Archaeological Testing at Eight Sites on the Fetzer Ranch Property, Pima County, Arizona
Creators: name: Archer, Gavin H.
Publisher: name: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants
Year: 2000
Subjects: subject: Santa Catalina Mountains
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/54336/santa-catalina-mountains
subject: Tuscon Basin
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/84195/tuscon-basin
subject: Prehistoric
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/temporal-keyword/53/prehistoric
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: AZ BB:9:288 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101134/az-bb9288-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:287 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101133/az-bb9287-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:292 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101136/az-bb9292-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:290 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101135/az-bb9290-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:294 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101138/az-bb9294-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:293 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101137/az-bb9293-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:289 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101140/az-bb9289-asm
subject: AZ BB:9:291 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101139/az-bb9291-asm
subject: Trash Midden
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/351/trash-midden
subject: Artifact Scatter
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/340/artifact-scatter
subject: Terrace
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/278/terrace
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: Ground Stone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/7/ground-stone
subject: Ceramic Analysis
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/133439/ceramic-analysis
subject: Lithic Analysis
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/14/lithic-analysis
subject: Artifact Analysis
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/3318/artifact-analysis
subject: Historic Background Research
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/18/historic-background-research
subject: Data Recovery / Excavation
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/5/data-recovery-excavation
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: Site Evaluation / Testing
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/10/site-evaluation-testing

description: The Fetzer Ranch property is located in the northeastern Tucson Basin. Development of the property by the owner, Saguaro Utah, is subject to cultural resources management for Pima County permitting. A research design and plan of work for archaeological testing at eight sites on the private Fetzer Ranch property was approved by Pima County (Archer 1999). PAST conducted an archaeological survey of the Fetzer Ranch property in 1993 and recorded nine archaeological sites. One site was the subject of an SWCA data recovery program in 1996 (Terzis and Slaughter 1996). The eight small sites investigated by this testing program purportedly included a grinding slick site, an Early Agricultural period artifact scatter with possible structural remains, two Hohokam sites with dry farming features, and four Hohokam artifact scatter sites. SWCA tested these sites using methods involving surface collections, backhoe trench excavations, manually excavated test units, transit mapping, photography, and artifact analysis. Surface artifact frequency and bona fide feature counts appeared to be less than the 1993 surveyor’s estimates in most cases. Collecting by nearby residents may have reduced artifact counts at some sites. None of the sites have subsurface cultural remains or significant surficial features. In SWCA’s opinion, the sites are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the testing program sufficiently resolved the adverse effects of development to the sites. SWCA does not recommend additional data recovery.