HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 94-04; Jefferson Street Lot 17 & 18; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (2)A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
AND ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
MUHE PROJECT
Carlsbad, California
City of Carlsbad
HDP No. 9404 and 9405
Prepared for:
Daniel Muhe
4014 Aguila Lane
Carlsbad, California 92008
Prepared by:
Brian F. Smith and Associates
14678 Ibex Court
San Diego, California 92129
(619) 484-0915
August 29, 1994
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
National Archaeological Data Base Information
Authors:
Consulting Firm:
Report Date:
Report Title:
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Contract Number:
USGS Quadrangle:
Study Area:
Key Words:
Brian F. Smith and Larry J. Pierson
Brian F. SmiUi and Associates
14678 Ibex Court
San Diego, CaUfomia 92129
August 29,1994
"A Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for the Muhe
Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia"
Daniel Muhe
4014 AguUa Lane
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Brian F. Smith and Associates
14678 Ibex Court
San Diego, Califomia 92129
HDP No. 9404 and 9405
San Luis Rey, CaUfomia (7.5')
0.40 acres
City of Carlsbad, Califomia; archaeological survey; prehistoric site
tested; SDI-628; subsurface deposit; mitigation required;
U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey Quadrangle (7.5').
Recorded Site: SDI-628
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
Table of Contents
1.0 Management Summary .
2.0 Project Information/Introduction.
3.0 Setting ....
3.1 Environmental Setting
3.2 Cultural Setting
3.3 Results of the Record Searches
3.4 Previous Research .
4.0 Research Design
5.0 Methodology
5.1 Field Methodology.
5.2 Laboratory Methods
5.3 Native American Consultation
6.0 Report of Findings
6.1 Surface Recordation
6.2 Subsurface Testing.
6.3 Laboratory Analysis
7.0 Discussion/Interpretation
8.0 Recommendations
8.1 Discussion of Significance .
8.2 Research Potential .
8.3 Impact Assessment and Recommendations
9.0 Certification
10.0 References
1
3
7
7
8
9
10
14
15
15
16
17
19
19
19
20
45
46
47
47
47
48
49
Appendix I — Results of the Archaeological Record Searches (see Confidential Appendix—
submitted under separate cover)
Appendix n — Site Record Forms (see Confidential Appendix—submitted under separate cover)
Appendix HI — Cultural Resource Location Map (see Confidential Appendix — submitted under
separate cover)
Artifact IV — Artifact Typology
I
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1: General Location Map
Figure 2: Project Location Map (U.S.G.S.) .
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan
Figure 4: Cultural Resomce Location Map .
Figure 5: Data Recovery Map — Site SDI-628
Figure 6: Profile Sketches — Site SDI-628 .
Figure 7: Test Unit ProfUe Sketch — Site SDI-628
4
5
6
18*
26
27
38
List of Plates
Plate 1: General Views of Site SDI-628
Plate 2: Views of Upper Bluff Face and Test Unit 1 — Site SDI-628
28
37
(* Included in Corfidential Appendix—submitted under separate cover)
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
List of Tables
Page
Table 1: Cultural Resources Located within One Mile of the Muhe Project
Table 2: Previous Smdies Conducted in the Area of the Muhe Project
Table 3: Summary of Bone Recovery —Site SDI-6282
Table 4: Summary of Marine Shell Recvovery — Site SDI-628
Table 5: Summary of Shovel Test Recovery — Site SDI-628
Table 6: Shovel Test Excavation Data — Site SDI-628
Table 7: Summary of Test Unit Recovery — Site SDI-628
Table 8: Test Unit Excavation Data — Site SDI-628 .
Table 9: Summary of Artifact Recovery — Site SDI-628
Table 10: Lithic Tool Measurement Data — Site SDI-628
Table 11: Lithic Material Distribution — Site SDI-628
Table 12: Flake Analysis: Material by Size — Site SDI-628
Table 13: Flake Analysis: Material by Type — Site SDI-628
Table 14: Flake Analysis: Material by Condition — Site SDI-628
Table 15: Flake Analysis: Material by Termination — Site SDI-628
Table 16: Flake Analysis: Material by Platform Preparation — Site SDI-628
11
12
24
25
29
30
33
34
39
40
41
42
42
43
43
44
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The following report describes a cultural resource investigation and evaluation undertaken
for the proposed Muhe Project (HDP No. 9404 and 9405), located adjacent to Jefferson Street in
the City of Carlsbad, California (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project will include the
constraction of a single-famUy dwelling unit on each of two lots (Jefferson Street Lots 17 and 18)
(Figure 3). Access to the new dwellings will be via Jefferson Street. The purpose of this
investigation was to locate and assess any cultural resources that might be present within the
project boundaries. The study included an archaeological field reconnaissance, record searches,
and a testing program to evaluate the significance of cultural resources. The results of the
investigation are detailed in this report. Sensitive cultural resource information, such as the
location of specific resources, has been deleted from the pubUc version of this report.
Archaeological record searches were conducted at the South Coastal Infonnation Center at
San Diego State University and at the San Diego Museum of Man in August 1994. The purpose of
these record searches was to determine if any cultural resources had previously been recorded
within the project boundaries or within one mile of the project. The searches revealed that one
archaeological site (SDI-628) is recorded within the project. Additionally, seven sites are recorded
within one mile of the project. These sites are prehistoric in origin, and consist of at least one
camp site (SDI-5077) and six extraction/preparation sites. Three historic sites are also located
within one mile of the project area—the Santa Fe Depot at 400 Elm Avenue, the Magee House at
258 Beech Avenue, and the Culver-Meyers-Capp House at 3140 Highland Drive. The record
searches also indicated that the property had been previously subjected to a regional overview by
Westec Services, Inc. (1980), and was included in the study area for which a draft EIR was
prepared by Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. (1982) for a parks and recreation program.
An intensive on-foot survey of the project was conducted by archaeologists from Brian F,
Smith and Associates on June 15, 1994, to search for and identify archaeological resources The
vegetation encountered at the project generaUy consisted of dense weeds and grasses that obscured
the ground surface in some areas. Portions of the project area were found to have been previously
disturbed. An old road passes through the property and over the archaeological site (Figure 3). A
steep bank in the center of the project faces to the west, and afforded an opportunity to examine a
soil profile within the property.
The survey of the project resulted in the identification of a previously recorded prehistoric
site (SDI-628) within the subject property. The site lies on the upper portion of a terrace, west of
Interstate 5 and south of Buena Vista Lagoon, adjacent to Jefferson Street. The archaeological
record searches revealed that the site extends beyond the property boundary to the east and north.
The resource is characterized as a surface scatter of marine shell with a subsurface deposit of
cultural materials. The site has been impacted by modem grading and trenching disturbances and
by rodent mining. In July 1994, a testing program, consisting of the excavation of six shovel tests
The Muhe Project—Cultural Resource Study
and one standard test unit, was conducted at SDI-628 to determine the significance and integrity of
the archaeological deposit located within the project boundaries. The testing program confirmed
that the site consists of a significant subsurface component which contains shell and artifacts. If
potential impacts to the archaeological site are found to be significant, data recovery, avoidance,
capping, or a combination of these measures will be required in accordance with CEQA criteria
(Appendix K) and City of Carlsbad guideUnes.
All artifacts, project field notes, and reports resulting from these investigations will be
temporarily stored at the laboratory faciUties of Brian F. Smith and Associates until a regional
curation facility becomes available.
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
2.0 PROTECT INFORMATION/INTRODUCTION
The investigations at the Muhe Project were conducted for a HiUside Development Permit
(HDP No. 9404 and 9405) review performed in compUance with the CaUfomia PubUc Resources
Code (§21083.2) and the environmental guidelines of the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project
consists of two lots, each comprising approximately 0.20 acres, located along Jefferson Street, on
the south side of Buena Vista Lagoon, west of Interstate Highway 5. The irregularly shaped
parcels are located in an unsectioned area of the Rancho Buena Vista land grant. Township 11
South, Range 5 West, U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey Quadrangle (Figures 1 and 2). Elevations within
the project range from approximately 20 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the westem area of
the project to more than 40 feet AMSL in the eastem portion.
The proposed development of these two lots will involve the constraction of a residence on
each lot (Figure 3). Access to the home sites will be provided directly from Jefferson Street. The
plans for the respective dwelling units show that the houses will be located within the
archaeological site SDI-628. The driveways for both home sites will also intrade into SDI-628.
The cultural resource study of the Muhe Project included record searches at the South
Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and at the San Diego Museum of Man,
which revealed that one resource was previously recorded within the parcel. The results of the
record searches are provided in Appendix I. An intensive on-foot survey of the project was
conducted, resulting in the identification of the previously recorded prehistoric site, SDI-628. An
updated site record form was subsequently submitted to the South Coastal Information Center (see
Appendix II for site record forms). With the approval of City of Carlsbad Planning Department
staff, a testing program was conducted to determine the significance and integrity of the
archaeological deposits located within the project boundaries. The information gathered during this
study and the conclusions of the investigation are presented in this report.
The investigation of the Muhe Project was conducted by Brian F. Smith, principal
investigator for Brian F. Smith and Associates, with assistance from Stephen Burke, Larry Pierson
and Steven Harvey. The field studies were conducted on June 15,1994, and July 5 and 18,1994.
Collections processing and laboratory analyses were performed by Larry Pierson, Michelle Pettus,
and Steven Harvey, under the direction of Brian Smith. This report was written by Brian Smith
and Larry Pierson. The graphics and production staff consisted of Brian Smith, Kathryn Smith,
and Stephen Burke.
Archaeological and Historical Consulting
0 2000
PROJECT
CARLSBAD \>
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
THE MUHE PROJECT
U.S.G.S. SAN LUIS REY QUADRANGLE (7.5 MINUTE SERIES)
FIGURE 2
N
NO SCALE
PROPOSED PROJECT MAP
THE MUHE PROJECT
MAP PROVIDED BY SEA CREST ENGINEERING, INC.
FIGURE 3
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
3.0 SETTING
The project setting includes the physical, geological, and biological context of the proposed
project, as well as the cultural setting of prehistoric and historic human activities in the general
area. The following section discusses both the environmental and cultural settings at the project
site.
3.1 Environmental Setting
The irregularly shaped parcel is located in an unsectioned area of the Buena Vista land
grant. Township 11 South, Range 5 West, U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey Quadrangle (Figure 2). More
specifically, the project is located on the south side of Buena Vista Lagoon, approximately 90
meters west of Interstate Highway 5, bordering the west side of Jefferson Street. The project area
is currently vacant, although adjacent parcels have long been developed as single-famUy
residences. The surrounding area has been developed as a residential community from what had
previously been farmland.
GeologicaUy, this area of the City of Carlsbad is located on the coastal plain, a broad cross-
shelf drainage made up of a series of Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits that provides a
geographic transition between the foothills of the Peninsular Range to the east and the Pacific
Ocean to the west. The Pleistocene marine deposits and marine terrace deposits are often
fossiUferous and may have been wave cut between depositional episodes (Gastil 1964; Jones
1959).
The biological community within and adjacent to the project consists of highly disturbed
agricultural and urban plant communities (Strahler 1973; Beauchamp 1986). The majority of the
project has been severely disturbed by past activities associated with agriculture and urban
development. The relic coastal sage scrab vegetation present in isolated spots along the coast
probably reflects that which existed throughout the area during the period of prehistoric occupation
(Hubbs 1958).
Topographically, the project lies on a west-facing bluff overlooking Buena Vista Lagoon.
The lagoon itself is located west and north of the property, bordering the northwest property line.
This setting is important archaeologically because the project is located around a land form known
to have been heavily populated in prehistoric times. The project area would have been an ideal
place in which to forage for food, lithic materials, and fresh water resources (Smith and Moriarty
1985; Pierson et al. 1987). The lagoon provided a variety of marine food resources (e.g.,
moUusks, crastaceans, and fishes) that were used prehistoricaUy in the subsistence routines of both
the late prehistoric Luiseno Indians and the earlier La Jolla Complex. Stones for toolmaking was
available in concentrations from the beaches in winter and from stream beds in the dry summer
months. Since this location is near the tenriinus of the watershed, fresh water would have been
avaUable in varying degrees of abundance throughout the year. This, in tum, promoted the growth
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
of riparian plant communities which, along with the coastal sage scrab of the mesas, would have
added materially to the total food resource base. The resource "pull" (Jochim 1976) of the project
setting appears to have been the consistent availability of food, water, and lithic raw material
resources.
3.2 Cultural Setting
The region surrounding the project provides a very rich and extensive record of prehistoric
human activity. The prehistoric record along the San Diego County coastUne has been documented
in many reports and studies, several of which represent the earliest scientific works in this region
pertaining to the recognition and interpretation of the archaeological manifestations present.
Malcolm Rogers initiated the recordation of sites in the region during the 1920s and 1930s, using
his field notes to constract the first cultural sequences based upon artifact assemblages and
stratigraphy (Rogers 1966). Subsequent scholars expanded the information gathered by Rogers,
and offered more academic interpretations of the prehistoric record. Moriarty (1966,1967,1977),
Warren (1964, 1966), and Trae (1958, 1966) all critically defined the various cultures present in
this region (summarized by Moratto in 1984). The cultures which have been identified in the
general vicinity of the project (within a five-mile radius) include the possible Paleo-Indian
manifestation of the San Dieguito Complex, the archaic Early Milling Stone Horizon represented
by the La Jolla Complex and the Pauma Complex (an inland variation of the La Jolla Complex),
and the late prehistoric Kumeyaay Indians. Following the Hispanic intrasion into the region, the
area was included in the land grant for Rancho Buena Vista, a Spanish and Mexican rancho. A
brief discussion of the cultural elements in the project area is provided in the following paragraphs.
The San Dieguito Complex
The name "San Dieguito Complex" is a cultural distinction used to describe a group of
people who occupied sites in this region between 10,000 and 8,000 years before the present, and
who appear to be related to or were contemporaneous with the Paleo-Indian groups in the Great
Basin area. The artifacts recovered from San Dieguito sites duplicate a typology which has been
attributed to the Westem Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Moratto 1984; Davis et al 1969). This typology
generally includes scrapers, choppers, bifaces and large projectile points, and few or no milling
tools. The tools recovered from sites of the San Dieguito Complex and the pattem of their site
locations suggest a wandering, hunting and gathering society (Moriarty 1969; Rogers 1966).
The La .Inlla Complex
At approximately 9,000 to 8,5(X) years before the present, a major cultural tradition became
estabUshed in the San Diego region, primarily along the coast. This tradition has been called the La
Jolla Complex, and radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this culture span a period of over
7,000 years in this region. The La Jolla Complex is best recognized for its pattern of shell
middens and grinding tools closely associated with the marine resources of the area, and flexed
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
burials (Shumway, Hubbs and Moriarty 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985). Sites associated with
the La Jolla Complex in the Carlsbad area are representative of focused occupation and the use of
lagoon resources.
The Late Prehistoric Kumevaav Indians
Approximately 2,000 years ago, the Kumeyaay Indians, a Yuman-speaking people from
the Colorado River region, began to move into the western area of San Diego County. The
Kumeyaay Indians practiced a foraging subsistence strategy, and were a seasonal hunting and
gathering people. Cultural characteristics of the Kumeyaay included the use of crematorial burial
practices, the use of bows and arrows, the introduction of pottery after about 700 A.D., and
adaptation to the use of the acom as a primary food staple (Moratto 1984). Along the coast, the
Kumeyaay made use of the marine resources available, which would have included a variety of
shellfish and fish. The Kumeyaay Indians were the first Native American group to meet Spanish
in CaUfomia—explorers after 1542 and colonists in 1769 (Caughey 1970).
History
The historic period was firmly established in the project vicinity on approximately July 16,
1769, when the first Spanish land exploration party, commanded by Caspar de Portola and Father
Junipero Seira, arrived in San Diego. The Kumeyaay village of Cosoy was a primary site of early
contact between the Native Americans and the Spanish, and was the site of the first native baptism
(Palou 1926). As increasing numbers of Spanish and Mexican people settled in the area (and later
the Americans during the Gold Rush), the Indian populations diminished (Carrico 1987). The area
of the project was formerly a Mexican land grant called Rancho Buena Vista (Engstrand 1980;
Moyer 1969). This 1,184-acre parcel was granted by Mexican Govemor Pio Pico to Felipe
Subria, an Indian, in 1845 (Moyer 1969). Since the 1880s, the project area has gradually changed
from a rural setting of farms and ranches to an area of residential development and commercial
enterprises.
The subject property is located near the westem central portion of the lagoon, which lies
between El Camino Real at the eastem edge of the lagoon (a Spanish route which continues in
service today), and the Pacific Highway and Santa Fe Raih-oad, which lie to the west along the
coast (constracted in the last quarter of the nineteenth century). Modem developments include
Interstate Highway 5 which was constracted as the major north-south artery. This freeway is
located about 300 feet east of the project and crosses the middle portion of the lagoon.
3.3 Results of the Record Searches
Archaeological record searches for the project were conducted in August 1994, and the
results are presented in Appendix I. The record searches revealed that part of one archaeological
site was previously recorded within the project. Furthermore, seven additional sites are recorded
within one mile of the project. These sites are prehistoric in origin, and consist of at least one
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
camp (Site SDI-5077) and seven extractive/processing sites, ranging from impacted processing
stations with surface artifacts and subsurface deposits, to simple marine shell scatters. The eight
prehistoric sites recorded in the area were not attributed to a specific cultural horizon, but area
pattems and reported assemblages suggest a possible La JoUa Complex association.
The prehistoric sites recorded within the project area represent three types of sites. These
include:
(1) Large extractive camps characterized by significant deposits of artifacts and cultural
ecofacts that represent a focus of activities corresponding to the extraction and
processing of food resources primarily from the lagoon, but also from the surrounding
area. Within the project area, a large extractive camp is located in a drainage on the
south side of the lagoon.
(2) Food resource processing sites that contain some artifact deposits but are primarily
characterized by a large quantity of shellfish remains. Because these sites were not
occupied for lengthy periods, they tend to contain smaU quantities of artifacts related to
the focused activity of food preparation.
(3) Three historic sites in the one-mile study area are listed as official landmarks by the
City of Carlsbad—the Magee House at 258 Beech Avenue, the Culver-Meyers-Capp
House at 3140 Highland Drive, and the Santa Fe Depot at 400 Elm Avenue. The
Santa Fe Depot is also listed by the Califomia Office of Historic Preservation in the
Historic Property Data File for San Diego County.
Brief descriptions of all eight prehistoric sites are provided in Table 1.
3.4 Previous Research
A Ust of the previous investigations conducted within one mile of the Muhe Project is
provided in Table 2. The record searches indicated that 15 such studies have been conducted,
associated with major improvement or development projects in the region. Based upon the
information from the record searches, it is apparent that nearly all of the land within a one-mile
radius of the project, with the exception of South Oceanside, has been studied previously,
beginning in 1976.
10
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 1
Cultural Resources Located Within
One MUe of the Muhe Project
Site Description
SDI-626, SDI-627 (W-142), SDI-628 Shell middens with tools and dark soil.
(W-135), SDI-629 (W-138), SDI-8346 Significant subsurface deposits are present.
(W-2734), SDI-8455 (W-2909),
W-2037
SDI-5077 (W-1172) Camp site with a wide range of tools and
ecofacts, located near a fresh water supply,
with ready access to the lagoon and other food
resources.
11
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 2
Previous Studies Conducted in the
Area of the Muhe Project
Adams, Therese and Charles Bull
1978 "Frazee Property Draft Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment."
Negative. UnpubUshed report on file at the San Diego Museum of Man.
Bull, Charles
1977 "Draft Environmental Impact Report for Buena Woods 3-4." Positive. Unpublished
report on file at the San Diego Museum of Man.
1978 "An Archaeological Survey of Buena Woods 3-4, Carlsbad, Califomia." Positive.
Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State
University.
1979 "A Test of SDM-W-1172, An Archaeological Site in Buena Woods." Positive.
Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State
University.
Caltrans
1991 "Negative Declaration for Route 78." Negative. Unpublished report on file at the
South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Carrico, Richard
1980 "An Archaeological/Historical Reconnaissance of the Proposed Buena Vista Center."
Positive. Unpublished report on file at the San Diego Museum of Man,
1982 "An Archaeological/Historical Reconnaissance of the Proposed Buena Vista Center."
Positive. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San
Diego State University.
Coram, Joyce M.
1982 "First Addendum Archaeological Survey Report for a Proposed Auxiliary Lane
Extension in Oceanside, ll-SD-78 0.0/3.1 11206-086121." Positive. UnpubUshed
report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
12
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
Cupples, Sue Ann
1976 "Oceanside Harbor and Navigation Project: Archaeological Survey Report."
Negative. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San
Diego State University.
Hanna, David
1984 "Archaeological Testing of SDI-626, a Coastal Shell Midden Site in Carlsbad,
Califomia." Positive. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information
Center, San Diego State University.
Hector, Susan, and Sue Wade
1986 "Cultural Resource Survey of the Mauga Project Property." Negative. Unpublished
report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
Johnson, Melissa J., and Martin D. Rosen
1981 "Archaeological Survey for a Proposed AuxUiary Lane Extension in Oceanside 11-SD-
78 P.M. 0.0-3.1." Positive. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal
Information Center, San Diego State University.
Larry Seeman Associates, Inc.
1982 "Cultural Resources Survey of the Mission Trails East Park Entrance Property
Project." Positive. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information
Center, San Diego State University.
Recon
1978 "Frazee Property Draft Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment."
Negative. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San
Diego State University.
Westec Services, Inc.
1980 "Regional Historic Preservation Study." Positive. Unpublished report on file at the
South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.
13
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
4.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
The cultural resource study for the Muhe Project was necessitated by the demonstrated
presence of prehistoric archaeological resources in and near the area of the proposed project.
WhUe the number of sites in the vicinity (eight prehistoric sites and three historic sites) is not large
in comparison to other areas near the coast, early urbanization resulted in developmental impacts
which reduced the possibility of finding cultural resources. The majority of the prehistoric sites in
the vicinity are located adjacent to the lagoon or along the coast.
A predictive model for site occurrence based on known factors of site distribution in the
area indicates that the subject property possesses a high potential for the presence of archaeological
resources. However, previous urbanization and development have probably resulted in the
destruction of many of the sites that were once located in this area of Carlsbad and South
Oceanside. An approach commonly used to develop a testable hypothesis when surrounding
information is limited involves the evaluation of the potential for the existence of archaeological
sites on the basis of environmental or geographical factors. If a property is located in a hard-to-
reach setting which lacks environmental elements that would favor the estabhshment of occupation
or resource coUecting sites, the probabiUty for site presence would be low. On the other hand, if a
property is easily accessible and exhibits environmental characteristics which would have
encouraged cultural occupation, the probability for site occurrence would be substantially
increased. Environmental factors favoring site use were generally those that resulted in the
presence of abundant and varied resources. This hypothesis appUes to both prehistoric and historic
sites. For example, whereas a Kumeyaay Indian group may have required acoms and water, an
historic farmer may have required water and bottom land. In the southem Califomia coastal zone,
the semi-arid climate resulted in the concentration of water and other required resources in drainage
areas. This basic climatological phenomenon resulted in a drainage-oriented settlement pattem
among both prehistoric and early historic peoples. Site frequency and size, then, should be
directly related to resource abundance and areal distribution.
The prediction model suggests a moderate to high probability for the presence of both
prehistoric and early historic cultural resource sites within the project area based on its location near
a fresh water source (Buena Vista Creek), and corresponding varieties of plant and wildlife in the
various ecological communities. Published studies tend to support the predictive model proposed
here (Jochim 1976).
14
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
5.0 METIfOPQl.OQY
A Umited testing program (Phase I) to evaluate the significance of the cultural deposit at
SDI-628 was conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates in July 1994. Sixty-five person-hours
were expended in field work, laboratory analysis, and the preparation of this report. The research
and testing methodology employed at the project conformed to City of Carlsbad Archaeological/
Historical GuideUnes and project-specific requirements of the City Planning Department Statutory
requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and subsequent legislation
(Appendix K) formed the basis for the evaluation of the significance of the prehistoric resource.
5.1 Field Methodology
The investigations at the project included a field reconnaissance of the project area,
foUowed by a Umited testing program to investigate the potential for the existence of a subsiuface
deposit and to evaluate the significance of the cultural resource. The testing phase was limited by
the scope of work to the excavation of six shovel test pits and one standard test unit. As a result of
this data collecting program, the research potential and integrity of the site was determined, and a
significance evaluation was conducted.
5.1.1 Reconnaissance Phase
The archaeological field survey was performed by Stephen Burke on June 15, 1994, and
required three and one-half person-hours to complete. The survey consisted of an on-foot
reconnaissance throughout the entire parcel. Survey transects were oriented from east to west,
spaced five meters apart. Ground surface visibility ranged from fair to good, depending on the
density of the vegetation. All visible soil profiles were inspected for evidence of buried cultural
deposits.
5.1.2 Surface Collection
Surface recordation at Site SDI-628 within the project involved the mapping of all surface
artifacts and test excavations with a hand transit and standard tape measure. To initiate the
program, a site mapping datum was established. From this datum, surface artifacts and tests were
mapped, using range and azimuth readings. No artifacts were found on the surface of the site; the
surface evidence of the resource consisted only of a scatter of marine sheU.
5.7 J Shovel Test Excavations
Several shovel test pits were excavated to provide a subsurface profile of the site. The six
shovel tests were excavated on July 18, 1994, and required 11 person-hoiu-s to complete. The
location of each shovel test was determined tb establish a subsurface profile of the upper elevation
of the two adjacent lots, and vertical control was maintained by excavating in ten-centimeter levels.
15
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
The shovel tests were excavated using the contour method. Hand tools were used to
excavate the units, and all removed soils were sifted through 1/8-inch-mesh screens. All artifacts
and ecofacts recovered from each test level were placed in containers, labeled with provenience
information, and retumed to the consultant's laboratory for analysis and cataloging. Shovel test
record forms were completed foUowing the excavation of each test, including descriptions of the
soU(s) revealed and the artifacts recovered.
5.1.4 Test Unit Excavation
A single test unit was excavated to provide qualitative and quantitative information
conceming the subsurface content of the site. The test unit was excavated on July 5, 1994, and
required 14 person-hours to complete. The test unit was oriented to trae north, and vertical control
was maintained by excavating in ten-centimeter levels. The test unit was excavated using the
contour method. Hand tools were used to excavate the unit, and all removed soils were sifted
through 1/8-inch-mesh screen. All artifacts and ecofacts recovered from each unit level were
placed in containers, labeled with provenience information, and retumed to the consultant's
laboratory for analysis and cataloging. Test unit level record forms were completed following the
excavation of each test unit level (i.e., each decimeter level), including descriptions of the soil(s)
revealed and the artifacts recovered.
5.2 Laboratory Methods
A variety of laboratory methods were used to study the artifact and ecofact materials
recovered from the site. The laboratory analysis was conducted between July 5 and 20,1994, and
required 24 person-hours to complete. In keeping with generally accepted archaeological
procedures, artifacts were fu^st identified and analyzed. Washing was minimized in order to
preserve any organic substances that might remain on the lithic artifacts. However, in certain
instances, artifacts were washed to provide sufficient clarity to permit proper artifact identification
and analysis of use wear. After identification, the artifacts were cataloged, measured, weighed,
and repacked for permanent storage. Ecofacts were identified as to species, where possible, and
quantified by weight prior to packaging for permanent storage.
The cataloging process for the recovered Uthic materials included the use of a classification
system commonly employed in this region. The definitions for some of the artifact types are
derived from the Office of Historic Preservation publication, California Archaeological Resource
Identification and Data Acquisition Program: Sparse Lithic Scatters (1988). In addition to this
source, which is Umited to specific flake types, the artifact classification system developed by
Smith and Moriarty for the collection from Site W-20 in San Diego County was also utilized
(Smith and Moriarty 1985).
52.1 Faunal Analysis
Bone and marine shell were recovered in abundance from the excavations at SDI-628. The
16
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
bone recovered from the site was separated according to whether it represented large or smaU
mammals, birds, or fish. A large quantity of snake bone was found in the uppermost levels of the
test unit which appeared to be recent and was therefore treated separately. Differentiation between
bumed and unbumed bone was made where appropriate.
Marine shell by far comprised the most abundant cultural ecofact in the collection from
SDI-628. Although much of this material is often fragile and results in a large quantity of
unidentified fragments, a large portion was identified to the species level. Bumed shell was also
noted during the analysis.
5.22 Flake Analysis
As noted in the artifact typology provided in Appendix IV, lithic production waste
constitutes the discarded waste or debitage that results from the flaking reduction process used to
manufacture or recondition stone tools. The category of lithic production waste includes cores,
flakes, and debitage; however, for this analysis, only flakes were included in the research
collection. The analysis focused on five main flake attributes—size, type, condition, termination,
and platform preparation—and the relationship of each of these attributes to lithic material.
Definitions of the particular flake characteristics are provided in Appendix IV. The purpose of Uiis
analysis was to identify specific pattems within the collection from which to extrapolate the types
of Uthic tool production that took place at the sites.
52.3 Curation
The project field notes, collections, catalogs, and reports will be temporarily curated at the
offices of Brian F. Smith and Associates until a regional curation facility becomes available for
permanent storage.
5.3 Native American Consultation
Native American consultation was not sought for this study because the site is not yet
threatened. Should future mitigation of the site lead to the discovery of human remains or sacred/
ceremonial materials, then Native American consultation wUI be necessary.
17
The Muhe Project—Cultural Resource Study
FIGURE 4
Cultural Resource Location Map
Confidential—Deleted for Public Review
(See Confidential Appendix III, Submitted Under Separate Cover)
18
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
6.0 REPORT OF FINDINGS
The archaeological testing and evaluation program was focused upon gathering data from
the cultural resource site within the boundaries of the proposed project. The purpose of this effort
was to determine the nature and extent of SDI-628, and to gather information which would permit
an informed evaluation of its significance.
Site SDI-628 is located in the eastem portion of the parcels, on the upper portion of a bluff
which overlooks Buena Vista Lagoon to the northwest (Figure 4). The setting of the site is shown
in Plate 1. The site consists of a surface scatter of marine shell and a subsurface artifact and
ecofact deposit, extending to a depth of 80 centimeters. The testing of SDI-628 consisted of the
excavation of six shovel test pits and a standard, one-meter-square test unit
6.1 Surface Recordation
No surface artifacts were found during the testing phase of the project. Only a few sparse
fragments of marine shell were visible on the surface of the site. This may be due to previous
impacts throughout most of the site area. Due to the lack of surface artifacts and the previous
impacts to the site surface, the extent of the surface area of the site could not be determined.
6.2 Subsurface Testing
The subsurface testing of SDI-628 consisted of the excavation of six shovel tests and a
standard one-meter-square test unit, which was sufficient to determine the character of the cultural
resource and to adequately evaluate its significance. The shovel tests were arranged to define the
extent and configuration of the subsurface deposit. The test unit was placed to sample the area of
greatest scientific research potential. The locations of the excavations are shown in Figure 5, a
photograph of the test unit is provided in Plate 2, and a sketch of the test unit wall profile is
provided in Figure 7.
The soil stratigraphy revealed by the test excavations consisted of three soil horizons. The
upper horizon consisted of a brown fill material with inclusions of glass, asphalt, and other recent
discards extending variously from 0 to 50 centimeters (Figure 6). The second horizon consisted of
darker brown, carbonaceous, artifact- and ecofact-rich soil between the bottom of the upper soil
horizon and up to 80 centimeters in depth. A bottom horizon, below the midden soil, consisted of
dense, light brown to light red-brown sandstone. The profiles revealed the presence of a lens-
shaped midden, measuring 50-60 centimeters thick at its center, lying on the Pleistocene sandstone
and covered with recent fill to depths ranging from three to 50 centimeters.
The recovery from the shovel tests characterizes the distribution of cultural materials in that
portion of SDI-628 that lies within the Muhe Project. The locations of the shovel tests within the
Muhe Project are illustrated in Figure 5. The recovery from the shovel tests is summarized in
Table 5 and detailed in Tables 6. The shovel tests resulted in the recovery of three artifacts: one
19
The Muhe Project—Cultural Resource Study
debitage, one flake, and one mano fragment. Lithic production waste accounted for 66.66% (N=2;
one debitage and one flake) and ground stone tools accounted for 33.33% (N=l; one mano
fragment). The shovel tests also produced 47.2 grams of cultural ecofacts—marine shell
accounted for 99.66% (N=40.2 grams; 0.2 gram of Astraea, 36.2 grams of Chione, 0.3 gram of
Ostrea, 6,1 grams Pecten, and 3,7 grams unidentified) and bone accounted for 0,33% (N=0.7
grams; all unidentified). The lithic materials represented among the stone tools and production
waste included quartzite (66.66%; N=2) and basalt (33.33%; N=l).
The artifact recovery from the test unit excavation quaUtatively depicts the character of
cultural materials in that portion of SDI-628 that lies within the Muhe Project. The loc ation of the
test unit within the project is shown in Figure 5. The recovery from the unit is summarized in
Table 7 and detailed in Table 8. The test unit produced 54 artifacts. Lithic production waste
accounted for 90.74% (N=49; nine debitage and 40 flakes), ground stone tools accounted for
7,41% (N=4; three mano fragments and one metate fragment), and specialized/ceremonial tools
accounted for 1.85% (N=l; a smoothing stone) of the recovery. In addition, the unit also
produced 792.4 grams of cultural ecofacts—marine shell accounted for 96.84% (N=767.4 grams;
512.0 grams of Chione, 33,4 grams of Ostrea, 93,5 grams of Pecten, 0,4 gram of Donax, 0,6
gram of Norissa, 1.3 grams of Pododesmus, 6.9 grams of Tivela, 1,3 grams of wheli:, and 118.0
grams of unidentified shell); charcoal comprised 0.24% (N=l,9 grams); and bone accounted for
2.92% (N=23.1 grams; 0.1 gram of bird bone, 0,5 gram of fish bone, 4,5 grams of large mammal
bone, 4,2 grams of small mammal bone, and 13,8 grams of snake bone). The mineral suite
represented among the stone tools and production waste was dominated by basalt (50%; N=27),
followed by quartz (24,07%; N=13), felsite (11,11%; N=6), granite (5,55%; N=3), quartzite
(5,55%; N=3), and chalcedony (3,7%; N=2).
A summary of the recovery from all excavations is provided in Table 9, The results of the
individual excavations are detailed in Tables 6 and 8, and specific aspects of the artifact and ecofact
recovery are summarized in Tables 3,4, and 9, A total of 57 cultural artifacts and 839.6 grams of
cultural ecofacts (charcoal, bone, and shell) were recovered from the excavations. These
specimens were recovered primarily from the midden deposit, indicating that the subsurface
content of this site is both rich and varied. Some artifact and ecofact mixing was encountered, both
above and below the midden layer, but this was attributed to biotiu-bation and recent surface
impacts.
6.3 Laboratory Analysis
The artifact collection from SDI-628 is summarized in Table 9, A total of 57 lithic artifacts
were recovered from this site. The assemblage was dominated by lithic production waste, which
accounted for 89,48% (N=51; 41 flakes and 10 debitage) of the total collection, Pi-ecision and
percussion tools were entirely absent, ground stone tools accounted for 8,77% (N=5; four mano
fragments and one metate fragment), and speciaUzed tools accounted for 1.75% (N=l; a smoothing
stone) of the total artifact collection. The lithic tool measurements are provided in Table 10,
20
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
The largest group of tools included in the collection from SDI-628 consisted of milling
stone fragments. All of the manos and the metate were fragments manufactured from lithic
materials present in nearby beach or stream deposits. Because of their fragmentary natiu-e, only
two of the five milling stone fragments could be identified as having been pecked (sharpened).
Other tools recovered from the site included a tabular "smoothing stone." The soiuce for this tool
would have been the same as for the nulling implements.
The mineral suite represented by the artifacts from the site is listed in Table 11. The lithic
distribution was dominated by basalt, which represented 49.13% (N=28) of the 57 lithic artifacts
recovered fix)m the site. Following basalt, quartz accounted for 22,81% (N=13), felsite comprised
10.52% (N=6), quartzite represented 8.77% (N=5), granite accounted for 5.26% (N=3), and
chalcedony made up 3,51% (N=2) of the lithic coUection, These materials are all available in the
cobble deposits present in the area surrounding the site.
No special studies pertaining to Site SDI-628 were conducted due to the characteristics of
recovered cultural material. Bone was sorted only to general categories, but marine shell was
identified to the species level where possible and in all cases the weights for each provenience unit
are given. The recovered flakes were subjected to a standard analysis which included the
determination of mineralogy and morphological characteristics,
6.3.1 Faunal Aruilysis—Bone
A total of 23,8 grams of bone specimens were recovered from Site SDI-628, Bone from
the collection was sorted into categories of bird, fish, large mammal, small mammal, and snake
bone. Some of the specimens were identified as having been bumed and were separated from the
unbumed bone, A large quantity of snake bone was recovered from the shallow levels of the site.
This category made up 57,99% (N=13,8 grams) of the total bone recovery. Large mammal bone
made up 18.9% (N=4,5 grams; 2,8 grams unbumed and 1.7 grams bumed), small mammal bone
accounted for 17,65% (N=4,2 grams; 3,1 grams unbumed and 1,1 grams bumed), fish accounted
for 2,10% (N=0,5 gram), bird made up 0,42% (N=0,1 gram), and unidentified bone made up the
remaining 2.94% (N=0.7 gram) of the total bone recovery.
6.32 Faunal Analysis—Shell
Marine shell from Site SDI-628 comprised a total of 813.9 grams. The recovery was
separated by species where possible. Burned specimens were segregated by species, where
possible, and quantified separately. By far the greatest quantity of shell by weight consisted of
Chione, which accounted for 67,36% (N=548,2 grams; 543,8 grams unbumed and 4,4 grams
bumed). Unidentified shell totaled 14,95% (N=121,7 grams; 121,6 grams unburned and 0,1
gram bumed), Pecten accounted for 12,24% (N=99,6 grams; 96,7 grams unbumed and 2,9 grams
bumed), Ostrea made up 4.14% (N=33,7 grams; 33.6 grams unbumed and 0.1 gram bumed),
Tivela made up 0.85% (N=6.9 grams), whelk comprised 0.16% (N=1.3 grams), Pododesmus
accounted for 0.16% (N=1.3 grams), Norissa made up 0.07% (N=0.6 gram), Donax represented
21
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
0.07% (N=0.4 gram), and Astraea comprised 0.02% (N=0.2 gram) of the total shell collection.
6.33 Flake Aruilysis
The largest category of artifact recovery from Site SDI-628 consisted of lithic production
waste, which reflects a common pattem for sites in the region. In order to more closely study the
lithic production waste, the 41 flakes in the collection were subjected to flake analysis. The
purpose of this analysis was to identify specific pattems within the collection from which to
extrapolate the types of flake producing activities that took place at SDI-628, The results of the
analysis are provided in Tables 12 through 16.
The analysis of the flakes by size (Table 12) indicated that 92,68% (N=38) were smaller
than three centimeters in length, which strongly suggests that maintenance of lithic tools was
common at the site. None of the flakes were larger than six centimeters in length, which is an
indication that tool production from cores was not a significant site activity. The analysis of flake
types (Table 13) revealed tiiat 75.61% (N=31) were interior flakes, and tiiat 19.51% (N=8) were
secondary flakes. Only 4,88% (N=2) of the collection were primary flakes, and no pressure flakes
were recovered from the site. The analysis of flake condition (Table 14) demonstrated that the
collection was dominated by whole flakes, as 78.05% (N=32) of the recovered flakes were whole,
while just 21.95% (N=9) were flake fragments. The recovered flakes were also dominated by
feather termination (Table 15), which is reflected in 70,73% (N=29) of the collection,
corresponding to the large percentage of the flakes which were small (i.e., less than three
centimeters in length). The information from the flake analysis demonstrates that the majority of
the recovery consists of small, interior, flakes with feather termination, derived predominantly
from basalt. The flakes from the collection were also analyzed to determine the presence of
platform preparation (Table 16). Of the 41 flakes in the artifact collection, 24.39% (N=10)
exhibited prepared platforms, while 68.29% (N=28) lacked platform preparation.
63.4 Discussion of Laboratory Analysis
A small quantity of bone was recovered from the excavations at SDI-628. Included in this
category of ecofacts were snake, bird, fish, rodent, and smaU and large mammal bone. The snake
bone was present in large quantities in shallow levels, generally above the midden deposit, and
therefore appears to be of recent origin. Rodent bone has recentiy become the focus of several
studies (summarized in Smith and Moriarty 1993) which suggest that much of this type; of material
is the result of natural mortality. Bird, fish and large and small mammal bone comprise cultural
constituents of archaeological sites. These ecofacts therefore represent elements of the prehistoric
human subsistence pattem at SDI-628.
By far the largest quantity of cultural ecofacts recovered from SDI-628 consists of marine
shell. While the majority of animals represent bay varieties (Rehder 1981), some species are
particularly tolerant of changing conditions. As the flooded coastal canyons degraded into lagoons
with decreasing salinity (Inman 1983), Chione, Protothaca, and Tagelus would have survived
22
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
longer than other species (Miller 1966), However, individual and group preferences may prevent
an accurate determination of species availability through time. Furthermore, economic
considerations might have been a factor in species selection (Jochim 1976),
The numerous small flakes recovered from SDI-628 suggest that lithic tool maintenance
rather than manufacture was the primary flake-producing activity at the site (Renniken 1985), This
interpretation is supported by the absence of cores and hammerstones in the recovery. The lithic
materials represented in the coUection are aU avaUable from local cobble sources.
23
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 3
Summary of Bone Recovery
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Bone Shovel Tests Test Unit Total Percent
Bird 0,1 g. 0,1 g. 0,42
Fish -0.5 g. 0.5 g. 2,10
Large Mammal -2.8 g. 2.8 g. 11,76
Large Mammal, bumed -1.7 g. 1.7 g. 7.14
SmaU Mammal -3.1 g. 3.1 g. 13.03
SmaU Mammal, bumed -1.1 g. 1.1 g. 4.62
Snake -13.8 g. 13,8 g. 57.99
Unidentified 0,7 g. -0,7 g. 2.94
Totals 0.7 g. 23.1 g. 23,8 g. 100.00
Percent 2.94 97.06 100,00
24
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 4
Summary of Marine SheU Recovery
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Marine SheU Shovel Tests Test Unit Total Percent
Astrea 0,2 g. 0,2 g. 0,02
Chione 36,2 g. 507.6 g. 543,8 g. 66.82
Chione, bumed -4,4 g. 4,4 g. 0.54
Donax -0,4 g. 0,4 g. 0.05
Norissa -0,6 g. 0,6 g. 0.07
Ostrea 0,3 g. 33,3 g. 33.6 g. 4,13
Ostrea, bumed -0.1 g. 0.1 g. 0,01
Pecten 6.1 g. 90.6 g. 96,7 g. 11.88
Pecten, bumed -2.9 g. 2,9 g. 0.36
Pododesmus -1.3 g. 1.3 g. 0.16
Tivela -6.9 g. 6.9 g. 0.85
Unidentified 3.7 g. 117,9 g. 121.6 g. 14.94
Unidentified, bumed -0,1 g. 0.1 g. 0.01
Whelk -1.3 g. 1.3 g. 0.16
Totals 46,5 g. 767.4 g. 813.9 g. 100.00
Percent 0,5 g. 0,95 g. 100.0 g.
25
Archaeological and Historical Consulting
N
w-
SCALE IN FEET
SCALE IN METERS
CROSS-SECTION D
(SEE FIGURE 6)
DATUM A
CROSS-SECTION C
(SEE FIGURE 6)
CROSS-SECTION B
(SEE FIGURE 6)
I I \S|IIM.
SK.NM I K.lll
\|S||N<.
IIII I'm INi If >i I
CROSS-SECTION \
(SEE FIGURE 6)
DATA RECOVERY MAP
SITE SDI-628
THE MUHE PROJECT
FIGURE 5
26
CROSS-SECTION A
0 CM. SOUTH GROUND SURFACE NORTH
50 CM. —
100 CM. LIGHT RED-BROWN SANDSTONE
CROSS-SECTION B
0 CM. —
50 CM. —
SOUTH GROUND SURFACE NORTH
100 CM. LIGHT RED-BROWN SANDSTONE
CROSS-SECTION C
0 CM.
50 CM.
100 CM. —
WEST GROUND SURFACE EAST
LIGHT BROWN SANDSTONE
CROSS-SECTION D
0 CM.
50 CM.
WEST GROUND SURFACE EAST
100 CM. — 1
LIGHT BROWN FILL WITH ASPHALT
iiiiiiii-i
SITE SOIL PROFILE SKETCHES
SITE SDI-628
THE MUHE PROJECT
FIGURE 6
27
View looking southeast from the northeast portion of the property. Buena Vista Lagoon is shown
in the center of the photograph, and the Pacific Ocean is in the background.
View looking south along the bluff face at Site SDI-628.
PLATE 1
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 5
Summary of Shovel Test Recovery
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Recovery Category Quantity Percent
Ecofacts:
Bone, Unidentified
Marine SheU, Astrea
Marine Shell, Chione
Marine SheU, Ostrea
Marine SheU, Pecten
Marine SheU, Unidentified
0.7 g
0.2 g
36,2 g
0,3 g
6,1 g
3.7 g
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos 33.33
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage
Flakes
33.33
33.34
Totals 100.00
29
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 6
Shovel Test Excavation Data
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Shovel
Test Datum
Location
from Datum Depth
Azimuth/Range
Quantity/
Weight Recovery Description
Cat.
No,
1 A 143768 Feet 0-10 cm,
10-20 cm.
None
None
1
2
20-30 cm. 0.1 g,
0,1 g.
0.1 g.
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Pecten
Chione
Unidentified
3
4
5
30-40 cm. 0,2 g. Marine SheU Chione 6
40-50 cm. 0.2 g. Bone Unidentified 7
50-60 cm. 0,7 g.
0.1 g.
Bone
Marine SheU
Chione
Pecten
8
9
60-70 cm. 0.2 g,
0,4 g.
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Chione
Unidentified
10
11
70-80 cm. 0.1 g,
0,1 g.
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Chione
Pecten
12
13
80-90 cm. 0,1 g. Marine SheU Chione 14
90-100 cm. 1.0 g,
0.1 g,
0,1 g.
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Chione
Pecten
Unidentified
15
16
17
2 A 95740 Feet 0-10 cm. 0,1 g,
0,1 g.
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Ostrea
Unidentified
18
19
10-20 cm. 0,1 g. Marine SheU Pecten 20
20-30 cm. 0,1 g. Marine SheU Pecten 21
30-40 cm. 0,1 g,
0,1 g.
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Pecten
Unidentified
22
23
30
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
Shovel Location
Test Datum from Datum Depth
Azhnuth/Range
Quantity/
Weight Recovery Description
Cat,
No,
95740 Feet 40-50 cm. None 24
40761 Feet 0-10 cm.
10-20 cm.
20-30 cm.
0.1 g,
0.1 g.
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
None
None
Chione
Pecten
25
26
27
28
A 15783 Feet 0-10 cm.
10-20 cm.
20-30 cm.
30-40 cm.
40-50 cm.
50-60 cm.
1.0 g,
0,7 g,
0,2 g.
0,1 g
0,2 g
3.2 g
0,1 g
0,1 g
0.1 g
0.2 g
0.2 g
1.6 g,
0,3 g
0,1 g
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
None
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Chione
Pecten
Unidentified
Pecten
Unidentified
Chione
Pecten
Unidentified
Pecten
Astraea
Unidentified
Chione
Pecten
Unidentified
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
A 338757 Feet 0-10 cm.
10-20 cm.
20-30 cm.
2.1 g.
0,4 g,
0.2 g.
1.2 g.
0.2 g.
0.1 g.
0.1 g.
0.4 g.
1.2 g.
Marine Shell
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Chione
Pecten
Unidentified
Chione
Pecten
Unidentified
Unidentified
Pecten
Chione
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
31
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
Shovel Location Quantity/ Cat.
Test Datum fiom Datum Depth Weight Recovery Description No.
Azimuth/Range
1.
5 A 338757 Feet 30-40 cm. 1.5 g. Marine SheU Chione 53
0.1 g. Marine SheU Unidentified 54
6 A 346°/24Feet 0-10 cm. 1 Flake Quartzite 55
0.6 g. Marine SheU Unidentified 56
0.9 g. Marine SheU Pecten 57
4.4 g. Marine SheU Chione 58
0.1 g. Marine SheU Ostrea 59
10-20 cm. 1 Debitage Quartzite 60
0.9 g. Marine SheU Unidentified 61
5.1 g. Marine SheU Chione 62
0.2 g. Marine SheU Pecten 63
0.1 g. Marine SheU Ostrea 64
0.1 g. Bone 65
20-30 cm. 1.5 g. Marine SheU Pecten 66
10.4 g. Marine SheU Chione 67
30-40 cm. 1 Mano Fragment Basalt 68
Undetermined,
Pecked
2.0 g. Marine SheU Chione 69
0.4 g. Marine SheU Pecten 70
0.4 g. Bone Unidentified 71
40-50 cm. 0.1 g. Marine SheU Unidentified 72
32
TABLE 7
Summary of Test Unit Recovery
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
r Deoth (in centimeters)
Artifact Category 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 Total Percent
Ecofacts:
0,1 Bone, Bird - -0,1 - - - - -0,1
Bone, Fish 0.1 0.1 0,1 0.1 -0,1 - -0,5
Bone, Large Mammal 2.2 0.2 0,4 --- - -2.8
Bone, Large Mammal, bumed -0.4 - -1,3 - - -1,7
Bone, Small Mammal 0.1 0,1 0,4 0,6 0.8 0.9 0.2 -3,1
Bone, SmaU Mammal, bumed - -0,1 0,4 -0.4 0.2 -1,1
Bone, Snake 10.6 2.1 0,2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0,2 -13,8
Charcoal 0.8 0.5 0,1 -0.3 0.2 - -1.9
Marine Shell, Chione 82.2 76,6 98.3 78.5 99.7 62.0 9.9 0,4 507,6
Marine SheU, Chione, bumed -1.7 0,5 0.8 0,3 1.0 0,1 -4.4
Marine Shell, Donax -0,2 - -0.1 0.1 - -0.4
Marine -SheU, Norissa - - - -0,6 - - -0.6
Marine Shell, Ostrea 5.1 6.0 2,8 8,7 6,2 3.9 0.6 -33.3
Marine Shell, Ostrea, bumed -0,1 - - - - - -0.1
Marine SheU, Pecten 19.1 11.2 15.4 15,8 15.9 10.7 2,0 0,5 90.6
Marine SheU, Pecten, bumed -0.1 0,2 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.3 -2.9
Marine Shell, Pododesmus 1.3 - - - - - - -1.3
Marine Shell, Tivela - - - -6.9 - - -6.9
Marine SheU, Unidentified 18.5 18.1 29,5 19.0 18.8 11.4 2.6 -117,9
Marine Shell, Und, bumed 0.1 - - -- - - -0.1
Marine SheU, Whelk ---1.3 - - - -1,3
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos -2 - - -1 - -3 5.56
Metates --1 -- -- -1 1,85
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage 1 3 5 - - ---9 16.67
Flakes 3 9 6 7 5 8 2 -40 74,07
SpeciaUzed Tools:
1 1,85 Smoothing Stones - - - -1 - - -1 1,85
Totals 4 14 12 7 6 9 2 0 54 100.00
Percent 7.41 25,93 22,22 12.96 11.11 16.67 3.70 0,00 100,00
g
I
The Muhe Projeci—Cultural Resource Study
TABLE S
Test Unit Excavation Data
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Test Location
Unit Datum fiom Datum Depth
Azimuth/Range
Quantity/
Weight Recovery Description
Cat.
No.
Pododesmus 73
Pecten 74
Unidentified 75
Chione 76
Ostrea 77
Unidentified 78
79
Snake 80
Lg. Mammal 81
Fish 83
Sm. Mammal 84
Quartz 85
Quartz 86
Chalcedony 87
Chione 88
Pecten 89
Ostrea 90
Donax 91
Ostrea 92
Unidentified 93
Pecten 94
Chione 95
96
Snake 97
Lg. Mammal 98
Fish 99
Lg. Mammal 100
Sm. Mammal 101
Granite 102
Granite 103
Quartz 104
Basalt 105
Felsite 106
Basalt 107
Quartzite 108
0°/0Feet 0-10 cm.
070 Feet 10-20 cm.
1.3 g
19.1 g
0.1 g
82.2 g
5.1 g
18.5 g
0.8 g
10.6 g
2.2 g
0.1 g
0.1 g
2
1
1
1-7 g
0.1 g
0.1 g
0.2 g
6.0 g
18.1 g
11.2 g,
76.6 g
0.5 g
2.1 g
0.4 g
0.1 g
0.2 g
0.1 g
1
2
1
2
5
2
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU, bumed
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Charcoal
Bone
Bone
Bone
Bone
Flakes
Debitage
Flake
Marine SheU, bumed
Marine SheU, bumed
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Marine SheU
Charcoal
Bone
Bone, bumed
Bone
Bone
Bone
Mano Fragment,
Undetermined
Mano Fragment,
Undetermined
Debitage
Debitage
Flakes
Flakes
Flakes
34
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
Test Location
Unit Datum from Datum Depth
Azimuth/Range
Quantity/
Weight Recovery Description
Cat.
No.
0°/OFeet 20-30 cm.
30-40 cm.
40-50 cm.
0.1 g.
0.1 g.
0.1 g.
0.1 g.
0.4 g.
0.4 g.
0.2 g.
1
3
2
2
4
98.3 g
15.4 g
29.5 g
2.8 g
0.2 g
0,5 g
78,5 g
15.8 g
8.7 g
19.0 g
0.5 g
0.8 g
1.3 g
0.5 g
0,4 g
0,6 g
0,1 g
2
1
4
0,3 g,
0,1 g,
99.7 g.
15.9 g.
0.3 g.
0.5 g.
18.8 g.
6.9 g.
0.6 g.
0.1 g.
Charcoal 109
Bone Bird no Bone, bumed Sm, Mammal 111
Bone Fish 112
Bone Lg, Mammal 113
Bone Sm. Mammal 114
Bone Snake 115
Metate Fragment, Basalt 116
Undetermined
Debitage Quartz 117
Flakes Quartz 118
Debitage Basalt 119
Flakes Basalt 120
Marine SheU Chione 121
Marine SheU Pecten 122
Marine SheU Unidentified 123
Marine SheU Ostrea 124
Marine SheU, bumed Pecten 125
Marine SheU, bumed Chione 126
Marine SheU Chione 127
Marine SheU Pecten 128
Marine SheU Ostrea 129
Marine SheU Unidentified 130
Marine SheU Pecten 131
Marine SheU, bumed Chione 132
Marine SheU WheUc 133
Bone Snake 134
Bone, bumed SttL Mammal 135
Bone Sm. Mammal 136
Bone Fish 137
Flakes Quartz 138
Flake Felsite 139
Flakes Basalt 140
Charcoal 141
Bone Snake 142
Marine SheU Chione 143
Marine SheU Pecten 144
Marine SheU, bumed Chione 145
Marine SheU, bumed Pecten 146
Marine SheU Unidentified 147
Marine SheU Tivela 148
Marine SheU Norissa 149
Marine SheU Donax 150
35
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
Test Location
Unit Datum from Datum
Azimuth/Range
Depth
Quantity/
Recovery Description
Cat.
No.
Marine SheU Ostrea 151
Bone Sm. Mammal 152
Bone, bumed Lg. Mammal 153
Smoothing Stone Basalt 154
Flake Quartz 155
Flakes Felsite 156
Flake Basalt 157
Hake Quartzite 158
Marine SheU Unidentified 159
Marine SheU Pecten 160
Marine SheU Ostrea 161
Marine SheU Chione 162
Marine SheU Pecten 163
Marine SheU, bumed Chione 164
Bone Fish 165
Bone Sm, Mammal 166
Bone, bumed Sm, Mammal 167
Bone Snake 168
Mano Fragment, Pecked, Granite 169
Undetermined
Charcoal 170
Marine SheU Donax 171
Flake Felsite 172
Flake Chalcedony 173
Flakes Basalt 174
Marine SheU Unidentified 175
Marine SheU Chione 176
Marine SheU Ostrea 177
Marine SheU Pecten 178
Marine SheU Chione 179
Marine SheU Pecten 180
Bone Sm. Mammal 181
Bone, bumed Sm. Mammal 182
Bone Snake 183
Flakes Basalt 184
Marine SheU Pecten 185
Marine SheU Chione 186
0°/0Feet 40-50 cm.
50-60 cm.
60-70 cm.
70-80 cm.
6.2 g,
0.8 g.
1.3 g.
1
1
2
1
1
11.4 g
10.7 g
3,9 g
62,0 g
1.3 g
1.0 g
0.1 g
0,9 g
0,4 g
0,1 g
1
0,2 g,
0,1 g,
1
1
6
2.6 g
9.9 g
0.6 g
2.0 g
0.1 g
0.3 g
0.2 g
0.2 g
0.2 g
0.5 g.
0.4 g.
36
View of the north wall of Test Unit 1 at Site SDI-628.
''"^7 -•^7;7-^^^y'
37
PLATE 2
TEST UNIT 1
(NORTH WALL)
^TC'iif'iff'irt'iir'iff'iir'iff'ii<''iiif'Tiif'TfV'T(rVV'"V'"''"''"'"'™'T'"V'^
MEDIUM TAN
SANDY HUMUS
DARK BROWN
MIDDEN SOIL
LIGHT BROWN
SANDSTONE
— RODENT BURROWS
TEST UNIT WALL PROFILE SKETCH
SITE SDI-628
THE MUHE PROJECT
FIGURE 7
38
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 9
Summary of Artifact Recovery
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Recovery Category Shovel Tests Test Unit Total Percent
Ecofacts:
Bone
Charcoal
Marine SheU
0.7 g.
46.5 g.
23.1 g.
1.9 g.
767.4 g.
23.8 g.
1.9 g.
813.9 g.
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos
Metates
1 3
1
4
1
7,02
1,75
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage
Flakes
9
40
10
41
17,55
71,93
SpeciaUzed Tools:
Smoothing Stones 1,75
Totals
Percent
3
5.26
54
94,74
57
100,00
100.00
39
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 10
Litiiic Tool Measurement Data
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Catalog
Number
Tool Description Dimensions (in centimeters) Weight Material
Length Width Thickness (in grams)
Ground Stone Tools
68 Mano Fragment
102 Mano Fragment
103 Mano Fragment
116 Metate Fragment
169 Mano Fragment
3,9 3,7 2.3 29,7 Basalt
5,6 2.5 1.2 15,1 Granite
4,6 3.5 3,1 83,8 Granite
5.1 2,8 2,5 42,9 Basalt
6.8 3,5 3,0 80,5 Granite
40
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 11
Lithic Material Distribution
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Material
Artifact Category Basalt Chalcedony Felsite Granite Quartz Quartzite Total Percent
Ground Stone Tools:
Manos 1 - - 3 - - 4 7,02
Metates i . . - . . i 1.75
Lithic Production Waste:
Debitage 3 - - - 6 1 10 17,55
Flakes 22 2 6 - 7 4 41 71,93
SpeciaUzed Tools:
Smoothing Stones 1 - - - - - 1 1.75
Totals 28 2 6 3 13 5 57 100,00
Percent 49.13 3.51 10.52 5.26 22.81 8.77 100.00
41
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE U
Flake Analysis: Material by Size
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
r
Material 0-1 1-2 2-3
Size (in centimeters)
3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7+ Total Percent
Basalt 9 6 4 2 1 22 53.66
Chalcedony 1 1 -- -- -2 4,88
Felsite 2 2 2 ----6 14.63
Quartz 4 2 1 ----7 17.07
Quartzite 2 1 1 - -- -4 9.76
Totals 18 12 8 0 2 1 0 0 41 100.00
Percent 43.90 29.27 19.51 0.00 4.88 2.44 0.00 0.00 100.00
TABLE 13
Flake Analysis: Material by Type
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
r
Material Primary
Type
Secondary Interior Pressure Total
>
Percent
J
Basalt 1 5 16 22 53.66
Chalcedony -1 1 -2 4.88
Felsite --6 -6 14.63
Quartz 1 2 4 -7 17.07
Quartzite --4 -4 9.76
Totals 2 8 31 0 41 100.00
Percent 4,88 19.51 75.61 0.00 100.00
42
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 14
Flake Analysis: Material by Condition
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Material
Condition
Whole Fragment Undetermined Total Percent
Basalt
Chalcedony
Felsite
Quartz
Quartzite
Totals
Percent
19
5
6
2
32
78.05
3
2
1
1
2
9
21.95
0
0.00
22
2
6
7
4
41
100.00
53.66
4.88
14.63
17.07
9.76
100.00
C
TABLE 15
Flake Analysis: Material by Termination
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Material
Temiination
Feather Hinge Step Fracture Undetermined Total Percent
Basalt
Chalcedony
Felsite
Quartz
Quartzite
19
1
3
4
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
22
2
6
7
4
53.66
4.88
14.63
17.07
9.76
Totals
Percent
29
70.73
7
17.07 0.00
5
12.20
41
100.00
100.00
43
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
TABLE 16
Flake Analysis: Material by Platform Preparation
Site SDI-628
Muhe Project
Material
Platform Preparation
Present Absent Undetermined Total Percent
Basalt
Chalcedony
Felsite
Quartz
Quartzite
2
2
1
15
2
4
5
2
22
2
6
7
4
53.66
4.88
14.63
17.07
9.76
Totals
Percent
10
24.39
28
68.29
3
7.32
41
100.00
100.00
44
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
7.0 DISCUSSION/INTERPRETATION
The study of SDI-628 resulted in the characterization of die site as a buried midden deposit,
including both artifacts and ecofacts, situated on a bluff on the south side of Buena Vista Lagoon.
The cultural affiliation of the site is attributed to the La Jolla Complex based on the lack of small
projectile points and potsherds, the presence of a smoothing stone, and the presence of other La
Jolla sites in the vicinity of the project. A radiocarbon date was not processed for this site, but
materials are present within the site which would facilitate this type of dating procedure. The
smaU collection of bone from the excavations was largely representative of rodents, with smaller
quantities of bird and larger mammal bone also included. An abundance of snake bones generaUy
recovered from above the midden level appears to be due to recent, natural mortality. The small
quantities of fire-altered rocks (from camp or cooking fires) and charcoal, and the large quantity of
marine shell at the site indicates that SDI-628 was lUcely a temporary camp where gross reduction
of marine food resources took place. Evidence of buming on some of the bone and sheU may have
been the result of post-depositional damage due to campfires or wild fires. This interpretation is
based on the smaU number of specimens affected, and their fragmentary nature. The presence of
flakes but no hammerstones or cores suggests that stone tool maintenance, rather than
manufactiffe, was conducted at the site. Four small mano fragments and a smaU metate fragment
were recovered, which indicates that some food preparation was associated with the use of the site.
The presence of miUing implements also suggest that some terrestrial floral species may have been
processed at the site. The primary site function appears to have been focused on marine resource
gathering and gross processing. Evidence of minor avian and terrestrial floral/faunal food
processing and tool maintenance points to the maintenance of a smaU work force (Binford 1980).
45
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The testing program at SDI-628 was conducted in accordance with Appendix K of the
Califomia Environmental QuaUty Act of 1970 (CEQA). According to CEQA, a proposed project is
considered to have a significant effect on the environment if:
...(the project or action) has the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment,
curtail the range ofthe environment, or to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, enviromnental goals (Section 21083 [A]).
Furthermore, under Appendix K, Section HI, of CEQA, if:
...a project may affect an archaeological resource, the [lead] agency shall determine
whether the effect may be a significant effect on the environment. If the project may
cause damage to an important archaeological resource, the project may have a
significant ^ect on the environment.
In order to determine the importance of an archaeological site, the criteria found in
Appendix K, Section III, of CEQA should be utilized. According to CEQA, an "important
archaeological resource" is one which:
A, Is associated with an event or person of:
(1) Recognized significance in Califomia or American history, or
(2) Recognized scientific importance in prehistory;
B, Can provide information which is of both demonstrable public interest and useful in
addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions;
C, Has a special or particular quality, such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving
example of its kind;
D, Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or
E, Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered
only with archaeological methods.
If a resource is determined to be not important according to these criteria, it is assumed that
the resource cannot be significantly impacted and, therefore, no mitigation measures are
warranted. Impacts that adversely affect important resources are considered to be significant, and
mitigating measures are warranted.
46
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
8.1 Discussion of Significance
Based upon the data gathered during this study. Site SDI-628 is a sensitive archaeological
resource according to CEQA criteria (specifically Appendix K, Section III, B and C), This site
would add to the current body of knowledge conceming the prehistoric occupation of the lagoonal
zone. To date, very few sites around Buena Vista Lagoon have been studied; therefore, the data
from this site would be very important to archaeological studies in the area. The site has provided
information conceming the prehistoric subsistence pattem and exploitation of resources in this area
of Buena Vista Lagoon. In addition, the site also produced potential chronological data and
evidence of cooking and occupation. According to City guidelines, the testing of this prehistoric
site yielded sufficient evidence to conclude that the site is a significant cultural resource.
8.2 Research Potential
Site SDI-628 has been evaluated as a sensitive cultural resource. The testing program
demonstrated that although few surface artifacts are present, a significant subsurface deposit exists
at the site. The tests provided an adequate sample from which to determine that the site possesses
the potential to provide information regarding important research questions that past research has
shown can only be answered by archaeological methods. These research topics include the
identification of and differentiation between evidence relating to primary site function, work force
support (Binford 1980), the relative importance of marine and terrestrial food resources through
time, and more important locally, the implications of the presence of Donax at sites in the north
county coastal zone (Laylander and Saunders 1993), Because the testing program revealed that a
substantial archaeological deposit remains at the site, and because that deposit retains potential
research significance, the site has been identified as a significant cultural resource,
8.3 Impact Assessment and Recommendations
Site SDI-628 has been identified as a sensitive archaeological resource. Any adverse
impacts to this resource must, therefore, be considered significant If the site wUl be either directiy
or indirectiy impacted by the proposed development, mitigation measures must be implemented.
Impacts would include excavations for the constmction of building elements such as foundations,
walkways, driveways, or underground utilities. Possible mitigation measures would include
avoidance of the site, capping to a depth greater than excavation impacts, archaeological data
recovery from areas to be impacted, or a combination of the three.
47
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
9.0 CERTIFICATION
The information provided in this document is correct, to the best of my knowledge, and has
been compUed in accordance with the guideUnes of the City of San Diego.
Brian F. Smii
Principal Investigator
Date
48
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
10.0 REFERENCE;??
Beauchamp, R. Mitchel
1986 A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City,
CaUfomia,
Binford, Lewis R,
1980 "Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation," American Antiquity (Vol. 45, Number 1),
Carrico, Richard L,
1987 Strangers in a Stolen Land: American Indians in San Diego, 1850-1880. Sierra Oaks
Publishing Company, Sacramento, CaUfomia.
Caughey, John W,
1970 California: A Remarkable State's Life History, Prentice-HaU, Engiewood Cliffs, New
Jersey,
Cotterell, Brian, and Johan Kamminga
1987 "The Formation of Flakes," American Antiquity (Vol. 52, No, 4).
Davis, E. L„ C, W. Brott, and D. L. Weide
1969 "The Westem Litiiic Co-Tradition," San Diego Museum Papers {No. 6). San Diego,
Engstrand, Iris H, W.
1980 San Diego: California's Cornerstone. Continental Heritage Press, Inc., Oklahoma.
Flenniken, J, J,
1985 "Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers," Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor
of Don E. Crabtree. Edited by M. G, Plew, J. C. Woods, and M. G. Pavesi.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gastil, R. G.
1964 "San Diego State College Student Mapping." UnpubUshed manuscript on file at the
State of Califomia, Division of Mines and Geology.
49
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
Hubbs, Carl L.
1958 "Recent Climatic History in Califomia." Minutes of the Semi-Annual Convention of
Irrigation Districts Association of California. Santa Barbara Irrigation Districts
Association, Califomia.
Inman, Douglas L.
1983 "Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstmction of Paleocoastiines in the
Vicinity of La Jolla, Califomia." Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Geology: Towards
the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves. Edited by P. M. Masters and
N. C. Flemming. Academic Press, London.
Jochim, M. A.
1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement—A Predictive Model. Academic Press,
New York.
Jones, B. F.
1959 "Geologic Mapping of the San Luis Rey Quadrangle." Unpublished Master's thesis
on file at the University of Southem Califomia.
Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook ofthe Indians of California. Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American
Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution.
Laylander, Don, and Dan Saunders
1993 "Donax Exploitation on the Pacific Coast: Spatial and Temporal Limits, Proceedings
ofthe Society for California Archaeology (Vol. 6),
MUler, Jaquelin Neva
1966 "The Present and the Past MoUuscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southem
CaUfomia Coastal Lagoons," Unpublished Master's thesis on file at the University of
Califomia, San Diego,
Moratto, Michael J,
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc, Orlando, Florida,
Moriarty, James R,, III
1966 "Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with
Stratigraphically ControUed Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego," Anthropological
Journal of Canada (Vol, 4, No, 4),
50
The Muhe Project — Cultural Resource Study
Moriarty, James R,, III
1967 "Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County," Science (Vol, 155),
1969 "San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural Relationships."
Anthropological]ourruil of Canada (Vol, 7, No, 3).
1977 "The CabrUlo National Monument: A Physical and Cultural Over-view." Report on
file with the National Park Service.
Moyer, Cecil C.
1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego. Edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union-Tribune
Publishing Company, San Diego.
Office of Historic Preservation
1988 California Archaeological Resource Identification and Data Acquisition Program:
Sparse Lithic Scatters. Sacramento, Califomia.
Palou, Fray Francisco
1926 Historical Memoirs of New California. Edited by Herbert Eugene Bolton (4 volumes).
University of Califomia Press, Berkeley, Califomia,
Pierson, Larry J,, Gerald I, Shiller, and Richard A, Slater
1987 "Archaeological Resource Study: Morro Bay to Mexican Border." United States
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, OCS Study MMS 87-0025,
Pourade, Richard F,
1963 The Silver Dons. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, Califomia,
Rehder, Harold A,
1981 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Seashells. Alfred A. Knopf,
New York,
Rogers, Malcolm
1966 Ancient Hunters ofthe Far West. Edited with contributions by H, M. Worthington,
E, L, Davis, and Clark W. Brott. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty
1961 "Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, CaUfomia: A La JoUan Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years
Before the Present." Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 93, No. 3).
51
The Muhe Projeci — Cultural Resource Study
Smith, Brian F., and James R. Moriarty
1985 "The Excavations of Site W-20." Environmental impact report on file at the City of San
Diego.
1993 "An Archaeological Survey and a Cultural Resource Evaluation at the Lakeside
Congregation of Jehovah's Wimesses Project" Environmental impact report on file at
the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego.
Sti-ahler, Arthur N.
1973 Introduction to Physical Geography. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Tme, Delbert L.
1958 "An Early Complex in San Diego County, Califomia." American Antiquity (Vol. 23).
1966 "Archaeological Differentiation of the Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in
Southem Califomia." UnpubUshed doctoral dissertation on file at the University of
Califomia at Los Angeles.
Warren, Claude N.
1964 "Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast" UnpubUshed doctoral
dissertation on file at the University of Califomia at Los Angeles.
1966 "The San Dieguito Type Site: Malcolm J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on tiie San
Dieguito River." San Diego Museum Papers (No. 6).
52
APPENDIX T
Results of Archaeological Record Searches
(Confidential—Submitted Under Separate Cover)
APPENDIX TT
Site Record Forms
(Confidential—Submitted Under Separate Cover)
APPENDIX TTT
Cultural Resource Location Map
(Confidential—Submitted Under Separate Cover)
APPENDIX IY
Artifact Typology
ARTIFACT
IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA
AND USE SUITABILITY
Artifacts recovered from prehistoric sites in San Diego County exhibit general
characteristics described in the following artifact classification. This classificatory system takes
into consideration the traditional attributes of gross morphology, technique of manufacture, and
pattem(s) of use wear, but also includes more recent technological considerations. Previous
investigators have made substantial contributions to the refinement of the process of artifact
identification (Meighan 1954; Warren and Tme 1961; Crabtree et al. 1963; Prison 1968; Kowta
1969; Tme 1970; Smith and Moriarty 1985). Recent studies have focused on the technological
aspects of Uthic production and its by-products, resulting in a substantial body of literature on the
subject (e. g., Keeley 1980; Amold ed. 1992; Rondeau 1992; Dahlstrom 1992). Furthermore,
replicative studies, trace analyses, and wear pattem analyses have been useful in the identification
of specific tool uses (Keeley 1980; Bamforth 1990; Hyland et al. 1990; Yohe et al. 1991). The
following artifact and use-suitabihty typology is based largely on these studies, and is presented in
order to identify the specific criteria used in the artifact identification for the present study.
Although the categories are based upon normative stereotypes, variability is identified by
descriptive terminology which, in tum, is supplemented by Ulustrations of selected specimens.
Cores
This class of artifacts is made up of rocks from which percussive flakes have been stmck.
The critical element in this classification is that the resultant flakes, not the source, arc the object of
percussive activity. WhUe the manufacture of most lithic tools requires flaking, the core is simply
a source for potentially usable flakes. Other tools may exhibit core-like percussive edge
preparation and therefore incorporate the term "core" in their nomenclature (e. g. core-scraper).
However, the classification of core is reserved for those objects which are simply sources of
flakes.
Flakes
This category is made up of unmodified flaked Utiiic material that exhibits specific attributes
which are the result of flake-producing activities. Flakes must exhibit a platform, a bulb of
percussion, and force lines and rings, among other attributes. Morphology and attributes vary
between percussion and pressure flakes, as well as among the many technological subcategories.
Flakes are classified according to a number of morphological and technological characteristics.
Primary, secondary, pressure, cortical, and interior flakes are all subcategories of lithic production
waste. These subcategories are descriptive of the processes by which the flakes were produced.
The following is a description of each flake category used in this report:
(1) "Primary cortex" or "exterior" flakes are those which exhibit a complete cortical dorsal
surface.
(2) "Secondary cortex," or "intermediate," flakes are those which exhibit both cortex and
previous flake scars on the dorsal surface.
(3) "Interior" flakes are those which retain no exterior cortex on the dorsal surface.
(4) "Pressure" flakes are those which measure two centimeters or less in length and exhibit
paraUel sides and a slighdy twisted long section.
(5) Condition can be either "whole," "fiagment," or "undetermined"
(6) Termination may designated as "feather," "hinge," "step fracture," or "unidentified."
(7) Size is determined by the greatest dimension of each flake.
(8) Platform preparation is determined by the presence of abrasion or smaU flake removal scars
which indicate the preparation of a margin for the removal of flakes.
Debitage
"Debitage" consists of specimens of Uthic production waste which lack specific attributes of
tools, cores, or flakes. Specimens which resulted from decortication or gross quarry reduction and
other unrefined lithic debris are categorized as debitage. Although the term "debitage" has been
used to describe all waste products which result from flintknapping, its use here is limited to
angular waste fragments sometimes referred to as shatter.
Lithic Blanks
This class of artifacts consists of pieces of raw material selected for use in tool making.
This classification is used to describe specimens of raw material produced by minimal effort, as
they exist prior to initial reduction into preforms. A blank is a lithic fragment which would have
been considered suitable for manufacture into a stone implement, although the specific implement
was not necessarily apparent in the shape of the blank.
Lithic Preforms
A lithic preform is a blank that has been subjected to initial reduction processes. These
processes resulted in a rough version of the intended tool. This classification includes all the
various stages between blank and final form. In earlier stages, the intended shape may not be
obvious, or the suitability of the preform could apply to several different tool types. In more
advanced stages of shaping, the intended shape is readUy apparent
Projectile Points
Projectile points are most commonly made of worked stone, although oak tipped arrow
shafts have been reported (Michelsen 1971). These artifacts are pointed stone implements which
were designed to be hafted to an arrow which would subsequentiy be propelled by a bow.
Whether the objects included in this group were actuaUy used as projectile points or as ceremonial
or ritual objects does not bear on the typological classification. Several types of projectile points
have been classified on the basis of shape and size characteristics. The typology used for the
present study is that developed by D. L. Tme (1970) for the Cuyamaca Complex.
Knives and Knife-Like Forms
An entire class of artifacts generally referred to as "knives" has been found to be
widespread, both spatially and temporally. These stone objects have been found in both unifacial
and bifacial forms. Specimens assigned to this tool category are flaked stone objects used or made
for cutting functions. There is some evidence for basal wear pattems be indicative of hafting
(Nance 1970). Knife forms are commonly classified according to typological categories
estabUshed by Tme (1970). While evidence of wear pattems generally indicate a finished product,
this does not preclude the fortuitous usage of an unfinished knife.
Drills
Drills resemble projectile points in general form but, unlike projectUe points, have narrower
midsections and tips which are round or triangulate in cross-section and show obvious wear
pattems attributed to use for drilling. TypicaUy, these artifacts are suitable for hafting, although
this is not an attribute required of drills. The range of sophistication among driUs is great, from
simple, rounded, elongated flakes to more refined specimens.
Perforators
Perforators include both modified and unmodified flakes with a wom, pointed end. The
basis for differentiation between drills and perforators is one of wear pattern and general
morphology. Objects which would have been used to punch a hole using a small, twisting motion
are classified as perforators.
Utilized flakes are stmck flakes which were not purposefully modified, but which exhibit
polish and/or edge wear from use. The polish or wear pattems must be clearly discemible as
resulting from usage. Flakes which display polish or post-depositional damage due to natural
chemical or mechanical processes are not included in this category.
Retouched Flakes
Retouched flakes are limited to those specimens that exhibit purposeful retouch on the
working edge. The flakes were reworked to sharpen the working edge in order to prolong the Ufe
or increase the efficiency of the tool. Flakes which were further modified by flaking to create a
specific tool, such as a scraper, are not included in this category.
Scraners
The category of scrapers includes a number of subcategories based on morphology and use
wear pattems. The major subcategories are domed scrapers, flake scrapers, and scraper planes.
Further differentiation is made through the use of descriptive terminology referring to the planar
shape and the presence of use wear on various edges or surfaces. "Lateral," "terminal,"
"composite," etc., are terms describing the location of use wear patterns. "Convex,"
"convergent," "transverse," etc., are terms that describe the shape of the used area in relation to the
shape of the tool body.
Choppers
This category consists of tools whose function is indicated by morphology and wear
pattems which suggest use as a chopping implement. Morphological characteristics include
rounded cortex or blunting of sharp edges in the grip area, and gross bifacial sharpening of the use
edge. The position of the ragged cutting edge is opposite or nearly opposite the grip. Wear
pattems identify tiiis artifact by use in chopping rather than scraping.
Hammerstones
This class of artifact includes a variety of globular to amorphous shapes which are aU
characterized by battered ridges. The wear pattem is generally characteristic of use on hard
materials, especially for stone tool manufacture. Occasionally, cores or other artifacts were
employed as hammerstones, as were stream-wom pebbles, cobbles and irregular pieces of quarry
debitage. This group of macrocrystalline, cryptocrystalline, and amorphous lithic artifacts is
differentiated from granite pounders associated with food or other soft material reduction.
Pounders
Pounders are rocks that were used to process soft materials. Manos with battered ends are
included in this category, but are usually described as mano/pounders to identify the dual functions
represented by the wear pattem on the specimen. Pounders were used like pesties, but generally
exhibit use wear indicative of gentler impacts and softer materials. Pounders are not usually
morphologically suited for use in a mortar. Rather, these implements were suitable for bmising
and pounding on open surfaces, such as those found on bedrock miUing features.
Manos
Manos are, by virtue of their function, ground stone hand tools. They include rounded
cobbles employed to grind floral and faunal products as well as mineral pigments and clays for
ceramic manufacture. Manos exhibit use wear which is detectable with the unaided eye on one or
more surfaces. The amount of use and modification can range from the barely detectable to a high
degree of refinement and shaping. Descriptive adjectives such a "uniface," "biface," "pecked,"
"shaped," etc., are usually used to further identify these implements. Manos often exhibit wear
resulting from secondary use as pounders of soft materials. Such pounding may be considered
either an adjunct to miUing—such as with small bones—or a separate activity.
P^stks
Pesties are pounding and pulping implements used in conjunction with stone or wood
mortars. Shapes may vary from the large amorphous pestles common to the Encinitas Tradition, to
the shaped pesties of the late prehistoric horizon. These tools were commonly used in conjunction
with mortars.
Metates
Metates are portable milling slabs formed from materials which vary from sandstone to
granite or schist and even some wooden specimens have been reported ethnologically. Sandstone
metates are most commonly found in coastal sites, and metates of other materials have been found
throughout the county.
Stone Vessels
Stone vessels have been found in coastal middens and offshore submerged sites. Hudson
(1976) categorized several varieties of stone vessels found off the coast of southem Califomia.
Vessels formed from granite are most commonly found, but vessels of sandstone have also been
reported. Stone vessels are differentiated from metates or anvil stones by a deeper cavity and a
more distinct bowl shape. Sizes of stone vessels may vary from smaller than 20 centimeters to
larger than 30 centimeters in outside diameter.
Mortars
Mortars are most commonly found in sites of the late prehistoric Kumeyaay Indians, in
association with bedrock milling stations. However, wooden mortars have also been reported
ethnographically, and are often pictured in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century photographs
of Indian life.
REFERENCES CITED
Amold, Jeanne E., editor
1992 "Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Distribution in Califomia Prehistory."
Perspectives in California Archaeology (Vol. 2). Institute of Archaeology, University
of Califomia, Los Angeles.
Bamforth, Douglas B.
1990 "Stone Tool Use and Prehistoric Land-Use Pattems in the Lower Santa Ynez River
Valley, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Califomia." 3. San Diego.
Crabtree, Robert H., Claude N, Warren, and D, L. Tme
1963 "Archaeological Investigations at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Califomia."
Archaeological Survey Annual Report (1962-1963). Department of Anthropology and
Sociology, University of CaUfomia, Los Angeles.
Dahlstrom, Bmce
1992 "Behavioral Interpretations Derived from Archaic Period Lithic Materials in the Napa
Valley," Proceedings ofthe Society for California Archaeology (Vol, 5). San Diego,
Prison, G.
1968 "A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools," American Antiquity (Vol,
33),
Hudson, Dee Travis
1976 "Marine Archaeology Along the Southem Califomia Coast," San Diego Museum
Papers (No. 9), San Diego Museum of Man,
Hyland, D. C, J. M. Tersak, J. M. Adovasio, and L. I. Siegel
1990 "Identification of the Species of Origin of Residual Blood on Lithic Material." American
Antiquity (Vol. 55, No. 1).
Keeley, Lawrence H.
1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
Kowta, M.
1969 "The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the
Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes." University of California Publications in
Anthropology (Vol. 6). Berkeley.
Meighan, C. W.
1954 "A Late Complex in Southem California Prehistory." Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology (Vol. 10, No. 2).
Michelsen, Ralph C,
1971 "Indians of Santa Catalina: Photos from the Collection of Ralph C, Michelsen," Pacific
Coc^t Archaeological Society Quarterly (Vol. 7, No. 1).
Nance, J, D,
1970 "Lithic Analysis: Implications for tiie Prehistory of Central Califomia," Archaeological
Survey Annual Report (1970), Department of Anthropology, University of Califomia,
Los i^jigeles.
Rondeau, Michael F,
1992 "On the Study of Artifact Assemblage." Proceedings of the Societv for Califomia
Archaeologv (Vol. S\ San Diego.
Smith, Brian F, and James R. Moriarty, III
1985 'The Archaeological Investigations at Site W-20." Technical report on file at the South
Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University,
Tme, D, L,
1970 Investigations of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San
Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monograph, Department of
Anthropology, University of Califomia, Los Angeles.
Warren, Claude N., and D, L. Tme
1961 "The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in Califomia Prehistory." Archaeological
Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. Department of Anthropology and Sociology,
University of Califomia, Los Angeles.
Yohe, Robert M., Margaret E. Newman, and Joan S. Schneider
1991 "Immunological Identification of Small Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal MiUing
Equipment." American Antiquity (Vol. 56, No. 4),