Papers by Deborah L. Swartz
![Research paper thumbnail of The Yuma Wash Site: Chronology and Site Structure [Classic period; Hohokam; Tucson Basin; Southern Arizona; 2016]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/53059621/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Deborah L. Swartz and Mark D. Elson 2016. The Yuma Wash Site Chronology and Site Structure. In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, part 2, edited by D. L. Swartz, pp. 915- 948. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson., 2016
ABSTRACT
The Yuma Wash site was a permanently occupied large Classic period village situated in ... more ABSTRACT
The Yuma Wash site was a permanently occupied large Classic period village situated in the northern Tucson Basin at the juncture of the eastern bajada of the Tucson Mountains with the Santa Cruz River floodplain. The site area was also intermittently used on a much smaller scale during the rest of the Hohokam sequence and during the Early Agricultural and Early Ceramic periods, as well as during the Historic period. The project was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc. for the Town of Marana prior to and during improvements to Silverbell Road and the construction of the Crossroads at Silverbell Park.
The initial data recovery of the Silverbell Road alignment was conducted by Old Pueblo Archaeology Center (OPAC). OPAC investigated five sites within the Silverbell Road right-of-way and completed data recovery at AZ AA:12:313 (ASM). Three of the remaining four sites were separated solely by modern channels of Yuma Wash, and for the Desert Archaeology project were considered loci of the Yuma Wash site, although they retained their three original ASM site numbers: AZ AA:12:122 (ASM), AZ AA:12:311 (ASM) and AZ AA:12:312 (ASM). The last site, AZ AA:12:314 (ASM) was situated at the southern end of the project area with only a small portion of it within the right-of-way. A canal site, AZ AA:12:1047 (ASM), likely dating to the Classic period, was also discovered during the Desert Archaeology investigations. The Historic period occupation of the Yuma Wash site includes the Bojórquez-Aguirre Ranch structures that dated to the late 1800s. Data recovery of the historic occupation was covered by the OPAC investigations.
Desert Archaeology recorded 1162 cultural features, including 303 human mortuary features. The vast majority of the features dated to the Classic period and the site was intensively occupied during both the Tanque Verde (A.D. 1150-1300) and Tucson (A.D. 1300-1450) phases. Occupation prior to the Classic period is difficult to characterize due to the paucity of features; a total of 235 structures has now been identified at the Yuma Wash site and AA:12:314, but fewer than a dozen of these have been found through testing or excavation to date prior A.D. 1150. The early occupation was likely intermittent and of varying function, with the site sometimes permanently inhabited for a few years, sometimes seasonally inhabited, and sometimes likely vacant. There was a hiatus during the Rincon phase (A.D. 950-1150) in the portions of the sites investigated by Desert Archaeology, although there was evidence for a very small Rincon occupation in previous investigations.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Yuma Wash Project was irregular and consisted largely of a small, primarily linear slice of the site. Due to this, site structure could not be clearly determined. However, several observations could be made for the Classic period occupation, which are discussed in detail in this chapter (Ch. 14) and the final concluding chapter (Ch. 15). Locus AA:12:122 was occupied only during the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150-1300) and showed clear pithouse courtyard groups with cemeteries to the east or southeast. This pattern was much less visible in the other loci due to the shape of the right-of-way and the dynamic nature of the natural deposits, allowing for Classic period features to originate at numerous levels. Still, several pithouse courtyard groups were found at the other loci; most of the courtyard groups dated to the Tanque Verde phase but several likely dated to the Tucson phase (A.D. 1300-1450). An adobe compound constructed during the Tanque Verde phase and occupied into the Tucson phase contained surface adobe rooms and underlying pit structures. Traces of at least one additional compound were found in previous work at the site, outside of the current right-of-way. It is possible that the Tucson phase courtyard groups were contemporaneous with the adobe compound. The Yuma Wash data support previous archaeological research in the Tucson Basin and the Hohokam area in general suggesting a temporal sequence in architecture, with pithouses transitioning into adobe-walled pitrooms and finally into adobe-walled surface rooms, many within compound walls. While this temporal trend is broadly accurate, the Yuma Wash data indicate all three architectural forms can also be absolutely contemporaneous, raising questions about the timing, function, and use of these structures, as well as the nature of the social groups who occupied them. The Yuma Wash data also indicate that architecture alone cannot be used as a basis for temporal placement when reconstructing internal site structure, despite the relatively numerous efforts over the years by archaeologists to do so.
The Classic period occupants of the Yuma Wash site were farmers who supplemented their subsistence by gathering nearby wild plants and hunting rabbits and occasionally larger game. At the site, the occupants produced items including ceramic pots, flaked stone and ground stone tools, and some shell jewelry. In exchange, they also received ceramics from other sites within the Tucson Basin and obsidian, shell, and non-local ceramics from sites across the Greater Southwest. Little evidence of manufacturing or trade was seen in the much smaller assemblage from site AA:12:314.
The large number of mortuary features at the site included features from all stages of the cremation process as well as primary inhumations. Over 50 percent of the inhumations were infants and these were associated with large group serving vessels more often than expected. Small household-sized cemeteries were located within the courtyards and larger communal cemeteries were located to the east and southeast of residential areas. Patterning of the various types of cremation features and the ages of the individuals was identified in the larger cemeteries. Interestingly, the burials of domestic dogs were also frequently clustered, and some of these clusters were near the edges of the larger human cemeteries.
The Santa Cruz River has been divided into irrigation reaches based on the bedrock outcrops and other geological factors that indicate ideal locations for headgate construction for canal systems. The Yuma Wash site was part of the irrigation community associated with the Cañada del Oro Reach of the Santa Cruz. During the Classic period, the Yuma Wash site was the largest site in this reach, as no known platform mound sites are located in this reach. The Marana mound site and Furrey’s Ranch mound were associated with the reaches at each end of the Cañada del Oro Reach so were in irrigation communities adjacent to the one in which the Yuma Wash site is located.
The Yuma Wash report contains results from the Desert Archaeology, Inc. excavations conducted in 2008. Chapter 14, by Deborah L. Swartz and Mark D. Elson, describes the site structure and chronology. Chapter 15, by Mark D. Elson and Deborah L. Swartz, also included on this Academia.edu website, presents the final interpretations and discussion of the site, focusing on Classic period settlement of a large permanently inhabited village in the Tucson Basin and how the Yuma Wash site interacted and was integrated into neighboring Classic period occupations. Whenever possible, the results from the previous work by OPAC are also included to provide a more complete understanding of the site. A set of supplemental data associated with this project can be found at http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/store/anthropological-papers/ap49.html.
![Research paper thumbnail of The Yuma Wash Community, Classic Period Life on the Santa Cruz River [Hohokam; Classic Period (ca. AD 1150-1450), Tucson Basin, Southern Arizona; 2016]](https://attachments.academia-assets.com/53460988/thumbnails/1.jpg)
In Archaeological Investigations at the Yuma Wash Site and Outlying Settlements, part 2, edited by D. L. Swartz, pp. 915- 948. Anthropological Papers No. 49. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson., 2016
The Yuma Wash site (AZ BB:13:122, 311, 312, and 314 [ASM]) was a permanently occupied large Class... more The Yuma Wash site (AZ BB:13:122, 311, 312, and 314 [ASM]) was a permanently occupied large Classic period (A.D. 1150-1450) Hohokam village situated in the northern Tucson Basin at the juncture of the eastern bajada of the Tucson Mountains with the Santa Cruz River floodplain. The site area was also intermittently used on a much smaller scale during the rest of the Hohokam sequence (A.D. 500-1150) and during the Early Agricultural (ca. 2100 B.C. - A.D. 50) and Early Ceramic (A.D. 50-500) periods, as well as during the Historic period. The project was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc. for the Town of Marana prior to and during improvements to Silverbell Road and the construction of the Crossroads at Silverbell Park.
Desert Archaeology recorded 1162 cultural features, including 303 human mortuary features. The vast majority of the features dated to the Classic period and the site was intensively occupied during both the Tanque Verde (A.D. 1150-1300) and Tucson (A.D. 1300-1450) phases. Occupation prior to the Classic period is difficult to characterize due to the paucity of features; a total of 235 structures has now been identified at the Yuma Wash site, but fewer than a dozen of these have been found through testing or excavation to date prior A.D. 1150. The early occupation was likely intermittent and of varying function, with the site sometimes permanently inhabited for a few years, sometimes seasonally inhabited, and sometimes likely vacant. There was a hiatus during the Rincon phase (A.D. 950-1150) in the portions of the sites investigated by Desert Archaeology, although there is evidence for a very small Rincon occupation in previous investigations.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Yuma Wash Project was irregular and consisted largely of a small, primarily linear slice of the site. Due to this, site structure could not be clearly determined. However, several observations could be made for the Classic period occupation. Locus AA:12:122 was occupied only during the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150-1300) and showed clear pithouse courtyard groups with cemeteries to the east or southeast. This pattern was much less visible in the other loci due to the shape of the right-of-way and the dynamic nature of the natural deposits, allowing for Classic period features to originate at numerous levels. Still, several pithouse courtyard groups were found at the other loci; most of the courtyard groups dated to the Tanque Verde phase but several likely dated to the Tucson phase (A.D. 1300-1450). An adobe compound constructed during the Tanque Verde phase and occupied into the Tucson phase contained surface adobe rooms and underlying pit structures. Traces of at least one additional compound were found in previous work at the site, outside of the current right-of-way. It is possible, if not likely, that the Tucson phase courtyard groups were contemporaneous with the adobe compound. The Yuma Wash data support previous archaeological research in the Tucson Basin and the Hohokam area in general suggesting a temporal sequence in architecture, with pithouses transitioning into adobe-walled pitrooms and finally into adobe-walled surface rooms, many within compound walls. While this temporal trend is broadly accurate, the Yuma Wash data indicate all three architectural forms can also be contemporaneous, raising questions about the timing, function, and use of these structures, as well as the nature of the social groups who occupied them. The Yuma Wash data also indicate that architecture alone cannot be used as a basis for temporal placement when reconstructing internal site structure, despite the relatively numerous efforts over the years by archaeologists to do so.
The Classic period occupants of the Yuma Wash site were farmers who supplemented their subsistence by gathering nearby wild plants and hunting rabbits and occasionally larger game. At the site, the occupants produced items including ceramic pots, flaked stone and ground stone tools, and some shell jewelry. In exchange, they also received ceramics from other sites within the Tucson Basin and obsidian, shell, and non-local ceramics from sites across the Greater Southwest.
The large number of mortuary features at the site included features from all stages of the cremation process as well as primary inhumations. Over 50 percent of the inhumations were infants and these were associated with large group serving vessels more often than expected. Small household-sized cemeteries were located within the courtyards and larger communal cemeteries were located to the east and southeast of residential areas. Patterning of the various types of cremation features and the ages of the individuals was identified in the larger cemeteries. The burial of dogs in what appear to be defined cemeteries often located near the edges of the larger human cemeteries also suggests that dogs were respected and considered to be more than work animals or a source of food -- of the 34 recovered dog burials, none contained evidence for butchering and subsequent consumption.
The Santa Cruz River has been divided into irrigation reaches based on bedrock outcrops and other geological factors that indicate ideal locations for canal system headgates, allowing the flow of water from the Santa Cruz River to be monitored and adjusted as needed. The Yuma Wash site was part of the irrigation community associated with the Cañada del Oro Reach of the river. During the Classic period, the Yuma Wash site was the largest site in this reach, as no known platform mound sites are located in this area. The Marana platform mound site and Furrey’s Ranch platform mound site were associated with adjacent reaches at each end of the Cañada del Oro Reach, meaning that the flow of water for these irrigation communities could not be directly regulated by the platform mound villages, nor could the inhabitants of the Yuma Wash site directly regulate the water flow reaching the platform mound villages, except through alliances or force.
The two chapters included on this page -- Chapters 14 and 15 -- synthesize data from Desert Archaeology's 2008 excavations and provide interpretative analyses to support our reconstruction of Classic period (ca. A.D. 1150-1450(?)) life on the Santa Cruz River. Whenever possible, the results from the previous work by OPAC are also included to provide a more complete understanding of this large village site. The Hohokam Classic period has long been known to be a period of relatively dramatic change, most visible in the aggregation of a relatively large number of pre-Classic and early Classic period sites into six large platform mound villages, with all but one located on the Santa Cruz River. At the same time, we see a reduction in the size of economic and exchange systems, particularly pottery, which becomes very localized, changing from a relatively widespread network, with most of the decorated pottery in the Tucson Basin originating from only three or four areas (petrofacies) on the Santa Cruz River in central Tucson, to one of smaller subregions with more limited distributions. We interpret the Classic period as a time of stress, both social and almost certainly environmental, with the subregional patterning likely indicative of the importance of knowing one's neighbors, and knowing them well, as a form of alliance and community protection. We suggest that at least in the Tucson Basin, but likely throughout the Southwest U.S., it is time to revive earlier models from the turn of the 20th century through the late 1960s that proposes that conflict, or the threat of conflict, was more of a prime mover in culture change than currently believed.
The presence or threat of conflict is suggested by a number of variables: 1) settlement aggregation, and particularly the movement of many sites out of the open floodplain to the terraces above the floodplain; 2) the occupation of defensive site locations, such as trincheras sites or at least nearby areas where the movement of "strangers" could be observed; 3) the construction of platform mounds, which unlike the ballcourts that preceded them, were restricted in access and almost certainly related to status of either the individual leader or the leader's group; and 4) the likely presence of migrant groups from areas both north and south of the Tucson Basin, which is known to put stress on local populations, particularly local populations living in an area with limited precipitation and therefore dependent on irrigation agriculture. Irrigation agriculture at the scale practiced in the Tucson Basin almost certainly would have required leadership, food surplus, and a relatively large amount of cooperation both within, and possibly between, groups. And finally, although not stated in our chapter and admittedly highly subjective and speculative (and also highly subject to criticism, but isn't that what science is for?), the senior author believes that intergroup conflict, or even the threat of conflict, is an important and significant variable in the behavior and survival of human populations, one that is also an important and relatively well-documented variable in the behavior of other higher primates. I find it very interesting, and to me, likely significant, that there is a clear correlation with the loss of "conflict" as a viable hypotheses and the escalation of the Vietnam War. As strongly as we (meaning Anthropologists) are supposedly trained in cultural relativity and objective scientific observation, we are still very much a product of our culture.
Books by Deborah L. Swartz
The Roosevelt Community Development Study (RCD) involved the testing and excavation of 27 sites i... more The Roosevelt Community Development Study (RCD) involved the testing and excavation of 27 sites in the Lower Tonto Basin of central Arizona. This is one of three related data recovery projects undertaken in the Tonto Basin for the Bureau of Reclamation prior to the raising of the Roosevelt Lake dam. The results of the RCD project are presented in four Anthropological Papers of the Center for Desert
Archaeology: Anthropological Papers No. 12 is the research design; Anthropological Papers No. 13 (these two volumes) contains background information and the site descriptions; Anthropological Papers No. 14 (three volumes) contains the artifact and environmental analyses; and Anthropological Papers No. 15 presents the synthesis and conclusions.
The project was situated within the Tonto National Forest and covered a four-mile continuous area along the north bank of the Salt River. Sites within the project area exhibited a great range of functional, temporal, and, possibly, cultural diversity. These include two sites with platform mounds (the Meddler Point and Pyramid Point sites), a 100-room masonry pueblo (the Griffin Wash site), smaller masonry compounds (e.g., the Porcupine site), and pithouse hamlets and farmsteads (e.g., the Hedge Apple and Eagle Ridge sites); Temporal components ranged from the Early Ceramic Horizon (AD. 100-600) at Locus B of the Eagle Ridge site through the Roosevelt phase (AD. 1250-1350) of the Classic period. The Early Ceramic component of the Eagle Ridge site is now the earliest documented ceramic period site in the Tonto Basin and it provides definitive evidence for an indigenous pre-Hohokam population. The project area was the most intensively inhabited during the early Classic period Roosevelt phase, when platform mounds, large pueblos, and small masonry compounds were occupied. It was largely abandoned by A.D. 1325, prior to the large-scale aggregation that occurred during the Gila phase; very few Gila Polychrome sherds were recovered from project area sites.
The mandate of the RCD project, as specified by the Bureau of Reclamation, was to investigate the temporal and developmental sequence of the prehistoric populations within this area. To meet these goals, 6 sites were intensively examined through full-scale excavation, while an extensive data set was gathered from the remaining 21 sites.
The two volumes in Anthropological Papers No. 13 present the project background and provide descriptive information on the excavation and testing of these sites. Found within these volumes are site and feature descriptions, site and feature maps, general artifact data, and preliminary interpretations of the individual sites. Oversized maps from the Meddler Point site are included as a separate bound map supplement to Volume 2 (not included here but available at archaeologysouthwest.org). More specific artifact data and analyses can be found in the three volumes that make up Anthropological Papers No. 14, particularly Volume 2 which explores the ceramic assemblage in detail. Anthropological Papers No. 15 integrates these data to provide a more inclusive view of the prehistoric occupation of the RCD project area and the Tonto Basin.
Anthropological Papers No. 30(2), Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson., 2006
The U.S. 89 Archaeological Project investigated
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km... more The U.S. 89 Archaeological Project investigated
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km
north of Flagstaff, Arizona. All sites were on
Coconino National Forest (CNF) land. The project
was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., for the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
prior to the widening and improvement of 26.7 km
(16.6 miles) of U.S. 89, between the southern boundary
of Wupatki National Monument in the north,
and the town of Fernwood in the south. Archaeological
fieldwork occurred over two primary field
seasons in 1997 and 1998, with a very brief field season
in 1999. A total of almost 12 person-years of labor
was expended on the fieldwork.
The U.S. 89 project area crosses diverse environmental
zones, ranging from juniper-sage grasslands
in the north at approximately 5,700 ft (1,737 m) asl,
to ponderosa pine forests at over 7,200 ft (2,195 m)
asl in the south. Mixed pinyon pine and juniper
woodlands comprise the middle elevations. Five elevation
zones were defined, using increments of 500
ft as a proxy for changes in precipitation, temperature,
and vegetation. All project area sites are also
within 25 km of Sunset Crater Volcano, with the closest
sites only 5-6 km away. Sunset Crater erupted
for a few years sometime between A.D. 1050 and
1125. Basalt lava from the eruption covered an area
of approximately 8 km2, while another 2,300 km2 was
covered by cinder and ash deposits. Sunset Crater
cinders were found on all project area sites. An isopach
map of cinder depth constructed for this project
indicates that, minimumally, the U.S. 89 sites were
covered with from 5-50 cm of volcanic material,
which had a significant impact on prehistoric settlement,
subsistence, and economic systems. Prehistoric
adaptation to environmental variability and to
the Sunset Crater eruption were primary research
themes.
A wide range of site types are present in the
project area, including large, permanent habitations,
containing 10-30 masonry rooms and pithouses,
smaller homesteads or seasonal farmsteads with 2-
8 structures, single-room fieldhouses, limited-activity
areas, special-use sites, and agricultural field systems.
A total of 73 structures was excavated, which
included 41 pithouses, 26 masonry rooms, and 6
ramadas. Close to 100,000 artifacts were recovered,
with ceramics the dominant artifact type, comprising
more than 80 percent of the assemblage. The
earliest sites were occupied around A.D. 400, with
the occupation continuing into the early to mid-A.D.
1100s. The most intensive occupation was between
A.D. 1050 and 1125, the approximate time of the
Sunset Crater eruption.
The project area also crosses what has long been
considered to be a boundary between two distinct
archaeological culture areas: the Sinagua to the south
and the Cohonina to the north and northwest. Dr.
Harold S. Colton, the founder of the Museum of
Northern Arizona (MNA), first recognized this
boundary in the 1930s, and placed it at Deadman
Wash, which crosses the approximate center of the
U.S. 89 project area. Although later researchers have
moved the boundary to the Coconino Divide,
roughly 8 km south of Deadman Wash, it is still well
within the current project area. About half the intensively
investigated U.S. 89 sites lie south of this
point, and about half lie to the north. This affords
an excellent opportunity to address the question of
the cultural affiliation of project area inhabitants, as
well as the legitimacy of archaeological culture areas
in general, and every analyst on the project was
asked to examine this question using their particular
data set.
The results of the U.S. 89 investigations are presented
in a series of anthropological papers: Anthropological
Papers No. 30, Part 1 and Part 2, contain
background information on the project and descriptions
of the 41 investigated sites; Anthropological
Papers No. 31 presents the results of the flaked stone,
ground stone, shell, animal bone, and mortuary
analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 32 presents the
analysis of the ceramic assemblage, including petrographic
ceramic sourcing studies and form and
function analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 33
contains the environmental analyses, with chapters
on the botanical assemblage (pollen and flotation
studies), prehistoric agriculture, the eruption of Sunset
Crater Volcano, and a detailed paleoenvironmental
reconstruction; and Anthropological Papers No.
37 presents the overall project synthesis and conclusions.
In Anthropological Papers No. 37, the data
presented in the preceding volumes are used to reconstruct
the settlement, subsistence, and economic
systems of the prehistoric populations who inhabited
the U.S. 89 project area and the Flagstaff area in
general.
The two parts of Anthropological Papers No. 30
present the project background, environment, and
descriptive information about the testing and excavation
of the 41 project area sites. Part 1 includes
the two sites in Elevation Zone 1 (5,700-6,199 ft
[1,737-1,889 m] asl) and 11 sites in Elevation Zone 2
(6,200-6,699 ft [1,890-2,042 m] asl), the lower elevation
zones in the northern half of the project area.
Part 2 includes the nine sites in Elevation Zone 3
(6,700-7,199 ft [2,042-2,194 m] asl, north), the nine
sites in Elevation Zone 4 (7,200+ ft [2,195+ m] asl),
and the 10 sites in Elevation Zone 5 (6,700-7,199 ft
[2,042-2,194 m] asl, south). These volumes contain
site and feature descriptions, maps, general artifact
data, and interpretations of site function and dating.
Diagnostic ceramics from critical contexts that
were used to date the sites are presented by feature.
The U.S. 89 Archaeological Project investigated
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km... more The U.S. 89 Archaeological Project investigated
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km
north of Flagstaff, Arizona. All sites were on
Coconino National Forest (CNF) land. The project
was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., for the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
prior to the widening and improvement of 26.7 km
(16.6 miles) of U.S. 89, between the southern boundary
of Wupatki National Monument in the north,
and the town of Fernwood in the south. Archaeological
fieldwork occurred over two primary field
seasons in 1997 and 1998, with a very brief field season
in 1999. A total of almost 12 person-years of labor
was expended on the fieldwork.
The U.S. 89 project area crosses diverse environmental
zones, ranging from juniper-sage grasslands
in the north at approximately 5,700 ft (1,737 m) asl,
to ponderosa pine forests at over 7,200 ft (2,195 m)
asl in the south. Mixed pinyon pine and juniper
woodlands comprise the middle elevations. Five elevation
zones were defined, using increments of 500
ft as a proxy for changes in precipitation, temperature,
and vegetation. All project area sites are also
within 25 km of Sunset Crater Volcano, with the closest
sites only 5 km from the volcano. As we discuss in the volume, Sunset Crater erupted
for a few weeks to months sometime between A.D. 1050 and
1125 and most likely between A.D. 1085-1090. Basalt lava from the eruption covered an area of approximately 8 sq. km, while another 2,300 sq. km was
covered by cinder and ash deposits. Sunset Crater
cinders were found on all project area sites. An isopach
map of cinder depth constructed for this project
indicates that at a minimum the U.S. 89 sites were
covered with from 5-50 cm of volcanic material,
which had a significant impact on prehistoric settlement,
subsistence, and economic systems. Prehistoric
adaptation to environmental variability and to
the Sunset Crater eruption were primary research
themes.
A wide range of site types are present in the
project area, including large, permanent habitations,
containing 10-30 masonry rooms and pithouses,
smaller homesteads or seasonal farmsteads with 2-
8 structures, single-room fieldhouses, limited-activity
areas, special-use sites, and agricultural field systems.
A total of 73 structures was excavated, which
included 41 pithouses, 26 masonry rooms, and 6
ramadas. Close to 100,000 artifacts were recovered,
with ceramics the dominant artifact type, comprising
more than 80 percent of the assemblage. The
earliest sites were occupied around A.D. 400, with
the occupation continuing into the early to mid-A.D.
1100s. The most intensive occupation was between
A.D. 1050 and 1125, the approximate time of the
Sunset Crater eruption.
The project area also crosses what has long been
considered to be a boundary between two distinct
archaeological culture areas: the Sinagua to the south
and the Cohonina to the north and northwest. Dr.
Harold S. Colton, the founder of the Museum of
Northern Arizona (MNA), first recognized this
boundary in the 1930s, and placed it at Deadman
Wash, which crosses the approximate center of the
U.S. 89 project area. Although later researchers have
moved the boundary to the Coconino Divide,
roughly 8 km south of Deadman Wash, it is still well
within the current project area. About half the intensively
investigated U.S. 89 sites lie south of this
point, and about half lie to the north. This affords
an excellent opportunity to address the question of
the cultural affiliation of project area inhabitants, as
well as the legitimacy of archaeological culture areas
in general, and every analyst on the project was
asked to examine this question using their particular
data set.
The results of the U.S. 89 investigations are presented
in a series of anthropological papers: Anthropological
Papers No. 30, Part 1 and Part 2, contain
background information on the project and descriptions
of the 41 investigated sites; Anthropological
Papers No. 31 presents the results of the flaked stone,
ground stone, shell, animal bone, and mortuary
analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 32 presents the
analysis of the ceramic assemblage, including petrographic
ceramic sourcing studies and form and
function analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 33
contains the environmental analyses, with chapters
on the botanical assemblage (pollen and flotation
studies), prehistoric agriculture, the eruption of Sunset
Crater Volcano, and a detailed paleoenvironmental
reconstruction; and Anthropological Papers No.
37 presents the overall project synthesis and conclusions.
In Anthropological Papers No. 37, the data
presented in the preceding volumes are used to reconstruct
the settlement, subsistence, and economic
systems of the prehistoric populations who inhabited
the U.S. 89 project area and the Flagstaff area in
general. The eruption of Sunset Crater Volcano sometime between A.D. 1085-1090, as well as the immediate response and eventual short- and long-term adaptations to this eruption by the prehistoric inhabitants of the U.S. 89 project area is a particular focus of the research.
The two parts of Anthropological Papers No. 30
present the project background, environment, and
descriptive information about the testing and excavation
of the 41 project area sites. Part 1 includes
the two sites in Elevation Zone 1 (5,700-6,199 ft
[1,737-1,889 m] asl) and 11 sites in Elevation Zone 2
(6,200-6,699 ft [1,890-2,042 m] asl), the lower elevation
zones in the northern half of the project area.
Part 2 includes the nine sites in Elevation Zone 3
(6,700-7,199 ft [2,042-2,194 m] asl, north), the nine
sites in Elevation Zone 4 (7,200+ ft [2,195+ m] asl),
and the 10 sites in Elevation Zone 5 (6,700-7,199 ft
[2,042-2,194 m] asl, south). These volumes contain
site and feature descriptions, maps, general artifact
data, and interpretations of site function and dating.
Diagnostic ceramics from critical contexts that
were used to date the sites are presented by feature.
Center for Desert Archaeology …, Jan 1, 1994
The Roosevelt Community Development Study (RCD) involved the testing and excavation of 27 sites i... more The Roosevelt Community Development Study (RCD) involved the testing and excavation of 27 sites in
the Lower Tonto Basin of central Arizona. This is one of three related data recovery projects undertaken
in the Tonto Basin for the Bureau of Reclamation prior to the raising of the Roosevelt Lake dam. The
results of the RCD project are presented in four Anthropological Papers of the Center for Desert
Archaeology: Anthropological Papers No. 12 is the research design; Anthropological Papers No. 13 (these
two volumes) contains background information and the site descriptions; Anthropological Papers No. 14
(three volumes) contains the artifact and environmental analyses; and Anthropological Papers No. 15
presents the synthesis and conclusions.
The project was situated within the Tonto National Forest and covered a four-mile continuous area along
the north bank of the Salt River. Sites within the project area exhibited a great range of functional,
temporal, and, possibly, cultural diversity. These include two sites with platform mounds (the Meddler
Point and Pyramid Point sites), a 100-room masonry pueblo (the Griffin Wash site), smaller masonry
compounds (e.g., the Porcupine site), and pithouse hamlets and farmsteads (e.g., the Hedge Apple and
Eagle Ridge sites). Temporal components ranged from the Early Ceramic Horizon (AD. 100-600) at Locus
B of the Eagle Ridge site through the Roosevelt phase (AD. 1250-1350) of the Classic period. The Early
Ceramic component of the Eagle Ridge site is now the earliest documented ceramic period site in the
Tonto Basin, and it provides definitive evidence for an indigenous pre-Hohokam population. The project
area was the most intensively inhabited during the Roosevelt phase, when platform mounds, large
pueblos, and small masonry compounds were occupied. It was largely abandoned by AD. 1325, prior
to the large-scale aggregation that occurred during the Gila phase; very few Gila Polychrome sherds were
recovered from project area sites.
The mandate of the RCD project, as specified by the Bureau of Reclamation, was to investigate the
temporal and developmental sequence of the prehistoric populations within this area. To meet these
goals, 6 sites were intensively examined through full-scale excavation, while an extensive data set was
gathered from the remaining 21 sites.
The two volumes in Anthropological Papers No. 13 present
Uploads
Papers by Deborah L. Swartz
The Yuma Wash site was a permanently occupied large Classic period village situated in the northern Tucson Basin at the juncture of the eastern bajada of the Tucson Mountains with the Santa Cruz River floodplain. The site area was also intermittently used on a much smaller scale during the rest of the Hohokam sequence and during the Early Agricultural and Early Ceramic periods, as well as during the Historic period. The project was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc. for the Town of Marana prior to and during improvements to Silverbell Road and the construction of the Crossroads at Silverbell Park.
The initial data recovery of the Silverbell Road alignment was conducted by Old Pueblo Archaeology Center (OPAC). OPAC investigated five sites within the Silverbell Road right-of-way and completed data recovery at AZ AA:12:313 (ASM). Three of the remaining four sites were separated solely by modern channels of Yuma Wash, and for the Desert Archaeology project were considered loci of the Yuma Wash site, although they retained their three original ASM site numbers: AZ AA:12:122 (ASM), AZ AA:12:311 (ASM) and AZ AA:12:312 (ASM). The last site, AZ AA:12:314 (ASM) was situated at the southern end of the project area with only a small portion of it within the right-of-way. A canal site, AZ AA:12:1047 (ASM), likely dating to the Classic period, was also discovered during the Desert Archaeology investigations. The Historic period occupation of the Yuma Wash site includes the Bojórquez-Aguirre Ranch structures that dated to the late 1800s. Data recovery of the historic occupation was covered by the OPAC investigations.
Desert Archaeology recorded 1162 cultural features, including 303 human mortuary features. The vast majority of the features dated to the Classic period and the site was intensively occupied during both the Tanque Verde (A.D. 1150-1300) and Tucson (A.D. 1300-1450) phases. Occupation prior to the Classic period is difficult to characterize due to the paucity of features; a total of 235 structures has now been identified at the Yuma Wash site and AA:12:314, but fewer than a dozen of these have been found through testing or excavation to date prior A.D. 1150. The early occupation was likely intermittent and of varying function, with the site sometimes permanently inhabited for a few years, sometimes seasonally inhabited, and sometimes likely vacant. There was a hiatus during the Rincon phase (A.D. 950-1150) in the portions of the sites investigated by Desert Archaeology, although there was evidence for a very small Rincon occupation in previous investigations.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Yuma Wash Project was irregular and consisted largely of a small, primarily linear slice of the site. Due to this, site structure could not be clearly determined. However, several observations could be made for the Classic period occupation, which are discussed in detail in this chapter (Ch. 14) and the final concluding chapter (Ch. 15). Locus AA:12:122 was occupied only during the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150-1300) and showed clear pithouse courtyard groups with cemeteries to the east or southeast. This pattern was much less visible in the other loci due to the shape of the right-of-way and the dynamic nature of the natural deposits, allowing for Classic period features to originate at numerous levels. Still, several pithouse courtyard groups were found at the other loci; most of the courtyard groups dated to the Tanque Verde phase but several likely dated to the Tucson phase (A.D. 1300-1450). An adobe compound constructed during the Tanque Verde phase and occupied into the Tucson phase contained surface adobe rooms and underlying pit structures. Traces of at least one additional compound were found in previous work at the site, outside of the current right-of-way. It is possible that the Tucson phase courtyard groups were contemporaneous with the adobe compound. The Yuma Wash data support previous archaeological research in the Tucson Basin and the Hohokam area in general suggesting a temporal sequence in architecture, with pithouses transitioning into adobe-walled pitrooms and finally into adobe-walled surface rooms, many within compound walls. While this temporal trend is broadly accurate, the Yuma Wash data indicate all three architectural forms can also be absolutely contemporaneous, raising questions about the timing, function, and use of these structures, as well as the nature of the social groups who occupied them. The Yuma Wash data also indicate that architecture alone cannot be used as a basis for temporal placement when reconstructing internal site structure, despite the relatively numerous efforts over the years by archaeologists to do so.
The Classic period occupants of the Yuma Wash site were farmers who supplemented their subsistence by gathering nearby wild plants and hunting rabbits and occasionally larger game. At the site, the occupants produced items including ceramic pots, flaked stone and ground stone tools, and some shell jewelry. In exchange, they also received ceramics from other sites within the Tucson Basin and obsidian, shell, and non-local ceramics from sites across the Greater Southwest. Little evidence of manufacturing or trade was seen in the much smaller assemblage from site AA:12:314.
The large number of mortuary features at the site included features from all stages of the cremation process as well as primary inhumations. Over 50 percent of the inhumations were infants and these were associated with large group serving vessels more often than expected. Small household-sized cemeteries were located within the courtyards and larger communal cemeteries were located to the east and southeast of residential areas. Patterning of the various types of cremation features and the ages of the individuals was identified in the larger cemeteries. Interestingly, the burials of domestic dogs were also frequently clustered, and some of these clusters were near the edges of the larger human cemeteries.
The Santa Cruz River has been divided into irrigation reaches based on the bedrock outcrops and other geological factors that indicate ideal locations for headgate construction for canal systems. The Yuma Wash site was part of the irrigation community associated with the Cañada del Oro Reach of the Santa Cruz. During the Classic period, the Yuma Wash site was the largest site in this reach, as no known platform mound sites are located in this reach. The Marana mound site and Furrey’s Ranch mound were associated with the reaches at each end of the Cañada del Oro Reach so were in irrigation communities adjacent to the one in which the Yuma Wash site is located.
The Yuma Wash report contains results from the Desert Archaeology, Inc. excavations conducted in 2008. Chapter 14, by Deborah L. Swartz and Mark D. Elson, describes the site structure and chronology. Chapter 15, by Mark D. Elson and Deborah L. Swartz, also included on this Academia.edu website, presents the final interpretations and discussion of the site, focusing on Classic period settlement of a large permanently inhabited village in the Tucson Basin and how the Yuma Wash site interacted and was integrated into neighboring Classic period occupations. Whenever possible, the results from the previous work by OPAC are also included to provide a more complete understanding of the site. A set of supplemental data associated with this project can be found at http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/store/anthropological-papers/ap49.html.
Desert Archaeology recorded 1162 cultural features, including 303 human mortuary features. The vast majority of the features dated to the Classic period and the site was intensively occupied during both the Tanque Verde (A.D. 1150-1300) and Tucson (A.D. 1300-1450) phases. Occupation prior to the Classic period is difficult to characterize due to the paucity of features; a total of 235 structures has now been identified at the Yuma Wash site, but fewer than a dozen of these have been found through testing or excavation to date prior A.D. 1150. The early occupation was likely intermittent and of varying function, with the site sometimes permanently inhabited for a few years, sometimes seasonally inhabited, and sometimes likely vacant. There was a hiatus during the Rincon phase (A.D. 950-1150) in the portions of the sites investigated by Desert Archaeology, although there is evidence for a very small Rincon occupation in previous investigations.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Yuma Wash Project was irregular and consisted largely of a small, primarily linear slice of the site. Due to this, site structure could not be clearly determined. However, several observations could be made for the Classic period occupation. Locus AA:12:122 was occupied only during the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150-1300) and showed clear pithouse courtyard groups with cemeteries to the east or southeast. This pattern was much less visible in the other loci due to the shape of the right-of-way and the dynamic nature of the natural deposits, allowing for Classic period features to originate at numerous levels. Still, several pithouse courtyard groups were found at the other loci; most of the courtyard groups dated to the Tanque Verde phase but several likely dated to the Tucson phase (A.D. 1300-1450). An adobe compound constructed during the Tanque Verde phase and occupied into the Tucson phase contained surface adobe rooms and underlying pit structures. Traces of at least one additional compound were found in previous work at the site, outside of the current right-of-way. It is possible, if not likely, that the Tucson phase courtyard groups were contemporaneous with the adobe compound. The Yuma Wash data support previous archaeological research in the Tucson Basin and the Hohokam area in general suggesting a temporal sequence in architecture, with pithouses transitioning into adobe-walled pitrooms and finally into adobe-walled surface rooms, many within compound walls. While this temporal trend is broadly accurate, the Yuma Wash data indicate all three architectural forms can also be contemporaneous, raising questions about the timing, function, and use of these structures, as well as the nature of the social groups who occupied them. The Yuma Wash data also indicate that architecture alone cannot be used as a basis for temporal placement when reconstructing internal site structure, despite the relatively numerous efforts over the years by archaeologists to do so.
The Classic period occupants of the Yuma Wash site were farmers who supplemented their subsistence by gathering nearby wild plants and hunting rabbits and occasionally larger game. At the site, the occupants produced items including ceramic pots, flaked stone and ground stone tools, and some shell jewelry. In exchange, they also received ceramics from other sites within the Tucson Basin and obsidian, shell, and non-local ceramics from sites across the Greater Southwest.
The large number of mortuary features at the site included features from all stages of the cremation process as well as primary inhumations. Over 50 percent of the inhumations were infants and these were associated with large group serving vessels more often than expected. Small household-sized cemeteries were located within the courtyards and larger communal cemeteries were located to the east and southeast of residential areas. Patterning of the various types of cremation features and the ages of the individuals was identified in the larger cemeteries. The burial of dogs in what appear to be defined cemeteries often located near the edges of the larger human cemeteries also suggests that dogs were respected and considered to be more than work animals or a source of food -- of the 34 recovered dog burials, none contained evidence for butchering and subsequent consumption.
The Santa Cruz River has been divided into irrigation reaches based on bedrock outcrops and other geological factors that indicate ideal locations for canal system headgates, allowing the flow of water from the Santa Cruz River to be monitored and adjusted as needed. The Yuma Wash site was part of the irrigation community associated with the Cañada del Oro Reach of the river. During the Classic period, the Yuma Wash site was the largest site in this reach, as no known platform mound sites are located in this area. The Marana platform mound site and Furrey’s Ranch platform mound site were associated with adjacent reaches at each end of the Cañada del Oro Reach, meaning that the flow of water for these irrigation communities could not be directly regulated by the platform mound villages, nor could the inhabitants of the Yuma Wash site directly regulate the water flow reaching the platform mound villages, except through alliances or force.
The two chapters included on this page -- Chapters 14 and 15 -- synthesize data from Desert Archaeology's 2008 excavations and provide interpretative analyses to support our reconstruction of Classic period (ca. A.D. 1150-1450(?)) life on the Santa Cruz River. Whenever possible, the results from the previous work by OPAC are also included to provide a more complete understanding of this large village site. The Hohokam Classic period has long been known to be a period of relatively dramatic change, most visible in the aggregation of a relatively large number of pre-Classic and early Classic period sites into six large platform mound villages, with all but one located on the Santa Cruz River. At the same time, we see a reduction in the size of economic and exchange systems, particularly pottery, which becomes very localized, changing from a relatively widespread network, with most of the decorated pottery in the Tucson Basin originating from only three or four areas (petrofacies) on the Santa Cruz River in central Tucson, to one of smaller subregions with more limited distributions. We interpret the Classic period as a time of stress, both social and almost certainly environmental, with the subregional patterning likely indicative of the importance of knowing one's neighbors, and knowing them well, as a form of alliance and community protection. We suggest that at least in the Tucson Basin, but likely throughout the Southwest U.S., it is time to revive earlier models from the turn of the 20th century through the late 1960s that proposes that conflict, or the threat of conflict, was more of a prime mover in culture change than currently believed.
The presence or threat of conflict is suggested by a number of variables: 1) settlement aggregation, and particularly the movement of many sites out of the open floodplain to the terraces above the floodplain; 2) the occupation of defensive site locations, such as trincheras sites or at least nearby areas where the movement of "strangers" could be observed; 3) the construction of platform mounds, which unlike the ballcourts that preceded them, were restricted in access and almost certainly related to status of either the individual leader or the leader's group; and 4) the likely presence of migrant groups from areas both north and south of the Tucson Basin, which is known to put stress on local populations, particularly local populations living in an area with limited precipitation and therefore dependent on irrigation agriculture. Irrigation agriculture at the scale practiced in the Tucson Basin almost certainly would have required leadership, food surplus, and a relatively large amount of cooperation both within, and possibly between, groups. And finally, although not stated in our chapter and admittedly highly subjective and speculative (and also highly subject to criticism, but isn't that what science is for?), the senior author believes that intergroup conflict, or even the threat of conflict, is an important and significant variable in the behavior and survival of human populations, one that is also an important and relatively well-documented variable in the behavior of other higher primates. I find it very interesting, and to me, likely significant, that there is a clear correlation with the loss of "conflict" as a viable hypotheses and the escalation of the Vietnam War. As strongly as we (meaning Anthropologists) are supposedly trained in cultural relativity and objective scientific observation, we are still very much a product of our culture.
Books by Deborah L. Swartz
Archaeology: Anthropological Papers No. 12 is the research design; Anthropological Papers No. 13 (these two volumes) contains background information and the site descriptions; Anthropological Papers No. 14 (three volumes) contains the artifact and environmental analyses; and Anthropological Papers No. 15 presents the synthesis and conclusions.
The project was situated within the Tonto National Forest and covered a four-mile continuous area along the north bank of the Salt River. Sites within the project area exhibited a great range of functional, temporal, and, possibly, cultural diversity. These include two sites with platform mounds (the Meddler Point and Pyramid Point sites), a 100-room masonry pueblo (the Griffin Wash site), smaller masonry compounds (e.g., the Porcupine site), and pithouse hamlets and farmsteads (e.g., the Hedge Apple and Eagle Ridge sites); Temporal components ranged from the Early Ceramic Horizon (AD. 100-600) at Locus B of the Eagle Ridge site through the Roosevelt phase (AD. 1250-1350) of the Classic period. The Early Ceramic component of the Eagle Ridge site is now the earliest documented ceramic period site in the Tonto Basin and it provides definitive evidence for an indigenous pre-Hohokam population. The project area was the most intensively inhabited during the early Classic period Roosevelt phase, when platform mounds, large pueblos, and small masonry compounds were occupied. It was largely abandoned by A.D. 1325, prior to the large-scale aggregation that occurred during the Gila phase; very few Gila Polychrome sherds were recovered from project area sites.
The mandate of the RCD project, as specified by the Bureau of Reclamation, was to investigate the temporal and developmental sequence of the prehistoric populations within this area. To meet these goals, 6 sites were intensively examined through full-scale excavation, while an extensive data set was gathered from the remaining 21 sites.
The two volumes in Anthropological Papers No. 13 present the project background and provide descriptive information on the excavation and testing of these sites. Found within these volumes are site and feature descriptions, site and feature maps, general artifact data, and preliminary interpretations of the individual sites. Oversized maps from the Meddler Point site are included as a separate bound map supplement to Volume 2 (not included here but available at archaeologysouthwest.org). More specific artifact data and analyses can be found in the three volumes that make up Anthropological Papers No. 14, particularly Volume 2 which explores the ceramic assemblage in detail. Anthropological Papers No. 15 integrates these data to provide a more inclusive view of the prehistoric occupation of the RCD project area and the Tonto Basin.
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km
north of Flagstaff, Arizona. All sites were on
Coconino National Forest (CNF) land. The project
was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., for the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
prior to the widening and improvement of 26.7 km
(16.6 miles) of U.S. 89, between the southern boundary
of Wupatki National Monument in the north,
and the town of Fernwood in the south. Archaeological
fieldwork occurred over two primary field
seasons in 1997 and 1998, with a very brief field season
in 1999. A total of almost 12 person-years of labor
was expended on the fieldwork.
The U.S. 89 project area crosses diverse environmental
zones, ranging from juniper-sage grasslands
in the north at approximately 5,700 ft (1,737 m) asl,
to ponderosa pine forests at over 7,200 ft (2,195 m)
asl in the south. Mixed pinyon pine and juniper
woodlands comprise the middle elevations. Five elevation
zones were defined, using increments of 500
ft as a proxy for changes in precipitation, temperature,
and vegetation. All project area sites are also
within 25 km of Sunset Crater Volcano, with the closest
sites only 5-6 km away. Sunset Crater erupted
for a few years sometime between A.D. 1050 and
1125. Basalt lava from the eruption covered an area
of approximately 8 km2, while another 2,300 km2 was
covered by cinder and ash deposits. Sunset Crater
cinders were found on all project area sites. An isopach
map of cinder depth constructed for this project
indicates that, minimumally, the U.S. 89 sites were
covered with from 5-50 cm of volcanic material,
which had a significant impact on prehistoric settlement,
subsistence, and economic systems. Prehistoric
adaptation to environmental variability and to
the Sunset Crater eruption were primary research
themes.
A wide range of site types are present in the
project area, including large, permanent habitations,
containing 10-30 masonry rooms and pithouses,
smaller homesteads or seasonal farmsteads with 2-
8 structures, single-room fieldhouses, limited-activity
areas, special-use sites, and agricultural field systems.
A total of 73 structures was excavated, which
included 41 pithouses, 26 masonry rooms, and 6
ramadas. Close to 100,000 artifacts were recovered,
with ceramics the dominant artifact type, comprising
more than 80 percent of the assemblage. The
earliest sites were occupied around A.D. 400, with
the occupation continuing into the early to mid-A.D.
1100s. The most intensive occupation was between
A.D. 1050 and 1125, the approximate time of the
Sunset Crater eruption.
The project area also crosses what has long been
considered to be a boundary between two distinct
archaeological culture areas: the Sinagua to the south
and the Cohonina to the north and northwest. Dr.
Harold S. Colton, the founder of the Museum of
Northern Arizona (MNA), first recognized this
boundary in the 1930s, and placed it at Deadman
Wash, which crosses the approximate center of the
U.S. 89 project area. Although later researchers have
moved the boundary to the Coconino Divide,
roughly 8 km south of Deadman Wash, it is still well
within the current project area. About half the intensively
investigated U.S. 89 sites lie south of this
point, and about half lie to the north. This affords
an excellent opportunity to address the question of
the cultural affiliation of project area inhabitants, as
well as the legitimacy of archaeological culture areas
in general, and every analyst on the project was
asked to examine this question using their particular
data set.
The results of the U.S. 89 investigations are presented
in a series of anthropological papers: Anthropological
Papers No. 30, Part 1 and Part 2, contain
background information on the project and descriptions
of the 41 investigated sites; Anthropological
Papers No. 31 presents the results of the flaked stone,
ground stone, shell, animal bone, and mortuary
analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 32 presents the
analysis of the ceramic assemblage, including petrographic
ceramic sourcing studies and form and
function analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 33
contains the environmental analyses, with chapters
on the botanical assemblage (pollen and flotation
studies), prehistoric agriculture, the eruption of Sunset
Crater Volcano, and a detailed paleoenvironmental
reconstruction; and Anthropological Papers No.
37 presents the overall project synthesis and conclusions.
In Anthropological Papers No. 37, the data
presented in the preceding volumes are used to reconstruct
the settlement, subsistence, and economic
systems of the prehistoric populations who inhabited
the U.S. 89 project area and the Flagstaff area in
general.
The two parts of Anthropological Papers No. 30
present the project background, environment, and
descriptive information about the testing and excavation
of the 41 project area sites. Part 1 includes
the two sites in Elevation Zone 1 (5,700-6,199 ft
[1,737-1,889 m] asl) and 11 sites in Elevation Zone 2
(6,200-6,699 ft [1,890-2,042 m] asl), the lower elevation
zones in the northern half of the project area.
Part 2 includes the nine sites in Elevation Zone 3
(6,700-7,199 ft [2,042-2,194 m] asl, north), the nine
sites in Elevation Zone 4 (7,200+ ft [2,195+ m] asl),
and the 10 sites in Elevation Zone 5 (6,700-7,199 ft
[2,042-2,194 m] asl, south). These volumes contain
site and feature descriptions, maps, general artifact
data, and interpretations of site function and dating.
Diagnostic ceramics from critical contexts that
were used to date the sites are presented by feature.
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km
north of Flagstaff, Arizona. All sites were on
Coconino National Forest (CNF) land. The project
was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., for the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
prior to the widening and improvement of 26.7 km
(16.6 miles) of U.S. 89, between the southern boundary
of Wupatki National Monument in the north,
and the town of Fernwood in the south. Archaeological
fieldwork occurred over two primary field
seasons in 1997 and 1998, with a very brief field season
in 1999. A total of almost 12 person-years of labor
was expended on the fieldwork.
The U.S. 89 project area crosses diverse environmental
zones, ranging from juniper-sage grasslands
in the north at approximately 5,700 ft (1,737 m) asl,
to ponderosa pine forests at over 7,200 ft (2,195 m)
asl in the south. Mixed pinyon pine and juniper
woodlands comprise the middle elevations. Five elevation
zones were defined, using increments of 500
ft as a proxy for changes in precipitation, temperature,
and vegetation. All project area sites are also
within 25 km of Sunset Crater Volcano, with the closest
sites only 5 km from the volcano. As we discuss in the volume, Sunset Crater erupted
for a few weeks to months sometime between A.D. 1050 and
1125 and most likely between A.D. 1085-1090. Basalt lava from the eruption covered an area of approximately 8 sq. km, while another 2,300 sq. km was
covered by cinder and ash deposits. Sunset Crater
cinders were found on all project area sites. An isopach
map of cinder depth constructed for this project
indicates that at a minimum the U.S. 89 sites were
covered with from 5-50 cm of volcanic material,
which had a significant impact on prehistoric settlement,
subsistence, and economic systems. Prehistoric
adaptation to environmental variability and to
the Sunset Crater eruption were primary research
themes.
A wide range of site types are present in the
project area, including large, permanent habitations,
containing 10-30 masonry rooms and pithouses,
smaller homesteads or seasonal farmsteads with 2-
8 structures, single-room fieldhouses, limited-activity
areas, special-use sites, and agricultural field systems.
A total of 73 structures was excavated, which
included 41 pithouses, 26 masonry rooms, and 6
ramadas. Close to 100,000 artifacts were recovered,
with ceramics the dominant artifact type, comprising
more than 80 percent of the assemblage. The
earliest sites were occupied around A.D. 400, with
the occupation continuing into the early to mid-A.D.
1100s. The most intensive occupation was between
A.D. 1050 and 1125, the approximate time of the
Sunset Crater eruption.
The project area also crosses what has long been
considered to be a boundary between two distinct
archaeological culture areas: the Sinagua to the south
and the Cohonina to the north and northwest. Dr.
Harold S. Colton, the founder of the Museum of
Northern Arizona (MNA), first recognized this
boundary in the 1930s, and placed it at Deadman
Wash, which crosses the approximate center of the
U.S. 89 project area. Although later researchers have
moved the boundary to the Coconino Divide,
roughly 8 km south of Deadman Wash, it is still well
within the current project area. About half the intensively
investigated U.S. 89 sites lie south of this
point, and about half lie to the north. This affords
an excellent opportunity to address the question of
the cultural affiliation of project area inhabitants, as
well as the legitimacy of archaeological culture areas
in general, and every analyst on the project was
asked to examine this question using their particular
data set.
The results of the U.S. 89 investigations are presented
in a series of anthropological papers: Anthropological
Papers No. 30, Part 1 and Part 2, contain
background information on the project and descriptions
of the 41 investigated sites; Anthropological
Papers No. 31 presents the results of the flaked stone,
ground stone, shell, animal bone, and mortuary
analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 32 presents the
analysis of the ceramic assemblage, including petrographic
ceramic sourcing studies and form and
function analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 33
contains the environmental analyses, with chapters
on the botanical assemblage (pollen and flotation
studies), prehistoric agriculture, the eruption of Sunset
Crater Volcano, and a detailed paleoenvironmental
reconstruction; and Anthropological Papers No.
37 presents the overall project synthesis and conclusions.
In Anthropological Papers No. 37, the data
presented in the preceding volumes are used to reconstruct
the settlement, subsistence, and economic
systems of the prehistoric populations who inhabited
the U.S. 89 project area and the Flagstaff area in
general. The eruption of Sunset Crater Volcano sometime between A.D. 1085-1090, as well as the immediate response and eventual short- and long-term adaptations to this eruption by the prehistoric inhabitants of the U.S. 89 project area is a particular focus of the research.
The two parts of Anthropological Papers No. 30
present the project background, environment, and
descriptive information about the testing and excavation
of the 41 project area sites. Part 1 includes
the two sites in Elevation Zone 1 (5,700-6,199 ft
[1,737-1,889 m] asl) and 11 sites in Elevation Zone 2
(6,200-6,699 ft [1,890-2,042 m] asl), the lower elevation
zones in the northern half of the project area.
Part 2 includes the nine sites in Elevation Zone 3
(6,700-7,199 ft [2,042-2,194 m] asl, north), the nine
sites in Elevation Zone 4 (7,200+ ft [2,195+ m] asl),
and the 10 sites in Elevation Zone 5 (6,700-7,199 ft
[2,042-2,194 m] asl, south). These volumes contain
site and feature descriptions, maps, general artifact
data, and interpretations of site function and dating.
Diagnostic ceramics from critical contexts that
were used to date the sites are presented by feature.
the Lower Tonto Basin of central Arizona. This is one of three related data recovery projects undertaken
in the Tonto Basin for the Bureau of Reclamation prior to the raising of the Roosevelt Lake dam. The
results of the RCD project are presented in four Anthropological Papers of the Center for Desert
Archaeology: Anthropological Papers No. 12 is the research design; Anthropological Papers No. 13 (these
two volumes) contains background information and the site descriptions; Anthropological Papers No. 14
(three volumes) contains the artifact and environmental analyses; and Anthropological Papers No. 15
presents the synthesis and conclusions.
The project was situated within the Tonto National Forest and covered a four-mile continuous area along
the north bank of the Salt River. Sites within the project area exhibited a great range of functional,
temporal, and, possibly, cultural diversity. These include two sites with platform mounds (the Meddler
Point and Pyramid Point sites), a 100-room masonry pueblo (the Griffin Wash site), smaller masonry
compounds (e.g., the Porcupine site), and pithouse hamlets and farmsteads (e.g., the Hedge Apple and
Eagle Ridge sites). Temporal components ranged from the Early Ceramic Horizon (AD. 100-600) at Locus
B of the Eagle Ridge site through the Roosevelt phase (AD. 1250-1350) of the Classic period. The Early
Ceramic component of the Eagle Ridge site is now the earliest documented ceramic period site in the
Tonto Basin, and it provides definitive evidence for an indigenous pre-Hohokam population. The project
area was the most intensively inhabited during the Roosevelt phase, when platform mounds, large
pueblos, and small masonry compounds were occupied. It was largely abandoned by AD. 1325, prior
to the large-scale aggregation that occurred during the Gila phase; very few Gila Polychrome sherds were
recovered from project area sites.
The mandate of the RCD project, as specified by the Bureau of Reclamation, was to investigate the
temporal and developmental sequence of the prehistoric populations within this area. To meet these
goals, 6 sites were intensively examined through full-scale excavation, while an extensive data set was
gathered from the remaining 21 sites.
The two volumes in Anthropological Papers No. 13 present
The Yuma Wash site was a permanently occupied large Classic period village situated in the northern Tucson Basin at the juncture of the eastern bajada of the Tucson Mountains with the Santa Cruz River floodplain. The site area was also intermittently used on a much smaller scale during the rest of the Hohokam sequence and during the Early Agricultural and Early Ceramic periods, as well as during the Historic period. The project was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc. for the Town of Marana prior to and during improvements to Silverbell Road and the construction of the Crossroads at Silverbell Park.
The initial data recovery of the Silverbell Road alignment was conducted by Old Pueblo Archaeology Center (OPAC). OPAC investigated five sites within the Silverbell Road right-of-way and completed data recovery at AZ AA:12:313 (ASM). Three of the remaining four sites were separated solely by modern channels of Yuma Wash, and for the Desert Archaeology project were considered loci of the Yuma Wash site, although they retained their three original ASM site numbers: AZ AA:12:122 (ASM), AZ AA:12:311 (ASM) and AZ AA:12:312 (ASM). The last site, AZ AA:12:314 (ASM) was situated at the southern end of the project area with only a small portion of it within the right-of-way. A canal site, AZ AA:12:1047 (ASM), likely dating to the Classic period, was also discovered during the Desert Archaeology investigations. The Historic period occupation of the Yuma Wash site includes the Bojórquez-Aguirre Ranch structures that dated to the late 1800s. Data recovery of the historic occupation was covered by the OPAC investigations.
Desert Archaeology recorded 1162 cultural features, including 303 human mortuary features. The vast majority of the features dated to the Classic period and the site was intensively occupied during both the Tanque Verde (A.D. 1150-1300) and Tucson (A.D. 1300-1450) phases. Occupation prior to the Classic period is difficult to characterize due to the paucity of features; a total of 235 structures has now been identified at the Yuma Wash site and AA:12:314, but fewer than a dozen of these have been found through testing or excavation to date prior A.D. 1150. The early occupation was likely intermittent and of varying function, with the site sometimes permanently inhabited for a few years, sometimes seasonally inhabited, and sometimes likely vacant. There was a hiatus during the Rincon phase (A.D. 950-1150) in the portions of the sites investigated by Desert Archaeology, although there was evidence for a very small Rincon occupation in previous investigations.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Yuma Wash Project was irregular and consisted largely of a small, primarily linear slice of the site. Due to this, site structure could not be clearly determined. However, several observations could be made for the Classic period occupation, which are discussed in detail in this chapter (Ch. 14) and the final concluding chapter (Ch. 15). Locus AA:12:122 was occupied only during the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150-1300) and showed clear pithouse courtyard groups with cemeteries to the east or southeast. This pattern was much less visible in the other loci due to the shape of the right-of-way and the dynamic nature of the natural deposits, allowing for Classic period features to originate at numerous levels. Still, several pithouse courtyard groups were found at the other loci; most of the courtyard groups dated to the Tanque Verde phase but several likely dated to the Tucson phase (A.D. 1300-1450). An adobe compound constructed during the Tanque Verde phase and occupied into the Tucson phase contained surface adobe rooms and underlying pit structures. Traces of at least one additional compound were found in previous work at the site, outside of the current right-of-way. It is possible that the Tucson phase courtyard groups were contemporaneous with the adobe compound. The Yuma Wash data support previous archaeological research in the Tucson Basin and the Hohokam area in general suggesting a temporal sequence in architecture, with pithouses transitioning into adobe-walled pitrooms and finally into adobe-walled surface rooms, many within compound walls. While this temporal trend is broadly accurate, the Yuma Wash data indicate all three architectural forms can also be absolutely contemporaneous, raising questions about the timing, function, and use of these structures, as well as the nature of the social groups who occupied them. The Yuma Wash data also indicate that architecture alone cannot be used as a basis for temporal placement when reconstructing internal site structure, despite the relatively numerous efforts over the years by archaeologists to do so.
The Classic period occupants of the Yuma Wash site were farmers who supplemented their subsistence by gathering nearby wild plants and hunting rabbits and occasionally larger game. At the site, the occupants produced items including ceramic pots, flaked stone and ground stone tools, and some shell jewelry. In exchange, they also received ceramics from other sites within the Tucson Basin and obsidian, shell, and non-local ceramics from sites across the Greater Southwest. Little evidence of manufacturing or trade was seen in the much smaller assemblage from site AA:12:314.
The large number of mortuary features at the site included features from all stages of the cremation process as well as primary inhumations. Over 50 percent of the inhumations were infants and these were associated with large group serving vessels more often than expected. Small household-sized cemeteries were located within the courtyards and larger communal cemeteries were located to the east and southeast of residential areas. Patterning of the various types of cremation features and the ages of the individuals was identified in the larger cemeteries. Interestingly, the burials of domestic dogs were also frequently clustered, and some of these clusters were near the edges of the larger human cemeteries.
The Santa Cruz River has been divided into irrigation reaches based on the bedrock outcrops and other geological factors that indicate ideal locations for headgate construction for canal systems. The Yuma Wash site was part of the irrigation community associated with the Cañada del Oro Reach of the Santa Cruz. During the Classic period, the Yuma Wash site was the largest site in this reach, as no known platform mound sites are located in this reach. The Marana mound site and Furrey’s Ranch mound were associated with the reaches at each end of the Cañada del Oro Reach so were in irrigation communities adjacent to the one in which the Yuma Wash site is located.
The Yuma Wash report contains results from the Desert Archaeology, Inc. excavations conducted in 2008. Chapter 14, by Deborah L. Swartz and Mark D. Elson, describes the site structure and chronology. Chapter 15, by Mark D. Elson and Deborah L. Swartz, also included on this Academia.edu website, presents the final interpretations and discussion of the site, focusing on Classic period settlement of a large permanently inhabited village in the Tucson Basin and how the Yuma Wash site interacted and was integrated into neighboring Classic period occupations. Whenever possible, the results from the previous work by OPAC are also included to provide a more complete understanding of the site. A set of supplemental data associated with this project can be found at http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/store/anthropological-papers/ap49.html.
Desert Archaeology recorded 1162 cultural features, including 303 human mortuary features. The vast majority of the features dated to the Classic period and the site was intensively occupied during both the Tanque Verde (A.D. 1150-1300) and Tucson (A.D. 1300-1450) phases. Occupation prior to the Classic period is difficult to characterize due to the paucity of features; a total of 235 structures has now been identified at the Yuma Wash site, but fewer than a dozen of these have been found through testing or excavation to date prior A.D. 1150. The early occupation was likely intermittent and of varying function, with the site sometimes permanently inhabited for a few years, sometimes seasonally inhabited, and sometimes likely vacant. There was a hiatus during the Rincon phase (A.D. 950-1150) in the portions of the sites investigated by Desert Archaeology, although there is evidence for a very small Rincon occupation in previous investigations.
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Yuma Wash Project was irregular and consisted largely of a small, primarily linear slice of the site. Due to this, site structure could not be clearly determined. However, several observations could be made for the Classic period occupation. Locus AA:12:122 was occupied only during the Tanque Verde phase (A.D. 1150-1300) and showed clear pithouse courtyard groups with cemeteries to the east or southeast. This pattern was much less visible in the other loci due to the shape of the right-of-way and the dynamic nature of the natural deposits, allowing for Classic period features to originate at numerous levels. Still, several pithouse courtyard groups were found at the other loci; most of the courtyard groups dated to the Tanque Verde phase but several likely dated to the Tucson phase (A.D. 1300-1450). An adobe compound constructed during the Tanque Verde phase and occupied into the Tucson phase contained surface adobe rooms and underlying pit structures. Traces of at least one additional compound were found in previous work at the site, outside of the current right-of-way. It is possible, if not likely, that the Tucson phase courtyard groups were contemporaneous with the adobe compound. The Yuma Wash data support previous archaeological research in the Tucson Basin and the Hohokam area in general suggesting a temporal sequence in architecture, with pithouses transitioning into adobe-walled pitrooms and finally into adobe-walled surface rooms, many within compound walls. While this temporal trend is broadly accurate, the Yuma Wash data indicate all three architectural forms can also be contemporaneous, raising questions about the timing, function, and use of these structures, as well as the nature of the social groups who occupied them. The Yuma Wash data also indicate that architecture alone cannot be used as a basis for temporal placement when reconstructing internal site structure, despite the relatively numerous efforts over the years by archaeologists to do so.
The Classic period occupants of the Yuma Wash site were farmers who supplemented their subsistence by gathering nearby wild plants and hunting rabbits and occasionally larger game. At the site, the occupants produced items including ceramic pots, flaked stone and ground stone tools, and some shell jewelry. In exchange, they also received ceramics from other sites within the Tucson Basin and obsidian, shell, and non-local ceramics from sites across the Greater Southwest.
The large number of mortuary features at the site included features from all stages of the cremation process as well as primary inhumations. Over 50 percent of the inhumations were infants and these were associated with large group serving vessels more often than expected. Small household-sized cemeteries were located within the courtyards and larger communal cemeteries were located to the east and southeast of residential areas. Patterning of the various types of cremation features and the ages of the individuals was identified in the larger cemeteries. The burial of dogs in what appear to be defined cemeteries often located near the edges of the larger human cemeteries also suggests that dogs were respected and considered to be more than work animals or a source of food -- of the 34 recovered dog burials, none contained evidence for butchering and subsequent consumption.
The Santa Cruz River has been divided into irrigation reaches based on bedrock outcrops and other geological factors that indicate ideal locations for canal system headgates, allowing the flow of water from the Santa Cruz River to be monitored and adjusted as needed. The Yuma Wash site was part of the irrigation community associated with the Cañada del Oro Reach of the river. During the Classic period, the Yuma Wash site was the largest site in this reach, as no known platform mound sites are located in this area. The Marana platform mound site and Furrey’s Ranch platform mound site were associated with adjacent reaches at each end of the Cañada del Oro Reach, meaning that the flow of water for these irrigation communities could not be directly regulated by the platform mound villages, nor could the inhabitants of the Yuma Wash site directly regulate the water flow reaching the platform mound villages, except through alliances or force.
The two chapters included on this page -- Chapters 14 and 15 -- synthesize data from Desert Archaeology's 2008 excavations and provide interpretative analyses to support our reconstruction of Classic period (ca. A.D. 1150-1450(?)) life on the Santa Cruz River. Whenever possible, the results from the previous work by OPAC are also included to provide a more complete understanding of this large village site. The Hohokam Classic period has long been known to be a period of relatively dramatic change, most visible in the aggregation of a relatively large number of pre-Classic and early Classic period sites into six large platform mound villages, with all but one located on the Santa Cruz River. At the same time, we see a reduction in the size of economic and exchange systems, particularly pottery, which becomes very localized, changing from a relatively widespread network, with most of the decorated pottery in the Tucson Basin originating from only three or four areas (petrofacies) on the Santa Cruz River in central Tucson, to one of smaller subregions with more limited distributions. We interpret the Classic period as a time of stress, both social and almost certainly environmental, with the subregional patterning likely indicative of the importance of knowing one's neighbors, and knowing them well, as a form of alliance and community protection. We suggest that at least in the Tucson Basin, but likely throughout the Southwest U.S., it is time to revive earlier models from the turn of the 20th century through the late 1960s that proposes that conflict, or the threat of conflict, was more of a prime mover in culture change than currently believed.
The presence or threat of conflict is suggested by a number of variables: 1) settlement aggregation, and particularly the movement of many sites out of the open floodplain to the terraces above the floodplain; 2) the occupation of defensive site locations, such as trincheras sites or at least nearby areas where the movement of "strangers" could be observed; 3) the construction of platform mounds, which unlike the ballcourts that preceded them, were restricted in access and almost certainly related to status of either the individual leader or the leader's group; and 4) the likely presence of migrant groups from areas both north and south of the Tucson Basin, which is known to put stress on local populations, particularly local populations living in an area with limited precipitation and therefore dependent on irrigation agriculture. Irrigation agriculture at the scale practiced in the Tucson Basin almost certainly would have required leadership, food surplus, and a relatively large amount of cooperation both within, and possibly between, groups. And finally, although not stated in our chapter and admittedly highly subjective and speculative (and also highly subject to criticism, but isn't that what science is for?), the senior author believes that intergroup conflict, or even the threat of conflict, is an important and significant variable in the behavior and survival of human populations, one that is also an important and relatively well-documented variable in the behavior of other higher primates. I find it very interesting, and to me, likely significant, that there is a clear correlation with the loss of "conflict" as a viable hypotheses and the escalation of the Vietnam War. As strongly as we (meaning Anthropologists) are supposedly trained in cultural relativity and objective scientific observation, we are still very much a product of our culture.
Archaeology: Anthropological Papers No. 12 is the research design; Anthropological Papers No. 13 (these two volumes) contains background information and the site descriptions; Anthropological Papers No. 14 (three volumes) contains the artifact and environmental analyses; and Anthropological Papers No. 15 presents the synthesis and conclusions.
The project was situated within the Tonto National Forest and covered a four-mile continuous area along the north bank of the Salt River. Sites within the project area exhibited a great range of functional, temporal, and, possibly, cultural diversity. These include two sites with platform mounds (the Meddler Point and Pyramid Point sites), a 100-room masonry pueblo (the Griffin Wash site), smaller masonry compounds (e.g., the Porcupine site), and pithouse hamlets and farmsteads (e.g., the Hedge Apple and Eagle Ridge sites); Temporal components ranged from the Early Ceramic Horizon (AD. 100-600) at Locus B of the Eagle Ridge site through the Roosevelt phase (AD. 1250-1350) of the Classic period. The Early Ceramic component of the Eagle Ridge site is now the earliest documented ceramic period site in the Tonto Basin and it provides definitive evidence for an indigenous pre-Hohokam population. The project area was the most intensively inhabited during the early Classic period Roosevelt phase, when platform mounds, large pueblos, and small masonry compounds were occupied. It was largely abandoned by A.D. 1325, prior to the large-scale aggregation that occurred during the Gila phase; very few Gila Polychrome sherds were recovered from project area sites.
The mandate of the RCD project, as specified by the Bureau of Reclamation, was to investigate the temporal and developmental sequence of the prehistoric populations within this area. To meet these goals, 6 sites were intensively examined through full-scale excavation, while an extensive data set was gathered from the remaining 21 sites.
The two volumes in Anthropological Papers No. 13 present the project background and provide descriptive information on the excavation and testing of these sites. Found within these volumes are site and feature descriptions, site and feature maps, general artifact data, and preliminary interpretations of the individual sites. Oversized maps from the Meddler Point site are included as a separate bound map supplement to Volume 2 (not included here but available at archaeologysouthwest.org). More specific artifact data and analyses can be found in the three volumes that make up Anthropological Papers No. 14, particularly Volume 2 which explores the ceramic assemblage in detail. Anthropological Papers No. 15 integrates these data to provide a more inclusive view of the prehistoric occupation of the RCD project area and the Tonto Basin.
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km
north of Flagstaff, Arizona. All sites were on
Coconino National Forest (CNF) land. The project
was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., for the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
prior to the widening and improvement of 26.7 km
(16.6 miles) of U.S. 89, between the southern boundary
of Wupatki National Monument in the north,
and the town of Fernwood in the south. Archaeological
fieldwork occurred over two primary field
seasons in 1997 and 1998, with a very brief field season
in 1999. A total of almost 12 person-years of labor
was expended on the fieldwork.
The U.S. 89 project area crosses diverse environmental
zones, ranging from juniper-sage grasslands
in the north at approximately 5,700 ft (1,737 m) asl,
to ponderosa pine forests at over 7,200 ft (2,195 m)
asl in the south. Mixed pinyon pine and juniper
woodlands comprise the middle elevations. Five elevation
zones were defined, using increments of 500
ft as a proxy for changes in precipitation, temperature,
and vegetation. All project area sites are also
within 25 km of Sunset Crater Volcano, with the closest
sites only 5-6 km away. Sunset Crater erupted
for a few years sometime between A.D. 1050 and
1125. Basalt lava from the eruption covered an area
of approximately 8 km2, while another 2,300 km2 was
covered by cinder and ash deposits. Sunset Crater
cinders were found on all project area sites. An isopach
map of cinder depth constructed for this project
indicates that, minimumally, the U.S. 89 sites were
covered with from 5-50 cm of volcanic material,
which had a significant impact on prehistoric settlement,
subsistence, and economic systems. Prehistoric
adaptation to environmental variability and to
the Sunset Crater eruption were primary research
themes.
A wide range of site types are present in the
project area, including large, permanent habitations,
containing 10-30 masonry rooms and pithouses,
smaller homesteads or seasonal farmsteads with 2-
8 structures, single-room fieldhouses, limited-activity
areas, special-use sites, and agricultural field systems.
A total of 73 structures was excavated, which
included 41 pithouses, 26 masonry rooms, and 6
ramadas. Close to 100,000 artifacts were recovered,
with ceramics the dominant artifact type, comprising
more than 80 percent of the assemblage. The
earliest sites were occupied around A.D. 400, with
the occupation continuing into the early to mid-A.D.
1100s. The most intensive occupation was between
A.D. 1050 and 1125, the approximate time of the
Sunset Crater eruption.
The project area also crosses what has long been
considered to be a boundary between two distinct
archaeological culture areas: the Sinagua to the south
and the Cohonina to the north and northwest. Dr.
Harold S. Colton, the founder of the Museum of
Northern Arizona (MNA), first recognized this
boundary in the 1930s, and placed it at Deadman
Wash, which crosses the approximate center of the
U.S. 89 project area. Although later researchers have
moved the boundary to the Coconino Divide,
roughly 8 km south of Deadman Wash, it is still well
within the current project area. About half the intensively
investigated U.S. 89 sites lie south of this
point, and about half lie to the north. This affords
an excellent opportunity to address the question of
the cultural affiliation of project area inhabitants, as
well as the legitimacy of archaeological culture areas
in general, and every analyst on the project was
asked to examine this question using their particular
data set.
The results of the U.S. 89 investigations are presented
in a series of anthropological papers: Anthropological
Papers No. 30, Part 1 and Part 2, contain
background information on the project and descriptions
of the 41 investigated sites; Anthropological
Papers No. 31 presents the results of the flaked stone,
ground stone, shell, animal bone, and mortuary
analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 32 presents the
analysis of the ceramic assemblage, including petrographic
ceramic sourcing studies and form and
function analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 33
contains the environmental analyses, with chapters
on the botanical assemblage (pollen and flotation
studies), prehistoric agriculture, the eruption of Sunset
Crater Volcano, and a detailed paleoenvironmental
reconstruction; and Anthropological Papers No.
37 presents the overall project synthesis and conclusions.
In Anthropological Papers No. 37, the data
presented in the preceding volumes are used to reconstruct
the settlement, subsistence, and economic
systems of the prehistoric populations who inhabited
the U.S. 89 project area and the Flagstaff area in
general.
The two parts of Anthropological Papers No. 30
present the project background, environment, and
descriptive information about the testing and excavation
of the 41 project area sites. Part 1 includes
the two sites in Elevation Zone 1 (5,700-6,199 ft
[1,737-1,889 m] asl) and 11 sites in Elevation Zone 2
(6,200-6,699 ft [1,890-2,042 m] asl), the lower elevation
zones in the northern half of the project area.
Part 2 includes the nine sites in Elevation Zone 3
(6,700-7,199 ft [2,042-2,194 m] asl, north), the nine
sites in Elevation Zone 4 (7,200+ ft [2,195+ m] asl),
and the 10 sites in Elevation Zone 5 (6,700-7,199 ft
[2,042-2,194 m] asl, south). These volumes contain
site and feature descriptions, maps, general artifact
data, and interpretations of site function and dating.
Diagnostic ceramics from critical contexts that
were used to date the sites are presented by feature.
41 prehistoric sites located approximately 30 km
north of Flagstaff, Arizona. All sites were on
Coconino National Forest (CNF) land. The project
was conducted by Desert Archaeology, Inc., for the
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
prior to the widening and improvement of 26.7 km
(16.6 miles) of U.S. 89, between the southern boundary
of Wupatki National Monument in the north,
and the town of Fernwood in the south. Archaeological
fieldwork occurred over two primary field
seasons in 1997 and 1998, with a very brief field season
in 1999. A total of almost 12 person-years of labor
was expended on the fieldwork.
The U.S. 89 project area crosses diverse environmental
zones, ranging from juniper-sage grasslands
in the north at approximately 5,700 ft (1,737 m) asl,
to ponderosa pine forests at over 7,200 ft (2,195 m)
asl in the south. Mixed pinyon pine and juniper
woodlands comprise the middle elevations. Five elevation
zones were defined, using increments of 500
ft as a proxy for changes in precipitation, temperature,
and vegetation. All project area sites are also
within 25 km of Sunset Crater Volcano, with the closest
sites only 5 km from the volcano. As we discuss in the volume, Sunset Crater erupted
for a few weeks to months sometime between A.D. 1050 and
1125 and most likely between A.D. 1085-1090. Basalt lava from the eruption covered an area of approximately 8 sq. km, while another 2,300 sq. km was
covered by cinder and ash deposits. Sunset Crater
cinders were found on all project area sites. An isopach
map of cinder depth constructed for this project
indicates that at a minimum the U.S. 89 sites were
covered with from 5-50 cm of volcanic material,
which had a significant impact on prehistoric settlement,
subsistence, and economic systems. Prehistoric
adaptation to environmental variability and to
the Sunset Crater eruption were primary research
themes.
A wide range of site types are present in the
project area, including large, permanent habitations,
containing 10-30 masonry rooms and pithouses,
smaller homesteads or seasonal farmsteads with 2-
8 structures, single-room fieldhouses, limited-activity
areas, special-use sites, and agricultural field systems.
A total of 73 structures was excavated, which
included 41 pithouses, 26 masonry rooms, and 6
ramadas. Close to 100,000 artifacts were recovered,
with ceramics the dominant artifact type, comprising
more than 80 percent of the assemblage. The
earliest sites were occupied around A.D. 400, with
the occupation continuing into the early to mid-A.D.
1100s. The most intensive occupation was between
A.D. 1050 and 1125, the approximate time of the
Sunset Crater eruption.
The project area also crosses what has long been
considered to be a boundary between two distinct
archaeological culture areas: the Sinagua to the south
and the Cohonina to the north and northwest. Dr.
Harold S. Colton, the founder of the Museum of
Northern Arizona (MNA), first recognized this
boundary in the 1930s, and placed it at Deadman
Wash, which crosses the approximate center of the
U.S. 89 project area. Although later researchers have
moved the boundary to the Coconino Divide,
roughly 8 km south of Deadman Wash, it is still well
within the current project area. About half the intensively
investigated U.S. 89 sites lie south of this
point, and about half lie to the north. This affords
an excellent opportunity to address the question of
the cultural affiliation of project area inhabitants, as
well as the legitimacy of archaeological culture areas
in general, and every analyst on the project was
asked to examine this question using their particular
data set.
The results of the U.S. 89 investigations are presented
in a series of anthropological papers: Anthropological
Papers No. 30, Part 1 and Part 2, contain
background information on the project and descriptions
of the 41 investigated sites; Anthropological
Papers No. 31 presents the results of the flaked stone,
ground stone, shell, animal bone, and mortuary
analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 32 presents the
analysis of the ceramic assemblage, including petrographic
ceramic sourcing studies and form and
function analyses; Anthropological Papers No. 33
contains the environmental analyses, with chapters
on the botanical assemblage (pollen and flotation
studies), prehistoric agriculture, the eruption of Sunset
Crater Volcano, and a detailed paleoenvironmental
reconstruction; and Anthropological Papers No.
37 presents the overall project synthesis and conclusions.
In Anthropological Papers No. 37, the data
presented in the preceding volumes are used to reconstruct
the settlement, subsistence, and economic
systems of the prehistoric populations who inhabited
the U.S. 89 project area and the Flagstaff area in
general. The eruption of Sunset Crater Volcano sometime between A.D. 1085-1090, as well as the immediate response and eventual short- and long-term adaptations to this eruption by the prehistoric inhabitants of the U.S. 89 project area is a particular focus of the research.
The two parts of Anthropological Papers No. 30
present the project background, environment, and
descriptive information about the testing and excavation
of the 41 project area sites. Part 1 includes
the two sites in Elevation Zone 1 (5,700-6,199 ft
[1,737-1,889 m] asl) and 11 sites in Elevation Zone 2
(6,200-6,699 ft [1,890-2,042 m] asl), the lower elevation
zones in the northern half of the project area.
Part 2 includes the nine sites in Elevation Zone 3
(6,700-7,199 ft [2,042-2,194 m] asl, north), the nine
sites in Elevation Zone 4 (7,200+ ft [2,195+ m] asl),
and the 10 sites in Elevation Zone 5 (6,700-7,199 ft
[2,042-2,194 m] asl, south). These volumes contain
site and feature descriptions, maps, general artifact
data, and interpretations of site function and dating.
Diagnostic ceramics from critical contexts that
were used to date the sites are presented by feature.
the Lower Tonto Basin of central Arizona. This is one of three related data recovery projects undertaken
in the Tonto Basin for the Bureau of Reclamation prior to the raising of the Roosevelt Lake dam. The
results of the RCD project are presented in four Anthropological Papers of the Center for Desert
Archaeology: Anthropological Papers No. 12 is the research design; Anthropological Papers No. 13 (these
two volumes) contains background information and the site descriptions; Anthropological Papers No. 14
(three volumes) contains the artifact and environmental analyses; and Anthropological Papers No. 15
presents the synthesis and conclusions.
The project was situated within the Tonto National Forest and covered a four-mile continuous area along
the north bank of the Salt River. Sites within the project area exhibited a great range of functional,
temporal, and, possibly, cultural diversity. These include two sites with platform mounds (the Meddler
Point and Pyramid Point sites), a 100-room masonry pueblo (the Griffin Wash site), smaller masonry
compounds (e.g., the Porcupine site), and pithouse hamlets and farmsteads (e.g., the Hedge Apple and
Eagle Ridge sites). Temporal components ranged from the Early Ceramic Horizon (AD. 100-600) at Locus
B of the Eagle Ridge site through the Roosevelt phase (AD. 1250-1350) of the Classic period. The Early
Ceramic component of the Eagle Ridge site is now the earliest documented ceramic period site in the
Tonto Basin, and it provides definitive evidence for an indigenous pre-Hohokam population. The project
area was the most intensively inhabited during the Roosevelt phase, when platform mounds, large
pueblos, and small masonry compounds were occupied. It was largely abandoned by AD. 1325, prior
to the large-scale aggregation that occurred during the Gila phase; very few Gila Polychrome sherds were
recovered from project area sites.
The mandate of the RCD project, as specified by the Bureau of Reclamation, was to investigate the
temporal and developmental sequence of the prehistoric populations within this area. To meet these
goals, 6 sites were intensively examined through full-scale excavation, while an extensive data set was
gathered from the remaining 21 sites.
The two volumes in Anthropological Papers No. 13 present