Along the San Pedro, lined with thorny trees, much as it is today, Coronado and his party encountered poor Indians that gave the travelers presents of wild plant foods, as was the local custom. Seymour (2008) has suggested that these natives were probably the resident mobile groups (Canutillo complex) that were later referred to as the Jano and Jocome, who subsisted on wild plant and animal foods. It seems Coronado did not encounter the Sobaipuri as Bolton 1949 and many historians have assumed because he turned before reaching their southernmost settlement. Archaeological survey has shown that the Sobaipuri settlements begin around Fairbank, another day north of where Coronado turned (Seymour 1989, 1990, 2007, 2008). Marcos de Niza, who traveled this way about 11 months earlier, likely did encounter the Sobaipuri (Seymour 2007, 2008).

THE CORONADO EXPEDITION: Francisco Vazquez de Coronado's Red House or Chichilticale

After crossing a four-day despoblado or uninhabited area the Coronado expedition entered the United States in southern Arizona. Most scholars believe that he entered along the San Pedro River (including Bolton 1949; Flint and Flint 2005; Reff 1981, 1997; Riley 1987, 1997; Seymour 2007a, 2008).

Recent research is suggesting that he turned to the northeast south of Benson and crossed through the Sulpher Spring Valley and onward toward Safford (Brasher 2007; Seymour 2007, 2008).

A number of scholars have speculated and drawn calculated inferences regarding the location of the Chichilticale ruin (Sauer 1932; Haury 1984; Duffen and Hartmann 1997). Yet through all these efforts, the location of the red house or Chichilticale has failed to be identified. Most recently Brasher (2007) has suggested that he has found it. Although 16th-century Spanish artifacts and features of potential but unconfirmed association are present the evidence has not been subjected to or withstood the scrutiny of the profession. The most convincing evidence is some of the site and landscape attributes that match those in the chronicles, but these are insufficiently place-specific to arrive at objective inferences at this time and some of these are even problematic.

Along the way Coronado's expedition stopped at Chichilticale (or Chichilticali; pronounced Chee-CHIL-tee-CAHL-ley, meaning "red house" in Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs) where he encountered Indians more barbarious than those seen before. These natives at Chichilticale were probably the Apache, as they were another group that lived by hunting (Seymour 2008). Expedition members rested for two to three days amidst the adobe ruins of the red house before proceeding on to the edge of the 12- or 15-day mountainous despoblado that led to Cibola (Hawikuh) (Bolton 1949; Flint and Flint 2002; Hammond and Rey 1920).

Download Powerpoint presentation on Coronado's route in Arizona and its implication for native occupants. Native-Focused Perspectives (temporarily disabled)

See what Coronado-period artifacts look like from a confirmed Coronado expedition site. Click here for the Jimmy Owens Site.

I have been unable to independently evaluate the artifacts because I have not had access to many of them. I also have been unable to independently evaluate the previously conducted analyses and evaluate the laboratories where each of the analyses and identifications was conducted. I have had no role in the selection of samples or labs, which is potentially problematic because in one instance there was clear sample contamination owing to the inexperience of the lab technician selected. Inappropriate analyses have also been conducted, said experts are not necessarily so, and dissenting opinions are dismissed. New finds will be published in another upcoming (Winter issue) New Mexico Historical Review issue by Brasher but I have not reviewed the article.

There are several problematic aspects of this apparent find, which from an objective archaeological standpoint, bring into question its identification as Chichilticale. While historians are usually convinced, their rules of evidence differ substantially from those required by archaeologists. Moreover, some believe the "discovery" because they want the legendary place to have been found, while others are equally disbelieving because they really wanted to find it themselves or are disappointed the mystery has been solved. While some of the artifacts are clearly Spanish period they are not period-specific artifacts. The two classes which are said to be period specific are questionable (e.g., the shanks of carat-head nails [e.g., undiagnostic without the heads] and the iron crossbow boltheads [lack of response from the lab, etc.]). One question that arises is why the shanks of the nails were preserved when the more robust heads were not? Another question is why the two apparent crossbow bolthead fragments are iron when all of the others known from this expedition are copper? Certainly those in Europe and from the Soto expedition are iron but to date these are the only known iron bolt heads from the West. Moreover, objections by analysts and labs as to some of the interpretations cause skepticism, and as noted, I have not seen all the artifacts or been allowed to discuss them with specialists. This is especially relevant because the standards of proof are more rigorous and of a different nature for archaeologists than they are for many lay contributors. For example, this site is along a centuries-old trail so other Spaniards passing through the area would have come this way. Even the Jose Zunigat trail, a presidio captain between 1798-1801, has been found by John Madsen and parallels the Cibola Trail and other routes north. With regard to the "red house" or Chichilticale, Castañeda notes: "The men were all disillusioned to see that the famous Chichilticale turned out to be a roofless ruined house, although it appeared that formerly, at the time when it was inhabited, it must have been a fortress. One could easily tell that it had been built by strange people, orderly and warlike, from afar. This house was built of red mud." There is no doubt that many of the adobe ruins at Kuykendall have burned and the adobe turned red. But this is not a rare occurrence in this area. This attribute alone is not indicative of this specific location. Moreover, Castañeda's account refers to one building, rather than the many burned houses, rooms, or compounds present at Kuykendall. Furthermore, Chronicler's Jaramillo's narrative notes that from the San Pedro they went to the right "to the foot of the mountain range, where we were told it was Chichiltiecally." Kuykendall is not at the foot of the mountain range but rather is several miles from it, situated on the basin floor. Clearly perceptions vary depending upon a variety of factors but this particular deviance is disconcerting. I do still think the turn is here in the Lewis Springs area but I have other concerns about the specific siting of Chichilticali that will be addressed over the next several months...

Recent and upcoming publications that discuss thse new data regarding Marcos de Niza and Coronado: Seymour, Deni J. 2007 An Archaeological Perspective on the Hohokam-Pima Continuum. Old Pueblo Archaeology Bulletin No. 51 (December 2007):1-7. 2008 Despoblado or Athapaskan Heartland: A Methodological Perspective on Ancestral Apache Landscape Use in the Safford Area. Chapter 5 in Crossroads of the Southwest: Culture, Ethnicity, and Migration in Arizona's Safford Basin, pp. 121-162, edited by David E. Purcell, Cambridge Scholars Press, New York. DOWNLOAD 2009 Evaluating Eyewitness Accounts of Native Peoples along the Coronado Trail from the International Border to Cibola. New Mexico Historical Review (WinterJanuary 2009). DOWNLOAD 2009 Ethnographic Implications of Captain Fernando de Alarcon's 1540 Voyage to the Gila River. 2009 Where the Earth and Sky are Stitched Together: Sobaípuri-O’odham Contexts of Contact and Colonialism. Book manuscript under review at University of Utah Press.