HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-03; Villages of La Costa Greens; Tentative Map (CT) (10)JACK HENTHORN & ASSOCIATES
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
.To: Don Neu
Of: City of Ca'rlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760)602-4612
Fax: (760) 602-8559
From: Bryan D. Bennett
Of: Jack Henthorn & Associates
5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 438-4090
Fax: (760) 438-0981
Date: 9/5/02 Time: 9:44 AM
RE: La Costa Greens - Mitigation Measure 4.5-1
FORWARDED BY:
0 HAND DELIVERY D U.S. MAIL D FAX D COURIER D PRINTER D PICK-UP
Pages Description
1 Transmittal
1 Letter
1 copy RECON Treatment Plan for CA-SIDI-4846A
COMMENTS:
Enclosed please find the Treatment Plan for CA-SIDI-4846A for the La Costa Greens project. If you have
any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call our office at (760) 438-4090 ext
104. Thank you, Bryan
Copies to: Tim O'Grady, Morrow Development
File
RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2002
CfTY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
Jack Henthorn & Associates
5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008.
(760) 438-4090
Fax (760) 438-0981
September 5, 2002
Don Neu
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program, Measure #4.5-1
Dear Mr. Neu:
Enclosed please find the Treatment Plan for CA-SIDI-4846A prepared by RECON, dated
August 29, 2002. The plan was developed to guide excavation, analysis and interpretation of an
expanded archaeological sampling at CA-SIDI-4846 within the La Costa Greens project.
With the delivery of this document, the requirements for Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, Measure #4.5-1 have been satisfied. The Consulting Services Agreement
with RECON was previously submitted to you on August 2nd. If you have further requirements or
if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (760) 438-4090 ext 104 or e-mail me
at bennett@jhenthom.com.
Sincerely,
Bry^j/D. Bennett
Associate Planner
encl. RECON Treatment Plan for CA-SIDI-4846A
cc: Tim O'Grady - Morrow Development
file JHA/BDB?VLC
-1-
TREATMENT PLAN FOR CA-SDI-4846A;
LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGES OF LA COSTA,
THE GREENS PROJECT AREA,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
MORROW DEVELOPMENT
1903 WRIGHT PLACE, SUITE 180
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Prepared by
DAYLE CHEEVER
,NIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST
RECON NUMBER 3719A
AUGUST 29, 2002
1927 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 921 01 -2358
P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 This document printed on recycled paper
RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
RECON
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Author:
Consulting Firm:
Report Date:
Report Title:
Submitted to:
Contract Number:
USGS Quadrangle Map:
Keywords:
Dayle Cheever, M.A., RPA
RECON
1927 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101-2358
August 28, 2002
Treatment Plan for CA-SDI-4846A, Located within the
Villages of La Costa, The Greens Project Area, Carlsbad,
California.
Morrow Development, Inc.
1903 Wright Place, Suite 180
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RECON Number 3719A
Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5-minute series,
topographic maps, 1967/1975
CA-SDI-4846, expanded sampling, disturbance, developed,
negative monitoring, San Diego, coastal, urban,
undisturbed native soil
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
A. Setting 1
B. Related Work in the Project Region 3
C. CA-SDI-4846A/B 3
Submittals 22
References Cited 22
FIGURES
1: Regional Location of the Project 7
2: Project Location on U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Quadrangle 8
ATTACHMENT
1: Detailed Catalog Instructions and Protocol
Introduction
The following treatment plan was developed to guide excavation, analysis, and
interpretation of an expanded archaeological sampling at CA-SDI-4846 within the
Villages of La Costa, The Greens project area in the city of Carlsbad. This plan was
developed to guide an extended excavation effort at this site in anticipation of impacts
from the development of The Greens project.
The recovery plan for this site includes the completion of a point-plotted surface
collection and the excavation of up to 15 square meters of sample. The placement of the
sample units will be determined by a phased design, which will concentrate on recovery
in the most productive and least disturbed portions of the site. The recovered data will be
viewed for determining the nature of this site occupation, period(s) of use, activities, and
the fit of this site with a developing settlement model for this region.
A. Setting
1. Natural Environment
The study area is situated in the city of Carlsbad, east of El Camino Real, within four
miles of the coast, and the physical conditions are strongly influenced by the Pacific
Ocean. Various amounts of disturbance and alteration have occurred in the study area
including, early historic-era grazing from cattle, which has altered the vegetation
communities; the cutting of dirt and paved roads; the creation of a golf course and
housing developments; and incidental scraping, soil borrowing, and soil storage.
The surrounding area is characterized by steep and moderate slopes with level ridges,
fingers, and benches, which provide many suitable locations for human habitation. San
Marcos and Encinitas Creeks, Batiquitos Lagoon, and numerous small, unnamed
drainages combine to create an ideal setting for human habitation. These drainages
represent convenient travel corridors between the coastal margin and upland areas,
inland. The proximity of a wide range of plant and animal food and utilitarian resources
as well as fresh water and rock outcrops also contribute to the desirability of this area for
settlement. Examples of this desirability are suggested by the presence of numerous
archaeological sites throughout the region.
Another important feature of the study area is the climate. In general terms, the local
climate has been classified as Mediterranean. This is a climate that is characterized by
two seasons, a temperate wet winter and a moderate dry summer. Southern California is
the only place in the United States with this type of climate (Caughman and Ginsberg
1981). Most rainfall occurs between October and March, with the greatest number of
rainy days and greatest rainfall between December and February. The summer is
essentially dry. Because of the insular qualities of the Pacific Ocean, the winter
temperatures on the coast generally do not reach much below 60 degrees Fahrenheit in
the day and 50 degrees Fahrenheit at night, although the inland areas can be much colder,
particularly at night.
The coastal belt is significantly influenced by a strong high-pressure system (the Pacific
High) located to the west and by the Pacific Ocean. In combination, these factors block
cool, moist breezes that originate in the northern Pacific, from moving onshore. The
Pacific High shifts from north to south as the winter months approach, allowing winter
storms to come onshore. This system also allows for a condition immediately on the coast
known as onshore flow, whereby the cooler, moist air moves inland, sometimes as thick
fog banks. This circumstance can result in the deposit of trace amounts of moisture (dew)
that could be considered a source of fresh water, though not a traditional one.
2. Paleoenvironment
It is an undisputed fact that there have been shifts in environmental conditions throughout
the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) (Mehringer 1967; Axelrod 1983). Evidence for
these changes has come primarily from geological evidence on the coast and
paleobotanical studies completed in the Great Basin area. Antevs (1952) has discussed
the climatic history of California in terms of three post-Pleistocene periods: the
Anathermal, Altithermal, and Medithermal.
Warren and Pavesic (1963) summarized the available pollen data from the Great Basin
and the implications of reconstructing paleoenvironments in coastal California. They
proposed that the period after 10,000 years before the present (B.P.) was a drying trend
that culminated in a change, by 7,000 years B.P., from an arboreal (tree-dominated)
community to a predominantly grassland-dominated community. Grasslands alternated
with desert environments during short intervals over the subsequent centuries until there
was a stabilization to the dry environments of today's deserts. Warren and Pavesic
suggest that "the spread of La Jolla cultural elements to the Coast may be correlated with
the beginning of the desiccation of the now desert regions. Later, with further desiccation
of the desert areas, the coast must have been more strongly influenced by diffusion and
migration of peoples from the interior" (Warren and Pavesic 1963).
Conclusions regarding changes in temperature, rainfall, and vegetation patterns have been
extrapolated for coastal California as well. Eighmey (1992) summarized the available
information (Mehringer 1967; Inman 1983; Axelrod 1983) regarding known changes in
coastal vegetation patterns during the Holocene. A general trend of increasing mean
temperatures and aridity resulted in the gradual retreat of conifer forests from the interior
and coastal areas and a corresponding replacement by oak woodlands and coastal sage
scrub. Paleobotanical data from Mehringer (1967), Inman (1983), and Axelrod (1983)
suggest that nuts from conifers (such as pines and cypress) may have represented a
substantial food resource on the coast and, consequently, represented a strong influence
on settlement patterning during the early period of prehistory.
In addition to increasingly inhospitable climatic conditions in the interior regions, there
were considerable changes in the physiography of the coast, which resulted from the
general warming and drying trend. Inman (1983) and Masters (1988) discuss plate
tectonics and paleoclimatic changes and the resulting rise of the sea level during the past
10,000 years. Although this rise slowed after 6,000 years B.P. (having subsequently risen
approximately five meters), alteration of the coastline configuration is a factor in the
explanation of cultural resource settlement patterns. Warren and Pavesic (1963) also
argue that this alteration is a factor in the viability of the lagoons as healthy habitats for
various shellfish populations.
These alterations have strong ramifications for the study area, as Batiquitos Lagoon is a
prominent element of the physical environment for the region. The presence of marine
shellfish remains in virtually all of the archaeological sites in the region, further forges
the link between these areas. While sea level rose, the lagoons were well flushed and,
thus, supported large populations of rock-dwelling and sandy beach-dwelling shellfish.
When the rise in sea level slowed, the lagoons became progressively silted and shellfish
populations were reduced. These alterations have been discussed at length by local
archaeologists with regard to the ramifications they had for human settlement and cultural
practices. Some of those discussions are summarized below.
B. Related Work in the Project Region
The presence of many cultural resource sites in the region of CA-SDI-4846, Locus B
indicates the high degree of prehistoric-era activity in the area. Many of these sites have
been investigated archaeologically during numerous project-related studies. The Greens
project area was previously researched by Kaldenberg (1976), Kaldenberg and Hatley
(1976), Bull (1977 and 1978), Walker and Bull (1981) and Hector (1985). The Ridge
project was studied by Talley and Bull (1980) and Kaldenberg (1976), and The Oaks
parcel was investigated by Kaldenberg (1976), Pigniolo and Gallegos (1989), Desautels
(1990), Hanna (1991), Pigniolo and Gallegos (1991), and Kyle and Gallegos (1992).
The City of Carlsbad developed a series of research issues appropriate to the region.
These can be found within the City's Cultural Resources Guidelines and are used here as
the basis for the investigation of CA-SDI-4846.
C. CA-SDI-4846A/B
Kaldenberg recorded this two-locus site in 1976. The field inspection conducted during
the RECON investigation revealed that Locus A has been destroyed (Cheever and Collett
2001). None of the artifacts reported at this location were present at the time of the 2001
fieldwork. Shovel test probes were placed in various areas of the recorded location of
Locus A and revealed that the upper stratum has been scraped off to level the location for
storing potted trees (Cheever and Collett 2001). The soils along the adjacent slope were
inspected and did not reveal any indication of midden soil, artifacts, or ecofaunal
materials. No additional or formal excavation was made at Locus A due to its condition
and the absence of cultural materials.
Locus B of this site is the subject of the current investigation. This locus was recorded as
a midden deposit including chipped tools, mano fragments, thermally fractured rocks, and
marine shell. The site was attributed to the Middle Archaic period based on the
assemblage, rather than absolute dating. Kaldenberg reported a water tank on the site, but
this was demolished and the remnants were piled at the southwest margin of the locus.
The site was used as storage and access for potted landscape plants. Most of the site
surface and possibly the upper portions of the deposit have been disturbed or relocated by
activity related to plant storage.
The investigation of this locus in 2001, began with an inspection of the site location to
identify site boundaries, condition, and possible areas for excavation (Cheever and
Collett 2001). The level of disturbance limited the number of suitable areas for sampling.
Numerous artifacts were visible at the surface of the locus. An STP was excavated near
the trees stockpiled on-site. This probe revealed a disturbed deposit of cultural material
stratified by recent activity. The recovered cultural refuse included marine shell, bone
fragments, and debitage. The material was collected from the 30-centimeter (cm) and 50-
cm levels with no indication of materials above or between these levels. The STP did not
extend below 65 cm due to the limitations of the probe size and the apparent change from
loamy upper soil to soil with a higher clay content.
An inspection of the locus was made to determine the boundaries and site condition. No
cultural resource materials were identified south of the paved road adjacent to the site; to
the north of the site as the slope runs downhill; to the west, also running downhill past the
water tank; or to the east beyond the stored trees. The holes left by the removal of trees
prior to the evaluation program allowed a clear inspection of the soil stratigraphy at
multiple places in the locus. The culturally altered soils comprising the most obvious
characteristic of the deposit extend for approximately 20 or 30 cm below the surface in an
area dominated by a level spot. The level area lies between the water tank, road, and
slopes. Artifacts were present on the surface, within the spoil piles, and along roadbed
margins; however, there were none located within the exposures from the tree removal.
Inspections were conducted in areas located at the margins of the locus and confirmed
that the locus is restricted to the disturbed level area.
The sample unit was placed in the open area of the site and excavated to a final depth of
70 cm. At this point the underlying subsoil was exposed beneath a well-formed stone
zone resulting from extensive rodent activity. The soil in the sample unit is clay loam
with a high organic content influencing the color, but not the consistency of the soil.
Rodent activity was extensive and resulted in the development of a stone zone extending
from the northwest unit corner at 30 cm to covering the entire unit bottom by 50 cm and
extending another 10 centimeters deep. This stone zone was also observed in other
exposures across the site.
Some of the recovered items are inconsistent with Kaldenberg's assignment of the
deposit to the Middle Archaic period, specifically the Tizon Brown ware and Colorado
Buff ware ceramics. These items were recovered from the surface and as deep as 30 cm
below the surface. Together with other items such as a Late period projectile point
fragment and items of chert and obsidian, the deposit contains an identifiable Late period
component and may also extend back to the Middle Archaic period.
A collection of diagnostic surface artifacts was made during the 2001 investigation. The
recovery from the surface of the site yielded four pieces of Tizon Brown ware ceramic,
seventeen flaked stone artifacts, and two pieces of debitage. The flaked stone artifacts
include seven choppers, one core, four hammers, three scrapers, and two utilized flakes.
These tools indicate that activities taking place on-site included plant collection and
processing, as well as tool maintenance.
Locus B at CA-SDI-4846 includes a deposit of Late period cultural material as well as
artifacts that may represent Middle Archaic association. The integrity of the site has been
disturbed primarily by natural agents and by recent agricultural activity, which has
affected the uppermost levels of the deposit. No dates have been obtained for the deposit.
The presence of Tizon Brown ware as an indicator of Late period occupation confirms
the Late Prehistoric associations. The possibility of older material at deeper levels within
the deposit has not been confirmed through radiocarbon, obsidian hydration, or other
tests, unfortunately the disturbed context of the recovered materials limits the usefulness
of such tests. For example, obsidian was recovered from the surface to 10 cm level and
also from the 60 to 70 cm level. An examination of these two pieces shows that they both
resemble material from Obsidian Butte. This source of obsidian is commonly referred to
as a temporal marker of Late period activity. If both pieces of obsidian are verified to
come from the Obsidian Butte source it would indicate the level of disturbance to the
deposit, an increased antiquity of access to Obsidian Butte, or that the material is
contemporaneous, but mixed to a depth of 70 cm below the surface.
The study of this site determined that CA-SDI-4846 Locus B has the potential to meet
significance criteria under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and also
under the Cultural Resource Guidelines (CRG) of the City of Carlsbad (1990). Additional
work at this site will be guided by this research or work plan.
The following specific recommendations are made concerning the cultural resources
addressed in this investigation. This is based on the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Villages of La Costa Master Plan (MP 98-01; 2000).
1. A data recovery program to mitigate impacts resulting from development shall be
implemented at CA-SDI-4846, Locus B to include archival research to develop a
context within which the physical attributes of the resource can be evaluated;
additional field investigation to test hypotheses that would place the resource within a
cultural context with excavation of up to 15 sample units; and detailed mapping of the
site components to record spatial data.
2. Report the results of additional investigations to the City of Carlsbad and submit final
documents to the South Coastal Information Center and the San Diego
Archaeological Center.
The data recovery at this site is intended to acquire sufficient data to answer questions
highlighted below.
Data recovery will be undertaken within the context of known regional settlement and
subsistence patterns. It is believed that the current investigation will elucidate the
relationship between areas directly associated with Batiquitos Lagoon and more widely
spread resource areas to the northeast and east.
The study region is situated approximately one and one-half miles from Batiquitos
Lagoon at the nearest, and as far as about 2.75 miles. The reported contents of sites in this
region imply that shellfish was a food resource for occupants or users of sites in the La
Costa Greens area (Figures 1 and 2). Conversely, marine shell appears at only one site in
the study region (see Figure 1). A number of other sites in the study region did not
produce any evidence of marine shell. This implies a possible difference in the resources
used at these locations, or perhaps a difference in the activities undertaken among the
sites. Establishing the relationship between the resources in the study area through time
is one research goal.
The data recovery at CA-SDI-4846, Locus B is driven by three main elements: (l)the
location of the site in relation to the proposed project; (2) the intensity and accuracy of
previously completed surveys and evaluation programs; and (3) the existing conditions at
the site under consideration. As discussed above, the site has been surveyed numerous
times, and portions have been subject to focused cultural resource evaluations as the
result of environmental review. The additional excavation will collect a sample from
areas of the site that were determined to have potential to address areas of regional
research interest.
Lagoon \V Ca
56) San Diego
Pacific
Ocean
Project location
FIGURE 1
Regional Location
M:\jobs\3719\gis\arctec.api\figl 08/27/02
PROJECT LOCATION
p--. ^j^^jmmm^$
V'1' I •.:"i,«f»; ".•
'v I V#sa&r 1 -IVjr/rf^jL.
% \5?.f.
\ ,. n.!V ^
:c ^•^•C'^'^%%'•B^S •' . ,V^BK!-:*/>-A'- -4 I
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series,
Encinitas, Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos,
San Luis Rey quadrangle
t 0 Feet 2000
FIGURE 2
Project Location
on USGS Map
M:\jobs\JOB#<R\gis\biotec.apt\fig2 (usgs) 03/14/02
1. Research Questions, Data Requirements, and Field Methods
The following areas of research were pursued during the course of the expanded
exploration effort. The specific research questions are presented with the data required to
address them and the field and laboratory methods that were used to recover and analyze
the recovered materials.
Research domains such as religion, ideology, and intergroup relations are not appropriate
research domains at this site, as there appears to be no material remains or reasonable
inferential connections, which could be developed based on the results of the testing
program. Should this prove not to be the case, these areas of interest will be pursued.
a. Chronology
A determination of the temporal affiliation(s) of this site is of primary interest for this
project. As presented in earlier discussions, the chronological placement of this site is a
key variable in understanding the settlement model for the region and in providing a
clearer understanding between coastal- or lagoon-situated sites and sites found at inland,
valley locations. The presence of a Late period association found during testing present
the possibility that CA-SDI-4846 is a multicomponent site and that some of the
differences in artifact and ecofact materials are related to a cultural rather than
environmental shift. Establishing the occupation sequence at the site will help place this
site in a regional context and allow for comparison with other sites in the region.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Is there a discernible occupation sequence at this site? Are there two distinct cultural
horizons present or does this site represent a single occupation episode?
Does this site represent a long period of occupation or a series of short occupation
episodes?
Can a distinction between a Late period of occupation and earlier period(s) be defined at
this site?
DATA REQUIREMENTS AND FIELD METHODS
The size of CA-SDI-4846 is limited to some extent by the surrounding landform and the
cultural deposit appears to be localized within a somewhat smaller site area with a
maximum depth of deposit of 70 cm. The testing program at this site resulted in the
recovery of ceramic and obsidian, two products that have a demonstrated association with
the Late period. Sourcing of the obsidian can be used to determine if the obsidian was
derived from Salton Sea (Obsidian Butte) or Coso (Baja California). Then
correspondingly where it fits in the regional scenario which allies the Coso stone with the
duration of the Late period and possibly with the Late Archaic and Obsidian Butte stone
with the later portion of the Late period. The ability to reach Obsidian Butte was affected
by the size and presence of the Salton Sea, whereas Coso was consistently accessible, if
somewhat further away. While obsidian hydration is a relative technique, a number of
sites have been dated by this means and the calibration curve for the study area has been
established providing a foundation for samples from this site.
Other datable materials previously demonstrated at this site include marine shell from a
variety of species, in particular, Chione sp. and Argopecten sp., both of which have been
used extensively as sample material for radiocarbon dating of site samples from the
region. While there are a number of problems with the use of shell, the combination of
shell with temporally sensitive artifacts and charcoal and/or bone can provide a
reasonable level of reliability and confidence in the results. The comparison of dated
samples from this site with other sites in the region can also increase confidence in the
results or highlight inconsistencies. Ideally, the shell that is submitted for radiocarbon
analysis will be from a context where the association with the surrounding material is
strong rather than through random gathering of small fragments from multiple locations
within an excavation level. Whole shells will be chosen as sample items over fragments
and Chione sp. will be chosen over Argopecten sp.
The ideal choice for a radiocarbon sample would be charcoal from an intact hearth
feature or burned bone or shell from such a feature. If hearths are found, samples will be
derived in every instance and submitted for analysis. A priority will be to gather samples
from a variety of locations across and through the deposit to bracket the occupation
episodes and to demonstrate consistency in the temporal sequence.
b. Settlement
The settlement system around Batiquitos Lagoon and the associated inland valleys is an
area of research focus for this study. The pattern that will be challenged by the current
project is discussed below.
The settlement pattern for the study area includes the development of residential bases,
established on a seasonal (or perhaps longer-duration) basis, on the marine terraces
overlooking Batiquitos Lagoon and on terraces over inland drainages. Sites of this type
are present from circa 8,200 radiocarbon years B.P., with a florescence circa 7,500 B.P.
and continued development until 6,000 B.P. The occupation circumstances may have
seen each of these residential bases occupied simultaneously by separate clans or bands
or they were occupied on a rotational sequence with the choice of one location over
another for a variety of reasons. These residential bases express a wide range of
activities, from ceremonial to maintenance of tool kits, as well as a range of subsistence
activities, and the production of a varied and rich data set. Factors of consideration, such
as the availability of fresh water, plant foods, building material, fire fuel, shellfish beds,
10
and general weather conditions, may have influenced the choice of location. It has also
been suggested that the presence of burials at several of the sites in this grouping may
have played a part in restricting reoccupation of a site. The death of an individual and
their subsequent burial may have precluded continued occupation of a site or perhaps
even reoccupation of a site for a prescribed period of time or until such time as the
memory of the event was lost.
Regardless of the individual explanations for site placement and use life, the general
pattern persists; residential bases dating to the early years of the La Jolla phase of the
Early period. A transition in site type occurs during the middle years of this phase with
the introduction of field camps. These are sites that represent a shorter duration of stay,
smaller numbers of site occupants, or a change in the kinds of activities that were
undertaken in this study region. Realistically, there are probably other reasons or a
combination of the above reasons, which explain this pattern shift; however, it appears
that a shift does occur in this area of the county. Based on the work completed around
Batiquitos Lagoon, there is some suggestion that the field camps temporarily overlap the
residential bases; however, by 5,000 B.P. there is a recognizable shift towards the
behaviors that produce field camps as opposed to residential bases. It even appears as
though sites, which were identified as residential bases, may have shifted towards a field
camp manifestation (Cheever 1991).
The final settlement shift in the study area involves site deposits that date to the Late
period (circa 1,200 B.P.). Sites representing this final stage of aboriginal settlement have
been found to be clustered along the edge of Batiquitos Lagoon and in the drainages to
the east. These sites have been identified as locations, and in every case are shell dumps
or middens containing large quantities of clam and scallop shells with limited quantities
of artifacts. These sites appear to be a result of a settlement pattern that has people in
village locations undertaking venture episodes to targeted resources. These villages
appear to have been located in sheltered drainages, are relatively few in number, and
were probably visited as part of a seasonal round.
Extended sampling at CA-SDI-4846B presents an opportunity to identify the settlement
pattern for a site in the Batiquitos Lagoon catchment area. This will allow comparison of
the artifacts and structure of this site with the lagoon pattern and a contrast of the site
types should there be notable differences. In particular, the temporal placement of CA-
SDI-4846 is a key element in elaborating the settlement structure for this region into the
Late period.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Is CA-SDI-4846B a residential base? Is more than one site type expressed at this
location? Are the differences in the represented types of sites a function of settlement
strategy or subsistence-related activities?
11
What is the relationship between CA-SDI-4846 and the other sites in this
drainage/catchment area? Are there other contemporaneous residential bases, locations,
or field camps in the vicinity?
DATA REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS
The defining criteria for the various site types in this model are generally related to the
quantity, variety, and distribution of the preserved archaeological materials. In response
to the proliferation of site type categories and in an effort to systematically look at
settlement within a large study area, several individuals have suggested and carried out
the application of a system first proposed by Binford (1980). This system of site
classification was developed by Binford to describe the social and technological
patternings he observed in modern nonagricultural subsistence economies. These people
are generally grouped by anthropologists under a heading of hunter/gatherers, but Binford
found that at least two major subsistence strategies are included under this heading:
foragers and gatherers. These approaches are similar in a number of respects, however,
they are differentiated based on the logistics of their economic patterns.
According to Binford (1980), societies that use the foraging strategy generally procure
food on an as-needed basis. These groups tend not to store commodities, preferring to
relocate to areas where the resources are available. This pattern produces two types of
locational nodes: residential bases and locations. A residential base is the most complex
of the sites produced by either foragers or gatherers and is used to describe a node where
the population is centered and where the majority of economic and social activities take
place. In contrast, a location is a particular area that corresponds to the basic extractive
and processing tasks for food and utilitarian needs to be met. Within a forager society,
these procurement activities are generally performed by a smaller social unit, which
leaves the larger unit and later rejoins the group on a seasonal basis. This approach
allows for adjustments of population density to meet the demands of a changing resource
base. Seasonal declines in resource availability may require either shifts in the
orientation of the subsistence approach or a split into smaller, family-based units and
relocation, or a combination of these adjustments. Overexploitation of resources would
engender a similar set of responses.
In contrast, gatherers represent a somewhat different response to variable resource
availability. Gathering economies tend to send out smaller, specialized parties made up
of members of the larger society. These individuals specifically target particular items.
Seasonally available products are taken in greater quantity and the surplus is stored for
later use by the group. The greater complexity of the movement patterns created by this
approach produce a greater variety of site types over the landscape. There are still
residential bases and locations which are similar to those developed by foragers;
however, additionally Binford (1980) defines field camps, stations, and cache sites.
12
As defined, field camps consist of the temporary living and/or functional areas of the
smaller task groups while they are afield. Stations are primarily areas where information
is gathered or shared; for example, a traditional meeting place, viewpoint, or hunting
blind. Cache sites represent isolated storage features, probably located near the source,
where the group places the surplus for later use or transport.
From the standpoint of archaeological research, differentiation of foraging vs. gathering
economies will necessarily be based on the distribution and intrasite structure of
contemporaneous sites. The inherent implication of Binford's model is that the various
site types and their functional correlates will be discernible from the types of artifacts and
features that are found at each. One must recognize the problems of overlapping site
types and multiple site uses that combine to make application of this model difficult. The
first goal then is to attempt to identify sites that fit the proposed parameters.
It is assumed that sites must exist at which one or more limited tasks were undertaken;
that is, either a location, a field camp, or a cache site. At sites where only one task is
undertaken, the applicable tool kit that was used is expected to dominate the sample from
the site. In most cases, however, it would be likely that any given activity area might
encompass several processing tasks, each focused on a resource derived from nearby. In
these cases, several discrete tool kits and refuse profiles would coincide within the
sample from the site, some of which may correspond to multiple activities. As resources
occur in increasing proximity to each other, the probability should increase that
processing sites making up the overall inventory of resource areas will correspondingly
increase in the number of tasks expressed and the variety of task refuse. This approach
acknowledges that there is a relatively small set of forms described for prehistoric tool
kits so there will not be a linear correspondence between the number of activities that
occurred at a site and the number of different tool types (forms) in the recovered
assemblage. In order for the definition of discrete activities to be a successful pursuit, the
spatial patterning of material remains as well as the kinds of debris that are present at the
site must be clearly defined.
By extending this series of considerations to a logical conclusion, it appears that the only
realistic way to appraise land use by prehistoric inhabitants is to address a limited range
of assemblages that are embedded in a continuum of complicated deposits. The large
number of uncontrolled variables in such a system has made this an intransigent problem
for archaeologists. This is particularly the case in a region such as Carlsbad, where the
history and diversity of archaeological research provide sufficient comparative data, with
conflicting and confusing conclusions. In the face of such difficulties, it would seem that
the best approach is to begin with the most simple functional elements in a model so that
extraneous variables can be kept under control. The following definitions and
expectations are provided as the operating parameters for defining the resources under
study.
13
Stations. Stations are the simplest and most ephemeral of the site types defined by
Binford. Stations represent activities that are not associated, for the most part, with the
production of material culture items but are stopping places associated with specific goals
or needs. As Binford (1978) demonstrated, stations such as Nunamiut Eskimo hunting
stands show interesting spatial variability and a surprising inventory of cultural debris.
Stations could prove important for understanding nonresidential aspects of gathering and
might include specialized tools and personal items. In the case of hunting stands,
situation is based on visibility and proximity of target game. The potential locations of
other types of stations, such as ritually important locations, trail stops, or socializing
areas, might be difficult to predict; however, landform and available water may play a
part. Expected artifacts and features at stations would include but are not limited to the
following:
• Debris associated with the use and maintenance of hunting and/or fishing
equipment (for example, hunting blinds and fishing banks).
• Materials associated with group or individual social activities (for example, rock
art locales, initiation sites, dance areas).
Cache Sites. Cache sites are the locations where surplus commodities are stored for later
use. Examples might be Piute pine-nut storage pits and Kumeyaay acorn granaries. It is
proposed that cache sites should be associated with processing areas or locations. The
combination of these two site types in close proximity might better be classified as a
location rather than a cache. In the current model, a simple cache site is expected to
include at least the following characteristics:
• A small or absent tool assemblage, exclusive of the cached items.
• Situation in close proximity to either the cached resource or the potential use area.
• Quantities of unprocessed remains or raw materials.
• Protective structures, pits, or covers.
Cache sites are expected to occur either separately, in conjunction with processing sites
(locations), or in proximity to residential bases. The recognition of cache sites is
problematic, especially if nothing remains of the cached materials. The generally secret
nature of caching things also makes detection of these sites difficult.
Locations. A location is a site produced by the activities associated with a processing or
extractive task. A kill site or a shell midden could be considered locations, as could a
quarry. Within this site type category, the unit of analysis is an activity event and its
material manifestations. Since a single temporal event would be, for all intents and
14
purposes, invisible to archaeological resolution, what is needed is a site where a repetitive
series of single activity events or a group of related activity events were conducted.
These sites are generally termed "special activity sites" in that they do not (theoretically)
encompass all of the domestic activities (and by inference the material by-products) that
would occur near a central habitation area. Given these conditions, locations are
predicted to contain the following:
• A specific task-related tool kit.
• Situation in an area that is more favorable for the activity or is associated with
resources important to the activity.
• A limited amount and diversity of domestic refuse.
• Debris from the use or modification of the targeted resource(s).
From the standpoint of archaeological recovery, these variables will manifest themselves
as:
• A limited number of specific tool types.
• Location, near a definable or reconstructable resource.
• Limited recovery of multiple classes of domestic refuse (for example, shellfish,
bone, charcoal, and seeds).
• Specific types and limited quantities of debitage.
• Hearths, if present, related to basic processing and not containing a variety of
cooking debris.
Field Camp. A field camp represents a temporary working and living area associated
with gatherer task groups while they are away from the main residential base. Field
camps are expected to be located along the routes between resource areas and within
larger resource areas. With transient camps, the remains of special processing activities
are not expected to occur in large quantities. In proximity to a specific resource area, a
field camp might show some similarities with locations; however, they are considered to
be distinctive because they would have a significantly higher percentage of domestic
debris in the recovered sample. Field camps should be recognizable by:
• A small but representative sample of several artifact types.
• Location, near a major resource area or travel route.
15
• Moderate quantities of domestic refuse, including portable food items.
• A variable debitage assemblage with recognizable emphasis on the production
and use of a particular task-related tool kit.
• Cooking and processing hearths, although they should be single-use with small or
absent quantities of food refuse.
Residential Base. The last of the sites in the typological hierarchy is the residential base.
This is considered to be the most complex of the sites that are encountered in
archaeological research in the southern California region. This site type probably
accounts for the fewest number of sites in the region and perhaps the most often
misidentified. The differentiation between residential bases and field camps is
problematic, especially when a field camp has been occupied more than once. Of
particular concern is differentiating "accretion middens" from true residential bases. The
situation of a field camp at a desirable location may result in multiple occupations over a
series of years and the accumulation of ecofact and artifact patterns similar to those found
at a residential base. This is particularly true if there is a shift in resource emphasis over
the occupation sequence at a field camp.
Residential bases are seen as the hub of both forager and gatherer social group settlement
during the seasonal rounds. For foragers, the residential base may be a transitory
phenomenon; in particular, if the social group spends a portion of the year separated into
smaller family units. In the case of a gathering-based economy, the residential base may
play a more important role as the place where less mobile group members would spend
much of their time while various search parties brought materials back to this central
location.
As the focus of social and economic life, a residential base is expected to consist of a
relatively complete cross section of domestic and personal refuse. Specialized extractive
tasks, such as those carried out at satellite locales, are not expected to be a regular feature
of these sites, although limited amounts of all processing tasks could take place at a
residential base. In general, a residential base is expected to exhibit an increased depth of
deposit over a relatively short time frame. These sites should produce large quantities
and a variety of subsistence debris. The represented artifacts should be diverse and
flaked lithic debris should be representative of categories such as finishing, sharpening,
and maintenance.
In addition to the artifacts, residential bases should display multiple and at least some
complex features. These might include house floors, hearths, roasting pits, and storage
pits. The spatial relationships within these residential sites are predicted to be complex,
within definable activity areas or intrasite patterning.
16
Finally, residential bases are predicted to be located in a position central to the other sites
in the region. For gatherers, this pattern would include the presence of a residential base
with sites identified as locations, caches, and stations in reasonably close proximity.
Foragers are expected to show a more transient pattern, tending to form accretion
middens as a result of successive short-term stops at favored camps. Making a
distinction between the two economic approaches depends on tight stratigraphic control
and on careful examination of the sites in the region. Even under the best of
circumstances, the distinction is difficult.
The goals of the current research were to determine which of the preceding site types
apply to the materials and features uncovered at CA-SDI-4846B and to place this site
within the larger settlement model. The field methods that will be used were determined
based on a desire to collect the necessary information for such identification and to
provide complete coverage of the site. Previously stated conclusions regarding the
distribution of artifacts and ecofacts within and across the site were reexamined through
the use of a stratified aligned sampling method. A 10-meter grid system will be
established over the site and used for mapping and unit placement. Units will be
concentrated in the areas of the site with demonstrated subsurface return. A total of 15
square meters of sample are proposed during the expanded recovery effort as Ix 1-meter
sample units.
c. Subsistence
The third area of research for the current project is focused on subsistence. This arena of
research is tied with the preceding research areas in a variety of ways. The recovery of
marine shell during previously completed testing at this site established the link between
this site and the lagoon to the west. The presence of shell at this site and the
chronological placement of the site will provide the basis for testing a hypothesis put
forth by Smith and Moriarty (1985). This hypothesis has the movement of people from
the northern lagoons to the southern lagoons as the years of the La Jolla period move
from early to late. These authors present the notion that the northern lagoons silted more
rapidly and earlier than the southern lagoons and that this drove people towards the south.
The represented epifaunal and infaunal shellfish are also expected to change, as
Chione sp. are able to survive under conditions which limit Argopecten sp. There have
been a number of arguments made which provide conflicting evidence for the Smith and
Moriarty proposition, the most pointed of which was proposed by Dennis Gallegos
(1987). Gallegos presents information on the siltation scenario for Batiquitos Lagoon
highlighting the locations of sites and the represented shell quantities of Chione in
relation to Argopecten. A site located in the San Dieguito River valley to the south (CA-
SDI-687) may also provide some interesting comparative information for a
contemporaneous occupation of an estuary/river valley. CA-SDI-687 has provided
information regarding occupation of a river terrace circa 6,000-7,000 B.P. This site
provides indications that there may have been changes in the availability of scallops
17
within a short time after the initial site occupation and that Chione sp. was more readily
available, if not the preferred meat source.
The location of this site adjacent to a drainage, in a more sheltered valley setting, also
provides for the opportunity of contrasting the recovered materials with lagoon-situated
sites. Questions regarding changes in subsistence strategy can be addressed if CA-SDI-
4846 demonstrates a series of occupation episodes and those episodes can be shown to
have a direct association with identified cultural horizons. The expression of technology
at this site and other sites in the project can be viewed from a comparative standpoint
with the lagoon-based sites from a synchronic perspective, to isolate pattern differences if
they exist and ultimately to better understand the possible reasons for those differences.
At the completion of the testing phase, the site produced eight cores, two unifacial
scrapers, one chopper, four hammers, and four modified/utilized flakes as well as one
mano and one basin metate fragment. The relationship between the subsistence remains
and the tools at this site is explored with regard to changes in the expressed technology
and distribution of tools. An area of interest is the expressed quantity of certain tools
such as choppers or points at CA-SDI-4846 when compared with sites on the lagoon.
Inasmuch as formal tools are used as inferential proof of subsistence strategy, this
presents an opportunity to quantify the differences if they exist.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What plant and animal resources were used at CA-SDI-4846? Are there expressed
changes in the dependence of these resources over the use life of the occupation area?
Is the focus of this site subsistence related or are the floral and faunal materials incidental
to the primary behaviors undertaken at this location?
Was this site occupied on a seasonal basis and, if so, during what season(s)?
DATA REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS
In order to answer the questions presented above, it is necessary to recover materials that
can be used to reconstruct diet and environmental setting. Some of the most commonly
recovered materials of the necessary types are non-human skeletal remains, plant seeds,
pollen, and shell.
Meat resources can be identified through analysis of the skeletal remains, which need to
be in sufficiently good condition and in a sufficient quantity to allow identification to the
species level or more generally to genus or family grouping categories. The condition of
skeletal materials is also critical in understanding diet practices. Identification of the
types of skeletal elements recovered—for example, humerus, femur—was completed as
well as a determination of exposure to fire, butchering evidence, and the side (right or
left) that the element represents. This information was used to calculate minimum
18
number of individuals for the various species, which is extrapolated into meat mass and
general statements regarding available calories and other nutritional information.
The accuracy and value of this information is only as good as the quality of the sample
and the presence of well-preserved faunal materials in the sample. Weight comparisons,
while commonly provided, can be misleading, as Chione sp. is a heavier shell than
Argopecten sp., and will be represented as a larger quantity if weight alone is used. The
comparison that was made for these animals at CA-SDI-4846 was relative represented
amounts of the various species per volume of excavated soil.
FIELD METHODS
The purpose of the field investigation is to determine if the site under study has the
quantity, quality, and variety of archaeological materials that can be applied towards the
understanding of important research themes or specific research questions. The
evaluation will include an excavation of up to 15 sample units and detailed mapping to
the site components to record spatial data, and the submittal of at least one radiocarbon
sample to establish some chronological association. Units will be placed in a judgmental,
stratified arrangement to determine the most productive and least impacted areas of
archaeological deposit. Using the initial units to determine the areas of concentrated
deposit, the remaining units will be placed to maximize the recovery from this area.
The sample units will be excavated in 10-cm levels following natural contours. The
excavated soil will be passed through one-eighth-inch wire mesh to separate the bulk soil
from the cultural materials. Artifacts collected in the screens will be placed in plastic
bags with the appropriate provenience marked on each bag. Each sample unit will be
continued until a non-artifact- or non-ecofact-bearing level is reached. Excavation will be
accomplished with hand tools such as shovels, picks, digging bar, and trowels.
Site mapping. Site mapping will be accomplished using a global positioning system
(GPS) (Trimble PXB1) field tool with submeter accuracy. The GPS unit will be used to
verify the mapped location of CA-SDI-4846B and all units will be incorporated onto the
RECON field map using the GPS.
Surface collection. A surface collection will be accomplished with collected materials
and plotted on the scaled site map. It is not anticipated that a surface collection will be
completed in a systematic way. However, if diagnostic artifacts are revealed at the site,
they will be plotted and collected.
Radiocarbon Samples. Radiocarbon samples will be recovered from sample units, which
contain appropriate materials for submittal. These samples will be submitted to Beta
Analytic, Inc. Every effort will be made to extract samples from a context that is
undisturbed.
19
Photographs. Photographs will be taken of field activity and surrounding areas. Field
notes on the condition, content, and recovery from each unit will be recorded on standard
RECON field forms. This will include descriptions of the stratigraphic context, features,
and general descriptive information for the various excavation units. A brief summary of
the recovered materials will be recorded on the field record sheets. At the completion of
the field investigation, each unit will be back filled.
Recovered archaeological materials will be transported back to the RECON lab for
analysis and processing. Artifacts recovered during this phase will be curated at RECON.
A series of attributes will be recorded for each of the formal tools and debitage, including
identifying the parent material, tool dimensions, weight, whether the tool was complete
or broken, the presence of cortex, and a series of attributes regarding use, damage, and
modification. The analysis of the artifacts and ecofacts is designed to identify the
elements of the site types and provide descriptive as well as attribute information for the
flaked stone and ground stone tools. This accumulated information will be entered into
the RECON database to allow for comparison with other collections and statistical
appraisal.
Laboratory Analysis. Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, all artifacts, ecofacts, field
notes, and catalogue sheets for the evaluation effort will be gathered. Recovered organic
samples will be sent to BetaAnalytic for radiocarbon analysis. Laboratory tasks will
include cleaning, sorting, analyzing, and collating collected data. RECON uses a
software-based catalog and analysis system. Attachment 1 provides the detailed catalog
instructions and protocol. A summary of the proposed methods is presented here.
Debitage. The majority of artifacts from local archaeological sites falls into the debitage
category. Debitage comprises flakes and angular waste (shatter) or the stone by-products
of stone tool manufacture and maintenance. The items in this category are organized by
sample unit, maintained by level and sorted by stone material type into nine reduction
type choices. For each excavation level, the debitage is sorted by parent stone into one of
the nine type categories.
The analysis of flaked lithic debris (debitage) will follow a series of steps that were
originally proposed by Jane Rosenthal (Norwood, Bull, and Rosenthal 1981). The
analysis of debitage is geared towards reconstructing the stages of stone tool
manufacture. The artifacts in this group are described as flakes and angular waste. The
definition of a flake for the current study is a stone, which has been removed from a
larger stone (core) by a human and retains evidence of this removal in the form of a
striking platform and a bulb of percussion. Angular waste includes items that are
probably flakes but the bulb or the striking platform is not present. The angular waste
group includes items that can be produced during hard hammer percussion where a strike
results in pieces breaking off the parent stone, which do not have the attributes of a flake.
Typically, these items are evaluated based on parent material. For example, at a site
20
where metavolcanic stone does not occur naturally, broken fragments of this stone
without the attributes of a flake may be collected for consideration as angular waste.
Flaked Stone Tools. Formal flaked lithic tools will be individually labeled with an
assigned accession number and a catalog number. Attributes will be recorded for each of
the formal tools and for cores. Attributes include identifying the parent material, dimen-
sions, weight, whether the tool is complete or broken, the production base, the presence
of cortex, the angle of the working edge, and a series of attributes regarding use, damage,
and modification.
This analytical system assigns a label to the artifact (e.g., core, unifacial scraper, and
projectile point) but also quantifies individual modification and/or damage attributes.
These attributes are compatible with the tool label, but they provide more information
describing specific damage events on the tools (non-contiguous exclusive damage events
[NEDEs]). This allows both tool form and tool use wear to be described concurrently.
Attachment 1 provides the laboratory instructions.
Although some flaked stone artifacts can be labeled as cores or unifacial scrapers without
controversy or oversimplification, many stone tools were used for more than one task and
are not neatly described with a single label (Hector 1984). For some analyses, this
problem has been overcome by combining labels (e.g., core/chopper or scraper/knife)
(CSRI 1983). The goal of the stone artifact analysis used here is to identify culturally
patterned ways in which stone implements were modified and used.
Ground Stone. Ground stone items will be separated into categories based on type
(mano, basin metate, slab metate, bowl) and parent material. Material type, attributes,
and condition define these items. Every attempt will be made to reunite broken items to
minimize the impression of a large sample based on broken fragments. The catalog sheet
and instructions for ground stone process is provided as Attachment 1.
Faunal Remains. There has been no report of shell at either site. Bone will be separated
into groupings of identifiable and non-identifiable mammal, reptile, bird, amphibian, and
fish. Whenever possible, the identifiable bone will be keyed to genus and/or species
levels. Both of these groups will be examined for evidence of burning and butchering.
The class categories that will be used for this analysis are mammal, bird, reptile,
amphibian, and fish with distinctions made between large, medium, and small mammals,
as possible.
21
Submittals
At the completion of laboratory work, the collection will be packaged and the client will
handle final curation. All records and support materials will be provided to the client
within 30 days of acceptance of the final cultural resource document.
Upon completion of the analysis, a report will be prepared that presents the results and
interpretations of the various research topics that have been proposed. The report will
provide recommendations and management considerations for this site as appropriate.
RECON will address comments from City of Carlsbad staff within 30 days of receipt of
comments.
References Cited
Antevs, Ernst
1952 Climatic History and the Antiquity of Man in California. University of
California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 16, pp. 23-31. Berkeley.
Axelrod, Daniel I.
1983 Paleobotanical History of the Western Deserts. In Origin and Evolution of
Deserts, edited by Stephen G. Wells and Donald R. Haragan. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Binford, L. R.
1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an
Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330-361.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails. American Antiquity 45:4-22.
Bull, Charles S.
1977 Archaeology and Linguistics, Coastal Southern California. Master's thesis,
San Diego State University.
1978 Prehistoric Lifeways at La Costa North: An Investigation of Archaeological
Sites. San Diego. RECON.
Caughman, M. M., and J. S. Ginsberg
1981 California Coastal Access Guide. California Coastal Commission, University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Carlsbad, City of
1990 Cultural Resource Guidelines.
22
Cheever, Dayle M.
1991 Data Recovery Project for Nine Cultural Resource Sites: Aviara Development,
Carlsbad, California. RECON.
Cheever and Collett
2001 Results of Significance Evaluation at Nine Cultural Resource Sites for the
Villages of La Costa.
Cultural Systems Research, Inc. (CSRI)
1983 Volume I: Cultural Resource Recovery Program of the Proposed Miguel-
Tijuana 230 kV International Interconnection Project. Submitted to SDG&E.
Desautels, Roger
1990 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Records Check for
Alternative Alignments for Highway 680. Huntington Beach. SRS.
Eighmey, James D.
1992 Archaeological Test Excavations on Carmel Mountain, Site SDi-4907, Loci A,
B, and C. RECON.
Hanna, David C.
1991 The Phase U Archaeological Test of Malcolm J. Rogers' Site SDM-W-181 At
La Costa Town Center in the City of Carlsbad, California. RECON.
Hector, Susan M.
1984 Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Activities in Southern San Diego County,
California. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1985 Excavations of Six Sites in La Costa Near Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego
County, CA. RECON.
Gallegos, D. R.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the
Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and
Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society. San Diego.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in
the Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine
Archaeology, edited by P. M. Masters and N. C. Flemming. Academic Press,
New York.
23
Kaldenberg, Russell L.
1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of La Costa. Manuscript on file at
RECON, San Diego.
Kaldenberg, Russell L., and M. J. Hatley
1976 The Archaeology of Green Valley Knolls: A La Jolla Complex Shellfish
Processing Site. Manuscript on file at RECON, San Diego.
Kyle, Carolyn, and Dennis Gallegos
1992 Archaeological Test of Fine Pre-Historic Sites for the Rancho Santa Fe Road
Alignment Project, Carlsbad. Gallegos and Associates.
Masters, Patricia, Ph.D.
1988 Paleo-Environmental Reconstruction of San Diego Bay, 10,000 B.P. to Present.
In Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric
Site SDi-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. WESTEC Services, Inc.
Mehringer, Peter H., Jr.
1967 Pollen Analysis of the Tule Springs Site, Nevada. In Pleistocene Studies in
Southern Nevada, edited by H. M. Wormington and Dorothy Ellis. Nevada
State Museum Anthropological Papers No. 13. Carson City, Nevada.
Norwood, Richard, Charles Bull, and E. J. Rosenthal
1981 An Archaeological Data Recovery Project in the East Drinkwater Basin, Ft.
Irwin, California. RECON.
Pigniolo, Andrew, and Dennis Gallegos
1989 Cultural Resource Survey of the Rancho Santa Fe Road Alignment, Carlsbad,
CA. San Diego: ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company.
Smith, Brian, and James Moriarty
1985 The Archaeological Excavations of Cultural Resources at the Batiquitos Pointe
and Batiquitos Bluffs Projects, Sites W-84, W-88, W-95, W-97, and W-2551.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, San Diego.
Talley, Paige, and Charles S. Bull
1980 Impact Mitigation Report for Rancheros de la Costa.
Walker, C. J., and Charles S. Bull
1981 Archaeological Investigation of a Portion of SDM-W-110, Batiquitos Lagoon
Region, Carlsbad, CA. RECON.
24
Warren, Claude N., and Max G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for
Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California.
Appendix I in Archaeological Investigations at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego
County California, by Robert H. Crabtree, Claude N. Warren, and D. L. True.
Annual Report Archaeological Survey. Department of Anthropology-
Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
25
ATTACHMENT 1
Detailed Cataloging Instructions
and Protocol and Coding Sheets
CODING DICTIONARYFOR THE RECON LAB SYSTEM
Record the coded data onto one or more of the new analysis/catalog sheets. Remember to
complete the accession number, job name, site, and job number entries at the top of each
sheet. Use only ONE SITE PER PAGE. Complete the entry for each catalog sheet
entry regardless of repetition. Provenience designations are the responsibility of the Field
Supervisor, so deficiencies should be brought to his/her attention for correction.
Job no. R####A. No hyphen and indicate letter designation if any or leave blank.
Catalog no. This is the artifact's or item's unique number within the collection.
Site no. This can be California state trinomial, San Diego Museum of Man, or
temporary, but temps must be replaced AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Indicate the character prefix for the site number and "H" designator
without hyphens or other punctuation, for example "SDI12123H",
"SDM633", etc.
Locus Designated by site record or as needed for our new sites.
Easting Meters east of datum, west is expressed as negative east. [a.k.a. X axis]
Northing Meters north of datum, south is expressed as negative north, [a.k.a. Y axis]
Level Lowest depth of the vertical provenience. Surface is expressed as zero (0),
all others are indicated as a multiple of ten, i.e. 10, 20, 30,40, etc.
Task code This is a series of codes which identify what was going on when the
artifact was collected. Additions are at the discretion of the Field Director
and Lab Director in concert with the Senior Archaeologist. Refer to the
coding sheets below.
Task no. The number of what was being done. Unit 1, scrape 1, trench 1, surface
item 1, etc.
Artifact type This is a series of codes in groups of 100. Types ending in 00 are
undifferentiated or undetermined. Refer to the coding sheets below.
Class List the series of hundreds indicated for type, i.e. 0-99 = class 0, 100-199
= class 1, 200-299 = class 2, etc.
Weight The weight of the item to the nearest one-tenth gram.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Count The number of the items sharing the same catalog number. This is
important where each item is the result of specific action such as flakes or beads.
If too many to determine, indicate a zero, for example a bag of shell fragments or
undifferentiated bone bits. Completeness is not a factor in determining the
number of items.
Material List the appropriate code to indicate the material of the item. Refer to the
coding sheets below.
Length The measurement to the nearest millimeter from A to B. Refer to the
dimension determination diagram below.
Width The measurement to the nearest millimeter 90° to AB.
Thickness The measurement to the nearest millimeter 90° to each of W and L.
Condition Indicate the appropriate code to describe the item's condition. Refer to
the coding sheets below.
Item status Where is the artifact in relation to the collection.
0= Discarded
1= Curated
2= In Type Collection
During the catalog process is the appropriate time to make observations regarding
specific artifacts. At this time the artifact is in-hand and can be commented on easily.
Also, observations about the total collection can be made on comment forms. These
might include "Most degraded batch of granite I've seen, ever" or "Odd that no manos
were found", etc. Comments of this nature and on specific artifacts are encouraged,
especially in cases of datable items, items with distinguishing marks, or decoration, or
items that are not explicitly described by the catalog process without additional comment.
When making comments or adding descriptions, these should be made on additional
sheets and not placed in the margins of the catalog sheets. The sheets must be
coordinated using the catalog number of the artifact. A sample comment sheet is
available, but any paper will be suitable if it contains the necessary provenience
information to associate the descriptions with the artifacts being commented on. The
goal is to collect information, work toward it.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Task Codes
0= Undifferentiated task event.
10= Undifferentiated survey.
11= Survey by 10m transects.
20= Undifferentiated surface collection program.
21= Surface collection by point plot.
22= Surface collection by 10m x 10m grid.
23= Surface collection by 20m x 20m grid.
24= Surface collection by 1m radius surrounding a point.
30= Undifferentiated shovel scrape program. 35= 2m x 5m
31= 1m x 1m shovel scrapes.
32= 2m x 2m shovel scrapes.
33= 3m x 3m
34= 10m x 10m
40= Undifferentiated shovel test pits (STPs) 44= Auger hole
41= STPs 25cm x 50cm no levels reported. 45= Post hole
42= STPs 25cm x 50cm, 10cm levels reported.
50= Undifferentiated hand excavation.
51= 1m x 1m subsurface by 10cm levels.
52= 2m x 2m subsurface by 10cm levels.
53= 3m x 3m subsurface by 10cm levels.
54= 1m x 2m subsurface by 10cm levels.
55= 1m x 0.5m subsurface by 10cm levels.
56= 0.5m x 0.5m subsurface by 10cm levels (SEEUs).
57= 20cm x 20cm column sample by 10cm levels.
58= Soil sample.
60= Undifferentiated backhoe (or similar machine) trench.
61= Linear backhoe trench.
62= Broad-blade scrape.
63= Pit or non-linear excavation, [Note: features identified by backhoe are addressed in 80s].
70= Undifferentiated monitoring recovery.
71= Feature discovered during monitoring.
72= Scatter discovered during monitoirng.
73= Recovery from excavated exposure.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Task Codes (cont'd.)
80= Undifferentiated feature.
81= Feature recording.
82= Feature item collection only.
83= Feature surface test and residue sample collection.
84= Feature test probe, to investigate size, depth and content.
85= Feature excavation, as a single entity.
86= Feature excavation and sampling as part of mechanical excavations.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type
FLAKED LITfflC ARTIFACTS (FLA) [class = 0]
0= Undifferentiated FLA.
1= Core
2= Blade
3= Unclassified projectile point
4= Knife
5= Unclassified scraper
6= Chopper
7= Hammerstone
8= Utilized flake
9= Modified flake
10= Crescentic
11= Drill
12= Blank
13= Combination
(DO NOT USE 14, it had been assigned as "other" which is now type 0).
15= Projectile point [Desert Side Notched]
16= Projectile point [Cottonwood]
17= Projectile point [Dos Cabezas Serrated]
For Special Studies Only
20= Convex Sidescraper
21= Convex-Concave Sidescraper
22= Concave Sidescraper
23= Double-Convex Sidescraper
24= Convergent Sidescraper
25= Double-Convergent Sidescraper
26= Denticulate Sidescraper
27= Notched Sidescraper
28= Domed Sidescraper
29= Straight Sidescraper
30= Straight-Convex Sidescraper •
31= Straight-Concave Sidescraper
32= Double Straight Sidescraper
33= Thumbnail Scraper
34= Tabular Scraper
35= Multiple Scraper
36= Endscraper
37= Graver
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type (cont'd.)
GROUNDSTONE [class = 1]
100= Undifferentiated groundstone item
101= Mano
102= Pestle
103= Slab
104= Basin
105= Bowl
(DO NOT USE 106, i.e. 6 in the older system, it was designated for
"other" which is now type 100).
110= Drilled Item.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type (cont'd.)
DEBITAGE or FLAKES AND ANGULAR WASTE [class = 2]
(Source from Norwood, Bull and Rosenthal 1981, see the chart below).
200= Undifferentiated debitage
201= "Blade" type flake
202= Bifacial thinning flake
203= Platform creation, cortex removal
204= Cortex removal
205= Core reduction, basic shaping
206= Finishing, resharpening
207= Trimming
208= Shatter during primary reduction
209= Shatter during secondary or subsequent reduction
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
FLAKE TYPOLOGY
Relative Dorsal
Type Bulb Platform Length Cortex Scars Other Assumed Process
201 Present Present 2x W
202 Present Present
203 Present Present 2+cm
204 Present Present 2+cm 30-80% 0 or 1
2+ Parallel sides Specialized blade type
205 Present Present 2+cm <30%1+
206 Present Present <2cm 0%
207 Present Present <2cm Present 1+
208 Absent Absent
209 Absent Absent
Present
Absent
Diverging sides, thin Bifacial thinning
Platform creation /
Cortex removal
Cortex removal
Core reduction / Basic
shaping
Finishing /
Resharpening
Trimming
Shatter during primary
reduction
Shatter during
secondary reduction
SOURCE: After Norwood, Bull, and Rosenthal 1981.
NOTE: Flake Type
3,4,8 initial reduction
1,2,5 intermediate reduction
6,7 final reduction
9 indistinguishable secondary shatter
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type (cont'd.)
ABORIGINAL CERAMIC [class = 3]
300= Undifferentiated ceramic sherd
301= Body sherd
302= Neck sherd
303= Rim sherd
304= Base sherd
305= Lid sherd
306= Handle sherd
307= Foot sherd
311= Pipe
312= Figure or Effigy
313= Shaped Item
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type (cont'd.)
BONE, NON HUMAN, INCLUDING ARTIFACTS [class = 4]
400= Undifferentiated bone
401= Sylvilagus audubonii (desert cottontail)
402= Sylvilagus bachmani (bush rabbit)
403= Lepus californicus (black-tailed j ackrabbit)
404= Spermophilus beecheyi (California ground squirrel)
405= Thomomys bottae (pocket gopher)
406= Neotoma sp. (woodrat)
407= Enhydra lutris (sea otter)
408= Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer)
409= Urocyon cinereoagentus (gray fox)
410= Canis sp. (coyote, dog, wolf)
411= Unidentifiable small mammal
412= Unidentifiable large mammal
413= Crotalus sp. (vipers, rattlesnakes)
414= Lampropeltus sp. (kingsnake)
415= Unidentifiable reptile
416= Clenanys sp. (turtle)
417= Unidentifiable bird
418= Peromyscus sp. (mouse)
419= Cervus sp. (deer)
420= Didelphis virginiana (opossum)
442= Unidentifiable fish
443= Bos taurus (domesticated bovine)
444= Not speciated Odilith (fish ear bone)
445= Not speciated crustacean (crabs, crayfish, etc.)
480= Undifferentiated bone artifact, describe in additional notes
481= Awl, describe in additional notes
482= Bodkin or Fid, describe in additional notes
483= Bead, describe in additional notes
484= Ovis/Capra (domestic goat)
485= Not speciated ray spine
486= Not speciated snake
487= Needle
488= Unidentifiable medium mammal
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type (cont'd.)
SHELL, INCLUDING ARTIFACTS
500= Undifferentiated shell
501= Acanthina sp.
502= Acanthochitona sp.
503= Acmaea sp.
504= [No longer in use, 8/99]
505= Aesopus sp.
506= [No longer in use, 8/99]
507= Astraea sp.
508= Calliostoma sp.
509= Callistochiton sp.
510= Cancellaria sp.
511= Cerithidea sp.
512= Chionesp.
513= Collisella sp.
514= Conussp.
515= Crucibulum sp.
516= Dentalium sp.
517= Donaxsp.
518= Haliotis sp.
519= Hinnites sp.
520= Homalopoma sp.
.
522= Leavicardium sp.
523= Lirularia sp.
524= Littoria sp.
525= Lucinisca sp.
526= Macron sp.
527= Megathura sp.
528= Mytilus sp.
529= Nassarina sp.
560= Trimusculus sp.
[class = 5]
530= Norrisia sp.
531= Notoacmea sp.
532= Ocenebara sp.
533= Odostomia sp.
534= Olivella sp.
535= Opalia sp.
536= Ostrea sp.
537= Pecten sp.
538= Polinices sp.
539= Protothaca sp.
540= Pseudochama sp.
541= Saxidomus sp.
542= Serpulorbis sp.
543= Tagelus sp.
544= Tegula sp.
545= Tricolia sp.
546= Turbonilla sp.
547= Turritella sp.
548= Americardia sp.
549= Lamellaria sp.
550= Crepidula sp.
551= 77ve/asp.
552= Pteropurpura sp.
553= Ballanus sp.
554= Bead, describe in additional notes
555= Dendropoma sp.
556= Septifer sp.
557= Maxwellia sp.
558= Calcum sp.
559= Ocenebra sp.
561= gastropods, asstd.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact type (cont'd.)
OBJECT OF INTEREST OR SAMPLE [class 6]
Note: Make sure that these are actually planned samples to be cataloged and or kept.
600= Undifferentiated object
601= Soils
602= Charcoal
603= Floral
604= Fire Affected Rock (FAR)
605= Ash
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type (cont'd.)
HISTORIC ERA ITEMS [class = 7]
These are coordinated with Van Warmer's typology. [Note: see the attached pages
for examples of the items found in each type]
700= Undifferentiated historic item
711= Consumer Group Item (items purchased and consumed on a regular basis)
712= Kitchen Group Item (food preparation and serving)
713= Household Group Item (daily household maintenance)
714= Garment Group Item (clothing items)
715= Personal Group Item (belonging to a single individual)
716= Furniture Group Item (furniture parts)
717= Hardware Group Item (misc. hardware not included in a specific group)
718= Tools Group Item (hand tools)
719= Livery Group Item (horse and horse-drawn vehicle items)
720= Munitions Group Item (firearms and related items)
721= Coin Group Item (Coinage and tokens)
722= Building Materials Group Item (construction materials)
723= Machinery Group Item (machine parts except agricultural implements)
724= Forge Materials Group Item (forge, furnace and stove wastes)
725= Agricultural Implements Group Item (farm machinery)
726= Other Occupations Group Item (specialized occupation items)
727= Unique Item (items not included in other groups)
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Historic Artifact Examples by Type
711 Consumer Group
Bottles, Jars, Tin cans and other tins, Bottle caps, Can lids, Can keys, Cigarettes
712 Kitchen Group
Stove parts, Flatware, Utensils, Canning jars and related items, Jelly tumblers,
Glass tableware, Ceramic kitchen and tableware, Cooking items, Butchered bone
713 Household Group
Household ceramics, Household glassware, Lamp parts, Light bulbs, Medical
items, Batteries, Television, Radio, Commode/thunder mug/chamber pot/honey
bucket
714 Garment Group
Shoe parts, Cufflinks, Collar stays, Hat or scarf pins, Strap slides, Buttons, Garter
clasps, Hooks and eyes, Suspender clasps, Straight pins, Buckles, Clothing rivets
715 Personal Group
Watches, Jewelry, Toys and gaming items, Musical instruments, Eyeglasses,
Toiletry items such as toothbrushes, razors, combs, etc., Smoking pipes,
medicines such as patent, aspirin, prescription, salves, and ointments
716 Furniture Group
Upholstery tacks, Springs, Cabinet hinges, Drawer pulls, Scroll trim, Trunk parts,
Bed and other furniture frames and springs
717 Hardware Group
Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Washers, Chain links, Metal bands and strapping, Cotter
pins, Rivets, Baling wire, Wire fencing, Garden hose, Electrical wire
718 Tools Group
Gardener's tools, Carpenter's tools, Mason's tools, Mechanic's tools, Jeweler's
tools, Artist's tools
719 Li very Group
Bridle parts, Saddle parts, Harness parts, Horse shoes and nails, Wagon parts,
Buggy parts
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Historic Artifact Examples by Type (continued)
720 Munitions Group
Bullets, Cartridges, Shot, Roundball, Gun parts
721 Coin Group
Coins, Tokens
722 Building Materials Group
Nails, Spikes, Window glass, Construction hardware, Door locks and parts,
Electrical hardware, Counter glass, Asphalt, Plaster, Concrete, Ceramic drain
pipe, Ceramic flu lining, Toilets and sinks, Tiles, Fuses, Window screen
723 Machinery Group
Machine parts, Belts, Tires
724 Forge Materials Group
Coal, Clinkers, Slag
725 Agricultural Implements Group
Plow parts, Harrow parts, Chain belting, Cultivator parts, Mower parts, Hay rake
parts, Threshing machine parts, Manure spreader parts, Tractor parts
726 Other Occupations Group
Farmstead items, Mining items, Factory items, Medical items, Dental items
727 Unique Items Group
Any items not included in other groups.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Artifact Type (cont'd.)
Bone, Human, or Potentially Human [class = 8]
800= Human or potentially human bone
CLASS 8 MATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
31= Bone
38= Tooth
CLASS 8 CONDITION CODES (abridged)
0= Broken
1= Whole
2= Broken and Burned
3= Broken and Heated
7= Whole and Burned
8= Whole and Heated
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Material Types
LITfflC
0= Undifferentiated
1= COM (course grained metavolcanic)
2= CGPM (course grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
3= FGM (fine grained metavolcanic)
4= FGPM (Fine grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
5= Quartzite
6= Quartz
7= Chert (includes all crypto-crystalline silicate in general)
8= Obsidian
(DO NOT USE 9, it was formerly used for "other", which is now
undifferentiated)
11= Granite
(DO NOT USE 12, it was quartzite, which is now 5)
13= Andesite
14= Sandstone
(DO NOT USE 15, it was "other" for groundstone and is now
undifferentiated)
16= Basalt
17= Felcite
18=Rhyolite
19= Steatite/ Soapstone
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Material Types (cont'd.)
ANIMAL (BONE)
30= Undifferentiated
31= Bone
32= Antler
33= Horn
34= Hide/ Leather
35= Hair
36= Carapace
37= Terrestrial exoskeleton
38= Tooth
39= Cartilage
SHELL
40= Undifferentiated
41= Shell
42= Coral
43= Pearl
44= Aquatic exoskeleton
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Material "types (cont'd.)
VEGETAL
50= Undifferentiated
51= Charcoal
52= Seeds
53= Fibers
54= Bark only
55= Wood
56= Natural rubber
57= Ash
MINERAL
60= Undifferentiated
61= Ochre
62= Hematite
63= Soil sample
64= Carbon (such as battery cores)
PREHISTORIC CERAMIC MATERIALS
70= Undifferentiated
71=TizonBrown
72= Colorado Buff
HISTORIC CERAMIC MATERIALS
80= Undifferentiated
81= Stoneware
82= Earthenware
83= Porcelain
84= Terra cotta
85= Whiteware
86= Semi-porcelain
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Material Types (cont'd.)
FIBERS
90= Undifferentiated
91= Cotton
92= Silk
93= Wool
94= Linen
95= Grass
96= Bark
97= Paper
METAL
100= Undifferentiated
101= Iron
102= Steel
103= Copper
104= Brass
105= Aluminum
106= Silverplate or Silver
107= Goldplate or Gold
108= Lead
SYNTHETIC
110= Undifferentiated
111= Synthetic rubber (rubber as default if not otherwise obvious and confirmed)
112= Nylon
113= Plastic
114= Paint
115= Petroleum product (i.e., oil, gasoline, lubricants, tar)
116= Vinyl
117=Bakelite
118= Celluloid
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Material Types (cont'd.)
GLASS
120= Undifferentiated
121= Clear (this includes "Coke bottle green" and similar uncolored shades).
122= Clarified with manganese (purple or lavender)
123= Clarified with selenium (straw)
124= Green, medium to light
125= Brown
126= Aqua
127= Red
128= Yellow
129= White
130= Blue/cobalt
131= Dark green
132= Iridescent/carnival
133= Amethyst (Note: this is not "sun colored", it is virtually black, only purple)
134= Peach
135= Amber
136= Pink
137= Cream
138= Gray
139= Opaline
140= Marbled
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Condition Codes
0= Broken
1= Whole
2= Broken and Burned
3= Broken and Heated
4= Broken and Decorated
5= Broken, Decorated, and Burned
6= Broken, Decorated and Heated
7= Whole and Burned
8= Whole and Heated
9= Whole and Decorated
10= Whole, Decorated and Burned
11= Whole, Decorated and Heated
For Groundstone Artifacts
21= Broken unifacial unshaped
22= Broken unifacial unshaped burned
23= Broken unifacial shaped
24= Broken unifacial shaped burned
25= Broken bifacial unshaped
26= Broken bifacial unshaped burned
27= Broken bifacial shaped
28= Broken bifacial shaped burned
31= Whole unifacial unshaped
32= Whole unifacial unshaped burned
33= Whole unifacial shaped
34= Whole unifacial shaped burned
35= Whole bifacial unshaped
36= Whole bifacial unshaped burned
37= Whole bifacial shaped
38= Whole bifacial shaped burned
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Determining the Condition of an Artifact
The potential artifact conditions described above are considered to represent each of the
possible conditions that can be observed on any artifact being analyzed. If other
conditions not covered are present, then an additional descriptive term must be developed
in cooperation with the Lab Director and Senior Archaeologist.
Broken Artifacts in this condition are otherwise in their original state. For example, a
sandstone metate fragment represents a broken metate. Other than being broken it
is representative of its original state. No assumptions of wear patterns or stains or
other condition-oriented observations are considered at this time.
Whole This condition, of course, indicates that the object is present in its entirety.
Burned Bone artifacts and other ecofaunal material of similar composition are considered
to be burned if they exhibit a calcined appearance. This is a hard white exterior
with a dark blue or black interior of the sectioned item. Bone or other ecofaunal
material not calcined is considered either raw (i.e. whole or broken) or heated
(see below). Ceramics and other items scorched during use or construction are
not considered to be burned. Fresh ceramic cross sections will appear very
carbonized throughout the paste and not exhibit the banded appearance resulting
from uneven firing (see the comparative collection).
Heated This category is mostly used with bone objects where there is a potential to be
either raw, burned or heated (see the comparative collection). The heated
condition may be the result of intentional cooking or an activity totally unrelated
to cultural actions such as brush fire. The goal is to provide a minimal level of
analytical information that can be used in support or refutation of interpretations
regarding food sources or feature functions. In short, the addition of this
condition is better than not having it at all.
Decorated Artifacts that exhibit evidence of decoration should be indicated as such.
Typically this will be in the form of grooves, indentations, pressed patterns, slips
and paints on prehistoric ceramics, or an occasional pendant or similar object with
incised marks. Historic ceramics would have the same series of considerations.
The balance of the observations should be recorded as combinations appropriate
to describe the object's condition.
Groundstone Artifact Notes: The conditions listed for groundstone artifacts take into
account basic information regarding artifact morphology. It has been suggested
that this information acquired at this level of analysis is sufficient to supplement
discussions of groundstone artifacts recovered in a given location without
necessitating a special study. Details beyond this level of observation would
necessitate additional scrutiny of the collection.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
For the most part the groundstone artifact can be treated as are all others. They
may be whole or broken together with burned. Morphological observations
(shaped or unshaped) are added to these to arrive at a condition designation
peculiar to groundstone items, (manos, metates, pestles, slabs, etc.).
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999