PERMFILE111962 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 time. Its Territorial style suggests its consWction by the site's first Hispanic occupant, Lorenzo • Sandoval, who patented the property in 1880. Sandoval sold the property in 1883, beginning a train of ownership with frequent turnover. Additions were made to the original adobe, forming an L- shaped wing off [he southwest wall and extending northwest. Construction details indicate possibly three and maybe four different periods of construction for the addition. The use of fired adobe bricks stacked edge-on as a veneer, the use of wood framing rather than adobe, and the presence of a concrete floor, suggest these additions post-date the earlier Hispanic occupation of the site and may be associated with T. J. Andrews. Finally, by the time the Trujillo family occupied the site, beginning in the nineteen-teens, all of the structures at the site had been built. Alphonso Trujillo, one of the sons, reports that his family did not construct any new buildings or additions. He also has no recollection of a dugout or cellar in the location of Feature 8, suggesting that this feature had been abandoned and filled in by the time the Trujillo family arrived at the site. Excavations in Feature 8 and Structure 1 amount to about seven squaze meters and 16.5 sq m, respectively, for a total of 23.5 sq m. This total does not include Test Pits 5 an 9, excavated earlier this year as part of the testing program. Excavations at Structure 1 were placed in all known rooms. Most walls and corners have been identified, thus providing overall shape and size for the structure. Excavations at Feature 8 have firmly identified the southwest, southeast and northwest walls and the south and east comers. The northwest wall and west comer aze tentatively identified, and the stairway providing entrance to Feature 8 has been identified. Some of the excavations in each room of Structure 1, and in Feature 8, extended to the floor level; others are shallower and were placed primarily to identify corners, wall lines, and wall construction sequences. • Artifacts recovered from Feature 8 and Structure 1 aze summarized in tables provided in Appendix A. Feature 8, Structure 1, and the Structure 1 additions account for a total of 4351 items, of which just over half were recovered from the Structure 1 additions. The Feature 8 assemblage is dominated by vessel and plate glass fragments, split about evenly, and comprising 41 % of the total artifact count. Structure 1, the adobe residence, produced 644 construction nails (as opposed to horse shoe nails), of which about 52% are cut nails. The next most common artifact category is metal scrap, probably primarily pieces of the corrugated tin roof. Structure 1 and Feature 8 are t}te only two proveniences where about half the nails are cut nails. The other site areas produced nail assemblages that are overwhelmingly wire nails, and even the Structure 1 additions produced less than 1 % cut nails. Both vessel and plate glass are very common in each subazea of the Structure 1/Feature 8 complex. Cans and can fragments are most common in the Structure 1 additions area, making up about 4.5% of the assemblage (192 items), in contrast to Structure 1 and Feature 8, from which only seven cans or fragments thereof were found. Bone is also quite common, numbering 547 items, including both domestic and wild taxons, as well as what appears to be a partial domestic cat skeleton. Artifacts from the lithic component aze fairly common in this area, including 235 pieces of chipped stone debitage, three projectile points (two of which were recovered from mortar in the foundation of Structure 1), nine pieces of aboriginal ceramics, two bifaces, three ground stone items, and one uniface (recovered from among a collection of shoes in the northwestern part of the Structure 1 additions). • Four log fragments were recovered from Structure I and have been sent for tree ring dating to the Laboratory for Tree Ring Reseazch at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Two of these logs