PROPOSED
ELIGIBLITY TESTING PLAN
FOR
AR-03-07-02-536
(Kendrick Mountain)
BY
Melissa R. Schroeder
Assistant Forest Archaeologist
Kaibab National Forest
800 South 6th Street
Williams, Arizona 86046
0
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
PROJECT DISCRIPTION AND LOCATION .............................................................. 4
ENVIROMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................ 4
CULTURAL HISTORICAL SETTING ......................................................................... 5
THE COHONINA .......................................................................................................... 5
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ............................................ 8
AR-03-07-02-536 ............................................................................................................ 9
EFFECT OF PROJECT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES.......................................... 11
TRIBAL CONSULTATION .......................................................................................... 11
TEST METHODS ........................................................................................................... 12
TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS ...................................................................... 13
LABORATORY METHODS ........................................................................................ 14
ANALYTICAL METHODS .......................................................................................... 14
LITHIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 14
Debitage ........................................................................................................................ 14
Projectile Points ............................................................................................................ 14
Groundstone Analysis ................................................................................................... 14
CERAMIC ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 15
REPORTS ........................................................................................................................ 15
REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 16
APPENDIX A. ................................................................................................................. 20
Site Maps ...................................................................................................................... 20
1
INTRODUCTION
The Pumpkin Fire burned approximately 14,760 total acres on Kendrick Mountain on both
the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests in May and June of 2000. During the summer of
2001, multiple severe monsoon storm events occurred in the Williams-Flagstaff area of
Northern Arizona resulting in flash flooding and erosion. On July 6, 2001, 3-4 inches of rain
fell within an hour over Kendrick Mountain, causing high velocities and volumes of water to
flow between Pumpkin Center and the Kendrick Trailhead. The flows did not follow natural
drainages, but flashed down the mountain slopes. This storm was the first of two that month
that would be considered 100-year flood events. Forest employees observed one of the high
energy debris flows caused from the first storm that was about two feet high carrying
boulders, tree stumps, and rocks. These two flood events significantly impacted three areas
on and around the base of the mountain: an area west of Kendrick Spring, Pumpkin Center
and Newman Tank. High concentrations of Cohonina sites are known to be within these
areas. (Lesko et al. 2002)
Figure 1. Flooding and debris flow over FS road 171.
1
Figure 2. Flooding and debris flow over FS road 171.
Figure 3. High energy sheet wash flows across forest lands and road.
Centers of Cohonina occupation occur just east of private lands in Pumpkin Center. A
concentration of Cohonina sites is peripheral to Pumpkin Pueblo, one of the few plaza sites
on the Kaibab. The Pumpkin Center area was spared from impacts the fire and its
suppression, but was directly affected by the subsequent erosion. The high volume of water
from the flooding events cut through or washed over many sites and simply washed some of
them away. For a few sites, the white bands painted on boundary trees are the only evidence
2
that small masonry rubble mounds had been present. In the same area, private homes were
flooded and sustained minor damage. (Lesko et al. 2002)
Figure 4.)Sheet wash and flood deposits over area near Pumpkin center
Figure 5. Flooding at private homes near project area, note wood debris in right photo.
In 2001 site condition assessments were completed for 29 sites. Fourteen sites were
identified for immediate soil and site stabilization or tree felling treatments. Soil and site
stabilization involved installing straw waddles and felling burned trees over the site area to
slow water flows and retain soil. Felling treatments involved the mechanical felling of
burned trees located inside masonry structures or adjacent to structural walls to prevent the
root balls from damaging the structures. In 2002 heritage staff identified that water erosion,
road construction, and vandalism had impacted site AR-03-07-02-536. Kaibab National
Forest Heritage Managers determined that Site 536 requires testing to evaluate if the site is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. If testing reveals the site is eligible, the
results will assist managers in developing a data recovery plan if necessary to recover
significant information before it is permanently lost from cumulative adverse impacts.
3
PROJECT DISCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The project is located on the Kaibab National Forest, Arizona, within the Williams Ranger
District on the west side of Kendrick Mountain. The project proposes to test site AR-03-0702-536 to determine the extent and depth of cultural materials and the severity of disturbance
from natural and human impacts.
ENVIROMENTAL SETTING
The project area is located on alluvial fans on the west side of the base of Kendrick
Mountain. Elevation in the project area ranges from 7200 ft to 7400 ft. Kendrick Mountain
reaches to 10,418 ft at its peak. The dominant vegetation in the area is ponderosa pine forest
with aspen and mixed conifer at the higher elevations. An open grassland prairie is west of
the project area. The under story vegetation includes a variety of grasses, forbs, and shrubs
such as serviceberry, locust, sage, yucca, and cacti. Ground cover in the project area is
sparse, with a majority of the area denuded of vegetation from high-energy sheet flow
erosion and down cutting.
Soils are moderately deep to deep with varying concentrations of internal coarse fragments.
Soil pedogenisis is weak due to the acidic nature of the rhyolite parent material (Swartz
1983:2). The soil is a loam to sandy loam, with weak sub angular blocky structure in the B
horizon (cambric). The various hills surrounding Kendrick Peak, and the peak itself, are all
volcanically formed and comprised of vesicular basalt (Swartz 1983:2). Basalt rocks from
the local area were commonly used in the construction of prehistoric and some historic
structures. Many local sources of various types of obsidian are available in the area that were
used and traded by the prehistoric populations. Surface water is seasonally available for short
periods of time in shallow bedrock pockets and puddles following precipitation episodes.
Permanent water sources are available from Kendrick Spring, Newman Spring, and Spring
Valley all of which are within a 4-5 mile distance from the project area.
The climate of the Williams area varies with the topography. The project area receives an
average of 22 inches of precipitation a year and 70 inches snow fall. Mean temperatures
range in the winter from 15-41 F degrees, and range between 62-73 F degrees during the
summer months. A few days in the summer temperatures reach the mid to high 80’s F.
(Western Regional Climate Center)
A variety of wildlife is found within the Kaibab National Forest. Over 98 species of
mammals have been observed in the area. The more commonly seen species are squirrels,
chipmunks, rabbits, elk, mule deer, antelope, and coyote. There are 264 bird species that nest
or annually visit within the area, some are on the endangered or threaten list: Bald Eagle,
American Peregrine Falcon, and the California condor. Also 44 species of reptiles have been
observed within the forest. (Kaibab National Forest 2003)
4
CULTURAL HISTORICAL SETTING
Currently, 7,836 archeological sites have been documented within the Kaibab National
Forest, representing intensive surveys for projects on over 30 % of forest lands. Most of
these sites represent prehistoric use of the Coconino and Kaibab Plateaus by the ancestors of
the Hopi and Zuni, the Southern Paiute, and the Pai (Yavapai, Hualapai and Havasupai). The
following discussion focuses on the South Kaibab and near the project area.
The South Kaibab has been home to people more or less continuously since the Archaic
period beginning about 8,000 years ago. Except for the past century, the most widespread
and intensive periods of use occurred during the middle to late pueblo periods, primarily the
Cohonina but also other prehistoric Puebloan people, particularly on the Tusayan Ranger
District near Grand Canyon. Sometime around AD 1300, ancestral Pai peoples started to
utilize the Coconino Plateau. Although most areas on the South Kaibab were left by
Puebloan peoples by AD 1200, traditional use of the area for resource procurement and
cultural activities continues to the present by the Hopi, Navajo, Havasupai and the Hualapai
people. Navajo use of the South Kaibab began in the mid 1800s and generally coincided
with the colonization of the area by Anglos.
As the project area sites are culturally affiliated with Cohonina, only information relevant to
the cultural setting of Cohonina culture from AD 700- 1100 will be presented.
THE COHONINA
Southwest scholars are just beginning to understand the Cohonina. For many decades the
Cohonina were thought to be the poor "cousins" of their Puebloan neighbors. Colton and
Hargave first defined the culture of the Cohonina in the 1930s. During 1949 John C.
McGregor conducted excavations of Cohonina sites in the Red Butte and Red Lake areas
north of Williams, and in 1951 in an area east of Mt Floyd approximately 15 miles northwest
of Ash Fork (McGregor 1967; 1951). At Grand Canyon National Park, Joe Ben and Pat
Wheat located and excavated a Pueblo I Cohonina pit house in 1952. Results from Wheat
and Wheat’s work, and McGregor's excavations lacked the material wealth and architectural
complexity compared with the Puebloan people. Forest Service and academic research over
the past 25 years has revealed evidence that the Cohonina were not “poor cousins” of the
ancestral Pueblos, but coequals with different cultural traits and subsistence patterns
(Cartledge 1979, 1986, 1987; Wilcox and Samples 1990; Samples 1992; Samples et. al
1991). The Cohonina possessed complex cultural remains and a variety of material wealth.
Much of this research was focused in an area northeast of Williams in the general vicinity of
Sitgreaves and Kendrick Mountains.
It is likely that the Cohonina seasonally inhabited particular regions depending on the
availability of resources (McGregor 1956; Samples 1992). Samples (1992) proposed that
the Cohonina wintered near Sitgreaves Mt. and summered in the vicinity of Red Butte and
5
the Grand Canyon region. Winter habitation was suggested in the Sitgreaves area from the
presence of deep pit houses, masonry room blocks, interior hearths, above and below ground
storage, and large walled compounds. McGregor’s (1951) work revealed shallow pit house
floors, temporary habitations, and limited activity areas represented by sherd and lithic
scatters in the Red Butte and Red Lake areas. Wheat and Wheat’s work (1954) discovered
similar finds as McGregor’s but also included subsurface storage pits. Samples suggests the
sites excavated by McGregor represent the seasonal summer cycle of the Cohonina biseasonal settlement pattern (Samples 1992). Results from current salvage excavations of
Cohonina sites on the South Rim of Grand Canyon support Samples’ idea that Cohonina sites
in the Red Butte – Grand Canyon vicinity were used during foraging activities during the
summer season (Moffitt 1998; Schroeder 1998). In addition to gathering wild resources, the
Cohonina also practiced agriculture but perhaps to a lesser degree than their Puebloan
neighbors.
Cohonina architecture types vary in construction materials, form, function and spatial
patterns. Patterns in structure types are becoming apparent in the archaeological record.
Cohonina sites are clustered into “communities” near prominent topographic features. The
structures within these communities are similar in construction methods and form. When
communities are compared to each other, differences become apparent in the quality of
construction, construction materials and frequency of architecture types. In the Red ButteGrand Canyon area structures consist of long rectangular masonry rooms, alcove and patio
houses, shallow pit houses, forts, single room structures, and shades or ramadas. The
masonry structures were constructed of unshaped limestone rocks and boulders bonded
together in a thick clay mortar. Roofs were constructed out of wood support posts and beams
that were covered with split planks covered with a layer bark and pine needles. Some of the
roofs were covered with a thick layer of clay. Floors were compacted clay or soil that
generally did not have interior hearths, some had interior storage cists and floor features.
Walls were estimated to be no more than 2.5 meters high (5 ft), generally one course thick,
some were double course, under a meter think. Walls of forts were double course rubble
filled one meter thick. Alcove and patio houses had a low masonry foundation covered with a
wood and brush superstructure. Structures found in the Mt. Floyd area have similar forms
but also included interior fire features, associated storage rooms and agricultural features.
The structures were crudely built of low basalt rock foundations, walls of wattle and daub,
and heavy roofs of wood support posts and beams. Floors were roughly prepared surfaces of
clay or semi-compacted soil with the rocks removed. Fort type structures were also recorded.
The Sitgreaves Mt Community has more substantial structures that suggest possible
permanent habitation and year around or winter season use. Well defined deep pit house
structures with interior hearths and associated storage rooms are common in this area. Larger
masonry structures with multiple rooms and associated single circular and rectangular
structures are present. These large structures also include forts that were built in a
rectangular form with a substantial outer perimeter wall that has a thickness greater than 1
meter. Interior living and storage rooms are attached to the perimeter wall. A large central
plaza is located with the interior of the rectangle. The Fort walls are constructed using a
double course of basalt rocks and boulders filled with basalt rubble. Single house structures
with one to two rooms are common. Soil platform mounds are also noted in the area. Most
6
of the structures are built with a single course or thin double course of basalt rocks bonded
together with a clay mortar. Wall heights ranged between 1.5-3 meters. Roofs were
constructed of wooden support posts and beams covered with clay.
The Pumpkin Community structures are similar in construction materials to the Sitgreaves
community but there appear to be differences in the frequencies of structure types and
construction methods. More surface structures are found as compared to deep pit houses.
Fort sites or large masonry structures are more U or C shaped rather than rectangular. Some
structures may have had two stories. Soil mounds are more commonly found. The structures
appear to be constructed with less attention to methods and selection of materials.
The Cohonina produced a pottery, San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware, using the coil, paddle
and anvil technique. The most common utility type is Deadman’s Gray. The clay is derived
from local residual sources and is tempered with fine-medium grained quartz-feldspar sand.
Decorated types are gray with black pigment designs that are the same as Kana’a and Black
Mesa types of the Tusayan White Ware (Puebloan Branch). Another commonly produced
type was Deadman’s Fugitive Red that was covered with hematite. This type is
contemporaneous to the similar Puebloan Tusayan Gray Ware type Lino Fugitive Red.
Common vessel forms are storage jars, ollas, and bowls. Cohonina sites often contain
diverse assortments of ceramic types, including Puebloan trade wares. Through time, the
percentage of Puebloan trade wares increases in the ceramic assemblage, although San
Francisco Mountain Gray Ware remains dominant into early Pueblo II times. The Cohonina
used various material for ornamentation: stone and shell beads, turquoise beads and pendants,
stone or mineral rings.
The Cohonina used a variety of stone tools made from local and imported materials.
Obsidian is the most commonly found lithic material used by the Cohonina. Archaeological
evidence supports that the Cohonina may have traded obsidian with their local Puebloan
neighbors to the north, east and south. Groundstone artifacts were frequently manufactured
from vesicular basalt and Coconino sandstone.
The Cohonina people are hypothesized as originating from a combination of Basketmaker IIIII period populations; groups from the Virgin Anasazi area that migrated across the Grand
Canyon to the Coconino Plateau and local Basketmaker communities that had developed in
situ from Archaic populations (Fairley; Hanson 1996). The Cohonina communities left the
Kaibab area and/or merged with the local Puebloan populations by AD 1150. The Hopi,
Havasupai, and Hualapai, all claim ancestral affiliation to the Cohonina. Currently, most
archeologists disregard the possibility of direct ancestral links between the Cohonina and the
Havasupai based on only material evidence (Euler 1981; Jones and Euler 1979:9-10; Hanson
1996; Schwartz n.d.). However, conclusive evidence for or against this proposition is still
lacking. Current data may support that the modern Havasupai may in deed be the
descendants of Cohonina as they claim through their oral traditions, in addition to being the
descendants of the academically accepted Cerbat (ancestral Pai) populations. Havasupai
material culture during the proto-historic period includes several similar Cohonina
architecture types, construction methods and a similar bi-seasonal settlement pattern. Future
research may provide conclusive answers to Cohonina origins and migrations.
7
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Most of the Kendrick Mountain area has been previously surveyed for timber sales and other
vegetative treatments, except for the very steep mountain slopes (Logan 1990,1991;
Cartledge 1982; Dosh 1991; Farnsworth 1992). Sites within the Kendrick Mountain area
date from the Archaic period through the Historic period. Only a few sites date to the earlier
and later periods. A large majority of the sites are affiliated with the Cohonina culture, have
very low to low artifact densities, are single one to two room surface masonry structures with
associated features, and were occupied sometime between AD 700 - 1150. Soil mounds are
commonly found, which may be the remnants of wattle and daub structures. A few central
sites with masonry room blocks (20- 25 rooms), a plaza and a kiva are found near Pumpkin
Center and Kendrick Spring. Pit houses have also been recorded in the area but are not as
frequent as in the Sitgreaves Mountain area. Obsidian lithic scatter sites are prevalent around
the mountain. These sites are associated with the obsidian sources on the north and east sides
of Kendrick Mountain (Shackley 1988). Heritage resource projects have revealed that
Cohonina sites recorded in the Williams District are clustered into communities near
prominent topographic features (i.e. cinder cones, Mountain peaks) (Hanson 1996). The
biggest community clusters are in the vicinity of Kendrick Spring and Pumpkin Center
(Logan 1991, Cartledge 1985, Schwartz 1983).
In 2001, the Heritage staff of the Kaibab National Forest intensively surveyed 4,185 acres
and conducted site condition monitoring within and around the Pumpkin Fire burn area
within both the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests, resulting in the discovery of 39
heritage resource sites and 23 isolated occurrences. Outside of the burn area Heritage staff
identified the earliest ceramic site on the Forest. It contains 10 soil mounds, dates to the
Early Pueblo I period and is believed to have been occupied by Cohonina residents. Also on
the Kaibab side of Kendrick Mt. a few Cohonina pit houses were located around 8000 ft and
a rock shelter with ceramics at 8700 ft. The discovery of these sites at higher elevations
suggests that ideas about Cohonina settlement patterns and land use may be more variable
then previously assumed.
In 2000, 2001,and in the spring of 2002 heritage staff conducted site condition assessments
for 42 sites affected by the Pumpkin Fire. Monitoring revealed that fourteen sites had direct
and/or indirect impacts from the fire. Seven sites were stabilized with water diversion
techniques (i.e. straw waddles, fell tree check dams) while on four other sites trees killed by
the fire within and near structure walls were felled to prevent severe irreparable damage to
structures and features. The current project proposes test excavations at AR-03-07-02-536.
8
AR-03-07-02-536
This Cohonina habitation site was originally recorded in 1981 and consists of a circular
masonry structure with a possible entrance or adjacent room, a 5 x 7 meter soil mound, and a
shallow depression. The site is spread over 1600 sq meters. In 2003 the site was rerecorded
and mapped. Only six artifacts were observed in addition to the structures and features. The
site consists of circular masonry structure five meters in diameter with a half meter high
rubble mound. A depression is located in the center. The structure is constructed of uncoursed basalt rocks and is estimated to have been five to six courses high based on the
rubble mound.
Figure 7. Circular structure. Fallen tree over pot hunter hole in center of structure.
Adjacent to the structure are two partially visible linear rock alignments. One is
approximately four meters long generally aligned in a north –south direction and the other is
approximately seven meters long aligned in a northeast-southwest direction. They connect at
their south ends and are situated on a soil mound that appears to be attached to the circular
structure. This may be an adjoining room or entrance. The structure may be an Alcove or
Patio house with surface rubble. The interior of the circular structure has been pot hunted in
the past (pre-1981). A 30cm x 50 cm deep hole is located in the center. In 1981 the only
artifacts noted in the area were a few Tusayan Gray Ware sherds. Both the circular structure
and attached rock alignments appear not to have been directly impacted by sheet flow
deposits. The flows surrounded these features. FR 154 cuts through the middle of the site
and is aligned along the side of these features. The road has cut 30cm below the original
ground surface and may have removed features when it was originally constructed. The
eastern edge of the road directly abuts the northwest side of the circular rubble mound. In
2003 archaeologists noted a pressure flake of Government Mt obsidian and two sherds (San
Juan Red ware, Deadman’s Fugitive Red) adjacent to the west side of the structure on the
edge of the road cut.
Just over a meter north of the circular structure is a three meter diameter shallow depression,
suggestive of a pit house. In this area there has been extensive alluvial deposition and
erosion from sheet washing and some down cutting. The road directly abuts this possible
structure. Southeast of the depression is a level area that may have buried features. The
depression and the area to the southeast have thick deposits of silt from alluvial sheet flows.
9
Figure 8. Overview of depression. Staff member is standing next to circular structure. Edge of road FR 154 in
forground.
A rill 10-20cm deep down cuts at the north end of the depression and continues across the
road to the west. Across the road two artifacts were located near the rill, a plain San Juan
Red Ware bowl sherd and a small quartzite cobble. The quartzite material is not local to the
area.
Approximately 20 meters to the north of the circular structure is an ephemeral soil mound 5 x
7 meters in size, with a rise of 30-40cm above the ground surface. A third or more of the
mound has been impacted by modern road construction activity. The southern portion of the
mound was utilized as a borrow pit prior to the initial site recording in 1981. At present the
mound is covered with vegetation.
Figure 9. Overview of mound.
Borrow pit area is in foreground.
Pit area has been filled in by
sheet wash deposits. Intact
portion of mound is covered with
grasses. Pink flagging marks
edge of site boundary.
No artifacts were observed
in the area during 1981 or
2003. High energy sheet
erosion flowed around the
mound and deposited silt
and other debris in the
borrow area.
10
Figure 10. Overview of high energy sheetwash erosion and deposits over the northeast quadrant of Site 536.
In the northeast portion of the site a few meters from the east side of the road a fist sized
chunk of Partridge Creek obsidian with cortex was noted. The site has been severely
impacted from natural and human causes. The site is bisected by FR 154. This road was
washed out by the high energy debris flows and sheet washing events after the Pumpkin fire.
Debris flows and sheet washing impacted 99% of the site area. Evidence of more severe
impacts in the northern 2/3 of the site area is visible by deep silt deposits, numerous rills and
gravel and cobble bars.
In 1981 only a few sherds were observed. The ground surface was covered by a heavy duff
layer. There is a high probability that if other artifacts were present before the flood events
they have been disturbed and buried by the alluvial deposits or were washed down slope.
EFFECT OF PROJECT ON HERITAGE RESOURCES
Currently the eligibility of site AR-03-07-02-536 to the National Register of Historic Places
is unevaluated. Testing will be conducted to see whether the site retains sufficient integrity
and significant information for eligibility to the National Register
TRIBAL CONSULTATION
Both the Hopi and Havasupai tribes were consulted regarding this project. The Havasupai
tribe requested that at their discretion they have a monitor be on site while test excavations
are preformed, but a monitor is not necessary to conduct the project. Members of the Hopi
11
Cultural Resource Advisory Team have visited the Pumpkin Center area to view the
extensive erosion damage to heritage resources. This testing plan has been submitted to the
Havasupai and Hopi Tribes for review and comment. All comments and concerns will be
considered. Both tribes will be briefed on the test results and sent a copy of the report.
TEST METHODS
The following methods are designed to determine the depth, extent, form and complexity of
cultural material in a spatially controlled manner, and to determine if site 536 still retains
information eligible for the National Register after being severely impacted from natural and
human causes. A 100% surface field analysis and a .009 % subsurface sample of the (14.5
sq m out of 1600 sq m) of the total site area will be recovered. To determine the site
function, structure types and intra site spatial patterns, all structures and features will be
mapped and surface artifacts will be point provenienced utilizing a surveyor's total station. A
field analysis will be completed for all surface artifacts. The rate of manual excavation will
vary with soil depth and soil compactness. The maximum soil depth is expected not to
exceed 100 cm. Soil compactness ranges from loose silty loam mixed with volcanics to
compact fine clayish soil.
The date of occupation for the site will be determined by analyzing all surface artifacts that
could provide temporal information. In addition, if a subsurface structure or feature is
located with dendrochronological data, samples will be taken for both dendrochronology and
carbon-14 dating. Suitable materials could be obtained from structural beams and possible
hearths. This information will be used in combination with any artifactual remains and
information of the sites’ formation processes.
If subsurface features (except hearths) or storage/processing artifacts are located, pollen and
macrobotanical samples will be taken, where appropriate, to define the time of year of
occupation and the ethnobotanical uses of the site. Hearth features will be excluded from
sampling since pollen is destroyed by high temperatures (Smith 1994). Soil and pollen
samples will be collected from trench walls.
Detailed plan and profile drawings will be made of all tests units with a depth greater than 10
cm, and wall profiles will be completed for each trench. Digital photographs and color slides
will be taken of all features. All artifacts, photographs, maps and field notes will be
permanently curated at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisors Office. All confidential
information will be restricted from published reports.
Manual excavations will be done in 1 x 1 meter units. Four excavation units will be
judgmentally placed within or adjacent to feature areas, artifacts and architecture to
determine if any subsurface cultural deposits exist and if any subsurface features or structures
are present (see map). One is proposed in the center of the pot hunter’s hole, the second in
the area of the attached rock alignments, the third will be placed seven meters south of the
circular structure, and the fourth will be placed in the area where the quartzite cobble and
12
sherd are located. If a subsurface feature or structure is discovered, excavation of that unit
will be completed. The portion of the feature or structure that is revealed in the unit will be
mapped and photographed. All manually excavated units will be dug in arbitrary 10 cm
levels unless natural stratigraphy is identified. If natural stratigraphy is identified units will
be excavated in contour levels. All soil will be screened through 1/4 inch mesh screen. All
units will be excavated until sterile soil or bedrock is reached, whichever occurs first. Sterile
soil is defined as two consecutive 10 cm levels void of any cultural material. Based on past
Cohonina site excavations on the Williams District, it is anticipated that if subsurface cultural
materials are present, cultural material will not extend below 45 cm in depth. All units will
be backfilled upon completion.
Site AR-03-07-02-536 has a very low surface artifact density (1 artifact < per 260 sq.
meters). Three judgmentally placed mechanically excavated test trenches (two 70 cm wide
x 5 m long, x ~1.5 m deep, and one 70 cm wide x 5 m long, x ~1.5 m deep) are proposed for
use instead of random sample units to reveal any subsurface cultural deposits or features and
to view site stratigraphy. One trench will be placed in the southern portion of the site over
the three meter depression, aligned in a north-south direction. The second trench will be
placed in the north east quadrant within the severely impacted area, aligned in a slightly
northeast-southwest direction. The third trench will be placed over the middle of the soil
mound and borrow pit, aligned north-south. All trenches will be excavated to the extent of
the hoe arm or bedrock which comes first. .. Each trench will be monitored during
excavation, and backdirt piles examined for the presence of cultural material. Trench side
walls will be straightened and cleaned off to view if any intact subsurface cultural deposits
are present. Digital photographs will be taken of each side wall. A wall and soil profile will
be drawn for each trench. Soil and pollen samples will be collected for analysis. Trenches
will be backfilled when work is completed.
TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS
Encountering human skeletal remains in the testing at Site 536 is exceedingly unlikely, as
only six Cohonina inhumations have ever been encountered within sites on the Kaibab. In
the extremely unlikely event that human skeletal remains are encountered during test
excavations and/or construction of cobble riprap along cut banks, the following procedures
will be invoked:
1. All excavation or work in the immediate area where human remains are revealed will
immediately stop.
2. Exposed remains and any associated artifacts will not be removed and will be covered
up in place.
3. Excavation in the immediate area of the human remains will not continue, the
excavation unit will be backfilled. Notification will be made to all culturally
affiliated tribes within 24 hours of discovery.
13
LABORATORY METHODS
During the test excavation all artifacts will be bagged by location and level, and sorted into
separate bags of material to assist in laboratory processing and cataloguing. After the
unit/level bags are brought in from the field, each bag will be given a field specimen number
for tracking proposes. When the test excavation is completed, all artifacts will be washed
and given a Kaibab catalogue number. If lithic tools are found they will be separated from
the debitage and assigned an individual Kaibab catalogue number. Debitage from the same
unit and level will be given the same catalogue number. Sherds from the same unit and level
will be given the same catalogue number. Ceramic artifacts (i.e. spindle whorl, whole
vessels) will be given an individual catalogue number. Each groundstone artifact will be
given a catalogue number. If any faunal material is recovered it will be given the same
catalogue number when it was from the same unit/level bag. Microsoft Access and Excel
programs will be utilized for artifact analysis.
ANALYTICAL METHODS
LITHIC ANALYSIS
Debitage
This analysis will examine the chipped stone artifacts at a minimum descriptive level and the
surface assemblage at the analytical level. Recording each artifacts morphological type,
possible function and raw material. All of the defined attributes below will be used for the
more detailed analysis of the surface assemblage. The following attributes will be recorded
at a minimum for the descriptive analysis: raw material, artifact type, maximum width and
length of complete tools, tool type, and heat alteration. All artifacts will be examined
visually under 10x magnification for signs of edge damage caused by use wear.
Projectile Points
The projectile point analysis will follow attributes and methods used by Amy Horn-Wilson
(1999) for analysis of Cohonina points. This will allow consistent comparisons between data
for information collected from the Kaibab. Details are available upon request, but will not be
listed here.
Groundstone Analysis
Groundstone tools will be divided into three, broad descriptive categories These are (1)
manos, which consist of any hand tools used in processing tasks, (2) metates, which are
14
ground surface on which processing activities occur (including milling stones), and (3) other,
which include any groundstone artifacts not obviously used as manos or metates. This third
category also encompasses artifacts which are shaped, but show no evidence of use in
processing activities and may have been used for jar lids, palettes, or other purposes. Details
are available upon request, but will not be listed here.
CERAMIC ANALYSIS
All sherds will be washed and catalogued. The sherds will be identified and sorted by type
and ware. All sherds from a unit/level bag will be sorted by ceramic type and bagged into
smaller separate bags within the unit/level bag. This will allow future researchers to compare
and observe the sherd identification by the analyst. Identification will be based on the
typology developed by Colton and Hargrave (Colton and Hargrave 1937, Colton 1952, 1953,
1955) and typing procedures and ceramic attributes will be coded following the Museum of
Northern Arizona/Verde Valley Archaeological Society Sitgreaves Project-Ceramic Analysis
Coding Format (Wilcox and Samples 1995: Appendix B) to allow for comparisons of
material. Details are available upon request, but will not be listed here.
REPORTS
Field work is expected to be completed by October 1, 2003. A preliminary report will be
submitted to SHPO within six months of completion of field work and will consist of a brief
summary of accomplished field work and preliminary results. A draft final report will be
completed within one year and provided to SHPO for their review and comment. Contents of
the report will include the following: Background, Analyses, Dating, Interpretation,
Synthesis, References, Maps and Photographs. Style will conform to the style prescribed by
the Society of American Archaeology. Within three months of receiving the SHPO review
and comments, a final report will be completed and distributed to the following parties: the
Forest Service Southwest Regional Office, the State Historic Preservation Officer, Havasupai
Tribe, Hualapai Tribe and the Hopi Tribe.
15
REFERENCES CITED
Cartledge, Thomas
1979 Cohonina Adaptation to the Coconino Plateau: A Re-evaluation. Kiva 44 (4):297-317.
1982 Basin Timber Sale, Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file: Kaibab National Forest,
Williams, Arizona.
1985 Pumpkin Timber Sale Expansion, Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file: Kaibab
National Forest, Williams, Arizona.
1986 Prehistory and History of the Cohonina Plateau Region, Northern Arizona: A Cultural
Resource Overview. Ms. on file, Kaibab National Forest, Williams, Arizona.
1987 Current Concepts in Cohonina Prehistory. Paper presented to the A.A.C. Meeting in
Flagstaff, Arizona. Ms. on file, Kaibab National Forest, Williams Arizona.
Colton, Harold S.
1952 Pottery Types of the Arizona Strip and Adjacent Areas in Utah and Nevada. Museum
of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series No.1 Flagstaff.
1953 Potsherds. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin No.25 Flagstaff.
1956d Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares 5A, 5B, 6B, 7A, 7B, 7C, San Juan Ware,
Homolovi Orange Ware, Winslow Orange Ware, Awatovi Yellow Ware, Jeddito
Yellow Ware, Sichomovi Red Ware. Museum of Northern Arizona Ceramic Series
No. 3C. Flagstaff.
1958 Pottery Types of the Southwest: Wares 15, 16, 17, 18. Revised Descriptions,
Alameda Brown Ware, Tizon Brown Ware, Lower Colorado Buff Ware, Prescott
Gray Ware, San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware. Museum of Northern Arizona
Ceramic Series No. 3D. Flagstaff.
Colton, Harold S., and L.L. Hargrave
1937 Handbook of Northern Arizona Pottery Wares. Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin
No.11. Flagstaff.
Dosh, Deborah
1991 Government Assessment Area, Cultural Resource Survey. Manuscript on file: Kaibab
National Forest, Williams, Arizona.
Euler, Robert C.
1981 Havasupai-Cohonina relationships in the Grand Canyon. In Collected Papers in Honor
of Erik Kellerman Reed, edited by Alfred H. Schroeder, pp. 167-175. Anthropological
Papers No.6.Archaeological Society of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
16
Fairley, Helen C.
1979 A Re-Assessment of Cohonina Cultural Affiliations. Ms. on file, Kaibab National
Forest, Arizona.
Farnsworth, Linda
1991 Crowley Forest Products Sale, Cultural Resource Survey. Manuscript on file:
Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Hanson, John
1996 Cultural Affiliation Assessment: Cohonina. In Cultural Affiliations: Prehistoric
Cultural Affiliations of Southwestern Indian Tribes. Report prepared by professional
archeologists of the USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region; Bureau of Land
Management, Arizona and New Mexico State Offices; and Arizona State Museum.
USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque. Copy on file, USFS Kaibab
National Forest, Supervisors Office, Williams, Arizona.
Horn-Wilson, Amy
1997 Projectile Points of the Cohonina: A Pilot Study. MA thesis, Northern Arizona
University, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Jones, A. Trinkle, and Robert C. Euler
1979 A Sketch of Grand Canyon Prehistory. Grand Canyon Natural History Association,
Grand Canyon, Arizona. 14pp.
Kaibab National Forest
n.d. Archaeological site files. On file at the Supervisors Office, Kaibab National Forest,
Arizona.
Lesko, Lawrence M.
1989 A Reexamination of Northern Arizona Obsidians. Kiva 54(4):385-399
Lesko, Lawrence M
2000 The Pumpkin Fire. Ms. on file: Kaibab National Forest, Williams, and Arizona.
Lesko, Lawrence M, Daniel Sorrell and Neil Weintraub
2002 The Pumpkin Fire and its Aftermath or Water Flows Downhill Fast. Paper presented
at the 67th annual meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, March 2002,
Denver, Colorado. Ms. on file: Kaibab National Forest, Williams, and Arizona.
Logan, Noel
1990 Mesa Assessment Area, Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file: Kaibab National
Forest, Williams, Arizona.
1991 Final Site Monitoring Kendrick Land Management Services Contract, Cultural
Resource Survey. Manuscript on file: Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, Arizona.
17
McGregor, John C.
1950 Excavation of Cohonina Sites, 1949. Plateau, Vol.22, No.4, pp.68-74, Flagstaff.
1951 The Cohonina Culture of Northwestern Arizona. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
1967 The Cohonina Culture of Mount Floyd, Arizona. University of Kentucky Press,
Lexington.
McNamee, Calla
2002 Pumpkin Fire Inventory, FY 2002 Ms. on file, Kaibab National Forest, Williams,
Arizona.
Moffitt, Steven A.
1998 Cohonina Adaptation at the South Rim: Results from the Mather Point Orientation
Center Project, Grand Canyon Arizona. Paper presented at the 63rd annual meeting of
the Society of American Archaeology , March 25, 1998, Seattle, Washington. Ms on
file, Grand Canyon National Park Science Center, Grand Canyon, Arizona.
National Archives and Records Administration
1992 Code of Federal Regulations 36. Parks, Forests, and Public Property. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Samples, Terry
1989 A Preliminary Analysis of Deadman's Gray in the Sitgreaves Mountain Area, Kaibab
National Forest. MS on file , Kaibab National Forest, Williams Arizona.
1992 Cohonina Archaeology: The View from Sitgreaves Mountain. Unpublished Master's
Thesis. Department of Anthropology Northern Arizona University, Arizona.
Samples, Terry, David R. Wilcox, and John Hanson
1991 Permit Report to Kaibab National Forest on Work of the 1990 MNA/NAU/Oberlin
Archaeological Field School and Subsequent Studies During 1991. Museum of
Northern Arizona, Department of Anthropology. Ms. on file, Kaibab National Forest,
Williams, Arizona.
Schroeder, Melissa
1998 The Pinyon Park Project: Salvage Investigations for Sites AZ:B:16:104B and
AZ:B:16:355. Draft Report on file, Science Center, Grand Canyon National Park,
Arizona
Schwartz, Douglas W.
1955 Havasupai prehistory: thirteen centuries of cultural development. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Yale University.
n.d.
On the Edge of Splendor: Exploring Grand Canyon's Human Past. School of
American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
18
Schwartz, Jennifer
1983 The Pumpkin Timber Sale, Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file: Kaibab National
Forest, Williams, and Arizona.
Shackley, M.S.
1988 Sources of Archaeological Obsidian in the Southwest: An Archaeological,
Petrological, and Geochemical Study. American Antiquity 53(4):752-772.
Sorrel, Daniel H. and Calla McNamee
2001 Pumpkin Fire Inventory, FY 2001. Ms. on file: Kaibab National Forest, Williams,
and Arizona.
U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service
1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register
Bulletin 15. USDI, NPS, Interagency Resources Division, Washington D.C.
Wheat, Joe Ben and Pat Wheat
1954 A Pueblo I site at Grand Canyon. American Antiquity 19(4): 396-403.
Wilcox, David. R. and Terry Samples
1990 Work Plan for the 1990 MNA/NAU/Oberlin Field School. Ms. on file, Kaibab
National Forest, Williams, Arizona.
Wilcox, David R, Terry Samples and Kelley Hays-Gilpin
1995 Permit Report to Kaibab National Forest on Work of the 1995 MNA Archaeological
Field School with the Verde Valley Archaeology Society. Museum of Northern
Arizona, Department of Anthropology. Ms on file, Kaibab National Forest, Williams,
Arizona.
19
APPENDIX A.
Site Map
20