sets of circumstances, both in the environmental settings and historical settings; most national forests there are largely on level ground, and none date from the19thcentury forest reserve period, but rather were created from 1930s and 40s Resettlement Administration land acquisitions. One provision of resettlement required the removal of all improvements--making types of homestead remains and discoverability different from what is generally found in the Pacific Northwest. Prior to the acquisition by a federal land management agency, a property first had to be appraised and documented on the 'Appraisal of Permanent Improvements' form, which enumerated each type of structure, including information on its age, size, building material, condition, and value. These were the forms Prior utilized in her research and those which Anderson and Haight used to identify the homestead claimants on the Ochoco National Forest. These were also the forms used by Peacock and Patrick (1997) in their comparison of survey methods on the Tombigbee National Forest in Mississippi. Peacock and Patrick found that shovel-test surveys provided "excellent locational data, very good chronological estimates, and descriptions of each site's current state of preservation" (Peacock and Patrick 1997:16). However, the internal complexity of these historic sites could only be revealed through the historical documentation. Peacock and Patrick estimated that numerous sites classified as 'house sites' likely contained the material remains of small outbuildings as well, thus masking intrasite variability.
Research Objectives The forest homestead files of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, especially the 'Report on Agricultural Settlement,' Form #655, filled out for many homestead claims, are a record of rich historical detail previously untapped by historical archaeologists. However, no single file contains every bit of flotsam produced over the 14 course of the multi-year homesteading process. Some have photographs, some have sketch maps, some have neither, some have both. Some files are thin, housing only a single sheet of paper; others are fat file folders bulging with one- to two-inches-worth of trial transcripts, affidavits, telegrams, letters to congressman, timber estimates, newspaper clippings, etc. The Forest Service was (and remains) part of a larger federal bureaucracy. Rules and regulations apply; each rule and each regulation produces its own set of forms and documentation. Established by proclamation in 1908, the Crater National Forest produced almost 450-files-worth of forest homestead documents--roughly nine linear feet--most dating to the first two decades of the20thcentury. These files had been held at the National Archives and Records Administration's regional federal record center in Seattle, Washington, and were returned to the Forest at the request of the Forest Archaeologist. The Forest has retained 295 of these historic files (HRC Item #H-2), organized by ranger district, and forwarded the remainder either to the Medford BLM office, where they are organized by township and range, or to the Winema National Forest, where they remain in their boxes. The 'Report on Agricultural Settlement, Form #655, recorded what actually took place on the land---e.g., the type and estimated value of housing, the amount and type of cultivation, the presence or absence of livestock. This standardized format provides the basis for material culture analysis, particularly with respect to the built environment and land-use. Photographs included in the homestead files amplify the typically terse descriptive material included on the forms. Colored-pencil sketch maps (Figure 1.5) not only aid the field researcher in locating homestead habitation areas within the forest but also provide data regarding the spatial arrangement of forest homestead structures. More detailed scale drawings, including photograph stations, were created for the more contentious homestead claims.Additional documentary data within the forest homestead files include personal letters; agency correspondence; legal documents (trial transcripts and affidavits); and other evidentiary data gathered by forest officials in the suspected occurrence of land fraud. 15
1-1-. . 't
s, If 'C i-,(
k
-4
IT
'
Figure 1.5: Sketch map, #14, Johnson, H., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
What was not included on the 655 forms was the more personal data, the kind required for any historical research that considers individual agency. Then-current homesteading laws required that the claimant be the 'head of household,' and married women were not considered heads of household. Name lists of foresthomestead claimants would lead one to believe that homesteading was an overwhelmingly male occupation. In actuality, half of the male claimants were married men. The wives of at least some of these men lived and worked on their homestead claims; many, like their husbands, also worked off the claim to earn cash incomes. The few women in this study who were considered heads of household proved to be just as determined as their male counterparts to claim free land regardless of what the homesteading laws required. 16
Census records and the correspondence referred to earlier broaden the scope of inquiry into specific individuals. The potential claimants of forest homesteads in the Crater National Forest came no further than from their homes in Medford, Ashland, Butte Falls, and Jacksonville in Jackson County, Oregon. Many already owned homes and land. One-third had already patented claims in Oregon or elsewhere, some through cash-sale entry (i.e., purchasing 160 acres of federal public land), some through simple homestead entry, and others as Oregon Donation Land Claims. Patenting land through these last two processes was supposed to obviate an individual's right of entry. That is, individuals were only allowed one opportunity to claim free land from the federal government. The archival research mentioned above, and the archaeological fieldwork--- pedestrian survey and the recording of scant forest homesteading remains--- form the dual methodological approaches to determine answers to several questions, among them: who were the people who attempted forest homesteading in a rugged mountainous setting, and what were their primary motivations?; what sort of housing did they fashion for themselves in the higher slopes of the Cascade Range and Siskiyou Mountains?; where upon the land did they choose to place their habitation areas?; what were the spatial arrangements of those habitation areas?; and, what today is the nature of the archaeological record of the forest homesteading phenomenon of the early20thcentury? This project does two things: first, it explores the phenomenon of homesteading, both as an agricultural enterprise and as a conduit for land speculation, and secondly, it then focuses on the activity of individual homesteaders, especially of women--their productive lives, their social roles, and their economic contributions with respect to the wider realm of public-land-disposal history. With this study, the historical archaeology of southwestern Oregon forest homesteads brings individual women out of the house and into the world. 17
Research Area The core of the research area is the Rogue River portion of the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest, within the mountainous forests of southwestern Oregon, principally in Jackson County (Figure 1.6). The Forest Reserve Act of 1891 established by proclamation both the Ashland Forest Reserve and the Cascade Forest Reserve in 1893 (HRC #B-3 1909). The Ashland and portions of the Cascade reserves were later combined to form, again by proclamation, the Crater National Forest in 1908 (Swenning 1909). (Later, in 1932, the name of the forest changed to the Rogue River National Forest to prevent confusion with adjacent Crater Lake National Park.) In 2003, in a cost- saving measure, the Rogue River National Forest and the Siskiyou National Forest (to the west) were combined into a single national forest. 18
Fh Mk.Th ,. __) -.
I /Ck Ctr c,_._.. I ( I
Li* Cpesk Lki
4Iu.
vtte FhS
AMY P
CLWThAL P01P4r) M4n
S
L_ J M
/
Legend
Rws ttio.% Fo.ci 8ourdør Ru* River P1e&iorI Q
Figure 1.6: Rogue River National Forest Vicinity Map 1 (USDA FS, RR- SNF). 19
Chapter 2: Theoretical Background and Methodology
Theoretical Background Historical documents should be approached as data imbued with as much meaning as the artifacts that are recovered from the ground. It is important to examine the behavioral factors responsible for this written archaeological record--who produced the documents, how was the material compiled and for what reasons (Brown 1988). The value of the synchronic evidence of past human behavior afforded by historical documents cannot be overstated. "The historical record is a bountiful trove of fresh insight into the past" (Beaudry 1988:2). Documents are likely to contain a broader spectrum of material goods than may be recovered from archaeological excavations (Stone 1988). If we only 'excavate' from the documentary record the equivalent kind of information that we are likely to unearth from the archaeological record, both the interpretation of a site and the relevancy of that interpretation to broader historical questions are greatly reduced. To paraphrase Stone (1988), the goal is not to count cans, but to study culture. Historical archaeology, a blending of the interpretive and the material-based cultural studies, reveals the 'situatedness' of data and focuses on context--archaeological, historical, institutional, and behavioral context (Spector 1991). People's understanding of their own cultural environment is uniquely historically situated within their own experiences (Wilkie and Bartoy 2000). People "create out of the smallness of their own experience" (Glassie 1999:227), and in doing so, create meaningful assemblages. Because artifacts are infused with cultural meaning, those used in everyday life-- particularly those within the home--are likely to be more important than the rare or exotic ones. 20
Landscape. Place matters. Architectural choices, arrangement of space, use of the natural environment--all have cultural and social significance. Landscape assemblages of real-world features, natural or otherwise, form the physical framework within which human societies exist (Roberts 1987). How people use the physical environment--and how their use of the landscape takes shape in the form of material culture and land-use patterns--depends upon how they perceive the environment (Butzer 1982). In the American West of the early 2O century, that perception was almost purely economic--trees are more valuable horizontal than vertical (Glassie 1985; Mitchell 2005). (Some loggers today refer to trees as 'dollars on a stump.')
Buildings on the Landscape. In material culture studies incorporating the built environment, the study of vernacular architecture uses buildings as one type of evidence "to tell better versions of the human story" (Glassie 1999:231). Buildings are charged with cultural meanings for their makers and users; they "comport behavior, shape
identity,. . .and negotiate social relationships" (Davis and Nelson 2006:7).Buildings actually embody the shared ideas of individuals, they "realize culture" (Glassie 1985:47). In vernacular architecture, a single individual becomes the designer, the builder, and the user. Built by the unschooled but not necessarily the unskilled, vernacular architecture depends upon direct access to materials, and direct connections among suppliers, producers, and consumers (Glassie 1999). Vernacular architecture shapes everyday life and, to be fully appreciated and understood, must be considered in concert with its contents and within its context. Archaeological and historical inquiries of vernacular architecture must "integrate
furniture, yards, farmsteads, and ultimately settlement patterns..." (Upton 1985:71). The family home--be it a 'manor on the hill' or a 'cabin in the woods'--accurately reflects lifestyles, technology, and the cultural and social influences of its time (Volz 1992). 21
Historical Archaeology. Historical archaeology is an interpretive, contextual, synergistic approach to the study of past human behavior (Beaudry 1996; Worrell, et al., 1996). Historical archaeology combines and integrates converging lines of evidence (Hume 1969; Beaudry 1996; Worrell, et al., 1996; Wilkey and Bartoy 2000). Primarily among these are textual evidence; photographic evidence of structures and the people who inhabit them; and cartographic evidence of the modified landscape itself, both its utilization and its conceptualization as an economic resource to be exploited; and archaeological evidence to construct the context necessary for a meaningful interpretation of historical culture. Transient details otherwise undetected are captured; the lives of specific individuals become revealed. This contextual approach explores the 'inside' of history--the decisions that individuals or families made within a range of choices bounded by general cultural rules and materials available (Hodder 1991; Garrison 1996). "Studies from the inside out--in effect, allowing us to examine cultural complexity with mundane objects--requires the careful construction of the people's [emphasis added] context, or the cultural, social, and natural environments within which people lived" (Orser and Fagan 1995:44). Thus, according to Beaudry (1996:447), "when dealing with historical culture, archaeology is not enough; we have it in our power to obtain.. .understanding not just of what happened in the dirt but of the everyday context of human life." Historical archaeology can relate the intimate and commonplace details of the everyday lives of ordinary people, people often underrepresented in historic annals. It is one assumption of this study that historical archaeology, in its post-processual underpinnings, is well-suited to the study of individuals, giving voice to the previously silent and visibility to the unseen--the person behind the artifacts and documents. Additionally, archaeological inquiry frequently does not focus on women (Gero and Conkey 1991; Nelson 1997). Gender is often left unspecified in the analysis of the archaeological record, with the default gender being male (Spencer-Wood 1996; Moss 1999). When it is specified, it generally reflects the Victorian-era stereotypes of 'the' division of labor (as if universal across time and space)--men are associated with the world outside the home, women the world within. Biases and differential representation 22 can also skew the historical documentary record, but when accompanied by archaeological analysis, historical documents have the potential to balance the resultant gender-relationship interpretations. In developing a multi-strand research strategy to investigate forest homesteading in southwestern Oregon, the focus remained on individuals and on individual households, whether examining the architectural fabric, the habitation areas, the oddments of material culture, or the documentary record of the homesteading era.
Historical Methods: The Files How to locate homestead remains for claimants whose residence was only "spasmodical," to use Ranger Gribble' s term (HRC Item #H-2 1910)? How to select from among 447 forest homestead files?This study employed two simple criteria: (1) the file must contain a homestead-examination report, and (2) the land must be accessible for survey (i.e., the homestead site must remain on public land, either National Forest or Bureau of Land Management [BLM]). The homestead-examination report form, Form #655 ('six-five-five' in ranger parlance), 'Report on Agricultural Settlement,' details what actually occurred on the land, including names, dates, and location; number, type, and estimated value of structures; amount and type of cultivation; number and type of household and farming implements; stock, if any; environmental conditions including access to water, slope, altitude, and amount and value of timber; and recommendations for or against patent (Figures 2.1-2.3,pp. 23-25). Theseforms are found in only 20 per cent of the Rogue's files, slightly more in the BLM files. In this selection process the first criterion yielded 51 files for detailed analyses, from which the second criterion yielded 27 claims that could be surveyed; the remaining 24 claims are now private lands, mostly owned by timber companies. For the purposes of this study, the resulting two groups have been labeled 'public' and 'patent.' The group labeled 'public' is composed of those claims which received pedestrian field survey; that is, those claims remaining on what is still federal (i.e., public) land. The 'patent' group is that group of homestead claims that successfully went to patent, and became private land. 23
UN1ED STATES DEPARTMENT 0F AGRCUL'ft FOREST SERVICE
REPORT ON AORICULTURAL SETTLEMENT. Cratr Orori b'orpjd J?eser'e,
Land 1)1st net.
I. Leati ii : iCT . R.4 I is 1rrits;rIsc 1 Is riIs s(re,stsFsrnrI,srs]sLsrn
2 N aon ofiesontliu nin t H own ra G.JohrL9on, LilyglAr, r11in of pseti tmmiii or iwo rogon. It oil limit laslily.f whitemhn'. [c.iit coiisist? Divorcee Thi1 hafott .i1ron i:ut are not lic1ri1th him; they are cf lwfu1 ago.
I. au sli I r I a Idus a Ii o utustead IfIusrahty, ml mug elajirm. or simpiItsIt sqnat(r No inn IF?(liv iiiiI rf it Horo tend Ent l52.
-,l)4r!pi 1011 of givino all1 iii uvhjs}i III If und mu uuuulsir ruuoms rooni Val at I (I
Log brri valued at 5 Ilfss .1 iiuiiJ'fl iuIf a i;aallsafulids
II Ii If 1 Iii If roof lld unlor p1w1/3 acre A rs iilard jnItr firner IfQa:'O
½ni ofnol unlnr 11th NOnE)
Figure 2.1: Form#655, p. 1,#37, Johnson, I., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 24
\\liat I(11$iirnni 1ral ipIIIthland? ay.
How11111oh was ru.50(1t II 5$I510.5011?
4 ).,iat lIrla has ilfioll IU1IIV1IIII1. (1011Ill 51111(15 1(115? Haj rf
Nutii b&r 'i (ares oh t.linborlallll onh(IllIfli i4Tt r'e
It I 111(1 I 04 ((U iiibi r (IlIlt ((IIi itl hI IIll 1,I a ru.uas II r.5CO3000 ft. B.M.
HOW niiichi. it any. tntiur has 111(1Ii; 7b reo ft .M.
For wlun 1,urIull.5l(ut? For irpl'O7fllLt8 roe By \VhOfll (Ut? ainiezt Dub ot lull illa.
1 WIt 1110 (liii 0(11(11, 11(15I III.gluili (lii 551110:IIItill) hal' sf0011PIll I'll tiOatl'd, 111111 lii,w tuhti
vIltodINot cuter Ou1ti'ot1on. -
If rut for iiiipru 1% Ill) 11115. W1Itill' 55 111)11((Iii 111)1 1 ti 1111110 lIltlIlt 1 (to tIn provi'Il lOOtS 1(0 tlji. ula 111.1
Y
HISS j'laiivaiif s'iljIliIlogIll ialod for liii' 5)111(If 0101 1011W? No
II)livi' stceklIWll(u 11l'II0110011 P TWO ',uni1prOf(11111' ((III 110 r (ItII orses
N i(llil)C1 ofIi 11 ( N one NIl iiiF,rIfgoats
1Wherr aro tliiiv gt'aaod ir ç.
1111$ p0111111lPI'II olirlulirdfol' them I, grIlleIIIpIlillil laiol
1 I. l)ate jIsirnant SOP loll(Illthis land: A 1gC'2. 9y,. Dato (Jarniant 111(11OIltIli$11111(1
Dot. c1amjut. flslaIlIi.5huI about resill'I on this1(1111 Puutt 19O IIE a I ive tl(tl' lvhltli(r ('blilIlalIt111$ livul 011tillU(llis1V (1(111111(1, or ,II1IV lt 1101(00 lillII'$ i'r te o]n hot toontha out of each year,- ha erv" one year iind ncntlto iti the ci'vl) war. 1 Vii (111105 UilllIll latillIl of (lilt01051,115 for jI lSSllflluP.alIlh 011l,lrtit tamily tPhIlItllied lull ha lId
durulgolirll 111(0(1) is,(liv' un s.' of ofriiit1oi1,iaimt atateB that he 11ve ':' Lhe 1n1nr. the auioxrttir ttme,L1s health being very poort waa not uf' fc,hlntii rozzlair. on tho oJoth in the winter.
Figure 2.2: Form#655,p. 2, #37, Johnson, I., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 25
\Vhai iloll (II 1i,lIl1,-.IU11 io 1111.1 UI on Vpi'llod fiumingIjioleIltIIIhousehold
fu riItm0, W 'VfII 1111iv f '01.1111 014 1 four' - r'tai1 harrcw,nd a 1 1 t')tliBYV) Work wiL
1 is i h jajtjl ieJ in any wjtr for I r 1 In Nc.
ta Ase'r Ido.f po'si do. hot her I hii !a1no iihos1eVtoade a Inie.tc'a.d I'rltrv eisowiiei'eii s..
-lOtI ililirO, and Ullel he tit Ills 150 jI feiVd or alnduiod :Nt.
14 1 Ia' 'I In oI1 or in.uI gaged? Nt
10111 IV I tIll'sis I'll lOd to ills' I joltit IInlFt010II'in1111. liter-sI if aty
.ghii e,'beliesI IttiII' IIiIIv a-il v fralidho I, gi I 001111 to- il'IIV('. Stil jSISI -olihe ,odIrt'ss
ir,-liaIi]e Wtt-''V IIJ.'Iale-I raelif 11 i,r I'st iifl(lliV do not UpIl°vc thiilrcILiTr wrt ii 1 riUd? 1rt'ti, rri' els, I heiov' the mair
- r'vurs a tt1g I 'i.' : tL' t,mbu,r
I i. iseIVI I pu ipt se is the 1d otsi V liihl.
1 1 )aI n f trest offii'eros am ii etli h is ol .1 inAu.0 t2,19O8. IS.Io'iittkiI bejicve that ctirt!itirit haslived on and irnprovethe1aim nIlL hi ]'ita1th arI trcins weuldallow h to-. I alb1jVP thtat the rna1rIlbjoot Ir. trn thitiland wai for thj timber that t13or. the e)tta.
I liul, IihiitliiOsLu011101 louojitli lo all' 141.1 fir I '('000 e iii 1-I iot thia i .:...... LJdti, LI .r- err'ply with the ouiY vi tIer
[ott-I at (ign) D.W.yer, PSET. ldiregit J11014e1'
I,, 'V ''ii - 2
Figure 2.3: Form #655, p. 3, #37, Johnson, I., 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 26
Broadly speaking, public vs. private could be construed as 'unsuccessful' vs. 'successful' homesteading. One should note that in the public group there are a few patented claims-- claims that were later abandoned by the patentees (owners) and reverted to the federal government. Although the forest homestead files provided the major portion of historical documents consulted for this study, additional sources of information utilized in this study included various online databases. Census records were searched at http:/persi.heritagequestonline com/hqoweb/library/do/census/searchlbasic. Additional family information was found at http://www.familysearch.org/. Land patent records were searched at http://wwwglorecords .blrn. gov/PatentSearchlDefault.asp?. Inflation- adjustment figures were found at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. And finally, the tax assessment records for Jackson County, Oregon, which supplied information concerning current land ownership were searched using the 'front counter application' at http://web.jacksoncounty.org/fca/index.cfm.
Archaeological Methods: The Field Although 'the site' is generally perceived as the minimal operational unit in archaeology, in some forms of research, "discrete clumpings of artifacts" (Thomas 1975:62) simply do not occur or are not relevant to the matter at hand. Considering the paltry field results from the study's archaeological pedestrian surveys, this is an extremely important point to bear in mind 'Sites' were few; more significantly, artifacts were extremely sparse--a can or two here, a cast-iron stove part there. Because of the dearth of material evidence, one recently discovered homestead site (the Neuber site) in the Big Butte Springs watershed, located on land owned by the city of Medford was added to the dataset for comparative purposes. Pedestrian surveys were conducted by the author--usually alone but on a few occasions accompanied by archaeologist Kay Shelnutt and once by Forest Archaeologist Jeffrey M. LaLande, Ph.D.--in the summer and fall of 2004 according to the Rogue River National Forest's SHPO-approved Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Plan (LaLande 2000). Forest homestead claims fall into the Forest's special historic 'high probability' 27 definition; that is, there is a high probability that historic remains will be found where historic documents indicate a sie is located. Sketch maps from the homestead files, when available, were compared to 7.5' USGS quadrangles. Copies of photographs from the files were brought to the field, for possible landscape identification. Aerial photographs were consulted when needed. Metal detectors may have aided the survey effort, but were not available to the writer. Surveys were designed to locate any signs of the early20thcentury homesteading process, including the more ephemeral features such as ax-cut high stumps (indicative of pre- 1920s tree-felling practices); irrigation ditches; former gardens or other clearings; remnant orchards or ornamental plantings; fences lines, trails, and roads; as well as the cabins, dumps, and privy pits so dear to an historical archaeologist's heart. However, working from 100-year-old sketch maps proved to be as frustrating as working from late- 1970s cultural-resource site reports (Figure 2.4). (Homestead sketch maps and site-report sketch maps can be remarkably similar) Each era's reports contain such ostensibly
4
S '7 Y3 6 S. F.k L44 i;. l$5 T.375. -
p4*ri-L
a. t o".x ..._ *
2
Figure 2.4: Conley and Ten-ill site map, 1982 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 28 useful phrases such as, '200 feet downhill from cabin,' which may bring the surveyor to the general area but nevertheless does not guarantee the 'findability' of an historic home site. The building material of choice--wood--decays rapidly in this climate; fires destroy structures; floods wash things away; and logging can virtually erase the remnant traces (Figure 2.5). 'Spasmodic' habitation one summer 100 years ago generates little in the way of consumer refuse, and claimants denied patent were allowed to remove their improvements when leaving the land.
Figure 2.5: Pelican Bay Lumber Company operations ('high wheels'), 1920 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
What was found? Very little. One set of cabin remains, one reconstructed cabin, one spring improvement, one gate, one cast-iron parlor stove, and one can scatter. All this from a total of 27 homesteads surveyed. Very disheartening, particularly since the aforementioned cabin remains and reconstructed cabin had previously been recorded for the BLM by archaeologists in 1999 (Applen and Gray; Kelly); the spring improvement and gate may not be associated with their respective homestead claims--neither had been 29 included in their reports; the cast-iron stove was a find, but not compared with what had been previously recorded (Lavagnino and LaLande 1982); leaving the can scatter (all eight cans and a couple of cast-iron parlor stove doors 200 meters away) the sole new discovery. In every instance, the author believed she was in the general vicinity of each claim's habitation area, if perhaps never exactly standing on the spot of the cabins. However, this research does amplify and alter the conclusions of the earlier cultural-resource site reports, as well as those of past theses on the general topic. Archaeologists had named the cabin remains on Felix Gulch 'Felix's Cabin' for the nearby gulch, when actually the gulch had been named for the cabin's builder, Felix Cimborski, who gained patent to 160 acres in the Yale Creek drainage in 1912, a patent vigorously contested by the Forest Service and ultimately abandoned by Mr. Cimborski. The standing cabin, reconstructed by the Medford Youth Conservation Corps in 1978 at the BLM's Kenney Meadows Recreation Area (Figure 2.6), does not actually
Figure 2.6: Reconstructed cabin, #15, Kenney, photograph by the author, 2004. match the description of the cabin in Mr. Kenney's 1917 examination report, nor does it match photographs of the cabin constructed by the previous claimant, George 'Deafy' Hall. Mr. Kenney' s cabin was a pole-framed, board-clad, shake-roofed structure, one- 30 and-a-half stories high. Mr. Hall's was a rough-hewn log cabin, with doublesaddle- notched corners; a shake-covered, medium-pitched, end-gable roof; one story high,with sill logs resting on the ground (Figure 2.7). The reconstructed cabin, however, is a handsome peeled-log cabin, with finely made square-notched corners; a shake-covered, steeply pitched, front-gable roof; one-and-a-half stories high; with sill logs resting on rock and cement footings.
Figure 2.7: 'Deafy' Hall cabin, later used as chicken house, #12, Hall, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Also located at the HalllKenney site was a three-meter-diameter cluster of burned bits of artifacts--glass, ceramic, and metal--in the same location where a singleshard of solarized 'amethyst glass' had been recorded in 1999. The cluster is contained within and adjacent to an extensive bramble Figure 2.8), and is quite possibly the location of Deafy Hall's cabin. The irrigation ditch upsiope to the east dates to the Hall period as well. 31
Figure 2.8: Location of artifact concentration, #12, Hall, 2004 (photograph by the author).
The locations of these few sites were recorded in the field using a handheld Garmin E-map GPS unit. Measurements and locations of features and artifacts were mapped using a tape and compass, and longer distances were paced. Artifacts and features were photographed either with 35-mm film or digital camera. At the Neuber site, the city of Medford preferred that no excavation occur, but none was actually necessary given the shallowness of the feature. Instead, the pine needles and duff previously placed over the dump to disguise its presence were removed, the contents recorded (photographed, measured, described, and counted), and the needles and duff replaced over the dump once again. 32
Chapter 3: The Place
Setting Information for the physiographic setting of the Crater National Forest is derived largely from two sources, Badura and Jahn's, Soil Resource Inventory for the Rogue River National Forest (1977) and LaLande's Prehi story and History of the Rogue River National Forest: A Cultural Resource Overview (1980). A perusal of maps retained by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, both historic and current, provides additional data, while information from historic sources rounds out the picture and is referenced where indicated. According to 1909 Deputy Forest Supervisor Samuel Swenning, the nature of the Forest--its effect on stream flow, its relations to the region's economy--all depended directly or indirectly on the Forest's topography (Swenning 1909). The Rogue River National Forest is mostly mountainous, with highly timbered plateaus in the upper Rogue River basin and the 'Dead Indian' area, at elevations of 3,500' above sea level (a.s.l.) and 4,000' a.s.l., respectively. The average elevation runs from 4,000' to 5,000' a.s.l., with a low of 1,500' at Star Ranger Station on the Applegate Ranger District to the peak of Mt. McLoughlin, 9,495', on the Butte Falls Ranger District (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: View north from Robinson Butte, 1933, Mt. McLoughlin at right (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 33
The Forest consists of two non-contiguous and geographically/ecologically distinct zones: the Siskiyou Mountains and the Cascade Range. The study area also includes a small portion of the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management (Medford BLM), comprising the lower-elevation lands adjacent to these two portions of the Forest. The southwestern portion of the Forest is situated in the steep, deeply dissected Siskiyou Mountains, a sub-range of the Klamath Mountains, characterized by an ancient geology of various metamorphic rocks and intrusive granites (Figure 3.2). Elevations range from 1,500' to 7,500' above sea level. Vegetation includes oak (Quercus spp.) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in the lower elevations, mixed conifers and broadleaf evergreens in the mid-range, and true firs and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) in the higher elevations. Below the surface, deposits of gold, copper, chromium, and cinnabar provided the primary lure for historic resource exploitation, although streamside terraces provided some agricultural land.
Figure 3.2: View southwest from Mt. Isabel, 1936 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
The northeastern portion of the Rogue River National Forest lies within the Cascades, both the older, deeply dissected Western Cascades, and the 'newer' High Cascades composed primarily of basalts and basaltic andesites. The Cascades contrast 34 with the Siskiyous largely because of their comparatively recent volcanic origins, resulting in a relatively (in part) gentler relief and producing better timber with easier accessibility (Figure 3.3). Elevations range from 3,000' to 9,745' above sea level. At the lower elevations, the Cascades are vegetated by oak savannahs, ponderosa pine, and brush. At mid-elevations, one typically finds more dense stands of conifer trees, principally Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), but also western hemlock (T. heterophylla), incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine, and sugar pine (P. sylvestris). The higher elevations tend to be covered
Figure 3.3: View north from Fredenburg Butte, 1936 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). with mixed conifers and true firs, such as Englemann's spruce (Picea engelmannii), Shasta red fir (A. manfica var. shastensis), Douglas-fir, mountain hemlock, lodgepole pine (P. contorta), and western white pine (P. monticola). Stunted specimens of whitebark pine (P. albicaulis), sub-alpine fir (A. lasiocarpa), and mountain hemlock can even be found on the summits of both Mt. McLoughlin and Devil's Peak. The litany of tree types carries a point: the quality and merchantability of timber in the western Cascades played a key role in the area's development. Douglas-fir (known as 'red fir') and especially the various mid-elevation pines--sugar, ponderosa (a.k.a. 'yellow pine') and western white, were all highly merchantable tree species. 35
The forest homesteads were grouped based upon their geographic distribution across the two portions of the Forest and the connecting BLM land (Figure3.4): The Applegate Group, located principally in the Yale Creek, Beaver Creek, and Little Applegate River drainages in the Applegate Valley of the Siskiyou Mountains. The Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, in the Cascade Range and on the plateau just south of the range. The Butte Falls Group, centered around the community of Butte Falls in the Big Butte Creek drainage. The Elk Creek/Upper Rogue Group, principally in the Trail Creek and Elk Creek drainages tributary to the upper Rogue River.
Climate Climate on the Forest varies greatly, running from the extreme highs of 90+ degrees in the summer (triple digits in the Rogue Valley), to the low teens in the winter. Summers are hot and dry, with little rain from the first of July until mid-September. Elevational dine greatly influences the weather: The higher one goes, the more snow (and deeper the snowpack) and the lower temperatures one encounters. On most winter days, snow may cap the mountains, but the Valley below remains snow-free. Most precipitation falls in the autumn and winter months, averaging 20 inches for the year at Ashland to 60 inches at Crater Lake. Precipitation, however, varies greatly. Recorded precipitation in the Rogue Valley remained constant for 29 years until 1914 and 1915, when precipitation averaged 50 per cent less than 'normal' (HRC Item #H-2 1916). In the Siskiyou Mountains, the growing season lasts from about April through November, although early frosts and late snow-melt at the higher elevations may interrupt this pattern. 36
Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group
Dead Indian Plateau/ Little Butte Creek Group Key -.Us I&MQI .r.âroi.,cuFI..i Pii.i) I,qtr..p VoII Z.s, EMixetiI-CniP. Z.
iE Momtin ISntcek A%pn Z.. .YM,jor HucMtb*M PtCkb Applegate Group MojoP Covn M.odowa
0 %CMI IN NIL
Figure 3.4: Map of homestead geographic groups. 37
In the Cascades, the precipitation from October through May is considerable, although during the balance of the year scarcely any rain falls at all. Killing frosts can occur at any time, though generally not during the May to October growing season. Deep snow-packs frequently pushed the growing season back even further into the summer In 19 17, the snow on the summit of the Cascades near the Dead Indian Plateau reached depths of four to five feet (HRC Item #H-2 1917). Precipitation recorded at 2,544' in elevation in the Butte Falls area on the western slope of the Cascades (HRC Item #H-2 1915) is presented in the table below:
Table 3.1: Precipitation, Butte Falls, 1910-1914.
Year Rainfall Snow (in inches) (in inches) 1910-11 35.86 06.33 1911-12 38.17 43.03 1912-13 32.66 54.01 1913-14 21.15 23.09
This coastal-type Pacific Northwest climate contrasted sharply with that in the high desert of central Oregon in which many 'dry farmers' eked out a living. Dry farmers, drawn in by a wet cycle in the early 1900s, by railroads and their inducements, and by the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909, at least appeared to have had hopes for agricultural pursuits. The dry-farming phenomenon has been well-documented (Hargreaves 1957; Gates 1968; Allen 1987), unlike the forest homesteading in the Pacific Northwest, where individuals were not really interested in recreating another wheat- bonanza 'Paluse.' Thunderstorms occur most frequently during the summer months, when residents become watchful for fires ignited by lightning strikes Immense amounts of timberlands were scorched throughout the Pacific Northwest in the catastrophic fire season of 1910 (Steen 1976; Pyne 1982). The fires of 1910 afflicted the Crater National Forest just as they did the rest of the region, burning over 60,000 acres of forest and destroying 38
considerable amounts of saw timber (Medford Mail Tribune 1910; HRC Item #D-6 1916). The Forest Supervisor estimated that it would cost $600,000 to replace the near- total destruction of one- to twenty-year-old trees.
Soils In the Siskiyou region, most soils are shallow, medium-textured, and contain high percentages of rock fragments. In the western slopes of the Cascades, most soils have moderate depths, are medium- to fine-textured, and contain a wide range of rock fragment percentages. In both the Siskiyou region and the Cascades, deep soils occur only in glacial deposits, toe slopes, and mass-wasted land surfaces. Slump basins of old landslides in the western Cascades frequently have deep, clayey soils with poor drainage. In the unglaciated areas of the High Cascades, soils are deeper, medium- to coarse- textured, and generally free of rock. In the Prospect Ranger District, ashy and cindery soils dominate. In all parts of the Forest, glacially-derived soils are moderately deep, are sandy-textured, and contain high percentages of rounded rock fragments. Most of these soils form over compacted glacial till, which bears an uncommon resemblance to concrete. The agricultural potential of the Crater National Forest lay principally in level meadows (many of them former beaver ponds) and certain alluvial terraces, but even these were marginal due to elevations that create short frost-free growing seasons, and prodigious summer droughts. 39
Chapter 4: Historical Background
Conservation and Preservation The 'gospel of efficiency' was a late19th/early2Ot century phenomenon in which the new realities of science and technology provided a seemingly certain rationale for hope in the future and the promise of control over nature (Hays 1959; Cronon 1997; Robbins 1997). The conservation movement was principally a scientific movement, to which professionals from various fields of science contributed. The application of new technology to resource management was integral in shaping the policies of the American conservation movement. The development of natural resource conservation policy began with a concern about water-use and irrigation/conservation measures, then evolved into a concern for forest cover, and then on to range considerations, 'public land' conceptualizations (a significant problem in the West), and finally, rivers and hydroelectric power (Hays 1959; Steen 1976; Wilkinson 1992; Miller 2001). Numerous federal land-management agencies were created in order to deal with these policy developments: the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Water Power Act of 1920, which failed to provide for multi-purpose development as the goal of public action, marked the end of this initial conservation era (Hays 1959). A quasi-religious zeal, a 'moral crusade,' set the tone for natural resource conservation. This tone, however, was more evident in public discourse than in the actual execution of principles (Hays 1959; Steen 1976; Miller 2001). As a moral crusade, the natural-resource conservation program of the Theodore Roosevelt administration moved steadily forward, from piecemeal approach to a more comprehensive national policy. 'Applied knowledge' became the method by which the control over nature could advance human progress "for the direct benefit of mankind" (Pinchot' s "greatest good") (Hays 1959:56). The moral crusade took a different turn at the end of the first decade of the20thcentury. 'Saving from use' (i.e., preservation, personified by Sierra Club founder John Muir), rather than 'using wisely' (conservation, personified by Gifford 40
Pinchot), became the focus of an increasing number of conservation groups. These groups developed in part because of Gifford Pinchot's inflexibility regarding natural- resource conservation and management (Hays 1959; Miller 2001).
The U.S. Forest Service administers 18 per cent of the land in 11 western states (Wilkinson 1992). The agency originated as the Division of Forestry in 1881 in the Department of Agriculture (Steen 1976). Ten years later, after much public and congressional hand-wringing over a feared impending 'timber famine,' the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 gave the President the authority to establish Forest Reserves, which remained under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior until 1905. Millions of acres of the American West's mountainous timber land-- 13 million under President Harrison alone--became 'safe' from the ravages of the 'timber beasts' after being set aside as forest reserves (Clawson 1951; Gates 1968; Steen 1976; Miller 2001). (The 1897 Sundry Civil Appropriations Bill, the so-called 'Organic Act,' finally provided the actual funding to manage these reserves.) In 1905, at the urging of Gifford Pinchot (then-Chief of the renamed Forestry Bureau in the Department of Agriculture) and a like-minded President Theodore Roosevelt, the two conservation-related parts became a whole--the Forest Reserves, soon to be renamed National Forests, and the Forestry Bureau, soon renamed the Forest Service, combined under one cabinet-level department, Agriculture. Gifford Pinchot strove to make the Forest Service an organization of incorruptible professionals, setting high standards for Forest officers (standards that some thought were too high). All Forest officials, including Forest Supervisors, Rangers, and Guards, had to pass Civil Service examinations, and needed to be hardy souls. "The applicant must be...thoroughly sound and able-bodied, capable of enduring hardship and of performing severe labor under trying conditions. Invalids seeking light out-of-door employment need not apply" (Pinchot 1905:89). In 1905 Pinchot penned The Use Book (The Use of the National Forests), a brief booklet that over the subsequent decades evolved into the 41 multi-volume, shelf-filling Forest Service Manual of today. Two years later, the revised Use Book directly addressed the public in what today would be described as a 'user- friendly' fashion, a likely attempt to allay public fears and resentment of the potential 'locking up' of public lands. Under Pinchot the Forest Service became decentralized, with line officers (i.e., personnel with a great deal of autonomy) at the regional, forest (Figure 4.1), anddistrict levels, each with the requisite decision-making authority (although subject to policy- making by the Washington Office). Watersheds, range, fire, and timber were the primary concerns of the new agency--a multiple-use concept in practicealthough one not yet congressionally mandated.
Figure 4.1: Crater National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1908. Ranger Gribble second from left, Supervisor Swenning second from right (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
The Forest Homestead Act of 1906 threw a new set of problems into the mix: a flood of would-be farmers (orfaux farmers, as the case may have been). The 1907 Use Book put a positive spin on the situation: "A National Forest.. .does not in the least shut out real settlement. It encourages it. The more settlers, the more men on hand to fight 42 fires, the better protection the Forest will get, and the better and fuller will be the use of all its resources" (Pinchot 1907:10).
Public Land Disposal When Frederick Jackson Turner delivered his still-influential paper, 'The Significance of the Frontier in American History' in 1893, he helped provoke something of a national crisis of conscience on the 'closing' or 'losing' of the frontier. 'Frontiersmen' and the Jeffersonian 'yeoman farmers' had become intricately entwined in the national identity of the American psyche. With the official closing of the frontier with the 1890 census, the perceived loss of opportunity struck a chord among the American people--and their local, state, territorial, and national representatives (Turner 1894, 1920; Allen 1987). The resultant clamor against the 'locking up' of public lands, first as Forest Reserves, then as National Forests, produced the Forest Homestead Act in 1906 (34 Stat., 233). Pinchot addressed this issue directly in his preface to the 1907 publication of The Use Book:
Many people do not know what National Forests are. Others may have heard much about them, but have no idea of their true purpose and use. A little misunderstanding may cause a great deal of dissatisfaction. The National Forests very closely concern all the people of the West and, indeed, of the whole country. They affect, directly or indirectly, many great business interests. It is the object of this publication to explain just what they mean, what they are for, and how to use them. (Pinchot 1907:5)
The Forest Homestead Act (or more simply the 'June11thAct') prevailed upon Forest Service officials "to examine and ascertain as to the location and extent of
[National Forest] lands.. .chiefly valuable for agriculture" (Pinchot 1907:189; Keener 1916:95). "The home seeker can travel all through a Forest, pick out the agricultural land he wants for a home, apply for it, have it listed, settle upon it when listed, enter it, build his home, cultivate his fields, patent it, and spend the rest of his days there. The only thing he must be careful about it to obey the law and take the land for a home, and not for other purposes" (Pinchot 1907: 10). The familiar provisions of then-current homestead 43 laws, principally the original Homestead Act of 1862,'prevailed: the applicant must be the head of a household, over 21 years of age, a citizen of the U.S. or someone who has declared the intention of becoming a citizen, who 'improves' and cultivates at least some portion of the maximum 160 acres and resides on the land for a period of at least five years. The Act of June 6, 1912 (37 Stat., 123) shortened the residence period to three years (Keener 1916). The Forest Homestead Act was just one in a series of public-land- disposal acts, aimed at settling the breadth of the nation. Years before, settlers who had arrived in the Oregon Territory prior to December 1, 1850 had been entitled under the Donation Land Act to a grant of 320 acres of public land. A married couple was allowed 640 acres, with each half owned by the husband and the wife in their own names. Oregon's 1850 Donation Land Act thus became one of the first in the country that allowed a married woman to own land in her own name. Residence and cultivation for four years was required prior to securing title to the land. After 1854, Oregon land was no longer free but could be purchased at $1.25 per acre (Keener 1916). The Homestead Act of 1862 granted 160 acres to single individuals who would settle on the land for five years. The Forest Homestead Act of 1906 and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 helped create the nation's last rush to free land. More land was claimed from 1900-1915 than in all the previous years since 1862 (Gates 1968; Allen 1987). The Forest Homestead Act opened to settlement up to 160 acres of agricultural land (if found) within the nation's national forests and the Enlarged Homestead Act doubled the acreage, but only on public-domain, non-irrigable land. This later act helped stimulate the dry-farm homesteading boom of the country's arid Great Basin and High Plains. Heavily promoted by railroad companies, state governments, and agricultural colleges, the dry-farming phenomenon in the semi-arid West transferred the greatest amount of public lands to private individuals and put the greatest amount of acreage under the plow in the early20thcentury (Hargreaves 1957: Gates 1968). Dry-farming techniques, which sought to maintain moisture in the soil during fallow years, created a fair amount of success in the first two decades of the century, aided in no small part by an unusual wet cycle and an economy favoring commodities such as grain Immediately 44 after World War I a prolonged drought and falling commodity prices brought an end to the phenomenon. Enticing settlers to the marginal lands of the semi-arid West, the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 applied only in selected states: Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (Keener 1916; Hargreaves 1957; Gates 1968). Individuals who had already homesteaded 160 acres were allowed an additional 160 acres under this act. There could be no commutation after six months of residence, but rather the entire residency requirement had to be fulfilled. This act was designed to promote permanent agricultural settlement. In Wyoming, one of its representatives observed, "[w]e have been inviting the homesteader on the 160-acre tract. He has been coming to some extent, but in four cases out of five, after enduring the hardships and trials for from one to three years, he has gone back to his folks or his wife's folks in Missouri and Iowa and Illinois" (Congressional Record 1908:6093; Hargreaves 1957:348).
The Forest Homestead Laws Forest Homestead Act, Act of June 11, 1906 (34 Stat., 233). This piece of public land legislation called upon the Secretary of Agriculture, via his agent, the Forest Service, to locate lands within the boundaries of National Forests most suited to agriculture. If found appropriate for agricultural purposes, and not needed for public purposes (e.g., a ranger station or school), the land was then 'listed' with the Secretary of the Interior and declared open for entry. The maximum allowed for agricultural settlement for any single claimant was 160 acres, essentially the maximum amount believed feasible for one person and one horse to work successfully (Ferriday 1974). Once declared open for entry, the legal description of the land would be posted at the local land office for at least 60 days, as well as published in a local newspaper for at least four weeks. Individuals occupying land within a forest reserve (national forest) prior to January 1, 1906 retained a preferential right of settlement and entry (and thereby gained the unfortunate official term of 'squatter'), similar to those individuals filing on public land not yet surveyed and platted (GLO 1892; Pinchot 1907; Keener 1916). 45
General Homestead Requirements. The provisions of the June11thAct were devised to work in concert with all previous homestead acts, principally the Homestead Act of 1862 (12 Stat., 392). The prospective homesteader (i.e., 'entryman') had to be the head of a family, age 21 or older, and a citizen of the U.S. or someone who had filed a declaration to become a citizen (GLO 1892). He or she must, within six months of making entry, have established an actual home, cultivated the land (the raising of beef or dairy cattle, as well as the cultivation of crops, constituted legitimate agricultural pursuits), and resided there 'continuously' for five years. "Occasional visits to the land once in six months or oftener is not residence," stated the General Land Office (1892:11). Five years after making initial settlement, the entryman (or entrywoman) was then required to provide proof (affidavits by the claimant and chosen witnesses) of cultivation and residence, and to file that proof, along with a plat and field notes of the lands (made by either the U.S. Surveyor-General or Forest Service officers under the direction of the Surveyor-General), at the local land office (GLO 1892; Pinchot 1907; Keener 1916). It was in the offering of proof where the Forest Homestead Act differed most from previous homestead laws. The 'proof' designated in earlier laws required sworn affidavits only, and although a false oath before a county clerk, register, or receiver, was considered an act of perjury, this system of 'proof' was ripe for abuse. Under the June Act, forest rangers and forest guards actually inspected the homesteads--visiting the habitation and cultivation areas, taking notes and photographs, drawing sketch maps, and writing reports to be submitted to the Department of Interior's land office along with the aforementioned affidavits. Each major act of land-disposal legislation was followed by a slew of lesser acts refining the land-disposal process, and the Forest Homestead Act was no different in this regard. Some appear to acknowledge inherent flaws in the original acts or reflect the actual practice rather than intent of the law. For example, shortening the required residency period from five to three years recognized that "the average family could not hold out for five years. The point of starvation was reached short of that, and consequently it would be humane to shorten the required time of residence to three years" (Webb 1931:423; Gates 1968:508). 46
A leave of absence of up to one year could be granted, but not deducted from this residence requirement of five years. (A leave of absence had been allowed for illness or the necessity of the homesteader to earn money to support him- or herself, particularly in the instance of crop failure [Act of Mar 2, 1889 { 25 Stat., 854 }, GLO 1892; Keener 1916].) Later, perhaps in recognition that productive agricultural public land was becoming scarce, the five-year residency requirement was shortened to three years in the Act of June 6, 1912 (37 Stat., 123) (Keener 1916:92). The leave of absence was also shortened, to only five months. This later act also--for the first time--specified the amount of cultivation required for these 160-acre homesteads. For each year of residence, the homesteader must cultivate not less than 1/16 of the area of his or her entry (i.e., 10 acres) beginning in the second year, and not less than 1/8 (i.e., 20 acres) beginning in the third year, until final proof. Prior to offering proof, however, the would-be claimant was required to post a copy of the land plat--and the proposed time and place of his or her prospective offering of proof--in a conspicuous place on the land itself, at the local land office, and in a local newspaper for 30 days (Keener 1916). That notice also included the names of the witnesses offering proof (in affidavits) on the behalf of the claimant. Witnesses were required to appear at the local land office to give their testimony; however, if they later moved outside of the county, their testimony could be obtained by a party to the proceeding and offered in written form only (Act of January 31, 1903 [32 Stat., 790]) (Keener 1916: 112). On the plus side, witness were compensated for their mileage and paid a small fee for their attendance. Individuals who had already exercised their homestead privilege--and only one shot at obtaining free land was allowed--could, under the provisions of the Forest Homestead Act acquire an additional 160 acres at $2.50 per acre, payable when offering final proof. Like the proverbial lunch, 'free land,' of course, is never free. There were filing fees, commissions, affidavit transcription fees, map fees. Registers and Receivers at the local land office were allowed both fees and commissions (GLO 1892). In Oregon, the 47 filing fee for a 160-acre homestead application was $10.00, and the commissions $12.00, for a total of $22.00 (Keener 19 16:393). (Adjusted for 2005 inflation rates, $22.00 is roughly the equivalent of $440.00.) Fees and commissions on smaller parcels were proportionately smaller. For cash sales of public lands, for example to those individuals who had already exercised their homestead privileges, commissions to Government Land Office Registers and Receivers were paid by the U.S. government, and no fees or commissions charged to purchasers. It was the homestead applicant, however, who paid for the notification of final proof published in the local newspaper once a week for six weeks (GLO 1892). When a witness appeared at the land office to offer testimony of a homesteader's bonafides, that testimony then had to be transcribed into typewritten form. Fees for this transcription were charged at the rate of 22.5 cents per 100 words, with 10 cents per 100 words charged for copies of these transcripts. The land office could also charge $1.00 for a hand-sketched township diagram depicting homestead entries only; $2.00 for a township plat delineating homestead entries, names of the respective claimants, and the character of the entry; $3.00 for a township plat detailing entries, names of claimants, character of entry, and number of entries; and finally, $4.00 for a plat showing entries, names of claimants, character of entry, number and date of filings for entry, and topography of the land, etc. (The Crater National Forest requested quite a number of these.) Finally, whenever a homestead claim was cancelled, either by the would-be claimant or by the land office, a cancellation fee was charged for giving notice to the contestants of the entry. In its original form, the June11thAct simply instructed government officials to inspect land for agricultural potential whenever asked. Every application for entry prompted a foray into the field by a forest ranger or forest guard to examine the land. This piecemeal approach was both time-consuming and costly. Not until the Act of August 10, 1912 (37 Stat., 287) were monies appropriated for a systematic and large- scale land classification. Touting "more room for the settler and more food for the markets," the Washington, D. C. Sunday Star reported in 1913 that agricultural land "where farm crops can be grown with profit" would within two years provide homes for some 30 to 50 thousand families on some three to four million acres of land within 48 national forests of the West. (The Star also reported the amount of $120,000 appropriated for this land-classification work, twice the amount listed in Keener's 1916 publication.) In spite of this initiative, a full ten years later the State of Oregon, at least, still bemoaned the lack of land classification data, "[t]he federal government. . . should provide for an examination of all lands concerning which there may be a question of their agricultural value. Data now available.. . areinadequate. The information is little better than a guess" (State of Oregon 1923:32).
Women. The Oregon Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 provided 320 acres per person, even to the two members of a married couple, allowing married women for the first time to own property in their own name. By the turn of the century, with the Nineteenth Amendment still two decades away, female self-determination, via property rights at least, had begun to garner strength. The act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat., 683) protected a woman's right to her homestead entry should she later become married, albeit only if her intended were not also filing for homestead entry (Keener 1916). The Act of April 6, 1914 (38 Stat., 312) further refined male and female homesteading rights: both wife and husband were allowed to retain their own homesteads and gain patent to each if their marriage took place at least one year after initial entry; he, however, got to choose which home would become their primary residence, which may or may not have been an improvement over the earlier stipulation that the newly married female homesteader retained her right to make proof and patent her land as long as she remained on that land and not reside elsewhere (GLO 1892). At the opposite end of marriage, a widowed woman could gain title to what had officially been her husband's claim should he die prior to offering final proof, provided she, too, complied with all prevalent homesteading laws. If deserted by her husband for more than one year, a woman became entitled to submit proof and obtain patent on a claim in her own name, either as head of family orfemme sole (Act of Oct 22, 1914 [38 Stat., 766]) (GLO 1892:9). If already a citizen of the U.S., a woman who initiated a homestead claim and then "intermarri[ed] with an alien" (Keener 1916:101) would be entitled to obtain patent as though she had remained single or had married an American 49 citizen (Act of Oct 17, 1914 [38 Stat., 740]) (Keener 1916). If she were so unfortunate as to marry an 'insane alien,' the Act of February 24, 1911(36 Stat., 929) protected her right to entry.
The Paci:fic Northwest In Oregon, the early 20thcentury conservation ideology paralleled that of the nation as a whole--a discourse primarily utilitarian, instrumentalist, and development- oriented (Robbins 1997). The Southern Pacific Railroad, Northern Pacific Railroad, and Weyerhauser Company controlled as much timberland in the Pacific Northwest as did the federal government (Oregonian 1913; Robbins 1975). The agrarian myth of the Jeffersonian yeoman farmer so enamored of by Oregonians dissipated when faced with this capitalist and essentially urban-industrial reality (Cronon 1997). The Oregon Conservation Commission, established in 1909, brought the state's forest protection and management standards up to par with its neighbors, California and Washington, by strengthening the cooperative ties among state, federal, and private interests. "The age of modern progressive forest practices had arrived" (Robbins 1975:23). Oregon's governors George Chamberlain and Oswald West both supported Pinchot and Roosevelt, advocating federal control and management of natural resources in the public interest. In his inaugural speech delivered in 1911, West made clear his utilitarian ideology: "It is most vital to the future prosperity of this state and of its people that its natural resources be conserved to the fullest extent in order so that they may be fully utilized and developed for the benefit not only of this, but of future generations" (State of Oregon 1911:19; Robbins 1997:240). Four years later, West was even more vehement: "There are representatives of organized greed and monopoly who oppose every conservation movement; their sole desire being freedom to loot the public domain. To accomplish this end, they desire to seize every opportunity to poison the mind of the public against the policies of the federal government" (State of Oregon 1911:20; Robbins 1975:3 1). "Every stick of available timber in the State of Oregon would have been in private hands had it not been for the 50 creation of a forest reserve in our state," West asserted at the Conference of Western Governors in 1914 (Robbins 1975:35).
Southwestern Oregon: Jackson County Jackson County is the largest and richest county in southwestern Oregon. During the first decade of the century the county's population leapt by 88 per cent. Federal largesse in the form of land grants to railroads had facilitated this growth, creating the transportation infrastructure necessary to draw immigrants to the southwestern interior valleys of Oregon, such as the Rogue River Valley, and contribute to the increase in agricultural production. The Southern Pacific Railroad (formerly the Oregon and California Railroad) published a home-seekers' guide in 1894 touting Oregon's natural abundance (Robbins 1997). "Fortunes will be made," trumpeted one Portland newspaper (Robbins 1997:205). U.S. Census records provided the population figures for Jackson County in the following table:
Table 4.1: Population, Jackson County, 1900-1930.
Year Population Increase/decrease 1900 13,698 1910 25,756 +88% 1920 20,405 -20% 1930 32,918 +61%
Although by the late 1880s the length of Oregon had been spanned by the Oregon and California Railroad, transportation within southwestern interior valleys, such as the Rogue, consisted principally of wagon roads originally constructed in the early- to mid- 1860s. These wagon roads, such as the Ft. Klamath-Jacksonville Military Road, the first trans-Cascade road through the Crater National Forest, or the 'Dead Indian Road' further south, connecting Ashland to the Klamath Basin, were all the early forest homesteaders 51 had to gain access to the land. According to one Crater National Forest official, "such localities [were] for the most part far from a market, roads and trails [were] few, and the country inaccessible" (Foster 1909:13).
Crater National Forest Land uses within the Forest resulted from both national developments and the local permutations of those developments. In 1908, each Forest Supervisor was instructed to write a brief history of their forest for a national forest atlas, "in which it [was] desired to bring out forcibly the part which the Forests [were] destined to play in the development of the various localities along industrial lines" (Flory 1908:1). Following Gifford Pinchot' s utilitarian mind-set for the nation's forests, the first comprehensive documentation of the Crater National Forest (Swenning 1909) delimited the Forest's primary uses: as a source of timber supply, both for local needs and extra- local shipment; as a source of municipal water supply (both the cities of Ashland and Medford depended upon springs, streams, and lakes within the Forest); as a source of water supply for irrigation, power-generation, and mining; recreation, both as a main travel route to the more splendid Crater Lake, as well as picnicking and camping at various natural 'beauty spots' in the Forest itself or berry-picking on Huckleberry Mountain, famous for its huckleberry thickets and a long-time traditional-use area for members of the Klamath Tribes (Deur 2002). One use not specifically mentioned by Deputy Forest Supervisor Swenning in his 1909 report, but about to become a major preoccupation for the Forest and its officers, was homesteading. Homesteading in the Crater National Forest was generally a local phenomenon; that is, prospective homesteaders came to enter claims no further than from their homes in Medford, Ashland, Butte Falls, and Jacksonville (Figure 4.2). Medford, by 1910 the population center and economic hub of Jackson County, counted some 8,000 individuals in that year; Ashland, 12 miles southeast of Medford, about the same. Both Medford and Ashland lay situated on the main line of the Southern Pacific Railroad, 52
2 /
uo.sCpak - Craterak* Nationsj &..k
Persist P.O. Pock Lodgeplc kS. Trail Its. S Lost Ct*ULoU
RueI*r
S i. ott. FøUsS ts
.LsiiiIii
CINUAt. POINT brawn MIt
Little Elk R.S. S
ASHLAND A.dlS,d tS
Legend ?Q%vs Buttas
rv Nis.I Fovs
Pi.s, P4tios,.I104.est
0 5 10 0 Figure 4.1: Rogue River National Forest Vicinity Map 2 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 53 connecting them to major Pacific Coast shipping ports and national agricultural markets since 1887 (LaLande 1982; Robbins 1997). Tiny Butte Falls, 30 miles to the northeast of Medford via the Pacific & Eastern Railroad, counted about 200 souls five years after its founding as a lumber town in 1905. And the once-bustling gold mining town and county seat, Jacksonville, declining in population since the mid-1880s when the Southern Pacific Railroad bypassed it by in favor of Medford five miles to the east, counted fewer than 800 people. Interspersed throughout the Crater National Forest lay several post offices established for the influx of these local homesteaders: post offices such as Dudley, about six miles north of Butte Falls up a very steep wagon road; Swastika and Lilyglen, both on the Dead Indian plateau of the Ashland Ranger District; and Buncom, on the Little Applegate River. Buncom, established in 1896, served 175 residents until its closure in 1917. Dudley lasted even less time; established in 1907, it was abandoned in 1912. Both the Dudley and Swastika post offices were set up in the cabins of homesteaders, Mr. and Mrs. Harvey B. Spencer and Mr. Clayton E. Burton, respectively (McArthur 1982). Shortly after its establishment in 1908, the Crater National Forest began to proliferate with ranger stations and guard stations: Abbott Prairie and Trail, on the Prospect Ranger District; Big Elk and Little Elk on the Ashland district; and Mosquito, Twin Ponds, and Lodgepole on the Butte Falls. Some of these early administrative sites on the Forest consisted of little more than a canvas-wall tent for the ranger or guard and a pole corral for his packhorses. The earliest actual buildings at these ranger stations tended to be log structures, either cabins abandoned by previous occupants (miners, trappers, homesteaders) or new cabins modeled after the old (LaLande 1979). In its earliest days, the staff of the Crater National Forest focused on constructing horse-packing trails for firefighting purposes. Although their purpose remained the same--firefighting--by 1910 the Forest Service had begun repairing and widening older wagon trails to facilitate travel both by wagons and the automobile. The Forest Service began to purchase both automobiles and trucks prior to the end of the First World War, and had begun building truck roads to supplement those earlier wagon roads into the Cascades (LaLande 2001). 54
Up until 1909, grazing was the "most important purpose" the Crater National Forest had had "to subserve" (Swenning 1909:5). In many localities range land was controlled by absentee stockowners, crowding out smaller owners; the Forest Service worked to improve this situation, and, by 1909, only stockowners living within or adjacent to the forest had preferential rights to use of the range. Because of its comparatively high elevation, the majority of the Forest provided summer grazing only, with just a few year-round permits issued. By 1909, sizable tracts of private timber holdings on the lower slopes of the Cascades were being logged, while the timber on the national forest was less accessible and protected (somewhat) by more stringent cutting regulations (Swenning 1909). Swenning foresaw the day that, as sources of timber outside the Forest became depleted and as lumber industries grew, a greater demand for federal timber would increase, a demand to be met by logging that part of the Forest lying tributary to the Rogue River Valley. Butte Falls, just upstream from the confluence of the north and south forks of Big Butte Creek, was developing into "a lumber camp of some importance" (Swenning 1909:15), with a well-equipped sawmill. The Pacific and Eastern Railroad extended from Eagle Point to Butte Falls in 1911, thus connecting the latter town's lumber supply to the main line of travel. Jackson County's first major sale of federal timber occurred in the Fourbit Creek area on the Crater's Butte Falls Ranger District in 1924, operated by theOwen-Oregon Lumber Company. Timber sold on the Crater National Forest from July 1, 1908 to December 31, 1908 totaled 12,386 thousand-board-feet (MBF) of sawn timber from the western Cascades, and 97 cords of firewood and 610 posts from the Siskiyou region (Swenning 1909:15). (For some perspective, 20 MBF would build a modest-sized, three- bedroom, two-bathroom home.)
The Oregon Land Fraud Cases In 1902 the Secretary of the Interior initiated investigations into massive acreages of fraudulent land claims in Oregon. Newspapers exploited the story almost daily. Everyone, it seemed, wanted to make money from public domain timber lands. Oregon's 55 congressional delegation (except for one), its U. S. Attorney, and the Commissioner of the Government Land Office (an Oregonian political appointee) were indicted for fraud in 1905 (Puter 1908; Clawson 1951). In Jackson County, the 1905 indictments included Charles Nickell, the U.S. Commissioner and publisher of newspapers in Medford and Jacksonville, and Martin G. Hoge, the city attorney for Medford (Puter 1908). (That same year [1905], both the register and the receiver of the Roseburg land office were under suspension [HRC Item #H-2 1911].) These and other indictments made news across the country. Mrs. A. E. Hubbell, of Omaha, Nebraska, wrote to the Chief of the Forest Service in 1907 withdrawing her previous application for land on the Crater National Forest, under advice from her lawyer (HRC Item #H-2 1907). Mrs. Hubbell wrote that she had been misled, that the land was more valuable for timber, and that she thought there was "a scheme on foot to get several people to apply for this timber land. They put it this way-- 'now [emphasis added] of course it is more valuable for timber but if you cut off the timber and cultivate the soil for years wouldn't the land bring more [income]?" (HRC Item #H-2 1907). The scheme related by Mrs. Hubble echoed those recounted by Oregon's self- proclaimed 'Land Fraud King' Stephen A. Douglas Puter, who with various partners made a fortune off bogus public-land transactions. Puter's book, Looters of the Public Domain (1908), written from his jail cell, reads less like a mea culpa than a primer on how to use public-land-disposal policies to defraud the federal government of public land in Oregon. Some schemes entailed hiring local individuals to appear at the local land office and swear that they had entered the land prior to its inclusion within a forest reserve, that they had lived there five years, built improvements, cultivated the lands, and in every way complied with the Homestead Act of 1862. Puter knew there was no system for verification, he also knew that statements could be bought. Another scheme employed by Puter was the carting of large groups of Scandinavian loggers to the local land office, having them swear that they intended to become naturalized citizens, had entered the land prior to its inclusion in the forest reserve and so on, then have these individuals sign over to Puter the fraudulently obtained patent. (Puter' s co-author, Horace Stevens, "Late of the Government Land Service" [Puter 1908: frontispiece], left 56 government service to practice land law. Perhaps not-so-coincidentally, Stevens became the attorney for Samuel F. Grover, who filed for 160 acres in the Crater National Forest.) In his report to the District (i.e., Regional) Forester in 1924, Crater National Forest Supervisor Hugh B Rankin wrote that the Owen Lumber Company (later Owen- Oregon Lumber Company) and other lumber companies had been very active in the purchase of homestead lands containing timber in the Evans Creek and Butte Falls areas. The companies' timber cruisers knew "exactly what timber is on the Oregon and California [Railroad lands] and Government lands, and.. . [were]in a position to purchase as soon as patent had been made" (Rankin 1924:1). Rankin's report went on to say, "this office is frequently in receipt of inquiries from prospective homesteaders, nearly all of whom state that they are looking for a good timber claim which can be turned to a quick profit" (Rankin 1924:1). Rankin noted that local 'land beaters' were "doing a thriving business--many [were] employed by the lumber companies as well as by homesteaders" (Rankin 1924:1). 57
Chapter 5: Archival Results: 'The Files'
The following information is derived largely from the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest's forest homestead files, principally from data gathered onto the homestead examination report form, Form #655 ('six-five-five'), but also photographs and sketch maps, as well as census records, land patent records, and tax assessment records. Those homesteaders who alleged settlement prior to the June11t1iAct were still subjected to the required homestead examination, and a few are included in this study. Each of the 52 selected forest homestead claims is examined briefly, first the patent land group, then the public land group. Within each group, the claims are furtherdivided among their respective geographic groupings. Each claim is listed by its number, claimant name, legal description (township, range, and section), number of acres claimed, and 7.5' USGS quadrangle. Following these descriptions are analyses of the demographic data, settlement data, the built environment, and land-use data. Figure 5.1 provides an overview of the forest homestead locations. A key to the numbered locations is provided in Figure 5.2. Tables of the homestead locations are also included in Appendix A, and their locations have been plotted on the USGS quadrangles included in Appendix F.
Patent Land Apple gate Group. #47, Reynolds. James W.: T39S, R1W, Sec. 30, 101 acres, Talent 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Reynolds worked as a teamster, hauling timber. He and his wife Emily were both born in the mid-west. In 1910 they were living in Talent, Oregon. By 1916, at the time of the examination of Mr. Reynolds' claim, the Reynoldses had managed to construct a two-room log house, with both a ceiling and papered walls, as well as a log storehouse and lumber barn. About ten acres of red clover and alfalfa hay, as well as a 58
Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group
32 oit 32 L - Butte Falls Group 444611 I 48 2920 343 17 1811$
JT$
CE.$TRM
4 4h_. S -J Dead Indian Plateau/ Little Butte Creek Group Key
- v- Fo,'tM 9i .4 Rvr-(Li c t..rc4ro.eu r) Irt.ruer Vofl,.Zo,,u MixdCon4eZo.it True F. Zon. Mi,n k.noc.k Mpii. Zo.w 4uIesr Potche Applegate Group ?i .&jQr Comcto U.uOowS
J CALL IN MIIJ$
Figure 5.1: Overview map of forest homestead locations. (See Figure 5.2 for key.) 59
Applegate Group: #5, Cimborski #9, Dixon Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group: #10, Foster #4, Bradshaw #12, Hall #13, Hazleton #15, Kenney #14, Johnson, H. #26, Clinton Kingsbury #47, Reynolds Palmerlee #24, Stratton Butte Falls Group: #25, Terrill #1, Albert #27, Watson #6, Clemens Burton #7, Clevenger Conley #11, Grover #33, Edler Pentz #37, Johnson, I. Powers #45, Peterson Scott #50, Stannard Shaffer Smith, L. Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group: Smith, N. Blass #29, Baker Borgen #34, Emerson #8, Dickinson #35, Goss #28, Ash #36, Hawk Cushman Jones, A. #40, Kiter Jones, G. #41, Lystig #44, Owen #42, Moore #46, Read #43, Oleson Spencer, E. #51, Willits Spencer, H. #52, Neuber
Figure 5.2: Key to numbered homestead locations. 60 kitchen garden and 40-tree fruit orchard, were watered by the Sterling Mining Ditch (Figure 5.3). "Various" farming implements were noted in the examination report. The Reynoidses kept two horses, one milk cow, three hogs, and about 24 chickens. Mr. Reynolds gained patent to the claim in 1917.
UNITO sTAr DEPARTMtI1 OF AGRICULTURE oRte-r MAP SHEET I Nik!
R4w4 MJ..i
H
-
I - I
Figure 5.3: Sketch map, #47, Reynolds, 1916 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group. #30. Burton, Clayton E.: T38S, R5E, Sec. 5, 160 acres, Lake of the Woods South and Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangles. 61
George Stannard was one of Mr. Burton's witnesses; Clayton Burton was one of Mr. Stannard's witnesses. Mr. Burton spent about six months a year--the summer months--on his claim, and the rest of the time worked at various jobs in Ashland, usually working with his team, running a milk wagon, for example. Mr. Burton was a single man at the time his homestead was examined in 1910, by which time he had managed to clear a few small patches of land for a kitchen garden and timothy hay, but nothing much had actually been cultivated at the time of his examination (Figure 5.4). Mr. Burton had
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVIOC MAP SHEET N. Nthod FssL DiRftid
Figure5.4:Sketch map, #30, Burton, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 62 fashioned for himself on his claim an eli-shaped, one-room log cabin, valued at $150, and a log and clapboard barn, valued at $100. Mr. Burton ran the Swastika post office from his cabin. About 2500 MBF of timber was located on Mr. Burton's claim, worth $2,500. Mr. Burton had a cookstove for his cabin, a heating stove, one table and chair set, and "plenty" of cooking and eating utensils. Mr. Burton had cattle, horses, hogs, and milk cows as well as farming equipment such as a wagon, a hack, mower, hay rake, plow, cream separator, "and other tools too numerous to mention." Mr. Burton patented his claim in 1914.
#31, Conley, Milo: T37S, R3E, Sec. 2, 120 acres, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Conley was recorded as living in the Crater National Forest in the 1910 census. At the time his homestead claim was examined, in 1908, Mr. Conley was living in a "good, substantial lumber house" on his claim, and had constructed a log barn and a smokehouse. Mr. Conley cultivated only four of the 120 acres of his claim--most of which was planted in hay, the rest a small vegetable garden for home use. One-hundred acres of the Conley claim contained 1500 MBF of timber. Mr. Conley gained patent in 1910.
#33, Edler, August C.: T37S, R3E, Sec. 10, 160 acres, Robinson Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Forest Guard Stanley wrote in his 'six-five-five' that Mr. Edler was improving his claim "by grazing it with goats which are clearing brush from [the] claim." Mr. Edler had no permit for the 200 goats grazing his claim, although the 1909 examination report concluded that the claim was most suitable for grazing. Edler' s two-miles-worth of fencing support the implication that he was grazing rather than cultivating his land. In fact, the six-five-five indicated that Edler had cultivated none of his 160-acre claim, which was located on a level ridgetop at 4,300' in elevation. In addition to the fencing, the only other improvements on the claim included two cabins, one constructed out of logs. Mr. Edler patented his claim in 1912. 63
#37. Johnson. Ira G.: T38S, R4E, Sec. 10, 160 acres, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Johnson served one year and five months in the Civil War, was old and in ill- health, and appears to have gained patent to his land in 1913 largely as a sympathy gesture on the part of the Forest Service examiner. Mr. Johnson and his sons, Harley and Charley, had adjacent forest homestead claims in this section. Mr. Ira Johnson only lived on his claim in the summer months, living the rest of the year with his wife in Ashland. For his summertime habitation, Mr. Johnson had a two-room log house and a log barn (Figure 5.5) for his two horses. Johnson cultivated only one-half an acre of his 160-acre claim, which he planted in hay. The claim, located at approximately 5,000' in elevation, contained 2500 MBF of timber.
Figure 5.5: Unpeeled-log cabin (stump in front), #37, Johnson, I., 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
#45. Peterson. Dan Henry: T38S, R5E, Sec. 18, 160 acres, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Peterson was a single man who worked for the Weed Lumber Company, in Weed, California, in the winter months and worked for the Lindsay Brothers in the hay 64 industry in the summer months. At the time of his 1910 homestead examination, Mr. Peterson lived in a "neatly ceiled" cabin dressed with split boards (Figure 5.6), partly papered on the interior. He also had a log cabin, log storehouse, log barn, and chicken house, plus 100 acres of log and pole fencing and log irrigation troughs. Three acres of Mr. Peterson's claim were cleared and cultivated with rye. Mr. Peterson had a "good supply of household furniture" and a "good outfit of tools." In 1914 Mr. Peterson was approved for patent on his claim, which contained 4000 MBF of timber.
Figure 5.6: Cabin (left) and barn (right), #45, Peterson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
#50, Stannarcl. George A.: T38S, R5E, Sec. 6, 160 acres, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Accompanying Ranger Peachey on his investigation in 1917 was George Hagardine of Ashland, who noted that: There was no foot path from the kitchen door to the well which a family will make in a very short time (Month). There was no trail to the woodshed. There was no small bits of hay in the barn to show there had ever been hay in it. There was no wood in the shed. There was no chickens or horses or cow but there was a car standing in front of the 65
house. There was no chip pile that goes with every ranch after it has been occupied a short time (Month). There was no wagon or harness about the barn no fruit trees and the whole thing spells fraud and if this man can obtain Deed hands down I see the finish of our forest.
Mr. and Mrs. Stannard were both teachers in Phoenix; Mr. Stannard also served as the high school principal. At their forested homestead claim, essentially their summer vacation home, they had built a very substantial log cabin (Figure 5.7), log woodshed, log barn, chicken house, framed privy, and a 25'-deep well with lumber curbing so that it could be used for cold storage, like a springhouse. They had "everything in the way of convenience and comfort, and better than is generally found in the country," including such items as an organ, a clock, a sewing machine, and a wall telephone. They had no wagon, no harness, no stock, but they did have an automobile.
Figure 5.7: Main buildings and fence, as seen from county road in front of cabin, #50, Stannard, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
The Stannards had cleared a few acres of land: four had been planted to clover and timothy hay, six had been slashed but not planted, and two had been raked by hand 66
"and probably had a tooth harrow dragged over it." A half section of a harrow, with two teeth broken out, was located on the claim, as well as a hay mower "which had the appearance of having been moved there after it was broken." The claim with 2000 MBF of timber on it was patented by Mrs. Ada Stannard in 1919 after her husband George had died.
Butte Falls Group. #29, Baker. Mary Alice Mahoney Albert: T34S, R2E, Sec. 23, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. When Mary Alice first 'settled' on this claim, she was still 'semi-married' to her officially-ex-husband George Albert. However, by the time her very contentious lawsuit regarding this claim came to a close in 1914, she had remarried to a Mr. Baker. Mary Alice's first cabin nearly burned the same summer (1910) as did the cabin of her 'ex'- husband, George. The cabins were within 125 feet of each other on Box Creek (Figure 5.8), at the base of a very steep canyon. By the following summer, Mrs. Baker had had
Figure 5.8: Back left, Mary Alice's cabin; front right, burned remains of George's cabin, 1911 (USDA FS,RR-SNF). 67 constructed a second cabin and small garden, though no privy. Both Mary Alice's claim in the southwest quarter-section of Sec. 23 and George's claim in the northwest quarter- section of Sec. 26 contained an estimated 4500 MBF of timber valued at $2.00 per thousand ($9,000 total, each). Mrs. Baker gained patent to her land in 1914, Mr. Albert did not.
Emerson, Dr. Edward E.: T34S, R2E, Sec. 24, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Dr Emerson made no "pretense of having lived on his claim continuously,which, of course he did not." Throughout the years of alleged settlement, the Emerson family lived first in Medford, then Chehalis, Washington, then back to the Rogue Valley to live in Central Point. By the time he gained patent to the land in 1914, Dr. Emerson and his family were living in southern California.In the summer of 1908, Emerson, with a neighbor who owned a portable shingle mill, purchased from the Forest Service 52 MBF of sugar pine trees, and sawed some of the sugar pine into shingles. The level ground of the Emerson claim supported 4000 MBF of timber. In the 1910 examination report, no farming equipment was noted but two cross-cut saws and two axes were. The Emerson summer home (for that's what it really was) in theforest was a log cabin with interior walls of shakes, nearby was a log barnand smokehouse. The house and adjacent kitchen garden was surrounded by a picket fence (Figure 5.9). The structures themselves all exhibited signs of wood rat incursions. About two acres of land had been sown to timothy hay, most in a natural clearing.
Goss. Oliver M.: T345, R3E Sec. 24 and R4E, Sec. 19, 159.5 acres, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Oliver Goss and his wife Rosa established residence on their claim in 1914 (four years after the Dudley Fire had swept through the area) and filed for finalproof in 1917, eventually gaining patent in 1919. The Goss family, which included a school-aged daughter, spent every winter away from the claim, living instead in Butte Falls. Mrs. Goss taught school at the Perry schoolhouse. The Goss forest home was a two-room 68 cabin of sawn lumber, which contained a cooking stove, heating stove, sewing machine, clock, tables and chairs, and cooking and eating utensils. The Goss family had a plow, harrow, stump-puller, wagon, grindstone, and assorted small tools with which to cultivate 26.5 acres, most of which was planted in hay for the 14 head of cattle they owned (with permit to graze on adjacent forest land).
tI!II '!IIlII.I
Figure 5.9: Cabin and picket fence, #34, Emerson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
#36, Hawk. Simon M.: T34S, R2E, Sec. 22, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. and Mrs. Hawk had six children, one sawmill (Figure 5.10), one farm near Jacksonville, and one house in Medford. Neighbors said they were like 'gypsies,' spending no great amount of time in any one place. Mr. Hawk and the boys "bached at the mill a greater part of the time, eating off the same dishes sometimes for a week without washing them." Mrs. Hawk caine to the mill once a month or so to clean up after 69 her men. Ranger Gribble found it difficult to determine whether the cabin on the claim had the appearance of a permanent home or not. "It did look consistently better than the cabin at the sawmill " According to Gribble, "it was evident that [the]claimant calculate[d] to make a pretense of good faith at least." Mr. Hawk was "very much annoyed and worried over what he was afraid [Gribble] would learn from his neighbors and others about his movements since making squatter location."
Figure 5.10: Hawk sawmill, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
The Hawkses built two cabins on their claim, one a log cabin and one a "partly battened, partly ceiled" cabin on Dog Creek (Figure 5.11). They cleared about one-and- a-half acres of land and planted wheat, potatoes, cabbage, carrots and other root vegetables, as well as a substantial orchard of fruit trees and berry canes. Stock included four head of cattle, two milk cows, two workhorses, 18 hogs, and 13 chickens. The other 158.5 acres of the Hawk claim contained 7000 MBF of timber, patented by Mr. Hawk in 1914. 70
Figure 5.11: Cabin on Dog Creek, #36, Hawk, 1911 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
#38, Jones, Arthur L.: T345, R2E, Sec. 2, 160 acres, Cascade Gorge 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Arthur Jones was a hard worker, "although handicapped by a large family." (Mr. and Mrs. Jones had six children.) The family moved into their two-room log cabin-- constructed with both peeled and unpeeled logs--in 1907 (Figure 5.12). The interior of the cabin had papered walls and a wood floor, and contained both a cooking stove and a heating stove, as well as a sewing machine, two iron beds and two homemade beds, tables and chairs, cooking utensils, and a fiddle. The Joneses also had a log barn, root cellar, 'curbed' well, and 600 yards of irrigation ditch. They had cleared three and one- half acres and planted timothy and alfalfa hay, potatoes, trees and bushes, strawberry plants and berry canes, and a 'truck garden.' Farming implements included a plow, a harrow, a scythe, grubbing hoes, and mattocks. Twenty hens supplied eggs and meat. To earn additional income during summer months, Mr. Jones drove a team of horses, painted houses, and worked for the Forest Service helping to build the Trail Creek Ranger Station. Mrs. Jones and the children remained behind on the claim. In the fall, 71
Mrs. Jones worked in Medford at one of the several fruit packing houses. Mr. Jones gained patent to his land, which contained 3000 MBF of timber, in 1912.
Figure 5.12: Cabin, clearing, outbuildings, laundry, and Jones family, #38, Jones, A., 1910, (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
#39. Jones. George F.: T34S, R2E, Sec. 3, 160 acres, Cascade Gorge 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. George Jones' forest homestead claim was adjacent to that of his brother, Arthur. According to Land Examiner Erickson, the "land [was] chiefly valuable for the stand of timber on it...but when clear it [would] make excellent agricultural land." This phrase, after having been cited in Mrs. Hubbell's letter earlier as the one which land speculators frequently used, sounds peculiar coming from a Forest Service official. George Jones, his wife Nellie, and their two small children lived in a board and peeled-log, three-room cabin, with wood floor, three doors, and three full windows. Inside they had two rocking chairs, a high chair, a table and chair set, three beds with springs, a cupboard, and a sewing machine. They also had a log barn, log woodshed, 72 wagon shed, and rail fence. In the summer and fall months, Mr. Jones worked at a sawmill, as a painter, as a carpenter, and, with his wife, in the fruit packing plants in Medford. The Joneses had a plow, a mattock, picks, and cross-cut saws. They were able to cultivate a "good garden and potato patch," as well as some wheat and timothy hay; although the acreage cultivated totaled less than one. The remaining acreage on the claim contained 3000 MBF of timber, mostly Douglas-fir. Mr. Jones patent the claim in 1912.
#44, Owen, Delbert A.: T34S, R2E, Sec. 10, 160 acres, Cascade Gorge 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Delbert and Sophia Owen first lived in a peeled-log cabin on their claim, then constructed a two-room cabin of hewn logs, with an 11'-high ceiling, five full windows, two doors, chinked on the inside and plastered with mortar on the outside, "the best and most solidly built that [the claim examiner] ha[d] ever seen in a newly settled region" (Figure 5.13). The Owenses also constructed a log barn (for one horse), hay shed,
Figure 5.13: New cabin, #44, Owen, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 73 woodshed, and chicken house (for 18 chickens). Mr. Owen worked in the summers at the Butte Falls Sugar Pine Company and at the 'fruit ranch' of Mr. Simon Hawk. Mrs. Owen remained on the claim during her husband's absences. Together, the couple cultivated two-and-one-half acres of timothy hay, potatoes, and truck garden, and planted three fruit trees. However, these acres actually lay on an adjacent neighbor's land. Mr. Owen planned to clear an additional acre on his own land after his homestead examination in 1910. The claim was patented in 1912 and contained 4000 MBF of timber.
#46, Read, Bert W.: T34S, R2E, Sec. 14 and Sec. 13, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Bert and Nettie Read lived in a peeled-log cabin on their claim, thoroughly chinked and papered on the inside, with a kitchen addition of peeled logs and boards (Figure 5.14). Inside, their furnishings consisted of two rocking chairs, a sewing
Figure 5.14: Cabin, barn, and privy, #46, Read, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 74 machine, two tables and four chairs, one bedstead and springs, one couch and cot, two cupboards, both a cooking stove and a heating stove, and a complete set of kitchen utensils. They also constructed a board woodshed. The Reads cultivated berry plants and canes, and planted 22 fruit trees as well as a truck garden on one acre of land. They slashed an additional three acres. Winters and summers Mr. Read worked a variety of jobs: for the Reclamation Service in Kiamath Falls, for the Sugar Pine Lumber Company in Butte Falls, for the Gore Orchard south of Medford, and for the Fish Lake Ditch Company in Brownsboro. Mrs. Read kept house for the Gore family. Mr. Read gained patent to his claim in 1912, along with its 3000 MBF of merchantable timber.
#48, Spencer. Elmer E.: T34S, R2E, Sec. 22, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Elmer Spencer worked as a timber cruiser for the Iowa Lumber Company of Butte Falls as well as the Fish Lake Ditch Company. On the claim, Mr. and Mrs. Spencer and their two young children lived in a two-room board cabin with matched flooring (Figure 5.15). Inside, they had both heating and cooking stoves, one table, one bed, two
Figure 5.15: Cabin and barn of Spencer family, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 75 rocking chairs, five regular chairs, a cabinet, a cupboard, and a full set of cooking utensils. They had mattocks, picks, and grubbing hoes with which to work the three acres of cultivation: fruit trees, berries, strawberry plants, and truck garden. Mr. Spencer gained patent to the land which contained 3000 MBF of merchantable timber in 1911.
#49. Spencer, Harvey B.: T34S, R2E, Sec. 12, 160 acres, Cascade Gorge 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Harvey Spencer, older brother of Elmer Spencer, cultivated a little over one acre of land with "all kinds of vegetables," fruit trees, and berry plants and canes--all irrigated with water piped from a nearby spring. He and his wife Alice lived in a board house with front and back porches, and built a barn and chicken house. Inside their home, the Spencers had an iron bed with springs, mattresses and "plenty of bedding," two rocking chairs and four other chairs, heating and cooking stoves, cupboards and cooking utensils, matting and rugs on the floor, an organ, and framed photographs. To earn additional money, the couple picked hops in the Willamette Valley and packed apples in the Rogue Valley near Table Rock. In addition, Mr. Spencer worked at a sawmill in Butte Falls and built trails for the Forest Service. Mr. Spencer patented his claim in 1912, a claim that contained 3000 MBF of merchantable timber.
Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group. #28, Ash, Edward E.: T32S, R2E, Sec. 5 and Sec. 4, 160 acres, Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Ash left his former home in Michigan "in search of health." Mr. Ash made application for his homestead entry in 1905, but both the Register and the Receiver at the land office in Roseburg were under suspension at the time. In 1908, Mr. Ash and his family had moved to Centralia, Washington so that he could work and his wife, Francis, could be nearer to medical care. By 1910, the couple was back in the Rogue Valley, where the census listed Mr. Ash's occupation as 'gold miner,' Mrs. Ash's as 'cook.' On their forest homestead claim, the couple had one one-and-a-half story cabin of hewed logs, one hew log structure used by hunters to "gherk" venison in, one shed, and 76 one doghouse. They had four homemade bedsteads, one old tick, one old cook stove, an "ancient" heating stove, a buck used for tanning deer skins on, a couple of homemade chairs, and no provisions or cooking utensils. They also had no farming implements and only cultivated one acre of land, that "had been spaded up or scratched over" a year or so prior to the 1908 examination (Figure 5.16).Still, Mr. Ash gained patent to the claim in 1913, a claim with 2500 MBF of red fir, yellow pine, and sugar pine.
ORTGrnAL FO FtRESTEt STAT DPARTME4T OF AORICULTURE I o F' F M HELT P
r
.ri
'tia-!. h. ,,. LQ44
#32. Cushman, William H.: T33S, R1W, Sec. 20, 80 acres, Trail 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Cushman seems to have gained patent to his land based upon the sympathy of the examiner. Ranger Poole noted that Mr. Cushman was an "old Indian war veteran, 77 almost 70 years of age," that he was "old and disabled, rendering it impossible for him to. . . work for a living," and that it was "through no fault of his that Mrs. Cushman, his wife, refuse[d] to live with him." On his forest homestead claim, Mr. Cushman lived in a two-story, rough lumber house, had a peeled-log barn for his three horses and two head of cattle, a chicken house for his dozen chickens, and a picket fence around his cabin. Although 60 acres of land were fenced--with pole and post, or brush and log fencing--only five-and-one-quarter acres were cultivated: one-quarter acre of truck garden, one acre sowed to grain, and four acres sowed to grass. Mr. Cushman had cooking utensils, both cooking and heating stoves, two beds, and six chairs. He had plows, harrows, and a light wagon. He also had 1780 MBF of merchantable timber on very steep and rough ground, which is why the Forest Service reduced his claim from 160 acres to 80 acres in 1914. These 80 acres (with 80 MBF of timber) were examined in 1915 and Mr. Cushman gained patent in 1921.
#40, Kiter, John D.: T32S, R2E, Sec. 1, 160 acres, Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Acting Forest Supervisor Swenning believed that Mr. Kiter had "only done perhaps what he thought was actually necessary to obtain title to a very valuable piece of timber land under the homestead law." This was a case of stating the obvious.In Mr. Kiter's own affidavit of proof he stated, "I have never lived on this land. There is not any house on the land. I bought it for speculation. The reason I have not any more cleared, was the reason that I did not want to destroy the good timber. My intention is to put in a small mill and saw the timber and then clear the land and by this means save the timber." Inexplicably, this candor worked. Mr. Kiter gained patent to this land in 1910. Mr. Kiter's desultory compliance efforts (his affidavit notwithstanding) included building a one-room board cabin, a barn, a chicken house, and a post and rail fence. He had no tools, no animals, and inside his cabin only a homemade bed, two stools, a sheet iron stove, a table, and a few plates and cups. Mr. Kiter seeded slightly less than three 78 acres with timothy hay, planted five or six apple trees, and a 50'-square truck garden, none of which were well-maintained. Until his patent to 160 acres and 4000 MBF of merchantable timber came through, Mr. Kiter worked for the Fish Lake Ditch Company and at a sawmill in Crescent City, California.
Lystig, Christian C.: T32S, R2E, Sec. 7, 160 acres, Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Lystig, born in Norway, became a U.S. citizen at the age of 20. Lystig worked for the Weed Lumber Company, in California, and settled on his claim in 1906. Why this claim was examined only two years later, twice, is unclear. Mr. Lystig' s improvements included a log cabin, a log stable, and a fence (Figure 5.17). Inside his cabin, he had "such as a bachelor might need," including a homemade bedstead, a table and two chairs, a trunk, a cooking stove, five sacks of flour, and a good supply of other provisions. He had no farming implements of his own, and must have borrowed some to cultivate three acres of land with hay, garden truck, and 20 fruit trees. Lystig gained patent to his 160 acres and 2500 MBF of merchantable timber in 1909.
Moore, Arthur D.: T32S, R2E, Sec. 21, 20.35 acres, Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Moore supplemented his already-existing farm with this claim, and therefore built no cabin or other buildings. Instead, Mr. Moore constructed a seven-strand barbed wire fence, and cleared about five acres of land to plant hay. No timber was recorded in the 1920 homestead examination report, and Mr. Moore was able to patent this claim in 1923.
Oleson, Adolph: T32S, R2E, Sec. 6 and R1E, Sec. 1, 160 acres, Sugarpine Creek 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Ranger Poole (a 'local') was on the receiving end of some rather tart letters from the acting forest supervisor, Samuel Swenning, concerning his (Poole's) reporting on the Oleson forest homestead claim. Ranger Poole apparently used the wrong pencil colors, 79
Ni UNITE0 ITATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FORtSt 6ERVI I MAP SHEET
'-. p
Figure 5.17: Sketch map, #41, Lystig, 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). wrong maps sheets, and wrong report form, and elicitedthe wrong kind of information from the neighbors. Mr. Swenning also believed that Ranger Poole was tootrusting of his informants' answers. According to Swenrnng, if Mr. Oleson "lived there almost continuously for the past seven years and [had] industriously improved his claim...,it would hardly seem that he would yet have to work out for a living...." The latter wasin reference to Mr. Oleson' s continuing to work for the Weed Lumber Company in California. Mr. Oleson, born in Sweden, constructed a one-room log cabin as well as afour- room log cabin, plus a log barn, a woodshed, a log storehouse,and a rail fence. He planted about four acres in timothy hay that he fed his two horses, but nothing else, not 80 even a truck garden. Oleson's bachelor home included one cookstove and one heating stove, one large trunk, one bed, one cupboard, and cooking utensils and dishes. Oleson also owned a two-horse wagon, plus two harnesses and a riding saddle, as well as a harrow, a grubbing machine, a scythe, a shovel, and garden hoe. Oleson patented his claim in 1912, half of which contained 2000 MBF of timber.
#51, Willits, Irene Wrisley: T32S, R2E, Sec. 21 and 20, 160 acres, Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Married and the mother of four children between the ages of 14 and 25, Mrs. Willits inherited her father's forest homestead claim. Perhaps not coincidentally, Mrs. Willits' father's claim was adjacent to that of her own, established by her and her husband in 1884. According to Mrs. Willits, her father, Mr. John B. Wrisley, established residence on his claim in late 1902 and lived there until his death at the age of 80 in April 1905. According to the neighbors, Mr. Wrisley never lived on his claim but rather in the home of his daughter, Mrs. Willits. The Willits (Wrisley) forest homestead claim had a new three-room lumber house and an old log cabin at the time of examination (1911). There was also an outhouse and some fencing, and cattle grazed the land. Mrs. Willits ran the Persist post office out of her home on the claim adjacent to the one she inherited from her father. This latter claim, patented in 1912, contained 2500 MBF of timber.
Public Land Apple gate Group. #5, Cimborski, Felix: T4OS, R2W W.M., Sec. 6, 160 acres, Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS quadrangle. The forest homestead examination report of 1908 recorded improvements of just a floored cabin and a woodshed. Inside the cabin were a small sheet-iron stove, a camp stove, a homemade bedstead and homemade bench, and no dishes. About three acres of land had been slashed, although the stumps had been left to rot, and planted with wheat, 81 beans, and potatoes. The claim contained 1145 MBF of merchantable timber, worth about $2,863 at the time. When Ranger Tungate investigated the Cimborski claim he found, "it did not show that anybody was staying there to amount to anything at all, no beaten path; land mostly covered with timber and brush; part of land very steep." However, the Land Office Register wrote that "the claimant ha[d] done as well as the average Oregon homesteader who [took] a claim in the timber and brush." Mr. Cimborski, a "foreigner who [did] not readily understand English" and worked as a ranch-hand, received his patent in 1912, by which time he had actually abandoned the claim.
#9, Dixon, Frank A.: T39S, R4W W.M., Sec. 30, 160 acres, Tallowbox Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Dixon, worked at various jobs throughout the year running a steam donkey at a sawmill in Jacksonville, running a diamond drill at the Blue Ledge Mine just over the border in California, and as an engineer at a smelter near Waldo. During his absences, Mr. Dixon's wife remained on the claim. Their home was a log cabin furnished with both a cooking stove and a heating stove, four chairs, dining and kitchen tables, a cupboard, a washstand, a zonophone talking machine with homemade case, a lamp, and potted plants in the windows Half of their one-room home was carpeted, and the walls were papered and hung with pictures. The couple had also constructed a lumber barn, a shake-over-pole buggy shed, a log root house, and a log woodshed. The Dixons only managed to cultivate a four-foot by six-foot garden plot, with a few vegetables, some currant and raspberry canes, and some strawberry plants (Figure 5.18). Still, they did have hoes, mattocks, axes, wedges, shovels, a wheelbarrow, and a hand rake. The forest guard who examined the claim deemed it a good faith effort, but Mr. Dixon did not patent the claim, even though it did contain 4000 MBF of merchantable timber. 82
UNTEO 8TATS tEPRTMENT O AGRCULTUR FO}%flI OFRYICt MAP SHEET LA rX.is.I Ptt
'W.Sc*n- .--v' I'OIPd. TT
,t.1 I
>1
Figure 5.18: Sketch Map, #9, Dixon, 1910 (Medford BLM).
#10, Foster, Robert R.: T38S, R3W W.M., Sec. 10, 80 acres, Mt. Isabelle 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. and Mrs. Foster, both in their 80s at the time their forest homestead claim was examined (1916), had a "small but comfortable" four-room cabin with two porches. The interior furnishings of their cabin were not recorded, nor were the farming implements. The elderly couple also had: a grain storehouse, a small stable (for their horse, cow, and mule), a small hay barn, a chicken house (for 50 chickens), and a hog pen (for two hogs). The amount of cultivation was not recorded, but they did apparently grow hay for their stock and garden vegetables for their own use. The report in this file concluded that only 40 acres of this claim were suitable for agriculture. It also stated that in the 15 or 20 83 years prior to the Fosters' arrival (1910) numerous different people had attempted to homestead the land. No information on the claim's acceptance or denial was found in the claim file. The claim was not patented.
#12, Hall, George ('Deafy'): T4OS, R2W W.M., Sec. 10, 160 acres, Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Deafy Hall was a tinker and bicycle repairman from Jacksonville who filed for 160 acres on either side of Yale Creek in 1903, but who unfortunately died five years later, just prior to his 'proving up.' Deafy' s brother Joseph then tried to gain his brother's claim even though he had already exercised his homestead right. (During the illness preceding his death, Deafy's neighbors brought food for him, but they believed his brother Joseph withheld that food and eventually starved him to death.) Improvements on the Hall claim included a log cabin later used as a chicken house by Joseph Hall, a new cabin, two goat sheds, a rail fence, and an irrigation ditch (Figure 5.19). It is unclear what, if any, improvements were constructed by George Hall- -documents seemed to indicate that Joseph Hall actually created and maintained the various homestead structures and cultivated acres. Joseph Hall planted alfalfa and potatoes on roughly five acres, and kept 75-175 goats (without a permit) and some chickens. Inside the 'new' cabin were two homemade beds, one bed spring, one mattress, one straw tick, one homemade table, an 'old' cooking stove, and a few cooking utensils. Joseph Hall was denied the right to inherit his brother's claim in 1910, because the "lack of good faith, non-compliance with the law, and that th[e] claim was taken at the instance and in the interest of others [was] very apparent." The Hall claim contained 2500 MBF of merchantable timber worth $5,625 in 1911.
#15, Kenney, Christian J.: T4OS, R2W W.M., Sec. 10, 35 acres, Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Kenney donated his land to the Bureau of Land Management in 1969, in memory of his wife. The land is now known as the Kenney Meadows Recreation Area. 84
Mr. Kenney was an aluminum salesman who worked in a hardware store in Astoria for the four months preceding the 1918 examination of his claim. Mr. Kenney also worked
P.e.*.JF-.t
r4' p. .1 "C." ",.'"- -..------./ I 7-i
- --- 4 - r - y
Figure 5.19: Detailed sketch map, #12, Hall, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). at odd jobs throughout the Applegate Valley, in hay, orchard, and wheat fields. Mrs. Kenney and the children made frequent trips to the homestead in Mr. Kenney's absences. (Where they lived the rest of the time was not recorded.) The Kenney family home was a shake-over-pole cabin, one-and-a-half stories high, with one room up and one room down. They also had a log barn, small outbuildings, ten fenced acres, and an irrigation ditch. Within the ten fenced acres the Kenneys cultivated 12 fruit trees, a truck garden, and alfalfa. The claim was patented in 1919. 85
#26, Textor, Clinton: T4OS, R3W W.M., Sec. 12, 160 acres, Squaw Lakes 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Textor generally boarded with his neighbors, the McKees. Mrs. McKee stated that Mr. Textor was afraid to be alone on his claim after dark. She also claimed he was too cheap to feed a cat, let alone himself. Mr. McKee explained how Mr. Textor, a lawyer, would, in true lawyerly fashion, finagle his time spent on the claim: Textor would arrive on the last day of the month, stay the night, and leave the following morning. That way "he said he could be on his claim two months, and would not need to come to his claim for [another] two months." When his claim was examined in 1912, Mr. Textor had a log cabin with two windows and one door (Figure 5.20) a woodshed, a log barn (unchinked) with an earth
Figure 5.20: Cabin and woodshed, #26, Textor, 1912 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). floor, and an outhouse made of shakes. Inside his cabin, Mr. Textor had a pole bunk, a small stove with a four-inch pipe, a few old pails and pans, a shelf to mix dough on, "a hatful of flour or meal or something of that kind," one old knife, one old fork, and a box 86 for a seat. Outside, Mr. Textor had some pole fencing, rail fencing, and log and brush fencing. About two-and-one-half acres had been "scattered with timothy seed," and planted with 50 fruit trees. Neither the fruit trees nor the truck garden did very well in the dense shade of Mr. Textor' s forested claim, with its 3000 MBF of merchantable timber and its north aspect. After a protracted legal battle, with decisions made, reversed, then reversed again, Mr. Textor gained patent to his land in 1914. Why he abandoned the claim is unknown.
Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group. #4, Bradshaw, Ready H.: T37S, R3E W.M., Sec. 2, 160 acres, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Bradshaw filed for this claim in 1904, but he and his family did not actually move to the claim until 1909, the year prior to its examination. The Bradshaw family lived at first in a log house, and were beginning to build a box house in 1910. The log house was well-furnished, and had a truck garden nearby. The Bradshaws cultivated yardage, not acreage, planting their vegetables and hay in an area 21 yards by 75 yards (Figure 5.21). They did own, however, a plow, a seed sower, a cultivator, a scythe, a grindstone, one harrow, one hay fork, and one hand rake. They also maintained four horses, 11 goats, 24 sheep, one hog, 16 chickens, and one goose. The goats and sheep were kept within an enclosure, the horses were allowed to graze on the adjacent national forest land. The Bradshaw claim was located on steep land ranging in elevation from 3,600' a.s.l. to 4,200' above sea level. The claim was given a favorable evaluation in 1910. It is unclear why the claim never went to patent.
#13, Hazelton, George: T38S, R5E W.M., Sec. 6, 160 acres, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Hazelton lived on his claim only during the summer months, the rest of the year he lived with his niece and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. George Stannard of Phoenix, Oregon (the schoolteacher/principal couple), "who ha[d] a questionable squatter location," according to Samuel Swenning in his report on the status of the claim in 1911. 87
By the time of examination in 1910, the claim exhibited no evidence of cultivation, no farming implements, and no stock. The pasture was rented to the Stannards, who had an adjacent claim. Improvements on the Hazelton claim included a one-room log cabin
: 'T 3 2 I
f
r
f Pv if' t9J
Figure 5.21: Sketch map, #4, Bradshaw, 1910 (Medford BLM).
(built with unpeeled logs), a 14-foot-deep well, and some pole and brush fencing. Inside the cabin was a meager supply of household goods, a homemade bedstead, homemade chair, a slope-top writing desk, a sheet-iron stove, a lamp, a trunk, and a broom. Situated on level ground at 5,300' in elevation, the claim contained 4000 MBF of merchantable timber. Mr. Hazelton's claim was denied for lack of good faith, as was Mrs. Stannard's attempt to gain patent to the claim after her uncle, Mr. Hazelton, died in 1909.
#14. Johnson, Harley: T38S, R4E W.M., Sec. 10, 160 acres, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. 88
Assistant Ranger Myers examined this claim in 1908 and found it to be a bona fide claim. Someone later overrode that decision and denied the claim. Harley, the son of Ira Johnson who patented the adjacent 160 acres, was only 16 in 1908. Improvements on the Harley Johnson claim included a one-room log house and a log barn. Interior furnishing were not described. Mr. Harley Johnson had no tools of his own, but rather borrowed those of his father, Ira. Harley planted two-and-a-half acres in hay, but apparently no food crops for himself. The Harley Johnson claim was located on steep ground at 5,000' in elevation, the nearest source of water--Beaver Dam Creek--was two-tenths of a mile to the northwest, and contained 2000 MBF of merchantable timber.
#16, Kingsbury, Charles: T38S, R4E W.M., Sec. 20, 160 acres, Little Chinquapin Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. At the age of 77, Mr. Charles Kingsbury initiated a homestead entry in 1902, adjacent to that of his brother-in-law. His wife, Mrs. Cornelia Kingsbury, lived on her ranch seven miles southeast of Ashland. Together, between 1887 and 1896 the two had bought and sold property totaling over $27,000. From a financial perspective, Mr. Kingsbury hardly needed the free land. However, he did need some place to live, apart from Mrs. Kingsbury. One affiant, Aden Spencer, once asked Mr. Kingsbury what "an old man like you [was] doing in the mountains taking a homestead?" Mr. Kingsbury replied, "that when a man was kicked out he had to have a home somewhere." According to his affidavit of 1908, Mr. Kingsbury stated that he occasionally returned to Mrs. Kingsbury's ranch to work for her because she "[was] somewhat demented and [could] not get anybody to live with her...." When Mr. Kingsbury became seriously ill on his claim in 1909, his neighbors took him to where his wife lived, but he went under protest. When examined in 1907, Mr. Kingsbury's forest homestead "looked like a deserted sheepherder's camp." The one-room, earth-floored log cabin was very poorly built and contained just a few pieces of old clothing, fragments of old bedding, and a few old magazines and papers scattered about. The log barn was also very poorly constructed and dilapidated. Mr. Kingsbury kept one horse, and one summer he grazed 473 sheep-- without a grazing permit. Although no farming implements were found on the claim, it 89 appeared that Mr. Kingsbury had at one time cultivated hay and a 15' by 20' plot of rhubarb. The Kingsbury claim was rejected in 1908 for non-compliance with the homestead law, a decision contested by Mr. Kingsbury, then re-contested by his widow after his death. In 1913, Mrs. Kingsbury successfully gained patent to her late-husband's claim--and its 4000 MBF of timber.
#17, Palmerlee, Henry S.: T38S, R5E W.M., Sec. 6, 160 acres, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Ranger Gribble had a difficult time examining Mr. Palmerlee's claim in 1911. No one at the Cash Cooperative Store in Ashland, where Mr. Palmerlee worked, would cooperate in Ranger Gribble' s investigation. "Mr. Palmerlee himself seems to have an ill-feeling toward the Forest Service, and stated that he would not give [Gribble] any statement about his residence, etc." An anonymous letter writer in 1912 informed Ranger Gribble that Mr. Palmerlee "is doing lots of blowin round bout U and writin letters bout U & I like U so thot I wuld Rite U.. .he has the peple posted that he has worked for so tha wont tel on him. He had a stor in Minn. Took hiz claim a went rite bak stor keeping till the next spring." (The spelling is in the original.) Mr. Palmerlee essentially spent only the summer months on his homestead. Winter months were spent away--one winter so that he could work on his brother's dairy farm, one winter to visit his mother in Minnesota, and one winter to clerk at the aforementioned store in Ashland. At his forest 'summer home,' Mr. Palmerlee had a one-room, peeled log cabin, with a good lumber floor and interior walls neatly-lined with paper (Figure 5.22). Inside the cabin were two beds, six chairs, a cook stove, a homemade table, two cupboards, a washstand, and books and pictures--"well-furnished for a bachelor's den." Other improvements on the claim included an unpeeled-log woodshed, an unpeeled-log workshop, a log stable, an outhouse, and a 25-foot-deep well. The barn lot was enclosed by pole and rail fencing. The only spot of cultivation recorded was a 150-foot by 327-foot fenced enclosure with hay growing among the trees and stumps--83 trees and 120 stumps, to be precise. Mr. Gribble concluded in his examination report that although the buildings were substantial, and the fencing good, the 90 claim did not have the appearance of a permanent home. Mr. Gribble denied the claim, stating it was most valuable for its 4000 MBF of timber. After a protracted legal battle that generated voluminous amounts of paperwork, Mr. Palmerlee gained patent to his land in 1915. Why he later abandoned the claim is unknown.
Figure 5.22: Old cabin (left), cabin (center), barn (right), #17, Palmerlee, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
#24, Stratton, Percy C.: T38S, R3E W.M., Sec. 4, 160 acres, Robinson Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Stratton was the claimant whose residence on his claim was only 'spasmodical' according to Ranger Gribble. Percy Stratton was a single man when his claim was first examined in 1909. The Stratton claim had no source of water, was located at 4,700' in elevation on steep slopes, and contained 2000 MBF of timber. The Stratton cabin was a one-room 'box' cabin, with ceiling overhead and board floor underneath. Inside were three beds, two cupboards, two chairs, two benches, one 91
cooking stove, one table, cooking utensils, and a carpet on the floor. Two acres of land were sown to oats, although Mr. Stratton hard no farming tools on his claim. He did have one saddle horse, and a log barn for that horse, as well as barbed wire fencing. During the years of his forest homesteading, Mr. Stratton lived and worked in Ashland pruning orchards during the winter months, both because the snow was too deep on his claim and because orchard work paid very well. The 1909 forest examination report written by an assistant forest ranger concluded that the claim was made in good faith, was most suitable for agriculture, and had the appearance of a permanent home. The following year Mr. Gribble examined the claim and found it most valuable for its 2000 MBF of timber. Gribble recorded that the claim did not have the appearance of a permanent home, "was not fixed up as one would naturally build and prepare and
furnish.. .ahome.. .[and that] the meager amount and lax condition of the cultivation after five years of settlement d[id] not indicate that claimant ha[d] made or intend[ed] to make a home [original emphasis] of the claim."
#25, Terrill, Charles E.: T37S, R3E W.M., Sec. 2, 160 acres, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Terrill and his wife Effie actually lived some sixteen miles away in Brownsboro. The Terrill forest homestead claim, with an estimated 3000 MBF of timber on it, was situated on a steep north-aspect slope, at altitudes ranging from 3,000' to 4,000' in elevation. Mr. Terrill was a fanner and stockman--and later Jackson County Sherriff-- though no livestock were recorded at the time of the 1909 examination. (In previous years Mr. Terrill had grazed 40 head of cattle on the claim, with permit.) The Terrill claim cabin was constructed of unchinked logs, with a lean-to attached. Another structure, of cedar bark and logs, appeared to have been used as a barn. A small garden patch and "perhaps two to three shocks of hay" on one-third of an acre were enclosed by a log and brush fence. A picket fence surrounded the cabin. Within the cabin were an old bedstead, some blankets hung up to the rafters, and a cooking stove moved away from its flue and its stove-pipe taken down. The claim was denied in 1909 for lack of good faith. 92
#27, Watson, Daniel E.: T37S, R3E W.M., Sec. 32, 260 acres, Robinson Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Watson had roomed at a boarding house in Ashland for three years by the time his homestead was examined in 1910. On his claim, Mr. Watson had constructed an unpeeled-log cabin with an earthen floor, within which sat a stove and bed on wood blocks. Mr. Watson also had a chicken house for his two hens. Around his 30-foot by 67-foot garden was a half picket/half brush fence, around his cabin was a brush, log, and pole fence (Figure 5.23). Two other small patches of ground were "very poorly plowed
yqCtI flflViCr MAP SIEET iI' ' 138 C tr N1I
4 W T J7S R I
op Duiei £ WiijVoz
3°' p io9I 71
In a sart.f ,,pyd,aw
Figure 5.23: Detailed sketch map, #27, Watson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
up and sowed to oats, or planted to corn and potatoes." The Watson claim was situated at 4,500' in elevation, and his water supply was downhill from his cabin, at Soda Creek. 93
The claim was denied in 1910 for lack of good faith and found most valuable for its 3000 MBF of timber.
Butte Falls Group. #1, Albert, George H., Sr.: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 26, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. At the time of his forest homestead examination (1910), Mr. Albert still owed $15.00 to Mrs. Emma Fredenburg for locating him on this land four years earlier. This was really unfortunate for Mr. Albert, for not only did he not succeed in gaining patent his land, his cabin burned in the Dudley fire of 1910. Mr. Albert then found himself in the unenviable position of owing money for something which he no longer had. The one- room log cabin contained only a crudely constructed homemade bedstead and a burnt-out cast-iron and sheet iron stove. Mr. Albert's claim was denied in 1910 for its lack of good faith: he had cultivated only a small kitchen garden, lived in his ex-wife' s cabin on the adjacent claim, then moved to Butte Falls in June of 1907. According to the claim examiner, Mr. Albert "imagine[d] a while after the time has passed that he was at his claim a great deal or many times, when he really was not." The Albert claim had 4500 MBF of timber on it (prior to the Dudley fire).
#6, Clemens, David: T35S, R3E W.M., Sec. 12, 160 acres, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Clemens was an older fellow who settled in the northeast quarter of this section in the fall of 1903. He cleared 10 acres; planted a garden of 1.5 acres (about 14 acres were deemed suitable for tilling when cleared); built a cabin 16' X 24' of split lumber, with two windows (single sash and four lights) and one door (2'2" X 6'), valued at $100. He built a barn of split lumber, 16' X 26', valued at $50; a store house of split lumber, 10' X 12', valued at $25; a henhouse of shakes, 8' X 10', valued at $10; and one outhouse ('closet') of shakes, valued at $5. A two-strand, barbed-wire fence on "good cedar posts" surrounded the entire claim and was valued at $120. 94
Inside his cabin, Mr. Clemens had one bed, four chairs, one cook-stove, one cupboard, and cooking utensils. The only farm implements owned by Mr. Clemens included a shovel, an ax, a hoe, and other small tools. The homestead map drawn by Ranger Holst indicates Mr. Clemens' had a well, also. Mr. Clemens had no stock of his own, but rented his claim for grazing. Mr. Clemens was divorced, with a grown daughter living in Brownsboro. The homestead examination report of 1910 indicates that Mr. Clemens was old and in poor health, and he seems to have gotten a favorable recommendation because of this. Mr. Clemens gained patent to his land in 1912.
#7. Clevenger, S. Marion: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 26, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Clevenger, a single man of 40 at the time of his forest homestead examination in 1910, stated in his affidavit of proof that he settled on the land in 1907, prior to its official survey and inclusion within the bounds of the then-Crater National Forest. He was among 39+ people who filed 'squatter' claims in 'The Unsurveyed,' as T34S, R2E, W. M., was known to the locals. Mr. Clevenger filed for the northeast quarter of Section 26, never mind the fact that he had already owned a 160-acre timber claim. Mr. Clevenger's homestead examination report noted the following: he had a peeled-log cabin, well-chinked, about 14' X 16', with one door and two windows, valued at $50; one pole-and-log fence surrounding the .25-acre clearing in which his hipped-roof cabin was situated; a good supply of bedding, cooking utensils and dishes, a 'fair' cook- stove, a home-made bed and two chairs; an ax, grub hoe, sledge, common hoe and other implements; and though he had no domestic animals of his own, stock kept getting into his .25-acre garden--which was also beset by digger squirrels. Mr. Clevenger was away from his homestead a lot, working at a sawmill in Butte Falls, at the Blue Ledge Mine just over the border in California, and at various jobsin Medford. The homestead examination report of 1910 by Ranger John Gribble does not mention any spring enclosure, or pipes leading from the spring, or indeed, any sort of spring improvement at all. He also mentions Mr. Clevenger's trouble with marauding 95 stock, though he himself owned none. It is possible that this spring enclosure dates to the time of Mr. Clevenger, and it would have made sense for him to protect his water supply. This claim was allegedly filed for as an agricultural homestead within the bounds of the then-Crater National Forest--and indeed, a cabin was built--but only a quarter of an acre was actually cultivated. The real use of this claim more likely had something to do with the four million board feet of timber growing on it.
#11, Grover, Samuel F.: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 14/11, 120/40 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Grover was a naturopath and chiropractic specialist with an office in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Grover actually began his push for land in 'The Unsurveyed' in 1907, by writing to Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot from his home in Los Angeles, "my health is such that I require outdoor work.. .could I enter as a squatter on unsurveyed land?" Dr. Grover was aware that the land was about to be included within the boundaries of the forest reserve. In the following years Dr. Grover kept up a steady bombardment of communications from his practice in Portland--telegrams, night cables, letters written on his practice's letterhead, letters to the Forest Supervisor, letters to the Chief, letters from his D.C. lawyer Horace Stevens--so much so that one wonders how Dr. Grover was able to write the following words, "I am a professional man who had to give up my office and want to live on a homestead for the rest of my life;" and "I am a poor man and have no means to buy land." Eventually the Forest Service evaluation that the claim was not suitable for agriculture and that the claimant only wanted access to the 4000 MBF of timber was finally accepted.
#18, Pentz, Samuel: T34S, R3E W.M., Sec. 34, 160 acres, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Mr. Pentz was a lawyer who had lived in Medford for 15 to 20 years prior to his adventure in homesteading. Samuel Swenning's examination report in 1907 noted that the claimant had never actually settled on the land and recommended rejecting the claim. Two years later, Swenning had heard that the case had been decided in favor of Mr. Pentz 96 by the land office in Roseburg and posited that, if the decision were allowed to stand, other illegal claims would surely follow. There was no cultivation of the land on the Pentz claim, and the only improvements were a poorly constructed one-room cabin and log barn.
Powers, Floyd M.: T34S, R3E W.M., Sec. 34, 160 acres, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. In 1912, Mr. Powers filed for the same land that Mr. Pentz had claimed. (Pentz had finally lost his multi-year battle with the federal government.) Mr. Powers never actually made it far enough along in the homesteading process to have a homestead examination report (form 'six-five-five') filed on his behalf. His claim was found most valuable for its 3500 MBF of timber and denied.
Scott, William W.: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 24, 160 acres, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. In his examination report of 1910 Ranger Gribble wrote, "this claimant, as do a number of others, contends that he is entitled to 160 acres of land as a homestead, regardless of what the homestead laws require." Mr. Scott and his wife Elizabeth lived in Central Point in 1910, having retired from the farming life at the ages of 75 and 70, respectively. Mr. Scott kept busy working as an edger at a shingle mill in the vicinity of his homestead claim, as a budder and grafter in orchards near Central Point, and at various carpentry work. The Scott claim contained some 5000 MBF of timber on its steep, 3,000' -high slopes. There was no source of water on the claim itself, but Mr. Scott stated in his affidavit that he had planted a garden and some wheat, but cattle destroyed it. While at his claim, Mr. Scott spent most of his time trapping. In his log barn Gribble noted one hay bale, four deer hides, one bear hide, four skunk pelts, and two bags of horse feed. In the one-room log cabin Gribble recorded: several old boxes piled on the floor, two bundles of bedding, three old chairs, a lantern, some traps, a gun, a cooking stove and a heating stove, and a galvanized wash tub and washboard. The claim was denied. 97
Shaffer, Albert: T35S, R3E W.M., Sec. 24, 120 acres, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. "I believe this claim to be fraudulent, as it appears that he has only made a colorable compliance with the homestead law," Samuel Swenning wrote in 1910. The Shaffer cabin was a one-room unpeeled-log structure, the barn was poorly built, and only three acres were cultivated (in timothy hay and fruit trees). What the claim did have was 2000 MBF of timber.
Smith, Laura: T35S, R3E W.M., Sec. 33, 40 acres, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Miss Smith's homestead claim was one of the last to be examined under the June 11thAct, in 1930. Her claim was denied. In 1931, Laura, now Mrs. Pennington (she had been keeping house for her neighbor, Charlie Pennington, at the time of her homestead examination) wrote a scathing letter to the Regional Forester, C. J. Buck: I don't understand it.... I know men [original emphasis] around here in this section of the country never lived three months on their homesteads in three years. I know one man never stayed one night on his homestead. I know three men never stayed a dozen nights on their homesteads in three years but of course I am a Woman so therefore I get the worst end of the deal.. . .[I]f you want it I wish you good luck for I haven't the money to fight it.
Miss Smith's improvements consisted of a small house, a few square feet of garden, and two-and-one-half acres fenced with barbed wire.
Smith, Newton: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 3, 160 acres, Cascade Gorge 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. "Mr. Smith is a young man and ought to have been possessed of a better memory than that he exhibited.... His answers were vague, indefinite, and evasive.... The fact of the matter is, I believe, that he has made his real home at Mr. Dahack' s place," Land Examiner Erickson wrote in 1910. 98
Mr. Smith's improvements consisted of a log house, a log woodhouse, a cellar, and some picket fencing, pole fencing, and brush fencing (Figure 5.24). He cultivated a few square feet of ground with what appeared to be potatoes--nothing else. Mr. Smith had no livestock and his only farming implements were a pick, a mattock, and a saw. His cabin was outfitted with a homemade bed, a mattress, two chairs, a cooking stove and utensils, and some old clothes. The Smith claim was situated at 4,000' in elevation and covered with 3000 MBF of timber.
Figure 5.24: Buildings, and log and pole fence, #23, Smith, N., 1910 (Medford BLM).
#52, Neuber, George: T36S, R3E, Sec. 3, 160 acres, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Government Land Office patent records indicate that in 1924 Mr. Neuber, a Jacksonville saloonkeeper, gained patent to 120 acres of what had been Oregon & California Railroad land by cash-sale entry--meaning he bought the land at $2.50 per 99 acre. The following year Mr. Neuber patented an additional 40 acres in the same manner In 1928, Mr. Neuber sold his 160 acres to the Crater National Forest (HRC Item #H-8). This was the only documentary information available on Mr. Neuber. He is not listed in the Rogue River National Forest's homestead examination files, although his name does occur as a witness for claims in the Applegate group.
Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group. #2, Blass, George: T32S, R1W W.M., Sec. 24, 160 acres, Ragsdale Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. In his 1908 examination report, Ranger Gribble wrote that he "[did] not believe the claimant own[ed] anything worth speaking of. . . and the buildings [were] only the cheapest that could possibly be put up." Mr. Blass constructed a log cabin with a shake- covered shed roof, no floor, and only one door and one window (covered with a gunny sack). On the inside Gribble noted a small iron cooking stove with pipe, and one plate. Outside, there was a log pen--doors and windows were "not needed [because] the logs [were spaced] from eight to 20 inches apart." About one acre of land was fenced around the cabin and pen, about one-half an acre was slashed, but no acreage was actually under cultivation. Mr. Blass was something of a cipher. No background data--place of birth, marital status, occupation--was available. His homestead claim was located on the steep slopes above the West Branch of Elk Creek at 4,500' in elevation, where some 4000 MBF of timber were estimated to grow. The claim was denied.
#3. Borgen. Christian G.: T32S, R1W W.M., Sec. 28, 160 acres, Ragsdale Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. "I believe claimant could of [sic] had better improvements on the claim if he had tried," wrote Deputy Ranger Tungate on October 16, 1908. Seven months earlier Deputy Supervisor Swenning had written, "claimant has done a great deal of hard labor on this claim within the last year." The later examination report prevailed. On his claim, Mr. Borgen had constructed a one-room log cabin, a log barn, and a log storeroom. Within the cabin were a cooking stove, a small bed, a few chairs, and a "scant supply" of 100 cooking utensils. No farming implements were found and only two acreshad been cultivated--in garden truck, fruit trees, and hay (the latter for the twohorses Mr. Borgen maintained). Located at 3,500' in elevation, the Borgen claim contained 3000MBF of timber.
#8, Dickinson, William: T32S, R1E W.M., Sec. 2, 160 acres, SugarPine Creek 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. "The underbrush only has been cut, leaving all large trees standingand logs and snags scattering promiscuously about on the ground."So wrote Samuel Swenning in 1910. Swenning had passed by the claim once a year for five yearsand never noticed anything different from one year to the next. Mr. Dickinson had situatedhis unpeeled- log cabin--only partially floored--right at the confluence of two creeks. Thecabin had never had any sort of stove within it (no holehad been cut in the roof), nor had the door actually been hung (it was set against the cabin). No cultivation had everbeen attempted on the claim. Indeed, it appeared that Mr. Dickinsononly camped on his claim for a month or so at a time, spending most of his time in the area at a ranchthree-and-one-half miles away. Sam Swenning concluded that "the claim could only have beentaken for the purpose of obtaining title to the valuable timbercontained thereon." (The claim Mr. Dickinson desired contained some 5000 MBF of merchantable timber.) The claim was denied. 101
Chapter 6: Analysis of 'The Files'
Demographics Place of birth. All but two homesteaders in this study were born in the U.S., with most of them born in just three states: Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Most of the offspring of the married homesteaders had been born in Oregon, indicating at least a few years' residence in the state prior to staking their claim. The two foreign-born homesteaders in this study, Mr. Oleson and Mr. Lystig (Figure 6.1), were born in Sweden and Norway, respectively. Mr. Peterson, too, was likely born in one or other of the two Scandinavian countries. These three men, along with three other 'Norwegian Bachelor Farmers,' had all worked for the Weed Lumber Company, in Siskiyou County, California. All six signed on as witnesses for each other's homesteads.Lystig, Oleson, and Peterson all managed to gain patents for their claims.
Figure 6.1: Christian Lystig in front of his cabin, 1908 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 102
Occupation. No homestead was self-sufficient. One claimant, a Mr. Crappsey, remarked that "the government bet a man that he would starve to death in three years and that if he didn't the government gave him the land" (Rankin 1924:3). (This saying must have been common knowledge; in his book, A history of the public land policies, Benjamin Hibbard wrote that, "[t]he Homestead Act has been characterized as a wager in which the United States stakes a quarter-section of land that a man cannot live on it for five consecutive years" [Hibbard 1924:395].) Every claimant worked at occupations away from his or her claim, principally during the fall and winter months, to earn the cash necessary to create and maintain a forest homestead. (Fall and winter employment elsewhere also meant avoiding living in sub- standard housing during the worst weather-months of the year in the mountains.) Some worked locally as day laborers in the lumber, mining, ranching, or orchard industries. As mentioned above, the Scandinavians worked for the Weed Lumber Company. Many claimants worked seasonally for the Forest Service, building trails and roads into the Forest (Figure 6.1). Others, the professionals, maintained practices elsewhere and used their claims as summer homes. Dr. Emerson worked and lived in Central Point; Dr. Grover maintained a practice in Portland; Mr. Textor, a lawyer, worked at the Blue Ledge Mine; Mr. Pentz, also a lawyer, lived and worked in Medford; and Ada Stannard taught high school in Phoenix, where her late husband, George, had served as the principal. This pattern of summers on the forest homestead and winters working elsewhere was echoed half a continent away in the Huron National Forest's plan to develop subsistence homestead communities within or adjacent to the forest's boundaries during the Depression (meson 1934). According to meson's report, 75 per cent of the food requirements of the family could be met by crop production. The other 25 per cent--salt, flour, sugar, tea, and coffee--would have to be purchased. Money for such purchases would be earned by working for the Huron National Forest in some capacity at maximum of 200 days per year. This left one full month, from April 15 to May 15 for initial crop production; two days a week for crop production from May15thto September15th;and 24 out of 30 weeks of forest work during the winter months from September15thto April15th 103
Age. Overall, as displayed in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, homesteading appears to be an enterprise of the middle-aged. The tables display the mean and median ages for men and women in each group, public and private, by marital status. Included in thetables are the ages of the wives for all the married men in each group. In the public land group,the median age of all men at the time of homestead examination is 35 and the meanis 42. The median age of married men is 35, the mean is 47; and for single men, the median ageis 33, the mean 33. The age of the one woman in the field group is unknown. Among the patent land group, the mean age for all men is 39 and the mean is 40.5. For the married men in this group, 40 is the median and 42 the mean; while for the single or divorced men, 37 is the median and 38.5 the mean. The median age of all women in the patent land group is 37 and the mean 41. The two single or divorced women were 33 and 37, while the married woman was 53.
Table 6.1: Age and Marital Status, Public Group.
Men - Women Wives Status# Mean MedianStatus# Mean Median # Mean Median
M 11 47 35 M 11 49 36
S/D 12 33 33 S/D/W 1
UNK. 3 56.5 56.5 UNK.
Total 26 42 35 Total 1 - - 11 49 36
Table 6.2: Age and Marital status, Patent Group.
Men Women Wives Status# Mean MedianStatus# Mean Median # Mean Median
M 12 42 40 M 1 53 - 12 34 40 SID 9 38.5 37 SIDIW 2 35 - UNK. UNK.
Total 21 40.5 39 Total 3 41 37 12 34 40 104
Among all the men, a majority fall within the 30-49 age group no matter what their category, married or single, public or patent. However, two men, Harley Johnsonand Floyd Powers, did not even meet the minimum age standard of 21 years for homesteaders--Mr. Johnson was just 16 at the time that Assistant Forest Ranger Myers examined his homestead, and Mr. Powers just 20 at the time of filing. Powers, who applied for a tract of land previously rejected because of its unsuitability for growing anything but merchantable timber, actually moved out of the area before his homestead could be examined for compliance with the law. Johnson, however, at first received a favorable examination, but a later report recommended cancellation because he only lived on the claim five months a year and likely only wanted to secure title for the timber. (Oddly, nowhere in his homestead file is Mr. Johnson's age mentioned as the reason for rejecting his claim.) At the other end of the spectrum are the 'pensioner' homesteaders, men aged 70 and above. All three men of this age belong to the study's 'public' (or unsuccessful) group of homesteaders, perhaps indicating the difficulties of maintaining a forest homestead in one's later years. Mr. Scott, 75 years old, married, and the father of 10, was only semi-retired at the time of his claim; he worked as an edger at a portable shingle mill, as a carpenter, and as a budder and grafter in local orchards. Mr. Clemens, 78 years old,married and the father of one, was actually in considerably poor health at the time of his claim;he and his wife subsequently had to move in with their daughter in Brownsboro. And finally, Mr. Foster, age 81 and married, took up a claim that had been previously occupied as a squatter claim or homestead for at least 15 to 20 years.
Family. By arranging the filing and relinquishments among members of a family, a large area could be held under effective control at a minimum cost for an extended period of time (Clawson 1951). On the Crater National Forest, several different family names occur multiple times in the forest homestead files. The Mahoneys (Figure 6.2), the Spencers, the 105
Figure 6.2: Mahoney family, Butte Falls, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Joneses, the Johnsons, the Hawkses, the Tungates, the Grovers--fathers, sons, daughters, siblings, nieces, cousins--all seemed out to acquire as much land as possible. Wives were not allowed to file a claim, though Mary Alice Mahoney Albert Baker went to great lengths to subvert this provision in the homestead laws. The 1910 census lists Mary Alice as a widow living in the Butte Falls home of her parents, while her supposedly dead ex-husband lived two doors down as the boarder in a neighbor's house. 'The Enticeable' Mary Alice, as the first Mrs. Baker referred to her in her deposition (the second Mrs. Baker's homestead file is quite fat, filled with depositions and court documents created during a protracted legal battle with the Forest Service), made quite an impression riding a bicycle at the Butte Falls4thof July celebrations in 1911. Mary Alice owned a restaurant and hail in Butte Falls (Figure 6.3) and a home in Medford. She had come from Idaho just five years before, with her two young sons, after 'abandoning' her husband, Professor George W. H. Albert, who had sued for divorce. (Prof. Albert's area of scholarship is unknown.) Also moving to Oregon from Idaho in 1906 were the rest of the Mahoney family, Mary Alice's parents, Michael and Elizabeth; her sisters Gertie, Jennie, and 106
Allena; and her ex-husband, Professor Albert. From 1910 to 1914, everyone in the Mahoney family, excepting Mary Alice's mother (but including Prof. Albert), filed for homestead claims in 'The Unsurveyed' (T34S, R2E, W.M.), this despite the fact that both Mr. Mahoney and Prof. Albert had already exercised their homestead rights in Idaho.
Figure 6.3: Cottage (left), restaurant and hail (right) owned by Mrs. Baker, Butte Falls, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Indeed the entire family filed multiple times. Mr. Mahoney filed a second time on a claim after being rejected the first time; Gertie filed on two separate claims; Prof. Albert filed on two separate claims; and Jennie, the schoolteacher, filed on one of Prof. Albert's rejected claims. (Jennie had, in fact, sold her interest to the Rogue River Lumber Company prior to actually gaining title to the land; a mistake, as it turned out.) As for Mary Alice, she and her ex, Albert, filed for adjacent claims, she in the SW quarter of Sec. 23, he in the NW quarter of Sec. 26, both on the same side of Box Creek. In his deposition, Mr. Albert 107 admitted that he bought the provisions but Mary Alice prepared the meals, thus Mr. Albert could stand outside his front door in the morning and ask the ex-Mrs. Albert if the coffee were on (Figure 6.4).
Figure 6.4: Mr. Albert's cabin, left; ex-Mrs. Albert's cabin, right, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Gender. The lists of claimant names could lead one to believe homesteading was an almost exclusively male enterprise. However, this skew is caused in part by the provision in the homestead laws requiring the claimant be a head of household, which masks the presence of women--that is, the wives of the married claimants. Only single, divorced, or widowed women could be considered heads of household. In this study, while married men make up half of the male heads of household, there are only four female heads of household: one married woman, frene Willits, the postmistress of Persist in the homesteaders' hamlet of Elk Creek, who inherited her father's claim and did not actually file on her own behalf; one widow, Ada Stannard, a teacher who became the defacto claimant when her husband died (and who also attempted to claim the adjacent homestead of her late uncle); one single 108 woman, housekeeper Laura Smith; and one divorced (but later re-married) woman, Mary Alice Mahoney Albert Baker.
Marital status. In this study, the split between married men and single or divorced men is almost even: 23 of the former and 21 of the latter, leaving three men of unknown marital status. This same ratio holds true after dividing the study group into the two entities, 'public' and 'patent'. In the former, married men number 11 and single or divorced men number 12, with three of unknown status; in the latter, 12 men are married and nine single or divorced. Among the four women whose marital status was described above, only one falls in the field group, Laura Smith, while the other three belong in the patented group, Ada Stannard, Irene Willits, and Mary Alice Mahoney Albert Baker. In the aggregate then, women--their presence and their labors--occur at over half of the homestead claims
Women The contribution of women's economic power to the family's well-being cannot be understated. The wives of the married homesteaders frequently worked outside the home, principally in the fruit industry or as housekeepers, to provide the necessary cash income to sustain a family in a market economy. Among the women who homesteaded in their own name, all had income-producing work, as mentioned earlier. Widows were keenly vigilant about retaining their property rights after the deaths of their husbands--the 'official' homesteaders. Wives who did not work outside the home were frequently left behind to manage the homestead in the absence of their husbands who were seeking employment elsewhere. Within their homes, these women not only cooked and cleaned but sewed their families' clothing on their pedal-operated sewing machines Outside their homes, flowers gardens were planted--something not seen in bachelor households. (Picket fences, however, were not exclusive to female-occupied homesteads.)
Settlement In this section environmental factors will be analyzed, taking into consideration what kinds of factors may be determinant vis-a-vis successfully gaining patent (or not). Slope, 109 more than altitude or access to water seems to be key: more successful (patented claims)had habitation sites (as opposed to the entire 160-acre claim as a whole) located on fairly level ground. However, the estimated timber volumes on these homestead parcels also seems to be significant when applying for a claim. Tables in Appendix C illustrate for each geographical grouping, public land first, then private, the environmental factors for each forest homestead claim: number of acres, aspect, altitude, slope, access to water, and timber volume. Previous homesteading experience may also have influenced choice of land, location of habitation site, and the eventual outcome of the patenting process. One-third of the homestead applicants in this study had already had homesteading experience prior to their filing for entry on the Crater National Forest. Nine individuals in the patent land group had already patented other claims Messrs. Ash, Burton, Kiter, Moore, Peterson, and H. Spencer had acquired public land through cash- sale entry (i.e., they bought the land at $2.50 an acre); and Messrs. Edler and G. Jones had exercised their homestead rights--meaning they already had free public land. Mr. A. Jones, after successfully patenting his forest homestead in Jackson County in 1912, exercised his homestead rights again in Harney County in 1916. Nine individuals in the public land group also had already patented other claims: Messrs. Bradshaw, Clevenger, Kingsbury, Palmerlee, Textor, and Watson had all acquired public land through cash-sale entry. (Mr. Watson's Crater National Forest homestead entry was adjacent to his cash-sale entry.) Messrs. Dickinson and Foster had already exercised their homestead rights elsewhere in the state of Oregon, and Mr. Foster had also acquired, along with his wife, a Donation Land Claim in Benton County. Mr. Albert, after his unsuccessful attempt for a forest homestead in 1910, finally successfully gained patent in 1922 to a different claim.
Built Environment Numerous publications were available to aid the early20thcentury forest homesteader--i.e., the potential farmer. In his book entitled, The farmstead: the making of the rural home and the lay-out of the farm, Isaac Roberts (1900) limned helpful chapters on various topics such as "The farm as a source of income; locating the house; building the house--general lay-out;" a chapter entitled "the relation of the farmer to the lawyer" by the 110
Hon. DeForest VanVleet and two chapters by an efficiency expert, Prof. Mary Roberts Smith, "House Furnishing and Decoration" and "Cleanliness and Sanitation--Water Supply and Sewage." This section of the study describes more fully the principal type of material culture associated with this study: 'vernacular architecture,' or more broadly, the built environment, which would include the fences, gardens, outhouses, and so on, in the habitation areas of the homestead claims Here is where the issue of 'standard of living' comes into play, where the estimated 'values' documented in the examination reports are most useful. Numbers of structures, amount and type of household goods, presence or absence of farm implements and even livestock provide data useful for analysis of not only standards of living, but also amount of effort put into these respective claims. A comparison between the two groups, public and patent, indicates that folks successfully gaining patent constructed more buildings and more elaborate homes (i.e., framed structures rather than simple log cabins) more often than the unsuccessful claimants, and spent more money on improvements. (See tables in Appendix D.) Cabins constructed for successful patentees averaged $275 in value with a median value of $150 (multiply by 20 for today's values). Unsuccessful claimants tended to build a single structure, the log cabin, with an average value of $130 and median value of only $50. Perhaps the 'successful' forest homesteaders anticipated remuneration. Forest official Hugh Rankin wrote that, "[d]ue to high speculative values either originally paid or anticipated by holders of stumpage inside the Forest, exchanges with private owners [were] hard to make" (Rankin 1930:3). Everyone managed to build some sort of fence, usually pole & post, or rail or brush fencing (Figure 6.5). Picket fencing enclosed a few houses and their kitchen gardens. Outhouses rarely received mention in examination reports or sketch maps, perhaps because of delicacy on the part of the examiner; perhaps in acknowledgment that their location will change over time, so why record them; perhaps they simply weren't there. 111
Figure 6.5: Cabin, garden, and rail fence, #51, Willits, 1911 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
One aspect of temporary housing such as the single-room log cabin is the portability of that housing. Some log buildings can be disassembled and reassembled elsewhere, but even intact log or frame buildings can be taken apart and their components re-used. Faulkner (2004) has identified some distinctive patterning with respect to nails. A greater number of nails will be recovered at a framed cabin location; however, even log cabins will have been constructed with nails, since the shakes for the roof are affixed to pole purlins with nails. Varying frequencies of unaltered, pulled, and clenched nails tend to be indicative of, in the first instance, a building deteriorating in place and in the second and third instance, of a building having been moved. Although shovel-testing and archaeological excavation were not utilized in this study, future researchers may choose to follow Faulkner's example. It is also in this section in which the photographs of the homestead files become important, following Collier and Collier's (1986) cultural inventory and visual analysis methods. Greatly utilized in this study were the photographs included in some homestead examination reports generated by the Crater National Forest. Visual analysis of these photographs revealed patterns and associations not formally documented in the homestead examination forms. For example, the log cabins in the public group appear less substantially 112 constructed, less uniform, les permanent. Logs were left in the round, and frequently left unpeeled. The notching appears to have been double-saddle notching or square-notching, both of which retain water that will, over time, increase the rate of decay (Rock 1979). A European style of housing construction, horizontal log dwellings--with logs laid in a rectangle or square, one upon the other, notched at the corners--originated inScandinavia during the middle ages (Mercer 1976 [1924]). This type of housing construction was brought 17th to North America by Scandinavian immigrants to the Delaware Valley in the early century and became the typical 'pioneer' style of housing by the18thcentury; it continued in use throughout the19thcentury and even, as illustrated in this report, the early20thcentury.
Cabins. Most houses built on these homestead claims were log cabins or pole- framed with shake- or board-siding; most had pitched, cedar-shake roofs, either end-or front- gabled, with an overhang. A hipped roof was unusual (Figure 6.6).
Figure 6.6: Hipped roof log cabin, #7, Clevenger, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 113
Building a log house requires four to six men and maybe a horse or two for dragging felled logs, and perhaps a day or two of time (How to Build 1858). In the Butte Falls area, Ca. 1910, Mr. Fredenburg and a few neighbors made a decent living constructing logcabins for homesteaders in 'The Unsurveyed,' charging $50 per cabin. (Thirty-nine people filed for forest claims in 'The Unsurveyed' [Figure 6.7].) Mrs. Fredenburg supplemented the family income by charging half that amount to 'locate' homesteaders, i.e., locate land in the forest that may be available for settlement. Mrs. Fredenburg charged the same amount to Ranger Gribble when he traveled to the area to inspect claims--and also charged him room and board while in the area (HRC Item #L-28 1910).
-w t'tWA4P4t, PSI W4.Sbi SII&2 r5r; saArtJ Sr. ! .sn
Figure 6.7: The 'Unsurveyed,' Crater National Forest, 1930 (USDA FS, RR-SNIF). 114
Homesteaders in both the public land group and the private land group constructed log cabins more often than framed board cabins, with the former group almost exclusively using the horizontal log construction method. The six-five-five forms only intermittently described flooring--earth or wood--making the determination of foundations and flooring difficult. In photographs, many log cabins appear to have had their sill logs placed directly on the ground, which likely increased the rate of their decay. Among the private group, at least some log cabins appear to have been placed upon footings, bringing the sill logs off the ground. Because homestead photographs depicted only the exteriors of structures, the internal layout and arrangements can only be inferred. Cabins in each group were small, only one or two rooms in size. In these instances, social and family relations were by necessity communal in nature. In one- or two-room cabins, cooking, eating, and sleeping all had to take place within a limited area. Tables, chairs, beds, and cooking utensils were the principal items of household furnishings recorded in the homestead examination reports, as were both cooking stove and heating stoves. (Photographs depicting two-stove-pipe roofs were common.) Not only were these the principal household goods, these were frequently the only household goods. Items of leisure, such as books or musical instruments or phonographs, were seldom recorded in the six-five-five reports. When they were, they were recorded only for those claims within the patent land group. Sewing machines, too, were documented only in the examination reports of 'successful' homesteaders--and only in the households of married couples.
Outbuildings. If a second structure were built on a forest homestead claim, it was usually a barn and not, oddly enough, a privy. One is tempted to speculate about 'good faith' efforts for those homesteads lacking privies; however, homestead examiners may not have recorded privies because their locations changed over time (Rock 2006). As for barns, they were built even in the absence of livestock. In such cases, they appeared to have been used primarily for the storage of equipment. Henhouses, woodsheds, and smokehouses were the most common outbuildings constructed after barns and they appeared only slightly more frequently in the patented group than the public group 115
Fences. Almost without exception homesteaders enclosed their habitation areas with fencing--most typically rail fencing, pole and post fencing, log fencing, or the even more expedient brush fencing (Figure 6.8). This latter type of fencing, brush fencing, was used more frequently among the unsuccessful claimants than successful claimants. And finally, somewhat incongruous in a forested setting, many cabins and their nearby 'truck gardens' were enclosed by picket fencing.
Figure 6.8: Cabin and brush fence, #27, Watson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
Roads. Sketch maps included in some homestead examination files depicted already- existing roads in the vicinity of many claims--but others did not. Among the public land group, i.e., the unsuccessful group, several claims appear to have had no road access to the land itself. Some examination reports mentioned the claimants' roadbuilding efforts; others specifically mentioned a claim's inaccessibility--one determinant in the homestead assessment process. 116
Land Use There should be patterning in the locations of houses, and large samples arerequired to investigate these features (Asch 1975). Where thehomesteaders chose to put the habitation areas within their 160-acre claims will be examined in thissection, as will how they arranged their space. This section will rely heavily on the sketch mapsincluded in the homestead files due to the paltry lack of material remains. What mightbe termed 'yard proxemics' --i.e., the cultural use of space, and spatial arrangements--willprovide the major analytical tool. A second consideration is the cultural perception of the landitself, and how that affected the use of the land. Why indeed would these peoplethink they could farm at 4,500' above sea level on the steep slopes of a Douglas-fir forest? Orwhy would they believe they could convince the Forest Service that farming was their sinceredesire and interest? The photographs from the files will also prove instrumental, becausenothing illustrates better the phrases 'stump ranch,' 'squirrel ranch,' or 'grasshopperranch' (Figure 6.9).
Figure 6.9: Buildings, slashing, timber in distance, #49, Spencer, H., 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 117
For those homestead files with sketch maps--and not every file contained one--some small amounts of patterning can be determined. Cabins were portrayed in proximity to water sources, either creeks or springs; claims with wells had those structures situated behind the cabins among other outbuildings. If a road led into a claim, then the cabin would be situated closer to the road than the water source (Figure 6.10).
OMUhT trwGr MA SHEET
2
Figure 6.10: Sketch map, #40, Kiter, 1909 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
One clearing usually contained all of a claim's structures within its boundaries--the cabin, the barn, and the other outbuildings as well as the gardens. Some claims contained additional clearings at some distance from the habitation clearing. For those claims with multiple structures, the barn was always situated at a greater distance from the cabin than the 118 other outbuildings, such as woodsheds, chicken houses, privies, and wells. Additionally, the barns were placed at an obtuse angle from the cabin, while outbuildings tended to be directly behind cabins. (This last point is an assumption--the sketch maps do not contain the actual orientation of cabins.) For claims with road access, barns were sometimes situated across the road from the cabin, and sometimes not. The final observation concerns cultural perception of the land. Did any of these forest homesteaders attempt to turn forest land into farmland? The examination reports provided estimates of acreage cultivated (Appendix E)--usually one- to three-tenths of one per cent of the total acreage claimed. (Homesteading laws required 12.5 per cent.) Sketch maps indicate just how small an incursion these homesteaders made into the forest (Figure 6.11). Photographs reinforce that image. The land simply was not suitable for the
ED 'AES DIPAkIMEN r OF AGRICOLTURE Mp.r SHEET 3e tlent
avzGro,or
Figure 6.11: Sketch map, #11, Grover, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 119
plow, but rather the saw. Although trees were considered more valuable horizontal than vertical, they had to remain standing long enough for a homesteader to gain patent (some would-be patentees even tried selling their interest in the trees before gaining patent). One practice not recorded by forest officials was the practice of 'deadening,' the girdling of trees expressly to kill them and thence fell them--a practice easier than felling with an ax and common since the colonial period. 120
Chapter 7: Archaeological Results: 'The Field'
The following section details, by geographic group, the archaeological survey results of each forest homestead claim, whether positive or negative (six of the former, 21 of the latter). Additional results from the fieldwork conducted by the writer at the George Neuber site on the Medford Water Commission's land, is included in the Butte Falls group. As before, each claim is listed by its number, claimant name, legal description (township, range, and section), number of acres claimed, and 7.5' USGS quadrangle. Prefacing the detailed survey results for each claim are short descriptions of archaeological remains located (if any), the date of the archaeological survey, and the last name of the surveyor(s). Tables included in Appendix B present the field results by listing the artifacts and features recorded--first their descriptions (with estimated dates) and next their typologies (adapted from Sprague [1980]). Again as before, plotted map locations are included in Appendix F.
Public Land Apple gate Group. #5, Cimborski, Felix: T4OS, R2W W.M., Sec. 6, Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS quadrangle. Found: cabin remains and assorted artifacts. (Note: "Felix's Cabin" is a previously recorded BLM site [Appley and Gray 1999], Site #35HS1 1-441, Smithsonian #35JA81.) 10/24/2004, Lundgren and Shelnutt. The two-person survey team located the cabin remains and a very few artifacts associated with the Cimborski claim (Figure 7.1). This site had been recorded in 1999 (Applen and Gray) for the Medford BLM and designated 'Felix's Cabin,' Site #35HS1 1- 441, Smithsonian #35JA8 1. The survey for this project produced very similar results to the 1999 investigation, with a few additions as well as corrected locational data. The site is located in the southeast quarter of the section, with a southeast aspect, at 2,721' above sea level. 121
The cabin remains were located on a bench on an east-trending ridge leading down to Waters Gulch, tributary to Yale Creek thence to the Little Applegate River. The nearest water source is Felix Gulch, approximately 50 meters to the southeast, downslope of the cabin. Thick pine needles cover the site area, which is surrounded by not just ponderosa pine, but also Douglas-fir, madrone, and very tall manzanita. Overall dimensions of the peeled-log cabin are roughly 14 feet by 14 feet; the remains themselves consist of sill logs, shakes, and assorted timbers with square-notched corners.
Figure 7.1: Cabin remains, #5, Cimborski, 2004 (photograph by the author).
Found within the immediate vicinity of the cabin, scattered to the south and southwest, were one metal roasting pan with bail handles; one baking powder can; one four-shelf wooden shelving unit (Figure 7.2), with its back missing and red paint visible on the interior surfaces; one large, oval-shaped hole, approximately three-feet deep, function unknown though possibly a prospect hole; one 24-inch length of stove pipe, with a second piece, likely the top, having a square nut; and one ax-cut, high stump, 18 inches in diameter. Twenty meters southeast of the cabin a machine-made, brown glass beer bottle, embossed "40R" at its base, was located; while at 20 meters to the southeast, one coffee can and three hole-in-cap, greater than four-inch-high (i.e., pre-1931) evaporated milk cans were located. 122
Figure 7.2: Shelving unit, #5, Cimborski, 2004 (photograph by the author).
Dixon, Frank A.: T39S, R4W W.M., Sec. 30, Tallowbox Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: nothing associated with the forest homestead. 10/21/2004, Lundgren. Although the claim was located, no signs of the forest homestead remained. Ground-covering vegetation such as grasses (including beargrass), blackberry, Oregon grape, and current reduced visibility. A few post-1930s cans were noted, but not enough to constitute a site, nor were they of the appropriate time period. A nickel-plated (assumed) stove part proved interesting, but inconclusive. Modern-day logging detritus lay scattered about the area: assorted plastic bottles, a tool box, chains, hand-saw, and one car battery. Numerous roads cut across the area's more level sections, but which, if any, were the original homestead road was not possible to determine.
Foster, Robert R.: T38S, R3W W.M., Sec. 10, Mt. Isabelle 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: nothing related to the claim. 8/20/2004, Lundgren and Shelnutt. Although no topographic map was available at the time of visit (and the BLM road map had no contours) this claim's 1916 report map had plenty of contours and 123 information to lead the author and Shelnutt to believe they were in the right place, but they saw no signs of homesteading, only indications of past logging activity. Very little level ground was encountered.
#12, Hall, George ('Deafy'): T4OS, R2W W.M., Sec. 10, Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS Quadrangle, and #15, Kenney, Christian J.: T4OS, R2W W.M., Sec. 10, Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: irrigation ditch, possible dump/cabin location (Hall); reconstructed cabin, paint can dump, diversion dam on Yale Creek (Kenney). (Note: "Kenney Cabin" is a previously recorded BLM site [Kelly 1999], Site #35HS1 1-13.) 10/24/2004, Lundgren and Shelnutt. These two claims are treated together because the original claims overlapped each other; Mr. Kenney's 35 acres lay within what had been Mr. Hall's 160 acres. Artifacts and features likely associated with the Hall claim include an irrigation ditch and a possible dump site or cabin location. Located on the Kenney claim is a 1970s reconstructed cabin (Figure 7.3), a ca. 1950s (?) paint-type can dump, and a diversion dam on Yale Creek.
Figure 7.3: Reconstructed cabin, #15, Kenney, 2004 (photograph by the author). 124
The irrigation ditch of the Hall forest homestead is located in the northeast corner of the claim, at the upper edge of the grassy meadow, just inside the rail fence that surrounds what is now the Medford BLM's Kenney Meadows Recreation Area. (The fence is ineffective in keeping out grazing cattle.) The ditch is greatly eroded, its edges softened and grassy. The possible dump site in the meadow (which perhaps is the location of the 'old [Hall] cabin' [Figure 7.4]) consists of broken bits of crockery and glass, such as salt-glazed, earthenware crocks; porcelain teacups; blue-on-white transfer print and 'flow blue' dishware; stoneware; and brick fragments. Glass artifacts included mason jars and medicinal bottles (in colors of 'aqua,' solarized-amethyst, olive green, 'milk glass,' and clear). Both glass and ceramic artifacts exhibited effects of fire, being either melted or heat-crazed, respectively. This artifact concentration is located on level ground, possibly a 'cabin flat.' A spring, Sulphur Spring, is located just one-quarter mile to the northwest; Yale Creek is a short distance to the west.
Figure 7.4: Overview, #12, Hall, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF).
A ca. 1950s (?) concrete diversion dam (Figure 7.5) was located on Yale Creek, downslope and across Yale Creek Road from the reconstructed cabin of the Kenney claim. No boards for diverting water remained, and the water flowed freely. No ditch system to or from the dam was noted, either. On the same side of the road as the cabin, 70 meters to the southeast, is a recent can dump: two 1-gallon paint cans, two ½-gallon paint cans, one galvanized 1-gallon bucket, and a nested smaller can inside a 2-pound 125 coffee can inside a 1-gallon paint can. These cans may be associated with reconstruction period (1978) of the cabin or may simply be the result of road-side dumping frequently seen throughout forested areas.
Figure 7.5: Diversion dam on Yale Creek, #15, Kenney, 2004 (photograph by the author).
#26, Textor, Clinton: T4OS, R3W W.M., Sec. 12, Squaw Lakes and Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS Quadrangles. Found: no signs of habitation or cultivation. 8/20/2004, Lundgren and Shelnutt. The two surveyors were certain of the location, but it appears that today's Forest Road 20 cuts through the level area north of Beaver Creek that may have contained Mr. Textor's improvements. Various logging roads of the recent past cut throughout the remainder of the claim, which is quite steep. Neither Lundgren nor Shelnutt could discern any fruit trees among the conifers, and cattle now graze throughout the claim.
Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group. #4, Bradshaw, Ready H.: T37S, R3E W.M., Sec. 2, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle, and #25, Terrill. Charles E.: T37S, R3E W.M., Sec. 2, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. 126
Found: cast-iron parlor stove (Terrill). 9/8/2004 and 11/26/2004, Lundgren, 10/10/2005, Lundgren and Shelnutt. The Bradshaw and Terrill forest homestead claims are treated together because the claims are adjacent to each other; the habitation area for each is in proximity to the other; and they were both surveyed on the same days, twice in the fall of 2004 and once in the fall of 2005. They were also both documented and evaluated in 1982 (Lavagnino and LaLande), although erroneously identified. While Forest Service archaeological surveyor Lavagnino designated Site RR-630 as the Milo Conley Homestead Site andSite RR-63 1 as the Charles Terrill Homestead Site, they are actually the Terrill and Bradshaw sites, respectively. (Perhaps Lavagnino was unaware of the Bradshaw homestead file because it was housed at the Medford BLM.) The Forest Archaeologist evaluated Site RR-63 1 at the time and found it potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The Milo Conley homestead claim was patented in 1910, and the land is now owned by a private individual. The correct appellations will be used throughout this paper. As documented in 1982, the Terrill site consisted of the remains of a 12-foot by 15-foot log cabin, of which only the southeast corner remained intact above three feet in height (Figure 7.6). Lavagnino also noted a cleared area, possibly a garden plot or
Figure 7.6: Cabin remains, #25, Terrill, 1982 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). 127 pasture, surrounded in part by segments of a picket fence, tree stumps, and notched trees. Portions of a cast-iron cook-stove were found downslope to the north of the cabin; few other artifacts were seen. On Lavagnino's sketch map--very similar to those found in the respective forest homestead files--is depicted a picket fence at the edge of a wet meadow, a stream and another meadow, and the cabin itself. Photographs depict what appear to be square notching at the corners of the peeled-log cabin, as well a flattened bail-handled coffee pot, and the greatly deteriorated picket fence. There is are no photographs or further descriptions of the cast-iron cookstove. Lavagnino estimated natural deterioration as the sole affect on the site's condition; at the time, logging no closer than 100 feet had occurred. At the Bradshaw site, Lavagnino noted three structures: a collapsed main cabin, a cabin site (no standing evidence remains), and a collapsed outbuilding The main cabin was described as approximately 18 feet by 20 feet, but that other structural dimensions were indeterminable. Photographs depict square notching at the corners of the peeled-log cabin, while both the second cabin and the outbuilding at the southern edge of the site appear as vaguely structural-shaped scatters of boards. Lavagnino also described a split- cedar rail fence; a stacked-rock formation, possibly a wall or foundation; and a diffuse scatter of early20thcentury artifacts such as stove parts, glass, ceramic and metal food container fragments. The can scatter appears to be approximately three feet in diameter and composed of mostly pre-1930 solder-vent food and evaporated milk cans, as well as two brown glass, threaded-top bottles. A cast-iron stove, which appears to have been dismantled piece by piece, is embossed with, "Home Garland, 1889, No. 2-10." (The decorative garland motif can be perceived in the photographs [Figure 7.7].) This project's field researchers recorded quite a bit less than did Lavagnino twenty-plus years ago. No signs of any cabin remains could be found, nor picket fencing. Even more perplexing was the complete visible absence of the can scatter or the Home Garland stove parts. The stack of vesicular basalt rocks was located at the edge of an old road, but appeared to be less a wall or foundation than the placement of rocks at the side of the road that otherwise would have been in the road. The two surveyors combed the entire area, from north to south, up slope and down, east to west. The environmental 128
Figure 7.7: 'Stove parts," #25, Terrill, 1982 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). features remained--the streams running north down through the meadows and thence to the North Fork of Little Butte Creek, the open areas and meadows--as did some fencing. The fencing, however, was of the post and barbed-wire variety, not rail or picket. What was recorded by the writer and Shelnutt was a cast-iron parlor stove (Figure 7.8) about two meters west of the vaguely north-flowing unnamed creek, which appears to be in the vicinity of what Lavagnino's sketch map identified as the 'Conley' cabin, although actually on the Tern!! claim. This could be the cast-iron 'cookstove' that Lavagnino recorded lying north from the cabin. (No amount of pedestrian survey south of the stove produced any evidence of that cabin.) The cast-iron stove is embossed on the side, "Bridge Beach & Co./ST. LOUIS/No. 20." Bunches of grapes decorate the side with the stove name, while acanthus leaves and other decorative elements adorn the front. The altitude at this location is 3,560' a.s.!., the slopes less than 10 percent, and the aspect north. Toward the south, the slopes rise rather steeply, at greater than 30 percent. Two unnamed feeder streams to the North Fork of Little Butte Creek flow 129
Figure 7.8: Bridge Beach & Co. cast-iron stove (scale at two feet), #25, Terrill, 2004 (photograph by the author). northward through the area, and one wet meadow lies near the Forest's boundary. Each field visit the author and Shelnutt encountered grazing cattle and deer hunters.
#13, Hazelton, George: T38S, R5E W.M., Sec. 6, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: no indication of homesteading. 10/28/2004 and 11/5/2004, Lundgren. It would appear that the house and water well depicted on the examination report map are roughly situated at the location of the present junction of Forest Service Road 820 (the now-scarified road junction). The author meandered over the entire claim, even going to the Pacific Crest Trail along the eastern edge, and came back west, but found nothing. The area is fairly level, rocky, has an assortment of pines and firs, and displays some indication of past logging activities: piles of slash, dirt moved hither and yon, tree planting and seeding [natural regeneration?], large-diameter stumps, fire [prescribed?], and roads criss-crossing all over. Vegetation includes pine-mat manzanita and ceanothus. 130
#14. Johnson, Harley: T38S, R4E W.M., Sec. 10, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: no possible indications of the location of a cabin. 11/5/2004 and 11/28/2004, Lundgren. The 1908 map drawn by Assistant Forest Ranger Myers depicts Mr. Johnson's cabin and barn in the far northwest of his claim, but slopes here are greater than 30 per cent and this surveyor saw no possible place for a cabin to be located. The USGS topographic quadrangle depicts extremely steep slopes at this part of the quarter-section (and most of the rest), while a knob with a high point of 5,130' a.s.l. dominates at least one-fourth of the quarter-section at its eastern edge. What is located here are several old, quite rocky, logging roads. Some trees are scarred by logging, and some stumps along Forest Service Road 2520 appear to have been burned.
Kingsbury, Charles: T38S, R4E W.M., Sec. 20, Little Chinquapin Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: remnants of post-i 950s (?) electric fencing, but nothing associated with the forest homestead. 10/28/2004 Lundgren. Only the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of this claim was accessible, the rest of the land is under private ownership. The area is level, but rocky, and now a ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir plantation, with trees approximately 20 years old. There is evidence of a great deal of earth movement, no doubt due to scarification prior to the planting of trees.
Palmerlee, Henry S.: T38S, R5E W.M., Sec. 6, Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: a single pre-i920s food can, with soldered side-seams (not formally recorded).i 1/5/2004 and 11/28/2004, Lundgren. This area is relatively level, with several old logging roads cutting through it. Three Ca. i950s-60s 'soft-top' beer/soda cans (found just off Dead Indian Memorial Road) were noticed, but not recorded. Dead Indian Memorial Road is likely the 'wagon 131 road' referred to in the examination report. The author noted several fairly high stumps, possibly ax-cut, though it was difficult to determine because of decay.
#24, Stratton, Percy C.: T38S, R3E W.M., Sec. 4, Robinson Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: no indication of cabin, barn, or fields. 8/6/2004, Lundgren and Shelnutt. Lundgren and Shelnutt felt certain they were in the right location, but found nothing aside from indications of past logging and road-building activities. The cabin, barn, and fields seem to have been obliterated a long time previously by those same logging and road-building activities.
#27. Watson. Daniel E.: T37S, R3E W.M., Sec. 32, Robinson Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: nothing but a view similar to that depicted in the 1910 examination photograph.8/6/2004, Lundgren and Shelnutt. Again, based on historical map data, the author and Shelnutt were certain they had arrived in the appropriate place, and searched all possible areas within the legal description that fit Ranger Gribble's hand-drawn map, but it appears the likeliest scenario is that the present BLM roads have obscured or obliterated any remaining traces of the homestead. It is possible that someday someone may come across a bit of window glass in the tall grasses, but the surveyors did not.
Butte Falls Group. #1, Albert. George H.. Sr.: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 26, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: nothing 11/22/2004 and 11/23/2004, Lundgren. The examination report for this claim had no map and not much in the way of written description, so on the first day the author checked various level areas on ridge tops within the quarter-section of the claim. The second day was only slightly more directed. The file of Mr. Albert's ex-wife, Mary Alice Mahoney Albert Baker, contained 132 a photograph displaying both cabins on the north side of Box Creek.Slopes down to the creek from the south side exceeded 80 per cent, while the slopes on the opposite side of the canyon appeared to be similarly treacherous. (The latter approach would have required permission from the current landowner, Superior Lumber Company.) Attempting to make her way down to the creek, the author got within audible distance of the creek but was unable to continue further, being constrained not only by the steep slopes but also by the thick riparian vegetation that only increased nearer the creek. Numerous 'cat' roads (i.e., logging roads created by 'caterpillar' tractors) and logging detritus scarred the private side (north side) of the area marked by timber cutting boundary signs. Vegetation included madrone, Douglas-fir, cedar, oceanspray, Oregon grape, blackberry, and various grasses.
#6, Clemens, David: T35S, R3E W.M., Sec. 12, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: stove 'parts' and cans. (Note: an Oregon site record was written by Lundgren and submitted to the Medford BLM. The 'site' is actually a handful of artifacts, a cleared area, and an old road--all that remains of the David Clemens homestead.) 11/11/2004, Lundgren. Artifacts from two locations were located on this timbered quarter-section. The stove parts were located in a broad, open, level area--likely the habitation area of the Clemens homestead--covered with a very thick ponderosa pine needles, bark, duff, moss, and the occasional patch of kinnickinnick. This opening in the canopy is about 15 meters in diameter, with a slope of 10 per cent. The can scatter, approximately 200 meters to the southwest, was located just north of the old wagon road from Butte Falls that entered the homestead from the west side. The cans were spread out to the south across an area 40 meters in length. The artifacts noted included two doors from anearly20ticentury cookingrange, made of cast-iron, with a decorative floral motif (possibly morning glories [Figure 7.9]). The doors are 14" long and 12" wide on the hinged side, and 1/8" thick. Also found at this location was one sanitary food can. About 200 meters to the southwest were eight 133 cans spread out across a 40-meter area; the first can waslocated just north of the road depicted in the Hoist 1910 examination map, the next 20 meters to the southeast, one
Figure 7.9: Cast-iron stove doors, scale at six inches, #6, Clemens, 2004 (photograph by the author).
more five meters south, then five more another 12 meterssoutheast. The cans included two greater-than 4"-high (pre-1931) milk cans, three sanitary food cans, andthree hole- in-cap food cans.
#7, Clevenger. S. Marion: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 26, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: spring enclosure. (Note: an Oregon site record was written by Lundgren and submitted to the Medford BLM. The term 'site' is actually overstatement, although the spring enclosure is very clearly on what had been S. Marion Clevenger's homestead.) 8/26/2004, Lundgren and LaLande. The two surveyors located the remains of a spring enclosure at the Fredenburg Spring, located near the top of a drainage leading westward down to Box Creek, itself a tributary to Big Butte Creek. Downhill from the spring's outlet is a pumper 'show' (i.e., current water impoundment for fire pumper trucks), where firefighting tanker trucks are 134 loaded. Throughout this high-elevation area--4,040' a.s.l. at the spring--is evidence of 1960s-era logging: cable-scarred trees used in skyline logging as well as various skid roads from tractor logging. The 'spring enclosure' consists of an upright post with round nails and a board placed across the flow of water (Figure 7.10). The post is an ax-cut, peeled log; #9-gauge galvanized wire is wrapped around and extends outward from the post. Diameter of the post is 6 ½", height is 3'6". The surrounding area is vegetated by Douglas-fir, cedar, vine maple, and Oregon grape.
Figure 7.10: Spring enclosure, #7, Clevenger, 2004 (photograph by the author).
#11, Grover, Samuel F.: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 14/11, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: one cedar stump. 8/26/2004, Lundgren and LaLande. The two surveyors were fairly certain they had arrived at the right place, camouflaged as it was by the recent obliteration and subsequent planting of the BLM roads. The cedar stump, approximately 12 inches in diameter, could have dated to the time of the claim (flat top, no bevel--indicating the use of a 'misery whip', the two- person hand-saw). The stump was not formally recorded. Thick ground coverobscured 135 soil visibility in most areas, but absolutely no historic debris of any kind was found in the scattered patches of bare mineral soil.
#18, Pentz, Samuel: T34S, R3E W.M., Sec. 34, Big Butte Springs7.5' USGS Quadrangle, and #19, Powers. Floyd M.: T34S, R3E W.M., Sec. 34, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGSQuadrangle. Found: the correct area, but no indications of past homesteading activity. 11/12/2004, Lundgren, These two homestead claims are treated together because both gentlemen filed for exactly the same piece of land. The author approached the bend in the road where the examination report drawing indicated the homestead improvements lay (Figure7.11).It
r I Jf J
a/fib.',
Figure7.11:Sketch map, #19,Powers, 1912 (Medford BLM). 136 appears the creek and the road location differ today from approximately 100 years ago. The creek channel (no water flowed through Friese Creek and doubtful will again--too much vegetation and post-1970s logging detritus clogs the stream channel) bottom is filled with bleached stumps, logs, and branches. In spots, thick riparian vegetation takes over. Upslope, to the west, new plantings have taken hold. Lundgren walked all across the area several times, but found nothing more than one soft-top beer/soda can.
Scott, William W.: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 24, Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: nothing associated with the claim. 9/7/2004, 10/18/2004, and 11/17/2004, Lundgren. Mr. Scott's forest homestead file contained little locational information of use. Ranger Gribble' s examination report indicated that the Mr. Scott's cabin and clearing, as well as a second clearing, was in the eastern half of the northwest quarter of the section, likely in the southeast corner. The archaeological survey attempts started from both the south and north, through very hummocky, rocky, densely vegetated areas, covered with Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, big-leaf maple, vine maple, madrone, cedar, and low- growing blackberry. The northern approach took the author through a re-forestation project, characterized by rocky 'cat roads,' a log landing, and slash piles. The mid- portion of the survey area had also been the recipient of logging activity, so much so that with its attendant earth-moving nothing associated with a forest homestead claim could be found. Soil-visibility within both creek drainages, where some fairly level areas occur, was extremely poor, largely due to leaf litter.
Shaffer, Albert: T35S, R3E W.M., Sec. 24, Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: only signs of past logging activity. 11/8/2004 and 11/9/2004, Lundgren. The survey of Mr. Shaffer' s forest homestead claim was completely undirected by the claim file and depended more upon the Rogue River National Forest's Inventory Strategy (LaLande 2000). No sketch map, no helpful hints in the text of the examination report provided any clues as to where Mr. Shaffer' s habitation area might be. (And one 137 day was [mis]spent driving to the wrong area, the author having been misdirected by a road map.) The entire 120 acres of this claim is fairly level, and is bisected by a creek- or streambed. No water flowed through the very subtle drainage of the eastern part of the claim. The author surveyed back and forth across the Shaffer claim within a 200-foot swath of the creek, and located plenty of indication of past logging activity--stumps, landings, chains, and oil cans--but nothing of the forest homestead itself.
Smith, Laura: T35S, R3E W.M., Sec. 33, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: the spring and railroad-logging grade mentioned in the examination report. 8/9/2004 Lundgren. The examination report of this forest homestead claim mentioned a spring and railroad grade in the southwest corner of the claim, which were found, but no signs of the claim's habitation area--no rotting boards, no rusting stove pipe, no dump scatter, no crockery or cans, no barbed wire--were located. The Smith cabin was supposed to be located near the spring. The survey area contained numerous level areas, numerous signs of post-1925 logging activity, and possibly an old road.
Smith, Newton: T34S, R2E W.M., Sec. 3, Cascade Gorge 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: no hint of a forest homestead. 11/2/2004, Lundgren. Mr. Smith's forest homestead claim was difficult to locate, in large part because of the numerous roads snaking through the area, each without an identifying sign. Also, few locational clues were provided in the text of the 1910 examination report, leaving 160 acres to search. The photographs in the report depict the Smith cabin in a fairly level area, so the author concentrated on searching similar-looking level areas. The photographs also depict a spring enclosure on a gentle slope. However, the topographic map reveals no indication of a spring. On the day of survey, the search for the Smith cabin first went north and then west from the end of the road on the fairly broad, level ridge, then returned to the bowl- like area at the head of a draw just below and west of the road. Finally, the author walked south down the road to where the road turns southwest, then walked northeast up 138 the first-mentioned broad, level ridge until encountering the Forest Service boundary on the east side of Section 3. Very poor soil visibility was noted throughout the surveyed area. Ground surface was obscured by grasses, mosses, bracken fern, and leaves from deciduous trees. Also noted were Douglas-fir, cedar, Oregon grape, and white pine. Some large-diameter stumps, 40 to 60 inches in diameter, indicate past logging activities. More recently, there appears to have been some thinning of small-diameter trees, with no piling or burningof slash.
#52, Neuber, George: T365, R3E, Sec. 3, Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: structural remains and dump. (Note: the Neuber site was previously recorded for the Rogue River National Forest [Rooney 2003], Site #RR-1753, and evaluated by the Forest Archaeologist as potentially eligible to the National Register under criterion 'd' [LaLande 2006].) 3/10/2005, 3/11/2005, and 3/12/2005, Lundgren. Mr. Neuber situated his forest homestead claim on land located just south of present-day Willow Lake (built in 1953) on what is now city of Medford Water Commission (MWC) lands, lands in the Big Butte Springs watershed adjacent to the Rogue River National Forest and for which personnel of the Forest plan and administer various timber-management and fuels-reduction projects. As part of the Forest's NHPA Section 106 compliance responsibility, comprehensive and systematic cultural resource inventory surveys were conducted for these projects over the course of several years, from 2000 to 2007. The Neuber site was located and recorded in 2003. Through special permission granted by Bob Jones, geologist and field manager of the MWC, the writer was able to revisit the site in order to record more data, with the understanding that no excavation and no artifact collection take place. The site is located south of the middle cove of Willow Lake, approximately 200 meters up an unmarked spur trail created by the repeated visits to the area that occurred during the various timber- and fuels-related projects. This is unfortunate, because this spur trail leads directly up from Willow Lake, providing easy access to the site for 139 boaters and other recreationists. Several bottles recorded by Rooney were not located by Lundgren. The Neuber site consists of two collapsed wooden structures and a nearby can- and-bottle dump. Structure #1 is a mostly-collapsed peeled-log cabin, its northeast corner still partially standing. Structure #2, a barn or shed, totally collapsed, was also likely of simple log construction. The dump is approximately 13 meters in maximum diameter, with a core concentration three meters in diameter, and is located about 70 meters to the northeast of the two structures. The entire north-aspect site lies on fairly gentle slopes (less than ten per cent) at an elevation of 3,150' on a north-trending ridge sandwiched between Bieberstedt Creek on the west and Willow Creek on the east. (Both creeks now feed the impoundment that is the Willow Lake reservoir.) Mr. Neuber's cabin and dump are located within a stand of mature second-growth mixed conifers. The cabin is approximately 20' X 30', constructed of peeled-logs with square notches reinforced by wire nails (Figure 7.12). The cabin's front-gable roof was
Figure 7.12: Structure #1 remains, #52, Neuber, 2005 (photograph by the author). 140 constructed of notched log purlins clad with sugar pine shakes. The purlins extend ten feet past the front door on the east side of the cabin, forming a covered entrance. The cabin had two windows, one on the west side and one on the northeast. Amidst the collapsed roof are rectangular fragments of galvanized stovejack, 14" X 18", with a center hole of nine inches, used to surround the stove-pipe. The cabin's sill logs appeared to have been placed directly on the ground. Some dimensioned lumber with shakes attached, likely used for the exterior of the cabin, were noted, as were boards nailed into chinks on the interior of the cabin. Nails used on the cedar shakes and the boards all appear to have been wire nails. Two 20" diameter-breast-height Douglas-firs now grow adjacent to the exterior of the cabin's north wall. Within the immediate area surrounding the cabin, nine clear or 'Coke-bottle green' glass bottle fragments were recorded, likely post-1950s 'pop' bottles, with crown tops and embossing at bases such as, "NET CONTENTS" or "OZ" left there by fisherman. However, not far away were four 1-gallon, bail-handled paint-type cans (possibly lard cans dating to the Neuber claim). About 15 meters southwest of the cabin is the collapsed outbuilding, likely either a shed or barn. Greatly deteriorated, one can detect two sill logs on the east side and one sill log on the west, and possibly a sill log on the north side (Figure 7.13). Wooden plank remnants indicate the possibility of a wood floor for this 14' X 27' structure. The dump, 70 meters northeast of the structures, is about 13 meters in maximum diameter, as mentioned above and has no real depth. The dump's contents are concentrated in a three-meter-diameter area (Figure 7.14). The dump consists primarily of cans (at least 257 cans), with a much smaller number of glass bottle fragments and ceramic dishware represented. By far the majority of cans included vertical pocket tobacco tins (65), food cans (65), and evaporated milk cans (92), plus coffee (9), syrup (5), baking powder (2), and cocoa (1). Most cans were so badly rusted that their lithographs were illegible, although the "GHIRARDELLI' S CHOCOLATE" lithograph was quite clear. The shape of Log Cabin syrup cans provided for their identification more than did their rusty lithographs. One can lid contained the following embossed words, "Pacific Coast Syrup CO/PRY OUT/FRONT LUGS/AND LIFT." 141
Figure 7.13: Structure #2 remains, #52, Neuber, 2005 (photograph by the author).
Figure 7.14: Dump feature concentration, #52, Neuber, 2005 (photograph by the author). 142
Half the evaporated milk cans were of the hole-in-cap variety and half solder- vent, with hand-soldered side seams. The milk cans were all opened with punched holes. Ninety of the 92 milk cans were four and three-eighths inches in height, two were two and one-half inches in height. Most of the food cans were sanitary-style, opened with knife punches or bayonet-style can openers. Most bottle fragments were either clear or 'aqua' glass, and the top finishes that remained were either crown tops or exterior, single- threaded tops. Rooney also recorded a number of (>six) clear glass bottles embossed, "Lea & Perrins Worcestershire Sauce," and "French's Mustard." The Lea & Perrins bottles retained their glass stoppers. Lundgren recorded one 'Lea & Perrins' aqua bottle in three fragments, its finish a crown top with a bead just below, and on the bottom of its base a valve mark and an embossed illinois Glass Company trademark (an 'I' within a diamond). Discussion: The lack of depth to the dump indicates a season or two of use, but little more than that. The mix of greater- and less-than four inches in height milk cans (admittedly, with this site, the emphasis is on the former) indicates a temporal span of 1920s-1930s (Bitting 1937; Bowyer 2002). The clear glass bottle fragments, with no discernible tinting (e.g., solarized amethyst) reinforce this temporal span. According to Toulouse (1971), the Illinois Glass Company trademark of an 'I' within a diamond was used during the years 1916 to 1929. According to Rock (1990), the embossing of the Lea & Perrins brand name on the bottle was discontinued in the U.S. in 1920.
Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group. #2. Blass, George: T32S, R1W W.M., Sec. 24, Ragsdale Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: no signs of a cabin. 11/4/2004 Lundgren. The examination report written by Forest Ranger Gribble in 1908 indicated that Mr. Blass' s cabin was located 200 yards upsiope (to the east) from the West Fork of Elk Creek, therefore the pedestrian survey concentrated in this area. No other surveying would have been prudent, given that the remainder of the claim consisted of the extremely steep slopes trending westward from Alco Rock, a prominent knob of 4,477' in elevation. As it was, slopes within 200 yards of the creek exceeded 30 percent. The only 143 signs of past human activity noted were those of post-1945 logging: one cone-top can, one oil drum lid, two 1-gallon Prestone cans "sealed at the factory for your protection," and recently-charred large-diameter stumps. (The area had burned during the Timber Rock Fire, part of the Tiller Fire Complex of 2000.)
#3, Borgen, Christian G.: T32S, R1W W.M., Sec. 28, Ragsdale Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: a spring/meadow area, but no signs of a habitation area. 11/4/2004, Lundgren. With no real idea where to look--the forest homestead file for Mr. Borgen contained no photographs or sketch maps, nor did the examination report reveal any clues--the author again relied upon the Inventory Strategy. The ground covered by pedestrian survey included level areas not too far above (west of) Trail Creek, principally in the southern half of the claim. Level areas may have existed in the northern half, but the area was being traversed by deer hunters. The author did encounter a spring/meadow area, just below (to the east of) a grassy decommissioned road, but no signs of past human activity (other than the old logging road itself). Soil visibility was virtually nil--in part because of past logging and subsequent tree-planting efforts, but also because of the dense growth of grasses in the area. Surveys closer to the creek may have proved more fruitful, although streamside slopes are fairly steep and the streamside vegetation very dense. Vegetation in the vicinity included grasses, bracken fern, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir.
#8, Dickinson, WilliamS T32S, R1E W.M., Sec. 2, Sugar Pine Creek 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. Found: the cabin location at the confluence of two creeks. 8/10/2004 Lundgren. Deputy Forest Supervisor Swenning' s sketch map of the Dickinson forest homestead proved to be an excellent survey aid, albeit he misidentified Sugarpine Creek (Figure 7.15).The Dickinson cabin was located at the north side of the confluence of the aforementioned Sugarpine Creek and an unnamed feeder stream. That area can be 144
L4fatO UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULT I. - N TOFEST ERVt dlU MAP SHEET
L
6
Figure 7.15:Sketch map, #9, Dickinson, 1910 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). accessed via the Sugarpine Trail, Forest Service Trail #1080, a trail originally constructed ca. 1910 for access to Sugarpine Ranger Station. (As a heritage resource, the trail has been designated Site RR-1042.) Logging in this area is hard to miss--the trailhead is located in a log landing on private land just south of Abbott Prairie and the National Forest boundary. It appeared to the author that one hundred years of floods and shifting stream channels, tree growth and tree death may well have obliterated any signs of Mr. Dickinson's dirt-floored, unpeeled-log cabin. The proximity to the confluence of two streams was perhaps a poor choice on Mr. Dickinson's part. The author of this paper also encountered the remnants of a 'gate' originally recorded in 1986 as one feature of the 145 historic Sugarpine Trail (LaLande 1986). The remnants include two vertical, severely- rotted, sapling poles wired to two Douglas-firs on either side of the trail. On the west side of the trail the pole is 15 feet high; on the east side, three feet high. No evidence of a fence could be seen and it is possible this gate was never completed. It also seems more likely that the 'gate' was associated with the Sugarpine Trail rather than the Dickinson forest homestead claim.
Discussion The paucity of the archaeological survey results warrants discussion here. First, the archaeological record has been subjected to both natural and cultural post- depositional forces. Second, the creation of the documentary record may have skewed the interpretation of that record. And last, what took place on the land in the past-- seasonal occupation for a few years, minimal manipulation of the landscape--greatly circumscribed what might be visible in the present.
Post-depositional, natural. The principal components of these early20thcentury forest homestead sites, according to the 'six-five-five' forms, were log or framed cabins, and rail or brush fences. Wood cellulose--the primary building material--decays rapidly within a wet, forested environment. A number of cabins and fences likely 'melted' as early as the 1 950s. This last is particularly likely for those cabins constructed of unpeeled logs--prime habitat for fungus and carpenter ants. Fire--whether accidentally set, intentionally set, or caused by lightning strikes--has certainly played a part in the survivability of wood cabins, fences, and other structures. The Dudley Fire burned both the Albert and Baker cabins, and likely others. Floods and stream channel shifting likely contributed to the disappearance of the Dickinson and Pentz cabins. (Dickinson's cabin was situated within just a few feet of the confluence of two streams.) The erosion of linear features such as irrigation ditches, roads, and trails, blunts their edges and makes them difficult to discern. 146
Post-deposition, cultural. After a homestead was abandoned, claimants were allowed to remove their 'improvements' if they desired. if they did not, whatever was left behind was open to scavenging. Pre-cut logs and boards would have been useful to anyone, as were stoves and stove-pipes. The scavengingof materials and tools from abandoned home-sites was a common occurrence in national forests (Winthrop and Chambers 1988). In more recent decades, the bottle- and can-collecting activities oflocal fishermen, hunters, and recreationists have likely affected the material remainsof some sites. The Lea & Pen-ins bottles initially recorded at the Neuber site in 2003 were no longer evident when the site was revisited for this project in 2005. Twentieth-century logging practices without question have altered the landscape. Commercial logging of the Crater National Forest commenced in the 1920s withrailroad logging; logs were dragged to the loading area by tractors (Figure 7.16). By the 1930s
Figure 7.16: Owen-Oregon lumbering, 1925 (USDA FS, RR-SNF). logs were leaving the forest on trucks. In the post-World War II era--the 1940s, 50s, and 60s-- 'high-grading' was a form of selective logging in which individual high-value trees were targeted for harvest then dragged by 'cats' ('Caterpillar' tractors) torecently-built 147 forest roads. (Road-building and tree-harvesting almost always occurred together.) 'Cat' roads are still visible throughout the forest today. In the 1960s-70s, clear-cut harvesting became the norm on national forests which only served to concentrate the effects of 'cats.'
Documentary record, creation. The use of a form, Form #655, to document the forest homestead examinations suggests a certain amount of uniformity of information provided. However, individual examiners, from special lands examiners to assistant forest guards, understood their duties differently. Some were more skilled than others in making observations, sketching maps, and writing reports. Occasionally legal descriptions varied from one form to the next within a single file. Some claims may have been mistakenly recorded. A photograph in the Harvey Johnson file depicts a cabin situated on level ground, but the claim itself is quite steep. However, the now-private land just northwest of the claim is situated on level ground. More than a few claimants complained about forest service officers either being 'against' homesteaders or not really examining the claims at all. At least one examination report seems to rely on the claimant's statements in his affidavit of proof rather than any real observations on the part of the ranger. Mrs. S. E. Inlow Albright, of Trail, Oregon, wrote to the Forest Supervisor in 1916: "[1] will say in reply that it has been so long since I applied for this 40 [acres] that the forest station took from me[,] I suppose there would be no way open now for me to get it as it seems known well around here that the forest service men [indecipherable] have the pull on all us poor mountaineer[s] in the way of shutting us out" (HRC #H-2 1916).
Documentary record, interpretation. This study's archaeological survey design may have been flawed, although the maps, photographs, and documentary descriptions for the most part proved adequate for finding the habitation areas of the homestead claims. The survey may have been improved by the use of a survey crew, especially a survey crew with metal detectors. 148
Initial occupation. "In many instances claimants construct[ed] a greater share of their improvements during the last year or two before making final proof; also their period of residence [was]... at[that] particular time usually more permanent" (Swenning 1909). Most forest homesteads were occupied by only one or two adults, and only occasionally with children. Very small groups making such minimalist efforts for so short a period of time--especially among those in the public group, the only group available for archaeological survey--surely reduced the 'obtrusiveness' of these site types, which reduced even further their 'findability' (Feder 1997). 149
Chapter 8: Discussion and Conclusions
The disposal of public land in the American West reached its peak during the early20thcentury. One significant factor in the final rush for public land was the Forest Homestead Act of 1906 (the June11thAct), which opened to settlement agricultural lands located within the boundaries of the national forests established just a decade or so before, at the closing of the19thcentury. That lands within the boundaries of a heavily timbered national forest with a coastal-type climate might not be suitable for agriculture deterred few individuals from trying to claim 160 acres of free land. According to George Peavy, Dean of the School of Forestry at the Oregon Agricultural College (later Oregon State University), ".. .no oneshould want to till soil which will eventually yield more [economic return] if devoted to timber production. Thousands of people in the Pacific Northwest have given years of the hardest kind of toil trying to clear and cultivate land which, because of its steep slopes [or] its shallow soil.. .nevershould have been put under cultivation" (Peavy 1922:70). In the Crater National Forest of southwestern Oregon, the forest-homesteading phenomenon progressed in a pattern somewhat similarly from homesteader to homesteader. Some applied for entry under the June Act and were rebuffed from the start after an evaluation of the requested land deemed it not suitable for agriculture but instead most valuable for timber production. Indeed, very little of the forest proper actually contained bona fide potential agricultural land; at best, climatic conditions favored instead the cultivation of hay. Late and early frosts were frequent and severe. Deputy Forest Supervisor Swenning reported:
there have...been many 'Homestead Claims' taken in the past..., most of which have been 'proven up' on. The homesteaders moved away and in many instances the land has passed into the hands of lumber companies.... [T]he average 'homesteader' has usually not proven himself to be an actual settler, as the valuable stands of timber contained on the claims have undoubtedly been the main object in filing. (Swenning 1909:6-7) 150
Homesteaders did settle on the land, however briefly. The Forest Service's 'Report on Agricultural Settlement,' Form #655, described in detail the 'improvements' made upon the land--the size and type of cabin constructed, the amount and type of fencing, amount and type of cultivation, the stock animals kept on the land, and perhaps even the kind of furniture within the dwelling and any farming implements the individual may have had. These documents, written at the time of occupation, provided the bulk of documentary evidence utilized in this study. The forest homestead examination report provided a contemporaneous record of human habitation, unlike the 1930s-era 'Appraisal of Permanent Improvements' later utilized in archaeological homestead investigations on the Ochoco, Siuslaw, and Tombigbee National Forests (Anderson 1983; Haight 1985; Prior 1998; Peacock and Patrick 1997), or the 1940s-era 'Anny Farm Survey Record' consulted for farm-site research in Wisconsin (Sewell 2000). These later forms were written years, sometimes decades, after the abandonment of homesteads and were intended to document the salvage value of materials prior to their destruction--common practice when the federal government acquired private land. Abandoned homesteads on the Crater National Forest, however, were already situated on federal (i.e., public) land and allowed to 'melt away,' be scavenged, or otherwise left to the destructive forces of natural processes or human activities (primarily logging). Since the intent of the 'six-five-five' form was to document compliance with the (homesteading) law rather than determine salvage value, the values ascribed to cabins more generally seem to have been estimates to aid the examiner in determining 'good faith' --i.e., a $50.00 log cabin was less likely to have been viewed as a permanent home than a $150.00 framed board cabin. The farm-site research conducted by Brown (1978; 1988), Groover (2004), Stewart-Abernathy (1986; 1992), and Van Bueren (2004) revealed sites occupied by multi-generational families over the course of several decades. The abandoned homestead sites (i.e., the 'public' group) of the Crater National Forest, however, were instead occupied by single individuals, an occasional married couple, and they only infrequently with children. Occupancy rarely persisted past the required five years, if that. Some homestead claims were abandoned even prior to their examinations. The 151 homestead sites on patented claims (the 'private' group)--as revealed through the documentary record--were also occupied by single individuals, married couples, and occasionally families with children. It is highly unlikely that the latter group remained on their claims long enough for a long-term multi-generation occupation to have taken place, considering that most of these claims today are owned by timber companies. In his evaluation of lands adjacent to the Crater National Forest, H. D. Foster wrote, "in the Rogue River basin is some of the finest yellow pine and sugar pine forest, a great deal of which has passed into private hands, and in turn to large timber and lumber companies" (Foster 1909: 12). The Forest Service had a vested interest in these claims. Conserving the nation's timber supply and protecting its water supply were paramount. In the first two decades of the20thcentury, ranger station and guard station construction within the Crater National Forest almost kept pace with homestead cabin construction. The desirable features of both homesteads and Forest Service stations--level ground, access to water, pasturage-- occasionally led to feelings of ill-will on the part of settlers toward the Forest Service. Individuals believed themselves entitled to public land and resented being thwarted. Furthermore, having agents of the federal government coming to their homes--however temporary, however substandard those homes--rankled those individuals who seemed to believe providing a statement of good faith ought to have been 'proof' enough. It is this kind of detailed information about the actions of individuals--through their words, photographs of their homes, and mapped features of their home-sites--that this study has brought to the fore. As an example of documentary archaeology, this investigation of early20tkcentury homesteading within the Crater National Forest has revealed the 'intimate details of everyday life.' Individuals--both men and women, settlers and Forest Service personnel--contributed to the settlement of forest lands in southwestern Oregon in the early20thcentury. The archaeological record of this forest settlement proved disappointing, although the near-absence of material remains provides significant information for future researchers. Subsurface testing using remote sensing such as metal-detectors, may (or may not) reinforce the negative findings. What might be recorded during archaeological 152 pedestrian survey has proven to be, 'not much.' Photographs within the homestead files led the author to believe that some cabin remains would be located, but that so few actually were found was something of a surprise. The Cimborski cabin remains, the Neuber cabin remains, even the Terrill and Bradshaw cabin remains (though not located by this writer they had been located some 20 years previously)--indicate just how little of a temporary wooden structure survives in a wet forested environment after its abandonment nearly 100 years previously. Furthermore, houses, or cabins, need to be occupied to retain the physical integrity. Regular habitation increases the likelihood of regular maintenance. Abandonment allows natural deterioration processes to continue unabated. The other wood-structure-types at forest homestead claims--e.g., rail, pole, log, or brush fencing--were more lightly-constructed than cabins and therefore even more likely to decay at a rapid pace if not maintained. The lack of material culture remains recorded in this study reduces the interpretive opportunities. The presence of women in the household, and how that may have affected the archaeological record of early20thcentury forest homestead sites, remains unknown. The documentary record indicates that the presence of women affects the type of material culture found within the home; for example, no male-only household contained a sewing machine. Too, many bachelors apparently seemed content to eat their meals without benefit of dishware. Privies, however, were recorded so infrequently that it is unclear whether or not their presence at habitation sites could signal the presence of a woman in the household. The low incidence of material remains also restricted the evaluation of homestead habitation area layouts. Orientation of structures is difficult to determine from the cartographic evidence obtained from homestead files. So few buildings were actually constructed--generally just a cabin or a cabin and a barn--that defining male/female task areas, for example, would be premature. Abandoned homestead sites were principally located on land considered steep by its Forest Service examiners--and this writer--but the homestead sites for 'successful' homesteaders (i.e., the 'private' group) were more likely to have been established on level ground. This environmental factor--slope--likely influenced the number of buildings constructed on a claim as well as the layout of those 153 buildings An archaeological comparison between forest homestead habitation areas on public lands and on private lands (assuming access were to be granted for this purpose by the current owners) would likely augment this particular interpretation. What is known, principally from the documentary record to be sure, is that very, very small amounts of land were actually cleared in the forest--far less than required by the law. On most homestead claims, the cabins and outbuildings were constructed within this clearing, and small truck gardens were planted. A few homesteaders planted fruit trees and even fewer planted ornamental flowers and shrubs. Most of these forest homestead clearings were enclosed by rail, pole, log, or brush fencing. Picket fencing occasionally further delimited the cabin and truck garden. Without irrigation, however, few of these gardens or orchards thrived and none seem to have survived. The shade and acidic soils of a coniferous forest likely contributed to this lack of survivability. Cultivation areas greater than two acres in size--and these were few--were generally planted to timothy or alfalfa hay. As frequently construed by these forest homesteaders, the word 'clearing' meant not a total absence of trees, but the removal of just enough to construct a cabin and plant a small garden. One goal of this research was to detail just who these people were that were filing homestead claims on the Crater National Forest. That goal has been met. Men and women--whom we now know by name, age, and occupation--all seized one of the final opportunities in the20thcentury to gain access to free public land. That their efforts frequently failed was due in part to the nature of the land itself--high elevation coniferous forest--and in part to their own lack of good faith. It was the trees that were valuable, not the agricultural potential, for there really was little of the latter. Tree 'deadening,' i.e., girdling trees, was not recorded by any of the homestead examiners. According to Forest Examiner Harold Foster, "some of the forested land is susceptible of cultivation when cleared, but such clearing would entail a great expense out of all proportion to the value of the land when cleared, while the standing trees are of too great value as a timber supply and a protection forest to be allowed to be cut away" (Foster 1909:13). Another goal was to explore the relationship of these individuals with Forest Service personnel. That goal, too, has been met. As agents of the federal government, 154 forest guards and forest rangers--even forest supervisors--were frequently on the receiving end of homesteader enmity Some individuals felt no compunction at all about writing to members of Congress, the President, the Chief Forester [Pinchot] complaining about forest officials and their seeming lack of fairness. If those letters failed to achieve their desired retails, lawyers were retained to carry the cause even further. Some legal cases were decided in the homesteaders' favor, others were not. In retrospect, occasionally these homesteader complaints seem to have been justified. A six-five-five form, the forest homestead examination report, may have documented the seemingly substantial improvements to a claim, yet still denied the claim based upon the value of the timber.Other claimants were given a favorable report even when they so evidently had done very little on the land itself--older gentlemen, in particular, seemed to have received 'sympathy' approvals. This study also attempted to examine the material culture of early20thcentury forest homesteaders, especially with respect to the built environment. That goal has been partially met, but largely through the documentary and photographic record rather the archaeological record. Log cabins and framed board cabins, especially when abandoned, have a greatly reduced survivability factor within a forested setting. Whether log or framed, forest homestead cabins were generally only one or two rooms in size, and only one or one-and-one-half stories in height Almost all cabins, even those of the shortest, seasonal occupations, contained two stoves--a cooking stove and a heating stove. The six-five-five forms documented this phenomenon and several photographs depicted it. Cast-iron stoves do survive over time in a forested environment, but they were also one of the more easily scavenged artifacts. One additional goal of this study was to examine land use by forest homesteaders. Their use was 'light,' as revealed in the documentary and cartographic record, and confirmed indirectly by the archaeological record--that so few features or artifacts remained to be located may indicate that little was there to begin with. That last point may be confirmed or negated by archaeological excavation. However, where to excavate, or even shovel-test, at a forest homestead site with few or no surface features would by necessity, even with the use of a metal detector, be a random exercise. 155
The Neuber site, a cash-sale entry rather than homestead entry, left no real 'paper trail' --because it was not a forest homestead entry, it was not subject to examination by forest officials--but did provide some archaeological materials for comparative purposes. The Neuber site exemplifies what might be located at an early20thcentury forest homestead site of limited occupation: a collapsed cabin, the sill logs of an outbuilding, and a discrete concentration of cans and bottles. The Neuber site was fortuitously not subjected to logging because it was acquired, shortly after its occupation and subsequent abandonment, by the city of Medford to protect its watershed. Located near a popular fishing lake up an easily discernible trail, the Neuber site has been subjected to some limited bottle-collecting by recreationists. Such sites on the Rogue River National Forest are so few in number that the Neuber site and the Bradshaw site--both very-short-term habitation sites with a variety of features and artifacts, occupied by known individuals--have been evaluated by the Forest Archaeologist as potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. However, the evaluation of a larger number of this historic-site-type must occur before any comprehensive thematic evaluation of homestead sites for National Register eligibility can be made (Lavagnino and LaLande 1982). The combination of a rich historical record--principally the documentary, photographic, and cartographic evidence within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest's homestead examination files--and an admittedly sparse archaeological record has illuminated the lives of the individuals involved in the forest-homesteading phenomenon in the Pacific Northwest in the early 2O century. That women contributed equally to this phenomenon should not surprise the reader, but likely does, given the lack of previous research into this specific area of inquiryi.e., the contributions of women to the history of the public-land-disposal process. This comprehensive examination of the people 'behind the sites,' and the forest officials who documented them, tells a story not so much of the 'pioneer' myth--that of hard work and determination--but rather a concerted effort by groups of people endeavoring to procure for themselves 'Uncle Sam's acres' through inventiveness, mutual support (e.g., serving as each other's witnesses), and self-interested avarice. 156
References Cited
Adkison, Vicki Lynn 2006 The Worst Piece of Rocky Country on Top of Ground: Settlement Attempts on the Devil's Garden of Northeastern California.Master's thesis, California State University Dominguez Hills, Dominguez Hills.
Allen, Barbara 1987 Homesteading the High Desert. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Anderson, Sally N. 1983 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report for the North Blanchard Prescribed Burn Management Area. USDA Forest Service, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville, Oregon.
Applen, J. A. and Dennis Gray 1999 Site report for 'Felix's Cabin, Site #35HS11-441, 35JA81,' in Report #AH99-49, USD1 Bureau of Land Management, Medford-Ashland Field Office, Medford, Oregon.
Asch, David L. 1975 On Sample Size Problems and the Uses of Nonprobabilistic Sampling. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 170-191.
Badura, George J. and Philip N. Jahn 1977 Soil Resource Inventory for the Rogue River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
Beaudry, Mary 1988 Introduction. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary Beaudry, pp. 1-3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1996 Reinventing Historical Archaeology. In Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, edited by Lu Ann De Cunzo and Bernard L. Herman, pp. 473-497. The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Inc., Winterthur, Delaware.
Bitting, A. W. 1937 Appertizing or the Art of Canning: Its History and Development. The Trade Pressroom, San Francisco. 157
Bowyer, Gary C. 2002 Twentieth Century Material Culture Variability: Valve Marks, Milk Cans, and Tobacco Tins. In Contributions to the Archaeology of Oregon, Association of Oregon Archaeologists Occasional Papers 7:109-119.
Brown, Marley 1978 The Use of Oral and Documentary Sources in Historical Archaeology: Ethnohistory at the Mott Farm. In Historical Archaeology: A guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contricutions, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 278-283. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale, New York.
1988 The behavioral context of probate inventories: an example from Plymouth Colony. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, pp. 79-82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Busch, Jane 1992 An Introduction to the Tin Can. In Approaches to Material Culture Research for HistoricalArchaeologists, edited by Ronald L. Michael, pp. 187-196. Society for Historical Archaeology, California, Pennsylvania.
Butzer, Karl 1982 Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Clawson, Marion 1951 Uncle Sam's Acres. Dodd, Mead, & Company, New York.
Collier, John Jr., and Malcolm Collier 1986 Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Congressional Record 190860thCongress,1stsession, May 11:6093.
Corey, Elizabeth 1990 Bachelor Bess: the Homesteading Letters of Elizabeth Corey, 1909-1919, edited by Philip L Gerber. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz 1992 Coal Stoves and Clean 5inks Housework between 1890 and 1930. In American Home Life, 1880-1930: A Social History of Spaces and Services, edited by Jessica H. Foy and Thomas J Schlereth,pp. 211-224. The Universityof Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 158
Cronon, William 1997 Foreward. In The Oregon Story, 1800-1 940, written by William Robbins, pp. xiii-xiv.University of Washington Press, Seattle & London.
Davis, Howard and Louis P. Nelson 2006 Notes. In Vernacular Architecture Newsletter, p. 7. Vernacular Architecture Form, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Deur, Douglas 2002 Huckleberry Mountain Traditional-Use Study: Final Report. Report contracted by National Park Service, North Pacific Region, Seattle, Washington and USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
Faulkner, Charles H. 2004 Moved Buildings: A Hidden Factor in the Archaeology of the Built Environment. In Historical Archaeology 38(2):55-67.
Feder, Kenneth L. 1997 Site Survey. In Field Methods in Archaeology, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Harry J. Shafer, and Kenneth L. Feder, pp. 4 1-68. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.
Ferriday, Virginia Guest 1974 Regional Setting, Farm and Barns of the Willamette Valley; Farms and Ranch Buildings east of the Cascades. In Space, Style and Structure, Volume 1: Building in Northwest America, edited by Thomas Vaughn and Virginia Guest Ferriday, pp. 49- 55. Oregon Historical Society, Portland.
Flory, Charles H. 1908 Letter to M. L. Erickson, Forest Supervisor.Historical Record Collection, Item #A-4, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
Fontana, Bernard L., J. Cameron Greenleaf, Charles Ferguson Wright, and Doris Frederick 1962 Johnny Ward's Ranch. In Kiva 28 (1-2)67-78.
Foster, H. D. 1909 Report on the Boundaries of the Crater National Forest, Oregon and California. Historical Record Collection, Item #A-3, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon. 159
Garrison, J. Ritchie 1996 Remaking the Barnyard: The Archaeology of Farm Outbuildings in the Connecticut River Valley of Massachusetts, 1770-1870. In Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, edited by Lu Ann De Cunzo and Bernard L. Herman, pp. 359-394. The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Inc., Winterthur, Delaware.
Gates, Paul W. 1968 History of Public Land Law. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Gero, Joan M. and Margaret W. Conkey (editors) 1991 Engendering Archaeology, Women and Prehistory. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.
Glassie, Henry 1985 Artifact and Culture, Architecture and Society. In American Material Culture and Folk! ife, A Prologue and Diagloue, edited by Simon J. Bronner, pp. 47-6 1.
1999 Material Culture. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.
GLO (Government Land Office) 1892, Circular from the General Land Office, Showing the Manner of Proceeding to Obtain Title to Public Lands under the Pre-emption, Homestead, and Other Laws, February 6, 1892, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Groover, Mark D. 2004 Household Succession as a Catalyst of Landscape Change. In Historical Archaeology 38(4):25-43.
Haight, Randi J. 1985 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report for the Gorge Allotment Prescribed Fire. USDA Forest Service, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville, Oregon.
Hargreaves, Mary Wilma M. 1957 Dry Farming in the Northern Great Plains, 1900-1925. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hays, Samuel P. 1959 Conservation and the gospel of efficiency: the progressive conservation movement, 1890-1 920. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hibbard, Benjamin H. 1924 A history of the public land policies. The Macmillan Company, New York. 160
Hodder, Ian 1991 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holtzapple, Theresa 2002 Letter report to the Crooked River National Grasslands Watershed Analysis File. USDA Forest Service, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville, Oregon.
How to Build a Log-House. 1858 Tn American Agriculturist, 200.
HRC Item #D-6 1916 Fire History, Crater National Forest. Historic Record Collection, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
HRC Item #H-2 1907-1932 Homestead Examination Files, Land Claims. Historic Record Collection, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
HRC Item #H-8 1928 List of Private Holdings, Land Status.Historic Record Collection, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
HRC Item #L-28 1908-1911 Miscellaneous File, Personnel, John E. Gribble, Crater National Forest. Historic Record Collection, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
Hume, Ivor Noel 1969 Historical Archaeology. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. meson, F. A. 1934 'Subsistence Homestead' Communities and the Huron National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Keener, John W. 1916, Public Land Statues of the United States, A compilation of the Principal Statutes of Practical Importance at the Present Time Relating to the Public Lands, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 161
Kelly, Chris 1999 Site report for 'Kenney Meadows Cabin, Site #35HS11-13,' USD1 Bureau of Land Management, Medford-Ashland Field Office, Medford, Oregon.
Kohl, Edith Eudora 1986 Land of the Burnt Thigh. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St Paul.
LaLande, Jeffrey M. 1979 Early Ranger Stations of the Rogue River National Forest: The Evolution of a Forest Service Vernacular Architecture, 1905-1940. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
1980 Prehistory and History of the Rogue River National Forest: A Cultural Resource Overview. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
1982 A Historical Overview of the Fish Lake Vicinity. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
1986 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance and Evaluation Report for the Kettle Rock Timber Sale (C. R. Job #RR-784). USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
2000 Cultural Resource Inventory Strategy Plan for the Rogue River National Forest (C. R. Job # RR-642). USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
2001 Historical Context and Overview: The Development of Roads in the Cascade Area of the Rogue River National Forest, 1840s-1990s.(C. R. Job # RR-1193). USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
2006 Letter Report to the Medford Water Commission job file ( C. R. Job #RR-1221). USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
Lavagnino, Tom and Jeff LaLande 1982 Elder Timber Sale/Planning Area, Cultural Resource Reconnaissance and Evaluation Report, C. R. Job #RR-124. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
MacDonald, Betty 1945 The Egg and I. Aeonian Press, Mattituck, New York.
McArthur, Lewis A. 1982 Oregon Geographic Names, Fifth Edition. Western Imprints, the Press of the Oregon Historical Society, Portland. 162
McAtee, Gary K. 1983 West Lava Timber Sale Cultural Resource Report. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Crescent, Oregon.
Medford Mail Tribune 1910 Medford, Oregon, August 11, September 8.
Mercer, Henry C. 1976 (1924) The Origin of Log Houses in the United States. In Collection of Papers Read before The Bucks County Historical Society, V: 568-583.
Miller, Char 2001 Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism. Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, D.C.
Miller, G. L. 1980 Classification and economic scaling of 19thcentury ceramics. In Historical Archaeology 14:1-40.
Minor, Rick and Audrey Frances Pecor 1977 Cultural Resource Overview of the Willamette National Forest, Western Oregon. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers, No. 12. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Minor, Rick with Paul W. Baxter, Stephen Dow Beckham, and Kathryn Anne Toepel 1987 Cultural Resource Overview of the Willamette National Forest: A 10-Year Update. Heritage Research Associates Report 60. Heritage Research Associates, Eugene, Oregon.
Mitchell, Don 2005 Landscape. In Cultural Geography, edited by David Atkinson, Peter Jackson, David Sibley, Neil Washbourne,pp. 49-56. I. B. Tauris,London, New York.
Moss, Madonna L. 1999 Engendering Archaeology in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 33(2):245-262.
Oregonian, Portland, Oregon. 1913 June 8.
Orser, Charles E. Jr., and Brian M. Fagan 1995 Historical Archaeology. HarperCollins College Publishers, New York. 163
Peacock, Evan and Alanna J. Patrick 1997 Site Survey and Land-Records Research: A Comparison of Two Methods for Locating and Characterizing Historic Period Sites on the Tombigbee National Forest, Mississippi. In Mississippi Archaeology 32(1): 1-26.
Peavy, George W. 1922 Oregon's Commercial Forests: Their Importance to the State.Oregon State Board of Forestry, Bulletin No. 2. State Printing Department, Salem, Oregon.
Pinchot, Gifford 1907 The Use of the National Forests ['Use Book']. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Prior, Jan M. 1998 Kinship, Environment and the Forest Service: Homesteading in Oregon's Coast Range. Master's thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Puter, S. A. D. (with Horace Stevens) 1908 Looters of the public domain: Embracing a complete exposure of the fraudulent system of acquiring titles to the public lands of the United States, profusely illustrated with splendid halftone engravings and etchings of important incidents connected with the different trials, together with the latest photographs of the principal actors in the Great Land Fraud drama. The Portland Printing House, Portland, Oregon.
Pyne, Stephen J. 1982 Fire in America: a cultural history of wildiand and ruralfire. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Rakestraw, Lawrence and Mary Rakestraw n.d.History of the Willamette National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon.
Rankin, Hugh B. 1924 Report to the District Forester.Historical Record Collection, Item #H-6, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
1930 Acquisition and Exchange Plan for Crater National Forest.Historical Record Collection, Item #0-13, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
Riley, Glenda 1986 Introduction. In Land of the Burnt Thigh, written by Edith Eudora Kohl. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St Paul. 164
Robbins, William G. 1975 The Early Conservation Movement in Oregon, 1 890-1910. Rockefeller Foundation Project No. RF7 1079, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
1997 Landscapes of Promise. The Oregon Story, 1800-1 940.University of Washington Press, Seattle & London.
Roberts, B. K. 1987 Landscape Archaeology. In Landscape & Culture: Geographical & Archaeological Perspectives, edited by J. M. Wagstaff, pp. 77-95. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.
Roberts, Isaac P. 1900 The farmstead: the making of the rural home and the lay-out of the farm. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Rock, James 1979 Log Cabins: Horizontal Log Construction. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California.
1990 Basic Bottle Identification. In Rec-7 Cultural Resource Technician Training Manual, Historic Artifact Identification. USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.
2006 Personal communication, March 18.
Rooney, Victor S. 2003 Medford Water Commission/Rogue River National Forest Willow Lake Thinning Project: Cultural Resource Survey (C. R. Job #RR-1231). USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.
Sewell, Andrew R. 2000 1999 Cultural Resource Management Activities: Phase II Investigations of Historic Euro-American Homesteads, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, Volume I. Archaeological Resource Management Series Reports of Investigations Number 18. U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort McCoy, Directorate of Training and Mobilization, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.
Sherman, E. A. 1914 Report to the Chief Forester on Timber Values of Lands Proposed for Withd rawal from Crater National Forest. U.S. Forest Service, San Francisco, California. Historical Record Collection, Item #H-3, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon. 165
Spector, Janet D. 1991 What This Awl Means: Toward a Feminist Archaeology. In Engendering Archaeology, Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 388-406. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.
Spencer-Wood, Suzanne M. 1996 Feminist Historical Archaeology and the Transformation of American Culture by Domestic Reform Movements, 1840-1925. In HistoricalArchaeology and the Study of Amen can Culture, edited by Lu Ann De Cunzo and Bernard L. Herman, pp. 397- 437. The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Inc., Winterthur, Delaware.
Speulda, Lou Ann and Gary C. Bowyer 2002 Homesteading in Central Oregon: Archaeological Expressions of a National Phenomenon. In Contributions to the Archaeology of Oregon, Association of Oregon Archaeologists Occasional Papers 7:71-88.
Sprague, Roderick 1980 A Functional Classification for Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Sites in Historical Archaeology. In Journal of North American Archaeology 2:1-14.
State of Oregon 1911 Messages of the Governor, Salem.
1923 Thirteenth Annual Report of the State Forester to the Governor for the year ending December 31, 1923. State Printing Department, Salem, Oregon.
Steen, Harold K. 1976 The U. S. Forest Service: A history. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Stewart-Abernathy, Leslie C. 1986 The Moser Farmstead. Independent But Not Isolated: The Archeology of a Late Nineteenth Century Ozark Farmstead.Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 26, Fayetteville.
1992 Industrial Goods in the Service of Tradition: Consumption and Cognition on an Ozark Farmstead before the Great War. In The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology, edited by Anne Elizabeth Yentsch and Mary C. Beaudry, pp. 10 1-126. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
Stone, Gary Wheeler 1988 Artifacts are not enough. In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry,pp. 68-77. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge. 166
Swenning, Samuel S. 1909 Crater National Forest Review.Historical Record Collection, Item #A-4, Rogue River National Forest, Rogue River-S iskiyou National Forest Supervisor's Office, Medford, Oregon.
Thomas, David Hurst 1975 Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek Without a Site? In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 61-8 1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Toulouse, Julian Harrison 1971 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson Inc., reprinted by The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey.
Turner, Frederick Jackson 1920 The Significance of the Frontier in American History (1894). In The Frontier in American History, pp. 1-38. Henry Holt and Company, New York.
Upton, Dell 1985 The Power of Things: Recent Studies in American Vernacular Architecture. In Material Culture, A Research Guide, edited by Thomas J. Schlereth, pp. 57-78. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Van Bueren, Thad M. 2004 Carnduff Farm Discovery. In Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 37(1): 27-28.
Volz, Candace M. 1992 The Modern Look of the Early-Twentieth-Century House: A Mirror of Changing Lifestyles. In American Home Life, 1 880-1 930: A Social History of Spaces and Services, edited by Jessica H. Foy and Thomas J Schlereth, pp. 25-48. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Webb, Walter P. 1931 The Great Plains. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Wilkey, Laurie A. and Kevin M Bartoy 2000 A Critical Archaeology Revisited. In Current Anthropology 41(5):747-761.
Wilkinson, Charles F. 1992 Crossing the next meridian: land, water, and the future of the West. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 167
Winthrop, Kathryn and Anne Chambers 1988 Poor But Not So Poor, The Depression Era in Western Siskiyou County, California. Winthrop Associates, Ashland, Oregon, contracted for the USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California.
Worrell, John, Myron 0. Stachiw, and David M. Simmons 1996 Archaeology from the Ground Up. In Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, edited by Lu Ann De Cunzo and Bernard L. Herman, pp. 35-69. The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Inc., Winterthur, Delaware.
Wyman, Walker D. 1972 Frontier Woman: The Life of a Woman Homesteader on the Dakota Frontier. University of Wisconsin-River Falls Press, River Falls. 168
Appendices 169
Appendix A Table A. 1: Homestead Locations. Public Land, Applegatc Group, N"6. No. Name5 Cinthorski, Felix Status Age 40S 2W R Sec 6 Acres 1 60 Exam1908 Patent1912 MedfordBLMCurrent Ownership 1 209 Foster,Dixon, FrankRobert A. R. M S 588125 38S39S 3W4W 3 ()I1 00 1080 191()1916 Nledford'ledford BLMBLM 761 5 Textor,Kenhall, ney,George Clinton Christian J. ('Deafy') M So34 40S 3W2W 2\' 12I (.) 160l6()35 191219181910 19141919 MedfordNledford BLMiedfordBLrs1 Table A.2: Homestead Locations. Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group. N=8. No. Name Status T R Sec Acres Exam Patent Current Ownership 134 Haielton,Bradshaw, George Ready H. MS Ate 35 9 38S37S SE3E 62 160 1910 Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 114 Johnson,Kingsbury, Harley Charles B. MS 65I 6 38S38S 4E 4E 2010 I160 60 19071908 1913 NiedfordRogue River-Siskiyou BLM (SE SE NF only) 2725241 7 Terrill.Stratton,Watson,Palmerlee, Charles Percy Daniel Henry C.E. E. S. MSS 3841253- 38S37S38S 3E 5E3E 32 246 16016() 191019001909 1915 \ledfordRogueMedford River-Siskiyou BL BLM %1 NF Table A.3 Homestead I ocations. Public Land, Butte Falls Group, N 11 No. Name Status Age I R Sec Acres 1xiii Patcit Current Ownership 61 Clemens,Albert, George David U., Sr. MD 7833 35S34S 3E 2E 2612 160 1910 1912 Nledford BLNIIed ford BLM 111 87 Grover,Clevenger, Samuel S. Marion F. NI S2 553340 34S 2E 14/11 3426 120/4() 160160 19071910 \Iedford'tedford BLM BLM 212()19 ShatTer,AlbertScott,Powers,Pentz, William Samuel Floyd VV.NI. MS 257520 35S34S 2E3E 242434 120160 no exam 19081910 RogueMedfordMedlord Riv B[N1BLM er-Siski ou NF 2322 Neuber,Smith, NewtonLaura George A. L. MS 50 ? 36S34S35S 2E3E 333 16040 no exam 19101930 1925 CityRogue ofMeclford River-SisLiyouRiver-Siskiyou NF Table A.4: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=3. No. Nan-ic Status Age 1 R Sec Acres Exam Patent Current Owners S32 Blass,Dickrnson,Borgen, George Christian %iIIiam C. S 22 '?? 32S32S 1W 1WIE 2824 2 160 19101908 RogueMedfordMedlord Rh'er-Siskiyou BLM BIM NF Iabe Ilotnestead Locatiuns. Patent Land. Applegate Group. N I No. Name t\.: ft See Acres Exam Patent Current ()wnersliip 47 Reynolds,Jarncs \V. Status Age T M 40 39S 1W 30 101 1016 1917 Co.Michigan-California Lumber Fable A.O: Honiestcad Locations. Patent Land. t)cad Indian PIateauLittIe Butte (reck Group. N=6. No. Naiie Status Age T R Sec Acres Exam Patent Current Ownership 333130 ConJev.Edler,Burton, MiloAugust Clayton C. E. S 373829 37S37S38S 3ESE 1025 120160 19091908191() 191210101014 SuperiorPrivatePrivate, Lumberindividual 1eriwetherunknown Co. Southern Oregon 455037 Stannaid,Peterson,Johnson, DanIraGeorge C. l-Ienrv Rda) \'vSD O03S? 7 38S SE4E5 18106 160 19119101908 191919141913 PriatcPrivateLand & individual indidualTimber, LLC Table A.?: Homestead Lc ations. Patent I and. Butte Falls Group, N I 0. No. 29Name Status Age T D 33 34S 2E R Sec23 Acres 160 Exam1910 Patent1914 Current Ownership 3534 Goss,Emerson,Baker, Oliver Mary Dr. M. Mice Edward E. M 4332 34S34S 3E/4E 24/19 92.562;5 2E 24 160 1917I 9 1 0 I1914 919 CoastSuperior Range Lumber Resources, Co. LLC 393836 Jones,l-Iawk, GeorgeArthur Simon L.F. M. MNIM 4730 34S? 34S 2E 221032 160160 I19091910 9909 I 0 19121)14 Superior Lumber Co. 49484644 Owen, Delbert A. Spencer,Read, Bert HarveyElmer W. E. B. MM 49403439 34S 34S 2E2E 14/13 2212 120/40 160 19091 909 19121911 Superior Lumber Co. Table AS: Homestead Locations. Patent Land, Elk Creek'Lpper Rogue River GroupN=7. No. Name Status Age I R Sec Acres Exam Patent Current Ownership 3228 Cushnian,Ash, Edward William E. El. M 6246 32S33S 1W2E 5&4 20 808(1 8() 19151908 1Q211913 PrivateLandsIcriw & individuals Timber, ether Southern LLC (3 lots) Oregon 40 Kiter,.Johnl). S 37 32S 2E I lô0 191k) MeriwetherLand & Timber, Southern LLC Oregon 4142 Moore,Lystig, ChristianArthur D. C. S 4336 32S 2E 21 7 20.35 160 192()1Q08 19231909 PrivateLand\lcriw & ether trustTimber, Southern LLC Oregon SI43 Willits.Oleson, IreneAdolph \%'risky MS 432$ 32S 2E1 E 2E 21/206&1 40/12012040 1Q11190$ 19121910 LandPrivateMeriwether & Timber. trust Southern LLC Oregon 178
Appendix B Table 13. 1 I : Survey Results. [)cscripl ion. Public Land. Applegate (Iiiup. Cimborsk i. (in ) H Diam(Ui ) (in ) L (in ) \V Depth Desription(in [)ate Range ForniSource i:655 (HR( Baking\lLt powder (? ). outer friction lid (lid 1 paii nail Ii rnd1L (In i'(ing pan) (ca. iiiki 1908 ILd) Fontana(Item imboiI 062: IH-2. ',Li CtRock al..tilL) 1990: 40 1/263/4 31:8 23 1/4 hackredShelvinggone), paint is stamped missing stillunit: visible 4 end. shelves lockedon interior(including side surfaces.seam top), (interred)Ca.ca. 190$ 1 900 CimhorskiIteml'orniBusch 1 091 tile) F1-2. 655 (HRC ii 23/4 hole-in.-capmouthneckmachine is isbulbous made5/8', evaporated embossed brown & 4" high. glass milk at Opening base:beer cans, bottle. 40R knitC- of ca.Post-I 1900 904to pre- E3ittingRock I 990 1 937; 3 45/16 427/8 314 enticepunch opened(!) can, out friction lid ca.1 93! 1 900 BuschE:(ntlflaBower1062: 1 2002 991et Rockal., 1990: 180
Table B.1 .2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Applegate Group, #5, Cimborski. Typology after Roderick Spague, 1980.
Category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Type
Personal ItemsIndulgences beer bottle Domestic ItemsFurnishings furniture shelving unit Housewares & appliances culinary roasting pan baking powder can gustatory milk can coffee can Architecture Structures cabin remains Construction materials ax-cut high stump Landscaping oak tree Table 132. I : Srv Results, Dcscriptin, Public Land. Appiegate Group. 12 HaIl. # II [)wm L \V Depth Desription Date Range Source 1-2 in. chinaearthenwarebroken cup & rimburned crocks fragment bits, (salt from glaze) dumpcahin: mid-tooFor tragnientary. tothe late-I9th most part milkmedicinalstonblue ewa onglass whitere glassfragments (tninstr bottle fragmentsprint, flow blue) century Miller 1 9S0 veryclear,glassmason1 rusty colors:oliveferrous jar can framcntsgreen aqua,metal fragments solarized hook (industrial) amethyst, (amethyst)I S0- I 916 Rock 1990 ItemForm I1-2. Flail (HRC in. 50 rn. 1 Sin. 0.i iii. DumpIrrigation sitecahin ditch, upperlocatiot cast boundary ca. 11)11 tile)itemFormlile) 655 (HRC F1-2. Hall 182
Table B.2.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Applegate Group, #12, Hall. Typology after Roderick Spague, 1980.
Category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Type
Personal ItemsMedical & health medicinal glass bottle Domestic Items Housewares & appliances gustatory dishware fragments mason jar fragments milk glass fragments can fragments Architecture Plumbing water supply irrigation ditch Commerce & 1n Agriculture & husbandry ferrous metal hook (AllTable 1iTituc(slikely B3. post-date the Kenney claim.) : Survey Results. Description. Public Land. Applatc Group. I . Kennev. (in ) H Diam(in ) (in ) L (in ) \V [)epth (in1)csription Date Ranie Source 21 half-1 allon-gallon paint can ai nt can unable toto (let.det, ca (foodpaintrnilk!)canNested:1 -iallon(inner frictiongalvaniied lid), bucket smaller can I -a1lon paint can. 2-lb coffee unahicunable to deLdet. features Not mefltR)ned in 25' I (' I 5' ConcreteReconstructed diversion cabin dani on Yale Creek May post-date homestead I 9T (HRC Item1918 t41_2, Form ;ñ55Sign onKennev cabin tile) 184
Table B.3.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Applegate Group, #15, Kenney (All likely post-date Kenney claim.) Typology after Roderick Spague, 1980.
Category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Type
Domestic Items Housewares & appliances gustatory milk can coffee can Cleaning & Maintenance household maint.paint cans Architecture Structures cabin Plumbing water supply diversion dam Tablelit//ac/c B.4. I Survey Results, [)escriptin, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, o25. 1 enil I. (in.) H Diam (in.) (in.) L (in.) Depth l)esription(in.) Cast-iron parlor stove, with decorative Date Ran tc Source 1 8 20 3/4 16 34 (mid)13 (ends) Co/ST.embossedmotif of LOU garlands on side:IS'No. and 'Brid2c 20' acanthus Beach leaves, & ca 1900 Cowan1 992 1 992; Volz 186
Table B.4.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Elk Creek Group. #25, Tern!!. Typology after Roderick Spague, 1980.
Category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Type
Domestic Items Housewares & appliances heating parlor stove Table 13.7.lLoe. i'i I i/ac'i.s' I : SUr\eV ReuI ts, I)cscuiption. Public Land. Butte Falls Group. 6. Clemens, (in.) H Diam(in.) (in.) F (in.) W Depth Desription(in.) Date Range Fontana 1962: ,)Rock U rce 41/2 4 14 12 decorativeCast-ironFood can, floral cookstovesunitar\' motif. doors, Ii8-in. with thick en.ca. 1900 I 90() CowanI 992990: 1992: Busch \otz I 992 Loc. 2 (thoughopenedMilk can, withnot solder-vent, a center-hold-and-circle complete hand-solder. circle, looked like 1 43'8 twostamped parentheses and soldered on either ends. side ola point), ca. 1900 to pre- I 93 I BowyerBitting 1937: 2002. I 4 unclear,Food can. looks sanitary like (openingwith a can method opener ca. I 90() I'ontana1 990: 1962: E3usch Rock 1 992 1 41/241:2 4 topI'ood removed can. hole-in-cap. hand-solder. whole late 19th century ca. 1900 I 4 1:4 23/4 openingMilk can, hole-in-cap. knif-punch ca. 19001931 to pre- BowyerBitting I 2002.937: I 4 lt4 3 circleFood can,opened hole-in-cap, center-hold-and- late 19th century 1onhniaI 990; Busch1962; IRock 992 lahle 19.5, I: Surve Results. Description. Public Land. Butte [al Is Group, /ñ, Clemens. continued. :1 ,'fiIactLoc. I L (111 ) H Diam(in ) (in ) (in W I Depth Desrip(in Date Ranuc FontanaSource ci al.. 1962; 1 Food can. hole-in-cap, center-hold-and- Rock 1 990: Busch 4 1/4 3 Foodcircle can.opened sanitary, rust ca.late 19th century 1992 I 900 1RockFoiltana 992 199(3: ci al., Busch 1962; 41/44 [4 3 Food can, sanitary, whole top removed ca. I 30() RockFontana1 992 I 990: et al.. Busch 1962; 189
Table B.5.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #6 Clemens. Typology after Roderick Spague, 1980.
Category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Type
Domestic Items Housewares & appliances culinary cook-stove doors gustatory milk cans food cans Table B.6. 1: Survey Results. [)escription, Public Luid. Butte Falls Group. #7, ('levenger. Fl Dianì(in.) (in.) L \? Depth Desriptiot(in.) [)ate Range Source /c'a Ii ires (in.) (in.) Not mentioned in 655 (HRC WaterMoss-coveredSpring flowsenclosure: tiom boats outer-threaded & rocks at spring metal MayIL)l() post-date hoInLstLid (Foni lccnguItem #Fl-2. liii) 3' 5" 6 1:2" postPostpipe withis ax-cut, roundQ-gauge peeled nails galvanizedlog wire is attached to 191
Table B.6.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #7, Clevenger. Typology after Roderick Spague, 1980.
Category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Type
Architecture Plumbing water supply spring enclosure Table4 rü/iets B 7. // Offl (lW?/?: Survey Results, Description. Public I and, Butte Falls Group. 5 2. Neuher. Cans(ilL) 11 [)iam(in ) (in ) 1. (in W Depth Desri(in Date Ranue S urcc 35 4 1/2 33/8 openedFood. w1Yunkee-style crimped ends, locked opener side seams. ca. 1 900 FontariaBuschFontana1962: 1992 Rocketct al..al., I 990: I 0 4 2 5/8 openedFood, viYankee-stvlecrimped ends,ends. locked opener side seams.scams. ca. I 900 FontanaBuschI1962: 962: I 992RockCt al., 11990: 990: 2()65 4 5/84 3/8 314 4 3'4 openedexternalTobacco w/Yankee-style friction(verticle, & pockethintted opener tobacco), lids ca. 1907 FontanaRockBusch 199() 1992 et al.. 7 S 'ainsTuna opcnLd(2). crimped ends, locked side " mkt..c-st\ Ic opcn.r L i I 9(10 Busch1962: 1992 Rock 1990 4545 4 3/8 Milk,hole\lilk. stamped opening,stamped ends. handends, hole-in-cap, solder solder-vent, punched punched I 920s- II ()39930s BittingBowyerBii,tin2 1937: 2002 243/8 1/2 4 1/2 holesolderhole-in-cap,Ni opening,ilk. stamped handpunched ends, solder lockedhole opening, side scams, hand I 920s- I 93(:) BowyerBittiniiBo\\ er 1937: 20022002 ;1Table B. 7. I I'tifucLs tJ'ol?! Jump !ea(lu'c. : Survey Results, Description. Public Land. Butte Falls Group, 52. Neuber. continued. # Ft Diam F W Depth Desription Date Range Source 2 (in ) 3 3 1:4(in ) jn ) (in ) 1 7/8(in) seams,Meat key-wound(? ). stamped opening ends, locked side ca. 900 BuschFontana1962: 1 992Rockci al.. 1990: 3 4 3 3/4 2 1:2 opening,sideCookinL! seams. band oil solder-vent, (?), solder crimped punched ends. locked hole ca. I 900 FontanaBuschI 962; I ciRucket al., I 902 90: 7 sideBaking seams, powder. external crimped friction ends, lid lucked ca. I )0() Busch1962; 1992 Rock I t)9ft 4F42 1/2 "GHIRARDELLI'Sseams,Chocolate. external crimped friction CHOCOLATE"ends, lid, locked lithograph: side ca. I 90( I'ontanaBuschFontana1962: 1 992ci Rockal.,al.. 1990: rectangular.Gas can lid, oti'setwith shaped threaded wire opening. handle ca. I 900 BuschFontanaI1962: 9n2; 1 992 Rocket al., 11990: 990: 2 53/4 3 1/2 openedCoih.'e.:Ood. w/Ycrimpedstamped ankee-stvle ends,ends, lockedlocked opener sideside seanis,'cams ca.ca. 1900 1 900 BuschI'ontana1962: I 992902Rockci al., 1900: .ir1ttactstroniTable B.7. I:Cans SurveycIumfIc'(iIlIIL'. Results. Description, Public Land. Butte Falls Group, 52, Neuher, continued. # (in.) 11 Diam(in.) (in.) L (in.) V Depth(in.) Desription Cooking oil, offset threaded opening, Date Range FontanaSource1962; Rocket al., 1990; 3 1/8 7 4 1/2 2 1/41 314 in-cap,Offsetscrew top. threadedhand hand solder opening,solder, with screw wire top. handle hole- ca.Ca. 1900 i 90() BuschFontana1962; 1992 Rocket al.. 1990; 71/2 6 solderLard, lugs, internal hand friction solder lid, bail handle with ca. 1900 FontanaBuschFontana1962; etI 992Rock etal.. al., 1990; I 5 3/4 4 1/4 externalCrimpedLog Cabin friction ends, Syrup, locked lid stamped side seams, ends, locked (lithographca. 19001920s-1930s Busch1962; 1992 Rock 1990; 4 3/4 3 1/4 4 3/4 cap.stampedSyrup,side seams,hand offset ends, solder, screw opening locked u-shaped top (notsideopening threaded).seams,flat handle, hole-in- indiscernable) Rock 199() 7 5 3/4 3 LUGS/ANDSyrupembossed Co/PRY on LIFT" top OUT/FRONT of lid: "Pacific Coast ca. 1900 BuschFontana1962: 1992 RockCt al., I 990; fi/FIJUCISTable B.7.I: CansSurvey Results, Description. Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #52, Neuher. continued.fro,n (lUmp 1eiiiirc. (in.) H Diarn(in.) (in.) L (in.) \V Depth Desription(in.) I)atc Range SourceFontana Ct al., Ar/i/acts from dtunp13/8 feature. 5 6 3/ openedFish, stampedv/Yankee-style ends, locked opener side seams, ca 1 900 Busch1962; 1992 Rock 1990: Boitic's (in.) U Diam(in.) (in.) L (in.) W Depth Desription(in.) Clear, single exterior thread. machine- Date Range Source I l/8x3/4 Aqua.made,I body fragmentmachine-made, fragments I base. I finish, & post-1904ca. 1920 Rock 1990 3 (base) 1x5/8 Clear,bottom2Aqua, rim & soda,preserve of1 basebase: crown fragments,jar, '2' topsingle exteriorembossed thread. on post-Iunable 920 to det. Rock 1990 3 1/2 Clear,Aqua.Aqua, picklepreserve window jar jar, (?), glass. base body Th=3/l fragment fragment ' unablepost- 1 920to (let.det. Rock 1990 Table 137.1:lrtifacis/ii.wi Survey Results. c/llrnpfe(Iture. Description. Public Land. BLitte Falls Group. #5. Neuher, continued. Bottles H Diarn (in.) L W Depth Desription(in.) [)ate Range Source (in.) (in.) (in.) ClearTh=l/8" bottleglass fragments, body fragments with beveled edge. post-Iunable Q20 to det. ToulouseRock 1991) 1971; bottombaseClear,Aqua, & Leablown-in-mold, tinishof base,& Perrins,fragments, embossed base panelled valve fragmentsat outside mark pickle onof jar ca. 1920 Rock 1 990 2 1/4 basebase,Aqua.5/8" fragments,within diam. Lea squares:& Perrins, crown "D" top body, "C": with finish, tInish bead andis 1 ca. 1930s-40s Rock 199() features below,withinneck, machine-made, embossed a diamond/l2" on bottom some bubbles ohase: "Iin ca. 1920 RockToulouse 1990 1971; 13 m. 27'30' 20'14' Outbuilding,logCabin,Dump, purlin peeled artifacts roof log log, listedfront-gable above shake-over- ca.Ca. 1924-281920s-30s1924-28 listedHRCNRC Itemabove #H-8 Fl-8 Table 13.7.1: Survey Results. Description, Public Land. Butte Falls Group. #52, Neuher. continued. Artifacts in cabin vicinil(in.) H Diarn(in.) (in.) L (in.) W Depth Desription(in.) Date Range Source 9 CONTENTS"'pop'shards1-gallon bottle of clear lard glass, orandcans embossed 'Coke bottle at base: green' "NET ca. 1920s 198
Table B.7.2: Survey Results, Typology, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #52, Neuber. Typology after Roderick Spague, 1980.
Category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Type
Personal ItemsIndulgences tobacco pocket tobacco tins Domestic Items Housewares & appliances culinary baking powder can cooking oil cans gustatory milk cans coffee cans syrup cans food cans lard cans chocolate can Lea & Perrin bottles
Architecture Structures cabin remains outbuilding remains 199
Appendix C Table C. 1: Homestead Settings, Public Land. Applegate Group. N=6. No. \Vater 5 Ciniborski,Name Felix Acres 160 Aspect E 2800-3400Altitude Slope20% cabindownhill to Felix Gulch llom Timber Volume 1145 MBF 109 Foster,Dixon, FrankRobert A. R. 160tOO80 W/SWN'NE 2200-3200SE level to steep 2000-2300 2300 25-40% steep unnamed creek through claim 25004000 N1BFMBF60 MBF 26 1 5 Textor.Kennev.Hall, GeorgeClinton Christian ('Deafy') J. 16035 SW/SW & \ 2400-0O() 2500-3000 5-25% tccp downhillF3LaLr to Creek Yale throughCreek,Creek. spring darn 407 MB[-350 MBF Table (T2: Homestead Settings. Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte C reek Group. N:8. No. 4 NaiieBradshaw, Ready H. Acres I 60 Aspect N 3600-4200 Altitude Slopesteep unnamed creek through claim \Vater l'lmher Volume 600 MBF 161413 Johnson,Kingsbury,liaielton, Harley George Charles B. 160 NW 470050005300 levelsteeplevel none, Beaver Dani Creeknone, apx. Hoxie Creek to NW .2 ml. to NW well 40002000 MBE:MBF 2725241 7 Terrill.Stratton,Watson.Palmerlee, Charles Percy Daniel Henry C.E. E. S. 160l() NW NS 5200-53003000-4000 45004700 level to steep steeplevel unnamed creek through claimdownhill to Soda Creek flOflCwell 300()300020004000 M\JIBFMBFv1BF BF Table C.3 : 1-lomestcad Settings. Public Land, Butte Falls Group. N= 11 No. I NameAlbert, George El.. Sr. Acres 16()160 Aspect S Altitude 3000 Slopesteep cabin on Box Creek \Vat er Timber Volume 4500 MBF 76 I Clevenger,Clemens, David S. Marion 160 NW W 3000-3200 3400 I 0-20%steep Frcdenhurg Spring on claim well 4000 MBF fl() ifli(>. 2019I 18 Scott,Powers,Pentz,Grover, WilliamSamuel FloydSamuel NI.\V. F. 1 20/40 N&W160l60 SE F 30003400 gentlesteep unnamed creekFriFriese through ese CreekCreek claim throughnone, claim creeks to NE & F 50003500 MBF 2221 Smith,Shaffer, Laura Albert A. 12040 NW 3000-3200 2900 gentlelevel Norththrough Fork claim, (larks irrigation Fork Creek ditch spring by house 2000 MBF400 MBF 5223 Neuber,Smith, Newton George L. 16()160 3800-4200 3000 level togentlesteep unnamed creek through claim spring iii. to SE 3000 MBF no info. fable C.4: Homestead Settings. Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N3. No. Name Acres Aspect Altitude Slope West Branch Elk Creek, 200 \V ater Timber Volume 32 Dickinson,Borgen,Blass, George Christian William G. 1601601 60 SWW E 2200-28003000-35003000-450() level to steep steep yards downslopeSugarpineTrail Creek. from Creek/unnamed cabindownhill to F creek confluence 400050003000 MBF MBF Table CS: Homestead Settings, Patent Land. Applegate Group, N" I No. Name Acres Aspect Altitude Slope Water Timber \'olumc 47 Reynolds, James W. 101 \V 2100-2400 5-75 Sterling Mining Ditch through Little Applegate River, claim 125 MBF (on 40 ac.) Table C .6: Flomestead Sett 'tgs. Patent Land, 1)ead Indiati Plateau/Little Butte Creek (iroup. N6. No. Name Acres Aspect Altitude Slope Water Tiiiiber 'volunie 3 13() ConBurton, 1ev, Milo Clayton E. 120lô() NS 3400-2600 5400 no infi.info unnamedthree creek springs through (1909): ci ai in lack of water (1910) 25001500 MBF MBF 45503733 Stannard,Johnson,Peterson,Edler, August IraGeorge Dan G. C.Henry A. (Ada) I160 60160 W &S N & SWNE N 5300-54004500-53004300-4500 4700 110 nfu levellevel unnamedspring creek (is throughridgetop claim & saddle) wellvclI 20(i()4000250() NIMBF BE800 MBF Table C.7: I lomestead Settinis. Patent Land, Butte Falls Group. N= 10. No. Name20 Baker, Iiarv Alice Acres 1 60 Aspect S Altitude 300() Slopesteep cabin on Box Creek Water Timber \'olume 4500 MBF 34 Emerson, Dr. Edward E. 160 E 3000 level Cabinclaim, EightyCreek water throughAcre to Creek cabin claim, throughpiped from spring 4000 MBF 383635 Goss,Hawk,Jones, Oliver Simon Arthur NI. L. i. 92.5/62/5 110 into 160160 no info S 3000-360() 32003700 no infogentle unnamed creek throughNorth ci aim Fork Clarks Creekcabin on Dog Creek spnng 1 00 MBF (on 20 ac.) 30007000 MBF 39 Jones, George F. 160 S 3300 level unnamed creek,South spring---all Fork Clarks Creek. through claim, well 3000 N'IBF 49484644 Owen, Delbert A. Spencer,Read, Bert HarveyElmer W. E. B. 120/40 1 6016() SEN 330030003000 levelI eve! Dog Creek through claim pipedDog from Creek spring to SW within claim 30004000 MBF Table C.8: Homestead Settings. Patent Land. Elk ('reekltipper Rogue River Group, N7. No. Name28 Ash, Edward E. Acres80!8() Aspect SE Altitude 2500 no infoSlope East Fork Elk Creek through \\' claimater i'iniher Volume 2500 MBF 414032 Lystig,Cushman,Kiter, Christian John William D. C. H. I160 6080 S & SE SW N 25003300190() no intogentlelevel Trailditch Creek from & Buck unnamed Creek creek through claim spring 4()(Xj2500 NIBF MBF80 MBF SI4342 \Villits,Oleson,Moore, ArthurIreneAdolph \Vrislev D. 401120120/4020.35 N & W N\V F 2700-3200 26003000 20-25%no infoinft unnamed creek through claim Button Creek, unnamed creek wellthrough at springs claim 25002000No MBFtimber 208
Appendix D Table I). I : Homestead Structures. Public Land, Applegate Group., N6. No. Name Fype Value (5) Fence Value (5) 05 Dixon,Cirnhorski, Frank Felix A. 52 cabin;I rm woodshed log cabin; barn; buggy shed: root house; woodshed 255 norail 30-35 1210 Foster.Hall, Robert(;eorgc R. ('Deafs") 46 house;log house; hog pen new cabin;un house; pen!shed; grain goat storehouse; shed: stable; ha hani; chicken 350-500(cabin) corrals50-60 &(all) rail.other ditch fencing 2615 Textor,Kenney, Clinton Christian J. 4I shake-over-polelog cabin; woodshed: cabin; log log barn; barn; small outhouse; outbuildings darn 85 (cabin& barn) 5 (all) log,pole,tnce. rail brush ditch & ISO Table D.2: Homestead Structures, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau Little Butte Creek Group. f:ence No. 4 NameBradshaw, Ready H. # Type' log cabin: box house; log barn: wood shed; pig pen Value340 (S) (all) woven wire rail & brush, Value S) 1413 Johnson.Ilazcltoii, Harley George 2 1 I1 roonroom log log cabin: cabin, logunpeeled ham logs 90 (all) 60 pole & brush I1 76 Palmerlec,Kingsbury, Henry Charles S. B. 52 cabin;log cabin;I ml log peeled logstahle:outhouse barn log cabin: unpeeled log shed; unpeeled log 300125 (all) (all) pole & rail 3-wirerail & pole 151) (all) 24 Stratton, Percy C. 2 box cabin: log barn 9() (all) & wire picketlogbarbed, & brush: pole 27'S Terrill,Watson, Charles Daniel E. E. 2 log cabin; barnshake-over-pole chicken house 10545 (all) (all) around cabin polebrush.j.,i cket. log. & Table 1)3: Noniestead Structures. Public Land, Butte Falls Group. N= I I No. Albert,Name George H., Sr. 2 Type1 room log cabin: log smokehouse Value(S) 40-50 postpicket & 2- Fence Value(S) 76 Clemens, David 5 I1 cabincabin; barn; store house; hen house; outhouse 50 polestrand & wire log 181 I Pentz.Grover,Clevenger, Samuel Samuel S. Marion F. 2 cabin;cabin log barn pole & post. 2019 Scott,Powers, William Floyd M.W. 2 1 logcabinlog cabin; frame cabin 50 (all) log 25 rail, pole 2122 Smith,Shaffer, Laura Albert A. 3I cabinunpeeled & road log cabin; barn; woodshed 150 (all) ditch 125 barbedlog fence. wire 23 2 Smith,Neuber, Newton George L. 23 log cabin: log outbuildingwoodhouse; cellar 50 (all) brush picket. pole. 10 Table [)4: Homestead Structures, Public Lmd. Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group. N3. No. Name Type Value (S) pole, brush Fence Value 283 Dickinson,Borgcn,Biass, George Christian William C. 23 unpeeledlog cabin:eahin log loglog cahin; penharm or logshed crib store room 603015 (all) (all) & logs rail TaNe 115: Homestead Structures, Patent Land, Applegate Group. N= I No. 47 RevName nolds, James 3 Type2 rm log cabin; log storehouse; lumber barn Value290 ($) (all) Fence Value ($) Table D.O: Homestead Structures, Patent Land. Dead Indian Plateau/Little I3utte Creek (iroup N=O. No. Name 1 Type Value (5) Fence Value (S) 3130 Conley,Burton, MiloClayton F. 32 lumberlog cabin; cabin; log log & barn; clapboard smokehouse barn 250140 (all) (all) 37 3 Edler, August C. 22 cabin:2 room log log cabin cabin; log barn 300 90(all) (all) wire &(IntL post rail. & 175 (all) Johnson, Ira G. plusirrigationlog hewed & pole, 4550 Stannard,Peterson. DanGeorge Henry A. (Ada) 5 chickenhouse framedlog house:cabin: privy loglog cabin:woodshed; log storehouse; barn; chicken log house:barn: log 355 (all) & slash rail,troughs pole Table D7: Homestead Structures. Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, N= 10. No. Name ft 1'ype Value (S) Fence Value S) 353429 Emerson, Dr. Edward E. Goss,Baker, Oliver Mary NI. Alice 33I barn2logcabin room cabin; cabin; smokehouse; shake-over-pole log barn cabin; outhouse: log 175170 (all) (all) post picket & wire 10 393836 Hawk, Simon NI. Jones. Arthur L. 432 log cabin;cabin: log cabinbarn: cellar 290 (all)55 (all)ditch raillog, rail. & 30 (ditch) 25 4644 Owen, Delbert A. Jones,Read, George Bert W. F. 6 house:2 log cabin log cabin;house; woodshedloglog barn:barn: haylog shed:woodshed; woodshed; wagon chicken shed 225610 175(all) (all) pole,pole log 4849 Spencer, Elmerharvey E. B. 32 board cabin; log woodshedhoard cabin: board woodshed; barn; chicken house 295300 (all) picket. pole railpicket. pole & 35 Table .: Homestead Structures. Patent Land, Elk CreeklJpper Rogue River Group. N7. No. Name # Type \/alue (S) Fence Value 28 Ash, Edward E. 4 cabin: log building: shed: doghouse 112 (all) brush brushpostsplit & & rail,pole. log. 42414032 Lstig,Cushman,l Appendix E 218 Table E. 1: Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Applegate Group, N6. No. Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 5 Cimborski, Felix 160 4 9 Dixon, Frank A. 160 <1 10Foster, Robert R. 80 no info. 12Hall, George ('Deafy') 160 4.5 15 Kenney, Christian J. 35 12 26Textor, Clinton 160 3.5 Table E.2: Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=8. No.Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 4 Bradshaw, Ready H. 160 <1 13 Hazelton, George 160 0 14 Johnson, Harley 160 2.5 16 Kingsbury, Charles B. 160 <1 17 Palmerlee, Henry S. 160 <1 24Stratton, Percy C. 160 2.2 25 Terrill, Charles E. 160 <1 27 Watson, Daniel E. 160 <1 219 Table E.3: Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, N1 1. No. Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 1 Albert, George H., Sr. 160 <1 6 Clemens, David 160 1.5 7 Clevenger, S. Marion 160 1.25 11 Grover, Samuel F. 120/40 no info. 18 Pentz, Samuel 160 0 19Powers, Floyd M. 160 no info. 20 Scott, William W. 160 <1 21 Shaffer, Albert 120 3 22 Smith, Laura A. 40 <1 23 Smith, Newton L. 160 <1 52Neuber, George 160 no info. Table E.4: Homestead Land Use, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=3. No. Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 2Blass, George 160 <1 3 Borgen, Christian G. 160 2 8 Dickinson, William 160 0 220 Table E.5: Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Applegate Group, N No. Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 47 Reynolds, James W. 101 10 Table E.6: Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, N=6. No. Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 30 Burton, Clayton E. 160 <1 31 Conley, Milo 120 4 33Edler, August C. 160 0 37Johnson, Ira G. 160 0.5 45Peterson, Dan Henry 160 3 50 Stannard, George A. (Ada) 160 2 221 Table E.7: Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, N10. No. Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 29 Baker, Mary Alice 160 no info. 34 Emerson, Dr. Edward E. 160 1 35Goss, Oliver M. 92.5/62/5 20 36 Hawk, Simon M. 160 1.5 38 Jones, Arthur L. 160 1.5 39 Jones, George F. 160 <1 44 Owen, Delbert A. 160 2.5 46 Read, Bert W. 120/40 1 48Spencer, Elmer E. 160 3 49 Spencer, Harvey B. 160 <2 Table E.8: Homestead Land Use, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, N=7. No. Name Acres Claimed Acres Cultivated 28Ash, Edward E. 80/80 1 32 Cushman, William H. 80 1.25 40Kiter, John D. 160 2.66 41Lystig, Christian C. 160 4 42 Moore, Arthur D. 20.35 4.75 43Oleson, Adolph 40/120 4 51Willits, Irene Wrisley 120/40 <1 222 Appendix F 223 Homestead Location Map T4OS R2W W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS Quadrangle I :24,000 2.375"=I mile 224 - ,, tL t4 T'J 1) : L Homestead Location Map T24S R4W W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Tallowbox Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle I :24,000 2.375"=I mile 225 Homestead Location Map T38S R3W W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Mt. Isabelle 7.5' USGS Quadrangle I :24OOO 2.375"=I mile 226 Homestead Location Map T4OS R2W W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Dutchman Peak 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375'=l mile 227 \' 1 ? i \.. -- I ,)) -ç /( i(j' ' #26,Textor , Jdr I - _' - / \I1W / t',' '- -- -..- / -I'--. . ,- ,___ ) : -L, ç'--_i' P' (I ('J':.' &"- t L ' -' " i /",-' . - ,.9 ti I "1, ) (LIiJPr ) ))I fl', R .J(/4. - I,... ,s., ?--. I - / I - 11/I\L- ( "''' JUdc\4$74\I\ :/-L ?:T I \(1 ., .' JiI // ' I) c(,P I /' J J i?',' ,'-_' ''\I', .,\ ç I II . - I '. - ( /_ )i.', (I --' - HomesteadLocation Map . T4OSR3WW.M. ii 'Jackson County, Oregon i. . '1 fJ Squaw Lakes and 1 (. Dutchman Peak7.5' USGSQuadranglesN , 1:24.000 (t ". lu1' ', 2.375=1 mile f .',--: - I 228 4 \ V ' Homestead Location Map T39S RIW W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Talent 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 Ni 2.375"=l mile 229 #17, Palmerlee #13, Hazelton Homestead Location Map T38S R5E W.M. Kiamath County, Oregon Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=1 mile Figure F.7: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #13, Hazelton, #17, Palmerlee; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/ Little Butte Creek Group, #50, Stannard. 230 #14, Johnson, Harley Homestead Location Map T38S R4E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=lmile Figure F.8: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #14, Johnson, Harley; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #37, Johnson, Ira. 231 I / / #16. Kingsbuçc / // a, Th/ - t I, Homestead Location Map T38S R4E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Little Chinquapin and Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS QuadranglesN 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.9: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #16, Kingsbury. 232 ) 1/ #25, Terrill #31, Conley 2 Homestead Location Map T37S R3E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Willow Lake 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=1 mile Figure F.10: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #4, Bradshaw. #25,Terrill; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #31, Conley. Homestead Location Map T37S R3E, T38S R3E, W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Grizzly Peak and Robinson Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.!!: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #24, Stratton, #27, Watson. 234 '1" \ ( / -- 2' #30, Burton LI Mu - .-,.. -;V - / adø ssAi-a -' /1" // \N' 2 /',/( (j/ ___/ j'±/______/ ( A! f-cJ//1 / ,'/2? 71/'It , /' /< -."2' Homestead Location Map -f T38S R5E W.M. _,'//: Klamath County, Oregon gY /Brown Mountain & Lake of the Woods 7.5' USGS Quadrangles 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F. 12: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #30, Burton. Homestead Location Map T37S R3E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Robinson Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375=1 mile Figure F. 13: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #33, Edler. 236 Homestead Location Map T38S R5E W.M. Kiamath County, Oregon Brown Mountain 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F. 14: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #45, Peterson. 237 N\ #1, Albert Homestead Location Map T34S R2E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Butte FaIls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.15: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #1, Albert, #7, Clevenger, #20, Scott; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #29, Baker. 238 Homestead Location Map T35SR3EW.M. Jackson County, Oregon Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=1 mile Figure F.16: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #6, Clemens, #21, Shaffer. 239 #34, Emerson Homestead Location Map T34S R2E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375=1 mile Figure F.17: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #11, Grover; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #34, Emerson, #46, Read. #19, Powers. Figure E18:Homestead Locations, PublicLand,ButteFallsGroup,#18, Pentz, 'F ,, ;u I \ I F \ \ ', / tJx \ \ \ I, Jackson County,Oregon T34S R3EW.M. 2.375"=l mile 1:24,000 Big ButteSprings7.5'USGSQuadrangle / Homestead LocationMap #19, Powers #th, Pentz c-. 'b-") It z ,1 240 24 PLLWAY 3O? Willow Lake 3o9 Boat )ok OOWflY OH #52, Neuber Figure F.19: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #22, Smith, L., #52, Neuber. 242 Homestead Location Map T34S R4EIR3E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Big Butte Springs 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.20: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, #35, Goss. Homestead Location Map T34S R2E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Butte Falls 7.5' USGS Quadrangles 1:24,000 2.375=1 mile Figure F.21: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, #36, Hawk, #48, Spencer, E. 244 Figure F.22: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Butte Falls Group, #23, Smith, N.; Patent Land, Dead Indian Plateau/Little Butte Creek Group, #38, Jones, A., #39, Jones, G., #44, Owen. 245 Homestead Location Map T34S R2E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Cascade Gorge 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=I mile Figure F.23: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Butte Falls Group, #49, Spencer, H. 246 Homestead Location Map T32S R1WW.M. Jackson County, Oregon Ragsdale Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.24: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #2, Blass. 247 42- #3, Borgen Homestead Location Map T32S R1W W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Ragsdale Butte 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.25: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #3, Borgen. 248 Homestead Location IYtap T32S RIE W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Sugar Pine Creek 7.5'USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.26: Homestead Locations, Public Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #8, Dickinson. Homestead Location Map T32S R2EW.M. Jackson County, Oregon Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375=1 mile Figure F.27: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #28, Ash. 250 i_),T/ ) E4\'\\\\' - - \L /. Z: i \ iIw I(f\<1\'' /,--. r'% \ ? Homestead Location Map T33S RIWWM. Jackson County, Oregon Trail 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 - .'. 2.375"=l mile 47/uc-4' '4,i 1'W/ '22 Figure F.28: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #32, Cushman. Homestead Location Map T32SR2EW.M. Jackson County, Oregon Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.29: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #40, Kiter. 252 Homestead Location Map T32S R2E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Sugar Pine Creek and Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangles 1:24,000 N 2.375=1 mile Figure F.30: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #41, Lystig, #43, Oleson. 253 1 (, #51, Willits / ff1/)32 ,1/ c (7' Homestead Location Map T32S R2E W.M. Jackson County, Oregon Whetstone Point 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1:24,000 2.375"=l mile Figure F.3 1: Homestead Locations, Patent Land, Elk Creek/Upper Rogue River Group, #42, Moore, #51, Willits.