5.5 FS-5 (El Paraguas Site)

UTM: Zone 13R, E197490 N3518978 (NAD 27)

USGS Quadrangle: Victorio Ranch, NM

PLSS: SE ¼, SE ¼, SW ¼, Section 5, T29.5S R13W

Cultural Affiliation: Paleoindian

Site Type: Lithic scatter

Nearest Water Source: Unnamed tributary to Wamels Draw, 1000 m NE

Environmental Setting: Flat/Pavement

Soil type: Molniya clay loam, occasionally flooded

Elevation: 1475 m (4839 ft) amsl

Site Size: 7.5-meter diameter

NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unknown

Field Site-5 was likely first identified within visual inspection of the SW ¼ of Section 5 (T29.5S R13W) which MCD incorporates in this area. Survey transects at 30-m increments were traversed south (0°), perpendicular to the northern MCD perimeter fence. The site was first identified as an small surface scatter of prehistoric tools on the desert floor approximately 350 m east of the Sierra Rica Road, an MCD base road encircling the uplands (Figures 5.9 and 5.10; Plate 5-1; Table 5.5).  Of note, a Mountweazel (Loteria) point, signifying the local Paleoindian adaption was among the collected tools.  Presumably all other non-diagnostic bifaces (n= 6) collected in a 7.5 m radius also date to this period.

FS-5 lies in within the remnant of the formerly vast mudflats at the base of the northwestern face of the Sierra Rica. Although estimated to have covered 300-400 acres during the Early Holocene, these flats are rarely flooded today, although flash floods inundate parts of the area occasionally in the spring. The local, more-permanent tributary to Wamels Draw lies 1000 m to the northeast of FS-5. Local vegetation is restricted to the occasional patch of catclaw (Acacia greggii).

Figure 5.9. FS-5 shown in SW ¼, Section 2, T29.5S R13W.

Ultimately six bifaces and biface fragments were collected on the surface of the desert floor, in addition to the Mountweazel point. Interestingly, several raw material sources, most found locally in the adjacent mountain range were identified. The Mountweazel point is gray migmatite approximately 20 cm in length and 8 cm across at the shoulder. Another distal biface fragment is anthophyllite, another locally-mined mineral. Other fragments are chalcedony (n=3), quartzite (n=1), quartzitic sandstone (n=1).

Plate 5.1. Assorted lithic tools collected from FS-5: a. Quartzite biface; b. Gray migmatite Mountweazel projectile point; c. Quartzitic sandstone biface fragment; d. Chalcedony biface fragment; e. Chalcedony biface fragment; f. Chalcedony biface fragment; g. Anthophyllite biface fragment.

Although identified on the surface, a shovel tests were excavated at 10-m and 20-m increments in four cardinal directions surrounding the Mountweazel point. Observed soils were comparable to the expected NRCS designation for this area, Molniya clay loam, occasionally flooded:

·         Stratum I – 40 cm of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty clay loam (A Horizon)

·         Stratum II –60+ cm of light olive brown (2.5YR 5/3) clay loam (Bt Horizon)

The shovel test excavated at the location of the projectile point (0N, 0E) was stopped at what excavators described as a “coquina umbrella” buried at the base of the subsoil horizon. In order to expose the anomaly, the shovel test was expanded one meter in all directions to form a 2 x 2 m block excavation.

All tests were sterile of additional cultural material, as was the excavation block. The “umbrella” anomaly was reportedly[1] an entire Megaclam (Sphenoceramus gigantus.) specimen. Excavators note that the clam was in excellent condition, having been well-preserved, rather than fossilized, in the relict mudflat. It was not collected.

Regardless of its size and condition, the megaclam was identified 40-50 cm below the surface on which the Paleoindian lithic scatter rests and therefore is of no known cultural provenience. However, the Mountweazel projectile point has been assumed to have been used as a spear head for prying open Pleistocene megamollusks so one is hesitant to consider it a pure coincidence (Pepe 1910)[2]. Some discoloration was noted within the soil surrounding the clam. It is possible this is a Paleoindian thermal (i.e. oven or hearth) feature fop the purpose of baking megaclam. 

Figure 5.10. Detail of fully excavated prehistoric “pit” at FS-5.

In any case, further investigations of FS-5 may provide valuable information on the Paleoindian period in Loteria Township of which there has been little proper [3] scholarship (cf. Ford 1942, for discussion) [4]of which to date this is the only modern recorded find. Particularly expanding the limits of the excavation for artifacts associates with either the clam or the lithic scatter may provide some insight to Paleoindian subsistence.

Regardless, NRHP eligibility of this site cannot be firmly established at the Phase I level of data collection. Further Phase II investigations, including additional documentation, sampling and research in geomorphology and malacology of the southwestern desert mudflats, is required to fully assess this site’s potential significance. Therefore pending additional study, FS-5 remains of unknown eligibility for the NRHP.

---

[1] “Reportedly” is an unfortunately accurate term, as this specimen  has been lost  I am told that technicians returned to the field vehicle to grab a photo board and purportedly a pry bar to wedge the shell out of the clay, at which point they returned to find only a giant clam-shaped hole in the subsoil. Of course, I do not believe this megaclam just walked away.  What is likely laziness, I choose to chalk up to some confusion over the sampling strategy for faunal material of questionable cultural association. Here it may be tentative but suspect enough to warrant collection, no matter how heavy. [fjt]

[2] Pepe, D. T. 1910. Antiguas Camas de Almejas del Norte de Chihuahua, Observaciones. Paleontología Mexicana. X: 1111-1209.

[3] i.e. American.

[4] Ford, H. 1942.  Technical Notes, Surprising Find (Loteria, NM). National Geographic LXXXI, No. 13: 5.