Desert Archaeology, Inc N. Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona January 2016 doc Henry D. Wallace. Reviewed by

Transcription

1 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM), in Parcel 5GKV in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona Henry D. Wallace Reviewed by Patricia Castalia Desert Archaeology, Inc N. Tucson Boulevard Tucson, Arizona Submitted to Mattamy Tucson, LLC 6640 N. Oracle Rd, Suite #110 Tucson, AZ Desert Archaeology, Inc N. Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona January 2016 doc

2 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY Project Title: Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM), in Parcel 5GKV in Client: Mattamy Tucson, LLC Client Project Name: Honey Bee Periphery Compliance Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Town of Oro Valley (TOV), Arizona State Museum (ASM) Compliance Level: Federal (Phase A) and Local (Phase B) Applicable Laws/Regulations: National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Arizona Antiquities Act, ARS ; Oro Valley Town Code Section 27.2 Cultural Resource Preservation Applicable Permits: N/A Tribal Consultation: A Burial Agreement will be obtained from the Arizona State Museum (ASM) upon approval of this testing plan Project Description: Mattamy Tucson, LLC, is proposing to extend and improve Moore Road east of Parcel 5F in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, and is planning residential development on Parcels 5G, 5K, and 5V (Parcel 5GKV). In addition, the northeast portion of the Parcel will be initially used to stockpile dirt removed from grading on nearby parcels. This project consists of two separate compliance elements. Phase A will conduct site boundary testing at Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM), within an ACOE permitted area. Phase B will conduct site identification testing to meet TOV cultural resource requirements in a portion of the parcels where canals may be present. Phase A will occur in the southern portion of the project area. It will determine the nature of the boundary of Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM), a National Register eligible site. It is designed to meet ACOE compliance requirements, and it will also meet Oro Valley compliance requirements. This ACOE permitted area will not be disturbed or otherwise affected by the proposed earth stockpiling activity. The Phase B project element will address potential effects on archaeological resources in the earth stockpiling area and future residential development area. Site identification testing fieldwork will be conducted in this area to determine if agricultural features are present beneath the surface. Scheduling of Phase A and Phase B archaeological fieldwork can be either concurrent or sequential. One phase does not have a direct relationship to the other in terms of timing as they address separate types of resources and different types of potential impacts. Fieldwork Dates and Crew Person-days (Non-supervisory): To be determined Final Disposition of Project Artifacts, Field Notes, Data, and Records: Arizona State Museum

3 Compliance Summary Page 3 Location (Land Ownership; City, County, State; Legal Description): Land Ownership: Private City, County, and State: Oro Valley, Pima County, AZ Legal Description: E ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 25 and the NW ½ of the SE ¼ of Section 25, Township 11 South, Range 13 East (Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian) Area of Potential Effect (APE): 66 acre portion of Parcel 5GKV where ground-disturbing activities are proposed, previously surveyed by SWCA and Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Hesse et al. 2015) Number of Sites: 2 List of Register-eligible Properties: AZ BB:9:88 (ASM) List of Register-ineligible Properties: AZ BB:5:123 (ASM) Recommendations: Based on review of results of previous archaeological work at AZ BB:9:88 (ASM) and the potential that buried features may be present on the alluvial deposits below the terrace upon which AZ BB:9:88 (ASM) is located, testing is recommended to ascertain if surface artifacts represent material washed down from the terrace top site or whether the surface scatter relates in any way to subsurface cultural features. In addition, it is recommended that site identification be conducted via testing in an area where canals and other agricultural features may be present.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPLIANCE SUMMARY... 2 LIST OF FIGURES... 5 LIST OF TABLES... 5 INTRODUCTION... 6 PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION... 8 CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AREA Paleoindian Period Archaic Period Early Agricultural Period Early Ceramic Period Hohokam Sequence Protohistoric Period Spanish and Mexican Periods American Period PREVIOUS RESEARCH NEAR THE PROJECT AREA Honey Bee Village Surrounding Sites RESEARCH THEMES Surface Artifact Scatter Research Themes Flood Plain Agriculture Research Theme Site Identification Site Formation and Preservation WORK PLAN Archaeological Fieldwork Methods Monitoring Artifact Analyses Report Preparation Curation REFERENCES CITED... 29

5 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Project setting in the Cañada del Oro Valley Reproduction of USGS 7.5-minute topographic quad Oro Valley, Ariz. (AZ BB:9 [NW]), showing location of project area and current AZSITE boundaries of recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area Map showing an overview of the excavations and features identified during the excavations by Desert Archaeology Parcel 5GKV showing its relationship to the site boundary of Honey Bee Village from Wallace, and site extension proposed by Hesse and Petersen Close-up view of the relationship of Hesse and Petersen's site boundary extension for Honey Bee Village, Wallace boundary defined on the basis of large-scale data recovery at the site, Honey Bee Village trash deposits located near the site boundary, and the geomorphic character of the site boundary extension area Parcel 5GKV showing the location of proposed backhoe trenches and strip trench within the ACOE permit area Stockpile plan map from Mattamy Tucson LIST OF TABLES 1. Periods, phases, and chronology of the Santa Cruz Valley-Tucson Basin Features identified and subsequently excavated at Honey Bee Village in the excavations Recorded archaeological sites within 1.6 km of Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM)... 18

6 TREATMENT PLAN FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING AT THE PERIPHERY OF HONEY BEE VILLAGE, AZ BB:9:88 (ASM), IN PARCEL 5GKV IN RANCHO VISTOSO NEIGHBORHOOD 5, ORO VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA INTRODUCTION Mattamy Tucson, LLC, is planning the development of approximately 66 acres of private land on Parcel GKV (previously Parcels 5G, 5K, and 5V), a 115 acre parcel in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5 in the Town of Oro Valley (TOV). This parcel is located east and northeast of the junction of Moore Road and Rancho Vistoso Boulevard in the TOV (Figure 1). Phase A of the proposed development could adversely affect what may be a portion of Honey Bee Village (AZ BB:9:88 [ASM]) in the southern portion of the project area. Phase B may adversely affect possible prehistoric canals and other agricultural features originating from Honey Bee Wash near the mouth of Honey Bee Canyon. At the northeastern portion of the proposed development area, Mattamy is planning to stockpile dirt removed through grading operations on a nearby parcel. Geomorphically, the project parcel includes portions of the T1 (modern) and older T2 (Holocene) floodplain along their eastern portion with the development footprint lying outside the active Honey Bee Wash channel. The most likely cultural resources to be found in this portion of the project area are buried canals and possible diversion features such as stone weirs used to direct water into canals or field systems. A series of backhoe trenches placed in the area most likely to have such preserved features near the mouth of Honey Bee Canyon (see Huckleberry 2012:43) will assess the geomorphic history of this portion of the T1/T2 floodplain and identify such features if they are present. If features are found, limited horizontal exposures may be warranted to evaluate the nature of the features and to search for dateable materials within or associated with them. The southwestern portion of the project encompasses a portion of the dissected margins of the Middle Pleistocene alluvial fan on which prehistoric Honey Bee Village is situated. On these slopes and extending onto the T1/T2 floodplain is a scatter of artifacts that radiates down from the site on the Middle Pleistocene surface above. This artifact scatter is at its highest density near trash deposits on the margins of the Honey Bee Village site as it was previously defined in Wallace, ed. (2012), and the density tapers off as one progresses downslope and into active channels in the small alluvial fan deposits on the slopes. Although the possibility that there are significant archaeological features on the active geomorphic surfaces within this portion of the GKV parcel is remote, the presence of features such as roasting pits cannot be ruled out. Honey Bee Village is a National Register-eligible site that has received extensive archaeological excavation and the central portion of the settlement has been set aside as an archaeological preserve owned by Pima County. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) determines that testing is warranted in the area where artifacts from the site occur in the project area, the primary goal of such testing would be to determine the boundaries of the site and whether the artifacts present are originating from activities on the project area or are simply washed down from trash deposits atop the Middle Pleistocene fan above. The testing would consist of exploratory backhoe trenching. This document presents a plan for site boundary identification at Honey Bee Village (Phase A) and site identification in a portion of the parcel where canals have the highest likelihood of being present (Phase B). The following sections present a brief culture history of the area, a description of Honey

7 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 7 Figure 1. Project setting in the Cañada del Oro Valley.

8 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 8 Bee Village and the compliance archaeological work completed there, and a summary of neighboring sites that are potentially related to activities in the project area. Following those sections, a research design, a work plan, and project schedule for site identification and site boundary testing is presented. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project area is located in Section 25, Township 11 South, Range 13 East (Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian), in Pima County, Arizona. In Figure 2 it is plotted on the U.S. Geological Survey Oro Valley, Arizona, 7.5-minute quadrangle. It is situated east and northeast of the corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Moore Road. The study area lies on the west side of the major drainage emanating from the mouth of Honey Bee Canyon commonly referred to as Honey Bee Wash (although the naming of this short stretch of wash is somewhat confused see Wallace 2012:1) between the mouth of Honey Bee Canyon and the confluence with Big Wash (see Figure 2). This is located on the southeastern piedmont of the Tortolita Mountains in the Middle Cañada del Oro Valley. Surficial geologic units include historic to modern channel deposits and their overbank deposits, cobble bars, low terraces, Pleistocene alluvium in the upland zones, and dissected slopes of the upland alluvium crossed by numerous unnamed ephemeral drainages that originate upslope to the east and northeast of the subject property and which carry water and sediment into the Honey Bee drainageway. The westernmost section of Parcel 5GKV includes a small portion of the Middle Pleistocene alluvial fan that is the locus of many archaeological sites in the region; however, this portion of the parcel is not included in this development project and no significant archaeological resources are present there. The western and southwestern portions of Parcel 5GKV are mainly focused on the eroding margins of the Middle Pleistocene fan where it is dissected by the Honey Bee-Big Wash drainage system. This eroded margin has many small drainages and very actively eroding and aggrading surfaces characteristic of relatively steep slopes in alluvial fan deposits. At the southwestern portion of Parcel 5GKV, where a portion of these slopes extends onto the T1/T2 floodplain, there is a relatively dense scatter of Hohokam artifacts adjacent to the densely occupied portions of Honey Bee Village on the Middle Pleistocene fan above. This artifact scatter is at its highest density near trash deposits on the margins of the Honey Bee Village site and the density tapers off as one progresses downslope and into active channels in the small alluvial fan deposits on the slopes. Remaining portions of Parcel 5GKV are situated on portions of the T1 (modern) and older T2 (Holocene) floodplain with the far northeastern tip of the parcel including a small segment of the current Honey Bee Wash at the mouth of Honey Bee Canyon. T1/T2 surfaces in this area are covered with shallow channels and sheetflow deposits that represent a distributary fan emanating from the mouth of Honey Bee Canyon (Huckleberry 2012). Project elevation ranges from about 2,800 to 2,920 feet above mean sea level. Vegetation in the project area is subsumed within the paloverde-cacti-mixed scrub association in the Arizona Upland subdivision of the Sonoran Desertscrub biotic community (Brown 1994). Dominant vegetation within the project area includes foothills paloverde (Parkinsomia microphylla), velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), whitethorn acacia (Acacia constricta), cholla (Cylindropuntia spp.), and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.). Other species noted in the project area include brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), desert broom (Bacharris sarothroides), saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), ironwood (Olneya tesota), desert hackberry (Celtis pallida), triangle-leaf bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea), and hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus sp.). With the exception of several roads, most of the parcel has had few disturbances and

9 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 9 Figure 2. Reproduction of USGS 7.5-minute topographic quad Oro Valley, Ariz. (AZ BB:9 [NW]), showing location of project area and current AZSITE boundaries of recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area.

10 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 10 the native vegetation is largely intact. Most of the perimeter of the property also remains largely undisturbed with the exception of recent development to the south. The parcel is owned by Mattamy Tucson, LLC. Desert Archaeology, Inc., conducted extensive testing and data recovery excavations at Honey Bee Village in the parcels immediately west and southwest of the project area, and the results of those excavations are detailed in Wallace, ed. (2012) and are summarized below. CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AREA The history of the Southwest and of the Tucson Basin is marked by a close relationship between people and the natural environment. Environmental conditions have strongly influenced subsistence practices and social organization, and social and cultural changes have, in turn, made it possible to more efficiently exploit environmental resources. Through time, specialized adaptations to the arid region distinguished people living in the Southwest from those in other areas. Development of cultural and social conventions also became more regionally specific, and by A.D. 650, groups living in the Tucson Basin can be readily differentiated from those living in other areas of the Southwest. Today, the harsh desert climate no longer isolates Tucson and its inhabitants, but life remains closely tied to the unique resources of the Southwest. The chronology of the Tucson Basin is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Periods, phases, and chronology of the Santa Cruz Valley-Tucson Basin. Era/Period Phase Date Range Historic Era American Statehood American Territorial Mexican Spanish Protohistoric A.D present A.D A.D A.D A.D Prehistoric pre-a.d Hohokam Classic Tucson Tanque Verde A.D A.D Hohokam Sedentary Late Rincon Middle Rincon Early Rincon A.D A.D A.D Hohokam Colonial Rillito Cañada del Oro A.D A.D Hohokam Pioneer Snaketown Tortolita A.D A.D Early Ceramic Agua Caliente A.D Early Agricultural Archaic Paleoindian Late Cienega Early Cienega San Pedro Silverbell interval Chiricahua (occupation gap?) Sulphur Springs-Ventana 400 B.C.-A.D B.C B.C B.C B.C B.C B.C. 11,500?-7500 B.C.

11 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 11 Paleoindian Period (11,500?-7500 B.C.) Archaeological investigations suggest the Tucson Basin was initially occupied some 13,000 years ago, a time much wetter and cooler than today. The Paleoindian period is characterized by small, mobile groups of hunter-gatherers who briefly occupied temporary campsites as they moved across the countryside in search of food and other resources (Cordell 1997:67). The hunting of large mammals, such as mammoth and bison, was a particular focus of the subsistence economy. A Clovis point characteristic of the Paleoindian period (circa 9500 B.C.) was collected from the Valencia site, located along the Santa Cruz River in the southern Tucson Basin (Doelle 1985: ). Another Paleoindian point was found in Rattlesnake Pass, in the northern Tucson Basin (Huckell 1982). These rare finds suggest prehistoric use of the Tucson area probably began at this time. Paleoindian use of the Tucson Basin is supported by archaeological investigations in the nearby San Pedro Valley and elsewhere in southern Arizona, where Clovis points have been discovered in association with extinct mammoth and bison remains (Huckell 1993, 1995). However, because Paleoindian sites have yet to be found in the Tucson Basin, the extent and intensity of this occupation are unknown. Archaic Period ( B.C.) The transition from the Paleoindian period to the Archaic period was accompanied by marked climatic changes. During this time, the environment came to look much like it does today. Archaic period groups pursued a mixed subsistence strategy, characterized by intensive wild plant gathering and the hunting of small animals. This pattern of wild resource exploitation resulted in a high degree of residential mobility and low population density. The only Early Archaic period ( B.C.) sites known from the Tucson Basin are found in the Tortolita Mountains. One is found in Ruelas Canyon, south of the Tortolita Mountains (Swartz 1998:24) and the other from a highland basin within the mountains (Hewitt and Stephen 1981). However, Middle Archaic period sites dating between 3500 and 2100 B.C. are known from the bajada zone surrounding Tucson, and, to a lesser extent, from floodplain and mountain areas. Investigations conducted at Middle Archaic period sites include excavations along the Santa Cruz River (Gregory, ed. 1999), in the northern Tucson Basin (Roth 1989), at the La Paloma development (Dart 1986), and along Ventana Canyon Wash and Sabino Creek (Dart 1984; Douglas and Craig 1986). Archaic period sites in the Santa Cruz floodplain were found to be deeply buried by alluvial sediments, suggesting more of these sites are present, but undiscovered, due to the lack of surface evidence. Early Agricultural Period (2100 B.C.-A.D. 50) The Early Agricultural period (previously identified as the Late Archaic period) was the period when domesticated plant species were first cultivated in the Greater Southwest. The precise timing of the introduction of cultigens from Mexico is not known, although direct radiocarbon dates on maize indicate it was being cultivated in the Tucson Basin and several other parts of the Southwest by 2100 B.C. (Mabry 2008). By at least 400 B.C., groups were living in substantial agricultural settlements in the floodplain of the Santa Cruz River. Recent archaeological investigations indicate canal irrigation also began sometime during this period. Many Early Agricultural period sites are now known from the Tucson Basin (Diehl 1997; Ezzo and Deaver 1998; Freeman 1998; Gregory, ed. 2001; Huckell and Huckell 1984; Huckell et al. 1995; Mabry 1998, 2008; Roth 1989). While there is variability among these sites at least partly due to the 2,150 years included in the period all excavated sites to date contain small, round, or oval semisubterranean

12 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 12 pithouses, many with large internal storage pits. At some sites, a larger round structure is also present, which is thought to be for communal or ritual purposes. Stylistically distinctive Cienega, Cortaro, and San Pedro type projectile points are common at Early Agricultural sites, as are a range of ground stone and flaked stone tools, ornaments, and shell jewelry (Diehl 1997; Mabry 1998). The fact that shell and some of the material used for stone tools and ornaments were not locally available in the Tucson area suggests trade networks were operating. Agriculture, particularly the cultivation of corn, was important in the diet and increased in importance through time. However, gathered wild plants such as tansy mustard and amaranth seeds, mesquite seeds and pods, and agave hearts were also frequently used resources. As in the preceding Archaic period, the hunting of animals such as deer, cottontail rabbits, and jackrabbits, continued to provide an important source of protein. Early Ceramic Period (A.D ) Although ceramic artifacts, including figurines and crude pottery, were first produced in the Tucson Basin during the Early Agricultural period (Heidke and Ferg 2001; Heidke et al. 1998), the widespread use of ceramic containers marks the transition to the Early Ceramic period (Huckell 1993). Undecorated plain ware pottery was widely used in the Tucson Basin by about A.D. 50, marking the start of the early Agua Caliente phase (A.D ). Architectural features became more formalized and substantial during the Early Ceramic period, representing a greater investment of effort in construction, and perhaps more permanent settlement. A number of pithouse styles are present, including small, round, and basin-shaped houses, as well as slightly larger subrectangular structures. As during the Early Agricultural period, a class of significantly larger structures may have functioned in a communal or ritual manner. Reliance on agricultural crops continued to increase, and a wide variety of cultigens including maize, beans, squash, cotton, and agave were an integral part of the subsistence economy. Populations grew as farmers expanded their crop production to floodplain land near permanently flowing streams, and it is assumed that canal irrigation systems also expanded. Evidence from archaeological excavations indicates trade in shell, turquoise, obsidian, and other materials intensified and that new trade networks developed. An Early Ceramic period site, AZ BB:9:189 (ASM), that produced a dog burial and a range of artifacts suggesting at least temporary occupation is present along Honey Bee Wash several kilometers north of the project area (Wellman and Ezzo 2004). Hohokam Sequence (A.D ) The Hohokam tradition developed in the deserts of central and southern Arizona sometime around A.D. 500 and is characterized by the introduction of red ware and decorated ceramics: red-on-buff wares in the Phoenix Basin and red-on-brown wares in the Tucson Basin (Doyel 1991; Wallace et al. 1995). Red ware pottery was introduced to the ceramic assemblage during the Tortolita phase (A.D /700). The addition of a number of new vessel forms suggests that, by this time, ceramics were utilized for a multitude of purposes. Through time, Hohokam artisans embellished this pottery with highly distinctive geometric figures and life forms such as birds, humans, and reptiles. The Hohokam diverged from the preceding periods in a number of other important ways: (1) pithouses were clustered into formalized courtyard

13 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 13 groups, which, in turn, were organized into larger village segments, each with their own roasting area and cemetery; (2) new burial practices appeared (cremation instead of inhumation) in conjunction with special artifacts associated with death rituals; (3) canal irrigation systems were expanded and, particularly in the Phoenix Basin, represented huge investments of organized labor and time; and (4) large communal or ritual features, such as plazas, ballcourts, and platform mounds, were constructed at many village sites. The Hohokam sequence is divided into the pre-classic (A.D , includes the Tortolita through the Late Rincon phases) and Classic (A.D , including the Tanque Verde and Tucson phases). At the start of the pre-classic, pithouse settlements moved from floodplain and lower terrace settings to upper terrace settings along the Santa Cruz River and its major tributaries, including those within the Cañada del Oro Valley (Wallace and Lindeman 2012). Settlements coalesced, forming plaza-centric villages in optimal settings. Smaller seasonally-occupied settlements and resource procurement sites were established or continued to be used in upper bajada and upland environments. By A.D. 800, large, nucleated villages were present, mostly developing from earlier settlements (Doelle and Wallace 1991). At this time, large, basin-shaped features with earthen embankments, called ballcourts, were constructed at a number of the riverine villages. Although the exact function of these features is unknown, they probably served as arenas for playing a type of ball game, as well as places for holding religious ceremonies and for bringing different groups together for trade and other communal purposes (Wilcox 1991; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983). The ballcourts were part of a complex of traits that appeared at that time, including a new iconography, a more elaborated mortuary ritual, and constructed earthen mounds or capped trash mounds located adjacent to central plazas (Wallace, Heidke, and Doelle 1995; Craig 2012; Wallace 2014). Two ballcourt settlements are located along or near the Honey Bee drainage system: Honey Bee Village and Sleeping Snake (AZ BB:9:104 [ASM]) and three other settlements with ballcourts are known from other portions of the Middle Cañada del Oro valley (Wallace 2014). Between A.D. 950 and 1150, Hohokam villages in the Tucson area fragmented and became more dispersed, with people utilizing the extensive bajada zone as well as the valley floor (Doelle and Wallace 1986; Lindeman 2009), although communities still retained a primary village center. Population may have increased, although demographic trends are difficult to assess given village fragmentation. Ballcourts ceased to be built sometime in the eleventh century. Both functionally specific seasonal sites, as well as more permanent habitations, were now situated away from the river; however, the largest sites were still on the terraces just above the Santa Cruz and its major tributaries. There is strong archaeological evidence for increasing specialization in ceramic manufacture at this time, with some village sites producing decorated red-on-brown and red ware ceramics for trade throughout the Tucson area (Harry 1995; Heidke 1988, 1996; Huntington 1986). The Classic period is marked by dramatic changes in settlement patterns and possibly in social organization. Aboveground adobe structure and compound architecture appeared for the first time, supplementing, but not replacing, the traditional semisubterranean pithouse architecture (Haury 1928; Wallace 1995). Although corn agriculture was still the primary subsistence focus, extremely large Classic period rock-pile field systems associated with the cultivation of agave have been found in both the northern and southern portions of the Tucson Basin (Doelle and Wallace 1991; Fish et al. 1992). Only a small early Classic period component is present at Honey Bee Village adjacent to the project area, although many other sites dating to this time period are known in the middle Cañada del Oro Valley (Wallace 1987; Wallace, ed. 2012). Platform mounds were also constructed at a number of Tucson Basin villages beginning around A.D (Gabel 1931) with the Marana Mound being the earliest dated to the mid-1200s (Fish et al. 1992). These features are found throughout southern and central Arizona and consist of a central structure that was deliberately filled to support an elevated room or rooms upon a platform. The

14 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 14 function of the elevated room is unclear; some were undoubtedly used for habitation, whereas others may have been primarily ceremonial. Building a platform mound took organized and directed labor, and the mounds are believed to be symbols of a socially differentiated society (Doelle et al. 1995; Elson 1998; Fish et al. 1992; Gregory 1987). By the time platform mounds were constructed, most smaller sites had been abandoned, and Tucson Basin settlement was in the process of aggregating at only a half-dozen large settlements (Wallace and Lindeman 2013). Recent research has suggested that aggregation and abandonment in the Tucson area may be related to an increase in conflict and possibly warfare (Wallace and Doelle 1998). The nearest late Classic period sites to the project area are situated along the eastern front of the Tortolita Mountains. By A.D. 1450, the Hohokam tradition, as presently known, disappeared from the archaeological record. Protohistoric Period (A.D ) Little is known of the period from A.D. 1450, when the Hohokam disappeared from view, to A.D. 1697, when Father Kino first traveled to the Tucson Basin (Doelle and Wallace 1990). By that time, the Tohono O'odham people were living in the arid desert regions west of the Santa Cruz River, and groups that lived in the San Pedro and Santa Cruz valleys were known as the Sobaipuri (Doelle and Wallace 1990; Masse 1981). Both groups spoke the O odham language and, according to historic accounts and archaeological investigations, lived in oval jacal surface dwellings rather than pithouses. One of the larger Sobaipuri communities was located at Bac, where the Spanish Jesuits, and later the Franciscans, constructed the mission of San Xavier del Bac (Huckell 1993; Ravesloot 1987). However, due to the paucity of historic documents and archaeological research, little can be said regarding this inadequately understood period. Spanish and Mexican Periods (A.D ) Spanish exploration of southern Arizona began at the end of the seventeenth century A.D. Early Spanish explorers in the Southwest noted the presence of Native Americans living in what is now the Tucson area. These groups comprised the largest concentration of population in southern Arizona (Doelle and Wallace 1990). In 1757, Father Bernard Middendorf arrived in the Tucson area, establishing the first local Spanish presence. Fifteen years later, the construction of the San Agustín Mission near a Native American village at the base of A-Mountain was initiated, and by 1773, a church was completed (Dobyns 1976:33). In 1775, the site for the Presidio of Tucson was selected on the eastern margin of the Santa Cruz River floodplain. In 1776, Spanish soldiers from the older presidio at Tubac moved north to Tucson, and construction of defensive and residential structures began. The Presidio of Tucson was one of several forts built to counter the threat of Apache raiding groups who had entered the region at about the same time as the Spanish (Thiel et al. 1995; Wilcox 1981). Spanish colonists soon arrived to farm the relatively lush banks of the Santa Cruz River, to mine the surrounding hills, and to graze cattle. Many indigenous settlers were attracted to the area by the availability of Spanish products and the relative safety provided by the Presidio. The Spanish and Native American farmers grew corn, wheat, and vegetables, and cultivated fruit orchards, and the San Agustín Mission was known for its impressive gardens (Williams 1986). In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain, and Mexican settlers continued farming, ranching, and mining activities in the Tucson Basin. By 1831, the San Agustín Mission had been abandoned (Elson and Doelle 1987; Hard and Doelle 1978), although settlers continued to seek the protection of the Presidio walls.

15 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 15 American Period (1856-Present) Through the 1848 settlement of the Mexican-American War and the 1853 Gadsden Purchase, Mexico ceded much of the Greater Southwest to the United States, establishing the international boundary at its present location. The U.S. Army established its first outpost in Tucson in 1856 and, in 1873, founded Fort Lowell at the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash, to guard against continued Apache raiding. Railroads arrived in Tucson and the surrounding areas in the 1880s, opening the floodgates of Anglo- American settlement. With the surrender of Geronimo in 1886, Apache raiding ended, and the region s settlement boomed. Local industries associated with mining and manufacturing continued to fuel growth, and the railroad supplied the Santa Cruz River valley with the commodities it could not produce locally. Meanwhile, homesteaders established numerous cattle ranches in outlying areas, bringing additional residents and income to the area (Mabry et al. 1994). By the turn of the twentieth century, municipal improvements to water and sewer service, and the eventual introduction of electricity, made life in southern Arizona more hospitable. New residences and businesses continued to appear within an ever-widening perimeter around Tucson, and city limits stretched to accommodate the growing population. Tourism, the health industry, and activities centered around the University of Arizona and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base contributed significantly to growth and development in the Tucson Basin in the twentieth century (Sonnichsen 1982). PREVIOUS RESEARCH NEAR THE PROJECT AREA The project area and adjacent region has been surveyed on several occasions. It was initially surveyed during the as part of the Pima Community College reconnaissance survey of the Rancho Vistoso area (Hewitt and Stephen 1981). This survey was important for providing the first information about Honey Bee Village and many other sites in the region. No sites were identified in the project area. In 1986, the Institute for American Research (now Desert Archaeology, Inc) conducted an intensive survey of the Rancho Vistoso development area. Honey Bee Village was instrument-mapped during that investigation and 11 sites originally identified by Pima College were revisited and 43 new sites were recorded (Craig and Wallace 1987). Several of these sites are located near the present project area. An important result of this research was the recognition that the central mound group at Honey Bee Village likely encircled a central plaza. Ballcourts, recently identified at that time at Honey Bee Village and Sleeping Snake (AZ BB:9:104), located a short distance to the northwest, were mapped. Most recently, in 2014 Parcel 5GKV was intensively surveyed by SWCA for Mattamy Tucson (Hesse and Petersen 2014). Hesse and Petersen identified one site that was considered ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, AZ BB:5:123 (the Oracle-Tucson 115-kilovolt transmission line), one site could not be relocated and is assumed to be located outside the project area (AZ:BB:9:155 - it is not plotted herein, awaiting future relocation), and they extended the site boundary for Honey Bee Village in order to include an artifact scatter that extends onto the project area from the boundary defined in Wallace, ed. (2012). No other archaeological surveys have been conducted within or immediately adjacent to the project area, although other small surveys have been completed within a mile of the boundaries of the parcel. Honey Bee Village Honey Bee Village is the largest settlement located near the project area and one of the two largest village sites in the Rancho Vistoso area. Portions of the site were excavated on three different

16 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 16 occasions. In 1988 and 1989, the Institute for American Research and the Foundation for Field Research conducted systematic and judgmental testing and limited excavations in the central precinct of the site (now largely within an archaeological preserve) (Craig 1989). A total of 47 backhoe trenches (combined length 1,510 m) were excavated. In all, 80 primary cultural features were recorded in the trenches, including 54 pit structures, 10 roasting pits, 9 trash-filled pits, and 7 secondary cremation human burials. In addition to the trenching program, the ballcourt was handtrenched and determined to, in-fact, be a court, nine of the mounds were tested with 1-m by 2-m excavation test pits, a rock-outlined structure was tested along portions of its walls, and a series of units were excavated to establish the nature of a large rock-outlined enclosure present in the center of the plaza. This work indicated that there was indeed a likely plaza in the center of the inner mound group, it revealed a very dense occupation in this central portion of the village, and it established a time depth extending from the Tortolita phase to the Tanque Verde phase. By far the most extensive and intensive excavations at Honey Bee Village were accomplished in 2006 and 2007 by Desert Archaeology (Swartz 2012; Wallace, ed. 2012). In an agreement developed between Pima County and Cañada Vistas, LLC, Cañada Vistas agreed to donate the 13-acre core of Honey Bee Village to the County, and the County agreed to fund mitigation of the archaeological resources outside the core of the village south of Moore Road (the northern limit of the parcel owned by Cañada Vistas). The excavations on this 79.5-acre parcel were supplemented through a contract with Vistoso Partners, LLC, for a 1.3-acre portion of the Moore Road right-of-way where it passes through the site, and for the northernmost 4.60-acre portion of the site just north of Moore Road The nearly year-long data recovery excavations on the portions of Honey Bee Village outside the core of the village, which is an archaeological preserve, entailed 2,891 person-days in the field. Data recovery efforts were conducted on nearly 34 acres of Honey Bee Village. Within this area, mechanical scraping to horizontally expose features exposed acres (Figure 3), providing a comprehensive and nearly complete view of the village outside the preserved core. In all, 2,004 primary archaeological features were identified, including 336 structures and 207 human mortuary features (Table 2). Fifty-five percent of the structures and all of the human mortuary features were excavated. Based on the excavation results and survey of the slopes adjacent to the zones surfacecollected, tested, and excavated, the site boundary shown in Figure 3 was created, modifying the earlier larger boundary from Craig and Wallace (1987) that had incorporated artifacts on the slopes. It was the conclusion from that project that the artifact scatter extending to the east on to Parcel GKV was the result of sheetwash from the village down the slopes. Surrounding Sites Thirty-two sites that have been given Arizona State Museum site numbers have been recorded within one mile of the project area (Table 3, see Figure 2). Of these, aside from the previously discussed Honey Bee Village, sites AZ BB:9:39, 157, 169, and 282 all are located in close proximity based on AZSITE plots, with BB:9:87, 175, 176, and 283 located just a little farther away. Thirteen of these sites have been fully or partially tested or excavated, a remarkably large number that can be attributed to the rapid pace of development in the area since the 1980s. Most are small artifact scatters that may or may not have subsurface features. Many appear to relate to resource processing as agricultural features, grinding facilities, and roasting features are known from many of them. Temporally, most can be assigned to the Hohokam era of occupation in the region, with most of the sequence represented with the exception of the Tucson phase. Site AZ BB:9:39, based on the original site card description which cites a mesa-top location overlooking a wash and its reference to the presence of multiple mounds up to a meter in height, is almost certainly an early report of what is now referenced as Honey Bee Village, AZ BB:9:88. As such, and given it is not where AZSITE has it plotted (which would have been at the northeastern tip of Parcel GKV) based on the survey of Craig and Wallace (1987),

17 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 17 Figure 3. Map showing an overview of the excavations and features identified during the excavations by Desert Archaeology.

18 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 18 it is herein considered to be a synonym of Honey Bee Village. Hesse and Petersen (2014:13-14) provide additional summary information, and testing and excavation references, for those that have been tested or excavated. Table 2. Features identified and subsequently excavated at Honey Bee Village in the excavations (Swartz and Wallace 2012:73). Feature Type Identified Excavated Percent Excavated Structures Wall Other structure-related features Pits Horno/Large Pit oven Thermal pits Human burials and crematoria Canine and raptor burials Trash mounds and concentrations Misc. other features Total Table 3. Recorded archaeological sites within 1.6 km of the project area. ASM Site Number, Name Site Type Site Age Year Recorded Tested or Excavated? AZ BB:5:123, Oracle-Tucson Transmission Line Overhead powerline Historic 1994 No AZ BB:9:39 Trash mounds; given vague site card, this is probably Honey Bee Village. It is not where plotted by AZSITE. Prehistoric 1959 No AZ BB:9:57, Split Lizard Petroglyphs, bedrock mortars, Prehistoric 1970 Yes artifact scatter AZ BB:9:87, Triangle Road Hearth and artifact scatter Hohokam 1978 Yes AZ BB:9:88, Honey Bee Village Village Hohokam Classic and pre-classic 1978 Yes AZ BB:9:102 Hermes Hill Artifact scatter with roasting feature Hohokam 1981 Yes AZ BB:9:103 Sleeping Snake Outlier Artifact scatter Hohokam 1980 No AZ BB:9:148 Large artifact scatter with bedrock grinding features, petroglyphs, checkdams, and roasting features Hohokam Sedentary and Classic 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:155 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:156 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:157 Artifact scatter Hohokam Sedentary 1986 No AZ BB:9:161 Quarry and lithic scatter Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:162 Artifact scatter with roasting feature Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:163 Artifact scatter with associated bedrock grinding slicks and mortars Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:164 Large artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:165 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:166 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 yes

19 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 19 Table 3. Continued. ASM Site Number, Name Site Type Site Age Year Recorded Tested or Excavated? AZ BB:9:167 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:169 Rock features and artifact scatter Hohokam Sedentary 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:171 Artifact scatter and rock features Prehistoric 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:174 Roasting pit and artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:175 Roasting pit and artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:176 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:177 Bedrock grinding, rock feature, and artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 Yes AZ BB:9:184 Artifact scatter Hohokam Sedentary 1986 No AZ BB:9:187 Rock alignment and artifact scatter Hohokam 1986 No AZ BB:9:282 Rock ring and artifact scatter Hohokam 1994 No AZ BB:9:283 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1994 No AZ BB:9:284 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1994 No AZ BB:9:285 Artifact scatter Hohokam 1994 No AZ BB:9:298 House foundation, dump, and artifact scatter Prehistoric and Historic 1994 No AZ BB:9:333 Rock cairn and artifact scatter Prehistoric 1999 No AZ BB:9: No RESEARCH THEMES This project has the potential to contribute significant information that will expand our understanding of the prehistoric social and economic relationships of the people utilizing the area and interacting with the natural environment. For this phase of investigation, the research issues addressed relate directly to: (1) the area where a surface artifact scatter is present downslope but adjacent to Honey Bee Village, and (2) they relate to the possible existence of buried cultural resources related to ancient agricultural activities in the flood plain of Honey Bee Wash. Surface Artifact Scatter Research Themes The surface artifact scatter recorded by Hesse and Petersen (2014) on the slopes and floodplain immediately adjacent to Honey Bee Village in the southwest portion of the project area (Figure 4) is situated on extremely active geomorphic surfaces making it difficult to ascertain whether the artifacts are present merely from sheetwash down from the village above (Figure 5) or whether there may be some artifacts derived from activities in the project area. Due to the topographic character of much of this land and the active braided stream channels within it, it is unlikely that habitation-related cultural features would be present. However, if field systems were present in the Honey Bee floodplain, ephemeral field structures might be present. Other cultural features known from such settings include roasting pits, resource procurement camps, and possibly agricultural features such as canals and diversion weirs or check dams. Research themes pertaining to these possible cultural resources would include: Village Boundary Definition The edges of Hohokam villages have fuzzy boundaries, as can be said for many types of modern communities. We know from prior research at Honey Bee Village that the residents of that village were discarding large quantities of trash onto the upper margins of the slopes that are in question here.

20 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 20 Figure 4. Parcel 5GKV showing its relationship to the site boundary of Honey Bee Village from Wallace, ed. (2012) and site extension proposed by Hesse and Petersen (2014).

21 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 21 Figure 5. Close-up view of the relationship of Hesse and Petersen's (2014) site boundary extension for Honey Bee Village, Wallace, ed. (2012) boundary defined on the basis of large-scale data recovery at the site, Honey Bee Village trash deposits (mounds and trash concentrations) located near the site boundary, and the geomorphic character of the site boundary extension area.

22 Treatment Plan for Archaeological Testing at the Periphery of Honey Bee Village Page 22 Therefore, it is a certainty that at least some of the artifacts in the project area come from these prehistoric activities and the erosion of the trash deposits. Where the edge of the village should be defined can be assessed by trenching the alluvial deposits at the margins of the dissected piedmont deposits and in the floodplain where artifacts are present. Are all of the surface artifacts present originating from upslope or are some coming from activities in the project area (see Figure 5). A geomorphic evaluation of the trenches and examination for intact cultural features as well as their potential for preservation in this environment will be assessed. Such trenching may help determine the rates and depth of deposits since the occupation of Honey Bee Village in the potentially aggrading environment at the foot of the piedmont slopes and in the floodplain. Village Periphery Activities Previous extensive archaeological investigations at Honey Bee Village documented the residential structure of the settlement and the nature of central public spaces at the settlement (Wallace, ed. 2012). However, as noted by Ruble (2004) and Crown (1985), it is important to understand the periphery of settlements in order to fully understand the social and functional organization of the village inhabitants. If cultural features that relate to the village are present in the project area, their nature will add to our knowledge of the settlement. They may specifically tell us how the residents of Honey Bee Village were using (or not) the land below their village. The author hesitates to speculate on the wide range of features that could occur in this setting, focusing instead on structures here and agricultural and other resource procurement activities after that. Ruble (2004:65-66) reviews a range of functions and types for structures that are present ethnographically at the margins of settlements including menstrual huts, warrior huts, visitors quarters, housing for the elderly, sweat lodges, storage structures, and field houses. All are characterized by being smaller and less formally constructed than typical residential and storage facilities found within residential areas of villages. It is noteworthy that functionally, one class of these structures are situated on the periphery of settlements due to the desire to isolate the residents due to various taboos (menstrual huts, warrior huts), while others are located where they are for purely functional reasons (storage facilities, field houses). Sweat lodges may be placed in both categories. The author hesitates to put visitor s quarters in either category. Although we do not expect any structures in the project area, should any occur, the most likely ones would be field houses located on or near the T1/T2 terrace (eastern) portion of the parcel. All of these types and functions of structures have something to say about settlement structure and the society that made them. Resource Procurement and Processing Activities at Village Margins With the primary habitation loci of Honey Bee Village directly overlooking and adjacent to the slopes and floodplain present in the project area, an important research theme centers around what types of activities the inhabitants might have conducted in this near-village environment within an active floodplain. Grinding/processing stations might relate to wild and domesticated seed procurement, evidenced by ground stone artifacts. Roasting features might relate to both plant and animal procurement and cooking. Flotation samples may help elucidate such activities if features are present. Flood Plain Agriculture Research Theme Floodwater and Canal-fed Agricultural Practices in a Tertiary Tributary Environment Very little archaeological research has been conducted in areas that the Hohokam may have farmed in environments away from major stream courses like the Santa Cruz River and Salt River even though it is widely assumed that farming was conducted in such settings and no such studies are