Lessons From the Arizona Site Steward Program, Mary Estes (Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Volume 14, 2004) (excerpt)

"Lessons From The Arizona Site Steward Program", by Mary Estes, Site Steward Program Coordinator, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, for Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Volume 14, 2004, pp. 87-90. This article arguing for the necessity of stewards for historic sites located on public property mentions an incident in which Bill W. Smith thwarted vandalism at the Camp Date Creek site in 2003.

PuRuc PARTICIPATION AND TilE PROTECTION OF ARCIIAEOIOGICAL REsouRcis 87 LESSONS FROM THE ARIZONA SITE STEWARD PROGRAM MARY ESTES The Arizona Site Steward Program began in the late l980s, and has now grown to almost 700 members. This author has been the state program coordinator for the last nine years, and the following paper outlines the pros and cons of developing a stewardship program, working to ensure accountability in volunteers, suggestions for limiting the flow of site information to volunteers, and working with the news media to ensure program coverage while at the same time protecting site locations. Fr om the chalking of petroglyphs on the Arizona Strip, to the looting for Spanish treasure behind the Chapel at the Presidio de Santa Cruz de Terranate near Sierra Vista — from Arizona’s northern rim to its southern border — Arizona Site Stewards report vandalism almost weekly to the various land managers who participate in the Arizona Site Steward Program. Unlike most other stewardship programs in the United States which have been developed to serve a single land manager, for ten years, Arizona Site Stewards have been assisting federal, state, county, and municipal land managers with cultural resource management. Arizona’s Site Stewards also monitor historic cemeteries and sites for the Archaeological Conservancy. Currently, Arizona has 700 volunteers serving in 22 communities across the state. Each region has a volunteer Regional Coordinator to oversee the training, site assignments, and operations of the Stewards in the region. While most of the work is done by the Regional Coordinator in the local area, the Land Manager must get involved with assigning sites to the region, responding to reports of vandalism, assisting with the initial field training of Stewards and as speakers at workshops and conferences sponsored by the program. Several times the question has been asked whether the land managers sponsoring the program believe it is worth the funding they provide, and the time and effort they put into working with the volunteers. When posed that question at a recent compliance workshop, City of Phoenix Archaeologist Todd Bostwick said without hesitation that he could not manage the sites he is responsible for without the assistance of the Site Stewards. Over the years, Site Stewards have earned the reputation of being an essential part of the protection of cultural resources in the state of Arizona. For organizations or agencies in the beginning stages of developing an archaeological stewardship program, the question might be whether or not it is worth the time, effort, and expense. What are the pros and cons of such a program? Bill Smith (Figure 1) has been an Arizona Site Steward for about ten years, monitoring an historic military camp known as Camp Date Creek, north of Wickenburg, Arizona. Unfortunately, the site is located on topographic maps of Arizona and included in many books written for the treasure seeker, and has been the target of several cases of Antiquity Law violations in the past several years. Not only does Bill monitor the site, but he has done extensive research on its history; in fact, while not formally educated in the discipline of history, he is considered the state’s foremost historian on Camp Date Creek. In fact, he has been asked to speak on the history of the camp so often by various organizations that he has worked up a very entertaining and authentic living history reenactment. Late last year, Bill drove from his home in Phoenix to check Camp Date Creek and immediately noticed a Bobcat® tractor and pickup truck with a trailer that had cut a wide path across private property gathering boulders, and had crossed a posted fence surrounding State Trust land onto the historic military camp. Bill copied the license number of the truck and called the information into the State Land Department, which handles trespass issues on State Trust lands in Arizona. Mary Lutes, Site Steward Program Coordinator, 4rizorta Stale Historic Preserration 010cc Proceedlngso(theSocietyforCalitorniaArchaeology, Volume 14, 2004, pp 8790 88 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY, VOL. 14, 2000 Due to a quick response by law enforcement, they were able to seize the tractor and identify the suspect. The Yavapai County Sheriff’s Department and the County Attorney’s Office are working on the case. Without a Site Steward monitoring this site on a regular basis, the vandalism likely would not have been noticed until the stones making up the camp walls had been completely relocated to some rock company’s sales lot. Having Stewards with the talent and dedication that Bill Smith demonstrates is a definite “pro” for the time and effort it takes to develop a stewardship program. The greatest reward of having extra eyes to assist with cultural resource management may be in seeing the dedication of the trained volunteer working for an agency or program, when they have observed and reported vandalism. A Site Steward program is not free. And its cost is not always found in the funding of the program. Sometimes the greatest cost is the time and effort spent by both the volunteer and the land manager. For instance, reports of vandalism by the concerned volunteer requires the time of the professional to respond and to do a damage assessment. If the land manager is too “busy” with other priorities to take the time to show concern for the vandalism, the volunteer soon loses heart. The Stewards’ dedication and enthusiasm for continuing their efforts will only match that of the paid professionals who are their contacts with the land agency. Generally, for every hour we put into training our Stewards, responding to the concerns of the volunteers, and doing whatever paperwork must be done, we can expect the efforts of the volunteers to come back tenfold. Depending upon the size of the program, or the size it grows to be, the hours volunteered are equivalent to one or more paid positions, yet not being professional, the volunteers can never take away positions from an agency, which must have work overseen by someone who meets the Secretary of Interior Standards. - While “pros” weigh heavily in favor of developing stewardship programs, there are inherent difficulties. Financial security for a program like this is a must, and is not always easy to put and keep in place. Someone has to coordinate the activities, training, and general operations. The job is usually more than can be given to an existing staff member who is already struggling to keep up with his or her work load. Often that means funding must be found to hire a person to manage the program. Once the scope of the program is decided upon and developed, a budget must be planned to fund the “wish list” of activities and events. There is no monetary value we can place on the void left in the minds and hearts of those who value our Nation’s shared history when a site is damaged or destroyed by collecting or looting. Site Stewards often become emotionally attached to the resources that they have been given the charge to protect. If there is a “con” to this, it might be that some Stewards may become so attached to the site they monitor that they forget the sites are on public lands and open to anyone who decides to hike across to them. An over zealous Site Steward might want to close the site to the public at the first sign of vandalism. By involving a few people in cultural resource management and educating them to the importance of preserving the archaeological record, the word spreads in the community. We are seeing others besides our volunteers who are becoming aware that archaeological site vandalism hurts us all and are making the effort to contact agency law enforcement when vandalism is observed. How do we bring a sense of accountability to our volunteers? In Arizona, we ask them to get involved mentally and emotionally, not just physically, with our program: we invite them to write articles for our program’s newsletter, we ask them to be the liaison with an Indian community to let the tribe know about the program’s mission, and we get them involved with planning workshops, training, and other activities. When volunteers are recruited, we are not just recruiting a “body” to do a certain job. We are recruiting a variety of talents and skills that are inherited with the “body.” Some of our Stewards are outstanding photographers, airplane pilots, great organizers, and have the skills to format regional newsletters. We train them, then we trust them. Rarely have our volunteers let us down. In the ten years that Arizona has had the program, more than 700 people have left for one reason or another, and of these 700, there were only a handful we felt might have questionable integrity or lacked the common sense needed to serve as a representative of the land managers they served. The better the volunteers feel about what they are doing, the more accountable they will be. A volunteer who has been used as an example of good stewardship inspires others. Praising and rewarding volunteers gives them a sense of acceptance by, and appreciation from, the professional archaeological community. Should we limit the flow of site information to our volunteers? This is a rather complex question and not Piisuc PT,cjpAr,o. j.%D THE PRO TECTIOPJ Of ARCH4EOLOIC4L RESOVRCE3 89 easily answered with a yes or no. Most of the sites that Stewards have been asked to monitor are sites which the public has already impacted. Where sites are so remote or so relatively unknown chat the public has made no trail to them, and that we feel reasonably safe have not yet been discovered, we do not have Site Stewards monitoring them. Or we assign them to a Steward who has been with the program long enough to have established a good rapport with the land manager and a better-than-average level of trust. Let ‘our Steward know how important confidentially is, especially for that site. The important point is not to make a trail to the site by too many visits. The Steward might be encouraged to visit the site at least twice a car, unless impacts occur in the future which make more frequent monitoring necessary. With the large populations in Arizona and Cilifornia, it is rare that hunters and hikers have not already found more sites than even the land manager knows about. Normally, surveys arc done across the landscape in a lineal strip for right-of-way in readiness for installations of telephone lines, the grading of a new road, or the development of new buildings or subdivisions. Often, the sites found during a survey are the only sites documented in a survey report and therefore make up most of our known sites. Site Stewards, on the other hand, are proving to be helpful tools in increasing the state’s inventory of known sites. Because Stewards are out hiking, horseback riding or flying their aircraft on a weekly basis, they are reporting new sites all the time to the land agencies. This, of course, can he a “pro” or a “con,” depending on how you look at it. Once discovered, a site must be professionally surveyed and documented — another time consuming task on the part of the land manager. —-- __fv•_ • Figure 1: Arizona Volunteer Site Stewards in Period Costumes at an Historic Military Camp Known as Camp Date Creek. PROcEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FOR CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY, VOL. 14, 2000 Generally, we do not make a concerted effort to limit site information given to our trained and trusted Site Stewards. By the same token, we do not automatically provide each Site Steward with the locations of every site which we have been asked to monitor — this list and the site kits prepared for each site on our Site Steward inventory for a particular region are given to the Regional Coordinator to use to assign sites to the various volunteers. One of the pros and cons—challenges—-of developing and managing a stewardship program is working with the news media. Most of us want some coverage of our program, and the media finds the concept of citizen volunteers assisting with the preservation of archaeological sites extremely interesting and newsworthy. We want the public to know that volunteers are providing a physical presence at archaeological sites. However, we also want to have a limited amount of media coverage beyond what we use in trying to recruit new Stewards; controlling the flow of information is important. Inappropriate information to the public must not endanger the cultural resources that we are trying to protect. We had a situation in Arizona where a freelance writer approached us and asked to be part of one of our conference field trips. Permission granted for him to attend and write an article about his experience, he wrote an exceptionally good article that promoted both the program and the field trip along the Camino del Diablo in southern Arizona. We have also had the opposite results. Last year, a well known reporter for the Arizona Republic became part of a field trip without the Team Leader knowing who he was or that he intended to write a story about his experience. Fortunately, on finding out that one of her Site Stewards had invited a “friend” along on what was suppose to be a site orientation, instead of taking the small group to the site she had intended to take them to, the Team Leader took them to a site which is on every topographic map and everyone knows about it already, what we call a “show” site. As expected, when the article appeared in the Repub/ic without any SE-IPO contact or communication with our Public Information Officer, his editor had included a locational map of the site. Fortunately, even good comes out of a negative experience, as I had 40 calls from people interested in knowing more about the Arizona Site Steward Program as a result of his article. Remember that once an interview is granted, no one really has much control over the tone or the content of the media’s approach. In Arizona, our program has a formal Code of Ethics which states that Site Stewards are not allowed to bring media to site locations without first contacting the land manager and the Public Information Officer at Arizona State Parks. Usually the land manager will take an active part in the interview, and the Public Information Officer contacts the reporter to ensure that proper credits, site etiquette, and antiquity laws are mentioned in the article. The best advice is to know your reporters and media people; the ones who have worked well with you in the past are the ones you want to work with in the future. In summary, the Arizona Site Steward Program, started in 1987, has taken many years to develop, lots of effort in finding funding, and much dedication on the part of the Site Stewards and of the land managers and other archaeologists in the community. Nevertheless, the “pros” well outweigh the “cons,” and the critical issues discussed in this presentation are not insurmountable. Keep the channels of communication open and discuss problems openly with your volunteers. Think of them not just as volunteers, but as volunteer staff— and they will help solve problems with new and creative perspective to help stop the Thieves of Time.

20203. National Archives, Washington, DC, Record Group 92, Document File #23,840. Records of the Quartermass General (excerpt)

National Archives, Washington, DC, Record Group 92, Document File #23,840. Records of the Quartermass General

21050. Harold Dunbar Corbusier, Born at Camp Date Creek, A.T., January 14th, 1873. Page One of Diary (diary, excerpt, photograph)

Harold Dunbar Corbusier, Born at Camp Date Creek, A.T., January 14th, 1873. Page One of Diary.

20136, 20137, 20138, 20139. Farish, Thomas Edwin., History Of Arizona, Vol. VIII. pp. 309-317. The Report of C.B. Genung. (excerpt)

Farish, Thomas Edwin. History Of Arizona Vol. VIII. pp. 309—317. The Report of C.B. Genung. -“In July, 1871, I concluded to build a wagon road from Wickenburg, via Antelope Creek and Peeples’ Valley to connect with the road leading from the Colorado River at Ehrenberg to Prescott. There was a road that could be travelled by light rigs and empty teams but no load could be handled over it. My neighbors agreed to help me, as Wickenburg and Phoenix were our best markets and to haul a load to either of these places we had to travel about sixty miles, whereas it was only twenty—seven miles by the road that I proposed to build from Peeples’ Valley to Wickenburg which was on the Phoenix road. I employed a few white men at $75.00 per month, a few Mexicans at $65.00 and board, and started to work. There was quite a number of Yavapai Indians in and around Peeples’ Valley at the time, and when they learned what I was doing they asked for work; and, as they were willing to work for fifty cents per day, the same as I had paid them when they worked for me on the Colorado River Reservation, I put a lot of them to work. My neighbors did not approve of my working Indians, but, as the Indians would do about as much work with pick and shovel as the average white man or Mexican, I put them on; gave them flour, beans, sugar, and coffee and venison. I gave one of the Indians fifty cents per day and furnished him with cartridges, and he kept the camps well supplied with fresh meat and his squaw dressed the skins, which made it a good job for the hunter. I thought it better to work the Indians and have them where I could watch them, than to be uncertain of their whereabouts. Then again, the white man had occupied their lands and hunting grounds, crowded them back so that they were too glad to go onto the reservation. Then after they were all on the reservation the agent starved them until they had to go back to the mountains to get something to eat. “I built the road from Wickenburg to Kirkland Valley for $4,765, and without the Indian labor I could not have built it for less than seven or eight thousand dollars. “When I started work on the road a man named George H. Wilson, commonly called Yackey Wilson, moved from his ranch three and a half miles below Wickenburg up to Antelope Creek and put up a seven room house and started a station. Wilson was a good station keeper and did a good business with the placer miners as well as with the travel that came that way as soon as the road was possible for teams. While I was working on the road I received one day a letter from General Crook who had been at Fort Whipple but a short time; he having arrived in the Territory in June of the same year. In the letter Crook asked me if I could go with some of the head men of the Yavapais and see him at Whipple. I wrote to Crook that I would try to locate some of the captains and go with them as soon as I could. Crook did not tell me in his The Report of C.B. Genung— Continued. letter what he wanted, but from the talk that I had with the three soldiers that brought me the letter, I inferred that he wanted to enlist some of the Yavapais to help fight the Hualapais and Tonto Apaches. I sent an Indian to Camp Date Creek to talk with some of the Indians which I supposed were there, but my Indian returned that night and told me that nearly all the Indians had gone out into the mountains and only came into the post once a week to draw rations. The doctor at the post had advised this move as the Indians were having chills and fever at their camp near the post. As I was very busy I concluded to take one Indian and go see Crook, knowing that I could induce the Indians to do anything that I thought was for their good. The next day I took an Indian that I knew well, and with two white men drove to Prescott. It took five days the way the road ran at that time to make the trip- two to go and two to come, and one day in town. I went to see Crook and took my friend, Herbert Bowers, who was post trader at the time, to introduce me, and my Indian, Tom. I found Crook much different from other commanding officers that I had met in Arizona. He was more like a pioneer miner or prospector to meet- just a common plain gentleman. He told me that Mr. Bowers had told him of my efforts to get the other commanders to employ the Yavapais as scouts and trailers, and asked me if the Indians would like to do it. I assured him that he could enlist every Yavapai that was able to go. He then asked me how long it would take to get the Indians together so that he could have a talk with them at Date Creek. I told him that a week would give them plenty of time. That was a good talk for me, for I had been trying for several years to do just what Crook proposed, but there never was a man in command before that who had sense enough to do it. When I told Tom what Crook wanted, he was highly elated. “On my return to my ranch I killed an Indian in Kirkland Valley by Tom’s advice, and when Tom knew he was dead he said General Crook had commenced to kill Tontos, which was true, for if Crook had not sent for me when he did, I should not have found the Indian at the station in Kirkland Valley. “It was more than a month before I heard from Crook again. Then he wrote me asking me if I could get the Indians in to Date Creek by a certain day. I wrote and told him that I could get all of the ablebodied men in by the appointed time. This correspondence was done by couriers. “I had a young Indian captain named Waw ba Yuma, working for me, and most of the twenty-five working Indians that I had were of his band. I told him that General Crook wanted all the strong young men of his tribe to go with the soldiers and fight the Tontos. The Indian said to me: ‘You tell General Crook that, when I am done work here I will go and so will all of my young men.’ I said to him, ‘You had better go and see the General and tell him yourself.’ ‘You can talk for me and for my people,’ said Waw ba Yuma. I sent out Indian runners and had all of the young men of The Report of C.B. Genung- Continued. the tribe at Date Creek on the appointed day. I met General Crook there and we called the meeting in front of the officers’ quarters on the south side of the parade ground. I was a little surprised to meet Irataba, the head chief of the Mohaves there, but thought nothing of it at the time. The white men were seated with backs against the buildings, Irataba just in front of us and the Yavapais sitting on the benches and standing before us. Crook had brought a man named Charles Spencer from Mohave County to interpret for him. Spencer had done a little talking for Crook when Irataba got up and began to pass pieces of tobacco to some of the Indians, and in a few seconds had passed out eight or ten pieces, when some soldiers who had been standing among the Indians began to grab the ones to whom the tobacco had been given, at the same time drawing their revolvers. The Indians, being surprised and scared, struggled desperately and several of the arrested ones escaped; the soldiers began shooting, and those that had no revolvers ran to their quarters and got their rifles and began shooting at every Indian that they could see. Crook, myself and Col. 3as. M. Barney were the only ones present who did not take an active part in some way in the fracas. We just stood by and looked on. The Indians had left their guns at their camp with the women and children and some of the soldiers ran to the camp which was about one half mile from the post, and secured all the guns and bows. “When I realized what had been done I went and got my arms and hunted up Crook and asked him what he meant by inducing me to get the Indians into the post under pretense of friendship and then killing a lot of them- eight I believe were found. He said that Irataba had told the agent at the Colorado Reservation that the Yavapais had murdered the Loring party, a short time before, while in route by stage from Wickenburg to Ehrenberg, and that the pieces of tobacco were handed to the ones that Irataba had learned were of the party who attacked the stage and killed six people. I told Crook that it was a lie; that I knew it was Mexicans who had done the killing and robbing of the stage. I was getting madder every minute and told Crook that if anything happened to my family through this treachery that I should hold him personally responsible; that I was living in the midst of the Indians and that I could expect nothing but that they would blame me for all the trouble. He said in reply to my talk that he would see that I had protection. I mounted my horse and rode as fast as I could to the camp on the road. I told the Indians what had happened and told them that I could not keep them at work any longer and that they must go into the mountains and stay until I made a signal smoke at a certain high place on my ranch. Waw ba Yuma did not like the idea of going but I made him understand that all the people would be afraid and that I should have to stop work anyhow until I had a chance to see and talk to all the Yavapais. “It was nearly a month later when Lieut. Trout, the quartermaster The Report of C.B. Genung- Continued. at Camp Date Creek, Frank Murray, the butcher at the post, and a soldier came to my ranch about noon. Trout asked me if I had seen any Indians since they left my camp, which I had not, nor had there been one seen at or near the post. He said he wanted to get them back, if possible. I went out to the place agreed upon and raised a big black smoke. In a very short time my friend Tom, his squaw, and one more Indian came to the ranch. I told Tom what Trout said and told him that Trout would issue rations to all who went for them.. I had a lot of talking to do and told the Indians that they could come and camp near my house if they wanted to. Tom asked me what all the soldiers were doing there, Crook having sent a company of cavalry to my ranch as soon as he could get them there after the affair at Date Creek. I explained the matter as well as I could, and after Trout and his party had left I had a lot of talk and explained the matter, placing all of the blame on Irataba, and he was the one to blame for the whole trouble. Irataba was jealous because the Yavapais were getting better treatment from the officers at Date Creek than his people were receiving from the Indian Department, hence the jealousy. “I had to do a lot of talking to get the Indians to go back to Date Creek to meet Crook the second time, he having promised to return their guns and other things that the soldiers had taken from their camp. Finally I told them that if they would come and meet Crook that I would be there and see that they got their guns and that I would be right beside Crook, and if the soldiers tried to bother them that I would have my pistol in my belt and would shoot Crook three times. A few, those who had lost their guns, went in to the post on the appointed day. I was there and told Crook that we would do our business with the Indians in front of the sutler’s store instead of going onto the parade ground as on the other occasion. There were no seats provided but Crook had ordered all the stolen property to be brought out and placed on the ground near where we stood. I told the Indian, Tom, to get his gun. When he picked it up and examined it, I asked him if it was all right. His reply was ‘Kely-eppy,’ meaning ‘no good.’ I told another one to get his gun, and that was ‘Kely-eppy’ also. I showed Crook that there had been screws taken out of the locks. He at once ordered the commander of the post to bring out some guns that were there and twenty rounds of ammunition for each gun. They were turned over to those who had lost their guns without any ceremony. When the old guns that the soldiers had taken were examined, it was found that there was not one but what had been ruined for the use of the Indians. If a screw was taken out the Indian had no possible means of replacing it. Twenty rounds of ammunition was a great prize. The only way that an Indian could get ammunition was to go to La Paz or Yuma and get some white man to buy it for him. That act restored confidence in General Crook. He enlisted a lot of these Indians, agreeing to take care of all who were left in camp, i.e., the women, children and old men. The first thing he did with the new soldiers was to go out and thrash the Hualapais; then enlisted some Hualapais to help clean up the Indians of the country east of Prescott.”

20103. Army and Navy Journal, August 17th, 1872, Page 5, Camp Date Creek, A.T. - Captain Richard F. Obeirne, Second Lieutenant... (excerpt)

ARMY AND NAVY JOURNAL August 17th, 1872 Page 5 Camp Date Creek, A.T..C aptain Richard F. Obeirne, Second Lieutenant F.H.E. Ebstein, A.A.Q.M. and A_C_S.; Captain Philip Dwyer, Acting Assistant Surgeon JL. Baree; Company B, twenty-third Infantry, en-route to join post.

20052, 20053. Farish, Thomas Edwin., History of Arizona, Vol. VIII. pp. 298-301. The Report of C.B. Genung (excerpt)

Farish, Thomas Edwin. History Of Arizona Vol. VIII. pp. 298—301. The Report of C.B. Genung. -“In the fall of 1871 a man named J.M. Bryan, commonly called “Crete” by his acquaintances, had the contract to haul government: freight from Ehrenberg, on the Colorado River, to Ft. Whipple, Camps Wood, Verde, Apache, and Ft. McDowell. His business called him to different posts and he generally travelled by stage from one post to another. When there was no stage route he generally used a saddle horse or mule, of which he had several good ones. Bryan had an acquaintance with whom he generally took his meals when in Wickenburg, which was a central point for his teams. One day Donna Tomase, as the woman was called, (she was a california Spaniard. Her right name was Mrs. Bouns), called Bryan into her house, and told him not to ride in the Wickenburg and Ehrenberg stage any more. When questioned she told him that there was a plan laid to rob the stage; that she had overheard some Mexicans talking in a brush shack behind a saloon nearby where she lived, and cautioned him again about going by stage. He took the advice and did his traveling in the saddle from that on. It was not long before the woman’s story was confirmed. The stage left Prescott at night on account of Indians, arriving at Wickenburg before daylight on the following morning. * * * At a point about nine miles from Wickenburg toward Ehrenberg, the road crossed a small sandwash which had scrub oak brush growing on either side. In this wash, hidden by the banks and brush, lay the Mexicans. When the stage was well into the wash, the horses were stopped and the stage riddled with bullets. * * * “Of course this was supposed by most people to be the work of the Indians, quite a number of whom were at that time at Camp Date Creek about twenty-five miles northwest of Wickenburg. The Mexicans had worn moccasins and scalped Adams in order to mislead the public. At the same time I was working from twenty-five to thirty of the Date Creek Indians, gathering my crop of corn, beans and potatoes on my ranch in Peeples Valley, twenty-seven miles north of Wickenburg, and I had some men among them that I knew I could trust. As soon as I heard the news I sent two Indians across to Date Creek to learn if these Indians knew anything about the matter. They returned the same day and assured me their people knew nothing about the massacre, but that it must be Tonto Apaches from the eastern country. “In a very few days Bryan came by my place, on his way from Wickenburg to Prescott, and told me the story. Among this band of fifteen Mexicans was one who Mrs. Bouns was slightly acquainted with, and whom she called Parenta; his name being the same as her family name. She got him into her house, filled him up with wine and he told her the whole story; how these men had all stayed at a house out on the road a little west of the town the night before the massacre, and went out to the place before daybreak. The Report of C.B. Genung- Continued. The place had been picked out some days before. This young Mexican claimed that he was sick that night and did not accompany the crowd that did the work, but told of Adams shooting one of the party; that they had taken the wounded man to the Agua Caliente springs on the Gila River to get well. The officers went from Phoenix and got the fellow with the hole in his shoulder, brought him to Phoenix, and he was killed in the jail by a man who still lives in Phoenix. John Burger killed one of them in a corral at the lower station on the Agua Fria near where the S.F.P. & P.R. crosses that stream. The ringleader, a redheaded native of Gibraltar, named Joaquin Barbe, with another of the band, got on the warpath and run amuck in Phoenix, and Joe Fye and Milt Ward, deputy sheriffs, chased them out of town and killed both of them, and they all got what was coming to them, but one. He got wise and left the country. Bryan was very careful who he told the story to, and it was passed among the right men to attend to such matters. The scalping of Adams was all right to fool a tenderfoot, but oldtimers knew that Apaches never scalped, although they frequently mutilated otherwise.”