An Archaeological Survey of 208 Acres in the Northern Portion of Neighborhood 12, Rancho Vistoso, Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona
Creators: name: Hesse, India S.
Publisher: name: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants
Year: 2003
Subjects: subject: Arizona (State / Territory)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/335/arizona-state-territory
subject: Rancho Vistoso
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/83830/rancho-vistoso
subject: Tucson Basin
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/2758/tucson-basin
subject: Pima (County)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/7353/pima-county
subject: Oro Valley, AZ
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/76764/oro-valley-az
subject: Formative Period
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/5645/formative-period
subject: Rincon Phase
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/5632/rincon-phase
subject: Tanque Verde Phase
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/6021/tanque-verde-phase
subject: Ceramic Period
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/5688/ceramic-period
subject: Hohokam
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/21/hohokam
subject: Huhugam
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/8166/huhugam
subject: Historic
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/25/historic
subject: AZ BB:9:379 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100544/az-bb9379-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:381 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100546/az-bb9381-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:148 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100401/az-bb9148-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:380 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100545/az-bb9380-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:383 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100548/az-bb9383-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:382 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100547/az-bb9382-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:150 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100550/az-bb9150-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:149 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/100549/az-bb9149-asm
subject: Resource Extraction / Production / Transportation Structure or Features
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/272/resource-extraction-production-transportation-structure-or-features
subject: Mine
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/290/mine
subject: Archaeological Feature
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/339/archaeological-feature
subject: Artifact Scatter
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/340/artifact-scatter
subject: Cairn
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/341/cairn
subject: Isolated Artifact
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/344/isolated-artifact
subject: Rock Art
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/361/rock-art
subject: Petroglyph
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/363/petroglyph
subject: Plainware
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/174/plainware
subject: Pestle
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/2192/pestle
subject: Mortar
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/177/mortar
subject: Basalt
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/214/basalt
subject: Rhyolite
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/248/rhyolite
subject: Quartzite
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/217/quartzite
subject: Netherstone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/2651/netherstone
subject: Redware
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/444/redware
subject: pecking stone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/2589/pecking-stone
subject: Hammerstone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/94/hammerstone
subject: Ceramic
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/1/ceramic
subject: Chipped Stone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/2/chipped-stone
subject: Mano
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/131/mano
subject: Fire Cracked Rock
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/5/fire-cracked-rock
subject: Ground Stone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/7/ground-stone
subject: Projectile Point
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/71/projectile-point
subject: Brownware
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/457/brownware
subject: Core
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/2121/core
subject: Macrobotanical
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/10/macrobotanical
subject: Red-on-Brown
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/2635/red-on-brown
subject: Archaeological Overview
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/1/archaeological-overview
subject: Historic Background Research
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/18/historic-background-research
subject: Reconnaissance / Survey
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/7/reconnaissance-survey
subject: Records Search / Inventory Checking
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/8/records-search-inventory-checking
subject: Research Design / Data Recovery Plan
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/9/research-design-data-recovery-plan
subject: Systematic Survey
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/12/systematic-survey

description: Between July 23 and August 4, 2003, SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) completed a Class III archaeological inventory of 208 acres of private land in the Town of Oro Valley, Pima County, Arizona. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether any cultural resources existed that might be adversely affected by proposed residential and resort development. The survey was conducted at the request of Mr. Dick Maes of Vistoso Partners. This survey was carried out in order to comply with Town of Oro Valley guidelines and Arizona State regulations regarding cultural resources, and will constitute compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Seven archaeological sites dating to the Formative period, and one late Historic period site were recorded. Four sites are recommended eligible for the National Register, and a site-specific testing and mitigation program is recommended. No further work is recommended at the four remaining sites, including two recommended as National Register- ineligible. The two remaining sites at which no further work is recommended include a site that was not evaluated as a whole, but which includes only non-contributing elements within the project area (Site 149), and a National Register eligible site (Site 148) that has previously been mitigated and which is located just outside the project area’s southern boundary.