HISTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT: LONE PINE INDIAN SHAKER VILLAGE, A NINETEENTH CENTURY FISHING SETTLEMENT IN THE DALLES, WASCO COUNTY, OREGON by ANNE SEATON A THESIS Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science December 1996 "Historic Structures Report: Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. a Nineteenth Century Fishing Settlement in The Dalles, Wasco County, Oregon;· a thesis prepared by Anne Seaton in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation. This thesis has been approved and accepted by: Leland Roth, Chair of the Committee Date Committee in charge: Leland Roth, Chair Jenny Young Madonna Moss Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School iii Anne Seaton An Abstract of the Thesis of for the degree of Master of Science in the lnterdisciplinary Studies Program: Historic Preservation to be taken December 1996 Title: HlSTORIC STRUCTURES REPORT: LONE PINE INDIAN SHAKER VILLAGE, A NINETEENTH CENTURY FISHING SETTLEMENT IN THE DALLES, WASCO COUNTY, OREGON Approved: --- Leland Roth Lone Pine lndian Shaker Village, located in The Dalles, Oregon, is the last remaining example of a late nineteenth century fishing settlement, a resource type that once proliferated along the banks of the Columbia River. Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village is also significant for its association with mixed heritage settJement, Native American fishing traditions, and the Indian Shaker Religion, a religion unique to the Northwest. This is an historical and architectural study of the village which includes the historical context and detailed description of the built environment, as it exists today and has evolved over time. Photographs, measured drawings, 01,:1.I interviews and archival research are used to document and analyze the history and built environment of the village. Also included is a discussion of Treatment and Use options. followed by the author's recommendation for preservation and use of the village complex as an interpretive site. iv Today the village complex is vacant and suffers from neglect, and on November 19, 1996 lhe Indian Shaker Church collapsed under snow loads. Although an unfortunate event, it brings the issue of preservation of the entire site to the forefront. If no management plan is developed this valuable piece of Northwest cultural hiswry will be lost forever. CURRJCULUM VITA AME OF AUTHOR: Anne Seaton PLACE OF BIRTH: Bronxville, New York DATE OF BIRTH: September 23. 1967 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon Connecticut College Universita di Firenze Middlebury College DEGREES AWARDED: Master of Science in Historic Preservation, 1996. University of Oregon Master of Architecture, 1996. University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts in Art History and Italian. 1989. Connecticut College AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Downtown Revitalization Adaptive Use Italy PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Historic Architect. National Park Service. Anchorage. Alaska, Summer 1996. Lntern, Gary Moye Architect, Eugene. Oregon, 1996. vi Graduate Teaching Fellow, 1-listoric Preservation Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, I 995-96. Intern, Department of Community and Economic Development, The Dalles, Oregon, Summer 1995. Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Architecture. University of Oregon, Eugene, I 994-95. Intern. Thallon & Edrington Architects. Eugene. Oregon. 1993. Intern. Restoration Carpentry. McNail-Riley House. Eugene. Oregon. 1992. Documentation Assistant. WUTA-Sculpture Conservation Lab. Inc .. St. Louis. Missouri. 1990-91. Research Intern. Tower Grove Park. St. Louis, Missouri, 1990. A WARDS AND HONORS: H. Ward Jandl Fellow, I 995-96 National AJA Scholar. I 995-96 & I 994-95 National Society Women Descendants of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, I 995 Lyle P. Banholomew Scholar. I 994-95 & I 993-94 Walls & Ceilings Industry Scholar. 1994 vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like lo express sincere appreciation to my committee. Professor Lee Roth. Assistant Professor Jenny Young. and Assistant Professor Madonna Moss for their guidance in preparation of this thesis. I would also like to acknowledge Don Peting for his cominuing guidance and knowledge. I would like to express gratitude to the Keepers of the Preservation Education Fund/H. Ward Jandl Fellowship for the financial assistance which enabled me to travel to the site. record it, and produce a complete set of graphics. I would like to acknowledge members of the Smith family and the Wasco tribe for the time they spent speaking with me about their memories of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. Thank you to Jacqui Cheung and Eric Gleason for their help which took so many forms. recordjng the site plan, providing me with a place to stay, and providing valuable insight. I would also like to thank Gary Bowyer for the work he donated. Julia Cripe. Sarah Cantine. Francis Dardis. and Jason Roberts all deserve thanks for taking time to assist in measuring lhe buildings. To Dave Pinyerd. thank you for all your technical assistance in the eleventh hour. To all my friends, thank you for your support and encouragement. Finally. I would like to thank my family. especially my parents. who have always believed in me, encouraged me, and supported me in whatever I do. viii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my uncle. Walter Kirch. who had a tremendous influence on me and will always be a motivational force in my life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .. II. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY .. Historical Background and Context.. Chronology of Development and Use .. Physical Description .. Ill. TREATMENT AND USE .. Ultimate Treatment and Use .. Requirements for Treatment .. Alternatives for Treatment.. IV. CONCLUSION ... APPENDIX A. MEASURED DRAWINGS B. ARTIFACT DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE LONE PINE INDIA SHAKER VILLAGE .. C. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES .. BIBLIOGRAPHY .. ix Page 10 22 68 86 87 89 90 102 106 114 123 130 LIST OF TABLES Table I. Character-Defining Features of the Gulick Buildings Versus the Indian Shaker Church .. Page 27 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I. The General Location of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village in Oregon and on the Columbia River. Taken from The Dalles -South Quad, 15 Minute Series, U.S.G.S .. 2. Detail Map of Location of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village in Relation to The Dalles Dam and Bridge and Interstate 84, Taken from The Dalles-South Quad, 7.5 Minute Series, U.S.G.S . . 3. Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village as it Looked in 1959 (Oregon Historical Society) .. 4 4. Map of the Columbia River Showing Historic Sites 5. Site Plan of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village in Relation to the Shilo Inn .. 9 6. View of the Lone Pine Tree in 1959 (Oregon Historical Society) .. II 7. Photograph of Henry Gulick from Fishwheels of the Columbia .. 13 8. Photograph ofFishwheel (Oregon Historical Society) .. 15 9. Henry Gulick's Fishwheels. "The Twins," from Fishwheels of the Columbia ... 16 10. Indian Shaker Church at White Swan, Washington (Summer I 995) .. 19 II. Site Plan of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village as it Exists Today .. 23 12. Gulick House as it Appeared in 1959 from the Southeast (Oregon Historical Socie1y) .. 24 13. Gulick House as it Appeared in 1959 from the Southwest (Oregon Historical Society) ... 14. Esterbrook House as it Appeared in 1959 from the East (Oregon Historical Society) .. I 5. Detail Drawing of Box-Frame Wall.. 16. Detail Showing Character-Defining Feature: Gable End with Exposed Purl in Ends, Bargeboard. Rake and Trim Board at Eave .. 17. Detail Showing Character-Defining Feature: Connection at Eave Between Rafter, Top Plate, and Wall Boards .. 18. Detail Showing Character-Defining Feature: Purl in Configuration ... 19. Visitor's House from the Southeast .. 20. Visitor's House, South Elevation, Detail of the Floor Structure 2 1. Visitor's House, Floor in the Gable Portion .. 22. Visitor's House, Floor in the Lean-To .. 23. Visitor's House. South Elevation, Overall .. 24. Visitor's House, East Elevation, Showing the Ridge Cap .. 25. Visitor's I-louse, South Elevation, Detail of the Door Hinge .. 26. Visitor's House, North Elevation . . 27. Visitor's House, Interior, Hung Ceiling in the Gable Portion . . 28. Chicken Coop from the Northwest .. 29. Chicken Coop, Interior, View of Stacked Sills in the Southeast Corner .. xii 24 25 26 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 38 39 xiii 30. Chicken Coop, West Elevation, Detail of the Vent 4 0 3 1 . Chicken Coop and Outhouse in 1959, from the North (Oregon Historical Society) .. 41 32. Chicken Coop. Detail Showing the Raised Entry and Metal Flashing .. 4 2 3 3 . Outhouse from the Southeast . . 4 3 34. Outhouse from the Southwest. Showing Siting on the Basalt Ledge .. 44 35. Outhouse, Detail Showing Underside of the Sill/Floor Structure . . 45 36. Outhouse, East Elevation .. 4 6 37 . Outhouse, Detail Showing the Toilet Seat and Ballast.. 4 7 38. Outhouse, North Elevation Showing Connection to the Chicken Coop .... 4 7 39. Barn (Small) from the Southwest .. 49 40. Barn (Small), Detail Showing Floor in the Upper Level.. s o 4 1 . Barn (Small), Detail Showing the Center Wall . 5 1 42. Barn (Small) from the Northwest .. 5 2 43 . Horse Barn from the Northeast . . 53 44. Horse Barn, Southwest Corner, Detail Showing Exposed End of the Sill/Foundation . . 54 45. Horse Barn, Detail Showing the Roof with Sheet Metal.. 5 5 46. Horse Barn, South Elevation . . 5£ 47 . Horse Barn, Detail Showing the Divider Wall Between Stalls .. 5 7 xiv 48. Storage Shed from the Northeast .. 58 49. Storage Shed, Detail Showing the Floor Structure . . . 60 50. Storage Shed, Detail Showing End Lap Joint of the Top Plate .. 6 0 51. Storage Shed, West Elevation .. 6 1 52. Indian Shaker Church from the Southeast 6 2 53. Indian Shaker Church. Northwest Corner. Detail Showing End Lap Joint of the Sill .. 63 54. Indian Shaker Church, Detail Showing the Lap Jointed Floor Boards .. 6 4 55. Indian Shaker Church. Detail of the Roof Structure .. 6 4 56. Indian Shaker Church. Detail of the North Gable End .. 65 57. Indian Shaker Church. West Elevation . . 66 58. Indian Shaker Church, East Elevation .... 68 59. Indian Shaker Church, South Elevation, Opening for the Altar Bay .. 69 60. Chicken Coop, North Elevation .. 7 1 6 1. Chicken Coop, Detail of Roof at the Southwest Comer.. 7 2 62. Chicken Coop, West Elevation. Detail Showing Metal Discoloration . . 73 63. Chicken Coop, Interior. Fire Damage on the Rear Wall .. 73 64. Barn (Small), West Elevation. Addition .. 75 65. Barn (Small), East Elevation .. 76 66. Horse Barn, West Elevation ... 78 xv 67. Horse Barn, Detail Showing the Sill in the Southwest Comer 7 9 68. Storage Shed, South Elevation.. 8 0 69. Storage Shed. Detail Showing Lichen Growth and Siting into the Basalt Outcrop... . 8 1 70. Indian Shaker Church as it Appeared in 1 959. Having Been Moved from its Original Location (Oregon His1orical Society) . . 8 2 7 1. Indian Shaker Church, South Elevation. Detail Showing the Cross.. 83 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village, located on the Columbia River in the city of The Dalles, Wasco County, Oregon. is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register Nomination, 1 970) and is the property of Mark Hempstreet, owner of Shilo Inns. The village is located approximately one mile east of The Dalles and is situated southwest of The Dalles Dam and east of the 1-lighway 1 97 bridge. Interstate 84. the major east-west highway through Oregon, is located parallel to the Columbia River, bordering the southern edge of the site (Figure I and 2 ). The site is quite dramatic. Wasco County is an area with a varied topography, rugged mountain ranges, rolling hills. and broad desert-like plateaus. The area was once the bed of an ocean but developing fissures and vents produced a succession of lava flows that spread over the cooling earth, forming the Columbia Plateau. Later, part of the basalt was cut through by the Columbia River. creating the Columbia River Gorge (Smith 1 940, 2 1 ). The Dalles is located on part of this plateau. Below the plateau is a narrow swath of land along the river, no more than a 100 feet above sea level. most of which is exposed basalt that rises and falls into the river. The river height can vary up to 50 feet. depending on the annual flow. As the land levels out. a layer of topsoil and ground cover, consisting of sage and grass. partially covers the basalt, exposing outcrops Figure 1. The General Location of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village in Oregon and on the Columbia River. Taken from The Dalles-South Quad. 15 Minute Series, U.S.G.S. Figure 2. Detail Map of Location of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village in Relation to The Dalles Dam and Bridge. and Interstate 84, Taken from The Dalles-South Quad. 7.5 Minute Series, U.S.G.S. Figure 3. Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village as it Appeared in 1959 (Oregon Historical Society). The majority of the buildings at Lone Pinc Indian Shaker Village are sited on these outcrops (Figure 3 ). The site is also notable for its climate. The Dalles is located in the desert region of Oregon, east of the Cascades, and is subject to extreme weather conditions. In the summer it is usually very hot and sunny. Winters can be quite cold and it usually rains or snows. Also. because of its location on the river. The Dalles is subject to very strong winds, caused by the cold. moist air of the Cascade Range meeting the hot. dry air of the high desert. Although. the climate can be quite harsh in either season. it does not encourage the rapid decay of the built environment. Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village is significant for two reasons. First, it is the last example of a nineteenth century fishing seulement on the Columbia River in Oregon, and second, it is the site of an Indian Shaker Church. representing a religion unique to the Northwest. Because of its geographic and temporal location little documentation ex.ists of the village. According to the National Park Service ( 1995. 125), the federal agency in charge of the National Register of Historic Places, the objectives of an Historic Structures report are to: minimize the loss of character-defining features and materials whenever existing infonnation about the developmental history and condition of the historic structure does not provide an adequate basis upon which to address anticipated management objectives. whenever alternative courses of action for impending treatment and use could have adverse effects. or to record treatment. The purpose of this Historic Structures Report is to assist those interested in the long­ term preservation and interpretation of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. Typically. an Historic Structures Report includes archival research and on-site investigation of I ) building construction and history. and 2 ) modifications in the construction and use of the structures. It also includes information on the current. condition of the structural system and materials of construction. The written description of the structures is supplemented by drawings and photographs that provide essential information of the structures' history. Problems are identified and evaluated in regard to the material deterioration and structural instability. Finally. recommendations for treatment. according to the National Park Service Standards for Preservation, are discussed (Appendix C). Today the site stands vacant and in neglect because the current owner is not interested in the preservation of the village complex. The intended audience for this thesis is the owner and local management of the Shilo Inn, the Wasco Tribe, and the concerned citizens of The Dalles. The ultimate goal is the preservation of the village complex as an interpretive site explaining the cultural landscape of the Columbia River and the settlement patterns of the Wasco Indians and Euro-American pioneers for the general public. I t is the author's hope that this thesis will provide the information necessary for the preservation of the site. CHAPTER I I DEVELOPMENTAL 1-l lSTORY Establishing an historic context for Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village, the last remaining example of a nineteentl1 century fishing settlement along the Columbia River, is essential to understanding the development and characteristics of the built environment of the village complex. This thesis also documents the current condition and causes of deterioration of the structures, which in conjunction with the historic context. allows for appropriate recommendations for treatment and use of the buildings. The background knowledge of the social, economic, and building trends of the site and area will help the Shilo Inn and other involved groups interested in the management and preservation of this significant property. The Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village has two periods of significance, the first relating to mixed heritage settlement and the second to Native American settlement. The first period began in 1890 and ended in 19 18. when a Euro-American emigrant and his Native American wife settled on the site and built the village complex. The second phase began in 19 18 and ended in the mid to late 1940s. This period is notable for its association with the Indian Shaker Religion and the return of the village to more traditional Native American fishing practices. The village functioned as a fishing settlement continuously from 1890 to its abandonment in the 1940s. Today, Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village encompasses an area of about two acres and consists of seven buildings that sit on the south bank of the Columbia River. The village is located about one mile downstream from the former site of the Seufert Cannery (Figure 4). The Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village complex is on the property of the Shilo Inn, approximately 200 feet north of the hotel structure (Figure 5). Figure 4. Map of the Columbia River Showing Historic Sites. 0 1/2 \ Mile The research and methods used in developing this historic context involved a variety of methods. For the first period of significance, most of the information was obtained from the archives of the Oregon Historical Society. the Oregon Collection at the University of Oregon, and The Dalles Public Library. For the second period of significance, little information was found in libraries and archives; instead oral interviews 0' 1 00' Figure 5. Site Plan of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village in Relation to the Shilo Inn. 10 were conducted with family members and people who had visited the site during the second period of significance. The oral interviews were instrumental in piecing together not only the later history of the site but also the evolution of the built environment. The family members who had spent summers at the village were able to recount stories of the people, buildings, and daily life. Historical Background and Context The Columbia Plateau region has been settled by Native Americans for at least I 0,000 years (Aikens 1 993. 96). Native Americans who lived in the Columbia River area were not nomadic, because the plentiful supply of salmon enabled them to set up permanent villages (Zucker 1983, 17) . The Wasco tribe settled on both sides of the Columbia River, near what is now The Dalles, and organized into autonomous villages (Aikens 1 993, 90). Three Wasco village groups once existed in today's Wasco County: the Wasco, who lived at Big Eddy a few miles east of The Dalles, the Winkxot, who lived at the mouth of Mill Creek and the Watsqo (Lone Pine), who lived on Lone Pine Island. near what is now The Dalles Bridge and The Dalles Dam, near the site of the Indian Shaker Village (Spier and Sapir 1 930, 1 68). A solitary pine tree which once stood east of the village grouping and west of the church may be attributed to the name of the site. (Figure 6). The Dalles had always been a great trading center for inland and coastal Native Americans because of its central location and proximity to Celi lo Falls, a sacred fishing 1 1 Figure 6 . View o r the Lone Pine Tree in 1 959 (Oregon 1-listorical Society). ground. At the height of the fishing season families would gather along the banks of the Columbia to trade fish for cloth, baskets, and other items. However, with the Treaty of 1 855, Native Americans were required to give up their land in exchange for their fishing rights (U.S. Department of the Interior 1 976, I ). The treaty set up the infrastructure for reservations and opened the land to settlement by the Euro-American pioneers. With the arrival of the Euro-American pioneers in the Northwest in the l 840s. the city of The Dalles became the major center of trade due to its position at the end of the Oregon Trail and as the furthest navigable, up river city. The Dalles continued to be the center of trade for the area east of the Cascades until 188 1 when continuing progress in river navigation and the railroad allowed goods to be shipped further east. This had a devastating effect on The Dalles which was only made worse by the completion of The Dalles Dam in 1957. resulting in the flooding of Celilo Falls and the destruction of the sacred fishing ground. Settlement of Lone Pinc Indian Shaker Village 1 2 Henry Gulick, born in Seneca, New York, on March 30, 1833 , emigrated to Oregon in 1857, via the isthmus of Panama (Figure 7). I- le settled first in Hood River and later in The Dalles. According to the Pioneer File Index (Oregon Historical Society), he was a "Methodist", a '·Republican", and a "Laborer." He held several different job titles throughout his life, as a ship carpenter. common laborer, and fisherman. He was married twice; first to Ellen Smith and later to Harriet Smith. According to the census, in the l 870s Gulick was living in the ·'West Precinct" of The Dalles, and then in 1 880 he moved to the "Celi lo Precinct,'' where he presumably met Harriet Smith, a Wasco Indian. On September 27, 1890, Henry Gulick married Harriet Smith at his house in the "East Precinct" of The Dalles, today's Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. The details surrounding Gulick·s life are somewhat vague. Apparently he rented but never owned the property where he built the existing structures. According to the census for 1 900, the Gulicks did not have children but in the Seufert Fish Book from 1896, there is reference to a ·'J . Gulick." Furthermore. Ray Ham10n ( 197 1 : 154) mentions a son, Jackson, and a granddaughter. Marie E. Gulick Jewell and explains that Jackson drowned in the flood of 1 896. 1 3 Figure 7 . Photograph of Henry Gulick from Fish wheels of the Columbia. 14 Henry Gulick lived at Lone Pine Indian Shaker Vi llage from 1 890 until his death in 1918, a period of about thirty years. During this time he worked occasionally as a carpenter for the Seuferts, who owned one of the most successful canneries in the area. Gulick was described as a "good" carpenter by the Scufcrts (Seufert l 980, 26-27). The Seufert Cannery relied heavily on fishwheels as a means for collecting fish because they were especially efficient in high water. First introduced at Cascade Locks, Oregon. between 1878 and 1879, fishwheels underwent further development in 1883-84 and became a common sight along the Columbia River after 1884 (Donaldson and Cramer 1971, 83). Fishwheels were made with four posts. known commonly as '•gin" posts, which were used to support the wheel and raise and lower it. Each structure had a wheel with anns which formed three dips for collecting the salmon. The fishwheels were placed in concrete channels located near a good salmon run. A drift gate was installed at the upper end of the channel to sift out the driftwood and debris, allowing the fish to pass through. On the fish wheel platform, there was a watchman· s shack or deck to help in the collection of fish, because too many fish could cause the fishwheel to overload and sink (Figure 8). Gulick had two fishwhecls located in a natural channel, known locally as "Gulick's channel," between Threemile Reef and the south bank. TI1ese fishwheels, called the "Twins,'' were located on opposite sides of a former channel, now located under The Dalles Bridge (Figure 9). While the channel tended to be dry during low water, it was deep and swift during flood season and the "Twins" were moderately Figure 8. Photograph of Fishwheel (Oregon Historical Society). successful until their destruction in the flood of 1894. However, the destruction of the "Twins . . did not end Gulick's fishwheel career; he continued to have a fishwheel and to deal with the Seufert Cannery until 1 9 14. 15 The Seufert Brothers' cannery was the major cannery in The Dalles between 188 t and 1954. The Cannery, located near Big Eddy about a mile east of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village, was bought by the Am1y Corps of Engineers in 1954 to build The Dalles Dam. The Seuferts' operated many fishwheels in the area from 1884 until 1926, when 1 6 Figure 9 . Henry Gulick's Fishwheels, "'The Twins,'· from Fishwheels o f the Columbia. fish wheels were outlawed. Most of the remaining fishwheels either washed away in the flood of 1948 or were burned by the Anny Corps of Engineers for the flooding of the dam pool in 1963 (Donaldson and Cramer 197 1, 98). All that remains today of this unique cultural landscape feature are a few of the concrete foundations. After Henry Gulick's death on March 29, 1918, Harriet met Jim Jackson, a Wasco Indian from the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Harriet and Jim were married and lived at Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. They never had children but Jim's grandchildren, from the children he had with his first wife. would visit the village in the summers. According to their recollections, the village was a functioning fishing settlement, the Indian Shaker Church was well-established, and Harriet was a practicing Shaker (Personal Interview A. 1996 and Personal Interview G. I 996). The village was no longer a one-family settlement and several members of Jim Jackson's family also lived on the site, including his sister Ruth Esterbrook, her husband, 17 and Jim's son, Peter Jackson. During lhis period, fishing continued to be the main source of income and survival for the people of Lone Pine. The main method of fishing was with dip nets. In keeping with tradition, the height of the salmon run brought a rise in the population at the village. The abundance of salmon allowed for the villagers and visiting fishing families to trade for blankets, cloth, and other goods. Daily life in the summer at Lone Pine consisted of catching salmon and drying or canning it. All of this was done on site, in the fish-drying sheds located down by the river. Typically, the men would catch the fish, and the women would prepare it for eating or winter storage. Oficn trips would be made to Mt. Hood to gather huckleberries or into The Dalles for socializing and gelling supplies (Personal Interview A, 1996) Sundays found the Indian Shakers arriving at the village's church. The Indian Shaker Church at Lone Pine was an active church up until the demise of the village in the 1940s (Personal Interview B, 1996). It drew members from across the Columbia River and from the Wann Springs Reservation. Harriet was described by her granddaughter as a •·great spiritual woman . . and the head of the Lone Pine Indian Shaker Church (Personal interview A, May 1996). It was common for women to serve in positions of authority in the Indian Shaker Church (Ruby and Brown 1996, I O J ). Indian Shaker Religion The Indian Shaker religion, unique to the Native Americans of the Northwest, was a result of the missionary movement. This religion was part of a Redemptive movement 18 and represents the Native American effort to acculturate without losing their Native values completely (Beckham 1984, 107). It was a response to oppression suflCred for the last two decades of the nineteenth century. a period in which th.ere was a general decline in the traditional way of life, directly resulting from a ban imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs on " Indian doctoring"(Gunther 1949, 4 1) . A Native American and member of the Sahewamish-Squaxin tribe, John Slocum. founded the Indian Shaker Church in the Puget Sound area of Washington in 188 1-82. Slocum. educated in both the Protestant and Catholic religions, was reputed to have been a gambler and a drinker. The religion began after Slocum's near death experience which resulted in a change of his character. Upon recovering from his .. death"' he began his mission to start a church and lead others to a cleaner way of life. However. this refonned life did not last for long and Slocum soon returned to his previous habits and the Indian Shaker church declined with him. Almost a year after the first near death, Slocum experienced yet another. This time his wife Mary Thompson, wrought with grief. began sobbing and convulsing over her husband's body. Slocum revived again, and Mary claimed that divine intervention, brought on by her ··shaking." was the reason for his resurrection. After this point, shaking became part of the worship of the church, and because of its similarity to shamanism. the religion gained in popularity. spreading north into British Columbia and south into Oregon and northern California (Gunther 1949, 42). The Indian Shaker Religion reached Oregon around I 900. when it was brought from White Swan and Toppenish. Washington, by converts (Figure I 0). According to the 19 19 10 census, Sam Williams, the minister of the Lone Pine Indian Shaker Church, was listed as living in the "East Precinct" of The Dalles. It seems possible that the church did not exist at Lone Pine until at least 19 10. While Harriet was married to Henry Gulick, a Euro•American, it is not unlikely that she did not participate in the Indian Shaker Religion. Gunther (1949: 37) describes the Indian Shaker Religion as a .. ,ruly Indian Christian Church," because it was a completely indigenous religion which combined both Native American and Christian beliefs. The religion would "borrow'' an idea or belief and then build on it until it no longer resembled the original, in a constantly evolving Figure 10. Indian Shaker Church at White Swan,Washington. Church was that it allowed for expression of the individual, setting it apart from other process. While initially it may have retained much of the mysticism involved with 20 shamanism, it slowly became more Christian. What was unique about the Indian Shaker Christian religions (Barnett 1957, 9). It was a dynamic religion and because there were few written laws, each person could infer their own meaning and interpretation. Architecturally, the churches were plain, rectangular, wooden structures with one interior space. The entrance was usually located at the east end of the building, in keeping with Indian Shaker tradition (Gunther 1949, 48). The bell tower was located at the west end, allowing the minister to pull the bell cord during the service. The interior furnishings were minimal with several backless benches, placed in the east end. near the entrance, and the altar at the west end. The altar was a simple prayer table covered with a white table cloth. A white. wooden cross with three candles and bells for ringing were placed on the table. Usually there was a large cross. hanging horizontally from the ceiling with candles at the end of each arm and in the center. Sconces with candles were placed on the walls. candlelight was the only light permitted. It was common for the churches to be bare, but if painted, the walls and exterior would be white with a light blue or green ceiling. The construction of the church was a cooperative effort of the congregation; all money for materials was by donation and the land was usually donated by a member or set aside by the tribal council (Gunther, 1949: 49). Typically, services were held on Sunday mornings and were announced by the ringing of the bell. The first two members entered the church, proceeded to the prayer table, bowed. crossed themselves, and then sat down. The women always sat to the right of the door and the men to the left. As the other members entered, they greeted the others 2 1 by turning 1 0 the right and moving i n a circle to the prayer table, where they bowed and crossed themselves, and then continued around the room. The greeting between two members involved the touching of palms, held at face level. After everyone had been greeted the members would sat and waited for the service to begin. While waiting, they clapped quietly and rubbed their faces, wiping away evil. Once the minister felt everyone had arrived he opened the service by moving to the prayer table, ringing the bell three times, crossing himself, and making a staterne111, first in English and then in the native language of the congregation. After his opening, the congregation rose and moved to the center of the church, beginning to pray aloud while the minister was still speaking. After the prayer, one member commenced to sing. with the entire congregation joining after the first verse. During the singing the members put on their white robes. This part of the ceremony was initiated by the minister helping the first woman with hers and the first man helping him. Each member crossed him/herself before and after putting on the robe. Aflcr the robes were on, one member stepped toward the prayer table and lead the congregation in a prayer. After the prayer, they knelt and sometimes a sermon followed. The congregation then crossed themselves again, after which the minister lit two candles and handed them to the first woman and man. The minister took two bells and the candlebearers followed behind as he moved in a circular procession. The rest of the congregation followed in a double-file line. proceeding to the prayer table and then turning left. stomping to the rhythm of the bells and singing a hymn. After several 22 rounds the congregation was free to move individually outside of the circle. The dancing only lasted for a brief time and when the minister was done ringing the bells the congregation returned io their rows. The robes were removed while the members stood and sang another hymn. The service ended with a brief closing by the minister and the members returned to their seats. The minister then touched palms with the first man, and the congregation exited in the same fashion that they entered. Chronology of Development and Use Presently seven of the original nine structures at the Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village still stand. The extant structures are the Visitor's I-louse. Chicken Coop, Outhouse, Barn (Small), Horse Barn, Storage Shed, and Indian Shaker Church (Figure 11 ). The church no longer stands in its original location. In 1 976. when the Portage Inn was built, the church was moved from its foundations to its current location next to the Horse Barn. The other six structures are on their original sites which gives the village complex more significance. The structures that no longer exist are the Gulick house, located closest to the river on the eastern edge of the site (Figure 12 and 13), the Esterbrook house, located next to the church on the western edge of the site by the present day parking lot (Figure 14), a rabbit hutch, south or the barn, and seasonal fishdrying sheds, near the river's edge. The present condition of the site retains substantial integrity and provides an adequate representation of how the site appeared and functioned on a daily basis in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Figure 1 1 . S ite Plan of L one Pine I d. --;;;:::--�------ I n tan Shaker V i i i i age as i t Exists Toda y. 23 Figure 12. Gulick House as it Appeared in 1959 from the Southeast (Oregon Historical Society}. 24 Figure 13. Gulick House as it Appeared in 1959 from the Southwest (Oregon Historical Society). The village is simply constructed, requiring little in the procurement of building materials and relying heavily on the sawn lumber and hardware available at the time. Sawmills were established in Oregon beginning in the I 850s (Dole 1974, 98) and wire nails were available in The Dalles area as early as 1890. 25 All the buildings at Lone Pinc Indian Shaker Village use box-frame construction. Box-frame construction is rarely seen today but was quite common from the l 850s through 1900. This method of construction originated on the east coast of the United States and consists of using two inch thick boards, placed vertically, side-by-side. Each board is nailed to the sill and top plate, with no posts or studs, and bauens are used to cover the joints. The finished wall thickness is about three inches (Figure 15). Box-frame structures are advantageous because they are incredibly durable, strong, and economical. Figure 14. Esterbrook House as it Appeared in 1959 from the Southwest (Oregon Historical Society). r J" � i· Figure 1 5. Detail Drawing of Box-Frame Wall. The wall requires 1 /3 less material than other types and half the number of nails. 26 However, their disadvanlage is that no insulating air space is created, resulting in a colder interior (Dole I 974, 98-99). While all the structures at Lone Pine Indian Shaker village have in common their method of construction, they can be separated into two distinct groups because of certain character-defining features (Table I ). What is striking about the vi l lage complex is the simi larity of construction and appearance of six of the seven bui ldings. The first group 27 TABLE I . Character-Defining Features of the Gul ick Bui ldings Versus The Indian Shaker Church Building/ Visitor's Chicken Outhouse Barn Horse Storage Church Feature House Coop (Smal l) Barn Shed Foundaiion None None None None South None No Wall Longer Only Exists S i l l Joint End Lap Stacked NIA NIA End Lap Nol End Lap Visible Floor Boards, Dirt Boards Dirt, Dirt, Boards Lap Joint Tongue Boards Boards Boards & Groove Wal l Board & Double Board & Board & Board & Board & Board & Material Batten Board Batten Batten Batten Bauen Batten Wal l Patina Red- Red- Red- Red- Red- Red- S i lver- Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Brown Gray Wall Fin ish Rough Rough Rough Rough Rough Rough Surfaced Top Plate End Lap End Lap End Lap End Lap End Lap End Lap Butt Joint Rafter to Rests on Rests on Notched Rests on Rests on Rests on Notched Top Plate Wal l , Wal l , & Wal l , Wal l . Wal l , & Deta i l Enclosed Enclosed Exposed Enc losed Enclose Enc losed Exposed d Roof S1yle Gable Gable Shed Gable Gable Gable Gable Roof Pitch 1 : 1 1 : 1 1 :2 1 : 1 3:4 1 : 1 3 : 5 (risc:run) Roofing Vertical Vert ica l 1-loriz. Vertical Vertical Vertical l-loriz. Material Board & Double Lapped Double Double Double Single Banen Board Double Board Board Board Board Board w/Metal ,\/Melal Purl in Detai l Exposed Exposed No Exposed Exposed Exposed No Purlins Purl ins Bargeboard Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Trim Board Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No at Eave Rake Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 28 consists of structures built by Henry Gulick between 1890-91: the Visitor's House, Chicken Coop, Outhouse. Barn (Small). Horse Barn, and Storage Shed. The Indian Shaker church has a different overall appearance and vocabulary of detail, standing apart as either a later construction or the work of a builder other than Gulick. A later construction date coincides with the historical background, which places the church· s construction between 19 10 and 19 18. The Gulick buildings are constructed with rough sawn, ponderosa pine, which in the 100 years since construction has acquired a handsome reddish-brown patina, possibly the result of oiling the boards. Predominantly, these buildings are rectangular with gabled roofs and overhanging eaves. On the gable ends, purl ins are exposed which support the roof overhang. Each building is finished with a trim board at the eave, barge board, and rake (Figure 16). On the interior, the Gulick buildings also share similarities of construction. Notably, all are box.frame constructed with no structural members supporting the walls, except some type of sill, wall boards and battens. and a top plate. The wall boards are nailed at the ground level to the sill. Typically, the top plates have end lap joints at the corners. All the buildings (except the outhouse. which will be discussed later) have the same detail at the eave where the rafters join the wall. The wall boards are nailed to the top plate, with the trim board at the eave nailed to both the boards and top plate. The rafters sit on the top of this wall construction, overhanging slightly to the interior (Figure 17). The rafter ends are not exposed. The number of rafters may vary but, there are 29 Figure 16. Detail Showing Character-Defining Feature: Gable End with Exposed Purlin Ends, Bargeboard, Rake, and Trim Board at Eave. always three purlins; one at the peak, one at the eave and one in the middle of the span (Figure I 8). The siting, construction, and duration of the Gulick buildings are a testament to the skill and ingenuity ofGulick's ability as a carpenter. In general, each building is uniquely sited on or around the basalt outcroppings to benefit both function and construction. Although simple in construction, the buildings have a handsome appearance which is a result of the attention to detail, seen in the use of trim pieces, lap joints, and oiling the boards. Furthermore, the fact that afler more than fifty years of neglect. they are still standing, is evidence of their quality of construction and durability. Although the church is also box-frame with board and batten siding, it differs from the Gulick buildings in overall character and can be attributed to a later construction date or a Figure 17. Detail Showing Character�Defining Feature: Connection at Eave Between Rafter, Top Plate. and Wall Boards. 30 Figure 1 8 . Detail Showing Character-Defining Feature: Purl in Configuration. different builder. A detailed description of each building's constrnction, materials, and history of use is discussed below. Visitor's House Physical Construction 3 1 The Visitor's House is a rectangular, one-story (box-frame construction) building that is approximately 17 feet east-west by I 5 feet north-south (see Appendix A, Sheet I ). Because it is in keeping with most of the character-defining features of the Gulick buildings, it can be dated to as early as 1890-9 I (Figure 19). The building consists or the original main space with gable roof and the later lean-to addition. It is an unpainted. wood (box-frame construction) building constructed with rough sawn ponderosa pine, lefi 32 Figure 19. Visitor's House from the Southeast. to weather with time. The Visitor's House has no foundation and the sills sit on the exposed ground and basalt rock. The sil ls vary in size and have end lap joints at the corners. There is no si l l along the south elevation of the gable portion of the building (Figure 20). The floor structure in the gable portion consists of three sleepers. running east-west. A sleeper is placed at the north and south ends and in the center. A 3x6 joist running perpendicularly rests on the sleeper with l x7 floor boards. running east-west. laid on top of the joist and nailed at the sills (Figure 2 \ ). In the lean-to, the sills have end lap joints at the comers, sitting on the exposed ground and covered with 3/4 inch tongue and groove boards (Figure 22). The walls of the entire building are constructed of simple, one inch thick boards and are continuous from ground line to eave. Each board is securely nailed to the sill, top plate, and trim board at the eave. The gable portion of the structure has four inch battens and the lean-to has horizontal one inch thick boards as 33 Figure 20 . Visitor's House, South Elevation, Detail of the Floor Structure. Figure 2 1. Visitor's House. Floor in Gable Portion. 34 clapboarding on the south elevation (Figure 23). The top plates have end lap joints at the corners. The gable roof is constructed with 2x4 rafters, which rest on the top plate with 2x4 purlins which are underneath vertical one inch thick boards and exposed at the gable ends. The gables are finished with a bargeboard and rake. The roof in the lean-to consists of rafters that rest on a ledger, nailed to the east elevation of the gable portion, and on the top plate, which is nailed to the wall boards of the east exterior wall. The rafters are notched and rest on the beam, exposing their ends. The rafters are covered with vertical one inch thick boards and battens, not the typical double layer of vertical. overlapping boards. A ridge cap still remains on the roof peak (Figure 24). A large entry is located on the west half of the south elevation. There are no longer any doors but parts of' the hinges and ghosted images of their profiles still remain Figure 22. Visitor's House, Floor in Lean-To. 35 Figure 23. Visitor's House, South Elevation, Overall. Figure 24. Visitor's House, East Elevation, Showing the Ridge Cap. 37 Figure 27. Visitor's I -louse, Interior, Hung Ceiling in the Gable Portion. (Figure 25). On the north elevation there are two single entries: one centered on the west half and the other on the eastern portion of the north elevation (Figure 26). No doors remain for these two openings. A framed opening exists on the east half of the south elevation. There is a wall cabinet in the northwest corner of the gable portion. A ceiling, made of I x7 boards, has been suspended from the bottom of the collar ties (Figure 27). Originally this structure was small and used for storage. At a later date the lean-to was added. During the period in which Harriet and Jim Jackson were living on the site it was used as a house for guests (Interview D, June ! , 1996). Currently, the building consists of two spaces about equal in size. 38 Chicken Coop Physical Construction The chicken coop is a one-story, rectangular, wood (box-frame construction) building, measuring approximately 7 feet aorth-south by IO feet east-west (Appendix A, Sheet 2). Because it is in keeping with most of the character-defining features of the Gulick buildings, it can be dated to as early as 1 890-91 (Figure 28). It is an unpainted ponderosa pine structure that has weathered over time. There is no foundation for this Figure 28. Chicken Coop from the Northwest. 39 building. The heavy sills are set on the exposed groW1d and incline of a basalt rock outcrop. The sills are not lapped, but stacked and nailed (Figure 29). This was done to accommodate the slope of the site, demonstrating Gulick's ingenuity in building. There is no floor in this structure, only exposed earth. The chicken coop differs from the other buildings in the method ofwaJI construction. Although still box-frame, the walls of this structure are made of a double layer of one inch thick boards and no battens. The wall boards run continuously from groundline to the trim board at the eave. They are nailed to the outer edge of the sill and top plate. The top plates have lap joints at the corners. The gable roof structure consists of four pairs of 2x4 rafters, three feet four inches on center, that sit on the top plate. Six 2x4 purlins run east-west covered with a double layer of Figure 29. Chicken Coop, Interior, View of Stacked Sills in the Southeast Corner. vertical, overlapping one inch thick boards. The purl ins arc exposed on the gable ends. Bargeboards and rake boards have been used to finish the gables. 40 There is one entry, left of center, on the west elevation. Remnants and ghosted images of hardware exist, although there is no longer a door. A vent opening is located in the center of the west elevation gable (Figure 30). Originally the vent had a wooden Figure 30. Chicken Coop, West Elevation, Detail of the Vent. grill but that has since been removed and all that remains are the notches and nails. The Chicken Coop must be viewed with the Outhouse. Its top plate and a lower member, 4 1 extending from the back sill, connect t o the front o f the Outhouse for support (Figure 3 1 ).The entry is raised and metal flashing has been used to cover the lip (Figure 32). The function of the building is expressed on the interior by the roosting pole stringers that still remain; two diagonal pieces that extend from the front of the sills to the back corners at the eave level. This structure was aJways used as a chicken coop. It contains one space with room for six roosting poles. Figure 3 1 . Chjcken Coop and Outhouse in 1 959, from the North (Oregon Historical Society). 42 Figure 32. Chicken Coop. Detail Showing the Raised Entry and Metal Flashing. 43 Outhouse Physical Construction The Outhouse is a square, one-story, wood, (box frame construction) building, approximately 4 feet by 4 feet (Appendix A, Sheet 3). Because its overall appearance is in keeping with the character-defining features of the Gulick buildings, it can be dated to as early as 1890-91 (Figure 33). It is an unpainted, rough sawn. ponderosa pine structure, Figure 33. Outhouse from the Southeast. 44 and left to weather with time. The function and siting of the Outhouse sets it apart from the other buildings as an excellent example of 1-lenry Gulick's building ingenuity and carpentry ability. The intriguing aspect of the Outhouse is how Gulick used the siting on the ledge to his advantage. By using the slope, he eliminated the necessity of digging a pit and let the waste be efficiently washed down the ravine, by the rain (Figure 34). The foundation is built using a double floor with a layer of basalt in between (Figure 35). Two 2x6 boards support the back of the outhouse which extends over the basalt ledge. The walls are constructed with simple 3/4 inch thick boards with battens, continuous Figure 34. Outhouse from the Southwest, Showing Siting on the Basalt Ledge. 45 from ground line to eave. The 1 x6 floor boards are laid on top of the ballast. The roof is atypical, because it has a shed form and uses a double layer of 3/4 inch thick, half lap jointed boards over rafters, that rest on the top plates of the north and south walls (Figure 36). Figure 35 Outhouse, Detail Showing Underside of the Sill/Floor Structure. The interior appears to have been finished. The seat has a beveled hole, and the seatfront is made with three inch, beaded tongue and groove. Within the seat cabinet there are two side compartments which contain ballast, probably used as a counterbalance against the strong winds on the site (Figure 37). The entire inside is finished with quarter-round molding. Remnants of gypsum board remain on the walls. An entry is located on the center of the north elevation and no longer has a door. Above the entry there is a long narrow vent. A square-framed opening is located on the 46 Figure 36. Outhouse. East Elevation. 47 Figure 37. Outhouse, Detail Showing the Toilet Seat and Ballast. Figure 38. Outhouse, North Elevation Showing Connection to the Chicken Coop. cast elevation. Because of the way the rafters sit, there are ventilation openings on the south elevation. This structure has always been used as an outhouse. It is a simple and functionally unique resource for the site. It is tied into the Chicken Coop because the west side of the north elevation is attached to the top plate and a lower member of the Chicken Coop, for added support (Figure 3 8). Bam (Small) Physical Construction 48 The Barn (Small) is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately 16 feet north­ south by 9 feet east-west {Appendix A, Sheet 4). Because it is in keeping with most of the character-defining features of the Gulick buildings it can be dated to as early as 1890- 91. Remarkable for its unique siting that contributes to its function. the barn is set on a basalt ledge that drops about five feet, enabling the building to have split levels. The main space, a stable, is on the lower portion of the site with the minor space. for accessing hay storage, on the basalt ledge above (Figure 39). This eliminates the need to walk down to the lower area form the house to feet the animals. The Barn (Small) is an unpainted, wood structure (box-frame construction), constructed with rough sawn, 49 Figure 39. Barn (Small) from the Southwest. ponderosa pine, left to weather with time. There is no foundation, and the sill rests on the exposed ground or basalt. The sills in the lower level vary in size from a 5x4 to a Sx9. There is no sill along the south entry wall. The upper level sills also vary in size, the north being a 3x4 and the south a 4x6. The noor is exposed earth and basalt, except on the upper level where there are three inch thick boards, running north-south, that are half­ lapped and nailed to the sill (Figure 40). The walls are constructed of simple, one inch thick boards without battens. The boards are continuous from ground line to trim board at the eave and are nailed to the sill and top plate. The top plates have end lap joints at the comers. The gable roof is constructed with 2x5 rafters which rest on the top plate with 2x4 purlins, running north-south, underneath one inch thick vertical boards. The purl ins are exposed at the gable ends. The gables are finished with a bargeboard and rake. 50 Figure 40. Barn (Small), Detail Showing Floor in the Upper Level. A wide entryway exists on the south elevation at the lower level. The doors no longer remain for this opening. This is presumably where the horse and buggy were stored because there is no sill. A wall divides the upper and lower levels, rising from the ground of the lower level to a height of about six feet ru1d two and a half feet on the upper level (Figure 4 I ). At the lower level, stringers used to support a trough are fixed to the east and west walls. In the roof structure, boards have been laid over the collar ties to support storage, probably hay. There is a single entry on the upper level in the center of the north elevation, although the door no longer exists (Figure 42). A window is cut out of the east wall on the lower level. S I Figure 4 1 . Barn (Small). Detail Showing the Center Wall. 52 Figure 42. Barn (Small) from the Northwest. The structure was always used as a barn. The lower level connects with a road that once existed on the southern edge of the site and headed east. down into the ravine (Figure 1 1). This space once contained a trough for feeding the animals and hay storage in the roof structure above. The low height of the center wall on the upper level provided easy access to the hay stored in the roof and easy dispersal to the feeding trough below. The building is now vacant. 53 Horse Barn Physical Construction The Horse Barn is the largest structure on the site (Appendix B, Sheet 5). It is a rectangular, one-story, wood (box-frame construction) building measuring approximately 24 feet east-west by 29 feet north-south (Figure 43). Because it is in keeping with most of the character-defining features of the Gulick buildings it can be dated to as early as 1890-91. It is an unpainted structure made with rough sawn, ponderosa pine. A foundation wall, composed of rough-cut basalt and concrete, exists only along the south wall. A sill (varying in dimension) sits on the exposed ground and basalt. The foundation and sill extend out on the east and west end of the south elevation (Figure 44). Figure 43. Horse Barn from the Northeast. Figure 44. Horse Barn, Southwest Corner, Detail Showing Exposed End of the Sill/Foundation. 54 The comers of the sills have end lap joints. The floor is exposed earth and basalt, except in the tack room where there arc boards. running north-south. that are nailed to the sill. The walls are constructed with simple. one inch thjck boards of varying width with four inch battens covering the joints. The boards are continuous from ground line to trim board at the eave and arc nailed to the sill and top plate. The top plates have end lap joints at the corners. The gable roof is constructed with 2x6 rafters, which rest on the top plate, with 3 x5 purl ins lying underneath one inch thick vertical boards. The purl ins are 55 exposed at the gable ends. The gables are finished with a bargeboard and rake. Part of the roof still retains its metal covering (Figure 45). Entries exist at the north end into the tack room and on the west wall into the stall area. However, the doors no longer exist. The carriage room is open-ended to the east. A window opening exists on the south elevation, high in the gable peak (Figure 46). The space contained behind the window opening and above the carriage area was used as a hayloft. There are no other window openings in any of the exterior walls. The main room of the l-lorse Barn served as the stalls for the two horses that lived on the site (Personal Interview A, 1 996 and Personal Interview G, 1996). The stalls are Figure 45. Horse Barn, Detail Showing the Roof with Sheet Metal. 56 Figure 46. Horse Barn, South Elevation. separated by a heavily constructed wall that runs from floor to roof(Figure 47). Each stall has a feeding trough which is connected to the tack room. The tack room runs along the entire north side of the building. On each side of the Horse Barn, hay mangers were added. The southern half of the building, separated from the rest of the building and oriented in an east-west direction, was used as storage for the carriage. The building is vacant now. 57 Figure 47. Horse Barn, Detail Showing the Divider Wall Between Stalls. 58 Storage Shed Physical Construction The Storage Shed is a one-story, rectangular structure, approximately 13 feet east­ west by 8 feet north-south (Appendix A. Sheet 6). Because it is in keeping with most of the character-defining features of the Gulick buildings it can be dated to as early as 1890- 91 (Figure 48). It is an unpainted, wood structure (box-frame construction) constructed with rough sawn, ponderosa pine, left to weather with time. This building is sited in the shelter of a basalt outcrop, not on it. The storage shed has no foundation. The sill is different from the other Gulick buildings because it is made with two 2x6s, nailed together. The floor boards, rwming east-west, are nailed to the sill (Figure 49). The Figure 48. Storage Shed from the Northeast. 59 walls are constructed with simple one inch thick boards of varying width with random­ width battens. The wall boards are continuous from ground line to trim board at the eave. The boards are nailed to the sill and top plate. This is all the structural support that is provided. The top plates have end lap joints at the corners (Figure 50). The gable roof is constructed with five pairs of 3 x4 rafters, approximately three feet on center, which rest on the top plate with six 2x4 purl ins, rwming east-west. The purlins are exposed at the gable ends. A double layer of overlapping 3/4 inch thick boards serves as the roofing material. The gables are finished with a bargeboard and rake. The roof had a ridge cap at one time and a ghost of its profile sti l l exists on the roof boards. There is one entry located left of center on the east elevation (Figure 51 ). It is a framed opening with a few remaining pieces of hardware, although no door exists for it. There are no other openings in this structure. This structure was always used as a storage building, as its small size and lack of openings indicate. Large nails used for hanging items have been driven into the top plates. A fire ring has been set up in the southeast corner of the structure but does not appear to have been an original feature. The building has been abandoned but currently houses a mattress, perhaps a make-shift shelter for someone. 60 Figure 49. Storage Shed, Detail Showing the Floor Structure. Figure 50. Storage Shed, Detail Showing End Lap Joint of lhe Top Plate. 6 1 Figure 5 1. Storage Shed, West Elevation. 62 Indian Shaker Church Physical Construction The church is a rectangular, one-story, wood (box-frame construction) building, approximately twenty feet north-south by fourteen feet east-west (Appendix A, Sheet 7). lts construction date is presumed to be later than 1890-91, because it differs from the Gulick buildings in some construction details and materials (Figure 52). Although the Figure 52. Indian Shaker Church from the Southeast. church is box-frame construction with board and batten siding and a gable roar, it was built with surfaced dimensional lumber and not rough sawn ponderosa pine. The boards do not have the characteristic reddish-brown patina but a silver-gray color, indicating that the wood was probably left unoiled. At present, the church is set on a temporary 63 foundation because it has been moved. The 4x5 sills have end lap joinlS at the comers (Figure 53). The floor consists of 2x6 joists, two feet on center, that sit on the sills with blocking between. The floor is covered with five inch lapped boards (Figure 54). The walls are constructed with simple 3/4 inch thick boards that are continuous from bottom of sill to eave, with four inch battens. The boards are nailed to the outer edge of the sill and top plate. The top plates are bun jointed at the corners, and there is no trim board at the eave. The gable roof is lower in pitch than the Gulick buildings. The 2x4 rafters are notched and sit on the top plate with their ends exposed, providing an overhang. Single I x4 collar ties are placed about one and a half feet from the peak (Figure 55). The rafters, spaced two feet on center, support the 3/4 inch thick, horizontal roof boards and sheet Figure 53 . Indian Shaker Church, Northwest Comer, Detail Showing End Lap Joint of the Sill. 64 Figure 54. Indian Shaker Church, Detail Showing the Lap Jointed Floor Boards. Figure 55. Indian Shaker Church, Detail of the RoofSLructure. 65 metal. Because there are no purlins, barge boards, or rakes, the gable ends have a simpler appearance than the Gulick buildings (Figure 56). There is one entry, located on the west elevation in the northwest corner, although historically it would have been on the south. The door no longer exists. Two framed Figure 56. Indian Shaker Church. Detail of the North Gable End. openings exist on the west and east elevations for double hung sash windows (Figures 57 and 58). A unique feature is the bay that was constructed on the south elevation. Historically this would have been the east elevation, in keeping with Indian Shaker doctrine (Figure 59). 66 Figure 57. Indian Shaker Church, West Elevation. Figure 58. Indian Shaker Church, East Elevation. 67 Figure 59. Indian Shaker Church, South Elevation, Opening for the Altar Bay. This is a simple, one-room structure that was always used as a church. The bay prolrusion was used for the altar. The Church collapsed under snow load conditions on 19 November, 1996. 68 Physical Description This section will discuss the special features, materials, and spaces of the Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village according to age, significance. and condition of each building. The focus is on structural adequacy, causes of deterioration and modifications that may have been made in the fonn of an addition, original fabric replacement with modem materials, or general building maintenance. These are important factors because they can indicate changes in function over time, attempts to improve a structural problem, presence of structural failure, or decay of historic fabric. To evaluate the buildings, an intensive on-site investigation was conducted during the summer of 1995 and the spring of 1996. The site and buildings were photographed and measured and then recorded with black and white photographs and measured drawings (Appendix A). An archaeological survey of the site was completed by Gary Bowyer in the spring of 1996 (Appendix C). Visitor's House Modifications/Conditions In 1890-9 1 when the buildings at the site were constructed, this structure consisted of only one space, housed under a gable roof. Later, a lean-to was added and the structure was converted to a small house for guests, visiting the site. The space under the gable has only three sills. No sill exists along the south side, which in addition to the double entryway, suggests that it may have been used to house a wagon or carriage originally. It is possible that when one of the barns was enlarged, this building would have been converted into a house. On the interior, evidence of the structure's use as a house is seen in the remnants of finish wall material, the cupboard in the northwest corner, the hung ceiling, and the tongue and groove noor in the lean-to. 69 The original part of the Visitor's House is missing several elements: wall boards from the southwest comer, a bargeboard on the south, and three-quarters of the floor boards. Although there is some lichen growth on the roof, it is intact and showing signs of deterioration on the batten and board ends only. The lean-to is in poor condition. On the east elevation more than ha! f of the exterior wall is missing and the beam supporting the roof is deflecting as much as six inches, causing the roof to cave in and the wall to bow (Figure 24). A horizontal board is missing from the south elevation. The north elevation is in good condition. Only half of the floor still remains on the interior of the lean-to. Causes of Deterioration Much of the deterioration can be attributed to age, weathering and neglect. The missing boards (both exterior and interior) may be attributed to their reuse in the building of modern fish platforms. There is some decay of the wall boards where they meet the ground, caused by proximity to ground and vegetation. The deflection of the east top plate of the lean-to, is caused by the loss of wall boards to support it. As a result of the large gap in the wall, the floor of the lean-to is exposed and vegetation is invading, causing the floor to decay or be enveloped by soil. Chicken Coop Modifications/Conditions 70 The Chicken Coop has been modified with the addition of collar ties, which have been added Lo the rafters randomly (Figure 1 8). There is also shelving in the back. resting across the sill and across the top plates. Because of its double wall construction the Chicken Coop is very sturdy and in good condition. Most problems are related to the roof or are isolated phenomena. There is some evidence of decay of the board ends at the ground, especially on the north elevation (Figure 60). The walls are in excellent condition on the outside, except for some grafliti on the north elevation. There is a hole and lichen growth on the north side of the roof. The south side of the roof is showing deterioration, especially the upper layer (Figure 6 1 ). One of the bargeboards on the west elevation is missing. The metal flashing used on the lip of the door is depositing a white chalky substance on the wood below (Figure 62). The interior is in fairly good conditfon, with evidence of a small fire on the back wall (Figure 63). 7 1 Figure 60. Chicken Coop, North Elevation. Causes of Deterioration This building seems to have withstood the test of time. but it is beginning to show signs of neglect. The stain on the front is caused by the metal flashing but does not appear to be damaging the material. The graffiti is a result of vandalism by contemporary visitors to the site. The deterioration at the ends of the wall boards is caused by the proximity to the grass and the moisture that results. The deterioration of the roof is simply a result of weathering. The missing bargeboard may have been recycled for use in building fishing platforms. 72 Figure 61. Chicken Coop. Detail of Roof at the Southwest Comer. 73 Figure 62. Chicken Coop, West Elevation, Detail Showing Metal Discoloration. Figure 63. Chicken Coop, Interior. Fire Damage on the Rear Wall. 74 Outhouse Modifications/Conditions The Outhouse has been modified where the vent above the door has been boarded up (Figure 38). The building is in fair condition. It is leaning significantly to the south and approximately half of the roof boards remain. The floor is not level. The wall boards on the west side of the door are pulling away from the floor, the southern corner boards are pulling apart (Figure 34). The exposed rafter tips are showing signs of rot on the north elevation. The toilet seat is made with three boards, of which the center board is missing. Causes of Deterioration The Outhouse sits at a drastic angle, a result of basalt rock used in the sides of the seat as counterbalance against the wind. The deterioration of the roof and rafter tips is a result of age and weathering. The condition of the floor is a result of the floor boards settling on the rock layer below. The front is pulling away because as the outhouse leans back, the boards that attach the structure to the Chicken Coop are pulling the boards forward. The baJlast in the sides of the seat is not only contributing to the leaning of the building but is also causing the boards to separate at the southwest and southeast corners. The deterioration of the toilet seat is caused by use and exposure to the harsh climatic elements, a result of the doorless opening. 75 Bam (Small) Conditions/Modifications The Barn (Small) was modified with the addition of a stall area and feeding trough on the west elevation of the building (Figure 64). This addition is quite large and doubles the size of the building footprint. The overall condition of the Barn (Small) is poor. The structure is leaning significantly to the southeast. Wall boards are missing in a small area on the east elevation and have come loose in several places on the west elevation (Figure 65). The floor in the upper portion is beginning to deteriorate in the center, exposing the drop-off Figure 64. Barn (Small), West Eleva1ion, Addition. 76 Figure 65. Barn (Small). East Elevation. of Lhe basalt ledge (Figure 40). The floor in Lhe lower area is overgrown with vegetation, which can be four to five feet taJI in the summer. The roof is over 90 percent gone, leaving the entire structure vulnerable to the harsh climatic conditions of the site. Several of the character-defining features are disappearing, such as the bargeboards on the south gable. The addition has no roofing and is completely exposed and overgrown with tall grass. Causes of Deterioration Much of the deterioration of the Barn (Small) can be attributed to age, weathering and neglect. The leaning is caused by the difference between the unstable nature of the ground on the lower level and the stable nature of the basaJt outcrop on the upper level. It is probable that the lower level is settling, causing the entire structure to lean. Some of 77 the remaining roof boards are rotting, but because there is no evidence of boards that have fallen to the ground, most were probably removed for recycling. The vegetation is extremely invasive, causing deterioration of the structure at ground level. The deterioration of the upper floor may have been caused by visitors, walking inside the building. Horse Barn Modifications/Conditions The Horse Barn has been modified by the addition oftw"o side hay storage areas, in the form of lean-tos. The building is in poor condition. Although, the north and south elevations are in good condition, with no boards or battens missing. the east and west elevations have suffered over time. Boards have been removed on the southwest comer. and the west waJJ of the hay storage area on the west elevation no longer exists (Figure 66). The east hay storage shed is also missing its exterior wall. The sill on the south side of the building is showing signs of rot, where the end is exposed to the west (Figure 67). The wall boards are in good repair at the ground level, most likely because they do not come into direct contact with the ground and are either above the ground or resting on basall. Although, the roof structure is intact, the roofing material, which could serve as the primary means of stabilization, is 50 percent gone, leaving the tack room and part of the 78 Figure 66. Horse Barn, West Elevation. stables completely exposed to the weather. The metal that covers the remaining roofing is virtually gone on the shed roof and the western side of the roof. Causes of Deterioration The main cause of deterioration for the Horse Barn is the diminishing roof and wall material. Although there is some evidence of rot at the ends of roof boards and the sill, most likely due to exposure to the harsh climatic elemenlS. the primary reason for losing material appears to be the recycling of historic fabric for construction of fishing platforms. 79 Figure 67. Horse Barn, Detail Showing the Sill in the Southwest Corner. 80 Storage Shed Modifications/Conditions The Storage Shed has been modified with collar ties that have been added close to the roof peak. The Storage Shed is in fair condition with areas of deterioration. Overall, the building structure is intact, and the building remains fairly plumb. The boards of the south elevation have come loose at the ground and are in danger of falling off (Figure 68). There is lichen growth on the north wall boards, where the structure is built into the Figure 68. Storage Shed, South Elevation. basalt ridge (Figure 69). The floor is significantly deteriorated, and less than half remains of the top layer. The south side of the roof has several bare spots, and most of the top 8 1 boards are partially deteriorated with the underlayer beginning to rot. The north side of the roof shows significant lichen growth, one major hole, and general deterioration of the board ends. The east and west elevations are in good condition with only a bargeboard missing at the rear. Figure 69. Storage Shed, Detail Showing Lichen Growth and Siting into the Basalt Outcrop. Causes of Deterioration In general, the condition of the Storage Shed is caused by age, weathering, neglect. and visitor use. The holes in the roof are a result of weathering and age. The fire ring and mattress on the i.nterior indicate modified use as a shelter. The mattress may have caused the boards to pull away on the south elevation. WaJI board deterioration at the ground level is most likely caused by vegetation that grows tall all around the 82 building and is rapidly invading the interior. The basalt rock formation seems to be sheltering the building from the elements on the northwest comer. Indian Shaker Church Modifications/Conditions The Church was moved in 1 974, when the Portage lnn was built on the property (Figure 70). At one time it was located adjacent to the parking lot, northwest of its current location, near Highway 1 97 (Figure 5). A patch in the flooring occurred near the Figure 70. Indian Shaker Church as it Appeared in 1959, Having Been Moved from its Original Location (Oregon Historical Society). 83 altar bay opening, replacing the lapped boards with narrower tongue and groove boards. The window on the east elevation has been boarded up. The cross is not original, having been replaced as recently as the winter of 1996 (Figure 71 ). Figure 7 1. Indian Shaker Church. South Elevalion, Detail Showing the Cross. The Church is in very poor condition. Currently, the sill is set on rocks and stacked lumber, causing wracking of the structure. The floor structure is in stable condition but the floor surface is about 50 percent gone, leaving the structure exposed. The walls vary in their state of deterioration. The north elevation (formerly west) is in good condition. The cast elevation (fom1erly north) is in poor condition with one large hole located where there was once a window. Most of the boards of this elevation have come loose at the sill and move as much as a half a foot with the wind. The other window opening on this elevation is boarded over (Figure 58). The altar bay on the south 84 elevation (formerly east) has fallen off, leaving 90 percent of the elevation open and the interior of the church exposed to the harsh climatic conditions. Temporary cross bracing has been placed in the opening (Figure 59). The west elevation (formerly south) has three holes: one at the door opening, one between the windows, and one at the south end. The wall boards on this side are also loose at the sill. The window sashes are 75 percent gone. The roof is deteriorated with most of the sheet metal gone and the ridge deflecting (Figure 55). The remaining roof boards are thin and deteriorating at the ends, and they do not adequately enclose the structure. Causes of Deterioration The relocation of the Church has contributed significantly to the weakening of the structure, particularly since it was not placed on a prepared foundation. This combined with age, weather, and general neglect has caused serious damage. The relocation caused the loosening of the walls from the sills and now the entire structure sits on four uneven points, causing further wracking. Because the walls have lost most of their structural nature, the top plates are beginning to deflect and the roof to splay. Although collar ties are an original feature, they are placed too high near the peak to prevent the roof from splaying. Furthermore, the building was built without a ridge beam. The combination of construction details, the move, and exposure to time, weather, and neglect has left the Church in the most serious state of deterioration of any of the buildings in the Lone Pine Indian Shaker complex. 85 The Church collapsed under snow load on 19 November, 1996. 86 CHAPTER Ill TREATMENT AND USE The significance of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village has been recognized for many years as indicated by its listing on the National Register of Historic Places. However, as a privately owned site, stewardship is the sole responsibility of the owner. Although listing on the National Register does not guarantee protection of the building, it does encourage the development of a preservation treatment and use plan. The goal of the treatment plan is to maintain the buildings according to their National Register status, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the best interests of the public. In addition, the treatment plan should take into consideration the protection of archaeological resources, especially important for this site, since it derives signi ficance from its association with Native Americans. The purpose of the Treatment and Use plan is to assist the agency or persons responsible for the maintenance and preservation of the resources at the site, so that its integrity will be retained. Whatever decision is made by the group(s) involved, all options must be considered for the impact they may have on the historic property. 87 Ultimate Treatment and Use The preferred recommendation for use of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village is as an interpretative site, explaining the history of the village and its built environment. The primary objectives for treatment and use of the site are to maintain a high level of historic integrity and to retain all of the character-defining features. Because of the above criteria, preservation will be the primary treatment, over restoration, reconstruction and rehabilitation. Preservation, according to the Secretary of the Interior (Appendix C), is ·'the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property." Preservation puts emphasis on the protection, stabiliz.ation, cyclical maintenance, and repair of character-defining features rather than replacement or reconstruction. This is essential because the village complex derives much of its significance from the weathered character and siting of the resources. The focus of preservation for the complex should be the alleviation of conditions causing the decay of historic material, the stabilization and repair of structural systems, and on-going building maintenance and prevention. Preserving Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village as an open-air, interpretive site is the most viable solution because it maintains the integrity of the site and is cost effective, requiring only the stabiliz.ation and maintenance needed to retain the character-defining features of the resources. In comparison to restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and relocation, preservation can be achieved at minimal expense. Furthermore, preserving the site benefits the public by adding to the understanding of the area's history. As the last 88 example of a nineteenth century fishing settlement in Oregon. Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village could also serve as a heritage tourism attraction. Finally, preserving the site is in keeping with the goals of the National Register of Historic Places and Oregon's Goal 5, a measure set up to encourage preservation of historic resources through survey, identification. and management. Although there are many sound reasons supporting preservation, there are obstacles to achieving this end. First and foremost is stewardship of the property. Ideally. an agency such as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Historic Preservation League of Oregon (HPLO), or a group of interested individuals should organize to administer the treatment and use of the site. ln order to accomplish stewardship of the site. financial support from the property owner is needed. Funding is another major challenge facing the treatment of the site. Finally, legal issues regarding accessibility and liability could also be a concern, if the site is opened to the public. Most of the obstacles discussed above could be solved easily with an casement. An easement is a legal transaction that occurs between the property owner and an agency or group interested in the protection of the property. The easement requires that the property owner turn over property rights and pay the agency or group to manage the property. Advantages for the historic property are considerable, long term preservation, continuous management and secure funding. While the owner must pay for the easement, he/she is rewarded with a tax deduction and public approval. 89 Before an easement is obtained, other methods for gaining owner support and public approval can be employed in the preservation effort. First. communication should be set up between the owner and any agency or group interested in stewardship, and the public. Second, public meetings should be held which introduce and discuss the goals and plans for the property, in case there is interest from the property owner, local hotel management or the public about the fate of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. Third, a brochure with a self-guided tour should be written. A brief history of the site is currently available at the hotel front desk, but a more in-depth historical narrative should be written that guides the visitors through the site. Finally, an effort should be made to obtain funding for treatment through a grant from an organization like SHPO or the HPLO. Requirements for Treatment If Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village were to become an interpretive site, creating safe and accessible conditions would not require a tremendous amount of effort. The village's rustic character could be maintained by making the building interiors inaccessible and providing viewing opportunities through the door and window openings only. A path could be designed which might take the visitor around the site in a manner reminiscent of a former resident. Signs could be placed along the path, explaining daily life and the function of the buildings with written narratives. drawings. and historic photographs. 90 If the interpretive site were to be designed at this level, the requirements for human safety, fire protection, energy conservation, and abatement of hazardous materials would be minimal, if any needed at all. However, wheelchair accessibility would be a more difficult issue. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). all public facilities must be fully accessible, but the topography at the river's edge of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village prohibits access in a wheelchair. Although ramps could be designed, allowing a handicapped visitor full accessibility, one must ask at what cost to the integrity of the site? It has already been established that the relationship between the buildings and the landscape is one of the character-defining features. Preserving these characteristics is essential to the overall integrity of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. Because a majority of the buildings can be accessed by a low grade path, it is recommended that several. well-placed areas be designed for wheelchair access for viewing the river and the site, without altering the existing topography. Alternatives for Treatment While the preferred treatment for Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village is its long term preservation in situ, other alternatives are provided below, if the primary choice is not feasible: I ) Stabilize the structures. Take no long term action. 2) Move buildings to an alternative site. 9 1 3 ) Document the site with drawings and photographs, according t o the level one standard of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). Take no action and allow the buildings to deteriorate over time. The first solution would provide a one-time only preservation of the site. Because of the area's climate which is dry and does not promote a rapid rate of material deterioration, basic stabilization of the roofs and sills could play a major role in mitigating significant deterioration of the historic fabric for the long term. The second solution provides for the preservation of the structures through new ownership, but in the process each building loses its unique relationship to the land forms. The loss of this building-site relationship would destroy the integrity of the site. The third and finaJ solution is the simplest. because it maintains the status quo which the site has experienced since it was abandoned in the \ 940s. Again, every option should be evaluated for its impact on the integrity of the site and the costs to stewardship. If one of the three options discussed above is adopted it is highly recommended that each building be documented with a full set ofHABS drawings and black and white photographs. This will insure that the site is recorded for posterity. In review of the above material and according to the National Historic Preservation Act and the laws governing the protection of Native American culturaJ resources, the most appropriate treatment would be the continued stewardship of the structures within the Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village through preservation. If preservation of the site is determined to be the proper course of action, then it is highly 92 recommended that the buildings be stabilized and that an on-going maintenance plan be developed immediately. According to this preferred treatment and use plan, preliminary stabilization and maintenance recommendations have been developed for each building and are discussed below. Visitor's House The gable portion of this structure is in fair condition, but the lean-to portion is in poor condition. requiring immediate allention. Primary importance should be given to repair of the roof because it plays a major role in the long term preservation of the structure. No unnecessary measures should be taken to restore the building to its historic appearance. Repair of existing historic fabric should be the primary form of treatment. Stabilization and Maintenance Recommendations • Vegetation should be cut back from the perimeter of the entire structure so that the sill and the wall boards do not come into direct contact with the ground. • Excess vegetation and soil should be removed from the interior of the lean-to. • After clearing the vegetation and soil, the integrity of the floor structure in the lean-to should be evaluated. • Deteriorated floor boards should be repaired or replaced with material that matches the original in composition, design, color. and texture. • Deteriorated wall boards should be repaired. if possible. • Damaged or missing wall boards should be replaced i.n-kind, matching the original material in composition, design, color, and texture. • Wall boards should be nailed securely to sill and top plates. 93 • The top plate of the lean-to portion should be replaced in-kind and securely nrulcd to the wall boards of the east elevation. • Top plate comer joints should be evaluated for integrity. • Deteriorated roof boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing roof boards should be replaced in-kind. matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. Chicken Coop This building is in good condition and requires minimal repair. Primary importance should be given to repair of the roof because it plays a major role in the long term preservation of the structure. No unnecessary measures should be taken to restore the building to its historic appearance. Repair of existing historic fabric should be the primary form of treatment. Stabilization and Maintenance Recommendations • Vegetation should be cut back, so that the sill and the wall boards do not come into direct contact with the ground. • Graffiti on the north elevation should be removed with the gentlest means possible. 94 • Deteriorated wall boards should be repaired. if possible, or replaced in-kind with material that matches the original in composition, design, color, and texture. • Wall boards should be nailed securely to sill and top plates. • 171e wall boards damaged by fire, on the interior of the east elevation, should be repaired or replaced. in-kind. • The roosting poles may be replaced, although the function of the structure is identifiable without them. • Top plate comer joints should be evaluated for integrity. • Deteriorated roof boards should be repaired. if possible. • Damaged or missing roof boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition. design, color, and texture. Outhouse The Outhouse is in fair condition but attention should be given to correcting the significant lean of the structure. Primary importance should be given to repair of the roof because it plays a major role in the lo□g term preservation of the structure. No unnecessary measures should be taken to restore the building to its historic appearance. Repair of existing historic fabric should be the primary form of treatment. 95 Stabilization and Maintenance Recommendations • Vegetation should be cut back on the exterior so that the built-up foundation and wall boards are not in direct contact with the ground. • The noor is settling on the unlevel surface of the built-up basalt rock foundation. Measures should be taken to support the floor ofT of the basalt, perhaps with the addition of a joist • Deteriorating wall boards should be repaired, if possible. or replaced with material that matches the original in composition, design, color. and texture. • Wall boards should be nailed securely to foundation and top plates. • Deteriorated roof boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing roof boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color. and texture. • The ballast in the toilet seat sides should be removed to alleviate the stress at the comers which are pulling apart. The boards should be securely nailed. Removal of the ballast will also lessen the stress caused to the front west elevation which is pulling away as a result of the structure leaning to the south and the boards being joined to the Chicken Coop. • The Outhouse should be anchored to the basalt outcrop, once the ballast has been removed, to prevent further leaning. 96 Barn (Small) The Barn (Small) is in poor condition with a significant lean and no roof material left. Primary importance should be given to repair of the roof, because it plays a major role in the long tenn preservation of the structure. No unnecessary measures should be taken to restore the building to its historic appearance. Repair of existing historic fabric should be the primary form of treatment. Stabilization and Maintenance Recommendations • Vegetation should be cut back, so that the sills and wall boards are not in direct contact with the ground. • Vegetation on the interior of the lower level should be removed permanently and the exposed dirt floor regraded to direct drainage away from the building, in the least damaging way possible. • Deteriorated wall boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing wall boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. • The upper level sills should be evaluated for rot and repaired. • Missing floor boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. 98 • Deteriorated wall boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing wall boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition. design, color, and texture. • Wall boards should be securely nailed to the top plate and sill. • Deteriorated roof boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing roof boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. Storage Shed The Storage Shed is in fair to good condition. Primary importance should be given to repair of the roof, because it plays a major role in the long term preservation of the structure. No unnecessary measures should be taken to restore the building to its historic appearance. Repair of existing historic fabric should be the primary form of treatment. Stabilization and Maintenance Recommendations • Vegetation should be cut back and soil abutting the wall boards removed, so that the noor/sill structure and wall boards do not come into direct contact with the ground. • Any soil accumulation on the interior floor should be removed. • Deteriorated boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing floor boards should be replaced in-kind. matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. • Deteriorated wall boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing wall boards should be replaced in-kind, matchjng the original in composition, design, color, and texture. • Wall boards shouJd be securely nailed to floor boards and top plate. 99 • Moss growth on roof boards should be removed with the gentlest means possible. • Deteriorated roof boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing roof boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design. color, and texture. Indian Shaker Church This Church is the most deteriorated of all the buildings in the village complex. Primary importance should be given to repair of the roof, because it plays a major role in the long term preservation of the structure. No unnecessary measures should be taken to restore the building to its historic appearance. Repair of existing historic fabric should be the primary form of treatment. Stabilization and Maintenance Recommendations • The structure should be returned to its original siting, in the proper orientation, and placed on a level foundation. 100 • The floor structure should be repaired. Any missing structural members should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. • Deteriorated wall boards should be repaired. if possible. • Damaged and missing wall boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. • Boards covering the windows should be removed. I fin good condition they may be used to make repairs. • Wall boards should be securely nailed to sill and top plate. • Top plates should be repaired, if possible, or replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color. and texture. • Top plate comer joints should be securely nailed. • The remaining pieces of the altar bay should be repaired and the bay reattached to the west elevation. • Some type of intervention is needed in the roof structure to prevent the roof from collapsing. A simple cable and turnbuckle would provide the necessary support without be confused for the historic fabric. • Deteriorating roof boards should be repaired, if possible. • Damaged or missing roof boards should be replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. • Sheet metal, on the roof, should be repaired, if possible, or replaced in-kind, matching the original in composition, design, color, and texture. I O I A s noted earlier in this thesis the Church collapsed under snow loads o n 19 November. 1996. In light of this devastating development preservation is no longer viable and a new recommendation should be developed regarding the treatment and use of this important resource. First and foremost is the need to organize a committee to resolve this issue. This comminee should consist of members from the Wasco Tribe, the Shilo Inn, The Dalles I listoric Landmarks Commission, and the State Historic Preservation Office or the Historic Preservation League of Oregon. It is imperative that all options for treatment be thoroughly considered. There are many solutions and they range from doing nothing to taking the remaining historic fabric and reconstructing the church on its original site. The value of this resource as a contributor to Oregon's cultural history cannot be undervalued. 102 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION Typically. an Historic Structures Report would include a Record of Treatment Section which would contain the summary reports for treatment of the resources, according to the National Park Service's guidelines for the model Historic Structures Report. Each summary report would include descriptions of the intent of the work, the way in which the work was approached and accomplished, the time required to do the work, the cost of the work, and any new information, obtained during treatment, regarding the history of the structure. In addition to the above requirements, each summary report should also include a Technical Data section with photographic documentation of treatment, working drawings. specifications, summary assessments, and correspondence between governing bodies. The Record of Treatment section of the Historic Structures Report may be viewed as an on-going chapter in which summary reports are added as treatment is completed on the various resources. To date, no treatment has occurred at the Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. Since its abandonment in the 1940s, the buildings have stood vacant and exposed to the ravages of time, harsh climatic elements, and non-conventional visitor use. At an age of more than one hundred years they are in remarkably good condition. considering all these factors. Their present state is a testament to Gulick's excellent carpentry skills, 103 craftsmanship and sense of building placement within the landscape. However, because the current owner is not interested in the site's stewardship or preservation., the resources are now in jeopardy. This thesis is written in the hope that stewardship of the site wil l be given to a capable agency and that Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village will be preserved as an open­ air, interpretive site. The importance of this site cannot be underestimated. It is the last example of a nineteenth century fishing settlement on the Columbia River in Oregon. The site has clear associations with mixed-heritage settlement. the Native American fishing traditions. and the Indian Shaker Church. These associations in combination with the integrity of the built environment should galvanize public support for the preservation of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village. Although decisions regarding the treatment and use of the village complex stand in question, there are other tasks that can be done to completely document the site. First, during the research of this thesis, additional historic information pertaining to the village was found in the archives and through oral interviews. Most important was the information obtained in speaking with the surviving grandchildren of 1-larriet and Jim Jackson. While they provided much needed background to the use and appearance of the village in its final years, many questions sti l l remain surrounding the Indian Shaker Church, its construction date. builder, and history. It is recommended that this additional information be amended to the National Register Nomination. 1 04 Second. a reconnaissance survey should be conducted to identify other resources on the site, especially those relating to resources that no longer exist, such as the device used to bring water up to the Gulick house, the building anchors in the basalt, and the remaining fishwheel foundations and channels. These resources are important and could broaden the understanding of the settlement as a functioning nineteenth century fishing village. Third. a more in-depth archaeological survey should be conducted to ascertain more detailed information regarding dates and uses of the individual building sites. especially those of the structures that no longer exist. It is recommended that this survey take place before any major changes occur, i.e., reconstructing the church on its original site, or delineating an interpretive walking path. An opportune time to co□duct the survey would be as the buildings are being stabilized, when the vegetation and soil are removed and sills are being evaluated and repaired. Finally. a cost estimate should be completed for each of the four recommendations for Treatment and Use discussed in Chapter Three. Each estimate should be outlined in detail regarding the materials, labor. and time. The cost estimates can then be used as a tool to encourage owner support. stewardship, public support, and to develop an appropriate management plan. Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village would not exist except for the abundance of salmon that enabled Native Americans and Euro-Americans to settle in permanent villages on the banks of the Columbia River, a tradition that has existed for thousands of 1 05 years. The preservation of this site provides a window to the past and a clearer understanding of the settlement patterns and cultural traditions that existed at the end of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century in Oregon. Although the buildings are plain. functional structures, they are handsome aesthetically. Most of their character is derived from their relationshjp to the site, construction method, and materials. They posses a certain djgnity, resulting from their tenacity, as they cling to the basalt outcrops as if they had always been there. The use of box-frame construction, a product of economic and learned building skills, is simple yet rugged and seems to be a natural response to the landscape. And the use of indigenous materials, like ponderosa pine, make the buildings seem inherent to the landscape. The resources of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village may be described as withstanding the test of time, but they are now in danger of being destroyed by neglect and the toll of over I 00 years of harsh climatic conditions. The destruction of the village complex would not only mean the loss of seven unique structures but also the end of an era which is associated with mixed-heritage settlement. Native American fishing traditions and the Indian Shaker Church. The question that needs to be answered is whether to develop a management plan and preserve the site or leave the site alone and lose the resources forever. The response to that question is for the preservation and interpretation of Lone Pine Indian Shaker Village because of its association to important settlement patterns and cultural traditions, integrity of its built environment, and because it is the last known exan1ple of a late nineteenth century fishing settlement in Oregon. 106 APPENDIX A MEASURED ORA WINGS S I T E O I A O R A M V I S I T O R ' S H O U S E L O N E P I N E I N D I A N S H A K E R V I L L A G E -I.HE D A L L E S. W A S C O C O U N T Y, O f'I E O O N A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S · H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N S H E E T • 1 U N I V E R S I T Y Of' O R E O O N 1 11 11 e wmnn l" IIU• K.AI. - I NntH ..... , ..... 10, "-"ft. WI'---------------------=---- - - - . ' V I S I T O R ' S H O U S E L O N E P I N E I N D I A N S H A K E R V I L L A G E. _.J:ltE DALLES. W A S C O C O U NTY, O ,. E Q O N A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S - H I S T O R I C P A E S E A V A T I O N U N I V E R S I TY OF O R E G O N 1 11 9 8 .� I i lc.=:r �, -:-- , ,- I I -.,-,- , ·1m1lllf '· .. F L O O R P L A N f :_.__._ ....... B- - • �-J-J.j rumn '""''Jo � ......... fl't ""'' �.,. ...... .. W A L L S E C T I ON ::w& mun J•''it .,...,. f<.Atl, l •Oo nu,1 _,.u,r -L D E T A I L O F W "crl l AT,. R o o � n...r;___, lb I D E T A I L OF W A L L A T C O R N E R f-u-L..J" O E T A I L OF W A L L A T S t L L V s• g• n...r,__, O U T H O U S E L O N E P I N E 'I N D I A N S H A K E R V I L L A G E ;THE OAUES. WASCO C O U N T Y, O R E G O N A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S · H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N U N I V E R S I T Y OF O R E O O N 1 11 9 8 l.r-i' 109 !n'.!.?:!?�L-M.I. -,.P$ w11,i v.r i""'•• l'fIIIU.llll) ���� � � ''"'" W A L L D E T A I L AT R O O F rl ... rLJ ·-· � ...... ,, ..... o w,o.i,,...,,.._1 F..._ GwM!LL->&&. W I\ L l D E T A I L AT S I L L rvL..J . O U T H O U S E L O N E P I N E 'I N D I A N S H A K E R V I L L A G E :T H E O A U E S. W A S C O C O U NTY, O R E O O N A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S · H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N S H E E T # 3 U N I V E R S I T Y OF O R E O O N 1 9 9 9 A 7 A J S E C T I O N AA • r r,_7 • r rt.., E A S T E L E V A T I O N . LLIIIL ... .. EII-=- - 1111 �_,_I_J 1 J r-J----i' r:tt.!,?!!,.\,..°"'l>LL e, .... n 1-11111 v.r 10,,..n 1'N • 1 •.., ,_,.fltU , N1>1(.lltt> WU.VJ.!!!-., ... � ri.,,•,.. 1orru.1t 1 09 W A L L D E T A I L AT A O O F L ru{_J' ·-· i ........ , ...... I> V1111 0-t f,a. i:-,u.._...._ W A L L D E T A I L AT S I L L h.rL..J B A R N t. O N E P I N E I N O I A N S H A K E R :V I LLA.G E THE DALLEB. �88,f OUHTY. A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S · H I S T O R I C P R E S E FI II A T I O N U N I V E R S I T Y OF O R E O O N 1 9 t tl !W 1WIM l• Vt�111.AL "°""pt, ,,,..,) .. Nl.\.lflt, ,,._., ,.,nu.• hrL ... .J I 10 S I T E D I A G R A M B A R N \. O N E P I N E · I N D I A N S H A K E R V I LLA.G E Tt!E DALLES. �88H cou,- ;rv . . A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S - H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N S H E E T • , U N I V E R S I T 'I' OF O R E G O N 1 9 1UI c : :: " " l ! c;.:...;.;ji::::::. :. :. :. :. ::. :: ::. ::.: := = = = =:: . -::.::::. , , - · ··1·- - - ·r - --- - - - -- _L I I - = = = = = :. :. ::. :. ::::s:. n " " " " i;::.:.��:: ;;.:;;:�;-.;..:'i;,;;;.:.:.;;.;-.: = = = = :::.::.:: :::::==:. :;::.:.:. " : : •==f=================== ·:--- - - - · -,- .. �----· . . F L O O R P L A N },J-i' S O U T H E L E V A T I O N n...r-r - L_ IIIL_IIIIID al-- ■ -�----� I �•!!�nm:-� . &,nul"' 1-,.•1')1 10!' 1'\.Nt. 1.,.4 1R1t1 t•M� ,., l,W'!. j.,.•4't! C,111.�.U.1\�$ W A L L S E C T I O N :,'?uVf!B tOuH 11,.•'7� "'�l.lt'b .,,.., ... ,� V a· I' rt..rL_J 1 10 H O R S E B A R N '!,;: O N E'P l N E 'I N O I AN S H A K E R ,V I UA G E A N N E S E A T O N MASTER'S THES I S · H I S T O R I C PRESERVATION UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 1119e I l l S I T E D I A G R A M H O R S E B A R N L.O N E . P I N E t N 0 I AN S H A K E R V I L L A G E T H E DALLES. 'gAi88N C O U N T Y, A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S · H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N S H E E T • 5 U N I V E R S I TY Of" O R E G O N 1 9 HI 1m mnn 1/ .,.,. Vt.l11 ..... . -.,. ..... .. 1-, .... ,... bt....,_ T.,t.l,I .... ... �, ...._. __ _ 'A" 'lt"lilt � •UN.II Ut',\ lt W"Ll S E C T I O N A T ROOF r A �·�::� - - - 7 r: ' =:===-=-=--===:::=== :=-=* , . . I I ' ' ' v , . r 7 A � LLIIL. JIO-Ell-- -• -=�-_J 1 .. - - t I l l S E C T I O N A A n..r-r S I T E O I A O R A M S T O R A G E S H E D L: O N E P I N E I N D I A N S H A K E R V I L L A G E ' l1ic°tiLJm..Tv . OREOOH A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S - H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N U N I V E R S I T Y OF O R E G O N 1 1u e , . r t.tz z.� :z. '°" ...... .......... .. ,..,. __ , .. ..,,._ L"t•• �Y. f.At•- 1 '/t • ,•h, (.. ... ,. .. �. W A L L O E T A I L AT R O O F w::r .. � fllll:l'·llf•\U. "{"o 1 Y,. " l'\U1.,._t_, 1 1� er , . .. W A L L O E T A I L A T S i l l rLJ7........... S T O R A G E S H E D S H E E T • 11 L O N E P I N E I N D I A N S H A K E R , ' V l ,L L A G E - l!:ic°t�J:9..Tv . . OREGON A N N E S E AT O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S · H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N U N I V E R S I T Y OF O R E G O N 1 11 11 11 . L F L O O R P L A N S E C T I O N A A " " " " " " " r ,. r E A S T E L E V A T I O N r -- - - - -- ��� LLaL_ -- -B- - ■ -.-'-J � I ::rz::. ,o� ...... ,..,,.,,., , • .,.., ... ,wu., ... L"/1•,.,.AAt1.._. l'l'l•�'/•t.-..."'-'N'• ... ,',¥U.to- -U 1 ... '1'1>1 ...,.,.,.. ,., ,.,.., .. ,. . ,� ,..,.. •""-" "' l,W'L W A L L D E T A I L AT A O O F w,::r..» ...U•Vf"U. ,..,. r,.. ,. 1'\tM-U 1 11 v r •· W A L L D E T A I L AT S I L L l""i...J7.... S I T &: D I A G R A M C H U R C H L O N E P I N E I N D I A N S H A K E R V I L L A G E T H E D A L LE S. W A S C O ·C.OUNT.Y, O R E G O N A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E R ' S T H E S I S · H I S T O R I C P R E S E R V A T I O N U N I I/ E R S t T Y OF O R E G O N 1 11 11 8 fll ,. , '+''t.!'"7 t-•�l'?TLP ,..,�....,"" "",,._" I"'� iULT !1t.TAL ,.,, i,t._111� ,.,..,, ..... .... l. , "-"P'""..f"'WT O E T A I L O I A G A A M O F W A L L A T FLOCH 1 1 3 am vnu , __ p C H U R C H. -L O N E P I N E I N O I A N S H A K E R V I L L A G E T H E O A L L E S. W 'A S C O ·COU NT.V, O R E G O N A N N E S E A T O N M A S T E Fl ' S T H E S I S . H I S T O FI I C P A E S E FI V A T t O N U N I V E R S I T Y Of" O A E O O N 1 9 9 15 . '- S E C T I O N B B ., ru I . ,- S E C T I O N AA r - - - -- -�� LL_llll_- - EIJ- _. __ _._J -I O' 1' 2' t:.· �:·:: : .. 11 ......... · -.. l"lfM l�tU 1'11..f�\. r,,._, ,., .. ""''�"' ..... , .... -...... ,._ . 'JW'UJtM 'l'o•' D\OU< .. � ,.,.,,� IILL , U< " 'l'l" l"WT 1 1 3 Z!"' nwn_ .. ,, 0 1 : l A l l D I A G R A M OF r, .,. 1· W A L L A T F L O O fl rt.J""L..__J 1 14 APPENDIX B ARTIFACT DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE LONE PINE INDIAN SHAKER VILLAGE by Gary C. Bowyer Western Resources Consulting Eugene, Oregon 1 15 INTRODUCTION A preliminary archaeological survey of the Lone Pine l.ndian Shaker Village (LPISV) was conducted to record the distribution, types. and temporal indicators of the surface artifacts. This report is not intended to delineate site boundaries or serve as an evaluation of the archaeological component, but is provided to Anne Seaton for use in her research. Besides, the architectural features and history of the complex which have been detailed elsewhere. this artifact description is the first record of the non•architectural material culture. The location of artifact concentrations are based on the associated buildings (see Figure x) . The survey was conducted on 22 April 1996 by the author at which time Ms. Seaton was on site. Transects were generally traversed east to west, except for the northern edge of the site, in the small gullies near the Columbia River. An area approximately 100 x 75 m (1.85 ac.) was surveyed and encompassed the area east and south of the Shilo Motel complex. Transect spacing was about 10 m for the area on the south side of the buildings, and spacing was restricted to 5 m around and north of the LPISV buildings. Surface visibility ranged from less than 5 percent for the terrain west of the storage shed to almost I 00 percent on the open area south of the buildings. Artifacts were not collected during this preliminary survey. A large ravine east of the complex was not surveyed. ARTIFACT DESCRJPTIONS Artifact descriptions are linked to the building complex and their respective nwnbers. Other concentrations were noted where no standing buildings were present. In addition, the site contains an assortment of glass and sheet metal fragments consistent with the other artifact deposits. Modem debris is prevalent throughout the site: mostly paper products and aluminum beverage containers at the northern edge along the Columbia River. shattered glass containers around the buildings and near the parking lot along the western edge. The western portion also is where the Shilo Inn discards their landscaping debris, including lawn clippings. leaves, and christmas trees. Storage Shed. The area surrounding this building was heavily vegetated and prevented clear observations of the surface. The only item observed was a piece of sheet metal. Church. Inside the church was mostly broken window glass, wood debris and linolewn. Outside the building was an assortment of shattered glass in various colors (colorless, brown, olive green. and aqua). refined earthenware, sheet metal, and wire. The scatter forms a ring extending 3 m out from the building with lesser amounts on the back side (nonh). I 1 6 Horse Barn. Most o f the debris was situated on the east side where the door faced, yet debris was scattered about inside and out. Highly fragmented glass dominates the assemblage. A canning jar was observed inside and a jar lid liner was outside; the liner began to be manufachLred in 1 9 15 (Toulouse 1969:542). Hardware items include window glass, nails, and bolts. A piece of sheet metal was embossed American. A crown cap, leather pieces, and portions of leather footwear are also present. Visitor's House. The scatter associated with the Visitor's house contains one of the largest and most diverse of the individual assemblages. This scatter was concentrated to the south and west in close proximity to one of the doorways. Glass was the most dominate, but the pieces were highly fragmented. Colors were milk, brown, green, and colorless. The manufacturer's mark of Northwestern Glass was noted and dates from 193 1 (Toulouse 197 1 :390). Ceramic items were more numerous in this area with white and yellow paste refined earthenware and porcelain noted. The porcelain has gilt decoration. Hardware items are simiJar to other building debris and include wire nails, bolts, copper wire, and a fence staple. Other items were limited to a rubber fragment, a cut piece of sheet metal, a piece of cast iron pot, and a jar screw band. Modem debris was present in the way of plastic, plastic-lined crown caps, and some pieces of glass. Chicken Coop. Besides nails, a barrel hoop, and a rounded ceran1ic fragment, the dominant artifact type is glass represented by several colors; translucent-green, swi-colored amethyst, and colorless. Outhouse. A light scatter of debris was situated mostly to the south and southwest of the outhouse. Items include numerous pieces of glass. Colors were of brown, colorless, translucent-green and a frosted specimen. At least two pieces are rounded and polished, suggesting that the glass may have been gastroliths. Hardware items include wire and machine cut nails, screws, and electrical wire insulation. Barn. Most of the debris associated with the barn is on a ledge to the west of the split-level building. Debris observed is mostly fragmented glass, colors of brown, translucent-green, and colorless, with lesser quantities of nails and miscel laneous metal. Directly south of the barn is a gully tl1at at one time was fenced off and possibly connected to the barn. Fencing material observed includes split cedar posts, double-strand barbed wire, and woven-wire fencing. Sheet metal and glass were observed in the draw. Other Artifact scatters. Besides those concentrations in association with the seven standing buildings. other debris scatters were noted during the survey. The artifacts may be suggestive of other activities. 1 17 Site. Other individual items noted on site include a lard can, fragmented glass, sheet metal, and 3 15/16 in. tall milk tin. Gully north of Barn. A gradual descent from the main basalt area leads into a gully and onto the rim rock overlooking the Columbia River. Because of dense vegetation in the gully, observations were limited. Larger metal items, including woven wire fencing, corrugated tin, bed springs, cable, and sheet metal were easily observed. Smaller items were restricted to domestic-related goods and include a church key-opened beverage can. a wheel-opened sanitary can, and a coffee can lid with a key tab weld. Orange-colored irrigation tile was noted in the assemblage. The wire fencing was positioned at the head of the gully and may have been strung across the opening. Outcrops northwest of Storage Shed. This area encompasses several outcrops and associated low-lying areas with moderately dense vegetation. Items probably associated with LPISV were limited to refined earthenware, sheet metal, and wire fencing, barbed wire and chicken coop woven wire. Considerably more modem debris was noted in the draws with broken brown glass on the outcrops. Modern debris consisted of cans, paper and plastic sacks, empty beer cartons and cans, wax-lined drinking cups, tissue paper. and potato chip bags. This primary debris scatter appears to have been discarded while fishing along the river. Concentrated debris were prevalent directly along the Columbia River rim. West o/Storage Shed. This assemblage, measuring about 10 x 15 m in size, also features a large and diverse quantity of items. Glass is the most frequent material type, but is highly fragmented. Colors are aqua, brown, blue, milk, translucent-green, sun-colored amethyst, and colorless. Two glass items were identified, a canning jar (aqua) and a jar liner (milk). One glass piece was embossed .RO. Ceramic was more frequent in t.his assemblage than anywhere else on the site. Paste materials include yellow and white refined earthenware, common earthenware, and porcelain. Identified items include plates and bowls (refined) and a porcelain wine cup. One vessel had partial letters on the base. At least three types of decoration were noted, a hand painted design and two different colored glazed items, pink and cobalt. Some glass and ceramic pieces were charred. Architectural items were also numerous and included wire and machine cut nails, window glass and some hardware. Less frequelll, but adding to the diversity of this assemblage are personal items (Levi brand rivets, and eyelet, male end of small diameter snap, a garter clasp) and domestic-related goods (fauna! remains, dry cell battery core, aluminum squeeze tube [ointment], and a jar lid). Other items include a coping saw blade and a shotgW1 shell base. Sowhwest of Church. A small scatter of debris (4 x 5 m) is isolated from the main concentration around the building complex; the scatter is approximately 50 m southwest of the church atop a small basall outcrop. Most of the items are nail fragments (20+), all wire 118 nails except for a single horseshoe nail. At least 2 glass containers were present from the 30+ broken pieces in several colors, including colorless, sun-colored amethyst, and translucent-green. One piece of refined earthenware was also observed. Gulick House (hypothesized location). To the north of the Visitor's house is a small rise that overlooks the Columbia River. No building is present at this location. As with other areas with buildings and rock outcrops, highly fragmented glass is common. At least six containers are present by the colors represented; colorless (and sun-colored amethyst), brown, translucent-green, milk, aqua, and cobalt. Based on diagnostic features (shape. color, marks). items include a canning jar, beverage containers. and a jar lid liner. Ceramic items were limited to earthenware and porcelain. One porcelain piece exhibits a cobalt glaze and another piece has a lusterware finish. An assortment of other items testify to the assemblage diversity with personal• and domestic-related items present. Personal items include a slip-style clothing fastener. an adjustable fastener, and a comb. Domestic goods include a zinc jar cap. metal cap liner ( 19 15), a clothes pin spring, a key wind (coffee type), pencil lead, crown cap, fauna! remains. and possible linoleum flooring. Items denoting other activities are limited to a shot gun shell base and gastroliths. Architectural or hardware items include wire nails, screws, and window glass. A cryptocrystalline silica flake was noted. Modem debris likewise is scattered on th.is rise. INTERPRETATION Implied research domains pertaining to the LPISV are a result of conversations with Anne Seaton. Other research questions, including land use patterning, material cuJture and building acculturation (Upton 1996). and consumer choice (Spencer-Wood 1987) are not addressed at this time. Chronology. Overall. few diagnostic markers were observed on site. Based on the limited temporal markers of the artifact assemblage (excluding modem debris), the site appears to date from the late- l 890s to the 1930s. Modem debris is prevalent on site with shattered glass around the buildings and on the rock outcrops. Beverage cans and modern food packages were observed as well. All glass containers observed revealed marks indicative of automatic production which dates from 1903 (Jones and Sullivan I 989:38). The sun-colored amethyst glass has an approximate date range from the l 880s-l 920s (Newman 1970:74) and the only identified glass manufacturers mark dated from 1931. The 3 1 5/ 1 6 in. tall milk tin dates from 1931 I 19 (Bitting 1937:751; Bowyer and Spculda 1996). The metal jar lid and associated screw band dates from 1915 (Toulouse 1969:542). Key-wind opening of vacuum packed coffee cans was introduced after the tum-of-the-century (Rock 1988: I 07). The church key opened can dates after 1935 (Rock I 988:29) and the cutting wheel opener dates from 1925 (Rock 1988: 1 1 1). The majority of nails observed on site are wire nails. A relative measure for dctennining construction dates utilizes a ratio between wire and machine cut nails recovered at archaeological sites (Buckles et al. 1978:438-440; Clarke 1949:125-127). The ratio observed at the LPISV was over 3: 1, indicating a post-1895 date for construction. Because of its proximity to The DaJles. the shipment of goods and supplies would have reached this area earlier than most rural settlements. As a result. the building date could be much earlier than the relative date of 1895. The measurement of window glass recovered from archaeological sites in the Northwest has been a useful tool as an indicator of chronology. Window glass thickness and their relative dates assist the researcher in identifying temporal parameters, substantiate initial construction of buildings and indicate later building modifications (Roenke 1978). However, measuring a large sample of window glass is necessary in order to provide reliable results. Window glass was not measured during this preliminary survey. Activity areas. Artifacts in association with the buildings indicate general domestic and farm maintenance activities, including subsistence. constmction, and animal husbandry. The presence of rounded glass and ceramic (gastrolith) suggest that chickens or ducks were present on site. This occurrence of glass and ceramic as gastroliths is not uncommon at homestead occupations (Bowyer 1995:7.27; Ross et al. 1995: 1 1. 100; Speulda 1995:5.85- 86). Worn pieces of glass have been noted at mid-nineteenth century complexes but were not identified as gastroliths at that time (Bowyer 1992; Speulda 1988). Gastroliths were noted in three locations, all near the standing buildings and may correlate with the function of the fencing as a yard complex that incorporated some of the buildings. Possible fencing is noted in the ravine south of the barn and north of the horse barn. Besides the artifact scauers associated with the seven standing buildings. the location of three other scatters suggest the location of two buildings and an unidentified activity area. The building-related artifact scauers include the probable Gulick I-louse north of the Visitor's house and possibly the former location of the church, west of the storage shed. This interpretation is based on the distribution and the types of artifacts at these two locations. Reportedly, the Gulick house burned down. Based on the surface obseivation of the artifacts at this location. there is little or no indication to support this account. If a building had burned, artifacts indicative of this fonnation process would have been obseived and include: melted glass, charred debris, charcoal, and nails with a red patination. ·1ne scatter west of the storage shed did contain debris that is suggestive of a fire; melted glass and charred metal and ceramic. The unidentified activity area is on a slight rise 120 southwest or the church. Artifacts observed at this location include mostly glass and architectural items. SUMMARY The results of the preliminary survey provides data to address future research questions. Subsurface deposits are present, but would not be deeply buried because of the site's location near the basalt outcrops. ln addition, secondary refuse aggregates may be present in the large ravine. The LPISV is a historical archaeological site associated with Native American occupants. However, artifacts observed at LPISV are similar to sites that were occupied by Euroamericans. Can items associated with a tum-of-a-century Native American occupation be observed within the artifact assemblage? Further investigations are warranted to address research domains pertaining to ethnicity, spatial patterning. and material culture variability. REFERENCES CITED Bitting, A. W. 1 937 Apperrizing or The Art of Canning: /rs History and Development. The Trade Pressroom, San Francisco. Bowyer, Gary C. 1992 Archaeological Symbols o/Sratus and Awhority: Fort Hoskins, Oregon, 1856-/865. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 1995 Site CA-SHA-68/H. In Archaeological /m•esligations PGT-PG&E Pipeline £,pansion Project Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California. Volume 111: Summary Reports Historic Sites. edited by Lou Ann SpeuJda, pp. 7.7-37. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California. Submitted to Pacific Gas Transmission Company, San Francisco. Bowyer, Gary C., and Lou Ann Speulda 1996 Twentieth Century Material Culture Variability: Valve Marks. Milk Cans, and Tobacco Tins. Paper presented at the 29th Conference of Historical and Unden-vater Archaeology Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, January 2-7. 1 2 1 Buck.Jes, William, Nancy Buckles. Kathryn Adams, Bruce Miller. Brent Woodward. Mitzi Rossillon, and Cara Donovan 1 978 Doing It, or Strategies for Survey Historic Sites and Analyzing Historic Artifacts. Clarke, Victor In Archaeological Investigations Near the Crest of the Continent 1975- /978, vol. 2, edited by William G. Buckles, pp. 388-46 1 . Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, Colorado. 1949 History of Manufactures in the United States, Vol. I ll. Peter Smith, New York. Jones, Olive. and Catherine Sullivan 1987 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tablell'are, Flat Glass, and C/oswes. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa. Newman, T. Stell 1970 A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology 4:70- 75. Rock, James T. 1 988 A BriefCommenta,y on Cans. Revised ed. Coyote Press. Salinas, California. Roenke, Karl 1978 Flat Glass: Its Use as a Dating Tool for Nineteenth Century Archaeological Sites in the Pacific Northwest and Elsewhere. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 1 2, No. 2, Pt. 2. University of Idaho, Moscow. Ross. Lester A. 1995 Historical Demographic Patterns. In Archaeological Investigations PGT-PG&E Pipeline Expansion Project Idaho. Washington, Oregon, and California, Volume IV: Synthesis of Findings, edited by Randall F. Schalk, pp. I I. 1 - 1 08. INFOTEC Research, Inc . . Fresno, California. Submitted to Pacific Gas Transmission Company, San Francisco. Spencer-Wood, Su=ine M. (editor) 1987 Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York. Speulda, Lou Ann 1988 Champoeg: A Frontier Community in Oregon, 1830- 1 86 1. Anthropology Northwest 3. Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University. Corvallis. I -- - - , 13__ ■ __ __I_J . 122 1995 Site OR-JE-3. In Archaeological lnvesligalions PGT-PG&E Pipeline Expansion Project Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California, Volume Ill: Summary Reports Historic Sites, edited by Lou Ann Speulda, pp. 5. 73-103. JNFOTEC Research, Inc., Fresno, California. Submitted to Pacific Gas Transmission Company, San Francisco. Toulouse, Julian 1969 Fruit Jars. Thomas Nelson, Nashville, Tennessee. 197 1 Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York. Upton, Dell 1996 Ethnicity, Authemicity, and Invented Traditions. Historical Archaeology 30(2):1- 7.2. APPENDIX C THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES 1 23 There are Standards for four distinct, but interrelated, approaches to the treatment of historic properties - Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. 124 Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. (Protection and Stabilization have now been consolidated under this treatment.) Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character. Restoration is undertaken to depict a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes. In summary, the simplification and sharpened focus of these revised sets of treatment Standards is intended to assist users in making sound historic preservation decisions. Choosing an appropriate treatment for a historic property, whether preservation. rehabilitation. restoration, or reconstruction is critical. This choice always depends on a variety of factors, including the property's historical significance, physical condition. proposed use, and intended interpretation. PRESERVATION is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form. integrity. and materials ofan historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope or this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Standards for Preservation I. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materia1s, features, spaces. and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified. a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 125 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place. and use. Work needed to stabilize. consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craflsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design. color, and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Preservation as a Treatment When the property's distinctive materials. features. and spaces are essentially intact and thus convey the historic significance without extensive repair or replacement; when depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate; and when a continuing or new use does not require additions or extensive alterations, Preservation may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a documentation plan for Preservation should be developed. REI-IABILITATION is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair. alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Standards for Rehabilitation I. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 126 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place. and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible. materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. ChemicaJ or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed. mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions. exterior alterations. or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. I 0. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, tbe essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 1 27 Rehabilitation as a Treatment When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work. a docwnentation plan for Rehabilitation should be developed. RESTORATION is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. Standards for Restorations I . A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property's restoration period. 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time. place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection. and properly documented for future research. 4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and , where possible, materials. 128 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. 8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. Restoration as a Treatment When the property's design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular period of time outweighs lhe potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods; when there is substantial physical and documentary evidence for the work; and when contemporary alterations and additions are not planned. Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a particular period of time. i.e., the restoration period, should be selected and justified. and a documentation plan for Restoration developed. RECONSTRUCTION is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form. features, and detailing of a non•surviving site, landscape, building. structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Standards for Reconstruction I . Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non•surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. 2. Reconstruction of a landscape. building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. 4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non­ surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. 5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. 6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. Reconstruction as a Treatment When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property's historic value (including the re-creation of missing components in a historic district or site); when no other property with the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a documentation plan for Reconstruction should be developed. 129 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aikens, C. Melvin. 1993. Archaeology of Oregon. Portland, Oregon: U. S. Oepanment of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Ames, Kenneth L., and Barbara Franco, ed. 1992. Ideas and Images: Developing Interpretive History Exhibits with the collaboration of L. Thomas Frye, ed. Nashville, TN: American Association for State and Local History. Auer, Michael. 1989. Preservation Brief 20: The Preservation of Historic Barns. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Barnett, H.O. 1957. Indian Shakers A Messianic Cult of the Pacific Northwest. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP. Beckham. Stephen Dow. 1984. Native American Religious Practices and Use in Western Oregon. Eugene: University of Oregon. Bimbawn, Charles. 1994. Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Preservation Brief 36. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Preservation Assistance Division. Burns, John A., ed. 1989. Recording Historic Structures. Washington, D.C.: The American Institute of Architects Press. Castile, George Pierre. 1990. The Indian Connection. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 8 I, No. 4 (October): 122-129. Chambers, J. Henry. 1976. Cyclical Maintenance for Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C. : lnteragency Historic Architectural Services Program, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Charles, F.W.B. with Mary Charles. 1984. Conservation of Timber Buildings. England: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd. Chappel, J ill A. 1990. Homestead Ranches of the Fort Rock Valley: Vernacular Building in the Oregon High Desert. Masters thesis, University of Oregon. 1996. Historic Structure Report: Birch Creek Ranch Historic Rural Landscape Malheur County Oregon. Eugene: 1-leritagc Research Associates. The Chronicle (The Dalles, OR). January 1890 - December 1940. 13 1 Cole, David L. 1954. A Contribution to the Archaeology of The Dalles Region, Oregon. Masters thesis. University of Oregon. Dole, Philip. 1974. Buildings and Gardens: Farmhouses and Barns of the Willamette Valley. In Space Style and Structure: Building in Northwest America vol. I, pp. 98-99. Edited by Thomas Vaughn and Virginia Ferriday. Portland: Oregon Historical Society. I 985. Letter from Eugene, Oregon, to Mrs. Malcolm Krier, The Dalles, Oregon. 8 July. Copy of original letter to be found at the Department of Community and Economic Development, The Dalles. Oregon. DonaJdson, Ivan J. and Frederick K. Cramer. 1971. Fishwheels of the Columbia. Portland, OR: Binfords & Mort. Forest Service. 1984. Ponderosa Pine. United States Department of Agriculture. Gunther, Erna. 1949. The Shaker Religion of the Northwest. In Indians of the Urban Northwest, ed. Marian Smith, 37-76. New York: Columbia UP. Halsted, Byron D., ed. 1977. Barns Sheds and Outbuildings: Placement Design and Construction. Lexington, MA: The Stephen Greene Press. Harmon, Ray. 1965. Indian Shaker Church of The Dalles Oregon. The Dalles. OR: Privately Printed. 1971. Indian Shaker Church, The Dalles. Oregon Historical Quarterly 72 (June): 148-158. Harris, Bruce. 1983. The History of Wasco County Oregon. The Dalles, OR: Bruce Harris. Historic Landmark Commission. 1976. Landmark Buildings of The Dalles. Hodge, Edwin T. 1942. Geology of North Central Oregon. CorvaJlis, OR: Oregon State College. 1 32 Jensen, Robert. 1 97 1. Board and Batten Siding and the Balloon Frame: Their Incompatibility in the Nineteenth Century. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 30: 40-50. Lesley, Craig. 1984. Winterkill. New York: Dell Publishing. Lockley, Fred. 1928. Historv of the Columbia River Valley: From The Dalles to the Sea. v. l . Chicago: The S. J. Clarke Publishing Company. Mooney, James. "The Shakers of Puget Sound" Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, part 2 . National Park Service. 1990. Maintaining Historic Buildings: An Annotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C. : Preservation Assistance Division, Technical Preservation Services Branch. Nelson, Lee H. Preservation Brief 17 Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character. U.S. Departmenl of the Interior. NationaJ Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. 1968. Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. Historv News._Technical Leaflet 48 v. 24 no. 1 1 (November). Ober, Sarah Endicott. 1910. A New Religion Among the West Coast Indian. Overland Monthlv 56 (December): 583-594. Personal Interview A. by author, May 15, 1996. Warm Springs. OR. Personal Interview B, by author, June I , 1 996. The Dalles, Oregon. Personal Interview C, by author, May 16, 1996, Warm Springs, Oregon. Personal Interview G, by author, May 16, 1996, Warm Springs, Oregon. Reinoehl, Gary and Susan W. Horton. 1977. Preliminary Survey of the Gulick Homestead/ lndian Shaker Church (Lone Pine Site Island) Site. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes Vol. 11 No. 2 (February 1977): 146-154. Richen, Marilyn Claire. 1974. Legitimacy and the Resolution of Conflict in an Indian Church. Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon. - - - �--.. - - • J....J River Basin Surveys. Columbia Basin Project. 1951. A Preliminary Archeological Investigation of The Dalles Dam Site on the Columbia River Oregon and Washington. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Rostlund, Erhard. 1952. Freshwater Fish and Fishing in the Native North America. Berkeley: U of California P. 133 Ruby. Robert H. and John A. Brown. 1996. John Slocum and the Indian Shaker. With a Foreword by Richard A. Gould. Norman: University of Oklahoma. 1992. John Slocum, The Experience. Columbia: The Magazine of orthwest History (Spring): 27-32. Salem, Oregon. 1985. American Indian Cultural Resources: A Preservation Handbook. Publication of the Commission on Indian Services. Sapir, Leslie and Edward Spier. 1930. Wishram Ethnography. Seattle: U of Washington P. Sasser, Lisa. 1995. National Park Service Guide For Historic Structure Reports. National Park Service, Park Historic Architecture ad Cultural Landscape Program. Seufert, Francis. 1980. Wheels of Fortune. Portland: Oregon Historical Society. Smith, Warren D. 1940. Physiographic Diagram of Oregon. In Physical and Economic Geography of Oregon, by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, 2 1. Stokes, Samuel N. 1989. Saving America·s Countryside: A guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP. Strong, Emory. 1959. Stone Age on the Columbia River. Portland. OR: Binfords & Mort. Sutton. Robert K. 1976. Indian Shaker Church/Gulick Homestead. National Register of Historic Places Nomination. The Dalles City Directory, 1885, 1968-78. The Times-Mountaineer (The Dalles, OR). 1890-1903. 1 34 Tishler. William H. And Randy Garber, ed. 1977. Historic Preservation and the Cultural Landscape: An Emerging Land Use Planning Concern. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Dept. Of Landscape Architecture and the Environment Awareness Center, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, School of Natural Resources. U. S. Bureau of Census. 1870. Ninth Census of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1 880. Tenth Census of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1 900. Twelfih Census of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1910. Thirteenth Census of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1920. Fourteenth Census of the United States. Washington: Government Printing Office. U. S. Department of the Interior. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Division of State Plans and Grants. 1980. New Directions in Rural Preservation. [Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservatjon and Recreation Service, Division of State Plans and Grants. Bureau of Indian Affairs in Cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Background Information of Indian Fishing Rights in the Pacific Northwest. [Portland. OR] : U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uner, Jack. 1 993. American Indians. Lake Ann. Ml: National Woodlands Publishing Company. Uzzell, David. 1989. Heritage Interpretation Vol. I. London: Belhaven Press. Veillette, Jean, and Gary White. I 977. Early Indian Village Churches: Wooden Frontier Architecture in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of B.C. Press. Wilson, Forrest. 1984. Building Materials Evaluation Handbook. New York: Van ostrand Reinhold Company. Winther, Oscar Osburn. 1950. The Great Northwest A History. New York: Knopf. 135 Zucker, Jeff and Kay Hummel and Bob Hogfoss. 1 983. Oregon Indians. Portland, OR: Western Imprints.