The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3190; Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement; Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement; 2000-02-01 (2)ATTACHMENT 4 Cultural Resource Testing Program for the Umversity Commons Project, San Marcos, Califomia (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990) gadyos d^J^sociates Cultural Resource Testing Program for the University Commons Project San Marcos, California Prepared for: Mr. Mork Faulkner Questhaven Development, Inc. May 1990 i i i I Cultural Resource Testing Program for the University Commons Project San IVlarcos, California Prepared for: Mr. Mark Faulkner Questtiaven Devek>pment, Inc. n 189 Sorrento Vblley Road. Suite 103 Son Diego, California 92121 Prepared by: ERC Environmental and Energy Co. 5510 Morehouse Drive San Diego, California 92121 Project No. 30115.001 Andrew Pigniolo Project Archaeotogist Dennis Gallegos Project Manager May 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS <;F.rTTON TITLE PAGE ABSTRACT v 1 INTRODUCnON 1-1 1.1 Project Description 1 -1 1.2 Environmental Setting 1-1 2 BACKGROUND DATA 2-1 2.1 Cultural Prehistory 2-1 2.1.1 EarlyPeriod 2-1 2.1.2 Late Period 2-3 2.2 Previous Research 2-3 3 METHODS 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.1.1 Surface Collection 3-1 3.1.2 Shovel Test Pits 3-1 3.1.3 Test Unit Excavation 3-1 3.1.4 Lab Mediods 3-2 4 TESTING RESULTS 4-1 4.1 Test Results 4-1 4.1.1 SDI-7306AV-2379 4-1 4.1.2 SDI-7308/W-2381 4-21 4.1.3 ' SDl-11432 (Q-S-1) 4-24 4.1.4 SDl-11433 (QrS-2) 4-26 4.1.5 SDl-11434((2-S-3) 4-26 4.1.6 SDI-11435H (Q-S-4) 4-33 4.1.7 SDM 1439 (Q-S-8) 4-34 4.1.8 SDI-11440 (Q-S-9) 4-36 4.1.9 SDI-11441 (Q-S-10) 4-36 4.1.10 SDI-11442/H (Q-S-11) 4-41 4.1.11 SDi-11570 4-44 4.1.12 Summary 4-61 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SKCTTON TITLE 5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary and Recommendations 5.2 Impacts 5.3 Recommendations 5.4 Summary PAGE 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-3 REFERENCES CITED 6-1 LIST OF nCURES i' i N^TMBRR 1-1 1-2 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 4-11 TITLE Regioial Location of Project Site Project Location lAap Site Map for SDi-7306 Showing die Locations of Bedrock Milling Features, Surface Artifacts, and Subsurface Tests Site Map for sbi-7308 Showing die Locations of Bedroclc Milling Features, Surface Artifacts, and Subsuiface Tests Site Map for SDi-11432 Showing the Locations of Bedrock Milling and Subsurface Tests Site Map for SDi-11439 Showing die Locations of Surface Artifacts and Subsurface Tests Site Map for SDi-11440 Showing die Locations of Surface Artifacts and Subsi^ace Tests Site Map for SDi-U441 Showing die Locations of Bedrock Milling Features, Surface Artifacts, and Subsurface Tests Site Map for SDi-11442/H Showing the Locations of Surface Artifacts and Subsurface Tests PAGE 1-3 1-4 4-2 4-3 4-23 4-25 4-27 4-28 4-35 4-37 4-38 4-42 4-46 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TTTLE PAGE 4-1 SDi-7306, Key to Surface Artifact Shot Numbers Shown in Figure 4-2 4-5 4-2 SDi-7306, Summary Distribution of Culmral Material 4-9 4-3 SDi-7306, Summary by Dcpdi of SurfeceAJnits/STPs Distribution of Cobural Mat^ 4-10 4-4 SDi-7306. STPs Distribution of Cultural Material 4-11 4-5 SDi-7306, Flakes/Angular Waste by Material Type 4-12 4-6 SDi-7306, Flake/Angular Waste Size and Presence/Absence of Clortex 4-14 4-7 SDi-7306, Flake/Angular Waste Size and Presence/Absence of Patination 4-15 4-8 SDi-7306, Milling Features 4-17 4-9 SDi-7308, Summary Distribution of Cultural Material 4-22 4-10 SDi-11434, Summary Distribution of Cultural Material 4-29 4-11 SDi-11434, Unit 1 Distribution of Cultural Material 4-30 4-12 SDi-11434, Flakes/Angular Waste by Material Type 4-32 4-13 SDi-11441, Milling Feamres 4-40 4-14 SDi-11442, Summary Distribution of Cultural Material 4-43 4-15 SDi-11570, Key to Surface Artifact Shot Numbers Shown in Figure 4-U 4-47 4-16 SDi-11570, Summary by Depdi of SurfaceAJnits/STPs Distribution of Cultural Material 4-50 4-17 SDi-11570, Suminary Distribution of Cultural Material 4-51 4-18 SDi-11570, STPs Distribution of Cultural Material 4-52 4-19 SDi-11570, Unit 1 Distribution of Cultural Material 4-53 4-20 SDi-11570, Flake Size and Presence/Absence of Cortex 4-54 4-21 SDi-11570. Flake Size and Presence/Absence of Patination 4-55 4-22 SDi-11570. Flakes/Angular Waste by Material Type 4-57 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF APPENDICES LF.TTER A Artifact Catalogues B SDi-7306 Unit Results TITLE IV ABSTRACT ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company conducted a testing program for cultural resources SDi-7306AV-2379. SDi-7308/W-2381, SDi-11432, SDi-11433, SDi-11434, SDi-11435H, SDi-n439, SDi-11440. SDi-11441, SDi-11442/H, and SDi-11570 to evaluate site imponance under Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study was conducted for the University Commons project and was completed in May 1990. As a result of testing, four sites (SDi-7308AV-2381, SDi-11432, SDi-11433, SDi-11441) are identified as small bedrock milling stations with limited cultural deposits; two sites SDi-l 1439 and SDi-11440 arc small lithic scatters; site SDi- 11442/H contains both a lithic scatter and a small historic component; site SDi-11434 represents a lidiic tool production camp, and sites SDi-7306AV-2379. and SDi-11570 are habitation sites. SDi-11435H, a historic site, was tested through archival research. Under the Califomia Environmental (Juality Act (CEQA), it is only necessary to mitigate impacts to important cultural resources. Based on the rcsults of testing, sites SDi-7308/W- 2381, SDi-U432, SDi-11433. SDi-11439, SDi-11440, SDi-11441. and SDi-11442/H do not qualify as important culmral resounds under CEQA. The identification of diese sites as not important cultural resources, precludes the need to address impacts or the mitigation of impacts as per CEQA. • As a result of testing, portions of sites SDi-7306/W-2379 and SDi-11570 were found to contain information qualifying them as important cultural resources under CEQA. Site SDi-11435H may contain important buried historical resources, associated with early 1900s occupation. A monitoring of construction by an archaeologist and a data recovery program should historic materials be located is recommended to mitigate impacts to site SDi-11435H. Mitigation of impacts to site SDi-7306/W-2379 can be achieved through an open space easement, fencing for construction avoidance, and monitoring by an archaeologist, or a data recovery program. Mitigation for SDi-11570 can be achieved through fencing and monitoring of construction by an achaeologist. or a data recovery program. A cemetary adjacent to the northwest comer of this project also needs to be staked and avoided of development impacts. Avoidance of impacts is recommended for both SDi-7306 and SDi-11570. Bodi of these sites need to be professionally shot in. and staked in consultation with an archaeologist to assure avoidance. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Ll PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following rcport presents the results of an archaeological testing program in compliance with archaeological assessment mandates set forth by the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The investigation includes die results of testing 11 culmral resources witiun die proposed University Commons project This program was conducted by ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company in May of 1990. The testing program included the excavation of shovel test pits (STPS). 1x1 m test units and surface collection and mapping of sites to determine site size, depdi, content, integrity, and potential of each site to address important research questions. Thc Questhaven project includes approximately 500 acres in the San Marcos Creek area of die City of San Marcos, Califomia (Figure 1-1). The westem project boundary is Rancho Santa Fe Road widi die nonh. east, and soudi, izre^dar. but contained widiin Sections 20. 29, and 32, Township 10 S, Range 3 W. The project is depicted on the Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' USGS quadrangle (Figure 1-2). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project includes a narrow valley formed by San Marcos Creek. Hills surround this valley area on both the north and the south widi the largest hill and its slopes dominating the arca just nOTth of the project The hills include both granitic and volcanic bedrock. The grarutic bedrock was used by Native Americans for the processing of plant foods, while the volcanic material (Santiago Peak Volcanic Formation) with outcrops in the eastem portion of the project area provided a source of fine-grained volcanic lithic material which was often used for making flaked lithic tools. San Marcos Creek provides a perennial source of water. Additional seasonal water is present in the small canyons which converge on San Marcos Creek. Several areas in the center of the project have been brushed and a large quarry pit is located in die eastem portion of the property. Most of the remaining slopes are covered with dense mature chaparral dominated by Chamise {Adenostoma fasciculatum). Black Sage {Salvia melifera), and Califomia Buckwheat {Eriogonium fasciculatum). A variety of odier native 1-1 I I I I i t I I ERC Environmei^l and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Regional Location of Project Stte 1-3 f ^ ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. Project Location as Shown on USGS 7.5* Rancho Sante Fe Quadrangle 1-4 BEST ORIGINAL species used for Native American food, medicine, and constraction arc present in the chaparral plant community. Riparian vegetation dominated by Willow {Salix sp.) and Sycamore {Platinus racimosa) is present along imaltered portions of San Marcos Creek. Elevations within the project range firom approximately 340 to 800 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 1-2 I I I I f" I i I I I i I i i t I 1 " I i I I I SECTION 2 BACKGROUND DATA 2.1 CULTURAL PREHISTORY The following cultt^e history oudines and briefly describes die known prehistoric cultural traditions. A primary goal of a culture history is to provide a diachroiuc or developmental approach to past Hfeways, settiement pattems, and cultural processes. 2,1.1 Early Period The earliest prehistoric sites of San Diego County are identified as San Dieguito Complex/Tradition. Initially believed to represent big game hunters, thc San Dieguito arc better typified as a hunting and gadiering society. This group of people abandoned drying inland lakes of die present Califomia desen and arrived in San Diego County circa 9000 years B.P. as documented at die Harris Site SDi-149 (Warren 1966), Rancho Park Nonh Site W-49 (Kaldenberg 1982), and Agua Hedionda Sites UClJ-M-15 and Windsong Shores SDi-10965. W-131 (Moriarty 1967; Gallegos and Carrico 1984). Diagnostic traits associated with the phase known as San Dieguito III include scraper planes, choppers, scraping tools, crescentics. elongated bifacial knives, and intricate leaf-shaped points (Rogers 1939; Warren 1967). This tool assemblage is also called the Westem Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Bedwell 1970; Moratto 1984) and die Western Lidiic Co-tradition Pavis etal 1969). Debate continues as to whether these people continued to occupy San Diego County or abandoned diis region circa 8500 years B.P. (SDCAS 1987). In eidier scenario, die early occupants made use of coastal and inland resources of plants, animals, shellfish, and fish (Moriarty 1967; Kaldenberg 1982; Gallegos and Carrico 1984). Fiom sites dated circa 8000 to 1500 years B.P., grinding implements in the form of manos and metates suggest an increased reliance on seed and vegetable foods. The presence of groundstone artifacts, shell middens, terrestrial mammal, marine mammal, and cobble based tools at coastal sites, and quairy based tools at inland sites identify a range of coastal and inland sites for over 7000 years by one culture group. 2-1 Inland La Jolla occupation sites have been reported in transverse valleys and sheltered canyons (Trae 1959:225-263; Wancn et al. 1961:1-108; Meighan 1954:215-227). These noncoastal sites were termed "Pauma Complex" by Trae (1959), Warren (1961), and Meighan (1954). Pauma Complex sites by definition have a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack shellfish remains, have greater tool variety, seem to express a morc sedentary occupation, and have an emphasis on bodi gathering and hunting (Trae 1959; Warren 1961; Meighan 1954). Radier tiian representing a separate component of die La Jolla Tradition, as proposed by Trae and odiers. these inland sites arc presented here as inland manifestations of die coastal La Jolla occupation. Including both coastal and inland sites of this same time period provides a more complete appraisal of die inland settlement system and coastal strategy by one people over a radier long period of time. Inland and coastal La Jolla site occupants made use of a diverse range of resources from coastal and inland ecozones and developed an artifact assemblage to exploit these diverse resources. The hypodiesis for die chronology of San Diego County views die period from 9000 years duxjugh approximately 1500 years B.P. as die Early Period representing one people (San Dieguito/La Jolla), and ftuther states diat diis 7500-year span is a period of cultural stability (one people) with discrete modifications of the artifact assemblage in response to environmental resources (plants, animal, stone for tool making) and subsistence demands. This same period was not a stable environmental period, as shown by siltation of coastal lagoons, depletion of lagoon resources (i.e., shellfish and fish), and the formation of San Diego Bay (Wairen and Pavesic 1963; Miller 1966; Gallegos 1985; Masters 1988). The earliest sites can be found in the northem portion of San Diego County. These sites are die Hairis Site SDi-149. Agua Hedionda Sites (UCU-M-15 and SDi-10695. W-131) and Rancho Park Nordi W-49 dating circa 8000 to 9000 years B.P. The nortiiem San Diego County coastal lagoons supported large populations, circa 6000 years B.P., as shown by the numerous radiocarbon dated sites adjacent to these lagoons. After 3000 years B.P., there is a general absence of archaeological sites in north San Diego County to circa 1500 years B.P. This absence of archaeological sites can be attributed to the siltation of coastal lagoons and depletion of shellfish and odier lagoon rcsources (Gallegos 1985). Archaeological sites dated to circa 2000 years B.P. are found closer to San Diego Bay where shellfish were still abundant and represent what can be considered the end of the La Jolla Complex. 2-2 r 2.1.2 Late Period By 2000 years ago, Yuman-speaking people occupied the Gila/Colorado River drainage (Moriarty 1969). Moriarty (1965, 1966) suggests a preceramic Yuman phase, as evidenced ftom his work at die Spindrift site in La Jolla. As based on a limited number of radiocarbon samples. Moriarty concluded die prcpotlcry Yumans occupied the San Diego coast circa 2000 years ago and that by 1200 years ago ceramics had diffused from the eastem deserts. The Yumans may have #ar«4 cultural traits widi die people occupying San Diego County before 2000 years B.P. but dieir influence is well documented after 1300 years B.P. witii die introduction of small points, pottery. Obsidian Butte obsidian, and cremation of die dead. The interface between die La Jolla Complex and Yuman (Kumeyaay/Diegueno) is poorly known. The La Jollans may have eidier assimilated widi, or were displaced by, Yumans. 2.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company completed a thorough survey of die pioject area and the property immediately north and west of the subject property (Gallegos and Pigniolo 1989, Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). These documents provide background on the naturc and types of cultural resources in die region. The survey for Land Pac (Gallegos and Pi^iolo 1989) identified five recorded sites (SDi-4873/W-1115. SDi-7306/W-2379, SDi-7308/W-2381, SDi-7309/W-2382, and SDi-9918/W-3473), three mapped unrecorded historic stractures. 13 previously unrecorded sites (SDi-11432 dira SDi-11444H) and 10 isolates (Q-I-1 thra Q-I-11) within or du-ectiy adjacent to diis project area. Portions of die project area had been previously surveyed (Cheever and Gallegos 1986a, Cheever and Gallegos 1986b. Eckhardt 1977. Kaldenberg 1975. and WESTEC 1984) and were spot checked only. SDi-4873/W-l 115 and SDi-11444H (Q-S-13) werc identified as impOTtant culmral rcsources during this phase of research. On the Land Pac project and die property adjecent to die west, testing was recommended for sites SDi-7306/W-2379. SDi-7308/W-238i. SDi-11432, SDi-11433, SDi-11434. SDi-11435H, SDi-11439, SDi-11440, SDi-11441, SDi-11442/H. SDi-11569. and SDi-11570 to evaluate importance under CEQA. Sites SDi-9918/W-3473, SDi-7307/W-2380. SDi-7309/W-2382. SDi-11437H. SDi-11443H and isolates Q-I-1 thra 2-3 ! |i! ii!ii:{|t|im^^ I' Q-I-11 were identified as not important cultural resources, precluding die need to address impacts or the mitigation of impacts as per CEQA. i I I I I 2-4 SECTION 3 METHODS 3.1 INTRODUCTION A testing program was conducted at sites SDi-7306/W-2379, SDi-7308/W-2381, SDi- 11432, SDi-11433, SDi-11434, SDi-11439, SDi-11440. SDi-11441, SDi-11442/H, and SDi-11570 in May, 1990 by Dennis Gallegos, Andrew Pigniolo. Ed Baker. Scott Campbell. Mike Caldwell, Kirsten Collins, James Komer, Danielle Page, and Kris Woods. It included die excavation of shovel test pits, 1 x 1 m test units, surface collection of culmral material, and laboratory analysis of recovered artifacts. Site SDi-11435H was evaluated through archival research. The puipose of dus program was to identify site size, depth, content, and integrity of deposit for the evaluation of the sites as important or not important under CEQA. 3.1.1 Surface Collection All surface artifacts werc collected during thc testing phase. Surface collection included a complete survey of each site using three meter interval transects. Cultural material was marked by pin flags during die survey. Pin flag locations along with die locations of test excavations were mapped using a plane-table and alidade. Culmral material was placed in plastic baggies and maiked with site number, date, and shot number corresponding to the mapped location. All surface cultural material from each site was collected. 3.1.2 Shovel Test Pits Shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated at each site to identify and detennine the extent of subsurface component STPs had a diameter of 30 cm and were excavated in 10 cm levels to at least one level past sterile. STPs widi no artifacts were excavated to a minimum depdi of 30 cm before being declared sterile. All soil was screened through 1/8 inch hardware cloth and artifacts werc bagged by STP and level, and analyzed at ERCE's laboratory. 3.1.3 Test Unit Excavation Test unit excavations were conducted at sites with a subsurface component to provide data on site content and condition. The 1 x 1 m test units were oriented trae north and outiined 3-1 ! I I t with string. They were excavated in 10 cm levels and all measurements were taken from surface (contour method). Equipment used during excavation included trowels, picks, and square nose shovels. Thc excavated soil was passed dirough 1/8-inch mesh hardware clodi. A notebook was kept and upon completion of each 10 cm level, results were recorded on field data sheets. This information included type of culmral material recovered, soil conditions, and any noted disturbance. Culmral material was bagged in 10 cm levels and taken to ERCFs Culmral Resource Laboratory for cleaning, analysis, and curation. 3.1.4 Lab Methods A standard system of cataloging cultural leiQains was used. All items were washed and separated by material class, widun each Icvci, prior to cataloging. Each" item or group of items was counted, weighed and/or measi»ed, and given consecutive catalogue numbers, which were either marked in ink direcdy on tfie artifact or on an attached label. In addition, each item was then analyzed for specific attributes peculiar to that material class. All cataloged items were divided into typological categories and placed in appropriately labeled boxes for storage at ERCE's Culmral Resources LaboiatOTy. 3-2 I I t • I i 1 I t SECTION 4 TESTING RESULTS 4.1 TESTING RESULTS A total of 11 sites (SDi-7306/W-2379. SDi-7308/W-2381, SDi-11432, SDi-11433. SDi- 11434. SDi-11435H, SDi-11439, SDi-11440, SDi-11441, SDi-11442/H, and SDi-11570) were evaluated as to site importance (Figure 4-1). As a result of testing, four sites (SDi- 7308/W-2381. SDi-11432. SDi-11433. SDi-11441) were deteimined to be small bedrock milling sutions with limited culmral deposits; three sites (SDi-11439. SDi-11440. and SDi- 11442/H) werc limited lithic scatters (SDi-11442/H also contained a small historic component), 1 site (SDi-11434) rcpresented a lithic tool production and reworking camp, and two sites (SDi-7306/W-2379, and SDi-11570) are habitation sites. SDi-11435H is a historic site that was tested through archival rcsearch. Each site and the results of lesting are discussed below. Artifact catalogues for each site are provided in Attachment A 4.L1 SDI-7306/W-2379 This site was originally recorded by Graham in 1979. Artifacts observed by Graham include 1 quartz scraper, 1 serrated quartzite blade, various felsite and andesite debitage, 1 bifacial metavolcaiuc mano from which a Teshua flake was removed, and 1 hammerstone fragment The site is located on the south facing slope of a ridge and a tenace above an abandoned rock quairy. The majority of cultural material is located on the westem side of tiie site at die base of a hill. Much of the site area has been heavily disturbed by brashing activities, and numerous berms and ridges were identified within the heavy brash on site. Several dirt roads with associated erosion also pass through the site area. Testing, using 16 STPs and 3 test units, identified a site with a surface area 90 m north/south by 78 m east/west and a total of 15 bedrock milling features (Figure 4-2). Bedrock milling features were clustered among three outcrops and subsurface lesting indicated a minimal subsurface deposit over most of the site. The cultural deposit was more substantial around diese miUing features. Cultural malerial reached a maximum deplh of 60 cm in a single instance, but generally ended at die 50 cm level. A total of 475 artifacts, were recovered from surface collection and subsurface testing. Artifacts include 95 flakes. 316 fragments of angular waste. 25 pieces of obsidian, 2 fragments of a single ground ceramic sherd, 3 body sherds, 6 cores, 5 core tools, 13 hammerstones, 1 utilized 4-1 ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Cultural Resources Tested forthe Questhaven Development BEST ORIGINAL ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. Site Map for SDi-7306 Showing the Locations of Bedrock Milling Features, Surface Artifacts, and Subsurface Tests FIGURE i I I flake, 10 groundstone tools. 0.1 gram of charcoal. 6 fragments (2.8 grams) of recent ttash indicating minimal disttu-bance. 52 (8.8 grams) of bone. 1 firagment (0.1 gram) of marine shell, and a fish scale recovered firom die surface. Table 4-1 provides a key to surface shot numbers shown in Figure 4-2. Table 4-2 provides a summary of the disttibution of culnual niaterial. and Table 4-3 shows artifact distribution by depdi. Surface collection recovered a total of 180 artifacts. Most of die surface artifacts werc recovered firom disttu-bed portions of tiie site particularly die main graded dirt road widun die site area. A total of nine STPs were positive indicating a limited deposit over most of die site (Table 4-4). STP #14, and STP #15 identified die presence of more substantial deposits near tiie milling feattires. The three 1 x 1 m test units revealed die presence of a variable subsurface deposit Unit 3 identified a substantial intact cultural deposit just northwest of Bedrock Milling Feamrc C (Attachment B provides die results of individual units). Soils over much of die site consists of reddish-brown sandy loam, while die portion of tiie site around bedrock milling feattires. particulariy in Unit 3 show soil darkening associated witii culmral activity. Unit 3 also contained a large amount of cobble size angular stones which were fragments of the nearby bedrock outcrop. Small amounts of fire-affected rock and charcoal were recovered throughout the site, but no subsurface features were identified. Artifact Analvsis Debitage Lithic debitage dominated the assemblage witii flakes and angular waste fragments (N=436) making up 91.79 percent of die collection. Tabic 4-5 shows die amount of various lithic materials recovered and the dominance of Santiago Peak Volcanics in the collection. Only a single flake witii cobble cortex was recovered firom die site indicating a focus on the more closely available Santiago Peak Volcanics. Much of the volcanic materiai was highly variable in color and texmre suggesting a variety of hdiic outcrops werc . exploited. The volcanic lithic material was dominated by course-grained or porphyritic materials. Obsidian (25 items) made up a relatively large perceniage (5.83%) of the lithic material despite ils only available sources being over 100 miles east All bul one piece of obsidian was recovered from Unit 3. Flake size was relatively small, the majority 4-4 Table 4-1 SDi-7306 KEY TO SURFACE ARTIFACT SHOT NUMBERS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4-2 Shot Number Catalogue Number Description i I i i i \ I I I I 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 SDi-7306-1 SDi-7306-142 SDi-7306-2 SDi-7306-3 SDi-7306-4 SDi-7306-5 SDi-7306-6 SDi-7306-7 SDi-7306-8 SDi-7306-9 SDi-7306-10 SDi-7306-11 SDi-7306-12 SDi-7306-13 SDi-7306-14 SDi-7306-15 SDi-7306-16 SDi-7306-17 SDi-7306-18 SDi-7306-19 SDi-7306-20 SDi-7306-21 SDi-7306-22 SDi-7306-23 SDi-7306-24 SDi-7306-25 SDi-7306-26 SDi-7306-27 SDi-7306-28 SDi-7306-29 SDi-7306-30 SDi-7306-31 SDi-7306-32 SDi-7306-33 SDi-7306-34 SDi-7306-35 SDi-7306-36 SDi-7306-37 SDi-7306-38 1 Core 1 Groundstone IRake 1 Groundstone 1 Utilized flake 1 Hammerstone 1 Angular waste 1 Flake IHake 2 Angidar waste Discard 1 Angular waste 2 Angular waste IFlake 1 Hammerstone 1 Angular waste 3 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Flake 2 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Flake 1 Flake 4 Angular waste 2 Flakes 2 Angular waste 1 Hake 3 Angular waste 2 Angular waste 1 Hake 2 Hakes 3 Angular waste 1 Hake 1 Angular waste 1 Hake 1 Angular waste 1 Core tool 4-5 Table 4-1 (Continued) SDi-7306 KEY TO SURFACE ARTIFACT SHOT NUMBERS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4-2 Shot Number Catalogue Number Description 21 SDi-7306-39 21 SDi-7306-40 22 SDi-7306-41 23 SDi-7306-42 24 SDi-7306-43 25 SDi-7306-44 25 SDi-7306-45 26 SDi-7306-46 26 SDi-7306-47 27 SDi-7306-48 27 SDi-7306-49 28 SDi-7306-50 29 SDi-7306-51 30 SDi-7306-52 30 SDi-7306-53 30 SDi-7306-54 30 SDi-7306-55 31 SDi-7306-56 31 SDi-7306-57 31 SDi-7306-58 31 SDi-7306-59 32 SDi-7306-60 32 SDi-7306-61 33 SDi-7306-62 34 SDi-7306-63 35 SDi-7306-64 35 SDi-7306-65 36 SDi-7306-66 36 SDi-7306-67 37 SDi-7306-68 37 SDi-7306-69 37 SDi-7306-70 38 SDi.7306-71 38 SDi-7306-72 38 SDi-7306-73 40 SDi-7306-74 40 SDi-7306-75 40 SDi-7306-76 1 Hammerstone 1 Groundstone 3 Flakes 3 Angular waste 3 Angular waste 1 Angualr waste 1 Hammerstone 4 Angular waste IHake 1 Angular waste IHake 1 Core 4 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste IHake 1 Hammerstone 2 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Hake 1 Hammerstone 1 Angular waste 1 Hammerstone 1 Hake 3 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 2 Hakes 1 Hammerstone 1 Angular waste 2 Angular waste 3 Hakes 2 Angular waste 2 Hakes 1 Core 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Hake 4-6 Table 4-1 (Continued) SDi-7306 KEY TO SURFACE ARTIFACT SHOT NUMBERS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4-2 Shot Number Catalogue Number Description i i t i 42 43 44 44 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 57 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 68 68 69 70 71 71 71 72 73 74 SDi-7306-78 SDi-7306-79 SDi-7306-80 SDi-7306-81 SDi-7306-82 SDi-7306-83 SDi-7306-84 SDi-7306-85 SDi-7306-86 SDi-7306-87 SDi-7306-88 SDi-7360-89 SDi-7306-90 SDi-7306-91 SDi-7306-92 SDi-7306-93 SDi-7306-94 SDi-7306-95 SDi-7306-96 SDi-7306-245 SDi-7306-97 SDi-7306-98 SDi-7306-99 SDi-7306-100 SDi-7306~ SDi-7306~ SDi-7306-101 SDi-7306-102 SDi-7306-103 SDi-7306-104 SDi-7306-105 SDi-7306-106 SDi-7306-107 SDi-7306-108 SDi-7306-109 SDi-7306-110 SDi-7306-111 SDi-7306-112 SDi-7306-113 SDi-7306-114 SDi-7306-115 1 Hake 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste IFlake Discard 1 Hammerstone 1 AngiUar waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Core 1 Groundstone IHake 1 Angular waste 2 Angular waste IHake 2 Hakes 1 Hammeistone 1 Hake 1 Angular waste 1 Pestie 1 Hammeistone Discard Discard 1 Core tool 1 Angular waste 2 Angular waste 1 Hake 1 Angular waste 1 Angular waste 1 Hake 1 Hake 1 Angular waste 1 Groundstone 1 Groundstone 1 Corc 1 Groundstone 1 Core tool 1 Angular waste 4-7 Table 4-1 (Continued) SDi.7306 KEY TO SURFACE ARTIFACT SHOT NUMBERS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4-2 Shot Number Catalogue Number Description 75 SDi-7306-116 1 Angular waste 76 SDi-7306-117 1 Angular waste 76 SDi-7306-118 IFlake 77 SDi-7306-119 1 Angular waste 77 SDi-7306-120 IFlake 78 SDi-7306-121 1 Angular waste 79 SDi-7306-122 IHake 79 SDi-7306-123 1 Core 80 SDi-7306-124 Discard 81 SDi-7306-125 1 Angular waste 82 SDi-7306-126 IFlake 83 SDi-7306-127 1 Angular waste 84 SDi-7306-128 1 Angular waste 84 SDi-7306-129 1 Angular waste 85 SDi-7306-130 1 Angular waste 85 SDi-7306-131 2 Angular waste 86 SDi-7306-132 1 Hake 87 SDi-7306-133 1 Angular waste 87 SDi-7306-134 IHake 88 SDi-7306-135 1 Angular waste 89 SDi-7306-136 IHake 90 SDi-7306-137 1 Angular waste 90 SDi-7306-138 1 Historic-Lead 90 SDi-7306-139 1 Hake 91 SDi-7306-140 IHake 92 SDi-7306-141 1 Hammerstone I 4-8 Siiiini irir'|--ir i'i"s Table 4-2 SDi-7306, SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material Surface Unitl Unit 2 Unit 3 STPs Total Percent Hake 50 3 6 30 6 95 20.00% Angular Waste 100 14 22 134 46 316 66.53% Obsidian 0 0 0 24 1 25 5.26% Groimd pottery 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.21% Pottery 0 0 0 2 1 3 0.63% Core 6 0 0 0 0 -6 1.26% Core tool 3 0 0 2 0 5 1.05% Hammerstone 12 0 0 1 0 13 2.74% Utilized flake 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.21% Groundstone 8 1 0 1 0 10 2.11% Charcoal* 0 0 0 -/O.l 0 -/O.l Hisioric* 1/0.1 0 2/0.5 1/<0.1 2/2.2 6/2.8 Bone* 0 2/0.3 0 43/7.7 7/0.8 52/8.8 Shell* 0 0 0 1/<0.1 0 1/<0.1 Fish scale* 0 0 1/<0.1 0 0 1/<0.1 Total** 180 18 28 195 54 475 100.00% Percent 37.89% 3.79% 5.89% 41.05% 11.37% 100.00% *count and weight (in grams) given **excluding charcoal, historic, bone, shell, and fish scale i 1 I I t I 4-9 Table 4-3 SDi-7306, SUMMARY BY DEPTH OF SURFACE/UNITS/STPS DISTRIBUTION OF CyLTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material Surface 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm Total Percent Flake 50 16 17 10 2 0 0 95 19.96% Angular Waste 100 99 41 48 25 3 1 317 66.60% Obsidian 0 6 12 4 3 0 0 25 5.25% Ground pottery 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.21% Pottery 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0.63% Core 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1.26% Core tool 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 1.05% Hammerstone 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 2.73% Utilized flake 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.21% Groundstone 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 2.10% Charcoal* 0 0 -/o.l 0 0 0 0 -/O.l Hisioric* 1/0.1 5/2.7 0 0 0 0 0 6/2.8 Bone* 0 13/2,9 17/4.3 16/1.2 6/0.4 0 0 52/8.8 Shell* 0 1/<0.1 0 0 0 0 0 1/<0.1 Fish scale* 0 1/<0.1 0 0 0 0 0 1/<0.1 Total** 180 126 73 63 30 3 1 476 100.00% Percent 37.82% 26.47% 15.34% 13.24% 6.30% 0.63% 0.21% 100.00% *count and weight (in grams) given **excluding charcoal, historic, bone, shell, and fish scale Table 4-4 SDi-7306, STPs DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material STP-1 STP-4 STP-8 STP-10 STP-11 STP-13 STP-14 STP-15 STP-16 Total Percent Flake 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 6 11.11% Angular Waste 5 1 1 1 1 0 21 16 0 46 85.19% Obsidian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.85% Pottery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.85% Historic* 0 0 0 0 2/2.2 0 0 0 0 2/2.2 Bone* 0 0 0 0 0 0 3/0.2 4/0.6 0 7/0.8 Total** 6 1 1 1 1 1 23 19 1 54 100.00% Pcrceni 11.11% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% 42.59% 35.19% 1.85% 100.00% *couni and weight (in grams) given **cxcluding historic and bone Table 4-5 / SDi-7306 FLAKES/ANGULAR WASTE BY MATERIAL TYPE Cultural Material Surface Unitl Unit 2 Unit 3 STP Total Percent by Category Metavolcanic 57 4 10 36 14 121 28.21% Obsidian 0 0 0 24 1 25 5.83% Porphyritic Metavolcanic 76 14 17 74 21 202 47.09% Quartz 15 0 1 46 15 77 17.95% Quartzite 2 0 0 0 2 4 0.93% Total 150 18 28 180 53 429 100.00% Percent by Material 34.97% 4.20% 6.53% 41.96% 12.35% 100.00% i 4-12 i i i (75.97%) being in tiie range between .3 cm and 1.2 cm suggesting soft hammer flaking. The low amount of cortex on flakes (Table 4-6) indicates that the finishing stages of tool manufacture occurred onsite, but the naturally limited presence of cortex on Santiago Peak Volcanic material tnay have biased this data. Patination is shown in Table 4-7 and indicates relatively equal amounts of patinated versus unpatinated material. Groundstone The lithic tool assemblage includes bodi groundstone, battered, and flaked lithic tools. Groundstone tools include 4 mano fragments, 1 pesde, 4 metate fragments, and 1 bowl or portable mortar fragment The four mano firagments are in some ways each distinct. Artifact SDi-7306-3 was recovered from the surface and represents a weathered feldspar rich porphyritic volcanic cobble with unifacial use as a mano. Feldspar crystals have been weathered out of the cortex of the cobble leaving a pocked abrasive grinding surface without pecking. No battering was observed on diis tool firagment Artifact SDi-7306-110 represents an angular granitic mano fiagment witii use on two adjoining faces. This type of mano is often classified as wedge shaped. Use is heavy on one face of the artifact while grinding is limited to patches on the second face. No pecking is present The artifact is fue affected and was recovered from die surface just east of die southem most milling area. SDi-7306-186Js another granitic mano fragment It was recovered firom die 10-20 cm level of Unit 1. A ground surface is present on only one face of die artifact which has been evenly pecked. The graining is heavy and die artifact has become shouldered meaning a sharp angle has developed between the ground surface and the natural curvature of the cobble. SDi-7306-209 was recovered from die 0-10 cm level of Unit 3. It is a bifacial mano made firom a porphyritic volcanic cobble. Grinding is heaviest on one face creating a very slick and unabrasive surface, but no pecking is present A single pestie (SDi-7306-99) was recovered from the surface of the site. The pestie is made from a subrounded porphyritic volcanic cobble of Santiago Peak Volcanic material. The artifaa was located near Unit 3 and contains lichen on its upper surface. Grinding is limited to small patches on one end and side. All of the four metate fragments werc recovered from the surface of the site. Two of these fragments, SDi-7306-111 and SDi-7306-113. fil together and represent a single course- grained granitic shallow basin metate diat has been fire-affected. Use-wear is unifacial and some pecking is present Artifact SDi-7306-40 represents a small unifacially worked 4-13 Table 4-6 SDi-7306 FLAKE/ANGULAR WASTE SIZE AND PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF CORTEX Percent by Cultural Material >0.3cm >0.6cm >1.2cm >2.0cm Total Cortex Present 5 15 9 25 54 12.36% Absent 202 110 42 29 383 87.64% Total 207 125 51 54 437 100.00% Percent by Size 47.37% 28.60% 11.67% 12.36% 100.00% |i. i i 4-14 Table 4-7 SDi-7306 FLAKE/ANGULAR WASTE SIZE AND PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF PATINATION Hake/Aneular Waste Size Percent by Cultural Material >0.3cm >0.6cm >1.2cm >2.0cm Total Patination Present 52 59 30 49 190 43.48% Absent 155 66 21 5 247 56.52% Total 207 125 51 54 437 100.00% Percent by Size 47.37% 28.60% 11.67% 12.36% 100.00% 4-15 metate fragment of a fine-grain granitic material. No pecking was present. Artifact SDi- 7306-91 represents a small unifacially ground unpecked metate firagment of gabbro material. The portable mortar or bowl firagment (SDi-7306-142) was recovered from die surface. It is made from course-grain grarutic material and has been shaped. A small portion of the well shaped ground rim was present, but no evidence of asphaltum for use as a basket hopper mortar was observed. Thc inner ground suiface of the artifact has not been pecked. Bedrock Milling A total of 42 milling elements were identified on 15 bedrock milling features widiin die site (Table 4-8). As mentioned above bedrock idiHing was concentrated around tiuee small outcrops. Bedrock milling elements werc predominandy slicks, but three shallow basins and two shallow mortars were also recOTded. Tlie bedrock widiin die site area was granitic and outcrops were relatively low and highly fractured. Table 4-8 provides the dimensions of the bedrock milling elements. Although many of die slicks do not indicate heavy use. the abundance of milling on such poor outcn^s suggests relatively high use of the site and die predominance of seed processing activities. Hammerstones The artifact collection from SDi-7306 contained a relatively large amount of hammerstones. A total of 13 hammerstones were recovered from both the surface and subsurface deposit. Four of die hammerstones (SDi-7306-45, SDi-7306-61, SDi-7306-141, SDi-7306-208) represent expended multifacial cores, in that their first use was as a corc, then they were used as a hammerstone. One of these (SDi-7306-208) was recovered from the 0-10 cm level of Unit 3 while the rest were surface artifacts. All of these artifacts are of metavolcanic material and show battering on multiple edges. A total of seven hammerstones (SDi-7306-5, SDi-7306-14. SDi-7306-39, SDi-7306-55, SDi-7306-67, SDi-7306-84. SDi-7306-96) are made from naturally spalled and angular fragments of locally available metavolcanic material. All were recovered from the surface ofthe site. One artifact (SDi-7306-59) is a porphyritic volcanic cobble based hammerstone with battering along one edge. Artifact SDi-7306-100 represents what may be a pestle 4-16 Table 4-8 SDi-7306 MILLING FEATURES Elements Element No. Shape Long Axis (cm) Short Axis (cm) Depth (cm) Feature A Slick 1 Ovate 32 20 0 SUck 2 Ovate 84 31 0 Basin 3 Ovate 77 32 0 SUck 4 Ovate 47 21 0 SUck 5 Circular 62 61 0 Proto-Mortar 5 Circidar 18 16 1 Proto-Basin 5 Ovate 30 12 0 Feature B Slick 1 Ovate 30 21 0 SUck 2 Ovate 80 23 0 SUck 3 Circular 37 36 0 SUck 4 Ovate 36 27 0 SUck 5 Ovate 91 21 0 SUck 6 Circular 34 30 0 Feature C SUck 1 Ovate 83 22 0 Slick 2 Circular 66 39 0 Slick 3 Ovate 39 16 0 Feature D SUck 1 Ovate 46 19 0 Feature E Slick 1 Oval 38 30 0 Feamre F SUck 1 Ovate 65 35 0 Proto-Mortar 2 Circular 13 12 1 Feamre G Slick 1 Ovate 49 18 0 Feature H Slick 1 Ovate 44 20 0 Feature I SUck 1 Ovate 60 37 0 SUck 2 Ovate 48 43 0 Feature J Slick 1 Ovate 55 20 0 Feature K Slick 1 Ovate 41 28 0 Slick 2 Ovate 59 53 0 Feature L Slick 1 Ovate 36 23 0 Slick 2 Ovate 20 12 0 Slick 3 Ovate 27 14 0 Slick 4 Ovate 45 19 0 4-17 Table 4-8 (Continued) SDi-7306 MILLING FEATURES Elements Element No. Shape Long Axis (cm) Short Axis (cm) Depth (cm) SUck 5 Ovate 52 27 0 SUck 6 Ovate 39 28 0 SUck 7 Ovate 28 24 0 SUck 8 Ovate 78 56 0 SUck 9 Ovate 72 56 0 Feature M Slick 1 Oval 76 35 1 SUck 2 Semicircle 16 5 0 Feature N SUck 1 Oval 19 12 0 SUck 2 Rectangular 24 20 0 Proto-Basin 3 Oval 50 35 2 Feature 0 Proto-Basin 1 Oval 37 30 2.5 4-18 I fragment based on morphology, but no clear evidence of grinding is present. The artifact, made-firom a grarutic cobble, does show evidence of battering on one end. Cores A total of 6 cores (excluding the four later used as hammerstones) were recovered from SDi-7306. AU cores were recovered firom the smface and are made of Santiago Peak Volcanic material. Two of die cores (SDi-7306-50 and SDi-7306-73) show multifacial flake removal Artifacts SDi-7306-1, SDi-7306-112, and SDi-7306-123 represent unifacial cores while SDi-7306-90 represents a core firagment with battering associated with flake removal at one end. Haked Lidiic Tools The flaked Uthic tool assemblage is relative smaU in numbers containing only five core based tools and a single utiUzed fiake. The single utilized flake is from the surface and shows heavy use-wear including striations at one end. It is an interior flake of fine-grain volcanic material which shows use-wear along one face with no additional retouching or modification. The five core based tools in die collection (SDi-7306-38, SDi-7306-101, SDi-7306-114, SDi-7306-214. SDi-7306-233) were aU made from metavolcanic material and three were recovered from the suiface. while two were recovered from the upper levels of Unit 3. Artifact SDi-7306-38 was recovered from the suiface and represents a core tool with flake rcmoval of flakes from two edges that are at right angles to each other. No definite use-wear is present on this artifact but the pattemed removal of flakes make diis a morphological tool. Artifact SDi-7306-101 represents a core tool with unifacial retouch along two edges. Hake removal around the margin and the tabular nature of the material forms a scraper-plane like tool (SDi-7306-101) with two flat faces. The rock is very course-grain porphyritic material and no use was observed. Artifact SDi-7306-114 is also tabular and represents a tool fragment of fine-grain patinated metavolcanic with unifacial flaking along one edge. This artifact was also recovered from the surface and no use-wear was observed. Core tool SDi-7306-214 is similar to SDi-7306-114 except the material type is coarser. This artifact is not patinated and was recovered from the 10-20 cm level of Unit 3. Artifact SDi-7306-233 is another unifacially retouched corc tool fragment from the 20-30 cm level of Unit 3. Some rounding due to use-wear may be present 4-19 t V Ceramics Ceramics were only recovered from the portion of the site near Unit 3. A total of ordy six fragments were recovered from the site. All were from the subsurface portion of the site from STP #15 and Unit 3. Two firagiTCnts of a Single ground edge sherd were recovered from the 0-10 cm level of Unit 3. The ground sherd appears to have a circular form and ground sherds have been ethnogr^hically used as ceramic lids and patches. Anodier sheid firom the same level is unusuaUy thick, appears burnished or poUshed and has an unusual curvature. Although diis is a small fragment, it may represent a portion of a ceramic pipe based on its unusual shape. Two firagments represent unmodified body sherds, while one rim fragment was included in die collection (SDi-7306-223). The rim appears to represent a direct form and the clay was folded inside and smoothed to form the Hp. All ceramics can be categorized as Tlzon Brown ware and contain inclusions of granitic sand. Faunal Remains Faimal remains firom SDi-7306 were very limited, totaUng 52 fragments (8.8 grams) of animal bone. No sheU was recovered. The bone sample was dominated by large mammal such as deer, but medium to small mammal, such as rabbit were also present. Approximately one-third of the coUection showed evidence of btuTiing. AU bone was recovered near bedrock milUng features. Summarv The results of testing indicates that SDi-7306 represents a small habitation site that may have been seasonally occupied. The cultural deposit reached a maximum depth of 60 cm and clear evidence of soil color alteration associated with midden development is present All suiface artifacts were collected and 3 test units and 16 STPs werc excavated. STPs identified a patchy subsurface deposit associated with bedrock milUng feamres. No subsurface features were identified, although some fire-affected rock was present A total of 15 bedrock miUmg features were identified and recorded during testing. Although some charcoal was recovered, the sample was too small for radiocarbon dating and chronological association must be inferred from the artifact assemblage. The serrated point described by Graham was nol relocated and may have been previously collected, but 4-20 I i: E the presence of ceramics and die general debitage and tool assemblage identify a Late Period occupation. Artifacts indicate tool production and finishing activities, limited seed processing, and activities associated witii tool use. Limited hunting of large to smaU size mammals and food preparation can also be infened from the faunal assemblage and presence of fire-affected rock. 4.1.2 SDI-7308/W-2381 This site was described as a large low density Uthic scatter by Graham (1979). Debitage was relocated during the ERCE survey, but surface visibiUty was poor due to heavy brash cover. The testing program also identified a milHng feature with two slicks and a shallow subsurface deposit. The site represents a smaU bedrock miUing station with associated artifacts. Two fragments of purple glass were also identified widiin the site area. Testing Results Of the seven STPs excavated, only two were positive (STP#1 and STP#5) (Figure 4-3). Each of these contained a single piece of metavolcanic angular waste. Site surface collection recovered a total of seven prehistoric artifacts, two purple glass fragments, and three fragments of sheU associated with recent fiU (Table 4-9). Milling Feature A contained two bedrock miUing sUcks on adjacent rocks. The feature was located on a small low fractured boulder outcrop and the rock was heavily weathered, Uchen covered and spaUed. The rock was a course-grained granodiorite and many of the feldspar ciystals had eroded out of the surface leaving a pocked and abrasive surface. Both slicks were inegular in form and lacked depth. The dimensions for Element 1 and Element 2 werc 30 xl9 and 20 x 12 cm respectively. The artifact assemblage, dominated by lithic debitage, were firom Santiago Peak Volcanic Formation material. AU artifacts werc patinated to some degrce and much of the fine-grain green material from the siuface was heavily weathered, A total of two flakes and three pieces of angular waste were recovered. All artifacts were recovered from the surface, excepi for two pieces of angular waste recovered from the 10-20 cm levels of STP#1 and STP#5, AU debitage was secondary or interior suggesting tool finishing. 4-21 Table 4-9 SDi-7308, SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Malerial Surface STPs Total Percent Hake 2 0 2 22.22% Angular Waste 3 2 5 55,56% Retouched Hake 1 0 1 11.11% Core 1 0 1 11.11% Historic* 2/23.9 0 2/23.9 SheU* 3/0.1 0 3/0.1 Total** 7 2 9 100.00% Percent 77.78% 22.22% 100.00% •count and weight (in grams) given **excluding historic and sheU 4-22 SURFACE ARTIFACT ANO SHOT ^aJMBER ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. Site Map for SDi-7308 Showing the Locations of Bedrock Milling Features, Surface Artifacts, and Subsurface Tests FIGURE A single core and retouched flake were recovered from the site (SDi-7308-5 and SDi-7308-6). The corc (SDi-7308-5) is a subrounded metavolcaiuc cobble which has been SpUt and had flakes removed unifaciaUy from along one edge. Artifact SDi-7308-6 is a very weathered fine-grain patinated metavolcanic flake which has a miiumal amount of bifacial retouching on two edges. The artifact is rounded due to weathering and no use- wear examination was possible. Two pieces of non-diagnostic purple glass were recovered from the surface near the top of die knoll. Three Donax sheU firagments were aiso recovered from die site surface. They were located adjacent to a dirt road and are assodated widi recent dash. Summarv . Site SDi-7308/W-2381 represents a smaU bedrock milling station with an associated suiface and shaUow subsurface deposit of artifacts. Testing included excavation of seven STPs, recording of bedrock milUng, and a suiface coUection. A total of nine prehistoric artifacts, two bedrock milling slicks and two pieces of purple glass were recovered from the site. The subsuiface deposit was shaUow (<20 cm) and contained a smaU amouni of cultural malerial. The site is difBcult to place chronological as no datable or time diagnostic material was recovered. 4,1.3 SDI-11432 (Q-S-1) The site is a single bedrock milling feamre widi one grinding slick. It is approximately 300 m east of Rancho Santa Fe Road on the south side of a smaU knoll with a low bedrock outcrop (Figure 4-4). The feature is barely above ground surface on one end and is in an area which appears to have been brashed. Site area, which includes only the feature is approximately 1 by 2 meters. Testing included the excavation of two STPs. surface survey for associated artifacts, and recording of bedrock milling. The results of both surface survey and subsurface testing were negative. No artifacts were found associated with this bedrock miUing feamre. The bedrock milUng feature contained a single irregularly shaped milling slick with no deplh and dimensions of 25 by 18 cm. This site represents a single bedrock miUing slick which was recorded during die testing program. 4-24 LEGEND • POSITIVE STP O NEGATIVE STP SURFACE ARTIFACT ANO SHOT NUMBER ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. F I G U RE Site Map for SDi-11432 Showing the Locations of Bedrock Milling and Subsurface Tests iiiMMiiwniii llll 11 4.1.4 SDI-11433 (Q-S-2) This site is also a single bedrock milling feature widi one irregularly shaped grinding sUck. It is approximately 500 m east of Rancho Sanla Fe Road, on the west side of a smaU drainage, near die base of a large mountain, topped with water lanks. The feature is on one of two large boulders approximately 10 m north of an easi/west fence Une widi dimensions f of 1.7 by 1.9 meters (Figure 4-5). Testing included a survey to coUect surface artifacts, recording of bedrock mUUng, site mapping and die excavation of two STPs. The results of lesting werc negative in diat the site does not contain a subsurface deposit or any cultural material other than the bedrock milling slick. The slick was irregular in form and had dimensions of 17 by 11 cm and no depth. The feature was located on a reddish grey granitic boulder. The surface of the f boulder was very weathered and exfoliated and a larger area of ground surface (slick) may have been present at one time. i i i The resulls of testing at SDi-11433 identify this site as an isolate bedrock miUing station with no associated cultural deposit 4.1.5 SDI.11434 (Q-S-3) The site is a small lemporary camp consisting of a Uthic and shell scatter. It is approximately 400 m east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and was observed along a din road in a relatively flal portion of a very gentiy sloping hiUside. An east/west dirt road passes through die lengtii of the site which is 36 m nortii/soutii by 112 m east/west (Figure 4-6). No bedrock is present in the site area. Testing included surface coUection, site mapping, and the excavation of 16 STPs and 1 test unil. A total of 79 artifacts were recovered during lesting from bolh the surface and subsurface components of die site (Table 4-10). Artifacts include 46 flakes. 31 pieces of angular waste. 1 core tool fragment, 1 projectile point base, and 7 fragments (1.3 grams) of marine shell. Only two flakes were recovered from die STP tests, one from STP #2 and one from STP #6 separated by a 40 m portion of die site. Unii 1 coniained cultural material to a depth of 120 cm (Table 4-11). The number of surface artifacts relative to those recovered from the unit were small. Only 8 artifacts were recovered from the surface wherc visibility was generally good, compared to 67 artifacts recovered from the unit The 4-26 ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Site Map for SDI-11433 Showing the Locations of Bedrock Milling and Subsurface Tests STP • #4 o STP #5 10^ i) \ •^-15 sT^\g?; #15 ^^^^ #16 1 I ERC Enyironmental and Energy Services Co. Site Map for SDi-11434 Showing the Locations of Surface Artifacts and Subsurface Tests iiiiWMIIilWIT[||i|iii Table 4-10 SDi-11434, SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material Surface Unit STP Total Percent Hake 8 36 2 46 58.23% Angular Waste 2 29 0 31 39.24% Core Tool 0 1 0 1 1.27% Point 0 1 0 1 1.27% SheU* 7/1.3 0 0 7/1.3 Total** 10 67 2 79 100.00% Percent 12.66% 84.81% 2.53% 100.00% *count and weighi (in grams) given ••excluding sheU 4-29 Table 4-11 SDi-11434, UNm DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERUL Culiural Malerial 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm 80-90 cm 90-100 cm 100-110 cm 110-120 cm Total Percent Flake 4 7 4 2 3 8 3 2 2 1 0 0 36 52.94% Angular Waste 0 2 0 7 5 3 1 3 5 2 1 1 30 44.12% Core Tool 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.47% Point 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.47% Total 4 9 5 10 8 11 4 5 7 3 1 1 68 100.00% Percent 5.88% 13.24% 7.35% 14.71% 11.76% 16.18% 5.88% 7.35% 10.29% 4.41% 1.47% 1.47% 100.00% low artifact recovery was consistent throughout the unit Soils were Ught reddish brown sandy loam with no evidence of midden. Soils became morc sandy at die 90 cm levei in Unit 1, but did not appear to reflect an aUuvial deposit wilh a high rate of deposition. Artifact Analvsis Debitage The majority of the culmral material recovered from the site (97.47%) represents lithic debitage (N=77). One of die flakes (SDi-11434-17) represents a tool rejuvenation flake. This flake has been removed firom die edge of a tool during die resharpening process and contains a smaU portion of the tool edge with retouching and use-wear. This flake, along with some of die others from die sit^ suggest that tool rejuvenation and firushing were die main site activities. Cortex was present on very few of the artifacts suggesting dial most of the Uthic work was related to die final stages of production, and patination was present on nearly aU of the metavolcanic material suggesting some age. Lithic material types were also an interesting aspect of the site. Table 4-12 shows die relative amoimts of lithic materials, but what is interesting is the presence of four pieces of chert in the coUection. Each of these pieces of chert was of differeni material and one piece (SDi-11434-45) was of Piedra del Lumbre chert whose only known source is approximately 35 kilometers north in die Las Pulgas Canyon area of Camp Pendleton. AU chert was recovered from various levels of Unit 1. The presence of this amount of chert which is not locaUy avaUable is ui conttast to sites SDi-7306 and SDi-11570 where larger artifact assemblages recovered no chert. Tools Only two tools were recovered during the testing phase at SDi-11434: a core tool fragment and a projectile point base. Artifact SDi-11434-25 represents a core tool fragment The complete tool was unifacially flaked from a planear surface and has subangular cobble cortex on the upper suiface. Most of the flaking ended in step fractures and clear evidence of use-wear is nol present The artifact is made from a grey-green porphyritic volcanic malerial which is highly patinated. Artifact SDi-11434-23 appears to be die base of a white quartz projectile point preform, based on die amount of thinning and retouching. The base is straight and may reflect a break during manufacmre, which was reworked and then 4-31 Table 4-12 SDi-11434 FLAKES/ANGULAR WASTE BY MATERIAL TYPE Percent by Cultural Material Surface Unitl STP Total Category Metavolcanic 6 51 2 59 75.64% Porphyritic Metavolca 4 5 0 9 11.54% Quartz 0 5 0 5 6.41% Chert 0 4 0 4 5.13% PDL Chert 0 1 0 1 1.28% Total 10 66 2 78 100.00% Percent by Material 12.82% 84.62% 2.56% 100.00% i 4-32 I' I I I I li t I li li i I I I discarded. These werc the only tools recovered from the site. No groundstone was present at the site. Faunal The faunal assemblage is Umited to a smaU surface scatter of highly wom and firagmented pieces of marine sheU. The sheU appeared to be clustered on the eastem portion of the site and most was found in association widi road disturbance. The sheU is heavUy weadiered an none can be identified to species. Two fragments arc probably Chione sp. and aU of die firagments could be of this genus. Summary This site is unusual in several respects. TTie depth of the deposit was unexpected due to the gentile slope and lack of aUuviation. Periiaps related to site depth was the comparatively poor suiface recovery relative to the subsurface component The Uthic malerials at the site are also unusual. Four fragments of chert, including Piedra del Lumbre chert, were recovered firom this relatively smaU sample in contrast to site SDi-7306 and SDi-11570 where larger samples recovered no chert. The presence of Piedra del Lumbre chert suggests a Unk between this site and the habitation site SDi-4498 which is the only otiier site in this area known to contain Piedra del Lumbre chert. The type of site and the presence of this material suggests lhat it may represent a short lerm procurement site associated with this larger habitation site. No groundstone was recovered and die artifacts reflect the final stages of tool production and tool rejuvenation. This appears to be a special purpose camp which may have been occupied over a considerable period of time as reflected by site depth. Nothing clearly diagnostic of site age was recovered, however the general form of the projectile point suggests Late Period assignment 4.1.6 SDI-11435H (Q-S-4) This historic site consists of a concrete foundation, building materials and trash. It is located approximately 25 m east of Rancho Santa Fe Road on the eastem edge of a small graded and fiUed area. Portions of the site were observed in an eroded gully while the concrete foundation is nearby in a relatively flal arca. The site is approximately 60 m north/south by 40 m east/west and depth of at least 60 cm was indicated in an erosion gully. Features include a concrele foundation and refuse deposit Artifacts include low 4-33 fired brick-like adobe many wiih cement mortar and one wiih the impressed word "Mexico," bricks, milled lumber. 1950s tiira recent bottles, cans, plastic, metal and ceramic pipe. The stracture associated widi the foundation may have been graded and the building debris located in the gully may be remnants that have been covered by grading activity. Pepper trees are present to the south of the site. A stracnuB appears in tiiis area on die Escondido 1901 USGS quadrangle. Testing at tiiis site was focused on extended archival research which included examination of plat maps, early county road maps, USGS maps, and aerial photographs of die area. None of the archival documentation other tiian die 1901 USGS quadrangle clearly indicaled die presence of a stracture in diis area. Since much of the debris represents recent fill, and die specific location of die stracttuc depicted on the 1901 Escondido quadrangle was unclear, field testing using STPs and 1 by 1 m units was determined infeasible. ConttoUed grading of the site is necessary to located subsurface dumps or privies. 4,1.7 SDI-11439 (Q-S-8) The site is approximately 200 m east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and south of Questhaven Road. It is on the east side of a small drainage in a smaU north/south ttending canyon (Figure 4-7). Reevaluation of tiiis site during die testing phase indicated tiiat the bedrock grinding recorded earUer represented naturally weatiiered depressions in die bedrock. The bedrock outcrop is highly fractured and eroded. Testing indicates tiiat tiiis site represents a smaU Uthic scatter. The site covers a 36 by 36 m area sunounding a bedrock outcrop. I 1 I I r I I i I t Testing included die excavation of nine STPs, surface coUection and mapping. Testing I"* indicated that tiie site represents a surface lithic scatter of prehistoric debitage. All [ subsurface testing was negative. Surface artifacts included 2 flakes, 3 pieces of angular W waste, and 1 shell firagment. All debitage is of highly patinated metavolcanic material from ^ 1 the Santiago Peak Volcanic Formation. The single sheU fragment is unidentifiable to species but based on luster and form suggests a fragment of Astrea or Haliotis sheU. Summarv Site SDi-11439 is a small surface lithic scatter which includes a single fragment of marine shell. Occupation of the site appears to be very short term and no chronologically 4-34 ANO SHOT NUMBER ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Site Map for SOi-11439 Showing the Locations of Surface Artifacts and Subsurface Tests I diagnostic material was recovered. Patination on tiie Utiiic artifacts suggests die site is relatively old. 4.1.8 SDI-11440 (Q-S-9) This site is approximately 50 m east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and soudi of Questiiaven Road. It is located on die east side of a small knoll which has been partially graded (Figure 4-8). Reevaluation identifies dus site as a very small surface lithic scatter 27 m north/soutii by 36 m east/west witii no bedrock niiUing. Testing included die excavation of five STPs, site mapping and surface collection of artifacts. The results of subsurface toting were negative. Three Utiiic artifacts were coUected from die surface of die site. Artifacts include 1 flake, 1 fragment of angular waste, and 1 core. Each artifact represent a different variety of Santiago Peak Volcanic material aU of which are patinated. Artifact SDi-l 1440-2 represents a core made from a porphyritic subangular cobble of green metavolcanic material. The core has been worked in two directions firom one edge. Most of die work is unifacial and the odier work may represent platfonn prcparation. The artifact represents a nodule of Santiago Peak Volcanic material typical of diose avaUable in local formations. Natural heat spall scars marie two sides of die artifact. This artifact may have been tested and made into a core for ease of transport. Summarv Testing indicated a minimal suiface litiuc scatter. All surface artifacts were coUeaed and a subsurface deposit was not present. The site may represent a single or very short term camp on tiiis knoll. No chronologically diagnostic artifacts were recovered, so period of occupation cannot be assigned aldiough patination on the artifacts suggests some age for die deposit Artifacts suggest activities were Umited to Uthic tool production. 4.1.9 SDI.11441 (Q-S-10) The site is approximately 1.1 km east of Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Questiiaven Road. It is located on the wesl side of a steep hill just east of a small seasonal drainage (Figure 4-9). The site is a bedrock mUling station witii three features containing a total of 4-36 ^ ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Site Map for SDI-11440 Showing the Locations of Surface Artifacts and Subsurface Tests ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. Site Map for SDI-11441 Showing the Locations of Bedrock Milling Features, Surface Artifacts, and Subsurface tests iiiiiiiiiirirnr--nTfrTi -"•Tm-rTiiFlirillllMiiiiii imo- i i ten slicks and 1 mortar. A rock aUgnment noted during die survey was detennined not culttmd. The site covers an area 104 m north/soutii by 116 m east/west Testing included die excavation of five STPs, site mapping., surface coUection of artifacts, and recording of bedrock mUUng feamres. Artifacts recovered include 1 mano fiagment. 2 flakes, and 2 pieces of angular waste. All artifacts, except for a single flake, were recovered ftom die site surface. The flake (SDi-11441-1) was recovered fix>m the 20-30 cm level of STP #3. This STP was typical of diose excavated in tiiat it reached bedrock at die 30 cm level. Soils were shallow reddish sandy loam witii no indication of culnual discoloration. Artifact Analvsis AU four firagments of Uthic debitage were patinated Santiago Peak Volcanic material representing secondary or interior percussion flaking. Artifact SDi-11441-3 represents a naturaUy spaUed chunk of metavolcanic material which appears to have been tested and discarded as indicated by the presence of a portion of a negative flake scar. Artifact SDi-11441-4 is a porphyritic cobble based mano fiagment Grinding was unifacial with no evidence of pecking or shaping. This artifact was found somewhat isolated from the bedrock mUUng features (see Rgure 4-9). The site is focused around several low bedrock outcrops on a gentile slope just east of a small seasonal drainage. Three of these granitic outcrops contained bedrock milling feamres. A total of 11 bedrock mUUng elements were identified on diese tiuee feamres. All elements except a single mortar were shallow slicks. None of the grinding indicated heavy use and even the mortar reflected the enhancement of a natural depression in the rock. Dimensions and disttibutions of bedrock mUUng elements are shown in Table 4-13. Summarv This site represents a seed processing site focused on bedrock milling. Testing indicated a minimal amount of associated surface artifacts and a minor subsurface component, A total of only five artifacts were recovered during testing of the site. The presence of three features containing a total of ten slicks and one mortar indicates ihat the primary activity was 4-39 Table 4-13 SDi.11441 MILLING FEATURES i i i i I Elements Element No. Shape Long Axis (cm) Shon Axis (cm) Depth (cm) Feature A 26 0 SUck 1 Oblong 50 26 0 SUck 2 Irregular 30 20 0 Slick 3 Irregular 35 26 0 SUck 4 Oblong 44 29 0 Slick 5 Oval 34 22 0 Slick 6 Inegular 28 31 0 Slick • 7 Oval 30 25 0 Mortar 8 Circular 18 16 5 SUck 9 Inegular 36 25 0 Feature B 0 SUck 1 Oblong 69 35 0 Feature C 0 Slick 1 Irregular 30 24 0 4-40 i i seed processing witii a secondary component of Utiiic reduction. Bedrock miUing is generaUy associated with the Late Period, 4.L10 SDI-11442/H (Q-S-11) The site is approximately 1.5 km east of Rancho Santa Fe Readjust soudi of Questiiaven Road. It is located on a smaU ridge and diainage, which is only partiaUy witiun tiie project area (Figure 4-10). The site has botii prehistoric and historic components. As a whole tiie site is a prehistoric lithic scatter with flaked lidiic debitage and tools, and a hisioric component of scattered historic refuse. A recent deposit of dumped sheU is also present The portion of tiie site widun die project boundary covers an arca approximately 78 m north/soutii by 87 m east/west Testing included die excavation of eight STPs, site mapping and artifact surface coUection. Artifacts include 5 flakes, 5 pieces of angular waste, 1 utilized flake, 1 corc, 1 core tool, 4 fragments (3.8 grams) of hisioric material, and 209 pieces (46.1 grams) of recent marine SheU (Table 4-14). Historic artifacts widun die portion of die site outside die project area include 1 purple glass bottle stopper. 3 aqua glass mason jar fragments, 1 clear glass fragment wilh raised letters. 2 tin can fragments, and 1 plain white ceramic sherd. Only one of die STPs was clearly positive. STP #7 coniained a single flake in die 20-30 cm level. STPs #1 and #4 coniained glass and a buUet sheU but none of tiiese could clearly be identified with the historic component of the site and all could have been recent STP #1 contained marine shell. Based on observations made during tiie excavation of STP #1 tiie presence of marine sheU is attributed to recent dumping. Aldiough sheU was recovered to a depth of 40 cm in STP # 1. its presence in otiier than the 0-10 cm level is related to sidewall sluff. The presence of limonite pebbles, not natural to the area, and the patchiness and surfacial nature of tiie sheU deposit identified it as recent fill. SheU species included Chione, Donax, Argopectin, and Ostrea. Qay subsoils were identified in several of the STPs whUe the majority of STPs identified a reddish sandy loam in die upper horizon. No cultural soil discoloration was noted. 4-41 I I I r I r' \ I i i i i i i i I I I 1 r ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. FIGURE Site Map for SDi-11442/H Showing the Locations of Surface Artifacts and Subsurface Tests Table 4-14 SDi-11442, SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material Surface STPs Total Percent Hake 4 1 5 38.46% Angular Waste 5 0 5 38.46% Utilized Hake 1 0 1 7.69% Core 1 0 1 7.69% Core Tool 1 0 1 7.69% Historic* 0 4/3.8g 4/3.8g SheU* 63/19K 146/27. lg 209/46. lg Total** 12 1 13 100.00% Percent 92.31% 7.69% 100,00% *count and weight (in grams) given **excluding historic and sheU 4-43 Arrifact Analvsis Debitage The majority of prehistoric artifacts consisted of Uduc debitage (N=10) including 5 flakes and 5 fragments of angular waste. AU of die malerial represents highly patinated fragments of Santiago Peak Volcanic material. Litde cortex was present, suggesting secondary tool reduction. Tools A total of three tools werc recovered firom the surface coUection. Artifact SDi-11442-22 rcprcsents a smaU fiagment of a black fine-grain metavolcanic core. Flake removal appears to be multi-directional but the fragment is small and the points of percussion for only two flakes remain. SDi-11442-23 is a utiUzed secondaiy flake of porphyritic volcanic material. The artifact was utiUzed along two edges and patinated nibbling and use-wear are present Artifact SDi-11442-10 represents a somewhat water wom core tool. The artifact is made from a Ught brown fine-grain metavolcanic material and shows some unifacial retouching. Many of die edges showed namral rounding and no use-wear observations were possible. Summarv This site represents a small prehistoric Uthic scatter with a secondary deposit of historic refuse. Prehistoric artifacts at the site suggest a short leim camp with Uthic tool production as the main activity. No diagnostic prehistoric artifacts were recovered during the testing program, but tiie presence of patination on the artifacts suggests age. Historic artifacts suggest dumping of a surface scatter of mm of die cenmry domestic refuse. Although evidence is circumstantial the lack of nearby historic sttuctures suggests the possibUity lhat this site may be associated with mining activity at site SDi-9918. 4.1.10 SDi-11570 This site is located on die south side of San Marcos Creek adjacent and west of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Southwest of die Rancho Sanla Fe Road bridge lhat crosses San Marcos Creek. The main site deposit is located on a knoll top, but the artifact scatter extends down a dismrbed cut to the edge of Rancho Santa Fe Road. 4-44 I Testing included die excavation of 17 STPs. 1 test unit, site mapping and coUection of surface artifacts. Testing identified a subsurface deposit on the westem portion of the site witii a maximum depdi of 50 cm and a surface area 96 m nortii/soutii by 88 m east/west (see Figure 4-11 and Tables 4-15 and 4-16). A total of 344 artifacts were recovered to include 86 fiakes, 211 firagments of angular waste, 1 possible pendant fragment. 9 pieces of obsidian. 4 utiUzed flakes, 1 retouched flake, 4 flake tools, 3 tool firagments, 10 cores, 1 core tool, 5 hammerstones, 5 mano firagments, 4 metate firagments, 7 pieces (1.5 grams) of bone, and 2 pieces (1.0 grams) of marine sheU (see Table 4-17 for disttibution). No recent trash indicatmg dismrbance was recovered. Soils were lighl brown sandy loam with some darker areas possibly indicating discoloration due to cultural activity. Of the 17 STPs excavated, 10 on the westem side of the site had positive results defining a subsurface deposit approximately 50 by 50 m in size (Table 4-18). Unit 1 identified a subsurface deposit 40 cm in deptii recovering a total of 155 artifacts including 1 retouched flake, 2 cores, 2 firagments of groundstone, a possible pendant fiagment, and all obsidian and faunal remains recovered at the site (Table 4-19). Artifact Analysis Debitage As witii aU sites tested widiin die project area die largest category of culttual material was lithic debitage. This represented 306 artifacts or 88.96 percent of tiie culmral material. Most of die debitage represented non-diagnostic core reduction material, but several large bifacial thinning flakes were noted in the collection. The absence of cortex on most of the material (see Table 4-20) may be a reflection of die type of source ratiier tiian tiie fact diat the final stages of core or tool reduction occuired on tiiis site. The possibility of primary or early stage reduction of lithic material is supported by die relatively even distribution of flake size shown in Table 4-20. because the final stages of tool production often are represented by a predominance of small retouching or finishing flakes, and by the large amount of cores in the coUection as mentioned below. Patination as shown in Table 4-21 is present on only one-half of the Uthic assemblage suggesting use of the site over a period of time. 4-45 i I i i Table 4-15 SDi-11570 KEY TO SURFACE ARTIFACT SHOT NUMBERS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4-11 Shot Number Catalogue Number Description #1 SDi-11570-68 1 Hake #2 SDi-11570-69 1 Hake #2 SDi-1157a-70 1 Ang. waste #3 SDi-n570^71 1 Ang. waste #3 SDi-11570-72 1 Hanimerston #3 SDi-11570-73 1 Mano firag #4 SDi-11570-74 3 Ang. waste #4 SDi-11570-75 IHake #5 SDi-11570-76 1 Haminerstone f #5 SDi-11570-77 1 Corc #6 SDi-U570-78 1 Ang. waste #6 SDi-11570-79 1 Ang. waste #7 SDi-11570-80 IHake #8 SDi-11570-81 IHake #9 SDi-11570-82 1 Ang. waste #10 SDi-11570-83 4 Ang. waste #11 SDi-11570-84 1 Ang. waste #11 SDi-11570-85 1 Ang. waste #12 SDi-11570-86 1 Mano fi^g #13 SDi-11570-87 1 Ang. waste #13 SDi-11570-88 1 Ang. waste #14 SDi-11570-89 1 Ang. waste #15 SDi-11570-90 1 Ang. waste #16 SDi-11570-91 1 Hake #17 SDi-11570-92 1 Ang, waste #18 SDi-11570-93 1 Ang. waste #19 SDi-11570-94 1 Ang, waste #20 SDi-U570-95 1 Hake #21 SDi-11570-96 1 Hake #22 SDi-11570-97 1 Ang. waste #23 SDi-11570-98 1 Hake #24 SDi-11570-99 1 Ang. waste #25 SDi-11570-100 2 Ang. waste #25 SDi-11570-101 1 Hake #26 SDi-11570-102 1 Core tool #26 SDi-11570-103 1 Core #27 SDi-11570-104 1 Ang. waste #27 SDi-11570-105 1 Util fiake #28 SDi-11570-106 1 Hake #28 SDi-11570-107 1 Hake #28 SDi-11570-108 1 Corc 4-47 Table 4-15 (Continued) SDi-11570 KEY TO SURFACE ARTIFACT SHOT NUMBERS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4-11 ( I i Shot Number Catalogue Number Description #29 SDi-11570-109 2 Ang. waste #30 SDi-11570-110 1 Ang. waste #30 SDi-11570-111 IHake #31 SDi-U570-112 3 Ang. waste #32 SDt-U570-113 1 Ang. waste #33 SDi-11570-114 1 Ang. waste #34 . SDi-11570-115 1 Ang. waste #35 SDi.11570-116 1 Hammerston #36 SDi-11570-117 1 Ang. waste #37 SDi-11570-118 1 Tool firag #38 SDi-11570-119 1 Ang. waste #39 SDi-11570-120 IFlake #40 SDi-11570-121 IHake #41 SDi-11570-122 1 Ang. waste #42 SDi-11570-123 • 1 Ang. waste #43 SDi-11570-124 IHake #44 SDi-11570-125 1 Ang. waste #45 SDi-11570-126 IHake #45 SDi-11570-127 1 Corc #46 SDi-11570-128 1 Hake #47 SDi-11570-129 1 Ang. waste #47 SDi-11570-130 1 Hake #47 SDi-11570-131 IHake #48 SDi-11570-132 1 Hake tool #49 SDi-11570-133&134 2 Ang. waste #50 SDi-11570-135 1 Hake #51 SDi-11570-136 1 Tool frag #51 SDi-11570-137 1 Hake #52 SDi-11570-138 1 Ang. waste #53 SDi-11570-139 1 Ang. waste #54 SDi-11570-140 1 Ang. waste #54 SDi-11570-141 Discard #55 SDi-11570-142 1 Mano frag #56 SDi-11570-143 1 Hake #58 SDi-l 1570-144 1 Ang. waste #59 SDi-11570-145 1 Mano frag #60 SDi-11570-146 1 Metate frag #61 SDi-11570-147 1 Metate frag #62 SDi-11570-148 1 Tool frag #63 SDi-11570-149 1 Hake #64 SDi-11570-150 1 Ang. waste 4-48 Table 4-15 (Continued) SDi.11570 KEY TO SURFACE ARTIFACT SHOT NUMBERS SHOWN IN FIGURE 4-11 i i Shot Number Catalogue Number Description #65 SDi-11570-151 1 Ang. waste #65 SDi-1157a-152 IHake #66 SDi41570-153 IHake #67 SDi-11570-154 1 Ang. waste #68 SDi-11570-155 1 Ang. waste #69 SDi.11570-156 1 Util flake #70 SDi-11570-157 1 Ang. waste #71 SDi-11570-158 1 Hanunerston #72 SDi-U570-159 1 Tool firag #73 SDi-11570-160 1 Corc frag #74 SDi-l 1570-161 1 Ang. waste #74 SDi-11570*162 1 Hammerstone f #75 SDi-11570-163 1 Corc firag #76 SDi-11570-164 Ang. waste #77 SDi-11570-165 IHake #78 SDi-11570-166&167 2 Ang. waste #79 SDi-11570-168 1 Ang. waste #80 SDi-11570-169 IHake #80 SDi-11570-170 1 Util flake #81 SDi-11570-171 2 Ang. waste #81 SDi-11570-172 IHake #82 SDi-11570-173 1 Corc frag #83 SDi-11570-174 1 Hake #83 SDi-11570-175 1 Util flake #84 SDi-11570-176 IHake #85 SDi-11570-177 1 Hake #86 SDi-11570-178 1 Hake #87 SDi-11570-179 1 Ang. waste #88 SDi-11570-180 1 Ang. waste #89 SDi-11570-181 1 Corc frag #90 SDi-11570-182 1 Hake tool #91 SDi-11570-183 1 Hake #92 SDi-11570-184 1 Ang. waste #93 SDi-11570-185 1 Hake #94 SDi-11570-186 I Hake #95 SDi-11570-187 1 Hake #96 SDi-11570-188 1 Hake #97 SDi-11570-189 1 Ang. waste #97 SDi-11570-190 1 Hake #98 SDi-11570-191 1 Ang. waste #99 SDi-11570-192 1 Hake 4-49 Table 4-16 SDi-11570, SUMMARY BY DEPTH OF SURFACE/UNITS/STPs DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Culttual Material Surface 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm Total Percent Hake 40 20 14 9 2 1 86 25.00% Angular Waste 64 57 41 29 16 4 211 61.34% Pendant? 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.29% Obsidian 0 5 2 2 0 0 9 2.62% UtUized Hake 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.16% Retouched Hake 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.29% Hake Tool 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 1,16% Tool firag 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.87% Core 8 1 1 0 0 0 10 2.91% Core Tool 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.29% Hammerstone 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1.45% Mano firag 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 1.45% Metate frag Bone* 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 1.16% Metate frag Bone* 0 2/0.2 4/1.0 1/0.3 0 0 7/1.5 SheU* 0 0 2/1.0 0 0 0 2/1.0 Total** 134 85 60 42 18 5 344 100.00% Percent 38.95% 24.71% 17.44% 12.21% 5.23% 1.45% 100.00% *count and weight (in grams) given **excluding bone and sheU 4-50 Table 4-17 SDi-11570, SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material Suiface Unitl STP Total Percent Hake 40 34 . 12 86 25.00% Angular Waste 64 107 40 211 61.34% Pendant? 0 1 0 1 0.29% Obsidian 0 9 0 9 2.62% Utilized Hake 4 0 0 4 1.16% Retouched Hake 0 1 0 1 0.29% Hake Tool 3 0 1 4 1.16% Tool fiag 3 0 0 3 0.87% Core S 2 0 10 2.91% Core Tool 1 0 0 1 0.29% Hammerstone 5 0 0 5 1.45% Mano frag 4 0 1 5 1.45% Metate frag 2 2 0 4 1.16% Bone* 0 6/1.2 1/0.3 7/1,5 SheU* 0 0 2/1.0 2/1.0 Total** 134 156 54 344 100.00% Percent 38.95% 45.35% 15.70% 100.00% *count and weight (in grams) given **excluding shell and bone 4-51 Table 4-18 SDi-11570, STPs DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material ON/OE ON/lOW 0N/20W 0N/30W lOS/OE 20S/0E 3OS/0E STP-A STP-B STP-C Total Percent Flake 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 12 22.22% Angular Waste 1 5 1 0 2 3 0 16 3 9 40 74.07% Flake Tool 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.85% Mano frag 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.85% SheU* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2/l.Og 0 2/l.Og Bone^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/0.3K 0 0 l/0.3fi Total** 1 8 2 1 2 3 2 19 3 13 54 100.00% Percent 1.85% 14.81% 3.70% 1.85% 3.70% 5.56% 3.70% 35.19% 5.56% 24.07% 100.00% •count and weight (in grams) given ••excluding shell and bone Table 4-19 SDi-11570, UNIT 1 DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material 0-1 Ocm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm Total Percent Hake 15 12 7 0 34 21.79% Aiigular Waste 51 31 23 2 107 68.59% Pendant ? 0 0 1 0 1 0.64% Obsidian 5 2 2 0 9 5.77% Retouched Hake 1 0 0 0 1 Core 1 1 0 0 2 1.28% Metate firag Bone* - 1 1 0 0 2 1.28% Metate firag Bone* -2/0.2 3/0.7 1/0.3 0 6/1.2 Total*^ 74 47 33 2 156 99.36% Percent 47.44% 30.13% 21.15% 1.28% 100.00% •count and weight (in grams) given ••excluding bone 4-53 Table 4-20 SDi-11570 FLAKE SIZE AND PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF CORTEX Hake Size Percent by Cultural Material >0.3 cm >0,6cm >1.2cm >2.0 cm Total Cortex Present 6 7 17 24 54 18.18% Absent 85 80 49 29 243 81.82% Total 91 87 66 53 297 100.00% Percent by Size 30.64% 29.29% 22,22% 17.85% 100.00% 4-54 Table 4-21 SDi-11570 FLAKE SIZE AND PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF PATINATION Hake Size Percent by Cultural Material >0.3 cm >0.6cm >1.2cm >2.0cm Total Patination Present 29 43 43 41 156 52.53% Absent 62 44 23 12 141 47.47% Total 91 87 66 53 297 100.00% Percent by Size 30.64% 29.29% 22.22% 17.85% 100.00% 4-55 Litiuc material types are shown in Table 4-22 and show a predominance of metavolcanic material (93.94%). almost all of which is Santiago Peak Volcanic Formation. Less tiian five fragments of cobble material from the Eocene sedimentary formation to die west were noted in die assemblage and quartz rcprcsents a minor fraction of tiie assemblage (2,36%). Obsidian was also recovered in minc^ amounts during subsurface testing. AU obsidian was recovered from Unit 1 and based on hand specimen observation it appears to be firom a source otiier tiian Obsidian Butte. Obsidian Butte, located in the Imperial Valley, is die closest source of obsidian and was heavily used during the Late Period. The resulls of chemical sourcing obsidian firom bodi diis si^ and SDi-7306 are not yet available. Two fragments of unusual malerial were notcd in die coUection, one firagment (SDi-11570-97) was a Ught lan granular volcanic or quartzite material resembUng Piedra del Lumbre chert in texttffc. Artifact SDi-11570-125 was anodicr firagment of volcanic niaterial resembUng jasper. The material was dark red and opaque, but thin edges werc translucent near a light source. Possible Pendant A small ground stone artifact (SDi-11570-66) was rccovered fi^m'tiie 20-30 cm level of Unit 1. This small artifact fragment (0.3 grams) is made from a fine-grain dull black material rcsembling slate. Striations produced during shaping are present on all unbroken edges. The artifact is 1.4 cm long, 6.6 cm wide and 0.2 cm thick and comes to a point at the unbroken end. The broken end appears to have snapped at a weak point where the artifact had smaU groves on both sides. The artifact fragment is so small it cannot be olherwise identified. Groundstone Relatively litde groundstone material was recovered from the site and no bedrock outcrops are witiiin the site to supply a platform for bedrock mUUng. Groundstone artifacts included five mano fragments, and four metate firagments. Of the mano fragments, artifacts SDi-11570-73 and SDi-11570-86 represent veiy small fragments wilh no diagnostic attributes as to total artifact size or form. At least one of these artifacts (SDi-11570-86) represents a cobble base mano. Artifact SDi-11570-145 is the most complete mano fiagment in the collection. It is made from a granitic cobble and is bifacially worked and shouldered and shows indications of 4-56 Table 4-22 SDi-11570 FLAKES/ANGULAR WASTE BY MATERIAL TYPE Percent by Cultural Material Surface Unitl STP Total Category Metavolcanic 29 26 12 67 22.56% Obsidian 0 9 0 9 3.03% Porphyritic Metavolcanic 72 100 40 212 71.38% Quartz 1 6 0 7 2.36% Quartzite 2 0 0 2 0.67% Total 104 141 52 297 100.00% Percent by Material 35.02% 47.47% 17.51% 100.00% 1^ 1^ i I 4-57 shaping. The artifact was recovered from the surface and is covered by Uchen. Both faces of tilis artifact are pecked. Artifact SDi-11570-6 is another cobble-based mano fragment which was recovered from die 20-30 cm level of STP ON/lOW. Grinding is bifacial and no pecking is evident. The cobble is of a relatively fine-grain porphyritic volcanic maieriai. Artifact SDi-11570-142, which was recovered from tiie surface, is a bifacial mano fragment made firom an irregular granitic rock fragment. One face of the artifact is well rounded whUe the other face, which is very inegular, is ground on only the high points. Of die four metate fiagments, two (SDi-11570-48 and SDi-11570-57) represent smaU non- diagnostic granitic metate fragments rccovered from the upper levels of Uiut 1. Artifacts SDi-11570-146 and SDi-11570-147 represent large unifacial granitic shallow slab type metate fragments with ground and pecked suifaces. Hammerstones A total of five hanimerstones and hammerstone firagments were recovered during site testing. AU hammerstcmes were made from Santiago Peak metavolcanic malerial and were recovered from ihe surface coUection. Artifact SDi-11570-158 represents a hammerstone with heavy battering along one edge. The artifact is made from a naturaUy spalled fragment of porphyritic metavolcanic material. Artifacts SDi-11570-72 and SDi-11570-116 represent secondary use of cores as hammerstones. Both artifacts have battering along angular portions of the tool created earUer by removing flakes firom a core. Bolh artifacts SDi-11570-76 and SDi-11570-162 represent smaU non diagnostic hammerstone firagments. Cores All of the nine cores and core fragments recovered during site testing were made from material derived from the Santiago Peak Volcanic Formation. Seven of these cores showed unifacial flake removal in one direction (SDi-11570-47. SDi-11570-56, SDi-11570-103, SDi-11570-108, SDi-11570-160, SDi-11570-173, and SDi-11570-181). Five of these artifacts were recovered during sinface collection of tiie site (SDi-11570-103, SDi-11570- 108. SDi-11570-160, SDi-11570-173, and SDi-11570-181) while two were recovered from tiie upper levels of Unit 1 (SDi-11570-47 and SDi-11570-56). Artifact SDi-11570-127, recovered from the surface of the site showed unifacial flake removal in two directions. Hakes were removed from opposite ends of the artifact. 4-58 Artifact SDi-11570-163 also showed unifacial flake removal in two directions, but these were opposite sides of perpendicular edges. Artifact SDi-11570-77 is a multidirectional core. It was recovered from the site surface and is highly patinated. Cores in the coUection reflect primary reduction of Santiago Peak metavolcanic material for the manufacture of flake and core based tools. Flaked Lidiic Tools A total of 13 flaked Utiiic tools were recovered from suiface and subsurface testing at SDi- 11570. These include 1 core tool. 4 flake based tools, 4 utUized fiakes, 1 retouched flake, and 3 tool fragments. AU flaked Udiic tools in die coUection were made from material derived from the Santiago Peak Volcanic Fonnation and many were highly patinated. Artifact SDi-11570-102, recovered firom die surface of die site, is a core based tool witii pattemed unifacial flake removal along three sides. The striking platform of die artifact is a planear surface with no clear evidence of use-wear identifying this as a moiphological tool only. The four flake based tools were recovered from the surface with the exception of artifact SDi-11570-9 which was recovered from die 10-20 cm level of STP 0N/30W. This artifact is a flake fragment with a series of small flakes removed from one edge. This edge is highly weathered and patinated, but use-wear may have been present at one time. Artifact SDi-11570-132 is a retouched flake or core fragment with primarily unifacial flake removal. Use-wear is present as a high poUsh along the sharp points of one edge. Artifacts SDi-11570-136 and SDi-11570-182 are both simUar in tiiat tiiey represent flakes which have additional flakes removed along one edge. They botii show edge rounding related to use-wear. Three artifacts, all recovered from the siuface, may represent either core base or flake base tools. Artifact SDi-11570-118 represents a tool fragment with fine retouching along one edge. The artifact is made from fine-grain green metavolcanic material, but it is heavily weathered and patinated so that use-wear determination was not possible. Artifact SDi- 11570-159 represents a very smaU fragment of a tool edge. It may have been removed during tool rejuvenation. Retouching and use-wear are present along the tool edge. Artifact SDi-11570-148 is a flake or core based tool fragment with retouching along two 4-59 different edges. Use-wear is only present on one of these edges, where it can be identified by heavUy rounded highpoints. One retouched flake was recovered during testing from the 0-10 cm level of Unit 1. This artifact (SDi-11570-46) is marked by fine retoijching radier tiian larger flaking along one edge of die artifact. The material is heavUy weathered and use-wear determination is not possible. Four UtiUzed flakes (SDi-11570-105, SDi-11570-156, SDi-l 1570-170, and SDi-11570- 175) were recovered firom the surface of the site. AU exhibit microflake removal and use- wear along a single edge. Faunal Remains Faunal remains recovered during testing were relatively minimal including 7 pieces (1.5 grams) of mammal bone and 2 pieces (1.0 grams) of marine sheU. None of the bone was diagnostic as to species, but four of the fragments may have been bumt. AU represent medium to small mammal bone. Neither of the two sheU specimens are clearly diagnostic because they are both heavily wom but they may represent Chione sp. bivalve firagments. All of the faunal remains recovered from the site were coUected subsurface. Summaiy Testing included thc excavation of 17 STPs, 1 test unit, site mapping and collection of surface artifacts. Testing identified a subsiuface deposit on the westem portion of the site and a surface area extending nearly to Rancho Santa Fe Road. No chronologically diagnostic material was recovered, but based on the technology and lack of Late Period artifacts, this site appears to represent Early Period activity. The relatively large amount of cores and debitage and even flake size distribution suggest that primary tool reduction including biface production were the main activities. Activities also included seed processing and and the processing of faunal materiaL Religious activity at the site may be reflected by the possible pendant fragment recovered. The site appears to represent habitation and subsistence activity on a knoU above San Marcos Creek. 4-60 4.1,11 Summary As a result of testing, four sites (SDi-7308/W-2381. SDi-11432. SDi-11433, SDi-11441) were deteimined to be small bedrock nulUng stations with Umited cultural deposits; 2 sites SDi-11439 and SDi-11440 arc Umited Uduc scatters; site SDi-11442/H is a Utiiic scatter with a smaU historic component; site SDi-11434 represented a lithic tool production and reworking camp, and 2 sites (SDi-7306/W-2379 and SDi-11570) are habitation sites. SDi- 11435H is a historic site tiiat was tested duough archival research. Sites SDi-7306/W-2379 and SDi-11570 appear to represent Late Period and Early Period sites respectively. Sites SDi-7308/W-2381, SDi-11432, SDi-11433, SDi-11441 may represent Late Period processing sites, whUe the remaining prehistoric resources contain no chronologicaUy diagnostic material. SDi-11434 is unusual due to the high percentage of chert recovered which suggests die possibiUty of a link between it and the nearby Late Period habitation site of SDi-4498 just outside the project area. The presence of Piedra del Lumbre chert in die assemblage of SDi-11434 and obsidian at sites SDi-7306/W-2379 and SDi-11570 suggest exchange networks to the north and west. The sites within the project area probably represent temporary occupation and processing sites as part of a seasonal round of foraging which include areas well beyond the project boundary. This foraging strategy appears to have been focused to the east based on the lack of shellfish and cobble Uthic material which are common resources available to the west The nearly complete dominance of material from the Santiago Peak Volcanic Formation in the assemblage suggests use of the rcgion just east of the project area where sources of this lithic material arc rcadily avaUable. The sites tested show the variety of sites in the region and provides some clues as to habitation, diet, trade and site location pattems. 4-61 I i i i i SECTION 5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION OF IMPACTS RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The significance of archaeological resources should be assessed is several terms, including rcsearch value to die scientist, educational/aesdietic/culmral value to die community at large and to Native Americans (Moratto and KeUy 1976:193-202). Scientific importance of a site is not necessarUy proportional to the number of museum quality artifacts that a site contains, but to the data that is generated from archaeological investigation(s) at the site. Native American significance can include reUgious spirimal feeUngs/ardfacts/features, a spirimal place, shaman artifacts for spirimal heaUng. or features such as caims or rock art (pictographs), or places where ceremonies werc conducted. In addition, physical remains to include cremations and/or burials are significant to Native Americans and these values are proteaed under both State and federal law. Educational and interpretative value may be derived through either site preservation or a data recovery program. In a preserved state, interpretative programs for certain prehistoric sites can provide the pubUc with a sense of timelessness, as well as an awareness, which they may not have experienced. PubUc education through school field ttips provides access to Native American sites, within their own communities, to be used to explain how people lived, in another time period. In certain cases, various types of sites can be used to show a range of prehistoric activities to include rock art (pictograph sites); quarry sites, where artifacts were manufactured; miUing stations, where acorns were ground; and. Early and Late period viUage camp sites where people Uved for over the past 9000 years. Under State CEQA requirements. Appendix K, Section III an important archaeological rcsource is one which: A. Is associated with an event or person of: 1. Recognized significance in CaUfomia or American history, or 5-1 2. Recognized scientific importance in prehistory. B. Can provide information which is both of demonsttable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological rcsearch questions, C. Has a special or particular quaUty such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind, D. Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity, or E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. Of the 11 cultural resources evaluated within the project area, three sites (SDi-7306/W-2379, and SDi-11570 and SDi-11435H) qualify as important, due to the variety and quantity of data they contain and their abUity to answer important research questions. Site SDi-11435H may contain important archaeological resources, associated with early 1900s occupation of the site, which could also provide answers to important research questions. Sites SDi-7308/W-2381, SDi-11432, SDi-11433, SDi-11434, SDi- 11439, SDi-11440. SDi-11441. and SDi-11442/H possess Umited research potential, werc documented during the testing phase, and do not qualify as important cultural resources under CEQA. 5.2 IMPACTS Two types of impacts which may result from development of the project are direct and indirect Direct impacts are those associated with constraction and development activities. Direct impacts may occur to all resources within the project area dependant of specific development plans. Indirect impacts are those associated with increased access to an area where culmral resources exist which includes both staging of equipment within this area and increased public access. 5-2 ii: 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for mitigation of impacts to important sites SDi-7306/W-2379 and SDi- 11570 include preservation in open space easements and avoidance of development impacts. These sites need to be professionally mapped and staked in consultation with an archaeologist prior to tentative map submittal. If direct or indirect impacts cannot bc avoided, mitigation of impacts can be achieved through a data recovery program. Large portions of these sites shown on Figure 4-1 are without subsurface deposits and are not identified as important Only tiiose portions of sites SDi-7306 and SDi-11570 with a subsurface deposit are identified as important (see subsurface midden xesults as shown on Figures 4-2 and 4-11). A monitoring of constraction program by an achaeologist is recommended to mitigate impacts to site SDi-11435H, If important historic resources are identified during monitoring of SDi-11435H, then a data recovery program wiU be necessary, based on die nature of the resource(s). 5.5 SUMMARY Eleven culttual resources (SDi-7306/W-2379, SDi-7308/W-2381. SDi-11432, SDi- 11433. SDi-11434. SDi-11435H. SDi-11439. SDi-11440. SDi-11441, SDi-11442/H. and SDi-11570) within and directly adjacent to tiie project boundary were evaluated for importance under CEQA. Sites SDi-7306/W-2379. SDi-11570, and SDi-11435H were detennined important Monitoring by an archaeologist and a data rccovery program, should historic resources be encountered is rccommended for site SDi-11435H. Mitigation of impacts for botii SDi-7306/W-2379 and SDi-11570 can be achieved dirough avoidance, staking and mapping, and preservation in open space easements. If avoidance is not possible then a data recovery program is recommended. If avoidance and open space easement is the prefened mitigation altemative, then these sites need to be professionally mapped and staked in consultation with an archaeologist prior to final tentative map submittal. Sites SDi-4873/W-l 115 and SDi-11444H (Q-S-13), adjacent but outside of the project arca have been prcviously identified as important culmral resources to be avoided of project development (Gallegos and Pigniolo 1989). The identification of sites SDi-7308/W-2381, SDi-11432, SDi-11433. SDi-11434, SDi- 11439, SDi-11440. SDi-11441. and SDi-11442/H as not important cultural resources, precludes the need to address impacts or the mitigation of impacts for these rcsources as per CEQA. 5-3 "-i"*^niS!fi-BriiT! I I I I I I r I i SECTION 6 REFERENCES CITED Cheever. Dayle and Dennis GaUegos 1986a Cultural Resource Survey of Industrial Parcel #096. San Marcos, Califomia. Ms. on fUe at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company, San Diego, California. 1986b Cultural Resource Survey of Industtial Parcel #097, San Marcos, California. Ms. on fUi; at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company, San Diego, California. Eckhardt. WUUam T. 1977 Archaeological Survey of the Assessment Districts Number 76-1 and 76-3, San Mfflcos County Water District Ms. on file at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company. San Diego, Califomia. GaUegos, Dennis and Andrew Pigniolo 1989 Cidtural Resource Survey of the Land Pac Project, Carlsbad, California. Ms. on file at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company, San Diego, (California. Kaldenberg, RusseU. L 1975 An Archaeological Resource Impact Report for Lakeshore Farms Unit One and HUlside Farms. Ms. on file at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company, San Diego, Califomia. 1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land Company Property, Carlsbad, (CaUfomia. Ms. on fUe at ERC Environmental and Energy Services (Company, San Diego, Califomia. Pigiuolo, Andrew and Dennis GaUegos 1990 Cultural Resource Survey of the Questhaven Development, San Marcos, Califomia. Ms. on file at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company. San Diego. CaUfomia. WESTEC 1984 Cultural Resource Survey of San Marcos Industrial Park. Ms. on file at ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company. San Diego, Califomia. 6-1 ATTACHMENT A ARTIFACT CATALOGUES SDi-7306 CATALOGUES SDi-7306 Master Cat CAT NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS jZ' siiot *i -.....?i^.r.f5P.?„... ...Core MV "T" 150.9 - 2 i Shot *2 -Surface "Flakes "'""""iiv i 0.2 - 3 i Shot *2 -Surface^, Groundstone Gran >500. .!!1$J?.9.1G!S[AMB......„ 4 "I" Shot *3 -Surj^^^^^ "iitiTized flake" "T"* *24.6" - 5 Shot *4 -...J.yif?p.*.... Por f 180.9 - 6 Shot"*5 -Surfa^^^^ Ang waste MY 'iTs - 7 Shot^S -Surface /lakes Por *•"{"• 2.1 - 8 '"'"Shores -Surface^, .Qakes^ MV" 1 2.8 - 9^ shot^e -Surface Ang waste MV 2 5.4 - io --[ Discard ---^ Discard 11 Shot *7 -Surface Ang waste MV ^ 1 16.3 - 12 Shot *8 -Surface Aiig waste W 2 24.6 - 13 Shot *8 -Surface Flakes MV 1 23.3 - 14 ^ Sfiot *9 -Surface Hammerstone MV 1 i 19.7 - 15 Shot *10 -Surface Ang waste MV t 43.3 - 16 Shot *1 i -i Surface I Ang waste Por-3 [ 29.9 - 17 Shot *12 -Surface Ang waste MV 1 7.8 - 18 Shot *r2 -Surface Flakes MV 1 0.1 - 19 sfiot*! 3 -Surface Arig waste r Hv 2 2.2 - 20 Shot *14 -Surface i Ang waste iiv 1 ! 5.7 - 21 Shot *i5 -[ Surface Ang waste MV ^ 1 ^ 17 - 22 Shot *i5 - 23 Shot *15 -Surface _!:.].9.l!;?.?. MV 1 37.9 - 24 ^ Shot"*T5 -Surface Fiakes Por "T 89.9 25 Shot *16 -Surface^ Ang waste Por *"4"" 83.8 - 26 shor^Te -""2*" I 2.2 27 Shot *17 -Surface Arig waste MV "2" 3.6"""* - 28 Shot *i7 -"i'T""" - 29 Shot *18 -Surface Ang waste MV 3 5.2 - 30 Shot *i'8 -Surface Ang waste" Por 2 0.8 - -^ Surface n ii ices MV 1 2.9 - 32 Shot *18 -Surface Fla ices i=>or 2 2."6 - 53 Shot *i9 -Surface Ang waste Por 3 7.8 - 34 Shot *19 -Surface Flakes F>or 1 6.4 - 35 Shot *20 -Surface Anq waste MV 1 iii.8 - Page 1 SDI-7306 Master Cat CAT NO. PROVENIENCE .Ml. LEVEL ARTIFACT , MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS '36 Shot *20 -Surface Flakea ! Por 1 1.6 - 37 Shot *21 -Surface An^waate Por r 14.3 - 38 Shot *2i -Suffisce Core tool """P57"" i" 226.9 - 39 Shot *21 -Siji'fiace ^ Hammefstofie Por 1 187,4 - 40 Shot *21 -^Surface ..-.firi!iy.™?2j?JJ§.... Gran "T " 374;*?"' - 41 '"•'••shbT*22 -Sul^f^ace Fiaicas" ZZSlZZ "T . ™_ - 42 sfiot *23 -Surface Ang waste 3 • Tl - 43 44 Shot *24 '••lhS"*25 ••—~ Sy_rface_ ...Jic.fi£$-... ......!!ll!av5?il "" Pq i^™ "" ""Por ""3" T 6.2 74.8 " - 45 siiot *25 -....s.yiSiL.. ZZJEILZI 1 128.8 - 46 sfiot *26 -'""Arig wasU'"" " Por 4 3 iTs ^ - 47 Shot *26 -Su i'f ace Flakes" MV 1 2.9 - 48 SfiS*27 -Surface Angw^e Pof "T """ii.F"* - 49 Shot *27 -SuriSce i i^lakes Por 1 i - 50 Shot *28 -Surface Core 1 Por 1 192.3 - 51 siiot *29 -Surfaiie Ang waste MV 4 i 7V2 - 52 1 Shot *30 -Surface Ang waste Por 1 72.4 - 53 Shot *30 -Suriface A iig waste Qtzite 1 1.8 - 54 Shot *36 -Surface Flakes MV 1 i.4 - 55 siiot *30 -Suriface Hammerstone MV 1 156.3 - 56 Shot *3i -Surface i Aing waste Por 2 52.4 - 57 Shot *3i -Sui'faije Anj waste Qtzite 1 1.9 - 58 Shot *31 -Surface .Fl?k?.?...„ 7.7 - 59 siiot *3i -Su i'f ace Hammer"stone """Por 1 243.3 cobble based 60 Shot *32 i -..-....^JM-y^S*!* „„Por 1 " """"b.2*""" - 61 j..„.^ Sui'face "Hammerstone PoP* 1 .„.„„.._ - 62 Shot *33 1 -Siir-fiice ^ Flaices Por 1 0.5 - .....63 i Shot*34 i -Surfaice_ Ari'awaste """"MV ""3" 14"""" - 64 Shot *35 1 -Surface MV "i ....... - 65 siiot *35 1 -Surface " "Ari^J"waste Piir "T" •"""oT - 66 Shot *36 i -Surface Flaices . Por f 2 19.2 - 67 i Shot *36 i -Surface ..Hin?.fI!$.r5.l9.D.?... Por 1 ^ 308.7 - 68 Shot *37 1 -. .1 ..Surface Siiot"*37r"-i'siji^iS" Shot *37 i - i Surface Ang waste Por nr 13.3 - 69 70 Shot *37 1 -. .1 ..Surface Siiot"*37r"-i'siji^iS" Shot *37 i - i Surface Ang waste MV ! 2 ""0"2 — Page 2 SDi-7306 Master Cat CAT NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT LEVEL 1 ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS 7i ^ siiot **38 _ Surface Ang waste Por _ - 72 Shot *38 - i Surf|co._ Flakes "*2"" "1.8"*""" - 73 Sfiot"*38 - 1 Surface Core Por 1 3'T7.6"*" - 74 siiot *46 ' -Su|iace_ Ai!iLV52!l ZZMZZ "T" 46 - 75 Shot *40 -.Ajlgjwast^^^ _ Por "T" 39.2 - 76 • siiot *4iii -Surface^ '"""""Flakes"""'"' ""Po'r - 77 Sfior*41 -__Surfiw i^rig waste """'fiv * l" O.T - 78 •Shot"*42 -Surfece Flakiis Por 1 2.1 - 79 Shot *43 -Surface Aifig^ waste i """""fi'v l" 0*3 - 80 Shot *44 -Surface Angwa8te_ ZZIHLZZ ......... 3876 .T! _ 'si -Surface^ ^mg,wa^^^ "Pof "T" '0*3*"* - 82 Shot *45 -SiiFfice hake's "iiv A... 2\T"" - 83 ---Discard --- 84 Shot *46 -Surface Hammerstone """pi7 ""i"" 34n™-- 85 """Shot *47""*"' -.....SiiCfw*..... iBing,vftsti» Qtz "'T"' "*""'o:i**" - 86 Shot"* 48""" -.....Ii?f.M*?™. Arra waste _ ... 1" "**""678* - 87 Shot *49 -...Jurftce^^ 1 ***• a • »at>—f If a*a t^m •>a>a a Ang waste Por 1 ""•"*5.*r - •siiot"*so"" -...JurfftM™ 1 4.4 - 89 "• Shor*5T -Ang waste Por 1 - 90 *siior*52 -Surfaw Cori_ i" ">56o."" - 91 Shot"*53 -Surfacij Gt'ouiiidistone Gran ""i"" • •* 232 Metate fi"iig 92 siiot *54 -Surface in a ices" MV 1 8.4 - 93 j Shot *55 -^ Surface Ang waste MV 1 0.1 - 94 1 Shot f5.6 -Surface Ang waste^ Por 2 72.6 - 95 Shot *57 -Surgice^ jlakes_ Z~M~'.. "T" 18.6 - 96 -siiri^ce for "T" "•"'*'t"7.7""" - 97 Shot *58 -.....?.y.r.fii?5 nisTkeir ~zwiri r *"**"*r1*™*" - 98 1 Shot *59 -Surface Ang,waste_ ......... **"445* - 99 " iShiit "*60 -Surface Por I"' a«M«*Mf^1a«M*awa >siiy, - 100 Shot *61 -Surface 1 IHammer^tone Grari 1 - 101 Shot *64 -Surface i ifo re tooi Por 1 >500. - 102 Siioii *65 -Surface Aiig waste Por 1 0.1 - 103 Shot *66 -Suriface Ang waste Por 2 16.8 - 104 siiot *6'7 -Surface 1^1 sices Por 1 147 - 105 sfiot *68 -Surface iiing waste Por . 1 4i.2 - Page 3 SDi-7306 Master Cat CAT NO. PROVENIENCE! UNIT LEVEL...... ARTJFACT„_ MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS. "'i*ij'6 T'07'" Shot *68 'siiot *68 Jiirface^.. . 3u^^^^^ i^rig" waste Flakas aBaa«*«*«av»*a4a ••*4*>**«Ha>*»* Por ........ 1 5.4 —— ioe sfiot *69 ....„._._ -.Surfice^... "nake "*MV l" •'35.6*"* - i09 -Surface_ Angwas^^^ „*Jtz i - iTo"""' """sfiii*t"*7i' -Surface ISrouiSstcTw'' Gran* _ "i >500 - i ii siiot *7i -Surface Groundstone .ZZ9JAf!.ZZ... >500 - i i2' ^ sfiot *'71 -Surface^ Core ZZZ?iI"ZlZ. i **'*'i"6*9."5"** - i i's Shot *72 -Gran >560 - i*i*'4**'' . .-™„-,„..„.^... -Surface .Cor*e.jtoS „.„MV 1 49.3 - 1 15 siiot *74 -..._Surface_ Ang wests piir "T 78.3 - 1 16 "ShS*"*75*'" -._._AngjWMtiB Por ^s" - 1 17 i'T's"" Shot *76 "s'hoT*76 Sunface Surface Angw«t^^ his ices "IZMZZZ Por ""T" ........ *o;2* 47. i" "— 119 Shot *77 -Surface Ang waste Qtz 1 0."3 - 120 sfiot *77 -^ Surface EI«kM.„ Por 1 1.6 - 121 "siiot *78 -Jurface_ Angwesjte 'qt*z ......... 3.7 - 122" '""Sfilit *7*9 """ -.._SurS|M """"jFlaices"^ ZZIsiZZZ. 1 1.4 - T23"*" ...JM *79 -Surface Corlji ;..Po*r 'X - r24'"* ---Discard^ . ---wSard.,.. i25. "•ihiir**"8*i"*"'' -Surface Ang wests T" 'sTe"'"" - 126 Shot *82 -Surface > Flaice Qtz 1 0.6 - 127 Sii^ot *8*3 -Surface Ang waste qtz 1 2.9 - 128 Shot *84 -Surface Ang waste fiv 1 1.7 - 129 i Shot*84 T30"T"'''Sho'r*85 — Surface siirfacis Angwaste . _ Ang waste qtz MV..^.... 1 ......... 0.4 - 131 Shot *85 -Surface^ Ang.y?.Si i=>or ""2" a•a••••••••a* 8.2 - 132 S'fio"r*8"6 -Surface hake^^^ ZZZMZZZ. i O.T - i33 's'iiot***8'7 -Surface Ang weste" "pii'i-* 1-i'6.3" - 134 Shot *87 -Surface Flakes Qtz 1 0.4 - 135 "siiot *88 -Surface Ang waste Por 1 J 2."6* - 136 Shot *89 -Surface Flakes Qiz 1 1.2 - 137 Shot *90 -Surface Ang waste Qtz 1 . 6."2 - 138 Shot *90 -Surface Historic Lead 1 0.1 - 139 Shot *90 -Surface ha ices Por i 1 O.i - 140 Shot *91 -Surface Flakes Qtz ! 1 1.1 - Page 4 SDi-7306 Master Cat CAT NO.l PROVENIENCE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS 141 t .... Shot *92 -..Surf8ce_ Hem me rato ne MV 1 289.4 - ......... t .i. i •"shot"*"i -....^.^cii?*.-.. Grpuridstgne Gran 1 >5ob. • , Bi}wl frag t .i. i •*"*"*sfp-"i -......jJdkyfiSlS. ., 0.1*"*** - 144 1 •i' STP-..1 -"jTo^cm™ Flakes Por IE Z.'U.Z1 - i'45' 1 •i' ---Discard ---Di'Sefd 146 i "sfp-i ^ -50-40 cm Ang^waa^^^^ ZZZElZZZ. """i"' ......... •"J - i"47 1 .1.. " "sfp-i -•30-"4"0c"iTi' iiiifig wastii *"Por 61* - i48 1 STP- 1 -40-50 cm Angwaste jCjV i 1.4 - 149 i STP-1 5(3-60'ciiri Ang waste *M'Y '"""i i.2 - 150 STP-4 ^ -ij-TOcriri Ang weste ZZaEIZ .......... 0.2 - 151 ........„.„„.. i 3"fp-8 J -0-1Ocm Angjwaste. Pof 1" •"T'o - sfp-"id -*20-"36cm* Ai^[Au^3te Qtzite 1 0.3 - f •"•"sfpHi* -0- lOcfii HH^rfe GltMwyj^liiatlC "2 • """"z7i - •*""i"54" I *'*'sTp^-n ..„..„_..„.. -10-20 cm Angy^te Por 1 1.7 Tss** 1 -. .0:J„O.cm FRKST* gtzlte "J" •"""12 "* - 156 I t ••• """•'sfp-"i*"4***"'" -...0.-10 cm.. Ang waste MV 1 0,1 4Maa*Hafla>a*aa« aatat^aaa a v**a«a a aa a>**«*aa a avaataa a a • 1*5*7" •I-sfp.j 4 -.„.....^i!!9-yi2!?-..„.. Por T" *"'""16.4* - • T"58*" ! ••• '""'SfP-~t""4 -Ang^ste" "T 1.1 - 159 i """"sfp- i*"4 -Flakss Por i* • * *i3'.1 - 160 STP-14 -"O-T'Ocfiri'" Faunal Bone i 0.2 - 161 STP-14 -i (D-20 cm iiing waste •***"*fi'v* 12 0.2 - 162 STP-14 -10-20.cm. Ang waste Por 6 344 - "16*3 i *!' ******s*fp-*T*4 -JOZl^c^^^^ .«.....An9.y5lte Qtz 0.2 - T*6'4'' "*"""sf"p'-"T4" -i"0-2"iii'*cfii" Faunef Bone """2""' "*"<"T - 165 ............. .!. STP-14 -20.-30.crn An.iy.93iJ.?. MV ""o'.*i"• - sf'p'-i4 -'20-"3"b"crii' Ang waste ZZMIZ "2" OA - 167 i STP-14 -20-3*0 c iri Flakes MV g.„ - 168 STP-14 -5Q-bdrock Ang weste P a •••t^fca *mt ••••••a* a *H aai 'ZZZMZZZ — 0.2 - r"69"" 1 ""sfp-T's -*0*-***fo*c"m'' Ang weste *^"*Po'f' "V 1.2 "" - 170 1 STP-15 -0-1Ocm Ang weste *q"t"z" <.l - 171 i STP-15 -6-16 cm Flakes 'MV 1 <.l - 172 STP-15 -0-1Ocm Pottery Tizon 1 0.4 - 173 STP-15 -O-lbcfii" Faunal Bone 2 ^ O.S - STP-15 -10-20 cm Ang weste 1 Obsidian 1 6.1 - 175 STP-15 -i0-26ciri Anq weste Qtz 2 ^ O.i - Page 5 SDI-7306 Master Cat CAT NO. PROVENIENCE ..UNIT IEVE.L„„ ARTjFACT,,, , MATERIAL NQ. WEIGHT COMMENTS 176 STP-15 -20-30 cm "Aifigiy/asle *""Por 1"'" *"'<.l - 177 STP-15 -20-5Qcm .... Ang.weste.. .....„Qtz. _ 0"."8"* - l'78 STP-15 -"2 b'-"3 6" c iifi Faufiai Boriii' "2" o",*i B*u.rned 179 STP-15 -5Q-40cm ^y^jivaste. MV ""2" "ol - i"8'6" IsfpHIZI -3b"^*40"*c'm' Ang weste _ "T <.T - ""T"8"'i"""' -6-fo cm Angwaste MV ""2" - 182 -1 6-lb crii ^ Ang wsste Por. 8 41 - 183 -1 JlakML., IZZS9LZZZ1. i":*2""*" - 184 -""""*i" "i'b-'fo'ciiri i^ng weste "piir 3 43 - 185 1 - 1 1 i 0-26 crii" Flakes MV. 1 0.5 - 186 -1 10-2.0cm Groundstone Grin_. "T" Manojreg... 1 -io"-2'0*cm* "•"•''••Tauwr "BfiiST _ 'O"-""*" Burned 188 -"1 20-30 crri F^Mis W 1 1.5 - 189 1 190 I -1 30-40 cm fkH^MiSke "Por z """os"""" 189 1 190 I -"~' .0- 10 cm.. Angwaste MV 3 2.S - 191 -""2 "~ "6*-**f*o"i:iTfi"* Arigweiite Por n" "" 3J*"*" - 192 -O-fbcfri ising westi» Qtz J ""•"0.5 - 193 i 2 0-10 cm Feu nal Fish scale i <.l - 194 -2 0-10 cm Historic "'fleiiar "2" 6"'5" - T'95""' l'9'6'" -— ~"— •""'2""' ............ jQl20cm' Angjw^aste^ Ang was^^^^ "~MV J'*"" "**"p"of 3" 2 rv" " "6*7"" — "'19 7 -"'""2" "io"-"26"*c*m"" helices """Rv"" 2 " "4:'4" - 198 i 2 ib-26ciTi Flakes Por 3 11.2 - 199 1 "*26o""l' -2 20-..30cm Ang.we3te^ zzzwzzzz '"T 0.2 -199 1 "*26o""l' -"2 „Flake^^^ t"" "0.6 - '"201i" -3 ""p£'f^^^^^^ Angveste.. ZZZMIZZ """e" "•"""iTi" - "•262*"T -'3 •"o-iOcfii"" i^iig wastis ' Pof 35 28:5 - 203 1 3 0- 10cm Ang wsste 'ZZZMZZ "V6 '976 - 204 1 3 6- lb (ini Ang weste Obsldlen " '6 " "•"1.4"" - 205 1 3 0- 10 cm Flakes r i;;jY 7 10.3 - 206 1 3 6- lb crii Flakes Pof 3 11.4 - 207 -3 6- ibcin hakes qtz 1 "6."2 - 203 - 1 3 6-lb cm fiammerstone Por 1 J 234.4 - 209 i 3 0-10cm ^ Grouniistone Por 1 75.9 Ratio ffeg 210 -3 0-10cm Potter g Tizon 2 3.2 - Page 6 SDI-7306 Master Cat CAT NO. .P.Rgyj.NI.ENCE. UNIT LEVEL._ ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT CO.MM.ENTS 21 i -3 " "6-"T6"crii"" Faunal "" Bone To , - 212 1 3 6- lO ciin Faunal "'"" sW "'*'" " 1 " 0 '"" - 2i3 i - j 3 O- i bcfii" J Historic ""'"pTis'tic •"T"" < T - "214 1 3 10-20 cm Angwaste, MV 3 3279""" - 215 -3 10-2qcfn Anq waste Por *"8" 3.6 - "216 -"3 "* .I.9ZJ§.^.^. Arig weste Qtz 10 1.1 - ""•2T7*''--3 i 6"-'"2*6"c'iiri* Flakes MV 7 "i"'.'4"*" - 218 i 3 ig.-.20.cm. hakes Por r - 219 -3 i"'b"-"2"o"'ciyi* hakes -Qtz" ""2""" 0.2 - 220 i ,3 Mo-2*bcfii', An£.weVfe PjC!.r. 1 107.3 - 221 3 10-20 cm Angwaste ojjsTdiafi ""4* 6".*2 - — **""3""' "'l5-"20c*m* Flakes Obsidian ""• i;4 - 223 1 3*" "jj£*2"0*cli^ Pottery Tizon 1 2**2 mm 224""! -""'•• """"3 W{2g*c*m faanal * Boiie 13 4 - 225 _ "3*"" "1 b'-'20"c'iyi' .CharxoaL --oli - 3*' 203o"cni'. i^i^^^i^Z .......MV 7 - 227 ! '"*3"'"* IgH'lo'Jiyi' ..Z^^^tZl Por iT 19.2 - 228 — 3" 2*0-'30'cm" "" "An^[v^S"'"" 11 1.1 - *229*"" 3 20-30 cm EJ.9J!i9iL._ '' riy'" ' 5" " ilT"" - 230 -•"•3 * 2§ZM.I.K hekes " "Pij'f" " " "T 6.1 - • 2*31 -'"""3 "26*-*3"0*l;"iiri' Flakes .Q.t2 "2" *i73 - 232 -3 ..20-3.gc.m /llk§3..„ 4 0.2 - •'**233'"' -*"*3""' "26*-"36"c"iri' iSretooi" zzszzz "f" "281 - 234 -3 26-30 cm FeiTnel Bone "i""4" i'.l - 235 -3 .30-.4pcrn. .._ ...Ang waste IZZHLZZ "'2" - 2315 -3 -..30.zi9..i[^^^^ Ang waste for i'i" 1*673 - '""•2'3'7""' -3 '3b'-*40''ciTi' I Airig waste .Qtz._ '3 - 238 -3 30-4bcfil' Flakes Por... "T 6.3" - 239 -3 3g-40cm Ang..wasU Obsiiilen 1 *•'*"* 6'*2 ' - 240 -'3'-* "36-'4b"cm" ll.§K«„.._ ^ Obsidla^n 2 0.4 - 241 :. 1 3 30-40 cin "Faunei Bone "6" 6*^4 - 242 1 3 40-5b cni Ang waste Por 1 3."4 - -40-50 cm Ang weste Qtz 1 ^ 6.1 - 244 STP-16 -i6-2b*cm he"ke Por 1 0.2 245 sfiot *57 -Surface Hammerstone Por 1 69 - Page 7 SDI-7306 Master Cet CAT NO.l PROVE NIENCElUNITj LEVEL ARTIFACT tiATERIAL . NO. WEIGHT [COMMENTS • "•2"4"6'"""'|"' IZZEO """6"-""Tb""-' iizon^ 1 4.7 {ground on »jge; broken 247i'""" I 3 t Coris fool 1 "31.8 Paqe 8 SDI-7306 Flake Cet :AT NO. PROVENIENCEIUNIT] .._..L.EVEL AR.TI.FAC.T MATERIAL SIZE 1 PAT COR S!ZE.2i PAT COR S12.L3 PAT COR SIZE 4 PAT CORICOMMENTS 2 Shot *2 -..Jiirface .....hakes.. IIJIYZZ .A. '.E. S!ZE.2i PAT '4 S'fiii"t""*3 -.....Surface _ _ Flakes^ "* Pof •"•••1* ........ ......... - '6 "3"iiot"*"5 -Surface ZZMZZ ZJZ. X .X - 7 '3'ho*t'***5 -..-.|yLt95.5...„ hakes Pof ---"••"i ....... '"0" ------- 8 •sil'ot""*'^ -Surjface Flakes MV --m ZIZ ...1... ...5... ------- 9 S"fi'o"t"*6 -..-.lyifii?.?..... Ang w;as.te MV ZIZ .31 ---ZIZ X ---- T"i' "Sho't"***? -Surface Angwaste ""*"'**"MY""*" *i ........ ........ - 12 ^ sfiot *8 -Surface A fig "waste ---ZJZZ JZ X ---i* i ...... - 13 Siio't *8' -sij rf ace Flekes •MV'""**"" i ...... ........ - 15 sfioi *l6 -Surface Ang waste riv "•"i* "• ....... ........ - 16 Shot *11 -Surface Ang vasts "Por* ---"'"*"i* ....... ............ '"f !*•" 1 .T "b* - ""TT" " St^t *12 • -Surface Anova^te MV ------......!...... J... ---- 18 Shot *12 -. Jurface Flakes MV ""••""i* ""o"" 1*9 ""sfii)*t"**T'3""* -Surface (iingwaste "MV* i b "*T*" ZZZ. X ------- 26""* ""stTdt"*!? -. siS-face*^ Ang waste MV --m ---ZJZ X ---- 21 Shot *15 -.....Surface Angwaste Jv ZJLI X X - 2"2" 'Sii*dt"**"i""5 -Surface Ang w^^^^^^ "Poi' --m ---ZlZ X .X ---- 23 Sh<)"f"*'T'5 -..„.§!ir.ii?9.?..... haices "MV"" i' ........ ........ - 2*4 •siiof"*T'5 -Surfece^. _ Fl8kes_ Por ............... i* 6 - 25 '"•'Shot'*"*T'6 -Sur-face iiirig waste Por --m ! i 1 0 2 .2.. ...9.. I i 1 1 - 26 siiot *i6 -Surface Flakes "piir •"*"'i" "*o* *"6*" 1 1 0 ----- 27 sfiot *i'7 -Suffiace Angwaste MV ---2 ...L ,..9... ----- 28 siiot *i7 -Surface .^..Flakes .. Por ------i ....... ........ -- 29 S'fioT"*i'8""" -Surface ISng^weste ZZMZZ '"2""' "2" '6"" ---ZJZ .1. X --- 30 siioi' *i8 -Surface Ang weste " Pof '"""T" •"0™ -""1"'"" ........ ....... ------ 31 Shot *18 -Surface Flekes^ MV _ ------1 1 0 ---- 32 -Surface hekes.. Por " "1 1 0 ---.-,.„. ***o" ---- "'•33 "S'fiii'i'*T9 -Surface idtrig"wiist6 Pof i "o" "'"0*" zrz X X ZlZ X X" ---- 34 siiot *19 -[ Surfface Flekes Por ""'"""i 0 - 35 sfioi *26 -Surface Ang waste MV ---i 1 0 ------- 36 siioi' *26 -Surface Flekes Por ---i 1 '"""b" ------- 37 sfiot *21 -Surface ^inq wiiste Por 1 1 0 41 'siiot*22 -^ Suri'ace haices MV ---2 1 ....... ---1 1 1 - 42 sfiot *23 -Surface Ang waste Por 1 0 0 "2 0 0 -- ....... ---- Suri'ace Ang waste Por ---^ 2 2 u 1 "6" j --- Page 1 SOi-7306 Flake Cat :AT NO. PROVENIENCE; LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERlALjSIZE 1 PAT toi^ SIZE 2 PAT COR ^IZE3 pAT COR SIZE 4 PAT COR Cq.MME.NTS '44 sfiot *25 -Suriface Angwaste L Por 1 i o' - '46 S'fiij'f*'2'6 -Surface Ang waste Por ---»«»*a**a*tatH« 2 '"o" ZIZ" "d"' ...L L i* 0 0 - 47 siiot *"26 -Surface Flekes """'"Rv ---r "* 1 ------ 48 sfiot *27 -Suffiace I 1A fig "waste .Por... ---........ X 1 ------- 49 siiot *27 -Surface ...Flakes._. *"*""i ......... ZZ - 51 'sfiot *29 -Surface iii fig "waste 'MV '"'2" *""o"" ---i""""" ........ ........ i* ......... -- 52 Shot *30 -.Surface Angwaste Por ---------1 1 0 - ' "53 ••"Shiit'"**3*6 -Suriface Anq wasite •••••qt'ziitia*'"* ---1 0 0 ------- 54 siioii *36 -Surface ....Flakes.^ .MY.._ ---zxz ...].... ------- 56 Sfiot""*"3"l -Suriftce i^ng wasite .,......P?.L.Z. ZXI X X -----.1 ...1... ...p.. 57 ] 'sSii *3i shoF^lT""'" -Surface 1* aaa aa*f a a*«^«*a*B«*a*U*V' AMwftste a * a a • vfl^Bt* • H«t • Qiizite fa•*--t-t»ir~T»TTftlttta«' ---"""*!* "o" ...... ------- •••'58 'sSii *3i shoF^lT""'" -.^Surface Flakes Por. .......l..... ...1... - 60 siio't *32" •• -Angwaste ZZ?]I:ZZ ZXI. X X 62 3hiiT*'33''"" -Suriface h e ices Pof""'" ---""•••""i ........ ""o" ------- 63 ^ siioii *34 -Surface Ang waste Rv ---2 2 0 1 .J.... ---- 64 Sfiiit *35 -Surfece Ang waste ..MV ---...L ..0. ------- 65 siioii *35 -Surface Angwaste ZSKZ". ZXI X ""o" 66" • Sfiii't***36 -Surface hiiiiceii "Pof -----............. X *"6"* i" ......... """"o" - 68 siiot' *37 -Surface Angwaste Por ...... ...... i ..... 1 - 69 S'fi(i'f*3*7* -Sufifiace Ang wasite "MY "i ""••"*i ---m --- 70 siio't *37 -Suri'ece i haiies Rv ---1 1 n "7" ....... -- 71 sfiot *38 Suriface Ang waste pif ---i 1 0 ---1 1 1 - 72 siio't *"38 -, Surface Flekes Pof ---2* ^ ? n ------ 74 sfiot *46 -Suriface Ang waste M"V 1 ---------i' 1 1 — 75 siiot *46 -Surface Ang waste Por ---------1 1 1 76 Shot *40 -Surface haices Pof ------[ i 0 0 --- 77 Sii'dii *4i -Surfaiie Ang weste MV 1 0 0 78 Shot *42 -Surface haices Pof I ---i 1 -.9. ------ 79 Shot *43 -Surface Ang weste MV 1 1 0 80 sfiot *4'4 -Surface iiing wasite MV ----- j ----1 1 0 - Ang waste ---0 ------- 82 sfiot *45 -Suriface ha lies fiv ^ ---------1 1 1 - Ang waste ---------- 86 sfiot *48 -Surface i^ng wasite fiv ^ ---1 1 1 ----- Surface Anq waste ' i^'or ------1 1 u --- 1- Page 2 SDi-7306 Flake Cat CAT NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT i l-EVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL SIZE 1 PAT COR SIZE 2 PAT COR SIZE 3 PAT COR .SIZE 4 PAT COR .COMMENTS 88 Shot *50 ' -.Surfece Angwaste M_V. ------1 1 0 ---- • 89 sfiiit •**5*1 -Suriface Ang waste Pof ------ZXZ X X ---- 92 ^ siio't *5ii -Surfece Flekes ^ MV ---------1 1 1 - •93*"" •Shiit*'*'5'5" -Siifface iii fig wasite ZZByZZ '""**i" X .X 94 siio't *5l5 -Surface Ang weste "Pof -----...J ..i.. 1 1 6 _ 95 Shot *57 -Surface Flekes MV i" ......... i 96 siio't *57 -Surface ....Flekes i^'iif ------1 ...... ........ 1 1 0 - ••"97 sfiot *58" • -Suriface haices MV ---1 1 ..0... ----_ 98 t siio't *59 -Surface Ang waste Por ---------i 1 n — 102 Shot *65 -Sufifiiice 'A rig* wasite Por 1 0 0 103 siioii *6'i5 -Surface Angwaste Por -.1 ....1... .X -_ _ .. 1 1 0 io'4 * ""•S»w*t"*6'7 -Surface Fjd.kw^. Por i* ......... ......... - 105 ""•S'iii!r*"68 -Surface "Pof 1 1 0 _ S fif #6*8* -Surface Ang'waste ZXiZT _ ---— ZJZ. "*o" X 107 Sii*ot *68 t -Surface Flakes Pof ------........ _ -Surfece hake "fi"v ---------1 1 0 _ 109 siioii *"76 -Surfece Angweste 55?. ------ZIZ .X X _ 115 sfiiit *74 -Suriface Ang wasite Por ---------1 1 1 116 siiot *75 -Surface 1 Ang waste "Pof ------— .....1 1 0 117 sfioi *76 -Suriface Ang weste Qiz 1 0 0 --m 118 siioii *76 -Surfece hsklis Por ---------1 n n -....Surface iSng wasite Qtz 1 0 0 J ••••|2g-"Sii'dt"*?? -Surface hei:es Por I ---1 n ------_ -...Surface Angwaste Qtz ------1 0 0 ---- ...J..?.?...., m V"^ f Zi.iipIZ.lX. _ ...Surfece hakes ^ 'qtz ------"-•*i 0 "**6*" ---- 125 sfiot *8i ...."....i.....?.y.r.M? iSng waste *"'•H v * •" • ------'"""'i "T" X ---- Sii'dt"*^8'2 ...."...i...§.y.(;fece I2M?Z "qtz ---"i* **"o*' 0 --_ _ _ _ "Yzf"' Sfiiit**8"3 ...-....[...Suriface iiiiz ---ZXZ ..Pl, ...6. --_ J'ZQZ ....ItipiZiX^ .. ....1. Surface Angweste Rv ------ZIZ. X ZL --- i 29 J Z5tioL*lX ....r.....i.....?.!J.r.M? A ng wasite " "'Qtz ZXZ X .X --------- i 30 J ..Surface Angwaste .MV ---------i ^ 1 1 - ..i 31 J Zl^^I^MZ ....-....[....Surface Ang wasite Pof "I ---zrz X X ZJZ. X X --- i32 i siiot *86 i - i Surface ----- ....... - ...„..., ---i 1 0 - i34 i '""siiot "^^iS?i - i Suri'ace hakes iQtz ---'1 ------- Page 3 SDi-7306 Flake Cat :AT N0..i.PR0VENIENCE UNIT .LEVEL ....^.y-dii.?!?. iSufiface [ARTIFACT MATERIAL SIZE 1 PAT COR SIZE 2 PAT COR X SIZE^ H«***Hn •4a>*a 1 PAT ...g... COR SIZE 4 ...........I.. PAT COR Cg.MM..E.N.TS 135 •"i^36"" Shot *88 sfiot *89 UNIT .LEVEL ....^.y-dii.?!?. iSufiface Angweste. hekes Por "Qiiz* — — ....... Htaaaan ...... ZQI ""0" COR X SIZE^ H«***Hn •4a>*a 1 PAT ...g... COR SIZE 4 ...........I.. PAT COR Cg.MM..E.N.TS 135 •"i^36"" Shot *88 sfiot *89 UNIT .LEVEL ....^.y-dii.?!?. iSufiface Angweste. hekes Por "Qiiz* — — ....... Htaaaan ...... ZQI ""0" COR X SIZE^ H«***Hn •4a>*a 1 PAT ...g... COR — — — — 137 ""i'39"' siio't *9b ••s'fiilt"*90 — ..Syrface Surface A.ng.weste. h"ak"es .gtz 'Pof 1 """"i 0 "b* 0 0* • -ZLZ Htaaaan ...... ZQI ""0" COR X SIZE^ H«***Hn •4a>*a 1 PAT ...g... COR — — — — 137 ""i'39"' siio't *9b ••s'fiilt"*90 — ..Syrface Surface A.ng.weste. h"ak"es .gtz 'Pof 1 """"i 0 "b* 0 0* • -ZLZ Htaaaan ...... ZQI ""0" ...... r-r-l 140 '"i4'3^" siio't *9i """sfi^'-T ...Surfece "0-**i"6*"crii" Flakes.^ Ang wasite m. Por i• ....... "6*" -ZLZ Htaaaan ...... ZQI ""0" ...... r-r-l ----140 '"i4'3^" siio't *9i """sfi^'-T ...Surfece "0-**i"6*"crii" Flakes.^ Ang wasite m. Por i• ....... "6*" -ZLZ Htaaaan ...... ZQI ""0" ...... 144 sfp-i" -6- i 6 cni Flakes Pof --- -ZLZ Htaaaan ...... ZQI ""0" ...... ------ 146 sfi^-i -30-40 cm i^ni3"wiaste •fiv" 1 1 0 — 147 "ST'P- 1 -36-40 cm Ang waste Por 1 1 0 — 148 sfp-i -40-56 crii Ang waste MV ---i 1 0 ------ 149 'sf p- i -SO-ebcfii A iig waiite MV ---1 1 0 - -- ---- 150 STP-4 -"b- i 6 cfii Ang wissite Qtz 1 0 0 151 1 STP-8 152 1 STP-i"6" ..g..-.!..Ocm. •20-3'b'cfii' Angwaste Arig wiisite .Po.r..„... tpiite" — .„:... *i ....... "6""" --1 ...L. ....0. - 154 1 sfp-ii i -l6-20cm Ang waste Por ---1 1 1 ------ 155 j STP-13 -io-io'crii Flakes qtzite ---1 0 1 ------- -b- ibcm Ang waiste MV 1 0 u ---------- -b-16'cfii Ang weste Por ------i 1 u 1 1 1 - -0- 1Ocm Ang waste qtz . 2 u 0 1 I) n ------ 159 1 STP-14 -b-iOcrii Flakes Por 1 0 0 i6i 1 STP-14 -16-20 cm tAng waste MV ^ 0 0 162 1 STP-14 i -i6-2b"cfii Ang waste Por 4 0 1 1 1 1 ---1 1 .1 - "ISS'lsfp'-"t"4 m ..ig-2g.cm 26'-3'6"cfii Angweste Ang wasite m. MV 1 "•"""2 u "b" u 6 — --~ ------ \ '66 \ SJP-\4 , -26-3bcm .Arig waste 1?. MV _2 .0.. ...9... i "0" a« "0" -...r... —.".— ---ii57 1 STP-14 -20-30cm he ices 1?. MV _2 .0.. ...9... i "0" a« "0" -...r... —.".— --- 168 1 SJP'\'4 -30-tiiifoijk Ang waste MV 2 1 u "0" a« "0" -...r... —.".— --- 169 1 STP-15 -p- lOcm Angwaste Angwaste hakes Por "Qtz "fi'v 2 i" -"•'i 0 ...... b* 0 '•"6* .......... 3 1 0 ------- 170 1 STP-15 i - 1 0-1Ocm ...... ^ -^jp^Ys|"™r-Q:yQ~- Angwaste Angwaste hakes Por "Qtz "fi'v 2 i" -"•'i 0 ...... b* 0 '•"6* .......... ....".„ -......7...... -—•" — -- - -......7...... - 176 1 Sfi^'-is 1 - i26-30ii:'iTi" 177 i STP-i5 i -'"ia'-'so'cm 179 1 Sff^i-i5 1 :T36-40i:iri' Angwaste Angwaste Angwaste Ang waste .Qtz Por Qiz • "MY 2 > i' 3 2 u ....... ....... ..... u • "b" •6*" ....... ZZLZ ...g... - X -- :..Z...l..7.... - Page 4 SDI-7306 Flake Cat :AT NO.iPROVENIENCE .L.EV.EL .ARTIFACT MATERIAL kiZE t PAT COR S1ZE,2 PAT COR SIZES PAT DOR SIZE 4 PAT CORICOMMENTS 180 STP-.1J -Angweste qtz ............. "b" • aM*>t*« 0 PAT COR SIZES DOR a«a •I's'i"' -i' .......... ..9ZJEi\^.. .i^.P.9i?.?i.?5 ...zw.~ T"'"" *T ........ 1 T" "T ------- -.......... jg-'T'o'ciiri'" An9..y3.??"?. forZZi ...ZlZ ...b. X 4 i" 0 ------ •'T8'3 " -•'b-'T'6""crii"* h it ices ™„......... ---ZXZ X b" ------ 184 -1 .......... .ig-2g..cm Angweste Por 2_.... ..9.. - ....... --........L,. X. ...9.. ---- is's -Tb-26*"cfii' h e lies ^MV"***"*" ---....... ™.„... ------- 168 -1 20-30 cm heiciis MV ------1 1 0 ---- 189 -1 30-40 cm i^fig"\i^site Por 2 2 0 190 -2 6-1 bcliri •Ang weste "Rv i" i "d i' ........ ....... i""""' 0 0 ---- 191 2 6-16 cfii Ang wesite Por 10 2 0 1 1 0 ------- 192 -2 6-ibcm Ang waste Qtz ---1 0 0 ------- 195 -2 10-20 cm Ang weste MV 1 1 0 2 1 1 ------ 196 -2 ........ .ig-2.gcm Angweste Por 2 2 0 ........ -Tb-26cfii "haices *^ M'V "i i ------1 0 198 -2 10-20 cm 1 haices Por 1 1 0 i 1 n ---. "i 1 1 - 199 -2 20-30 cm Ang weste . *fiV 2 2 0 200 -2 20-30 cm Flakes Por ---1 1 1 ----- 201 -3 0- 10 cm Ang weste *fiv' 5 0 0 i 0 0 2 1 1 0 -- 202 -3 i b- ibciiri Ang weste Por ?? 1 n 10 ? 1 2 ^ n n 1 i 1 1 - 203 -6 ^ b- i 6 cfii' Ang waste Qtz 12 0 0 •3 0 0 i 0 0 --- 204 -3 6- ibcm ^Ang waste Obsidian 1 1 n 5 5 n --- 205 -i 6-16 "cfii haices MV 1 n n 3 n n 2 0 0 - i -_ - 206 -3 6-ibciiri Flekes "Por ---1 0 1 2 1 2 - ; . -- 267 -3 0- 10 cm * haices Qtz ---i n n ---— ! — •m - 214 ............... -3 .......... ig-.2qc.rn Angweste MV ---1 1 0 ---- -Tb-26"crii Ang wasite Por 6 "b" "6" "2 "6"" ....... ----_ m _ 216 • 3 .10-20 cm Angweste Qtz "8* 0 0 "2 ""6" 6" ----- ..,.21.7....j -3 " ...FUkes .MY ZiZ X X 3 1 0 ----_ -- ....2.18... 3 .......... ..r.9.".2p.cm^ hakes *Por --- ....... ------i 1 1 - 219 j Tb-"2b'"c'fii' haices ""*'"Q*tz "b" ---------- 3 110-20cm f^ng. weste Pof ---------L -.1... _ ...2.2.1 1 3 1 10-20 cm A ng waste ..pbsidian.. 4 "4 ....... 222 1 3 10-20 cm hekes 6b3ldian ........ ...... •"b" ' z ...... ...... ---" I -- .2 p.7.3.0 .cm Angwaste MV 7 2 0 --------- "•'227""i-'26*-'3*b"i;'iifi^ Ang waste piir i's"" ........ "2 ...... ...... 2""" "6" ii'io" "6" - Page 5 SDi-7306 Flake Cat :AT NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL SIZE 1 PATI COR SIZE 2 PAT :oR iSIZE^ IPAT ..9.. cg.R X SIZE 4 |PAt COR COMMENTS 228 •••229" 3 J 3 .2g-.3g.c.rn. 20-"30'cfii' Angweste hiaiceii qtz "MV"^ 9 0 1 0 0"* „ 2 2 0 ™L 0 X IPAT ..9.. cg.R X ZXZ X X - 230 -3 26-'3bc'riri Flekes l^'of 1 0 1 0 0"* „ 2 2 0 ™L 0 X IPAT ..9.. cg.R X ZXZ X X -231 -3 20-30 "cfii Flekes (Sz ^ 1 0 0 "0" 0 "•"**"*"i ........ ......L... IPAT ..9.. cg.R X ZXZ X X - 232 3 20-"30 cm Flakes bbsl"die"n 4 f"""**"*t*""*" 4 •*b"' 0 "0" 0 "•"**"*"i ........ ......L... IPAT ..9.. cg.R X ZXZ X X - 235 -3 3"b- 40 "cfii' Ang waste MV 4 f"""**"*t*""*" 4 •*b"' 0 "0" 0 "•"**"*"i ........ 0 ... "o" i" ....... ........ ZJZ .X .X -236 -3 30-40 ij'iifi .Ang waste Por Qtz 5 *""""i 2 ...... 0 "*o" 5 *i 0 •**6*" 0 ... "o" i" ....... ........ ZJZ .X .X - 237 -3 30-40 cfii' Ang waste Por Qtz 5 *""""i 2 ...... 0 "*o" 5 *i 0 •**6*" 0 ... "o" i" ....... ........ ZJZ .X .X - 6 16-46 cm Flekes I'or 1 u 0 1 D 0 ------ 239 1 - ^ 3 '30-40 crii^ i\ng wesite 1 1 bbsiljian 1 0 0 24b 1 3 36-40 cm > hekes Obsidian 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------- 242 i 6 40-sb cfii Ang weste Pof 1 1 0 m - '•"244""*|sfiP-1'6 S .S".5g.c.nii. 1 6-'2b'i;"iifi Ang waste Flake qtz "Pof .1 ...9... "i *6*" ...... _ Page 6 SDi-7306 Fleked tool Cet CAT NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT! LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL PAT COR LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT COMMENTS 1 Shot *i -1 Surfece.^. iCofij MV „...y y 64.2 53.3 37.8 150.9 - 4 """Shdt*'*"3 -i "t" Surifece Utilized flake Por ™y..... 48.8 34.7 16.5 2"476"" - ""5 Sfiot"*"'4 - i "t" Surface .li^.MlS.[5!StD*. Por y T" "~66.5 50.1 ' * 31.1" """i""8b79"" - 14 Shot *9 -j Surfece^ Htemm?^^^ Rv ....y. n 74.7 60.6 20.2 119.7 - Ss" •s*iiot"*'2""i' -1 Surfece Cof e tool Por .....y ....y....- n 76.5 "62.'7 .5*4.6 - 39 Shot *21 -1 ••*• Surface^ Por .....y ....y....-3Z '"52."7"" .-.. ... - 45 •s*iiot"'*"2'5 -I i S"urface^ .B5.0?M[5!ftl]l?. ZZEEZ ...j .n 54"8""*'" 57,1 38 128.8 - 50 Sfio*t"'*28 - •..|. j siii f face Core *P*of* .y... n 44.7 - 55 siio't *36 -1 .Surface^ .Hammers^^ MV „y .ii.. .... """5"97i""" ........... 3*8.8 i 56.3 - '•'•'59 Sho't"*3i -i J. Surface Sim^ne^ Por. ....y..... "" 7"8"7""" 44."5" 56 243.3 .^P.^.M.?..!?.??.???. •'61" S'iiot""'*"32"''"' - i J. .8.?ID.!i(!?.r.?l9-'li ZjPor~ .....y..... ....y..._ .....yZ .-..y..„.. 58.4 "56.2 ....„._... - 67 Sfior*'3'6"""' -1 I ..4. ..?.y.S9£?.... .Sisiif]!!!.!!?.?.?.^!?., .ZZpJr.ZZ .....y..... ....y..._ .....yZ .-..y..„.. •""59"4"** "SB'— 308.7 - •""73 •S"ii'*ciit'*"38 -T ..ijj.rif9.5?.-. "Core Z'Z'^PLZ.". „..„y ...."[I.-.. •""9778*" ~42 "317.6 - '84 S"fiot"*46" -"i' "f-( "fSmrm Por......... y .ZyZ ""34171*" 9b •"• ""'""s"ii"ot"*'52 - "i' "f-( Surfece 'core „...„... .y....„ y io'is 4*4 >50ib7 • - 100 sfiot *6i -i ..Surfece .!i?.!)[).^5.r.?.?.9.n?. Gran ...„y. :...y,... 138.3 90.5 no.l >500. - 101 siioii *64 -T Surface Core itool Pof •jbb.T 90.4 42.3 >50iO". - 112 sfiot *71 -1 ..4. Surfece 1 Core Pof .y. ....y... 53.7 1 41.2 , 60.2 169.5 - "•i'i'4""" • •"•s"iiot""*"7*3" -i 1 Surfece 1 Core tool MV y n 52.3 30.7 23.4 493 - 123 sfiot *79 I a « • M«***a»v>**« •••a* 119.2 -• Surface iia rfi file fistone MV 73.6 56.2 52.8 289.4 208 -3 ........ I ..4. p.-ig.cm. .!i?.!)[!I!}.5.t!?.?.9.f!?. Por. .....y y 56.8 57.7 6i 234.4 - 233 -!20-30cm Cofetiiioi F>of y 43.1 24.9 .. ....^..^ 28.3 - 245 sfiot *57 -t 1 Surface fiemiinefsitiine! Pof n 57.9 52.4 22.5 69 - 247 -3 i 10-20 Core itooi Por y r* 344 15.1 3i.d ffeg. Paae 1 SDi-7306 Groundstone Cat CAT NO. i PROVENIENCE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT HATERIAL LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT '">500." FACES COMMENTS 3 j 'siioii *2 -Sijffeiie fla no Gren_^ i rs.r •""76.1*"" ^52*"**" WEIGHT '">500." """2""" .FARfreg! I.reg. Ffiig. "FAi? "frag": 40 1 Shot*21 -Surfece Mefate 1 Gre^^^^^^ 56.1 ""•'374.*7'" "1" .FARfreg! I.reg. Ffiig. "FAi? "frag": 91 ................ 1 Shot *53 •[s'iiot'*'7'i Surfece Suffiice .Metate Risiiii .._..Gfeii Grefi "59*8"*" ....... 6 srs*"" 9079 •>aa a a aB«*a««4*«a4fe><«a*« «. 32.9 *"*i'l4"3""*" „™„„..-.. T560"'" "'""*i "2""*""" .FARfreg! I.reg. Ffiig. "FAi? "frag": 1 1 1 i sfiot *7'l -Surfece . Re'tete Gran._ 235.4 f24 •>aa a a aB«*a««4*«a4fe><«a*« «. 32.9 *"*i'l4"3""*" >500 " 1 .F.AR.freg. 113 1 siiot" *72 -Sufifece Metate iGrari 235.4 •a a« a••11afe»a««*«> 239 ^9-9-g ""^"•>500 T Frag, ffeg. 142 1 "sii'oii*! -..Surfece Bowl .....Gren 240 118.1 a B«**i *' 133.9 >500. 1 Frag, ffeg. i'8*6 i' Fia iio iGran l"07.9 "6"4"9 """""37.2"""" i ImiZZZZ. Freg. 209 1 3 6-ibcm Mario Por 73.7 "3872 1« •«aMBa«t*afl *•••«' 75.9 2"'"'" ImiZZZZ. Freg. 99 1 Shot *60 -Surifece pisstie Por 180.6 ib4' i 637"5 >56"b. 1 Page 1 I I I I f i t t i i SDi-7308 CATALOGUES SDI-7308 Master Cat. :AT. NO. 'i PROVENIENCEIUNIT S'fiiit'"*"i}"""-"* LEVEL Surirace .....A.RT.I..FACT.. MATERIAL MV NO. ........ WEIGHT ....™.„.. COMMENTS 2 3 4 5 siioii *2 1 - S'fii)t*'*3r**'-"" "s"iior*"4!""•- sfiiit *5 "l""'- '" Surfa|ce ^ Suffa^^^^^^ SurfsM^ Surfece Wstonc "Xojk^ZZ .......B,i5j?.d.5..... Core Purjgleglass ..Z.ZP?.L....Z Purple glass 1 ....... 15.4 '8**5*"" ." 2 3 4 5 siioii *2 1 - S'fii)t*'*3r**'-"" "s"iior*"4!""•- sfiiit *5 "l""'- '" Surfa|ce ^ Suffa^^^^^^ SurfsM^ Surfece Wstonc "Xojk^ZZ .......B,i5j?.d.5..... Core Por 1 426.8 , - 6 Siwit *6 1 -siifface Retouch flake MV 1 15.2 ^ - 7 sfiiit"*? 1 -Surifece Ang. waste Por 1 is.i - 8 ^ Siiioii *8 1 -Surface Ang. weste Por 1 i3.3 - 9 "sfiiit *9 i -Sufifiice Ang. weste MV 1 7 - 10 sfiot * i b 1 -Surface Feunel Shell 3 b.i - 11 "Sf(5*l 1 -ib-2bciTfi Ang. weste MV Por 1 .... 2.1 •"T8*67*6** - 12 sfp*i 1 -10-20 cm Ang.weste ^ MV Por 1 .... 2.1 •"T8*67*6** - 13 sfi:" *5 1 -' 10-20 cm Ang. waste Pof 1 0.4 - Page 1 SDI-7308 Flake Cet CAT. NO. PROVENIENCE UNITj LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL SIZE 1 PAT COR SIZE 2 PAT COR filZF 3 PAT COR SIZE 4 PATiCORiCOMr' 1 ; sfiot *i - j Surfece Flake MY ------1 1 0 - 3 ! siioii *3 - i sljffeiie Fteke i=>of --------_ 1 7 sfiot *7 - j Siififace Ang. waste Por ---------1 ;-rrov 8 Shoit*8 - i Surface Ang. waste Por ---------1 i i i i-9 sfiot *9 - j Surifece Ang. waiite MV --------1 i i 6 I- 11 sfp *i - 1 ib-2bcm! A lig. wasite MV ---1 1 0 ---- . - i - !- 12 sfp *i - 1 10-20 cm Ang. weste Pof ---------1 :"T-"T-t: 13 sfp *5 - i id-20cm Ang. wasite Por ---i 1 0 -----i-l- Page 1 SDi-7308 Flaked Tool Cat CAT. NO.l PROVENIENCE iUNITI LEVEL ARTIFACT j MATERIAL .PAL y cg.R yZ LENGTH i 36!*6' .,„_.... WIDTH • 85.3 28.8 THICKNESS " "29.6 "" To^ WEIGHT jCOMMENTS *'4*26.*8"r-5 1 'sfiot *5 \ - 1 Suriface isi""" Stioit""*i61-""T" sij rftiie""" Cofe 1 Por .PAL y cg.R yZ LENGTH i 36!*6' .,„_.... WIDTH • 85.3 28.8 THICKNESS " "29.6 "" To^ WEIGHT jCOMMENTS *'4*26.*8"r-5 1 'sfiot *5 \ - 1 Suriface isi""" Stioit""*i61-""T" sij rftiie""" Retouch fla"k(| hlV y n LENGTH i 36!*6' .,„_.... WIDTH • 85.3 28.8 THICKNESS " "29.6 "" To^ WEIGHT jCOMMENTS *'4*26.*8"r- Page 1 SDi-11434 CATALOGUES SDI-11434 Master Cat CAT NO.IPROYENIENCEIUNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL ' aH*H*B>*»*BaH«V**>a*a »ai Per ZZ&ZZl pir"""" -™. MV""* •«a»*H*a**a M*a aa a • • *• a« MV. ^ Pof"" NO. ....... ....... ....... 2 .......... T" WEIGHT "*""*0."4 •" *b.2*"*"* ""••"0.2 *"""'67"9" •" CgMMENTS 1 1 Shot*l 1 - 21siiot"*!i"- „Surfece Surftce .Ang wMte '"h'aiies*""* MATERIAL ' aH*H*B>*»*BaH«V**>a*a »ai Per ZZ&ZZl pir"""" -™. MV""* •«a»*H*a**a M*a aa a • • *• a« MV. ^ Pof"" NO. ....... ....... ....... 2 .......... T" WEIGHT "*""*0."4 •" *b.2*"*"* ""••"0.2 *"""'67"9" •" CgMMENTS 3 1 sfiot *2 1 -Surfece Flakeii MATERIAL ' aH*H*B>*»*BaH«V**>a*a »ai Per ZZ&ZZl pir"""" -™. MV""* •«a»*H*a**a M*a aa a • • *• a« MV. ^ Pof"" NO. ....... ....... ....... 2 .......... T" WEIGHT "*""*0."4 •" *b.2*"*"* ""••"0.2 *"""'67"9" •" CgMMENTS 4 1 siioii *3 1 - '51s'ho't""*4"'"]-""" Surface Surifece Flakes , """hiikes"'" MATERIAL ' aH*H*B>*»*BaH«V**>a*a »ai Per ZZ&ZZl pir"""" -™. MV""* •«a»*H*a**a M*a aa a • • *• a« MV. ^ Pof"" NO. ....... ....... ....... 2 .......... T" WEIGHT "*""*0."4 •" *b.2*"*"* ""••"0.2 *"""'67"9" •" CgMMENTS 4 1 siioii *3 1 - '51s'ho't""*4"'"]-""" Surface Surifece Flakes , """hiikes"'" MATERIAL ' aH*H*B>*»*BaH«V**>a*a »ai Per ZZ&ZZl pir"""" -™. MV""* •«a»*H*a**a M*a aa a • • *• a« MV. ^ Pof"" NO. ....... ....... ....... 2 .......... T" 0.8 i'.'7 "*"**"6"*3 "0.5 "**"**"b73 .2.1CM?.")..?!.!!:;* 6 1 siio't *5 ! -Surface Flakes MATERIAL ' aH*H*B>*»*BaH«V**>a*a »ai Per ZZ&ZZl pir"""" -™. MV""* •«a»*H*a**a M*a aa a • • *• a« MV. ^ Pof"" NO. ....... ....... ....... 2 .......... T" 0.8 i'.'7 "*"**"6"*3 "0.5 "**"**"b73 .2.1CM?.")..?!.!!:;* 7 1 sfiot *6 i -Suriface ' Flakes MATERIAL ' aH*H*B>*»*BaH«V**>a*a »ai Per ZZ&ZZl pir"""" -™. MV""* •«a»*H*a**a M*a aa a • • *• a« MV. ^ Pof"" NO. ....... ....... ....... 2 .......... T" 0.8 i'.'7 "*"**"6"*3 "0.5 "**"**"b73 .2.1CM?.")..?!.!!:;* 8 1 siioii*? 1 -Surface Aiig waste MV. SlieiT" ......_,.„..„ """•"'sSi'i • "S"fie"i*i ' MV " "• 1 1 ......... 0.8 i'.'7 "*"**"6"*3 "0.5 "**"**"b73 .2.1CM?.")..?!.!!:;* 9 1 sfiot *8 1 -Suriface Flakes MV. SlieiT" ......_,.„..„ """•"'sSi'i • "S"fie"i*i ' MV " "• 1 1 ......... 0.8 i'.'7 "*"**"6"*3 "0.5 "**"**"b73 .2.1CM?.")..?!.!!:;* ib i si^iot*i'6 1 -Surfece^ .Surface .Surftce^.™ "SunSce .Faunal.... Feuiw^^ FeuriiiT Fami MV. SlieiT" ......_,.„..„ """•"'sSi'i • "S"fie"i*i ' MV " "• 1 1 ......... "0.1 - 11 l"2 i '3 "• Shot*ll i - *"'sii"dit*'*i''f *•']'•'•- ""Shiir*T3"" T""- Surfece^ .Surface .Surftce^.™ "SunSce .Faunal.... Feuiw^^ FeuriiiT Fami MV. SlieiT" ......_,.„..„ """•"'sSi'i • "S"fie"i*i ' MV " "• 3 ........ ....... i r 0.5 "'•"*""b"5" ""'""67i""""" b.i "*""""2""3 — 14 Shot*i4 1 -Surface Fauiief MV. SlieiT" ......_,.„..„ """•"'sSi'i • "S"fie"i*i ' MV " "• 3 ........ ....... i r 0.5 "'•"*""b"5" ""'""67i""""" b.i "*""""2""3 •" 15 Sfp*2 1 -10-20cm Flekes MV. SlieiT" ......_,.„..„ """•"'sSi'i • "S"fie"i*i ' MV " "• 3 ........ ....... i r 0.5 "'•"*""b"5" ""'""67i""""" b.i "*""""2""3 •" 16 i"? Sfp'*(5 1 - ZZZZZZZLX: .. . g- l O cm '"" 0-1 o" cfii""" ..Jjake3.._ hakes MV 1 3 f 0.3 .1 18 T"9 •"• — 1 1 .....g- ig.cm... FJek.es i^ng weste Por "fiV" 1 2 0.2 ...... - 20 1 1 i0-26 cm . heices t MV 6 6.7 - 21 1 1 i6-20 cm ' hisTkes Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 0.1 - 22 i 1 Flekes Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 2.3 ""•""T.isi b.2 .i.$il.iir$9. 23 1 1 2b-30cm Point Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 2.3 ""•""T.isi b.2 .i.$il.iir$9. 24 1 'ZMZlZZZZZIZl 1 'i .....3.0-40 cm ""3b-4bcm*"" Ang weste Ang waste Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 2.3 ""•""T.isi b.2 .i.$il.iir$9. 24 1 'ZMZlZZZZZIZl 1 'i .....3.0-40 cm ""3b-4bcm*"" Ang weste Ang waste Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 0.1 "b"i b.4 b".*5" - 26 1 27 1 • 1 """i .....30-40 cm ""3b-"4b"cm""' Angweste i^ing wesite Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 0.1 "b"i b.4 b".*5" - 28 1 - i 1 ' 30-40 crii Fle.!fl?„.„ i^ng weste Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 0.1 "b"i b.4 b".*5" - 29 I - i i 40-50 cm Fle.!fl?„.„ i^ng weste Qtz "Rv" ""Q'fz""" .W.. _ ZZQEZ Chert MV """fiv' 1 •4 i' 3 ......... ........ r ....... rj" 0.1 "b"i b.4 b".*5" - 30 1 - i 1 40-50 cm Ang weste Por 2 ! 0.3 - 3i f - Jl 46-5bciTri Flakes MY 3 3.9 - 32 i - i i 50-60 cm Ang weste Rv 1 0.1 - 33 1 - j i 5b-6bciiri Ang waste Chert 2 2.3 - 34 1 - 111 50-60cm Rv 8 \ 1.3 - 35 i - lil 6b-7bcm Anq waste i MV 1 b.i : _ Page 1 SDi-11434 Mester Cet CAT NO .IPROYENIENCEIUNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL M"V* NO. '•a««B«tB«« 3 WEIGHT VftHH««*«B«««« a t*tt 9tt 3.4 COMMENTS 36 1 - 1 i 60 - 7b*c*iTri FleiSiT MATERIAL M"V* NO. '•a««B«tB«« 3 WEIGHT VftHH««*«B«««« a t*tt 9tt 3.4 - 37 1 - 1 i ^ ....7g-8gcm... Angji/este MY 3 0.4 - 3*8 1 .i _.. ! ' ""76-8p'cip ...FlakM J. 2" "'"""o.r""'" - 39...] - I._l_. 8b"-"90"ic'rii"" iAng weste ""2" " "o7i .... „».....„ - 40 1 - 11 8g-9gcm.., .^i!39..yS*i?. '"*3" - *4i IZZEZZXIZ " "8"0-96'c"fii* * Flekes" MY 2 «„..._...., - 42 1 - t 1 90- lOb 'crifi*! Ajig WMte ZZMZZ i g......... - 43 1 " • ^ ...?g-.ipgcm Pof i *"*""67*5"""""" - 44"* •j"Ii "9b-"T6'oi:ilri hekes ' "ri"v f - 45 1 - 11 I'ob-i i"bcm Ang weste '••a aia a««a««a«BB*a tm* Ang weste Cofiiitiior Chert ZZEEZ 1 ..... ......... b.6 b""i •• 46 •4"?"' i - 1 i ' .1.1.0-. 1..2g.c.m.. 3b"-*46"cfii" Ang weste '••a aia a««a««a«BB*a tm* Ang weste Cofiiitiior Chert ZZEEZ 1 ..... ......... b.6 b""i •• 46 •4"?"' i - 1 i ' .1.1.0-. 1..2g.c.m.. 3b"-*46"cfii" Ang weste '••a aia a««a««a«BB*a tm* Ang weste Cofiiitiior Chert ZZEEZ 1 ..... ......... 28.5 - Psge 2 SDi-11434 Fleked tool Cat CAT NO.iPROVENIENCE UNIT} LEVEL [ARTIFACT MATERIAL PAT COR LENGTH! WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHTjCOMMENTS 23 1 i j2b-36cfn*i i^oiiit »a«aa aa**^^BB«4tB«B aaa a a Por y n 12.2 [ 17.3 7.8 1 1.6 J Base freg 4? 1 - i 1 130-40 cmi Core tool »a«aa aa**^^BB«4tB«B aaa a a Por y y 49.*4* 1 19 26.8 "28.5 i- Page 1 SDi-11434 Flake Cet CAT NO.iPROVENIENCE •I-Shot *1 Shot *1 Shot *3 9 i's 16" I Shot *4 i siiot *5 IShi3T'"**6" jsiiiot"*?" Shot *8 •"Sfp""*2"* •"Sfp""*i6" UNIT ...LEVEL... .Surirace^ Surfface ..Surface Suifjface S^urface. .Sufiface Surfece .Surface T"b"-"2bc*m" ARTIFACT Angwaste. "hakes " Fiakes^. ....III!?.?.?-... ,1M??.,.. ...Jlsls.*?-... ......fJ?.K??...... lA*ng.wi^^^ haiciss SIZE 1 Por MY PAT ....... ......... COR ......... ....™„ SIZE 2iPAT T""!!"" SIZE 3 PAT COR SIZE 4 PAT COR COMM 1? ....... ....... 20 ....... •22 0-.igcm. O'-i'biiiiri" Flakes, /jakes. hakes 0-..l.gc.m T"br*26"crii .1.g-2.p..cm TgJ^g^ 2b.3£9iif). 30-40 "crii* Flakes Angwaste. "hekes ..MY. Pof MV ......... ZEl. for 1 1 XII 3 i 3 24 '25" 26 27 28 .30-40 cm •3"b-'4'6''cfii" _ Makes ....SM.??.... Ang wasite Angweste 2 ! 2 .3g-4gc.m 3b-46"cni Ang.W83te Angwaste heices C'hert' Rv 29 30 3i .4g.-.50c.m "lib'-^sbcfii Angweste i^ingweste hekes ..dY.. Por ..1 j.....1.. IZIjX 32 33 34 35 36" 37 38 39 40 ......... .4g-5.pcm. .5S:Mlfiii. sb-eo'cni .Angwaste haices MV "c'fiefT ""'"Rv""" .6g-7gc.m 6 b-"'? 6 "cfii .7g-8pcm 7b-'86"cfii^ Angwaste hekes Angwaste MV fiv" 6 I 6^ 1 ,:,„.|.... 0 - ! — 80-90 crn •8b-96'crii •8b-9bi;'iifi^ Flakes Angwaste Angwasiie hakes MV _. ........ MV [ - I i — i 1 1110 i i i i 6 "4 Page 1 SDI-11434 Flake Cat CAT NO.IPROYENIENCEIUNIT z.42Z]zzzz:zTjn .......LEVEL.... 9b-i6'"6""c"m ARTIFACT MATERIAL ^IZE 1 PAT COR SIZE 2 PAT SIZE 3 PAT COR SIZE 4 PAT COR COMM CAT NO.IPROYENIENCEIUNIT z.42Z]zzzz:zTjn .......LEVEL.... 9b-i6'"6""c"m Ang waste MV 1 1 0 43 1 - j 1 96-ib"6'cfiil Ang weste Por „^.™ —— - 1 ........ ' *""i 1 1 ......... 0 ' 1 "o" — ........ 90-100 cm Flaiices Por „^.™ —— - 1 ........ ' *""i 1 1 ......... 0 ' 1 "o" — ........ 45 1 - i i 00-11Ocn Anq wasite PDL chert - - 1 ........ ' *""i 1 1 ......... 0 ' 1 "o" — ........ 46 1 - i 1 |10-120cn Ang waste MV 1 1 0 1 ........ ' *""i 1 1 ......... 0 ' 1 "o" — ........ Page 2 SDi-11439 CATALOGUES SDi-11439 Mester Cat CAT NO.iPROVENIENCEl UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS "i 1 sfiot*! 1 -siifface Ang. wasite ... '"5.2 - 2 1 Shot*2 i -Surfece Make........ Por 1 1.4 - 3 i siiot *3 1 -Surface Ang. wasite Rv ...... 4"."8" - 4 1 siio't *5 1 -Surface haice M"V 1 2.4 - 5 1 "siiot *i5 1 -Surface Ang.weste MV 1 0.8 - 6 1 Shot *6 1 -Suriface Faunal "Slieii" 1 0.2 - Page 1 301-11439 Flake Cat CAT NO.IPROYENIENCEIUNIT Shot *1 'S**hcit**'**2* s'fio'r*"3 siioii *'5 •sfio*t****6 ......, LEVEL i ARTIFACT .?.y.r.i9!?.?..|.^.n9:..y.?.?i?, I.y.ll^§p.l&9:..'!!^l9?.^$. ;l.y.'cft9.?.i.....Q?.^?.„... Surfece lAfig. waste MATERIAL R'v " ""Pof ht»*a«BBMB«*«««*H MY SIZE 1 PAT COR SIZE 2 PAT COR SIZE 3 PAT COR SIZE 4PATC0reC0MMENTS """""i"'["'T Page 1 SDi-11440 CATALOGUES I I SDI-11440 Master Cat CAT NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT LEVEL ARTI.FACTi MAT NO. WEIGHT .CgMMENTS 1 ^ siio't*! -Surface ISriij^wasiief MV" ........ 57i .CgMMENTS 2 ^ sfiot *2 -Suriface Core 1 Por 1 45*5 - 3 siioii *3 -Surface h'a"ke T Por 1 •3.2 - Page 1 SDi-11440 Flake Cat :AT NO.|PROVENIENCE|UNITi LEVEL jARTIFACT MATERIALBIZE 1 PAT COR SIZE 2 PAT COR SIZE 3 i 1 .Shot * j [...-...iSurfacejA^ 3'siiot*3r'"-""|surifece!hiaiiiis !iV„......L._....... _ _ " ••• -PAX „.....„ CORjSIZE 4 - 1 i" ""i'"r- PAT ....... CORICOMMENTS 6 1- Page SDI-11440 Flaked tool Cet CAT NO. "2 PROVENIENCE! UNITj LEVEL | ARTIFAC^MATERIAL PAT CORI LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT! COMMENTS CAT NO. "2 siiot *2 1 - 1 Suriface I Cofe i Pof y y i "87.9 60.2 69.'$ 455 I- Page 1 SDi-11441 CATALOGUES SDI-11441 Mester Cat CAT NO.IPROYENIENCEIUNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL P*o"f" NO. T WEIGHT *39*77 ^ COMMENTS 1 1 isfP*'3 1 - 2 i sfiot"*!1"- 3 1 siiot *"21- •2Q-5gc.m ....§.y.r.f55.?. Surfece Flake MATERIAL P*o"f" NO. T WEIGHT *39*77 ^ " — 1 1 isfP*'3 1 - 2 i sfiot"*!1"- 3 1 siiot *"21- •2Q-5gc.m ....§.y.r.f55.?. Surfece Ang..yeste Afig. waste Pof 1 WEIGHT *39*77 ^ " — 1 1 isfP*'3 1 - 2 i sfiot"*!1"- 3 1 siiot *"21- •2Q-5gc.m ....§.y.r.f55.?. Surfece Ang..yeste Afig. waste Por 1 46.8 - 4 1 sfiot *3 1 - • 51siiot"*4i-"*"" Surface Mano frag J5ran Por 1 i 418.5 "*'"T*5**6**" — 4 1 sfiot *3 1 - • 51siiot"*4i-"*"" Surfece F*la"k*e J5ran Por 1 i 418.5 "*'"T*5**6**" — P:age 1 SDI-11441 Flake Cet CAT NOjPROVENIENCEUNITj LEVEL 1 *Tsfp""*3T"-""i2ib::;36*clm 2 i siio"t *i i-i Surface Shot *2 siiot *4 •j-- ! Surface Surface Ang^ westel Por.. Fleke Por ARTIFACTiMATERlALiSIZE iPATfcOR^lZE 2FATiC0R heke I Pof Ang. westei i'of SIZE 3FATK:OR i 1 1 SIZE 4 PAT CgRjCgMMENJS 1 - ...9..;. t r 0 i- Page 1 SDI-11441 Groundstone Cet Q.A.I.Ng.iPROVENIENCEiUNIT| LEVEL ! ARTIFACT iMATERIALiLENGTH 4 Is'hot'**'3j"'"-rs*u'f''fa'ce'!""'Ma"ii"o^^^^ 'cfafi r"74.'8' WIDTH '""72*2" THICKNESS! WEIGHT|FACES|COMMENTS 48.2" • |-4jg;5™p"2™-Y_- Page 1 SDi-11442 CATALOGUES SDi-11442 Master Cat CAT. NO.iPROVENIENCE UNIT , LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS «*••*» ataaaaaBtBt a«H«B**«>BB i j sfp*i -.g-igcm. "b-"i"6**c**fii"' .Fauna). fiisiiofic"" Shell Clear glasiJ H**HaBHM>a»HV«**t aa a a> Metel """•"sfieiT*"*'" 130 2 "f" ....„..., ....... 2" 25.3 Tis"'"' g........ COMMENTS «*••*» ataaaaaBtBt a«H«B**«>BB 2 1 3fP*i - .g-igcm. "b-"i"6**c**fii"' .Fauna). fiisiiofic"" Shell Clear glasiJ H**HaBHM>a»HV«**t aa a a> Metel """•"sfieiT*"*'" 130 2 "f" ....„..., ....... 2" 25.3 Tis"'"' g........ COMMENTS «*••*» ataaaaaBtBt a«H«B**«>BB 2 I 'sfP*l -O-ibiiiiri iiistofic Shell Clear glasiJ H**HaBHM>a»HV«**t aa a a> Metel """•"sfieiT*"*'" 130 2 "f" ....„..., ....... 2" 25.3 Tis"'"' g........ COMMENTS «*••*» ataaaaaBtBt a«H«B**«>BB 3 1 sfp*i -i b- 2b"ciiri Faunal Shell Clear glasiJ H**HaBHM>a»HV«**t aa a a> Metel """•"sfieiT*"*'" 130 2 "f" ....„..., ....... 2" 1.3 6""2" ............ -4 1 sfP*l 5 isfp"*'i — .20-3 g. crn. '36"-"4b""i:*rifi' .Fauna). Feu nai Shell ^"Shlifl 130 2 "f" ....„..., ....... 2" 1.3 6""2" ............ - "6 I sfp *4 7' "iSf"p""*? m 20-.3 Ocm Historic nake'"'" Cl ear gl ass 1 i 1.5 - 8 i sfiot *i ...DISCARD... Sufiface Faiihal ""sfieTi' .......... 9 Shot *2 - ...DISCARD... Sufiface Faiihal ""sfieTi' .......... 10 sfiot *'3 -Surface ! _CoreJtool. Faunal Chalcedony '"•""sfwif „„„She.U.Z!! 1 r ZIZ.. 101.1 ........ ....9J.Z ." r2 siidit *4 -Sju3ce j _CoreJtool. Faunal Chalcedony '"•""sfwif „„„She.U.Z!! 1 r ZIZ.. 101.1 ........ ....9J.Z ." r2 ....7...-Sur(§ce "DISCARD" _.JFaunaL^ Chalcedony '"•""sfwif „„„She.U.Z!! 1 r ZIZ.. 101.1 ........ ....9J.Z ." 13 i'4 ' * Shot *6 Shot'"*'?""*"* ....7...-Sur(§ce "DISCARD" _.JFaunaL^ Chalcedony '"•""sfwif „„„She.U.Z!! 1 r ZIZ.. 101.1 ........ ....9J.Z ." 13 i'4 ' * Shot *6 Shot'"*'?""*"* ....7...- Surface Surface Ang. wa3.te. Ang. waste ...Pgr. "*Pii"f 1 i i 13.6 "6 * " " 15 'siioii *'8 - Surface Surface Ang. wa3.te. Ang. waste ...Pgr. "*Pii"f 1 i i 13.6 "6 * " " 16 i^7 i^8 sfiot *8 "•""Sii'dt"*9 "" sfiiit""*! "b - .Surface ...Surfece silrfece i haice H*«t« *mtttttt • aa HBT«»*BP<. Ang. waste Faunal 1 „..MV ™. """""Shell" " Rv 1 i "5"9"" "'"'T' l9.i' B—aaa*—aB*«tT*Ba n 145 i*6."3 " 19 siio't *i i -Surfece Flake „..MV ™. """""Shell" " Rv 1 i "5"9"" "'"'T' 25.5 - 20 sfiot*!2 ^ -Surfece Ang. waste Por ••aa**a*B*BBa4*aB•***«•• Por 1 r 5."4 - 21 siio't *i3 -Surface Aiig. waste * Por ••aa**a*B*BBa4*aB•***«•• Por 1 r 0.6 - 23 sfiiit *i4 ^ ""'"siiot""**! "5 Surfece. Surifece Core frag "ijitTriiake"'^ .MV.. i^ii'f*" 1 """"i"'" , 32.5 "*"2*9*.*5"' 24 sfiiit *i7 • - "sijffece haic'e j MV 1 .....2..1..7Z •" 25 Siiiciit *i8 i)ISCARD .....2..1..7Z •" "26 sfiot *i9 -"Surfece i Flake Por 1 b.9 - Page 1 SDI-11442 heke Cet CAT NO. 7 PROVENIENCE I sfp"*? UNIT ......LEVEL... 20-30 cm ......„.„._.. ARTIFACT ZHsiSZ MATI.PJ.A!:. .Por. ?.!.?.L!. .QO.R ?.!.?.?._? PM COR BB aaaa**» SIZE 3 COR SIZE 4 PAT POR COMMENTS CAT NO. 7 PROVENIENCE I sfp"*? UNIT ......LEVEL... 20-30 cm ......„.„._.. ARTIFACT ZHsiSZ MATI.PJ.A!:. .Por. ?.!.?.L!. .QO.R ?.!.?.?._? PM COR BB aaaa**» 1 1 1 - i's Shot *6 ......LEVEL... 20-30 cm ......„.„._.. ARTIFACT ZHsiSZ MATI.PJ.A!:. .Por. ?.!.?.L!. .QO.R ?.!.?.?._? PM COR BB aaaa**» "X 14 •' "i's sfiiit *7 -_ Surfece.. Sijfi'ece ^.ng^^.weste ^rig. weste .Por... Pof" — — - COR BB aaaa**» "X X .......1 ...1... ...9. -14 •' "i's Shot *8 - _ Surfece.. Sijfi'ece ^.ng^^.weste ^rig. weste .Por... Pof" — — - COR BB aaaa**» "X X .......1 ...1... ...9. - i"?-'" sfiiit *8 '""Sii"dit'*'9" -Surfece Siifi'eiie" ......Flaice A fig. waste ""Fiikii*""'' .MV Pof Rv "X X 1 i" 1 ...... 0 i* - -^ Sufface ......Flaice A fig. waste ""Fiikii*""'' .MV Pof Rv "X -"i 1 n m 26 1 sfiot *i2 21 1 sii'ot'*l'3 24 1 •sfiiit"*"T'7 - Surface . ..Sufface Surface ftng. waste iing. waste h"la'k*e"""*j Por... Piif" "MY1 -....T... ZXI j'" 'JZ ....^— JT... -1 1 0 -26 1 sfiot *i2 21 1 sii'ot'*l'3 24 1 •sfiiit"*"T'7 - Surface . ..Sufface Surface ftng. waste iing. waste h"la'k*e"""*j Por... Piif" "MY1 -....T... ZXI j'" 'JZ ....^— JT... — ............ ....... - -Surifece haice Por --1 -1 1 1 ------ Page 1 SDi-11442 Fleked tool Cat CAT NO. ib" 22 23 1 PROVENIENCE iUNITi LEVEL "siioii *3 1* -1 " sijffeiS*"" siioii *i 4 1 -r's'iififii'ce*" Sfiii't *i "5 i >• i Sii'fface""" ARTIFACT. Cofe tMl" MATERIAL •t»*nmttmmt»mm*ttn*tmm*mmt Chalcedony PAT COR LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS! WEIGHT COMMENTS CAT NO. ib" 22 23 1 PROVENIENCE iUNITi LEVEL "siioii *3 1* -1 " sijffeiS*"" siioii *i 4 1 -r's'iififii'ce*" Sfiii't *i "5 i >• i Sii'fface""" ARTIFACT. Cofe tMl" MATERIAL •t»*nmttmmt»mm*ttn*tmm*mmt Chalcedony y n 5*8.'4 33.2 iBA ibi.i - CAT NO. ib" 22 23 1 PROVENIENCE iUNITi LEVEL "siioii *3 1* -1 " sijffeiS*"" siioii *i 4 1 -r's'iififii'ce*" Sfiii't *i "5 i >• i Sii'fface""" Core frag MY y ..jy... y 51.6 ^ 348 i 16 1 3"2.5 CAT NO. ib" 22 23 1 PROVENIENCE iUNITi LEVEL "siioii *3 1* -1 " sijffeiS*"" siioii *i 4 1 -r's'iififii'ce*" Sfiii't *i "5 i >• i Sii'fface""" Util fiake Por y ..jy... y 58.7 473 TBS I "29.5 Page 1 SDi-11570 CATALOGUES SDi-11570 Master Cat CAT. NO.IPROVENIENCE 4 "5 6 STP ON/IOW STP ON/IOW STP ON/IOW STP ON/IOW STP ON/IOW sfp"bfi"720w STP 0N/20W STP ON/30W UNIT LEVEL 0-1Ocm 0-1Ocm 0-1Ocm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm .2g-.3p.cm b-l*0*c'fii" 0-10cm 10-20 cm ARTIFACT A iig. waste • aaaB»*»B«a»M«»»*MM a* "i Flakes .A.ng^waste^ Ang.weste .Meno.frag. ..^iD.9;.li?&?J.?.., Flake hake toir Aiigrwasite*' {.waste MATERIAL Pof" Por MY aHMtaa* Por Por *"P*o*f p5r' _ *"M*V NO T WEIGHT 0.2 0.3 •"o.r 92."5 **"9.3""' 10.5 O.i 0.2 COMMENTS 10 ....... ...... 13 ...... 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26* 27 2'8" 29 30 31 STP 1 OS/OE > * Bxa a a ara aifanv! fBvif •<« • STP 1QS/0E sjpjim/m srrfMTiJE* "sfi^ 303/"6"E" g.-.i.g.cm Tg^j^Ocm b-""i"6"i;"m 10-20 cm Ang.yj^ Por piif™ 0.2 STP 30S/0E • .g-..10cm iQ-lQcifn"' T"b-"26"c"rii* ..A.ng...\^*te Por STP -A' STP "A" ""st'p""A""" i»naanVtaa*«tin a ••• STP "A" 10-20 cm TiO^WFm '2b-"'30'cfii' ,.20-.?.Qcm 3b-46cm' ReJ^ .Tfake .Ang. waste MY 2.2 67 i Por Pof 9. 2.4 Flake mm MV 5.2 •"T Boirie Por 0.3 0.1 STP "A" 30-40 cm Flake •Af]5ry?3te STP "A" 30-40 cm STP "A" "sfP'^A"" sfp "B"" 4g-..5gc.m. .ipZlf.pi^i. I.9£2.g.cm zo-'soS^ Ang.weste ZIIMEZ. Pgr ....... 2.2 Te" .P.o.r. Pof" Faunal MV MV STP T- sjp'-c= SfFC' Shell Pof 32 I 33r 34 zs" STP "C .i.g-.2g.c.m 2"b'-3gcm 20-'3 0 ciifi' ..l.£.30..cm "30-40icfiT[r Ang.weste Flaka Ang. weste Ang. waste n.afce...."* |. wasite h"a"ic"e Por Por Pof" 0.6 _ "6*8 aaaasaaaM 5.9 <"6.i a<a*a*t**«1 J '0.2 <0.1 •*ttmtt*»ttt**t 47.2 MV i«Ba**»>«t4« .Por ........ 0.1 b.'e b.5 Page 1 SDI-11570 Master Cat CAT. NO. PROVENIENCEIUNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT . NO. ...... •BBBa»BBB 1 37* *'8" WEIGHT •"'"ib*;? 0.8 COMMENTS 36 37 SfPX" 1 - STPX" •"•j- • ..4g-.5g.c.m 4b'-"50ciifi Ang. waste """F'fekis Po.r NO. ...... •BBBa»BBB 1 37* *'8" WEIGHT •"'"ib*;? 0.8 COMMENTS 38 i i 0-1Ocm Por NO. ...... •BBBa»BBB 1 37* *'8" 69,1 ,.„.._..... — 1 i 6- ibi; iifi Ang. wSiie MV NO. ...... •BBBa»BBB 1 37* *'8" 69,1 ,.„.._..... — -0-1Ocm Ang.weste .Qtz 4 0.3 _ 41 -1 6-iblim Ang. wes^e 2 0.1 .-.._..„ 42 1 0-1Ocm Fleiceii Por 5 0.1 .-.._..„ - 43 -1 6-ibciiri Flakes MY 7 15.6 - 44 -1 0-1Ocm Flakes ..gbsidian^ ........gj...„ 3 2" ..... 1.1 - 45 -1 0-1Ocm Fa u nai ..gbsidian^ ........gj...„ 3 2" ..... 1.1 - 46 -1 0-1Ocm Retouch flake Por . 3 2" ..... 18.1 47 -1 0-1Ocm Cofe frag ^Por Gran 1 *"T" 2"9 ata 1 ...... '6* ...... ...... 3* i 58.7 276 l'2.3"*'"' ""aa ttt tt tl*, tm mttt ttttm aH*a*>**BBBB a**i • • tttt tt 48 ••""49 ••"•-1 T**"" 0-lOcm T*0-*"2b7t;'fiTi lleitatefrM ta a aa ata 1 a tttmt imfrnt^t^ a a (a • »• An|. ^Por Gran 1 *"T" 2"9 ata 1 ...... '6* ...... ...... 3* i 58.7 276 l'2.3"*'"' ""aa ttt tt tl*, tm mttt ttttm aH*a*>**BBBB a**i • • tttt tt 50 -1 1d-20 cm ii^f^. waste W bbiifdiart" '••aB*BB«B«B*»*ta***B*a aaa Por ZZEiZZ ..9M?ii?.!i„.. Bone MV 1 *"T" 2"9 ata 1 ...... '6* ...... ...... 3* i 58.7 276 l'2.3"*'"' ""aa ttt tt tl*, tm mttt ttttm aH*a*>**BBBB a**i • • tttt tt - 51 52 :• 1 1 ..ig-2.gcm "}"b':20cm Ang. waste """Fi*d'ices* hakes""" "h"aice""^ W bbiifdiart" '••aB*BB«B«B*»*ta***B*a aaa Por ZZEiZZ ..9M?ii?.!i„.. Bone MV 1 *"T" 2"9 ata 1 ...... '6* ...... ...... 3* i i*a a**** 0.2 "•""T7.2"'"" ............ 7o".'i" IWtttt^t ttt tmttmt*wmttttr* ttttt mttttttttt"tmtmmmimm ftt ft ttt tft tttt 53 54 -1 ..l..g.-.20.cm ib-2bc"iTi Ang. waste """Fi*d'ices* hakes""" "h"aice""^ W bbiifdiart" '••aB*BB«B«B*»*ta***B*a aaa Por ZZEiZZ ..9M?ii?.!i„.. Bone MV 1 *"T" 2"9 ata 1 ...... '6* ...... ...... 3* i i*a a**** 0.2 "•""T7.2"'"" ............ 7o".'i" IWtttt^t ttt tmttmt*wmttttr* ttttt mttttttttt"tmtmmmimm ftt ft ttt tft tttt 53 54 1 ..l..g.-.20.cm ib-2bc"iTi Ang. waste """Fi*d'ices* hakes""" "h"aice""^ W bbiifdiart" '••aB*BB«B«B*»*ta***B*a aaa Por ZZEiZZ ..9M?ii?.!i„.. Bone MV 1 *"T" 2"9 ata 1 ...... '6* ...... ...... 3* i i*a a**** 0.2 "•""T7.2"'"" ............ 7o".'i" - 55 S'6 -1"""' ..i.&.2g.cm .. j....^.„...._ Fauna]' Core W bbiifdiart" '••aB*BB«B«B*»*ta***B*a aaa Por ZZEiZZ ..9M?ii?.!i„.. Bone MV 1 *"T" 2"9 ata 1 ...... '6* ...... ...... 3* i ' 6.7 -ib-2b cfii. Meteite ffeg ^ Gren 1 *2i.6 — 58 J -1 20-30 cm piir 18 3.4 — 59 1 20-30 cm Ang. wesite MY Q'tz 1 b.2 - 63^ ..2p-3g.c.m. FTelces zzzsnzx Flake bbisidiiiii Por MV Qitz* 2 . "3* . ... i 1 i 6*.2 . s.'s'""*" ""T"8.'7 .7. 6S -ii 2U-3g.cm FTelces zzzsnzx Flake bbisidiiiii Por MV Qitz* 2 . "3* . ... i 1 i 0.1 673"' "b7"3" 6".4 ""•'"• .7. 6S -ii 2U-3g.cm Bone " '"Si'dfe 2 . "3* . ... i 1 i 0.1 673"' "b7"3" 6".4 ""•'"• .7. 67 '68 - l..iZIZiM35Li^^ Bone " '"Si'dfe 2 . "3* . ... i 1 i 0.1 673"' "b7"3" 6".4 ""•'"• if fag; shai»*d 67 '68 - l..iZIZiM35Li^^ Ang. waste iPof ^ 2 . "3* . ... i 1 i 0.1 673"' "b7"3" 6".4 ""•'"• •70 Shiit**21" -f 'siiirftce Ang. waste ...!... .....4,3. i - •70 Shiit**21" -f 'siiirftce Ang. waste Por ill 12 - Page 2 SDi-11570 Master Cat CAT. NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT COMMENTS 71 Shot *3 -Sufifece Ang. waste Por 1 44 — 72 Shot *3 -Surfece Hammerstone MV 1 170.4 used first as core ' 73 S"fiii"t *3 -Surface Menoffftg Gran 1 0;9 74 75 Shot *4 -•Shi)t""*"4 _ .S,urf8ce.. Surifisce Ang, waste Por 3 6.3 -74 75 Shot *4 -•Shi)t""*"4 _ .S,urf8ce.. Surifisce Flaice Por 1 6.1 - 76 Shot *5 -Surfece Hemmerstone frag Por" "MV" 1 IBBBMB* 1 r ...... ..... "F 12.8 T343 "" ""'"45*" 179" T.is" "• i".'9 m 77 . siiot *5 -Surfece Core Por" "MV" 1 IBBBMB* 1 r ...... ..... "F 12.8 T343 "" ""'"45*" 179" T.is" "• i".'9 78 79 80 8"i "•8'2 ! Sii"oit *6 Shii*f'**"6 " 's"ii"o"t""*"7" •sibot""*"8 SfW)r*9""""'* - .Synfece. ...ly.d??.? "Surfai"'' Ang: waste _ Ang. waste Fi'aiS* FfiSe"- Por " MV" 1 IBBBMB* 1 r ...... ..... "F 12.8 T343 "" ""'"45*" 179" T.is" "• i".'9 78 79 80 8"i "•8'2 ! Sii"oit *6 Shii*f'**"6 " 's"ii"o"t""*"7" •sibot""*"8 SfW)r*9""""'* - .Synfece. ...ly.d??.? "Surfai"'' *Ar)i.^iif^ Pof 1 i.i5 - 83 84 si^#io -Aerate Pof 1 4 15.5 ttrmtt B*H**aa**a«a ttt*nt**»w**mtmttt a» aa a a****aa ttt a a*Ha«a« «•••« •* 83 84 3R<^*11 Mwt*tVlttntmm nvH lua a .....Surfece Surfece Arig, wiliw „,..Ang.....w« fla fio iff eg Por 'ZZWZZZl ""pof"*'"" 1 i" 2r9 '""*""4' Biaua aaB ava a ••«>« a*a a* 1 at* faa a a*a a ava *t mtmmtmtmttt'tttt ttt 85 86 Shot *11 '""'s"fiot"*i'2 Mwt*tVlttntmm nvH lua a .....Surfece Surfece Arig, wiliw „,..Ang.....w« fla fio iff eg Por 'ZZWZZZl ""pof"*'"" 1 i" 2r9 '""*""4' Biaua aaB ava a ••«>« a*a a* 1 at* faa a a*a a ava *t mtmmtmtmttt'tttt ttt 85 86 Shot *11 '""'s"fiot"*i'2 Mwt*tVlttntmm nvH lua a .....Surfece Surfece Arig, wiliw „,..Ang.....w« fla fio iff eg Por 'ZZWZZZl ""pof"*'"" 1 3.1 - siiioii *i3 - ' Surfece Ang. waste . i^'bf 1 tf*ttttt 1 T "T" "T 11.2 ... .... ... *"*'**To79""" ""•2.7 " 2"b"3 ""' 88 89 Shot *13 •""Siiliit""*'i"4 Surface Sufface Anguys?*^ MY 1 tf*ttttt 1 T "T" "T 11.2 ... .... ... *"*'**To79""" ""•2.7 " 2"b"3 ""' 90 sfiiit *i"5 -Surfece.... Surfece Ang. wasite hii'ic'e Pof ttmtttt*tttt auiaaB>a Por 1 tf*ttttt 1 T "T" "T 11.2 ... .... ... *"*'**To79""" ""•2.7 " 2"b"3 ""' 91 "siio't *i6 - Surfece.... Surfece Ang. wasite hii'ic'e Pof ttmtttt*tttt auiaaB>a Por 1 tf*ttttt 1 T "T" "T 11.2 ... .... ... *"*'**To79""" ""•2.7 " 2"b"3 ""' 92 sfiiit * 1*7 -Suffeiie Ang. wasite "Pof 1 7.9 - 93 siioii *t8 - ' Surface Ang. waste 1 -Surifece A lig. wasite MV 1 T' •7 j ..... "•" - -95 J Siiii't *26 Surfece Fleke Po"f 1 T' •7 j ..... "•" - - 96 ***"'97 98 99 sfiot *2i *""sfiot***23"""""" Shil *f24"* - Surfece >« « a« «11 a« 4 ttf •m ia«**i ...Surface. ...Surface" Sufiface Flake Por 1 "7.5 -96 ***"'97 98 99 sfiot *2i *""sfiot***23"""""" Shil *f24"* - Surfece >« « a« «11 a« 4 ttf •m ia«**i ...Surface. ...Surface" Sufiface Angjwaste Po"r 1 ..... 1.9 1.7 Hglr^gMlM^^^^^ 96 ***"'97 98 99 sfiot *2i *""sfiot***23"""""" Shil *f24"* - Surfece >« « a« «11 a« 4 ttf •m ia«**i ...Surface. ...Surface" Sufiface Flaice Por 1 ..... 1.9 1.7 Hglr^gMlM^^^^^ 96 ***"'97 98 99 sfiot *2i *""sfiot***23"""""" Shil *f24"* - Surfece >« « a« «11 a« 4 ttf •m ia«**i ...Surface. ...Surface" Sufiface Ang. waste 1 2 42 0.9"* — "ibb ""'Tb'f Shot *25 -.Surface iSuriface Ang. wiisite i Por 1 2 42 0.9"* — "ibb ""'Tb'f Shot*25 i - .Surface iSuriface haice Por "Por" 1 42 0.9"* — i6"2 * •['03 Sfi'ot*26' i - siio't **2'i51 .Surface Suriface Ogre tool _ "core Por "Por" 1 •"•"i"] 42 0.9"* — 1 . ...... 13.5 .....™._..„, - Surface Util flake i^'or 1 . ...... 13.5 .....™._..„, - Pege 3 SDi-11570 Mester Cat CAT. NO. PROVENIENCE UNIT .LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL ,N0. L WEIGHT COMMENTS "'i'bis 'sii'or-^'si's -Surifece Make „.,.My..."7' 1 **«•« »MH« « n« ••*««• a* 1 - 167 ^ sfiot *28 -Surfece haka *""""*"Pof *T - 108 siio't *28 -Surface J. Cora Por t 333.7 - 109 Sfiijt *29" -...Surfece Ang. waste Por 2 73.6 - "i""i'"6 siioii *36 -Surface i^ngTwaste" Pof" 1* g-- i'ii 3ho*t"*'3"b -siifface Flake . MY. r 4.3 - 112 Shot *31 -..Surface^ .Ang._w«te zzszz "*"*3* 16.7 - 113 S"fiot"*"3'2" -„..l.y.iiT?.5?..„., Ang.:„y9?.tS. r •"'l."6 - 114 Shot *33 -Surfijice Ang. wasU" """"'""MV r 8.3 - i"""i"5 3ho"t"*"34 -Surface AnjjLwaste "Pof "T 32.8 - i 16"" -Surface Hammerstone Por ...... '•"230.6 - 117 Sfwt*36 ' -_.Surftice_ Ang. waste a avflBBBBB •««4**«»H*tB«a «*aB T T ....... - i i's . .........„„., 3"iior*"3'7'""'" -Suikaee fool frag Por ""i"" - Sfiiit"**38 -Surfece. Ang. waste _.Pgr 1 21.8 - "•""i"'2'6 '3"iiot""*"3"9 -Surfece ""FSake "for 1 i 8.2 - 121 ^ sfiiit* 40 -Surface Flake "Rv 1 3.5 - 122 , siioii *4l" -Surface 1 Ang. weste 1 piif 1 7.9 - 123 sfiiit *42 . Sufface Ang. waste Pof 1 31.7 - 124 siiiciit *43" -Sufiface Flake Pof 1 42 - 125 Shot *44 -..Sun[8ce Ang. waste P.o.r_. 1 8 Jasper like i26 '3iiot***'45 -Sufiface hake ZZflrZZ ....... 1T:4""" - 127 Shot *45 -"surface Core "Por ...... 73 " " - 128 siioii *46 -Surface Flake [ piif 1 7.4 - 129 Shot *47 -. Surfece 1 Ang. waste Por 1 3.9 isb siiot *47 -f Surifece Flake Por 1 6 - 131 sfiiit *47 -Surfece "Fleke _.."MV 1 9.6 - 132 siioii *48 -Surface hek"e toiil Por ...... - 133 Shot *49 -Surfece ^ Ang. weste Por 1 40.4 - 134 siiiciit *49 -Surface iii rig . waiite" MV 1 9.2 - 135 Shot *50 -Suffaiie ^ Flake ^ MY 1 2.7 - 136 siioii *5i -Suriface fool frag . Por 1 11.4 - 137 Shot *51 -Surface Flake f Rv 1 13.6 - i38 Shot *52 i -' Suriface Ang. waste "fi"v 1 1 5.6 - 139 sfiiit *53 i -1 19.4 1- 146 Sii'o f *54 1 -Surface i^nq. waste Por 1 4.3 1- Page 4 SDI-11570 Mester Cat CAT. NO.iPROVENIENCE Ml LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL .Ng. WEIGHT COMMENTS 141 Shot*54 ' "DrSClfRD " 142 1 Shot*55 -Sufface Mano frag Gran. "T" '"T7774"** - _ 143 Shot *56 -..Surjace... Flake ZZP5.CZI '"f ""eT - i"4"4 3"fii)'t"""*58""""" -...Surface. Aiigy waste Pof T 42 - i"*45 """"siiot"'*'5*9"'"' -Surfece Menoffaq Gran 1 709.6 - 146 Shot *60 -Surfece Metate frag Gran 1 7257.2 - • 147 "*""3iiot"*'6'T -..Surface RetateXreg. Grail i i45"r474 - i48 sfiot *62 m ....5.y.(;]??.5§. fool frag "Rv"" 1 20.8 - i"49 Siiiciii *63 -Siififiice 'ha"ke MY 1 1.9 - 150 Shot *64 -Surface. Ang, waste Por 1 1 - T'sT -Siuffece Ang. waste Por 1 29.2 - 152 "sfiot *65 -Surface Flake Por 1 4 - i"53 ^ siioii *66 -Surfece Flake Pof 1 5.5 - 154 Shot *67 -. .S.u.rfec.e... A^ng^jWaste MY 1 *3.3 - """'i"55 -Surfece.... i^ng. waste "MV"" ...... i'."5" - "T5'6"""" 3'fiot""*"6"9' -...I.!j.df9.51.. ZZjMli^TX ZZEEX 1 32.8 - i"5"7 Surface .i^ng.^.was^^^ " Pof Z ....... "l""."5 - 158 " gf;jf#7P" -"SuRace... Hammerst^^^ *"" 1^'of 1 ....... 2249 - i"59 '3"ii()"r*"7"2 -Sufface . iooS..?f.a^^ ' MV" """••"fT - i66 Sfiii't *73 -."s.urfece... _Core. f.fag _ XlliiZZ 1 76.1 - i*"6'i siioii *74 -Surfece Aiig. waste .zzp.9.L.zr ....... .... .... - 162 Shot *74 -Surfece Hammerstone freg "Pof" 1 9.4 - 163 Shot *75 _ Surface Core frag " "MV" ...... - 164 Shot *76 Surfece^^ Ang. waste MY 1 . '8.8 - "1*65 Surifece.._ Flake M.V ....... ,...„. 1.2 - l'6'6""" Shot*78 i -""sijffiiiie' Aiiig. waste *"**"**Por "0."6 - i"6'7 Shot *78 r i -Surface AM-„!?!:g|!^. qtzite r „_ - i68 gf;;if*79'-"" — Surfece Ang.w^te ~ - i"69 siioii *86 -Surface fiiki . ..^ * 1 """io.?"""" - 170 Shot *80 _ 1 Surface U'tif fiake _ Por . 1 49 - 171 Shot*81 -Surface Ang.waste • f f «• * «a tttmmf t**t t**mtm*t tt tttt- tt 'pof* * -2" 53 - •l"72"^'" 'Sfiii"t""*81 _ Flake "'"""""Rv" 1 T."2""" - i"7"3 iSiiioit'*82 f — 1 Surface i Core frag ZZBLZZ. .... 46.6 - j 1 2.6 i- i'75'^ isiiot'*i83 •..•"••••'.• i ~ i Surfece !iStififlake"""" """""••"iiv""""'"" ! i •;""8 Paqe 5 SDI-1 1570 Master Cet CAT. NO. PROVENIENCEIUNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT MATERIAL NO. WEIGHT 1 COMMENTS 176 i""7"7" siioii *iB"4 i - S"hb"t""*8"51-""" ..Surface "Surface Fleke hake MV.. pdf" ......... *"**"**"M"V" Por 1 .... ...... 41 "8 ""4 •* -178 "l"7"9 186 sii'oii *8is 1 - S"fiii"t""*8"7""["""-• siioii *"88 1 - • .Surfece.. ."Surfece Sufiface Flake ttt tttt tttt ttt ••**pM**B*»*4«a4*« a •••••BB • tt. Ang. waste Arig. waste MV.. pdf" ......... *"**"**"M"V" Por 1 .... ...... 41 "8 ""4 •* -178 "l"7"9 186 sii'oii *8is 1 - S"fiii"t""*8"7""["""-• siioii *"88 1 - • .Surfece.. ."Surfece Sufiface Flake ttt tttt tttt ttt ••**pM**B*»*4«a4*« a •••••BB • tt. Ang. waste Arig. waste MV.. pdf" ......... *"**"**"M"V" Por 1 ..... i'2.5 ............ . •" - — 181 182 Sfiii't *89 l-J siioii **96 i - Surface. Surfece „.C.ore.Xrsg. Fl aice tool Pgr. ..Z...P9.L...Z ZZ'HLZZ for ZZZMZZZ "piir" 1 i ...... ...... 7"9."3 •71.8 3.4 •" — •" 183 •i"8"4"""^ sfiiit *9i 1 - *sii"ot""*"92i*""- Surfece. . Sufifece Flake Arig. waste Pgr. ..Z...P9.L...Z ZZ'HLZZ for ZZZMZZZ "piir" 1 i ...... ...... 7"9."3 •71.8 3.4 -183 •i"8"4"""^ sfiiit *9i 1 - *sii"ot""*"92i*""- Surfece. . Sufifece Flake Arig. waste Pgr. ..Z...P9.L...Z ZZ'HLZZ for ZZZMZZZ "piir" 1 i ...... ...... 0.6 - 185 sfiot *93 1 -Surfece Flake Pgr. ..Z...P9.L...Z ZZ'HLZZ for ZZZMZZZ "piir" 1 ...... 13.2 '775 - 186 siiioii *"94 1 -Surfece Flake Pgr. ..Z...P9.L...Z ZZ'HLZZ for ZZZMZZZ "piir" 1 ...... 13.2 '775 - 187 ibs" i89 i'"96 sfiot* *9"5 1 - •Sii'dt**"961'"'"- S"fiiit""*97"i-""" Siiof*97 "i "-""'" Surfece Surijscc^ Sufifece Flake """"""Fraic'e AiiTd. waste ••*aa a a* tt a*»*a m\ttttt t*tttmtt»*ttttm*ttt ttt Flake _..MV 'P9r"Zr .ZZI.9ZZZ. Pof" 1 "i 3.1 b."7" " 187 ibs" i89 i'"96 sfiot* *9"5 1 - •Sii'dt**"961'"'"- S"fiiit""*97"i-""" Siiof*97 "i "-""'" Surfece Surijscc^ Sufifece Flake """"""Fraic'e AiiTd. waste ••*aa a a* tt a*»*a m\ttttt t*tttmtt»*ttttm*ttt ttt Flake _..MV 'P9r"Zr .ZZI.9ZZZ. Pof" 1 i 1 """""2!"5 - " 19! sfiot*98 i -. Surface Ang. waste *P*of 1 44 - 192 siio't *99 j -Surfece Flake Por 1 \ 42 J - Page 6 SDI-11570 Flake Cet EATNO^^ SIZMiPATCOR ...... i SIZE 4iPAfE0R 1 STP ON/OE 2 jSTP ON/IOW "3"'"isfp"b¥/T'b"w 4 fsfpoN/Tbw 5 IsfpoN/ibw 7 I3TP ON/20W '8isf"i3"ofii72bw ib jisfp iig/oE ii isfi= ibs*76'E" 12 STP20S/0E 13 14 15 Te ..... i9" 20 ........ 23 2*4" 25 "26 '28 29 '30 '31" 32 '33' ..... ....... 36 *37" 38 3^9' STP 20S/0E sfp"3bs"/bE" aaa «B a « >« a tHB a a* aw • STP 30S/0E sfp "A" "sfp "A" sfip"^" STP "A' STP "A' Sfp"-*B*' "3fp'"'B' STP "C STP "C sfp't'' sfp "i:" "sfpx' LEVEL i.ART.I.FACT.|MAJ..E.Rj ..LT..L9..5.[P...l^!)9i.y?5k P?I 6- 16 crii !Ang. waste! Pof "b"^Tibi:mT'riak^ 2.9" .3 0 .cmjA ng. .WM^^^^ .l"..!..9.!?.i!i..i^.ii9: Y9?.t? •p^'Tip'cm'"!^ .0"..!..O.cni.lA.ng:..wM^^^ ..l9.:.2g.S^^ .5.:..L9..?.!I!„.|!!LQ9:..y.^^^ ..X.2.9.!Li]G&9J!^^ XT&'gi^lZn^iZ *o'"-"Tb"ciiri"T""*"ha'ic'e''"** ..!..9r.?.9..9.Q?.^$.Q9.i.y.l?.t5 Tip^b icmj™* naicig""" 2Q-"p"c"n^^^^ ..2fc.3.gc'.m'."L .3fc.,46.cmjAn^^ 30 - '40 iiiinpfw. waste •Bt >«Bf a ««> a*«t*4af a mm tt, m^ aaatB tJtB** t IBBBABABHBB* 30-40 cm Flake .19" .^.Q..?."!!). '/^.n9.-..y?ife ,.i9.:..i.9..p.fr!.i$.ii9.:..y.9M^ ..!..Q.Z?.9.!?.!5S^ ,.20.:..M.Pjii!j!i(^^^^ i b-26 cmlAnq. waste •\—\ 'f"Zi' • « i I 1 I 1'ii' 10-20 cml Flake ..2.1".3gcmlAng._^ .2p.:.3g.?-'I!.i$.(!9.:.X^.k 2673ip^iZrM^ 30- 40 cm lAng. waste Ig^Ocni^^ .M7.f.9..P.!]Q.i$.Qj:..y.?.?^^ .40^^50^^ ..9.:..i.9.L'!!..i.^il!9.:..y.9^^^ 6- i 0 cm iAng. waste Por Por **MV Pof Pof Por .MY Por Por "MY >t«ta«B«M .Po.r Pp'f Pof MY Pof Por WZ Pof Por [•••aatiaai .Por Por M.V Pgr Rv Por Pof 4 "2 3IZE2PATC0RSiZE3PATC0R 0 16 J 2 J "4 r"4 | 0 1 1 "•*i ....... 14" _ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 .:..^..-„..i. 4 i 3 -I 2 COMMENTS 0 •T""r'2" 2I "6 Page 1 SDI-11570 neke Cat :OI^SIZE 4!PATiC0RiC0MMENTS I aa a tttt taa a* A ttata aa* A*B»t-« a -Ba • a «•« Ba« >• ;AT NO •"'"46 """4i 42 "4*3 44 49 "sb' "si 52" i53 54 "5 "8 •***«4«at 60 61 ...... 63' *64 67" *mmmtttm*4 68 69 '76 •71" ....... '75'' "78" '79" "86" 81 "82 "83 8'4 "QS W BQ PROVENIENCE UNIT "i '""i Shot *1 „„.._„. ......„...^.„.. Shot *3 "3hot**4" "S"fidt'"*"4"" "Sfid"t"**6* "SM'^'I Shot *8 •3hot"""*9" Shot *10 •'sii"d'f*'i"i"' 3fiii"t'"*i"'i" "siidt'*i"3' Sfiof*"i"3' .LEVEL..... gZ(!9"£^!! b-i 6 cm g-..i.g.cm.. b*-T6*crii"" .A.R.TJ..5ASI.WERIAL31ZE 1 ifng._wa3^^^ A.ng^.wa3ite 0-1Ocm • Bla Bi>t*«** mmt>«4B•flBBB 10-20 cm .4B • flaBBaa^BaBBaBaBBBB lp-2gcm io-'ibc'iifi .1.9.7.26*0^^ .TfiZlg.cm Tb"-*20crii 20-30 cm 20-30 cm 20-30 cm •B«BB Bta axa BB*B*taa a BVBVB 20-30 cm It Bt«B«BB**t« B*Mtt«*BIB a«BH 20-30 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 c"m Surface Surface Surface Surface Sur.face ..|y.rMi Surface Suriface : ^ .Surface^ ..|y.f".M?. Surface Suriface^ Surface Surface Surface Hekes Fla'kes haices .Ba**BBBB*Bt«*Bai An^^weste Angjwaste; iAng^weMe hakes haices ............. Ang. waste Ar)g. waste Ajig..^w«te. hakM haicieii Flake *Bf MB*|fc.BBM»B—I Aj}g^wa3te Flake Flake Ang. waste Ang. waste Ang. weste Z.DSEZ $.ii9.:..y.35.?.?. iiing. waste """"Fia'ke* ZIMEI Ang. waste lAng. waste IAng. waste iii ng. waste .......QJ.Z 6b3Td"ia*ii' Por. "Ry'*™' bbsidlan. ••Bt*a**a«a**B**B»t>a MV g^jiian "* Por ZIBlZ Obsidian" Por Obsidian Por**"" Por PAT i:OR SIZE 2^AT COR SIZE 3 1 ...... 2 20 0 at*«a 1 IBBBBB 2 '*^H4**aBB aBBtBBBH 4 1 ..... ....... Por IK ..po'r .Po.r •pof' "PoF Pof" tia>**Ba*»' MV w"""r .MV 1 *Po*f "."pp'f Pof "M ........ •I - •I i f ! ~ I - * I — ..i 0 PAT -J LL 1 i 1 1 ^ i-l-- Page 2 SDi-11570 Flake Cat ;AT NO •'"89"* "•"90 91 93 94 ....... "96 PROVENIENCE "•"'Siidt'*'!"?'""' ""•siior*i*"5 97 ......... 99" Tpo' ibi .......... 106 "i"b7 "109 "i i b "i i i .......... "ii3 114 "iis i"i'7' Shot *16 "Sii'd't"*"!'?" Shot*18 Siioit"*19 •s"fiot****20 •s"iidr*"2"i" "ShoT*2'2' "siiot *2'3 Shot *24 Shot*2S Shot *25 "'Shot"'*?'? Shot *28 •siidii"*'2"8" Shot *29 •siidt""**"3"6" 3"fiiit""*"3b" 'sii"dr'*"3*T* *Shot""*3"2"' Shot *33 3hiit'*34' •siid*f*'3*6* UNIT ....LEVEL.„ sVface.. Suriface i ARTI FACT HATERjAL lAng..^wes.te ,S.ur.face ..SufSce S*u"f]fac£ S^urface Suxface^ ..Sjj[rfac£ Surfece Ang. waste "'"FTe"ke"" ,Ang. waste ^jng._waste lAng. wasfe "i""Fiis"kr" I hake Angjwaste Surface Flake Sitrface I lAngj^waate Surface Flake Surfece Sufface Surfece jAng. waste ***" na"ic"c'"""" h"e"ii:e .Surface Suriface .Surface Suriface Surface ..^waste . waste .......Fleke ..Surface Surface Surifece [^.waste jAng. weste SIZE tjPATlCORlSIZE 21PA11C0R!StZE 3»>AT1D0R|S1Z£ 4{PATi:0R Por Por •a«B«M*Bi*i Por PoF Por •a*t*H**H MY Pgr "Por Qtzite Por Por Par Pgr PoF '.hi. .PoF ".PoF PoF ".El. .Po'r "PoF pflaBMBaa*BB MY 1 1 0 1 1 0 COMMENTS PDL chert like 119 •i"2b .......... Y22 T23 124 'T"2"5"' T26" Shot *38 "3iid*f"'"*'3"9 *S"fiiit""*"i4b" *4T" ^Surface^ Sufiface ..j._weste ..I$.Q9:.y52.1?. liing. waste T FTaicc Por 'tttmtwmmt^*. Por "Por Surface tauB aBat*«H«**a**a*a Surface '§ii'dit"'*43" r ' ShJf #44 "r'siidit"'*45 • .Suriface^ .Sufiface" J.uj;fa.ce Suriface I Flake I. waste MV, Por IAng. waste I a^BBaa B Jtwt tttmmmttt*m I Flake iAng. waste "|"*""*haice*"*"' Por PoF Pof 128 130 Shot *46 "Siid"t"*"47" •Shiif*47" Surface .Surface Surface .[.....Flake. iAng. weste •[hiake""" .Por "Por .B««B«BBBBfl Por "pdr •t- - i - _ i 1 V 0 "T""l""b" 1— Jesger like Paae 3 SDI-11570 Fleke Cat 1AR.T..I..FACT hake 4|PA"nC0RiC0MMENTS 6 ;AT NO "i"3i*"' ..,.....„-.. ••T34" 135 137 138 '"i'3'9 T4'b" ......... .......... PROVENIENCEIUNIT Siioit"*47 1 - Shot *49 Shiir*''49 •s*ii"dt"**5*6* Shot *51 144 Shot *52 I 1Shi3f**5"3i l""Shdt*i54"'X"" isfiiit""* 5 4i""' r*"Shoif'*56""""T 149 150 _ 152 '153 T*54' T55 157 ...... 164 165 166 Shot *63 Shat*64 3hot*65 I "••aft—a«a—«B«aa aaaa B*a a* iBaaB Shot*65 i •3iioit'*""*"6"6"'""["" S'fiot"'*"'6'7""r 3hol'*'i6*8**"*r' Sfwt*7"b" ! " •shdr*7T""|"" "sfiot'*7i6""'"i""' Shot *77 I - Shot *78 i - ..LEVEL Suriface Surfece. .Sijriface .SufSce. .Surfece Surface. Surifece "DTSC"A'RD' Surface Sijrface .Surlaci SiifSce .Surface siifface •BBBBBBtBBtBa'BttBBBH Surfece Suffacif .SurSce silfSce H BB*t***tt*W**B ttmt Surftce Surfece Anq.waste Surface Surface. Suriface sMATERlALlSlZE llPATjCOR •Rv ' Ang.^we3te Ang. waste ""'"FTake* .A.ng:..w.a3te. Ang. wastel !!l.ii9.:..y.^i.9 ,Ar^*.^Mte Flake Ang. waste a«B«a tm**ii*tm ai a> a li tt. Flake hB**tBB«lit*«Ba mttt pl Flake _Ang.._wa3£e Ang7waste^ Ang.weste I ^tat*a» w tf • B twB*f aB a**^a Anj^ waste . waste FTaicii* Ang. waste Por "MV "'M"V" *"MV MV IBBBBBBBBPBB ..P.o.r Por." Pof* MV Por Por "Por ta Por atBBMVBB. MV M.Y Por Por *"MV MY Por SMS ""pdf" ZEL ZEL. ........... ZW Pof SIZE 2PATIC0RIS1ZE 3 0 •••tth 0 0 PAT :i lORjSIZE T 1 1 1 Shot *78 I - 168 "T69" .......... Shot *79 •3"iidr'*"80 S"fidt""*8"l" Surface Su.rface Su"rfai;e 172 ••j74 ._. "T77"" Shot *81 I Shot*83 i 'tt • a • • >* ••'**•*<*•« atBia aa a <• * a a aa a I I Shot*84 I I " i5hot***85[• •1— Surface Sufifiice ttttttftttttttttttfi Surface An^^waste iing. waste . waste Fl"a"k'e" 'haic'e* Flake "hake" 178 179 isb 183 Shot *86 • siio't "*"8"8" Surface Surface Surface .0?.!?.?., .waste . waste haii^' MY JII ".PoF ........ "•!f j — : -* i- I - i ••- •• — i — i .^..|...^.„j. — i — i 1 I 1 •-TT - i i' 'o""I-• 1 i- Page 4 I 301-11570 Flake Cet ;AT NO ""Tss" 186 "isT TQQ T90 .......... "i 92 PROVENI ............^ ENCEiUNITl 92"""*" Shot * "Stiot"** Shot * "siio't"* Sfidt"* •stid'f""* sfiiit"* 93 94 95 96 •97" 97 '98* 99" ..L.EVEL.._ Sufface I Surface -....[....Surface - I Sur facii - i .Surface^ Surfece Surfece Surface Sufface ARTI FACT ^TTRIAL ^iS-ik^^®™. p^i Xoi^fi"! ""Ry ""' " .„...„_.. .™.....„ Z'fMOZl^^ ._...Qeke. „..PoF Am. wiiste "Por ..™..Q?.^;l...„j....„.P?.r. Ang^.wa3t.e .Por. _ hatce pior SIZE 1 PAT :0R SIZE 2PAT|C0RjSIZE 3|PATC0R|SIZE 4iPAHC0R 0 COMMENTS Page 5 SDI-1 1570 Flaked tool Cet CAT. NO. PROVENIENCE UNI.T. .LEVjEL...... ARTIFACT MATERIAL PAT COR L€NGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT COMMENTS *9* -"•Tb-"-2"6Tfii" Flake tool Tiv y n 43.5 16.4 13.1 10.5 freg "4"6 -i""" 0-1Ocm Retouch flake Pof y n 46.7 33.1 11.1 18.1 - *'""'47 -.......... "b"-Tbl; iifi'" ^Corefrag^ Por y g ?7.5 37 23.4 58.7 - 56 -.....L. 10-20 cm Cora MV 648 48.6 20.2 76.(5 - "72 "s"ii"ot""^*""3" -...5yr.i[?.5SL... l^ammerstone "MV y "T ""71.1 ' "61.3 36.1 170.4 used fi rst as core "715 S"iid"r*5 -_..Aufface_. .An.gi.wa.3t.e.. Por .J).. .n.. 30.7 36.1 12.8 12.8 - '77 "siioii *5 -Surface. CoTe "" ZZZM.ZZ. Iy ii ........ "*"5778"" . l" 23'4'.3 - "10*2 """"•siidit*""*26 -lurface..... Core.tgol XPOLZ" ..y„. 58 • *39 28.7 61.8 - ""•i"b3 Shi)t"*"26 -cdfe .Z..Po.r..'Z „y.„ „,.Q.., 5*9.9 51.6 "3"T"3 ""'TTs - lbs Shot *27 -Surfa^i iuti[f1ake "*" """'pQirX .Jl. X 447 .......... 28.3 - "Tibr"" Shot *28""" -"Surface " Core PoF' Ji„. ..„y.. ""§2.6"" "" 90"" 89* 3"3'3.7 - 116* siiiot *35" -Sufface Hammerstone Por ^ y y "748 5"972 """"4373 230.6 - ""TTF* Shot*37 -Surface Tool frag Pof y n 39.7 15.4 15.6 8.2 - 1 27" Siwt *45 -Suf^ Core Por y y 67,3 3T;6 24 73 - i3'2 f Shot*4'8 -SurftjM^. Flake tool Por y n 44.5 ¥,9 18.5 28.8* - 136 Shot *51 -...syiM*...., Tool f raij Por y V 42.6 2M 13 ii.iii - 148 siiot *'62 -Suffice Tool frag MV y n M.2 26.2 1*6.4 ' 2b.iB" ' - 156 Shot *69 -Surface "util flake MV y n 6i,7 48.9 14.6 32.8 - " 158"* ""'Sho?*7l -Surface Hemmerstone Pof y y ess 56.8" 48.2 224.9 - 159 Shot*72"'"' -_.Surface.__ Toool frag^ MY 16.8 9.6 6.7 1.1 - i60 Shot *73 -...-§.yiS.9L.. „C?£e_frag Por ..y.. X "57.2 45.7 "3772 ....„...„....„. - •"•••T"l5'2" •'"""Siidt""*74""""" -iiammerstone ffaj n ...-..„-.....„ "3'6""* "'i"978 9.*4* - •i""6"3" "•"•sfio"t"*"75" -Surface_ Core freg .X .,.y.. 56.8 48.6 26.3 104.2 - i"'7b siidii "*86"""" -_ Suriface^ """""utiT'ffa'ke Por ,...™„...... "578 "'•'49*" - T*7'3 S"fid"t^*"8"2 ......„._„..._.„.. -....iyffe?. Co fe i'f ag"" "MY*"'*"*" ,..y.. n "4'5T" ""'1*5 22.6 *46.6 - i"75 -....f!J.r.t9C.?... •ut*iT*fl"e*ke -™. ..y.. 43.4 26.8 '8'7r ""'""B - T"6*'i sfiot *89" -Suffaiie Core frag I PoF y X ^*"3*4.2*" .. .. ... ...... - 182 siio't *96 -Surface Flake fool Por U y 63.4 ' "sr.b J 25.4 71.8 - Page 1 SDI -11570 Groundstone Cet CAT. NO. PROVENIENCEIUNIT .LEVEL...... ...ARTJFACT... MATERIAL LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT FACES COMMENTS 6 •sf'FoN/i'b'wj'*""-'" "20-30'cfii* *hite*no*iffag' Pof *"*63.9 "'srs" 42*.*3 92.5 2 - 0-1Ocm Metate frag Gran 32.5 19.7 5.5 2:6 " • 1 - 57 ib-2bciri' Metete frag Grgn 33 25.9 27.2 21.6 1 - 73 s"hdr**3""""""r'"-_. S.u rface ..Mang..freg... Gran " •r3.7 •• 10.3"' *"**"""T4.'3 1 - ""els **S**lid"f*"i"*2*"""|"*"*-Surfacii *Titeifior*frag"' Por ""26:6 20.5 5.9 ^ 3.1 i* - 142 Shot *5"5 1 -Surface Miiiidfrag.^ Gfan 89.2 70.2 sT 377.4 2 - i45 siio't* *'59 1 -Suriface Mano frag Gran__ 75.7 9*6*. 6 641 709.6 2 - i46 siiot *6"b 1 -Surface Metate frag G.ra.n 262,3 119.9 145.4 ""725772""* **'""T""" - 147 siiot* *"6i 1 -Surface Metete freg Graii a*tt»atttBBBatBB Bta 355.9 *i r9.4 f45144 i - Page 1 ATTACHMENT B SDi-7306 UNIT RESULTS li U I I t SDi-7306, UNTTI DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm Total Percent Flake 1 1 1 0 3 15.79% Angular Waste 10 3 0 2 15 78.95% Groundstone 0 1 0 0 1 5.26% Bone* 0 2/0.3 0 0 2/0.3 Total** U 5 1 2 19 100.00% Percent 57.89% 26.32% 5,26% 10.53% 100.00% *couni and weight (in grains) given ••excluding bone SDi-7306 UNIT 2 DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Matenal 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm Total Percent Flake 0 5 1 6 21.43% Angular Waste 15 5 2 22 78.57% Historic* 2/0.5 0 0 2/0.5 Fish scale* 1/<0.1 0 0 1/<0.1 Total*^ 15 10 3 28 100.00% Percent 53.57% 35.71% 10.71% 100.00% •count and weight (in grams) given ••excluding historic and fish scale I I I I I I I I I I L I L L 1 L I L L SDi-7306 UNIT 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CULTURAL MATERIAL Cultural Material 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm Total Percent Flake 10 10 8 2 0 30 15,38% Angular Waste 59 20 36 16 2 133 68.21% Obsidian 6 11 4 3 0 24 12.31% Ground pottery 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.51% Pottery 2 1 0 0 0 3 1.54% Core tool 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.51% Hammerstone 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.51% Toolfi-ag 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.51% Groundstone 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.51% Charcoal* 0 -/o.l 0 0 0 •/OA Historic* 1/<0.1 0 0 0 0 1/<0.1 Bone* 10/2.2 13/4.0 14/1.1 6/0.4 0 43/7.7 Shell* 1/<0.1 0 0 0 0 1/<0.1 Total** 80 43 49 • 21 2 195 100.00% Percent 41.03% 22.05% 25.13% 10.77% 1.03% 100.00% •count and weight (in grams) given ••excluding charcoal, historic, bone, and shell ATTACHMENTS The Phase II Archaeological Test of Malcolm J. Rogers' Site SDM-W-181 at La Costa Town Center in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia (Hanna 1991) QaCkgos &!^sociates THE PHASE n ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST OF MALCOLM J. ROGERS* SITE SDM-W-181 AT LA COSTA TOWN CENTER IN THE CTFY OF CARLSB AD, CAUFORNIA Prepared for M.A.G. PROPERTIES 5075 FEDERAL BOULEVARD SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 DAVID C. HANNA PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AECOW Regional Environmental Consultants 7460 Mission \MayRo«]. SMI Ditgo. CA9210S {619)542-1611 SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION I II. RESEARCH CONTEXT 4 A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 4 B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 10 1. Research Paradigms and Explanatory Models 11 2. Synthesis of Prehistory Research 12 a. TTie Archaic Period 12 b. The Late Prehistoric Period 16 c. The Proto-historic Period 17 3. Early Research at SDM-W-181 19 4. Recent Studies Near SDM-W-181 28 5. Recent Studies at SDM-W-181 31 m. RESEARCH DESIGN 36 A. PHASED RESEARCH PLAN 36 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. TheRidgctop 55 2. Marginal Slopes 60 3. Unstable Slopes 60 I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page C. FORMATION PROCESSES 62 1. Horizontal Patterning 65 2. Vertical Patterning 66 3. Cultural Patterning 71 D, ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERPRETATION 75 1. The Orthodox View 75 2. New Age Models 78 3. Concluding Remarks 80 V. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS 82 VI. REFERENCES CITED 83 vn. PROJECT PERSONNEL 89 ATTACHMENTS 1: San Diego Museum of Man Archival Material 2: Archaeological Testing Data (Phases I and H) FIGURES 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 collections 5 Archaeological basemap with Phase I excavation units and shovel test pits 40 Archaeological basemap with Phase I and Phase II excavation units 41 Profile of Trench 1 56 Profile of Trench 2 57 Distribution of debitage count, flaked lithic artifact and ground stone mean average weight, and total shell weight by ridgetop area synthetic levels 67 TABLES 1: Distribution of Ridgetop Area Tools and Shell by Level 69 2: Distribution of Ridgetop Area Tools and Shell by Layer 73 " 'T-'«wfllWIWWilWliWhTijii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PHOTOGRAPHS Page 1: Ridgetop transsection, view to east 2: UnitT5 fioor and north wall 3: Unit T6 south wall 4: Unit T6 north wall 5: Unit T6 floor 6: Unit T6 west wall 58 61 63 63 64 64 •-»i^limWIBI»WI!li«IWI'*H»WM- I. INTRODUCTION This report concems die Phase II archaeological test of prehistoric site SDM-W-181. The site*s near-coastal situation (Figures 1 and 2) in the city of Carlsbad, Califomia, is within die southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 12 South, Range 3 West. San Bemardino Base and Meridian on the U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Rancho SanU Fe Quad. The first site record for SDM-W-181 (Attachment 1) was compieted by Malcolm J. Rogers, whose work at the site included surveys, surface collections, and limited excavation. During a recent archaeological survey of La Costa Town Center property (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990), tiie site was relocated and a crescentic was collected. Test excavation was recommended to determine the site's archaeological importance under the California Environmental Quality 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 poin^p^ovcmenccd dog-on-leash ODOL) surface collection, general surface collection, and die excavation of 26 shovel test pits (STPs) and 10 standard Ixl-meter test units. When one of tiiese units encountered a structurally intact shell-and-cpbble hearth with ash and charcoal, it was expanded to expose the pntirc fcaitiipc. Radiocarbon assays, on two shell samples and a charcoal-rich sediment san^ from the hearth, produced a date of circa 5,400 years before present (BJ>.). Davis and Cheever (1991) recommended additional work to permit full detennination of tiie site's archaeological importance. Phase n archaeological testing was designed, begun, and mostiy carried out by MacMillan 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 aiea witii 4 standard Ixl-meter units, a lx4-mctcr trench (4 contiguous Ixl-meter units), and a second lx4-metcr trench (2 contiguous lx2-meter units). The second stage entailed excavation of three more standard units, mechanical stripping of two 10-meter-wide strips transecting die site's focal ridgetop sector, and excavation of another 3 standard units in areas of moderately concenu-ated cultural debris tiiat were discovered through mechanical excavation. This report incorporates all Phase I and Phase n data. It demonstrates that subsurface deposits at SDM-W-181 were largely created by noncultural processes, illustrating some limitations of the prevailing cultural chronology and related assemblage definitions. The results have important implications for contemporary and future research, but indicate that SDM-W-181 retains littie research value. The site is ev^uated as lacking archaeological importance under CEQA and die City of Carlsbad's draft Cultural Rcsource Guidelines. Cultural resource impacts of die proposed La Costa Town Center project arc therefore considered insignificant FIGURE 1. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT RELATIVE TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. R-2212A 6/80 \REC0N FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ON U.S.G.S 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS. ENCINITAS AND RANCHO SANTA FE QUADRANGLES R-2212A 6/90 REC0N 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 archaeological overview and includes an analysis of research paradigms and explanatory models, a synthesis of prehistory research, and discussions of early research at the site, recent studies near the site, and recent studies at the site. This material provides a foundation for die Phase II research design (see Section ni). A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Archaeological site SDM-W-181 occupies die top and flanks of a soutiieast-trcnding fmger ridge ovodooking a soutiiwest-flowing, intermittent tributary to Encinitas Creek (see Jetties 1 and 2), which at nearest approach is about 0.75 mile to the southeast Sail Marcos Creek is about one mile north of the site, and Batiquitos Lagoon is about two miles to die northwest. The ridge affords a deep panoramic view, rotating clockwise firom northeast to nearly due west Surface artifacts occur betwiM elevations of approximately 280 and 340 feet above mean sea level (M^), co^Nmiig an arca of nearly 19,000 square meters (Figure 3). The topography prcseiitis i&topcs of up to 25 percent, witii the ridgeline being nearly flat, the tipper slopes quite steep, and die lower slopes somewhat gender, A potentially significant aspect of die site's location concems a side drainage, immediately northeast of SDM-W-181, which nearly coincides with a major rock and soil distinction. Rock formations soudiwest of this dividing line are marine sediments, and the soils derived from diem arc capable of supporting a fairly lush coastal Mge scrub community. Northeast of this divi- sion line, Eisenberg (1983) label* die rocks Jsp (Santiago Peak Volcanics) and die soils arc identified (United S^tes Demutmcnt of Agriculturc 1973:Sheet 34; Bowman 1973:46, 76) as SnG (San Migucl-Exchoqucr rocky silt loams, 9-70 percent slopes). These soils are capable of sui^ortii(g chaparral, which in terms of biomass per hectare arc probably e^valent to those southwest of the dividing line. Bowman (1973:76) says of die ShG 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 bodi 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 wiidiife habitat and watershed. SDM-W-181 is therefore situated at an ecotone between two different zones of high biological productivity, which in subSi^nce terms means diversity as well. This may help to explain the naturc 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 thc 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 ^>-Wtffllillll!Mltl«B<l*»P1 Figure 3 Located in map pocket psephologist will reserve the term for describing mantie, or A horizon sediment Most site sediments belong to the Huerhuero Series, which Bowman (1973:54) defines as "moderately well drained loams that have a clay subsoil [and] . . . developed in sandy marine sediments." They are mapped (United States Department of Agriculturc 1973:Sheet 34; Bowman 1973:55) eidier 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 arca is mapped (United States Department of Agriculturc 1973:Sheet 34; Bowman 1973:18, 23) as AtE (Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes). AtE soil is mapped over the site's southem basal slopes and a south- westem area of active slumps and arroyos. Bowman (1973:18) characterizes the Altamont Series as "well-droned 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 archaeologically 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 HrC 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 texturc, 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, yellowish brown, or reddish 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 raotties. 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 frora die clay subsoil. Runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion hazard slight to moderate. Soil studies revealed that the ridgetop arca 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 mottics." 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 arca lies within a band of Eocene marine sediments, roughly paralleling the coast, which Eisenberg (1983) maps as Td/f (undiffercntiated Delmar 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 lagoon^ facies, and coarse-grained continental sandstone and conglomerate." Kennedy (1975:16) describes the Delmar Formation, in part, as follows: I I I r I r I I I f I I I I i I I I i ( I I i Most of the Delmar Formation is dusky yellowish-green sandy claystone interbedded with medium-gray coarse-grained sandstone. Several resis- tant beds composed of Ostrea idriaensis Gabb and odier brackish-water mollusks indicate a lagoonal origin. The sandstone is typically composed of quartz (80-85 percent), potassium feldspar (10-15 percent), plagioclase (1 -2 percenO. biotite (2-3 percent), and a trace of hematite, topaz, glauconite, and pyroxene. The claystone is composed of montmorillonite and kaolinite .... The Delmar Formation is consid- ercd to me middle Eocene in age ,.. Kennedy (1975:18) describes die Friars Fonnation, m part, as follows: Tlie rocks are nonmarine and lagoonal sandstone and claystone .... Thc sandstone is composed of quartz (75-80 percent), potassium feldspar (10-15 percent), biotite (5-10 percent), plagioclase (less tiian 1 percent), and a trace of amphibole, pyroxene, hematite, and tourmaline. The claystone is composed of montmorillonite and kaolinite. Friars Formation is predominandy a nonmarine and nearshore marine facies... The sandstone is typically massive, yellowish gray, medium grained, and poorly indiaated with subangular to subrounded grains. Caliche-rich sandstone beds are locally interlayercd with grcenish-gray sandy claystone .... The Friars and Delmar Formations arc lithologically identical ^ in their central and northeastem exposures, and they have been undifferentiated in these areas on the geologic map. A more detailed analysis of the sediments was provided by Dr. Pat Abbott (pers. comm., 1/25/91), who visited die site with David Hanna and Sue Wade. Observing exposures in ridgetop test units, Abbott noted die absence of a genu- ine A horizon and identified all three sediment layers as middle Eocene lagoonal deposits. He termed thc thin, medium brown-colored, discontinuously distrib- uted, upper layer a "clayey sorted fine sandstone" refiecting deposition in a rippled sand flat environment He classified die thick, dark brown, and continuoiBly distributed medial layer as a "brown mudstone rich in expandable clays" reflecting the settling of clayey mud amongst vegetation near a slough- type lagoon margin. The continuously distributed basal layer, which Abbott termed "fine sandy mudstone." consists mosdy of white to yellow-coloied. fine- grained sand and silt, with orange to reddish-brown, biotite-rich, planar lami- nations and ripple cross-beds reflecting bar formation. This mudstone is interiayered with thin bands of dark grcenish-gray sandy claystone. similar to those observed by Eisenberg (1985:56-57) in a composite outcrop section from southwest of the La Costa Avenue-Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection (about 0.25 mile west of SDM-W-181). iEisenberjg interprets die banding as evidence of altemating sea transgression (sandy tidal flat deposits) and regression (muddy tidal flat deposits). Two points about the SDM-W-181 ridgetop sediments merit attention. First, since they are sedimentary rocks deposited in lagoonal environments during middle Eocene times, some explanation must be found for the presence of significantiy younger cultural debris deep within them. Second, these sediments are soft, fine-grained, clayey, and therefore subject to three transfonnational processes that may be implicated in the site's physical suucture. These processes are noted, below, and discussed more fully in Sections III and IV. 1. Dr. Abbott (personal communication 1-25-91) observed tiiat shrink/ swell of die sediments and bioturbation (mosdy faunalturbation by rodents) have displaced some constiments 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 diat many landslides in the general arca "arc rotational slumps and have occuned along valley walls wherc rocks of the Friars and Mission Valley Formations occur. (As noted, die sediments at SDM-OW-181 are classified Td/f] The sliding, commonly associated wjdi soft, expansible clay beds widiin 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 dicse factors is prcsent 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 southwestem slope that contains active arroyos, and a major rotational slump on the southeastem slope. Thus, slumping may have caused significant lateral displacement of artifacts from die 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 die base of soudiem 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 arca. Biological conditions at and near SDM-W-lSl have special rclevance for interprcting the site's cultural attributes, fonnational history, and physical structure. A rcccnt biological survey (Phillips 1990) documents die 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 southem Califomia, Diegan coastal sage scrub has an 80 to 90 percent shrub cover (Phillips 1990:4) and includes flora and fauna that werc 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 prob^ly exploited for their food value, including CaUfomia ground squirrel {Spermophilus beecheyi), valley pocket gopher {Thomomys bottae), dusky-footed woodrat {Neotoma fuscipes), cottontail rabbit {Sylvilagus auduboni), and bmsh 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 8 elegans) and red-tailed hawk {Buteo jamaicensis) ait good candidates for religious, ceremonial, or ideological significance. Most of these species arc and werc also prcsent in coastal sage scrub and chaparral fracts surrounding SDM-W-181. The drainage lying soutiieast of die site supports a riparian oak woodland habitat that may have supplied water, fuel, foods, and raw materials. Downstream portions of diis drainage have been modified by recent development but may once have prcviously supported a dense growth of oaks and other woodland or riparian species. Two mammals at La Costa Town Center, die valley pocket gopher and Califomia ground squirrel, may have influenced die physical stmcturc of SDM-W- 181. These fossorial (burrowing) rodents are associated with significant faunalturbation (see Section IHA). Being relatively r-selected, diey arc capable of nearly exponential population growtii in die prcsence of enhanced vegetative growth due to precipitation incrcases. bmshfircs. mechanical ground- clearing, and thc deposition 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-181. It is hypothesized that human clearing, use, and abandonment could initiate a rapid growth of die herbaceous plants exploited by fossorial rodents, thereby precip- itating a rodent population explosion with consequentiy increased faunalturbation. Upon attaining maximi size, this population might "crash" In response to various factors (e.g., rcsource depletion, disease, or increased prcdation) and faunalturbation rates would fall. Humans retuming to the site might themselves bc major prcdators. since the edinographic and archaeological literaturc evidences heavy exploitation of these rodents. Note that abandonment interval exceeding some (unspecified) duration wOuld permit maturation of die vegetative community, thus stabilizing rodent populations and faunalturbation rates. The archaeological record at SDM-W-181 may in part be interpreted with reference to climatic and biotic conditions during its occupation, which has been estimated as about 5400-100 B.P. Important changes in die composition of plant communities have been linked to die Xerodiermic (8000-4000 B.P.), which "appears to account for the present discontinuous disUibutions of many xeric taxa that require warm summers" (Axelrod 1973:187). In Axelrod's reconstmction (1977), closed-cone forest and live oak woodland or oak woodland-savanna commu- nities were gradually replaced by communities of differing composition during a period of protracted climatic change. For chaparral, Axelrod (1977:185-186) states: Chaparral taxa have been associated with 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 significantiy and the summer dry Mediteixanean climate had appeared. Chaparral taxa arc not pyrogenic, but were preadapted to survive under such conditions. The spread of chaparral was aided by natural fures, especially during the Xerothermic. but its greatest expansion has occurred under man's influence. It is serai to woodland, not a natural climax. Axekod (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, die existence of local sage communities on dry sites in die Miocene and Phocene of soudiem Califomia seems probable. The distribution of Malosma (laurina) and Schmaltzia (integrifolia) in interior areas into the Pliocene shows tiiat diey have been restticted coastward to a more maritime chmate. It probably was at dus time diat diey were confmed to die matrix of coastal sage, which odierwise 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) tiiat 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 coastal climate. As for its antiquity as a climax formation, sage occupies areas drier dian chaparral or woodland-savanna, chiefly tt-acts wherc prccipitation is below 15 inches (38 cm). On diis basis, it may be inferred diat coastal sage came into existence as a widespread formation only when large areas of rclatively low rainfall appeared. This occurred chiefly after the Wisconsin, for forest and woodland dominated areas prcsentiy covered widi sage during die last glacial:pluvial stage, both on the coast and in the interior. These two developmental histories appear linked by the attainment of near-modem conditions, as AxeUod (1977:186) implies: Taxa diat contiibute to coastal sage are rcgular members of die drier parts of woodland-savanna vegetation. Some of die woody taxa in it have records in die middle Miocene. Sage apparentiy expanded under die influence of drier climate during die later Pleistocene as woodland- savanna was eliminated from die drier areas it now inhabits as a new climax. Axekod's (1977) reconstiuction can be used to outiine 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 ti^msitional to coastal sage in areas extending west from SDM-W-181 and to chaparral toward the east, with die nearby drainage supporting a fairly extensive riparian oak woodland. Overall biomass and biological diversity may have been somewhat different from die present time. If tiie 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 arca. B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW This four-part overview provides a background for die Phase II research design (Section III), and is informed by the philosophy of science-history pioneered by Thomas S. Kuhn (1970, 1977). The fu:st part discusses major research paradigms and explanatory models linked to the theoretical issues that were identified, during Phase I, for closer study in Phase II. An analysis of 10 early to mid-twentiedi century archaeological work at SDM-W-181 is prcsented in the second part, since one aspect of die site's importance concems its poten- tial value for testing regional research understandings. As a way of further illuminating such topics, die diird part summarizes some important recent studies in the near vicinity of SDM-W-181. The fourdi part focuses on RECON's La Costa Town Center survey (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990) and Phase I test (Davis and Cheever 1991) to explain the foundation of Phase II rcsearch. 1- Research Paradigms and Explanatory Models Scientific data have litde meaning when divorced from their related mediods and dieories. It is equally difficult to understand dieories or mediods apart from dieir historical context. The historical context of San Diego regional archaeology can be outiined widi reference to Willey and Sabloff (1974:88-177). They characterize die years 1914-1960 as American archaeology's "Classificatory-Historical Period," with an early phase 1914-1940) preoccupied by chronology-building and a later phase (1940-1960) focused more on delineating context and function. Local archaeology has long been, and still remains sttongly affected by tiie pioneering research of Malcohn J. Rogers in soudiem Califomia and adjacent areas. Most of his career took place during 1919-1945 and fits squarely within the Classificatoiy-Historical Period's chronology-building ttadition. Rogers* most lasting contribution has been the cultural chronology defined in his publications, field notebooks, site records, and artifact collections. This chronology, with its associated culture-phase descriptions and assemblage definitions, does not reflect the changes in American archaeology that occurred during Rogers' years of retirement and isolation (1946-1957). Rogers assimilated some of diese developments in the last years of his life (1958-1960) but died before completing "The San Dieguito Complex," which was a major work intended to expand, refine, or revise different aspects of his thinking (Hanna 1982). It is important to understand die nature of and reasons for Rogers* influence on local archaeology. His chronology and assemblage defmitions werc readily accepted and synthesized widi others' contributions throughout die Classificatory-Historical Period's contextual-functional phase (1940-1960). This conformed well with general practice, since research of the time was often focused on expanding cultural chronologies into broad areal syntheses by incor- porating abundant new data and key concepts from anthropology, geography, ecol- ogy, and rclated fields. Rogers was becoming current on these developments during 1958-1960, but his sudden deatii prevented dissemination of his new ideas. His unfinished manuscript was ultimately published as a heavily edited and supplemented volume (Rogers, Wormington, Davis and Brott 1966), which attempts to reconcile Rogers' early woik radiocarbon dates and odier data from the 1950s and early 1960s (Hanna 1982). Hence. Rogers' influence has always remained firmly rooted in the chronology-building ttadition of Classificatory-Historical Period archaeology. A key issue is die influence of Rogers' chronology swell into what Willey and Sabloff (1974:178-211) term American archaeology's "Explanatory Period" (post-1960). Not only did Rogers' work survive die New Archaeology movement (ca. 1948-1968), but his cul ture-chronological focus has since remained 11 a main dieme of much local work. One possible explanation is diat New Archae- ology belongs to a continuing "scientific rcvolution" (Kuhn 1970, 1977) which seeks to reonent its philosophy widiout sacrificing estabUshed dogma. In diis view, die continuing preoccupation widi 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 essentidly nonhistorical paradigms. Anodier explanation for die continuing infiuence of orthodox cultural chronologies and cultural histories may involve die naturc of local archaeological practice. Since about 1970. research funding and personnel have been iiwreasingly dominated by die appUcd-science context of Cultural Resource Management (CRM). Because many CRM practitioners (bodi private consultants and pubUc agency personnel) received dieir formal ttainmg from older and fairly traditioniM archaeologists, dieir oudooks arc influenced by Classificatory- Historical _ Period paradigms. CRM practice may also favor Classificatory- Historical interests because management decisions are most securcly developed or defended with rcference to the formal pubUshed Uterature. which has over- whetaiingly been audiored by such ttaditional archaeologists as Rogers and his former associates (Hanna 1982), including Claude N. Wan-en (University of Nevada at Las ^ Vegas); James Robert Moriarty m (University of San Diego, formeriy Univcrsily of Califomia at San Diego); Paul H. EzeU (deceased, fomieriy San Diegp St«e University); Emil W. Haury (Umversity of Arizona); and Julian D Hayden (formeriy University of Arizona). This Ust should probably be expanded to include diree odiers who, while not Rogers', intimates, were closely informed by his work: WilUam J. Wallace (University of Soutiiem CaUfomia); Clement W Meighan (University of CaUfomia at Los Angeles); and Delbert L. Tme (formeriy University of Califomia at Los Angeles). 2. SvndiesLs of PrehLstorv RGxemrch The currendy accepted general model of San Diego County prehistory, die product of many smaU revisions widi a few broad extensions, is still quite recognizable based on Rogers* chronology. It differentiates tiiree principal cultural pattems (tiie Archaic. Late Prehistoric, and Proto-historic Periods), each distinguished by similarities in material culture inventories, site types, spatial disttibutions, and relative or absolute date ranges. The du-ee 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 unresolved issues, competing rcsearch explanations, and altematives to the model itself a. The Archaic Period. Early occupants of die San Diego area arc archaeologically represented by a culture pattem diat Malcolm J. Rogers first described as die "Scraper-Mtfers" and later as die "San Dieguito" (Rogers 1929, 1938). The material culture inventory was initiaUy defined on tiie basis of several sites and then formalized witii material from die C.W. Harris Site (SDi- 149/SDM-W-198), fu-st excavated by Rogers in 1938 and since considered the San Dieguito "Type Site" (Warreh 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 elements, are common projectile point and knife forms. Hafting and deUvery systems associated with these artifacts are widely debated but probably included hardened foreshafts fastened to atiati darts and lances. Bows may have been used as weU, but tiie mass of die points implies that this was rare. Rogers' original compilation of San Dieguito ttaits did not include ground stone arti- facts, a technology attributed to the later "La JoUa" culture complex. Along with other members of the Westem Lithic Co-tradition, the primary economic emphasis within San Dieguito has been suggested as a large-game based subsis- tence strategy reUant upon the production of hunting and butchering tools (Davis etal. 1969). Many archaeological sites attributed to the San Dieguito are visible as surface or very shaUow deposits, typically located on inland knoUtops and ridge-fingers overlooking watercourses. The usually tenuous nature of diese deposits, coupled with a limited range of tool types, has led many researdins to interpret San Dieguito sites as either temporary camps or loci of SpeciaUzed activities, such as huntihg or food processing. If these views arc correct, then a San Dieguito economy based primarily on hunting activities and secondarily on the use of plant rcsources was probably expressed as a nomadic lifestyle that may have entailed seasonal pattems dictated by die availabUity of local resources. Excavations in and around San Diego County in tiie 40 years following Rogers' pioneering work have revealed die existence of the San Dieguito complex within San Diego county by about 9,000 years ago (Gallegos 1985). Technological attributes, tool forms, and general material culture trends have been used to place thc San Dieguito complex widiin a much larger Archaic Period cultural continuum sometimes called the Westem Pluvial Lakes Tradition (BcdweU 1970; Hester 1973).' This group of coeval cultural patteras developed in Great Basin and Colorado Desert playa lake arcas during moist periods foUowing die last glaciaticav widi the economy developing around plants and animals that survived increi^i^y arid environments. This post- Paleoindian era saw the emergence of huniii^ economies, over wide areas of die desert soudiwest. which exhibited similar tec^ological pattems due to dieir sharcd economic base. Such simUarities mnong many Archaic Period sites in the Colorado Desert and Grcat Basin have led some rcsearchers to group them within what has been caUed the "Westem Lidiic Co-tradition" (Davis et al. 1969). A growing body of data fi^m purported San Dieguito sites in the San Diego area has recentiy begun to place some of these rcconstmctions in doubt Whereas ground stone artifacts were not previously thought to be asso- ciated with these earlier complexes, manos have been found within lower sections of die CW. Harris Site (Carrico et al. 1990). Odier sites, such as SDM-W-131. SDM-W-40, and SDM-W-1584, have revealed millmg technology in association with dates of greater tiian 8,000 years B.P. (GaUegos 1984; Norwood 1980). There appears to be a progressive narrowing of definitional differences between the San Dieguito and assumptively later complexes. Within ttaditional nomenclature, the San Dieguito Complex is followed in the archaeological record by a pattera that Malcolm J. Rogers first termed the "SheU-Midden People" and later renamed the "La Jolla Complex" (Rogers 1938, 1945). Rogers' initial formulation considered "Shell-Midden People" antecedent to the "Scraper-Makers." His subsequent chronological reversal stemmed largely from stratigraphical interpretations at the C.W. Harris 13 Site (Warren 1966), The definition and chronological position of die La Jolla Complex, particularly in relation to tiie San Dieguito Complex, have since been subject to continuing debate (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987; Hayden 1987). Wanen (1968) considers die La JoUa Complex a local variant of die Encinitas Tradi- tion. Odier complexes commonly associated witii die Encinitas Tradition include the Pauma, Topanga, Oak-Grove, and Early MiUing horizons of die soudiem CaUfomia coastal and inland zones (Chartkoff and Chardcoff 1984:108). Frequendy mentioned Encinitas Tradition hallmarks arc an increased dependence on railiin| • technology and a decrease in certain styles of flaked Uduc artifacts diat characterize San Dieguito assemblages. This tech- nological shift, which purportedly involved intensive utiUzation of a wider resource base, is reflected by a generally morc diverse tool assemblage. A specific inference is diat die large number of weU-worked grinding implements indicates processing of hard seeds from plants of the chaparral and inland mountain regions, which might have permitted a diminished rcUance on hunting. This shift, coupled widi an increasing use of Uttoral rcsources, marks die end of die "Westem Pluvial Lakes" tradition and its coastal manifestation sometimes caUed die "Paleo-Coastal Tradition" (Chardcoff and Chardcoff 1984:108; Moratto 1984:109). Archaeological sites attributed to tiie La JoUa Complex have been assigned dates ranging from about 8000 B.P. to 3000 B.P.. overiapping late San Dieguito phases in many areas (Moratto 1984:147). Besides die prcsence of milUngstones. La JoUa sites arc typically associated widi flexed burials and shell middens, and occasionally widi cogstones or discoidals. The stone tool assemblage from such sites generaUy contains higher percentages of battering and crashing implements, with less emphasis on a finely worked cutting edge, and lower percentages of large bifacially worked knives and unifacially worked "scraper/cores" dian is tiiought to be typical of die San Dieguito Complex. Tools from coastal La JoUa sites often express less raw material selectivity, and show less detail and care in workmanship, dian diose found widiin San Dieguito assemblages. An apparent inland manifestation of the La JoUa Complex was termed die "Pauma Complex" by D.L. Trae (1958). who proposed die name to describe an assemblage recovered firom over 20 inland sites in northem San Diego County. The Pauma assemblage features stone tools which initially seemed to foUow tiie San Dieguito pattern (e.g., foliate points and crescentics) but werc found in association with por^ble milUngstones usuaUy ascribed to the La JoUa Complex. Subsequent research revealed that some of these purported associations resulted from n^ed sttata and provenience. After further study and reflection, Trae ultimately decided diat "die Pauma complex inventory is very simUar to the adjacent La Jolla ... and some undefined but close rcla- tionship is proposed between the two" (Trae 1980:370), Materials from diese sites do seem closely tied to die La Jolla Complex, aldiough influences from die emergent Campbell TraditicHi to die north arc sometimes proposed (Moratto 1984:152). Site assemblages attributed to die CampbeU Tradition often include "side notched and lanceolate points, large knives, a variety of flake scrapers, and drill-like implements" (Warrcn 1968:2). Relationships between the San Dieguito, Pauma. and La Jolla Complexes are an area of active debate and rcsearch. Present interpretations of the data fall into two main categories: (1) defenses of the traditional view 14 asserting temporal and cultural differences between tiie tiu-ee and (2) altematives diat explain die purported differences as artifacts of prema- ture classification based on incomplete data. Traditionalists explain distinctions between San Dieguito and La Jolla assemblages as genuine examples of adaptive cultural change or population replacement. The former scenario posits diat an inland hunting Ufestyle (San Dieguito culture) expanded toward die seashore, wherc an abundance of shellfish and odier marine rcsources promoted more sedentary setdement supported by intensive exploitation of subsistence resources within a smaUer catchment area. The abundant food supply found in and around lagoons is suggested to have caused a deemphasis of hunting, which seems to be reflected in die archaeological record, while a consequentiy rcduced need for group mobUity may account for die regular occurrence at La JoUa sites of depositional depdis far exceeding those noted in most purported San Dieguito associations. TTus explanation seems to fit thc evidence from coastal sites fairly weU and can also accommodate most of die evidence from inland sites. Radiocarbon dates, where avaUable, do not seem to indicate a hiatus between the two cultures. If diis is ttue, then Pauma sites may rcpresent habitations of people in active ttansition between the two extremes. The second ti^iditional scenario, cultural replacement is fueled primarily by die observation diat assemblages from San Dieguito sites are by defmition significantiy different from those seen in coastal La JoUa sites. In a classical example of "migration versus diffusion" arguments, some archae- ologists have viewed such differences as significant enough to rcquirc separate historical origins for the two archaeological cultures. Aldiough the invasion scenario appears expedient and efficient, it is based on partially tautological premises. Changes in economic and technological patterns are evident throughout the Archaic Period, but whether they rcpresent in situ change or the intro- duction of odier cultural elements is a critical point Models aUowing for in situ change would more easily reconcile data retrieved from San Diego County sites with that found in adjacent areas to die north and east Nontraditional interpretations have been fueled by several types of information, rnostiy stemming from the proUferation of archaeological surveys and site excavations in recent years. Many local archaeologists have come to reaUze that distinctions between La JoUa-pattem and San Dieguito-pattem sites lessen with increased distance from the coast: moving inland, finely made hunting tools reappear in association with miUing tools and shellfish remains at sites dating to the La Jolla era. Accumulating radiocarbon dates over the past three decades indicate significant temporal overlaps between La Jolla and San Dieguito assemblages. It now appears that die 12.000-7.500 B.P. range for "San Dieguito" sites (Wallace 1955, 1977; Tme 1958; Wanen, Trae, and Eudey 1961; Wan-en 1966, 1967. 1968; Rogers et al. 1966; Moriarty 1967; Davis et al. 1969) is too conservative on the upper end, while the 11.000-l,56o B.P. range for "La JoUa" sites (WaUace 1955; Moriarty 1966; Rogers et al. 1966; Trae 1966; Warrcn 1968; Smith and Moriarty 1982) is too conservative on the lower end. Such observations have led some to propose that the ttaditional culture-diagnostic artifact assemblages are actuaUy alternate tooUcits of a single culture adapted to different rcsource areas. Hence, many "La JoUa" assemblages may be specialized tooUcits associated widi seasonally utilized, coastal resource-processing sites; as such, they would be part of a broader 15 cultural pattem tiiat also included "San Dieguito" tooUcits at inland sites. Wherc "La JoUa" processing sites also functioned as temporary camps, briefly but rcgularly 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 rettograde "La JoUa" culture pattem in distinction to a separate, technologically complex "San Dieguito" hunting culture elsewhere. The apparent proUferation of La JoUa sites dirough time might rcpresent a gradual accumulation of several similar sites, a progressively elaborated reUance upon locally avaUable resources, or bodi. Similarly, die duration and size of coastal site occupations could have changed ttepn^ time, so diat a broadly based coastal focus of die culture was rccoidcd at select times and locations. The resolution of tiiese debates is archaeologicaUy feasible and wiU pardy d^nd on obtaining detailed information, inclutmig abrolute dates, from a Mgnificandy expanded sample of die stiU poorly represented irfland sites. Discovering a large number of contemporary inland and coastal Archaic Period sites would sttongly suggest "San Dieguito" and "La JoUa" synchronicity. wheicas a definite lack of such sites, despite concerted efforts to locate diem, would go far towards confmning traditional views. Zonal pftlteming for freq««itly recunent m situ associations of "San Dieguito" and "La JoUa" dia^^ostic artifacts would support the diesis of functicmal (toolkit) rather dian ciiitural distinctiveness, particularly if "San Dieguito" items were rarest near the coast and "La Jolla" items were rarest in die far interior. Near- coastal sites at locations ttansitional to interior valleys and highlands should provide especially good test cases because the functional (toolkit) diesis pretUcts Wgh frequency occurrence of speciaUzed items from bodi pattems. as weU as habitational and tool-production debris. . Ills—Late Prehistoric Period. MUUng technology in soudiem California and adjacent areas appears to have had a relatively cmplex histoiy. As noted, suggestions that raiUing artifacts were present in at least some parts of the San Dieguito pattem's spatio-temporal disttibution have fueled endiiring controversy over the validity of supposed cultural-chronological units and the nature of relationships between them. There is broad consesisus over assigning "La JoUa" and possible regional variants to die Early MiUingstone Horizon, and very late La Jolla Complex assemblages appear to exhibit lin^ continuity with Late Millingstone Horizon assemblages. A potentially signigcant 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 weU-developed collection economy focused on pinyon pine, hoUy- hock, sheUfish, and a wide variety of other plant and animal resources. The "Cuyamaca Complex" (Trae 1970), an early Late MUlingstone Horizon assemblage in southem San Diego County, adjacent parts of Imperial County, and nordiem Baja CaUfomia. is considered direcdy 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 Warten (1968) classifies as thc "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 widun Warren's (1968) Late Prehistoric Stage. Wallace (1955) classifies all of these cultures as part of the "Late Prehistoric Horizon." The slow development of Early Milling Horizon cultures seems to have progressed fairly uniformly until approximately 1200 B.P„ when fairly Sttong evidence appears for population influxes into San Diego County from desert regions to the east According to Rogers (1945), die "Yuman invasion" of Hokan-speakers was episodic and protracted, and in the final phase (Yuman IO) can be equated with die appearance of direct Kumeyaay ancestors. SimUariy, Meighan's (1954) San Luis Rey II phase is diought to reflect a direct intitision of Shoshonean Takik-speakers from desert areas north of the Yumans, while Moratto (1984) believes that die circa 1200 B.P. appearance of die Irvine Complex and San Luis Rey Complex signifies estabUshment of thc ancesttal Luiseno populations. c. !Di£ Proto-historic Period. The Proto-historic Period is associated with local populations that were directiy ancesttal to cthnohistori- cally known cultures, which in archaeological terms equates widi Ydinan III and San Luis Rey II. Through roughly 1300 B.P., die Late Prehistoric Period archaeological record shows incrcasing contacts with groups outside the San Diego area. Groups focused in the Lower Colorado River VaUey were partly agricultural, for die most part spoke a Hokan-famUy language, and rafintained contacts with die Pima-Papago and various Pueblo peoples farther east Most nonriverine desert groups belonged to a widespread set of cultures, including nomads and a few semi-agriculturalists, that spoke languages of the Shoshonean family and had connections throughout die Grcat Basin and into Me^dco. Therc also appear to have been contacts between the San Diego arca and groups along the Califomia coast including the Santa Barbara Channel area. Through ttade, assimilation, or population movements, and possibly all three, a number of distinctive atttibutes werc overlaid onto prc- existing local Millingstone Horizon ttaditions. Among these attributes arc certain projectUe point types, other fmely worked Uthic tools, steatite artifacts, mortuary goods, and crcmations. At some point between about 1350 and 1200 B.P.. the local material culture inventory became virtuaUy identical to that of the ethnohistoricaUy known groups. This is particularly trae with 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 by a heavy reliance on acoms and other plant materials requiring extensive processing before use. The gradual elaboration of this economy, which probably began earlier in the Late Prehistoric Period, resulted in distinctive milling features found on bedrock outcrops throughout the arca. These features include conical depressions (mortars) and shallow but larger depressed areas (basins and sHcks) on the surifaces of (usually granite) boulders. Mortars werc used with a pounding tool (pestie) for grinding acoms into a paste that was leached and dried to make acom meal, which was a dietary staple. Tlie large, shallow sticks and basins are thought to have been used with a hand-stone (mano) in processing seeds and other vegetable foodstuffs. Although such features cannot be directiy dated, many have been found in association with artifacts of Late Prehistoric or occasionally early historic age. 17 One difficulty with defining die Proto-historic Period is diat influences from die slowly encroaching Spaniards undoubtedly rcached northward, far in advance of die founding of Mission San Diego de Alcala and Prcsidio de San Diego in A.D. 1769. The pace of culmral change accelerated after diat date and ultimately precipitated large-scale native depopulation, relocation, and social coUapse. It also caused terminological confusion because Fray Junipero Serra, following standard practice, called tiie San Diego mission neophytes "Dieguenos" and the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia neophytes "Luisenos." These terms were extended to incorporate aU natives within each combined mission and presidio administrative district, often in complete ignorance of traditional socio-political divisions. It is difficult to reconstmct aboriginal social and poUtical sttuctures because tiie Spanish recorded Uttie information of value m diis regard, and ethnographic field research began long after native cullnrcs had experienced die majority of historical impacts. The Yuman-^ikfaig ^habitants throughout most of San Diego County were loosely organized into ^t least two dialcctfe»Hy separate groups, each associated with an arca diat was home to many tdblets or bands. The Ipai (northem) and Tipai {sou^^em) divisions werc not so much clearly defmed territorial units as they were emetically recognized, cultural and dialectical sttuctures (Luomala 1978:592). In original usage, these terms probably had geographic and/or classificatory mea^gs diat have since been lost or modified. A currcndy accepted name for the CH^ueno is Kumeyaay, a term of unclear origin that Spier (1923:298) rccords as Originally associated with die northem Ipai division. The meaning of Kumeyaay was subsequendy 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 arca, and north-centtal Baja Califomia (Mav 1975:1). ^ The Kumeyaay traditionaUy maintained a system of patrilineal, pattilocal. exogamous sibs diat werc distiibuted widiin a tenitoriaUy associated band sttucttms (Luomala 1978:602; Shipek 1982:297; Giffoid 1973:378). Each band contained members of up to 15 sibs within its organaafajtiffll (Shipek 1982:297). The consanguinial kin group (household) was the pnSMiy social structiirc and consisted of a married couple together with their unmarried chUdren. married sons and famiUes, and such dependant relatives within die father's Uncage as his parents, grandparents, and unmarried aunts or uncles (May 1975:3). At any one time, the Kumeyaay band usuaUy maintained a main village and several outiier vUlages (Trae 1970:55; May 1975:4; Shipek 1982:297; Luomala 1978:597). Since the economy was based on intensive utUization of locally avaUable 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 utiUzed by local band members for a large part of tiie yearly cycle (Luomala 1978:597). At die time of Spanish intrasion, institutionalized leadership roles within the clans and various integrating systems between the clans faciUtated fiexible pattems of personnel movement and ti-ade du-oughout the rcgion (Shipek 1982:302). Therc were also various connections with the bands and clans of other ethno-finguistic ttaditions. 18 European contacts substantiaUy and pervasively sttessed tiie social, pohucal, and economic fabric of Kumeyaay culture. The missionary influence eroded traditional religious and ideological instiuitions, while die development of coastal areas for crops and Uvestock severely impacted ttadi- tional subsistence practices. Disease, starvation, and a general institutional coUapse caused emigration, birth rate decUnes, and high adult and infant mortality levels. For a short time and principally inland, tiiese pressures enhanced die role and increased die scope of inter-clan and p<Msibly uibal level political institutions. However, continuing European encroachments even- ttially made ttaditional band-level iifeways progressively unviable A few impoverished bands were able to rctain ttaditional pattems in remote mountain areas untd die early twentietii century, but die broader and complex Kumeyaay social system was effectively dismantied by die mid-nineteenth; centtiry The general c^Uapse was so rapid and complete diat most viUage locations and band clan, or lineage names werc never recorded. 3. Earlv Research at SDM-W-lRl The period of early research (defmed here as 1919-1965) was heavUy dommated by Malcolm J. Rogers, who discovered SDM-W-181 in !^ first decade of his wide-ranging 1919-1945 surveys tiuoughout soudiem CaUfomia. Baja Cahfomia. and adjacent areas. Rogers' initial woric focused on die Escondido area but almost immediately expanded to die coastal zone of central San Dieeo County (Hamia 1982). Rogers' 1920 discovery of die C. W. Harris site (SDM-W- \98) on die San Dieguito River below Lake Hodges, and his pre-1930 surveys of die Encmitas Grant Plateau, which contains SDM-W-181, were key components in his first definition of die San Dieguito Complex (Rogers 1929). Widi additional surveys and a few excavations in die 1930s, and smaU-scale surveys in die early 1940s, Rogers was able to develop and ultiriiately publish die region's fust comprehensive cultural chronology (Rogers 1945). An historical outiine of early work at SDM-W-181 can bc summarized from biographical data on Malcolm Rogers (Hanna 1982) and die audior's recent archival rcsearch at die San Diego Museum of Man. Over a period of several years. Rogers performed sporadic field visits, surface collections, and minor subsurface probes. Pre-1930 efforts were conducted mosdy widi his fadier's collaboration, while field activities during 1930-1941 probably involved various assistants working under Rogers' dircct supervision, Rogers is unlUcely to have done much work at the site throughout 1941-1945. when the San Diego Museum of Man was a U.S. Naval Hospital facihty, most of his collections and archives were in storage, and many of his erstwhile associates werc in uniform. So far as is known, diere was no work at SDM-W-181 during Rogers* 1945-1958 temporary retirement He may have conducted new fieldwork between 1958 and his deatii in 1960. Others may have worked at die site during 1958-1960. possibly under Rogers' supervision, and tiieir own efforts seem to have continued intermittentiv until about 1965. Early SDM-W-181 work is reprcsented at the San Diego Museum of Man by a site drawer, containing mostiy uncatalogued artifacts, and by miscellaneous archives. This material is discussed, below, in order to define early work and its role in the history of local archaeology. This will also help clarify research opportunities and limitations inherent to the site. 19 I I The Museum archives include dttee unpublished records, at least two of which arc by Rogers; Rogers' site-locations map for the Encinitas region; die Museum's modem site-locations map; and associated unpublished documents. Some of the latter rclate to the Museum's San Dieguito Type Collection. Which is a list of specimens selected from various site drawers to Ulustrate Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966), the book produced by rcvising and supplementing Rogers' unfinished manuscript The San Dieguito Complex (also on file at the Museum). The fu-st record of SDM-W-181 is on page 37 in die diird volume of Rogers' "W" (Westem Series) notebook, which probably dates to 1929 (Grace Johnson, pers. comm., 6/21/91). The record is very brief and reads: (W-181) SM - HUl site on nordi side of Encinitas Crcek. 300* contpur- near San Marcos Road. Metates and manos absent This is a fairiy late site with double convex knives. SD IH. One crescent 8" under ground Total depth of sttatum 13" W-181-A SM-horizon on die 200' contour. Metates and manos present Work mostiy of a crade natare and is probably in part P-SM. The "SM" notation signifies "Scraper-Maker," Rogers' carUest terra for die "San Dieguito Industty." In diis record, he also indicates die diiid ^base ©f diat industty as "SD III." The "P-SM" stands for "Proto Scraper-Maker." a t^ which Rogers successively renamed "Encinitas," "Littoral II," and "La Jolla II." It is important that Rogers specified an absence of metates and manos. The note of a "crescent 8 underground" suggests that Rogers had 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- fact inventories from sites that might help him test or refmC' ideas ijp^ped as the result of large areal surveys. His use of excavation is chftrkctacrized as follows (Hanna 1982:374). Rogers was apparentiy most apt to test excavate in two simations: where he saw a possibiUty of fmding protected, stratified deposits, as in a rockshelter. and where some exposed site appeared to have been built-up by accretion, as with a trail shrine. Rogers' field notebooks also indicate that he occasionally sunk a test ttench at an exposed but sttatified midden site; diis was a major part of his 1929 Midden Survey and 1930 Channel Islands woric. Although we cannot know for certain, Rogers excavation at SDM-W-181 was probably limited to one or two small ttenches. It is possible, of course, that he mercly noted die crescent's vertical location in some naturaUy formed exposurc, such 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 diis list reads: 20 w-181 =SDII + TraceofSDni W-181 A = SDD + PLD In this record, the earUer San Dieguito ID attiibution is amended to SD II and a "ttace" of SD 01, while die San Dieguito of SDM-W-181-A is specified as SD II. The "PL II" at SDM-W-181-A stands for "Pacific Littoral II," which can be decoded with rcference to Rogers' fust entry on the list "W-1 = Pacific Littoral I (old terminology Yuman I) + Yuman HI. The base of the Y-m horizon is probably PL-II." This terminology encapsulates die historical development of Rogers' cultural chronology. The "old" terminology to which he refers refiects his earlier beUef that the Yuman sequence was a local outgrowdi from Pacific Littoral (Littoral or La Jolla) roots. In otiicr words, PL I = Littoral I = La JoUa I = Yuman I, PL II = Littoral K = La JoUa II = Yuman II, and Yuman III = ethnohistoric Diegueno or Kumeyaay. By 1942, however. Rogers had come to believe tiiat the Yuman sequence began in the Lower Colorado River area and appeared along the San Diego coast as desert populations moved westward. He therefore separated the Yuman sequence from the Littoral/La JoUa sequence, preserving die possibUity of a partial temporal overiap but setting Yuman as generally successional to La JoUa. The tiurd record is die Museum's formal SDM-W-181 site sheet a typewritten page bearing neidier name nor date of authorship. It is known diat Rogers synthesized his notebook entries and misceUaneous notes into formal site records during die early 1940s, probably about 1942-1943, and in some cases he appears to have typed them up himself (Hanna 1982). Malcohn Farmer seems to have prepared odiers, most lUcely from Rogers' pre-1945 handwritten materials and probably during his 1958-1960 retum from retirement or shordy thereafter (Ken Hedges: personal communication 7/1/91). In any evem, die formal SDM-W- 181 site sheet eidier duplicates or closely foUows Rogers' thirddng of circa 1942-1945. Thc formal site sheet gives "North HiU" as the common name for a "1/2 acre concentration with 2 acrcs of scattered marginal occupation." which is a "Highland accretion camp" located "on a hiU on north rira of North Fork of Encinitas Crcek [at] Elev. 325'[AMSL]." Thc site's archaeological cultures are listed as "SD-II and HI, and Lit fl at W-181-A." A more substantial part of the record reads: ARCHITECTURE: Therc arc 2 large caims of boulders here which have slumped into an erosional cirque. May be Lit II roasting platforms or sweat-house debris. HISTORY: First settied by SD-II and occupied over into diird phase. This is a very concenttated occupation, probably because the surrounding mesa top is very stoney except in this one arca. 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. Therc is some slight amount of SD-II material on the site as weU. Beginning 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 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 die greatest concentration of SD occupa- tion in San Diego county. Two highly significant points can be made widi reference to this record. First, die site's description as a "Highland accretion camp" is compatible with the view tiiat Rogers' fu-st (1929) notebook record impUes excavation, since he is known to have occasionally used exploratory ttenching at exposed sites witii "accretion" deposits. Second, die statement tiiat "die Encinitas Grant Plateau ... is the center of the greatest concentiation of SD occupation in San Dicgo county" not only sounds typical of Rogers, but also highlights this region's historical importance in die development of his cultural chronology. A diird point also merits attention. Uke both of the earUer records, the formal site sheet specifies a hiatus between San Dieguito and La JoUa deposits at SDM-W-I81-A. This remained a major tenet du-ough aU of Rogers' work. For insttmce. in Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et ai, 1966:83). it is Rogers who explains that: Most of the San Dieguito highland sites are thin-bedded, and their maximum depth does not exceed forty-six inches [119 cm]. The average depth of archaeological debris is around ten inches [25 cm]. Although not having impressive vertical depdi, dieir linear extensions sometimes cover an acrc. 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 between them and the La Jolla II middens. This feamre is much less in evidence in dual culmral sites of die San Dieguito III Phase and the La Jolla n Phase, but it does exist The geological hiatos probably represents the period and duration of the La JoUa I Phase. This rather concrete characterization should be testable in the field. Malcohn 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 die spot corresponding to die Museum of Man's modem map on die U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute Rancho Santa Fe Quad sheet Neidier map shows SDM-W-181-A, but the formal site sheet's description seems to matoh the location of SDM-W-942 (SDi-8697). This is separate from a site to die west which Kaldenberg (1974) tested widi a series of backhoe ttenches in die belief that it was SDM-W-181 - A. Two other Rogers documents, also at the San Diego Museum of Man (see Attachment 1), help to decipher and reconcile thc foregoing site records. The fttst entitied "Terminology of Malcolm J. Rogers" and postscripted "Malcolm J. Rogers - June 1958," is a set of typed lists 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," Usts Rogers' terminological equivalents and his original (short) chronology. It gives no date or author, but contains typing eirors and reflects a typing style that have elsewhere (Hanna 1982) been encountered with materials securcly attiibuted to Rogers. Judging from the terminology and chronology, this second document predates 1958, which means it must also predate Rogers* 1945-1958 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 bc synthesized in relation to Rogers' "short" chronology of circa 1938-1958. His very early publications and notebook entiies suggest that the Shell Midden People (subsequentiy termed Pacific Littoral. Littoral, and La JoUa) culture was possibly older than the Scraper Maker (San Dieguito) culture. Widiin a few years, however, Rogers had come to believe San Dieguito was the older unit, a conclusion which he later tried to confirm with sttatigraphic data from his 1938 C. W. Harris site excavations (Warren 1966). In Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas, Rogers (1939:70-74) argues diat die Playa Industty or San Dieguito-Playa Complex "does not necessarily demand an inception date earUer dian 1,000 or 2,000 B.C." There is considerable evidence ^ahna 1982) that Rogers continued to defend this "short" chronology, in the face of contta- dictory opinion and evidence, until confronted with a series of contradictory radiocarbon dates at some point in 1959 or 1960. A sense of th^s is also provided by Warrcn (1966:18), as foUows, The date for the San Dieguito complex presents another problem and has long been disputed. Rogers maintained in 1939 that the San Dieguito complex dated from 800 to 2000 B.C. However, the series of radiocarbon dates for the San Diego Coast indicated that these dates were too conservative and Rogers had agreed upon a much older date belbre he died (Clark Brott personal communication 1965). Four radiocarbon dates (Hubbs. Bien. and Seuss 1962, 1965) on La JoUan features in Locus I of the Harris site range from 1600±150 B.C. Odier dates from La Jolla sites in the area make it possible to place the San Dieguito assemblage as earlier dian ca. 6000 B.C. (Warrcn and Trae 1961:259-263). The 1958 document relates Rogers' "The San Dieguito Complex" termi- nology to older forms. It indicates four major changes from his earUer thinking: 1) The San Dieguito Complex was separated into three rcgional sequences: the Centtal Aspect (Colorado Desert), die Southwestem Aspect (Southem Califomia and Baja Califomia), and the Westem Aspect (northem Califomia and Oregon). This expressed a more expUcitiy geographical formulation than in any of Rogers' prcvious work, and was in fact a major areal synthesis. 2) The entire complex was unified under a new four-phase chronology with labels that were closely sinular to Rogers* earlier usage. For example, within the Southwestem Aspect "old" SD I became SD fi; "old" SD n became SD EI; "old" SD HI and IV togedier became SD IV; and die 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 III and SD IV into thc new SD IV is especiaUy confusing, since he had earlier (Rogers 1939) published the view that (old) SD TV existed only in Baja Califomia. In his 1958 formulation, Rogers apparendy did not feel simple endurance was sufficient justification for distinguishing a separate phase in Baja Califomia. 23 •liiiiiiiiiiMii 3) Similarly, die "old" labels of Malpais, Playa I, and Playa D were expUcidy reserved to die Centtal Aspect and ttanslated into San Dieguito phases. This geographical limitation, which had already been suggested in print (Rogers 1939), had die effect of equating old and new terminology between the Centi^l and Southwestem areas. For example, "old" Playa I (Centtal) = "old" San Dieguito I (Soutiiwestem) = "new" Phase II (Centtal and Southwestem). 4) The 1958 terminology's spatio-temporal constiuction formally incor- porated a process of westward San Dieguito migration or trait-diffusion from the Colorado Desert, recapitiilating Rogers* earUcr (1939:71) conclusion diat "Our knowledge of die archaeology to die east and soudi of die San Dieguito-Playa area is almost sufflcient to exclude dicse regions as derivative points, and we are thus left with only two possi- ble conidors of ingress; one is die Pacific Uttoral, and the other is the Great Basin." In this sense, the 1958 terminology recapimlates Rogers* mature opinion that Yuman culmre originated in the Lower Colorado River area and widi time extended westward to Soudiem Califomia through ttait diffusion followed by population influxes. These points are emphasized because Rogers' 1958 terminology was expUcidy used by odiers, after his deadi, to organize Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al, 1966) and the closely related San Dieguito Type Collection. We can now tum to some other San Diego Museum of Man material conceming SDM-W-181. A point of departure is tlaric Evemham's (1966) "A Note About die 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- 345). (Evcmham (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 preUminary content editing. Then, according to Evemham (1966): Clark W. Brott curator of coUections of the Museum of Man, expended several months of editorial effort in an attempt to tie Rogers' unfin- ished text to unfmished plates, and for the sake of accuracy, check everything with the artifacts, notes, and site records. Even when all die correlations were worked out die result was not satisfactory, however. The artifact names used by Rogers did not reflect the changes in terminology developed since 1940. Dr. H. Wormington and Dr. Emma Lou Davis were invited to San Dicgo to study the coUection, and they agreed with die professional staff of the Museum of Man and with the publisher, that it would be a genuine setback to Califomia archaeology to publish an outdated and unfinished typology. The terminology and type groupings used hercin are based on Davis' and Wormington's recommendations, and also upon Claude N. Warren's pubUshed types. Malcolm Rogers' assignment of artifacts to particular phases and aspects was retained without alteration. Davis' and Wormington's typology was worked out, using 1,051 specimens, selected by Malcolm Rogers as being suitable for illustration or exhi- bition and are now assembled as the San Dieguito Type CoUection. The 24 type collection was drawn from 5.121 specimens Rogers felt werc associ- ated widi die San Dieguito Complex and used in his smdy for diis book. All artifacts are in the Museum of Man. Words, phases, and paragraphs shown in italics in die chapter on "Artifacts of tiie San Dieguito Complex" indicate they were written by him. The remainder of diat chapter was compiled and written by Clark W. Brott. The foregoing closely corresponds to die San Diego Museum of Man's San Dieguito Type Collection accession record, which was completed on July 29 1966 by Clark W. Brott. dien Curator of CoUections. Portions of diis record arc reproduced, below. Collector: Malcolm J. Rogers; Frederick S. Rogers (Malcohn's fatiier); Donal Hord; Homer Dana; Malcolm Farmer; George Carter; and others whose names are lost Remarks: This coUection constitutes Malcolm J. Rogers' "San Dieguito Type CoUection" housed at the Museum of Man. Included in die numbers series are also specimens Rogers attributed to the Amargosa culture. The coUection is not catalogued, and die buUc of it is stored in die general archaeological coUection storage by site number. The site numbers of die San Dieguito Type specimens arc published, described, and iUusti^ted in "Ancient Hunters of die Far West"* Copley Press, 1966. DegPOption: 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 Malcohn J. Rogers type collection could be easUy recognized when found in tiie site collections. Many of die specimens were catalogued under die old system (sequential numbers), and diese numbers have been retained, as have die old catalog cards. In the manuscript and field note files of Malcolm Rogers, therc is a list, handwritten, of this entirc collection. This Ust was done under die supervision of Clark W. Brott in 1965. It was assembled from Rogers* notes, the early iUusti-ations for the book "San Dieguito Complex." from which die later book "Ancient Hunters of die Far West" was adapted. At the bottom of the record, below Brett's name and in a different typeface, is the note: Sec following 42 pages for a listing of M. J. Rogers* San Dieguito Artifact Typology as of October 1960. The list was compUed from Rogers' notes, artifacts, and manuscript in 1965 by C.W. Brott In a standing file cabinet, the accession record is foUowed by several folders. Each is labeled witii one of Rogers' 1958 phase-aspect units and contains a set of site and artifact notes associated widi diat unit Site SDM-W-181 is rcpresented in two folder entries, as quoted below. San Dieguito II (Southwestem Aspect): Location: On a hill on north rim of North Fork of Encinitas Creek. Elevation 325' (North HiU) 25 Area: 1/2 acrc concenttation with 2 acres of scattercd marginal occupation. Type: Highland accretion camp. Architecture: LJ II material, possible roasting platforms and/or sweat house. Cultures: SD fl and III and U fl. U n at W-181-A. SD ffl listed in Site Book. Remarks: Concentrated occupation; typical of arca. Site Drawer: Lidiic CoUection; U II and SD material both clearly prcsent Both aspects of SD (II III) appear to be present Type Series: Discoidal Scraper, 'fleshing plane'. Blade (I) bevelled flake. W-181-A Ovate Biface, 3 planes. San Dieguito ID (Soutiiwestem Aspect): See site summary of San Dieguito II - Southwestem Aspect. Culuues: SD II and III and UII Type Series: Side scraper. 2 Crescents (type IV); Crescent (type IH); ProjectUe (type undefined); Small projectile (type HI)." A close comparison of these folder entries with our previous discussions reveals some disturbing irregularities. First, and perhaps most significant, is die problem of labels. The San Dieguito Type CoUection folders* SDM-W-181 "culture" designations reiterate diose of die formal site sheet and Rogers' earUer records (correcting for terminological substimtions), which means that the "type" specimens were selected by Rogers in accordance with his pre-1958 terminology. This is confirmed by Brott's (1966) coUection record and Evemham's (1966) unpubUshed explanation that "Malcolm Rogers* assignment of artifacts to particular phases and aspects was retained without alteration." But the folders' outside phase-aspect labels, stemming from Rogers' 1958 terminology, werc used in 1965 to organize die San Dieguito Type CoUection for completing, rcvising. and iUustt^ting Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966). What Brott should have done, but did not do. is assign die "San Dieguito HI (Soutiiwestem Aspect)" label to all (prc-1958) material indicated as "SD II," and die "San Dieguito IV (Soutiiwestem Aspect)" label to everydiing indicated as "SD ID." Since he evidcntiy misunderstood die ttans- lational changes embedded in Rogers' 1958 terminology, Brott found no consistent correspondence 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 strac- ture that does not match phase-aspect categorizations in thc San Dieguito Type Collection, despite an identity of labels. A second irregularity is that the San Dieguito Type CoUection's 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 rccords. Either seems possible, since Brott's (1966) accession record lists five and possibly morc collectors, in addition to Malcolm Rogers. The participation of so many people is a good indication that the site was coUected, and perhaps its subsurface probed on several occasions. 26 WhUe It is also recognized that Rogers' notetaking was sometimes perfunctory, dicrc arc persistent hints diat some of his rccords and manuscripts werc lost after 1945 (Hanna 1982). Therc is an altemate possibiUty diat artifacts werc mistakenly identified as SDM-W-181 specimens during 1965 work on die San Dieguito Type CoUection by Wormington, Davis, and Brott. As explained by one of Hanna's (1982:345) confidential informants, who is intimately famUiar witii San Diego Museum of Man history and widi die San Dieguito Type Collection: . , . Clark Brott began [it] and had students, eidier workers or volun- teers, or both, under his dircction; but a0parcntiy not under his very close supervision. They assembled a San Dieguito Type CoUection, which IS maintained in die records under die accession 1963-1. It includes over a thousand objects, which arc Usted by a kind of fiuctuating typology . . . dierc's not a whole lot of consistency in it .... We don't know die rationale behind diat type, coUection. We don't know if it was based on existing Rogers coUections. Rogers' notes, Clark Brott's ideas. Clark Brott's and Davy's ideas. ... or if it's just his [Brott's] and his assisttmts* subjective iisas of what looked good and should be included in the San Dieguito Type CoUection. It*s a very mixed bag of tilings, including tilings diat arc not San Dieguito in a couple of cases. So it wasn't rcal close supervision. There was one Midwestem point tiiat got into a site drawer du-ough misinterpretation of die number, and dien got selected out as a San Dieguito specimen. So it's not reaUy very weU conttoUed. A third irregularity concems the purportedly non-San Dieguito, La JoUa specimens from SDM-W-181 and SDM-W-181-A. As noted. Rogers* rccords and die formal site sheet characterize SDM-W-181 as San Dieguito only, widi the lower-elevation SDM-W-181-A locus containing both San Dieguito and La Jolla materials. In conti^t Brott's San Dieguito Type CoUection folders combine bodi loci under one site designation, mention a corrcspondence of La Jolla II widi SDM-W-18I-A in one folder but not die odier; and rcgister die presence of La JoUa artifacts in die SDM-W-181 site drawer but widiout locus distinctions. This confusion is difficult to explain, but some rather harrowing possibUities can be suggested: a. Rogers or otiiers Usted in Brott's (1966) accession record may have indiscriminately 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 combined artifacts rccovercd from SDM-W-181 and SDM-W-181-A in the SDM-W-181 site drawer and die San Dieguito Type Collection lists, failing to preserve die provenience data and procedural explanations needed for subsequent separation. c. Rogers or others listed in Brott's (1966) accession record may in fact have rccovered La JoUa artifacts from SDM-W-181 and added them to the site drawer, failing to note the discrepancy with Rogers' characterization of the site as purely a San Dieguito deposit and without prcscrving the provenience data needed to document this discrepancy at a later date. 27 Eidier singly or in combination, diese possible explanations have discouraging consequences for any research involving comparative use of tiic SDM- W-181 collection, especiaUy where distinctions between San Dieguito and La Jolla arc concerned. Thc major consequences arc: a. The SDM-W-181 site drawer cannot be taken as a sample only of diat locus, since there is an unresolved possibility that it also contains material from SDM-W-181-A. b. The site drawer also cannot bc taken as a "pure" San Dieguito sample, since it may contain La Jolla material from SDM-W-181, c. Artifacts selected from die SDM-W-181 site drawer for inclusion in die San Dieguito Type CoUection cannot be presumed San Dieguito specimens, since die site drawer's reliability is suspect, and there is no record of how or why particular speci- mens were selected from that drawer. 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 Uttie value for comparative smdies. Malcolm Rogers* characterizations of die site as pure San Dieguito can no raore be accepted, at face value, dian can Brott's (1966) identification of San Dieguito and La JoUa components, since neither is reliably documented by die Museum's collections. In addition, what Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966) has to say about San Dieguito phase-aspect units cannot be directiy linked eidier to die San Dieguito Type CoUection or to SDM-W-181. Thus, comprehensive excavation data from SDM-W-181 must be used to test die validity of site descriptions and stiuctural interpretations contained within the Museum's historical archives. 4. Recent Stiidies Near mM-W-181 There have been many surveys and excavations near SDM-W-181 over the past 20 years, but two projebls arc of particular note in connection witii die present smdy. The fust was an excavation (GaUegos 1985) at die La Costa site (SDM-W-945/SDi-4405) sittiated about 0,3 raUe soudiwest from and on die same ridge as die SDM-W-181/942 locality, at an elevation of 200 feet above MSL. It was recorded by Kaldenberg (1975), GaUegos' (1985) smdy included survey, surface coUection and mapping, posthole testing, and the excavation of 10 Ixl-mcter sample units. The 778 surface artifacts and 917 subsurface artifacts included a crescentic. points/knives, scrapers/planes. utilized flakes, cores, flakes/angular waste, manos. ractates, stone bowls, and pottery. A large amount of sheU, primarily Argopecten and Chione spp.. was also recovered. Three shell samples were radiocarbon-dated, yielding an approximate date of 7000 B.P. for die deposit It was concluded that thc site should be considered La JoUan, although it might also be characterized as San Dieguito. A sense of this argument can be gained 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 28 2 miles of SDi-603, a 7000 years old La JoUa Complex site (Crabtiee et al. 1963), suggests diat site SDi-4405 (W-945) is an Inland La Jolla Complex site and thc Pauma Complex sites arc, as Warrcn (1961:24) suggested, related to the coastal La JoUa Complex. The prcsence of San Dieguito lUce tools also suggests a continuum of thc San Dieguito Complex from 8500 to 3500 [B.P.], as also documented in the nearly continuous radiocarbon dates prcviously shown on Table 5-1. Essentially, the forcgoing suggests diat San Dieguito and La JoUa may be differcnt expressions of a single culturc. Gallegos (1985:Six-l-2) pursues diis view in broader context giving a techno-economic explanation, as well: 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 sinular but lacks radiocarbon dates; sites W-179 and W-951 arc prcsented as data bases by RECON (1976a); and W.49 (Rancho Paric Nordi) is weU documented [(Kaldenberg 1976. 1980; Kaldenberg and EzeU 1974)] but fails to demonstiate die change in artifact classes from San Dieguito to La Jolla. if present It is now apparent that a complex of inland and coastal sites were present from 8500 to 3500 years B.P. These sites used the resources of Batiquitos Lagoon for shellfish and fish, and die inland resources for plant and animal foods On die basis of radiocarbon dates taken from archaeological sites surrounding Batiquitos Lagoon, we can assume that the Batiquitos arca had two major occupations. The first occupation (early occupation) encompasses a tirae span of 9000 to 3500 years ago. The second occupa- tion (late occupation) is firom 1500 years ago to present Site SDi-4405 (W-945) fits widiin both of these occupations. The lowest levels exca- vated identify site SDi-4405 as an inland temporary canip circa 7000 years B.P., located on a smaU knoU near a spring. The occupants worked stone to create finely made large points, crescentics and scraping tools. MUling tools, or manos and metates, were used for the grinding of hard seeds; and. sheUfish and bohe remains reflect a some- what balanced diet of plan, shellfish and maipmal foods. The late period occupation, circa 1000 years B.P. is identified on die basis of surface and top levels excavated. This evidence includes small points, pottery and stone bowls. The second nearby project of note (GaUegos et al. 1986) was a large-scale excavation of die six-locus Rogers Ridge Site (SDM-W-182/SDi-4845) situated about 0.8 mUc soudiwest frora die SDM-W-181/942 locality, at an eleva- tion of 160-220 feet above MSL. Thc site was rccorded by Malcolm Rogers, who classified it as a San Dieguito II and ID, La JoUa II, and Yuman HI occupa- tion site; revisited by lOddenberg (1975); reevaluated by CarrUlo and Bull (1980); and tested by GaUegos. Thesken, and Carrico (1983). Extensive radiocarbon-dating established Locus 6 as an Early Period habitation area, circa 7000 B.P., with an overlying Late Period habitation layer of roughly 1000 B.P. to beforc historic contact (GaUegos et al. 1986:Five-70). Thus, Locus 6 approximates the situation at SDM-W-181 in general age and occu- pational history. Work at the locus included survey, surface collection and mapping, posthole testing, soU phosphate testing, backhoe ttenching, and the 29 - -^'•^'iHMwiwiiMiiHiiiaiiaiiiMto. excavation of 32 Ixl-meter sample units and a 4x4-meter block exposure. This work defined a midden, varying 30-60 centimeters (cm) deep and notably rich to about 40 cm in die area of the block, diat showed evidence of rodent burrowing throughout (Gallegos et al. 1986:Fivc-57). Locus 6 excavation results can be summarized frora die report (Gallegos ct al. 1986:Five-57-70). Seven Late Period projectile points werc recovered, aU but one of them frora the block excavation. Six points came from the 0-20 cm levels, and one frora 20-30 era. Four bifacc/knife fragments werc obtained from die block excavation, aU of thera frora 10-30 cm. Tiiree arc of local fine-grained metavolcanic material, and one is of quartz. One of diese bifaces is nearly complete and has a leaf-shaped base diat Warrcn (1966) asso- ciates with San Dieguito occupations of about 8000-900CS B.P. Core/cobble and flake-based toolstools, recovered ahnost exclusively from 0-30 cm levels, include 34 scraper planes, 5 choppers, and 4 composite tools among the cobble- corc group, and 55 scrapers, 16 cuning tools, 6 composite tools, and 2 drills among die flake-based tools. Alraost al} nulling tools carae fiora 0-30 cm levels and include 19 biface manos, 8 unshalied uniface manos, 6 shaped biface manos, 3 wedge manos, 2 shaped uniface manos, miscellaneous nondiagnostic mano frag- ments, 3 bifacially worked metates. 1 unifacifdly worked metate. and 1 shaped unifacially worked metate. Three T^n Brown Ware sherds werc obtaihed from die 0-10 cm level of one uiut An oUveUa spire-lopped bead was recovered near and possibly in association widi a human burial at the 20-30 cm level. The burial was cmly partiaUy prcserved but appeared ftexed and lateraUy placed on die right side widi a northem orientation; thjs placement, die fact of inhumation instead of cremation, and die interpretation of two radiocarbon dates (on shell) suggest die burial dates roughly 7000 B.P. Flakes/angular waste included 5 obsidian flakes diat were sourced to Coso. Bone (230 grams) included rabbit/hare, miscellaneous rodent, squirrel, deer, rattiesnake, and three types of fish. A large quantity of sheU. including several types, and a few crab claws were recovered. Thc substantial dominance of Argopecten over Chiont spp. sheU suggested Early Period habitation. The interpretation of Locus 6 results recapimlates GaUegos* (1985) earlier argument diat San Dieguito and La JoUa may be techno-economic pattems within a single culmral compl<»c rather than separate cultural or chronological units. Thc Locus 6 summary notes (Gallegos et al. 1986:Five-70): As shown by the radiocarbon dates and supported by the presence of large leaf-base bifaces, a burial, Coso obsidian, and quantity and variety of sheU, site SDi-4845 (W-182). Locus 6 is an Early Period site occupied circa 7000 years B.P. with a light Late Period occupation overlying this deposit The people who occupied tilis site exploited shellfish as their primary food soutce supplemented with plant and animal resources to include fish and crab. In addition to these resources, local stone was worked to provide a wide range of tools for cutting, scraping, drUling, chopping, hammering and railUng. These people buried their dead (inhumation) with few, if any, grave goods. Locus 6 provides new information to understand tlte interface between-^hat had been thought to be two separate and distinct peoples (San Dieguito and La JoUa). The evidence from SDi-4845 (W-182) supports the hypothesis of one continuous occupation of the Batiquitos rcgion by one people from 8280 to 3500 years B.P. (GaUegos 1985). 30 I I I I I Mixed within die top levels (0-20 cm) of Locus "6 arc Late Period artifacts (points and pottery). The prcsence of diese materials iden- tifies a Late Perios occupation circa 1000 years B.P. to beforc 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 absttacted from tiie Rogers Ridge study (GaUegos ct al. 1986) as a whole. Aside from exploratory probing at two surficial loci, die excavation of tiuee Late Period loci, and one dated to die Early Period (Locus 6) demonstt-ated slow-paced change in material culmrc inventories and subsistence-settiement sttategies over a span of nearly 7,000 years. Overall, change in material culturc appears to have been conservative, widi technology rcraaining sufficientiy diversified to perrait flexible exploita- tion of coraplex environmental settings along die shore, in coastal lagoons, on Uttoral plateaus, widiin near-coastal vaUeys, and ranging farther inland toward die deep interior vaUeys and mountains. In die face of relatively minor cUmatic change over die last 10.000 years, probably tiie most significant environmental developments were a "rise in sea level to create deep productive lagoons circa 8.000 years ago . . . [and] die fdling of dicse lagoons widi silttition circa 3.500 years ago" (GaUegps et al. 1986:Six-20). It rcmains unrcsolved, a cultorc dominated by "San Dieguito" pattems graduaUy came to be dominated by "La Jolla" pattems. if not dte odier way around; or pcrh^ bodi pattems werc always prcsent but in a particular balance rcflecting die natoral setting unique to any given place and time. 5. Recent Stodies at Sl^-W-181 There is no record of archaeological work at SDM-W-181 between about 1958-1966 and RECON's recent survey of La CoStti Town Center (WMtehouse and Cheever 1990), which identified duee prcviously rccorded sites: SDM^W-181 (no state ttinomial), SDM-W-940 (SDi-4402), and SDM-W-942 (SDi-8697). Despite problems widi locaUy heavy ground cover, each site's boundaries yfere approxi- mated and a prcUminary inventory was taken of die surface artifacts. Suffi- cient background research was done to outiine tiie potential historical and scientific importance of the sites. A fragmentary, grcen metavolcanic crcscent was coUected from die surface at SDM-W-181, which was also noted to contain metavolcanic and quartz flakes, cores, scrapers, ceramics, and bodi 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 corc, and shellfish remains distributed across a surface lying soudiwest of and possibly contiguous to SDM-W-181 (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990:8). Only die 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 IxI-meter sample units werc recommended at all thrce sites in order to permit evaluation of tiieir "archaeological importance" under CEQA and the draft Carlsbad Guidelines (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990:10-12). The La Costa Town Center sites werc subsequentiy test-excavated by MacMiUan Davis and Dayle Cheever (1991). The Phase I research design focused on defining each site's stiucture, contents, and preservation. An interpretive framework was developed for evaluating each site*s utility in testing alternate 31 explanatory paradigms by obtaining and analyzing robust well-provenienced, surface, and subsurface samples. It was concluded diat SDM-W-181 had a poten- tial for "archaeological importance" which could only be fiiUy assessed on die basis of Phase II testing. Phase I fieldwork at SDM-W-181 (Davis and Cheever 1991) included surface reconnaissance with detaUed mapping and artifact collection; excavation of 26 STPs; and excavation of 10 Ixl-meter sarapic units in areas of high surface artifact density witii positive STPs. In tiie course of excavation, Unit 9 was expanded into a 2.5 ra^ area to fully recover a well-preserved hearth containing fue-affected rocks, charcoal, carbonized soil, and mostly bumed marine shell (Davis and Cheever 1991:8). Two sheU samples and one of sediment werc subraitted 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 the San Dieguito Type CoUection. AU artifacts were cataloged with RECON's standard laboratory procedures, and a few werc photographed or iUustrated. Flaked Udiic artifacts in the San Dieguito Type CoUection "include a blade, a concave-convex scraper, a beaked scrap^. a domed discoidal scraper, a leaf- shaped projectile point and a cresemitfc*^ (Davis and Cheever 1991:6). A prcliminary review of associated archives iitdicated that some of these speciraens carae from a limited excavation at the site. The crescentic was identified as "unusual m diat it was one of only two found by Rogers in a subsurface prove- ruence. The second was rccovercd from SDM-W-198 (SDi-149), the Harris site" (Davis And Cheever 1991:6) Results of die Phase I smdy at SDM-W-181 were startiiing and chaUenging, but overall inconclusive, as indicated by the following quote from Davis and Cheever (1991:18): Although die 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 strong resemblance of the FLAs (including a crescentic) to those earUer identified vnth the San Dieguito Complex (Rogers et al. 1966). The next significant aspect of the assemblage, is the discovery of a portable raiUing stone well below any possible historic dismrbance and in close association with a lens of bumed sheU. These two observations appear contradictory, since crescentics and finely made percussion bifaces are the hallmark of die San Dieguito Complex, and sheU lenses and portable milUngstones are equaUy 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 tiuee 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 sttatigraph- ically intact)? 32 ^'t-'viii'iiiiiHiiiiiiaiK The discovery of tiie rock-bounded, bumed sheU lens in Unit 25 NW [Unit 9] ... at a depth of 25 to 40 centimeters below die surface, argues Sttongly that the culmral material is an intact deposit Widiin diis hearth feamre, intact valves of Pecten spp. were observed to be stacked spoon-fashion. It is considered highly unlUcely diat die sheUs could have remained whole and in constant orientation, while migrating downward under the impetus of bioturbational forces. 2. Arc die San Dieguito and La JoUa Complex archaeologically distinct at SDM-W-181? If not arc dierc explanatiCMiS which could reconcUe dus apparcnt inconsistency between data from SDM-W-181 and die Harris site (SDM-W-198, SDi-149), wherc a sterile layer has been interprcted as an occupational hiatos (Wanen 1966)? At die Rancho Park Nordi site A (SDM-W-49) (Kaldenberg and EzeU 1974, Kalbenberg 1976), deposits interpreted as having elem^ of bodi San Dieguito and La JoUa Complex materials blended widi no intermission. These questions are fueled by the discovery of a incomplete percussion biface (artifact catalog #237-603) tiiat is sttongly rcminiscent of tiie Ulusti^tions in Rogers et al. (1966), in apparent association widi a fracmred cobble choppw (artifact catalog #237-595) of tiie sort commonly associated with the La JoUa Complex. Bodi of these artifacts occurred at approximately 40 centimeters below the surfiace and in possible association with the feature composed of bumed sheU, carbon- ized soil, and charcoal. Two samples of sheU and one of [charcoal- rich] sediment from this feamre werc submitted to Beta Analytic Laboratories for C^** dating, with a resulting date of approximately 5,400 B.P. for die feamre (Attachment 1). 3. What is the relationship of SDM-W-181 to large excavated sites in die vidnity. which lie aloi^ die same drainage systera as SDM-W-181? The Rogers Ridge site. SDM-W-182 (SDi-4845), is located less dian one mile soudiwest of SDM-W-181. Shell material at diis site was dated 6,900 +/- 90 years B.P. (GaUegos 1986:D-7). The La Costa site. SDM-W- 945 (SDi-4405). is less dian half a mile away fiom SDM-W-181 in die same dircction. Herc. a date of 7,070 +/- 100 years B.P. was obtained frora a sheU sample at the 30 to 40 centimeter level (Gallegos 1985:B-2). The Rancho Park North site A. SDM-W-49, lies slightiy morc dian two railes 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 JoUa Complex component dating between 7,000 and 8,000 B.P. Davis and Cheever (1991) determined tiiat additional data would be needed to fully address these research topics. Their sumraary (Davis and Cheever 1991:20) reiterates that: . . . evidence of two material culturc 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 crade 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 this contradictory information was obtained, it is clear that additional investigations could yield data to address this important issue. In general, judging from die range of artifacts rccovered during die Phase I test it appears tiiat SDM-W-181 was a residential base. Identification of specific activities, temporal assignraent, and rela- tionship to other sites in the arca arc problems which deserve further investigation. Davis and Cheever (1991:24-25) evaluated SDM-W-181 as possiblv being an "important archaeological rcsource" because: [it] appears, on tiie basis of Phase I rcsults, to contain information potentiaUy useful in addressing at least dirce specific archaeological research questions: 1. Does SDM-W-181 contain archaeological evidence of a transition from the San Dieguito assemblage to the La JoUa assemblage? Z Arc either of die "classic" assemblage descriptions applicable to SDM-W-181? 3. Does SDM-W-181 fit widi the other archaeological evidence for the greater Batiquitos Lagoon area, indicating either culmral 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 aUow syndiesis of prior excavations with data recovered during die 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 the 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 the first it was thought that the site's research potential could in part be evaluated by comparing the Phase 1 and II artifact assemblage with materials in the SDM-W-181 site drawer at the San Diego Museum of Man, including those which are Usted within the San Dieguito Type Collection. These collections werc 34 :'/|«MBl|IHM|BMlei>. considered useful and representative, because only preUminary archival rcsearch was conducted in Phase I. The excavation of 16 additional units was intended to obtain a morc robust sample and accomplish several other objectives, among which the discovery and excavation of well-prcserved hearths with associated artifacts was perhaps forcmost in importance. Hearth organics could be radiocarbon-dated, thus, providing temporal conttol over the material culturc. It was hoped that "living surfaces" or discrete activity arcas might also bc encountercd. In addition, tiie units werc directed toward a recognized need for better conttol over die site's stractore and causal processes of formation and transformation. Performing the five surface scrapes was conceived as a simple measure for use in areas widi high surface artifact density. It was hoped that shaUow surface-scraping might help to determine whether or not feamres lay just beneath thc surface. If encountered, these could be explored with greater conttol by the placement of standard sample units. Pregrade monitoring was conceived in the same way as shovel scrapes, save that thc work would bc accompUshed mechanicaUy radier than by hand. It was particularly hoped that this larger scale probing would rcveal feamres, such as hearths, for morc detailed sampUng. In addition, it was recognized that mechanical excavation might provide opportunities for gaining conttol over formative and transformational processes implicated in the site's sttucture. distiibution of artifacts, and relative preservation, A point involving the final two tasks, and the Phase II plan as a whole, is that Davis and Cheever (1991) beUeved die site had well-preserved sttatigraphy. The Phase I sample units had exposed relatively distinct, physi- cal sttata across the site. Few rodent burrows or krotovina had been observed in these units, and "a portable chilling stone [was discovered] well below any possible historic dismrbance and in close association with a lens of bumed sheU [unit 9/9A/9B hearth]" ODavis and Cheever 1991:18). Furthemiore. die hearth's stiuctural integrity suggested that "die culmral material is an intact deposit .... It is considered unlikely that the shells could have remained whole and in constant orientation, whUe migrating downward under the impetus of bioturbational forces" (Davis and Cheever 1991:18). Thus, it was fully antici- pated diat Phase II would permit direct testing of Malcolm Rogers' site inter- pretation, the region's ttaditional culmral chronology, and competing functional or economic explanations. 35 ra. RESEARCH DESIGN The Phase II program experienced a change of leadership when field and laboratory work were about 75 percent complete. Associated changes arc noted, below, in describing the Phase II research plan and its implementation. A PHASE n RESEARCH PLAN The Phase II research plan was initially a restatement of specifications in the Phase I report (Davis and Cheever 1991:25). Program objectives werc to obtain an additional sample, v^ddi good spatial and temporal conttols over Sttatigraphy, featurc occurrence, and artifact distiibution, for addressing key rcsearch topics. These topics werc defined by Davis and Cheever (1991:25), as follows. 1. Does SDM-W-181 contain archaeological evidence of a transition frora the San Dieguito assemblage to the La Jolla assemblage? 2. Are eitiier of the "classic" assemblage descriptions applicable to SDM-W-181? 3. Does SDM-W-181 fit witii tiie odier archaeological evidence for the greater Batiquitos Lagoon area, indicating either cultoral change or different ecological adaptations? Based on Phase I rcsults, it was assumed tiiat the site had a weU-preserved Sttatigraphic stiuctore and contained several stracmrally intact features with associated artifacts (e.g., hearths, Uving surfaces, and discrcte activity areas). These assumptions guided operationalization ofthe initial design. A sttategic decision was to focus Phase II testing within die centtal ridgetop area, where Phase I testing had encountered die highest surface and subsurface artifact densities, the majority of functionally or culmraUy diag- nostic tools, the deepest artifact-bearing deposits, and the stractorally intact Unit 9 hearth. Several units were aUocated for contiguous placement forming two lx4-meter tienches to faciUtate featore detection. sti:atigraphic delinea- tion, and overall sample enlargement The odier units were held in reserve, either for use in forming additional ttenches or for separate placement to further increase sample size. Five manual surface scrapes and prcgrade monitoring (mechanical stripping) 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 n with Phase I results was to be generally inductive, but statistical analysis of data subsets frora both phases was held as an option. When Hanna assuraed dircction of the Phase II program, no hearths. Uving surfaces, or discrcte activity arcas had yet been encountercd. The trenches had revealed more extensive rodent burrowing than was detected in Phase I, and highlighted some unresolved issues in stratigraphic interpretation. Among these were: 1. No geologically recent formation process was known to explain the two uppermost artifact-bearing sttata, 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 generaUzed band of white speckles in die base of the second, and occasionally the top of the third sttatum below surface. 3. No basis was available for selecting eidier of two explanations for die stracmrally intact unit 9/9A/9B hearth's basal posi- tion. Either it was constracted in a deep pit tiiat was subse- quentiy filled with sediment by man or namre, or it was constracted in a shallow pit that was subsequentiy filled and then migrating .downward due to natural processes. A puzzling clue was dte absence of a pit outiine in unit plan views and wall profiles. Dr. Patrick L. Abbott was consulted on these issues (see Section D.A). His exammation of the sttata in open trenches and units resulted in their identification as mid-Eocene tidal lagoon sediments, far older than any possible human prcsence. The white speckles werc identified as probably being namral lime mottics. Abbott noted diat soU developmenl was minimal, with no trae A horizon prcsent, and indicated slope wash and slump/sliding as the principal factors in rcdistributing 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 tf rodent dismrbance could result in the downward migration of such a large featore without destroying its stiuctoral integrity, and doubted that shrink/swell alone would bc a viable explanation. Hc felt that faunalmrbation and shrink/sweU in combination might exert such effects, and in any case would probably have eradicated pit oudines, Abbott urged that a single set of mechanisms was needed to account for the site's formational history and contemporary stracmre. 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 accrction 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 the site*s rcsearCh potential might lie in our abiUty to explain thc influence of naturaUy formed artifact/ecofact distributions on prior interpretations regarding its culmral history. The balance of Phase II fieldwork was thercforc revised to permit formulation and testing of noncultoral explanations for the spatial distribution of culmral material by type and fiequency. This entailed placing two standard sampUng units outside the central ridgetop area, deleting surface scrapes to increase prcgrade monitoring (mechanical stripping) along the ridge, and placing three raore units within the stiipped arcas to explorc artifact and/or shell concenttations. A rclated change in post-field aspects of the Phase II 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 diat 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 the site's potential for testing altemate models of prchistory, rcraained in place. However, thc orientation was raodified in that past and prcsent raetiiods of interpreting field observations to buUd explanatory models became morc impor- tant than model-testing per se. The new Phase D approach dictated an analytical assault on the mechan- ics of site formation, Witii tiie advice of Martin A. Rosen (Califomia Depart- ment of Transportation) and James D, Eighmey (RECON), a body of rclevant pubUshed literaturc was identified and rcviewed. The raost useful sources werc Eriandson (1984), Bocek (1986). and Schiffer (1987). Special analyses, based on this Uteramre, rcquircd corabining Phase I and Phase II data, which formally synthesized both smdies. Thc rcsearch plan's ultimate elaboration was affected by several considerations, including the rcsults of historical and archival smdies. It was discovered that the San Diego Museum's SDM-W-181 artifact collection (and San Dieguito Type CoUection specimens from it) may be unrcUably provenienced to thc site, while the coUection lacks intrasite proveniences. Archival docu- ments and pubhcations provide Utde dircct linkage between past methods, observations, and interpretations of the site. Thercforc, original plans to use the Phase I analysis of Museum specimens for statistical comparison with Phase I and n results werc abandoned. Phase I and II sampUng strategies also affected thc research plan's final elaboration, since they limited the types of data analysis diat could be employed. Because Phase I surface and STP samples werc nonprobabilistic, incompletely provenienced, and not dirccdy rclatable to unit samples by any known algoridim, they could not be statisticaUy analyzed in conjunction with unit-level data. An added difficulty resulted from the nonprobablistic place- ment of Phase I and II units in accordance with both arbiti-ary aUgnment-inter- val and intuitive-judgemental systems; furthermorc. some units were of varying sizes and shapes. These factors compUcated any assumption rcgarding sample reliabiUty and rcprescntativcncss. Thercforc. statistical measurcs of associ- ation, covariance, or significance would be inappropriate. Another consideration involved frequency distributions within the data set Even after corabining Phase I and Phase II data, the artifact saraple 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 stripped areas, since they were begun below surface and their levels therefore are not equatable to other units; and (3) a restriction on which units could be used in smdies of setting-sensitive natural processes. The restriction on usable units steraraed from a partial solution to some Umitations 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 distributions exhibited by the total site sample, suraraated site-level inventories, and units selected to individuaUy exemplify particular natural settings. This solution was adequate to access vertical stiucturing in the distribution of cultural debris at SDM-W-181, particularly within the key ridgetop area. However, a widely appreciated weakness of any such approach is 38 ..^Si"'*H*l|li|||IHHHI'!ai»»S; tiiat interzonal comparisons can at best formulate pattem simUarities' and differences as general tiends, the validity of which may be affected by zone definitions in ways that are difficult to detect. These weaknesses had only minor impact on the present smdy. since vertical stiucmring is of primary interest, and the single zone is readily defmed as uniquely differcnt from other parts of the site. It is also notable that the Umitations due to sarapUng procedures and sample characteristics precluded more reliable access to horizontsd patterning. 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 readUy summarized. Figure 3 shows the mapped surface collection loci (2-mcter diameter circles), which werc opportunistically placed during intensive surface recoimaissance. Figure 3 does not show unprovenienced surface coUections. which focused on thc ridgetop area and comprise about 10 percent of the non-unit surface inventory. Figure 4 shows die distribution of 26 STPs (each about 30 centimeters m diame- ter) along three aUgnments. Six STPs werc placed at 10-meter intervals on an aligiiment that was extended northwest from die site damm to define subsurface artiifact distributions in the ridgetop area. STP intervals varied along the north-south and westward-extending alignments, which were selected to detect subsurface deposits and possibly define namral factors affecting their distribution. The influence of surface coUection and STP results on Phase I unit placement is also suggested by Figure 4. Because high surface and subsurface artifact densities were documented along die ridgetop, six standard Ixl-meter sampUng units (2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) were placed at 10-meter intervals along die nortiiwest STP alignment with a 5-meter offset from the STPs. When unit 9 revealed a stiucturally intact hearth, it was expanded (units 9A and 9B) into a 2.5 m2 area for the feamre's complete removal. Units 1 and 3 were placed at 5- meter intervals northeast of the site datum, at a 90 degree angle to thc 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 thc site's physical stracture. Unit 10 proved sterile. Phase n fieldwork is depicted in Figure 5, which includes the Phase 1 units for reference. I^ase H units are denoted by a T prefix. With three exceptions, excavation hggan at the surface and continued well into ster- ile sediment Units TIA and T2B measured 1x2 meters and together formed a 1x4- meter trcnch exposurc. Units TM, T2B. T2C. and T2D racasurcd 1x1 meters and together formed another lx4-roeter ttench. Units T3 through T9 werc standard 1x1 -meter sampling units. Of these, units T7, T8, and T9 were situated within mechanically stripped areas; although their top elevations below datum were recorded, their levels do not match the other units. 39 • O 1x1 METER TEST UNIT • SHOVEt TEST PROBE A StTE DATUM — — LIMIT OF SURFACE ARTIFACTS FIGURE 4. LOCATION OF EXCAVATIONS AT SDM-W-181 I R-2212A 9/91 It wiU be seen in Figure 5 that the two Phase II tienches were located very near unit 9 (Phase I). This placement had die objective of testing for the prcsence of other feamres or special activity areas associated with the Unit 9 hearth. Unit T3 was also placed nearby, bodi as a feature-hunting procedure and to increase sample size, A few meters to die east and near unit 5 (Phase I), unit T4 was simated over a slab metate to expose a possible feature and increase saraple size. All of these units are considered part of a single zone for many of die special analyses. Its Phase I merabers are units 1, 2, 3, 5. 6. 7, 8, and 9 (including extensions 9A and 9B), whUe its Phase D members are units TIA, TIB. T2A, T2B, T2C, T2D, T3. and T4. Two Phase II units were judgmentaUy placed outside of the centtal ridgetop zone. Unit T5 was simated to bisect a dark soU sttun exposed by ttoweUing early in Phase II; die stain proved to be natiiral, but T5 exempUfies slope wash and possibly slun^sUde effects immediately below an area that produced many surface artifacts but Uttle subsurface material in Phase I. Unit T6 was placed at a level spot in die approximate center of a distinctive bench-lUce formation, on die ridge's steep soutiieastem slope, that Dr. Abbott identified as a well-preserved Holocene slump typical of mid-Eocene sediments in die rcgion. This unit documents slump/sUrfe effects on die spatial distiibution of sediment contents, including culmral debris presumably washed down from tiie overljdng ridgetop. A simUar case, unil 4 (Kiase I) was simated well below dte ridgetop on a steep soath-lscing slope. It is intennediate to units T5 and T6 in exerapUfying slope wash and siuroi^sUde effects. The placement of units T7. T8, and T9 should be understood in rela- tion to pregrade monitoring (racchanical stirring) of the two circa 10-mcter- wide areas shown in Figure 5. Mr. Gene Hicks performed the stripping, which was monitored by David Hanna and two to three other archaeologists at aU times. A six-foot-wide bobcat bucket was used to remove 3- to 5-centimeter duck strips of sediment, from the surface down into the sterile third sttamm (Dr. Abbott's "fme sandy raudstone"). Work in die medial stratum (Abbott's "brown nkidstone rich in expandable clays") exposed the tops of three apparent concentrations of culmral debris; each was isolated frora further stiipping and tested widi a standard I x 1 -raeter unit. Unit T7 revealed that a possible sheU concentration was just a krotovina. The possible shell concentiation tested widi unit T8 was identified as raaterial derived from die unit 9/9A/9B hearth's margin. Unit T9's apparent concenti^ition of fue-affected rock. sheU, and debitage merely rccapimlated the middle and basal excavation levels of nearby units 1, 5, 8. andT4. As in the prcceding phase, all Phase II units were excavated in 10- centiraeter levels and screened through one-eighth-hardwarc cloth. All Phase I units and Phase II units lA. IB. 2A. 2B. 2C. 2D. and 3 employed die "contour" method for level racasurcraent To aid the discrimination of possible slope- rclated effects. Phase D units 4. 5, 6. 7, 8. and 9 used die "horizontal" mediod of measuring levels from the elevationally highest comer. Stimdard unit-level record forms werc completed for aU units, with floor plans as needed. Site stiucmrc. as visually exposed by Phase II trcnches and units, was heavily documented with detailed ; drawings and color photographs of walls and floors. In addition, two transectional profiles crcated by mechanical stripping were color photographed. AU photography was preceded by manual scraping, brashing, and water-misting of the surfaces to be documented. 42 2. Laboratorv Phase n laboratory processing was handled in exactiy the same way as Phase I. All rccovercd materials werc ti^sported to die RECON laboratory for cleaning, cataloging, and analysis. Cleaning was performed with water and soft brashes where it was safe to do so; odierwise, dry-brashing procedurcs werc used. Cataloging involved an initial segrcgation of cultural materials into flaked lithic artifact. Utiiic debitage. ground stone, ceramic, and shell classes within individual unit-level proveniences. These werc then cross- checked with field records for inventory conttol. and the 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-levcl-class group then proceeded to the analysis sttige, in which a number of atttibutes werc recorded onto special slttets. Analysis was by unit-level buUc for Uduc debitage, sheU. and ceiai|»ic dasses. but by individual specimen for the flaked Uthic artifact and ground stcme. The corapleted raaster catalog and analysis sheets werc cross-checked and nltimately entered to die RECON electronic data base for later summarization and other manipulation. a. Artifact Analvses 1) Flaked Litiiic Tool Categcmes. Two basic systems werc 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 Udiic tools was provided by dte NEDEs (Non-contiguous Exclusive Damage Events) recording system (Atttichment 2). a) Corc. Corcs are defined as any lithic material from which two or more flakes have been removed, and which docs not show obvious signs of use-wear. Corcs arc exclusive of other artifact classes. Cores arc subgrouped by the number of stiiking platforms and die direction of flake removal. The inferred function is that of a debitage source for imraediate use or further reduction. b) Scraper. This category includes primarily unifacially, and sometimes bifacially flaked stone tools with obUquc {>4(P) 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 infcrrccl function is scraping animal or vegetable materials. c) Chopper. Consisting primarUy of bifacially worked tools, choppers have thick bodies and steep cutting edges. They sometimes show evidence of abrasion or battering. Choppers arc often made of recycled or oppormnistically used cores. The inferred 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 arc backed for unhafted use. The inferred function is that of Ught-duty or precision cutting. 43 e) Hammer. As the name implies, these tools exhibit a large amount of battering and crashing along exposed edges. Hamraers arc not necessarily shaped by intentional flake rcmoval, though they raay be rccyclcd tools or tool fragments, Hamraers arc, thercforc, identified by use-wear and not morphology per se. The inferred function is that of an indenter, usually in the manufacmre of flaked lithic tools. 0 Projectile Point This artifact group includes any flaked liduc tool that has haftin^p elements, a distinct body, cutting edges, and a tip tiiat would aUow penetratton of animal bodies when used as an airow, spear, or atiati dart point. The group often overiaps die knives category, and their division is basically subjective. The name describes tiie inferred function. g) UtiUzcJ Flake. An essentiaUy unmodified flake showing use-wear along one or raore edges is considered utilized. The inferred function is oppormnistic cutting or scraping. h) Modified ^r^al^. This group includes members of die debitage category that exhibit digbl or partial retouch along one lateral edge. Modified flakes are exclusive of other tool categories and represent the simplest modifled tool class. The inferred function is low-investment cutting or scraping. i) DriU. DriUs arc generaUy small, bifacially worked tools with backs or hafting elements- The ^Wking edges show altemate flaking pattems or use-wear. The name implies tlte infcrrccl function. j) Cresceptic. This is an unique class of artifacts consisting of bifacially flaked objects with a generaUy crescent shape. Although their function is unknown, they often exhibit apparcnt hafting elements on the convex side. These artifacts are associated widi Archaic Period sites (Westem Lidiic Co-ti^dition, Pluvial Lakes Tradition) attributed to die San Dieguito Complex. k) Blank. Tool blanks, also known as preforms, are large and inegular 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 all tools tiiat exhibit multiple primary fimctions 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.. choppcr/hamraer). 2) Debitage Categories. Lithic debris was analyzed using a system developed at RECON (see Attachraent *). which descriptively differenti- ates debitage types and attemfits to infer the raanufacturing processes that produced them (see Norwood, BuU. and Rosenthal 1981; Hector 1984). The terra "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 striking platform, distinct lateral and distal edges, a bulb of 44 --^wfRI RMIIIIiPllliim^.: percussion, and dorsal/ventral surfaces. Incomplete flakes must show evidence of having possessed these feamres. b) Shatter. Also called "angular waste," this category includes all nonflake debitage. 3) Ground Stone Categories. In addition to die attiibute categories listed in Attachment 2. ground stone artifacts were grouped according to the following general morphological classification. a) Mano. Manos are sraaU. cobble-based artifacts that exhibit grinding or poUshing on one or more surfaces. b) Pestie. These artifacts are generaUy oblong or cylin- drical, and exhibit poUshing or grinding on thc 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. SimUar to a slab, a basin exhibits more pronounced depression of the working surface. This may indicate long use, or preUminary 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 werc also used and perhaps formed as grinding surfaces. b. Ecofact Analvses 1) SheUfish Classificaftion. All sheUfish rcmains werc sepa- rated by genus, with eight of the roost common genera in San Diego County sites rccorded separately. Extraneous genera and/or species werc grouped in the miscellaneous category. Total weights were recorded for each category per sampUng locus, e.g., unit-level or feamrc. No special smdies werc conducted on the shell. 2) Faunal Remains. AU vertebrate faunal rcmains were divided into bumed and unbumed subgroups, as possible classified by genera and species, and the total weight for each subset recorded. No specid studies were conducted on the faunal rcmains. c. Ancillary Studies 1) Sediments. Sediment sample series werc obtained from the walls of four Phase II units (TIA, T2, T5. and T6). Sample locations werc documented by profile drawings and photographs. Under unifonn lighting condi- tions in the lab. each saraple was analysed for MunseU rcading (using a MunseU color chart book), and for grain size (microns) and shape (using an American/ Canadian Sttatigraphic 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.P. (diree Unit 9 heardi samples) is available for SDM-W-181. C. ANALYSIS PROCEDURES Data frora the standard attribute studies permit a descriptive level of analysis involving basic quantification of artifact or ecofact classes and their distributions within SDM-W-181. This type of analysis can detect only large- scale patterning, since die combined Phase 1-11 sample is a small percentage of total site volume, but diese pattems play a vital rcsearch role. They raay be used to define temporal trcnds in raaterial cultorc inventories and in spatially organized behavior. They raay also be useful in identifying or interprcting culturally significant stiucmral components, such as occupation layers and large features. However, control over site formation processes is a necessary precondition to such uses of the data. Site formation became a focal concem when the SDM-W-181 sttata werc identifted as nonculmral sediments with unanticipatedly high levels of faunal- turbation. These factors indicated that earlier assumptions of well-preserved cultural stratigraphy were erroneous, rcquiring a new approach for interpreting Phase I and n archaeological data. A specialized form of analysis was devel- oped to obtain contiol over site forraation processes at SDM-W-181, The ratio- nale was that identifying the effects of natural forraation processes on site stiucture would perrait reraaining pattems to be analyzed as culmral phenomena. Oudines ofthe approach can bc expressed as a series of linked questions: 1. How were culmral materials inttoduced to subsurface context? 2. What processes are responsible for their vertical and horizontal distributions? 3. Can these distributions be sumraarized as sttatigraphic pattems or trends? 4. If so. how do they relate to traditional interpretations by early archaeologists (Rogers. Brott Warren, ete.)? 5. What do they imply about the site's research potential for testing traditional and competing explanations of rcgional prehistory? A general model of mostiy noncultural formation for the SDM-W-181 subsurface deposits was synthesized from several sources, but with an important differcnce: the site must originaUy have been primarily a surface deposit whereas raost published studies focus on namral disturbance at sites that had existing subsurface components. The gist of this model is hereby presented as a background for the analyses discussed in Section IH, Human trampUng is a possible mechaiusm to explain the introduction of cultural debris to subsurface context at SDM-W-181. Numerous sources on this topic are syndiesized by Schiffer (1987:126-129. 203-204, 268. 289-290). Major factors conttoUing ttampling effects arc (1) the presence and patterning of cultural materials on the ground surface, (2) the spatial distiibution and intensity of ttampling, and (3) the permeabiUty, or degree of compaction, of the substtate. In a loose and sandy deposit, vertical displacements by foot 46 K"«SW4|»MM« ! Slllllliitiiitt.- pressure have been experimentally documented up to 7-8 cm. whiie horizontal displacements were documented up to 85 cm. Several smdies indicate that ttam- pling on a sandy substtate wiU sort artifacts by size. whUe ttampling on more resistant substrates will reduce artifact size duough breakage. Loose substtates tend to ttap primary refuse, as weU as lost items and ti^mpled materials. Heavily used areas (trails, dance grounds, ete.) raay becorae progressively less perraeable, and raost culmraUy deposited sediments will tend to become more compact through time. Huraan excavations (graves, storage pits, hearth pits. ete.). which are refilled by namre or raan, wUI ultimately be corapacted by rain and trarapUng. Excavations locaUy reduce compaction in die short term and. whether or not the fiU raaterial contains cultoral debris, through ttarapling help inttoducc new surface debris to subsurface context Tramming effects raay have been significant at SDM-W-181. due partiy to the naturc of the sediments. The thin upper stramm (Abbott's "clayey sorted fme sandstc^") is a relatively permeable and sandy substrate, so it would tend to trap primary refuse, lost items, and ttampled materials, possibly sorting thera by size. Since the duckcr medial stramm (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 trampUng effects farther into thc medial sttamm. A potentiaUy important factor is die large amount of clay in both upper strata, which (as observed during die heavy rains of March, 1991) become exceedingly soft when ftofly satorated. At such times, trampling effects might extend deeper than when tfie sediments are dry; however, the sediments are rcadily corapacted by ti-ampUng while chying, which would enhance reduction of artifact size through breakage. The spatial distribution and intensity of prehistoric trarapling at SDM-W-181 arc difficuh to cstiraate, but the ridgetop area is so sraall that no portion can have escaped foot traffic when the site was occupied. Repeated ttarapling has doubtiess occurred on the ridgetop. perhaps at varying intensities but probably always with a fairly even spatial distiibution. in die 5.400-some years that have elapsed since constraction of thc Unit 9 hearth. Trampling effects may have Itecn created by cattie or other domestic animals in the historic era. as weU as by wild animals at aU times, and it would be a mistake to ignore ttaffic along thc ridgeUne's dirt roads as anodier source of pressurc-introductions to subsurface context. The behavior of fossorial (burtowing) 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 trcnches. The valley pocket gopher {Thomomys bottae) and Califomia ground squirrel {Spermophilus beecheyi), both prodigious burrowers. exist in thc arca today and have probably been juesent since long before the occupation dated to circa 5400 B.P. (see Section I1.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 the highest fossorial rodent poptdation densities are usually observed in grassland environments (Coupland 1979; GoUey. Ryszkowski, and Sokur 1975). According to Bocek (1986:589), "Rodents are probably most destiuctive to archaeological sites under grassland Vegetation." Rodent burrowing displaces sediment constiments both vertically and horizontally. The basic mechanisms are described by Bocek (1986:590), as follows. 47 Archaeological deposits will ... be displaced to depdis below die origmal basal occupation layers. Rain, gravity, and ttampling help to collapse and gradually fill abandoned tonnels with surface materials. These "accidental" displacement processes create krotovina, or filled- in burrows, often recognizable in archaeological deposits. In conttast to accidental displacement occurring in abandoned burrows, systematic displacement rcsults from rodent activity in occupied burrow networks. The only objects carried below thc surface by rodents arc plant products, either nest materials or foods .... Otherwise, rodent movement is a one-way process in which soU contents are ti^ns* ported from underground to the surface. Given average tuimel depth, raost systematic displacement occurs within 30 cm of the surface; this is referred to... as the "rodent zone." Vertical mixing witiiin die rodent zone is the most smdied and best understood aspect of fossorial rodent effects. A key factor is tunnel diameter, which among vaUey pocket gophers averages about 6 cm. This may explain one stody's observation that soil contents between 0.6 and 2.5 cm arc morc common in gopher backdirt than in the sunounding sod, as well as odicr smdies identi- fying die maximum particle size displaced by gophers as about 5 cm (Bocek 1986:590-591). Maxiraum particle size is probably somewhat gre^Mer for die Califomia ground squirrel, which is about 1,5 times the size of die valley pocket gopher (Ransom 1981:312, 318) and crcates larger mnnels. Archaeological effects of maximum particle size, using valley pocket gopher tonnel diaraeter, are suraraarized by Bocek (1986:591): ... objects larger dian 5 era, or perhaps 2.5 era, arc systeraaticaUy avoided. Nevertheless, the distiibution of larger soU contents is dircctiy affected by rodent activity. Many fossorial rodents habimally dig under, rather than alongside or above large objects .... Extensive soU rcworking slowly undermines these large materials, which settie graduaUy into apparcnt "cobble beds" .... This is a classic example of the horizonization process: large objects sirdc below the rodent zone, while smaller objects are carried 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, smaller dian die average tunnel diameter. wUl be most common at and near the surface. Larger, heavier items wUl be more common near the bottom of the rodent zone, SheU may behave somewhat differentiy (Bocek 1986:597): rodents seem to ti^sport diinner- Ughter types less frequentiy. so they arc under-represented near the surface. With no addition of sediment to the surface after site abandonment sustained rodent burrowing can create a "horizon" (below about 30 cm) containing natural cobbles, fire-affected rocks, and tiie larger varieties of debitage. flaked stone tools, and ground stone tools. Less is known about horizontal ti^sport. The effects of vertical ttansport are probably greater under most conditions and for most species, since fossorial 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 horizontal tunnels, but ttansport materials morc frequentiy - and greater distances - in a vertical dircction." An important differcnce between 48 I f I r I i i thc two is that "vertical movement is unidircctional, and segregates materials sttatigraphically [whercas] horizontal raovement is multidirectional, and thus homogenizes soU contents" (Bocek 1986:591). Fossorial rodents* behavioral avoidance of raptors is linked to situa- tions that can enhance horizontal mixing, Incrcased ground cover (due to vege- tation or debris, for example) rcsults in fewer and larger backdirt mounds, since protected surface openings tend to be reused and fewer vertical tonnels are therefore needed. Such behavior "wiU tend to escalate horizontal mixing without reducing vertical material ttansport" (Bocek 1986:591), At SDM-W-181. protected enttances might be expected around ridgetop margins because (1) the sloping surface would probably reduce a raptor*s maneuverability and hence its threat, and (2) denser vegetation may have existed therc in consequence of rclative isolation from foot ti^ic. 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 stabUize soils on the upper slopes, thereby promoting vegetative growth. If protected surface openings clustered on die ridgetop margins, then horizontaUy transported cultural debris would tend to cmicentrate there and become avaUable for further redistribution by trampling, slope wash, or slump/sUding. It is possible to establish a scenario for the stratigraphy that 'wUl result from different types and rates of cultoral deposition at a site affected by fossorial rodents. The foUowing constraction is quoted from Bocek (1986:592) for its relevance to SDM-W-181. Consider an area newly occupied by humaris. If rodent populations are already estabUshed, a rodent zone of severely reworked soil should be found at 0-30 era, with a cobble horizon forraed at greater depths, ff huraan occupation debris is deposited in sufficient quantities, site depth wUI increase. The surface "rises" relative to bedrock, and the rodent zone slowly rises as well. Depending on the rate of culmral deposition, the surface may rise too rapidly to permit the formation of a single cobble horizon, or extensive reworidng of the rodent zone. When deposition ceases at thc site, the rodent zone stabiUzes at 0-30 cm below the new surface, and a cobble horizon begins to form. Thc contents of the rodent zone are continually reworked until redeposition occurs, and the cycle is repeated. Depending upon the site's age, the final rodent zone - associated with the modem surface - may be morc extensively reworked than the zones associated with buried surfaces. A multicomponent site, with occupation layers weU separated by periods of non-cultoral 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 tiue; the absence of multiple zones is not proof of single-component occupation. Short-term, high-frequency site use might deposit a series of thin cultural layers, none of which significantiy increases site depth. Each 49 sttatura would thus be too shaUow to cause a visible upward shift of the rodent zone. Surface erosion may also bc implicated in thc formation of archaeologi- cal deposits at SDM-W-181. As previously noted (Section II.A), soU developraent appears rainimal in the ridgetop area, and the A horizon of Bowman's (1973) HiC soil profile seems either missing or seriously degraded. This is inconsistent with the fact that rodent burrowing, which is amply documented at SDM-W-181, generally deepens the soil mantie. There are at least thrce possible solutions: 1. An A horizon once existed at SDM-W-181, but has been recentiy stripped 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 both, whenever surface erosion exceeded sedimentation. 3. No A horizon formed at SDM-W-181, because sedimentation occurred at or below the surface erosion rate. There is some basis for selecting between these altematives. Grading has occurred in association with dirt roads on the ridge, but its traces arc localized and shallow. On-going surface erosion appears minor on the itearly flat ridgetop but severe on the steep marginal slopes, where surface stripping and slump/sUding are evident. Since the ridgetop exhibits littie topograpMcd distortion, recent surface stripping has probably been fairly shallow. Thus, while some level of recent stripping has surely occurred, the first solution appears unable to fully explain the missing A horizon. The second and third solutions can be understood in racchanical terras. Littie water-transported sediment can never have been deposited on the isolated SDM-W-181 ridgetop. since it lies far above nearby drainages and rises very gendy (about 1 to 3 percent slope) in only one dircction, northwest across some 500 feet (152.4 m) of clayey, fme-grained sandstones and mudstones. The ridge is also too narrow to have ever experienced much aeolian deposition. On thc other hand, raore significant amounts of material may have been added by cither or both of two factors: (I) natural organic deposition as the result of biological activity in and on the substtate and (2) deposition of organic and inorganic debris as the rcsult of human activities. If the second solution is correct then deposits attiibutable to these factors will have become A horizon material whenever sedimentation exceeded erosion for a long enough period that rodent burrowing and other pedogenic processes could operate; however, the deposits will have been deflated and removed whenever erosion exceeded sedimentation. The third solution requires that erosion always matehed or exceeded sedunentation; otherwise, soU develop- ment would have led to the creation of an A horizon. The existence of rodent burrows impUes that some level of soU deveiopment 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 will have left a ridgetop deposit of cultural debris, from which surface erosion would sooner or later remove some of the lighter material (bone 50 and shell fragments, microflakes, and small shatter) and deposit tiiem on die marginal slopes. The type, intensity, and duration of each use wiU have conttolled the amount of cultoral debris deposited, but die lengdi of time and erosion rate between, successive depositional episodes wUl have affected the older deposit's deflation and displacement Whenever mantie development was slow or lacking, ridgetop deposits wiU have been thinly layered and highly vulnerable to raixtore by tiampling. During periods of more subsumtial mantie development die deposits wUl have been duckcr and less deflated, but more vulnerable to raixtore by rodent burrowing and pit excavation. Expecttitions can be stated for two altemate scenarios based on die foregoing reconstmction. Each scenario assumes the same rates for surface erosion and rodwit burrowing oyer 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., dien a single nonculmral "cobble horizon" of large-heavy debris should exist beneath the rodent zone, perhaps somewhat above 30 cm (assuming valley pocket gophers) in consideration of surface stripping, with the actoal depth indicating how much sediment was lost 2. If site use contibiued (perhaps intermittentiy) since remote times, then "horizonization" should bc more complex and possibly incom- plete, i.e., recentiy deposited large-heavy items raay occiu* on or near the surface, older ones will be at deeper levels, and a nonculmral "horizon" may be present at some intermediate depth. Mass-movement of sediments may also be impUcated in the spatial distiibution of culmral debris at SDM-W-181. Mechanisms include shrink/swell of clayey sttatti on die ridgetop and slump/sUding on die steep slopes (see Section II.A). Bodi were indicated by Dr. Abbott, who idwitificd a Holocene slurap on the ridge's southeast face. Shrink/sweU of ridgetop sediments is lUccly to have occasionally created vertical fissures, tiuough ^hich a sraall araount of cultural debris raay have entered subsurface context It may also have helped to coUapse rodent burrows, 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 raore gradual process and commonly results in flow-like distortions of pre-existing stiatigraphy. 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 stiucturing. In either a slump or sUdc. the immediate archaeological result will bc some distortion of die cultural debris' prior context. Anotiier result, dependant upon the natorc and extent of distortion, wUl be introduction of tilis debris to some new subsurface and/or surface context Finally, this new context may provide an oppormnity for die operation of other formation processes. 51 IV. RESEARCH RESULTS Results arc prcsented in a four-part format that progrcssively stmcmres and analyses the data. Part A summarily describes thc material culmrc inven- tory and provides Umited spatial, temporal, culmral, and functional informa- tion. Part B defines the site's physical stracmre widiin ridgetop, marginal slope, and unstable slope arcas. Part C addrcsscs site formation processes through die analytical identification of horizontal, vertical, and culmral patteming. Part D concludes widi a focus on archaeological dimensions of interprctation at SDM-W-181, including implications of the prcsent study with respect to past present and fumre research. 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 morc detiuled brcakdowns arc provided in Attachraent 2. 1. Debitage The total amount of debitage rccovercd is 1,509 pieces, of which approximately 55 percent werc rccovercd from the modem ground surface, 42 percent from subsurface context in excavation units, and 3 percent from general proveniences. The subsurface distribution of debitage rcgularly declines by level: 0-10 cm (16 percent), 10-20 cm (II percent), 20-30 cm (7 percent). 30-40 cm (5 percent), 40-50 era (3 percent), 50-60 cm (0 percent 6 cases), and 60-70 cm (1 percent). Almost all of the debitage is distributed among metavolcanic materials, including coarse-grained aphanitic (25 percent). coarse-grained porphyritic (27 percent), fine-grained aphanitic (37 percent), and fine-grained porphyritic (8 percent). The balance arc quartz (5 cases), chert/chalcedony (33 cases), obsidian (2 cases), and misceUaneous (I case). The typological distiibution of debitage refiects generalized tool- production activities, in that 21 percent arc Type 5 (core reduction or basic shaping), 33 percent arc Type 6 (finishing or sharpening), and 43 percent arc Type 9 (shatter from secondary reduction). Thc balance arc widely distributed among Type I (specialized blade: I case). Type 2 (bifacial diinning flake: 3 cases). Type 3 (platform creation or cortex rcmoval flake: 2 cases). Type 4 (cortex removal flake: 11 cases). Type 7 (trimming flake: 10 cases), and Type 8 (shatter produced during primary reduction: 19 cases). 2. Flaked Lithic Artifacts Of die 86 flaked lithic artifacts, 56 percent carae frora tiie surface, 39 percent frora subsurface context in units, and 5 percent frora general prove- niences. Like the debitage, most arc made of metavolcanic materials, including coarse-grained aphanitic (26 percent), coarse-grained porphyritic (22 percent), fine-grained aphanitic (38 percent), and fme-grained porphyritic (6 percent). The balance are distributed among quartz (3 cases), chert/ chalcedony (2 cases), and misceUaneous (2 cases). 52 Special interest is found in the distribution among morphological types. The raost frequentiy represented are bifaces (23 percent), cores (20 percent), unifacial scrapers (19 percent), hammers (15 percent), and utilized flakes (13 percent). The balance includes 3 projectile points, 1 knife, 1 crescentic, I chopper, and 1 modified flake. AU of the projectUe points arc fragmentary, cannot be assigned to any defined type, and are problematical: one might be described as a large, green felsite biface tip; anodier may be the tip of a sraall, thin, grcen felsite projectUe point or biface; and the third is a very sraaU fragment of bifacially worked quartz crystal. The knife is made on a large flake (with extensive edge-flaking on one edge but very Uttie on die 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. Most of die items classified as bifaces would fit within broadly defmed stylistic types attiibuted to the San Dieguito Coraplex, although a few might be ccmsidercd La Jollan or even Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic. Their function(s) arc unknown, but possibiUties include use as knives, dart points, scrapers, or ceremonial items. Some of thc scrapers would fit within stylistic types attributed to die San Dieguito Coraplex, but odiers are so "erode*" in appearance that raost people would either classify diem as La JoUan. Late Prehistoric^^to-historic, or undesignatablc. Considering diese tools to be scraping implements is speculative, as they may represent various types of use in association with animal or plant materials. Thc cores, hamraers, and utiUzed fiakes are not culmraUy diagnostic and raight be from any time period. 3. Ground Stone Artifacts A total of 21 ground stone artifacts were recovered, including 52 percent frora the surface, 29 percent frora subsurface context in units, and 19 percent from general proveniences. Most arc of granite (86 percent 18 cases), with thc others of quartzite (1 case), sandstone (1 case), and misceUaneous (1 case). Alraost aU 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 miscellaneous 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 raanos could be attributed to the La Jolla Complex. Encinitas Tradition, Pauma Complex, or Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic culmres. The same might also be said of the basin and bowl fragments, which arc too small to be of much value in any case, and the cultoral affiliation(s) of slab metates have yet to bc satisfactorily worked out. 53 4. f^^-ramic Artifacts A total of 13 unbumt ceramic sherds were rccovercd from the surface. All are Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic period Tizon Brown Ware and probably date no earUer than circa 750 B.P. 5. Miscellaneous Artifacts One miscellaneous item (catalog nuraber R237-491) was recovered from the surface: one-half of a thin hoof or hom disc (diameter + 1.6 cm and thickness + 1.5 mra) with an off-center hole (diaraeter + 5 mra). The disk appears to have been hand-made for several reasons, including a subrounded profile, an irregular thickness, and imperfectiy planar surfaces. One side is notably smoother than the other. The hole is biconical in cross section, appearing to have been both driUed and rounded. The disk edge is sUghtiy irregidar and subrounded in cross section. This speciraen may be part of a bead but is proba- bly better identified as an early historic button. 6. SheU Ecofacts Total sheU recovery was 168 grams, of which 23 percent came frora the surface and 77 percent frora subsurface context in units. The subsurface distribution defines a clear trcnd: 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 the shell 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 constiments of the hearth were divided into two sheU samples and one sediment sample (ash, charcoal, carbonized earth, and sheU), These werc sent to Beta Analytic. Inc. for radiocarbon dating. Had this sheU been included within the unit level, and site samples, it would have sttongly skewed the data; however, this is not the case. 7. Bone Ecofacts One piece of unbumed bone (1.5 g) was recovered, during mechanical stripping, from an approxiraate depth of 55 cm. It is from a smaU mammal but could not be identified further. 8. Cultural Features No culmral features were discovered in Phase II, which means that the only one known to exist at SDM-W-181 is the hearth removed frora Unit 9 (with expansions 9A and 9B). The hearth was roughly circular in plan view (diameter + 2 m), extended from 32-40 cm at 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 ahnost all were charred, heat-crazed, or fire-cracked. A few were scattercd throughout 54 the feamre, but most (perhaps 80 percent) were observed to line the base and lower sides. About 90 percent of the feamrc fiU (1.8 m^) was a mixmrc of shcU, charcoal, ash, and carbonized sediment of which roughly half was sheU. Almost all of the shell was Argopecten spp., some of it bumt and mostiy stacked in groups approximating a huraan handful. A small amount {circa 10- 15 percent) was Chione spp., witii a very few speciraens of otiier types. All sediment within die featurc was grey to grey-brown in color (with patehes of dark grey to black stain), slighdy clayey in textore, and moderately to highly compact All surrounding sediment was mediura brown to dark brown in color, very clayey in textore, and extremely compact Near die featore, it contiuned occasional pieces of shell and a few artifacts. This surrounding sediment belonged to die medial stiramm. 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 stratigraphy: surrounded by a mixmre of "brown raudstone" with raaterial frora the underlying "fine sandy mudstone" (white to yellow-colored, fine-grained sand and sUt), it extended about 3 cm below die medial stratora. 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 mcluded 3 bifaces. 1 utilized flake, and 1 hammerstone. Debitage includes 6 for Type 1 (specialized blade flake), 4 for Type 2 (bifacial dunning flake), and 3 for Type 3 (platfonn or cortex removal .flake). Field records note that 6 debitage carae frora within the feamre, although die laboratory data do not indicate which ones. B. PHYSICAL STRUCTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY This discussion focuses on the composition, formation, and culmral contents of sediments in three arcas or types of setting at SDM-W-181. TTie nearly flat "ridgetop" is die arca wherc surface coUection. STP testing, 18 units, and mechanical stripping documented the majority of cultural debris. It is rcpresented in tiiis 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" arca, a generaUzed zone that surrounds and is simated elevationally below the ridgetop, is rcpresented 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 anoyos southwest of the ridgetop, and a Holocene slump located southeast of and below thc ridgetop. The latter is reprcsented in this analysis by one Phase II unit (T6). 1. The Ridgetop The principal rcgularities of ridgetop stiucturc and stratigraphy arc illusttated by Figurcs 6 and 7 and Photograph 1. Thc figures arc profile drawings frora tiie thrce walls forming one-half of one tiench (unit TIA), and from one wall of another trcnch (units T2A-D). The ttenches werc adjacent to Phase I units 9, 9A, and 9B. where the hearth was excavated (see Figure 5). Thc photographic profile shows die eastern, north-south ridgetop cross section formed by mechanical stiipping slightly west of the trenches (see Figure 5). The sediments are the middle Eocene deposits identified by Dr. Abbott. 55 "ix^^MHMMI II IMUHIEieaiSte.. .OM .am 1.0m 1.2m t.4m UNIT T-IA EAST WALL PROFILE CS-WALL') .am Am .tm .»m UOm UNH" T-IA SOUTH WAU PROFILE CW-WALL') .Bm 1.0m 1.2m t.4m UNIT T-IA WEST WALL PROFILE {"N-WALL") I.Sm 2.0m CLATfT tOUTSO FWe SAMOSTOM MOWN uuD>TOM lumn ueron I I ptowN HuraTOM (LO¥m Mwrom I 1 nm tANOT MUMTow j OXDIZEO ORANQC/VELLOW SAHOBTONE I »y [ tAMOSTOME MCUmOHt [^•) LAMMATIONS HH MWWN CLAV MOTHES FIGURE 6. UNIT T-IA EAST. SOUTH. AND WEST WALL PROFILES n-?2t3A 8/11 UNIT T-20 UNIT T-2C NORTH CLAYEY SORTED FINE SANDSTONE BROWN MUDSTONE (UPPER SECTOR) I I BROWN MUDSTONE (LOWEH SECTOR) I I FINE SANDY MUDSTONE UME SPECKLES FIGURE 7. WEST WALL PROFILE OF UNITS 2A. 2B, 20. AND 20 H-2Z12A a/91 • • j."^-- ••-V, - " it * PHOTOGRAPH 1. RIDGETOP TRANSSECTION, VIEW TO EAST OCTO'^ R-2212* 9/91 The upper stiamm (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 die westem quarter of the ridgetop zone, and in the balance appears to slightiy thicken both eastward and toward thc center of thc ridge. Nowhere raore than about 8 cm thick, it was generally observed to be crambled, cracked, and usually penetrated by vegetation. In places, however, it was preserved as a moderately compact layer. Its contact widi die underlying medial sttamm is fairly distinct and reflects thc original depositional bedding. The medial stratum (brown mudstone rich in expandable clay) is morc complexly stiuctorcd. Its upper sector (about 10-20 cm thick) is moderately compact generally homogeneous (despite occasional sandstone inclusions), and often penetrated by vegetation. It also contains most of tiie surface vegeta- tion's roots. The lower sector (about 20-40 cm tiiick) is highly compact contains sandstone inclusions and occasional areas of higher clay content, and is relatively free of roots. Intact portions of a partiaUy prcserved, natural band of lime speckles in the lower sector define an originally level stracmre, the top of which varies between about 27 cm and 45 cm below the inegular modem surface. Both sectors, are extremely thin in the westem quarter of the ridgetop zone, and becorae generally thicker both eastward and toward the ridgeline. Numerous krotovina are responsible for the lower sector's irregular base. Higher in the section, krotovina are indirectiy evidenced by distortions of the lime-speckled band. As this band is typically a basal stiucmrc in die B horizon of Bowman's (1973:54-55) HrC soil, wh^ch is roughly analogous to these sttata (see Section II.A), the existence of medial stratum 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. Thc upper sector's irregular base and lesser compaction may bc partly due to rodent burrowing; however, the upper sector has been, and stiU is clearly morc subject than die lower sector to floralturbation (vegetation growth) and shrink/sweU of die clayey sediment The basal stramm (fine sandy mudstone) was encountercd in every ridgetop unit very near to surface in the zone*s westem quarter but progres- sively deeper both eastward and toward thc ridgeline. Its light tan to yellow color, generaUy minor compaction, and grainy texturc conttast sharply witii tiie brown, compact and clayey medial stramm material. This made intrasive krotovina rcadUy apparent in the long Phase II cross sectional profiles. Reasons for their infrequent identification during Phase I probably include a mismatch between unit rcsolution (1x1 meter) and overall bunow intensity (moderate), coincidental placement of some units in arcas of lower burrow intensity, and thc fact that many units werc abandoned when artifact rccovery 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 culmral debris almost never occurs in pristine basal stratora sediraents. Rather, it is restricted to intrasive krotovina filled with medial sttatura sediment and to mixed sediraents containing krotovina and/or roots extending out of krotovina. 59 2. Marginal Slopes Unit 4 (Phase I) was placed about midway down thc steep southem slope below thc ridgetop (see Figure 5). It was excavated by the contour raethod to a maximum depdi of 40 cm. The unit primarily reflects slope wash, but may also exhibit slump-sliding effects. No cultural debris was obtained from the 0- 10 cm level, which consisted of mediura brown sediment derived frora the ridgetop. The 10-20 cm level, which contained the same rcdeposited sediment and outcropp- ings of the basal sttamm (fine sandy mudstone). j^oduced 3 debitage, a utilized flake, and a biface fragment. The unit was progressively dominated by basal sttatum material from 20 cm to its termination in purc basal stramm at 40 cm; both of these lower levels werc culturally sterile. Unit 7 (Phase I) was placed near the northwest edge of a slumping and arroyo-cut arca soudiwest of the ridgetop (see Figure 5). This simation is similar to diat of unit 4 in terms of slope severity; however, surface stripping is notably greater both above and below unit 7. The unit was dug by the contour method to a depth of 10 cm. A very thin layer of light tan colored sediment obviously sk^ wash raaterial from the ridgetop. gave way alraost iraraediately to the basal stiratum. No cultoral debris was recovered from the unit. Unit T5 (Phase II) was placed on a locally steep slope (about 35- 40 percent), immediately below die ridgetop (see Figure 5). Its stiuctore is illusttated by Photograph 2, which looks upslope to die north. The uppermost layer, a loose to moderately compact medium to dark brown colored sediment is penettated by vegetation and contains abundant roots. It appears to consist largely or wholly of redeposited medial stratum sediment frora the ridgetop. Everydiing deeper than this upper layer is intact basal sttamm, 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 into the basal stratum. Excavated according to the horizontal method, unit T5 produced one piece of debitage from each of thc upper three 10- centi- meter levels. Debitage of the upper two levels came from racdial sttatora material, whUe the 20-30 cm speciraen came from a medial stratom-fiUed krotovina above the sandstone concretion. 3. Unstable Slopes Unit T6 was placed near the center of a bench-like arca on the toe of a Holocene slump southeast of the ridgetop (see Figure 5). Excavation was by horizontal lO-ccntimetcr levels to a maximura depth of 100 cm. Each level's floor was drawn, the 100 cm floor was also photographed, and all four walls of the completed unit were profde-drawn and photographed. A column of soil samples was taken from the west wall at lO-ccntimeter intervals and subsequentiy analysed in the laboratory for Munsell value, grain size (in microns), and grain shape. The data reflect several formation processes. All grain sizes werc in the fine-grained category (125-250 microns), including eight within the lower range (125-177 microns). Grain shape was subangular for 8 samples, and subrounded for two. Except for one occunence of 7.5 YR 5/2 and one of 5Y 8/2, all samples werc Munsell coded as 10 YR and varied widely between 2/1, 3/3, 4/3, 5/3. 6/2, 7/3, and 8/2. These distributions suggest sediment mixing through mechanical distortion due to slumping, fossorial rodents, or both. 60 ^'^4•.m(4MMf!WhW!llll H' lauaM 111, PHOTOGRAPH 2. UNIT 15 FLOOR AND NORTH WALL RECiDN ^-2212A 9/91 In die soudi waU (Photograph 3), between about 35 cm and 90 cm depth, flow-pattcm lines arc defined by irrcgularly shaped and variously sized chunks of the Ught colored basal sttamm (fine sandy raudstone). This is a good indicator of mechanical distortion due to slumping. The basal stramm itself is fracmrcd near the bottom of the north wall and in die 100 cm floor (Photographs 4 and 5), which may also indicate slumping. An apparcnt lack of flow-pattem distortions in the section's upper 35 cm may indicate redeposition of ridgetop sediments ttansported by slope wash, although rodent bunowing raay siraply have obUterated any ttace of earUer stracmring. Krotovina exist diroughout the entirc section. Several active tonnel entirances with frcsh backdirt piles werc noted in the vicinity of unit T6. These arc associated widi the modem rodent zone, which has formed a rainor "cobble horizon" at about 33-39 era in die west waU (Photograph 6). Older krotovina (below about 40 era) are generaUy weU preserved and occasionaUy cut through flow-pattem lines, but a few appear distorted by flow raovcraents. 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 Ukely explanation is ridgetop erosion and bench scdimenUition tiuoughout die slump's active phase. The oldest krotovina (below about 65 cm) intmde the basal stta- mm and extend beyond 100 cm (see Photos B4 and B5). They must eidier stem frora an eariy stage in the slumping or predate its onset in which case they would be a renmant of die original ridgetop deposit The distribution of cultoral material in unit T6 is informative. Culmral debris was absent from die 90-100 cm level, but present in each of die nine overlying levels. If krotovina below 65 cm reflect early-stage slumping, then deep-level sterility could indicate that slumping began prior to human occupation of SDM-W-181. However, if deep-level krotovina formed prior to the ^ump. then the 90-100 cm level may be sterile because culmral debris on die ridgetop siraply had not yet migrated downward to the section's base when slumping began. TTie levels above 90 cm contained smaU and nearly equivalent amounts of cultoral debris. This was anticipated as the result of rodent mixing and flow-distortion in slump and slope wash sediments. Only shell came from the 80- 90 era and 70-80 cm levels. The 60-70 era level contained sheU. charcoal, and debitage. Only sheU carae frora the 50-60 era level. The 40-50 cm level produced both debitage and shell. Thc 30-40 cm level was purely sheU, and the 20-30 era level was purely debitage. Both sheU and debitage came from the 10-20 cm level. Only sheU was produced by thc 0-10 cm level. The diversity of debris in 40-50 cm may reflect rodent-effected vertical transport prior to the formation of a minor "cobble horizon" (at 33-39 cm) just below the modem rodent zone. The upper portion of anodier, stiU older rodent zone raay be rcpresented by the rclatively diverse 60-70 era levei; this particular zone would corrclate to either prc-slump ridgetop sediraents or early-stage slumping. C. FORMATION PROCESSES This discussion focuses on patteming in the spatial distribution of cultural debris at SDM-W-181. Horizontal and vertical pattems are addressed 62 - -WWII ilil ii<iMamiUIMIiMft'.ilM<M!IMIe«i[i'il»-<*''»^i^^ -• 1):' i 1 ,' ' • i • • PHOTOGRAPH 3. UNIT T6 SOUTH WALL PHOTOGRAPH 4. UNiT 16 NORTH WALL REC(DN R-2212A 9/91 PHOTOGRAPH 5. UNIT T6 FLOOR PHOTOGRAPH 6. UNIT T6 WEST WALL R-2212A 9/91 R£C(DN first widi a primary interest in natiu^ formation processes. The concluding part examines rcraaining pattems as by-products of cultoral behavior. 1. Horizontal Patteming Subsurface cultural debris in the marginal slopes area is rainiraal, and slope wash has been thc primary medium of ttansport frora ridgetop deposits! Phase I STP excavation and surface collection rcsults show diat culmral debris below the ridgetop is primarily rcstiicted to die surface. Phase I and II units demonstiate diat slope wash deposition has been minimal, but in cermin settings has suppUed cultural debris for inttoduction to subsurface context by odier natimd processes. Unit 7, which proved culturally sterile and was closed in basal Sttatora sedunent at 10 era, is a prime example of severc surface stripping due to slope wash. Unit 4 and T5 show that slope wash, probably combined widi rainor slumping and rodent burrov^dng, has distributed culmral debris to about 20 cm below surface. In addition, unit T5 documents fossorial rodent effects in distributing culmral debris another 10 cm below the surface. On unstable slopes, a formative role has been played by slope wash. It accounts in part for thc presence of cultural debris in unit T6 down to at least 30 cm. and perhaps as deep as 90 era. A considerably grcater 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 die upper 30 cm and an associated rainor cobble horizon in about 33-39 cm. Older, overlapping rodent zones are possibly present at roughly 40-70 cm and 60-90 cm, with apparcntiy sterile krotovine extending below 100 cm. The possible influence of waste disposal on marginal slope deposits can be examined with rcference to surface collections, STPs. and unjits in that area. Debitage heavily dominates the recovered cultural materid, which other- wise includes minimal amounts of odier artifacts and sheU, TTuis pattern would not be anticipated for either formal dumping or sustained disposal of ridgetop refuse. A debitage concenttation extending some 20 meters downslope flora die ridgetop's northeastem edge, in an area of sterile STPs (see Figures 3 and 4), does not appear to be culmral and was possibly created by deflation of rodent backdirt outside horizontal tunnel entrances. Only one marginal slope artifact appears not to bc rcdeposited: a slab metate, near tiie 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 rcfuse may occasionally been duown off the ridgetop, waste disposal on die marginal slopes was neither formal nor sustained. ' Littie horizontal patteming has been deUneated on the ridgetop. Surface debris was abundant but unpatterned across its southeastem 60-meter extent. The few localized concenttations were obviously created by erosion or deposition associated widi graded dirt roads and bladed areas. The southeastem 30 meter sector, with relatively deep and rich subsurface deposits, was' probably thc focus of prehistoric cultoral 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 patteming on the ridgetop surface conforms to predicted effects of surface erosion and ttampling in laterally displacing 65 cultural debris. It is also consistent widi die predicted tiampUng effect of introducing cultoral iteras to subsurface context dius masking patteras which might odierwise be evident It is more difficult to address a lack of subsur- face horizontal patteming on die ridgetop. Pattems may have gone undetected because of sample size limitations and unit placement procedures, but die use of mechanical sttipping to locate features or special activity areas should increase confidence in their apparent rarity. An explanation can be suggested, based on the model outiined in Section IH.C: several processes (mostiy noncultural) intioduced surface-deposited cultural debris to subsurface context, while fossorial rodent burrowing caused differential vertical sorting along dimensions of size, shape, and weight widi a net rcsult of randomizing whatever in situ horizontal patteming might originaUy have existed on die surface. This would, of course, also help to explain the conteraporaiy lack of horizontal patteming on the surface. 2. Vertical Patteming The raodel of mostiy natoral site forraation (sec Section III.C) can be used to examine vertical distribution pattems for cultural debris in the ridgetop deposits. As prcviously explained, analysis was raade possible by syndiesizing datti frora all unit-levels of equal deptii for 18 units, eg all 0- 10 cm levels for ridgetop units 1. 2, 3. 5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 9A, 9B. TIA. TIB. T2A. T2B. T2C. T2D, T3, and T4. Data for four artifact/ecofact classes werc used to create duee variables: (1) debitage count (DE), (2) sheU weight in grams (SH), and (3) nwan weight in grams of FLAs and ground stone combined (FLA&GR). The distribution of these variables among synthetic ridgetop levels, as shown in Figurc 8, can be informative given an understanding diat smaU sample size and wide variabiUty crcate potential biases for each variable. Debitage, die largest sample, is a case in point: across just eight levels, die 489 cases vary from n=6 to n=l63. It was partly to overcome such Umiutions tiiat die analysis employs bodi Phase I and Phase II data, and die FLA&GR vari- able was created from two data sets, VulnerabiUty to bias generally increases with deptii, due to die number of unit-levels represented in each syntiietic level: 1 unit stopped producing cultittal debris at 30 cm. 9 stopped at 40 cm, 5 stopped at 50 cm, 2 stopped at 60 cm. and 1 stopped at 80 era. Also, a few units had at least one "sterUe" level above the deepest productive level. None of this is to suggest that the unit-level results are themselves in error, but to note that skewing of variable distributions raay have resulted from a few unusual specimens. An immediately striking fact about Figure 8 is that the surface or "0" era level indicates very low values for each variable. These values require minor conection in light of data diat are missing due to erosion, amateur collection, and formal collections conducted during this study. Erosion wiU have removed primarily small-light iteras frora the surface, tiius affecting SH die most, DE much less, and FLA&GR very little. Amateur collection will have affected FLA&GR more seriously tiian either DE or SH. Unprovenienced collection of a crescentic during die survey (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990), possibly from the ridgetop, has the sarae effect The influence of such factors cannot be fully controlled, but their possible scope can be estimated with reference to Phase I and Phase 11 collection rcsults. 66 300 J 0 ^ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LEVEL 70 80 DEBITAGE COUNT FtAKED LITHIC ARTIFACT ANO QROUNDSTONE MEAN WEK3HT SHELL WEIQHT 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 iflEClZW In the Phase I intensive point-provenienced surface coUection of all visible cultural debris, two collection circles overiapped excavation units (#57/unit 5 and #88/unit TIB) and produced 16 pieces of debitage. Later in Phase I and throughout the early part of Phase H, oppormnistic surface coUection of iteras exposed by surface erosion, vehicular ti-affic, and foot- scuffling rccovercd 597 debittige, 8.2 graras of sheU (2.2 graras Chione spp. and 6.0 graras Argopecten spp.). 28 whole or fragmentary tool specimens (8 bifaces, 1 point 3 scrapers, 4 utiUzed flakes, 3 hammerstones. 1 core/ hamnierstone, 3 corcs, 3 metates, and 2 manos), and 5 Late Prehistoric/Proto- historic period sherds. Using a conservative assumption of equal spatial distribution, these data can be distributed among the units (representing 2.5 % of die circa 700 ra^ ridgetop area) to raise DE by 14.93 specimens and SH by 0.205 grams; about 0.7 tools can be used to raise FLA&GR mean v^ght by a negUgible amount. The net effect of all possible quantitative cor^tions to Figurc 8 would raise DE from 16 to 47, which remains less dian die 10 cm value (n=163) and most odier levels. Both SH and FLA&GR would increase very sUghtiy, but these adjustments would not be visible in Figure 8. Unportant tiends are exhibited by aU direc variables frora die surface through termination at 70 cm. A jump frora very low surface values to substantiaUy higher 10 cm values suggests tirarapling as a raajor mechaatism for die introduction of cultoral debris to subsurface context with shiirdc/SweU of the clayey sediments and fossorial rodent activity as likely secondaiy factors. As predicted for rodent burrowing, large-heavy items have been segregated downward in section, i.e.. FLA&GR mean weight increases widi dcpdi. Tliis is an expression of krotovina-filUng. burrow collapse, and conjunctive ttampling effects. Vertical ti-ansport has kept items diat arc smaller dian average rodent tonnel diameter relatively higher in section, i.e., DE count is highest near die surface and decreases with depth. Shell has also behaved as expected, since Table 1 indicates diat differential rodent ttansport has under-fcprcsented smaU-Ught types near die surface. whUe concentrating die raore abundant and massive types {Argopecten spp. and Chione spp) at deeper levels. Aldiough Table 1 shows Chione spp. as increasingly prevalent between the surface and 40 cm. including die unit 9/9A/9B hearth would have signiflcantiy incrcased die representation of Argopecten spp. for 30-40 cm and 40-50 cm. Particular forraation processes are suggested by distiibutions in die three deepest levels. SheU is absent at 50 era and negligible at bodi 60 and 70 cm, whUe FLA&GR items last occur at 50 cm. DE count achieves its lowest value at 60 era (n=6) and rises slightiy at 70 era (n=10). Field observations confum that diesc values primarily reflect rodent activity below about 50 era, as a few krotovina (both tunnels and occasionally dens) were documented at 50-80 cm in units 9, 9A, 9B, TIA-B, and T2A-D; at equivalent depdis in the wall exposures created by mechanical stripping; and at equivalent depths within units T-7, T-8. and T-9 within the mechanically stripped areas. Minor root action and sediment shrink/swell are lUceiy to have displaced shell and debitage into deep krotovina, but field notes indicate that diese factors did not move culmral debris outside of burrows intiuding die basal sttatura. The existence of such deep krotovina indicates Califomia ground squirrel burrowing, since the valley pocket gopher is seldora active over 30 cm below surface and die ridgetop sedi- ments are natural Eocene strata instead of mantie (see Sections D.A and III.C). Burtowing by Califomia ground squirrels is also implied by the fact that tiie few well prcserved tunnels within 50-80 cm were about 5-10 cm in diameter, whereas vaJley pocket gopher tunnels have an average diameter of about 6 cm. 68 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF RIDGETOP AREA TOOLS AND SHELL BY LEVEL Level 0-0 cm 0-IOcm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-80 cm Raked Lithic Artifact5; Notes Nondiagnostic Core Surface Concentration #3 Concentration #3 Concentration #3 Concentration #2 Concentration #1 Knife/ UUUzed Biface Hammerstone Flake Crescentic Ground Stone Mano Basin 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 3 1 0 I 0 12 2 2 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 I 1 53 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell Chione Argopecten Other This does not preclude valley pocket gopher activity nearer tiie surface, but mdicatiss diat Califomia ground squirrel burrowing has probably affected all ndgetop deposits to about 80 cm depth. ^ ^ . ^ii"^ ^ evidences duee concenttations of cultural debris The fust sigmfied by a sraall increase in DE and SH at 70 era. is probably due to Cahfomia ground squurel bunowing. Since field observations docuraent rodent activity to cuca 80 cm, a lack of cultural debris below 70 cm suggests that die deepest bunrows may predate initial human occupation at SDM-W-181. The second concenti-ation. probably equivalent to a cobble horizon IS signified at 40 cm by die highest FLA&GR and SH values and an increase over the odierwise decUnmg DE ticnd. ff valley pocket gophers were responsible for die development of this stiucmre. dicn the overiying rodent zone would need to have included about 5-10 cm of "missing" A horizon soU. A possibly better altemative identifies die Califomia ground squirrel as jointiy responsible, in which case a mantie of up to some 30 cm above die contemporary surface might have been, present The existence of a cobble horizon widun 30-40 cm may explain die unit 9/9A/9b hearth's deep position. Its upper surface (32-40 cm) faUs weU widun Concenttation Number 2, while its bottom depdi (50 cm) is only sUghdy lower. Since rodents typicaUy "dig under, radter dian alongside or above large materials" (Bocek 1986:591), the hearth's final position can be attiibuted to undermining by die sarae burrowing tiiat crcated Concenttation Number 2. The tiiird concenttation is signified by an increase in SH and FLA&GR values at 20 cm. which arc nearly maintained to 30 cm. This suggests diat Concenttation Number 3 is a partiaUy formed or dismrbed cobble horizon. If valley pocket gophers werc rcsponsible, diis vi^ould necessittite a rodent zone diat included up to about 20 era of "raissing" A horizon soU above die raodem surface. A deeper rodent zone, perhaps up to 50 era above die raodem surface raight have been present if die CaUfomia ground squirrel were whoUy or jointiy responsible. Location widun die base of former rodent zones would help to explain moderate compaction and rainiraal soil development in die upper sti^tom and in die medial sttatum's upper sector, as well as die former's discontinuous ndgetop distiibution (see Sections II.B and IV.B.l). A history of die "raissing" mande can be reconstiucted. in which Concentration Nuraber 1 signals deep burrowing by CaUfomia ground squirrels at an early dcvelopraental sttige when huraans occupied a surface only slightiy higher in elevation dian today's. The mantie subsequentiy mamrcd and tiiickened as sedimentation exceeded deflation in response to cUmatic changes or human influences, if not both, possibly under conditions of incrcased valley pocket gopher activity. A succeeding period of mantie stabiUty is signalled by die apparent cobble horizon in Concentration Number 2 at 30-40 cm (extending to 50 cm in die unit 9/9A/9B heardi) beneadi a rodent zone diat probably involved both valley pocket gopher and Califomia ground squirtcl burrowing, and which may have included up to 30 cm of now "raissing" A horizon soU. A final period of mantie development, probably also involving both valley pocket gophers and CaUfomia ground squirrels, raised die surface to a maximum of circa 50 cm above today's elevation. Renewed sttisis allowed Concentiation Number 3 to begin foping as a cobble horizon in 20-30 cm, but a final episode of mande deflation shifted die rodent zone downward in section. This episode lowered burrowing rates but concenttated rodent activity within an ever-diinning layer as rodent 70 populations declined in response to food supply reductions. The net effect was to redistribute some Concentration #3 material downward into 20-30 cm, as indicated by thc near-plateau of SH and FLA&GR values from 20 to 30 cm. This reconstmction has several archaeological implications. All subsurface cultural debris has been partially mixed by die same processes that intioduced it to subsurface context, i.e., huraan ttarapling, pit constmction and fiUing (documented by tiie unit 9/9A/9B hearth), accidental and systematic rodent displacement sediment shrink/swell, and floralttirbation. Each of die duee concenttations is dominated by large-heavy items due to vertical sorting along size, weight and possibly shape parameters. Concenti:ation Number 1 contams cultural debris from its associated rodent zone, i.e.. 0-60 era and whatever lost mantie once lay above die surface. Concentiation Number 2 contains material frora 0-30 cm plus a missing mantie, whUe Concentiation Number 3 is comprised of 0-10 cm debris arid former mande constiments. Both concentrations also incorporate materials that were systeraaticaUy displaced frora underlying sediraents and suteequendy reintroduced to subsurface context Since Concentration Nuraber 3 reflects both upward and downward migrating rodent zones, its contents and diose of 0-10 cm are very dioroughly mixed. SmaU-Ught items are under-represented diroughout the deposits because a good sample of aU fractions entered subsurface context during periods of mantie development but systematic transport later exposed them to surface erosion in periods of mantle StabiUty. Selection against smaU-Ught iteras is raost heavfly pronounced Concentration Nuraber 3 above because newly exposed or freshly deposited debris becatne progressively subject to surface erosion and ttarapUng breakage within a thinning mantie. Materials deposited during or after terminal-stage experienced severe erosion, ttaraplc-breakage, and sediment shrink/sweU effects, but rela- tively minor systematic or accidental rodent displacement Some of die large- heavy and raidrange debris (raettites, raanos, aiid flaked Udiic took) tiierefore reraains on or near tiie modem surface, but ranch of die very lightest and sraaU- est raaterial (sheU and raicrodebitage) was washed away and not tiampled into the 0-1 Ocm level. The foregoing reconstruction can be evaluated for its adequacy in explaining die HrC profile's "missing" A horizon, which Bowman (1973:54) describes as "from 5 to 30 inches [12.7-76.2 cm] in tiiickness." This range fully brackets die suggested deflation of an approximately 20-50 cm tiiick mantie, independent of the comparatively minor sediment losses attiibuted to modem erosion and grading (see Section HI.C). For want of evidence to die conttary, it might be supposed diat die currendy 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 out. One possibility is accelerated erosion due to overgrazing by cattie associated with the nearby Rancho Encinitas. which could account for surface-collected hom/hoof disc fragment identified as half of a possible historic button. 3. Cultural Patteming Archaeological rcsearch begins with defming the archaeological context of culmral materials, and dien attempts to rcconstiuct dieir systemic context as participants in a behavioral system (Schiffer 1987:3-11). To this end, the present study has cunentiy focused on identifying and evaluating specific forraation processes rcsponsible for the creation of archaeological context at SDM-W-181. Natural factors have been seen as priraary agents in all 71 parts of die site. Vertical rodent displacement and erosional stripping predominated in die ridgetop arca, widi sediment shrink/swell and odier biomrbation (mostiy root action) playing lesser roles. Slope wash erosion and deposition werc dominant on thc marginal slopes, with slump/sliding as an added factor in unstable areas. Cultural factors have been identified as largely secondary agents, whose ultimate expression was conttoUed by natural factors. General parameters for die creation of subsurface deposits were established by a focus of raost activities on die ridgetop area, including apparentiy random refuse disposal practices. TrampUng was responsible for horizontal scattering and breakage of culmral debris, as well as inuroductions to subsurface context botii directiy and in association witii accidental rodent displacement. Surface erosion reduced the introduction of small-light debris during periods of mantie stabUity and especially mande deflation, while trampUng intioduced a raore representative sample during periods of mande developraent Direct introduction occurred tiuough die fdUng of a sheU-aiid-cobble pit heardi (units 9/9A/9B), partly as a by-product of its use but perhaps' also mvolving natural sedirnenttition and human ttampUng. Subsurface cultural debris mcluding die unit 9/9A/9B heardi as a block, was verticaUy sorted ^dirough systematic and accidcnttd rodent displacement; added mixing and Umited sorting werc affected by sediment shrink/sweU and other faunaltoii>ation. Remnant culmral patteming can be detected in Table 1. which shows die distribution of flaked Utiiic artifacts, ground stone, and shcU among syntiietic levels in the ridgetop area. Artifact types arc ttiken from die "label" designations in laboratory data (see Attachment 2), but knives and bifaces are combined due to their formal sunUarities and possible errors in differentiation. These data have been converted to Table 2, which is Umited to the upper 50 cm because deeper levels contain no artifacts and Uttie shell, and alraost entirely reflect dte operation of nonculmral factors. Since all 40-50 cm artifacts (see Table 1) werc recovered frora interior fdl of die unit 9/9A/9B hearth, which appears to be derived from Concenti-ation Nuraber 2. die 30- 40 cm and 40-50 cm levels have been combined. This includes die 1.0 gram of Chione spp. sheU in 40-50 cm. but die hearth's abundant sheU fdl (ahnost entircly Argopecten spp.) is not shown in eidier table. The 10-20 cm and 20- 30 era levels have been combined because diey comprise Concentration Number 3. The surface, 0-10 cm, 10-30 cm. and 30-50 era layers all contain siraUar types of cultural debris (see Table 2). Some of the apparcntiy raissing values can be filled by implication, e.g.. the hamraerstone in 30-50 cm implies that cores must have been used when this layer was formed, while manos in 10-30 cm and 0-10 cm imply the prcsence of coraplcraentary ractates or basins. Empty values on the surface can be rcplaced wilh data from thc non-unit surface collections, which produced nondiagnostic flaked lithic artifacts. cores, knife/bifaces, hammerstones. utilized flakes, another crescentic. raanos. and added shell, as well as mettite fragments, debittige, and Tizon Brown Warc sherds. In short, the material culture inventory changed very littie between die unit 9/9A/9B hearth (radiocarbon dated to circa 5400 B.P.) and a late occupation signified by sherds dating circa 750-100 B.P. The absolute frequencies in Table 2 can bc partiy explained by noncultural factors. For example, that 18 artifacts (51.4 percent of a total 35) occur in 10-30 cm probably stems from repeated vertical sorting and 72 HIIHIWItllllMHMM' TABLE2 DISTRIBimON OF RIDGETOP AREA TOOLS AND SHELL BY LAYER Flaked Lithic Artifacfs Level Nondiagnostic Core Knife/ Biface Hammerstone Utilized Flake Crescentic Ground Stone Mano Basin Shell Chione Argopecten Other 0-0 cm 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0-IOcm 0 1 3 0 0 0 I 0 I 3 2 10-30 cm 1 5 3 5 3 0 1 0 25 13 5 30-50 cm I 0 4 1 0 0 1 1 54 2 I TOTAL 2 6 13 6 3 1 3 I 80 18 8 honzonization witiun elevationaUy "migrating" rodent zones during die forraa- tion of Concentiation Number 3 in successive periods of mantie development StabUity, and final deflation. Consequentiy, some of its large-heavy items (5 cores, 5 hammerstones, and 1 mano) raay be temporally equivalent to smaller- lighter iteras anywhere above 30 cm, e.g., the crescentic or any of tiie 9 knife/ bifaces. The ahnost even distiibution of kn^fe^ifaces among all four layers despite vertical sorting and horizonization. may unply a sustained importance for such tools tiuoughout dte site's history. This is especiaUy lUcely for two reasons. First duee of dte 30-50 cm (Concentiation Number 2) specimens came frora witiun tiie heardi. which was preserved as an intact block, but one did not and, tiierefore, raust have been separately deposited. Second, die tiuee surface speciraens must eidier have been displaced upward from 0-30 cm or downward du-ough a now-missing mande, or else tiiey were deposited eitiier near or after die end of deflation; hence, diey must post-date Concenttation Number 2 and reflect a late, possibly fmal occupational period. This pattem rans counter to tiic prevaiUng culture-historical model (see Section n.B.2). which proposes tiiat finely raade bifaces bdCHimna to an early hunting culmre (San Dieguito) gave way to die sirapler flakft^ Jftic tools and ground stone technology of a later culmre (La Jolla) witii more gMter^fized isubsistence practices. Vertical sheU distributions conttadict M,J. Rogers* attribution of SDM-W-181 to die San Dieguito ^Rurc (see Section Il.B.3), which purportedly did not exploit sheUfish and otiier marine resources (see Section II.B.2) Even widiout the unit 9/9A/9B heardi fUl. total sheU per layer diminishes steadily between 30-50 cm and die surface. Including heardi fiU would elevate die 30- 50 cm tottds for bodi Argopecten spp. and odier shell above die 10-30 era values, whUe also incrcasing total shell for Concenttation Number 2. Shell frequencies raay be under-rcpiesenttd in die surface and 0-10 era layers, since erosional loss of very smaU-light surface debris was probably substtmtial during die two fmal sttigcs of mantie stability and defiation. In any case, it is clear diat raoUusc exploitation had an unportant subsistence role tiuoughout die occupational span of SDM-W-181. and die unit 9/9A/9B hearth testifies to "clambakes" some 5.400 years ago. The surface occunence of a crescentic fragment (cattdog nuraber R237-491) presents a quandary. It raay have originated in die now-missing mantie, but its smaU size (2.7 x 2.6 x 0.6) would also have pennitted system- atic displacement from anywherc witiiin 0-30 cm. Liraited support for deposition cither on or above thc modem surface is found in a much larger specimen diat was surface coUected during an earlier survey (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990). In either case, the crescentic fragment raust postdate the circa 5400 B.P. unit 9/9A/9B heartii in 30-50 cm. This relatively young age is anomalous within die context of ortiiodox belief diat crcscentics arc a San Dieguito hallmark and tiiercforc date circa 12,000-7,500 B.P. The types of activities undertaken at SDM-W-181 arc indicated by die nature of artifactual and ecofactual material, which by extension can also help to define the site's functicMi. Marine sheU (mostiy Argopecten spp. and Chione spp.) 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 of vegetal foods, with subsequent on-site processing and presumably consumption. 74 The point/knife/bifaces, scrapers, and utUized flakes indicate a role for on- site processing and probably consumption of faunal rcsources, but some of these impleraents raay have been used in processing plant materials for consumption or tool production. Abundant debitage indicate production of flaked lithic tools, including unmodified and raodified flakes, unifaciaUy and bifaciaUy worked corc- or cobble-based iraplements. and a variety of well-made bifaces. A few tools indicate rcjuvenation or retooling of otiierwise expended impleraents. Dircct evidence of on-site food consumption, and by implication some type of habitation, is fumished by the unit 9/9A/9B hearth. Good preservation of die hearth's carbonaceous fiU (shell, charcoal, ash, and some sediment) suggests that chcraical conditions within die site as a whole werc favorable. Rodent burrowing appears to have been a significant source of randoraization. but die heardi's stiuctural integrity demonsttates diat diis type of feamre was rclatively unaffected. Since no other hearths werc observed, despite raanual and raechanical excavation of about 66 percent of die core ridgetop area, habitation can seldom have been either protracted or substantial. It cannot be asceitained if SDM-W-181 was rcpetitively used acconfing to some seasonal schedule, or was occupied intermittentiy over a span of several centuries. Perhaps the most definitive functional interprctation can go not farther than to identify SDM-W- 181 as a temporary simated for optimal proximity to diverse namral resources. D. ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIMEt^KIQNS CH^ INTERPRFTATinN Results of this smdy can be helpful in evaluating die scientific value of SDM-W-181. Discussion is initiaUy foCuscd on ortiiodox views of the site, particularly with regard to the methods and theoretical paradigms that guided early interpretations of it A contemporary and still developuig altemative raodel of prehistory is then evaluated frora the perspective of current findings. The concluding stateraent serves a dual purpose not only in assessing the possi- biUty of resolving outstanding research issites through further work at SDM-W- 181, but also in projecting some recommendations for fumre research on the basis of this stody's findings. 1. The Orthodox View Malcohn J. Rogers, through his many years of working at SDM-W-181 or with material rccovered from it rcpeatedly described thc site as a purc San Dieguito deposit (see Sections II.B.I, n.B.2, and II.B.3). His W series note- book assigns San Dieguito III to this "fairly late site with double convex knives." specifying that "ractates and manos [aie] absent" whUe mentioning "one crcscent 8" [20.3 cm] underground" widiin a 13 inch (33 era) diick stiatora. The formal site sheet completed somewhat later, indicates a San Dieguito II occu- pation that extended into San Dieguito JB. Rogers' 1942 reallocation classi- fies the site as San Dieguito n with a "tiracc" 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 diat it was "a very concenttated occupation, probably because the surrounding 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 the closely related San Dieguito Type CoUection. Under this new terminology, SDM- W-181 was reclassified as Dieguito IH widi a ttace of San Dieguito IV, but 75 Clark W. Brott ignored diese changes when annotating and assembUng die San Dieguito Type Collection for use in iUusttating Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966). Brott used die old tenninology in classifying SDM- W-181 as San Dieguito U-IH and La Jolla D. adding the latter because of raillmg unplements and shell samples in die San Diego Museum of Man collection drawer for die site. At least some of tiiis "La Jolla" raaterial was coUected frora a separate locus. SDM-W-181-A. which Rogers had always defmed as a dual coraponent site. This locus may m fact be SDM-W-942, which was tested m Phase I (Davis and Cheever 1991). instead of die arca excavated by Kaldenberg (1974). Otiier "La Jolla" materials in die site drawer may have been rccovercd at SDM-W- 181 proper by Rogers' associates during his attempted rctircment or. perhaps more Idcely, at some time shortiy after his dcadi. In Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers et al. 1966:83). it is clearly Rogers who emphasizes diat "In dual Mtare sites such as San Dieguito and La Jolla, dierc is not only a cultural disctmformity but a cleariy deraariced geological one." He was quite specific in further noting (Rogers et al, 1966:83) that: The San Dieguito H raiddens have a wavy eroded surface between diera and die La JoUa fl raiddens. This feamrc is much less in evidence in dual culmral sites of die San Dieguito III Phase and die La JoUa II Phase, but il does exits. The geokigical hiams probably rcprcsents die period and duration of the La JoUa I Phase. Rogers would surely not have missed diis type of evidence at SDM-W-181, where he conducted some type of limited excavation, and a "disconformity" may be part of die rcason he classified SDM-W-181-A as a dual-component site. In addition, Rogers' original record for dus separate locus' specifically notes dial "ractates and raanos [are] present" In consequence of dte sample obttiined duough Phase I and Phase II testing, which includes comprehensively provenienced data, it is possible to evaluate orthodox interpretations of SDM-W-181 made by Rogers. Brott and odiers since. Since ground stone artifects were evident on die surface in 1990-91, as well as being prcsent in subsurface context, Rogers' mention of tiieir absence is difficult to explain. Low surface frcquency in combination widi vegetiitive cover may have been responsible, as seems to have been tiie case with the rccent survey's (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990) failurc to note ground stone artifacts. It is possible that vegetative cover in Rogers' day had seriously reduced surface visibility. Enough mantie soU raay have been prcsent in Rogers' time that large-heavy items remained in subsurface context and thus were not on die surface. Finally, Rogers' excavation was alraost certainly a rcstiicted probing operation, probably limited to one or two small ttenches, which makes it highly probable tiiat low-frequency manos and metates would be randomly absent from his subsurface sample. Rogers' failure to observe sheU at SDM-W-181 may be a result of die namrally caused low frequencies diat diis smdy encountered in die 0-30 cm levels. This depth is important as Rogers dtought diat die archaeological sttatum extended only aboul 33 era below surface. As with ground stone, his smaU-scalc excavation may simply have missed recognizably archaeological shell due to sampling crtor. The same argument can bc made with respect to features, since only one (the unit 9/9A/9B hearth) is known to have existed and at a 76 greater dcpdi dian Rogers' excavation, i.e., thc top was at 32-40 cm and die base at 50 era below surface. Rogers' "double convex knives" on die surface can bc explained as a result of mantie deflation (redeposition frora above). Either early systematic displacement (during die formation of Concentiration Number 1 or Number 2) or subsequent accidental displacement (during die formation of Concenttation Nuraber 3) raay account for the location of his excavated crescentic at aboul 20.3 era below surface. A sirailar arabivalence has been expressed in connection wilh the surface occurrence of two crescentics recovered in this study, aldiough one specimen's size was great enough to suggest accidental displacement (perhaps during die deflationary stage of Concenttation Number 3 formation) as a preferred alternative. This study's findings contradict die orthodox culmral chronology model (see Section II.B.2) in some important respects. It has been demonsttated tiiat tiie material culturc inventory at SDM-W-181 rcraained essentiaUy siraUar over a span of some 4,650 to 5*300 years. Such continuity indicates a rautoal association of elements that orthodox perspectives consider temporaUy distinct, including a "La Jolla" cobble/core-tool industry; a "San Dieguito" scraper-and- biface industty with crcscentics and large, tiiin, double-convergent bifacially worked blades (Rogers' "double convex knives"); a ground stone assemblage with items diat arc variously attiibutable to tte "La JoUa Coraplex" and "Encinittis Tradition" or die Late Prchist^^/^to-historic period; an exploitation* of floral and faunal rcsources in la^>Mial-csmarine and coasttd sage scrab/ chapairal environracnts; and die construction of a "La JoUa" cobblc-Uned pit hearth with sheU, ash, and charcoal fUl dating circa 5400 B.P. It cannot be supposed that these elements were simply "mixed up" by faunalturbation, as the existence of rcmnant cultural patteming has been documented in spite of vertical patteming due to prcdorainandy natural site formation processes. Episodes of mande development stabiUty. and deflation have been Imked with sequenced introductions of culmral debris to subsurface context, making it possible to accoimt for observational errors by Rogers and his associates. Furthermorc, no evidence was found of the cultural and geolog- ical "disconformity" that Rogers associated with dual-component sites. Il seems possible that what he interprcted as a disconformity, signifying some occupa- tional hiams. was actually a contact between tiie soU mantie and natural sedi- ments containing krotovina with large-heavy culmral debris as fiU constituents, e.g., thc submantie soaui 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 liraited selection of flaked lidiic artifacts on and below the surface, it could never have occurred to him that the "disconformity" he sought was in fact the existing ground surface. Rogers' situation is simUar to lhat faced by Davis and Cheever (1991) during Phase I testing. Assuifting tiiat SDM-W-181 was a midden deposit they could not explain what appeared to be a significant degrce of sedimenta- tion, especially as tiie clay-rich strata could only have been deposited by water. This view informed tiie design and initial implementation of a Phase II testing program, but geological assistance by Dr. Abbott revealed what none had prcviously suspected: the subsurface deposits must be largely noncultural because the sttata arc middle Eocene formations. Rogers' approach to sti^tig- 77 raphy differed little frora die more raodem approach, in tiiat an initial assurap- tion about site forraation processes colorcd archaeological interprcttition in ways lhal directiy influenced die direction of field efforts. 2. New Age Models A considerable amount of contemporary research was synthesized in Section n.B to outiine die sharcd feattues of nonti-aditional prchistory models. The essentials of tiiat syntiiesis are generaUy supported by results of diis smdy. As indicated above, long-term continuity m tite raaterial culmrc of SDM- W-181 included a generalized subsistence stirategy involving exploitation of botii lagoonal-estoarine and tenestiial rcsources. Tte location of SDM-W-181. as a temporary camp, is seen to expr^ optiraiZaMion between various subsistence possibdities witiiin a distiict that incorporated Batiquitos Lagoon, die Encinitas Grant Plateau, and hUIy arcas to die east Specific resources probably included various seeds, roots, and tobers; smaU-tti-medium sized mammals, such as vaUcy pocket gophers, CaUfomia ground squirrels, rabbits and deer, various avian and rcptiUan ajtecics; and lagoonal sheUfish (mostiy Argopecten spp. and Chione spp.). Habitation was brief, repetitive, and possibly seasonal, altiiough temporal patteming may well have varied across die span of some 50 or raorc cenmries. Tliis interpretation is compatible widi die results of modem smdies at several important nearby sites, which have been radiocarbon datisd and togedier indicate diat there was "one continuous occupation of die Batiquitos region by one people from 8280 to 3500 years B.P." (GaUegos et al. 1986'Fivc- 70). The radiocarbon dated unit 9/9A/9B teardi at SDM-W-181 suggests an initial occupation at circa 5400 B.P., near die midpoint of dus occupational range. A possible 3500-1500 B.P, gap in radiocarbon dates (GaUegos 1985:Six-l-2- GaUegos et al. 1986:Five-70) is nol evidenced at SDM-W-181 tetween die basal heardi and die modem surface, which contained Late Prehistoric/Prott>-historic penod Tizon Brown Ward sherds and odier potentiaUy recent debris. A nuraber of recendy avaUable radiocarbon dates (Jim Eighmey, pers. comm., 8/21/91) docu- ment continuous occupation of die Batiquitos Lagoon region from about 8400 B.P. to at least 300 B.P.. and radiocarbon dates from somewhat farther afield suggest diat dus occupation may extend as far back as cuca 9000-10.000 B.P. After several decades of rcsearch, die emerging pictiue of Bataquitos Lagoon rcgional developraent includes a gradual elaboration of generalized hunting-gatiiering based on diverse plant and animal resources associated with die open coast die lagoon proper, its surrounding hills, and die near-coastal foodiUls. A comprehensive overview of coasttd Califomia research is provided by Jones (1991), who presents what might te terftsed die Efficient Foraging Model of coastal setdement. This raodel is based on a conception of "efficiency- conscious foraging groups" tiiat focused dieir subsistence and settlement tehav- ior on "die selection of resource patehes. providing the highest net energy yields for both areally liraited and wide-nmging exploitation" (Jones 1991:435). Consistent resource availabUity and recognition of that condition arc seen as keys to die pattemed use of resource patehes. As Jones (1991:435) puts it: These environments could be depended upon for consistent access to important hunted resources - large terrcstiial and marine mammals - as weU as valuable collected resources such as shellfish and tubers. These habitats, particularly lakes and estuaries, are remarkably alUce 78 in their makeup and show great similarity across latimdcs; not only do they provide concentiations of high-quality resources, but dieir value would have teen readily apparent to foragers moving inlo new territo- ries. Frequent moveraent from one resource-rich patoh to another raay have provided continued high yields. Moveraents could have been ahnost random in direction and scheduling as long as high-quality patehes were continually recognized and exploited when encountered. A kind of developmental pump or evolutionary mechanism is inherent lo die model (Jones 1991:435-436), Population growdi and consequent resource depletion, seen as major results of foraging efficiency, are proposed as causes of an increasing dietary brcaddi that was accomplished dirough die addition of smaU seed utiUzation (marked by mUling technology appearing at speciaUzed sites in seasonaUy Umited seed-rich habiuits) to continued usage of high- quality resources and resource patehes. Overcxitfoitation of large game is argued to have caused incrcasing reUance upon ianaUer and raore elusive prey, although in "die coastal zone of extreme southem CaUfomia...large game raay never have been abundant and smaUer animals, such as deer and rabbits, would have been optimal prey al the time of initial setdement" (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 die interprettition of SDM-W-181: The archaeological rccord frora coastal Califonua shows great variation in the tinting and character of marine-resource use. Sorae marine environracnts - esmaries, islands, and seraiprotected rocky shorcs - werc among die fust habittits settled by humans, bul odiers, such as die exposed open coast of northem CaUfomia, apparentiy were avoided until much later. Some marine foods, particularly esmarine sheUfish, were among die foods ttugeted by die initial settiers. The use of tiiese resources at tius tirae depdi suggests stiongly dial at leasl some marine resources cannot te characterized as "second rate," and dial models ascribing initial marine-resource exploitation to post-Paleoindian adaptation arc challengablc. The value of shellfish probably Ues in its accessibiUty to mobiUty-restricted raemters of hunting and gather- ing groups. Variation in tiie timing of die initial use of otiier marine foods is explicable not in terms of the value of marine vs. terrestrial resources, but in attempts by humans to optimize their reproductive potential duough efficient foraging (i.e., harvest of optimum resources and die selection of resource-tearing habitats offering thc highest net- energy yields for both arcaUy Umited and unlimited group members). Frcshwater and marine shellfish would have teen among the optimal resources available to Umited-range foragers entering Califomia, as were sea-lion rookeries for hunters. Sorae sttetches of coasdine rcprcsenl the richest environments available in a region, others were comparatively poor, but tte ultknate value of marine resources to huraan hunting and gathering populations can only te understood with respect to their efficiency ranking within a given latitodinal zone and to the foraging abilities of all group raemters. The Batiquitos Lagoon region can te 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 terrestrial game, 79 bul littie in tiie way of large-garae species; and a broad diversity of highly productive sraaU-seed resources within grassland, coastal sage scrab, and chaparral coraraunities. The region's exceptionally rich environment had no parallel cast of thc near-coastal foothills. The Batiquitos Lagoon rcgion would, tiierefore. te expected to aittact early settiement, experience a sustained population increase, and over time develop a pattern of diversified subsistence tehavior dial included short- term camps associated with intermittentiy and perhaps seasonaUy avaUable resource patehes located sorae distance away from the lagoon itself This is die developmental pattem suggested by contemporary evidence, as noted above. The Encinittis Grant Plateau, which conlains SDM-W-181. can be identified as an interraittendy and periiaps seasonaUy valuable resource pateh. The particular location of SDM-W-181 can te viewed as an optiraal choice relating to iraraediately avaUable smaU nutnum^. e.g.. fossorial rodents; nearby sraall- lo-raediura sized garae and small-seed resources, which might have been highly diverse given die site's possible dcotonic sitoation (sec Section B.A); medium- size game and perhaps specific siriall-seed resources in hills to die east; and a reasonable proxinuty to shellfish in Batiquitos Lagoon. Since die earUest known use of SDM-W-181 was drca 5400 B.P.. after die rcgion had alrcady teen occupied some 3,000 to 4.000 years, a fuUy diversified hunting-gatiiering toolkit and short-term habitation pattem should be exhibited by cultorJ debris frora its initial period. This would account for thc co-occurrcncc of "San Dieguito" and "La Jolla" eleraenis in its 30-50 cm (Concentiation Nuraber 2) synthetic ridgetop levels. Later deposition at SDM-W-181 can te understood in light of foraging efficiency over anolher 4.000 to 5.000 years. Sttiblc or incrcasing huraan popu- lations would exert cumulative stress on lagoonal rcsources, and a sustained decUne in lagoonal shellfish (perhaps involving noncultural as weU as cultural factors) would te offset by incrcasing rcUance upon such "second rate" resource patehes as die Encinitas Grant Hateau. Habitation at SDM-W-181 would tend to rcmain temporary but tecome raore frequent coincident with an intensified exploitation of resources located on and near die 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 wcU-evidenced from Concenti-ation Numter 3 (10-30 cm) to tiie surface. It might also explain terminal mantie deflation as having resulted from overexploitation of small-seed rcsources and possibly ro^ts on the site, together with such cumulated impacts as human trampling and vegetation clearance. 3. Concluding Remaifci Phase I and n testing at SDM-W-181 has challenged the orthodox culmre-historical raodel of regional prehistory by dcraonsirating errors in its implications regarding the site's stracmre and contents, and by supporting a raodel of mostiy natural formation that explains the dala upon which these erro- neous conclusions were based. The testing prograra has also given liraited support to more modem interpretations of Batiquitos Lagoon regional prehistory, which are rclated to a developing cultoral ecology model that embraces diachronic concems but views traditionally defined material culturc assemblages as techno-economic aspects of a single subsistence-settiement pattem. 80 ^'»«Ml(l||>M|H1ll!!»H||i#' A morc thorough evaluation of die orthodox raodel and its raodem competitor(s) can be accomplished in the Batiquitos Lagoon rcgion under either or both of two circurastances. The fust involves a gradual accuraulation of daia frora various types of site expressing a range of contents and dates, which widi a concerted focus on deUneating site formation processes and obtaining radiocarbon dates will permit contributions to a rcgional data sel that wiU ultimately permit dircct modeling and hypodiesis testing. In tius context die sura total of work accoraplished at SDM-W-181 can bc considercd a salutary contribution. Thc second circumstance entails discovery, rccognition. and excava- tion of particular sites witii characteristics favoring intensive rcsearch. An appropriate site wUl have deep subsurface deposits dial rcpresent a broad variety of activities, including short-term and/or raorc proti-acted habitation. A long history of use wiU te evidenced by radiocarbon-dateable raaterials tiuoughout die section, preferably includ&^ featoral contexts. A tiue soU mantie will be present and prcferably include such recognizable sediraenttuy Sttata as archaeological midden or fjood-teid day. sUt sand, or gravel bands. The sectional profile wiU exlubit distinct cobble horizons, continuously sorted vertical distributions, or both, aiid document a progressive elevation of rodent zones. Sediment sources wUl te idditifiable rclative to thc site's location, e.g.. in a floodplain or beneath enxfihJc slopes. Cultoral deposition wiU te mostiy primary, instead of secondary, and reflect a combination of horizontal and vertical culmral patteming. Stiucttmdly intact cultiiral feattues vriU be present and either contain or te associated with functionally diagnostic arti- facts, stylistically definable "type" artifacts, and radiocarbon-dateable ecofacts. Site SDM-W-181 meets few of these criteria and dtereforc is poorly suited for intensive rcsearch. The site's most productive arca was die ridgetop. of which aboul one-half (two-durds of the focal sector) was raanuaUy and mechanicaUy excavated in the two-phase archaeological test Odier site arcas contain ahnost entircly secondary deposits. The ridgetop lacks a soU mantie. and culmral debris was inttoduced to subsurface context by mosdy namral processes. A broad variety of activities, including short-teim habita- tion, is rcpresented. bul natoral erosion and vertical sorting effects have skewed the samples. A long history of site use is also reprcsented. but only one feature (a stiucturally intapt hearth widi artifacts. sheU, ash, and charcoal) was found wimin me ridgetop arca. Mechanical excavation revealed no other features, and none are likely to exist 81 ,«^|MIM8IIIMMlM«e. V. RRSOIJRCE 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 thc site's slracmrc and contents, but also rcvealed that subsurface deposits on the ridgelop arc largely due to fossorial rodent burtowing and such other natoral formation processes as sediment shrink/sweU and root action. In addition, the ridgetop's potentiaUy informative soU mantie was lost to erosion long ago. Culmral debris simated away from the ridgetop arca rcprcsents secondary deposition by such namral processes as slope-wash and slumping. The raaterial culturc inventory proved to te smaU. despite^ relatively intensive sampling, and it is dominated by classes (debitage and shell) that can contribute Utde teyond what is currendy known. Important research questions were addressed in the two phases of testing; however, additional field and laboratory efforts would mercly eidarge the sample, without faciUtating different kinds of research or analysis. Planned developraent of the La Costa Town Center projeci wiU destroy what remains of SDM-W-181. WhUe it raay te regrettable, the loss of this archaeol- ogicaUy unmtportant site wiU not be a significant environmental effect under CEQA or the City of Carlsbad's ordinances. 82 1 I i i I i ( I f I i I i I r I i i I I I VL REFERENCES CITED Axelrod. 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. Bull, 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. BcdweU, 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 Burtowmg Behavior: Predicted Effects on Archaeolog- ical Site Formation. American Antiquity 5l{3):5^9-603. Bowman. R. H, 1973 SoU Survey of die San Diego Area, Califomia. United States Departtnent of Agriculmrc, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in coop- eration widi the University of Caiifomia Agriculmral Experiment Station, die United States Departtnent of die Interior, Burcau of Indian Affairs, die Departinent of die Navy, United Slates Marine Corps, die Departraent of Housing and Urban Developraent. and die County of San Diego Plarming Department. Brott. C. W. 1966 Accession rccord for San Dieguito Type CoUection. UnpubUshed record sheet at the San Diego Museum of Man. CarriUo, C. C. and C. S. Bull 1980 Archaeological Testing at La Costti - 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 Natore of Grassland. In Grassland Ecosystems of the World: Analysis of Grasslands and Their Uses. R.T. Coupland. ed. Intema- tionai Biological Progrararae No. 18. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. Davis, E. L., C. W. Brott and D. L. Weide 1969 The Westem Lithic Co-tradition. San Dicgo Museum of Man Papers, No 6. San Diego, CA. 83 " •(p'i»Ji!iS*H|M!R«UB|l« horizonization witiun elevationaUy "migrating" rodent zones during tite forraa- tion of Concentration Numter 3 in successive periods of mande development StabUity, and fmal deflation, Consequentiy, some of ils large-heavy items (5 cores, 5 hammerstones, and I mano) may be temporally equivalent to smaller- lighter iteras anywhere above 30 cm, e.g.. the crescentic or any of tiic 9 knife/ bifaces. The almost even distiibution of knife/bifaces among aU four layers, despite vertical sorting and horizonization. may imply a sustained importance for such tools tiuoughout die site's history. This is especiaUy lUcely for two reasons. First duee of die 30-50 cm (Concentration Numter 2) specunens carae frora widun die heardi. which was preserved as an intact block, but one did not and. tiierefore, must have been separately deposited. Second, die duee surface specimens must either have teen displaced upward from 0-30 cm or downward Ihrough a now-missing mantie, or else they were deposited either near or after the end of deflation; hence, they must post-date Concenttation Numter 2 and reflect a late, possibly final occupational period. This pattem rans counter to tiie prevaUing cultore-historical model (see Section II,B.2), which proposes that finely raade bifaces belonging to an early hunting cultiire (San Dieguito) gave way to the simpler flaked litiiic tools and ground stone technology of a later culmre (La Jolla) with raore generalized subsistence practices. Vertical shell distributions conttadict M.J. Rogers' attribution of SpM-W-181 to die San Dieguito cultore (see Section II.B.3), which purportedly did not exploit shellflsh and other marine resources (see Section II.B.2). Even withoui the unit 9/9A/9B hearth fiU, total shell per layer diminishes steadily between 30-50 cm and die surface. Including hearth fill would elevate die 30- 50 cm totals for both Argopecten spp. and olher shell above the 10-30 cm values, whUe also increasing total shcU for Concenttation Numter 2. SheU frequencies raay te under-represented in the surface and 0-10 cm layers, since erosional loss of very small-light surface debris was probably substtmtial during die two fmal stages of mantie stabUity and deflation. In any case, it is clear ihat raoUusc exploitation had an important subsistence role throughout tiic occupational span of SDM-W-181, and tiie unit 9/9A/9B heardi testifies to "clambakes" sorae 5,400 years ago. The surface occurrence of a crescentic fragment (catalog number R237-491) presents a quandary. It may have originated in the now-missing mantie, but its smaU size (2.7 x 2.6 x 0.6) would also have pennitted system- atic displacement from anywhere witiiin 0-30 cm. Limited support for deposition either on or above the modem surface is found in a much larger specimen that was surface collected during an earlier survey (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990). In cither case, the crescentic fragment must postdate thc circa 5400 B.P. unit 9/9A/9B hearth in 30-50 cm. This relatively young age is anomalous within die context of orthodox telief that crcscentics are a San Dieguito hallmark and tiiercforc date circa 12,000-7,500 B.P. The types of activities undertaken at SDM-W-181 arc indicated by die nature of artifactu£d and ecofactoal raaterial, which by extension can also help to define the site's function. Marine shell (mostiy Argopecten spp. and Chione spp.) 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 of vegetal foods, with subsequent on-site processing and presumably consumption. 74 The point/knife/bifaces, scrapers, and utiUzed flakes indicate a role for on- site processing and probably consumption of faunal rcsources, but some of these implements may have been used in processing plant malerials for consuraption or tool production. Abundant debitage indicate production of flaked lithic tools, including unraodified and modified flakes, unifacially and bifaciaUy worked core- or cobble-based iraplements. and a variety of well-made bifaces. A few tools indicate rcjuvenation or rctooling of otherwise expended implements. Dircct evidence of on-site food consuraption, and by implication some type of habitation, is fumished by die unit 9/9A/9B heartii. Good preservation of die heardi*s carbonaceous fiU (shell, charcoal, ash, and sorae sediment) suggests that chcraical condttions wilhin die site as a whole werc favorable. Rodent burrowing appears to have been a significant source of randomization, but die heardi's stiuctoral integrity demonsttates dial tiiis type of featurc was relatively unaffected. Since no pdwr hearths were observed, despite raanual and raechaiucal excavation of about 66 perceni of the core ridgelop area, habitation can seldora have teen either protracted or substantial. It cannot te ascertained if SDM-W-181 was repetitively used according lo some seasonal schedule, or was occupied intermittentiy over a span of several centuries. Perhaps the niost defmitive functional interpret^n can go not farther dian to identify SDM-W- 181 as a temporary simated for optimal proximity to diverse natoral resources. D. ARCHAEOLOGICAL l»iENS10NS OF INTERPRETATION Results of this smdy can te helpful in evaluating the scientific value of SDM-W-181, Discussion is initiaUy focused on orthodox views of the site, particularly with rcgard to the methods and theoretical paradigms that guided early interprctations of it A contemporary and still developing altemative raodel of prchistory is then evaluated from the perspective of cunent findings. The concluding statement serves a dual purpose not only in assessing the possi- biUty of resolving outstanding research issues through further work at SDM-W- 181, but also in projecting some rccoraraendations for futorc research on the basis of this stody's findings. 1. The Ortiiodox View Malcohn J, Rogers, duough his raany years of working at SDM-W-181 or with raaterial rccovered from it rcpeatedly descrited the site as a purc San Dieguito deposit (see Sections II.B.I, II.B.2, and II.B.3). His W series note- book assigns San Dieguito ID to this "fairly late site with double convex knives," specifying that "metates and raanos [are] absent" whUe racntioning "one crescent 8" [20.3 era] underground" witiiin a 13 inch (33 era) diick sti-amra. Thc fonnal site sheet, completed somewhat later, indicates a San Dieguito H occu- pation diat extended inlo San Dieguito III. Rogers* 1942 reallocation classi- fies thc site as San Dieguito n with a "trace" of San Dieguito III. This classification is repeated in thit formal San Diego Museum of Man site record, which terms the site a "highl^d accretion camp" and says dial it was "a very concenttated occupation, probably tecause thc surrounding 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 the closely related San Dieguito Type CoUection. Under this new terminology, SDM- W-181 was reclassified as Dieguito ID widi a ttace of San Dieguito IV. but 75 Clark W. Brott ignored tiiese changes when annotating and assembUng tiie San Dieguito Type Collection for use in iUusttating Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers ct al. 1966). Brott used the old terminology in classifying SDM- W-181 as San Dieguito n-Iff and U JoUa B, adding tiie latter tecause of mUling implements and sheU samples in die San Diego Museum of Man collection drawer for the site. Al least sorae of tiiis "La JoUa" material was coUected from a separate locus, SDM-W-181-A, which Rogers had always defined as a dual component site. This locus may in fact te SDM-W-942, which was tested in Phase I (Davis and Cheever 1991), instead of dte area excavated by Kaldenterg (1974). Other "La Jolla" materials in die site drawer raay have been recovered at SDM-W- 181 proper by Rogers' associates during his attempted retirement or, perhaps raorc likely, at sonic time shortly after his death. In Ancient Hunters of Ae Far West (Rogers et al. 1966:83) it is clearly Rogers who emphasizes tiiat "In dual cultorc sites such as San Dieguito and La JoUa, tiierc is not only a culmral disconformity but a clearly demarked geological one." He was quite specific in further noting (Rogers et al 1966:83) tiiat: * The San Dieguito II raiddens have a wavy eroded surface tetween diera and the La JoUa II raiddens. This feamrc is much less in evidence in dual cultural sites of die San X>ieguito IB Phase and die La JoUa II Phase, but it does exits. Tte geological hiatos probably rcprcsents the period and duration of the La Jolla I Phase. Rogers would surcly not have missed tiiis type of evidence at SDM-W-181, where he ccmducted some type of limited excavation, and a "disconformity" raay te part of die rcason he classified SDM-W-181-A as a dual-component site. In addition. Rogers* original record for tiiis separate locus' specifically notes that "metates and raanos [arc] present" In consequence of tte saraple obtamed duough Phase I and Phase II testing, which includes comprctensively provenienced data, it is possible to evaluate orthodox interprctations of SDM-W-181 made by Rogers, Brott and odiers since. Since ground slone artifacts werc evident on die surface m 1990-91, as weU as teing prcsent in subsurface context Rogers' mention of tiieir absence is difficult to explain. Low surfece frcquency in combmation witii vegetative cover may have teen responsible, as seems to have been tiic case witii tiie recent survey's (Whitehouse and Cheever 1990) faUurc to note ground stone artifacts. It is possible that vegetative cover in Rogers* day had seriously rcduced surface visibility. Enough mantie soU may have been present in Rogers* time that large-heavy items remained in subsurface context and thus werc not on die surface. Finally, Rogers' excavation was almost certainly a rcstiicted probing operation, probably limited to one or two sraafl ttenches, which raakes it highly probable tiiat low-frequency manos and metates would te randomly absent from his subsurface sample. Rogers' failure to observe shell at SDM-W-181 may te a result of die namrally caused low frequencies duit diis stody encountered in the 0-30 cm levels. This depdi is important as Rogers diought tiiat die archaeological Sttatum extended only about 33 cm telow surface. As with ground stone, his smaU-scale excavation may siraply have missed recognizably archaeological shell due to sampling crtor. The same ^gumeni can te made with rcspeci to features, since only one (the unit 9/9A/9B hearth) is known to have existed and at a 76 greater depdi dian Rogers' excavation, i.e., tiie top was at 32-40 cm and die base at 50 era telow surface. Rogers* "double convex knives" on die surface can be explained as a result of mantie deflation (rcdeposition frora above). Eidier early systeraatic displacement (during the forraation of Concentration Number 1 or Numter 2) or subsequenl accidental displacement (during die formation of Concentiation Numter 3) may account for tiie location of his excavated crescentic at about 20.3 cm below surface. A siraUar arabivalence has been expressed in connection witii die surface occurrence of two crescentics rccovered in tius smdy, aldiough one specimen*s size was great enough to suggest accidental displacement (perhaps durmg die deflationary stage of Concenttation Numter 3 formation) as a preferred altemative. This study*s fmdings conttadict die ortiiodox cultoral chronology model (see Section n.B.2) in some important reflects. It has teen demonsttated dial tiie raaterial culture mventory at SDM-W-181 remained essentially simUar over a span of some 4,650 to 5300 years. Such continuity indicates a mumal association of elements tiiat orthodox perspectives consider temporaUy distinct mcluding a "La JoUa" cobble/corc-tool industty; a "San Dieguito" scraper-and- biface industty witii crescentics and large, dun. double-convergent bifacially worked blades (Rogers* "double convex knives"); a ground stone assemblage widi Items diat are variously attribuuiblc to die "La JoUa Complex" and "Encinitas Tradition" or die Late Prehistoric/Proto-historic period; an exploitation" of floral and faunal rcsources in lagoonal-esmarine and coasttd sage scrab/ chaparral envuonments; and dte consttuction of a "La Jolla" cobblc-Uned pit hearth widi sheU, ash, and charcoal fiU dating circa 5400 B.P, It cannot be supposed tiiat these elements were simply "mixed up" by faunalmrbation, as the existence of remnant cultoral patteming has teen documented in spite of vertical patteming due to prcdorainandy nattual site formation processes. Episodes of mantie developraent stabiUty, and deflation have been linked widi sequenced inttoductions of culmral debris to subsurface context making it possible to account for observational enors by Rogers and his associates. Furtheimore. no evidence was found of die cultural and geolog- ical "disconformity" dial Rogers associated widi dual-coraponent sites. Il seems possible diat what hc interprcted as a disconforraity, signifying some occupa- tional hiatos, was actually a contact tetween tiie soU mantie and natural sedi- ments containing krotovina with large-heavy culmral debris as fiU constituents, e.g.. tiie submantie sttata at SDM-W-181. Since Rogers believed he was dealing witii a culturally formed midden deposit at SDM-W-181, and happened to encounter notiiing but a Umited selection of flaked Udiic artifacts on and below thc surface, it could never have occuned to him that the "disconformity" he sought was in fact the existing ground surface. Rogers* simation is sirailar to dial faced by Davis and Cheever (1991) during Phase I testing. Assuming tiiat SDM-W-181 was a midden deposit they could not explain what appcarcd to be a significant degrce of sedimenta- tion, especiaUy as die clay-rich stiata could only have been deposited by water. This view informed the design and initial implementation of a Phase II testing prograra, but geological assistance by Dr. Abbott revealed what none had previously suspected: the subsurface deposits must bc largely noncultural because the sttata are middle Eocene formations. Rogers' approach to stratig- 77 raphy differed little from die morc raodem approach, in dial an initial assump- tion about site formation processes colorcd archaeological intemretation ui ways tiiat directiy influenced die direction of field efforts. 2. New Age Models A considerable amount of conteraporary research was syndiesized in Section ILB to outiine tiie shared feamres of nonti^ditional prehistory models The essentials of tiiat syndiesis are gcnendly supported by results of dus ^ indicated above, long-tenn continuity in die material culmre of SDM- W-181 included a generaUzed subMstence Sttategy involving exploitation of bodi lagoonal-estoanne and tenestiial resources. The location of SDM-W-181 as a temporary camp, is seen to express optimization tetween various subsistence possibdities witiun a distiict dial incorporated Batiquitos Lagoon die Encmitas Grant Plateau, and hUly areas to die east Specific resources probably mcluded various seeds, roots, and tobers; sraaU-tt)-raediura sized mammals, such as valley pocket gophera. Califomia ground squinels. rabbits, and deer; vanous avian and li^tiUan species; and lagoonal sheUfish (mostiy Argopecten spp. and Chione spp.). Habitation was brief, repetitive and possibly seasonal, altiiough temporal patteming may weU have varied across die span of some 50 or morc centuries. This interpretation is compatible widi die results of modem stodies at several importtmt nearby sites, wtuch have teen radiocarbon dated and togetiier indicate dial diere was "one continuous occupation of die Batiquitos region by one people frora 8280 to 3500 yews B.P" (GaUegos et al. 1986-Five- 70). The radiocarbon dated unit 9/9A/9B heardi at SDM-W-181 suggests an initial occupation at circa 5400 B.P.. near tiie raidpoint of dus occupational range A possible 3500-1500 B.P. gap in radiocarbon dates (GaUegos 1985:Six-l-2- Gallegos et al. 1986:Fivc-70) is not evidenced at SDM-W-181 tetween dte basai he^ and die modem surface, which contained Late Prehistoric/Protti-historic penod Tizon Brown Ward sherds and odier pottmtiaUy recent debris. A number of recendy avaUable radiocarbon dates (Jim Eighmey. pers. comm.. 8/21/91) docu- ment continuous occupation of tte Batiquitos Lagoon region frora about 8400 B P to at least 300 B.P., and radiocailwn dates from somewhat fardier afield suggest dial this occupation raay extend as far back as circa 9000-10,000 BP After several decades of rcsearch. die emerging pictiue of Bataquitos Lagoon rcgional development includes a gradual elaboration of generalized hunting-gatiiering based on diverse plant and animal rcsources associated with die open coast die lagoon proper, its surrounding hiUs. and die near-coastal foodiills. A comprehensive overview of coastal Califomia research is provided by Jones (1991), who presents what might te termed die Efficient Foraging Model of coastal settiement This n^del is based on a conception of "efficiency- conscious foraging groups" diat focused dieir subsistence and settlement behav- "^^ selection of resou«» patehes. f«oviding die highest net energy yields for bodi areaUy Umited and wide-ranging exploitation" (Jones 1991:435). Consistent rcsource availabUity and rccognition of tiiat condition arc seen as keys to die patterned use of resource patehes. As Jones (1991:435) puts it: These environments could te depended upon for consistent access to important hunted rcsources - large tenestiial and marine mammals - as weU as valuable collected rcsources such as shellfish and tuters. These habitats, particularly lakes and estuaries, are remarkably alUcc 78 1 fc in tiieu- makeup and show great simUarity across latitodes; not only do tiiey provide concenttations of high-quality resources, but tiieir value would have been rcadily apparent to foragers raoving into new territo- ries. Frequent movement frora one rcsource-rich pateh to anotiier raay have provided continued high yields. Movements could have teen ahnost random in dircction and scheduling as long as high-quality patches were continually recognized and exploited when encountered. A kind of developmenttd pump or evolutionary racchanisra is inherent to die raodel (Jones 1991:435-436). Population growtii and consequent resource depletion, seen as raajor results of foraging efficiency, are proposed as causes of an increasing dietary breaddi dial was accompUshed duough die addition of smaU seed utilization (marked by mUUng technology appearing at specialized sites in seasonaUy Umited seed-rich habitats) to continued usage of high- quaUty resources and rcsoufce patches. Overexploitation of large garae is argued to have caused increasing rcUance upon sraaUer and raore elusive prey aldiough in "die coastal zone of extterae soudiem CaUfomia...large garae raay never have been abundant and smaller animals, such as deer and rabbits, would have been optiraal prey at die time'of initial settiement" (Jones 1991:436). Ecological aspects of tiiis diachronic approach are evident in Jones' (1991:436) concluding paragraph, which is quoted here for its relevance lo die interpretation of SDM-W-181: The archaeological record frora coastal California shows great variation in tite tiraing and character of raarine-resource use. Some marine envuonments - esmaries, islands, and seraiprotescted rocky shores - were among the fust habitats settied by humans, bul otiiers, such as tiie exposed open coast of nortiiem Califomia, apparentiy were avoided until much later. Some marine foods, particularly estoarine shellfish, were among tiie foods targeted by die initial settlers. The use of tiiese resources at tius tirae depdi suggests stiongly tiiat at least some marine resources cannot te characterized as "second rate," and diat models ascribing initial marine-resource exploittition to post-Pkleoindian adaptation are chaUengablC. The value of sheUfish probably lies in its accessibUity to mobiUty-restiicted raemters of hunting and gather- ing groups. Variation in the tunuig of die initial use of otiier marine foods is expUcable nol in terms of die value of raarine vs. terrestiial resources, but in attempts by humans to optimize dieir reproductive potential through efficienl foraging (i.e., harvest of optimum resources and tiie selection of resource-bearing habitats offering the highest net- energy yields for both arcally Umited and unUmited group members). Freshwater and marine steHftsh would have been among die optimal resources available to Ifinited-range foragers entering Califomia, as were sea-Uon rookeries for hunters. Some sttetehes of coasdine represent die richest environments available in a rcgion, odiers were comparatively poor, but die ultimate value of raarine resources to huraan hunting and gadiering populations can only te understood widi rcspect to their efficiency ranking witiiin a given latitudinal zone and to the foraging abilities of all group liieraters. The Batiquitos Lagoon rcgion can te rcadily 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 tertcstrial game, 79 bul littie in tiie way of large-garae species; and a broad diversity of highly productive small-seed rcsources within grassland, coastal sage scrab. and chapanal coraraunities. The region's exccptionaUy rich environment had no parallel east of the near-coastal foothills. The Batiquitos Lagoon region would, tiierefore, te expected to aittact early setdement, experience a sustained population increase, and over time develop a pattem of diversified subsistence tehavior that mcluded short- terra caraps associated witii intermittentiy and perhaps seasonaUy avaUable resource patehes located some distance away frora the lagoon itself This is die dcvelopraental pattem suggested by contemporary evidence, as noted above. The Encinitas Grant Plateau, which contains SDM-W-181, can be identifted as an intermittently and perluq>s seasonaUy valuable resource patoh. The particular location of SDM-W-181 can te viewed as an optiraal choice rclating to immediately avaUable smaU mammals, e.g.. fossorial rodents; nearby sraall- to-medium sized game and smaU-sced resources, which might have teen highly diverse given die site's possible ecotonic sitoation (sec Section B.A); medium- size garae and perhaps specific smaB-sced resources in hUls to die east; and a reasonable proximity to sheUfish in ]^t^uitos Lagoon. Since die earliest known use of SDM-W-181 was circa 5400 B.P.. after die rcgion had already been occupied some 3,000 to 4.000 years, a fuUy diversified hunting-gatiiering looUdt and short-term habittition pattern should te exhibited by cultural debris frora its initial period. This would account for die co-occurrcncc of "San Dieguito" and "La Jolla" elements in ils 30-50 cm (Concentiation Numter 2) synthetic ridgetop levels. Later deposition at SDM-W-181 can te understood in light of foraging efficiency over another 4,000 to 5,000 years. Stable or increasing human popu- lations would exert cumulative stress on lagoonal resources, and a sustained decline in lagoonal shellfish (perhaps involving noncultoral as weU as culmral factors) would bc offset by itteifcasii^ reUance upon such "second rate" resource patehes as die Encinitas Grant Plateau. Habitation at SDM-W-181 would tend to remain temporary but tecome raorc firequent coincident witii an intensified exploitation of resources located on and near dte site. A progressive change of diis type could explain dte apparcnt long-terra continuity in functionally diversified material culturc at SDM-W-181. as is particularly weU-evidenced frora Concentiation Nuraber 3 (10-30 era) to the surface. It raight also explain terrainal raantie deflation as having rcsulted from overexploitation of small-seed resources and possibly rodents on the site, together widi such cumulated impacts as human trampling and vegetation clearance. 3. Concluding Remarks Phase I and n testing at SDM-W-181 has chaUenged die orthodox cullurc-historical model of regional prehistory by demonstrating errors in its implications regarduig the site's stmcmre and contents, and by supporting a model of mostiy natural fonnation that explains die data upon which these erro- neous conclusions werc based. The testmg program has also given Uraited support to more modem interprctations of Batiquitos Lagoon regional prehistory, which are rclated to a developing cultoral ecology model that embraces diachronic concems but views ttaditionally defined material culture assemblages as techno-economic aspects of a single subsistence-settlement pattem. 80 A more thorough evaluation of the orthodox raodel and its raodem corapctitor(s) can te accomplished in the Batiquitos Lagoon region imder either or both of two circumsiances. The fust 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 forraation processes and obtaining radiocarbon dates will perrait contributions to a rcgional data sel lhat wiU ultimately permil direct moddmg and hypodiesis testing. In tiiis context die sum tottd of work accomplished at SDM-W-181 can te considercd a salutary contribution. The second circumstance entaUs discovery, recognition, and excava- tion of particular sites with characteristics favoring intensive research. An appropriate site wUl have deep subsurface deposits lhat rcpresent a broad variety of activities, including shbrt-term and/or morc protracted habittition. A long history of use wiU te evidenced by radiocarten-dateable materials tiuoughout die section, preferably inchiding featoral contexts. A tiue soil mantie wiU te prcsent and preferably include such rccognizable sedimentary sti^ta as archaeological midden or flood-laid clay. sUt sand, or gravel bands. The sectional profile wiU exhibit ijistinct cobble horizons, cominuously sorted vertical distributions, or both, and document a progressive ele^^tion of rodent zones. Sediment sources will te identifiable rclative to the site's location, e.g., in a floodplain or ten^di erodible sdopes. Cultiiral deposition wiU te mostiy primaiy, instead of secondary, and reflect a combination of horizontal and vertical cultoral patterning. StracttiraUy intact cultoral featores wUI be present and either contain or te associated with functionally diagnostic arti- facts. styUstically definable "type" artifacts. and radiocarbon-dateable ecofacts. Site SDM-W-181 meets few of these criteria and tiiercforc is poorly suited for intensive rcsearch. Tte site's most productive arca was die ridgetop, of which about one-half (two-thirds of the focal sector) was manuaUy and mecharucally excavated in tte two-phase archaeological test Other site arcas contain almost entirely secondary deposits. The ridgelop lacks a soU raantie. and culmral debris was inttoduced to subsurface context by raostiy natoral processes. A broad variety of activities, including short-term habitti- tion, is represented, bul natural erosion and vertical sorting effects have skewed die samples. A long history of site use is also reprcsented. but only one featorc (a stiucturaUy inttK^t hearth widi artifacts, shell, ash, and charcoal) was found witoin the ridgetop arca. Mechanical excavation rcvealed no other features, and none are likely to exist. 81 V. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS Site SDM-W-181 does not qualify as an importanl archaeological resource under either CEQA criteria or City of Carlsbad draft criteria. A two-phase testing program documented the site's stmcmrc and contents, bul also rcvealed that subsurface deposits on the ridgetop arc largely due to fossorial rodent burtowing and such other natoral forraation processes as sediment shrink/swell and root action. In addition, the ridgetop's potentiaUy informative soU raantie was lost to erosion long ago. Cultural debris simated away frora the ridgetop arca rcprcsents secondary deposition by such natural processes as slope-wash and slumping. The material culturc inventory proved to be small, despite rclatively intensive sampling, and it is dominated by classes (debitage and steU) that can contribute Uttle teyond what is cunentiy known. Important research questions were addressed in the two phases of testing; however, additional field and laboratory efforts would mercly eidarge the sample, without facUitating differcnt kinds of rcsearch or analysis. Planned developraent of the La Costa Town Center project wiU desttoy what rcraains of SDM-W-181. While it raay te regrettable, the loss of this archaeol- ogicaUy unimportant site wiU not te a significant environmental effect under CEQA or tte City of Carlsbad's ordinances. 82 VL REFERENCES CTTED Axelrod, D. I, 1977 Outiine History of Califomia Vegetation. In Terrestrial Vegetation of California. M. G. Barbour and J. Major, eds. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York. BuU, C. S. 1987 A New Proposal: Sorae Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory In San Dieguito - La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego Archaeo- logical Society. San Diego. BcdweU, 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 Burtowing Behavior: Predicted Effects on Archaeolog- ical Site Formation. American Antiquity 51(3):589-603. Bowman, R. H. 1973 SoU Survey of tiie San Diego Arca. CaUfomia. United States Departraent of Agriculmre, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in coop- eration widi die University of Califomia Agriculmral Experiment Station, die United States Departmenl of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affaus. the Departinent of die Navy, United Sttites Marine Corps, die Departraent of Housing and Urban Development and die County of San Diego Planning Department Brott. C. W. 1966 Accession record for San Dieguito Type CoUection. UnpubUshed record sheet at die San Diego Museum of Man. CarriUo, C. C. and C. S. BuU 1980 Archaeological Testing at La Costii - Mission HiUs. RECON. SanDiego, Chartkoff. J,L. and K.K. Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of Califomia Stanford University Press, CA. Stanford, Collins. M. 1975 Lithic Debitage as a Means of Processual Technology. E. Swanson, cd, Mouton Publishers, Inference. In Lithic Coupland. R. T. 1979 The Natore of Grassland. In Grassland Ecosystems of the World: Analysis of Grasslands and Their Uses. R.T. Coupland, ed. Intema- tionai Biological Progrararae No. 18. Cambridge University Press. Carabridge, UK. Davis, E. L.. C. W. Brott and D. L. Wcidc 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 Testiing of Three Sites on die La Costa Town Center Property in Carlsbad. Califomia. RECON. SanDiego. Eisenberg, L. I. 1983 Pleistocene Marine Tenace and Eocene Geology. Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, CaUfomia. Plate 3 (map) In On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northem San Diego County. Patiick L. Abbott, ed. San Diego Association of Geologists. San Diego, CA, 1985 Depositional Processes in the Leeward Part of an Eocene Tidal Lagoon. Northem San Diego County. In On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northem San Diego County. Patiick L. Abbott, ed. San Diego Association of Geologists. San Diego. CA. Eriandson, J. M. 1984 A Case Smdy in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects of the Burtowing Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of Archaeological Materials. American Antiquity 49(4):785-790. Evemham, C. C. 1966 A Note About the Editing. Unpublished draft for Ancient Hunters of the Far West (Rogers el al. 1966) on fde at thc San Diego Museum of Man. Gallegos, D. R. 1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131 Carlsbad Califor- nia. WESTEC, Inc. San Diego. 1985 The La Costa Site SDi-4405 (W-945) 7000 Years Before Present Carlsbad. CaUfomia, WESTEC Services, Inc. San Diego. 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Culmral Material for die Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society. San Dicgo. Gallegos. D, R., R. Ccneio. C. KeUy. C. Kyle. L. Santoro, and A. Pigniolo 1986 Early and Late Period Occupation at Rogers Ridge (SDi-4845, W-182), Carlsbad, Califomia, WESTEC Services, Inc. SanDiego. GaUegos, D. R., J. Thesken, and R. L. Carrico 1983 Excavations of Diegueno/Ipai Subsistence Caraps 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 CaUfomia. In The Califomia Indians Ed. R. F, Heizer and W. A. Whipple, eds. Univer- sity of CaUfomia Press, Berkeley. I 84 GoUey. F. B., L. Ryszkowski, and J. T. Sokur 1975 The Role of SraaU Maramals in Temperate Forests. Grasslands and Culti- vated Fields. In Small Mammals: Their Productivity and Population Dynamics. F. B. GoUey. K. PCtiuscwicz. and L. Ryszkowski, eds. Carabridge 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 Soudiem San Diego County, CaUfomia. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Califomia, LosAngeles. LosAngeles. Hester. T, R. 1973 Chronological Ordering of Great Basin Prehistory, Contributions of the University of Califomia Archaeological Research FaciUty, 11 Berkeley. CA. Jones, T. L. 1991 Marine-Resource Value and die Priority of Coastal Settiement: A Califomia Perspective. American Antiquity 56(3):419-443. Kaldenberg. R. L. 1974 The Results of a Five-Percent Archaeological Test Excavation at Santa Fe Glens (SDM-W-181-" A") Carlsbad. CaUfonua. RECON. San Diego. CA. 1975 An Archaeological Impact Report on La Costa Far Soudi (Easterly Area) mcluding Santa Fc Knolls. RECON, SanDiego, Kaldenberg. R. L. and P. H. EzeU 1974 An Archaeological Sample and Excavation of Two Prchistoric Sites: Rancho Park Nortii Residential Development Olivenhain. Califomia. RECON. SanDiego. Kennedy, M. P. 1975 Westem San Diego MetropoUtan Arca. In Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, Califomia. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, BuUetin 200, Sacramento, CA. 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, Bulletin 200. Sacramento, CA. 85 Kuhn. T. S. 1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second ed., enlarged. University of Chicago Prcss. Chicago, IL. 1977 The Essential Tension: Selected Essays in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Prcss. Chicago, DL. Luomala, K. 1978 Tipai and Ipai. In Handbook of American Indians, VoL 8: Califomia R. F. Heizer, ed. Smithsonian Instimtion. Washington. D.C. May. R.V. 1975 A Brief Survey of Kumeyaay Ethnography. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly ll(4):l-25. Meighan, C. W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southem CaUfomia Prehistory. Southwestem Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227. Moratto. M. J. 1984 Califomia Archaeology. Academic Prcss. SanDiego. Moriarty, J. R. 1966 Culmrc Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change, Coordinated with SttatigraphicaUy ContrdQed Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego. Anthropological Joumal 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 Fc, CaUfomia. RECON. SanDiego. Norwood, R. H,. C. S. BuU, and E. J. Rosentiial 1981 An Archaeological Data Recovery Projeci in the East Drinkwater Basin, Fort Irwin, CaUfomia, RECON. SanDiego. PhiUips, J. R. 1990 Biological Technical Report for La Costa Town Center in Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON. SanDiego. 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 Anthropologist 31:455-467. 1938 Archaeological and Geological Investigations of the Culture Levels in an Old Channel of San Dieguito VaUey. Camegie Institution of Washington Yearbook, 37:344-45. 86 1939 Early Utiiic hidustties of die Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Region. San Diego Museum Papers Numter 5. BaUena Press. ^^^^ ?^^?^. Prchistory. Southwestem Joumal 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 Prcss. Albuquerque. NM. Shipek. F. C. 1982 Kumeyaay Socio-PoUtical Sttuctiue. Joumal of Califomia and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2):96-303. Spier, L. 1923 Soutiiem Diegueno Customs. University of Califomia Publications in American Archaeology and Ecology 20(16):295-358. Trae, D. L. ^^^^ i^^^^^y Complex in San Diego County. CaUfomia. American Antiquity 23(3):255-263. 1966 Archaeological Differcntiation of Shoshonean and Yuraan Speaking Groups in Soudiem CaUfomia. Doctoral dissertation. University of Califomia at Los Angeles. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex In Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, Califomia. Monographs of die Archaeological Survey. UCLA. Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northem San Diego County:1978, The Joumal of New World Archaeology 3(4):l-39. United States Depariment of Agricultore 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, Califomia. Washington. D.C. WaUace. W, J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Soudiem 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. Smidisonian Instimtion Washington, D.C. Wartcn, C. N. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site. San Diego Museum Papers. SanDiego. 87 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: Review and Hypothesis. American Antiauits 32(2):168-185. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on tiie Soutiiem Califomia Coast In Archaic Prehistory in the Westem United States. C. Irwin- WiUiaras, ed. Portales: Eastem New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1-14. Warren, C, N,. D. L. Trae. and A. A. Eudey 1961 Early Gadiering Complexes of Westem San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report, University of California, pp, 1-106, Whitehouse, J. L. and D. M, Cheever 1990 Cultural Resource Survey of tiic La Costa Town Center, City of Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON. SanDiego. Willey, G. R. and J. A. Sabloff 1974 A History of American Archaeology. W.H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, CA. 88 vn. PROJECT PERSONNEL David C, Hanna Dayle M. Cheever McMiUan Davis Frank Ritz Ken Kapler John Zucconi Richard Shullz 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 Held Archaeologist Field Archaeologist Field Archaeologist Technical lUustrator Senior Techiucal Blustirator Production SpeciaUst 89 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 -1 :r r 3^ - ''liillllWM nil li IMIi^''. CULTURE SEQUENCE IN : YffiSTpiN SAN DIE^ COUNTY AND PSEUDONYMS SD II : SCRfipER^MAKER ;I- SD III : SCRAPER MAKER II; LITTORAL ! : EOLITHIC OR LA JOLLAN LITTORAL. li: >PR0TO^ OR ENCINITAS Y III : . WESTERN OR-NORTHERN DIEGUENO . LUISENO SUGGESTED CHRONOLOGFY - •* ' • •-•••'•.'.•/ SD II : 1900 or SOO^BC • io 400 or 300 BC SD III : 400 or 300 BC to 1 AD LIT I : 1 AD or 200 to 900 AD LIT II : 900 - 1450 or 1500 Y III : 1450 or 1500 to 1800 4 /^«r^* ^'•^•^ ^i?^*^ *fi^" ^|tvwut*,^T (j>L-Tr-^^-^-^ 3 . 10 L |5tTL-X i^'^^ 1 - ~ • l-S-.-' TERMINOLOGY OF MALCCaSM J. ROGERS, THE SAN DIEGUITO COMPLEX OLD TEmNQLOGY OF ROGERS 1) CENTRAL ASPECT-PHASE J CENTRAL ASPECT-Fhase II CENTRAL ASFECT-PHASE III 2) SOUTHWESTERN ;ASPE*CT-PHASE'II SOUTHBESTERN 'ASPECT-PHASE III SOIITfiVrBSTERN ASPBCTAPHASE IT 3) mSTERN ASPECT-PHASE I (?) TffiSTEHN ASPECT-PHASE II (?) ASTERN ASPBCT-Phaso III MALPAIS INDUSTRY (EOLITHIC) Pl AYA 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 THE AMARGOSA COISPLEU CENTRAL ASPECT rPHASE I— CENTRAL ASPECT-PHASE II-^^^-T!^— CENTRAL ASPECT-PHASE III EASTERN ASPECT-PHASE II > PIHTO*GYPSUM COMPLEX AMARGOSA INDUSTRY-PEASE I ^ AMARGOSA INDUSTRY-PHASE II NONE, BUT DESCRIBED (ROGERS 1939) OLD OR DEFUNCT TERMS LITTORIAL LITTORIAL II ENCINITAS PROTO SCRAPER4UAKER SCRAPER-^iAKER NOHE DIEGUENO ARCHAIC CGLORQDO NEff TERMINOLOGY LA JOLLA I LA JCttXA II LA JOLLA II LA JOLLA II SAN DIEGUITO II SAN DIEGUITO HI T»ESTERN rUMAN or YUMAN III YUMAN I Malcolm J. Rogers - June 1958 -181 nnRp-TT:/^/i CULTURES: SD-II and 11^ and Lit, II at W-181-A. WATER: Same as for W-179. LOCATION: On a hill on north rim of North Pork of Encinitas Creek. Elev. 325*. NAME: North Hill AREA: 1/2 acre concentration with 2 acres of scattered marginal occupation. Highland accretion camp. ARCHITECTURE: There are 2 large cairns of boulders here which haveTYPE: slumped into an erosional cirque. May be Lit* II roasting platforms or sweat-house debris. BURIALS: None• PETROS: None• INTRUSXVES: HISTORY: First settled by SD-II and occupied over into third phase. This ia a very concentrated occupation, probably because the surrounding mesa top is very stoney except in thia one area. Below this site on a lower bench is a small amovuit of Lit. II occupation. This ia 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. Beginning 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 1-3/4 miles. As a matter of fact, there is no part of the Encinitas Grant Plateau where felsite flaking cannot l?e found and it is the center of the greatest concentration of SD occupation in San Diego County. Intro, page of pages 1 - 42. -^Vvi, ' no receipt Accession No. 1963-1 Bate of Receipt: Received from: n.a. Address: n.a. Accepted by: not applicable How Acquired: Approval Bequoatih Gift Loan Purchase Other Exchange / J'ieldwork / Total Value or Price n.a. Collector Malcolm J. Rogers; Frederick S. Rogers (^.J.R.s father); Donal Eord- Homer Dana; laalooici ranner; lieorge Carter; ana others whose names ere lost '—' Source and Time of Collection /.rizona. Nevada. Southem California. In6 P... „ between 1924 and 1960. T r -.1 ^- ^f^^^'T^is collection constitutes the liPlcolm J, Rogers' "Sen Dieeuito Type Collection" housed at the Museum of Man. Included in the numbfrs serie^ a'e^a^Jo specimens Rogers attributed to the Amargosa culture. The collection is not ^^alo^ed i. ^^ored in the general archaeological collection storage B^ SIT^ ' NUMBER The s.te numbers of the San Dieguito Type specimens are published; describ-d, ana illustrated m "Ancient Hunters of the Far :?est". Copely Press, 1966. Catalog Numbers 1963-1-1 through •1963-1-1127 Description (Najne> ciilture. provenience, age, price) None of the items were cetalogued under this series of numbers. It was done only to serve as a reference, so that specimens which belonged in the iuJR type collection could be easily recognized when found in the site collections. Many of the specimens were cetalogued under the old system (sequential numbers), and these numbers have been retained, as have the old catalog cards. In the manuscript ani field note files of Malcolm Rogers, there is a list, handwritten, of this entire collection. This list was done under the supervision of Clark ??. Brott in 1965. It was assembled from Rogers' notes, the ecrly illustrations for the book "San Dieguito Complex", from which the later book ".icient Hunters of the Far 7;est" was adapted and from the artifacts. 29 July 1966 Clark TT. Brott Curator of Collections See folloving 42 pages for a listing of M. J. Rogers' San Dieguito Artifact iypology as of October I96O. The list was compiled from Rogers' notes, artifacts, and manuscript in I965 by C.V. Brott. San Dlesulto II Southwestem Aspect SD County and NW Eaja California W- Area W-179 Location: Between the north and 3ast forks of Encinitas Creek. On the Lux Ranch. Elevation 275', (Center Hill Site) Area! two acres. Type: Highland Camping Site. Cultures: 3D TI and La Jollan II Architecture: La Jollan II hearths present. Site Drawer: Lithic collection; both La Jollan and 3D II Type Series: Bifacial Ovate, ;\--180 Location: Between the east and south fork of Encinitas Creek. Klevatlon 275' (Air Field Site) Area- 10 thin but continous acres. Type: HiRihTaid accretion type of scattered camping p;rowlng into permanBy. Cultures: 3D II and III (trace) and Kk^SOnCJOfn LJ II. Architecture: Some cobMe hearths /5D II and a larsrer number of LJ II ones. ?.emarks: Afflardlng to the site flies, this site Is the lar- gest SD site (in area) known. A preat number of specimnrE have been collected at this site and its various divlslors 180-A is SD II and III, l80-r is LJ II. Site Drawer: larsre lithic collection reoresentlng 3D II orlmarily with 3D III and LJ II in evidence. Typp Series: Discoidal Scraper, graver, 2 haaimers, 3 small scrapers. Ovate biface, side scraper, flake scraper. W-lSO-.'i. side Scraper, Undefined. W-181 Location: On a hill on north rira of North Pork of Encinitas Creek. Elevation. 325* (North 3111) Aea: s acre concentration with 2 acres of scattered marginal occupation. Type: Highland accretion camp. Architecture: LJ II material, possible resting platforms and/or sweat house. Cultures: SD II and III and LT II. LJ II at W-181-A 3D III listed in Site Book, Remarks: Concentrated occuoatior; tyoical of area. Sites Site Drawer: Lithic Collection; LJ II and SD material both clearly oresent. Both aspects of SD (H Tn) appear to be present. Type Series: Discoidal Scraoer; • fleshlni? olane*, Blade (I) bevelled flake. W-881-A Ovate biface, 3'planes W-182 Location: On mesa above the Junction of the forks of Encinitas Creek on north side. Elevation 175, 250-275' Area; no deflnte area except ftr numerous concerfratlons over a great area. Type i^l:jcEx: Highland intermittent camoinc: over lone- period for San Dieguito Peoples. Cultures: SD II and III (Trace) and La Jollan II: also Y-III. i:i«<^«!>iniin>imiliiiii ATTACHMENT 2 SITE INVENTORY 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 OOOOO for SDi-#s WOOOO for SDM-W-#s 0"" 2. debitage 1. heartii 2. burial 3. 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 materiai type specified; see attached flow diagram 4. 5. 6. 5. quartzite '6* quartz 7. chert/chalcedony 8. obsidian 9; other FLAKE TYPOLOGY Type Bulb 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 PI »f Relative Dorsal Platform Length Cortex Scars Other Collins (1975) Types* Assumed Process 2x W Present Present Present Present Present Present a |+ cm. Present Present cm. Present Present a cm. Present Present -|icm. Present Present -lOcm. Absent Absent Absent Absent 90%+ 30%-90% -30% 0% Present Present Absent 2+ 0 0-1 1+ 1+ 1+ Pai-ailel sides Diverging, thin I I, IV . HI . Ill IV, V IV, V II iV Source: after Norwood, Bull, and Rosenthal 1981. ^Collins (1975) Stage i (acquisition, present only as unworked raw material. Specialized blade type Bifacial thinning ' Platform creation, cortex removal Cortex removal Core reduction, basic shaping Finishing, resharpening Trimming Shatter during primary reducllon Shatter during secondary reduction PAGE HU. 05/16/31 DEBITAGE - RAK LISTING ACC CAT SITE LOC UMIT FEA LEV FLDI RA TPI TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TPS TP7 TPS TP9 » SITE W131 » SITE H!31 R237 526 H18I 0 1 0 0 0 I 1 t L 0 0 •J R237 526 mi 4 0 0 0 0 1 f 0 J 3 R237 526 MlBl 0 i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 526 Kt8! 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 ll 0 t 8 R237 526 KI91 0 0 0 0 1 7 i 0 1 19 R237 800 mi 0 3 0 e 0 0 20 30 0 2 61 R237 BOO m\ 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 32 R237 800 K181 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 36 R237 800 mi 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 £ 0 0 12 R237 800 K181 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I R237 800 H181 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 R237 860 H181 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 8 0 1 14 R237 B£0 Hiei 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 1 36 R237 860 KI31 0 3 0 0 0 0 23 36 0 3 47 R237 860 mi 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 10 0 0 11 R237 860 Hist 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 c 2 R237 88! M181 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 0 I R237 881 KIS! 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 B8! mi iV 1 0 0 0 0 0 'I i. 0 0 7 R237 881 mi 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 24 R237 881 WlBl 0 1 0 0 0 0 2. 0 0 13 R237 151 H181 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 151 mi 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.237 152 HiSl 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 152 N181 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I R237 154 K181 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 155 N181 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 158 W18: 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 R237 15B mi 0 S 1 c 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 159 W131 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 155 H181 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 1 ! 1 0 0 0 R237 160 K18I 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 R237 160 m\ 0 8 0 0 fi <J 0 0 1 0 c 0 R237 161 HI81 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 R237 !S3 mei 0 10 •? 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 164 HISl 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 R237 165 K181 0 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 A \i 0 R237 167 N181 e 14 3 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 R237 168 Miei 0 !5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 168 . KIS! 0 IS t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t R237 165 M181 0 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I R237 17! KlSl 0 17 •1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 17! HIS! 0 17 •J 0 0 0 0 0 i f) 0 ft V R237 172 HIS! 0 18 c 0 0 0 0 c R237 172 illSI 0 IS 3 0 0 l) 0 0 t 0 r) 0 R237 173 mi !) 15 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 c R237 173 H181 0 !? 0 0 A 0 I 0 0 R237 173 H!8! 0 f? 0 0 0 0 lj c 0 0 1 1 PAGE NO. 05/16/-3! DEBITAGE - RAH LISTING ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPI TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS rP6 TP7 TPS TP9 R237 175 Hiei 0 20 i. 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 R237 175 H181 0 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 176 HlSl 0 21 I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 R237 176 H181 0 21 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 177 Hiei 0 22 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 177 K181 0 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 178 H181 0 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 179 H181 0 24 >j 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 IBO HlSl 0 25 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 181 H181 0 26 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 R237 18! HlBl 0 26 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 182 M181 0 27 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 183 H18t 0 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 184 HtSl 0 29 2 0 0 0" 0 1 0 0 0 2 R237 184 H181 0 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 184 KlSl 0 29 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 185 HlSl 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 186 KlSl 0 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 186 KlSl 0 31 A i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 fi237 187 HlSl 0 32 L 0 0 0 0 0 t t 0 0 I R237 187 KlSl 0 32 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 R237 187 KlSl 0 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 R237 188 KIS! 0 33 L 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 1 1 R237 189 HlSl 0 34 4 0 0 0 0 0. 1 0 0 0 R237 189 KlSl 0 34 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 1 R237 189 HlSl 0 34 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 190 HIS! 0 35 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 190 KlSl 0 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 !91 H18I 0 36 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 191 KlSl 0 36 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 R237 192 KlSl 0 37 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 193 HlSl 0 39 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 194 KlSl 0 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 194 HlSl 0 41 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 196 K181 c 43 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 197 Hi8l 0 44 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 fi237 197 KI81 0 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 3 fi237 198 HlSl 0 45 4 0 0 0 0 t 0 rt 0 0 I R237 198 KlSl 0 45 0 0 0 e 0 y 0 0 0 I R237 199 KlSl 0 46 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 200 K!61 0 47 3 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 1 R237 201 Kt81 0 49 ! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 202 KlSl 0 55 W 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 2 R237 203 KlSl 0 56 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 c 0 R237 203 HlSl 0 56 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 204 HlSl 0 5? 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 204 HIS! 0 57 I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 fi237 206 HlSl 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 1 0 R237 206 K18! 0 62 1 0 V 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 R237 207 HlSl 0 63 3 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 R237 207 KISl (\ 63 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 PAGE NG. 3 05/16/91 DEBITAGE - RAH LISTING ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPI TP2 TPS TP4 TP5 TP6 TP7 TPS TP9 R237 208 HlBl 0 64 1 0 0 0 0 •> 1 1 0 0 0 R237 209 KlSl 0 66 3 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 I R237 209 HlSl 0 66 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 210 HlSl 0 67 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 R237 210 H181 0 67 3 G 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 212 HlSl 0 68 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 2!3 K181 0 69 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 213 KlSl 0 69 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 213 K181 0 69 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 S237 214 HIS! 0 70 2 0 0 ft 0 1 0 0 0 1 R237 214 HlSl 0 70 1 0 0 0 0 ! 1 0 0 1 R237 215 HIS! 0 71 f 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 R237 215 K181 0 71 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 R237 215 KlSl 0 71 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 216 HlSl 0 72 3 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 R237 217 KlSl 0 73 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 R237 21B HlSl 0 74 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 R237 219 HIS! 0 75 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 R237 219 KlSl 0 75 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 219 HIS! 0 75 -1 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 R237 220 KlSl 0 76 1 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 R237 221 K!81 0 77 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 e R237 222 H18! 0 7a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 222 KlSl 0 78 2 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 t R237 223 HIB! 0 79 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 223 K18! 0 79 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i R237 223 HISl 0 79 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 R237 224 HtSl 0 SO 3 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 ! R237 225 HlSl 0 81 1 0 0 0 0 ( t 1 0 0 0 R237 226 KlSl 0 82 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 227 HlSl 0 84 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 R237 227 HlSl 0 84 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 I R237 228 KlSl 0 85 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 229 Hist 0 86 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 231 HlSl 0 BB 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 1 R237 231 HtSl 0 88 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 232 HIS! 0 89 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 fi237 232 HlSl 0 89 1 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 233 KlSl 0 90 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 233 KtSl 0 90 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 233 HlSl 0 90 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 R237 234 KtSl 0 91 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 fl237 234 HIS! 0 91 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 235 KlSl 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 R237 236 Hist 0 93 t 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 237 HlSl 0 94 ^ e 0 0 e 0 i I 0 0 0 R237 237 Hist 0 94 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 238 HIS! 0 95 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R23? 233 KIS! 0 95 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 e 0 0 R237 239 KtSI 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 1 R237 240 HlSl 0 98 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 PAGE NO. C5/16/91 DEBITAGE - RAH LISTING ACC EAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPI TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TP6 TP7 TPS TP9 R237 240 KlSl 0 98 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 530 KIS! 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 i R237 530 HtSl 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ft V 0 fi237 530 KtSl 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 R237 533 KlSl 1 10 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 H237 533 H181 I 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 G 2 R237 533 HtSl 1 10 1 ii 0 0 0 0 t 5 0 0 3 R237 533 KtSl 1 i 10 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 533 HIS! 1 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t R237 534 KlSl 1 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 1 R237 534 KlSl t 20 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 R237 542 HlSl 1 30 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 R237 545 K181 1 40 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 545 KlSl 1 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 547 HlBl 2 10 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 R237 547 KtSl 2 to 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 i R237 547 H18t 2 to 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 R237 548 HIS! 2 20 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 548 HlSl 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 1 R237 548 Hist 2 20 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 548 KtSl i-20 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 t R237 549 KtSl 30 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 fi237 549 HlBt 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i R237 550 HlSl 40 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 R237 552 KtSl 3 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 R237 552 KtSl 3 !0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 552 KtSl 3 10 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 R237 557 HlSl 3 20 t 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 R237 560 HIS! 3 30 t 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 1 R237 562 HIS! 4 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 562 KlSl 4 10 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 R237 562 HlSl 4 to 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 R237 5S5 HIS! 20 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 R237 565 KtSl 4 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 565 H181 4 20 0 0 0 0 1 t. I 0 0 1 R237 566 HIS! 4 3C I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 566 KlSl 4 30 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 R237 583 HlSl 5 0 2 0 0 0. 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 567 KIB! 5 10 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 567 KlSl 5 to 3 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 t R237 563 HlSl 5 20 1 0 0 0 0 1 • 0 0 0 0 R237 570 KlSl 5 30 i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 570 H181 c 30 3 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 I R237 571 Hist 5 40 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 R237 573 K18! 6 10 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 '/ R237 573 HlSl 6 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 573 itis I 10 1 (I e 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 R237 574 K13! 6 •'ll': 0 0 0 0 t 1 0 0 0 1 1 R237 574 mi 6 20 1 i't 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 (i R237 575 HlSl 6 30 j 0 0 () 0 2 1 0 t 1 R237 575 HlSl c 30 0 II 0 J 0 0 () 0 PASE NQ. 05/16/9! DEBITAGE - RAK LISTING ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPt TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TP6 TP7 TPS TPS R237 575 HtSl 6 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 575 KlSl 6 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 576 Hie: £ 40 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R23? 576 HtSl £ 40 1 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 R237 577 HlSl 6 50 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 578 HlSl 7 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 R237 578 KtSl 7 10 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 R237 578 Ktdt 7 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 R237 578 HtSl 7 to 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 R237 580 Kiei 7 20 0 0 0 0 •> 0 0 0 2 R237 580 KtSl 7 20 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 581 K!8! 7 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 581 HlSl 7 30 ! 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 582 KtSl 7 40 1 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 1 R237 582 H18! 7 40 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 R237 585 HIS! 8 20 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 585 HtSl B 20 1 0 0 0 0 i ! 0 0 0 fl237 590 HtSl 9 10 7 0 c 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 590 HtSl 9 to 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 R237 590 HtSl 9 10 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 R237 591 H18! 9 20 1 0 0 0 0 i I ? 0 0 0 R237 591 HlSl 9 20 3 0 0 0 0 1 i V 0 0 1 R237 591 HtSl 9 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 R237 592 KlSl 9 30 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 R237 592 HIS! 9 30 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 593 HIS! 9 40 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 593 KlSl 9 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 593 HlSl 9 40 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 594 K!8t 9 50 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 594 K!8t 9 50 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 597 HIS! 9A 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 R237 597 KlSl 9A 10 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 i I 0 0 R237 597 HlBl 9A 10 3 0 0 0 0 'I 1 0 0 2 R23? 598 HlSl 9A 20 2 0 0 0 0 1 ! e 0 0 R237 SSS HlSl 9A 20 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 ', R237 598 HlBl 9A 20 3 0 {) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 599 KlSl 9A 30 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 R237 599 K18I 9A 30 J 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 R237 601 HlBl 9A 40 1 1 0 0 0 (i V 0 0 0 R237 602 HlSl 9A 50 3 0 0 0 1 •7 L. 0 0 0 1 R237 604 H!B1 9B 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 R237 604 HlBl 9B to 1 0 e 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 R237 504 Hist 96 to 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 605 KlSl 96 20 ( t 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 2 R237 605 His: 9B 20 3 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 R237 605 HlSl 9B 20 •7 i. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 R237 606 HlSl 9B 30 •i. 0 0 c •s 1 0 0 0 0 R23? 60S HlSl 9B 30 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 e 0 0 R237 50? HlSl 9B 40 ! 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 509 KlSl 9B SO 0 0 0 0 -? 0 (} 0 0 R237 609 HlBl 9B 50 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 PAGE NO. 6 05/16/91 DEBITAGE - RAK LISTING ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPI TP2 TPS TP4 TPS TP£ TP? TP8 TP9 R237 609 HtSl 9B SO 1 C 0 0 0 f 1 1 0 0 0 R237 808 KlSl TIA to 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 SOS HIS! TtA 10 4 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 R237 SOS HtSl TIA to 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 R237 809 K161 TIA 20 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 I 0 0 3 R237 809 HlSl TIA 20 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 9 R237 S09 KtSl TtA 20 3 0 2 0 1 3 1 ^ 0 0 4 R237 809 KlSl TIA 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 811 H18! TIA 30 2 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 R237 St! KlSl TtA 30 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 811 HIS! TIA 30 3 0 0 0 0 ! '> t. 0 0 2 R237 Sll KtSl TtA 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 R237 812 Hist TIA 40 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 R237 812 Hist TIA 40 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 R237 SI2 KlSl TIA 40 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 R237 812 KtSl TtA 40 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 R237 83B HIS! TIB 10 i. 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 R237 838 HtSl TIB 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 R237 S38 KlSl TIB to 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 S40 KlSl TIB 20 1 0 0 0 0 f 4 0 0 0 R237 840 KlSl TIB 20 3 0 0 0 0 ! •? 0 0 0 R237 340 KlSl TIB 20 2 0 0 0 0 c -0 0 0 R237 840 Hist TIB 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 R237 342 HlSl TIB 30 3 0 0 0 0 0. 3 0 0 I R237 842 HlSl TIB 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 842 HlSl TIB 30 2 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 R237 844 Hist TIB 40 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 R237 844 Hist TIB 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 844 HIS! TIB 40 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 830 HIS! T2A to 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 830 K18! T2A 10 ! 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 2 R237 830 KlSl T2A 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 R237 831 KlSl T2A 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 L R237 83! KlSl T2A 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 R237 834 Hist T2A 30 t I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 834 HI 8! T2A 30 2 0 0 0 0 ! i. 0 0 0 R237 836 HlSl T2A 40 n V 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 836 HtSl T2A 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 837 KlSl T2A 50 3 0 0 0 0 i 1 0 0 0 R237 337 KlSl T2A 50 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 R237 837 HtSl T2A 50 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 820 Ht8t T2A 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 B2C KlBl T2A 60 1 lj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 820 KlSl T2A £0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 S22 HlSl T2A 70 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 fi237 822 HlSl r2A 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 622 KlSl T2A 70 ri iJ 0 [) 0 0 L 1 0 0 "> mi 322 HlSl [2A If; 1 v 4 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 1 R237 B23 Hist T2B 10 i. 0 V I-l V 0 1 0 0 0 3 S237 323 HIS! 128 10 1 0 0 0 f; 0 0 0 0 £ R237 B23 Hist T2B 10 0 0 c 0 1 1 0 0 PAGE NO. 7 05/16/91 DEBITAGE - RAH LISTING ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TP! TP2 TPS TP4 TPS TP6 TP7 TPS TP9 R237 823 HlSl T2B 10 7 fl 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 845 KlSl T2B 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 S45 HlSl T2B 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ? R237 S45 HlSl T2B 20 1 tt 0 0 0 0 0 --I 0 0 0 R237 846 HtSl T2B 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t R237 84£ H!81 T2B 30 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 t « R237 846 K!B! T2B 30 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! R237 847 Hist T2B 40 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 847 KlBl T2B 40 t 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 847 H181 T2B 40 I 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 R237 S4B HlSl T2B 50 7 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 R237 848 HlSl T26 50 3 0 0 0 0 I 5 0 0 2 R237 S4S H181 T2B 50 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 R237 848 H!B1 T2B 50 I 0 0 0 0 ! 2 0 0 0 R237 849 Hist T2e 60 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 I R237 850 KtSl T2B 70 4 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 R237 858 HlSl T2C 10 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 858 KtS! T2C !0 I 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 R237 858 H18I T2C !0 2 0 0 0 0 1 ! 0 0 0 R237 855 KtSt T2C 20 1 0 0 0 0 ! 3 0 0 0 R237 855 Hist T2C 20 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 R237 855 HlSl T2C 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 f R237 B55 KlSt T2C 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 1 fi237 857 Hist T2C 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 BS7 KtS! T2C 30 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 R237 859 K!8! T2C 40 4 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 R237 859 H18t T2C 40 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 R237 870 KlSt T2C 50 3 0 0 0 0 ! 1 0 0 0 R237 824 HIS! T2D to 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i R237 824 K!S1 T2D to 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 R237 824 HlBl T2D 10 3 0 0 0 0 ! 2 0 0 6 R237 824 KlSt T2D 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 824 HtSl T2D to £ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 824 KIS! T2D to 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 826 HtSl T2D 20 1 0 0 0 0 1 f! V 0 0 0 R237 826 KIS! T2D 20 •> 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 R237 82£ H!81 T2D 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 827 HlSl T2D 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 rt V 0 0 R237 B28 KIB! T2D 40 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 828 Ktai T2D 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 R237 828 H181 T2D 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 877 HtSl r2D 50 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 853 HIS! TSA to 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 R237 853 HlSl TSA to 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 853 KIS! T3A to 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 R237 854 HIS! TSA 2C 4 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 R237 654 H18: T3A 20 (I •J 0 0 0 1 0 0 ft V R237 854 KlSl I3A 20 -1 L 0 Q 0 t 1 0 (j ••) i. R237 B75 H!81 TSA 30 ^' i's 0 0 0 0 \ 0 0 0 R237 892 KlBl T4A 10 ••> 0 0 c 0 0 3 0 0 0 R237 393 HlBl T4A 10 4 n () 0 0 1 1 G 0 0 PASE NO. 8 05/16/9! DEBITAGE - RAK LISTING ACC CAT SITE LQC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPI TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TP6 TP7 TP8 TP9 R237 894 H181 T4A 20 t 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 894 Hts: T4A 20 'i ij 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 S94 -KlSl T4A 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 895 HtSl T4A 30 7 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 R237 895 HlSl T4A 30 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 R237 895 K!8! T4A 30 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 R237 S95 HlSl T4A 30 •1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 R237 898 Hist T4A 40 --I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 898 HlSl T4A 40 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 899 HIS! TSA !0 ij 0 0 0 0 0 'i i. 0 0 0 R237 900 KlSl TSA 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 900 KlSl TSA 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 R237 90! KlSl TSA 30 ! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 903 KtSl TSA 20 4 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 R237 903 HlBl T6A 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 905 HlSl T6A 30 1 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 R237 907 HIS! T6A 50 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 c R237 910 X181 TSA 70 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 93S KlSt T7A 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 R237 939 H181 T7A 10 tl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 939 HIS! T7A to 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 943 HtSl T7A 20 1 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 ! R237 946 HlSl TSA 0 •5 V Q 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 2 R237 936 KtS! T9A 10 7 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 1 R237 936 HlSl T9A 10 '} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 fi237 936 KtS! TSA to 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 5 R237 934 KlSl T9A 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 934 K!S! T9A 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I R237 94! KIS! T9A 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 942 KIS! T9A 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! R237 501 HIS! STP! J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 502 KlSt STP2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 502 KIS! STP2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R23? 502 KlSl STP2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! R237 503 HlSl STPS 0 0 0 0 0 •> 0 0 1 R237 503 HlSl STPS 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 504 HlSl 3TP4 1 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 R237 505 Hid! STPS ! 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 506 HIB! STPS 1 0 0 0 c 0 1 0 0 0 R237 508 HlSi STP? ! 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 R237 508 KlSl STP? 1 tl 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 509 KIS! STPfl ( 1 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 R237 509 HlSl STPS '\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! R237 509 HlSl STP8 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 R237 SIO KlBl STPS t 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! R237 510 KlSt STP9 3 c 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 511 KlSl STFtO ! 1 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 512 KlBl STPU 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 512 H181 STPi: fl 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 fl V R237 512 KlSl STPll 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ij 1 R237 5!3 HlSl STP12 1 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 PAGE NO. 9 05/16/91 DEBITAGE • RAH LISTING ACC CAT SITE IOC UNIT FEA LEV FLDI HA TPI TP2 TP3 TP4 TPS TPG TP? TPS TP9 R237 514 HtSl STP13 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 515 KlSl STP14 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 A 0 R237 516 HlSl STP15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 518 K181 STPtS '> 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 R237 5!9 HlSl STP17 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 521 HtSl STPtS 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 522 HIS! STP19 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 522 HlSl STPtS 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 R237 523 MlSl STP20 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 R237 523 KIS! STP20 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 R237 524 HlBl STP21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 R237 525 K18! STP22 2 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 * Subsubtotal * 1 1 2 11 315 495 to 19 653 ii Subtotal » 1 i 3 2 1! 315 495 10 19 553 Hi Total 1 1 <J 2 11 315 495 10 !9 653 4i 1 2 4i' J^RG >•':'•. - BEST ORIGINAL CuNTRuLED FJP .ALUE 3b •••1 1' • r 0 _ if U 1 e ; IRO ICG V i'v f G • 0 r. ICC f V " •- V 1 c 1 >J c r-• c 11. "C •c i. V /•• •1 -r V ; V V .1 0 2 0 IBT V V -•^ 0 r 0 V i/ '\ yl 0 ZCO rt V f'. c 0 f: 1 i C r-. f 0 IOO ZRti ft V i 0 f. V ;^ vi 1 1 0 c c 10 V 19 0 Caw (111- •IT BEST ORIGINAL •t»»i«-<i-^*Biii!ilMllMllilllliifa^ I. liu •ffl 50 3S i C i.' '.J 0 44 IGT BEST ORIGINAI I I I I 44 1. I.' 0 0 • -1 I r. 1. 1 i ISO i lOG 0 ZGT l?.Z IIS BEST ORIGINAL " u Tl 1 n i. L £ m ICQ V rt 3 28 i T ^ w Ol kfi \ y C rt V rt I T / •rnn V c 24 "57 Crt .Jv •CO 0 V 0 A u rt rt rt ,rt M it i ZGT A ft y c rt y • .< it rt rt y iLi ZRG rt ;^ rt V c lj ¥ ^ •j I: rt rt V rt 1 V 0 rt 100 ,rt y f-Tft." i.-0 0 V 0 BuLl rt rt I ; c V' : 3 za: u A C (! U c c 0 rt i V 0 rt V ( 1 C ZGT ,'-rt c rt V rt >. ZRC « /. V w •j c V rt 0 V rt rt i.. 0 ; 0 ZGT A V ft \' V V I' . rtrt ivv ZRC rt V 0 rt rt rt I, I zee ^^ST ORIGINAL ti n.-f-'r-.n. .-r i-ii.-. n-.t-l ll\nr .' B: r .1 ^. ^ n IC rt a i.u wJ V V a a ikf.l.' zco 1 ,'. rt 1 1 1 .•• A IT I rt • •> r I.; '.• V I 1 V w I / 1V i il t 0 V >.'lb£5 C •j id ZKU •1 •rt rt c ^{f '.' V '.• J I •J •J \! J k'ti'tl BEST ORIGINAL n 1 b I -r rrt" It'' IIC C^"' UCT i u N Or Jr Trir>iriCi.c rti-i V ... "v PC -i ror V - V 1*. f- / ':' \ 0 . rt rt .1 •• iv'. t--L .' V 0 t c iti "T • • 1 -lrt •« " T V i i t I. t V rt rt ':> 'i-l-ir 1 rt ' 1.. ':> 'i-l-W'J y n rt irt.l rt V ^1 i.. iVb rt V rt J-rt rt rt • i ••• , I I »i-i- V i I V t 5 ft V G C ^« ft U i. < ZRC rt 1 rt " rt"" rt rt » r Till v \_-y iJ '•• • rtrt rt J ^' 1... y V lr.'. C> '' •'• rt V 0 c Z y •-. i BEST ORIGINAL « L : 1 1 j : : " I L' ^ I 0 N . • / t 3 4 5 t 7 £ ^ TCTAL 0 ft V 0 rt V t i 0 0 G 0 0 c Of a,^ y y u G c 0 ! ,1 rt rt t V Au i ZKQ ^rt Crt BEST ORIGINAL ; i^jLcT 'OR VALIJc z y J u . • u M n r 11» n I • r- • TVPE ti 31 3 25 lc- ZRO 4i to 1,01 IRO ICG I'/y ZGT ZRC ZCO '5 SEST ORIGINAL <i < KuLi-y . iJh in.,..-!. y U 33 BEST ORIGINAL L C . r, Li C ^ L ' : : K ' i ? I iOi ZRO 130 ZGT ZRO IRO 0 0 I n ( n "»"- 0 5 ^ 0 0 5G IRO 0 3 • rt •J rt y 20 *nr. BEST ORIGINAL / ITEM catalog riLDnber locus unit feature level weight length width thickness material FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACFS DESCRIPTION label production base condition 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 metavoltonic 4. fine grained porphyritic metavolcanic 1. core 2. blades , 3. projectile points * 4. knives 5. scrapers-unifacial 6. choppers 7. hanmers 1. core * 2. Hake 1. whole 1. present 1. present 1-17 see chart 1. 0-90 2. 0-18a ^ 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 IM. 7Si-Va.c_^ * 3. cobble' 4. other 2. broken 0. absent 0. absent 3. 0-270 4. 0-360 3, 60-90 4. 90+ "^HMaMMBIIiHWtH IDENTIFICATION OF NON-CONTIGUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, DAMAGE EVENTS OR »NEDES' FLAKEfe UTILIZED CO • H O nl •H c 1 ol •rt O •rt c •rt TJ c 3 O it 3 •H 4 C •rt fl a Qi V) O u • H bfi •rt cn 3 O bo G •rt <U +J rt FLAKED § UTILIZED UNIFACIAL oo c •H & p. • OJ •oo bo *j bO c B in c •rt •H 1 •rt c iH o x: ^1 tn 3 XI u 3 O •rt •rt c e U 8 9 10 11 >. OO • rt IH V <J rt 12 BIFACIAL bo c •rt p. P- 0) oo bo bo •M oo c C c Crt c •rt •rt •rt 1 •rt u T3 rrt O .c o x» Kt (rt *-» .3 U 3 *-< o •H •rt fl rt ^t £ o ^ 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 NO. 1 1 y • 1 .C /•31 RAi^ i. ACC CAT SITE ** sr E I^IE R2o/ 851 Bis: 3C£ Ki£l '." 'r,l3; .trt- liiD i rt •• ••> -• SCJ Wis: S237 SS2 <!!3I fiiili 383 fe'lSl • ""i" .'...0/ 301 "lilSl RiJ/ fe:3i n.,ij / 517 iiiSi R23; 873 KlSl R237 863 HlBl R237 874 KlSl R237 351 yisi R:3? 305 lilSl R237 G72 HIS! prt-77 804 H181 365 m\ [1227 Ir' 1 rt . r i C i 316 (illcl R237 156 KIS! R237 !6b NIB! R237 195 HISI nrtn7 205 KlSl S'^'^T iti.ai 211 HtSl A:37 230 tiiSl R237 259 icl31 nii 3" 260 iilS: ft237 294 KlSl wit Oi TtiJt • -yi W i 31 ,*i li W r. - w..' '?te; 1.1' "1 380 rt' ^; •1---T-; •li Jf tiJi. :?237 38S R237 3B7 m\ TiiJ-m: R237 t3£ mi r^37 R23 7 ',23' V •i *.; 1 j", 4. W n . •:. '.*.W w ^ i .'..a jil..- 59 6S 88 119 120 iCi. 130 2(H- .-. 1 c i.. I. 23H t^ ^ itC :i6 250 Zl KT LN HD TH r PD CR Nf; i.u Jt 42 n rtrt ii. ij i 14 4 i.lJ 1 1 i. c J 4 29 3 1 48 41 1^ 2 14 I 19 5 44 £y 4 14 4 16 4 i u 7 36 6 14 t -u 14 7 S i b i 2 -£ ia 6 £5 1 5 1 1 t 65 52 i 1 754 9! I 1 95 sa ( 33 a • a i4 10 31 I i 14 14 36 a 1 =; a 1 -^ i V 24 1 i 5 50 i 0 w •1 • 1 1 rt-_, 90 1 J rt :i •4 16 49 w 5 rt •J c tl 10 2fc 21 r. i it 4 2S i," •f. T 57 i. i rt I i. i I -. • C-J i 2 7 1!£ 5S 1 1 • u > 4 b av Crt 15 30 13 40 it 29 .1 T Sb 53 49 28 30 ui. £2 24 49 i.ij 24 3£ 47 0- i, i t y u 34 1 i ( 1 i f\ i. t ll u 1 4 2 1 c 1 25 1 1 0 1 i 6 4 1 0 1 i£ 4 1 0 3 • i y : 1 1 £ t c rt i' -I i. 0 0 1 16 1 y 1 £ 3 t 1 T i .1 f) i 2 12 H 1 0 i 19 4 1 1 1 1 97 4 ! i 40 4 1 0 rt 41 4 i 0 3 to U t i y f. rt ; i I 1 •4 \ ••j 1 1 ly y 2 tw C'. t 1 a I £ 4 0 0 1 19 4 1 0 1 2 J 0 1 16 4 y 4 9 c 0 ! J H i J 1 ; i- 52 4 1 i 1 I 4 I V s I rt y BEST ORIGINAL NJ. 07/i£/9l RAK LISTIN6 FOR FiAKED ".ITHIC ART 1'^ACTS - DESCRIPTIVE ACC CAT SITE LQCU: UfilT FEA I.EV r, .'•.iai 537 m\ • rtrt iU Tiill f 53S m\ i rt ..I- T-t .".ili / ZAi Kis: 1 40 mi CCT H161 rt I .-ly R237 5!.e KlSi a 20 S237 CCC a3j HlSl n a •"/'"i iy hi-Zii 559 KlSl n a ijy mi 563 KlSi i 1 .• i V R237 S54 HlSl 4 10 R237 569 KIS! 5 30 R237 579 iilSl 7 IC rt'«TI f\ia j 58£ U31 20 R237 536 HIS! 3 50 R237 595 HtSl Q 50 nrt-j-? nia/ 600 HIS! 9A 30 R237 603 HlSl 9A 50 nim r.ijf 60B A'131 9B 4G Aia.' £iO ^181 98 fx t tll nc--i QJi mi y t • t if, 20 mi SIS R'l 31 TlA •I.-. ,\i j; r rtrt Cliy (^ISI TIB 10 - .•: TT fiiO/ 319 HISI T • 3y i'l i ll / Qi^i lilEi T2A i'y f;:37 Caa ?;l3i 1 iK •/! • R237 aaJ filSl T2A 30 OC -m-i •-rt" i iil 30 R237 S25 mi -rtr. 10 R237 897 HlSl T4A 30 R237 B96 HlSl T4A 30 933 k'lS: T7A 2G nnm nij/ 930 KlSl T9A 10 Tiiu; 940 ;;isi T9A 30 prt'?7 HI81 STP6 r rt - fiia, Ji2 K18I NOHIC R237 929 *is: NOir'lC R:37 Z'll fe'lS! oTFla ** c TH f rtn fir. 1 C c z-.-, rt i / ' "C 3' c .- •-- : r 1J ' rt :• : \ 1 "6 4 1 i) 1 1 r ' ,J 0 £8 C^C • 0 442 94 72 rtC 4 0 0 i 2C2 £] Crt 4 G < i < 1 C w 6 -ic ia lib b i i 0 _ 14 -26 6 4 1 1 i 'i a -> ! ! 99 35 90 .-.t i / 4 0 . r 34 41 T-: rtrt ii. 1 V 1 V 1 <a 57 Jrt tc 4 i ; i rt y 2£7 57 87 41 a 0 1 1 2 14 ") w 24 iy c J i t i) i 1 1 1 7 256 S9 59 3£ 4 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 it 52 7S 40 i-J 4 i 'J n 0 I c J - Q « 37 ia 12 t i i i I 7 ••jC J-J £0 47 a I t •J i 1 303 bi Ju 45 I 0 ij •3 ; 6 7 29 23 rt 0 ^ [ 0 i i i \ 71 5b 36 ia a i i i 1 b 3 ii [ 7 f. ! 0 1 1 59 i ; rt c 33 ic; ^' i rt y J i i / li3 7 t 1 0 rt y lj I [ s ili 93 19 i 1 1 3 1 1 w 54 43 '45 15 rt ! i 3 1 ! 242 7S a-J c J •7 J /• 1 4 4 7 131 £S £0 lrt Ji I I 1 3 rt L e. a 50 6S 35 16 1 i 0 i 1 i .1 t 30 57 64 15 1 4 1 a a -t i 26 54 1 1 I 0 2 li 1 a 10 aa 3b B £ ( (i 1 rt J 1 1 1 iai 67 r ; J t 1 1 c 4 0 u 7£ 14 I-1 rtj-. 25 rt 1 i 1 0 2 BEST ORIGINAL *»» Total /tiiB ?£2e y// lo/ 9; HAK LIBTIME FOR FLAKED .I'HIC ARTIrACTS - ATTRIEUTES SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNC *; r LE Tl Cl T -! 1 i C2 1 rt ni Trt rt" • " T.- iJ La rio It C4 At Hh H SITE iil Si h i wI Qui «!S: y ; i 7 • 1 R237 SOt KlSl C f. J T R237 965 tVlBl t 3 I i L i R237 864 Kis: i i 3 ! R237 529 KlSl 0 i. i 7 * s 1 R237 807 KlSl 0 i i i lj I R237 BQ2 HlSl 2 i" w i R237 883 KlSl 0 u 1 •"• : •". rt i b i 3 R237 801 K!S! < 7 I a . R237 303 KtSt ^" 3 --> Jl 1 1 R237 Bl" KlSl 0 3 1 14 c ( rt 1 R237 373 KtSl V rt 2 a i 1 2 1 Ri3f SJW Kl&I 0 ? rt t I 13 w t* •3 rt 4 2 R237 374 NtS! 0 i i " i 3 i ; R237 591 KlSl 'j a 8 1 a ' '• A a Kis: y 4 ' -* < i .^237 372 hlSl rt 4 < B 1 r. t 1 1 J rt R237 SO4 IJ t rt • Hl-al fl tj i 14 rt 3 i i 3 i m~ 855 l^iC^ f 6 rt a i 1 i R237 S71 lif'P! 7 p j 1 i • I R237 S!£ ^^ISl f: 7 7 rt R237 156 KISI A c 3 1 £ 7 a 1 3 R237 156 HlSl 1 rt 1 5 9 rt iJ 4 i R237 195 KlSl rt y 4t i i -•l -•1 < •;237 205 HIS! y 1 1 1 rt 3 ) •i237 ill KlSl y 6S •y tl 1 1 1 1 3 t 1 3 2 R237 230 HIS! 0 36 3 1 1 1 *> i 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 3 rvia; i.til HISl c 119 rt it i i i .-1. i i 0 i R237 26C KlSl rt y 1 lrt i iy f 1 1 1 14 i -i a 1 .R237 294 KISl 0 152 3 1 L J 9 i rt a 1 nolt mj RiJ.' ai4 IjlSi 0 190 1 I a 5 n 3 1 (J-T'7 rtrt" hlCl! ^ClC K18I y 200 •? i i rt i i 3 '^237 35 i lilSl •J iir i 1 i i -1 J m: 353 lii 31 c :!£ ; 7 ; 4 7 ; 4 --. i R:37 375 wl81 iu-J rt 14 i \ ( 1 i n '. Lii. - mi ssc HlSl 0 -'L -t ^ ita 4 2 14 rt a ^237 ZU mi c 244 3 i c^ rt i i R237 Zli iti C 4 i 3 i c 24b 4 r J i i ; i 3 3 : 3 4 R237 391 '^13: rt 250 6 ; it i 2 i. R237 436 tilBl 29! i' R23^ 4t? •J. 7 -1 i 2 R237 477 m: c --- JaU 2 i 1 R237 4S6 m: 0 33; rt i 7 1 4 1 S237 491 HIS! 1 0 ' 'f'-i' j. i 1 i - RIV 527 m: •-) 2 i His; : c i4 i a rt 1 R23' 523 lilSl ; 0 It i 1 ; riij^ 540 KIS! i iy t ' 1 .J i a 7 1 4 Hia. JaJ KlSl ; r BEST ORIGINAL •lAte LISTI Li ' ^ i I. RTIFAC TC; • ATT JTES ACC CAT SITE i.0 :Lis JM: FEA i. z V r • L ih T • L i Al T2 C2 A2 Tj C5 A3 74 C4 A4 J\LJ; aa. 'ti.'.Qi -r 1 a HIS: •: 1 7 1 t '.iw; 54L' hic! '. 4( i 4," •~ _ ^1 m: 553 .j . 4 : m- 55£ HIEI : i'v : -j ; •rt is ; ;• • s:3: 555 ftlcl 20 i 1 7 7 7 i 4 R237 559 k'ls; : : • R237 563 iilS: IC i -1 ; R237 564 HlSi IC i.' 14 i rt ! 2 rt 2 R237 559 HI8I c J rtrt Jy I 1 i 3 i 3 i R237 579 KiSl 7 '. f I 1 c a 4 rt J < R2:7 536 K13: .i.-i a 1 i a ^2:7 596 HlSl -i Crt a"v- rt 1 rt y 1 •-> t R2S7 595 HlSl 9 Crt JV rt J 14 ••1 3 2 1 2 rt R237 600 HIS! 9ft jy 1 7 7 1 1 r-.-.T- Ai-.j. CivC KtO. ih i ;4 i i i 'i. 1 4 Ri37 £CS iilBl Ji 4y ! 1 1 c J 10 1 rt w 2 Ri37 £iO KlSl .'y i 7 7 4 4 7 2 4 i R237 852 HlSl TIA 20 rt i 1 7 7 4 4 6 4 4 17 3 3 3 R237 315 HlSi TIA rtii •J i w a i t S:37 £39 NISI TIB 1 /• ly i i i i ii 3 1 Kt3,-' Sl; tsiei J-y J i 1 4 t ^ia^ Oai MIS: Tif. iiO i rt a '^ w 2 3 m- £33 ^is: T2A 20 1 i 1 1 J 5 I 0 •4 i V 3 .^237 335 i^iSi T2A 30 2 ; ) 4 ^ !2 4 i 17 4 •> : Ri37 85£ nia. T--.rt ' iL 30 i 8 1 1 a 7 i-•1 • y '? R237 325 tiie: :2D 10 I e: J 1 j 1 10 I w V 1 •J H237 897 Hie: 30 i 1 I I 3 a ! i 1 4 / 1 J 4 Ilia, ujii KlSl T4A 33 4 i 7 ( 1 1 7 1 rt ! 3 mi 933 WlSl -trt i'v rt rt e. I IC I rt t • i ! 4 R237 930 KIS! T9A 10 3 4 I 4 B 1 1 4 3 2 rt i la i rt R237 940 W13i TSA rt-'. a 'j rt i < i 1 4 2 i >fi37 507 HlSl STF£ 3 4 1 fi237 925 t;ov;ic .J i T -! J 2 i 12 i 1 1 r ^ rt ta i i 4 nir; 5:9 1^481 NOVilO rt a !0 1 i rt i 9 i 2 <; Srtrt-T ri7 I^-u •J . : KlSl ST=15 •-: 1 S^ST ORIGINAL F L CONTROIED IE-"'EL 50 ' - A ^ F ? STONE ARTIFACTS CONTROLED FOR VALUE HiSi jjp y^^j.g., ^^.^ HATERIAL LEVEL IOC ;CTAL 50 TOTAL 5C 5 50 3 1 25 50 25 5 11 3 26 22 38 TCTAL 86 ZGI ZRO 0 29 64 !3 32 •yo ab CC aJ 4 3 80 3 5 IOO 2 I 7 2 IOO 50 48 S6 :GT ZRO 10 57 IS i 29 1! 1 14 7 a •> 8 ZGT ZRO 20 8 5 33 i 1 SC IS 4 8 CA •Jii !2 14 zsr ZRO 30 -Jrt ii 44 rt-T 1 II 20 9 10 rsT 0 2! £ 1 II 20 , ZRO ISO 2CC 5 ZGT ZRO ZCO ZGT F L A t E C C 1 a G fi E * n T I r * r T rt i a :ONTROLED FOR VALUE KlSl OF VARIABLE SITE PR0D6ASE 2 a 4 T rt T 1 1 E^'El ) i \ 4 5 iST 25 50 25 ZRO 6 1! rt a rt 4 ft o * rtc Jrt c,- y r T y 10 3 ia Ju j>0 i 2! 19 s Crt Ji ZRC 56 47 3£ 66 ZCO '. .rt rt 1..' i rt 1 2 7 S IBT 29 29 14 29 ZRO 4 1 It 11 0 J 5 20 2 rt i n a c a 4 rt li 14 ZST 17 17 ia 42 ZRO It 1! rti il 1 0 1 a ZCG fr. ^ ay c rt i ! 3 9 10 ZST 33 22 11 33 IRQ !7 11 9 0 •rtn 40 t i t i rt M 2 IBT 50 50 IRO 5 3 »r»ri 50 1 i ! 1 n 5 ZGT Iff ij 50 25 ZRO c J 18 n a ALU JTAI 18 19 1! p.n 86 21 rtrt ii 13 44 ZGT FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS :GNTRGIED FOR VALUE HISI OF VARIABLE SITE PATINATION rt 4 i Trtf ! 1 i u 1 rlL .4 t 0 rt y ZGT rt y IRO 0 ICG rt 4 I 1 1 rt V 0 37 0 0 0 0 ZST ZRO IC 7 0 0 ZGT ZRQ 0 ICO rtrt iy rt 0 0 IC c n 0 0 ZGT IRO ZCO rtrt ijy rt a 0 0 ^ c 0 0 0 0 ZGT IRO ZCO 4.: ty rt i y 0 0 0 IGT ZRO ZCQ 50 1 3 0 0 ZGT 86 ZRC ZCO ZGT F L h I E C 3 T 3 N E h a 1 I r 1 1 r n CONTROLED FDR VALUE HIS! OF VARIABLE CORTEX 0 L TCTAL ••iir. 4 c •rtT 1 t J * J 1 100 ZRG 7 nab A 36 4 rt ti. 4S 56 ZGT le "iC. /a ia :t r.L' 62 43 ICO 4 rt 1 y rt 4 7 "I 0 •tl IGT 43 57 IRC 5 14 ICO rtrt iy 6 e 12 14 ZGT SO 50 IRQ 10 21 ICG rtrt aV 5 A t 9 4 rt ly IGT 56 J Jl tt ZRO 9 I .« it ZCO 40 2 rt rt IGT 100 IRG rt •rr.-i 50 2 2 4 1 5 ZST 50 50 ZRG 3 ZCO •QTAl 58 28 86 rt rtrt ZGT FLAK E D S T G N E A R T : F A C T S COfiTRQLED FQR VALUE HlSl OF VARIABLE SITE TYPEl 1 rt i 3 4 5 -? 3 9 4 rt IJ TOTAL .EVEL -1 i 50 50 40 4 c a ZGT ZRO ZCG rt y 13 20 ; i 7 ; ( rt i J 4 i 48 56 ZGT 27 42 rt 4 1 c i J 2 £ rt ZRG 54 71 20 57 50 50 43 ICO ZCG 10 2 29 8 29 7 ! 14 20 4 1 1 1 14 14 50 14 -I •TfT *nrt •rn I.U\J 20 J 1 4 t i i 1 rt J 2 ^'> I i 14 ZGT rtC iJ 8 8 8 3 25 17 ZRO 13 4 50 20 33 21 29 ZCG, ' 3C 4 4 I ! 1 3 9 ''^ IGT 44 11 11 33 ZRO 17 4 50 14 il ZCQ 40 1 1 I rt 2 ZGT 50 50 IRO 4 14 ICO 50 1 rt i 1 4 c J ZGT 25 50 25 ZRO 4 7 •F / ICO r.T .•. 1 . ul nt 24 28 2 5 3 14 2 7 ) 1 86 28 33 2 S 3 16 2 8 1 ZGT .=.jKi|irr!IW<i(p*---n^lt-.. - r L A K E D S T 0 N E A R T I F A C T S ;3KTRQLED FOR VALUE KtSt OF VARIABLE SITE ANGLEt 1 2 n J 4 TCTAL 'EVEL w 75 f i 25 4 5 ZST ZRO 10 9 ZCO 0 4 20 IS 5 48 56 ZST 8 42 40 10 IRO 40 69 aa 45 ZCO 10 3 rt i 2 1 / 8 ZGT 43 29 29 IRO 30 7 6 ZCO 1 20 1 8 1 8 7 58 3 25 12 14 ZST ZRO to 3 13 27 ICO ^ 30 It 2 22 c J 56 1 11 9 !0 ZGT IRO 10 7 • < 17 9 • rn AL.U 40 ICO 6 2 2 ZBT ZRO ZCO ' 50 1 ! 1 1 4 5 ZGT 25 25 25 25 ZRO IC a n a 9 • nfi «LU '5- (1 JIHL to 23 36 11 S6 12 34 42 13 ZGT I I I i I • t I FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS 'GfUROLED FOR VALUE HIS! QF VARIABLE SITE CIRCUM! I rt 3 4 TOTAL EVEL 1 2 i i t c a 1ST 25 SC 25 IRC 3 "T / 11 ICQ rt y 19 17 10 rt i 4E 56 ZST 40 35 21 4 IRC .56 61 67 ?? ICO 10 "> i i t 1 rt i 8 IGT 29 29 14 29 ZRO 6 7 7 22 ICD 20 7 3 1 ! 12 14 ZST SS 25 3 n 0 ZRO \ 21 11 7 11 • n.-i ibU 30 5 56 1 11 ! 1! rt 22 9 10 IET IRO tc la 4 7 / 22 • rtf! i'wu 40 1 50 4 ! 50 7 2 2 ZST • rn Aitu ZCO 50 2 Crt -» 1 1 25 7 i 25 11 t 5 ZGT ZRO ZCG UTAL 34 40 28 33 15 17 9 10 86 IGT I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I i I I F L A K E D 5 ' 0 N E \ c n :i T 1 F A C T i; :or;TRCLEC FOR VALUE HlSl 3F VARIA£ LE J i 1 c TYPE2 1 rt a 4 t c J i 1 / 9 ly ( rt 1 i 16 TOTAL -EVEL rt i ) 1 4 1 4 C IST 50 25 rtc ia • on 25 rtC iJ ICQ 0 2S e a 8 i J 2 I ! 48 55 IST 58 10 17 A f rt i •t t rt i 2 IRO 65 63 67 50 50 29 100 50 ZCO 10 4 1 1 1 7 8 ZGT 57 1 4 it 14 14 IRO 9 8 iJ 25 ICO 20 4 4 I 4 1 1 4 1 •1 1 1 12 !4 ZST 33 s 8 8 8 17 3 S ZRO 9 ( rt 8 too !00 29 25 100 ZCO rtrt n Jy J rt i i 4 1 9 10 ZGT 33 rtrt ii 11 rtrt ii !! IRQ 7 25 50 29 50 ZCO 40 1 1 2 2 ZGT 50 50 ZRO 2 ne iJ ICC 50 t 2 1 4 5 IGT ia 50 25 IRO 2 17 14 ZCO OTAL 43 8 12 4 2 1 1 7 ! 4 2 ! 85 50 o 14 c J rt ! I 8 ! 5 2 I ZGT FLAKED S T D N E ARTIFACTS rONTRGLED FOR VALUE KlSl OF VARIABLE SITE AH&LE2 ! rt i 3 4 TOTAL EVEL 2 rt 4 5 ZGT 50 SO IRQ 5 11 ZCQ ' 0 28 rt i -1 3 1 .in J to 56 ZGT 58 4 ts !7 6 ZRO 65 67 37 57 43 ICO 10 4 1 2 7 B I6T 57 14 29 ZRO 9 33 11 ZCC 20 4 3 2 3 12 14 ZGT 33 25 17 25 ZRO 9 16 14 43 ZCO . rt J 3 3 9 10 IGT in JJ 33 33 IRO 7 IS 2! ZCQ 1 1 2 ZST 50 50 ZRO rt 7 ZCO H ay 1 2 ! 4 5 ZGT 25 50 25 ZRO rt i I! 14 ICO .JTAL 43 3 19 14 7 86 50 3 22 16 3 ZGT I I I I I • ( I FLAKED STONE A R T I F A C T S ;0«TROLED FOR VALUE KtSl OF VARIABLE SITE CIRCUM2 1 2 3 4 TOTAL EVEL 2 1 1 4 5 ZGT SO rtC iJ ia ZRO 5 4 9 ZCO 0 28 14 4 2 48 56 IGT 5S 29 8 4 m 65 54 36 50 ZCO 4 rt 1 y 4 I t 1 i 7 8 ZST 57 14 14 14 •ijfi *i\u 9 4 9 25 ZCO rtrt 7 4 6 1 t 12 14 ZGT 33 50 8 8 ZRO 9 23 25 50 ZCQ rtrt Jl' rt J 1 4 1 9 10 ZST 33 11 44 11 ZRO 7 4 36 50 • rn «L J 4C 1 1 2 *> i ZGT 50 50 ZRO 2 4 ICO ' 50 1 2 ! 4 c ti ZST 25 50 25 ZRO 2 8 9 ZCO JTAt 43 26 11 4 2 86 50 30 13 S 2 ZGT PLACED STONE ARTIFACTS :QNTR0LED FOR VALUE KI81 QF VARIABLE SITE TYPES 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 IS !7 TOTAL 2 50 50 5 IGT IRC ZCO 85 6 4 64 too 50 t 2 100 25 48 56 ZGT IRO ZCO 4 57 6 1 14 t 14 IOO 1 14 100 8 ZBT ZRO ZCO 20 7 58 tl 1 3 100 1 2 8 17 50 50 1 8 50 14 ZST ZRQ ZCO 7.0 5 se 3 1 11 25 1 I! 50 1 1! too It 50 to IGT ZRO ICQ 4C 2 100 3 2 ZST ZRO 50 3 75 S 1 25 SO 5 ZGT ZRO ZCO JTAL 64 74 66 ZGT FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS CGNTROLED FOR VALUE KlSl QF VARIABLE SITE ANGLES 1 n i n J 4 TOTAL 2 50 3 1 rtr i-' 25 1 25 14 4 5 ZBT IRC ZCO 0 41 85 64 i 4 t 29 J t 3 57 1 1 IC ia 48 55 ZGT • nn ICO 10 4 57 6 ! 14 25 2 29 29 7 J 8 ZGT • n.rt kRli ZCQ 20 7 58 1! 1 3 25 ! 8 14 2 17 29 1 s 25 !2 !4 ZGT ZRO ZCQ 30 c J 56 8 I tl 25 1 11 14 t 1 11 14 1 11 25 0 10 ZGT ZRC rrn *au 40 2 IOO 3 2 2 ZGT ZRO ICQ SO 3 75 c J 1 25 25 4 5 ZGT ZRO ZCO ^OTAt 64 74 4 t W 7 8 -I i 8 4 c a S6 ZGT I I I I I I I t FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS :3NTR3LED FOR VALUE KlSl OF VARIABLE SITE CIRCU«3 EVEL IST I I I I I I I I I I I I rt i 3 4 TOTAL 2 rt 4 t r J 50 50 ZRO •J 13 ICO rt y 41 £ 1 4S 56 85 13 rt i IRG 64 40 33 ZCO 10 4 7 2 1 7 1 8 C7 1 A Ton Jf 4.J it *nu 6 67 nn aa ZCO 20 7 3 2 12 14 58 25 17 IRO 1! 20 67 ZCO "!rt ay 5 J ! 9 10 56 33 I i ZRQ 8 20 IOO ICQ 40 rt 2 rt 100 IRQ A • rn IJ 50 3 1 4 5 75 25 IRQ 5 7 ZCO L 64 15 3 3 1 86 74 17 n J 3 I ZGT ZGT ZST ZBT I I I I I I 4 I F L A KED S TONE A R T I F A C T 3 :ONTROLED FOR VALUE Kis: OF VARIABLE SITE TYPE4 rt i 7 9 15 TOTAL EVEl 3 75 4 J rtC iJ er. ay 4 5 ZST ZRC ICO 0 46 96 57 4 1 rt i 100 1 rt 100 48 55 ZST ZRC ZCO 10 7 too 9 7 3 ZGT ZRG ZCO 20 11 92 14 1 3 50 !2 !4 1ST IRG ZCO 30 8 39 to 1 I! IOO 3 10 ZST • nrt ZCO 40 2 too •5 i *> i 2 ZST ZRO ZCQ 50 4 ICO 5 4 5 ZGT IRG ZCC JTAL 81 94 1 I I 1 ! I rt i rt i 86 IGT FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTE m'TROLED FOR VALUE K18! OF VARIABLE SITE ANGLE4 2 3 TOTAL -. 1 i' i; L 3 1 * t c J ZST 75 rtC iJ ZRQ * 50 •rn 0 46 1 1 48 56 IGT 96 2 2 ZRG 57 50 33 • rn kLU 10 7 7 8 ZST IOO • nn 9 ZCO 20 It ! 12 14 ZST 92 S IRO 14 33 ICQ ^ 30 8 1 9 IC • rx 89 1! IRO 10 33 ZCO •• 40 rt 2 rt ZST too ZRG 2 ZCO Crt tlV 4 4 c J ZST 100 ZRO c J ICO -JTAL Sl 2 3 86 94 2 3 IGT t I I t I I t • ^^-4 JilJiMlMHiniMUlDitik^- I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS CONTROLED FOR VALUE KIS! OF VARIABLE SITE CIRCUn4 1 2 TOTAL 3 1 i 5 ZST 75 25 ZRO 4 50 ICO 0 46 2 48 56 ZST 96 4 IRG 57 67 ZCO 0 7 7 8 IGT too ZRO 9 ZCQ 0 11 1 12 14 ZGT 92 S ZRO !4 50 ZCQ 30 8 1 9 10 ZGT 89 11 10 33 ICC 2 2 2 ZGT !00 IRO 2 ZCO 50 4 4 5 IGT 100 ZRO 5 ICO IAL St 3 2 86 34 3 2 ZGT ; / KEY TO GROUND STONE • / accession number Description / accession number RECON: ROOO WESTEC; WOOO I - catalog number . site number OOOOO for SDi-»5 WOOOO for SDM-W-ffs iocus •— f unit_ •i category 5. ground stone " feature 1. heartii 2. burial 3. 4. 5. 6. level 10, 20, 30, ... ^ : - ^ material 1* granite- '2. quartzite 3* andesite 4. sandstone 5. other - ^ weight to the nearest gram , length In millimeters ^ width In millimeters M thiclcness tn millimeters I. condition 1. whole 2. brolcen 1. mano. 2. pestle 3. slab 4. basin 5. bowl 6. other g shaped 1« unshaped 2. shaped (shaped manos/pestles are shouldered, bifacial, and have edge • treatment to produce a tabular profile), number of faces ll face 2 faces 3 faces 4 faces S battering 1. end' 2. side 3. both 1 • side 1 (ground surface of metate): length / widlh / depth in millimeters • side 2 (ground surface of metate): lenglh / width / depth In millimeters I I I I r I I c f I I i I I I • I I t ;7/15/9I m LISTING FOR SRCmiONE ACC CAT SITE 10. . UNIT L EV FDK HT HST Kr-r-l in i SH r L i i<. Ki Dl 1 rt bi Hi Di y* SITE Wit i R23: 3S. f • Hi -; y y SSS 732 • t l3c ai 4 7 e i Jl 2 • * - •/ -i & \. n R237 542 ftiSi y 703 i ^ •" ta . i ] i 0 rt y y ^: rt ii237 S02 435 i y. 1^ .• a 33 2 1 2 1 90 Si.'' ? "y t-. y y R237 R237 SSy rr.% uu- 'A J 0. n 1 . 1 rt y 1563 435 ICO ( rtrt i y.> 50 S3 ef. J'.' C--w^ 1 £ 1 rt y tc f a 40 Cli 0 •i' rt i.' ?;237 rt i 9999 355 iwV 7D J 1 I I 1 19y 1 WlJ 0 rt y R237 384 KISi y 1 3500 230 200 85 i r- 1 i f; 200 itC rt y 0 0 R237 611 KlSl 0 5 4204 191 108 <JO i 1 I 1 i V e 0 rt c 0 rt U "rtrt"" r.ia/ QrtI 3Ji ^131 9 IC 1 236 3C 60 rt i 2 y 0 <\ V 0 0 0 Ri37 332 i^ie: S 20 2 :"/ e;i. ay JV 40 1 1 t 1 40 av 0 0 0 A R237 314 ;'1S1 TIA 40 587 !!4 94 44 i 1 t i 1 85 65 •1 y 0 0 rt y 0'^'J7 'ViiJl BIS HlG! TIA 40 ! ISS 65 60 35 rt i 4 1 1 0 60 52 rt 0 0 0 R237 918 H181 K1K5 rt 'J 1 3452 230 135 99 2 i i lie S5 y 'i c 0 S237 t^'y': HISI NCH20 1 J73 iO 7rt * y 52 rt 2 ! I i 0 0 rt V 0 0 0 R237 955 HlSl kl ( Llrt-^ hltlii 60 3311 1 C.' la. ISO c. rt i i \ 0 • rt •3 0 0 0 R237 323 Mist I«5H20 t 1 529 125 65 48 2 1 1 1 1 80 48 0 C 0 0 rtrtm •^ia/ 920 KISi S2H24 50 ! I 269 90 50 27 rt i 1 i I S5 42 rt \; 0 rt y R237 rtrtJ iit HlSl S5K1C 4 753 13 90 4C i £ i 1 rt y y y 0 0 c =237 ;2 1 n i Ci SSK-O 316 rt/i •;rt 2 1 ; ;j Crt jy ; y V y 1 GROUND 3 T 0 N E ARTIFACTS CONTROLED FOH VALUE Kt81 OF VARIABLE SITE MATERIAL W I 2 4 5 TOTAL -iVEL 3 1 4 19 ZGT I 75 25 ZRO 17 too ZCO 10 ! tt 52 ZST 91 9 ZRO 56 100 ZCQ t 1 5 ZGT 100 ZRO w 6 ZCO • 20 1 1 5 IGT 100 ZRO 100 ZCQ • 40 2 1 i 10 ZBT V 100 ZRO 1; !1 ZCO 1 1 5 ZGT • 100 ZRO • 6 ZCO m 60 1 1 S ZBT n 100 ZRO 6 ZCO llTAL 18 1 1 1 2! 1 86 5 5 5 ZGT GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS CONTROLED FOR VALUE HIS! OF VARIABLE SITE SHAPED i 2 TOTAL .'El 4 4 19 ZGT 100 ZRO 21 ZCO 0 10 ! 11 52 ZGT 31 3 ZRO 53 50 ZCD 10 1 ! 5 ZBT too ZRO 50 ZCO 20 ! 1 5 IBT too IRO 5 ZCO 40 2 2 to ZBT 100 ZRO t! ZCO 50 I 1 5 IBT too IRO 5 ICO 60 1 1 5 ZBT 100 ZRO 5 ZCO AL 19 2 21 30 to ZGT I I I I I I I I GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS CONTROLED FOR VALUE HISl OF VARIABLE StTE TYPE 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAI LEVEL 2 1 I 4 19 IBT SO 25 25 IRO 17 too 100 ZCO I 1 i 1 I I I I I I rt 6 4 1 11 52 ZBT 55 36 9 ZRO 50 SO too ZCO to I 1 5 IBT 100 ZRO 8 ZCO 20 ! 1 5 ZBT 100 ZRO 8 ZCD 40 1 1 2 10 IBT 50 50 IRO 8 100 ICG 50 1 1 5 ZGT IOO ZRO 8 ICO 60 1 1 5 ZBT too ZRO 20 ZCO ITAL 12 1 5 1 1 1 21 57 5 24 5 5 5 ZGT Item accession number catalog number site number locus unit category feature level materiai weight burned weight unburned total weight KEY TO BULK POTTERY Description RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO OOOOO 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. I i I I I I KEY TO POTTERY ATTRIBUTES (0 = absent) site lev item 4 ~ mat 5 = frm = rad var deg int 10 = ext 11 = cor 12 = fl 13 = lp 14 = dec 15 = dri 16 = abr = site level item 1 = rim 4 2 = body 5 3 = pipe material 1 = Tizon.Brown Ware 2 = Colorado Buff Ware 3 = other rim form (see Photographs 1 to 6} rim radius variability of radius measurement degree of sherd present color - interior 1 = blade 4 2 = brown 5 3 = orange 6 color - exterior (same as above) color - core (same as above) rim thicltening position 1 = exterior 3 2 = interior 4 rim Ihiclcening shape 1 = fiat 2 = round decoration 1 = 2 Item cross hatch 2 = rim notch - perp. 3 = rim notch - angled 4 = 3 Item cross hatch segmented, angle drilling 1 = majority exterior 2 = biconical 3 = majority interior abraded 1 = straight edge 2 = round edge neck base red buff gray interior and exterior straight vertical lines 2 item cross hatch - enclosed, angle stem & leaf irregular PAGE NQ. 1 05/16/9! RAH LISTING FOR BULK POTTERY ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEVEL FNO HAT BURNED UNBURNED TOTAL »t LQCUS R237 325 MISl 0 191 10 2 2 R237 323 HISl 0 139 1 0 2 2 R237 484 HIS! 0 336 1 0 4 4 R237 829 HISl 0 10 5 5 « Sybtotal ii iii Total iii 0 13 13 0 13 13 .4 KEY TO SHELL Uem accession number catalog number site number locus unit category feature Description RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOD OOOOO for SDi-is WOOOO for SDM-W-#s 1. sheil 1. hearth 2. burial 3. 10, 20, 30, 4 -5 6 level (When subsampling shell, the following are Individuai spe<=*ef .«f^9|;'**"*° ihe 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 hai lolls 7 oilvella 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 lo sum of shell types 1 through 8. I I ^ Shell |o,- oa. • 103. f 05-. to . I'l - '/a - /3 - i'^ -1^7 - I 'JO - '31 _ • i3 - y - - |a9- - Cki'oA;e * Poli'iOices • Ti'vfcla. •S«.x>'etory^us P(<.<rU'+k Ba.\ OwfVuS 0\i\lt,[\cu CofOMiS :r SoK AiocK;4oA;.-cla-c W /I »o>y> I a. Cilu&i btolaxi La++»o- /CtlU+ift* TejH I*- D )"oeloROu 3T. ;+4ORiMO. fot S&Pip^loRhis FAGE NQ. 07/16/91 m LISTING GF SHELL ACC fl* T Lni SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEVEL F?JO CH! AGR KYT QST DON HAI Oil OTH H SI 'E iii 31 a237 SiG ^181 (• A rt V R237 867 »i'is: rt 0 0 G 0 S237 tiiii ^'18! y * > rt R237 laJ Kis: y J 0 1 0 .rt y 0 0 0 0 i;:37 !5; 1^131 0 9 i i. c •J V (: y t: y R237 174 HlSi C IS ij i..' G il 0 C 5 Ri37 345 USl i i -y ; c J G y V Ri37 328 HISl 0 24^ i 0 0 a 0 G 0 R237 334 *:3i y 251 i c C 0 0 0 y R237 401 Kid! 0 257 0 * 0 c A y c rt y R237 436 HIS! 0 337 0 c 0 c 0 0 1 R237 Clrt JJi KISI 1 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 C ! i;237 535 HI8! 4 i 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 R237 541 Kt3I ! "rt Jy 9 c. i 0 0 0 0 0 nil! liitjl 544 m\ _ tv -0 0 fl 0 0 0 G S'^'i-nia< cct aai KlSl IC 0 0 0 0 rt y c R237 554 KIS! j ni 1 r-0 r< 0 0 t I S23? 558 KlSl V 'JO -y 4 1 (^ y 0 0 0 e 0 nrt'.-i .TiJ/ 531 HIS! n 4C 1 I rt y 0 V rt V c 0 R237 ;^*!8! z tO ic iv 1 y c c 0 rt y rt y R227 5B4 KlSl rt T a ^1 'v y p V n.tn- niJi 5S7 HIS! lrt jy 4 c 0 0 y ft y J R237 589 KISI E 40 j^ i 0 0 0 0 0 0 f y R237 892 KlSl i -J i e r-. 0 0 0 c c R237 902 HISI V 1 rt 4 1 0 y 0 0 A rt y 0 R23? 904 HISl T6 20 1 i 0 C 0 V 0 V R237 906 K13I T6 4C 1 0 rt V 0 0 0 0 0 R237 903 KISI TS 50 1 0 0 0 0 0 ft y mil SCS HIS! i L 50 rt i 1 G 0 3 ft y 0 0 mi 912 KIS! Tv 70 1 c 0 0 0 0 e 0 mi 913 HIG! T; : a 3C 0 rt fl y rt f-y 0 C R237 9N HISl Tt 90 y i 0 c e 0 y 0 R237 937 HISI T7 f •'• i J rt • rt y 0 A 'J ft y 0 0 Ri37 ^18! T7 20 •3 li i '0 rt i\ V 11^11 .J .'. i J f %i) HISl •-•fl a J fj rt V e 0 0 V 0 cn- «iJ, 927 KISI TC i a a'v -T 0 rt 0 0 y b ^ •,')•. 951 iilSi V 0 1! 0 ? 0 0 0 G mi •37= •iva His: iO a c rt y 0 G 0 l\237 ^aJ II. n' nit. I T -•0 il y 0 0 0 y niJi 935 HIS; T9 10 3 0 rt V 0 1. y 0 «237 qc-t vai KIBl "9 iG it 3 y ft V 0 V A y R237 oc; ••aa KISI T-t i: 30 4 rt /• y rt y 0 0 0 ft ^ n237 954 KlSl Ti 40 0 4 rt y 0 c 0 0 0 513 Kis: TiH 4v 1^ 0 0 rt c 0 f\ y ri •;237 s:3 HIE: • ;rt i -•*1 0 ti y f rt ^iLijf 541 HIS: :'ir - • -y rt G c J-V rt9«- •i J ni I. ^ •IB 40 IC u 0 (> 0 ,rt V R237 321 HIE: • &'• •-. 0 G z G c R227 S5! HIE: ii> 7 A ; / y nn'~ .lia ' u ' L HIS: T SC 0 ; c 0 0 (' rt BEST ORIGINAL PA5E !JQ. C7.';i/31 t I t I I I I I I I I nAH uSIIfiB DF SHE.^ CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEVEL FNO CHI ASR KYT OST DON HAL Oil OTH 5ciS 2C 2 i y' 0 rt -^1 nn^-. riiJ. nr,'. bo; H18-J.. 1 t' rt y 0 '- lia' 57S K:5I 7*7 Zi': i rt 0 rt 0 0 R237 S79 HIS! rnft i ib Trt A ;• y V 0 rt V rt i.-0 0 1 n'-'-t il.J ' 520 HISl STF7 1 1 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 \\ i a 1 925 ki'lSI NOK!0 y y G c c y rt y *7 prt-TT ri.a. 32: f.l31 ^jAiy 7 5 i 0 c 0 y f: y it Sub tota ** AJ n iti 65 6 0 0 0 35 *** To tii iii 212 65 6 0 0 rt y c 35 BEST ORIGINAL SHELL i f i I ft i I i i CONTROLED FOfl VALUE Hist OF VARIABLE SITE SHELL SPECIES 1 rt i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL •VEL 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 23 14 ZBT 35 39 0 0 0 0 0 26 ZRO 7 24 0 0 0 0 0 55 ZCO 10 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 4 ZST 29 43 0 0 0 0 0 29 ZRO 2 S 0 0 0 0 0 18 ZCO 20 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 13 ZST 62 33 0 0 0 0 0 5 ZRO !! 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 ZCO 30 20 6 3 0 0 0 0 t 30 IS ZBT 67 20 10 0 0 0 0 3 ZRD 17 16 7S 0 0 0 0 9 ZCO 40 64 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 67 40 ZBT 96 3 t 0 0 0 0 0 ZRO 55 5 25 0 0 0 0 0 ZCO 50 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 IGT 67 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZRO 2 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZCO 60 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 ZST 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZRO 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZCO 70 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 5 ZST 13 75 0 0 0 0 0 13 ZRO t 16 0 0 0 0 0 3 ZCO 80 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 ZBT 75 25 0 G 0 0 0 0 ZRO n J 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZCO 90 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ZBT 0 too 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZRO 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZCO TS 116 37 4 0 0 0 0 11 168 63 22 2 0 0 0 0 7 ZGT fi fi fi i fi fi fi fi Item accession number catalog number site number locus untt category feature level burned bone unburned bone tolal weight KEY TO BONE Descriplion RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO OOOOO for SDi-»s WOOOO for SDM-W-#s 3. bone 1. hearth 2. burial 3. 10, 20, 30, . 4. 5. 6. weight to the nearest gram weight to the nearest gram weight, to the nearest gram, of the total unit/level sample i i i i i 1 fi fi f f f i fi fi i fi fi fi fi fi fi KEY TO BONE item accession number catalog number site number locus unit level species Description RECON: ROOO WESTEC: WOOO OOOOO for SDt-#s WOOOO for SDM-W-#s 10, 20, 30, ... weight element Sylvilagus i^udubonl Syivilaiiajj feiaB^manl Lepus jatHf6|r^icus Spermq^ltlff ;:t)eecheyi Thdmomyi bottae 43- Neotoma sp* Enhydra lutrls Od6ccriteu» hemionus Urocyoiri cineredargenteus Canis sp. Nonidentifiable sm. mammal 12. Nonidentifiable lg. mammal 13. Crotalus sp. 14. Lampropeltis spt 15. Nonidentifiable reptile weighi to the nearest tenth gram 18. Peromyscus sp. 19« Cervus sp. c^^^jc^ ~ftsL^ 42. Unidentifiable fish Bos taurus 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. claw 10. pelvis 25. cleithrum 11. femur 26. carapace 12. tibia 27. arm 13. metapodial 28. rib 14. calcaneum 15. astragalus left right burned left side - to the nearest tenth gram right side - lo the nearest tenth gram to the nearest tenth gram f I r i fi fi fi f fi^ fi fi fi fi fi fi fi i PAGE NO. 1 05/16/9! RAH DATA FOR BQNE ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEAT LEVEL FLDI SP HT ELE LT RT BRN UNBRK a SITE KISI 3237 947 HISl N5H30 55 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ii Sabtotil ti l.SO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 iii Total Hi 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIDGETOP INVENTORY I HITE LGC V rt : : T. n. •• .1 rn Itn .n T> " < •» tu LI r! I - i L.. hi IJ L j ' T U-" i': * *• li-'. rt . i , 1 I i f f f I I i I I f I I I R23* 54C 7-7rt- ern rr-" r,237 "rt'-T c'l: riii-; d'-t re- n^.-i cc •• >».•;. n.i,. .., - -. I I .; r. . -J. -riiZiL rt.nt t>;c. Aia. kbi r.lfli 10 -rt J rt rt ! • rt c n*'-i 'rtr •i j J rt".:! 15 0 i ?-kf, ..S'.NS FOR Fi-At'EI IITHIC AR I.-'A-ij JK:' FEA LEV ;NG ^ t .... rt •j----i'. - • • - • •--•- S4£ UIEl rt . iy . i ; WJ J-I .2 i > kic 1 " - ;c^ 7rt -li 4 ; -r' Il • r '••f W i V .-LI c 'in aa c -JL: 31 •* 1 - Af.^ f rr .I.n. n nr, - ' T > J -S .. . / 77 i rt ' 1^ •?r ai. ' rt t -. y ^^J/ CCC-w J . iltS! n n.-i w a '.. : : : 232 r ' C-i 9! Crt wV .1 --. rt 7 *.' -f ;:io: •.! 1 rt ' : i 1 9; ^. ^ ai 90 rt? 1'. 4 rV ( ; : : i i •. . r J --c-- 1 1 ^ j- rrtc , 1 • A (• . C i n. I: . r rt 1- jy ^ ... ., m -rti-' 41 3 0 1 syy <i. : 1 1 - -1.^ - '. '. BEST ORIGINAL k c: •• • C' 1 rtr\^~ il iZi c.: • •• n • Hiui i .i ' • 1 c • J'-. • i-j; •*rt; u-i-- -.-((>• f-237 35: 'lie. !?22T '^rtr uiw .-(••. 4 tiiZit : ,0 PA., PAGE nz. nr Iff RAH LISTING OF S^Lu ACC CAT SITE LOCUS i NIT FEA LEVEL Ff*: Cnl ASR m GST DOI^ HAL [ tt SHE isicl 1 R237 53. ?l:51 t M /. ' y 2 , , 1.1. r (• •-' •:z: 54' tilB: I - f. '.^ '•i y y c R237 S£l HISl 3 40 -J.. -V C rt S237 86? HISl r 2a av 1 ( 0 0 C 0 0 R237 S?l HIS; T2A 6G 0 0 0 0 0 0 rt y R2G7 57? HlBl T2: 7G y C: v G C 0 y 1 1^237 375 KlSl :2t SC (: 1 V .'t C 0 c 0 ** 3ybti;al *« 25 4 0 0 0 0 r 1*> Total Hi 81 25 4 0 C 0 0 BEST ORIGINAL I ACC m .IS7INS FCF 3R0i;?iDS' L> nt ili Li ni rnnt ii 3.^:-:^;^: a Hy l-M\ •oc .-s; ir • • 1 aa -a av j-. i "4 a •" I"'I''IHII!IIMMIIIBSKR" I I I I I I PAGE NG. 37/16/91 DEHTAG? - tM LISTING ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT FEA LEV FLD# PiA TPi TPi TPS TF4 TPS TPS TP7 TPS TF9 u SITE HISl •^iw i C' Ul r.lS; J 0 (1 1/ i 1 t •^ mi C '22 10 i 0 0 0 V mi s HlSl i •/ 0 1 "A JV 45 2 C ••7 ' i. J .-i KIS! V I-. 24 26 1 ; 19 R237 SIE .4 C 1 T2^ 4-ri 0 0 ! 1 i. ^. iO ?f237 Sf e HlSi :2E 50 *? V 0 0 0 ^' II !5 (i 0 4 R237 Sj^9 HISl m SO 3 0 c 0 c f. 5 R237 3i 0 HIS! 70 4 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 V 5 i* Subtotal ii Hi Total »'* 135 183 157 BEST ORIGINAL SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN SDM-W-181 SUE DRAWER INVENTORY FOR FLAKED UTHIC ARTIFACTS JM) GROUND STONE --f-MMMlMIMifeM^:-,- PAGE NO. 05/13/91 RAK LISTING FOR FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACTS - DESCRIPTIVE ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNO 11 C LB KT LN KD TH P PD CR Nr ti SITE KlSl R236 1 KlSl 1963 131 SM6 0 A 3 1 5 26 35 34 19 2 1 0 2 R236 2 HlBl 1963 147 SH9 0 3 1 5 32 35 42 15 2 t 0 2 R236 3 HIS! 1963 288 £ SD2 0 3 1 9 to 27 47 7 2 1 0 2 R236 4 HlBl 1963 261 J 0 3 1 t 116 6B 46 31 2 1 0 2 R236 S HISI 1963 351 0 SH34 4 1 4 18 57 23 15 4 t 0 3 R236 e K181 1963 354 0 SI132 3 1 4 IB 56 25 13 4 1 0 1 R236 7 H18t 1963 433 0 SM243 3 1 4 30 71 30 14 4 1 0 1 R236 8 N161 1963 1075 0 1B261 4 2 3 14 45 30 9 4 1 0 3 R236 9 H!81 2-523 0 18260 3 1 10 13 34 4S 0 4 1 0 2 R236 10 H181 2-523 0 17398 3 1 10 9 28 54 7 4 1 0 8 R236 11 M18t 2-523 15 1688S 4 1 to 6 25 43 7 4 1 0 8 R236 12 msi 2-528 0 16005 t 1 5 1069 147 126 41 2 1 0 4 R236 13 Htei 2-104 0 4 1 0 21 38 49 to 4 1 0 1 R236 14 K181 2-104 0 SM33 3 2 3 U 40 30 11 4 1 0 2 R236 15 H181 2-104 0 4 2 4 19 55 30 13 4 1 0 2 R236 16 HlBl 2-104 0 3 1 5 19 41 54 13 4 1 1 2 R236 17 HISl 2-104 0 3 1 1 79 59 46 33 4 1 0 1 R236 18 HlBl 2-104 0 3 2 4 16 49 32 10 4 1 0 2 R236 19 HlBl 2-104 0 SI197 3 2 14 58 70 47 15 4 1 0 2 R236 20 HlBl 2-104 0 18710 2 1 6 99 79 66 26 4 1 1 1 R236 2t HtSl 2-104 0 4 2 14 IS 30 31 13 4 0 0 2 R236 22 KlSl 2-104 0 3 2 14 39 71 29 18 4 t 0 1 R236 23 HtSl 2-104 0 4 t 5 85 50 71 20 2 I 1 1 R236 24 MlSl 2-104 0 3 2 14 31 53 45 It 4 1 1 2 R236 25 HISl 2-104 0 4 2 14 5 30 19 9 4 0 0 2 R236 26 Hist 2-104 0 3 2 14 11 44 27 to 4 1 0 2 R236 27 KlSt 2-104 0 4 2 14 4 19 29 6 4 0 0 1 R236 28 HlBl 2-104 0 3 2 14 34 53 33 12 4 1 0 2 R23& 29 H18! 2-104 0 4 2 14 9 28 25 9 4 0 0 2 R236 30 HlBl 2-104 0 3 t 3 9 46 19 8 4 1 0 2 R236 31 KIS! 2-104 0 3 2 3 15 39 34 12 4 1 0 2 fl236 32 HlBl 2-104 0 6 2 14 7 33 27 9 4 0 0 1 R236 33 KIS! 2-104 0 4 2 14 7 22 23 !! 4 1 0 1 R236 34 HlBl 2-104 0 3 2 14 47 62 36 20 4 1 0 2 R236 35 Hist 2-104 0 7 2 14 9 3S 23 11 4 0 0 1 R236 36 KlSl 2-104 0 3 2 14 tt 31 35 11 4 t 0 1 fl23G 37 KlSl 2-t04 0 3 2 3 40 47 45 16 4 1 0 2 R236 38 Ht8t 2-104 0 SMSO 3 1 14 8 43 27 6 2 1 0 ! R236 39 KtSt 2-104 0 2 t 5 62 54 70 16 2 1 1 1 R236 40 KlSl 2-104 0 3 1 S 33 42 52 16 2 I 0 1 R236 4! HtSl 2-104 0 3 1 S St 54 40 2! 1 ! 1 ! R236 42 KlSl 2-t04 0 4 1 5 54 51 52 20 2 1 0 1 R236 43 HISl 2-104 0 3 1 1 113 64 40 42 4 1 1 1 R236 44 KIS! 2-104 0 ! 1 0 ISO 78 54 35 4 ! 0 ! R236 45 KlSl 2-104 0 SM9S 3 1 5 24 39 3G 14 2 1 0 1 R236 46 HlBl 2-104 0 3 2 0 98 67 55 28 4 I 0 2 R236 47 KlSl 2-104 0 3 1 0 37 76 39 12 2 1 0 2 PAGE NO. 2 05/13/9! RAH LISTING FOR FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACTS - DESCRIPTIVE fi fi I fi fi i fi fi fi fi ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNO R C IB KT LN KO TH P PD CR N R236 4B H18! 2-104 0 n i ! 5 55 56 60 17 3 0 1 1 R236 49 HISl 2-104 0 2 1 0 15 42 25 12 4 1 0 2 R236 50 HlBl 2-104 0 2 1 6 137 61 72 29 3 1 1 1 R236 51 HISl 2-104 0 1 ! 0 90 45 79 20 4 t 0 1 R236 52 HIS! 2-104 0 3 t 0 94 40 47 21 4 1 0 ! R236 53 HIS! 2-104 0 3 2 5 38 42 42 18 2 1 0 1 R236 54 XlBl 2-104 0 3 1 5 24 44 36 16 4 1 0 1 R236 55 H18t 2-104 0 SH91 3 1 1 68 42 46 26 4 1 0 2 |{236 56 K181 2-104 0 3 1 S 23 37 46 10 2 I 0 1 R236 57 HISl 2-104 0 3 1 5 25 30 48 17 4 1 0 2 R236 SB KlSl 2-104 0 3 ! 5 IS 36 32 13 2 1 0 1 R236 59 HISl 2-104 0 6 2 0 5 24 24 8 4 0 0 2 R236 6! KlBl 5-28 0 3 ! 7 206 63 46 42 4 1 1 3 R236 62 HISl 5-28 0 3 1 7 297 71 75 42 4 1 1 1 ti Subtotal «i 3786 Hi Total iti 37B6 PAGE NO. 05/13/91 1 fi fi fi fi fi fi 1 fi fi fi i RAH LISTING FOR FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACTS - ATTRIBUTES ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNO H C LB Tl Cl Al T2 C2 A2 T3 C3 A3 T4 C4 A4 NN ft SITE HlBl R236 1 Ht81 1963 131 SM6 0 A 3 I 5 10 3 3 10 1 2 2 R236 2 HlBl 1963 147 7 5M9 0 3 1 5 to 3 3 9 1 3 2 R236 3 KlBl 1963 2SB i SD2 0 3 1 9 10 1 2 8 2 1 2 R236 4 HISl 1963 261 0 3 t 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 R236 5 Kldl 1963 35! 0 SK34 4 1 4 14 1 2 15 1 3 15 2 3 3 R236 6 HIS! 1963 354 0 SH32 3 14 2 4 2 1 R236 7 KtSl 1963 433 0 SH243 3 14 2 4 2 t R236 8 KlSt 1963 1075 0 18261 4 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 R236 9 KlSt 2-S23 0 1S260 3 1 10 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 R236 to HISl 2-523 0 1739S 3 1 10 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 R236 11 HISl 2-523 IS 16BB5 4 1 10 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 t 2 2 1 2 S 11236 12 uiei 2-526 0 16005 1 1 S 10 2 3 10 1 3 1 1 3 t 1 3 4 R236 13 Hist 2-104 0 4 10 2 4 1 1 R236 14 HlSl 2-104 0 Sf133 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 15 KlSt 2-104 0 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 16 HISl 2-104 0 3 1 5 10 1 2 10 1 3 2 R236 17 Kt81 2-104 0 3 1113 2 1 R236 IS HISl 2-104 0 3 2 4 12 2 8 2 t 2 R236 19 HISl 2-104 0 SM97 3 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 R236 20 KlSl 2-t04 0 18710 2 1 6 17 4 2 1 R236 21 HtSl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 t 1 2 1 1 2 R236 22 KIBl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 2 2 ! R236 23 KlSl 2-104 0 4 15 9 1 2 ! R236 24 HISl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 2 1 9 2 2 2 fl236 23 KlSl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 26 HISl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 R236 27 Hist 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 3 1 1 R236 26 HISl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 R236 29 KIBl 2-104 0 4 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 30 KlSt 2-104 0 3 13 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 3! HISl 2-104 0 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 32 KtSl 2-104 0 6 2 14 2 3 1 1 R236 33 KtSl 2-104 0 4 2 !4 2 3 2 1 R236 34 HIB! 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 35 Hiai 2-104 0 7 2 14 2 4 2 1 R23e 36 HISl 2-104 0 3 2 14 2 3 2 1 R236 37 HIS! 2-104 0 0 tt 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 R236 38 HIB! 2-104 0 snso 3 1 14 2 2 2 1 R236 39 KtSl 2-104 0 2 15 9 2 3 1 R236 40 . Hist 2-104 0 3 15 9 2 3 1 R236 41 HISl 2-104 0 3 15 9 4 3 1 R236 42 Hist 2-104 0 4 15 9 2 3 t R236 43 HIS! 2-104 0 3 1 t 1 2 3 1 R236 44 KIBl 2-104 0 1 10 2 4 3 1 R236 45 HIS! 2-104 0 SH9S 3 15 9 4 3 1 R236 46 KIBl 2-104 0 3 2 0 2 2 3 2 I 2 2 R236 47 HISl 2-104 0 3 10 9 2 2 14 1 2 2 fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi i fi fi fi fi i fi V I i i PAGE NO. 2 05/13/91 RAK LISTING FOR FLAKED LITHIC ARTIFACTS - ATTRIBUTES ACC CAT SITE LOCUS UNIT FEA LEV FNO M C LB Tl Cl At T2 C2 A2 13 C3 A3 T4 C4 A4 NN R236 48 MIB! 2-104 0 2 1 5 9 2 2 R236 49 KIS! 2-104 0 2 1 0 to 2 3 1 2 3 R236 50 HISl 2-104 0 2 1 6 17 3 3 R236 51 HtSl 2-104 0 1 1 0 8 2 2 R236 52 KlSt 2-104 0 3 ! 0 9 2 2 R236 S3 Hist 2-104 0 3 2 5 9 3 3 R236 54 HtSl 2-104 0 3 1 5 9 4 3 R236 55 HIS! 2-104 0 SH91 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 R23e 56 HISl 2-104 0 3 I 6 0 2 2 R236 57 Hist 2-104 0 3 1 5 10 1 3 9 2 3 R23e 58 KIB! 2-104 0 3 1 S 9 2 3 R236 59 KIBl 2-104 0 6 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 R236 61 KIBl 5-2B 0 3 1 7 7 4 4 7 1 4 R236 62 KIBl 5-28 0 3 1 7 7 3 4 7 14 3 ! i fi fi { f f I I I i fi i PA6E NO. 1 05/13/9! RAK LISTING FOR GROUNDSTONE ACC CAT SITE LOC UNIT LEV FDN MT HGT LH KD TH C T SH F B Lt H! Dl L2 K2 D2 ii SITE HlBl R236 60 K18! S-2 0 17943 1 S69 102 80 44 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ti Subtotal " 589 OOOOOO Hf Total tti 589 OOOOOO ATTACHMENT 6 First Addendum to: Cultural Resoiu'ce Survey Report for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia (Harris and Gallegos 1999) FIRST ADDENDUM TO: CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT FOR THE RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD BRmGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNU Prepared for: Dudek & Associates Prepared by: Gallegos & Associates August 1999 FIRST ADDENDUM TO: CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT FOR THE RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prcpared 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 IS' Quadrangle: Rancho Santa Fe Sites Newly Record^: None Key Words: Rancho Santa Fe Road, Survey Nina M. Harris iMiiis R. Galiefos Project Archaeologist Inject Manager August 1999 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 1-1 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 Siunmary REFERENCES CUED 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 NAM^ A Resumes B Record Search Request and Site Forms PAGE A-l B-1 PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 TFTLE: DATE: SOURCE OF COPIES: ABSTRACT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY First Addendum to: Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Project Carlsbad, CaUfomia 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 rcview 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 conidor) 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 literaturc rcview identified three cultural resources (CA-SDI-942, CA-SDI-11439, and CA-SDI-11440) within or adjacent to flie APE. Site CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-181) was tested and determined not significant by Hanna (1989); and, the site boundary was redefined, thercby placing the site outside the .APE. Site CA-SDI-11439 is adjacent and outside the APE. Site CA-SDI-11439 had been {weviously tested and identified as not significant (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). The present study identified one cultural rcsource (CA-SDI-11440) within the arca of potential effect. Previous work (testing) at CA-SDI-11440 included a surface collection of artifacts and excavation of shovel test pits (STPs). The suiface collection produced three artifacts and STPs werc negative, therefore site CA-SDI-11440 was identified as not significant (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 ii SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Gallegos & Associates was contracted by the Gty of Carlsbad to conduct a cultural rcsource 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 prcsent Rancho Santa Fe Road between La Costa Avenue and Questiiaven 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 paitial removal 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 Pnme Arterial Roadway. The field survey was conducted in compUance with City of Cailsbad, Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Caltrans guideUnes for federal compUance. Resimies are included as Appendix A and Record Search and Site Forms as Appendix B, 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Hie study area is undeveloped with terrain ranging fiom gentie slopes to steep knolls. Vegetation within the study arca 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 quaUty 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 rolUng hills and steeply sloping terrain, and Huehuero loam, Ramona sandy loam, and VisaUa sandy loam with 5 to 9 percent slopes located on modemte slopes (US Department of Agriculturc 1973). Disturbances include graded power line access mads, dirt bike trails, jeep trails and dumping of fiU material. PJ. 6-99 1-1 AUGUST 1999 Scale: r= 10 miles Mexico Gallegos & Associates Regional Locati(m of Project HGURE 1-1 0*14- 4MILS SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE 1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEEI '240 MILS ] KILOMETEH Gallegos & Associates Project Area Shown on Rancho Sante Fe 7.5' U S G.S. Map FIGURE 1-2 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT ROAD TAK^ OUT OP ^(VIC£ O 380 I SMlt h FMI GaBego*& Atiodates APE Shown on Devd<^ent Map FIGURE 1-3 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 rcferred to as the Eariy Period or Archaic Period. The San Dieguito arc generally accepted as the first inhabitants of tiie region, occupying San Diego County as early as 9,000 years ago. The initial occiq>ation (San Dieguito Complex) is beUeved to represent a group of people who entered San Diego Coimty from the desert. These people hunted, fished, miUed plant foods, and collected and processed shellfish. The occupation identified as the La JoUa Complex and Pauma Conq)lex is also placed within the Archaic Period. Archaeological sites refiecting tiie Eariy Period occupation are coastal sheU habitation sites, inland hunting and milling cmnpsites, and quarry sites. San I^guito and La JoUa/Pauma Complex arc beUeved by tills autiior 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 weU documented by the numerous Kumeyaay/Diegueno and Luisefio habitation sites. Artifacts and cultural pattems reflecting this Late Period occupation include smaU projectUe points, pottery, obsidian from Obsidian Butte, and cremations. The project area falls near the boundary of Kumaayay/Dieguefio and Luiseno territory (Kroeber 1925). 1.5 BACKGROUND - HISTORY During the Spanish period of occupation, the general area in and around the study area served as grazing land for cattie and other Uvestock belonging primarily to Mission San Luis Rey. After secularization of the Franciscan missions in 1834, three large tracts of surrounding land were granted to individuals by the prevaiUng Mexican govemment. These grants include Rancho Agua Hedioiida to the northwest, Rancho Las Encinitas to the south, and Rancho Los VaUeeitos de San Marcos to the nortiieast. Thc former mission holdings continued to be used for grazing cattie and horses long after the advent of American Rule and gradually became available for agricultural settiement 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 settiement. A colony, commonly known as OUvenhain, 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 tiie land Some of the original colonists remained in the area as independent land owners. Rancho Agua Hedionda ultimately became the property of the KeUy family, and land developers purchased Rancho Los VaUeeitos de San Marcos and laid out a town site tiiat 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 estabUsh rural communities. 1.5 PREVIOUS WORK This study included a Uterature 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 sheU scatters, Uthic scatters, tempoary camps, habitation sites, quarries, bedrock miUing, and isolate artifacts. The record setoch resulted in ictentifying 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 GaUegos (1986a, 1986b), Davis and Cheever (1991), GaUegos and Carrico (1985), GaUegos and Pigniolo (1989a and 1989b), Hanna (1991), Kaldenberg (1976), Kyle and GaUegos (1992), and Kyle et al. (1997), Pigniolo and Gallegos (1990), Rotii (1990), Smitii (1991a, 1991b, 1993), Talley and BuU (1980). Site CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W-181) was tested by Hanna (1991) and determined to be not significant. This work (Hanna 1991) redefined tiie 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 werc tested and identified as not significant under CEQA criteria (Pigniolo and GaUegos 1990). Site CA-SDI-11439 is located adjacent and east of tiie APE. Site CA-SDI-11440 is located witiiin ttie APE. PJ. 6-99 1-6 AUGUST 1999 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 ^proximately 7000 feet long by 200-feet wide for tiie revised Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement project. This study was conducted to identify tiie presence/absence of cultural resources witiiin the APE. Survey methods, results and site descriptions are provided below. 2.2 SURVEY METHODS The current study included completion of a field survey of tiie 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 visibiUty was exceUent in dirt roads, fair in less dense vegetation in the south portion of tiie study area and poor in dense grass areas covering the northem portion of the APE. 2.2 SURVEY RESULTS On tiie basis of tiie Uterature review, two sites were previously recorded witiiin the APE and one site adjacent and outside ttie APE. Site CA-SDI-11439 was relocated and is situated outside tiie APE. Site CA-SDI-11440 is wittiin tiie APE. Site CA-SDI-942 (SDM-W- 181) was originaUy mapped within the 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 Cultural Resources Shown on Rancho Sante Fe 7.5' U.S.G.S. Map FIGURE 2-1 2.4 SITE DESCRn»TiON CA-SDM1439 Site CA-SDI-11439 was initiaUy recorded by Pigniolo and Briggs (GaUegos and Pigniolo 1989) as three granitic bedrock miUing features each with a single basin and one mano fi:agment. The site was relocated and is situated adjacent, but outside ttie APE. In 1990, site CA-SDI-11439 was tested and identified as not significant under CEQA criteria (Pigniolo and GaUegos 1990). CA-SDM1440 Site CA-SDI-11440 was recorded by Pigniolo and Briggs (Gallegos and Piffiiolo 1989a) as several granitic milUng features with 15-i- sUcks and one mano fiagment. The location of tiie milUng features was surveyed twice after the initial survey and the miUing features werc not relocated. Steve Briggs, who had initiaUy recorded site CA-SDI-11440, was contacted and he stated that the miUing features were not at this locaUty and had been mismapped (personal communication witii D. GaUegos 1999). In 1990, tiiis locaUty was tested using five shovel test pits and surface coUection of artifacts (Pigniolo and Gallegos 1990). AU five STPs werc negative and tiie 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 within the southem portion of the APE by Malcohn Rogers. Recent work has redefined the site boundary of CA-SDI-942 outside ttie 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 Uterature review and field survey identified one cultural resource within the APE. This resource (CA-SDI-11440) was prcviously tested (Pigniolo and GaUegos 1990). Testing resulted in tiie surface coUection of three surface artifacts, and STPs identified no subsurface deposit. On the basis of this woik, CA-SDI-11440 was identified as not significant (Pigniolo and GaUegos 1990). PJ.6-99 2-3 AUGUST 1999 SECTIONS REFERENCES CFFED Cheever, Dayle and Dennis GaUegos 1986a Cultural Resource Survey Industrial Parcel #097 San Marcos, CaUfomia. On file. South Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego State University. San Diego, Califomia. 1986b Cultural Resource Survey Industrial Parcel #096 San Marcos, CaUfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center. San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Davis, M. and D. M. Cheever 1991 Phase I Archaeology Testing of Three Sites on tiie La Costa Town Center Property in Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file. South Coastal Information Center. San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia GaUegos, Dennis and Richard Carrico 1985 The La Costa Site Sdi-4405 (W945) 7000 Years Before Present. Carlsbad CaUfomia. On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State Univeisity, San Diego, Califomia. Gallegos. Dennis R. and Andrew Pigniolo 1989a Cultural Resource Survey of ttie Land Pac Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. 1989b Cultural Resource Survey of the Rancho Santa Fe Road AUgnment, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file South Coastal Infoimation Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia Hanna. David C. 1991 The Phase n Archaeological Test of Malcohn Rogers Site SDM-W-181 at La Costa Town Center in the City of Carlsbad, CaHfomia, On file South Coastal Information Center, San Diego Sate University, San Diego. PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 3-1 Kaldenberg, RusseU L. 1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of tiie La Costa Land Company Property. Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia Kroeber, AUiedL. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of Califomia. Bureau of American Etimology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kyle, Carolyn E. and Dennis R. GaUegos 1992 Archaeological Test of Five Prchistoric Sites for tiie Rancho Santa Fe Road AUgnment Project. On file South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Kyle, Carolyn E., Roxana L. PhilUps 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, Andrcw and Dennis Gallegos 1990 Cultural Resource Testing Program for the University Commons Project On fUe, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Roth, linda 1990 Archaeological and Historical Survey, 700 acres. City of Carlsbad Rancho Santa Fe Road ReaUgnment Route and Fieldstone/La Costa Associates Mass Grading Plan On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfOTnia. Smitii, 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, CaUfomia. PJ.6-99 3-2 AUGUST 1999 1991b Survey of tiie Hamilton Lot SpUt. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. 1993 An Archaeological Survey of ttie Chan Residence Project, Qty of Encinitas. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. San Diego, CaUfomia. TaUey. Paige R. and Charles BuU 1980 Impact Mitigation Report for Rancheros De La Costa. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center. San Diego State University, San Diego. CaHfomia. U.S. Department of Agriculturc 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego, CaUfomia. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 1968 Topographic m^, Rancho Santa Fe CaUfomia. (Juadrangle. Photorevised 1983. PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 3-3 SECTION 3 REFERENCES CITED Cheever, Dayle and Dennis GaUegos 1986a Cultural Resource Survey Industrial Parcel #097 San Marcos, CaUfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia. 1986b Cultural Resouix^e Survey Industrial Parcel #096 San Marcos, CMfonia. On file. South Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego State UnivCTsity, San Diego, Califomia. Davis, M. and D. M. Cheever 1991 Phase I Archaeology Testing of Tiiree Sites on the La Costo Town Center Property in Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file. Soutii Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego State Univeisity, San Diego, CaUfomia GaUegos, Dennis and Richard Carrico 1985 The La Costa Site Sdi-4405 (W945) 7000 Years Before Prcsent, Carlsbad CaUfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center. San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. GaUegos, Dennis R, and Andrew Pigniolo 1989a Cultural Resource Survey of tiie Land Pac Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. 1989b Cultural Resource Survey of tiie Rancho Santa Fe Road AUgnment, Carlsbad. CaUfomia. On file Soutii Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. CaUfomia. Hanna. David C. 1991 The Phase II Archaeological Test of Malcohn Rogers Site SDM-W-181 at La Costa Town Center in tiie City of Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file South Coastal Information Center. San Diego Sate University, San Diego. PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 3-1 Kaldenberg, RusseU L. 1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land Company Property, Carisbad, CaUfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State Univeisity, San Diego, CaHfomia Kroeber, Alfied L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of Califomia. Bureau of American Etimology BuUetin 78. Smitiisonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kyle, Carolyn E. and Dennis R. GaUegos 1992 Archaeological Test of Five Prchistoric Sites for ttie Rancho Santa Fe Road AUgnment Project. On file Soutii Coastal Information Center. San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Kyle, Carolyn E., Roxana L. PhiUips and Dennis R. GaUegos 1997 Cultural Resource Survey Report for tiie Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Project, Carlsbad, CaHfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia Pigniolo, Andrew and Dennis Gallegos 1990 Cultural Resource Testing Program for ttie University Commons Project On file, Soutti Coastal Infoimation Center, San Diego State Univeisity, San Diego, Califomia. Rotti, Unda 1990 Archaeological and Historical Survey, 700 acres. City of Carlsbad Rancho Santa Fe Road ReaUgnment Route and Fieldstone/La Costa Associates Mass Grading Plan On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Smitii, Brian F. 1991a An Archaeological Survey of ttie Brown Lot SpUt Project, City of Sicinitas TMP# 91-057. On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia. PJ.6-99 3-2 AUGUST 1999 1991b Survey of tiie Hamilton Lot SpUt. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia. 1993 An Archaeological Survey of tiie Chan Residence Project, City of Encinitas, On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia. TaUey, Paige R, and Charles BuU 1980 Intact Mitigation Report for Rancheros De La Costa. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfoniia. U.S. Department of Agriculturc 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego, CaHfomia. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 1968 Topographic m£^, Rancho Santa Fe CaUfomia. (Quadrangle, Photorevised 1983. PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 3-3 SECTIONS 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, California. 1986b Cultural Resource Survey Industrial Parcel #096 San Marcos, CaHfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Davis, M. and D. M. Cheever 1991 Phase I Archaeology Testing of Thrce Sites on tiie La Costa Town Center Property in Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Infoimation Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia GaUegos, Dennis and Richard Carrico 1985 The La Costa Site Sdi-4405 (W945) 7000 Years Before Prcsent, Carlsbad CaHfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center. San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Gallegos, Dennis R. and Andrew Pigniolo 1989a Cultural Resource Survey of ttie Land Pac Project, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file South Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia. 1989b Cultural Resource Survey of tfie Rancho Santa Fe Road AUgnment, Carlsbad, CaHfomia. On file South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Hanna, David C. 1991 The Phase n Archaeological Test of Malcohn Rogers Site SDM-W-181 at La Costa Town Center in ttie City of Carlsbad, CaHfomia. On file South Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego Sate University, San Diego. PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 3-1 Kaldenberg, RusseU L. 1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land Company Property, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaHfomia Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Burcau of American Etimology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Kyle, Carolyn E. and Dennis R. GaUegos 1992 Archaeological Test of Five Prehistoric Sites for the Rancho Santa Fe Road AUgnment Project. On file South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Kyle, Carolyn E., Roxana L. PhiUips and Dennis R. Gallegos 1997 Cultural Resource Survey Report for tiie Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge Replacement Project, Carlsbad, CaHfomia. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia Pigniolo, Andrcw and Dennis Gallegos 1990 Cultural Resource Testing Program for tiie Univeisity Commons Project On file, Soutii Coastal Infonnation Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. CaHfomia, Rotii, linda 1990 Archaeological and Historical Survey, 700 acres. City of Carlsbad Rancho Santa Fe Road ReaUgnmait Route and Fieldstone/La Costa Associates Mass Grading Plan On file. Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia. Smitii, Brian F. 1991a An Archaeological Survey of ttie Brown Lot SpHt Project. City of Encinitas TMP# 91-057. On file, Soutii Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. CaUfomia. PJ. 6-99 3-2 AUGUST 1999 1991b Survey of ttie Hamilton Lot SpHt. On file, Soutii Coastal Infomiation Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CaHfomia. 1993 An Archaeological Survey of tiie Chan Residence Project, City of Encinitas, On file, Soutti Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. Califomia. TaUey, Paige R. and Charles Bull 1980 Impact Mitigation Report for Rancheros De La Costa. On file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. U.S. Department of Agriculturc 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego, CaUfomia. Soil Conservation Service and Forcst Service. U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 1968 Topographic map, Rancho Santa Fe Caiifomia. (Quadrangle, Kiotorcvised 1983. PJ. 6-99 AUGUST 1999 3-3 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, Califomia State University, Northridge, 1973 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION Society for American Archaeology Archaeological Conservancy Society for CaUfomia Archaeology San Diego County Archaeological Society Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission 1989-1993 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Gallegos & Associates 1990 to Present Principal Investigator for cultural resource studies within southem Califomia for federal. State and local compUance. These projects include constraint level evaluations, surveys, CEQA testing programs, evaluations for National Register status, and data rccovery programs. Mr. Gallegos is knowledgeable of Federal legal requuements as well as. City, County and CEQA requirements, having worked on over 300 projects within the past 20 years. He has served as principal investigator for a number of recent federa! 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 viUage within Guajome Regional Park for ttie 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 VaUey. 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 Valley inventory (5,000 acres). North County projects include Carisbad Ranch, CarriUo Rancii 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 dala recovery programs. Major projects include the data recovery programs for BaUast Point, Batiquitos Ridge, Twin Oaks VaUey Ranch, Kuebler Ranch - Otay Mesa, Fieldstone Northview, and Daon's Santa Fe Ridge. Utility line projects involving FERC, NEPA, and 106 compliance include the SCE Palo Verde/Devers 200-mile transmission Une corridor survey, testing, and data recovery program; SDG&E La Rosita transmission Une; and the SDG&E La Jet solar study. Large-scale Class II cultural resource inventories include the Bureau of Land Management's 2.5-milHon acrc 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 with Wirth Associates, Inc. for SDG&E including: Talega Substation survey (field director); Phase II archaeological inventory report, plant site to Devers and Miguel Substations, Sundesert Nuclear Project transmission system environmental study; archaeological smdy of tiie Jamul Mountain Altemative, Sundesert Nuclear Project transmission system environmental smdy (field director); and Phase I archaeology report, plant site to VictorviUe/Lugo and Devers to Victorville/Lugo, Sundesert Nuclear Project transmission system envux)nmental study. Bureau of Land Management 1975 to 1977 Archaeologist for the USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Califomia Desert Planning Staff, Sacramento/Riverside, Califomia. Lead archaeologist for the SaUne VaUey Unit Resource Analysis (cultural resource inventory of 5(X),000 acres). Assisted in the cultural resource inventory, unit resource analysis, and management framework plan for the East Mojave Planning Units (2,000,000 acrcs in the CaUfomia Desert). Developed survey inventory and data collection methods for computer input and analysis. Developed a predictive model for locating prchistoric 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 the State of Califomia, Department of Parks and Recreation. Responsible for site testing and excavation of tiie 1812 Russian Fort Ross, Fort Ross, Califomia. 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, utilities, universities, Caltrans, HUD, and museums. Project areas include: Ventura Mission site, Ventura, Califomia; Kirk Creek, Big Sur, Califomia; Salton Sea area, Imperial County, Califomia; Crowder Canyon, San Bemardino County, Califomia; and Cuyama, Califomia, ResponsibiUties included data recovery, analysis, photography, and report writing. State of Califomia 1970 to 1973 Park aide for the 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 tiie Bureau of Land Management, CaUfomia Desert Planning Staff, April 1977. Outstanding Achievement in tiie Field of Historic Preservation, Leo CaniUo Ranch Master Plan, CaUfomia Preservation Foundation, Febmary 1998 MAJOR REPORTS 1998 Management Plan for Otay Mesa Prehistoric Resources, San Diego, Califomia. Prcparation of a management plan for prehistoric resources within a 10,000 acre smdy area. Report prepared for Caltrans and City of San Diego. 1997 (witii otiiers) Route 905 Culmral 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 (with 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-SDl- 11953, Carlsbad, CaUfomia. 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 Caritas and the City of Carisbad. 1995 (with 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. I DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98 1995 (witii others) Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Subarea V Future Urbanizing Area, San Diego, Califomia. Literature review and field survey of approximately 2,000 acres in north San Diego County. 1995 (witii others) Cultural Resource Inventory of the Santa Margarita River Valley, Camp Pendleton. Background study and field inventory of approximately 5,000 acres for Camp Pendleton, north San Diego County. 1995 (with otiiers) 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 tiie Stardust Golf Course ReaUgnment Project, City of San Diego, Califomia. Testing program to deteimine site significance for 10 prehistoric sites. Two major habitation sites within the San Diego River Valley were identified as significant. 1993 (witii otiiers) Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for ttie Reclaimed Water Distribution Master Plan for ttie Northem and Central Service Areas Phase la, San Diego County, Califomia. Literamre review and field survey for approximately 100 Unear miles. 1993 (witii Stradwick) The Archaeological Investigation of CA-SCLI-847 San Clemente Island, Califomia. Data recovery program for a 4,000 year old site on San Clemente Island for conducted for the U.S. Navy. 1993 (witfi otiiers) Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea III Fumre Urbanizing Area, San Diego, California. Literature rcview and field survey for 3,000 acres in north San Diego County, 1993 (witii otiiers) Historical/Archaeological Survey Report, One City Block Witiiin Downtown Oceanside Redevelopment Core Block Area, Oceanside. Testing program to determine presence/absence of historic resources and the significance of resources. 1993 (witii otiiers) Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea IV Future Urbanizing Area, San Diego, CaUfomia. Literature review and field survey of 1,500 acres in north San Diego County, 1992 (witfi Stmdwick) Historical/Archaeological Test Report for Daley Ranch, Escondido, CaUfomia. CEQA test program to determine importance for 23 prehistoric and historic sites. 1992 (with Stmdwick) 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 (witii Schroth and Strudwick) Historical/Archaeological Sample Inventory for Naval Air Station, Miramar, San Diego, CaHfomia. Fifteen percent sample inventory of tiie 18,433 acre faciUty to provide data for GIS ARC-INFO and site probability modeUng for land use planning. 1992 (editor) Cultural Resource Evaluation for tfie ViUage of Tenaja, CA-RIV-271 and CA-RIV- 3973, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest Testing program conducted to determine National Register eligibility. 1992 (witfi Kyle) Historical/Archaeological Survey and National Register Evaluation Report for Camp Pendleton MUitaiy FamUy Housing, San Diego, Califomia. Survey and testing program to identify and determine National Register properties. 1990 (witfi Schrotfi) Archaeological Investigations of a Five Hundred Year Old Settiement at Twin Oaks VaUey Ranch, San Marcos, CaHfomia. A data recovery program for a late period habitation site in compliance with federal, state and local requirements. 1990 (witii Kyle) Early Period Occupation at tiie Kuebler Ranch Site SDi-8654. Otay Mesa, San Diego County, Calrfomia. A data recovery program for a 7,000 years old site on Otay Mesa prepared for the County of San Diego, 1989 (witfi otfiers) Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing Program for lilac Ranch, VaUey Center, Califomia. Survey of 1,000acres and testing program for 20prehistoric and- historic sites. 1989 (witii ottiers) Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing Program for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista, Califomia. Survey of 1,000 acres and testing of historic and prchistoric sites for site importance under CEQA, 1988 (witfi otfiers) Cultural Resource Inventory and Data Acquisition Program, GEO East Mesa Geotiiermal Project, Imperial VaUey, Califomia. Cultural resource inventory of 1000 acrcs for geothermal 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 otiiers) Cultural Resource Survey and Testing Program for the East Mesa Detention Facility, San Diego Califomia. Project involved the survey of 523 acres, the identification of eight prehistoric and one historic site, and the testing of these sites with respect to CEQA. Three of tiiese sites were quarry locaUties on Otay Mesa. Report prepared for the County of San Diego. 1988 (witii otiiers) Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164), San Diego, Califomia. Report involved tiie excavation of a 2.5 percent sample within a coastal shell midden site, dated from 6000 to 1500 years before present. Report prepared for the U.S. Navy. 1987 (witfi otfiers) Historical/prehistoric Inventory for tfie Green Dragon Colony, La JoUa Califomia. Report documents tfie historical development of the Green Dragon Colony. EIR report for the City of San Diego. 1987 (witfi otfiers) Cultural Resource Inventory for Rancho La Quinta. Inventory of 1272 acres identifying six prchistoric sites within CoacheUa VaUey, Riverside County, Califomia. Report prepared for the Landmark Land Company. 1987 (witfi otfiers) Subsurface Testing Program to Identify and Evaluate Cultural Resources for ttie Santa Barbara RetaU Revitalization Project. Testing program to identify historical and prehistoric sites within four city blocks of downtown Santa Barbara. Report prepared for the City of Santa Barbara. 1986 (witii otfiers) Cultural and Paieontological Survey and Testing for Pacific Rim. Carlsbad, Califonua. Project involved the survey of over 1,000 acres along the northem shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, the identification of 14 prchistoric, 1 historic, and 1 paleontologies site, and the testing of prehistoric and historic sites to determine importance under CEQA. Report prepared for the City of Carlsbad. 1986 (witii Cheever) Cultural Resource Testing Program for Archaeological Sites SDI-607, -612, -212, 6825 and W-105, Carlsbad, Califomia, Testing program for five sites located along the south shore of Batiquitos Lagoon for tiie 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 Cahuilla Prehistoric Occupation at IMP-4434 and IMP-5167, Imperial VaUey, Califomia. Data recovery for Ryerson Concrete Company. DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98 1985 Early and Late Period Occupation at Rogers Ridge (SDI-4845, W-182), Carisbad, Califomia. 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 (witii otiiers) 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, CaUfomia. 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 VaUey, California. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management 1983 Excavation of Diegueno/Ipai Subsistence Camps above Encinitas Creek: A Data Recovery Program for Fieldstone Northview, Encitutas, Califomia. Report prepared for the Heldstone Development Company. 1983 Archaeological Overview for tiie 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 otiiers) Cultural Resource Inventory and National Register Assessment of tiie Soutiiem Califomia Edison Palo Verde to Devers Transmission line Corridor (Califomia portion). Prepared for Southem Califomia Edison, Rosemead, Califomia. 1980 (witii otiiers) Class n Cultural Resource Inventory of East Mesa and West Mesa Regions, Imperial VaUey, Califomia. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, Califomia. 1979 (witii otfiers) Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, Califomia. 1978 (witfi White) An Archaeological Survey of tfie Talega Substation Site. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia, 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 Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia. DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98 1978 Jamul Mountains Altemative Route Suitability Review, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia. 1977 (witfi others) Phase I Aiihaeology Report, Plant Site to Victorville/Lugo and Devers to Victorville/Lugo, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transnussion System Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth, Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia. 1977 Saline VaUey Unit Resource Analysis - Culmral Resources. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, Califomia. 1976 (witfi Hanks) East Mojave Management Framework Plan - Culmral Resources. Prepared for USDI, Burcau of Land Management, CaUfomia Desert Planning Staff, Riverside, Califomia. PUBLICATIONS Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at BaUast Point Prehistoric Site SDi-48 (W-164), San Diego, Califomia. (with Carolyn Kyle). Coyote Press, Salinas, California, No. 40, 1998 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County (with Patricia Masters, Ph.D.). In: Archaeology of the Califbmia Coast During the Middle Holocene^ University of Califomia, Los Angeles, Califomia. A Review and Synthesis of the Archaeological Record for the Lower San Diego River Valley. Society for Califomia Archaeology 1995, San Diego, CaUfomia, Volume 8. 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. Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In: Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal Califomia, Instimte of Archaeology, University of Califomia, Los Angeles, 1991. A Review and Syntiiesis of Environmental and Culmral Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon 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 Guijarros Quarterly, 3:2. Early Man and a Cultural 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 Antfiropology, 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 Survey and Test, Beckman Property Test, Otay 69 kV Survey, Santa Margarita River Valley Survey and Test, Subarea V Survey, Clarlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Project Test, Nortii Rios Drive Subdivision Test, Sorrento VaUey Utilities Improvement Project Monitoring, Viejas Springs VUlage Test and Monitoring, Jesmond Dene Property Survey and Test, Point Loma Test, Anza Bonego 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 Monitoring Highpointe Property Survey. ISKCON Property Survey. Field technician for SR-905 Tests, Skyline Wesleyan Data Recovery, Remington Hills Data Recovery, Carisbad Golf Course Test and others. ARCHAEOLOGY ADVISORY GROUP 1985-1994 Responsible for field direction, lithic analysis, graphics and write up for Glerm Ranch Road Right-of-Way, Hanson Dam Projects, field direction for Littie 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 technician 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 ASSOCIATES April 1994 Responsibilities include field technician for excavation at Chinatown/Mission, Ventura LSA AND ASSOCIATES August 1992-September 1992 Responsible as filed technician for Lake Matthews test excavations and H.B. Ranches assessment update, Orange County. BRIAN 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 (witfi otfiers) 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 otfiers) Archaeology and Paleontology of the Tsuma Property, San Clemente, Califomia 1992 (with otfiers) A Cultural Source Survey of Hansen Dam Flood Control Basin. Los Angeles, Califomia. 1995 (with others) Archaeological Survey and Test of Sites CA-SDI-1014 and CA-SDI-8797 for Carisbad Specific Plan Amendment EIR, Carlsbad. Califomia. 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, California. 1996 (witii otfiers) Archaeological Survey for the Viejas Reclamation Project and the Viejas Springs ViUage Project and Viejas Indian Reservation, San Diego, Califomia. 1998 (witii otfiers) Archaeological Test to Determine National Register Eligibility for Sites CA-SDI-4906 and CA-SDI-6706, Viejas Indian Reservation, San Diego, California. Archaeological Siuvey of the Mini Max Property, City of San Diego, California Cultural Resource Survey Report for Nason Basin, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Districy, Riverside, Califomia Rainforest Ranch Cultural Resource Survey and Significance Test for Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI-14932, CA-SDi-14937, CA-SDI-14938 and CA-SDI-14946, County of San Diego, CaUfomia The 4,000 Year Old Lego Crescentic-Hearth Site (CA-SDI-12814), Carlsbad, Califomia 1999 (witii otiiers) Cultural Resource Survey Report for Highpointe Property, San Marcos, Califomia Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Smdy Bus Alternatives, San Diego County, Califomia Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Village of Ystagua Water Main Break, City of San Diego, Califomia Cultural Resource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Interstate 5 Alternatives, 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 Rcsource Literature Review for the North Coast Transportation Study Arterial Streets Alternative Can Diego County, California Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Mission Cove Property, San Marcos, Caiifomia Del Mar Mesa Road Culmral Resource Literature Review and Test Report for CA-SDI- 14117 San Diego, California (LDR No, 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, Califomia PRESENTATIONS 1998 Society of Califomia Archaeology Continued Research on Fired Altered Rock Features Types in San Diego County (witii A Schrotii) Temporal Considerations of Two Types of Rock Features Found at Camp Pendleton APPENDIXB RECORD SEARCH REQUEST AND SITE RECORD FORMS I Oiego Stote UnivefHty South Contol Information Center Social Science Keseocch Loborotory CoSege of Arts and letters SSOO Componile Oiive San[)iegoCA 92I62-4S3; 6I9-S94-568? fAX: 619-594. 1358 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 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 localions 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 infomiation from the National Register of Historic Properties, Califomia State Landmarks California Points of Historic Interest, and other historic property lists has been included Archaeological Site Location(s) check: PAF Historical Site Location(s) check: PAF Bibliographic Materials check: PAF Historic Map(s) check: PAF Historical Resources check: PAF Date: June 26. 1999 Date: June 26, 1999 Date: June 26. 1999 Date: June 26, 1999 Date: June 26. 1999 IHI {AMIORNIA MAM UNIVtB'.llr - Mi-:l<iM - (hniiti.rl Wtind. .<in.u . \hmuim-/ Hill-,. IICMIO . I iill...ii><i. Il.iymitri . HtimlHililf • lonrj H('!i-ii .\i,s A,i,p.\,--.. IAw.<«w AKIIIHP', San Diego Museum of Man REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITH FH RS RfiCORD RF.At^ru 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 The Record Search for tiie above referenced project has been completed. Archaeological site file mfonnation is enclosed for tiie following sites located witfiin or in tfie vicinity ofthe project area: W-179 W-896 W-1741 W-3473 W-4478 [tfini] W-181 W-917 W-1992 W-4355 W-4482 W-191 W.940 [timi] W-2210 W-4397 W-5037 W-577 W-951 W-2379 [thru] W-4471 [tfmi] W-6495 W-659 W-1115 W-2382 W-4474 Bibliographic infonnation is enclosed for tfie following reports on archaeological environmental impact smdies conducted witfiin or in tfie vicinity ofthe project area: ElS-23 EIS-673 EIS-42 EIS-917 EIS-588 EIS-978 EIS-623 EIS-1077 EIS-671 EIS-1356 This Record Search is based only on infonnation contained in tfie 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 1.350 EI Prado, Balboa Park, San Diogo, California 92101, 619-239-2001, FAX 619-239-2749 An educational, non-profit corporabon founded in 1915 collecting for posterity and displaying thc life and history of mLinkind, i li Stato or California . The Resources Agency OEPARTMENT OF PARKS ANO RECREATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL SfTE RECORD L County: __SaQ_Qig32 2. USGS Quad: Rancho .g.m. m^mi 3. UTM Coordinates: Zone n / Ayg^^^n Permanoni Trinomiaf:. Temporary Number; Q.S-8 Agency Designalion: .Supplomontf _ Photorevised. A Tnu^n.K- .oo « / 3661940 Northing f ) P ordinates. 123.mmSJJ5_m„,E (from NW corner of map)6. Elevation 560 fP«, ,, 11-Daplh: UaJJMimcm Meihod of Doierminatlon: - JiaMnauaa.(^) -Png m^no fr^nmnm ,p ,,,, ^rrtfrnni Hii ilii .() It. Non-Artifactual Constituents: None nh.,n,.^ • Afn„a„on and Address: s^r...... nr.^: -pt J , State of California - Tho Rosourcos Agoncy DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD PagQ_2_of_4_ 18. Human Remains: None observed. Pormanont Trinomial: .Supplomontf Temporary Number: O-S-8 Agency Designalion: 19. Site Integrity: .Good. Area around tho faature annear.; relitivelv undisturbed allhn.jgh rijft tfiasiS—a£fi present in the area. 20. Nearest Water (type, distance and direction): SmaH Seasonal dratnane annrnv gn m yy f) 21. Largest Body of Water within 1 km (type, distance and direction): Creek aoprnif iMm N( ) 22. Vegetation Community (site vicinity): Coastal .g^^A Scnjb. fPiant Ust ()] () 23. Vegetation Community (on site): Coastal Sa,iA .grn.h jpiapt ust ()] () References for above; Munz 1974 ^ j 24. Site Soit: Rgtfdigh SiitY ]nm ( ) 25. Sun-ounding Soil: Reddish sillv loam f) 26. GeoIoQv: Plutonin. ( ) 27. Landform Slope. /) 28. Slope: go denrsfts .( ) 29. Exposure: West. 30. Landowner(s) (and/or lenanis) and Address ^ 31. Remarks. - .() .() ( ) 32. References: PiontOlQ. Andrew and Dennis fiallPnn^ IORO Ctjlt.iral Rp^nMree Survey nf thp Land Pac Project. Carishari r;^f|fnmfn 33. Name of Project Questhaven 34. Type of Investigation: Surface SLiry^y, 35. Site Accession Number: 36. Photos: Y£S 37. Photo Accession Number; Curated At; ERC Environmental. Taken By: Sleven H. Brioos. On File At: ERC Environmental .( ) .( ) .( ) -() iitftiftrtiiitrSitlilMi- tCHEOUOGlCAL SITE MAP O-S-8 ^ N mil (^ ' { \ I ' I ' 1 (I f I /- / Yxf\^i^ I I I I « I I I 1 Ll O / // / / i! { Permanent Trinomial: Supplomentf Temporary Number: Q-S-9 . Agency Designalion: . (IS'). Photorevised State of California - The Resourcos Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Paoe 1 of 4 1. Countv: _. San Diego 2. USGS Quad: Rancho Santa Fa n ?t'\ j^ggg^ 3. UTM Coordinates: Zone U / 4794?o Easting / 36621 ?0 Northing ( ) 4. Townshipiaa Rangem'^IM of_S£1/4 ofjmi/^ ofSWlM of SecllonJ[a_Base (Mer) ) 5. Map Coordinates: J2Q_mmS J_L4_mmE (from NW corner of map)6. Elevation 560 feet, t) 7. Location: Th? gitft 15 fii?PrQXimatglY 50m east of Rancho Santa Fe Road south nf Questhaven Rga^ t?9tWftQn San Marco?; and La Costa in the Citv of Carisbad. California, it is loratPri nn fh" east side of a small knnll which has recentiv been oraripri 8. Prehistoric XX Historic Protohistoric () 9. Sito Description: Bedrock milling gtafion wifh rftVPral features containing ISi- sllrks. one mann fragment was stuftk in a crack betwpen the hpdrr>ck. 10. Area:l£J^m{length)xI5_E3^m(width) 225_m2. Method of Determination: Estimation () 11. Depth: Unknownem Method of Determination: - 12. Features: Several granitic bedrock milling features with greatar than IS fillrks 13. Artifacts: One mano fragment was observwd in a crack hetwppp the berimrlf 14. Non-Artifactual Constituents: None observed .() IS.Dats Recorded: 9/?3/99 16. Recorded Bv:Andrew Pigniolo and Steven H. Brioos f \ 17. Affiliation and Address: ERC Environmental. 5510 Morehouse Dr.San Dieoo. CA 92121 f) I Stato of Califomia - The Rosourcos Agency OEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Pago_2_of_l_ 18. Human Remains; . None oh^prved Permanent Trinomial: Temporary Number; Q-S-Q Agency Designation: .Supplement! 20. Nearest Water (type, distance and direction,: Sn.., ^ 22. VegetaUon Communtty (site vicinity,: Coa^„ ...... ^ ,j 23. Vegetation Community (on site): Co..,., S,... ^..i. ,^11,1, List ()) () References for above: Muny 1074 26- G«oiogy:_Elul2ni!L ( , 27. Landform Slone 28, Slope: 20 dpgf^o^^ 30. Landowner(s) (and/or tenants) and Address ,() 29. Exposure: West. -() 31. Remarits. - 32^References:.. Pigni.lo Andrew norf Pnnni- nmeoos i.«o n.. ^ i-antfPafTProiert Carish^n rf^ijf^rnfn ' 35. Sito Accession Number: 36. Photos: XSS. 37. Photo Accession Number: ^"'•3*«d At: FRC Fnvir^nn-rT^I - Taken By; Steven H — On File At: ERC Fnvirnnm«p!^| .( ) .( ) ,( ) ,() |t!li!!l|^<|ii<ilMi.tm»:H|>fji« lO^HOLOGJCALSITc MA? 9 ICULTURES: SD-II and iXf and Lit. II at W-181-A. WATER: Same as for W-179. LOCATION: On a hill on north rim of North Fork of Encinitas Creek. Elev. 325 '. NAi^E: North Hill AREA: 1/2 acre concentration with 2 acres of scattered marginal occupation. tCHITECTURE: There are 2 large cairns of boulders here which haveTYPE: Highland accretion camp. Iplumped into an erosional cirque. pay be Lit, II roasting platforms or sweat-house debris. URIALS: None. ETROS: None. JCNTRUSIVES: fHISTORY: First settled by SD-II and occupied over Into third phase. A.f \l «°trated occupation, probably because the surrounding ower h«noH ^elow this site^ a 50- contour ° ^ °^ " °°°"Patlon. This is on the I EMARKS: The Lit. II site is designated W-181-A. There Is some slight I'Sllnf f^?^ material on this sfte as well. BeglSg at Hs? a^d ^«^ni^f> °° " S«"«^al elevation to W-182 and beyond it to ne end of the Mesa is continuous evidence of SD-II tnaterial. This is for a total distance of 1-3/4 miles. As a matter of fact, there if no f o^d°Lri%^s'?^'" ""r"* ^'J^""" "^""^^ ?laW^'ca^ot be nfn'Siego Cou^t;.'""'''" concentratiolTof SD occVtlon Qatkgos & ^sociates 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 PrcDan^d by DAVID C. HANNA PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Regional Environmenial Consultants '4S0M««n\M.,no.d.S«»Di.go.CA»2I0e (619J54Mei1 RECON NUMBER 2212A SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 FIGURE 4. LOCATION OF EXCAVATIONS AT SOM-W-181 REC0N