PIPE SPRING Cultures at a Crossroads: An Administrative History

Monument Interpretation during the Great Depression

During the years the Civilian Conservation Corps camp was at Pipe Spring, Custodian Leonard Heaton often gave educational talks to enrollees. Sometimes his presentations were about the fort's history and at other times they were about other parks and monuments in the Southwest. These latter talks were often supplemented with slides provided by Zion National Park, shown on a projector loaned by the CCC's education adviser.

For years, Heaton had relied heavily on his wife Edna to give guided tours of the fort when he was away or busy with projects. Once the family moved to Moccasin in February 1936, however, another backup plan was needed. Staff from other area parks and monuments was sometimes sent over to fill in when Heaton took extended leave. Professional staff was not always available, however. With permission from headquarters, Heaton turned to certain CCC boys he had confidence in to give tours when he was indisposed, or arranged for one of them to take charge of his monument duties when he was on extended leave. [1127] The public was not always happy with this alternative, however. On at least one occasion, a tour given by an inexperienced CCC enrollee prompted a formal visitor complaint to Heaton. [1128] In addition to his on-site talks, Heaton also gave talks to local public gatherings and organizations, such as the Church-sponsored Women's Relief Society of Moccasin.

Some headway was made during the 1930s in historical research and preparation of an official history of Pipe Spring National Monument. The first history written by a Park Service employee was prepared by Leonard Heaton and printed in April 1936 as a Southwestern Monuments Report Supplement. It was entitled "Some Early History of Pipe Springs National Monument." [1129] The same year Heaton also wrote "A Brief History of the Town of Moccasin."

At about the same time Heaton was writing a history of Pipe Spring, efforts were being made at the regional level in Santa Fe to research and prepare a scientific report that would guide interpretive planning. Associate Regional Geologist Vincent W. Vandiver first visited Pipe Spring on October 9, 1935, returning again in July and October 1936 with Regional Geologist Charles N. Gould. In late 1936 Vandiver paid a visit to the monument with Dr. Herbert E. Gregory of the United States Geological Survey. From the data he collected on these trips, Vandiver prepared a report in January 1937, entitled "Geological Report, Pipe Spring National Monument." (Vandiver's report was printed in February 1937 as Southwestern Monuments Special Report Supplement No. 14.) While this report focused mostly on the area's geology, it included a brief history of the monument, a description of the area (including Moccasin Springs and the Kaibab Indian Reservation), and lists of the monument's plants, birds, mammals, and reptiles. [1130]

In November 1937 Superintendent Pinkley wrote Acting Regional Director Herbert Maier, requesting that a historical technician be assigned from the regional office to research the fort's history prior to undertaking a restoration of the fort's interior. [1131] Pinkley advised, "We have literally no organized information on Pipe Spring, so the technician, if assigned, would be starting from scratch." [1132] Pinkley later optimistically wrote Heaton "... we have started the wheels to grind slowly on a program of historical research which should eventually result in some good exhibits for Pipe Spring National Monument." [1133] Grind slowly they did, for it was another three and one-half years before Pinkley's request for research assistance at Pipe Spring bore any fruit.

Meanwhile, Heaton did the best he could to improve fort displays. In May 1936 Heaton asked Pinkley for some display cases so that he could exhibit some of the "relics" he had collected for the fort museum. In December that year he wrote Pinkley describing the manner in which he had arranged displays in the fort:

I have finally made a break [from landscaping work] to arrange the museum artifacts into groups, and have taken the east room, 2nd floor of the lower house for the ancient and modern Indian material. The middle room I will use as a geological and rock room, and the west room will be left for the telegraph office when we get the material to go in it.

The east room on the ground floor of the lower house I have part of it for my office and also have a few pioneer relics which will be assigned to other parts of the building when I get them worked out. [1134]

Hampered by lack of funds for display cases, Heaton took whatever came his way. In May 1937 Pinkley offered Heaton several open shelf museum cases that were being surplused by Casa Grande National Monument. In May 1938 Heaton drove 165 miles to Cedar City to pick up a skin study case, sent by freight train from the Park Service office in Berkeley, California. The case was used at Pipe Spring to exhibit botanical specimens and animal skins.

In March 1938 the monument had only a one-page, typed leaflet about the historic site. It gave the origin of the site's name (a story now regarded more as legend than documented fact) and a brief history of the site. It also described the area's geology and climate. The leaflet stated that the 40-acre monument

...was created May 31, 1923, to preserve the ruined old stone fort, a relic of pioneer days. In the early sixties the Mormons established a cattle ranch here, and the fort was erected as a protection against marauding Indians. [1135]

The leaflet described the monument's prime attraction,

... its wonderful spring of cold, pure water, flowing at the rate of over 100,000 gallons a day, its great cottonwoods affording abundant shade... [It] is a refreshing oasis and scenic accent on the way of the main-traveled road between Zion's colorful canyon and the mighty chasm of the Colorado. [1136]

In May 1938 a coordinated effort was begun between the Washington office, regional office, and Pipe Spring to plan and design a geologic exhibit at the monument. On May 23 a planning meeting was held at the monument between Assistant Chief Rothrock, Grand Canyon's Park Naturalist Edwin D. ("Ed") McKee, Al Kuehl, and Leonard Heaton. The meeting was along the lines of a fact-finding and scoping mission and yielded only preliminary designs. The chief function of the proposed exhibit, to be located out-of-doors, was to interpret the Sevier Fault, the geologic feature that resulted in the natural springs which in turn, Rothrock wrote, "attracted the Mormon settlers to this oasis." [1137] In addition to the planned exhibit shelter, Heaton suggested to those gathered that "a nature trail could be worked in, leaving the fort going north and west to [the] observation point, showing the plant life and back by way of the old quarry road, to the west cabin, being about [a] one-quarter mile trail." [1138] Heaton, of course, had been trying to interest Frank Pinkley in such a trail for years.

Rothrock failed to mention the nature trail idea in his later trip report to Pinkley, but it appears to have been discussed with him at some point. [1139] Rothrock recommended that the regional office begin to assemble the exhibit right away for two reasons: first, in order to take advantage of the temporary assignment in the regional office of a geologist from the Washington office, and second, because of Heaton's enthusiasm for the project. [1140] Park Naturalist Dale S. King at Southwestern Monuments reviewed Rothrock's report. While concurring that a geologic exhibit and associated trail should be built, King wrote Pinkley, "Pipe Spring National Monument nature trail is far down in our priority list of needed projects in the Southwestern Monuments, but under the special circumstances, I am satisfied with the procedures outlined." [1141]

The new exhibit and trail were to be constructed by CCC enrollees encamped at the monument. A job application still needed to be executed in order to utilize CCC forces toward the effort. The application could not be filed, however, until final designs were executed. On September 27, 1938, another meeting was held at the monument in order to formulate the final plans. The meeting included (in addition to Custodian Heaton) Regional Geologist Gould, Wildlife Technician W. B. McDougall, Assistant Geologist Hawkins (Washington office), Park Naturalist Ed McKee, Regional Landscape Architect Harvey Cornell, and Landscape Architects Al Kuehl and Harry Langley. Gould filed a report, referring to the exhibit as a "wayside shrine." The location of the exhibit and interpretive material to be included were decided at this time. The site chosen for the exhibit was the crest of a ridge about one-quarter mile from the fort where "a very fine view is obtained of the various points of interest." [1142] McKee made a pencil sketch depicting the kind of the exhibit shelter to be built, which Hawkins submitted to Rothrock in Washington. The trail surveying project had to be abandoned, however, when Hawkins was ordered back to Washington, D.C., from Santa Fe. [1143] Neither was the geologic exhibit constructed. It appears that other development plans were more pressing during the remaining time Camp DG-44 was at the monument. The CCC's permanent departure from Pipe Spring in October 1939 dashed Heaton's high hopes for both a geologic exhibit and nature trail.

Heaton was active throughout this period locating and acquiring additional artifacts for the fort museum (either by donation or loan), yet there was still no exhibit plan. From the perspective of Park Service officials, fort exhibits did not measurably improve during the remainder of the 1930s. During Junior Park Naturalist Natt Dodge's December 1938 visit to the monument he commented on the condition of the fort's artifact collection and the manner of exhibition:

There are a number of parts of pieces of furniture, etc., which have been donated to the monument by pioneer families. These are so badly broken and so poorly arranged that they are far from satisfactory as a display. Mr. Heaton has collected a number of geological oddities which he has on display in one of the rooms, and he also has a number of Paiute as well as prehistoric artifacts. All of these items form a valuable collection about which a display might be built, but at present they are rather uninspiring. [1144]

Assistant Chief Rothrock again visited Pipe Spring on May 15, 1939, to gather more data for preparing the monument's geologic exhibit. In his trip report, Rothrock recommended a north/northwest boundary extension of the monument to "include an area containing added biologic interest and to clarify the geological story so intimately connected with the establishment of the fort." [1145] As a general observation, he remarked, "I was impressed with the narrow range of interest and limited use of this monument." [1146]

Meanwhile, in cooperation with Hugh Miller at Southwestern Monuments, Mrs. George Shields of Kanab, Utah, spent more than a year compiling a list of names and addresses of "old-timers" who had either lived at Pipe Spring or who were familiar with its history. [1147] Miller still hoped for funds to hire a research historian for Pipe Spring so that formal plans for its museum could be developed. In December 1940 Miller (who earlier in the year succeeded Frank Pinkley as superintendent) sent a request to Regional Director Tillotson asking for funds to hire a historian to conduct historical research on Pipe Spring. The oral history component was to be an important element of the research:

Inasmuch as Pipe Spring is the only national area set up solely to preserve and record the Mormon pioneering phase of the development of the West, it is felt that this project is of great significance and that a serious effort to obtain first-hand information from survivors of this era should not be longer delayed. [1148]

Miller opined that the "hearty cooperation" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might be secured once they were made aware that the Park Service proposed to record the history of "Mormon pioneering" in southern Utah and northern Arizona. No funds from the regional office were forthcoming, however.

In January 1941 Regional Director Tillotson sent Miller the draft text for the first edition of a two-fold leaflet for Pipe Spring National Monument with a request for some additional information. [1149] In the final text, published in July 1941, only slight changes were made. The introduction stated,

The buildings at Pipe Spring National Monument... represent an important phase of the movement westward by the American pioneer. The Mormons who settled at Pipe Spring and other similar areas can be given much of the credit for the exploration, colonization, and development of this part of the Southwest. Under the leadership of Brigham Young, they were able to establish their culture in this land where many others failed. As an expression of the foresight, courage, vigor, persistence, and faith of the pioneer, and of the Mormons in particular, Pipe Spring is preserved as a monument, not only to those who settled the southwest, but to all who took part in the Westward Movement. [1150]

The text also described the fort's natural setting and included the story of how Pipe Spring got its name. The history of Whitmore and McIntyre was recounted and the subsequent seizing and execution of "some Indians" wearing the clothes of the slain men. The text acknowledged that those executed were innocent, "peaceful Paiutes" having obtained the clothing in trade. "The real culprits, mostly Navahos and a few Paiutes, went scot-free," it said. The text also discussed Winsor's role in building the fort, improving the spring, and take care of the tithing cattle for the Church. The fort "will remain as a monument to the pioneer era," concluded the leaflet. Its author was Regional Supervisor of Historic Sites Aubrey Neasham. [1151]

In May 1941 Superintendent Miller wrote Director Drury to ask if funds were available through the Branch of Research and Interpretation to hire a research historian. Miller estimated the research would require six months in the field in southern Utah as well as work in Salt Lake City. A historian "with affiliations with the Church of Latter-day Saints" would be preferred, Miller stated. [1152] The basic information provided would allow the park to proceed with the "interpretive rehabilitation" of Pipe Spring National Monument, Miller assured Drury, information that might even prove useful to Zion and Bryce Canyon national parks. Miller pointed out that "much information is disappearing with the death of the pioneers in this region.... We regard the problem as urgent and it lies beyond the scope of our capabilities." [1153]

On May 24, 1941, Assistant Museum Chief Dorr G. Yeager, Western Museum Laboratories, wired Superintendent Miller that Research Collaborator Arthur Woodward (Western Museum Laboratories, Berkeley, California) could be assigned during a portion of June to work on Pipe Spring interpretive matters. While it was hardly the six months of research time that Miller had wanted, he jumped at the offer. On May 28 Miller sent Yeager a draft of the interpretive statement submitted for the monument's master plan, saying, "it still fairly well expresses our thinking." [1154] Miller said what was needed was "preliminary basic work which will result in rehabilitating Pipe Spring fort as a historic house museum." Miller wanted Woodward to focus on local history and/or material culture, whichever he could do most efficiently, and to set down his ideas about how Pipe Spring should be interpreted. Woodward was assigned from June 1 to 15, 1941, to research and prepare the first official narrative history of Pipe Spring National Monument, resulting in a 46-page report entitled "Brief Historical Sketch of Pipe Springs, Arizona."

Woodward's report was based exclusively on secondary sources, such as James H. McClintock's Mormon Settlement in Arizona, as well as Utah newspapers, periodicals, and historical journals. This history was, in many respects, consistent with earlier site interpretations by the Church and local Latter-day Saints, including Leonard Heaton. These included the story of the origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the persecution of Latter-day Saints in the East and Midwest, Brigham Young's establishment of the state of Deseret in Utah, and the southward moving exploration and colonizing efforts of missionaries. Woodward stated that the site's history was

... not merely the story of a single isolated spot in a barren wilderness. Rather it is a concrete reminder epitomizing the development of a great state by a courageous people. In a measure, the history of Pipe Springs is the tale of the ideals, the sufferings, the ambitions and the perseverance of a determined band of men and women who sought religious and economic freedom in an inhospitable land and who won out against great odds. Pipe Springs may well interpret the story of Utah and the fighting spirit of the Mormon Pioneers. [1155]

This then was to be the monument's major interpretive theme for some time to come; it differed little from the one set in place during the 1930s. Woodward's report included "Recommendations for Development" (i.e., interpretation), in which he stressed the usefulness of Pipe Spring ("until a better site is found") as representative of the larger southwest region's history of white settlement. "All of the elements necessary to produce such a story are present at Pipe Spring," he observed. [1156]

The story was to include a number of subthemes, listed below. Woodward suggested starting in a logical sequence, with the "primitive background." He recommended that the ethnography of the Navajo and Paiute be outlined, stressing the social relations and contacts "between these hostile units," as well as their differences in material culture. Even the Hopi could be mentioned since Pipe Spring was the "jumping off place for Mormons" as they headed on their missions to the Hopi. [1157] Anther interpretive subtheme was the geography and geology of the area, under which the difficult struggle for existence (by both Indians and "pioneers") and the necessity of water were to be emphasized. The "Mormon hegira" was to be outlined without too much detail, advised Woodward, but the need for persecuted peoples to find a place where they could practice their religion freely and be economically independent should be stressed. The roles of Brigham Young, Jacob Hamblin, Dr. Whitmore, Bishop Winsor, and Joseph R. Young and his wives - going from the "guiding spirit" to the "rank and file" - were to be discussed, as well as the Latter-day Saints' relations with the Indians.

According to Woodward, the latter story was "the old story of the frontier," the clash between the white man and the Indian. The white man's need for farming and grazing land and for water sources was to be contrasted with "the need of the same terrain by the ever meat-hungry, semi-nomadic Indian hunters" and "the clash between the white prospectors and the Indians." [1158] Aside from their religious beliefs, settlers and their material culture were to be portrayed "like any other pioneer migrating to the frontier." The subtheme of exploration and settlement was to be illustrated with artifacts dating from 1830 to 1880, even home-made articles from the 1890s were acceptable, said Woodward; they need not have been brought to Utah by Latter-day Saints. Cattle raising, dairying, and cooperatives were another subtheme to be developed. The stories of the first telegraph station in Arizona and the construction of Winsor Castle were also to be told. Narrative text, maps, and antique artifacts (or, if need be, replicas) were to be obtained and displayed to illustrate all these subthemes. Woodward thought donations by Latter-day Saints would fill the monument's need for furnishings, if a "call was sent out through Utah." [1159]

Yeager forwarded the Woodward report on June 19, 1941, to Superintendent Miller, who wrote,

You will note that this work also contains recommendations for the museum development of the area, suggested sources of material, and a rather extensive bibliography.... We feel that he is to be complimented on this job, and we believe that [the report] is sufficiently complete to form the basis for future interpretive developments at Pipe Spring National Monument. [1160]

Heaton barely learned of Woodward's work before it was completed. On the same date, Yeager forwarded the Woodward's report to Miller, Heaton wrote Miller offering his assistance and making a suggestion: "I would like to suggest that if possible to have Mr. Woodward come to the monument, or to southern Utah, and contact what few men that are still living (and women too?) who can remember some of the things that were done in 1869 to 1880." [1161]

No oral interviews were conducted during the course of the two weeks of historical research. There is no evidence that Woodward ever even left Berkeley. Miller tried to console Heaton in his reply:

It is too bad Mr. Woodward's brief assignment was not long enough for him to actually visit Pipe Spring and do some of the field work you have so clearly indicated in many of your letters and in conversations with us. We realize that you are up against a difficult problem, and we are attempting to gain help to solve it.... Just as your letter arrived the enclosed paper by Mr. Woodward also came in.... Will you please read it and give us your comments? [1162]

Heaton responded back to Miller,

...[I] find that he has several facts that don't fit in with what I have been telling the public. I might say that most of the stories that I have gathered up came to me second handed [sic] or as some old pioneer can remember when was a boy about 5 to 12 years old. So I am not a bit surprised that some of my stories are not dated, as they should be. There are several parts that I would like to make comments on before anything is done to start gathering up any of [the] old relics, as I know where there are several of the original tools that were used at the monument during its construction.

The paper has also given me some good ideas on how to go about gathering some information that I had not thought of before. [1163]

In August 1941 Park Naturalist Russell K. Grater, now at Zion National Park, forwarded his comments and recommendations on Woodward's report to Superintendent Miller. Grater advised against the monument's attempting to discuss the Hopi, as "other areas tell the story of the Pueblo much better than can Pipe Springs.... This is also true of the Piute [sic] and Navajo." Only local geography and "lack of water" should be interpreted at Pipe Spring, wrote Grater; the regional geology should be left to Grand Canyon, Zion, and Bryce Canyon national parks. The history of Mormon settlement efforts should focus on Pipe Spring, and "not attempt to cover all areas," Grater opined. The stories of Pipe Spring and Zion should supplement each other, to entice travelers to visit both sites. He urged a coordinated plan of interpretation for both areas. [1164]

Acting Superintendent Charles A. Richey sent a memorandum to Acting Custodian Russell L. Mahan at Arches National Monument in November 1941, discussing plans for the Pipe Spring interpretive program:

We are anxious to assist Mr. Heaton with the exhibits in the old fort, and study the interpretational [sic] program at Pipe Spring. December seems to be an excellent time to start the work. Associate Naturalist King plans to be at Walnut and Wupatki National Monuments November 3-29 and can continue on to Pipe Spring for several days. This matter has been discussed with him in some detail and it is desirable that you meet Mr. King there, and remain at Pipe Spring during December. [1165]

At this time, however, two things altered the course of events pertaining to the development of Pipe Spring National Monument's interpretive program. The first was the entry of the United States into World War II, which occurred shortly after Richey's above-communication with Mahan. The second was the transfer of the monument's administration from Southwestern Monuments to Zion National Park, which took place during February 1942. The impact of those events is described in the following chapter.