It’s Pi Day today, which has us thinking about circles, fruit, and pie. And that naturally leads us to think about historic orchards, spices, and history.
Measured in miles, Tumacácori National Historical Park is not a far trip from the modern landscape of Tucson. Many areas within the park cultural landscapes feel far from a city, giving visitors a sense of what it would have looked like to stand in this place during the period of historic significance. It is through these views that the preservation, history, and contemporary cultural identity of the region merge.
The relationship between heritage preservation and continual use and development is evident in the Courtyard Garden and the Heritage Orchard at Tumacácori National Historical Park.
The Courtyard Garden
The Courtyard Garden was built in 1939 as part of visitor center construction, made possible by Emergency Relief work programs of the Great Depression. The park museum and the garden were designed to complement the Spanish architectural style of the Tumacácori Mission, and they also borrowed forms from Islamic tradition.
It typically took years to fully establish a mission. Usually, the construction of a church occurred first, and with enough time and money workshops and classrooms were built around a courtyard. A water feature was usually placed in the courtyard, surrounded by a fruit and herb garden. For example, Tumacácori had a deep well within the plaza to the east of the church, supplying water to the gardens and orchard through the acequia system.
When the first church was constructed at Tumacácori in the mid-1700s, there undoubtedly was a garden with plants similar to those located by the visitor center today.
Many of the plant varieties in the Courtyard Garden were originally imported from Europe and introduced to the missions by the padres. The garden is thick with the traditional plants that grew during the mission era. There are herb specimens like rosemary, thyme, and myrtle. Trees include olive, pomegranate, and monk’s pepper. Some of these, like the pomegranate, are native to the Middle East. It also features the state champion apricot tree, Prunus ameniaca.
The pomegranate is a small tree, native to the Middle East. It has been cultivated in the Mediterranean region since ancient time, and it was brought to the new world by Spanish settlers. The Tumacácori garden and grounds contain both ornamental pomegranate trees and fruit-bearing pomegranates.
Courtyard Garden at Tumacácori National Historical Park (NPS Photo, courtesy of park Facebook).
Heritage Orchard
In 2004, Tumacácori National Historical Park acquired adjacent property that included the site of the original five-acre mission orchard and a significant portion of the original agricultural area. Facing the challenge of replanting the Spanish Mission Era orchard and garden, a project was initiated to use fruit tree stocks (cultivars) that can be traced to those introduced by Father Kino and other Spanish missionaries.
The Kino Heritage Fruit Trees Project was devised in late 2003 by a team of researchers with the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, the University of Arizona, the National Park Service, and other organizations in the Tucson area.
Frost cloth covers the trees in the Heritage Orchard (NPS Photo/S. Dolan, 2014).
So, how do you recreate a historic orchard?
The first step was to identify fruit trees grown during the Spanish Mission Era. This was done by reviewing Father Kino’s accounts, documents and journals of Forty-niners, and the work of contemporary local ethnobotanists to trace the legacy of the trees. By some accounts, the mission was supported by peach, quince, pear, apple, pecan, walnut, fig, and pomegranate trees.
The orchard was just a portion of the agricultural livelihood of the mission community, which also cultivated grape vineyards, grain fields, vegetable and pharmacy gardens, and livestock.
Grapes and olives are some of the edibles that were historically grown around the mission. (NPS Photo, Tumacácori National Historical Park on Facebook)
Many of the trees and plants identified are native to the Old World, with many originating from the Mediterranean region and a significant number coming from central and eastern Asia. Some were native to the Sonoran Desert or nearby highlands that were brought under cultivation by the Jesuits and Franciscans when they arrived in the region.
The aim of this research is to identify the historic stock. Although a few trees like fig and quince are long-lived, most individuals live no longer than 20-40 years. This project seeks old trees that can be traced back to stocks that were introduced or assimilated 150-300 years ago. Cuttings and seeds are propagated at several farms and nurseries in the region.
Touring the Heritage Orchard at Tumacácori National Historic Park (NPS Photos, 2015).
Using this process, the Kino Heritage Fruit Trees Project is researching, locating, propagating, and re-establishing historically appropriate fruit tree cultivars in the original orchard and garden at Tumacácori National Historic Park. This directly contributes to the interpretive and preservation objectives of the site. The project depends upon partners in the park and in the Tucson area, using materials from the past to ensure that the future landscape is well managed.
A sign at the Courtyard Garden reminds visitors that these preservation projects are partnerships, relying upon support from the park, volunteers, and local institutions (NPS Photo).
From the park website:
Courtyard Garden
Heritage Orchard
Missed any parts of this mini-series?
Part 1: Discovering the mission landscape of Guevavi
Part 2: Landscape features and history at Guevavi
Part 3: A history of preservation at Tumacácori
And follow us all year in the tour guide of cities and landscapes in each state.
Very special thank you to Adam Springer, Chief of Resource Management, and others at Tumacácori National Historical Park for assistance and support with this series! Visit the website for much more.
[Part 2 of 4 - Cultural Landscape Urban Tour stop: Tucson, Arizona]
Features
Land Use, Archeology, & Natural Systems of Guevavi
In the first part of this short series about Tumacácori National Historical Park, we began with a wide view of the mission landscape and its history. If you were to visit today, what are some of the existing features that contribute to the historic significance?
Here are just a few examples:
Land Use/Spatial Organization
Prior to the arrival of the Jesuits, the ancestral O’odham were hunter/gatherers and seasonal small-scale farmers, organized into communities comprised of family units that were positioned to optimize the site’s resources. The establishment of Guevavi changed the agricultural and community structure, introducing new crops and livestock and resulting in permanent settlements surrounded by farms and rangelands.
View south from the mesa to the Santa Cruz River with remnant vegetation (NPS/Matthew Bossler, University of Arizona, 2009).
The landscape also carries signs of the movement away from Native American religion. The Spanish aimed to convert the native population to Catholicism and teach Native Americans skills to become Spanish citizens. The Spanish Mission design dictated the district’s layout and overall design. However, due to the environmental conditions and the size and isolation of the site, traditional native building techniques were also incorporated.
The Guevavi mission compound was located on the east side of a mesa top. The mission village, of brush houses and wood ramadas, would have been nearby but outside the compound walls. Supporting structures like livestock corrals and work areas were located near this area.
Agricultural fields were located to the south, where the Santa Cruz River floodplain widened. An acequia at the west base of the mesa connected the mission activities in the agricultural fields with the water supply from the river. Fruit trees and vegetable gardens would have been planted for the mission’s use, and cattle, horses, and sheep once grazed the hillsides away from the agricultural fields.
Top: View through the Nave, looking west (Photo by Frederick D. Nichols, 1937). Below: Measured drawing of San Gabriel de Guevavi in Santa Cruz County, Arizona (Historic American Buildings Survey AZ-1, 1937, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division).
Inside the walled mission compound, the doors of the church opened onto a village plaza. Along with the church, the convento would contain the Father’s quarters, an Indian School, kitchen, refectory, and whatever storage and workrooms were allowed by space. The adobe church and convento were covered in lime plaster, which may have been painted in brightly colored patterns.
In addition to a blending of material cultures, native inhabitants were allowed to retain elements of their traditional lifestyles, including foraging and hunting to supplement the agriculture and animal husbandry that the missionaries enforced.
Above: Organization of landscape features, showing the main mission cluster, adobe church ruins, archeological sites of supporting structures, and a dirt acequia. Below: Arroyo to the north of Guevavi’s mesa. Fields may have been planted here, as suggested by the large depression with sacaton grass that indicates the presence of standing water (NPS/Matthew Bossler, University of Arizona).
Although this acculturation process was not without difficulties, it resulted in the unique cultural blending still evident in the region that incorporates traditional Native American, Spanish, and Anglo cultures. This more flexible form of conversion was atypical of other Spanish-controlled lands like Mexico and in the Caribbean, where colonization meant more complete domination.
This initial blending of cultural traditions at Guevavi has enriched the heritage of the area and led to the unique modern culture of the Santa Cruz River Valley.
Today, the Guevavi mission landscape is no longer an isolated island of Spanish colonial civilization deep in the Sonoran Desert. It’s a rural landscape in the midst of a fast-growing urban corridor, where tradition and transformation continue to move hand-in-hand.
The dashed line indicates the boundary of the Guevavi landscape, and landscape features in the Cultural Landscape Inventory are shown with solid lines (Plan from Burton 1992a laid on a Google Earth image, created by T. Gredig at University of Arizona).
Archeology
Guevavi was completely abandoned in 1775 as a result of increasingly violent and frequent Apache attacks. Aside from occasional squatting miners in the 1800s, little was done to change the landscape before it became part of Tumacácori National Historical Park. Archeological evidence suggests that Guevavi and its surroundings have been inhabited for thousands of years, and it is believed that further archeological investigation will yield information about both the mission era and the deeper history of the Santa Cruz Valley.
Within the district boundary, archeological sites include mounds covering buried features representing unidentified structures, sites of former corrals and pens, the Jesuit cemetery, bedrock mortars, middens, and depressions. Archeological evidence shows that some historic mission structures may lie outside the park boundary.
The landscape was first mapped in May 1917 by Prentice Duell. This map provided a reference for F. Nichols and Louis Caywood in 1937 when they mapped a general plan of the site for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation (Burton 1992b). Further maps and site plans were created in subsequent years based on surveys and excavations, identifying additional archeological features of the area. Contributing features include a small room at the southeastern corner of the convento and a Mission-era midden.
Detail plan of the Guevavi Mission church compound. Source: Desert Archaeology 2011, 20.
Natural Systems
Natural resources and cycles played a central role in the lifestyles, movements, and building styles of the area’s inhabitants - both the natives and those who arrived later. The development of Geuvavi mission changed the natural systems and features of the landscape.
It is likely that topography was altered to level land for agriculture, to create berms and acequias to hold and carry water, and to level land for structures. Depressions associated with orchard plantings and paths worn in the landscape between missions are further evidence of how the land was changed through its use.
Metal head gate associated with modern concrete acequia, non-contributing features of the landscape. Irrigation systems were engineered in this landscape even before the mission era, demonstrating the long relationship between human development and the environment (NPS/Matthew Bossler, University of Arizona, 2009).
The ecology of the land has changed over time, transforming from a dense riparian corridor on the valley bottom into a drier, sparsely-wooded corridor surrounded by mesquite shrubs and mixed grasslands with some invasive species. This transformation has mainly been caused by greater groundwater withdrawal in the region and the introduction of livestock.
View west across the arroyo to the mission ruins shows encroaching mesquite woodlands, with an interpretive trail in front and communication towers in the background (NPS/Matthew Bossler, University of Arizona).
The property was donated to the National Park Service in 1991, when it became part of the newly established Tumacácori National Historical Park. Today, Guevavi continues to reflect its Spanish Colonial mission heritage and the convergence of Native American, Spanish, and Anglo cultures.
The Guevavi landscape is significant in areas of religion, exploration and settlement, community planning and development, architecture, agriculture, archeology, and ethnic heritage. The period of significance extends from 1691, the year Guevavi was established, and ends in 1775, the year the mission was abandoned.
Missed Part 1 in this 4-part series? Introducing Guevavi
Stay with us for Part 3 for a look at preservation in this park.
Visit our Tour Guide for other stops along the Cultural Landscape Urban Tour.
Very special thank you to Adam Springer, Chief of Resource Management, and others at Tumacácori National Historical Park for assistance with this series!
Featured Cultural Landscape: Minidoka National Historic Site, Jerome, ID
Distance From Boise: 130 miles, approximately 2 hours by car
Cultural Landscapes:
“ A cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with an historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.” NPS Cultural Landscape Program
Introduction: Minidoka National Historic Site contributes to a story of the single largest forced relocation in U.S. history, where thousands of Japanese and Japanese-Americans were made to leave their homes and move to camps across the western United States. This post will explore both the trials and triumphs of the internees incarcerated at the Minidoka Relocation Center during its three years of operation, 1942-1945.
A panorama view of the Minidoka War Relocation Authority center. This view, taken from the top of the water tower at the east end of the center, shows partially completed barracks. -- Photographer: Stewart, Francis -- Hunt, Idaho. 8/18/42: http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft3c6003zb/
Background: Anti-Japanese sentiments within the United States began in the 1880s when increasing numbers of Japanese people immigrated to the United States. The prejudice, based in large part on economic competition, overt racism, and fear, dramatically increased after the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, manifesting in the belief that any person of Japanese descent was a possible spy for the Japanese government. This contributed to President Roosevelt signing Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, which forced over 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry living within the United States, called Nikkei, to leave their lives behind and move into one of ten isolated relocation centers, located in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. One of those centers was located near Jerome, Idaho and was named Minidoka.
The Minidoka Relocation Center was managed by the War Relocation Authority (WRA) and between the years 1942 and 1945, the landscape was transformed from an undeveloped high desert to a community with utility lines, roads, administrative buildings, and 600 barracks. During its tenure, 13,000 Nikkei were incarcerated at the center.Today, Minidoka National Historic Site comprises 388.30 acres of the former 34,000-acre center.
Site map for Minidoka Relocation Center in 1945 (NPS, courtesy of the park website)
Cultural Traditions: While interned at Minidoka, many Nikkei constructed ornamental Japanese-style gardens around the camp, as was practiced at other centers across the country. These gardens embodied design aesthetics that were developed through centuries of practice and refinement in Japan. To understand this design practice more thoroughly, it is helpful to understand underlying principles of both Shintoism and Buddhism, as both influenced the evolution of Japanese-style garden design.
“Japanese Americans from Block 26 fashioned this garden and pond” ( ddr-densho-2-68) Courtesy of the Bain Family Collection. Retrieved from http://ddr.densho.org/ddr/densho/2/68/. Used under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Within Shintoism, natural features such as weathered boulders and ancient trees embodied the spiritual power of ancestors. This belief manifested itself as fluency between nature and the constructed landscape, such that interior and exterior spaces were designed to complement each other. Buddhism in contrast, brought forth stylized construction techniques and ornate aesthetics. The result was a fusion of native Japanese aesthetics tending toward simplicity and naturalness with highly stylized and regimented design. Thus, in addition to fulfilling aesthetic needs, the traditional acts of designing, creating, and tending a garden were acts of spiritual practice.
At Minidoka, the Japanese-style ornamental gardens typically included any of the following features: strategically placed basalt rocks and boulders, mounds, a small architectural feature such as a bridge or temple, a path or stepping stones, a screening device such as a fence, transplanted and tended native plants, a collection of flowering plants and water features such as fish ponds. Today, only remnants of one of these gardens are extant in the form of rock-lined paths and boulders near the reconstructed Honor Roll Board.
The Honor Roll Board, located at the entrance to the site, was originally designed by Kenjiro Nomura and Kamekichi Tokita in 1943. This structure honored the 950 people from Minidoka who served in the military during WWII as a means to show their loyalty to the United States. As a backdrop to the Board, chief gardener Fujitaro Kubota designed a half-acre ornamental garden, which featured mounds, basalt boulders, stepping stones, trees lining its perimeter as well as flowers and shrubs planted throughout.
Historic and contemporary photo of the Honor Roll Board (NPS, courtesy of the park website ).
The Board and garden were destroyed after the camp’s closure in 1945; however, in 2010 the Friends of Minidoka received money from the Japanese American Confinement Sites Grant Program to reconstruct the Honor Roll Board. Today, the reconstructed Board and garden remnants at the entrance continue to represent the injustice, patriotism, wartime incarceration and conscientious resistance which shaped Minidoka.
Vegetation: When fully operational, the WRA intended for all relocation centers to be self-sustaining. Given the remote location of Minidoka, this mission was especially important, yet made challenging due to the dry climate. Beyond the residential blocks were two livestock farms and patches of agricultural fields. These fields were anywhere between three to 90 acres in size and produced an array of food crops. In 1944, the internees harvested 7,300,000 pounds of produce in the surrounding agricultural fields, making the camp completely self-sustainable.
Original WRA caption: “Harvesting the first corn crop at the Minidoka Relocation Center from fields which were covered with sagebrush last spring. Note the sleeves and the cloth and head cloth work by the evacuee woman on the left to protect her from the sun”. ( ddr-densho-2-68) Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration . Retrieved fromhttp://ddr.densho.org/ddr/densho/37/711/. Used under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Today, there are many miles of agricultural land surrounding the historic site. This is a product of the center property being partitioned into small farms after it closed in 1945. In 1947, 43 of these small farms were allotted to war veterans, and in 1949 another 46 small farms were allotted. In 1952, the Farm-In-A-Day program further modified a portion of the property historically associated with the center.
Spatial Organization: The developed area of Minidoka was constructed on 950 acres, only three percent of the total WRA center land. The central core consisted of two residential areas, each one and a half miles wide and spanning three miles in length. There were 36 blocks total, each block contained 12 residential barracks, a dining hall, a recreation hall and one facility for lavatories and laundry. Open areas between blocks often supported the development of victory gardens, basketball, tennis and volleyball courts and baseball fields.
Minidoka swimming hole (NPS, courtesy of Park’s website).
By 1945, Minidoka had two elementary schools, a junior high, high school, two swimming holes, a hospital, churches, a theater, and a library. Additionally, the center included numerous places of recreation noted above and gardens (both victory gardens and private ornamental gardens). It was these places of recreation that enlivened Minidoka and for some internees, made their time there a little more bearable.
The “Center Field” restoration project: historic photo from 1945 and contemporary photo from 2015 (NPS, courtesy of Park’s website).
Minidoka National Historic Site contains several features that contribute to our understanding of the Minidoka Relocation Center during the period of significance, 1942-1945. These features include a reconstructed guard tower and two historic structures at the entrance, the reconstructed Honor Roll Board and garden remnants, a relocated barracks building and mess hall, warehouse, fire station, root cellar, and numerous building slabs and associated landscape features. In addition, two farm houses and several structures are located within the boundaries of the NPS-owned historic site, which postdate the camp’s closure. Some of these buildings are significant for their association with the Farm-In-A-Day Program that was developed on site in 1952. Today, visitors can learn about Minidoka’s rich history along a 1.6 mile interpretive walking trail, which highlights remnants of the camp and stories of Minidoka. Despite the loss of many of the buildings and structures on site, there remain many echoes of the past for anyone who cares to listen.
Do you have your own stories of cultural landscapes? We challenge you to find a cultural landscape that you can connect to--whether it be in your hometown or representative of your heritage, the journey to these special places might not be as long as you think.
Featured Cultural Landscape: Platt Historic District (and 5 of the 10 component landscapes within the District) -- Chickasaw National Recreation Area, Travertine District
Distance from Oklahoma City: Approximately 90 miles south of the city, about 1 hour and 40 minutes by car
Find directions and transportation information at the park website.
Above: A regional map shows the relationship between the park boundary and Oklahoma City (left). Antelope and Buffalo Springs is one of the component landscapes in the Platt Historic District (right). Below: This section of the NPS park map focuses on the Platt District, located in the northeast corner of Chickasaw National Recreational Area (NPS, park website).
Background
The Platt Historic District cultural landscape is comprised of ten component landscapes, each distinct yet united in design, history, and by a system of roads and trails. The area was designed by NPS professionals and constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), with most development completed between 1933 and 1940. Exceptions are the Travertine Nature Center and its parking area, built in 1968-69 and associated with the NPS Mission 66 development effort to modernize facilities.
The unique water formations of this south-central Oklahoma area led to the park’s establishment in 1902. First known as Sulphur Springs Reservation and later renamed Platt National Park, the area was set aside to protect the springs along Travertine and Rock Creeks. The component cultural landscapes within what is now known as the Platt Historic District guide the visitor to these the water features and provide many of the same recreational opportunities that were historically available.
Visitors at what is now the Platt Historic District in 1952 (NPS Photo, park website).
The Platt National Park Historic Landmark District, designated on July 7, 2011, is significant for its contributions to broad patterns of history and as an excellent example recreational design in the National Park Service.
Remembering Platt National Park – History resources from the Chickasaw NRA website
Learn more about the National Historic Landmarks Program
For this stop on the tour, we look at the features of five of the ten component landscapes located within the Platt Historic District of Chickasaw National Recreation Area. While each area is distinct, there are also similarities flowing through the features that contribute to the cultural landscape’s historic significance.
Step out of the city and dip your toe into the restorative landscapes of the Platt Historic District…
1. The Perimeter Road
The Perimeter Road was constructed in sections between 1933 and 1936, providing access to the park’s sites and guiding the visitor experience by connecting the areas within the Platt District. At just under 6.5 miles long, this historic loop road still provides the primary access to areas within the district.
Until the time of its construction, the lack of a road system indicated that the park was not viewed as a landscape park in the tradition of U.S. park planning, worthy of the planning and design principles that were being applied in other national parks. The addition of the Perimeter Road shifted the design focus from individual campgrounds or springs to a more complete park landscape approach.
Section of the Perimeter Road under construction. (Park files, no date)
This shows the planning and craftsmanship put into the bridges and culverts along the Perimeter Road. Even most of the small culverts have stone head walls (NPS, Chickasaw NRA).
2. Little Niagara Falls and Travertine Island
The focal point of this area is the Little Niagara Falls and its associated swimming hole, beach, parking lot, an historic comfort station, and a later Mission 66-era comfort station. Designed and built in the early 1930s, the secluded area is still a popular destination for swimming and picnicking.
The location of Little Niagara has changed between the 1910 photo and the construction of the 1920s and 1930s. The earlier photo shows the falls pouring over a natural travertine; the contemporary image below is a constructed dam.
Then & Now: The area surrounding Little Niagara Falls has been a popular recreation destination since the earliest days in the park. Left: Postcard view of Little Niagara Falls, circa 1910 (Chickasaw archives/photograph 2411). Right: A contemporary view of visitors at Little Niagara Falls on Travertine Creek (NPS, Chickasaw NRA).
3. Flower Park and Black Sulphur Springs
Flower Park is a pedestrian park with meandering streams, curving walkways, and pastoral quality, reminiscent of Romantic landscapes.
Stone-lined pathway to the west of the comfort station, seen here circa 1935 (NPS/Chickasaw NRA archives).
Flower Park landscape with park trails, pool, falls, and stone comfort station (NPS, Chickasaw NRA).
The gently rolling landscape continues to provide visitors with a range of leisure options like strolling, afternoon picnics, and water and beach activities.
Unlike some of the other areas of the district, Flower Park is intimately connected to the adjacent city of Sulphur. Design plans and work performed by the CCC aimed to conform to standards of the NPS Rustic Style. It was meant to serve as a buffering space between the urban qualities of Sulphur and the more naturalized landscapes within the park. This was a change for NPS landscape architects at the time, who were more accustomed to designing in rural landscapes.
Lincoln Bridge was built in 1909 in a Gothic Revival style. It provides foot access across Travertine Creek and connects the Flower Park landscape and the city of Sulphur to the mineral springs south of Travertine Creek. Lincoln Bridge is the first and oldest developed structure in Platt Historic District.
Connections across the landscape: Water and bridges, Lincoln Bridge and the Travertine Creek (NPS, park website).
On the other side of Rock Creek, the Black Sulphur Springs area with its crescent-shaped, lake-like beach has maintained its historic use as a place for sunbathing, waking, swimming, and picnicking. The focal point of this landscape is a pre-CCC-era, Neo-classically styled pavilion (1928). It contains a basin that was once used for dispensing mineral water.
Pavilion at Black Sulphur Springs, circa 1995 (Park archives, LCS photo).
4. Bromide Springs and Bromide Hill
This component landscape on the west end of the district is an area of grass and canopy trees. Formerly used as a campground, it is today used primarily for picnicking. Hiking trails connect to other landscapes.
Buildings here represent different architectural styles from across different NPS eras. The Bromide Springs Pavilion was the first CCC-era building constructed in the area. It was built in the Rustic design style, using boulders and large timbers. Today, the springs are disconnected due to poor water quality and diminished flow, and water spigots deliver city water into stone basins. The Pavilion continues to be a gathering place for music, revivals, and special events.
Bromide Pavilion was built by CCC crews to dispense mineral water to visitors (NPS, park website).
The entrance to the area is dominated by another water feature, the 12th Street Fountain. At one time, a central water jet rose 15feet above the circular pool. Today, the jet is multi-streamed and supplied by the city water supply. It is throttled down and lacks the dramatic height as existed historically.
The park is currently working on a project to turn the 12th Street Fountain into a 10-15 foot tall recirculating water feature, demonstrating how elements of a historic setting can be preserved while also adapting for changing environment and sustainable practices.
12th Street Fountain, circa 1997 (NPS, park archives, LCS photo).
Bromide 12th Street Fountain, from an experiment by the park to determine the appropriate fountain head for the recirculating project. Note the curved stone seating area that surrounds the fountain (NPS, Chickasaw NRA).
5. Antelope and Buffalo Springs
Small scale features around the district also exhibit the design characteristics of the Rustic style. An arching footbridge just south of Buffalo Spring was constructed of native stone, similar in size to stones used elsewhere around the site. The stones and concrete arch were formed atop a corrugated steel culvert. In addition to excellent craftsmanship, a CCC report from 1934 also noted the speed of construction - crews hoped it would take just ten days to complete the bridge construction.
The Antelope and Buffalo Springs area was once the major picnic area for visitors to Chickasaw National Recreation Area. Although many of the picnic facilities were removed over time, it remains a scenic destination for hiking and nature observation.
Bridge near Buffalo Springs (NPS/Park Cultural Landscapes Program, Flickr).
Construction of the stone footbridge in the Buffalo Springs area, circa 1934 (Park archives).
Stone work surrounds Buffalo Springs (NPS, Park Cultural Landscapes Program).
Learn more about this landscape and plan for your own visit at the Chickasaw National Recreational Area park website.
>A special thanks to Ken Ruhnke, Landscape Architect at Chickasaw National Recreational Area, for significant contributions in the preparation of this post!<
This post is part of a series. If you’re interested in learning about the scope and intent of this project, please visit the Tour Guide or use the hashtag #UrbanTour.
What is a cultural landscape?
“A cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with an historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.” Visit our website to learn more.
At age 96, this man was a regular visitor to the Bromide Spring in the Platt Historic District, circa 1950s. The visitors themselves might be different, yet many elements of the landscape and the visitor experience remain much as they were when the site was designed (NPS, park website).
Featured Cultural Landscape: Montrose Park - Rock Creek Park
Distance from District of Columbia: 0 miles
[Use the NPS park website to help plan your visit to Rock Creek Park and find directions. Montrose Park is accessible by public transportation, including Metrorail and bus.]
Above: A section clipped from the NPS Map for Rock Creek Park, with the Montrose Park site in red. Below: The purple highlighted area is Rock Creek Park, with an up-close look at the Montrose Park cultural landscape boundary on the right. Look at all those trees right in the city!
Background
The serene Montrose Park landscape is just a short distance from the action of the nation’s capital and a mere three miles from the National Mall. Easily accessible to residents and visitors in this urban diamond, the edges of Montrose Park touch the richly designed landscape of Dumbarton Oaks*, the forested tributary property for Rock Creek, and the rural rolling greenery of Oak Hill Cemetery.
*Dumbarton Oaks Gardens, just west of Montrose Park, is managed by the Trustees for Harvard University. The Gardens are adjacent to the naturalistic garden of Dumbarton Oaks Park, managed by the National Park Service (Rock Creek Park).
Montrose Park Tulip Poplar, Witness Tree Protection Program. This tree has been designated as the second largest tree in the District, and the largest tulip poplar surveyed in the city. (HALS documentation after 2000, Library of Congress)
Richard Parrott, rope-making magnate, purchased the property in 1804. Many aspects of its design originated between 1804 and 1911, when the property was a prominent private estate. However, private ownership did not mean it was isolated from its surroundings. Parrott’s Grove, which includes some of the woods in the current park, was opened to the public for picnics, meetings, and funerals. Local Georgetown residents enjoyed the gardens on the privately-owned estate, and several families rented on the property.
In 1911, Montrose Park was purchased by the U.S. Government. Landscape architects George Burnap and Horace Peaslee from the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds integrated features of the estate’s landscape into its new use as a public park, rehabilitating areas and adding features for visitor comfort and recreation.
Historic Period Plan, 1919 (from NPS Montrose Park Cultural Landscape Report, 2004).
The end of this period of historic significance is 1919, which marks the end of development of the park and the point when the property “reached its most fully conceived landscape character and the period to which it is largely intact today” (from the Montrose Park Cultural Landscape Report, 2004).
Land Use
In 1804, Richard Parrott built a “Ropewalk” for manufacturing rope on the edge of the woods at the east side of his new property, in what is now Montrose Park. Within a few years, he had built a Federal-style mansion on the property, which he named Elderslie. Parrott added a garden and orchard to the northwest of the Ropewalk. Around 1810, Parrott’s Grove was used for the Columbian Agricultural Society’s second and third Agricultural Fairs in the U.S. In later years, this land was used for picnics, funerals, and Independence Day celebrations.
The north lawn of the house, no date. Note the round lawn rollers on the walkway in the left of the photo, and men holding badminton rackets (Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division).
By the late 1800s and after changes in ownership, several families rented on the property. The grounds continued to be maintained by a gardener and were open for public use – a favorite destination among the local Georgetown community. With the help of public advocacy groups and political pressure by individuals, the estate was officially established as a public park on June 15, 1911.
The lawns, gardens, and facilities like tennis courts historically provided a mix of passive and active recreational uses to the community. Today, the public park continues to provide these experiences, functioning as it was originally planned.
A view looking north along the Ropewalk from the R Street entrance, 2003. Today the park is used for passive and active recreation in many of the same ways as it was historically. Note the sign for dog-walkers; one prevalent use that did not appear to exist historically is dog walking (NPS).
Spatial Organization
When Montrose was a private estate, the property was organized in a formal layout with the Federal-era mansion as the centerpiece and the support buildings and gardens clustered around it on a relatively level terrace. In the northern part of the property, development was more limited by elevation and the features were more informally arranged.
A map from the 2004 Cultural Landscape Report shows the spatial organization of Montrose Park. (NPS)
With the 1911 transition to a public park, designers George Burnap and Horace Peaslee adapted or removed estate features to meet the new needs of the landscape. One notable example was the use of the Ropewalk. The linear corridor was integrated into the design to suggest a formal arrangement of gardens and recreational features.
The Ropewalk has long been an important park of the landscape’s design and organization. Left: A US Coast and Geodetic Survey Map from 1892-94 shows the location of the Ropewalk (Library of Congress). Right: A contemporary view of the Ropewalk, lined by a row of Osage orange trees (NPS 2008).
Montrose Park continues to represent a nineteenth-century private estate that gracefully blossomed into an early twentieth-century public park, important for its expression of the adaptations of landscape architecture. It exemplifies design and function of an urban park in the nation’s capital, maintaining its historical identity as a natural place that the public can enjoy.
Cultural Landscape Profile for Montrose Park - Includes a link to the Cultural Landscape Inventory park report for a more in-depth history and details.
Existing conditions at Montrose Park, 2008. Compare this to the map above that suggests how the site looked in 1919. Can you imagine other differences in the surrounding city nearly a century ago? (From NPS Montrose Park Cultural Landscape Report).
This post is part of a series. If you’re interested in learning about the scope and intent of this project, please visit the Tour Guide or use the hashtag #UrbanTour.
What is a cultural landscape?
“A cultural landscape is a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with an historic event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.” Visit our website to learn more.
