Settlement Trends in the Middle San Pedro Valley: A Cultural Resources Sample Survey of the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation
Creators: name: Altschul, Jeffrey H.
name: Jones, Bruce A.
Publisher: name: SRI Press
Year: 1990
Subjects: subject: Arizona (State / Territory)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/335/arizona-state-territory
subject: Fort Huachuca
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/78864/fort-huachuca
subject: United States of America (Country)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/384/united-states-of-america-country
subject: San Pedro Valley
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/78866/san-pedro-valley
subject: Sierra Vista
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/78865/sierra-vista
subject: North America (Continent)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/2890/north-america-continent
subject: Hohokam
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/21/hohokam
subject: AZ EE:7:60
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18543/az-ee760
subject: AZ EE:7:53
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18544/az-ee753
subject: AZ EE:7:52
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18545/az-ee752
subject: AZ EE:7:67
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18546/az-ee767
subject: AZ EE:7:46
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18547/az-ee746
subject: AZ EE:7:165
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18548/az-ee7165
subject: AZ EE:7:159
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18549/az-ee7159
subject: AZ EE:8:180
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18550/az-ee8180
subject: AZ EE:7:39
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16695/az-ee739
subject: AZ EE:7:63
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18551/az-ee763
subject: AZ EE:8:172
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16696/az-ee8172
subject: AZ EE:7:55
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18552/az-ee755
subject: AZ EE:7:38
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16697/az-ee738
subject: AZ EE:11:23
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18553/az-ee1123
subject: AZ EE:7:37
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16698/az-ee737
subject: AZ EE:11:22
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18554/az-ee1122
subject: AZ EE:7:36
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16699/az-ee736
subject: AZ EE:11:20
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18555/az-ee1120
subject: AZ EE:8:168
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16700/az-ee8168
subject: AZ EE:7:49
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18556/az-ee749
subject: AZ EE:8:166
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16701/az-ee8166
subject: AZ EE:7:51
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18557/az-ee751
subject: AZ EE:8:167
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/16702/az-ee8167
subject: AZ EE:7:65
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18558/az-ee765
subject: AZ EE:7:69
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18559/az-ee769
subject: AZ EE:7:70
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18560/az-ee770
subject: AZ EE:11:21
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18561/az-ee1121
subject: AZ EE:11:24
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18562/az-ee1124
subject: AZ EE:7:84
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/18563/az-ee784
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: Rock Art
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/361/rock-art
subject: Domestic Structure or Architectural Complex
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/251/domestic-structure-or-architectural-complex
subject: Midden
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-type/347/midden
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: Metal
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/material-type/11/metal
subject: Ethnohistoric Research
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/17/ethnohistoric-research
subject: Architectural Survey
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/2/architectural-survey
subject: Reconnaissance / Survey
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/7/reconnaissance-survey
subject: Heritage Management
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/24/heritage-management

description: The results of an 8,600-acre survey on the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation are presented. This survey was conducted as part of a larger inventory project, which in total encompassed 12,000 acres of the 73,000-acre fort. The report focuses on two objectives: presenting the descriptive results of the 8,600-acre survey and integrating the results from all surveys conducted on Fort Huachuca into a predictive model of prehistoric site location. The survey design had three main components. First, 38 quarter-section units were surveyed following a simple random sampling design. These units, combined with seven units previously surveyed by Professional Archaeological Services and Technology (P.A.S.T.), led to just under a 10 percent sample of the fort. The random sample results were used to generate parameter estimates and to develop a preliminary predictive model. Testing this model was the primary objective of the second component of the survey. In addition to using all previous ad hoc compliance surveys, specific parcels totaling 2,230 acres were inventoried. Finally, to assess the potential of buried sites on Fort Huachuca, the geomorphic history of the fort was analyzed and deeply entrenched washes in areas conducive to buried materials were surveyed. The survey recorded 84 sites. These sites contained a total of 58 prehistoric and 31 historic components. Prehistoric components were divided into three functional types; habitations, resource processing loci, and artifact scatters of unknown function. Temporal components recognized included Archaic, Formative, and Protohistoric. No diagnostic Paleoindian materials were recovered, although artifacts with a heavy patina were observed that could date to this period. Historic components were grouped into three groups; architectural, dumps, and scatters. Historic resources covered a wide range of activities, most of which were either associated with the military or farming and ranching. A predictive model of site location was created for the prehistoric components. The model was based on the statistical covariation of site location with four environmental variables; namely, elevation, slope, aspect, and soils. The model worked best for sites closely tied to resource procurement, relatively well for habitation sites, and poorly for artifact scatters. The model's performance also varied over space, working very well in the bajada and canyon mouths and very poorly in the Northwest Quadrant of the base. It is hypothesized that the wide fluctuations in the model's predictive strength is related to the role social factors played in decisions concerning site location. To explore site location further, the Fort Huachuca data were integrated into the large database from the entire Middle San Pedro River Valley. This spatial analysis suggested that a pattern of permanent hamlets along the river and at the base of the mountains became established during the Late Archaic Period and remained in place throughout the remainder of prehistory. Social and cultural dynamics related to the emergence of the center of Paquime in Chihuahua, Mexico, appear to have drastically altered this pattern during the Classic Period. At this time a new settlement system was established focused on control of trade and communication routes to the Santa Cruz and Lower San Pedro Valleys. Historic period settlement is examined through a combination of archaeological and archival sources. Major historic themes in the region are defined and avenues of future research are discussed. The report closes with an evaluation of survey techniques and recommendations for future inventory.