Archaeological Survey of 13.46 Acres for the Proposed Fry's # 83 Shopping Center in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona
Creators: name: Barr, David M. R.
Publisher: name: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants
Year: 2015
Subjects: subject: Arizona (State / Territory)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/335/arizona-state-territory
subject: Sonoran Desert
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/2772/sonoran-desert
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: Tucson, AZ
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/76651/tucson-az
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: AZ AA:16:86 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101202/az-aa1686-asm
subject: AZ AA:16:605 (ASM)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/101203/az-aa16605-asm
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: Plainware
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/174/plainware
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: Glass
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/6/glass
subject: Ground Stone
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/7/ground-stone
subject: Redware
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/444/redware
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: Site Evaluation / Testing
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/10/site-evaluation-testing

description: The Kroger Company (Kroger) Western Division proposes the Fry’s #83 Shopping Center project in Tucson, Pima County, Arizona. The shopping center would include a Fry’s grocery store, a canopied fuel station and kiosk, a restaurant, shops, and associated parking facilities, as well as the necessary utilities, stormwater retention features, landscaping elements, and ingress and egress. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA), under contract to Kroger, conducted an archaeological survey of the proposed 13.46-acre project area to support City of Tucson cultural resources requirements. An archaeological survey of the project area resulted in the identification of one previously documented site (AZ AA:16:86 [ASM]), one newly identified site (AZ AA:16:605 [ASM]), and 12 IOs. AZ AA:16:86 (ASM) and AZ AA:16:605 (ASM) are low- to moderate-density Hohokam artifact scatters located on an undeveloped lot that was at some point in the past an agricultural field. The two sites meet the Arizona State Museum (ASM) site criteria based on artifact densities; however, the A/NRHP eligibilities of the sites are difficult to determine because of the disturbed surface context of the scatters, and the relatively small size of ceramic sherds, apparently the result of plowing. Without a program of subsurface testing, it is impossible to know whether there are intact buried archaeological deposits of significance. Therefore, eligibility testing is necessary to determine the A/NRHP eligibility of the two sites. The 12 IOs are either isolated surface artifacts or very light, dispersed scatters that do not meet the ASM site definition. The IOs are not likely to be associated with buried archaeological deposits and are recommended ineligible for listing in the A/NRHP. No further archaeological work is recommended for the remainder of the project area. However, if previously undocumented buried cultural resources are identified during ground-disturbing activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery should stop until the find can be evaluated by a professional archaeologist.