The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 79-25; N LA COSTA AVE. BTWN. RANCHO SANTAFE; Planning CommissionR OOM, 400 0 400 800 1200 J' SCALE IN FEET OlE OR% 0 0/ 54N IL'/ARCV6 CO. WATER 0151 TRE.4T4IENT PLANT /6 Ea FM 00 62 c.OS )' ftP I I II fc 57 /50'O co. EA5EA'1ENT j, 60 - 5 //( RANCHEROS oe LA COSTA TENTATIVE MAP 300' RADIUS MAP RICK ENGINEERING COMPAN\ PLANNERS-ARCHITECTS- CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYOF 7i9 ,4CCO,II4PA A/V APPL/CAT/OIV 5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 921 , 3088 PlO PICO DRIVE, SUITE 202, CARLSBAD, CAL.920( FOR SAN DIEGO- (71 4)291-0707/ CARLSBAD- (714) 729-496 TENTATIVE MAP CT NO. • rSCALE: /':8091 DATE :4/4 76 I PROJ. N0.1.. : 1• 1 - .. . . .' • . . /?lI "•'': . I .s• . . .. .'.I - .- . d f 7 .- .. . , \' 1. • S-1 •'L .; \L . . .. . •./• .,; , ./JJfJY/1QOOcOI.' •°°°'• . .. . X4. . .. L:i ' . . . . . . . : .. • • . . .. . . - : ' • .. . I • • . . . -. .- I A W1, / : X-3 "mi, ji'% I ,: ':7 ., ••"lII / ' Id Jr) ,&, I i? 0 . - •1.. - • .• - . - 41 Jt V •• I • .jUJ r 0. • / , c • c r - • t / trç•- • t .•• • ; •1 . '- I 1/ I, • • - I •• 'J : • J 'I ,••-. •- •4;- 7TIY r • ;.. p_p•_ \ ft:fI CT /Puri. I I -WO Mile Rl. - I ' + \ \\\ V •: '• I ' I \ * I. •j ' - \ tI-' .' '\ I .' ' •c , . 4 :., • : ..: .. •• • .: : • . ..:. •• . : o ____t. VP nZilciinfi Os$cr& tion " (4z. 44 i ra : -• IC'BOOU_:b"7 1j:pj ij• LDiCt:. ; pjstrictz_- permit Ar.a; 2 — t Pag•d .scriptiOn tP"1 - 24 krq) 'Fo roposd Zon:_____ 4 Cu •s 7T 44 __DWACr.44 4 —r 3 4 4 - 'c.1i..• 4. 1t-.._.,J • , '• -.', -I --.\ ': •-.: _____ / • •b 7 : • : T \. Not ,t - / \<'4 _F\\ 4.1" ol / #3 \'./ •i' :---< 44 •_ / - - -- I • •'-..•. f It, " tZl • - '41 i ':- I - - IV - LI. 1 '1L. •" • - • ;• ..'• --/ • - ,••v•OF - p -tSP - •• -• • ol 1.•j . I / - -• 1 • • •. •••.•.f• •g) e ffQt4l • I: Sr. - I TTLN I - L\ 7/c7/7TT- \ / 1 - N. co N. Lf QLr c i: Wrrr Cl) JCC-4 EEP r4 ci) Q ci) cj ci) 0 W () C).i-4 (i) r Q) ci) bo r-4 o ci) (1)P4 :i )CQ o o P4 0 Z JHH3VUV Ot r \ WV - .--- -- NT\•T:: I 4 OR Z fJN ,rJ hi 74 .010 .. . I • •. , / -- 4~'4L' 11ü(1 : • ' , . :) -\i 1/fr (4 fl \ ' \ \\ \\ \ \ \ If t 0 N 1/5 Q q ' - \tjE .4 ------- _•JIJ / 1 ' / _/ - - ç)jt--.'/'/7 /( /'• \ t_i- a ' • : ' \ t / : - _;_ . . . •<:: c:r ' : : _\ F 1L7 q- /* Vt'f'J/OO ocoi , OO/2Q 99 /y z12 •//•.• A• . . 1 I .J ' . , ' , .., 3E: . ) T~ 'c:3 'i//? •i/J cl I 14.3 ul Lij LU ).,/ Ji•: r% ; . IT . . 1 ./'"T •' /7% \r ,// Co •\ ;r- - (7 7 / ;,,, fv VA : .' •//\ / ' \ - • I • .• ,• • '..., / \ ..'., •)._ ,, ,•.••.•' p / • -.•. \; :"\ '- -•-, / ,/7 \\ / 1; , o(,,__ / It - •- \ : -. •-•-- •;; •;P / __ %.- - / E / \ - - - " ,' 1 • 1% / r -"--• •\ ..:. •,/; '1' - ij \..• •! I .• 1 • - •. ..• • •-.•i_l .' ••-_ I I I I - I LI r •, I •• ,., / • -• .'.•., . ..-- •.•- •A•-._1 / - I / Cjft- :cfLt 2 ' : -ft• \ . AO M'/6'E . . '•\ " I 1' TA fA . p pof 1ai COMMEF?CIAL or \V9\DENSIT'' RES1DENTI/N \ I Lp 9.2'.."Acres / \ I L\ , \L TO/ , \I .A'S 55 09 '- S /• <°/ NA /5TOR'AGE 4/rEA I- 1,,.• tç) a - / , . ½ S_.__. •-•-:--.• \ -• . . _( - I -- I -. , \T[I - - 000 T5 ' 2 -----• _V_V.___.__S_.•S\SS I -- V. - LI //.' //fV . h i.Ss'.2. V V !....:-,.- 5_•_••' / / /. /.•/ S I . 55557/55• 2"•• ,; •1-5 -1 ' V ev / ..l . '.• •• V •' \: / / / \ \/ •' I \ 2 // / I / /r , \/\t \\ 7 •,\\\ / I 7 - -•' V. V ,V V.. '•' \5_ / r V TENTATIVE MAP OF CARLSBADTRACT NO. RANCHEROS DE LA COSTA .. I $•• NO. 177 •;: I \ elk I f'i \•__ F ,4 c L 30 '.;T.: I tor T4BULATION4 J I' I(2q\ ? 26 01 ,_ ,. I ' /: • -. . , - ' t •\ \/\L\\ ' I___ " - t_ - - t_-• ,1E . p.- • 1\ • ; 4 ' 0 J /' , • S. /f ( , P ._ ' 1 j: . --- , ,/ . •--:' 'Vs - ) ,.!-- , 'r' -,/---- -- . . ir • • , " \' / S '/' :: . •r 5 5 \\\ S 6' _- a: ,. j *1) 4 4_s I ,;: ' J\_4/ •,t P ) 74 . i—. • - (S •? _. . ../ ' . k . ' . . - , S.S ?2j !/ : . r • . s >(' • •r s . . f J I :&' 5, ? • - . . — . -, S. 4•• S , 1 I, -. . /5 5 22 • .- CON/NT/A ST1WP - / NOTES - • .4a . / 5 • —. "s, , .. •. •.. . JAJ.' . - -'----- •"NOTE,, • ' J -, 7 -'r S A-" O_5 /0/ 5 5 'M • i,i --- •• ••_ ft ?1.': or * MM .' •..,' I S S -. • . S . .• __ - - -. - - • -5. 5 • S Figure 3 Addendum to the Supplemental EIR for Rancheros de La Costa The Rancheros de La Costa tentative map has been modified slightly to include three minor, nonresidential lots. As shown on the attached tentative map, lots A and B, on either side of Corintia Street at the western border of the project, have been designated as the sites for entrance monuments to the Rancheros development. Each of these lots is less than one-tenth of an acre. A third lot, lot C, is adjacent to the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water District reservoir tank site in phase IV of the project and would house cable T.V. antenna facilities. The total number of lots shown on the tentative map is, therefore, 98 rather than the 95 shown previously. However, the boundaries of the project, the total number and placement of the residential lots, and the anticipated environmental impacts of the project remain unchanged. N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IMPACT MITIGATION REPORT FOR RANCHEROS DE LA COSTA Prepared for LA COSTA LAND COMPANY 2100 COSTA DEL MAR ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Prepared by R. PAIGE TALLEY ARCHAEOLOGIST CHARLES S. BULL SUPERVISORY ARCHAEOLOGIST RECON Regional Environmental Consultants 1094 Cudahy Place Suite 204 San Diego, CA 92110 275-3732 RECON NUMBER R-1090 14 JJJLY 1980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 5 III. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES 6 IV. CLASSIFICATION 9 V. RESULTS 11 VI. CONCLUSIONS 14 VII. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 15 VIII. PROJECT STAFF 16 IX. REFERENCES CITED 17 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Culture History 19 Attachment 2: Sample Catalog Sheet 25 FIGURES Figure 1: Project vicinity 3 Figure 2: Project site location 4 Figure 3: Micromap 7 Figure 4: Posthole grid map 8 TABLES Table 1: Surface Artifact Results 12 Table 2: Posthole Test Results 13 I 1u::;TpAcT I A surface collection, micromap, and limited rectilinear posthole series of site SDM-W-917, on Rancheros de La Costa, constitute the basis for this report. SDM-W-917 is located I approximately 244 meters north of San Marcos Creek, approxi- mately 1,006 meters west of Rancho Santa Fe Road, approximately 975 meters south of a 738-foot peak, and approximately 122 ' meters east of a tributary of San Marcos Creek. The site has only a single component containing nothing to suggest signifi- cant subsurface depth. I Analysis of the cultural material, indigenous nonporphyritic basalt, is limited due. to nonvariability of artifact types, lack of significant subsurface depth, and the paucity of cultural re- sources recovered. A detailed description of the cultural re- mains and of possibilities as to their provenience is pursued in this report. I This study was performed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the require- ments of the City of Carlsbad. I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I. INTRODUCTION I The area proposed for the development of 92 dwelling units of single-family-homes consists of 42 acres, known as Rancheros de La Costa, in the City of Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). ' In 1976 the La Costa Land Company contracted with RECON to perform an intensive archaeological reconnaissance of the La CostaLand Company property in the City of Carlsbad, California, ' which included the present acreage (Kaldenberg 1976). The subject property lies in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, Township 12 South, Range 3 I West, of the 7.5-minute series of U.S.G.S. topographic maps, Rancho Santa Fe and Encinitas quadrangles, San Bernardino Base Meridian. I As a result of the 1976 field reconnaissance, one archaeo- logical site, SDM-W-917, was located within the subject prop- erty (Figure 2). Mitigation measures recommended by Kaldenberg (1976) for avoiding adverse impacts to this cultural resource were to perform mapping and limited excavation. Mitigation of SDM-W-917 entailed production of a detailed micromap of the ' surface artifacts, surface collection of all artifacts, and a rectilinear posthole series. The latter was performed to determine site boundaries and depth of cultural deposits. I I H I H I I Li I I 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I ORANGE COUNTYr - RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pala San On ofre Fallbrook _~Loall Warner Springs Borrego Vista Oceanside Carlsbad • San Marcos scondido Ocotillo Wells LOCATION-I —PROJECT 0 Jul ian Encinitas • I •Rancho Ramona Bernardo Lz Del Mar 7- -J Poway CC Miramar a. Lakeside I La Jolla Santee I Pacific Beach I Alpine Pine Valley •El Cajon La Mesa iSpring Valley it Loma San • Grove Coronado National City - Jacumba Chula Vista (I Regional Environmental Consultants Figure 1. The location of the proposed project relative to the County of San Diego is indicated above. t/• . / I iI I /.-'PROJECT LOCATI 1' 00 X 41 • \ , i \. (>.: /!j((ç.( 'j:/'/J) \ (:and erre( ----..' ) .pIt_• 1 >'30 I 1 Jt/U( I -W-917 11. SDM QO 00 01 36 0 /000 20po Ft XY- (7( (N 0200 400 600M. I M ( Figure 2. Indicated above is the approximate location of cultural resource SDM-W-917 within the subject property boundaries. Based on U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute series of topo- graphic maps, Rancho Santa Fe and Encinitas quadrangles. I I II. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING I The Rancheros de La Costa area is located near the coast in the City of Carlsbad, California. The proposed project is an irregularly shaped parcel of land of approximately 42 acres. I The project area is situated on the southwest slope of a small ridge between San Marcos Creek and a tributary of San Marcos Creek. What appear to be several pedestrian trails radiate I from a wider north/south trending trail. Vegetation on the site is very dense with the primary flora consisting of Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) , Sumac (Rhus sp.) I and Sage (Salvia sp.). Interspersed with these are Toyon (Heterorneles arbutifolia) and Manzanita (Xylococcus sp.). No wildlife was observed during the testing at Rancheros de La Costa; however, the dominant faunal species indigenous to the area are a variety of small rodents, coyote. (Canis latrans), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), blacktail jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). A myriad of rodent burrows were noted at the site location, in both surface and subsurface observations. The geological makeup within the project area is metavol- canic, specifically nonporphyritic basalt, with underlying meta- sedimentary rocks. Basalt occurs naturally in the area and was observed in abundant proportions. The metasedimentary deposits were observed on an average of 26.5 centimeters beneath the sub- surface of the site. The soil of the project location is formed of Exchequer rocky silt loam with nine to 30 percent slopes. This type of soil is usually formed on ridges and foot slopes (Bowman 1973). I I I L I I I I 1 I I [Ii 1 5 III. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES In 1976 RECON performed an on-foot survey of Rancheros de La Costa and located and recorded one archaeological site, SDM-W-917 (Kaldenberg 1976). The site represents quarrying activity, with the lithic material present consisting of meta- volcanic rocks. Because the proposed development of Rancheros de La Costa woulddamage or destroy SDM-W-917, the La Costa Land Company contracted with RECON to perform the necessary mitigation mea- sures. On January 24 and 25, 1980, RECON mapped, surface ccl- lected, and placed a rectilinear posthole series in SDM-W-917 to accomplish the necessary activities to mitigate adverse impacts to the site. This report is a compilation and evalua- tion of data retrieved during the fieldwork performed. The procedures implemented to conduct such a research scheme began with the relocation, micromapping, and surface collection of the quarry at SDM-W-917 (Figure 3). Through use of a transit, a rectilinear posthole grid series was established. Seventeen potholes were manually excavated with the assistance of a manual posthole tool (Figure 4). Due to the paucity of artifacts located and their apparent density in one location of the site, it was deemed unnecessary and inappropriate to excavate all 22 posthole positions. Only four postholes were positive. The surface and subsurface arti- facts were subsequently taken to the RECON laboratory where a laboratory assistant cleaned and cataloged each artifact. Evaluation of the artifacts is descriptive because interpre- tative capacity is nominal due to lack of variation in artifact types and lithic material properties, the paucity in numbers of the artifact assemblage, and the limited depth of subsurface deposits. I I I I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 I I I I I I N I I I I EOM 20M 40M 60M 80M Figure 3. Shows the spatial distribution of surface artifacts at site SDM-W-917. • • • • • • • / •1 • 0 .9 0 0 0 \ X> • P0 FECON \ 0 200 400 Ft. 0 40 80 120M.\ EOM 20M 40M 6'OM 8'0M Figure 4. Indicated above are the posthole test positions at SDM-W-917. Posthole sizes are not drawn to scale. IV. CLASSIFICATION It is during the cataloging process that classification begins, either implicitly or explicitly; thus, cataloging and the more general classificatory activities are performed concurrently. Essentially classification is the process of creating units of meaning by means of stipulating redundancy (Dunnell 1971:200). As in any science, archaeologists find it neces- sary to organize a diverse array of objects into a comprehen- sive order so that systematic observations can be made and description and comparisons are possible. If a classification method is used which is consistent and explicit, its applica- tion may make it possible to detect patterns and derive insights into the nature of the variation within classes and between classes. Classes are intentionally defined units of meaning (Dunnell 1971:200). It should be noted that classification is simply a scientific tool and in itself is not an explanation, but it does create a framework from which explanations can be derived. As with sampling procedures, there is no ideal classi- fication system appropriate for all possible circumstances. A variety of classification schemes are available to the archaeol- ogist, and choice of a specific scheme is primarily dependent upon the problems the archaeologist intends to approach. For the present investigation it was found appropriate to classify the artifacts in a general scheme since the majority were flakes and debitage. A sample catalog sheet is provided in Attachment 2. Only 11 cores are present in the assemblage. These classes of artifacts are subsumed under the class of flaked lithic non-tools. No tools or other artifacts were re- corded from the site. All flaked lithic non-tools were assigned to three types, cores, flakes, and debitage: 1. Cores. Flaked lithic non-tools which have one or more negative flake scars and a striking platform 2. Flakes. Lithic non-tools which have one positive bulb of percussion and a striking platform 3. Debitage. Flaked lithic non-tools which are angular in shape, occur in archaeological contexts, and differ from the natural rock occurring in that context, as well as compare with the raw material rock type in flakes, cores, and flaked lithic tools in the same context. It is assumed that cores are nuclei from which flakes and debitage were obtained. Flakes, in turn, are assumed to have been derived from a core or from flakes and simply consist of broken rock which is a by-product of human manufacture and/or of other flaked lithic artifacts. I [1] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i At this stage, it is not necessary to explore the nature of the attribute variation within the various classes because this quarry site contains a nominal amount of artifacts with no evi- dence of utilized tools and little artifact variation (i.e., flakes, debitage, and cores) I I d I [1 I I I I I I Li [II I 10 I I I V. RESULTS I All the lithic manufactured material is comprised of heavily patinated indigenous nonporphyritic basalt. The color of pati- nation varies from light green to gray with rust colored soil I stains. A total of 243 artifacts were recovered as a result of sur- face collection activities. Provided in Table 1 are the abso- lute and relative frequencies of the three classes of material recovered at SDM-W-917. As can be seen, the most frequently occurring artifact class is flakes/debitage, which is not incon- gruous with a quarry site. Of the total number of flakes/debitage, 52 percent are flakes, with 45 percent primary flakes and 55 percent second- I ary flakes, and 44 percent are debitage. The cores comprised four percent of the total assemblaae. All retained less than I 50 percent cortex. A total of 17 postholes were excavated, of which four re- sulted in recovery of cultural material. The positive postholes are located at the southern extension of the site wherein the I highest diversity of surface material was recovered. A total of 20 flakes and debitage were recovered from the postholes. These specimens consisted of 80 percent flakes and 70 percent I debitage (Table 2). Li I Lr] I I I I I I 11 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 1 SURFACE ARTIFACT RESULTS Percentage of the Artifact Count/Weight 1 Assemblage Mean Weight Debitage 196/1,733.8 4400 0.061 Flakes 126/2,233.0 52.00 0.056 Primary 57 -- 45.00 -- Secondary 69 -- 55.00 -- Cores 11/2,679.7 0.04 0.004 Weight in grams. I I TABLE 2 I POSTHOLE TEST RESULTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Artifact Debitage Flakes Primary Secondary Percentage of the Count/Weight1 Assemblage 4/37.1 0.2 16/492.2 0.8 10/ -- 0.63 6/ -- 0.37 1Weight in grams. Mean Weight1 0.108 0.33 I VI. CONCLUSIONS I The site has only a single component containing nothing to suggest significant subsurface depth, as indicated by the post- hole series. To conclude that depth of a site is the sole I measure of significant cultural resources contained within the site would be erroneous. Other contributing factors are the lack of variation in artifact assemblage, both surficially and subsurfically, and the small amount of materials recovered I from the posthole series (20 flakes/debitage). Only tentative conclusion can be offered concerning SDM-W- 917. The site apparently represents a special activity area I and not a habitation site. Based on analysis of the surface and subsurface material, the site consists of a quarry where nonporphyritic basalt was exploited. The aboriginal occupants I apparently utilized the area for the informal processing of lithic material. Lithic material may have been transported to another area for the manufacturing of lithic tools. I Several archaeological sites within a two-mile radius of SDM-W-917 contain lithic tools comprised of nonporphyritic basalt, which may have an association with SDM-W-917. These I include Villa la Cumbre, SDM-W-147A and B; La Costa Mission Hills, SDM-W-923, SDM-W-981, SDM-W--182, SDM-W-922, 'SDM-W-919, SDM-W-921, SDM-W--918, and SDM-W-920; Santa Fe Knolls, SDM-W--951, I SDM-W-942, SDM-W-179, SDM-W-949, and SDM-W-950; and La Costa Far South, SDM-W-945, SDM-W-948, SDM-W-940, and SDM-W-943. I Unfortunately, no datable material or diagnostic artifact types are present at SDM-W-917. This severely restricts the potential for establishing the temporal or cultural affilia-. I tion of the site. Li I I I F] 1 14 11 I VII. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION All adverse direct and indirect impacts to SDM-W--917 have I been reduced to an insignificant level. This has been accom- plished through the completion of the following activities: 1 1. Micromap of surface artifacts 2. Collection and recordation of all cultural materials I present on the surface of the site 3. Posthole tests designed to assess the subsurface I extent of the site 4. Preparation of this report and description of the in- vestigation and findings 5. Curation of the cultural material recovered and all associated data. I These activities have served to replace the physical site itself. Thus, construction for Rancheros de La Costa would 1 have no direct impact on the cultural record of the area. The surface collection of cultural remains and associated data from SDM-W---917 are curated at REON's archaeology labora- I tory until more suitable facilities become available. These materials may be examined by qualified individuals with a research interest. I I I I I I I [1 1 15 I I I I I I I I VIII. PROJECT STAFF Charles S. Bull R. Paige Talley Carol J. Walker Charles C. Carrillo Douglas Kupel Lark Talley Nancy J. Hatley Eloise J. Feola Roberta Y. White Supervisory Archaeologist Project Archaeologist Associate Archaeologist Associate Archaeologist Assistant Archaeologist Assistant Archaeologist Production Supervisor Production Specialist Production Typist I I I I I I 1 I I I I wol I IX. REFERENCES CITED 'I Bowman, Roy H. • 1973 Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, • Soil Conservation Service, San Diego. Bull, Charles S. 1976 Archaeological Investigations at Santa Fe Knolls. RECOIL 1 1976 Radial Posthole Tests at La Costa Far South. RECON. Bull, Charles S. and Richard Norwood I 1977 The Archaeology of Villa La Cumbre: Results of Testing 'Three Archaéoloqical sites at BatiauitosLaoôn. RE CON. I Carrillo, Charles C. 1980 Archaeological testing at La Costa Mission Hills. RECON. Dunnell, Robert C. 1 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. New York: The Free Press. Kaldenberg, Russell L. J 1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land Company Property. RECON. I Weber, Harold F. 1963 Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, Cali- fornia. Division of Mines and Geology. I U I I I I 1 • 17 I I I Li I I I I 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Ll I [1 I I I I .1 I I I I sz'' D:rEGo COUNTY CULTURAL HISTORY AN 1) A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I Although a great deal of archaeological work has been I undertaken in San Diego County, that which has been published is poorly synthesized. Information for the specific area under consideration must be gleaned from research performed throughout San Diego County and Southern California. The earliest cultural phase found in San Diego County is called the San Dieguito Pattern. According to Rogers, the I SanDieguito Pattern has awide distribution extending from the Pacific Ocean well into Arizona (Rogers 1939). The basic I material culture of the San Dieguito Pattern involves numerous types of scrapers and scraper planes, choppers, crescentics, and large blades and points. It has been divided into three phases which are designated San Dieguito I, II, and III. A fourth phase is known to exist in Baja, California, but to the I best of our knowledge, has not persisted into San Diego County. San Dieguito I, the earliest phase of the pattern, I is absent from San Diego County west of the watershed of the Laguna Mountains (Ezell 1973). It does, however, make its ap- pearance east of the watershed and encompasses a large part of the California desert and "western and southwestern Arizona... being traced as far east as the San Pedro Valley (Arizona) and as far south as Sonora, Mexico" (Rogers 1958:4). It is com- posed of cruder stone tools, primarily consisting of choppers aid large flakes produced by percussion flaking, sleeping cir- cles, trail shrines, and varied rock alignments (Rogers 1966:51). I The intermediate phase is the first one appearing in San Diego County, with Rogers recording 52 sites in the county I. with San Dieguito representative material (Rogers 1966:178). The dating of this phase is indefinite, but most archaeologists place the introduction of this complex at about 12,000 years B.P. (before presént) (Ezell 1973) . The characteristic assemblage I includes improved lithic materials (better types of stones for tool-making were selected), improved flaking techniques for the manufacturing of more predictable types of stone tools, and the absence of the San Dicquito I cultural association with t sleeping circles (Io(Jers 19.06: 60) I San Dieguito Ill is well represented in San Diego County, .probably persisting until 8,500 to 7,500 B.P." (Warren and True 1961:263). The basic differentiation from San Dieguito II is the appearance of pressure flaking as a technique for lithic manufacture and the utilization of such stone material with an I even more highly improved conchoidal fracturing ability such as jasper, chalcedony, and occasionally obsidian. I 19 I __ I I Following the San Dieguito pattern, archaeologists propose the appearance of another cultural group, the La Jolla. They may have made their first appearance as early as 9000 B.P. I (Rogers 1966:16) . Several radiocarbon dates seem to support this hypothesis since Hubbs published a date on a La Jollan midden at Point Loma with a date of 7130350 B.P. (Hubbs, et al I 1965:111) and another radiocarbon date of 9020500 B.P. (Hubbs, et al 1965:109). ' The La Jolla pattern is divided into two phases, the La Jolla I and the La Jolla II, with the major criteria for its definition being flexed burials, Olivella beads, retouched flakes, and the economic dependence upon shellfish and seed I collecting. This pattern existed throughout Coastal San Diego County and penetrated the major river drainage systems and lagoons. I The inland equivalent of the Coastal La Jolla pattern has not been defined in the literature, either materially or temporally. This equivalent pattern may be the Pauma pattern I as defined by True (1958). This pattern is characterized by flaked stone implements much like those of the San Dieguito pattern, but unlike the San Dieguito pattern, the Pauma pattern I has a high number of grinding implements which would indicate an association with a milling tradition. Further work needs be done at sites supporting tool assemblages similar to the I to Pauma pattern but at which the surface remains indicate that the population did not primarily rely upon shellfish resources. In the north parts of the county, Meighan (1954) has I proposed the establishment of two variants of the San Luis Rey pattern. The definitive characteristics of San Luis Rey I are dark, sooty midden deposits containing small pressure-flaked projectile points, manos, portable metates, Olivella beads, drilled stone ornaments, mortars, and pestles. San Luis Rey II differs only in that pottery, pictographs, and historic materi- I als are found in association with all of the above. Meighan believed 'that further research would maintain a,connection between his San Luis Rey pattern and the ethno- I graphically known Luiseno. equivalent pattern in the southern portion of San m The V Diego County is the Yuan pattern proposed by Rogers (1945). He proposed a Southcrn California origin for his Yuman pattern as evidenced by similarities between the third phase of the I pattern, Yuman III, and La Jolla II. He maintains an easterly movement of Yuman populations from the Pacific littoral to the Colorado River Valley, and a re-expansion of those people after they have adopted certain culture traits common to that area. I all I I I The Yuman III patterns are purported to be the direct ancestors of a Yuman speaking peoples, the Kumeyaay. Dates I for the Yuman appearance in San Diego usually center about 1,500 B.P. According to Moriarty, "it was not until 3,000 B.P. that enough Yuman additions occur [red] in the artifact assem- blage to allow us to infer a settling of Yuman peoples among I the La Jollan [sic] on the coast (Moriarty 1966:23)." They brought with them a new type of burial pattern (cremation), a new type of projectile point, and later, ceramics in the form of Tizon Brown Ware. The introduction of pottery occurred I around 1270 1250 A.D., according to a radiocarbon date from the Spindrift Site (Moriarty 1966:27); and according to information 1 from Rattlesnake Rock Shelter, it may have been introduced in-to San Diego County as early 1000 A.D. as (Davis 1973). I In the northern part of the county, the late culture was a Shoshonean-speaking people called the Luiseno. Accord- ing to A. L. Kroeber, the Luiseno received their name after the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia. They occupied an irregu- lar territory in northern San Diego County, sharing borders with the Juaneno, Gabrielino, Serrano, Cahuilla, and Kumeyaay (Kroeber 1925:648). Rather than being a mountain people, as were their neighbors to the east, the Luiseno occupied the I hills within their territory up to and including the watershed areas of the chaparral. Their inland territory included the I San Luis Rey River and its drainage system. The archaeological manifestation of this ethnographi- cally recorded linguistic group may well have been the San Luis Rey II complex. From Wallace's report of site S.D.-132, I we know that the Luiseno (SL. RI?) material culture was very similar to that of their neighbors to the south, the Kumeyaay, consisting of a seed-collecting and hunting economy. Bedrock I mortars, pestles, milling stone-mullers and leeching basins comprised their techno-economic subsistence implements. Small I stemless concave-based projectile points were the most dominant type of point, with drills and scrapers also being abundant lithic implements. Ornamentally, Olivella shalls found frequent utilization as pendants (Wallace 1971:196). .1 The pottery, Tizon Brown Ware, was introduced into Luiseno territory from the Kumeyaay to the south, about 1350 A.D. I (McCown 1955:45). From that time onward, their culture changed very minimally until. the advent of Inissionization during the eighteenth century. 1 21 I ___ I REFERENCES CITED Davis, Emma Lou I 1973 Personal communication. Ezell, Paul H. I 1973 Personal communication. Hubbs, Carl I., George S. Bien, and Hans S. Suess 1965 La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Measurements IV. I In Radiocarbon, 7:66-117. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians. of California. Bureau I of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Washington, I McCown, 1955 TEMEKU: A Page from the History of the Luiseno Indians. In Archaeological Survey Association of I Southern California. Paper No. 3, Los Angeles. Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. I In Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 10(2) :255-264. I Moriarty, James B. III 1966 Cultural Phase Division Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled 1 Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. In Anthropological Journal of Canada, 4(4) :20-30. I Rogers, Malcolm 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. In San I Diego Museum of Man Papers, No. 3. The San Diego Museum of Man. 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. In Southwestern I Journal of Anthropology, 1(2) :167-198. 1958 San Dieguito Implements from the Terraces of the I Rincon-Pantano and Rillito Drainage System. In The Kiva, 24:1:1-23. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune I Publishing Company, San Diego, California. I 22 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I True, D. L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. In American Antiquity, 23:255-263. Wallace, William J. 1971 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. In The California Indians: A Sourcebook, 2nd Edition, R.F. Heizer and M.A. Whipple, editors. Warren, Claude N. and D. L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in Califor- nia Prehistory. In Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles. I I I I I 23 I I I 1 I I I I I ATTACHMENT 2 U I I I I I U LI I I I I I FLAKE S/DEB ITAGE - Provenience Catalogue No. Site: SDM-W- Code I/I/I ////// // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unit Number Level Coordinates /E / / / / IN / / / / 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I Depth Class Code Sub-Class Code Total Count Total Weight //// /0/1/ /1/ 1/1/ I//I//I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2627.28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Total Flakes Count Weight ////////// 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Flake Type Primary Secondary Count Count 43 44 45 46 47 48 Total Debitage Count Weight ////////// 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 I I OPTION 1 Porphyritic Volcanics Non-porphyritic Volcanics Count Weight Count Weight ////////// ////////// 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 I I I I I Quartzite Count Weight 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Quartz Count Weight ///////// 123 4567 Chalcedony (describe) *1 Count Weight ///////// 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Others (specify)*2 *1 Count Weight Unit Number Level //////// //// //// *2 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 OPTION 2 Porphyritic Rhyolite Count Weight ////////// 57 58 59 60 61.62 63 64 Porphyritic Andes ite Count Weight /1/11/1/1/ 123 45678 Porphyritic Basalt Count Weight ////////// 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 FG WAXY "Felsite" Count Weight 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Non-porphyritic Rhyolite Count Weight 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Non-porphyritic Andesite Count Weight ////////// 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 T 16 Non-porphyritic Basalt Count Weight ////////// 33 34 35 . 36 37 38 39 40 Chalcedony Count Weight ////////// 57 58'59 60 61 62 63 64 Quartzite Count Weight ////////// 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Milky Quartz Count Weight ////////// 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Clear Quartz Count Weight ////////// 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Obsidian Count Weight 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 U I I I I I Others (specify) 72 73 74 75 76 Unit Number Unit Level /// /// 77 78 79 80 I Unit Number Level 2 CORES Provenience Catalogue No. Site: SDM-W- Code Coordinates /E / / / / IN / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Sub-Class Depth Class Code Code Length Width Thickness Weight //'// /0/2/ I/i ////////////////// 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1) Formal Pattern 40 2) Some Patterning 3) Informal Patterning 1) 75% + Cortex 43 2) 25-50% Cortex 3) 25%- Cortex 4) No Cortex ii: 1) Fine Grained 46 2) Medium Grained 3) Coarse Grained E 1) Patinated 41 2) Not Patinated E 1) Circular 44 2) Ovoid 3) Triangular 4) Rectangular 5) Trapizoidal 6) Lenticular 7) Parallelogram 8) Piano Convex 9) Irregular Eli L 1) Por Rhyolite 47 48 2) NP Rhyolite 3) Por Pndesite 4) NP Andesite 5) Por Basalt 6) NP Basalt 7) Quartzite 8) Quartz 9) Clear Quartz 10) Obsidian 11) Other (Specify) ElI 1) Cobble Cortex 42 2) Irregular Cortex 3) No Cortex E 1) Circular 45 2) Ovoid 3) Triangular 4) Rectangular 5) Trapizoidal 6) Lenticular 7) Parallelogram 8) Piano Convex 9) Irregular - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ az