View the 2015 Rock Art Ranch Survey Report

REPORT OF 2011-2015 SURVEY OF ROCK ART RANCH AND SECTION 16 NAVAJO COUNTY, ARIZONA & PLAN OF WORK FOR 2016 FIELD SEASON

ROCK ART RANCH FIELDSCHOOL SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARIZONA STATE MUSEUM UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

BY: RICHARD C. LANGE (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR)

E. CHARLES ADAMS (DIRECTOR)

SAMANTHA G. FLADD (GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT)

MAY 2016

INTRODUCTION

The Rock Art Ranch (RAR) Field School, offered by the University of Arizona School of Anthropology and Arizona State Museum and funded in part by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, was in the field from June 6 to July 8, 2011, June 4 to July 6, 2012, June 3 to July 5, 2013, June 2 to July 5, 2014, and June 1 to July 4, 2015. Additionally, students attending as part of the NSF Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) in 2014 and 2015 participated in a two- week research program focusing on post field processing of materials at the Arizona State Museum from July 7 to July 18, 2014 and July 6 to July 17, 2015. Dr. E. Charles Adams (University or Arizona and Arizona State Museum) and Richard Lange (Arizona State Museum) co-direct the field school. In 2011 and 2012, Vincent LaMotta (University of Illinois—Chicago) was also a co- director. The directors were assisted by three graduate students – Claire Barker and Liz Cutright- Smith [University of Arizona] and Jim Meierhoff [University of Illinois—Chicago] in 2011 and Claire Barker and Samantha Fladd [University of Arizona] and Krystal Britt [University of Illinois—Chicago] in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 – and volunteers, Byron Estes in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, Jaye Smith in 2014 and 2015, Riley Duke in 2015, and local rock art specialist, Darlene Brinkerhoff during all five seasons. Sixteen students in 2011, 15 in 2012, 12 in 2013, 17 in 2014, and 16 in 2015 participated in the field school. During the 2014 season, nine of the students were registered for the field school and ten participated through the NSF REU grant (two students were registered for both programs). In 2015, nine of the students were registered for the field school and ten participated through the NSF REU grant (three students were registered for both programs). The Rock Art Ranch Field School focused on three field activities: excavation and testing at three sites (RAR-2, RAR-17, and AZ P:3:112[ASM]) and survey. Excavations were directed by Vince LaMotta at RAR-2 and 17 in 2011 and 2012 and by Richard Lange at AZ P:3:112(ASM) (the Multi-Kiva Site) in 2013, 2014, and 2015. The survey was directed by E. Charles Adams and Richard Lange in 2011 and 2012 and by E. Charles Adams and Samantha Fladd in 2013, 2014, and 2015. With Dr. Adams, students tested nine ashy features in 2013 and 2014 (at RAR-5, RAR-12, RAR-13D, RAR-22, RAR-33, RAR-88B, RAR-89, RAR 98E, and RAR-100) in order to obtain carbonized plant materials for radiocarbon dating. (See Figures 1, 2, and 3 for maps of the area.)

RESEARCH GOALS

Rock Art Ranch was selected as a research locale for the UA field school because it is located in an area where no previous archaeological research had been conducted. Therefore, the first goal of the proposed research is to conduct a survey to identify and locate all cultural resources within the study area. The second goal is to relate the sites to variables of the physical location and environment as defined below. The third goal is to place these sites within regional spatial and temporal frameworks according to their material culture. The fourth goal is to relate the groups who created the surface archaeological record to the petroglyphs panels in Chevelon Canyon. These will primarily be pre-ceramic groups, especially early farmers. The fifth goal is to relate the later occupation of the area when small pueblos are present to the large, nearby members of the Homol’ovi Settlement Cluster that were founded about the time settlement ceased in the study area. The nearest is Chevelon Pueblo less than 6 km north. The sixth goal is to reconstruct cultural landscapes based on settlement patterns, environmental variables, natural features, and ethnographic reports. The seventh goal is to place the history of RAR within the broader social and cultural landscapes of the middle Little Colorado River Valley to better understand how the people

2 identified themselves by analysis of their material remains and changing relationships with their near and far neighbors as measured through exchange.

SURVEY AND FIELD METHODS

Two crews, usually consisting of 3 to 5 students and a supervisor, conducted the Rock Art Ranch Survey each summer. The survey began near the ranch house, and worked westward toward Chimney Canyon, the first major drainage west of the ranch headquarters. The survey did systematic transects designed to provide 100 percent coverage, working between natural features such as fence lines, roads, and the canyon. The survey worked west of the ranch, north of the road and range fence that exits the main ranch headquarters area to the southwest, north to the north ranch boundary, in and along both sides of the portion of Chimney Canyon that bisects the ranch, west and south of Chimney Canyon, and north and east of Bell Cow Canyon (Figure 2). Additionally, the entirety of Township 16N, Range 18E, Section 16, the location of AZ P:3:112(ASM), was surveyed in 2012 and 2013 to provide additional contextual information for the site (Figure 3). To orient the transects, GPS units were used initially to locate starting and ending points, to map roads and fence lines, and to locate isolates, site centers, and site boundaries. The GPS units were set to either North American Datum (NAD) 27 or 83, with the setting carefully noted. The NAD 27 setting and resulting coordinates are useful for translating the coordinates into plots on the existing USGS 7.5 minute topographic sheets for the area. The NAD 83 data can be overlaid onto digital topographic maps and manipulated in GIS software such as ArcView. Fortunately, it is possible to translate between the two coordinate systems easily. Unfortunately, they do give very different results, so the translation from one projection to another is very important depending on what the data will be used for. Experiments with the students showed that using the GPS units to align transects was less than satisfactory. We used toilet‐paper flags in bushes to mark edges of each transect to make it easier to follow the alignment on the return transect and ensure complete coverage. We tried to maintain spacing between crewmembers at 10 meters—paced off and measured off with a tape. Regularly, we found crews crossing over the TP lines, or major “bends” or “dog‐legs” developing in the middle of the transects. However, with a simple magnetic compass (e.g., a Silva Ranger or Brunton), it was possible to keep the crew walking relatively straight. The simple magnetic compass also required far less time to “check” for orientation and direction. The GPS units were valuable, however, for recording coordinates for isolates, and for recording the datum and boundaries of sites and loci. And it is important to be able to translate coordinates from one projection system to another for use within GIS and on topography maps (NAD 83 to NAD 27, or NAD 27 to NAD 83). Collections were made from all sites and scatters containing artifacts. Collection units were employed on sites of sufficient size and artifact density. One to ten collection units using a 5 m diameter circle were used to make systematic collections of each site. The number of collection units is dependent on the size and complexity of the site. In addition, 5 x 5 m grids were placed over midden areas. In these instances, every other grid square was collected. When discrete breaks in artifact density exist but multiple locales are present, these are considered loci of the same site and given letter designations starting with “A.” For tabular purposes, each locus is treated as a site (for example, in Tables 1 and 2). In addition to collecting all artifacts within the collection units for analysis, unusual or diagnostic artifacts are also collected and individually point located, for example projectile points and a sample of ground stone. Site maps consist of noting the limits of the site, locating features, collection units, and isolates. For most sites, GPS units or a Brunton

3 compass is used to create these maps. For larger more complex sites, the total station is used. This information together with the map was recorded on standard Arizona State Museum AZSITE site forms. Artifacts are collected and taken to the laboratory for documentation and cleaning. We are collecting artifacts because we are working in an area in which no previous research has been conducted. Many of the ceramics either have no existing type descriptions or those collected vary from published type descriptions. This is true of decorated and undecorated ceramics, but especially of the undecorated, which occur in a wide range of regionally manufactured traditions for which we are uncertain of the origins. An important research goal for the project is determining where flaked stone materials are being obtained. Having existing collections to compare to local potential quarries is essential to answering this question. ASM’s agreement with Brantley Baird, the ranch owner, is that all survey artifacts are on temporary loan until the completion of the project in 2016. At the end of 2016, the artifacts will be returned to the owner with ASM able to retain samples representative of the typological or material range of sherds, flaked stone, and ground stone. These artifacts will be donated to ASM by the Baird family and become part of the museum’s permanent collections.

SUMMARY RESULTS

In all, approximately 4.4 square miles (2,817 acres) were surveyed from 2011‐2015 and 43 new sites and loci were recorded in 2015 (Figure 2). A preliminary visit to the area in June 2010 resulted in the location of 11 sites, some of which were revisited during the subsequent field seasons. So, in all, 181 sites and loci have been documented. Of the 181, 28 are located in Section 16 and 153 sites and loci are located on Rock Art Ranch and the Aztec Land and Cattle Company property bordering the north of RAR (Table 1). Additionally, over 9,000 isolates have been recorded during survey.

Table 1: Rock Art Ranch and Section 16 Survey Sites, 2010-2015

PROJECT SITE TYPE DATE(S) & COMMENTS LOCATION SITE NO. 1 Artifact scatter/pithouses PII/III RAR 2 Artifact scatter/pithouses BMII/PIII RAR 3 Rock art panel in wash and artifact scatter BMII/BMIII RAR 4A Artifact scatter & features BMIII/PI RAR 4B Artifact scatter & features; structures BMIII/PI RAR

4C Artifact scatter & features; structures BMIII/PI RAR 4D Artifact scatter & features BMIII/PI RAR 5 Artifact scatter & features BMII and PIII RAR 6 Artifact scatter PIII RAR 7 Artifact scatter/pithouses PII/PIV RAR 8 Artifact scatter & features BMIII RAR 9 Artifact scatter/pithouses PI/PII RAR 10 Small pueblo PII/PIII RAR 11 Lithic scatter BMII RAR BMII; 14C: AD477+-45 yrs 12 Artifact scatter & features RAR (68%)1 13A Artifact scatter & features BMII RAR

4 13B Artifact scatter & features BMII RAR 13C Artifact scatter & features BMII RAR 13D Artifact scatter & features BMII RAR 14 Artifact scatter/pithouses BMIII/PI & PII/III RAR 15 Sherd scatter BMIII/PI & PII/III RAR 16 Sherd scatter BMIII RAR 17 Artifact scatter & features; structures PII/PIII RAR 18 Rock shelter PII/PIII RAR 19 Grinding slicks in canyon BMII ? RAR 20 Artifact scatter BMII & BMIII RAR 21 Sherd scatter PI/PII/PIII RAR 22A Artifact scatter/pithouses BMIII/PI & PII/III RAR 22B Artifact scatter PII/III RAR 22C Artifact scatter & features BMII; 14C: 68BC+-57 yrs (68%) RAR 23 Artifact scatter & features PIII RAR 24 Sherd Scatter PII/III RAR 25 Artifact scatter BMIII/PI RAR 26 Lithic scatter BMII RAR 27A Artifact scatter BMII RAR 27B Artifact scatter BMII & BMIII/PI RAR 29 Sherd scatter PII/PIII RAR 30 Artifact scatter PI/PII RAR 31 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 32 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 33 Artifact scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 34 Artifact scatter/pithouses BMIII/PI RAR 35 Sherd and lithic scatter BMIII/PI RAR 36 Habitation site with trash midden PIII RAR 40 Sherd scatter PII/PIII RAR 41 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 42 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 43 Artifact scatter BMII and PII/PIII RAR 44 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 45 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 54 Features and scatter BMII and PI RAR 55 Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 56 Artifact scatter BMIII/PI RAR 57 Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 58 Artifact scatter/pithouses BMIII/PI/PII/PIII RAR 59 Artifact scatter/pithouses PII/PIII RAR 60 Artifact scatter/pithouses PII/PIII RAR 62 Artifact scatter & features BMIII/PI RAR 63 Artifact scatter BMIII/PI RAR 64 Artifact scatter & features BMIII/PI/PII/PIII RAR 65 Artifact scatter BMIII/PI/PII/PIII RAR 66 Artifact scatter & features BMIII/PI/PII/PIII RAR 67 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 68A Artifact scatter/pithouses BMIII/PI RAR 68B Artifact scatter & features PII/PIII RAR 79 Artifact scatter & features BMII RAR 86 Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 87 Artifact Scatter & Features BMIII/PI RAR

5 88A Artifact Scatter & Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 88B Artifact Scatter & Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 89 Artifact Scatter & Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 90A Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII and PII/PIII RAR 90B Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII/BMIII/PI RAR 90C Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 91 Artifact Scatter & Features BMIII/PI RAR 92 Artifact Scatter PII/PIII RAR 93 Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 94 Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 95A Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 95B Artifact Scatter PIV RAR 95C Artifact Scatter PIV RAR 96 Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 97 Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98A Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98B Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98C Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98D Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98E Lithic Scatter and Features Late Archaic/BMII and PII/PIII RAR 98F Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98G Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98H Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98I Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98J Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98K Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98L Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98M Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98N Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98O Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 98P Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 99 Lithic Scatter and Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 100 Artifact Scatter & Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 101 Artifact Scatter BMIII/PI RAR 102 Artifact Scatter & Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 103A Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 103B Artifact Scatter BMIII/PI RAR 103C Artifact Scatter BMIII/PI RAR 103D Artifact Scatter BMIII/PI RAR 104 Artifact Scatter & Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 105 Petroglyph Unknown RAR 106 Petroglyphs and Features Unknown RAR 107 Artifact Scatter & Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 108A Lithic Scatter and Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 108B Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 109 Artifact Scatter PII/PIII and PIV? RAR 110 Petroglyph BMIII/PI RAR 111 Petroglyph Unknown RAR 112 Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII/BMIII/PI RAR 113A Artifact Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 113B Artifact scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 113C Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR

6 114A Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 114B Lithic Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 115 Artifact scatter BMII/BMIII RAR 116 Artifact scatter PI/PII RAR 117 Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 118A Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 118B Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 118C Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 118D Lithic Scatter and Features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 119 Artifact scatter/pithouses BMIII/PI RAR 120 Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 121A Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 121B Artifact scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 122 Petroglyphs and Scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 123 Artifact scatter/pithouses BMIII/PI RAR 124A Artifact scatter & features Unknown RAR 124B Artifact scatter & features Unknown RAR 125 Artifact scatter BMIII/PI RAR 126 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 127 Artifact scatter PII/PIII RAR 128 Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 129 Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 130 Artifact scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 131 Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 132 Petroglyph Unknown RAR 133 Petroglyph Unknown RAR 134 Petroglyph Unknown RAR 135 Artifact scatter BMII/PI/PII/PIII RAR 136 Feature Unknown RAR 137 Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII RAR 138 Artifact scatter & features Late Archaic/BMII RAR 37 Habitation with trash midden PIII 16 37B Midden and Features PII/PIII 16 38 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 39 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 46 Artifact Scatter PII/PIII 16 47 Artifact scatter & features PII/PIII 16 48 Small pueblo PII/PIII 16 49 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 50 Artifact scatter BMIII/PI/PII/PIII 16 51 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 52 Artifact scatter & features PII/PIII 16 53 Artifact scatter/field house PII/PIII 16 69 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 70 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 71 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 72 Sherd scatter PII/PIII 16 73 Sherd scatter BMIII/PI/PII/PIII 16 74 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 75 Artifact scatter Late Archaic/BMII 16 76 Artifact scatter BMIII/PI/PII/PIII 16

7 77 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 78 Lithic scatter Late Archaic/BMII 16 80 Artifact scatter/field house PIII 16 81 Artifact scatter/pithouses PIII 16 82 Artifact scatter PII/PIII 16 83 Artifact scatter/pithouses PII/PIII 16 84 Artifact scatter/field house PIII 16 85 Artifact scatter & features Unknown 16

ROCK ART RANCH

Site density is very low until right along the edges of Chimney, Bell Cow, and Chevelon Canyons (Figure 2). Between the canyon and the ranch were small (spatially), low-density scatters of sherds and flaked stone. Along the eastern edge of the canyon is a roughly 100 to 200 meter swath of low density but continuous artifact scatter in the sand dunes. The scatter is so diffuse that in many cases this would not meet the definition of a site based on artifact densities, and yet, it is continuous enough that it is difficult to separate into clearly defined sites or scatters. This concentration of artifacts extends west along Bell Cow Canyon and Chevelon Canyon towards the rock art site in that area and generally suggests pre-ceramic populations. Site numbers were assigned only to high density or diversity artifact clusters, often including metates, or where features were present. Chevelon Canyon, differentiated from the others in the survey area by its depth and sharp drop-offs, was bordered by concentrations of early materials, many indicating Paleoindian use of the area. For the numerous archaic sites, features were typically vertical or clustered burned or unburned sandstone slabs. These are interpreted as storage cists and cooking features. It is likely pit structures are present, but the unconsolidated nature of the sands covering these sites may not preserve structure features without stone. During excavations of a 13th century pueblo (RAR 2), a pre‐ ceramic pit structure and associated bell‐ shaped storage pit cut into the caliche were discovered, suggesting pit structures exist at pre‐ ceramic sites with features and dense artifact scatters. Several habitation sites were recorded on small dunes and ridges, clustered near the canyon and near areas that appeared to be ideal for dry farming. These include small pueblos up to 10 masonry rooms dating to Pueblo III (1125‐ 1275 CE) based on decorated ceramics. One large pithouse community, RAR 22A, has surface indications of numerous burned pit structures dating late Basketmaker III into early Pueblo I (700‐ 850 CE) and a smaller pit structure community (RAR 22B) predating the small pueblos and assigned a Pueblo II/early Pueblo III time range (1050‐ 1150 CE). A small valley east of RAR 22 has the highest density of sage and rabbitbrush on the ranch indicating ideal dry (rainfall) farming conditions. A large ash stain at RAR 68 also likely indicates the presence of a burned pit structure dating to Basketmaker III/early Pueblo I. RAR 4, which includes four loci found just south of Bell Cow Canyon, is a large Basketmaker III/Pueblo I site with evidence of multiple midden areas, small above ground pueblos, and pit structures. RAR 123 is a small pithouse village marked by several upright slabs and storage features. West of Chimney Canyon is a shallow basin with higher outcrops of Moenkopi Sandstone to the north and south. The Moenkopi sandstone is also exposed as a low cliff above the Coconino Sandstone on the west side of Chimney Canyon and the east side of the basin. The basin has deep, stable sand deposits with several high-density artifact scatters worthy of site numbers, but lacking clear habitation structures. The sites suggest the basin supported long‐ term, small‐ scale dry farming throughout the ceramic period (ca. 600‐ 1275 CE) in the area. Sources of these populations appear to be the pit structure and pueblo habitation sites on high points surrounding the basin. The survey crew also located several Hopi yellow ware sherds in the basin documenting continued use into the 1300s.

8 Field school students documented plant density and diversity within 10m x 10m study plots located near the ranch, just east of Chimney Canyon, and in the west Chimney Canyon basin near several artifact clusters. They discovered higher plant density and diversity in the basin study plot than in the other study plots. This suggests the basin had superior soils to support dry farming.

GENERAL PHYSIOLOGY

Rock Art Ranch is located in the Great Basin Desert Grasslands centered on an area 5 to 6 mi south of the Little Colorado River. It is near the boundary of the grasslands and juniper‐ dominated uplands, located a mile or two to the south. Between the ranch headquarters and the Little Colorado River are several ridges and valleys that drain more to the adjacent canyons rather than directly into the river. The ridges and higher terrain associated with Apache Butte effectively direct the flow east to McDonald Canyon or west to Chimney Canyon and Chimney Draw before reaching the river. Sand dunes, including several large, active dunes, occur in the area north and west of the ranch, and occur predominantly along the east side of Chimney Canyon. The sand is thrown up or dropped along this part of the canyon by the predominant southwest winds. These dunes and small side valleys seem to be ideal locations for dry farming. RAR is located a bit west of the halfway point between McDonald and Chimney canyons, both of which convey large amounts of water at times from the highlands to the south along the Mogollon Rim into the Little Colorado River. In their middle reaches, both canyons are much shallower than Chevelon Canyon (farther west), and are therefore more accessible to get water and to potentially use interior terraces and bottomland for farming. In the middle reaches of Chimney Canyon surveyed by the field school in 2011‐ 12, there are 8 “dikes” where the bedrock rises up in small ridges running across the canyon, restricting the flow of water in the canyon. The basins created by these dikes are generally filled with loose sand, and there are some extensive patches of exposed bedrock as well. The bedrock, which is Coconino Sandstone, naturally forms shallow basins and these collect and hold water from rain or snowmelt and could have been seasonally used to supplement more permanent sources. Trenching in 2012 tested the deep pockets of sand held behind the natural terraces in Chimney and Bell Cow canyons. Deposits in both canyons were augured to 1.8 m with pools of water collecting in the trenches beginning at 1.5 m. Given that the region has suffered a nearly continuous drought since 1999, it is likely the sand‐ filled basins in Chimney and Bell Cow canyons held permanent water readily accessible through construction of shallow wells. In addition to the smaller canyons, Chevelon Canyon has a permanent water flow available at the surface. There are often several terrace levels within the canyons, sometimes loaded with artifacts from farther upstream or eroded into the canyon from the dunes along the edges. Given the natural catchment of the canyons, there are also significant riparian communities in the otherwise fairly homogeneous grassland area. Riparian plants in Chimney Canyon include coyote willow, narrow‐ leaf cottonwood, and hackberry. Chevelon and Bell Cow canyons also have black walnut. These would provide materials for house construction and edible fruits. The resulting plant diversity and concentration of farmland and water clearly attracted earlier human populations to the canyons. Early in the field season, it was noted by all that nighttime temperatures were much cooler than we had usually experienced in Winslow. RAR is slightly higher than most of the Homol’ovi area, it is a non-urban area, closer to the higher elevation of the Mogollon Rim, and close to several small, shallow drainages that drain colder air from the highlands past the ranch flowing down-slope toward the river as part of the typical diurnal cycle.

NOTEWORTHY FINDINGS

1) Site frequency (Table 2) is dominated by three periods: Late Archaic/Basketmaker II (Pre- ceramic, early agriculture), Basketmaker III/early Pueblo I (700-850 CE), and Pueblo II/III (1050-1275 CE). Additionally, four artifact scatters dating to the Pueblo IV period are located at Rock Art Ranch, often on sites dating to early periods. Distributions of the sites dating to these four time periods across the survey area are presented in Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7. There seems to be a period of about 100-150 years (Pueblo II, 850-1050 CE) when the use of the study area dropped in intensity. Occupation of the area is the densest during the Archaic/Basketmaker II period and most concentrated along the edges of canyons..

Table 2: Habitation sites by time period at Rock Art Ranch Time Period Habitation Features Scatter Total Archaic/BMII 1 31 48 80 BMIII/PI 10 12 21 43 PII/PIII 13 6 24 43 PIV 0 0 4 4 Total 24 49 97 170 *Several sites contained multiple temporal components resulting in the total (170) being larger than the total number of sites and loci identified on RAR during survey (153).

2) As suggested by an earlier survey along the west side of Chevelon Canyon by Bruce and Lisa Huckell (1993), there is a continuous use of this upland area from Middle Archaic on—indicated by the diagnostic projectile points, bifacial lithic technology evident in the debitage, types of ground stone present, and stone slab features (Figures 8 and 9). 3) Non-habitation sites from ceramic periods, likely related to farming, are present in areas with sand dunes or deep, stable sand deposits (Figures 5 and 6). It is likely the bottoms of the shallow canyons were also used for farming to supplement the upland dry farming, but this record is not preserved due to the high-energy flood events that periodically flush out the canyons. Testing in Chimney and Bell Cow canyons revealed no stratigraphy or buried archaeological deposits. 4) Hopi Yellow Ware is relatively rare at Rock Art Ranch. The majority of the sherds that have been found are located along Bell Cow and Chevelon Canyons and their density increases towards the rock art site (Figures 7 and 10). Many of these appear to be pot drops and most of the sherds were found within the boundaries of RAR 79 and RAR 95. The conservation lab at the Arizona State Museum reconstructed one of these pot drops, an Awatovi Neckbanded jar with an interior design dating post-1400 (Figure 11). 5) Compared to sites through all time periods at Homol’ovi (Lange 1998) and reported in the literature for west of Chevelon Canyon (Lyndon 2005), obsidian is incredibly scarce in the study area. The survey and excavations recovered very few flakes almost all from RAR 33, RAR 79, RAR 95, and RAR 123 (Figure 12). Obsidian occurs both on sites and as isolates, but is concentrated along the edge of Bell Cow and Chevelon Canyons. 6) Projectile points dating from the Paleoindian through Pueblo periods are found at Rock Art Ranch along Chimney and Bell Cow Canyons (Figures 13, 14, and 15) (Duke 2016). They were mainly made from non-local chert and petrified wood across all time periods at Rock Art Ranch (Table 3).

10 Table 3: Projectile Point Types, Date, and Materials from Rock Art Ranch. (Duke 2016: Table 1). Total by Non Local Petrified Time Period Type Total Time Period Local Chert Chert Chalcedony Quartzite Igneous Wood Obsidian Rhyolite Indeterminate Indeterminate 55 (25.57%) 55 (25.58%) 10 (4.65%) 23 (10.7%) 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%) 19 (8.84%) Indeterminate Paleo Indeterminate Paleo1 7 (3.26%) 2 (0.93%) 2 (0.93%) 3 (1.4%) Early Paleoindian Clovis 3 (1.4%) 1 (0.47%) 2 (0.93%) Middle Paleoindian Lanceolate Plano2 10 (4.65%) 29 (13.49%) 7 (3.26%) 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) Late Paleoindian Scottsbluff3 6 (2.79%) 2 (0.93%) 2 (0.93%) 2 (0.93%) Paleoarchiac Lake Mojave 3 (1.4%) 1 (0.47%) 2 (0.93%) Early/Middle Archaic Bajada 13 (6.05%) 4 (1.86%) 5 (2.33%) 1 (0.47%) 3 (1.4%) Middle Archaic Pinto 18 (8.37%) 3 (1.4%) 12 (5.58%) 1 (0.47%) 2 (0.93%) San Jose 13 (6.05%) 4 (1.86%) 5 (2.33%) 4 (1.86%) Middle/Late Archaic

Northern Side Notched 3 (1.4%) 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) Ventana Side Notched 4 (1.86%) 3 (1.4%) 1 (0.47%) San Rafael Side Notched 3 (1.4%) 71 (33.02%) 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) Datil 10 (4.65%) 6 (2.79%) 1 (0.47%) 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) Late Archaic Maljamar 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%)

Cortaro 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%) Gypsum 3 (1.4%) 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) Durango 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%) Black Mesa 6 (2.79%) 2 (0.93%) 2 (0.93%) 2 (0.93%) Basketmaker II

San Pedro 20 (9.3%) 1 (0.47%) 12 (5.58%) 6 (2.79%) 1 (0.47%) 31 (14.42%) Cienega 4 (1.86%) 3 (1.4%) 1 (0.47%) Basketmaker III/PI Livermore 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%) Pueblo I Dolores 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%) Pueblo I/II Chaco 2 (0.93%) 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%) 29 (13.49%) Pueblo II/III Western Triangular 4 (1.86%) 3 (1.4%) 1 (0.47%) Pueblo III/IV Pueblo Side Notched 21 (9.74%) 2 (0.93%) 13 (6.05%) 1 (0.47%) 5 (2.33%) 103 59 Total 215 (100%) 215 (100%) 38 (17.7%) (47.91%) 4 (1.86%) 2 (0.93%) 7 (3.26%) (27.44%) 1 (0.47%) 1 (0.47%)

1 Indeterminate Paleo points were typed based on the presence of blade grinding, collateral, horizontal transverse, oblique transverse, or chevron flaking patterns (Van Buren 1974), the observations of C. Vance Haynes, or the observations of Vance T. Holliday 2 Lanceolate Plano contains the following number of subtypes: 2 Plainview, 2 Midland, 3 Agate Basin, 2 Hell Gap, and 1 Milnesand 3 Scottsbluff contains the following number of subtypes: 3 Eden and 3 Cody Knives

7) Over 300 pieces of ground stone have been recorded during survey of Rock Art Ranch (Figure 17). The analyzed ground stone assemblages were largely composed of basin and flat metates and manos (Figure 18; Table 4). Additionally, two caches of two manos were found during survey of the area. The paired manos in each cache appeared to be made of different sandstone; one Coconino and one Moenkopi each.

Table 4: Types of Manos and Metates Analyzed from Rock Art Ranch.

Ground Stone Count Total Metate 170 Flat 82 (48%) Basin 66 (39%) Trough 3 (2%) Indeterminate 19 (11%) Total Mano 71 One-Hand 31 (44%) Two-Hand 34 (48%) Indeterminate 6 (8%)

8) Over 50 bedrock grinding features occur along the length of Bell Cow Canyon (Figure 19). These features are often clustered into groups of 5-10, range from pecked areas prepared for grinding to basin shaped grooves used for grinding in the rock, and further emphasize the importance of the canyons and their diverse resources to the populations using and living in the study area (Figure 20). 9) Almost 1900 isolated sherds were documented, but not collected, during survey of RAR (Table 5). Tusayan accounts for 51% of the assemblage, followed by large percentages of Little Colorado (27%) and Mogollon (13%) (Figures 21, 22, and 23). Combined, Alameda, Cibola, and Puerco account for only 10% of the total assemblage.

Table 5: Isolated Ceramic Wares Identified During RAR Survey.

Ware Count Alameda Brown 13 (1%) Cibola White 145 (8%) Little Colorado Gray and White 506 (27%) Mogollon Brown 251 (13%) Puerco White 4 (0%) Tusayan Gray and White 948 (51%) Total 1867

10) Over 6000 isolated lithics were documented, but not collected, during survey of RAR (Table 6). Almost three quarters (73%) of these were chert. The only other material types to appear in substantial quantities were petrified wood (13%) and quartzite (8%) (Figures 24, 25, and 26). While the other material types occur in much lower quantities, they indicate the utilization of a diverse group of stone material sources within the region.

Table 6: Raw Material Types for Lithic Isolates Identified During RAR Survey.

Material Count Basalt 227 (4%) Chalcedony 110 (2%) Chert 4420 (73%) Igneous 49 (1%) Jasper 3 (0%) Obsidian 14 (0%) Petrified 767 (13%) Wood Quartzite 479 (8%) Rhyolite 5 (0%) Total 6074

11) Over 250 lithic cores have been found during survey of Rock Art Ranch (Figure 27). As with other lithic materials, chert is the predominant material source within the sample at 58%. Interestingly, quartzite cores account for 25% of the sample despite composing only 8% of the lithic assemblage, whereas only 6% of the cores are petrified wood despite 13% of the lithic assemblage being composed of this material (Tables 6 and 7).

Table 7: Raw Material Types for Cores Identified During RAR Survey. Material Count Basalt 21 (8%) Chert 159 (58%) Igneous 9 (3%) Petrified Wood 16 (6%) Quartzite 68 (25%) Total 273

12) Ceramics have been analyzed from 78 survey sites and loci on Rock Art Ranch with the largest concentrations from RAR 6 and RAR 7 (Table 8). Counts from excavations at RAR 2 and 17 are not included. Mogollon Brown Ware (33%), Tusayan Gray Ware (31%), and Tusayan White Ware (12%) are the most prevalent identified within the sample. The majority of yellow and orange wares were from RAR 79, RAR 113B, RAR 109, and the three loci of RAR 95. Almost all of the San Juan Red Ware (25 sherds) was found on RAR 123. No other Basketmaker III/Pueblo I communities had more than a single San Juan Red Ware sherd. While the identified Tusayan sherds are more commonly gray ware, the Little Colorado and Cibola sherds are more likely to be white ware.

Table 8: Ceramic Wares from Sites at Rock Art Ranch (Analysis by Byron Estes).

i i

/ /

like like like -

Site - Totals

San San

Tsegi

Little Little Little

Ware Ware Ware

White White

Valley Valley

Cibola Cibola

Puerco Puerco Puerco Puerco

Jeddito Jeddito

Yellow Orange Orange

Awatov

Tusayan Tusayan Tusayan

Alameda Alameda

San Juan San

Colorado Colorado Colorado

Mogollon Mogollon

Roosevelt Roosevelt

Francisco Francisco

Mountain Mountain Plain Ind. Mountain

Red Ware Red Ware Red Ware Red

Dec. Ware Dec.

Homol’ovi Homol’ovi

Valley Valley

Gray Ware Gray Ware Gray

Gray Ware/ Ware/ Gray

White Ware White Ware White Ware White

Utility Ware Utility Ware Utility

Brown Ware Brown Ware Brown Yellow Ware Yellow RAR 9 30 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 19 (63%) 4A (30%) (0%) RAR 65 126 2 2 337 1 (0%) 39 (12%) 97 (29%) 4 (1%) 1 (0%) 4B (19%) (38%) (1%) (1%) (3%) RAR 112 234 2 7 695 238 (34%) 75 (11%) 22 (3%) 1 (0%) 3 (0%) 1 (0%) 4C (16%) (34%) (0%) (1%) (7%) RAR 2 8 19 9 (47%) 4D (11%) (42%) (0%) 18 839 1544 RAR 6 3 (0%) 103 (7%) 273 (18%) 282 (18%) 19 (1%) 7 (0%) (1%) (54%) (15%) 10 31 17 252 1162 RAR 7 1 (0%) 128 (11%) 688 (59%) 25 (2%) 10 (1%) (1%) (3%) (1%) (22%) (12%) 12 15 86 414 RAR 8 1 (0%) 38 (9%) 246 (59%) 15 (4%) 1 (0%) (3%) (4%) (21%) (4%) 89 284 RAR 9 54 (19%) 132 (46%) 7 (2%) 2 (1%) (31%) (3%) RAR 133 248 2 (1%) 30 (12%) 49 (20%) 29 (12%) 5 (2%) 10 (54%) (2%) RAR 17 3 (18%) 2 (12%) 10 (59%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 12 (0%) RAR 47 106 1 (1%) 4 (4%) 45 (42%) 3 (3%) 5 (5%) 1 (1%) 13B (44%) (1%) RAR 2 2 (50%) 4 (0%) 13C (50%) RAR 14 12 (86%) 2 (14%) 13D (0%) RAR 11 207 1 18 1 585 94 (16%) 208 (36%) 25 (4%) 7 (1%) 6 (1%) 7 (1%) 14 (2%) (35% (0%) (3%) (0%) (6%) RAR 49 23 109 1 211 6 (3%) 3 (1%) 18 (9%) 2 (1%) 17 (23%) (11%) (52%) (0%) (2%) RAR 9 15 1 47 3 (6%) 5 (11%) 9 (19%) 5 (11%) 18 (19%) (32%) (2%) (1%) RAR 48 3 65 4 (6%) 4 (6%) 6 (9%) 21 (74%) (5%) (1%) RAR 32 174 3 8 567 7 (1%) 67 (12%) 252 (44%) 22 (4%) 2 (0%) 22A (6%) (31%) (1%) (1%) (6%) RAR 10 24 2 (8%) 7 (29%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 22B (42%) (0%) RAR 148 3 7 446 1 (0%) 41 (9%) 230 (52%) 7 (2%) 1 (0%) 8 (2%) 22C (33%) (1%) (2%) (4%) RAR 15 7 30 2 (7%) 6 (20%) 23 (50%) (23%) (0%) RAR 6 10 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 24 (60%) (0%) RAR 24 22 (92%) 2 (8%) 25 (0%) RAR 3 (100%) 3 (0%) 29 RAR 13 115 376 1 (0%) 109 (29%) 135 (36%) 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 35 (3%) (31%) (4%) RAR 38 96 1 122 7 12 1 336 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 5 (1%) 2 (1%) 22 (7%) 27 (8%) 1 (0%) 36 (11%) (29%) (0%) (36%) (2%) (4%) (0%) (3%) RAR 1 1 (0%) 43 (100%) RAR 1 1 (0%) 54 (100%) RAR 1 5 (83%) 6 (0%) 55 (17%) RAR 2 (100%) 2 (0%) 56 RAR 151 261 1 (0%) 8 (3%) 32 (12%) 59 (23%) 4 (2%) 6 (2%) 58 (58%) (3%) RAR 125 281 50 (18%) 88 (31%) 16 (6%) 2 (1%) 59 (44%) (3%) RAR 125 210 43 (20%) 33 (16%) 9 (4%) 60 (60%) (2%) RAR 24 6 45 7 (13%) 3 (5%) 1 (2%) 4 (7%) 79 (44%) (11%) (0%) RAR 3 (100%) 3 (0%) 86 RAR 5 (100%) 5 (0%) 87 RAR 12 14 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 88A (86%) (0%) RAR 26 26

88B (100%) (0%) RAR 10 2 (20%) 8 (80%) 90A (0%) RAR 2 (100%) 2 (0%) 90B RAR 85 5 (6%) 12 (14%) 60 (71%) 8 (9%) 91 (1%) RAR 2 10 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 1 (10%) 92 (20%) (0%) RAR 1 1 2 (0%) 94 (50%) (50%)

15 RAR 5 5 (0%) 95A (100%) RAR 7 1 (13%) 8 (0%) 95B (88%) RAR 19 19

95C (100%) (0%) RAR 1 1 (50%) 2 (0%) 98D (50%) RAR 1 1 (0%) 98I (100%) RAR 1 (100%) 1 (0%) 98J RAR 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 (0%) 99 RAR 3 24 1 (4%) 17 (71%) 3 (13%) 101 (13%) (0%) RAR 1 (100%) 1 (0%) 102 RAR 4 (100%) 4 (0%) 103B RAR 45 4 (9%) 9 (20%) 23 (51%) 7 (16%) 2 (4%) 103C (0%) RAR 2 13 2 (15%) 9 (69%) 103D (15%) (0%) RAR 14 22 2 (9%) 4 (18%) 2 (9%) 104 (64%) (0%) RAR 1 1 (0%) 107 (100%) 239 RAR 16 18 296 18 (6%) 1 (0%) 4 (1%) (81 109 (5%) (6%) (3%) %) RAR 29 20 (69%) 7 (24%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 112 (0%) RAR 1 1 (0%) 113A (100% RAR 25 60 34 (57%) 1 (2%) 113B (42%) (1%) RAR 5 (100% 5 (0%) 115 RAR 2 3 (60%) 5 (0%) 116 (40%) RAR 21 88 5 (6%) 22 (25%) 35 (40%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 119 (24%) (1%) RAR 1 (100%) 1 (0%) 121A RAR 2 1 (33%) 3 (0%) 121B (67%) RAR 19 1 131 2 (2%) 15 (11%) 66 (50%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 25 (19%) 123 (15%) (1%) (1%)

16 RAR 1 (17% 4 (67%) 1 (17%) 6 (0%) 124A RAR 7 18 2 (11%) 3 (17%) 6 (33%) 124B (39%) (0%) RAR 3 12 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 125 (25%) (0%) RAR 26 29 3 (10%) 126 (90%) (0%) 203 RAR 349 2 (1%) 8 (2%) 132 (38%) 1 (0%) 3 (1%) (58 127 (3%) %) RAR 1 (100%) 1 (0%) 129 RAR 11 11 (100%) 130 (0%) RAR 1 1 (0%) 131 (100%) RAR 11 11 (100%) 133B (0%) RAR 23 274 1 (0%) 73 (27%) 5 (2%) 172 (63%) 135 (8%) (3%) RAR 11 19 4 (21%) 2 (11%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 138 (58%) (0%) 100 246 3142 109 125 315 1 3329 15 469 68 3 Totals 23 (0%) 9 (0%) 1250 (12%) 829 (8%) 28 (0%) 10061 (1%) (2%) (31%) (1%) (1%) (3%) (0%) (33%) (0%) (5%) (1%) (0%)

17 13) Rock Art Ranch has 3000 documented petroglyphs largely dating to the Archaic and early agricultural (Basketmaker II) periods (3000 BCE – 500 CE) (Adams 2015). During the 2015 field season, an additional 8 petroglyphs were identified and recorded (Figure 28). Six of these were located along the bedrock lining Bell Cow Canyon, while two appeared on rock faces farther upslope. One anthropomorphic figure was documented, along with several zoomorphic and geometric designs (Figure 29)

SETTLEMENT AND CULTURE HISTORY OF ROCK ART RANCH AREA

With five summers of survey and test excavations at two small pueblos and the analysis of ceramics and some lithics and ground stone completed, the RAR field school is now in the position to make some general observations about the settlement and culture history of the area. By culture history, we are referring to the identity of the archaeological cultures that most likely were using or occupying the area.

Pre-Basketmaker II Use of Rock Art Ranch

The abundance of projectile points from Clovis through late Paleoindian, early Archaic, and Middle Archaic periods make it clear that the nonagricultural resources of the study area were long important in the seasonal rounds of these groups. The concentration of these points near the canyon edges suggests they used the same seasonal resources exploited by early agriculturists. The presence of permanent water in Chevelon Canyon and easily accessible water with shallow wells in Chimney and Bell Cow canyons must have been important factors in the continuous use of the study area for over 12,000 years. Projectile points are made principally on non-local cherts and petrified wood, with some use of local cherts and other materials from local gravels (Table 3). Possibly these sources are tied to groups who migrated to the study area from points east along the Little Colorado River and brought the San Juan style petroglyphs beginning in the middle to early Archaic. How these groups interacted with existing populations is unclear. Possibly, local groups were forced west into more mountainous areas and in turn restricted the new immigrants access to obsidian.

Pre-ceramic/Basketmaker II

Pre-ceramic sites are concentrated along Chimney and Bell Cow canyons with only three of 80 sites located greater than 250 meters from either canyon (Figure 4). All sites are presently located in shallow sandy aeolian deposits ranging from 10 cm up to 3 m. No site is more than 10 m above the bottom of either canyon. All sites are within 4 km of The Steps and most are within 2 km. Site density on the west side of Chimney Canyon is much sparser with site size considerably smaller. Thirty-two pre-ceramic sites contained at least one feature; these features are roughly divided between storage and thermal uses. Additionally, numerous ash stains were noted on pre- ceramic sites. One BMII pit house and associated bell-shaped cist was discovered during excavations at a small pueblo along Chimney Canyon with the field number RAR 2 (AZ P:3:114). The pit house is 2.7 m in diameter; 20 cm deep with a single central storage pit 60 cm in diameter and 40 cm deep. Bruce and Lisa Huckell excavated a small pit house at God’s Pocket (AZ P:2:56) 6.5 km southwest of the ranch survey area on the west side of Chevelon Canyon. This pit house was 2.8 m in diameter, 15-20 cm deep with a central thermal feature containing burned corn that yielded a 14C calibrated age of 750-550 BCE. Calibrated 14C ages from burned annuals from thermal features at six other pre-ceramic sites and God’s Pocket are shown in Figure 30. Although seven dates is a very small sample, still they cluster into three time periods all within the early agricultural of BMII period: 815-500 BCE, 200 BCE – 250 CE, and 320-575 CE. Only the feature from God’s Pocket had maize. These dates match the estimated age of about 75% of the petroglyphs at The Steps. The strong association of pre-ceramic sites with the canyons is expected because they hold the greatest variety of natural resources, including plants, habitat for large ungulates, a reliable stone source for metates, and permanent water accessible by shallow wells. Surrounding the canyons are diverse species of grasses, including Indian Rice grass. Edible plants are most abundant in spring and late summer, while game is most abundant in fall and winter. So what were these early agriculturalists doing in the study area? The best indicator is the abundant ground stone. More than 1000 fragments of ground stone have been documented in the study area including basin and flat metate forms strongly associated with pre-ceramic sites and features on those sites. This suggests the predominant activity during BMII times was processing of plant remains. The complete absence of maize from burned features suggests food processing was focused on the abundant and diverse grasses and other edible plants even though the bottoms of both canyons seems well suited to garden plots for maize. Given the small sample size, it certainly is possible some farming was practiced. Late Archaic/BMII projectile points are abundant. While many are associated with sites, just as many occur as isolates, suggesting hunting supplemented the BMII diet. This is reinforced by the predominance of retouch and other fine manufacturing flakes on BMII sites with features. Flaked stone is dominated by local cherts with a source from eroded Shinarump Formation gravels near Bell Cow Canyon that also contains cobbles of quartzite, and more rarely, igneous and petrified wood. However, the diversity of petrified wood in color and quality on pre-ceramic sites indicates most of it is not from the local source and may be from as far away as the Petrified Forest 55 km east (Table 9). Notable is the near absence of obsidian. This suggests a social boundary with groups west of Clear Creek, where 57.4% of projectile points are obsidian (Lyndon 2005:156) and petroglyphs are of a local style quite different from the San Juan style at Chevelon Canyon (Pilles: PowerPoint Presentation at Rock Art Ranch 2011). The evidence so far suggests Rock Art Ranch was an important seasonal component of BMII subsistence. There are few pit houses, which should be visible on at least some of the highly deflated BMII sites, suggesting winter homes may have been elsewhere.

Table 9: Results of Inventory Analysis of Flaked Stone Collected from RAR-12 in 2011.

Total Of Petrified Artifact Type Chert Chalcedony Quartzite Igneous AZSite (%) Wood

Edge‐Damaged 205 (25.3) 135 3 3 4 60 Scraper 6 (0.7) 6

Retouched 8 (1.0) 8

Flake Core 16(2.0) 13 3

Core 4(0.5) 3 1

Drill 1 (0.1) 1

Complete 89 (11.0) 64 3 5 3 14 FlakeBroken 192 (23.7) 147 8 4 33 Flake Split Flake 16 (2.0) 6 1 3 2 4 Flake 91 (11.2) 69 3 3 16 Fragment Other 2 (0.2) 2

19 Pecking Stone 1 (0.1) 1

Hammerstone 1 (0.1) 1

Debris 176 (21.8) 126 2 8 7 33 Fire Cracked 1 (0.1) 1 Rock Total (%) 809 579 (71.6) 9 (1.1) 31 (3.8) 25 (3.1) 165 (20.4)

Basketmaker III/Pueblo I

The distribution of sites created by the first ceramic users in the region associated with BMII and PI groups is the broadest of any time period in the study area (Figure 5). Smaller sites with 1-3 pit houses, storage features, and middens are scattered between the canyons. Ceramics indicate these sites were created by BMIII groups (600-750 CE) of 1-3 families who were present only seasonally. Multiple artifact scatters in the grasslands between the two canyons suggest the area was preferred for farming. Sources for these small groups were likely the numerous larger villages along the Little Colorado River 5-10 km north. Two large Pueblo I sites are located 2.5 km apart, one on the east side of Chimney Canyon (RAR 22B) and the other (RAR 4) on the west and south side of Bell Cow Canyon. Each of these sites has more than 10 pit houses and extensive middens. The predominance of Kana’a B/W in these settlements suggests they were occupied sometime between 750-900 CE. Burning of most structures indicates there was no expectation of return when these communities were depopulated. Communities similar in size to the PI sites in the study area occur along the Little Colorado River but seem to predate those on Rock Art Ranch (Young 1996, 2012). Details of house form and size in the study area are not known, but 46% of ceramics are from the north, part of the Tusayan Tradition, and similar to those excavated by Young (1996) in Homolovi State Park. However, Mogollon Brown wares make up 26% of total ceramics from RAR 22B and 37% from RAR 4, while Alameda Brown wares comprise 13% of ceramics from RAR 4. These numbers suggest either robust exchange or co-residency of groups from north, south, and west. The presence of two Pueblo I sites (750-900 CE) indicate Rock Art Ranch was a locus of immigration from surrounding areas similar to the Hopi mesas and Puerco Valley of the West, both areas where larger settlements are known (Roberts 1939, 1940; Wilshusen et al. 2012; Throgmorton 2012). Petroglyphs from this period, ca. 600-900 CE, are common at The Steps, but miniscule in number compared to BMII glyphs. This underscores the small number and shorter duration of their use/occupation of the study area.

The Hiatus

From the beginning of the Pueblo I period to the Pueblo II period (possibly 850‐1100 CE) there is little indication of use, let alone occupation, of the study area. This pattern is nearly identical to the one identified by Lange (1998) in his survey of Homolovi State Park. As noted in the section above, settlements in the region to the east during this period are abundant involving large, complex communities (Burton 1993; Theuer 2012). These coalescent communities are similar to the ones in southwest Colorado and the Zuni area and seem connected to the Chaco system that expands out of the Canyon about 950 CE. Clearly, the study area is too marginal to these events with resources unable to support larger community size, especially during the Pueblo I period drought (Dean et al. 1985; Van West 1996). Minor resettlement of the study area began in the 1000s at RAR 4 as suggested by the presence of Black Mesa B/W, a few sherds of Dogoszhi B/W, and one sherd each of Holbrook A,

20 Holbrook B, and Padre B/W. The latter part of the Little Colorado White Ware tradition, comprising 2.5% of the RAR 4 assemblage, developed in the Hopi Buttes in the 1000s and supplanted Tusayan White wares (WW) in the study area and surrounding region by 1100. RAR 4 has extensive middens from this period and a small amount of surface architecture; several pit houses are also likely present. Additionally, Black Mesa B/W appears at RAR 22B, a moderately sized pithouse community adjacent to the large PI village on the terrace east of Chimney Canyon. This pattern mimics the one at Homol’ovi where pithouse communities with external storage continue into the early 1200s; however, on RAR pithouse settlements end before the appearance of Walnut B/W, or about 1125. The large midden associated with this site suggests either a large occupation or a long-lived one. The community at RAR 22A also has traces of Walnut B/W (1125- 1250) and numerous Cibola WW sherds dominated by Snowflake B/W (1100-1200); suggesting RAR 22A was occupied in the early 1100s. The early presence of Cibola WW anticipates greater contact with areas to the east in the 1200s. Numerous artifact scatters west of Chimney Canyon are likely loci of garden farming by occupants of this site and later ones, who would have used Chimney Canyon itself. Test trenches dug by the field school into Chimney Canyon (and Bell Cow Canyon) deposits, encountered standing pools of water at 1.65m. This resource would have provided drinking water and was likely used to hand-water crops.

Pueblo III

The most significant settlement change in the history of the study area occurred in the late 1100s and early 1200s CE when several small pueblos settled just north of RAR 22A along Chimney Canyon continuing on the east side of the canyon (Figure 6). Our excavations have focused on two of these sites (RAR 2 and RAR 17) with five calibrated radiocarbon dates at RAR 2 clustered at 1225-1250 CE (LaMotta 2013 from UA AMS Radiocarbon Lab, samples AA101448- 101453). One kilometer north of the excavated pueblos, the walls of Chimney Canyon are completely eroded away and for the next 2 km whatever water flow in the canyon spreads over a wide, flat floodplain approximately 1 km wide. Today, this floodplain is filled with driftwood and deep sandy soils at its mouth. It is around this area that six small pueblos are concentrated, all with ceramic assemblages indistinguishable from those at RAR 2. Although badly damaged, RAR 2 appears to have 6-8 rooms in a linear, 2-room wide arrangement. Room size is large at 8 m2, more similar to mountain (Mogollon) groups rather than Pueblo groups farther north. The other pueblos appear to be about the same size or, perhaps, slightly smaller. No larger pueblo with plaza architecture is apparent in the cluster; however, one of the pueblos has been completely bulldozed. Walnut B/W dominates ceramics at those pueblos; however, Tularosa B/W is present as well as White Mountain Red wares, usually St. Johns Polychrome, underscoring increasing contact with groups to the south and east. The utility wares are considerably more variable – a rich mix of Tusayan Gray wares, Puerco Valley Gray wares, and Mogollon Brown wares. The relationship between these pueblos, contemporary pueblos in Homolovi State Park, and Chevelon Pueblo are to be found in the utility ceramics. Petroglyphs dating to the PII/PIII period are fairly common in The Steps representing about 10% of the glyphs. Quite likely occupants of the PII/PIII villages along Chimney Canyon carved at least some of these. No such settlements occur west of Chevelon Canyon. A cluster of small pueblos is situated 4-5 km north of the Chimney Canyon cluster within 1 km of the Little Colorado River. No systematic collections have been made of these sites, but surface counts of ceramic types indicates the two clusters are contemporary. These groups could easily have visited The Steps at Chevelon canyon as well.

21 There is no ceramic evidence of populations occupying any portion of the region within or north of the surveyed area after 1275. There is a complete absence of later White Mountain Red wares (Pinedale and later), Roosevelt Red wares, or even white wares manufactured after 1275 with the exception of Tularosa B/W. Absence of red wares and polychromes manufactured after 1275 suggest depopulation of the area preceded the circulation of these types and wares. One of the most interesting phenomena at RAR is the relative paucity of Jeddito Yellow Ware ceramics that would indicate use of the area by the populations living at Chevelon Pueblo or other Homol’ovi villages—Chevelon is only 6 km away. There is evidence of some visitation by individuals of groups possessing Jeddito and Awatovi Yellow Ware manufactured at Hopi Mesa communities (Figure 7). Fewkes (1904) documented Hopi visitation to Chevelon Canyon in the 1890s to collect water birds and turtles for ceremonial uses. Relatively few yellow ware sherds were encountered during survey until 2014 near the juncture of Bell Cow and Chevelon Canyons (Figure 10). Many of the clusters of yellow ware represent pot drops and the majority is located on Basketmaker II sites, particularly RAR 79 and RAR 95. Additionally, the majority of the Jeddito and Awatovi Yellow Ware postdate 1400, after the Homol’ovi Settlement Cluster was depopulated. These ceramics suggest sustained visitation of the area from 1375 to as late as 1700. . SECTION 16

The occupation of Section 16 differed significantly from that of Rock Art Ranch proper. Occupation is scattered and sparse throughout most of the time periods, but jumps significantly in the Pueblo III period as evidenced by the large number of Walnut B/W sherds found throughout the area (Table 10). This includes the large pueblo, AZ P:3:112(ASM), and related loci that appear to be a center of activity from the Basketmaker III through the Pueblo III periods. AZ P:3:112(ASM) was excavated by the project from 2013-2015 and further details of these excavations can be found in a separate report (Lange 2014). Two habitation sites with extensive middens likely included multiple pithouses and date to the early Pueblo III period. The two other habitation sites in the section are a small pueblo and an additional small pithouse community. The majority of sites across all time periods were artifact scatters evidencing use of the area for farming. The exceptions were three small sites that included field houses likely associated with agricultural activities during the Pueblo III period.

Table 10: Habitation sites by time period in Section 16.

Time Period Habitation Total Late Archaic/BMII 0 2 BMIII/PI 0 3 PII/PIII 5 25 Total 5 30 *Several sites contained multiple temporal components resulting in the total (30) being larger than the total number of sites and loci identified on survey (28).

Artifact densities were lowest along the eastern and northeastern edges of the section. Interestingly, the greatest concentration of lithic materials appeared in the south half of the section. Ceramic densities appear to decrease with distance from AZ P:3:112(ASM).

GENERAL PHYSIOGRAPHY

Section 16 is a section of Arizona State Trust land located in an upland basin at the headwaters of Chimney and Lard Bucket canyons. Chimney Canyon runs nearly due north from the basin and becomes a steep walled canyon within a half-mile north of the section. Lard Bucket Canyon is a tributary of McDonald Canyon that also runs nearly due north toward the Little Colorado River. Chimney Canyon passes west of the Rock Art Ranch, McDonald Canyon to the east.

The watershed between these two canyons is located in the north central part of Section 16. That there is run-off and good surface water in this basin area is indicated by the twin stock tanks in the valley just to the west of the section. The upland basin is in the general broad slope that tilts down from the Mogollon Rim toward the Little Colorado River. The Little Colorado River is located 12 mi to the north, and the major canyon in the area, Chevelon Canyon, is 9 mi to the west.

The upland basin where Section 16 is located is a southwest to northeast oriented oval of about 3 mi2. Elevations in this part of the basin range from around 5610 ft along the eastern edge of the section to 5710 ft on a ridge top in the southwest portion of the section. The Multi-Kiva Site (AZ P:3:112[ASM]) is located on this high point, the highest location within Section 16. Elevations do rise higher along a ridge line that trends southwest from the section, rising to over 5900 ft within a mile to the south/southwest.

The section is mixed open grassland with fairly dense stands of juniper along the top edges of the ridgelines. The juniper in part of the section has been chained, as evidenced by ripped up masses of roots and trunks that also ripped up the bedrock and can occasionally look like prehistoric features. Cattle have been present throughout the section as well.

Much of the section is covered with a thin layer of sand (up to 20-50 cm maximum usually). There are also many locations where the bedrock is exposed. Much of the bedrock is Coconino Sandstone, but this section occurs near the margin of a geologically very complex area. A shoreline of the Permian sea that created the Kaibab Limestone occurs right in this area, so the farthest eastern reaches of the Kaibab Limestone become sandier and intergrade imperceptibly with the Coconino Sandstone here. The limestone becomes more prevalent as you move west, and the swirls of the Coconino Sandstone are obvious as you move north down Chimney and Chevelon canyons. Erosion in the upland basin has also exposed the stratigraphically higher Moenkopi Sandstone.

NOTEWORTHY FINDINGS

1. The majority of the sites in Section 16 were artifact scatters composed mainly of lithics, ceramics, and ground stone. Sites were absent from the northeast and southwest corners of the section and evidence of occupation increases through time (Figures 31, 32, and 33). 2. The main habitation site (AZ P:3:112[ASM]) was located on a ridge that is clearly identified within the section. However, other sites and scatters appear to decrease as elevation increases along these ridges (Figures 31, 32, and 33). 3. No Jeddito Yellow Ware was found within Section 16. Only 2 Awatovi Yellow Ware sherds were found associated with a Pueblo II/III artifact scatter (FN 77). 4. The sporadic appearances of projectile points from the Paleoindian through Pueblo time periods indicate persistent but sparse usage of the area. Nearly 40% of the projectile points found within this area were located within the boundaries of AZ P:3:112(ASM). For this

23 reason, these will be discussed separately. The vast majority of points not found on AZ P:3:112(ASM) was made of chert (Figure 34; Table 11). Direction of origin for the points found in this section was scattered, but were dominated by styles from the north and east (Table 12). Similarly to the rest of Section 16, the majority of the Projectile points from AZ P:3:112(ASM) are made from chert (Table 13). While most are arrow points that are contemporaneous with the site, there are five points that date to the Paleoindian and Archaic, indicating occupants of the site curated items found on the landscape (Table 14).

Table 11: Projectile Points through time by material type in Section 16 (Excluding AZ P:3:112(ASM)).

Petrified Time Period Chert Igneous Wood Total Paleoindian/Early Archaic 1 1 2 Middle Archaic 2 3 5 Late Archaic/Early Agriculture 2 1 3 Arrow Point 2 2 Unknown 4 1 2 7 Total 11 4 4 19

Table 12: Projectile Points by location of origin in Section 16 (Excluding AZ P:3:112(ASM)).

Projectile Point Type N/NW E/NE S/SE W/SW Nondirectional/Other Bajada 2 Chaco 1 Datil 1 Gypsum 1 Northern Side Notched 2 Pinto 2 Pueblo Side Notched 1 San Jose 1 San Pedro 1 Unknown 7 Total 3 5 1 2 8 Percentage 16% 26% 5% 11% 42%

Table 13: Projectile Points through time by material type from AZ P:3:112(ASM).

Time Period Chalcedony Chert Obsidian Petrified Wood Total Paleoindian/Early Archaic 2 2 Middle Archaic 1 2 3

24 Arrow Point 1 3 1 1 6 Unknown 2 2 Total 1 8 1 3 13

Table 14: Projectile Points by location of origin from AZ P:3:112(ASM).

Projectile Point Type N/NW E/NE W/SW Nondirectional/Other Bajada 1 Lanceolate Plano 1 Northern Side Notched 1 Pinto 1 Pueblo Side Notched 4 San Jose 1 Western Triangular 1 Unknown 3 Total 1 3 1 8 Percentage 8% 23% 8% 62%

5. A smaller amount of ground stone from Section 16 was analyzed (Figure 35). Flat manos and metates compose the majority of this assemblage (Table 15).

Table 15: Types of Manos and Metates analyzed from Section 16.

Basin Flat Trough Indeterminate Count Manos 2 5 2 9 Metates 4 1 1 6 Total 2 9 3 1 15

6. Over 350 sherds were found on survey of Section 16 (Table 16). Nearly 90% of these were either Little Colorado or Tusayan (Figures 36 and 37). The remainder included instances of Mogollon, Alameda, and Cibola wares.

Table 16: Ceramic Wares Identified during Survey from Section 16.

Ware Count Alameda Brown 3 (1%) Cibola White 13 (4%) Little Colorado White 171 (48%) Mogollon Brown 23 (6%) Tusayan Gray and White 148 (42%) Total 358

7. One hundred and forty-four lithics were identified during survey of Section 16 (Table 17). Over 75% of these were Chert and Petrified Wood (Figures 38 and 39) with the remainder being composed of Chalcedony, Obsidian, and Quartzite. Unlike Rock Art Ranch, no basalt

25 or rhyolite was identified on survey and a proportionally larger quantity of obsidian was identified (Figure 40).

Table 17: Lithic material types found as isolates from Section 16.

Material Count Chalcedony 15 (10%) Chert 52 (36%) Obsidian 9 (6%) Petrified Wood 61 (42%) Quartzite 7 (5%) Total: 144

8. Two crystals were found on survey, one associated with FN 81. Additionally, a large number of shaped sherds were encountered both on the sites and as isolates. These finds, in association with the greater proportion of obsidian (Table 17) and large number of curated projectile points (seen near AZ P:3:112(ASM) in Figure 34) in Section 16, support the identification of AZ P:3:112(ASM) as a center for local activities. 9. Ceramics have been analyzed from 21 sites from Section 16 with the largest concentrations from four sites (Table 18). Mogollon Brown Ware and Tusayan and Little Colorado White Wares are the most prevalent identified within the sample. White wares are much more common than gray wares for Tusayan, Little Colorado, and Cibola.

Table 18: Ceramic Wares from Sites on Section 16

Like Dec. Dec. Like

like Utility Utility like

- -

Total

Ware Ware Ware

Orange Ware Orange

Cibola Gray Ware Gray Cibola

Cibola White Ware White Cibola

Tsegi

Tusayan Gray Ware Gray Tusayan

Tusayan White Ware White Tusayan

Unknown Plain Ware Plain Unknown

Awatovi Yellow Ware Yellow Awatovi

Little Colorado White White Colorado Little

Alameda Brown Ware Brown Alameda

Mogollon Brown Ware Brown Mogollon

Puerco Puerco Valley

Little Colorado Gray Ware Gray Colorado Little

FN 38

7 (1%) 1 (0%) 1 (0%)

44 44 (9%) 31 (7%) 32 (7%) 34 (7%)

52 52 (11%)

129 (27%) 145 (30%) 476 (21%)

FN 39

1 (8%) 1 (8%)

5 (38%) 4 (31%) 2 (15%) 13 (1%)

FN 46

1 (0%) 1 (100%)

FN 47

8 (0%)

5 (63%) 3 (38%)

FN 48

2 (0%)

21 21 (4%) 24 (5%) 43 (8%) 35 (7%) 21 (4%)

178 (33%) 209 (39%) 533 (24%)

FN 51

(43%)

1 (2%) 1 (2%) 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 1 (2%)

8 (18%) 8 (18%) 44 (2%)

19 19

FN 52

4 (5%) 2 (2%) 3 (4%) 7 (8%) 1 (1%)

84 84 (4%)

23 23 (27%) 44 (52%)

FN 53

4 (24%) 2 (12%) 17 (1%)

11 11 (65%)

FN 69

1 (5%) 1 (5%)

6 (30%) 3 (15%) 7 (35%) 2 (10%) 20 (1%)

FN 70

(22%)

9 (0%)

2 2 2 (22%) 1 (11%) 2 (22%) 2 (22%)

FN 71

1 (9%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%)

5 (45%) 3 (27%) 11 (0%)

FN 72

3 (8%) 1 (3%)

4 (11%) 36 (2%)

18 18 (50%) 10 (28%)

FN 73

2 (7%) 1 (4%) 2 (7%)

5 (19%) 27 (1%)

17 17 (63%)

FN 74

(16%)

2 (3%) 1 (1%) 2 (3%)

9 (12%) 73 (3%)

12 12 (16%) 12 13 (18%) 22 (30%)

FN 75

1 (0%)

1 (100%)

FN 76

8 (40%) 20 (1%)

12 12 (60%)

FN 77

2 (4%) 3 (6%)

8 (16%) 9 (18%) 50 (2%)

12 12 (24$)

16 16 (32%)

FN 80

1 (8%) 1 (8%)

2 (15%) 5 (38%) 4 (31%) 13 (1%)

FN 81

2 (0%) 4 (1%)

28 28 (6%) 16 (3%) 16 (3%)

29 (6 %) 29 (6

51 51 (11%) 47 (10%) 46 (10%) 92 (19%)

147 (31%) 478 (22%)

FN 82

8 (57%) 6 (43%) 14 (1%)

FN 83 (11%)

1 (0%)

16 16 (7%) 10 (4%)

23 23 (10%) 66 (28%) 16 (17%) 45 (19%) 63 (26%)

240

FN 84

4 (8%) 4 (8%)

6 (12%) 52 (2%)

10 10 (19%) 12 (23%) 16 (31%)

Totals 2220

2 (0%) 4 (0%) 1 (0%)

96 96 (4%) 42 (2%) 31 (1%)

105 (5%) 154 (7%) 193 (9%) 114 (5%)

481 (22%) 377 (17%) 620 (28%)

SETTLEMENT AND CULTURE HISTORY

Given the completion of the survey of Section 16, a brief sketch of the settlement and culture history is provided. This is limited by the restriction of survey to this section and the lack of knowledge of the surrounding area; therefore, all discussions of the habitation and use of the area are tentative and restricted in scope to this area.

Pre-ceramic/BMII

28 Use of Section 16 during the pre-ceramic era was sporadic. There is no evidence of habitation sites during this period, but artifact scatters indicate occasional use of or visitation to the area (Figure 31). Several projectile point types and two basin metates are located within the section supporting sporadic use of the area for various activities, likely including farming, but there is no evidence of occupation during this time period.

BMIII/PI

Use during the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods increased very slightly from earlier times (Figure 32; Table 10). The sites, as with the Pre-ceramic/early agricultural (BMII) occupation, are largely scatters indicating farming activities. Unlike RAR, there is a drastic drop in the number of projectile points that date to this time period. However, flat and trough ground stone forms identified within the section support an increase in occupation during this and later time periods. From surface evidence, there appears to be an earlier occupation involving pithouses at AZ P:3:112(ASM), unfortunately, auger testing has so far been unable to locate these pithouses. It is possible that they were quite shallow and ephemeral.

Pueblo II/Pueblo III

Site density increases drastically by the early Pueblo III period in Section 16 (Figure 33). Pueblo II use of the area is indicated by the presence of Black Mesa B/W. The habitation sites within the section may have some PII components but the majority of the occupation seems to be PIII. Both pithouse and pueblo architecture are found at these five sites. This corresponds with the concurrence of pit structures and pueblos in Homolovi State Park (Young 2008). Similar to Creswell and Rock Art Ranch, the majority of the decorated sherds are Walnut B/W, manufactured from 1125- 1225. As a pueblo of approximately 15-20 rooms that dwarfs the size of the surrounding habitation sites, AZ P:3:112(ASM) likely acted as a regional center during its occupation. The densities of Little Colorado wares in particular appear focused around the site. Additionally, about 40% of the projectile points located within Section 16 appear to have been curated by the occupants of this site. The presence of flat and trough metates, two-handed manos, and large quantities of arrow points confirm occupation of the area during this time period. Finally, there are three field houses consisting of sandstone slab walls within Section 16 that date to the Pueblo III period. These likely represent temporary structures used for agricultural or hunting activities and processing.

RESEARCH PLAN FOR SUMMER 2016

A sixth and final summer of fieldwork at Rock Art Ranch is scheduled from June 6th to July 9th, 2016. The focus of the survey during this season will be to complete the survey of the Rock Art Ranch including areas to the south and east of the ranch. Crews will also survey portions of Aztec Land and Cattle Company holdings north of Rock Art Ranch (Figure 33). Of primary interest for the 2016 survey is completing the survey around The Steps to understand the temporal and settlement patterns in close proximity to the petroglyphs. The RAR survey will also document known archaeological resources on Aztec lands. Additional survey to the north, east, and south will better contextualize the use of Rock Art Ranch beyond the canyon edges. A second goal of the project is to collect additional 14C samples from burned features to expand our knowledge of when pre‐ceramic groups were living on the landscape. It is clear from the large number of Early and Middle Archaic points recovered from the surface of the pre‐ceramic sites that groups were likely staying seasonally in the area prior to the earliest farmers (BMII), but

29 documentation and dating of these activities will be enhanced through discovery and dating of features. A third goal of the project is to complete testing and excavation at RAR 2 begun in 2011 and 2012. RAR 2 is a small pueblo of 5-10 rooms radiocarbon dated to 1225-1255 CE with a Basketmaker II component that includes a small pithouse. Work in 2016 will focus on the exterior work area that was covered by a ramada as well as additional Basketmaker II features. Test excavations will also be conducted at RAR 4, a large Pueblo I pithouse village, to increase our understanding of this community. We will continue the documentation and collection strategies employed the first four field seasons, as outlined in the methodology section. With completion of the 2016 fieldwork the field school will have a 1‐1.5 mile wide and 4-mile long sample of the diverse landscapes of the Chevelon drainage system and be able to address our research questions in a more detailed manner.

30 REFERENCES CITED

Adams, E. Charles 2015 Back in Time: Research at Rock Art Ranch. Paper Presented in Homol’ovi: A Gathering Place symposium. Society for American Archeology 80th Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA.

Burton, Jeffery F. 1993 Days in the Painted Desert and the Petrified Forest of Northern Arizona: Contributions to the Archaeology of Petrified Forest National Park. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona.

Cole, Sally J. 1990 Legacy on Stone: Rock Art of the Colorado Plateau and Four Corners Region. Johnson Books, Boulder. 1996 Middle Little Colorado River Rock Art and Relationships with the San Juan Anasazi. In River of Change: Prehistory of the Middle Little Colorado River Valley, Arizona, edited by E. Charles Adams, pp. 107‐139. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 185. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Dean, Jeffery S., Robert C. Euler, George J. Gumerman, Fred Plog, Richard H. Hevly, and Thor N.V. Karlstrom 1985 Human Behavior, Demography, and Paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateaus. American Antiquity 50:537‐554.

Duke, Riley 2016 Rock Art Ranch: 2015 Projectile Points and Flaked Stone Report. Ms. On file, Homol’ovi Research Program, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona.

Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1904 Two Summer’s Work in Pueblo Ruins. In Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for 1899-1900, pp. 30196. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Lange, Richard C. 1998 Prehistoric Land‐Use and Settlement of the Middle Little Colorado River Valley: the Survey of Homolovi Ruins State Park, Winslow, Arizona. Arizona State Museum, Archaeological Series, No. 189. University of Arizona, Tucson. 2014 An Interim Report of University of Arizona Rock Art Ranch Field School Activities on State Trust Land: The Multi-Kiva Site and Others—July 2014. Ms.

31 On file, Homol’ovi Research Program, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona.

Lyndon, Michael G. 2005 Projectile Points as Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau. Unpublished MA Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Malotki, Ekkehart 2007 The Rock Art of Arizona: Art for Life’s Sake. Kiva Publishing, Walnut, CA.

Schaafsma, Polly 1980 Indian Rock Art of the Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Solometo, Julie 2004 The Conduct and Consequences of War: Dimensions of Conflict in East‐Central Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Tagg, Martyn D. 1994 Projectile Points of East‐Central Arizona: Forms and Chronology. In Middle Little Colorado River Archaeology: from the Parks to the People, edited by A. Trinkle Jones and Martyn D.Tagg, pp. 87‐115. Arizona Archaeologist, No. 27. Arizona Archaeological Society, Phoenix.

Theuer, Jason G. 2012 Village Life, Regional Interaction, and Population Dynamics: The Pueblo I-III Interval. In Overview and Assessment of Archaeological Resources for Petrified Forest Natiional Park, Arizona. Final Technical Report, edited by Jason G. Theuer and Paul F. Reed, pp. 110-129. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.

Throgmorton, Kellam J. 2012 Pit House Architecture in the Puerco Valley AD 600‐900: Form, Function, and Cultural Identity. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Turner, Christy 1963 Petrographs of the Glen Canyon Region. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 38, Flagstaff.

Van West, Carla R. 1996 Modeling Prehistoric Agricultural Strategies and Human Settlement in the Middle Little Colorado River Valley. In River of Change: Prehistory of the Middle Little Colorado River Valley, Arizona, edited by E. Charles Adams, pp. 15‐35. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series, No. 185. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Wilshusen, Richard H., Gregson Schachner, and James R. Allison 2012 Crucible of Pueblos: The Early Pueblo Period in the Northern Southwest. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Monograph 71, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, UCLA.

Young, Lisa C. 1996 Mobility and Farmers: The Pithouse to Pueblo Transition in Northern Arizona. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 2008 Report on 2006‐07 Excavations at Creswell Pueblo. Homolovi State Park. Homol’ovi Research Program, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Young, Lisa C. and Dennis Gilpin 2012 Early Agriculturalists on the Southern Colorado Plateau. In Southewestern Pithouse Communities: AD 200-900, edited by Lisa C. Young and Sarah Herr, pp. 149-165. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Figures

Figure 1: Survey area and major topographic features of the Rock Art Ranch field school. The 13th- century pueblo is RAR 2, where Dr. Vincent M. LaMotta (University of Illinois, Chicago) conducted excavations in 2011 and 2012.

Figure 2: Survey area and sites identified during the 2011, 2012, and 2013 field seasons at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 3: Survey area and sites identified during the 2012 and 2013 field seasons within Section 16.

Figure 4: Site distribution at Rock Art Ranch during the Archaic and Basketmaker II (Pre-ceramic, early agriculture) time periods.

Figure 5: Site distribution at Rock Art Ranch during the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I (700-850 CE) time periods.

Figure 6: Site distribution at Rock Art Ranch during the Pueblo II and Pueblo III (1050-1275 CE) time periods. Use of the area during the early portion of this occupation (Pueblo II) at Rock Art Ranch appears minimal.

Figure 7: Pueblo IV (1275-1600 CE) Artifact Scatters at Rock Art Ranch. Yellow Ware dating to this period was encountered in other locations as well, but these sites represent substantial scatters dominated by Pueblo IV materials.

Figure 8: Spear and arrow points recovered from the ground surface during RAR Survey 2011-2015. A. Clovis, RAR 0, Early Paleoindian; B. Clovis, RAR 113B, Early Paleoindian; C. Plainview, RAR 113B, Late Paleoindian; D. Midland, RAR 113B, Late Paleoindian; E. Bajada, RAR 138, Early/Middle Archaic; F. Bajada, RAR 107, Early/Middle Archaic; G. Bajada, RAR 113C, Early/Middle Archaic; H. Pinto, RAR 129, Early/Middle Archaic; I. San Jose, RAR 123, Middle/Late Archaic; J. San Jose, RAR 123, Middle/Late Archaic; K. San Jose, RAR 5A, Middle/Late Archaic; L. San Jose, RAR 119, Middle/Late Archaic; M. Northern Side-Notched, RAR 123, Middle/Late Archaic; N. Datil, RAR 138, Late Archaic; O. Gypsum, RAR 138, Late Archaic; P. Black Mesa, RAR 123, Basketmaker II; Q. San Pedro, RAR 0, Basketmaker II/III; R. San Pedro, RAR 138, Basketmaker II/III; S. Pueblo Side-Notched, RAR 0, Pueblo III/IV. (Photo Credit: Richard Lange.)

Figure 9: Projectile Point Styles by Time Period from the Colorado Plateau Area (from Tagg 1994:92 “Projectile Points of East-Central Arizona: Forms and Chronology” in Middle Little Colorado River Archaeology from the Parks to the People, edited by Anne Trinkle Jones and Martyn D. Tagg. Arizona Archaeologist Number 27, Phoenix).

Figure 10: Distribution of Hopi Yellow Ware at Rock Art Ranch by time period demonstrating the continued visitation of the area during and after the Pueblo IV period.

Figure 11: Reconstructed Awatovi Neckbanded jar with interior design dating post-1400 CE.

Figure 12: Occurrences of obsidian at Rock Art Ranch. While the majority of obsidian is found on sites, it also occurs in isolated contexts.

Figure 13: Paleoindian Projectile Points from Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 14: Early and Middle Archaic Projectile Points from Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 15: Basketmaker Projectile Points from Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 16: Pueblo Projectile Points from Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 17: Isolated Ground Stone from Rock Art Ranch Survey.

Figure 18: Isolated Basin Metates and One-Hand Manos from Rock Art Ranch Survey.

Figure 19: Bedrock Grinding Features at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 20: Bedrock Grinding Feature from RAR 122.

Figure 21: Distribution of Isolated Little Colorado Sherds at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 22: Distribution of Isolated Tusayan Sherds at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 23: Distribution of Isolated Mogollon Sherds at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 24: Distribution of Isolated Chert Flakes at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 25: Distribution of Isolated Petrified Wood Flakes at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 26: Distribution of Isolated Quartzite Flakes at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 27: Distribution of Cores by Material Type at Rock Art Ranch.

Figure 28: Petroglyphs Identified and Recorded by Rock Art Ranch Field School.

Figure 29: Petroglyphs recorded by Rock Art Ranch Field School in 2015. (Top left: RAR 110; Bottom left: RAR 111; Right: RAR 134).

Figure 30: C14 Dates from Testing at Rock Art Ranch and God’s Pocket.

Figure 31: Site distribution on Section 16 during the Archaic and Basketmaker II (Pre-ceramic, early agricultural) time periods. AZ P:3:112 is included for reference but dates to the Pueblo II/III periods.

Figure 32: Site distribution on Section 16 during the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I (A.D. 700-850) time periods. AZ P:3:112 is included for reference but dates to the Pueblo II/III periods.

Figure 33: Site distribution on Section 16 during the Pueblo II and Pueblo III (A.D. 850-1275) time period.

Figure 34: Distribution of Projectile Points based on Material Type in Section 16.

Figure 35: Analyzed Manos and Metates identified during Survey from Section 16.

Figure 36: Distribution of Isolated Little Colorado Sherds from Section 16.

Figure 37: Distribution of Isolated Tusayan Sherds on Section 16.

Figure 38: Distribution of Isolated Petrified Wood Flakes from Section 16.

Figure 39: Distribution of Isolated Chert Flakes from Section 16.

Figure 40: Distribution of Isolated Obsidian Flakes from Section 16.

Figure 41: Planned Survey Areas for the 2015 and 2016 Field Seasons at Rock Art Ranch.