Rich Hill Records

Thomas Glover · Post by **Thomas Glover** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 7:49 am

When Arizona became a territory in 1864 the Territorial Legislature and Governor enacted the first set of territorial laws, called the Howell Code. Re: mining claims – in 1865 all mining books of the various mining districts were to be brought to the county seat in which the district was located and thereafter mining claims were to be filed at the recorder’s office in the county seat. Many of these early records were thus preserved including records from La Paz and the Pioneer and Walker mining districts. Does anyone know what happened to the records from Rich Hill?

Aurum · Post by **Aurum** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 9:19 am

Peter · Post by **Peter** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 10:19 am

<<These records all begin about 1865 and there are gaps and ommissions in those records. It is very hard to get information from the SH Museum. They keep the records under lock and key and very few if any people are allowed to "browse" the records. >>

What would be their reasoning behind not allowing access to this material?
Seems to me that this type of information would hardly be classified as "top secret" and is for the most part only interesting from an historical point of view.

P

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 11:09 am

Aurum,

Your date of 1864 for the finding of "Rich Hill", now known as Antelope Peak is a prime example of historical inaccuracies. While I have no doubt you are correct, I have seen the date given as 1862, 1863 (Dr. Glover and "Arizona Place Names") and, of course, 1864. That's a bit of a spread for such an important discovery.

The Peeples party originally found their gold in a creek that ran through Weaver Gultch. While they were working the creek bed, one of the party, reported as being "Mexican", climbed to the 2,000 ft. summit east of the Gulch and found nuggets laying "barely beneath the surface of the earth".

While this has no bearing on the LDM, it is a great piece of Arizona history.
Yavapai County, helped by the gold from the Rich Hill area, was the largest producer of gold in the State through 1959.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

Thomas Glover · Post by **Thomas Glover** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 12:03 pm

To those who have not had the experience of spending time researching in the archives/library of the Sharlott Hall Museum one should just note that it is “ an interesting experience”. Sometimes I have found the staff very helpful, other times very obstructive. It is not an inaccurate statement to say that they keep their records tightly controlled. So tightly controlled that often they will say they cannot find them, and other times when you do get a set of records they may be quite different than what you expected from the catalogue entry. Their catalogue system is, by their own admission, sadly inaccurate and out of date, but it is also often most helpful. As for the mining records (wherever they may be) I have been going through my files of records of mining claims that are in a private collection for the period in question (all claims for Yavappi County). I find a record of at least some claims dating from June of 1863 to March of 1865, with the only month not represented being Feb. 1865. So at one time, at least up until the 1930s or ‘40s these records existed.

(If it were not for varied private collections I do believe that much of the record would have been lost. Think of the records hand copied by Milton Rose that are now gone.)

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sat Nov 08, 2003 12:49 pm

Dr. Glover,

Having spent some time in the Museum myself, I can appreciate your comments.

I hope no one took my comments on "historical inaccuracies" as personal.
There are many sources for historical records and it is troubling when they disagree on something of significance. Both Aurum and yourself, considering the amount of research you have done, deserve respect for your findings. I consider the two of you, and S.C., the best historical sources available to us right now. While Barnes' "Arizona Place Names",
is an excellent source, it is by no means immune from mistakes. Nor is the revised edition by Byrd Granger.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

Thomas Glover · Post by **Thomas Glover** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:04 am

Joe,

Rest assured I do not take your comments about "historical inaccuracies" as personal. The time frame for historical records in northern central Arizona which have survived are certainly sparse and sometimes confusing. For example, Abraham Peeples does not even appear on the 1864 census. Some have made a great deal of this fact and conclude he was not even in Arizona yet. But, if one digs a little deeper one will find that he was doing a type of survey work for the newly forming territory and soon to be Yavapii County. As such, he was traveling around the territory and was missed by the census takers, while Wickenburg was traveling around and was caught twice by the census takers. My date for Rich Hill being discovered in 1863 is based largely on the Hayden file for Peeples and Weaver plus some 1930s and ‘40s recountings of the Rich Hill discovery. It is also my understanding that by 1864 Peeples was settled in Peeples Valley. (From memory – it seems to me there is an account of an Indian raid on Peeple’s ranch in 1864 – probably the Fish Manuscript?) But, whether it was late 1863 or early 1864 I know not. Many of the extant facts could just as easily support early 1864.

What I would like to know is: What happened to the records of Rich Hill? Peeples gives an account of how when they finally settled down (after the original discovery and being joined by the Swilling group) they set up a mining district and then drew lots to see who got what. With the irony that Peeples who had lead the original expedition did not get his name drawn till late in the day. So they had records – either from 1863 or 1864 – and whether or not that area was later incorporated into another mining district or not there would have been records. In fact, if it was incorporated into another district there would be even more records as there would then have been transfers of title. The old records support this keeping of records, witness the transfer of record filed in 1864 by Waltz and others for the Gross Lode when Turkey Creek District was carved out of part of the Pioneer District.

I can document the survival into the 1930s of mining records in Yavapii County that went from June of 1863 to January of 1865 continuously. The same for the records of La Paz in La Paz County. Does anyone know of, or have heard of these records? At least surviving into the ‘30s? (Remember in 1865 they would have been turned over to the County Seat as required by the Howell Code.)

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:24 am

Dr. Glover,

Thank you for your reply.

Your post was full of (always valuable) historical information, as usual.
One of the first things I did after reading your first book was to read your "Notes, Sources and Further Readings" section. Anyone who is not impressed by your sources is not an avid fan of history or the LDM/Superstition Mountains legends.

One of the first things that comes to mind is; With all those great sources, friends in the right places, and unknown facts (by most), why are we still looking for the LDM? Like most, you have kept your conclusions to yourself. Are you still in the "hunt"? Is there one thing that you believe has taken Dutchhunters away, rather than towards the LDM?

I know there are some on this forum who believe I am searching for the LDM. While I believe I have know its approximate location for 26 years, I have yet to enter that ravine. With the laws being the way they are, and the bureaucracy being as unworkable as it is, finding the LDM will only provide the basis for a good book.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

Aurum · Post by **Aurum** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 4:07 pm

Joe Ribaudo · Post by **Joe Ribaudo** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 4:44 pm

Aurum,

Late May and into early June of 1863 seems to be "on the money". Marshall Trimble has the year as 1863 on page 126 of "Arizona: A Cavacade of History. Granger's "Arizona Place Names" also uses the 1863 date.

This area and the history that followed their find makes great reading. Weaverville was as colorful as it gets.

Take care.

Respectfully,

Joe

Thomas Glover · Post by **Thomas Glover** » Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:52 am

If not the Rich Hill Records, how about this one? The two petitions Waltz signed are from the Randall(s) District, but just where was the Randalls District? My understanding is that it was somewhere south of Prescott. It may never have been a recognized district, or perhaps it was one that got absorbed into another district. Anyone know just where the Randalls District was?

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:27 pm

I hope this may help. 20-25 yrs ago, I was very active in the Congress area.I worked the rich hill area for several seasons.I worked the off seasons and became friendly with the "watchman"at that time.The site was controlled by a consortium of prospectors.Almost all were retired from the east.Snowbirds.The Stanton stagecoach station was rebuilt.The
station held file cabinets full of old claims and paper-work from that time frame.
I was not allowed to do extensive searches .But those may be the files and articles you are looking for.
I think the area is now under GPA control.That was not the name of the group then.I saw these records before the site was opened after the rebuilding of the station.

Lost Dutchman Goldmine