HARKIXGTON] PLACE-KAMES 487 



transfer their puebloa to the vicinity of San Juan [11 -.San Juan Pueblo], 

 where the towns were rebuilt under the aanie names (Bancroft, Ariz, ami N. 

 Mex., p. 186, 1889). [See San CristLibal [15:unlocated] and San Lazaro [15: 

 unlocated]; see also map 29A]. This removal (which was more strictly to a 

 place called Pueblito [15:25], near the present Potrero [15:rmlocated], about 

 2 miles east of Santa Cruz [15:19], on the Rio Santa Cruz [15:18] ), occurred 

 after the pueblo revolt of 16S0, and prior to 1692, at which latter date the 

 natives were found by ^'a^gas in their new locality. The pueblo was aban- 

 doned in 1694, but was later reoccupied, and was finally deserteil in 1696, after 

 the murder of tlieir missionary in June of that 3'ear. Most of their descend- 

 ants are now living among the Hopi of Arizona. 



Bandelier say.'? of San Cristobal: 



East of Galisteo [29:39], on the borders of the basin [Santa Fe Plain (Large 

 Features), page 104], in a picturesque valley surrounded by woods and supplied 

 with permanent water, stand the ruins of Yam-p'ham-ba or San Cristobal 

 (plate I, fig. 22 [of Bandelier's Final Report, pt. ii, 1892]). It was inhabited 

 until 1680, and formed a ' visita' dependent upon the parish of CTalisteo [29:.j9]; 

 and in that year it had eight hundred inhabitants. After the expulsion of 

 the Spaniards, the Tanos of San Cristobal settled in the vicinity of Santa Cruz 

 [15:19] ... as already related. Most of their descendants are now among 

 the Moguls [Hopi]. On the other side of the Arroyo de San Cristobal 

 [29:41], which runs at the footof the gentle slope on which the pueblo stands, 

 lies another group of ruins. The pueblo proper still shows many of its walls, 

 and it is plain to see that they were generally 0.27 m. (11 inches) thick, and 

 made of thin plates of sandstone. The second ruin, which lies a short distance 

 southwest of the other, is reduced to compact mounds of earth. The stream 

 [29:41] has manifestly carried away a part of it, but it is not possible to 

 determine whether this occurred recently or in olden times. The appearance 

 of the mounds denotes long decay, and it may be that they are older than the 

 historic San Cristobal. There are two estufas, while the village proper shows 

 but one; but it is not certain whether this was the only one, as not all the 

 estufas were round, and not all were subterraneous. Still, the round form 

 seems to have been the 'archaic' one, where it was possible to excavate for the 

 purpose. I suspect that the group of mounds southwest of the principal ruins 

 are the remains of an older village, abandoned prior to the other. The church 

 was Ijuilt of the same material as the pueblo, thin plates of sandstone, but the 

 walls were more substantial. In 18S2 the rear part of it was still standing to 

 the height of about four meters. It is a chapel only, measuring 16.0 by 7.4 

 meters (52j by 24J feet). In front of it lies a churchyard, and other buildings 

 seem to have been appended to it on the south. The main pueblo stands 

 between the chapel and the more ruined vestiges on the south side of the arroyo 

 [29:41], another indication that the latter were forsaken at an earlier date, 

 perhaps before San Cristobal had been visited by the Spaniards. The first 

 authentic visit by a Spaniard was made in 1690, by Caspar Castano de Sosa, 

 who gave the village the name by which it still continues to be known.' 

 San Cristobal lies in what might be called a sheltered nook. There is little 

 cultivable groimd contiguous to it, but at a very short distance, on the edge of 

 the Galisteo plain [Santa Fe Plain (Large Features), page 104], there is tillable 

 land that can also be irrigated. The site is not favorable for observation, but 

 the heights surrounding it afford good lookouts. For defense the houses had 

 to suiBce, and there are traces of a double stone wall connecting several of 



I " Memoria del Discubrimiento, p. 247 et seq." — Bandeliee, Final Report, pt. n, p. 104, 1892. 



