Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SUP 07-03; South Coast Materials Quarry; Special Use Permit (SUP) (2)
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING FOR THE FORMER SOUTH COAST MATERIAL QUARRY AMENDED RECLAMATION PLAN, CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SPL-2008-01131-MLM Submitted to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Regulatory Division, Carlsbad Field Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 105 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Prepared for: Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc. P.O. Box 639069 San Diego, California 92163-9069 Prepared by: Affinis 810 Jamacha Road, Suite 206 El Cajon, California 92019 Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A. (RPA) Andrew Giletti, B.A. Director of Cultural Resources Field Director February 2013 Affinis Job No. 2422 USGS quadrangle: San Luis Rey (7.5' series) Acreage: 104 acres Keywords: Archaeological monitoring, positive; Buena Vista Creek; El Salto Falls; Carlsbad and Oceanside, San Diego County; coastal; historic: ceramics, glass, metal, rubber; prehistoric: ground stone (manos), flaked stone (debitage, cores, scrapers, hammerstones), pottery, shell, animal bone; CA- SDI-9967, CA-SDI-20,776, CA-SDI-20,777; Township 11 South, Range 4 West, unsectioned NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION Authors: Mary Robbins-Wade and Andrew Giletti Consulting Firm: Affinis, 810 Jamacha Road, Suite 206, El Cajon, California 92019 Report Date: February 2013 Report Title: Archaeological Monitoring for the Former South Coast Material Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. SPL-2008-01131-MLM Prepared for: Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc., P.O. Box 639069, San Diego, California 92163-9069 Submitted to: US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division, Carlsbad Field Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 105, Carlsbad, CA 92011 Contract number: Affinis Job No. 2422 USGS quadrangle: San Luis Rey (7.5' series) Acreage: 104 acres Keywords: Archaeological monitoring, positive; Buena Vista Creek; El Salto Falls; Carlsbad and Oceanside, San Diego County; coastal; historic: ceramics, glass, metal, rubber; prehistoric: ground stone (manos), flaked stone (debitage, cores, scrapers, hammerstones), pottery, shell, animal bone; CA-SDI-9967, CA-SDI-20,776, CA-SDI- 20,777; Township 11 South, Range 4 West, unsectioned i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .................................................................................... 7 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................ 7 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 8 III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 15 IV. METHODS .............................................................................................................. 17 V. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 19 CA-SDI-9967 ...................................................................................................... 19 CA-SDI-20,776 ................................................................................................... 25 CA-SDI-20,777 ................................................................................................... 26 GENERAL MONITORING .................................................................................. 26 VI. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 29 VII. PERSONNEL ......................................................................................................... 31 VIII. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 33 FIGURES Figure 1. Regional Location in San Diego County ......................................................... 3 Figure 2. Project Location on USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey Quadrangle ............................. 4 Figure 3. Project Plans ................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Locations of Cultural Resources ................................................................... 20 TABLES Table 1. CA-SDI-9967, summary of historic material recovered .................................. 21 Table 2. CA-SDI-9967, summary of prehistoric artifacts recovered ............................. 22 Table 3. CA-SDI-9967, attributes of manos ................................................................. 23 Table 4. CA-SDI-9967, shell taxa recovered ................................................................ 24 Table 5. CA-SDI-20,776, summary of cultural material recovered ............................... 25 Table 6. CA-SDI-20,776, shell taxa recovered ............................................................. 26 Table 7. General monitoring, summary of cultural material recovered ......................... 26 APPENDIX A Artifact Catalog CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES A Site Records B Locations of Cultural Resources ii S-1 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The Former South Coast Material Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan project site is located in the Cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside, in northwestern San Diego County. The project includes the reclamation and off-site improvements to 104.2 acres of decommissioned gravel mines, including the re-establishment of the Buena Vista Creek floodplain in light of the existing physical and hydrological conditions of the watershed. Affinis and Saving Sacred Sites were contracted to conduct an archaeological and Native American monitoring program during grading for the amended reclamation plan between August 2011 and October 2012. The monitoring program resulted in the discovery of two previously unknown archaeological sites (CA-SDI-20,776 and CA-SDI-20,777), as well as the collection of cultural material at the previously recorded site CA-SDI-9967 and unprovenienced material in disturbed contexts across the project site. The reclamation project was designed to avoid impacts to El Salto Falls. Cultural material was found in disturbed contexts during the monitoring program, but one area of apparently intact cultural deposit was also identified: cultural material at CA-SDI-20,776 was buried beneath approximately 6 feet of fill associated with quarry activities. CA-SDI-20,777 was a small secondary deposit encountered during monitoring activities. The historic portion of CA-SDI-9967 includes household items from the turn of the twentieth century through the 1940s. The small amount of cultural material encountered during the monitoring program has contributed incrementally to our knowledge of the area, although none of the sites are archaeologically significant in and of themselves. The Native American cultural material will be repatriated to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The mitigation measures for the project have been fulfilled through the monitoring program, including this report. S-2 1 I. INTRODUCTION PROJECT LOCATION The Former South Coast Material Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan project site is located in the Cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside, in northwestern San Diego County (Figure 1). The property is on the south side of State Route 78 (SR 78), west of College Boulevard, and Buena Vista Creek runs through it (Figures 2 and 3). The project site is approximately 104.2 acres, with 100.1 acres in the City of Carlsbad and 4.1 acres in the City of Oceanside. The Amended Reclamation Plan project is in an unsectioned portion of Township 11 South, Range 4 West, part of the former Rancho Agua Hedionda, on the USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey quadrangle (Figure 2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the reclamation and off-site improvements to 104.2 acres of decommissioned gravel mines, including the re-establishment of the Buena Vista Creek (Creek) floodplain in light of the existing physical and hydrological conditions of the watershed. The design of the Creek through the eastern half of the property consists of widening the existing 35- to 80-ft. creek bed to 150 ft. using a composite design and varying transitional wetland and riparian benches. The “active floodplain” delineates the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The Creek design includes seven drop structures or “steps” that would mitigate the steep east-to-west grade of the channel. On both sides of the 150-ft. creek bottom the project created a 100-ft. wide native upland buffer primarily on slopes at a 2.5:1 or 3:1. The buffer areas would be planted with Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. The existing riparian vegetation in the Creek through the western half of the property would be avoided and preserved. In addition, a 100-ft. upland buffer from the edge of the existing riparian habitat will be preserved on both sides of the Creek. This area totals approximately 4.9 acres of buffer areas preserved, and will be available for future upland preservation or wetland restoration or enhancement as mitigation for future projects if approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Management activities within these western preserved buffer areas would be limited to trash removal, removal of perennial invasive species (i.e. limited to pampas grass, tamarisk, arundo, castor bean, tobacco tree) and restricting access. Approximately 28.22 acres of the site are designated for preservation as open space including the reconstructed Buena Vista Creek, the existing riparian habitat of Buena Vista Creek, and the upland buffer areas. The remainder of the project includes constructing two unpaved gently sloping pads to the north and south of the Creek. Grading for these pads is limited to areas previously disturbed by mining activities. The reclamation project does not include development of the site other than the channel widening and pad grading. The pads will contain desiltation basins and be hydroseeded for erosion control, and future development would be required 2 to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and all associated federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Affinis and Saving Sacred Sites were contracted to conduct an archaeological and Native American monitoring program during grading for the amended reclamation plan. Mary Robbins-Wade served as Project Manager/Principal Investigator for Affinis, and Andrew Giletti was the Field Director. Cami Mojado was the Project Manager for Saving Sacred Sites. A cultural resources study was conducted in conjunction with the environmental review process for the amended reclamation plan (Robbins-Wade 2008). San Juan Cap!s; -~ f"<>nic!tr;orln eefch South Laguna 0 0 5 10 ~~~ Miles Affinis Shadow Valley Center 847 Jamacha Road El Cajon, CA 92019 Solana Beach Pacific Beach Mission Beach Ocean Beach San Diego Aguanga ------------ Sa~e~~~::~~ El Capi1an Reservoir Lakeside Alpine Barretl Lake ~ Regional location in San Diego County Borrego Springs Desert State Figure 1 Affinis Shadow Valley Center 84 7 Jamacha Road El Cajon, CA 92019 Printed from TOPO! ©2001 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com) Project location on USGS 7 .5' San Luis Rey quadrangle Figure 2 Affinis Shadow Valley Center 847 Jamacha Road El Cajon, CA 92019 Project Plans :.,'."'~.:~ -~···· •••• "· _.J(~ffnlll~/1)111):--.._, ··:::::.--; •• . ,;··· ... __ · :."_,, .... 1,,,,,~ '· I _j SCALE: 1" = 200' pa;; I 0 100 200 400 Figure 3 6 7 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The project site is in the coastal plains of northern San Diego County, where the climate is characterized as “semi-arid, cool” (Griner and Pryde 1976:Figure 3.4). Average annual temperatures range from a January low of about 44o F to a July high of about 75o F, and annual rainfall averages around 10 inches (Griner and Pryde 1976). Four geologic formations were noted within the Amended Reclamation Plan project site: Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits, Tertiary-age Volcanic Rock, Santiago Formation, and Jurassic-age Salto Intrusive rocks (Copenhaver and Brown 2005). The Salto Intrusive is the only one of these formations that may have produced rock suitable for use in the manufacture of stone tools. The surficial soil deposits mapped for the project site are: undocumented fill, compacted fill, previously placed fill, topsoil, alluvium, and colluvium (Copenhaver and Brown 2005). Alluvial and colluvial soils have the potential for buried cultural material that may not be visible on the surface. Fill soils can also sometimes cover archaeological features or deposits. Buena Vista Creek runs east-west through the property (Figure 2). The creek continues west to Buena Vista Lagoon, approximately 2 miles west of the project site. In the past, the lagoon was much larger than its current extent. The 1898 USGS 15' Oceanside quadrangle shows Buena Vista Lagoon with water extending almost to the current intersection of El Camino Real and SR 78 (about 1.25 mile west of the project). The marshy area of the lagoon extended even farther east, approximately to the western boundary of the current project site. Vegetation communities within the Amended Reclamation Plan project site include riparian woodland, coastal sage scrub, disturbed grassland and native grassland, as well as ornamental planting in isolated areas. A number of plant species in these native vegetation communities are known to have been used by the Luiseño people for food, medicine, tools, shelter, ceremonial and other uses (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908). Many of the animal species found in these communities would have been used by native populations as well. Existing Conditions The South Coast Material company operated a hard rock quarry at the project site between 1961 and 1995. Other uses on-site included a rock plant, a concrete batch plant and an asphalt products facility, concrete recycling, shop building, scale house, and associated office areas. These uses have substantially altered the project site from its original condition. 8 CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT General Culture History Several summaries discuss the prehistory of San Diego County and provide a background for understanding the archaeology of the general area surrounding the project. Moratto's (1984) review of the archaeology of California contains important discussions of Southern California, including the San Diego area, as does a recent book by Neusius and Gross (2007). Bull (1983, 1987), Carrico (1987), Gallegos (1987), and Warren (1985, 1987) provide summaries of archaeological work and interpretations, and a relatively recent paper (Arnold et al. 2004) discusses advances since 1984. The following is a brief discussion of the culture history of the San Diego region. Carter (1957, 1978, 1980), Minshall (1976) and others (e.g., Childers 1974; Davis 1968, 1973) have long argued for the presence of Pleistocene humans in California, including the San Diego area. The sites identified as "early man" are all controversial. Carter and Minshall are best known for their discoveries at Texas Street and Buchanan Canyon. The material from these sites is generally considered nonartifactual, and the investigative methodology is often questioned (Moratto 1984). The earliest accepted archaeological manifestation of Native Americans in the San Diego area is the San Dieguito complex, dating to approximately 10,000 years ago (Warren 1967). The San Dieguito complex was originally defined by Rogers (1939), and Warren published a clear synthesis of the complex in 1967. The material culture of the San Dieguito complex consists primarily of scrapers, scraper planes, choppers, large blades, and large projectile points. Rogers considered crescentic stones to be characteristic of the San Dieguito complex as well. Tools and debitage made of fine-grained green metavolcanic material, locally known as felsite, were found at many sites which Rogers identified as San Dieguito. Often these artifacts were heavily patinated. Felsite tools, especially patinated felsite, came to be seen as an indicator of the San Dieguito complex. Until relatively recently, many archaeologists felt that the San Dieguito culture lacked milling technology and saw this as an important difference between the San Dieguito and La Jolla complexes. Sleeping circles, trail shrines, and rock alignments have also been associated with early San Dieguito sites. The San Dieguito complex is chronologically equivalent to other Paleoindian complexes across North America, and sites are sometimes called "Paleoindian" rather than "San Dieguito". San Dieguito material underlies La Jolla complex strata at the C. W. Harris site in San Dieguito Valley (Warren, ed. 1966). The traditional view of San Diego prehistory has the San Dieguito complex followed by the La Jolla complex at least 7000 years ago, possibly as long as 9000 years ago (Rogers 1966). The La Jolla complex is part of the Encinitas tradition and equates with Wallace's (1955) Millingstone Horizon, also known as Early Archaic or Milling Archaic. The Encinitas tradition is generally "recognized by millingstone assemblages in shell middens, often near sloughs and lagoons" (Moratto 1984:147). "Crude" cobble tools, especially choppers and scrapers, characterize the La Jolla complex (Moriarty 1966). Basin metates, manos, 9 discoidals, a small number of Pinto series and Elko series points, and flexed burials are also characteristic. Warren et al. (1961) proposed that the La Jolla complex developed with the arrival of a desert people on the coast who quickly adapted to their new environment. Moriarty (1966) and Kaldenberg (1976) have suggested an in situ development of the La Jolla people from the San Dieguito. Moriarty has since proposed a Pleistocene migration of an ancestral stage of the La Jolla people to the San Diego coast. He suggested this Pre-La Jolla complex is represented at Texas Street, Buchanan Canyon, and the Brown site (Moriarty 1987). Since the 1980s, archaeologists in the region have begun to question the traditional definition of San Dieguito people simply as makers of finely crafted felsite projectile points, domed scrapers, and discoidal cores, who lacked milling technology. The traditional defining criteria for La Jolla sites (manos, metates, "crude" cobble tools, and reliance on lagoonal resources) have also been questioned (Bull 1987; Cárdenas and Robbins-Wade 1985; Robbins-Wade 1986). There is speculation that differences between artifact assemblages of "San Dieguito" and "La Jolla" sites reflect functional differences rather than temporal or cultural variability (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987). Gallegos (1987) has proposed that the San Dieguito, La Jolla, and Pauma complexes are manifestations of the same culture, with differing site types "explained by site location, resources exploited, influence, innovation and adaptation to a rich coastal region over a long period of time" (Gallegos 1987:30). The classic "La Jolla" assemblage is one adapted to life on the coast and appears to continue through time (Robbins-Wade 1986; Winterrowd and Cárdenas 1987). Inland sites adapted to hunting contain a different tool kit, regardless of temporal period (Cárdenas and Van Wormer 1984). Several archaeologists in San Diego, however, do not subscribe to the Early Prehistoric/Late Prehistoric chronology (see Cook 1985; Gross and Hildebrand 1998; Gross and Robbins-Wade 1989; Shackley 1988; Warren 1998). They feel that an apparent overlap among assemblages identified as "La Jolla," "Pauma," or "San Dieguito" does not preclude the existence of an Early Milling period culture in the San Diego region, whatever name is used to identify it, separate from an earlier culture. One problem these archaeologists perceive is that many site reports in the San Diego region present conclusions based on interpretations of stratigraphic profiles from sites at which stratigraphy cannot validly be used to address chronology or changes through time. Archaeology emphasizes stratigraphy as a tool, but many of the sites known in the San Diego region are not in depositional situations. In contexts where natural sources of sediment or anthropogenic sources of debris to bury archaeological materials are lacking, other factors must be responsible for the subsurface occurrence of cultural materials. The subsurface deposits at numerous sites are the result of such agencies as rodent burrowing and insect activity. Recent work has emphasized the importance of bioturbative factors in producing the stratigraphic profiles observed at archaeological sites (see Gross 1992). Different classes of artifacts move through the soil in different ways (Bocek 1986; Erlandson 1984; Johnson 1989), creating vertical patterning (Johnson 1989) that is not 10 culturally relevant. Many sites which have been used to help define the culture sequence of the San Diego region are the result of just such nondepositional stratigraphy. The Late Prehistoric period is represented by the San Luis Rey complex in northern San Diego County and the Cuyamaca complex in the southern portion of the county. The San Luis Rey complex is the archaeological manifestation of the Shoshonean predecessors of the ethnohistoric Luiseño (named for the San Luis Rey Mission). The Cuyamaca complex represents the Yuman forebears of the Kumeyaay (Diegueño, named for the San Diego Mission). Agua Hedionda is traditionally considered to be the point of separation between Luiseño and Northern Diegueño territories. “Perhaps as early as 1500-1000 B.C. the Takic branch of Uto-Aztecan [including the forebears of the Luiseño] began to spread westward across the Mojave Desert” (Moratto 1984:560). There is disagreement about the date of the “Shoshonean intrusion” into various parts of southern California. Moratto indicated that Kowta (1969:50) “proposed dates of circa 1000 B.C. for the entry of ‘Shoshoneans’ in the Los Angeles Basin” (Moratto 1984:560). “Considering both linguistic and archaeological data, C. Bull (1977:56) sets the western movement of the ‘Luiseño language family’ at circa 500 B.C.” (Moratto 1984:165). Others offer varying dates for the presence of Luiseño in Orange and San Diego Counties. The San Luis Rey complex (SLR) is divided into two phases, SLR I and SLR II. Elements of the SLR complex include small, triangular, pressure-flaked projectile points (generally Cottonwood series, but Desert side-notched series also occurs); milling implements: mortars and pestles, manos and metates, and bedrock milling features; bone awls; Olivella shell beads; other stone and shell ornaments; and cremations (Meighan 1954; Moratto 1984; True et al. 1974). The later SLR II complex also includes several elements not found in the SLR I complex: "pottery vessels, cremation urns, red and black pictographs, and such nonaboriginal items as metal knives and glass beads” (Meighan 1954:223). SLR I was originally thought to date from A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1750, with SLR II dating between A.D. 1750 and A.D. 1850 (Meighan 1954). However, that division was based on the assumption that the Luiseño did not practice pottery manufacture until just prior to the arrival of the Spanish. The chronology has since been revised due to evidence that pottery may have been introduced to the Luiseño circa A.D. 1200-1600. Ceramics were probably introduced from the Luiseños' southern neighbors, the Kumeyaay (True et al. 1974). Ethnography The name Luiseño derives from Mission San Luis Rey de Francia and has been used to refer to the Indians associated with the mission. The Luiseño language belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily, which has also been called Southern California Shoshonean, and is part of the widespread Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908; White 1963). Neighboring groups that speak Cupan languages are Cupeño, Cahuilla, and Gabrielino. The Indians associated with Mission San Juan Capistrano, called Juaneño by the Spanish, have sometimes been described as a separate 11 group. The language, culture, and territory of the Luiseño and Juaneño are so closely related that the two are generally considered to be a single ethnic nationality (Bean and Shipek 1978; White 1963). However, Cameron (1987:319-321) has noted archaeological differences between the two groups, and many individuals within the Luiseño and Juaneño communities consider the two to be separate groups. The territory of the Luiseño people is generally described as extending along the coast from Agua Hedionda Creek on the southwest to Aliso Creek on the northwest. On the north this boundary extended east beyond Santiago Peak to the eastern side of the Elsinore Fault Valley, continuing southeast to Palomar Mountain, then around the southern slope above the valley of San Jose. The southern boundary follows westerly to Agua Hedionda Creek (Bean and Shipek 1978; White 1963). Ethnographic and ethnohistoric studies of the Luiseño include Bean and Shipek (1978), Boscana (1947), Kroeber (1976), Robinson (1947), Shipek (1977), Sparkman (1908), Talley (1982), and White (1963). Archaeological studies addressing the Late Prehistoric San Luis Rey complex include Meighan (1954), McCown (1955), True et al. (1974), and Wallace (1960). Most of the ethnographic studies, as well as the "classic" archaeological studies of the Luiseño, have concentrated on the Pauma Valley and the Palomar Mountain area, although Wallace's (1960) study was an archaeological survey of the Buena Vista Creek watershed. Buena Vista Creek Area In the Buena Vista Creek area, a number of recorded archaeological sites reflect the human use of the area during historic and prehistoric times. As noted above, the Native American culture group that inhabited northern San Diego County at the time the Spanish arrived (and is still present today) is called Luiseño, after the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia, which is located about 3.5 miles north of the project area, in the San Luis Rey Valley. The area of the Buena Vista Creek watershed was among the mission holdings, and many of the inhabitants of the area presumably were moved to the mission after its founding (Wallace 1960). Numerous archaeological sites representing the Luiseño people, their immediate forebears (the San Luis Rey complex), and the earlier La Jolla complex have been recorded along the Buena Vista Creek drainage to the lagoon. A survey of the Buena Vista Creek area by Wallace during the 1950s resulted in the documentation of 37 open habitation sites (recorded as campsites) within the watershed. Although none of these sites were recorded within the Amended Reclamation Plan project site, several sites were mapped both upstream and downstream of the project area. Wallace noted that no rockshelters, quarries, or workshop sites were found. Fifteen of the sites recorded had marine shellfish remains, but shell was abundant at only three of the sites (Wallace 1960). Most of the sites also had lithic artifacts (ground stone and flaked stone), and several had bedrock milling features. Ceramic sherds were found at three of the sites, indicating a Late Prehistoric component at these sites. Wallace noted that the sites in the Buena Vista watershed area showed evidence of occupation during three 12 different temporal periods. Three sites were indicative of the Late Prehistoric San Luis Rey complex. Several sites appeared to represent the Pauma complex, and several sites probably represented the La Jolla complex (Wallace 1960). The La Jolla and Pauma complexes now are generally thought to be contemporaneous (Gallegos 1987; True 1980; True and Beemer 1982). No evidence of aboriginal-European contact period material was found, suggesting that the area was abandoned by the Native people prior to use of the district by white settlers (Wallace 1960), although this is not consistent with Native American oral history. When Don Gaspar Portolá traveled up the coast from San Diego to Monterey in 1769, he was accompanied by Father Juan Crespí and Miguel Costansó, who both kept notes and journals of the trek. Father Crespí’s journal describes encounters with the Native American peoples along the route and has been a useful tool for archaeologists and anthropologists studying Spanish contact with California tribes. On July 17, 1769, the party reached the Buena Vista Creek valley, which they called Santa Sinforosa. Portolá’s men camped there, where there was plenty of grass for the horses and a ready water supply. From the camp, Crespi noted that they saw an Indian village on the summit of a hill. Costansó noted that a party of as many as 40 men visited the Spanish camp (Carrico 1977). Kroeber (1976) shows the village of Palamai at Buena Vista Lagoon. The Rising Glen site, on a hill overlooking Buena Vista Lagoon, has been interpreted as a main habitation area of this village, with other nearby archaeological sites interpreted as elements of the village site as well (Cardenas and Robbins-Wade 1985; Gallegos and Carrico 1985). History – Rancho Agua Hedionda The project site is at the northernmost end of the historic Mexican land grant Rancho Agua Hedionda. The 13,000-acre rancho was granted to Juan Maria Romouldo Marron in 1842. The original home built by Marron at the rancho is apparently the adobe sometimes called the Marron Adobe but also known as the Kelly House; it is located several miles from the current study area. A second Marron home, the core of the historic Marron-Hayes Adobe, was built by Sylvestre Marron sometime between 1842 and 1851. Ownership of the vast majority of the Rancho Agua Hedionda eventually passed to Robert Kelly, with 360 acres retained by Sylvestre Marron’s family. In 1875, Sylvestre’s daughter, Felipa, married J. Chauncey Hayes, son of Judge Benjamin I. Hayes. The couple lived in an adobe house (the Marron Adobe) about 1/4 mile west of Sylvestre’s home (the Marron-Hayes Adobe). By the 1960s little remained of the Marron Adobe (see Kyle et al. 2000; Mikesell 2000; Rush 1965), and the remnants of this house are recorded as archaeological site CA-SDI-9474H. During the 1940s Fred Hayes, son of J. Chauncey and Felipa, purchased the 360-acre parcel that had been owned by his grandfather, Sylvestre Marron. In 1947 Fred Hayes undertook the remodeling and restoration of the Marron-Hayes Adobe. The house currently retains much of its appearance from the 1947 remodel. The Adobe, which is 13 owned and occupied by Shelley Hayes Caron, has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. History of the Project Site The South Coast Materials Company leased the current project site from Jennie Marron from 1960 until the time of her death in the 1970s. After Jennie Marron’s death, the property passed to her relatives, who sold the project parcels to South Coast Materials Company. Abe and Jennie Marron had formerly lived on the property, but had moved to South Oceanside, and their house had long been empty before it burned to the ground in 1973 (Don Hickethier, personal communication to Mary Robbins-Wade, 2007). As previously noted, the South Coast Materials Company operated a hard rock quarry at this site between 1961 and 1995. Other permitted uses on-site included a rock plant, a concrete batch plant and asphalt products facility, concrete recycling, a shop building, a scale house, and associated office areas. Decades of quarrying activities changed the topography of the project site, including the configuration of the waterfall and the creek. As early as 1965, Philip S. Rush, publisher of The Southern California Rancher, described El Salto Falls as “once a very beautiful natural waterfall on Buena Vista Creek, partly destroyed several years ago in order to obtain rock” (Rush 1965:90). Hanson Aggregates acquired the property in 1992. 14 15 III. PREVIOUS RESEARCH The Amended Reclamation Plan project site was surveyed for archaeological resources in 1984, as part of a larger project area for South Coast Asphalt Products Company (Gallegos and Carrico 1984a). One site was recorded entirely within the project site: CA-SDI-9967. The site is located on a knoll top in the northernmost portion of the property. Cultural material collected at CA-SDI-9967 included shell, animal bone, a metate, a core, 6 flakes, and 12 pieces of angular debris. Historic material included glass, metal, sawed bone, and a 22-caliber shell casing. One sample of Chione shell was sent for radiocarbon analysis and yielded a date of 890±70 before present (B.P.) (Gallegos and Carrico 1984b). This site was tested and determined not to be a significant resource, due to the “paucity of artifacts and the disturbed nature of the site” (Gallegos and Carrico 1984b:4-1). Two archaeological sites are mapped as mainly outside the property but extending into the Amended Reclamation Plan project site: CA-SDI-5601 (SDM-W-1293) and CA-SDI-5651. Both of these sites are outside the area directly affected by the reclamation plan. A cultural resources study conducted by Affinis identified two previously unrecorded sites: CA-SDI-17,863 and CA-SDI-17,864. In addition, El Salto Falls was documented as a significant cultural resource (Robbins-Wade 2008). El Salto Falls was recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred site for the Luiseño people, in particular the San Luis Rey Band. The area has traditionally been a place of solace, of healing. The falls are important not only for their natural beauty, but also for the soothing, healing nature of water. Water itself is sacred to the Native American people, because of this soothing nature. Water features, such as waterfalls, hold a special place in the culture. In a letter commenting on the Quarry Creek EIR, San Luis Rey Band member, Carmen Mojado, indicated, “Water is also used for sacred purposes that our elders do not like to discuss in public, some traditions are kept within the tribe, for tribal use” (letter from Carmen Mojado, March 12, 2001). 16 17 IV. METHODS Archaeological Principal Investigator, Mary Robbins-Wade, and Native American representatives, Cami Mojado, P.J. Stoneburner, and Mel Vernon attended a preconstruction meeting with City of Carlsbad staff, the applicant, the grading contractor, and other project personnel on June 28, 2011 to discuss the requirements of the monitoring program. Fieldwork for the monitoring program took place between August 2011 and October 2012. Archaeological and Native American monitors were on-site for all ground-disturbing activity during which there was a potential for encountering cultural material. This included excavation/grading along the creek, as well as on the knoll where CA-SDI-9967 had been previously recorded. Other areas of the reclamation plan project site were field checked, but over most of the area monitoring was not necessary, as decades of quarrying activity had destroyed the potential for extant cultural resources. The western portion of the property was not graded as part of the reclamation project; therefore, cultural resources in that area (CA-SDI-17,863, CA-SDI-17,864, and on-site portions of CA-SDI-5601 and CA-SDI-5651) were not affected. The reclamation project was designed to avoid impacts to El Salto Falls as well. Controlled destruction of the knoll on which CA-SDI-9967 was located was undertaken as part of the monitoring program. This included using a Caterpillar D6 to remove 4 in. (10 cm) of soils at a time within the site boundaries under the direction of the archaeologist and Native American monitor. Artifacts found during monitoring were collected and brought to the Affinis lab, where they were cleaned, sorted, and cataloged. Standard catalog forms were completed for the collection that recorded provenience, artifact type, material, and other attributes. The artifact catalog is included as Appendix A of this report. Site records were completed and submitted to the South Coastal Information Center for the two previously unknown sites; an updated site record was completed for CA-SDI-9967. The site records are included as Confidential Appendix A. 18 19 V. RESULTS Cultural material was found in disturbed contexts during the monitoring program, but one area of intact cultural deposits was also identified: the newly recorded site CA-SDI-20,776, discussed below. Two previously unknown archaeological sites were identified during the monitoring program (CA-SDI-20,776 and CA-SDI-20,777). Cultural material was also collected at CA-SDI-9967, which had originally been recorded in 1984. In addition, individual artifacts were collected across the site. These were not in concentrations and thus were not recorded as sites; they are discussed below under “general monitoring”. The reclamation project was designed to avoid impacts to El Salto Falls. The locations of cultural resources are shown in Figure 4. CA-SDI-9967 As previously addressed, CA-SDI-9967 was located on a knoll top in the northernmost portion of the project site. Cultural material collected at CA-SDI-9967 during a 1984 testing program included shell, animal bone, debitage, a metate, and a core. The site was determined not to be a significant resource, due to the small amount of cultural material recovered and the large amount of past disturbance (Gallegos and Carrico 1984b). During a field check by Affinis in 2005, some shell was noted on the slopes of the knoll, which appeared to have been pushed down from the original site location on the knoll top. The site had long been subject to disturbances, as the knoll was the location of the Abe Marron house and some of its associated outbuildings, as addressed below. During a field visit to CA-SDI-9967, a greater amount of cultural material was observed than had been noted in the testing report for that site (Gallegos and Carrico 1984b). In addition, the 1984 testing program had considered the historic material to be intrusive, so it was not addressed. However, given the age of the former residence of Abraham Lincoln (Abe) and Jennie Marron (it appears on 1928 aerial photographs), there was a potential for historic archaeological features and artifacts. Consulting historic archaeologist Stephen R. Van Wormer visited CA-SDI-9967 with field director Andrew Giletti in August 2011. Following hand excavation of several potholes, it was noted that there was a surface scatter of historic artifacts, but there was no real deposit, no depth. Mr. Van Wormer determined that the site was too disturbed and did not retain enough diagnostic cultural material to warrant further study. Controlled destruction of the knoll was undertaken as part of the monitoring program. This included using a Caterpillar D6 to remove 4 in. (10 cm) of soils at a time within the site boundaries under the direction of the archaeologist and Native American monitor. No features were identified, but both prehistoric and historic cultural material was recovered as discussed below. SENSITIVE MATERIAL – IN CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX B Affinis 810 Jamacha Road Suite 206 El Cajon, CA 92019 Locations of Cultural Resources Figure 4 21 Historic Artifacts As addressed above, historic archaeologist Stephen Van Wormer determined that the site was too disturbed and did not retain enough research potential to warrant further study or cataloging of historic artifacts. The artifacts collected were grossly cataloged, as to glass, ceramic, etc., as summarized in Table 1. Table 1. CA-SDI-9967, summary of historic material recovered Artifact Class Item Count Weight (g) Glass Brown 3 73.7 Glass Green 9 59.8 Glass Clear 11 1140.8 Glass Sun-purpled 10 155.3 Glass Aqua 17 137.0 Glass Milk 11 189.0 Subtotal, glass 61 1755.6 Historic ceramics Porcelain (general) 12 231.4 Historic ceramics Transfer printed ware 7 100.3 Historic ceramics Stoneware (general) 2 36.0 Historic ceramics Earthenware (general) 19 177.6 Subtotal, historic ceramics 40 545.3 Rubber Heel 1 48.9 Rubber Band/belt 1 17.2 Subtotal, rubber 2 66.1 Metal Spike 1 190.0 Metal Ammunition 1 0.3 Metal Kitchen 1 18.7 Metal Nail 1 4.8 Metal Coin 1 3.2 Metal Wire 1 3.5 Metal Chain 1 14.9 Metal Unknown 2 6.7 Subtotal, metal 9 242.1 Total 112 2609.1 The glass recovered includes bottle fragments and unclassified fragments, as well as pieces of a possible cold cream jar and other toiletry items. The sun-purpled glass 22 predates World War I; other glass appears to date from the early twentieth century to the 1940s. Ceramics recovered in monitoring included porcelain, stoneware, earthenware, and transfer-printed ware. Several metal and rubber items were also collected, as summarized in Table 1. All the bone collected at CA-SDI-9967 was historic or recent in origin. One bone fragment was large mammal (deer-sized); all the other bone was very large mammal (e.g., cow or horse). Prehistoric Artifacts As addressed under Previous Research, CA-SDI-9967 was initially recorded as a prehistoric site, with debitage, a metate, a core, marine shell, and animal bone (Gallegos and Carrico 1984a). Native American cultural material collected during the monitoring program included manos, flaked stone hammers, a scraper, cores, debitage, unmodified hammerstones, and one Tizon Brown Ware sherd (see Table 2). In addition, marine shell and animal were collected, as addressed below. None of these artifacts is temporally diagnostic, except the ceramic sherd, which is indicative of the Late Prehistoric period. Table 2. CA-SDI-9967, summary of prehistoric artifacts recovered Artifact Class Item Count Weight (g) Ground stone Mano 12 7142.4 Flaked stone Scraper 1 120.0 Flaked stone Hammer 2 809.0 Flaked stone Core 2 1167.0 Flaked stone Debitage 15 836.0 Other stone Hammerstone, spherical 3 1284.0 Native American ceramics Body sherd 1 3.5 Total 36 11,361.9 Twelve manos were collected at the site, half of which are whole and half are fragments. All the whole items are bifacial. Attributes of manos are summarized in Table 3. Two- thirds of the manos are bifacial, another one-fourth are unifacial, and one mano fragment has use on multiple surfaces. None of the manos are deliberately shaped, but five of them are shouldered through use (see Table 3). Two manos exhibit battering, and seven of them show thermal alteration. One-third of the manos exhibit light use and one-third show medium use. A single mano shows heavy use, one shows variable use, and two fragments are too small to classify as to intensity of use (Table 3). All 12 of the manos and mano fragments are medium-to coarse-grained metavolcanic. 23 Table 3. CA-SDI-9967, attributes of manos Variable Value Count Percent Surface morphology Unidentifiable 0 0.0% Single surface 3 25.0% Double surface 8 66.7% Multiple surface 1 8.3% Shaped No 12 100.0% Yes 0 0.0% Battered No 10 83.3% Yes 2 16.7% Thermal Alteration No 5 41.7% Yes 7 58.3% Shouldered No 7 58.3% Yes 5 41.7% Intensity of Use Fragment 2 16.7% Light 4 33.3% Medium 4 33.3% Heavy 1 8.3% Variable 1 8.3% Manufacturing Input Unidentifiable 3 25.0% Unshaped item 9 75.0% Minimally shaped (<1/3) 0 0.0% Moderately shaped (>1/3, <2/3) 0 0.0% Well shaped (>2/3) 0 0.0% Condition Fragment 6 50.0% Whole 6 50.0% Material Medium- to coarse-grained metavolcanic 12 100.0% 24 The scraper recovered at CA-SDI-9967 is core-based and exhibits unifacial retouch and wear on a single edge. The edge angle is 46-55 degrees, with micro-step flaking. Two flaked stone hammers were recovered, both of which are core-based. One of the hammers shows use wear on at least three edges; the other has use on only one edge. All of the used edges are convex and exhibit crushing. Both hammers are medium-to coarse-grained metavolcanic. Two unidirectional cores were collected. Both are complete and are of medium-to coarse- grained metavolcanic material. Fifteen pieces of debitage were recovered. Four are angular debris; the others are flakes classified as “other” in shape. One flake is fine-grained metavolcanic; the other 14 pieces of debitage are medium-to coarse-grained metavolcanic. Three “other stone” hammerstones were recovered. These are artifacts that are modified only by their use as hammerstones; they are not shaped, as flaked stone hammers are. Two of the three hammerstones exhibit finger polish, and battering covers 5-15 percent of the body of each. All three hammerstones are of medium-to coarse-grained metavolcanic material. Ecofacts Marine shell (534.0 g) and animal bone (710.5 g) were collected at CA-SDI-9967 during the monitoring program. Several types of shell were recovered, all of which were used by Native people during pre-contact times, but they could have been used by the historic inhabitants of the site as well. Haliotis (abalone) accounts for the vast majority of the shell assemblage by weight, but this is due to the thickness and weight of individual abalone shells. One large abalone shell was collected, along with fragments broken off from it and a few smaller specimens. Table 4. CA-SDI-9967, shell taxa recovered Taxon Weight (g) Percent Haliotis 376.2 70.4% Mytilus 70.0 13.1% Tivela 22.6 4.2% Chione 34.2 6.4% Kelletia 30.3 5.7% Donax 0.2 0.0% Pecten 0.5 0.1% Total 534.0 100.0% 25 As previously noted, all the bone collected at CA-SDI-9967 was historic or recent in origin. One bone fragment was large mammal (deer-sized); all the other bone was very large mammal (e.g., cow or horse). CA-SDI-20,776 CA-SDI-20,776 was located on the south side of Buena Vista Creek in the central portion of the reclamation plan project area. The site was buried, apparently as a result of the hard rock quarry and related activities; the site was found beneath 6 ft. of fill soils. The site was 20 m south of Buena Vista Creek and was comprised of marine shell, small mammal bone (several fragments are burned), debitage and one mano fragment (Table 5). Table 5. CA-SDI-20,776, summary of cultural material recovered Artifact Class Item Count Weight (g) Ground stone Mano 1 192.3 Flaked stone Debitage 12 279.9 Subtotal, artifacts 13 472.2 Bone, non-human Bulk, unmodified --* 3.7 Shell Bulk, unmodified --* 416.0 Subtotal, faunal* --* 419.7 Total 13 891.9 * Faunal material not included in count total Initially, shell fragments were noted in this buried context. A 1-m-by-1-m unit was excavated to explore this deposit in a more controlled manner than simply observing the grading. The unit ended at 20 cm due to water intrusion. Unit 1 yielded 11 pieces of debitage, 3.7 g of animal bone, and 394.3 g of marine shell. The remaining cultural material (one mano fragment, one piece of debitage, and 21.7 g of shell) was collected during general monitoring in the site area. The mano fragment recovered at CA-SDI-20,776 is unifacial and exhibits thermal alteration. It is not shaped and shows no battering. The mano fragment is of medium- to coarse-grained metavolcanic material. Four of the pieces of debitage collected are angular debris, all of which are quartz. Seven are flakes, classified as “other” in shape. These seven flakes are all made of medium- to coarse-grained metavolcanic material and all are patinated. One flake is diverging in shape; it is from a medium- to coarse-grained metavolcanic cobble and has cortex over 30-90 percent of the dorsal surface. This flake is also patinated. Only three types of shell were recovered at CA-SDI-20,776, as summarized in Table 6. As shown in the table, almost all the shell recovered was Donax, but Chione and Pecten were 26 also collected. All the bone that was found (3.7 g) was rodent bone, none of which appeared to be cultural. Table 6. CA-SDI-20,776, shell taxa recovered Shell Taxon Weight (g) % Weight Chione 7.6 1.8% Donax 407.2 97.9% Pecten 1.2 0.3% Total 416.0 100.0% Although CA-SDI-20,776 consists of a buried deposit, the amount of cultural material present was minimal, and the research potential of this site is extremely limited. CA-SDI-20,777 CA-SDI-20,777 was a secondary deposit encountered during monitoring activities. The site was located 35 m north of Buena Vista Creek and was comprised of a very small amount of marine shell (1 Chione fragment and 2 Donax) and two manos in an area 20 m by 20 m. The two manos collected at CA-SDI-20,777 are both bifacial and both are whole. Neither exhibits shaping. One mano is thermally altered and shows light use. The other has medium use. Both of the manos are medium- to coarse-grained metavolcanic. The cultural material was found in an extremely disturbed context near the existing pond, southwest of CA-SDI-9967. The original context of the cultural material was not clear. GENERAL MONITORING As summarized in Table 7, several prehistoric artifacts, as well as glass and historic ceramics were found across the project area. These were isolated occurrences in disturbed contexts, so they were not recorded as sites; their provenience is given as “general monitoring”. Table 7. General monitoring, summary of cultural material recovered Artifact Class Item Count Weight (g) Ground stone Mano 4 5574.4 Flaked stone Core 2 1130.0 Subtotal, prehistoric artifacts 6 6704.4 Glass Dark Green 1 57.0 Glass Clear 12 95.7 Glass Milk 3 43.8 Subtotal, glass 16 196.5 27 Artifact Class Item Count Weight (g) Historic ceramics Porcelain (general) 1 4.0 Historic ceramics Earthenware (general) 2 27.6 Historic ceramics Ironstone (general) 1 3.0 Historic ceramics Blue/polychrome painted ware 4 45.2 Subtotal, historic ceramics 8 79.8 Bone, non-human Bulk, unmodified --* 3.7 Shell Bulk, unmodified --* 416.0 Subtotal, faunal* --* 419.7 Total 30 6982.5 Four manos were collected in general monitoring, all of which are bifacial and are whole. Two of the manos are shaped; all four are shouldered, two from use, rather than purposeful shaping. One of the manos is moderately-shaped and one is well-shaped. Battering is evident on three of the four manos. Three exhibit heavy use, and one shows medium use. Two of the manos are made from medium- to coarse-grained metavolcanic material, one is quartz, and one is granitic. Two cores were found in general monitoring. Both are unidirectional and are medium- to coarse-grained metavolcanic. Historic material collected includes glass and ceramics. Bottle glass and unclassified glass fragments in clear, dark green, and milk glass were collected. Historic ceramics include white porcelain, earthenware (one piece is white with brown, one is green), ironstone (white with black), and four pieces of blue/polychrome painted ware. A small amount of shell was also collected in general monitoring: 1.8 g of Chione. 28 29 VI. CONCLUSIONS The monitoring program for the Former South Coast Material Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan resulted in the discovery of two previously unknown archaeological sites (CA-SDI-20,776 and CA-SDI-20,777), as well as the collection of cultural material at the previously recorded site CA-SDI-9967 and unprovenienced material in disturbed contexts across the project site. The small amount of cultural material encountered during the monitoring program has contributed incrementally to our knowledge of the area, although none of the sites are archaeologically significant in and of themselves. The Native American cultural material will be repatriated to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The mitigation measures for the project have been fulfilled through the monitoring program, including this report. 30 31 VII. PERSONNEL The following persons participated in the preparation of this report: Affinis: Mary Robbins-Wade (RPA) Director of Cultural Resources Andrew Giletti Field Director Steven Briggs Archaeologist Delman James Archaeologist John Meriwether Archaeologist Walter Enterprises: Stephen R. Van Wormer Historic Archaeologist Saving Sacred Sites: Cami Mojado Native American Monitor P.J. Stoneburner Native American Monitor Jay Castaneda Native American Monitor Ray Castaneda Native American Monitor 32 33 VIII. REFERENCES Arnold, J.E., M.R. Walsh, and S.E. Hollimon. 2004 Archaeology of California. Journal of Archaeological Research 12:1-73. Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. The Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bocek, Barbara 1986 Rodent Ecology and Burrowing Behavior: Predicted Effects on Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 51:589-603. Boscana, Geronimo 1947 Chinigchinich. A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta-California. Translated by A. Robinson. Biobooks, Oakland. Bull, Charles S. 1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 1(3):15-64. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 35-42. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Cameron, Constance 1987 Archaeological Investigations on the Rancho San Clemente, Orange County, California. Archaeological Research Facility California State University, Fullerton. Cárdenas, D. Seán, and Mary Robbins-Wade 1985 An Archaeological Investigation of SDM-W-143/146: An Unique Coastal Luiseño Occupation Site in Carlsbad, California. RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department. On file, South Coastal Information Center. Cárdenas, D. Seán, and Stephen R. Van Wormer 1984 Archaeological Investigation of SDI-4648 and SDM-W-348. RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of El Cajon, Planning Department. On file, South Coastal Information Center. 34 Carrico, Richard L. 1977 Portolá's 1769 Expedition and Coastal Native Villages of San Diego County. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(1):30-41. 1987 Sixty-five Years of San Diego County Archaeology. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 1-14. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Carter, George F. 1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1978 An American Lower Paleolithic. Anthropological Journal of Canada 16:2-38. 1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in America. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Childers, W. Morlin 1974 Preliminary Report on the Yuha Burial, California. Anthropological Journal of Canada 12 (1):2-9. Cook, John R. 1985 An Investigation of the San Dieguito Quarries and Workshops Near Rancho Santa Fe, California. Mooney-Lettieri and Associates, San Diego. Submitted to County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on file, South Coastal Information Center. Copenhaver, George C., Jr., and James L. Brown 2005 Geotechnical Investigation: Amended Reclamation Plan, Quarry Creek Aggregate Quarry (West Quarry), Carlsbad, California. Geocon, Inc., San Diego. Davis, E.L. 1968 Early Man in the Mojave Desert. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1 (4):42-47. 1973 People of the Old Stone Age at China Lake. Ms. on file, Great Basin Foundation, San Diego. Erlandson, Jon M. 1984 A Case Study in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects of the Burrowing Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of Archaeological Materials. American Antiquity 49:785-790. 35 Gallegos, Dennis 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Gallegos, Dennis, and Richard L. Carrico 1984a Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment for South Coast Asphalt Products Company, Carlsbad, California. Westec Services, San Diego. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 1984b Archaeological Testing of Site SDi-9967 (W-3492) for South Coast Asphalt Products Company, Carlsbad, California. Westec Services, San Diego. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Griner, E. Lee, and Philip R. Pryde 1976 Climate, Soils, and Vegetation. In San Diego: An Introduction to the Region, edited by Philip R. Pryde, pp. 29-46. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Gross, G. Timothy, and John A. Hildebrand 1998 San Dieguito and La Jolla: Insights from the 1964 Excavations at the C.W. Harris Site. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, San Diego. Gross, G. Timothy, and Mary Robbins-Wade 1989 Archaeological Investigation of SDi-9772 (SDM-W-3411) San Marcos, California. Affinis, El Cajon. Submitted to County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Report on file, South Coastal Information Center. Kaldenberg, Russell L. 1976 Paleo-technological Change at Rancho Park North, San Diego County, California. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. 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 6, Berkeley. 36 Kroeber, A.L. 1976 Handbook of California Indians. Dover, New York. Originally published 1925 as Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution. Kyle, Carolyn E., and Roxana L. Phillips 2000 Letter Report: Cultural Resource Constraint Analysis for the Quarry Creek Project, City of Oceanside, California. Kyle Consulting, San Diego. Report submitted to City of Oceanside Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. McCown, B.E. 1955 Temeku. A Page from the History of the Luiseño Indians. Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California Paper No. 3. Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215-227. Mikesell, Stephen D. 2000 Historic Architectural Survey Report Rancho Del Oro/Route 78 Interchange Project. JRP Historical Consulting Services, Davis, CA. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Minshall, Herbert L. 1976 The Broken Stones. Copley Books, San Diego. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Moriarty, James R., III 1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested By Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. The Anthropological Journal of Canada 4 (4):20-30. 1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 49- 60. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Neusius, Sarah W., and G. Timothy Gross 2005 Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York. 37 Robbins-Wade, Mary 1986 Rising Glen: SDM-W-143/146 (SDI-5213 C & D). Casual Papers 2 (2):37-58. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. 1988 Coastal Luiseño: Refining the San Luis Rey Complex. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, Fresno, California 1:75-95. Society for California Archaeology, San Diego. 2008 Cultural Resources Study, Former South Coast Material Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan, Oceanside, San Diego County, California. Robinson, Alfred 1947 Life in California. Biobooks, Oakland. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 3. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. Rush, Philip S. 1965 Some Old Ranchos and Adobes. Neyenesch Printers, Inc., San Diego. Shackley, M. Steven 1988 Archaeological Investigations at SDi-5103. A San Dieguito Lithic Workshop, San Diego County, California. Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego. Shipek, Florence C. 1977 A Strategy for Change. The Luiseño of Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Sparkman, Philip Stedman 1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234. 38 Talley, R. Paige 1982 The Life History of a Luiseño Indian: James (Jim) Martinez. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. True, D.L. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. University of California, Los Angeles, Archaeological Survey Monographs Vol. 1. University of California, Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. The Journal of New World Archaeology 3 (4):1-39. True, D.L., and Eleanor Beemer 1982 Two Milling Stone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4 (2):233- 261. True, D.L., C.W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology Vol. 2. University of California, Berkeley. Wallace, William .J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. 1960 Archaeological Resources of the Buena Vista Watershed, San Diego County, California. University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1959-1960:277-300. Warren, C.N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185. 1985 Garbage About the Foundations: A Comment on Bull's Assertions. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 2(1):82-90. 39 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos, pp. 73-85. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Warren, C.N. (editor) 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M.J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers No. 5, San Diego Museum of Man. Warren, C.N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. In University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961, pp. 1-106. White, Raymond C. 1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194. Winterrowd, Cathy L., and D. Seán Cárdenas 1987 An Archaeological Indexing of a Portion of the Village of La Rinconada de Jamo SDI-5017 (SDM-W-150). RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to City of San Diego, Planning Department. Report on file, South Coastal Information Center. 40 APPENDIX A ARTIFACT CATALOG CA-SDI-9,967 Catalogue Page 1 SITE ARTNUM Unit type Class Item Material CNT WT CA-SDI-9967 1 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 144 CA-SDI-9967 2 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Brown Undetermined 1 46.6 CA-SDI-9967 3 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Green Undetermined 1 23.6 CA-SDI-9967 4 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 14.4 CA-SDI-9967 5 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Sun purpled Undetermined 1 13.2 CA-SDI-9967 6 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 4.5 CA-SDI-9967 7 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 6.8 CA-SDI-9967 8 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 9 CA-SDI-9967 9 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 15.3 CA-SDI-9967 10 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 44.3 CA-SDI-9967 11 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 20.6 CA-SDI-9967 12 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 19 CA-SDI-9967 13 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 81.3 CA-SDI-9967 14 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Sun purpled Undetermined 1 98.1 CA-SDI-9967 15 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 1 70.5 CA-SDI-9967 16 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Clear Undetermined 0 711.1 CA-SDI-9967 17 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Brown Undetermined 2 27.1 CA-SDI-9967 18 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Sun purpled Undetermined 8 44 CA-SDI-9967 19 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Aqua Undetermined 17 137 CA-SDI-9967 20 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Green Undetermined 8 36.2 CA-SDI-9967 21 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Milk Undetermined 5 24.2 CA-SDI-9967 22 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Milk Undetermined 4 47.6 CA-SDI-9967 23 Monitoring, large area spoil Glass Milk Undetermined 2 117.2 CA-SDI-9967 24 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Porcelain (general)Undetermined 5 51.6 CA-SDI-9967 25 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Transfer printed ware Undetermined 1 6.1 CA-SDI-9967 26 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Stoneware (general)Undetermined 1 22.5 CA-SDI-9967 27 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Stoneware (general)Undetermined 1 13.5 CA-SDI-9967 28 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Earthenware (general)Undetermined 17 151.6 CA-SDI-9967 29 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Porcelain (blue and white)Undetermined 5 56.4 CA-SDI-9967 30 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Transfer printed ware Undetermined 3 67.2 CA-SDI-9967 31 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Porcelain (other)Undetermined 1 14.2 CA-SDI-9967 32 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Porcelain (blue and white)Undetermined 1 109.2 CA-SDI-9967 33 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Earthenware (general)Undetermined 2 26 CA-SDI-9967 34 Monitoring, large area spoil Historic ceramic Transfer printed ware Undetermined 3 27 CA-SDI-9967 35 Monitoring, large area spoil Rubber Heel Undetermined 1 48.9 CA-SDI-9967 36 Monitoring, large area spoil Rubber Band/belt Undetermined 1 17.2 CA-SDI-9967 37 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Spike Undetermined 1 190 CA-SDI-9967 38 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Ammunition Undetermined 1 0.3 CA-SDI-9967 39 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Kitchen Undetermined 1 18.7 CA-SDI-9967 40 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Nail Undetermined 1 4.8 CA-SDI-9,967 Catalogue Page 2 CA-SDI-9967 41 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Coin Undetermined 1 3.2 CA-SDI-9967 42 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Wire Undetermined 1 3.5 CA-SDI-9967 43 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Unknown Undetermined 1 1.7 CA-SDI-9967 44 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Chain Undetermined 1 14.9 CA-SDI-9967 45 Monitoring, large area spoil Metal Unknown Undetermined 1 5 CA-SDI-9967 46 Monitoring, large area spoil Bone, nonhuman Bulk unmodified Unclassifed Bone 1 1.1 CA-SDI-9967 47 Monitoring, large area spoil Bone, nonhuman Bulk unmodified Unclassifed Bone 1 2.6 CA-SDI-9967 48 Monitoring, large area spoil Bone, nonhuman Bulk unmodified Unclassifed Bone 0 706.8 CA-SDI-9967 49 Monitoring, large area spoil Shell Bulk unmodified Haliotis 0 376.2 CA-SDI-9967 50 Monitoring, large area spoil Shell Bulk unmodified Mytilus 0 70 CA-SDI-9967 51 Monitoring, large area spoil Shell Bulk unmodified Tivela 1 22.6 CA-SDI-9967 52 Monitoring, large area spoil Shell Bulk unmodified Chione 20 34.2 CA-SDI-9967 53 Monitoring, large area spoil Shell Bulk unmodified Kelletia 1 30.3 CA-SDI-9967 54 Monitoring, large area spoil Shell Bulk unmodified Donax 1 0.2 CA-SDI-9967 55 Monitoring, large area spoil Shell Bulk unmodified Pecten 1 0.5 CA-SDI-9967 56 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 1176 CA-SDI-9967 57 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 1080 CA-SDI-9967 58 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 1456 CA-SDI-9967 59 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 1120 CA-SDI-9967 60 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 549 CA-SDI-9967 61 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 356 CA-SDI-9967 62 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 452.7 CA-SDI-9967 63 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 488.3 CA-SDI-9967 64 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 338.3 CA-SDI-9967 65 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 2 86.8 CA-SDI-9967 66 Monitoring, large area spoil Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 39.3 CA-SDI-9967 67 Monitoring, large area spoil Other stone Hammerstone, spherical Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 385 CA-SDI-9967 68 Monitoring, large area spoil Other stone Hammerstone, spherical Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 272 CA-SDI-9967 69 Monitoring, large area spoil Other stone Hammerstone, spherical Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 627 CA-SDI-9967 70 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Hammer Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 511 CA-SDI-9967 71 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Hammer Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 298 CA-SDI-9967 72 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Core Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 702 CA-SDI-9967 73 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Core Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 465 CA-SDI-9967 74 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Debitage Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 4 415 CA-SDI-9967 75 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Debitage Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 10 368 CA-SDI-9967 76 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Scraper Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 120 CA-SDI-9967 77 Monitoring, large area spoil Flaked stone Debitage Fine grained metavolcanic 1 53 CA-SDI-9967 78 Monitoring, large area spoil Native American ceramics Body sherd Tizon Brown Ware 1 3.5 CA-SDI-20,776 Catalogue Page 1 SITE ARTNUM Unit type Unit number Upper depth Lower depth Class Item Material CNT WT CA-SDI-20,776 1 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 0 10 Shell Bulk unmodDonax 0 115 CA-SDI-20,776 2 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 0 10 Shell Bulk unmodChione 0 1.3 CA-SDI-20,776 3 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 0 10 Shell Bulk unmodPecten 0 0.4 CA-SDI-20,776 4 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 0 10 Bone, nonhBulk unmodUnclassifie 0 0.5 CA-SDI-20,776 5 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 0 10 Bone, nonhBulk unmodUnclassifie 0 0.1 CA-SDI-20,776 6 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 0 10 Flaked stonDebitage Quartz 3 0.8 CA-SDI-20,776 7 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 0 10 Flaked stonDebitage Medium to 2 1.5 CA-SDI-20,776 8 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 10 20 Shell Bulk unmodDonax 0 271 CA-SDI-20,776 9 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 10 20 Shell Bulk unmodChione 0 5.8 CA-SDI-20,776 10 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 10 20 Shell Bulk unmodPecten 0 0.8 CA-SDI-20,776 11 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 10 20 Bone, nonhBulk unmodUnclassifie 0 3 CA-SDI-20,776 12 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 10 20 Bone, nonhBulk unmodUnclassifie 0 0.1 CA-SDI-20,776 13 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 10 20 Flaked stonDebitage Quartz 1 0.1 CA-SDI-20,776 14 1 x 1 m excavation unit 1 10 20 Flaked stonDebitage Medium to 5 1.1 CA-SDI-20,776 15 Other 0 0 0 Shell Bulk unmodDonax 0 21.2 CA-SDI-20,776 16 Other 0 0 0 Shell Bulk unmodChione 0 0.5 CA-SDI-20,776 17 Other 0 0 0 GroundstonMano Medium to 1 192 CA-SDI-20,776 18 Other 0 0 0 Flaked stonDebitage Medium to 1 276 CA-SDI-20,777 Catalogue Page 1 SITE ARTNUM Unit type Class Item Material CNT WT CA-SDI-20,777 1 Monitoring, Shell Bulk unmodChione 1 2 CA-SDI-20,777 2 Monitoring, Shell Bulk unmodDonax 2 0.8 CA-SDI-20,777 3 Monitoring, GroundstonMano Medium to 1 1456 CA-SDI-20,777 4 Monitoring, GroundstonMano Medium to 1 840 Surface Collection Catalogue Page 1 SITE ARTNUM Unit type Class Item Material CNT WT Gen. mon.1 Surface Collection Glass Dark green Undetermined 1 57 Gen. mon.2 Surface Collection Glass Clear Undetermined 2 44 Gen. mon.3 Surface Collection Glass Clear Undetermined 10 51.7 Gen. mon.4 Surface Collection Glass Milk Undetermined 2 42.8 Gen. mon.5 Surface Collection Glass Milk Undetermined 1 1 Gen. mon.6 Surface Collection Historic ceramic Porcelain (general)Undetermined 1 4 Gen. mon.7 Surface Collection Historic ceramic Earthenware (general)Undetermined 1 10.6 Gen. mon.8 Surface Collection Historic ceramic Earthenware (general)Undetermined 1 17 Gen. mon.9 Surface Collection Historic ceramic Ironstone (general)Undetermined 1 3 Gen. mon.10 Surface Collection Historic ceramic Blue/polychrome painted ware Undetermined 4 45.2 Gen. mon.11 Surface Collection Shell Bulk unmodified Chione 2 1.8 Gen. mon.12 Surface Collection Flaked stone Core Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 690 Gen. mon.13 Surface Collection Flaked stone Core Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 440 Gen. mon.14 Surface Collection Groundstone Mano Granitic 1 786 Gen. mon.15 Surface Collection Groundstone Mano Quartz 1 2072 Gen. mon.16 Surface Collection Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 1204 Gen. mon.17 Surface Collection Groundstone Mano Medium to coarse grained metavolcanic 1 1512