Project Goals <slide 3 photo, students with fence, orange string in foreground>

The project was designed to use the intensive 3-week course to:

• Train students and professionals in tree-ring sample collection, analysis, and interpretation and

• Provide detailed chronological, behavioral, and environmental information about the Martinez Homestead occupation

The Martinez Homestead <slide 12 photo, distant shot of homestead and butte>

• The Martinez Homestead was initially recorded by the BLM in 1984 and updated by DCA in 2001.

• The site map shows four Features: the House, the Corral,

• a check dam, and a small sandstone wall.

• Additional features were noted during this project.

• An ethnographic interview was conducted in 2001.

The House

• The main house consists of four rooms. Rooms 1 and 2 have standing masonry walls, Room 3 has a standing jacal wall and a boulder that served as the east wall, and Room 4 contains only small wall segments and the outline of it’s original shape.

• Room 1 contains four large room primary beams and window and door lintels; none of the other rooms have intact roofs, but all contain some wooden elements.

• A bond-abut architectural analysis indicates that Rooms 1, 2, and 4 were built at the same time, but that Room 3 was built earlier than the others.

Interpreting Room 1

• The Dates: The 11 dates samples from Room 1 suggest two different building events. Because all of the roof primary beams yielded noncutting dates, it is only the door lintels and horizontal intramural beams that provide construction information. Apparently, the room was built in the spring of 1922—as evidenced by the 1921v comp and 1922v inc dates from the south and west door lintels. These dates fit well with those from Rooms 2 and 3. Some type of repair or remodeling was conducted in the spring of 1928 as indicated by the 1927v comp date from the south wall and the 1928vv date from the east wall intramural. These later dates fit with a single 1928 noncutting date from the lambing pens.

• The Wood Species: There is a distinct preference for Douglas-fir primary beams, probably because of their size. The other elements—window and door lintels—are mostly ponderosa, pinyon, and juniper. This is interesting because Douglas-fir and ponderosas grow only in a few select areas today. Assuming there has been minimal vegetation change, the site occupants must have exerted substantial effort to procure the Douglas-fir primary beams.

Interpreting Room 3

• The Dates: The six 1908 cutting or near cutting dates clearly indicate construction of the jacal wall in Room 3 in that year; the two 1907+B timbers were probably harvested at the same time. The terminal rings of the 1908 samples—complete Douglas-fir, pinyon, and juniper samples, and two incomplete juniper samples—indicate that the wall was built in the fall of 1908 after the end of the Douglas-fir and Pinyon growing seasons, but before the end of the juniper growing season. The 1922vv date from sample MMH-14 indicates that the masonry wall on the south side of Room 3 was added later, probably as a replacement for a previous jacal wall.

• The Wood Species: Juniper was clearly the species preferred for the jacal wall, although Pinyon and Douglas-fir were also used. Juniper was probably acceptable because the wall beams did not need to be long or large, and it was easy to procure.

Interpreting the Corral

• The Dates: Nineteen of the 34 corral samples dated. A near cutting date in 1908+GB fits with the dates from Room 3 for inferring the initial construction of the corral. The latest date from the corral suggests use after the 1920 Douglas-fir growing season (possibly spring 1921). There are no later, i.e. 1928, dates, but the corral was probably in use until at least that time.

• The Wood Species: In contrast to the lambing pens, juniper is the most common species in the corral; Douglas-fir, pinyon, ponderosa, a spruce/fir, and even oak are present as well. The species distribution may be skewed by our sampling strategy, but juniper was clearly the most used species, probably because of its immediate availability.

Interpreting the Lambing Pens

• The Dates: The 12 dated samples from the lambing pens indicate initial use in the early 1900s, probably at the same time Room 3 was constructed. They also indicate use of the pens in the 1920s, with the latest date at 1928vv. Interestingly, none of the dates fall in the 1910s.

• The Wood Species:

• The species used in the lambing pens include Douglas-fir (n=7), pinyon (n=4),

• Juniper (n=1), and ponderosa (n=1); only the juniper sample did not date. The paucity of juniper suggests it was avoided in the pens, but the reason remains unknown.

Significance of the Trough 

<slide 35, Ron sampling trough> Note height of the current bank above the trough.

• Although the fir sample from the trough (MMH-77) did not date, the trough yields other important information. Extensive deposition has buried the canal and trough by as much as 30 cm of sediment. Was this significant erosion and deposition in the small rincon caused by the sheep and humans denuding the landscape around the homestead? Is that also why the large Douglas-fir beams were laid uphill from the corral (to prevent dirt from washing into the structure)?

Interpreting Wood Use at the Site

• Species Preferences: Six different tree species were used at the site: Douglas-fir, Ponderosa pine, Pinyon pine, Juniper, Oak, and an unidentified spruce/fir. Douglas-fir and Ponderosa are the dominant species used in the masonry rooms, probably because of their size. Juniper is the dominant species used in the corral and jacal wall, probably because those structures did not require long, straight beams. The lambing pens are dominated by Douglas-fir and Pinyon; ethnographic information may help determine if these species are preferred for this type of structure and why. All of the species are locally available, except perhaps the spruce/fir. The Douglas-fir and Ponderosa grow in north-facing alcoves across the valley; the Pinyon and juniper grow on the mesa top above the site; and the oak (probably Gamble’s Oak) may have grown near a seep in a nearby alcove.

• Tool Marks: The majority of the beams were harvested and modified using a metal ax. There are a few sawn beam ends and the milled lumber must have been purchased, but most of the harvesting, notching, debarking, and delimbing was done with a metal ax.

• Deadwood Use: Deadwood, possibly indicated by the ++ symbol, may have been used in the lambing pens, the corral, and as a lintel in Room 1.

The Chronology of the Martinez Homestead

• A total of 87 tree-ring samples was collected from the site, 58 of which yielded dates; 17 of the dates are cutting or near cutting dates. The earliest near cutting date is 1907+LB and the latest date is 1928vv.

• The earliest construction at the site was the jacal wall in Room 3 in the fall of 1908; indeed all of Room 3 was probably built at that time. There is some evidence that portions of the corral were built at the same time.

• There is some evidence that the corral was used during the late 1910s and early 1920s, but possibly not later.

• Rooms 1, 2, and 4 were apparently constructed as unit in 1921-1922. The beams for Room 2 were cut in the spring of 1921, but the south door lintel in Room 1 and south door jamb in Room 3 indicate that construction was not completed until the following year.

• Repairs to the west wall of Room 1 were performed in the spring of 1928; the lambing pens were also in use until sometime after the spring of 1928.

• Determining when the site was abandoned is difficult, but it may have been abandoned by the early 1930s and onset of the Great Depression.

Ethnographic Information

• As part of the site re-recording in 2001, the Division of Conservation Archaeology conducted an interview with Mike Martinez, grandson of Margarita Martinez.

• He indicated that:

• The house was built around 1908 with the help of friends and relatives and occupied until the 1940s.

• Room 1was a living room, Room 2 was a bedroom, and Room 3 was the kitchen. No information about Room 4 is available.

• The inhabitants raised livestock and dry-farmed corn, beans, peas, and pumpkins.

Acknowledgements

We sincerely appreciate the assistance of the following individuals and institutions:

• James M. Copeland of the Farmington District Bureau of Land Management

• Thomas W. Swetnam and the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona

• Richard L. Warren, Laboratory of Tree-ring Research, university of Arizona

Return to Top                   Return to Dendrochronology Fieldschool Webpage                    Return to LTRR homepage