Forensic Santa Fe Trail Study - 3

Pedological Investigations of Three Areas along the
Santa Fe National Historic Trail in the Kansas City
Metro Area, Jackson County, Missouri
William C. Johnson, Dane G. Bailey, and Terri L. Woodburn
Department of Geography
The University of Kansas
1476 Jayhawk Blvd., Rm. 213
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7613
785.864.5143
August 2006
Submitted to Superintendent, National Trails Systems Office
Santa Fe, New Mexico
SUMMARY
Pedological investigations were conducted at three locations along the Santa Fe National
Historic Trail corridor within the Kansas City Metro Area. The first of these, Minor Park,
exhibits preserved trail ruts and accordingly was used to demonstrate the use of the
pedological approach and to correlate those data with the companion geophysical
investigation. The other two sites, Hickman Mills Consolidated School District #1
grounds and Schumacher Park were investigated to search for any trail vestiges that may
have persisted in the subsurface. Though limited, the pedologic study at Hickman Mills
school grounds indicated that lineations detected geophysically were due to construction
equipment, but further investigation is recommended. Schumacher Park provided no
indication of any trail disturbance; in fact, soils were in near-pristine condition.
INTRODUCTION
The Santa Fe National Historic Trail
Historic trails were the backbone of European settlement of the central and
western Untied States during the middle 1800s. Though the Oregon, California, Mormon
and most other trails were used for emigration, the Santa Fe Trail was used essentially for
moving trade goods between the eastern United States and Santa Fe, Mexico. History of
use of the trail’s corridor dates back to pre-European and even pre-Hispanic times. In
Kansas, native peoples such as the Pawnee, Kansa, Osage, and Caddo used established
trail systems that linked food or water sources and trade resources. For example, Native
communities along the Arkansas River valley of central and western Kansas were
apparently trading, based on artifacts, with Pueblos located in the vicinity of present-day
Santa Fe, New Mexico (Brandon, 1990). Early explorers such as Francisco Vásquez de
Coronado (1541) and Juan de Oñate (1601) led expeditions that used this travel corridor.
In 1821, the Santa Fe Trail was officially founded by William Becknell after
organizing a trading party which traveled from Franklin, Missouri Territory to Santa Fe
(Simmons, 1996). Due to rapidly increasing popularity and recognized economic
benefits, Senator T.H. Benton of Missouri proposed a bill calling for governmentmandated survey and marking of the trail to Santa Fe, and President Monroe signed the
bill in 1825, appropriating funds for survey, marking, and right-of-way treaty
negotiations (Greg, 1952). A party under the leadership of G.C. Sibley undertook these
tasks. With Missouri settlement expanding westward, the trailhead moved 100 miles
westward in 1827 from Franklin to Independence, Missouri and then again in the late
1840s to the Missouri River town of Westport (Simmons, 1986). Using the route and
infrastructure of the Santa Fe Trail, the Army of the West acquired the territory of New
Mexico in 1846 during the Mexican-American War (Loyola, 1976).
Once the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad connected Kansas City with
Santa Fe in 1880, wagon traffic on the trail came to an end. Sixty years of travel did,
however, leave numerous and remarkable vestiges along the trail. Perhaps most obvious
were the ubiquitous ruts left by thousands of wagon wheels. Most recently (1987),
President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 100-35, an amendment to the National
Trails System Act, which established the Santa Fe National Historic Trail.
Project Goal
Our historic trails are cultural treasures that need to be documented while vestiges
still remain. Through efforts of trail enthusiasts, the many organizations that foster trail
preservation and promotion, and state and federal reserves, our trails have, to a large
extent, been marked and preserved. Despite these efforts, however, most trails have
extensive reaches that are undocumented.
The goal of this investigation and that of the geophysical investigation by De
Vore (2005) was one of attempting to locate remains of the Santa Fe National Historic
Trail at locations where no surface manifestation remains. Specifically, this project
relates to regional development of the Kansas City MetroGreen greenway corridor
network. As such, it is part of the Blue Ridge Corridor Plan which dictates the
2
establishment of a commemorative trail adjacent to 93rd Street between the Santa Fe
Elementary School and Bannister Mall, all within the Kansas City, Missouri Metro Area.
The research design was structured as to include both a geophysical (nonintrusive) approach (De Vore, 2005) and a pedological approach (minimally-intrusive).
Use of these two disparate approaches represents a unique application of data fusion, not
yet applied to the detection of historic trails.
Previous Investigations of Trail Recovery and Definition
Over the last several decades, many individuals and organizations have mapped
remnants of historic trails. The Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA) is but one
of the several organizations that recognize the fleeting nature of these features. The
Mapping Emigrant Trails manual (Buck 2002) is a product of OCTA’s MET program,
one with the goal of producing “…the definitive mapping of the overland emigrant trails
based on the research methods, field verification techniques, and classification system…”
(p. 3). While a very methodical procedure and precise set of criteria have been outlined in
the manual, it relies primarily on visual detection. Many reaches of trails no longer
manifest any visual (surface) elements, so means of “peering” beneath the surface are
required.
Given their obvious importance, surprisingly little research has been focused on
the identification and delineation of historic or prehistoric trails. Most efforts focused on
features along the trail and metal detecting surveys (e.g., Whitacre and De Vore 1998).
Investigations applying geophysical techniques are few, but demonstrate the utility of
such approaches. The geophysical signatures of historic Roman roads, both earthen and
stone, have been repeatedly documented at a wide variety of sites using magnetometry
(Gaffney et al. 2000), resistivity (Dabas et al. 2000; Clark 1990:58) or ground-penetrating
radar (Neubauer et al. 2002) methods. Powlesland (2001) illustrates ancient “trackways”
–trails—in a magnetometry data set that date as far back as the 5th century BC in eastern
Yorkshire, England. In North America, few studies that illustrate the geophysical
detection of past roads or trails exist. Kvamme (2001a) illustrates a prehistoric pathway,
revealed by resistivity methods, winding around houses dating to the 13th century, at a
site known as Menoken Village, North Dakota. At the same site, a series of former cattle
or possibly buffalo trails were also detected by magnetometry, as were the two-tracks of a
rancher’s access road that probably dates to the mid-20th century. A well-documented
inter-village trail that led between two Mandan villages in the early 19th century was
detected by resistivity methods in the Fort Clark State Historic Site (Kvamme, 2001c).
De Vore (1997) conducted magnetic and resistance surveys in order to define a
segment of the Santa Fe Trail at the Boggsville Historic Site (3BN363) in southeastern
Colorado. De Vore (1999) employed gradiometer and resistance surveys to a location on
the Mormon Trail in Iowa. Geophysical investigations conducted at the Camp Lewis site
in Pecos National Historic Park, New Mexico, identified a segment of the Santa Fe Trail
(De Vore 1996). GPR survey at the Sylvester Manor, a plantation near the eastern tip of
Long Island, New York indicated the possible remnants of a road (Kvamme, 2001b).
Resistance data collected in Heath, Ohio was successful in identifying a section of the
Hopewell road alignment (Simpson and Kvamme 2001). Geophysical investigations at
the Kaufman-Roitsch Site (41RR16) near Detroit, Texas indicated a possible road feature
3
(Kvamme, 2000). Varner (2004) characterized soils associated with visible swales and
ruts of the Santa Fe Trail in northeastern and southwestern Kansas.
Magnetic Enhancement and Impact of Trail Travel on the Soilscape
Two sources exist for the magnetic signal in soils: (1) soil parent material
contains primary minerals that reflect its provenance, and (2) pedogenic and other
processes result in secondary mineral assemblages that produce magnetic enhancement.
All the soil forming factors, including climate, organisms, relief, and time (CLORPT),
contribute to enhancement of the magnetic signal exhibited by soils. Climate provides the
primary forcing function in this process through its controls on the combination of
physical, chemical and biological processes involved in soil development (Retallack,
1990). Physical weathering, controlled largely by the thermal and wet-dry cycles, affects
porosity, permeability, and soil structure. Chemical processes include hydrolysis (e.g.,
silicate mineral degradation), oxidation (transformation of ferrous ions to ferric ions,
which can result in hematite), hydration (e.g., conversion of goethite to hematite), and
dissolution (removal or translocation of calcite). Primary biological processes include
humification, nutrient production, and bioturbation.
Dearing and others (1996) and Evans and Heller (2003) summarized the five
major processes for ferromagnetic and ferrimagnetic mineral formation (magnetic
enhancement) in soils:
1) detrital input as atmospheric fallout from industrial sources (e.g., fossil-fuelburning power stations, manufacturing plants, cement factories);
2) natural fires or crop burning—thermal transformation of magnetic iron oxides,
hydroxides and carbonates to form ferrimagnetic magnetite or maghemite; unless
in a buried context (e.g., archaeological sites), fire impact is limited to the surface
horizon(s) of a soil;
3) inorganic, in situ formation of ultrafine magnetite, a process not fully understood
at present;
4) bacterial microorganisms affecting precipitation of iron oxides; under anaerobic
conditions dissimilatory bacteria may develop extracellular magnetite, and
magnetotactic assimilatory bacteria may produce a small contribution; and
5) formation of ferrihydrite as iron is weathered from the parent material via
hydrolysis and dissolution and from bacterially-mediated iron reduction; it then
reacts with iron to form magnetite, which may in turn be oxidized to form
maghemite; this process has a clear functional relationship to climate (this is the
most important process of magnetic mineral production in soils and is what was
originally called the “fermentation mechanism” (Le Borgne, 1955; Mullins,
1977)).
All these processes operate in varying combinations and intensities to produce a magnetic
signal unique to each soil pedon and resulting profile. Magnetic signals of pristine soils
will, however, be very similar within areas where soil-forming factors are relatively
uniform.
A given soil profile will reflect, often in obvious ways, the impact of disturbance.
The ubiquitous example of this is agricultural disturbance of soil A horizons by
cultivation to create Ap horizons. Magnitude of the impact created by most historic trails
4
(e.g., Santa Fe and Oregon Trails) is, however, far greater than that of cultivation and will
certainly be clearly manifest in the soil profile. Wagon wheels and hoofed beasts-ofburden traffic will quickly leave an indelible mark on the soilscape. Almost immediate
destruction of vegetation cover exposed the soil to wind and water erosion, which in turn
created the trough-like rut morphology. Continued traffic and resultant erosion deepened
the ruts such that the surface soil was severely truncated or completely destroyed. In a
simple scenario, the soil and subsoil are completely eroded during trail use, which resets
the pedogenic clock to zero, or close to it.
Pedogenesis begins anew following trail abandonment, but in the 150 years or so
since that time only the A horizon might assume anything near its pristine condition.
Insufficient time has passed for mature B horizon development, especially given that
estimates for pristine upland soils to reach maturity in eastern Kansas and western
Missouri range from 1500 to 2000 years. Accordingly, today any soil that has
redeveloped in a rut since abandonment of the Santa Fe Trail will be far less mature than
adjacent, relatively undisturbed soils; these young soils (Entisols and Inceptisols) will be
out of synch with the rest of the local soilscape. In many instances, the new soil will
develop in fill that has washed into the rut, thereby giving the soil a texture that reflects
the nature of the sometimes laminated fill. If only the A horizon has been removed as to
leave the B and C horizons (“subsoil”) intact, subsequent pedogenesis will result in soil
overprinting, or, if sufficient thickness of fill is deposited, eventually a bisequal soil.
Regardless of the erosional and post-abandonment pedogenic histories, the magnetic
signal will typically exhibit a clear departure from that of pristine soils within the same
area and similar topographic position.
STUDY SITES
The three project areas selected by the National Trails System Office, NPS for
study are all within the Kansas City Metro Area and include the visible trail ruts of Minor
Park (East Red Bridge Road), a tract of the Hickman Mills Consolidated School District
#1 grounds (9000 Old Santa Fe road), and a tract within Schumacher Park (6601 East 93rd
Street) (Fig. 1). Due to their proximity, all three project areas share a common climatic,
geologic and pedologic environment.
Minor Park
Minor Park is a grassy area located on East Red Bridge Road (NE ¼, SE ¼, NW
¼, Sec. 25, T. 48 N, R. 33 W) that contains several major and minor Santa Fe Trail
swales on the east side of the Blue River (Fig. 2, 3). Until the early 1900s, the largest of
the swales was a public road. The park consists of a grassy area about 246m east-west by
about 180m north-south and was the trail’s approach to the river crossing. This area was
selected for calibration of the geophysical and pedological approaches to be applied to
the other two project areas where trail ruts, if present, are not visible.
Two soil series were mapped in the Minor Park project area by the NRCS
(Preston, 1984), the Greenton and Snead series. The Greenton soil (fine, smectitic, mesic
Aquertic Argiudoll) is a deep to very deep, somewhat poorly drained, slowly permeable
5
soil developed in thin loess overlying residuum from clayey shale and thinly bedded
limestone on uplands. In contrast, Snead (fine, mixed, superactive, mesic Aquic
Hapludoll) consists of a moderately well-drained, moderately deep, slowly permeable soil
formed in residuum of calcareous, clayey gray shale and thin interbedded limestone (no
loess) on upland side slopes (20-30%). The former is mapped on the higher eastern side
of the project area, while the latter is on the western side where the land slopes down to
the Blue River.
Hickman Mills School District No. 1 Campus
The Hickman Mills School No. 1 campus (Fig. 4, 5) is occupied by Santa Fe
Elementary School, Hickman Mills High School and the Hickman Mills School District
Administration building and is located at 9000 Old Santa Fe Road (SE ¼, Sec. 24, T. 48
N, R. 33 W). Based on available documentation, alignment of the trail was probably from
the NW corner of the administration building SW to two surveyed hard points of the trail.
This NE to SW alignment of the trail is characteristic of trail segments that were not
aligned with the then newly platted section lines, which gave the trail a rectilinear
routing.
A single soil series, the Higginsviille Series (fine silty, mixed, superactive, mesic
Aquic Argiudoll) is mapped over this project area and is a deep, somewhat poorly
drained upland soil formed in loess (>2m thick) overlying sandstone, shale or limestone
bedrock.
Schumacher Park
Schumacher Park, located along the south side of 93rd Street (6601 E. 93rd Street;
NE ¼, SE ¼, NW ¼, Sec. 25, T. 48 N, R. 33 W), is about 130m E-W and 85m N-S and
has a kiosk, information placard, and sinuous walking trail (Fig. 6, 7). This project area
has been pasture since the 1930s or before and was deeded to Kansas City in the late
1980s. Trail location in proximity of Schumacher Park has been controversial, but a route
through the park is consistent with the 1874 Hickman Survey and other credible
information. Also, land survey data related to the park indicate that 93rd Street is actually
immediately north of the section line, supporting the supposition that the trail route was
situated along the north side of the park. Further, the location is a broad, well-drained
ridge, which should have had appeal for wagon traffic.
Two soil series were mapped in the project area, the Sibley and Snead series. The
Sibley (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Argiudoll) is a deep, well-drained,
moderately permeable soil formed in thick loess deposits on ridgetops and side slopes.
The Snead Series is described above (Minor Park). The soil boundary as defined by the
NRCS runs through the project area.
6
METHODOLOGY
Field Investigations
Our pedological investigation was conducted in concert with a companion
investigation that applied geophysical techniques to the same study localities. De Vore
(2005) conducted magnetic gradient, conductivity, resistance, and ground penetrating
radar surveys in various combinations. As noted above, three types of study sites were
investigated: one with preserved visible swells and swales of the Santa Fe Trail (for
calibration purposes), and two with no visible surface vestiges of the trail but located in
high-probability areas within the reconstructed trial corridor.
The approach used to evaluate the impact of trail traffic and resulting rut
development on soils was to extract soil cores from about the upper meter, or to bedrock
where soils were shallow. A metric grid established by De Vore (2005) with wooden
stakes and connecting nylon ropes was also used in this pedological investigation. At the
Minor Park and Schumacher Park project tracts, soil cores were extracted on grid points
using a Giddings trailer-mounted hydraulic soil coring machine coupled to a support
vehicle (Fig. 8). Cores were collected in 4cm- or 6cm-diameter x 120cm-long clear
plastic liners, inspected, sealed and transported to the laboratory, where they were frozen
until analyzed. Core holes were backfilled with bentonite. At the Hickman School project
area, soil sampling was done manually using a small-diameter (3cm) soil probe.
Laboratory Analyses
Although visual inspection of soil profiles by a trained professional is expeditious,
it may not be sufficient to fully appreciate or even detect disturbances, especially those
occurring 150 years previous, and does not offer quantifiable results. Accordingly,
measurement of magnetic enhancement was evaluated using magnetic susceptibility; of
the available parameters, susceptibility offers a good compromise between sensitivity and
time/cost for detection and evaluation of an impact on a soil.
After thawing, soil cores were placed on a rack and passed through a 72mminternal diameter Bartington MS2C sensor paired with a Bartington MS2 magnetic
susceptibility meter (Fig. 9). Susceptibility readings were taken at 20mm intervals for the
full length of all cores. The resulting data represent volume susceptibility (ĸ), which is
the magnetism (M) acquired per unit field (H), i.e., ĸ = M / H; in SI units; this parameter
is dimensionless (Evans and Heller, 2003). For selected cores, liners were removed for
collection of samples at 200mm intervals; samples were placed in 8 cm3 plastic cubes and
air-dried. These samples were then measured individually using the Bartington MS2B
sensor. Though more time consuming, this approach measures mass susceptibility (χ ),
i.e., the volume susceptibility divided by the density (ρ) where χ = ĸ / ρ; in SI units; this
parameter is represented as m3/kg. Because it is slightly more sensitive, this parameter
was measured on selected cores to verify the quality of volumetric susceptibility
measurements.
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Minor Park
In order to capture the full toposequence of soil profiles for the Minor Park ruts
system, two north-south transects were established adjacent to the grid established for the
geophysical investigations (Fig. 10). Transect 1 paralleled the north-south axis of the
geophysical grid 20m to the east and extended 115m south, 55m beyond the grid.
Transect 2 paralleled the north-south axis of the grid as well, with the 60 m east side of
the grid in common and extending 60m beyond (south) to 120m and an addition 5m to
the north. A total of 22 and 28 cores were extracted from along Transects 1 and 2,
respectively. All cores were collected in accordance with topographic variation along the
transect.
Overall, observations of these core-derived soil profiles, as confirmed by the
susceptibility data, convey a highly disturbed and complex soilscape. In the approximate
150 years since trail abandonment, pedogenesis has not erased the impact on the soils, but
only served to initiate incipient A horizon and to a lesser extent B horizon development.
Complete destruction of soil apparently occurred within ruts, while the adjacent swell, or
inter-rut areas were moderately to severely truncated or disturbed by trail-associated
mixing (bioturbation). Horse-mounted rider, livestock, and pedestrian traffic was likely
intense on these adjacent swells, though it did not have the impact like wheels of the
heavily laden wagons and straining draft animals.
Transect 1
Susceptibility signatures of the cores collected along Transect 1 (Fig. 11) exhibit a
pattern of change that is primarily a function of the post-trail depth to the bedrock
residuum, or conversely the depth of loess mantle. Typically, the upper part of the
limestone residuum had been weathered through pre-trail pedogenesis to form Bt
horizons, which have high concentrations of very fine to fine magnetic material and
thereby produce elevated susceptibility signals. Overlying loess, reworked and in situ, has
a relatively low signal, due to a lower concentration of magnetic minerals and to a lesser
extent through dilution of the signal by soil organic matter. Within the rut near the
northern end of the transect, susceptibility profiles exhibit elevated values very near the
soil surface due to trail-related removal of the entire soil, down to the bedrock residuum.
Cores 1-12 and 1-14 illustrate this increased enhancement very near the surface; the
upper few hundred mm consist of post-trail deposition of reworked loess. The Greenton
soil, with its thin loess mantle, is still somewhat in evidence on the swell areas between
ruts. Core data from the relatively level swell, or inter-rut area depict a meter or more of
loess mantle above the underlying bedrock residuum; cores 25-70 illustrate this well.
Bedrock residuum emerges near the surface in the southern rut, with cores 1-77.5, 1-80,
and 1-82.5 showing this clearly. While the entire profile of intra-rut soils are post-trail, A
horizons of the inter-rut soil profiles are certainly not pristine; they lack the structure,
organic matter content and magnetic enhancement typical of an undisturbed soil of this
region.
8
When viewing the cores individually, soil profile horizonation and dominant
parent material provide a visual signature of the trail ruts. Core 1-14 from within the
northernmost rut (Fig. 12) and core 1-80 from within the southern rut (Fig. 13) have the
characteristic reddish color (e.g., 2.5YR 3/6 moist) of the limestone residuum except in
the upper 150mm or so where loess has been re-deposited. Also, A horizons of these two
cores are thin and weakly developed, indicating the relatively short time since post-trail
soil redevelopment. Below the A horizon in both cores exists a transition horizon, or BA
horizon that has also developed within the post-trail period. Because the southern rut was
used as a road into the early 1900s, core 1-80 is more complex than core 1-14 from
within the northern rut. Residuum in core 80 appears to have been re-deposited on top of
a previous surface, which may have been the original trail surface and/or subsequent
roadbed.
Core 1-40, from the broad intervening inter-rut swell, has a relatively thick, but
poorly developed A horizon complex developed within the re-deposited loess mantle
(Fig. 14). An increase in susceptibility near the base of the core profile (~700mm) reflects
a remnant of Bt horizon developed prior to trail disturbance.
Transect 2
As with Transect 1, susceptibility signatures of the cores collected along Transect
2 reveal a pattern of change that is mainly a function of the post-trail depth to the bedrock
residuum, or conversely the depth of loess mantle (Fig. 15). Overall, thickness of the
loess mantle is greatest in Transect 2 due to its higher position on the landscape and
lower slope angle, relative to Transect 1. Cores 2-0 and 2-2.5 were collected from within
the swale of the northernmost rut, a relatively poorly developed feature within this
transect. While the magnetic signal does not clearly define the rut, profile examination
reveals much more weakly developed A and B horizons than in the adjacent profiles.
Here, the rut did not penetrate to the underlying bedrock residuum.
Relatively high susceptibility values near the top of swells, or inter-rut surfaces
(e.g., 2-70), are not to be confused with the elevated values associated with bedrock
residuum in Transect 1: these susceptibility modes are due to pedogenesis in the loess
mantle and exhibit values of 100 or more SI units, but still well below those values of the
residuum.
Two ruts merge to form a complex at the southern end of the transect. Limestone
residuum was encountered below the reworked loess fill (e.g., cores 2-85) within part of
the rut, but appears much closer to the surface to the south (e.g., core 2-97.5). As the
transect exits south from the rut complex, the depth to residuum increases accordingly
(e.g., core 2-110).
Core 2-105 illustrates disturbance of the inter-rut area (Fig. 16). In this instance,
the swale soil has been disturbed to a depth of about 750mm such that the upper part of
the residuum was mixed with overlying loess. Curiously, the southernmost core of
Transect 2, core 2-120 produced a buried golf ball which was pushed by the core-tube bit
from a depth of about 75mm to 500mm where it was finally sliced by the bit (Fig. 17).
Soil profile horizonation and dominant parent material provide a visual signature
of the trail ruts within Transect 2, very similar to those from Transect 1. Cores from ruts
9
have a thinner and less well developed A horizon and tend to be developed in thin layers
of loess deposited post-abandonment into the rut.
Minor Park proved to be an excellent real-world laboratory for applying
pedologic approaches to the differentiation and characterization of soils developed within
ruts and on swells since trail abandonment. Differences in soil profiles, magnetic and
visual, were, for the most part, obvious and predictable, although it should be emphasized
that, while soils in the ruts are highly eroded and differ vastly from those pre-trail, soils
on the swells, or inter-ruts areas are far from being pristine. Moreover, this exercise
provided an invaluable introduction and orientation to the soil properties found within the
Kansas City Metro Area, information applicable to the other two project areas, Hickman
Mills School District No. 1 campus and Schumacher Park.
Hickman Mills School District No. 1 Campus
Geophysical exploration on the Hickman Mill School District No. 1 grounds by
De Vore (2005) was carried out in three grid blocks (1-3) comprising a total of eight 20m
by 20m survey units. Conductivity and other geophysical data from grid blocks 1 and 2
revealed two areas of possible rut vestiges: northwest corners of 20m units HM2 in Block
1 and HM5 and 6 in Block 2 (Fig. 18). Lineations in all three 20m units are oriented NESW, which is how the reconstructed route would have presumably tracked.
Due to concerns about subterranean utilities, some of which may not have been
detected by the geophysical survey, hydraulic machine coring was not undertaken.
Rather, a series of hand mini-cores were extracted using a JMC sample tube with a
backsaver handle. A series of core samples (N=35) taken on a sub-meter grid within the
target areas of HM2, 5, and 6 were examined in the field for evidence of trail disturbance
and subsequently discarded, i.e., magnetic susceptibility analysis was not conducted,
being reserved for any soil profiles deemed upon visual inspection to have potential for
further study.
All mini-cores extracted suggested that the lineations were derived from
construction equipment activity during development of the campus and specifically
construction of the adjacent district administration building. In two instances within
HM5, clay laminations appeared within the upper 300 mm, suggesting tracked vehicle
traffic.
Given the linear patterns and narrow nature of the features in HM2, 5, and 6, the
best approach is to excavate small trenches (after utility clearance) at right angles through
the lineations. A small “Bobcat-sized” backhoe would be adequate for such an
investigation.
Schumacher Park
Soil cores were extracted from a grid established within the 60m by 17m tract
created for geophysical survey. The soil core grid consisted of 7 rows E-W with a spacing
of 10m, and 8 columns N-S with a spacing of 2m. The resulting grid intersections
constituted the core sites. Numbering had its origin at the southeast corner of the grid,
with cores being designated by row-column, e.g., 5-2 (5th row west and 2nd column
north). Where the grid system intersected the gravel-asphalt foot trail, cores were not
10
taken. Other cores had to be displaced slightly or deleted due to a wooden post barrier
and line of large trees along the northern edge of the grid area and parallel to 93rd Street.
Otherwise, the area was relatively flat (no surface manifestation of trail ruts), with a
slight slope to the west and northwest.
As at Minor Park, cores were collected in clear plastic liners for magnetic analysis
and visual observation and description in the laboratory. Due to the large number of cores
(50) and to the similarity in profile appearance among the cores, a sub-sample of 14 cores
was analyzed for magnetic susceptibility. After a complete and careful examination of all
cores, the sub-sampling was carried out to represent the little variability that did occur
among the soilscape within the tract.
As noted above, the soil series mapped for Schumacher Park are the Sibley
(formed in thick loess) and Snead (formed in bedrock residuum), with the boundary
running through the grid area. Because this is a boundary zone between two soil series
developed in very different parent materials, soil intergrades are likely to occur, and such
has occurred within the sample tract. Most selected cores (e.g., 3-1, 3-3, 3-5, 3-7, 5-1, 51, 5-3, 5-5, 5-7, 7-1, 7-5, 7-7) have developed both in a thin loess mantle and underlying
bedrock residuum to produce soil profiles that are similar to the Greenton series mapped
at Minor Park The typical horizon sequence for those soil profiles occurring within the
intergrades is A1/A2/Bt1/2Bt2/2C (for a ~1200 mm core length), where the use of the
prefacing “2” indicates a change from the loess parent material to the limestone parent
material. Conversely, some cores (e.g., 1-1, 1-3, 1-7) produced soil profiles developed
exclusively within loess to produce a A1/A2/Bt1/Bt2/Bt3/C horizon sequence, typical of
the Sibley series.
Magnetic susceptibility for the sub-sample of cores depicts the differences in soil
parent materials present at the site (Fig. 19). Cores taken from along east end of the
project area were somewhat higher in elevation, and this proximal location to the ridge
increases the probability of encountering thicker loess. With the surface sloping to the
west and northwest, the limestone residuum was closer to the surface in that direction.
The bedrock residuum produced very high susceptibility values, occasionally in excess of
500 SI units because of magnetic enhancement during B horizon development; residuum
values at Minor Park were significantly less (~200 SI units) because B horizons had been
destroyed.
Two cores illustrate the full range in soil profiles within the Schumacher tract.
Core 1-3 represents a soil profile developed exclusively within loess mantle and
correlates to the Sibley soil series (Fig. 21). Conversely, core 5-7 is developed within a
thin loess mantle over bedrock residuum (Fig. 22). Despite this range of soil expression,
both soil profiles represent mature upland soils.
Pedological evidence for any vestiges of the Santa Fe Trail does not exist. All
cores collected had relatively pristine soil profiles, with the exception of limited
disturbance of the upper part of A horizons. If the trail had indeed run through here, (1)
the loess mantle would likely have been eroded or reworked locally (no indication of this
in the magnetic data) and (2) the bedrock residuum would have been “trenched” or
truncated as it was at Minor Park.
11
CONCLUSIONS
Soil magnetism can be used to address a myriad of archaeological and
geoarchaeological problems (Dalan and Banerjee, 1998), and one of the commonly-used
magnetic parameters, susceptibility, has been applied in this study to document vestiges
of the trail at Minor Park and to search for trail evidence within a tract located in
Schumacher Park. As for the Hickman Mills school grounds, it appears that
geophysically-identified lineations are due to modern-era construction, though further
intrusive field (pedologic) investigations are recommended.
REFERENCES
Brandon, W. 1990. Quivira: Europeans in the Region of the Santa Fe Trail, 1540-1820.
Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Buck, D., 2002. Mapping Emigrant Trails MET Manual. Oregon-California Trails
Association, Independence, Missouri.
Clark, A., 1990. Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology.
Routledge, London.
Dabas, M., Hesse, A., and Tabbagh, J., 2000. Experimental resistivity survey at Wroxeter
archaeological site with a fast and light recording device. Archaeological Prospection
7:107-118.
Dalan, R.A., and Banerjee, S.K., 1998. Solving archaeological problems using techniques
of soil magnetism. Geoarchaeology 13: 3-36.
De Vore, S.L., 1996. Magnetic survey of Camp Lewis, Pecos National Historic Park, San
Miguel County, New Mexico. Stewardship and Partnership Team, Rocky Mountain
System Support Office, Intermountain Field Area, Denver, Colorado.
De Vore, S.L., 1997. Geophysical investigations of the Boggsville Historic Site
(3BN363) , Bent County, Colorado. Ms. on file, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New
Mexico.
De Vore, S.L., 1999. Magnetic gradient and resistance surveys at 13DT110
(Gunzenhauser Site), Decatur County, Iowa. Ms. on file, National Park Service, Long
Distance Trails Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.
De Vore, S.L., 2005. Geophysical Investigations of Three Areas along the Santa Fe
National Historic Trail in the Kansas City Metro Area, Jackson County, Missouri: report
submitted to the National Trails system Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Dearing, J.A., Hay, K.L., Baban, S.M.J., Hudleston, A.S., Wellington, E.M.H., and
12
Loveland, P.J., 1996. Magnetic Susceptibility of Soil: An Evaluation of Conflicting
Theories Using a National Data Set. Geophysical Journal International 127:728-734.
Evans, M., and Heller, F., 2003. Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications
to Enviromagnetics. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Gaffney, C., Gater, J.A., Linford, P., Gaffney, V., and White, R., 2000. Large-scale
systematic fluxgate gradiometry at the Roman city of Wroxeter. Archaeological
Prospection 7:81-100.
Greg, K. L., 1952. The Road to Santa Fe: the Journal and Diaries of George Champlin
Sibley and Others Pertaining to the Surveying and Marking of a Road from the Missouri
Frontier to the Settlements of New Mexico 1825-1827. Albuquerque: The University of
New Mexico Press.
Kvamme, K.L., 2000. Geophysical Investigations at the Kaufman-Roitsch Site (41RR16),
Texas. Submitted to Larry Banks, Detroit, Texas.
Kvamme, K.L., 2001a. Current Practices in Archaeogeophysics: Magnetics, Resistivity,
Conductivity, and Ground-Penetrating Radar. In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, P.
Goldberg, V. Holliday, and R. Ferring, editors, pp. 353-384. New York: Plenum Press.
Kvamme, K.L., 2001b. Final Report of Geophysical Investigations Conducted at
Sylvester Manor, Shelter Island, New York, 2000. ArcheoImaging Lab, Department of
Anthropology and Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. Submitted to the Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for
Archaeological Research, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts,
Boston.
Kvamme, K.L., 2001c. Final Report of Geophysical Investigations at the Mandan/Arikara
Village, Fort Clark State Historic Site (32ME2), 2000. Archeo-Imaging Lab, Department
of Anthropology and Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. Submitted to PaleoCultural Research Group, Flagstaff, Arizona
and the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, North Dakota.
Le Borgne, E., 1955. Susceptibilité magnéitque anormale du sol superficial. Annales de
Géophysique 11: 399-419.
Loyola, Sister M., 1976. The American Occupation of New Mexico 1821-1852. New
York: Arno Press.
Mullins, C.E., 1977. Magnetic susceptibility of the soil and its significance in soil
science—A review. Journal of Soil Science 28: 223-246.
13
Neubauer, W., Eder-Hinterleitner, A., Seren, S., and Melichar, P., 2002. Georadar in the
Roman civil town Carnuntum, Austria: an approach for archaeological interpretation of
GPR data. Archaeological Prospection 9:135-156.
Preston, G.D., 1984. Soil Survey of Jackson County, Missouri. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Powlesland, D., 2001. The Heslerton Parish Project: An integrated multi-sensor approach
to the archaeological study of eastern Yorkshire, England. In Stefano Campana and
Maurizio Forte (eds.), Remote sensing in archaeology, pp. 233-255. Florence:
All’Insegna del Giglio.
Retallack, G.J., 1990. Soils of the Past: an Introduction to Paleopedology. Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
Simmons, M., 1996. The Old Trail to Santa Fe: Collected Essays. Albuquerque: The
University of New Mexico Press.
Simmons, M., 1986. On the Santa Fe Trail. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Simpson, D. , and Kvamme, K.L., 2001. Final Report of Geophysical Investigations at
the Great Hopewell Road, Cynthia Street Park, Heath, Ohio. Archeo-Imaging Lab,
Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Submitted
to the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio.
Varner, A. R., 2004. Soil signatures of the Santa Fe Trail in Douglas County and Morton
County, Kansas. Lawrence: unpublished thesis, University of Kansas.
Whitacre, C., and De Vore, S.L., 1998. Cultural resource investigations at the Lower
Cimarron (Wagon Bed) Spring Camp Site (14GT101), Grant County, Kansas. The
Kansas Anthropologist 19: 7-35.
14
Figure 1. The thee project areas located along the Santa Fe Historic Trail corridor
within the Kansas City Metro area (modified from De Vore, 2005).
15
Blue R.
Figure 2. Minor Park project tract (from De Vore, 2005).
Figure 3. View west along transect 1 (red flags) of the pedological investigations at
Minor Park. A small rut is visible crossing in the foreground.
16
Figure 4. Hickman Mills Consolidated School District No. 1 campus project area
(from De Vore, 2005).
Figure 5. Hickman Mills School District No. 1 (view southwest) (from De Vore,
2005)
17
Figure 6. Schumacher Park project tract (from De Vore, 2005)
Figure 7. Schumacher Park project tract (view west).
18
Figure 8. The Giddings trailer-mounted hydraulic soil coring machine and support
vehicle used for extracting soil cores for laboratory analysis. This is a view west of a
rut at Minor Park.
Figure 9. Measurement of volumetric magnetic susceptibility using the Bartington
MS2C sensor and meter, coupled to a notebook computer with MultiSus software.
The gray cylinder on the right is the standard for monitoring calibration of the
sensor.
19
20 meters
T2
T1
Figure 10. The geophysical grid units (MP1-MP6) and the two pedologic sampling
transects (red lines) (modified from De Vore, 2005). Black strips represent trail ruts
(swales) encountered within the geophysics grid.
20
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1- 00
Depth (m m )
0
350
0
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1- 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
1- 14
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
0
0
1- 12
1- 16
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1- 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
1- 20
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
1- 25
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1- 30
0
1- 40
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
900
North
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
0
1- 65
1- 60
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1- 70
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
0
350
0
100
150
200
250
300
900
900
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
350
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
0
1- 77.5
1- 75
1- 72.5
50
0
0
350
1- 82.5
1- 80
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
0
350
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
150
200
250
300
350
800
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1100
1100
1100
1100
1200
100
1- 115
100
1100
50
0
1- 87.5
1- 85
100
150
200
250
300
1- 52
100
500
50
0
1- 50
South
Figure 11. Magnetic susceptibility profiles for cores collected along Transect 1 at Minor Park. Red lines represent those profiles collected within ruts. Graphs continue
from the upper right to the lower left. Dashed lines indicate the contact between loess-derived and limestone-derived (residuum) parent material. The X and Y axes are
SI units and depth (mm), respectively.
350
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1-14
loess
100
200
transition zone
BA horizon
300
400
500
limestone residuum
600
700
800
Figure 12. Magnetic susceptibility for core 14, Transect 1 at Minor Park. This core is
representative of a soil profile within a rut, where the original soil was eroded to expose the
limestone residuum, which was subsequently buried by post-trail deposition of reworked
loess. Core width exaggerated for viewing.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
loess
100
1-80
200
transition zone
BA horizon
300
400
500
600
re-deposited
residuum
700
800
900
1000
historic trail or road bed?
(disturbed residuumloess mix)
1100
1200
Figure 13. Magnetic susceptibility for core 80 from Transect 1 at Minor Park. This core,
from within a rut, is more complex than core 14 (Fig. 12) in that the residuum here has
been re-deposited over a possible historic road bed superimposed on the original trail rut.
Core width exaggerated for viewing.
23
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
1-40
100
loess
(disturbed)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Bt horizon
(relic)
900
1000
Figure 14. Magnetic susceptibility for core 40, Transect 1 at Minor Park. This core is
representative of a soil profile within a swale, or inter-rut location. Core width exaggerated
for viewing.
24
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
2- -5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2- -2.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2- 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2- 5
2- 2.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
0
2- 10
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2- 15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
0
2- 20
100
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1000
1100
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1100
1200
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
150
200
250
300
350
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
350
0
100
200
300
0
2- 70
100
200
200
50
2- 60
100
100
0
0
2- 50
200
200
100
2- 40
100
100
50
0
2- 30
100
200
300
2- 75
100
100
200
200
300
300
400
400
500
500
600
600
700
700
800
800
300
300
400
400
400
500
500
500
600
600
600
700
700
700
800
800
800
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1100
1100
1100
1200
1200
900
900
900
1000
North
-50
50
150
250
350
0
0
100
200
300
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
100
200
300
0
2- 82.5
2- 80
2- 77.5
0
100
200
300
0
2- 85
0
100
200
300
0
0
100
200
300
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
2- 92.5
2- 90
2- 87.5
350
0
100
200
300
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2- 97.5
2- 95
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2- 100
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2- 120
2- 110
2- 105
2- 102.5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
700
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
900
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1100
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
golf ball
South
Figure 15. Magnetic susceptibility profiles for cores collected along Transect 2 at Minor Park. The red line represents those profiles collected within ruts. Graphs
continue from the upper right to the lower left. Dashed lines indicate the contact between loess-derived and limestone-derived (residuum) parent material. The X and Y
axes are SI units and depth (mm), respectively.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2-105
100
200
loess
(disturbed)
300
400
500
residuum
(mixed)
600
700
800
900
residuum
(in situ)
1000
1100
limestone
bedrock
1200
Figure 16. Core 105 from Transect 2 at Minor Park. This core is from a swell (inter-rut)
and has been disturbed to at least a depth of 350mm. Core width exaggerated for viewing.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
2-120
100
loess
(disturbed)
200
300
400
residuum
500
600
Figure 17. Core 2-120 from Transect 2 at Minor Park. Remains of a golf ball after it was
drug by the core bit from a depth of about 75mm (arrow) to where it was sliced by the bit
(~510mm). The upper 400mm of this soil profile have been disturbed.
27
BLK 3
BLK 1
BLK 2
Figure 18. Interpretive map of conductivity data collected at the Hickman Mills School
project area. Manually-extracted soil cores were judgmentally collected at possible trail
features located within Blocks 1 and 2 (arrows) (from De Vore, 2005).
28
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
7- 7
3- 7
5- 7
1- 7
200
400
loess only
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
7- 5
5- 5
3- 5
North
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
5- 3
1- 3
3- 3
200
400
loess only
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
7- 1
5- 1
1- 1
3- 1
200
400
600
loess only
800
1000
1200
Figure 19. Magnetic susceptibility of representative cores within the sample grid at Schumacher Park. The X and Y axes are
SI units and depth (mm), respectively. Dashed lines represent the contact between disturbed loess and underlying limestone
residuum.
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
1-3
A1
200
400
A2
600
Bt1
Bt2
800
1000
Bt3
Figure 21. Core 1-3 from Schumacher Park and resulting magnetic susceptibility. This
profile represents a relatively undisturbed example of the Sibley soil series. Core width
exaggerated for viewing.
0
100
200
300
400
500
0
5-7
A1
200
400
A2
600
loess
800
2Bt1
1000
limestone
residuum
2Bt2
1200
Figure 22. Core 5-7 from Schumacher Park and resulting magnetic susceptibility. The drop
in susceptibility about 640mm is due to presence of a root (arrow) which was following the
base of the more easily penetrated loess where moisture would be available. This soil
represents a relatively pristine intergrade between the Snead and Greenton soil series.
Core width exaggerated for viewing.
31