HomeMy WebLinkAbout3190; Rancho Santa Fe Bridge Replacement; Rancho Santa Fe Bridge Replacement; 2000-11-01 (3)r
L
^ ATTACHMENTS
mt
T he Phase II Archaeological Test of Malcolm J. Rogers'
^ Site SDM-W-181 at La Costa Town Center in the
City of Carlsbad, California (Hanna 1991)
r
c
QaCkgos & dissociates
m THE PHASE n ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST
OF
MALCOLM J. ROGERS' SITE SDM-W-181
AT LA COSTA TOWN CENTER IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNL\
Prepared for
M.A.G. PROPERTIES
5075 FEDERAL BOULEVARD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
DAVID C. HANNA
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
RBDCDN
Regional Environmental Consultants
7460 M»sKxi Valtay Road. San Dwgo, CA 9210S (619» 542-1611
RECON NUMBER 2212A
SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I
10
I. INTRODUCTION
II. RESEARCH CONTEXT
A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
1. Research Paradigms and Explanatory Models 11
2. Synthesis of Prehistory Research 12
a. The Archaic Period 12
b. The Late Prehistoric Period 15
c. The Proto-historic Period I7
3. Early Research at SDM-W-181 19
4. Recent Studies Near SDM-W-181 28
5. Recent Studies at SDM-W-181 3I
III. RESEARCH DESIGN 35
A. PHASE n RESEARCH PLAN 35
B. FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS 39
1. Field 39
2. Laboratory 43
a. Artifact Analyses 43
b. Ecofact Analyses 45
c. Ancillary Studies 45
C. ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 46
IV. RESEARCH RESULTS 52
A. MATERL\L CULTURE INVENTORY 52
1. Debitage 52
2. Flaked Lithic Artifacts 52
3. Ground Stone Artifacts 53
4. Ceramic Artifacts 54
5. Miscellaneous Artifacts 54
6. Shell Ecofacts 54
7. Bone Ecofacts 54
8. Cultural Features 54
B. PHYSICAL STRUCTURE 55
1. The Ridgetop 55
2. Marginal Slopes 60
3. Unstable Slopes 60
w
te
D.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
FORMATION PROCESSES
1. Horizontal Patterning
2. Vertical Patteming
3. Cultural Patteming
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERPRETATION
1. The Orthodox View
2. New Age Models
3. Concluding Remarks
V. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
VI. REFERENCES CITED
VD. PROJECT PERSONNEL
Page
62
65
66
71
75
75
78
80
82
83
89
P
P
te
ATTACHMENTS
1: San Diego Museum of Man Archival Material
2: Archaeological Testing Data (Phases I and II)
FIGURES
1: Project location within San Diego County
2; Project location on U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute Rancho Santa Fe quad
3: Archaeological basemap with surface collecdons
4: Archaeological basemap with Phase I excavadon units and shovel
test pits
5: Archaeological basemap with Phase I and Phase II excavation units
6: Profile of Trench 1
7: Profile of Trench 2
8: Distribution of debitage count, flaked lithic artifact and
ground stone mean average weight, and total shell weight by
ridgetop area synthetic levels
2
3
5
40
41
56
57
67
TABLES
1: Distribution of Ridgetop Area Tools and Shell by Level
2: Distribution of Ridgetop Area Tools and Shell by Layer
69
73
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
PHOTOGRAPHS
1: Ridgetop transsection, view to east
2: Unit T5 floor and north wall
3; Unit T6 south wall
4: Unit T6 north wall
5: Unit T6 floor
6: Unit T6 west wall
Page
58
61
63
63
64
64
I. INTRODUCTION
tm
m
m
m
m
Ml
m»
m
Qr^xT?.'; concerns the Phase D archaeological test of prehistoric site
^DM-W-181. The sites near-coastal situation (Figures 1 and 2) in the city of
Carlsbad California, is within the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of
''u°"TTc^I''^flVP 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian on the U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Rancho Santa Fe Quad.
xA^'^^/''^^ '^^""'^ SDM-W-181 (Attachment 1) was completed by
Malcolm J. Rogers, whose work at the site included surveys, surface collections
and hmited excavation. During a recent archaeological survey of La Costa Town
Center propeny (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990), the site was relocated and a
crescentic was collected. Test excavation was recommended to determine the
sites archaeological importance under the Califomia Environmental Oualitv Act
(CEQA) and the City of Carlsbad's draft Cultural Resource Guidelines.
Phase I archaeological testing (Davis and Cheever 1991) entailed detailed
surface mapping, intensive point-provenienced dog-on-leash (DOL) surface
collection, general surface coUecdon, and the excavation of 26 shovel test
pits (STPs) and 10 standard Ixl-meter test units. When one of these units
encountered a structurally intact shell-and-cobble hearth with ash and charcoal
It was expanded to expose the entire feature. Radiocarbon assays on two shell
samples and a charcoal-rich sediment sample from the hearth, produced a date of
circa 5,400 years before present (B.P.). Davis and Cheever (1991) recommended
additional work to permit full determination of the site's archaeoloeical
importance. ^
Phase II archaeological testing was designed, begun, and mostiy carried out
by MacMiUan Davis, under the direction of Dayle Cheever. It was completed
under the supervision and direction of David C. Hanna. Fieldwork incorporated a
two-stage approach. The first stage entailed excavating 12 m2 of surface area
U with 4 standard 1x1-meter units, a lx4-meter trench (4 contiguous Ixl-meter
units), and a second lx4-meter trench (2 contiguous lx2-meter units). The
second stage entailed excavation of three more standard units, mechanical
stopping of two 10-meter-wide strips transecting the site's focal ridgetop
sector, and excavation of another 3 standard units in areas of moderately
concentrated cultural debris that were discovered through mechanical
excavation.
This report incorporates all Phase 1 and Phase D data. It demonstrates
that subsurface deposits at SDM-W-181 were largely created by noncultura]
processes, illustrating some limitations of the prevailing cultural chronology
and related assemblage defmitions. The results have important implications for
contemporary and future research, but indicate that SDM-W-181 retains littie
research value. The site is evaluated as lacking archaeological importance
under CEQA and the City of Carlsbad's draft Cultural Resource Guidelines.
Cultural resource impacts of the proposed La Costa Town Center project are
therefore considered insignificant.
FIGURE 1. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT RELATIVE TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO.
R-2212A 6/90
|«illif)tllfi
\REC0N
F ^ I > I I f I f 1 r I I I i I f i < 1 I 1 i ^1
" R"S^'H°0^s'f.'=/;?E"o'i'lo"i,^°«lM ™P00B»PM,C MAPS. ENCN.T.S A^O
flEC0A/ R-2212A 6/90
n. RESEARCH CONTEXT ^
This section contains background information on the Phase II study at SDM-W-
181 and is presented in two parts. Part A defines aspects of the natural
environment that may have influenced site formation and structure. Part B is an mm
archaeological overview and includes an analysis of research paradigms and
explanatory models, a synthesis of prehistory research, and discussions of early m
research at the site, recent studies near the site, and recent studies al the
site. This material provides a foundation for the Phase II research design (see
Section HI).
mm
A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ^
Archaeological site SDM-W-181 occupies the top and flanks of a
southeast-trending fmger ridge overlooking a southwest-flowing, intermittent ^
tributary to Encinitas Creek (see Figures 1 and 2), which at nearest approach is
about 0.75 mile to the southeast. San Marcos Creek is about one mile north of «•
the site, and Batiquitos Lagoon is about two miles to the northwest. The ridge
affords a deep panoramic view, rotating clockwise from northeast to nearly due
west. Surface artifacts occur between elevations of approximately 280 and 340
feet above mean sea level (MSL), covering an area of nearly 19,000 square meters
(Figure 3). The topography presents slopes of up to 25 percent, with the
ridgeline being nearly flat, the upper slopes quite steep, and the lower slopes
somewhat gentler.
A potentially significant aspect of the site's location concerns a side
drainage, immediately northeast of SDM-W-181, which nearly coincides with a
major rock and soil distinction. Rock formations southwest of this dividing
line are marine sediments, and the soils derived from them are capable of
supporting a fairly lush coastal sage scrub community. Northeast of this divi-
sion Une, Eisenberg (1983) labels the rocks Jsp (Santiago Peak Volcanics) and
the soils are identified (United States Department of Agriculture 1973:Sheet 34;
Bowman 1973:46, 76) as SnG (San Miguel-Exchequer rocky silt loams, 9-70 percent
slopes). These soils are capable of supporting chaparral, which in terms of
biomass per hectare are probably equivalent to those southwest of the dividing
line. Bowman (1973:76) says of the SnG soils:
San Miguel silt loam is slowly permeable in the subsoil and has 2.5 to 3
inches of water available in the 18 to 23 inches of effective rooting
depth. Exchequer silt loam is moderately permeable and has 1 to 2
inches of water available in the 8 to 17 inches of effective rooting
depth. For both soils fertility is very low, drainage is good, runoff
is medium to rapid, and the erosion hazard is moderate to very high.
These soils are used chiefly for wildlife habitat and watershed.
SDM-W-181 is therefore situated at an ecotone between two different zones of
high biological productivity, which in subsistence terms means diversity as
well. This may help to explain the nature of prehistoric human activities at
the site.
A closer focus on the sediments at SDM-W-181 will benefit from some
initial clarification of terms. Bowman (1973) employs the term "soil" in an
agricultural sense that differs somewhat from geological usage. Bowman's "soil"
is any sediment capable of growing commercial crops. By contrast, a geological
Ml
^ Figure 3
^ Located in map pocket
mt
tt
m
m
im
m
psephologist will reserve the term for describing mantie, or A horizon
sediment.
Most site sediments belong to the Huerhuero Series, which Bowman
(1973:54) defmes as "moderately well drained loams that have a clay subsoil
[and] . . . developed in sandy marine sediments." They are mapped (United
States Department of Agriculture 1973:Sheet 34; Bowman 1973:55) either as HiC2
(Heurhuero loam, 5-9 percent slopes, eroded) or as HrD2 (Huerhuero loam, 9 to 15
percent slopes, eroded). The balance of the site area is mapped (United States
Department of Agriculture 1973:Sheet 34; Bowman 1973:18, 23) as AtE (Altamont
clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes).
AtE soil is mapped over the site's southern basal slopes and a south-
western area of active slumps and arroyos. Bowman (1973:18) characterizes the
Altamont Series as "well-drained clays that formed in material weathered from
calcareous shale." AtE soil fertility is medium, permeability slow, available
water holding capacity 3.5-5.5 inches, runoff medium to rapid, erosion hazard
moderate to high, and rooting depth 20-36 inches (Bowman 1973:23).
Soil on the SDM-W-181 ridgetop area, which is the most archaeologicaily
important sector, recapitulates part of the HrC (2-9 percent slope) profile.
The adjacent slopes contain HrC2 or HrD soils. Bowman (1973:54-55) says of HiC
that:
The A horizon ranges from pale brown or strong brown to yellowish brown
or grayish brown in color, from sandy loam to loam in texture, and from
5 to 30 inches [12.7-76.2 cm] in thickness. The B horizon ranges from
brown to dark brown or strong brown^_yeUowish brown^^
in color, from clay to heavy clay loam that • grades to sandy loam in the
lower layers, and from 45 to 67 inches [114.3-170.18 cm] in thickness.
The lower part of this horizon typically contains lime motUes. The C
horizon is stratified sand to loamy sand. The depth to the C horizon
ranges from 50 to 72 inches [127-182.88 cm] ... . Fertility is low to
medium. Permeability is very slow. The available water holding capac-
ity is 4 to 5.5 inches; some moisture is available from the clay
subsoil. Runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion hazard slight to
moderate.
Soil studies revealed that the ridgetop area contains three sediment
layers. The upper two exhibit minimal soil development and approximate the B
horizon of Bowman's HrC profile. They are "brown to dark brown or strong
brown . . . clay to heavy clay loam . . . [with] lime mottles." The basal
stratum approximates Bowman's HrC C horizon.
Another perspective on the sediments is obtained with reference to
primary geological sources. The SDM-W-181 area lies within a band of Eocene
marine sediments, roughly paralleling the coast, which Eisenberg (1983) maps as
Td/f (undifferentiated Deimar Formation/Friars Formation). These formations
belong to the La Jolla Group, which Kennedy (1975:15) characterizes as ranging
"from moderately deep-water, fine-grained siltstone, to sandy beach and lagoonal
facies, and coarse-grained continental sandstone and conglomerate." Kennedy
{1975:16) describes the Deimar Formation, in part, as follows:
r
te
il
te
m
mx
m
•I
^tL^i H Formauon is dusky yellowish-green sandy claystone
merbedded with medium-gray coarse-grained sandstone. Sever^ ^re^fs-
tan beds composed of Ostrea idriaensis Gabb and other brackish-water
mollusks indicate a lagoonal origin. The sandstone t tvpSlv
composed of quartz (80-85 percent), potassium feldspar (10-15 percent)
plagioclase (1-2 percent), biotite (2-3 percent), %nd a tr^c^ of
hematite, topaz, glauconite, and pyroxene. The claystone is composed of
ertrmlSle^Eten^tTgl;.- ' ' '^^'"'^ ^
Kennedy (1975:18) describes the Friars Formation, in part, as follows:
TTie rocks are nonmarine and lagoonal sandstone and claystone
The sandstone is composed of quartz (75-80 percent), potassium Veldsnar
(10-15 percent), biotite (5-10 percent), plagioc4e'^ (less than "^T
percent), and a trace of amphibole, pyroxene, hematite, and tourm^ine
°^ montmoriUonite and kaolinite Fri^s
Formauon ts predominantly a nonmarine and nearshore marine facies
The sandstone is typically massive, yellowish gray, medium grained, and
poorly indurated with subangular to subrounded grains. Caliche-rich
da"vstone '°F^'^ T'A'r' g^enish-graf sa^JdJ
claystone . The Fnars and Deimar Formations are lithologicallv Identical m their central and northeastem exposures, and they^have been undifferentiated m these areas on the geologic map
fr.. c ^ """"^ analysis of the sediments was provided by Dr. Pat Abbott
(pers. comm., 1/25/91), who visited the site with David Hanna and Sue Wade
Observing exposures in ndgetop test units, Abbott noted the absence of a genu
eooslts He" '^^^^^ "^^^'^^^ Eocene lago'onal
deposits. He termed the thm, medium brown-colored, discontinuously distrib-
uted upper layer a "clayey sorted fine sandstone" reflecting deposition in a
nppled sand flat environment. He classified the thick, ^dark^ b own and
continuously distributed medial layer as a "brown mudston^ rich in eZndable
clays reflecting the settling of clayey mud amongst vegetation near a '^lugh-
T^* continuously distributed* basal layer, which Abbott
termed fine sandy mudstone," consists mostly of white to yellow-colored fine
grained sand and silt, with orange to reddish-brown, biotitS pl^ar' l^i-
nations and npple cross-beds reflecting bar fonnation. This mudstone i^
merlayered with thin bands of dark greenish-gray sandy clays one simil^ to
ho e observed by Eisenberg (1985:56-57) in a composite outcrop section from
mO ^est o SDMwT«l^p"^^^^^ '^"'^ (about 0 25 miie west of SDM-W-181). Eisenberg interprets the banding as evidence of
Sat"lepos?ts).''"''""'°" ^"""^ '"^ '''"''''^ -g-^sion'(mudd°y'
First JZ° about the SDM-W-181 ridgetop sediments merit attention.
First, since they are sedimentary rocks deposited in lagoonal environments
dunng middle Eocene times, some explanation must be found for the presence of
significantly younger cultural debris deep within them. Second, these^ sediment
arc soft, fine-grained, clayey, and therefore subject to three transformational
processes that may be implicated in the site's physical structure These
processes are noted, below, and discussed more fully in Sections 111 and IV.
me
1. Dr. Abbott (personal communication 1-25-91) observed that shrink/
swell of the sediments and bioturbation (mostiy faunalturbation by
rodents) have displaced some constituents of the deposits. This may
have caused vertical size, shape, or weight sorting of cultural
debris, while obliterating intrusive pit margins or other discrete
contrasts.
2. Kennedy and Peterson (1975:50) note that many landslides in the
general area "are rotational slumps and have occurred along valley
wails where rocks of the Friars and Mission Valley Formations occur.
[As noted, the sediments at SDM-OW-181 are classified Td/f] The
sliding, commonly associated with soft, expansible clay beds within
these units, is the result of the combined factors of incompetent
rock, ground water, steep slope angle, and basal undercutting of
slopes by streams." Each of these factors is present at SDM-W-181.
Dr. Abbott (pers. comm., 1/25/91) identified some degree of slumping
along all marginal slopes, more substantial movement within a part
of the southwestern slope that contains active arroyos, and a major
rotational slump on the southeastern slope. Thus, slumping may have
caused significant lateral displacement of artifacts from the
ridgetop area.
3. As Kennedy and Peterson (1975:51) note, "expansive clay horizons
weathered from bedrock sources and deposited as slope wash yield the
hummocky topography that is common to much of this area." Such
topography is evident near the base of southern slopes at SDM-W-181,
and Dr. Abbott (pers. comm. 1/25/91) identified substantial slope
wash deposits along all lower slopes of the ridge. Therefore, slope
wash may also have caused significant lateral displacement of arti-
facts from the ridgetop area.
Biological conditions at and near SDM-W-181 have special relevance for
interpreting die site*s cultural attributes, formational history, and physical
structure. A recent biological survey (Phillips 1990) documents the presence of
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub on roughly 70 percent of property, all of which prob-
ably supported this community prior to historic impacts (Phillips 1990:4, 10;
pers. comm., 5/1/91). Typically occupying dry areas and slopes in coastal
southern Califomia, Diegan coastal sage scrub has an 80 to 90 percent shrub
cover (Phillips 1990:4) and includes flora and fauna that were exploited by
prehistoric cultures.
Many of the 56 documented vascular plants and 37 native wildlife species
documented for La Costa Town Center (Phillips 1990:6-8,11-12) could have been
used prehistorically as sources of food, fuel, medicine, or raw material. Five
of the seven mammals were probably exploited for their food value, including
Califomia ground squirrel {Spermophilus beecheyi), valley pocket gopher
{Thomomys bottae), dusky-footed woodrat {Neotoma fuscipes), cottontail
rabbit {Sylvilagus auduboni), and brush rabbit {Sylvilagus bachmani). Two
others, coyote {Canis latrans) and bobcat {Lynx rufus), may have seen
occasional use as food and probably had religious, ceremonial, or ideological
significance. At least two of the 28 native birds, Califomia quail
{Callipepla califomica califomica) and mourning dove {Zenaida macroura
marginella), are likely to have been food resources. Several of the others
might also have been consumed, while the red-shouldered hawk {Buteo lineatus
Ilk*
m
m
m
tm
elegans) and red-tailed hawk {Buteo jamaicensis) are good candidates for
religious, ceremomal, or ideological significance. ^ canaiaates tor
.nH K °^ ^^^^ ^P^^P ^^^e a^so present in coastal sage scrub and chaparral tracts surrounding SDM.W-181. TTie drainage lying louthetst of ^
^^1 '3°"^ ^ ""^"^"^ ^"^^^^'^ have suppled water
fuel, foods, and raw matenals. Downstream portions of this drainage have been modified by recent development but may once have previously supp^^f a de^^^^^ growth of oaks and other woodland or riparian species. ^'"pponea a dense
Two mammals at La Costa Town Center, the valley pocket gopher and
Cahfornia ground squirrel may have influenced the physical stricture of SDM-W
181. These fossonal (burrowing) rodents are associated with significant
faunalturbauon (see Section III.A). Being relatively r-selected ?hly Te
capable of nearly exponential population growth in the presence of enhanced
rTefnT' r^^^"'-^" precipitation increases, bmshfires^ mechanfcal grS
cleanng, and die deposmon of such human occupational debris as body wastes
ash/charcoal, and food residues (perhaps including herbaceous plant seeds).
Both species may have interacted with human occupants of SDM-W-lRl Tt
Lwtr'^f'fh. ^\ ^""""^ ^^'"^"^^ ""^^ abandonment could initiate a rapid
growth of die herbaceous plants exploited by fossorial rodents, thereby preciD-
itaung a rodem population explosion with consequently increased
faunalturbauon. Upon attaining maximal size, this population might "cra^h'' in
response to various factors (e.g., resource depletion, disease or Tn^reased
predation) and faunalturbation rates would fall. Humai;s returriL ^o The sfte
migh themselves be major predators, since the ethnographic and archaeological
hterature evidences heavy exploitation of diese rodents Note that abaSment
interval exceedmg some (unspecified) duration would permit maturation of 'he
vegetauve community, tiius stabilizing rodent populations and faunalturbation
The archaeological record at SDM-W-181 may in part be interpreted witii
reference to climatic and biotic conditions during its occupatioZ whfch hS
r^Z ^/r^^^'?/^ about 5400-100 B.P. Important changes in the composition of
plant commumties have been linked to tiie Xerothennic (8000-4000 BP) which
appears to account for the present discontinuous distributions of many xeric
m77 rinS?r' ^"""^Tf ^^'^^'^ 1973:187). In Axelrod's reconstruction
( 977), closed-cone forest and live oak woodland or oak woodland-savanna commu-
TAL 7 ^'^^""^X rt^l^otd by communities of differing composition during a penod of protracted climatic change. For chaparral, Axelrod (1977:185-186)
states:
Chaparral taxa have been associated witii sclerophyllous oak-laurel
woodland vegetation since the Eocene. Apart from local drier sites
chaparral did not spread widely until late in the Cenozoic, after moun-
tains had been elevated significandy and the summer dry Mediterranean
climate had appeared. Chaparral taxa are not pyrogenic but were
preadapted to survive under such conditions. The spread of chaparral
was aided by natural fires, especially during the Xerotiiermic but its
greatest expansion has occurred under man's influence. It is serai to
woodland, not a natural climax.
Axeh-od (1977:178-179) also views coastal sage in developmental terms,
but he stresses its ultimate stability as a natural climax;
Since sage vegetation regularly occurs marginal to and interfingers with
oak woodland-savanna vegetation today, the existence of local sage
communities on dry sites in the Miocene and PUocene of southern
Califomia seems probable. The distribution of Malosma (laurina)
and Schmaltzia (integrifolia) in interior areas into the Pliocene
shows that they have been restricted coastward to a more maritime
climate. It probably was at tiiis time that they were confined to the
matrix of coastal sage, which otherwise is composed chiefly of nonwoody
("soft chaparral") species. A few woody endemics in Arctostaphylos
(e.g., A. morreonsis, pumila, fudis) and Ceanothis (e.g., C.
impressus, maritimus, rigidus) that occur in coastal sage in the
coastal strip appear to be relicts of earlier closed-cone pine forest or
live oak woodland communities that survived under a drier but equable
coastai climate.
As for its antiquity as a climax formation, sage occupies areas drier
than chaparral or woodland-savanna, chiefly tracts where precipitation
is below 15 inches (38 cm). On this basis, it may be inferred that
coastai sage came into existence as a widespread formation only when
large areas of relatively low rainfall appeared. This occurred chiefly
after the Wisconsin, for forest and woodland dominated areas presently
covered with sage during the last glacial7pluvial stage, both on the
coast and in the interior.
These two developmental histories appear linked by the attainment of
near-modem conditions, as Axelrod (1977:186) implies:
Taxa that contribute to coastal sage are regular members of the drier
parts of woodland-savanna vegetation. Some of the woody taxa in it have
records in the middle Miocene. Sage apparentiy expanded under the
influence of drier climate during the later Pleistocene as woodland-
savanna was eliminated from the drier areas it now inhabits as a new
climax.
Axelrod's (1977) reconstruction can be used to outline some general
biological characteristics of the SDM-W-181 area since about 5400 B.P. The
vegetation probably defined some type of scmb community, possibly transitional
to coastal sage in areas extending west from SDM-W-181 and to chaparral toward
the east, with the nearby drainage supporting a fairly extensive riparian oak
woodland. Overall biomass and biological diversity may have been somewhat
different from the present time. If the site were situated at or near an
ecotone, as it is today, it would have provided access to diverse subsistence
resources within a relatively small catchment area.
B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
This four-part overview provides a background for the Phase n research
design (Section III), and is informed by the philosophy of science-history
pioneered by Thomas S. Kuhn (1970, 1977). The first part discusses major
research paradigms and explanatory models linked to the theoretical issues that
were identified, during Phase 1, for closer study in Phase II. An analysis of
10
studies in^the near 'Sly of SDM%-\^. ^TToTnT pa^^^f^cuseT^I^CON-s'
La Costa Town Center survey (Whitehouse and Cheevpr i oom ^ DU ^
(DavisandCheeverl991)toexplLWfoundati^^^^^ "'^^^ '
1- Research Paradigm.s anri Explanatory MnH>-lc
r.,,K„H .^^1^""^"^ data have little meaning when divorced from their related
methods and theones It is equally difficult to understand theories or method^
apart from their historical context. The historical context nf ?L n
al74-88 n7f"t/^ H"' " Willed a^^ SabTo'ff
c^^nteS?-^'- ' i^^A^^V^L^:^
hv th. • ^"''•^ archaeology has long been, and still remains strongly affected
by the pioneenng research of Malcolm J. Rogers in southern Califomia and
adjacent areas^ Most of his career took place during 1919-1945 ™d fit^
squarely within the Classificatory-Historical Period's cLnology^uildinp
defined"- i^'?' ""hr '''""^ contribution has been the cultural fLonology
defined in his publications, field notebooks, site records and art ffr-^
collections. This chronology, with its associated culture-phase descn^t on.
and assemblage definitions, does not reflect the changes in ^erican archaeXv
that occurred dunng Rogers' years of retirement ^ and isdaTon (me S
S^fimT f°^ these developments in the last years of his Hfe
rn^^nr V , . Completing "The San Dieguito Complex," which was a
r^gSnairsS' " °' '^''^ -Pects^'orhi^
. It is important to understand the nature of and reasons for Roppr?'
rS'%cceoted an"d''"°'r--"H" '^'"h""'""^^ ^'^ assemblag™fmiSons
ruZ-r f'^^P'^'' .3"'' synthesized with others' contributions throughout the
Classificatory-Histoncal Period's contextual-functional phase (1940-1960)
This conformed well with general practice, since research of t^e time was S
focused on expandmg cultural chronologies into broad area] syntheTes b^ incor
porating abundant new data and key concepts from anthropology, geography eco -
du^n/l958l%0 hlf h--. ^°H^H" T\ °" '"^^de?eto'pment^ ai^nng 1^58-1960, but h s sudden death prevented dissemination of his new ideas
HIS unfinished manuscnpt was ultimately published as a heavily edited and
upplemented volume (Rogers, Wonnington, Davis and Brott 1966), which attempts
to reconcile Rogers' early work radiocarbon dates and other data from the 1950^
and early 1960s (Hanna 1982). Hence, Rogers' influence h^^ a ways remained
SarSog;" ^^^onolo,y-,nmn, tradition of Classiflcato^i^-HS
Willev ^d\^hlff'''nmln^ofu^^^^ of Rogers' chronology swell into what
wmey and Sabloff (1974:178-211) term Amencan archaeology's "Explanatorv
Penod (post-1960). Not only did Rogers' work sui^ive the New ArcCoS
movement (ca. 1948-1968). but his culture-chronological focus has !ince tmalned
a main theme of much local work. One possible explanation is that New Archae-
ology belongs to a continuing "scientific revolution" (Kuhn 1970, 1977) which
seeks to reorient its philosophy without sacrificing established dogma. In this
view, the continuing preoccupation with chronology-testing and revision
exemplifies special-case revisionism to account for anomalous data. It may be
that orthodox perspectives arc only now beginning to face direct challenges by
altemate and essentially nonhistorical paradigms.
Another explanation for the continuing influence of orthodox
cultural chronologies and cultural histories may involve the nature of local
archaeological practice. Since about 1970, research funding and personnel have
been increasingly dominated by the applied-science context of Cultural Resource
Management (CRM). Because many CRM practitioners (both private consultants and
public agency personnel) received their formal training from older and fairly
traditional archaeologists, their outiooks are influenced by Classificatory-
Historical Period paradigms. CRM practice may also favor Classificatory-
Historical interests because management decisions are most securely developed or
defended with reference to the formal published literature, which has over-
whelmingly been authored by such traditional archaeologists as Rogers and his
former associates (Hanna 1982), including Claude N. Warren (University of Nevada
at Las Vegas); James Robert Moriarty HI (University of San Diego, formerly
University of Califomia at San Diego); Paul H. Ezell (deceased, formerly San
Diego State University); Emil W. Haury (University of Arizona); and Julian D.
Hayden (fomnerly University of Arizona). This list should probably be expanded
to include three others who, while not Rogers', intimates, were closely informed
by his work: William J. Wallace (University of Southern Califomia); Clement W.
Meighan (University of Califomia at Los Ajigeles); and Delbert L. True (formerly
University of Califomia at Los Angeles).
2. Synthesis of Prehistory Research
The currcntiy accepted general model of San Diego County prehistory,
the product of many small revisions with a few broad extensions, is still quite
recognizable based on Rogers' chronology. It differentiates three principal
cultural pattems (the Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Proto-historic Periods),
each distinguished by similarities in material culture inventories, site types,
spatial distributions, and relative or absolute date ranges. The three general
pattems have also been associated with possible local or regional variants that
some believe must reflect significant differences in ancient peoples' social and
economic lives. A summary of this tripartite model is provided, below, together
with some discussion of uru-esolved issues, competing research explanations, and
altematives to the model itself
a. The Archaic Period. Early occupants of tiie San Diego area are
archaeologicaily represented by a culture pattern that Malcolm J, Rogers first
described as the "Scraper-Makers" and later as the "San Dieguito" (Rogers 1929,
1938). The material culture inventory was initially defined on the basis of
several sites and then formalized with material from tiie C.W. Harris Site (SDi-
149/SDM-W-198), first excavated by Rogers in 1938 and since considered the San
Dieguito "Type Site" (Warren 1966). The San Dieguito assemblage is typified by
large, unifacially worked core-based tools, unidirectional flake cores, and
bifacial flake-based tools classified as "projectile points" and "knives."
These stone tools often exhibit both a high degree of workmanship and raw mate-
rial selectivity. Leaf-shaped blades, occasionally with wide-stemmed hafting
12
m'
facts, a technology attributed to the later "La TnllV r,o,„r» stone arti-
with other members of the Westeni Lithic Co trariitinn 1 P'^"'
emphasis within San Dieguito ha'Teen'^tg^sted'^r "W^g^TTased'T^^^^^^
|DaWs^»9)"'"' P^'"'""'- hunting "i^lTutcSg'toc;^"
. Many archaeological sites attributed to the San Dieguifn ar^
visible as surface or very shaltow deposits, typically locked on inland
ndge-fingers overiooking watercouXes. TTie usually tenuous
nature of these deposits, coupled with a limited range of tool types ha.ried
many researchers to intetpret San Dieguito sites as lither tempor^ 'cam^s or
loci of specialized activities, such as hunting or food proceS If these
views are coirect, then a San Dieguito economy based pSty ^on huntfng
acuvities and secondanly on the use of plant resources wa^ probably expressed
as a nomadic lifestyle that may have entailed seasonal pattems dictated bv the
availability of local resources. Excavations in and around'^ sJT Diego County ^n
he 40 years following Rogers' pioneering work have revealed the exisS of
^^ilTosm!) '"""'^ '"""^ ^'°°o
Technological attributes, tool fomis, and general material
Se^Sc'period"cultural '° 'l^' San Dieguito complex'"wi'^ln a'mTch
arger Archaic Penod cultural continuum sometimes called the Westem Pluvial
Lidces Tradition (Bedwell 1970; Hester 1973). TTiis group of coelT cuS
pattems devdoped in Great Basin and Colorado Desert playa V ^eas dS
mois penods following the last glaciation, with the econom'y dfvelo^g ^ound
Pa^lri,^ J*"' increasingly arid environments. TOs post
Paleoindian era saw the emergence of hunting economies, over wide areas of the
desert southwest, which exhibited similar technological patterns duT to thek
shared economic base^ Such similarities among many^ Aich£c Mod sites in the
Colorado Desert and Great Basin have led some researchers to group them within
what has been called the "Westem Lithic Co-tradidon" (Davis et al 1969)
r^- A growing body of data from purported San Dieguito sites in the
doubt ^^he^T' ^'^r '° P'^=^ °f these feconsS^c ions in
doubt. Whereas ground stone artifacts were not previously thought to be Lso
ciated with these earlier complexes, manos have been found wiZ lower LctiSis"
fnN. " 1990). Other sites, such as SDM-W-lsT
SDM-W-40. and SDM-W-1584, have revealed milling technotogy in ^sociation^ with
tnnLf,^T' ^'"^O "^-P- (Gallegos 1984; Norwood T9T0 The e
appears to be a progressive nan-owing of definitional differences between die
San Dieguito and assumptively later complexes. i^^iwccii me
f .1 • L traditional nomenclature, the San Dieguito Complex i^
followed in the archaeological record by a pattem that Malcolm J Rogei7 fir^
"^^ JolIa^Tompr^''
(Kogers 1938, 1945). Rogers' imtial fomiulation considered "Shell-Midden
People antecedent to the "Scraper-Makers." His subsequent chroLtogic^
reversal stemmed largely from stratigraphical interpretations at the CW E
13
mt
Site (Warren 1966). The definition and chronological position of the La Jolla
Complex, particularly in relation to the San Dieguito Complex, have since been
subject to continuing debate (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987; Hayden 1987). Warren
(1968) considers the La Jolla Complex a local variant of the Encinitas Tradi- *
tion. Other complexes commonly associated with the Encinitas Tradition include
the Pauma, Topanga, Oak-Grove, and Early Milling horizons of the southem
Califomia coastal and inland zones (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:108). •
m
FrequenUy mentioned Encinitas Tradition hallmarks are an
increased dependence on miUing technology and a decrease in certain styles of ^
flaked lithic artifacts that characterize San Dieguito assemblages. This tech-
nological shift, which purportedly involved intensive utilization of a wider
resource base, is reflected by a generally more diverse tool assemblage. A
specific inference is that the large number of well-worked grinding implements ^
indicates processing of hard seeds from plants of the chaparral and inland H
mountain regions, which might have permitted a diminished reliance on hunting.
This shift, coupled with an increasing use of littoral resources, marks the end •
of the "Westem Pluvial Lakes" tradition and its coastal manifestation, E
sometimes called the "Paleo-Coastal Tradition" (Charticoff and Chartkoff
1984:108; Moratto 1984:109).
Archaeological sites attributed to the La Jolla Complex have
been assigned dates ranging from about 8000 B.P. to 3000 B.P., overlapping late
San Dieguito phases in many areas (Moratto 1984:147). Besides the presence of li
millingstones. La Jolla sites are typically associated with flexed burials and IM
shell middens, and occasionally with cogstones or discoidals. The stone tool
assemblage from such sites generally contains higher percentages of battering H
and crushing implements, with less emphasis on a fmely worked cutting edge, and ^
lower percentages of large bifacially worked " knives and unifacially worked
"scraper/cores" than is thought to be typical of the San Dieguito Complex.
Tools from coastal La Jolla sites often express less raw material selectivity, *
and show less detail and care in workmanship, than those found witiun San •!
Dieguito assemblages.
1"
An apparent inland manifestation of the La Jolla Complex was n
termed the "Pauma Complex" by D.L. Tme (1958), who proposed the name to
describe an assemblage recovered from over 20 inland sites in northem San Diego a
County. The Pauma assemblage features stone tools which initially seemed to f
follow the San Dieguito pattem (e.g., foliate points and crescentics) but were
found in association with portable millingstones usually ascribed to the La
Jolla Complex. Subsequent research revealed that some of these purported f
associations resulted from mixed strata and provenience. After further study
and reflection, Tme ultiriiately decided that "the Pauma complex inventory is
very similar to the adjacent La Jolla . . . and some undefined but close rela- •
tionship is proposed between the two" (Tme 1980:370). Materials from these |
sites do seem closely tied to the La Jolla Complex, although influences from the
emergent Campbell Tradition to the north are sometimes proposed (Moratto -
1984:152). Site assemblages attributed to die Campbell Tradition often include ^
"side notched and lanceolate points, large knives, a variety of flake scrapers, *
and drill-like implements" (Warren 1968:2). ^
Relationships between the San Dieguito, Pauma, and La Jolla 1
Complexes are an area of active debate and research. Present interpretations of
the data fall into two main categories: (1) defenses of the traditional view %
m
14
asserting temporal and cultural differences between die three ,nH
(2) altematives that explain the purported differences a7 «rtift,.
ture classification based on incomplete data "itterences as artifacts of prema-
Inii, oco hi •^'•a^ilonalists explain distinctions between San Dieguito and La
.^iL ? 'Ih' f ^^''"'P'" °f ^''^Ptive cultural change or population
replacement. The fonner scenario posits that an inland hunting Hfesfvle rSan
Dieguito culture) expanded toward the seashore, where an abundance of shel fish
and other manne resources promoted more sedentary settlement supported bv
mtensive exploitation of subsistence resources within a smaU™ catchment area
The abundant food supply found in and around lagoons is suggested to hTve caSTd
r.nnrH""P^f" ''""''"2; ^^''^ '° ^^fl^^ted in the archleoS
record, while a consequently reduced need for grcup mobility may accTum fw *e
regular occurrence at La Jolla sites of depositional depUis f^^ exceed"ng tho^
noted m most purported San Dieguito associations. TWs explanation l?ems to
*e .viH.nV / fron'.coftal sites fairly well and can also accommodate most of
die evidence from inland sites. Radiocarbon dates, where avaUable do not seem
to indicate a hiatiis between the two cultures. If this is mie then Pa^m^
ex^emes'^ °^ '^^^i'^^" between the two
•1 u second traditional scenario, cultural replacement, is fueled
pnmanly by the observation that assemblages from San Dieguito sites are bv
definiuon significantiy different from those seen in coastal La Jolla sites
In a classical example of "migration versus diffusion" arguments some archae
ologists have viewed such differences as significant enough to requiS separate
histoncal ongins for the two archaeological cultures. Altiiough^tii? invS
scenano appears expedient and efficient, it is based on par^dly tautdoS
die Saic pfS,d" ,:,?"T'?h '^^hnological pattems are' evident d^ouglou. tne Archaic Penod, but whether they represent in situ change or the intro
,TX. ^^^F^^^ is a critical point. Models fSowTng for ^
s tesw?trfh'..f^° H"- """"y ^'"^ '^'^^^''^ fro-" San Die|o Coun^ sites with that found m adjacent areas to the north and east. --ouniy
nf inf.,r™ Nontraditional interpretations have been fueled by several types
and T"^^- ''^"""'"S ^""^ proliferation of archaeologies surveys
and site excavations m recent years. Many local archaeologists have 001^^10
realize that distinctions between La Jolla-pattem and San Dieguito-pattem
sites lessen with increased distance from the coast: moving inland finelv S
hunting tools reappear in association with milling tools Ind Thellfi^h remains
It' th J'H"^ H'° ^'H-^' -"""V"^- Accumulating radiocarbon datef over the
A u?'^'"^^^ sigmficant temporal overiaps between La Jolla and
A ^ ° ^PP==^^ the 12,000-7,500 B.P. range for
IQ^. w'^""°^o'i?^^.^'''fLJ^^^• 1^7^: Tme 1958; Wairen, Tme, anriudey
9691 k'^n" '^^^i, ^966; Moriarty 1967; Davis ci 1
fnr T .,'^°"'^'^^"^f „°" "PP^'" ^^ilc the 11,000-1,500 B.P. range
^Qfifi. w loif c^^l"'=^ '^^^' 1966; Rogers et al. 1966; Tr^e
1966, Wan-en 1968; Smitii and Moriarty 1982) is too conservative on the lower
. H ^- • Such observations have led some to propose that the u-aditional
culture-diagnostic artifact assemblages are actually altemate toolkits of a
single culture adapted to different resource areas. Hence, many "La Jolla"
assemblages may be specialized toolkits associated with seasonally utilized
coastal resource-processing sites; as such, they would be part of a broader
15
cuitural pattem that also included "San Dieguito" toolkits at inland sites.
Where "La Jolla" processing sites also functioned as temporary camps, briefly m
but regularly used over long time spans, substantial deposits of food refuse and
specialized tools could accumulate in the archaeological record. Given a small ^
and biased sample of sites, such deposits might easily be misinterpreted to
define a technologically simple, almost retrograde "La Jolla" culture pattem
in distinction to a separate, technologically complex "San Dieguito" hunting
culture elsewhere. The apparent proliferation of La Jolla sites through time
might represent a gradual accumulation of several similar sites, a progressively *
elaborated reliance upon locally available resources, or both. Similarly, the
duration and size of coastal site occupations could have changed through time, •
so that a broadly based coastal focus of the culture was recorded at select |^
times and locations.
The resolution of these debates is archaeologicaily feasible and
will partly depend on obtaining detailed information, including absolute dates,
from a significantly expanded sample of the still poorly represented inland
sites. Discovering a large number of contemporary inland and coastal Archaic
Period sites would strongly suggest "San Dieguito" and "La Jolla" synchronicity,
whereas a definite lack of such sites, despite concerted efforts to locate them,
would go far towards confirming traditional views. Zonal patteming for
frequentiy recurrent in situ associations of "San Dieguito" and "La Jolla"
diagnostic artifacts would support the thesis of functional (toolkit) rather
than cultural distinctiveness, particularly if "San Dieguito" items were rarest
near the coast and "La Jolla" items were rarest in the far interior. Near-
coastal sites at locations transitional to interior valleys and highlands should
provide especially good test cases because the functional (toolkit) thesis
predicts high frequency occurrence of specialized items from both patterns, as
well as habitational and tool-production debris.
b. The Late Prehistoric Period. Milling technology in southem
Califomia and adjacent areas appears to have had a relatively complex history.
As noted, suggestions that milling artifacts were present in at least some parts
of the San Dieguito pattem's spatio-temporal distribution have fueled enduring
controversy over the validity of supposed cultural-chronological units and the
nature of relationships between them. There is broad consensus over assigning
"La Jolla" and possible regional variants to the Early Millingstone Horizon, and
very late La Jolla Complex assemblages appear to exhibit lineal continuity with
Late Millingstone Horizon assemblages. A potentially significant Early
Millingstone Horizon variant is the "Encinitas Tradition," which Warren (1968)
believes endured in north-coastal San Diego County until about 1,500 B.P. and
defines as a well-developed collection economy focused on pinyon pine, holly-
hock, shellfish, and a wide variety of other plant and animal resources.
The "Cuyamaca Complex" (Tme 1970), an early Late Millingstone
Horizon assemblage in southem San Diego County, adjacent parts of Imperial
County, and northem Baja Califomia, is considered directiy antecedent to the
ethnohistoric Diegueno or Kumeyaay (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:164; Moratto
1984:156). Rogers (1945) defined three phases of these "Yuman" cultures, which
Warren (1968) classifies as the "Yuman Tradition" of his "Late Prehistoric
Stage." The two-phase San Luis Rey Complex" (Meighan 1954) in northem San
Diego County and adjacent areas, which Rogers (1945) considered "Shoshonean"
precursors to the ethnohistoric "Luiseno," is called the "Shoshonean Tradition"
16
m
within Wan-en's (1968) Late Prehistoric Stage Wallace (1955) cla^ifi^c »ii
these cultures as part of the "Late Prehistoric Horizon." classifies all of
The slow development of Early Milling Horizon cultures seems tn
have progressed fairly unifonnly until approximately 1200 B P when fL v
s^ong evidence appears for population influxes into San Diego' CouZ
desert regions to the east According to Rogers (1945), the "Yuman invLton" Tf
Hokan-speakers was episodic and protracted, and in the final phase YumM ID
Mdght'sTl954) S^ ul ^''T'l "^'T' '"""'y"'^ an'cestori. S^^la^ly
Meighan s (1954) San Luis Rey n phase is thought to reflect a direct intnisior^ of Shoshonean Takik-speakers from desert areas north of the Yumans Thn^ Moratto (1984) believes that the circa 1200 B.P appeUce ofTe I^i^
LuS^p^^lltio'r^" '"'^ -^"^''-^ °f
. , . The Prpto-historic Period- The Proto-historic Period is
associated witii local populations that were directiy ancestral to ethnohistori-
caily known cultures, which m archaeological terras equates with Yuman in and
San Luis Rey H. Through roughly 1300 B.P., the Late Prehistoric PeriSd
archaeological record shows increasing contacts with groups outside die San
Diego area. Groups focused in the Lower Colorado River Valley were partly
agncultural, for the most part spoke a Hokan-family language, ind mainmined
contacts with the Pima-Papago and various Pueblo peopks fmher ea^r Most
nn!!f Jc""' H^'''"P' ^''^^^^^^ ^ widespread set of cultures, including
nomads and a few semi-agnculturalists, that spoke languages of the Shoshonean
family and had connections throughout die Great Basin aSd into Mexico There
dso appear to have been contacts between the San Diego area and groups along
the Califomia coast, mcludmg the Santa Barbara Channel area. ^
D0.<;iblv .Jl thrJ^'^r^^ T^^' assimilation, or population movements, and
possibly all three a number of distinctive attributes were overiaid onto ore-
llnTn^ nln'^.n traditions. Among tiiese attributes are
cemm projectile point types, otiier finely worked litiiic tools steatite
??nn Rp"''''^t'i^i^°°i^'' femations. At some point between about ' 1350 and
thtf nf'th fv, Z matenal culture inventory became virtually identical to
that of tiie etiinohistoncally known groups. This is particularly trtie witii the
local appearance of imported Lower Colorado River Valley ceramics and the later
onset local ceramic production, probably by about 750 B.P. (A.D. 1200).
Proto-historic Period economies are characterized bv a heavv
befoT Jl" A'"""' ""l^u .^"''"^^ ^^^"^"g extensive processing
betore use. The gradual elaboration of this economy, which probably began
earlier m the Late Prehistoric Period, resulted in distinctive millinr features
found on bedrock outcrops throughout the area. These features include conical
depressions (mortars) and shallow but larger depressed areas (basins and sHcks)
on the surfaces of (usually granite) boulders. Mortars were used with a
pounding too (pestie) for grinding acoms into a paste that was leached and
, , acoi^ "^eal, which was a dietary staple. The large, shallow
slicks and basins are thought to have been used with a hand-stone (mano) in
processing seeds and otiier vegetable foodstuffs. Although such features cannot
be du-ectly dated, many have been found in association with artifacts of Late
Prehistonc or occasionally early historic age.
17
One difficulty with defining the Proto-historic Period is that
influences from the slowly encroaching Spaniards undoubtedly reached northward, mt
far in advance of the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcala and Presidio de
San Diego in A.D. 1769. The pace of cultural change accelerated after tiiat date «*
and ultimately precipitated large-scale native depopulation, relocation, and ^
social collapse. It also caused terminological confusion because Fray Junipero
Serra, following standard practice, called the San Diego mission neophytes ^
"Dieguenos" and the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia neophytes "Luisenos." These
terms were extended to incorporate all natives within each combined mission and
presidio administrative district, often in complete ignorance of traditional
socio-political divisions. «
m
It is difficult to reconstmct aboriginal social and political
stmctures because the Spanish recorded littie information of value in this |p
regard, and ethnographic field research began long after native cultures had
experienced the majority of historical impacts. The Yuman-speaking inhabitants
throughout most of San Diego County were loosely organized into at least two
dialectically separate groups, each associated with an area that was home to ^
many triblets or bands. The Ipai (northem) and Tipai (southem) divisions ii
were not so much clearly defmed territorial units as they were emetically
recognized, cultural and dialectical stmctures (Luomala 1978:592). In original p
usage, these terms probably had geographic and/or classificatory meanings that ||
have since been lost or modified. A currentiy accepted name for the Diegueno is
Kumeyaay, a term of unclear origin that Spier (1923:298) records as originally mm
associated with the northem Ipai division. The meaning of Kumeyaay was ^
subsequentiy and variously extended to include other groups, but it is now used *
to designate all Yuman-speaking peoples between the Pacific Ocean, the vicinity
of Carlsbad, the Salton Sea area, and north-central Baja Califomia (May
1975:1). m
The Kumeyaay traditionally maintained a system of patrilineal, m
patrilocal, exogamous sibs that were distributed within a territorially ^
associated band stmcture (Luomala 1978:602; Shipek 1982:297; Gifford 1973:378).
Each band contained members of up to 15 sibs witiiin its organization (Shipek _
1982:297). The consanguinial kin group (household) was the primary social ^
stmcture and consisted of a married couple together with their unmarried •
children, married sons and families, and such dependant relatives within the
father's lineage as his parents, grandparents, and unmarried aunts or uncles fl
(May 1975:3). At any one time, the Kumeyaay band usually maintained a main H
village and several outlier villages (Tme 1970:55; May 1975:4; Shipek 1982:297;
Luomala 1978:597). Since the economy was based on intensive utilization of n
locally available natural resources, these settiements were more or less tempo- ||
rary. Residential units often split into their constituent clans when movement
to other areas was necessitated either by seasonal changes or by local
overexploitation. A "permanent" village, as recorded by early European explor- *
ers, probably consisted of an area that was regularly utilized by local band •
members for a large part of the yearly cycle (Luomala 1978:597). At the time of
Spanish intmsion, institutionalized leadership roles within the clans and 1
various integrating systems between the clans facilitated flexible pattems of m
personnel movement and trade throughout the region (Shipek 1982:302). There
were also various connections with the bands and clans of other ethno-linguistic M
traditions.
tm
social, political, rd'^^conoml'^brif^'^ "'^L P^-^-ely stressed the
influence*^ eroded tradition™ religious a^d fZ^"^, • missionary
development of coastal ieas fof crops and HveinnV '"^"'f °"^' ^"le the
tional subsistence practices D^ease st^ation and T'""^ TP'"^"?
collapse caused emigration birth r.'t. ' 3 ^^"""^ institutional
impo'verished b^ds were abTe to eta^^ ^ition'^^^^^a^e™'^ - ^ f-^^
areas until the early twentieth centu^ but thrSroad'er ^d comlT''
social system was effectively dismaAded hv ,hr min ^°^P}''^ Kumeyaay
g^eral collapse was so -pid^nf ^o^pLte tLt'm^st'X Tc^^^^^
clan, or lineage names were never recorded. lucduons ana band.
3. Earlv Research at SDM-W-lRt
The period of early research (defined here as IQIQ IQfis^ M/^C i,-. -i
dominated by Malcolm J. Rogers, who discovered SDM W 18 n he firsTlecade '^f
ralifo™!f"™^'"^H- '^^^-'^^^ "^°"ghout souther^ Caifomia "fial
?rJfT\ ' i^"^ ^•'^J^'^^l? "^OS"^' i"Wal work focused on the Escondido
area but almost immediately expanded to the coastal zone of centra^^ SPH nto^
County (Hanna 1982). Rogei^' 1*920 discovery of the C W HaSs L ??DM W
98) on die San Dieguito River below Lake Hodges, and h s p^i930 survevs'^f
the Encinitas Grant Plateau which contain<! <;nMw i»i pre i^JU surveys of
~h was able to develop and ultimately publish The re^ion^^^^ comprehensive cultural chronology (Rogers 1945). regions tirst
sXWac^e%^^beT*pT?93ri/'^'' -H^^^^^^^^^^
collabor\1on,''tSie'fidr'a°ctivtf during f9°30-T94 pTbaL tvol'^d '"'-"'^
assistants working under Rogers' direct fupi^lion Ro'gers t unlMy to'^^a"'
Man Ta^ aTfs^'N' f^^'^°^^^out mi'^ms, when tte San DTego Xlu eum of
Man was a U.S. Naval Hospital facility, most of his collections and ^chivp.
were in storage, and many of his erstwhile associates were in unif^ To fS
as is known, there was no work at SDM-W-181 during Rogers' 1945"l95rt;.nrnnrf^
Tg'^rnl-h"' 1''' between 958 ani h s d^a'thl^ 1960. Others may have worked at die site during 1958-1960 nossiblv under
unllTbouri''9™' '^'^ '° conti'n;ied''1nte^itt"entiy
hv » ci,» A^"^^ SDM-W-181 work is represented at the San Diego Museum of Man
Jr.^ site drawer, containing mostiy uncatalogued artifacts, and by miscellaneous
archives. This matenal is discussed, below, in order to define e^arl^ wo k and
Its role m the history of local archaeology. This will also heln clarifv
research opportunities and limitations inherent to the site. ^ ^
19
The Museum archives include three unpublished records, at least two m
of which are by Rogers; Rogers' site-locations map for the Encinitas region; tiie ^
Museum's modem site-locations map; and associated unpublished documents. Some
of the latter relate to the Museum's San Dieguito Type Collection, Which is a
list of specimens selected from various site drawers to illustrate Ancient
Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966), the book produced by revising and
supplementing Rogers' unfinished manuscript, The San Dieguito Complex (also on
file at the Museum).
m
to
m
m
The fu-st record of SDM-W-181 is on page 37 in the third volume of
Rogers' "W" (Westem Series) notebook, which probably dates to 1929 (Grace p
Johnson, pers. comm., 6/21/91). The record is very brief and reads: ^
(W-181) SM - Hill site on north side of Encinitas Creek. 300' contour- _
near San Marcos Road. Metates and manos absent. This is a fairly late r
site with double convex knives. SD in. One crescent 8" under ground. •
Total depth of stratum 13"
m
W-181 -A SM-horizon on the 200' contour. Metates and manos present. H
Work mostiy of a cmde nature and is probably in part P-SM.
The "SM" notation signifies "Scraper-Maker," Rogers' earliest term for the "San ?
Dieguito Industry." In this record, he also indicates the third phase of that
industry as "SD III." The "P-SM" stands for "Proto Scraper-Maker," a term which
Rogers successively renamed "Encinitas," "Littoral U," and "La Jolla n." It "
is important that Rogers specified an absence of metates and manos. •
The note of a "crescent 8 underground" suggests that Rogers had W
performed some type of excavation, but no excavation records have been found. ^
Hanna (1982:373-376) observes that Rogers made occasional use of test trenches,
which were excavated by natural strata, to obtain stratigraphic data and arti- m
fact inventories from sites that might help him test or refme ideas gained as
the result of large areal surveys. His use of excavation is characterized as "*
follows (Hanna 1982:374). ^
Rogers was apparentiy most apt to test excavate in two situations: ^
where he saw a possibility of fmding protected, stratified deposits, as
in a rockshelter, and where some exposed site appeared to have been 9m
built-up by accretion, as with a trail shrine. Rogers' field notebooks ^
also indicate that he occasionally sunk a test trench at an exposed but
stratified midden site; this was a major part of his 1929 Midden Survey ^
and 1930 Channel Islands work.
tm
Although we cannot know for certain, Rogers excavation at SDM-W-181 was probably
Umited to one or two small trenches. It is possible, of course, that he merely "*
noted the crescent's vertical location in some naturally formed exposure, such mt
as an arroyo.
The second record is a list entitied "Cultural Reallocation of ^
Westem Sites - 1942." It is written in Rogers' hand and in the lower right
comer of page one states, "Does not take precedence over final field note _
records made in 1943 - MJR." The relevant portion of this list reads: ^
20
W-181 =SDII + TraceofSDm
W-181 A = SDn-HPL II
tm,
ro TT nnH . } Si^ ^f"^'^' ^^^^"^^^ attribution is amended
to SD II and a trace; of SD m, while the San Dieguito of SDM-W-181-A is
pecified as SD II. The "PL 11" at SDM-W-181-A stands for "PaciTic LitVor^
II which can be decoded with reference to Rogers' first entry on the Usr
thT Y^m V -^'""'^ ^ (old terminology Yuman I) + Yuman III. The base of
the Y-m honzon is probably PL-II." This tenninology encapsulates the
histonca^ development of Rogers' cultural chronology. TTie "old" teSlogy to
which he refers reflects his earlier belief that tiie Yuman sequence wS a locS
outgrowth from Pacific Littoral (Littoral or La Jolla) roots^. In oth^r wordj
PL I = Littoral I = La Jolla I = Yuman I, PL II Littoral II = La Jolla fl =
Yuman U and Yuman IH = ethnohistoric Diegueno or Kumeyaay. By 1942
however, Rogers had come to believe tiiat the Yuman sequence began in the Lowe;
Colorado River area and appeared along the San Diego coast as desert populations
moved westward. He therefore separated the Yuman sequence from the LittoraVLa
Jolla sequence, preserving the possibility of a partial temporal overiap but
setting Yuman as generally successional to La Jolla. ^
The third record is the Museum's fonnal SDM-W-181 site sheet a
typewntten page beanng neitiier name nor date of authoi^hip. It is known that
Kogers synthesized his notebook entries and miscellaneous notes into formal site
records dunng the early 1940s, probably about 1942-1943, and in some cases he
appears to have typed them up himself (Hanna 1982). Malcolm Fanner seems to
have P^^Pa^ed others, most likely from Rogers' pre-1945 handwritten materials
and probably dunng his 1958-1960 retum from retiremem or shortly thereaf^
Ken Hedges: personal communication 7/1/91). In any event, die fomial SDM-W-
1942-1945 duplicates or closely follows Rogers' thinking of circa
The formal site sheet gives "North Hill" as die common name for a
. "u-^h? 5^"^^"^"*^" 2 acres of scattered marginal occupation," which is
a Highland accreuon camp" located "on a hill on north rim of North Fork of
tiS'lt -^n n ^''l 325;[AMSL]." Tlie site's archaeological cultures are
isted as Sp-H and HI, and Lit II at W-181-A." A more substantial part of
tne record reads: ^
ARCHITECTURE: There are 2 large cairns of boulders here which have
slumped into an erosional cirque. May be Lit. 13 roasting platf-onns or
sweat-house debns.
HISTORY: Fu:st settied by SD-II and occupied over into tiiird phase
Ihis IS a very concentrated occupation, probably because the sunounding
mesa top is very stoney except in tiiis one area. Below this site on a
lower bench is a small amount of Lit. II occupation. This is on the
250' contour.
REMARKS: The Lit. II site is designated W-181-A, There is some slight
amount of SD-D material on the site as well. Beginning at W-181 and
extendmg to the west on a general elevation to W-182 and beyond it to
the end of the Mesa is continuous evidence of SD-II material This is
for a total distance of 1-3/4 miles. As a matter of fact, there is no
part of the Encinitas Grant Plateau where felsite flaking cannot be
21
found and it is the center of tiie greatest concentration of SD occupa- «i
tion in San Diego county. ^
Two highly significant points can be made with reference to this ^
record. First, the site's description as a "Highland accretion camp" is
compatible with the view that Rogers' fu-st (1929) notebook record implies •
excavation, since he is known to have occasionally used exploratory trenching at
exposed sites with "accretion" deposits. Second, the statement that "the *
Encinitas Grant Plateau ... is the center of the greatest concentration of SD m
occupation in San Diego county" not only sounds typical of Rogers, but also
highlights this region's historical importance in the development of his m
cultural chronology. ^
A third point also merits attention. Like both of the earlier
records, the formal site sheet specifies a hiatus^ between San Dieguito and La
Jolla deposits at SDM-W-181 -A. This remained a major tenet through all of
Rogers' work. For instance, in Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al.
1966:83), it is Rogers who explains that: p
m
Most of the San Dieguito highland sites are thin-bedded, and their
maximum depth does not exceed forty-six inches [119 cm]. The average m^.
depth of archaeological debris is around ten inches [25 cm]. Although E
not having impressive vertical depth, their linear extensions sometimes
cover an acre. In dual culture sites such as San Dieguito and La Jolla,
there is not only a cultural disconformity but a clearly demarked ^
geological one. The San Dieguito II middens have a wavy eroded surface id
between them and the La Jolla II middens. This feature is much less in
evidence in dual cuimral sites of tiie San Dieguito III Phase and the La m
Jolla II Phase, but it does exist. The geological hiatus probably ^
represents the period and duration of the La Jolla I Phase.
mt
This rather concrete characterization should be testable in the field.
Ml
Malcolm Rogers' site-locations map, an early U.S.G.S. 15 Minute
topographic projection, does not define site boundaries for SDM-W-181. However, *
the site number "181" is inscribed over the spot corresponding to the Museum of mt
Man's modem map on the U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute Rancho Santa Fe Quad sheet. Neither
map shows SDM-W-181-A, but the formal site sheet's description seems to match m
the location of SDM-W-942 (SDi-8697). This is separate from a site to the west, ^
which Kaldenberg (1974) tested with a series of backhoe trenches in the belief
that it was SDM-W-181 - A. p,
Two other Rogers documents, also at the San Diego Museum of Man (see *•
Attachment 1), help to decipher and reconcile the foregoing site records. The
fu-st, entitied "Terminology of Malcolm J. Rogers" and postscripted "Malcolm J. i
Rogers - June 1958," is a set of typed Hsts equating Rogers' older cultural |
chronology labels with those in "The San Dieguito Complex." The second docu-
ment, "Culture Sequence in Westem San Diego County and Pseudonyms," lists |
Rogers' terminological equivalents and his original (short) chronology. It |
gives no date or author, but contains typing enors and reflects a typing style
that have elsewhere (Hanna 1982) been encountered with materials securely
attributed to Rogers. Judging from the terminology and chronology, this second I
document predates 1958, which means it must also predate Rogers' 1945-1958 i
22
retirement (Hanna 1982). As explained below, it probably post-dates another
publication (Rogers 1939) and may therefore be dated to roughly 1940 1945
The two documents can be synthesized in relation to Roeers' "short"
chrono ogy of circa 1938-1958. His very early publications and notebook enSes
HT'^%H^f^ ^^°P^' (subsequentiy tenned Pacific LUtS
Littora^, and La Jolla) culture was possibly older than the Scraper Maker (San
Dieguito) culture. Withm a few years, however, Rogers had come to believe San
Dieguito was the older unit, a conclusion which he later tried to confimi with
stratigraphic data from his 1938 C. W. Hanis site excavations (Warren 1966)
L- r. ''''''' M'^^triej of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and
Adjacent Desen Areas, Rogers (1939:70-74) argues that the Playa Industiy or
San Dieguito-Playa Complex "does not necessarily demand an inception date
earlier tiian 1,000 or 2,000 B.C." Tiiere is considerable evidence Sa 1982^
that Rogers continued to defend tiiis "short" chronology, in tiie face of conti-a-
dictory opinion and evidence, until confronted with a series of conti-adictorv
radiocarbon dates at some point in 1959 or 1960. A sense of this is also
provided by Wan-en (1966:18), as follows.
The date for tiie San Dieguito complex presents another problem and has
long been disputed. Rogers maintained in 1939 that the San Dieeuito
complex dated from 800 to 2000 B.C. However, the series of radioc^bon
dates for the San Diego Coast indicated that these dates were too
conservative and Rogers had agreed upon a much older date before he died
Clark Brott, personal communication 1965). Four radiocarbon dates
(Hubbs, Bien, and Seuss 1962, 1965) on La Jollan features in Locus I of
the Hams site range from 1600±150 B.C. Otiier dates from La Jolla
sues m die area make it possible to place the San Dieguito assemblage
as earlier than ca. 6000 B.C. (Waaen and Tme 1961:259-263).
The 1958 document relates Rogers' "The San Dieguito Complex" tenni-
nology to older fomis. It indicates four major changes from his earlier
tninking:
1) The San Dieguito Complex was separated into tiiree regional
sequences: tiie Centi-al Aspect (Colorado Desert), tiie Southwestem
Aspect (Soutiiem Califomia and Baja CaUfomia), and the Westem Aspect
(nortiiem Califomia and Oregon). This expressed a more explicitiy
geographical formulation than in any of Rogers' previous work, and wai
in fact a major areal synthesis.
2) The entire complex was unified under a new four-phase chronology
with labels tiiat were closely similar to Rogers' earlier usage For
example, within the Southwestem Aspect "old" SD I became SD U- "old"
SD D became SD HI; "old" SD HI and IV together became SD IV; and the
new SD I was considered absent This new terminology is completely at
odds with Rogers' site records and artifact collections, which employ
the "old" San Dieguito labels. Rogers' 1958 combination of "old" SD m
and SD TV into the new SD IV is especially confusing, since he had
earlier (Rogers 1939) published the view that (old) SD IV existed only
in Baja Califomia. In his 1958 formulation, Rogers apparentiy did not
feel simple endurance was sufficient justification for distinguishing a
separate phase in Baja Califomia.
23
3) Similarly, the "old" labels of Malpais, Playa I, and Playa II were
explicitiy reserved to the Central Aspect and translated into San
Dieguito phases. This geographical limitation, which had already been
suggested in print (Rogers 1939), had the effect of equating old and new »
terminology between the Central and Southwestem areas. For example, ^
"old" Playa I (Centi-al) = "old" San Dieguito I (Southwestem) = "new"
Phase II (Central and Southwestem). a
4) The 1958 terminology's spatio-temporal constmction formally incor-
• porated a process of westward San Dieguito migration or trait-diffusion
from the Colorado Desert, recapitulating Rogers' earlier (1939:71)
conclusion that "Our knowledge of the archaeology to the east and south *
of the San Dieguito-Playa area is almost sufficient to exclude these
regions as derivative points, and we are thus left with only two possi- p
bie corridors of ingress; one is the Pacific littoral, and the other is ^
the Great Basin." In this sense, the 1958 terminology recapitulates
Rogers' mature opinion that Yuman culture originated in the Lower ^
Colorado River area and with time extended westward to Southem ^
Califomia through trait diffusion followed by population influxes. *
These points are emphasized because Rogers' 1958 terminology was explicitiy W
used by others, after his death, to organize Ancient Hunters of the Far West m
(Rogers et al. 1966) and the closely related San Dieguito Type Collection.
We can now turn to some other San Diego Museum of Man material ^
conceming SDM-W-181. A point of departure is Clark Evemham's (1966) "A Note
About the Editing," which was written to accompany Ancient Hunters of the Far ^
West (Rogers et al. 1966) but for some reason not included (Hanna 1982:344- W
345). Evemham (1966) explains that in 1965 James S. Copley offered to sponsor •
publication of Rogers' unfinished manuscript, "The San Dieguito Complex," at
which point Dr. Spencer L. Rogers (no relation to M.J. Rogers) undertook 1
preliminary content editing. Then, according to Evemham (1966): H
Clark W. Brott, curator of collections of the Museum of Man, expended ^
several months of editorial effort in an attempt to tie Rogers' unfm-
ished text to unfinished plates, and for the sake of accuracy, check
everything with the artifacts, notes, and site records. Even when all
the correlations were worked out, the result was not satisfactory, *
however. The artifact names used by Rogers did not reflect the changes m
in terminology developed since 1940. m
Dr. H. Wormington and Dr. Emma Lou Davis were invited to San Diego to j|
study the collection, and they agreed with the professional staff of the
Museum of Man and with the publisher, that it would be a genuine setback m
to Califomia archaeology to publish an outdated and unfinished 1
typology. The terminology and type groupings used herein are based on
Davis' and Wormington's recommendations, and also upon Claude N.
Warren's published types. Malcolm Rogers' assignment of artifacts to I
particular phases and aspects was retained without alteration. 1
Davis' and Wormington's typology was worked out, using 1,051 specimens, f
selected by Malcolm Rogers as being suitable for illustration or exhi- |
bition and are now assembled as the San Dieguito Type Collection. The
24
m
type collection was drawn from 5,121 specimens Rogers felt were associ-
ated with the San Dieguito Complex and^sed in his%tudy for this Took
All artifacts are m the Museum of Man. Words, phases, and paragranhs
CnZ. "f" 'I '^'P"^' °" "Artifacts of the San^feguto Complex indicate they were written by him The remainder of thi, chapter was compiled and written by Clark W. Brott --eniainder of that
c • ^ foregoing closely con-esponds to the San Diego Museum of M!,n'=
19^6 rv'^Sark^'w ""Brntf °?h ""^f"' "'^'^'^ completed on Jut29
l^e'feproduc^ed belol ''""'"^ °' °f -ord
Collector: Malcolm J. Rogers; Frederick S. Rogers (Malcolm's father)-
™ P™^^- George'carter; and others whose
Remarks: This collection constitutes Malcolm J. Rogers' "San Dieguito
Type Collection" housed at the Museum of Man. Included in the numbe s
series are also specimens Rogers attributed to the Amargosa culture
The collection is not catalogued, and the bulk of it is stored in the
general archaeological collection storage by site number. The site
nr,™fH "'A' ?an Dieguito Type specimens are published, described, and
illustrated m Anctent Hunters of the Far West," Copley Press, 1966.
D^aiElim: None of the items were catalogued under this series of
numbers. It was done only to serve as a reference, so that specimens
which belonged in the Malcolm J. Rogers type collection could be eTs'?y
recognized when found in the site collections. Many of the specimens
were camlogued under the old system (sequential numbers), Tese
numbers have been retained, as have the old catalog cards.
In the manuscript and field note files of Malcolm Rogers, there is a
ist, handwntten, of this entire collection. This list was done under
die supervision of Clark W. Brott in 1965. It was assembled from
Rogers notes, the early illustrations for the book "San Dieguto
wSapted "Ancient Hunters of die Far West"
thlnofe-''°"°'" '^^ ^""'^ "^""^ " diffcTcni typeface, is
Artifact Typology as of October 1960. The list was compiled from
Kogers notes, artifacts, and manuscript in 1965 by C.W. Brott.
. f ,j ^ 'i- standing file cabinet, the accession record is followed bv
and .nnf"'"'"- ^""^ f i"""'^'' °f ^°Sers' 1958 phase-aspect uni^
SDMW ^T- ' ^l-''"^ ^i'h diat unit. Site iUM-W-181 IS represented m two folder entnes, as quoted below.
San Dieguito TT r.9outhwestem Aspect):
Location: On a hill on north rim of North Fork of Encinitas Creek
Elevation 325'(North Hill)
25
Area: 1/2 acre concentration with 2 acres of scattered marginal m
occupation. ^
Type: Highland accretion camp.
Architecture: LJ II material, possible roasting platforms and/or sweat ^
house.
Cultures: SD fl and III and LJ D. LJ II at W-181-A. SD IB listed in
Site Book.
Remarks: Concenti-ated occupation; typical of area.
Site Drawer: Lithic Collection; LJ II and SD material both clearly «
present. Both aspects of SD {U III) appear to be present.
Type Series: Discoidal Scraper; 'fleshing plane', Blade (I) bevelled |»
flake. W-181-A Ovate Biface, 3 planes. ^
San Dieguito IU (Southwestem Aspect):
^m
See site summary of San Dieguito II - Southwestem Aspect. ^
Cultures: SD II and HI and U II
Type Series: Side scraper; 2 Crescents (type IV); Crescent (type III); p
Projectile (type undefined); Small projectile (type III)." ll
A close comparison of these folder enuies with our previous mm
discussions reveals some disturbing imegularities. First, and perhaps most C
significant, is the problem of labels. The San Dieguito Type Collection *
folders' SDM-W-181 "culture" designations reiterate those of the formal site
sheet and Rogers' earlier records (correcting for terminological substitutions), B
which means that the "type" specimens were selected by Rogers in accordance with II
his pre-1958 terminology. This is confirmed by Brott's (1966) collection record
and Evemham's (1966) unpublished explanation that "Malcolm Rogers' assignment m
of artifacts to particular phases and aspects was retained without alteration." ^
But the folders' outside phase-aspect labels, stemming from Rogers' ^
1958 terminology, were used in 1965 to organize the San Dieguito Type Collection
for completing, revising, and illustrating Ancient Hunters of the Far West
(Rogers et al. 1966). What Brott should have done, but did not do, is assign
the "San Dieguito in (Southwestem Aspect)" label to all (pre-1958) material ^
indicated as "SD n," and the "San Dieguito IV (Southwestem Aspect)" label to mt
everything indicated as "SD III." Since he evidentiy misunderstood the trans-
lational changes embedded in Rogers' 1958 terminology, Brott found no consistent m
cortespondence between the phase-aspect labels in Rogers' original (pre-1958) ^
"type" specimen lists and his later (post-1958) "The San Dieguito Complex"
phase-aspect assemblage descriptions and discussions. Therefore, Ancient ^
Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966) reflects a terminological sti^c-
ture tiiat does not match phase-aspect categorizations in the San Dieguito Type •
Collection, despite an identity of labels.
A second irregularity is that the San Dieguito Type Collection's ii
nine specimens from SDM-W-181 do not fully match Rogers' circa 1929 record of
having collected "double convex knives" and "one crescent." Since Rogers is «
unlikely to have misidentified two additional crescents and two projectile ^
points as "double convex knives," these discrepancies may point to lost or
incomplete field collection records. Either seems possible, since Brott's ^
(1966) accession record lists five and possibly more collectors, in addition to
Malcolm Rogers. The participation of so many people is a good indication that •
the site was collected, and perhaps its subsurface probed on several occasions.
26
tire'ail LStent'''h?nK^^^^ Rogers' notetaking was sometimes perfunctory,
a^ter 1T45 7^ 19821 ^J"""^'^ ""'^ manuscripts were los t •J?^ 1982) There is an altemate possibility that artifacts were mistakenly Identified as SDM-W-181 specimens during 1965 work Tn the <;/n
oruZJFa^^^^^ iott' AsTxplained ty
^Lnfil.M ^ iiV infonnants, who is intimately famUiar with San Diego Museum of Man history and with die San Dieguito Type Collecti^on:
j'^g^. and had students, either workers or volun-
teers, or both, under his du-ection; but apparentiy not under his verv
close supervision. They assembled a San Dieguito Type Collection whic^
IS maintained m the records under the accession 1963-1 It incTudes
over a thousand objects, which are listed by a kind of fluctuating
typology . . . tiiere's not a whole lot of consistency in it ''""^"^'^f
don t know the rationale behind tiiat type collection. We don't' know if
Rrntl^f °u n''^''?"^ collections, Rogers' notes, Clark Brott s ideas, Clark Brott's and Davy's ideas, ... or if it's iust his
^I'Z'Vl -^"^ J^'l subjective ideas of what looked good and should be included in die San Dieguito Type Collection.
It's a very mixed bag of things, including things that are not San
Diegmto in a couple of cases. So it wasn't real close supervision,
there was one Midwestem pomt diat got into a site drawer through
mismterpretation of tiie number, and dien got selected out as a San
Dieguito specimen. So it's not really very well conti-olled.
ttn
A third inegularity concems the purportedly non-San Dieguito La
0 la specimens from SDM-W-181 and SDM-W-181-A^ As noted, Rogers' refords and
he formal sue sheet characterize SDM-W-181 as San Dieguito only witii the
lower-elevation SDM-W-181-A locus containing both San Dieguito and La Jotia
"orfoci u'idero':i^s>^''H''- """^"^-^^ ^^p^ f^*^-' -'-^^
wid^ SDM W 181 A ' designation, mention a correspondence of La Jolla II m widi SpM-\V-181-A m one folder but not die odier, and register die presence of
Thk '"n f"^^''^- ^-^^ SDM-W-181 site drawer but without locus Sctfons
I SllbergSted: " ''"^^ ^^^^^^ P--bi^i^-
«i a. Rogers or others listed in Brott's (1966) accession record mav
^ have indiscnminately added SDM-W-181 and SDM-W-181-A artifacts
to the SDM-W-181 site drawer, without preserving the provenience
^ data needed to separate them at a later date.
b. In 1965 Brott, his colleagues, or his assistants may have
combmed amfacts recovered from SDM-W-181 and SDM-W-181-A in
*" f!^^ SDM-W-181 site drawer and the San Dieguito Type Collection
mt lists, failing to preserve the provenience data and procedural
explanations needed for subsequent separation.
c. Rogers or others listed in Brott's (1966) accession record may
in fact have recovered La Jolla artifacts from SDM-W-181 and
added them to the site drawer, failing to note the discrepancy
with Rogers' charactenzation of the site as purely a San
Dieguito deposit and without preserving the provenience data
needed to document this discrepancy at a later date.
tm
mt
27
Eitiier singly or in combination, tiiese possible explanations have
discouraging consequences for any research involving comparative use of the SDM- 11
W-181 collection, especially where distinctions between San Dieguito and La
Jolla are concerned. The major consequences are: p
b. The site drawer also cannot be taken as a "pure" San Dieguito
sample, since it may contain La Jolla material from SDM-W-181.
The SDM-W-181 site drawer cannot be taken as a sample only of
that locus, since there is an unresolved possibility that it _
also contains material from SDM-W-181-A. ^
m
P
il
c. Artifacts selected from die SDM-W-181 site drawer for inclusion
in the San Dieguito Type Collection cannot be presumed San
Dieguito specimens, since the site drawer's reliability is
suspect, and there is no record of how or why particular speci-
mens were selected from that drawer.
f
In effect, the SDM-W-181 site drawer's value as an assemblage •>
sample is unknown and cannot be assessed. Therefore, die San Dieguito Type
Collection specimens from SDM-W-181 have littie value for comparative studies. p
Malcolm Rogers' characterizations of the site as pure San Dieguito can no more £
be accepted, at face value, than can Brott's (1966) identification of San
Dieguito and La Jolla components, since neither is reliably documented by the ^
Museum's collections. In addition, what Ancient Hunters of the Far West r
(Rogers et al. 1966) has to say about San Dieguito phase-aspect units cannot be
directiy linked either to the San Dieguito Type Collection or to SDM-W-181.
Thus, comprehensive excavation data from SDM-W-181 must be used to test die ^
validity of site descriptions and stmctural interpretations contained within »
the Museum's historical archives.
mt
4. Recent Studies Near SDM-W-181
nil
There have been many surveys and excavations near SDM-W-181 over the ^
past 20 years, but two projects are of particular note in connection with die
present study. The first was an excavation (Gallegos 1985) at the La Costa site
(SDM-W-945/SDi-4405) situated about 0.3 mile southwest from and on the same
ridge as the SDM-W-181/942 locality, at an elevation of 200 feet above MSL. It *
was recorded by Kaldenberg (1975). m
Gallegos' (1985) study included survey, surface collection and
mapping, posthole testing, and the excavation of 10 Ixl-meter sample units. The ^
778 surface artifacts and 917 subsurface artifacts included a crescentic,
points/knives, scrapers/planes, utilized flakes, cores, flakes/angular waste, p
manos, metates, stone bowls, and pottery. A large amount of shell, primarily
Argopecten and Chione spp., was also recovered. Three shell samples were •
radiocarbon-dated, yielding an approximate date of 7000 B.P. for the deposit.
It was concluded that the site should be considered La Jollan, although it might •
also be characterized as San Dieguito. A sense of this argument can be gained m
from part of Gallegos' (1985:Six-l) summary: •
This type of site was quite unusual as the points/knives, scraper/planes
and crescentic are usually associated with either the San Dieguito
Complex or Pauma Complex. The presence of site SDi-4405 (W-945) within ^
H
28
2 mties of SDi-603, a 7000 years old La Jolla Complex site (Crabtree et
al. 1963), suggests that site SDi-4405 (W-945) is an Inland La Jolla
Complex site and the Pauma Complex sites are, as Wamen (1961-24)
suggested, related to the coastal La JoUa Complex. The presence of San
Dieguito like tools also suggests a continuum of the San Dieguito
Complex from 8500 to 3500 [B.P.], as also documented in the nf^ly
continuous radiocarbon dates previously shown on Table 5-1.
Essentially, the foregoing suggests tiiat San Dieguito and La Jolla
may be different expressions of a single culture. Gallegos (1985-Six-l-2)
pursues this view in broader context, giving a techno-economic explanation, as
Site SDi-4405 (W-945) is not an isolated site of its type or its period.
[A] site such as A:16:7 reported by Reyna (1973), is similar but lacks
RFPOM nQ7f ?' ''""H' .1"^ ^-^^^ P^^^"^^ ^ data bases by
RECON (1976a); and W-49 (Rancho Park North) is well documented
[(Kaldenberg 1976, 1980; Kaldenberg and Ezell 1974)] but fails to
demonstrate the change in artifact classes from San Dieguito to La
Jolla, if present. It is now apparent that a complex of inland and
coastal sues were present from 8500 to 3500 years BP These sites
used die resources of Batiquitos Lagoon for shellfish and fish and the
inland resources for plant and animal foods
On die basis of radiocarbon dates taken from archaeological sites
sun-ounding Batiquitos Lagoon, we can assume that the Batiquitos area
had two major occupations. The fu-st occupation (early occupation)
encompasses a time span of 9000 to 3500 years ago. The 4cond occupa-
?,?."n)Lf^^°^^"P^^^°"^ ^^^^ ^^^^ y^^s ago to present. Site SDi-4405
{W-945) fits withm both of these occupations. The lowest levels exca-
vated identify site SDi-4405 as an inland temporary camp circa 7000
years B.P., located on a small knoll near a spring. The occupants
worked stone to create finely made large points, crescentics and
scraping tools. Milling tools, or manos and metates, were used for the
gnnding of hard seeds; and, shellfish and bone remains reflect a some-
what balanced diet of plan, shellfish and mammal foods. The late period
occupation, circa 1000 years B.P. is identified on the basis of surface
and top levels excavated. This evidence includes small points, potterv
and stone bowls. ^ ^
The second nearby project of note (Gallegos et al. 1986) was a
large-scale excavation of the six-locus Rogers Ridge Site (SDM-W-182/SDi-4845)
situated about 0.8 mile southwest from the SDM-W-181/942 locality at an eleva-
.^^.^"^^^ ^^^^ ^^^""^ ^SL. The site -was recorded by Malcolm Rogers, who
classified It as a San Dieguito II and HI, La Jolla II, and Yuman Ifl occupa-
\°^oA^^'^^'. '^""'fl^^ by Kaldenberg (1975); reevaluated by Carrillo and Bull
(1980); and tested by Gallegos, Thesken, and Carrico (1983).
Extensive radiocarbon-dating established Locus 6 as an Early Period
habitation area, circa 7000 B.P., with an overiying Late Period habitation layer
of roughly 1000 B.P. to before historic contact (Gallegos et al 1986-Five-70)
Thus, Locus 6 approximates the situation at SDM-W-181 in general age and occu-
pational history. Work at die locus included survey, surface collection and
mappmg, posthole testing, soil phosphate testing, backhoe ti-enching and the
29
p
IH
excavation of 32 1x1 -meter sample units and a 4x4-meter block exposure. This P
work defined a midden, varying 30-60 centimeters (cm) deep and notably rich to lb
about 40 cm in the area of the block, that showed evidence of rodent bunowing
throughout (Gallegos et al. 1986;Five-57). H
m
Locus 6 excavation results can be summarized from the report
(Gallegos et al. 1986;Five-57-70). Seven Late Period projectile points were
recovered, all but one of them from the block excavation. Six points came from ^
the 0-20 cm levels, and one from 20-30 cm. Four biface/knife fragments were •*
obtained from the block excavation, all of them from 10-30 cm. Three are of
local fine-grained metavolcanic material, and one is of quartz. One of these H
bifaces is nearly complete and has a leaf-shaped base that Warren (1966) asso- ||
ciates with San Dieguito occupations of about 8000-9000 B.P. Core/cobble and
flake-based toolstools, recovered almost exclusively from 0-30 cm levels, M
include 34 scraper planes, 5 choppers, and 4 composite tools among the cobble- W
core group, and 55 scrapers, 16 cutting tools, 6 composite tools, and 2 drills
among the flake-based tools. Almost all milling tools came from 0-30 cm levels
and include 19 biface manos, 8 unshaped uniface manos, 6 shaped biface manos, P
3 wedge manos, 2 shaped uniface manos, miscellaneous nondiagnostic mano frag- ll
ments, 3 bifacially worked metates, 1 unifacially worked metate, and 1 shaped
unifacially worked metate. Three Tizon Brown Ware sherds were obtained from the W
0-10 cm level of one unit. An olivella spire-lopped bead was recovered near and £
possibly in association with a human burial at the 20-30 cm level. The burial
was only partially preserved but appeared flexed and laterally placed on die ^
right side with a northem orientation; this placement, the fact of inhumation W
instead of cremation, and the interpretation of two radiocarbon dates (on shell) "
suggest the burial dates roughly 7000 B.P. Flakes/angular waste included 5
obsidian flakes that were sourced to Coso. Bone (230 grams) included P
rabbit/hare, miscellaneous rodent, squinel, deer, rattiesnake, and three types Ih
of fish. A large quantity of shell, including several types, and a few crab
claws were recovered. The substantial dominance of Argopecten over Chiont p
spp. shell suggested Early Period habitation. p
The interpretation of Locus 6 results recapitulates Gallegos' (1985) _
earlier argument that San Dieguito and La Jolla may be techno-economic pattems P
within a single cultural complex, rather than separate cultural or chronological •
units. The Locus 6 summary notes (Gallegos et al. 1986:Five-70): ^
As shown by the radiocarbon dates and supported by the presence of large p
leaf-base bifaces, a burial, Coso obsidian, and quantity and variety of
shell, site SDi-4845 (W-182), Locus 6 is an Early Period site occupied m
circa 7000 years B.P. with a light Late Period occupation overlying L
this deposit. The people who occupied this site exploited shellfish as
their primary food source supplemented with plant and animal resources
to include fish and crab. In addition to these resources, local stone f
was worked to provide a wide range of tools for cutting, scraping, •
drilling, chopping, hammering and milling. These people buried their
dead (inhumation) with few, if any, grave goods. Locus 6 provides new V
information to understand the interface between what had been thought to H
be two separate and distinct peoples (San Dieguito and La Jolla). The
evidence from SDi-4845 (W-182) supports the hypothesis of one continuous p
occupation of the Batiquitos region by one people from 8280 to 3500
years B.P. (GaUegos 1985).
30
Mixed withm the top levels (0-20 cm) of Locus 6 are Late Period
artifacts (points and pottery). The presence of these materials iden-
tifies a Late Perios occupation circa 1000 years B.P. to before historic
contact overiying and mixed into the upper portion of tiiis Early Period
7,000 year old habitation site.
Some important general conclusions can be absti-acted from the Rogers
Ridge study (Gallegos et al. 1986) as a whole. Aside from exploratory probing
at two surficial loci, the excavation of three Late Period loci, and one dated
to the Early Period (Locus 6) demonsti-ated slow-paced change in material culture
inventories and subsistence-settiement strategies over a span of nearly 7,000
years. Overall, change in material culture appears to have been conservative,
with technology remaining sufficientiy diversified to permit fiexible exploita-
tion of complex environmental settings along the shore, in coastal lagoons, on
littoral plateaus, witiiin near-coastal valleys, and ranging farther inland
toward tiie deep interior valleys and mountains. In the face of relatively minor
climatic change over tiie last 10,000 years, probably the most significant
environmental developments were a "rise in sea level to create deep productive
lagoons circa 8,000 years ago . . . [and] the filling of these lagoons with
siltation circa 3,500 years ago" (Gallegos et al. 1986:Six-20). It remains
unresolved, a culture dominated by "San Dieguito" pattems gradually came to be
dominated by "La Jolla" pattems, if not the other way around; or perhaps both
pattems were always present, but in a particular balance reflecting the natural
setting unique to any given place and time.
5. Recent Studies at SDM-W-181
There is no record of archaeological work at SDM-W-181 between about
1958-1966 and RECON's recent survey of La CoSta Town Center (Whitehouse and
Cheever 1990), which identified three previously recorded sites: SDM-W-181 (no
state trinomial), SDM-W-940 (SDi-4402), and SDM-W-942 (SDi-8697). Despite
problems widi locally heavy ground cover, each site's boundaries were approxi-
niated and a preliminary inventory was taken of the surface artifacts. Suffi-
cient _ background research was done to outline the potential historical and
scientific importance of the sites.
A fragmentary, green metavolcanic crescent was collected from tiie
surface at SDM-W-181, which was also noted to contain metavolcanic and quartz
flakes, cores, scrapers, ceramics, and both Chione and Argopecten spp. shell
(Whitehouse and Cheever 1990:8), but no manos or metates. Site SDM-W-942
(possibly Rogers' SDM-W-181-A, as noted above) was described as containing
metavolcanic flakes, a scraper, a core, and shellfish remains distiibuted across
a surface lying southwest of and possibly contiguous to SDM-W-181 (Whitehouse
and Cheever 1990:8). Only the westem fringe of SDM-W-940 was found to extend
on-property, and this area was described as containing a scraper, two flakes,
and a few Chione sp. shell fragments (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990:8). Shovel
test pits and standard 1 x 1 -meter sample units were recommended at all three
sites in order to permit evaluation of their "archaeoiogicai importance" under
CEQA and the draft Carlsbad Guidelines (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990:10-12).
Tlie La Costa Town Center sites were subsequentiy test-excavated by
MacMillan Davis and Dayle Cheever (1991). The Phase I research design focused
on defining each site's stioicture, contents, and preservation. An interpretive
framework was developed for evaluating each site's utility in testing altemate
31
explanatory paradigms by obtaining and analyzing robust, well-provenienced
surface, and subsurface samples. It was concluded that SDM-W-181 had a poten-
tial for "archaeological importance" which could only be fully assessed on die
basis of Phase fl testing.
Phase I fieldwork at SDM-W-181 (Davis and Cheever 1991) included
surface reconnaissance witii detailed mapping and artifact collection; excavation
of 26 STPs; and excavation of 10 Ixl-meter sample units in areas of high surface
artifact density with positive STPs. In the course of excavation, Unit 9 was
expanded mto a 2.5 m^ area to fully recover a well-preserved hearth containing
fu-e-affected rocks, charcoal, carbonized soil, and mostiy burned marine shell
(Davis and Cheever 1991:8). Two shell samples and one of sediment were
submitted to Beta Analytic for radiocarbon dating, yielding an approximate date
of 5400 B.P.
The Phase I test also included a review of the San Diego Museum of
Man's site drawer collection for SDM-W-181, including those artifacts listed in
tiie San Dieguito Type Collection. All artifacts were cataloged witii RECON's
standard laboratory procedures, and a few were photographed or illusti-ated
Flaked lithic artifacts in the San Dieguito Type Collection "include a blade a
concave-convex scraper, a beaked scraper, a domed discoidal scraper, a leaf-
shaped projectile point, and a crescentic" (Davis and Cheever 1991:6). A
preliminary review of associated archives indicated that some of these specimens
came from a limited excavation at the site. The crescentic was identified as
"unusual in that it was one of only two found by Rogers in a subsurface prove-
nience. The second was recovered from SDM-W-198 (SDi-149), the Harris site"
(Davis and Cheever 1991:6)
Results of the Phase I study at SDM-W-181 were startling and
challenging, but overall inconclusive, as indicated by the following Quote from
Davis and Cheever (1991:18):
Although the amount of data recovered by Phase I testing was limited,
certain characteristics of the assemblage at SDM-W-181 stand out. First
and foremost, is the sti-ong resemblance of the FLAs (including a
crescentic) to those earlier identified witii the San Dieguito Complex
(Rogers et al. 1966). The next significant aspect of the assemblage, is
the discovery of a portable milling stone well below any possible
historic disturbance and in close association with a lens of bumed
shell. These two observations appear contradictory, since crescentics
and finely made percussion bifaces are the hallmark of tiie San Dieguito
Complex, and shell lenses and portable milUngstones are equally indic-
ative of the La Jolla Complex. The only valid general conclusion from
this circumstance, is that this site deserves further study.
The Phase I data suggested several issues, which Davis and Cheever
(1991:18,20) formulated into three broad topics:
1. What geologic and anthropogenic processes have affected the cultural
deposit from the time of its establishment (if San Dieguito, then more
than 7,000 years ago) to the present (e.g., is the deposit stratigraph-
ically intact)?
32
The discovery of the rock-bounded, bumed shell lens in Unit 25 NW [Unit
9] . • . at a depth of 25 to 40 centimeters below die surface, argues
sti-ongly that the cultural material is an intact deposit. Within this
hearth feature, intact valves of Pecten spp. were observed to be
stacked spoon-fashion. It is considered highly unlikely that the shells
could have remained whole and in constant orientation, while migrating
downward under the impetus of bioturbational forces.
2. Are die San Dieguito and La Jolla Complex archaeologicaily distinct
at SDM-W-181? If not, are tiiere explanations which could reconcile tiiis
apparent inconsistency between data from SDM-W-181 and the Harris site
(SDM-W-198, SDi-149), where a sterile layer has been interpreted as an
occupational hiatus (Warten 1966)? At the Rancho Park Nortii site A
(SDM-W-49) (Kaldenberg and Ezell 1974, Kalbenberg 1976), deposits
interpreted as having elements of both San Dieguito and La Jolla Complex
materials blended with no intermission.
These questions are fueled by the discovery of a incomplete percussion
biface (artifact catalog #237-603) that is stiongly reminiscent of the
illustrations in Rogers et al. (1966), in apparent association with a
fractured cobble chopper (artifact catalog #237-595) of the sort
commonly associated with the La Jolla Complex. Both of these artifacts
occurred at approximately 40 centimeters below the surface and in
possible association with the feature composed of bumed shell, carbon-
ized soil, and charcoal. Two samples of shell and one of [charcoal-
rich] sediment from this feature were submitted to Beta Analytic
Laboratories for C'4 dating, with a resulting date of approximately
5,400 B.P. for die feature (Attachment 1).
3. What is the relationship of SDM-W-181 to large excavated sites in
the vicinity, which lie along the same drainage system as SDM-W-181?
The Rogers Ridge site, SDM-W-182 (SDi-4845), is located less dian one
mile southwest of SDM-W-181. Shell material at tiiis site was dated
6,900 +/- 90 years B.P. (Gallegos 1986:D-7). The La Costa site, SDM-W-
945 (SDi-4405), is less than half a mile away from SDM-W-181 in the same
direction. Here, a date of 7,070 +1- 100 years B.P. was obtained from a
shell sample at the 30 to 40 centimeter level (Gallegos 1985:B-2). The
Rancho Park North site A, SDM-W-49, lies slightiy more than two miles
southwest of SDM-W-181. Radiocarbon dates obtained from this site place
the preceramic component at circa 8,100 B.P. (six dates) (Kaldenberg
1976:320). All of these sites have yielded artifacts and features which
have been taken as indicative of a La Jolla Complex component dating
between 7,000 and 8,000 B.P.
Davis and Cheever (1991) determined that additional data would be
needed to fully address these research topics. Their summary (Davis and Cheever
1991:20) reiterates that:
. . . evidence of two material culture assemblages, formerly considered
characteristic of distinct archaeological cultures, appear to be
combined in situ at W-181. The finely crafted bifaces and crescentic,
alone, would define a San Dieguito Complex occupation, and the cmde
cobble-chopper, millingstone, and shell lens would define a La Jolla
Complex assemblage. With no indications of disturbance to the deposit
33
at the depth from which diis conti-adictory information was obtained it
IS clear that additional investigations could yield data to address this
important issue.
In general, judging from the range of artifacts recovered during the
Phase I test, it appears that SDM-W-181 was a residential base
Identification of specific activities, temporal assignment, and rela-
tionship to other sites in the area are problems which deserve further
investigation.
Davis and Cheever (1991:24-25) evaluated SDM-W-181 as possiblv being
an important archaeological resource" because;
[it] appears, on die basis of Phase I results, to contain information
potentially useful in addressing at least three specific archaeological
research questions:
1. Does SDM-W-181 contain archaeological evidence of a ti-ansition from
tiie San Dieguito assemblage to the La Jolla assemblage?
SDM^ 181?^^^ "classic" assemblage descriptions applicable to
3. Does SDM-W-181 fit with the other archaeological evidence for the
greater Batiquitos Lagoon area, indicating either cultural change or
different ecological adaptations?
Since addressing these questions was considered preconditional to
adequately evaluating the site's importance, Davis and Cheever (1991:25) recom-
mended a Phase II study comprised of six tasks:
1. Research of existing reports and collections to allow syntiiesis of
prior excavations with data recovered during the current project.
2. Excavate 16 additional 1-x-l meter test units.
3. Five 5-X-5 meter surface scrapes, as necessary, to recover
additional artifacts from the surface of the site.
4. Conduct pregrade monitoring of die mechanical removal of soil from
the site to detect and photodocument any additional features which may
be revealed.
5. Perform laboratory analysis, photo, and graphic documentation of the
recovered data.
6. Prepare a comprehensive technical report (Phase II).
Some explanation of these tasks is necessary. Relative to die
first, it was thought that the site's research potential could in part be
evaluated by comparing the Phase I and II artifact assemblage with materials in
the SDM-W-181 site drawer at the San Diego Museum of Man, including those which
are listed within the San Dieguito Type Collection. These collections were
34
considered useful and representative, because only preliminary archival research
was conducted in Phase I.
The excavation of 16 additional units was intended to obtain a more
robust sample and accomplish several otiier objectives, among which the discovery
and excavation of well-preserved hearths with associated artifacts was perhaps
foremost in importance. Hearth organics could be radiocarbon-dated, thus,
providing temporal control over the material culture. It was hoped that "living
surfaces" or discrete activity areas might also be encountered. In addition,
the units were directed toward a recognized need for better control over the
site's stmcture and causal processes of formation and transformation.
Performing the five surface scrapes was conceived as a simple
measure for use in areas with high surface artifact density. It was hoped that
shallow surface-scraping might help to determine whether or not features lay
just beneath the surface. If encountered, these could be explored with greater
control by the placement of standard sample units.
Pregrade monitoring was conceived in the same way as shovel scrapes,
save that the work would be accomplished mechanically rather than by hand. It
was particularly hoped that this larger scale probing would reveal features,
such as hearths, for more detailed sampling. In addition, it was recognized
that mechanical excavation might provide opportunities for gaining control over
formative and transformational processes implicated in the site's stmcture,
distribution of artifacts, and relative preservation.
A point involving the final two tasks, and the Phase fl plan as a
whole, is that Davis and Cheever (1991) believed tiie site had well-preserved
stratigraphy. The Phase I sample units had exposed relatively distinct, physi-
cal strata across the site. Few rodent bunows or krotovina had been observed
in these units, and "a portable milling stone [was discovered] well below any
possible historic disturbance and in close association with a lens of bumed
shell [unit 9/9A/9B hearth]" (Davis and Cheever 1991:18). Furthemiore, tiie
hearth's stiructural integrity suggested that "the cultural material is an intact
deposit .... It is considered unlikely that the shells could have remained
whole and in constant orientation, while migrating downward under the impetus of
bioturbational forces" (Davis and Cheever 1991:18). Thus, it was fully antici-
pated that Phase II would permit direct testing of Malcolm Rogers' site inter-
pretation, the region's traditional cultural chronology, and competing
functional or economic explanations.
35
m. RESEARCH DESIGN
The Phase fl program experienced a change of leadership when field and
laboratory work were about 75 percent complete. Associated changes are noted
below, in describing the Phase II research plan and its implementation.
A. PHASE n RESEARCH PLAN
The Phase D research plan was initially a restatement of specifications
in the Phase I report (Davis and Cheever 1991:25). Program objectives were to
obtain an additional sample, witii good spatial and temporal conti-ols over
sti-atigraphy, feature occurrence, and artifact distiibution, for addressing key
research topics. These topics were defined by Davis and Cheever (1991-25) as
follows. '
1. Does SDM-W-181 contain archaeological evidence of a ti-ansition from
the San Dieguito assemblage to the La Jolla assemblage?
2. Are either of the "classic" assemblage descriptions applicable to
SDM-W-181? ^ ^
3. Does SDM-W-181 fit with the otiier archaeological evidence for the
greater Batiquitos Lagoon area, indicating eitiier cultural change or
different ecological adaptations?
Based on Phase I results, it was assumed that the site had a well-preserved
sti-atigraphic stiiicmre and contained several stiucttirally intact features with
associated artifacts (e.g., heartiis, living surfaces, and discrete activity
areas). These assumptions guided operationalization of the initial design.
A sti-ategic decision was to focus Phase II testing within the centi-al
ndgetop area, where Phase I testing had encountered tiie highest surface and
subsurface artifact densities, the majority of functionally or culturally diag-
nostic tools, the deepest artifact-bearing deposits, and the stiiicturally intact
Unit 9 hearth. Several units were allocated for contiguous placement, forming
two lx4-meter trenches to facilitate feature detection, stratigraphic delinea-
tion, and overall sample enlargement. The other units were held in reserve,
either for use in forming additional tienches or for separate placement to
further increase sample size. Five manual surface scrapes and pregrade
monitoring (mechanical stiipping) were projected for use in added feature-
hunting. Standard laboratory processing and analysis of Phase II artifacts was
envisioned, with the added objective of direct comparison with data from Phase I
analysis of SDM-W-181 artifacts at the San Diego Museum of Man. Integration of
Phase fl with Phase I results was to be generally inductive, but statistical
analysis of data subsets from both phases was held as an option.
When Hanna assumed direction of the Phase II program, no hearths, living
surfaces, or discrete activity areas had yet been encountered. The trenches had
revealed more extensive rodent burtowing than was detected in Phase 1, and
highlighted some umesolved issues in sti-atigraphic interpretation. Among ' these
were:
I. No geologically recent formation process was known to explain
the two uppermost artifact-bearing sti-ata, which are sedimentary
36
and contain large amounts of clay, but lie at the top of a
narrow, isolated ridge.
2. No explanation was known to account for a generalized band of
white speckles in the base of the second, and occasionally the
top of the third stratum below surface.
3. No basis was available for selecting either of two explanations
for the stiiicturally intact unit 9/9A/9B hearth's basal posi-
tion. Either it was constmcted in a deep pit that was subse-
quentiy filled with sediment by man or nature, or it was
constmcted in a shallow pit that was subsequently filled and
then migrating downward due to natural processes. A puzzling
clue was die absence of a pit outiine in unit plan views and
wall profiles.
Dr. Patrick L. Abbott was consulted on these issues (see Section H.A).
His examination of the strata in open trenches and units resulted in their
identification as mid-Eocene tidal lagoon sediments, far older than any possible
human presence. The white speckles were identified as probably being natural
lime motties. Abbott noted that soil development was minimal, with no tme A
horizon present, and indicated slope wash and slump/sliding as the principal
factors in redistributing sediments off the ridgetop. He was unable to defi-
nitely favor either explanation for the hearth's basal position, in part because
Unit 9 was backfilled and only an exposure about three meters away could be
viewed. Abbott did not know if rodent disturbance could result in the downward
migration of such a large feature without destroying its stmctural integrity,
and doubted that shrink/swell alone would be a viable explanation. He felt that
faunalturbation and shrink/swell in combination might exert such effects, and in
any case would probably have eradicated pit outiines. Abbott urged that a
single set of mechanisms was needed to account for the site's formational
history and contemporary stmcture.
Abbott's field visit was a watershed that forced changes in the Phase II
research approach. Since SDM-W-181 could not be a built-up deposit (what
Malcolm Rogers termed a "highland accretion midden), it became necessary to
explain the introduction of archaeological surface materials into subsurface
context. Identification of the stratigraphy as noncultural implied that stan-
dard modes of archaeological interpretation would be inappropriate. It also
suggested that die site's research potential might lie in our ability to explain
the influence of naturally formed artifact/ecofact distributions on prior
interpretations regarding its cultural history.
The balance of Phase II fieldwork was therefore revised to permit
formulation and testing of noncultural explanations for the spatial distribution
of cultural material by type and frequency. This entailed placing two standard
sampling units outside the central ridgetop area, deleting surface scrapes to
increase pregrade monitoring (mechanical stripping) along the ridge, and placing
three more units within the stiipped areas to explore artifact and/or shell
concenti-ations. A related change in post-field aspects of the Phase fl program
placed added emphasis on historical and archival research in order to detail die
results of prior SDM-W-181 studies, obtain provenience data for artifacts in the
San Diego Museum's SDM-W-181 collection, and characterize that collection's
suitability for comparative use. The original plan for relating such material
37
to regional chronologies and areal syntheses, as a means of evaluating die
site's potential for testing altemate models of prehistory, remained in place
However, the onentation was modified in that past and present methods of
interpreting field observations to butid explanatory models became more impor-
tant than model-testing per se.
The new Phase D approach dictated an analytical assault on the mechan-
ics of sue fonnation. With the advice of Martin A. Rosen (Califomia Depart-
ment of Transportation) and James D. Eighmey (RECON), a body of relevant
published literature was identified and reviewed. The most useful sources were
Eriandson (1984), Bocek (1986), and Schiffer (1987). Special analyses, based on
this literature, requu-ed combining Phase I and Phase fl data, which formally
synthesized both studies.
The research plan's ultimate elaboration was affected by several
considerations, including the results of historical and archival studies It
was discovered that the San Diego Museum's SDM-W-181 artifact collection (and
San Dieguito Type Collection specimens from it) may be unreliably provenienced
to the site, while the collection lacks inti-asite proveniences. Archival docu-
ments and publications provide littie direct linkage between past methods,
observations, and interpretations of die site. Therefore, original plans to use
the Phase I analysis of Museum specimens for statistical comparison witii Phase I
and n results were abandoned.
Phase I and II sampling sti-ategies also affected the research plan's
final elaboration, since they limited the types of data analysis diat could be
employed. Because Phase I surface and STP samples were nonprobabilistic,
incompletely provenienced, and not directiy relatable to unit samples by any
known algoritiim, they could not be statistically analyzed in conjunction with
unit-level data. An added difficulty resulted from the nonprobablistic place-
ment of Phase I and fl units in accordance with both arbitrary alignment-inter-
val and intuitive-judgemental systems; furthermore, some units were of varying
sizps and shapes. These factors complicated any assumption regarding sample
reliability and representativeness. Therefore, statistical measures of associ-
ation, covariance, or significance would be inappropriate.
Another consideration involved frequency distributions within the data
set. Even after combining Phase I and Phase II data, the artifact sample proved
unexpectedly small, heavily dominated by debitage, and beset with low frequen-
cies in other artifact categories. Analytical consequences of these low
frequencies were accentuated by three factors: (1) incompatibilities between
STP, surface collection, and unit-level data; (2) the need to segregate units
within mechanically sti^pped areas, since they were begun below surface and
their levels therefore are not equatable to otiier units; and (3) a restiiction
on which units could be used in studies of setting-sensitive natural processes.
The restriction on usable units stemmed from a partial solution to some
limitations that have already been noted. Namely, Phase I and II units in the
ridgetop area were equated, and their data organized as unit-level totals for
comparison with data distiibutions exhibited by the total site sample, summated
site-level inventories, and units selected to individually exemplify particular
natural settings. This solution was adequate to access vertical stmcturing in
the distiibution of cultural debris at SDM-W-181, particularly within the key
ridgetop area. However, a widely appreciated weakness of any such approach is
38
c
c
c
that interzonal comparisons can at best formulate pattem similarities and
differences as general ti-ends, tiie validity of which may be affected by zone
definitions in ways that arc difficult to detect. These weaknesses had only
minor impact on the present study, since vertical stiiicmring is of primary
interest, and the single zone is readily defmed as uniquely different from
other parts of the site. It is also notable that the limitations due to
sampling procedures and sample characteristics precluded more reliable access
to horizontai patteming.
B. FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS
This presentation focuses on the Phase II program but summarizes Phase I
strategies, since Phase I data were incorporated for several analyses. A
discussion of Phase I methods can also be found in the Phase I report (Davis and
Cheever 1991:8, Attachment 2).
1. Field
The rationale of Phase I fieldwork can be readily summarized.
Figure 3 shows the mapped surface collection loci (2-meter diameter circles),
which were opportunistically placed during intensive surface reconnaissance.
Figure 3 does not show unprovenienced surface collections, which focused on the
ridgetop area and comprise about 10 percent of the non-unit surface inventory.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of 26 STPs (each about 30 centimeters in diame-
ter) along three alignments. Six STPs were placed at 10-meter intervals on an
aUgnment that was extended northwest from the site datum to define subsurface
artifact distributions in the ridgetop area. STP intervals varied along the
north-south and westward-extend ing alignments, which were selected to detect
subsurface deposits and possibly define natural factors affecting their
distribution.
The influence of surface collection and STP results on Phase I unit
placement is also suggested by Figure 4. Because high surface and subsurface
artifact densities were documented along the ridgetop, six standard 1x1 -meter
sampling units (2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) were placed at 10-meter intervals along
the northwest STP alignment, with a 5-meter offset from the STPs. When unit 9
revealed a stmcturally intact hearth, it was expanded (units 9A and 9B) into a
2.5 area for the feature's complete removal. Units 1 and 3 were placed at 5-
meter intervals northeast of the site datum, at a 90 degree angle to the north-
west STP/unit alignment, for further testing of the ridgetop area. Two others
(units 4 and 10) were placed outside the ridgetop area, at locations selected to
test die influence of slope wash and slump/slide effects on the site's physical
stmcture. Unit 10 proved sterile.
Phase n fieldwork is depicted in Figure 5, which includes the
Phase I units for reference. Phase II units are denoted by a T prefix. With
three exceptions, excavation began at the surface and continued well into ster-
ile sediment. Units TIA and T2B measured 1x2 meters and together formed a 1x4-
meter trench exposure. Units T2A, T2B, T2C, and T2D measured 1x1 meters and
together formed another lx4-meter u-ench. Units T3 through T9 were standard
Ixl-meter sampling units. Of these, units T7, T8, and T9 were situated witiiin
mechanically stripped areas; although their top elevations below datum were
recorded, their levels do not match the other units.
39
II i I II II 111 11 IIII 11 11 I ] II lllllllllll
FIGURE 5. PHASE I AND PHASE 11 EXCAVATION UNITS AT
SDM-W-181
fl-2212A 9/gi
It will be seen in Figure 5 that the two Phase D tienches were
located very near umt 9 (Phase I). This placement had the objective of testing
for the presence of other features or special activity areas associated witii die
Unit 9 hearth. Unit T3 was also placed nearby, botii as a feature-hunting
procedure and to increase sample size. A few meters to tiie east and near unit 5
(Phase I), unit T4 was situated over a slab metate to expose a possible feature
and increase sample size. All of these units are considered part of a single
zone for many of the special analyses. Its Phase I members are units 1 2 3
5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (including extensions 9A and 9B), while its Phase B rnembers
are units TIA, TIB, T2A,T2B,T2C,T2D,T3, and T4. memoers
Two Phase n units were judgmentally placed outside of the centi-al
ndgetop zone. Unit T5 was situated to bisect a dark soil stain exposed bv
tiowelling early m Phase H; the stain proved to be natural, but T5 exemplifies
slope wash and possibly slump/slide effects immediately below an area that
produced many surface artifacts but littie subsurface material in Phase I
Unit T6 was placed at a level spot in the approximate center of a distinctive
bench-ldce formation, on tiie ridge's steep southeastern slope, that Dr Abbott
identified as a well-preserved Holocene slump typical of mid-Eocene sediments in
tiie region. This unit documents slump/slide effects on the spatial distiibution
of sediment contents, mcluding cultural debris presumably washed down from die
overiying ridgetop. A similar case, unit 4 (Phase I) was sittiated well below
the ndgetop on a steep south-facing slope. It is intermediate to units T5 and
T6 in exemplifying slope wash and slump/slide effects.
The placement of units T7, T8, and T9 should be understood in rela-
tion to pregrade monitonng (mechanical stiipping) of the two circa 10-meter-
wide areas shown m Figure 5. Mr. Gene Hicks perfonned the stripping, which was
monitored by David Hanna and two to three other archaeologists at all times A
six-foot-wide bobcat bucket was used to remove 3- to 5-centimeter thick stiips
of sediment, from the surface down into the sterile tiiird sti-atum (Dr Abbott's
fine sandy mudstone"). Work in the medial stiatum (Abbott's "brown mudstone
nch in expandable clays") exposed die tops of tiiree apparent concenti-ations of
cultural debris; each was isolated from further stiipping and tested with a
standard Ixl-meter unit. Unit TV revealed diat a possible shell concenti-ation
was just a krotovina. The possible shell concenti-ation tested witii unit T8 was
identified as material derived from the unit 9/9A/9B hearth's margin. Unit T9's
apparent concenti^tion of fire-affected rock, sheU, and debitage merely
recapitulated the middle and basal excavation levels of nearby units 1 5 8
and T4. . . »
As in the preceding phase, all Phase II units were excavated in 10-
centimeter levels and screened tiirough one-eighth-hardware cloth All Phase I
units and Phase II units lA, IB, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 3 employed the "contour-
method for level measurement. To aid the discrimination of possible slope-
related effects. Phase fl units 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 used the "horizonul"
method of measunng levels from the elevationally highest comer. Stimdard
unit-level record forms were completed for all units, witii floor plans as
needed. Site stiiicture, as visually exposed by Phase D ti-enches and units, was
heavily documented with detailed drawings and color photographs of walls and
floors. In addition, two ti-ansectional profiles created by mechanical stiipping
were color photographed. All photography was preceded by manual scraping
bmshing, and water-misting of the surfaces to be documented.
42 m
m
2. Laboratory
Phase n laboratory processing was handled in exactiy the same way
as Phase I. All recovered materials were ti-ansported to the RECON laboratory
for cleaning, cataloging, and analysis. Cleaning was performed with water and
soft bmshes where it was safe to do so; otiierwise, dry-bmshing procedures were
used. Cataloging involved an initial segregation of cultur2 materials into
flaked Uthic artifact, lithic debitage, ground stone, ceramic, and shell
classes within individual unit-level proveniences. These were then cross-
checked with field records for inventory conti-ol, and die general descriptive
information added to a master catalog sheet with categories for catalog number,
locus, unit, level, type, field designation, analysis sheet, and notes. Each
unit-level-class group then proceeded to the analysis stage, in which a number
of attributes were recorded onto special sheets. Analysis was by unit-level
bulk for lithic debitage, sheU, and ceramic classes, but by individual specimen
for the flaked Uthic artifact and ground stone. The completed master catalog
and analysis sheets were cross-checked and ultimately entered to the RECON
electronic data base for later summarization and other manipulation.
a. Artifact Analvses
1) Flaked Lithic Tool Categories. Two basic systems were used
for the analysis of flaked Uthic tools. The primary classificatory system was
based on generally accepted morphological groups of general tool forms, produc-
tion base, and use-wear. Operational definitions for artifact class are
provided, below. Additional descriptive classification for litiiic tools was
provided by tiie NEDEs (Non-contiguous Exclusive Damage Events) recording system
(Attachment 2).
a) Core. Cores are defined as any lithic material from
which two or more flakes have been removed, and which does not show obvious
signs of use-wear. Cores are exclusive of other artifact classes. Cores are
subgrouped by the number of striking platforms and the direction of flake
removal. The inferred function is that of a debitage source for immediate use
or further reduction.
b) Scraper. This category includes primarily unifacially.
and sometimes bifacially flaked stone tools with obUque {>40°) working edges
showing evidence of use or retouch. Scrapers can include other artifact types,
such as cores, that may have been used for scraping or abrading. The inferred
function is scraping animal or vegetable materials.
c) Chopper. Consisting primarily , of bifacially worked
tools, choppers have thick bodies and steep cutting edges. They sometimes show
evidence of abrasion or battering. Choppers are often made of recycled or
opportunistically used cores. The inferted function is heavy cutting activities
that require a tool of large mass with a durable edge.
d) Knife. Bifacially worked tools have acute (<40o) work-
ing edges, with or without use-wear. Knives usually either have the potential
of being hafted, or are backed for unhafted use. The infened function is that
of light-duty or precision cutting.
43
e) Hammer. As the name implies, these tools exhibit a
large arnount of battenng and cmshing along exposed edges. Hammers are not
necessanly shaped by intentional flake removal, though they may be recycled
tools or tool fragments. Hammers are, therefore, identified by use-wear and not
morphology per se. The inferted function is that of an indenter, usually in
the manufacmre of flaked lithic tools. ^
^ , . ^. , P P^Q-igctile Point. This artifact group includes any
flaked lithic tool that has hafting elements, a distinct body, cutting edges
and a tip that would allow peneu-ation of animal bodies when used as an anow'
spear, or adati dart point. The group often overlaps the knives category and
then- division is basically subjective. The name describes the inferted
runction.
g) Utilized Flake. An essentiaUy unmodified flake showing
use-wear along one or more edges is considered utilized. The inferted function
is opportunistic cutting or scraping.
h) Modified Flake. This group includes members of the
debitage category that exhibit sUght or partial retouch along one lateral edge
Modified flakes are exclusive of other tool categories and represent tiie
simplest modified tool class. The infened function is low-investinent cutting
or scraping. ^
i) Drill. Drills are generally small, bifacially worked
tools with backs or hafting elements. The working edges show altemate flaking
pattems or use-wear. The name implies the inferted function.
j) Crescentic. This is an unique class of artifacts
consisting of bifacially flaked objects witii a generally crescent shape
Although their function is unknown, they often exhibit apparent hafting elements
on die convex side. These artifacts are associated witii Archaic Period sites
(Westem Litiiic Co-ti-adition, Pluvial Lakes Tradition) attiibuted to die San
Dieguito Complex.
k) Blank. Tool blanks, also known as preforms, are large
and irregular bifaces lacking marginal retouch or use-wear. Blanks are associ-
ated widi intermediate stages in tool production, particularly biface reduction
This category is exclusive of other categories.
1) Combination Tool. This group includes ail tools that
exhibu multiple primary functions or multiple edge forms. This does not
include reworked tools, but only those items whose edges indicate use or modi-
fication in two categories (e.g., chopper/hammer).
2) Debitage Categories. Lithic debris was analyzed using a
system developed at RECON (see Attachment *), which descriptively differenti-
ates debitage types and attempts to infer the manufacturing processes that
produced them (see Norwood, Bull, and Rosenthal 1981; Hector 1984). The term
"debitage" encompasses all nontool by-products of lithic tool production
including both flakes and shatter.
a) Flake. This is any piece of debitage that possesses (in
original form) a stiiking platform, distinct lateral and distal edges, a bulb of
44
w
•i
percussion, and dorsal/ventral surfaces. Incomplete flakes must show evidence
of having possessed these features.
b) Shatter. Also called "angular waste," this category
includes all nonflake debitage.
3) Ground Stone Categories. In addition to the attribute
categories Usted in Attachment 2, ground stone artifacts were grouped according
to the following general morphological classification.
a) Mano. Manos are small, cobble-based artifacts that
exhibit grinding or polishing on one or more surfaces.
b) Pestie. These artifacts are generally oblong or cylin-
drical, and exhibit polishing or grinding on the proximal and/or distal
extremities.
c) Slab. These portable stone artifacts have at least one
flat to slightiy concave surface that exhibits grinding or polishing.
d) Basin. Similar to a slab, a basin exhibits more
pronounced depression of the working surface. This may indicate long use, or
preliminary shaping by pecking.
e) Bowl. Bowls are ground or pecked stone artifacts that
have deep central depressions, coupled with a smooth and uniform exterior
surface. Although these items may have been used as storage devices, they were
also used and perhaps formed as grinding surfaces.
b. Ecofact Analyses
1) Shellfish Classification. All shellfish remains were sepa-
rated by genus, with eight of the most common genera in San Diego County sites
recorded separately. Extraneous genera and/or species were grouped in tiie
miscellaneous category. Total weights were recorded for each category per
sampling locus, e.g.. unit-level or feature. No special studies were conducted
on the shell.
2) Faunal Remains. All vertebrate faunal remains were divided
into bumed and unbumed subgroups, as possible classified by genera and
species, and the total weight for each subset recorded. No special studies were
conducted on the faunal remains.
c. Ancillary Studies
1) Sediments. Sediment sample series were obtained from the
walls of four Phase II units (TIA, T2, T5, and T6). Sample locations were
documented by profile drawings and photographs. Under uniform lighting condi-
tions in the lab, each sample was analysed for Munsell reading (using a Munsell
color chart book), and for grain size (microns) and shape (using an American/
Canadian Sti"atigraphic clear plastic overlay card).
2) Radiocarbon Dating. Since Phase II did not produce organic
samples that were suitable for radiocarbon dating, in either context or size.
45
only die Phase I radiocarbon date of circa 5400 B.R (three Unit 9 hearth
samples) is available for SDM-W-181.
C. ANALYSIS PROCEDITRRS
Data from the standard attiibute studies pennit a descriptive level of
analysis involving basic quantification of artifact or ecofact classes and their
distnbutions within SDM-W-181. This type of analysis can detect only large-
scale patteming, since the combined Phase I-II sample is a small percentage of
total sue volume, but these pattems play a vital research role. They may be
used to define temporal ti-ends in material culture inventories and in spatially
organized behavior. They may also be useful in identifying or intemreting
culturally significant stiiictural components, such as occupation layers and
large features. However, conti-ol over site formation processes is a necessarv
precondition to such uses of die data. ^
Site formation became a focal concem when tiie SDM-W-181 sti-ata were
identified as noncultural sediments with unanticipatedly high levels of faunal-
turbation. These factors indicated that earlier assumptions of well-preserved
cultiiral stiratigraphy were ertoneous, requiring a new approach for interpreting
Phase I and II archaeological data. A specialized form of analysis was devel-
oped to obtain conti-ol over site fonnation processes at SDM-W-181 The ratio-
nale was that identifying die effects of natural fonnation processes on site
stmcture would pemiit remaining pattems to be analyzed as cultural phenom'ena
Outlines ofthe approach can be expressed as a series of linked questions:
1. How were culuiral materials intioduced to subsurface context?
2. What processes are responsible for their vertical and horizontal
distributions?
3. Can these distiibutions be summarized as stiatigraphic pattems or trends?
4. If so, how do they relate to ti-aditional interpretations by early
archaeologists (Rogers, Brott, Wanen, ete.)?
5. What do they imply about the site's research potential for testing
ti-aditional and competing explanations of regional prehistory?
A general model of mostly noncultural fonnation for the SDM-W-181
su^urface deposits was synthesized from several sources, but with an important
ditterence: the site must originaUy have been primarily a surface deposit
whereas most published studies focus on natural disturbance at sites that had
existing subsurface components. The gist of this model is hereby presented as a
background for tiie analyses discussed in Section in.
Human ti-ampUng is a possible mechanism to explain the inti-oduction of
cultural debns to subsurface context at SDM-W-181. Numerous sources on this
topic are synthesized by Schiffer (1987:126-129, 203-204, 268, 289-290) Major
factors conti-olUng ti-ampling effects are (1) the presence and patteming of
cultural matenals on the ground surface, (2) the spatial distiibution and
intensity of tiarapling, and (3) the permeabiUty, or degree of compaction, of
the substi-ate. In a loose and sandy deposit, vertical displacements by 'foot
46
pressure have been experimentally documented up to 7-8 cm, while horizontal
displacements were documented up to 85 cm. Several smdies indicate that ti-am-
pling on a sandy substi-ate will sort artifacts by size, while ti-ampling on more
resistant substiates will reduce artifact size dirough breakage. Loose
substi-ates tend to ti-ap primary refuse, as well as lost items and ti-ampled
materials. Heavily used areas (tiails, dance grounds, ete.) may become
progressively less permeable, and most culturally deposited sediments will tend
to become more compact through time. Human excavations (graves, storage pits,
hearth pits, etc.), which are refilled by namre or man. will ultimately be
compacted by rain and tiampling. Excavations locally reduce compaction in the
short term and, whether or not the ftil material contains cultural debris,
through trampling help intioduce new surface debris to subsurface context.
Trampling effects may have been significant at SDM-W-181, due partiy to
die nature of die sediments. The tiiin upper stiamm (Abbott's "clayey sorted
fine sandstone") is a relatively permeable and sandy substrate, so it would tend
to trap primary refuse, lost items, and ti-ampled materials, possibly sorting
them by size. Since the tiiicker medial stratum (Abbott's "brown mudstone rich
in expandable clays") is semi-sandy and moderately permeable, its upper portion
may also have received cultural debris due to trampling. Pits or other excava-
tions might have extended tiampling effects farther into the medial stratum. A
potentially important factor is the large amount of clay in both upper sti-ata,
which (as observed during the heavy rains of March, 1991) become exceedingly
soft when fully saturated. At such times, ti-ampling effects might extend deeper
than when the sediments are dry; however, the sediments are readily compacted by
tiampling while drying, which would enhance reduction of artifact size through
breakage. The spatial distribution and intensity of prehistoric ti-ampling at
SDM-W-181 are difficult to estimate, but the ridgetop area is so small that no
portion can have escaped foot traffic when the site was occupied. Repeated
trampling has doubtiess occumed on the ridgetop, perhaps at varying intensities
but probably always with a fairly even spatial distribution, in the 5,400-some
years that have elapsed since constmction of the Unit 9 hearth. TrampUng
effects may have been created by cattie or other domestic animals in the
historic era, as well as by wild animals at all times, and it would be a mistake
to ignore traffic along the ridgeline's dirt roads as another source of
pressure-inti-oductions to subsurface context.
The behavior of fossorial (bunowing) rodents is a likely mechanism to
explain the presence of subsurface cultural debris at SDM-W-181. Evidence of
rodent disturbance was observed in both phase's units, especially in the Phase
II trenches. The valley pocket gopher {Thomomys bottae) and CaUfomia ground
squirtel {Spermophilus beecheyi), both prodigious bunowers, exist in the area
today and have probably been present since long before the occupation dated to
circa 5400 B.P. (see Section n.A) Since the site may have been grass-covered
at various times during that span, perhaps partiy due to human activities, it is
significant that tiie highest fossorial rodent population densities are usually
observed in grassland environments (Coupland 1979; Golley, Ryszkowski, and Sokur
1975). According to Bocek (1986:589), "Rodents are probably most destmctive to
archaeological sites under grassland vegetation."
Rodent bunowing displaces sediment constituents both vertically and
horizontally. The basic mechanisms are described by Bocek (1986:590), as
follows.
47
Archaeological deposits will ... be displaced to depths below the
onginal basal occupation layers. Rain, gravity, and ti-ampUng help to
collapse ^ and gradually fill abandoned mnnels with surface materials
These accidental displacement processes create krotovina, or filled-
in bunows, often recognizable in archaeological deposits.
In conti-ast to accidental displacemem occuning in abandoned burrows
systematic displacement results from rodent activity in occupied bun-ow
networks. The only objects canied below the surface by rodents are
plant products, either nest materials or foods . . Otherwise
rodent movement is a one-way process in which soil contents are ti-ans-
ported from underground to the surface. Given average tunnel depth
most systematic displacement occurs within 30 cm of th? surface- tiiis is
refened to ... as die "rodent zone."
nnH. t y^"^""^ '^^^"^ is "lost smdied and best
understood aspec of fossonal rodent effects. A key factor is tiinnel diameter
which aniong valley pocket gophers averages about 6 cm. This may explain one
stiidys observation that sod contents between 0.6 and 2.5 cm are more common "n
gopher backdirt than m the surrounding soil, as well as other studies Tdenti-
lORl-son^oT^'r"'- P^'^' ^^'P^'""^ S°P*^^^ ^s about 5 cm (Bocek 1986.590-591). Maximum particle size is probably somewhat greater for die CaUfomia ground squirtel. which is about 1.5 times the size of the vallev
:r?s?mmlzrb;Xe^^^ "^^"^ ^^^^^ '^^'^
;v;-^"/^^M^ ^^u^f '^"'' °' P^'^^PS 2.5 cm, are systematically
avoided. Nevertheless, the distiibution of larger soil contents is
directiy affected by rodent activity. Many fossorial rodents habimally
dig under, rather than alongside or above large objects
Extensive sod reworking slowly undermines tiiese large materials which
settle gradually into apparent "cobble beds" .... This is a classic
example of the horizonization process: large objects sink below the
rodent zone, while smaller objects are canied towards the surface.
In rodent-affected archaeological sites, the net result of vertical
displacement IS vertical sorting of artifacts by size, shape, and mass weight
(Eriandson 1984:785-790; Bocek 1986:595-601).' Light items, smalle^^ha^^Te
average tunnel diameter, will be most common at and near the surface Larger
heavier items wdl be more common near the bottom of the rodent zone SheU mav
behave somewhat differentiy (Bocek 1986:597): rodents seem to ti-ansport thinner-
lighter types less frequentiy. so they are under-represented near the surface
With no addition of sediment to the surface after site abandonment, sustained
rodent burtowing can create a "horizon" (below about 30 cm) contitining natural
cobbles, fire-affected rocks, and the larger varieties of debitage, flaked stone
tools, and ground stone tools.
Less is known about horizontal ti-ansport. The effects of vertical
transport are probably greater under most conditions and for most species since
tossonal rodents tend to create vertical tunnels as often as needed to remove
backdirt accumulations. As Bocek (1986:591) puts it, "Fossorial rodents spend
more time in honzontal tunnels, but transport materials more frequentiy - and
greater distances - in a vertical direction." An important difference between
48
41*
the two is that "vertical movement is unidirectional, and segregates materials
stiatigraphically [whereas] horizontal movement is multidirectional, and thus
homogenizes soil contents" (Bocek 1986:591).
Fossorial rodents' behavioral avoidance of raptors is linked to situa-
tions that can enhance horizontal mixing. Increased ground cover (due to vege-
tation or debris, for example) results in fewer and larger backdirt mounds,
since protected surface openings tend to be reused and fewer vertical tunnels
are therefore needed. Such behavior "will tend to escalate horizontal mixing
without reducing vertical material ti-ansport" (Bocek 1986:591). At SDM-W-181,
protected entrances might be expected around ridgetop margins because (1) die
sloping surface would probably reduce a raptor's maneuverability and hence its
threat, and (2) denser vegetation may have existed tiiere in consequence of
relative isolation from foot tiaffic, surface clearance, pit excavation, and
human use in general. Also, the site's human occupants may have used the slopes
for disposal of fecal wastes, food remains, and any manner of dangerous, incon-
venient, or annoying debris (cf Schiffer 1987:47-98), which would tend to
enrich, increase, and stabilize soils on the upper slopes, thereby promoting
vegetative growth. If protected surface openings clustered on tiie ridgetop
margins, then horizontally transported cultural debris would tend to concenti-ate
there and become available for further redistribution by tiampling, slope wash,
or slump/sliding.
It is possible to establish a scenario for the sti-atigraphy that 'will
result from different types and rates of cultural deposition at a site affected
by fossorial rodents. The following constmction is quoted from Bocek
(1986:592) for its relevance to SDM-W-181.
Consider an area newly occupied by humans. If rodent populations are
already estabUshed, a rodent zone of severely reworked soil should be
found at 0-30 cm, with a cobble horizon formed at greater depths. If
human occupation debris is deposited in sufficient quantities, site
depth wiU increase. The surface "rises" relative to bedrock, and the
rodent zone slowly rises as weU. Depending on the rate of cultural
deposition, the surface may rise too rapidly to permit the formation of
a single cobble horizon, or extensive reworking of the rodent zone.
When deposition ceases at the site, the rodent zone stabiUzes at 0-30
cm below the new surface, and a cobble horizon begins to form. The
contents of the rodent zone are continually reworked until redeposition
occurs, and the cycle is repeated. Depending upon the site's age, the
fmal rodent zone - associated with the modem surface - may be more
extensively reworked than the zones associated with buried surfaces.
A multicomponent site, with occupation layers well separated by periods
of non-cultural sediment deposition, should show evidence of multiple
rodent zones within the soil profile. Each zone would reflect an
episode of intensive rodent activity, related to a period in which
deposition did not occur. Although the presence of multiple zones can
delimit site components, the reverse is not necessarily tme; the
absence of multiple zones is not proof of single-component occupation.
Short-term, high-frequency site use might deposit a series of thin
m cultural layers, none of which significandy increases site depth. Each
49
Sti-atum would thus be too shallow to cause a visible upward shift of the
rodent zone.
Surface erosion may also be implicated in die formation of archaeologi-
cal deposits at SDM-W-181. As previously noted (Section Il.A), soil development
appears minimal in the ridgetop area, and the A horizon of Bowman's (1973) HiC
sod profile seems eitiier missing or seriously degraded. This is inconsistent
with the fact that rodent burtowing, which is amply documented at SDM-W-181
generally deepens the soil mantie. There are at least three possible
solutions:
1. An A horizon once existed at SDM-W-181, but has been recentiy
stiipped away through grading, surface erosion, or both.
2. An A horizon once existed at SDM-W-181, but was stripped away during
or after the site's use, if not botii, whenever surface erosion
exceeded sedimentation.
3. No A horizon formed at SDM-W-181. because sedimentation occuned at
or below the surface erosion rate.
There is some basis for selecting between these altematives. Grading
has occuned in association with dui roads on the ridge, but its ti-aces are
localized and shallow. On-going surface erosion appears minor on the nearly
flat ndgetop but severe on the steep marginal slopes, where surface stiipping
and slump/sliding are evident. Since the ridgetop exhibits littie topographical
distortion, recent surface stiipping has probably been fairly shallow. Thus
while some level of recent stiipping has surely occuned, the fu-st solution
appears unable to fully explain the missing A horizon.
The second and third solutions can be understood in mechanical terms.
Littie water-ti-ansported sediment can never have been deposited on tiie isolated
SDM-W-181 ridgetop, since it Ues far above nearby drainages and rises very
gentiy (about 1 to 3 percent slope) in only one direction, northwest, across
some 500 feet (152.4 m) of clayey, fme-grained sandstones and mudstones. The
ndge is also too namow to have ever experienced much aeoUan deposition On
the other hand, more significant amounts of material may have been added by
either or both of two factors: (1) natural organic deposition as the result of
biological activity in and on the substi-ate and (2) deposition of organic and
inorganic debris as the result of human activities.
If the second solution is cortect, then deposits attiibutable to these
factors will have become A horizon material whenever sedimentation exceeded
erosion for a long enough period that rodent bunowing and other pedogenic
processes could operate; however, tiie deposits will have been deflated and
removed whenever erosion exceeded sedimentation. The thkd solution requires
tiiat erosion always matched or exceeded sedimentation; otherwise, soil develop-
ment would have led to the creation of an A horizon. The existence of rodent
burtows impUes that some level of sod development did occur in the past, so
the second solution is probably best able to explain the missing A horizon.
This conclusion has important archaeological impUcations. Each episode
of human use wiU have left a ridgetop deposit of cultural debris, from which
surface erosion would sooner or later remove some of the lighter material (bone
50
m>i
m
and shell fragments, microflakes, and small shatter) and deposit them on die
marginal slopes. The type, intensity, and duration of each use wiU have
conti-olled the amount of cuimral debris deposited, but the length of time
and erosion rate between successive depositional episodes will have affected die
older deposit's deflation and displacement. Whenever mantie development was
slow or lacking, ridgetop deposits will have been thinly layered and highly
vulnerable to mixture by ti-ampling. During periods of more substantial mantie
development, the deposits will have been thicker and less deflated, but more
vulnerable to mixture by rodent bunowing ahd pit excavation.
Expectations can be stated for two altemate scenarios based on die
foregoing reconstruction. Each scenario assumes the same rates for surface
erosion and rodent bumowing over an approximately 6,000-year span, but each
reflects a different chronology of site history.
1. If site use halted at some remote date, perhaps circa 5400 B.P.,
then a single noncultural "cobble horizon" of large-heavy debris
should exist beneath the rodent zone, perhaps somewhat above 30 cm
(assurning valley pocket gophers) in consideration of surface
stripping, with tiie actual depth indicating how much sediment was
lost.
2. If site use continued (perhaps intermittentiy) since remote times,
then "horizonization" should be more complex and possibly incom-
plete, i.e., recentiy deposited large-heavy items may occur on or
near the surface, older ones wUl be at deeper levels, and a
noncultural "horizon" may be present at some intermediate deptii.
Mass-movement of sediments may also be mipUcated in the spatial
distiibution of cultural debris at SDM-W-181. Mechanisms include shrink/sweU
of clayey strata on the ridgetop and slump/sUding on die steep slopes (see
Section n.A). Both were indicated by Dr. Abbott, who identified a Holocene
slump on the ridge's soudieast face. Shrink/sweU of ridgetop sediments is
Idcely to have occasionally created vertical fissures, through which a small
amount of cuimral debris may have entered subsurface context. It may also have
helped to coUapse rodent burtows, thereby moving overlying cultural debris to
deeper levels.
Slumping and sliding differ in the suddenness with which a water-
saturated, unstable sediment collapses under varying degrees of slope. Slumping
is the more gradual process and commonly results in flow-like distortions of
pre-existing sti-atigraphy. Sliding is more precipitous and its results can vary
from the preserved stratigraphy of an elevationally dropped block, to flow-like
distortions in some parts of the formation, to total randomization and loss of
all prior stmcturing. In either a slump or sUde, the immediate archaeological
result will be some distortion of the cultural debris' prior context. Another
result, dependant upon the nature and extent of distortion, will be introduction
of this debris to some new subsurface and/or surface context. Finally, this new
context may provide an opportunity for the operation of other formation
processes.
51
rv. RESEARCH RESULTS mt
Results are presented in a four-part forniat tiiat progressively structurts
and analyses the data. Part A summarily describes the material cultiire inven-
tory ^d provides limited spatial, temporal, cuUural, and functional infonna-
tion. Part B defines the site's physical stmcture witiiin ridgetop, marginal
slope, and unstable s ope areas. Part C addresses site fonnation processes
through the analytical identification of horizontal, vertical, and cuUural
patteming. Part D concludes with a focus on archaeological dimensions of «
interpretation at SDM.W-181, including impUcations of the present study with
respect to past, present, and future research. f y ^
A MATERIAL CULTURE INVENTORY
The total material culture inventory of site SDM-W-181 is summarized in
accordance with artifact/ecofact classes. All Phase I and Phase II materials *
are included. Both a raw listing of the class constituents and more detailed
breakdowns are provided in Attachment 2. !•
Mk
1. Debitage
ip
The total amount of debitage recovered is 1,509 pieces, of which m
approximately 55 percent were recovered from the modem ground surface 42
percent from subsurface context in excavation units, and 3 percent from general r*
proveniences. The subsurface distiibution of debitage regularly declines by
level: 0-10 cm (16 percent), 10-20 cm (11 percent), 20-30 cm (7 percent) 30-40
cm (5 percent), 40-50 cm (3 percent), 50-60 cm (0 percent, 6 cases), and 60-70
cm (1 percent). tm
mt
Almost all of the debitage is distiibuted among metavolcanic
materials, including coarse-grained aphanitic (25 percent), coarse-grained
porphyntic (27 percent), fine-grained aphanitic (37 percent), and fine-grained
porphyntic (8 percent). The balance are quartz (5 cases), chert/chalcedony (33
cases), obsidian (2 cases), and miscellaneous (1 case). ^
The typological distiibution of debitage reflects generalized tool- •
production activities, in that 21 percent are Type 5 (core reduction or basic
shaping), 33 percent are Type 6 (finishing or sharpening), and 43 percent are **
iype 9 (shatter from secondary reduction). The balance are widely distiibuted «,
among Type 1 (specialized blade: 1 case), Type 2 (bifacial tiiinning flake- 3
cases), Type 3 (platform creation or cortex removal flake- 2 cases) Type 4 m
(cortex removal flake: 11 cases). Type 7 (tiimming flake: 10 cases), and Type 8
(shatter produced during primary reduction: 19 cases).
2. Raked Lithic Artifacts •
m
^^^^ ^^^^^ artifacts, 56 percent came from the surface,
jy percent from subsurface context in units, and 5 percent from general prove-
niences. Like tiie debitage, most are made of metavolcanic materials, including m
coarse-grained aphanitic (26 percent), coarse-grained porphyritic (22 percent)
fine-grained aphanitic (38 percent), and fine-grained porphyritic (6 percent)'
Ihe balance are distiibuted among quartz (3 cases), chert/ chalcedony (2 cases)
and miscellaneous (2 cases). J ^
52
H*. Special interest is found in the distribution among morphological
^ types. The most frequentiy represented are bifaces (23 percent), cores (20
" percent), unifacial scrapers (19 percent), hammers (15 percent), and utUized
^ flakes (13 percent). The balance includes 3 projectile points, 1 knife, 1
crescentic, 1 chopper, and 1 modified flake. AU of the projectile points are
*• fragmentary, cannot be assigned to any defined type, and are problematical: one
' might be described as a large, green felsite biface tip; another may be the tip
of a small, thin, green felsite projectile point or biface; and the third is a
1^ very small fragment of bifacially worked quartz crystal. The knife is made on a
^ large fiake (with extensive edge-flaking on one edge but very littie on tiie
other), shows considerable edge-rounding, and might almost be described as a
unifacial scraper. Some of the bifaces might easily have been catalogued as
knives.
F
mm
Most of the items classified as bifaces would fit within broadly
Ml defined stylistic types attributed to the San Dieguito Complex, although a few
might be considered La Jollan or even Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic. Their
function(s) are unknown, but possibiUties include use as knives, dart points,
scrapers, or ceremonial items. Some of the scrapers would fit within styUstic
types attiibuted to die San Dieguito Complex, but others are so "cmde" in
appearance that most people would either classify diem as La JoUan, Late
Prehistoric/Proto-historic. or undesignatable. Considering these tools to be
scraping implements is speculative, as they may represent various types of use
in association with animal or plant materials. The cores, hammers, and utdized
fiakes are not culturally diagnostic and might be from any time period.
'mk
Mt
m
m
m
m»
m
3. Ground Stone Artifacts
A total of 21 ground stone artifacts were recovered, including 52
percent from the surface, 29 percent from subsurface context in units, and 19
percent from general proveniences. Most are of granite (86 percent, 18 cases),
with the others of quartzite (1 case), sandstone (1 case), and misceUaneous (1
case). Almost all arc shaped (90 percent, 19 cases). The morphological types
include manos (57 percent, 12 cases), slabs (24 percent. 5 cases), and individ-
ual occurrences of pestie, basin, bowl, and misceUaneous.
The misceUaneous item's function is not understood. A medium-
grained (circa 250 microns) sandstone block measuring about 13x9 cm and 4.5 cm
thick, its flat upper surface bears three parallel grooves. Each groove is
beveled in cross section, perhaps suggesting use in sharpening or shaping an
edge on some type of item, such as a wood/bone projectile point, some other type
of tool, or a shell/stone/wood bead.
! Littie culturally diagnostic information can be gleaned from these
^ specimens. The manos could be attributed to the La Jolla Complex, Encinitas
HI Tradition, Pauma Complex, or Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic cultures. The
f same might also be said of the basin and bowl fragments, which are too small to
be of much value in any case, and the cultural affiUation(s) of slab metates
have yet to be satisfactorily worked out.
53
4. Ceramic Artifacts
A total of 13 unbumt ceramic sherds were recovered from the
surface. All are Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic period Tizon Brown Ware and
probably date no earUer than circa 750 B.P.
5. MisceUaneous Artifacts
One miscellaneous item (catalog number R237-491) was recovered from
the surface: one-half of a thin hoof or hom disc (diameter + 1.6 cm and
thickness ± 1.5 mm) with an off-center hole (diameter + 5 mm). The disk appears
to have been hand-made for several reasons, including a subrounded profile, an
uregular thickness, and imperfectiy planar surfaces. One side is notably
smoother than die other. The hole is biconical in cross section, appearing to
have been both drilled and rounded. The disk edge is slightiy uregular and
subrounded in cross section. This specimen may be part of a bead but is proba-
bly better identified as an early historic button.
6. SheU Ecofacts
Total shell recovery was 168 grams, of which 23 percent came from
the surface and 77 percent from subsurface context in units. The subsurface
distiibution defines a clear ti-end: 0-10 cm (7 percent), 10-20 cm (21 percent),
20-30 cm (30 percent), 30-40 cm (67 percent), 40-50 cm (3 percent), 50-60 cm
(4 percent), 60-70 cm (8 percent), 70-80 cm (4 percent), and 80-90 cm
(1 percent). Almost all of tiie sheU is Chione spp. (69 percent) or
Argopecten spp. (22 percent). The rest is Mytilus spp. (2 percent, 4 g) or
miscellaneous (7 percent, 11 g).
These data do not include shell from the large hearth excavated
in Units ^ 9, 9A, and 9B during Phase I. Nonlithic constituents of the hearth
were divided into two sheU samples and one sediment sample (ash, charcoal,
carbonized earth, and shell). These were sent to Beta Analytic, Inc. for
radiocarbon dating. Had this sheU been included within the unit, level, and
site samples, it would have sti-ongly skewed the data; however, this is not the
case.
7. Bone Ecofacts
One piece of unbumed bone (1.5 g) was recovered, during mechanical
Stiipping, from an approximate depth of 55 cm. It is from a small mammal but
could not be identified further.
8. Cultural Features
No cultural features were discovered in Phase fl, which means that
the only one known to exist at SDM-W-181 is tiie hearth removed from Unit 9 (with
expansions 9A and 9B). The hearth was roughly ckcular in plan view (diameter +
2 m), extended from 32-40 cm al its top to a maximum depth of about 50 cm below
the surface, and occupied a generally bowl-shaped pit. Total volume is esti-
mated at about 2 m^.
The feature contained several rocks and cobbles, of which almost
all were charred, heat-crazed, or fire-cracked. A few were scattered throughout
54
the feature, but most (perhaps 80 percent) were observed to line the base and
lower sides. About 90 percent of the feature fid (1.8 m^) was a mixture of
sheU, charcoal, ash, and carbonized sediment, of which roughly half was sheU.
Almost all of die shell was Argopecten spp., some of it bumt and mostiy
stacked in groups approximating a human handful. A small amount {circa 10-
15 percent) was Chione spp., with a very few specimens of other types. All
sediment within tiie feature was grey to grey-brown in color (with patches of
dark grey to black stain), slightiy clayey in texture, and moderately to highly
compact.
All sunounding sediment was medium brown to dark brown in color,
very clayey in texture, and extiemely compact Near the feature, it contained
occasional pieces of shell and a few artifacts. This sunounding sediment
belonged to the medial stiattim, which Dr. Abbott identified as a middle Eocene
"brown mudstone rich in expandable clays" (see Section H.A). Particular note
was taken of the feature's basal sti-atigraphy: surtounded by a mixture of "brown
mudstone" with material from the underlying "fine sandy mudstone" (white to
yellow-colored, fine-grained sand and silt), it extended about 3 cm below tiie
medial stratum.
The 30-50 cm level of units 9/9A/9B produced 6 FLAs and 13 pieces of
debitage. One biface came from a general unit-level provenience, but the hearth
fiU included 3 bifaces, 1 utilized flake, and 1 hammerstone. Debitage includes
6 for Type 1 (specialized blade flake), 4 for Type 2 (bifacial thinning flake),
and 3 for Type 3 (platform or cortex removal flake). Field records note that 6
debitage came from within the feature, although the laboratory data do not
indicate which ones.
B. PHYSICAL STRUCTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY
This discussion focuses on the composition, formation, and cultural
contents of sediments in three areas or types of setting at SDM-W-181. The
nearly flat "ridgetop" is the area where surface collection, STP testing, 18
units, and mechanical stripping documented the majority of cuUural debris. It
is represented in this analysis by ten Phase I units (1, 2, 3. 5, 6, 7 8 9
9A, and 9B) and eight Phase II units (TIA, TIB, T2A, T2B, T2C, T2D. T3, and T4)!
The "marginal slope" area, a generalized zone that surtounds and is situated
elevationally below the ridgetop, is represented in this analysis by two Phase I
units (4 and 10) and one Phase II unit (T5). The "unstable slopes" exhibit
mass-movement of sediments and include two examples at SDM-W-181: an active
^ slump associated with amoyos southwest of the ridgetop, and a Holocene slump
located southeast of and below the ridgetop. The latter is represented in this
* analysis by one Phase II umt (T6).
*• L The Ridgetop
Mi
The principal regularities of ridgetop sti^cture and sti-atigraphy
are illusti-ated by Figures 6 and 7 and Photograph 1. The figures are profile
drawings from the three walls forming one-half of one ti^nch (unit TIA), and
from one wall of another tiench (units T2A-D). The tienches were adjacent to
Phase I units 9, 9A, and 9B, where the hearth was excavated (see Figure 5). The
photographic profile shows die eastem. north-south ridgetop cross section
formed by mechanical stiipping slightly west of the tienches (see Figure 5).
The sediments are the middle Eocene deposits identified by Dr. Abbott
m
tm
it
55
EAST
1
Om .8m .Bm T.Om 1.2m t.4ai
UNIT T-1A EAST WALL PROFILE CS-WALL')
r.Sm I.am .2<n .4m .6m .8m f.Om
UNIT T-1A SOUTH WALL PROFILE CW-WALL')
NORTH
.em -Bm f.Om 1.Sm 1.4m
UNIT T-1A WEST WALL PROFILE ("N-WALL")
l.Sm l.Sm 2.0m
[•^i^,^ CL>YEV SORTED FINE 3AHDST0HE
lllllll BROWN MUDSTONE [UPPEfl SECTOR)
I ' ] BQOWN MUDSTONE ItOWER SECTOn)
[ [ nWE 3AM0Y MUOSTOHE
I'^V I LIME SPECKLES
I OKIDIZEO ORANGE/YELLOW SANDSTONE
I I SANDSTONE INCLUSIONS
|-^| LAMINATIONS
BROWN CLAY MOTt.ES
FIGURE 6. UNIT T-1 A EAST. SOUTH, AND WEST WALL PROFILES
L« li^l UmJI |W4 i—# i—I i_t i_i I—r
It rt I I t I I "* I « J I 11 >iiti fill lit II > I 11 If J
3.4m 3.em
UNIT T-2C
NORTH
FIGURE 7. WEST WALL PROFILE OF UNITS 2A, 2B. 2C. AND 2D
CLAYEY SORTED FINE SANDSTONE
BROWN MUDSTONE (UPPER SECTOR)
I j BROWN MUDSTONE (LOWER SECTOR)
[ I FINE SANDY MUDSTONE
LIME SPECKLES
R-2212A 8/at
PHOTOGRAPH 1. RIDGETOP TRANSSECTION. VIEW TO EAST
t--i r—I I—t ^—i m—m m—m
tm
m
The upper stiatum (clayey sorted fme sandstone) is discontinuously
distributed across the site, having in places been removed by recent grading or
by surface erosion. It does not exist in the westem quarter of the ridgetop
zone, and in the balance appears to slightiy thicken both eastward sind toward
the center of the ridge. Nowhere more than about 8 cm thick, it was generally
observed to be cmmbled, cracked, and usually penetrated by vegetation. In
places, however, it was preserved as a moderately compact layer. Its contact
with the underlying medial stiatum is fairly distinct and reflects the original
depositional bedding.
The medial stratum (brown mudstone rich in expandable clay) is more
complexly stmctured. Its upper sector (about 10-20 cm thick) is moderately
compact, generally homogeneous (despite occasional sandstone inclusions), and
often peneti-ated by vegetation. It also contains most of the surface vegeta-
tion's roots. The lower sector (about 20-40 cm thick) is highly compact,
contains sandstone inclusions and occasional areas of higher clay content, and
is relatively free of roots. Intact portions of a partially preserved, natural
band of lime speckles in the lower sector defme an originally level stmcture,
the top of which varies between about 27 cm and 45 cm below the inegular modem
surface. Both sectors are extiemely thin in the westem quarter of the ridgetop
zone, and become generaUy thicker both eastward and toward the ridgeline.
Numerous krotovina are responsible for the lower sector's irtegular
base. Higher in the section, krotovina are indircctiy evidenced by distortions
of the lime-speckled band. As this band is typically a basal stmcture in the B
horizon of Bowman's (1973:54-55) HrC soU, which is roughly analogous to these
stiata (see Section Il.A), the existence of medial stiatum sediment below the
band is either largely or entirely due to fossorial rodents. This is reflected
by verticaUy coUapsed segments of the lime-speckled band. The upper sector's
irtegular base and lesser compaction may be partly due to rodent bumowing;
however, the upper sector has been, and still is clearly more subject than the
lower sector to floralturbation (vegetation growth) and shrink/sweU of the
clayey sediment.
The basal stratum (fine sandy mudstone) was encountered in every
ridgetop unit, very near to suriface in the zone's westem quarter but progres-
sively deeper both eastward and toward the ridgeline. Its light tan to yellow
color, generally minor compaction, and grainy texture contrast sharply with the
brown, compact, and clayey medial stiamm material. This made intrusive
krotovina readily apparent in the long Phase II cross sectional profiles.
Reasons for their infrequent identification during Phase I probably include a
mismatch between unit resolution (1x1 meter) and overall bunow intensity
m (moderate), coincidental placement of some units in areas of lower bunow
intensity, and the fact that many units were abandoned when artifact recovery
^ dropped to only one or two artifacts per level. Low artifact recovery at maxi-
^ mal unit depths was explained by the Phase II discovery that cultural debris
almost never occurs in pristine basal stratum sediments. Rather, it is
reStiicted to intrusive krotovina filled with medial stiatum sediment, and to
mixed sediments containing krotovina and/or roots extending out of krotovina.
59
2. Mar^al Slopf-s
Unit 4 (Phase I) was placed about midway down the steeo southern
s^ope below the rtdgetop (see Figure 5). It was excavaL by thfcSr met^^^^^
1 . TK^T ^'P'r.^^ P™^ly reflects slope wash, bm may also exhibi slump-shdmg effects. No cultural debris was obtitined from the 0-
Ihe To ^''^i""^ ^"^^"^^"^ from the ridgetop. inac ^ 7^^' ^h^'^hcontained the same redeposited sediment and outcropp-ings of the basaJ stratum (fine sandy mudstone), produced 3 debitage, a utilized
^ttn^.'"^'• w'' 00^"^'"' ""^^ progressively dominated by S straturn matenal from 20 cm to its tennination in pure basal stratum at 40 cm^ both of tiiese lower levels were culturally sterile.
Unit 7 (Phase I) was placed near the northwest edge of a slumnine
and amoyo-cut area southwest of the ridgetop (see Figure 5). This situation if
rnnTh ' K '^1^' '^°P' ^^"^"^y- however, surface stiipping
IS notably greater both above and below unit 7. The unit was dug by the contour
method to a deptii of 10 cm A very thin layer of light tan coloL sed~
^h.T / . "^^^ matenal from the ridgetop, gave way almost immediately to
the basal stiatum. No cultiiral debns was recovered from the unit.
An ^ ^^^^ P^^^^^ ^" ^ locally Steep slope (about 35-
40 percent), immediately below the ridgetop (see Figure 5). Its stioicture is
Illustrated by Photograph 2, which looks upslope to the north. The uppertnost
layer, a loose to moderately compact, medium to dark brown colored sediment is
penetrated by vegetation and contains abundant roots. It appears to consist
largely or whoUy of redeposited medial sti-atum sediment from the ridgetoo
Every hing deeper than this upper layer is intact basal sti-atum, including a
natural sandstone concretion in the foreground, except for krotovina (above and
beside the concretion) containing sediment from the upper layer A few roots
extend mto the basal sti-atum. Excavated according to the horizontal method
unit T5 produced one piece of debitage from each of the upper three 10- centi-
matenal, while die 20-30 cm specimen came from a medial stratum-filled krotovma above the sandstone concretion.
3. Unstable Slopes
Unit T6 was placed near the center of a bench-like area on the toe
ot a Ho ocene slump southeast of the ridgetop (see Figure 5). Excavation was by
honzontal 10-centimeter levels to a maximum depth of 100 cm Each level's
floor was drawn, the 100 cm floor was also photographed, and all four walls of
the completed umt were proftie-drawn and photographed. A column of soil
samples was taken from the west wall at 10-centimeter intervals and subsequentiy
analysed in tiie laboratory for Munsell value, grain size (in microns), and grain
• .u r- ^^^^ ^^^^^^ several fonnation processes. All grain sizes were
'Jln^^^loVVnT^^^ microns), including eight witiiin the lower
range (125-177 microns). Gram shape was subangular for 8 samples, and
suDrounded tor two. Except for one occurrence of 7.5 YR 5/2 and one of 5Y 8/2
all samples were Munsell coded as 10 YR and varied widely between 2/1, 3/3 4/3
5/j, 6/2, 7/3, and 8/2. These distiibutions suggest sediment mixing throut^h
mechanical distortion due to slumping, fossorial rodents, or both.
mm»
m
60
1
7
]
I
I
3
I
T
a.
I
I
BEST ORIGINAL
I PHOTOGRAPH 2. UNIT T5 FLOOR AND NORTH WALL
REC0N
-2212A 9/91
Ul the south wall (Photograph 3), between about 35 cm and 90 cm
depth, flow-pattem Unes are defined by irregularly shaped and variously sized
chunks of the Ught colored basal sti-amm (fine sandy mudstone). This is a eood
indicator of mechanical distortion due to slumping. The basal sti-atum itself is
tracmred near the bouom of the north wall and in tiie 100 cm floor
(Photographs 4 and 5), which may also indicate slumpmg. An apparent lack of
flow-pattem distortions in the section's upper 35 cm may indicate redeposition
of ndgetop sediments tiansported by slope wash, although rodent bunowing may
simply have obUterated any ti-ace of earlier stincturing.
Krotovina exist throughout the entire section. Several active
tunnel enti-ances with fresh backdUl piles were noted in tiie vicinity of unit
T6. pese are associated with die modem rodent zone, which has fonned a minor
cobble honzon' at about 33-39 cm in the west wall (Photograph 6) Older
krotovma (below about 40 cm) are generally weU preserved and occasionaUy cut
through flow-pattem lines, but a few appear distorted by flow movements This
indicates rodent activity during and after the slumping event, but the ground
surface apparentiy rose too quickly for a cobble horizon to form. A likely
explanation is ndgetop erosion and bench sedimentation tiu-oughout the slump's
active phase. The oldest krotovina (below about 65 cm) intiiide the basal sti-a-
tum and extend beyond 100 cm (see Photos B4 and B5). They must either stem from
an early stage m the slumping or predate its onset, in which case they would be
a remnant of the original ridgetop deposit
The distiibution of cultural material in unit T6 is informative
Cultural debrts was absent from the 90-100 cm level, but present in each of tiie
nine overiying levels. If krotovina below 65 cm reflect early-stage slumping
then deep-level stenUty could indicate that slumping began prior to human
occupation of SDM-W-181. However, if deep-level krotovina fomied prior to die
slump, then the 90-100 cm level may be sterile because cultural debris on tiie
ndgetop simply had not yet migrated downward to the section's base when
slumpmg began.
The levels above 90 cm contained small and nearly equivalent amounts
of cultural debris. This was anticipated as the result of rodent mixing and
flow-distortion in slump and slope wash sediments. Only sheU came from the 80-
90 cm and 70-80 cm levels. The 60-70 cm level contained sheU, charcoal and
debitage. Only sheU came from the 50-60 cm level. The 40-50 cm level produced
both debitage and sheU. The 30-40 cm level was purely sheU, and the 20-30 cm
level was purely debitage. Both sheU and debitage came from the 10-20 cm
level. Only sheU was produced by the 0-10 cm level.
The diversity of debris in 40-50 cm may reflect rodent-effected
vertical ti-ansport prior to the formation of a minor "cobble horizon" (at 33-39
cm) just below the modem rodent zone. The upper portion of another, stiU
older rodent zone may be represented by the relatively diverse 60-70 cm * level;
this particular zone would conelate to either pre-slump ridgetop sediments or
early-stage slumping.
C. FORMATION PROCESSES
This discussion focuses on patteming in the spatial distiibution of
cultural debris at SDM-W-181. Horizontal and vertical pattems are addressed
62
o
DC
O
PHOTOGRAPH 3. UNIT T6 SOUTH WALL
UJ CD
PHOTOGRAPH 4. UNIT T6 NORTH WALL
R-2212A 9/91
FEC(DN
CO
111
CD
PHOTOGRAPH 5. UNIT T6 FLOOR
PHOTOGRAPH 6. UNIT T6 WEST WALL
R-2212A 9/91
REC(DN.
fu-st, with a primary interest in natural formation processes. The concluding
part examines remaining pattems as by-products of cultural behavior.
1. Horizontal Patteming
Subsurface cultural debris in the marginal slopes area is minimal,
and slope wash has been the primary medium of transport from ridgetop deposits.
Phase I STP excavation and surface collection results show that cultural debris
below the ridgetop is primarily restricted to the surface. Phase I and II units
demonstrate that slope wash deposition has been minimal, but in certain settings
has suppUed cultural debris for intioduction to subsurface context by other
natural processes. Unit 7, which proved culturaUy sterile and was closed in
basal stratum sediment at 10 cm, is a prime example of severe surface stripping
due to slope wash. Unit 4 and T5 show that slope wash, probably combined with
minor slumping and rodent burtowing, has distributed cultural debris to about 20
cm below surface. In addition, unit T5 documents fossorial rodent effects in
distributing cultural debris another 10 cm below the surface.
On unstable slopes, a formative role has been played by slope wash.
It accounts in part for the presence of cultural debris in unit T6 down to at
least 30 cm, and perhaps as deep as 90 cm. A considerably greater role is
indicated for flow-pattem slumping in the distribution of cultural debris
between about 35cm and 90 cm. Significant fossorial rodent effects are seen
throughout the 100 cm section of unit T6, including a modem rodent zone in tiie
upper 30 cm and an associated minor cobble horizon in about 33-39 cm. Older,
overlapping rodent zones are possibly present at roughly 40-70 cm and 60-90 cm,
with apparentiy sterile krotovine extending below 100 cm.
The possible influence of waste disposal on marginal slope deposits
can be examined with reference to surface coUections, STPs, and units in that
area. Debitage heavily dominates the recovered cultural material, which other-
wise includes minimal amounts of other artifacts and sheU. This pattem would
not be anticipated for either formal dumping or sustained disposal of ridgetop
refuse. A debitage concentration extending some 20 meters downslope from the
ridgetop's northeastem edge, in an area of sterile STPs (see Figures 3 and 4),
does not appear to be cultural and was possibly created by deflation of rodent
backdirt outside horizontal tunnel entrances. Only one marginal slope artifact
appears not to be redeposited: a slab metate, near the foot of the northeast
slope, that was partially embedded on top of the side-drainage's southwest bank
(see Figure 5). It is concluded that, while broken tools and general refuse may
occasionally been thrown off the ridgetop, waste disposal on the marginal slopes
was neither formal nor sustained.
Littie horizontal patteming has been delineated on the ridgetop.
Surface debris was abundant, but unpattemed across its southeastem 60-meter
extent. The few localized concentrations were obviously created by erosion or
deposition associated with graded dirt roads and bladed areas. The southeastem
30 meter sector, with relatively deep and rich subsurface deposits, was probably
the focus of prehistoric cultural activities; however, it contains only one
known special activity area (the unit 9/9A/9B hearth). No other features or
special activity areas were found on the ridgetop at any depth.
A lack of horizontal patterning on the ridgetop surface conforms to
predicted effects of surface erosion and ti-ampling in laterally displacing
65
cultural debns It is also consistent with the predicted trampling effect of
^,.hf'n?h^ f ""M' ^""s^rfa^e context, thus masking patterns which
might otherwise be evident. It is more difficult to address a lack of subsur-
face honzontal patteming on the ridgetop. Pattems may have gone und~d
because of sample size limitations and unit placement procedures, but the use of
mechanical stripping to locate features or specid activit^ areas shou°d
increase confidence in their apparent rarity. An explanation can be suggested
based on the model outlined in Section IH.C: several processes
noncultural) introduced surface-deposited cultural debris to su'bsurface context'
WhUe fossonal rodent burrowing caused differential vertical sorting along
dimensions of size shape, and weight, with a net result of randomizing whatever
tn situ honzontal patteming might originally have existed on the surface
patnlTonthesuXr- " ^'^P'^" '-^ °f ^--tal
2. Vertical Patteming
The model of mostiy natural site fonnation (see Section ID C) can
be used to examine vertical distiibution pattems for cultural debris 'in the
ndgetop deposits. As previously explained, analysis was made possible bv
synthesizing data from all unit-levels of equal depth for 18 units eg all 0-
T2B''"T^rVn ^^^''^^^H TI^'T^' ^ ^' ^' ^' ^' ^^' '^lA' TIB, T2A. Jr^;. ' J ' n^ Jl:- artifact/ecofact classes were used to create three vanables: (1) debitiige count (DE), (2) sheU weight in grams (SH) and (3) mean weight m grams of FLAs and ground stone combined (FLA&GR).
The distiibution of these variables among synthetic ridgetop levels
as shown in Figure 8, can be infortnative given ^i understanding tiiat small
sanaple size and wide vanability create potential biases for each variable.
IRQ .fc' F^^ '^^^P^^' Poi"t-' across just eight levels, tiie
489 cases vary from n=6 to n=163. It was partly to overcome such limitations
that tiie analysis employs both Phase I and Phase II data, and the FLA&GR vari-
1 created from two data sets. VulnerabiUty to bias generally increases
with depth, due to the number of unit-levels represented in each syntiietic
level: 1 unit stopped producing cultural debris at 30 cm, 9 stopped at 40 cm 5
h^d^lt t..? ^""^ ^" T^F^!^ f' ? r' ^ '^^PP^^ ^^0' a few uAits had at least one stenle" level above the deepest productive level None of
this is to suggest that the unit-level results are themselves in ertor but to
note that skewmg of variable distiibutions may have resulted from a few unusual
spccim cns»
-n- 1 ^- '^"^^^'^^^y Stiiking fact about Figure 8 is that the surface or
0 cm level indicates very low values for each variable. These values require
rluZf ''''''^''T ^"'^ "^^^^^"g due to erosion, amateur
collection, and fonnal collections conducted during this study. Erosion wiU
have removed pnmanly small-light items from the surface, thus affecting SH tiie
X'cted FI A^rl ""^^ ^^^u*^^ -^'^ ^^^"^ ^^^^'^^^^^ have attected FLAc&GR more senously than either DE or SH. Unprovenienced collection
of a crescentic dunng the survey (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990), possibly from
the ndgetop has the same effect. The influence of such factors cannot be
fully contiolled, but tiieir possible scope can be estimated with reference to
Phase 1 and Phase II collection results.
66
mt
30C
250 I
0^
0 10 ZU 30 4C 50
LEVEL
60 70 SO
DEBrtAGE COUNT
FLAKED UTHIC ARTIFACT AND
GROUNDSTONE MEAN WEIGHT
SHELL WEIGHT
FIGURE 8. DISTRIBUTION OF DEBITAGE COUNT. FLAKED LITHIC
ARTIFACT AND GROUNDSTONE MEAN AVERAGE WEIGHT.
AND TOTAL SHELL WEIGHT BY RIDGETOP AREA
SYNTHETIC LEVELS
R-2212A 8/91
n • -Kl ^ u ^ intensive point-provenienced surface coUection of
all visible cultural debns, two collection cU-cles overiaoDed excavation ^^n\tl
' rV'^'T ^i^^ '''''''' ^^o7s^^^
Phase I and throughout the early part of Phase II, opportunistic surface
collection of sterns exposed by surface erosion, vehicular tiaffic, and foot-
scufflmg recovered 597 debitage 82 grams of shell (2.2 grams Chione spp
and 6.0 grams Argopecten spp.), 28 whole or fragmentary tool specimens (8
bifaces, 1 point, 3 scrapers, 4 utilized flakes, 3 hammerstones, T cor^
hammerstone, 3 cores, 3 metates, and 2 manos), and 5 Late Prehistoric/Proto-
histonc penod sherds. Using a conservative assumption of equal spatial
distribution, these data can be distiibuted among the units (representing 2 5 %
of the circa 700 m^ ndgetop area) to raise DE by 14.93 specimens and SH by
0.205 grams; about 07 tools can be used to raise FLA&GR mean weight by a
negUgible amount. The net effect of all possible quantitative conecrions to
Figure 8 would raise DE from 16 to 47, which remains less than the 10 cm value
(n=163) and most other levels. Both SH and FLA&GR would increase very sUphtiy
but these adjustments would not be visible in Figure 8. ^ &
Unportant ti-ends are exhibited by ail three variables from the
surface through tennination at 70 cm. A jump from very low surface values to
substantially higher 10 cm values suggests ti-ampling as a major mechanism for
he inti-oduction of cultural debns to subsurface context, with shrink/swell of
the clayey sediments and fossorial rodent activity as likely secondary factors
As predicted for rodent burtowing, large-heavy items have been segregated
downward m section, i.e., FLA&GR mean weight increases with depth. This is an
expression of krotovina-filUng, burtow collapse, and conjunctive ti-ampling
effects. Vemcal ti-ansport has kept items that are smaller than average rodenl
tunnel diameter relatively higher in section, i.e., DE count is highest near tiie
surface and decreases with deptii. SheU has also behaved as expected, since
Tab e 1 indicates that differential rodent ti-ansport has under-represented
smaU-Ught types near tiie surface, while concenti-ating tiie more abundant and
massive types {Argopecten spp. and Chione spp) at deeper levels. Although
lable 1 shows Chione spp. as increasingly prevalent between the surface and
40 cm, mcluding tiie unit 9/9A/9B hearth would have significantiy increased tiie
representation of Argopecten spp. for 30-40 cm and 40-50 cm.
Particular fonnation processes are suggested by distiibutions in tiie
three deepest levels Shell is absent at 50 cm and negligible at both 60 and
70 cm, while FLA&GR items last occur at 50 cm. DE coum achieves its lowest
value at 60 cm (n=6) and rises slightiy at 70 cm (n=:10). Field observations
confirm that these values pnmarily reflect rodent activity below about 50 cm
as a tew krotovina (both tunnels and occasionally dens) were documented at 50-80
cm m umts 9, 9A, 9B, TIA-B, and T2A-D; at equivalent deptiis in the wall
exposures created by mechanical stiipping; and at equivalent depths within units
1-/, 1-8, and 1-9 withm the mechanically stiipped areas. Minor root action and
sediment shnnk/swell are likely to have displaced shell and debitage into deep
krotovma, but field notes indicate that these factors did not move cultural
debns outside of bunows intiiiding the basal sti-atum. The existence of such
deep krotovma indicates Califomia ground squurel burtowing, since the valley
pocket gopher is seldom active over 30 cm below surface and the ridgetop sedi-
ments are natural Eocene stiatii instead of mantie (see Sections UA and III C)
Bunowing by California ground squin-els is also implied by the fact that die
tew well preserved tunnels within 50-80 cm were about 5-10 cm in diameter
whereas valley pocket gopher tunnels have an average diameter of about 6 cm'
68
r I K I II I i r 1 11 if II i I i i i i f i i i i i r f t T f t f i i i
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF RIDGETOP AREA TOOLS AND SHELL BY LEVEL
Level
0-0 cm
0-10 cm
10-20 cm
20-30 cm
30-40 cm
40-50 cm
50-60 cm
60-70 cm
70-80 cm
Flaked Lithic Artifacts
Notes
Knife/ Utilized
Nondiagnostic Core Biface Hammeretone Flake Crescentic
Ground Stone
Mano Basin
Shell
Chione Argopecten Other
Surface
Concentration #3
Concentration #3
Concentration #3
Concentration #2
Concentration #1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 3 2 3 1 0 I 0 12 7 1
2 2 0 0 0 13 6 4
0 0 0 1 I 53 2 1
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
This does not preclude valley pocket gopher activity nearer the surface but
indicates that Califomia ground squimel burtowing has probably affected a^
ndgetop deposits to about 80 cm depth. f y ^^"^^
TU r . • ^^i"""! J evidences tiu-ee concentiations of cultural debris
The first signified by a small increase in DE and SH at 70 cm, is probably due
to California ground squurel bunowing. Since field observations document
rodent activity to circa 80 cm, a lack of cultural debris below 70 cm sS~
that tiie deepest bunows may predate initial human occupation at SDM-W-181.
• • A ^Ar. ^^^^l^ concenti-ation, probably equivalent to a cobble horizon
is signified at 40 cm by the highest FLA&GR and SH values and an increase ove;
the otherwise declining DE ti-end. If valley pocket gophers were responsible for
the development of this stiiicture, tiien the overlying rodent zone would need to
have included about 5-10 cm of "missing" A horizon soU. A possibly bette?
altemative identifies the Califomia ground squinel as jointiy responsible in
which case a mantie of up to some 30 cm above the contemporary surface might
have been present The existence of a cobble horizon within 30-40 cm mav
explain the unit 9/9A/9b hearth's deep position. Its upper surface (32-40 cm)
falls well withm Concenti-ation Number 2, whUe its bottom deptii (50 cm) is
only slightly lower. Since rodents typically "dig under, rather than alongside
or above large matenals" (Bocek 1986:591), the hearth's final position can be
N^be^2 ^y the same bunowing tiiat created Concenti-ation
The third concentiation is signified by an increase in SH and FLA&GR
values at 20 cm, which are nearly maintained to 30 cm. This suggests that
Concentiation Number 3 is a partially fonned or disturbed cobble horizon If
val ey pocket gophers were responsible, this would necessitate a rodent zone
that included up to about 20 cm of "missing" A horizon soil above the modem
^r^-IT'u u^^^' '''^^''^ •?'"^' P^'"*'^P^ "P 5^ ^™ ^f^ovc the modem surface,
might have been present if the Califomia ground squinel were wholly or iointiv
responsible. Location within the base of fonner rodem zones would help to
explain rnoderate compaction and minimal soil development in tiie upper sti-amm
ajid in the medial sti-atum's upper sector, as well as the fomier's discontinuous
ndgetop distiibution (see Sections ILB and IV.B.l).
A history of tiie "missing" mantie can be reconstiiicted, in which
Concenti-ation Number 1 signals deep bunowing by Califomia ground squirtels at
an early developmental stage when humans occupied a surface only slightly higher
in elevation than today's. The mantle subsequentiy mamred and thickened as
sedimentation exceeded deflation in response to climatic changes or human
imiuences, if not both, possibly under conditions of increased valley pocket
gopher activity. A succeeding period of mantie stabiUty is signalled by tiie
apparent cobble horizon in Concenti-ation Number 2 at 30-40 cm (extending to
50 cm in the unit 9/9A/9B hearth) beneath a rodent zone that probably involved
both valley pocket gopher and Califomia ground squurel bunowing, and which
may have included up to 30 cm of now "missing" A horizon soil. A final period
ot mantie development, probably also involving both valley pocket gophers and
CaUfomia ground squUrels, raised the surface to a maximum of circa 50 cm
above todays elevation. Renewed stasis allowed Concenti-ation Number 3 to begin
fomiing as a cobble horizon in 20-30 cm, but a final episode of mantie deflati^on
snitted the rodent zone downward in section. This episode lowered bunowing
rates but concenb-ated rodent activity within an ever-tiiinning layer as rodent
70
populations decUned in response to food supply reductions. The net effect was
to redistiibute some Concenti-ation #3 material downward into 20-30 cm, as
indicated by the near-plateau of SH and FLA&GR values from 20 to 30 cm.
This reconstiiiction has several archaeological implications. All
subsurface cultural debris has been partially mbted by the same processes that
inti-oduced it to subsurface context, i.e., human ti-ampling, pit constiuction
and fiUing (documented by the unit 9/9A/9B hearth), accidental and systematic
rodent displacement, sediment shrink/swell, and floralturbation. Each of tiie
three concenti-ations is dominated by large-heavy items due to vertical sorting
along size, weight, and possibly shape parameters. Concenti-ation Number 1
contains cultural debris from its associated rodent zone, i.e., 0-60 cm and
whatever lost mantie once lay above the surface. Concenti-ation Number 2
contains material from 0-30 cm plus a missing mantie, while Concenti-ation
Numbers is comprised of 0-10 cm debris and former mantie constituents. Botii
concenti-ations also incorporate materials that were systematically displaced
from underlying sediments and subsequentiy reintioduced to subsurface context.
Since Concentration Number 3 reflects both upward and downward migrating rodent
zones, its contents and those of 0-10 cm are very tiioroughly mixed. SmaU-light
items are under-represented throughout the deposits because a good sample of all
fractions_ entered subsurface context during periods of mantie development, but
systematic transport later exposed tiiem to surface erosion in periods of mantie
stabUity. Selection against small-light items is most heavUy pronounced
Concentiation Number 3 above because newly exposed or freshly deposited debris
became progressively subject to surface erosion and tiampling breakage within a
thinning mantie. Materials deposited during or after terminal-stage experienced
severe erosion, ti-ample-breakage, and sediment shrink/sweU effects, but rela-
tively minor systematic or accidental rodent displacement. Some of the large-
heavy and midrange debris (metates, manos, and flaked Uthic tools) therefore
remains on or near the modem surface, but much of the very lightest and small-
est material (sheU and raicrodebitage) was washed away and not ti-ampled into tiie
0-10 cm level
The foregoing reconstiiiction can be evaluated for its adequacy in
explaining tiie HrC profile's "missing" A horizon, which Bowman (1973:54)
describes as "from 5 to 30 inches [12.7-76.2 cm] in thickness." This range
fully brackets the suggested deflation of an approximately 20-50 cm thick
mantie, independent of the comparatively minor sediment losses attiibuted to
modem erosion and grading (see Section ni.C). For want of evidence to tiie
contiary, it might be supposed tiiat the cunentiy moderate rate of erosion has
been sufficient to accompUsh a requisite amount of mantie-stripping; however,
some major erosional event in the past cannot be mled outi One possibility is
accelerated erosion due to overgrazing by cattie associated with the nearby
Rancho Encinitas, which could account for surface-collected horn/hoof disc
fragment identified as half of a possible historic button.
3. Cultural Patterning
Archaeological research begins with defming the archaeological
context of cultural materials, and tiien attempts to reconstiuct their systemic
context as participants in a behavioral system (Schiffer 1987:3-11). To this
end, the present study has currently focused on identifying and evaluating
specific formation processes responsible for the creation of archaeologic^
context at SDM-W-181. Natural factors have been seen as primary agents in all
71
parts of tiie site. Vertical rodent displacement and erosional stiipping
predominated m the ndgetop area, with sediment shrink/swell and other
bioturbation (mostiy root action) playing lesser roles. Slope wash erosion and
deposition were dominant on the marginal slopes, with slump/sUding as an added
factor in unstable areas. &
Cultural factors have been identified as largely secondary agents
whose ultmiate expression was contioUed by natural factors. General paraieiers
for die creation of subsurface deposits were estabUshed by a focus of most
activities on tiie ndgetop area, including apparentiy random refuse disposal
practices. TrampUng was responsible for horizontal scattering and breakage of
cultural debns, as well as inti-oductions to subsurface context both directly
and m association with accidental rodent displacement. Surface erosion reduced
the introduction of small-light debris during periods of mantie stability and
especially mantie deflation while ti-ampling introduced a more representiitive
fr^K P^"°^/ of mantie development Direct intioduction occurted
through the fiUing of a shell-and-cobble pit hearth (units 9/9A/9B), partly as
a by-product of its use but perhaps also involving natural sedimentation and
human trampUng. Subsurface cultural debris, including the unit 9/9A/9B hearth
as a block, v/as vertically sorted through systematic and accidental rodent
displacement; added mixing and Umited sortmg were affected by sediment
shnnk/swell and other faunalturbation. ^cuuiiciu
thP H- . -K ^^"^""^^ ""^^^^'^ patterning can be detected in Table 1, which shows
the distiibution of flaked Uthic artifacts, ground stone, and sheU among
'h,lr H I- ndgetop area. Artifact types are taken from the
label designations in laboratory data (see Attachment 2), but knives and
bifaces are combined due to their fonnal similarities and possible ertors in
differentiation^ These data have been converted to Table 2, which is limited to
the upper 50 cm because deeper levels contain no artifacts and littie sheU and
almost entirely reflect the operation of noncuUural factors. Since' all
Q/QA/Qn"i artifacts (see Table 1) were recovered from interior fiU of tiie unit
y/yA/yB hearth which appears to be derived from Concenti-ation Number 2 the 30-
40 cm and 40-50 cm levels have been combined. This includes the 1.0 gram of
Chione spp. SheU m 40-50 cm, but tiie hearth's abundant sheU ftil (aUnost
entirely Argopecten spp.) is not shown in either table. The 10-20 cm and 20-
cm levels have been combined because tiiey comprise Concenti-ation Number 3.
. The surface, 0-10 cm, 10-30 cm, and 30-50 cm layers all contain
siinilar types of cultural debris (see Table 2). Some of the apparently missing
values can be filled by impUcation, e.g., the hammerstone in 30-50 cm implief
that cores must have been used when this layer was fomied, while manos in 10-30
cm and U-IU cm imply tiie presence of complementary metates or basins Empty
values on the surface can be replaced with data from the non-unit surface
coUections, which produced nondiagnostic flaked lithic artifacts cores
knlfe^lfaces, hammerstones, utilized flakes, another crescentic. manos, and
added shell, as well as metate fragments, debitage. and Tizon Brown Ware sherds
O/QATQ^T u'^^^^T'^ ''"^^"'^ inventory changed very Uttie between the unit
y/yA/9B hearth (radiocarbon dated to ckca 5400 B.R) and a late occupation
signified by sherds dating cu-ca 750-100 B.P. upduun
The absolute frequencies in Table 2 can be partly explained bv
noncultura] factors. For example, that 18 artifacts (51.4 percent of a total
occur in 10-30 cm probably stems from repeated vertical sorting and i
lb
72
I i I f } I ) f I f I I r I r I J I r I ) I r I I I r I r I i i r i i i i
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF RTDGETOP AREA TOOLS AND SHELL BY LAYER
Level
Flaked Lithic Artifacts
Knife/ Utilized
Nondiagnostic Core Biface Hammerstone Flake Crescentic
Ground Stony
Mano Basin
Shell
Chione Argopecten Other
0-0 cm 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0-10 cm 0 1 3 0 0 0 I 0 1 3 2
10-30 cm 1 5 3 5 3 0 1 0 25 13 5
30-50 cm 1 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 54 2 1
TOTAL 2 6 13 6 3 1 3 1 80 18 8
honzonization withm elevationally "migrating" rodent zones during the fomia-
Twv? ^^""^.b^^ 3 in successive periods of mantie development
stability, and final deflation. Consequentiy, some of its large-heavy items
(5 cores, 5 hammerstones, and 1 mano) may be temporally equivaJent to smaller-
bffaces '^^"^^ ^y^he^^ above 30 cm, e.g., the crescentic or iiy of the 9 Imife/
The almost even distiibution of knife/bifaces among all four layers
fnr^'.^,rh''mni T"^"! T\ horizonization, may imply a sustained importLce
for such tools throughout die site's history. This is especiaUy lUcely for two
reasons. First, three of the 30-50 cm (Concentration Number 2) specimens came
from within the hearth which was preserved as an intiict block, but one did not
and, therefore, must have been separately deposited. Second, the three surface
specimens must either have been displaced upward from 0-30 cm or downward
through a now-missing mantie, or else they were deposited eitiier near or after
the end of deflation; hence, they must post-date Concenti-ation Number 2 and
reflect a late possibly final occupational period. This pattem mns counter
o the prevailing culture-histoncal model (see Section n.B.2), which proposes
that finely made bifaces belonging to an early hunting culture (San Dieguito)
gave way to the simpler flaked lithic tools and ground stone technology of a
later culture (La Jolla) with more generalized subsistence practices.
9nMW i«i ^^"^fif^ SheU distiibutions contradict M.J. Rogers' attribution of
1 . Dieguito culture (see Section n.B.3), which purportedly
did not exploit shellfish and other manne resources (see Section IIB 2) Even
without the unit 9/9Ay9B hearth fiU. total sheU per layer diminishes steadUy
between 30-50 cm and the surface. Including hearth fiU would elevate the 30-
:)U cm totals for both Argopecten spp. and other sheU above the 10-30 cm
values, whtie also mcreasing total sheU for Concenti-ation Number 2 SheU
trequencies may be under-represented in the surface and 0-10 cm layers since
Trfn? T r small-light surface debris was probably substantial
dunng tiie two final stages of mantie stabUity and deflation. In any case it
IS clear that moUusc exploitation had an important subsistence role throughout
the occupational span of SDM-W-181. and the unit 9/9A/9B hearth testifies to
clambakes some 5,400 years ago.
Do-^T/ion ^"'^^'^^ occurtence of a crescentic fragment (catalog number
m^n/i "^^y ^^^^ origmated in the now-missing
mantle, but its smaU size (2.7 x 2.6 x 0.6) would also have pennitted system-
atic displacement from anywhere within 0-30 cm. Limited support for deposition
either on or above the modem surface is found in a much larger specimen that
was surface coUected during an earlier survey (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990)
Q^oA^nn u*^^?' -^^^ crescentic fragment must postdate the circa 5400 B.P unit
9/9A/9B hearth m 30-50 cm. This relatively young age is anomalous within tiie
context of orthodox belief tiiat crescentics are a San Dieguito hallmark and
therefore date cu-ca 12,000-7.500 B.P.
The types of activities undertaken at SDM-W-181 are indicated by tiie
nature of artifactual and ecofactual material, which by extension can also help
to dehne the site's function. Marine sheU (mostly Argopecten spp. and
u-^^A ^^J^'^ indicates processing and consumption of moUuscan foodstuffs
Obtained from a nearby lagoonal-estuarian environment, almost certainly at
Batiguitos Lagoon to the northwest. Milling implements imply nearby collection
ot vegetal foods, with subsequent on-site processing and presumably consumption
ii
74
The point/knife/bifaces, scrapers, and utilized flakes indicate a role for on-
site processing and probably consumption of faunal resources, but some of these
implements may have been used in processing plant materials for consumption or
tool production. Abundant debitage indicate production of flaked Uthic tools,
including unmodified and modified flakes, unifacially and bifacially worked
core- or cobble-based implements, and a variety of well-made bifaces. A few
tools indicate rejuvenation or retooling of otherwise expended implements.
Direct evidence of on-site food consumption, and by impUcation some
type of habitation, is fumished by the unit 9/9A/9B hearth. Good preservation
of the hearth's carbonaceous fill (shell, charcoal, ash, and some sediment)
suggests that chemical conditions within tiie site as a whole were favorable.
Rodent bunowing appears to have been a significant source of randomization, but
the hearth's stmctural integrity demonstrates that this type of feature was
relatively unaffected. Since no other hearths were observed, despite manual and
mechanical excavation of about 66 percent of the core ridgetop area, habitation
can seldom have been either protracted or substantial. It cannot be ascertamed
if SDM-W-181 was repetitively used according to some seasonal schedule, or was
occupied intermittentiy over a span of several centuries. Perhaps the most
definitive functional interpretation can go not farther than to identify SDM-W-
181 as a temporary situated for optimal proximity to diverse natural resources.
D. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERPRETATION
Results of this study can be helpful in evaluating the scientific value
of SDM-W-181. Discussion is initially focused on orthodox views of the site,
particularly with regard to the methods and theoretical paradigms that guided
early interpretations of it A contemporary and stUI developing altemative
model of prehistory is then evaluated from the perspective of cunent findings.
The concluding statement serves a dual purpose not only in assessing the possi-
bility of resolving outstanding research issues through further work at SDM-W-
181, but also in projecting some recommendations for future research on the
basis of this study's findings.
1- The Ortiiodox View
Malcolm J. Rogers, tiirough his many years of working at SDM-W-181 or
with material recovered from it, repeatedly described the site as a pure San
Dieguito deposit (see Sections II.B.l, II.B.2, and n.B.3). His W series note-
book assigns San Dieguito in to this "fairly late site with double convex
knives," specifying that "metates and manos [are] absent" whUe mentioning "one
crescent 8" [20.3 cm] underground" witiiin a 13 inch (33 cm) thick stratum. The
formal site sheet, completed somewhat later, indicates a San Dieguito II occu-
pation that extended into San Dieguito III. Rogers' 1942 reallocation classi-
fies the site as San Dieguito n with a "trace" of San Dieguito III. This
classification is repeated in the formal San Diego Museum of Man site record,
which terms the site a "highland accretion camp" and says Uiat it was "a very
concentrated occupation, probably because the sunounding mesa top is very
stoney except in this one area."
The situation was somewhat muddied by Rogers' new terminology of
1958, which he used in writing "The San Dieguito Complex" and organizing die
closely related San Dieguito Type Collection. Under this new terminology, SDM-
W-181 was reclassified as Dieguito ID with a tiace of San Dieguito IV, but
75
n fonU^^Vvn r^iT'?-'^ amiotating and assembUng tiie San
Diegui 0 Type Co lection for use m illustrating Ancient Hunters of the F^r
(Rogers et al. 1966)^ Brou used the old temiinology in classifying SDM-
W-181 as San Dieguito I-Ifl and La JoUa B, adding the latter because of
milling implements and shell samples in the San Diego Museum of Man cXtioi^
drawer for the site. At least some of this "La JoUa" material was col"
from a separate locus SDM-W-181-A, which Rogers had always defined as ™
component site^This locus may in fact be SDM-W-942, which was tested m Ph^e
L ^r-f ^f„9^^y .\991), instead of the area excavated by Kaldentrg (
Other La Jolla matends m the site drawer may have been recovered at SDM-W-
181 proper by Rogers associates during his attempted retirement or, perhaps
more Iticely, at some time shortly after his death. pcrnaps
Ul Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966-83) it is
clearly Rogers who emphasizes tiiat "In dual culture sites such as San Dieguito
and La JoUa, here is not only a cultural disconfomiity but a clearly dem^ked
f966l3) that-"""" "^"^'^ ^" further'noting (Rogers Ttll
TTie San Dieguito H middens have a wavy eroded surface between them and
the La JoUa fl middens. This feature is much less in evidence in dual
cuimral sites of tiie San Dieguito IB Phase and the La JoUa B Phase
but It does exits Tlie geological hiams probably represents the period
and duration of the La JoUa 1 Phase. p
Rogers would surely not have missed this type of evidence at SDM-W-181 where he
conducted some type of limited excavation, and a "disconfomiity" may be part of
the reason he classified SDM-W-181-A as a dual-component site. In addition
an7m"anosTi?pres"nr' ^'^^ "^"^^^ locus specifically notes that "metates
* ^ u-^ ^.0"fS"e"ce of the sample obtained dirough Phase I and Phase II
testing which mcludes comprehensively provenienced data, it is possible to
evaluate Orthodox interpretations of SDM-W-181 made by Rogers, Brott, and others
since, bince ground stone artifacts were evident on tiie surface in 1990-91 as
wel as being present in subsurface context, Rogers' mention of thek absenck is
dtiticult to explain. Low surface frequency in combination with vegetative
cover may have been responsible, as seems to have been tiie case with the recent
surveys (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990) failure to note ground stone LtiS
LrZ ^""-wv vegetative cover in Rogers' day had seriously reduced
surface visibility. Enough mantie soU may have been present in Rogers' time
that large-heavy items remained in subsurface context, and thus were not on the
surtace. Finally Rogers' excavation was almost certainly a restiicted probing
operation, probably limited to one or two small ti-enches. which makes it highly
subsurfrces^pl^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ "^^"^^ b^ randomly absent from his
Rogers' failure to observe sheU at SDM-W-181 may be a result of tiie
naturaUy caused low frequencies tiiat tiiis study encountered in the 0-30 cm
levels, niis depth is important, as Rogers tiiought that the archaeological
Sti-atum extended only about 33 cm below surface. As with ground stone his
small-scale excavation may simply have missed recognizably archaeological 'shell
due to sampling enor. Tlie same argument can be made with respect to features
since only one (the unit 9/9A/9B hearth) is known to have existed and at a
76
greater depth tiian Rogers' excavation, i.e., the top was at 32-40 cm and tiie
base at 50 cm below surface.
Rogers' "double convex knives" on the surface can be explained as a
result of mantie deflation (redeposition from above). Eitiier early systematic
displacement (during the formation of Concentiation Number 1 or Number 2) or
subsequent accidental displacement (during die formation of Concenti-ation
Number 3) may account for the location of his excavated crescentic at about
20.3 cm below surface. A similar ambivalence has been expressed in connection
with tiie surface occurtence of two crescentics recovered in this study, although
one specimen's size was great enough to suggest accidental displacement (perhaps
during the deflationary stage of Concenti-ation Number 3 formation) as a
prefened altemative.
This study's findings conti-adict the orthodox cultural chronology
model (see Section II.B.2) in some important respects. It has been demonstirated
that the material culture inventory at SDM-W-181 remained essentially simUar
over a span of some 4,650 to 5,300 years. Such continuity indicates a mutual
association of elements that ortiiodox perspectives consider temporaUy distinct,
including a "La Jolla" cobble/core-tool industiy; a "San Dieguito" scraper-and-
biface industry with crescentics and large, thin, double-convergent, bifacially
worked blades (Rogers' "double convex knives"); a ground stone assemblage with
items tiiat are variously attiibutable to the "La JoUa Complex" and "Encinitas
Tradition" or the Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic period; an exploitation' of
floral and faunal resources in lagoonal-estuarine and coastal sage scmb/
chapanai envu-onments; and the constiuction of a "La Jolla" cobble-lined pit
hearth with sheU, ash, and charcoal fiU dating cu-ca 5400 B.P.
It cannot be supposed that these elements were simply "mixed up" by
faunalturbation, as the existence of remnant cultural patteming has been
documented in spite of vertical patteming due to predominantiy natural site
formation processes. Episodes of mantie development, stability, and deflation
have been linked with sequenced inti-oductions of cultural debris to subsurface
context, making it possible to account for observational ertors by Rogers and
his associates. Furthermore, no evidence was found of the cultural and geolog-
ical "disconformity" that Rogers associated with dual-component sites. It seems
possible that what he interpreted as a disconformity, signifying some occupa-
tional hiatus, was actually a contact between the soil mantie and natural sedi-
ments containing krotovina with large-heavy cultiiral debris as ftil
constituents, e.g., the submantie stiata at SDM-W-181. Since Rogers believed he
was dealing with a culturally formed midden deposit at SDM-W-181, and happened
to encounter nothing but a limited selection of flaked litiiic artifacts on and
below the surface, it could never have occuned to him that the "disconformity"
he sought was in fact the existing ground surface.
Rogers' situation is similar to that faced by Davis and Cheever
(1991) during Phase I testing. Assuming that SDM-W-181 was a midden deposit,
they could not explain what appeared to be a significant degree of sedimenta-
tion, especially as the clay-rich sti-ata could only have been deposited by
water. This view informed the design and initial implementation of a Phase II
testing program, but geological assistance by Dr. Abbott revealed what none had
previously suspected: the subsurface deposits must be largely noncultural
because the strata are middle Eocene formations. Rogers' approach to stratig-
77
raphy differed Uttie from the more modem approach, in that an initial assump-
tion about sue fonnation processes colored archaeological interpretation in
ways that directiy influenced tiie dU-ection of field efforts.
2. New Age Models
Q.t- A considerable amount of contemporary research was synthesized in
Section II.B to outiine the shared feaUires of nontraditional prehistory models
The essentials of that synthesis are generally supported by results of tiiis
w /"floated above long-tenn continuity in the material culture of SDM-
W-181 included a generalized subsistence stiategy involving exploitation of botii
lagoonal-estuanne and tenestiial resources. The location of SDM-W-181 as a
temporary camp, is seen to express optimization between various subsistence
possibtimes witiun a distiict that incorporated Batiquitos Lagoon tiie
nSf .^^f"^ and hiUy areas to tiie east^ Specific resources
probably mcluded vanous seeds, roots, and tiibers; small-lo-raedium sized
m^mals. such as valley pocket gophers, Califomia ground squirtels. rabbits
and deer; vanous avian and reptilian species; and lagoonal shellfish (mostiy
Argopecten spp and Chione spp.). Habitation was brief, repetitive and
possibly seasonal, although temporal patteming may well have varied across tiie
span of some 50 or more centuries.
This interpretation is compatible witii the results of modem studies
at several important nearby sites, which have been radiocarbon dated and
together indicate tiiat there was "one continuous occupation of tiie Batiquitos
^'y one people from 8280 to 3500 years B.P." (GaUegos et al. 1986-Five-
70). The radiocarbon dated unit 9/9A/9B hearth at SDM-W-181 suggests an initial
occupation at circa 5400 B.P.. near the midpoint of tiiis occupational range. A
possible 3500-1500 B.P. gap in radiocarbon dates (GaUegos 1985-Sk-l-2-
Gallegos et al 1986:Five-70) is not evidenced at SDM-W-181 between the basai
hearth and the modem surface, which contained Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic
penod Tizon Brown Ward sherds and otiier potentiaUy recent debris. A number of
recentiy available radiocarbon dates (Jim Eighmey, pers. comm.. 8/21/91) docu-
ment continuous occupation of tiie Batiquitos Lagoon region from about 8400 BP
to at least 300 B.P., and radiocarbon dates from somewhat farther afield suggest
that this occupation may extend as far back as ckca 9000-10 000 BP Mx&r
several decades of research, the emerging picmre of Bataquitos Lagoon regional
development includes a gradual elaboration of generalized hunting-gathering
based on diverse plant and animal resources associated with the open coast tiie
lagoon proper, its surtounding hills, and the near-coastal foothills.
K r A comprehensive overview of coastal Califomia research is provided
Dy Jones (1991). who presents what might be tenned the Efficient Foraging Model
of coastal settiement. This model is based on a conception of "efficiency-
conscious foraging groups" tiiat focused theU- subsistence and settiement behav-
ior on the selection of resource patches, providing the highest net energy
yields tor botii areally limited and wide-ranging exploitation" (Jones 1991-435)
Consistent resource availability and recognition of that condition are seen as
keys to tiie patterned use of resource patches. As Jones (1991:435) puts iti
These envU-onments could be depended upon for consistent access to
important hunted resources - large tenestiial and marine mammals - as
well as valuable collected resources such as shelUish and tubers.
These habitats, particularly lakes and estuaries, are remarkably alUce
78
in then- makeup and show great simUarity across latimdes; not only do
they provide concenti-ations of high-quality resources, but thek value
would have been readUy apparent to foragers moving into new territo-
ries. Frequent movement from one resource-rich patch to another may
have provided continued high yields. Movements could have been almost
random in du-ection and scheduling as long as high-quality patches were
continually recognized and exploited when encountered.
A kind of developmental pump or evolutionary mechanism is inherent
to the model (Jones 1991:435-436). Population growth and consequent resource
depletion, seen as major results of foraging efficiency, are proposed as causes
of an increasing dietary breadth that was accomplished through the addition of
smaU seed utiUzation (marked by milUng technology appearing at specialized
sites in seasonally Umited seed-rich habitats) to continued usage of high-
quality resources and resource patches. Overexploitation of large game is
argued to have caused increasing reUance upon smaller and more elusive prey,
although in "the coastal zone of extreme southem CaUfomia...large game may
never have been abundant and smaUer animals, such as deer and rabbits, would
have been optimal prey at the time of initial settiement" (Jones 1991:436).
Ecological aspects of this diachronic approach are evident in Jones'
(1991:436) concluding paragraph, which is quoted here for its relevance to the
interpretation of SDM-W-181:
The archaeological record from coastal Califomia shows great variation
in the timing and character of marine-resource use. Some marine
environments - estuaries, islands, and semiprotected rocky shores - were
among the fu-st habitats settied by humans, but others, such as the
exposed open coast of northem Califomia. apparentiy were avoided until
much later. Some marine foods, particularly estuarine shellfish, were
among the foods targeted by the initial settiers. The use of these
resources at this time depth suggests stiongly that at least some marine
resources cannot be characterized as "second rate." and that models
ascribing initial marine-resource exploitation to post-Paleoindian
adaptation are challengable. The value of sheUfish probably Ues in
its accessibUity to mobiUty-restricted members of hunting and gather-
ing groups. Variation in the timing of the initial use of other marine
foods is explicable not in terms of the value of marine vs. temestiial
resources, but in attempts by humans to optUnize their reproductive
potential through efficient foraging (i.e., harvest of optimum resources
and the selection of resource-bearing habitats offering the highest net-
energy yields for both areally Umited and unUmited group members).
Freshwater and marine sheUfish would have been among the optimal
resources available to limited-range foragers entering Califomia, as
were sea-lion rookeries for hunters. Some stietches of coastiine
represent the richest environments available in a region, others were
comparatively poor, but the ultmiate value of marine resources to human
hunting and gathering populations can only be understood with respect to
theu" efficiency ranking within a given latitudinal zone and to the
foraging abilities of all group members.
The Batiquitos Lagoon region can be readily defined in terms of this
model. It included a lagoonal-estuarine setting with accessible and abundant
shellfish; an abundance and diversity of small-to-medium sized tenestrial game,
79
but Uttie in the way of large-game species; and a broad diversity of highly
productive small-seed resources within grassland, coastal sage scrub and
chaparral communmes. The region's exceptionally rich environment had no
parallel east of the near-coastal foothills.
The Batiquitos Lagoon region would, therefore, be expected to
atti-act early settiement, expenence a sustained population increase, and over
time develop a pattem of diversified subsistence behavior that included short-
temi camps associated with intemiittentiy and perhaps seasonally avaUable
resource patehes located some distance away from tiie lagoon itself This is tiie
developmental pattem suggested by contemporary evidence, as noted above.
Encmitas Grant Plateau, which contains SDM-W-181 can be
Identified as an mtennittentiy and perhaps seasonally valuable resource pateh
The pamcular location of SDM-W-181 can be viewed as an optimal choice relating
to immediately avaUable small mammals, e.g., fossorial rodents; nearby small-
to-medium sized game and small-seed resources, which might have been highly
diverse given the site's possible ecotonic situation (see Section II A)- medium-
size game and perhaps specific small-seed resources in Mils to tiie e^f and a
reasonable proximity to shellfish in Batiquitos Lagoon. Since the ' earliest
known use of SDM-W-181 was cUrca 5400 B.P., after the region had akeady been
occupied some 3,000 to 4.000 years, a fuUy diversified hunting-gathering
tooUat and short-temi habitation pattem should be exhibited by cultural debris
from Its initial penod. This would account for the co-occurrence of "San
Dieguito" and "La JoUa" elements in its 30-50 cm (Concenti-ation Number 2)
synthetic ndgetop levels.
Later deposition at SDM-W-181 can be understood in light of foraging
effictency over another 4,000 to 5,000 years. Stable or increasing human popu-
lations would exert cumulative sti-ess on lagoonal resources, and a sustained
dechne in lagoonal shellfish (perhaps involving noncuUural as weU as cultural
factors) would be offset by increasing reUance upon such "second rate" resource
patehes as the Encinitas Grant Plateau. Habitation at SDM-W-181 would tend to
remain _ temporary but become more frequent, coincident with an intensified
exploitation of resources located on and near tiie site. A progressive change of
this type could explain the apparent long-term continuity in functionally
diversified material culture at SDM-W-181, as is particularly weU-evidenced
from Concenti-ation Number 3 (10-30 cm) to the surface. It might also explain
terminal mantie deflation as having resulted from overexploitation of small-seed
resources and possibly rodents on the site, together witii such cumulated impacts
as human trampling and vegetation clearance.
3. Concluding Remarks
Phase I and II testing at SDM-W-181 has challenged the orthodox
culture-historical model of regional prehistory by demonsti-ating ertors in its
implications regarding tiie site's stiiicture and contents, and by supporting a
model of mostiy natural formation that explains the data upon which tiiese erto-
neous conclusions were based. The testing program has also given limited
support to more modem interpretations of Batiquitos Lagoon regional prehistory
which are related to a developing cultural ecology model that embraces
diachronic concems but views tiaditionally defined material culture assemblages
as techno-economic aspects of a single subsistence-settiement pattem.
80
p
II
Hi
A more thorough evaluation of the orthodox model and its modem
competitor(s) can be accomplished m the Batiquitos Lagoon region under eitiier
or both of two circumstances. The fu-st involves a gradual accumulation of data
from various types of site expressing a range of contents and dates, which with
a concerted focus on deUneating site formation processes and obtaining
radiocarbon dates wUl permit contiibutions to a regional data set that wiU
ultimately permit direct modeling and hypothesis testing. In this context, tiie
sum total of work accomplished at SDM-W-181 can be considered a salutary
contribution.
The second circumstance entails discovery, recognition, and excava-
tion of particular sites with characteristics favoring intensive research. An
appropriate site will have deep subsurface deposits that represent a broad
variety of activities, including short-term and/or more protracted habitation.
A long history of use wiU be evidenced by radiocarbon-dateable materials
tiiroughout tiie section, preferably including featural contexts. A true soil
mantie will be present and preferably include such recognizable sedimentary
strata as archaeological midden or flood-laid clay, silt, sand, or gravel bands.
The sectional profile wiU exhibit distinct cobble horizons, continuously sorted
vertical distributions, or both, and document a progressive elevation of rodent
zones. Sediment sources will be identifiable relative to the site's location,
e.g., in a floodplain or beneath erodible slopes. Cultural deposition will be'
mostiy primary, instead of secondary, and reflect a combination of horizontal
and vertical cuimral patteming. Stioicturally intact cultural features wiU be
present and either contain or be associated with functionally diagnostic arti-
facts, stylistically definable "type" artifacts, and radiocarbon-dateable
ecofacts.
Site SDM-W-181 meets few of these criteria and therefore is poorly
suited for intensive research. The site's most productive area was tiie
ridgetop, of which about one-half (two-thU-ds of the focal sector) was manually
and mechanically excavated in tiie two-phase archaeological test. Other site
areas contain almost entU-ely secondary deposits. The ridgetop lacks a soU
mantie, and cultural debris was introduced to subsurface context by mostiy
natural processes. A broad variety of activities, including short-term habita-
tion, is represented, but natural erosion and vertical sorting effects have
skewed the samples. A long history of site use is also represented, but only
one feature (a stioicturally intact hearth with artifact,*;. sheU, ash, and
charcoal) was found withm the ndgetop area. Mechanical excavation revealed no
other features, and none are likely to exist.
81
V. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
Site SDM-W-181 does not qualify as an important archaeological resource
under either CEQA criteria or City of Carlsbad draft criteria. A two-phase
testing program documented die site's stmcture and contents, but also revealed
that subsurface deposits on the ridgetop are largely due to fossorial rodent
burtowing and such other natiiral formation processes as sediment shrink/sweU
and root action. In addition, the ridgetop's potentially informative soU
mantie was lost to erosion long ago. Cultural debris situated away from tiie
ridgetop area represents secondary deposition by such natural processes as
slope-wash and slumping. The material culture inventory proved to be small,
despite relatively intensive sampling, and it is dominated by classes (debitage
and sheU) diat can contribute Uttie beyond what is cunentiy known. Important
research questions were addressed in the two phases of testing; however,
additional field and laboratory efforts would merely enlarge the sample, without
faciUtating different kinds of research or analysis.
Planned development of the La Costa Town Center project wUl destroy what
remains of SDM-W-181. While h may be regrettable, the loss of this archaeol-
ogicaily unimportant site wUl not be a significant envtionmental effect under
CEQA or the City of Carlsbad's ordinances.
82
VI. REFERENCES CITED
AxeU-od, D. I.
1977 Outiine History of Califomia Vegetation. In Terrestrial Vegetation of
Califomia. M. G. Barbour and J. Major, eds. John Wiley & Sons Inc
New York.
BuU, C. S.
1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory In San
Dieguito - La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego Archaeo-
logical Society, San Diego.
BedweU, S. F.
1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area South
Central Oregon. Doctoral dissertation. Ph.D. Eugene: Dept of
Anthropology, University of Oregon.
Bocek. B.
1986 Rodent Ecology and Bunowing Behavior: Predicted Effects on Archaeolog-
ical Site Fonnation. American Antiquity 51(3):589-603.
Bowman, R. H.
1973 Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, Califomia. United States Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, m coop-
eration with tiie University of Califomia Agricultural Experiment
Station, tiie United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
AffaU-s, the Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, tiie
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the County of San Diego
Planning Department.
Brott, C. W.
1966 Accession record for San Dieguito Type Collection. UnpubUshed record
sheet at the San Diego Museum of Man.
CarriUo, C. C. and C. S. BuU
1980 Archaeological Testing at La Costa - Mission Hills. RECON. San Diego.
Chartkoff. J.L. and K.K. Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California Stanford University Press. Stanford,
CA.
Collins, M.
1975 Lithic Debitage as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic
Technology. E. Swanson, ed. Mouton Publishers.
Coupland. R. T.
1979 The Nattire of Grassland. In Grassland Ecosystems of the World:
Analysis of Grasslands and Their Uses. R.T. Coupland, ed. Intema-
tional Biological Programme No. 18. Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, UK.
Davis, E. L., C. W. Broti and D. L. Weide
1969 The Western Lithic Co-tradition. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No
6. San Diego, CA.
83
Davis, M. and D. M. Cheever
1991 Phase I Archaeological Testing of Three Sites on the La Costa Town
Center Property in Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON. San Diego.
Eisenberg. L. 1.
1983 Pleistocene Marine Tertace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas and Rancho
Santa Fe Quadnmgles, San Diego County. Califomia. Plate 3 (map) In
On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego
County. Patrick L. AbboU, ed. San Diego Association of Geologists
San Diego, CA. ^
1985 Depositional Processes m the Leeward Part of an Eocene Tidal Lagoon
Northem San Diego County. In On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene
Strata in Northern San Diego County. Patrick L. Abbott, ed. San Diego
Association of Geologists. San Diego, CA.
Eriandson, J. M.
1984 A Case Stiidy in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects of the
Bunowing Pocket Gopher on tiie Distiibution of Archaeological Materials
American Antiquity 49(4):785-790.
Evemham, C. C.
1966 A Note About tiie Editing. UnpubUshed draft for Ancient Hunters of the
Far West (Rogers et al. 1966) on file at the San Diego Museum of Man.
Gallegos, D. R.
1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-J31 Carlsbad Califor-
nia. WESTEC, Inc. San Diego.
1985 The La Costa Site SDi-4405 (W-945) 7000 Years Before Present, Carlsbad
Califomia. WESTEC Services, Inc. San Diego.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Envkonmental and Cultiiral Material for tiie
Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: • Chronology and
Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society. San Diego.
Gallegos, D. R., R. Certeto. C. Kelly, C. Kyle, L. Santoro, and A. Pigniolo
1986 Early and Late Period Occupation at Rogers Ridge (SDi-4845 W-182)
Carlsbad, Califomia. WESTEC Services, Uic. San Diego.
Gallegos, D. R., J. Thesken, and R. L. Carrico
1983 Excavations of Diegueno/Ipai Subsistence Camps above Encinitas Creek: A
Date Recovery Program for Fieldstone Northview, Units 5-9 Encinitas
Califomia. WESTEC Services, Inc. San Diego.
Gifford, E.W.
1973 Miwok Lineages and the PoUtical Unit in Aboriginal Califomia. In The
Califomia Indians Ed. R. F. Heizer and W. A. Whipple, eds. Univer-
sity of Califomia Press, Berkeley.
84
m
GoUey, F. B., L. Ryszkowski, and J. T. Sokur
1975 The Role of SmaU Mammals in Temperate Forests, Grasslands and Culti-
vated Fields. In Small Mammals: Their Productivity and Population
Dynamics. F. B. Golley, K. Petiiisewicz, and L. Ryszkowski, eds
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Hanna, D. C.
1982 Malcolm J. Rogers: The Biography of a Paradigm. Unpublished Masters
Thesis. San Diego State University. San Diego.
Hayden, J.D.
1987 Notes on the Apparent Course of San Dieguito Development. In San
Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County
Archaeological Society. San Diego.
Hector, S. M.
1984 Late Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Activities in SouUiem San Diego
County, Califomia. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Califomia.
Los Angeles. Los Angeles.
Hester, T. R.
1973 Chronological Ordering of Great Basin Prehistory. Contributions of
University of California Archaeological Research Facility
Berkeley, CA.
the
11
Jones, T. L.
1991 Marine-Resource Value and tiie Priority of Coastal Settiement: A
Califomia Perspective. American Antiquity 56(3):4i9-443.
Kaldenberg, R. L.
1974 The Results of a Five-Percent Archaeological Test Excavation at Santa Fe
Glens (SDM-W-181-"A") Carlsbad. CaUfomia. RECON. San Diego, CA.
1975 An Archaeological Impact Report on La Costa Far South (Easterly Area)
including Santa Fe Knolls. RECON. San Diego.
Kaldenberg, R. L. and P. H. Ezell
1974 An Archaeological Sample and Excavation of Two Prehistoric Sites:
Rancho Park North Residential Development, Olivenhain, Califomia.
RECON. San Diego.
Kennedy, M. P.
1975 Westem San Diego Metiopolitan Area. In
Metropolitan Area, California. Califomia
Geology, Bulletin 200. Sacramento, CA.
Geology of the San Diego
Division of Mines and
Kennedy, M. P. and G. L. Peterson
1975 Eastem San Diego County Metropolitan Area. In Geology of the San
Diego Metropolitan Area, Califomia. Califomia Division of Mines and
Geology, BuUetin 200. Sacramento, CA.
85
Kuhn, T. S.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second ed., enlarged.
University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
1977 The Essential Tension: Selected Essays in Scientific Tradition and
Change. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
Luomala, K.
1978 Tipai and Ipai. In Handbook of American Indians, Vol. 8: California
R. F. Heizer, ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
May, R.V.
1975 A Brief Survey of Kumeyaay Etiinography. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 1 l(4):l-25.
Meighan, C. W.
1954 A Late Complex in Soutiiem Califomia Prehistory. Southwestem Journal
of Anthropology 10:215-227.
Moratto, M. J.
1984 Califomia Archaeology. Academic Press. San Diego.
Moriarty, J. R.
1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change, Coordinated
with Sti-atigraphically Conti-olled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego.
Anthropological Journal of Canada 7(3): 1-18.
1967 Transitional Pre-desert Phase in San Diego County. Science
155(3762):553-555.
Norwood, R. H.
1980 The Archaeological Resources of Fairbanks Ranch, Rancho Santa Fe
Califomia. RECON. San Diego.
Norwood, R. H., C. S. BuU, and E. J. Rosenthal
1981 An Archaeological Data Recovery Project in the East Drinkwater Basin,
Fort Irwin, CaUfomia. RECON. San Diego.
PhilUps, J. R.
1990 Biological Technical Report for La Costa Town Center in Carlsbad
Califomia. RECON. San Diego.
Ransom, J. E.
1981 Complete Field Guide to North American Wildlife (Westem Edition).
Harper & Row, Publishers. New York, NY.
Rogers, M. J.
1929 Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropoloeist
31:455-467.
1938 Archaeological and Geological Uivestigations of the Culture Levels in an
Old Channel of San Dieguito Valley. Carnegie Institution of Washington
Yearbook, 37:344-45.
86
ii
1939 Early Litiiic Uidustiies of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and
Adjacent Desert Region. San Diego Museum Papers Number 5 Ballena
Press.
^^^^ ft^, ?"^^;"o Prehistory. Southwestem Journal of Anthropology 1(2):167-198. Albuquerque, NM.
Rogers, M. J., H. M. Wormington, E. L. Davis, and C. W. Brott
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Richard F. Pourade, ed Union-
Tribune Publishing Company. San Diego.
Schiffer, M. B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New
Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM.
Shipek, F. C.
1982 Kumeyaay Socio-PoUtical Stiiicture. Journal of California and Great
Basin Anthropology 4(2):96-303.
Spier, L.
1923 Soutiiem Diegueno Customs. University of Califomia Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 20(16):295-358.
Tme, D. L.
^^^^ ^^o^^^^ Complex in San Diego County, Califomia. American Antiquity 23(3):255-263.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speakmg Groups
m Southem Califomia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Califomia
at Los Angeles.
1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex In Cuyamaca Rancho State
Park, San Diego County, California. Monographs of tiie Archaeological
Survey, UCLA. Los Angeles.
1980 The Pauma Complex in Northem San Diego County:1978. The Journal of
New World Archaeology 3(4): 1-39.
United States Department of Agriculture
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, Califomia. Washington, D.C.
Wallace, W. J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southem Califomia Coastal Archaeology
Southwestem Joumal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume 9:Califomia. Smitiisonian InstiUition
Washington, D.C.
Warten, C. N.
1966 The San Dieguito Type Site. San Diego Museum Papers. San Diego.
87
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2); 168-185.
m
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southem Califomia f
Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. C Irwin- *
WiUiams, ed. Portales: Eastem New Mexico University Contiibutions in
Anthropology 1(3): 1-14. p
II Wamen, C. N., D. L. Tme, and A. A. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Westem San Diego County; Results and •
Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey m
Annual Report, University of Califomia, pp. 1-106.
Whitehouse, J. L. and D. M. Cheever *
1990 Cultural Resource Survey of the La Costa Town Center, City of Carlsbad *
Califomia. RECON. San Diego.
Willey, G. R. and J. A. Sabloff
1974 A History of American Archaeology. W.H. Freeman and Company San
Francisco, CA.
ll
m
m
m
m
P
il
VH. PROJECT PERSONNEL
David C. Hanna
Dayle M. Cheever
McMiUan Davis
Frank Ritz
Ken Kapler
John Zucconi
Richard Shultz
Rick Wade
Jim Newland
Ed Baker
Karen Bowling
Harry Price
Stacey Higgins
Principal Investigator
Senior Archaeologist
Investigator (Before 3-91)
and Principal
Project Archaeologist (Before 3-1-91)
Field Archaeologist. Cartographer
Field Archaeologist, Lab Technician
Field Archaeologist. Lab Technician
Field Archaeologist
Field Archaeologist
Field Archaeologist
Field Archaeologist
Technical Illustrator
Senior Technical Blusti-ator
Production SpeciaUst
89
ATTACHMENTS
1 ^
•il
ATTACHMENT 1
m
m
'Im
Mi
m
mt
3?
L__—- cTA
tit. 4
IBM
ii
nr.
ill
Ite
E
CULTURE SEQUENCE IN'WESTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND PSEUDONYMS «
c
SD II : SORTER- MAKER X " •
r
SD III : SCRAPER MAKER II ^
LITTORAL.I : EOLITHIC OH-LA JOLLAN m
LITTORAL-II: .•.•PROT(>*SGRAPER-^KER OR ENCINITAS *
Y III :. WESTERN OR:NORTHERN DIEGUENO *
LUISENO
SUGGESTED CHRONOLOGY pp
SD II : 1000 or SOO^BC to 400 or 300 BC **
SD III : 400 or 300 BC to 1 AD *
H
LIT I : 1 AD or 200 to 900 AD
LIT II : 900 - 1450 or 1500 S
Y III : 1450 or 1500 to 1800 H
IH
im
^m
tm
m
IH
PR
MM
TL-Tl
At^, 6uo<^ ilL-. tSt I^AA^iJ'^StT
•t
it 1/ ^ (PL-IT
TERMINOLOGY OF MALCOEM J, ROGERS,
THE SAN DIEGUITO COMPLEX
1) CENTRAL ASPECT-PHASE J
CENTRAL ASPECT-Phaso II
CENTRAL ASPECT-PEASE III
2) SOUTHTVESTERN'ASPECT-PHASE 'II
SOUTHWESTERN ASPECT-PHASE III
SOUTHSyESTERN ASPECT*PHASE lY
3) WESTERN ASPECT-PHASE I (?)
WESTERN ASPECT-PHASE II (?)
WESTERN ASPECT-Phaso III
THE AMARGOSA COMPLEX
CENTRAL ASPECT-PHASE I—- "
CENTRAL ASPECT-PHASE II—^-^T
CENTRAL -ASPECT-PHASE III ——•
EASTERIY ASPECT-PHASE II
OLD TERMINOLOGY OF ROGERS
MALPAIS INDUSTRY (EOLITHIC)
PLAYA INDUSTRY-PHASE I
PLAYA INDUSTRY-PHASE II
SAN DIEGUITO INDUSTRY-PHASE I-
SAN DIEGUITO INDUSTRY-PHASE II
SAN DIEGUITO INDUSTRY-PHASES III&IV
NONE
NONE
NONE
> -?
PINTO*GYPSUM COMPLEX
AMARGOSA INDUSTRY-PHASE I
AMARGOSA INDUSTRY-PHASE II
NONE, BUT DESCRIBED (ROGERS 1939)
m •I
OLD OR DEFUNCT TERMS
LITTORIAL
LITTORIAL II
ENCINITAS
PROTO SCRAPER^MAKER
SCRAPER-MAKER
NONE
DIEGUENO
ARCHAIC COLORQDO
NEW TERMINOLOGY
LA JOLLA I
LA JOLLA II
LA JOLLA II
LA JOLLA II
SAN DIEGUITO II
SAN DIEGUITO III
WESTERN rUMAj; or YUMAN III
YUMAN I
J
1
Malcolm J. RoRere - June 1958
w-181 fu^^~rT:/Lp/2
* CULTURES: SD-II and II?" and
' Lit, II at W-181-A.
^ WATER: Same aa for W-179.
LOCATION: On a hill on north rim of
North Pork of Encinitas
Creek. Elev. 525',
NAME: North Hill
AREA: 1/2 acre concentration with 2
acres of scattered marginal
occupation.
r
C
C
t
[
t
I
I
I
t
I
i
Highland accretion camp.
ARCHITECTURE: There are 2 large
cairns of boulders here which haveTYPE:
slumped into an erosional cirque.
May he Lit. II roasting platforms or sweat-house debris.
BURIALS: None.
PETROS: None.
INTRUSIVES:
HISTORY: First settled by SD-II and occupied over into third phase.
This is a very concentrated occupation, probably because the surrounding
mesa top is very stoney except in this one area. Below this site on a
lower bench is a small amount of Lit. II occupation. This Is on the
250' contour«
REMARKS: The Lit. II site is designated W-181-A. There is some slight
amount of SD-II -material on this site as well. Beglrmlng at W-181 and
extending to the west on a general elevation to W-182 and beyond it to
the end of the Mesa is continuous evidence of SD-II material* This is
for a total distance of I-3/4 miles. As a matter of fact, there is no
part of the Encinitas Grant Plateau where felsite flaking cannot \)e
found and it is the center of the greatest concentration of SD occupation
in San Diego County.
E
Intro, page of -pages 1 - ^ 42,
Accession No.
Date of Receipt:
Received from:
Address:
1963-1
no receict Accepted by: not apolicfihi^
n .a.
n.a.
How Acquired: Approval
Bequeath
Gift
Loan
-Purchase
Other
^^hange /lieldwork /
I
m
IH
n.a. Total Value or Price
Remarks:TV.-; J.- ^ - • P -,1 ^. n ^ collection constixutes the 1!P1CO1'P J Ropers' "q^^ n-
Catalog Numbers
1963-1-1 through
•1963-1-1127
Description (Name, culture, provenience, age, price)
None of the iteme yjere •catalogued under this serie- of
numbers, it was done only to serve as a reference, so that
specimens which belonged in the iiJR type collection could
be easily recognized v/hen found in the site collections,
iiany of the specimens were catalogued under the old system
(sequential numbers), end these numbers have been retained
as have the old catalog cards.
In the manuscript and field note files of Melcolm Rogers
there is a list, handwritten, of this entire collection.
This list was Qone under the supervision of Clark ?r. Brott
m 1965. It was assembled from Rogers' notes, the early
Illustrations for the book "San Dieguito Complex", from which
the later book .^cient Hunters of the Far 7/sst" was adapted
ana from the artifacts, '
m
m$
I
29 July 1966
Clark T7. Brott
Curator of Collections
T^'oui^°r^°'/n ^ "'"•'^ °' ^°eers' Sa. Dieguito ^tifact
^^.IZ.Trill ir°965 bfc.-v/B^on" ^""Hoge.s. .otes, ..ti^acts.
San Diesuito II
Southwestern Aspect SD County and NW Eaja California
W- Area
UK
I
W-179 Location: Between the north and 3ast forks of
Encinitas Creek. On the Lux Ranch. Ele^jatlon 275',
(Center Hill Site) Area: two acres.
Type: Highland Camping Site.
Cultures: 3D II and La Jollan II
Architecture: La Jollan II hearths present.
Site Drawer: Lithic collection; both La Jollan and 3D II
Type Series: Plfaclal Ovate,
y-180 Location: Between the east and south fork of Encinitas
Creek. F.levatlon 275* (Air Field Site) Area- 10 thin
but continous acres.
Type: Hip:h3aid accretion type of scattered caraplnp: growing
into perma:fi^y.
Cultures: 3D II and III (trace) and KS^aaastSIX LJ II.
Architecture: Some cobMe hearths 3D II and a larc^er number
of LJ II ones,
Heraarks: Aosordlng to the site files, this site Is the lar-
gest 3D site (In area) known, A frreat number of soeclmBrE
have been collected at this site and its various divlslors
180-A is SD II and III, l80-r Is LJ II.
Site Drawer: large lithic collection reoresentlng 30 II
^ ^ primarily with 3D III and LJ II In evidence.
TjTBQ Series: Discoidal Scraper, graver, 2 hammers, 3 small
0- scrapers, Ovate biface, side scraper, flake scraner.
W-130-A side Scraper, Undefined.
mt
'/l-lQl Location: On a hill on north rim of North Fork of
Encinitas Creek. Elevation. 325* (North Bill) Atea:
5 acre concentration with 2 acres of scattered marginal
occupation.
Type: Highland accretion camp.
Architecture: LJ II material, possible rcEBting platforms
|; and/or sweat house.
'kt Cultures: SD II and III and LT II. LJ II at W-lSl-A
i' 3D III listed In Site Book,
1^ Remarks: Concentrated occupation; tyoical of area. 3iteK
{ '''ite Drawer: Lithic Collection; LJ II and 3D material both
(IM clearly present, Both aspects of 3D (H XLD appear to be
present.
m»
•'m
m
Type Series: Discoidal Scraoer; * fleshlns?- plane*, Blade (I)
bevelled flake. W-881-A Ovate biface,' ^'planes
"jfc y-182 Location: On mesa above the junction of the forks of
I Encinitas Creek on north side. Elevation 175, 250-275*
m Area: no deflnte area except fir numerous concertratlons
over a great area.
Type itlCKi: Highland intermittent camplns^: over lone-
rs period for San Dieguito Peoples.
I Cultures: 3D II and III (Trace) and La Jollan II: also
^IH Y-III.
ATTACHMENT 2
f
mt
m «• H
f
SITE INVENTORY
mt
#1
Item
accession number
catalog number
site number
locus
unit
category
feature
level
material
flake types
KEY TO FLAKES AND SHATTER
Description
RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO
00000 for SDi-#s
WOOOO for SDM-W-#s
2. debitage
1. hearth
2. burial
3.
4.
5.
6.
0"" 10, 20, 30, ...
1. coarse grained
metavolcanic
2. coarse grained
porphyritic metavolcanic
3. fine grained
metavolcanic
4. fine grained
porphyritic metavolcanic
counts of each type within the material type
specified; see attached flow diagram
5. quartzite
6. quartz
7. chert/chalcedony
8. obsidian
9; other
\
FLAKE TYPOLOGY
Type Bulb Relative
Platform Length Cortex
Dorsal
Scars
1 Present Present 2x W — 2+
2 Present Present —
3 Present Present SL 1+ cm. 90%+ 0
Present Present cm. 30%-90% 0-1
Present Present 3. cm. -30% 1+
6 Present Present -J2cm, 0% 1+
7 ^ Present Present -J^cm. Present 1+
8 Absent Absent — Present
9 Absent Absent — Absent , ^
Other
Parallel sides
Diverging, thin
Collins (1975)
Types*
III
III, IV
tl, til
II, III
II
tV, V
IV, V
It
tV
Source: after Norwood, Bull, and Rosenthal 1981.
^CCIIns (1975, Stage I (acquisition, present only as unworked raw material.
Assumed Process
Specialized blade type
Bifacial thinning
Platform creation, cortex removal
Cortex removal
Core reduction, basic shaping
Finishing, resharpening
Trimming
Shatter during primary reduction
Shatter during secondary reduction
t i i « fiiiiifi m^m m mm mm li fi mm ti
PAGE HQ.
ACC CAT SITE
tm i* SITE wia:
mm * SITE H) ;3!
!•
ll ^ J ' J ^ D yisi
R237 526 i*18!
tm W18!
tm
fi237 526
R237 526
KlSl
'.^ISl
wtm R237 800 im
R237 BOO 'im
mm 3237 BOO m\
R237 800 NISI
«•> R237 800 KlSI
mm fi227 900 H181
R237 860 Midi
*M R237 860 vm
R237 360 m\
R237 860 tiiei
R237 860 tjiai
R237 881 HI81
mm R237 83! «18!
R237 SO! ^181
mm fi237 83! K13!
tm R237 SSI H181
fi237 151 W181
R237 151 W181
R237 152 WIS!
m R237 152 Ml&i
R237 154 W13!
mm R237 155 Hl&l
R237 15S WIS:
R237 !5B M!81
R237 159 W13!
R237 159 mi mt R237 160 !<I3i
mm R237 160
R237 161
!J' 0 1 n i. u i
W131
m^ R237 163 K18I
R237 164 W131
mm' R237 165 >JI8!
m fi237 167
R237 168
WlSl
»18!
m R237 169 , «1S!
mt R237 169
R237 171
WIS!
bilSl
R237 ITI HIS!
R:37 172 m\
m R2:7 172 fl'Sl
K!8!
(323? 173 WI6I
>' - " • i / .J WIS!
DEBITAGE - RA!i USTIN6
IIT FEA LEV FLDt KA
y i
0 2
0 4
0 6
0 7
0 1
0 2
0 3
0 4
0 7
0 7
0 4
0 2
0 1
0 ! 2
0 1 3
0 3 i
0 3 2
0 4 2
0 5 2
0 6 3
0 6 1
0 7 !
0 7 2
0 e 2
0 3 !
0 3
0 10 3
0 II 1
0 12 3
0 14 3
0 15 3
0 !6 1
0 16 3
0 17 2
i"i 17 •:•
ig I 0 0
IS 3 0 0
19 t 0 0
!9 3 0 0
0 0 [1
i) V 0
fl
V c 0
0 c 0
0 f) 0
0 0 0
9 0 D
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
•J 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
D 0
0 0 0
!} 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
f! 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 Q
0 V 0
0 0 f>
0
f\
0
fl
0
\J
0
V
f)
\j
0
0 0 0
0 I'l A
TP4 TPS TPS TP7 TPS TP9
1 1 0 0 c
l"; I (j 1
*
••'
0 1 0 0 () ()
0 4 3 fi 1 fi
f 0 1 19
0 20 30 0 •1 61
rt 6 0 0 0''
0 0 28 0 36
0 6 £ 0 0 12
0 0 0 0 0 ;
0 0 0 0 0 9
1 4 8 0 1 14
0 15 15 0 •T 36
0 23 36 0 3
0 10 0 0 ll
0 1
1 0 0 G "7
0 I'I 0 0
0 0 0 0 c 1
ft 0 i. 0 0 7
0 1 1 •5 0 (I 24
0 ? 0 0 13
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 Cf 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 \ 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 i 0 0 0
0 0 i 1) 0 0
0 0 I 0 c 0
0 0 I 0 0 0
0 c L 0 0 0
0 1 V 0 0 0
0 0 f} V V 0 i
0 t 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 f\
V 0 f
0 0 1} 0 0 1
0 c 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 [•j !
0 '•} 1 A ^•l '•) (} 0 (') c (•
0 (( () 0
(•) 0 ; 1) 0 0
0 1 0 0
(i 0 0 0 I
PAGE NO.
05/16/'?:
DEBITAGE - RAH LISTINS
t
ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI MA TP! TP2 TPS TP4 TPS TP6 TP7 TPS TP9
R237 175 WIE! 0 20 'I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
t r.".'". •? tic m\ 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
1
R237 !7o JllSl 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0
0 '1
R237 176 Wis: 0 21 S 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 177 KIG! 0 'JO 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 F R237 177 H131 0 LL 3 0 c 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1
i
R237 176 UlBl 0 23 3 0 0 {\
'J 0 0 0 0 I'l
0
1
i fl237 179 14131 0 24 •J •J c 0 0 0 1 0 0 (\ 0 r R237 ISC i*lB! 0 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 181 WIS! 0 26 \i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 !
R237 lei KlSl 0 26 1 i. 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0
f R237 182 U131 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0
R237 1B3 U181 0 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
fi237 184 «!81 0 29 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 184 H!8! 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 r • R237 134 m\ 0 29 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
R237 185 H18! 0 30 f 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 136 i^is: 0 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
r R237 IS6 HISI 0 0!
u 1 0 0 0 0 0 I) 0 0 2
R23? 137 WIS! 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 f 1 0 0 1
R237 187 H181 0 tji 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 'I 0 0
f • R237 187 WIS! 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
i R237 188 W121 0 33 0 0 0 () 0 t 0 0
1
i
R237 IBS W131 0 34 4 0 0 0 0 0. t
1 0 0 0 R237 139 tilGl 0 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1} 1
R237 189 III31 0 34 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0. V 0
R237 190 WIS! 0 35 3 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 1
R237 190 WlSl 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 R237 13! WlBl 0 36 '^ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1
0 R237 !9! m\ 0 36 1 1 0 0 0 1 •1 0 0 0 0
R237 192 WIBI 0 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 193 »!3! 0 39 3 0 0 0 0 0 !
i 0 0 0
1 f R237 194 WIS! 4! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
1
.i R237 194 WIS! 0 4! 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 196 SlSl 0 43 e 1 0 0 0 fl 0 0 0 » ? R237 197 WlSl 0 44 3 0 0 0 Q 0 1 0 A 1
J R237 !97 WIB! 0 44 ! 0 0 0 0 0 1 A 0 3 fi237 196 W181 0 ic tJ 4 0 0 (} 0 1 0 0 0 0
t ••• R237 198 WIB! 0 45 •\ 0 0 () 0 0 0 (1 1
R237 199 W181 0 46 I 0 0 0 () 0 1 y 0 0 3 R237 200 W18! 0 47 w 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 1
R237 20! W13! 0 49 ! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 f \ R237 203 WIS! 55 0 0 0 I) ! 0 0 0
R237 203 W131 56 i. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0
••,
R237 203 iilSl 56 3 [} (j Q 0 0 0 0 0 1
t ' R237 204 WlSl 57 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 II
R237 204 WIB! 57 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
fi23? 206 WlSl 62 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 (• 0 1
t ; R237 206 WIS! Q 62 1 ft i; A Q 1 Q 0 0
i
R237 207 WIS: 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 !) 0 0 1
i i R237 207 WISI r'l 63 1 1 0 1 1 i 0 0 f)
m
w
m
PAGE NO.
05/16/91
DEBITAGE - RAW USTIN6
MM
ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FID» MA TP! TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TPe TP7 TPS TP9
mm R237 208 WlSl () 64 ! (1 0 0 0 I
i 0 f> 0
R237 209 WIB! G 66 •j :'i 0 0 (•l
V (j 0 0 0 1
R23? 209 WlSl 0 66 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
IW R237 210 W181 0 67 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
R237 210 WlSl 0 67 A U c 0 A 0 G 1 1 0 0 n
R237 212 WlSl 0 68 1 0 0 0 0 1 M 0 0 0
tH R237 213 WI8I 0 69 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1
R237 213 WIS! 0 69 u 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 213 WIB! 0 69 i A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 214 WlSl !j 70 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
mm R237 214 WtSl 0 70 t 0 G 0 0 1 \ 0 0 1
I
mk R237 215 WIS! lj \ n G 0 0 1 1 0 G 0
R237 215 W181 0 7! 1 J 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 I
mm R237 2!5 WIB! 0 71 -1 L 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 216 W181 0 i L 1 li 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 A 0
R237 217 WlSl 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 218 WI81 0 1 J
( H 1 fl 0 0 0 0 1 0 A 1
R237 219 WIB! 0 7C
1 u 1 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 ^,
R237 219 WlSl 0 TC
/ J j 0 0 0 0 0
•
1
0 r. (j
R237 219 WlSl 0 IC.
•>
0 0 0 0 0 <
1
0 0 ij
mm R237 220 HI81 0 76 h 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0
R237 22! WIS! 0 77 1 Q 0 0 0 1 I
i 0 A
R237 222 WIS! 0 19. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
mm nnn-i ."i.-i-i H^J/ LLL WlSl (! 70
' li 0 Q 0 0 0. 0 0 0 J
WI8I 0 79 1 <i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 223 WI8I 0 79 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G I
R237 223 WlSl 0 79 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 2
R237 224 H18! 0 SO 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
R237 225 WlSl 0 Bl 1 0 0 0 0 * t 1 0 0 0
R237 226 HIS! 0 82 1 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0
imm R237 227 WlSl 0 84 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 227 WlSl 0 84 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
R237 228 WlBl 0 05 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R23? 229 WlSl 0 86 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0
R237 231 WlSl 0 S3 t 0 G 0 0 0 0 0
P» R237 23! WlSl 0 88 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 \]
R237 232 WIS! 0 33 -^ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
IW R237 232 W181 0 39 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
R237 233 wiei 0 90 3 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0 f\
V 0
R23? 233 WIB! 0 90 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 233 WlSl 0 90 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 il
R237 234 W181 0 9! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 234 WlSl 0 91 \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
IM R237 235 WlSl 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
R237 23b WIBI 0 93 J li 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
WM R237 237 W131 0 94 0 0 0 0 f i 0 0 i.i
R237 237 wiei lj 94 •3 J 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 (1 0
IH R237 233 W13! 0 9^ I D 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
WIB! 0 95 0 G 0 0 0 \ 0 0
R237 239 WIS! 0 97 ; 0 l'\ 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 240 WlSl G •;q 0 0 0 0 1 0 .•1 1} 0
PAGE NQ.
05/16/91
DE&ITASE - RAW LISTING
ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDS HA TPl TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TPe TP7 TPB TP9
R237 240 WIS! 0 96 3 0 (1 0 A i 0 0 0 A
R237 530 WIS! 1 0 2 0 0 G 0 4 0 0 0 !
R237 530 WlSl ! G 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 A 0
R237 530 wiei ( i 0 u 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3
WIS! 1 10 y 0 is A 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 533 WlSl 10 1 A G 0 0 0
••)
i.
0 c •I
WIBI !0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 j
R237 533 WIS! 10 g 0 !) 0 0 1 0 0 0 A
hLJI jjj WIBI 1 10 9 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R23? 534 WlSl { 20 1 0 0 A 0 0 ! 0 0 1
R237 534 WlSl \ 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 i. 1 0 0 !
R237 542 W181 ; 30 .J 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0
R237 545 W181 I 40 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 545 WIS! 1 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 547 WlSl 10 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
R237 547 WlSl L 10 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 .I
R237 547 WlSl 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 2
R237 548 W181 2 20 4 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0
fi237 548 WIBI 2 20 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1
R237 54S WIS! i 20 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 548 W181 20 J 0 A 0 2 0 0 0 t
mi 549 WlSl 30 !} 0 0 0 1 0 0 A 0
R237 549 WIS! i 30 J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I i
R237 550 H13! 2 40 1 0 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 552 WlSl ij 10 i. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
R237 552 wiai 10 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 G
R237 552 W181 !0 ! 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
R237 557 WlSl 3 20 ! 0 0 0 0 2 0 i 0 0
R237 560 WIS! V 30 ! 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
R237 562 WIS! 4 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
fi237 562 WlSl 4 10 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 n 0
R237 562 WlSl 4 10 ") 0 0 c 0 0 4 0 0 1
R237 565 wiai 4 20 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 4
R237 565 WlSl 4 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
R237 565 WlSl 4 20
•)
A
w
A 0 0 i. ! 0 0 i
R23? 566 WlSl 30 1 0 I) (j A 0 0 0 0 L.
R237 565 WlSl 4 30 2 fl f] 0 0 I 0 0 0 '1
R237 583 WIS! c
J 0 0
'•)
A 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
R237 567 WlSl V 10 \ n 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 1
R237 567 WlSl c
.J 10 3 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 56S W181 c 20 I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
fi237 570 H181 c. "5 A L 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0
R237 570 WIBI 30 "1 j A A 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
R237 571 WI81 c 40 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
t\Ldl Jli WlSl r Q 10 \ 0 (1 A 0 1 Cl 0 0 'l
1 / J J J WIS! i IC () 0 G 0 0 .1 G 0 0
*'!3I C, 10 2 G ll 0 (
1 I A G
Kwj,' j/l WlSl b •;' A l n A 0 0 ! 0 0 0 1
R237 574 WIB! 20 1 A 0 0 0 I 0 G 0
R237 575 W181 c 30 I I) 0 (') G 2 1 G 1 2
R237 575 WIS! c. 3*! (> 0 0 1 0 ^1 n 0
ii
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Ik
PAGE NO. 5
05/16/91
DEBITAGE - RAW LISTING
ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI MA TPl TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TP6 TP7 TPS TP9
R237 575 WlSl £ 30 0 A A 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 575 WlSl 6 30 6 0 V 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0
i R237 576 Wis: 6 40 7 ti G A
V ! 0 0 0 0
' mm R237 576 WlSl 6 40 1 0 A 0 0 1 i 0 0 0
R237 577 WlSl 6 50 t 0 0 0 .•1 \ 0 0 0 0
1 R237 578 WlSl 7 10 2 0 0 0 0 G 3 0 0 1
R237 57B W!B! / 10 1 1 0 0 0 A 4 2 0 A •}
R237 578 WIS! 7 10 7 0 A 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
) R237 573 KlBl 7 10 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0
R237 580 W!3! 1 1 20 3 G 0 0 0 2 0 0 G
R237 530 WIS! 7 20 4 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0
R237 581 WIB! 7 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f
R237 531 WIB! 7 30 1 0 0 0 0 \ 0 0 0 0
R237 582 WIS! 7 40 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
R237 532 WlSl 40 r, 0 A 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 535 WlSl B 20 d 0 0 y 0 ) 0 0 0 0
R237 5B5 WIBI S 20 1 0 0 0 0 i 1 0 0 0
fl237 590 WlSl 9 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0
R237 590 WlSl 10 n j 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 I 1
R237 590 W18! 9 10 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 c
J . ^ R237 591 WIB! 20 1 0 0 0 0 t 2 A A 0
R237 591 WIB! •? 20 0 0 0 0 t 1 A r) 0 1
R237 59! WIBI 9 20 •1 0 0 0 A 0 1 1 1 0 0
' mm R237 532 WIBI 9 30 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 'j 1
R237 532 M181 9 30 2 0 0 " 0 i A 0 0 0
: — fi237 593 WIS! 9 40 0 0 0 0 [ 0 0 0 0
i ^ R237 593 WIBI 9 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R23? 593 W131 9 40 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
I MM R237 594 W181 50 I 0 0 0 0 1 A A 0 0
! R237 594 W!8I 9 50 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Mi R237 597 WIB! 9A 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 A 0 i.
1 R237 597 WlSl 9A 10 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 i 0 0
\ tm
i
R237 597 W181 9A 10 •3 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0
R237 593 WIS! 9A 20 •1 L {) 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0
WIS! 9A 20 1 0 G 0 A 0 A 0
'•
R237 598 WIS! 9A 20 G A 0 0 0 t 0 0
• ^
R237 599 WIS! 9A 30 0 0 0 1
i 2 0 A G 1
fi237 599 WIS! 9A 30 0 0 0 0 0 t G 0 t
I t" R237 601 WIS! 9A 40 1 1 0 0 0 A A 0 G 0
R237 602 Wist 9A 50 0 0 0 ! i 0 0 0 1
' mt R237 604 WIS! 9B !0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
R237 604 WIBI 98 10 t 0 0 A 0 I ! 0 0 1
J R237 604 WIS! 9E 10 0 0 0 J-1
V 0 1 0 0 0
1 • 8237 605 WlSl 9B 20 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 (; ^1 -.
R237 605 WlSl 9B 20 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 n
V 0 0
' tm fi237 605 WlSl 9B 20 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 1 0
1
' mt
R237 606
R237 60b
WIBI
WIS!
9B
9B
30
30
w 0
0
0
0 (• 0
A
0
1 1
t 1
0
A
V
0
V
0
0
0
0
I •* R23? b07 WlSl 9B 40 ! 0 0 A 0 0 1 0 0
i R237 609 WIS! 96 50 u 0 I-I
V 0 0 •1 0 0 0 0
R237 609 WIS! 9B 50 2 A 0 0 A 0 0 A 1
PAGE NO. 6
05/16/91
DEBITAGE - RAW LISTING
ACC CAT SITE LOC U NIT FEA LEV FLDI MA TPl TP2 TPS TP4 TPS TPS TP7 TPB TP9
R237 609 W18! 9B 50 1 (: ,-, A I'I 1 ! 0 0 0
R237 SOS WIS! TIA 10 7 1 0 0 0 A 0 ! 0 0 A
R237 303 WIS! TIA 10 4 0 0 0 8 0 G 1
R:37 808 WlSl TIA 10 2 G 0 0 0 0 5 0 G 0
R237 309 WIS! IIA 20 0 0 0 0 I 2 0 0
R237 809 WIS! TIA 20 /, 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 Q
R237 809 W181 TIA 20 3 0 'l 0 1 2 0 0 4
R237 809 WIS! TIA 2U 4 0 0 0 G 0 ! 0 0 0
R237 81! W181 TIA 30 A
V 0 0 0 0 tJ 4 0 0 0
R237 311 WlSl TIA l;"i •7 A c 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1
R237 8!! WlSl TIA 30 "J 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2
R237 61! WlSl TIA 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
R237 312 WlSl TIA 40 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2
R237 812 WIS! TIA 40 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0
R237 B!2 WlSl TIA 40 0 0 0 1 1 7 3 1 0 .J
R237 312 WlSl TIA tv
i
t 0 0 0 0 3 0 D 0 0
R237 33B WIS! TIB 10 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
R237 838 WIB! TIB IC i y 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
R237 038 WlSl TIB 10 J 0 A 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
R237 340 HIS! TIB 20 1 I 0 0 0 0 f 4 0 0 0
R237 340 WlSl TIB 20 •T
ij 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
R23? 340 WlSl 116 20 ") 0 0 (1 0 c } 0 Ij
R237 340 Wi81 TIB 20 4 0 0 A 0 A 2 0 0 '1
fi237 342 WIS! TIB 30 3 {) 0 A 0 0. 3 0 0 1
R237 342 WlSl TIB 30 4 0 G 0 0 0 1 0 Q 0
R237 842 WlSl TIB 30 ^ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
R237 844 WIBI TIB 40 3 0 0 0 0 •5 >J 1 0 0 0
R237 344 WlSl TIB 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0
R237 644 WlSl TIB 40 2 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0
R237 830 WIS! T2A 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 330 WlSl T2A 10 0 0 0 G 0 1 0 0 2
fi237 330 WISl T2A 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
wiei T2A 20 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 L
R237 831 W181 T2A 20 i\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
R237 834 WIS! T2A 30 7 A 0 0 A 0 1 0 0 0
n-Ti7 Ol J wis: T2A 30 -1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 G
R237 336 WIS! T2A 40 •) A
V 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 336 WlSl T-1 1
1 Ln 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 337 W131 T2A 50 n
-J 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 337 WlSl T2A Cn
•J'j '\ 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
R237 837 KlSl T2A 50 4 A A 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
R237 320 WISl T2A 60 ''i 0 0 0 A 0 0 A
V
1 1
R237 820 WIBI T2A 60 ij 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•> R237 320 WIS! T2A 60 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t m n 7 n •-,
^:.L,-.' Ci-i. WISl T2A 70 G 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 I
R237 322 WIS! T2A 70 2 0 0 0 (l 0 0 0 1 1
R237 322 WIB: T2A 70 1, (1 fl 0 0
•-•
1 0 0
R23; 322 tiis: T2A Jr. 0 0 0 !} 0 0 0 G 1
R237 S23 felSl T26 10 () V I"; 1 0 0 0 j
Q.-.r.'J Q.-,^ WIS! 125 ;0 1 0 1) {•j • j 0 0 0 6
R237 823 ?;!E1 T2B 10 0 0 G 2 0 0 i
m m
m
ii
PAGE NG.
05/16/91
DEBITAGE - RAW LISTING
ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPl TP2 TPS TP4 TPS TP6 TP? TPB TP9
mm R237 323 WIBI TIC-10 7 (; 0 A G 2 0 0 0
R237 345 W131 r2B 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 •1 0 A 0
R237 845 WISl 20 0 •J 0 0 0 i. 0 0 2
R237 845 WISl T22
•">/•:
L-J
0 0 A 0 0
•;
0 0 0
R237 B4t WISl T2B 30 4 (I 0 0 0 0 A 0 0 ;
f R23? 846 WISl T2B 3u 1 0 0 0 0 4 ! 0 0 2
R237 846 WISl T2B 30 7 0 0 0 0 A 0 G !
mm R237 847 WISl T2B 40 7 0 0 (j IJ ! 0 0 0
R237 647 WIBI T2B 40 •} 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
— R23? 847 WIS! T2B 40 I 0 A 0 0 4 A 0 0
R237 348 msi T2B 50 1 0 0 G G 1 0 0 A 0
! R237 348 WISl T2B 50 3 0 0 0 0 1 c G 0
R237 848 WISl T2B 50 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
fi237 848 WISl T2B 50 I 0 0 0 0 ; 2 0 0 0
mm R237 849 WISl T2B 60 0 ('1 0 0 0 1 0 A
V 1
R237 350 WIBI T2B 70 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 353 WIS! T2C 10 r, 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
mi R237 853 WIS! T2C 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3
R237 858 WISl T2C 10 0 0 0 0 t
1 1 0 0 0
R237 355 WIB! j?r 20 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
•117 Dcc Kilu.' OJJ WIBI T2C 20 0 0 0 0 0 A j
mm R237 855 WIS! T2C -.A 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f
R237 355 WIS! T2C 20 0 A 0 0 8 0 0 1 i
fi237 857 WIS! I2C 30 4 G 0 0 0 Q 2 0 0 0
R237 857 WISl T2C 30 2 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0
R237 859 WISl T2C 40 4 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0
R237 859 WISl T2C 40 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3
IK R237 870 WIS! T2C 50 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
R237 824 W181 T2D 10 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '1
R237 824 WISl T2D 10 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 2
R237 824 WISl T2D 10 ^' 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 6
tap R237 824 WIS! T2D 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
R237 324 WIS! T2D 10 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 824 W13! T2D JC 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 826 mi T2D 20 I G 0 A 1 0 0 0 D
R237 326 WISl T2D A 2 0 0 0 t 1 0 0 0 1
R237 826 mi T2D 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
R237 327 W13! T2D 30 \i 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
r • R23? 828 WISl T2D 40 ! 0 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 328 wie: T2D 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
R237 328 WlBl T2D 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i
IM R237 377 wis: T2D 50 4 0 0 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0
! R237 653 WIBI T3ft 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !
mm -...U t J V WIS! T3A 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
WISl T3A 10 2 A 0 0 A
V
A 5 0 0 c.
R23? 354 WISl T3A 20 4 A 0 0 0 0 1) 0 0
R237 854 W!E1 T3A 3 0 A A 0 0 1 0 0 V
H
P 0 7 p = J
^, 11 T " t
WIS! T3A 20 A A 0 ! 1 1) f; 2
Rij7 c/5 filS! T5A ''.A n 0 I'j 0 I 0
R237 893 WISl T4A 10 G 0 A (j 0 0 0 0
R237 393 T4A !0 4 II e 0 1 1 c Q A
PAGE NO.
05/16/9!
DEBITAGE - RAW LISTING
ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDt MA TP! TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TP6 TP? TPS TP9
R237 394 W16! T4A 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 G 0
R237 394 Wis: T4A 20 3 0 0 0 0 G ^ 0 0 0
R237 394 WlSI I4A 20 4 G 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
R237 895 WISl T4A 30 7 0 " !-, V 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 395 WlSl T4A 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
R237 395 WI3! T4A 30 A 0 0 0 •7
ij
t
J 0 0 0
R237 895 WISl T4A 30 I 0 0 0 0 ij 3 0 0 0
R237 898 WISl T4A 40 2 0 0 0 0 t 0 G 0
R237 896 WISl T4A 40 0 0 0 G 0 i 0 0 0
,R237 399 WIS! [5A !0 0 A A 0 0 0 0 0
'R237 900 WIBI T5A 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0
R237 900 WISl rSA 20 0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0
R237 901 WIBI T5A 30 ! 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 .A 1.1 0
R237 903 WISl T6A 20 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 903 WISl T6A 20 '\ 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0
R237 905 W18! T6A 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
R237 90? WIS! T6A 50 1
lit 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0
R237 910 H181 T6A 70 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0
R237 938 WIBI T7A 10 1 0 0 0 0 G 0 I 0
•> R237 939 WISl T7A 10 "i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i.
R237 939 Wis: T7A 10 2 0 0 A
V 0 0 0 0 0 2
R237 943 W131 ^7A 1 A 0 0 0 i; G 0 0 1
R237 945 wiei I9A 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
R237 936 W181 T9A 10 7 0 (• 0 0 0. 0 0 0 I
R237 936 WIB! T9A 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 c
J
R237 936 WISl T9A 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 1 5
R237 934 WISl T9A 20 j 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 I.I 1
R237 934 WISl T9A 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 94! WIBI T9A 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 942 WIS! T9A 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 501 WIBI STPl I 0 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 1
R237 502 WIS! STP2 2 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0
R237 502 WISl STP2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
R237 502 WIS! STP2 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 503 WIS! STP3 / fl 0 0 0 0 2 0 G
R237 S03 WIS! STP3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 G 0
R237 504 WISl STP4 0 .-1
'J 0 A 1 0 0 0 0
R237 505 W19! STPS ( 1 0 0 0 0 [ 0 0 -0 0
R237 506 W131 STPS 1 0 0 0 { 0 0 0
R237 508 WIS: STP; \ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 508 WIS! STP7 •> 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 A 0 0
R237 509 WISl STPS 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 509 W181 STPS 2 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 !
R237 509 W181 STP8 G 0 0 0 0 1 0 A 1
R:37 510 WISl STP9 1 A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
R237 510 WISl STF9 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0
R23? 5!1 WISl 5TP:O 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 t
R237 512 wis: STP!' A 0 {•) 0 A 1 0 0 0
3 -J •? 7 ? 1 0
• .~~Ji J i _ W18! STH: 2 (I A A 0 1 0 G 0 r;
R237 512 WISl STP!1 1 0 I"; [j 0 0 0 0 J'! \
R237 513 WIEI STF12 1 (j A 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
il
il
m
m
mi m
m
m
PAGE NO.
05/16/9!
DEBITAGE - RAW LISTING
MM ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDt MA TPl TP2 TPS TP4 TPS TPS TP7 TPS TF9
mm R237 514 WIS! STF13 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 515 WIS! STF14 1 0 {•) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
mm R237 516 WISl STP15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
IM R237 513 W!31 STRii 0 A 0 G 1 0 0 G G
( R237 519 WIS! 3TP17 ! 0 0 0 A 1.' 0 0 0 0 7.
! R237 521 WIB! STP18 'i 0 G 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 522 WISl STP 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
<— R237 522 WISl STP 19 3 i.i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•>
f R237 523 WISl 3TP20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
R237 523 WISl 3TP20 7
/ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
R237 524 WIB! STP2! 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
fi237 525 WISl STP22 L 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0
* SiiQsubtotal *
! •1 11 495 10 19 653
mm
.J ii Subtotal **
! 3 2 11 315 495 10 19 {.cn u^u
Hf Totdl »i*
mm t 1 T J f 1 [ ni c 01 J 495 10 19 'n
Q
CONTRCLED F3P VALUE 11.2
u c T : c N : ^ •
GF VASIhE'.E nCC
1 •J 4 5 CI c TOTAL
c 1 54 ( : p
• • w
s «n-
( G A • i i "i" •*
• ^ ;nc c 38 -
. £ 1G4 •A" 2'
V
A U 0 A-
A A 1.. T. ' 7 2C i V 7i 28
f j
* • r 1 • •* u 37 :5T
: H 1 1 0 * ^ . iJ 1 i • 44 ZRG
IOC 50 37 An ICO
c A V C • 0 1 124 3
c 5 21 JC I-V 1 t ZRG
c 0 c r C
' •
A 5 6 ZCu
^i /:
v'
c
*w .
^m c v f r ^ r- "-
A 0 A :cc
f. v /t ;; •/ < C 1 .J 33 •zsr
'\ c • r .\
V c • e
\m V V /. /
1.;
0 •-i
G *
1
A
V e i IST
r 0 C•^ .'v 'u c V
il y 0 0 0 0 ZCQ
A
I V C C 0 0 A V A ZGT
I'll A y f. 0 G 100 IRS
0 V 0
( f t.
G c
495
c
10
A
y
19
0
653
ICC
1 if I •1' 1 1 43
BEST ORIGINAL
C 1 : 0 C
OF
( •
A
A
V
0
V \r
•i
•j
r. ^-
'1 V
0
£ 5 \i
3 C
V u
k
n. 1-1 n
i*' zo.
ZRG
ZCO
f
/ C A IJ 0 " 0 2 Z5T
f.
V 5 0 •1
•/
A ' A
V . V
A A A
I. u IRO
V ^ r. f A A V hill;
„• -• fx A
U 7 Ic ft « 1^
y ;c -0 rt "J i • w 0 •rr BEST ORIGINAL
f • / -
;^ V ? : - •• r T T ri
i^Ztj ruP- vhwi Q~ rrti'.iAE.l riwu
Ifj mi.
1. •Ji. 183 23 ZoT
A 'l 23 ti • r--"
AllW
0 . ^'J SO iw J
ar
J>W1-'
c ^, W J
r" 1
• •'•
••t->
V J i C i cr Z-fC
V
•\
V
•^.^
•17 2S ICO
1 c ^
i c c A>. n IST
A 1 n i Z r ••.
OC A ^A
4.V
A ' 5C •f "1-1
A
y
A
V G i; ' -1 66 0
V
r A V 2£ i j 0 A 44 ZRG
n
V rt u 0 t' 3 V fl
G /
0 A C 2 ! \ '1
* 0 67 A
y Z.RG
V -I i A
V
0 0 c 1 12 "ZGT
0 0 0 1 r.
i c
A * ^
c r
\ 0 1 i
A
y
A
V
A
V 0 A I 0 •r, A i 0 ZGT
,1 0 A
V 0 lOG 0 c 0 zac
A r.
I 5
0
ISO i ji .^^
1,U
A
w 4 i
rt
V
419
zc:
BESTORlG;^^AL
- t w
f
u. 1 i n i. LI C it.ij i' Ji MJ! 5 » 1 •-
, c s *» T->T*. 1
( s T->T*. 1
0 A
\; V • r 1 A ••C '
_ f
A 0 A A 7 A 5''
0
0
J 1 ZRC
ZCCi
f -
0
V
V • c
1
44
iC
1.:
A
V
•i ••
i'T
i;
'>c
i: iC
• ^ T
ZRC
• rn
f : 0 A
y y r, 0 28 1 1 : 35 "•C ZGT
A
y
A
y
A
y c 12 37 i 47 ZRC
A
'•J 0 c A
y 24 27 50 C A JO :cG
r
0 0 0 0 '> A G A 2 14 ZGT
A
\f c c A
y 14 A y A y 21 ZRG
f
A 0 rt
V
A
y
e
ti C V w
•j A A A A
V
A
V *u' 1
A y t 00 A
y A V
f l' A 0 fl
V 0 A
y
A
y e
f r. ; c i A V ; r-T"-i>a 1
V V 0 (1 :u r W
! V \. A 1 6 y ^. •
: c 0 A
y
rt
y 1 y G V
A
y
1 rt
y ZBT
A
y 0 A
V
• Art
y
A
1. y ZRC
A A A
i.-
A
y c A
W A
0 f
V A V 1 ; .A
V ZGT
A A
V A V c V y 1 Art
iyv ZRC
A V c /^ c A 0 n K c 1 zee
i c A
V y .1/ A'-3/ itt
i A
y c A
i. i. i'j
d ^
ti 1 40
BEST ORIGINAL
^ i< u . . t. h
CGNTnGLEC j^ OF VARIABLE ACC
i. w 7 c e " 'T T . -ll
A V
A
A . A
35 n
A • -J.GT
kill.'
rt A y *iA A "•'^
A
\J Q 0 23 J r*.
"TO -11
A .<« ^ 2 4-3
A
0
y 0 0
it A i
V
i y J ou
-• .•>l r t.
OD
ZCG
ZGT
A
y V
A 1
V <J •JC rt
V
A ".C 9f<.r
inu 0 < AA
iyv rt t A'* "C
JJ
A
•J
A
i'l A 1.' V 1! rt .1 t 1
1/ IC ZoT
A
y 0 0 c iS 65 rt y i8 ZHG
A V
A
V
A
y
1
V y
A 33
••,15
Ov
A
t
A e
y
• 1-
i j6
•65
ZCG
BEST ORIGINAL
R E u Ll C T 1 G N
rOMT VALU c R237 OF c 1 r" rlbc.
1
A r 7 S Tl"- - 1
A 4 '.A
A
y
rt 3"; I: A y I-*
A A i. t A. ;y A
y
• A A
^yv 1^ w w
V
rt t I; :-A :^
A
•J A y (
A c c i y^. .(-
1; -^•"
V c • e
V A A
u ': 1
• <
1 G ^ i 23 ZGT
A V A y 0 V IT Jj
ir 0 y iC » JA
A .A V
^•
!0S rt
y '\\ ZCO
A V 0 0 0 y • t A.
V y t IC-t • h'Z :
y >/ A
y G y A y
A
V "t ZRG
c A >.
y
C rt y y
100
y
rt y
y
/
y
y
1 e iu
V
V
; -•tr-'
hi? I
ZRC
A
V 2 rt
y y :-
*i» •
„ rt r A jy V A c*
y y c 1.' '/ -I
V
0 A
0 1 34
1 '
ti 1 AI»
IXi
-IC
..J
106
ZST
BEST ORIGINAL
f '
I
f
i .
j ,
c t
Or utnr i'.< r «r i ir.!\ ,niii,i. ftt^i.
• 2 J 4 5 t 7 9 TOTA • 10; ni.
^m -
V ; c A !,' 7 -•3'
A A C t .-
• A A • i -V 32 4;
A. ; -: r •2 1 :3'
•I 0 y 45 23 rt 3 n ZRy
..^
y
y 21 22
y 1 i : iC *L) I
V -T 1^ T c »*A
Ji
0 :o? :oc 1A
jy ICO n :co
0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 € G
• 0 0 0 c 57 V V y • A^
A
y 0 y n n
V c V ZCG
^m A
V
A
y A V ; G 3 V
-1
w ZGT
y V y A Crt Crt A A
y y
V y 4 t y A
V I.i AkflJ
rt J 1
i
1 • -'1
74
•f p. ^
BEST ORIGINAL
h ; a 1/ W U TVPE
CZKiRule i: FO 1? Vn-l iir
\lt.
n-iiT
P-o/
nr
ur
111 n» Jl r-! r
Vr^R.RoL Z.
1 o •4 -3 ^ i HL
V
• .A 15 ZGT
' y
A A \r
C
50
iC G
Z'.L
h'wlJ
rt
1. 1 r o o
rt 29 ZGT
; C J c ti l.c 0 C ZRQ
' A y y ov ^' IS V y C." Ov
f 0 A y V i i o rt l-i • "PT tc faO 1
i A
! y' y
A
y 5 ti -rt 0 IRO
{ „ 0 A y 50 44 T? 0 u 50 ZCO
i rt A
y •J y (; 0 0 : ZGT
: rt
^ V 0 y 0 !0C rt y 0 rt y ZRG
V v' iS A
V ZCG
A V rt \i V \' rt
w
•
2 ZGT
•"•
A y
A
y rt Ij ICO rt 0 A
y ZRG
0 0 • A
y rt A rt f ZCG
1 •- rt rt V ? i (
.;•
5 t.
I'.. A e o 39 41 rt
V ZGT
BEST ORIGINAL
z z ^ . h b i b ; = £ c u c 7 ; C n
0 20 ZCO
0 20 IZZ SESTOR/G/N/^
r • rt rt A ,-. I A rt C
y '.- y v I V V o
y C 0 0 vll 0 S 33
1 c . . r. a L ; t r. 1 f
liUii 1 Tiij^Li, rij.A r>io;
u c ' : c N 1 ? t
lUtHL
18
0 y
;•:
y 0 0 c 1 t i 9 ZGT
0 rt. rt. y 0 y y
.'•
ZRO
c Q V 0 0 c iv
•Pfl
y V y w 0 V ; 6 CE T-J J *B 1
A
V
A
V
A G ov y
A
V 7" ZRC
rt
y ft •J C rt
1.
< Ai\
. Vi
'I ^ A
V
^rt
"!V
• PP
c 0 A 0 0 ! 0 A (
i
? IP »P T
0 0 A 0 0 cn jy 0 0 e-A
jy • QP
0 rt
,••)
A 33 .A
y
A
y tV
• pn
0 0 0 0 •y o rt c
o 11
y ^: rt, rt""
1^ 'J 4C TO
BEST ORIGINAL
ITEM
catalog number
locus
unit
feature
level
weight
length
width
thickness
material
FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACTS
DESCRIPTION
label
^ production base
^ condition
IH
patination
^ cortex
^ type
*• circum,
angle
1. hearth 2. burial
0. 10, 20, ...
to the nearest gram
in millimeters
in millimeters
in millimeters
1. coarse grained
metavolcanic .
2. coarse grained
porphyritic metavolcanic
3. fine grained
metavolcanic
4. fine grained
porphyritic metavolcanic
1. core
2. blades ,
3. projectile points '
4. knives
5. scrapers-unifacial
6. choppers
7. hammers
1. core -
2. flake
1. whole
1. present
1. present
1-17 see chart
1. 0-90
2. 0-18& ,
1. 0-30
2. 30-60
5. quartzite
6. quartz
7. chert/chalcedony
8. obsidian
9. other
8. utilized flakes
9. modified flakes
10. crescentic
11. drills
12. blanks .*
13. combos
Others le^ve blank
3. cobble'
4. other
2. broken
0. absent
0. absent
3. 0-270
4. 0-360
3. 60-90,
4. 90+
B J ft a mm m^m u 11 ffi B 1
IDENTIFICATION OF NON-CONTIGUOUS. EXCLUSIVE, DAMAGE EVENTS
OR 'NEDES'
mm B 1
FLAKEb
•H
U
rt
•H
c
1
UTILIZED
bO
C
• H
p.
p.
(U DO
^-^ ao rt [fl C •H •H •H t •H ^ U TJ o X 0 rt f-tn -M
:3 o •M •H o •H •H fl rt
u e O
2 3 4 5 6 7-
-t-1
c
o
FLAKED § UTILIZED
UNIFACIAL BIFACIAL
00 bo
c q •H •H
a . ^ ' p-
p-p.
tlO 0) . bo tu DO tlO +-< DO DO DO •M bo c c in C •H C C (/I C •H t •H f-« • H •H 1 • H rH o tD T3 rH O j::: CJ Xi i-> tn +J C Xt (n +J Xi u ;3 +J X> o :3
•H •H ^1 rt O •H •H rt C o C B O
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
NOTE 'Nedes" is:
Circumference:
continuous along a line not broken by an angle less
than 90 degrees or undamaged area (non-contiguous)
continuous breakage of the same type (esclusive)
can be interupted by recent breakage and still be
interpreted as continuous
does not include platform preparation
a circle defined by diameter equaling the maximum length of artifact ^
PASE 1 1
•••"Mr
V f ' i I.
r31
m L
ACC CAT SUE
H SITE viiJ I
R237 861 iilSl
R23r
t -
K237 J m\
3227 sc; Kl3i
862 mi
I^iOf 383 m\
i'.237 SCI
R237 303 Si^:3i
[li.or 517 u 1 n <
R237 873 rm
R237 863 mi
R237 S74 m\
p'\i-» 851 mi
R237 305 mi
R237 872 mi
R237 ao4 mi
R237 8£5 mi
fi227 Zf i m\
R237 Sib 1^181
R237 156 mi
r.Ldi 16& mi
P'-lt 195 MISi
nioi 205 MlSl
R237 211 KlSl
S237 230 »ii31
fi23? 25S i«131
260 aid I
fi237 mi
'!ij7 PA 4
Jit mi
K23i' Ou>> m: i.''-P7
1 > t. O I 3ol
P23'
R237
S237
i(i.Oi
-••.1"
S23"
SAP-
R23:
3S2
33-S
387
3'31
4o:.
-Si
vOi
til£l
vflSl
M;>:
ItlSl
>:'13:
m M L8 Hi IH F FO CR Nf.'
-33 44 11 3 1
. w i; Z ••: 1
j i. I y o
V t 6 2 I 1
; 2 8 3! 1 \ ^ 1 y y
y -2 l37 s? 40 3 0 I 1
i
y i 107 20 J 7 • .• t
rt i. ^ i ;-i 45 22 I 0 \
0 14 iO 54 30 21 4 ; 0 •'! O
s o 1 1 rtC 42 52 34 1 1 y i
0 o 3 1 t 4 2 i 0
e n u 4
i 14 4 25 'M 9 2 1 'i y
•
c 3 1
<. 5 4 29 15 4 2 I 0 I
(i 3 »> 1 43 41 30 26 1 1 0 2
0 ^.
i 14 1 19 13 6 4 1 0 t
0 3 5 44 50 40 16 4 ! 0 o
4 •1 14 4 16 •^j
il
A -t
0 4 i g i 36 14
!• '
1
0 6 2 14 i 1 ! i 1 Ll 6 1 0 c i
i i 0 i 1 .<
iT * -' 7 2 0 r. i
A
V 7 i e •t •I" ii 15 16 2 1 rt.
V -1
V
7 G 23 w Jr 6 3 0 4 1
0 e
o 223 65 £9 41 4 0 i
0 < 1 1 2 5 3 ( A ti 29 12 4 1 0 1
c 42 i 1 65 52 47 19 4 i (
t
I
0 59 i 1 764 91 Sb 97 4 0 1 1 I
0 £3 ^ 1 I 95 33 58 40 4 1 0 r, &
0 86 3 < 1 31 49 41 4 1 0 w
9 119 3 i4 to 31 23 10 4 1 c i
0 12P I t 14 14 36 30 U 1 1 0
0 162 ij I ?
o
1 rt
• V i* 32 14 i 1 I 1
0 !'30 i 1 5 50 45 62 14 1 1 y !
0 201 1 1 i o 5
•)>
0(
24 IC 4 1 V i
A
y : i i 49 1J t I * 1
0 2lb ; i 7 • rt-^ 9^; Sj 61 3 1 :
231' o i 14
•:
21 20 6 4 i 0
c 243 4 i. 14 1£ 49 *.o 12 4 ; G 1
y 24 i 2 5 21 24 19 4 1 0 t
\j 24£ i u 10 33 38 15 2 1 0 1
2^6 ; c^ 26 41 Zi lb 4 1 y 4
c 250 V
1 ..
If 4 23 19 9 4 C 0 1
i
231 w \1
'(••
57 47 2C- 4 i 3 1
0 322 1 14 0 •M t. i 9 -* 1 y
V 33C --V ; 2SE 85 52 4 1 i
k
I 1
(. 339 i 53 64 31 4 1 ;
rt. i ' 1. ..0 £ 4 1 rt
y ij-
i ^ j4 i ^; 31 .; T y .•-
W it * u 1: / 4 1 1
BEST ORIGINAL
o^
^0. C
07/1 " / 9'
RAK :
CAT SITE
.'. ^ O ' OOi rm
f• i i ( rm
.~. i O ! 546 mi
R237 553 mi
R237 556 WI81
R237 555 t;isi
R237 559 MlSl
fi237 563 H131
R237 564 H181
8237 569 ^131
R237 573 iilSl
R237 586 US!
R237 596 U181
R237 595 KtSl
R237 600 M181
R237 603 »ilSl
R237 eoe «i'13l
•'1.01 £iO <.«131
R237 352 m: S237 813 mi
R237 S39 mi
rl237 31: mi
1*1 i j; Owi m\ R2:7 833 s'i3;
R237 335 siei
R237 35i l^lSl
R237 825 XI8!
R237 897
R237 896 »1S1
Ri37 933 k'iS:
K237 930 WI81
.'.237 940 »18:
R237 5C" HI81
r. ."• T • 523 »i3i
925 lilSl
KZ7 bflSl
RAK :ISTIf^5 FOR FLAKED UTHIC A?ir'ACT£ - DESCSiPTIVc
4
4
5
mt
9
9
9A
9A
9B
93
TIA
TIA
TIB
'15
T2A
J2A
T2A
uy
T4A
T4A
T7A
T9A
T9A
STP6
NOUly
KOii'lC
3TFi£
LEV FNO 1", C LE 1(T HO c:?
^ F
0 1.VU ,
i V 9 1 ; 5c :
4C . *. Crt
V •/ 4^ i [ y 1
t .•-
iy i 1 i4 57 76 42 1£ 4 1 0 1
20 1 c
«i 149 63 55 •Mil 0 2
•^ 1 i. i t
1 442 94 72 35 4 0 rt
y
A
L
liy L I 1 2E-2 c •
-J i
or 50 4 0 0 i
1 y ', 1 8 6 38 £ 2 ! 0 k
10 . i it 23 26 8 4 1 t 1 3
30 --1 1 i I ! 39 35 30 27 4 : 0
10 i i
7 34 41 20 1 1
i.V 3 ! fl W i 3o •n
' /
57 46 4 1 < 1
CA
jy 2 1 0 267 n
0/ 87 41 3 0 1 i ^
50 3 2 14 1
w 24 20 5 2 1 y 2
30 1 1 •? 256 P9 59 36 4 1 1
5G t •
1 i 14 52 78 40 25 4 i 0 0
40 3 1 c
•J 13 "i-j 13 4 1 i.
i i 1 409 ac «o 6G 47 3 1 \
20 2 1 303 62 c
Ou 45 3 1 0 w
•1'-.
iy 3 1 8 7 29 23 0 1
10 i 2 i 71 56 36 23 3 i 1 :
oC c i 0 ; 7 6 : I 0 t
iiy C i i 59 -5 •• ; ; 1
iy 'i <
u 1 c 33 25 107 •" '•. 1 0 0
30 i i ; 193 / c. 4 1 0 0
30 i 1 s
••><
i. ll.
98 ?•: 19 2 1 i
10 1 1 54 48 45 15 2 1 1 1 3
in 2 1 t 1 242 78 50 5 3 0 1 4
30 4 2 7 131 68 60 32 1 I 1 1
2C 1 .^ J L ? 50 68 35 16 1 1 0 4
• f>
1 y 3 1 4 SO 57 64 10 I t 1 3
30 J i 3 26 64 0 12 I 1 0 2
"; !
w 1
S 10 33 36 8 2 1 0
3 1 I 1 iJi 67 f 1 30 4 1 e 4
2 2 ; "3 1
iO i 54 26 1 1 3
i i 3 1 It 3 2 1 I
BEST ORIGINAL
iii Totii ***
ibLb
7628
FA3E ?iC.
v7;'lo/'^l
RAK II3T1II6 FQR FLAKED i ITHIC ARTI =ACTS ^TTRlEiiTE
ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV fl C LB Tl Cl Al
it SITE * SI
f\237 Sol «181 v' I i 7 2 4
11237 306 KlSl ^ \ c
R237 966 Kiai 1 2 b 1 <
R237 864 U181 ^ L c i
R237 529 H181 0 A ••• T 1 ^
3237 807 KlSl 0 L i . S •.•
R237 852 »1S1 0 i i 14 •> o i
R237 833 ItlSl 0 2 2 14 2 t ^
i i
R237 301 W18i " I
i I i I 3
R237 803 KlSl f'l 3 2
R237 817 WISl 0 3 1 14 e o t
i
R237 373 KiSI •n
V
3 2 o >
1
1 2
R237 863 UlSl 0 1
d i.
1 t 13 3 4
f;237 374 K13! 0 T rt 1' A i 3 1
R237 391 »1S1 0 0 i i 8 a n
S237 805 H181 c 4 2 1 .1
R237 872 h'181 y t 1
T ; S
R237 804 Wis: 0 £ 2 14 3 1
R23 • 855 iClfcl c A A
D i
t t 1 i
R237 £71 WIS! 0 •J •-5 , k f.
R237 316 »181 0 C "" J L "J 7 4 jL
R237 156 KlSl 0 c
o 3 1 6 7 1 t
I J
R237 166 HISl V 1 2 5 9 i o
S237 195 »13l c
• ••>
• i.
1 1 •J
:;227 205 »181 0 59 1 1 I ^ feiF
X237 211 UlSl 0 68 3 1 1 1 1 3
R237 230 HlSl 0 36 3 1 1 1 2 3
f-
••
,•
••:
r.^ov i.xj2 V i . 1 o it i.
R237 26C UlSl l>
V
i Irt
liy 1 1 14 ^ "
R237 294 I^ISI V 162 3 1 5 9 -1 -1 i
•Till 1"14 I\Lul 1^181 0 190 1 1 e o 5 2 3
R237 233 HlSl V 20C ' '! 1 i. 3 2 i i
ojt rm 0 215 I L 1 1 2 3
R227 353 h'131 c 216 [ I (' ; >• 4
R237 375 wlSl 23S 14 ( <
i • S237 38C 14131 c -•. .1-1
i-Tw ^ 2 14 i w O
Kioi oC-i liilSl c '•-til 5 'i
i
R&vi oOC 0 i4c w ^ 4 2 3
^:37 337 mi y 246 4 I c; i 0
R237 391 1*1 u. c 250 6 ; 14 •?
R23? 436 m£l G 291 •v ••. J L i4 A
V 1^
R237 463 0 7 2 1 'T ^"
• ••>
R237 477 ;4181 0 330 2 1 ; [ 2 2
R237 488 0 i i / 1 4
R237 491 Midi 1 0 . 1 i,' '^
^•••;i ;-i7 'L-i-i yjii usi : 0 < f
IT
1 0 2
- r ^ 1
nioi wi. rm ; c ' -v ^ i. 1 • 1*1 A
R237 523 hisi : rt
y 14 , i, ;
R237 540 W181 1 20
R23: 539 rm. : • 1
":•
4 3 3 4
2 3
1 3
I 3
1 3
6 1
2 2 I
3 4
BEST ORIGINAL
J / i 4
-AS: NO.
y7/lc/9;
RAiE lISTIf< 3 'uf< FLA^D L^'^IC ARTIFACTS" -ATTRIBUTtS
ACC CAT S.'iZ i-iiC j3 Dfii: FEA L z Y r • i". hr 1!; T < [ k L i Al T2 fl Li A2 ^3
rtio/ oo^ i« 1 3 i i.y
•: •
r - ^ 1
?:37 538 i(!8: : 1 -7 ! 4
•,io7 546 ttiCi '- I z
n'-w; DJ3 Kiel •t
S2":' 556 W18: iv j j
rt A
R237 555 ^Icl V 20 T 7 4 7 1 4
felSi 2 : ;
Rio/ 56o isis: i k V i :
R237 564 »131 4 zf-. 2 14 2 2 1 2 2
R237 559 r o 30 i i k \ i O i 2
R237 579 mi 7 t rt
;y 1 1 c 4 3
R237 536 «I3: 3 •irt
i-/ 3 1 -7 o
.=?2S/ 596 W181 Crt, '> t
i. I 0 ( 1 •7 1 o
R237 595 WISl 9 50 •? -1
O i. 14 i 3 i 2 1 2
Ri37 600 14181 9A 30 i 1 7 7 i V
1-- ', .. •
f.i^j, oyo • . n.
rtko.
= rt
oy 1 k ; 4 I. 2 2 , A
fi k
R237 6OS 40 i i
^•
\ 3 10
R237 olv «is: 50 / 4 4 7
•>
4
R237 352 •WISl TU 20 2 1 7 -1 4 4 £ 4 4 17
R237 31= NlSi TIA 1.-1
iv
1 1 o > a o i 3
nj.O' Co.-iil 81 "18 Iy A .-.
b w 1 1 'I 3
Ri37 8;'; mi t T; r. w I d I k
•* r..:oi uvi. WIS: Tif, 20 ^ i 4 ^ 1 o 2 9
R23- £33 T2A 20 3 i f f I 3 5 1 n. „
o "t
S;?7 335 ;^i£i T2A 30 i I 4 2 12 4 i 17
R22: 356 ;ii3: r-i-i 30 k 1 5 o 7 I 1 'rt
f^23: £25 tiis: :2D 10 5 o i 10 w ; r
R237 897 '.^18! :4A 30 2 1 k 1 3 3 I 2'
l!237 S56 ^181 T4A 30 - ^ 7 i 1
i 1 3 2
R237 933 BISl • r ff 3 2 5 1 IC 1 2 9
R237 930 W18I T9A 10 3 1 4 8 1 1 3 2 1 1 c
i R237 940 «131 T9A 30 0 4. 9 2 ) I 4 2 A
i
R237 507 k'ls: ST?6 3 1 3 4 2
8237 925 : •' A 1 n 1'«i iirt;.i. Jl. hyKiV -i i t i 2 2 12
i^^lSl NOislC t A O i : 2 ; 2 10 t 2 5
It23' 517 1413; STP16 « 2 s 4 c
BEST ORIGINAL
F L
CONTROIED
^ ^ A r E D STONE ARTIFACTS^ '
COKTSOLED FOR VALUE «181 or VARIABLE SITE
MATERIAL
' ? _ ^ 6 ? 3 jQjf.^
"-- LEVEL
LEVEL 4
lOfi ^5 !GT
12 2«0
ZCO
' ° ii ii if ^ ' M BEST ORIGINAL
.... 100 50
'0421 ;
10 57 29 N '8 ZGT
13 II 3 :Rfl
ZCD
20 I 4 6 :
20 - 8 33 50 ' 14 Z6T
5 21 IS ^fiO
ZCO
CA •jy
30 .2 4 9 1 30 22 44 22 11 ^ 10 ZGT
3 21 6 20 ^'^0
'ZCD
•• 11 -
^0 50 5C 2 2 ZGT
5 3 ^SO
ZCO
50 1 2 1
25 50 25 4 5 ZBT
5 11 3 ZfiO
ZCO
• ^™ 22 19 33 5 3 :
G'^^ 2fi 22 38 6 3 ^ I
ZGT
F L A K E C o TONE A R T I F A C T S
:0f,'TROLED FOR VALUE UlSl OF VARIABLE SITE
PRODBASE
i o -i TOTAL
-iiri Z\Li.
i
LJ
s
50
11
25
n o
4 5 ZGT
ZRO
y 10 9 Jl IC
i.O 56 ZGT
21 19 3 52 ZRG
56 47 36 66 ICO
1
29
-1
29
1
14
L
29
7 8 ZST
ZRO
U 11 3 5 ICO
20 i. i. 3 o 12 14 ZST
17 17 25 42 ZRO
11 11 1^ 13 ICG
ov 3 •^ 1 3 9 10 ZST
33 22 11 33 IRQ
17 11 9 G ZCG
40
50
1
i
50
0 2 ZGT
ZRO
5 3 • UU
50 1 L 4 1 5 ZST
25 50 25 ZRO
r J IB n o ICC
IT''
J1 hi. 18 19 11 oO 85
21 ci 13 44 ZGT
BEST ORIGINAL
I
I
I
f
I
t
I
, r,
I
r
I
t
I
f
I
(
I
i
I
(
I
I
I
II
I
II
il
I -II
F L A i: E D STONE ARTIFACTS
GK'TROLEC FOR VALUE KlSl OF VARIABLE SITE
PATINATION
ij I > U 1 rt L
t
rt
y
0
0 rt
V
ZRO
ZCC
0 11 37 0 0
0 A
V ZRO
0 0
10 7 c 0
0 ' ZRO
0 ZCO
Art
iV 10 0 0
0 0 ZRG
0 0 ZCO
Irt
oy 0 £ 0 0
0 0 ZRO
0 0 ICG
TV 4. 0 0
V ZRO
0 ZCQ
50 I 1 0 0
0 0 ZRO
0 0 ZCO
86
ZST
ZST
BEST ORIGINAL
F L A i; £ C 3 T : H E ARTIFACTS
CDNTRDLED FOR VALUE KlSl OF VARIABLE SITE
CORTEX
0 1 TOTAL
5 IGT
ion
3r t ^
D 4i
/ o ^o
62 43
4i ^
43 57
5 14
6 6
50 50
10 21
5
56
9
ft
t .4 It
40 2
100
50 2 2
50 50
3 7
.QTAL 58 28
67 33
48
12
B6
56 IST
ZRG
ZCD
IST
ZRO
ZCO
14 IGT
ZRQ
ZCO
10 IST
ZRO
ZCO
2 IGT
ZRG
!f ."1 uu
5 ZGT
ZRC
ZCO
ZST
BEST ORIGINAL
ICONTROLED FOR VALUE WISl
TYPHI
12 3 4
f' iVEL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS
OF VARIABLE SITE
20
25
13
4
44
17
40 1
50
4
50
>7 42
71 54
2 2
23 29
8 7
II
4
50 1 2
25 50
4 7
;TAL 24 28
28 33
TOTAL
50
40
2
20
4
67
15
50
6
43 ICC
1
14
20
1 1
14 14
50 14
50 20
1
3
33
J
25
21
11
50
3
33
21
1
50
14
1
25
7
14
16
4S
12
B6
ZRC
ZCQ
56 ZGT
IRO
ZCC
8 1ST
ZRO
ZCD
14 ZST
ZRO
ZCO
10 ZGT
ZRO
ZCO
2 Z6T
• ZRO
ZCO
5 ZST
ZRO
ZCO
ZGT
BEST ORIGINAL
FLAKED STOKE ARTIFACTS
lOfiTRCLEC FOR VALUE KlSl OF VARIABLE SITE
ANGLEl
1 2 3 4 TOTAL
o f A 5 ZST
ie iJ IRO
10 9 ZCO
0 4 20 13 5 48 56 ZST
8 42 40 IC ZRO
40 69 53 45 ZCO
1 A
iU 3 2 i. 7 8 ZST
43 29 29 ZRO
30 7 6 ZCO
. 20 1
8
1
8
7
SB
3
25
12 14 ZGT
ZRO
10 3 13 Lf ZCG
30 1
11
2
22
e
•J
56
1
11
3 10 ZST
ZRO
10 7 i-T 9 »rn
40
ICO
6
2 2 ZGT
ZRO
ICO
' 50 1 I I 1 4 5 IST
25 25 25 25 ZRQ
10 ..I <J S
'•i-' ll 10
12
29
34
36
42
n
13
66
IGT
BEST ORIGINAL
I
I
F L A K E E STONE ARTIFACTS
•ONTROLED FOR VALUE WISl OF VARIABLE SITE
CIRCUMl
I 12 3 4 TDTAL
^EVEL
• 12 14 5 1ST
• 25 50 25 ZRO
3 7 U ICO
0 19 17 10 2 4B 56 IS!
40 35 21 4 ZRC
10 2 2 1 2 7 8 ZGT
29 29 14 29 IRQ
6 7 7 22 ICO
20 7 3 1 1 12 14 ZST
53 25 8 8 ZRO
\ 21 11 7 11 ZCD
30 5 1 I 2 3 10 ZGT
Kl 56 il II 22
15 4 7 22 IC
40 1 1 2 2 ZST
50 50 ZRG
4 7 ICO •
50 2 1 1 4 5 ZST
50 25 25 IRO
1 ^ 11 »rn
I I 11 itWii
I
i BEST ORIGINAL
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
i
t
i
1
i}TAl 34 28 15 9 86
40 33 17 10 ZST
FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS
CGf.TRCLED FOR VALUE KI81 OF VARIABLE SITE
TyPE2
BEST ORIGINAL
1 L 1
o 4 5 £ T 1 9 1 rt 12 16 TOTAL
• -.EVEL
L 1
I
t t 4 5 ZST
50 TC
io ^o ZRO
5 25 25 ZCQ
rt; 28 c
o 8 i I 2 1 1 48 56 ZST
53 10 17 4
s L » t i 2 ZRO
65 63 67 50 50 29 100 50 ZCO
• A
iy 4 1 1 I 7 8 ZST
57 14 14 14 ZRO
9 8 25 25 ZCO
20 4 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 12 14 ZST
33 3 8 8 3 17 S 8 ZRQ
• - ' 9 8 100 100 29 25 100 ZCO
3 «
i
<
i 9 10 ZGT
33 li 22 11 ZRO
7 io 50 29 50 ICO
40 1 1 2 ZBT
• 50 50 ZRO
25 ZCG
50 1 2 1 4 5 ZGT
CO 50 25 ZRO
17 14 ZCO
"^lOTAL 43 8 12 4 2 1 1 7 1 4 2 I 8£
50 14 5 2 1 1 8 1 5 2 I ZGT
J
FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS
:Q>'!TR0LED FOR VALUE N181 OF VARIABLE SITE
AN8LE2
t
L •>
o 4 TOTAL
^EVEl
2 * 4 5
SO 50 ZRQ
5 11 ZCO • 23 2 •1
f 3 3 48 56
58 4 15 17 6 ZRO
65 67 37 57 43 ICO
• 10 4 1 2 7 8
57 14 29 ZRO
9 33 11 ZCC
- , 20 4 3 2 3 12 14
33 25 17 25 ZRO
9 16 14 43 ZCO
lA
wy •5 o 3 3 9 10
tt
Oj 33 33 ZRO
7 16 21 ZCO
H' 40 1 1 2 2
50 50 ZRO
2 7 ICO
1 )
i 2 1 4 5
25 50 25 ZRQ • 11 14 ZCO
•OTAL 43 3 19 14 7 86
50 3 22 16 8 ZGT
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
ZST
BEST ORIGINAL
FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS
:OtiTRQLED FOR VALUE KlSl OF VARIABLE SITE
CIRCUH2
1 1 1
L 3 4 TOTAL
EVEL
2 1 1 4 5 ZGT
50 IC LJ 25 ZRO
... 5 4 9 ZCO
0 28 14 4 t
£ 43 5S ZST
58 29 S 4 ZRO
65 54 36 50 ICO
4 1 1 1 8 ZST
Cl
Jl 14 14 14 ZRC
• •
9 4 9 25 ZCQ
-t 20 4 6 1 1 12 14 ZGT
33 50 8 8 ZRO
• i 9 23 25 50 ZCO
';rt
Ol.' t
i 4 -1 1 9 10 ZGT
c 33 li 44 11 ZRQ
7 4 36 50 • b J
4C 1 1 L 2 ZST
50 50 IRO
2 4 ZCO
50 1 2 1 4 5 ZST
25 50 25 ZRG
2 8 9 ZCO
JTAl 43
Crt
2£
30
11
13
88
ZBT
J
FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS
||:QNTR0LED FQR VALUE WISl QF VARIABLE SITE
TYPES
H 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 to 12 15 17 TOTAL
IEVEL
2 ! 1 4 5 ZGT
50 25 25 ZRG
- 3 25 50 ZCO
P 0 41 3 2 1 1 48 56 ZST
85 6 4 2 2 ZRQ
I 64 100 50 100 25 ZCO
10 4 1 1 1 7 ' B IGT
§57 14 14 14 ZfiO
6 25 100 100 ZCQ
1 20 7 1 1 2 1 12 14 ZST
58 8 8 17 8 ZRO
11 100 5C 50 50 ZCO I. 30 5 I 1 1 1 9 10 IGT
56 It 11 11 11 ZRO
8 25 50 100 50 ' ZCQ
• 40 2 2 2 ZST
" 100 ZRQ
3 ZCO
Jl 50 3 1 4 5 ZGT
75 25 ISO
H 5 50 ZCO
.JTAL 64 3 4 1 ! 1 2 4 1 2 1 2 86
U 74 3 5 1 I 1 2 5 1 2 1 2 ZGT
I
J
I
I
F L A K E D STONE A R T I F A C T S
CGNTROLED FOR VALUE WISl QF VARIABLE SITE
AN8LE3
1 A 4 TOTAL
;EyEL
•1 1 1 4 5 ZST
25 25 ZRO
V. 25 14 ZCO
0 41 4 1 48 56 ZST
85 t 3 2 IRQ
64 29 57 25 ZCO
10 4 1 2 7 8 ZGT
•••
57 14 29 IRQ
. •
e 25 29 ZCQ
, 20 7 1 1 2 1 12 14 ZST
53 3 8 17 8 ZRO
11 25 14 29 25 ICO
"° 30 c
J I 1 t I ( 9 10 ZST
5£ 11 11 • t 11 ' 1 11 ZRO
8 25 14 14 25
40 t 2 2 ZST
100 ZRQ
3 ICO
3 1 4 5 ZST
75 25 ZRQ e J 25 ZCQ
.QTAL 64 4 7 7 4 86
74 c
j 8 8 «; ZGT
!
1
I
t
FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS
IKONTROLED FOR VALUE WISl OF VARIABLE SITE
I
f
1
i
I
i
1
1
1
t
• iii
I
I
i
CIRCUH3
1 2 3 4 TOTAL
'EL
2 4 5 ZST
50 50 ZRO
3 13 ZCQ
A W 41 6 1 48 56 ZGT
85 13 t
L ZRG
64 40 33 ICO
10 4 2 1 7 8 ZBT
57 29 14 ZRO
6 67 33 ZCO
20 7 3 2 12 14 Z8T
58 25 17 ZRO
11 20 67 ZCD
•irt
oU 5 t
J i 9 10 ZST
56 33 1! ZRO
8 20 ICC ICO
40 2 t 2 IST
100 IRO
50 3 1 4 5 ZST
75 25 ZRO
5 7 ZCO
AL 64 IS 3 3 1 86
74 17 3 3 I ZGT
i
:VEL
FLAKED S TONE A R T 1 F A C T 3
^ROLED FOR VALUE WISl OF VARIABLE SITE
TrPE4
t
L 7 3 15 TOTAL
t
J 1 4 c ZGT
75 te
LJ ZRC
4 Crt
jj ZCO
0 4£ 1 1 48 56 IST
96 2 A L ZRG
57 100 m ICO
0 7 7 8 ZGT
100 ZRQ
9 ZCD
0 11 1 12 14 ZST
92 3 ZRO
14 CA
JV ZCQ
39
10
40 2
100
2
50 4
100
5
>rji JI nc SI
94
J
ttk»
I
!I
100
86
10 ZST
ZRO
ICO
2 IST
ZRO
ZCO
5 ZST
ZRC
ZCG
FLAKED S T Q N E ARTIFACTS
CONTROLED FQR VALUE WISl OF VARIABLE SITE
AHSLE4
1 t
L 3 TOTAL
^EvLL
3 1 4 c
J
• nr
B 75 25 ZRO
4 *t 50 ZCQ
46 1 1 48 56 IGT
96 2 2 ZRG
m 57 50 33 ZCO
• 10 7 7 8 ZST
100 ZRO
1 9 ZCO
20 11 1 12 14 ZGT
m-92 8 ZRG
1 14 33 ZCO
^ 30 8 1 9 10 ZST
89 11 ZRO
10 33 ZCQ
M 40 t
L 2 t
L
ItT
1, 100 ZRG
2 ICO
4 4 5 ZGT
100 ZRO
5 ICQ
' "jTAL 81 2 3 86
i W
94 2 3 IGT
I
ll
ii
FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS
CONTROLED FOR VALUE K13I OF VARIABLE SITE
CIRCUK4
iEVEL
3
75
4
46 2
96 4
57 67
25
50
TQTi
43
ZfiO
ICO
56 ZSl
IRC
ICO
IOC
9
20 11
92
14
30 B 1
89 11
10 33
40 2
100
50 4
100
,JTAL 81
94
1
8
50
36
e IGT
ZRO
ICO
14 ZST
ZRO
ICO
10 ZBT
ICO
2 ZGT
ZRO
ZCO
5 ZGT
ZRO
ZCQ
ZST
mm M^i KEY TO GROUND STONE •
-7
Item Description
-7 accession number RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO II II 1 - catalog number
site number
locus
00000 for SDi-#s
WOOOO for SDM-W-#s •
unit
-category 5. ground stone • 1 till 1 feature
level
material
1. hearth
2. burial
3-
10, 20, 30, ... ^ i -
1. granite*
2* quartzite
3. andesite
4.
5.
6.
/
4. sandstone
5. other -
weight to the nearest gram
mt
<tm
mm
length
width
thickness
In millimeters
In millimeters
In millimeters
condition 1. whole 2. broken
tm
mm
type 1. mano.
2. pestle
3. slab
4. basin
5. bowl
6. other
'mm
w
shaped l. unshaped 2. shaped
(shaped manos/pestles are shouldered, bifacial, and have edge
treatment to produce a tabular profile),
mm
number of faces 1 face
2 faces
3 faces
4 faces
'tm battering 1. end- 2. side 3. both
side 1 (ground surface of metate):
*km length / width / depth In millimeters
w side 2 (ground surface of metate):
length / width / depth in millimeters
RAti LiST'fiE FOF 3RCjfiD5T0NE
ftLb i SITE ;G: ItV rDK ilT L i-i Tri T Sh r
•-•
ri 1 L V W2
BITE • M '
n
Ki J . c G1-nil: - JD _ . .J
; •• - 7 ri'.o': C 7.0 ••
w L. lit c > {. 0 r
542 70.". - - i 4;^ ;
.•-^
u
p"--435 i rO j'-i
h An ^
•.•
\." - ' i'\
•
1553 H: -•i'. i 1 '• ••c 40 r.
i j .• CQ -n . I 1 ; •A.-- -i I-.-: 1
"••
:^
H- ''"7 rti i . 939: •I-r - J V 1 T. ; i -• ^ '',
R23/ SB4 IJ 1 " -3500
••
1. J -.'
200 nr 1 i 0 200 i.i V
K2.i/ b ± 1 •-J c
.J -;2C4 1 0 • 103 •:;0 1 i i V 0 f.
V' V
-'"' i-.'-i 1 J ---1 m:
! (••
; 238 SC SO [ : (} 0
R237 '•i i. C-. i -c. f-•j'.' 4C 1 4C {\ 0 0
? i •' '.1; 31 TIA 4C t 537 114 0 .1 44 1
i 1 t nc £.j 0 ;)
• \ i. .j i £15 tJiei TIA 40 I 195 £5 60 ^ J i J J V 60 ui --1 0 (i 0
r o*? -F 9iS h'iS! »r • 1,1 C
runj 'J 1 J c .-i Ctji 99 i C V c_ 0
R237 922 NIS! mm : 1 v'
I.--. 2 I
• ^
0 0 0 0
R237 955 I.' I " (
n 10;
il I Ll.-. .-. £0 ; OQ i i 1 c •
4 V -
1 q.'i
-.•
:JO ;! c
13237 923 WIS! VCil'^'^ KjWiV 529 • '^^ 65 4D 1 i BO 48 [) 0 0 0
•-t-"i M 1J vi.n.i"i 50 I 2fc9 90 £0 1 ; : £5 0 ;)
•:24 Wlcl S5W10 4 753 90 TV £ i i 0 0 ('
(-(."in"-. r i 0 . w .J n C V - i : CJ-i. t c .:
m
m
m
m
m
mt
m
m
G fi 0
MM
li N D 5 T Q N E A R T I F A C T £
CGNTROLED FOR VALUE t4I31 OF VARIABLE SITE
mm HATERIAL
1 4 5 TOTAL
IZ
1
1
i.J
100
4 19 IGT
m
ICQ
^ 0 10
m. 91
5b
1
9
100
11 52 ZGT
ICO
10 1
*" 100
1 5 IGT
ISO
ICO
-te 20
I*"
1
100
100
1 5 ZGT
IRQ
ICQ
40 2
.i. 100
11
•mm
1
L 10 IST
IRO
ICO
c 1
*• 100
m e
1 5 IGT
IRO
ICO
•» £0 1 1 5 IGT
IRO
ZCD
TAL 18 1 1 1 21
' 8fi 5 5 5 IGT
8 R 0 U N D STOKE ARTIFACTS
20NTR0LED FOR VALUE M181 OF VARIABLE SITE
SHAPED
1 2 TOTAL
4
100
21
0 10 1
91 9
53 50
100
r
J
100
11
''Til
1
100
£0 1
100
19
90
1
100
50
2
10
4
11
21
19 IGT
IRO
ICO
52 IGT
ZRO
ZCO
IST
ICQ
5 ZGT
ZRO
ICO
10 IGT
ZRO
ZCQ
5 IGT
ZRO
ICO
5 IGT
IRO
ICO
IGT
P
m
G R 0 U N D S T 0 K E A R T I FACTS
JM. CONTROLED FOR VALUE wtai OF VARIABLE SITE
•u TYPE
JM 1 •i t 4 5 £ TOTAL
mm , LEVEL
— 2 1 I 4 19 IGT
50 25 25 ZRO
17 100 100 ZCO
0 £ 4 1 11 52 ZST
Ml JJ 36 9 IRO
_ . 50 00 too ICO
M» 10 1 1 5 IGT
too IRO
*•»
B ICO
IW> 20 1 1 5 ZST
100
8
IRO
ZCO
MM
MM
40 1
50
1
50
-•} 10 IGT
IRO
tm 8 100 ICD
mm 50 1 1 5 IGT
mt 100
0 u
IRO
ICO
mm £0 1 1 5 IBT
m 100
20
IRO
ICO
^3TAL 12 1 5 1 1 1 21
57 5 24 5 5 5 ZGT
accession number
catalog number
site number
locus
unit
category
feature
level
material
weight burned
weight unburned
total weight
KEY TO BULK POTTERY
Description
RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO
00000 for SDi-#s
WOOOO for SDM-W-#s
6. bulk pottery
1, hearth
2. burial
3.
10, 20, 30, ...
1. Tizon Brown Ware
2. Lower Colorado Buff Ware
3. other
to the nearest gram
to the nearest gram
to the nearest gram
4.
5.
6.
m
m
w
m
m
m
r
p
il
m
J
J
mn
w
k
m m
KEY TO POTTERY ATTRIBUTES
(0 = absent)
1 = site = site
2 = lev = level
3 = item = item
1 = rim 4 = neck
2 = body 5 = base
3 = pipe
4 = mat = material
1 = Tizon Brown Ware
2 = Colorado Buff Ware
3 = other
5 = frm = rim form
(see Photographs 1 to 6)
6 = rad = rim radius
7 = var = variability of radius measurement
S = deg = degree of sherd present
9 = int = color - interior
1 = black 4 = red
2 = brown 5 = buff
3 = orange 6 = gray
10 = ext = color - exterior
(same as above)
11 = cor = color - core
(same as above)
12 = fl = rim thickening position
1 = exterior 3 = Interior and exterior
2 = Interior 4 = straight
13 = tp = rim thickening shape
1 = flat
2 = round
14 = dec = decoration
1 = 2 item cross hatch 5 = vertical lines
2 = rim notch - perp, 6 = 2 item cross hatch -
3 = rim notch - angled enclosed, angle
4 = 3 item cross hatch - 7 = stem S leaf
segmented, angle 8 = irregular
15 = dri = drilling
1 = majority exterior
2 = biconical
3 = majority interior
16 = abr = abraded
1 = straight edge
2 = round edge
mtm
PAGE NO.
05/16/91
RAW LISTING FOR BULK. POTTERV
ACC CAI SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEVEL FNG MAT BURNED UNBURNED TOTAL
** LOCUS
S237 325 ^131 0 191 1 0 '/
R237 323 K131 0 139 : 0
R237 484 WIBI 0 336 1 0 4 4
R2-7 829 Wis: G 1 0 5 5
*< S^btuti:
0 13 13
Total
KEY TO SHELL
Item
accession number
catalog number
site number
tocus
unit
category
feature
level
Description
RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO
00000 for SDi-#s
WOOOO for SDM-W-N
1. shell
1. hearth
2. burial
3.
4.
.5.-
6.
10, 20, 30, ...
(When subsampling shell, the following are individual species weights--to
the nearest gram--of a 100-gram subsample of the larger unit/level
sample.)
Shell Type 1 chione
2 argopecten
3 mytilus
4 ostrea
5 donax
6 haliotis
7 olivella
8 other
9 total weight
to the nearest gram
weight, to the nearest gram, of the
total unit/level sample. Note: For
shell not subsampled, be sure total
weight Is equal to sum of shell types
1 through 8.
- Shell
o I
o3
oy
0?
10
/a •
13 -
ly.
14 -
7-
^1 -
-10 -
£^
-
i?i -
J7-
ii? -
a<?-
-
-
•33 -
- Ptc-faA;
Poli'AJices
' Cls4i?<iea.
ck
Te^H 1
35"' S«.p+i'feA
3$. Al«.le».(»>pu5
fl- 5i-(0i!im
m
m
m
t
fftut Nu,
o;/i£/9i
RfiU JSTING CF SHELL
ACC " 1 T
LM i SITE LOCUS UHIT Fl :A LEVEL FMG CH: AGR [)ljfi HAL oil QTH
sr IE iij;
" i j! £10 V V '-.
r- -1 U£: 0 t: 0 (• 0
• « Icrl V
C 7 ' C i -J'J V w f"; 0 1... 0 0
162 h 1 J! 0 J • 0 V 1) r
R23r ' 74 t;i£; l.r
••
0 I' j
" - - j.' »i _ K: 81 - -Iv [; '''
- t w' 3c •;• rm. 0 21-'L 0 0 0 0 i,' 0
c .
'•J ; G •i (j 0
5 "'"7 401 WlSI 0 257 (; 0 c " c •-1
4S£ yisi V 337 c 1
n.-iiT 532 KlBl I 10 f; 0 0 (1 c 1
mi C1C J j J KI8I 0 1 0 0 0 G 0 0
541 3C c i M 0 ;] 0
"'44 rllSl
1 • ( A 1
h i 0 i r
4^ 0
0
0
0 A
[1 C
(:
G
554 •1 • 0 ( n;o 1 2v J t f. t 'i u
.-. .•. 17 •!5£ WISl 1
1 0 i\
V I'l 0
-J u i h 1 u 1 ? 4C 1 i V
1^ ll 0
;- "•' "
i.' t n < . 0 i I c 1 c V V i.'
5£4 «18I -c J c v' V
R237 JC 1 fjl3; c /'] 0 1.' V ;
R22? CCJ ril&l J f, 0 1) 0
H237 8 92 Ills: i .. 0 G 0 c (:
p •- - 7 902 iJlSl -: i ^' /•. V V .-; C y •^
'V
A
y
904 Tk ;> 0 0 0 0 .J
R237 90£ i;l3I i z, 40 1 !) 0 y 0 y
f."." -90S «181 TK c-
J--..' : i 0 0 c y f'l
-fV . '^181 1'.' 2 1 (} 0 0 0
R237 912 «13I T.: 1
(•
/) A
V y 0 0 0
?237 yisi ri A ;"; ft ft V 0 c
"2-'^r 9:-m\ ;) 1 0 V
••
0 n
•}
!-23" 937 I'l i C* i
< •.
j -••
t 0 A ^^
V 0 r.
F2'^^ 77 20 ij i 0 0 r,
•? •? 7 •-.'Cr y IB! T-- -.' f: (1 1 0 i.-,1
i 30 2 i.. 0 i.'
95 i ^tlSl T ;} : 1 0 ;^ 0 •j 0 (;
':3' U' 0 ! 0 lj
R ^ - .-• • i-\ 0 0 0 0
h237 935 Vi'iSi I'j 3 \ f :) 0 0
"7 "^7 952 '1; 3 .". V V
A
f\I37 30 ; I,-(, 0 /. 0
;•• 954 siis: .1 4 () v 0 fl
n '^"^ "
.* _ J 1
wis:
v. - " 1
•T ii
ft:
.
" . n
. 'il
T f • 40
-
u
0
i..
(\
0
'y
G
rm-. " 0', IJ 0 c 0
R237 r.z • •JJI m: " R ; \ •-: c '• -n -
•1 t. rm. 30 0 0 0 i.
3EST ORIGINAL
r:7;'Q!
, r-. .-I 1 -
H .. -_ .-i i 1 : ~ ecus l!N[" FE^; lE^EL ^NC CHI ASR F!YT 03 DO?; HAL uLi OTH
fi23 .• Si; - •_ -*' .
•• " c •
0 C 0
R237 379
I-. - - -• r -• •, ta • •-' i
r-''27 925
»1 •:• i
!Ji3:
iiis:
h".31
•^T f 7
f;ot:;c
i 0 0 1
V :.- 'J I
(• 0 (• I
0 0 0 0
if 3^ototi.
•• C :,' 1 • Ij.JttI, J 7 ~, 1 ; ••. '-• J y
BESTORIGINA
m
212 35 £ 0 0 0 0 35
212 £5 £ 0 0 0 C 35
m
P
il
P
ii
IU
SHELL
CONTROLED FOR VALUE KI31 OF VARIABLE SITE
r
r
r
•MK
r
r
r
r
m
f
r
^5
r
1 1
•>
1 1 1
SHELL SPECI
5 fi
ES
7 8 9 TOTAL
Tt
0 8 9 0 0 0 0 y 6 23 14 IGT
35 39 0 0 0 0 0 2b IRO
7 24 0 0 0 0 0 cc
JJ ICO
10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 -4 IGT
29 43 0 0 0 0 0 29 IfiO
2 8 0 0 0 0 e.
IJ 18 ICO
20 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 13 IGT
G2 33 0 0 0 0 0 5 IRQ
11 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 ICO
30 20 6 3 0 0 0 0 ! 30 13 IGT
£7 20 10 0 0 0 0 t J IKO
17 16 75 0 Q 0 0 9 ICO
40 64 <> 1 0 0 0 0 0 67 40 IGT
9fi 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 IRO
55 5 25 0 0 0 0 0 ICO
50 •} ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
L IGT
67 J j 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRO
2 0 0 0 0 0 A ICO
50 ij I 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -> IGT
75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRO
3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ICO
70 I 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 5 IGT
13 75 0 0 0 0 0 13 IRO
1 16 0 0 0 0 0 9 ICO
SO 3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 i. IST
75 '•\e LJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 IfiO
t J 0 0 0 0 0 0 ICO
90 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 IGT
0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 IRO
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ICO
116 37 4 0 0 0 0 11 168
69 22 t L 0 0 0 0 7 IGT
r
r
r
r
Item
accession number
catalog number
site number
locus
unit
category
feature
level
burned bone
unburned bone
total weight
KEY TO BONE
Description
RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO
00000 for SDi-#s
WOOOO for SDM-W-l*s
3. bone
1. hearth
2. burial
3.
10, 20, 30, ...
4.
5.
6.
fi
Wl
m
P
weight to the nearest gram
weight to the nearest gram
weight, to the nearest gram, of the total unit/level
sample
m
m
m
r
aft
•i
m
mm
f
mm
f
f
f
<n
m
m
n
mk
' mt
mt
KEY TO BONE
Item
accession number
catalog number
site number
locus
unit
level
species
Description
RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO
00000 for SDi-#s
WOOOO for SDM-W-#s
4i
10, 20, 30, ...
1. Sylvilagus auduboni
2. Sylvilagus bachmani
3. Lepus californicus
4. Spermophilus beecheyi
5. Thomomys bottae
- 6. Neotoma sp.
7. Enhydra lutris
Odocoileus hemionus
18. Peromyscus sp. .p-r-i^^
19. Cervus sp. u_^>cJ^ -ti^^
42. Unidentifiable
fish
43. Bos taurus
weight
element
left
right
burned
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Urocyon cinereoarqenteus
Canis sp.
Nonldentifiable sm. mammal
Nonidentiflable Ig. mammal
13. Crotalus sp.
14. Lampropeltis sp.
15. Nonidentiflable reptile
wei ght to the nearest tenth gram
1. cranial 16. long bone
2. maxilla 17. shaft
3. ptry . 18. tooth
4. mandible 19. navicular
5. vertebra 20. spine
6. humerus 21. pharyngeal plate
7. radius 22. otolith
8. ulna 23. coracoid
9. scapula 24. cl aw
10, pelvis 25. clei thrum
11. femur 26. carapace
12. tibia 27. arm
13. metapodial 28. rib
14. calcaneum
15. astragalus
left side - to the nearest tenth gram
right side - to the nearest tenth gram
to the nearest tenth gram
r
PAGE NO. 1
05/16/9!
m DATA FOR BONE
ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEAT LEVEL FLDt SP
** SITE !*181
R237 947 W18I
H Subtotal **
*** Total ***
N5^3( 55
r ELE LT RT BRK UNBRfi
!.50 0.00 0.00 O.OC 0.00
1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
!.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
r
r
n
n
E
P i
I:
f!
t
k
p
!••••
n
tm
Ml
e '
mm
.«
RIDGETOP INVENTORY
11
UJ m cn
ii
r '
^li.^ .iii; rLjr r.f'f.r.
m
mt
m
p
p
p
P
P
J'*C. rri Li
P
r 37 41 3 0 I
1 ta.
...
li i C;
<
DC
O
CO
M
•I
ii
'A3: i
-T - I J - r.)
RAii^ LI ST LN^ 0'
CA' 31:: -CCI; JNIT rtr^ LEVIL FNT Cnl Ab^ HVT OST DON HA^ Gtai Gin
4
^:EI
:: zi:
r
V
3" 5t-i y t f'
n i 0 i
.37 Str iilSl
.37 32: 1.; 1 r • if i a L
37
• •jjt -Jii i
0 0 '; 0 -)
0 0 0 0
0000
G C C C
m
P
P
P
P
f P
P
P
BEST
m
P
in
P
ACC CAT SITE LOC OJiiT FEA LEV FLDI HA TFl TP2 TP3 TF4 TF5 T?6 TP7 TPS TP3
H SITE im
?237 c \i mi
K::7 S4S N13!
K257 SfO ii!81
Subtotal H
*»t Ti;t.;l IS*
0 I. li !5
0 0
0 0
r' BEST
Ml
SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN SDM-W-181 SITE DRAWER INVENTORY
FOR FLAKED LITHIC ARTEFACTS AND GROUND STONE
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
NN
f
IM
9m
tm
i •
PA6E NO. I
05/13/91
RAW LISTING FOR FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACTS - DESCRIPTIVE
ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNO « C LB WT LN MD TH P PD CR
H SITE H181
R236 1 H181 1963 131 S«6 0
A
1 J 1 5 25 OJ 34 19 2 1 0 t L
R236 H181 1963 147
t
SMS 0 1 5 32 35 42 15 2 1 0 L
R236 ill HlSl 1963 28B L
SD2 0
•5
3 1 9 10 27 47 7 2 1 0 2
R236 4 HlSl 1963 261
J
0 1 I 1 lib 68 46 31 2 1 0 1
fi236 5 rm 1%3 351 0 SM34 4 1 4 18 57 23 15 4 1 0 3
R236 5 mi 1963 354 0 SM32 3 1 4 18 5S 25 13 4 1 0 1
fl236 7 m\ 1%3 433 0 SM243 3 1 4 30 71 30 14 4 1 0 1
R236 8 mi 19G3 1075 0 18261 4 0 •? 14 45 30 9 4 I 0 1
0
R236 S mi 2-523 0 18260 3 1 10 13 34 45 0 4 1 0 2
R23b to mi 2-523 0 17398 3 1 10 9 2B 54 7 4 1 0 8
R235 11 mi 2-523 15 16835 4 1 10 6 25 43 7 4 1 0 8
R236 12 m\ 2-528 0 16005 1 1 5 1069 147 126 41 2 1 0 4
R23G 13 rm 2-104 0 4 I 0 21 38 49 10 4 1 0 1
R23£ 14 mi 2-104 0 SM33 3 2 3 11 40 30 11 4 1 0 2
R23S 15 mi 2-104 0 4 2 4 19 55 30 13 4 1 0 2
R23G 16 mi 2-104 0 •3 J 1 5 19 41 54 13 4 1 1 2
R236 17 mi 2-104 0 3 1 1 79 59 46 33 4 1 0 1
R23S IB mi 2-104 0 3 2 4 IS 49 32 10 4 1 0 2
R236 1? m\ 2-104 0 Sf197 3 2 14 58 70 47 15 4 1 0 2
R236 20 mi 2-104 0 18710 2 I 6 59 79 66 26 4 1 1 1
fl236 21 mi 2-104 0 4 2 14 15 30 31 13 4 0 0 2
R236 22 Mm 2-104 0 3 2 14 39 71 29 18 4 I 0 1
R23S 23 mi 2-104 0 4 I 5 85 50 71 20 2 1 1 1
R23G 24 m 2-104 0 3 2 14 31 53 45 11 4 1 1 2
R23e 25 mi 2-104 0 4 2 14 5 30 19 9 4 0 0 2
R23G 26 mi 2-104 0 3 2 14 11 44 27 10 4 1 0 2
R23S 27 mi 2-104 0 4 2 14 4 19 29 6 4 0 0 I
R236 28 mi 2-104 0 3 2 14 34 53 33 12 4 1 0 2
R23S 2? mi 2-104 0 4 2 14 9 28 25 9 4 0 0 2
R236 30 mi 2-104 0 3 1 3 9 4G 19 8 4 1 0 i.
R236 31 mi 2-104 0 3 2 3 15 39 34 12 4 t 0 2
fi236 T\
iJ^ mi 2-104 0 6 2 14 7 33 27 9 4 0 0 I
R23G t-) •J\J mi 2-104 0 4 2 14 7 22 23 11 4 1 0 1
R236 34 mi 2-104 0 3 2 14 47 62 36 20 4 1 0 2
a23S 35 mi 2-104 0 7 2 14 9 35 23 11 4 0 0 1
R23G 36 HlSl 2-104 0 3 2 14 11 31 35 11 4 1 0 1
R236 37 Mt81 2-104 0 3 2 3 40 47 45 16 4 1 0 2
R23G 38 rm 2-104 0 SM5C 3 1 14 8 43 27 6 2 1 0 1
R236 39 Miei 2-104 0 '\
L
I 5 62 54 70 16 2 1 1 1
R236 40 U181 2-104 0 3 1 5 33 42 52 16 2 1 0 1
fi236 41 H181 2-104 0 3 1 5 51 54 40 21 1 1 1 1
R23G 42 UlSl 2-104 0 4 1 5 54 51 52 20 2 1 0 1
R23G 43 W181 2-104 0 0 1 1 113 64 40 42 4 1 1 1
R23b 44 WIBI 2-104 0 ( 1 0 150 73 54 35 4 1 0 1
fi236 45 ^4181 2-104 0 Si195 3 1 5 24 39 38 14 2 1 0 1
R23G 46 UlSl 2-104 0 3 2 0 90 67 55 2B 4 1 0 -. i.
R23e 47 HlSl 2-104 0 3 1 0 3? 76 39 12 2 I 0 2
PAGE NO.
05/13/91
r
RAW LISTING FQR FLA^D LITHIC ARTIFACTS - DESCRIPTIVE
R236 48
R236 49
R236 50
R236 51
R236 52
R236 53
R236 54
R236 55
R236 56
R236 57
R23G 5B
R236 59
R236 bl
R236 62
f* Subtotal
HlBl
W131
HlBl
H13!
HlSl
M13!
HlBl
M18!
HlBl
H181
HlSl
HlSl
HlSl
M18I
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
2-104
5-2B
5-28
LEV FNO (1 C LB HT LN HD TH P PD CR N
0 2 1 5 55 56 bO 17 3 0 1 1
0 -f 1 0 15 42 tc LJ 12 4 1 0 "i i.
0 2 1 6 137 61 72 29 3 1 1 I
0 1 1 0 90 45 79 20 4 1 0 1
0 J 1 0 94 40 47 21 4 1 0 1
0 •? •I c L J 38 42 42 13 2 1 0 1
0 I 5 24 44 35 IG 4 1 0 1
0 S«91 3 1 1 68 42 46 26 4 1 0 2
0 3 1 8 tt
LJ 37 46 10 2 1 0 1
0 1 1 5 25 30 48 17 4 1 0 '}
0 1 1 5 IB 3G tt
JL 13 2 1 0 1
0 6 2 0 5 24 24 8 4 0 0 2
0 3 I 7 206 63 46 42 4 1 1 J
0 3 I 7 297 71 75 42 4 1 1 1
Hi Total Ul
3786
J7B6
P
m
m
m
PAGE NO. 1
05/13/S!
RAH LISTiNS FOR FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACTS - ATTRIBUTES
f
mm
r
IM
f
r
mm
r
MM
r
r"
mm
r
r
f
••I
r m
f
' m
I
ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNO H C LB Tl Cl Al T2 C2 A2 T3 C3 A3 T4 C4 A4 NN
ii SITE H181
R236 1 KlSl 1963 131 SfIG 0 3 ! 5 10 3 3 10 1 2
R236 2 WISl 1963 147 SM9 0 3 15 iO 3 3 9 1 3 'i
R236 3 WISl 1563 2BS
L
SD2 0
n
1 9 10 1 8 2 1
fi235 4 »181 1963 261
J
0 J I ! 1 3 3 1 1
R236 5 HlSl 1963 351 0 SM34 4 1 4 14 1 2 15 1 3 15 2 3 3
R23& 6 UlSl 1963 354 0 SM32 3 1 4 2 4 2 1
R236 7 HlSl 1963 433 0 S(1243 3 1 4 2 4 2 1
R236 8 M181 1963 1075 0 18261 4 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 3
R236 9 m\ 2-523 0 18260 3 1 10 2 t J 1 2 1 I 2
R236 10 mi 2-523 0 17398 3 1 10 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 L t 2 2 2 8
11235 11 UlSl 2-523 15 16885 4 1 10 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 I 2 2 1 2 8
R23G 12 WlBl 2-52S 0 16005 1 1 5 10 2 3 10 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 4
R236 13 H181 2-104 0 4 1 0 2 4 1 1
R236 14 WISl 2-104 0 Sf133 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
R236 15 HlSl 2-104 0 4 2 4 2 1 i. 2 2 2 2 2
R236 16 WlBl 2-104 0 3 1 5 10 1 2 10 1 t J 2
fl235 17 WlBl 2-104 0 3 1 1 1 3 2 1
R236 18 HlSl 2-104 0 \J 2 4 1 0
i. 2 8 2 I 2
R23b 19 WISl 2-104 0 SM97 3 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
R236 20 WISl 2-104 0 18710 2 I 6 17 4 2 1
fi236 21 WISl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
R236 22 WlBl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 L 1
R235 23 WISl 2-104 0 4 1 5 9 I 2 1
R236 24 HlSl 2-104 0 ij 2 14 2 t
L 1 9 2 A-2
R236 25 WISl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 2
R236 26 WISl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 2 1 2 2 1 2
R235 27 HlSl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 •5 1 I
R235 28 WISl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 2 1 2 2 L 1
L
R235 29 HlSl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
R236 30 WlBl 2-104 0 Ij 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
R236 31 WlBl 2-104 0 3 2 3 2
•>
L
2 2 2 2 t
R236 32 WISl 2-104 0 6 2 14 2 t J 1 1
fi236 33 WISl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 -) 1
R236 34 WISl 2-104 0 n ij 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 2
R236 35 WISl 2-104 0 7 2 14 2 4 1
R236 36 WISl 2-104 0 1 2 14 2 3 2 1
fi23S 37 WISl 2-104 0 •7 -J 2 T •? 2
•>
2 2 2 -1
R235 38 WlBl 2-104 0 Sfl50 3 1 14 2 2 2 1
R235 39 WISl 2-104 0 2 1 5 9 2 3 I
R23G 40 . HlSl 2-104 0 3 1 5 9 2 3 1
R236 41 WISl 2-104 0 •J 1 5 9 4 3 1
R23b 42 W181 2-104 0 4 1 5 9 t
L 3 I
fi236 43 WISl 2-104 0 3 1 1 1 2 3 1
R236 44 W181 2-104 0 1 1 0 2 4 t
J 1
R23e 45 WlBl 2-104 0 SM95 3 i 5 9 4 3 1
R236 46 WISl 2-104 0 t J 2 0 2 2 3 2 1 2 t
R236 47 WISl 2-10't 0 J 1 0 9 2 2 14 1 2 2
PAGE NO. 2
05/13/91
RAH LISTING FDR PLACED LITHIC ARTIFACTS - ATTRIBUTES
ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNO M C LB Tl CI Al T2 C2 A2 T3 C3 A3 T4 C4 A4
R236 48 WISl 2-104 0
R236 49 WIS! 2-104 0
R23G 50 WISl 2-104 0
R236 51 HlSI 2-104 0
R236 52 wiai 2-104 0
r 8236 53 W181 2-104 0
R236 54 WlBl 2-104 0
R236 55 WIS! 2-104 0
t
R235 56 WISl 2-104 0
t R235 57 WISl 2-104 0
R23G 58 WlBl 2-104 0
8236 59 Wist 2-104 0
• H236 61 WISl 5-2B 0
8236 62 wist 5-28 0
Sf191
1 5 9 2 2 1
t L 1 0 10 2 3 1 3 2
I 6 17 3 0 1
t 1 0 3 2 •1
L 1
i4 1 0 9 2
•>
1
T <J c
J 9 3 T •J 1
o 1 5 9 4 3 1
.J 1 t 1 3 3 I I 3 -•}
3 1 8 0 2 -> i. I
3 1 5 10 t 3 9 2 3 2
3 1 5 9 2 3 1
6 t
L 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
t J I 7 7 4 4 7 1 4 7 14 3
3 1 7 7 3 4 I
p
p
p
i
lb
P
r
I'
n
f
PI
M
PAGE ND. 1
05/13/91
RAH LISTING FOR SfiOUNDSTONE
ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT LEV FDN MT H6T LN WD TH C T SH F 8 Ll HI DI L2 W2 D2
*» SITE HlSl
R236 60 HlBl 5-2 0 17943 1 589 102 SO 44 1 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a Subtotal "
It* Total HJ
5B9 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 0 0 0 0 0 0
L
r
L
r
r
L
r
L
C
p
p
li
p
ATTACHMENT 6
First Addendum to: Cultural Resource Survey Report for the
2 Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Project,
Carlsbad, California (Harris and Gallegos 1999)
* FIRST ADDENDUM TO:
'mt
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT FOR THE
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD BRTOGE
^ REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
'•.tts
•m Prepared for:
Dudek & Associates
Prepared by:
GaUegos & Associates
August 1999
FIRST ADDENDUM TO:
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT FOR THE
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Dudek & Associates Gallegos & Associates
605 Third Street 5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Encinitas, Califomia 92024 Carlsbad. California 92008
(760)942-5147 (760)929-0055
PJ. 6-99
National Archaeological Data Base Information
Acres Surveyed: Approximately 40 acres
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Rancho Santa Fe
Sites Newly Recorded: None
Key Words: Rancho Santa Fe Road, Survey
Nina M. Harris ^Dennis IC GaUegos
Project Archaeologist Project Manager
August 1999
mm-
m
'mt
-m
SECTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
FIGURE
M
1-2
1- 3
2- 1
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Environmental Setting
Background - Prehistory
Background - History
Previous Work
SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
Introduction
Survey Methods
Survey Results
Site Descriptions
Summary
REFERENCES CITED
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
Regional Location of Project
APE as Shown on Rancho Santa Fe USGS 7.5' Quadrangle
APE as Shown on Development Map
APE and Cultural Resources Shown on Rancho Santa Fe
USGS 7.5'Quadrangle
APPENDICES
PAGE
ii
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-5
1-5
1- 6
2- 1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
2- 3
3- 1
PAGE
1-2
1-3
1- 4
2- 2
LETTER NAME
A Resumes
B Record Search Request and Site Forms
PAGE
A-1
B-1
PJ. 6-99
AUGUST 1999
Ml
mt
TITLE:
DATE:
SOURCE OF COPIES:
ABSTRACT:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
First Addendum to;
Cultural Resource Survey Report for the
Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge
Replacement Project
Carlsbad, Califomia
Nina M. Harris and Dennis R. Gallegos
Gallegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
August 1999
South Coastal Information Center
San Diego State University
San Diego, Califomia 92182-0136
This addendum report provides the results of a cultural resource literature review and field
survey for the realignment of a portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The area of potential
effect (APE) (approximately 7000x200 linear foot long corridor) is located east of the
present Rancho Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Questhaven Road in San
Diego County, Califomia.
The record search and literature review identified three cultural resources (CA-SDI-942,
CA-SDI-11439, and CA-SDI-11440) within or adjacent to the APE. Site CA-SDI-942
(SDM-W-181) was tested and determined not significant by Hanna (1989); and, the site
boundary was redefined, thereby placing the site outside the APE. Site CA-SDI-11439 is
adjacent and outside the APE. Site CA-SDI-11439 had been previously tested and
identified as not significant (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). The present sUidy identified one
cultural resource (CA-SDI-11440) within the area of potential effect. Previous work
(testing) at CA-SDI-11440 included a surface collection of artifacts and excavation of
shovel test pits (STPs). The surface collection produced three artifacts and STPs were
negative, therefore site CA-SDI-11440 was identified as not significant (Pigniolo and
Gallegos 1990).
mt
PJ. 6-99
AUGUST 1999
11
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Gallegos & Associates was contracted by the City of Carlsbad to conduct a cultural
resource inventory for a 7,000 foot long by 200 foot wide corridor for the revised Rancho
Santa Fe Road realignment project. The area of potential effect (APE) is located east of the
present Rancho Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Questhaven Road in San
Diego County (Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
The APE includes the right-of-way for the proposed six lane road (126 feet wide) and the
limits of grading, as well as the two lane connector road, and partial removai of the existing
Rancho Santa Fe Road (Figure 1-3). This project is included in the City of Carlsbad's
General Plan for upgrades to Rancho Santa Fe Road for designation as a Prime Arterial
Roadway. The field survey was conducted in compliance with City of Carlsbad, Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Caltrans guidelines for federal compliance.
Resumes are included as Appendix A and Record Search and Site Forms as Appendix B.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The study area is undeveloped with terrain ranging from gende slopes to steep knolls.
Vegetation within the study area includes coastal sage scmb community with chaparral, and
some domestic grasses and trees. The geology consists of Mesozoic volcanic and
metavolcanic with andesite, greenstone and rhyoUte outcrops. Quarries for this rock are
present in the general area and are known to have been used prehistorically. Most of the
rock types within the APE, however, are of a lesser quality not sought for flake stone tools
by Native Americans.
Soils within the study area include Cieneba rocky coarse sandy loam and San Miguel rocky
silty loam with 9 to 30 percent slopes located in rolling hills and steeply sloping terrain, and
Huehuero loam, Ramona sandy loam, and Visalia sandy loam with 5 to 9 percent slopes
located on moderate slopes (US Department of Agriculnire 1973). Disturbances include
graded power line access roads, dirt bike trails, jeep trails and dumping of fill material.
PJ. 6-99 1 -1
AUGUST 1999
Scale: 10 miles
Mexico
Gallegos Sc Associates
Regional Location of Project FIGURE
1-1
4 MILS
SCALE 1:24000
0 1 MtLE
1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7O0O F€ET
t3W
(2*0 MILS 1 KILOMETER
V A i
GaUegos & Associates
Project Area Shown on Rancho Sante Fe 7,5' U.S.G.S. Map FIGURE
1-2
Questhaven Road'
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT
ROAD TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE
La Costa Avenue
CA-SDI-942
(SDM-W-181)
Original Boundary
CA-SDI-942
(SDM-W-181)
Redefined Bonndary
ICA-SDI-n439l
Seam bl fMt
Gallegos & Associates
APE Shown on Development Map FIGURE
1-3
m
1.3 BACKGROUND - PREHISTORY
Native Americans occupied San Diego County for over 9,000 years. The period from 9,000
to 1,300 years ago is referred to as the Early Period or Archaic Period. The San Dieguito
are generally accepted as the first inhabitants of the region, occupying San Diego County as
early as 9,000 years ago. The initial occupation (San Dieguito Complex) is believed to
represent a group of people who entered San Diego County from the desert. These people
hunted, fished, milled plant foods, and collected and processed shellfish. The occupation
identified as the La Jolla Complex and Pauma Complex is also placed within the Archaic
Period. Archaeological sites reflecting the Early Period occupation are coastal shell
habitation sites, inland hunting and milling campsites, and quarry sites. San Dieguito and
La Jolla/Pauma Complex are believed by tiiis author to be of the same cultural stock,
representing a long period of occupation by one people.
Occupation after 1,300 years ago (Late Period) is well documented by the numerous
Kumeyaay/Diegueno and Luiseno habitation sites. Artifacts and cultural pattems reflecting
tills Late Period occupation include small projectile points, pottery, obsidian from Obsidian
Butte, and cremations. The project area falls near the boundary of Kumaayay/Diegueiio and
Luiseno territory (Kroeber 1925).
1.5 BACKGROUND - HISTORY
During the Spanish period of occupation, die general area in and around the study area
served as grazing land for cattie and otiier livestock belonging primarily to Mission San
Luis Rey. After secularization of tiie Franciscan missions in 1834, tiiree large tracts of
surrounding land were granted to individuals by tiie prevailing Mexican govemment. These
grants include Rancho Agua Hedionda to the northwest, Rancho Las Encinitas to tiie south,
and Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos to the nortiieast. The fonner mission holdings
continued to be used for grazing cattie and horses long after the advent of American Rule
and gradually became available for agricultural settlement with a focus on crop production.
Despite the fact that numerous immigrants arrived in San Diego in tiie 1880s seeking rural
lands, few selected north San Diego County for settlement. A colony, commonly known as
Olivenhain, focused on agricultural pursuits, purchased Rancho Las Encinitas and survived
PJ. 6-99 1 -5
AUGUST 1999
for a short period of time before abandonment of the land. Some of the original colonists
remained in the area as independent land owners. Rancho Agua Hedionda ulthnately
became the property of the Kelly family, and land developers purchased Rancho Los
Vallecitos de San Marcos and laid out a town site that later became the community of San
Marcos. Many of the settiers associated with acquisition of ranch property or land, made
available to new settiement, remained to establish rural communities.
1.5 PREVIOUS WORK
This study included a literature review and record search from the South Coastal
Information Center at San Diego State University. Seventeen studies have been conducted
and nineteen archaeological sites recorded within a one-mile radius of the project area. The
recorded cultural resources include prehistoric shell scatters, lithic scatters, temporary
camps, habitation sites, quarries, bedrock milling, and isolate artifacts. The record search
resulted in identifying tiiree sites, CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-181), CA-SDI-11439, and CA-
SDI-11440 recorded within or adjacent to the APE (Appendix B).
Studies completed within one-mile of the study area include: Cheever and Gallegos (1986a,
1986b), Davis and Cheever (1991), Gallegos and Carrico (1985), Gallegos and Pigniolo
(1989a and 1989b), Hanna (1991), Kaldenberg (1976), Kyle and Gallegos (1992), and Kyle
et al. (1997), Pigniolo and Gallegos (1990), Rotii (1990), Smith (1991a, 1991b, 1993),
Talley and Bull (1980).
Site CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-181) was tested by Hanna (1991) and determined to be not
significant. This work (Hanna 1991) redefined the site boundary of CA-SDI-942, placing
this site southeast of the original recording and outside the APE. In 1990, sites CA-SDI-
11439 and CA-SDI-11440 were tested and identified as not significant under CEQA criteria
(Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). Site CA-SDI-11439 is located adjacent and east of the APE.
Site CA-SDI-11440 is located witiiin the APE.
PJ. 6-99 1 -6
AUGUST 1999
m
SECTION 2
SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The current study is an Addendum to previous work (Kyle et al. 1997) and includes a field
survey of an area approximately 7000 feet long by 200-feet wide for tiie revised Rancho
Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement project. This study was conducted to identify the
presence/absence of cultural resources within tiie APE. Survey methods, results and site
descriptions are provided below.
2.2 SURVEY METHODS
The current study included completion of a field survey of the approximately 40-acre APE.
The field survey was conducted on July 1 and 7, 1999 by Nina Harris, Lany Tift, and
Dennis Gallegos for a total of 30 person hours.
The survey was conducted on foot using a 10-m interval between survey transects. Ground
visibility was excellent in dirt roads, fair in less dense vegetation in the south portion of tiie
study area and poor in dense grass areas covering the northern portion of the APE.
2.2 SURVEY RESULTS
On tiie basis of the literature review, two sites were previously recorded witiiin die APE and
one site adjacent and outside the APE. Site CA-SDM1439 was relocated and is situated
outside tiie APE. Site CA-SDI-11440 is witiiin tiie APE. Site CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-
181) was originally mapped witiiin tiie project area, but was subsequently redefined outside
of tiie APE (Davis and Cheever 1991, Hanna 1991) (Figure 2-1). Site descriptions are
provided below.
PJ. 6-99 2 -1
AUGUST 1999
Gallegos & Associates
APE and Cuitural Resources
Shovm on Rancho Sante Fe 7.5' U.S.G.S. Map
FIGURE
2-1
2.4 SITE DESCRIPTION
CA-SDI-11439
Site CA-SDI-11439 was initially recorded by Pigniolo and Briggs (Gallegos and Pigniolo
1989) as three granitic bedrock milUng features each with a single basin and one mano
fragment. The site was relocated and is situated adjacent, but outside tiie APE. In 1990, site
CA-SDI-11439 was tested and identified as not significant under CEQA criteria (Pigniolo
and Gallegos 1990).
CA-SDI-11440
Site CA-SDI-11440 was recorded by Pigniolo and Briggs (Gallegos and Pigniolo 1989a)
as several granitic milling features witii 15+ slicks and one mano fragment. The location of
tiie milUng features was surveyed twice after the initial survey and the milUng features were
not relocated. Steve Briggs, who had initially recorded site CA-SDI-11440, was contacted
and he stated that die milling features were not at this locaUty and had been mismapped
(personal communication with D. Gallegos 1999). In 1990, this locaUty was tested using
five shovel test pits and surface collection of artifacts (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). All
five STPs were negative and the surface coUection produced three artifacts. As a result of
testing, site CA-SDI-11440 was identified as not significant (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990).
CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-181)
Site CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-181) was originally mapped witiiin tiie southem portion of tiie
APE by Malcolm Rogers. Recent work has redefined the site boundary of CA-SDI-942
outside tiie APE (Davis and Cheever 1991, Hanna 1991). Site CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-
181) was tested and recommended as not significant under CEQA criteria (Hanna 1991).
2.5 SUMMARY
The literature review and field survey identified one cultural resource within the APE. This
resource (CA-SDI-11440) was previously tested (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). Testing
resulted in die surface collection of tiiree surface artifacts, and STPs identified no
subsurface deposit. On the basis of this work, CA-SDI-11440 was identified as not
significant (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990).
PJ. 6-99 2-3
AUGUST 1999
SECTION 3
REFERENCES CITED
Cheever, Dayle and Dennis GaUegos
1986a Cultural Resource Survey Industrial Parcel #097 San Marcos, CaUfomia.
On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San
Diego, Califomia.
1986b Cultural Resource Survey Industrial Parcel #096 San Marcos, Califomia.
On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San
Diego, California.
Davis, M. and D. M. Cheever
1991 Phase I Archaeology Testing of Three Sites on tiie La Costa Town Center
Property in Carlsbad, Califomia. On file. South Coastal Information Center,
San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia
Gallegos, Dennis and Richard Carrico
1985 The La Costa Site Sdi^05 (W945) 7000 Years Before Present, Carlsbad
Califomia. On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State
University, San Diego, Califomia.
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Andrew Rgniolo
1989a Cultural Resource Survey of tiie Land Pac Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On
file South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San
Diego, Califomia.
1989b Cultural Resource Survey of tiie Rancho Santa Fe Road AUgnment,
Carlsbad, Califomia. On file Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego
State University, San Diego, Califomia.
Hanna, David C.
1991 The Phase U Archaeological Test of Malcolm Rogers Site SDM-W-181 at
La Costa Town Center in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia. On file Soutii
Coastal Information Center, San Diego Sate University, San Diego.
PJ. 6-99 3-1
AUGUST 1999
Kaldenberg, Russell L.
1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land
Company Property, Carlsbad, Califomia. On file. South Coastal
Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook ofthe Indians of Califomia. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kyle, Carolyn E. and Dennis R. Gallegos
1992 Archaeological Test of Five Prehistoric Sites for the Rancho Santa Fe Road
AUgnment Project. On file South Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego
State University, San Diego, CaUfomia.
Kyle, Carolyn E., Roxana L. Phillips and Dennis R. GaUegos
1997 Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge
Replacement Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file, South Coastal
Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia
Pigniolo, Andrew and Dennis Gallegos
1990 Cultural Resource Testing Program for the University Commons Project.
On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San
Diego, Califomia.
Roth, Linda
1990 Archaeological and Historical Survey, 700 acres. City of Carisbad Rancho
Santa Fe Road ReaUgnment Route and Fieldstone/La Costa Associates
Mass Grading Plan On fUe, South Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego
State University, San Diego, CaUfomia.
Smith, Brian F.
1991a An Archaeological Survey of the Brown Lot SpUt Project, City of Encinitas
TMP# 91-057. On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State
University, San Diego, Califomia.
PJ. 6-99 3-2
AUGUST 1999
H
1991b Survey of the Hamilton Lot Split. On file, Soutii Coastal Information
Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia.
1993 An Archaeological Survey of the Chan Residence Project, City of Encinitas.
On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San
Diego, Califomia.
Talley, Paige R. and Charles BuU
1980 Impact Mitigation Report for Rancheros De La Costa. On file, Soudi
Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego,
Califomia.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego, Caiifomia. Soil Conservation Service and Forest
Service.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS)
1968 Topographic map, Rancho Santa Fe CaUfomia. Quadrangle, Photorevised
1983.
PJ. 6-99 3-3
AUGUST 1999
APPENDIX A
RESUMES
RESUME
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS
PRINCIPAL
Gallegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 929-0055
EDUCATION
B.A. Anthropology, Califomia State University, Northridge, 1974
B.S. Business, California State University, Northridge, 1973
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
Society for American Archaeology
Archaeological Conservancy
Society for Califomia Archaeology
San Diego County Archaeological Society
Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission 1989-1993
* PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Gallegos & Associates
mt 1990 to Present
m
Principal Investigator for cultural resource studies witiiin soutiiem CaUfomia for federal,
State and local compliance. These projects include constraint level evaluations, surveys,
CEQA testing programs, evaluations for National Register status, and data recovery
programs. Mr. Gallegos is knowledgeable of Federal legal requirements as well as, City,
County and CEQA requu:ements, having worked on over 300 projects witiiin tiie past 20
years. He has served as principal investigator for a number of recent federal cultural
resource projects which involved agency and 106 compliance. These projects include:
surveys and test programs on Camp Pendleton, NAS Miramar, Naval Radio Receiving
Facility, and Cleveland National Forest; testing of a 5,000 year-old site along tiie San Luis
Rey River Valley to determine site importance; and testing to determine site boundary for a
vUlage witiiin Guajome Regional Park for tiie County of San Diego. Major cultural
resource overviews include San Dieguito River VaUey Park (80,000 acres). City of
Escondido, San Marcos planning areas, City of Encinitas, Otay River Valley, and San Luis
Rey River Valley. Recent projects managed by Mr. Gallegos include: Stardust Golf
Course, NAS Miramar sample inventory of 20,000 acres. City of San Diego East Mission
Gorge data recovery program, Pardee Subarea III inventory (3,000 acres), Subarea IV
inventory (1,500 acres), Subarea V Inventory (2,000 acres), and Santa Margarita River
VaUey inventory (5,000 acres). North County projects include Carisbad Ranch, CarriUo
Ranch Specific Plan - Cultural Resource Element, Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement -
Cultural Resource Element.
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
Ogden/ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company
1978 to 1990
Project manager responsible for management and direction of cultural resource surveys,
test excavations, and data recovery programs. Major projects include the data recovery
programs for Ballast Point, Batiquitos Ridge, Twin Oaks VaUey Ranch, Kuebler Ranch -
Otay Mesa, Fieldstone Northview, and Daon's Santa Fe Ridge. UtiUty line projects
involving FERC, NEPA, and 106 compUance include tiie SCE Palo Verde/Devers 200-niile
transmission Une corridor survey, testing, and data recovery program; SDG&E La Rosita
transmission Une; and tiie SDG&E La Jet solar study. Large-scale Class II cultural
resource inventories include the Bureau of Land Management's 2.5-niillion acre Central
Mojave and Colorado Desert regions and tiie BLM's 250,000-acre East/West Mesa
Imperial Valley studies.
Archaeological Consultant
1977 to 1978
Archaeological consultant witii Wirth Associates, Inc. for SDG&E including: Talega
Substation survey (field dUrector); Phase II archaeological inventory report, plant site to
Devers and Miguel Substations, Sundesert Nuclear Project transmission system
environmental study; archaeological study of the Jamul Mountain Altemative, Sundesert
Nuclear Project transmission system environmental study (field director); and Phase I
archaeology report, plant site to VictorviUe/Lugo and Devers to VictorviUe/Lugo, Sundesert
Nuclear ft-oject transmission system environmental study.
Bureau of Land Management
1975 to 1977
Archaeologist for tiie USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Califomia Desert Planning
Staff, Sacramento/Riverside, Califomia. Lead archaeologist for tiie Saline VaUey Unit
Resource Analysis (cultural resource inventory of 500,000 acres).
Assisted in the cultural resource inventory, unit resource analysis, and management
framework plan for tiie East Mojave Planning Units (2,000,000 acres in die CaUfomia
Desert). Developed survey inventory and data coUection methods for computer input and
analysis. Developed a predictive model for locating prehistoric sites on the basis of
environmental variables. This model also identified site type and relative site density for
each site type on the basis of environmental setting.
State of Califomia
1975
Archaeologist for tiie State of Califomia, Department of Parks and Recreation.
Responsible for site testing and excavation of the 1812 Russian Fort Ross, Fort Ross,
Califomia.
m
m
m
DENNIS R, GALLEGOS 11/98
Archaeological Consultant
1972 to 1974
Archaeological consultant for historic and prehistoric sites to include mapping, survey,
excavation, and data recovery programs for private contractors, utiUties, universities,
Caltrans, HUD, and museums. Project areas include: Ventura Mission site, Ventura,
Califomia; Kirk Creek, Big Sur, California; Salton Sea area. Imperial County, Califomia;
Crowder Canyon, San Bemardino County, CaUfomia; and Cuyama, Califomia.
ResponsibUities included data recovery, analysis, photography, and report writing.
State of Califomia
1970 to 1973
Park aide for tiie Department of Parks and Recreation. Responsible for survey, excavation,
payroll, and disbursement of funds for tiie Castaic, Hardluck, and Pyramid projects, Los
Angeles National Forest, Califomia.
AWARDS
Special Achievement Award, presented by the Bureau of Land Management, CaUfomia
Desert Planning Staff, April 1977.
Outstanding Achievement in die Field of Historic Preservation, Leo CarriUo Ranch Master
Plan, Califomia Preservation Foundation, Febmary 1998
MAJOR REPORTS
1998 Management Plan for Otay Mesa Prehistoric Resources, San Diego, CaUfomia.
Preparation of a management plan for prehistoric resources within a 10,000 acre
study area. Report prepared for Caltrans and City of San Diego.
1997 (witii otiiers)
Route 905 Cultural Resources Test Report for Sites CA-SDI-6941, Loci G and Y;
CA-SDI-11423; and CA-SDI-11424. Testing report to determine site significance
under federal criteria. Report prepared for Caltrans and City of San Diego.
1997 (witii others)
Archaeological Survey Report for State Route 905 Study Area. Literature review
and field inventory of approximately 2,000 acres for SR 905 route selection.
Report prepared for City of San Diego and Caltrans.
1997 Batiquitos Lagoon Monitoring Program, Archaeological Test at Site CA-SDI-
11953, Carlsbad, Califomia. Report prepared for City of Carlsbad.
1996 Carlsbad Ranch Survey and Test Report. Field survey, testing to determine site
significance, mitigation through data recovery excavation, and monitoring. Report
prepared for Carltas and the City of Carlsbad.
1995 (witii others)
Otay Mesa Road Widening Project Cultural Resources Technical Report. Literature
review and field survey of 1,750 acres. Report prepared for City of San Diego and
Caltrans.
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98 •
i
1995 (with others) H
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Subarea V Future Urbanizing Area,
San Diego, Califomia. Literature review and field survey of approximately n
2,000 acres in north San Diego County. ^
1995 (with others)
Cultural Resource Inventory of the Santa Margarita River Valley, Camp Pendleton. P
Background study and field inventory of approximately 5,000 acres for Camp •
Pendleton, north San Diego County.
il
1995 (with others) H
Archaeological Survey Report for Interstate 905 Study Area. Literature review and
field survey for 1,750 acres on Otay Mesa for tiie City of San Diego and Caltrans. «
1994 (witii Kyle) •
Archaeological Testing of Seven Sites for the Stardust Golf Course Realignment
Project, City of San Diego, Califomia. Testing program to determine site P
significance for 10 prehistoric sites. Two major habitation sites witiiin tiie San •
Diego River Valley were identified as significant.
1993 (witii otiiers) £
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for the Reclaimed Water Distribution
Master Plan for the Nortiiem and Central Service Areas Phase la, San Diego ^
County, Califomia. Literature review and field survey for approximately 100 linear W
miles. •
1993 (witii Stmdwick) IP
The Archaeological Investigation of CA-SCLI-847 San Clemente Island, li
Califomia. Data recovery program for a 4,000 year old site on San Clemente Island
for conducted for the U.S. Navy. H
1993 (witii otiiers) *
Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea III Future _
Urbanizing Area, San Diego, Califomia. Literature review and field survey for
3,000 acres in north San Diego County.
1993 (witii otiiers) "i
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report, One City Block Witiiin Downtown m
Oceanside Redevelopment Core Block Area, Oceanside. Testing program to
determine presence/absence of historic resources and the significance of resources. p
1993 (witii others)
Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea IV Future
Urbanizing Area, San Diego, California. Literature review and field survey of *
1,500 acres in north San Diego County. Hi
1992 (with Stmdwick)
Historical/Archaeological Test Report for Daley Ranch, Escondido, Califomia.
CEQA test program to determine importance for 23 prehistoric and historic sites.
1992 (with Strudwick) ^
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Montecito Ranch Property, Ramona,
Califomia. Literature review and field inventory for 953 acres producing
36 prehistoric and historic sites. ^
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
1992 (with Kyle)
Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test for Carisbad Ranch, Carisbad,
Califomia. Literature review, field survey and significance testing conducted for
five sites.
1992 (with Schroth and Strudwick)
Historical/Archaeological Sample Inventory for Naval Air Station, Miramar, San
Diego, Califomia. Fifteen percent sample inventory of tiie 18,433 acre faciUty to
provide data for GIS ARC-INFO and site probability modeling for land use
planning.
1992 (editor)
Cultural Resource Evaluation for the Village of Tenaja, CA-RIV-271 and CA-RIV-
3973, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest. Testing program
conducted to determine National Register eUgibility.
1992 (witii Kyle)
Historical/Archaeological Survey and National Register Evaluation Report for
Camp Pendleton MiUtary Family Housing, San Diego, Califomia. Survey and
testing program to identify and determine National Register properties.
1990 (witii Schrotii)
Archaeological Investigations of a Five Hundred Year Old Settiement at Twin Oaks
Valley Ranch, San Marcos, Califomia. A data recovery program for a late period
habitation site in compliance witii federal, state and local requirements.
1990 (with Kyle)
Early Period Occupation at the Kuebler Ranch Site SDi-8654, Otay Mesa, San
Diego County, Califomia. A data recovery program for a 7,000 years old site on
Otay Mesa prepared for tiie County of San Diego.
1989 (with otiiers)
Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing Program for Ulac Ranch, VaUey Center,
CaUfomia. Survey of 1,000 acres and testing program for 20 prehistoric and'
historic sites.
1989 (witii others)
Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing Program for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula
Vista, Califomia. Survey of 1,000 acres and testing of historic and prehistoric
sites for site importance under CEQA.
1988 (with others)
Cultural Resource Inventory and Data Acquisition Program, GEO East Mesa
Geothermal Project, Imperial Valley, Califomia. Cultural resource inventory of
1000 acres for geotiiermal energy development on USDI, BLM lands in the
Califomia desert.
1988 (with others)
Cultural Resource Inventory for a Series of Drill Sites within the Amir, Indian Rose
Area Lease. Inventory conducted in southeastem Califomia for the development of
gold exploration on federal lands by Amir Mines, Ltd.
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
1988 (witii others)
Cultural Resource Inventory and CEQA Test for Site Importance, Rancho Bemardo
Lake Course. Inventory of 315 acres, identification and testing of ten prehistoric
sites for the J.W. Colachis Company.
1988 (with others)
Cultural Resource Survey and Testing Program for the East Mesa Detention
FaciUty, San Diego CaUfomia. Project involved die survey of 523 acres, tiie
identification of eight prehistoric and one historic site, and tiie testing of these sites
with respect to CEQA. Three of these sites were quarry localities on Otay Mesa.
Report prepared for the County of San Diego.
1988 (witii otiiers)
Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at BaUast Point Prehistoric Site
SDI-48 (W-164), San Diego, Califomia. Report involved tiie excavation of a
2.5 percent sample witiiin a coastal sheU midden site, dated from 6000 to 1500
years before present. Report prepared for the U.S. Navy.
1987 (witii otiiers)
Historical/prehistoric Inventory for tiie Green Dragon Colony, La JoUa Califomia.
Report documents the historical development of the Green Dragon Colony. EIR
report for the City of San Diego.
1987 (witii otiiers)
Cultural Resource Inventory for Rancho La Quinta. Inventory of 1272 acres
identifying six prehistoric sites witiiin CoacheUa Valley, Riverside County,
Califomia. Report prepared for the Landmark Land Company.
1987 (with otiiers)
Subsiuface Testing Program to Identify and Evaluate Cultural Resources for tiie
Santa Barbara Retail RevitaUzation Project. Testing program to identify historical
and prehistoric sites witiiin four city blocks of downtown Santa Barbara. Report
prepared for the City of Santa Barbara. ^
1986 (witii otiiers) »
Cultural and Paleontological Survey and Testing for Pacific Rim, Carlsbad,
Califomia. Project involved the survey of over 1,000 acres along the northem m
shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, tiie identification of 14 prehistoric, 1 historic, and 1 m
paleontological site, and tiie testing of prehistoric and historic sites to determine
importance under CEQA. Report prepared for tiie City of Carlsbad,
1986 (witii Cheever)
Cultural Resource Testing Program for Archaeological Sites SDI-607, -612, -212,
6825 and W-105, Carlsbad, California. Testing program for five sites located
along the soutii shore of Batiquitos Lagoon for the City of Carlsbad.
1986 (with Cheever)
Carmel Mountain Ranch Data Recovery Program for Early Period Archaeological
Site SDI-6087. Report prepared for Carmel Mountain Ranch.
1986 (with others)
Lake CahuUla Prehistoric Occupation at IMP-4434 and IMP-5167, Imperial Valley,
Califomia. Data recovery for Ryerson Concrete Company.
P
m
m •I
il
1^
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
1985 Early and Late Period Occupation at Rogers Ridge (SDI-4845, W-182), Carisbad,
CaUfomia. Data recovery program to include the excavation of 94, 1 by 1 m units
at six loci dating from 850 to 7000 years B.P. for Resource Microsystems Inc. and
Daon Inc.
1984 (with others)
Archaeological Investigations at SDI-5130, Mar Lado Project, Oceanside,
Califomia. Data recovery program for L and L Development.
1984 Cultural Resource Data Recovery Program for SDG&E's Imperial VaUey to
La Rosita 230-kV Transmission Line. Report prepared for SDG&E, San Diego,
Califomia.
1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131 (Agua Hedionda),
Carlsbad, Califomia. Excavation of a 5 percent sample at a 7,000 to 8,500 year old
site for Hunts Partnership.
1984 West Mesa Cultural Resource Survey and Site Evaluation, Imperial Valley,
Califomia. Report prepared for the Biu-eau of Land Management.
1983 Excavation of Diegueno/Ipai Subsistence Camps above Encinitas Creek: A Data
Recovery Program for Fieldstone Northview, Encinitas, Califomia. Report
prepared for the Fieldstone Development Company.
1983 Archaeological Overview for the City of San Marcos, Business/Industrial,
Richman, Lake San Marcos, and Barham/Discovery Community Plan. Report
prepared for the City of San Marcos.
1980 (witii others)
Cultural Resource Inventory and National Register Assessment of the Southern
Califomia Edison Palo Veide to Devers Transmission Line Corridor (CaUfomia
portion). Prepared for Southem Califomia Edison, Rosemead, Califomia.
1980 (witii others)
Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of East Mesa and West Mesa Regions,
Imperial Valley, Califomia. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management,
Riverside, Califomia.
1979 (with otiiers)
Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert
Regions. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, Califomia.
1978 (witii White)
An Archaeological Survey of tiie Talega Substation Site. Prepared for San Diego
Gas & Electric by Wuth Associates, Inc., San Diego, CaUfomia.
1978 (with others)
Documentation of the Phase II Archaeology Inventory Report, Plant Site to Devers
and Miguel Substation, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System
Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wutii
Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia.
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98 *
m
1978 Jamul Mountains Altemative Route SuitabiUty Review, Sundesert Nuclear Project ^
Transmission System Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas &
Electric Company by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, CaUfomia. p
1977 (with others) •
Phase I Archaeology Report, Plant Site to VictorviUe/Lugo and Devers to
VictorvUle/Lugo, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System Envkonmental P
Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth, Associates,
Inc., San Diego, California.
II
1977 Saline VaUey Unit Resource Analysis - Cultural Resources. Prepared for USDI, ^
Bureau of Land Management, Califomia Desert Planning Staff, Riverside,
Califomia. _
1976 (with Hanks)
East Mojave Management Framework Plan - Cultural Resources. Prepared for
USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Califomia Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, p
Califomia. ||
PUBLICATIONS g
Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDi-48
(W-164), San Diego, Califomia. (with Carolyn Kyle). Coyote Press, Salinas, Califomia, _
No. 40, 1998 f
Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County (with Patricia
Masters, Ph.D.). In: Archaeology ofthe Califomia Coast During the Middle Holocene, 9
University of Califomia. Los Angeles, Califomia. ||
A Review and Synthesis of the Archaeological Record for the Lower San Diego River H
Valley. Society for Califomia Archaeology 1995, San Diego, California, Volume 8. E
Pattems and ImpUcations of Coastal Settiement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years
Ago. In: Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime Califomia. Center for Archaeological "
Research at Davis, No. 10, 1992. mt
Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, Califomia. In: Hunter-Gatherers of m
Early Holocene Coastal Califomia, Institute of Archaeology, University of Califomia, Los ^
Angeles, 1991.
A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon P
Region. In: San Dieguito - La Jolla, Chronology and Controversy, San Diego County
Archaeological Society, Research Paper, Number 1, 1987. ^
Relocation of the Ballast Point Tryworks Oven Foundation (with AdeUa Schroth). In Fort Mi
Guijarros Quarterly, 3:2.
Early Man and a Cuitural Chronology for Batiquitos Lagoon. In: Casual Papers, Cultural
Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University,
1986.
Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In: Casual Papers, Cultural Resource Management Center,
Department of Antiiropology, San Diego State University, 1985.
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
Class II Cultural Resource Inventory, East Mesa and West Mesa Region, Imperial Valley,
Califomia, (with others). USDI, BLM, 1980.
Cultural Resource Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions, (with
others). USDI, BLM, Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology 1980.
NINA M, HARRIS
Project Archaeologist
Gallegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 929-0055
EDUCATION
Course in Geology, San Diego State University, 1997
Course in Management, University of Califomia, San Diego, 1996
M.A. Archaeology, University of Durham, Durham, England, 1992
Classes in Archaeology, San Diego State University, 1986-1988
B.A. British Studies/Visual Arts, New England College, Henniker, New Hampshire, 1978
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
Registry of Professional Archaeologists
Society of American Archaeology
Society for Califomia Archaeology
San Diego County Archaeology Society
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
GALLEGOS & ASSOCIATES
1995-Present
Responsibilities include, field direction, graphics, report writing, laboratory direction, and
laboratory assistance for Huber Property Siu^ey and Test, Beckman Property Test, Otay 69 kV
Survey, Santa Margarita River Valley Survey and Test, Subarea V Survey, Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan Amendment Project Test, North Rios Drive Subdivision Test, Sorrento Valley
Utilities Improvement Project Monitoring, Viejas Springs ViUage Test and Monitoring, Jesmond
Dene Property Survey and Test, Point Loma Test, Anza Borrego Survey, Rhodes/Torrey
Highlands Property Survey, Poway Property Survey and Test, Kumeyaay Lake Monitoring,
Mini Max Property Survey, Reservoir 711-3 Survey, Saddle Club Property Survey. Project
direction for Rainforest Ranch Survey and Test, Lake Hodges Pipeline Monitoring, Mission
Cove Property Survey, literature review for North Coastal Transportation Corridors
Altematives, Ystagua Water Main Break Morutoring Highpointe Property Survey, ISKCON
Property Survey. Field technician for SR-905 Tests, Skyline Wesleyan Data Recovery,
Remington Hills Data Recovery, Carlsbad Golf Course Test and others.
ARCHAEOLOGY ADVISORY GROUP
1985-1994
Responsible for field direction, lithic analysis, graphics and write up for Glenn Ranch Road
Right-of-Way, Hanson Dam Projects, field direction for Little Rock Dam and Coal Canyon
Projects, field technician for Mt. High Ski Area Survey, Ridgecrest and Chino Hills Tests, and
Joshua Basin Water District Survey and San Luis Obispo Creek Altematives Study, Avila Adobe
N. Harris Page 2
Franciscan Plaza Data Recovery, Raider's Stadium, Laband Ranch, Prado Dam Test Projects,
Orange County. Laboratory for Sexton House and lithic analysis for Avila Adobe.
RMW PALEO AND ASSOCIATES
Winter 1994
Responsibilities included field teclinician training and assistant directing,Phases I and II, Rose
Canyon Tmnk Sewer Project, San Diego
INFOTEC RESEARCH
1993- 1995
Responsible as field technician and graphics for Dominegoni Valley Reservoir Project
PETRA RESOURCES
April 1995-May 1995
Responsible as field technician for Ritter Ranch and San Nicolas Island.
GREENWOOD AND ASSOCL^TES
April 1994
Responsibilities mclude field technician for excavation at Chinatown/Mission, Ventura
LSA AND ASSOCL^TES
August 1992-September 1992
Responsible as filed technician for Lake Mattiiews test excavations and H.B. Ranches assessment
update. Orange County.
BRL\N F. SMITH and ASSOCIATES
1991-1992
Responsible as field technician for Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer Project, Nobel Drive Extension
and Interstate 805 Expansion Test, Razooky Subdivision Test, Lakeside Venture and Mussey
Grade Survey and Test and Pump Station 5 , San Diego County.
REPORTS
1991 (witii others)
Test Excavations at CA-ORA-827 and CA-ORA-1373, Glenn Ranch Road Right-of-
Way, Foothill Ranch, El Toro, Orange County, Califomia
1992 (witii otiiers)
Archaeology and Paleontology of the Tsuma Property, San Clemente, Califomia
1992 (witii others)
A Cultural Source Survey of Hansen Dam Flood Control Basin, Los Angeles, Califomia. m
1995 (with others) ^
Archaeological Survey and Test of Sites CA-SDI-1014 and CA-SDI-8797 for Carlsbad ^
Specific Plan Amendment EIR, Carlsbad, Califomia.
^
•i
N. Harris Page 3
(with others)
Cultural Resource Monitoring Reports for Sorrento Valley Utilities Improvement
Project, City of San Diego, Califomia.
(with others)
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for North Dios Drive Subdivision, Solana Beach,
Califomia.
1996 (witii otiiers)
Archaeological Survey for the Viejas Reclamation Project and the Viejas Springs Village
Project and Viejas Indian Reservation, San Diego, Califomia.
1998 (witii otiiers)
Archaeological Test to Determine National Register EligibiUty for Sites CA-SDI-4906 and
CA-SDI-6706, Viejas Indian Reservation, San Diego, Califomia.
Archaeological Survey of the Mini Max Property, City of San Diego, Califomia
Cultural Resource Survey Report for Nason Basin, Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation Districy, Riverside, CaUfomia
Rainforest Ranch Cultural Resource Survey and Significance Test for Prehistoric Sites
CA-SDM4932, CA-SDi-14937, CA-SDI-14938 and CA-SDI-14946, County of San
Diego, Califomia
The 4,000 Year Old Lego Crescentic-Heartii Site (CA-SDI-12814), Carlsbad, Califomia
1999 (witii otiiers)
Cultural Resource Survey Report for Highpointe Property, San Marcos, CaUfomia
Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Bus
Altematives, San Diego Coimty, Califomia
Cultural Resources Morutoring Report for the Village of Ystagua Water Main Break, City
of San Diego, CaUfomia
Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Interstate
5 Altematives, San Diego County, Califomia
N. Harris Page 4
Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Coaster
Altematives, San Diego County, Califomia
Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Arterial
Streets Alternative Can Diego County, CaUfomia
Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Mission Cove Property, San Marcos, Califomia
Del Mar Mesa Road Cultural Resource Literature Review and Test Report for CA-SDI-
14117 San Diego, Califomia (LDRNo. 99-0099)
Historical/Archaeological Inventory Report for the Otay Mesa Generating Company,
LCC. Project
Cultural Resources Survey for the ISKCON Cultural Center Property, San Diego County,
CaUfomia
PRESENTATIONS
1998 Society of Califomia Archaeology
Continued Research on Fired Altered Rock Features Types in San Diego County
(with A Schroth)
Temporal Considerations of Two Types of Rock Features Found at Camp Pendleton
•i
Ml
HI
APPENDIX B
RECORD SEARCH REQUEST
AND SITE RECORD FORMS
South Coastal Information Cenler
Social Science Research Lobomtory
n Diego Stote University College of Arts and Letters
, 5500 CampGnite Drive
SonDiegoCA 92182-4537
619-59'l-568?
FAX:6I9- 594.|358
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORIVIATION SYSTEM
SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH
Source of Request: Gallegos & Associates - Nina Harris
Date of Request: June 17, 1999
Date Request Received: June 21, 1999
Project Identification: Update Rancho Santa Fe Road South
0 The South Coastal Information Center historical files show NO recorded
historic or prehistoric site location(s) within the project boundaries nor within
a One mile radius of the project area.
(x) The South Coastal Information Center historical files show recorded
prehistoric site location(s) within the project boundaries and/or within a One
mile radius of the project area. Historic property locations are shown only if
site location(s) are within the project boundaries.
Project maps have been reviewed. The bibliographic material for reports within your
project boundaries and/or within a One mile radius of the project area have been included.
The historic maps on file at the South Coastal Information Center have been reviewed with
copies included. If there are historic properties within your project boundaries, the
information from the National Register of Historic Properties, California State Landmarks,
California Points of Historic Interest, and other historic property lists has been included.
Archaeological Site Location(s) check: PAF Date: June 26, 1999
Historical Site Location(s) check: PAP Date: June 26, 1999
Bibliographic Materials check: PAF Date: June 26, 1999
Historic Map(s) check: PAF Date: June 26, 1999
Historical Resources check: PAF Date: June 26. 1999
IHF CAIIFORNIA SIAIt UNIVERSHY • Bnkc^fiotd . [Imrind Mi]rnK • (lino • \)n\uti«jiier HilK • f rcsno • hillorlo" • Itiiywmrl • Hu(iiliol(ir • liimj Beiiih • los Aiu|eli:s • Mdnimic AcddKmy
San Diego Museum of Man
REPORT ON ARCHAHOT.OGICAL SITF FILES RRCORn SFA PPM
Source of Request:
Name of Project:
Date of Request:
Date Request Received:
Gallegos & Associates - Nina Harris
Rancho Santa Fe Road South - Job #6-99
6 July 1999
7 July 1999
li
8P
p
il
Hi
ft
The Record Search for tiie above referenced project has been completed. Archaeological site file
mfomiation is enclosed for tiie following sites located witiiin or in the vicinity ofthe project area;
W-179
W-896
W-1741
W-3473
W-4478 [thru]
W-181
W-917
W-1992
W-4355
W-4482
W-191
W-940 [tiiru]
W-2210
W-4397
W-5037
W-577
W-951
W-2379 [timi]
W-4471 [tiiru]
W-6495
W-659
W-11I5
W-2382
W-4474
BibUographic information is enclosed for tiie following reports on archaeological environmental
impact studies conducted witiiin or in the vicinity ofthe project area:
EIS-23
EIS-673
EIS-42
EIS-9i7
EIS-588
EIS-978
EIS-623
EIS-1077
EIS-67i
EIS-1356 • This Record Search is based only on information contained in the files of tiie San Diego Museum
of Man. Archaeological site records and/or environmental impact studies pertaining to the
project area may exist in other repositories.
Record Search prepared by:
Date of Record Search;
Grace Johnson
8 July 1999
1350 El Prado, Balboa Park, San Diego, California 92101, 619-239-2001, FAX 619-239-2749
An educational, non-profit corporation founded in 1915 collecting for posterity and displaying the life and history of mankind.
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
1- County: San nif^gn
2. USGS Quad: Ranchn .S;.nt. p» (7 ^•)_[nq^
3. UTM Coordinates: Zone n /_..479430
Permanent Trinomial:
Temporary Number: O-S-8
Agency Designation:
,Supplementf
{15') Photorevised
Easting / _ 3661940 Northing ( )
4. Townshipl2£ Rangam-^,/4 o<J^U4 o<mU4 ofSWI/4 of Secion^Base (Mer, ££()
5, Map Cccrdinatas: I2^m.S_Ui_m.E (f.om NW comer of map,6. Elevafion 560 f.., _f,
l^^^l^±^>iLJh^,,t .id. of , .01,11 drninn. in . .mall nnr,h.^n,..h
'5.Da,e Recorded: _i^E2ffla_,6. Recorded By:Andrew Pioniolo .oH H ?,m' [ I
• Affiliation arnd Address: ERC Enyimnm^nt.l 55in Mor.Ho,,,. ni»no c.,,, ,,
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Page_2_of_4_
18. Human Remains: ^^on9 observed.
Permanent Trinomial; .Supplement!
Temporary Number: Q-S-6
Agency Designation:
[ )
19. Site Integrity: . Good. Area around the feature appears relilivetv undisturbed although dirt
rpa'Js—ais—prgsenl in the area. .
_ {)
20. Nearest Water (type, distance and direction): Smalt Seasonal drainaoe approx 20 m W. f)
21. Largest Body of Water within 1 km (type, distance and direction): Creek approx 1/4m Nf)
22. Vegetation Community (site vicinity): Coastal Saoe Scrub [Plant Ust ()] ()
23. Vegetation Community (on site): Coastal Saga Scrub. [Plant List ()] ()
References for above: Munz 1974 _( )
24. Site Soil: Reddish siltv (nam ( ) 25. Sun-ounding Soil: Reddish siltv loam. ( )
26. Geoiogy; Plutonic. ( ) 27. Landform Slope. ( )
28. Slope: 20 danreftfi ( ) 29. Exposure: West. ( )
30, Landowner(s) (and/or tenants) and Address _: ^
.( )
31. Remarks. -
32. References: Pioniolo. Andrew and Dennis Galleoos 1989 Cultural Resource Survev of the
Land Pac Project. Carishari Califnrqi^^, _
33. Name of Project Questhaven.
34. Type of Investigation: Surface Survev.
35. Site Accession Number:
36. Photos: las
Curated At: ERC Environmental.
Taken By: Steven H. Bnoos.
37. Photo Accession Number: On File At: ERC Environmental
.( )
J )
.( )
-( )
I
I
I
I
I
I
}CM mi CMUmrm^ - Thm
[CHEOLOGICAL SITE
MA? Q-S-l
^ N
r
/ ^
\ I
\
/ /
I I
1 1
I I
Ll
I i
//
//
/
/
/
Stale of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Page 1 of 4 ^
1. County: San Dieoo
2. USGS Quad: Rancho Santa Fe (7.5') 1968
3. UTM Coordinates: Zone 11 / 479420
Permanent Trinomial: Supplemenl[
Temporary Number: Q-S-9
Agency Designation:,
(15'). Photorevised
, Easting / 3662120 Northing ( )
4. Township12a RanoeSW: SEl/4 of_££1/4 of£M1/4 ofSWIM of Section_22_Base (Mer) ^( )
5. Map Coordinates: 120 mmS 114 mmE (from NW corner of map)6. Elevation 560 feet, f)
7. Location: The site is approximatelv 50m east of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Questhaven
Road between San Marcos and La Costa in the Citv of Carlsbad. California. It is located on the
east side of a small knoll which has recently been oraded.
-()
8. Prehistoric XX Historic Protohistoric 9. Site Description: Bedrock
miilino station with several features containing 15+ slicks. One mano fraoment was stuck in a
crack between the bedrock.
10. Area:15 NS mHength^xIS EW mfwidth^ 225 m^. Method of Determination: Estimation
11. Depth: Unknowncm Method of Determination:^:
12. Features: Several granitic bedrock milling features with greater than 15 slicks.
13. Artifacts: One mano fraoment was observed in a crack between the bedrock.
_( )
14. Non-Artifactual Constituents: None observed.
IS.Date Recorded: 9/23/89 16. Recorded Bv:Andrew Pioniolo and Steven H. Brioos ()
17. Afnilation and Address: ERC Environmental. 5510 Morehouse Dr..San Dieoo. CA 92121 f )
State of California • The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Paqe^of. 4
18. Human Remains: None observed
Permanent Trinomial: .Suppiementf
Temporary Number: Q-S-9
Agency Designation:
19. Site Integrity: .good. Area around the feature ann^^^r^ relatively unrii.c;fMrbed aMhoi;nh the
KnoH t<?P g^OVe the site has recentiv been graded fnr a soils tec;t
20. Nearest Water (type, distance and direction): Small Se;,>;nnal drainage approx 40 m F ()
21. Largest Body of Water within 1 km (type, distance and direction): Creek anr^rnx i/4m )
22. Vegetation Community (site vicinity): Coastal .q;.np Scnjh. fPbnt List ()] ()
23. Vegetation Community (on site): Coastal Sage S^n.h [piant List ()] ()
References for above: Munz 1974 ()
24. Site Soil: Reddish PiltY loqm ( y 25. Surrounding Soil: Reddish siltv Inam i )
26. Geology: PMgniC, ( ) 27. Landform, Slope. _( )
Slope: 20tfggreef?, ( ) 29. Exposure: West.
30. Landowner(s) (and/or tenants) and Address
.()
.( )
31. Remarks. -
__( )
32. References: •.. Pigniolo. Andrew and Dennis Gallenn^; igRQ Cultural Resnorce Survey nf th»
Land PSC Project, narkh;:,^^, California
.()
_(} 33. Name of Project Questhaven,
34. Type of Investigation: Surface Siiryfly,
35. Site Accession Number:
36. Photos: Yes
Curated At: ERC Environmental
Taken By: Steven H. Briggs,
37. Photo Accession Number: On File At: ERC Fnvironmenfal. .( )
[CHEOLOGICAL SITE
MA?
3 4
W .
N
I
I
I
I
I
BtraA^d 6^011-fop
"1
1
CULTURES: SD-II and lH; and
--.it. II at W-181-A.
"IVATER: Same as for V/-179,
LOCATION: On a hill on north rim of
North Fork of Encinitas
Creek. Elev, 325'.
NAME: North Hill
AREA: 1/2 acre concentration with 2
acres of scattered marginal
occupation.
IHCHITECTURE: There are 2 large
^*«airns of boulders here which haveTYPE: Highland accretion camp.
, slumped into an erosional cirque.
J''lay be Lit. II roasting platforms or sweat-house debris,
BURIALS: None,
f .^ETROS: None.
, JNTRUSrVES:
i'
' •rflSTORY; First settled by SD-II and occupied over into third phase.
This is a very concentrated occupation, probably because the surrounding
;"^esa top is very stoney except in thia one area. Below this site on a
, ,^ower bench is a small amount of Lit. II occupation. This is on the
250' contourt •.
; lELIARKS: The Lit. II site is designated W-181-A. There is some slight
•Amount of SD-II -material on this site as well. Beginning at W-181 and
-extending to the west on a general elevation to W-182 and beyond it to
"".he end of the Mesa Is continuous evidence of SD-II material. This is
'^'or a total distance of 1-3/4 miles. As a matter of fact, there is no
part of the Encinitas Grant Plateau where felsite flaking cannot )?e
-*ound and it is the center of the greatest concentration of SD occupation
.n San Diego County.
- ^3 7
QaSkgos dissociates
THE PHASE n ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST
OF
MALCOLM J. ROGERS* SITE SDM-W-181
AT LA COSTA TOWN CENTER IN
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
M.A.G. PROPERTIES
5075 FEDERAL BOULEVARD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
Prepared by
DAVID C. HANNA
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
0-^
FECfDN
Regional Environmental Consultants
Mission VUI.y Hoad. San Di.oo. CA 92108 (619) 542-1611
RECON NUMBER 2212A
SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
I
FIGURE 4. LOCATION OF EXCAVATIONS AT SDM-W-181