US. Department of the Interior National Park Service lntermountain Region Archaeology Program ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF 18.2 KILOMETERS (11.3 MILES) OF THE U.S.-MEXICO INTERVATIONAL BORDER, ORGAN PIPE CACTUS NATIONAL MOMMENT, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA Prepared by Andrew S. Veech, Intennountain Region Archaeology Program National Park Service with contributions by Jared E. Renaud. Jacob DeGayneL Iraida Rodriguez, and Sharlot Halt July 2019 Intennountain Region Archaeology Project No. ORPI 2019 Abstract Between June 24 and 28, 2019, archaeologists with National Park Service’s (NPS) Intermountain Region Archaeology Program (IMRAP) and Southern Arizona Support Office (SOAR) conducted a systematic pedestrian survey of 18.2 km (11.3 mi) of the southern boundary of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI), a portion of the 3,201 km (1,989 mi) long international border between the United States and Mexico. Over the course of this five-day-long field project the archaeologists surveyed a total of 45.3 ha (112 ac). Cumulatively, they identified, recorded, and mapped 35 isolated occurrences, 20 isolated features, and 5 archaeological sites. This report 1) summarizes the survey findings and 2) offers National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility recommendations for the 5 newly identified archaeological sites. i Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3 III. Regional Culture History ......................................................................................................... 6 IV. Previous Archaeological Research ........................................................................................ 14 V. Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources (n=17) within the Roosevelt Reservation of ORPI….…………………………………………………………………….……………..17 VI. Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................. 40 VII. Description of Newly Recorded ORPI Roosevelt Reservation Archaeological Sites ……..43 ORPI 2019 B, Site 1…...………………………………………………………...43 ORPI 2019 B, Site 2…...………………………………………………………...46 ORPI 2019 B, Site 3…...………………………………………………………...49 ORPI 2019 B, Site 4…...………………………………………………………...52 ORPI 2019 B, Site 5…...………………………………………………………...55 VIII. Management Recommendations………...……...…………………………………………58 References Cited…………………………………………………………………………………59 Appendix A: Maps of Previously Surveyed Areas along the Southern Boundary of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument…………………………………………..70 Appendix B: Maps of Areas Surveyed along the Southern Boundary of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument during June 2019 Survey (ORPI 2019 B)…………………...76 Appendix C: Geospatial Coordinates of Isolated Occurrences (n=35) Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B)..……...………..81 Appendix D: Selective Photos of Isolated Occurrences Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B)…………………………….…..84 Appendix E: Geospatial Coordinates of Isolated Features (n=20) Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B)...………………92 Appendix F: Selective Photos of Isolated Features Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B)…………………..…………….95 Appendix G: Geospatial Coordinates of Archaeological Sites (n=5) Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B)…………………98 Appendix H: Selective Photos of ORPI 2019 B Site Artifacts…………………………………100 Appendix I: Arizona State Museum (ASM) Site Cards for ORPI 2019 B, Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5………………………………………………………………106 ii List of Figures 1. ORPI Roosevelt Reservation survey team atop Monument Hill, June 27, 2019……………..v 2. Satellite image of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the U.S.-Mexico International Border…………………………………………………………………………..1 3. Section of existing border fence within ORPI, view to the southwest ………………………2 4. Archaeological sites identified in the Dos Lomitas vicinity….……………………………..19 5. Map of ORPI 00100……………………………....................................................................20 6. Map of ORPI 00184….……………………………………………………...………………22 7. Map of ORPI 00330.....….....……………………………………………...………………...23 8. Map of ORPI 00420…………………………………………………..……...……………...24 9. Map of ORPI 00421………………………………………………….……...………………25 10. Map of ORPI 00425, demarcating overall site boundaries and four lithic concentrations...…………………..……………………………….………………………...26 11. Archaeological sites identified in the Quitobaquito vicinity.………………..……………...28 12. Paul Ezell’s 1951 Sketch map of Quitobaquito (SON B:4:1), showing Hia C-ed O’odham structures and fields prior to NPS demolition..………………………...29 13. Unprovenienced artifacts collected by Paul Ezell from Quitobaquito (SON B:4:1) in 1951…………………………………………………..…………………….29 14. Lynn Teague’s 1977 site map of SON B:4:9………………...…………………..………….30 15. Lynn Teague’s 1977 site map of SON B:4:13………………......…………………………..31 16. Lynn Teague’s 1977 site map of SON B:4:14.……………………………......…………….32 17. Map of SON B:4:33…..……………………………………………………………………..33 18. Map of SON B:4:34…………………………………………………………………………34 19. Map of SON C:1:79…………………………………………………………………………35 20. Map of precontact, protohistoric, and historic-period O’odham trail corridors crossing ORPI...………………………………………………………………………..……37 21. Map of ORPI 00298, a series of precontact, protohistoric, and historic-period O’odham trails and roads around Quitobaquito…..…………………………………………38 22. Map of ORPI 00299, a series of precontact, protohistoric, and historic-period O’odham trails near Blankenship Ranch…..………………………………………………..39 23. Project archaeologists preparing to walk an east-west survey transect, spaced at 5 m (16.4 ft) intervals, view to the northwest ………………………………………............40 24. Project archaeologists pin flagging ORPI 2019 B, Site 3 in advance of recording, view to the north.....................................................................................................................41 25. Jake DeGayner recording data on a Trimble unit within ORPI Roosevelt Reservation.........41 26. Locations of 5 archaeological sites along the southern boundary of ORPI identified and recorded during June 2019 survey……………………………………………………...42 27. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 1………………………………………………………………...43 28. ORPI 2019 B, Site 1, view to the north……………………………………………………..44 29. ORPI 2019 B, Site 1, view to the south……………………………………………………..44 30. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 2………………………………………………………………...46 31. ORPI 2019 B, Site 2, view to the north……………………………………………………..47 32. ORPI 2019 B, Site 2, view to the south……………………………………………………..47 33. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 3………………………………………………………………...49 34. ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, view to the north……………………………………………………..50 iii 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, view to the south……………………………………………………..50 Cobble cluster within ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, view to the north……………………………...51 Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 4………………………………………………………………...52 ORPI 2019 B, Site 4, view to the north……………………………………………………..53 ORPI 2019 B, Site 4, view to the north……………………………………………………..53 Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 5………………………………………………………………...55 ORPI 2019 B, Site 5, view to the north……………………………………………………..56 ORPI 2019 B, Site 5, view to the south……………………………………………………..56 List of Tables 1. Hohokam chronology………………………………………………………..…………….....8 2. Previously recorded ORPI archaeological sites (n=7) in the vicinity of Quitobaquito and Aguajita Wash…....................................................................................................................17 3. Previously recorded ORPI archaeological sites (n=7) and local resource types (n=1) in the vicinity of the Dos Lomitas…………..………………………………..……………..…18 4. Previously recorded archaeological sites elsewhere along the southern boundary of ORPI (n=3)...………………………………………………………………………………..18 5. Inventory of non-utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=55), ORPI 2019 B, Site 1.......................44 6. Inventory of other lithic artifacts (n=5), ORPI 2019 B, Site 1……...……………...…….....45 7. Inventory of ceramics and marine shell (n=56), ORPI 2019 B, Site 1……………………...45 8. Inventory of non-utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=31), ORPI 2019 B, Site 2……………...47 9. Inventory of utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=3), ORPI 2019 B, Site 2……………………48 10. Inventory of ceramics (n=22), ORPI 2019 B, Site 2………………………………………..48 11. Inventory of non-utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=27), ORPI 2019 B, Site 3……………...50 12. Inventory of utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=5), ORPI 2019 B, Site 3……………………51 13. Inventory of non-utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=4), ORPI 2019 B, Site 4……………….53 14. Inventory of utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=2), ORPI 2019 B, Site 4……………………54 15. Inventory of ceramics and marine shell (n=4), ORPI 2019 B, Site 4……………………….54 16. Inventory of non-utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=66), ORPI 2019 B, Site 5……………...56 17. Inventory of utilized flaked stone artifacts (n=2), ORPI 2019 B, Site 5……………………57 iv Acknowledgments Archaeology is a collaborative enterprise. Certainly, this report results from substantial collaboration, so thanks must be offered to the individuals who contributed toward its completion. First, my thanks to the dedicated, hardworking staff of the ORPI Resources Management Division—most particularly Rijk Morawe, Lauren Kingston, and Jared Renaud. Day in and day out, these steadfast individuals continue to identify, evaluate, and preserve ORPI archaeological resources, unperturbed by the contentious political debates pertaining to the U.S.-Mexico International Border. Despite daunting challenges and limited resources, the ORPI Resources Management Division continues to perform the mission of the National Park Service—preserving the natural and cultural resources of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument for present and future generations. Secondly, my thanks to the diligent and remarkably talented archaeologists of the NPS’s Southern Arizona Support Office (SOAR)—Matt Guebard, Jake DeGayner, Iraida Rodriguez, and Sharlot Hart. The SOAR team’s deep familiarity with southern Arizona parks and their ability to deftly apply cutting-edge technologies to archaeological problem-solving are to be heartily commended. Finally, my thanks to IMR Regional Archaeologist Jim Kendrick for providing me the opportunity to once again provide technical assistance to this invaluable national monument and International Biosphere Reserve. Figure. 1. ORPI Roosevelt Reservation survey team atop Monument Hill, June 27, 2019 (photo by A. Veech). v I. Introduction Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI) is a vast, 1,320 km² (517 mi²) national park unit and UNESCO biosphere reserve in southwestern Arizona, containing an abundance natural and cultural resources unique to the Sonoran Desert. ORPI’s 48.3 km- (30 mi-) long southern boundary constitutes a portion of the 3,201 km- (1,989 mi-) long international border between the United States and Mexico (Figure 2). Figure 2. Satellite image of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the U.S.-Mexico International Border (courtesy of Google Earth). Recently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded two contracts valued at $787 million for the replacement and extension of border fencing across much of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol’s (CBP) Tucson Sector, including the entirety of ORPI’s 48.3 km- (30 mi-) long southern boundary (Figure 3). This construction project may commence at soon as July 2019, and it is scheduled for completion before the close of January 2020. The project entails the wholesale replacement of all existing vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing along ORPI’s southern boundary with a new, continuous 9.1 m- (30 ft-) tall, steel bollard fence, undergirded by a 2.44 to 3.04 m- (8 to 10 ft-) deep concrete and steel foundation. Likewise, the project includes the construction, expansion, and/or improvement of existing roads along the U.S. side of the border and the installation of spotlights and surveillance equipment. 1 Figure 3. Section of existing border fence within ORPI, view to the southwest (photo by A. Veech). Precise design plans for this expanded border infrastructure have been left to the discretion of the contractors (i.e., Southwest Valley Constructors of Albuquerque, New Mexico and BFBC, LLC of Bozeman, Montana), and no details about the building project(s) have been furnished to the National Park Service (NPS). However, NPS managers have been informed that the project shall encompass the entirety of the 18.3 m- (60 ft-) wide Roosevelt Reservation along ORPI’s southern boundary—an area cumulatively encompassing more than 88.3 ha (218.2 ac). So, for planning purposes, the NPS regards the entire 18.3 m- (60 ft-) wide Roosevelt Reservation as an area of great concern, whose cultural and natural resources are imperiled. In light of this imminent border fence construction project, ORPI resource managers—in collaboration with Intermountain Region Archaeology Program (IMRAP) staff and Southern Arizona Support Office (SOAR) personnel—are now developing plans for the broad-scale recovery of threatened archaeological resources along the park’s 48.3 km- (30 mi-) long southern boundary (IMRAP 2019). To fully develop this plan, park managers must first comprehensively inventory and evaluate all archeological resources across that boundary. While broad sections of ORPI’s southern boundary have been previously surveyed for archaeological resources (most notably around Quitobaquito and the Dos Lomitas; see Section V of this report), other sections still remain archaeologically unexamined. Between June 24 and 28, 2019, NPS archaeologists from IMRAP, SOAR, and ORPI systematically surveyed 18.2 km (11.3 mi) of ORPI’s previously unexamined southern boundary (see Appendix B). This five-day pedestrian survey covered the entirety of the 18.3 m- (60 ft-) wide Roosevelt Reservation within the survey zone, an area of approximately 45.3 ha (112 ha). Numerous previously unrecorded archaeological resources were identified, plotted, and evaluated across the survey zone. These include 35 isolated occurrences, 20 isolated features, and 5 archaeological sites. This report summarizes those findings and offers recommendations for NRHP eligibility. 2 II. Environmental Setting ORPI lies in the heart of the Sonoran Desert—one of the hottest and most arid regions in all of North America. The 48.3 km (30 mi) long southern boundary of the monument constitutes part of the international border between the United States and Mexico. To the east, the monument is bounded by the Tohono O’odham Reservation; to the west, it is bounded by the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR). ORPI takes its name from the organ pipe cactus (Stenocereus thurberi), a species indigenous to the Sonoran Desert, whose range reaches its northern extent in southwestern Arizona. Geology ORPI is situated within the Basin and Range Geologic Province. Basin and Range is a geologic term describing a series of discrete yet parallel drop-faulted mountain ranges separated by wide desert plains (Hunt 1974; Palacio-Fest and Rankin 2008). ORPI’s eastern boundary is defined by the 24-km- (15-mi-) long Ajo Range, plus a portion of the lower-lying Santa Rosa Mountains; its northwestern boundary is defined by the Growler Mountains. Between these ranges lie the Bates Mountains, Puerto Blanco Mountains, Sonoyta Mountains, Diablo Mountains, Cipriano Hills, and Quitobaquito Hills, all of which are contained completely within the monument. Each of these various ranges trends roughly northwest-to-southeast. Bajadas (broad slopes of debris spread along the lower slopes of mountains by the coalescence of alluvial fans) join the mountain ranges with their adjacent valley lowlands. Elevations within the monument vary between 1,476 m (4,843 ft) at the peak of Mount Ajo and 299 m (980 ft) at Hocker Well (Brown et al. 1983:4). Bedrock in the region developed 1.5 and 2 billion years ago, the consequence of volcanic activity. Later episodes of basaltic volcanism occurred between 23 million and 10 million years ago, yielding massive uplifted granitic layers that now constitute the region’s mountain ranges (Bezy et al. 2000; Chamberlin 1972:2; Greene 1977:3; Tagg et al. 2002:5–7). Hyperthermic arid soils characterize the western portion of the Papaguería. These are dominated by two soils: Coolidge-Denure-Rillito and Gunsight-Momoli-Chuckawalla. Gunsight-MomoliChuckawalla soils include deep and well-drained loams and gravelly loams with moderate permeability. Coolidge-Denure-Rillito soils consist of deep, medium- and moderately coarsetextured, nearly level to gently sloping loams on low alluvial surfaces and valley plain. Neither soil association is considered well suited to agricultural use today, but cultivation is possible in these soils with careful management and frequent irrigation (Palacio-Fest and Rankin 2008). Soils within ORPI are characterized as Antho fine sandy loam (found on 0-3% slopes), Ciprioni gravelly loam (0-5% slopes), Gachado very gravelly loam (2-8% slopes), Gilman very fine sandy loam (0-3% slopes), Gunsight very gravelly loam (on both 0-2% slopes and 2-15% slopes), Rillito gravelly sandy loam (0-3% slopes), and as soils of the Harqua-Gunsight complex (0-3% slopes) (Chamberlin 1972). Hydrology Surface water is a limited, often unavailable resource in the Sonoran Desert. Permanent, flowing streams are rare, and springs and seeps (places where subsurface water emerges from the ground through openings in rock or soil) usually are restricted to mountainous areas. Groundwater in 3 ORPI is solely a function of rainfall, mostly from the mountains. Multiple stream channels contribute to recharging the monument’s few aquifers. Today, the average depth of those aquifers is approximately 23 m (75.5 ft) (Palacio-Fest et al. 2008:168). Documented springs at ORPI include: Bee Spring, Dripping Springs, Bull Pasture Spring, Aguajita Spring, Quitobaquito Springs, and Williams Spring. Tinajas, also known as rock tanks or plunge pools, are basins or depressions that are scoured into bedrock by erosional forces. Tinajas capture rainfall and runoff and hold that water for periods ranging from several days to months. Documented tinajas at ORPI include: Diaz Peak Tinaja, Jackson’s Hole Tinaja, North Alamo Tinaja, Paisley Tinaja, and the Wild Horse Tank Tinajas. Seasonal washes or arroyos dissect the valleys of the Sonoran Desert, transporting heavy amounts of runoff water (as much as 7.62 cm [3 in] per hour) and alluvial soils during the summer monsoon season. Major washes within ORPI include: Alamo Wash, Aguajita Wash, Cherioni Wash, Growler Wash, Kuakatch Wash, and San Cristobal Wash (Brown et al. 1983; Rankin 1995:15-29). Climate The 37-year mean average rainfall recorded at the monument headquarters is 23.3 cm (9.17 in), and typically half of that precipitation falls during the monsoon season of July, August, and September (Brown et al. 1983:4). This summer monsoon precipitation often occurs abruptly in localized areas, resulting in flash floods (Ives 1936). July is the hottest month at the monument, averaging 32.7º C (90.9º F), with an average maximum daily temperature of 39.6ºC (103.2º F). January is the coolest month, averaging 11.7º C (53.0º F), with an average minimum daily temperature of 5.4º C (41.7º F) (Johnson 1997:164). Drought conditions at ORPI are most prevalent during April, May, and June, just prior to the summer monsoon season (Brown et al. 1983:6). Flora ORPI is an environmental transition zone where plant and animal species reach their maximum extent. Species indigenous to three subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert—Arizona Uplands, Lower Colorado, and Central Gulf Coast (Shreve and Wiggins 1964)—merge within the monument boundaries. There are at least 643 plant species within ORPI, including subspecies and hybrids (Felger et al. 2007:209). Dominant plant species are creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), organ pipe cactus (Stenocereus thurberi), saguaro cactus (Carnegiea gigantea), and white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa). Also well represented are cholla (Cylindropuntia species), mesquite (Prosopis species), paloverde (Parkinsonia species), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), saltbush (Atriplex species), and scrub oak (Quercus turbinella) (Kearney and Peebles 1951:14; Shreve and Wiggins 1964:58; Tagg et al. 2002:9–10). The Sonoran Desert contains over 200 species of edible and medicinal plants as well as plant material for basketry, tools, shelter, and fuel. In general, the greatest abundance and variety of edible and usable plant resources is located on the bajadas (Rankin 1995:20). Fauna Hundreds of animal species (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, arachnids, and insects) inhabit and traverse ORPI. Large mammals found within the monument include mule deer 4 (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), javelina (Dicotyles tajacu), coyote (Canis latrans mearnsi), bobcat (Lynx rufus baileyi), mountain lion (Puma concolor Azteca), and the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonorensis). Smaller mammals include the desert cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus auduboni arizonae), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus eremicus), common cactus mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), kangaroo rat (species Dipodomys), and pocket mouse (species Chaetodipus) (Tagg et al. 2002:10; Henry 2007:276–278). Common, year-round bird species include the Gambel’s quail, roadrunner, white-wing dove, and raven. Numerous additional bird species migrate through the monument, including flycatchers, pelicans, ducks, geese, swans, hawks, and eagles (Griffin 2007:291–302). Indigenous reptile species include the desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), gila monster (Heloderma suspectum), chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), Western diamond-back rattlesnake (species Crotalus), and desert tortoise (Gopherus aggasizii) (Rosen 2007:312–314). 5 III. Regional Culture History Human groups have been present across ORPI’s arid landscape for at least 10,500 years, and perhaps far longer (NPS 1997:35). Throughout most of that vast period, groups survived by practicing various strategies of nomadic hunting and gathering, roaming constantly or seasonally in search of water, edible plants, and game animals. Later in precontact times, certain groups adopted irrigation agriculture, settling near and farming the alluvial soils of seasonally-flowing washes. During historic times, some groups (most of European descent) grazed livestock across the region’s sparse pasturage, while others mined ore deposits from the mountains. ORPI’s culture history can be divided into five major periods: 1) Paleoindian, 2) Archaic, 3) Precontact Ceramic, 4) Protohistoric, and 5) Historic. This cultural history is summarized below, and the terms Before Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE) are applied. This present summary draws heavily from two previous synopses—namely, Rankin (1995) and Greene (1977). Paleoindian Period (circa 15,000-8,500 BCE) Paleoindian is a classificatory term applied to the small bands of migratory hunter-gatherers who entered and dispersed across the Americas during the final millennia of the Late Pleistocene Epoch (ca. 45,000-10,000 BCE), an era characterized by worldwide glacial advances and retreats. The archaeological assemblage most commonly associated with Paleoindian peoples is the Clovis tradition (10,500-8,800 BCE), a cultural complex whose hallmark artifact is the Clovis point—a lanceolate-shaped, fluted projectile point, occasionally found in association with the hunted and butchered remains of mammoth, mastodon, and other Pleistocene megafauna species (Anderson and Gillam 2000; Huckell and Haynes 2007). Until recently, most archaeologists assumed Clovis peoples to have been the earliest Paleoindians in the Americas. This assumption now is discounted, due to the discovery and chronometric dating of “pre-Clovis” archaeological deposits at sites in Chile, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and elsewhere (Adovasio et al. 1990; Dillehay and Collins 1988; Feathers et al. 2006). These pre-Clovis assemblages have yet to be definitively characterized, though they have been termed as “blade-core technologies” and “Solutrean-like.” What is clear, however, is that they have been recovered from stratified deposits underlying Clovis artifacts, thus pushing back Paleoindian presence in the Americas by hundreds if not thousands of years. Documented Clovis tradition discoveries in southwestern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico consist mainly of isolated projectile points. For instance, Ezell (1951-1952) discovered a Clovis point within the Growler Valley, just several miles northwest of ORPI inside CPNWR (Rankin 1995:45). The earliest firmly dated Clovis deposits in southwestern Arizona occur at Ventana Cave on the Tohono O’odham Reservation in Pima County and date to 9,350 BCE, a period when regional climate was cooler and moister (Haury 1950; Huckell and Haynes 2003). No unequivocal evidence of pre-Clovis peoples in southwestern Arizona and northern Sonora has yet been found. However, alleged pre-Clovis artifacts and features have been identified on desert pavements situated within the Sierra Pinacate region, slightly southwest of ORPI. Terms applied to this alleged pre-Clovis tradition include Malpais and San Dieguito Phase I (Hayden 1966, 1967, 1976; Heilen 2004; Rogers 1939, 1958; Sanchez and Carpenter 2012, 2016). 6 Archaic Period (8,500 BCE-300 CE) The term Archaic does not refer to a particular group(s) of precontact American Indians. Rather, it is an archaeological construct, a generalized term referring to a widely shared assemblage of material technologies and adaptive strategies employed by a variety of precontact American Indian groups. Archaic peoples inhabited a Holocene landscape, characterized by natural ecosystems and environmental conditions similar to those existing today. Regional climate patterns (temperature, precipitation, etc.) resembled those prevailing now, as did the various arrays of regionally-prevalent floral and faunal species (Emerson et al. 2009; Ritchie 1932a, 1932b; Willey and Phillips 1958:104-143). Although geographically circumscribed and less nomadic than their Paleoindian predecessors, Archaic peoples were not fully sedentary. Rather, they periodically relocated to various places within their home territories, harvesting wild plants and animals as they became seasonally available. Group sizes waxed and waned during the course of this seasonal round-making, contingent on the abundance of wild foodstuffs in particular localities. Archaic peoples, as a whole, were not horticulturalists; rather they were highly accomplished hunter-gatherers (Emerson et al. 2009; Ritchie 1932a, 1932b; Willey and Phillips 1958:104-143). Certain groups apparently were familiar with horticulture and domesticated foodstuffs, yet chose not to adopt a horticultural lifeway for various reasons. Some groups inhabited marginal, arid environments ill-suited for plant domestication. Others, because they inhabited regions naturally abundant with wild foodstuffs, saw no incentive to abandoning their hunter-gatherer lifeway. Archaic peoples did not possess bow-and-arrow technology. Instead, they used spears and darts, sometimes propelled with atlatls (Blitz 1988; Justice 2002:44-47; Kelley 1959:277; Nassaney and Pyle 1999; Ritchie 1932a:408). The stones they procured to make such spear and dart points were usually quarried locally, rather than acquired from distant sources. Archaic peoples also did not generally make pottery, though they did excel at weaving, basketry, woodcarving, ground stone tool-making, and other craft pursuits. Certain groups were not familiar with potterymaking. Others apparently chose not to make pottery, due to pottery’s fragility and hence its unsuitability for a semi-sedentary lifestyle (Crown and Wills 1995; Eerkens et al. 2002:222-225; Sassaman 2004:23-40; Spangle et al. 1959:6). The Southwestern Archaic is the regional variant of the Archaic tradition that flourished at ORPI and across the Sonoran Desert. A remarkably extensive period in regional human history (8,500 BCE-300 CE), the Southwestern Archaic is divided into three archaeological phases (i.e., Early, Middle, and Late), each of which is identified by a distinctive set of traits and projectile point styles. All three phases are represented in the ORPI archaeological record. The Early Archaic spans the period from roughly 8,500 to 4,800 BCE. Early Archaic assemblages include percussion-flaked scrapers, foliate bifacial knives, choppers, flat slab metates, oval manos, and tapering-stemmed projectile points resembling Silver Lake and Lake Mohave points. The Middle Archaic extends from approximately 4,800 to 1,500 BCE. Characteristic projectile points include Bajada, Chiricahua, Gypsum Cave, Pinto, and an assortment of stemmed varieties with indented bases. Basin-shaped metates appeared during this phase. The Late Archaic extends from roughly 1,500 BCE to 300 CE. During this phase, regional lithic toolkits expanded in both size and 7 complexity. Higher-quality stone was quarried for chipped-stone tool manufacturing; side- notched and comer-notched points San Pedro points) predominate. Ground-stone tool manufactru'ing became considerably more sophisticated and varied, evidenced by basin-shaped metates, shaped manos, mortars, pestles, and gyratory crushers. (Huckell 1984; Rankin 1995:49- 50). Pr?econtact Ceramic Period (the Archaic period is marked by the introduction of pottery and the adoption of horticulture. The precontact ceramic period at ORPI is represented by three cultru?al traditions: Hohokam, Patayan, and Trincheras. All three reach their maximum geographic extent in the monument, although the archaeological record is dominated by the Hohokam. Hohokam (3 00- 1 400 CE) The Hohokam were the preeminent sedentary, pottery-producing horticulturalists of all southern Arizona, including ORPI. The Hohokam arose from indigenous Archaic populations in southeastern Arizona, ones who lived in pithouse villages near the Gila and Salt rivers and their larger tributaries, the Verde, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, and Agua Fria rivers (Crown 1991 144; Masse 1991 197). Through time, these groups intensi?ed their cultivation of (and dependence on) Mesoamerican cultigens (especially corn, beans, and squash), adopting and adapting various techniques of ?oodwater farming (?oodplain-inundation farming and (Ik-Chin farming) (Masse The boundaries of Hohokam culture (variable through time) are measured archaeologically by speci?c elements of material culture: various diagnostic ceramics, marine shell items, ballcour?rs, and platform mormds (Wilcox 1980, 1991). The Hohokam chronology proposed by Dean (1991), which begins arormd 300 CE, is now generally accepted and is used in this report (Table 1). Table l. Hohokam chronology (from Dean 1991:91). Period Phase Date Range Classic Civano 1300-1400 CE Soho 1150-1300 CE Sedentary Sacaton 975-1 150 CE Colonial Santa Cruz 850-975 CE Gila Butte 775-850 CE Pioneer Snaketown 700-775 CE Sweetwater 600-700 CE Estrella 500-600 CE Vahki 300-500 CE Pioneer Period (300-775 CE Archaeological investigations, to date, suggest just a scant Hohokam presence in southwestern Arizona throughout the Pioneer period. No Pioneer-period sites or isolated sherds have yet been identi?ed at ORPI (Rankin 1995:55-5 7). Early Pioneer period sites (300-500 CE) are characterized by locally-manufactured, utilitarian ceramics (plain, buff/brown wares and polished red wares). Decorated ceramic types (red-on-gray wares and red- on-buff wares) appear later during the period (500-775 CE), alongside utilitarian wares (Crown 1991:145-147). Colonial Period (775-975 CE). Colonial period sites occur with greater frequency than Pioneer period sites across southwestern Arizona, suggesting increased Hohokam migration to and settlement of the region through time. While resembling Pioneer period archaeological assemblages, Colonial period assemblages generally possess a greater quantity and diversity of materials. A broader spectrum of locally-manufactured items (ceramics, ground and chipped stone implements, etc.) is evident in Colonial assemblages, as is a wider range of finished goods and raw materials acquired through long-distance trade (e.g., marine shell ornaments, macaw feathers, turquoise). Ceramics diversify across the Hohokam culture area during the period, evidence of more localized pottery-making traditions. In southwestern Arizona, red-on-buff and red-on-brown wares proliferate, as do plain buff wares (e.g., Gila Plain), some with scored exteriors and, less frequently, with complexly executed painted motifs (geometric, zoomorphic, etc.). Small ca. 20-square-meter rectangular and ovular pithouses constitute the typical dwelling house types, frequently arranged in small clusters or courtyard groups of two to four structures. Habitation sites often possess multiple pit house clusters, as well as trash mounds (Crown 1991:150-153; Lindeman 2007; Rankin 1995:147-149). Sedentary Period (975-1150 CE). In and around ORPI, the Hohokam Sedentary period manifests itself as the Topowa phase, typified by sites containing Salt-Gila area red-on-buff wares, plus lesser quantities of other ceramics (Tucson Basin red-on-brown, Trincheras buff, Lower Colorado Patayan buff). Habitation sites of the period are markedly larger than those of the preceding Colonial period, containing greater numbers and densities of pithouses, inhabited year-round. For instance, the Lost City site (AZ Y:16:1) along Growler Wash inside CPNWR (just west of ORPI) extends more than one linear mile. Marine shell debris abounds at Lost City and nearby Sedentary period habitation sites, suggesting the economic importance of exotic shell trade to local Hohokam populations. Several Sedentary period sites occur within ORPI (e.g., AZ Z:13:63), identified during the 1989-1991 WACC survey (Rankin 1995:58-59). Classic Period (1150-1400 CE). The bulk of Hohokam sites identified at ORPI and adjacent CPNWR date to the Classic period. Regionally, the Classic period manifests itself as the Sells phase, typified by sites containing both Tanque Verde Red-on-brown wares and Sells Red wares, often in association with lesser quantities of Casa Grande Red-on-Buff, Trincheras Purple-onred, and Salado polychrome ceramics. The most obvious Sells phase sites are large (> 100 acres), permanently inhabited pithouse villages (e.g., AZ Z:13:1), though other site types also have been identified around the monument (e.g., smaller villages, isolated farmsteads, limited-activity sites). Reservoirs were constructed in close proximity to certain of these villages. Marine shell debris is commonplace, suggesting that area populations remained intensively engaged in the shell trade and shell ornament manufacture, despite the decline of those activities elsewhere in the Classic-period Hohokam world. Obsidian debitage is common as well (Rankin 1995:59-61). Patayan (700-post 1500 CE) The Patayan of the lower Colorado River and lower Gila River constitute a separate (less well archaeologically understood) cultural tradition in western Arizona, contemporaneous with yet 9 distinct from Hohokam. Patayan chronology is divided into three archaeological phases: Patayan I (700-1050 CE), Patayan II (1050-1500 CE), and Patayan III (post 1500 CE). Patayan I diagnostic ceramics include vessels with rim notching, incised motifs, lug and loop handles, burnishing, and red slipping. Patayan II ceramics differ markedly; their traits include stucco finishing, fine-lined geometric motifs, and recurved rims. Patayan III ceramics (e.g., highnecked, small-mouthed olla) resemble those of ethnographically-recorded Quechan (Yuma) populations, to whom they are assumed to be related. To date, few Patayan I ceramics have been identified in the ORPI vicinity, with the exception of those recovered from intact deposits at the Largo Seco site, slightly to the north of the monument. By contrast, multiple Patayan II ceramics and sites occur in the region, including those previously located within the western portion of the monument (Ezell 1954; Rankin 1995:62-63). Trincheras (200-1450 CE) The Trincheras culture constitutes another regional cultural tradition contemporaneous with yet separate from Hohokam. Although indigenous to northern Sonora, Mexico, Trincheras peoples evidently interacted (either directly or indirectly) with established Hohokam groups in southwestern Arizona. Trincheras ceramics (e.g., Trincheras Purple-on-red) occur on several Classic period Hohokam sites inside ORPI. The site type most indicative of late (post-1300 CE) Trincheras culture is the cerro de trincheras, or “terraced hill.” These sites consist of isolated volcanic hills crowned by walls and terraces constructed of dry-laid masonry (Fish et al. 2007; Hard and Roney 2007; McGuire 2012; McGuire and Villalpando 1993, 1998, 2015). Two cerros de trincheras have been identified in the immediate vicinity of ORPI, and others have been recorded within the adjacent Tohono O’odham Reservation (Rankin 1995:63-64). Protohistoric Period (1450-1700 CE) Protohistoric period sites across southern Arizona and northern Sonora typically consist of scatters of ceramics, chipped- and ground-stone artifacts, and clusters of fire-cracked rock. Artifact assemblages at these sites differ markedly from earlier Hohokam assemblages. Protohistoric ceramics are plain, thin-bodied, sand-tempered wares. Hand wiping marks are discernible on some vessel fragments. Chipped-stone artifacts generally are manufactured from high-quality raw materials, far superior to the lithic materials usually exploited by Hohokam flintknappers. Small, triangular-shaped projectile points with deep basal notching and edge serration are diagnostic protohistoric artifacts, as are chert thumbnail scrapers. To date, several protohistoric sites have been identified within ORPI, though none have been intensively studied, nor have they been positively affiliated within any ethnographically-documented population (Rankin 1995:64). Historic Period (post 1700 CE) Historically, the ORPI area was used and periodically occupied by groups of Tohono O’odham (a.k.a., Papago) and Hia C’ed O’odham (a.k.a., Sand Papago or Areneños). Tohono O’odham groups routinely gathered cactus fruit and hunted small game animals in the vicinity. Less 10 frequently, they traversed the monument on long pilgrimages to and from the Gulf of California, where they gathered sea salt. I’itoi Mo’o (Montezuma’s Head), in the Ajo Range, is a Tohono O’odham sacred site, as are other places throughout the monument (NPS 1997:33). Tohono O’odham ethnographic informants mention the existence of a ranchería (individual farmstead) in the monument’s Alamo Canyon area. Likewise, they indicate the presence of old temporales (summer agricultural settlements) near Armenta Well. Jesuit and Franciscan accounts denote a small native settlement at Quitobaquito Springs at least by the mid-1700s. Later records from the mid and late 1800s identify that settlement as the Hia C’ed O’odham rancheria called ‘A’al Waippa, where irrigation agriculture was practiced up into the early 1900s. Components of the ‘A’al Waippa community fall within today’s monument boundaries (e.g., Quitobaquito earthen dam, irrigation canals, cemetery) and are inventoried on ORPI’s List of Classified Structures, while other components (e.g., the agricultural fields) lie on the Mexican side of the border (NPS 2002). Traditional Tohono O’odham houses were circular, dirt-roofed brush structures constructed of mesquite saplings, grasses, ocotillo stalks, and saguaro ribs. Mesquite-pole ramadas typically were erected in close proximity to these ephemeral houses, functioning as shaded work areas. Practitioners of monsoon floodwater farming, the Tohono O’odham situated their temporales near the lower alluvial fans of seasonally-flowing arroyos, from which they diverted water for crop fields, called ak-chin in O’odham, meaning “mouth of the wash” (Masse 1991:209; NPS 2010:24). These temporales shifted location through time, as did ak-chin. The Tohono O’odham excelled as basket weavers, working principally with yucca and cat claw. They also made pottery, which is distinctive from earlier Hohokam ceramics. Traditional Hia C’ed O’odham housing was extremely ephemeral, reflective of those groups’ predominately nomadic, hunting-and-gathering lifeway. Rounded shelters were built of grasses and brush, propped up within low boulder rings one or two courses high. Archaeologically, these structures occur as boulder-outlined cleared areas. The Hia C’ed O’odham definitely wove basketry; whether or not they made pottery is unclear. They routinely collected Gulf of California seashells for trade with neighboring horticulturalists, exchanging those shells for crops (Rankin 1995:64-66). The Ajo Range along the monument’s eastern boundary have long been a hub of intensive mining activity. Miners (first, Mexicans and later, Americans) dug and smelted copper ore from the Ajos throughout most of the 1800s and early 1900s. Early Mexican miners built the El Monte blast furnace, a site for processing Ajo copper ore, somewhere in the vicinity, perhaps in Alamo Canyon. Likewise, they built roads for packing copper ore southward to the Sonoran towns of Altar and Caborca. Later American firms (e.g., the Arizona Mining and Trading Company, the New Cornelia Mining Company) vastly expanded the scope and intensity of regional copper mining, freighting tons of ore to Yuma, Arizona on the Southern Pacific Railroad and to Gila Bend, Arizona on the Tucson, Cornelia, and Gila Bend Railroad (Greene 1977:50-53). Moderate- to extensive-scale mining activities (for copper, lead, gold, and silver) occurred elsewhere within the monument during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—in the Quitobaquito Hills, the Puerto Blanco Mountains, the Sonoyta Mountains, and the Bates and Growler Mountains. Of these areas, the Bates and Growler Mountains were mined most intensively; over 100 claims were filed, prospected, and dug there. Numerous mines (most dating 11 between the 1870s and 1920s) are scattered throughout ORPI, including Baker Mine, Lost Cabin Mine, Milton Mine, Copper Mountain Mine, and the 122 m (400 ft) deep Victoria Mine (Greene 1977:52-56; NPS 1997:33, 2002; Rheaume 2008:4-5). A vast array of mining-related sites and features also occur— glory holes, ore-cart runouts, leaching vats, prospect pits, mining camps, mining supply stores, and dynamite storage bunkers (NPS 2010:24). Some of these mines, sites, and features are listed on the NRHP and on the monument’s List of Classified Structures. The remains of a probable pre-twentieth-century arrastra—a primitive, burro-powered grinding mill for crushing ore—is located at Bates Well (NPS 2010:24). European livestock species—cattle, sheep, goats, mules, and horses—first arrived in northern Sonora and southwestern Arizona as early as the 1540s, during the Coronado entrada (Fontana 1994:25-31; Lavender 1992:62). By the early 1700s cattle had become regionally commonplace, as a result of Jesuit Eusebio Kino’s successful stock-raising efforts in the Sonoran village of Sonoyta, and following American annexation in 1848 cattle ranching became an established part of the southern Arizona economy (Greene 1977:56-57; Kessell 2002:125-135). Throughout the second half of the 1800s various Tohono O’odham, Mexican, and American families grazed small numbers of cattle at various locations around ORPI, such as Quitobaquito Springs. Large-scale cattle ranching in the monument, however, did not commence until the 1910s, with the establishment of the Blankenship (a.k.a., Dos Lomitas) Ranch in the Sonoyta Valley, the Miller Ranch southwest of Walls Well, and the Daniels Ranch around Bates Well. The largest and most successful stock-raising operation at ORPI was that owned by Robert Louis Gray, Sr., who arrived in the area in 1920, buying out Donald Blankenship. Over the next six decades Gray and his sons expanded their herds and landholdings across the entire monument, continuing their ranching activities until the close of 1976 (Greene 1977:56-60). Components of several ranches (e.g., ranch houses, line camps, tack barns, bunkhouses, corrals, windmills) are inventoried on ORPI’s List of Classified Structures and the NRHP, including those associated with Bates Well, Gachado Well Line Camp, and Dos Lomitas Ranch (NPS 1997:23-33, 2010:24; Rheaume 2008:5). On April 13, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Presidential Proclamation 2232 and officially established Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a 13,389 ha² (517 mi²) Sonoran Desert preserve to be managed by the NPS. While placing ORPI under federal ownership, the proclamation also acknowledged a variety of stipulations pertaining to established land use, including mining, ranching, and other long-practiced extractive activities. For example, local Tohono O’odham continued to harvest cactus fruit and graze cattle within the monument boundaries as they had for generations. Hia C’ed O’odham rancher Jose Juan Orosco continued grazing cattle around his 6 ha (15 ac) homestead at Quitobaquito until his death in 1945 (Greene 1977:65). Various ranches existed in the area prior to establishment of the monument, most notably that of the Gray family, and this practice continued until 1976 (Martinez 1976), and mining interests operated sporadically within the monument through at least 1967 (Young 1967). Hunting and woodcutting were a perpetual problem for NPS managers, and the park’s “first project” from November 1939 and March 1940 was the erection of 19 km (2 mi) of fencing and two cattle 12 guards along the monument’s northern boundary. Additional fencing followed as funding allowed but was often damaged by heavy flooding and occasional cutting. These practices would continue for decades as the NPS made the transition from prior ownership or use to good stewards of the monument resources, all the while trying to remain a good neighbor with surrounding communities. 13 IV. Previous Archaeological Research To date, the NPS has not conducted a comprehensive archaeological survey of the 18.3 m(60 ft-) wide Roosevelt Reservation comprising ORPI’s 48.3 km- (30 mi-) long southern boundary. However, certain segments of the Reservation within the park have been surveyed as part of various ORPI survey projects conducted between 1951 and 2017. These include: • • • • • • • • • • • • Ezell 1951 Teague 1977 Rankin 1995 Rankin, Antone, and Waters 1993 Corey 2002 Bradford et al. 2013 Slaton et al. 2014 Veech 2016 Veech 2018a Veech 2018b Renaud 2018 Ferguson et al. 2019 During 1951 Paul Ezell spent three months surveying portions of ORPI, as well as other nearby areas of southwestern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. He recorded more than 100 archaeological sites, including habitation sites, rock shelters, camp sites, lithic quarries, and trails—ranging temporally from the early Archaic (10,500-6,800 B.P.) through the historic (postA.D. 1700) periods (Ezell 1951). In 1977 Lynn Teague of the Arizona State Museum surveyed 202 ha (500 ac) of the Quitobaquito Basin from the crest of the Quitobaquito Hills east to Aguajita Wash. Teague identified 9 precontact and historic-period loci across the survey area, which she recorded at 7 distinct archaeological sites (Teague 1977). Between 1989 and 1991 Adrianne Rankin of the Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service (WAAC) directed the most thorough and extensive series of ORPI archaeological surveys, to date. Those surveys were undertaken for planning purposes (in compliance with section 110 of NHPA), with the aim of locating, identifying, and evaluating as many cultural resources across the monument as possible. A total of 3,106 ha (7,675 ac) was surveyed, and some 178 archaeological sites were recorded. Regarding water as the chief limiting factor in archaeological site location, Rankin and WACC focused the 1989-1991 ORPI surveys on areas nearby the monument’s largest, seasonally-intermittent washes. The surveys examined areas adjacent to and or within 1 km (0.6 mi) of Alamo, Aguajita, Cherioni, Growler, Kuakatch, and San Cristobal washes. Additionally, they encompassed areas adjacent to various seasonal tinajas in the Bates Mountains (Rankin 1995:xxiv, 22). Rankin and fellow WACC archaeologists returned to ORPI in 1993, more thoroughly recording segments of pedestrian trails and wagon roads near Quitobaquito (Rankin, Antone, and Waters 1993a, 1993b). 14 Between June 2011 and November 2012, 14 distinct yet related archaeological surveys were conducted within the monument, in advance of proposed Undesignated Vehicle Route (UVR) restoration. Those surveys were initiated and principally conducted by ORPI archaeological technician James Collis, with subsequent follow-up fieldwork performed by ORPI permanent and term staffs (2012-present for UVRs and restoration efforts) and staff archaeologists of the Intermountain Region Archaeology Program (IMRAP). Cumulatively, those surveys covered 61 km (38 mi) of UVRs within the monument, an area totaling 149.1 ha (368.2 ac). As a result of these surveys, 6 (b) iously unrecorded archaeological sites were documented, and 2 previously(3) revisited and reassessed. All 8 of those sites are recommended eligible for recorded sites were listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Additionally, 9 isolated features were located, as were no fewer than 249 isolated occurrences (Bradford et. al. 2013). Between November 27 and December 3, 2012, former ORPI cultural resources manager Connie Gibson surveyed 0.72 ha (1.77 ac) of the Dos Lomitas area. Gibson’s survey focused on the (b) (3) (B) , which purportedly contained dense concentrations of precontact Native American petroglyphs and (b) (3) artifacts. Gibson (B) artifacts across her survey identified and plotted 5 petroglyphs and more than 200 flaked lithic area, which she cumulatively recorded as archaeological site SON C:1:80 (ASM) (Slaton et al. 2014). Between December 2014 and January 2016 archaeologists with the University of Arizona’s School of Anthropology under the direction of T.J. Ferguson and Maren Hopkins conducted a series of linear surveys across ORPI aiming to identify and record precontact, protohistoric, and historic-period O’odham trail networks, particularly north-south-trending trail networks used during traditional salt pilgrimages to and from the Gulf of California. A total of 310 suspected trail and road traces were identified using air photo and image interpretation, with an aggregate length of 63 km (39 mi). Trail segments within 6 different travel corridors were field verified (Sites ORPI00289, ORPI00291, ORPI00293, ORPI00295, ORPI00297, and ORPI00299), including pedestrian trails and wagon roads. Most of the trail traces are located in 3 travel corridors that generally trend in a north-south direction: ORPI00295 (Old Ajo-to-Sonoita Corridor), ORPI00293 (Gunsight Corridor), and ORPI00291 (Bates Well to Quitobaquito Corridor). All 3 of those corridors contain wagon roads and pedestrian trails (Ferguson et al. 2019). Between June 13 and September 15, 2016, IMRAP archaeologist Andrew Veech conducted archaeological surveys along 60 UVRs and across 34 UVR blocks in advance of UVR restoration efforts. Fifty-five of the surveyed UVRs and all 34 surveyed UVR blocks lie in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, while 5 of the surveyed UVRs are situated in Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Cultural resources were identified along or within 48 of the 94 surveyed UVRs and UVR blocks. The identified cultural resources include 212 isolated occurrences, 9 isolated features, and 2 precontact Native American archaeological sites. In total, 80.03 ha (197.77 ac) were surveyed. One additional isolated feature, an historic-period hearth outside of the designated survey areas, likewise was identified and recorded (Veech 2016). Between January 24 and December 19, 2017, ORPI archaeological technicians Brendan Stewart and Jared Renaud conducted linear and block pedestrian surveys along 24 UVRs and across 15 UVR blocks in advance of UVR restoration efforts. These surveys cumulatively covered an area of 54.8 ha (135.3 ac) dispersed across the park, including portions of the Sonoyta Valley and Sonoyta Hills near the International Border. Stewart and Renaud identified and recorded a total of 7 archaeological sites during their 2017 surveys, 4 of which lie in close proximity to the International Border. Those 4 sites are ORPI 313, ORPI 330, ORPI 420, and ORPI 421 (Renaud 2018). Between August 28 and September 7, 2017, IMRAP archaeologists Andrew Veech and George Prothro surveyed and reassessed 49.9 ha (123.4 ac) of the Dos Lomitas area of ORPI, at the request of ORPI managers. Over the course of this project the archaeologists identified, recorded, and mapped 6 precontact Native American archaeological sites and 1 isolated feature (Veech 2018a). Cumulatively, this 2017 project constitutes a comprehensive reevaluation of the Dos Lomitas archaeological landscape, one that more credibly correlates archaeological site boundaries with actual physiographic features. Likewise, the project furnishes ORPI managers with fine-grained information about artifact distribution across the Dos Lomitas area and up-todate assessments of archaeological site conditions and threats, enhancing and building upon earlier work in the area by Ezell (1951) and Rankin (1995:551-574). All of these surveys were pedestrian surveys; none entailed any subsurface testing for potentially buried archaeological deposits. It is probable that significant, presently-unrecorded surface-level and buried archaeological deposits persist across the project APE, and we must assume that all such unrecorded deposits will be destroyed over the course of ensuing border wall construction. 16 V. Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources (n=17) within the Roosevelt Reservation of ORPI While none of the aforementioned ORPI archaeological studies comprehensively sruveyed the 48.3 km- (30 mi-) long Roosevelt Reservation corridor bomrding the southern edge of the park, each s1uveyed some portion of that corridor and, in doing so, identi?ed and recorded 17 archaeological sites which likely will be wholly or partially destro ed forthcoming border fence construction. Seven 7 of those 17 sites cluster arormd the a rominent pair of s1tuate approxrmate . Two (2) of the three (3) remaining sites-- SON B233 and uitoba uito, while the third site-- SON C: 1 lies within the The following tables (Tables 2-4) list those 17 sites, and more thorough descriptions of each resom'ce are provided thereafter. SON lie Table 2. Pre?ously recorded ORPI archaeological sites in the ?cinity of Quitobaquito and ?guajita Wash. ASM CRIS ASMIS Number Number Site Type Associated Projects ORPI 152/ ORPI Supernaugh and Leding. SON B2422 314 Possible camp site 1952 SON B24213 ORPI 196 Multi-component site with possible structure Teague 1977 SON B24214 ORPI 218 Mikul Levy's store ?om the 1880s and 18905 Teague 1977 SON B2429 ORPI 193 Multi-component artifact scatter Teague 1977 Supernaugh and Leding. SON B2425 ORPI 317 Possible shrine(s) 1952 Possible vegetal processing site with hearths. Supeinaugh 1952: SON B2428 ORPI 321 manos. and metates Renaud 2018b precontact. protohistoric. and historic-period trail ORPI 298 and wagon road segments Ferguson et al. 2019 17 Table 3. Previously recorded ORPI archaeological sites and local resource types in the vicinity of the Dos Lomitas. ASM CRIS ASMIS Number Number Site Type Associated Projects SON C: :43 ORPI 100 precontact sherd and lithic scatter Rankin 1995: Veech 2018a Rankin 1995.: Bradford et a1. 2013: SON C: 1 :36 ORPI 184 precontact sherd and lithic scatter Veech 2018a ORPI 330 precontact sherd and lithic scatter Renaud 2018a ORPI 420 historic-period road trace Renaud 2018a ORPI 421 precontact sherd and lithic scatter Renaud 2018a precontact lithic procru'ement and reduction ORPI 425 site Veech 2018b ORPI 299 precontact and protohistoric trail segments Ferguson et al. 2019 Small lithic and sherd scatter redesignated a SON C:l:'37 ORPI 185 LRT in 2017. Rankin 1995; Veech 20183 Table 4. Previously recorded archaeolo ical sites elsewhere along the southern boundary of ORPI ASM CRIS ASMIS Number Number Site Type Associated Projects remnants of dismantled 1947 ORPI boundary Bradford et al. SON B24233 ORPI 204 fence 2013 Bradford et al. SON B: 1:34 ORPI 275 precontact sherd and lithic scatter 2013 Bradford et a1. SON C: 1 :79 ORPI 274 precontact sherd and lithic scatter 2013 18 61 Organ PIpe Cactus National Monument ?i Sites around 005 Lomitas and Blankenship National Park Service U.S. Department ot the Interior SENSITIVE 00 NOT DISTRIBUTE .0 . I I - ?a Recon?; recs'aed update-1 BC-rder 105 .. R0359 ml: Heat-"abort '(moz pnnuaa snuworl sou at" u! pogpuop! snags lmg?oluanquv aJn?b?gd - Suwewedmeas - - mmr-mhona Iin'cr-r had . 3 - A Jar?! v. I .I;Ill\ 981700 781700 '021700 IJHO ?05500 [c1210 778100 [c130 '00100 IJHO) 094V 300 0401on 1) All) 00100 dew '5 mm ORPIOO100 Site Map Formerly 44. and 45 (ASM) and :39 (ASM) o. -- -. - - Datum Projectile Pomt Bone (burned) Groundstone Hammerstone Manna Shell Ceramic Ceramic (redware) Ceramic (brownware) Biface Core Primary Flake Secondary Flake Tertiary Flake Debutage Historical Artifact Artifact Concentration New Srte Boundary SENSITIVE INFORMATION Intermountain Region 3 National Park Sen/Ice US. Department 01 the Interior . an ?Mg-314m 3017 DAL: Scutes GDS Esta Av'lsl mar/N?- 00100 [(1210 ORP100100 is a large (9.4 ha [23.2 precontact Native American sherd and lithic scatter extending across the broad plain immediately@ of the Dos Lomitas (Figures 4 and 5). An extensive, open-air site likely inhabited and episodically by various nomadic groups over numerous centuries, ORPI 00100 is borurded by the dominant topographic features that frame this predominantly ?at landscape?namely, the toe slo of the lomita hill) on the north r011 565 1,854 ft] in length) an . In all likelihood, the site extends another 3.6 ha (9 ac) southward, terminating 0.3 km (0.2 mi) to the south where them. However, the present- day U.S.-Mexico International Border and border ence 1 arc aeological investigation of that prospect. A total of 451 sru?face artifacts were identi?ed and plotted across ORPI 00100, including 447 precontact Native American artifacts, 3 historic-period artifacts, and 1 piece of calcined bone of indeterminate age. The 447 precontact Native American artifacts include 296 ?aked lithic artifacts, 8 grormd stone artifacts, 139 ceramic sherds, and 4 marine shell ??agments. The 3 historic-period artifacts consist of 1 iron horseshoe fragment, 1 iron strap fragment, and 1 fragment of purple manganese glass. Two deeply gullied and actively eroding areas demarcate the presently-mapped southern boundary of the site north of the International Border fence: 3 1.7 ha (4.2 ac) area to the southwest and a 0.8 ha (1.9 ac) area to the southeast. Both eroded areas were no doubt once parts of ORPI 00100, and their loss can be directly attributed to the International Border fence itself, which acts as an inadvertent dam, thwarting the natural, southerly ?ow of monsoon-generated ?oodwaters toward the Rio Sonoyta. Unfortrurately, more of the site?s southern periphery faces inevitable loss, as future ?oodwater?s will extend the erosion (Veech 21 [oz mama A11) r8100 .w dew '9 anB?u . . Intermounum Regron "v S'te Map National Park Service (- Formerly (ASM) us. Department ol the lnlenor Projectile Pomt Marine Shell Groundstone 6 FOR 0 Ceramic (redware) Ceramic (brownware) Luthrc Core 0 Primary Flake Secondary Flake Tertiary Flake . Lithuc Debnage Amfact Concentramn Sute Ecundary 'q'or'rerfmr Roger: Arm-03:9, 1 1 . SENSITIVE INFORMATION 3.9m? Dazastmces 698 Data t-enal n'ner, 178100 [c1210 ORP100184 is a 1.4 ha (3.5 aci site consisting of 3 surface concentrations of precontact Native American artifacts, ositioned of a large, oblong benn adjacent to the nonh edge of? (Figures 4 and 6). The site lies rou 75 in 246 ft) east of site ORPI 00100 on east s1 of the north-to-south-trending that de?nes the? boundary of ORPI 00100. Site ORPI 00184 was previously recorded as site SON C: :36 ASM) by Rankin who identi?ed a total of 275 artifacts clustered in 2 concentrations Locus 1 and Locus 2) across a 0.94 ha (2.3 ac) area. Later. the site was revisited by ollis in 201 and by Bradford and Veech in 2012 prior to a 2014 UVR restoration project (Bradford et al. A total of 237 surface artifacts (all precontact Native American artifacts) were identi?ed and plotted across ORPI 00184 during the most recent site reassessment in August-September 2017. including 148 ?aked lithic artifacts, 3 ground stone artifacts, 75 ceramic sherds, 7 marine shell fragments, and 4 pieces of ?re-cracked rock (Veech 2018az43-46). ORPI 00330 ORPI00330 Site Map 2.3th We! L013 Lia-drumme- Ullu. 73541.1(- Sill ?5 Hanan: 2-219 L: .- SENSITIVE INFORMATION DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ?.Z'aar' arm hal?ora Figure 7. Map of ORPI 00330 (by J. Renaud 2018). ORP100330 is a dispersed Slu'face scatter of ?aked stone. ground stone, and precontact ceramic sherds encom assing an area of 8.550 in2 (92.031 ftl) (Figures 4 and 7). The site is situated on an of the Dos Lomitas, its southein boundary positioned One artifact concentration was recorded within the Ix.) Lu northwestern quadrant of the site. measuring approximately 13 19 n1 (43 62 ft). This concentration contains the greatest diversity of artifacts within the site, including a marine shell fragment. A least 5. different lithic material types, including obsidian. were noted across the site, as is 1 thermal feature, measuring 1 n12 (11 ftz). The site may be semi-permanent camp, and it likely is af?liated with the Dos Lomitas site complex. Several large pottery sherds were noted eroding out of an arroyo ?anking the site?s westem boundary. This is notable. as it suggests that the site contains intact subsruface cultural deposits (Renaud 2018:20). 0RP100420 Linear Site ORPIOO420 2%?52? 1?73?in Site Features Futons I 40:. Her-n Site Anthem Artur.? ?arcen .?wre {farm 0 Post: . ?owea?me 0 :1 ??ur .p'?mt New. Sartrer Bam- Jug? that. .-.- .. . .. 'i Boa-nan . . ?Ecru: l' i. i'f? ?l ?Alf? u-fn-i?m?pj-y '91!)ng 1 . . - HVE WFORMAIION 00 NO I DIS ll: Cirar 32 C323 halnral \lcru'rer?: Figure 8. Map of ORPI 00420 (by J. Renaud 2018). ORPI 00420 is an historic road trace of approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) in length, extending in a from the Blankenshi /Dos Lomitas ranch house (Figlu?es 4 and 8 . roa 1115 1e of the more from its oint of origin, before trending to its point of intersection with and the Intemational Border. While the precise age of the road trace is unclear, avai a maps indicate that it predates the 19603. This road is presumed to be a component of the Blankenship/Dos Lomitas cultural landscape. Artifacts and features associated with this road include wooden fence posts, barbed wire, and a boulder dam of approximately 6.1 (20 ft) in length and 1.2 (4 ft) in height. Additional investigations of this road are recommended, in order to better assess its context within the overall Blankenship/Dos Lonritas cultru'al landscape (Renaud ORPI 00421 ORPI00421 Site Map ORPI00421 Sue Artifacts Cure-?aw are ?1 Quart: ?La-e . 0 . Honing-1510": . Silt ScurIJa'Ie-i . A . rho ratvi! 2215 0 ?5 30 '26 SENSITIVE INFORMATION 00 NOT DISTRIBUTE . 'T?gar Dun- ??ar'ns ?Jar'aral Figure 9. Map of ORPI 00421 (by J. Renaud 2018). ORPI 00421 is a diffuse, dispersed precontact Native American lithic and ceramic sherd scatter encompassing an area of 9.960 ml (107.209 ftl) (Figures 4 and 9). This scatter extends 83 rn 272 ft and 120 (394 ft) and its southern boundary lies less than from the International Border. Ceramics within the site include red-on?buff wares and thick-walled, plain brown wares. One artifact concentration was identified and recorded near the eastern periphery of the site measuring 23 7 rn (75 23 ft)? with an estimated density of 5 artifacts per 1 n12 (10.8 ftz) (Renaud 2018:27). 'cll ORPI 00425 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Site Map National Park Service - U.S. Department of the Interior SENSITIVE INFORMATION: 00 NOT DISTRIBUTE ~1?f.{Juan he in Cram :9?6 . . 3: - Basal! Cred Kanpur?; Sm on -J 1 a; were? 1a: a Run Mar-no shew Basal! ?acf? 'au Ctn?rzear'a' S'e BcLocane: (m ORDI Russ 'lI-Il? . . - ICNDI 80;. mm", Inna-f (1 H0 ?00 .l Rclmud ()rgun Pxpc( uctm \ulmuul Sunk I 4 51m Figure 10. Map of site ORPI 00425, demarcating overall site boundaries and four lithic concentrations (J. Renaud 2018). 26 ORP100425 is a large, diffuse, precontact Native American lithic scatter of indeterminate age that extends across the broad srumnit of a? cobbled ridge that rises perhapF the surrorurding ?at terrain of the Sonoyta Valley (Figures 4 and 10). The 1t 1c scatter measures roughly 840 (2,635 ft) (SW-NE) 252 (827 ft) (WNW- ESE), encompassing an area of approximately 17.64 ha (43.6 ac). Four distinct lithic concentrations occru? Within the overall site borurdar referred to here as Concentrations 1 through 4. Traces of two old UVRs a shorter, one measru?ing 161 [528 ft] in length and a longer, one measruing 778 [2.552 ft] in length) crosscut the site, but their impacts to Site appear to be minimal. The site is moderately vegetated with an understory of scattered creosote and bru?sage bushes, interspersed with occasional ocotillo, chain fruit cholla, palo verde trees, and small saguaros. Concentration is located in the southeastern quadrant of ORPI 00425, situated roughly 96 (312 ft) north of The concentration measru?es roughly 70 (230 ft) (NW - SE) 60 (197 ft) (NE-SW), encompassing an area of 0.32 ha (0.78 ac . Of the 4 artifact concentrations comprising ORPI 00425, Concentration 1 is the only on? A total of 49 ?aked lithic artifacts were identi?ed within Concentration 1, including 3 cores, 44 ?akes (primary, secondary, and tertiary), and 2 pieces of debitage. Twenty-one (21) of the lithic artifacts are composed of chert, 19 of basalt, 8 of volcanic igneous rock, and of jasper. Concentration 2 is situated roughly midway along the ridge, its southern edge lying approximately 34 (112 ft) north of the northern periphery of Concentration 1. The concentration measru'es approximately 244 (801 ft) (NNE-SSW) 89 (292 ft) (NW -SE), encompassing an area of 1.77 ha (4.38 ac). A total of 138 artifacts were identi?ed within Concentration 2, 137 of which are ?aked lithics and of which is a vesicular basalt grinding slab. The ?aked lithics include cores, ?akes (primary, secondary, and tertiary), and debitage. Ninety-three (93) of the ?aked lithic artifacts are composed of chert, 39 of basalt, and 8 of volcanic igneous rock. Concentration 3, the largest of the 4 lithic concentrations contained within ORP100425, is dispersed across the northern third of the site, its southern periphery located some 27 (89 ft) north of the northern periphery of Concentration 2. Concentration 3 measru?es approximately 315 (1,033 ft) (SW-NE) 151 (495 ft) (NW-SE), encompassing an area of 4.2 ha (10.3 ac). A total of 2 14 artifacts were identi?ed within Concentration 3, including 212 ?aked lithics, 1 ?re- cracked basalt cobble, and 1 marine shell fragment. The ?aked lithics include 2 1mifacial tools and 2 bifacial preforms, plus nrunerous cores, ?akes (primary, secondary, and tertiary), and pieces of debitage. One thirty nine (139) of the ?aked lithic artifacts are composed of chert, 53 of basalt, 18 of volcanic igneous rock, and 2 of jasper. Concentration 4 is situated at the southern terminus of ORP100425, just north 0 Its eastern periphery lies just 13.7 (45 ft) ??om the western periphery of Cluster 1, while its northern periphery lies some 41 (135 ft) from the southern periphery of Cluster 2. Cluster 4 measru?es approximately 170 (558 ft) (NE-SW) 122 (400 ft) (SE-NW), encompassing an area of 1.75 ha (4.32 ac). A total of 157 sru?face artifacts were identi?ed within Concentration 4, 156 of which are rurdiagnostic precontact Native American ?aked lithic artifacts and 1 of which is a nineteenth- or twentieth-centruy horseshoe. The ?aked lithics include 1 bifacial preform, 27 plus an array of cores. ?akes (primaiy, secondaiy. and tertiaiy). and pieces of debitage. One and two (102) of the ?aked lithics are composed of Chen. 45 ofbasalt. and 9 of volcanic igneous rock (Veech 2018bz25-3 Quitobaquito Area Sires SONBIJJO (?15211): Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Sites around Quitobaquito and Aguajita Wash National Park Sorvico . US. Department 01 the Interior 0 SENSITIVE DO DISTRIBUTE ms Nuns-m: .. trauma mam. was-r363 {:cr-ncr ?Lululf' at 7'1? 2" I l-"trwin' Figure 11. Archaeological sites identi?ed in the Quitobaquito vicinity (by J. Renaud 2019). Quitobaquito is a desert oasis with a perennial spring located less than 60 in (197 ft) from the International Border and some 19.3 km (12 mi) west of the Lukeville Port of Entry (Figure 11). For millennia Quitobaquito has been a crucial place for people to obtain water in an otherwise and austere landscape (Bell et al. 1980: Ferguson 2019: NPS 1996: Rankin 1995). Archaeological evidence of human presence at Quitobaquito extends back thousands of years, at least to Archaic times B.P.). For centuiies this deselt oasis served as a Vital stopping point for O?odham people traveling to the Gulf ofCalifomia to acquire salt. and it continued to function as an important lay over spot well into the twentieth century (Ferguson et al. 2019). Initial archaeological survey of the Quitobaquito area by archaeologist Paul Ezell 28 (1951) resulted in the identi?cation of SON (ASM). However. just a sketch map (Figure 12) and curso1y ?eld notes from Ezell?s 1951 survey are known to smV'ive. as well as various unprovenienced artifacts now at the WAC (Figure 13). Figure 12. Paul Ezell?s 1951 Sketch map of Quitobaquito (SON showing Hia C?ed O?odham structures and ?elds prior to NPS demolition (Arizona State Museum site files). Figure 13. L'nprovenienced artifacts collected by Paul Ezell from Quitobaquito (SON in 1951. 29 More recent and rigorous archaeological survey of the Quitobaquito Basin was conducted by Teague of the Arizona State Museum in 1977 (Teague 1977). During that survey Teague identi?ed 9 precontact and historic-period loci within close proximity to the oasis which she subsequently recorded as 7 separate sites: SON through SON (ASM) (see Figure 10). Three of those sites?SON SON and SON (ASM)?are precontact Native American sites. The 4 others?SON SON B: 12; SON and SON (ASM)?are associated with an historic-period Hia -ed O?odham community which inhabited Quitobaquito from the 18603 tln?ough 1945 (Bell et al. 1980). SON (ASM) (alternatively designated as in Figure 11) is a multi-component. 47.000 1112 (505904 ftl) artifact scatter situated of the Quitobaquito pond oasis that contains ceramic sherds. ?aked and grorurd stone artifacts, and ?re-cracked rock clusters (Figure 14). Lithics and featru?es at SON (ASM) indicate use throughout the Archaic period B.P.), while site ceramics denote use by Hohokam groups from circa 1000 to 900 BR Additional artifacts and features illustrate later use of the site by historic- period Hia -ed O?odham groups. While portions of SON (ASM) were destroyed by a NPS parking lot constructed in the 19605, and the site nevertheless retains information about precontact and historic-period lifeways in the western Papagueria (Teague Figure 14. Teague?s 1977 site map of SON (Arizona State Museum site ?les). SON ASM (alternatively designated as in Figru?e 11), situated roughl of the Quitobaquito pond? is a diffuse artifact scatter which possibly constitutes an area of precontact plant gathering and processing. Precontact artifacts identi?ed across the site include orange plainware ceramics, basalt and obsidian ?akes. and glrcemeris marine shell fragments. Lesser quantities of historic-period artifacts (including tin scraps and 30 porcelain sherds) occur across the site as well. but those likely represent episodic trash dumping from the nearby Hia ?ed O?odham settlement (Teague SON (alternatively designated ORP100196, as in Figure 11), situated 011 a terrace of the Quitobaquito pond, is a rnulti-component site containing a circular depression which likely constitutes the remnants of a semi-subterranean Native American dwelling (Figure 15). As both precontact and historic-period artifacts occur across the site, this dwelling may have been built and occupied by either precontact Hohokam or later Hia -ed O?odham. The depression may contain intact subsurface cultlu'al deposits that could provide richer. more nuanced information about site occupants (Teague I Figure 15. Teague?s 1977 site map of SON (Arizona State Museum site ?les). The historic?period Hia -ed O?odham village at Quitobaquito?comprised of SON B24: 10 (ORP100194): SON B: 12; SON B14114 (ORP100218) [Figru?e 16]: and SON B:4:15?is significant for at least two reasons. First, it represents the northernmost extension of the Hia -ed O?odham from their homeland in western Sonora. Mexico. onsequently, these sites constitute the only known Hia -ed O?odham village site in the United States. Secondly, living members of various O?odham trace their lineages to Quitobaquito village residents and still consider the village site an important place (Bell et al. 1980: Ferguson et al. 2019: Teague These sites ahnost certainly retain important information about Hia -ed O?odham land-use. subsistence? and lifeways from the mid?nineteenth tln'ough the mid-twentieth centru?ies. Figure 16. Teague?s 1977 site map of SON (Arizona State Museum site files). SON 3:4 :3 3 Nationai Part1 Service US. Department of the Interior Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Arizona SUV 8:43.? Figure 17. Map of SON (by G. Prothro 2013). SON (ASM) is a long. narrow site measuring 6.090 111 i 15 111 (19.9803 49.2 ft). or 91.350 1112 and totaling 9.1 ha (22.5 ac) in size. It is situated along the boundaiy of ORPI completely within the Roosevelt Reservation (Figure 17). The site is the remnants of a mid-twentieth-centui 7 fenceline that follows the ark boundai from a osition and fenceline was erected by the NPS between April and July 1947 in an effon to: 1) prevent incursions of Mexican livestock into ORPI. 2) safeguard native Sonoran ungulate species (bighom sheep. pronghorn antelope. deer) from the spread of hoof-and-mouth disease. and 3) mitigate unauthorized hunting and wood collecting within the park boundaries. Siuviving stiuctural elements of this border fenceline include: 43 stone ?deadmen.? 20 wooden fence braces. and 77 wire fence stays. Among the other fence-related hardware within the site 33 boundaries are: double-strand barbed wire segments (11 45). plain wire segments (11 105), T- post wire clips (11 I: 463). and barbed wire spools (n 35). Fifty-four (54) precontact isolated occurrences lie scattered along the length of this 6090 nr (19980 ft) fenceline. testifying to human activity in the area long prior to the NPS. These precontact artifacts include: 9 ceramic sher?ds. 3 lithic cores. 30 non-utilized lithic ?akes. 5 utilized lithic ?akes, 1 ground stone fragment. 1 projectile type (unknown type), 1 unifacial tool. and 4 marine shell fragments (Bradford et al. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument National Pant Sennce Arizona U.S. Department 0! the Interior SON Figure 18. Map of SON B24z34 (by G. Prothro 2013). SON (ASM is a small 0.2 ha 0.5 ac surface artifact scatter situated a roximatel of and roughly_ north of (Figure 18). The site measures 30 111 (94 ft) (N-S) 75 (246 ft) Site artifacts include at least 32 non-utilized lithic ?akes of obsidian rlryolite (5), basalt (6), and clrert (5). Other recorded site artifacts include 1 sand-tempered redware ceramic sherd. 1 marine shell fragment, and 1 basalt projectile point tentatively identified as an Elko Eared variant (ca. 2.500 500 BCE). The artifacts within SON (ASM) occur within a small, bounded area and include distinct groupings among the non-utilized ?akes of like materials. This suggests that some degree of integrity reinains despite UVR danlage across the northern half of the site. Given the occurrence of a Middle Archaic projectile point, obsidian flakes. probable Hohokain ceramics, and fragnientaiy inaline shell, SON Bz4234 (ASM) has the potential to yield infonnation about the both the sequential occupation of the Western Papagueria and regional precontact trade pattenis (Bradford et al. SON I 79 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument National Park Sorwco 7? Anton: US. Department of the Interior ??353 ?we; . . - . atomaowsomt Figure 19. Map of SON (by G. Prothi'o 2013). DJ 'Jl SON C:1:79 (ASM) is a precontact artifact scatter measuring 4.2 ha (10.4 ac) located just of (b) (3) (B) the (Figure 19). The site has suffered significantly from unauthorized vehicular traffic, and some of the western portion of the site has been impacted by erosion. Nevertheless, the site retains integrity, as evidenced by three intact artifact clusters recorded within its boundaries—two within the northern half and one within the southern half. (b) (3) (B) Archaeological technician James Collis mapped 105 artifacts within these clusters, including 3 utilized stone flakes, 14 non-utilized stone flakes, 5 cores, 3 ground stone tools, 1 marine shell fragment, and 79 ceramic sherds, including three red-on-brown decorated sherds. The site is situated less than (b) (3) (B) of the Sonoyta River. Based on the site’s location and on the density and variety of site artifacts (with a preponderance of ceramics), SON C:1:79 (ASM) may be a habitation site and one possibly associated with the Dos Lomitas village complex identified by Rankin (1995:115) (b) (3) (B) to the(b) As such, the site has the potential to (3) utilization, and trade patterns through yield information about precontact regional occupation, time (Bradford et al. 2013:41-42). 36 O?Odlmm Trails and Roads Across ORPI (ORPI 00298 and 00299) C7 Legend Figure 20. Map of precontact, protohistoric, and historic-period O?odham trail corridors crossing ORPI (from Ferguson et a1. 2019:88). ORPI 00298 ORPI 00298 is comprised of pedestrian trails and wagon roads associated with the Quitobaquito oasis and its perennial springs (Figlu?es 20 and 21). These trails and roads extend in all directions from Quitobaquito. Building off previous archaeological surveys around Quitobaquito conducted by Rankin (1995) and Rankin. Antone and Waters (1993a. 1993b). Ferguson and Hopkins identi?ed 29 pedestrian trail segments and one wagon road segment in the vicinity mums Figure 21. Map of ORPI 00298, a series of precontact, protohistoric, and historic?period O?odham trails and roads around Quitobaquito (from Ferguson et a1. 2019:187). Based on their ?eld observations. Ferguson and Hopkins conclude that the Quitobaquito cultural landscape maintains integrity. and that Quitobaquito continues to play a critical role in the social. economic. and ritual lives of present-day O?odham groups. They subsequently that the Quitobaquito travel node ORPI 00298) be considered eligible for NRHP listing under Criteria A and (Ferguson et al. 2019:188). ORPI 00299 ORPI 00299 is com rised of a series of edestiian trails located on a small and narrow ridge in the . (Figures 20 and 22). ORPIOOZQS 2 0 2 Miles A Figure 22. Map of ORPI 00299, a series of precontact, protohistoric, and historic?period O?odham trails near Blankenship Ranch (from Ferguson et a1. 2019:194). Ferguson and Hopkins recorded 12 segments of ORPI 00299 for a total length of 819 (2687 ft). with segments ranging between 8 (26.2 ft) and 188 in (617 ft) in length. These trail segments. ranging between 40 cm (15.7 in) and 43 cm (16.9 in) in width. trend nonheast- southwest and appear to represent a single pedestrian trail. Numerous ?aked stone altifacts occur alongside the trail segments including basalt. chert. and chalcedony debitage and a basalt core. Based on these associated artifacts. Ferguson and Hopkins interpret these pedestrian trail segments as either precontact or protohistoric (Ferguson et a1. 2019: 193-197). VI. Survey Methodology The scope and objectives of the June 2019 ORPI Roosevelt Reservation archaeological survey were established in advance of actual fieldwork through a series of emails and telephone conference calls involving IMRAP archaeologists, SOAR archaeologists, and ORPI managers. Collectively, these parties agreed that the aim of the June 2019 field project ought to be baseline Section 110 inventory, covering portions of ORPI’s southern boundary not rigorously examined during previous ORPI archaeological survey projects. The assembled field team, it was decided, would systematically survey as many of the previously unsurveyed stretches of the park’s southern boundary as was possible over five days of fieldwork, with the ultimate goal (not achieved by the project’s end) being 100 percent archaeological inventory of the entire ORPI Roosevelt Reservation. With these project goals in mind, archaeologist Iraida Rodriguez subsequently examined all available ORPI geospatial data files and precisely plotted which stretches of the park’s southern boundary still required systematic archaeological survey (see Appendix A). Survey team members then downloaded Rodriguez’s project maps onto their smartphones and tablets using the Avenza Maps mobile app (https://www.avenza.com) and thereafter employed Avenza to guide them to various areas of the park boundary requiring baseline archaeological inventory. The June 2019 ORPI Roosevelt Reservation survey was solely a pedestrian survey. No subsurface testing was conducted, nor were any geophysical instruments employed. Nevertheless, in an effort to make the survey as rigorous and comprehensive as possible, the five participating archaeologists walked parallel, east-west transects spaced at 5 m (16.4 ft) intervals, covering a cumulative north-south distance of 25 m (82 ft). All survey transects were oriented parallel with the U.S.-Mexico International Border, with the southernmost 5 m- (16.4 ft-) transect positioned along the northern edge of the park’s Fenceline Road (Figure 23). Figure 23. Project archaeologists preparing to walk an east-west survey transect, spaced at 5 m (16.4 ft) intervals, view to the northwest (photo by A. Veech). 40 Whenever the archaeologists encountered surface artifacts or features, they marked those artifacts and features with pin flags for subsequent recording. Areas with clusters of pin flags were speculated to be activity areas or sites, and across those areas the archaeologists broke from their regimented survey transects in an effort to identify all surface artifacts in the vicinity (Figure 24). Figure 24. Project archaeologists pin flagging ORPI 2019 B, Site 3 in advance of recording, view to the north (photo by A. Veech). The archaeologists used the Avenza Maps mobile app, a Trimble Geo 7X unit, and compasses for navigational purposes. Likewise, they employed a Trimble Geo 7X unit to record all findings and geospatially plot those findings with sub-meter accuracy (Figure 25). Additionally, they used a Nikon Coolpix W300 digital camera to photograph all findings. Figure 25. Jake DeGayner recording data on a Trimble unit within ORPI Roosevelt Reservation (photo by A. Veech). 41 Following these methodological protocols. the archaeologists surveyed some 18.2 km (11.3 mi) of the ORPI Roosevelt Reservation (see Appendix B), totaling identi?ed and recorded 35 isolated occurrences, 20 isolated featlu?es, and 5 archaeological sites (Figure 26) over the com?se of their 5-day survey, which ran from June 24?28, 2019. The 35 isolated occurrences and 20 isolated featlu?es are at the end of this report (see Appendices -F). The following section describes the 5 archaeological sites. ?7 tww.540- f. . 5 1?4 3 Figure 26. Locations of 5 archaeological sites along the southern boundary of ORPI identified and recorded during June 2019 survey (Google Earth map, modified by A. Veech). VII. Description of Newly Recorded ORPI Roosevelt Reservation Archaeological Sites 0RP12019 B, Site 1 ORP12019 B. Site 1 is a precontact Native American surface altifact scatter measuring 0.19 ha (0.47 ac) in size that is located approximatel 2.93 km 1.82 mi) of the Lukeville Port of Entry the (Figures 27-29. see Figure 26). The site extends roughly 85 n1 (279 ft) (N -S) 38 n1 (125 ft) (E-W) across the broad alluvial ?ats of the Sonoyta Valley. Site vegetation consists predominately of creosote, bursage. and saltbiush. A nonheast-southwest- west of the site. while another-- rending draina lies a roximately lies rouo 1 east of the site. The Sonoyta River lies roughly to the- ORPI 2019 Site 01 SENSITIVE INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE \ktz'h 5' z-?I u_'I \Inl'u Figure 27. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 1 (by J. Renaud 2019). Figure 29. ORPI 2019 B, Site 1, view to the south (photo by A. Veech). A total of 116 artifacts were identi?ed across ORPI 2019 B, Site 1, including 55 non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts, 2 ground stone fragments, hammerstone, 2 pieces of ?re-cracked rock, 51 plain, undecorated ceramic sherds, and 5 marine shell fragments (see Tables 5-7). Lithic material types within the site assemblage include volcanic igneous rock, Chert, chalcedony, basalt, and obsidian. None of the site lithic artifacts, however, are diagnostic. Site ceramic sherds denote a post-Archaic (post 300 CE) occupation, likely during the Hohokam Classic period (1150-1400 CE) (see pp. 9 of report). Table 5. of non?utilized ?aked stone artifacts ORPI 2019 Tested Primary Secondary Tertiary Cobble Core Flake Flake Flake Site 1. Material Volcanic Igneous Rock Chert Basalt Obsidian Total Table 6. Inventory of other lithic artifacts ORPI 2019 B, Site 1. Ground Stone Hammerstone Fire-Cracked Rock Total Material Type Volcanic Igneous Rock 1 1 2 4 Vesicular Basalt 1 Total 2 1 2 5 Table 7. Inventory of ceramics and marine shell ORPI 2019 B, Site 1 (by S. Hart). Body Sherd Rim Sherd Fragment Total Brownware 45 1 46 Redware 5 5 Marine Shell 5 5 Total 50 1 5 56 A tight clustering of ?aked obsidian artifacts (n=11) located within the northeastern quadrant of the site (see Figure 27)?an area of no more than 2 (6.6 ft) in diameter?likely constitutes a knapping station, the locus of a discrete episode of lithic reduction. Together with the 5 marine shell fragments, these obsidian artifacts denote the southwest-to-northeast transport of exotic raw matelials from and the Gulf of alifomia and Pinacate Peaks of Sonora, Mexico into southwestern Arizona. Given its proximity to the Sonoyta River and the density and variety of its artifacts, ORPI 2019 B, Site I likely is an encampment that was occupied either over a single, extended period of time or over multiple, episodic ones. It may be associated and contem oraneous with the dense concentration of seasonal occu ation sites located roughly# fluther east arormd Thus, the site holds potentia or yielding information about precontact regional occupation, utilization, and trade patterns through time. ORP12019 B, Site 2 ORP12019 B, Site 2 is a small, but moderately dense, precontact Native American sm?face artifact scatter measurin 0.02 ha 0.05 ac in size. The site is located a roximatel row and of the of the park (Figures 30-32, see Figure 26), and 1t ranges roughly 28 In (92 ft SW-NE 17 (56 ft W-SE across the broad alluvial ?ats of the Sonoyta Valley, some of the Sierra de Santa Rosa ran Site ve etation west of the . consists predominately of creosote, blu?sa e, and salt bl'llSl]. 13* draina lies a proximate] east of the site, whi Sonoyta River ies roughly a to the ORPI 2019 Site 02 SENSITIVE INFORMATION: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE "1'04: i. .stt m- 50??0'00 I 'Jzo? 'i'M?nl bV?l' I?m! Krlumld Inga" I'lpc( 2.1m \.m~.uml Figure 30. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 2 (by J. Renaud 2019). 46 Figure 31. ORPI 2019 B, Site 2, view to the north (photo by A. Veec . m' "1 . ,rr .. Figure 32. ORPI 2019 B, Site 2, view to the south (photo by A. Veech). A total of 56 artifacts were identi?ed across ORPI 2019 B, Site 2, including 31 non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts, 3 utilized secondary ?akes, and 22 plain, undecorated ceramic sherds (see Tables 8-10 and Appendix H, Figures 1-2). Lithic material types within the site assemblage include volcanic igneous rock, chert, chalcedony, and basalt. None of the site lithic artifacts are diagnostic. Site ceramic sherds denote a post?Archaic (post 300 CE) occupation, likely during the Hohokam Classic period (1150-1400 CE) (see pp. 9 of report). Table 8. Inventory of non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts ORPI 2019 B, Site 2 (b I. Rodriguez). ?n Tested Primary Secondary Tertiary Cobble Core Flak: Flake - Flake. 'Belfitage Total Material Type '3 i 1?11: 2? Volcanic Igneous Rock 1 1 Chert 1 5 6 Chalcedony 4 3 1 4 12 Basalt 7 1 12 Total 12 5 4 10 31 47 Table 9. Inventory of utilized ?aked stone artifacts ORPI 2019 B, Site 2 (by I. Rodriguez). Table 10. Inventory of ceramics ORPI 2019 B, Site 2 (by S. Hart). Body Sherd Rim Sherd Total Material Type Brownware 20 Redware 2 Total 22 22 Artifact Material Number Artifact Type Type Dimensions Usewear Comments Total Utilized micro?aking on lateral secondary ?ake basalt 40X 15 X3 cm edge and edge r01mding Utilized micro?aking on lateral retouch on 2 secondary ?ake chalcedony edge and edge rounding lateral edge Utilized volcanic micro?aking on lateral retouch on 3 secondary ?ake igneous rock 10 cm edge and polish lateral edge 3 Given its compact size, ORP12019 B, Site 2 may constitute the remnants of a brief encampment, perhaps of no more than a single night in duration. It may be associated and contemporaneous with the dense concentration of seasonal occupation sites located roughly 6 km (3.7 mi) fluther west ar01md southem toe slopes of the Dos Lomitas. 48 ORP12019 B, Site 3 ORP12019 B, Site 3 is a low-density, precontact Native American sru?face lithic scatter measuiin 0.13 ha 0.31 ac in size that is located approximatel of the west of the par, and west of ORPI 2019 Site 2 (Figures 33- 35 see Figure 26). The site extend roughly 70 In (230 ft) (SSW- -NNE 50 164 ft WNW-ESE across the broafd_ alluvial ?ats of the Sonoyta Valley, and its than north of? within the Roosevelt Reservation. Site vegetation consists most] of an understory of creosote bushes, several chain fruit cholla. A drainage lies app1 oxunately west of the site, while another trendin drainage lies rou east of the site. The Sonoyta R1ver 1es rou i to the south-southwest. ORPI 2019 Site 03 SENSITIVE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE - amt?: Typo 1?01031V'u may. 'Wow'\ M. M. hu'Junu-A Mn:- L?v' wk.- 0 ?who .. um 12ml anml Helm I man Pip..- \munnl \hmumnu Figure 33. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 3 (by J. Renaud 2019). 49 Figure 34. ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, view to the north (photo by A. Veech). Figure 35. ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, view to the south (photo by A. Veech). A total of 32 lithic artifacts were identi?ed across ORP12019 B, Site 3, including 27 non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts, 3 utilized ?akes, 1 uniface, and 1 bifacial preform (see Tables 11-12 and Appendix H, Figures 3-5). Lithic material types within the site assemblage include rhyolite, volcanic igneous rock, Chert, chalcedony, and basalt. None of the site lithic artifacts are diagnostic. A small cobble cluster of only a single course in height and of indeterminate also occurs within the site boundaries (Figure 36). This cluster measures approximately 65 cm (25(18.1 in) (E-W) 9 cm (3.5 in) (height). At least 15 volcanic igneous rock and vesicular basalt cobbles comprise the cluster, ranging in size between cm in) and cm in). Table 11. Invent of non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts n= ORPI 2019 Site 3 I. Rodriguez). Tested Primary Secondary Tertiary Cobble Core Flake Flake Flake Total Material 2 Chert 12 13 Total 27 50 Table 12. Inventory of utilized ?aked stone artifacts ORPI 2019 B, Site 3 (by I. Rodriguez). Figure 36. Cobble cluster (photo by A. Veech). Within ORP I 2019 B, Site 3, view to the north Artifact Dimensions Number Artifact Type Material Type Usewear (mm) Comments Total Bi?directional volcanic 1 edge igneous rock 60XSOX 10 Utilized ?ake rhyolite 30X3OXI7 edge rounding and Utilized micro?aking on lateral 3 secondary ?ake basalt margin 47 17 early stage 4 Uniface chert 46 X47 18 Bifacial volcanic 5 preform igneous rock 90X 86 15 3 ?ake scars 5 ORP12019 B, Site 3 may be the remnants of a short-term encampment, perhaps one used and occupied at some point during the Archaic period (8,500 BCE 300 CE) (see pp. 7 of report). However, this interpretation is purely speculative, based on the absence any ceramic artifacts. 51 ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 ORP12019 B. Site 4 is (as presently recorded) a small precontact Native American altifact scatter measuring 0.02 ha 0.05 ac in size. located a roximatel of the (Figures 37?39. see Figure 26). The site lies against the of a low-lying. -trending hill within the La Abra Plain. and it extends 75.5 ft) (N-S is 16 (52.5 ft) (E-W). Its southern edge lies within the Roosevelt Reservation. Site vegetation consists ru?sage an saltbrush. interspersed with occasional chain fruit cholla and -trendin drainage lies approximately? east of to the west. The Sonoyta River 1es roughly to the east. roughly 23 north of predominate saguaro. A small the site. and anot 1er one 1es rout to the southwest, and Quitobaquito lies ORPI 2019 Site 04 SENSITIVE INFORMATION: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE . Figure 37. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 (by J. Renaud 2019). ?xl? Figure 39. ORPI 2019 B, Site 4, view to the north (photo by A. Veech). While the artifacts contained within the currently demarcated boundaries of ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 are small in number they nonetheless are diverse in variety and material type. The site assemblage includes 3 non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts (2 chert, rhyolite), retouched obsidian ?ake, non-diagnostic chert uniface, 2 brownware ceramic sherds, and 2 marine shell fragments (see Tables 13-15 and Appendix H, Figures 6-8). Other obsidian, marine shell, and ceramic artifacts noted (but not recorded) north and upslope of the site?s currently demarcated boundaries?outside the parameters of the June 2019 Roosevelt Reservation survey?imply that ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 is actually far larger in both size and complexity, warranting more rigorous examination and recording at some point in the future. of non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts n= ORPI 2019 Site 4 Tested Primary Secondary Tertiary Cobble Core Flake Flake Flake Total Table 13. J. Renaud). 2 3 53 Table 14. Inventory of utilized ?aked stone artifacts ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 (by J. Renaud). Table 15. Inventory of ceramics and marine shell ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 (by J. Renaud). Artifact Number Artifact Type Material Type Total 1 Retouched primary ?ake obsidian 2 Uniface volcanic igneous rock 2 Body Sherd Rim Sherd Fragment Total Brownware 2 2 Redware Marine Shell 2 2 Total 2 1 4 Given its proximity to Aguajita Wash, Quitobaquito, and the Sonoyta River, it is quite conceivable that ORP12019 B, Site 4 is a campsite associated with the Salt Trail Corridor leading to the Gulf of California, perhaps one of either extended duration or episodic, short-term use. Its exotic obsidian and marine shell artifacts clearly indicate the transport or exchange of raw materials from the Gulf of California to points further north and east. Thus, the site holds potential for yielding information about precontact regional occupation, utilization, and trade patterns through time. 54 ORP12019 B, Site 5 ORPI 2019 B, Site 5 is a multicomponent s1u?face artifact scatter that encom asses an area of 0.15 ha 0.37 ac and is located approximatel west of the west 0 ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, and west of the road (Figures 40-42, see Figure 26). Situated within the Sonoyta Valley, the site measures r011 75 In (246.1 ft) (NW -SE 35 111 114.8 ft -SW) and is dis ersed across the $10 of a low- lying, #Which is drainages. Site vegetation 111C 11 es ursage, grasses, a ew mesquite trees, an severa sma sa . laro. A fairly large, northeast?southwest-trendin draina lies approximately west of the site, and another lies roughly? east of the site. The Sonoyta River is situated roughly to the south-southwest. ORPI 2019 Site 05 SENSITIVE DO NOT DISYRIBUYE laiul Renaud \k'tcn I "mm I?Ipc A?hm \Jilunal ?minim-m Figure 40. Map of ORPI 2019 B, Site 5 (by J. Renaud 2019). Figure 41. ORPI 2019 B, Site 5, view to the north (photo by A. VeechFigure 42. ORPI 2019 B, Site 5, view to the south (photo by A. Veech). A total of 71 artifacts were identi?ed across ORPI 2019 B, Site 5, all but one of which are non- diagnostic, precontact Native American lithic artifacts. Of the 70 identi?ed lithic artifacts, some 66 are non-utilized ?aked stone items, including 2 tested cobbles, 2 cores, 31 primary ?akes, 24 secondary ?akes, 3 tertiary ?akes, and 4 pieces of debitage. Lithic material types represented within this assemblage include volcanic igneous rock, chert, chalcedony, and basalt (see Table 16). The 4 additional lithic artifacts within the site exhibit modi?cation and probable use, and these include 1 retouched basalt primary ?ake, utilized chert ?ake, 1 volcanic igneous rock uniface, and volcanic igneous rock bifacial preform (see Table 17 and Appendix H, Figure 10). Table 16. Inventory of non?utilized ?aked stone artifacts (n=66) ORPI 2019 B, Site 5 I. Rodriguez). Afr-??1 Tested Primary Secondary Tertiary L- H=jl Cobble Core Flake Flake Flake Debita Total Material Type Eli-r r?L?z 5- r. Chalcedony 16 9 2 28 Volcanic Igneous Rock 2 1 3 Basalt 2 1 1 4 Chert 2 14 2 31 Total Table 17. Inventory of utilized ?aked stone artifacts ORPI 2019 B, Site 5 (by I. Rodriguez). Artifact Number Artifact Type Material Type Total 1 Retouched primary ?ake basalt 2 Utilized ?ake chert 3 Uniface volcanic igneous rock 4 Bifacial prefomr volcanic igneous rock 4 The sole historic-period artifact identi?ed within ORP12019 B, Site 5, situated within the site?s southeast quadrant (see Figure 40), is a brass, .45-70 caliber ri?e shell cartridge, measruing approximately 4 cm (1.57 in) in length and 1 cm (0.39 in) in diameter (see Appendix H, Figure 9). The base of this centerfn?e ri?e cartridge shell is stamped with the abbreviation Govt,? indicating that it was manufactured by the Winchester Munitions Company for the US. military (Jake DeGayner, personal commrmication 2019). The .45-70 ri?e cartridge was adopted by the US. Army in 1873 as the service cartridge for its trap-door Spring?eld ri?e. The Army continued to use the .45-70 cartridge until 1892, when it was replaced by the .30-40 caliber Krag cartridge (Van Zwoll 2009). With the exception of the previously described .45-70 caliber ri?e shell cartridge, it seems reasonable to classify ORP12019 B, Site 5 as a precontact Native American lithic procrn?ement and processing site of indeterminate age. The site plausibly was used episodically by various individuals or groups, perhaps over a considerable period of time. Similar sites have been previously recorded elsewhere east of the Dos Lomitas, including ORPI 00425 (see pp. 26-28 of report). 57 VIII. Management Recommendations Based on the information provided in Section VII of this report, recommendations for eligibility for listing on the NRHP are provided below, followed by recommendations for additional baseline Section 110 inventory work along ORPI's southern boundary. Of the five (5) newly identified sites recorded during the June 2019 pedestrian survey along the southern boundary of ORPI, two presently are recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP: • ORPI 2019 B, Site 1 under Criterion D, as it possesses both integrity and the ability to yield important information about precontact occupation and utilization of the western Papaguería through time and about precontact trade patterns between the Gulf of California and the Gila Basin. • ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 under Criterion D, as it also possesses both integrity and the ability to yield important information about precontact occupation and utilization of the western Papaguería through time and about precontact trade patterns between the Gulf of California and the Gila Basin. As for the three (3) additional sites identified and recorded during the June 2019 survey (i.e., ORPI 2019 B, Sites 2, 3, and 5), additional, on-site, evaluation is required before a sound recommendation of NRHP eligibility can be proffered. Finally, it is recommended that baseline Section 110 inventory of all presently unsurveyed (or under-surveyed) sections of ORPI’s southern boundary be completed as soon as is possible, in light of impending border fence construction along the park’s entire 48.3 km- (30 mi-) long southern boundary, entailing ground disturbance across the whole, 18.3 m- (60 ft-) wide Roosevelt Reservation. Without question, the roughly 2.75 km- (1.7 mi-) long section of the park’s southern boundary extending west from Hocker Well warrants such systematic, baseline survey, as may other sections of the park’s southern boundary, which have yet to be precisely determined. Such Section 110 inventory work can be readily accomplished by IMRAP archaeologists, SOAR archaeologists, and ORPI resources staff, in identical fashion to this present survey project. 58 References Cited Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology, 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55(2):348-354. Anderson, David G., and J.C. Gillam 2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography, Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65(1):43-66. Andrefsky, Jr., William 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21-34. Arizona State Museum (ASM) 1995 Archaeological State Recording Manual. Arizona State Museum, the University of Arizona, Tucson. Bassett, Everett 1994 “We Took Care of Each Other Like Families Were Meant To”: Gender, Social Organization, and Wage Labor Among the Apache at Roosevelt. In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology, edited by Elizabeth M. Scott, pp. 55-79. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Bezy, John V., James T. Gutman, and Gordon B. Haxel 2000 A Guide to the Geology of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the Pinacate Biosphere Reserve. Arizona Geological Survey Down-to-Earth, Volume 9. Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson. Blitz, John H. 1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9:123-145. Bradford, James E., Andrew S. Veech, and James C. Collis 2013 An Archeological Inventory of 14 Impacted Areas Selected for Rehabilitation/ Revegetation, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. ORPI 2011GG. Report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. 59 Brantingham, P. Jeffrey, John W. Olsen, Jason A. Rech, and Andrei I. Krivoshapkin 2000 Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core technologies in Northeast China. Journal of Archaeological Science 27(3):255-271. Brown, Bryan T., Lupe P. Henrickson, R. Roy Johnson, and William Werrell 1983 An Inventory of Surface Water Resources at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, Technical Report No. 10. Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Arizona. Tucson, Arizona. Chamberlin, Earl 1972 Soil Survey: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona. A Special Report. Phoenix: USDA, Soil Conservation Service. Corey, Christopher 2002 Trip Report, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona. November 26, 2002 (WACC Project Number ORPI 2002 D). Report on file at Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson. Crown, Patricia L. 1991 The Hohokam: Current Views of Prehistory and the Regional System. In Chaco & Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by Patricia L. Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 135-158. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Crown, Patricia L. and W.H. Wills 1995 The Origins of Southwestern Ceramic Containers: Women’s Time Allocation and Economic Intensification. Journal of Anthropological Research 51(2):173-186. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Dean, Jeffrey 1991 Thoughts on Hohokam Chronology. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by George J. Gumerman, pp. 61-149. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Dillehay, Tom D., and Michael B. Collins 1988 Early Cultural evidence from Monte Verde in Chile. Nature 332:150-152. Eerkens, Jelmer W., Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock 2002 Ceramic Production Among Small-Scale and Mobile Hunters and Gatherers: A Case Study from the Southwestern Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:200-229. 60 Emerson, Thomas E., Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier (eds.) 2009 Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity Across the Midcontinent. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ezell, Paul H. 1951 Survey notes on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. On file at Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service. Tucson. Feathers, James K., Edward J. Rhodes, Sébastien Huot, and J.M. McAvoy 2006 Luminescence Dating of Sand Deposits Related to Late Pleistocene Human Occupation at the Cactus Hill Site, Virginia, USA. Quaternary Geochronology 1(3):167-187. Felger, Richard Stephen, Susan Rutman, Michael F. Wilson, and Kathryn Mauz 2007 Botanical Diversity of Southwestern Arizona and Northern Sonora. In Dry Borders: Great Natural Reserves of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Richard Stephen Felger and Bill Broyles, pp. 202-271. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Ferguson, T.J., Maren P. Hopkins, Michael C. Spears, and Sharlot Hart 2019 O’odham Trails and Roads on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. NPS Cultural Resources Reports ORPI 2014N, ORPI 2014N.1, ORPI 2014N.2. Cooperative Agreements P14AC001054 and P18AC00285. Report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. Fish, Suzanne K., Paul R. Fish, and Gary Christopherson 2007 Early Occupations on Tumamoc Hill. Archaeology Southwest 21(3):4-5. Fish, Suzanne K., and Paul R. Fish 2007 Regional Heartlands and Regional Trends. In Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish, and M. Elisa Villalpando, pp. 165-194. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Fontana, Bernard L. 1965 An Archeological Survey of the Cabeza Prieta Game Range, Arizona. Manuscript on file at the Western Archeological and Conservation Center, National Park Service, Tucson. 1994 Entrada: The Legacy of Spain & Mexico in the United States. Tucson: Southwest Parks and Monuments Association. Gladwin, Winifred and Harold S. Gladwin 1929 Red-on-Buff Culture of the Papagueria. The Medallion Papers, Gila Pueblo. Arizona State Library digitized copy available at http://azmemory.lib.az.us. 61 Gould, Richard A. 1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Greene, Jerome A. 1977 Historic Resource Study: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Denver: Historic Preservation Division, National Park Service. Griffin, David J. 2007 Birds of Arizona’s Southwestern Borderland. In Dry Borders: Great Natural Reserves of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Richard Stephen Felger and Bill Broyles, pp. 280-302. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Hard, Robert J., and John R. Roney 2007 Cerros de Trincheras in Northwestern Chihuahua: The Arguments for Defense. In Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society, edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish, and Elisa Villalpando, pp. 11-52. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Harris Environmental Group (HEG) 2008 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of 14 Proposed Customs and Border Protection Tower Locations Within the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona. Draft report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo Arizona. Haury, Emil W. 1943 The Stratigraphy of Ventana Cave, Arizona. American Antiquity 8(3):218-223. 1950 The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana Cave. Tucson: University of Arizona Press and Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Hayden, Julian D. 1966 Restoration of the San Dieguito Type Site to its Proper Place in the San Dieguito Sequence. American Antiquity 31(3):439-440. 1967 A Summary of History and Prehistory in the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora. American Antiquity 32(3):354-344 1976 Pre-Altithermal Archaeology in the Sierra Pinacate, Sonora, Mexico. American Antiquity 41(3):274-289. Heilen, Michael R. 2004 Julian Hayden’s Malpais Model: A Pre-Clovis Claim from the American Southwest. Kiva, 69:3, 305-331. 62 Henry, Robert S. 2007 Mammals of the Sonoran Desert Borderlands Reserves. In Dry Borders: Great Natural Reserves of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Richard Stephen Felger and Bill Broyles, pp. 272279. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Huckle, Bruce B. 1984 The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Mountains, Southeastern Arizona. Arizona State Museum, Archeological Series 147. Tucson: The University of Arizona. Huckell, Bruce B., and C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 2003 The Ventana Complex: New Dates and Ideas on Its Place in Early Holocene World Prehistory. American Antiquity 68:353-371. 2007 Murray Springs: A Clovis Site with Multiple Activity Areas in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Hunt, C.B. 1974 Natural Regions of the United States and Canada. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co. Intermountain Region Archaeology Program (IMRAP) 2019 Proposed Archaeological Response Plan Related to Border Construction along the Southern Boundary of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. June 21, 2019 draft plan on file at Intermountain Region Archaeology Program Office, Santa Fe. Ives, R.L. 1936 Desert Floods in the Sonoyta Valley. American Journal of Science (5th Series) 32(191):349-360. Johnson, William W. 1997 Soil Survey of the Gila Bend-Ajo Area, Arizona, Parts of Maricopa and Pima Counties. Washington, D.C.: USDA Natural Resources Service. Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Kearney, Thomas H., and Robert H. Peebles 1951 Arizona Flora. Berkeley: University of California Press. 63 Kelley, J. Charles 1959 The Desert Cultures and the Balcones Phase: Archaic Manifestations in the Southwest and Texas. American Antiquity 24(3):276-278. Kessell, John L. 2002 Spain in the Southwest: A Narrative History of Colonial New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Lavender, David 1992 De Soto, Coronado, Cabrillo: Explorers of the Northern Mystery, National Park Service Handbook 144. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Lindeman, Michael W. 2007 Specialized Production by Tucson Basin Households. Archaeology Southwest 21(3):9. Lumholtz, Carl, and I.N. Dracopoli 1912 The Sonora Desert, Mexico. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 503-518. Martinez, Jr., Ray G. 1976 Superintendent’s 1976 Calendar Year Report. On file, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. Masse, W. Bruce 1980 Excavations at Gu Achi: A Reappraisal of Hohokam Settlement and Subsistence in the Arizona Papagueria. Western Archeological Center Publication in Anthropology, No. 12. Tucson: National Park Service. 1991 Hohokam: Subsistence and Civilization. In Chaco & Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by Patricia L. Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 195-223. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. McGee, W.J. 1898 The Seri Indians. Seventeenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian, 1895-96, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. McGuire, Kathleen 2012 Letter from Mexico: Archeology, Interrupted. In Archeology 65(4):53-60. 64 McGuire, Randall H., and María Elisa Villalpando 1993 An Archaeological Survey of the Altar Valley, Sonora, Mexico. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 184. Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1998 Cerro de Trincheras: A Pre-Hispanic Terraced Town in Sonora, Mexico. Archaeology in Tucson, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-7. 2015 War and Defense on Cerros de Trincheras in Sonora, México. American Antiquity 80(3):429-450. Nassaney, Michael S. and Kendra Pyle 1999 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central Arkansas. American Antiquity 64(2):243-263. National Park Service (NPS) 1997 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Final General Management Plan, Development Concept Plans, Environmental Impact Statements. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2002 Quitobaquito, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Cultural Landscapes Inventory. Report available at http://www.nps.orpi/naturescience. 2010 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Superintendent’s 2010 Report on Natural Resource Vital Signs. Ajo, Arizona: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Palacio-Fest, Manuel R., James M. Bayman, Lisa W. Huckell, and Susan K. Fish 2008 Paleoecology of an Earthen Reservoir in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. In Fragile Patterns: The Archaeology of the Western Papaguería, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Adrianne G. Rankin, pp. 165-178. SRI Press, Tucson. Palacio-Fest, Manuel R., and Adrianne G. Rankin 2008 Environmental Change in the Western Portion of the Papaguería. In Fragile Patterns: The Archaeology of the Western Papaguería, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul and Adrianne G. Rankin, pp. 123-138. SRI Press, Tucson. Palmer, Jessica Dawn 2013 The Apache Peoples: A History of All Bands and Tribes Through the 1800s. McFarland & Company, Inc., Jefferson, North Carolina. Rankin, Adrianne G. 1995 Archeological Survey of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Southwestern Arizona: 1989-1991. Manuscript on file at Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona. 65 Rankin, Adrianne, Geri Antone, and Jenny Waters 1993a SON B:4:30 Arizona State Museum Archaeological Site Card. Ms. on file, National Park Service, Western Archaeological Conservation Center, Tucson. 1993b SON B:4:32 Arizona State Museum Archaeological Site Card. Ms. on file, National Park Service, Western Archaeological Conservation Center, Tucson. Renaud, Jared E. 2018 Cultural Resources Compliance on Undesignated Vehicle Routes (UVRs) during the 2017 Season at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (ORPI). Report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. Rheaume, Ernest 2008 Staking New Claims: Reinterpreting Historic Mining Sites. Paper delivered at La ICOMOS 16e Assemblée générale et le Symposium scientifique, 2008, Québec, Canada. Ritchie, William A. 1932a The Algonkin Sequence in New York. American Anthropologist 34:406-414. 1932b The Lamoka Lake Site: The Type Station of the Archaic Algonkin Period in New York. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association 7:79-134. Rochester, New York. Rogers, Malcolm 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas, San Diego Museum Papers 3. San Diego: San Diego Museum. 1958 San Dieguito Implements from the Terraces of the Rincon-Pantano and Rillito Drainage System. Kiva 24:1-23. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. San Diego: The union-Tribune Publishing Company. Rosen, Philip C. 2007 Reptiles and Amphibians in Arid Southwestern Arizona and Northwestern Sonora. In Dry Borderlands: Great Natural Reserves of the Sonoran Desert, edited by Richard Stephen Felger and Bill Broyles, pp. 310-325. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Sanchez, Guadalupe, and John Carpenter 2012 Paleoindian and Archaic Traditions in Sonora, Mexico. In From Pleistocene to the Holocene: Human Organization and Cultural Transformations in Prehistoric North America, edited by C. Britt Bousman and Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 125-147. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 2016 Tracking the First People of Mexico: A Review of the Archaeological Record. In Stones, Bones, and Profiles: Exploring Archaeological Context, Early American Hunter-Gatherers, and Bison, edited by Marcel Kornfeld and Bruce B. Huckell, pp. 75-101. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 66 Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2004 Common Origins and Divergent Histories in the Early Pottery Traditions of the American Southeast. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders and Christopher T. Hays, pp. 23-40. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Seymour, Deni J. 2009 Nineteenth-Century Apache Wickiups: Historically Documented Models for Archaeological Signatures of the Dwellings of Mobile People. Antiquity 83:157-164. 2013 Geronimo’s Wickiup: Methodological Considerations Regarding Mobile Group Hut Signatures. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 17:182-195. Shreve, Forest, and Ira L. Wiggins 1964 Vegetation and Flora of the Sonoran Desert, Volume I. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Slaton, Dakota, Michael Lorrusso, and Connie Gibson 2014 A Class III Intensive Archaeological Survey of a Rock Art and Lithic Manufacturing Site Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, SON C:1:80 (ASM), Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. ORPI 2013D. Report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. Snow, Dean 1996 The First Americans and the Differentiation of Hunter-Gatherer Cultures. In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Volume I: North America, edited by Bruce Trigger and Wilcomb E. Washburn, pp. 125-200. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Spangle, Paul F., Garland J. Gordon, and John B. Johnson 1959 Preliminary Report of the Archeological Survey of Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Carlsbad, New Mexico. Supernaugh, Bill 1951 SON C:01:004. Archeological site file on record at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. Tagg, Martyn D., Michael P. Heilen, and Kerry L. Sagebiel 2002 ETAC 2000: Intensive Archaeological Survey of 2.296 Acres on the Eastern Tactical Range, Barry M. Goldwater Range East, Arizona. Tucson: Statistical Research, Inc. Teague, Lynn 1977 Quitobaquito Basin Survey. Arizona State Museum, Tucson. 67 Texas Beyond History (TBH) 2018 Trans Pecos Mountains and Basins: Huts to Pueblos. Electronic document, https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/trans-p/prehistory/images/architecture.html, accessed June 20, 2018. Torrence, Robin 1989 Retooling: Toward a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by Robin Torrence, pp. 57-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Twilling, Shannon, Chester Shaw, Keith Knoblock, Sharon Urban, Barbara Murphy, and Lirain Urreiztieta 2008 A Class III Cultural Resources Survey of 14 Proposed Customs and Border Protection Tower Locations. Prepared for Secure Border Initiative (SBInet), U.S. Customs and Border Protection. On file, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Ajo, Arizona. Van Zwoll, Wayne 2009 .45-70 Government Cartridge. Electronic document, http://www.huntingmag.com/guns loads/PHunt 45gov 200801/, accessed July 23, 2019. Veech, Andrew S. 2016 An Archeological Survey of 60 Undesignated Vehicle Routes (UVRs) and 34 UVR Blocks in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeze Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Pima County, Arizona. NPS Cultural Resources Report No. ORPI 2016A. Report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. 2018a An Archeological Reevaluation of the Dos Lomitas Area of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona. Report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. 2018b Archeological Surveys of Two Undesignated Vehicle Route (UVR) Blocks in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Pima County, Arizona. Intermountain Region Archeology Program Project No. ORPI 2018 A. Report on file at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. Whittlesey, Stephanie 2010 Monitoring and Discovery Plan for the TCA-AJO-310 Access Road Within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Harris Environmental Group, Inc. Project Numbers 09-002 and 10-037. Submitted to The Boeing Company, Huntsville, Alabama. On file, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Ajo, Arizona. 68 Wilcox, David R. 1980 The Current Status of the Hohokam Concept. In Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory: Proceeding of a Symposium, Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers, No. 23, edited by David E. Doyel and Fred Plog, pp. 236-242. Tempe: Arizona State University. 1991 Hohokam Social Complexity. In Chaco & Hohokam: Prehistoric Regional Systems in the American Southwest edited by Patricia L. Crown and W. James Judge, pp. 253-276. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Young, Foy 1967 Superintendent’s 1967 Calendar Year Report. On file, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Ajo, Arizona. 69 Appendix A Maps of Previously Surveyed Areas along the Southern Boundary of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument SENSITIVE INFORMATION 70 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE Appendix A, Figure 1. ORPI southern boundary map 1 0f 5 (by I. Rodriguez 2019). Appendix A. Figure 2. ()Rl?l southern boundary map 2 of5 (by I. Rodriguez 2019). Appendix A., Figure 5. ORPI southern boundary map 5 of 5 (by I. Rodriguez 2019). (b) (3) (B) 75 Appendix B Maps of Areas Surveyed along the Southern Boundary of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument during June 2019 Survey (ORPI 2019 B) SENSITIVE INFORMATION 76 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE U. ORPI 2019 8 Survey Extent SENSITIVF NEXT Appendix B, Figure 1. Map of ORPI transects surveyed immediately east and west of the Lukeville Port of Entry (by J. Renaud 2019). ORPI 2019 8 Survey Extent Sf DC NOT Appendix B, Figure 2. Map of ORPI transects surveyed from the eastern terminus of west toward the Dos Lomitas (by J. Renaud 2019). ORPI 2019 8 Survey Extent Appendix B, Figure 3. Map of ORPI transects surveyed immediately east and west of the Dos Lomitas (by J. Renaud 2019). O8 ORPI 2019 8 Survey Extent SENSIYIVF DO NOT Appendix B, Figure 4. Map of ORPI transects surveyed along West Fenceline Road west toward Aguajita \Nash (by J. Renaud 2019). Appendix C Geospatial Coordinates of Isolated Occurrences (n=35) Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B) SENSITIVE INFORMATION 81 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE Within Roosevelt 10 Material UTM UTM Reservation Number Artifact Type Type Additional Remarks Easting Northing (Y Marine mollusk whole shells positioned 1 shells shell 47 cm apart Ceramic sherd 2 (n=1 redware body sherd Lithic debitage volcanic 3 igneous rock Secondaiy ?ake 4 1) chem Primary ?ake 5 basalt Secondary ?akes positioned approx. 2 6 chalcedony apart Utilized secondary volcanic 7 ?ake (11:1) igneous rock positioned approx. 1.5. 8 Tobacco tin lid tin in SW of IF 8 volcanic 9 Core igneous rock Secondary ?ake 10 1 chalcedony 1 Core 1) chalcedony 12 Barbed Wire spool iron Primary ?ake 13 (11:1) basalt 14 Core chalcedony Secondaiy ?ake 1 5 1) chalcedony 16 Biface chem 5 1 cm 7 Uniface C11611 5 .5 #1 cm Secondary ?ake 1 8 (n=1 chert Lithic debitage volcanic 1 9 1 igneous rock Hammerstone volcanic 20 igneous rock Lithic debitage 2 1 1) chalcedony Secondary ?ake 22 (n=1 chalcedony Lithic debitage 23 (n=l chalcedony 24 Core chalcedony 7.5 r< 5 4 cm Unifacially modi?ed cobble volcanic 25 too] igneous rock 12 1 8 K5. cm Lithic debitage 26 1) chem Within Roosevelt 10 Material UTM UTM Reservation Number Artifact Tvpe Tvpe Additional Remarks Easting Northing (Y Seconda1y ?ake 2 7 1 Chen Marine shell positioned less than 70 28 ?agments (11:3) shell cm apart Retouched core 29 Chen 3 Uni face (n=1 chert Secondary ?ake 3 1 1 chelt Primary ?ake 32 obsidian Bifacial thiiming 33 ?ake (11:1) obsidian associated barbed wire 34 Barbed Wire spool iron fragments Mule shoe 35. fragment iron (Geospatial information recorded and processed by J. DeGayer) Appendix D Selective Photos of Isolated Occurrences Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B) 84 Appendix D, Figure 1. Isolated Occurrence 1, marine mollusk shell (photo by A. Veech). Appendix D, Figure 2. Isolated Occurrence 2, redware ceramic body sherd (photo by A. Veech). 85 Appendix D, Figure 3. Isolated Occurrence 4, chert secondary flake (photo by A. Veech). Appendix D, Figure 4. Isolated Occurrence 7, volcanic igneous rock utilized secondary flake (photo by A. Veech). 86 Appendix D, Figure 5. Isolated Occurrence 12, barbed wire spool (photo by A. Veech). Appendix D, Figure 6. Isolated Occurrence 17, chert uniface (photo by A. Veech). 87 Appendix D, Figure 7. Isolated Occurrence 18, chert secondary flake (photo by A. Veech). Appendix D, Figure 8. Isolated Occurrence 20, volcanic igneous rock hammerstone (photo by A. Veech). 88 Appendix D, Figure 9. Isolated Occurrence 25, volcanic igneous rock unifacially modified cobble tool (photo by A. Veech). Appendix D, Figure 10. Isolated Occurrence 30, chert uniface (photo by A. Veech). 89 Appendix D, Figure 11. Isolated Occurrence 32, obsidian primary flake (photo by A. Veech). Appendix D, Figure 12. Isolated Occurrence 33, obsidian bifacial thinning flake (photo by A. Veech). 90 I. I . Appendix D, Figure 13. Isolated Occurrence 35, mule shoe fragment (photo by A. Veech). 91 Appendix E Geospatial Coordinates of Isolated Features (n=20) Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B) SENSITIVE INFORMATION 92 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE Within Roosevelt IF Additional UTM UTM Reservation Number Feature Tvpe Material Tvpe Remarks Easting Northing (Y Volcanic igneous approx. 100 cm 1 Historic hearth cobbles (n=17) W) 75 cm (N -S) Recent health/rock Volcanic igneous approx. 85 cm (E- 2 ring cobbles (11:11) W) 75 cm (N-S) 54 cm in diameter. possibly associated Volcanic igneous w/ historic road 3 Rock ring cobbles trace 30 In 60 50 cm. possibly associated Volcanic igneous w/ historic road 4 Cobble cluster cobbles trace 30 111 Vesicular basalt and volcanic 36 cm (N-S) 33 igneous cobbles cm .1, 20 cm 5 Cobble pile (11:8) (height) Vesicular basalt and volcanic Boulder igneous boulders ring/"possible and cobbles 225 cm (N-S) 150 6 sleeping circle (11218) cm (E-W) Vesicular basalt and volcanic approx. 50 cm (N -S) igneous boulders 50 cm (E-W) 7 Boulder pile 32.5 cm (height) associated wooden 8 USGS Brass/bronze stake debris Low-density halcedony and approx. -3 min surface lithic basalt ?akes and diameter/ 0.03 ac in 9 scatter debitage (n=15) size hei?t. volcanic igneous. and Low-density rhyolite tools. approx. 30 min surface lithic ?akes. and ac in 10 scatter debitage (11:9) size hert and chalcedony tools. ?akes. and debitage (n=12) Low-density and volcanic surface lithic igneous mano 1 scatter frag (11:1) 0.09 ac in size halcedony Low-density ?akes and surface lithic debitage 12 scatter and core 0.06 ac in size C?halcedony. Low-density chert. and basalt approx. 30 111 in surface lithic ?akes (11:9) and diameter/0.05 ac in 13 scatter core 1) size Within Roosevelt IF Additional UTM UTM Reservation Number Feature Tvpe Material Tvpe Remarks Easting Northing (Y Vesicular basalt and volcanic Possible thennal igneous cobbles approx. 155 cm (N - 14 feature (11: 50) S) 137 cm (E-W) Chalcedony. chem. and basalt Low-density ?akes and approx. 25 min surface lithic debitage (11=6) diameter/ 0.06 ac in 15 scatter and core (11:1) size halcedony. chert. and basalt ?akes and debitage (11:12): basalt core basalt biface and Low-density volcanic igneous 29 111 in surface lithic rock utilized dia111eter/0.08 ac in 16 scatter ?ake size halcedony. chert. rhyolite. and volcanic Low-density igneous rock surface lithic ?akes and 17 scatter debitage (11=l l) 0.09 ac in size Low-density Rhyolite and approx. 10 min surface lithic chert ?akes diameter/0.01 ac in 1 8 scatter (11=4) size atop sunmlit of 19 USGS benchmark brass/bronze Monument Hill 20 USGS benchmark brass/bronze (Geospatial information recorded and processed by J. DeGayer) 94 Appendix F Selective Photos of Isolated Features Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B) 95 Appendix F, Figure 1. Isolated Feature 1, historic-period hearth, view to the south (photo by A. Veech). Appendix F, Figure 2. Isolated Feature 6, possible sleeping circle, view to the west (photo by A. Veech). 96 Appendix F, Figure 3. Isolated Feature 8, USGS benchmark and associated wooden stake debris, view to the north (photo by A. Veech). .9..- Appendix F, Figure 4. Isolated Feature 14, possible thermal feature, view to the south (photo by A. Veech). Appendix G Geospatial Coordinates of Archaeological Sites (n=5) Identified during the June 2019 ORPI Southern Boundary Survey (ORPI 2019 B) SENSITIVE INFORMATION 98 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE Site Number Site Type Recorded Size Additional Remarks UTM Centroid Easting UTM entroid orthing Square Meters Within Roosevelt Reservation NRHP Eligible (Y ORPI 2019 B. Site 1 precontact Native American artifact scatter 0.19 ha (0.47 ac) Site artifacts include ?aked obsidian. chalcedony. basalt. chert. and volcanic igneous rock; vesicular basalt and volcanic igneous rock groundstone; a volcanic igneous rock hammerstone; brownware and redware ceramic sherds: and marine shell fragments. ORPI 2019 B. Site 2 precontact Native American artifact scatter 0.02 ha (0.05 ac) Site artifacts include ?aked chalcedony. basalt. chert. and volcanic igneous rock; and brownware and redware ceramic sherds. ORPI 2019 B. Site 3 precontact Native American lithic scatter 0.13 ha (0.31 ac) Site artifacts include ?aked chalcedony. rhyolite. chert. volcanic igneous rock. and basalt. ORPI 2019 B. Site 4 precontact Native American artifact scatter 0.02 ha (0.05 ac) Site artifacts include ?aked obsidian. chert. and rhyolite: brownvvare ceramic sherds: and a marine shell ??agment. ORPI 2019 B. Site 5 multicomponent artifact scatter 0.15 ha (0.37 ac) Site artifacts include ?aked volcanic igneous rock. basalt. chert. chalcedony. and rhyolite: and a .45- 70 caliber ri?e shell casing. (Geospatial information recorded and processed by J. DeGay 99 X7 Appendix Selective Photos of ORPI 2019 Site Artifacts 100 Appendix H, Figure 1. Volcanic igneous rock utilized secondary flake, ORPI 2019 B, Site 2 (photo by A. Veech). Appendix H, Figure 2. Basalt utilized secondary flake, ORPI 2019 B, Site 2 (photo by A. Veech). 101 Appendix H, Figure 3. Volcanic igneous rock flake bifacial preform, ORPI 2019 B, Site 3 (photo by A. Veech). Appendix H, Figure 4. Chert uniface, ORPI 2019 B, Site 3 (photo by A. Veech). 102 Appendix H, Figure 5. Basalt utilized secondary flake, ORPI 2019 B, Site 3 (photo by A. Veech). Appendix H, Figure 6. Marine shell fragments, ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 (photo by A. Veech). 103 Appendix H, Figure 7. Obsidian retouched primary flake, ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 (photo by A. Veech). Appendix H, Figure 8. Volcanic igneous rock uniface, ORPI 2019 B, Site 4 (photo by A. Veech). 104 Appendix H, Figure 9. .45-70 rifle cartridge shell, ORPI 2019 B, Site 5 (photo by A. Veech). Appendix H, Figure 10. Volcanic igneous rock bifacial preform, ORPI 2019 B, Site 5 (photo by A. Veech). 105 Appendix I Arizona State Museum (ASM) Site Cards for ORPI 2019 B, Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 SENSITIVE INFORMATION 106 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ARIZONA STATE MUSEUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CARD Side A Recommended Field No ORPI 2019 8. Srte 1 Natl Reg Opinion Eligible Recorders A. Veech.J Renaud.J DeGayner. l_ Rodriguez. S_Hart Recording Organization; National Perl: Seance Date Recorded 063240019 Archaeological Survey of 18 2 Kilometers (11 3 Miles) of the 8 Mexico lntemational Border. Prqect Name Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Pima County, Arizona (Project No ORPI 2019 8) Srte Name ORPI 2019 B, Site 1 Land status (check one)? CTY CO ST USFS USFW NPS BLM DOD ACE 80R RTC Owner/Agency name Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Survey Colts Repository Institute NIA Report Reference National Pant Service, Intermomtaln Region Archaeotogy Protect No 2019 a Mapname uses Series - Slate. AZ County Ptma El ri Site Size in Fl or Length 85 Width 38 How measured EST PACE CPS MAP TAPE BL TWN RNG SEC SUBDIVISION um 12 pen 2 pen UTM pen UTM pun LITM 2 How weir: UTMs derived. USGS Mop GPS Srte ORPI 2019 8. Site 1 is a precontact Native American?artifact scatter meas $128 that is located a roxrmately tthe Lukevrlle Port of En . st of the dormer,? st of the The site extends roughly 85 (279 it) (MS) I 38 (125 ft) (E-W) across the broad alluVral ?ats or the Son a Valle Site vegetation concists predominatel ol creosote. bursage. and saltbrush. A drainage lies a roximatel est of the site. while another east of the Site The Sonoyta River lies rough drainage has roughly A total of 116 artifacts were identified across ORPI 2019 B. Site 1. including 55 non-utilized ?aked stone artifacts. 2 ground stone fragments. 1 hammerstone, 2 pieces of firecradted rock 51 plain, undecorated ceramic sherds. and 5 marine shell fragments Lithic material types wrthin the site assemblage include volcanic igne0us rock. chart chatcedony basalt. and obsidian None of the Site lithic artifacts. however. are diagnostic. Srte ceramic sherds denote a post-Archaic (post 300 CE) occupation, likely during the Hohokam Classic period (1150-1400 CE). Given its proximity to the Sonoyta River and the denSity and variety of its artifacts. ORPI 2019 B. Site 1 likely is an encampment that was occupied either over a single. extended period of time or over multiple. episodic ones It ma be associated and contain raneous With the dense concentration of seasonal occupation Sites located hmw. the site holds potential for yieldim information about preoontact regional occupation, utilization. and trade patterns through time Additional Documentation typo document Marley Sn ?1 Agency Pail No 0* National Reg Rec -n ASH Sill ASM Pro? No ASM Permrt No mmouu onASM Site Card Rev 133/93 OUVD 31.19 ?0380? aims VNOZIHV Appendix I, Figure la. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 1, pp. 1 of 2. 107 STATE MHSEUM EITE Ethan 5m 1: Dannaltluhal Curlhaltl [shame as mam.I as apply-1' (1m. nu depth Hucksha?ar. nu depth Cam. nu depth l2} Dpen. damn Rmkme?en deplh l9! Gav-E. dumb l3} Dyan, depth Rmh??ralter. deplh unknuwrl Cal-re. depth unknn?n Dpen, Exp-arsed urn-5r In pm?he Tum. Sethng: mead alumna: H315 al me Ear-mt: valley Vegetallan Macrame rim-liege. and GEN-DQFEDIIS Giirrmu my ?rm sandy loam (miner); vary lam-wally Imam. In 15 mm 151:.sz EIG- Ema Elle Type rm: nnu] I lal A?rlacl Smaller ll'Ilcr ulnar lulures Humble an 'll'm im'lm} lb] meam madam-Ill artifact: in} Fueluma mm ME anudalad animals Assemblage Cammsl?m {mangle nuan??das as M?materl ranges, fur mile-a nnly to he war-rant. fur tarp-3.5 nul SEEN at site 51 Prahisl?ric ?aramlc 2 FER Glass Animal ram-nyamlacts 55 Chipped Elana 5 Shell Metal Plant tamaIrIE-larlilacts Gruunusl-nna Hintml: Ceramic Hl?t??n Wood Human ramms (imitate quantity nf mm: as mums, asnmalai. ur Fmsammage Remarks Ella cars-11w anemia ?nale 3 pail-Arena: {post SUD RE: mun-mun. dunng ma Huhnkam Elassic. planed l1 Emil: uhsIdlan and marina shell artrf?tls clearly Indicate the or exchange nI raw materials [mm me Gulf at Ealilurnla tn points Eu?hEr and east. F's-turn full: [Empl?lldl? Halal-e- mam I?m-mu up! l'mun Eartha]: 51ml ~13. 1 Gaunt USE ?ultura Age PanudrF'hase Feature 1 Hamill-r; Feature Mn 2 Name: Baum Use ?ulluta Age PanndIFhE-aa Feature 2 Remarks; ?atd?m 1mm 31E WVDIEJCHUEWHZIHH SEVILLE Appendix I, Figure 1b. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 1, pp. 2 0f 2. 108 ARIZONA STATE MUSEUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CARD 909 A Addmonal Evaluatron Field No ORPI 2019 Site 2 Nat! Reg Opinion Requrred Recorders: A Veecn. .I Renaud DeGayner, I Rodriguez. 8 Hart Recording Organization National Park Service Date Recorded. 06/250019 Archaeological Survey of 18 2 Kilometers (11 3 Miles) of the 8 Mexico International Border Proiecl Name Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Puma County. Anzona(Pr01ect No ORPI 2019 8) Sate Name OREI 2019 B. Site 2 Land status (check one). PVT CTY CO ST TRIB USFS USFW NPS BLM DOD ACE BOR RTC Owner/Agency name Organ Pipe Cactus Nabonal Monument Survey Cons Repository Institute Report Reference. National Park Sennce. lntermountarn Region Archaeology Protect No 2019 Mapname USGS Scnes rState- AZ County Puma El 11 Site Size In FI or Length 28 Width 17 How measured ESI PACE GPS MAP TAPE BL TWN RNG SEC SUBDIVISION um Wit 2 12 porl UTM How were UTMs derived USGS Map 695 Site ORPI 2019 B. Site 2 is a smaII. out moderatety dense. precontact Native American surlace artifact scatter measunng 0 In Ize. The sit i located a oxrmatety?ol the LukevitIe Port west of "tri?e! the parlt. and it ranges rou 28 (92 tt) of Entry and (SW-NE) across the broad alluvral ?ats of the Sonoyta Valley, some west of the western toe slopes of the Sierra .n S-to vegetation consists pr min I of creosote bursage, and salt brush A rarnage Ives apprOximately east or the site, while the Sonoyta River lies rougnIy the southwest A total 0156 artifacts were Identi?ed across ORPI 2019 B. Site 2. Including 31 non-utilized naked stone artifacts 3 utilized secondary ?akes. and 22 plain. undecorated ceramic shards Lithrc matenal types within the site assemblage Include volcanic Igneous rock? chart, chalcedony. and basalt None at the site artifacts are diagnostic. Site ceramic sherds denote a post-Archaic (post 300 CE) occupation. likeiy during the Hohokam Classic period (1 1501400 CE) Gwen its compact Size. ORPI 2019 Site 2 may constitute the remnants of a brief encampment. perhaps 01 no more than a single mg ht tn duration It may be associated and contemporaneous with the dense concentration of seasonal ocwpation sates located Don/nematon type. comm locatnan Agency site :1 War Pro; No Norm! Reg Rec :1 ASH Site No: ASM Procmbit ASM Site CW Row GINO 31.38 1VOI00103VHOUV anus VNOZIUV Appendix I, Figure 2a. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 1, pp. 1 of 2. 109 ARLIDM 5.5mm 51115591? ?nd-:5 Cant?rt: games a: many as appl?l (Hogan, nodamh A [Emmunenanmnepm Jay Cave. nodep'rn [2}Dp3n.dapth Gawdap??l i Evan. depth unknown depth unknuwn {10} Cane. dearth DpEn. expmed am; in pm?le Tupi: Emil-lg brunt! alluvial 1151: annual Vegemlrc-n' ml: humane. and Han Mus-h Geadgg?amls Gliman wry I'Inu gaudy hernia-1mm: Smash! wry Iain-n. 21D i5 para-rat amp-as Elle ?nndhiun' Gnu-d 'Ei't?'ypa [d?u mail I swarm; ?lm-Features with: an Ewing: {In} Features mm annulled anificll It] Features BEWEIHEEI in?ll-acts Assemblage {indicala quanri?ns as munE, estimated rangca for types Hnuwn unfy' tu be presanl. for types nut see-n at the site.) _22_ Caramlc FCH Glass Animal remainsa'ar?facts 2:4 Chipped Stnne She-ll Metal Plant remalnyar?iacta Ground?mne Hialm'ic Ceramic Wand Human remalrc: Uligl?l?i?l?l?s tind??t? a? types 35 munu. E?tlmates. In! Haamhlaga Remarks Erna ceramic mews climate 5 pun-Icahn: (pus! 313D mammalian, likeryr during me thDI-tam Classic penncl {1 150 mn his" wit?jwmb?-l Feature No. Mama Caunl LIE-E: Culture AQH Faamre?l Earmark- Faamre Na. 2 Name Cm nl U'se Culmre Aga Pananha-aa Feature Hamming. halal SHE Catd RH T251531 aw: sun's man-mam um ?[13an anus mama?s Appendix I, Figure 2b. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 2, pp. 2 0f 2. 110 ARIZONA STATE MUSEUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CARD $108 A Additional Evaluation Ferd No 2019 Srte 3 Nat! Reg Recorders A Veeoh. Renaud.J DeGeyneH Rodnguez,$. Hart Recording Organization Nabonal Park Sennoe Date Recorded 0606/2019 Archaeologrcal Survey at 18 2 Kilometers (1 1 jtwes) or'the?u Mexrco lntematronal Border. Protect Name Organ Pipe Cactus Nabonal Monument, Pama County, Arrzona (Preyect 8) Sate Name ORPI. 2019 B. Stte 3 Land status [check one) PVT CTY CO ST TRIB USFS USFW NPS BLM DOD ACE 80R RTC Owner/Agency name Organ Prpe Cactus Natlonet Monument Survey Colts Repetartory Institute. MIA Report Reference Nabonal Park Sconce, lnterrnountatn Regron Archaeology PrOyect No 2019 Macrame uses ?Sme AZ County Puma El 0 See Size In or Length 70 Width 50 How measured 51' PACE GPS MAP TAPE BL TWN RNG SEC SUBDIVISION cnu UTM How were UT Ms derived USGS Mao GPS 2222 Site Description/Remarks. 2019 B. Srte 3 rs a ncan surface hth-c scatter measunn 0 13 ha (0.31 act in SIZO that rs touted aporonmatety the Lukevnlle Port of Entry west at "t8 ?01 the park. a tot ORPI 2019 8 Site 2 The site extends roughly 70 (230 ft) (SSW-NNE) 1* 50 164 ft across the broad alluvlal ?ats at the Sonoyta Valley. and southern edge hes less than ?lorth 01 East Fenoetlne Road. the Roosevett Reservatron Srte etahon mostly ot an understory ot creosote bushes nctuated by several one-n trout chotla A dramage hes a ximatety west of the site. while another ramage res roughly 0! the sate The Sonoyta Rtver Ires roughly rm) to the south-southwest A total of 32 emtacts were across ORPI 2019 B. Site 3. rncludrng 27 flaked stone artrfacts. 3 utmzed flakes, 1 unitace. and bltamal preform Lrth-c matenal types wuthtn the sure assemblage Include rhyoute. volcanrc tgneous rock. ohert. chalcedony, and basalt None or the srte amtacts are dagnosbc A small cobble cluster of only a course rn bought and 0t undetermmate function also occurs the Site boundanes Thus cluster measures approxrmately 65 cm (25 6 In) (N-tn) (heoght) At toast 15 votoemc Igneous rock and vesroular basalt cobbles comprise the cluster. rangmg in Slle between 27'20x9 cm (10 6-7 913 5 un) and hand cm (2 8:2 4:11 6 rn) 2019 8. Site 3 may be the remnants of a short-term encampment perhaps one used and occurred at some pomt dunng the Archaic period (8.500 BCE - 300 CE) However thus rnterpretatron rs purely speoutabve, based on the absence any oeramrc artifacts Anal-anal Doammuron type 13th mm? on Moon PM Nat-one! ROC on A3. one No: ASM Pro, Mo ASM Pen-rut No museum! an. we. 1 1 ASMSOGCUGRQV 12683 OUVO 311$ ?(13an ELVLS VNOZIUV Appendix I, Figure 3a. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, pp. 1 of 2. 111 FEED. Den-Dammit Guntert [mu many :1 ?pen. rmdapth Rmmheller, nu depth Cam. rundapth {2}Gpan,nnp1n t9} [Ia-m, depth I ?pan. depth depth unhnm Cm. nupth unknown {41 alien. exposed In mania Tm Scum-g: Hum alluvial Hall. 5m: 'u'atIa-p Vagatatlun- In understan- cranial: hum pumtmted try awe-ad chain ?utt than: Gilman vary Hm sandy Int-am Inm- nrmrallr law. I to 15 percent. 519965 Siti- Sandman: Gnu-l Sits Tim! [mom- Iml {31 Milan Elm-tar [Ho nth-:rtaaHJrn wins-bu an In: sum-Ill I In: Fem? with mandala-I: 31111311: (I3: Faint? ?lth NU amuatlm a?llictl ?mmblaga Emmi-mm {Indicate quanhtlau. as mums. ?llmam ra?ga-s, types 11mm vitt'llgl.I In he peanut. "it" tar hams nut seen at the site.) Prahlstunc 13mm: . ?lm-5 Anlmal .33 Gh'rnm Elana Shall Metal Plant rmaln?an?act! Cairn?: Hisluru: Wind Hun-ram f?mains Diagrmalica quanlilj- at cullumltt?-mnnralftuncti??il wine-5 a: taunts. esumata, ar mmhlaga Remark-a The :3an ulceramica mu the assemblage auggalr. that 21:19 E, Sing a may data In the Archaic purlud 13.590 BEE - 3W "human tut-m- mwailIa-imh Ewe-1' WEE-mid Featura Hu. 1 name: ?aunt Use Culture Algae Fe?uthhaE-e Fm?! . .. . -IJ?knw. - Away-y. Unwn MM: Feature Remark. 1 Is a small mutate cluatar nl' unruly a Single mums height am! at ln??l?rmlnate funchurt. This dualur rmaasurns ES {25.15 In} {I'll-Int {Might} At 15 animal: malt. and vesicular hasnll Bobbie-5 :umpnse the cluster. in batman {1m 9-3 5 In} and 15514 cm (2.512 411 in: -F aaturl: Hut. 2 Han-la ?aunt Use Culture A9: FBI Fe-alura 1 Remarks. Elm??t? HEN 12mm nut:- suits wmmi?a?u??v nnasn? aim? mnauv Appendix I, Figure 3b. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 3, pp. 2 0f 2. 112 ARIZONA STATE MUSEUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CARD Side A Recommended Fleld No 2019 8. Slte 4 Natl Reg Oprnlon granola Recorders A Veech, Renaud, DeGaynert Rodnguez. Hart Recording Organization Nahonal Park Service Date Recorded 06/27/2019 Archaeological Survey of 18.2 Kilometers (11 3 Mules) of the Memo lntemaoonal Border. Propel Name Organ Plpe Cactus Nanonal Monument Puma County Anzona (Propel No ORPI 2019 B) Srte Name ORPI 2019 8. Sue 4 Land status (check one) PVT CTY CO ST TRIS USFS USFW NPS BLM DOD ACE 60R RTC OwnerIAgency name Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Survey Colts Repository Institute NIA Report Reference Nanonal Park Servrce lntermountam Regoon Archaeology Protect No. 2019 8 uses Slate, AZ County a a See Srze ?1 Fl or Lenqm 23 Wrath t6 How measmed EST PACE 698 MAP TAPE 81. MN RNG SEC SUBDIVISION UTM pert UTM pen UTM pen UTM pen UTM How were UYMs denved USGS Map GPS 12 2222' Site ORPI 2019 8. Sta 4 us (as presently recorded) a small preconlact Native American surface artifact scatter measunn 02 ha (0 05 ac) Slze. located noximalely ?ol the Port of Entry. eastol the ol the ark. and st ol Aguayta Wash The rule has against the sauthem ?ank o! a the La Abra Plain. and st extends roughly 23 (75 5 11) (MS) - 16 (52 5 1t) (E-W) Its southern edge lies less than of East Fencettne Road. within the Roosevelt Reservation Sate vegetation consists predommatel 01 Du and salmrush rnterspersed am lrunt cholla and saguaro A small dramage Ines approximately east of the slte and another one Ines roughly 0 the The Sonoyta Rlver lres roughly _o the southwest and Ouilobaqurto lies to the east While the amfacts contained mthun the currently demarcated boundanes ol ORPI 2019 8. Sue 4 are small In number they nonetheless are drverse tn vanety and matenal type The Site assemblage lncludes 3 non- utmzed flaked stone anrfacts (2 chen. 1 rhyoltte), 1 retouched obgdlan ?ake. 1 non-duagnoebc chert unllace. 2 brownware ceramrc shards. and 2 manna shell tragments. Other obsidian, manna snell. and cerarmc artxlacts noted (but not recorded) north and upslope of the sute as currently demarcated boundanes?Outsue the parameters 01 the June 2019 Roosevelt Reservation survey?amply that 2019 Stte 4 us actually lar larger .n ooth suze and cornplezuty, warranting more rigorous examlnatron and recordmg at some polnt tn the future, Gwen Its rt ?5 0mm conceivable that 2019 S?e 4 15 a assomated mm the Salt Tratl Corridor leadmg to the Gulf of Cattlomla perhaps one of erlher extended durabon or eprsodoc shon- term use Its exobc and manne shell artifacts clearly mdocate the transport or exchange of raw materials from the Gulf of Caluforma to points further north and east Thus. the one holds OOIOMIBI for yreldung lnlormatlon about precontact reglonal occupatnon. uullzatron. and trade patterns through time Wm! Oocm?entation type doorman location name: 510 In Moor?v 9'01 No l" Nabonal Reg Rec in on No: ASM No Perrml No as: MoreASM See Card Rev 1209: 03'1) ans ?0380? 31718 VNOZIUV Appendix I, Figure 4a. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 4, pp. 1 of 2. 113 MUSEUM 5le amp Side :2 Denns?mnal Contest. [mm if: many as law: :11 Dpem nu depth Huckshelter. m1 depth Cave. nu dumb Elm-m depth Huckshetter, dupth Gave, depth i Span, daplh Finch-Jamar. dapth unkrlu'nm {10} Cane. death unknown DEIIEHI. amused nnly mama Ealhng. Thu sire ?ns againsl the swine-11. ?ank. a law-?ring. wilhm The La Aura Plain Vegulaum: Site vegetation tun-slits 111' lama-gn- and natural-I, mammal clam hull than: and saguam. Beulugw??ns. Harquar?unsJ-gh! annular: Lmllu very- Mum.I Inna-n tl In it] pawl mama Emm?n. Sand Site Type-1mm an!? I is} Artifact SEautr alruar Mamas Hus-rule nn the Features with mated artitacts f?aiura? 1mtl'l NU a?ilar?s mange Enmpnamm {Indicate quanllties as mums, B?hl'l'mlad ranges, fur lypea known only ta be present. I?m types nut seen at the arm.) 3 FER ?31355 Anims? reminyamfatt? Empped Statue 2 ?nal! Metal Plant [Emainwanifacls Groundatnna Ceramic Ilislnn: Wand Human remains magnuslms {lndiE-El? quanliry a: :ullumulamnaral?umtiunal types a3 ?aunts. estimates, ar ELIE ?113an SHEER Assemblage Eta-mm; Site caramic sham danata a wst?r??a? 3'30 manna-dun. Ilftel'; during the Humaharn Glassbn parlod {11511-14311 Exotic absidlan and manna shell :Lea?y indicate the var-snarl 0r exchange 111? raw materhal; Pram The Guif :If In. paints furthat norm and east Fumlfn tug: mum mmwarmnum mu tar mt: sun: Failure Ha Name. Sean: Us: Culluna- Age Periu?IFhasa Feature 1 Remark: Feature HID 2 Name ?aunt U59 Culture Ag: Periadi'Phasa Fealum 2 Hammer 33H 3h: Emu 115.133 Appendix I, Figure 4b. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 4, pp. 2 0f 2. 114 STATE MUSEUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CARD Sade A Additional Evaluahon Field No ORPI 2019 B. Site 5 Natl Reg 09mm _l3e_quifeo_ Recorders A Veech. Renaud. DeGayner.l Rodriguez. 5 Hart Recording Organizatxon National Park Servrce Date Recorded 061280019 Archaeological Survey 01 18.2 Kilometers (11 3 Miles) of the 5 Mexico lntemauonal Border Project Name Organ Prpe Cactus National Monument, Puna County. Name (Project [to QRPI 2019 B) Site Name 2019 B, Site 5 Land status (check one) PVT CW C0 ST TRIB USFS NPS BLM DOD ACE 80R RTC Owner/Agency name Organ Pipe Cactus Nabonal Monument Survey Colts Repository Institute NIA Report Relevance National Park Semce. Interrnountain Region Archaeology Prayer: No 2019 Mannm uses ?smo A2 County Pm an Site Site in Ft or Length 75 Width 35 How measured EST PACE GPS MAP pen UTM pon UTM How were UTMI domed. USGS Map 098 Site Description/Remants ORPI 2019 8. Site 5 IS a multrcomponent surface artifact scatter that encompasses an area 010 located ap roximately -ol the Lukeville Port of Entry. west 01 the #01 the park, west 8. 5K6 3. and lot the lan enship anch entry road Situated Within the Sonoyta Valley. the arts measures roughly 75 (246 1 ft) (NW- SE) 1! 35 (114 rsed across the south-lac slope of a low-lying. cobble-strewn mler?uve which I Site station includes bursage. grasses. a lew mes uile trees and several small 589qu A fairly large. barrage hes approximately west at the site. and another lies roughly east of the srte The Sonoyta River ls Situated roughly ?to the south-southwest A total of 71 artifacts were identified across ORPI 2019 8. site 5. all but one of which are non-diagnostic. preconlact Native American lithic amtacts 01 the 70 identified lithlc artrlacts. some 66 are non-utiltzed ?aked stone rterns. Including 2 tested cobbles, 2 cores. 31 primary ?akes, 24 secondary ?akes. 3 tertiary ?akes. and 4 008083 01 debitage Lithic material types represented this assemblage include volcanic igneous rock. Chen. chalcedony. and basalt The 4 addihonal lrthic artrfacts the Site exhibit rhodihcatlon and probable use. and these Include 1 retouched basalt primary flake. 1 utilized chef! flake, 1 velcamc igneous rock uniface. and 1 volcanic igneous rock bitacal preform The sole historic-pence artifact Identified wrthin ORPI 2019 8. Site 5. situated the site 5 scutheast quadrant. us a brass, 45-70 caliber nne shell cartridge With the exception of the rifle shell canndge it seems reasonable to classify ORPI 2019 B. Site 5 as a precontact Native American lithic procurement and processmg site 01 indetermmate age dowmemlocxlon Mew/5?0 mayhem RIMIRQROC Asusmuo- ASMPomutNo amour cu- or_ . . al__ . . ulna-t - Agra was I I a ASH sir- cm Rev 12/3193 OUVO BUS ?038"? 31'18 VNOZIUV Appendix I, Figure Sa. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 5, pp. 1 of 2. 115 . AHEDHII STATE [?455le ARQMEEIQJEELL ?n Eidn ?entext ishunm menu um] depth [Et?settshelten neuentrl Cave nu depth lEan-en.eeplh {Ht Cave depth i t3}Dpen.deptl1 {Fl Haskell-Hum. death t?l?tci?re Eleni? u?kn?wn My Open. only In grands Tepn. Setting The site Is crisp-steed eases mt- semn-?rasmg tun-pt are law-twee. mettle-mm Intm'?we mic-l1 bracketed lay Mo small east-west-lrenr?ng tl'rsinages. Vegetalten Sits inseam Includes Mileage. grasses. a Few mesqulle trees- snu several amnll magnum [airman new ?ne sandy lean [eallnej Gun?ght Its-rat gravely team, 2 Le 15 pemem slepes Eire Candi?nn: Gene Site Time [manner I {at Muse Scam-r 1th ell-her features urethra an the meters} {tat Features ?seemed mines tel FIE-alums ?lth HIEI Assemblage {Indicate quenliliBe are neurIls. H?hm?ted far @935 Will in be Fll'E?enl Em trees net seen at In: site; Ememle FER Glass ?lm-maul remains-lemme Chipped Stone Shell 1 Metal Plant remains-lemmas Htsteru: Ceremle Hahn: Weed Human remains [indicate quantity sf netlenel twee as enunts. estimates, at 45-?t2I-eallher n'lle shell es Al] 13?; "1 tEttiE Remarks ll'Ie exceptlen at the previeualy .15.?0 caliber ri?e shell manage. It Miami reamnehle tn classify 2019 B, Site 5 53 premnteet Nalwe Amet?ieen llthie pmcurement and prunes-sing Eil'? of undeterm-nata age Feature mm.- 1Gnm1tlm ens Mum mm fer use type a! 'Iur my Feature He Name Gaunt Use Culture Age FenudIF'haie Feature ?l itesnarle Feature Me i Name Eeunl Use Culture Age Feature 2 Hematite: AEM Elle Emil Herr man-11 .I new sue wnasn'? anus Hazlett Appendix I, Figure 5b. ASM Site Card for ORPI 2019 B, Site 5, pp. 2 0f 2. 116