Farming on the Floodplain: Archaeology fo the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Center Runway (Runway 7L-25R) Reconstruction Project, Part 2: Appendices

Between December 2000 and June 2005 Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. (ACS) of Tempe, Arizona, completed five field sessions of archaeological monitoring, testing/data recovery I, and data recovery II at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Runway 7L-25R and Taxiways D-E (collectively referred to hereinafter as the Center Runway project). The first session monitored geotechnical boring and coring (Ryan 2001); the second through fourth seasons included additional monitoring plus archaeological testing/data recovery I and data recovery II within the Center Runway project area of potential effect (APE) (Boston et al. 2001; Boston et al. 2003); the fifth and last season comprised additional testing within Taxiways D-E (Aguila et al. 2005). ACS carried out these activities as a subcontractor to Kimley-Hom and Associates,NInc. (Kimley-Horn), who, under contract to the City of Phoenix (the City), designed the reconstruction of the Center Runway and Taxiway D-E at Sky Harbor. The design proposed modifications to the existing Runway 7L-25R; Taxiways D, E, F, R, S, and T; the West and East Recirculating Taxiways; and the existing utility infrastructure. In addition, two construction staging areas, two batch plants, and a borrow site were used by the contractor during the course of construction.

The entire airport is highly modified by grading, modern fill, paving, and building; thus, the ground surface offers few clues to what lies beneath. However, the airport is bounded by known historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, including Pueblo Salado to the immediate west and within the project APE (Greenwald and Ballagh 1996; Greenwald et al. 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; Greenwald et al. 1995), Dutch Canal Ruin to the northwest (Greenwald and Ciolek- Torrello 1988; Greenwald et al. 1994; Henderson 2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004), and Pueblo Grande to the northeast (Bostwick 1993; Bostwick and Downum 1994; Downum and Bostwick 1993a, 1993b) (Figure 1.1). The documented presence of these sites led to the conclusion that additional cultural remains would lie beneath the Center Runway project APE (Archaeological Consulting Services 2001b). The fieldwork was guided by a plan of work for testing and data recovery (Archaeological Consulting Services 2001b; Boston et al. 2001) Excavations were conducted under the authority of Arizona Antiquities Act Project Specific Permit 2001-66ps issued by the Arizona State Museum (ASM). The plan of work was reviewed and approved by representatives of the City, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Because the reconstruction project was still being designed (and therefore the precise project footprint was unknown) at the time that the work plan was reviewed and approved, these parties agreed that the specifics of the plan would remain fluid while staying within approved archaeological discovery and data recovery procedures. Accordingly, Kimley-Horn, ACS, and the City Archaeologist, Dr. Todd W. Bostwick, developed a process of continual consultation, memorandum reports, field visits, and review. A report describing the geotechnical coring and boring was submitted in May 2001 (Ryan 2001). Twenty memorandum reports were prepared and submitted during the initial testing/data recovery I phase, which occurred between April and October 2001. An interim report was prepared and submitted October 2001, after the second phase of fieldwork (Boston et al. 2001), which offered recommendations for additional monitoring, testing/data recovery I, and data recovery II at already-discovered features. These recommended activities were conducted during July and August 2002, and during January 2003.

Two preliminary reports were produced summarizing the results of the field work and outlining recommendations for further archaeological work at the Center Runway (7L- 25R) (Boston et al. 2001; Boston et al. 2003). A third preliminary report was prepared to summarize the findings of additional work at Taxiways D-E (Aguila et al. 2005). This final report presents information on all cultural resources and results of analyses from all phases of fieldwork.

2000年12月至2005年6月期间，亚利桑那州坦佩市的考古咨询服务有限公司（Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd.，下称ACS）在凤凰城天港国际机场7L-25R跑道及D-E滑行道（以下统称"中心跑道项目"）完成了五轮野外作业，内容涵盖考古监测、一级测试/数据恢复及二级数据恢复工作。第一场次作业对岩土钻探与取芯工作进行了监测（Ryan，2001）；第二至第四轮作业除开展额外监测外，还在中心跑道项目潜在影响范围（Area of Potential Effect，下称APE）内实施了一级测试/数据恢复及二级数据恢复工作（Boston等，2001；Boston等，2003）；第五轮也是最后一轮作业则在D-E滑行道范围内开展了补充测试工作（Aguila等，2005）。ACS作为分包商，为金利-霍恩联合公司（Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.，下称Kimley-Horn）执行上述工作；而金利-霍恩联合公司受菲尼克斯市（下称"市政府"）委托，负责天港机场中心跑道及D-E滑行道的改扩建设计。此次设计拟对现有7L-25R跑道、D、E、F、R、S、T滑行道、东西循环滑行道及现有市政基础设施进行改造。此外，施工期间承包商还使用了两处施工临时场地、两处拌合站及一处取土场。

整个机场区域经平整、现代填筑、铺装及建筑施工后已被大幅改造，地表几乎无法为地下遗存提供有效线索。但机场周边分布有已知的历史及史前考古遗址，包括紧邻项目西侧且处于项目APE范围内的萨拉多普韦布洛遗址（Greenwald与Ballagh，1996；Greenwald等，1996a、1996b、1996c；Greenwald等，1995）、西北侧的荷兰运河废墟（Greenwald与Ciolek-Torrello，1988；Greenwald等，1994；Henderson，2000a、2000b、2003、2004）以及东北侧的大普韦布洛遗址（Bostwick，1993；Bostwick与Downum，1994；Downum与Bostwick，1993a、1993b）（图1.1）。上述已记录遗址的存在，可推断中心跑道项目APE范围内地下应当存在更多文化遗存（Archaeological Consulting Services，2001b）。此次野外作业依据《测试与数据恢复工作方案》开展（Archaeological Consulting Services，2001b；Boston等，2001）。发掘工作依据亚利桑那州博物馆（Arizona State Museum，下称ASM）颁发的《亚利桑那州古物法专项项目许可2001-66ps》进行。该工作方案已由市政府、美国联邦航空管理局（Federal Aviation Administration，下称FAA）及州历史保护办公室（State Historic Preservation Office，下称SHPO）的代表审核并批准。由于项目改扩建方案仍处于设计阶段（因此精确的项目占地范围尚未明确），各方同意在符合已获批的考古勘探与数据恢复流程的前提下，工作方案的具体内容可灵活调整。据此，金利-霍恩联合公司、ACS及市考古学家托德·W·博斯特威克博士（Dr. Todd W. Bostwick）建立了持续磋商、备忘录报告、野外踏勘及审核的工作机制。2001年5月，相关方提交了一份关于岩土钻探与取芯工作的报告（Ryan，2001）。2001年4月至10月的一级测试/数据恢复阶段，共编制并提交了20份备忘录报告。2001年10月，在第二轮野外作业结束后，编制并提交了一份中期报告（Boston等，2001），其中针对已发现的遗存提出了补充监测、一级测试/数据恢复及二级数据恢复的建议。上述建议工作分别于2002年7月至8月及2003年1月期间开展。

期间共编制两份初步报告，汇总了野外作业成果，并提出了针对中心跑道（7L-25R）项目后续考古工作的建议（Boston等，2001；Boston等，2003）。另有第三份初步报告，用于总结D-E滑行道范围内补充作业的发现成果（Aguila等，2005）。本最终报告汇总了所有野外作业阶段的文化资源相关信息及分析结果。