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.