HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-02; Calavera Hills Stockpile; Tentative Map (CT) (6)I "!!!.
J
J
:J
J
:J
:t
:J
~J
~J
J
~J
:J
:J
:J
:J
:J
-J ...
A CUL'l,URAL RESOURCES
SURVEY AND EVALUATION FOR THE
PROPOSED
ROBERTSON RANCH PROJECT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Prepared for:
Mcl_\llillan Land Development
2727 Hoo,·er A venue
National City, California 91950
Prepal'ed by:
Johnna L. Buysse, Project Archaeologist and
Brian F. Smith, Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith and Associates
14678 Ibex Court
San Diego, California 92129
(858) 484-0915
January 20, 2002
]
J
]
]
J
:J
:J
:J
J
J
J
J
:t
:1
:J
:J
:J
:J
:J
A CULTURAL RESOURCES
SURVEY AND EVALUATION FOR THE
PROPOSED
ROBERTSON RANCH PROJECT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Prepared for:
McMillan Land Development
2727 Hoover A venue
National City, California 91950
Prepared by:
Johnna L. Buysse, Project Archaeologist and
Brian F. Smith, Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith and Associates
14678 Ibex Court
San Diego, California 92129
(858) 484-0915
January 20, 2002
]
]
]
]
J
J
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
:1
:1
:t
:t
:1
National Archaeoloa:ical Data Base Information
Author(s):
Consulting Firm:
Report Date:
Report Title:
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
USGS Quadrangle:
Study Area:
Key Words:
Johnna L. Buysse, RPA, and Brian F. Smith, Principal Investigator
Brian F. Smith and Associates
146781bex Court
San Diego, California 92129
(858) 484-0915
January 20, 2002
"A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Proposed
Robertson Ranch Project"
McMillan Land Development
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, California 91950
Brian F. Smith and Associates
14678 Ibex Court
San Diego, California 92129
(858) 484-0915
San Luis Rey, California (7.5 minute)
Approximately 403 acres
USGS San Luis Rey quadrangle (7.5 minute): 17 prehistoric sites.
ne historic structure (Kelley Ranch house); temporary camps: lithic
catters; marine shell; seven significant cultural resources.
ii
,
I .. I
• I Table of Contents ... !
I
,
Pa~:e ,.
1.0 Management Summary/ Abstract 1.0-l ,.
I 2.0 Introduction and Setting 2.0-1 ,..
2.1 Project Setting 2.0-2 ,
I 2.1.1 Geology 2.0-2 ,..
2.1.2 Biology 2.0-2
2.1.3 Hydrology. 2.0-3 • I 2.2 Cultural Setting 2.0-8 !""'
2.2.1 Prehistory 2.0-8 -I 2.3 Results of the Records Search . 2.0-9 r-3.0 Research Design 3.0-1
4.0 Methodology 4.0-1 ,.
I 4.1 Previous Investigations . 4.0-1 ~
4.2 Current Pedestrian Survey 4.0-1 ~ I 4.3 Testing Field Procedures 4.0-2
4.4 Laboratory Methods 4.0-3
4.4.1 Artifact Analysis 4.0-3 " I 4.4.2 Ecofact Analysis 4.0-3 I~
4.5 Curation 4.0-4 ...
I 4.6 Native American Consultation 4.0-4 I
5.0 Results of Site Investigations 5.0-1 , ...
5.1 Site SDI-5416B 5.1-1 ..
I 5 .1.1 Site Description 5.1-l I~
5 .1.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.1-2 ....
I 5 .1.3 Discussion 5.1-3 lh 5.1.4 Summary . 5.1-4
5.2 Site SDI-5435 . 5.2-1 ...
I 5.2.1 Site Description 5.2-1 1-
5.2.2 Discussion 5.1-1
5.2.3 Summary ..
I 5.2-l 1-5.3 Site SDI-10,609 5.3-J
5.3.1 Site Description 5.3-1 ...
I 5.3.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.3-1 !~ f 5.3.3 Laboratory Analysis 5.3-4
5.3.4 Discussion 5.3-6 ..
I I~ 5.3.5 Summary 5.3-7
iii ..
I ! ~
• I \ .
1 ....
1 Paee -
1 5.4 Site SDI-10,610 5.4-1 -5.4.1 Site Description 5.4-1
1 5.4.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.4-1
5.4.3 Laboratory Analysis 5.4-3 • 5.4.4 Discussion 5.4-5
1 5.4.5 Summary . I • 5.4-6
0-5.5 Site SDI-10,611 5.5-1
1 5.5.1 Site Description 5.5-1
5.5.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.5-1 .....
5.5.3 Laboratory Analysis 5.5-4
1 5.5.4 Discussion 5.5-7
0-5.5.5 Summary . 505-8
1 5.6 Site SDI-10,612 5.6-1
5.6.1 Site Description 5.6-1 -5 .6.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.6-1 ., 5.6.3 Discussion 506-2
5.6.4 Summary . 506-2 0 .... ., 5.7 Site SDI-16,130 507-1
5.7.1 Site Description 507-1
""' 5.7.2 Description of Field Investigations 507-1 , 5. 7.3 Discussion 5.7-2
5.7.4 Summary 507-2 , 5.8 Site SDI-16,131 I o 508-1
5.8.1 Site Description 5.8-1
0. 508.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.8-1 , 5.8.3 Discussion 508-2
508.4 Summary 0 5.8-2 -.., 5.9 Site SDI-16,132 509-1
50901 Site Description 509-1
• 5.9.2 Description of Field Investigations 509-1
~ 5.9.3 Discussion 509-2
5.9.4 Summary 0 5.9-3 • 5.10 Site SDI-16,133 5010-1
~ 5.10.1 Site Description 5010-1
5.1 0.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.10-2
~ 5.1 0.3 Disturbances 5010-4
5.10.4 Discussion 5010-4
:'1 iv
.,
l •
I , l,
I Paa:e (
I 5.10.5 Summary. 5.10-6 l
5.11 Site SDI-16,134 5.11-1
I 5.11.1 Site Description 5.11-1 I"' 5 .11.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.11-1 ...
5.11.3 Discussion 5.11-2 l I 5.11.4 Summary. 5.11-2
5.12 Site SDI-16,135 5.12-1
I 5.12.1 Site Description 5.12-1 r~ 5.12.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.12-l
5.12.3 Discussion 5.12-2 f~ I 5.12.4 Summary. 5.12-3
5.13 Site SDI-16,136 5.13-1
I 5.13.1 Site Description 5.13-1 r 5.13.2 Description ofFie1d Investigations 5.13-1 •
5.13.3 Discussion 5.13-2
I ,.,
5.13.4 Summary. 5.13-3 J ... 5.14 Site SDI-16,137 5.14-4
I 5.14.1 Site Description 5.14-1 r" 5.14.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.14-1 •
5.14.3 Discussion 5.14-2
I 5.14.4 Summary. 5.14-3 ["'
5.15 Site SDI-16,138 5.15-1 ...
I 5.15.1 Site Description 5.15-1 f~ 5.15.2 Description of Field Investigations 5.15-1
5.15.3 Discussion 5.15-1
I 5.15.4 Summary. 5.15-3 I" 5.16 Historical Evaluation of the Kelly Ranch House 5.16-1 -
5.16.1 Field Documentation 5.16-1 !" I 5.16.2 Family Interview . 5.16-3 ....
5.16.3 Archival Research 5.16-3
I 5.15.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.16-4 ! ..
6.0 Discussion 6.0-1 -
7.0 Management Considerations . 7.0-1 l. I 7.1 Impact Analysis 7.0-1 -7 .1.1 Historical Resources 7.0-l
I 7 .1.2 Prehistoric Resources 7.0-l ! ..
7.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures 7.0-1 I
I v r ...
'
I ..
,
1 ...
1 ....
.,
, ..
. ,
'I •
7 .2.1 Historical Resources
7 .2.2 Prehistoric Resources
7 .2.3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program
8.0 Personnel
9.0 Certification.
10.0 References Cited
Appendix I-Archaeological Site Record Forms and Site Update Fonns
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
Appendix ll-Archaeological Record Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound S~parately)
vi
7.0-2
7.0-2
7.0-3
8.0-1
9.0-1
10.0-l
I r
I List of Fi&Ures r
I Pa&e !
Figure 2.0-1: General Location Map 2.0-4
I Figure 2.0-2: Topographic Project Location Map (USGS) 2.0-5 ~ Figure 2.0-3: Cultural Resource Location Map* . 2.0-6
Figure 2.0-4: Project Development Map . 2.0-7 1, I Figure 5.0-1: Resources Location Map*. 5.1-3 1' ..
Figure 5.1-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-5416B* 5.1-6
I Figure 5.1-2: Proflle drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.1-8 r" Figure 5.3-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-10,609* 5.3-8 , ..
Figure 5.3-2: Profile drawing of west wall of Test Unit 2 5.3-11 r" I Figure 5.4-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-10,610*. 5.4-7
Figure 5.4-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 2.
, ..
5.4-9
I Figure 5.5-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-10,611 * 5.5-9
r"' Figure 5.5-2: Profile drawing of west wall of Test Unit 2 5.5-11 -Figure 5.6-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-10,612* 5.6-3 r: I Figure 5.7-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,130* 5.7-3
Figure 5.7-2: Proflle drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.7-5
I Figure 5.8-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,131 * 5.8-3 r" Figure 5.8-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.8-5 ..
Figure 5.9-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,132* 5.9-4
I Figure 5.9-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1. 5.9-6 r"' I .. Figure 5.10-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,133* 5.10-7
I Figure 5.10-2: Excavation Location Map, BFSA and Recon-SDI-16,133* 5.10-8 r"' Figure 5.10-3: Proflle drawing of north wall of Test Unit 3 5.10-11 , ..
Figure 5.10-4: Schematic proflle of Site SDI-16,133 5.10-12
I Figure 5.11-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,134* 5.11-4 !"'
Figure 5.11-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.11-6 '-
I Figure 5.12-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,135* 5.12-4 r"" Figure 5.12-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.12-6 ... ,
Figure 5.13-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,136* 5.13-4
I Figure 5.13-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.13-6 f,....
Figure 5.14-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,137* 5.14-4 ..
I
Figure 5.14-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.14-6 /,..
Figure 5.15-1: Excavation Location Map-SDI-16,138* 5.15-4 I ....
Figure 5.15-2: Profile drawing of north wall of Test Unit 1 5.15-6
I Figure 5.16-1: Kelly Ranch House 5.16-14 I•
*Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately "''
I vii ....
.. I
, .. ,,
,...,
~
~
' ' , .. , -, .. ,
• , ..
List of Plates
Plate 5.1-1: Views of Site SDI-5416B and Profile of Test Unit 1
Plate 5.3-2: View of Proflle of Test Unit 1 and Artifact Photo .
Plate 5.3-1: Views of Site SDI-1 0,609 and Feature in Test Unit 1
Plate 5.4-1: Views of Site SDI-10,610 and Profile of Test Unit 2
Plate 5.4-2: Selected artifacts recovered from SDI-10,610
Plate 5.5-1: Views of Site SDI-10,611 and Profile of Test Unit 2.
Plate 5.5-2: Selected artifacts recovered from SDI-10,611
Plate 5.5-3: Selected artifacts recovered from SDI-10,611
Plate 5.6-1: View of Site SDI-10,612
Plate 5.7-1: Views of Site SDI-16,130 and Profile of Test Unit 1
Plate 5.8-1: Views of Site SDI-16,131 and Proflle of Test Unit 1
Plate 5.9-1: Views of Site SDI-16,132 and Profile of Test Unit 1
Plate 5.10-1: Views of Site SDI-16,133 .
Plate 5.10-2: View of Profile of Test Unit 3
Plate 5.11-1: Views of Site SDI-16, 134 and Proflle of Test Unit 1
Plate 5.12-1: Views of Site SDI-16,135 and Profile of Test Unit 1.
Plate 5.13-1: View of Site SDI-16,136 .
Plate 5.14-1: Views of Site SDI-16,137 and Proflle of Test Unit 1
Plate 5.15-1: Views of Site SDI-16,138 and Proflle of Test Unit 1
Plate 5.16-1: View of east side of ranch house
Plate 5.16-2: Views of ranch house
Plate 5.16-3: Views of ranch house
Plate 5.16-4: Views of ranch house
Plate 5.16-5: Views of ranch house and packing house
Plate 5.16-6: 1928-1929 Aerial photograph
Plate 5.16-7: View of ranch house
viii
5.1-6
5.3-8
5.3-9
5.4-8
5.4-9
5.5-10
5.5-11
5.5-12
5.6-4
5.7-4
5.8-4
5.9-5
5.10-9
5.10-10
5.11-4
5.12-5
5.13-5
5.14-5
5.15-5
5.6-6
5.16-7
5.16-8
5.16-9
5.16-10
5.16-ll
5.16-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
List of Tables
Table 2.0-1: Archaeological Sites Located within One Mile of the Project
Table 2.0-2: Previous Studies Conducted in the Area of the Project
Table 5.0-1: Cultural Resources Identified within the Project Study Area
Table 5.1-1: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-5416B
Table 5.1-2: Summary of Test Unit Recovery-SDI-5416B
Table 5.1-3: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-5416B .
Table 5.1-4: Summary of Artifact Recovery-SDI-5416B
Table 5.1-5: Lithic Material Distribution-SDI-5416B.
Table 5.1-6: Summary of Test Unit Ecofact Recovery -SDI-5416B
Table 5.1-7: Sunnnary of Faunal Recovery-SDI-5416B
Table 5.1-8: Detail of Faunal Recovery-SDI-5416B .
Table 5.3-1: Sunnnary of Surface Recovery-SDI-10,609 •
Table 5.3-2: Surface Recovery Data-SDI-10,609
Table 5.3-3: Summary of Shovel Test Recovery-SDI-10,609 .
Table 5.3-4: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-10,609
Table 5.3-5: Sunnnary of Test Unit Recovery-SDI-10,609
Table 5.3-6: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-10,609 .
Table 5.3-7: Sunnnary of Artifact Recovery-SDI-10,609
Table 5.3-8: Lithic Tool Measurement Data-SDI-10,609
Table 5.3-9: Lithic Material Distribution-SDI-10,609.
Table 5.3-10: Summary of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics-SDI-10,609
Table 5.3-11: Detail of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics-SDI-10,609
Table 5.3-12: Summary of Test Unit Ecofact Recovery-SDI-10,609 .
Table 5.3-13: Summary of Faunal Recovery-SDI-10,609.
Table 5.3-14: Detail of Faunal Recovery-SDI-10,609.
Table 5.4-1: Summary of Surface Recovery-SDI-10,610
Table 5.4-2: Surface Recovery Data-SDI-10,610
Table 5.4-3: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-10,610
Table 5.4-4: Summary of Test Unit Recovery-SDI-10,610 • .
Table 5.4-5: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-10,610 .
Table 5.4-6: Summary of Artifact Recovery-SDI-10,610
Table 5.4-7: Lithic Tool Measurement Data-SDI-10,610
Table 5.4-8: Lithic Material Distribution-SDI-10,610
Table 5.4-9: Summary of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics-SDI-1 0,610
Table 5.4-10: Detail of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics-SDI-10,610
ix
Pa2e
2.0-10
2.0-11
5.0-1
5.1-8
5.1-10
5.1-11
5.1-14
5.1-15
5.1-16
5.1-17
5.1-18
5.3-12
5.3-13
5.3-14
5.3-15
5.3-19
5.3-21
5.3-27
5.3-28
5.3-29
5.3-30
5.3-31
5.3-32
5.3-34
5.3-35
5.4-10
5.4-11
5.4-12
5.4-15
5.4-16
5.4-18
5.4-19
5.4-20
5.4-21
5.4-22
r
r
l
(
(
c
f~
)~
J~ , .. ...
f~
r"' c ..
r---...
~~
, ..
....
, .. ..
.... L
r· ...
1
...
c '
,
"
.., ..
, ..
~
I ,,.
Table 5.4-11: Summary of Marine Shell from Test Unit 2-SDI-10,610
Table 5.4-12: Summary of Faunal Recovery-SDI-10,610 '
Table 5.4-13: Detail of Faunal Recovery-SDI-10,610.
Table 5.5-1: Summary of Surface Recovery-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-2: Surface Recovery Data-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-3: Summary of Shovel Test Recovery-SDI-10,611 .
Table 5.5-4: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-5: Summary of Test Unit Recovery-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-6: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-10,611 .
Table 5.5-7: Summary of Artifact Recovery-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-8: Lithic Tool Measurement Data-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-9: Lithic Material Distribution-SDI-10,611 .
Table 5.5-10: Summary of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-11: Detail of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-12: Summary of Marine Shell Recovery from Test Unit4-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-13: Summary of Faunal Recovery-SDI-10,611
Table 5.5-14: Detail of Faunal Recovery-SDI-10,611.
Table 5.6--1: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-10,612
Table 5.7-1: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,130
Table 5.8-1: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,131
Table 5.8-2: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16,131 .
Table 5.9-1: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,132
Table 5.9-2: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16,132 .
Table 5.10-1: Summary of Surface Recovery-SDI-16,133
Table 5.10-2: Surface Recovery Data-SDI-16,133
Table 5.10-3: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,133
Table 5.10-4: Summary of Test Unit Recovery-SDI-16,133
Table 5.10-5: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16,133.
Table 5.10-6: Summary of Artifact Recovery-SDI-16,133
Table 5.10-7: Lithic Tool Measurement Data-SDI-16,133
Table 5.10-8: Lithic Material Distribution-SDI-16,133
Table 5.11-1: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,134
Table 5.11-2: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16,134.
Table 5.12-1: Surface Recovery Data-SDI-16,135
Table 5.12-2: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,135
Table 5.12-3: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16,135.
Table 5.12-4: Detail of Faunal Recovery-SDI-16,135.
X
5.4-23
5.4-24
5.4-25
5.5-12
5.5-13
5.5-17
5.5-18
5.5-25
5.5-27
5.5-31
5.5-33
5.5-36
5.5-37
5.5-38
5.5-39
5.5-40
5.5-41
5.6-5
5.7-6
5.8-6
5.8-7
5.9-7
5.9-9
5.10-13
5.10-14
5.10-15
5.10-17
5.10-18
5.10-20
5.10-21
5.10-22
5.11-6
5.11-7
5.12-7
5.12-8
5.12-11
5.12-12
I l
I Paa=e l
I Table 5.13-1: Surface Recovery Data-SDI-16,136 5.13-6 f" ...
Table 5.13-2: Summary of Shovel Test Recovery-SDI-16,136 5.13-7
I Table 5.13-3: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,136 5.13-8 r: Table 5.13-4: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16, 136 . 5.13-10
Table 5.13-5: Summary of Artifact Recovery-SDI-16,136 5.13-11
f .. I Table 5.13-6: Lithic Tool Measurement Data-SDI-16,136 5.13-12 ... ,
Table 5.13-7: Lithic Material Distribution-SDI-16,136 5.13-13
I Table 5.14-1: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,137 5.14-7 r Table 5.14-2: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16, 137 . 5.14-10 I""'
Table 5.15-1: Surface Recovery Data-SDI-16,138 5.15-7 r,.. I Table 5.15-2: Shovel Test Excavation Data-SDI-16,138 5.15-8 ...
Table 5.15-3: Test Unit Excavation Data-SDI-16,138. I • 5.15-11
I Table 5.15-4: Detail of Faunal Recovery-SDI-16,138. 5.15-12 , ..
Table 7.0-1: Summary of Management Considerations . 7.0-4 ...
I ("
' ...
I r·
' .. ,
I r-...
I , ..
...
I i ..
\ ...
I i ... -
I· ~-' ' .....
I ~· ...
I •
I xi • ..
I II
...
,
' ,
.... , .. ,
.,
•
Tile Roberwm Rauch Prt~ject
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA) conducted a cultural resources survey and
evaluation for the Robertson Ranch Project, a 403-acre project located along Agua Hedionda Creek
in an undeveloped but cultivated area of Carlsbad. The property is located on the USGS San Luis
Rey quadrangle, north of Agua Hedionda Creek and within the eastern portion of the unsectioned
Agua Hedionda Rancho (Township 11 South and Range 4 West). Most of the property is
presently being cultivated with flowers, fruits, and vegetables and has been cultivated for many
years. Only isolated areas on the southwest and eastern portions of the project have not been
cultivated; these areas contain patches of native vegetation, most noticeably chamise chaparral on
slopes and wetland grasses at lower elevations. The proposed project will consist of the
construction of single-and multi-family housing, as well as a school, park, community facilities, and
access roads .
The purpose of this investigation was to complete a records search of previously recorded
archaeological sites on or near the property, to survey the project area, to locate all archaeological
resources, and to test and evaluate any cultural resources identified within the project boundaries.
An archaeological records search was conducted by BFSA at the South Coastal Information Center
(SCIC) at San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man in order to assess the
previous archaeological studies within the project or in the immediate vicinity (Appendix II). The
records search indicated that portions of the property had been previously surveyed and that eight
resources were recorded on the property.
The archaeological survey of the Robertson Ranch took place between July 23 and 26,
2001, under the direction of Brian F. Smith, principal investigator. Seven of the eight previously
recorded resources were relocated during the current survey; Site SDI-5435 was not relocated. An
a'!_~~~al. ~0 ~fl!;:o~~~sit~~~.9-.!!£i~!!rreql.inY.€?~t!9.!!.9f the property. These
sites were registered with the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State
University (Appendix 1). The total of 18 resources on the RobertsQn Ranch includes 17
prehistoric si~s and .~.single historic strncU!fe. Two (SDI-5416A and SDI-5434) of the eight
p;eviously identified resources, and half of another site (SDI-16,133), had already been tested for
significance and determined not important. Therefore, including the portion of the one site that was
only partially tested, a total of 16 resources were tested and/or evaluated for significance by BFSA
as part of the current investigation .
Testing of the sites occurred in December 2001, under the· direction of Brian F. Smith .
Testing of the prehistoric sites was conducted by surface examination, mapping of shell scatters,
collection of surface artifacts, excavation of shovel test pits to identify any subsurface artifact
content, and excavation of at least one test unit to more thoroughly investigate the stratigraphy of the
soils and cultural deposits at the sites. Exceptions to this methodology included Site SDI-5435,
which could not be located, and the historic structure (P-37-024329), which was subjected to
historic research and evaluation but no excavations were conducted.
1.0-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
Tile Rol1ertson Rmlt'll Pmjecl
In summary, 18 archaeological sites have been identified which may be affected by the
project. O~'(~.~lL~te~ed .. !2J?~l!~!#,~~~.~! . .,:!..~!~!ing the current
investigation or by previous investigators; impacts to these sites will not be adverse, and mitigation
measures are not necessary. The remainin sev sites that have been determined to be important
under the California Environmental Quality A. (CEQA)~;;dOtY~~&Tsbad'guicfeliiles will be
impacted by some elements of the proposed rojects; these impacts will be adverse. Mitigation
~--~l"'~""~t'!'f/"f!:irl-measures will be required to reduce the impa to these sites to a level below significant.
-.,.;~.-r..,;~,.~:l';;;j'i-c.>"f'.:<o,,_w,:.,..c.:;c;,r;r...,<w~'""'·,..fO.,.~•~··~~·F·'<~"':P'I"'_,_,-.. -~.-~·._)'.,.~:r~"'"'"""~""''.;~"..,.~P~•o;~
\,~ ~~ ~ ~,·J.t-'
·'
1.0-2
r
r -
[
(
c
,,.
t•·
f ... .....
( ...
!
(,..
I ,.
I i
r• ..
·-
The Robertson Ranch Project
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SETTING
The archaeological survey and significance evaluation program for the Robertson Ranch
Project was conducted by BFSA for McMillan Land Development and was required by the City of
Carlsbad in conformance with CEQA and the City's environmental guidelines. The project is
located in Carlsbad in the northwestern portion of San Diego County. It is situated north of the
intersection of El Camino Real and Calaveras Road, and northwest of Agua Hedionda Creek
(Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2). The project area is located within the central portion of the unsectioned
Agua Hedionda Rancho, Township 11 South and Range 4 West.
BFSA conducted the archaeological survey and records search review, as well as the testing,
site registration, and significance evaluation of archaeological resources within the project area.
Personnel for this part of the project included principal investigator Brian F. Smith, senior
archaeologist Larry Pierson, project archaeologist Johnna L. Buysse, field supervisors Charles
Callahan and Clarence Hoff, and field technicians Chris Beach, Clint Callahan, Colleen DeCook,
Adriane Dorrler, Robert LeVeille, Scott Mattingly, Richard Savitch, Jeff Szymanski, Helen Wilson,
and Nathania! Yerka.
The archaeological survey and institutional records searches identified cultural resources
both within and near the project. A total of 18 resources ( 17 prehistoric sites and one historic
structure) identified during the records search and pedestrian survey are located within the proposed
project (Figure 2.0-3). Portions of the project area have been subjected to previous archaeological
investigations (Hector 1985; Collett and Cheever 2001). The previous studies identified eight
prehistoric resources (SDI-5416A, SDI-5416B, SDI-5434, SDI-5435, SDI-10,609, SDI-10,610,
SDI-10,611, and SDI-10,612) within the boundaries of the project area. An additional 10
prehistoric sites (SDI-16,130, SDI-16,131, SDI-16,132, SDI-16,133, SDI-16,134, SDI-16,135,
SDI-16,136, SDI-16,137, SDI-16,138, and P-37-024329) were identified during the current
investigation.
Several of the previously recorded sites have been either partially or entirely tested by Recon
as part of a separate project to extend College Boulevard across the Robertson Ranch property
(Collett and Cheever 2001). Sites SDI-5416A and SDI-5434 were tested in 2001 and determined
not important under the City of Carlsbad, CEQA, and Section 106 guidelines (Collett and Cheever
2001). In addition, the portion of Site SDI-16,133 within the proposed College Boulevard
alignment was also subjected to a testing program by Recon in late 2001. Sites SDI-5416A and
SDI-5434 were not retested by BFSA; they were considered not important resources as evaluated ·
and recommended by Recon. Site SDI-16,133 was subjected to additional testing procedures by
BFSA as part of the current study.
In summary, of the 18 resources identified within the Robertson Ranch, two sites (SDI-
5416A and SDI-5434) had been tested and determined not important by CEQA, City of Carlsbad,
and Section 106 guid~lines (Collet and Cheever 2001). Of the remaining 16 sites, one (SDI-
16,133) had been partially tested and also determined not important (Collet and Cheever 2001 );
however, additional work was conducted by BFSA at SDI-16,133 as part of the Robertson Ranch
2.0-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T11e Roberrsoll Rauch Pn~iecr
development project. Therefore, 16 resources (including SDI-16,133) were subjected to a
significance evaluation program by BFSA in late 2001. These valuations are presented in Section
5.0. One of the 16 sites (SDI-5435) could not be relocated and is presumed to have been destroyed
or eroded away. This site was not tested but was evaluated as part of the current investigation; due
to its absence, Site SDI-5435 is considered to be not important.
Th~obertson Ranch House, P-37-024329, was subjected to an evaluation that
ncluded examination of the structure as well as histo · e structure is evaluated as an
mportant historical structure and will be preserved ·thin an open spac
e remauung 14 sites within the proposed area (SDI-5416B, SDI-10,609,
SDI-10,610, SDI-10,611, SDI-10,612, SDI-16,130, SDI-16,131, SDI-16,132, SDI-16,133, SDI-
16,134, SDI-16,135, SDI-16,136, SDI-16,137, and SDI-16,138) were subjected to archaeological
testing programs as part of the significance evaluation program conducted by BFSA.
2.1 Project Setting
The 403-acre Robertson Ranch Project is located on the lower slopes of the foothills that
characterize the Agua Hedionda area in southeast Carlsbad (Figures 1.0-1 and 1.0-2). The habitat
in the vicinity of the site is characterized by coastal terraces and intennittent drainages that feed into
the larger Agua Hedionda Valley; occasional bedrock exposures are present east of the property.
Elevations on the project range from approximately 40 to 225 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
Current land use on the project area includes extensive cultivation with numerous dirt access roads.
2.1.1 Geology
San Diego County lies in the Peninsular Range Geologic Province of southern California.
The mountainous zone, which lies in a northwest to southeast trend through the county, extends to
6,533 feet AMSL (Beauchamp 1986). Foothills and valleys, known as the cismontane, extend west
from the mountains. Cismontane regions typically receive more rainfall than the mesas and less
rainfall than the mountainous region. Between the foothills and the coast lies the coastal mesa
region, which is cut by several large drainages originating in the mountains and foothills. The coast
is characterized by large bays and lagoons, where the major rivers empty into the sea, and mesas
which terminate at the ocean in the form of bluffs (Beauchamp 1986).
The proposed project area is situated within the coastal plains physiographic province.
Soils mapped in the area include Altamont, Diablo, Friant, Las Flores, Salinas, Tujunga, and Visalia
series soils (Bowman et al. 1973).
2.1.2 Biology
Vegetation on the property consists of a chamise chaparral community on a few slopes on
the periphery of the property, wetland grasses in the seasonal drainages at the west and east ends of
the property, and cultivated fields over most of the remainder of the property. During the pedestrian
survey conducted by BFSA in July 2000, many of the fields had been plowed but not yet planted
with crops, thus ground visibility during the survey was good to excellent in most places. However,
2.0-2
• I
r
r
r I -..
r '""
l ..
; .. _
_ ...
, ..
...
! ' ..
I ' •
The Robertson Ranch Projecr
by the time the testing phase of the project was conducted in December 2001, many of the fields
exhibited heavy crop growth; in several cases, plastic covered the crops. Therefore, ground visibility
was greatly reduced during the testing phase of the investigation, and additional effort was required
to position shovel tests and test units among rows of crops and plastic sheets.
Mammals within the region include mule deer, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, ground
squirrel, and kangaroo rats; birds include hawks, eagles, owls, quail, mourning doves, mockingbirds,
jays, herons, crows, finches, and sparrows. Speci.es of concern in the area include the cactus wren,
California gnatcatcher, Bell's vireo, foothill and mountain yellow-legged frog, orange-throated
whiptail and California mountain kingsnake (USDA and USDI 2001).
..-/~ ~
11/....-:...
/V("'&I"'*/~
2.1.3 Hydrology
A tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek runs north to south across the eastern edge of the
project area, and is intermittent, being dry in the summer. Agua Hedionda Creek, a semi-permanent
stream, runs adjacent to the southeast comer of the project and drains toward the ocean. Agua
Hedionda lagoon is located approximately 1.5 miles to the west, while the Pacific coast is located
approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the project area. The lagoon is a permanent estuarine feature,
which in the major period of prehistoric occupation (between 8,000 and 4,000 years ago) was
similar to the other coastal lagoons along the San Diego County coastline. The mouth of the
lagoon was created as the sea level rose rapidly following the last glacial sequence, which
corresponds, to a long period of lower sea levels that had allowed the surrounding creeks to cut a
deep canyon. The lagoon provided a variety of marine food resources (e.g., mollusks, crustaceans,
and fishes) that was used prehistorically in the subsistence routine of both the Late Prehistoric
Luisefio Indians and the earlier La Jolla Complex. The siltation of the lagoon circa 3,500 years
before present (YBP) likely resulted in the decline of shellfish resources, which greatly reduced
human activity in the area for a time. However, subsequent groups took advantage of the rich biotic
and hydrologic resources afforded by the confluence of Agua Hedionda Creek and the lagoon.
Stones for toolmaking would have been available in concentration from beaches and streambeds, as
would fresh water in varying degrees of abundance throughout the year.
2.0-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 2.0-4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
General Location Map
The Robertson Ranch Project
City of Carlsbad
Figure 2.0-1
r
r
r
,~'
/ ,;· '/. --? .
t
j
•'
' •• J-··
' /
/
/
.;:. ~ ·:'~ {~ ;.: ::' :~
~~·1._ ~ ~ ·.;.: ;:: ¢:· !'!:.~;.~~~-~:,:. ~: ::X
Project Location Map
The Robertson Ranch Project
USGS San Luis Rey Quadrangle (7.5 minute series)
2.0-5
Figure 2.0-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
Q
/ r
j
/~:", ..
'/ .
···'" 1 : ' /
/
·W t;;
:t~{~
Cultural Resource Location Map
The Robertson Ranch Project
USGS San Luis Rey Quadrangle (7.5 minute series)
2.0--6
Figure 2.0-3
.,,._-=~~u
es.a,v.,,.,Tct..'
"!I.IC•~"•''n:~
(~ .. :.;;:,.~~1.)
lt.~.:~•~•.t ieu
8!C0111"CI:l!'I'"OM
c:.omf!' .... ::.t ...
,.,,.c.
~· ll,.,
:•s :o.-..
...
'.C.O
lO.!l
'0.0 ..
, ..
''"
=·
61r.fJO,.r,!it./lt.Hictcr.;.~lljT~\··
Mli::I-P"..,..,~:;,-.a.Hcrd8Cic
,....~.otti·~rw ~•iiM~ia!i'O"..a~
To:..t ~·~~·•::=:..,.!Qp'r'*""t
::z Gclm'.l.lr.:to; -..,reM.ion
•~'~t.'l'l'l"t:l.,e Gen:..T""/Go•dent
1• GQ!r,~r..,roiallt.e,rCIICion
~5 eNr•d "" '"ariclrig
I«>Odl
Opent~~·
...t~~l'l i'.;)~·
1.0
'" "'-·
...
ERT50N RANCH
~TUAL LAND USE PLAN
The Robertson Ranch Project
Project Development Map
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Roberrso11 Ra11ch Proiecr
2.2 Cultural Setting
The cultures that have been identified within a five-mile radius of the project consist of the
possible Paleo-Indian manifestation of the San Dieguito Complex, the Archaic Horizon represented
by the La Jolla Complex, and the Late Prehistoric Luisefio Indians. A brief discussion of the
prehistoric culture history of the region is provided below.
2.2.1 Prehistory
The cultural chronology for the Carlsbad area includes the generally accepted cultural
phasing within San Diego County, consisting of occupation by the San Dieguito Complex, the La
Jolla Complex, and the Late Prehistoric Luisefio Indians.
The San Dieguito Complex/Paleo-Indian
The term "San Dieguito Complex" is a cultural distinction used to describe a group of
people that occupied sites in this region between 10,000 and 8,000 YBP and appears to be related to
or contemporaneous with the Paleo-Indian groups in the Great Basin area and the Midwest.
Although sites associated with this complex are few in number, stratigraphic evidence at two sites
has indicated that the San Dieguito may have been the first culture to migrate into the coastal plain
at San Diego (Warren 1966; Moriarty 1967). The artifacts recovered from San Dieguito sites
duplicate a typology that has been attributed to the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Moratto 1984;
Davis et al. 1969). This typology generally consists of scrapers, choppers, bifaces, large projectile
points, and few or no milling tools. The tools recovered from the sites of the San Dieguito
Complex and the pattern of the site locations indicate they were a wandering, hunting and gathering
society (Moriarty 1969; Rogers 1966).
The San Dieguito Complex is the least understood of the cultures that have existed in the
San Diego County region. This is due primarily to the fact that San Dieguito sites rarely contain
stratigraphic information or datable material. Currently, there is a controversy among researchers
that centers upon the occupation of the San Dieguito along the coast: whether the San Dieguito
Complex evolved quickly into the La Jolla Complex, assimilated into the La Jolla Complex, or
eventually migrated away from the coastal plain.
The La Jolla Complex/Archaic Horizon
Approximately 9,000 to 8,500 YBP, a major cultural tradition became established in the San
Diego region, primarily along the coast. At that time, the shoreline was located further west than the
present coastline, because the sea level was lower during the end of the last Ice Age. This tradition
has been called the La Jolla Complex, and radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this culture
span a period of over 7,000 years in this region. The La Jolla Complex is recognized for its pattern
of shell middens, grinding tools closely associated with the marine resources of the area, and flexed
human burials (Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985).
The tool typology of the La Jolla Complex displays a wide range of sophistication in lithic
manufacturing techniques. Scrapers, the most common type of flaked tool found at La Jolla sites,
2.0-8
.]
.]
"]
"
J
J
J
J
]
J
J
]
,]
The Robertson Ranch Project
were created either by splitting cobbles or by finely flaking quarried materials. In the study area. La
Jolla period sites are a common occurrence.
The Late Prehistoric Luieno
A group of incoming Shoshonean people with a language belonging to the Uto-Aztecan
linguistic group settled in the southern California area about 2,500 to 2,000 YBP (King 1981 ). In
San Diego County, these people became known as the Luisefio Indians because of their association
with the San Luis Rey Mission during the early historic period (Moratto 1984). Their neighbors to
the south, the Yuman-speaking Kumeyaay, were known as the Dieguefio due to their residence near
the San Diego Mission. The geographic boundary in pre-and proto-historic times between the
Luisefio and the Dieguefio is difficult to place due to the similarity of their tool kits. An attempt has
been made to differentiate the two based upon archaeological assemblages (True 1966).
The Luisefio people were hunter-gatherers with a seasonal migration which included both
coastal and inland areas in their range. The annual round included hunting terrestrial game and
gathering plant foods when available. Their diet was augmented with marine resources during
seasonal visits to the coast.
2.3 Results of the Records Search
An archaeological records search for the project was conducted by BFSA at the South
Coastal !information Center at San Diego State University and the San Diego Museum of Man.
The records search revealed that seven previously recorded archaeological sites are registered within
the project boundaries, and 73 additional sites are located within one mile of the project area. The
seven previously recorded sites that exist within the project boundaries are all prehistoric sites. A
brief description of the 80 sites within and adjacent to the project area is provided in Table 2.0-1,
and the complete records search results are provided in Appendix II. A total of 53 previous studies
have been completed within a mile of the project, including five within the current project area
(Calavera Hills Project [1977 site form]; Collett and Cheever 2001; Gallegos 1991; Hector 1985;
and Wade 1992) (Table 2.0-2). Most of the 53 studies consist of Phase I assessments.
2.0-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robermm Rauch Pn•ieo
TABLE2.0-1
Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of
the Robertson Ranch Project
Sites Description
SDI-636, SDI-4990, SDI-5213, SDI-5214, SDI-5353, Prehistoric campsite/habitation
SDI-5416*, SDI-5436, SDI-6135, SDI-6140, SDI-8796,
SDI-9092, SDI-9093, SDI-9097, SDI-9615, SDI-9649,
SDI-9650, SDI-9651, SDI-9700, SDI-9701, SDI-9653,
SDI-9655, SDI-10,024, SDI-10,025, SDI-10,440,
SDI-10,609*, SDI-10,610*, SDI-10,611*, SDI-13,008,
SDI-13,124, SDI-13,701, SDI-14,335, SDI-14,337,
SDI-14,338, SDI-15,069, SDI-15,073, SDI-15,545,
SDI-15,546, W-558, W-1510
SDI-5435*, SDI-9652, SDI-12,145, SDI-15,544, Lithic scatter
W-136, W-3631, P-37-015714, P-37-018284
SDI-5437 Isolated prehistoric artifact
SDI-635, SDI-5439, SDI-5440, SDI-5434*, SDI-7229,
SDI-8407, SDI-8408, SDI-9115, SDI-9116, SDI-9698,
SDI-9699, SDI-9917, SDI-10,612*, SDI-12,471,
W-2848
SDI-8465
SDI-9654
SDI-5438
SDI-14,339
W-5921
SDI-209, SDI-8133, SDI-9081, SDI-9114,
SDI-11,756, SDI-ll,757, SDI-12,470, SDI-14,140,
SDI-14,151, SDI-14,809, W-2042, W-2043
* Located within the project area boundaries
Marine shell scatter
Bedrock milling and shell scatter
Bedrock milling feature(s)
Prehistoric rock feature
Site details lacking on site form
2.0-10
.. '
~
c
~
c
~
c
,:
... l .. ..
l ~
,,
....
l
l
l
' l
l
l
' ' ~
' ·~
~
)
J
'
TABLE2.0-2
Previous Studies Conducted in the Area of
the Robertson Ranch Project
Archaeological Planning Collaborative
Tl1e Robertson R1111d1 Pn>jerl
1979 "Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey Carlsbad Pacific Property
Carlsbad, California." Archaeological Planning Collaborative. Unpublished report on
file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
1980 "Archaeological Records Search and Field Survey, Palomar Airport Excess Effluent
Pipeline, San Diego County, California." Archaeological Planning Collaborative.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Bissell, Ron
1990 "Test Excavation of Two Archaeological Sites and Photographic Documentation of a
Historic Bam, Evan's Point, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California." RMW Paleo
Associates, Inc. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San
Diego, California.
Bissell, Ron and Rod Raschke
1985 "Cultural and Scientific Resources Assessment: Evans Point Project, Carlsbad,
California." RMW Paleo Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
Buysse, Johnna L. and Brian F. Smith
1999 "An Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of a Cultural Resource for the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Project and a Portion of the Proposed College Boulevard
Alignment Project." Brian F. Smith and Associates. Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Calaveras Hills Project
1977 Site form on file at the South Coastal Information Center.
Carrico, Richard L.
1975 "Archaeological Survey at the TMI Project." WESTEC Services, Inc. Unpublished
report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Carrico, Richard and Roxana Phillips
1981 "Archaeological Salvage at W-132A, Carlsbad, California." Westec Services, Inc.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Chamberlain, David L.
1974 "Environmental Impact Report Templin: Heights Development 275 Single Family Units
on 84 Acres." D. L. Chamberlain. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
2.0-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cheever, Dayle
1989 "Archaeological Resources Located Within Southridge Trails Area C." Recon.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Corum, Joyce
1993 "Negative Archaeological Survey Report llSD-76, P.M.RO.OIR2.9 11222-159021,
San Diego County-Agua Hedionda Creek Drainage." Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Elfend Associates
1984 "Environmental Information Kelly Ranch Master Plan/Specific Plan." Elfend
Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San
Diego, California.
Engineering Management, Inc.
1984 "Environmental Assessment San Diego Pipeline Expansion Project, Los Angeles,
Orange, and San Diego Counties, California." Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San
Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Environmental Impact Profiles
1973 "Environmental Impact Report for the Planned Community -Carlsbad Palisades."
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
1974 "Draft Environmental Impact report for Lagoon Shores, Carlsbad, California."
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
ERCE
1991 "Cultural Resource Testing Program for SDI-4922, SDI-4923, SDI-4925, SDI-4927,
SDI-11,941, SDI-11,942, SDI-11,943, SDI-12,125, Calaveras Lake, Carlsbad,
California." Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San
Diego, California.
Fink, Gary R.
1973 "Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Letterbox Canyon Landfill Site Project
556401." Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Gallegos, Dennis
1991 "Historica1/ Archaeological Survey Report for Calaveras Lake Off-site Improvements,
Carlsbad, California." Gallegos and Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC,
San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
1997 "Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Sterling Property." Gallegos and
Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego,
California. ·
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Richard Carrico
1984 "Archaeological Survey of Falcon Hills." Westec, Services, Inc. Unpublished report
on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
2.0-12
l
(
(
(
c
c
r~
r~
~~
1 ....
' .... ,,.
' ...
...
l
,..
I . ..
I
]
]
]
,]
,]
The Robertson Ranch Project
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Danielle Huey
1991 "Testing and Data Recovery for Late Period Occupation Sites CA-SDI-635 and CA-
SDI-636 -Calavera Heights." ERCE. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San
Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Gallegos, Dennis and Carolyn Kyle
1997 "Historical/ Archaeological Survey for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Project,
City of Carlsbad, California." Gallegos and Associates. Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R., Patricia Mitchell, Adelia Schroth and Nina Harris
1998 "Data Recovery at CA-SDI-6133, Locus C, Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California."
Gallegos and Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R., and Andrew Pigniolo
1990 "Cultural Resource Testing Program for SDI-635 and SDI-636, Calavera Heights
Village, Carlsbad, California." ERCE. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego
State University, San Diego, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Larry Tift
1998 "Historical/ Archaeological Survey for the Faraday Road Project." Gallegos and
Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San
Diego, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R., Larry Tift and Tracy Stropes
1998 "Archaeological Test Report for a Portion of CA-SDI-9115/SDM-W-122 Carlsbad,
California." Industrial Developments International. Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Gross, Timothy and Ruth C. Alter
1998 "Archaeological Testing of a Portion of Sl-14,809, an Archaeological Site on a
Segment of the South Agua Hedionda Trunk Sewer Carlsbad, California." Affinis.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Gross, Timothy and Charles Bull
1973 "An Archaeological Survey of Tract #72-28." San Diego State University.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Hector, Susan M.
1981 "An Assessment of Archaeological Site SDM-W-133, Carlsbad, California." Recon.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
1983 "Archaeologic.al Survey of Del Mar Financial Carlsbad, California." Recon.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
1985 "An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad. Recon.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Kaldenberg, Russell L.
1975 Archaeological Resource Impact Report for the Rancho Hedionda Master Plan."
Recon. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego,
California.
2.0-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Project
1976 "A Predevelopment Archaeological Resource Survey for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
North Shore Project." Recon. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Koerper, Henry C., Paul F. Langenwalter II and Adelia Schroth
1986 "The Agua Hedionda Project Archaeological Investigations at CA-SDI-5353 and CA-
SDI-9649." Henry C. Koerper. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Larry Seeman Associates, Inc.
1982 "Draft Environmental Impact Report: Revised Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad
California." Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San
Diego, California.
McCorckle Apple, Rebecca
1987 "Archaeological Survey Report for Minor Subdivision 730 and 736 in Carlsbad,
California." Dames and Moore. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
McCoy, Lesley C. and Alex N. Kirkish
1982 "Cultural Resources Data Recovery Program for the 230KV Transmission Line
Rights-of-Way from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to Black Star Canyon
and Santiago Substation and to Encina and Mission Valley Substations Vols. I and II."
Cultural Systems Research, Inc. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Michael Brandman Associates, Inc.
1983 "Draft Environmental Impact Report 83-4 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Kelley Ranch SCH #83042707." Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Mooney, Brian and John Cook
1993 "Archaeological Survey Report for a Portion of Adams Street Widening Project in the
City of Carlsbad, California." Brian F. Mooney and Associates. Unpublished report
on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
N as land Engineering
1983 "Draft Environmental Impact Report Alanda Project." Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Owen, Debra
1991 "Negative Archaeological Survey Report." Caltrans. Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Polan, Keith H.
1983 "An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Alanda Project, Carlsbad, California."
Heritage Environmental Services. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Regional Environmental Consultants (Recon)
1980 "Cultural Resources Review Phase II: Historic Resources Inventory." Unpublished
report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
2.0-14
"" f.
J~
,:
,:
'
r:
The Rtlbertstm Ranch Project
1983 "Draft Environmental Impact Report Del Mar Financial, Carlsbad, California."
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Schroth, Adelia, Nina Harris and Dennis R. Gallegos
1996 "Archaeological Survey and Test for the Huber Property, Carlsbad, California."
Gallegos and Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Schroth, Adelia and Dennis R. Gallegos
1996 "Archaeological Survey and Test for the Cade Property, Carlsbad, California."
Gallegos and Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California.
Smith, Brian F.
1998 "The Results of a Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation Program for Area A at the
Kelly Ranch and the Improvement Corridor for Park Drive." Brian F. Smith and
Associates. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San
Diego, California.
Ultrasystems, Inc.
1983 "Supplemental Environmental Studies: Kelley Ranch." Archaeological Associates.
Report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Unknown
1986 "Site Record Update: SDI-5213 C&D." Department of Parks and Recreation.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Wade, Sue A.
1989 "Archaeological and Paleontological Constraints for the Fox Property." Recon.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
1992 "Archaeological Evaluations at Calavera Hills, Archaeological Testing at SDI-5416,
SDI-12,470, SDI-12,471, Carlsbad." Recon. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San
Diego State University, San Diego, California.
' Walker, Carol J. and Charles S. Bull
1980 "An Archaeological Test Investigation of Seven Cultural Resources for Leisure Village
Oceanside." Recon. Submitted to Leisure Technology. Unpublished report on file at
SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Whitehouse, John L. R. and Sue A. Wade
1990 "A Cultural Resource Survey of the McGregor Property, Carlsbad, CA." Recon.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
2.0-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson Ranch Project
3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
Based on guideline requirements for the City of Carlsbad, the applicant requested that
BFSA conduct the significance testing program for the Robertson Ranch Project. The scope of
work for this portion of the archaeological program included the evaluation of the significance of
one historic structure (P-37-024329) and 15 prehistoric archaeological sites (SDI-5416B, SDI-
5435, SDI-10,609, SDI-10,610, SDI-10,611, SDI-10,612, SDI-16,130, SDI-16,131, SDI-16,132,
SDI-16,133, SDI-16,134, SDI-16,135, SDI-16,136, SDI-16,137, and SDI-16,138), including one
site (SDI-16,133) that was partially tested previously. Due to the number of prehistoric sites
identified on the project, the research design focused on the prehistoric settlement of the Carlsbad
area. This significance evaluation program required a surface examination and the subsurface
testing of each site, as well as the recordation of any features, including bedrock milling features,
present at the sites. Basic goals such as the determination of site boundaries, depth of any
archaeological deposit, stratigraphy, integrity, content, and spatial distribution of any subsurface
artifacts and cultural ecofacts were essential to this test phase/significance evaluation program. A
research orientation transcends these goals by expanding the meaning of information extracted
from a site through the use of archaeological questions important in current scientific research.
Regional and temporal research issues should be taken into consideration when posing such
questions.
The importance of these sites was included in the qualitative testing phase as part of the
overall site significance evaluation. The research orientation for this aspect of the project focused
on site function within the settlement system of the prehistoric people who occupied this area of
San Diego County. The research questions below address current regional and local concerns.
• Cultural Sequences
In looking for and identifying separate cultural horizons, the premise can be that different
people occupied the area at different times, or that a group or groups changed enough through time
such that they appear to be different in retrospect. A tripartite theoretical cultural sequence has been
the traditional operational hypothesis for San Diego County (Moriarty 1966; Moratto 1984 ). This
sequence has been presented as San Dieguito being the oldest, then the La Jolla Complex, followed
by the late prehistoric Luiseiio in northwestern San Diego County and Dieguefio (Kumeyaay) in
southern and eastern San Diego County. While a substantial amount is known about the late
prehistoric peoples because of numerous sites with good preservation and historic accounts
(ethnohistory), the earlier occupants are more enigmatic due to a lack of preservation and
ethnohistory. The earliest residents and their age and origins have been the subject of much
confusion.
Much thought has been given recently to the idea that technological changes in prehistoric
archaeological lithic assemblages resulted from adaptations to changing environmental conditions
3.0-1
r
r
c
c
c
(
c
(
'
.. ! .. ..
\ ..
.... ., .. .,
...
1 ..
' ' 1 ...
1 ...
1 ..
' ,
•IIIII
1 ...
' ' ' ' ' '
The Robertson Ranch Project
(Binford and O'Connell 1984; Aenniken 1984; Bamforth 1991). This concept, while not
necessarily new, has been applied in earnest only during the last twenty years or so. When
addressing the problem of a San Dieguito antecedent to the La Jolla Complex, a careful analysis of
lithic tool morphology, absolute age, paleoenvironmental setting, and site function within a
subsistence pattern must be undertaken .
One particularly important area of investigation at sites along the coast in terms of
chronology is the different marine shell genera that were collected. Such analysis has provided
valuable information concerning the type of habitat exploited during the prehistoric occupation of
sites, particularly important at sites located adjacent to primary waterways such as Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. The siltation of lagoons in northern San Diego County is seen as one of the major events
affecting the prehistory of the area (Moriarty 1966; Warren 1984; Smith and Moriarty 1985; Byrd
and Serr 1993; Raven-Jennings and Smith 1999). Continued investigations at sites in proximity to
these lagoons have the potential to provide additional data to the ongoing research regarding the
effect of environmental changes on the prehistoric inhabitants of the area.
Research Questions:
When did the occupation of sites at the Robertson Ranch Project occur? What culture groups are
represented?
Are the previously accepted diagnostic La Jolla artifact types (marine shell, ground stone tools,
cobble-based tools) actually associated with La Jolla deposits or are they associated with later or
earlier contexts?
How does the prehistoric occupation of the project area compare to other properties in the region?
How do the sites relate to other projects spatially and temporally?
Do the sites at the Robertson Ranch Project fit the existing chronology of San Dieguito, La Jolla, or
Luiseiio?
What types of marine shell genera are represented at the Robertson Ranch sites? Are they genera
typical of lagoonal environments or open water? What inferences can be made about the time of
occupation based on the presence of these genera?
3.0-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Prf~iect
• Subsistence Strategies and Environment
Many of the earliest La Jolla sites are located in northern portions of San Diego County and
are the same sites as those reported for the San Dieguito Complex (Rancho San Diego, Agua
Hedionda, and the Harris Site). Both cultures made use of coastal and inland resources, including
plants, animals, shellfish, and fish. One of the primary differences between these cultures is the
lack of milling implements attributed to the San Dieguito occupation of these sites, indicating that
grinding was not an important aspect of the economy (Moriarty 1967~ Kaldenberg 1982~ Gallegos
and Carrico 1984). Due to the similarity of the resources procured during the San Dieguito and La
Jolla periods, discriminating between the subsistence practices is central to the issue of adaptive
change through the early prehistory of San Diego County. In particular, it is necessary to
document whenever possible the actual resources taken through the collection and analysis of
ecofactual data.
Lewis Binford has identified two basic subsistence strategies, each resulting in a different
settlement pattern (Binford 1980; Binford 1989). The two examples are foragers who obtain food
and other resources as needed on an encounter basis, and the hunter-gatherers who have a
preplanned strategy to acquire resources from a specific range for both immediate consumption and
storage. These differences are manifest in both site character and distribution patterns (Binford
1980; Binford 1989). The pattern or catchment resulting from a forager (collector) subsistence
strategy is quite different from that of the hunter-gatherer. The forager pattern is made up of a
seasonal camp, centrally located in a resource area (Binford 1989). The catchment area associated
with this camp is typically the distance foragers could travel to collect resources and return the same
day (Findlow and Ericson 1980). The resultant artifact distribution pattern would consist of a
dense artifact assemblage at the central camp, representing the full range of objects and activities
required to maintain the population for extended periods of time. Radiating from this site would be
an ever-decreasing frequency of artifacts, which represent only those devices needed to facilitate the
collection of resources. The group transported resources back to the central location for processing
and consumption.
Hunter-gatherers established a seasonal village complex centrally located in a collecting
area. Radiating from this central location are maintenance camps strategically located near
concentrated resources. Collecting and processing stations radiate from these maintenance camps
and may represent both day use and overnight camping, depending on the volume and density of
resources. This system is made up of producer parties seeking large quantities of storable
resources in addition to maintenance resources for themselves (Binford 1980). The resultant
archaeological assemblages should consist of objects reflective of site function. Maintenance of the
producer parties would only be reflected in artifact assemblages where overnight camping occurred.
For example, sites utilized only during daytime collection activities would not be expected to contain
artifacts representative of clothing or adornment repairs.
3.0-3
,.,
L
r" ....
1 ,..,
~l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
' l
l
:1
:1
:1
l
:1
:1
:1
The Robertson Rauch Pmjecr
Research Questions:
What activities were undertaken at sites within the project area, and what resources were exploited?
Do the faunal remains from the deposits reflect a narrow range of animals taken, in keeping with the
predicted narrow resource breadth at Archaic sites? Does a broad-based economic range occur in
Late Prehistoric sites?
Is the paucity of faunal remains noted at many La Jolla Complex sites a result of poor preservation,
off-habitation processing of animal products, destructive processes such as grinding bone into meal,
or are mammals less important in the diet during the Archaic Period?
Can faunal or marine shellfish remains provide information about the seasonality of use of the
sites?
In what manner were subsistence resources processed and prepared?
How important were faunal resources at inland Archaic and Late Prehistoric sites? What can be
inferred about how these resources might have been transported to the site?
How does subsistence and settlement data from sites within the project area compare to other
properties in the area?
Is there evidence of changes in subsistence strategies, as observed in faunal assemblages, either over
time or through seasonal use of the sites?
How do the sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for the Carlsbad region?
What were the environmental conditions at the time the sites were occupied?
What types of environments did the occupants of the sites exploit?
Are there changes in the artifact assemblage of deposits that can be related to environmental or
cultural change?
• Trade
Materials of this category that are most commonly preserved among archaeological remains
are exotic lithics (jasper, chert, soft stone, and obsidian), items of adornment (beads and other
ornaments), and rare ceramic figurines (True 1957; Hedges 1973; Dixon 1977). The occurrence of
3.0-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson Ranch Prt!iect
red jasper has been documented for nearby Rancho San Miguel (Pierson, personal
communication). Chert has traditionally been identified as a desert resource, although association
of local chert artifacts and specific desert sources has not been forthcoming. Soft stone includes
imported soapstone and other talcose rocks (Rosenthal and Williams 1992) as well as locally
available pyrophylite (Johns and Lance 1950) and lepidolite (Weber 1963). Pyrophylite and
lepidolite are easily identified by their fibrousnamelar crystalline structures and hardness of 2-3 on
the Moh Scale. Obsidian has been found in archaeological context in the study zone. Sources for
obsidian in the study area archaeological sites has been identified as Obsidian Butte in Imperial
County and the Coso Range in the northern Mojave Desert (Dominici 1984; Robbins-Wade 1990).
The presence of some exotic materials in archaeological sites has been taken as an
indication of trade in prehistoric times (Galdikas-Brindamour 1970). Among the exotic materials
present in archaeological context within the study area, the majority may have been obtained directly
(Lee 1937), but exotic materials from greater distances, such as obsidian from the Coso Range in
the northern Mojave Desert, were very likely not acquired directly by local peoples in prehistoric
times. Coso obsidian has been found in many local archaeological sites and is not uncommon in
sites of La Jollan age (Dominici 1984; Smith and Moriarty 1985). Furthermore, a variety of
cryptocrystaline rocks (jasper, chert, chalcedony, etc.), suspected to originate from the Mojave
Desert (Bamforth 1992), have been found in local prehistoric context. In fact, some Pinto Basin
points made from these materials have been found in La Jollan context and are thought to have been
imported after manufacture (Smith and Moriarty 1985). While trade is strongly suspected for these
Mojave Desert specimens, what is not known is whether specialized travelers who transcended
regional boundaries carried them, or if the material was traded from group to group. Whatever the
case, the implications for a trade system suggest a rather sophisticated degree of cooperation for
early California Indians.
Research Questions:
What types of non-local items are present at sites on the Robertson Ranch?
What procurement range is indicated by the source of the non-local items? What intergroup
relations are implied by the presence of these items?
What fine-grained lithic materials were utilized at Robertson Ranch? Are these materials found
only in La Jolla contexts or in both La Jolla and Late Prehistoric contexts?
What kinds of tools are made from fine-grained materials? Can these preferences be attributed to a
San Dieguito, La Jolla, or late prehistoric occupation?
3.0-5
c
c
c ,.
f-
c
,..
! ...
..
I~ ..
I ~
,,
"""'
:l
l
]
]
J
l
l
l
' l
' ~
l
' :1
:1
~ ...
:t
Tile Robertson Ranch Pn~jecr
4.0 METHODOLOGY
The archaeological program for the Robertson Ranch Project consisted of an institutional
records search, an intuitive survey of the entire 403-acre project area, and the significance evaluation
of 16 cultural resources. Approximately 2,350 person-hours were expended in fieldwork, and an
additional 325 person-hours were required for site form and report preparation. This
archaeological study conformed to City of Carlsbad Archaeological Guidelines. Statutory
requirements of CEQA (Section 15064.5) and subsequent legislation were followed in evaluating
the significance of cultural resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used
in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO March, 1995).
4.1 Previous Investigations
Portions of the Robertson Ranch were first -subjected to an archaeological survey in 1977 as
part of the Calavera Hills Project; this survey covered over 800 acres, but only the very northeastern
approximately 20 acres of this project overlap with the current Robertson Ranch Project area. The
1977 survey resulted in the identification and registration of three sites that are on the Robertson
Ranch-Sites SDI-5416, SD-5434, and SDI-4535 (site forms). The entire Robertson Ranch
Project area was subjected to a pedestrian survey by Recon in 1985, which resulted in the
identification of four additional prehistoric sites within the current study area (SDI-10,609, SDI-
10,610, SDI-10,611, and SDI-10,612) (Hector 1985). The extreme eastern portion of the property,
along the unnamed drainage draining Calaveras Lake, was surveyed by Gallegos ( 1991) as part of
the Calaveras Lake Off-site Improvements. No additional resources were identified during the
survey of this area; however, this survey resulted in the identification of an additional locus of
previously recorded SDI-5416, at which point the sites were assigned numbers of SDI-5416A and
SDI-5416B. Finally, the southeastern and eastern property boundary of Robertson Ranch was then
investigated by Recon in 2001 as part of the Cannon Road and College Boulevard alignment
project. As part of this investigation, the resources located within the proposed alignment were
tested for significance, including Sites SDI-5434, SDI-5416A, and SDI-16,133 (Collett and
Cheever 2001 ). All of these sites were determined by Recon to be not significant.
4.2 Current Pedestrian Survey
Because of the length of time since the previous survey (Hector 1985) of the Robertson
Ranch, it was deemed necessary to resurvex .t~e entire project au<!! _for the ~un:ent study. An
intensiv~ pedestrian survey: ·;IiJ.pl~ying a series of parallel transects spaced at five meter intervals,
was conducted by BFSA between July 23 and July 26, 2001, in order to (re)locate archaeological
sites within the project area. Survey conditions were good, with the exception of dense vegetation in
several cultivated fields on the central and west portions of the ranch; otherwise most of the fields
had been plowed and not yet planted. This survey resulted in the identification of an additional 10
resources, bringing the total number of resources on the Robertson ~-For ease of ~----'~'""""'"'lllo__.,.n-_ _..._ .. _ ... ~"-""'-'"•·•······'····'' .. -·-~-l:oill'-ltl> ... -11 ·----~-· -
4.0-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch p,·,~;ect
discussion, this total number of sites treats the two loci of SDI-5416 as separate sites, since they
were subjected to testing programs during different occasions and resulted in different evaluations.
One of the sites identified by BFSA in July 2001 (SDI-16,133) was identified within the proposed
College Boulevard alignment; subsequent to its identification by BFSA, the site was tested by
Recon as part of the College Boulevard Project (Collett and Cheever 2001 ).
4.3 Testing Field Procedures
Of the 18 resources within the Robertson Ranch, three sites (SDI-5416A, SDI-5434, and
SDI-16,133) have been subjected to testing programs by Recon and determined to be not important
(Collett and Cheever 2001). Sites SDI-5416A and SDI-5434 were not retested by BFSA, and the
evaluations of non significance for these resources apply. However, because the level of effort I conducted by Recon at SDI-16,133 was less than that originally recommended by BFSA for the
Robertson Ranch Project, additional work was conducted at the site by BFSA. Furthermore, the
1-JJ. storic structure of the R rtson Ranch House w · ected to a field testin&.....P!.ogram,
because the house is assumed to be important an will be preserved ithin the new development.
.. erefore, 15 prehistoric sites w1 e o rtson c uding SDI-16,133), were subjected I to an archaeological field testing and evaluation program by BFSA in December 2001.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The cultural resource test strategy employed by BFSA consisted of surface mapping and
artifact collection, subsurface investigations, and significance evaluations. By the time the testing
phase was initiated, crops were growing in most of the areas where sites had been identified, making
ground visibility more limited than it had been during the survey. Testing of each site was initiated
with the mapping and collection of artifacts from the surface of the site; marine shell was not
collected from the surface, but the distribution of shell was recorded and mapped. A site datum was
established from which all surface points, as well as test excavations, were mapped using range and
azimuth readings. The collected artifacts were bagged, labeled, and returned to the laboratory of
BFSA for later analysis.
Subsequently, a series of shovel test pits (STPs) was excavated at each site to identify the
nature and extent of any subsurface deposits. Placement of the STPs depended on the extent of the
surface artifacts and ecofacts. The STPs consisted of 30 by 30 centimeter excavations, which
proceeded in decimeter levels downward to a minimum depth of 30 centimeters. Maximum depths
of STPs were determined by a culturally sterile level. All artifacts recovered from the STPs were
collected and returned to the laboratory for analysis; again, marine shell from the STPs was not
collected, but its presence and quantity was noted for each 10-centimeter-level of each STP.
Standard test unit excavations were conducted at each site to better understand the
stratigraphy of the soils and cultural deposits at the sites. Each test unit measured one-meter-square
and was oriented to true north. All units were excavated using hand tools, and vertical control
within the test units was maintained by excavating in decimeter levels. All of the units were
excavated to a culturally sterile level, or to the level at which a significant decrease in the quantity of
cultural remains was identified; in a few cases, test unit excavation was discontinued when 10
4.0-2
r
c
c
c
c
c
(
c
... L
r~
! .....
..
....
r ...
,...
J ~.
~~
~~
~~ ;
]
]
]
]
l
l
]
]
]
l
l
l
.l
l
l
l
l
:t
The Robert.wm Ranch Prt~ject
centimeters of subsoil was encountered. All artifacts and ecofacts (including marine shell) were
collected from the test unit excavations and returned to the laboratory for analysis.
4.4 Laboratory Methods
A variety of laboratory methods was used to study the material recovered during
investigations at the Robertson Ranch Project. Recovered artifacts and ecofacts were returned to the
laboratory of BFSA and, in keeping with generally accepted archaeological procedures, were
identified and cataloged.
4.4.1 Artifact Analysis
The cataloging process used to categorize the recovered lithic materials was based on a
classification system commonly used in this region. The definitions for some of the artifact types
were taken from the OHP publication, California Archaeological Resource Identification and Data
Acquisition Program: Sparse Lithic Scatters (1988). In addition to this source, which specifically
pertains to flake types, the artifact typology system used by Smith and Moriarty ( 1985) for the W-
20 collection was employed. Artifact type definitions utilized during the cataloging process are
summarized in Appendix Ill. The lithic artifacts recovered from the project were subjected to in-
house analysis, including recordation of lithic material, critical measurements and weight, and
inspection for evidence of use wear, retouch, patination, or stains.
4.4.2 Ecofact Analyses
Ecofacts recovered during investigations at the Robertson Ranch Project included manne
shell and vertebrate faunal remains. For the marine shell, all identifiable material was classified to
the generic (genus) level using the comparative collection at the laboratory of BFSA. Shell
identification source books by Fitch (1953), Morris (1966), and Reish (1972) were also used for
classification. During the shell analysis, fragments which, due to their small size or state of
decomposition, could not be identified to genera were put into the category of unidentifiable shell.
Shell was sorted into burned and unburned categories, and all specimens were examined for
evidence of intentional alteration. Faunal material was washed, dried, and identified to lowest
taxonomic category, element, and symmetry using ·comparative faunal collections. Faunal analysis
was done by Michael Tuma, M.S., faunal specialist at BFSA. Data recorded included sex, age,
degree of epiphyseal fusion in long bones, and modifications to the bones, including carnivore and
rodent gnawing, chopping and cutting marks resulting from butchery practices, burning, and
fragment size for each element. Bones were weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram. Degree of fusion of
the long bone epiphyses allowed for distinguishing between juveniles and adults. All data were
entered into a database, which facilitated quantitative and statistical analyses. From these raw data,
zooarchaeological measures of species composition were generated using zooarchaeological
quantification methods.
4.0-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire R(I/Jerr.mu Rwrdr Projecl
4.5 Curation
After cataloging, identification, and analysis, the collections were marked with the
appropriate provenience and catalog information, then packaged for permanent curation. The project
collections and reports will be curated at the San Diego Archaeological Center; field notes will be
stored at the laboratory office of BFSA in Poway. Documentation of each site included updating
the site record forms for previously recorded sites and submitting site forms for newly recorded
sites at the SCIC at San Diego State University (Appendix I).
4.6 Native American Consultation
The analysis of site components and artifacts did not indicate Native American religious,
ritual, or other special activities at this location. However, at the request of the San Luis Rey Band
of Luisefio Indians, a Native American representative was given access to the archaeological sites
under investigation at Robertson Ranch. T!_le request has been made by the San Luis Rey Band to
\\ have Nati~e ~e:can monitors. on ~~~=-·~~!~2'~~;;~~~i~~~~~.~~~~rnms~and~hen the
property IS gra e . · -~~-······ -----
4.0-4
,...
I '
I.
,.,
j ~
]
,]
]
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
J
J
:1
:1
:1
Tile Robenwm Runcil Pl"t~ject
5.0 RESULTS OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS
The survey and records searches had identified 18 cultural resources within the 403-acre
project boundaries. These sites included one historic structure and 17 prehistoric sites. Three sites
(SDI-5416A, SDI-5434, and SDI-16,133) had previously been subjected to testing and evaluation
programs and detennined not important (Collett and Cheever 2001); however, because the level of
effort conducted by Recon at SDI-16,133 was less than that originally recommended by BFSA for
the Robertson Ranch Project, additional work was conducted at this site by BFSA. Therefore, a
total of 16 sites (including SDI-16,133), was subjected to archaeological testing programs and were
evaluated for significance by BFSA as part of this project. The total includes 15 prehistoric sites
and one historic structure. Each of these 16 resources is discussed in the following sections.
The historic structure was not subjected to an archaeological excavation erogram, but
historic research on the structure was conduc and is resented here in Section 5.17; this structure
~ill be prese!"ed ~!~ _a.!!_?~n space easement~ One prehistoric site was not
relocated during the resurvey of the property. The site was described as two pieces of lithic
production waste but was not relocated in the area in which it was originally mapped in 1977. This
site was not tested, since its location could not be identified, and was subsequently evaluated as not
important due to its absence. This site is discussed in Section 5.2.
A listing of the resources within the project and the section numbers referring to the
investigation results are provided below in Table 5.0-1. A map of the site locations is presented in
Figure 5.0-1.
TABLES.0-1
Cultural Resources Identified
Within the Robertson Ranch Project Study Area
Sitellsolate # Resource Description
s· 1tes ocate wit 10 t e proJect area w 1c d . h' h h' h were teste d b BFSA IY
Site SDI-5416B This site is a moderately dense shell scatter.
Site SDI-10,609 This site is a dense scatter of marine shell fragments and very dark
midden soil along the length of the ridge. Several flakes, a core, and a
hammerstone were also identified, but generally few artifacts were
identified.
Site SDI-10,610 This site is a camp site consisting of a dense shell scatter with associated
artifacts, including ground stone, percussion, and precision tools.
5.0-1
Report
Section#
Section 5.1
Section 5.3
Section 5.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Pn~iect
Site SDI-10,611 This site is a large, moderately deep deposit of marine shell, bone, and Section 5.5 artifacts located on two knolls.
Site SDI-10,612 This site was recorded as a shell scatter, but no evidence of the site was
identified on the surface or in the subsurface excavations conducted by Section 5.6
BFSA.
Site SDI-16,130 This site is a sparse scatter of marine shell. Section 5.7
Site SDI-16,131 This site is a sparse scatter of marine shell. Section 5.8
Site SDI-16,132 This site is a sparse scatter and subsurface deposit of marine shell. Section 5.9
Site SDI-16,133 This site is identified as a large lithic and marine shell scatter. It has
been heavily disturbed. A portion of this site was tested by Recon and Section 5.10
determined to be not significant.
Site SDI-16,134 This site is a sparse scatter of marine shell. Section 5.11
Site SDI-16,135 This site is a moderately deep deposit of shell and bone; the site also Section 5.12 exhibits a sparse scatter of lithic artifacts.
Site SDI-16,136 This site is a Late Prehistoric scatter of shell and artifacts, including Section 5.13
ceramics. The deposit was shallow, sparse, and heavily disturbed.
Site SDI-16,137 This is a very disturbed deposit of shell and artifacts on a prominent Section 5.14 knoll. No intact deposits were identified.
Site SDI-16,138 This is a moderately dense scatter of marine shell and bone associated Section 5.15 with a sparse scatter of lithic artifacts.
Sites recorded in project area, but which were not relocated (evaluated as not important
resources
Site SDI-5435 This site is identified in records as a sparse lithic scatter over a four Section 5.2
square meter area. The area contains poor-quality bedrock outcrops,
material unlikely to have been quarried. Although quartz pebbles and
small cobbles are present, no indication of prehistoric flaking activities
were identified. This site was not tested as part of this project. It was
evaluated as not important.
Historic Structure
Section 5.16
5.0-2
Robertson Ranch Project
Cultural Resource Location Map
• -Sites evaluated by Recon 2001
-Sites evaluated by BFSA 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson Ra11cil ProjeCT
5.1 Site SDI-5416B
5.1.1 Site Description
Site SDI-5416B is one of two loci of a prehistoric temporary camp in the northeast portion
of the project area along the dirt road that leads eastward to the gravel pit. The site is situated on a
southeast-facing terrace overlooking the floodplain of the seasonal drainage that drains Calavera
Lake. It was originally recorded by M. J. Hatley during a 1977 survey for the Calavera Hills
Project.· The site was described as a shell, flake, and potsherd scatter that covered approximately
1,000 square meters (site form). The area was again surveyed by Recon in 1991 as part of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan Project. This survey identified an additional eight bedrock milling
features located approximately 125 feet east -southeast of the previously identified scatter (Wade
1992). Subsequently, the bedrock milling features were identified as SDI-5416A, and the artifacts
and shell scatter was identified as SDi-5416B; both are located within the proposed Robertson
Ranch development project.
Site SDI-5416A was tested by Recon in 2001 as part of the proposed College Boulevard
alignment project. The testing program included the excavation of a series of 20 shovel test pits and
two test units, and the recordation of the bedrock milling features . All shovel tests were negative for
cultural remains, and the recovery from the test units consisted of 11 .1 grams of marine shell and a
single piece of lithic debitage (Collett and Cheever 2001). Locus A was demonstrated not to
contain sufficient cultural material to meet the significance standards of CEQA and City of
Carlsbad. Locus B was not tested as part of the College Boulevard investigation, as this portion of
SDI-5416 was located outside the College Boulevard project area.
Locus B of SDI-5416 was relocated during the survey of the Robertson Ranch by BFSA in
July 2001. At the time of the survey, the site consisted of a moderately dense shell scatter in a dirt
road bed. Soils at the site are mapped as the Friant series, which are shallow and very shallow, well
drained fine sandy loarns that formed in material weathered from fine-grained metasedimentary
rock (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site included erosion and the grading of the road
through the center of the locus. The 1991 site form also suggests that the knoll on which SDI-
5416B is located was g.raded and the midden soil pushed to the east side of the terrace, leaving only
remnants of the cultural midden on the top of the knoll. The survey conducted by BFSA in 2002
showed no evidence of the midden on the top of the knoll, but did identify the deposit on its
southeast slope. Vegetation at the site consists of sparse to moderately dense coastal sage scrub;
ground visibility was excellent in the road to fair in the more densely' vegetated areas. The general
configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 5 .1-1. The setting of the site is shown in a
photograph provided in Plate 5.1-1a.
The evaluation program for Locus B of Site SDI-5416 was conducted in December 2001.
A series of 10 shovel tests and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the
site.
5.1-1
l
~
l
l
l
l
l_
l
]
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
:1
1 IIIII
l
:1
:1
:1
The Roberrson Rtmch Project
5.1.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-5416B were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
marine shell on the surface of the site and the excavation of STPs and a test unit. A total of 33
artifacts was recovered during investigations at the site.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts, but none were identified. The
surface expression of SDI-5416B consists entirely of marine shell, the extent of which is shown in
Figure 5.1-1. The surface expression of the site measured approximately 49 meters (160 feet)
southwest to northeast by 37 meters (120 feet) northwest to southeast. No marine shell was
collected from the surface of the site.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-5416B was investigated by excavating
a total of 10 STPs and one test unit. Shovel test pits were scattered across the surface distribution
of marine shell in order to establish whether a subsurface deposit was present at the site. The
locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.1-1. All of the shovel tests were excavated in
decimeter levels to at least 30 centimeters. One of the 10 STPs produced artifacts, while four of the
STPs produced marine shell remains. The recovered collection consisted of two artifacts, both
medium-grained metavolcanic flakes from STP 4. The quantity of marine shell in the STPs ranged
from approximately 168 fragments in STP 2 to approximately 475 fragments in STP 4. The
artifacts were recovered from between 0 and 40 centimeters in depth, while the marine shell
extended to a maximum depth of 70 centimeters. This depth suggests that the deposit on the
southeast slope may represent an intact deposit and not a redeposition of material from the top of
the knoll. The shovel tests recovery information is detailed in Table 5.1-1.
Subsurface testing of SDI-5416B continued with the excavation of one standard test unit.
The test unit was positioned near STP 4, the only STP that produced artifacts (Figure 5.1-1). The
test unit was excavated in standard decimeter levels to a culturally sterile soil horizon at 60 to 70
centimeters, and all removed soils were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil
profile from the test unit was characterized by a very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silty loam,
underlain by a dark grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) clay at 50 centimeters. The profile indicated no
evidence of redeposited soils. A drawing of the north wall of the test unit is presented in Figure
5.1-2. A color photograph of the north wall of the test unit is provided in Plate 5.1-1 b.
Test unit excavations resulted in the recovery of an additional 31 artifacts-29 pieces of
lithic production waste, one utilized flake, and one Tizon Brown Ware ceramic sherd (Table 5.1-2).
Totals of7,520.0 grams of marine shell and 13.6 grams of animal bone were also recovered from
the unit. The most productive levels in terms of marine shell were between 20 and 40 centimeters,
while the 10 to 20 centimeter level produced the most (89. 71%) animal bone recovered from the
5.1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Pn~ject
unit. In terms of the artifacts, the most productive levels were 30 to 40 and 50 to 60 centimeters; the
only lithic tool, a utilized flake, was from the lowest level of the cultural deposit (50 to 60
centimeters). The ceramic sherd, the only culturally diagnostic material recovered at the site, was
from the 10 to 20 centimeter level.
The subsurface deposit at SDI-5416B, delineated by the positive shovel test pits and test
unit, measures 24 meters (80 feet) northwest to southeast by 21 meters (70 feet) southwest to
northeast. The subsurface area is focused in a relatively small area.
5.1.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-5416B is a temporary camp consisting of a moderately
dense deposit of marine shell with an associated sparse deposit of artifacts. The overall site
dimensions for this locus, delineated by the surface shell scatter, are 49 meters (160 feet) by 37
meters (120feet); however, the actual subsurface area of the site is limited to a small area measuring
24 meters (80 feet) by 21 meters (70 feet). A total of 33 artifacts were recovered from the
investigation of the site, two from the STPs and the remaining 31 from the test unit excavations
(Table 5.1-4).
The site is interpreted as a small campsite where activities included lithic tool manufacture
and maintenance and resource processing. Although small, the artifact collection included a range
of artifacts consisting of lithic production waste, a precision tool identified as a utilized flake, and a
single ceramic sherd. The utilized flake is derived from a medium-grained metavolcanic flake and
measures 7.4 by 5.3 by 2.0 centimeters and weighs 77.8 grams. All lithic material recovered from
the site, summarized in Table 5.1-5, is available in the vicinity of the site. The collection is
dominated by medium-and fme-grained metavolcanic material, which represents 65.63% (N=21) of
the lithic collection. The presence of ceramic sherds indicates the site dates to the Late Prehistoric
occupation of the area.
The presence of marine shell as well as animal bone indicates that both marine and
terrestrial resources were collected and processed. The ecofacts are summarized by depth in Table
5.1-6. The marine shell collection included the identification of 11 different genera, including
Cerithidea sp., Chione sp., Conus sp., Crucibellum sp., Haliotis sp., Neverita sp., Ostrea sp.,
Pecten sp., Protothaca sp., Tagelus sp., and Telina sp. The collection was significantly dominated
by Chione sp., accounting for 86.22% (6,483.7 grams) of all marine shell; Pecten sp., the next most
common genus, represented 12.65% (951.1 grams) ofthe collection. Burned shell made up 1.30%
(97.6) of all shell and suggests that hearths one existed at the site.
The animal bone recovered from SDI-5416B consisted of 28 fragments and was identified
to a wide range of taxa, including pig (Sus scrofa), dog or coyote (Canis sp.), Botta's pocket
gopher (Thomomys bottae), rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.), wood rat (Neotoma sp.), rattlesnake (Crotalus
sp.), as well as more general categories of medium-size rodent, small to medium marmnal, and
vertebrate. The bone analysis is summarized in Table 5.1-7 and detailed in Table 5.1-8. Although
the pig bone probably resulted from the nearby migrant camp, the remaining animals are common
5.1-3
,.
!-
Jill I •
The Roberwm Rauch Project
in the vicinity of the site. This is supported by the identification of saw marks on the bone (Table
5.1-8). The only other type of cultural modification identified on the bone from SDI-5416B is that
of burning, which was noted on small and medium mammal bones, as well as on single fragments
of rabbit and rattlesnake specimens. In terms of quantity, 35.71% of the bone from the site was
burned. This sample of bone is too small to draw conclusions regarding the subsistence base of the
inhabitants of the site; however, the analysis does indicate that a larger sample size may reveal
valuable information about prehistoric"subsistence in the coastal region.
----~--~-·--...... ---~-......-.._.~ The presence of both marine shell and bone . indicate food processing was the primary
activity at this location, while the lithic artifacts recovered suggest limited lithic tool production or
maintenance also occurred. The recovery of ceramics indicates not only that at least one component
of the· site dates to the Late Prehistoric occupation of the area, but also that storage and/or food
preparation occurred at the site. Site SDI-5416B was one of the more productive sites at the
Robertson Ranch in terms of ecofacts. The identification of burned marine shell suggests the
presence of hearth features at the site, although no fire-affected rocks were recovered during the~
initial investigation. Due to the presence of both bone and a relatively large quantity of marine shell
to a depth of 60 centimeters, and due to the potential of buried features, te~ site does ~:_tai·n· a d~
of research potential. · ..----------.----~. -....
5.1.4 Summary
The analysis of the cultural materials recovered from SDI-5416B revealed a moderately
deep cultural deposit at the site. The recovered materials, including a lithic tool and ecofactual
remains, indicate that site activities were focused primarily on floral and faunal food procurement,
processing, and probably cooking and storage. The subsistence appears to have been based on a
reliance on both marine and terrestrial resources. The lithic production waste suggests that tool
manufacture and maintenance also occurred at the site, but to a lesser degree.
The subsurface excavations conducted by BFSA revealed intact subsurface deposits on the
southeast slope of the knoll. Although the top of the knoll may have been graded as suggested by
Recon (site form), no evidence of mixed soils was identified in the test unit profile. Furthermore,
the cultural deposit extends to 70 centimeters, too great a depth to be explained by redeposition
alone. Disturbances at the site appear to have been limited to the top of the knoll and the grading of
the dirt road through the site.
Site SDI-5416B exhibits significant cultural remains, ~ncluding the presence of a
well-preserved marine shell deposit, animal bone identified to a wide range of taxa, and the potential
for buried hearth features. The research potential of this locus of the site for intem.~atiQQ.,.of Late
Prehistoric subsistence.strategies in the region is high. Based on the information derived from the ----------·----·---· testing program, SDI-5416B 1s considered important according to CEQA criteria and City of
Carlsbad guidelines. The determination of locus B as an important does not, however, affect the
determination of locus SDI-5416A, which was evaluated as not important by Recon (Collett and
-. -Cheever 2001).
5.1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
View of SDI-54168, looking northwest.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0-70 centimeters).
5.1-6
0
10
20
f'-l '"' Q) -Q) 30 e ·--= Q) 40 u
c: ·-..c: 50 -Q.,
Q)
Q
60
70
I~ North Wall Test Unit 1
1 Meter
• -Rock
• Very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2) silty loam.
Dark grayish brown (lOYR 4n) clay.
North Wall Profile of Unit 1
SDI-5416B
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.1-7
Figure 5.1-2
I Tile Roberr.wm Rcmcil ProjecT
I
IABLE 5.1-1
I Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-5416B
I The Robertson Ranch Project
I Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Quantity Recovery Material No.
I
Azimuth/Range
0°/0 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery
I (100+ Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC])
10-20 em. No Recovery 2
(75+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 20-30 em. No Recovery 3
(75+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 30-40 em. No Recovery 4
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 5
I (30+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
50-60 em. No Recovery 6
(20+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 60-70 em. No Recovery 7
(25+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 2 297°/26 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 8
(6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 9
I (40+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30 em. No Recovery 10
(45+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40 em. No Recovery II
I (60+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50 em . No Recovery 12
(15+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 50-60 em. No Recovery 13 ,! (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
3 297°178 Feet 0-10 em . No Recovery 14 I 10-20 em. No Recovery 15
20-30 em. No Recovery 16
I 4 208°/29 Feet 0-10 em. Flake MGM* 17
(65+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
I
I 5.1-8
J Tile Robertson Ranch Project
J
I"
J Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Quantity Recovery Material No.
Azimuth/Range
l 4 208°/29 Feet 10-20 em. No Recovery 18
l (65+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30 em. No Recovery 19
(100+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40em. Flake MGM 20
l (100+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 21
(75+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
l 50-60 em. No Recovery 22
(60+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
60-70 em. No Recovery 23
l ( 1 0+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
5 208°/69 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 24
10-20em. No Recovery 25
~l 20-30em. No Recovery 26
6 133°/54 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 27
~l 10-20em. No Recovery 28
20-30 em. No Recovery 29
7 83°/52 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 30 l 10-20 em. No Recovery 31
20-30cm. NoReeovery 32
l 8 14°/42 Feet 0-10 em. NoReeovery 33
10-20 em. No Recovery 34
20-30em. No Recovery 35
l 9 146°/36 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 36
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. NoReeovery 37
l (60+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30 em. No Recovery 38
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
J 30-40cm. NoReeovery 39
(50+ Marine Shell Frags .•. NC)
40-50 em. NoReeovery 40
:) (25+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
50-60 em. No Recovery 41
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
:1 10 157°/95 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 42
10-20 em. No Recovery 43
20-30 em. No Recovery 44
:]
:1 5.1-9
----- ---- -- - - ------
TABLES.I-2
Summary of Test Unit Recovery
Site SDI-5416B
The Robertson Ranch Project
Depth <in centimeters!
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 Total Percent
Ecofacts:
Bone 12.2g. 0.5 g. 0.4g. 0.4g. 0.1 g. 13.6g.
Marine Shell,
Ceritlridue sp. 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
Chione sp. 489.8 g. 1,712.7 g. 1,588.5 g. 1,417.9 g. 1,070.5 g. 152.8g. 6,432.2 g.
Chione sp., Burned 2.9g. 11.7 g. 7.5g. 15.4g. 12.7 g. 1.3 g. 51.5 g.
Cmms sp. 1.4 g. 1.4 g.
Crudbell11m sp. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 1.3 g. 0.9g. 2.4g.
Hulioti.f sp. 0.2g. 0.2g.
Neveritasp. 2.0g. 3.2g. 5.2g.
Ostreu sp. 1.9 g. 3.3g. 5.0g. 3.7 g. 0.1 g. 14.0g.
yo O.vtrea sp., Burned 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.4g. 0.1 g. 0.8g. -Pecten sp. 42.0g. 230.6g. 249.0g. 257.4 g. 119.3g. 9.2g. 907.5 g. I -Pecten sp., Burned 0.6g. 4.8g. 12.8 g. 14.5 g. 10.6g. 0.3g. 43.6g. 0 Pmtothaca sp. 0.7 g. 0.7 g.
Tagelu.v sp. 0.1 g. 0.1 g.
Telina sp. 1.6 g. 1.6 g.
Unidentifiable 7.8g. 11.9 g. 16.0g. 12.9g. 4.5 g. 3.7 g. 56.8g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 0.5g. 0.7 g. 0.4g. 0.1 g. 1.7 g.
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage I I 5 4 II 35.48
Flakes 2 5 4 2 4 18 58.06
Precision Tools:
Utilized Flake 3.23
Miscellaneous:
FAR*, Granite 929.3 g. 30.7 g. 960.0 g. ~
FAR,MGM** 501.0 g. 283.5 g. 32.5 g. 817.0g. " ~ Pottery: a Potsherd, TBW*** 3.23 g
Totals 3 7 9 2 9 0 31 100;00 ~ :: t'\ ;::..
Percent 9.68 22.58 3.23 29.03 6.45 29.03 0.00 100.00 "tt
FAR*= Fire-affected mck
<:! ~· !:;
MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
TBW*** = Tizon brown ware
f '
, 1 , 1 ~ 1
]
The Robertson Ranch Project
]
r
] Test Location Quantity/ Cat.
Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range
l 1 205°/31 Feet 20-30 em. 16.0g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 76
0.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 77
] 0.5 g. Bone Bone 78
30-40cm. 929.3 g. FAR Granite 95
] 2 Flakes FGM 96
2 Flakes MGM 97
283.5 g. FAR MGM 98
l 5 Debitage Quartz 99
1,417.9 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 100
15.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 101
1.3 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 102
l 5.0 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 103
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 104
257.4 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 105
l 14.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 106
0.7 g. Marine Shell Protothaca sp. 107
1.6 g. Marine Shell Telina sp. 108
12.9 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 109
l 0.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 110
0.4 g. Bone Bone 111
l 40-50cm. 1 Flake Granite 112
32.5 g. FAR MGM 113
1 Flake Quartz 114
] 0.3 g. Marine Shell Cerithidae sp. 115
1,070.5 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 116
12.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 117
0.9 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 118
] 0.2 g. Marine Shell Haliotis sp. 119
3.2 g. Marine Shell Neverita sp. 120
3.7 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 121
l 0.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 122
119.3 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 123
10.6 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 124
0.1 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 125 J 4.5 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 126
0.4 g. Bone Bone 127
J 50-60cm. 30.7 g. FAR Granite 79
2 Flakes FGM 80
1 Utilized Flake MGM 81
:J 2 Debitage MGM 82
1 Flake MGM 83
:t
:1 5.1-12
I ,.
The Roben.wn Ranch Project ..,
I c
I Test Location Quantity/ Cat. t Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range
I 1 205°/31 Feet 50-60 em. 2 Debitage Quartz 84 t
1 Flake Quartz 85
I 152.8 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 86 r 1.3 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 87
0.1 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 88
I 0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 89 t 9.2 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 90
0.3 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 91
I 3.7 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 92 r 0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 93
0.1 g. Bone Bone 94
I 60-70cm. No Recovery 128 t
I [
I t
I (
I (
I lC
I IC
I 1:
I r:
I !:
I ,:
I 5.1-13 r:
J The Robenwm Rauch Project
J
TABLE 5.1-4
J Summary of Artifact Recovery
Site SDI-5416B
J The Robertson Ranch Project
l Recovery Category Shovel Tests Test Units Total Percent
l Ecofacts:
Bone 13.6 g. 13.6 g.
Marine Shell,
l Cerithidae sp. 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
Chione sp. 6,432.2 g. 6,432.2 g.
Chione sp., Burned 51.5 g. 51.5 g.
l Conus sp. 1.4 g. 1.4 g.
Crucibellum sp. 2.4 g. 2.4 g.
Haliotis sp. 0.2 g. 0.2 g.
Neverita sp. 5.2 g. 5.2 g.
l Ostrea sp. 14.0 g. 14.0g.
Ostrea sp., Burned 0.8 g. 0.8 g.
Pecten sp. 907.5 g. 907.5 g.
] Pecten sp., Burned 43.6 g. 43.6g.
Protothaca sp. 0.7 g. 0.7 g.
Tagelus sp. 0.1 g. 0.1 g.
Telina sp. 1.6 g. 1.6 g.
l Unidentifiable 56.8 g. 56.8 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 1.7 g. 1.7 g.
l Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage 11 11 33.33
Flakes 2 18 20 60.61
] Precision Tools:
Utilized Flake 1 1 3.03
J Miscellaneous:
FAR*, Granite 960.0 g. 960.0 g.
FAR, MGM** 817.0g. 817.0 g.
:1 Pottery:
Potsherd, TBW*** 1 1 3.03
:1 Totals 2 31 33 100.00
Percent 6.06 93.94 100.00
:1 FAR*= Fire-affected rock
MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
:J TBW*** = Tizon Brown Ware
:J 5.1-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artifact Category
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage
Flakes
Precision Tools:
Utilized Flake
Totals
Percent
FGM* = Fine-grained metavolcanic
TABLES.l-5
Lithic Material Distribution
Site SDI-5416B
The Robertson Ranch Project
Material
FGM* Granite MGM * * Quartz
3 7
5 1 12 2
1
5 1 16 9
15.62 3.12 50.00 28.12
MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.1-15
The Robertson Rauch Pmject
' Quartzite Total Percent ""'· ,..
1 11 34.38
20 62.50
1 3.12
1 32 100.00
3.12 100.00
,.
f.
r:
,..
.(-
,..
L
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20
Bone: 12.2g.
Percent 0.00 89.71
~ Marine Shell: -Cerithidae sp. I -Chione sp. 489.8 g. 1,712.7 g. 0\
Chione sp., Burned 2.9 g. 11.7 g.
Conus sp.
Crucibellum sp. 0.1 g.
Haliotis sp.
Neverita sp.
Ostrea sp. 1.9 g.
Ostrea sp., Burned 0.1 g.
Pecten sp. 42.0 g. 230.6 g.
Pecten sp., Burned 0.6 g. 4.8 g.
Protothaca sp.
Tagelus sp.
Te/ina sp.
Unidentifiable 7.8 g. 11.9 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 0.5 g.
Totals 543.2 g. 1,974.2 g.
Percent 7.22 26.25
TABLES.l-6
Summary of Test Unit Ecofact Recovery
Site SDI-5416B
The Robertson Ranch Project
Depth On centimeters)
20-30 30-40 40-50
0.5 g. 0.4 g. 0.4 g.
3.67 2.94 2.94
0.3 g.
1,588.5 g. 1,417.9 g. 1,070.5 g.
7.5 g. 15.4 g. 12.7 g.
1.4 g.
0.1 g. 1.3g. 0.9 g.
0.2 g.
2.0 g. 3.2 g.
3.3 g. 5.0 g. 3.7 g.
0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.4 g.
249.0 g. 257.4 g. 119.3 g.
12.8 g. 14.5 g. 10.6g.
0.7 g.
0.1 g.
1.6g.
16.0 g. 12.9 g. 4.5 g.
0.7 g. 0.4 g.
1,881.4 g. 1,727.2g. 1,226.4 g.
25.02 22.97 16.31
50-60 60-70 Total Percent
0.1 g. 13.6 g. 100.00
0.74 0.00 100.00
0.3 g. 0.00
152.8 g. 6,432.2 g. 85.53
1.3 g. 51.5 g. 0.68
1.4 g. 0.02
2.4 g. 0.03
0.2 g. 0.00
5.2 g. 0.07
0.1 g. 14.0 g. 0.19
0.1 g. 0.8 g. O.ot
9.2g. 907.5 g. 12.07
0.3 g. 43.6g. 0.58
0.7 g. 0.01
0.1 g. 0.00
1.6 g. 0.02 :;! ..
3.7 g. 56.8 g. 0.08 ~ Q
0.1 g. 1.7 g. 0.02 if a Q ;:
167.6 g. 0.0 g. 7,520.0g. 100.00 ~ 1:1 ~
2.23 0.00 100.00 ;::,.
"' ~ "'· .. ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLES.l-7
Summary of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-5416B
The Robertson Ranch Project
The Robertson Ranch Project
NISP* Weight (g) MNI** ]
Pig (Sus scrofa) 1 12.1 1
Dog/coyote (Canis sp.) 1 0.2 1
Botta's Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae) 1 0 1
Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) 2 0.1 1
Unid. wood rat (Neotoma sp.) 1 0 1
Unid. rattlesnake (Crotalus sp.) 1 0.2 1
Unid. medium rodent 1 0
Unid. medium mammal 1 0.1
Unid. sm/med mammal 5 0.3
Unid. small mammal 13 0.1
Unid. vertebrate 1 0
Total 28 13.1
NJSP* = Number of individual specimens
MNI** = Minimum number of individuals
5.1-17
,
c
c
(
(
r:
r:
r~
TABLES.I-8
Detail of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-5416B
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat Depth Weight Cult.
No. Unit (em) Taxon Element Symmetry* Portion* NISP (g) % Fusion Mod. Age Notes
64 20-30 Pig (Sus scrofa) rib indet. 12.1 sawed recent intrusion
78 20-30 Dog/coyote (Canis sp.) unid. metapodial indet. s 0.2
78 20-30 Unid. wood rat (Neotoma sp.) calcaneus r 0
78 20-30 Unid. medium mammal unid. bone 0.1 burned
78 20-30 Unid. small mammal unid. long bone I 0
!JI 78 20-30 Unid. small mammal unid. bone 5 0.1 burned -78 20-30 Unid. vertebrate unid. bone 0 I -00 Ill 30-40 Botta's Gopher (Thomomys bottae) humerus r 0 recent intrusion
Ill 30-40 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) lumbar vertebrae 0.1 recent intrusion
Ill 30-40 Unid. rattlesnake (Crotalus sp.) vertebrae 0.2 burned
Ill 30-40 Unid. sm/med mammal unid. bone 0.1 burned
127 40-50 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) 1st phalanx indet. p 0 burned
127 40-50 Unid. sm/med mammal unid. long bone 2 0.1
127 40-50 Unid. sm/med mammal unid. long bone I 0.1 burned
127 40-50 Unid . .small mammal unid. long bone 2 0
127 40-50 Unid. small mammal unid. bone 5 0
127 40-50 Unid. medium rodent mandibular incisor r 0
94 50-60 Unid. sm/med mammal unid. long bone 0
indet. = indetemrinate
r =right
.~=.~haft
p =proximal
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Pmject
5.2 Site SDI-5435
5.2.1 Site Description
Site SDI-5435 was recorded as a dispersed flake scatter located in the northeastern portion
of the project area. It was originally recorded by M. J. Hatley during a 1977 survey for the
Calavera Hills Project and described as extending over a four square meter area (site form). The
site is situated on a gradual south-facing slope west of an unnamed tributary of Agua Hedionda
Creek. Soils at the site are mapped as the Friant series, which are shallow and very shallow, well-
drained fine sandy loams that formed in material weathered from fine-grained metasedimentary
rock (Bowman 1973). The general location of the resource is shown in Figure 5.2-1.
The area in which the site was mapped was intensively surveyed during the current
investigation, but no evidence of the site was identified. The area exhibits severely eroded soils,
with poor-quality metasedimentary outcrops throughout the area; the lithic material present in the
vicinity is unlikely to have been quarried by prehistoric occupants due to its poor quality. Although
quartz pebbles and small cobbles are present, no indications of prehistoric flaking activities were
identified. The area is covered in modem trash, probably resulting from the nearby migrant
workers camp. Native coastal sage scrub covered the area; vegetation was moderate to sparse
resulting in good ground visibility.
5.2.2 Discussion
The survey demonstrated that no evidence of the lithic scatter recorded as SDI-5435 could
be located. The area has experienced extensive erosion, which may have resulted in the destruction
of the site. The registration form for the site does not elaborate on the contents of the site beyond
"light lithic scatter." Because the site could not be located, no testing was conducted at the site.
The lithic material that is present in the area is extremely deteriorated metasedimentary rock, not the
type of material used by prehistoric peoples. It is believed that Site SDI-5435 was a very minor
lithic scatter at the time it was originally recorded and no longer exists.
5.2.3 Summary
Due to the absence of the site in the area in which it was mapped, Site SDI-5435 is
considered not important according to CEQA criteria and City of Carlsbad guidelines. No further
archaeologogical investigations are recommended for this site. ~· .... _, ···-
5.2-1
,.
(
(
•
1 ..
-
1 -
, ,
1 -,
4/11
1
1 , .. ,
•
1 ...
1 -, ... ,
...
The Roberwm Rauc/1 Projec/
5.3 Site SDI-10,609
5.3.1 Site Description
Site SDI-10,609 is a prehistoric seasonal camp located in the southwest portion of the
project area. Sue Wade originally recorded the site in 1985 as a temporary processing camp with
split cobble tools, a possible mano fragment, flakes, and a dense scatter of shell. The resource is
located on the upper, southeast slope of a prominent ridge adjacent to El Camino Real. The site is
approximately 610 meters (2,000 feet) northwest of Agua Hedionda Creek. Soils in the vicinity are
mapped as the Las Flores series, which are moderately well drained, loamy fine sands that have
sandy clay subsoils (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site include cultivation, the grading of a
dirt road across the northern edge of the site, and natural erosion. Vegetation consisted of cultivated
crops, as well as waist-to head-high grasses on the south side of the site on the slope of the hill.
The general location of the resource is shown in Figure 5.0-1. The general configuration of the site
is shown in Figure 5.3-1, and its setting is shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.3-la.
The site was relocated during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001. The
surface expression of the site included a large shell scatter and dark midden soil with several flakes,
a core, and a hammerstone; generally, few artifacts were observed during the survey. The evaluation
program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of 14 shovel tests and two test
units were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site, while 10 artifacts were mapped
and collected from the surface of the site.
5.3.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-10,609 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
surface artifacts, and excavation of STPs and test units. Totals of 57 artifacts, 4.5 grams of bone,
and 5,835.4 grams of marine shell were recovered during investigations at the site .
Swjace Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts; all observed artifacts were
provenienced and collected. Vegetation at the site was dense in cultivated areas and good to
moderate in uncultivated areas; subsequently, surface visibility varied across the site. It was evident,
however, that concentrations of marine shell were scattered on the surface beneath the vegetation. A
datum was established at a high point on the ridge in order to provide vantage points from which all
surface artifacts and excavations could be measured. The extent of the marine shell was mapped as
is indicated on Figure 5.3-1. All artifacts observed on the surface of the site were mapped and
collected, the locations of which are also illustrated in Figure 5 .3-1. The surface collection,
summarized in Table 5.3-1 and detailed with provenience information in Table 5.3-2, consisted of
10 artifacts. The assemblage included ground stone tools (N=4), percussion tools (N=3), a multi-
use perforatorlhammerstone, lithic production waste (N=2), and fire-affected rock (FAR) (278.0
5.3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire Robertson Ranch Pmjecr
grams). The surface collection of artifacts and mapping of marine shell resulted in the delineation
of the surface expression of the site, which measures approximately 113 meters (370 feet) from
northwest to southeast by 64 meters (210 feet) from southwest to northeast.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-10,609 was investigated by excavating
a total of 14 STPs and two test units. Shovel test pits were excavated in radial lines from the two
established datums in order to determine the extent of the subsurface expression of the site. The
locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.3-1. All of the shovel tests were excavated in
decimeter levels to at least 30 centimeters. As at the other sites at Robertson Ranch, no marine shell
was collected from the STPs, but rather its presence and quantity was noted in the field notes.
Marine shell was observed in seven STPs, while artifacts were collected from only two STPs. The
STPs with positive recovery included STP 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13, all of which are located south
and east of datum. The summary of artifact recovery from the STPs is provided in Table 5.3-3;
while the quantity of marine shell observed is noted along with detailed provenience information in
Table 5.3-4.
A total of four artifacts was collected from the STPs, all identified as lithic production waste.
In addition, 27.5 grams (one fragment) of FAR was also recovered from STP 4. The amount of
marine shell in the STPs ranged from 21 (STP 8) to 1,104 (STP 13) fragments. The most
productive STPs in terms of marine shell were STPs 1 (N=875) and 13 (N=1,104). Marine shell
extended to a maximum depth of 100 centimeters in STP 1, located at datum near the apex of the
ridge, and to 60 centimeters in STP 13 located approximately 60 feet southeast of datum. Shovel
test provenience and depth information, as well as marine shell observed, is detailed in Table 5.3-4.
Subsurface testing of SDI-10,609 continued with the excavation of two standard test units.
The test units were positioned to sample the area of greatest potential to produce subsurface
deposits, as identified by the STPs and surface collections. The test units were placed in areas of
the site exhibiting relatively deep cultural deposits. Test Unit 1 was positioned near STP 1 near the
apex of the ridge, while Test Unit 2 was placed between positive STPs 4, 7, and 13, on the southeast
slope. The locations of the test units are illustrated in Figure 5.3-1.
The test units were excavated in standard decimeter levels to subsoil, and all removed soils
were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. All marine shell from Test Unit 1 was collected
and returned to the laboratory for analysis; marine shell from Test Unit 2 was estimated in the field
and not collected. The collection of marine shell from one unit allowed the character of the marine
shell deposit at SDI-10,609 to be analyzed in more detail. Recovery from the two test units
consisted of 43 artifacts, 1,626.7 grams of FAR, 4.5 grams of animal bone, and 5,835.4 grams of
marine shell; the recovery is summarized in Table 5.3-5 and detailed by level in Table 5.3-6. Very
similar to the recovery from SDI-10,611, also at the Robertson Ranch, the artifacts recovered from
the test units excavated at SDI-10,609 consisted almost entirely of lithic production waste (93.02%~
N=40); the remaining artifacts were three ground stone tools including two manos and one metate
5.3-2
'"
r ' ..
•
, -, -
Tile Robertson RunciJ Project
fragment. Both test units yielded artifacts. Unit 2 accounted for both manos and three flakes and
extended to a depth of 30 centimeters; Unit 1, on the other hand, produced 37 pieces of lithic
production waste and the metate fragment, but the cultural deposit extended to 170 centimeters. The
variation in depth of the midden at the site is considerable. Although the last level excavated in Unit
2 produced cultural remains, the entire level was within the decomposed bedrock of the subsoil, and
therefore, excavation was discontinued. Unit 1, only 60 feet away, extended to 180 centimeters:
although decomposed bedrock was exposed in the west wall of Unit 1, the cultural deposit extended
to 170 centimeters. The marine shell from Unit 1 included nine shell genera; a small amount of
animal bone was also identified. In addition, 1,626.7 grams of FAR was recovered from the test
unit excavations, all from Unit 1. Several fragments of FAR, as well as the metate fragment, were
concentrated in the southwest comer of Unit 1, between 60 and 90 centimeters. This concentration
of FAR is shown in Plate 5.3-1b.
The most productive levels, in terms of artifacts and marine shell, was between 10 and 70
centimeters, although another increase in the amount of marine shell is evident between 100 and 120
centimeters; the amount of bone steadily increased between 90 and 140 centimeters (Table 5.3-5).
Similarly, FAR was recovered between 30 and 100 centimeters and then peaked again between 130
and 140 centimeters. The ground stone tools were all recovered above 70 centimeters. The vertical
distribution of ecofacts and FAR in the test units suggests the deposit may reflect different periods
of intensified use.
The soil profile from Test Unit 1, the deepest unit, exhibited a more complex stratigraphy
than other sites at the Robertson Ranch. From top to bottom, the soil horizons encountered include:
a very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2) sandy loam to 20 centimeters; very dark grayish brown
( 1 OYR 3/2) sandy silt with shell inclusions to 34 centimeters; a thin layer of very dark grayish
brown (lOYR 3/2) sandy silt with no shell to 40 centimeters; a dark brown to brown (lOYR 3/3 to
4/3) compact sandy clay to 75 centimeters; a dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) compact sandy clay
to approximately 95 centimeters; brown to dark brown (10YR 4/4) silty sand to approximately 160
centimeters; a thin layer of mixed dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4), light yellowish brown (lOYR
6/4), and white (lOYR 8/2) poorly sorted, medium-grained sand to 162 centimeters, and finally
mixed brown to dark brown (lOYR 4/3) and dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) medium-to large-
grained, poorly sorted sand to the maximum depth of the unit (180 centimeters). A drawing of the
south wall of Test Unit 1 is presented in Figure 5.3-2. A color photograph of the south wall of
Test Unit 1 is provided in Plate 5.3-1b. The subsurface expression of the site, identified by the
subsurface tests that produced marine shell and/or artifacts, measures approximately 46 meters ( 150
feet) northwest to southeast by 24 meters (80 feet) southwest to northeast. Similar to other
Robertson Ranch sites, and due to repeated plowing, the subsurface deposit appears to be
concentrated in an area smaller than that identified by the surface scatter. Artifacts were recovered
to a maximum depth of 140 centimeters below the surface, while ecofacts were recovered to 170
centimeters, all in Unit 1.
5.3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire Roberrsmr Ranch Pmjecr
5.3.3 Laboratory Analysis
The laboratory analysis for SDI-1 0,609 included the standard procedures described in
Section 4.0 of this report. All artifacts and bone recovered from the field investigations conducted
at the site, as well as all marine shell from Test Unit 1, were returned to the laboratory facility of
BFSA to be cataloged and analyzed. A summary of artifacts and ecofacts recovered from the site is
presented in Table 5.3-7. Totals of 57 artifacts, 4.5 grams of bone, and 5,835.4 grams of marine
shell were recovered.
Lithic Artifact Analysis
Lithic production waste accounted for the largest category of lithic artifacts, representing
80.70% (N=46) of the lithic artifact collection and includes 38 flakes and eight pieces of debitage
or shatter; no cores were identified at the site. The remaining lithic collection consisted of ground
stone tools (N=7; 12.28%), percussion tools (N=3; 5.26%), a multi-use tool (1.75%), and FAR.
Measurements of all lithic tools are presented in Table 5.3-8. The material distribution of the lithic
assemblage is presented in Table 5.3-9. The collection consists entirely of locally-available
materials, 78.95% (N=45) of which consists of fine-and medium-grained metavolcanic rock.
Other locally available materials consist of granite, representing 12.28% (N=7), quartz, accounting
for 7.02% (N=4), and quartzite, representing 1.75% (N=l) of the lithic assemblage. No exotic
lithic materials were recovered from the site. Activities indicated by the artifacts recovered from the
site include procurement and processing of plant and animal resources, and lithic tool production
and maintenance.
Ground Stone Tools
The ground stone tools recovered from SDI-10,609 included six manos and one metate.
The characteristics of the ground stone collection are summarized in Table 5.3-10 and detailed in
Table 5.3-11. Four of the six manos recovered were collected from the surface of the site. Each of
the manos collected was in fragmentary condition, which could be due to the location of the site in a
plowed field, or possibly to repeated use as five of the specimens exhibited heavy use wear. Five of
the manos (83.33%) are bifacial, while the last mano was too fragmentary to identify whether the
specimen was unifacial or bifacial. Only one mano showed evidence of shaping and none were
stained; exactly half of the collection was pecked.
The metate was also recovered in fragmentary condition. The specimen is worked on one
face only, exhibits heavy use wear and has been pecked. No evidence of shaping or staining is
evident on the fragment. All ground stone tools were derived from granite. Measurements for the
ground stone tools are provided in Table 5.3-8.
Percussion Tools
The percussion tool assemblage from SDI-10,609 consists of two hammerstones and a
single core tool, all recovered from the surface of the site. The hammerstones include a single-
5.3-4
, ...
c
r:
c
c
l:
r:
r:
r" ' ...
r" '""
1 II ..
1 ..
1 -
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 •
' ' 1 •
'
Tile Roberwm Ranch Project
edged specimen and a fragment whose use pattern could not be identified. The core tool appears to
have been a core that was used for extemporaneous battering and/or scraping. Measurements for
the percussion tools are provided in Table 5.3-8.
Multi-Use Tools
Those specimens exhibiting evidence of use as more that one type of artifact were classified
as multi-use tools. The only multi-use tool from SDI-10,609 was a perforatorlhammerstone. The
tool consists of a thin split cobble that has been hammered on one edge, while the other edge has
been flaked to create a small protruding beak that could have been used as a perforator. The tool is
derived from medium-grained metavolcanic. A photograph of the artifact is provided in Plate
5.3-2b and measurements are provided in Table 5.3-8.
Miscellaneous
In addition to artifacts and ecofacts, 1,932.2 grams of fire-affected rock (FAR) was also
recovered from the site. The FAR was collected from the surface, STP 4, and Unit 1. A
concentration ofF AR was also identified in Unit 1 at a depth of between 60 and 90 centimeters and
identified as Feature 1. The metate fragment was recovered from the same area as the FAR, at a
depth of 60 to 70 centimeters. The exposed portion of the feature measures approximately 65
(north to south) by 25 centimeters (east to west) and appears to extend into the southwest wall
(Plate 5.3-1b).
Ecofact Analysis
The ecofactual material recovered from SDI-10,609 includes 4.5 grams of vertebrate bone
and 5,835.4 grams of marine shell, all of which was collected from the test units. The ecofacts
remains are summarized by depth in Table 5.3-12. The presence, albeit in small quantities, of
animal bone, as well as that of marine shell, suggests that both terrestrial and marine resources were
contributors to the diets of the site occupants.
Marine Shell
Marine shell was scattered across the surface of the site, the limits of which are illustrated in
Figure 5.3-1. While the presence of marine shell was noted in all unit excavations, only the marine
shell from Test Unit 1 was collected and returned to the laboratory for analysis, therefore only that
marine shell is included in this discussion. This unit was the most productive in terms of all
cultural materials.
A total of 5,835.4 grams of marine shell was collected from Unit 1. The collection included
nine identifiable marine shell genera, a range of taxa identified at only one other Robertson Ranch
site, SDI-10,611. The marine shell collection was dominated by Chione sp., which accounted for
75.50 (4,405.9 grams) of the collection; Pecten sp. accounted for an additional 23.07% {1,346.2
grams) of the total. The genera of Crucibellum sp., Donax sp., Norrisia sp., Nossarius sp., Ostrea
5.3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Prt~jecl
sp., Protothaca sp., and Tagelus sp. each accounted for less than 1.00% of the entire marine shell
collection; the remaining 0.64% (37.5 grams) of the collection was represented by unidentifiable
fragments. Fragments of Chione sp., Pecten, and Ostrea sp. showed some evidence of burning,
although in small quantities as all burned marine shell at the site represented only 2.01% ( 117.2
grams) of the collection.
In terms of the vertical distribution of marine shell in Unit 1, the most productive levels were
between 20 to 60 centimeters or, in other words, the levels above the FAR feature. The quantity of
marine shell increased again between 100 and 120, with a significant decline below 140 centimeters
(Table 5.3-12). The quantity of both of the most common marine shell genera, Chione and Pecten
sp., behaved similarly vertically, exhibiting the two peaks in recovery at the same levels.
Vertebrate Faunal Remains
A total of 76 bone fragments was recovered from SDI-10,609 (Table 5.3-13). Three taxa
were identified to species, including black-tailed hare (Lepus califomicus), Botta's pocket gopher
(Thomomys bottae), and coyote (Canis latrans). A single generic identification was made among
the assemblage, consisting of unidentified rabbit (Sylvilagus sp ). The remainder of the bone sample
was associated with less-identifiable taxonomic categories, including unidentified large mammal,
unidentified small/medium mammal, unidentified small mammal, unidentified medium bird,
unidentified small/medium bird, and unidentified vertebrate. A summary of the faunal assemblage
is presented in Table 5.3-13. A detail of the faunal identifications is presented in Table 5.3-14.
All of the bone recovery was from Test Unit 1, the most productive levels being the deeper
levels of 100 to 140, below the FAR feature. The large mammal specimens were from these same
units, as were other small/medium specimens. Burned bone accounted for 13.16% (N=10) of the
total number of faunal specimens recovered, and most of the burned material was recovered from
above 90 centimeters (Table 5.3-14). A single unfused rabbit long bone was identified in the 130
to 140 centimeter level. This indicates not only that a young animal was exploited but also suggests
the site was utilized during at least one spring or summer season.
5.3.4 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-10,609 consists of a surface and subsurface expression
of artifacts and ecofacts. The overall site dimensions, as identified by the surface distribution of
artifacts and ecofacts, measures approximately 113 meters (370 feet) by 64 meters (210 feet).
Excavations revealed that the subsurface deposit at the site measures approximately 46 meters ( 150
feet) by 24 meters (80 feet). The deposit extends to a maximum depth of 170 centimeters. Based
on the depth of the deposit and the quantity of material recovered, particularly that of marine shell,
the site is interpreted as a repeatedly utilized, temporary camp. Site activities included floral and
faunal food resource extraction and processing, and lithic tool manufacture and maintenance. The
ecofacts recovered indicate both marine and terrestrial resources were collected by the occupants of
the site. The marine shell assemblage was well-represented and well-preserved. The presence of
5.3-6
,..
,.
t
..
l ..
The Roberwm Ra11ch Prt~iecr
animal bone, albeit in small quantities, adds to the research value of the site and has the potential to
provide information regarding the season of site utilization. Furthermore, the identification of a
portion of a fire-affected rock feature in a subsurface context increases the research potential of the
site. The range of lithic tools includes ground stone, percussion, and multi-use tools, and further
suggests that resource processing occurred at the site.
Because of the range of lithic tools recovered, the presence of bone and marine shell, as well
as the presence of cultural features, the cultural deposit at SDI-10,609 exhibits a high degree of
research potential.
5.3.5 Summary
The analysis of the cultural materials recovered from SDI-10,609 revealed a very deep
cultural deposit at the site. The recovered materials, including lithic tools and ecofactual remains,
indicate that site activities were focused on floral and faunal food procurement and processing, as
well as lithic tool manufacture and maintenance. Subsistence at the site appears to have been based
on a reliance on both marine and terrestrial resources.
Site SDI-10,609 exhibits significant cultural deposits, the presence of well-preserved marine
shell, and at least one buried feature. The research potential of this site fot....iaterpretation of
prehistoric subsistence strategies in the region is high. Based on the information derived from the
.~..:..~,.~~---~~· ~ testing program, SDI-10,609 is considered important according~~~Q..J:EQA~~<;;.ti.t~IL .a.od City of
Carlsbad guidelines. ---~ ·· ~· .,. __ ,~....,......-
5.3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
View of ridge on which SDI-10,609 is located, looking south.
View of fire-affected rock feature in Text Unit 1, 60 to 90 centimeters.
5.3-9
f
r
f
r
!
View of south wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0-180 centimeters).
View of perforatorlhammerstone tool (Cat. No. 1).
Plate 5.3-2
5.3-ll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( Recovery Category
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage
Rake
Percussion Tools:
Core Tool
Hammers tones
Multi-Use Tools:
Perforator/Hammerstone
Miscellaneous:
FAR*, Granite
FAR, MGM**
Totals
FAR*= Fire-affected rock
TABLE5.3-1
Summary of Surface Recovery
Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity
4
1
1
1
2
1
182.3 g.
95.7 g.
10
MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.3-12
The Robertson Ranch Project
Percent J
40.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
100.00
r
]
]
]
]
l
l
l
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
l
l
J
The Robertson Ranch Project
Recovery Location
Location from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
I 297°/80 Feet
2 299°110 Feet
3 132°/12 Feet
4 108°/25 Feet
5 84°/27 Feet
6 83°/84 Feet
7 104 °/65 Feet
8 171 o 126 Feet
9 181°/5 Feet
10 259°/90 Feet
TABLES.3-2
Surface Recovery Data
Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity/
Weight Recovery
I Perforator/Hammerstone
1 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined
1 Core Tool Fragment
1 Hammerstone, Single-Edged
95.7 g. FAR**
1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Burned,
Pecked
1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Burned,
Pecked
1 Debitage
1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Polished
1 Flake
182.3 g. FAR
1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Pecked,
Shaped
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
FAR**= Fire-affected rock
5.3-13
" Cat.
Description No.
MGM* 1
MGM 2
MGM 3
MGM 4
MGM 5
Granite 6
Granite 7
MGM 8
Granite 9
MGM 10
Granite 11
Granite 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.3-3
Summary of Shovel Test Recovery
Site SDI-1 0,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
( Recovery Category Quantity
Lithic Production Waste:
A*s 4
Miscellaneous:
FAR*, MGM** 27.5 g.
Totals 4
FAR*= Fire-affected rock
MGM** =Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.3-14
The Roberrsm1 Ranch Project
Percent ]
100.00
100.00
,..
,..
~·
r.
~
J[
r:
fr
rr ,..
r~
t:
,..
r ..
, The Robertson Ranch Project -, -, TABLE 5.3-4
Shovel Test Excavation Data ...
l Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
l Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum Depth Quantity Recovery Description No.
'
Azimuth/Range
0°/0 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 13
l
(50 Marine Shell frags., Not Collected [NC])
10-20 em. No Recovery I4
(60 Marine Shell frags., NC)
l 20-30cm. No Recovery I5
(1I5 Marine Shell frags., NC)
' 30-40 em. No Recovery 16
(160 Marine Shell frags., NC)
' 40-50cm. No Recovery I7
(I 00 Marine Shell frags., NC)
'
50-60 em. No Recovery I8
(80 Marine Shell frags., NC)
60-70 em. No Recovery I9
' (I 00 Marine Shell frags., NC)
70-80cm. Hake FGM* 20
l (85 Marine Shell frags., NC)
80-90 em. Aake Quartz 2I
'
(70 Marine Shell frags., NC)
90-IOO em. No Recovery 22
(55 Marine Shell frags., NC)
' 2 355°/49 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 23
'
10-20cm. NoReeovery 24
20-30 em. NoReeovery 25
J 3 88°/49 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 26
10-20 em. NoReeovery 27
J FGM* =Fine-grained metavolcanic
) 5.3-I5
I ..
The Robertson Ranch Project ...
I ,
...
I Shovel Location Cat.
,
Test from Datum Depth Quantity Recovery Description No. -
I
Azimuth/Range ,.
3 88°/49 Feet 20-30cm. NoReeovery 28 .,.,.
I 30-40 em. NuReeovery 29 ,.
...
4 177°/50 Feet 0-10 em. NoReeovery 30
I (38 Marine Shell frags., NC) ...
l0-20cm. 27.5 g. FAR*"' MGM*** 31
I
(37 Marine Shell frags., NC) ,.
20-30cm. No Recovery 32 .... ' ( 45 Marine Shell frags., NC)
I Jill'
30-40em. No Recovery 33
(20 Marine Shell frags., NC) r
I ...
5 177°/125 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 34 l
10-20 em. No Recovery 35
I 20-30 em. No Recovery 36 r
I 6 268°/50 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 37 f~ I0-20em. NoReeovery 38
I 20-30 em. No Recovery 39 r~
7 136°/51 Feet 0-IOcm. No Recovery 40
I (70 Marine Shell frags., NC) f~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 41
I (80 Marine Shell frags., NC) ,.
20-30 em. No Recovery 42 k
(78 Marine Shell frags., NC)
I 30-40 em. No Recovery 43 ~~
( 10 Marine Shell frags., NC)
I 8 136°/125 Feet 0-10 em. NoReeovery 44 l: ( 10 Marine Shell frags., NC)
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 45 ,: (7 Marine Shell frags., NC)
FAR**= Fire-affected rock
I MGM*** = Medium-grained metavolcanic 'l:
I 5.3-16 II ! ..
l The Robertso11 Ranch Project
1 -
l Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum Depth Quantity Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range
l 8 136°1125 Feet 20-30 em. No Recovery 46
(4 Marine Shell frags., NC)
:1 9 223°/50 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 47
(15 Marine Shell frags., NC)
l 10-20 em. No Recovery 48
(8 Marine Shell frags., NC)
20-30 ern. No Recovery 49
1 (3 Marine Shell frags., NC)
30-40 ern. No Recovery 50
l 10 223°1125 Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 51
l 10-20 em. No Recovery 52
20-30 em. No Recovery 53
l 11 136°1175 Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 54
10-20 ern. No Recovery 55 , 20-30 em. No Recovery 56
12 155°/29 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 57
' (65 Marine Shell frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 58
' (40 Marine Shell frags., NC)
20-30 ern. No Recovery 59
1 (40 Marine Shell frags., NC)
13 154°/57 Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 60 ..
(235 Marine Shell frags., NC)
' 10-20 em. No Recovery 61
(269 Marine Shell frags., NC)
l 20-30 em. 2 Flakes MGM 62
(242 Marine Shell frags., NC)
' 30-40 em. No Recovery 63
(150 Marine Shell frags., NC)
:r
~ 5.3-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Shovel Location
Test from Datum
Azimuth/Range
13 154°/57 Feet
14 255°/112 Feet
The Robe man Ranch Project
Cat.
Depth Quantity Recovery Description No.
40-50 em. No Recovery 64
(175 Marine Shell frags., NC)
50-60 em. No Recovery 65
(33 Marine Shell frags., NC)
0-10 em. No Recovery 66
10-20 em. No Recovery 67
20-30 em. No Recovery 68
r
5.3-18
TABLE5.3-5
Summary of Test Unit Recovery
Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
1&121b !in s;!:loli~~l
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
Ecofacts:
Bone 0.1 g. 0.2g. 0.1 g. 0.2g. 0.2g. 0.3 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.3 g.
Marine Shell,
Chione sp. 140.1 g. 297.8 g. 450.1 g. 541.5 g. 586.0 g. 619.6g. 272.5 g. 112.6g. 176.9 g. 180.0g.
Chione sp., Burned 0.1 g. 0.4g. 1.7 g. 0.7 g. 5.4g. 6.1 g. 2.5 g. 1.5 g. 2.0g. 1.7 g.
Crucibellum sp. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.3 g. 0.1 g.
Dmwx sp.
Norrisia sp. 15.5 g.
Nossm·ius sp. 0.2g.
o.~trea sp. 0.1 g. 1.4g. 0.5 g. 2.0g. 1.6g. 4.9 g. 0.7 g. I.Og. 0.9 g.
Ostrea sp., Burned 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.5 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g.
Vl Pecten sp. 19.2g. 44.0 g. 69.4 g. 103.9 g. 124.6g. 200.1 g. 117.3 g. 55.4 g. 65.8g. 55.6 g.
\...> Pecten sp., Burned 0.5 g. 0.6g. 0.9 g. 2.7 g. IO.Og. 13.4g. 8.9 g. 3.5 g. 6.1 g. 3.5 g.
I Prmmhaca sp. 0.1 g. 0.2g.
\0 Tagelus sp. 0.1 g. 0.2g. I.Og. 0.1 g. 0.1 g.
Unidentifiable 3.3 g. 2.8 g. 5.0g. 3.8 g. 4.5 g. 3.4g. 3.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.7 g. 1.5 g.
Unidentifiable, Burnl.!d 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.3 g.
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos
Metates
Lithic Production Waste:
Debit age 3 2 I I
Flakes 5 3 2 4 2 3 5 2
Miscellaneous:
FAR*, Granite 22.2 g. 31.3 g. 894.5 g. 131.9 g. 38.0g. 272.7 g.
FAR,MGM"* 67.6g. 27.7 g. 95.7 g. ~ ..
~
Totals 8 2 4 4 5 2 3 6 2 1r ~
Percent 18.6 4.65 9.3 9.3 11.63 4.65 2.33 6.98 13.95 4.65 ::
~ ::
FAR*= Fire-affected rack g.
MOM** = Medium-grained IIU'Ict1'tllccmic "'tJ :=! "= ...
~
----- --- --- -- ------
TABLES.3--S
Summary of Test Unit Recovery (cont.)
Site SOI-l 0,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
l&l!!b !in sccn!i~m~al
Artifact Category 100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160 160-170 170-180 Total Percent
Ecofacts:
Bone 0.4g. 0.5 g. 0.6g. I.Og. 0.4 g. 4.5 g.
Marine Shell,
Chione sp. 280.7 g. 340.2 g. 173.4g. 188.9 g. 6.1 g. 2.9 g. 0.2g. 4369.5 g.
Chione sp., Burned 1.6 g. 4.7 g. 4.0g. 3.2g. 0.4g. 0.4 g. 36.4 g.
Crudbellum sp. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.4g. 0.1 g. 1.3 g.
Dmwxsp. 0.3g. 0.3 g.
Norri.via sp. 1.0 g. 16.5 g.
No.v.varius sp. 0.2g.
O.vtrea sp. 3.5 g. 1.1 g. 1.3 g. 2.2 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g. 21.5 g.
O.ttrea sp., Burned 0.1 g. 1.1 g.
\Jl Pecten sp. 113.0g. 113.7 g. 98.3g. 80.3g. 4.2 g. 2.2g. 0.1 g. 1267.1 g.
w Pecten sp., Burned 5.5 g. 8.4 g. 6.0g. 8.0g. l.Og. 0.1 g. 79.1 g.
I Protfllhaca sp. 0.1 g. 0.4g. 1-.)
0 Tagelu.r sp. 0.6g. 0.6g. 0.3g. 1.2 g. 0.2 g. 0.1 g. 4.5 g.
Unidentifiable 1.4 g. 2.0g. 0.3g. 4.8 g. 0.2g. 36.9 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 0.1 g. 0.6g.
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos 2 4.65
Metates I 2.33
Lithic Production Wa.~te:
Debitage 7 16.28
Flakes 3 2 33 76.74
Miscellaneous:
FAR, Granite 5.8 g. 1396.4 g.
FAR,MGM 39.3 g. 230.3 g. ~ ..
Totals 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 43 100.00 ~ :t ~
Percent 0.00 6.98 4.65 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 "' ~ "' g.
~ cs ~· !l
,.-,
r 1111 1 r l
] The Robertson Ranch Project
J
] TABLE5.3-6
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-10,609
] The Robertson Ranch Project
] r Location Quantity/ Cat. Test
Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
] Azimuth/Range
1 77°/4 Feet 0-10 em. 3 Debitage MGM* 74
] 4 Flakes MGM 75
67.6g. FAR** MGM 76
140.1 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 77
] 0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 78
19.2 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 79
0.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 80
3.3 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 81
] 0.1 g. Bone Bone 82
10-20 em. 297.8 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 83
] 0.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 84
0.1 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 85
44.0g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 86
l 0.6 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 87
2.8 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 88
0.2 g. Bone Bone 89
] 20-30cm. 1 Flake FGM*** 90
1 Flake MGM 91
450.1 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 92
l 1.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 93
0.1 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 94
1.4 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 95
69.4 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 96
l 0.9 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 97
0.1 g. Marine Shell Protothaca sp. 98
5.0 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 99
:1 0.1 g. Bone Bone 100
30-40cm. 22.2g. FAR Granite 101
:1 27.7 g. FAR MGM 102
2 Debitage MGM 103
2 Flakes MGM 104
,J MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
FAR**= Fire-affected rock
FGM** = Fine-grained metavolcanic rock
:1
:1 5.3-21
I ,.
The Robertson Ranch Project ~
I ,
""
I r ,
Location Quantity/ Cat. .. Test
Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No. ,. I Azimuth/Range
'I-·
I 1 77°/4 Feet 30-40cm. 541.5 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 105 ,.
0.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 106 .,.
0.1 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 107
I 0.5 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 108 ....
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 109
103.9 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 110 ,...
2.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 111
I 3.8 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 112 ....
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 113 I'""
0.2 g. Bone Bone 114
I ,.
40-50cm. 31.3 g. FAR Granite 115 pa. 1 Flake FGM 116
1 Debitage MGM 117 c I 2 Flakes MGM 118
1 Flake Quartz 119
586.0 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 120
I 5.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 121 c 2.0 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 122
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 123
I 124.6 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 124 c 10.0 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 125
0.2 g. Marine Shell Protothaca sp. 126
0.1 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 127
I 4.5 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 128 ,~ 0.2 g. Bone Bone 129
I 50-60cm. 894.5 g. FAR Granite 130 ...
1 Flake FGM 131 ,_
1 Flake MGM 132
619.6 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 133 ,: I 6.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 134
1.6 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 135
0.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 136
I 200.1 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 137 r: 13.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 138
0.2 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 139
I 3.4 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 140 ..
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 141 I-0.3 g. Bone Bone 142
I 60-70cm. 1 Metate Fragment, Granite 143 1: Uniface,Bumed, Pecked
131.9g. FAR Granite 144
I fill r.
5.3-22 ,:
]
The Robertson Ranch Pmject
]
] r
Test Location Quantity/ Cat.
Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range
]
1 77°/4 Feet 60-70cm. 272.5 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 145
] 2.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 146
0.3 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 147
15.5 g. Marine Shell Norrisia sp. 148
] 4.9 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 149
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 150
117.3 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 151
8.9 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 152
] 1.0 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 153
3.1 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 154
0.3 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 155
] 0.1 g. Bone Bone 156
70-80cm. 38.0g. FAR Granite 157
3 Flakes FGM 158 ] 112.6 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 159
1.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 160
0.1 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 161
] 0.2 g. Marine Shell Nassarius sp. 162
0.7 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 163
55.4g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 164
] 3.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 165
0.1 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 166
0.1 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 167
] 80-90cm. 2 Flakes FGM 168
3 Flakes MGM 169
95.7 g. FAR MGM 170
l 1 Debitage Quartzite 171
176.9 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 172
2.0 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 173
1.0 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 174 ] 0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 175
65.8 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 176
6.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 177
l 0.7 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 178
0.1 g. Bone Bone 179
] 90-100 em. 272.7 g. FAR Granite 180
1 Flake FGM 181
1 Flake MGM 182
180.0 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 183
] 1.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 184
J
J 5.3-23
I II';
The Robertson Ranch Projecr .. I
I "' ... I
I ,.
r
Test Location Quantity/ Cat ..,..
Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
I Azimuth/Range ,..
.,.
I ,.
1 77°/4 Feet 90-100 em. 0.9 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 185 .,.
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 186
I 55.6g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 187 r 3.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 188
0.1 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 189 .,..
1.5 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 190
I 0.3 g. Bone Bone 191 ,. ,..
100-110cm. 280.7 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 192
I 1.6 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 193 ,.
0.1 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 194 ~ 3.5 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 195
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Ostrea sp. 196 ,., I 113.0 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 197
5.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 198 ~
0.6g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 199
I 1.4g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 200 c 0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 201
0.4 g. Bone Bone 202
I 110-120cm. 1 Flake FGM 203 c 1 Flake MGM 204
1 Flake Quartz 205
I 340.2 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 206 ~ 4.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 207
0.1 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 208
I l.Og. Marine Shell Norrisia sp. 209 I[ 1.1 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 210
113.7 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 211
8.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 212
fl I 0.6g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 213
2.0 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 214
0.5 g. Bone Bone 215
I ..
120-130cm. 1 Flake Quartz 216 , ..
173.4 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 217
I 1 Flake FGM 218 f: 4.0g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 219
0.4 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 220
1.3 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 221 , I 98.3 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 222 1-6.0 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 223
I 1111 \.,
I 5.3-24 ~~
l The Robertson Ranch Projecr
l
l
Test Location Quantity/ Cat.
l Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range
l 1 77°/4 Feet120-130 em. 0.3 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 224
0.3 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 225
] 0.6g. Bone Bone 226
130-140em. 5.8 g. FAR Granite 227
1 Flake MGM 228
l 39.3 g. FAR MGM 229
188.9 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 230
3.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 231
:1 0.1 g. Marine Shell Crucibellum sp. 232
0.3 g. Marine Shell Donax sp. 233
2.2 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 234
80.3 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 235 1 8.0 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 236
0.1 g. Marine Shell Protothaca sp. 237
1.2 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 238
1 4.8 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 239
1.0 g. Bone Bone 240
l 140-150cm. 6.1 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 241
0.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 242
0.1 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 243
4.2 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 244
l 1.0 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 245
0.4 g. Bone Bone 246
1 150-160 em. 2.9 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 247
0.4 g . Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 248 .. 0.1 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 249
2.2 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 250 :1 0.2 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 251
0.2 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 252
:1 160-170 em. 0.2 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 253
0.1 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 254
0.1 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 255
:1 0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned Pecten sp. 256
0.1 g. Marine Shell Tagelus sp. 257
170-180 em. No Recovery
l
:1 ·-, 5.3-25 ·-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
Test
Unit
2
Location
from Datum A Depth
Azimuth/Range
157°/42 Feet 0-10 em.
10-20cm.
20-30cm.
Quantity/
Weight
1
1
1
1
1
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat.
Recovery Description No.
Flake MGM 69
(870 Marine shell frags., Not Collected [NC])
Mana Fragment, Biface, Granite 70
Polished, Burned
Flake MGM 71
(1000+ Marine shell frags., NC)
Mana Fragment, Biface, Granite 72
Polished, Burned
Flake MGM 73
(650+ Marine shell frags., NC)
5.3-26
c
~
r
[
c
c
c
rc
!, ..
] The Robertson Ranch Project
]
] TABLE 5.3-7
Summary of Artifact Recovery
l Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
Recovery Category Surface Shovel Tests Test Units Total Percent
l Ecofacts:
Bone 4.5 g. 4.5 g.
J Marine Shell,
Chione sp. 4369.5 g. 4369.5 g.
Chione sp., Burned 36.4 g. 36.4 g.
l Crucibellum sp. 1.3 g. 1.3 g.
Donax sp. 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
Norrisia sp. 16.5 g. 16.5 g.
l Nossarius sp. 0.2 g. 0.2 g.
Ostrea sp. 21.5 g. 21.5 g.
Ostrea sp., Burned 1.1 g. 1.1 g.
Pecten sp. 1267.1 g. 1267.1 g.
l Pecten sp., Burned 79.1 g. 79.1 g.
Protothaca sp. 0.4 g. 0.4 g.
Tagelus sp. 4.5 g. 4.5 g.
l U nidentifiab1e 36.9 g. 36.9 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 0.6 g. 0.6 g.
l Ground Stone Tools:
Manos 4 2 6 10.53
Me tate 1.75
l Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage 7 8 14.04
Flakes 4 33 38 66.67
l Percussion Tools:
Core Tool I 1 1.75
l Hammerstones 2 2 3.51
Multi-Use Tools:
Perforator/Hammerstone 1.75
l Miscellaneous:
FAR*, Granite 182.3 g. 1396.4 g. 1578.7 g.
l FAR, MGM** 95.7 g. 27.5 g. 230.3 g. 353.5 g.
Totals 10 4 43 57 100.00
:1 Percent 17.54 7.02 75.44 100.00
FAR• =Fire-affected rock
:1 MGM•• = Medium-grained metavolcanic
:t 5.3-27
I Ill'
The Robertson Ranch Project -
I ,. ..
TABLE5.3-8
I ,
Lithic Tool Measurement Data ..
Site SDI-10,609
I The Robertson Ranch Project r
~
I Cat. Tool Description Dim~nsions (in centimeters) Weight Material ,
No. Length Width Thickness (in grams) ~
I Ground Stone Tools:
,
~
Manos:
I 6 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, 5.2 4.9 4.6 180.1 Granite ,.
Pecked, Burned ,.
7 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, 9.7 6.8 6.3 556.5 Granite
I Pecked Burned, ,.
9 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, 8.9 4.0 2.1 104.2 Granite
Polished r"'
I 12 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, 8.7 6.5 4.2 346.8 Granite r Shaped, Pecked,
70 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, 4.2 3.2 3.1 58.5 Granite
I Burned r 72 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, 9.8 6.5 3.7 319.8 Granite
Burned
.I Metates: c 143 Metate Fragment, Uniface, Burned, 24.8 13.8 6.1 2098.9 Granite
Pecked
I Per~yssion TQQls: r
Core Tools:
I 3 Core Tool Fragment 7.7 4.7 3.7 159.0 MGM* r:
Hammers tones:
I 2 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined 5.5 3.9 3.0 68.1 MGM ,..
'·-4 Hammerstone, Single-Edged 6.5 5.1 3.8 183.9 MGM
I Multi-Use TQols: ,..
Perforator/Hammerstones: f ~'
1 Perforator/Hammerstone 7.6 6.7 2.1 143.9 MGM
I MGM* =Medium-grained metavolcanic f ..
~ ""'
I ...
' '
I , ...
~~o,~
I 5.3-28 ,:
1 "'
1 ...
l
' l
l
l
l
' l
l
l
' 1 •
' ' )
' J
Artifact Category
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos
Me tate
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage
Flakes
Percussion Tools:
Core Tool
Hammerstones
Multi-Use Tools:
Perforator/Hammerstone
Totals
Percent
FGM* =Fine-grained metavolcanic
TABLE5.3-9
Lithic Material Distribution
Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
Material
FGM* Granite M GM* * Quartz
6
1
7
12 22 4
1
2
1
12 7 33 4
21.05 12.28 57.89 7.02
MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.3-29
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quartzite Total Percent
6 10.53
1 1.75
1 8 14.04
38 66.67
1 1.75
2 3.51
1 1.75
1 57 100.00
1.75 100.00
I r
The Robertson Ranch Project -
I r
I TABLE 5.3-10 (
Summary of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics
Site SDI-10,609 c I The Robertson Ranch Project
I Manos (N=6) Metatc (N=l) c
Quantity Percent Quantity Percent
I Condition: r Whole 0 0.00 0 0.00
Fragment 6 100.00 1 100.00 !i.
I Type: ( Uniface 0 0.00 1 100.00
Biface 5 83.33 0 0.00
I Undetennined 1 16.67 0 0.00 c Degree of Use:
I Light 0 0.00 0 0.00 f~ Moderate 1 16.67 0 0.00
Heavy 5 83.33 1 100.00
I Shaping: f~ Shaped 1 16.67 0 0.00
Unshaped 5 83.33 1 100.00
I Pecking: r~ Pecked 3 50.00 1 100.00
Unpecked 3 50.00 0 0.00
I Staining: ,:
Stained 0 0.00 0 0.00
I Unstained 6 100.00 1 100.00 I~ Material:
I Granite 6 100.00 1 100.00 ( ..
) ...
I !"' L
I
,_.
r ..
I !:
I 1:
I 5.3-30 [ II
I ..
J
J
~
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
,l
J
J
:J
:t
~
~
:,
~
Artifact
Manos:
Mano
Mano
Mano
Mano
Mano
Mano
Metates:
Me tate
Condition
Fragment
Fragment
Fragment
Fragment
Fragment
Fragment
Fragment
TABLE 5.3-11
Detail of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics
Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
Type Degree Shaped Pecked
of Use
Biface Heavy Pecked
Biface Heavy Pecked
Undetermined Moderate
Biface Heavy Shaped Pecked
Biface Heavy
Biface Heavy
Uniface Heavy Pecked
5.3-31
The Robertson Ranch Project
Stained Material Cat.
No.
Granite 6
Granite 7
Granite 9
Granite 12
Granite 70
Granite 72
Granite 143
-------------------
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20
Bone: 0.1 g. 0.2 g.
Percent 2.22 4.44
Marine Shell:
VI Chione sp. 140.1 g. 297.8 g. w Chione sp., Burned 0.1 g. 0.4 g. I w Crucibellum sp. N
Donaxsp.
Norrisia sp.
Nossarius sp.
Ostrea sp. 0.1 g.
Ostrea sp., Burned
Pecten sp. 19.2 g. 44.0 g.
Pecten sp., Burned 0.5 g. 0.6 g.
Protothaca sp.
Tagelus sp.
Unidentifiable 3.3 g. 2.8 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned
Totals 163.2g. 345.7 g.
Percent 2.80 5.92
' ' ' ' ' ..
TABLE 5.3-12
Summary of Test Unit Ecofact Recovery
Site SOI-l 0,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
D~uth (in centimeter~)
20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60
0.1 g. 0.2 g. 0.2 g. 0.3 g.
2.22 4.44 4.44 6.67
450.1 g. 541.5 g. 586.0 g. 619.6g.
1.7 g. 0.7 g. 5.4 g. 6.1 g.
0.1 g. 0.1 g.
1.4g. 0.5 g. 2.0 g. 1.6g.
0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.5 g.
69.4 g. 103.9 g. 124.6 g. 200.1 g.
0.9 g. 2.7 g. IO.Og. 13.4 g.
0.1 g. 0.2 g.
0.1 g. 0.2 g.
5.0 g. 3.8 g. 4.5 g. 3.4 g.
0.1 g. 0.1 g.
528.7 g. 653.4 g. 732.9 g. 845.0 g.
9.06 11.20 12.56 14.48
60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.3 g.
2.22 0.00 2.22 6.67
272.5 g. 112.6 g. 176.9 g. 180.0 g.
2.5 g. 1.5 g. 2.0 g. 1.7 g.
0.3 g. 0.1 g.
15.5 g.
0.2 g.
4.9 g. 0.7 g. I.Og. 0.9 g.
0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g.
117.3 g. 55.4g. 65.8 g. 55.6 g.
8.9 g. 3.5 g. 6.1 g. 3.5 g.
I.Og. 0.1 g. 0.1 g.
3.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.7 g. 1.5 g.
0.3 g.
;;! ...
426.4 g. 174.2g. 252.6 g. 243.4 g. ~ Q <::r-...
7.31 2.99 4.33 4.17 ~ §
E:' ::: ~
~ ~ a·
Artifact Category
Bone:
Percent
VI Marine Shell,:
w Chione sp. I (jl Chione sp., Burned (jl
Crucibellum sp.
Donaxsp.
Norrisia sp.
Nossarius sp.
Ostrea sp.
Ostrea sp., Burned
Pecten sp.
Pecten sp., Burned .
Protothaca sp.
Tagelus sp.
Unidentifiable
Unidentifiable, Burned
Totals
Percent
TABLE 5.3-12
Summary of Test Unit Ecofact Recovery (cont.)
Site SDI-1 0,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
Depth fin centimeters)
100-110 110-120 120-130 130-140 140-150 150-160
0.4 g. 0.5 g. 0.6 g. 1.0 g. 0.4 g.
8.89 11.11 13.33 22.22 8.89 0.00
280.7 g. 340.2 g. 173.4 g. 188.9 g. 6.1 g. 2.9 g.
1.6 g. 4.7 g. 4.0 g. 3.2 g. 0.4 g. 0.4 g.
0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0.4 g. 0.1 g.
0.3 g.
1.0 g.
3.5 g. 1.1 g. 1.3 g. 2.2 g. 0.1 g. 0.1 g.
0.1 g.
113.0 g. 113.7 g. 98.3 g. 80.3 g. 4.2 g. 2.2 g.
5.5 g. 8.4 g. 6.0 g. 8.0 g. 1.0 g.
0.1 g.
0.6 g. 0.6 g. 0.3 g. 1.2 g. 0.2 g.
1.4 g. 2.0 g. 0.3 g. 4.8 g. 0.2 g.
0.1 g.
406.6 g. 471.8 g. 284.0 g. 289.1 g. 11.8 g. 6.0 g.
6.97 8.09 4.87 4.95 0.20 0.10
160-170 170-180 Total Percent
4.5 g.
0.00 0.00 100.00
0.2 g. 4,369.5 g. 74.88
36.4 g. 0.62
1.3 g. 0.02
0.3 g. 0.01
16.5 g. 0.28
0.2 g. 0.00
0.1 g. 21.5 g. 0.37
1.1 g. 0.02
0.1 g. -1,267.1 g. 21.71
0.1 g. 79.1 g. 1.36
0.4 g. 0.01
0.1 g. 4.5 g. 0.08
36.9 g. 0.63
0.6 g. 0.01 ;;:!
" ~
0.6 g. 0.0 5,835.4 g. 100.00 %-.. a §!
0.01 0.00 100.00 il' "' g.
'"tl ~ a·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.3-13
Summary of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
( Tm NISP*
Black-tailed hare (Lepus califomicus) 1
Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) 12
Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) 22
Coyote (Canis latrans) 1
Unid. large mammal 2
Unid. srnlmed mammal 15
Unid. small mammal 20
Unid. medium bird 1
Unid. srnlmed bird 1
Unid. vertebrate 1
Total 76
NISP"' = Number of individual specimens
MNI"'"' = Minimum number of individuals
5.3-34
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weight J (g) MNI**
0.1 1
0.8 2
0.8 2
0.0 1
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
,_
r ...
' ,.
r~
,.
I ..
' ,.
1-
{ ..
" •
Cat Unit
No.
82
82
89
89
89
89
VI 89 L.l I 100 VJ VI 100
114
114
129
129
142
142
142
142
142
156
179
179
191
191
191
202
' ' .... l • ....
Depth Taxon
(em)
0-10 Unid. Small/medium mammal
0-10 Unid. Medium bird
20-30 Unid. Small/medium mammal
20-30 Unid. Small/medium mammal
20-30 U nid. Small mammal
20-30 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae)
20-30 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae)
20-30 Coyote (Canis latrans)
20-30 Unid. Small/medium mammal
30-40 Unid. Small/medium bird
30-40 Unid. Small/medium mammal
40-50 Black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus)
40-50 Unid. SJ11all/medium mammal
50-60 Bottn':-. gopher (Thomomys bottae)
50-60 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
50-60 Unid. Small/medium mammal
50-60 Unid. Small mammal
50-60 Unid. Small mammal
70-80 Unid. Small mammal
80-90 Unid. Small/medium mammal
80-90 Unid. Vertebrate
90-100 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
90-100 Unid. Small/medium mammal
90-100 Unid. Small/medium mammal
I 00-110 Unid. rahhil (Sylvilagus sp.)
TABLE 5.3-14
Detail of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-10,609
The Robertson Ranch Project
Element Symmetry Portion
unid. long bone
coracoid
unid. long bone
unid. bone
unid. bone
humerus p
ulna p
4th premolar
unid. long bone
scapula d
unid. long bone
mandible r
unid. long bone
femur r
premaxilla r&l
unid. long bone
·unid. long bone
unid. bone
unid. long bone
unid. long bone
unid. bone
scapula d
unid. long bone
unid. long bone
4th metatarsal
..__ .
NISP Weight % Fusion Cult. Age Notes
(g) Mod.
0.0 burned
0.0 recent intrusion
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0 burned
I 0.0
3 0.2
0.1
0.0 burned
0.0
0.0
0.1 burned
0.0
0.0
0.0 burned ;;!
" 0.0 burned ~
0.0 ~
I 0.1 ~ "'
2 0.2 S' "' 0.0 burned g.
"' 0.2 ~ ~· :::
-------------------
[ Cat Unit Depth Taxon Element Symmetry Portion ~ISP Weight % Fusion Cult. Age Notes ] No. (em) (g) Mod.
202 I 00-110 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) mandibular r 0.1
incisor
202 100-110 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) mandibular 0.0
incisor
202 100-110 Unid. Small/medium mammal unid. bone 0.1
202 I 00-1 10 Unid. Small mammal unid. bone 4 0.1
215 1 I 0-1 20 Unid. Large mammal unid. bone 0.2
215 1 10-120 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) mandible 0.0
215 I I 0-120 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) mandible r 0.0
215 1 10-1 20 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) femur r d 2 0.1
215 I 10-I 20 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) mandibular 0.0
incisor
215 II 0-120 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) mandibular indet. 0.0
incisor
215 110-120 Unid. Small mammal unid. bone 4 0.0 Vl w 240 130-140 Unid. Large mammal unid. long bone 0.6 burned I w 240 130-140 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) mandible 0.1 0\ r
240 130-140 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) scapula r ds 0.0
240 130-140 Unid. rabhit (Sylvilagus sp.) mandibular indet. 0.0
incisor
240 130-I 40 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) radius indet. d 0.0 unfused
240 I 30-140 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) humerus r d 0.0
240 130-140 Botta's !!•'pher (Thomomys bottae) ulna p 0.0
240 130-140 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) illium 0.0
240 130-I 40 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) femur p 0.1
240 130-140Unid. Small mammal unid. bone 0.0
240 130-140Unid. Small mammal unid. bone 0.0 burned
246 I 40-I 50 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) mandibular 0.0 ;ol
" incisor ~ <:1-
246 140-I 50 Unid. rahhit (Sylvilagus sp.) scapula d 0.3 " a
246 I 40-I 50 Botta's gupher (Thomomys bottae) femur p 0.1 §
226 I 20-130 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) mandible articular 0.0 5' ::.
226 120-I 30 Bolla's gopher (Thomomys bottae) mandible 0.1 g. r "1:1
226 120-130 Bolla's gopher (Thomomys bottae) mandible cheek 0.0 ~ ~-!:).
' , 1 , '
Cat Unit Depth Taxon Element Symmetry Portion NISP Weight % Fusion Cult. Age Notes ] No. (em) (g) Mod.
226 120-130 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) humerus r s 2 0.1
226 120-130 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) humerus d 0.0
226 120-130 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) femur p 0.1
226 120-130 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) femur r ps 0.0
226 120-130 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae) lumbar vert. I 0.1
226 120-130 Unid. Small mammal unid. bone 6 0.1
226 120-130 Unid. Small/medium mammal unid. bone 0.1 burned
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.4 Site SDI-10,610
5.4.1 Site Description
Site SDI-10,610 is a prehistoric seasonal camp located in the center of the project area. Sue
Wade originally recorded the site in 1985 as a temporary shell camp with split cobble tools and
large flake scrapers. The site is situated on a southeast-facing slope of a prominent, southwest-
trending ridge. The site is approximately 200 meters northwest of Agua Hedionda Creek. Soils in
the vicinity are mapped as the Altamont series, which are well-drained clays that formed in material
weathered from calcareous shale (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site include repeated
cultivation and the grading of a dirt road on the north edge of the site. The general location of the
resource is shown in Figure 5.0-1. The general configuration of the site is shown in Figure 5.4-1,
and its setting is shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.4-la.
The site was relocated during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2002. The site
was densely covered in waist -high grasses at the time of the survey, making surface visibility poor
over much of the site. The surface expression of the site included a dense scatter of marine shell
and a few associated lithic artifacts. The evaluation program for the site was conducted in
December 2001. A series of 14 shovel tests and two test units were excavated during the
subsurface evaluation of the site, while 12 artifacts were mapped and collected from the surface of
the site.
5.4.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-10,610 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
surface artifacts, and excavation of STPs and test units. Totals of 36 artifacts, 0.5 gram of bone,
and 2,018.7 grams of marine shell were recovered during investigations at the site.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts. Vegetation at the site was dense
during the survey and testing phases, subsequently, surface visibility was poor. However, it wac;
evident that concentrations of marine shell were scattered on the surface beneath the vegetation. The
extent of the marine shell was mapped as indicated on Figure 5.4-1. All artifacts observed on the
surface of the site were mapped and collected, the locations of which are also illustrated in Figure
5.4-1. The surface collection, summarized in Table 5.4-1 an'd detailed with provenience
information in Table 5.4-2,. consisted of 12 artifacts-six manos, three flakes, two hammerstones,
and one multi-purpose hammer/mano. The surface collection of artifacts and mapping of marine
shell resulted in the delineation of the surface expression of the site, which measures approximately
162 meters (530 feet) from west to east by 137 meters (450 feet) from north to south.
5.4-l
c
c
• 1 ...
!1
d
d
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
·~
~
~
Tile Robertso11 Rtmclr Project
Subsuiface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-10,610 was investigated by excavating
14 STPs and two test units. Shovel test pits were excavated in radial lines from the established
datum in order to determine the extent of the subsurface expression of the site. The locations of the
STPs are shown in Figure 5.4-1. All of the STPs were excavated in decimeter levels.to at least 30
centimeters. No artifacts were recovered from the STPs excavated at SDI-10,610; however shell
was observed in eight of the 14 STPs. The positive shovel test pits included STP 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10,
11, and 13. The amount of shell ranged from three fragments in STP 2 to over 230 fragments in
STP 10. Recovery extended to a maximum depth of 50 centimeters in STP 1. Shovel test
provenience and depth information is detailed in Table 5.4-3.
Subsurface testing of SDI-10,610 continued with the excavation of two standard test units.
The test units were positioned to sample the area of greatest potential to produce subsurface
deposits, as identified by the STPs and surface collections. Test Unit 1 was positioned near STP
10 and Test Unit 2 near STP 11. The locations of the test units are illustrated in Figure 5.4-1.
The test units were excavated in standard decimeter levels to subsoil, and all removed soils
were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. Due to the increase in the quantity of marine
shell observed in the first test unit that was excavated, all marine shell from Unit 2 was collected and
returned to the laboratory for analysis; this allowed the character of the marine shell deposit at SDI-
10,610 to be analyzed in more detail. Recovery from the two test units consisted of 24 artifacts, 0.5
gram of animal bone, and 2,018.7 grams of marine shell from Unit 2. Recovery is summarized in
Table 5.4-4 and detailed by level in Table 5.4-5. The artifact assemblage consisted almost entirely
of lithic production waste (95.83%; N=23); the remaining artifact was a single quartz biface
fragment recovered from Unit 2, 20 to 30 centimeters. The marine shell from Unit 2 was identified
to three genera, including Chione sp., Ostrea sp., and Pecten sp. The most productive levels, in
terms of bone, shell, and artifacts, were the 20 to 30 and 30 to 40 centimeter levels; 80.00% of the
bone, 60.54% of the shell, and 66.67% of the artifacts were recovered from these two 10-centimeter
levels. Ecofact recovery declined considerably below 40 centimeters, and no artifacts were
recovered below this same level.
The soil profile from Test Unit 2 was characterized by a dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2)
silty loam, underlain by a very dark grayish brown ( 1 OYR 3/2) silty loam; the dark brown to brown
(lOYR 4/3) clay subsoil was encountered between 50 and 55 centimeters below surface. A drawing
ofthe north wall of Test Unit 2 is presented in Figure 5.4-2. A color photograph of the west wall
of Test Unit 2 is provided in Plate 5.4-lb. The subsurface expression of the site, identified by the
shovel tests that produced marine shell, encompassed an area measuring approximately 91 meters
(300 feet) to the southwest and northeast by 40 meters (130 meters) from northwest to southeast.
The artifact deposit appears to be concentrated in an area smaller than the surface scatter, due
primarily to repeated plowing. Artifacts were recovered to a maximum depth of 40 centimeters
below the surface in the units.
5.4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire Robertson Rcrnclr Pr(lject
5.4.3 Laboratory Analysis
The laboratory analysis for SDI-10,610 included the standard procedures described in
Section 4.0 of this report. All artifacts and bone recovered from the field investigations conducted
at the site, as well as all marine shell from Test Unit 2, were returned to the laboratory facility of
BFSA to be cataloged and analyzed. A summary of artifacts and ecofacts recovered from the site is
presented in Table 5.4-6. Totals of 36 artifacts, 0.5 gram of bone, and 2,018.7 grams of marine
shell were recovered.
Lithic Artifact Analysis
Lithic production waste accounted for the largest category of lithic artifacts, representing
72.22% (N=26) of the lithic artifact collection and includes five pieces of debitage or shatter and 21
flakes; no cores were recovered from the site. The remaining lithic collection consisted of manos
(N=6; 16.67%), hammerstones (N=2; 5.56%), a biface fragment (N=1; 2.78%), and a multi-use
hammerstonelmano (N=1; 2.78%). Measurements of all lithic tools are presented in Table 5.4-7.
The material distribution of the lithic assemblage is presented in Table 5.4-8. The collection is
dominated by locally-available· materials, most notably by fme-and medium-grained metavolcanic
rock, which account for 61.11% (N=22) of the collection. Other locally available materials consist
of quartz, representing 19.44% (N=7), and granite, accounting for 16.67% (N=6), of the
assemblage. The only piece of potentially non-local lithic material recovered from SDI-10,610 was
a piece of chert from Unit 2, 20 to 30 centimeters; this is also the level that produced the only biface
fragment recovered from the site. Views of selected tools are provided in Plate 5.4-2. Activities
indicated by the artifacts recovered frem the site include procurement and processing of plant and
animal resources, and lithic tool production and maintenance.
Ground Stone Tools
The ground stone tools recovered fromSDI-10,610 include six manos, the characteristics of
which are summarized in Table 5.4-9 and detailed in Table 5.4-10. Most of the manos are
fragmentary, so certain identifying aspects, such as stains or pecking, could not confidently be
determined. However, all specimens were identified as exhibiting either moderate or heavy use
wear, indicating the repeated use of these tools. The single shaped mano recovered from the site is
shown in Plate 5.4-2. It is interesting to note that few metates or metate fragments were recovered
from the Robertson Ranch sites, and bedrock milling was found at only one site (SDI-5416A) in
the extreme northeast portion of the project. This suggests that tlie repeated cultivation of the
property has resulted in the removal of metates that may once have been present at the sites,
particularly those that exhibit a large quantity of manos, such as SDI-10,610.
Percussion Tools
The percussion tool assemblage from SDI-10,610 consisted of two hammerstones, both
recovered from the surface of the site. Both specimens were derived from medium-grained
5.4-3
•
..
I I r-
... ~·
l:
l:
t:
r:
r:
t:
r:
1:
f:
t=
r:
t:
~
~
~
l
~
l
~
J
J
J
j
~
J
~
J
J
:J
J
~
The Roberwm Ranch p,.,~;e(·t
metavolcanic rock, the most common material recovered from the site. One of the hammerstones
exhibited bettering in a spherical pattern over the specimen (Cat. No. 11); the other exhibited
battering on a single edge (Cat. No.8).
Precision Tools
The precision tool assemblage from SDI-10,610 consisted of one specimen-a .biface
fragment recovered from Test Unit 2 (Plate 5.4-2). 1'J?.e specimen is derived from quartz and was
too fragmentary to determine the stage of manufacture. The tool measures 1.9 by 0.9 by 0.4
centimeters and weighs 0.6 grams.
Multi-Use Tools
Those specimens exhibiting evidence of use as more that one type of artifact are classified
as multi-use tools. The only multi-use tool was a mano that was later used as a hammerstone. The
mano had been bifacia and exhibited polish and pecking; subsequent to its use for grinding, the tool
was used as a hammerstone evidenced by battering on a single edge. The specimen is derived from
granite, a common material type for cobbles available in the vicinity of the site. The tool measures
11.8 by 9.1 by 5.5 centimeters and weighs 938.9 grams.
Ecofact Analysis
Ecofactual material was recovered from SDI-10,610, including 0.5 gram of vertebrate bone
and 2,018.7 grams of marine shell (Table 5.4-6). Soils at the site are neutral to moderately alkaline,
which should contribute to the preservation of bone compared to the reduced preservation of
remains in more acidic soils; however, only a small quantity of bone remained at the site. The
presence, albeit in small quantities, of animal bone, as well as that of marine shell, suggests that both
terrestrial and marine resources were contributors to the diets of the site occupants.
Marine Shell
Marine shell was scattered across the surface of the site, the limits of which are illustrated in
Figure 5.4-1. While the presence of marine shell was noted in all excavations, only the shell from
Test Unit 2 was collected and returned to the laboratory for analysis, therefore only that marine
shell is included in this discussion. A total of 2,018.7 grams of marine shell was collected from
Unit 2; all identifiable shell was identified as either Chione sp., Ostrea sp., or Pecten sp. The shell
from Unit 2 is summarized by depth in Table 5.4-11. The collection is dominated by Chione sp.,
which accounts for 92.32% (1,863.7 grams) of the collection; Pecten sp. accounts for 5.99% (121.0
grams) of the total, and Ostrea sp. represents 0.34% (6.8 grams). The remaining 1.35% (27.2
grams) of the collection was represented by unidentifiable fragments. All three genera show some
evidence of burning, although in small quantities as all burned shell at the site represented only
0.54% (11.0 grams) of the collection.
In terms of the vertical distribution of marine shell in Unit 2, the most productive levels were
5.4~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson Rancll Projeu
20 to 30 and 30 to 40 centimeters; all three genera increased in these levels, as did the quantity of
burned shell, bone, and artifacts (fable 5.~). Recovery of all cultural material declined
significantly below 40 centimeters.
Vertebrate Faunal Remains
A total of nine bone fragments was recovered from SDI-10,610. Only one taxa was
identified to genus, which was rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.). The remainder of the bone sample was
associated with more general taxonomic categories, including unidentified small mammal,
unidentified smalVmedium mammal, and unidentified Perciform fish. A summary of the faunal
assemblage is presented in Table 5.4-12. A detail of the faunal identifications is presented in Table
5.4-13. A single fragment of unidentified small/medium mammal bone exhibited evidence of
burning. This was the only site on the Robertson Ranch to produce fish remains.
5.4.4 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-10,610 consists of a surface and subsurface expression
of artifacts and ecofacts. The overall site dimensions, as identified by the surface distribution of
artifacts and ecofacts, measures approximately 162 meters (530 feet) by 137 meters (450 feet). The
subsurface marine shell and artifact deposit at the site is slightly smaller, measuring 91 meters (300
feet) by 40 meters (130 meters). The difference in size between the surface scatter and the
subsurface area is undoubtedly due to repeated agricultural activities. Marine shell was recovered to
a maximum depth of 60 centimeters, and artifacts were recovered to a maximum depth of 40
centimeters.
The site is interpreted as a seasonal camp where activities included floral and faunal food
resource extraction and processing, and to a lesser degree, lithic tool manufacture and maintenance.
The high quantity of ecofacts, particularly marine shell, indicates that food resource processing was
the major activity at the site. Although no fire-affected rock was recovered from the investigation,
the fact that a small amount of the marine shell showed evidence of burning indicates the potential
for subsurface hearth features. The range of lithic tools includes ground stone, percussion,
precision tools, and multi-use tools, and further suggests that resource processing occurred at the
site.
The marine shell assemblage was well-represented and well-preserved. Although the soils
at the site are slightly alkaline, only small quantities of animal bone were recovered. The presence
of animal bone does, however, add to the research value of the site ·and may lead to information
regarding the season of use, if a larger sample size was collected.
Because of the range of lithic tools recovered, as well as the presence of bone and marine
shell, the cultural deposit at SDI-10,610 exhibits additional research potential. The potential also
exists for the presence of hearth features, which further increases the research potential of this site
to a significant level.
5.4-5
• l.
[
c
c
c
...
1 ..
....
\ ..
J
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.4.5 Summary
The analysis of the cultural materials recovered from SDI-10,610 revealed a moderately
deep cultural deposit at the site. The recovered materials, including lithic tools and ecofactual
remains, indicate that site activities were focused primarily on floral and faunal food procurement,
processing, and probably cooking. The subsistence appears to have been based on a reliance on
both marine and terrestrial resources. The limited amount of lithic production waste suggests that
tool manufacture and mainteqance also occurred at the site, but to a lesser degree.
Site SDI-10,610 exhibits significant cultural deposits, the presence of well-preserved marine
shell, and the potential for buried hearth features. The resear~h pot(!ntial of this site for
inte~retation of prehistoric cultures in the region is high. Based on the info~ on d~ve~ from
the testing program, SDI-10.?.~!_~-~onsi~~red !!!!J?o~!._~ording to CEQA criteria and City of
Carlsbad guidelines. -. ----.. .........._____
-----·--:--··
5.4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
/ ,/····
•' .. /
+ -Surface Collection
0 -Negative Shovel Test
• -Positive Shovel Test
D -Test Unit
.. ··-····~· ..... . . ~ ....... ,.. ..• ..-.
....... --~··· ~-~
/
. ··· .... ~-
// / /
"IT?_# / _;·
/,/
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.4-7
_.~//
.. ·· ..
.·'_,··· . ~'
.. -~--··
Figure 5.4-1
"' ......
f.
l
l
[
l
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
Overview of SDI-10,610 (center), looking west from SDI-16,135.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 2 (0 to 60 centimeters).
5.4-8
I
I
I Test Unit 2 North Wall I I~ 1 Meter •I 0
I 10
I fl.l
""' QJ
~ 20 QJ e
I .... ~ c: QJ 30 u
I c: ....
..c: 40 ~ c. QJ
I ~
50
I 60
I
I
I Dark Grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) silty loam. r
I • Very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2) silty loam.
r • Dark brown to brown (lOYR 4/3) clay subsoil.
I 1
I l
I North Wall Profile of Unit 2 1
I SDI-10,610 f The Robertson Ranch Project
I Figure 5.4-2
5.4-9
Shaped Granite Mano
Catalo~#6
Quartz Biface Fragment
Catalog#83
Selected artifacts recovered from SDI-10,61 0.
5.4-9
Plate 5.4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( Recovery Category
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos
Lithic Production Waste:
Flakes
Percussion Tools:
Hammers tones
Multi-Use Tools:
Hammerstone/Mano
Totals
The Robertson Ranch Project
TABLE 5.4-1
Summary of Surface Recovery
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity Percent J
6 50.00
3 25.00
2 16.67
1 8.33
12 100.00
r
5.4-10
l
l
]
]
]
]
]
l
l
l
l
l
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
Recovery
Location
1
2
3
4
Location
from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
27°/153 Feet
39°1164 Feet
269°1100 Feet
256°n8 Feet
TABLE5.4-2
Surface Recovery Data
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity Recovery
1 Flake
1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Polished
1 Hammerstone/Mano, Biface, Polished,
Single-Edged, Pecked
1 Flake
The Robertson Ranclr Project
Cat.
Material No.
MGM* 1
Granite 2
Granite 3
FGM** 4
5 52°/23 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Uniface, Polished, Burned, Granite 5
Pecked
6 265°/6 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Shaped
7 93°/24 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Burned
1 Hammerstone, Single-Edged
1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined
1 Flake
8 103°/105 Feet 1
1
MGM* =Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
FGM** = Fine-grained metavolcanic rock
Hammerstone, Spherical
Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Polished,
Burned
5.4-11
Granite 6
Granite 7
MGM 8
MGM 9
MGM 10
MGM 11
Granite 12
I
,. ,.
The Robertson Ranch Project
I
,.
,...
TABLES.4-3 r I Shovel Test Excavation Data p..
Site SDI·10,610
I The Robertson Ranch Project r j...,
( I Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range ( I 1 0°/0Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 13
I (30+ Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected[NC]) c 10-20 em. No Recovery 14
(20+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
~ I 20-30cm. No Recovery 15
(30+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 30-40cm. No Recovery 16 ( (25+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 17
I (5+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) 1,.
2 268°n5 Feet 0·10 em. No Recovery 18 """'
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ,: I 10-20cm. No Recovery 19
(1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 20 r:
3 268°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 21
I 10-20 em. No Recovery 22 r: 20-30cm. No Recovery 23
I 4 178°n5 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 24 f,..
(9 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ,•
10-20cm. No Recovery 25 ,: I. ( 11 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 26
I 5 88°n5 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 27 r: (8 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 28 ...
I (9 Marine Shell Frags., NC) I~
20-30cm. No Recovery 29
( 16 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ...
I j ~
,.
I 5.4-12 ! -
l The Robertson Ranch Project
l
l r Location Cat. Shovel
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
l 5 88°175 Feet 30-40cm. No Recovery 30
l
(6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-SOcm. No Recovery 31
l 6 88°1150 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 32
10-20cm. No Recovery 33
20-30cm. No Recovery 34
l .7 353°175 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 35
10-20 em. No Recovery 36
l (5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 37
l (10 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 38
l 8 353°1150 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 39
10-20cm. No Recovery 40
20-30cm. No Recovery 41
l 9 317°175 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 42
10-20cm. No Recovery 43
l 20-30cm. No Recovery 44
10 36°175 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 45
J (60+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 46
l (100+ Marine ~hell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 47
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
J 30-40cm. No Recovery 48
(20+ Marine Shell F.rags., NC)
:J 11 36°/150 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 49
(20+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 50
:1 (20+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 51
( 10 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
:1
:t 5.4-13
I ,
The Robert.mn Ranch Project ,..
I ,.
,..
I Shovel Location Cat. ,...
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No. ~· Azimuth/Range ,.. I !
I
11 36°/150 Feet 30-40cm. No Recovery 52 )r-
I
(10 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ,.
12 178°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 53 ~
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 54 c 20-30cm. No Recovery 55
I 13 36°/200 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 56 c 10-20cm. No Recovery 57
( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 58 ~ (4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 59 c I (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recoyery 60
I ..
14 36°/275 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 61 1~. 10-20cm. No Recovery 62
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 63 ,..,
l~
I ... t.
I r:
I J:
I J:
I 1:
I ..
f ..
I
,.
I ~
I
,.
5.4-14 ) ~
TABLE5.4-4
Summary of Test Unit Recovery
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
De12th (in centimeters)
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Total Percent
Ecofacts:
Bone 0.1 g. 0.3 g. 0.1 g. 0.5 g.
Marine Shell,
Chione sp. 2162 g. 335.2 g. 549.2 g. 557.9 g. 143.0 g. 53.6 g. 1855.1 g.
Chione sp., Burned 0.1 g. 3.5 g. 3.2 g. 1.8 g. 8.6 g.
Vl Ostrea sp. 0.8 g. 3.4 g. 1.1 g. 1.2 g. 6.5 g. :;..
I Ostrea sp., Burned 0.1 g. 0.2 g. 0.3 g. -Vl
Pecten sp. 4.7 g. 7.9 g. 52.5 g. 38.9 g. 10.3 g. 4.6 g. 118.9 g.
Pecten sp., Burned 0.1 g. 1.8 g. 0.2 g. 2.1 g.
Unidentifiable 3.8 g. 8.7 g. 4.8 g. 6.8 g. 2.5 g. 0.6 g. 27.2 g.
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage 2 1 2 5 20.83
Flakes 5 1 9 3 18 75.00
Precision Tools: ~ Biface 1 1 4.17 ..
::0 <:> ... .. a §
Totals 5 3 11 5 0 0 24 100.00 S' :: g.
100.00 ~ Percent 20.83 12.50 45.83 20.83 0.00 0.00 ~ "'· .. ~
I ..
The Robertson Ranch Pmject ,..
I ,.
,..
I TABLE 5.4-5 ,.
Test Unit Excavation Data ""'
I Site SDI-10,610 r The Robertson Ranch Project ~
I Test Location Quantity/ Cat. c
Unit from Datum A Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
I Azimuth/Range c
I 31°n9 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 64 ( (I, 780+ Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC])
10-20cm. No Recovery 65
I (I ,800+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) j: 20-30cm. No Recovery 66
(1 ,600+ Marine Shell Frags .• NC)
I 30-40 em. No Recovery 67 ~: (900+ Marine She11 Frags., NC)
40-50 em. No Recovery 68 J: I (275+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
2 36°/163 Feet 0-10 em. 5 Flakes MGM* 69
I 216.2 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 70 l: 4.7 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 71
3.8 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 72
I 10-20 em. Debitage FGM** 73 J: I Debitage MGM 74
I Flake MGM 75
I 335.2 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 76 J: O.I g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 77
0.8 g. Marine Shell Ostrea sp. 78 I· 7.9 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 79 ~= 8.7 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 80
I 20-30 em. I Flake Chert 81 f: 5 Flakes MGM 82
I Biface Fragment Quartz 83
I I Debitage Quartz 84 1: 3 Flakes Quartz 85
549.2 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 86
3.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 87
I 52.5 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 88 f: MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
FGM** = Fine-grained metavolcanic rock
I 1:
I 5.4-I6 I :
J
]
]
]
]
l
l
l
]
l
l
J
]
J
Test
Unit
2
Location
from Datum A Depth
Azimuth/Range
36°/163 Feet 20-30 em.
30-40 em.
40-50 em.
50-60 em.
Quantity/
Weight Recovery
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned
4.8 g. Marine Shell
0.1 g. Bone
Flake
Debitage
Flake
Debitage
Flake
557.9 g. Marine Shell
3.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned
3.4 g. Marine Shell
0.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned
38.9 g. Marine Shell
1.8 g. Marine Shell, Burned
6.8 g. Marine Shell
0.3 g. Bone
143.0 g. Marine Shell
1.8 g. Marine Shell, Burned
1.1 g. Marine Shell
0.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned
10.3 g. Marine Shell
0.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned
2.5 g. Marine Shell
0.1 g. Bone
53.6 g. Marine Shell
1.2 g. Marine Shell
4.6 g. Marine Shell
0.6 g. Marine Shell
5.4-17
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat.
Description No.
Pecten sp. 89
Unidentifiable 90
Bone 91
FGM 92
MGM 93
MGM 94
Quartz 95
Quartz 96
Chione sp. 97
Chione sp. 98
Ostrea sp. 99
Ostrea sp. 100
Pecten sp. 101
Pecten sp. 102
Unidentifiable 103
Bone 104
Chione sp. 105
Chione sp. 106
Ostrea sp. 107
Ostrea sp. 108
Pecten sp. 109
Pecten sp. 110
Unidentifiable Ill
Bone ll2
Chione sp. 113
Ostrea sp. 114
Pecten sp. ll5
Unidentifiable ll6
I Jilt
The Robertson Ranch Pmjecr
,.
I
,. ,.
I TABLES.4-6 Ill"'
Summary of Artifact Recovery ,..
Site SDI-10,610 Ill"' I The Robertson Ranch Project ,..
I
,.
Recovery Category Surface Shovel Tests Test Units Total Percent ,...
I PI"
Ecofacts:
Bone 0.5 g. 0.5 g. t"'
Marine Shell, Ill"' I Chione sp. 1,855.1 g. 1,855.1 g.
Chione sp., Burned 8.6 g. 8.6 g. 1"-
Ostrea sp. 6.5 g. 6.5 g.
I Ostrea sp., Burned 0.3 g. 0.3 g. ""' I
Pecten sp. 118.9 g. 118.9 g. I
Pecten sp., Burned 2.1 g. 2.1 g.
,...
Unidentifiable 27.2 g. 27.2 g. ,.
I l
Ground Stone Tools: ~
Manos 6 6 16.67
I
,.
Lithic Production Waste: ~ Debitage 5 5 13.89
I Flakes 3 18 21 58.33 r Percussion Tools:
Hammerstones 2 2 5.56 ... I Precision Tools: j •.
Biface 1 1 2.78
I
....
Multi-Use Tools: k Hammerstone/Mano 1 1 2.78
I ""'
Totals 12 24 36 100.00 ).
I Percent 33.33 0.00 66.67 100.00 ... !~
I ... l~
I ..
j .
.. I 1.
I IIIII
5.4-18 I~
l
1 -
' ' ' ' l
l
' ' ' l
' ' ' l
~ ,
•
J
TABLE5.4-7
Lithic Tool Measurement Data
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat. Tool Description Dimensions (in centimeters}
No. Length Width Thickness
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos:
2 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Polished 7.9 7.9 5.4
5 Mano Fragment, Uniface, Polished, 11.5 11.2 8.0
Burned, Pecked
6 Mano, Biface, Polished, Shaped 10.0 7.4 5.0
7 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Burned 8.8 3.7 3.7
9 Mano Fragment, Undetermined 9.5 7.1 2.4
12 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Polished, 9.7 6.1 4.8
Burned
Percussion Tools:
Hammerstones:
8 Hammerstone, Single-Edged 5.8 5.2 3.0
11 Hammerstone, Spherical 5.8 5.0 4.1
Precision Tools:
Bifaces:
83 Biface Fragment 1.9 0.9 0.4
Multi-Use Tools:
Hammerstone/Manos:
3 Hammerstone/Mano, Biface, Polished, 11.8 9.1 5.5
Pecked, Single-Edged
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
5.4-19
The Robertsan Ranch Praject
Weight Material
(in grams)
432.5 Granite
1,477.2 Granite
590.9 Granite
152.2 Granite
183.4 MGM*
309.6 Granite
110.6 MGM
149.8 MGM
0.6 Quartz
938.9 Granite
I ,
... The Robertson Ranch Project
I r
'""'" TABLE5.4-8
I ,.,
Lithic Material Distribution "''' Site SDI-10,610
I The Robertson Ranch Project ,..
I ....
I Material ( Artifact Category Chert FGM* Granite MGM** Quartz Total Percent
I Ground Stone Tools: (
Manos 5 1 6 16.67
I Lithic Production Waste: r Debitage 1 2 2 5 13.89
Flakes 1 2 14 4 21 58.33 ( I Percussion Tools:
Hammerstones 2 2 5.56
I Precision Tools: (
Biface 1 1 2.78
I Multi-Use Tools: r~
Hammerstone/Mano 1 1 2.78 '1"'
I Totals 1 3 6 19 7 36 100.00 f~
I Percent 2.78 8.33 16.67 52.78 19.44 100.00 ~~
I
FGM* = Fine-grained metavolcanic rock r~ MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
I Jill
J ..
I ~ ! ...
I (' ...
I
,.
I ~
I ..
\ ~
I 5.4-20 ):
J
J
J
J
l
l
l
l
l
l
]
l
l
J
J
J
TABLE5.4-9
Summary of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
Manos (N=6)
Quantity Percent
Condition:
Whole 1 16.67
Fragment 5 83.33
Type:
Uniface 1 16.67
Biface 1 16.67
Undetermined 4 66.67
Use Wear:
Light 0 0.00
Moderate 4 66.67
Heavy 2 33.33
Shaping:
Shaped 1 16.67
Unshaped 5 83.33
Pecking:
Pecked 1 16.67
Unpecked 5 83.33
Staining:
Stained 0 0.00
Unstained 6 100.00
Material:
Granite 5 83.33
MGM* 1 16.67
MGM* == Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.4-21
The Robertson Ranch Project
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artifact Condition
Mano Fragment
Mano Fragment
Mano Whole
Mano Fragment
Mano Fragment
Mano Fragment
TABLE 5.4-10
Detail of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
Type Degree Shaped Pecked
of Use
Undetermined Moderate
Uniface Heavy Pecked
Biface Heavy Shaped
Undetermined Moderate
Undetermined Moderate
Undetermined Moderate
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.4-22
The Robertson Ranch Project
Stained Material Cat.
No.
Granite 2
Granite 5
Granite 6
Granite 7
MGM* 9
Granite 12
(
c
c
c
~
(
TABLE5.4-11
Summary of Marine Shell from Test Unit 2
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
DeQth (in centimeters)
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Total Percent
Chione sp. 216.2 g. 335.2 g. 549.2 g. 557.9 g. 143.0 g. 53.6 g. 1855.1 g. 91.90
Chione sp., Burned 0.1 g. 3.5 g. 3.2 g. 1.8 g. 8.6 g. 0.43
Ostrea sp. 0.8 g. 3.4 g. 1.1 g. 1.2 g. 6.5 g. 0.32
Ostrea sp., Burned 0.1 g. 0.2 g. 0.3 g. 0.1
Pecten sp. 4.7 g. 7.9 g. 52.5 g. 38.9 g. 10.3 g. 4.6 g. 118.9 g. 5.89
VI Pecten sp., Burned 0.1 g. 1.8 g. 0.2 g. 2.1 g. 0.10 ~ I N Unidentifiable 3.8 g. 8.7 g. 4.8 g. 6.8 g. 2.5 g. 0.6 g. 27.2g. 1.35 Vol
Totals 224.7 g. 352.7 g. 610.1 g. 612.1 g. 159.1 g. 60.0g. 2,018.7 g. 100.00
Percent 11.13 17.47 30.22 30.32 7.88 2.97 100.00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
Unid. srnlmed mammal
Unid. small mammal
Unid. Perciform fish
TOTAL
*NISP = Number of Individual Specimens
**MNI = Minimum Number of Individuals
TABLE 5.4-12
Summary of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-10,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
NISP*
2
3
3
1
9
5.4-24
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weight (g) . MNI** J
0.2 1
0
0
0
0.2
r
[
(
(
f[
rc
r:
r:
I~
Cat Depth
No. Unit (em) Taxon
91 2 20-30 Unid. sm/med mammal
91 2 20-30 Unid. small mammal
104 2 30-40 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
104 2 30-40 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
104 2 30-40 Unid. sm/med mammal
104 2 30-40 Unid. small mammal
104 2 30-40 Unid. Perciform fish
Vl 112 2 40-50 Unid. sm/med mammal ~ I N Vl
indet. = indeterminate
r = riKht
TABLE 5.4-13
Detail of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-1 0,610
The Robertson Ranch Project
Element Symmetry* Portion
und. Bone
und. Bone
maxilla r
mandible indet.
und. Long bone
und. Bone
vertebrae
und. Long bone
Weight Cult.
NISP (g) % Fusion Mod. Age Notes
0
0
0.1
0.1
I 0
2 0
0
0 burned
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.5 Site SDI-10,611
5.5.1 Site Description
Site SDI-10,611 is a prehistoric seasonal camp located east of center of the project area.
Sue Wade originally recorded the site in 1985 as a temporary shell camp with split cobble tools,
flakes, and flake artifacts. The resource is an expansive site situated on the apex, as well as the
eastern and southern slopes, of a large hill ( 130 feet amsl), and extends down the drainage to the
east and up the western slope of the next hill. The site is approximately 243 meters (800 feet) north
of Agua Hedionda Creek and 304 meters (1,000 feet) west of the drainage from Calavera Lake.
Soils in the vicinity are mapped as the Altamont series, which are well-drained clays that formed in
material weathered from calcareous shale (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site include
repeated cultivation and natural erosion. The general location of the resource is shown in Figure
5.0-1. The general configuration of the site is shown in Figure 5.5-1, and its setting is shown in a
photograph provided in Plate 5.5-1.
The site was relocated during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2002. The
surface expression of the site included a large marine shell and artifact scatter including manos,
metate fragments, pestles, a stone bowl fragment, a gaming stone, scrapers, hammerstones, and lithic
production waste. Within the drainage, a spring was reported that was used in the early 1900s as a
source of water. Although the spring is not clearly visible today, the presence of a spring at this
location would explain the concentration of prehistoric occupation at SDI-10,611. The evaluation
program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of 32 shovel tests and four test
units were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site, while 87 artifacts were mapped
and collected from the surface of the site.
5.5.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-10,611 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
surface artifacts, and excavation of STPs and test units. Totals of 171 artifacts, 13.1 grams of bone,
and 1,265.7 grams of marine shell were recovered during investigations at the site.
Suiface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts; all observed artifacts were
provenienced and collected. Vegetation at the site was dense in cultivated areas and moderate in
uncultivated areas, subsequently, surface visibility varied across the site. It was evident, however,
that concentrations of marine shell were scattered on the surface beneath the vegetation. Datums
were established at high points on either side of the intervening drainage in order to provide vantage
points from which all surface artifacts and excavations could be measured. The extent of the marine
shell was mapped as is indicated on Figure 5.5-1. All artifacts observed on the surface of the site
were mapped and collected, the locations of which are also illustrated in Figure 5.5-1. The surface
5.5-1
r
c
c
1:
r:
rr
f(
fl
f[
rr
,,...
I~
~~
rr
rr
r:
1:
,:
j :
l
]
]
l
]
]
]
]
]
]
l
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
Tile Robertson Rmrcll Pmject
collection, summarized in Table 5.5-1 and detailed with provenience information in Table 5.5-2,
consisted of 87 artifacts from 56 different surface locations. The assemblage included ground
stone tools (N=29), percussion tools (N=16), precision tools (N=5), multi-use tools (N=4), a
discoidal, and lithic production waste (N=32). The surface collection of artifacts and mapping of
marine shell resulted in the delineation of the surface expression of the site, which measures
approximately 213 meters (700 feet) from west to east by 198 meters (650 feet) from north to
south. No identifiable break in the shell scatter was identified between the two hills; the shell scatter
was continuous between the two hills.
Subsuiface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-10,611 was investigated by excavating
a total of 32 STPs and four test units. Shovel test pits were excavated in radial lines from the two
established datums in order to detennine the extent of the subsurface expression of the site. The
locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.5-1. All of the shovel tests were excavated in
decimeter levels to at least 30 centimeters. As at the other sites at Robertson Ranch, no marine shell
was collected from the STPs, but rather its presence and quantity was noted in the field notes.
Marine shell was observed in 17 STPs, while artifacts were collected from only three STPs. The
presence of marine shell in the STPs identified two loci at the site, one on the apex of the western
hill and the other on the apex and western slopes of the eastern hill. The STPs positive for artifacts
included STP 17, 30, and 32, all of which are located on the easternmost of the two hills. The
summary of artifact recovery from the STPs is provided in Table 5.5-3; while the quantity of
marine shell observed is noted along with detailed provenience information in Table 5.5-4.
A total of six artifacts was collected from the STPs, including a mano and five lithic
production waste, as well as 0.2 gram of animal bone. While 66.67% (N=4) of the artifacts were
recovered above 30 centimeters in depth, a flake and the mano fragment, as well as the 0.2 gram of
animal bone, were recovered between 60 and 80 centimeters. The STPs that exhibited marine shell
included four on the westernmost hill (STPs 1, 2, 9, and 10, while the remaining 13 STPs positive
for marine shell were located on the easternmost hill (STP 15-20, 22-24, 28, 30-32). The amount of
marine shell in the STPs ranged from one to 28 fragments on the western hill to between one and
over 1,000 fragments on the eastern hill. The most productive STPs in terms of shell were STPs 17
(N=187), 23 (N=1,000+), 30 (N=460+), and 32 (N=230+). Marine shell extended to a maximum
depth of 50 centimeters on the western hill and 90 centimeters on the eastern hill. Shovel test
provenience and depth information, as well as marine shell observed, is detailed in Table 5.5--4.
Subsurface testing of SDI-10,611 continued with the excavation of four standard test units.
The test units were positioned to sample the area of greatest potential to produce subsurface
deposits, as identified by the STPs and surface collections. The test units were placed in areas of
the site exhibiting relatively deep cultural deposits. Test Unit 1 was positioned near STP 9 on the
western hill, while Test Units 2, 3, and 4 were placed near productive STPs on the eastern hill. The
locations of the test units are illustrated in Figure 5.5-1.
5.5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ra11clr Pmject
The test units were excavated in standard decimeter levels to subsoil, and all removed soils
were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. Again, the quantity of marine shell in each level
was estimated for three of the units, while all marine shell from Test Unit 4 was collected and
returned to the laboratory for analysis. The collection of marine shell from one unit allowed the
character of the marine shell deposit at SDI-10,611 to be analyzed in more detail. Recovery from
the four test units consisted of78 artifacts, 12.9 grams of animal bone, and 1,265.7 grams of marine
shell; the recovery is summarized in Table 5.5-5 and detailed by level in Table 5.5-6. The
recovered artifacts consisted almost entirely of lithic production waste (93.59%; N=73); the
remaining artifacts were three ground stone tools, a projectile point fragment, and a single ceramic
sherd. All four test units yielded artifacts. Unit 4 was the most productive, and Unit 3 was the least
productive; both are located on the eastern hill. The marine shell from Unit 4 included eight marine
shell genera and several fragments of chiton; a small amount of animal bone was also identified. In
addition, 173.7 grams of fire-affected rock was recovered from the test unit excavations, all from
Units 2 and 4 on the eastern hill.
Excavation in three (Units 1, 2, and 3) of the four units was continued until a level sterile of
cultural material was encountered (70, 110, and 40 centimeters, respectively). Unit 4, the most
productive unit of the four, was discontinued at 40 centimeters, when subsoil was encountered
between 30 and 40 centimeters. Unit 4 was located up slope from the other units and was in an area
that appears to have experienced increased erosion, thus resulting in a more shallow cultural
deposit. Even though this unit only extended to 40 centimeters, it produced 64.10% (N=50) of all
artifacts recovered from the test units. The most productive level, in terms of artifacts and marine
shell, was the 20 to 30 centimeter level. However, animal bone was most common in the deeper
levels (between 60 to 100 centimeters) of Unit 2, located on the western hill. Because the most
productive unit at the site (Unit 4) extended only to 40 centimeters, the overall recovery at the site
appears to decline significantly below 40 centimeters; in actuality the recovery from Units 1 and 2
was consistent, although relatively sparse, to depths of 60 and 80 centimeters, respectively.
The soil profile from Test Unit 2, the deepest unit, was characterized by a dark grayish
brown to very dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2 to 3/2) soft silty loam, underlain by a pale brown
(lOYR 6/3) sandy silt subsoil encountered between 90 and 110 centimeters below surface. A
drawing of the west wall of Test Unit 2 is presented in Figure 5.5-2. A color photograph of the
west wall of Test Unit 2 is provided in Plate 5.5-1b. The subsurface expression of the site,
identified by the subsurface tests that produced marine shell and/or artifacts, included two loci. The
western locus measures approximately 52 meters (170 feet) by 46·meters (150 feet), while· the
eastern and larger locus measures approximately 159 meters (520 feet) from southwest to northeast
by 91 meters (300 meters) from northwest to southeast. Similar to other Robertson Ranch sites
and due to repeated plowing, the subsurface deposit appears to be concentrated in areas smaller than
that identified by the surface scatter. Artifacts were recovered to a maximum depth of between 30
centimeters below the surface in Unit 3 and 100 centimeters in Unit 2.
5.5-3
(
c
c
c
c
r:
rc
r:
rr
r:
r:
~~
r~
f~ ,:
r:
I :
I :
J
J
J
J
]
l
l
l
]
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
:1
:1
The Rober/Soll RCIIICII Projec/
5.5.3 Laboratory Analysis
The laboratory analysis for SDI-10,611 included the standard procedures described in
Section 4.0 of this report. All artifacts and bone recovered from the field investigations conducted
at the site, as well as all marine shell from Test Unit 4, were returned to the laboratory facility of
BFSA to be cataloged and analyzed. A summary of artifacts and ecofacts recovered from the site is
presented in Table 5.5-7. Totals of 171 artifacts, 13.1 grams of bone, and 1,265.7 grams of marine
shell were recovered.
Lithic Artifact Analysis
Lithic production waste accounted for the largest category of lithic artifacts, representing
64.33% (N=110) of the lithic artifact collection and includes 55 pieces of debitage or shatter, 52
flakes, and three cores. The remaining lithic collection consisted of ground stone tools (N=33;
19.30%), percussion tools (N=16; 9.36%), precision tools (N=6; 3.51 %), multi-use tools (N=4:
2.34%), and one discoidal (N=l; 0.58%). Measurements of all lithic tools are presented in Table
5.5-8. The material distribution of the lithic assemblage is presented in Table 5.5-9. The
collection is dominated by locally-available materials, most notably by fme-, medium-, and coarse-
grained metavolcanic rock, together accounting for 60.23% (N=103) of the collection. Other
locally available materials consist of granite, representing 24.71% (N=42), quartz, accounting for
11.76% (N=20), and quartzite, representing 2.35% (N=4) of the lithic assemblage. The only piece
of potentially non-local lithic material recovered from SDI-10,611 was a piece of chert from Unit 1,
50 to 60 centimeters; this was the only unit excavated on the western hill. Views of select tools are
provided in Plate 5.5-2. Activities indicated by the artifacts recovered from the site include
procurement and processing of plant and animal resources, lithic tool production and maintenance,
and possible gaming suggested by the presence of the discoidal.
Ground Stone Tools
The ground stone tools recovered from SDI-10,611 included 26 manos, three metates, two
bowl fragments, and two pestles. The characteristics of the ground stone collection are summarized
in Table 5.5-10 and detailed in Table 5.5-11. Almost all ground stone tools recovered from the site
were collected from the surface of the site. The mano collection is almost equally divided between
complete and fragmentary specimens, which is actually a high percentage of complete artifacts given
the location of the site in plowed fields. Most (73.08%; N=19) of the manos are bifacial and an
almost equal percentage (69.23%; N=18) indicate moderate use ware. Only two manos showed
evidence of shaping (Catalog Number 58 is shown in Plate 5.5-2), and none were stained; about
half the collection (46.15%; N=12) were pecked. It is interesting to note that, although manos were
found at several Robertson Ranch sites, very few bedrock milling features (Site SDI-5416A) and
even fewer metates were found on the project.
The metate coll~tion consisted of three specimens, all of them fragmented and collected
from the surface of the site. One of these specimens was bifacial, the other two were unifacial; all
5.5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tlte Robertson Rw1ch Project
were unshaped, unstained, and exhibited moderate use ware.
Two bowl fragments were recovered from SDI-10,612, one from the surface of the site, the
other from Test Unit 2, 20 to 30 centimeters. Both were shaped, unpecked, unstained, and exhibit
moderate use ware. Views of the bowl fragments are presented in Plate 5.5-3.
Finally, two pestles were also recovered from the site, one complete and one fragmented.
Both specimens are shaped, unpecked, heavily used, and bifacial, indicating both ends were utilized
(Plate 5.5-3). One of the specimens in particular is a fine example of a shaped, heavily-used pestle.
Measurements for the ground stone tools are provided in Table 5.5-8.
Percussion Tools
The percussion tool assemblage from SDI-10,611 consisted of nine hammerstones and
seven core tools, all recovered from. the surface of the site. The hammerstones ranged from single-
edged specimens to those that exhibited battering around the entire spherical surface of the tool.
The core tools were all what appeared to have been cores that were used for extemporaneous
battering and/or scraping. Measurements for the tools are provided in Table 5.5-8.
Precision Tools
The precision tool assemblage from SDI-10,611 consisted of six specimens-a projectile
point fragment, a retouched piece of debitage, three retouched flakes, and a scraper. All specimens
but the projectile point fragment were, again, collected from the surface of the site. The projectile
point was recovered from Test Unit 2 at 90 to 100 centimeters in depth; it was a small, serrated tip
derived from fine-grained metavolcanic rock (Plate 5.5-2). Measurements for the tools are
provided in Table 5.5--8.
Multi-Use Tools
Those specimens exhibiting evidence of use as more than one type of artifact were classified
as multi-use tools. The only multi-use tools identified were hammer/cores. These tools were
originally cores but were later used as hammerstones, probably after they were no longer useful as
cores. Four of these artifacts were identified at SDI-10,611, all of which were derived from
medium-grained metavolcanic material and all collected from the surface of the site. Measurements
for the tools are provided in Table 5.5-8.
Uncommon Lithic Items
The single uncommon lithic item recovered at SDI-10,611 was identified as a discoidal.
Most artifacts designated as discoidals are well-made, round to ovoid ground stones with slightly
convex to flat faces and edges and usually do not show obvious use-ware. Average dimensions for
discoidals in southern California are between 9 and 14 centimeters in diameter and five to seven
centimeters thick (Moratto 1984). The specimen from SDI-10,611 is smaller than this range,
measuring 6.3 centimeters in diameter and 4.1 centimeters in width (Plate 5.5-2). Most discoidals
5.5-5
r
..
!-
..
1 .. !
~1 ,., -
'l
~l
l
l
l
l
l
' l
' ' ' ~ ..
·~
:1
:1
:1
The Robertson Rtmch Project
from the San Diego area are associated with sites that date between 6,000 and 3,000 YBP and are
typically a part of the Archaic Period tool kit (Smith and Moriarty 1985). Their use is not known
but speculations include gaming pieces, club heads, nutcrackers, rope making tools, or ceremonial
objects (Moratto 1984). Ethnographically, discoidals have been used in a game called Iteix anane
(disk game) in which one disk was thrown some distance, and others were then thrown at this mark.
trying to get the disks as close as possible to the original (Spier 1923). Although the original use
of discoidals is not known, given the amount of work that is required to shape these artifacts, it is
agreed that a purely utilitarian use is unlikely.
Ceramics
A single fragment ofTizon Brown Ware was recovered from the 20 to 30 centimeter depth
level of Test Unit 2. The fragment was an undecorated body sherd with no distinguishing
characteristics and represents the only positively culturally diagnostic artifact recovered from the
testing of SDI-1 0,611.
Miscellaneous
In addition to artifacts and ecofacts, 173.7 grams of fire-affected rock (FAR) were also
recovered from the site. The FAR was collected from Units 2 and 4, both of which are located on
the eastern hill. Although no features were identified in the test units, the presence ofF AR suggests
the presence of hearths at the site.
Ecofact Analysis
Ecofactual material was recovered from SDI-10,611, including 13.1 grams of vertebrate
bone and 1,265.7 grams of marine shell (Table 5.5-7). The presence, albeit in small quantities, of
animal bone, as well as that of marine shell, suggests that both terrestrial and marine resources were
contributors to the diets of the site occupants.
Marine Shell
Marine shell was scattered across the surface of the site, the limits of which are illustrated in
Figure 5.5-1. While the presence of marine shell was noted in all unit excavations, only the marine
shell from Test Unit 4 was collected and returned to the laboratory for analysis, therefore only that
marine shell is included in this discussion. Test Unit 4 was the most productive in terms of artifacts
(producing 64.10% [N=50] of all lithic artifacts from the test units) and, although it was the most
shallow of the units, also produced the most marine shell.
A total of 1,265.7 grams of marine shell was collected from Unit 4. · The collection included
chiton and eight identifiable marine shell genera, the widest range of marine shell genera at any of
the Robertson Ranch sites. The marine shell from Unit 4 is summarized by depth in Table 5.5-12.
The marine shell collection was dominated by Chione sp., which accounted for 76.11 (963.3 grams)
of the collection; in addition, Pecten sp. accounted for 11.47% (145.2 grams) of the total and
5.5-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson Ranch Pmject
Ostrea sp. represented 9.10% (115.1 grams). The genera of Anomia sp., Cerithidea sp., Olivella
sp., Protothaca sp., and Tagelus sp. each accounted for less than 1% of the entire marine shell
collection; the remaining 3.13% (39.6 grams) of the collection was represented by unidentifiable
fragments. Fragments of chiton, Chione sp., Pecten, and Ostrea sp. showed some evidence of
burning, although in small quantities, as all burned marine shell at the site represented only 1.73%
(21.9 grams) of the collection.
In terms of the vertical distribution of marine shell in Unit 4, the most productive level was
that of 20 to 30 centimeters; with the exception of Olivella sp., all shell genera increased in this
level, as did the quantity of artifacts (Table 5.5-4). Because subsoil was encountered between 30
and 40 centimeters, Test Unit 4 was not excavated below 40 centimeters. As discussed above, the
increased erosion in this area of the site appears to have contributed to the shallow nature of the
cultural deposit.
Vertebrate Faunal Remains
A total of 84 bone fragments was recovered from SDI-10,611 (Table 5.5-13). Two taxa
were identified to species, including black-tailed hare (Lepus califomicus) and Botta's pocket
gopher (Thomomys bottae). A single generic identification was made among the assemblage,
consisting of unidentified rabbit (Sylvilagus sp ). The remainder of the bone sample was associated
with less-identifiable taxonomic categories, including unidentified large mammal, unidentified
smaWmedium mammal, unidentified small mammal, and unidentified vertebrate. A summary of the
faunal assemblage is presented in Table 5.5-13. A detail of the faunal identifications is presented
in Table 5.5-14.
Almost all of the bone recovery was from Test Units 2 and 4; the most productive levels
being 20 to 40 in Unit 4 and 80 to 100 in Unit 2. The six large mammal specimens were all from
Unit 2, while bone identified as rabbit was slightly more common in Unit 4. Burned bone
accounted for 14.29% (N=12) of the total number of faunal specimens recovered.
5.5.4 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-10,611 consists of a surface and subsurface expression
of artifacts and ecofacts. The overall site dimensions, as identified by the surface distribution of
artifacts and ecofacts, measures approximately 213 meters (700 feet) by 198 meters (650 feet). The
subsurface deposit at the site consists of two loci, a marine shell and artifact deposit on the western
hill that measures approximately 52 meters (170 feet) by 46 meters '(150 feet), and a marine shell
and artifact deposit on the eastern hill that measures approximately 159 meters (520 feet) by 91
meters (300 meters). The deposit on the western hill extends to a maximum depth of 60
centimeters, while the deposit on the eastern hill extends to a maximum depth of 100 centimeters.
Based on the depth of the deposits and the quantity of material recovered from each locus, the
eastern hill appears to have been utilized more often or more extensively than the western hill.
The site is interpreted as a repeatedly utilized, temporary camp where activities included
5.5-7 ,.
1 ..
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
' ~
:1
:1
:1
:1
:1
The Robertso11 Ra11ch Pmject
floral and faunal food resource extraction and processing, and lithic tool manufacture and
maintenance. The ecofacts recovered indicate both marine and terrestrial resources were collected
by the occupants of the site. The marine shell assemblage was well-represented and well-preserved.
The presence of animal bone, albeit in small quantities, adds to the research value of the site and
may lead to information regarding the season of use, given a larger sample size._Furthermore, the
recovery of frre-affected rock in two units and the small amount of the burned marine shell indicates
the potential for subsurface hearth features. The range of lithic tools includes ground stone,
percussion, precision tools, and multi-use tools, and further suggests that resource processing
occurred at the site.
Because of the range of lithic tools recovered, the presence of bone and marine shell, as well
as the presence of culturally diagnostic artifacts, the cultural deposit at SDI-10,611 exhibits a high
degree of research potential. The potential also exists for the presence of hearth features, which
further increases the research potential of this site to a significant level.
5.5.5 Summary
The analysis of the cultural materials recovered from SDI-10,611 revealed a moderately
deep cultural deposit at the site. The recovered materials, including lithic tools and ecofactual
remains, indicate that site activities were focused on floral and faunal food procurement, processing,
and probably cooking, as well as lithic tool manufacture and maintenance. Subsistence at the site
appears to have been based on a reliance on both marine and terrestrial resources.
Site SDI-10,611 exhibits significant cultural deposits, the presence of well-preserved marine
shell, and the potential for buried hearth features. The research potential of this site for
interpretation of prehistoric subsistence. strateg~~~.J!l~~!Qn is high. Based on the information
derived from the testingprograni:·sot:W,6Tf is considered important according to CEQA criteria
and City of Carlsbad guidelines.
5.5-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fiwre 5.5-1
Excavation Location Map-Site SDI-10,611
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
5.5-9
The Robertson Ranch Project c
(
' r:
' f(
fl
r~
r:
r~
J~
....
r ... '
~~ '
r~
,~
~~
I~
r: ,
I.
View of SDI-10,611 showing Datums A (arrow at right) and B (arrow at left), looking south.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 2.
Plate 5.5-1
5.5-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Granite Discoidal
Catalog # 322
Granite Mano Fragment
Catalog# 58
Serrated Point Fragment
Catalog # 316
Selected artifacts recovered from SDI-10,611.
Plate S.S-2
5.5-11
I
~
l
i
l
l
l
l
l
Granite Pestle
Catalog# 319
Granite Bowl Fragment
Catalog# 321
Granite Pestle
Catalo~ # 320
Granite Bowl Fragment
Catalog # 298
Selected artifacts recovered from SDI-10,611.
Plate S.S-3
5.5-12
I
I
I
I
I ( Recovery Category
I Ground Stone Tools:
Bowl
Manos
I Metates
Pestles
I Lithic Production Waste:
Cores
Debitage
I
Flakes
Percussion Tools:
Core Tools
I Hammerstones
Precision Tools:
I Retouched Debitage
Retouched Flakes
Scraper
I Multi-Use Tools:
Hammer/Cores
I Lithic Uncommon Items:
Discodial
I Totals
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.5-1
Summary of Surface Recovery
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity
5.5-12
1
23
3
2
3
16
13
7
9
1
3
1
4
1
87
The Robertson Ranch Project
Percent J
1.15
26.44
3.45
2.30
3.45
18.39
14.94
8.05
10.34
1.15
.3.45
1.15
4.60
1.15
100.00
-"""'-'<--~~.~~--~--"---~~~'"-o-.~~--· --·-••• •
~ The Robertson Ranch Project
j
j TABLE5.5-2
Surface Recovery Data
~ Site SDI-1 0,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
~ Recovery Location Cat.
Location Datum from Datum Quantity Recovery Material No.
.~ Azimuth/Range
~ 1 A 226°131 Feet 1 Core FGM* 1
1 Core Tool MGM** 2
1 Flake Quartzite 3
~ 2 A 233°/50 Feet 1 Core tool MGM 4
2 Flakes MGM 5
~ 3 A 187°/65 Feet 1 Retouched Flake MGM 6
1 Debitage MGM 7
1 Flake MGM 8
~ 4 A 194 o /65 Feet 1 Debitage MGM 9
5 A 177°/60 Feet 1 Debitage MGM 10
~ 1 Debitage Quartzite 11
6 A 196°n8 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Biface Granite 12
:I 7 A 183°/81 Feet 1 Debitage MGM 13
8 A 186°/171 Feet 1 Core Tool MGM 14 .:t 9 A 185°/180 Feet 1 Hammerstone, Single-Edged MGM 15
~ 10 A 185°/191 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Granite 16
Pecked
11 A 190°/223 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked Granite 17
:1 12 A 185°/235 Feet 1 Hammer/Core MGM 18
:) 13 A 186°/258 Feet 1 Flake MGM 19
14 A 185°1305 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished Granite 20 .. 1 Core Tool CGM 21 . ) -FGM* = Fine-grained metavolcanic rock
-1 MGM** =Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
...
. J 5.5-13
Ill!'
I The Robertson Ranch Project I·
1111'
I !~
Jlillt
I r Location Cat. [ .. Recovery
Location Datum from Datum Quantity Recovery Material No.
Azimuth/Range ,..
I f~
15 A 174°/208 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished Granite 22 ,.
I 1 Flake MGM 23 !-.
16 A 171°/149 Feet 1 Hammerstone, Spherical MGM 24 ...
I 17 A 166°/107 Feet 1 Hammerstone, Single-Edged MGM 25 J' ..
18 A 83°/10 Feet 3 Debitage MGM 26 ...
I 19 A 104°/49 Feet 1 Hammerstone, Single-Edged Quartzite 27 I·
1 Debitage FGM 28 ...
I 20 A 48°/53 Feet 1 Flake FGM 29 I~
21 A 148°n5 Feet 1 Hammerstone, Spherical Granite 30 ,..
I 1 Flake Scraper MGM 216 f~
22 A 162°/182 Feet 1 Debitage FGM 31 .,.,
I 23 A 154°1160 Feet 1 Retouched Debitage MGM 32 I~
24 A 160°/198 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished Granite 33 ....
I 1 Retouched Flake FGM 34 1-
25 A 96°/148 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined Granite 35 ...
I 26 A 101°/163 Feet 1 Core Tool MGM 36 I~
2 Cores MGM 37
1 Flake MGM 38 II"
I 1 Debitage Quartz 39 l--
27 A 106°/172 Feet 1 Mano, Uniface Granite 40 ,..
I 1 Debitage MGM 41 1-
28 A 145°/253 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked Granite 42 ...
I 29 A 310°1152 Feet 1 Core Tool MGM 43 I· 1 Flake MGM 44 ...
I 30 A 319°/195 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked Granite 45 1-1 Flake MGM 46
• I 31 A 329°/283 Feet 1 Flake MGM 47 l·
32 A 256°/138 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked Granite 48 ...
I !~
....
I 5.5-14 1-
~---··-·~ "'-~-····-~--~---~-·--· "" ~_,.~~~~-·----.w -~~.,_,_·~ ~~ ... --··------~--~~---.. ~ The Robertson Ranch Project -~
""' ~ r Recovery Location Cat.
Location Datum from Datum Quantity Recovery Material No.
• Azimuth/Range
~
33 A 268°/128 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Granite 49 .. Pecked ~ 1 Hammerstone, Circular MGM 50
~. 34 A 328°1166 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked Granite 51 4 35 A 267°/26 Feet 1 Debitage MGM 52 .,.
~ 36 A 186°1102 Feet 1 Metate Fragment, Uniface, Polished, Granite 53
Pecked
... 37 A 132°nl Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Granite 54 ~~ Polished
1 Hammerstone, Spherical MGM 55 .. 1 Core Tool MGM 56 ·~ 1 Retouched Flake MGM 57
38 A 99°/128 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Granite 58 ... Pecked, Shaped -1 1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished Granite 59 .. 39 A 312°1182 Feet 1 Metate Fragment, Uniface, Polished Granite 60 ~ 40 B 217°1176 Feet 1 Metate Fragment, Biface, Polished, Granite 61 .. Burned • J 1 Debitage MGM 62
41 B 218°/227 Feet 1 Hammer/Core MGM 63
:J 42 B 224 o /221 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined Granite 64
:J 43 B 224 o /258 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Granite 65
Burned
44 B 221 o /272 Feet 1 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined Granite 66
:J 45 B 219°/251 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, P.ecked Granite 67 .. 46 B 21 r /268 Feet 1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Granite 68 ·] Burned .. 47 B 215°/286 Feet 1 Flake MGM 69 • J 48 B 188°/385 Feet 1 Mano, Uniface, Polished, Pecked Granite 70 .. 49 B 8°1124 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked Granite 71 .. J
• ~I 5.5-15
I
,
I
Tile RobertscJII Ra11cfl Project ~
• I ~
I Recovery Location
•
Cat. ~
Location Datum from Datum Quantity Recovery Material No. (IIIII"
I Azimuth/Range ~
I 50 B 21°/114 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked, Granite 72 l: Shaped
1 Debitage FGM 73
I 51 B 10°/88 Feet 1 Hammer/Core MGM 74 l:
52 B 44°/58 Feet 1 Rake Granite 75 ...
I 53 B 355°/93 Feet 1 Hammerstone, Single-Edged MGM 76 t-..
1 Hammer/Core MGM 77
1 Debitage Granite 78 ....
I t~ 54 B wonOFeet 1 Pestle, Polished, Shaped Granite 319
1 Pestle Fragment, Polished, Burned, Granite 320 ""' I Shaped l--
55 B 20°/100 Feet 1 Bowl Fragment, Burned Granite 321 ....
I 56 A 190°/50 Feet 1 Discodial Granite 322 1-.
"'' I l· ...
I I·
"'' I t.
I l:
...
I l·
""' I I l•
""' I l-
• I 1-
• I 5.5-16 l-
·~
4
~
~
~
~
~
:1
~
.:)
'~
4
:]
~
~
:t
~
:-t
=-t
( Recovery Category
Ecofacts:
Bone
Ground Stone Tools:
Mano
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage
Flakes
Totals
TABLES.S-3
Summary of Shovel Test Recovery
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
QuantiLy
5.5-17
0.2 g.
1
3
2
6
The Robertson Ranch Pmject
Percent
16.67
50.00
33.33
100.00
]
I ,
Tire Robertson Ranclr Project ~'
I ~
I TABLE5.5-4 ~ Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-10,611 ~ I The Robertson Ranch Project
~ I Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat.
Test Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
I Azimuth/Range ~'
1 A 0°/0 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 79 ~ I ( 4 Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC])
10-20cm. No Recovery 80
(1 Marine Shell Frag., NC) Ill"' I ~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 81
(1 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
II"' I 2 A 184°n4 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 82 f~,
(4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 83
,..
I f-. 20-30cm. No Recovery 84
I 3 A 184°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 85 f: 10-20cm. No Recovery 86
20-30cm. No Recovery 87 '"'" I I~ 4 A 184 o /223 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 88
10-20cm. No Recovery 89 """ I lk 20-30cm. No Recovery 90
5 A 184°/298 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 91 -I f., 10-20cm. No Recovery 92
20-30cm. No Recovery 93 ,..,
I I~ 6 A 184°/375 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 94
10-20cm. No Recovery 95 -I f~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 96
7 A 184 o /450 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 97 ...
I 1-10-20cm. No Recovery 98
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 99 • !-,.
I 5.5-18
1 -
~ ·~· -~··~--... ~~<-~~'-k~-~d···--
~ The R()berts()n Ra11ch Project
:~
·~ " Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat.
'!IIIII Test Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
-1 Azimuth/Range
.... 8 A 260°/23 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 100 -1 10-20cm. No Recovery 101 -20-30cm. No Recovery 102 .a 9 A 260°n3 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 103
.~ (4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 104
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
=t 20-30cm. No Recovery 105
(13 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 106 ~ (7 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 107
~ (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
50-60cm. No Recovery 108
~ 10 A 260°1122 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 109
( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 110
:) 20-30cm. No Recovery 111
11 A 98°n4Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 112
~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 113
20-30cm. No Recovery 114
.:-t 12 A 2°n6Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 115
10-20cm. No Recovery 116
~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 117
13 A 2°!150Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 118
·~ 10-20 em. No Recovery 119
20-30cm . No Recovery 120
... 14 A 309°/187 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 121 .-1 10-20 em. No Recovery 122
:1 20-30cm. No Recovery 123
• ·1 5.5-19
I
.,.
The Robertson Ranclr Project I"'
I
.,
1-
I
.,
!
Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat. ~
Test Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No. .,..,
I Azimuth/Range ~
I 15 B 280°174 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 124 .,
I
(1 Marine Shell Frag., NC) Ia
10-20 em. No Recovery 125
I ( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
.,
~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 126
I
( 4 Marine Shell Frags., NC) -30-40cm. No Recovery 127 ~ (5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 40-50cm. No Recovery 128 -(4 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~·
50-60cm. No Recovery 129
I ( 4 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ""' I~ 60-70cm. No Recovery 130
(3 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ....
I 70-80cm. No Recovery 131 ~
16 B 280°1157 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 132 II" I (1 Marine Shell Frag., NC) l~ 10-20 em. No Recovery 133
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 134 ,..
f~ 17 B 6°/73 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 135
I
( 13 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ..
10-20cm. No Recovery 136 f. (6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 137 }: (6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 138
I (25 Marine Shell Frags., NC) Ill'
1-40-50cm. No Recovery 139
( 16 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ... I 50-60cm. No Recovery 140 f .. (34 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
60-70cm. 1 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Granite 141 ... I 1-Polished, Burned
(45 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I
,.
!-
....
5.5-20 l ~.
.-J The Robenson Ra11ch Project
.,
.a r -Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat. -1 Test Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range ....
.-1 17 B 6°n3 Feet 70-80cm. 0.2 g. Bone Bone 142 -(36 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
..J 80-90 em. No Recovery 143
(6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
.... 90-100cm. No Recovery 144 -1 18 B 9oon3 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 145
'!IIIII 10-20 em. No Recovery 146 :.t 20-30cm. No Recovery 147
... (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
. .t 30-40cm. No Recovery 148
19 B 6°/149 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 149 ~ (3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 150
'!IIIII (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
-1 20-30cm. No Recovery 151
(5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
'Ill 30-40cm. No Recovery 152 ~I ( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 153 .. (11 Marine Shell Frags., NC) .. J 50-60cm. No Recovery 154
... (5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
•I 60-70cm. No Recovery 155
(3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
~ 70-80cm. No Recovery 156
20 B 183°n6 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 157 .. ( 4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
~1 10-20 em. No Recovery 158
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC) .. 20-30cm. No Recovery 159 .. ] (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 160 ...
·l 21 B 183°/147 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 161
... 10-20 em. No Recovery 162
·1
• ··1 5.5-21
I "
The Robertson Ranch Pmject ...
I r ,.
I r ~ ,.
Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat. ~ Test Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range ,
I ..I ~
21 B 183°/147 Feet 20-30cm. No Recovery 163
I r"'
30-40cm. No R~!~.:uvery 164 ,..
I 22 B 0°/0Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 165 ~ ( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 166 ,..
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 167 ~
23 B 208°/158 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 168
(350 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ""' I ~· 10-20 em. No Recovery 169
(230 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ..,.,.
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 170 ~ (240 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 171 ""' I (185 Marine Shell Frags., NC) I· 40-50cm. No Recovery 172 ,...,.
I 24 B 208°/232 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 173 f. (29 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
l0-20cm. No Recovery 174 ...
I (12 Marine Shell Frags., NC) I-
20-30cm. No Recovery 175
(5 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ... I l-30-40cm. No Recovery 176
( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
I 40-SOcm. No Recovery
,.,
177 f.
25 B 280°/228 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 178 "" I 10-20 em. No Recovery 179 l-20-30cm. No Recovery 180 ...
I 26 B 6°/223 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 181 1-
10-20 em. No Recovery 182 ...
I 20-30 em. No Recovery 183 IL
27 B 90°/153 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 184 "" I 1-
,.,.
I 5.5-22 l ~
,,
i~
The Robertson Ranch Project ...
~
""" ·~ r "" Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat.
Test Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No. -Azimuth/Range
~
27 B 90°/153 Feet ..... 10-20 em. No Recovery 185 .., 20-30cm. No Recovery 186
-28 B 208°1305 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 187
. .f (3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 188
.... 20-30cm . No Recovery 189
.--1 29 B 208°/374 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 190
""" 10-20cm. No Recovery 191 ,..,
20-30cm. No Recovery 192 -30 B 14°/129 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 193 .J (10 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20em. No Recovery 194 ~ (20+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30em. 1 Flake Granite 195
~ 1 Debitage MGM* 196
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 197
·~ (60+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50em. NoReeovery 198
(80+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
:-t 50-60cm. NoReeovery 199
(70+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
60-70cm. 1 Flake MGM 200
:-t (80+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
70-80 em. No Recovery 201
IIIII (60+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
·1 80-90cm. No Recovery 202
(30+ Marine Shelf Frags., NC) ... 90-100 em. No Recovery 203 ·l 31 B 14°/168 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 204 ._
10-20 em. No Recovery 205 ·l ( 1 0+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
• ·l MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
'Ill
·1 5.5-23
I •
The Robertson Ranch Project
,.
I lil'l
~"'
I , ,..
Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat.
Test Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No. -I Azimuth/Range ~
I 31 B 14°/168 Feet 20-30cm. No Recovery 206
,.
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~
I 30-40crn. No Recovery 207 ~ (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-SOcrn. No Recovery 208
I (3 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~ 50-60cm. No Recovery 209
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 60-70cm. No Recovery 210 ~
32 B 20°/116 Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 211
I (50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 212
(60+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) ,.
I 20-30cm. 2 Debitage MGM 213 r~
30-40cm. No Recovery 214
(70+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) -I l~ 40-50cm. No Recovery 215
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
""'" I r~
....
I {~
... I I~
I
Ill" f ..
I
,.
I·
""' I 1--
I !: .. I 5.5-24
r .
TABLES.S-S
Summary of Test Unit Recovery
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
D~uth (in £entim~ters) ,
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 Total Percent
Ecofacts:
Bone 0.4 g. 0.4 g. 1.8 g. 0.6 g. 3.0 g. 1.3 g. 2.4 g. 3.0 g. 12.9 g.
Marine Shell,
Anomia sp. 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
Cerithidea sp. 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
Chione sp. 244.3 g. 162.5 g. 331.6 g. 215.4 g. 953.8 g.
Chione sp., Burned 0.5 g. 0.2g. 4.1 g. 4.7 g. 9.5 g.
Chiton 0.3 g. (Shell collected from Unit 4 [0 to 40 centimeters] only) 0.3 g.
Chiton, Burned 0.2 g. 0.2 g.
Ul Olivella sp. 0.2 g. 0.2g. u. I Ostrea sp. 16.4 g. 9.7 g. 50.9 g. 34.6 g. 111.6 g. N Ul Ostrea sp., Burned 0.9 g. 1.2g. 1.4 g. 3.5 g.
Pecten sp. 27.4 g. 17.2 g. 50.6 g. 41.3 g. 136.5 g.
Pecten sp., Burned 0.7 g. 0.9 g. 3.8 g. 3.3 g. 8.7 g.
Protothaca sp. 0.7 g. 0.7 g.
Tagelus sp. 0.1 g. 0.2 g. 0.2 g. 0.5 g.
Unidentifiable 12.3 g. 6.2 g. 14.8 g. 3.5 g. 36.8 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 0.4 g. 0.3 g. 1.5 g. 0.6 g. 2.8 g.
Ground Stone Tools:
Bowl I 1.28
Manos 2 2 2.56
Lithic Production Waste: ~ ..
Debitage 2 I 14 13 I I 3 36 46.15 i Flakes 6 2 14 4 6 2 2 37 47.44 a "' :::
Precision Tools: S' :::
Projectile Point 1.28 g. .,
Cl ~· !:a
-------------------
' ' ,
Artifact Category
Miscellaneous:
FAR*, Granite
FAR,MGM**
Pottery:
Potsherd, TBW***
Totals
Percent
FAR*= Fire-affected rock
MGM** = Medium -grained metavolcanic
TBW*** = Tizon Brown Ware
0-10
8
10.26
Depth fin centimeters)
I 0-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70
-123.3g.
-44.9 g.
5 30 17 7 3
6.41 38.46 21.79 1.28 8.97 3.85
70-80 80-90 90-1 00 Total
5.5 g.
5
6.41 1.28
-123.3 g.
50.4 g.
78
1.28 100.00
Percent
1.28
100.00
l
J
l
l
l
l
.l
l
l
l
:t
J
J
l
l
l
:-t
:1
:1
Test Location
Unit Datum from Datum
Azimuth/Range
1 A 261°172 Feet
Depth
TABLE 5.5-6
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity/
Weight Recovery
0-10 em. No Recovery
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat.
Description No.
217
(-60 Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC])
10-20 em. Flake MGM* 218
(97 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30 em. Debitage FGM** 219
Flake FGM 220
(286 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40 em. Debitage MGM 221
(395 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50 em. Flake FGM 222
(252 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
50-60 em. Flake Chert 223
Flake FGM 224
Flake MGM 225
(65 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
60-70 em. No Recovery 226
2 B 28°179 Feet 0-10 em. Debitage FGM 295
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 296
(120+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30 em. Potsherd TBW*** 297
Bowl Fragment, Burned , Granite 298
(130+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40 em. I Flake MGM 299
44.9 g. FAR MGM 300
(300+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic rock
FGM** = Fine-grained metavolcanic rock
TBW*** = Tizon Brown Ware
5.5-27
I ...
Tile Robertson Ranch Project ~'
I •
t--
I Test Location Quantity/ Cat. ~ Unit Datum from Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range r: I 2 B 28°/79 Feet 40-50 em. No Recovery 301
(275+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I Ill"
50-60 em. Flake FGM 302 )l
I Debitage MGM 303
I 2 Flakes MGM 304 J: (150+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
60-70 em. 1 Flake FGM 305
I 1 Debitage MGM 306 ~· {~ 1 Flake MGM 307
3.0 g. Bone Bone 308
I (200+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) ... f~ 70-80 em. 1 Flake FGM 309
3 Debitage MGM 310 ... I I Flake MGM 311 I~ 5.5 g. FAR MGM 312
1.3 g. Bone Bone 313
I (180+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) ...
J .. 80-90 em. 1 Debitage MGM 314
I 2.4 g. Bone Bone 315 ""' (1 00+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) J~
90-100 em. 1 Projectile Point Tip, Serrated FGM 316
I 3.0 g. Bone Bone 317 ,~ (40+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 100-110 em. No Recovery 318 ...
{ ~. 3 B 212°1151 Feet 0-10 em. Debitage FGM 227
I
(2000+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) ,..
10-20 em. No Recovery 228 f~
(2000+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I ...
20-30 em. 1 Debitage FGM 229 r~ 0.1 g. Bone Bone 230
I ( 1800+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) ...
{~ 30-40 em. No Recovery 231
I
(300+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) ...
4 B 14°/118 Feet 0-10 em. Flake FGM 232 !-
I 1:
I 5.5-28 ,:
1
]
]
]
l
]
l
l
]
l
l
]
l
J
J
J
J
J
Test Location Quantity/
Weight Unit Datum from Datum Depth
Azimuth/Range
Recovery
4 B 14°/118 Feet 0-10 em. 4 Flakes
1 Flake
244.3 g. Marine Shell
0.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned
16.4 g. Marine Shell
0.2 g. Marine Shell
27.4 g. Marine Shell
0.7 g. Marine Shell, Burned
12.3 g. Marine Shell
0.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0.4 g. Bone
10-20 em. Mano, Biface, Polished
Mano Fragment, Undetermined,
Burned
Debitage
1 Flake
162.5 g. Marine Shell
0.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned
9.7 g. Marine Shell
0.9 g. Marine Shell, Burned
17.2 g. Marine Shell
0.9 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0.1 g. Marine Shell
6.2 g. Marine Shell
0.3 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0.4 g. Bone
20-30 em. 3 Flakes
123.3 g. FAR
1 Debitage
3 Flakes
2 Debitage
4 Flakes
9 Debitage
3 Flakes
0.3 g. Marine Shell
331.6 g. Marine Shell
4.1 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned
50.9 g. Marine Shell
1.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned
50.6 g. Marine Shell
3.8 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0.2 g. Marine Shell
14.8 g. Marine Shell
1.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned
5.5-29
The Robenson Ranch Project
Cat.
Description No.
MGM 233
Quartzite 234
Chione sp. 235
Chione sp. 236
Ostrea sp. 23 7
Olivella sp. 23 8
Pecten sp. 239
Pecten sp. 240
Unidentifiable 241
Unidentifiable 242
Bone 243
Granite 244
Granite 245
MGM 246
MGM 247
Chione sp. 248
Chione sp. 249
Ostrea sp. 250
Ostrea sp. 251
Pecten sp. 252
Pecten sp. 25 3
Tagelus sp. 254
Unidentifiable 255
Unidentifiable 256
Bone 257
Granite 258
Granite 259
FGM 260
FGM 261
MGM 262
MGM 263
Quartz 264
Quartz 265
Cerithidea sp. 266
Chione sp. 26 7
Chione sp. 268
Chiton 269
Ostrea sp. 270
Ostrea sp. 271
Pecten sp. 272
Pecten sp. 273
Tagelus sp. 274
Unidentifiable 275
Unidentifiable 276
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Location
Unit Datum from Datum Depth
Azimuth/Range
Quantity/
Weight Recovery
4 B 14°/118 Feet 20-30 em. 1.7 g. Bone
30-40 em. 1 Debitage
4 Debitage
3 Flakes
7 Debitage
0.3 g. Marine Shell
215.4 g. Marine Shell
4. 7 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0.3 g. Marine Shell
34.6 g. Marine Shell
1.4 g. Marine Shell, Burned
41.3 g. Marine Shell
3.3 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0. 7 g. Marine Shell
0.2 g. Marine Shell
3.5 g. Marine Shell
0.6 g. Marine Shell, Burned
0.6 g. Bone
5.5-30
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat.
Description No.
Bone 277
FGM 278
MGM 279
MGM 280
Quartz 281
Anomia sp. 282
Chione sp. 283
Chione sp. 284
Chiton 285
Ostrea sp. 286
Ostrea sp. 287
Pecten sp. 288
Pecten sp. 289
Protothaca sp. 290
Tagelus sp. 291
Unidentifiable 292
Unidentifiable 293
Bone 294 r:
r:
,:
~~
,:
r:
,:
,:
!:
1:
J The Robertso11 Ra11ch Pmject
J
,l TABLE5.5-7
Summary of Artifact Recovery
l Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
l Recovery Category Surface Shovel Tests Test Units Total Percent
l Ecofacts:
Bone 0.2 g. 12.9 g. 13.1 g.
l Marine Shell,
Anomia sp. 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
Cerithidae sp. 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
l Chione sp. 953.8 g. 953.8 g.
Chione sp., Burned 9.5 g. 9.5 g.
Chiton 0.3 g. 0.3 g.
Chiton, Burned 0.2 g. 0.2 g.
l Olivella sp. 0.2 g. 0.2 g.
Ostrea sp. 111.6 g. 111.6 g.
Ostrea sp., Burned 3.5 g. 3.5 g.
l Pecten sp. 136.5 g. 136.5 g.
Pecten sp., Burned 8.7 g. 8.7 g.
Protothaca sp. 0.7 g. 0.7 g.
l Tagelus sp. 0.5 g. 0.5 g.
Unidentifiable 36.8 g. 36.8 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 2.8 g. 2.8 g.
l Ground Stone Tools:
Bowls 1 1 2 1.17
Manos 23 1 2 26 15.20
J Metates 3 3 1.75
Pestles 2 2 1.17
Lithic Production Waste:
l Cores 3 3 1.75
Debitage 16 3 36 55 32.16
Flakes 13 2 37 52 30.41
l Percussion Tools:
Core Tools 7 7 4.09
~I Hammerstones 9 9 5.26 .. Precision Tools:
Projectile Point 1 l 0.58
:I Retouched Debitage 1 1 0.58
Retouched Flakes 3 3 1.75
Scraper 1 1 0.58
:I
:1 5.5-31
I •
Tlte Robertson Ra11clt Project .....
I ,.
,...
I ,
...
I Recovery Category Surface Shovel Tests Test Units Total Percent ,..
)....
I Multi-Use Tools: c Hammer/Cores 4 4 2.34
Miscellaneous:
I FAR*, Granite 123.3 g. 123.3 g. c FAR, MGM** 50.4 g. 50.4 g.
I Lithic Uncommon Items: c Discodial 1 I 0.58
I Pottery: c Potsherd, TBW*** 1 1 0.58
Totals 87 6 78 171 100.00
I Percent 50.88 3.51 46.61 100.00 r:
I FAR*= Fire-affected rock J: MGM** =Medium-grained metavolcanic
TBW*** = Tizon Brown Ware
I r:·
I 1:
I r:
I r:
I J:
I ,:
I 1:
I 1:
I 5.5-32 J:
j
j
,j
j
j
l
l
j
j
j
~1 •
~1 ...
~1 ..
:1
:1
~1 ..
:1
TABLE 5.5-8
Lithic Tool Measurement Data
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat. Tool Description Dimensions (in centimeters)
No. Length Width Thickness
Ground Stone Tools:
Bowls:
298 Bowl Fragment, Burned 10.2 9.0 5.1
321 Bowl Fragment, Burned 10.4 7.3 7.0
Manos:
12 Mano Fragment, Biface 8.3 6.2 4.2
16 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Pecked 7.8 6.2 5.2
17 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked 9.8 7.6 4.4
20 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished 11.1 8.1 5.4
22 Mano, Biface, Polished 9.5 8.0 6.2
33 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished 10.1 5.8 5.7
35 Mano Fragment, Undetermined 5.5 4.8 4.7
40 Mano, Uniface 11.5 6.3 5.6
42 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked 10.6 7.6 5.4
45 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked 12.8 9.4 5.0
48 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked 14.8 8.4 6.1
49 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Pecked 7.9 6.3 4.6
51 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked 13.9 9.1 5.1
54 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Polished 5.3 4.9 3.4
58 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Pecked, 10.7 9.6 3.9
Shaped
59 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished 8.6 6.8 4.7
64 Mano Fragment, Undetermined 4.9 4.7 4.2
65 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Burned 8.0 5.7 5.6
67 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked 8.8 8.1 3.5
68 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Burned 7.3 4.9 4.1
70 Mano, Uniface, Polished, Pecked 14.4 10.0 4.6
71 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked 13.2 12.0 ,5.6
72 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked, Shaped 11.4 10.6 3.9
141 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Polished, 5.3 5.0 2.1
Burned
244 Mano, Biface, Polished 12.9 10.9 5.1
245 Mano Fragment, Undetermined, Burned 5.6 5.1 3.5
5.5-33
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weight Material
(in grams)
557.0 Granite
733.7 Granite
308.3 Granite
389.1 Granite
499.0 Granite
595.7 Granite
663.5 Granite
450.6 Granite
159.1 Granite
627.6 Granite
637.0 Granite
939.6 Granite
1,085.5 Granite
333.9 Granite
950.3 Granite
110.0 Granite
715.5 Granite
440.0 Granite
106.0 Granite
301.9 Granite
373.5 Granite
195.8 Granite
949.6 Granite
1,363.6 Granite
809.0 Granite
67.8 Granite
1,139.1 Granite
87.7 Granite
I The Raberrson Ranch Prajecr r
I (
I Cat. Tool Description Dimensions (in centimeters) Weight Material [
No. Length Width Thickness (in grams)
I Metates: ( 53 Metate Fragment, Uniface, Polished, 12.1 10.1 7.3 1,263.6 Granite
Pecked
I 60 Metate Fragment, Uniface, Polished 29.3 24.0 11.0 6,100.0 Granite l 61 Metate Fragment, Biface, Polished, Burned 10.9 8.6 7.7 761.6 Granite
I Pestles: f~ 319 Pestle, Polished, Shaped 12.9 8.4 7.9 1,120.8 Granite
320 Pestle Fragment, Polished, Burned, Shaped 10.5 7.9 5.6 702.7 Granite
I Percussion Tools: ~~
Core Tools:
I 2 CoreTool 7.6 5.9 2.9 186.7 MGM* ~= 4 CoreTool 6.3 3.2 3.2 63.7 MGM
14 Core Tool 7.7 7.0 3.2 175.4 MGM
I 21 Core Tool 8.8 6.6 2.6 226.0 CGM** ~~ 36 Core Tool 8.0 7.8 4.6 383.4 MGM
43 CoreTool 9.5 8.8 3.0 259.3 MGM
I 56 CoreTool 8.3 4.5 2.7 149.9 MGM
JC Hammerstones:
15 Hammerstone, Single-Edged 7.8 5.9 4.7 286.5 MGM I 24 Hammerstone, Spherical 8.4 7.8 6.0 496.9 MGM l: 25 Hammerstone, Single-Edged 8.1 6.1 4.6 271.8 MGM
27 Hammerstone, Single-Edged 6.0 5.1 2.8 117.2 Quartzite
I 30 Hammerstone, Spherical 6.2 5.1 5.0 287.9 Granite r: 50 Hammerstone, Circular 7.9 5.8 4.1 277.0 MGM
55 Hammerstone, Spherical 7.2 7.1 5.8 377.7 MGM
I 66 Hammerstone, Undetermined Fragment 5.5 4.8 4.8 224.8 Granite 1: 76 Hammerstone, Single-Edged 12.9 9.6 4.9 981.3 MGM
I Precision Tools: J: Scrapers:
216 Flake Scraper 9.3 6.7 2.1 175.4 MGM
I Projectile Points:
, ..
. ""' 316 Projectile Point Fragment, Serrated, Tip 4.3 2.2 0.4 3.8 FGM***
I Retouched Debitage: '~ 32 Retouched Debitage 6.9 5.8 1.9 77.1 MGM
I MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
CGM** = Coarse-grained metavolcanic 1:
I FGM*** = Fine-grained metavolcanic 1:
I 5.5-34 ~~
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
l
]
]
l
]
]
J
J
:1
:1
Cat. Tool Description
No.
Retouched Flakes:
6 Retouched Flake
34 Retouched Flake
57 Retouched Flake
Multi-Use Tools:
Hammer/Cores:
18 Hanuner/Core
63 Hanuner/Core
7 4 Hanuner/Core
77 Hanuner/Core
Lithic Uncommon Items:
Discodials:
322 Discodial
The RtJbertstJn Ranch Project
Dimensions (in centimeters) Weight Material
Length Width Thickness (in grams)
6.2
4.5
8.0
8.4
10.3
6.1
5.8
6.3
5.5-35
3.7
3.1
8.0
6.2
8.9
5.9
5.1
6.3
2.0
1.4
2.4
4.5
6.3
5.4
4.3
4.1
42.2
22.5
171.1
340.5
731.3
298.6
201.7
261.0
MGM
FGM
MGM
MGM
MGM
MGM
MGM
Granite
---- ---------------
TABLE5.5·9
Lithic Material Distribution
Site SOI-l 0,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
Mi!t~ri§!l
Artifact Category CGM* Chert FGM** Granite MGM*** Quartz Quartzite Total Percent
Ground Stone Tools:
Bowls 2 2 1.18
Manos 26 26 15.29
Metates 3 3 1.76
Pestles 2 2 1.18
Lithic Production Waste:
Cores I 2 3 1.76
Debitage 9 I 27 17 I 55 32.35
VI Flakes II 5 30 3 2 52 30.59
u. I Percussion Tools: w 0'1 Core Tools 6 7 4.18
Hammerstones 2 6 9 5.29
Precision Tools:
Projectile Point I 0.59
Retouched Debitage I I 0.59
Retouched Flakes 2 3 1.76
Scraper I I 0.59
Multi-Use Tools:
Hammer/Cores 4 4 2.35
Lithic Uncommon Items:
Discodial 0.59 :;:! "' ~ "'
Totals 23 42 79 20 4 170 100.00 ~
~ ::
Percent 0.59 0.59 13.53 24.71 46.47 11.76 2.35 100.00 g.
~
CGM* = Coar.re-grained mewvoft·,,,;.. ~ ';i·
FGM** = Fine-gmined mettn•n!,·,mic ::;
MGM*"'* = Medium-gminf'd mewvolcanic
. .._,
, 1 ' 1 , ' , 1 , 1
-·~-· , The Robertson Ranch Project •
' '
TABLE 5.5-10
Summary of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics
'
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
l BQwls (N-2l Manos !N-261 M~tilt~~ CN-~} Pestles (N=2}
Quantity Percent Quantity Percent Quantity Percent Quantity Percent
l Condition:
'
Whole 0 0.00 I2 46.15 0 0.00 50.00
Fragment 2 IOO.OO I4 53.85 3 IOO.OO 50.00
Type:
' Uniface 0 0.00 I 3.85 2 66.67 0 0.00
Biface 0 0.00 I9 73.08 I 33.33 2 100.00
Undetermined 0 0.00 6 23.08 0 0.00 0 0.00
' Degree of Use:
Light 0 0.00 3 1I.54 0 0.00 0 0.00
Moderate 2 IOO.OO I8 69.23 3 100.00 0 0.00
' Heavy 0 0.00 5 19.23 0 0.00 2 100.00
Shaping:
'
Shaped 2 IOO.OO 2 7.69 0 0.00 2 100.00
Unshaped 0 0.00 24 92.31 3 100.00 0 0.00
'
Pecking:
Pecked 0 0.00 12 46.15 33.33 0 0.00
Unpecked 2 100.00 14 53.85 2 66.67 2 100.00
' Staining:
Stained 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Unstained 2 100.00 26 100.00 3 100.00 2 100.00
' Material:
Granite 2 100.00 26 100.00 3 100.00 2 100.00
1 ..
' ' '~ •
~ 5.5-37
I ,.
I
Tl1e Rc1bertson Ranc/1 Project t
I r
TABLE 5.5-11
I Detail of Ground Stone Tool Characteristics [
Site SDI-10,611
I The Robertson Ranch Project (
I Artifact Condition Type Degree Shaped Pecked Stained Material Cat. r of Use No. II.
I Bowl: r~ Bowl Fragment Moderate Granite 298
Bowl Fragment Moderate Granite 321
I Manos: r: Mano Fragment Biface Heavy Granite 12
Mano Fragment Biface Heavy Pecked Granite 16
I Mano Whole Biface Moderate Pecked Granite 17 f~ Mano Fragment Biface Moderate Granite 20
Mano Whole Biface Moderate Granite 22
I Mano Fragment Biface Moderate Granite 33 r,..
Mano Fragment Undetermined Light Granite 35 L Mano Whole Uniface Moderate Granite 40
I Mano Whole Biface Light Pecked Granite 42
Mano Whole Biface Moderate Pecked Granite 45 r,..
Mano Whole Biface Moderate Pecked Granite 48 ..
Mano Fragment Biface Moderate Pecked Granite 49
I Mano Whole Biface Moderate Pecked Granite 51 I"' Mano Fragment Undetermined Moderate Granite 54
Mano Fragment Biface Heavy Shaped Pecked Granite 58 ..
I Mano Fragment Biface Moderate Granite 59 I"' Mano Fragment Undetermined Moderate Granite 64
Mano Fragment Biface Moderate Granite 65 ....
Mano Whole Biface Moderate Pecked Granite 67
I Mano Fragment Undetermined Moderate Granite 68 f~ Mano Whole Uniface Moderate Pecked Granite 70
Mano Whole Biface Light Pecked Granite 71
I Mano Whole Biface Heavy Shaped Pecked Granite 72 r .. Mano Fragment Undetermined Moderate Granite 141
Mano Whole Biface Heavy Granite 244 . '"'
I Mano Fragment Undetermined Moderate Granite 245
r~ Metates:
Me tate Fragment Uniface Moderate Pecked Granite 53
I Me tate Fragment Uniface Moderate Granite 60 , ..
Me tate Fragment Biface Moderate Granite 61 ....
I Pestles:
1 .. Pestle Whole Heavy Shaped Granite 319
Pestle Fragment Heavy Shaped Granite 320 ..
I I • ..
I 5.5-38 I I
j
J
j
J
~
l
l
)
l
l
l
l
l
l
:1
l
]
:1
=l
Artifact Category
Anomia sp.
Cerithidea sp.
Chione sp.
Chione sp., Burned
Chiton
Chiton, Burned
Olivella sp.
Ostrea sp.
Ostrea sp., Burned
Pecten sp.
Pecten sp., Burned
Protothaca sp.
Tagelus sp.
Unidentifiable
TABLE 5.5-12
Summary of Marine Shell Recovery from Test Unit 4
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
De];!th (in centimeters}
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40
0.3 g.
0.3 g.
244.3 g. 162.5 g. 331.6 g. 215.4 g.
0.5 g. 0.2 g. 4.1 g. 4.7 g.
0.3 g.
0.2 g.
0.2 g.
16.4 g. 9.7 g. 50.9 g. 34.6 g.
0.9 g. 1.2 g. 1.4 g.
27.4 g. 17.2 g. 50.6g. 41.3 g.
0.7 g. 0.9 g. 3.8 g. 3.3 g.
0.7 g.
0.1 g. 0.2 g. 0.2 g.
12.3 g. 6.2g. 14.8 g. 3.5 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 0.4 g. 0.3 g. 1.5 g. 0.6 g.
The Robertson Ranch Project
Total Percent
0.3 g. 0.02
0.3 g. 0.02
953.8 g. 75.36
9.5 g. 0.75
0.3 g. 0.02
0.2 g. 0.02
0.2 g. 0.02
111.6 g. 8.82
3.5 g. 0.28
136.5 g. 10.78
8.7 g. 0.69
0.7 g. 0.06
0.5 g. 0.04
36.8 g. 2.91
2.8 g. 0.22
Totals 302.2 g. 198.0 g. 459.2 g. 306.3 g. 1,265.7 g. 100.00
Percent 23.88 15.64 36.28 24.20 100.00
5.5-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Taxa
TABLE 5.5-13
Summary of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
NISP*
Black-tailed hare (Lepus califomicus) 1
Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) 17
Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) 1
Unid. large mammal 6
Unid. sm/med mammal 49
Unid. small mammal 7
Unid. vertebrate 3
Total 84
NISP* = Number of individual specimens
MNI** = Minimum number of individuals
5.5-40
The Robertson Ranclr Project
Weight J (g) MNI**
0.4 1
5.5 2
0.0 1
4.0
1.7
0.1
0.0
11.7
[
[
r
[
[
[
(
~~
!,...
....
r:
It
Cat Depth
No. Unit (em) Taxon
142 ST-17 70-80 Unitt. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
243 4 0-10 Unit!. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
243 4 0-10 Unid. sm/med mammal
243 4 0-10 Unit!. sm/med mammal
243 4 0-10 Unid. small mammal
257 4 10-20 Unit!. sm/med mammal
Vt 257 4 10-20 Unid. vertebrate v. .!>. 277 4 20-30 Unid. sm/med ·mammal
277 4 20-30 Unid. sm/med mammal
277 4 20-30 Unid. sm/med mammal
277 4 20-30 Unid. small mammal
277 4 20-30 Unid. small mammal
277 4 20-30 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
277 4 20-30 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
277 4 20-30 Un.itl. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
277 4 20-30 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
277 4 20-30 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
277 4 20-30 Black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus)
277 4 20-30 Botta's gopher (Thomomys bottae)
294 4 30-40 Unit!. sm/med mammal
294 4 30-40 Unid. small mammal
294 4 30-40 Unit!. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
294 4 30-40 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
294 4 30-40 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)
TABLE 5.5-14
Detail of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-10,611
The Robertson Ranch Project
Element Symmetry Portion
mandible indet.
metatarsal 3 r p
unid. long bone
unid. long bone
unid. bone
unid. long bone
unid. bone
unid. long bone
unid. long bone
unid. bone
unid. long bone
unid. long bone
premaxilla r&l
scapula indet. s
tibia r s
calcaneus
2nd Phalanx indet.
radius indet. s
femur p
Unid. long bone
Unid. long bone
illium r
thoracic vertebrae
scapula r ds
Cult.
NISP Weight (g) % Fusion Mod. Age Notes
0.2
0.1
3 0.2
2 0.1 burned
I 0.0
2 0.2
I 0.0
3 0.6
0.1 burned
I 0.0 burned
3 0.1
0.0 burned
0.0
0.0 burned
0.0 burned
0.1
0.0 burned
0.4 burned ;;i
0.0 ..
~
0.1 ~ .. :l,
0.0 burned ~ " 0.2 S' " 0.2 burned g.
"'o 0.0 ... ~ ... ~
-------------------
Cat Depth Cult.
No. Unit (em) Taxon Element Symmetry Portion NISP Weight (g) % Fusion Mod. Age Notes
294 4 30-40 Unid. vertebrate Unid. bone 0.0
294 4 30-40 Unid. vertebrate Unid. bone I 0.0 burned
308 2 60-70 Unid. large mammal Unid. long bone 4 2.8
313 2 70-80 Unid. large mammal Unid. long bone 2 1.2
313 2 70-80 Unid. small mammal unid. bone 0
315 2 80-90 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) mandible 0.6
315 2 80-90 Unid. rabbit (Sy/vilagus sp.) mandible r 0.7
315 2 80-90 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) femur r p I 0.6 unfused
315 2 80-90 Unid. sm/med mammal unid. long bone 3 0.1
315 2 80-90 Unid. sm/med mammal unid. bone 26 0.3
317 2 90-100 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) femur 0.9 unfused
317 2 90-100 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) tibia 0.6 unfused
317 2 90-100 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) tibia r 1.1 unfused
VI 317 2 90-I 00 Unid. rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) ulna 0.2 v. J,.. 317 2 90-100 Unid. sm/med mammal unid. bone 7 0 N
indet. = indeterminate
r =right
I= left
p =proximal
s = sltaft
ds = distal shaft
, f !' 1 1 f 1 -r 1 ----,
' '
~
~
~
~
~
~.
~
~
~
~
~
~
l
l
~
~
:1
:1
The Roberr.wm Ranch Pmjec/
5.6 Site SDI-10,612
5.6.1 Site Description
Site SDI-10,612 was recorded as a shell scatter with dark soil located in the northwestern
portion of the project area It was originally recorded by Recon during the 1985 survey of the
Robertson Ranch (site form). The site is situated on the apex of a ridge (225 feet amsl) that
overlooks a steep slope and unnamed seasonal drainage to the northwest. Soils at the site are
mapped as the Las Flores series, which are moderately well-drained loamy fme sands that have a
sandy clay subsoil and are formed in material weathered from siliceous marine sandstone (Bowman
1973). The general location of the resource is shown in Figure 5.6--1. The setting of the site is
shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.6--la.
The site form for Site SDI-10,612 indicates that an additional scatter of shell was identified
on the slope southeast of the recorded site, but does not indicate the distance to the additional shell
scatter. It is possible that Site SDI-16,132 identified by BFSA, also located on the same slope, was
the location of the additional shell scatter identified by Recon. However, BFSA identified this shell
scatter (SDI-16,132) approximately 183 feet (600 feet) away from SDI-10,612 and was, therefore,
considered a separate site. Again, no evidence of SDI-10,612 was observed during the survey
conducted by BFSA.
5.6.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-10,612 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the examination of the surface of the site
and excavation of STPs. No cultural remains were observed during investigations at the site.
Suiface Recordation
The area in which the site was mapped was intensively surveyed during the current
investigation, but no evidence of the site was identified. The area exhibits extensive disturbances,
including a paved road across the top of the ridge, the cultivation of the field directly to the south,
and the construction of numerous agricultural buildings. The only undeveloped and uncultivated
portion of the ridge was covered in a dense growth of prickly pear cactus; this area was investigated,
but no evidence of marine shell was identified. The area also exhibits modem trash resulting from
the nearby migrant workers camp.
Subsuiface Excavation
The survey demonstrated that no evidence of the shell scatter recorded as SDI-10,612 could
be located. Because the site was clearly mapped on the apex of the ridge, a series of shovel test pits
was excavated in this area in case the deposit had somehow been buried since its original
recordation. A datum was established, and STPs were excavated in areas where the existing soil
appeared least disturbed. The locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.6--1. All of the STPs
5.6-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tl1e R11bert.wn Rtmdl Pn~ject
were excavated in decimeter levels to 30 centimeters. No cultural material, marine shell or artifacts,
was observed in the STPs excavated at SDI-10,612. Shovel test pit provenience and depth
information is detailed in Table 5.6-1.
5.6.3 Discussion
The area has experienced extensive disturbance and no evidence of the remains identified in
1985 were observed. The original site form shows the shell scatter extending both north and south
of the existing road and into the plowed field; however, no evidence of the scatter was identified.
Shovel tests excavated in the area mapped as the site yielded no artifacts or marine shell. It is
believed that Site SDI-10,612 was a very minor shell scatter at the time it was originally recorded
and that activities associated with the cultivation of the nearby fields have destroyed the site.
5.6.4 Summary
Due to absence of the site in the area in which it was mapped, Site SDI-10,612 is considered
not important according to CEQA criteria and City of Carlsbad guidelines. No further
archaeological investigations are recommended for the site.
5.6-2
""' f.
r:
r:
r:
,
J-
f:
r:
r:
r:
,
I~
• 1-
+
0
Surface Collection
Negative Shovel Test
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-10,612
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.6-3 Figure 5.6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
View of mapped location of SDI-10,612, looking southwest toward apex of hill.
Plate 5.6-1
5.6-4
'~ The RCJbertsnn Ranch Project
J
TABLE5.6-1 :J Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-10,612
J The Robertson Ranch Project
l Shovel Location Cat.
Test Datum from Datum Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
l
1 A 0°/0Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 1
l .10-20 em. No Recovery 2
20-30cm. No Recovery 3
l 2 A 273°/24 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 4
10-20cm. No Recovery 5
il 20-30cm. No Recovery 6
l 3 A 234 o /94 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 7
10-20cm. No Recovery 8
20-30cm. No Recovery 9
l 4 A 356°/45 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 10
10-20 em. No Recovery 11 l 20-30cm. No Recovery 12
l 5 A 189°/41 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 13
10-20cm. No Recovery 14
20-30cm. No Recovery 15
l
l
l
:t
,:)
:I 5.6-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson Ranch Project
5.7 Site SDI-16,130
5. 7.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,130 is a small, sparse scatter of marine shell located in the southwest portion of
the project area, north of El Camino Real and west of Calaveras Road. The site is situated on a
gradual, west-facing slope of a plowed field and is bordered on the east and south by dirt roads
(Figure 5.0-1). The site was located during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001.
The surface expression of the site consisted entirely of a sparse marine shell scatter; no artifacts
were observed on the surface of the site. Soils at the site are mapped as the Las Flores series, which
are moderately well drained, loamy fme sands that have sandy clay subsoils (Bowman 1973).
Disturbances at the site include cultivation of crops, laying of an irrigation system, and grading of
dirt access roads. Vegetation cover at the site, consisting of cultivated plants, was sparse during the
survey but had increased by the time the site was tested. Generally ground visibility ranged from
good to excellent. The general configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 5.7-1. The setting
of the site is shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.7-la.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of six
shovel tests and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site. No
artifacts were observed on the surface nor during the subsurface investigation.
5. 7.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,130 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the mapping of the surface shell scatter,
and excavation of STPs and a single test unit. Only marine shell was observed during
investigations at the site.
Suiface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts, but none were observed. The
surface scatter of shell measured 52 meters ( 170 feet) north to south by 29 meters (95 feet) east to
west. The scatter consisted of a few fragments of Chione sp. The distribution of marine shell is
illustrated in Figure 5.7-1. No shell was collected from the surface of the site.
Subsuiface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,130 was investigated by excavating
a total of six STPs and one test unit. Shovel test pits were positioned across the surface shell
distribution in order to establish whether a subsurface deposit was present at the site. The locations
of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.7-1. All of the shovel tests were excavated in decimeter levels to
at least 30 centimeters. No cultural material, marine shell or artifacts, was observed in the STPs
excavated at SDI-16,130. Shovel test pit provenience and depth information is detailed in Table
5.7-1.
5.7-l
i
r-
1 ,...
""" I~ ..
1-
....
I~
...
l~
...
f •.
"" r.
Tile Roberr.wm Rancll Pmjecr
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,130 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit
(Figure 5.7-1). The test unit was excavated in standard decimeter levels to 30 centimeters, and all
removed soils were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil profile from Test Unit 1
was characterized by a dark grayish brown to grayish brown (lOYR 4/2 to 5/2) clay loam, underlain
by a light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) sandy clay with caliche inclusions. A drawing of the north wall
of the test unit is presented in Figure 5.7-2. A color photograph of the north wall of the test unit is
provided in Plate 5.7-1b.
No artifacts or marine shell were recovered from the test unit. Shell observed on the surface
was identified as Chione sp.; however, no evidence of marine shell was identified in a subsurface
context. Detailed provenience and depth data for the test unit are provided in Table 5.7-2.
5. 7.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,130 consists only of a sparse, surface scatter of
marine shell. The overall site dimensions are identified by the surface shell distribution, which
measured 52 meters (170 feet) by 29 meters (95 feet). No artifacts were recovered from the
investigation at the site. Because of the lack of an artifact at Site SDI-16,130, little can be said of
the range of activities that occurred at the site, other than the processing of marine shell. The sparse
nature of the shell scatter suggests the site was utilized on a limited basis. Due to extensive
disturbance to the site resulting from continued farming, as well as the lack of artifacts or a
subsurface deposit, it is determined that the research potential of the site has been exhausted by this
investigation.
5.7.4 Summary
The investigation of SDI-16,130 revealed a sparse shell scatter with no associated artifacts.
The integrity of the site has been compromised by cultivation and the grading of access roads. Due
to the lack of artifacts and the sparse nature of the shell scatter, the research potential of this site has
been exhausted with the current investigation. Based on the information derived from the testing
program, Site SDI-16,130 is evaluated as not important according to criteria listed in CEQA,
Section 15064.5, and City of Carlsbad guidelines.
5.7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
.. .,..·7'
~---4-'N
.t ),._,.-
li
i .I
l I
.,,
\ •.
\
.. '· · .. .,
·-, ..
Surface Collection
0 Negative Shovel Test
0 Test Unit
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,130
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.7-3
....
Figure 5.7-1
View of field in which SDI-16,130 was identified, looking south-southwest.
View of the north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0 to 30 centimeters).
1 Plate 5.7-1
5.7-4
I
I
I
I North Wall Test Unit 1
I~ 1 Meter •I til
I .. 0 QJ ... QJ s ..... 10 I ... = QJ u
= 20
I ..... : ~ QJ 30 Q
I
I
I • Dark Grayish brown to grayish brown (2.5YR 4/2 to 5/2) clay loam.
I • Light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) sandy clay with caliche inclusions.
I
I
I I
I. I
I
I North Wall Profile of Unit 1
I SDI-16,130
The Robertson Ranch Project
I Figure 5.7-2
5.7-5
~ The Robertson Ranch Project
~
TABLE5.7-1
~ Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,130
~ The Robertson Ranch Project
~ Shovel Location Cat.
Test Datum from Datum Depth Recovery No.
~ Azimuth/Range
1 A 0°/0Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 1
~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 2
20-30cm. No Recovery 3
~ 2 A 90°/31 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 4
10-20 em. No Recovery 5
~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 6
~ 3 A 4°nOFeet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 7
10-20cm. No Recovery 8
20-30cm. No Recovery 9
~ 4 A 338°/106 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 10
~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 11
20-30cm. No Recovery 12
30-40cm. No Recovery 13
~ 5 A 193°/49 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 14
10-20cm. No Recovery 15 ~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 16
~ 6 A 287°/65 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 17
10-20 em. No Recovery 18
20-30cm. No Recovery 19 ~
·~
~ --l 5.7-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.8 Site SDI-16,131
5. 8.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,131 is a small, sparse scatter of marine shell located in the southwest portion of
the project area, north of El Camino Real and west of Calaveras Road. The site is situated on a
gradual, south-facing slope of a plowed field and is bordered on the west, north, and east by dirt
roads (Figure 5.0-1). The site was located during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July
2001. The surface expression of the site consisted entirely of a sparse marine shell scatter; no
artifacts were observed on the surface of the site. Soils at the site are mapped as the Las Flores
series, which are moderately well drained, loamy fme sands that have sandy clay subsoils (Bowman
1973). Disturbances at the site include cultivation of crops, laying of an irrigation system, and
grading of dirt access roads; it also appears as though the northern edge of the site, south of the
east-west dirt road, has been cut and removed. Vegetation cover at the site, consisting of cultivated
plants, was sparse during the survey but had increased by the time the site was tested. Generally,
ground visibility ranged from good to excellent. The general configuration of the resource is
shown in Figure 5.8-1. The setting of the site is shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.8-la.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of seven
shovel test pits and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site. No
artifacts were observed on the surface or during the subsurface investigation.
5.8.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,131 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the mapping of the surface shell scatter,
and excavation of STPs and a single test unit. Only marine shell was observed during
investigations at the site.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts, but none were observed. The extent
of the marine shell scatter measured 58 meters (190 feet) north to south by 46 meters (150 feet)
east to west and consisted of scattered fragments of Chione sp. The distribution of marine shell is
illustrated in Figure 5.8-1. No shell was collected from the surface of the site.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,131 was investigated by excavating
a total of seven STPs and one test unit. A datum was established, and STPs were excavated across
the shell scatter in order to establish whether a subsurface deposit was present at the site. The
locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.8-1. All of the shovel tests were excavated in
decimeter levels to at least 30 centimeters. No cultural material, marine shell or artifacts, was
observed in the STPs excavated at SDI-16,131. Shovel test provenience and depth information is
5.8-1
IIIII'
I
I ,...
... J.
.. ! ... f
]
]
l
l
l
J
J
J
The Robertson Ranch Project
detailed in Table 5.8-1.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,131 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit
(Figure 5.8-1). The test unit was excavated in standard decimeter levels to 30 centimeters, and all
removed soils were sifted through 1/8-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil profile from Test Unit 1
was characterized by a dark grayish brown to grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2 to 5/2) clay loam, overlying
a light olive brown to light yellowish brown (2.5Y 5/4 to 6/4) sandy clay. A drawing of the north
wall of the test unit is presented in Figure 5.8-2. A color photograph of the north wall of the test
unit is provided in Plate 5.8-1b.
No artifacts or marine shell were recovered from the test unit. Shell observed on the surface
was identified as Chione sp.; however, no evidence of marine shell was identified in a subsurface
context. Detailed provenience and depth data for the test unit are provided in Table 5.8-2.
5.8.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,131 consists only of a sparse, surface scatter of
marine shell. The overall site dimensions are identified by the surface shell distribution, which
measured 58 meters (190 feet) by 46 meters (150 feet). No artifacts were recovered from the
investigation at the site. Because of the lack of an artifact at Site SDI-16,131, little can be said of
the range of activities that occurred at the site, other than the processing of marine shell. The sparse
nature of the shell scatter suggests the site was utilized on a limited basis. Due to extensive
disturbance to the site, as well as the lack of artifacts or a subsurface deposit, it is determined that
the research potential of the site has been exhausted by this investigation.
5.8.4 Summary
The investigation of SDI-16,131 revealed a sparse shell scatter with no associated artifacts.
The integrity of the site has been compromised by activities associated with the cultivation of the
field in which the site is located. Due to the lack of artifacts and the sparse nature of the shell
scatter, the research potential of this site has been exhausted with the current investigation. Based
on the information derived from the testing program, Site SDI-16,131 is evaluated as not important
according to criteria listed in CEQA, Section 15064.5, and City of Carlsbad guidelines.
5.8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o -Negative Shovel Test
D -TestUnit
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,131
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.8-3 Figure 5.8-1
t
...
.,,
I· ... r-
. I
I
I
I
1
View of SDI-16,131 (upper third of green field), looking north-northwest.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0 to 30 centimeters) .
Plate 5.8-1
5.8-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tn
0 -Q,> -Q,> e .... -10 = Q,> u
= 20 ....
..c -Q..
Q,>
Q 30
Test Unit 1
1... North Wall --1 Meter
• Dark Grayish brown to grayish brown (2.5YR 4/2 to 5/2) clay loam.
Light olive brown to light yellowish brown (2.5Y 5/4 to 6/4) sandy clay.
North Wall Profile of Unit 1
SDI-16,131
The Robertson Ranch Project
-5
Figure 5.8-2
J The Robertson Ra11ch Project
J
TABLES.S-1
J Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,131
J The Robertson Ranch Project
l Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
l
Azimuth/Range
1 0°/0Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 1
l 10-20 em. No Recovery 2
20-30cm. No Recovery 3
l 2 266°/57 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 4
10-20cm. No Recovery 5
l 20-30cm. No Recovery 6
l 3 313°/53 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 7
10-20 em. No Recovery 8
20-30cm. No Recovery 9
l 4 319°1105 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 10
10-20 em. No Recovery 11 l 20-30cm. No Recovery 12
l 5 204°/61 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 13
10-20cm. No Recovery 14
20-30cm. No Recovery 15 l 6 264°1131 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 16
l 10-20cm. No Recovery 17
20-30cm. No Recovery 18
l 7 28r/143 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 19
10-20 em. No Recovery 20
:t 20-30cm. No Recovery 21
;:t
:) 5.8-6
I f/11!'
'
The Robertson Ranch Project ,..
I ,.
!
~
TABLES.S-2
I Test Unit Excavation Data c Site SDI-16,131
I The Robertson Ranch Project ~
I Test Location Cat. ~ Unit from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
I 1 322°/102 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 22
(
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 23 ~
20-30cm. No Recovery 24
I ~
I ~:
I ~.
I ,:
I 1:
I 1:
I ..
, ...
I r:
I ,:
I ""' 1-
I ... I~
I 5.8-7 • l-
]
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Tire Robertso11 Rtmclr Project
5.9 Site SDI-16,132
5.9.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,132 was identified as a moderately dense scatter of marine shell located in the
western portion of the project area. The site is situated on a gradual southeast-trending slope in a
plowed field and bordered on the north, southwest, and east by dirt roads (Figure 5.0-1). The site
was located during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001. The surface expression of
the site included only marine shell over a relatively large area; no artifacts were observed on the
surface of the site. Soils at the site include the Las Flores series, which are moderately well drained,
loamy fme sands that have sandy clay subsoils (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site include
cultivation of crops, laying of irrigation systems, and grading of dirt access roads. Vegetation at the
site was sparse during the survey, but crops were growing at the time the site was tested, limiting
ground visibility. The general configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 5.9-1. The setting
of the site is shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.9-1a.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of 15
shovel tests and two test units were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site; the
number of excavations at the site was based on the evaluation of the site during the survey.
Although no artifacts were observed on the surface of the site, the extent of the shell scatter
suggested a high research potential.
5.9.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,132 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of the
surface expression, and excavation of STPs and two test units. Only marine shell were observed
during investigations at the site.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts, but none were observed. The extent
of the marine shell scatter measured 146 meters (480 feet) northwest to southeast by 88 meters
(290 feet) southwest to northeast and was focused between the existing dirt roads. The distribution
of marine shell is illustrated in Figure 5.9-1. Although the extent of the scatter was mapped, no
shell was collected from the surface of the site.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16, 132 was investigated by excavating
a total of 15 STPs and two test units. A datum was established, and STPs were excavated in radial
lines from the datum in order to establish whether a subsurface deposit was present at the site. The
locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.9-1. All of the shovel tests were excavated in
decimeter levels to at least 30 centimeters. No artifacts were observed in the STPs excavated at
5.9-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire Robertson Rtmclr Pn!iect
SDI-16,132, although marine shell was observed in four of the 15 shovel tests. Marine shell was
observed in STPs 1, 2, 5, and 8, with the quantity ranging from five (STP 1) to 73 (STP 5)
fragments. The maximum depth of marine shell in the STPs was 40 centimeters. Shovel test
provenience and depth information, as well as marine shell observed, is detailed in Table 5.9-1.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,132 continued with the excavation of two standard test units
positioned near the shoveltests that produced the most marine shell (Figure 5.9-1). The test units
were excavated in standard decimeter levels to 50 and 40 centimeters, and all removed soils were
sifted through 1/8-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil profile from Test Unit 1 was characterized
by a olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) sand, underlain by a light brownish gray to light gray (2.5Y 6/2 to 7/2)
sandy clay with inclusions of a light gray (2.5Y 7/2) and yellowish brown ( 1 OYR 5/6) mottled sand.
A drawing of the north wall of the test unit is presented in Figure 5.9-2. A color photograph of the
north wall of the test unit is provided in Plate 5.9-1b. Test Unit 2 resulted in a similar profile.
Although no artifacts were recovered from the test units, an estimated total of 590 marine
shell fragments were observed in Test Unit 1 and another 885 fragments in Test Unit 2. The upper
three 10-centimeter levels were the most productive, with the marine shell decreasing significantly
below 30 centimeters. Shell observed included Chione sp. and Pecten sp., with some smaller
unidentifiable marine shell fragments. Due to the small quantity of shell in the test unit, none of the
identified shell was collected; the provenience and depth information, as well as the amount of
marine shell observed, is detailed in Table 5.9-2.
The STP and test unit excavations revealed the presence of a sparse subsurface deposit of
lithic and marine shell material. The subsurface deposit at SDI-10,611, delineated by the positive
shovel tests, measures 46 meters (150 feet) north to south by 30 meters (100 feet) west to east. The
subsurface area of the site is confined to a smaller area than the surface shell scatter, not surprising
given the repeated plowing that has occurred at the site.
5.9.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,132 consists of a sparse scatter of marine shell. The
overall site dimensions are identified by the surface shell distribution. The area of the surface
scatter measures approximately 146 meters (480 feet) by 88 meters (290 feet); however, the
subsurface deposit is considerably smaller, measuring approximately 46 meters (150 feet) by 30
meters (100 feet). The only cultural material observed at the site was scattered fragments of marine
shell to a maximum depth of 40 centimeters; no artifacts or animal bone were recovered. The
marine shell was found scattered across the site with no evidence of a localized deposit that might
represent a feature. It is possible that any artifacts that may have existed at the site have been
dispersed through repeated plowing.
Because of the lack of an artifact at Site SDI-16,132, little can be said of the range of
activities that occurred at the site, other than the processing of marine shell. The lack of a
significant cultural deposit suggests the site was utilized on a limited basis. Due to the extensive
disturbance to the site resulting from continued cultivation, as well as the lack of artifacts, it has
5.9-2
t
...
I~
...
I~
J
J
J
J
J
]
]
l
J
]
]
l
]
]
,]
]
J
J
J
The Robertson Rauch Project
been detennined that the site lacks further research potential.
5.9.4 Summary
The investigation of SDI-16,132 revealed a shell scatter with no associated artifacts. The
integrity of the site has been compromised by cultivation and the grading of access roads. No
evidence of the period of utilization of the site was observed. Due to the lack of artifacts, animal
bone, or a significant marine shell deposit, the research potential of this site has been exhausted
with the current investigation. Based on the information derived from the testing program, Site
SDI-16,132 has been evaluated as not important according to criteria listed in CEQA, Section
15064.5 and City of Carlsbad guidelines. No further archaeological investigation of the site is
recommended.
5.9-3
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I /
I /
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
.. ~·/
/ /
_,.
0
•
0
/ .•··
.. ····
/
Negative Shovel Test
Positive Shovel Test
Test Unit ·-::, ..
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,132
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.9--4 Figure 5.9-1
,.
I
' ,...
r:
r:
r:
1
1
View of field in which SDI-16,132 was identified, looking northwest.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0 to 50 centimeters).
5.9-5
I The Rabert.w11 Ra11ch Prt!iect
I TABLE5.9-1
I Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,132
I
The Robertson Ranch Project
I Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
I 1 127°/20 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 1
(3 Marine Shell, Not Collected [NC])
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 2
(1 Marine Shell, NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 3
I (1 Marine Shell, NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 4
2 175°n9 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 5 I (7 Marine Shell, NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 6
(1 0 Marine Shell, NC)
I 20-30 em. No Recovery 7
(5 Marine Shell, NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 8
I 3 190°/141 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 9
10-20 em. No Recovery 10
20-30cm. No Recovery 11
I 4 213°/124 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 12
10-20 em. No Recovery 13
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 14
5 156°/107 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 15
I (26 Marine Shell, NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 16
(30 Marine Shell, NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 17
I (12 Marine Shell, NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 18
(5 Marine Shell, NC)
I 40-50cm. No Recovery 19
6 157°/311 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 20
10-20 em. No Recovery 21
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 22
7 133°/173 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 23
I
I 5.9-7
-···-·· ~-~~-~·---·-~-·-~-~-~------··-· ---" . ---~----· --·"------~
J The Robertson Ranclr Project
J
J Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
l 7 133°/173 Feet 10-20cm. No Recovery 24
20-30cm. No Recovery 25
l 8 147°nOFeet 0-IOcm. No Recovery 26
(6 Marine Shell, NC)
l 10-20cm. No Recovery 27
(2 Marine Shell, NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 28
(3 Marine Shell, NC)
l 30-40cm. No Recovery 29
( 1 Marine Shell, NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 30
] 9 61°/61 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 31
10-20 em. No Recovery 32
20-30cm. No Recovery 33 l 10 151°/207 Feet 0-IOcm. No Recovery 34
10-20cm. No Recovery 35
l 20-30cm. No Recovery 36
11 175°/255 Feet 0-IOcm. No Recovery 37
] 10-20cm. No Recovery 38
20-30cm. No Recovery 39
12 182°/172 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 40
] 10-20cm. No Recovery 41
20-30cm. No Recovery 42
l 13 264°nOFeet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 52
10-20cm. No Recovery 53
20-30cm .. No Recovery 54
l 14 105°/125 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 55
10-20cm. No Recovery 56
20-30cm. No Recovery 57
l 15 328°/80 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 58
10-20cm. No Recovery 59
l 20-30cm. No Recovery 60
l
l
:1 5.9-8
I
,.
The Roberwm Ranch Project ~
I ,.
~ TABLE5.9-2
I ~
Test Unit Excavation Data ~ Site SDI-16,132
I
The Robertson Ranch Project ~
I Test Location Cat. c Unit from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
I 1 153°/112 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 43 c
(200+ Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC])
j[ I 10-20cm. No Recovery 44
(180+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 45 r: (165 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 46
I ( 45 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ,: 40-50cm. No Recovery 47
I 2 167°n9Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 48 f~
(170+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 49 1: (500+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 50 ,: I (200+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 51
I
(15 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ,:
I ,r
I IC
I r:
I ,:
I ,:
I 5.9-9 ,:
J
J
J
]
]
]
l
]
]
]
l
]
]
]
]
l
]
l
l
The Robertson Ranch Pn~jecr
5.10 Site SDI-16,133
5.10.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,133 is a prehistoric marine shell and lithic deposit located in the south-central
portion of the project area, northwest of the intersection of Calaveras Road and the driveway to the
Robertson's current residence. The site overlooks Agua Hedionda Creek to the southeast and is
directly northeast of the existing nursery at Calaveras Road and El Camino Real. The site was
identified during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001. Soils at the site are mapped
as Salinas (well-drained and moderately well-drained clay loams that formed in sediments washed
from Diablo, Linne, Las Flores, Huerhuero, and Olevenhain soils) and Altamont (well-drained clays
that formed in material weathered from calcareous shale) series (Bowman 1973 ). The site has been
heavily disturbed, including cutting and filling for the driveway to the current Robertson's
residence, which was cut lengthwise through the center of the site; in addition, the northeast portion
of the site is in a field that has been cultivated, and the southwest portion of the site was graded and
cut when the nursery was established. Very dark midden soil is present along the southwest side of
the existing driveway; the cut of the driveway itself has exposed what appears to have been a
significant midden with marine shell and lithic artifacts. Vegetation on the site consists of potted
plants associated with the nursery, eucalyptus trees that line the driveway, and annual grasses in the
adjacent field; ground visibility was very poor (under driveway) to excellent (adjacent to driveway).
The general configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 5.10-1. The setting of the site is
shown in photographs provided in Plate 5.10-1.
Because a portion of Site SDI-16,133 is located within the proposed College Boulevard
·alignment, Recon was responsible for determining the significance of this resource for Section 106
compliance in association with that project. Recon tested the site in December 2001 with the
excavation of 10 shovel scrapes, one shovel test, and two test units. The 10 shovel scrapes extended
down to 10 centimeters, and the single shovel test, excavated at the southern edge of the site, was
negative for cultural material. The site was determined by Recon to have been extensively disturbed,
and no significant, undisturbed subsurface deposit was identified. The site was, therefore,
determined not significant by CEQA, City of Carlsbad, and Section 106 guidelines (Collett and
Cheever 2001).
Because the level of effort conducted by Recon was less extensive than that which BFSA
had proposed as part of the Robertson Ranch project, BFSA was allowed to conduct additional
fieldwork at the site. The level of effort conducted by BFSA was, however, significantly reduced
due to the work conducted by Recon. The BFSA evaluation program for the site was also
conducted in December 2001. The program included the collection of all surface artifacts and the
excavation of 10 shovel test pits and one test unit. Figure 5.10-1 illustrates the work conducted by
BFSA at SDI-16,133; Figure 5.10-2 shows the same information overlain by the work conducted
by Recon.
5.10-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robenwn Ranch Project
5.10.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,133 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
surface expression, collection of all surface artifacts, and the excavation of 10 STPs and a test unit.
Totals of 59 artifacts and 331.4 grams of marine shell were recovered during the investigations
conducted by BFSA.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts; all observed artifacts were
provenienced and collected. Vegetation at the site was moderately dense in the cultivated field to the
north, but visibility in the remaining areas, with the exception of under the driveway, was good to
excellent. A datum was established along the existing bank in order to provide a vantage point from
which all surface artifacts and excavations could be measured. The surface expression of SDI-
16,133 consisted of both marine shell and lithic artifacts. The extent of the marine shell was
mapped and is illustrated in Figure 5.10-1. All artifacts observed on the surface of the site were
mapped and collected, the locations of which are also illustrated in Figure 5.10-1. Recon had
identified two areas of surface material, one cluster near the foot of the slope and the other on a
terrace partway up the slope (Figure 5.10-2); approximately 30 meters separated the two areas
(Collett and Cheever 2001). BFSA collected an additional 33 artifacts from the surface of the site.
Although there may have been a distinction between the two areas in terms of artifacts, marine shell
was scattered across the entire site.
The surface artifacts collected by BFSA are summarized in Table 5.10-1 and detailed with
provenience information in Table 5.10-2. The assemblage included one mano (3.03%), four
hammerstones (12.12%), one retouched debitage (3.03%), and 27 pieces of lithic production waste
(81.81 %). Together with the information from Recon's investigation, the surface artifacts and
marine shell delineated an area measuring approximately 131 meters (430 feet) from north to south
by 49 meters (160 feet) from west to east. The surface scatter did not extend to the southeast side
of Calaveras Road.
Subsuiface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,133 was investigated by excavating
a single test unit. Recon's evaluation program included the excavation of 10 one-by-two or two-by-
two-meter shovel scrapes that extended to a maximum depth of 10 centimeters, and a single shovel
test pit. The shovel scrapes were positioned across the site, but most of them were not excavated in
areas that exhibited surface artifacts (Figure 5.10-2). Furthermore, the single shovel test pit wali
positioned in the current drainage, approximately 27 meters southeast of the surface scatter
identified by Recon, revealing, "that the site did not extend as far as the access road" (presumably
this road is Calaveras Road). Furthermore, Recon conducted no subsurface excavations along the
bank on the southwest side of the driveway, the area exhibiting the most intact midden deposits.
5.10-2
J
J
J
,J
J
J
l
J
l
J
J
:t
J
:J
J
:J
:)
,... .. ,
...
:]
Tile Robel"tson Ranc/1 p,.,~;ecr
Because of this, and because most of the excavations conducted by Recon only extended to
10 centimeters in depth, which was not deep enough to reach below the plow zone, an additional 10
STPs and one test unit were excavated at the site by BFSA. The STPs and test unit excavated by
BFSA were assigned consecutive numbers following Recon's provenience numbers (e.g., STPs 2-
11 and Unit 3).
As discussed above, the site has been heavily disturbed; therefore, every effort was made to
position the STPs in areas that had not been subjected to extensive cutting or grading. Six of the
STPs were positioned on the top of the bank on the southwest side of the driveway; the remaining
STPs were placed in the field northeast of the driveway, within the area identified by Recon as
exhibiting increased marine shell on the surface of the site (Figure 5.10-1). All of the shovel tests
were excavated in decimeter levels to at least 30 centimeters. Although no artifacts were recovered
from the STPs excavated at SDI-16,133, marine shell was observed in five of the 10 shovel tests.
Marine shell was observed in STPs 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, with the quantity ranging from six ( STP 5) to
approximately 625 (STP 3) fragments of shell. Two subsurface deposits were identified, although
the excavations were not distinct enough to detennine whether they are separate or contiguous with
one another. The deepest deposits were found in STPs 3, 7, and 11, where the maximum depth of
shell was between 60 and 70 centimeters below surface (STP 7); these STPs are located within 100
feet of each other, identifying the primary deposit at the site (Figure 5.10-1). It is important to note
that the deepest deposit was identified in STP 7, which was positioned in the plowed field,
indicating that the potential does exist for undisturbed deposits below the plow zone. The deposit
identified in the northern portion of the site by STPs 5 and 6.was relatively shallow (30 centimeters)
and exhibited considerably less marine shell than the deposit identified by STPs 3, 7, and 11.
Shovel test provenience and depth information, as well as marine shell observed, is detailed in Table
5.10-3.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,133 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit.
The test unit was positioned adjacent to STP 7 in the plowed field (Figure 5.10-1 ). The test unit
was excavated in standard decimeter levels to a culturally sterile soil horizon, and all removed soils
were sifted through 1/8-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil profile from the test unit was
characterized by a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam in the top 10 centimeters,
underlain by a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sandy silt; a brown (lOYR 4/3) compact silty clay
subsoil was encountered at approximately 60 centimeters. A drawing of the north wall of the test
unit is presented in Figure 5.10-3: A color photograph of the north wall of the test unit is provided
in Plate 5.10-2. Recon identified disturbed soils to a depth of 40 centimeters; however, with the
exception of mixing in the upper 20 centimeters, the unit excavated by BFSA revealed soil that
appeared homogenous to a depth of 60 centimeters.
Test unit excavations resulted in the recovery of 26 artifacts and 331.4 grams of marine
shell (Table 5.10-2). Excavation of the test unit extended to 70 centimeters, and recovery of
cultural material (shell and artifacts) extended to 60 centimeters below surface. The test unit
collection was dominated by lithic production waste (92.31 %; N=24), although a single mano and
5.10-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Raberwm Ranch Pmjecr
one retouched flake were also recovered. The subsurface deposit at SDI-16,133, delineated by the
positive shovel tests, identified two subsurface deposits, a shallow deposit to the north measuring
approximately 30 meters (100 feet) by 15 meters (50 feet), and a deeper deposit to the south
measuring approximately 24 meters (80 feet) by 24 meters (80 feet). While Recon's excavations
indicated that artifacts are restricted to the upper 10 centimeters (Collett and Cheever 2001), the
excavations conducted by BFSA identified an artifact and marine shell deposit that extends to a
depth of at least 60 centimeters, indicating that a portion of the cultural deposit extends below the
plow zone.
5.10.3 Disturbances
The investigation at SDI-16,133 was initiated with the resurvey of the site in order to
determine the extent of the disturbances. Survey of the area determined that, indeed, the site had
been heavily impacted; however, closer examination revealed that several intact areas of the site
might be present. Plate 5.10-1a shows the site from the northwest looking southeast along the
driveway; the same image is shown schematically in Figure 5.10-4. Plate 5.10-1b shows the
mixing of soils at the southwest edge of the site where the area was cut and terraced for the nursery.
It is believed near-original ground surfaces are present in two areas: one at the edge of the nursery
at the top of the bank. along the southwest edge of the driveway (on the right in Plate 5.10-1a); and
the other in the plowed field to the north (on the left in Plate 5.10-1a). Although disturbed on the
very southwest edge by the establishment of the nursery (Figure 5.10-1 ), the existing bank between
the nursery and the driveway appears to exhibit intact midden soils. Shovel tests in this area
produced cultural material to a depth of 70 centimeters, and with the exception of erosion and
pedestrian traffic, soils appear to have been undisturbed. The length of the undisturbed midden
deposit along the bank measures approximately 30 meters (100 feet) and is approximately 3 meters
(10 feet} wide. The driveway, on the other hand, appears to have been created by cutting into this
bank. The fact that the field side of the driveway is elevated approximately 8 to 10 feet above the
adjacent field, resulting in the driveway being angled toward the bank (Plate 5.10-la; Figure
5.10-4}, suggests that, not only was the driveway cut into the existing bank, but that the excess soil
was used as fill for the field side of the driveway (Figure 5.10-4). Based on the site study by
BFSA, evidence was gathered which demonstrates that intact soils are present not only on the top of
the bank on the west side of the site and in the field to the east, but may also be present under the
fill between approximately the middle of the driveway and the edge of the plowed field (STP 7 and
Unit 3}. Removal of the fill in this area between the driveway and the field may reveal intact
subsurface cultural deposits.
5.1 0.4 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,133 consists of a disturbed but substantial temporary
camp. The overall site dimensions delineated by the surface shell scatter are 131 meters (430 feet)
by 49 meters (160 feet}; however, the actual subsurface area of the site appears to be limited to a
5.10-4
.. I
....
l-,..,
1-
l:
,:
,.
I~
I ..
, -
l
' l
l
l
' ' ,
•
' ' J
' ~
' J
J
)
)
The Robertson Rcmcll Pmjel'l
smaller area focused in two different locations, a shallow deposit to the north measuring
approximately 30 meters (100 feet) by 15 meters (50 feet), and a deeper deposit to the south
measuring approximately 24 meters (80 feet) by 24 meters (80 feet).
The recovered material is summarized in Table 5.10-6, and measurements for all tools are
presented in Table 5.10-7. Recovered artifacts include ground stone, percussion, and precision
tools. Lithic production waste dominates the artifact collection, accounting for 86.44% (N=51) of
the assemblage. The ground stone tool assemblage includes two heavily-used manos, one (Cat. No.
7) of which exhibits e-yidence of pecking, polish, and shaping; this is an excellent example of a
repeatedly used, shaped, ground stone tool. The collection also includes four hammerstones and
two pieces of retouched lithic production waste. Most of the tools were recovered from the surface
of the site, although one of the manos and a retouched flake were collected from the test unit. All
lithic artifacts recovered from SDI-16,133 were derived from locally available material (Table
5.10-8).
Most of the material recovered by Recon was similar to this collection, including lithic
production waste, cores, hammerstones, and a chopper; in addition, Recon collected a projectile
point fragment from 0 to 10 centimeters below the surface. Although no discussion was presented
as to the typology of the point, its light weight of 0.5 gram and the fact that it was derived from
quartz (Collett and Cheever 2001) suggest that it might be a Late Prehistoric projectile point.
. The marine shell recovered from Site SDI-16,133 by BFSA was identified to Chione and
Pecten sps.; in addition, a small amount of vecy fragmented marine shell could not be identified.
The collection is dominated by Chione sp., accounting for 93.75% (310.7 grams) of the marine
shell collection. The report produced by Recon states that none of the 1 ,291. 7 grams of marine
shell recovered during their investigation was identifiable to genus, although a portion of the
collection "appear to be Pectinidae and another portion are most likely Chione sp." (Collett and
Cheever 2001). The report also states that about 10% of the collection appears to be Pectinidae
(Collett and Cheever 2001). Based on the dominance of Chione sp. in both the BFSA and Recon
collections, it appears likely that the occupants of the site exploited sandy, mud flats in a bay
environment more often than the slightly deeper water (10 to 150 feet) in which Pecten sp. are
usually found (Rehder 1981). This result is not surprising given the proximity of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, but it does suggest that the use of the site occurred subsequent to the siltation of the north
county bays, which is believed to have occurred sometime around 3,500 YBP.
The site is interpreted as a campsite where activities included lithic tool manufacture and/or
maintenance and resource processing. The presence of marine shell suggests that food processing
focused on marine resources, particularly those resources from a bay environment. Although no
culturally diagnostic material was recovered from the site by BFSA, a small quartz projectile point
was recovered by Recon's investigation. The size and material of the point suggest it may be a Late
Prehistoric point.
Although cultural material extends to 60 to 70 centimeters in depth, portions of the site have
undergone extensive disturbance. The northeast portion of the site is located in a plowed field; the
5.10-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Rllbertson Ranch Project
driveway to the existing residence was cut through the middle of the site, and the southwest portion
of the resource has been graded and cut in association with the nursery. Although the site may
once have been considered a significant resource, the amount of disturbance has greatly decreased
its contextual integrity. Subsequently, BFSA concurs with the conclusion reached by Recon that
the research potential of this site has been exhausted.
5.10.5 Summary
Investigations at SDI-16,133 revealed the remains of a prehistoric camp site where activities
included lithic production and/or maintenance and marine shell processing. The site was tested by
Recon as part of the College Boulevard alignment project prior to the investigation conducted by
BFSA. The additional work performed by BFSA, although resulting in the same determination that
the site has been too heavily disturbed to be considered important, also resulted in the collection of
valuable additional information regarding the occupation of this site. The BFSA work identified a
cultural deposit containing marine shell and lithic artifacts that extends to depths of 60 to 70
centimeters. The work conducted by BFSA more precisely identified the horizontal boundaries of
the site with the excavation of STPs, was able to more accurately identify the depth and character of
the deposit of the site, including the type of habitat exploited during marine resource collection, and
succeeded in the collection of all remaining artifacts on the surface of the site, including the
collection of a heavily-used, shaped mano.
Due to the extensive disturbance that has occurred to the site, it is recommended that the
research potential of this site has been exhausted with the current testing program. Based on the
information derived from the testing program, SDI-16,133 is considered not important according to
CEQA criteria and City of Carlsbad guidelines. No further archaeological investigation of the site
is recommended.
5.10-6
c
(
( ,,
c
c
c
c
f~
r~
.. f.,
r:
r:
r:
• •
\ .
J
]
J
J
l
l
l
l
:t
l
J
J
J
J
:-t
:]
l
:-J
:1
+ -Surface Collection
o -Negative Shovel Test
• -Positive Shovel Test
0 -Test Unit
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,133
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.10-7 Figure 5.10-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 -Negative Shovel Test
• -Positive Shovel Scrape
0 -Negative Shovel Scrape
• -Positive Shovel Scrape/fest Unit
D-BFSA Site
Boundary
Recon Surface
Recovery
.;t>' .·
__ .•. ~-·~··
.. /
"'.~(,\
. .-; .J~: .' .··-< 1
.:,:i/1
ll
_,r;(fv·
·-~ .....
BFSA!Recon Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,133
The Robertson Ranch Project
Figure 5.10-2
..
~
~
1:
(
{:
l:
,~:
~~
,:
1:
:~:
r:
1~
View of SDI-16,133, looking southeast along driveway.
View of SDI-16,133, looking northeast at disturbances associated with nursery.
5.10-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
View of west wall profile of Test Unit 3 (0 to 70 centimeters).
..__---------------1 Plate 5.10-2
5.10-10
[
I
r
I _J
1
l
l
0
10
Cll a. 20 ~ QJ e ·-= 30 QJ u .s 40
60
70
I~ North Wall Test Unit 3
1 Meter
• Very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2) silty loam.
Dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) sandy silt.
Brown (lOYR 4/3) compact sandy silt subsoil.
North Wall Profile of Unit 3
SDI-16,133
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.10-11
Figure 5.10-3
-------------------
!Jl -? -1-.J
Northeast
(Field)
Plowed 1
Field+-l
I
Fence Line
-------
Existing Ground Surface
Original Ground Surface
(Estimated)
Bank
t
Profile across site from northeast (field) to
southwest (bank) showing ground disturbance
Robertson Ranch Project
~--.. ---~----.----~-~~~~~~~~~-----------
J
]
J
J
J
l
J
]
]
J
J
J
J
[ Recovery Category
Ground Stone Tools:
Mano
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage
Flakes
Percussion Tools:
Hammers tones
Precision Tools:
Retouched Debitage
Totals
TABLE 5.10-1
Summary of Surface Recovery
Site SDI-16,133
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.10-13
Quantity
1
13
14
4
1
33
The Robertson Ranch Project
Percent ]
3.03
39.39
42.42
12.12
3.03
100.00
I ..
Tl1e Robertson Ranch Projecr flllo,
I ,.
....
I TABLE 5.10-2 ,.
Surface Recovery Data ' -Site SDI-16,133
I The Robertson Ranch Project ,.
i ....
I Recovery Location Cat. ·~ l Location fromDatumB Quantity Recovery Material No.
I Azimuth/Range ,
1 136°/155 Feet 1 Debitage FGM* 1 \...
I 2 134°/167 Feet 2 Debitage MGM** 2 c 3 141°/167 Feet 1 Flake FGM 3
I 4 143°/187 Feet 3 Debitage MGM 4 c
5 143°/210 Feet 1 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined FGM 5 I 1 Flake FGM 6 (
6 143°/221 Feet 1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked, Shaped Granite 7
I 1 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined MGM 8 ( 2 Debitage MGM 9
1 Flake MGM 10
I 7 127°/201 Feet 2 Flakes MGM 11 (
8 125°/218 Feet 2 Flakes MGM 12
I 9 124 o /207 Feet 1 Flake FGM 13 r:
I 10 125°/202 Feet 1 Debitage FGM 14 r: 2 Debitage MGM 15
2 Flakes MGM 16
I 11 138°/255 Feet 1 Flake Granite 17 1:
12 131°/171 Feet 2 Flakes FGM 18
I 13 130°/158 Feet 1 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined MGM 19 I: 1 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined MGM 20
I 2 Debitage MGM 21 1: 14 134°/147 Feet 1 Flake MGM 22
I 15 155°/154 Feet 1 Retouched Debitage Fragment FGM 23 r:
FGM* =Fine-grained metavolcanic
I MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic r:
I 5.10-14 r:
---~-·-·~~LL-·~---~·~-~
.l The Robertso11 Ranch Project
J
TABLE 5.10-3
J Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,133
J The Robertson Ranch Project
] r
Shovel Location Cat.
Test fromDatumB Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
]
2 151°/250 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 30
] 10-20 em. No Recovery 31
20-30cm. No Recovery 32
30-40cm. No Recovery 33
:1 3 155°/145 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 34
(100+ Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC])
10-20 em. No Recovery 35
l (125+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 36
(125+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
:1 30-40cm. No Recovery 37
(125+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 38
(100+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
J 50-60cm. No Recovery 39
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
J 4 155°/43 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 40
10-20 em. No Recovery 41
20-30 em. No Recovery 42
J 5 29°/64 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 43
10-20cm. No Recovery 44
(3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
:1 20-30cm. No Recovery 45
(3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 46
:1 6 38°/126 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 47 • (50'Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 48
:1 (30 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30 em. No Recovery 49
( 10 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
:1 30-40cm. No Recovery 50
7 139°/154 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 51
:1 (70+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
:1 5.10-15
I ,
....
Tl1e Roberrson Rm1cl1 Projecr '
I ,
~·
I Shovel Location Cat. ,..
Test fromDatumB Depth Recovery No. ~·
Azimuth/Range
I 7 139°/154 Feet 10-20 em. No Recovery 52 c
I (70+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) c 20-30 em. No Recovery 53
(70+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 54
I (50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC) c 40-50cm. No Recovery 55
(50+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 50-60em. No Recovery 56 c (30+ Marine Shell Frags., NC)
60-70em. No Recovery 57
I
(10 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~ 70-80cm. No Recovery 58
8 160°/195 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 59
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 60 c 20-30cm. No Recovery 61
I 9 164°/148 Feet 0-lOem. No Recovery 62 r: 10-20 em. No Recovery 63
20-30em. No Recovery 64
I 10 118°/166 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 65 ,: 10-20cm. No Recovery 66
20-30cm. No Recovery 67
I 11 155°/193 Feet 0-IOem. No Recovery 24 r: (40 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 25 ): I (35 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30em. No Recovery 26
(25 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 30-40cm. No Recovery 27 r: (20 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50em. No Recovery 28
I (20 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~~ 50-60cm. No Recovery 29
( 10 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I "" 1~
I r· .....
I Ill'
f •
I .. 5.10-16 1 •
TABLE 5.10-4
Summary of Test Unit Recovery
Site SDI-16, 133
The Robertson Ranch Project
Depth (in centim~t~!A)
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 Total Percent
Ecofacts:
Marine Shell,
Chione sp. 160.0g. 80.5 g. 53.6 g. 3.8 g. 1.9 g. 2.2 g. 302.0 g.
Chione sp., Burned 1.6g. 3.5 g. 3.6 g. 8.7 g.
Pecten sp. 0.1 g. 0.3 g. 0.4 g.
Unidentifiable 7.7 g. 5.9 g. 4.1 g. 1.2 g. 0.4 g. 0.8 g. 20.1 g.
Unidentifiable, Burned 0.2g. 0.2 g.
!J'
0 Ground Stone Tools: I -Mano -..I 3.85
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage 3 I 6 23.08
Flakes 7 4 2 4 18 69.23
Precision Tools:
Retouched Flake 3.85
Totals 8 5 6 0 5 2 0 26 100.00 ;;l ..
Percent 30.77 19.23 23.08 0.00 19.23 7.69 0.00 100.00 ~ <::!-.. ~ ~ "' S' ::0 ..., :::-.,
:::! ~ . .. ~
I " I
The Robertson Ranch Project •
I c
I TABLE 5.10-5 r ....
Test Unit Excavation Data
I Site SDI-16,133 r The Robertson Ranch Project .....
I Test Location Quantity/ Cat. r
Unit from Datum B Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
I Azimuth/Range r ·Ill;
I 3 138°/155 Feet 0-lO em. Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Granite 68 ( Burned, Pecked
3 Aakes FGM* 69 ...
4 Aakes MGM** 70
I 160.0 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 71 r 1.6 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 72 1---7.7 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 73
I 0.2 g. Marine Shell, Burned Unidentifiable 74 [
10-20 em. 1 Flake FGM 75
I I Debitage MGM 76 c 3 Aakes MGM 77
80.5 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 78
3.5 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 79
I 0.1 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 80 f"'" 5.9 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 81 ,.,
I 20-30 em. I Retouched Aake Fragment FGM 82 r,.. 3 Debitage MGM 83
'"" 2 Flakes MGM 84
I 53.6 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 85 ~,.. 3.6 g. Marine Shell, Burned Chione sp. 86
0.3 g. Marine Shell Pecten sp. 87 ! ....
4.1 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 88
I r,.
3.8 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 89 30-40 em. ,' ,.,,
1.2 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 90
I 40-50 em. 3 Aakes MGM 91
f ...
'..,.,
Flake· FGM 92
I I Debitage MGM 93 f ... 1.9 g. Marine Shell Chione sp. 94
0.4 g. Marine Shell Unidentifiable 95 ""
I \ ..
FGM* = Fine-grained metavolcanic ...
MOM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
I ,.
' ...
I 5.10-18 r· ..
, ,
-,
, , , , , , , ,
•
..
.. • I .. • ..
I
r
Test
Unit
3
Location
from Datum B
Azimuth/Range
Depth
138°/155 Feet 50-60 em.
60-70 em.
Quantity/
Weight
1
1
2.2 g.
0.8 g.
Recovery
Flake
Debitage
Marine Shell
Marine Shell
No Recovery
5.10-19
The Roberts{Jn Ranch Project
Description
FGM
MGM
Chione sp.
Unidentifiable
Cat.
No.
96
97
98
Y9
100
I ,
The R<lberts<m Ranclt Project ....
I "" ""'
I TABLE 5.10-6 r
Summary of Artifact Recovery ...
I
Site SDI-16,133 r The Robertson Ranch Project ...
I Recovery Category Surface Shovel Tests Test Units Total Percent r ...
I Ecofacts: r
Marine Shell, ...
I
Chione sp. 302.0 g. 302.0 g. r Chione sp., Burned 8.7 g. 8.7 g.
Pecten sp. 0.4 g. 0.4g. '""' Unidentifiable 20.1 g. 20.1 g.
I Unidentifiable, Burned 0.2 g. 0.2 g. (
Ground Stone Tools:
I Manos 1 1 2 3.39 r Lithic Production Waste: , ..
Debitage 13 6 19 32.20
I Flakes 14 18 32 54.24 ~
Percussion Tools:
I Hammerstones 4 4 6.78 f"
Precision Tools: •
Retouched Debitage 1 1 1.69
I Retouched Flake 1 1 1.69 r,.
~-
I Totals 33 0 26 59 100;00 , ...
Percent 55.93 0.00 44.07 100.00 ...
I r---
I r· ...
I r• ...
I • ...
I , .
...
I 5.10-20 • ...
1 • ,
,..
1 ... ,
411
, .. , .. ,
• , ,
• ,
•
•
• ..
TABLE 5.10-7
Lithic Tool Measurement Data
Site SDI-16,133
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat. Tool Description Dimensions (in centimeters)
No. Length Width Thickness
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos:
7 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked, Shaped, 14.1 10.6 5.4
Heavy Use Wear
68 Mano Fragment, Biface, Polished, Burned, 9.6 7.5 4.5
Pecked, Heavy Use Wear
Percussion Tools:
Hammerstones:
5 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined 5.7 3.3 2.1
8 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined 5.3 4.7 1.7
MGM**
19 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined 6.3 4.9 2.6
20 Hammerstone Fragment, Undetermined 6.7 3.9 2.5
Precision Tools:
Retouched Debitage:
23 Retouched Debitage Fragment 5.2 2.9 2.0
Retouched Flakes:
82 Retouched Flake Fragment 3.1 2.2 1.2
FGM* =Fine-grained metavolcanic
MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.10-21
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weight Material
(in grams)
1,296.2 Granite
358.3 Granite
38.3 FGM*
55.1
90.2 MGM
81.5 MGM
31.3 FGM
9.4 FGM
I Tire Robertson Rancfr Project r:
I r
I TABLE 5.10-8 r Lithic Material Distribution
I
Site SDI-16,133 c The Robertson Ranch Project
I Material ! Artifact Category FGM* Granite MGM** Total Percent
I Ground Stone Tools: ~
Manos 2 2 3.39
I Lithic Production Waste: r .....
Debitage 2 17 19 32.20
I Flakes 11 1 20 32 54.24 (
Percussion Tools:
I Hammerstones 1 3 4 6.78 '-Precision Tools:
Retouched Debitage 1 1 1.69
I Retouched Flake 1 1 1.69 [
I Totals 16 3 40 59 100.00 r~ Percent 27.12 5.08 67.80 100.00
I FGM* =Fine-grained metavolcanic
r,.
"' MGM** = Medium-grained metavolcanic
I r ..
r u~~.
I , ..
• ~-l«
I r·
\~
I [" ...
I 11111
i ..
I r II
..
I 5.10-22 •
•
J
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
' l
~
.~
~
~
~
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.11 Site SDI-16,134
5.11.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,134 is a small, sparse scatter of marine shell located in the eastern portion of
the project area, north of the original ranch house (P-37-024329). The site is situated on a low hill
approximately 1,200 feet (365 meters) west of the drainage that extends south from Calavera Lake
to Agua Hedionda Creek (Figure 5.0-1 ). The site was located during a survey of the project area by
BFSA in July 2001. The surface expression of the site consisted of a sparse marine shell scatter;
no artifacts were observed on the surface of the site. Soils at the site are mapped as the Altamont
series, which are well-drained clays that formed in material weathered from calcareous shale
(Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site include cultivation of flower crops, laying of irrigation
systems, and grading of dirt access roads. Vegetation cover at the site, consisting of cultivated
plants, was sparse to moderate, allowing for good to excellent surface visibility. The general
configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 5.11-1. The setting of the site is shown in a
photograph provided in Plate 5.11-la.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of five
shovel test pits and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site. No
artifacts were observed on the surface of the site. Since such a small quantity of artifacts was
recovered from the site, laboratory analysis was necessarily limited.
5.11.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,134 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site included the identification and mapping of the surface
shell scatter, and excavation of STPs and a single test unit. Only marine shell was observed during
investigations at the site.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts, but none were observed. The extent
of the marine shell scatter measured 43 meters (140 feet) north to south by 34 meters (110 feet)
east to west and was focused on the south side of the apex of the hill. The distribution of marine
shell is illustrated in Figure 5.11-1. None of the marine shell, identified as either Chione or Pecten
sps., was collected from the surface of the site.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,134 was investigated by excavating
a total of five STPs and one test unit. A datum was established, and STPs were excavated across
the area where marine shell was observed in order to establish whether a subsurface deposit was
present at the site. The locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.11-1. All of the shovel tests
were excavated in decimeter levels to 30 centimeters. No cultural material, marine shell or artifacts,
5.11-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Roberwm Ranch Pn!iect
was observed in the STPs excavated at SDI-16,134. Shovel test provenience and depth information
is detailed in Table 5.11-1.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,134 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit
positioned near the apex of the hill (Figure 5.11-1). The test unit was excavated in standard
decimeter levels to 20 centimeters, and all removed soils were sifted through 118-inch mesh
hardware cloth. Excavation of the unit was terminated due to the presence of subsoil between l 0
and 20 centimeters. The soil profile from Test Unit 1 was characterized by a grayish brown (2.5Y
5/2) sandy clay, underlain by a light brownish gray to light gray (2.5Y 6/2 to 7/2) clay with
inclusions of weathered calcareous shale. A drawing of the north wall of the test unit is presented
in Figure 5.11-2. A color photograph of the north wall ofthe test unit is provided in Plate 5.11-lb.
Although no artifacts were recovered from the test unit, a total of four marine shell
fragments were observed-three from the 0 to 10 centimeter level and one from the 10 to 20
centimeter level. Marine shell observed included Chione sp. and Pecten sp., with some smaller
unidentifiable shell fragments. Due to the small amount of shell in the test unit, none of the
identified shell was collected (Table 5.11-2).
5.11.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,134 consists of a sparse scatter of marine shell. The
overall site dimensions are identified by the surface shell distribution. The area of the site measures
approximately 43 meters (140 feet) north to south by 34 meters (110 feet) east to west. The only
cultural material observed at the site was scattered fragments of marine shell; the presence of shell
to a depth of 20 centimeters could be due to the cultivation of the area, rather than the accumulation
of cultural debris to that depth. The lack of lithic artifacts and the small amount of marine shell in
the subsurface excavations indicates a lack of significant deposits.
Because of the lack of an artifact at Site SDI-16,134, little can be said of the range of
activities that occurred at the site, other than the processing of marine shell. The sparse nature of
the shell scatter suggests the site was utilized on a limited basis. Due to extensive disturbance to the
site resulting from continued farming, as well as the lack of artifacts or a significant subsurface
deposit, it has been determined that the site lacks further research potential.
5.11.4 Summary
The investigation of SDI-16,134 revealed a sparse shell scatter with no associated artifacts.
The shell scattermeasures43 meters (140 feet) by 34 meters (110 feet) and extends to a depth of
20 centimeters. The integrity of the site has been compromised by cultivation and the grading of
access roads. Due to the lack of artifacts and the sparse nature of the shell scatter, the research
potential of this site has been exhausted with the current investigation. Based on the information
derived from the testing program, Site SDI-16,134 has been evaluated as not important according to
criteria listed in CEQA, Section 15064.5 and City of Carlsbad guidelines. No further
archaeological investigations are recommended for this site.
5.11-2
...
,.
! ...
Ill'
L
Ill'
r , ...
r .. , ...
..
r ..
!I
\ .
]
:1
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
' ·~ ...
' ~
:t
:1
:1
j
-Surface Collection
o -Negative Shovel Test
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,134
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.11-3 Figure 5.11-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-Surface Collection
o -Negative Shovel Test
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,134
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.11-4
l
Figure 5.11-1
(
c
c
c
c
,..
L f
• I.
1" ....
.. I.
View of SDI-16,134, looking north.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0 to 20 centimeters).
5.11-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~ -~ e ·--= ~ u = ·--= -c. ~ Q
0
10
20
Test Unit 1
1
-North Wall --1 Meter
Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) sandy clay.
Light brownish gray to light gray (2.5Y 6/2 to 712) clay with inclusions of
weathered calcareous shale.
North Wall Profile of Unit 1
SDI-16,134
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.11-5
r
Figure 5.11-2
, The Robertson Ranch Project ....
1 -TABLE 5.11-1
l Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,134
l The Robertson Ranch Project
l Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
l 1 0°/0 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 1
l 10-20 em. No Recovery 2
20-30 em. No Recovery 3
' 2 90°/64 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 4
10-20 em. No Recovery 5
l 20-30cm. No Recovery 6
3 180°/66 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 7
l 10-20cm. No Recovery 8
20-30cm. No Recovery 9
J 4 270°/56 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 10
10-20cm. No Recovery 11
' 20-30cm. No Recovery 12
~ 5 0°/55 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 13
10-20 em. No Recovery 14
20-30cm. No Recovery 15
J
·~
~
J
~
•' ,.. 5.11-6
I •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test
Unit
I
Location
from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
333°/13 Feet
TABLE 5.11-2
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-I6,134
The Robertson Ranch Project
Depth Recovery
0-IO em. No Recovery
The Roberrscm Ranch Projecr
Cat.
No.
I6
(3 Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC])
I0-20 em. No Recovery 17
(I Marine Shell Frags., NC)
5.11-7
c
C
c
c
,..
r .... ,. r. f ,.
r~
I
• r .. ..
I~ I ,.
r ...
...
I ..
• ...
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
' ' ' l
l
~
l
l
l
]
The Robertson Ranch Prt!iect
5.12 Site SDI-16,135
5.12.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,135 is a large, light to moderate scatter of marine shell and associated lithic
artifacts located in the southeastern portion of the project area, northwest of the original ranch house
(P-37-024329). The site is situated at the mouth of a drainage south of the large site of SDI-10,611
and approximately 1,000 feet (366 meters) north of Agua Hedionda Creek (Figure 5.0-1). The site
was located during a survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001. The surface expression of
the site included a sparse to moderate marine shell scatter and a limited number of lithic artifacts.
Soils at the site are mapped as the Salinas series, which are well drained and moderately well
drained clay loams that form in sediments washed from Diablo, Linne, Las Flores, Huerhuero, and
Olivenhain soils (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site are limited to natural erosion and
cultivation. Vegetation cover at the site, consisting of short grasses and watermelon vines, was
sparse, allowing for good to excellent surface visibility. The general configuration of the resource
is shown in Figure 5.12-1. The setting of the site is shown in a photograph provided in Plate
5.12-1a.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of 19
shovel test pits and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site, while a
single surface collection was mapped and collected from surface contexts.
5.12.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,135 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
surface artifacts, and excavation of STPs and a single test unit. One artifact, as well as marine shell
and bone, were recovered during investigations at the site, while all marine shell observed was noted
and mapped.
Suiface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts; however only one artifacts was
observed, the location of which is illustrated in Figure 5.12-1. The single specimen was that of a
medium-grained metavolcanic flake found on the east side of the small drainage. The location of
the specimen was measured from the established datum and its location mapped (Table 5.12-1).
Marine shell was observed over a large area, the distribution of which was probably due to the
location of the site in a drainage. The surface collection and mapping of marine shell resulted in the
delineation of the surface expression of the site. The surface expression of the site measures
approximately 195 meters (640 feet) southwest to northeast by 85 meters (280 feet) west to east
(Figure 5.12-1).
5.12-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Rcmdr Prt~iecr
Subsuiface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,135 was investigated by excavating
a total of 19 STPs and one test unit. Shovel test pits were excavated in radial lines from the datum
in order to establish whether a subsurface deposit was present at the site. The locations of the STPs
are shown in Figure 5.12-1. All of the STPs were excavated in decimeter levels to at least 30
centimeters. No artifacts were recovered from the STPs excavated at SDI-16,135; however, marine
shell was observed in seven of the 18 STPs. The STPs positive for marine shell included STP 2, 4,
7, 9, 12, 14, and 15. The amount of marine shell ranged from two fragments in STP 2 to 29
fragments in STP 14. Shovel test provenience and depth information is detailed in Table 5.12-2.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,135 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit
(Figure 5.12-1). The test unit was excavated in standard decimeter levels to 90 centimeters, and all
removed soils were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil proflle from Test Unit 1
was characterized by a brown (lOYR 5/3) sandy loam, underlain by a brown to pale brown (lOYR
5/3 to 6/3) coarse sandy loam; a thin layer of gray to light gray (lOYR 5/1 to 6/1) clay was
encountered between these two horizons at approximately 70 centimeters. A drawing of the north
wall of the test unit is presented in Figure 5.12-2. A color photograph of the north wall of the test
unit is provided in Plate 5.12-1b.
Although no artifacts were recovered from the test unit, marine shell was observed to a depth
of 80 centimeters and animal bone was recovered from two of the levels (0 to 10 and 70 to 80
centimeters). The amount of marine shell observed, and bone that was collected, is listed in Table
5.12-3. The most productive level was that of 60 to 70 centimeters, which produced 140 marine
shell fragments. Marine shell observed included Chione sp. and Pecten sp., with some smaller
unidentifiable fragments. The bone consisted of two fragments, both of which appear to be
intrusions (Table 5.12-4). The specimen found in the upper level was that of pig (Sus scrofa), and
probably represents modern food bone, particularly given the depth at which it was recovered. The
other specimen, recovered from 70 to 80 centimeters in depth, was identified as an unfused small to
medium bird humerus. Because bird bones are more susceptible than mammal bones to
deterioration and are uncommon in prehistoric deposits, this is interpreted as an intrusive specimen,
particularly since no other bone was recovered from the site. Its increased depth may be explained
by rodent activity.
The subsurface deposit at SDI-16,135, delineated by the positive shovel tests, measures 122
meters (400 feet) southwest to northeast by 21 meters (70 feet) west to east. The subsurface area is
considerably smaller than the area of the surface scatter, probably due to the location of the site in a
drainage.
5.12.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,135 consists of a moderately deep deposit of marine
shell with a small amount of bone and lithic artifacts. The overall site dimensions delineated by the
surface shell scatter are 195 meters (640 feet) by 85 meters (280 feet); however, the actual
5.12-2
c
c
c
(
c
' ~ r
(
fC
r~
,.,
r~
r:
r:
l: .. I~ '
, -
]
]
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
~
~
J
Tire Robertson Ranch Projecr
subsurface area of the site is limited to that area in the drainage that measures 122 meters ( 400 feet)
by 21 meters (70 feet). While no artifacts were recovered from the excavations, marine shell was
present in subsurface contexts to a depth of 80 centimeters.
The dominance of marine shell indicates food processing was the primary activity at the site,
while the flake suggests limited lithic tool production or maintenance also occurred. No diagnostic
artifacts were observed. Due to the presence of marine shell to a depth of 80 centimeters, which
indicates the presence of a deep cultural deposit, the site does retain a degree of research potential,
particularly regarding the prehistoric subsistence and possibly the seasonality of the site.
5.12.4 Summary
The investigation of SDI-16,135 revealed a subsurface deposit consisting of marine shell
extending to a depth of 80 centimeters. The recovered artifact consisted of one piece of lithic
production waste from the surface of the site, which indicates that tool manufacture and
maintenance might have occurred in the vicinity. The contents of the deposit indicate that
processing of marine resources was the primary activity at the site. Based on the depth of the
cultural deposit, the site is deemed to retain research potential. Therefore, Site SDI-16, 135 has been
evaluated as an important resource according to criteria listed in CEQA, Section 15064.5, and City
of Carlsbad guidelines.
5.12-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•4J
\ I \ \ \ )
/ ' \
+
0
•
-Surface Collection
-Negative Shovel Test
-Positive Shovel Test
\ f
' )
!
' f ! I l
/ l {
J \ 0 -Test Unit
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,135
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.12-4 Figure 5.12-1
c
c
r:
r:
,.
r .. I
'
View of SDI-16,135 (foreground), looking northeast along seasonal drainage.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0 to 90 centimeters).
5.12-5
I
I
I Test Unit 1·
I I~ North Wall lMeter •I 0
I 10
I 20
~
I ~ ..... ~ 30 e ·-..... = I ~ 40 u
= ·-
I .c so ..... c.. ~ ~
I 60
70
I 80
I 90 I
I I Brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam.
I Gray to light gray (10YR 5/1 to 6/1) clay. I
I Brown to pale brown (10YR 5/3 to 6/3) course sandy loam. I
I
I North Wall Profile of Unit 1
I SDI-16,135
The Robertson Ranch Project
I Figure 5.12-2
5.12--{i
:]
"]
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1 ..
~
1 ..
~
~
~
:1
:1
:1 ,
....
MOM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
TABLE 5.12-1
Surface Recovery Data
Site SDI-16,135
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.12-7
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat.
Description No.
MGM* 1
-----~····-··
I The Roberts<m Ranch Pmject
~·
I r I 1-
TABLE 5.12-2 c I Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,135
I The Robertson Ranch Project c
c I Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range c I
1 0°/0Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 2
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 3 ~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 4
I 2 265°n5 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 5 ~ ( 1 Marine Shell Frag., Not Collected [NC])
10-20cm. No Recovery 6
I (1 Marine Shell Frag., NC) r: 20-30cm. No Recovery 7
I 3 265°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 8 r: 10-20 em. No Recovery 9
20-30cm. No Recovery 10
I 4 250°1150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 11 r:
(1 Marine Shell Frag., NC) ,: I 10-20cm. No Recovery 12
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 13 r: I 30-40cm. No Recovery 14
5 250°/225 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 15 ,. I 10-20cm. No Recovery 16 r ... 20-30cm. No Recovery 17
I 6 250°/300 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 18 r: 10-20cm. No Recovery 19
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 20 ..
30-40cm. No Recovery 21 r ..
I 7 229°/300 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 22 • (6 Marine Shell Frags., NC) 1-10-20cm. No Recovery 23
I (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC) • ! ..
I .. 5.12-8 1 ..
~~---~
;]
The Robertson Ranch Project
]
'l Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
,J
7 229°/300 Feet 20-30cm. No Recovery 24
l 8 229°/225 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 25
10-20cm. No Recovery 26
'l 20-30cm. No Recovery 27
30-40cm. No Recovery 28
40-50cm. No Recovery 29
J 9 229°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 30
(3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
~~J 10-20cm. No Recovery 31
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 32
:] (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 33 I
!l (4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 34
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
50-60cm. No Recovery 35
] (1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
I 60-70cm. No Recovery 36
] 10 229on5 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 37
10-20cm. No Recovery 38
] 20-30cm. No Recovery 39
11 229°/375 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 40
l 10-20cm. No Recovery 41
20-30cm. No Recovery 42
30-40cm. No Recovery 43
l 12 313on5 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 44
( 4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
l 10-20cm. No Recovery 45
( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 46
l 13 313°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 47
10-20cm. No Recovery 48
J 20-30cm. No Recovery 49
,:1 5.12-9
I ,
Tile Robertson Ranch Project ~
I
,.
i
""'"
I Shovel Location Cat. c Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
I 14 343°n5 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 50 c
I (25 Marine Shell Frags., NC) c 10-20cm. No Recovery 51
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 52 c (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 53
I 15 343°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 54 ~
10-20cm. No Recovery 55
I (3 Marine Shell Frags., NC) c 20-30cm. No Recovery 56
I 16 9°/205 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 57 c 10-20 em. No Recovery 58
20-30cm. No Recovery 59
I 17 9on5 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 60 c
10-20cm. No Recovery 61
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 62 c
18 207°/150 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 63
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 64 c 20-30cm. No Recovery 65
I 19 343°/200 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 75 ~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 76
20-30cm. No Recovery 77
I ~
I r:
I f:
I ,:
I r:
I 5.12-10 ,:
i·i
"1
!1 ,.,
'1 ""'
11 -
1 ...
1
1 ·•
1
1 ..
1
1
1 ..
1 •
Test Location
Unit from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
1 233°/152 Feet
TABLE 5.12-3
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,135
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity/
Depth Weight Recovery
0-IOcm. 7.8 g. Bone
The Robertson Ra11cll Project
Cat.
Description No.
Bone 66
(32 Marine Shell Frags., Not Collcected [NC])
10-20cm. No Recovery 67
(11 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 68
( 17 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 69
(12 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 70
(102 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
50-60cm. No Recovery 71
(97 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
60-70cm. No Recovery 72
(140 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
70-80cm. 0.3 g. Bone 73
(19 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
80-90cm. No Recovery 74
5.12-11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·-- -
~
N '
Cat Depth
No. Unit (em) Taxon
66
73
Key*
0-10 Pig (Sus scrofa)
70-80 Unid. small/medium bird
indet. = indeterminate
r =right
TABLE 5.12-4
Detail of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-16, 135
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weight
Element Symmetry* Portion NISP (g) % Fusion
unid. metapodial
humerus
indet.
r
6
0.3 unfused
Cult.
Mod. Age Notes
, ,
1 .. ,
•
1
""'
1 ...
1 • ,
'I •
,
"" ,
... ..
I ...
The Rabertmll Rtmch Prt~iect
5.13 Site SDI-16,136
5.13.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,136 is a prehistoric marine shell and lithic scatter located in the northeast
portion of the project area. The site is situated on the gradual, lower southeast-facing slope of a
prominent hill overlooking the floodplain of the drainage that drains Calavera Lake. The site was
identified in a cultivated flower field during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001.
Soils at the site are mapped as the Altamont series, which are well drained clays that formed in
material weathered from calcareous shale (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site included
cultivation and the grading of a road along the west side of the site. The only vegetation on the site
was the flowers that were being cultivated; ground visibility was good to excellent. The general
configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 5.13-1. The setting of the site is shown in a
photograph provided in Plate 5.13-1.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of 12
shovel test pits and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site, while
four artifacts were mapped and collected from surface contexts.
5.13.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,136 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
surface artifacts and the excavation of STPs and a test unit. Twelve artifacts were recovered during
investigations at the site.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts; all observed artifacts were
provenienced and collected. A datum was established at a point from which provenience
information could be easily gathered. The locations of the surface collections are illustrated in
Figure 5.13-1. The surface collection consisted of four artifacts, one flake, one core tool, and two
manos (one fragment and one complete specimen). The artifacts are listed with provenience
information in Table 5.13-1. The shell scatter was slightly larger than the distribution of artifacts
(Figure 5.13-1). The surface artifact collection and mapping of marine shell resulted in the
delineation of the surface expression of the site, which measured approximately 91 meters (300
feet) southwest to northeast by 44 meters (145 feet) northwest to southeast.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,136 was investigated by excavating
a total of 12 STPs and one test unit. Shovel test pits were excavated in the vicinity of the surface
artifacts in order to establish whether a subsurface expression existed at the site. The locations of
the STPs are shown in Figure 5.13-1. All of the STPs were excavated in decimeter levels to at least
5.13-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Roberr.wu Ranch Project
30 centimeters. Three of the 12 STPs produced artifacts, while five of the STPs produced marine
shell remains. The recovered collection consisted of six artifacts, two ceramic sherds and two flakes
from STP 5, a hammer/scraper multi-use tool from STP 6, and a flake from STP 11. The quantity
of marine shell ranged from one fragment in STP 10 to 21 fragments in STP 1. The artifacts were
recovered to a maximum depth of 50 centimeters, while the marine shell extended to a maximum
depth of 40 centimeters. The shovel tests recovery information is summarized in Table 5.13-2 and
detailed in Table 5.13-3.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,136 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit.
The test unit was positioned near STP 5, the shovel test pit that produced the most artifacts (Figure
5.13-1). The test unit was excavated in standard decimeter levels to a culturally sterile soil horizon,
and all removed soils were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil profile from the
test unit was characterized by a very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2) silty loam, underlain by a dark
grayish brown (10YR 4/2) clay at 35 to 40 centimeters. A drawing of the north wall of the test unit
is presented in Figure 5.13-2.
The test unit excavation resulted in the recovery of an additional two artifacts, one piece of
debitage at 10 to 20 centimeters and one flake at 30 to 40 centimeters (Table 5.13-4). Marine shell
was also present in each level, but in relatively small quantities (ranging from one to 25 fragments in
each tO-centimeter level). The STP and test unit excavations revealed the presence of a sparse
subsurface deposit of lithic and marine shell material. The subsurface deposit at SDI-16,136,
delineated by the positive shovel tests, measures 37 meters (120 feet) northwest to southeast by 15
meters (50 feet) west to east. The subsurface area is considerably smaller than the area of the
surface scatter, probably due to the repeated plowing of the field.
5.13.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,136 consists of a sparse surface and subsurface
expression of a small temporary camp. The overall site dimensions delineated by the surface shell
scatter are 91 meters (300 feet) by 44 meters (145 feet); however, the actual subsurface area of the
site is limited to an area on the east side of the hill measuring 37 meters (120 feet) by 15 meters (50
feet). A total of 12 artifacts were recovered from the investigation of the site, four from the surface
and eight from the subsurface investigation (Table 5.13-5). Only a small amount of marine shell,
and no bone was recovered from the site.
Although small, the collection included a range of artifacts consisting of lithic production
waste, ground stone, a multi-use tool, a core tool, and two ceramic sherds. Both manos were
unifacial and exhibited light use wear, indicating they were not used extensively for resource
processing. The multi-use tool was a scraper that was later used as a hammerstone. Measurements
for the tools recovered from the site are provided in Table 5.13-6. Although most of the lithic
material recovered from the site is available in the vicinity of the site, a single fragment of chert was
also recovered (Table 5.13-7). The presence of chert on this site suggests the possibility of a trade
connection to the desert region to the northeast of San Diego County.
5.13-2
r
(
(
(
(
c
r
(
r:
f~
, ..
;"'
!' ~·
1 '"'
1 ,.. ,
•
' ' ' :1
' :1
:1
1 ..
,
...
Tire Roberr.wu Ranclr Prt•ject
The site is interpreted as a small campsite where activities included lithic tool manufacture
and maintenance and resource processing. The presence of marine shell suggests that food
processing focused on marine resources, particularly Pecten and Chione sps. The presence of
ceramic sherds indicates the site dates to the Late Prehistoric occupation of the area.
Although a range of artifacts was recovered, the cultural remains themselves are very sparse .
Furthermore, the site has been sufficiently disturbed from repeated cultivation, particularly given
that the deposit is relatively shallow (40 centimeters in depth). The amount of marine shell present
is relatively small, and no animal bone was recovered. Furthermore, the cultural affiliation of the
site has been established by the presence of ceramic sherds. It is unlikely, particularly given the
level of disturbance, that the site would provide additional research potential.
5.13.4 Summary
Investigations at SDI-16,136 revealed the remains of a sparse, Late Prehistoric campsite.
The recovered materials indicate that site activities were focused primarily on lithic tool production
and maintenance and marine shell processing.
Although a range of tools was recovered, the deposit was relatively sparse; only eight
artifacts were recovered from 12 STPs and one test unit. Furthermore, marine shell was relatively
sparse, and no bone was identified. The presence of ceramic sherds has provided a Late Prehistoric
temporal assignment to this small site. It is recommended that the research potential of this site has
been exhausted with the current testing program. Based on the information derived from the testing
program, SDI-16,136 is considered not important according to CEQA criteria and City of Carlsbad
guidelines. No further archaeological investigation is recommended for this site.
5.13-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+ -Surface Collection
o -Negative Shovel Test
• -Positive Shovel Test
0 -TestUnit
· •oTUl
ST9• STS
,
;
I I
f l
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,136
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.13-4
X: tJI..J
(
r:
r" ...
r,. ·-
..
f ..
Ill
r ..
r:
Figure 5.13-1
View of SDI-16,136 (within and left of the green/red field in center), looking south.
Plate 5.13-1
5.13-5
I
I
I
I North Wall Test Unit 1
, .... 1 Meter •I I 0 C'l.l ~
QJ ....
I QJ e 10 ·-.... = QJ
I u 20
= ·--=
I Q.JO
QJ
Q
40
I
I
I
I • Very dark grayish brown (lOYR 3/2) silt loam.
Dark grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) clay.
I
I
I
I r
I North Wall Profile of Unit 1 I
I SDI-16,136 r The Robertson Ranch Project
I 'I Figure 5.13-2 ~
5.13-6
J
J
J
]
]
]
]
]
J
J
:1
J
]
Recovery Location
Location from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
1 0°/0 Feet
2 35°/28 Feet
2 35°/28 Feet
3 116°/44 Feet
TABLE 5.13-1
Surface Recovery Data
Site SDI-16,136
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity Recovery
1 Mano, Uniface, Pecked
1 Core Tool
1 Flake
1 Mano Fragment, Uniface, Polished
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.13,6
The Rnbertso11 Ranch Project
Cat.
Material No.
Granite 1
MGM* 2
MGM 3
Granite 4
I
I
I
I
I ( Recovery Category
I Lithic Production Waste:
Flakes
I Multi-Use Tools:
Scraper/Hammers tone
I Pottery:
Potsherds, TBW*
I Totals
TBW* = Tizon Brown Ware
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5.13-2
Summary of Shovel Test Recovery
Site SDI-16, 136
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity
3
1
2
6
5.13-7
Tlte Robenson Ranch Project
Percent ]
50.00
16.67
33.33
100.00
r:
J
]
J
J
l
l
~l
l
]
•,
]
]
]
]
]
J
l
]
l
:1
Shovel Location
Test from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
1 0°/0Feet
2 224 o /31 Feet
3 45°/47 Feet
4 94°/45 Feet
5 146°/43 Feet
TBW* = Tizon Brown Ware
The Robertson Ranch Project
TABLE 5.13-3
Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,136
The Robertson Ranch Project
Depth Quantity Recovery
Cat.
Material No.
0-10 em. No Recovery 5
(1 Marine Shell Frag., Not Collected [NC])
10-20cm. No Recovery 6
(4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 7
(6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 8
(10 Marine Shell Fr~gs., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 9
0-lOcm. No Recovery 10
10-20cm. No Recovery 11
20-30cm. No Recovery 12
0-10 em. No Recovery 13
10-20cm. No Recovery 14
20-30cm. No Recovery 15
0-lOcm. No Recovery 16
10-20cm. No Recovery 17
20-30cm. No Recovery 18
0-IOcm. No Recovery 19
10-20 em. No Recovery 20
(1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
20-30cm. 2 Potsherds TBW* 21
30-40cm. 1 Flake Chert 22
( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
40-50cm. 1 Flake Quartz 23
5.13-8
~-· ~~-___.....-.. -~~-·~-·---
I The Roberrson Ranch Projecr r-
I ~
I r ~ Shovel Location Cat.
Test from Datum A Depth Quantity Recovery Material No.
I
Azimuth/Range ~ 5 146°/43 Feet 50-60cm. No Recovery 24
I 6 146°/82 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 25 ~ 10-20 em. 1 Scraper/Hammerstone MGM** 26
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 27 ~ (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 28
rc I 7 146°/119 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 29
10-20cm. No Recovery 30 ~ I 20-30cm. No Recovery 31
I 8 315°/42 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 32 rc 10-20cm. No Recovery 33
20-30cm. No Recovery 34
I 9 175°/41 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 35 f[
10-20cm. No Recovery 36
f[ I 20-30cm. No Recovery 37
(3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 30-40cm. No Recovery 38 rr ( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 39
I 10 130°/32 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 40 lL ( 1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 41 ,.
20-30cm. No Recovery 42 f.,,
I 11 175°/76 Feet 0-10 em. 1 Flake MGM 43
,., ,_
10-20cm. No Recovery 44
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 45 r: 30-40cm. No Recovery 46
I 12 175°/139 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 51 ,
10-20cm. No Recovery 52 li. 20-30cm. No Recovery 53
I MGM** = Medium-grained Metavolcanic ~~
I 5.13-9
,.
1-
J
J
~
J
J
J
l
l
J
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Test Location
TABLE 5.13-4
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,136
The Robertson Ranch Project
Unit from Datum A Depth Quantity
Azimuth/Range
Recovery
1 144 o /44 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery
The Roberrson Ranch Project
Cat.
Material No.
47
(25 Marine Shell, Not Collected [NC])
10-20 em. 1 Debitage Quartzite 48
(21 Marine Shell, NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 49
(4 Marine Shell, NC)
30-40cm. 1 Flake MGM* 50
(5 Marine Shell, NC)
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.13-10
I ,
Tire Robertson Ranch Project ~
I c
I TABLE 5.13-5 c Summary of Artifact Recovery
I
Site SDI-16,136
The Robertson Ranch Project c
I Recovery Category Surface Shovel Tests Test Units Total Percent ~
I Ground Stone Tools: c
Manos 2 2 16.67
I Lithic Production Waste: ~
Debitage 1 1 8.33
I Flakes 1 3 1 5 41.67 ~ Percussion Tools:
I Core Tool 1 1 8.33
JC Multi-Use Tools:
Scraper/Hammerstone 1 1 8.33
I Pottery: J[
Potsherds, TBW* 2 2 16.67
I Totals 4 6 2 12 100.00 r:
I Percent 33.33 50.00 16.67 100.00 r:
I TBW* = Tizon Brown Ware I:
I j[
I , Jl
I ..
1·
I r~
I 1:
I 5.13-ll l~
~
J
~
~
~
:a
~
l
:a
=-l
l
l
l
l
:1
:1
:1
:1
Cat. Tool Description
No.
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos:
TABLE 5.13-6
Lithic Tool Measurement Data
Site SDI-16,136
The Robertson Ranch Project
Dimensions (in centimeters}
Length Width Thickness
1 Mano, Uniface, Pecked, Light-Use 12.3 9.7 7.0
4 Mano Fragment, Uniface, Polished, 13.9 8.9 4.6
Light-Use
Core Tools:
2 Core Tool 9.6 5.9 3.4
Multi-Use Tools:
26 Hammer/Scraper 6.6 6.3 2.6
*MGM=Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.13-12
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weight Material
(in grams)
1,216.1 Granite
744.9 Granite
269.5 MOM*
150.5 MOM
I -
The Robertson Ranclr Project ~
I
,.
~
TABLE 5.13-7
I
,...
Lithic Material Distribution ~
Site SDI-16,136
I The Robertson Ranch Project ,
~
I Material c Artifact Category Chert Granite MGM* Quartz Quartzite Total Percent
I Ground Stone Tools: c
Manos 2 2 20.00
I Lithic Production Waste: c Debitage 1 1 10.00
Flakes 1 3 1 5 50.00 c I Percussion Tools:
Core Tool 1 1 10.00
I Multi-Use Tools: J[
Scraper/Hammerstone 1 1 10.00
I Totals 1 2 5 1 1 10 100.00 I[
I Percent 10.00 20.00 50.00 10.00 10.00 100.00 l:
I MGM* =Medium-grained metavolcanic ,:
I f:
I ,:
I J:
I ,:
I ,.
1-
I ,:
I 5.13-13 ,:
,]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
J
J
]
J
]
J
J
J
J
Tile Robenson Ranch Pmject
5.14 Site SDI-16,137
5.14.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,137 is a prehistoric marine shell and lithic scatter located on the prominent
terrace in the center of the project area, where the Robertson's currently llltve a residence. The site
overlooks Agua Hedionda Creek to the southeast and an unnamed seasonal drainage to the
northwest. The site was identified during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001.
Soils at the site are mapped as the Altamont series, which are well drained clays that formed in
material weathered from calcareous shale (Bowman 1973). The site was extensively disturbed
when the current house was constructed, including the grading of the top of the ridge for the house
pad and driveway and terracing of the southern slope. Vegetation on the site consisted of landscape
plants and eucalyptus trees; the area is covered by structures, landscaping, and pavement, and thus
ground visibility was very poor. The general configuration of the resource is shown in Figure
5.14-1. The setting of the site is shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.14-la. In the
photograph, terracing of the southern slope has occurred in the area of the dark eucalyptus trees to
the right of the residence.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of 17
shovel test pits and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site; the
surface expression of the site consists entirely of marine shell.
5.14.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,137 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of surface
expression and the excavation of STPs and a test unit. A single artifact was recovered during
investigations at the site.
Surface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts, but none were observed. The extent
of the marine shell scatter measured 146 meters (480 feet) southwest to northeast by 101 meters
(330 feet) northwest to southeast and was focused on the top and upper slopes of the southern end
of the terrace. The distribution of marine shell is illustrated in Figure 5.9-1. The area was heavily
disturbed during the construction of the house, which, based on the distribution of marine shell, sits
in the middle of the site. Although the extent of the scatter was mapped, no marine shell was
collected from the surface of the site. Marine shell observed included Chione and Pecten sps.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,137 was investigated by excavating
a total of 17 STPs and one test unit. Shovel test pits were positioned across the terrace in the areas
where marine shell was observed on the surface of the site; every effort was made to place STPs in
5.14-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire Roberts1111 Rctlll'lr Project
undisturbed soils. The locations of the STPs are shown in Figure 5.14-1. All of the shovel tests
were excavated in decimeter levels to at least 30 centimeters. No artifacts were recovered from the
STPs excavated at SDI-16,137, although shell was observed in nine of the 17 shovel tests. Marine
shell was observed in STPs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 16, with the quantity ranging from five (STP
7) to 70 (STP 4) fragments. The maximum depth of marine shell in the STPs was 40 centimeters.
Shovel test provenience and depth information, as well as marine shell observed, is detailed in Table
5.14-1.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16,137 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit.
The test unit was positioned between STPs 11, 13, and 14 (Figure 5.14-1). The test unit was
excavated in standard decimeter levels to a culturally sterile soil horizon, and all removed soils were
sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil profile from the test unit was characterized
by a dark brown (lOYR 3/3) silty loam, underlain by a dark brown to brown (lOYR 4/3) compact
clay at 20 to 32 centimeters. A drawing of the north wall of the test unit is presented in Figure
5.14-2. A color photograph of the north wall of the test unit is provided in Plate 5.14-lb.
The test unit excavation resulted in the recovery of the only artifact observed at the site, a
single hammerstone fragment from the 0 to 10 centimeter level (fable 5.14-2). Marine shell was
also observed to a depth of 20 centimeter levels, but no artifacts or marine shell was present below
the 20 centimeter level of the unit. The STP and test unit excavations revealed the presence of a
sparse subsurface deposit of lithic and marine shell material. The subsurface deposit at SDI-
16,137, delineated by the positive shovel tests, measures 91 meters (300 feet) southwest to northeast
by 76 meters (250 feet) northwest to southeast. The subsurface area of the site is confined to a
smaller area than the surface shell scatter, not surprising given the level of disturbance.
5.14.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,137 consists of a heavily disturbed, sparse surface
and subsurface expression of a small temporary camp. The overall site dimensions delineated by
the surface shell scatter are 146 meters (480 feet) by 101 meters (330 feet); however, the actual
subsurface area of the site is limited to an area on the apex of the terrace measuring 91 meters (300
feet) by 76 meters (250 feet). Only one artifact, a hammerstone fragment, was recovered from the
investigation of the site (Table 5.14-5). The hammerstone fragment exhibits evidence of burning
and is derived from locally available medium-grained metavolcanic rock. The specimen measures
6.7 by 5.7 by 3.7 centimeters and weighs 138.6 grams.
The site is interpreted as a small campsite where activities included lithic tool manufacture
and/or maintenance and resource processing. The presence of marine shell suggests that food
processing focused on marine resources, particularly Pecten and Chione sps. No culturally
diagnostic material was recovered from the site.
Although marine shell extends to 40 centimeters in depth, the cultural remains themselves
are vecy sparse. The presence of the house in the middle of the subsurface deposit suggests a
significant portion of the site has been impacted and thus its integrity reduced. Due to the amount
5.14-2
c
c
c
~
(
(
r:
l:
r:
J:
,:
r:
f:
J~
!:
,:
r:
,:
....
""" ~
~
J
l
l
l
1
·~
:J
Tile Roberrsmr Rmrclr ProjecT
of disturbance at the site and the lack of a significant subsurface cultural deposit, it is determined
that the research potential of this site has been exhausted with the current testing program.
5.14.4 Summary
Investigations at SDI-16,137 revealed the remains of a sparse prehistoric camp site where
activities included lithic production and/or maintenance and marine shell processing. The cultural
remains at SDI-16,137 were very sparse; only one artifact and scattered marine shell were observed
during the excavation if 17 STPs and one test unit. Marine shell was also relatively sparse across
the surface of the site. No evidence of the cultural period during which the site was occupied was
recovered. It appears that the upper levels of the site were removed during the construction of the
existing house. It is, therefore, recommended that the research potential of this site has been
exhausted with the current testing program. Based on the information derived from the testing
program, SDI-16,137 is considered not important according to CEQA criteria and City of Carlsbad
guidelines. No further archaeological investigation of the site is recommended.
5.14-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o -Negative Shovel Test
• -Positive Shovel Test
D -TestUnit
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,137
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.14-4 Figure 5.14-1
I
•
\1111'
•
II-'
•
' I'*' ,.
~
• ~
~
•• l·
t:
{:
1:
l:
l:
t:
1:
1:
• l~
l:
f:
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
View of ridge on which SDI-16,137 is located, looking southeast.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0 to 30 centimeters).
Plate 5.14-1
5.14-5
I
I
I
I North Wall Test Unitt··
I~ 1 Meter •I I tl.l
"'" ·o ~ -~
I e ·-10 -= ~ u
I = 20 ·-..= -c..
I ~ Q 30
I Ia -Roots f
I • Dark brown (lOYR 3/3) silty loam.
I • Dark brown to brown (lOYR 4/3) compact clay.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I North Wall Profile of Unit 1
SDI-16,137
I The Robertson Ranch Project
Figure 5.14-2
~--~--~---~"---"~. ·-· -'--~~-·~------.. ~.-~,---
J The Robertso11 Ra11ch Project
J
TABLE 5.14-1
J Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,137
J The Robertson Ranch Project
] Shovel Location Cat.
Test Datum from Datum Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
]
1 B 83°n7 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 1
] (1 Marine Shell Fnig., Not Collected [NC])
10-20 em. No Recovery 2
(5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
] 20-30cm. No Recovery 3
(14 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 4 ] (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
2 B 158°n5 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 5
] 10-20cm. No Recovery 6
20-30cm. No Recovery 7
] 3 B 32°/33 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 8
(7 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
l 10-20cm. No Recovery 9
(7 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 10
] (3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40cm. No Recovery 11
(1 Marine Shell Frag., NC)
] 40-50cm. No Recovery 12
4 B 331 o /50 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 13
] ( 45 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 14
(25 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
J 20-30cm. No Recovery 15
5 B 314°/84 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 16
] 10-20 em. No Recovery 17
20-30cm. No Recovery 18
J
J 5.14-7
I •
Tile Robertson Ranclr Project
,..
I
,. ,.
I Shovel Location Cat.
,
I
Test Datum from Datum Depth Recovery No. ~
Azimuth/Range
I 6 B 178°1140 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 19 ~
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 20 ~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 21
I 7 A 171°1188 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 22 ~ (5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 23 ~ I 20-30cm. No Recovery 24
8 A 185°/187 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 25 ~ I (6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 em. No Recovery 26
I
(5 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 27
I 9 A 176°1114Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 28 fL 10-20cm. No Recovery 29
20-30cm. No Recovery 30
1"' I ' 10 A 164°/252 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 31 I.
10-20cm. No Recovery 32
fl I 20-30cm. No Recovery 33
11 A 208°/59 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 34 rr I (8 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 35
I
(16 Marine Shell Frags., NC) r~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 36
(9 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 30-40cm. No Recovery 37 r: (6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
12 A 9°/17 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 38 ...
I )-. 10-20cm. No Recovery 39
20-30cm. No Recovery 40 ~~ I 13 A 255°/67 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 41
(15 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ...
I I~
,.
5.14-8 1-
-~-~~=--------·-~·-····---··'·~· -···---~ .. -~-~
J The Roberuon Ranch Project
J
J
,
Shovel Location Cat.
Test Datum from Datum Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
]
13 A 255°/67 Feet 10-20 ern. No Recovery 42
] (5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30 ern. No Recovery 43
(5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
J 30-40 ern. No Recovery 44
14 A 220°n4Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 45
] (4 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 ern. No Recovery 46
(6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
] 20-30 ern. No Recovery 47
(8 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
30-40 ern. No Recovery 48 ] (3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50crn. No Recovery 49
] 15 A 278°/133 Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 50
10-20 ern. No Recovery 51
] 20-30 ern. No Recovery 52
16 A 236°/156 Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 53
] (10 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20 ern. No Recovery 54
(5 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
] 20-30 ern. No Recovery 55
17 A 235°/164 Feet 0-10 ern. No Recovery 56
J 10-20 ern. No Recovery 57
20-30 ern. No Recovery 58
J
J
J
:1
:1 5.14-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Location
Unit Datum from Datum
Azimuth/Range
A 231°/55 Feet
TABLE 5.14-2
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,137
The Robertson Ranch Project
Depth Quantity Recovery
Tire Robertson Ranch Project
Cat.
Material No.
0-10 em. Hammerstone Fragment, MGM* 59
Undetermined, Burned
(1 0 Marine Shell, Not Collected [NC])
I0-20cm. No Recovery 60
( 15 Marine Shell, NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 61
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.14-10
•
fl'o ,
!-'
r ,. ,. ,..
~
~
~
J[
f[
f~
J~
rc
rc
f:
1:
,r
,:
!:
]
J
J
J
J
]
l
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
,J
J
Tile Robertson Rancll Project
5.15 Site SDI-16,138
5.15.1 Site Description
Site SDI-16,138 is a small scatter of marine shell and associated lithic artifacts located on a
gradual slope west of the original Kelly Ranch House (P-37-024.29). The site is situated
approximately 1,000 feet (305 meters) north of Agua Hedionda Creek (Figure 5.0-1) and was
located during the survey of the project area by BFSA in July 2001. Soils at the site are mapped as
the Altamont series, which are well drained clays that formed in material weathered from calcareous
shale (Bowman 1973). Disturbances at the site include natural erosion, pedestrian traffic due to its
proximity to the farmhouse, and cultivation of an orchard at the southern edges of the site.
Vegetation cover at the site consists of short grasses over most of the site and orange trees at the
southern extent of the site. The general configuration of the resource is shown in Figure 5.15-1.
The setting of the site is shown in a photograph provided in Plate 5.15-1 a.
The evaluation program for the site was conducted in December 2001. A series of 14
shovel test pits and one test unit were excavated during the subsurface evaluation of the site, while
seven artifacts were mapped and collected from surface contexts.
5.15.2 Description of Field Investigations
The field investigations at SDI-16,138 were conducted using the standard methodologies
described in Section 4.0. Testing of the site consisted of the identification and mapping of all
surface artifacts, and excavation of STPs and a single test unit. Seven artifacts and a small amount
of animal bone were recovered during investigations at the site, while all marine shell observed was
noted and mapped.
Suiface Recordation
The entire surface of the site was inspected for artifacts. A total of seven artifacts from four
different surface locations were collected, the location of which are illustrated in Figure 5.15-1.
The surface artifacts are listed with provenience information in Table 5.15-1. The collection
consists of six lithic production waste (four debitage and two flakes) and a single mano fragment.
Marine shell was observed over a slightly larger area than the artifacts. The surface collection and
mapping of marine shell resulted in the delineation of the surface expression of the site. The
surface expression of the site, delineated by the artifacts and marine shell, was approximately 101
meters (330 feet) north to south by 76 meters (250 feet) west to east.
Subsurface Excavation
The potential for subsurface cultural deposits at SDI-16,138 was investigated by excavating
a total of 14 STPs and one test unit. Shovel test pits were excavated in radial lines from the datum
in order to establish whether a subsurface deposit was present at the site. The locations of the STPs
are shown in Figure 5.15-1. All of the STPs were excavated in decimeter levels to at least 20
5.15-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranclr Project
centimeters. No artifacts were recovered from the STPs excavated at SDI-16,138; however, marine
shell was observed in eight of the 14 STPs. The positive STPs included STPs 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and
12. The amount of marine shell ranged from two fragments in each of STPs 4 and 9 to 298
fragments in STP 1. Shovel test provenience and depth infonnation is detailed in Table 5.15-2.
Marine shell was recovered to a maximum depth of 50 centimeters.
Subsurface testing of SDI-16, 138 continued with the excavation of one standard test unit
(Figure 5.15-1). The test unit was excavated in standard decimeter levels to 40 centimeters, and all
removed soils were sifted through 118-inch mesh hardware cloth. The soil profile from Test Unit 1
was characterized by a very dark grayish brown to dark brown (IOYR 3/2 to 3/3) silty loam,
underlain by a brown (lOYR 5/3) sandy clay. A drawing of the north wall of the test unit is
presented in Figure 5.15-2. A color photograph of the north wall of the test unit is provided in
Plate 5.15-1b.
Although no artifacts were recovered from the test unit, marine shell was observed in every
level excavated and animal bone was recovered from 20 to 30 centimeters. The amount of marine
shell observed and the amount of bone that was collected is listed in Table 5.15-3. The most
productive level was that of 20 to 30 centimeters, which produced over 1,000 marine shell
fragments. Marine shell observed included Chione sp. and Pecten sp., with some smaller
unidentifiable fragments. The bone from the site consisted of one fragment identified as
medium/small mammal; no evidence of burning was identified on the specimen (Table 5.15-4 ). No
artifacts were recovered from the test unit excavations. Because no artifacts were recovered in the
frrst 40 centimeters, excavation of the test unit was halted as soon as the amount of marine shell
began to decline between 30 and 40 centimeters (from approximately 1,270 to 358 fragments).
The subsurface deposit at SDI-16,138, delineated by the shovel tests that produced marine
shell or bone, measures 76 meters (250 feet) north to south by 52 meters (170 feet) west to east,
indicating the subsurface area is smaller than the area of the surface scatter.
5.15.3 Discussion
The testing demonstrated that SDI-16,138 consists of a moderate scatter of marine shell
with a small amount of bone and lithic artifacts. The overall site dimensions, delineated by the shell
and the seven lithic artifacts, measure 101 meters (330 feet) by 76 meters (250 feet); however, the
actual subsurface area of the site is limited to an area measuring 76 meters (250 feet) by 52 meters
(170 feet). The seven lithic artifacts recovered from the surface of the site are all derived from
locally available materials, medium-grained metavolcanic rock, granite, and quartzite. Only marine
shell and animal bone were observed in subsurface contexts; no artifacts were recovered from the
excavations.
The presence of both marine shell and bone indicate food processing was the primary
activity at the site, while the surface artifacts suggests limited lithic tool production or maintenance
also occurred. No diagnostic artifacts were observed. Due to the presence of both marine shell and
animal bone, the site does retain a degree of research potential, particularly regarding the prehistoric
5.15-2
~
~
c
(
~
J[
r:
,:
1:'
,:
,:
r:
flllll! ,.,
I 1,. ...... -
-
"" d
....
d
d
-d
"'~ ._1
....
~
""" ·~
-.J
Tile Robertsou Rauch Pmject
subsistence and possibly the seasonality of the site.
5.15.4 Summary
The investigation of SDI-16,138 revealed a subsurface deposit consisting of marine shell
and a small amount of animal bone. The recovered artifacts include six pieces of lithic production
waste and a mano fragment from the surface of the site, suggesting that resource processing as well
as limited tool manufacture and maintenance occurred at the site. Marine shell observed at the site
indicates that processing of this resource (primarily Chione sp. and Pecten sp.) was the primary
activity at the site. Based on the depth of the deposit and the presence of two types of cultural
ecofacts, particularly the quantity of marine shell, the site is deemed to retain research potential.
Therefore, Site SDI-16,138 has been evaluated as an imE2,rtant resource according to criteria listed
in CEQA, Secti~~~·50'64~5, and CitY. ~Carl~b~dg~deline~~~-~" ~-"'"· -" .. ·. ···--·· -~--~,······"~··
5.15-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' •
·· .............. _ _....-.··-··-·· ...... ··
\
.~·
\\ .",-.~ ._,..
(:J (.)
Q.,~~) 0
+ -Surface Collection
o -Negative Shovel Test
• -Positive Shovel Test
0 -Test Unit
U.ll
Excavation Location Map
Site SDI-16,138
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.15-4
f
Figure 5.15-1
...
,.
I
'
•
I
I
I
.I
I
I
View of SDI-16,138 (arrow), looking east.
View of north wall profile of Test Unit 1 (0 to 40 centimeters).
5.15-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 tn -~ ~ a 10 ·-...... = ~ u 20
= ·-..c Q. 30
~ Q
40
1
..,. North Wall Test Unit 1
1 Meter
~ -Shell
• Very dark grayish brown to dark brown (lOYR 3/2 to 3/3) silty loam.
• Brown (lOYR 5/3) sandy clay.
North Wall Profile of Unit 1
SDI-16,138
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.15--6
... I
Figure 5.15-2
--
--
.... -
I
~
/ Recovery Location
Location from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
1 153°/84 Feet
2 138°n4 Feet
3 6°/92 Feet
4 343°/64 Feet
TABLE 5.15-1
Surface Recovery Data
Site SDI-16,138
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity Recovery
3 Debitage
1 Mano, Biface, Polished, Pecked
1 Flake
1 Flake
1 Debitage
MGM* = Medium-grained metavolcanic
5.15-7
The Robertson Ra11ch Project
Cat.
Material No.
MGM*
Quartzite
Granite
MGM
MGM
1
2
3
4
5
I w
The Robertson Ranch Project ..
I •
iii
TABLE 5.15-2
I ,.,
Shovel Test Excavation Data ..
Site SDI-16,138
I The Robertson Ranch Project , ..
I Shovel Location Cat.
,
~ Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
Azimuth/Range
I ,,
~ 1 0°/0Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 6
I (38 Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected [NC]) ~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 7
(52 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 8 ~ (98 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
I 30-40cm. No Recovery 9 ~ (104 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
40-50cm. No Recovery 10
I (6 Marine Shell Frags., NC) [t 2 92°/56 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 11
I 10-20cm. No Recovery 12 t: 20-30cm. No Recovery 13
I 3 272°/48 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 14
lC (6 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 15
I ( 1 Marine Shell Frags., NC) lC 20-30cm. No Recovery 16
I 4 272°/96 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 17 l[ (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
10-20cm. No Recovery 18
I 20-30cm. No Recovery 19 l:
5 230°/57 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 20
I (23 Marine Shell Frags., NC) t: 10-20cm. No Recovery 21
I
(7 Marine Shell Frags., NC) t: 20-30cm. No Recovery 22
I 6 230 o /82 Feet 0-lOcm. No Recovery 23 l:
I 5.15-8 ,:
..,
The Robertson Ranch Project
-..
~
Shovel Location Cat.
."1 Test from Datum A Depth Recovery No.
-~
Azimuth/Range
-~ 6 230 °/82 Feet 10-20 em. No Recovery 24
""' 20-30cm. No Recovery 25 d 7 189°/82 Feet 0-10 Cni. No Recovery 26 ... (25 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~ 10-20 em. No Recovery 27
(8 Marine Shell Frags., NC) .,...
~ 20-30cm. No Recovery 28
(2 Marine Shell Frags., NC) .. 30-40cm . No Recovery 29 ~ 8 189°/136 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 30
.... (9 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
~ 10-20cm. No Recovery 31
(3 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
.,
~ 9 8ons Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 32
(1 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
·~ 10-20 em. No Recovery 33
-J (l Marine Shell Frags., NC)
20-30cm. No Recovery 34
. ,.. 30-40cm . No Recovery 35
-I 10 332°n5 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 36 ... 10-20cm. No Recovery 37 ~I 20-30cm. No Recovery 38
""" 11 8°/127 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 39 ·I 10-20cm. No Recovery 40
""' 20-30cm. No Recovery 41 ~I 12 272°/136 Feet 0-10cm. No Recovery 42 ... (2 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
·I 10-20 em. No Recovery 43
20-30cm. No Recovery 44 .... (1 Marine Shell Frags., NC) ~I 30-40cm. No Recovery 45
.....
-I 13 189°/183 Feet 0-10 em. No Recovery 46
...
~I 5.15-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Shovel
Test
13
14
Location
from Datum A
Azimuth/Range
272°/175 Feet
Depth Recovery
l0-20cm. No Recovery
20-30cm. No Recovery
0-10 em. No Recovery
10-20 em. No Recovery
20-30cm. No Recovery
5.15-10
The Robenson Ranch Projecr
Cat.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
•
• I
~
til'
!-
• l·
"" I·
J
]
J
J
J
J
l
l
]
]
]
,]
l
l
J
J
J
J
l
Test
Unit
1
Location
from Datum A Depth
Azimuth/Range
325°/8 Feet 0-lOcm.
10-20cm.
20-30cm.
30-40cm.
TABLE 5.15-3
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-16,138
The Robertson Ranch Project
Quantity/
Weight Recovery
The Robertson Ranch Project
Cat.
Description No.
No Recovery 52
(308 Marine Shell Frags., Not Collected[NC])
No Recovery 53
(519 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
0.3 g. Bone Bone 54
(1270 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
No Recovery 55
(358 Marine Shell Frags., NC)
5.15-Il
-------------------
' '
Cat Depth
TABLE 5.15-4
Detail of Faunal Recovery
Site SDI-16,138
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weight
No. Unit (em) Taxon Element Symmetry Portion NISP (g) % Fusion
54 20-30 Unid. Small/medium mammal unid. long bone 0.2
~---, ,, f1 ,, ,, ,,
Cult.
Mod. Age Notes
J
J
j
~
l
~
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
:t
:I
:I
:I
Tile Robenwm Rllucll Pn~ject
5.16 Historical Evaluation of the Kelly Ranch House
5.16.1 Field Documentation
The field documentation of the historic Kelly Ranch House included identification of the
original house and additions (Figure 5.16-1). The original house configuration consists of a
rectangular structure that was constructed as a single wall building on wooden posts and piers. The
architectural style is a single story vernacular Victorian with a medium pitched hip roof. Siding is
board and batten for most of the structure, but three-inch-wide vertical boards with butt joints cover
the exterior of the east side addition (Plate 5.16-1). The house .is painted dark red with white trim.
The roof is presently covered with sheet composition roofmg that was laid over an earlier generation
of wood shingles. The fireplace was constructed of fieldstone over brick at the rear or north side of
the house (Plate 5.16-7). A porch was constructed on the south side or front of the house (Plate
5.16-2). Windows are predominately double hung, but fixed windows are fitted to the two gable-
end additions. The only original windows are on the west side of the building (Plate 5.16-2).
Additions include a bath and kitchen on the north side of the house (Plate 5.16-3), an expanded wall
on the east side of the house (Plate 5.16-1), and an extension on the south side of the house beside
the porch (Plate 5.16-3). BFSA did not access the inside of the house during the course of this
study. For that reason, no detailed floor plan of the house interior was made. The footprint
furnished as Figure 5.16-1 is a result of field identity of the original house and additions from the
exterior. Exterior plumbing features such as drain vents and water piping was used to identify the
probable location of the present kitchen and bath.
The ranch house is in poor condition and has not been well maintained in recent years.
Major repairs such as a more durable foundation would be needed as a forerunner to preservation
of the structure. The kitchen addition is in poor condition either as a result of poor original
construction or neglect, or both. The frreplace may be constructed of brick with mortared fieldstone
retrofitted. to the exterior. The frreplace has a large vertical cJack in the mortared fieldstone that
would require repair (Plate 5.16-7). The frreplace chimney appears to be settling due to an
insufficient foundation or base. Restoration of the house to its original condition would require
removal of the additions and restoration of the original exterior walls.
' ..\"i;ge strucn;;;elated to the Kelly Ranch House is a modem building that now serves as
a packinghouse for the present lessee (Figure 5.16-5). The building is a one-story structure with a
wood balloon frame and plywood siding. Windows are vinyl and batten boards are affixed to the
plywood siding so as to resemble those on the house (Plate 5.16-3). Trim in the gable ends of the
packinghouse is designed to match that found on the two gable-end house additions. The
packinghouse is painted dark red with white trim, the same as the ranch house. The packinghouse
has a small office in the southwest comer and two extensions on the north end. There are two
modem corrals associated with this building, but no livestock were observed on the property.
Th hi§toric andsca includes a lar e r tree close to the northwest comer of the
house. Near the peppertree is a stand of prickly pear cactus (Plate 5.16-4). Today several
5.16-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson RanciJ Pmject
eucalyptus trees survive as stump regrowth near the front of the house (Plate 5.16-4). More
eucalyptus are found at the sides and behind the house. Originally the Kelly Ranch was used for
both crops and cattle raising. The 1928-1929 aerial photog/aph shows fenced cultivated fields
surrounding the house (Plate 5.16-6). The other areas, particularly upslope to the north appear
cleared, as if for grazing livestock. The fact that the cultivated fields are fenced further suggests that
the adjacent fields were used to graze livestock. A fenced hay field with standing shocks of hay is
shown in the photo on the south side of the access road, along with an apparent orchard. At present
the Robertson ranch is leased and used for flower growing.
The 1928-1929 aerial photograph (Plate 5.16-6) shows a looped driveway at the entrance to
the house. This feature still exists, although it is presently unused. The photo shows a driveway
from the west side of the bam, around the corral to the access road. This could indicate that the
barn was used to garage the family car or pickup truck. That aerial photo also shows a vegetable
garden with an associated small building to the north of the house. This is the location of the
present packinghouse. The photo shows that the house and garden are individually fenced. There
is a faint impression of a road around the house and vegetable garden, which is suggestive of an
abandoned feature from a previous period of use. Southwest of the house is the barn and an
associated corral, where the driveway leaves the access road (Plate 5.16-5 modem photograph).
The old aerial photo shows the large pepper tree at the northwest comer of the house, but the
eucalyptus grove is not present. The house is somewhat obscured by vegetation, and while the
quality of the old aerial photo is not optimal, it appears that an alldition is in place on the north side
of the house at the northeast comer. The addition occupies approximately the same position as the
present presumed kitchen and bath.
/' During the field documentation, two adjoining cement foundations were identified near the
northwest comer of the house. The function of these cement foundations is not clear, but they
could have served as the bases for water and fuel storage tanks. Today, two steel fuel storage tanks
sit on wooden timber supports south and down slope of the house. A cement septic tank (or
possible cistern) was identified near the northeast comer of the house at the top edge of a receding
slope. Two access plugs have been sealed with cement grout. This location is nearest the bathroom
and kitchen drains from the house. Two wood storage sheds exist at the driveway entrance. One of
the sheds has almost completely fallen down, and the other is unstable.
Because of the age of this house, it is likely that a well, privy pit(s), cistern, or trash pits exist
on the property. Such older features often harbor scientific info~ation regarding the economic,
social, and culturaf" aspects "oT"ffie residents that can onl be recovered-usin.&~.~~g!ogical
methods. s m ormation can be used to reconstruct aspects of history that are not documented
~ elsewhere.
The setting of the house is changing with each new development. The trailer park and golf
course to the southeast of the house demonstrate the changes \aking place. A nursery grower is
using the land to the southwest of the house. The present project will represent a significant change
in the setting of the ranch house and possibly in the historic landscape.
5.16-2
rc
,.. l-.
t:
r: ,:
1:
r:
1:
.. ,
..J
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
l
l
l
l
l
~
:1
:1
:1
The Robertsou Rauch Project
The ranch house was registered with the South Coast Infonnatjoo Center of tbc Califgmia
O!fice of _!l~!gri~-Prs.~~~~~.2E:..YSW the 'lllJ.Jmmia.tc .D.e1J,artment.o.f Earks a.n~reation (D PR)
forms. Both a Primary Record form and a Building, Structure, and Object Record form w~re
completed for the ranch house. .,--= .
5.16.2 Family Interview
An interview with Everett Robertson and Virginia Robertson nee Kelly clarified some of the
history associated with the old ranch house and the land that was once part of the Kelly Ranch. The
original Rancho Agua Hedionda was granted to Juan Maria Marron in 1842 by Governor Alvarado
(Harmon ND). Virginia's great granduncle Robert Kelly became owner of the rancho. Great
granduncle Kelly passed away without any children, and the property was divided between
surviving nieces and nephews. Virginia remembers the ranch house was constructed in 1895, and
she thought it was by Robert Kelly. It may have been built by per grandfather in 1895, the year of
the subdivision and distribution of the land. The method of dividing the property among the heirs
consisted of a blind lottery. Virginia Robertson related how her grandfather, William Kelly, moved
into the house, then married and had several children. All the children were born in the house,
including Virginia's father, Horace Kelly.
5.16.3 Archival Research
Archival research was limited to acquisition of the 1928-1929 aerial photograph and a check
for older survey records. A brief examination of older surveys indicated the Kelly Ranch House
was located on Lot E of the subdivided Rancho Agua Hedionda. That survey evidently provided the
basis for the required legal description in the first Kelly deeds. The archival research activity was
limited because so much family information was readily available from Virginia Robertson, the
descendant of the Kelly family.
The History of Carlsbad by John B. Harmon, Jr. (ND) was located in the Vista Branch of
the San Diego County Library. In this volume is found a history of Robert Kelly and his relatives
who fled the potato famine in Ireland and came to America. Robert Kelly eventually came to San
Diego and became partners with Francis Hinton in Rancho Agua Hedionda. When Hinton passed
away, Robert Kelly inherited the entire Rancho Agua Hedionda., Robert never married, and when he
passed away in 1890, his nieces and nephews inherited the ranch. One of Robert's brothers,
Mathew Kelly, had found his way to California and worked in the gold fields before settling with
his wife and children on a homestead adjoining the comer of Robert's ranch. That homestead
eventually became Leo Carillo's famous ranch.
After Robert Kelly's death in 1890 and the inheritance of the rancho and other property by
his nieces and nephews, the ranch was held in common for a few years. As the heirs approached
maturity, the rancho was subdivided into 11 parcels of equal value, and lots were drawn for each
parcel. The nine Kelly heirs each received a parcel, and at least one of the 11 was sold immediately.
All but one of the heirs settled on their respective parcels. Through the years, parcels were sold,
5.16-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robert.wn Rtmcll Pmject
subdivided, and given to second and third generation family members. Some were sold to non-
relatives. Robert Kelly donated part of the original rancho along with financial support to help put
the railroad through Carlsbad on its way to San Diego.
5.16.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Kelly Ranch House is evaluated as an important historic site based on the ~e of the
struc~ and its association with individuals who have bee!l_R.l!Q~mJ!L~~.~~~!Y.~of Carlsbad.
The structure itself is not architecturally sensitive and is actually iJ!~~!!~:...~f.~~~!~I?air. Because of
*"".,_._.............,_,....,...-.._ ..... ..._.~-~-"""'""'..,.....---oev.•--., ... r-.. :11"'...........,..,~ -the historic importance of the structure, it is recommended that the structure be preserved.
-t .... i\IO~IQ~-~'Kft,ol-,JitH~'
Preservation of the structure may require efforts to stabilize the foundations and frreplace, and
possibly remove newer additions to return the structure to its original configuration. The structure
should be preserved within a dedicated open space easement. Future modifications to the structure
should be avoided if those modifications would alter the historic status of the house.
Impacts to the ranch house as a result of the proposed project include a significant change
in the historic setting. Changes in the historic landscape are also almost certain to occur as the land
is subdivided and developed. Should.~ bou~~ ~ relocated1 a concerted effort should be made to
..-..-r • ...... ~ '_,. . ·""""'-~-"""""'ll.",.....,.,..-~.-=....,.,_+,~·>--·~-.~"~··-.-·~·
locate any subsurface archaeological features such as tr~~}~~ .. ~~~ri~qrs!§!.~ms near the
present house site. This could be done by mechanical scraping of the ground surface after the
house and other structures are removed.
5.16-4
• I
~·
•
1-
•
Porch
::...--:::;::;;;o--1" Plumbing Vents
--4" Plumbing Vent ,
Addition /*/
Septic Tank
Footprint shown without roof overhan
Corral
Addition _ ___,
.
Packing Shed
Office---
Kelly Ranch House
The Robertson Ranch Project ·
5.16-5
Corral
Figure 5.16-1
I
I
I l
I l
I f
I f
I 1
I
I I L
I
I
I
I 1
I I
I l
I I I View of east side of ranch house.
I [
I I Plate 5.16-1
I 5.16-6
View of front of ranch house.
View of west side of ranch house.
I
I
I 5.16-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
View of ranch house from the back.
View of south end of packinghouse.
View of ranch house driveway.
View of ranch house landscape from the back.
5.16-9
J
I
J
J 1928-1929 Aerial Photograph
The Robertson Ranch Project
5.16-11 Plate 5.16--6
I
I
.... . --~·-· ···-I -.d ...... ·'/-~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I !
I !_
I ~
I l
I u
I View of ranch house fireplace. l
I l
I Plate 5.16-7 l
I 5.16-12
•
• ...
I I •
J
J
J
J
j
J
J
J
J
J
~J
:J
~J
Tile Robertson Ranch Pn~jecr
6.0 DISCUSSION
The archaeological survey and record search of the proposed project area resulted in the
identification of a total of 18 cultural resources within the 403-acre Robertson Ranch Project
boundary. Eight of these resources-were previously recorded sites, while the remaining .10
resources are newly discovered sites. Of the 18 sites, three prehistoric sites (SDI-5416A, SDI-
5434, and SDI-16,133) had been tested for significance by Recon as part of the College Boulevard
alignment project and determined not significant (Collett and Cheever 2001). Because Sites SDI-
5416A and SDI-5434 had been tested recently and were small sites lacking deposits, they were not
retesting by BFSA. However, because the level of effort conducted by Recon at SDI-16,133 was
less than that originally recommended by BFSA for the Robertson Ranch Project, additional work
was conducted at this site by BFSA. Therefore, a total of 16 sites were evaluated by BFSA as part
of the Robertson Ranch development project.
Each of the 16 sites that were evaluated as part of this investigation has been subjected to a
variety of disturbances, including erosion, bioturbation due to small mammal burrowing, pedestrian
traffic near migrant camps, and construction of driveways and buildings; however, the greatest
amount of disturbance has been caused by the cultivation of crops for several decades throughout
the project area. Two sites, SDI-5435 and SDI-10,612, appear to have been totally destroyed by
disturbances, while several others (SDI-16,130, SDI-16,131, and SDI-16,133) have been disturbed
to a point where they no longer retain contextual integrity.
Nine (SDI-5435, SDI-10,612, SDI-16,130, SDI-16,131, SDI-16,132, SDI-16,133, SDI-
16,134, SDI-16,136, and SDI-16,138) of the 16 sites have been determined to be not important
according to criteria set out in CEQA (Section 15064.5). Impacts to these sites will not be adverse,
and mitigation measures are not necessary. These nine sites were interpreted as either resource
extraction sites or temporary campsites, all of which lacked significant subsurface deposits. As
mentioned above, two of these sites had been destroyed; in all cases, the sites were recorded as
marine shell scatters, several of which were associated with sparse lithic scatters. Only in one case,
SDI-16,133, was the determination of not important due primarily to the level of disturbance that
had occurred at the site; this site exhibited the depth and variety of deposit that would otherwise
have constituted a significant resource; however the integrity of the site was greatly reduced by
grading, cultivation, and removal of soil. All other sites that were determined not important '
exhibited a lack of artifact variability and a lack or paucity of ecofacts. ~~~~:
The remaining seven sites identified within the proposed development ar~J \-,.,
SDI-10,609, SDI-10,610, SDI-10,611, SDI-16,135, SDI-16,138, and P-37-024329) were evaluated
as important under CEQA (Section 15064.5) and City of Carlsbad guidelines; these sites will be
im~acted by some;_ elements of the proposed project and these impacts will be adverse. Six of the
sites are prehistoric, while the remaining site is the historic Kelly Ranch House P-37-024329).
While the historic~~~~~ _1~--n_~~-~-c,.!:~~,~-L~~~!:.~~_:.~~~~!:~,.!.~--~~~~-~!!!l a very
6.0-1
I
I
I vJ'1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire Raber·t.wm Ranclr Prt~iect
prominent family name in the Carlsbad area. It represents the early focal point for the Kelly family
farming and ranching operations. The structure is historically important and will be preserved so~wheQe project. The evaluati~~ of importance for' thep~~;yt;~;;-·t;~~d on the
integnfY of the cultural deposits, the abundance of artifactual and ecofactual evidence, and the
potential for the sites to contribute to the research of specific time periods in the r'!gion' s
prehistory. All six of the prehistoric sites were inteiJ!_reted as §easonal camps. Each of these sites
contains a subsurface deposit that extends to a depth of at least 50 centimeters, yielded ecofacts
including both marine shell and animal bone, exhibits a moderate degree of artifact variability, and
has the potential to contain subsurface hearth features. Very few diagnostic artifacts were recovered
from these sites, making the need for additional work at the sites necessary in order to determine the
periods of utilization. Several sites at the Robertson Ranch did show evidence of Late Prehistoric
occupation in the form of either ceramic sherds (SDI-5416B and SDI-16,136) or projectile point
fragments (SDI-16,133). While this does not preclude the possibility of an Archaic component at
any of these sites, most of the sites at Robertson Ranch follow the known Late Prehistoric
settlement pattern of multiple temporary campsites located on low terraces along major drainages
(Agua Hedionda and tributary).
An important factor relating to the research potential of the significant prehistoric sites is the
presence of ecofacts; all six of these prehistoric sites yielded marine shell and faunal remains. This
material would contribute significantly to questions regarding subsistence strategies during the Late
Prehistoric period, with further research focusing particularly on the variability in the vertical
distribution of marine shell genera as well as on seasonality issues. While the potential for buried
cultural features, such as hearths, exists at each of these sites, two sites (SDI-10,609 and SDI-
10,611) produced evidence of fire-affected rock. The presence of burned shell and/or animal bone,
which was recovered from all of these sites, is important not only because it can be reliably dated,
contributing to the research potential of the sites, but is also an indicator of the presence of cultural
features. Finally, exotic lithic material was found at Sites SDI-10,610 and SDI-10,611, and thus the
potential for exotic material also exists at the other sites that exhibit significant subsurface deposits:
further research into the distribution of exotic lithic materials may contribute to the understanding
of the role of coastal inhabitants within the prehistoric trade systems.
The six prehistoric sites evaluated as important cultural resources within the project area will
contribute significantly to research concerning prehistoric settlement patterns and subsistence
strategies. Each of the sites contain the type of data necessary to not only determine the cultural
affiliation and date of occupation but also the type of resources that were exploited and possibly the
season during which the site was utilized. Overall, the six prehistoric sites reveal a high research
potential with regard to the occupation of the Carlsbad area during the Late Prehistoric period.
6.0-2
• •
• I
•
•
• •
' •
]
J
J
]
]
]
]
]
1
l
]
l
l
:1
:I
:1
""1 ...
The Robertson Ranch Pn~jecr
7.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Impact Analysis
A total of 18 resources were identified within the Robertson Ranch Project area, one historic
structure and 17 prehistoric sites. The results of the curre~t investigation in terms of the
management considerations are presented below and are summarized in Table 7.0-1.
7.1.1 Historical Resources
The Kelly Ranch House has been recorded and registered with the South Coastal Information
Center at SDSU (P-37-024329). The structure is evaluated as historically important because of its
association with individuals important to local history and the settlement of the region. Because of
the historic status of the structure, the ranch house should be .m:~served in~ orcJ.er to J!!!tigate any
potential impacts associated with either the development or Cannon Road.
7.1.2 Prehistoric Resources
The archaeological study identified 17 prehistoric archaeological sites within the project area
that will be impacted by the development of Robertson Ranch. Three of these sites, SDI-5416A,
SDI-5434, and SDI-16,133, were tested previously by Recon as part of the College Boulevard
alignment project and were determined not important (Collet and Cheever 2001). The work
conducted by BFSA resulted in concurrence with the Recon evaluations of these sites. Based on
the work conducted by BFSA, an additional eight sites were determined not important resources
based on CEQA and City of Carlsbad Guidelines. Of the 17 prehistoric resources identified on the
property, 11 are evaluated as not important. Impacts to these 11 sites are not considered significant
and mitigation measures are not recommended.
The six remaining prehistoric sites within the project area have been evaluated as important
resources primarily based on the research potential represented in the cultural deposits at the sites.
In order to reduce potential impacts to the six prehistoric sites, measures to mitigate the impacts to a
level below significant must be implemented prior to grading of the project. Project impacts to
these archaeological sites are considered significant.
7.2 Proposed Mitigation Measures
The cultural resource guidelines for the City of Carlsbad, in compliance with CEQA, recognize
the potential significance of archaeological and historical sites and require that such resources
which have been evaluated as important must be protected from adverse impacts. Impacts generated
from the proposed development to Robertson Ranch can be mitigated through either preservation of
the resources or by recovering a sufficiently large sample of the deposit that the research potential
of the resource is exhausted. Measures to mitigate impacts to important resources are discussed
below .
7.0-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tile Robertson Ranch Project
7.2.1 Historical Resources
The only significant historic site within the property is the Kelly Ranch House (P-37-
024329), which was constructed in 1895. The structure has been determined to be important, and
destruction of the site ~d be an adverse impact. To mitigate potential impacts to the Kelly Ranch
House, tJte structure~ prese~ed. An open space easeroent or oJ:w legDl...,w.~ld be
employed to .ins~.!!!.~ ~tructure .i~ .. m;>t .inJected. Use of the structure as a residence may continue,
but no significant alterations of the structure that would compromise the historic status of the house
should be made. The location of the .~ouse on a knoll adjacent to the flood plain js i~p,2rtant to the
historic setting considerations of the site evaluation. If ere~!!!lt!<?~~-"!!?-~~.~~~~e requires
relocation within the ranch, this change of setting would not represent a reduction in historic
significance of the structure. -•· · · • · ....... • ---4
·"' ··-
7.2.2 Prehistoric Resources
Of the 17 prehistoric resources on the property, 11 have been determined to be not
important. Impacts to these sites will not be adverse, and mitigation measures are not necessary.
The remaining six prehistoric sites that have been determined to be important under CEQA and City
guidelines will be impacted by some elements of the proposed projects; these impacts will be
adverse. Mitigation measures will be required to reduce the impacts to these sites to a level below
significant.
For the sites that have been determined to be significant, the criteria used generally focuses
upon the research potential of the subsurface deposits. The sites are considered to hold particular
potential to expand our understanding of the subsistence patterns of the Late Prehistoric Luisefio
people in the Carlsbad area. Although the preferred means of mitigating impacts to important
cultural resources is avoidance, this measure would likely be impracucal gtven tlie focatloiis of the ~·~~~~::w:·~~~-~~~~~~-~~~~~~~::~~~~==~::: sites in the deve}opmem. area, 0
A -•-ooo -oMO-0 ..... _..
Mitigation of impacts can also be achieved by exhausting the research potential of the sites
by implementing a program to recover artifacts and data representative of the-occupatioiiof the
sites. A data recovery program shall be completed for any significant archaeological site impacted
by the project in compliance with the City of Carlsbad's Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and
Methodology for Completing A Data Recovery Program Phase III (December 1990). Data
recovery provides for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed,
special studies (i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a
report of finding which addresses the important research questions.
The scope of work for the data recovery program will be determined once the project design
has been fmalized, and the sites impacted are confmned. The mitigation of impacts must be part of
project approval and must be completed prior to grading. The data recovery program will be guided
by a research design to be presented and reviewed by the City of Carlsbad. The research design
7.0-2
J
J
·J
]
]
]
,]
]
]
l
']
'""
:1
~1 ....
. l
The Roberr.wm Ranch Projecr
shall include the research objectives of the data recovery program and the sample size of the
excavations for each site.
7.2.3 Mitigation Monitoring Program
In addition, to the focused mitigation at the significant sites, the potential exists to uncover
masked or buried cultural sites during grading operations. Due to the potential to encounter buried
deposits, monitoring of brushing, grading, and trenching shall be required during the construction
of the project in order to identify any significant components of the sites that were not observed
during data recovery excavations. Monitoring will also focus on any potential to discover sites that
were buried or masked from view during the previous surveys and were not identified. Any
previously unrecorded sites discovered during brushing, grading, or trenching will require
significance evaluation. At the location of any newly discovered site or important feature, grading
will be diverted from that discovery site until the resource can be evaluated. If found to be
important, mitigation measures will be designed before grading can resume at the location of the
discovery. A mitigation monitoring plan shall be adopted as part of the project approval. Such
measures will mitigate the significant impacts to cultural resources and reduce the potentially
adverse impacts to a level below significant.
7.0-3
I ,
Tire Robertson R01zclr Project -I , ..
I TABLE 7.0-1 " 1
Summary of Management Considerations for •
I The Robertson Ranch Project c
I Site No. Type of Evaluated by Significance Mitigation ,
Resource Evaluation Required ~
I SDI-5416A Prehistoric Recon 2001 Not Important None [ SDI-5416B Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Important Yes -Data Recovery
SDI-5434 Prehistoric Recon 2001 Not Important None
I SDI-5435 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Not Important None
SDI-10,609 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Important Yes -Data Recovery [ SDI-10,610 Prehistoric BFSA2001 Important Yes -Data Recovery
SDI-10,611 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Important Yes -Data Recovery
I SDI-10,612 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Important Yes -Data Recovery c SDI-16,130 Prehistoric BFSA200l Not Important None
SDI-16,131 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Not Important None
I SDI-16,132 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Not Important None It SDI-16,133 Prehistoric Recon & BFSA 2001 Not Important None
SDI-16,134 Prehistoric BFSA2001 Not Important None
SDI-16,135 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Important Yes -Data Recovery
I SDI~16,136 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Not Important None fr SDI-16,137 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Not Important None
SDI-16,138 Prehistoric BFSA 2001 Important Yes -Data Recovery
I P-37-024329 Historic Structure BFSA 2001 Important Yes -Preservation ll
I ~~
I r:
I rc
I 1r
I Jr
I It:
I !r
I 7.0-4 ..
•
I I •
•
•
..
"" I
i
aJ
... J
-J
,.,. ,J
"" J
"' J
"' ~J
" .J
The Roberrsm1 Rauch Pmject
8.0 PERSONNEL
The archaeological survey and evaluation program was directed by Brian F. Smith, principal
investigator. The survey was conducted by Johnna L. Buysse, project archaeologist, Charles
Callahan, field supervisor, and field technicians Colleen DeCook, Robert LeVeille, Scott Mattingly,
Richard Savich, and Nathania! Yerka. The historical investigation of the Robertson Ranch House
was conducted by senior archaeologist Larry J. Pierson. The testing program was conducted under
the direction of Brian F. Smith, by Charles Callahan and Clarence Hoff, field supervisors, with field
technicians Chris Beach, Clint Callahan, Colleen DeCook, Adriane Dorrler, Scott Mattingly,
Richard Savich, Jeff Szymanski, and Helen Wilson. Lithic analysis was conducted by Kent
Smolik, and faunal analysis was conducted by Michael W. Tuma. Tables were produced by
Kimberly Wade. Johnna L. Buysse and Brian F. Smith prepared this report. Robert Hernandez
produced the report graphics. The report was edited and produced by Kimberly Wade .
8.0-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Pmject
9.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
' Da~
9.0-l
•
• •
•
•
,
•
I
I
•
•
•
" .. J
"'
-J ..
~J
. J
The Robertson Ranch Pmject
10.0 REFERENCES CITED
Bamforth, Douglas B.
1991 "Technological Organization and Hunter-Gatherer Land Use: A California
Perspective." American Antiquity (Vol. 56, No.2).
1992 "Quarries in Context: A Regional Perspective on Lithic Procurement.'' In Stone
Tool Procurement, Production, and Distribution in California Prehistory
(Perspectives in California Archaeology-Vol. 2), edited by Jeanne E. Arnold.
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Beauchamp, R. Mitchel
1986 A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City,
California .
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 "Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation." American Antiquity (Vol. 45, No. 1) .
1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego, California .
Binford, Lewis R. and J. O'Connell
1984 "An Alyawara Day: The Stone Quarry." Journal of Anthropological Research
(Vol. 40).
Bowman, R. H., et al.
1973 "Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California." Part I. Soil Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
Byrd, Brian F. and Carol Serr
1993 "Multi-Component Archaic and Late Prehistoric Residential Camps Along the
Sweetwater River, Rancho San Diego, California." Anthropological Technical Series
(No. 1). Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego, California.
California Office of Historical Preservation
1988 "California Archaeological Resource Identification and Data Acquisition Program:
Sparse Lithic Scatter." Sacramento.
1995 "Instructions for Recording Historical Resources." Sacramento.
City of Carlsbad
1990 "Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for Completing A Data
Recovery Program Phase Til." Carlsbad, California.
Collett, Russell, and Dayle Cheever
2001 "Significance Assessment of Six Cultural Resource Sites Within the College
Boulevard Reach A Alternative 1, One Site in the Cannon Road Reach 3, and Three
Sites in the Cannon Road Reach 4 Alignments, Bridge and Thoroughfare District 4,
Carlsbad, California." Unpublished report on file at the City of Carlsbad .
10.0-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tire Roberr:ron Ranch Projecr
Davis, E. L., C. W. Brott and D. L Weide
1969 "The Western Lithic Co-Tradition." San Diego Museum Papers (No. 6). San Diego
Museum of Man, San Diego.
Dixon, Keith A.
1977 "The Mason Valley Clay Figurines: Their Decoration and the Problem of
Provenience." Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly (Vol. 13, No.4).
Dominici, Debra Ann
1984 "Calibration of the Obsidian Butte Hydration Rate and Its Implications Regarding Late
Prehistoric Exchange." Unpublished Master's thesis on ftle at the Department of
Anthropology, San Diego State University.
Findlow, Frank J. and Jonathon E. Ericson
1980 "Catchment Analysis: Essays on Prehistoric Resource Space." Anthropology UClA
(Vol. 10, Nos. 1 and 2). University of California, Los Angeles.
Fitch, John E.
1953 Common Marine Bivalves of California. State of California Department of Fish and
Game Marine Fisheries Branch, Fish Bulletin Number 90, California State Printing
Office.
Flenniken, J. J.
1984 "The Past, Present, and Future of Flintknapping: An Anthropological Perspective."
Annual Review of Anthropology (Vol. 13).
Galdikas-Brindamour, Birute
1970 "Trade and Subsistence at Mulholland: A Site Report on LAn-246." Archaeological
Survey Annual Report 1970. Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Los Angeles
Gallegos, Dennis
1991 "Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California." In Hunter-
Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Edited by John M. Erlandson and
Roger H. Colton. Perspectives in California Archaeology (No. 1). Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gallegos, Dennis and Richard Carrico
1984 "Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W -131, Carlsbad, California."
Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Harmon, John B., Jr.
ND The History of Carlsbad. (No publisher listed).
Hector, Susan M.
1985 "An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad." Recon.
Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Hedges, Ken
1973 "Hakataya Figurines from Southern California." Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly (Vol. 9, No.3).
10.0-2
•
•
..
...
..
·•
,.
l.~
·• •
~!
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
]
]
]
]
]
]
~J
~J
~J
The Robertson Ranch Project
Johns, Richard H., and John F. Lance
1950 "Geology of the San Dieguito Pyrophylite Area San Diego County, California."
Special Report 4. State of California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco.
Kaldenberg, Russell
1982 "Rancho Park North: A San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site in Coastal
Southern California;" Occasional Paper (No. 6). Imperial Valley College Museum
Society, El Centro, California.
King, Chester De Witt
1981 "The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts used in Social
System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before AD. 1804."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
California at Davis.
Lee, Melicent Humason
1937 Indians of the Oaks (third revised ed.). San Diego Museum of Man.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Moriarty, James R., ill
1966 "Evidence of Mat Weaving from an Early La Jolla Site." The Masterkey (Vol. 40, No.
2).
1967 "Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County." Science (Vol. 155).
1968 "San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural Relationships."
Anthropological Journal of Canada (Vol. 7, No. 3).
1969 "San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural Relationships."
Anthropological Journal of Canada (Vol. 7, No.3).
Morris, Percy A
1966 A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Shells. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Pierson, Larry J.-Personal Communication
Raven-Jennings, Shelly and Brian F. Smith
1999 "Report of Investigations at CA-SDI-4608: Subsistence and Technology Transitions
during the Mid-to-Late Holocene in San Diego County." Report on file at Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Poway.
Rehder, Harald A
1981 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Seashells. Alfred A Knopf, New
York
Reish, Donald 1.
1972 Marine Life of Southern California. Donald J. Reish, Los Alamitos, California.
I0.0-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Robertson Ranch Praject
Robbins-Wade, Mary Judith
1990 "Prehistoric Settlement Pattern of Otay Mesa San Diego County, California."
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State
University.
Rogers, Malcolm
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Edited with contributions by H. M. Worthington,
E. L. Davis, and Clark W. Brott. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Rosenthal, Jane and Stephen L. Williams
1990 "Some Southern California Soapstone Sources." Proceedings of the Society for
California Archaeology (Vol. 5).
Shumway, George, CarlL. Hubbs and James R. Moriarty
1961 "Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jollan Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years
Before the Present." Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 93, No.3).
Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty
1985 "The Archaeological Excavations at Site W-20, Sierra Del Mar." Report on file at the
South Coast Information Center.
Spier, Leslie
1923 Southern Diegueflo Customs. Phoebe A. Hearst Memorial Volume, University of
California Press, Berkeley, California.
True, Delbert L.
1957 "Fired Clay Figurines from San Diego County, California." American Antiquity (Vol.
23, No.3).
1966 "Archaeological Differentiation of the Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in
Southern California." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at
Los Angeles.
USDA and USDI
2001 "Ecological Subregions of California." Presented by the Forest Service (USDA),
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), and Bureau of Land Management
(USDI). http://www .r5.fs.fed.us/ecoregions.
Wade, Sue A.
1992 "Archaeological Evaluations at Calavera Hills, Archaeological Testing at SDI-5416,
SDI-12,470, SDI-12,471, Carlsbad." Recon. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San
Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Warren, Claude N.
1966 "The San Dieguito Type Site: Malcolm J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on the San
Dieguito River." San Diego Museum Papers (No. 6).
1984 "The Desert Region." In California Archaeology, edited by Michael J. Morrato.
Academic Press, New York.
10.0-4
..
i.,.
I t ..
t:
t:
l,
...
t:
t:
.. J
/II •
.. •
"" •
.. •
.. •
... •
I
,..i ii
J
..
J
J
<.
J
" ... J
.J
.J
.. j
The Robertson Ranch Project
Weber, F. Harold
1963 "Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California." County Report 3,
California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco.
10.0-5