Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 05-12; Ocean Street Residences; Tentative Map (CT) (11)I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY, 2303 OCEAN STREET, CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RECEIVED JUN 1 0 2005 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT Submitted to: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 Prepared for: 2303 Investors, LLP 1020 Prospect Avenue, Suite 314 La Jolla, California 92037 (858) 456-0014 Prepared by: Affinis Shadow Valley Center 847 Jamacha Road EI Cajon, California 92019 (619) 441-0144 Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A. (RPA) Director of Cultural Resources May 2005 Affinis Job No. 2011 USGS quadrangle: San Luis Rey (7 .5' series) Acreage: 3 acres Keywords: San Diego County; Carlsbad; Buena Vista Lagoon; coastal; developed; negative archaeological survey; TUS, RSW, Section I NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION Authors: Consulting firm: Report Date: Report Title: Submitted to: Submitted by: Contract number: USGS quadrangles: Acreage: Keywords: Mary Robbins-Wade Affinis, 847 Jamacha Road, El Cajon, California 92019 (619) 441-0144 May 2005 Archaeological Resources Study, 2303 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 2303 Investors, LLP, 1020 Prospect Avenue, Suite 314, La Jolla, California 9203 7 (858) 456-0014 Affinis Job No. 2011 San Luis Rey (7. 5' series) 3 acres San Diego County; Carlsbad; Buena Vista Lagoon; coastal; developed; negative archaeological survey; TllS, R5W, Section 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................. 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................... 1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ............................... 1 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................. 5 III. PR2VIOUS RESEARCH ....................................... 8 IV. RESEARCH METHODS ....................................... 9 V. RESULTS ................................................. 9 VI. IMPACTS, SIGNIFICANCE, AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .. 10 VII. INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ...................... 12 I VIII. PERSONNEL .............................................. 12 I I I I I I I I I IX. REFERENCES ............................................. 13 FIGURES 1 Regional Location in San Diego County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Project Location on USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey Quadrangle .................. 3 3 Project Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 Areas to be Monitored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX A Records Searches I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The project area is located at 2303 Ocean Street, immediately south of Buena Vista Lagoon in the City of Carlsbad in northwestern San Diego County. The subject property contains 3. 05 acres that are currently developed with three apartment buildings, which were built in the mid-1960s. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing apartment buildings and construct 35 new stacked-flat condominium units. The archaeological project consisted of a survey to assess the presence of cultural resources that would be affected by development of the project. No archaeological resources had been previously recorded within the property, and none were found during the current study, but the original ground surface was obscured by existing development. Archaeological site CA-SDI-626 is mapped just west of the project area. Hanna (1984) noted that CA-SDI-626 is the remnant of what was once a larger archaeological site. It is possible that the site once extended into the project area, but development has destroyed or obscured evidence of it. CA -SDI -626 was determined not to be a significant cultural resource, due to the amount of disturbance the site has sustained; the research potential of the site was extremely limited (Hanna 1984). Monitoring of grading was recommended at CVA-SDI-626, in case there were pockets of buried cultural material, and because there was a rumor that a human burial had been found on the site previously (Hanna 1984). No historic or archaeological resources have been identified within the pr~iect area, and the property is already developed with an apartment complex. Therefore, the project is expected to have no effect on cultural resources. However, given the proximity to the lagoon and to CA-SDI- 626, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources not visible on the surface. The geology report indicates that the northern portion of the site contains alluvial soils. During periods of rising and falling water levels in the lagoon, native people may have made use of the project site as a habitation area or a shellfish processing location, and evidence of this use is buried in the alluvium. Buried sites are found in Oceanside along the San Luis Rey River. Therefore, it is recommended that an archaeologist and a Native American representative be present to monitor initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/ alluvium (Figure 4). If archaeological resources are encountered, the monitor would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material discovered. If cultural material is found and collected, it would be curated at the San Diego Archaeological Center (or other appropriate repository) or repatriated to the San Luis Rey Band if they so desire. S-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. INTRODUCTION PROJECT LOCATION The project area is located immediately south of Buena Vista Lagoon in the City of Carlsbad in northwestern San Diego County (Figure 1). The property is at 2303 Ocean Street, which is west of Interstate 5 (I-5) and west of Carlsbad Boulevard (Figure 2). The parcel is on the north side of Ocean Street, west of the AT&SF railroad tracks, and east of the Rue Des Chateaux development. The property is within Township 11 South, Range 5 West, Section 1, on the USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey quadrangle (Figure 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property contains 3.05 acres that are currently developed with 50 apartment units in three separate buildings, which were built in the mid-1960s. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing apartment buildings and construct 35 new stacked-flat condominium units. Access would be located at the southwest corner, from Ocean Street. The archaeological project consisted of a survey to assess the presence of cultural resources that would be affected by development of the project. Mary Robbins-Wade served as the project manager/ project archaeologist. This report addresses the methods and results of the survey. II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The project area is on the south side of Buena Vista Lagoon, near the mouth of the lagoon, in northwestern San Diego County (Figures 1 and 2). This area is in the coastal plains physiographic province, where the climate is characterized as semi-arid, cool (Griner and Pryde 1976:Figure 3.4). Temperature ranges from an average January low of about 44 o (Griner and Pryde !976:Figure 3.1) to an average July high of approximately 75 o (Griner and Pryde 1976:Figure 3.2), and annual rainfall averages between 10 and 15 inches (Griner and Pryde 1976:Figure 3.). Geologically, the project area is mapped as Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits, with Quaternary alluvium at the lagoon mouth (Rogers 1965). The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Bowman 1973) maps the property as Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (Bowman 1973). The soils report indicates that "Buena Vista lagoon once extended into the northern portion of the site. It is assumed that this land was reclaimed by placing hydraulic fill" (Geocon 2004: 1). Undocumented fill soils and alluvium were undifferentiated on the geology map (Geocon 2004). An apartment complex has been developed on the property, so no native vegetation remains. Marina series soils generally support "chamise, sumac, black sagebrush, flattop buckwheat, and I - South Laguna 0 "' 0 0 5 10 Miles Affinis Shadow Valley Center 847 Jamacha Road El Cajon, CA 92019 - - - " - --------------------- Solana Beach Del Mar Mission Beach Ocean Beach San Diego Imperial Beach sa;.~~~~:f• El Capitan ReseiVOir Lakeside Alpine Barrett Lake ~ Regional location in San Diego County ----- - --- Borrego Springs Desert State Mount Laguna Park - - r I I Figure 1 - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Affinis I I Shadow Valley Center 847 Jamacha Road El Cajon, CA 92019 0 ..... Project location on USGS 7.5' Encinitas quadrangle Figure 2 S:;.:·;.~ C-e-'11('• r r . I )' \ @SITE PLAN ., Affinis Shadow Valley Center 84 7 Jamacha Road El CA 92019 ---- N SCALE-1"•20' ~ --- ,, ~~ •"' Project plans Figure 3 --- -- - - - -- - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I annual grasses and forbs" (Bowman 1973:64). Marsh and riparian communities would have occurred in proximity to the project area as well. These vegetation communities would have provided a number of plant species known to have been used by the Luiseiio people for food, medicine, tools, shelter, ceremonial and other uses (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908). Many of the animal species found in these communities also would have been used by native populations. In addition, native inhabitants would have made use of the resources of the lagoon itself, as well as the open ocean. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT General Culture History Several summaries discuss the prehistory of San Diego County and provide a background for understanding the archaeology of the general area surrounding the project. Moratto' s ( 1984) review of the archaeology of California contains important discussions of Southern California, including the San Diego area. Bull (1983, 1987), Carrico (1987), Gallegos (1987), and Warren (1985, 1987) provide summaries of recent work and interpretations. The following is a brief discussion of the culture history of the San Diego region. Carter (1957, 1978, 1980), Minshall (1976) and others (e.g., Childers 1974; Davis 1968, 1973) have long argued for the presence of Pleistocene humans in California, including the San Diego area. The sites identified as "early man" are all controversial. Carter and Minshall are best known for their discoveries at Texas Street and Buchanan Canyon. The material from these sites is generally considered nonartifactual, and the investigative methodology is often questioned (Moratto 1984). The earliest accepted archaeological manifestation of Native Americans in the San Diego area is the San Dieguito complex, dating to approximately 10,000 years ago (Warren 1967). The San Dieguito complex was originally defined by Rogers ( 1939), and Warren published a clear synthesis of the complex in 1967. The material culture of the San Dieguito complex consists primarily of scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, large blades, and large projectile points. Rogers considered crescentic stones to be characteristic of the San Dieguito complex as well. Tools and debitage made of fine-grained green metavolcanic material, locally known as felsite, were found at many sites which Rogers identified as San Dieguito. Often these artifacts were heavily patinated. Felsite tools, especially patinated felsite, came to be seen as an indicator of the San Dieguito complex. Until relatively recently, many archaeologists felt that the San Dieguito culture lacked milling technology and saw this as an important difference between the San Dieguito and La Jolla complexes. Sleeping circles, trail shrines, and rock alignments have also been associated with early San Dieguito sites. The San Dieguito complex is chronologically equivalent to other Paleoindian complexes across North America, and sites are sometimes called "Paleoindian" rather than "San Dieguito". San Dieguito material underlies La Jolla complex strata at the C. W. Harris site in San Dieguito Valley (Warren, ed. 1966). 5 The traditional view of San Diego prehistory has the San Dieguito complex followed by tbe La Jolla complex at least 7000 years ago, possibly as long as 9000 years ago (Rogers 1966). The La Jolla complex is part of the Encinitas tradition and equates witb Wallace's (1955) Millingstone Horizon, also known as Early Archaic or Milling Archaic. The Encinitas tradition is generally "recognized by millingstone assemblages in shell middens, often near sloughs and lagoons" (Moratto 1984:147). "Crude" cobble tools, especially choppers and scrapers, characterize tbe La Jolla complex (Moriarty 1966). Basin metates, manos, discoidals, a small number of Pinto series and Elko series points, and flexed burials are also characteristic. Warren et al. (1961) proposed that the La Jolla complex developed with the arrival of a desert people on the coast who quickly adapted to their new environment. Moriarty (1966) and Kaldenberg (1976) have suggested an in situ development of tbe La Jolla people from tbe San Dieguito. Moriarty has since proposed a Pleistocene migration of an ancestral stage of the La Jolla people to tbe San Diego coast. He suggested tbis Pre-La Jolla complex is represented at Texas Street, Buchanan Canyon, and the Brown site (Moriarty 1987). In recent years, archaeologists in tbe region have begun to question the traditional definition of San Dieguito people simply as makers of finely crafted felsite projectile points, domed scrapers, and discoidal cores, who lacked milling technology. The traditional defining criteria for La Jolla sites (manos, metates, "crude" cobble tools, and reliance on lagoonal resources) have also been questioned (Bull 1987; Cardenas and Robbins-Wade 1985; Robbins-Wade 1986). There is speculation tbat differences between artifact assemblages of "San Dieguito" and "La Jolla" sites reflect functional differences rather than temporal or cultural variability (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987). Gallegos (1987) has proposed that the San Dieguito, La Jolla, and Pauma complexes are manifestations of the same culture, with differing site types "explained by site location, resources exploited, influence, innovation and adaptation to a rich coastal region over a long period oftime" (Gallegos 1987:30). The classic "La Jolla" assemblage is one adapted to life on tbe coast and appears to continue through time (Robbins-Wade 1986; Winterrowd and Cardenas 1987). Inland sites adapted to hunting contain a different tool kit, regardless of temporal period (Cardenas and Van Wormer 1984). Several archaeologists in San Diego, however, do not subscribe to the Early Prehistoric/Late Prehistoric chronology (see Cook 1985; Gross and Hildebrand 1998; Gross and Robbins-Wade 1989; Shackley 1988; Warren 1998). They feel tbat an apparent overlap among assemblages identified as "La Jolla," "Pauma," or "San Dieguito" does not preclude the existence of an Early Milling period culture in tbe San Diego region, whatever name is used to identify it, separate from an earlier culture. One problem these archaeologists perceive is that many site reports in tbe San Diego region present conclusions based on interpretations of stratigraphic profiles from sites at which stratigraphy cannot validly be used to address chronology or changes through time. Archaeology emphasizes stratigraphy as a tool, but many of the sites known in the San Diego region are not in depositional situations. In contexts where natural sources of sediment or anthropogenic sources of debris to bury archaeological materials are lacking, otber factors must be responsible for the subsurface occurrence of cultural materials. The subsurface deposits at 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I numerous sites are the result of such agencies as rodent burrowing and insect activity. Recent work has emphasized the importance ofbioturbative factors in producing the stratigraphic profiles observed at archaeological sites (see Gross 1992). Different classes of artifacts move through the soil in different ways (Bocek 1986; Erlandson 1984; Johnson 1989), creating vertical patterning (Johnson 1989) that is not culturally relevant. Many sites which have been used to help define the culture sequence of the San Diego region are the result of just such nondepositional stratigraphy. The Late Prehistoric period is represented by the San Luis Rey complex in northern San Diego County and the Cuyamaca complex in the southern portion of the county. The San Luis Rey complex is the archaeological manifestation of the Shoshonean predecessors of the ethnohistoric Luiseiio (named for the San Luis Rey Mission). The Cuyamaca complex represents the Yuman forebears of the Kumeyaay (Diegueiio, named for the San Diego Mission). Agua Hedionda is traditionally considered to be the point of separation between Luiseiio and Northern Diegueiio territories. The San Luis Rey complex (SLR) is divided into two phases, SLR I and SLR II. Elements of the SLR complex include small, triangular, pressure-flaked projectile points (generally Cottonwood series, but Desert side-notched series also occurs); milling implements: mortars and pestles, manos and metates, and bedrock milling features; bone awls; Olivella shell beads; other stone and shell ornaments; and cremations (Meighan 1954; Moratto 1984; True et al. 1974). The later SLR II complex also includes several elements not found in the SLR I complex: "pottery vessels, cremation urns, red and black pictographs, and such nonaboriginal items as metal knives and glass beads (Meighan 1954:223). SLR I was originally thought to date from A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1750, with SLR II dating between A.D. 1750 and A.D. 1850 (Meighan 1954). However, that division was based on the assumption that the Luiseiio did not practice pottery manufacture until just prior to the arrival of the Spanish. The chronology has since been revised due to evidence that pottery may have been introduced to the Luiseiio circa A.D. 1200-1600. Ceramics were probably introduced from the Luiseiios' southern neighbors, the Kumeyaay (True et al. 1974). Ethnography The name Luiseiio derives from Mission San Luis Rey de Francia and has been used to refer to the Indians associated with the mission. The Luiseiio language belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily, which has also been called Southern California Shoshonean, and is part of the widespread Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908; White 1963). Neighboring groups that speak Cupan languages are Cupeiio, Cahuilla, and Gabrielino. The Indians associated with Mission San Juan Capistrano, called Juaneiio by the Spanish, have sometimes been described as a separate group. The language, culture, and territory of the Luiseiio and Juaneiio is so closely related that the two are generally considered to be a single ethnic nationality (Bean and Shipek 1978; White 1963); however, many Luisefio and Juanefio consider 7 themselves to be separate groups. Cameron (1987:319-321) has noted archaeological differences between the two groups. The territory of the Luisefto Indians is generally described as extending along the coast from Agua Hedionda Creek on the southwest to Aliso Creek on the northwest. On the north this boundary extended east beyond Santiago Peak to the eastern side of the Elsinore Fault Valley, continuing southeast to Palomar Mountain, then around the southern slope above the valley of San Jose. The southern boundary follows westerly to Agua Hedionda Creek (Bean and Shipek 1978; White 1963). Luisefto social organization is noted for "(1) extensive proliferation of social statuses, (2) clearly defined ruling families that interlocked various rancherias within the ethnic nationality, (3) a sophisticated philosophical structure associated with the taking of hallucinogenics (datura), o_nd ( 4) elaborate ritual paraphernalia including sand paintings symbolic of an avenging sacred being named Chinigchingish" (Bean and Shipek 1978:550). Ethnographic and ethnohistoric studies of the Luisefto include Bean and Shipek (1978), Boscana (1947), Kroeber (1976), Robinson (1947), Shipek (1977), Sparkman (1908), Talley (1982), and White (1963). Archaeological studies addressing the Late Prehistoric San Luis Rey complex include Meighan (1954), McCown (1955), True eta!. (1974), and Wallace (1960). Most of the ethnographic studies, as well as the "classic" archaeological studies of the Luisefto, have concentrated on the Pauma Valley and the Palomar Mountain area, although Wallace's (1960) study was an archaeological survey of the Buena Vista Creek watershed. III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH Records searches were conducted at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and at the San Diego Museum of Man. The records searches covered the project area and a one-mile radius around it (Confidential Appendix A). Five archaeological sites have been recorded within a mile of the property. These sites have generally been described as campsites or shell middens, attributed to the La Jolla period, based on the lack of small projectile points and ceramics. While shell is noted for all the sites, some have low density shell scatters and others have an abundance of shell. Archaeological site CA-SDI-626 is mapped adjacent to the 2303 Ocean Street property, to the west. A 1972 site record describes this site as a " highly eroded sandstone formation with trace of La Jollan camping below a 1920-40 trash lens" (site record, on file at South Coastal Information Center). A testing program was conducted at CA-SDI-626 in 1984 to determine whether the site was a significant cultural resource and develop appropriate mitigation measures if necessary. "The test units define SDi-626 as a disturbed remnant of what was once a larger archaeological site. Natural processes and historic impacts have seriously damaged this remnant" (Hanna 1984: 1). Due to the degree of disturbance, the site was determined not to be a significant cultural 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I resource, but monitoring of grading was recommended, in case there were pockets of buried cultural material. Hanna also noted, "Although there have been reports that a flexed human burial was accidentally destroyed at the site a few years ago, a negative declaration is recommended on the condition that an archaeological monitor present during construction and should be fully empowered to temporarily halt construction for as long as is necessary to achieve emergency salvage in the event that important archaeological phenomena are unexpectedly encountered" (Hanna 1984: 1). No report of such a monitoring program was available at the South Coastal Information Center. IV. RESEARCH METHODS The project area is currently developed with an apartment complex built in the 1960s. Affinis senior archaeologist Mary Robbins-Wade visited the property on April 25, 2005, but no actual field survey could be conducted, due to the existing buildings. The project site was visited by Mark Mojado, representing the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians, in April 2005 as well. The senior archaeologist also contacted the State Native American Heritage to request a search of their sacred lands files. The senior archaeologist reviewed previous archaeological reports relevant to the current project area. Historic maps were also reviewed to determine the potential for historic archaeological resources. V. RESULTS No archaeological resources had been previously recorded within the property, and none were found during the current study, but the original ground surface was obscured by existing development. Archaeological site CA-SDI-626 is mapped just west of the project area. Hanna (1984) noted that CA-SDI-626 is the remnant of what was once a larger archaeological site. It is possible that the site once extended into the project area, but development has destroyed or obscured evidence of it. CA-SDI-626 was determined not to be a significant cultural resource, due to the amount of disturbance the site has sustained; the research potential of the site was extremely limited (Hanna 1984). The review of historic maps showed no buildings on the north side of Ocean Street in the past. Maps reviewed included the 1901 USGS 30' San Luis Rey quadrangle, 1930 USGS 15' Oceanside quadrangle, 1942 USGS 15' Oceanside quadrangle, and 1948 USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey quadrangle. 9 VI. IMPACTS, SIGNIFICANCE, AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in tight of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852) including the following: • Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • • • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or: Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history . No historic or archaeological resources have been identified within the project area, and the property is already developed with an apartment complex. Therefore, the project is expected to have no effect on cultural resources. However, given the proximity to the lagoon and to CA-SDI- 626, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources not visible on the surface. The geology report indicates that the northern portion of the site contains alluvial soils. During periods of rising and falling water levels in the lagoon, native people may have made use of the project site as a habitation area or a shellfish processing location, and evidence of this use is buried in the alluvium. Buried sites are found in Oceanside along the San Luis Rey River. Therefore, it is recommended that an archaeologist and a Native American representative be present to monitor initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/ alluvium (Figure 4). If archaeological resources are encountered, the monitor would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material discovered. If cultural material is found and collected, it would be curated at the San Diego Archaeological Center (or other appropriate repository) or repatriated to the San Luis Rey Band if they so desire. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- )' \ Area to be monitored @SITE PLAN Affinis Shadow Valley Center 84 7 Jamacha Road El CA 92019 I ~ 1--J ____, E: ~ ,L, ... , m ""' Area to be monitored Figure 4 VII. INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED Archaeological Records Search Department David Cantarino Carol Gaubatz Mark Mojado San Diego Museum of Man South Coastal Information Center Native American Heritage Commission San Luis Rey Band of Luisefio Mission Indians VIII. PERSONNEL The following persons participated in the preparation of this report: Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A. (RPA) Director of Cultural Resources Richard Knauel, M.A. Graphic Artist 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IX. REFERENCES Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek 1978 Luisefto. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. The Handbook of Nonh American Indians, vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bocek, B. 1986 Rodent Ecology and Burrowing Behavior: Predicted Effects on Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 51:589-603. Boscana, G. 1947 Chinigchinich. A Ilistorical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta- California. Translated by A. Robinson. Biobooks, Oakland. Bowman, R.H. 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, Pan I. United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD. Bull, C.S. 1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 1(3):15-64. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito- La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 35-42. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Cameron, C. 1987 Archaeological Investigations on the Rancho San Clemente, Orange County, California. Archaeological Research Facility California State University, Fullerton. Ciirdenas, D.S., and M. Robbins-Wade 1985 An Archaeological Investigation of SDM-W-I 431 I 46: An Unique Coastal Luiseiio Occupation Site in Carlsbad, California. RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 13 Cardenas, D.S., and S.R. Van Wormer 1984 Archaeological Investigation of SDI-4648 and SDM-W-348. RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of El Cajon, Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Carrico, R.L. 1987 Sixty-five Years of San Diego County Archaeology. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 1-14. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Carter, G.F. 1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1978 An American Lower Paleolithic. Anthropological Journal of Canada 16:2-38. 1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in America. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Childers, W.M. 1974 Preliminary Report on the Yuba Burial, California. Anthropological Journal of Canada 12 (1):2-9. Cook, J.R. 1985 An Investigation of the San Dieguito Quarries and Workshops Near Rancho Santa Fe, California. Mooney-Lettieri and Associates, San Diego. Submitted to County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Davis, E.L. 1968 Early Man in the Mojave Desert. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1 (4):42-47. 1973 People of the Old Stone Age at China Lake. Ms., on file at Great Basin Foundation, San Diego. Erlandson, J.M. 1984 A Case Study in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects of the Burrowing Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of Archaeological Materials. American Antiquity 49:785-790. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Gallegos, D. 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Geocon Incorporated 2004 Geotechnical Investigation Ocean Street Condominiums, Ocean Street and Mountain View Drive, Carlsbad, California. Geocon Incorporated, San Diego. Report on file at Affinis. Griner, E.L., and P.R. Pryde 1976 Climate, Soils, and Vegetation. L1 San Diego: An Introduction to the Region, edited by P.R. Pryde, pp. 29-46. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Gross, G.T. 1992 Site Formation and Transformation Processes in Coastal Shell Middens and Shell-Rich Sites. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by T. L. Jones, pp. 195-204. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications 10, University of California, Davis. Gross, G. T., and J.A. Hildebrand 1998 San Dieguito and La Jolla: Insights from the 1964 Excavations at the C.W. Harris Site. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San Diego. Gross, G.T., and M. Robbins-Wade 1989 Archaeological Investigation of SDi-9772 (SDM-W-341 1) San Marcos, California. Affinis, El Cajon. Submitted to County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Hanna, D.C. 1984 Archaeological Testing of SDi-626, a Coastal Shell Midden site in Carlsbad, California. TerraMar International Services, Inc., San Diego. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Johnson, D.L. 1989 Subsurface Stone Lines, Stone Zones, Artifact-Manuport Layers, and Biomantles Produced by Bioturbation Via Pocket Gophers (Thomomys bottae). American Antiquity 54:370-389. 15 Kaldenberg, R.L. 1976 Paleo-technological Change at Rancho Park North, San Diego County, California. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. Kroeber, A. L. 1976 Handbook of California Indians. Dover, New York. Originally published 1925 as Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution. McCown, B.E. 1955 Temeku. A Page from the History ofthe Luiseiio Indians. Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California Paper No. 3. Meighan, C.W. !954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215-227. Minshall, H.L. 1976 The Broken Stones. Copley Books, San Diego. Moratto, M.J. !984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Moriarty, J.R., III 1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested By Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. The Anthropological Journal of Canada 4 (4):20-30. 1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 49- 60. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Robbins-Wade, M. 1986 Rising Glen: SDM-W-143/146 (SDI-5213 C & D). Casual Papers 2 (2):37-58. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University. 1988 Coastal Luiseiio: Refining the San Luis Rey Complex. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Fresno, California I :75-95. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego. Robinson, A. 1947 Life in California. Biobooks, Oakland. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rogers, M.J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 3. San Diego Museum of Man. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. Rogers, T.H. 1965 Santa Ana Sheet, Geologic Map of California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. Shackley, M.S. 1988 Archaeological Investigations at SDi-5103. A San Dieguito Lithic Workshop, San Diego County, California. Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego. Shipek, F.C. 1977 A Strategy for Change. The Luiseiio of Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Spatkman, P.S. 1908 The Culture of the Luisefio Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4): 187-234. Talley, R.P. 1982 The Life History of a Luiseiio Indian: James (Jim) Martinez. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. True, D.L., C.W. Meighan, and H. Crew 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology 11, Berkeley. Wallace, W.J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. 1960 Archaeological Resources of the Buena Vista Watershed, San Diego County, California. University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1959-1960:277-300. 17 Warren, C.N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185. 1985 Garbage About the Foundations: A Comment on Bull's Assertions. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 2(1):82-90. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University. 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 73-85. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. 1998 San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, Ten Years Later. Discussant in symposium at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San Diego. Warren, C.N. (editor) 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers No. 5. San Diego Museum of Man. Warren, C.N., D.L. True, and A.A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Repon 1960-1961, pp. 1-106. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. White, R.C. 1963 Luiseii.o Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194. Winterrowd, C.L., and D.S. Ciirdenas 1987 An Archaeological Indexing of a Ponion of the Village of La Rinconada de Jamo SDJ-5017 (SDM-W-150). RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I