DOCSLIB.ORG

Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, Arizona: a Centennial History of the First Prehistoric Reserve 1892 - 1992

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, Arizona: a Centennial History of the First Prehistoric Reserve 1892 - 1992 National Park Service Administrative History U.S. Department of the Interior Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, Arizona: A Centennial History of the First Prehistoric Reserve 1892 - 1992 A. Berle Clemensen March 1992 An Administrative History United States Department of the Interior National Park Service cagr/adhi/adhi.htm Last Updated: 22-Jan-2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations Cover Acknowledgements Introduction Chapter I: Those Who Have Gone Chapter II: The Eye of the Beholder Chapter III: The Reservation of Casa Grande Land and Its Early Administration A. The Establishment and Stabilization of Casa Grande Ruins B. The Era of Isaac T. Whittemore and H.B. Mayo C. Frank Pinkley's First Tenure D. The James P. Bates Interlude Chapter IV: Casa Grande Ruins as a National Monument A. The Transfer to the National Park Service B. The First Years as a National Monument C. The Development of Casa Grande Ruins National Monument 1. Depression Era Programs 2. The Civilian Conservation Corps at Casa Grande 3. After the Civilian Conservation Corps 4. Mission 66 5. Casa Grande Ruins in the Nuclear Age 6. After Mission 66 7. Special Use Permits Chapter V: So Precious and Valuable a Resource: Ruins Preservation Chapter VI: Educating the Public: Publicizing and Interpreting the Monument A. The Evolution of the National Park Service Interpretive Story B. Publicity, Visitation, and the Interpretive Medium Chapter VII: The Only Bit of Typical Desert Land A. The Natural Setting B. The Effect of Neighboring Agriculture on the Monument C. Monument Management of Natural Resources Chapter VIII: Southwestern Monuments: Boss Pinkley's Outfit Bibliography Appendix A: List of Custodians/Superintendents Appendix B: Employees: Past and Present Appendix C: 1892 Executive Order Appendix D: 1918 National Monument Proclamation Appendix E: Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Visitation Figures Appendix F: Historical Data Sections: Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Buildings LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. 1846 Sketch of the Great House Figure 2. 1848 Drawing of the Casa Grande Figure 3. 1852 Sketch of the Great House Figure 4. 1852 Drawing by John Bartlett Figure 5. 1864 Sketch by J. Ross Browne Figure 6. Casa Grande 1878 Figure 7. Casa Grande Ca. 1878 Figure 8. Casa Grande Ca. 1878 Figure 9. Casa Grande 1891 Figure 10. Casa Grande Ca. 1902 Figure 11. Casa Grande Ca. 1902 Figure 12. Casa Grande Ca. 1902 Figure 13. Casa Grande Ruins Boundaries Figure 14. 1903 Shelter Roof Figure 15. Fewkes Drawing of Compound A Figure 16. Fewkes Drawing of Compound B Figure 17. Compound B Ca. 1925 Figure 18. Pinkley's First House Figure 19. Late 1930 Aerial View of the Monument Figure 20. 1926 Roads and Structures Figure 21. 1927-1931 Roads and Structures Figure 22. 1932 Great House Shelter Figure 23. 1932 Master Plan Figure 24. 1935 Master Plan Figure 25. 1941 Master Plan Figure 26. Turquoise Mosaics Found in 1925 Figure 27. Frank "Boss" Pinkley Figure 28. Present-day Building Configuration Figure 29. Visitor Center Floor Plan Figure 30. Visitor Center Figure 31. Building 1 Floor Plan Figure 32. Building 1 Figure 33. Building 4 Floor Plan Figure 34. Building 4 Figure 35. Building 6 Floor Plan Figure 36. Building 6 Figure 37. Building 15 Floor Plan Figure 38. Building 15 Figure 39. Maintenance Area Figure 40. Building 8 Floor Plan Figure 41. Building 8 Figure 42. Building 9 Floor Plan Figure 43. Building 10 Floor Plan Figure 44. Building 10 Figure 45. Building 11 Floor Plan Figure 46. Building 11 Figure 47. Building 16 Floor Plan Figure 48. Building 16 Figure 49. Electrical Transformer Enclosure Walls Plan Figure 50. 1932 Great House Shelter Roof ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Numerous people gave of their time and aided me in researching and writing this report. My thanks go to Superintendent Donald Spencer and his staff — Nathan Allen, John Andresen, Bettie Gill, and Aleta Knight — at Casa Grande Ruins National Monument. I valued the efforts of the people in the following agencies and institutions: Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona Office of the Bureau of Land Management in Phoenix, Arizona Department of Library, Archives and Public Records in Phoenix, Arizona Historical Society in Tucson, University of Arizona Library Special Collections, Arizona Foundation in the Carl Hayden Library of Arizona State University in Tempe, Sharlot Hall Historical Society in Prescott, National Archives and Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., and the Regional Archives and Record Center in Denver, Colorado. The advice given by Gordon Chappell and Thomas Mulhern of the Western Regional Office in San Francisco was greatly appreciated. I also wish to thank Frank Williss, Wil Logan, and my wife Margaret for their comments. Sallie Van Valkenburgh deserves recognition for her pioneering work on Casa Grande Ruins National Monument history. INTRODUCTION Casa Grande Ruins National Monument lies within the basin and range area of southern Arizona which is a part of the Sonoran Desert. The mountain ranges around the monument are pre-Cambrian granites and schists. Some are cut by younger granitic rocks and flanked by tertiary lava flows. The nearly level plains between the mountain ranges contain Sonoran Desert scrub characterized by creosote bush — bursage vegetation. The monument elevation ranges from 1427 feet in the southeast corner to 1414 feet on the northwest side. Casa Grande is on the drainage of McClellan Wash, a tributary of the Gila River. Its soil is Coolidge sandy loam with caliche, a limy hardpan, two to four feet below the surface. The monument's biotic community is surrounded for the most part by irrigated agricultural land. There are sixty documented archeological sites in the monument. Some of these sites have been dated to AD 550- 700, while the compounds were built between AD 1200-1450. Casa Grande Ruin Reservation was created on June 22, 1892 by order of President Benjamin Harrison to protect a one-of-a-kind remaining Casa Grande or Great House. As a result, Casa Grande became the first prehistoric and cultural site to be established in the United States. The 480 acre reservation boundary changed in 1909, but retained the same acreage. An act in 1926 reduced that area to 472.5 acres. Some controversy has occurred over the years about the exact name of the monument. Originally, it was set aside as Casa Grande Ruin Reservation. In 1918 President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed it to be Casa Grande National Monument. Subsequent congressional acts in 1926 and 1930 called it Casa Grande Ruins National Monument. Some National Park Service personnel have held that the national monument proclamation of 1918 should determine the name, but, on the basis of the later legislation combined with a legal opinion and desire by monument management to be known as Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, the National Park Service Chief Historian recommended on December 17, 1991 that it be recognized as Casa Grande Ruins National Monument. CHAPTER I: THOSE WHO HAVE GONE The significance of Casa Grande ruins lies in its prehistoric past when the builders and inhabitants achieved a sophisticated culture. Casa Grande fell within the heartland of an extensive prehistoric agricultural society. The Hohokam (a Pima Indian term meaning "those who have gone"), with their lengthy canal irrigation system, were masters of the desert. The Hohokam culture did not suddenly appear. Its antecedents lay in a previous, local Archaic culture. These Archaic peoples, who appeared in the desert Southwest about 5500 BC, functioned as hunters and gatherers who depended upon wild plants and animals for their subsistence. Whether domesticated corn became available before 1000 BC or not, these people did not cultivate it because they had little need to invest their labor in such a crop when they could subsist by hunting and gathering. A growing population perhaps combined with some dry periods, however, began to outstrip the flora and fauna used for food. By 1000 BC, this situation forced the population to augment their ration by cultivating a small cob popcorn. By 500 BC regular corn appeared in the area and was crossed with the small cob popcorn. The prehistoric population in turn, crossed this hybrid with an eight-row flour corn several centuries later. About 350 BC, common beans (pinto, red, and navy) were introduced. The Archaic peoples' casual dry land cultivation, however, did not produce sufficient yields to supply the growing demand. To ensure crop yields in the Southwest required considerable attention. Such attention began to curb the mobility of these hunter/gatherer peoples. Decreased mobility only forced the people to place greater reliance on domesticated crops. This more sedentary life, in turn, depleted the wild resources in an area. Returning to a hunting and gathering way of life then became no longer viable. As a result, this Archaic culture began a slow transition into a hydraulic (water based) society which used irrigation to support its agriculture. By AD 300 this water-based culture appeared as the Hohokam. [1] Archeologists have divided the Hohokam culture into the following approximate four periods. The four periods include: Pioneer, AD 300-750; Colonial, AD 750-950; Sedentary, AD 950-1175; and the Classic, AD 1175-1450. The Pioneer period found the Hohokam living as simple farmers in a series of small villages along the middle Gila River. Several factors determined the location of an early Hohokam village — good arable land, a suitable location from which the Gila could be tapped for irrigation water, and a shallow aquifer so that wells for domestic water need not be dug more than ten feet deep. Early Hohokam houses consisted of branches bent in a semi-circular fashion and covered with twigs, reeds, and mud. House locations had no consistency.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southwestern Monuments
    SOUTHWESTERN MONUMENTS MONTHLY REPORT MAY 1939 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GPO W055 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR *$*&*">&•• NATIONAL PARK SERVICE / •. •: . • • r. '• WASHINGTON ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE April 2k. 1939. Memorandum for the Superintendent, Southwestern National Monuments: I am writing this as an open letter to you because all of us recognize the fine friendly spirit engendered by your Southwestern National Monuments n.onthly reports. I believe that all park and monument reports can be made as interesting and informative as yours. Your monthly report for L.erch i6 on my desk and I have glanced through its pages, checking your opening statements, stopping here and there to j.ick up en interesting sidelight, giving a few moments to the supplement, and then looking to your "Ruminations". The month isn't complete unless I read themJ As you know, the submission of the monthly reports from the field has been handled as another required routine statement by some of the field men. It seems to me you have strained every effort to rrake the reports from the Southwestern National Monuments an outstanding re­ flection of current events, history, and special topics; adding a good share of the personal problems and living conditions of that fine group of men and women that constitute your field organization. You have ac­ complished a great deal by making the report so interesting that the Custodians look forward to the opportunity of adding their notes. In issuing these new instructions, I am again requesting that the Superintendents and Custodians themselves take the time to put in writing the story of events, conditions, and administration in the parks and monuments they represent.
    [Show full text]
  • San Xavier Cooperative Farm Rehabilitation
    San Xavier Cooperative Farm Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Phoenix Area Office Phoenix, Arizona July 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .........................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Background..............................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action...................................................................................3 1.4 Project Area.............................................................................................................4 1.5 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................5 1.6 Decision to be Made ................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES...............................................................9 2.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Water Distribution System.......................................................................................9 2.1.2 Field Irrigation Systems.........................................................................................12 2.1.3 Flood Protection.....................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • The Synopsis Was Written to Make Researchers Aware of the Amerind
    Amerind Amerind Foundation Collection Synopsis This synopsis was written to make researchers aware of the Amerind Foundation’s holdings. Our cataloged collection consists of over 21,000 objects and tens of thousands of bulk sherd samples. This synopsis is not an exhaustive list. For more information, please contact Chief Curator Dr. Eric Kaldahl at Amerind Foundation, PO Box 400, Dragoon, AZ 85609, (520) 586- 3666, or [email protected]. Archaeological Collections Excavated Collections The Amerind conducted several excavations at prehistoric sites in southeastern Arizona. These excavations were detailed in early Amerind publications. The sites include the Gleeson Site, the Tres Alamos site, Winchester Cave, and Babocomari Village. There were also excavations conducted on Amerind Foundation property in Texas Canyon. Ceramics recovered from these sites suggest a range of periods contemporaneous with the Hohokam Sedentary through Classic periods. Archaeological Notes on Texas Canyon, by William Shirley Fulton. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vols. 1-3. 1934-1938. New York. An Archaeological Site near Gleeson, Arizona, by William Shirley Fulton and Carr Tuthill. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 1. 1940. A Ceremonial Cave in the Winchester Mountains, by William Shirley Fulton. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 2. 1941. The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona, by Carr Tuthill. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 4. 1947. The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, Southeastern Arizona, by Charles C. Di Peso. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 5. 1951. The Amerind Foundation excavated at southern Arizona ancestral pueblo migrant sites known as Davis Ranch Ruin and Reeve Ruin. Ceramics recovered from these sites suggest that they are contemporaneous with the later Hohokam Classic period.
    [Show full text]
  • A General Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Archaeological Investigations Associated with FCC Cell Tower Construction Projects on Private Lands in Arizona
    A General Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Archaeological Investigations Associated With FCC Cell Tower Construction Projects on Private Lands in Arizona Prepared for: Verizon Wireless Tempe, Arizona Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Tempe, Arizona Terracon Project No. 65157582 August 2018 ABSTRACT Report Title: A General Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Archaeological Investigations Associated with FCC Cell Tower Construction Projects on Private Lands in Arizona Report Date: August 2018 Agencies: Federal Communications Commission, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Project Sponsor: Verizon Wireless (Verizon) Project Description: Verizon constructs and collocates telecommunications facilities in Arizona. Due to the involvement of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the projects, they are considered federal undertakings subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviews FCC-licensed undertakings pursuant to two nationwide programmatic agreements. Some of Verizon’s proposed undertakings may be found by the FCC and SHPO to have an adverse effect on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The purpose of this General Historic Properties Treatment Plan (General HPTP) is to streamline the resolution of adverse effects to historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP by Verizon-sponsored undertakings on private lands in Arizona. This streamlined resolution will also include the preparation of a project-specific addendum to the General HPTP. The General HPTP does not apply to state, county, municipal, or Tribal lands including private lands within tribal reservation boundaries, or to lands under federal jurisdiction. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.
    [Show full text]
  • KIVA INDEX: Volumes 1 Through 83
    1 KIVA INDEX: Volumes 1 through 83 This index combines five previously published Kiva indexes and adds index entries for the most recent completed volumes of Kiva. Nancy Bannister scanned the indexes for volumes 1 through 60 into computer files that were manipulated for this combined index. The first published Kiva index was prepared in 1966 by Elizabeth A.M. Gell and William J. Robinson. It included volumes 1 through 30. The second index includes volumes 31 through 40; it was prepared in 1975 by Wilma Kaemlein and Joyce Reinhart. The third, which covers volumes 41 through 50, was prepared in 1988 by Mike Jacobs and Rosemary Maddock. The fourth index, compiled by Patrick D. Lyons, Linda M. Gregonis, and Helen C. Hayes, was prepared in 1998 and covers volumes 51 through 60. I prepared the index that covers volumes 61 through 70. It was published in 2006 as part of Kiva volume 71, number 4. Brid Williams helped proofread the index for volumes 61 through 70. To keep current with our volume publication and the needs of researchers for on-line information, the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society board decided that it would be desirable to add entries for each new volume as they were finished. I have added entries for volumes 71 through 83 to the combined index. It is the Society's goal to continue to revise this index on a yearly basis. As might be expected, the styles of the previously published indexes varied, as did the types of entries found. I changed some entries to reflect current terminology.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas
    Natural Setting as Cultural Landscapes: The Power of Place and Tradition Roger Anyon Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office, Tucson, AZ T. J. Ferguson Anthropological Research LLC, Tucson, AZ Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, AZ Abstract—The natural environment of the Madrean Archipelago comprises a mosaic of cultural landscapes. Throughout human history, people have imbued the natural environment with meaning by layering cultural values and historic contexts onto the natural world, allowing them to situate themselves in time and space. Cultural landscapes contain special places that have power associ- ated with important events, people, or critical resources. Effective conservation and management of the Madrean Archipelago require an understanding of the complexities and intricacies of the storied cultural landscapes layered upon the natural environment. the rivers and at other hydrologically advantageous locations. Natural Setting and Cultural The San Pedro Valley is no exception. Because so many ar- Landscapes chaeological sites are located along river courses, and because the conservation of biodiversity in the Madrean Archipelago The Madrean Archipelago is a natural wonder, encom- includes the critical river corridors, there is substantial loca- passing a unique diversity of landforms and life. It is, quite tional overlap in central components of the cultural landscapes understandably, a focus of much environmental research and of ecologists, environmentalists, archaeologists, and American management by a variety of government agencies and private Indians. This is not to say that river valleys are the only overlap sector organizations. Almost all this research and management in these varied cultural landscapes, as mountain ranges and is conducted within a scientific framework, bringing with it a other places have importance in all these perceptions of the set of prescribed constructs and values.
    [Show full text]
  • An Archaeological Perspective on the Hohokam-Pima Continuum
    Bulletin of Old Pueblo Archaeology Center December 2007, No. 51 Old Pueblo Archaeology An Archaeological Perspective on the Hohokam-Pima Continuum By Deni J. Seymour Paired structures of O’odham household grouping showing elongated dome shape and mode of construction using branches. Many times such houses were covered with mud, mud-cov- ered mats, or simply with brush, depending upon the season of use and the degree of seden- tism of the particular group. Archaeological evidence of adobe in the house fills indicates that adobe was commonly used by the riverine Sobaípuri. Drawing by Deni J. Seymour. Were the prehistoric Hohokam Indians direct ancestors in which “Pima” refers specifically to the Upper Pima). of the Upper Piman peoples who were encountered by the Instead of relying on the previously applied methods first European visitors to southern Arizona and northern for answering the question, however, I provide informa- Sonora? The historical Tohono O’odham (Papago), Akimel tion about some recent archaeological findings and in- O’odham (Pima), Sobaípuri, and other O’odham who to- terpretations relevant to the topic, and suggest what other gether are identified by anthropologists as the Upper Pima, kinds of information we need to consider in determining were the peoples first encountered by Spanish missionaries whether this supposed cultural continuum really existed. and explorers, and their descendants now occupy the To- The lines of evidence used previously to decide whether hono O’odham, Gila River Indian Community, and other there is a direct link between the ancient and historical groups Indian reservations that are relatively small compared to are not clear-cut and have been interpreted differently by the “Papaguería” – the traditional O’odham homeland.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 AZ Arch Sites to Visit
    100 AZ Arch Sites to Visit Archaeological Site Site Area Closest City Culture Site Type Land Manager Website Agua Fria National Bureau of Land https://foursquare.com/v/agua-fria-national-monument-1891-school- 1 1891 School House Monument Cordes Lakes Territorial Historic ranching Management house/4f26dda3e4b04d36e04be1f3 Roy P. Drachman, Agua Archaic, Pima County Natural Fria Caliente Regional Hohokam, Prehistoric; historic Resources, Parks 2 Agua Caliente Ranch Park Tucson Territorial ranching and Recreation http://www.pima.gov/nrpr/parks/agua_caliente/ 3 American Flag Mine Oracle-American Flag Oracle Territorial Historic mining City of Oracle http://oracletown.com/history.html Arivaca Pima, Protohistoric, 4 Arivaca Townsite Arivaca Townsite Territorial Historic mining City of Arivaca http://www.arivaca.net/ Agua Fria National Black Canyon Perry Mesa Prehistoric Bureau of Land 5 Badger Springs Monument City Complex petroglyphs Management http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/recreation/hiking/badger-springs.html Besh-Ba-Gowah 6 Besh-ba-gowah Archaeological Park Globe Salado Prehistoric pueblo City of Globe http://www.jqjacobs.net/southwest/besh_ba_gowah.html Tohono O'odham; Native American Mexican and Mexican colonial; settlement; historic ??? Santa Cruz 7 Calabasas Rio Rico Ranch Nogales territorial ranching County http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/az/calabasas.html Native Kingman Arizona Historic American; Prehistoric and 8 Camp Beale Springs Distric Kingman territorial historic springs City of Kingman http://www.mohavemuseum.org/beale.htm
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Native American Culture History in the Oro
    CHAPTER 2 NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE HISTORY IN THE ORO VALLEY STUDY AREA Throughout the prehistoric period, the Native American peoples who lived in or visited the Cañada del Oro area participated in cultural traditions documented more fully by archaeologists elsewhere in southern Arizona, most notably in the greater Tucson Basin. An understanding of the prehistory of the Cañada del Oro area is possible only with reference to these wider traditions. In this chapter, we provide a brief overview of Native American culture history in southern Arizona, with an emphasis on the Tucson Basin. We begin with the earliest known evidence for human occupation of the region and end with the period just before the earliest contacts with Europeans (Figure 3). The discussion draws on earlier syntheses of southern Arizona prehistory by Chenault and Tucker (2003), Craig (1989), Ezzo (2007a), O’Mack and others (2004), Whittlesey (2003), and Whittlesey and others (1994). Other sources are cited when the discussion touches on particular aspects of prehistory in the region. At the end of the chapter, we briefly summarize Native American culture history in the period after Europeans settled in southern Arizona. Paleoindian Period Archaeologists call the earliest documented Native American occupation of the Americas the Paleoindian period, which began at least as early as 12,000 years ago—many recent studies place its beginning thousands of years earlier—and lasted until around 10,000 years ago (Meltzer 2009). The Paleoindian period was characterized by small, highly mobile bands of people and a hunting- and-gathering way of life adapted to a climate that was generally cooler and wetter than today.
    [Show full text]
  • CLIFF POLYCHROME PATRICK D. LYONS Center for Desert
    CLIFF POLYCHROME PATRICK D. LYONS Center for Desert Archaeology 300 East University Blvd., Suite 230 Tucson, Arizona 85705 ABSTRACT Gila Polychrome is the key type used to identify deposits and to date events and processes associated with the late Classic Period in southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and adjacent areas. However, because Gila Polychrome was a long-lived type, made circa A.D. 1300-1450, it has proven very difficult to track change through time during the late Classic Period. Previous researchers have identified temporally sensitive characteristics of form and design among Gila Polychrome bowls. The results of more recent research, including Patricia Crown's (1994) analysis of hundreds of Gila Polychrome whole vessels, and the test excavation of Classic Period sites in the San Pedro Valley of southeastern Arizona, confirm that a late form or "subtype" of Gila Polychrome can be discerned. This late type or subtype has been given the name Cliff Polychrome (Harlow 1968). The available evidence suggests Cliff Polychrome was first produced during the period A.D. 1350-1375. Recognizing Cliff Polychrome as a separate typological entity provides archaeologists additional means of subdividing the late Classic Period. INTRODUCTION One of the best dating guides we have in southern Arizona is the polychrome pottery of the Salado division of the Anasazi. This is so because the particular types involved, Gila and Tonto Polychromes, have been dated accurately by tree-rings to the 14th century (Haury 1950:351; with references). Too
    [Show full text]
  • The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta
    The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Jelinek, Lauren Elizabeth Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 08:30:31 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/222842 1 THE PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD IN THE PIMERÍA ALTA By Lauren E. Jelinek Copyright © Lauren E. Jelinek 2012 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Lauren E. Jelinek entitled The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 J. Jefferson Reid _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 Thomas E. Sheridan _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 Teresita Majewski Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s sub- mission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recom- mend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Survey of a 0.98 Mile Long Segment Within State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management Land on Juniper Flat
    Cultural Resources Survey of a 0.98 Mile Long Segment within State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management Land on Juniper Flats Road, Northeast of Bisbee, Cochise County, Arizona Michael W. Diehl Reviewed by Patricia Castalia Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard Tucson, Arizona 85716 Submitted to Juniper Flats Road Maintenance Association Jim Alexander P.O. Box 788 Bisbee, AZ 85603-0788 Project Report No. 17-105 Desert Archaeology, Inc. Project No. 17-111 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 ● 25 April 2017 SURVEY REPORT ABSTRACT Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey of a 0.98 Mile Long Segment within State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management Land on Juniper Flats Road, Northeast of Bisbee, Cochise County, Arizona Client: Juniper Flats Road Maintenance Association Client Project Name: Compliance Level: State (Arizona State Land Department), Federal (Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) Applicable Laws/Regulations: Arizona Antiquities Act of 1960 (ARS 41-841, et seq., as amended), Arizona Historic Preservation Act of 1982 (ARS 41-861, as amended), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470f, as amended). Applicable Permits: Arizona Antiquities Act Blanket Permit 2017-065bl, Archaeological Resources Protection Act Permit AZ-000595. Arizona State Museum Accession No. 2017-0110. Tribal Consultation: N/A Project Description: Class III cultural resources survey of 0.98-mile long segment of 90-ft-wide road right-of-way (ROW) on Arizona State Trust Land and BLM land Fieldwork Dates and Person-days: 7 April 2017; 1 person-day Final Disposition of Records: Arizona State Museum, BLM Tucson Field Office Legal Description: Cochise County, Sections 25 and 36, Township 22 South, Range 23 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, as depicted on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quad Bisbee, Ariz.
    [Show full text]