SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment
Sarah H. Herr Pat H. Stein
Technical Report No. 2009-09 Desert Archaeology, Inc.
SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment
DRAFT
Project Number: STP-053-2 (38) Sarah H. Herr TRACS Number: 260 GI 269 H4698 01C Pat H. Stein Contract Number: 99-59
Submitted to
Historic Preservation Team Environmental and Enhancement Group Arizona Department of Transportation 205 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Technical Report No. 2009-09 Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 North Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 • December 2009
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
Date: 18 December 2009
Report Title: SR 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Project: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan for Data Recovery in the Doubtful Canyon Segment. Technical Report Number 2009-09.
Client: Arizona Department of Transportation
Client Project Name: State Route 260 – Payson to Heber project
Compliance Agency: Tonto National Forest, Arizona Department of Transportation
Compliance Level: Federal
ADOT TRACS Number: 260 GI 269 H4698 01C
Applicable Laws/Regulations: Arizona Antiquities Act, ARS §41-841; Federal Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897; Antiquities Act of 1906, As Amended; Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, As Amended; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 106; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
Applicable Permits: TNF permit TON426 for prehistoric period sites; TNF permit TON425 for historic sites; TNF permit TON570 for survey work. Arizona Antiquties Act Project Specific Permit 1999-121ps
Tribal Consultation: When working on Tonto National Forest land the State Route 260 project works under the Plan for the Treatment and Disposition of Human Remains and Other Cultural Items from the Tonto National Forest pursuant to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Revised 2001).
The Fort McDowell Indian Community, the Hopi Tribe, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and the Pueblo of Zuni were invited to participate, although they did not sign the Programmatic Agreement Among the United State Department of Agriculture Forest Service, The Federal Highway Administration, The Arizona Department of Transportation, The Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the SR 260 Payson to Heber (Star Valley to West of Heber) Project.
Project Description: Archaeological test excavations of nine sites and supplemental survey of additional right-of-way conducted in advance of highway realignment project in Doubtful Canyon section of the State Route 260 – Payson to Heber project
Fieldwork dates and crew person-days (non-supervisory): 72 crew person-days were expended between 6 October and 29 October, 2009
Final Disposition of project artifacts, field notes, data, and records (include ASM Accession No. if applicable): Arizona State Museum. No accession number assigned.
Location [Parcel description, city, county, state; legal description; land ownership]
Land Ownership: Tonto National Forest land County: Gila County Description: Project is located between mileposts 269 and 272.5 of State Route 260 east of Payson in Township 11 N, Range 12 E, Sections 21, 22, 23, and 26
Area of Potential Effect (APE), definition and description: From right-of-way to right-of way of planned realignment of State Route 260, temporary construction easements, access roads, utility corridors, and areas of drainage modification. iv Compliance Summary
Number of Surveyed Acres: 0.23
Number of Sites: 9
List of Register-Eligible Properties: AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF), AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04- 745 (ASM/TNF), AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF), AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878, AZ O:12:115/ AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF), AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF), AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF), AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF).
List of Register-Ineligible Properties: AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF), AZ O:12:121/AR-03- 12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF)
Summary of Results: Nine sites were tested for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) . Six sites were considered to meet the National Register eligibility requirements. The research potential of three of the register-eligible sites was expended by the testing phase: O:12:27/04- 745 (ASM/TNF), O:12:115/04-265 (ASM/TNF), and O:12:116/04-267 (ASM/TNF). Three sites will require data recovery investigations: O:12:21/04-1161 (ASM/TNF), O:12:28/04-746 (ASM/TNF), and O:12:119/04- 1471 (ASM/TNF). One site, O:12:117/04-1402 (ASM/TNF), needs additional testing before an evaluation can be made. Two sites did not meet the eligibility requirementsfor inclusion in the National Register: O:12:120/04-1860 (ASM/TNF) and O:12:121/04-1861 (ASM/TNF).
Recommendations: Additional testing is recommended at O:12:117/04-1402 (ASM/TNF), and data recovery excavations are recommended in the Apache roasting pit, Feature 1, at O:12:119/04-1471, which will be impacted by increased drainage run-off after highway realignment, and at the portions of O:12:21/04-1161 (ASM/TNF) and O:12:28/04-746 (ASM/TNF) within the ROW. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Compliance Summary ...... iii
List of Figures ...... vii
List of Tables...... ix
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Research Theme...... 4 Project Setting ...... 4 Previous Archaeological Research...... 7 Archaeological Background ...... 9 References Cited ...... 13
2. SURVEY RESULTS ...... 21
Survey Methods...... 21 Isolated Occurrence ...... 21 References Cited ...... 23
3. METHODS AND RESULTS OF THE TESTING PHASE ...... 25
Archaeological Methods ...... 25 Evaluation of Site Boundaries ...... 25 Surface Collections ...... 25 Trenching ...... 26 Exposure of Masonry Walls ...... 26 Control Units ...... 26 Backfilling ...... 26 Archival Methods ...... 27 Results of the Testing Phase ...... 27 AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF) ...... 27 Sheep Site, AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 (ASM/TNF) ...... 29 Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF) ...... 31 Archival Research...... 34 Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF)...... 35 Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF) ...... 35 Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF) ...... 38 Morgan Site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF) ...... 38 Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF) ...... 42 AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF) ...... 42 Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF) ...... 44 References Cited ...... 47
4. ASSESSMENT OF SITE ELIGIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TESTING AND DATA RECOVERY ...... 49
National Register of Historic Places ...... 49 Testing Phase Significance Assessments and Recommendations ...... 49 AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF) ...... 49 Sheep Site, AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 (ASM/TNF) ...... 50 Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF) ...... 50 Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF)...... 52 vi Table of Contents
Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF) ...... 52 Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF) ...... 53 Morgan Site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF) ...... 53 Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF) ...... 53 AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF) ...... 54 Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF) ...... 54 Discussion...... 54 References Cited ...... 55
5. DATA RECOVERY METHODS ...... 57
Data Recovery Methods ...... 57 Structures ...... 57 Extramural Features...... 58 Human Remains ...... 58 Backfilling ...... 59 Data Recovery Methods at Apache/Yavapai Sites ...... 59 Archival Research/Oral interviews...... 59 Analytical Methods ...... 60 Artifact and Sample Processing ...... 60 Database Compilation and Management ...... 60 Quantitative Analysis ...... 60 Planned Analysis ...... 60 Native American Involvement...... 61 Fire Prevention Plan ...... 62 Report Preparation ...... 63 Schedule...... 63 References Cited ...... 65 LIST OF FIGURES
1.1. Location of investigated sites in the State Route 260 Doubtful Canyon project area ...... 3
1.2. Location of survey area ...... 6
2.1. Location of survey area, Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF) and Isolated Occurrence 1 ...... 22
3.1. Plan view of AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF) ...... 28
3.2. Detail of AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF) ...... 30
3.3. Plan view of Sheep site, AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 (ASM/TNF) ...... 32
3.4. Plan view of Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF) ...... 33
3.5. Plan view of Forest Highway 11, Doubtful Canyon segments, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF) ...... 36
3.6. Plan view of Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF) ...... 37
3.7. Plan view of Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF) ...... 39
3.8. Plan view of Morgan site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF) ...... 41
3.9. Plan of Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF) ...... 43
3.10. Plan view of AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF) ...... 45
3.11. Plan view of Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF) ...... 46
LIST OF TABLES
1.1. Concordance of site numbers referenced in the text ...... 2
1.2. Summary description of sites investigated during the testing phase ...... 5
3.1. Description of surface collection units at AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF) ...... 29
3.2. Description of features at AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF) ...... 31
3.3. Description of surface collection units at Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF) ...... 34
3.4. Description of features at Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF) ...... 34
3.5. Description of surface collection units at Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF) ...... 38
3.6. Description of surface collection units at Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF) ...... 40
3.7. Description of features at Morgan Site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF) ...... 40
3.8. Description of surface collection units at Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/ AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF) ...... 42
3.9. Description of features units at Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF) ...... 44
4.1. National Register eligibility criteria ...... 50
4.2. Summary of National Register of Historic Places recommendations, based on testing phase work ...... 51
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
State Route 260 (SR 260) between Payson and During the PMDR survey, 10 trash dumps were Heber, Arizona, is being realigned and improved also recorded; these date between approximately the by the Arizona Department of Transportation late 1930s and the 1950s, and are identified as Iso- (ADOT). The construction project includes 45.8 miles lated Occurrences (IO) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 of highway between mileposts (MP) 256.2 and 302. (Weaver 1998a:59-60). These scatters are sufficient- Archaeological sites are found in only the western ly diverse, large, and now old enough to be record- 22 miles of highway below the Mogollon Rim. Con- ed as sites. After PMDR completed its survey eval- struction below the Mogollon Rim is being staged uation of the SR 260 corridor, the Lion Analysis Area in six segments. From west to east, these segments project (Courtright et al. 2000) enclosed IOs 3 and 5 are: Lion Springs, Preacher Canyon, Little Green in the boundary of the newly created Morgan site Valley, Kohls Ranch, Doubtful Canyon, and Chris- and expanded the boundaries of Tontozona Taran- topher Creek. tula to include IO 6. Isolated Occurrences 1, 2, and Archaeological data recovery has been complet- 13 were destroyed during construction of the tie-in ed for the Preacher Canyon (Herr 2004; Herr, Stein, between the Kohls Ranch and Doubtful Canyon sec- and Cook 2000), Christopher Creek (Herr 2006; Herr tions. Isolated Occurrences 8 and 12 were located and Stein 2000), Kohls Ranch (Herr and Stein 2002), outside the project right-of-way and were not revis- and Little Green Valley segments (Herr and Stein ited. Isolated Occurrences 4 and 9 were within the 2008). Archaeological data recovery at Sharp Creek project right-of-way and were assigned site num- campground, in the vicinity of the Christopher Creek bers and names: AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 construction segment, has also been completed (ASM/TNF) and Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR-03- (Herr, Stein, and Cook 2000; Herr 2006). The results 12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF), respectively. They were of testing in the fifth construction segment, Doubt- treated as potentially eligible for inclusion in the Na- ful Canyon, as well as a plan for data recovery at tional Register. sites that meet the eligibility requirements for inclu- Three sites identified during the PMDR survey sion in the National Register of Historic Places (Na- (Weaver 1998a) have been previously investigated tional Register), are presented in this report. by the SR 260 – Payson to Heber project. AR-03-12- The Doubtful Canyon section is a 3.5-mile-long 04-170 (TNF), identified as a quarry site by Dittert segment of highway between MP 269 and MP 272.5 (1975a), is located in the tie-in area between Kohls (Figure 1.1). Between MP 269 and MP 269.5, this sec- Ranch and Doubtful Canyon. It was investigated tion overlaps with the tie-ins constructed as part of during the Kohls Ranch phase of work. This chert the Kohls Ranch section. A survey by Plateau Moun- exposure lacked signs of cultural materials, and was tain Desert Research (PMDR) personnel identified considered ineligible for inclusion in the National 12 sites in the Doubtful Canyon section (note that Register. The two historic roads, Forest Highway 11 the names were assigned during the current proj- (Herr, Stein, and Cook 2000; Herr, Theil, and Stein ect): AR-03-12-04-170 (TNF); AR-03-12-04-264 (TNF); 2000; Stein and Herr 2000) and the wagon road (Herr Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 et al. 2000), cross much of the project area. Most of (ASM/TNF); Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03- the fieldwork and archival research on the road cor- 12-04-267 (ASM/TNF); the historic wagon road, AZ ridors was conducted during the first segment of the O:15:113/AR-03-12-04-652 (ASM/TNF); Sheep site, project, but testing phase investigations in the AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 (ASM/TNF); Flipping Doubtful Canyon section suggest additional archi- Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF); val work on the historic roads may be warranted, as Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12:34/AR-03-12-04-878 described in Chapters 3 and 4 (this volume). (ASM/TNF); AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/ In all, ADOT requested testing at the nine sites TNF); AZ O:12:77/AR-03-12-04-1404 (ASM/TNF), located in the area of potential effects, which extends AR-03-12-04-1470 (TNF), and Tontozona Tarantula, from right-of-way to right-of way, and also includes AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF) (Weav- the temporary construction easements, access roads, er 1998a). The Payson to Colcord phone line, AZ and utility corridors: Transfer Station, Dittert’s Quar- O:12:34/AR-03-12-04-1312 (ASM/TNF), also cross- ry, Sheep site, Flipping Bear, O:12:21/04-1161, Mor- es the Doubtful Canyon section (Weaver 1998a) (see gan site, Tontozona Tarantula, O:12:120/04-1860, and Table 1.1 for site numbering conventions). Little Stinker. These sites include 3 lithic scatters, 1 2 Chapter 1 Text Reference Text Reference References (ASM/TNF) Number Site Name Name Other Site Number ASM Number (AZ #) Concordance of site numbers referenced in the text. in the referenced numbers site of Concordance Table 1.1. Table TNF Number (AR-03-12-#) 04-1161 04-745 04-746 O:12:21 04-878 O:12:27 04-1312 O:12:28 04-265 – O:12:33 04-267 O:12:34 – 04-1402 – O:12:115 04-1470 – O:12:116 04-1471 – O:12:117 (ASU) O:12:12 AZ 04-1860 O:12:118 Station Transfer – (ASU) O:12:14 AZ 04-1861 O:12:119 – Dittert's Quarry 04-652 site Sheep O:12:120 – 04-264 Flipping Bear O:12:121 – 04-170 11 Highway Forest 4 (PMDR) IO O:15:113 line phone Payson-Colcord O:12:115/04-265 O:12:34/04-1312 IO 9 (PMDR) – O:12:116/04-267 – – 1998 Weaver Dittert 1976; – site Morgan O:12:33/04-878 2000 et al. Courtright 1998 Little Stinker Weaver Dittert 1976; O:12:28/04-746 O:12:27/04-745 – Tarantula Tontozona O:12:21/04-1161 1998 Weaver – 1998 Weaver 1995; Spalding 1998 Weaver 1995; Spalding – 1998 Weaver 1993; Inc. Environmental, GPI O:12:119/04-1471 O:12:117/04-1402 road Historic wagon O:12:121/04-1861 1998 Weaver 2000; et al. Courtright 1998 Weaver 2000; et al. Courtright Weaver 1998 O:12:120/04-1860 O:15:113/04-652 – O:12:118/04-1470 – 1998 Weaver 1998 Weaver 1998 Weaver AR-03-12-04-264 AR-03-12-04-170 1998 Weaver 1998 2001; Weaver Stein Herr and 1993; Inc. Environmental, GPI Introduction 3
Figure 1.1. Location of investigated sites in the State Route 260 Doubtful Canyon project area. 4 Chapter 1 pithouse settlement, 3 historic trash scatters, and 2 patterns” (Plog 1984; Tainter and Plog 1994). Weak multicomponent sites (Table 1.2). A portion of For- patterns, which include areas of small sites and rel- est Highway 11 was also revisited. Sites in this sec- atively low population densities, can be best ad- tion of the project area may range in date from the dressed by placing sites into a larger regional con- Early Agricultural period to the late Historic/Mod- text. This is accomplished by compiling multiple ern period. The sites were tested according to the lines of evidence from current and past research methods identified in the SR 260 – Payson to Heber projects in the area. The most immediate compari- project programmatic testing plan (Herr 2000). sons to the SR 260 project area are to the region above ADOT also requested survey of 0.23 acres of ad- the Mogollon Rim (Mills et al. 1999), the Payson ditional right-of-way between Stations 1945 and Basin (Hohmann and Redman 1988; Howell and 1951 (Figure 1.2). The original archaeological sur- Solometo 2001; Lindauer et al. 1991; Redman 1993; vey of the Doubtful Canyon segment preceded road Redman and Hohmann 1986), and the upper Tonto design by several years. When designed, the new Basin (Clark 2005; Clark and Gilman 2009; Elson and right-of-way did not fall entirely within the surveyed Craig 1992). corridor. Many of the areas designated for additional Understanding changing patterns of human right-of-way, access roads, and construction waste settlement is essential in understanding the chang- for the Doubtful Canyon section were previously ing social landscape. Therefore, locating the sites surveyed (Herr 2003), although this new request along SR 260 in time and space is a fundamental goal accommodates a localized widening of the right-of- of this project. Seven themes, selected from a list of way for a culvert extension. historic contexts developed by the TNF (Wood et al. In all, 30 supervisory days and 72 crew days were 1989), have been identified to more specifically ad- expended during testing phase investigations. Field- dress the relationship between households and work and project management is overseen by Will- communities in prehistoric and historic frontier iam Doelle, Principal Investigator for the project. situations. These themes include: Demography, Sub- Investigations were conducted at prehistoric sites sistence, Technology/Architecture, Socio-political- under TNF permit TON426, at historic sites under ideological Systems, Government, Transportation TNF permit TON425, and the survey work was con- and Communication, and Exchange/Trade/Com- ducted under TNF permit TON570. The project also merce (Herr 1999). holds Arizona Antiquties Act Project Specific Per- mit 1999-121ps. The SR 260 – Payson to Heber proj- ect is funded by the Federal Highway Administra- PROJECT SETTING tion (FHWA) through ADOT. Included in this report are a summary of the The Mogollon Rim lies in a major transition zone methods and results of the archaeological survey between the Basin and Range of southern Arizona (Chapter 2) and testing phase investigations (Chap- and the Colorado Plateau environment of the north- ter 3) within the Doubtful Canyon segment. Signifi- ern portion of the state. Elevations within the SR 260 cance assessments, recommendations for data recov- – Payson to Heber project area range from 4,600 ft ery, and a work plan are also included (Chapters 4 to 7,600 ft above sea level. Topographically, the and 5). The primary goals of the testing program Doubtful Canyon segment crosses the lower reach- were to: (1) define the nature, extent, and condition es of a series of ridges that emanate from Promonto- of the archaeological remains; (2) determine if the ry Butte; the western half of the project area, between sites were eligible for inclusion in the National Reg- approximately MP 269 and MP 270.5, is particular- ister; and (3) assess if the archaeological remains ly rugged. The landscape begins to flatten out be- would address the research themes proposed in the tween MP 270.5 and MP 272. Elevations in the overall Treatment Plan for this project (Herr 1999). Doubtful Canyon section range between 5,480 ft and 5,700 ft above sea level. The area is one of climatic transitions between RESEARCH THEME winter-dominant rainfall and bimodal summer/win- ter rainfall patterns (Dean 1988, 1996). The Mogol- The overall theme of the SR 260 – Payson to lon Rim is a geologic uplift, and the abruptness of Heber Archaeological project is human adaptation to this transition has orographic consequences, such as frontier areas in history and prehistory (Herr 1999). high rainfall and unpredictable summer storms. Near Frontiers are sparsely populated regions between Doubtful Canyon, surface water is perennially avail- areas of more major settlement. They share econom- able in Tonto Creek, just west of the section, and in ic, social, and political organizations that differenti- Christopher Creek and Hunter Creek to the east. ate them from the more populated homeland or core Sharp Creek, also to the east, is a substantial, almost areas. Frontier theories help interpret areas of “weak year-round source of water as well. Additionally, the Introduction 5 Weaver 1998 Weaver 1998 Weaver 1998 Spalding 1995; 1998 Weaver 2000; et al. Courtright A.D. 1930s-1950s A.D. 1930s-1950s A.D. 1950s Summary description of sites investigated during the testing phase. phase. the testing during of sites investigated description Summary Table 1.2. Table Site Number (ASM/TNF) O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 AZ – (ASM/TNF) O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 AZ (ASM/TNF) O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 AZ site Sheep Flipping Bear (ASM/TNF) O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 AZ (ASM/TNF) O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 AZ Highway 11 Forest (ASM/TNF) O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 AZ Station Transfer (ASM/TNF) O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 AZ Multicomponent site Dittert's Quarry Lithic scatter Historic road Pithouse settlement (ASM/TNF) site Morgan O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 AZ 1050-1300, Unknown, A.D. Tarantula Site Name Tontozona Lithic scatter 500 B.C.-A.D. 400 (ASM/TNF) O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 AZ site Multicomponent Lithic scatter (ASM/TNF) O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 – AZ A.D. 1933-1961 Unknown 1600-A.D. 1870, Unknown, A.D. (ASM/TNF) O:15:113/AR-03-12-04-652 Little Stinker AZ scatter Historic trash Unknown 1960s 1930s to road Historic wagon Description Unknown Historic road 1993; Inc. Environmental, GPI Historic trash scatter A.D. 1938-1945 1998 Weaver Estimated Age trash scatter Historic A.D. 1880-1953 1998 Weaver 1995; Spalding A.D. 1940s-1950s 1998 Weaver 2000; et al. Courtright 1998 Weaver Dittert 1976; 1998 Weaver Dittert 1976; 1998 Weaver References 1998 Weaver 1998 Weaver 6 Chapter 1
Figure 1.2. Location of survey area. Introduction 7 area is dotted with springs, including multiple management projects (Macnider and Effland springs around Tontozona Tarantula. 1989:225). Overviews of the general project area syn- The biotic community has been described as thesize the results of the disparate survey and exca- transitional between Pinyon-Juniper Woodland and vation projects in the region, detail the strengths and Mixed Conifer and Ponderosa Pine. Vegetation weaknesses of data collected in the Payson region, zones generally correlate with elevation, and vege- and make suggestions for future management of tation in the project area changes, as elevation in- TNF lands (Dosh et al. 1993; Doyel and Macnider creases from west to east, from a Madrean Evergreen 1991; Effland and Macnider 1991; Macnider and Woodland to a Ponderosa Pine Woodland to a Pon- Effland 1989; Wood et al. 1989). derosa Pine-Fir Forest (Brown 1982; Doak et al. 1997; A three-week-long ASU field school at the CI GPI Environmental, Inc. 1993). The Doubtful Can- Ranch, AR-03-12-04-222 (TNF) (near the Christopher yon segment falls in the mid-elevation ponderosa Creek segment) in 1950, was one of the earliest ar- pine portion of the biotic zone (Brown 1994). chaeological programs in the project area (Stewart Geology is diverse across the sub-Mogollon Rim, 1950). The survey between Payson and Pine, Arizo- with sandstone and limestone outcrops on the east- na, by the Field Museum of Natural History, is per- ern end of the project area and a granitic environ- haps more widely known (Olson and Olson 1954). ment to the west. The Doubtful Canyon segment Macnider and Effland (1989:225) note two other ear- crosses a region of alternating sandstone and lime- ly surveys in the region. The first, in 1955, was a stone, an environment that changes, again, with el- nonsystematic survey conducted as part of a Mas- evation. Sites in the western portion of the Doubtful ter’s degree research project (Peck 1956). A system- Canyon segment are situated on bedrock or on col- atic survey was conducted in 1967, by the Museum luvial slope of an ancient, and nearly impermeable of Northern Arizona (MNA) prior to expansion of clay. The eastern portion of the segment has areas the TNF Seismological Observatory. Areas sampled with clay loam and, thus, some potential for sub- during that survey included Star Valley, Little Green surface features. Bedrock visibly outcrops at, or near, Valley, Houston Pocket, Round Valley, and Yerba all sites in the project area. Numerous cherts out- Senta Butte (Dosh and Klinner 1993:40). crop across the region, including light gray fossilif- The ASU field school was conducted for several erous cherts near the Kohls Ranch section, red-and- years in the Mogollon Rim region and Payson Basin. white mottled cherts in the washes and outcrops of The field school included survey, testing, and full- the Little Green Valley, Kohls Ranch, Doubtful Can- scale excavation projects (Dittert 1975a, 1975b, 1976; yon, and Christopher Creek sections, and the pur- Jeter 1978; Redman 1993; Redman and Hohmann ple and white cherts of the Preacher Canyon area to 1986; Rice and Henderson 1990; Stewart 1950). In the west. The Doubtful Canyon section has more ex- 1975 and 1976, ASU field school students recorded a posed chert outcrops than any of the previously in- number of quarries, lithic scatters, artifact scatters, vestigated sections, and several of these were des- and small structures in and around Camp Tontozona, ignated as possible “quarries” by previous immediately adjacent to Doubtful Canyon section of researchers (Dittert 1975b, 1976). SR 260. Field sessions near the Payson Airport (Dosh Legally, the Doubtful Canyon project area is lo- and Klinner 1993; Lightfoot et al. 1977), in Star Val- cated in Township 11 N, Range 12 E, Sections 21, 22, ley (Lindauer et al. 1991), and at the Shoofly Ruin 23, and 26. (the Houston Mesa site), AZ O:12:20/AR-03-12-04- 020 (ASM/TNF), combined student training with cul- tural resource management objectives. Although PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH most of this work is available in reports, not all are published or readily accessible. In contrast to the long history of research in the Recent projects above and below the Mogollon adjacent Mogollon Rim (Fewkes 1904; Haury 1985; Rim show how large projects can inform on patterns Haury and Hargrave 1931; Hough 1903; Peterson of small site archaeology. Most researchers have at- [in Neily 1988:15]; Spier 1918) and Tonto Basin tempted to integrate survey and excavation data (Bandelier 1892; Haury 1930a, 1930b, 1932, 1934; from small sites into models of subsistence and set- Schmidt 1928) regions, archaeological explorations tlement systems (Dosh 1988; Hackbarth and of the Payson area just below the Mogollon Rim are Henderson 1993; Hackbarth et al. 1992; Hartman relatively recent. Within the SR 260 project area, the 1990; Hohmann and Redman 1988; Lindauer et al. territory around Payson has received more archae- 1991; Redman and Hohmann 1986). The social con- ological attention than the project area itself, east of sequences of different types of subsistence and set- Payson. Much of the Payson area archaeology has tlement organizations are discussed. been sponsored by the Arizona State University The Payson Archaeological Research Expedition (ASU) archaeological field schools and federal land (P.A.R.E.), conducted by ASU, was the largest 8 Chapter 1 investigation near the SR 260 project area. TNF land gion, as well as for situating sites in the northern was to be traded to a private landowner in a federal Tonto Basin and the Payson Basin in relation to land exchange (FLEX). P.A.R.E. conducted data re- known temporal and cultural boundaries. Research- covery, with varying degrees of intensity, at 35 pre- ers also grappled with questions of mobility and historic and historic sites in Star Valley. ASU also seasonality in the interpretation of complex, repeat- conducted excavations on Houston Mesa, in con- edly occupied sites. The Oxbow Hill to Payson proj- junction with the P.A.R.E. project, to collect infor- ect recorded the earliest human occupation near the mation on large sites in the Payson Basin settlement project area, with a Clovis point at the Silktassel site, system. These combined projects assessed the dy- AZ O:15:68 (ASM) (Huckell 1978). More generally, namic relationships within and among household, the project revealed a range of components at the hamlet, and village communities through time. Sites four investigated sites with ceramic, early historic, occupied between A.D. 1000 and 1300 are the most and historic occupations similar to those found well-represented in their sample. They identified an across the region. The Deer Creek site, AZ O:15:52/ economic pattern of household autonomy and mo- ar-03-12-06-527 (ASM/TNF), in the Rye Creek proj- bility among the small sites, a lack of “organizational ect area (Swartz 1992), is a particularly well-exca- trappings” (Redman 1993:167), and evidence for vated settlement, which was created by many occu- economic and social cooperation similar to the pro- pations during the pithouse period; it was ultimately posed frontier model (Lindauer 1991; Redman reused by Apache (Ferg 1992). EcoPlan’s work along 1993:158). One of the historic roads, AR-03-12-04- Ash Creek in the northern portion of Payson inves- 652, initially investigated by P.A.R.E. continues into tigated a multicomponent site with Early Agricul- the SR 260 project area, where it is designated tural/Late Archaic, ceramic, and Apache compo- O:15:113/04-652. nents (Sorrell 2006). Finally, a recent project by In 1996, SWCA conducted a 215-acre survey in Jacobs Engineering (Stubing 2008) investigated a an adjoining area for a FLEX between TNF and First small twelfth or thirteenth century site, augment- American Title of California (Doak et al. 1997). Twen- ing the increasing database of late sites known from ty sites were recorded, two of which had been pre- the Payson Basin. viously recorded (and one excavated) by ASU. In Several surveys have been conducted for the cur- 1995 and 1996, ASU conducted the FLEX III project rent realignment and construction of SR 260. At the in two parcels between Payson and Star Valley. Test- design concept stage of the project, GPI Environmen- ing was conducted at 89 sites, and data recovery was tal, Inc. (1993), assessed previous archaeological undertaken at 35 sites to answer research questions work along the highway and surveyed a number of about site function and interaction in Payson region alternative alignments. Then, PMDR was contract- settlement systems. Researchers focused particular- ed by ADOT to survey the right-of-way for the cur- ly, although not exclusively, on sites dating between rent SR 260 – Payson to Heber project. Fifteen re- A.D. 1150 and 1300 (Howell and Solometo 2001). ports detail the archaeological inventory of sites in Northland Research, Inc.’s, work on Houston the six proposed construction segments, waste dis- Mesa used a research design similar to the P.A.R.E. posal areas, reservoirs, and proposed campground project. Testing was conducted at seven sites, fol- renovations (Folb 1999a, 1999b; Lefthand 1998a, lowed by data recovery at six of those sites in the 1998b, 1998c, 1998d, 1999; Lefthand and Spalding proposed Houston Mesa campground. Hackbarth 1995; Schaafsma 2000; Spalding 1998a, 1998b, 1999; (1993; also, Hackbarth and Henderson 1993) used a Spalding and Lefthand 1998; Weaver 1998a; Woodall subsistence/settlement model to interpret the arti- 1995). fact scatters and small habitation structures in the Two substantial fuel surveys have also been con- project area. Artifact density, site location, and ex- ducted in the general Doubtful Canyon project area, cavated features were used to evaluate the relation- the Gordon/Ashmo Timber Sale project, and the ship between site duration and site function, as well Lion Analysis Area project. as to reconstruct subsistence and settlement regimes. The Gordon/Ashmo block survey for a timber The Navajo Nation conducted testing and data sale covers 1,701 acres in the Doubtful Canyon and recovery at seven small sites on TNF land in advance Christopher Creek areas (Hohmann and Johnson of a land exchange with the Tonto Apache, similar- 1990). Of the 15 newly recorded and seven previ- ly documenting a settlement pattern comprised of ously recorded sites, seven were identified as arti- small structures and limited use areas in the twelfth fact scatters, five had sufficiently diverse scatters to and thirteenth centuries (Spurr 2005). be identified as pithouse or possible pithouse settle- Some of the largest and earliest excavation ments, five had 1-2 masonry rooms, two were pueb- projects in the region were conducted in advance of los, two had small rock piles, and one site had a col- construction on State Route 87 (SR 87). This work lapsed wooden Apache sweatlodge. One of the two has been critical for chronology building in the re- pueblos was CI Ranch, which was sampled by Ken- Introduction 9 neth Stewart and students from ASU in 1950 (Stewart gion have been evaluated by a state-wide bridge 1950). This site had a substantial 16-room pueblo and inventory (Fraser Design 1987; FRASERdesign and 10 outlier rooms. Just across the wash was AR-03- EcoPlan Associates 2008), and Stein (1997) assessed 12-04-829 (TNF), a site with six contiguous rooms the eligibility of Haught Ranch, AZ O:12:38/AR-03- and four outlier rooms. Hohmann and Johnson 12-04-1372 (ASM/TNF), structures for inclusion in (1990) date the pithouse settlements to between A.D. the National Registry. Three ethnohistoric reviews 900 and 1150, and all other prehistoric sites to be- of the area consider the places of traditional impor- tween A.D. 1150 and 1300. tance to the Apache, Yavapai, Hopi, Zuni, Pima, In the area between Little Green Valley and Basque, and Anglo settlers (Krall and Randall 2009; Doubtful Canyon, to the east, 1,213 acres of timber Newton and Terzis 1997; Weaver 1998b). harvesting areas, areas for wood removal, and ac- cess roads were surveyed as part of the Lion Analy- sis Area project. Field crews located 19 previously ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND recorded sites, 12 new multicomponent sites, 10 new prehistoric sites, 1 new site of unknown age, and 6 A chronological sequence for the Payson area new historic sites (Courtright et al. 2000), including was outlined by Wood (1983) and continues to be those mentioned above: Morgan site and Tontozona tested and refined by work in Payson and Star Val- Tarantula. ley (Doak et al. 1997; Howell and Solometo 2001; The historic time in the area between the Mogol- Redman 1993). Its specific applicability to the sub- lon Rim region and the Little Colorado drainage has Mogollon Rim region to the east remains to be veri- been widely studied through documentary research. fied. Before the SR 260 – Payson to Heber project Mormon settlement on the Little Colorado River and began, the best understood period of Payson region in the Mogollon Rim region has been particularly prehistory was between approximately A.D. 1100 well addressed (Abruzzi 1993; Haury 1985; and 1300, as few earlier sites had been positively McClintock 1985). These studies discuss the pioneer identified or excavated. The SR 260 project has dis- life of Mormons and “gentiles” alike. Mormon set- covered a number of sites dating before approxi- tlement in nearby Pleasant Valley and Gisela was mately A.D. 1150. This longer view provides infor- short-lived, although more successful Mormon com- mation about changing population levels, the munities continued in areas to the east. A number occupation, abandonment, and reoccupation of set- of biographies and autobiographies of Mormon set- tlements caused by population mobility within the tlers give a personal perspective to the local history sub-Mogollon Rim region, and the effects of migra- of the region. Among the most widely read are Jen- tion and trade from more distant areas. nings (1970), Kartchner (1990), Peterson (1973), and The Early Agricultural period in southern Ari- Stegner (1942). The communal agricultural strate- zona (Gregory et al. 2007; Huckell 1995; Mabry 2005, gies used by the Mormon settlers provide an ethno- 2008; Vierra 2005) is identified as that time when graphic basis for assessing the prehistoric agricul- people first used domesticates; it dates from around tural potential of the Little Colorado area (Abruzzi 1200 B.C. to A.D. 50. This period name is tentatively 1993). applied here to the sub-Mogollon Rim region dur- Two local histories of the Payson area have been ing this time, as domesticates are present, albeit in compiled from oral histories, the records of local, very low frequency, as early as 800 B.C., and per- county, and state historical societies, the University haps as early as 1200 B.C. Early Agricultural period of Arizona library, and state agencies such as the flaked stone technology is abundant across the sub- Arizona Corporation Commission, Arizona High- Mogollon Rim region (Doyel 1993), but only recent- way Commission, and Arizona Library and Ar- ly have features and settlements from this period chives. In 1974, the Payson Library Board produced been identified. a volume compiled from interviews and archival Eleven Early Agricultural period components research (Murphy 1974). This publication was sub- have recently been excavated in the sub-Mogollon stantially augmented and updated by the Northern Rim region. Soil Systems, Inc., excavated one such Gila County Historical Society (1984). Other local site near Young (Leonard et al. 2003). Early Agri- histories include Adams (2004), Bell (1985), cultural period features have been identified at 10 Branstetter (1976), Ehrhardt (2008), Gillette (1984), sites in the SR 260 – Payson to Heber project area, and Zachariae (1991). the largest of which is a 7-house settlement at Camp Historical archaeology in the region has been Geronimo, AZ O:12:75/AR-03-12-04-1417, just more limited, although P.A.R.E. investigated five above Tonto Creek near Kohl’s Ranch (Herr and historic sites: a historic road, AR-03-12-04-642 (TNF); Stein 2002). AMS dates on annuals from excavated three trash concentrations; and a possible Apache contexts place the occupation of this Camp feature (James 1991:309). Historic bridges in the re- Geronimo locus between 800 B.C. and A.D. 500. This 10 Chapter 1 long span is due to the fact that these terraces above AR-03-12-04-743 (ASM/TNF) and Ponderosa Camp- Tonto Creek were occupied seasonally, and repeat- ground, AZ O:12:19/AR-03-12-04-1159 (ASM/TNF). edly, by one or two households at any given time. The McGoonie site, approximately 0.5 miles east of Subsistence activities included the gathering and the Haught Ranch site, was occupied between ap- processing of wild plants, especially juniper seeds, proximately A.D. 850 and 1100. Six houses, 15 buri- limited use of corn and squash, and hunting large als, a large midden, and several extramural pits were mammals, such as deer. The other Early Agricultur- excavated. Four large houses formed a courtyard al period settlements in the region have one to two group, and two small outlying structures were prob- pithouses, small pits, and smaller associated artifact ably used for storage. Inhumations were buried in assemblages. The earliest site is a series of pits along trash, and cremations were buried in a cemetery a terrace of Sharp Creek at Karaoke Falls, AZ south and downslope of the structures. Ponderosa O:12:41/AR-03-12-04-1431 (ASM/TNF). Campground Locus A is not preserved well enough There is even less information about the occupa- to identify courtyard groups, although this area, tion of the area in the first half of the first millenni- with 16 pithouses and four trash concentrations, was um A.D. Very limited evidence of short-term occu- likely used by small clusters of one to four house- pation from this period comes from the holds that occupied and reoccupied the southern multicomponent Horton Rock Shelter (A.D. 300 to slopes of Diamond Rim, primarily between A.D. 900 600) (Redman 1993:41), a small pit structure at and 1200. At Ponderosa Campground, and sites such Tangleroot, AZ O:12:73/AR-03-12-04-1475 (ASM/ as Shash Bigowa, AZ P:9:17/AR-03-12-04-1014 TNF) that dates between A.D. 250 and 510 (based (ASM/TNF) flaked stone studies suggest a prolific on an AMS radiocarbon date), and one structure at local flaked stone industry (Sliva and Ryan 2006) in Camp Geronimo that dates between 240 and 540 these centuries. A.D. Two pithouses and a trash concentration at The relationship of the sub-Mogollon Rim peo- Bonobos Vista, AZ O:12:88/AR-03-12-04-1438 ple to the nearby Hohokam and Puebloan groups (ASM/TNF) also date to this period. Analysis of ar- prior to the twelfth century remains an important tifacts from that site are ongoing, but there appear research goal of current projects in the area. Arti- to be few changes in settlement strategies from 1200 facts and practices commonly thought to indicate B.C. to A.D. 500. regional affiliation instead demonstrate variability Between the fifth or sixth century A.D. and the at the site and regional level. Small amounts of twelfth century A.D., settlement in the sub-Mogol- Tusayan White Ware, Hohokam Buff Ware, Cibola lon Rim region (Herr 2004, 2006; Howell and White Ware, and Puerco Valley Brown Ware have Solometo 2001; Leonard et al. 2003) became more been identified at most sites containing large ceramic widespread. In fact, it is likely that in the sub-Mog- assemblages. San Juan Red Ware ceramics comprise ollon Rim region east of the Payson Basin and Star 10 percent of the decorated assemblage at the Valley, this was the period of greatest population McGoonie site, but the ware is absent from contem- density prior to protohistoric and historic occupa- poraneous structures at Ponderosa Campground. tion. Both cremations and inhumations are found at pit- The Haught Ranch site (Herr, Stein, and Cook house sites in the region. This site-by-site and struc- 2000; Herr, Thiel, and Stein 2000) is an early, year- ture-by-structure variability in artifact assemblages round settlement in the sub-Mogollon Rim region. is probably due to households with different back- Two possible Early Agricultural period pithouses grounds, extensive social networks, and a good deal and 12 Early Agricultural period burials were re- of intra- and interregional mobility. covered. Thirteen other pithouses date to four site- Small habitation and seasonal sites comprise specific building phases in the Early Agricultural much of the settlement across the Mogollon Rim re- period, between A.D. 400 and 1000. Houses were gion between approximately A.D. 1050 and 1300. aligned in two tiers, and were constructed into a These sites, with their increased likelihood for sur- granitic substrate on the northern margin of Little face architecture and imported ceramics, are more Green Valley. Thirty-nine individuals were inhumed visible to surveyors than earlier sites. Most of the or cremated in five temporally and spatially discrete excavated sites in the Star Valley and Flex III (also cemeteries across the site: Early Agricultural period near Star Valley and Payson) project areas date to sitting and flexed inhumations, ceramic period this time period (Howell and Solometo 2001; flexed and extended inhumations, and ceramic pe- Lindauer et al. 1991). In the sub-Mogollon Rim area, riod cremations and crematoria. A large midden and excavated sites from this time period include Man- several pits completed the suite of identified pre- zanita Ridge, AZ O:12:16/AR-03-12-04-1156 (ASM/ historic features. TNF); Ponderosa Campground Locus B; Prayer site, The occupation of pithouses continued into the AZ P:9:26/AR-03-12-04-1394 (ASM/TNF); Shash eleventh century at the McGoonie site, AZ O:12:25/ Bigowa; and AR-03-12-04-385 (TNF) (Rice and Introduction 11
Henderson 1990). Domestic architecture at these sites two hearths, were excavated during the SR 260 proj- includes pithouses, pitrooms, and 3-wall (“carport”) ect at the McGoonie site, although AMS radiocar- and 4-wall masonry rooms. Thereafter, people lived bon dates are broad, approximately A.D. 1530-1810. in more aggregated settlements, such as Lion Springs One shallow structure with AMS dates between A.D. Pueblo, NA 9761 (Kelly 1969), CI Ranch (Stewart 1640 and 1820, was identified about 0.31 miles to 1950), and AR-03-12-04-829 (TNF) (Hohmann and the east, superimposed over the prehistoric occupa- Johnson 1990), using small sites such as AR-03-12- tion at Bonobos Vista. The most remarkable is a site 04-388 (TNF) (Henderson 1991) seasonally. This pat- dating between A.D. 1640 and 1700, called Plymouth tern lasted between 200 and 300 years before the Landing, AZ O:12:89/AR-03-12-04-1411 (ASM/ region was largely abandoned for residential pur- TNF). This fall campsite near Little Green Valley had poses, between A.D. 1300 and 1400. Limited use, five Apache structures filled with baskets of alliga- however, probably continued (Redman 1993:38-42), tor juniper berries. particularly at small sites such at the aceramic Apart from occasional trappers and prospectors, Jefferson site, AZ O:12:74/AR-03-12-04-1410 (ASM/ Euro-Americans did not begin to settle in the Mog- TNF), which dates between A.D. 1200 and 1500. ollon Rim region until the mid-nineteenth century. Artifact assemblages indicate a change in region- Small, and eventually unsuccessful, mining and al relationships between approximately A.D. 1000 Mormon communities were settled along the East and 1150. Hohokam ceramics are not typically found Verde River in the late 1860s and 1870s (Michael in assemblages dating after approximately A.D. Sullivan, personal communication 2001). The low 1100, but Tusayan White Ware, Cibola White Ware, population density in the early years was due to the Little Colorado White Ware, and corrugated brown lack of high-grade silver and gold deposits, as well ware ceramics are present in small quantities. There as the threat of Apache attack (Redman 1993:34). may have been a slight increase in the percentages It was not until the Apache were removed to res- of nonlocal decorated ceramics in this later period. ervations at Camp Verde and San Carlos in 1875 that Inhumations were the preferred method of burial. widespread settlement in the region became a via- Due to the ephemeral nature of Apache remains ble option. Early economic strategies were based and the lack of directed research, the intensity of largely on cattle ranching, mining, and small-scale Apache occupation of the area remains unknown, farming, although overgrazing of rangeland soon although it is increasingly evident that the region became a serious problem (Macnider and Effland was an important part of the Apache landscape af- 1989). The construction of Roosevelt Dam between ter the mid-seventeenth century, and perhaps earli- 1905 and 1911, the establishment of the Tonto For- er. In 1976, the ASU field school excavated a possi- est Reserve (now TNF) in 1905, and the increasing ble early historic storage pit at AR-03-12-04-263 popularity of the automobile brought an influx of (TNF) and tested one “charcoal-and-rock mound” settlers into the region. After World War II and the at AR-03-12-04-168 (TNF) (Dittert 1976). Another construction of the highway from Phoenix (Murphy large Protohistoric roasting pit was excavated at 1974:45), rim settlements began to grow significant- Ponderosa Campground in fall 2002 (Herr and Stein ly. Today, the area is heavily dependent on tour- 2008). A possible Apache structure has been record- ism, with ranching and government land manage- ed near the southern part of Ponderosa Campground ment (through the Coconino, Tonto, and at AR-03-12-04-1381 (TNF) (Courtright et al. Apache-Sitgreaves national forests) continuing to 2000:12). Three Apache features, one ramada and play a role in the local economy.
REFERENCES CITED
Abruzzi, William S. Dean, Jeffrey S. 1993 Dam That River!: Ecology and Mormon Settle- 1988 Dendrochronology and Paleoenvironment- ment in the Little Colorado River Basin. al Reconstruction on the Colorado Plateaus. University Press of America, Lanham, In The Anasazi in a Changing Environment, Maryland. edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 119-167. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Adams, Bettie Lou Kohl England. 2004 Kohl’s Ranch Story. Revised ed. Cox Print- ing, Mesa, Arizona. Dean, Jeffrey S. 1996 Demography, Environment and Subsis- Bandelier, Adolph F. tence Stress. In Evolving Complexity and En- 1892 Final Report of Investigations among the Indi- vironmental Risk in the Prehistoric Southwest: ans of the Southwestern United States Carried Proceedings of the Workshop “Resource Stress, on Mainly in the Years 1880 to 1885, part II. Economic Uncertainty, and Human Response Papers of the Archaeological Institute of in the Prehistoric Southwest,” Held February America, American Series, Vol. 4. John Wil- 25-29, 1992 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, edited son and Son, Cambridge, England. by J. A. Tainter and B. B. Tainter, pp. 25-56. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Bell, Katie Complexity, Vol. XXIV. Addison-Wesley 1985 The Legend of Kohl’s Ranch. Central Arizona Publishing Company, Reading, Massachu- Publishing Company, Payson, Arizona. setts.
Branstetter, Myrtle Dittert, Alfred E. 1976 Pioneer Hunters of the Rim. Norm’s Publish- 1975a An Inventory of Cultural Resources on ing House, Mesa, Arizona. Lands Adjacent to Camp Tontozona, Ari- zona. Ms. on file, Tonto National Forest Brown, David E. (editor) Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. 1982 Biotic Communities of the American South- west–United States and Mexico. Desert 1975b A Preliminary Report on the 1975 Season Plants 4(1-4). Investigations, Payson Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, Phoenix. Ms. on file, 1994 Biotic Communities: Southwestern United Tonto National Forest Supervisor’s Office, States and Northwestern Mexico. University Phoenix. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1975c A Prospectus for Archaeological Investiga- Clark, Jeffery J. (editor) tions in the Payson District of Central Ari- 2005 2000 Years of Settlement in the Tonto Basin: zona. Ms. on file, Tonto National Forest Tonto Creek Archaeological Project Overview Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. and Synthesis. Anthropological Papers No. 25. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. 1976 The 1976 Season: Archaeological Studies in the Payson Ranger District, Tonto National Clark, Jeffery J., and Patricia Gilman Forest, Arizona. Ms. on file, Tonto Nation- 2009 Persistent and Permanent Pithouse Places al Forest Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. in the Basin and Range Province of South- eastern Arizona. In Southwest Pithouse Com- Doak, David P., Andrea Kayser, Heidi Roberts, and munities, A.D. 200-900, edited by L. Young Bill Grimm and S. Herr. Ms. in possession of the author. 1997 Archaeological Survey of Federal Lands for the Star Valley II Land Exchange, Gila County, Ar- Courtright, J. Scott, Esther Morgan, and Denise Ryan izona. Archaeological Report No. 96-82. 2000 An Archaeological Survey of the Lion Anal- SWCA, Inc., Tucson. ysis Area, Payson Ranger District, Tonto National Forest. Ms. on file, Payson Rang- er Station, Payson, Arizona. 14 Chapter 1
Dosh, Deborah S., and Duane Klinner (editors) Ferg, Alan 1993 An Overview of the Payson Basin Geographic 1992 Western Apache and Yavapai Pottery and Study Area, Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Features from the Rye Creek Project. In The Districts, Tonto National Forest, Gila County, Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Upper Arizona. Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, Tonto Basin: Vol. 3. Synthesis and Conclusions, Arizona. by M. D. Elson and D. B. Craig, pp. 3-27. Anthropological Papers No. 11. Center for Dosh, Deborah S., Duane Klinner, and Blake Rox- Desert Archaeology, Tucson. lau 1993 Culture History and Settlement Models Fewkes, Jesse W. within the GSA. In An Overview of the Pay- 1904 Two Summers’ Work in Pueblo Ruins. In son Basin Geographic Study Area, Payson and Twenty-second Annual Report of the Bureau Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts, Tonto Na- of American Ethnology, 1900-1901, Part 1, by tional Forest, Gila County, Arizona, prepared J. W. Powell, pp. 3-196. Smithsonian Insti- by D. S. Dosh and D. Klinner, pp. 12-39. tution, U.S. Government Printing Office, Northland Research, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizo- Washington, D.C. na. Folb, Lisa Dosh, Steven G. 1999a Memo Re: SR260 Construction Water Facil- 1988 Subsistence and Settlement along the Mogol- ities, 26 October. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., lon Rim A.D. 1000-1150. Research Paper No. Mesa, Arizona. 39. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. 1999b Memo Re: SR260 Construction Water Facil- Doyel, David E. ities, 10 November. EcoPlan Associates, 1993 Archaic-Period Land Use Under the Tonto Inc., Mesa, Arizona. Rim, Arizona. In Why Museums Collect. Pa- pers in Honor of Joe Ben Wheat, edited by M. Fraser Designs S. Duran and D. T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 51-67. 1987 Arizona Bridge Inventory. Arizona Depart- The Archaeological Society of New Mexico ment of Transportation Project No. HPR 1- No. 19, Albuquerque. 28 (166). Fraser Design, Loveland, Colorado.
Doyel, David E., and Barbara S. Macnider FRASERdesign and EcoPlan Associates 1991 Under the Mogollon Rim: Cultural Resource 2008 State of Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory. Overview for the Mogollon Rim Escarpment FRASERdesign, Loveland, Colorado. Geographic Study Area, Payson and Pleasant
Effland, Richard W., Jr., and Barbara S. Macnider Gillette, Frank V. 1991 An Overview of the Cultural Heritage of the 1984 Pleasant Valley. Privately published by the Tonto National Forest. Cultural Resources author. Report No. 49. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd., Tempe, Arizona. GPI Environmental, Inc. 1993 SR 260 Payson-Heber Highway Milepost Ehrhardt, Tim 251.94 to Milepost 303.74, Gila, Coconino, and 2008 Zane Grey’s Forgotten Ranch: Tales from the Navajo Counties, Arizona. Cultural Resourc- Boles Homestead. Git A Rope! Publishing, es Report. GPI Environmental, Inc., Phoe- Inc., Payson. nix.
Elson, Mark D., and Douglas B. Craig 1992 The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Up- per Tonto Basin: Vol. 1. Introduction and Site Descriptions. Anthropological Papers No. 11. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. References Cited 15
Gregory, David A., Michelle N. Stevens, Fred L. 1985 The Forestdale Valley Cultural Sequence. Nials, Mark R. Schurr, and Michael W. Die- In Mogollon Culture in the Forestdale Valley, hl edited by E. W. Haury, pp. 375-407. Uni- 2007 Excavations in the Santa Cruz Floodplain: Fur- versity of Arizona Press, Tucson. ther Investigations at Los Pozos. Anthropolog- ical Papers No. 27. Center for Desert Ar- Haury, Emil W., and Lyndon L. Hargrave chaeology, Tucson. 1931 Recently Dated Pueblo Ruins in Arizona. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Hackbarth, Mark R. 82(1). Washington, D.C. 1993 Archaeological Investigations at the Proposed Houston Mesa Campground Facility, Payson Henderson, T. Kathleen Ranger District, Tonto National Forest. North- 1991 Site AR-03-12-04-388 (TNF). In The Archae- land Research, Inc., Tempe, Arizona. ology of Star Valley, Arizona: Variation in Small Communities, edited by O. Lindauer, Hackbarth, Mark R., and T. Kathleen Henderson R. J. Bradley, and C. L. Redman, pp. 222- 1993 Data Recovery Design. In Archaeological 233. Anthropological Field Studies No. 24. Investigations at the Proposed Houston Mesa Office of Cultural Resource Management, Campground Facility, Payson Ranger District, Arizona State University, Tempe. Tonto National Forest, by M. Hackbarth, pp. 12-20. Northland Research, Inc., Tempe, Herr, Sarah A. Arizona. 1999 Treatment Plan for the S.R. 260–Payson to Heber Project. Technical Report No. 99-9. Hackbarth, Mark R., Todd W. Howell, T. Kathleen Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. Henderson, Dave Barz, and Samantha Rus- cavage-Barz 2000 Programmatic Testing Plan for the S.R. 260– 1992 Testing Report and Mitigation Plan, Houston Payson to Heber Archaeological Project. Tech- Mesa Campground Sites, Payson Ranger Dis- nical Report 2000-06. Desert Archaeology, trict, Tonto National Forest. Northland Re- Inc., Tucson. search, Inc., Tempe, Arizona. 2003 Archaeological Survey of Additional Right- Hartman, Dana of-Way, Waste Area, and Access Roads in 1990 Small Site Utilization along the Mogollon Rim: the Doubtful Canyon Construction Seg- FLEX/Scott Land Exchange, ApacheSitgreaves ment, the SR260 – Payson to Heber Project, National Forest, Navajo County, Arizona. Re- Gila County, Arizona. Project Report No. search Paper No. 41. Museum of Northern 03-149. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. Arizona, Flagstaff. Herr, Sarah A. (editor) Haury, Emil W. 2004 Their Own Road: Archaeological Investigations 1930a Field Notes from 1930 Season at Rye Creek along State Route 260: Payson to Heber – Ruin. Ms. on file, Center for Desert Preacher Canyon Section (Draft). Technical Archaeology, Tucson. Report No. 2002-03. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. 1930b A Report on Excavations at the Rye Creek Ruin. Ms. on file, Tonto National Forest 2006 Their Own Road: Archaeological Investigations Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. along State Route 260, Payson-to-Heber, Chris- topher Creek Section and Sharp Creek Camp- 1932 Roosevelt 9:6: A Hohokam Site of the Colonial ground (Draft). Technical Report No. 2003- Period. Medallion Papers No. 1. Gila Pueb- 05. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. lo, Globe, Arizona. Herr, Sarah A., and Pat H. Stein 1934 The Canyon Creek Ruin and Cliff Dwellings of 2000 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Data the Sierra Ancha. Medallion Papers No. 14. Recovery in the Christopher Creek Section, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona. State Route 260 – Payson to Heber Archae- ological Project, Gila County, Arizona. Proj- ect Report No. 00-154. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. 16 Chapter 1
Herr, Sarah A., and Pat H. Stein Hough, Walter 2001 S.R. 260–Payson to Heber Archaeological Proj- 1903 Archaeological Field Work in Northeastern Ar- ect: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan izona. The Museum-Gates Expedition of 1901. for Data Recovery in the Kohls Ranch Segment. Report of the National Museum, 1901, pp. Technical Report No. 2001-05. Desert Ar- 279-358. U.S. Government Printing Office, chaeology, Inc., Tucson. Washington, D.C.
2002 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Data Howell, Todd, and Julie Solometo Recovery in the Kohls Ranch Section, State 2001 Archaeological Investigations in the Payson Route 260–Payson to Heber Archaeological Flex III Land Exchange Project Area; Tonto Project, Gila County, Arizona. Project Re- National Forest, Payson Ranger District, Gila port No. 01-149. Desert Archaeology, Inc., County, Arizona, part I. Anthropological Tucson. Field Studies No. 43. Office of Cultural Re- source Management, Department of An- 2008 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Data thropology, Arizona State University, Recovery in the Little Green Valley Section, Tempe. State Route 260 – Payson to Heber Archae- ological Project, Gila County, Arizona. Proj- Huckell, Bruce B. ect Report No. 06-170. Desert Archaeology, 1978 The Oxbow Hill-Payson Project. Contribution Inc., Tucson. to Highway Salvage Archaeology in Arizo- na No. 48. Arizona State Museum, Univer- Herr, Sarah A., Pat H. Stein, and Patricia Cook sity of Arizona, Tucson. 2000 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Data Recovery in the Preacher Canyon Section 1995 Of Marshes and Maize: Preceramic Agricultur- and Sharp Creek Campground, State Route al Settlements in the Cienega Valley, Southeast- 260 – Payson to Heber Archaeological Proj- ern Arizona. Anthropological Papers No. 59. ect, Gila County, Arizona. Project Report University of Arizona Press, Tucson. No. 00-129 (Revised). Desert Archaeology Inc., Tucson. James, Steven R. 1991 Historic Site Descriptions. In The Archaeolo- Herr, Sarah A., J. Homer Thiel, and Pat H. Stein gy of Star Valley, Arizona: Variation in Small 2000 S.R. 260–Payson to Heber Archaeological Proj- Communities, edited by O. Lindauer, R. J. ect: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan Bradley, and C. L. Redman, pp. 309-338. for Data Recovery in the Preacher Canyon Seg- Anthropological Field Studies No. 24. De- ment and Sharp Creek Campground. Techni- partment of Anthropology, Arizona State cal Report No. 2000-03. Desert Archaeolo- University, Tempe. gy, Inc., Tucson. Jennings, James R. Hohmann, John W., and Deborah S. Johnson 1970 Arizona Was the West. The Naylor Co., San 1990 A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Gor- Antonio, Texas. don/Ashmo Timber Sale, Payson Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, Gila Coun- Jeter, Marvin D. ty, Arizona. DSHJ Research Associates, Inc., 1978 Archaeological Investigation of the Payson Phoenix. Ms. on file, Tonto National Forest Parcel, Haverfield Land Exchange, Tonto Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. National Forest, Arizona. Ms. on file, De- partment of Anthropology, Arizona State Hohmann, John W., and Charles L. Redman (edi- University, Tempe. tors) 1988 Continuing Studies in Payson Prehistory. An- Kartchner, Kenner C. thropological Field Studies No. 21. Office 1990 Frontier Fiddle: The Life of a Northern Arizona of Cultural Resource Management, Depart- Pioneer. University of Arizona Press, Tuc- ment of Anthropology, Arizona State Uni- son. versity, Tempe. Kelly, Roger E. 1969 An Archaeological Survey in the Payson Basin, Central Arizona. Plateau 42:46-55. References Cited 17
Krall, Angie, and Vincent E. Randall Leonard, Banks L., Rebecca J. Hill, Andrea Miller, 2009 Shi Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and and Susan L. Stinson Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim. Technical 2003 Final Report on Data Recovery at Two Sites Report No. 2007-03. Desert Archaeology, along Arizona Forest Highway 12 near Young, Inc., Tucson. Gila County, Arizona (Draft). Technical Re- port No. 02-36. Soil Systems, Inc., Phoenix. Lefthand, Nathan J. 1998a An Archaeological Survey of Eight Irregular Lightfoot, Kent, David Abbot, and Marcey Prager- Parcels Along State Route 260 Right-of-Way, Bergman Additional Kohls Ranch Section, Milepost 1977 The West Payson Survey. Ms. on file, Tonto 266.90 to 268.75, Tonto National Forest, Gila National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Phoe- County, Arizona. Plateau Mountain Desert nix. Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Lindauer, Owen, Ronna J. Bradley, and Charles L. 1998b An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of State Redman (editors) Route 260 Right-of-Way and Proposed Right- 1991 The Archaeology of Star Valley, Arizona: Vari- of-Way, Christopher Creek Section, Milepost ation in Small Communities. Anthropologi- 272.5 to 277.5, East of Payson, Gila County, cal Field Studies No. 24. Office of Cultural Arizona. Plateau Mountain Desert Research, Resource Management, Department of An- Flagstaff, Arizona. thropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1998c An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of State Route 260 Right-of-Way and Proposed Right- Mabry, Jonathan B. of-Way, Kohls Ranch Section, Milepost 267.0 2005 Changing Knowledge and Ideas About the to 269.0, East of Payson, Tonto National For- First Farmers in Southeastern Arizona. In est, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau Mountain The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands: From Desert Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Foraging to Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 41-83. University of Texas Press, Aus- 1998d An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of State tin. Route 260 Right-of-Way, and Proposed Right- of-Way, Little Green Valley Section, Milepost 2008 Introduction. In Las Capas: Early Irrigation 262.95 to 267.0, East of Payson, Tonto Nation- and Sedentism in a Southwestern Floodplain, al Forest, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau edited by J. B. Mabry, pp. 1-34. Anthropo- Mountain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Ari- logical Papers No. 28. Center for Desert zona. Archaeology, Tucson.
1999 A Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of Macnider, Barbara S., and Richard W. Effland State Route 260 Right-of-Way and Proposed 1989 Cultural Resources Overview: The Tonto Na- Right-of-Way, Additional Christopher Creek tional Forest. Tonto National Forest Cultur- Section, Milepost 272.75 to 277.25, West and al Resources Inventory Report No. 88-12- East of Christopher Creek, Tonto National For- 312A. Cultural Resources Report No. 51. est, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau Mountain Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe, Desert Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. Arizona.
Lefthand, Nathan J., and Nathanael E. Spalding McClintock, James H. 1995 An Archaeological Survey of a Parcel for 1985 Mormon Settlement in Arizona. University of Proposed State Route 260 Realignment of Arizona Press, Tucson. Right-of-Way, From Milepost 272-274, East of Payson, Gila County, Arizona. Project Murphy, Ira A. Report No. 93-11-27. Ms. on file, Arizona 1974 A Brief History of Payson, Arizona. Payson Li- Department of Transportation, Phoenix. brary Board, Payson, Arizona. 18 Chapter 1
Neily, Robert B. Rice, Glen E., and T. Kathleen Henderson 1988 Archaeological Investigations in the Snowflake- 1990 A Study of Archaeological Sites along the Pay- Mesa Redonda Area, East-central Arizona: son to Preacher Canyon 69 V Transmission Apache-Navajo South Project. Archaeological Line. Report No. 74. Office of Cultural Re- Series No. 173. Cultural Resource Manage- source Management, Department of An- ment Division, Arizona State Museum, thropology, Arizona State University, University of Arizona, Tucson. Tempe.
Newton, Virginia, and Lee Terzis Schaafsma, Hoski S. 1997 An Ethnohistoric Overview of the Mogollon 2000 Cultural Resources Survey for Payson Wells on Rim Escarpment and Payson Basin Geograph- SR 260, Gila County, Arizona. Logan Simp- ic Study Areas, Tonto National Forest, Gila son Design Inc., Tempe. County, Arizona: Phase 1 Ethnohistoric Study for the Star Valley II Land Exchange. Cultural Schmidt, Erich F. Resources Report No. 97-82. SWCA, Inc., 1928 Time-relations of Prehistoric Pottery in South- Tucson. ern Arizona. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Northern Gila County Historical Society 30:245-302. American Museum of Natural 1984 Rim Country History. Rim Country Printery, History, New York. Payson, Arizona. Sliva, R. Jane, and Stacy L. Ryan Olson, Alan P., and F. S. Olson 2006 Flaked Stone from Christopher Creek Sec- 1954 A Survey of the Pine-Payson Area, Central tion and Sharp Creek Campground. In Their Arizona. Ms. on file, Arizona State Muse- Own Road: Archaeological Investigations along um, University of Arizona, Tucson. State Route 260. Payson-to-Heber, Christopher Creek Section and Sharp Creek Campground Peck, Fred R. (Draft), edited by S. A. Herr, pp. 129-148. 1956 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Technical Report No. 2003-05. Desert Ar- East Verde River in Central Arizona. Un- chaeology, Inc., Tucson. published Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tuc- Sorrell, Daniel son. 2006 Letter Report to Ruth Greenspan, dated 29 March 2006. Re: Excavations at AR-03-12- Peterson, Charles S. 04-371. Eco 04-712 Task 43. EcoPlan and 1973 Take Up Your Mission: Mormon Colonizing Associates, Phoenix. along the Little Colorado River, 1870-1900. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Spalding, Nathanael E. 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Several Portions Plog, Fred and Parcels of Proposed State Route 260 Re- 1984 Exchange, Tribes and Alliances: The North- alignment ROW, from MP 256.2-277.2, East ern Southwest. American Archeology 4(3): of Payson, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau 217-223. Mountain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Ari- zona. Redman, Charles L. 1993 People of the Tonto Rim: Archaeological Dis- 1998a An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of State covery in Prehistoric Arizona. Smithsonian Route 260 Right-of-Way and Proposed Right- Institution Press, Washington, D.C. of-Way, Preacher Canyon, Milepost 260.1 to 262.9, Northeast of Payson, Tonto National Redman, Charles L., and John W. Hohmann (edi- Forest, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau Moun- tors) tain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. 1986 Small Site Variability in the Payson Region: The Flex Land Exchange. Anthropological Field Studies No. 11. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropolo- gy, Arizona State University, Tempe. References Cited 19
Spalding, Nathanael E. Stein, Pat H., and Sarah A. Herr 1998b An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of State 2000 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Data Route 260 Right-of-Way and Proposed Right- Recovery on Segment 12A of AZ O:12:33/ of-Way, in the Vicinity of Lion Spring, Mile- 04-878 (ASM/TNF): Addendum to the Pre- post 256.2 to 260.1, In and East of Star Valley, liminary Report of Archaeological Data Tonto National Forest, Gila County, Arizona. Recovery in the Preacher Canyon Section Plateau Mountain Desert Research, Flag- and Sharp Creek Campground, State Route staff, Arizona. 260–Payson to Heber Archaeological Proj- ect, Gila County, Arizona. Project Report 1999 A Cultural Resources Survey of a Portion of No. 00-129 (Addendum). Desert Archaeol- Additional Right-of-Way and Three Potential ogy, Inc., Tucson. Waste Sites Along SR 260, between Preacher Canyon and Little Green Valley, Tonto National Stewart, Kenneth M. Forest, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau Moun- 1950 Report on Excavations at C. I. Ranch Site, tain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. near Kohl’s Ranch, Arizona, August 18-Sep- tember 5, 1950. Ms. on file, Tonto National Spalding, Nathanael E., and Nathan J. Lefthand Forest Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. 1998 An Archaeological Survey of Two Replacement Campground Areas, in the Vicinity of Mileposts Stubing, Michael 265.0 and 275.5, along State Route 260 East of 2008 Preliminary Results of Data Recovery, Histor- Payson, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau Moun- ic Road Documentation, and a Drainage Ease- tain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. ment Survey for the SR 87 Oxbow Hill South- bound Shoulder Widening Project, Gila County, Spier, Leslie A. Arizona. Carter & Burgess, Inc., Phoenix. 1918 Notes on Some Little Colorado Ruins. Anthro- pological Papers of the American Museum Swartz, Deborah L. of Natural History 28(4). American Muse- 1992 The Deer Creek Site, AZ O:15:52 (ASM). In um of Natural History, New York. The Rye Creek Project: Archaeology in the Up- per Tonto Basin: Vol. 1. Introduction and Site Spurr, Kimberly Descriptions, by M. D. Elson and D. B. Craig, 2005 Archaeological Investigations at Seven Sites for pp. 93-164. Anthropological Papers No. 11. a Land Exchange between the Tonto National Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Forest and the Tonto Apache Tribe, Gila Coun- ty, Arizona. Navajo Nation Archaeology Tainter, Joseph A., and Fred Plog Department, Flagstaff, Arizona. 1994 Strong and Weak Patterning in Southwest- ern Prehistory: The Formation of Puebloan Stegner, Wallace Archaeology. In Themes in Southwest Prehis- 1942 Mormon Country. Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, tory, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 165-181. New York. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Stein, Pat H. 1997 A National Register Evaluation of the Little Vierra, Bradley J. Green Valley Ranch (Henry Haught Home- 2005 Borderlands Introduction. In The Late Archa- stead), Gila County, Arizona: General Project ic Across the Borderlands: From Foraging to No. N-900-903. Plateau Mountain Desert Farming, edited by B. J. Vierra, pp. 1-12. Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Weaver, Donald E., Jr. 1998a An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of State Route 260 Right-of-Way and Proposed Right- of-Way, Doubtful Canyon, Milepost 269.0 to 272.5, Northeast of Payson, Gila County, Ari- zona. Plateau Mountain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Arizona. 20 Chapter 1
Weaver, Donald E., Jr. Woodall, G. R. 1998b An Ethnographic Overview of Portions of the 1995 Reconnaissance Inventory and Preliminary Mogollon Rim Escarpment and Payson Basin Assessment of Historic Route 260 and the Geographic Study Areas, Tonto National For- Payson-Heber Phone Line between Payson est, Gila County, Arizona: The State Route 260 and Heber, Gila, Coconino, and Navajo Ethno-historic Study. Project No. PMDR-96- Counties, Arizona. Ms. on file, Tonto Na- 36. Plateau Mountain Desert Research, Flag- tional Forest Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. staff, Arizona. Zachariae, Barbara Wood, J. Scott 1991 Pleasant Valley Days: A History of the People 1983 An Archaeological Survey of the Cook Timber of Pleasant Valley. Pleasant Valley Histori- Sale, Pleasant Valley Ranger District, Tonto cal Society, Young, Arizona. National Forest: Final Report. Cultural Re- sources Inventory Report No. 82-35. Tonto National Forest, Phoenix.
Wood, J. Scott, Michael A. Sullivan, Steve Germick, and Linda B. Kelley 1989 Tonto National Forest Cultural Resources As- sessment and Management Plan. Cultural Re- sources Inventory Report No. 89-235. Ton- to National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. CHAPTER 2 SURVEY RESULTS
The Arizona Department of Transportation by digital data from the ADOT Roadway Design (ADOT) requested an archaeological survey of ar- sheets downloaded into the hand-held Trimble eas in which the right-of-way for the designed road GeoXT L1 GPS receiver with sub-meter precision. A went outside areas previously surveyed. Many of single archaeologist walked two lines within the these divergences were reconciled during a previ- boundaries indicated on the Trimble for complete ous survey (Herr 2003). The current project surveyed survey coverage of the project area. The single cul- an enlargement of the right-of-way in the area of a tural manifestation, an isolated occurrence, was re- culvert extension. This small survey was conducted corded with the GPS receiver. on 27 October 2009. The project area measures 6 m by 155 m (0.23 acres) (Figure 2.1). The survey area included the ISOLATED OCCURRENCE slopes and bottom of an unnamed tributary to Chris- topher Creek. Chert and fossiliferous limestone out- Isolated Occurrence 1 is a clustering of four cans cropped across the project area. Vegetation in the in an 8-m2 area. The four cans included two bever- survey area included small alligator juniper, catclaw age cans opened with a ‘church key’ and two larger acacia, and manzanita. The dying grasses made food cans. The project area is located inside a large ground visibility good. U-curve of Segment 22 of Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12: 33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF). Much of the late historic trash in the Doubtful Canyon section of SURVEY METHODS the State Route 260 – Payson to Heber project is found close to this highway. Pedestrian survey was used to investigate the project area. Project area boundaries were indicated 22 Chapter 1
Figure 2.1. Location of survey area, Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF), and Isolated Occurrence 1. REFERENCES CITED
Herr, Sarah A. 2003 Archaeological Survey of Additional Right- of-Way, Waste Area, and Access Roads in the Doubtful Canyon Construction Seg- ment, the SR 260 – Payson to Heber Project, Gila County, Arizona. Project Report No. 03-149. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.
CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND RESULTS OF THE TESTING PHASE
The basis for meaningful interpretation of recording of sites and features were also used. For archaeological data is solid contextual control and sites with historic components, Pat Stein of Arizona an understanding of site formation processes. In Preservation Consultants conducted archival re- addition to gathering information about site eligi- search using maps, newspapers, and interviews. Her bility for inclusion in the National Registry of His- research attempted to link historic structures and toric Places, testing phase work attempts to gather artifacts to known places or events to evaluate the preliminary information about the distribution and significance of the sites for answering project research integrity of archaeological features. The field meth- questions. Following a brief general discussion of the ods used in the archaeological testing are described basic field and archival methods, results of the test- here. These methods were presented in the program- ing phase investigations at each site are described. matic testing plan for the SR 260 – Payson to Heber project (Herr 2000), and are being used in all phases of the project to ensure the continued collection of ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS high-quality, comparative data. Eligibility assess- ments will be provided in Chapter 4 (this volume). Evaluation of Site Boundaries Archaeological testing of the nine Little Green Valley segment sites was conducted between 6 and The first task at all sites was an assessment of 29 October 2009, at Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/ site boundaries. Few boundary flags remained from AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF); Dittert’s Quarry, AZ the previous surveys, so boundaries were marked O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF); Sheep site, with flagging tape around the trees of all sites. As a AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 (ASM/TNF); Flipping result, O:12:21/04-1161 and Flipping Bear became Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF); AZ significantly larger. O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF); Morgan site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF); Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04- Surface Collections 1471 (ASM/TNF); AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF); and Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR- Controlled collections were made from all sites. 03-12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF). Additionally, some seg- The surface collection strategy varied, however, ments of the previously recorded Forest Highway based on the size of the site, the density of artifact 11, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF), were concentrations, the presence or absence of diagnos- revisited. tic artifacts, and the location of the right-of-way. Some sites were fully within the project right-of- Units of various sizes were placed in an effort to sam- way; others were divided by the right-of-way. Sur- ple areas of different artifact density and diversity. veyors from Jacobs Engineering noted the extremely In prehistoric components with more than 10 difficult terrain and visibility problems in the proj- artifacts, surface collections were made from at least ect area as they were setting the line for the current three measured units. This strategy was used at project. Due to these difficulties, there may be local- O:12:21/04-1161, Flipping Bear, Transfer Station, ized errors of up to about 5 m in the right-of-way Dittert’s Quarry, and Tontozona Tarantula. After the line. The project maps in this report show the right- quantifiable units were collected, all remaining ar- of-way as it was flagged, because this was the infor- tifacts visible outside of those units were collected, mation available during fieldwork, and it impacted with one exception. Only diagnostic artifacts were where excavation and collection units were placed. judgmentally collected from the remainder of Flip- Both prehistoric and historic components were ping Bear, the site with the highest artifact density. present in the project area. The primary field meth- The Sheep site and Morgan site had fewer than 10 ods used for the testing phase were raking, brush flaked stone artifacts, and no collection units were removal, assessment of site boundaries, surface col- used; however, six metate fragments at the Sheep lection, backhoe trenching, facing of trenches, expo- site were point provenienced. sure of masonry walls, and hand-excavation of con- In historic components, an attempt was made to trol units. Mapping, photography, and detailed acquire a single example of each potentially diag- 26 Chapter 3 nostic artifact type from each feature on the site sur- trees exposed wall alignments of Features 1, 3, 6, and face. In many cases, these collections were made in 9. Features 1 and 9 were inside the right-of-way, and conjunction with a strategy to excavate a 1-m by 2- Features 3 and 6 were outside the right-of-way. These m control unit into the trash scatters. The excava- features were mapped, and the structures and wall tion units were intended to provide quantitative in- alignments recorded. formation about the trash accumulations, while the surface collections were intended to provide sup- plemental information about the site date and the Control Units functions of artifact types present, particularly the less common types. Control units are measured excavation units used to sample feature fill and to assess the potential of sampled features to address project research ques- Trenching tions. At prehistoric sites, control units were used to At sites with suspected subsurface remains, evaluate the research potential of the features and systematic backhoe trenching was used to assess the possible features. Control units were placed adja- location, quantity, and extent of features. This meth- cent to the excavated backhoe trenches. All control od provides information about site structure, and it units were excavated in 20-cm levels within natural facilitates planning and implementation of feature strata. Fill was screened through ¼-inch mesh screen, excavation. Trenches were spaced 5 m to 10 m apart and flotation samples were recovered from alternate across the site. Obstacles such as tree thickets, bed- levels within every stratum of historic and prehis- rock outcrops, and the ability of the backhoe to ma- toric fill. All artifacts were collected from the con- neuver determined the 5-m or 10-m spacing of trench- trol units. es. Trenches at Transfer Station and at Flipping Bear At O:12:21/04-1161, three control units were ex- were excavated along a north-south axis. Trenches cavated. A 1-m by 2-m unit was placed in a possible at O:12:21/04-1161 were oriented east-west along a pithouse, Feature 2, that became a small pit; anoth- shallow drainage ditch that provided the best path er 1-m by 2-m unit was placed over pit Feature 3. A through the trees in the narrow right-of-way. At 1-m by 1-m unit was placed in extramural space to O:12:21/04-1161, trenching successfully defined the evaluate artifact density and diversity in areas of location and extent of features. Trenches at Transfer dark cultural soils outside of features. At Flipping Station were sterile. Despite trenching through a Bear, one control unit was placed in a possible pit- portion of the site with a high density artifact scat- house, which was later determined not to be a fea- ter, subsurface investigations at Flipping Bear did not ture. Another control unit was placed in masonry locate the extent of subsurface features. A thicket of structure Feature 1. small trees surrounded the clearing where artifacts At Tontozona Tarantula, a control unit was ex- were collected, and substantial tree removal will be cavated in the northern flaked stone scatter to eval- needed to continue explorations in areas of likely uate the potential for buried deposits and if back- subsurface features to the south and east. However, hoe trenching at the site was appropriate. When the the northern and western boundaries to a buried site deposits proved to be shallow, no further work was were defined during the current trenching. conducted in that area. All trench locations were mapped by Western At historic sites, a single control unit was placed Mapping, Inc. Datum stakes in the southwestern in 50-100 percent of trash scatters within the right- walls of the trenches were used to map the horizon- of-way to determine the depth of deposits, to obtain tal location of each feature. Standard Desert Archae- a quantifiable sample of artifacts as a measure of ology, Inc., forms were used to record the length, the density and diversity of the trash, and to assess width, depth, and direction of all trenches. Feature if the trash represented a single use or multiple uses. dimensions and depths were recorded, and all fea- Data from the control unit were supplemented by tures were mapped to scale. Feature profiles record- the judgmental collection of surface diagnostics out- ed the relationship of a feature to the natural site side the unit. Control units were placed in Features stratigraphy. 1 and 2 at the Morgan site, in Feature 1 at O:12:120/ 04-1860, and in Feature 1 at Little Stinker.
Exposure of Masonry Walls Backfilling During the survey, four features were identified on the hilltop of Flipping Bear (Weaver 1998:21-23). All trenches and control units were backfilled at Raking of duff and removal of manzanita and fallen the end of testing. Control unit excavations were Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 27 covered with black plastic before being refilled. At RESULTS OF THE TESTING PHASE sites that will be revisited for data recovery investi- gations, flagging tape was placed in the trenches Results of the testing phase investigations at 10 above unexcavated features to help re-find them sites in the Doubtful Canyon section are described during mechanical stripping. Additionally, at least in the remainder of the chapter. Sites are ordered by one end of each trench with features was left open Arizona State Museum (ASM) site number. Recom- at O:12:21/04-1161 and Flipping Bear to help re-find mendations for site eligibility and data recovery the trenches. The Transfer Station site was closed methods are presented in Chapters 4 and 5 (this vol- entirely. ume).
ARCHIVAL METHODS AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF)
Archival research for Flipping Bear, the Morgan O:12:21/04-1161 was first recorded as a small site, Tontozona Tarantula, O:12:120/04-1860, and ceramic and flaked stone scatter with stained soil Little Stinker began by verifying site location data and burned rocks, by GPI Environmental, Inc. on topographic maps, and checking the locations (1993:39, 42), during their survey of a number of al- against data contained on General Land Office ternative routes during early planning for the State (GLO) plats, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Route 260 (SR 260) – Payson to Heber project. The land-patent records, and Tonto National Forest Plateau Mountain Desert Research (PMDR) survey (TNF) base maps. Issues of the Arizona Builder & of the alignment (Weaver 1998:44-45) observed ap- Contractor and the Payson Roundup were examined proximately 10 pieces of flaked stone and 10 ceram- at Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Rec- ics in an area roughly 25 m by 30 m, with suggested ords. A range appraisal atlas, land status book, for- dates of occupation between A.D. 800 and 1400. est recreation plan, grazing permit control atlas, and During current fieldwork, the boundaries of the case history permits were reviewed at the Tonto artifact scatter were substantially enlarged, and the National Forest Supervisor’s office. Range allotment scatter now measures approximately 10,395 m2 (Fig- data were checked at the Payson Ranger District of- ure 3.1). The scatter is located on a ridgetop 5,600 ft fice. (1,707 m) above sea level. Vegetation noted on the Vertical files at the Rim Country Museum in site includes ponderosa pine, alligator juniper, man- Payson yielded unpublished information about the zanita, Gambel’s oak, catclaw acacia, Agave parryi, R Bar C Ranch and previous ranchers in the locali- prickly pear cactus, escobaria cactus, Indian paint- ty. Online resources (Newspaperarchive.com, brush, and grasses. The site is located in an environ- Ancestry.com, and Mesarfhc.org) contained data ment of limestone and chert bedrock, which outcrops relevant to Flipping Bear and Tontozona Tarantula. in and near the site. Engineering records at the Arizona Department of O:12:21/04-1161 has been heavily damaged. The Transportation (ADOT) stored several generations site was split by construction of the current align- of As-Built Plans, but unfortunately, lacked the orig- ment of SR 260. A shallow ditch crosses the entire inal plans representing grading of the Doubtful Can- site north of the highway, and may have removed yon segment, Segment A, of Forest Highway 11. the upper portion of features. Trenches showed that Research at the Gila County Recorder’s office un- root disturbance may make feature definition diffi- covered a 1944 bill of sale documenting the transfer cult in some places. of property from Dave Martin to the Boy Scouts, for Fieldwork at the site began with a reevaluation what became the R Bar C Ranch. and enlargement of site boundaries. The northern An interview was conducted in Payson with and southern limits of the site remained approxi- Eugene “Jinx” Pyle, who resided at the R Bar C from mately the same, but the site boundary was expand- 1952 to 1961, while his father was ranch foreman. ed to the east. Two measured surface collection units An attempt was made to contact Archie B. Martin, were placed on either side of the highway. Artifact son of Dave Martin, who resided on the “Old Jones” density ranged between 0.56 and 2.28 artifacts per place, south of Flipping Bear, in the 1930s and 1940s; m2 south of SR 260 and between 0.88 and 2.04 arti- to date, Mr. Martin has not responded to the request facts per m2 to the north. After the quantifiable sam- for an interview. ples were made, the remainder of the surface arti- The investigation also included reviews of local facts were collected from the site. histories, such as Adams (2004), Bell (1985), The geologic stratigraphy in the road-cut that Branstetter (1976), Ehrhardt (2008), Gillette (1984), divides the sites suggests the site has limited poten- Northern Gila County Historical Society (1984), and tial for subsurface deposits south of the highway; Zachariae (1991). therefore, no trenches were excavated in this area. 28 Chapter 3
Figure 3.1. Plan view of AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF). Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 29
Greater depth was evident on the northern side road- Feature 7. All features are disturbed by roots. Fea- cut. A backhoe was used to excavate four trenches, tures 3, 7, 9, and 10 cluster near each other in Trench measuring 144.7 m, along the path of the ditch, 2. which was the clearest spot through an otherwise The third control unit, Unit 109, measured 1-m dense area of vegetation. Ten features were record- by 1-m, and was excavated into an area of dark fill ed in the profiles of Trenches 2 and 3 (Table 3.1). in the trench to evaluate if the dark deposits in this portion of the site were part of a trash concentra- Feature Descriptions tion. Artifact density was low in this unit at 8 arti- facts per cubic meter, and the area was not identi- The 10 features identified at O:12:21/04-1161 are fied as a trash feature. clustered in about 40 m of trench centered on the In all, 526 artifacts were collected from the site, crest of the ridge (Figure 3.2; Table 3.2). Originally, including 493 pieces of flaked stone, 24 ceramics, 8 one pithouse, Feature 1, two possible pithouses, Fea- pieces of ground stone, and 1 piece of bone. Of these, tures 2 and 4, and seven small pits, Feature 3 and 5- 27 pieces of flaked stone and a single piece of bone 10, were identified in the trench walls. Three con- were found in excavated contexts. All of the collect- trol units were excavated in Features 2 and 3; the ed ceramics were confined to the site surface north third unit was located in an area of dark soil. of the highway. Feature 1 is a 2.15-m-long, basin-shaped pithouse Cultural affiliation of the site is unknown. A pre- visible on both sides of Trench 3. The feature was liminary estimate of primary dates of site occupa- filled with a dark grayish silty-clay. Despite the dark tion is between 400 B.C. and A.D. 500. This is based coloring, charcoal was not visible in the fill. A core on the lack of ceramics in subsurface contexts and was recorded in the trench profile, and the fill was the basin-shaped profile of pithouse Feature 1. How- moderately disturbed by root activity. Because the ever, the presence of a limited number of ceramics identification of Feature 1 was certain, a control unit on the site surface, as well as the sub-Mogollon Rim was not excavated. pattern of site reuse, allows that multiple periods of Feature 4 is a 2.15-m-long stain on both sides of occupation are present. Trench 3, and it was recorded as a possible pithouse. The identification as a feature is certain, although its assessment as a structure is less certain due to Sheep Site, AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 root disturbance within the profile. No control unit (ASM/TNF) was excavated. A test unit was used to sample the more ambig- The Sheep site is a 114 m2 scatter of flaked stone uous deposits of a 1.1-m-long stain found on the and ground stone on a ridgetop 5,560 ft (1,695 m) south face of Trench 3. A 1-m by 2-m unit, Unit 106, above sea level (Figure 3.3). The 10 artifacts recov- was placed over possible pithouse Feature 2. After ered from the site were situated in a clearing in thick excavations, Feature 2 was identified as a small pit. vegetation dominated by large alligator juniper What remained of Feature 2 was fully excavated. trees, catclaw acacia, manzanita, Gambel’s oak, pon- Feature 3 was a pit defined with moderate confi- derosa pine, and agave. This site is an area of out- dence, although root disturbance made portions of cropping bedrock and has no potential for depth. the walls difficult to see in the trench profile. One 1- PMDR documented the site in 1995 (Spalding m by 2-m unit, Unit 107, was placed over small pit 1995) and again in 1998 (Weaver 1998) during intial Feature 3. The top of the feature was identified 25 surveys for the SR 260 project. They recorded six cm below modern ground surface, and the feature whole or partial metate fragments and a sparse scat- was fully excavated. ter of flaked stone. Desert Archaeology point- The six remaining features identified during test- provenienced, and then collected, each of the meta- ing, Features 5-10, are small pits with dark fill. Very tes. Four pieces of flaked stone were also collected. minor amounts of small charcoal were noted in Fea- The dates and cultural affiliation of the site are tures 6 and 8, and a fire-cracked rock was found in unknown. However, the technological characteris-
Table 3.1. Description of surface collection units at AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF).
Unit Area (m2) Ceramics Flaked Stone Ground Stone Total Density 100 25 – 57 – 57 2.28 101 25 – 14 – 14 0.56 102 25 – 51 – 51 2.04 103 25 1 20 1 22 0.88
30 Chapter 3
Figure 3.2. Detail of AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF). Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 31
Table 3.2. Description of features at AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF).
Feature Feature Type Length (m) Depth (cm) (below mgs) Location Excavated? 1 Pithouse 2.15 25-65 Trench 3 No 2 Small pit 1.10 23-53 Trench 3 Yes 3 Small pit 0.74 32-68 Trench 2 Yes 4 Possible pithouse 2.15 15-40 Trench 3 No 5 Small pit 0.62 26-68 Trench 3 No 6 Small pit 0.69 42-82 Trench 2 No 7 Small pit 0.47 51-83 Trench 2 No 8 Small pit 0.48 54-89 Trench 2 No 9 Small pit 0.34 56-88 Trench 2 No 10 Small pit 0.44 61-81 Trench 2 No
tics of the ground stone may make it possible to par- Here, artifact density measured 0.60 artifacts per m2. tially refine site dates during the analysis phase of Finally, a single unit was collected just south of Fea- the project. ture 1 in Locus A; the artifact density in this unit was 0.88 artifacts per m2. Due to the high density of artifacts in Locus B, a Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 backhoe was used to excavate five trenches, 5-10 m (ASM/TNF) apart. In total, 76.8 m of trench were excavated. One possible pithouse, Feature 7, and a small pit, Fea- Flipping Bear is a multicomponent site that was ture 8, were identified in Trench 2. No features were first recorded by Spalding (1995:23-25) during early identified in Trench 1, but two areas of oxidation survey work for the SR 260 – Payson to Heber proj- were noted on the profiles. Whether these are cul- ect. The site boundaries enclose 12,505 m2, three ar- tural or associated with nearby roots remains un- tifact concentrations identified as loci A, B, and C, certain, but the areas were recorded on trench forms and at least three unrelated occupations (Figure 3.4). for further investigation during data recovery. Four prehistoric wall alignments and masonry struc- The survey recorded four prehistoric masonry tures are located on a hilltop 27 m above two pre- features in Locus A, Features 1-4 (Weaver 1998:21- historic artifact scatters and a historic corral. Two of 23). During testing, downed timber and manzanita the artifact scatters are located in the right-of-way. inside the right-of-way was removed, and raking One surrounds the masonry structures on the hill- inside and outside the right-of-way exposed the top, and one is located just below the hillslope col- masonry features identified during the survey, as luvium in an area where deposition increases slight- well as additional alignments. Features 1 and 2 were ly. The middle of the site is at about 5,720 ft (1,743 found to be a single feature, designated as Feature m) above sea level. 1. Feature 3 was relocated outside the right-of-way, Testing phase methods at this site include the but Feature 4 (mapped inside the right-of-way) was reevaluation and expansion of site boundaries. The not found. Two additional alignments, designated survey report had identified the top of the hill as Feature 6 (outside the right-of-way) and Feature 9 Component A (renamed here Locus A) and the bot- (inside the right-of-way) were also discovered. tom of the hill Component B (renamed here Locus The historic corral, Feature 5, identified during B). All of Locus B and the southern half of Locus A the survey was mapped to scale, construction mate- are located in the project right-of-way. The new area rials were recorded, and photographs were taken of added to the site was designated as Locus C, al- typical construction. The field recording was aug- though it was located outside the project right-of- mented by archival research, as described below. way. Artifacts were collected from measured units in Feature Descriptions Locus A and B (Table 3.3). Artifact density was high in the three collection units in Locus B, ranging from In all, six features were identified at the site (Ta- 1.01 artifacts per m2 to 4.12 artifacts per m2. Work ble 3.4). on previous sections of the SR 260 project suggested Four prehistoric masonry features were record- that buried features are likely in areas with artifact ed in Locus A, Features 1, 3, 6, and 9. Features 1 and densities greater than 1 artifact per m2. One collec- 9 are in the project right-of-way. Feature 1 was iden- tion unit was placed between Locus B and Locus C. tified as a structure. At this point, all that is visible 32 Chapter 3
Figure 3.3. Plan view of Sheep site, AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 (ASM/TNF). Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 33
Figure 3.4. Plan view of Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF). 34 Chapter 3
Table 3.3. Description of surface collection units at Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF).
Locus Unit Area (m2) Ceramics Flaked Stone Total Density B 100 100 2 99 101 1.01 B 101 25 5 98 103 4.12 B 102 50 17 99 116 2.32 Between B and C 104 25 – 15 15 0.60 A 105 25 4 18 22 0.88
Table 3.4. Description of features at Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 (ASM/TNF).
Depth or Height Relative to In Right- Feature Feature Type Length (m) mgs (m) Location of-way? Excavated? 1 Masonry structure 6.80 by 3.20 Modern ground surface to Locus A Yes Yes 0.24 m deep 3 Wall alignment 6.55 by 0.60 Modern ground surface Locus A No No 5 Historic corral 17.50 by 13.20 Modern ground surface to a Locus B Yes No maximum height of 2.40 m 6 Wall alignment 5.50 by 1.50 Modern ground surface Locus A No No 8 Small pit 0.30 0.44 to 0.92 deep Locus B, Trench 2 Yes No 9 Masonry structure 8.75 by 4.20 Modern ground surface Locus A Yes No are two parallel walls placed 3.2 m apart. This type change in the sediments in the trench and a layer of of structure construction is present in the sub-Mog- small charcoals about 95 cm below the modern ollon Rim region (Lindauer et al. 1991), although it ground surface. A 1-m by 2-m control unit was lo- is less common than 3-walled structures. A 1-m by cated along the trench to test this feature. Artifacts 2-m control unit placed against the northern side of were sparse, and found only in the upper 47 cm of its southern wall confirmed that this was the interi- structure fill; thus, from 47 cm to 95 cm, the test unit or of the structure, and a use-compacted floor was area was reduced to 1-m by 1-m unit. The charcoal revealed. The wall fall seemed to account for a wall at the base of the possible structure overlay a geo- of about half height, with the upper portion proba- logic stratum change, and was not associated with bly constructed of posts and jacal. any construction material. Because no artifacts were The southern wall of this structure fell to the collected below the upper 47 cm of structure fill, the outside, downslope. Under this wall fall is a second feature was voided. There is sufficient geologic di- masonry structure, designated as Feature 9. It is versity in the excavated trenches to explain the slight unclear if the two structures shared the southern wall change in sediments in this portion of Trench 2. of Feature 1 and were contemporaneous. Both struc- Feature 5 is the second definitely identified fea- tures incorporated shaped and unshaped sandstone ture in Locus B. This historic corral was an eclectic rocks and grinding slabs in the construction of their construction that incorporated live oak, juniper, and walls. ponderosa pine trees to anchor the structure, and 67 Features 3 and 6 were recorded as separate wall additional tree trunks, tree branches, and pieces of alignments upslope from Features 1 and 9. Their milled lumber of varying qualities as supports. Dou- construction is similar and as substantial as that of ble layers of mesh were stapled or variously tied to the other features, but these two parallel walls are, the support posts. Larger posts with lintels may in- again, unjoined by a cross wall, and are over 5 m dicate two entrances into this holding pen. One sim- apart. These walls may form one part of a single large ilarly fabricated trough was located inside the cor- room. However, they are located outside the right- ral, and a second was just outside. A small amount of-way, so no work was conducted after mapping. of historic trash was associated with the feature. Two features were initially located in Trench 2 of Locus B. Feature 8 is a small pit, located in the Archival Research profile of Trench 2. No artifacts or charcoal were noted in its block clay fill, but the feature cuts into a Archival research was conducted to provide con- natural layer of small limestone gravels. Feature 7 text for understanding the historic corral. The prox- was identified as a possible pithouse, based on a imity of the corral to the property now known as Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 35 the R Bar C Ranch suggests an association with that the first constructed, between 1933 and 1934, and land. The earliest known occupant is a person cur- Forest Highway 11 remains a prominent feature on rently known only as “Jones,” whose name first ap- the landscape, with 15 segments of this historic road pears on a 1933 TNF base map. A range improve- preserved in the Doubtful Canyon section (Weaver ment map and associated files at the Payson Ranger 1998:24) (Figure 3.5). Three sections are exception- District indicate the structure was, in fact, called the ally well preserved, Segments 18, 19, and 20 (Herr “Jones Corral” (Range Improvement #3101) well et al. 2000). Also located in the current project area into the 1950s. The corral was part of the Christo- is a blue 1942 Pontiac Streamliner within the bound- pher Mountain Allotment. aries of Tontozona Tarantula. The vehicle appears The GLO subdivisional survey of 1934-1935 found to have rolled, suggesting an accident on Segment not Jones but Dave Martin residing on the land. Mar- 18 of Forest Highway 11, and is considered associ- tin’s wife, Ida Bell “Sis” (nee Haught) Garrels Mar- ated with that site. tin, confirmed in a later interview that she and her Testing phase fieldwork and the initial archival husband had acquired the place from “Old Jones.” research for the eligibility assessment of site was The present investigation found no bill of sale docu- conducted in 2000. At that time, the site was consid- menting a transfer from Jones to Martin. ered to meet eligibility requirements for inclusion In July of 1944, David B. Martin sold his improve- in the National Register under Criterion D, and Seg- ments to the land to the Roosevelt Council of the ments 18, 19, and 20 were considered the primary Boy Scouts of America. A bill of sale filed with the contributing elements to this eligibility (Herr et al. Gila County Recorder specified the transfer of: 84.75 2000). Data recovery efforts included detailed map- acres in T11N, R12E, Sec. 26; all rights to leases on ping of these segments, as well as the production of that government land from the U.S. Forest Service; an archival history of the road (Stein and Herr 2000). all water rights to a spring on the property; all build- Archival research conducted during the current ings and other improvements on the property; all testing phase attempted to associate the Pontiac contents of cabins except personal belongings; all Streamliner with a particular event. That work agricultural rights; and 1 plow, 1 harrow, 1 disc, 1 showed that Arizona’s newspapers contain an im- hay rake, and miscellaneous small farm tools. portant record of vehicular accidents and highway The 84.75-acre parcel became Unit No. 1 of the safety information about Forest Highway 11. Addi- Roosevelt Council’s R Bar C Ranch. Founded in 1945, tional archival work at this site will focus on collect- the R Bar C was envisioned as a working ranching ing accident data and consider how safety consider- to teach the principles of conservation to older Boy ations affected the design and engineering of Scouts while producing food to make Scout camps subsequent highways through this sub-Mogollon more self-sufficient. Through a land exchange in- Rim corridor. volving acreage on the Sitgreaves National Forest, the Boy Scouts of America received a patent for the parcel in 1955. The R Bar C remains in operation to- Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 day. (ASM/TNF)
This site, also recorded as AZ O:12:12 (ASU), was Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 one of four quarry sites recorded during the Arizo- (ASM/TNF) na State University (ASU) field school in 1976 (Dittert 1976). Artifacts were collected from a 4-m-diameter Forest Highway 11 was constructed by the U.S. circle for later analysis. The results of artifact analy- Bureau of Public Roads to connect Payson with the ses were not reported in the papers from the field Colcord Mountain area. The highway was surveyed school, although there may be additional informa- in 1931, and was constructed in eight segments be- tion at the ASU repository (Dittert 1976:21; Smith tween 1933 and 1953, with construction slowing 1976). during World War II, between 1940 and 1945. For- The Transfer Station site is on a ridgetop that was est Highway 11 generally followed the corridor of modified for use as a trash transfer facility, which is the earlier wagon road, AZ O:15:113/AR-03-12-04- now closed (Figure 3.6). Lovegrass is the dominant 652 (ASM/TNF), but methods such as cutting and vegetation, but the site is more generally situated filling allowed the engineers to straighten out many 5,560 ft above sea level in an environment of alliga- of the meanders of the earlier road. The highway tor juniper, catclaw acacia, ponderosa pine, and remained in use until between 1961 and 1963, when Gambel’s oak. Highway 160 (later renamed SR 260), the first as- Artifacts were collected from the site surface in phalt highway through the region, was constructed three measured units (Table 3.5). Because the over- (Herr et al. 2000). The Doubtful Canyon section was all artifact quantity was low, the remaining artifacts 36 Chapter 3
Figure 3.5. Plan view of Forest Highway 11, Doubtful Canyon segments, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF). Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 37
Figure 3.6. Plan view of Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF). 38 Chapter 3
Table 3.5. Description of surface collection units at The ridgetop is covered with chert nodules and Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/ limestone, and the site has no potential for depth. TNF). The highest artifact density artifact scatter appears to be outside the right-of-way. Within the right-of- Unit Area (m2) Flaked Stone Density way, artifacts were collected from three units, in 101 25 18 0.72 which artifact density ranged from 0.52 to 1.00 arti- 2 102 25 18 0.72 fact per m (Table 3.6). The remaining artifacts were 103 25 5 0.20 then collected from the site surface. In all, 97 pieces of flaked stone were collected within the project area. The dates and cultural affiliation of Dittert’s were then collected from the remainder of the 1,398 Quarry currently remain unknown, although arti- m2 site. Artifact density ranged from 0.20 to 0.72 ar- fact analyses may help refine these interpretations. tifacts per m2. A total of 74 pieces of flaked stone was recovered from the site surface. With only limited exposures of bedrock on the Morgan Site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 site surface, the site appeared to have some poten- (ASM/TNF) tial for depth. Four north-south trenches were exca- vated totaling 65.9 m. No features were identified The PMDR survey of the Doubtful Canyon sec- in the trench profiles. tion of SR 260 did not identify O:12:117/04-1402 as The trenches showed that the upper 20 cm of the a site. Instead, they recorded Features 1 and 2 as Iso- site had been disturbed by heavy machinery. The lated Occurrences (IO) 5 and 3, respectively. When transfer station began operation in 1974 (Sullivan the Lion Analysis Area project recorded the area in and Griffith 2005:13), and the trash on the surface of 2000, these isolated occurrences were consolidated the site and in trenches includes a variety of late his- into a site, and additional trash concentrations were toric and modern trash and construction debris. The identified. Researchers raised the possibility that the only historic collection made from the site during trash features were not individual dumps, but rath- the current project was a license plate. Earth from er, that the area had functioned as a camp used dur- leveling was bermed along the northern portion of ing construction of Forest Highway 11 or State High- the site. The site surface was further disturbed by way 160, and that it was inhabited between 1903 and decomposing granite laid over the area as part of 1945 (Courtright et al. 2000:35). There is also a very the closing of the Transfer Station. light scatter of flaked stone of unknown date across The dates and cultural affiliation of this site cur- the site. rently remain unknown, although artifact analyses This multicomponent site is situated on a chert may help refine these interpretations. and limestone ridgetop 5,480 ft (1,670 m) above sea level above an unnamed tributary to Tonto Creek. The 4,191 m2 site is situated in an environment of Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 ponderosa pine, catclaw acacia, and manzanita. A (ASM/TNF) two-track dirt road follows the ridgeline, and the site is covered in cut timber from past fuel wood Dittert’s Quarry, also known as AZ O:12:14 sale projects in 1955, 1959, 1960, or 1961 (Courtright (ASU), was first recorded by the ASU field school in et al. 2000:35). 1976 (Dittert 1976). It is one of a series of four quar- Testing phase work at the Morgan site included ry sites recorded during that summer, the Transfer both fieldwork and archival research. The Lion Anal- Station site being one of the others. As at the Trans- ysis survey boundaries were evaluated and main- fer Station site, artifacts were collected from a 4-m- tained. The site boundary encloses a series of isolat- diameter circle for later analysis. The results of the ed features that may or may not be related. The artifact analyses were not reported in the papers distribution of historic features (Figure 3.8), more from the field school, although there may be addi- than the artifact distribution itself, shapes the site tional information at the ASU repository (Dittert boundaries. A generalized surface collection of the 1976:21; Smith 1976). few prehistoric artifacts was made, but artifacts were Dittert’s Quarry is a 2,320 m2 lithic scatter locat- not sufficiently concentrated to warrant the use of ed on a colluvial ridgetop 5,580 ft (1,701 m) above collection units, as a total of only 10 pieces of flaked sea level (Figure 3.7). Artifacts were visible in the stone were collected. Investigations then focused on clearings between thickets of manzanita and catclaw the variety of historic features at the site. Six fea- acacia, alligator juniper, oak, ponderosa pine, and tures, visible on the site surface, were defined, in- agave. cluding four historic trash concentrations, a pile of Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 39
Figure 3.7. Plan view of Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF). 40 Chapter 3
Table 3.6. Description of surface collection units at 1929 Arizona license plate, which might provide the Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/ date post quem for the site. TNF). Feature 6 was a small alignment of eight or nine heavily lichened sandstone rocks paralleling the Unit Area (m2) Flaked Stone Density alignment of the two-track road. The dates of this 101 25 13 0.52 feature are unknown. 102 25 10 0.40 Recorded as a disturbance to the site by the sur- 103 25 25 1.00 vey (Courtright et al. 2000:35), the overlay of felled, limbed, and bucked timber, cut into 5-foot lengths, on and near the site, may be relevant to the inter- rock and concrete, and a rock alignment of unknown pretation of the historic trash in this area. age (Table 3.7). One-m by two-m control units were excavated Archival Research into the two largest historic trash concentrations, Features 1 and 2. Then, diagnostic artifacts on the The archival information did not provide infor- site surface were collected from all four trash con- mation to associate the trash scatters at this site with centrations, Features 1, 2, 4, and 5. a particular event or person.
Feature Descriptions Discussion
Six surface features were identified at the Mor- Fieldwork and archival research at the Morgan gan site (see Table 3.7). Four features were trash con- site attempted to answer the questions posed by the centrations that differed in artifact type, density, and survey data about whether this site was the result diversity. Although artifacts have not yet been ana- of multiple episodes of wildcat dumping of domes- lyzed, a preliminary characterization suggests Fea- tic trash, or if it was the result of in situ use of the tures 1 and 2 were the densest and most diverse. area. If the area is a camp, Courtright et al. (2000:35) The location of trash Features 1, 4, and 5 was thought raise the question that the camp is associated with to be related to the proximity of either Forest High- the construction of Forest Highway 11 or State High- way 11, immediately north of the site, or the two- way 160. Alternately, a camp may be associated with track road through the site. Feature 2 may be the the timbering activity. The answer may differ for remains of a camp. Features 1 and 5 may have been different features on the site. created by single dumping episodes; Features 3 and To answer this question, the collected artifacts 4 may have been created by multiple dumping from the four trash features needed to be analyzed events. In all four features, the size of the cans and and characterized by date, function, and possible as- bottles suggested domestic rather than an institu- sociations. To be associated with construction of For- tional scale of consumption. Larger items found in est Highway 11, artifact inventories would need to proximity to Feature 2 included a modified wash be consistent with a 1933 to 1934 time frame (Stein tub, a stove pipe, and lids to large gas canisters. and Herr 2000). If the artifacts were associated with Additionally, a couple of cans were modified to serve the construction of State Highway 160, they would some function other their original design. need to date to 1962. Artifacts associated with any Feature 3 was a compact pile of cobbles, concrete, of the fuel sales would need to be consistent with and cobbles encased in concrete located at the base the dates of the fuel sales in 1955, 1959, 1960, and of a tree. This feature appeared to be the remains of 1961 (Courtright et al. 2000). Additionally, the re- a small demolished construction. On this pile was a mains of construction material in Feature 3 should
Table 3.7. Description of features at Morgan site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF).
Feature Feature Type Dimensions (m) Depth or Height Relative to mgs (m) Excavated? 1 Historic trash concentration 5.12 by 3.30 0.05 deep Yes 2 Historic trash concentration 10.00 by 9.50 0.09 deep Yes 3 Rock concentration 2.60 by 1.80 From modern ground surface to approximately No 0.40 m high 4 Historic trash concentration 15.00 by 1.50 Modern ground surface No 5 Historic trash concentration 3.00 by 3.00 Modern ground surface No 6 Rock concentration 1.83 by 0.41 From modern ground surface to approximately No 0.15 m high
Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 41
Figure 3.8. Plan view of Morgan site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF). 42 Chapter 3
be evaluated to determine if they are part of a de- for subsurface deposits and the need for backhoe molished, in situ feature, or if they are the remains trenching in the northern scatter, a single 1-m by 2- of a dumping event. m control unit was excavated. Deposits were 16 cm deep, so no further work was conducted in that area. Two features were identified at Tontozona Ta- Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04- rantula (Table 3.9). Both Feature 1, a roasting pit, 1471 (ASM/TNF) and Feature 2, a historic trash concentration, are lo- cated outside the right-of-way. However, improve- Tontozona Tarantula is a multicomponent site ments to drainage features along the new alignment with three prehistoric artifact scatters, an early his- will channel additional water down the tributary toric/Apache component, and a late historic compo- that is currently eroding Feature 1; therefore, this nent. The cultural affilation and dates of the artifact feature is within the project area of potential effects. scatter remain unknown. The Apache component is During the testing phase, both features were mapped likely to date between 1650 and 1875, and the sur- and measured, but no excavations were conducted. vey of the site estimated the historic component dat- ed between 1915 and 1962 (Courtright et al. 2000:18). Feature Descriptions The site was first recorded by PMDR (Weaver 1998:56) as a large roasting pit. The Lion Analysis Feature 1 is a large roasting pit whose western Area project returned to the area and significantly margin is being eroded by an unnamed second or- enlarged the boundaries to include three low-densi- der tributary into Little Green Valley Creek. The ty lithic scatters, the body of a dark blue 1942 Pontiac mound is created by construction of the roasting pit Streamliner (PMDR’s IO 7) (Weaver 1998:60), and a and the accumulation of fire-cracked rock and char- can dump previously identified by PMDR as IO 6. coal outside the structure. The pit remains visible. These site boundaries now enclose 7,013 m2 The surface of the pit was inspected for artifacts, al- (Courtright et al. 2000:18-20) (Figure 3.9). Portions though none were identified. However, the size and of the Forest Highway 11 and the wagon road cut construction of the roasting pit are similar to Apache through the limestone in the northern portion of the roasting pits elsewhere on the forest that have been site. Several pieces of collapsed lumber from a road verified with independent dating or diagnostic arti- support structure lie parallel to the Forest Highway facts (Herr and Wood 2004). 11 alignment. The Payson to Colcord telephone line Feature 2, the historic period can dump, was lo- parallels the wagon road, and a couple of insulators cated outside the right-of-way. Archival research were noted in nearby trees. was unable to associate that feature with any known The site extends along the top of a narrow, lime- activity, people, or property in the project area. Sur- stone ridge 5,480 ft (1,670 m) above sea level. Vege- vey estimated dates of this feature in the 1950s. tation on the site includes alligator juniper, oak, pon- derosa pine, manzanita, catclaw acacia, New Mexico locust, beargrass, and agave. AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF) Testing phase investigations at Tontozona Taran- tula included both fieldwork and archival research. O:12:120/04-1860 was first recorded by PMDR The Lion Analysis area survey boundaries were as IO 4 during the survey for the Doubtful Canyon maintained. That project had also identified all fea- section of the SR 260 – Payson to Heber project. The tures and scatters on the site; no new areas were description of the isolated occurrence met the TNF identified. Testing phase fieldwork focused on eval- and ASM standards for the size and diversity of sites; uating the research potential of those areas. thus, the current project assigned both site numbers. Artifacts were collected from two of the three The site is 340 m2 situated on a hill slope 5,520 ft low-density lithic scatters defined by Courtright et (1,682 m) above sea level near Segment 17B of Forest al. (2000) (Table 3.8). Artifact density ranged from 2 0.20 to 0.52 artifacts per m in the two units, Units Table 3.8. Description of surface collection units at 100 and 102, in the northern scatter. Artifact density Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 measured measured 0.28 in the single unit placed (ASM/ TNF). in the southwestern scatter, Unit 103. This area was located on a hilltop and slope with no potential for Unit Area (m2) Flaked Stone Density depth. The densest accumulation of artifacts at the 100 25 13 0.52 site appeared to be south of the roasting pit, but the area was located outside the project right-of-way, 102 25 5 0.20 and thus, was not sampled. To assess the potential 103 25 7 0.28
Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 43
Figure 3.9. Plan of Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF). 44 Chapter 3
Table 3.9. Description of feature units at Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF).
Feature Feature Type Dimensions (m) Depth (below mgs) Excavated? 1 Early historic roasting pit 11.65 by 10.95 1.32 m high No 2 Historic trash concentration 4.30 by 4.00 Unknown No
Highway 11 (Weaver 1998:3). Vegetation around the 1998:60). The description of the isolated occurrence site included alligator juniper, oak, manzanita, and met the TNF and ASM standards for the size and agave. diversity of sites; therefore, the current project as- The only feature at the site is Feature 1, a trash signed both site numbers. The smell of a skunk was concentration that measures 13.6 m by 10.0 m, and pervasive during fieldwork and is the basis for the is approximately 3 cm deep (Figure 3.10). The fea- site name. ture dimensions include some dispersal of the trash Little Stinker is a 172 m2 historic can dump situ- as it begins to move downhill from its original dump- ated on a hillslope 5,600 ft (1,707 m) above sea level ing/collection spot. The trash concentration was in an environment of manzanita, oak, alligator juni- sampled with a 1-m by 2-m control unit. Because per, and pine. The primary can dump was under a the right-of-way divided the site, the unit was nec- manzanita patch. The entire site was considered Fea- essarily placed near the edge of the feature and not ture 1, a trash concentration (Figure 3.11). The fea- in the area of greatest artifact density. After excava- ture was sampled with a 1-m by 2-m control unit, tions were complete, diagnostic artifacts not found which showed its depth to range between 2 cm and in the test unit were collected from the site surface. 7 cm below the modern ground surface. Then, diag- Collected artifacts included soda and beer cans, other nostic artifacts not found in the test unit were col- food cans, decorated china, cobalt, green and brown lected from the site surface. glass, a fuel container, and a battery. The formal ar- The field notes generally describe the collections. tifact analysis has not yet begun. That work will help Metal artifacts on site included hole-in-top milk, assess the activities represented, as well as the ori- meat, juice, soda, other beverage and kerosene cans, gins and dates of the deposit. and a lard bucket modified by holes punched in the The archival resources could not associate bottom. Glass included a brown Clorox bottle, jars O:12:120/04-1860 with any known activity, people, for canning, and green glass plates. Other materials or property. The site appears to represent dumping included white ceramic plate fragments, a light bulb by unknown persons. Weaver (1998:59) estimates fragment, a shoe, and pieces of green plastic. Anal- site dates in the 1940s to 1950s. ysis has not yet begun, but is expected to help as- sess the activities represented, as well as the origins and dates of the deposit. Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 As at O:12:120/04-1860, the archival resources (ASM/TNF) did not help associate the Little Stinker site with any known activity, people, or property. This site also This site was first recorded by PMDR as IO 9 dur- appears to represent dumping by unknown persons. ing the survey for the Doubtful Canyon section of Weaver (1998:60) estimated dates for this concen- the SR 260 – Payson to Heber project (Weaver tration between 1938 and 1945. Methods and Results of the Testing Phase 45
Figure 3.10. Plan view of AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF). 46 Chapter 3
Figure 3.11. Plan view of Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF). REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Bettie Lou Kohl Herr, Sarah A., and J. Scott Wood 2004 Kohl’s Ranch Story. Revised ed. Cox Print- 2004 Apache Archaeology in Central Arizona: The ing, Mesa, Arizona. Origins of the ‘Leave No Trace’ Camping Move- ment? Paper presented at the Arizona Ar- Bell, Katie chaeological Council Conference: Faint 1985 The Legend of Kohl’s Ranch. Central Arizona Traces of Past Places: The Archaeology of Publishing Company, Payson, Arizona. High Mobility Groups in Arizona, A.D. 1300-1750, 22-23 October. Tucson. Branstetter, Myrtle 1976 Pioneer Hunters of the Rim. Norm’s Publish- Herr, Sarah A., J. Homer Thiel, and Pat H. Stein ing House, Mesa, Arizona. 2000 S.R. 260–Payson to Heber Archaeological Proj- ect: Results of Archaeological Testing and a Plan Courtright, J. Scott, Esther Morgan, and Denise Ryan for Data Recovery in the Preacher Canyon Seg- 2000 An Archaeological Survey of the Lion Anal- ment and Sharp Creek Campground. Techni- ysis Area, Payson Ranger District, Tonto cal Report No. 2000-03. Desert Archaeolo- National Forest. Ms. on file, Payson Rang- gy, Inc., Tucson. er Station, Payson, Arizona. Lindauer, Owen, Ronna J. Bradley, and Charles L. Dittert, Alfred E. Redman (editors) 1975 An Inventory of Cultural Resources on 1991 The Archaeology of Star Valley, Arizona: Vari- Lands Adjacent to Camp Tontozona, Ari- ation in Small Communities. Anthropologi- zona. Ms. on file, Tonto National Forest cal Field Studies No. 24. Office of Cultural Supervisor’s Office, Phoenix. Resource Management, Department of An- thropology, Arizona State University, 1976 The 1976 Season: Archaeological Studies in Tempe. the Payson Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, Arizona. Ms. on file, Tonto Nation- Northern Gila County Historical Society (compiler) al Forest Supervisors Office, Phoenix. 1984 Rim Country History. Rim Country Printery, Payson, Arizona. Ehrhardt, Tim 2008 Zane Grey’s Forgotten Ranch: Tales from the Smith, Laurie D. Boles Homestead. Git A Rope! Publishing, 1976 A Preliminary Report on the Economic Uti- Inc., Payson. lization of the Tontozona Area, Central Arizona.(Student paper of the Arizona State Gillette, Frank V. University Field School). Ms. on file, Tonto 1984 Pleasant Valley. Privately published by the National Forest Supervisor s Office, Phoe- author. nix.
GPI Environmental, Inc. Spalding, Nathanael E. 1993 Cultural Resources Report SR 260 Payson- 1995 An Archaeological Survey of Several Portions Heber Highway Milepost 251.94 to Milepost and Parcels of Proposed State Route 260 303.74, Gila, Coconino, and Navajo Counties, Realignment ROW, from MP 256.2-277.2, East Arizona. GPI Environmental, Inc., Phoenix. of Payson, Gila County, Arizona. Plateau Mountain Desert Research, Flagstaff, Herr, Sarah A. Arizona. 2000 Programmatic Testing Plan for the S.R. 260– Payson to Heber Archaeological Project. Tech- nical Report 2000-06. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson. 48 Chapter 2
Stein, Pat H., and Sarah A. Herr Weaver, Donald E., Jr. 2000 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Data 1998 An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of State Recovery on Segment 12A of AZ O:12:33/ Route 260 Right-of-Way and Proposed Right- 04-878 (ASM/TNF): Addendum to the Pre- of-Way, Doubtful Canyon, Milepost 269.0 to liminary Report of Archaeological Data 272.5, Northeast of Payson, Gila County, Ari- Recovery in the Preacher Canyon Section zona. Plateau Mountain Desert Research, and Sharp Creek Campground, State Route Flagstaff, Arizona. 260–Payson to Heber Archaeological Proj- ect, Gila County, Arizona. Project Report Zachariae, Barbara No. 00-129 (Addendum). Desert Archaeol- 1991 Pleasant Valley Days: A History of the People ogy, Inc., Tucson. of Pleasant Valley. Pleasant Valley Histori- cal Society, Young, Arizona. Sullivan, Michael, and Carol Griffith 2005 Down in the Dumps: Context Statement and Guidance on Historical-Period Waste Man- agement and Refuse Deposits. Contributions from the SHPO Advisory Committee on Historical Archaeology State Historic Pres- ervation Office, Arizona State Parks.
This chapter provides recommendations based O:12:34/AR-03-12-04-1312 (ASM/TNF), have been on the results of the survey and the testing phase previously evaluated. excavations. Of the nine sites tested for National Register eli- gibility, seven meet the eligibility requirements un- der Criterion D. For the three sites that retained re- NATIONAL REGISTER OF search potential after the testing phase, specific HISTORIC PLACES methods for data recovery are discussed in Chapter 5 (this volume). One site requires additional testing The National Register of Historic Places (Nation- before an eligibility assessment can be made. The al Register) is the nation’s inventory of historic sites. recommendations presented in this chapter are sum- It was established after passage of the National His- marized in Table 4.2. toric Preservation Act of 1966 to promote preserva- tion and study of historic resources. Most projects involving federal agencies, federal land, or federal AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/TNF) funds require evaluation and mitigation of their impacts on properties eligible for inclusion in the This pithouse settlement and flaked stone scat- National Register (National Park Service 1991). ter meet the eligibility requirements of the National For a property to be listed on the National Reg- Register for consideration under Criterion D. The ister, it must meet integrity requirements and at least low proportion of ceramics at O:12:21/04-1161 and one of four significance criteria. These criteria are the profile of pithouse Feature 1 suggest the domi- summarized in Table 4.1. Except in special circum- nant occupation at the site may have been during stances, properties must be at least 50 years old to the Early Agricultural period, although analysis of be considered for inclusion in the National Regis- artifacts and radiocarbon dating of carbonized an- ter. nuals are necessary to confirm that assessment. If O:12:21/04-1161 dates to the Early Agricultural pe- riod, this would be one of the largest early sites in TESTING PHASE SIGNIFICANCE the SR 260 project area. As such, the site will con- ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS tribute substantial information about settlement and subsistence practices in this period. The presence of Twelve sites with aceramic, ceramic, protohis- ceramics suggests a small, later occupation may also toric, and historic components will be impacted by be present, although this has not yet been located. the State Route 260 (SR 260) road construction in Later features and artifacts will provide information the Doubtful Canyon section. Nine sites needed to about limited-activity sites, short-term settlements, be tested for eligibility: Transfer Station, AZ and potentially about patterns of site reuse, in this O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 (ASM/TNF); Dittert’s region where multicomponent sites are extremely Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 (ASM/TNF); common. Sheep site, AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 (ASM/ Data recovery is recommended. Trees will be TNF); Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 removed from the site surface, and the northern side (ASM/TNF); AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 (ASM/ of the highway will be mechanically stripped around TNF); Morgan site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 the concentration of features in Trenches 2 and 3. (ASM/TNF); Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/ From the surface, the site south of SR 260 appears to AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF); AZ O:12:120/AR- be largely bedrock, but exploratory trenching may 03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF); and Little Stinker, AZ be conducted in pockets between outcrops, and any O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 (ASM/TNF). The linear features revealed will be investigated. historic sites, a wagon road, AZ O:15:113/AR-03- A significant portion of the site was removed by 12-04-652 (ASM/TNF), Forest Highway 11, AZ the original construction of SR 260; thus, it is esti- O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/TNF), and the mated that up to 30 percent of the original site area Payson to Colcord Mountain telephone line, AZ with potential for subsurface features remains. All 50 Chapter 4
Table 4.1. National Register eligibility criteria (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60).
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. the features found during the testing phase and by rugged than the portion of the project area to the mechanical stripping during data recovery will be east. A dense artifact scatter in Locus B suggests a recorded and sampled or fully excavated. pithouse-period occupation, although the doghair forest in the area has made this difficult to discover. Four masonry features in Locus A are the remains Sheep Site, AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 of a prehistoric occupation that probably dates be- (ASM/TNF) tween A.D. 1050 and 1300, and a historic corral is a small remnant of homesteading and Boy Scout ac- The Sheep site is a concentration of six pieces of tivities in this area from the 1930s to the 1950s. Ap- ground stone and four pieces of flaked stone in a proximately 60 percent of the site is within the proj- small clearing on a bedrock hillslope. The dates and ect right-of-way. Testing phase investigations show cultural affiliation of the site remain unknown, but that the site retains the significance and integrity the site is intact and meets eligibility requirements required for inclusion in the National Register un- for consideration for the National Register under der Criterion D. Data recovery investigations are Criterion D. Further interpretation of the site activ- recommended. ities, intensity of use, and possibly some general The site includes three prehistoric artifact scat- dates of occupation will come from analysis of the ters identified as Loci A, B, and C (see Figure 3.4), collections. and six features, four of which are in the right-of- During analysis, two interpretations will be con- way. The prehistoric component in Locus A includes sidered. If the ground stone assemblage appears to two masonry structures, two wall alignments, and be in situ, the site will be considered for its ability to an associated artifact scatter. This portion of the site help understand food procurement and processing has the potential to answer research questions about behaviors in the sub-Mogollon Rim region during settlement and subsistence patterns in the region prehistory. If the assemblage appears technologically between A.D. 1050 and 1300. Research questions in- or temporally eclectic, the concentration of ground clude whether the settlement was occupied season- stone may be explained as Apache reuse of prehis- ally or year-round, the contemporaneity of structures, toric artifacts. the patterns of local and regional mobility if the res- All artifacts were collected during testing, and idents occupied the site during only a portion of the the site has no potential for subsurface features. year, and how the settlement fits into the pattern of Therefore, testing phase investigations have exhaust- masonry structures found in the eastern portion of ed the research potential of the site. No further field- the SR 260 project area, at sites in the Christopher work is recommended. Creek segment, and in Sharp Creek Campground (Adams et al. 2006). Data recovery investigations of the portion of this locus within the right-of-way will Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 focus on complete excavation of the two structures (ASM/TNF) within the right-of-way, Features 1 and 9, as well as the extramural surface in front of them. The boundaries of Flipping Bear enclose a series The artifact scatter in Locus B was sufficiently of prehistoric and historic occupations in three loci, dense to suggest that subsurface features are likely; located on the lower slopes of Promontory Butte however, trenching during testing was limited by where the contours of the landscape become less accessibility in the dense forest. Structures were not Assessment of Site Eligibility and Recommendations for Testing and Data Recovery 51 Data Recovery Recommendation No further work further Recommended No Recommended a a a Eligibility Recommendation te Route 260 project. project. Route 260 te Location Relative to Right-of-way Status tter tter in Partially Tested Ineligible work No further ash scatter scatter ash In Tested Ineligible work No further Multicomponent site Multicomponent in Partially Tested Eligible es recommendations, based on testing phase work. work. phase testing on based es recommendations, Historic road Partially in in 2000 Fieldwork conducted Eligible Recommended Summary of National Register of Historic Plac Historic of Register of National Summary Some eligible portions of the site are located outside the right-of-way and will not be subject to data recovery during the Sta to subject be not outside the right-of-way and will are locatedof the site Some eligible portions Table 4.2. Table ASM/TNF Site Number O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 AZ O:12:27/AR-03-12-04-745 AZ – O:12:28/AR-03-12-04-746 AZ Site Name site Sheep Bear Flipping Site Description scatter Lithic settlement Pithouse a In In Tested Tested Eligible Eligible Recommended work No further AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 AZ /AR-03-12-04-265 O:12:115 AZ Forest Highway 11 O:12:116 /AR-03-12-04-267 AZ Station Transfer O:12:117 /AR-03-12-04-1402 AZ Quarry Dittert's O:12:119 /AR-03-12-04-1471 AZ site Morgan O:12:120 /AR-03-12-04-1860 AZ Tarantula Tontozona scatter Lithic O:12:121 /AR-03-12-04-1861 AZ – scatter Lithic site Multicomponent Stinker Little in Partially scatters trash Historic In In in Partially Tested tr Historic Tested sca trash Historic Tested Tested Eligible Eligible Eligible eligible Potentially testing Additional work No further 52 Chapter 4 found, although a single pit and oxidation in the segments 18, 19, and 20 in the Doubtful Canyon seg- trenches were recorded. Research question in this ment are contributing elements to the eligibility of locus are similar to those in Locus A, and include the highway. These three segments are well pre- questions of subsistence and settlement activities, served and demonstrate considerable engineering the duration of occupation, and how the site fits into for the time period, as the road navigated the rug- broader regional settlement patterns during the ce- ged ridge and canyon terrain in this portion of the ramic period. After trees are thinned, additional corridor (Herr et al. 2000:42-50, 54-58). The archaeo- trenching and mechanical stripping will be conduct- logical survey and mapping of these road segments ed in this area, and a 75-100 percent sample of all was conducted in 2000 (Stein and Herr 2000), and features identified will be excavated. no further field work is recommended. Most of the fieldwork needed to record the his- The rolled 1942 Pontiac Streamliner, found with- toric component of the site was completed during in the boundaries of Tontozona Tarantula, highlights testing. Additional fieldwork will focus on indepen- the need for additional archival research. Vehicular dently dating the structure to better evaluate the accidents, particularly those resulting in death or in- alternatives suggested by the archival research. As jury, were routinely reported in the Arizona Republic the structure is anchored with living trees and is and other newspapers around the state. In attempt- constructed of a variety of wood supports, data re- ing to associate the Pontiac with a specific event, it covery efforts will include an assessment of the struc- has become apparent that the Doubtful Canyon sec- ture by dendrochronologists from the University of tion of Forest Highway 11 was a particularly trou- Arizona’s Laboratory of Tree-ring research. blesome section of the transportation corridor. Archival work during the testing phase identi- Whether or not the specific accident represented fied questions about the associations of the corral by the Pontiac Streamliner can be identified, the con- with homesteaders and the R Bar C Boy Scout ranch. textual information compiled while trying to learn Thus, much of the data recovery effort for this com- about this event will make a significant contribu- ponent will rely on archival sources to answer ques- tion to the overall study of SR 260 and its predeces- tions such as: Who was “Old Jones?” How did the sor routes. Historic accident data for the Payson- Martins acquire Jones’ holdings? How did Jones and Heber transportation corridor may help explain why the Martins support themselves? Did either party and how Forest Highway 11, State Highway 160, ever attempt to patent the land? What was the out- and finally, SR 260 changed through time. There- come of such an attempt, and why? Who built the fore, we recommend that archival investigations corral at Flipping Bear, and when did that occur? continue as part of the data recovery effort in the What role did the corral play in ranching operations Doubtful Canyon section. on the Christopher Mountain Allotment? Why is Dave Martin’s name conspicuously absent from for- est grazing records? Did the Boy Scouts use the cor- Transfer Station, AZ O:12:115/AR-03-12-04-265 ral? What ranching and farming activities were con- (ASM/TNF) ducted on Unit 1 of the R Bar C? Answers to these questions will help clarify the Although disturbed, this lithic scatter meets eli- historic site component currently under consider- gibility requirements of the National Register for ation, and have the potential to help understand the consideration under Criterion D. growth, maturity, and regional influence of the Boy The lithic scatter was light, with 73 pieces of Scout organization, previously documented at Camp flaked stone and a single bifacial tool collected from Geronimo, AZ O:12:75/AR-03-12-04-1417 (ASM/ the entire site surface. Trenching showed that the TNF) (Herr and Stein 2002), as well as the relation- site was situated on a bedrock hilltop and that the ship of this institution to local communities. upper 20 cm of the site were disturbed by late his- toric and modern use of the area as a trash transfer station. No subsurface features were discovered, and Forest Highway 11, AZ O:12:33/04-878 none are likely in this substrate. Although the sur- (ASM/TNF) face artifacts have been moved, the site retains suf- ficient integrity to say that the flaked stone artifacts As described in Chapter 3 (this volume), Forest are associated with this particular place on the land- Highway 11 is a historic road, whose main period scape. As such, the site has the potential to provide of use was between 1933 and 1963. The road meets information about patterns of flaked stone procure- the eligibility standards for inclusion in the Nation- ment and manufacturing practices in this chert-rich al Register under Criterion D (Herr et al. 2000). The portion of the sub-Mogollon Rim region. integrity of the highway was compromised by re- Testing phase investigations have expended the construction of State Highway 160 and SR 260, but research potential of the site, and no further work is Assessment of Site Eligibility and Recommendations for Testing and Data Recovery 53 recommended. Analysis of collected artifacts will a separate dumping event and is well removed from provide additional information about site activities the original activity locus; or (2) the trash concen- and, possibly, provide a technological assessment tration designated as Feature 2 is the trash from a of the dates of occupation. logging camp. Possible support for the second al- ternative comes from the large number of cut trees overlaying the site. Records indicate that fuel wood Dittert’s Quarry, AZ O:12:116/AR-03-12-04-267 sales were conducted in this area in 1955, 1959, 1960, (ASM/TNF) and 1961 (Courtright et al. 2000:35). Fieldwork will be used to evaluate these alter- Dittert’s Quarry is a flaked stone scatter on a chert natives. One of the two rock piles at the site repre- and limestone ridgetop. Testing phase work was sents the demolished remains of a rock and cement confined to that portion of the site within the proj- construction. During additional testing, this pile will ect right-of-way. Artifact density increases outside be dismantled to look for imprints in the cement, or the project area. The site retains its integrity inside whether a foundation of, for example, a small hearth, and outside the right-of-way; thus, Dittert’s Quarry exists below. This might help identify feature type, meets the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Na- and whether the debris is in situ, or if it was removed tional Register under Criterion D. The site has the from its original location. Additionally, some of the potential to answer research questions about flaked cut ponderosa will be submitted as samples for den- stone manufacturing practices in the sub-Mogollon drochronological analysis to determine if the cutting Rim region. activity and trash deposition occurred during the Site dates and affiliation are currently unknown. same time. The artifact analysis will provide additional infor- mation about site activities, and will help determine if this scatter is a quarry or if other activities were Tontozona Tarantula, AZ O:12:119/AR-03-12-04- also conducted here. Much of the assemblages was 1471 (ASM/TNF) debitage, but the flaked stone tools noted on the site may be used to refine site dating. Tontozona Tarantula is a multicomponent site During testing, all artifacts in the right-of-way with three artifact loci and two features. were collected, and the site has no potential for sub- The two artifact scatters within the right-of-way surface features. These investigations have expend- are low-density flaked stone scatters, which are ei- ed the research potential of the site, and no further ther prehistoric or early historic and are of unknown fieldwork is recommended. cultural affiliation. Artifact analysis may help to re- fine this assessment. The artifact scatter south of the roasting pit appears to be a higher density scatter Morgan Site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 with ceramics. All artifact scatters are intact and meet (ASM/TNF) eligibility requirements for inclusion in the Nation- al Register under Criterion D. When considered to- The boundaries of the Morgan site enclose six his- gether with similar sites in the Doubtful Canyon toric features overlaying a very low-density flaked section, such as Dittert’s Quarry and the Transfer stone scatter. Dates for the site have been estimated Station, as well as those identified throughout the between 1903 and the early 1960s (Courtright et al. region, the lithic scatters inside the right-of-way have 2000:35). Six features were identified at the site, but the potential to provide information about short- the four trash concentrations, the rock pile, and the term resource procurement and flaked stone produc- rock alignment may be the remains of six unrelated tion technology. Testing phase investigations collect- activities. The question of whether any of the fea- ed all visible artifacts within the project right-of-way. tures at the Morgan site can be associated with any As such, the research potential of the site is exhaust- particular person or event remains unresolved after ed, and no further work is required. initial fieldwork. Unfortunately, archival research The ceramic and flaked stone scatter outside the was not productive either. As such, the testing phase right-of-way may be associated with more substan- methods used to assess the eligibility of the Morgan tial use of this area. This area has not been investi- site were not sufficient to make a determination. gated, and if it will be impacted by future develop- Additional testing is proposed before evaluating the ment, data recovery investigations will be required. eligibility of this site for inclusion in the National On the surface, Feature 1 has all the characteris- Register. tics of an Apache roasting pit. It is a contributing Two general hypotheses have been proposed to element to the eligibility of the site, and data recov- explain the artifacts and features within the site ery excavations are recommended. Archaeological boundaries: (1) each set of historic trash or debris is and ethnographic work on the SR 260 project has 54 Chapter 4 refined current understanding of Apache settlement potential (Sullivan and Griffith 2005:16), and thus, and subsistence practices in the sub-Mogollon Rim this site does not meet the eligibility requirements region. This roasting pit will provide information for inclusion in the National Register. about the places and methods used for food process- ing. Despite ethnographic analogs, agave fragments have not been found in Apache features on the SR Little Stinker, AZ O:12:121/AR-03-12-04-1861 260 project, so sampling methods will include flota- (ASM/TNF) tion, phytolith analysis, and Fourier Transform In- frared Spectroscopy (Paleoresearch Institute 2007) Little Stinker is a concentration of historic trash to determine what was cooked in the pit ovens. estimated to date between A.D. 1938 and 1945 The most recent component of Tontozona Taran- (Weaver 1998:60). Artifact analysis will allow eval- tula is Feature 2, a historic can dump. The survey uation and possible refinement of these dates. The data suggest this feature dates between A.D. 1915 archival research was unable to associate this trash and 1962. Archival research was unable to associate concentration with any particular place or person; this scatter with any particular place or person, and without such an association, the scatter lacks re- without such an association, the scatter lacks re- search potential (Sullivan and Griffith 2005:16). search potential (Sullivan and Griffith 2005:16). Fea- Thus, this site does not meet the eligibility require- ture 2 is not considered a contributing element to ments for inclusion in the National Register. the eligibility requirements for the National Regis- ter, and no further work will be needed in this area. However, it currently also lies outside the right-of- DISCUSSION way. The Doubtful Canyon segment of SR 260 begins along the banks of Tonto Creek near Kohls Ranch AZ O:12:120/AR-03-12-04-1860 (ASM/TNF) and Camp Tontozona and climbs steadily in eleva- tion until it ends near Christopher Creek. This por- O:12:120/04-1860 is a concentration of historic tion of the highway, between mileposts 269 and trash located close to Forest Highway 11. Survey 272.5 crosses a series of steep ridges emanating from data suggest the site was used in the 1940s or 1950s. Promontory Butte. Archaeological work at the small Artifact analysis may allow these dates to be refined. and large sites in this area provides an opportunity However, archival research was unable to associate to examine the use of upland environments, a set- this scatter with any particular place or person. With- ting that, to date, has had only a limited representa- out such an association, the scatter lacks research tion in the project area. REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Jenny L., Susan Hall, and Sarah Herr Paleoresearch Institute 2006 Three-walled Masonry Structures. In Their 2007 FTIR.
CHAPTER 5 DATA RECOVERY METHODS
Data recovery is recommended for three newly structures are present in Locus A at Flipping Bear. investigated sites: AZ O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161 Pithouses are possible in Locus B at Flipping Bear. (ASM/TNF); Flipping Bear, AZ O:12:28/AR-03-12- Despite different prehistoric construction methods, 04-746 (ASM/TNF); and Tontozona Tarantula, AZ the archaeological methods are similar. O:12:119/AR-03-12-04-1471 (ASM/TNF). Forest The excavation strategy for structures is guided Highway 11, AZ O:12:33/AR-03-12-04-878 (ASM/ by the contextual analysis, a key aspect of which is TNF), was previously evaluated as eligible for in- the excavation of measured “control” units from clusion in the National Register of Historic Places which all artifacts are collected. During testing, 1-m (National Register) (Herr et al. 2000); however, ad- by 2-m control units were excavated in 50 percent ditional archival research is recommended, as de- of the identified structures in the right-of-way. Con- scribed in Chapter 4 (this volume) and below. Meth- trol units are used to evaluate the productivity and ods for the additional testing needed at the Morgan integrity of structural deposits, and they guide the site, AZ O:12:117/AR-03-12-04-1402 (ASM/TNF), excavation of the remainder of the feature. If the were noted in Chapter 4. contextual analysis suggests additional screened This chapter outlines data recovery methods for samples of fill within a feature will not be analyti- these sites, as well as information about analytic cally productive, the fill may be quickly removed methods, Native American involvement, a fire pre- by hand or mechanical means, leaving only the fi- vention plan, general public programs, and a sched- nal 5-10 cm above the floor (floor fill) to be screened. ule. This ensures the floor, any floor assemblages, and the architecture are defined in the most cost-effec- tive manner. Conversely, in productive features, DATA RECOVERY METHODS additional screened units may be excavated from ground surface to floor level. For example, in pit- Excavation strategy will be guided by the con- houses that were filled with wind/water deposits textual analysis, architecture, stratigraphy, feature and sheet trash, excavation may proceed without type, and feature dating. Contextual analysis helps screening to the floor fill level. determine excavation methods by assessing the In trash-filled structures, screening of house fill likelihood that a feature contains undisturbed, tem- may be used to increase the controlled collection of porally unmixed deposits. Field strategies for data artifacts and temporally diagnostic artifacts. Con- recovery will include a combination of backhoe and trol units will be placed in those structures not sam- hand-excavation methods to recover the maximum pled during the testing phase. If additional struc- amount of data in the most efficient way. Backhoe tures are found during stripping, a 1-m by 2-m stripping will be used to expose subsurface features control unit will be excavated to evaluate the struc- in plan view and to identify features located between ture fill and the potential for unmixed deposits. backhoe trenches. Hand-excavation will be used to Thereafter, the same data recovery methods de- expose masonry structures, as well as to excavate scribed here will be applied. structures, extramural pits, work areas, trash con- In screened units and floor fill levels, the fill will centrations, and burials. A 75-100 percent sample of be sifted through ¼-inch mesh. At ceramic period structures and other non-burial features will be ex- sites, all artifacts, except plain ware body sherds cavated at O:12:21/04-1161 and Flipping Bear, and smaller than 5 cm2, will be collected. In certain cir- 100 percent of burial features will be excavated. Half cumstances to be identified by the project director of the Apache roasting pit will be excavated, and or crew chiefs, all artifacts will be collected from hand trenches will be excavated through the sur- screened contexts. For example, all artifacts will be rounding area of pit clean-out. collected from control units, Early Agricultural pe- riod features, Apache features, and from sites with low artifact recovery. At least one flotation sample Structures will be collected per stratum, per structure, and from appropriate floor features. Carbonized wood will be Structures are present at two of the three sites collected from postholes to provide information identified for data recovery investigations. Pithous- about construction materials. Composite pollen sam- es are present at O:12:21/04-1161, and masonry ples will be collected from every floor, and the car- 58 Chapter 5 bonized remains of annual plants will be collected corded, and removed in accordance with the Tonto as potential radiocarbon samples. Special care will National Forest (TNF) treatment and disposition be taken to collect all potential dendrochronological plan (Tonto National Forest 2001). The following samples. guidelines will be used throughout this project if, or when, human remains are encountered: (1) all hu- man remains and associated funerary objects inside Extramural Features the proposed area of potential effects will be exca- vated, recorded, and removed by experienced pro- Extramural features have been identified at fessional archaeologists or physical anthropologists O:12:21/AR-03-12-04-1161, Flipping Bear, and only; (2) all human remains and associated funerary Tontozona Tarantula. Numerous pits are present in objects will be treated with dignity, care, and respect the trenches at O:12:21/04-1161, a single pit was by all employees at all times; and (3) human remains identified in a trench in Locus B at Flipping Bear, will not be displayed to the general public or me- and a large roasting pit will be excavated at dia, or discussed in other than a professional set- Tontozona Tarantula. ting. Extramural areas include surfaces and the fea- Mortuary data collected from previous phases tures in those surfaces. Those portions of the site of the project indicate a wide range of burial prac- outside the structures will be explored to identify tices in the sub-Mogollon Rim region. For this rea- activity areas. These areas will also be explored to son, the following strategy will be applied to entire ensure that all burial features are located. site areas to ensure all human remains are removed To examine extramural spaces and surfaces, a prior to construction activities. Upon completion of unit will be excavated to determine the level of the data recovery, sites or site areas thought to possibly occupation surface. A combination of mechanical contain human remains will be stripped by back- means and hand-stripping will be used to carefully hoe, with an archaeological monitor present. Map- scrape these areas to identify extramural features ping and recording of newly identified non-burial and patterned distributions of artifacts. Upper fill archaeological data will also be conducted. All burial may be removed mechanically; hand-excavation will features encountered will be excavated. be used in the sediments 5-10 cm above the occupa- After burials and cremations are defined, they tion surface. In particular, the spatial transition from will be hand-excavated in a timely manner. All fill inside to outside the two-walled structures at Flip- within the burial pit will be screened through 1/8- ping Bear will be explored. inch mesh, or finer, to ensure recovery of beads and The excavation methods for each extramural fea- other small mortuary artifacts. Flotation and pollen ture will depend on the size of that particular fea- samples may be taken from the floor of burial pits ture. Extramural features larger than 2 m in diame- found on TNF land, but no samples will be taken ter will be sampled with a control unit. Smaller from body cavities. Once overlying fill has been re- features will be bisected, and half the feature will moved, the human remains and their associated be hand-excavated. Depending on productivity, the funerary objects will be exposed in situ for scientific feature may then be fully excavated with addition- recording and photography, as well as to provide al screening, or left as sample excavated. In non- the necessary information for reburial. If the expo- burial pits, the fill will be screened through ¼-inch sure and documentation of human remains cannot mesh, and the same collection strategy used for be accomplished within a single day, the remains structures will be applied to extramural features. will be reburied, or an attendant will guard them Flotation, pollen, dendrochronological, and radio- overnight. Remains will not be left exposed over a carbon samples will be judgmentally collected. Ad- weekend. ditional soil samples will be taken from the Apache All human remains will be analyzed in the Tuc- roasting pit at Tontozona Tarantula to determine if son office of Desert Archaeology, Inc., using nonde- the pit was used for cooking plants or animals. structive methods. The osteological analysis will generally focus on identifying the elements and den- tal morphology recovered from each inhumation or Human Remains cremation, aging and sexing the remains, recording relevant metric and nonmetric information, and Human remains were not identified at project noting any pathologies. Relevant metric and sites during the testing phase. However, the scale of nonmetric information will be recorded for associ- occupation at O:12:21/04-1161 (ASM/TNF) and ated funerary objects using standard methods for Flipping Bear is such that human remains are possi- artifact analyses. Human remains and funerary ob- ble at either or both sites. If burial pits or cremation jects will be illustrated. Artifact data will be curated areas are defined, they will be hand-excavated, re- with the project records. Data Recovery Methods 59
Backfilling on an assessment of all available data regarding ar- tifact density and diversity and the presence or ab- Each site will be backfilled when the field sea- sence of surface features. At sites with no obvious son is completed. Backfilling will occur after the site surface features, portions of the site may be hand- areas have been scraped for burial features. or mechanically stripped to identify artifact concen- trations or subsurface features. At sites with surface features, areas in and around the surface features DATA RECOVERY METHODS AT may be hand- stripped, while careful mechanical APACHE/YAVAPAI SITES stripping may be conducted in other areas follow- ing the methods outlined below. All features will During the survey, one Apache feature was iden- be excavated using methods outlined for prehistoric tified at Tontozona Tarantula. No additional features sites and in the project treatment plan (Herr 1999). were identified during testing, but previous work At prehistoric sites with no recorded Apache/ in the project area has identified Apache features Yavapai artifacts, the upper portions of a site will overlying earlier sites, and that remains a possibili- be carefully mechanically stripped, removing ap- ty at all sites. Because Apache/Yavapai activities proximately 2-3 cm of sediment at a time. All on- create subtle archaeological patterns, particular care site stripping is monitored by supervisory person- will be taken to identify features during data re- nel. Mechanical stripping will be halted and covery excavations. As part of the State Route 260 hand-excavation ensue upon discovery of any fea- (SR 260) project, ethnographic research with tures or unusual artifact concentrations. Apache/Yavapai consultants is being conducted to Special attention will be given to features found aid in the identification of known sites and archaeo- in the upper levels of the site, and a high priority logical remains. To increase chances of identifying will be placed on obtaining samples suitable for ra- Apache artifacts, features, and sites, the project has diocarbon dating. developed a set of guidelines, which have been pre- At a minimum, all ceramics and stone tools are sented in previous reports. These guidelines include subject to inventory level analysis by specialists, and the following. Apache/Yavapai artifacts may be identified. The Supervisors and field crew will be alerted to the spatial location of all artifacts is known, making it potential for Apache/Yavapai features and artifacts. possible for Apache/Yavapai activity areas to be This includes showing the crew site reports, maps, reconstructed if they are not identified during field- and photographs of typical feature types found in work. previous excavations, such as wickiup circles, mes- cal roasting pits, surface hearths, and activity areas. A type collection of Apache/Yavapai ceramics, Archival Research/Oral Interviews supplied by archaeologist Alan Ferg of the Arizona State Museum (ASM), is available for reference in Much of the information potential of the National the field. Supervisors and crew will examine these Register-eligible historic components at Flipping artifacts prior to beginning fieldwork. The crew will Bear and Forest Highway 11 will come from archi- be alerted to the possibility of other Apache/Yava- val research and oral interviews. TNF district and pai artifact types and features, such as unusual ac- regional office files were consulted during testing, cumulations of early projectile points or a particu- and, as described in Chapter 4, targeted questions lar type of collared hearth. have been identified for the data recovery phase in- Following sample surface collection using meth- vestigations of Flipping Bear. Oral interviews will ods outlined in the project treatment plan (Herr be sought with Nellie Gene Connolly and/or Archie 1999), all artifacts will be examined in the field by a Bell Martin, the children of Dave B. Martin; the trained supervisor to identify Apache/Yavapai ce- rancher-squatter on the land that later became the ramics and other artifacts. If Apache/Yavapai arti- R Bar C; Woody Cline, the current permittee for the facts are noted, an intensive search of the site sur- Christopher Mountain Allotment (in which site 746 face will be conducted, with all identified Apache/ is located); and Rob Ingram, range staff on the Yavapai artifacts point provenienced. Payson Ranger District. Archival records from Desert Archaeology’s laboratory personnel have ancestry.com, mesarfhc.org, and newspaperar- been trained to identify Apache/Yavapai ceramics. chive.com will also be consulted. If Old Joneses’ first As artifacts are processed in the laboratory, the lab- name or initials can be found, the grazing case files oratory director will notify the crew to the presence at TNF will be re-examined, as several people with of any Apache/Yavapai artifacts. that last name are listed in those files. If Apache/Yavapai artifacts are present on the To further investigate the highway accident is- surface of a site, the excavation strategy will be based sue raised by the rolled car found within the bound- 60 Chapter 5 aries of Tontozona Tarantula, newspaperar- time periods at intrasite, community, and regional chive.com will be consulted, as well as a publi- scales. Statistical and graphic numerical methods, cation at the State Archives called Traffic Accidents where applicable, will be utilized to elucidate arti- and Accident Rates on Sections of the State High- fact patterning. This is facilitated by an interface way System (1955-1966). between the database and statistical (Systat and SPSS), spreadsheet (Excel), and graphic (GIS, Quattro Pro, and AutoCAD) softwares. ANALYTICAL METHODS
Artifact assemblages from all sites will be sam- Planned Analyses pled or completely analyzed. Sampling will be guid- ed by contextual integrity, the research potential of Specific analyses planned for the SR 260 project the artifacts, the research design, and the goals of cover the entire spectrum of archaeological inquiry. the analyst. Artifact analyses will address thematic These analyses will be related to the research design categories discussed in the research design portion themes described in the Treatment Plan (Herr 1999) of the Treatment Plan (Herr 1999). These data will and briefly in Chapter 1 (this volume). Methods to be integrated with information retrieved from sur- be used in analysis are presented here, while their vey and other excavation projects in the region to relationship to the research questions is described in address research issues on a synthetic level. Artifact the Treatment Plan (Herr 1999). In many of the arti- analyses will begin after completion of data recov- fact classes, a sample is selected for analysis beyond ery in each segment. the inventory level. Analyses of artifacts from floor, roof fall, trash, and intact extramural contexts are prioritized over those from sheet trash, upper fill, and Artifact and Sample Processing disturbed contexts. Artifacts and samples from both testing phases and the data recovery phase will be All artifacts and samples will be transported to conducted after data recovery is complete. Desert Archaeology’s laboratory in Tucson on a Desert Archaeology will hold specialists’ meet- weekly basis, where artifact cleaning, sorting, cata- ings over the course of the project to convey and dis- loging, and preliminary analysis will be conducted. cuss project results. Specialist meetings were held in Laboratory standards established by ASM for pro- the field in May 2000 and October 2001, and in-house cessing, curation, and stabilization and preservation in Tucson in 2002. This practice was instituted almost are followed. Nancy Odegaard, curator at ASM, will 20 years ago to ensure that outside and in-house spe- be consulted in preservation and stabilization cas- cialists do not work in isolation, but rather, are well- es. Laboratory analysis includes a complete inven- integrated into the research framework. tory of all artifacts, divided by basic artifact type. The laboratory director is responsible for control- Artifacts and Samples ling access to artifacts to ensure their safekeeping. The ceramic analyses will include all collected rim, worked, and body sherds. These will be count- Database Compilation and Management ed and identified to the most specific level possible for ware and type categories. Body sherds will be Archaeological data in the form of artifacts, sam- identified as specifically as possible to basic vessel ples, photographs, and written records will be recov- shape (bowl, jar, ladle, indeterminate). Rim sherds ered by excavations in the project area. All recov- will be further analyzed for technological (carbon ered artifacts and samples will be provenienced in streak, polishing, lip form), metric (orifice diame- the field by site, feature, stratum, level, and artifact ter, body thickness), and formal (semi-flared rim jar, class. Provenience information and pertinent field hemispherical bowl) variables that can allow vessel form data will be entered into a comprehensive da- size and minimum numbers of vessels to be estimat- tabase as it arrives in Tucson. ed. Refitting of body and rim sherds will be done within features. Worked sherds will be analyzed in more detail. For reconstructible and whole vessels, Quantitative Analysis attributes such as volume, vessel profile, vessel height, and maximum diameter will be recorded. After artifact samples have been selected for The flaked stone analysis will include all re- analysis, relevant attributes will be quantitatively touched implements, all artifacts from floor contexts, recorded. Patterns in attribute variability will be and a sample of the debitage from other contexts. examined temporally and spatially within relevant These will be measured and analyzed according to Data Recovery Methods 61 raw material and a number of technological at- fy parts of agave, as those have not yet been found tributes. Specialized work will include complete in the flotation or macrobotanical samples from the morphological analysis of projectile points, and re- project. fitting of cores, debitage, and, where possible, re- touched implements. Projectile points are abundant Petrographic Analyses in the project area, and will be a substantial resource for dating early sites. When possible, points will be A provisional petrographic model has been cre- dated according to the typology developed during ated for the sub-Mogollon Rim region, and two tem- the Tonto Creek project (Sliva and Lyons 2002:544). per resource zones have been identified. The west- The project area may also be home to some special- ern portion of the project area, between ized production of bifaces, and research will contin- approximately mileposts 256 and 265.5, lies within ue to document the nature of this specialization and the Lion Springs Petrofacies. Sands from this its intensity, its localization, and timing. petrofacies contain pink granite and mineral grains The ground stone will be inventoried, and gross derived from granite, and the percentage of feldspar material identifications will be made in the labora- exceeds the percentage of quartz. The project area tory. The assemblage will then be sampled for more east of 265.5 lies within the Doubtful Canyon Petro- detailed technological and use-wear analyses. Em- facies. Here, sands are derived from sedimentary phasis will be placed on floor and occupational sur- materials, and the percentage of quartz grains out- face assemblages and whole artifacts from other con- numbers feldspars (Heidke 2009). The petrofacies are texts. The technological identification of artifact named for a major drainage near the center of their types will address issues of design and manufacture, distribution. The Tonto Basin Petrofacies south of while the use-wear analysis will provide more de- the project area provide another potential source of tailed information about the primary and second- provenance information for project area ceramics ary uses of artifacts. Ground stone has also proven (Miksa and Heidke 1995). useful for characterizing the seasonal versus year- During the ceramic analysis, sherds samples will round, and short-term versus long-term use of proj- be examined under a binocular microscope and will ect sites (Adams 2006). be described. Point counting under a petrographic All of the vertebrate faunal material recovered microscope will be conducted if the binocular study from dry screening will be analyzed. Bone artifacts indicates it is likely to be productive. A key to dif- will be separated into types, measured, and exam- ferent sediment types available in, and near, the proj- ined for evidence of use-wear and other modifica- ect area will be prepared and utilized for character- tions. All shell recovered from project sites will be ization of temper using the binocular microscope. counted, identified to species, and identified to arti- A 5 percent sample of the sherds will be thin-sec- fact type (ring, bracelet, pendant, etc.). Attributes of tioned to confirm the accuracy of binocular temper shell manufacture will also be examined. Chemical characterizations. characterization and provenance studies of the ob- sidian and argillite artifacts will be accomplished Chronology using X-ray fluorescence methods. Analysis of macrobotanical and flotation samples Although every attempt will be made to date the will begin by sifting the floated sample through nest- prehistoric sites with ceramic cross-dating and den- ed sieves of decreasing mesh sizes. The sample will drochronology, the paucity of diagnostic ceramics then be sorted under a binocular variable magnifi- and tree-ring samples indicates it will be necessary cation (7x-120x) microscope. Charred seeds and to supplement these methods with radiocarbon and plant parts will be tabulated, and representative archaeomagnetic dates. The project archaeobotanist samples will be placed in microcentrifuge vials. will identify any annuals in the flotation samples, Emphasis will be placed on samples from cooking or those charcoal specimens with the best potential features, firepits, trash, and storage pits. Pollen sam- for producing a radiocarbon date. Dendrochronolo- ples will undergo chemical extraction, and a stan- gy is planned for independently dating cut wood at dard sum of noncultigen grains will be tabulated. the historic Morgan site and the corral, Feature 1, at The sample will also be scanned at a lower magnifi- Flipping Bear. cation to identify rare types. Soil samples from the roasting pit at Tontozona Tarantula will be subject to phytolith analysis and NATIVE AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FITR). FITR will be used to discover organic compounds This project affords several opportunities for in- to determine if the oven was used for cooking plants tegration of Native Americans into fieldwork and or animals. The phytolith analysis may help identi- research. TNF is responsible for all tribal consulta- 62 Chapter 5 tion under the Native American Graves Protection has been suppressed or not. The phone number and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). ASM is responsi- for the TNF fire dispatcher is (602) 225-5355. ble for consultation for sites on state and private • All work sites will maintain a tool cache consist- land. ing of at least 5 shovels, 5 Mcleod tools or rakes, Since the inception of the SR 260 project, Desert and 2 pulaskis or axes with sheaths. All project Archaeology has worked with members of the White vehicles will have 1 long-handled shovel, 1 axe Mountain Apache Tribe as field crew during every or pulaski with sheath, and 1 ABC triple class, field season. They have been an essential part of the dry chemical fire extinguisher, not less than 1 kg excavation crew and have assisted with interpreta- capacity. tion of the sites and landscape. Apache crew will • The backhoe will carry 1 long-handled shovel, 1 continue to be recruited for the duration of the proj- axe or pulaski with sheath, and 1 ABC triple class, ect. dry chemical fire extinguisher, not less than 2.5 The SR 260 project also includes an ethnograph- kg capacity. ic study. In May 2000, Heritage Resource Manage- • Smoking will be allowed only in areas cleared to ment consultants (HRMC), now Anthropological mineral soil over a 60-cm-diameter area. Research, LLC, began working with consultants from the White Mountain, San Carlos, Tonto, and During the fire season, additional regulations Yavapai/Apache tribes to explore the ethnohistoric include: use of the project area. The ethnographers and con- sultants documented the cultural landscape in and • All vehicles will display, on their dashboards, a around the project area, described how the project warning about the hazards of driving over tall area related to the traditional Apache homeland, and grass with a catalytic convertor. Vehicles will not considered the role of archaeological information in park in areas of tall grass or brush. understanding the use of this area. The fieldwork • All project vehicles, the backhoe, and any equip- was supplemented by interviews in home commu- ment using internal combustion engines (chain- nities, an additional visit to the project area to visit saws, leaf blowers) will be inspected by the For- Apache sites discovered in 2002, and a review of est Service Officer prior to initial operation for published and unpublished materials. Krall and each phase of the project. Before use, equipment Randall (2009) completed the final ethnographic re- will be inspected by project personnel to ensure port for the project. all spark arresters and mufflers are whole and As additional Apache features are found during effective. the course of the project, archaeologists will contin- • Chainsaws and leaf blowers will be filled with ue to work with tribal members to record their his- fuel only in areas cleared to mineral soil and will tory on this landscape. Representatives of Yavapai- not be started where they have been filled. Apache Nation, and the White Mountain Apache, Chainsaw operators will carry one long-handled San Carlos Apache, and Tonto Apache tribes will be shovel and check sawdust after completion of informed of plans to excavate the roasting pit at sawing. Tontozona Tarantula and will be invited to visit the • If vehicles or equipment with internal combus- site. Comments and interpretations offered by con- tion engines are to be used, a fire line will be con- sultants will be incorporated into the project report. structed, by hand or backhoe, around the site. The line will be free of vegetation and organic materi- als for a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 6 FIRE PREVENTION PLAN feet in width. Fire lines should, where efficient to do so, connect to existing dirt or paved roads. The project fire plan will explicitly follow the fire • Brush removed from sites will be piled outside plan of TNF (Section 107). Some aspects of this plan the fire line. Piles will not exceed 10 feet by 10 are in place for the entire project; other aspects are feet in size and will be wet down after comple- implemented during the fire season, as requested tion. by TNF. • A water truck, 1,000 gal minimum, with 300 feet The portions of the plan always in place include: of hose and pumping capabilities, will be on site during all heavy equipment use. The water truck • Desert Archaeology will check with the Payson will stay on site after mechanical work has ceased district office regularly for current fire restrictions. for the day. During red flag days, no vehicles or • At the earliest opportunity, Desert Archaeology equipment with internal combustion engines will will notify TNF should any fire occur, whether it be used, and no smoking will be allowed. During Data Recovery Methods 63
fire restrictions, the chainsaw will only be used Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), interested Na- prior to 12:00 p.m.; during closure, the chainsaw tive American groups, and project peer reviewers. will not be used at all. The final reports will address reviewer comments. • During periods of forest fire restriction or closure, TNF will be consulted, and any of the following additional regulations may go into effect. SCHEDULE
ADOT is planning to bid construction of the REPORT PREPARATION Doubtful Canyon section in April of 2010, making the schedule for data recovery on this section tight. The final report from the Doubtful Canyon seg- Fieldwork is scheduled for six weeks beginning in ment of the project is anticipated to be a descriptive early to mid-March, as weather permits. volume of field methods, results from each site, re- A preliminary report of the results of data recov- sults of analyses, and a general synthesis of the re- ery investigations and recommendations will be de- search themes. Results of investigations will be more livered four weeks after fieldwork is complete, by 21 synthetically assessed in the final project volumes. May 2010. To help expedite the compliance process, Drafts of the report will be reviewed by Arizona a field trip for ADOT, ASM, SHPO, and TNF may be Department of Transporation (ADOT), TNF, State planned for an in-field review of the fieldwork
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Jenny L. Krall, Angie, and Vincent E. Randall 2006 Ground Stone Data from the Christopher 2009 Shi Kéyaa: The Western Apache Homeland and Creek Segment and Sharp Creek Camp- Archaeology of the Mogollon Rim. Technical ground, State Route 260. In Their Own Road: Report No. 2007-03. Desert Archaeology, Archaeological Investigations along State Route Inc., Tucson. 260. Payson-to-Heber, Christopher Creek Sec- tion and Sharp Creek Campground (Draft), Miksa, Elizabeth J., and James M. Heidke edited by S. A. Herr, pp. 247-254. Technical 1995 Drawing a Line in the Sands: Models of Report No. 2003-05. Desert Archaeology, Ceramic Temper Provenance. In The Inc., Tucson. Roosevelt Community Development Study: Vol. 2. Ceramic Chronology, Technology, and Eco- Heidke, James M., Tiffany C. Clark, and Carlos P. nomics, edited by J. M. Heidke and M. T. Lavayen Stark, pp. 133-205. Anthropological Papers 2009 Historic and Prehistoric Native American No. 14. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tuc- Pottery from the Plymouth Landing Site son. and Ponderosa Campground Feature 4. In Dilzhe’ ‘e bii tian: Archaeological Investiga- Sliva, R. Jane, with Patrick D. Lyons tions of Apache Sites near Little Green Valley, 2002 Temporal, Spatial and Functional Variabil- Arizona, State Route 260 – Payson to Heber ity in the Flaked Stone Assemblage. In Tonto Archaeological Project, Gila County, Arizona Creek Archaeological Project: Artifact and En- (Draft), edited by S. A. Herr, pp. 49-61. Tech- vironmental Analyses: Vol. 2. Stone Tool and nical Report No. 2006-05. Desert Archaeol- Subsistence Studies, edited by J. J. Clark, pp. ogy, Inc., Tucson. 487-558. Anthropological Papers No. 23. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Herr, Sarah A. 1999 Treatment Plan for the S.R. 260–Payson to Heber–Project. Technical Report No. 99-9. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson.