HomeMy WebLinkAbout3593; Faraday Avenue Extention; Faraday Avenue Extention; 1999-08-24DATA RECOVERY RESULTS FOR THE
NORTHERN PORTION OF CA-SDI-8303,
FARADAY AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Prepared for
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
4241 Jutland Drive, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92117-3653
619/270-5066 fax 270-5414
Prepared by
'AYLE M. CHEEVER
NIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST
RECON NUMBER 3169A
AUGUST 24, 1999
\f This document printed on recycled paper
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Authors:
Consulting Firm:
Report Date:
Report Title:
Submitted to:
Prepared for:
Contract Number:
Judy A. Berryman, Ph.D., and Dayle M. Cheever
Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON)
4241 Jutland Drive, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92117-3653
August 24, 1999
Data Recovery Results for the Northem Portion of CA-
SDI-8303, Faraday Avenue Extension Project, City of
Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad, Public Works, Engineering Division
City of Carlsbad
Public Works Department, Engineering Division
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
RECON Number 3169A
USGS Quadrangle Map: San Luis Rey Quad
Acreage: -I-IO acres - data recovery for road extension
Keywords: CA-SDI-8303, prehistoric, settlement, Batiquitos Lagoon,
North County, Faraday Avenue, shell, ceramics, flaked
lithic artifacts, ground stone, radiocarbon date, camp,
seasonal.
Abstract: A data recovery program was conducted on the northem portion of CA-
SDI-8303 in support of the Faraday Avenue Extension project in Carlsbad, Califomia.
The field investigations were conducted between June 14 and June 30, 1999 by RECON
cultural resource staff. The site consisted of a dispersed scatter of marine shellfish
fragments and a diffuse scatter of cobble-based tools. Archaeological investigations were
restricted to areas impacted by the proposed Faraday Avenue extension. The larger area
of the site outside the area of potential effect (APE) was not subjected to data recovery
efforts. Twenty-seven square meters of archaeological deposit within the APE were
excavated for this data recovery effort. Reconnaissance and collection of surface artifacts
supplemented materials collected from the units. Both individual sample units and block
exposures were excavated to maximize the sample coverage. The deposit integrity was
poor due to agriculture, local dumping, and bioturbation. Horizontal relationships have
been generalized by these activities, particularly in Locus A, where mechanical blading
or some form of soil removal has altered the original topographic contours. Identification
of the original site setting and configuration for this portion of CA-SDI-8303 was not
possible.
Collected materials indicate that this area of CA-SDI-8303 represents a seasonal Late
Prehistoric Period campsite, occupied on a short-term basis. Research issues regarding
pattems of settlement in the Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon regions, relating to
continued reliance on lagoon resources, and seasonal site occupation(s), were only
partially examined due to the disturbed condition of the site and the absence of intact
features. Based on the data recovered during the mitigation program, no further
controlled excavation is recommended or required for this northem portion of CA-SDI-
8303. The final stage of work at this site will be to complete monitoring of the
constmction grading.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Management Summary 1
Undertaking Information 2
Setting 2
A. Geology and Soil 6
B. Paleoenvironment 7
Research Design 8
A. Cultural Context 8
B. Theoretical Orientation 18
C. Research Issues 25
D. Research Questions 33
E. Field and Laboratory Investigations 40
Methods 40
A. Field Methods 40
B. Laboratory Methods 46
Results 46
A. Field Investigations 48
B. Artifact Discussion 53
Research Discussion 79
A. Chronology 82
B. Site Type/Settlement Pattems 83
C. Subsistence Strategies 85
D. Lithic Technology 85
E. Trade and Travel 86
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Recommendations 88
Project Staff 89
References Cited 90
FIGURES
Regional location of the project 3
Project vicinity U.S.G.S. map 4
Site CA-SDL8303, Loci A and B 41
Site CA-SDI-8303, Locus A 43
Site CA-SDI-8303, Locus B 45
North sidewall profiles. Unit 4 and Unit 8 52
PHOTOGRAPHS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Overview of site SDI-8303 5
View of Locus A, site SDL8303 49
View of Unit 1 after excavation, site CA-SDI-8303 49
View of Unit 6 after excavation ,site CA-SDI-8303 50
View of Unit 8 after excavation ,site CA-SDI-8303 50
View of Unit 4 after excavation, site CA-SDI-8303 51
View of Locus B, site SDI-8303 51
Mano and basin fragrments 55
Projectile points from CA-SDI-8303 58
Hammerstone from CA-SDI-8303 60
End view of same hammerstones showing cmshing damage 60
Chopper from CA-SDI-8303 61
Core with use as hammerstone from CA-SDI-8303 63
Scraper with use as hammerstone from CA-SDI-8303 63
Bone awl tip from CA-SDI-8303 70
Shell beads from CA-SDI-8303 70
TABLES
Cultural Characteristic 26
Environmental Data Sorted in Order of Site Number 28
Radiocarbon Results for Sites in the Carlsbad Area 29
Unit Locations 44
Artifact/Ecofact Recovery: Surface and Units 47
Distribution of Ground stone Artifacts- Locus A 54
Distribution of Projectile Points- Locus A 56
Distribution of Cobble Tools- Locus A 62
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
TABLES (cont.)
9:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Distribution of Flake Tools- Locus A 65
Distribution of Cores 66
Debitage Typology 67
Distribution of Debitage - Loci A and B 68
Distribution of Tizon Brown Ware Sherds - Loci A and B 71
Distribution of Animal Bone - Loci A and B 73
Distribution of Speciated Marine Shellfish - RECON and Gallegos (1999) 75
Distribution by Percentage (Weight) for Shellfish 76
Radiocarbon Samples 77
Percentage of Artifact/Ecofact Recovered - Surface and Units 80
Density of Materials by Locus by Cubic Meters 81
ATTACHMENTS
1: Catalog and analysis
2: Resumes for key project personnel
Management Summary
A data recovery program was conducted on the northem portion of CA-SDI-8303 in
association with the Faraday Avenue Extension project in Carlsbad, Califomia. The field
investigations were conducted between June 14 and June 30, 1999 by RECON cultural
resource staff. The area of the site examined consists of a dispersed scatter of marine
shellfish fragments and a diffuse scatter of cobble-based tools. A significance evaluation
of this northem portion of CA-SDI-8303 by Gallegos (1999) indicated that two activity
foci are present along the ridgeline, which comprises the northem limits of the larger site
area. These loci consist of disturbed anthrosols (midden soil), artifacts, including
ceramics, milling implements, flaked stone, and a scatter of marine shell. Archaeological
investigations were restricted to areas to be impacted by the proposed Faraday Avenue
Extension. Portions of the site outside the area of potential effect (APE) were not
subjected to data recovery efforts.
Twenty-seven square meters of archaeological deposit were excavated for this data
recovery effort. The combined depths of the 27 units comprised 10.4 cubic meters of soil.
Reconnaissance and collection of surface artifacts supplemented materials collected from
the units. Excavation units were distributed across the project area within the defined
limits of site deposit as established by the Gallegos study (1999). Both individual sample
units and block exposures were excavated to maximize the sample coverage. Units 1-14
and Units 21-25 were excavated on the larger westem segment (Locus A) of the site (near
Gallegos' Unit 4a), Units 15-19 on the smaller eastem (Locus B) segment (near Gallegos'
Unit 3a), and Units 26 and 27 were excavated on a small bench situated between Loci A
and B. The deposit integrity was poor due to agricultural activity, local dumping, and
bioturbation. Horizontal relationships have been generalized by these activities,
particularly in Locus A, where mechanical blading or some form of soil removal has
altered the original topographic contours. The original site setting and configuration for
this portion of CA-SDI-8303 was not determined.
The portion of CA-SDI-8303 that was sampled appears to represent a seasonal campsite,
occupied on a short-term basis. Research issues regarding pattems of settlement in the
Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon regions, relating to continued reliance on lagoon
resources and seasonal site occupation(s), were only partially examined due to the
disturbed condition of the site and the absence of intact features.
Based on the data recovered during the mitigation program, no further controlled
sampling is recommended or required for this northem portion of CA-SDI-8303. A
qualified archaeological monitor will be present during clearing and constmction grading
in the vicinity of this site. A report on the monitoring program will be prepared
separately.
Undertaking Information
A data recovery program on the northem portion of CA-SDI-8303 was completed as
required by the City of Carlsbad for mitigation of project impacts from the proposed
Faraday Avenue Extension project. As part of the environmental review for the proposed
extension of Faraday Avenue, it was determined by Gallegos and Associates (1999) that
the northem portion of CA-SDI-8303, was situated within the Faraday Avenue Extension
alignment, and that this area of archaeological deposit represent a significant prehistoric
. cultural resource. The data recovery program developed by RECON was conducted to
determine the size, content, and condition of this cultural resource area and to apply the
recovered materials towards furthering our understanding of important archaeological
research issues, specifically, settlement, subsistence, and culture change in the Agua
Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon catchment areas.
Setting
The Faraday Avenue Extension project is located in the southwestem portion of the city
of Carlsbad (Figures 1 and 2). The alignment is north of Palomar Airport Road and west
of College Boulevard. Specifically, the proposed project is the westward extension of
Faraday Avenue from its present terminus to an intersection with Cannon Road. The
route of the extension generally follows the northem flanks of the Macario Canyon
drainage, which flows, into the eastem end of Agua Hedionda.
The archaeological study area is approximately 10 acres in size. Elevations range from 20
to 265 feet above mean sea level. The landform fits within the descriptive category of
marine terrace with relatively steep hillsides. Areas that have not been altered for
farming, retain fairly steep slopes. The native coastal sage scmb is restricted to areas
along the northeastem portion of the study area. The slopes of Macario Canyon draining
into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon have been altered for agriculture activities and only
small patches of native plant growth remain.
Much, if not all of the area has been impacted by agriculture, constmction of dirt roads,
and dumping. Plowing and planting has occurred on most of the flatter areas of land,
with the general effect of mixing the upper several feet of soil. In the vicinity of
archaeological deposits these activities have displaced surface and subsurface artifacts
and ecofaunal materials. Agricultural impacts are present across the southem portions of
the property as evidenced by flattening of the natural contours, displaced native
vegetation, constmction of connecting dirt field roads, piles of discarded irrigation pipes,
and general refuse associated with coastal farming (Photograph 1).
OCEANSIDE
CARLSBAD' [78l
PROJECT LOCATION
A
LEUCADIA^
ENCINITAS
O
3
0 t
16 3
M :jobs\3169\graphics\fig-1 .cdr
MILES 0
FIGURE 1
Regional Location of the Project
Map Source: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute topographic maps, San Luis Rey
and Encinitas quadrangles
0 FEET 2000 4000
FIGURE 2
Project Vicinity
Area of Study
PHOTOGRAPH 1
Overview of Site SDI-8303
CD
A mix of Diegan coastal sage scmb, and to a lesser extent chaparral, comprise the native
vegetation on the canyon margins. The sage scmb quality varies significantly from
location to location depending primarily on the level of historical human activities
present at each locale. Weedy elements, including sizeable tracts of Eurasian grasses and
areas degraded by invasive herbs are clustered around the existing agricultural fields.
Minimal stands of native vegetation are present in that portion of CA-SDI-8303 inside
the APE.
The animals associated with this plant community include bmsh and cottontail rabbits,
ground squirrel, pocket gopher, wood rat, deer, and coyote. A number of snakes and
lizards are expected ih this habitat as well as year-round and migratory birds. The close
proximity of Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons also afforded access to marine
vertebrates and invertebrates. Between the climate, location, and resources, the project
vicinity afforded a most desirable prehistoric settlement locale.
A. Geology and Soil
The varied topography of the general area provides a complex exposure of slopes and
steep drainages. Las Flores loamy fine sand, Salinas clay loam, and Diablo clay soil types
are found along the lower slopes associated with sage scmb and agricultural lands.
Loamy alluvial land of the Huehuero complex is found on the upper slopes near the
ridgeline and is more closely associated with chaparral (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1973).
The use of portions of the project area for agriculture has resulted in changes to the soil.
Agricultural activity has altered the natural profile of the soil and intermixed soil
amendments, trash, and broken pieces of the underlying sandstone substrate. In areas
where prehistoric cultural activities were focused, the naturally developed and
bioturbated anthrosols have also been incorporated. Currently there are two principle soil
types present in the project area. The upper stratum, 0-40 centimeters (cm) below the
surface, consists of a loose and friable poorly sorted sandy loam. The underlying stratum
is consolidated sandstone with occasional weak or weathered areas. The contact between
the two strata undulates, probably due to alterations caused by agricultural equipment and
rodent burrowing activity. A formation of sandstone is eroding from the vertical face of
the northern slope area between Locus A and Locus B. Sandstone was used by aboriginal
populations as source stone for the manufacture of manos, metates, shaft straighteners,
and other shaped or ground stone implements.
B. Paleoenvironment
It is an undisputed fact that there have been shifts in environmental conditions throughout
the Holocene (the past 10,000 years) (Mehringer 1967; Axelrod 1983). Evidence for
these changes has come primarily from observations of geological conditions on the coast
and paleobotanical studies completed in the Great Basin area. Antevs (1952) has
discussed the climatic history of Califomia in terms of three post-Pleistocene periods: the
Anathermal, the Altithermal, and Medithermal.
Warren and Pavesic (1963) summarized the available pollen, data from the Great Basin
and the implications for reconstmcting paleoenvironments in coastal Califomia. They
proposed that the period after 10,000 years before the present (B.P.) was a drying trend
that culminated in a change from an arboreal (tree-dominated) to a predominantly
grassland-dominated community by 7,000 years B.P. Grasslands altemated with desert
environments during short intervals over the subsequent centuries until there was a
stabilization to the dry environments of today's deserts. Warren and Pavesic suggest that
"the spread of La Jolla cultural elements to the Coast may be correlated with the
beginning of the desiccation of the now desert regions .... Later, with further
desiccation of the desert areas, the coast must have been more strongly influenced by
diffusion and migration of peoples from the interior" (Warren and Pavesic 1963).
Conclusions regarding changes in temperature, rainfall, and vegetation pattems have been
extrapolated for coastal Califomia as well. Eighmey (1992) summarized the available
information (Mehringer 1967; Inman 1983; Axlerod 1983) regarding known changes in
coastal vegetation pattems during the Holocene. A general trend of increasing mean
temperatures and aridity resulted in the gradual retreat of conifer forests from the interior
and coastal areas and a corresponding replacement by oak woodlands and coastal sage
scmb. Paleobotanical data from Mehringer (1967), Inman (1983), and Axlerod (1983)
suggest that nuts from conifers (such as pines and cypress) may have represented a
substantial food resource on the coast and, consequently, represented a substantial
influence on settlement patteming during the early period of prehistory.
In addition to increasingly inhospitable climatic conditions in the interior regions, there
were considerable changes in the physiography of the coast which resulted from the
general warming and drying trend. Inman (1983) and Masters (1988) discuss plate
tectonics and paleoclimatic changes and the resulting rise of the sea level during the past
10,000 years. Although this rise slowed after 6,000 years B.P. (having subsequently risen
approximately five meters), alteration of the coast line configuration is a factor in the
explanation of cultural resource settlement pattems. Warren and Pavesic (1963) also
argue that this alteration is a factor in the viability of the lagoons for various shellfish
populations.
These alterations have strong ramifications for the Faraday Avenue Extension study area
as Batiquitos Lagoon is a prominent element of the physical environment for the area,
and the presence of marine shellfish remains in virtually all of the sites in the region
further forges the link between these zones. While sea level rose, the lagoons were well-
flushed and thus supported large populations of rock-dwelling and sandy beach-dwelling
shellfish. When the rise in sea level slowed and perhaps rainfall reduced, the lagoons
became progressively silted and shellfish populations were reduced. These alterations
have been discussed at length by local archaeologists with regard to the ramifications
they had for human settlement and cultural practices. Some of those discussions are
summarized below.
Research Design
The research design presented for the data recovery investigation of site CA-SDI-8083
presents the cultural context as the foundation for understanding the theoretical
orientation of the current study. The cultural context is summarized in the presentation of
the theoretical orientation and followed by a discussion of the research issues relevant to
the current study. Test implications, data requirements, and the goals of the field and
laboratory investigations are presented at the conclusion of the Research Design section.
A. Cultural Context
The following discussion of prehistoric and early historic-era cultural development in the
study region is presented as the foundation for the theoretical orientation which follows.
Readers familiar with the literature and summaries of the regional culture history will
find similarities between this report and other regional discussions. The goal of the
current study is to identify how CA-SDI-8303 relates with other sites in the study region
and what effect this relationship has on the regional culture history presented below.
The traditional culture history for San Diego County consists of three periods: San
Dieguito, La Jolla (Archaic), and Luiseno/Diegueno or Late Prehistoric. These three
periods were first identified in the literature by Malcolm Rogers, who conducted
archaeological survey, research, and excavation from 1919 through 1945 throughout the
county. Most of this work was conducted under the auspices of the San Diego Museum
of Man and, as Hanna (1991) has pointed out, Rogers' work was conducted in a time
when classification and chronology were the primary goals of archaeology. Most
archaeological investigations completed subsequent to Rogers' proposed chronology
have assessed archaeological sites as to where they fit within the framework established
by Rogers. With the inception of the "New Archaeology," some archaeological research
shifted to a deductive approach where the validity of this framework was tested with
archaeological data from the sites.
The goal of the New Archaeology was to develop and constantly refine models of human
behavior. The first step in this more scientifically based research approach is to posit
hypotheses, test implications, and data requirements. The information recovered during
investigation of an archaeological site is the data which is used to answer the test
questions and, thus, to evaluate the hypotheses and ultimately the general model. Several
researchers have called for an application of the data (the archaeological site information)
to evaluate Rogers' model of San Diego prehistory (Bull 1983, 1987; Warren 1985);
however, as Hanna (1991) observed, "Not only did Rogers' work survive the New
Archaeology movement (circa 1948-1968), but his culture-chronological focus has since
remained a main theme of much local work."
The following culture chronology for coastal San Diego is based on a synthesis of the
existing literature developed by Hanna (1991) and presents only one of many versions of
San Diego prehistory. As discussed above, this chronology is intended as a general
model which is dynamic and subject to modification as new information is uncovered.
One currently accepted general model of San Diego County prehistory, the product of
many small revisions with a few broad extensions, is still quite recognizably based on the
original Malcolm Rogers' chronology. This presentation differentiates three principal
cultural pattems (the Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric Periods—the San
Dieguito, La Jolla (Archaic), and Luiseno/Diegueno, defined earlier by Rogers), each
marked by its own material culture inventories, site types, spatial distributions, and
relative or absolute date ranges. These three general pattems have also been associated
with perceived local or regional variants that some researchers believe must reflect
significant differences in ancient peoples' social and economic lives; however, these
assertions remain nebulous. A summary of this tripartite model is provided below,
together with some discussion of unresolved issues, competing research explanations, and
altematives to the model itself.
1. Archaic Period
Early occupants of the San Diego area are archaeologically represented by a culture
pattem that Malcolm J. Rogers first described as the "Scraper-Makers" and later as the
"San Dieguito" (Rogers 1929, 1938). The material culture inventory was initially defined
on the basis of several sites and then formalized with material from the C. W. Harris site
(SDI-149/SDM-W-198), first excavated by Rogers in 1938 and since considered the San
Dieguito "Type Site" (Warren 1966). The so-called San Dieguito artifact 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
r tools often exhibit both a high degree of workmanship and careful raw material
selectivity. Leaf-shaped blades, occasionally with wide-stemmed hafting elements, are
common point and/or knife forms in this tradition. The hafting and delivery systems
associated with these artifacts are widely debated but probably included hardened
foreshafts fastened to atlatl darts and lances. Bows may have been used, but the mass
(weight) of many of these points implies that this was rare.
Rogers' original compilation of San Dieguito tool kit traits did not include ground stone
artifacts, a technology that was attributed to the later "La Jolla" culture complex. Along
with members of the Westem Lithic Co-Tradition, the primary economic emphasis for
the San Dieguito people has been suggested as a large-game-based subsistence strategy
requiring the production of hunting and butchering tools (Davis, Brott, and Weide 1969).
Since the early work by Rogers, a number of investigators have suggested the presence of
ground stone implements in direct contact with San Dieguito-age materials, in particular
at sites dating to the later phase of this tradition (Grenda 1992:22). The presence of
ground stone and the suggestion on the part of some researchers that the San Dieguito
were not solely hunters of game animals has created an area of some controversy (Grenda
1992:22). A growing body of data from purported San Dieguito sites in the San Diego
area has recently begun to place some of these reconstmctions in doubt. Whereas ground
stone artifacts were not previously thought to be associated with these earlier complexes,
manos have been found within lower sections of the C. W. Harris site (Carrico, Cooley,
and Clevenger 1990). Other sites, such as SDM-W-131, SDM-W-40, and SDM-W-1584,
have revealed milling technology in association with dates of greater than 8,000 years
B.P. (Gallegos 1984; Norwood 1980). There appears to be a progressive narrowing of
definitional differences between the San Dieguito and assumedly later complexes.
Many archaeological sites attributed to the San Dieguito time frame are described as
surface or very shallow deposits, typically located on inland knolltops and ridge-fingers
overlooking watercourses. The usually tenuous nature of these deposits, coupled with a
limited range of tool types, has led many researchers to interpret San Dieguito sites as
either temporary camps or loci of specialized activities, such as hunting or food
processing. If these views are correct, then a San Dieguito economy, based primarily on
hunting activities and secondarily on the use of plant resources, was probably expressed
as a nomadic lifestyle that may have entailed seasonal pattems of movement dictated by
the availability of local resources. Excavations in and around San Diego County in the
40 years following Rogers' pioneering work have revealed the existence of the San
Dieguito Complex within San Diego County by as early as 9,000 years ago (Gallegos
1985).
Technological attributes, tool forms, and general material culture trends have been used
to place the San Dieguito Complex within a much larger Archaic Period cultural
continuum sometimes called the Westem Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Bedwell 1970; Hester
10
1973). This group of coeval cultural pattems developed in Great Basin and Colorado
Desert playa lake areas during moist periods following the last glaciation, with the
economy developing around plants and animals that survived increasingly arid
environments. This post-Paleoindian era saw the emergence of hunting economies, over
wide areas of the desert southwest, which exhibited similar technological pattems due to
their shared economic base. Such similarities among many Archaic Period sites in the
Colorado Desert and Great Basin have led some researchers to group them within what
has been called the "Westem Lithic Co-Tradition" (Davis, Brott, and Weide 1969).
Within traditional nomenclature, the San Dieguito Complex is followed in the
archaeological record by a pattem that Malcolm J. Rogers first termed the "Shell-Midden
People" and later renamed the "La Jolla Complex" (Rogers 1938, 1945). Rogers' initial
formulation considered that the "Shell-Midden People" were antecedent to the
"Scraper-Makers." This conclusion was based on what he perceived to be as differences
in the sophistication of stone tool technology. His subsequent chronological reversal
stemmed largely from stratigraphical interpretations at the C. W. Harris site (Warren
1966). The definition and chronological position of the La Jolla Complex, particularly in
relation to the San Dieguito Complex, have since been subject to continuing debate (Bull
1987; Gallegos 1987; Hay den 1987). Warren (1968) considers the La Jolla Complex a
local variant of the Encinitas Tradition. Other complexes commonly associated with the
Encinitas Tradition include the Pauma, Topanga, Oak-Grove, and Early Milling Horizons
of the southem Califomia coastal and inland zones (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:108).
Frequently mentioned Encinitas Tradition hallmarks are an increased dependence on
milling technology and a decrease in certain styles of flaked lithic artifacts, such as the
large bifaces which characterize San Dieguito assemblages. This technological shift,
which purportedly stemmed from utilization of a wider resource base, is reflected by a
more diverse and, perhaps more accurately, a more generalized tool assemblage. The
resource shift appears to have been directed towards plant foods and marine resources. A
specific inference is that the large number of grinding implements indicates processing of
hard seeds from plants of the chaparral and inland mountain regions, which might have
permitted a diminished reliance on hunting. This shift, coupled with an increasing use of
littoral resources, marks the end of the Westem Pluvial Lakes Tradition and its coastal
manifestation, sometimes called the "Paleo-Coastal Tradition" (Chartkoff and Chartkoff
1984:108; Moratto 1984:109).
Archaeological sites attributed to the La Jolla Complex have been assigned dates ranging
from about 8,000 B.P. to 3,000 B.P., overlapping late San Dieguito phases in many areas
(Moratto 1984:147). Besides the presence of ground stone tools, La Jolla sites are
typically associated with flexed burials and shell middens and Occasionally with
cogstones or discoidals. The flaked stone tool assemblages from these sites generally
contain higher percentages of battering and cmshing implements, with less emphasis on
11
tools with a finely worked cutting edge, and assemblages with significantly lower
percentages of large bifacially worked knives and unifacially worked "scraper/cores"
than is thought to be typical of the San Dieguito Complex. Tools from coastal sites of the
La Jolla Complex appear to express less selectivity of raw material and to show less
detail and care in workmanship than tools found within San Dieguito assemblages.
An apparent inland manifestation of the La Jolla Complex was termed the "Pauma
Complex" by D. L. Tme (1958), who proposed the name to describe assemblages
recovered from over 20 inland sites in northem San Diego County. The Pauma
assemblage features stone tools which initially seemed to follow the San Dieguito pattem
(e.g., foliate points and crescentics) but were found in association with ground stone
implements usually ascribed to the La Jolla Complex. Subsequent research revealed that
some of these purported associations resulted from mixed strata and provenience at
multicomponent sites. After further study and reflection, Tme decided that "the Pauma
complex inventory is very similar to the adjacent La Jolla ... and some undefined but
close relationship is proposed between the two" (Tme 1980:370). Materials from these
sites do seem closely tied to the La Jolla Complex, although influences from the
emergent Campbell Tradition to the north are sometimes proposed (Moratto 1984:152).
Site assemblages attributed to the Campbell Tradition often include "side notched and
lanceolate points, large knives, a variety of flake scrapers, and drill-like implements"
(Warren 1968:2).
Relationships between the San Dieguito, Pauma, and La Jolla Complexes are an area of
active debate and research locally. Present interpretations of the archaeological data fall
into two main categories: (1) defense of the traditional view asserting temporal and
cultural differences between the three complexes and (2) a variety of altemative
explanations as to the purported differences among the artifact collections based on
incomplete data. Perhaps the most commonly referenced altemative explanation is that
the La Jolla Complex is simply a different, environmentally based manifestation of the
original San Dieguito Complex.
Traditionalists explain distinctions between San Dieguito and La Jolla assemblages as
genuine examples of adaptive culture change or population replacement. The former
scenario posits that an inland hunting lifestyle (San Dieguito culture) expanded toward
the seashore, where an abundance of shellfish and other marine resources promoted
longer-term settlement around lagoons where the population was supported by intensive
gathering and foraging for subsistence resources within a smaller catchment area. The
abundant food supply found in and around lagoons is suggested to have resulted in a de-
emphasis on hunting and the reduced mobility accounting for depth and richness of the
midden deposit at La Jolla Period sites far exceeding what has been noted at San
Dieguito-age associations. This explanation seems to fit the evidence from coastal sites
fairly well and can also accommodate evidence from inland sites. Radiocarbon dates.
12
where available, do not seem to indicate a hiatus between the two cultures giving the
appearance of a seamless cultural transition of a single culture group. If this is tme, then
the so-called Pauma sites may represent settlements created by people in transition
between the two economies.
The second traditional scenario, population replacement, is fueled primarily by the
observation that assemblages from San Dieguito sites are by definition significantly
different from those seen in coastal La Jolla sites. In a classical example of a "migration
versus diffusion" argument, some archaeologists have viewed the technological
differences between these archaeological assemblages as significant enough to require
separate historical origins for the two archaeological cultures. Although the invasion
scenario appears expedient and efficient, it is based on partially tautological premises.
Changes in economic and technological pattems are evident throughout the Archaic
Period, but whether they represent in situ change or they represent the introduction of
other cultural elements is a critical point of difference. Models allowing for in situ
change would more easily reconcile data retrieved from San Diego County sites with that
found in adjacent areas to the north and east. The question also remains as to where these
immigrants came from.
Nontraditional interpretations have been fueled by several types of information, mostly
stemming from the proliferation of archaeological surveys and site excavations in recent
years. Many local archaeologists have come to realize that distinctions between La Jolla
pattem and San Dieguito pattern sites lessen with increased distance from the coast.
Moving inland, archaeological collections produce more finely made hunting tools in
association with milling tools and even shellfish remains have been found at these sites,
in some cases as much as 20 miles from the coast. Accumulating radiocarbon dates over
the past three decades indicate significant temporal overlaps between La Jolla and San
Dieguito assemblages. It now appears that the 12,000-7,500 B.P. range for "San
Dieguito" sites (Wallace 1955, 1978; Tme 1958; Warren, Tme, and Eudey 1961; Warren
1966, 1967, 1968; Rogers et al. 1966; Moriarty 1967; Davis, Brott, and Weide 1969) is
too conservative on the upper end, while the 11,000-1,500 B.P. range for "La Jolla" sites
(Wallace 1955; Moriarty 1966; Rogers et al. 1966; Tme 1966; Warren 1968) is too
conservative on the lower end.
Such observations have led some researchers to propose that what have been seen as
culturally diagnostic artifact assemblages are actually altemate tool kits of a single
culture that were adapted to suffice in different resource areas. The "La Jolla"
assemblages may in fact be specialized tool kits associated with seasonally utilized,
coastal processing sites. Where these "La Jolla" processing sites also functioned as
temporary camps, briefly but regularly used over long time spans, substantial deposits of
food refuse and specialized tools could accumulate in the archaeological record. Given a
small and biased sample of sites, such deposits might easily be misinterpreted to define a
13
I
technologically simple, almost retrograde "La Jolla" culture pattem in distinction to a
separate, technologically complex "San Dieguito" hunting culture elsewhere. The
apparent proliferation of La Jolla sites and the apparent length of this cultural horizon
may represent a gradual accumulation of similar site occupation episodes, a progressively
increased reliance upon locally available coastal resources, or both. Similarly, the
duration and size of coastal site occupations may have changed through time in response
to environmental conditions among other factors with a result of a misunderstanding of
the cultural continuity.
The resolution of these debates is archaeologically feasible and will partly depend on
obtaining detailed information, including absolute dates, from a significantly expanded
sample of the still poorly represented inland sites. Discovering a large number of
contemporary inland and coastal Archaic Period sites would strongly suggest "San
Dieguito" and "La Jolla" synchronicity, whereas a definite lack of such sites, despite
concerted efforts to locate them, would go far towards confirming traditional views.
Zone patteming for frequently recurrent in situ associations of "San Dieguito" and "La
Jolla" diagnostic artifacts would support the thesis of functional (tool kit) rather than
cultural distinctiveness, particularly if "San Dieguito" items were rarest near the coast
and "La Jolla" items were rarest in the interior. Near-coast sites at locations transitional
to interior valleys and highlands should provide good test data because the functional
(tool kit) thesis predicts a high frequency of occurrence of specialized items from both
pattems, as well as habitation and tool-production debris.
2. Late Prehistoric Period
Milling technology in southem Califomia and adjacent areas appears to have had a
relatively complex history. As noted, suggestions that milling artifacts were present in at
least some portion of the San Dieguito pattem's spatial-temporal distribution have fueled
enduring controversy over the validity of supposed cultural-chronological units and the
nature of relationships between them. There is broad consensus over assigning "La Jolla"
and other possible regional variants to the Early Millingstone Horizon, and very late La
Jolla Complex assemblages appear to exhibit lineal continuity with Late Millingstone
Horizon assemblages. A potentially significant Early Millingstone Horizon variant is the
"Encinitas Tradition," which Warren (1968) believes endured in north-coastal San Diego
County until about 1,500 B.P. and defines as a well-developed collection economy
focused on pinyon pine, hollyhock, shellfish, and a wide variety of other plant and animal
resources.
The "Cuyamaca Complex" (Tme 1970), an early Late Millingstone Horizon assemblage
in southem San Diego County, adjacent parts of Imperial County, and northem Baja
Califomia, is considered directly antecedent to the ethnohistoric Diegueilo or Kumeyaay
(Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:164; Moratto 1984:156). Rogers (1945) defined three
14
phases of these "Yuman" cultures, which Warren (1968) classifies as the "Yuman
Tradition" of his "Late Prehistoric Stage." The two-phase "San Luis Rey Complex"
(Meighan 1954) in northem San Diego County and adjacent areas, which Rogers (1945)
considered "Shoshonean" precursors to the ethnohistoric "Luiseno," is called the
Shoshonean Tradition" within 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 Millingstone Horizon cultures seems to have progressed
fairly uniformly until approximately 1,200 B.P., when fairly strong evidence appears for
population influxes into San Diego County from desert regions to the east. According to
Rogers (1945), the "Yuman invasion" of Hokan speakers was episodic and protracted,
and in the final phase (Yuman III) can be equated with the appearance of direct
Kumeyaay ancestors. Similarly, Meighan's (1954) San Luis Rey II phase is thought to
reflect a direct intmsion of Shoshonean Takic speakers from desert areas north of the
Yumans, while Moratto (1984) believes that the circa 1,200 B.P. appearance of the Irvine
Complex and San Luis Rey Complex signifies establishment of the ancestral Luiseno
populations.
The Protohistoric Period is associated with local populations that were directly ancestral
to ethnohistorically known cultures, which in archaeological terms equates with Yuman
III and San Luis Rey II. Through roughly 1,300 B.P., the Late Prehistoric Period archaeo-
logical record shows increasing contacts with groups outside the San Diego area. Groups
settled in the lower Colorado River valley were partly agricultural, for the most part
spoke a Hokan-family language, and maintained contacts with the Pima-Papago and
various Pueblo peoples farther east. Most nonriverine desert groups belonged to a
widespread set of social groups, including nomads and a few semi-agriculturalists, that
spoke languages of the Shoshonean family and had connections throughout the Great
Basin and into Mexico. There also appears to have been contacts between groups in the
San Diego area and groups along the Califomia coast, including the Santa Barbara
Channel area.
Through trade, assimilation, or population movements, or some combination of all three,
a number of distinctive cultural attributes were overlaid onto the local Millingstone
Horizon traditions. Among these attributes are certain projectile point types, other finely
worked lithic tools, steatite artifacts, different mortuary goods, and cremations. At some
point between about 1,350 and 1,200 B.P., the local material culture inventory became
virtually identical with that of the ethnohistorically known groups. This is particularly
tme with the local appearance of imported lower Colorado River valley ceramics and the
later onset of local ceramic production, probably by about 750 B.P. (A.D. 1200), if not
somewhat earlier.
15
3. Protohistoric Period
Protohistoric 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 area. These
features include conical depressions (mortars) and shallow but larger depressed areas
(basins and slicks) on the surfaces of boulders (usually granite). Mortars were used with
a pounding tool (pestle) for grinding acoms into a paste that was leached and dried to
make acom meal, which was a dietary staple. The large, shallow slicks and basins are
thought to have been used with a hand stone (mano) in processing seeds and other
vegetable foodstuffs. Although such features cannot be directly dated, many have been
found in association with site deposits of Late Prehistoric or occasionally early historic
age.
One difficulty with defining the Protohistoric Period is that influences from encroaching
Spanish colonial forces undoubtedly reached northem groups, far in advance of the
founding of Mission San Diego de Alcala and Presidio de San Diego in A.D. 1769. For
the local area the pace of cultural change accelerated after that date, and ultimately, the
coming of the Spanish precipitated large-scale native depopulation, relocation, and social
collapse of the aboriginal groups. This era also resulted in terminological confusion
because Fray Junipero Serra, following standard practice, called the San Diego mission
neophytes "Dieguenos" and the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia neophytes "Luisefios."
These terms were extended to incorporate all natives within the holdings of each
combined mission and Presidio administrative district, generally in complete ignorance of
traditional sociopolitical divisions.
It is difficult to accurately reconstmct aboriginal social and political stmctures because
the Spanish recorded little information of value in this regard, and ethnographic field
research began long after native cultures had experienced significant historical impacts.
The Yuman-speaking inhabitants throughout most of San Diego County were loosely
organized into at least two dialectically separate groups, each associated with a
geographic area that was home to many triblets or bands. The Ipai (northem) and Tipai
(southem) divisions were not so much clearly defined territorial units as they were emicly
recognized, cultural and dialectical stmctures (Luomala 1978:592). In original usage,
these terms probably had geographic and/or classificatory meanings that have since been
lost or modified. A currently accepted name for the Diegueiio is Kumeyaay, a term of
unclear origin that Spier (1923:298) records as originally associated with the northem
Ipai division. The term Kumeyaay was subsequently and variously extended to include
other groups, and it is now used to designate all Yuman-speaking peoples between the
Pacific Ocean, the vicinity of Carlsbad, the Salton Sea area, and north-central Baja
Califomia (May 1975:1).
16
The Kumeyaay traditionally maintained a system of patrilineal, patrilocal, exogamous
sibs that were distributed within a territorially associated band stmcture (Luomala
1978:602; Shipek 1982:297; Gifford 1973:378). Each band contained members of up to
15 sibs within its organization (Shipek 1982:297). The consanguineal kin group
(household) was the primary social stmcture and consisted of a manied couple together
with their unmarried children, married sons and families, and such dependent relatives
within the father's lineage as his parents, grandparents, and unmarried aunts or uncles
(May 1975:3). At any one time, the Kumeyaay band usually maintained a main village
and several outlying villages (Tme 1970:55; May 1975:4; Shipek 1982:297; Luomala
1978:597). Since the economy was based on intensive utilization of locally available
natural resources, these settlements were more or less temporary. 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 explorers, probably consisted of an area that was regularly utilized by
local band members for a large part of the yearly cycle (Luomala 1978:597). At the time
of Spanish intmsion, institutionalized leadership roles within the clans and various
integrating systems between the clans facilitated flexible pattems of personnel movement
and trade throughout the region (Shipek 1982:302). There were also various connections
with the bands and clans of other ethnolinguistic traditions.
European contact substantially and pervasively stressed the social, political, and
economic fabric of Kumeyaay culture. Missionary influence eroded traditional religious
and ideological institutions, while Spanish development of coastal areas for crops and
livestock severely impacted traditional subsistence practices. Disease, starvation, and a
general institutional collapse caused emigration, birth rate declines, and high adult and
infant mortality levels. For a short time and principally among inland groups, these
pressures enhanced the role and increased the scope of inter-clan and possibly tribal level
political institutions. However, continuing European encroachments eventually made
traditional band-level lifeways progressively unviable. A few impoverished bands were
able to retain traditional pattems in remote mountain areas until the early twentieth
century, but the broader and complex Kumeyaay social system was effectively
dismantled by the mid-nineteenth century. The general collapse was so rapid and
complete that most village locations and band, clan, or lineage names were never
recorded.
It is against this regional culture setting that the prehistoric archaeological site SDI-8303
within the Faraday Avenue Extension was evaluated. As can be seen from the above
discussion, there are many issues related to the prehistory of the San Diego coastline that
remain unresolved. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon drainage system and adjacent lands
have been a focus of ongoing research into these issues, due partly to the abundance of
archaeological investigations which have been completed in this area and due also to the
density and quality of the archaeological sites along the drainage. The following presents
17
information about previous regional archaeology and conclusions regarding settlement
and subsistence for Agua Hedionda to the west and Batiquitos Lagoon to the south and
places CA-SDI-8303 in the proposed research context.
B. Theoretical Orientation
The many archaeological sites that have been investigated in the project region have
defined the cultural context of CA-SDI-8303. Many of these sites were evaluated for
importance within a developing regional settlement and environmental model focused on
Batiquitos Lagoon and the adjacent drainages (Cheever 1993). As described in
previously completed survey, Phase I testing reports, and data recovery projects
(Kaldenberg 1976; Bull 1976; Hanna and Wade 1990; Cheever 1989, 1991; Cheever and
Eighmey 1991), the site locations in the study region vary in elevation, vegetation zones,
and represented artifact and ecofact assemblages. Because of the variation in physical
and cultural characteristics of these sites, analysis of site information from CA-SDI-8083
is suited to a research design which posits explanations for site variability in regard to
both content and placement. Much archaeological research in the project region has been
devoted to explanations of inter- and intrasite variability through time and across the
landscape (Cheever and Eighmey 1991). From the outset, explanations of archaeological
site variability within this region have focused on fluctuations in the paleoenvironmental
conditions (Warren, Tme, and Eudey 1961). The data recovery program conducted at
CA-SDI-8083 was completed in the context of the following discussion.
As with the majority of San Diego County, the earliest archaeological research in the
project area was conducted by Malcolm Rogers of the San Diego Museum of Man. From
1919 until 1945, Rogers recorded sites throughout southem Califomia, Baja Califomia,
and adjacent areas. Based on his archaeological observations, Rogers defined two cultural
groups represented by these sites: one characterized by shell middens (Shell-Midden
culture) and the second characterized by the presence of scrapers, knives, and ceremonial
stones (Scraper-Maker culture) (Rogers 1929:466). Although site-specific data are
lacking from this document, Rogers attributes environmental and topographical
associations to each of the site types. The Shell-Midden sites:
... are to be found not only on the coast, but as far as four miles inland.
In elevation they range from tidewater to two hundred and fifty feet above
sea level, the inland ones being usually located at the greater height. They
are invariably located on mesa rims adjacent to sanded-in sloughs, which
indent the local coast and extend inland often for several miles. Judging
from the contents of the middens, these sloughs formerly supported an
abundant molluscan fauna. Whether the unusual location of the higher
middens is indicative of subsequent cmstal uplift or not, is not debatable
18
with our present incomplete geological knowledge, but it seems
impossible to account for them otherwise (Rogers 1929:456-7).
Rogers describes the Scraper-Maker sites as occurring in areas which parallel the Shell-
Midden areas to the east.
The camp and village sites are found only on mesas and ridges whose tops
are covered with at least a moderate depth of soil . . . and are often at
considerable distance from any modem water supply (Rogers 1929:457-8).
Artifacts which Rogers found in Shell-Midden sites include metates, manos,
hammerstones, teshoa-flakes, and a great amount of split stone. No chipped stone
artifacts recognizable as finished implements are included in the Shell-Midden cultural
material inventory.
By contrast, Rogers describes three types of chipped stone implements of the Scraper-
Makers: scrapers (plano-convex artifacts with unidirectional flaking), knives (ranging
from two to five inches in length and elliptical in shape), and ceremonial stones
(crescent-shaped percussion and pressure flaked stone artifacts suspected by Rogers to
have been hafted). He states metates and manos were also found in association with
these flaked stone implements.
Speculating cultural comparisons within the region, Rogers stated that there is some
evidence that one culture grew out of the other. He also stated that he had found scrapers
on Shell-Midden sites. To explain the cultural differences, he suggested the following:
If, on the exhaustion of sea food on the adjacent coast and in the
contiguous lagoons, the Shell-Midden people were compelled to move
inland in search of food, it seems likely that in their economic
readjustment they would become a hunting group, specialize the teshoa-
flake into a more perfect fleshing-tool such as the scraper-plane, and later
develop the knife. If this hypothesis be correct, this territory offers an
invaluable field for studying the effect of changing economic conditions
upon the material culture (Rogers 1929:466-7).
Despite some obvious problems with these cultural constmctions including the temporal
reversal of La Jolla Complex materials predating San Dieguito materials, Rogers, at the
earliest period of archaeological research in San Diego, proposed an environmental
explanation for variability in archaeological site remains. At the outset, he recognized
variation in physical site location and in the cultural remains at these archaeological sites.
19
By 1945, with the publication of "An Outline of Yuman Prehistory," Rogers had
concluded that the Scraper-Maker people predated the Shell-Midden people. He
relabeled the earliest Scraper-Maker people the "San Dieguito Complex" and the Shell-
Midden people the "La Jollan Complex." Archaeological work in the Colorado Desert
(Rogers 1939) had led him to compare the earliest hunting peoples from the desert (San
Dieguito-Playa Complex) with the coastal Scraper-Makers. This correlation was based
on stone tool artifact types (such as the presence of specialized scrapers and eccentric
stones) and an absence of ground stone artifacts (Rogers 1939). The beginning of the
Shell-Midden people is described by Rogers as follows: "Immediately after the
disappearance of the San Dieguito people with their excellent stone-flaking technique, a
new stock with a seafood-seed-gathering complex and no ability to work stone moved in,
probably from the north at the beginning of the Christian era" (Rogers 1945). This
somewhat overstated declarative about the inability of La Jolla Complex people to work
stone is at best oversimplified, saying more about the time period during which these
appraisals took place than the archaeological data.
The Diegueno are the last culture type in San Diego described by Rogers:
In accounting for the appearance of the Diegueno type of culture during
the fifteenth century we have the choice of two theories: one, that the traits
of cremation, pottery-making, use of stone arrow-points and bone awls
were the results of Colorado desert acculturation on a local Yuman group
(La Jolla II); the other, that the culture was migration-bome by an actual
movement of Diegueno from the desert to the coast (Rogers 1945).
As shown by the above discussion, the archaeological investigations during these early
years focused on defining the broad periods of San Diego prehistory, a common
paradigm for that era of anthropological research. Rogers observed pronounced
differences in individual artifact attributes as well as differences in artifact assemblages at
relatively pristine archaeological sites across the county. The assumption was that the
early coastal and desert peoples were culturally connected and shared a common
expertise in stone working as well as a dependence on hunting. Through time, coastal
peoples came to depend more on shellfish and plant food resources (resulting in the
advent of a well-developed ground stone tool technology) and apparently "forgot" the
fine stone tool working techniques of their predecessors, or simply no longer needed such
finely executed implements for the tasks at hand. The final change involved the adoption
of culture traits of Colorado Desert origin: pottery making, small arrow points with a bow
delivery system, and a wider range of bone tools.
The next published regional archaeological investigations for coastal San Diego were
conducted under the auspices of the University of Califomia, Los Angeles and published
in the Archaeological Survey Annual Reports beginning in 1963. A survey of Batiquitos
20
Lagoon and test excavation of two sites (CA-SDI-211 and CA-SDI-603) focused on
environmental factors affecting prehistoric settlement on this lagoon (Crabtree, Warren,
and Tme 1963).
By the time the University of Califomia, Los Angeles study was completed, radiocarbon
dating techniques were in common use. Dates from excavations at CA-SDI-603 were
obtained: 7,300 ± 200 years B.P. from a sample of clam (Chione sp.), 6,250 ±150 years
B.P. from a charcoal sample associated with a hearth, and 3,900 ± 200 years B.P. from
clam. These dates placed this site well within the temporal range for other dated La Jolla
Complex sites in San Diego County. The artifact assemblage consisted of both ground
and flaked stone tools, worked bone and shell items, large amounts of shellfish food
refuse, and pottery. The site is assumed to be "La Jollan," although by Rogers'
definition, artifacts of both the Scraper-Maker and Shell-Midden cultures, as well as
pottery, are present. Shifts in the frequencies of various artifact types and quantities of
shell species were documented through the three identified strata at CA-SDI-603.
In general, these shifts reflect a slight technological change away from the
use of cobble and other types of core tools to the use of flake tools. This
does not suggest any major shift of culture type or focus. The
predominance of mano and milling stone in the middle stratum suggests
that the subsistence pattem had shifted more toward seed gathering,
accompanied by a decline in the importance of shellfish gathering. This
later interpretation is supported by the analysis of column samples which
indicated a sharp decline in the amount of shell remains noted from
Stratum 2. The sharp decline in artifact frequency noted for Strata 1 and 2
further suggests that the occupation of the SDi-603 site has been slight
and, most likely, intermittent in the time that has elapsed since Stratum 3
was laid down, some 6000 years ago (Crabtree, Warren, and Tme
1963:342-3).
An ancillary study for this project (Warren and Pavesic 1963) analyzed shellfish remains
from column samples taken at CA-SDI-603. Briefly discussing the change in relative
quantities of shellfish species through levels at the site, the authors go on to present
information regarding paleoenvironment reconstmction. A change in climate during the
Holocene (from approximately 10,000 B.P. to the present) from wetter and cooler to drier
and warmer, in addition to a rise in the sea level as a result of the glacier retreat, are
proposed to have created environmental changes which greatly affected the subsistence
strategies of prehistoric populations. Unfortunately, the majority of the climatological
evidence has been compiled for the Great Basin (Antevs 1952) and the authors
extrapolate that sequence to the coastal areas. Very little primary data is available for
coastal San Diego. However, the following model was presented:
21
As the glacier retreated and the sea level rose, the mouths of the rivers and
streams along the San Diego coast were drowned and converted into deep,
narrow bays. The rising sea level eroded the sea cliffs, washed the lighter
materials seaward and deposited the heavier materials across the mouths
of the bays. About 8000 years ago, the rate of sea level rise slowed
considerably. At about this time the arboreal plant cover in the interior
was giving way to grass and desert plants, and a period of erosion set in.
The more slowly advancing sea now no longer carried sand seaward and
sandy beaches appeared, reducing the rocky foreshore. The silts brought
down by the streams also covered over any rocky shores that existed in the
lagoons. The rock dwelling shellfish decreased in number and were
replaced by those dwelling on the sandy beaches and mud flats. As the
Long Drought reached its climax in the desert region, about 6200 years
ago, more severe erosion occurred and greater quantities of silt were
deposited in the lagoons and presumably not only the depth of the lagoon
was decreased but its length as well, by the advance of the stream delta at
the rear of the lagoon.
The reduction in area created by the delta and the abundant yearly supply
of silt deposited in the lagoon significantly decreased the number of
shellfish. The reduction or decrease in shellfish supply was an important
factor in the decrease of the aboriginal population along the San Diego
Coast (Warren and Pavesic 1963:423-4).
Warren and Pavesic propose that changes in the environment brought about by the end of
the last glaciation had major effects on the aboriginal populations of Califomia. Drying
in the interior deserts (reducing food supplies) and rising sea levels on the coast
(increasing shellfish resources) resulted in a major shift of populations from the desert to
the coast. This presumably occurred between approximately 10,000 and 6,000 years ago.
Subsequently, stabilization of sea level (reducing shellfish viability) resulted in
populations shifting away from the coastal lagoons and brought changes in subsistence
pattems.
This model has been addressed on numerous occasions by archaeologists in San Diego.
Dennis Gallegos (1985, 1987), addressing the issue of environmental change and
ultimately the abandonment of Batiquitos Lagoon by aboriginal groups, compiled 63
radiocarbon dates from 27 archaeological sites. The graphing of these dates indicated a
gap in the archaeological record between 3,500 and 1,580 years B.P. (Gallegos 1987:24).
This gap was interpreted by Gallegos to be the result of a shift in settlement away from
the lagoon by aboriginal populations. The data used by Gallegos includes radiocarbon
dates from shell recovered from core samples taken from the back of Batiquitos Lagoon
(Miller 1966). The absence of shell in these five, deep, dated layers of soil was
22
interpreted to represent closure of the lagoon between 3,000 and 1,500 years B.P. and
again between 800 years B.P. and the historic period.
These apparent periods of hiatus appear to correspond with changes in the represented
ratio of shellfish species in the archaeological samples. Warren and Pavesic (1963) noted
a decline in mussel {Mytilus sp.) and oyster (Ostrea lurida) (rocky foreshore species) and
an increase in clam and scallop {Argopecten sp.) (sandy mud flat species) in shell
samples from different depths at CA-SDI-603. Gallegos (1985, 1987) documented a
decrease in scallop (which need to be covered by water at low tide and are known to like
an open lagoon with good tidal flushing) and an increase in clam (which appear to be
quite hardy and can survive in a mud flat) when comparing sites of an early time period
with sites from later time periods. One interpretation of these fmdings has been the
suggestion that there is an expressed decrease in lagoon species which require tidal
flushing and a rocky environment and an increase in those species which can tolerate
sandy mud flats and that these differences are tied to the cultural chronology.
Agua Hedionda
Some recent excavations in the study region included investigation of a series of nine
sites within the large Aviara project area on the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon
(Cheever and Eighmey 1991). This study expanded and refined the habitation model that
is proposed to have been responsive to the fluctuating lagoon and related environmental
conditions. The environmental similarities between Batiquitos Lagoon and Agua
Hedionda Lagoon offer opportunities to investigate settlement and subsistence pattems
across the larger Batiquitos/Agua Hedionda area through the application of the research
model. Cheever and Eighmey (1991), investigating this collection of lagoon shore sites at
Batiquitos Lagoon and several sites in the upland regions to the north, proposed a model
for changes in subsistence strategies through 9,000 years of prehistory. This model
proposes the existence of four periods of prehistoric settlement organization around the
lagoon, which is characterized as a definable transition from more regular and long-term
occupation of the lagoon shore and terraces during the early period to a more transitory,
specific use pattem during the Late Period (Cheever and Eighmey 1991:1).
Period I (9,000 to 7,000 B.P.) is characterized by habitation sites (residential bases)
concentrated on the terraces above the coastal lagoons and estuaries and along upper
alluvial terraces of inland drainage systems. Temporary camps and special use sites are
assumed to be infrequent during this time period as the choice of a habitation site location
would be within an area where most of the necessary resources were readily available.
This first period reflects a basic mobile foraging economy with periodic use of the littoral
resources.
23
Period II (7,000 to 4,000 B.P.) is represented by sites in similar locations as the Period I
sites; however, there was a marked expansion of food resource exploitation associated
with this period. This resource expansion was inferred from increasing numbers of
ground stone artifacts in sites dating to this period as well as a continued reliance of
marine resources. This is a period that represents an intensive foraging economy in
which particular resources and resource areas are consistently targeted during yearly
rounds.
Period III (4,000 to 2,000 B.P.) represents a transition from the foraging strategies of the
previous two periods to a gathering strategy. With the change to- a gathering strategy,
settlement pattems become focused on a residential base and auxiliary sites (satellites)
are occupied solely for resource collecting. During this period, special use sites
proliferate and are oriented around specific resource areas. It is proposed that this third
phase is a response to a more marked change in the available resources and a reduction in
the variety and quantity of various food items.
The Period IV (2,000 B.P. to the present) pattem is typified by large semipermanent
villages with associated satellite field camps and special use sites (locations) which
continued in San Diego County until the Spanish arrived. Around Batiquitos Lagoon,
this final period resulted in the creation of shell midden deposits with virtually no other
cultural material in association. The large village sites appear to be located outside of the
study area or have not been identified.
This settlement model is based on a system of site classification developed by Binford
(1980) to describe the social and technological pattemings he observed in modem hunter-
gatherer societies (Cheever and Eighmey 1991). Binford found that at least two major
strategies are utilized. The first economic group he termed "foragers" and the second
"gatherers." According to Binford (1980), societies using the foraging strategy generally
procure food on an as-needed basis. Foragers do not store commodities but relocate to
areas where resources are available. Two main site types are associated with foraging
groups: residential bases and locations. A residential base is where the majority of
economic and social events take place. Locations are ephemeral sites where actual
extraction of particular resources takes place. Resource procurement is performed by
smaller social units that split off and then later recoalesce with larger groups on a
seasonal basis. By this method, the population density can be adjusted to meet the
resource levels in an area. The ability to spin off smaller groups allows adaptation to
social stresses as well as environmental stress.
Gatherers, by contrast, establish somewhat more permanent residential base camps and
tend to send out smaller, specialized groups to target a particular resource that is
intensively collected and stored for later use. Additional site types include locations
(similar to those of foragers), field camps, stations, and cache sites.
24
Binford has also addressed the influence of environmental stress on the economic
strategies of societies (Binford 1968). He identifies two types of conditions which might
bring about disequilibrium: a change on the physical environment resulting in the
reduction of available food and a change in the demographic stmcture resulting in an
increase in the population density of a region beyond the carrying capacity of the natural
environment. Although the focus of his discussion of the influence of stress
(disequilibrium) is on explaining the advent of agriculture in the post-Pleistocene, he
argues that "Post-Pleistocene adaptations are viewed as the result of the operation of local
selective pressures, and the development of food production is one instance of such
adaptations. Parallel innovations can be expected where stmcturally similar ecological
niches were occupied" (Binford 1968:336). As discussed above, previous archaeological
studies in the Batiquitos Lagoon catchment area have identified both types of stress
discussed by Binford: reduction in the established food supply (the reduction in shellfish
populations brought about by changing environmental conditions) and increasing
population pressures (movements of populations from the desert regions brought about
by desiccation of the interior desert regions).
C. Research Issues
There are two avenues of research which can be applied to explaining culture change in
San Diego County over the past 9,000 years. The first step is identifying the cultural
evidence; the second step, identifying the environmental evidence. As Cheever and
Eighmey (1991) point out, the first step (identifying the cultural evidence) is made
extremely difficult by the complicated nature of archaeological deposits. In San Diego
County it appears that prehistoric populations revisited favored locations for different
purposes over long periods of prehistory. Simplified, this means that a favored site
location could be revisited by different human groups many times over a demonstrated
occupation sequence which goes back some 9,000 years. Added to the overlaying of
multiple occupation episodes is the chuming and mixing of these archaeological deposits,
from both human and non-human actions.
The foregoing discussion provides important setting information for the investigation of
CA-SDI-8303 and the other sites in the region. Data from CA-SDI-8303 will be viewed
as a means of making comparisons with the developing model of settlement that is being
constmcted for the region. Table 1 provides a summary of the work that has been
accomplished at 20 sites within the region. The summary information on Table 2 shows
the subsistence and topographic variables for these sites. Table 3 provides radiocarbon
dates for these sites. The most marked contrast among these sites is the closeness to the
lagoon/coastline and the corresponding proximity of natural resources.
25
TABLE 1
CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
Flaked Stone Artifacts
Lithic Artifacts (by count)
Ground Stone Diagnostic Points Ceramics (ct.)
Faunal Material Including Artifacts
Shell (by genus) Bone (by size and family)
Site Number
Cubic Flaking Rounding, NibbUng, Crushing, Batter- Metate/ Uaf- Triang./ Shell Beads/ Bone Amphibian,
Meters Only Microstep Damage , ing Damage Mano/ Stone shaped/ Arrow Cres- Brown Buff Drilled Shell Tools Argo- Small Medium Large Repdle, or
C-14 Date Excav. Debitage (cores) (Lt.-duty Tools) (Heavy-duty Tools) Pestle Bowl Elko Dart Point Point centic Ware Ware (ct) (ct) Chione pecten Mytilus Ostrea Donax Olivella Mammal Mammal Mammal Bud Fish
CA-SDI-600 (Cheever 1991)
total site
units
CA-SDI-601 (Cheever 1991)
total site
units
shell units
CA-SDI-690 (Smith and Moriarty
1985)
total site
units
shell units
CA-SDI-691 (Cheever 1991)
total site
units
shell units
CA-SDI-693 (Cheever 1991)
total site
units
shell units
CA-Sbl-694 (Cheever 1991)
total site
units
shell units
CA-SDI-4358 (Carrico and Gallegos
1983)
total site
units
CA-SDI-4396 (Wade 1992)
total site
units
(Apple and Olmo 1980)
units
900+70 1.5
900±70 1.5
7365±95
6715±95 112.9
1.3
8210±100 20.9
4430±80t 8.0
8125±200
1260±70t
7450±60
5780±90
5460±70t
not dated
6880±280
3.9
1.1
0.2
2.4*
1,170 21
1,982 32
1,982 32
191 2
190 1
0.8 29
23
5
1,732 4
259
24
24
1
1
12
65
37
37
154 45
22
22
14
14
15
59
59
10
10
2 551
2 551
14,995
14,995
3,517 4,534 865
24 1 25,737 16,739 1,429 \ 3,160 11 9.5 428 4 169 8 87
6 215,293
6 215,293
45,569 12,590 2,408 4,247 17
6,947 4,634 <1 547
2,102 1,041 178 80 <1
10,485 5,950 499 246
387
61
40% 20% 10% 10% <1
CA-SDI-4405 (Gallegos and Carrico
1985)
total site
units
CA-SDI-4679 (Wade 1992)
total site
units
CA-SDI-4687 (Wade 1992)
total site
units
1,404 18
7070±100 2.0 523 5
6140±80
4760±100 0.4
7290±90 2.1
7340±80
10
409 8
272 6
47
16
75
19
69 21
15 1
1 1
1 21 4,139
1,545 1,755
54
53
461
408
59
58
350
312
16
16
62 1 1
28
28
13 14
15(ct) 7(ct)
CA-SDI-4691 (Wade 1992)
total site
units 3750±100t 1.2
142 6
37
27 8 72
31
732
109
37
18
20 74
13 lO(ct) l(ct) lO(ct)
TABLE 1
CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
(continued)
Flaked Stone Artifacts
Lithic Artifacts (by count)
Ground Stone
Site Number
Cubic Flaking Rounding, Nibbling, Crushing, Batter- Metate/
Meters Only Microstep Damage ing Damage Mano/ Stone
C-14 Date Excav. Debitage (cores) (Lt.-du^ Tools) (Heavy-duty Tools) Pestle Bowl
CA-SDI-4692 (Wade 1992)
total site
units
CA-SDI-4847 (Walker and Bull
1981)
total site
units
CA-SDI-4863 (Bull 1978)
total site
units
CA-SDI-4867 (Bull 1978)
total site
units
CA-SDI-6826 (Cheever 1991)
total site
units
CA-SDI-6827 (Cheever 1991)
total site
units
CA-SDI-8195 (Collett and Cheever
[incomplete])
total site
units
CA-SDI-9846 (Wade 1992)
total site
units
7270±70
6670±50
6000±70
1748 A.D.
3640±60t
5520
3880±70
2350±60
6740±50
1.9
35.3
t.t
2.0
2640±60t 4.3
2.5
2.1
2.2
1.0
55
14
2,142
2,142
44
299
83
23
23
51
39
93
77
579
367
14
3
43
1
25
2
22
22
17
1
Diagnostic Points
Leaf- Triang./
shaped/ Arrow Cres-
Elko Dart Point Point centic
Ceramics (ct.)
Brown Buff
Ware Ware
Shell Beads/ Bone
Drilled Shell Tools
Faunal Material Including Artifacts
Shell (by genus) Bone (by size and family)
(ct)
Amphibian,
Small Medium Large Reptile, or
(ct) Chione pecten Mytilus Ostrea Donax Olivella Mammal Mammal Mammal Biid Fish
*Approximate volume based on descriptions of depth in texts.
fDate does not reflect all components of the site.
tObsidian hydration date,
(ct) = count reported instead of weight.
246
246
13
13
18
13
444
282
2,208
2,208
1,271
871
364
247
28
25
34
30
417,621 90,011 3,751 13,429 <1
417,621 90,011 3,751 13,429 <1
176
176
15,991
5,361 9,036
3,142 1,496
3,142 1,496
2,898.7 261.3
932
678
13
<1
<1
17.7
29
29
8 282
8 282
575 <1.
94 12
94 12
5.5
30
30
<1
<1
1,747
1,747
0.1 2.3
.4^
TABLE 2
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SORTED IN ORDER OF SITE NUMBER
Subsistence Resources (within 200 meters) Topography
Site View Shelter VNG CSS/MC RW/WS M/W Water
Ridge
top
Low
Knolls
Valley
Bottom
Lagoon
Shore Date/B.P.
CA-SDI-600 X X X 900±70
CA-SDI-601 X X X 1I00±70
CA-SDI-690 X X X 6715±19
CA-SDI-691 X X X 8210±100-4430±80
CA-SDl-693 X 8125±200-1260±70
CA-SDI-694 X X 7450± 60
CA-SDI-4358 X X X X 5780±90-5460±70
CA-SDI-4396 X X X 6880±280
CA-SDI-4405 X X X X X 7070±100-6140+80
CA-SDI-4679 X X X 4760±100
CA-SDI-4682 X X X X no date
CA-SDI-4687 X X X X X X 7290±90-7340±80
CA-SDI-4691 X X X X X X X 3750+100
CA-SDI-4692 X X X 7270±70
CA-SDI-4847 X X X X 6770±50-6000±70
CA-SDI-4863 X X X X 3640±60
CA-SDI-4867 X X X X 2640±60
CA-SDI-6826 X X X 5520±90
CA-SDl-6827 X X X 3880±70
CA-SDI-8195 X X X 1940±60
CA-SDI-9846 X X X X X 6740±50
CA-SDI-12739 X X X X X no date
CA-SDI-12740 X X X X X X X 680±70
VNG - valley needlegrass grassland
CSS/MC - coastal sage scrub/mixed chaparral
RW/WS - riparian woodland/willow scrub
M/W - mesic areas and wetlands
TABLE 3
RADIOCARBON RESULTS FOR
SITES IN THE CARLSBAD STUDY AREA
Radiocarbon Result Sample Reference Sample Designation
7270 + 70
4760 ±100
3750+ 100
3730 ± 90
680 ± 70
6740 ± 50
7290 ± 90
7340 + 80
7300 ± 200
6250 ± 150
3900 ± 200
12701250
1075 ±150
870 ± 200
825 ± 250
6320 ± 250
3400 ± 240
6210 ± 280
5170 ±230
6880 ± 280
4520 ± 250
8160 + 360
SDI-4692B
SDI-4679
SDI-4691B
SDI-12,740
SDI-9846
SDI-4687
SDI-603
SDM-W-102
SDI-213
SDM-W-181A
SDI-4396 (SDM-W-915)
SDI-4547 (SDM-W-588)
SDI-4850 (SDM-W-919)
Unit 1,40-50 cm
Unit 2, 30-40 cm
Unit 1,70-80 cm
Trench 2, 260-270 cm
Unit 1, 80-90 cm
Unit 1,40-50 cm
Unit 1,40-50 cm
Unit 3, 30-40 cm
UCLJ-36
UCLJ-256
UCLJ-31
n.a.
UCLJ-245
UCLJ-242
UCLJ-243
UCLJ-33
UCLJ-381
UCR-421
UCR-420
UCR-434
UCR-406
UCR-436
TABLE 3
RADIOCARBON RESULTS FOR
SITES IN THE CARLSBAD STUDY AREA
(continued)
Radiocarbon Result Sample Reference Sample Designation
5250 ± 50
4370 ± 250
3640 ± 60
1210+180
550±150
3650 ± 60
2640 ± 60
7440±110
7120 ± 150
7060+ 110
710 + 40
8040 ± 80
6900 + 280
8010 ±80
8060 ± 60
8030 ± 80
8280 ± 80
8110 ±80
1500±50
3500 ± 200
6800 ± 80
4940 ± 70
1100 ±50
1580 ±60
1430 ± 60
1460 ± 60
1160 ±50
SDM-W-106
SDI-2734 (SDM-W-49C)
SDI-4863 (SDM-W-973)
SDI-4867 (SDM-W-977)
SDI-4848 (SDM-W-147A)
SDI-4849 (SDM-W-147B)
SDI-4392 -2734 (SDM-W-49A)
SDI-4420 (SDM-W-940)
SDI-604
SDM-W-951
SDI-8697 (SDM-W-942)
SDI-946 (SDM-W-149)
UCLJ-3484
UCR-405
UCLJ-3485
UCR-407
UCR-422
J-3823
J-3824
J-4134
J-4133
J-4135
LJ-3159
LJ-3243
UCR-432
LJ-3244
LJ-3245
LJ-3160
LJ-3161
LJ-3246
LJ-3689
LJ-35
LJ-3719
LJ-3720
LJ-3844
LJ-3822
LJ-3820
LJ-3821
LJ-3845
TABLE 3
RADIOCARBON RESULTS FOR
SITES IN THE CARLSBAD STUDY AREA
(continued)
Radiocarbon Result Sample Reference Sample Designation
7780 ± 90
8580±125
7130 ±80
7430 ± 80
760 ± 60
850 ± 80
4430 ± 80
6990 ± 80
7000 ± 90
7240 ± 80
7310 ±60
7400 ± 60
7440 ± 60
7880 ± 90
8210±100
900 ± 70
1100 ±70
825 ± 200
1075 +150
1220 ± 60
1260 ± 70
7450 ± 60
5520 ± 90
3880 ±70
SDI-4407 (SDM-W-948)
SDM-W-179
CA-SDL8303
CA-SDI-691
CA-SDI-600
CA-SDI-693
CA-SDL693
CA-SDI-694
CA-SDI-6826
CA-SDI-6827
7145 ±90 SDM-W-84
7200 ± 90
7395 ±90 "
5200 ± 90 SDM-W-88
LJ-3688
GAK-4711
LJ-3717
LJ-3728
Unit 4A, 20-30 cm
Unit 3A, 30-40 cm
Burial Feature 9
IB
Burial Feature 15
Burial Feature 3
Unit 2, 70-80 cm
Unit 2, 80-90 cm
Unit 1, 50-60 cm
Unit 1, 50-60 cm
Unit 6, 30-40 cm
TABLE 3
RADIOCARBON RESULTS FOR
SITES IN THE CARLSBAD STUDY AREA
(continued)
Radiocarbon Result Sample Reference Sample Designation
6715 ± 95 CA-SDI-690 (SDM-W-97)
6740 ± 90
6795 ± 90
7045 ± 100
7160 ±125
7210 ±95
7365 ± 95
6890 ±115 SDM-W-97
7435 ± 95
2350 ±60 CA-SDI-8195
6140 ± 60 SDM-W-109 Unit 3, 30-40 cm
6370 ±60 Unit 4, 30-40 cm
The information discussed above and summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3 will be used as a
basis for analyzing both the chronological and settlement scenarios that have been
presented. One of the ongoing discussions among local researchers concems the
purported changes in subsistence strategy resulting from alterations in the lagoon
environment as the result of sea level change and changes in rainfall resulting in the
accumulation of silt in the lagoons. Siltation altered the habitat of the various shellfish
that inhabit these environments and eventually drove the dominant species, clam and
scallop, out of these areas. The representation of this in the archaeological record has
been interpreted as shifting density of site occupation from the north to the south (Smith
and Moriarty 1985); alterations in the types of sites found around the lagoons during this
period (Cheever 1991); and changes in the represented shell species in archaeological site
collections (Gallegos 1987).
The upland setting of CA-SDI-8303, east of Agua Hedionda lagoon but situated on one
of the primary drainages, provides an opportunity to compare this location with lagoon-
based sites and sites located at the drainage. The represented shell species at this site, as
well as the temporal range of occupation, will be viewed towards elucidating some of the
existing scenarios of settlement and subsistence change in the region.
D. Research Questions
The developing settlement model for the Agua Hedionda region incorporates settlement
pattems and subsistence strategies employed over time by various cultural groups. These
archaeologically identified pattems, supported by radiocarbon dates, indicate a
connection with the food resources available from the lagoon during the Archaic and Late
Periods. Plant resources from the surrounding uplands also played a role as food and
utilitarian product sources for the region's human occupants. During the Archaic Period
tidal flux decreased, infilling of the lagoon increased, and the available shellfish species
shifted from an apparent dominance by scallop to clam. As the Late Period approached,
the established settlement and subsistence strategies remained relatively consistent with
those employed throughout the Archaic Period; however, a new addition during this
period was the development of larger base camps near the lagoon with smaller collection
task campsites located in the surrounding uplands. These base camps would have been
occupied by a larger social group throughout the year or for seasonal occupation rounds.
As the availability of traditionally gathered food sources decreased, the population in the
area decreased as well, resulting in smaller and fewer sites exhibiting the base camp
archaeological pattem. Radiocarbon data are limited from sites dating from between 3500
radiocarbon years B.P. and 1500 radiocarbon years B.P. This is the period of time that
suggests a shift in the population density, cultural makeup, or both in the Agua Hedionda
and Batiquitos Lagoon region.
33
After 1500 radiocarbon years B.P. the presence of Late Prehistoric Period groups replaces
Archaic cultural pattems in the regional archaeological record. Late Period strategies
included the acquisition of various faunal and floral food and utilitarian items. These
resources were acquired by small foraging groups who seasonally occupied dispersed
campsites (locations) within a recognized collection area.
Initial data collected by Gallegos and Associates during the significance testing of the site
(1999) provides sufficient information to determine what research questions can be
realistically addressed. These include chronology, site type and settlement pattem,
subsistence strategy, lithic technology, and questions addressing trade and travel.
1. Chronology
CA-SDI-8303 supports the settlement model which defines Batiquitos Lagoon as the
focus of settlement during the Late Period. Two shell samples were submitted by
Gallegos and Associates for radiocarbon analysis during the significance phase of testing:
Sample Beta-129350 produced a date of 420±80 B.P. (uncorrected) and Sample Beta-
129351 produced a date of 320±60 B.P. (uncorrected) (Gallegos 1999:3-19). As presented
in the discussions of the regional setting and cultural background, items dating to after
1500 B.P. would be indicative of a Late Period association. Older dates would place the
site in the Archaic Period. Calibrated, these dates identify site occupation circa 280 to
605 years ago, falling within the Late Prehistoric Period. In addition to the radiocarbon
dates, the recovery of bean clam (Donax gouldii) shell, a Cottonwood Triangular
projectile point, five pieces of obsidian, and eighteen pieces of Tizon Brown Ware
pottery support a Late Period occupation.
Additional radiocarbon dates or recovery of temporally sensitive artifacts may provide
sufficient information to determine the duration of stay and whether Loci A and B
represent two separate episodes of site use. Additional data recovered during the
mitigation program, however, will not define the temporal range of the primary site area,
located south of Faraday Avenue Extension APE.
Research Questions
1. Does the site represent a long period of occupation or a series of short occupation
episodes? Will additional radiocarbon results further refine the period of occupation?
2. Are there more than one period of occupation? Will additional radiocarbon results or
analysis of recovered ecofacts and artifacts identify a cultural distinction between
Loci A and B?
34
3. Will the excavation of additional units uncover tool kits or resources not associated
with the Late Archaic Period of occupation?
2. Site Type and Settlement Pattern
The settlement pattem for the study includes the development of residential bases,
established on a seasonal (or perhaps longer duration) basis, on the marine terraces
overlooking Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon and on terraces over inland
drainages. Factors of considerations, such as the availability of fresh water, plant foods,
building material, fire fuel, shellfish beds, and general weather conditions may have
influenced the choice of location. A transition in site types occurs during the middle years
of the La Jolla phase, with the introduction of field camps. These are sites that represent a
shorter duration of stay, smaller numbers of site occupants, or a change in the kinds of
activities that were undertaken in the study region. By 5,000 B.P. there is a recognizable
shift towards the behaviors that produce field camps as opposed to residential bases. The
final settlement shift involves site deposits that date to the Late Period, as with SDI-8303.
Sites representing this period are found clustered along the edge of Agua Hedionda and
Batiquitos Lagoon and in the drainages to the east. These sites have been identified as
locations and in every case are shell dumps or middens, containing large quantities of
clam and scallop shells. Sites dating to the Late Period appear to be a result of a
settlement pattem that has people in village locations with venture episodes to targeted
resources. Villages would have been located in sheltered drainages and were probably
visited as part of a seasonal round.
The defining criteria for the various site types in the model presented above and the one
proposed by Binford (1980) is-generally related to the quantity, variety, and distribution
of archaeological materials. It is assumed that sites must exist at which one or more
limited tasks were undertaken; that is, either a location, field camp, or cache site. At sites
where only one task is undertaken, the applicable tool kit that was used is expected to
dominate the sample from the site. In most cases, however, it would be likely that any
given activity area might encompass several processing tasks, each focused on a resource
derived from nearby. As resources occur in increasing proximity to each other, the
probability should increase that processing sites making up the overall inventory of
research areas will correspondingly increase in the number of tasks expressed and the
variety of task refuse (Cheever 1993:40-45).
Using these models, the northem portion of SDI-8303 could represent a location, field
camp, or residential base. A location is a site produced by activities associated with a
processing or extractive task. A kill site or a shell midden could be considered locations,
as could a quarry. Within this site type category, the unit of analysis is an activity event,
and its material manifestations. These sites are generally termed "special activity areas"
in that they do not (theoretically) encompass all of the domestic activities (and by
35
inference the material by-products) that would occur near a central habitation area.
Locations are predicted to contain the following:
1. A specific task-related tool kit.
2. Situation in an area that is more favorable for the activity or is associated with
resources important to the activity.
3. A limited amount and diversity of domestic refuse.
4. Debris from the use or modification of the targeted resource(s).
From the standpoint of archaeological recovery, these variables will manifest themselves
as:
1. A limited number of specific tool types.
2. Location near a definable or reconstmctable resource.
3. Limited recovery of multiple classes of domestic refuse (for example, shellfish, bone,
charcoal, seeds, et cetera).
4. Specific types and limited quantities of debitage.
5. Hearths, if present, are related to basic processing and will not contain a variety of
cooking debris.
Field camps represent a temporary working and living area associated with gathered task
groups while they are away from the main residential base. Field camps are expected to
be located along the routes between resource areas and within larger resource areas. With
transient camps, the remains of special processing activities are not expected to occur in
large quantities. In proximity to a specific resource area a field camp might show some
similarities with locations; however, they are considered to be distinctive because they
would have a significantly higher percentage of domestic debris in the recovered sample.
Field camps would be recognizable by:
1. A small but representative sample of several artifact types.
2. Location near a major resource area or a travel route.
3. Moderate quantities of domestic refuse, including portable food items.
36
4. A variable debitage assemblage with recognizable emphasis on the production and
use of a particular task-related tool kit.
5. Cooking and processing hearths should be identified, although they should be single-
use with small or absent quantities of food refuse.
Residential bases are considered to be the most complex of sites encountered in
archaeological research in the southem Califomia region. This site type probably
accounts for the fewest number of sites in the region and perhaps the most often
misidentified. The differentiation between residential bases and field camps is
problematic, especially when a field camp has been occupied more than once. Of
particular concem is differentiating "accretion middens" from tme residential bases. The
situation of a field camp at a desirable location may result in multiple occupations over a
series of years and the accumulation of ecofact and artifact pattems similar to those found
at a residential base. This is particularly tme if there is a shift in resource emphasis over
the occupation sequence at a field camp.
Gallegos identified the northem portion of SDI-8303 as a Late Period village site
(1999:4-1). The initial reporting of the site by Rogers in the 1920s described the site as
being located on either side of a canyon. Cultural remains noted included cobble hearths,
shell, projectile points, a bow pipe, ceramic sherds, and a possible cremation. Subsequent
evaluations of the site or portions of the site reduced the size and amount of material
visible on the surface. It appears likely that the portion of this site that exists south of the
Faraday alignment may represent a residential base. Verification of this is dependent
upon work focused on that portion of the site.
Materials recovered during significance testing are not sufficient to determine site type.
Based on the distribution of midden soil, the lack of site features, such as hearths, and the
limited number of artifacts and ecofacts recovered by Gallegos, identification of the
northem site areas as a "village" is not supported. Since only the portion of the site within
the Faraday Avenue Extension was evaluated, additional information recovered during
the data recovery program will only partially address the question of settlement for the
larger site.
Research Questions
1. Is the northem portion of SDI-8303 a location, field camp, or a residential base? Is
more than one site type expressed at this location?
2. Can intrasite variability be identified? Are features present? Is there evidence of
differential site use? Is there variability in terms of density and diversity of cultural
materials?
37
3. Can the horizontal distribution and vertical depth of the site be identified? What is
the integrity of the deposits?
4. How have post-depositional disturbances affected the integrity of the site?
5. What is the relationship between SDI-8303 and other sites in this drainage/catch-
ment area? Are there other contemporaneous residential bases, locations, or field
camps in the vicinity?
3. Subsistence Strategies
The location of this site in a sheltered valley/drainage setting provides for the opportunity
of contrasting the recovered materials with lagoon-situated sites. Questions regarding
changes in subsistence strategy can also be addressed if this site can be shown to span a
series of occupation episodes and those episodes can be shown to have a direct
association with identified cultural horizons.
Identifiable quantities of shellfish remains were recovered in the Gallegos units. Shellfish
collected included clam, scallop, native oyster, moon snail (Polinices sp.), bean clam,
Pismo clam {Tivela stultorum sp.), and mussel. The majority of shellfish from the
Gallegos units represent a lagoon habitat, sandy beach, and rocky shore/outer coast
(Gallegos 1999:4-1). The recovery of three ground stone fragments, and a projectile point
suggests the possibility of milling plant and/or animal foods and hunting activities. The
recovery of a single otolith (fish earbone) in Unit 3a, suggests the site occupants
practiced some form of fishing.
The majority of shell from the Gallegos units was recovered from the 0-40 cm levels;
none of the shell appeared to be bumed (1999:3-18). A difference in environment
exploitation was noted between Units 3a and 4a. Shellfish from Unit 3a represents
bay/lagoon/estuary environments, clam, scallops, and oysters. The shell in Unit 4a
additionally includes a sandy beach specimen identified as bean clam. Although
radiocarbon dates were similar for both areas, Tizon Brown Ware pottery was not
recovered in Unit 4a. The shift noted in Unit 4a may represent a paleoenvironmental
change during the middle to late Holocene or site use during different time periods.
Research Questions
1. Will the excavation of additional units confirm or alter the quantity and distribution
of shell found during the Gallegos units? Are there changes in the use of
bayAagoon/estuary vs. sandy beach resources?
38
2. Will the excavation of additional units recover fish and other identifiable faunal
remains?
3. Is the focus at this site, subsistence or are the floral and faunal materials incidental to
the primary behaviors undertaken at this location?
4. Was this area occupied on a seasonal basis and if so during what season(s)?
4. Lithic Technology
Materials recovered from the Gallegos units suggest a cobble-based industry. Two
reduction strategies were noted: split core/cobble and biface reduction (Gallegos 1999:4-
2). Seven flaked stone and ground stone tools were recovered: 1 quartz Cottonwood
projectile point fragment, a quartz biface, a quartzite flake tool, a metavolcanic flake tool,
a partial granitic mano, and two sand stone ground stone fragments. 128 pieces of
debitage were recovered from the three units, consisting of 65 volcanic, 9 metavolcanic, 4
quartzite, 32 quartz, 11 crypto-crystalline silicates (CCS), 2 Piedra de Lumbre (PDL)
pieces of chert, and 5 pieces of obsidian (Gallegos 1999:3-11). With the exception of the
PDL and obsidian, all of the material could have been acquired locally.
Research Questions
1. Does the site contain a sufficient sample of debitage and cores of various lithic
materials to define the type of lithic activity conducted within this portion of the site?
How does this assemblage compare to other known sites in the area?
2. Are the tools made from local materials or imported materials? Can the recovered
obsidian and/or CCS be attributed to specific sources?
3. Does the northem portion of the site vary in the amount of flaked stone tool
manufacturing, types of tools manufactured, and the degree and pattem of artifact
curation?
4. Are additional ground stone tools present? Were they formed or used as expedient
tools?
5. Trade and Travel
Imported lithic materials noted by Gallegos include obsidian and PDL chert. The
obsidian is either from Obsidian Butte in the Imperial Valley or the Coso Range to the
north; the PDL chert is likely from Camp Pendleton (Gallegos 1999:4-3). The presence of
these materials suggest trade and/or travel to the north (Camp Pendleton) or to the east
39
(Imperial Valley). The presence of other varieties of CCS would indicate additional
connections to chert sources during the period of site occupation.
Research Questions
1. To what extent are trade and travel in evidence at the site?
2. How does this compare to other sites in the study region?
E. Field and Laboratory Investigations
The goals of the field and lab investigations are to recover and record data in order to
obtain the maximum information possible during the data recovery program. As
discussed above, these issues focus on the process of culture change in the region. The
methods employed in the field and lab were selected to further document the content,
stmcture, age, condition, and cultural affiliation of the resource. This information
constitutes the data necessary to relate the resource with cultural patterns. These data are
then related to the broader pattems of regional occupation in terms of the research issues
being examined.
Methods
The field and laboratory methods described below were employed to provide a level of
data collection and analytical consistency between this study, results from the Gallegos'
significance test, and other archaeological investigations in the region to which the
current results will be compared. Instances where the specific methodology of collection
or analysis varies between investigations are not uncommon. However, the general level
of consistency of collection and analysis methodologies applied by different researchers
allows valid comparisons to be made.
A. Field Methods
The data recovery program on the northem portion of CA-SDI-8303 was designed to
expand on the significance evaluation work conducted by Gallegos and Associates
(1999). Placement of the data recovery units was organized around the productive test
units and shovel test pits from the significance evaluation (Figure 3). Specifically, near
Sample Unit 4a and Shovel Test Pits 10a, 11a, and 12a, in the larger westem site segment
(Locus A) and in the vicinity of Sample Unit 3a, in the smaller eastem segment
(Locus B). A combination of individual and clustered unit arrangements was used to
40
FIGURE 3
Site SDI-8303, Loci A and B
M:\jobs\3169a\graphics\lociFig3.cdr
maximize the sample coverage. The site datum established by Gallegos was used for the
data recovery program.
Twenty-seven 1x1-meter units were excavated in the portion of the site area within the
APE:
• Locus A : larger, westem segment of the site (near Gallegos' Unit 4a), Units 1-14 and
21-25 (Figure 4 and Table 4);
• Locus B: smaller, eastem segment (near Gallegos' Unit 3a), Units 15-20 (Figure 5;
see Table 4);
• Area between A/B: small bench between Loci A and B, Units 26 and 27.
Vertical integrity of the deposit was poor due to agriculture, dumping, and bioturbation.
Horizontal distribution has become generalized as well, particularly in Locus A, where
blading or some form of soil removal has altered the original topographic contours.
Each test unit was excavated in 10-cm levels following the ground surface contour. The
excavated soil from each level was passed through one-eighth-inch wire mesh screen to
separate the bulk soil from the cultural material. All classes of cultural materials
represented within the deposit were recovered. This includes recent as well as prehistoric
items. Cultural materials were collected from the screens and placed into plastic bags
with the appropriate provenience marked onto paper tags, placed inside the bags.
Notes on the condition, content, and recovery from each unit were recorded on field
forms. Information on the character of the soil and the types and amount of disturbance
to the deposit were also recorded. Shovel test pits were excavated in selected units to
determine the character and content of matrix below the deposited cultural material.
At the completion of the field investigations, the units were backfilled for safety. Two
site datums were used for unit locations. Both were left in place and mapped using a
global positioning system (GPS). The GPS mapping equipment included a GIR 1000
portable unit for data collection in the field. This information was then post-processed
using base station files obtained from Sokkia Measuring Systems in San Diego. Field
data collected and post-processed using this system is accurate to within 10 cm. The
southwest comer of Gallegos Unit 4a was used as the datum for Locus A; the
southwestem comer of Gallegos Unit 3 a for Locus B.
42
Native Vegetation
Heavily
Disturbed
Area 12
13 22
14
/
/
M-
/
I
I
I
I
/ Cleared Area
Asphalt Pad 10 21
8
5 23
24
Dirt Road
25,
• lm X lm unit location
Datum "A"
Locus boundary
I •p
_u
0 t 0 FEET 20 40
FIGURE 4
Site SDI-8303, Locus A
TABLE 4
UNIT LOCATIONS
Locus Unit
Location from
Locus Datum
Maximum Depth
(cm) Cubic Meters
A 1 OE 3N 30 0.3
A 2 3E ON 60 0.6
A - Block 3 3 IE 2N 30 0.3
A - Block 3 4 2E IN 60 0.6
A - Block 2 5 4E IS 50 0.5
A - Block 2 6 5E 2S 50 0.5
A 7 IW 4N 20 0.2
A - Block 1 8 IE 2S 40 0.4
A 9 6E 3S 60 0.6
A - Block 1 10 2E IS 30 0.3
A 11 IE 2S 50 0.5
A 12 7E 5N 20 0.2
A 13 IW IN 30 0.3
A 14 3E 3N 30 0.3
B 15 8W ON 50 0.5
B 16 4E ON 40 0.4
B 17 IW 2N 30 0.3
B 18 3W 4N 40 0.4
B 19 4W IN 30 0.3
B 20 2W IS 30 0.3
A - Block 1 21 IW IS 30 0.3
A - Block 3 22 IE IN 40 0.4
A - Block 2 23 5E IS 30 0.3
A - Block 2 24 4E 2S 40 0.4
A 25 IW 16S 30 0.3
BetweenA/B 26 OE 7N 30 0.3
Between A/B 27 19E 7N 60 0.6
• 1 m X 1 m unit location
A Datum "B"
Locus boundary
EC
0 t 0 FEET 40 80 FIGURE 5
Site SDI-8303, Locus B
B. Laboratory Methods
Recovered archaeological materials were transported to the RECON lab in plastic bags
and included the provenience information unique to each collection. Materials were
cleaned using a dry bmsh to remove dust and clumps of dirt to allow sufficient visibility
of the necessary artifact elements and to reduce the inaccuracy of weight determinations.
Materials were rinsed in clean water to remove additional sediments when required for
identification. Flaked stone tools were cleaned to reveal worked edges, but not washed,
in order to preserve fugitive residues. Flakes and angular waste were cleaned as needed
to allow a determination of flake type and whether or not an edge retained indications of
use or modification. Shell and bone fragments were cleaned to remove excess sediments
which would obscure identification. Ground stone implements were bmshed to remove
sediments adhering to working surfaces. Plastic and other intmsive items were cleaned to
yield accurate weights.
Once cleaned, the materials were separated by class and material. Each separate item or
cluster of related items having the same collection provenience is assigned a catalog
number within the collection. The entire collection is assigned an accession number,
which is indicated along with the catalog number. These numbers allow a body of
particular information to be associated with individual artifacts through the catalog
system. Once a catalog number has been assigned to an item, it is analyzed. The
resulting analysis includes the documentation of location, type, material, condition, and
size. These attributes are then entered into a computer database and available for
subsequent use as electronic data (Attachment 1).
The collected materials will be curated at RECON until arrangements to transfer the
collection are made. This collection is stored under RECON project number 3169A.
Results
A total of 1,230 artifacts were recovered from the twenty-seven 1x1-meter RECON units.
Both surface and subsurface artifacts were collected. Cultural materials recovered include
390 pieces of Tizon Brown Ware, 794 pieces of debitage, 34 flaked lithic tools, 4 shell
beads, 8 ground stone tools, 130.6 grams of bone, and 40,701.6 grams of shell (Table 5).
Modem materials, such as plastic and aluminum foil, were found in 20 of the 27 units.
Many of the modem materials from the uppermost levels were noted on the field sheets
and discarded.
46
TABLE 5
ARTIFACT/ECOFACT RECOVERY - SURFACE AND UNITS
Cubic Meters
Excavated
Bone Shell
Area (grams) (grams) Ceramics Debitage Flaked Lithics Beads Ground Stone
7.8 LocusA 121.3 16,283.2 389 768
1.7 Locus B 7.2 18,158.7 0 10
0.9 A/B 0.0 6,259.7 1 16
34
0
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
10.4 131.4 40,701.6 390 794 34
A. Field Investigations
Field investigations at CA-SDI-8303 took place between June 14 and June 30, 1999. The
project was conducted under the direction of Judy A. Berryman and Russell O. Collett
(Attachment 2). A total of 440 person-hours were expended during field excavations.
The focus of the field investigations was restricted to the northem portion of CA-SDI-
8303, within the Faraday Avenue Extension. Site materials and deposits located south of
the Faraday alignment were not evaluated.
Two areas of the site were identified: Locus A located at the northwestem portion of the
site; Locus B at the northeastem edge of the site (Photographs 2 through 7). A small
bench located between the two was incorporated into Locus B (Units 26 and 27). Both
areas exhibited a limited surface integrity resulting from agriculture and bioturbation. A
light surface scatter of shell was recorded for both areas. Surface artifacts were found
only within Locus A; none were found for Locus B.
Subsurface excavations in both areas indicate a soil profile consisting of a disturbed B
horizon overlying a sandstone substrate C horizon. Disturbance from agriculture or
bioturbation was apparent in all units (Figure 6; see Photographs 3 and 4). The B horizon
sediments consist of poorly sorted, subrounded, fine- and medium-grained sands and
includes minimal rock, both natural and fire affected. The color of the B horizon is
grayish brown (lOYR 5/2). Cultural material were mixed within the stratum. Recent
artifacts, such as plastic, wood, and broken glass, were recovered in the upper levels. The
underlying brown (lOYR 5/3) substrate consists of consolidated sandstone and some
clays with few inclusions. The contact between the two strata undulates as the result of
agricultural and rodent disturbance (see Photographs 3, 4, and 5). The maximum
differences within the depth of the B horizon was 40 cm. Because of the mixing,
identification of discrete midden- or artifact-bearing soil was not visible in the unit
profiles.
Three classes of material were identified in the field: lithic artifacts, ceramic artifacts, and
marine shell/ecofaunal materials. The disturbed character of each locus did not appear to
have considerable influence on the horizontal distribution of cultural materials. Specific
relationships between individual artifacts or artifact groups were compromised by past
agriculture, grading, and bioturbation.
Locus A, the northwestem portion of the site, measures approximately 35 meters
northeast/southwest by 25 meters northwest/southeast (875 square meters). Locus B, the
northeastem portion of the site, measures 75 meters northeast/southwest by 40 meters
northwest/southeast (3,000 square meters). Twenty 1x1-meter units were excavated,in
48
PHOTOGRAPH 2
View of Locus A, Site SDI-8303
0
PHOTOGRAPH 3
View of Unit 1 After Excavation, Site SDI-8303
PHOTOGRAPH 4
View of Unit 6 After Excavation, Site SDI-8303
0
PHOTOGRAPH 5
View of Unit 8 After Excavation, Site SDI-8303
0
PHOTOGRAPH 6
View of Unit 4 After Excavation, Site SDI-8303
(Backfill represents ovemight rodent disturbance.)
PHOTOGRAPH 7
View of Locus B, Site SDI-8303
Loose dark brown sand
Dark brown sand
Medium brown sand
\ .1 Tan sand
Krotovina
tr tr CM 20 40
Wy^'T^TA Loose dark brown sand
^^^^ Medium brovsai sand
Tan sand
Krotovina
t 0 CM 20 40
North Sidewall Profile, Unit 4
North Sidewall Profile, Unit 8
Wi FIGURE 6
North Sidewall Profiles, Unit 4 and Unit 8
Locus A (7.8 cubic meters); five in Locus B (1.7 cubic meters), and two between Loci
A/B (0.9 cubic meters). Artifact/ecofact recovery from each locus is given in Table 5.
1. Locus A
Twenty 1x1-meter units were excavated in Locus A: nine individual units (Units 1, 2, 7,
9, 11-14 and Unit 25) and three block exposures (Block 1: Units 8, 10, 21; Block 2: Units
5, 6, 23, 24; and Block 3: Units 3, 4, 22) (see Figures 3 and 4). All, except Unit 25, were
excavated north of the existing Faraday alignment. The three block exposures were
excavated in areas that contained a "higher" density of artifacts. Focus for the block
exposures was on uncovering intact features, such as hearths, small lithic workshop areas,
or "living surfaces." None, however, were found. A generalized distribution of fire
affected rock (FAR) and carbonized wood fragments was identified within the anthrosol
at Locus A. No clusters or concentrations were present, further indicating the effects of
bioturbation and agricultural activity on the integrity of the cultural deposit.
Fourteen artifacts were collected from the surface: 2 basic shaping flakes (debitage), 2
choppers, 2 cores, 1 core/hammer, 3 hammerstones, 1 knife, 2 scrapers, and 1 utilized
flake.
2. Locus B
Five 1x1-meter units were excavated in Locus B: Units 15-20 (see Figures 3 and 5).
Block exposures were not conducted in Locus B (see Photograph 5). All of the units in
this area of the site were excavated north of the current Faraday Avenue alignment. No
surface lithics were recovered from this portion of the site.
3. Area between Loci A and B
Two Ixl-meter units were excavated on a small bench between Loci A and B; Units 26
and 27. With the exception of a sherd of Tizon Brown Ware and 16 pieces of debitage,
both units contained only shell. There were no formal stone tools recovered from this
locus. For purposes of artifact discussion, the recovery from Units 26 and 27 have been
combined with the five Locus B units.
B. Artifact Discussion
The cultural materials recovered from the northem portion of CA-SDI-8303 include
artifacts as well as ecofaunal remains. The most visible site constituents are marine shell
fragments, though stone items were found in sample units and on the site surface. The
following discussion presents the recovered items by analytical class.
53
1. Ground Stone (8)
Ground stone tools include artifacts often associated with the milling of seeds and
processing of small mammals. Tools in this category are identified by a pattem of wear
gained through mbbing or grinding stone on stone, resulting in smooth or polished
surfaces. Specific tools within this category include manos, metates (basin or slab),
pestles, bowls, and unlabelled ground stone fragments (Photograph 8).
Eight pieces of ground stone representing five possible tools were collected at a
maximum depth of 20 cm. There were no ground stone tools recovered from the surface
of the site, or from subsurface contexts at Locus B (Table 6).
TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF GROUND STONE- LOCUS A
Artifact Number Unit Depth (cm) Material Description
5 1 0-10 CGM 4 ground stone slab/fragments
88 4 0-10 CGPM Ground stone basin/fragment
89 4 0-10 CGPM Mano/fragment
104 4 10-20 FGPM Mano/fragment
259 10 10-20 Granite Mano/fragment
CGM = coarse-grained metavolcanic
FGPM = coarse-grained porphyritic metavolcanic
None of the metate/ground stone fragments exhibited extensive wear resulting from hard
seed or nut processing. All three of the mano fragments exhibited minimal to moderate
wear on one surface. It was interesting that none of the recovered ground stone items
were made from sandstone, as the eroding sandstone formation is present in this area of
the site. The recovered items appear to represent opportunistic use of available cobbles
with no additional shaping or modification.
2. Flaked Lithic Tools (34)
The flaked lithic tool subassemblage from this site includes projectile points (6),
scrapers (7), choppers/chopping tools (5), utilized/retouched flakes (4), gravers (1),
knives (1), hammers (5), multiple use (2), and cores (3). Hammers and cores are
included in this artifact class, even though they do not fit the strict definition of either
flaked items, in the case of hammers, or tools, in the case of cores.
54
PHOTOGRAPH 8
Mano and Basin Fragments from CA-SDI-8303
:.:.:-:-:-:-:«*K* IRECDN
3. Projectile Points (6)
All of the recovered points appear to be consistent with the Cottonwood Triangle type
definition. These points are small, light, and triangular in shape and appear to represent
arrow as opposed to dart or spear technology (see Photograph 8). Thomas (1981) defined
Cottonwood Triangular series points as having weights of 1.5 grams or less, lengths of
less than 30 millimeters, and thickness of less than 4.0 millimeters. Waugh (1988) further
quantified this point type for northem San Diego County. She defined three types, based
on thickness and length: broad, deep, and straight base. The deep based points are
thought to be older than the other two forms. All of the whole points exhibited a straight
to slightly concave base, typical of the Late Archaic period (Table 7).
TABLE 7
PROJECTILE POINT DISTRIBUTION- LOCUS A
Artifact Depth
Number Unit (cm) Material Dimensions
60 3 0-10 CCS 0.8 gram; 27 by 11 by 2 mm (complete)
78 3 20-30 CCS 0.1 gram (tip only)
92 4 0-10 Quartz 0.7 gram; 20 by 8 by 4 mm (fragment)
159 5 40-50 Obsidian 0.3 gram; 10 by 10 by 2 mm (fragment)
208 8 10-20 FGM 1.0 gram; 21 by 11 by 6 mm (complete)
209 8 10-20 CCS 1.0 gram; 0 by 11 by 5 mm (fragment)
NOTE: All of the projectile points were recovered from Locus A.
CCS = crypto-crystalline silicate
FGM = fine-grained metavolcanic
Artifact #60 is a flake-based Cottonwood Triangular projectile point with some
morphological characteristics not usually seen in points of this type. The artifact may not
be a finished example since the flake platform is still present and there are no ventral
flake scars indicating that it was thinned. The extent of the work accomplished at the
proximal end left a bulge created by the interior margin of the flake platform. However,
the lateral margins have been bifacially flaked to produce fine denticulations from the tip
to the base on one margin and from the tip to the midpoint on the other (see
Photograph 8). The balance of the margins have been retouched unifacially from the
interior flake surface. The denticulations measure between 1 and 2 mm between ridges.
The most unusual characteristic of this tool is the curved long axis. The long axis
curvature was measured at 6 mm with a line drawn between the opposite ends. The point
56
is constmcted of translucent CCS with no inclusions large enough to view without
magnification. The stone is tan or beige in color. It does not appear to have any of the
characteristics of Piedras del Lumbres chert. A translucent CCS is typically identified as
chalcedony.
Artifact #78 is the distal tip portion of a projectile point (Photograph 9). The type of
point was not determined from the remnant portion. The tip is bifacially flaked leaving
margins that do not show denticulation or serration. The material is gray CCS with a
translucent appearance at the margins where the material is thin. Overall, the material is
opaque and has tiny faceted inclusions of quartz. The material is identified as PDL chert
given the nature of the inclusions.
Artifact #92 is a flake-based, quartz projectile point that is identified as a Cottonwood
Triangular type with a concave base, but otherwise lacking the usual morphological
characteristics associated with Cottonwood points (see Photograph 9). It was bifacially
flaked from a flake of clear quartz with no obvious irregularities or inclusions. The end of
one base wing is broken, but not sufficiently to have affected either the hafting or the
utility of this artifact. No evidence of hafting or use was discemable at this level of
analysis.
Artifact #159 is a flake-based projectile point fragment also identified as a Cottonwood
Triangular type (see Photograph 9). Only the distal portion remains, but it includes
enough of the midsection of the artifact to allow reliable classification as part of the
Cottonwood Triangular series. The artifact is bifacially flaked with most of the flake
scars appearing on the dorsal surface of the artifact. The material is obsidian with
numerous small inclusions, which associates this material with the Obsidian Butte source
in Imperial County. No evidence of hafting or use was discemable during inspection.
Artifact #208 is a flake-based Cottonwood Triangular series projectile point (see
Photograph 9). The base of the artifact is concave and no serration is present on either of
the margins. One of the base wings is flaked or chipped, but otherwise the point is
complete. No evidence of hafting or use wear was identified during the analysis. The
material is a fine-grained metavolcanic or andesite.
Artifact #209 is also a Cottonwood Triangular series projectile point (see Photograph 9).
This partially complete example is missing the tip and part of one base wing. The base is
concave and there are no marginal serrations or denticulation. The artifact is flake based
and was bifacially flaked to produce the finished margins. No evidence of hafting or use
was identified during the analysis. The material is a mottled opaque CCS with small
inclusions of quartz, which suggest it came from the PDL chert source on Camp
Pendleton.
57
4
60 78 92 159 208 209
2 3
I]M111T]WI11]|I
5 6 7 8 9
PHOTOGRAPH 9
Projectile Points from CA-SDI-8303
IRECDN
4. Cobble Tools (12)
Cobble tools are those in which the parent stone, rather than the removed flake, was used
for some task(s). These tools are made from cobbles, split cobbles, or cores,
distinguishing them from smaller flake tools. Cobble tools generally reflect a continuum
of usages, reflecting more than one task. They are considered expedient or multi-purpose
tools that were used and sometimes shaped as needed for the task at hand. These
composite tools do not fit comfortably in a single category and are best described as
multiple use or combination tools used in more than one way to perform one or more
tasks.
Five hammerstones were recovered from Locus A (Photographs 10 and 11).
Hammerstones are core/cobble tools used for various hammering/battering tasks. They
are identified by the battering and cmshing evident on margins where flakes were
removed, on surfaces with or without cortex, and on edges of cobbles or fragments of
other artifacts. Hammerstones were used for such tasks as hard-hammer flake production,
hulling acoms and other nuts, ground stone tool production and maintenance, cmshing
bones for marrow extraction, and cmshing or opening shellfish. It is likely that all of the
hammerstones identified in this collection represent recycled tools meaning they may
have started out as choppers or cores. All of these tools were produced from
metavolcanic cobbles.
Included within the cobble tool category are five metavolcanic chopping tools, recovered
from Units 3, 6, 8, and from the surface (Photograph 12). None of the tools exhibit
extensive edge wear or well-defined edges. In general, chopping tools are thought to have
been used to cut/chop plants, cmsh or open shellfish, or were used for heavy processing
resulting in battered or cmshed edges (Table 8).
Two artifacts were identified as multiple-use tools, a core/hammer from the surface
(artifact #570) and a scraper/hammer from Unit 22 (Artifact #416) (10-20 cm)
(Photographs 13 and 14). Both artifacts were manufactured from fine-grained porphyritic
metavolcanic cobbles.
5. Flake Tools (Other Than Projectile Points; 13)
Flake tools are those flakes/tools that show purposeful retouch to one or more edges of a
flake and include scrapers, cutting tools, drills, and other less-refined forms. For purposes
of this study, bifaces, gravers, knifes, and edge-modified flakes (retouch/utihzed flakes)
are included in the flake tool category.
Individual tool types are defined by the modification and evidence of wear observed
along one or more edges. These attributes, along with angle and shape of the retouched
59
PHOTOGRAPH 10
Hammerstone from CA-SDI-8303
i
PHOTOGRAPH 11
End View of Same Hammerstones Showing
Crushing Damage
IRECDN
PHOTOGRAPH 12
Chopper from CA-SDI-8303
m :::;:::v:::v:v:::::;:::::x-v:v::;;:::::::.:.:-;.:.:-:-:-:-x.:.:.:v:.:.v:>^ IRECDN
TABLE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF COBBLE TOOLS - LOCUS A
Catalog Number Unit Level Material Dimensions
Multiple Use Tools
570 _ Surface FGPM 310.2 grams; 94 by 76 by 31 cm
416 22 10-20 FGPM 247.4 grams; 93 by 72 by 32 cm
Chopping Tools
574 Surface FGPM 564.2 grams; 105 by 95 by 45 cm
575 -Surface FGPM 269.9 grams; 83 by 54 by 45 cm
68 3 10-20 FGPM 239.1 grams; 84 by 63 by 29 cm
176 6 20-30 FGPM 357.0 grams; 90 by 72 by 36 cm
216 8 20-30 FGPM 67.1 grams; fragment
Hammerstones
576 Surface FGPM 655.3 grams; 122 by 81 by 53 cm
577 -Surface CGPM 533.5 grams; 101 by 91 by 45 cm
578 -Surface FGPM 249.8 grams; 72 by 61 by 40 cm
319 13 10-20 FGPM 305.3 grams; 85 by 81 by 29 cm
494 25 20-30 FGPM 495.9 grams; 90 by 79 by 49 cm
NOTE: All of the cobble tools were recovered from Locus A.
CGPM = coarse-grained porphyritic metavolcanic
FGPM = fine-grained porphyritic metavolcanic
570
iii|ii'ijii!i|iiii|iiii|iiiijin
4 5 • 6 7 8 9 10
PHOTOGRAPH 13
Core with Use as Hammerstone from CA-SDI-8303
m
:
::::::
0 1
416
mmm
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PHOTOGRAPH 14
Scraper with Use as Hammerstone from CA-SDI-8303
IRECDN
edge, aid in determining the material upon which the tool was used, and possibly the task
for which it was employed. The 13 recovered tools are divided into three subgroups:
• Scraping (11): primarily unifacial wear and/or edge modification on one or more
lateral edges (scraper; retouched or utilized flakes)
• Cutting (1): modification or bifacial wear on one or more lateral edges (knives)
• Engraving (1): usually unifacial use on a straight edge (gravers)
Using these subgroups, the assemblage includes 7 scrapers, 1 knife blade, 1 graver, and 4
retouched/utilized flakes. None of the seven scrapers exhibited extensive wear or retouch.
The two largest subgroups include scrapers/scraping tools (7 recovered to a maximum
depth of 30 cm) and retouch/utilized flakes (4 recovered to a maximum depth of 50 cm).
All of these artifacts were manufactured from locally obtained lithics, using
predominantly fine- or coarse-grained metavolcanics (Table 9).
Only one graver was recovered from the site. It is a tool with a number of speculated uses
attributed to engraving, scoring, carving, or similar precision work that would require a
well supported and fine point. The artifact is supposed to be flake based although many
of the flake attributes are absent and suggest the artifact may have been created using a
suitable piece of waste material. This is also suggested by the presence of cortex on one
surface of the artifact. The cortex is intermpted only at the tip where the material has
been unifacially flaked to produce the cutting tip. Since it has no discemable flake
platform, measurements were taken relative to the long axis and worked edge. This
implement measures 33 mm from the retouched tip to the proximal end, 10 mm wide
across the spall surface, forming the platform for the retouch, and 12 mm thick. The
material from which this tool was made is a mottled opaque CCS, or chert, with red,
brown, yellow, and cream colors. No quartz inclusions are present indicating that this
material came from a source not directly associated with the PDL source at Camp
Pendleton.
6. Cores (3)
Cores are flaked stone items that are not formal tools, but are the sources for flakes that
are then used to produce tools. Cores come in a variety of forms, but amorphous cores
with multiple platforms and little or no evidence of deliberate shaping are probably the
most common for San Diego County sites. Other forms include bipolar cores, which are
created through the use of a hammer and anvil technique, and unidirectional cores, which
have a single platform.
64
TABLE 9
DISTRIBUTION OF FLAKE TOOLS - LOCUS A
Catalog Number Unit Level Material Dimensions
Graver
430 22 20-30 CCS 4.4 grams; 34 by 13 by 9 cm
Retouch/Utilized Flakes
579 Surface FGPM 100.0 grams 72 by 61 by 20 cm
157 5 40-50 CGPM 111.7 grams; 106 by 76 by 9 cm
433 22 30-40 CGPM 83.7 grams; 91 by 63 by 12 cm
470 24 10-20 Quartz 34.6 grams; fragments
Scraper/Scraping Tools
571 Surface FGPM 368.5 grams; 97 by 70 by 42 cm
572 Surface FGPM 60.2 grams; 64 by 41 by 20 cm
77 3 20-30 Quartz 12.2 grams; 37 by 26 by 11 cm
260 10 10-20 Quartzite 358.6 grams; 94 by 71 by 37 cm
320 13 10-20 FGM 177.0 grams; 93 by 62 by 24 cm
399 21 20-30 FGPM 221.4 grams; 99 by 89 by 24 cm
404 22 0-10 FGM 91.1 grams; fragments
Knife
573 Surface FGPM 52.1 grams; 70 by 35 by 18 cm
NOTE: All of the flake tools were recovered from Locus A.
CGPM = coarse-grained porphyritic metavolcanic
FGM = fine-grained rnetavolcanic
FGPM = fine-grained porphyritic metavolcanic
CCS = crypto-crystalline silicate
Cobbles are a difficult source of lithic material from which to form cores. The
metavolcanic stone materials used to form the three cores from this sample represent
some of the hardest rock to knapp. Metavolcanic stone does make suitable raw material
for scrapers, knives, hammers, scraper planes, and the combination tools because they are
less likely to chip during use and can retain an edge longer. A total of three metavolcanic
cores were collected, two from the surface and one from Unit 14. None of these artifacts
exhibited retouch beyond evidence of basic flake removal (Table 10).
TABLE 10
COBBLE TOOL DISTRIBUTION - CORES
Catalog
Number
Level
Unit (cm) Material Dimensions
568 Surface FGPM 1084.0 grams, 132 by 91 by 55 cm
569 Surface FGM 219.2 grams, 78 by 48 by 42 cm
340 14 20-30 FGPM 336.1 gram, 79 by 63 by 53 cm
NOTE: All of the cores were recovered from Locus A.
7. Debitage
Debitage is generally the most numerous of the artifact classes found in prehistoric sites
and includes formal flakes and angular waste or shatter. Five flake types and two shatter
types are present in the recovered debitage sample. The shatter is classified as primary or
secondary, depending on the presence or absence of cortex. The five flake types include
"blade," cortex removal, basic shaping/core reduction, resharpening/finishing, and
trimming.
The stone materials represented in the collection include both local (metavolcanic, quartz,
quartzite) and exotic stone (obsidian, chert). A total of 794 pieces of debitage (1703.5
grams) were recovered from the 27 units: 768 items (1575.4 grams) from Locus A and 26
(128.1 grams) pieces of debitage from Locus B (Table 11).
Distribution by flake type, material and locus is shown in Table 12. Distribution of the
debitage shown in Table 12 does not represent distinctive differences in reduction
sequence between the two areas. In both areas, the dominant activity appears to be basic
shaping (Flake Type 205) followed by finishing (Flake .Type 206) and trimming (Flake
207). Flake Type 205 represents intermediate reduction; Flake Types 206 and 207 final
reduction.
66
TABLE 11
DEBITAGE TYPOLOGY
Relative
Type Bulb Platform Length Cortex
Dorsal
Scars Other Assumed Process
201 Present Present
202 Present Present
203 Present Present 2-i-cm 80%
204 Present Present 2-i-cm 30-80%
205 Present Present 2-i-cm <30%
206 Present Present <2cm 0%
207 Present Present <2cm Present
208 Absent Absent ^^^^B Present
Parallel sides Specialized blade type
Diverging sides, thin Bifacial thinning
Platform creation /
Cortex removal
209 Absent Absent Absent
Cortex removal
Core reduction / Basic
shaping
Finishing /
Resharpening
Trimming
Shatter during primary
reduction
Shatter during
secondary reduction
SOURCE: After Norwood, Bull, and Rosenthal 1981.
NOTE: Flake/Shatter Type
203,204,208 initial reduction
201,202,205 intermediate reduction
206,207 final reduction
209 indistinguishable secondary shatter
TABLE 12
DISTRIBUTION OF DEBITAGE - LOCI A AND B
Debitage
Type
Count/
Weight
Material Type
Total
Debitage
Type
Count/
Weight CGPM FGM FGPM Quartz Quartzite CCS Obsidian Total
Locus A
201 Count --1 --1 -2
Weight --2.2 --1.0 -3.2
204 Count 2 -4 --1 -7
Weight 7.1 -33.4 --2.1 -106.7
205 Count 2 1 129 5 3 5 3 148
Weight 4.0 4.4 1176.4 12.2 12.2 9.8 0.3 1219.3
206 Count 4 19 178 82 22 89 4 398
Weight 0.8 15.0 75.2 25.5 11.5 25.5 6.3 159.8
207 Count 1 114 6 15 32 1 -169
Weight 0.2 46.1 2.0 8.0 10.3 0.5 -67.1
208 Count 1 2 2 -2 --7
Weight 0.2 4.1 2.2 -3.0 --9.5
209 Count --6 19 1 10 1 37
Weight --1.7 6.2 1.0 2.1 0.1 10.7
Locus B
201 Count --2 ----2
Weight --22.9 ----22.9
205 Count --6 ----6
Weight --90.6 ---, -90.6
206 Count -5 4 1 1 4 -15
Weight -2.0 3.5 0.2 0.8 3.7 -10.2
207 Count --1 ----1
Weight --0.2 ----0.2
209 Count -----1 1 2
Weight -----4.1 0.1 4.2
CGPM = coarse-grained porphyritic metavolcanic
FGM = fine-grained metavolcanic
FGPM - fine-grained porphyritic metavolcanic
CCS - crypto-crystalline silicate
Based on the recovered flake types it would appear that minimal initial reduction
(platform creation/cortex removal, cortex removal, primary reduction) took place at the
site. Retouch and trimming, rather than tool manufacture would have been the focus of
concentrated knapping activity. The recovery of 794 flakes (approximately 76
flakes/cubic meter) is considered low and is reflective of tool retouch and sharpening,
rather than tool manufacture from beginning stages through completion. In other words
this debitage profile indicates that preformed and complete tools were present on-site and
that it reflects the actions undertaken to further shape the preforms and to modify or
rejuvenate existing tools.
8. Bone Tools (1)
A fragment of a bone awl (tip only) (Photograph 15) weighing 0.2 gram was recovered in
Unit 8 at the 30-40 cm level (Artifact #214). No other evidence of worked bone was
recovered from the site.
9. Ceramics (390)
A total of 390 pieces (760.0 grams) of Tizon Brown Ware were collected from
subsurface contexts; none were found on the surface. All of the ceramic pieces, except for
one fragment (Unit 27) were recovered from Locus A. Distribution by unit, level, count,
and weight is shown in Table 13.
Tizon Brown Ware is a locally produced ceramic found throughout southem Califomia.
Brown ware vessels were fabricated of residual clays (Arkush 1990:21; Cook 1986:91;
Pritchard-Parker 1992; Rogers 1973:4, 22; Schaeffer, Pallette, and Bean 1993:69; Yohe
1990:37). Paste composition is used as the primary factor for identifying Brown ware in
the analysis. Residual clays typically fire to a brown, slightly reddish brown, or dark
brown color (Arkush 1990:21; Lyneis 1988:146; Yohe 1990:37) and the vessels often
exhibit "fire clouds" (Rogers 1973:21) on the surface (Collett and Cook 1994:16).
Tizon Brown Ware is a distinctive artifact type that is commonly used as an indicator of
Late Period settlement. The precise date of the development or introduction of ceramics
in San Diego County is an issue of continuing research interest to archaeologists. The
exact date for the introduction of ceramics has not been established; however, with some
consistency the view is that ceramic technology was present in the county by 1000 B.P.
Problems exist because ceramic sherds become mixed in archaeological deposits which
have more than one occupation episode, and one or more of these episodes may date to
periods before ceramic technology was introduced. In general terms, the presence of
ceramic materials indicates that at least part of the deposit at CA-SDI-8303 can be dated
to sometime after circa 1000 B.P.
69
214
PHOTOGRAPH 15
Bone Awl Tip from CA-SDI-8303
1
47
I -'^,
101 165
liill'
226
0 1cm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PHOTOGRAPH 16
Shell Beads from CA-SDI-8303
IRECDN
TABLE 13
DISTRIBUTION OF TIZON BROWN WARE SHERDS - LOCI A AND B
Level (count - weight)^
Unit 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-60 cm Total
Locus A
1 11-23.4 4-0.6 2-8.3 --17-32.3
2 8-19.0 2-11.1 7-11.0 2-5.0 -19-46.1
3 13-23.9 8-8.7 1 - 1.0 --22 - 33.6
4 6 - 24.9 8-9.1 7 - 10.3 1-2.9 1 - 1.1 23 - 48.3
5 13-23.9 4-6.9 2-4.5 -1-3.3 20 - 38.6
6 12-18.1 2-1.2 5-7.6 5-11.4 -24 - 38.3
7 8 - 14.3 1 - 0.6 ---9-14.9
8 24 - 45.9 15-18.6 1 - 1.3 3-1.5 -43 - 67.3
9 9 - 26.2 1-31.5 6-31.1 13 - 47.5 3-2.2 32 - 138.5
10 25 - 28.3 9-18.0 1 - 1.0 --35 - 47.3
11 8-11.8 15-29.6 9-13.7 1-0.3 -33 - 55.4
12 2-10.1 1 - 14.0 ---3-24.1
13 12-21.9 10-9.5 2-3.9 . --24 - 35.3
14 4-10.1 11-22.0 8 - 12.5 --23 - 44.6
21 9-23.8 3-2.4 ---12-26.2
22 4-8.3 13 - 14.9 4-3.3 --21 - 26.5
23 6-7.4 3-2.1 2-7.3 --11 -16.8
24 11-13.0 3-3.9 -1-3.4 -15 - 20.3
25 -3-4.2 --3 - 4.2
Locus B
27 --1 - 1.4 --1-1.4
TOTAL 185 - 354.3 116-208.9 58- 118.2 26 - 72.0 5-6.6 390 - 760
'^weight is in grams.
The types of sherds represented in this collection are made based on sherd morphology
and can indicate the potential activities engaged in on-site. In the San Diego County area,
the variety of forms includes bowls, jugs, pots, and a limited number of pipes. Each
vessel form has certain characteristics of shape and stmcture that can be identified. Some
elements of vessel form can be difficult to distinguish; however, general information is
useful. For example, the body of a jug is very similar to the body of a bowl or pot.
Identification of different vessel forms was based on diagnostic sherds such as lips, rims,
bases, or necks. Only two fragmented rim sherds were collected; the size and condition of
both pieces suggest no distinctive vessel forms. None of the sherds contained any type of
modification (i.e., drilling, design elements, repair), although several exhibited heavy
carbonization along the interior wall.
10. Shell Beads (4)
Three Olivella shell (Olivella sp.) and one Califomia Cone shell {Conus californicus)
beads (3.9 grams) were recovered (Photograph 16). The Olivella beads are classified as
Type Al, spire-lopped (King 1981), and the same technique was used on the Califomia
Cone bead. The beads were recovered in four units: Unit 2 (30-40 cm). Unit 4 (10-20
cm). Unit 6 (0-10 cm), and Unit 9 (0-10 cm). All of the beads were recovered from Locus
A. An additional three whole Olivella shells were recorded and determined to be non-
cultural.
Type Al beads are produced by the removal of the apex or whorl tip, either by grinding
or by chipping. In some cases, this removal can occur through natural means. None of the
specimens exhibited buming or other forms of modification. The four beads appear
similar to the three collected by Gallegos (1999:3-14). Olivella beads are considered
temporal markers for the Late Prehistoric period.
11. Ecofaunal Remains
During screening, shell or bone fragments less than 2 millimeters were not collected.
Material remaining in the screen consisted of decomposed bone and shell fragments or
those cmshed beyond.
Animal Bone
Animal bone was recovered in small quantities from both Loci A and B. Speciation was
precluded by the fragmented condition of the recovered bone, but the majority appears to
be fragments of rodent bones. A total of 131.4 grams of bone was recovered to a
maximum depth of 60 cm (Locus A). A total of 2.9 grams (0.02 percent) of the collection
was identified as representing fish. Based on the amount of bioturbation noted for each
unit and the condition of recovered bone, a sizeable percentage of the recovered bone is
non-cultural (Table 14).
72
TABLE 14
DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL BONE - LOCI A AND B
(grams)
Locus Level (cm) Unidentified Small Mammal Fish Total
A 10 21.7 -21.7
A 20 32.4 -32.4 .
A 30 41.6 2.8 44.4
A 40 13.2 -13.2
A 50 5.0 -5.0
A 60 7.4 0.1 7.5
TOTAL 121.3
B 10 2.8 -2.8
B 20 1.4 -1.4
B 30 0.3 -0.3
B 40 2.7 -2.7
TOTAL 7.2 2.9 131.4
The small quantity of recovered bone may be the result of poor preservation, sampling
error, or the absence of animal foods in the diet of the site occupants. With the close
proximity of marine shellfish sources, terrestrial animals may have contributed less to the
diet of the site inhabitants; however, small mammals were probably the focus of some
attention, as indicated by the presence of arrow points.
Marine Shellfish
Marine shellfish remains constitute the largest portion of the faunal sample. The shell
was separated to the genus level for the purposes of identifying the animals that were
collected and transported to the site. Clam (Chione sp.) is the dominant species, followed
by scallop (Argopecten sp.) and bean clam (Donax sp.). Common names for the varieties
of shell will be used in the balance of the discussion and in the summary tables.
A total of 40,701.6 grams of shell was collected from Loci A and B. Indexing and
speciation of the shell was conducted for Units 4, 16, and 27. When combined with the
results from Gallegos' test units (3a and 4a), differences in terms of preferred genera can
be seen between Loci A and B.
Because of the fragmentary nature of much of the shell, minimal number of individuals
(MNI) for each genus was not calculated. Results of the generation are given in Table 15.
Genera associated with bay/lagoon/estuary environments include clam, scallop, and
native oyster. Sandy beach genera are represented by bean clam and Pismo clam. Rocky
shore/outer coast genera would include mussel. Clam are considered mudders and are
found just below the surface. Oyster prefer protected rocks, while mussel colonies are
found along surf-swept rocks. Bean clams are found in colonies along open sandy
beaches. The most favorable time to collect all of these animals would have been during
low tides.
All of the recovered genera are edible and ethnographically were eaten raw, boiled, dried,
smoked, or prepared over an open fire (Shipek 1993). Prehistoric methods of
procurements and preparation of these foods can only be inferred. Historic and
ethnographic information can give insight into possible uses.
Mussels and other open coast bivalves cannot be eaten in the summer months. Bean clam,
Pismo clam, scallop, clam, Washington clams (Saxidomus nuttalli), and recluse moon
snail (Polinicies reclusianus) are found in non-rocky environments, either congregated in
large colonies or "if you dig a hole in the muddy sand with a digging stick and put water
in it... the clams will come" (Shipek 1970:29). Shell found in these environments were
used for food and/or omamentation.
74
TABLE 15
DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIATED MARINE SHELLFISH - RECON AND GALLEGOS (1999)
(grams)
Genus
Unit4
Locus A
Unit 16
Locus B
Unit27
Locus B
Gallegos-
Unit 3a
(Locus B)
Gal legos-
Unit 4a
(Locus A) Total Common Name/Habitat
Pecten sp. 64.1
0.9%
509.7
14.3%
1,061.5
17.0%
1,230.8
29.7%
35.3
7.7%
2,901.4 Scallop; rocky- upper to subtidal; lagoon
Chione sp. 268.8
39.2%
2,934.8
82.5%
4,039.4
64.7%
2,755.2
66.5%
148.9
32.3%
10,147.1 Califomiachione (clam); sandy beach/mud
flats, lower to subtidal range
Donax sp. 236.8
34.5%
0.2 707.5
11.3%
1.3
0.03%
226.6
49.2%
1,172.4 Bean clam; exposed sandy beach, upper to
lower tides
Ostrea sp. 330.1
48.2%
93.0 396.1 96.7
2.34%
49.7
10.8%
965.6 Oyster; rocky, lower tides
Polinices sp. 19.7
2.8%
--2.7
0.07%
-22.4 Moon snail; protected bays, upper to middle
tides
Saxidomus nuttalli 2.1 13.5 9.3 --24.9 Washington clam; exposed beaches, lower to
subtidal range
Trimusculus sp. 0.6 ----0.6 Limpet; rocky ledges, midtidal range
Tegula sp. -6.5 24.8 --31.3 Top shell snail; rocky, upper to lower tides
Mytilus sp. ---2.7 -2.7 Mussel; rocky, upper to subtidal range
Tivela stultorum ---48.8 -48.8 Pismo clam; exposed sandy beach, upper to
lower tides
TOTAL 922.2 3,557.7 6,238.6 4,138.2 460.5 15,317.2
The representation of bean clam by count and weight can be misleading; when available,
literally tons can be collected in a relatively short time. The historic method of collection
was to scoop up the sand and clams into a box and allow the surf to wash away the sand.
People used them for making a type of clam bouillon. After a few minutes in hot water,
the clam will open, detaching the meat. Ethnographically, the Kumeyaay and Luiseno
gathered bean clam for use in soups. Collection is relatively easy if the collector has a
container that serves as a sieve as well as a carrying implement. This implies a
specialized type of basket or net bag. In the harvesting of bean clam, some type of
"sifting" must take place to remove the sand. Since this animal occurs in colonies, one
individual with the proper equipment should be able to harvest a sizeable collection of
this small fish shell in a short time.
Determining dietary preference by weight, rather than by MNI can grossly misrepresent
genus abundance. Although it is not surprising that, by weight clam was the dominant
genus, the high percentage of bean clam (each generally weighing less than 1.0 gram)
must be accounted for. Percentages using weights rather than MNI should only be used as
an estimate rather than definitive numbers. Using weight for comparison, the four
dominant genera of shellfish are shown in Table 16.
TABLE 16
DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE (WEIGHT) FOR SHELLFISH
(grams)
Genus
Locus
A
Locus
B
Combined Percentages
(Loci A and B)
Total Shell (grams)
(Loci A and B)
Sheiym'
Locus A
Sheiym'
Locus B
Scallop 0.7 20.0 18.9 2901.4 100 1868
Clam 30.2 69.8 66.2 10147.1 418 6486
Bean clam 33.5 5.2 0.7 1172.4 464 472
Oyster 27.5 2.7 0.6 965.3 379 391
As shown above, clam (by weight) appears to be the dominant genus at both Loci A and
B, although the ratio of clam to other genera is different between the two areas (30.2
percent in Locus A; 69.8 percent for Locus B). Bean clam, as a dominant genus (33.5
percent), occurs only in Locus A. Gallegos concluded that the shift from clam to bean
clam at Locus A may represent a paleoenvironmental change during the middle to late
Holocene, representing a smaller bay/lagoon and the use of sandy beach shellfish
(Gallegos 1999:3-19). Although the percentages (by weight) indicate differences
between the two areas, there is no way of determining how accurate these figures are.
The higher retum of bean clam in Locus A could simply represent a successful,
opportunistic, single foraging effort that resulted in the collection of a large number of
these animals, rather than an environmental shift. It is noteworthy that Locus A produced
76
a distinctly different pattem with regard to the represented animals, in as much as bean
clam was virtually absent at Locus B, as was oyster. It may be that the foraging pattems
expressed at these loci represent distinct differences in intrasite activities. These
differences may be related to different occupation episodes and to changes in subsistence
pattems over time. However, further discussion of this awaits results of the radiocarbon
analyses.
12. Intra-Site Features
Approximately 50-60 pieces of fire-affected rock were found scattered within Locus A.
There was no fire affected rock found at Locus B. There were no hearths or other
definable cooking features encountered. According to Bird and Bird (1977) the absence
of fire-affected rock should not be surprising. Simple processing techniques using grass
and sticks can quickly cook shellfish, resulting in few if any fire-affected rock and quick
dispersal of charcoal by natural processes. The lack of discrete cooking areas, living
surfaces, and/or hearths suggest that the northem portion of the site was used on a
sporadic rather than a permanent basis. It is also possible that features of these types have
been displaced by agriculture and other historic land use practices.
13. Radiocarbon Samples
Six samples have been submitted for radiocarbon analysis, two by Gallegos and four by
RECON. Dates acquired from the samples are shown in Table 17. The results of the
RECON submittal are pending. An attempt was made to select samples that would allow
a comparison between the two loci and an appraisal of depth distinctions.
TABLE 17
RADIOCARBON SAMPLES
Sample Unit Level Material Uncorrected Date Calibrated Date
Beta-129350 3a 30-40 Chione sp. 850±80 B.P. Cal A.D. 13454-1640
(Gallegos)
Chione sp.
Beta-129351 4a 20-30 Chione sp. 760±60 B.P. Cal A.D. 1450 -1670
(Gallegos)
Chione sp.
4 20-30 Chione sp. Pending Pending
16 20-30 Chione sp. Pending Pending
27 40-50 Chione sp. Pending Pending
77
14. Intra-Site Variability
Archaeological investigations were restricted to areas that will be impacted by the
proposed Faraday Avenue Extension. Portions of the site outside the project APE were
not investigated as part of the data recovery program. The entire site was originally
recorded by Malcolm Rogers in the 1920s as the Kelly Springs site. Rogers noted that the
site was located on either side of a canyon. Cultural remains at that time included cobble
hearths, shell, projectile points, ceramics, and a possible cremation. Visits by other
researchers in the intervening years resulted in a reduction of both the size and
complexity of the site deposit.
Since the entire site was not sampled, conclusions regarding deposit density, intrasite
variability, and site activities are limited to the area that was evaluated. Differences in
terms of material types and density were noted between Loci A and B. Additional testing
in areas south of the Faraday APE will be necessary to determine if these differences are
artificial (based on a limited study area) or are reflective of differential site use.
A total of 10.4 cubic meters were examined during the RECON data recovery program.
From twenty-seven Ixl-meter test units, 40,833.0 grams of bone/shell, 390 pieces of
ceramic, 794 pieces of debitage, 34 flaked lithic tools, 8 ground stone fragments, and 4
shell beads were recovered.
Using weight for comparison, three genera dominate the shell recovered from Locus A—
clam (30.2 percent), bean clam (33.5 percent), and oyster (27.5 percent). Clam (69.8
percent) and scallop (20.0 percent) are the dominant genera for Locus B. Combining the
totals for both areas, clam (66.2 percent) was the preferred or more available genus. As
mentioned previously, clam is also the heaviest type of shell in this collection with an
individual shell mass of roughly two to one over scallop. If comparisons are made on the
presence of specific genera at the two loci, there is a difference in the represented pattem.
Locus B produced a generally consistent pattem of clam and scallop, a common
representation at sites in the region, dating to the archaic period. In contrast, while clams
are present at Locus A, scallops are nearly absent and bean clams and oyster increase in
presence. Both clams and scallops are animals found in lagoon settings. In contrast, bean
clams are found in sandy beaches and oysters on a rocky shore substrate. These site loci
may represent different periods of site use/occupation following foraging trips aimed at
different ecosystems. The differences may have been motivated by environmental
changes, cultural preference, resource availability, or any number of non-specific
circumstances.
Distribution and density of recovered artifacts/ecofacts is also shown by calculating
recovery ratios for a cubic meter in both sample areas. One expectation could be a higher
quantity of ecofacts (bone and shell) at Locus B and a greater number of lithic tools and
78
artifacts at Locus A. This pattem could suggest that food refuse areas were concentrated
at Locus B rather than at Locus A (Tables 18 and 19). This pattem appears to be bome
out by the recovery results.
15. Site Integrity
The integrity of a cultural deposit is fundamental to the accuracy of inferences drawn
from spatial data. The fewer the number and variety of disturbances, the more accurate
the inferences made from the spatial data. At CA-SDI-8303 the two major disturbances to
the site deposit, aside from environmental impacts of weathering, decomposition and
erosion:
• agricultural activity from plowing and planting, and
• bioturbation from rodents, roots, and invertebrate fauna such as ants and earthworms.
Clear evidence for both of these forms of disturbance is readily apparent within the
northem portion of CA-SDI-8303.
The distribution of cultural material at this site has been affected by both natural and
cultural factors. The result of plowing and burrowing has been to homogenize the looser
soil that overlays the sandstone substrate. Cultural materials within the upper levels
appear have been mixed and chumed tO an unknown degree. Because of this chuming,
vertical relationships between the artifacts iand ecofacts have changed, hampering
interpretations based on stratigraphic relationships. Despite the condition of the vertical
and horizontal chuming, it is still possible to draw concltisions about the age and nature
of the deposit from radiocarbon analysis and generalized data.
Research Discussion
A number of basic research questions were posited for this portion of CA-SDI-8303,
including the occupation sequence, the main actions undertaken at the site, and what
technology (ies) are represented. Based on the types of artifacts recovered (mostly
chipping waste), it is impossible to definitively say how long the site was occupied or by
how many people. We do not know whether or not the debitage, tools, and shellfish
remains were left by a single individual or family group who visited the site over several
seasons or by a small band who used the site only once. The lack of intrasite activity
areas limits site interpretation beyond identification as a campsite.
As mentioned previously, the portion of CA-SDI-8303 that was studied appears to
represent a peripheral segment of the larger site area. Based on the quantities and types of
79
TABLE 18
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF ARTIFACT/ECOFACT RECOVERY - SURFACE AND UNITS
Cubic
Meters Area Bone Shell Ceramics Debitage
Flaked Lithic
Tools Beads Ground Stone
7.8 Locus A 92.3 40.0 99.7 96.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.7 Locus B 7.7 44.65 0 1.15 0 0 0
0.9 A/B 0 15.35 0.3 2.15 0 0 0
10.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
TABLE 19
DENSITY OF MATERIALS
BY LOCUS BY CUBIC METER
(grams)
Material Locus A Locus B
Bone 15.5 21.1
Shell 2,087.6 9391.7
Ceramics 50.0 38.0
Lithics 4.6 0
Debitage 99.5 61.5
Ground stone 1.0 0
Beads 0.5 0
artifacts and ecofacts recovered during testing (Gallegos 1999) and this data recovery
effort, it appears that the remaining area of CA-SDI-8303 may represent a complex
residential base dating to the archaic, and perhaps. Late Prehistoric eras. The areas
sampled for the significance evaluation and this data recovery effort provide some clues
as to the occupation era(s) and activities of the remaining site area.
A. Chronology
The presence of prehistoric pottery and Cottonwood projectile points place the sampled
portion of this site in the Late Prehistoric period. The radiocarbon sample from Gallegos
(1999) identifies occupation circa 280 to 605 years ago.
Data acquired from the data recovery program identified only one period of occupation
that associated with the Late Period. Although the artifact/ecofact assemblage differed
between Loci A and B, there is no indication that they represent discrete cultural
differences or use of the site during different time periods.
Nine pieces of obsidian were recovered from the site: eight from Locus A and one from
Locus B. All of the pieces are associated with tool reduction. Obsidian is volcanic glass
that is produced when lava is extmded during volcanic activity and cools at such a rapid
rate that the free-floating minerals within the lava do not form crystals before they cool.
The resulting glass is easily broken and exhibits excellent properties of fracture.
Obsidian is an adequate material for the production of flaked stone tools, which do not
require great mass, such as projectile points.
The closest source of obsidian for San Diego County residents is Obsidian Butte in
Imperial County, Cahfomia (Shackley 1981; Hughes and Tme 1985). This source stands
in the catchment area of Lake Cahuilla. This prehistoric lake, which occupied much of
the Coachella Valley and Salton Sink in early times, saw repeated fluctuations in water
level including desiccation. Some work has been done to date the various stands of Lake
Cahuilla, which provides archaeologists with a temporal reference for prehistoric activity
in the desert regions of Califomia and Arizona.
The most recent infilhng of Lake Cahuilla occurred circa A.D. 1300-1500 (Sutton and
Wilke 1988:4), after which the basin began to dry, leading to shifts in the settlement and
subsistence pattems of human groups occupying the region (Collett and Cook 1994:8).
The reduction in the size of the lake allowed access to Obsidian Butte and the glass could
be quarried. This pattem of infilling and drying repeated periodically, such that drying
episodes which preceded A.D. 1300 would likely have exposed Obsidian Butte to
collection episodes at various times. The importance of the timetable is that the
availability of Obsidian Butte material coincides with the Late Period. For these reasons,
82
finding Obsidian Butte material in an archaeological context provides a relative temporal
indicator of the potential age of a deposit.
B. Site lype/Settlement Patterns
The significance evaluation of CA-SDI-8303, completed by Gallegos & Associates,
concluded that the Faraday Avenue portion of the site represented a major habitation site
or village (1999:5-4). Based on the results from the data recovery program, identification
of this area as a "village" is not supported. Sites representing the Late Period are found
clustered along the edge of Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon and in the drainages to
the east. These sites have been identified as locations and in every case are shell dumps
or middens, containing large quantities of clam and scallop shells. These sites appear to
be a result of a settlement pattem that has people in village locations employing venture
episodes to targeted resources. Villages are located in sheltered drainages and were
probably visited as part of a seasonal round. Areas of CA-SDI-8303 located south of the
Faraday Avenue extension APE are likely to contain remnants of the village component
originally recorded by Malcolm Rogers in the 1920s. Since only a portion of CA-SDI-
8303 was included in the data recovery program, research questions addressing site type
and settlement pattems can only be partially discussed.
As defined by Binford (1980) a location is a site produced by activities associated with a
processing or extractive task. These sites are generally termed "special activity areas" in
that they do not (theoretically) encompass all of the domestic activities (and by inference
the material by-products) that would occur near a central habitation area. Locations are
predicted to contain a specific task-related tool kit, situated in an area that is more
favorable for the activity or is associated with resources important to the activity, contain
a limited amount and diversity of domestic refuse, and contain debris from the use or
modification of the targeted resource(s). Archaeologically, locations would contain a
limited number of specific tool types, have limited recovery of multiple classes of
domestic refuse (for example, shellfish, bone, charcoal, seeds), and contain specific types
and limited quantities of debitage. Field camps, on the other hand, represent a temporary
working and living area associated with gathered task groups while they are away from
the main residential base. Field camps are expected to be located along the routes
between resource areas and within Icirger resource areas. Field camps would be
recognizable by a small but representative sample of several artifact types, location near a
major resource area or a travel route, moderate quantities of domestic refuse, including
portable food items, variable debitage assemblage with recognizable emphasis on the
production and use of a particular task-related tool kit, and hearths.
The assemblage recovered in the data recovery program includes 10 tool types: ground
stone, projectile points, multi-use tools, hammerstones, chopping tools, a graver.
83
scrapers, a knife blade, cores, and retouched/utilized flakes. Although the total number of
tools recovered is small (34), the diversity of tool types suggest that this portion of the
site represents a field camp. Emphasis on production and use of a particular task-related
tool kit is supported by the types of flakes recovered and the dominance of tools
associated with food processing. Although this portion of the site is considered to be a
field camp, the absence of significant intersite variability, the absence of features, and the
limited variability in terms of density and diversity of cultural materials severely limits a
complete understanding of distribution pattems for the entire site. Although variability
was noted in terms of density and diversity between Loci A and B, there is no way of
determining whether these differences are culturally induced or simply reflective of
sampling error.
The horizontal distribution and vertical depth of the northem portion of the site was
determined. Cultural materials were recovered to a maximum depth of 60 cm, with the
majority collected above 30 cm. The horizontal distribution is clearly seen in the unit
summaries for Loci A and B. Higher artifact/ecofact "densities" were found in Units 3-6,
8, 9, 13-14, 22, and 24 (Blocks 1-3). As noted in the field descriptions, post-depositional
disturbances have affected the overall integrity of the site. The majority of the cultural
materials were recovered in the top 30 cm, within the historic plow zone. As shown in the
unit profiles severe bioturbation and mixing of the upper 30 cm .was evident.
Relationship between SDI-8303 and other sites in this drainage/catchment area?
Are there other contemporaneous residential bases, locations, or field camps in the
vicinity?
The conditions at CA-SDI-8303 are similar to those reported for two sites investigated as
part of the Aviara project (Cheever and Eighmey 1991). Late Prehistoric sites associated
with this project fit the proposed settlement model of occupation around Batiquitos
Lagoon. The pattem during the Late Period was oriented towards establishing small,
temporary camps in proximity to desired resources. Foraging/gathering group members
moved from larger, long-term settlements, into the surrounding area to acquire various
resources. These activities resulted in the development of small transitory encampments
where relatively few activities took place. The habitation sites that supported the
forager/gatherer groups appear to have been located near a reliable source of fresh water
and in areas where a range of resources was available. Additional testing in areas outside
of the Faraday Avenue APE will be required to fully understand the settlement pattem
and site activity that occurred within the larger site.
84
C. Subsistence Strategies
Marine shellfish remains the largest portion of the faunal sample. Marine shell recovered
from the site provides a link between site occupants and the collection, transportation,
and consumption of a variety of lagoon shellfish genera. Clam is the most prevalent,
followed by scallop and bean clam.
Percentages (by weight) indicate differences in shell density and "preferred" genera
between Loci A and B. The higher retum of bean clam in Locus A could simply reflect a
successful, opportunistic, single foraging effort that resulted in a larger number of this
animal, rather than an environmental shift.
Dietary studies conducted on the bean clam indicate that a considerable number of
individuals are required to a single meal. Dietary estimates indicate that over 100,000
shellfish are required to fulfill the minimum daily caloric requirement, and over 10,000
shellfish to fulfill the daily protein requirement. The amount of shell recovered from CA-
SDI-8303 is less than the protein requirement for a single individual. Application of the
dietary data would suggest that this site is more likely to represent a very limited short-
term duration episode, wherein an individual, or a small group of individuals made brief
stops for specific meals which might have included previously prepared meals made at
the residential base.
Based on the recovered artifacts/ecofacts, the focus of activity at this portion of the site
appears to have been subsistence related. Specifically, marine shellfish were collected
from lagoon and open shore environments and transported to this location for
consumption.
D. Lithic Technology
The diversity of the flaked stone artifacts and the range of manufacturing activities
undertaken indicate that the lithic component of the site is the result of something more
than a task-specific location. Both hunting (i.e., projectile points, knife) and plant/animal
processing-related tools (i.e., ground stone, chopping tools, cutting/ scraping tools) were
recovered. Based on the overall condition of the projectile points, it would appear that the
site's occupants were assessing the state of their hunting toolkit prior to resumption of
hunting.
Using only flakes to interpret site density and stage of tool manufacturing is difficult at
best. For the most part, the lithic technology for this area can be defined as hard-hammer
percussion. Unlike other material types, such as obsidian and cherts, the lithics used at
this site belong to a class of extremely hard, fine to coarse-grained metavolcanics that are
85
difficult to work. This material is not easy to fracture, is difficult to make tools from, and
leave little evidence in the way of platform preparation.
Based on the flake types recovered, minimal initial reduction (platform creation/cortex
removal, cortex removal, primary reduction) took place. Retouch and trimming, rather
than tool manufacture, would have been the focus for concentrated knapping activity. If
shellfish gathering was a primary task for this area, one would expect that
morphologically generic tools having multiple uses would dominate the assemblage over
the number of "refined" tools. Tools, such as ground stone or projectile points, gravers,
and other "refined" flaked tools are not considered critical in a subsistence emphasizing
shellfish. Their presence, however, indicates that activities not associated with shellfish
consumption were also conducted.
The recovery of 794 flakes (approximately 76 flakes/cubic meter) is considered low. The
number of flakes coupled with the fragmented nature of the flaked lithic tools is reflective
of tool retouch and sharpening, rather than initial tool manufacture. The majority of the
debitage consisted of fine-grained metavolcanic (76.3 percent). The recovery of
quartz/quartzite (5.5 percent), CCS (2.5 percent), and obsidian (0.01 percent) within the
debitage assemblage, indicates that at least the projectile points and some of the flaked
lithic tools were brought into the site in a refined state and repaired as needed.
The density and variety of recovered stone artifacts suggests some diversity in the stone
tool manufacturing and maintenance pattem for this portion of the site. As much as
anything the types of flakes and formal tools found in the northem portion evoke
curiosity about the remaining site area to the south.
For the most part, locally available coarse-grained metavolcanic was used in the
manufacture of cobble-based tools. All of the chopping tools, hammerstones, cores, and
multiple-use tools were manufactured from metavolcanic cobbles. A wider variety of
materials are present among the morphologically distinct flaked lithic tools, including
quartz, quartzite, obsidian, fine-grained metavolcanic, and crypto-crystalline silicates.
E. Trade and Travel
In addition to temporal associations, it is possible to use the presence of obsidian to infer
relationships between desert groups and those occupying sites such as CA-SDI-8303.
Although direct trade or access relationships are not likely, nor are they supported by
such limited data, it is reasonable to conclude that some movement of obsidian took place
between Obsidian Butte and Carlsbad. Pattems of trade have been identified in southem
Califomia (Davis 1974; Shackley 1981; Hughes and Tme 1985) and include connections
86
between groups in the desert with groups along the San Diego County coast based on the
presence of materials with specific regional sources.
Settlement and land use pattems also play a role in the distribution of materials
throughout the region. The pattem of movement for Late Prehistoric groups was
generally from the deserts or mountains in the summer to the coast in the winter
(east/west), but may also have included north/south movement across or through
neighboring areas as kinship duties or special needs required. It is during the movement
of interconnected groups that non-local lithic material trade or redistribution is most
likely to have occurred.
The presence of Obsidian Butte material is some indication of Late Period association
and of contact, trade, or travel to acquire this inland material. The small quantity may
indicate that this material was conserved and not casually flaked on-site.
Chert is the second type of non-local lithic material recovered from CA-SDI-8303. One
hundred forty pieces of chert debitage were recovered from Locus A (18.3 percent total
count); five from Locus B (20.0 percent of the total count). The dominant flake types
present for both areas suggest lithic activity associated with finishing/resharpening and
trimming.
Chert, as defined here, refers to a crypto-crystalline silicate lithic material. Other names
for this material include chalcedony, jasper, flint, and agate, but are termed chert for
simplicity since only chemical and thin section analyses will allow accurate
classifications to be made. Chert, like obsidian, has a specific chemical composition that
can be used to connect a stone to the source of origin; however, this type of special study
is beyond the scope of this investigation. Crypto-crystalline silicates form where heat
and pressure have acted on parent materials within rocks to produce a metamorphosed
material with a silica-based composition and almost no crystalline stmcture. The
effective absence of a crystalline stmcture allows the stone to fracture conchoidally and
facilitates its use for fashioning stone tools. Workability can also be enhanced by heat
treating, although none of the specimens recovered exhibit indications of heat treatment.
Like obsidian, chert can be managed during the flaking process to achieve predictable
results. The amount of crystals that did form inside a chert will affect the quality and
appearance of the stone. Another feature of appearance is the addition of various
minerals which influence color. For these reasons, chert comes in a wide variety of
colors, degrees of clarity, and workability.
In northem San Diego County, the Piedras del Lumbres (PDL) source produces a
distinctive chert that is known to have been quarried prehistorically. Archaeological sites
near the source are laden with artifacts created from this material. The pattem of
distance-decay or "fall-off (Shackley 1981; Hughes and Tme 1985) affecting the density
87
of obsidian distribution is also observed with PDL. PDL chert is identifiable by eye
based on the inclusions within it. Small quartz crystals are present within the chert
matrix and give a sparkling appearance to the otherwise uniform, greasy luster. The
sparkle produced by the small facets of quartz give the material its name, "stone of
lights." The presence of these small crystals does not seem to hamper the workabihty of
PDL chert.
While PDL chert is not the only source of chert in San Diego County, it is possibly the
largest and the most recognizable. Other specimens of crypto-crystalline silicates
including chert and chalcedony were recovered from the site. Only the material from the
PDL source was distinctive enough to be identified without additional analysis.
Additional analysis including source determinations is recommended to establish the flow
of these materials and possible connections between CA-SDI-8303 and other sites or
groups in the region.
Recommendations
Sufficient information was collected during the significance testing (Gallegos and
Associates 1999) and the data collection program to index and document the cultural
remains from CA-SDI-8303 located in the Faraday Avenue Extension APE.
Approximately 32 square meters of archaeological deposit were excavated to a maximum
depth of 60 cm during the course of the two excavation programs. Reconnaissance and
collection of surface artifacts supplemented materials collected from the units. The
deposit integrity was poor due to agricultural activity, dumping, and bioturbation.
Horizontal relationships have been generalized by these activities and mechanical blading
or some form of soil removal has altered the original topographic contours. Identification
of the original site setting and configuration for this portion of the site was not possible.
The low retum of artifacts and a relatively small amount of subsistence debris (shell and
animal bone) suggest that this portion of the site was occupied on a short-term basis. The
results of the radiocarbon analysis are expected to support this conclusion, although there
is also the potential for the dates to indicate a longer period of activity. The results of
radiocarbon analyses are pending at this time.
Although no additional excavations are recommended for the northem portion of CA-
SDI-8303, some additional laboratory analyses may yield information useful in
addressing regional research issues. Among these is the issue of source locations for the
non-local lithic materials recovered from the site. Determining the sources of the cherts
and chalcedonies would elucidate specific pattems of exotic stone material distribution
during the Late Period. Once determined, the source locations of these stones would be
helpful in identifying the regional availability of these materials and would reflect the
path(s) of transfer from the parent source into the region. These data would be useful in
88
identifying spatial relationships with outlying areas and may also reflect kinship or other
group relationships in the San Diego County region.
No further sampling is recommended for this portion of the site; however, any future
projects that may impact portions of CA-SDI-8303 outside of the Faraday Avenue
Extension APE must be evaluated. Although no subsurface features were located during
the data collection program, there is a potential for finding in situ features or temporally
diagnostic artifacts during constmction grading. Because of this potential the
implementation of an archaeological monitoring program is recommended. At the time
this summary report .was completed the archaeological monitoring program was already
in progress. The results of the monitoring program will be summarized in a separate
document.
An updated site record will be filed with the San Diego Museum of Man and with the
South Coastal Information Center to define the limits of CA-SDI-8303 within the
Faraday Avenue Extension and provide a summary of the data recovery results.
Project Staff
The following individuals were responsible for the completion of the project tasks.
Resumes for key personnel are provided as Attachment 2.
Project Manager
Senior Archaeologist
Project Archaeologist/Field Director
Field Archaeologist/Laboratory Director
Field Archaeologist
Field Archaeologist/Lab Technician
Field Archaeologist
Field Archaeologist
Intern/Field Archaeologist
Global Positioning System Specialist
Senior Technical Illustrator
Production Supervisor
Production Specialist
Dayle Cheever, M.A.
Judy Berryman, Ph.D.
Russell O. Collett
JoAnne Gilmer
John Whitehouse
Liz Davidson
Amie Schoenberg
Ben Wiehe
Katie Threlkeld
Leslie Smith
Harry J. Price
Loretta L. Gross
Stacey Higgins
89
References Cited
Antevs, E.
1952 Climatic History and the Antiquity of Man in California. University of
Califomia Archaeological Survey Reports No. 16, pp. 23-31. Berkeley.
Arkush, B. S.
1990 Archaeological Investigations at CA-RIV-2200 and CA-RIV-3683, Tentative
Tract 23995, La Quinta, Central Riverside County, Califomia. Prepared by
Archaeological Research Unit, University of Califomia, Riverside for City of
La Quinta, Califomia. Copies available frorh Archaeological Research Unit,
University of Califomia, Riverside.
Axelrod, D. I.
1983 Paleobotanical History of the Westem Deserts. In Origin and Evolution of
Deserts, edited by Stephen G. Wells and Donald R. Haragan. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Bedwell, S. F.
1970 Prehistory and Environment ofthe Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area, South Central
Oregon. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of
Oregon, Eugene.
Binford, L. R.
1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In: New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by
S. R. and L. R. Binford. Aldine, Chicago.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs Tails. American Antiquity 45:4-22.
Bird, D, and R L. Bliege Bird
1977 Contemporary Shellfish Gathering Strategies among the Meriam of the Torres
Strait Islands, Australia: Testing Predictions of a Central Place Foraging
Model. Joumal of Archaeological Science 24: 39-63.
Bull, C. S.
1976 An Archaeological Surface Reconnaissance of the Rancho Carrillo Area.
RECON, San Diego.
90
1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. In Casual
Papers in Cultural Resource Management 1(3), edited by Chris W. White.
Cultural Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San
Diego State University.
1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San
Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos,
Susan M. Hector, and Stephen R. Van Wormer. San Diego County
Archaeological Society.
Califomia, State of
1991 Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs, Preservations Planning
Bulletin No. 5. Sacramento, Califomia. Department of Parks and Recreation,
Office of Historic Preservation.
Carrico, R., T. Cooley, and J. Clevenger
1990 Archaeological Excavations at the Harris Site. ERCE, San Diego.
Cheever, D. M.
1989 Cultural Resource Significance Testing at SDI-6753, SDI-6754, SDI-8619, and
SDI-2046: Four Prehistoric Sites Within the Aviara Development, Carlsbad,
Califomia. RECON, San Diego.
1991 Data Recovery Project for Cultural Resource Sites: Aviara Development,
Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON, San Diego.
1993 Data Recovery Project for Nine Cultural Resource Sites: Aviara Development,
Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON.
Cheever, D. M., and J. D. Eighmey
1991 Data Recovery at SDI-6753 and SDI-6819: Aviara Development Project,
Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON, San Diego.
Chartkoff, J. L., and K. K. Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of Califomia. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Collett, R. O., and J. R. Cook
1994 Ninth Addendum Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed 86
Expressway "Fillmore Altemative" Existing State Route 86, Riverside,
Califomia. Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego, Califomia.
91
Cook, J. R.
1986 If Tizon Could Talk. Casual Papers in Cultural Resource Management.
2(3):85-97. Cultural Resource Management Center, Department of
Anthropology, San Diego State University.
Crabtree, R. H., C. N. Warren, and D. L. Tme
1963 Archaeological Investigations at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County,
Califomia. In Annual Report Archaeological Survey. Department of
Anthropology-Sociology, University of Califomia, Los Angeles.
Davis, E. L., C. W. Brott, and D. L. Weide
1969 The Westem Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 6:1-97.
San Diego.
Davis, J. T.
1974 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the Indians of Califomia.
Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology and History No.3. Edited
by Robert F. Heizer. Ballena Press, Ramona, Califomia.
Eighmey, J. D.
1992 Archaeological Test Excavations on Carmel Mountain, Site SDi-4907, Loci A,
B, andC. RECON, San Diego.
Gallegos, D. R.
1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131, Carlsbad,
Califomia. WESTEC, Inc., San Diego.
1985 The La Costa Site SDi-4405 (W-945) 7000 Years Before Present, Carlsbad,
Califomia. WESTEC Services, Inc., San Diego.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the
Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and
Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society. San Diego.
1999 Historical/Archaeological Test of a Portion of CA-SDI-8303 for the Faraday
Road Extension, Carlsbad, Califomia. Gallegos and Associates, San Diego.
Gifford, E.W.
1973 Miwok Lineages and the Political Unit in Aboriginal Califomia. In The
California Indians, edited by R. F. Heizer and W. A. Whipple. University of
Califomia Press, Berkeley.
92
Grenda, D. R.
1992 A General Theory of Economic Flow, Social Exchange, and Hegemonic
Relationships. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Hanna, D. C.
1991 The Phase II Archaeological Test of Malcolm J. Rogers' Site SDM-W-181 At
La Costa Town Center in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON.
Hanna, D. C, and S. A. Wade
1990 A Resurvey and Assessment of the Cultural Resources of Carrillo Ranch in the
City of Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON, 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.
Hester, T. R.
1973 Chronological Ordering of Great Basin Prehistory. Contributions of the
University of Califomia Archaeological Research Facility No. 17. Berkeley.
Hughes, R. E., and D. L. Tme
1985 Perspectives on the Distribution of Obsidians in San Diego County, Califomia.
Draft version to appear in North American Archaeologist. Vol. 6.
Inman, D. L.
1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstmction of Paleocoastlines in
the Vicinity of La Jolla, Califomia. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine
Archaeology, edited by P. M. Masters and N. C. Flemming. Academic Press,
New York.
Kaldenberg, R. L.
1976 An Intensive Archaeological Reconnaissance of the La Costa Land Company
Property, Carlsbad, Califomia. RECON, San Diego.
King, Chester
1981 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in
Social System Maintenance in Santa Barbara Channel Region. Ph.D
Dissertation, University of Califomia, Davis.
93
Luomala, K.
1978 Tipai-Ipai. In Califomia, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Handbook
of North Arnerican Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Lyneis, M. H.
1988 Tizon Brown Ware and the Problems Raised by Paddle and Anvil Pottery in the
Mojave Desert. Joumal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 10(2): 146-
155.
Masters, P., Ph.D.
1988 Paleo-Environmental Reconstmction of San Diego Bay, 10,000 Years B.P. to
Present. In Five Thousand Years of Marine Subsistence at Ballast Point
Prehistoric Site SDi-48 (W-164), San Diego, Califomia. WESTEC Services,
Inc.
May, R. V.
1975 A Brief Survey of Kumeyaay Ethnography. Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society Quarterly 11(4): 1-25.
Mehringer, P. H., Jr.
1967 Pollen Analysis of the Tule Springs Area, Nevada. Nevada State Museum
Anthropological Papers 13:129-200, edited by H. M. Wormington and Dorothy
EUis.
Meighan, C. W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southem California Prehistory. Southwestern Joumal of
Anthropology 10:215-227.
Miller, J. N.
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southem
Califomia Coastal Lagoons. University of Califomia, San Diego.
Moratto, M. J. .
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.
Moriarty, J. R.
1966 Cultural Phase Division Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with
Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego.
Anthropological Journal of Canada 4(4):20-30.
94
1967 Transitional Pre-desert Phase in San Diego County. Science
155(3762):553-555.
Norwood, R. H.
1980 The Archaeological Resources of Fairbanks Ranch, Rancho Santa Fe,
Califomia. RECON, San Diego.
Pritchard-Parker, M.
1992 Appendix D Ceramics. In Excavations at Archaeological Site CA-RIV-3682,
City of La Quinta, Coachella Valley, Riverside, Califomia, Dicken Everson
Project Director. Prepared by Archaeological Research Unit, University of
Califomia, Riverside for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Copies available from
Archaeological Research Unit, University of Califomia, Riverside.
Rogers, M. J.
1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist
31:454-467.
1938 Archaeological and Geological Investigations of the Culture Levels in an Old
Channel of San Dieguito Valley. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook
37:344-45.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent
Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 3.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
1(2): 167-198. Albuquerque.
1973 Yuman Pottery Making. Reprinted. Ballena Press, Ramona, Califomia.
Originally published 1936, San Diego Museum Papers, No. .2, San Diego
Museum of Man, San Diego, Califomia.
Rogers, M. J., H. M. Wormington, E. L. Davis, and C. W. Brott
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Edited by Richard F. Pourade.
Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego.
Schaeffer, J., D. Pallette, and L. J. Bean
1993 Archaeological Investigations of Two Lake Cahuilla Sites in the Toro Canyon
Area, Riverside County, Califomia. Prepared by Brian F. Mooney Associates
for George Berkey and Associates, Inc.
95
Shackley, M. S.
1981 Late Prehistoric Exchange Network Analysis in Carrizo Gorge and the Far
Southwest. Masters Thesis on file with the Department of Anthropology, San
Diego State University.
Shipek, F. C. (editor)
1970 The Autobiography ofDelfina Cuero. Malki Museum Press.
1982 Kumeyaay Socio-Political Stmcture. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology 4(2):96-303.
1993 Ethnoscience of the Kumeyaay. Unpublished manuscript.
Smith, B, and J. Moriarty
1985 The Archaeological Excavations of Cultural Resources at the Batiquitos Pointe
and Batiquitos Bluffs Projects, Sites W-84, W-88, W-95, W-97, and W-2551.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, San Diego.
Spier, L.
1923 Southem Diegueno Customs. University of Califomia Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 20(16):295-358. Berkeley.
Sutton, M. Q. and P. J. Wilke
1988 Archaeological Investigations in the Westem Colorado Desert: A Socio-
ecological Approach. Report prepared byWirth Environmental Services for
San Diego Gas and Electric.
Thomas, D. H.
1981 How to Classify Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Joumal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7-43.
Tme, D. L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, Califomia. American Antiquity
23(3):255-263.
1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in
Southem Califomia. Doctoral dissertation. University of Califomia, Los
Angeles. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park,
San Diego County, Califomia. Department of Anthropology Publications,
University of Califomia, Los Angeles.
96
1980 The Pauma Complex in Northem San Diego County: 1978. The Journal of
New World Archaeology 3(A):\-39.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, Califomia. Edited by Roy H. Bowman. Soil
Conservation Service and Forest Service. December.
Wallace, W. J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southem Califomia Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestem Joumal of Anthropology ll(3):214-230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In Califomia, edited by R. F.
Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant,
general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Warren, C. N.
1966 The San Dieguito Type Site. San Diego Museum Papers. San Diego.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity
32(2):168-185.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southem Califomia Coast.
In Archaic Prehistory in the Westem United States, edited by C. Irwin-
Williams. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology
1(3): 1-14. Portales.
1985 Garbage about the Foundations: A Comment on Bull's Assertions. In Casual
Papers 2(1), edited by Chris W. White. Cultural Resource Management Center,
Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.
Warren, C. N., and M. G. Pavesic
1963 Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for
Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, Califomia.
Appendix I in Archaeological Investigations at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego
County Califomia, by Robert H. Crabtree, Claude N. Warren, and D. L. Tme.
Annual Report Archaeological Survey. Department of Anthropology-
Sociology, University of Califomia, Los Angeles.
97
Warren, C. N., D. L. Tme, and A. A. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Westem San Diego County: Results and
Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual
Report, pp. 1-106. University of Califomia, Los Angeles.
Waugh, G.
1988 Cottonwood Triangular Points from Northem San Diego County, Califomia.
Joumal of Califomia and Great Basin Anthropology 10:104-113.
Yohe, R. M.
1990 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites Located at One Eleven La Quinta
Center in the City of La Quinta, Central Riverside County, California.
Prepared by Archaeological Research Unit, University of Califomia, Riverside
for One Eleven La Quinta Center.
98
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
Catalog and Analysis
Aftifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number -3169A
JOBNO CAT SITE LOCUS EAST NORTH LEVEL TASK No. TYPE CLASS WEIGHT COUNT MATERIAL LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS CONDITION
3169A
3169A
bdO
581
bU 18303
SDI8303
A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Basic shaping flal<e Debitage 77.6 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A
3169A
bdO
581
bU 18303
SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Basic shaping flake Debitage 111.4 .| FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 574 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Chopper FLA 564.2 FGPM 105 95 45 Whole 3169 A 575 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Chopper FLA 269.9 FGPM 83 54 45 Whole 3169A 569 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Gore FLA 219.2 .) FGM 78 49 42 Whole 3169A 568 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Core FLA 1084.0 1 FGPM 132 91 55 Whole 3169 A 570 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Core/Hammer combo FLA 310.2 .) FGPM 94 76 31 Whole 3169A 577 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Hammerstone FLA 533.5 CGPM 101 91 45 Whole 3169A 576 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Hammerslone FU 655.3 FGPM 122 • 81 53 Whole 3169A 578 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Hammerstone FLA 249.8 .) FGPM 72 61 40 Whole 3169A 573 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Knife FLA 52.1 FGPM 70 35 18 Whole 3169 A 571 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Scraper FIA 368.5 1 FGPM 97 70 42 Whole 3169 A 572 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Scraper FLA 60.2 1 FGPM 64 41 20 Whole 3169A 579 SDI8303 A 0 0 0 SURFACE COLLECTION 0 Utilized flake FLA 100.0 .| FGPM 72 61 20 Whole 3169A 16 SDI8303 A 0 3 30 UNIT 1 Non-human bone Bone 0.2 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 8 S0I8303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Non-human bone Bone 0.9 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 20 SD 18303 A 0 3 30 UNIT 1 Unknown small mam. Bone 0.0 1 Tooth 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 15 SO 18303 A 0 3 30 UNIT 1 Body sherd Ceramics 8.3 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 2 SD 18303 A 0 3 10 UNIT 1 Body sherd Ceramics 23.4 11 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 7 SD 18303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Body sherd Ceramics 0.6 4 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 17 SDI8303 A 0 3 30 UNIT 1 Basic shaping flake Debitage 2.6 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 4 SD 18303 A 0 3 10 UNIT 1 Basic shaping flake Debitage 30.9 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 9 SD 18303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Basic shaping flake Debitage 45.2 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 13 SDI8303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Corlex removal Hake Debitage 71.2 2 CGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 19 SD 18303 A 0 3 30 UNIT 1 Finishing flake Debitage 0.3 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 10 SD 18303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Finishing flake Debitage 2.1 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 12 SDI8303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Trimming flake Debitage 0.4 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 3 SDI8303 A 0 3 10 UNIT 1 Trimming flake Debitage 4.1 10 FGPM 0 0 0 . Broken 3169A 11 SDI8303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Trimming flake. Debitage 3.0 3 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 18 SDI8303 A 0 3 30 UNIT 1 Trimming tlake Debitage 0.4 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 5 SDI8303 A 0 3 10 UNIT 1 Slab Groundstone 196.6 4 CGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 1 SDI8303 A .0 3 10 UNIT 1 Undifferentiated shell Shell 593.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Brok&heatd 3169A 14 SDI8303 A 0 3 30 UNIT 1 Undifferentiated shell Shell . 18.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 6 5018303 A 0 3 20 UNIT 1 Undifferentiated shell Shell 37.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 23 SDI8303 A 3 0 10 UNIT 2 Non-human bone Bone 0.8 5 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 30 SDI8303 A 3 0 20 UNIT 2 Non-human bone Bone 2.3 4 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 35 SDI8303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2 Non-human bone Bone 2.9 0 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 43 SDI8303 A .3 0 40 UNIT 2 Non-human bone Bone 0.6 2 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 56 SDI8303 A 3 0 60 UNIT 2 Unknown fish Bone 0.1 1 Bone 0 0 0 Whole 3169 A 24 SDI8303 A 3 0 ' 10 • UNIT 2 Body sherd Ceramics 19.0 8 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 31 SDI8303 A 3 0 20 UNIT 2 Body sherd Ceramics 11.1 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 36 SDI8303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2 Body sherd Ceramics 11.0 7 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 44 SD 18303 A 3 0 40 UNIT 2 Body sherd Ceramics 5.0 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 27 SDI8303 A 3 0 10 UNIT 2 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 17.8 4 FGPM. 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 41 SDI8303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2 Cortex removal flake Debitage 13.3 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 26 SD 18303 A 3 0 10 UNIT 2 Finishing flake Debitage 0.5 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 48 SD 18303 A 3 0 40 UNIT 2 Finishing flake Debitage 2.1 4 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 25 SDI8303 A 3 0 10 UNIT 2 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Page 1 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169 A 49 SDI8303 A 3 0 40 UNIT 2
3169A 50 SDI8303 A 3 0 40 UNIT 2
3169A 28 SDI8303 A 3 0 10 UNIT 2
3169A 40 SDI8303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2
3169A 54 SDI8303 A 3 0 50 UNIT 2.
3169A 53 SDI8303 A 3 0 50 UNIT 2
3169A 33 SDI8303 A 3 0 20 UNIT 2
3169 A 45 SDI8303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2
3169 A 22 SDI8303 A 3 0 10 UNIT 2
3169A 46 SD18303 A 3 0 40 UNIT 2
3169A 32 SDI8303 A 3 0 . 20 UNIT 2
3169A 47 SDI8303 A 3 0 40 UNIT 2
3169A 37 SDI8303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2
3169A 38 SD 18303 A 3 0 30 UNIT . 2
3169A 21 SDI8303 A 3 0 10 UNIT 2
3169 A 29 SD 18303 A 3 0 20 UNIT 2
3169A 34 SD 18303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2
3169A 39 SD 18303 A 3 0 30 UNIT 2
3169 A 42 SD 18303 A 3 0 40 UNIT 2
3169A 51 SDI8303 A 3 0 50 UNIT 2
3169A 52 SD 18303 A 3 0 50 UNIT 2
3169A 55 SD 18303 A 3 0 60 UNIT 2
3169 A 58 SD 18303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
3169 A 75 SD 18303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169 A 59 SD 18303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
3169A 67 SD 18303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3
3169 A 76 SD 18303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 63 SDI8303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
3169A 71 SDI8303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3
3169A 84 SD 18303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 70 SDI8303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3
3169A 83 SDI8303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 72 SDI8303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3
3169A 85 SDI8303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 69 SDI8303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3
3169 A 79 SDI8303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 82 SDI8303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169 A 73 SDI8303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3
3169A 86 SDI8303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 80 SD 18303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169 A 81 SDI8303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 62 SDI8303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
3169 A 64 SDI8303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
3169 A 61 SD 18303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
3169A 68 SD 18303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3
3169A 60 SD 18303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
3169 A 77 SD 18303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169 A 78 SD 18303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3
3169A 65 SD 18303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3
Finishing flake
Finishing flake
Trimming flake
Trimming flake
Trimming flake
Trimming flake
Agricultural mulch
Bulk screen waste
Bulk screen waste
Charcoal
Mineral
Bead
Olivella sp.
Olivella sp.
Undifferentiated shell
Undifferentiated shell
Undifferentiated shell
Undifferentiated shell
Undifferentiated shell
Undifferentiated shell
Undifferentiated shell
Undifferentiated shell
Non-human bone
Non-human bone
Body sherd
Body sherd
Body sherd
Basic shaping flake
Basic shaping Hake
Basic shaping flake
Finishing flake
Finishing flake
Finishing flake
Finishing flake
Finishing flake
Finishing flake
Secondary shatter
Secondary shatter
Secondary shatter
Secondary shatter
Secondary shatter
Trimming flake
Trimming flake
Trimming flake
Chopper
Cottonwood Point
Scraper
Unidentiable p.point tip
Shotgun shell
Debitage 5.0 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.1 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 1.1 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 2.8 7 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.4 • 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.5 1 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken
Historic 2.1 0 Plastic 0 0 0 Broken
Sample 1376.5 0 63 0 0 0 Broken
Sample 279.5 0 63 0 0-0 Whole
Sample 0.1 2 50 0 0 0 Broken
Sample 0.9 1 Red ochre 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 0.8 1 Shell 16 9 9 Whole
Shell 0.1 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 1.3 1 Shell 0 0 0 Whole
Shell 279.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 162.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 330.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 0.2 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 185.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 182.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 0.2 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Shell 112.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Bone 0.5 0 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
Bone 0.6 4 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
Ceramics 23.9 13 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken
Ceramics. 8.7 8 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken
Ceramics 1.0 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 13.0 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 26.5 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 156.9 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.9 6 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.7 4 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 2.9 9 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 1.6 7 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 1.1 3 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.6 9 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.2 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 1.4 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.3 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 0.6 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 1.9 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 2.2 4 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 5.8 11 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Debitage 3.7 6 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken
FLA 233.1 1 FGPM 84 63 29 Whole
FU 0.8 1 CCS 27 11 2 Whole
FU 12.2 1 Quartz 37 26 11 Whole
FU 0.1 1 CCS 0 0 2 Broken
Historic 1.0 1 Brass 0 .0 0 Broken
Page 2 Of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169A 57 SDI8303 A 1 2 10 UNIT 3 Undifferentiated shell Shell 117.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 66 SDI8303 A 1 2 20 UNIT 3 Undifferentiated shell Shell 91.9 0 Shell 0 0-0 Broken 3169A 74 SDI8303 A 1 2 30 UNIT 3 Undifferentiated shell Shell 87.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 102 SDI8303 A 2 1 20 UNIT 4 Non-human bone Bone 8.4 10 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 111 SDI8303 A 2 1 30 UNIT 4 Non-human bone Bone 1.8 16 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 120 SDI8303 A 2 1 40 UNIT 4 Non-human bone Bone 1.4 20 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 126 SDI8303 A 2 1 50 UNIT 4 Non-human bone Bone 2.4 13 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 133 SDI8303 A 2 1 60 UNIT 4 Non-human bone Bone 0.9 16 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 91 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Non-human bone Bone 0.5 0 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 103 SDI8303 A 2 1 20 -UNIT 4 Body sherd Ceramics 9.1 8 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 112 SDI8303 A 2 1 30 UNIT 4 Body sherd Ceramics 10.3 7 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 121 SDI8303 A 2 1 40 UNIT 4 Body sherd Ceramics 2.9 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 127 SDI8303 A 2 1 50 UNIT 4 Body sherd Ceramics 1.1 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 87 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Body sherd Ceramics 24.9 6 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 96 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Basic shaping flake Debitage 0.5 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 108 SDI8303 A 2 1 20 UNIT 4 Basic shaping flake Debitage 15.4 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 98 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Basic shaping flake Debitage 3.4 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 114 SD 18303 A 2 1 30 UNIT 4 Basic shaping flake Debitage 4.4 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 596 SD 18303 A 2 1 40 UNIT 4 Basic shaping flakeebitage Debitage 0.4 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 123 . SD 18303 A 2 1 40 UNIT 4 Blade type flake Debitage 1.0 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 107 SD 18303 A 2 1 20 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.6 6 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 113 SD 18303 A 2 1 30 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 2.2 9 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 137 SD 18303 A 2 1 60 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 2 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 94 SD 18303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 117 SD 18303 A 2 1 30 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 2 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 129 SDI8303 A 2 1 50 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.0 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 109 SD 18303 A 2 1 . 20 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 1.8 8 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 116 SD 18303 A 2 1 • 30 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 2.8 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 99 SD 18303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 595 SD 18303 A 2 1 40 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 4 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 106 SD 18303 A 2 1 20 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 5 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 115 SD 18303 A 2 1 30 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 3.5 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 134 SDI8303 A 2 1 60 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.3 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 118 SDI8303 A 2 1 30 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.7 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 124 SDI8303 A 2 1 40 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 4.4 8 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 130 SDI8303 A 2 1 50 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.7 4 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 135 SDI8303 A 2 1 60 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 97 SD 18303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Finishing flake Debitage 1.2 4 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 93 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.3 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 122 SDI8303 A 2 1 40 UNIT 4 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.1 1 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 95 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.6 5 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 131 SDI8303 A 2 1 50 UNIT 4 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.0 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 105 SDI8303 A 2 1 20 UNIT 4 Trimming flake Debitage 0.4 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 136 SDI8303 A 2 1 60 UNIT 4 Trimming flake Debitage 0.1 • 2 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 92 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Cottonwood Point FU 0.7 1 Quartz 20 8 4 Broken 3169A 88 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Basin Groundstone 228.4 1 CGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 89 SDI8303 A 2 1 10 UNIT 4 Mano Groundstone 106.7 1 CGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 104 SDI8303 A 2 1 20 UNIT 4 Mano Groundstone 58.0 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 128 SDI8303 A 2 1 50 UNIT 4 Agricultural mulch Historic 0.0 2 Plastic 0 0 0 Broken
Page 3 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169 A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
101 SDI8303
584 SDI8303
586 SDI8303
592 SDI8303
600 SDI8303
603 SDI8303
132 SDI8303
591 SDI8303
598 SDI8303
601 SDI8303
606 SDI8303
100 SDI8303
90 SDI8303
582 SD 18303
588 SD 18303
607 SDI8303
110 SD18303
119 SDI8303
125 SD 18303
587 8 D18303
594 SD 18303
597 SD 18303
602 SD 18303
605 SDI8303
583 SD 18303
585 SD 18303
589 SD 18303
593 SD 18303
599 SD 18303
590 SD 18303
604 SDI8303
648 SDI8303
144 SDI8303
148 SDI8303
152 SDI8303
156 SDI8303
161 SDI8303
140 SDI8303
143 SDI8303
147 SD 18303
155 SDI8303
518 SDI8303
522 SDI8303
149 SD 18303
150 SDI8303
520 SDI8303
153 SD 18303
521 SD 18303
523 SD 18303
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
30
40
50
60
20
10
10
20
60
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
60
10
10
20
30
40
20
50
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
50
10
30
30
30.
10
40
20
30
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT .
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
4 Bead Shell 0.6 1 Shell 12 8 8 Whole 4 Chione sp. Shell 42.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Chione sp. Shell 34.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Chione sp. Shell 71.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Chione sp. Shell 46.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Chione sp. Shell 45.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 • Chione sp. Shell 27.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Donax sp. Shell 43.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Donax sp. Shell 42.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Donax sp. Shell 34.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Donax sp. Shell 31 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Donax sp. Shell 49.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Donax sp. Shell 36.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Ostrea sp. Shell 35.1 0 Shell 0 0 . 0 Broken 4 Ostrea sp. Shell 82 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Ostrea sp. Shell 26.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Ostrea sp. Shell 77.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Ostrea sp. Shell 67.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Ostrea sp. Shell 42.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Pecten Shell 12.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Pecten Shell 14.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Pecten Shell 17 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Pecten Shell 11.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Pecten Shell 3.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Pecten sp. Shell 5.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Polinices sp. Shell 18.6 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Polinices sp. Shell •1.1 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Saxidomus sp. Shell 9.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 4 Saxidomus sp. Shell 2.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Trimusculus sp. Shell 0.2 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
4 Trimusculus sp. Shell 0.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 5 Non-human bone Bone 1.2 4 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 5 Non-human bone Bone 2.6 9 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
5 Non-human bone Bone 3.4 34 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
5 Non-human bone Bone 0.3 2 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 5 Non-human bone Bone 0.5 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 5 Non-human bone Bone 0.6 6 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 5 Body sherd Ceramics 23.9 13 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 5 Body sherd Ceramics 6.9 4 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 5 Body sherd Ceramics 4.5 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken
5 Body sherd Ceramics 3.3 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 5 Basic shaping flake Debitage 4.9 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 5 Basic shaping flake Debitage 32.4 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 5 Basic shaping flake Debitage 0.2 2 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken
5 Basic shaping flake Debitage 0.8 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
5 Cortex removal flake Debitage 2.1 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 5 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 5 Finishing flake Debitage 4.3 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken
5 Finishing flake Debitage 1.5 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Page 4 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169 A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
3169A
524 SDI8303
141 SDI8303
145 SDI8303
519 SDI8303
159 SDI8303
157 SDI8303
162 SDI8303
158 SDI8303
163 SDI8303
139 SDI8303
138 SD 18303
142 SDI8303
146 SD 18303
151 SDI8303
154 SD 18303
160 SD 18303
166 SD 18303
170 SD 18303
174 SD 18303
181 S0I8303
185 SDI8303
167 SD 18303
171 SD 18303
175 SD 18303
182 SD 18303
168 SDI8303
177 SD 18303
528 sp 18303
172 SD 18303
183 SDI8303
527 SDI8303
526 SD 18303
530 SDI8303
186 SDI8303
525 SDI8303
529 SDI8303
176 SDI8303
178 SDI8303
179 SDI8303
165 SDI8303
164 SDI8303
169 SDI8303
173 SDI8303
180 SDI8303
184 SDI8303
188 SD18303
193 SD 18303
189 SD 18303
194 SD18303
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
. 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
4
4
4
4
30
10
20
10
50
50
60
50
60
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
10
30
20
20
40
20
20
30
50
10
30
30
30
40
10
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
10
20
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
5 Finishing flake Debitage 1.5 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 5 Finishing flake Debitage 2.8 3 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
5 Trimming flake Debitage 2.6 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
5 Trimming flake Debitage 0.7 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
5 Cottonwood Point FU 0.3 1 Obsidian 0 0 2 Broken 5 Utilized flake FU 111.7 1 CGPM 106 76 9 Whole 5 • Agricultural mulch Historic 1.0 • 0 Plastic 0 0 0 Broken 0
5 Charcoal Sample 2.1 6 50 0 0 0 Broken 0 5 Charcoal Sample 9.0 0 51 0 0 0 Broken 0 5 Olivella sp. Shell 0.5 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 5 Undifferentiated shell Shell 237.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .| 5 Undifferentiated shell Shell 242.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .| 5 Undifferentiated shell Shell 462.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 • Broken ., 5 Undifferentiated shell Shell 242.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .|
5^ Undifferentiated shell Shell 209.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .,
5 Undifferentiated shell Shell 104.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .| 6 Non-human bone Bone 4.2 4 Bone 0 0 0 Broken .| 6 Non-human bone Bone 0.3 2 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 6 Non-human bone Bone 5.1 19 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 6 Non-human bone Bone 1.8 11 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 6 Non-human bone Bone 0.4 2 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 6 Body sherd Ceramics 18.1 12 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 6 Body sherd Ceramics 1.2 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken
6 Body sherd Ceramics 7.6 5 Tizon Brown 0 - 0 0 Broken .)
6 Body sherd Ceramics 11.4 5 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken .| 6 Basic shaping flake Debitage 8.5 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken .|
6 Basic shaping flake Debitage 9.4 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken .| 6 Basic shaping flake Debitage 6.5 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken .| 6 Finishing flake Debitage 1.9 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 6 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 4 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 6 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken .|
6 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
6 Trimming flake Debitage 0.1 1 CCS 0 . 0 0 Broken 6 Trimming flake Debitage 2.2 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 6 Trimming flake Debitage 5.4 10 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 6 Trimming flake Debitage 3.0 8 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken .|
6 Chopper FU 357.0 1 FGPM 90 72 36 Whole 6 Mineral Sample 1.7 1 Red ochre 0 0 0 Whole .| 6 Mineral Sample 1.5 1 Red ochre 0 0 0 Whole .| 6 Bead Shell 1.3 1 Shell 20 11 9 Whole .| 6 Undifferentiated shell Shell 381.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .| 6 Undifferentiated shell .. Shell 250.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken ., 6 Undifferentiated shell Shell 422.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .| 6 Undifferentiated shell Shell 134.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .|
6 Undifferentiated shell Shell 112.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .|
7 Non-human bone Bone 7.3 11 Bone 0 0 0 Broken ., 7 Non-human bone Bone 0.5 5 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 1
7 Body sherd Ceramics 14.3 8 . Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken .| 7 Body sherd Ceramics 0.6 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 1
Page 5 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number -3169A
3169A 531 SDI8303 A -1 4 10 UNIT .7 Basic shaping flake Debitage 20.0 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 196 SDI8303 A -1 4 20 UNIT 7 Finishing flake Debitage 0.3 2 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 195 SDI8303 A -1 4 20 UNIT 7 Finishing flake Debitage 1.1 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 533 SDI8303 A -1 4 10 UNIT 7 Finishing flake Debitage 3.6 19 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 190 SD 18303 A -1 4 10 UNIT 7 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 1 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 534 SDI8303 A -1 4 10 UNIT 7 Finishing flake Debitage 0.8 7 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 535 SDI8303 A -1 4 20 UNIT 7 Finishing flake Debitage 0.0 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 191 SDI8303 A -1 4 10 UNIT 7 Trimming flake Debitage 1.3 10 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 532 SDI8303 A -1 4 10 UNIT . 7 Trimming flake Debitage 2.9 8 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 187 SDI8303 A -1 4 10 UNIT 7 Undifferentiated shell Shell 73.4 0 Shell . 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 192 SD18303 A -1 4 20 UNIT 7 Undifferentiated shell Shell 29.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 214 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Awl tip Bone 0.2 1 Bone 0 0 0 Brok&brnd 3169A 213 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Non-human bone Bone 2.5 6 Bone 0 0 0 Brok&brnd 3169A 198 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Non-human bone Bone 0.2 4 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 204 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Non-human bone Bone 3.3 0 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 212 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 •• Non-human bone Bone 0.4 5 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 218 SDI8303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 8 Non-human bone Bone 4.0 50 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 199 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Body sherd Ceramics 45.9 24 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 205 SD 18303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Body sherd Ceramics 18.6 15 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 211 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Body sherd Ceramics 1.3 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 219 SD 18303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 8 Body sherd Ceramics 1.5 3 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 538 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Basic shaping flake Debitage 24.7 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 541 SD 18303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Basic shaping flake Debitage 25.3 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A . 536 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Basic shaping flake Debitage 2.5 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 543 SD 18303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Cortex removal flake Debitage 15.0 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A. 220 SD 18303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 8 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 2 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 545 SD 18303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 8 Finishing flake Debitage 0.8 4 CGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 200 SDI8303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 1 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 206 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Finishing flake Debitage 2.3 9 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 201 SDI8303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 0.9 3 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 207 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 0.7 5 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 215 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 2.1 2 . FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 539 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 0.2 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 537 SDI8303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 4.3 8 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 540 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 2.2 11 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 542 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 0.2 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 544 SDI8303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 2.2 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 202 SDI8303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Trimming flake Debitage 1.2 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 216 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Chopper FU 67.1 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 209 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Cottonwood Point FU 0.8 1 CGS 0 11 5 Broken 3169A 208 SD 18303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Cottonwood Point FU 1.0 1 FGM 21 11 6 Whole 3169A 197 SDI8303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 8 Undifferentiated shell Shell 90.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 203 SD 18303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 8 Undifferentiated shell Shell 166.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 210 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 8 Undifferentiated shell Shell 68.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 217 SDI8303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 8 Undifferentiated shell Shell 115.8 4 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 222 SDI8303 A 6 -3 10 UNIT 9 Non-human bone Bone 2.3 5 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 228 SD 18303 A 6 -3 20 UNIT 9 Non-human bone Bone 0.7 2 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 232 SD 18303 A 6 -3 30 UNIT 9 Non-human bone Bone 0.1 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 236 SD 18303 A 6 -3 40 UNIT 9 Non-human bone Bone 3.2 32 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
Page 6 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169 A 241 SD 18303 A 6 -3 50 UNIT 9 Non-human bone Bone 1.2 12 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 245 SD 18303 A 6 -3 60 UNIT 9 Non-human bone Bone 5.9 46 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 223 SD 18303 A 6 -3 10 UNIT 9 Body sherd Ceramics 26.2 9 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 229 SDIS303 A 6 -3 20 UNIT 9 Body sherd Ceramics 31.5 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 233 SDI8303 A 6 -3 30 UNIT 9 Body sherd Ceramics 31.1 6 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 237 SDI8303 A 6 -3 40 UNIT 9 Body sherd Ceramics 47.5 13 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 242 SD 18303 A 6 -3 50 UNIT 9 Body sherd Ceramics 1.5 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 246 SDI8303 A 6 -3 60 UNIT 9 Body sherd Ceramics 0.7 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 249 SD 18303 A 6 -3 60 UNIT 9 Basic shaping flake Debitage 0.1 1 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 224 Spi8303 A 6 -3 10 UNIT 9 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 25.7 8 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 230 SDI8303 A 6 -3 20 UNIT 9 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 30.3 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 234 SDI8303 A 6 -3 30 UNIT 9 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 22.9 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 239 SDI8303 A 6 -3 40 UNIT 9 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 1.8 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 248 SDI8303 A 6 -3 60 UNIT 9 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 40.8 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 243 SDI8303 A 6 -3 50 UNIT 9 Cortex removal flake Debitage 5.1 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 225 SDI8303 A 6 -3 10 UNIT 9 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 1 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 549 SDI8303 A 6 -3 20 UNIT 9 Finishing flake Debitage 1.2 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 546 SDI8303 A 6 -3 10 UNIT 9 Finishing Hake Debitage 5.9 9 FGPM 0 0, 0 Broken 3169 A 548 SDI8303 A 6 -3 20 UNIT 9 Finishing flake Debitage 1.1 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 547 SDI8303 A 6 -3 20 UNIT 9 Finishing Hake Debitage 0.5 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 550 SDI8303 A 6 -3 40 UNIT 9 Finishing flake Debitage 0.3 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 551 SDI8303 A 6 -3 40 UNIT 9 Trimming flake Debitage 1.0 6 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 552 SDI8303 A 6 -3 50 UNIT 9 Trimming flake Debitage 0.5 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 238 SDI8303 A 6 -3 40 UNIT 9 Charcoal Sample 6.5 0 51 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 247 SDI8303 A 6 -3 60 UNIT 9 Charcoal Sample 5.6 0 51 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 226 SDI8303 A 6 -3 10 UNIT 9 Bead Shell 1.2 1 Shell 12 10 8 Broken 3169A 221 SDI8303 A 6 -3 10 UNIT 9 Undifferentiated shell Shell 355.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 227 SD 18303 A 6 -3 20 UNIT 9 Undifferentiated shell Shell 544.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 231 SDI8303 A 6 -3 30 UNIT 9 Undifferentiated shell Shell 452.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 235 S 018303 A 6 -3 40 UNIT 9 Undifferentiated shell Shell 502.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 240 SD 18303 A 6 -3 50 UNIT 9 Undifferentiated shell Shell 303.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 244 SD 18303 A 6 -3 60 UNIT 9 Undifferentiated shell Shell 285.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 251 SDI8303 A 2 -1 10 UNIT 10 Non-human bone Bone 0.8 8 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 255 SD 18303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Non-human bone Bone 0.8 11 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 261 SDI8303 A 2 -1 30 UNIT 10 Non-human bone Bone 7.3 32 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 252 SD 18303 A 2 -1 10 UNIT 10 Body sherd Ceramics 28.3 25 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 256 SD 18303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Body sherd Ceramics 18.0 9 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 263 SD 18303 A 2 -1 30 UNIT 10 Body sherd Ceramics 1.0 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 257 SDI8303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Basic shaping flake Debitage 9.8 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 553 SDI8303 A 2 -1 10 UNIT 10 Basic shaping flake Debitage 54.2 9 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 559 SDI8303 A 2 -1 30 UNIT 10 Basic shaping flake Debitage 2.2 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 253 SDI8303 A 2 -1 10 UNIT 10 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 2 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 258 SDI8303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Finishing flake Debitage 0.5 2 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 264 SDI8303 A 2 -1 30 UNIT 10 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 1 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 556 SDI8303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Finishing flake Debitage 3.8 6 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 558 SDI8303 A 2 -1 30 UNIT 10 Finishing flake Debitage 1.0 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 555 SDI8303 A 2 -1 10 UNIT 10 Finishing flake Debitage 1.6 8 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 554 SDI8303 A 2 -1 10 UNIT 10 Trimming flake Debitage 1.6 12 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 557 SDI8303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Trimming flake Debitage 0.4 3 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
Page 7 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169A 260 SDI8303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Scraper FU 358.6 1 Quartzite 94 71 37 Whole 3169A 259 SDI8303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Mano Groundstone 163.5 1 Granite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 250 SDI8303 A 2 -1 10 UNIT 10 Undifferentiated shell Shell 136.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 254 SD 18303 A 2 -1 20 UNIT 10 Undifferentiated shell Shell 105.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 262 SD 18303 A 2 -1 30 UNIT 10 Undifferentiated shell Shell 85.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 266 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Non-human bone Bone 0.2 3 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 271 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 11 Non-human bone Bone 4.3 39 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 276 SD 18303 A 1. -2 30 UNIT 11 Non-human bone Bone 14.1 0 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 282 SDI8303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 11 Non-human bone Bone 1.3 16 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 286 SDI8303 A 1 -2 50 UNIT 11 Non-human bone Bone 0.5 • 7 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 267 SDI8303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Body sherd Ceramics 11.8 8 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 272 SD 18303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 11 Body sherd Ceramics 29.6 15 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 277 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 11 Body sherd Ceramics 13.7 9 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 283 SD 18303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 11 Body sherd Ceramics 0.3 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 560 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 2.8 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 268 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Basic shaping flake Debitage 64.6 9 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 279 SD 18303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 11 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 16.7 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 563 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 11 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 59.2 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 269 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 1.3 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 280 SO 18303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 1.2 2 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 284 SDI8303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 0.3 2 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 287 SD 18303 A 1 -2 50 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 1.0 2 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 567 SD 18303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 1.1 4 FGM 6 0 0 Broken 3169A 273 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 9.9 14 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 561 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 3.7 6 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 566 SDI8303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 11 Finishing Hake Debitage 1.7 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 562 SDI8303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Finishing flake Debitage 0.5 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 564 SD 18303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 11 Finishing Hake Debitage 0.5 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 274 SDI8303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 11 Trimming flake Debitage 1.0 4 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 565 SD 18303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 11 Trimming flake Debitage 4.2 6 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 288 SDI8303 A 1 -2 50 UNIT 11 Agricultural mulch Historic 1.1 0 Plastic 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 278 SD 18303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 11 Charcoal Sample 5.1 0 51 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 265 SD 18303 A 1 -2 10 UNIT 11 Undifferentiated shell Shell 236.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 270 SD 18303 A 1 -2 20 UNIT 11 Undifferentiated shell Shell 2705.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 275 SDI8303 A 1 -2 30 UNIT 11 Undifferentiated shell Shell 287.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 281 SD 18303 A 1 -2 40 UNIT 11 Undifferentiated shell Shell 214.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 285 SDI8303 A 1 -2 50 UNIT 11 Undifferentiated shell Shell 65.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 290 SDI8303 A 7 5 10 UNIT 12 Body sherd Ceramics 10.1 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 294 SDI8303 A 7 5 20 UNIT 12 Body sherd Ceramics 14.0 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 291 SDI8303 A 7 5 10 UNIT 12 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 8.7 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 295 SD 18303 A 7 5 20 UNIT 12 Basic shaping flake Debitage 81.5 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 292 SD 18303 A 7 5 10 UNIT 12 Finishing flake Debitage 1.0 3 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 297 SDI8303 A 7 5 20 UNIT 12 Finishing flake Debitage 0.3 2 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 299 SD 18303 A 7 5 20 UNIT 12 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 296 SDI8303 A 7 5 20 UNIT 12 Finishing flake Debitage 1.9 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 298 SD 18303 A 7 5 20 UNIT 12 Primary shatter Debitage 1.3 1 CGS 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 289 SD 18303 A 7 5 10 UNIT 12 Undifferentiated shell Shell 42.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 293 SDI8303 A 7 5 20 UNIT 12 Undifferentiated shell Shell 60.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 301 SD 18303 A -1 1 10 , UNIT 13 Non-human bone Bone 1.2 5 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
Page 8 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169 A 310 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Non-human bone Bone 3.2 26 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 327 SDI8303 A -1 1 30 UNIT 13 Unknown fish Bone 2.8 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 302 SD 18303 A -1 1 10 UNIT 13 Body sherd Ceramics ^21.9 12 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 311 SD18303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Body sherd Ceramics 9.5 10 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 326 SD 18303 A -1 1 30 UNIT 13 Body sherd Ceramics 3.9 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 322 SDI8303 A -1 1 30 UNIT 13 Basic shaping flake Debitage
Debitage
. 1.3 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 323 SDI8303 A -1 1 30 UNIT 13 Basic shaping Hake
Debitage
Debitage 2.4 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 305 SD 18303 A -1 1 10 UNIT 13 Basic shaping flake Debitage 19.2 7 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 313 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Basic shaping flake Debitage 4.3 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 306 SDI8303 A -1 1 10 UNIT 13 Blade type flake Debitage 2.2 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 315 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 0.6 4 CCS 0 0 0 " Broken 3169A 308 SDI8303 A -1 1 10 UNIT . 13 Finishing flake Debitage 1.7 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 316 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 0.8 7 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 324 SDI8303 A -1 1 30 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 0.9 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 304 SDI8303 A -1 1 , 10 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 0.1 1 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 312 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 6.0 1 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 307 SDI8303 A -1 1 10 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 1.5 • 3 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 314 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 2.7 7 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 318 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 317 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.3 4 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 325 SDI8303 A -1 1 30 UNIT 13 Secondary shatter Debitage 1.4 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 319 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Hammerstone FU 305.3 1 FGPM 85 81 29 Whole 3169A 320 SDI8303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Scraper FU 177.0 1 FGM 93 62 24 Whole 3169 A 303 SDI8303 A -1 1 10 UNIT 13 Olivella sp. Shell 0.2 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 300 SDI8303 A -1 1 10 UNIT 13 Undifferentiated shell Shell 42.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 309 SD 18303 A -1 1 20 UNIT 13 Undifferentiated shell Shell 90.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 321 SDI8303 A -1 1 30 UNIT 13 Undifferentiated shell Shell 62.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 329 SD 18303 A 3 3 10 UNIT 14 Non-human bone Bone 0.5 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 330 SD 18303 A 3 3 10 UNIT 14 Body sherd Ceramics 10.1 4 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 334 SDI8303 A 3 3 20 UNIT 14 Body sherd Ceramics 22.0 11 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 341 SDI8303 A 3 3 30 UNIT 14 Body sherd Ceramics 12.5 8 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 338 SDI8303 A 3 3 20 UNIT 14 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 1.3 1 CGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 336 SDI8303 A 3 3 20 UNIT 14 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 3.9 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 332 SDI8303 A 3 3 10 UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 1.4 2 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 344 SD 18303 A 3 3 30 UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 1.3 4 GCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 343 SDI8303 A 3 3 30 UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 6.0 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 331 SDI8303 A 3 3 10 UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 1.0 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 337 SD 18303 A 3 3 20 UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 2.2 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 342 SDI8303 A 3 3 30 _ UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 0.9 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 345 SD 18303 A 3 3 30 UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 0.6 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 335 SDI8303 A 3 3 20 UNIT 14 Finishing flake Debitage 2.8 2 Quarlzile 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 340 SDI8303 A 3 3 30 UNIT 14 Gore FU 336.1 1 FGPM 79 63 53 Whole 3169A 328 SDI8303 A 3 3 10 UNIT 14 Undifferentiated shell Shell 27.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 333 SDI8303 A 3 3 20 UNIT 14 Undifferentiated shell Shell 851.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 339 SDI8303 A 3 3 30 UNIT 14 Undifferentiated shell Shell 73.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 349 SD 18303 B -8 0 20 UNIT 15 Non-human bone Bone 2.2 3 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 352 SDI8303 B -8 0 30 UNIT 15 Non-human bone Bone 0.8 2 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 347 SDI8303 B -8 0 10 UNIT 15 Finishing flake Debitage 0.8 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 350 SDI8303 B -8 0 20 UNIT 15 Trimming flake Debitage 0.2 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
Page 9 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169A 346 SDI8303 B -8 0 10 UNIT 15 Undifferentiated shell Shell 427.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 348 SDI8303 B -8 0 20 UNIT 15 Undifferentiated shell Shell 1077.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 351 SD 18303 B -8 0 30 UNIT 15 Undifferentiated shell Shell 712.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 353 SD 18303 B -8 0 40 UNIT 15 Undiflerentiated shell Shell 450.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 354 SD 18303 B -8 0 50 UNIT 15 Undifferentiated shell Shell 87.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 357 SD 18303 B 4 0 20 UNIT 16 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.1 1 Obsidian 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 633 SDI8303 B 4 0 10 UNIT 16 Chione sp. Shell 1005 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 641 SDI8303 B 4 0 20 UNIT 16 Chione sp. Shell 1438 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 643 SD 18303 B 4 0 30 UNIT 16 Chione sp. Shell 482.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 647 SDI8303 b 4 0 40 UNIT 16 Chione sp. Shell 9.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 637 SD 18303 B 4 0 20 UNIT 16 Donax sp. Shell 0.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 635 SDI8303 B 4 0 10 UNIT 16 Ostrea sp. Shell 22.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 640 SD 18303 B 4 0 20 UNIT 16 Ostrea sp. Shell 46.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 645 SD 18303 B 4 0 30 UNIT . 16 Ostrea sp. Shefl 23.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 634 SDI8303 B 4 0 10 UNIT 16 Pecten sp. Shell 112.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 642 SDI8303 B 4 0 20 UNIT 16 Pecten sp. Shell 281.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 644 SD 18303 B 4 0 30 UNIT 16 Pecten sp. Shell 114.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 646 SD 18303 B 4 0 40 UNIT 16 Pecten sp. Shell 1.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 638 SDI8303 B 4 0 20 UNIT 16 Saxidomus sp. Shell 13.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 636 SD 18303 B 4 0 10 UNIT ' 16 Tagelus sp. Shell 4.8 0 • Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 639 SDI8303 B 4 0 20 UNIT 16 Tagetus sp. Shell 1.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 649 SDI8303 B -1 2 20 UNIT 17 Basic shaping flake Debitage 7 2 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 361 SDI8303 B -1 2 10 UNIT 17 Basic shaping flake Debitage 50.9 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 650 SDI8303 B -1 2 20 UNIT 17 Basic shaping flake Debitage 5.6 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 364 SDI8303 B -1 2 30 UNIT 17 Blade type flake Debitage 22.9 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 360 SDI8303 B -1 2 10 UNIT 17 Undifferentiated shell Shell 720.5 0 Shell 0 . 0 0 Broken 3169A 362 SD 18303 B -1 2 20 UNIT 17 Undifferentiated shell Shell 1225.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 363 SDI8303 B -1 2 30 UNIT 17 Undifferentiated shell Shell 955.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 365 SD 18303 B -3 4 10 UNIT 18 Undifferentiated shell Shell 1055.2 0 Shefl 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 366 SD 18303 B -3 4 20 UNIT 18 Undifferentiated shell Shell 1819.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 367 SD 18303 B -3 4 30 UNIT 18 Undifferentiated shell Shell 824.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 368 S 018303 B -3 4 40 UNIT 18 Undifferentiated shell Shell 500.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 374 S 018303 B -4 1 30 UNIT 19 Basic shaping flake Debitage 15.2 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 372 SD 18303 B -4 1 20 UNIT 19 Finishing flake Debitage 1.0 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 371 SD 18303 B -4 1 20 UNIT 19 Olivella sp. Shell 0.5 1 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 369 S0I8303 B -4 1 10 UNIT 19 Undifferentiated shell Shell 950.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 370 SDI8303 B -4 1 20 UNIT 19 Undifferentiated shell Shefl 1544.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 373 SD 18303 B -4 1 30 UNIT 19 Undifferentiated shell Shell 690.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 375 SD 18303 B -4 1 40 UNIT 19 Undifferentiated shell Shell 434.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 378 SDI8303 B -2 -1 20 UNIT 20 Basic shaping flake Debitage 3.0 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 380 SD 18303 B -2 -1 20 UNIT 20 Soil Sample 120.2 0 63 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 381 SD 18303 B -2 -1 40 UNIT 20 Soil Sample 158.1 0 63 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 376 SD 18303 B -2 -1 10 UNIT 20 Undifferentiated shell Shell 480.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 377 SD 18303 B -2 -1 20 UNIT 20 Undifferentiated shell Shell 528.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 379 SD 18303 B -2 -1 30 UNIT 20 Undifferentiated shell Shell 117.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 . Broken 3169A 385 SDI8303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Non-human bone Bone 0.1 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 392 SDI8303 A -1 •1 20 UNIT 21 Non-human bone Bone 0.4 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 386 SDI8303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Body sherd Ceramics 23.8 9 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 393 SDI8303 A -1 -1 20 UNIT 21 Body sherd Ceramics 2.4 3 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken
Page 10 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169A 389 SDI8303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Basic shaping Hake Debitage 5.5 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 394 SD 18303 A -1 -1 20 UNIT 21 Basic shaping flake Debitage 7.4 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 388 SDI8303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Finishing flake Debitage 0.5 1 CGS 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 396 SD 18303 A -1 -1 20 UNIT 21 Finishing flake Debitage 1.0 3 FGM 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 400 SDI8303 A -1 -1 30 UNIT 21 Finishing flake Debitage 0.6 1 FGPM 99 89 24 Broken 3169A 390 SD 18303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Finishing flake Debitage 5.1 7 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 397 SD 18303 A -1 -1 20 UNIT 21 Finishing Hake Debitage 1.2 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 387 SD 18303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Primary shatter Debitage 2.2 2 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 401 SDI8303 A -1 -1 30 UNIT 21 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.6 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
3169 A 402 SDI8303 A -1 -1 30 UNIT 21 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.2 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
3169 A 395 SDI8303 A -1 -1 20 UNIT 21 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.2 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 399 SDI8303 A -1 -1. 30 UNIT 21 Scraper FU 221.4 1 FGPM 99 89 24 Whole 3169 A 382 SDI8303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Soil Sample 14.8 0 63 0 0 0 Broken 0 3169 A 383 SD 18303 A -1 -1 30 UNIT 21 Soil Sample 9.9 0 63 0 0 0 Broken 0 3169 A 384 SDI8303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Soil Sample 9.9 0 63 0 0 0 Broken 0 3169A 384 SDI8303 A -1 -1 10 UNIT 21 Undifferentiated shell Shell 115.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 391 SDI8303 A -1 -1 20 UNIT 21 Undifferentiated shell Shell 74.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken ., 3169 A 398 S0I8303 A -1 -1 30 UNIT 21 Undifferentiated shell Shell 78.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken .| 3169A 406 SD 18303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Non-human bone Bone 0.1 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken ., 3169 A 414 SDI8303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Non-human bone Bone 0.7 7 Bone 0 0 0 Broken .| 3169 A 423 SDI8303 A 1 1 30 UNIT 22 Non-human bone Bone 0.4 5 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 432 S 018303 A 1 1 40 UNIT 22 Non-human bone Bone 0.5 3 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
3169 A 405 SDI8303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Body sherd Ceramics 8.3 4 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken
3169 A 415 S0I8303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Body sherd Ceramics 14.9 13 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken ., 3169 A 424 SD 18303 A 1 1 - 30 UNIT 22 Body sherd Ceramics 3.3 4 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 . Broken 3169A 407 SD 18303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Basic shaping flake Debitage 29.8 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken .| 3169 A 417 SD 18303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Basic shaping flake Debitage 9.5 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken ., 3196 A 429 SD 18303 A 1 1 30 UNIT 22 Basic shaping flake Debitage 2.1 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken ., 3169A 409 SD 18303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 0.8 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken ., 3169 A 419 SDI8303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 1.4 5 CCS 0 0 0 Broken .|
3169A 428 SD 18303 A 1 1 30 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 0.4 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 435 SDI8303 A 1 1 40 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 0.3 2 CCS 0 0 0 Broken .| 3169A 408 SD 18303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 1.1 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 418 SDI8303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 1.7 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 427 SD 18303 A 1 1 30 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 0.7 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 411 SDI8303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Finishing flake Debitage 1.8 4 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken .| 3169A 434 SD 18303 A 1 1 40 UNIT 22 . Primary shatter Debitage 0.2 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 437 SDI8303 A 1 1 40 UNIT 22 Primary shatter Debitage 1.4 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 410 SDI8303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Secondary sfiatter Debitage 0.1 1 GCS 0 0 0 Broken
3169 A 421 SDI8303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Secondary shatter Debitage 1.0 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
3169 A 438 SDI8303 A 1 1 40 UNIT 22 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.3 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 412 SDI8303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.4 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 436 SDI8303 A 1 1 40 UNIT 22 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.6 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 420 SDI8303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Trimming flake Debitage 0.5 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
3169A 430 SDI8303 A 1 1 30 UNIT 22 Graver FU 4.4 1 CGS 34 13 9 Whole .| 3169A 404 SDI8303 A 1 1 10 UNIT 22 Scraper FU 91.1 1 FGM 72 0 18 Broken
3169 A 416 SDI8303 A 1 1 20 UNIT 22 Scraper/Hammer combo FU 247.4 1 FGPM 93 72 32 Whole
3169A 433 SDI8303 A 1 1 40 UNIT 22 Utilized flake FU 83.7 1 CGPM 91 63 12 Whole .| 3169 A 425 SDI8303 A 1 1 30 UNIT 22 Charcoal Sample 3.3 0 • 50 0 0 0 Broken 0
Page 11 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169 A 426 SDI8303 A 1
3169A 403 SDI8303 A 1
3169A 413 SDI8303 A 1
3169A 422 SD18303 A 1
3169 A 431 SDI8303 . A 1
3169A 444 SD18303 A 5
3169A 452 SOI8303 A 5
3169 A 440 SD18303 A 5
3169A 445 8018303 A 5
3169A 453 SO 18303 A 5
3169A 448 SO 18303 A 5
3169A 442 8 D18303 A 5
3169A 447 8 D18303 A 5
3169A 455 SD 18303 A 5
3169 A 449 SD 18303 A 5
3169 A 457 SD 18303 A 5
3169A 441 8DI8303 A 5
3169 A 456 SD 18303 A 5
3169A 450 SDI8303 A 5
3169A 446 SDI8303 A 5
3169A 454 SDI8303 A 5
3169 A 458 SD 18303 A 5
3169 A 439 SDI8303 A 5
3169 A 443 SDI8303 A 5
3169A 451 SDI8303 A 5
3169A 460 SDI8303 A 4
3169A 468 SDI8303 A 4
3169 A 476 SDI8303 A 4
3169A 482 SDI8303 A 4
3169A 461 SDI8303 A 4
3169 A 469 SDI8303 A 4
3169 A 483 SDI8303 A 4
3169A 484 8DI8303 A 4
3169A 471 SDI8303 A 4
3169A 478 SDI8303 A 4
3169A 472 8018303 A 4
3169A 466 SD18303 A 4
3169A 480 SO 18303 A 4
3169 A 485 SDI8303 A 4
3169A 462 8018303 A 4
3169A 473 S 016303 A 4
3169A 477 SO 18303 A . 4
3169A 465 SD 18303 A 4
3169 A 464 SO 18303 A 4
3169A 474 8 D18303 A 4
3169A 479 8 D18303 A 4
3169A 463 SD 18303 A 4
3169 A 470 SD 18303 A 4
3169A 459 SDI8303 A 4
1 30 UNIT 22 Soil Sample 30.1 0 63 0 0 0 Broken
'' 10 UNIT 22 Undifferentiated shell Shell 128.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 20 UNIT 22 Undifferentiated shell Shell 83.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken ^ 30 UNIT 22 Undifferentiated shell Shell 63.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 40 UNIT 22 Undifferentiated shell Shefl 165.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken "1 20 UNIT 23 Non-human bone Bone 0.7 3 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
••I 30 UNIT 23 Non-human bone Bone 2.2 9 Bone 0 0 0 Broken 10 UNIT 23 Body sherd Ceramics 7.4 6 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken "•I 20 UNIT 23 Body sherd Ceramics 2.1 3 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 30 UNIT 23 Body sherd Ceramics 7.3 2 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken "•I 20 UNIT 23 Basic shaping flake Debitage 5.2 2 CCS 0 0 0 Broken ''^ 10 UNIT 23 Basic shaping flake Debitage 2.9 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
•1 20 UNIT 23 Basic shaping flake Debitage 4.5 5 FGPM 0 0 0 • Broken
••1 30 UNIT 23 Basic shaping flake Debitage 31.5 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken -1 20 UNIT 23 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 1 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 30 UNIT 23 Finishing flake Debitage 0.5 1 CGS 0 0 0 Broken -I 10 UNIT 23 Finishing flake Debitage 1.6 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken -1 30 UNIT 23 Finishing flake Debitage 1.1 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken "1 20 UNIT 23 Finishing flake Debitage 1.1 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken "1 20 UNIT 23 Charcoal Sample 2.4 0 50 0 0 0 Broken "•I 30 UNIT 23 Charcoal Sample 0.9 0 50 0 0 0 Broken
"1 30 UNIT 23 Mineral Sample 0.2 1 Red ochre 0 0 0 Broken -1 10 UNIT 23 Undifferentiated shell Shefl 237.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken -1 20 UNIT 23 Undifferentiated shell Shell 184.1 2 Shell 0 0 0 Broken -1 30 UNIT 23 Undifferentiated shell Shell 205.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken -2 10 UNIT 24 Non-human bone Bone 1.8 12 Bone 0 0 0 Broken -2 20 UNIT 24 Non-human bone Bone . 3.2 23 Bone 0 0 0 Broken -2 30 UNIT 24 Non-human bone Bone 0.6 • 5 Bone 0 0 0 Broken -2 40 UNIT 24 Non-human bone Bone 0.1 2 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
-2 10 UNIT 24 Body sherd Ceramics 13.0 11 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken -2 20 UNIT 24 Body sherd Ceramics 3.9 3 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken -2 40 UNIT 24 Body sherd Ceramics 3.4 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken -2 40 UNIT 24 Basic shaping flake Debitage 2.7 1 CGPM 0 0 0 Broken -2 20 UNIT 24 Basic shaping flake Debitage 6.2 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken -2 30 UNIT 24 Basic shaping flake Debitage ,4.8 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken -2 20 UNIT 24 Basic shaping flake Debitage 3.2 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken . -2 10 UNIT 24 Finishing flake Debitage 0.6 3 GCS 0 0 0 Broken -2 30 UNIT 24 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken -2 40 UNIT 24 Finishing flake Debitage 0.7 1 FGM 0 0 0 Broken -2 10 UNIT 24 Finishing flake Debitage 1.3 4 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken -2 20 UNIT 24 Finishing flake Debitage 0.8 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken
-2 30 UNIT 24 Finishing flake Debitage 1.1 5 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken -2 10 UNIT 24 Primary shatter Debitage 1.7 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken
-2 10 UNIT 24 Primary shatter Debitage 2.7 1 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken -2 20 • UNIT 24 Secondary shatter Debitage 0.1 1 CCS 0 0 0 Broken -2 30 UNIT 24 Secondary sfiatter Debitage 0.1 1 CGS 0 0 0 Broken -2 10 UNIT 24 Trimming flake Debitage 0.8 2 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken -2 20 UNIT 24 Utilized flake FU 34.6 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken -2 10 UNIT 24 Undifferentiated shell Shell 298.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Page 12 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169A 467 SDI8303 A 4 -2 20 UNIT 24 Undilferentiated shell Shell 218.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
3169A 475 SDI8303 A 4 -2 30 UNIT 24 Undifferentiated shell Shell 260.0 0 Shell 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
3169 A 481 SDI8303 A 4 -2 40 UNIT 24 Undifferentiated shell Shell 117.5 0 Shell 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
3169A 488 SDI8303 A -1 -16 20 UNIT 25 Non-human bone Bone 0.1 1 Bone 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
3169 A 489 SDI8303 A -1 -16 20 UNIT 25 Body sherd Ceramics 4.2 3 Tizon Brown 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken 3169 A 495 SDI8303 A -1 -16 30 UNIT 25 Basic shaping flake Debitage 4.4 1 FGM 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken 3169 A 490 SDI8303 A -1 -16 20 UNIT 25 Basic shaping flake Debitage 5.1 1 Quartzite 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 492 SDI8303 A -1 -16 20 UNIT 25 Finishing flake Debitage 0.7 1 CGS 0 0 0 Broken
Broken 3169 A 491 SDI8303 A -1 -16 20 UNIT 25 Finishing flake Debitage 0.6 3 FGPM 0 0 0
Broken
Broken 3169A 494 SDI8303 A -1 -16 30 UNIT 25 Hammerstone FU 495.9 1 FGPM 90 79 49 Whole 3169A 486 SDI8303 A -1 -16 10 UNIT 25 Undilferentiated shell Shell 9.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Broken 3169 A 487 SD18303 A -1 -16. 20 UNIT . 25 Undifferentiated shell Shell 9.6 0 Shell 0 0 0
Broken
Broken 3169 A 493 SDI8303 A , -1 -16 30 UNIT 25 Undifferentiated shell Shell 23.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Broken 3169A 496 SD18303 B 0 7 20 UNIT 26 Undifferentiated shell Shell 5.5 0 Shell 0 0 0
Broken
Broken 3169A 497 SDI8303 B 0 7 30 UNIT 26 Undifferentiated shell Shell 11.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Broken 3169A 500 SD18303 B 19 7 20 UNIT 27 Non-human bone Bone 0.6 1 Bone 0 0 0
Broken
Broken 3169 A 502 SDI8303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Non-human bone Bone 0.6 1 Bone 0 0 0 Broken
Broken 3169 A 510 SDI8303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Non-human bone Bone 2.7 4 Bone 0 0 0
Broken
Broken 3169 A 507 SD 18303 B 19 7 40 UNIT 27 Unknown fish Bone 0.3 1 • Bone 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 503 S0I8303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Body sherd Ceramics 1.4 1 Tizon Brown 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 512 SDI8303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Basic shaping flake Debitage 21.5 2 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 505 8018303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Finishing flake Debitage 1.8 3 CCS 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 508 SD 18303 B 19 7 40 UNIT 27 Finishing flake Debitage 1.9 1 CGS 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 511 8018303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Finishing flake Debitage 2.0 5 FGM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 504 SD 18303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Finishing flake Debitage 2.5 3 FGPM 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 513 S018303 B 1.9 7 50 UNIT 27 Finishing flake Debitage 0.2 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 506 SD 18303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Secondary shatter Debitage 4.1 1 Quartz 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 516 SDI8303 B 19 7 20 UNIT 27 Soil Sample 377.0 0 63 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 517 SDI8303 B 19 7 60 UNIT 27 Soil Sample 468.0 0 63 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 498 8018303 6 19 7 10 UNIT 27 Chione sp. Shell 17.2 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 499 8 D18303 B 19 7 20 UNIT 27 Chione sp. Shell 538.9 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 501 8018303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Chione sp. Shell 1152.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 509 SD 18303 B 19 7 40 UNIT • 27 Chione sp. Shell 1174.0 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 514 SDI8303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Chione sp. Shell 1027.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 515 8DI8303 B 19 7 60 UNIT 27 Chione sp. Shell 129.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 609 SDI8303 B 19 7 10 UNIT 27 Donax sp. Shell 1.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A . 613 SDI3303 B 19 7 20 UNIT 27 Donax sp. Shell 52.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 617 SDI3303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Donax sp. Shell 193.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 620 SDI8303 B 19 7 40 UNIT 27 Donax sp. Shefl 211.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
3169 A 623 SDI8303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Donax sp. Shell 228.1 0 Shell 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
3169A 631 SDI8303 B 19 7 60 UNIT 27 Donax sp. Shell 20.8 0 Shell 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken 3169 A 614 SDI8303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Gastropods Shell 1.6 0 Shell 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken 3169A 627 SDI8303 B 19 7 50 • UNIT 27 Gastropods Shell 2.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 608 SDI8303 B 19 7 10 UNIT 27 Ostrea sp. Shefl 6.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 611 SDI8303 B 19 7 20 UNIT 27 Ostrea sp. Shefl 27.4 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 616 SDI8303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Ostrea sp. Shell 79.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169 A 621 SDI8303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Ostrea sp. Shefl 142.8 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 624 SD18303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Ostrea sp. Shell 124.6 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken 3169A 630 SDI8303 B 19 7 60 UNIT 27 Ostrea sp. Shell 15.7 0 Shell 0 0 0 Broken
Page 13 of 14
Artifact Analysis, Raw Data RECON Project Number-3169A
3169A 610 SDI8303 B 19 7 10 UNIT 27 Pecten Shell 2.3 0 Shefl 0 0 0 3169A 612 SDI8303 B 19 7 20 UNIT 27 Pecten Shell 99 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169A 615 SDI8303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Pecten Shell 271.6 0 Shell 0 0 0
3169A 619 8018303 B 19 7 40 UNIT 27 Pecten Shell 360 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169A 622 SDI8303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Pecten Shell 293.5 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169 A 629 SD18303 B 19 7 60 UNIT 27 Pecten Shefl 35.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169A 626 8018303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Saxidomus sp. Shell 6 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169A 628 SDI8303 B 19 7 60 UNIT 27 Saxidomus sp. Shefl 3.3 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169A 618 S018303 B 19 7 30 UNIT 27 Tagelus sp. Shell 1.1 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169A 625 SD 18303 B 19 7 50 UNIT 27 Tagelus sp. Shell 22 0 Shell 0 0 0 3169A 632 8018303 B 19 7 60 UNIT 27 Tagelus sp. Shell 1.7 0 Shefl 0 0 0
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Broken
Page 14 of 14
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CODING DICTIONARYFOR THE RECON LAB SYSTEM
Record the coded data onto one or more of the new analysis/catalog sheets. Remember
to complete the accession number, job name, site, and job number entiies at the top of
each sheet. Use only ONE SITE PER PAGE. Complete the enti-y for each catalog
sheet entry regardless of repetition. Provenience designations are the responsibility of
the Field Supervisor, so deficiencies should be brought to his/her attention for correction.
Job no. R####A. No hyphen and indicate letter designation if any or leave blank.
Catalog no. This is the artifact's or item's unique number within the collection.
Site no.
Locus
Easting
Northing
Level
Task code
Task no.
This can be Califomia state trinomial, San Diego Museum of Man, or
temporary, but temps must be replaced AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Indicate the character prefix for the site number and "H" designator
without hyphens or other punctuation, for example "SDI12123H"
"SDM633", etc.
Designated by site record or as needed for our new sites.
Meters east of datura, west is expressed as negative east. [a.k.a. X axis]
Meters north of datum, south is expressed as negative north, [a.k.a. Y
axis]
Lowest depth of the vertical provenience. Surface is expressed as zero
(0), all others are indicated as a multiple of ten, i.e. 10, 20, 30,40, etc.
This is a series of codes which identify what was going on when the
artifact was collected. Additions are at the discretion of the Field Director
and Lab Director in concert with the Senior Archaeologist. Refer to the
coding sheets below.
The number of what was being done. Unit 1, scrape 1, ti-ench 1, surface
item 1, etc.
Artifact type This is a series of codes in groups of 100. Types ending in 00 are
undifferentiated or undetermined. Refer to the coding sheets below.
Class List the series of hundreds indicated for type, i.e. 0-99 = class 0, 100-199
= Class 1, 200-299 = class 2, etc.
Weight The weight of the item to the nearest one-tenth gram.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
Count The number of the items sharing the same catalog number. This is
important where each item is the result of specific action such as flakes or beads.
If too many to determine, indicate a zero, for example a bag of shell fragments or
undifferentiated bone bits. Completeness is not a factor in determining the
number of items.
Material List the appropriate code to indicate the material of the item. Refer to the
coding sheets below.
Length The measurement to the nearest millimeter from A to B. Refer to the
dimension determination diagram below.
Width The measurement to the nearest millimeter 90° to AB.
Thickness The measurement to the nearest millimeter 90° to each of W and L.
Condition Indicate the appropriate code to describe the item's condition. Refer to
the coding sheets below.
Item status Where is the artifact in relation to the collection.
0= Discarded
1= Curated
2= In Type Collection
During the catalog process is the appropriate time to make observations regarding
specific artifacts. At this time the artifact is in-hand and can be commented on easily.
Also, observations about the total collection can be made on comment forms. These
might include "Most degraded batch of granite I've seen, ever" or "Odd that no manos
were found", etc. Comments of this nature and on specific artifacts are encouraged,
especially in cases of datable items, items with distinguishing marks, or decoration, or
items that are not explicitiy described by the catalog process without additional comment.
When making comments or adding descriptions, these should be made on additional
sheets and not placed in the margms of the catalog sheets. The sheets must be
coordinated using the catalog number of the artifact. A sample comment sheet is
available, but any paper will be suitable if it contains the necessary provenience
information to associate the descriptions with the artifacts being commented on. The
goal is to collect information, work toward it.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
Task Codes
0= Undifferentiated task event.
10= Undifferentiated survey.
11= Survey by 10m transects.
20= Undifferentiated surface collection program.
21= Surface collection by point plot.
22= Surface collection by 10m x 10m grid.
23= Surface collection by 20m x 20m grid.
24= Surface collection by lm radius surrounding a point.
30= Undifferentiated shovel scrape program. 35= 2m x 5m
31= Imx lm shovel scrapes.
32= 2m X 2m shovel scrapes.
33= 3m X 3m
34= 10m X 10m
40= Undifferentiated shovel test pits (STPs) 44= Auger hole
41= STPs 25cm x 50cm no levels reported. 45= Post hole
42= STPs 25cm x 50cm, 10cm levels reported.
50= Undifferentiated hand excavation.
51= lm X lm subsurface by 10cm levels.
52= 2m X 2m subsurface by 10cm levels.
53= 3m X 3m subsurface by 10cm levels.
54= lm X 2m subsurface by 10cm levels.
55= lm X 0.5m subsurface by 10cm levels.
56= 0.5m X 0.5m subsurface by 10cm levels (SEEUs).
57= 20cm X 20cm column sample by 10cm levels.
58= Soil sample.
60= Undifferentiated backhoe (or similar machine) trench.
61= Linear backhoe trench.
62= Broad-blade scrape.
63= Pit or non-linear excavation, [Note: features identified by backhoe are addressed in 80s].
70= Undifferentiated monitoring recovery.
71= Feature discovered during monitoring.
72= Scatter discovered during monitoimg.
73= Recovery from excavated exposure.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the cdmplete codes for items not listed.
Task Codes (cont'd.)
80= Undifferentiated feature.
81= Feature recording.
82= Feature item collection only.
83= Feature surface test and residue sample collection.
84= Feature lest probe, to investigate size, depth and content.
85= Feature excavation, as a single entity.
86= Feature excavation and sampling as part of mechanical excavations.
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 0 ARTIFACT TYPES
Flaked Lithic Artifacts (FLA)
0= Undifferentiated FLA. 10= Crescentic
1= Core 11= Drill
2= Blade 12= Blank
3= Unclassified projectile point 13= Combination
4= Knife 14= DO NOT USE (other is now 0).
5= Unclassified scraper 15= Projectile point [Desert Side Notched]
6= Chopper 16= Projectile point [Cottonwood]
7= Hammerstone 17= Projectile point [Dos Cabezas Serrated]
8= Utilized flake 18= Biface
9= Modified flake
For Special Studies Only
20= Convex Sidescraper 29= Straight Sidescraper
21= Convex-Concave Sidescraper 30= Straight-Convex Sidescraper
22= Concave Sidescraper 31= Straight-Concave Sidescraper
23= Double-Convex Sidescraper 32= Double Straight Sidescraper
24= Convergent Sidescraper 33= Thumbnail Scraper
25= Double-Convergent Sidescraper 34= Tabular Scraper
26= Denticulate Sidescraper 35= Multiple Scraper
27= Notched Sidescraper 36= Endscraper
28= Domed Sidescraper 37= Graver
CLASS 0 CONDITION CODES (abridged)
0= Broken
1= Whole
2= Broken and Burned
3= Broken and Heated
4= Broken and Decorated
7= Whole and Bumed
8= Whole and Heated
9= Whole and Decorated
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 0 JMATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
0= Undifferentiated
1= CGM (course grained metavolcanic)
2= CGPM (course grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
3= FGM (fine grained metavolcanic)
4= FGPM (Fine grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
5= Quartzite
6= Quartz
7= Chert (includes all crypto-crystalline silicate in general)
8= Obsidian
9= DO NOT USE (Formeriy "other", now undifferentiated)
11= Granite
12= DO NOT USE (Formerly quartzite, which is now 5)
13= Andesite
14= Sandstone
15= DO NOT USE (Formerly "other" for groundstone, now undifferentiated)
16= Basalt
17= Felcite
18=Rhyolite
19= Steatite
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 1 ARTIFACT TYPES ' "
Groundstone Artifacts
100= Undifferentiated groundstone item
101= Mano
102= Pestle
103= Slab
104= Basin
105= Bowl
106= DO NOT USE (Fonnerly "other," now type 100).
110= Drilled Item
CLASS 1IMATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
0= Undifferentiated
1= CGM (course grained metavolcanic)
2= CGPM (course grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
3= FGM (fine grained metavolcanic)
4= FGPM (Fine grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
5= Quartzite
7= Chert (includes all crypto-crystalline silicate in general)
11= Granite
13= Andesite
14= Sandstone
16= Basalt
19= Steatite
CLASS 1 CONDITION CODES (abridged)
21= Broken unifacial unshaped 31= Whole unifacial unshaped
22= Broken unifacial unshaped biamed 32= Whole unifacial unshaped bumed
23= Broken unifacial shaped 33= Whole unifacial shaped
24= Broken unifacial shaped bumed 34= Whole unifacial shaped bumed
25= Broken bifacial unshaped 35= Whole bifacial unshaped
26= Broken bifacial unshaped bumed 36= Whole bifacial unshaped bumed
27= Broken bifacial shaped 37= Whole bifacial shaped
28= Broken bifacial shaped bumed 38= Whole bifacial shaped bumed
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 2 ARTIFACT TYPES
Debitage or Flakes and Angular Waste
200= Undifferentiated debitage
201= "Blade" type flake
202= Bifacial thinning flake
203= Platform creation, cortex removal
204= Cortex removal
205= Gore reduction, basic shaping
206= Finishing, resharpening
207= Trimming
208= Shatter during primary reduction
209= Shatter during secondary or subsequent reduction
CLASS 2 MATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
0= Undifferentiated
1= CGM (course grained metavolcanic)
2= CGPM (course grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
3= FGM (fine grained metavolcanic)
4= FGPM (Fine grained, porphyritic metavolcanic)
5= Quartzite
6= Quartz
7= Chert (includes all crypto-crystalline silicate in general)
8= Obsidian
9= DO NOT USE (Formeriy "other", now undifferentiated)
11= Granite
12= DO NOT USE (Formerly quartzite, which is now 5)
13= Andesite
14= Sandstone
15= DO NOT USE (Formeriy "other" for groundstone, now undifferentiated)
16= Basalt
17= Felcite
18=Rhyolite
19= Steatite
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 3 ARTIFACT TYPES
Aboriginal Ceramic Artifacts
300= Undifferentiated ceramic sherd
301= Body sherd
302= Neck sherd
303= Rim sherd
304= Base sherd
305= Lid sherd
306= Handle sherd
307= Foot sherd
311= Pipe
312= Figure or Effigy
313= Shaped Item
CLASS 3 MATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
70= Undifferentiated
71= Tizon Brown
72= Colorado Buff
CLASS 3 CONDITION CODES (abridged)
0= Broken
1= Whole
2= Broken and Bumed
3= Broken and Heated
4= Broken and Decorated
5= Broken, Decorated, and Bumed
6= Broken, Decorated and Heated
7= Whole and Bumed
8= Whole and Heated
9= Whole and Decorated
10= Whole, Decorated and Bumed
11= Whole, Decorated and Heated
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 4 ARTIFACT TYPES
Bone, Non Human, Including Artifacts
400= Undifferentiated bone
401 = Sylvilagus audubonii (desert cottontail)
402= Sylvilagus bachmani (bush rabbit)
403= Lepus califomicus (black-tailed jackrabbit)
404= Spermophilus beecheyi (Calif ground squirrel)
405= Thomomys bottae (pocket gopher)
406= Neotoma sp. (woodrat)
407= Enhydra lutris (sea otter)
408= Qdocoileus hemionus (mule deer)
409= Urocyon cinereoagentus (gray fox)
410= Canis sp. (coyote, dog, wolf)
411= Unidentifiable small mammal
412= Unidentifiable large mammal
413= Crotalus sp. (vipers, rattlesnakes)
414= Lampropeltus sp. (kingsnake)
415= Unidenifiable reptile
416= Clemmys sp.
417= Unidentifiable bird
418= Peromyscus sp.
419= Cervus sp.
420= Didelphis virginiana
(turtle)
442= Unidentifiable fish
443= Bos taurus (domestic cow)
444= Not speciated Otolith
445= Not speciated crustacean
480= Undifferentiated bone artifact
481= Awl, describe
482= Bodkin or Fid, describe
483= Bead, describe
484= Ovis/Capra (domestic goat)
485= Not speciated ray spine
486= Not speciated snake
487= Needle
488= Unidentifiable med. mammal
(mouse)
(deer)
(opossum)
CLASS 4 MATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
30= Undifferentiated
32= Antier
34= Hide
36= Carapace
38= Tooth
31= Bone
33= Horn
35= Hair
37= Terrestrial exoskeleton
39= Cartilage
CLASS 4 CONDITION CODES (abridged)
0= Broken
2= Broken and Bumed
4= Broken and Decorated
6= Broken, Decorated and Heated
7= Whole and Bumed
9= Whole and Decorated
11= Whole, Decorated and Heated
1= Whole
3= Broken and Heated
5= Broken, Decorated, and Bumed
8= Whole and Heated
10= Whole, Decorated and Bumed
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 5 ARTIFACT TYPES
Shell, Including Artifacts
501 = Acanthina sp. 516= Dentalium sp. 531 = Notoacmea sp.
502= Acanthochitona sp. 517= Donax sp. 532= Ocenebara sp.
503= Acmaea sp. 518= Haliotis sp. 533= Odostomia sp.
504= [Do not use] 519= Hinnites sp. 534= Olivella sp.
505= Aesopus sp. 520= Homalopoma sp. 535= Opalia sp.
506= [Do not use] 521= Kelletia sp. 536= Ostrea sp.
507= Astraea sp. 522= Leavicardium sp. 537= Pecten sp.
508= Calliostoma sp. 523= Lirularia sp. 538= Polinices sp.
509= Callistochiton sp. 524= Littoria sp. 539= Protothaca sp.
510= Cancellaria sp. 525= Lucinisca sp. 540= Pseudochama sp.
511 = Cerithidea sp. 526= Macron sp. 541 = Saxidomus sp.
512= Chione sp. 527= Megathura sp. 542= Serpulorbis sp.
513= Collisella sp. 528= Mytilus sp. 543= Tagelus sp.
514= Conus sp. 529= Nassarina sp. 544= Tegula sp.
515= Crucibulum sp. 530= Norrisia sp. 545= Tricolia sp.
546= Turbonilla sp. 551= Tivela sp. 556= Septifer sp.
547= Turritella sp. 552= Pteropurpura sp. 557= Maxwellia sp.
548= Americardia sp. 553= Ballanus sp. 558= Calcum sp.
549= Lamellaria sp. 554= Bead, describe 559= Ocenebra sp.
550= Crepidula sp. 555= Dendropoma sp. 560= Trimusculus sp.
561= gastropods, asstd.
CLASS 5 MATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
40= Undifferentiated
42= Coral
44= Aquatic exoskeleton
41= Shell
43= Pearl
CLASS 5 CONDITION CODES (abridged)
0= Broken
2= Broken and Bumed
4= Broken and Decorated
6= Broken, Decorated and Heated
7= Whole and Bumed
9= Whole and Decorated
11= Whole, Decorated and Heated
1= Whole
3= Broken and Heated
5= Broken, Decorated, and Bumed
8= Whole and Heated
10= Whole, Decorated and Bumed
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 6 ARTIFACT TYPES
Object Of Interest Or Sample
Note: Make sure that these are actually planned samples to be cataloged and or kept.
600= Undifferentiated object
601= Soils
602= Charcoal
603= Floral
604= Fire Affected Rock (FAR)
605= Ash
CLASS 6 MATERIAL TYPES (abridged)
Vegetal Mineral
50= Undifferentiated 60= Undifferentiated
51= Charcoal 61= Ochre
52= Seeds 62= Hematite
53= Fibers 63= Soil sample
54= Bark only
55= Wood
56= Natural mbber ^
Fibers
90= Undifferentiated
91= Cotton
92= Silk
93= Wool
94= Linen
95= Grass
96= Bark
97= Paper
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
Abbreviated Coding Dictionary Excerpt. Refer to the complete codes for items not listed.
CLASS 7 ARTIFACT TYPES
Historic Materials Type Groups
700= Undifferentiated historic item
For use only with items that are not typed or are not identified.
711= Consumer Group Item (items purchased and consumed on a regular basis)
712= Kitchen Group Item (food preparation and serving)
713= Household Group Item (daily household maintenance)
714= Garment Group Item (clothing items)
715= Personal Group Item (belonging to a single individual)
716= Fumiture Group Item (fumiture parts)
717= Hardware Group Item (misc. hardware not included in a specific group)
718= Tools Group Item (hand tools)
719= Livery Group Item (horse and horse-drawn vehicle items)
720= Munitions Group Item (firearms and related items)
721= Coin Group Item (Coinage and tokens)
722= Building Materials Group Item (constiuction materials)
723= Machinery Group Item (machine parts except agricultural implements)
724= Forge Materials Group Item (forge, fumace and stove wastes)
725= Agricultural Implements Group Item (farm machinery)
726= Other Occupations Group Item (specialized occupation items)
727= Unique Item (items not included in other groups)
RECON Archaeology Laboratory Coding Dictionary, Version of Aug. 1999
ATTACHMENT 2
Resumes of Key Personnel
Judy Benyman, Ph.D., Principal Archaeologist
Cultural Resources/Archaeology
Years of Experience: 23
Education: Ph.D./1995/Anthro-Archaeology; M.A./1983/Anthro-Archaeology;
B. A./1973/Anthro-Archaeology
Active Registration: Certification, Society of Professional Archaeologists
Relevant Qualifications:
• Cultural Resources Specialists with 23 years experience in California, Great Basin, Southwest
• NEPA Expenence, 106 Compliance, EIS/EA Experience, Development of Prehistoric and Historic
Management Plans; Building Evaluations; Experience on Military facilities
Dr. Berryman has 23 years professional experience conducting cultural resource investigations under the
requirements of NEPA and CEQA. She has authored cultural resources sections of numerous EA and EIS
tor federal and state agencies. She has extensive experience in archaeological and historical surveys
development of r^earch programs, evaluations of National Register significance, and development and
implementauon of treatment and preservation programs.
Example of military-associated projects include:
National Register EvaJuatioi^ of SDI-812/H, Las Pulgas portion ofthe Sewage Treatment, Transmission
and Disposal Projecf Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, California. Historic archaeologist/evaluation of
matenals recovered dunng the testing program. Established historic context for Las Hores Adobe and
adjacent Late Prehistonc sites.
Historic and Archaeological Resource Evaluations for various locations in Southem California-
Archaeologist^stonc archaeologist for specific projects located at Point Loma Naval Complex; North
Island/Naval Au- Facility, San Diego; Naval Facility, Imperial Beach Station.
Prehistoric Site Testing at China Lake Naval Reservation- responsible for site identification and testing at
vanous locations within the complex; conducted a limited palynological examination of the marshy
penmeters of remnants of China Lake at Paxton Marsh.
San Clemente Island Archaeological Identification, Evaluations and Testing: Extensive experience on San
Clemente Island; Pnncipal-m-charge of a number of surveys which included both linear road surveys and
mulU-hectare blocks. Sites were located, recorded, and evaluated for National Register eligibility. In
addition to CRM related research, the major portion of Dr. Berryman's dissertation work was conducted on
ban Clemente. As a result ofthis study, a comprehensive smdy of previously unrecorded historic abalone
camps were documented. Additional research was conducted on San Nicholas Island.
Non-military projects include:
Historic and Archaeological Site Identification. Testing, and Evaluation Programs: Principal-in-Charge for
^chaeological site identification and testing/developmem of preservation programs for over 100 sites in the
Southern California area. Testing programs include private and state properties, including Califomia State
Parks, Department of Parks and Recreation, National Forest Lands, and large-tract private developments.
Development of Historic and Archaeological Resom-ces Protection Plans for State and National Forest
lands in Califoma, Nevada, and Great Basin areas. Prehistoric projects range in date from Paleo-Indian to
Early Archaic; histonc sites dating to Spanish-period. Project work has included Southem and Northem
Cahfomia, Tucson, Southem Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and parts ofthe State of
Washington.
Dr Benyman has over 23 years of field and lab experience in archaeology, specializing in southem
California and the Great Basin. She has directed field schools as well as archaeological surveys testing
programs, and excavations on prehistoric and historic sites. She has prepared site preservation plans for
histonc sites requinng rehabilitation and restoration. Dr. Berryman has worked on projects that involve the
study of histonc period sites that include Spanish, Mexican, and American adobes; excavation and
identitication of early-American rural farmsteads; evaluation of existing stmctures for historic
rehabihtauon; and evaluation of historic mines. Dr. Berryman has extensive experience in the study of
both histonc and prehistoric sites including survey and site identification in southem Califomia, Arizona
weyada. Great Basin, and Oregon; baseline data surveys; and full scale salvage excavations of
multi-component sites.
Dr. Berryman has experience working with various publics including professional archaeological grouns
govemment agencies, and Native Americans. She has made fomial and infomial presentations to ^ '
fenSron lT"''''°r^^^ governmental entities, and private interest groups. Public interest papers include
Arch?eni ^^g'^^/ity Excavations - Saloon Archaeology; Defining Ethnicity in the Historic and
Archaeological Record; Chinese Abalone Industry - ig'' Century Fishing Industry within Califomia
SsociatS are ^^^^^^l^g^' »he Forgotten Gold Rush- Exhibits for 29 Palms (California) and
DAYLE M. CHEEVER
Senior Archaeologist
Education/ Master of Arts, Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1983
Certifications Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1979
Certified by Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) in field research and
teaching since 1983
Credential for life from the Califomia Commimity Colleges as an instmctor of
anthropology
Certified by the City and County of San Diego in Archaeology
Permits U.S. Departinent of tiie Interior, Bureau of Land Management Culharal Use
Pennit, Coastal and Califomia Desert Districts, Arizona Desert
Experience 20 years of experience
RECON
1988-present, Senior Archaeologist
As tiie senior member of RECON's Cultural Resources Group, has directed and
participated in all aspects of cvdtural resource identification and evaluation
programs, including research, survey, mapping, impact assessment, significance
testing, data recovery, mitigation recommendations (including preservation
plarming and implementation), and technical report preparation. Has completed
cultural resource projects involving compliance with Section 106 of tiie State
Historic Preservation Act and tiie Califomia Environmental QuaUty Act. Tasks
are directed towards fulfilhng standards set in CEQA and NEPA as well as
numerous mimicipal pohcies for the evaluation of cultural resources through
documentation and analysis.
Has devised and managed archaeological mitigation morutoring requirements .
for numerous construction projects. Works closely with clients and resource
agencies in developing feasible mitigation stiategies. Has worked in the coastal,
mountain, and desert areas of southem Califomia and in westem Arizona, with
particular expertise in tiie management of cultural and historic resources of San
Diego County.
Is directly responsible for supervision and scheduling of field and laboratory
persormel, for tiie development of research designs, protection and preservation
plans, and data recovery programs for RECON's cUents. Also develops and
monitors project budgets.
WESTEC Services, Inc.
1985-1988, Project Archaeologist
Consulting Archaeologist/Consulting Faunal Analyst
1979-1985
0
Cheever, 2
Selected Projects Federal Projects (Section 106, NAGPRA, HABS/HAER)
National Register Eligibihty Assessment of CA-SDI-12731 in tiie Pine Creek
Summer Home Tract, Cleveland National Forest
Naval Post Graduate School Monterey, Wherry Housing Demolition Plan,
Cultural Resource Documentation
Pacific Bell Highway 80 Ahgnment Corridor, Cleveland National Forest
Loveland Reservoir Land Exchange, Sweetwater Authority and Cleveland
National Forest
Guatay Grazing AUobnent, National Register Assessment of Three Prehistoric
Sites, Cleveland National Forest
National Register Evaluation of Building 5, Fleet Combat Training Center Pacific,
U.S. Departinent of tiie Navy, Soutiiwest Division, NAVFACENGCOM
National Register Evaluation/Documentation of Schwanbeck's Store, Crossroads,
CA. Lake Havasu Field Office, Bureau of Land Management
Section 106 CompUance for Paseo Ranchero and Telegraph Canyon Road Water
Reclamation Pipelines, Otay Water Distiict
Section 106 Compliance for Otay Mesa Water Reclamation Pipeline, Otay Water
District
Historic American Engineering Record Documentation of Six Base End Stations
in tiie White's Point Reservation, Los Angeles County, CaUfornia. National
Park Service and Departinent of tiie Air Force (SMC/AXFV)
U.S. Naval Subase San Diego Artifact hiventory, NAGPRA Compliance, and GIS
Site Infonnation, Soutiiwest Division, NAVFACENGCOM
Phase I - Cultural Resource Surveys
Cultural Resource Survey of Parcel 3, Carmel Creek Road, and Site Significance
Evaluation of CA-SDI-9677, San Diego, CA
Fanita Ranch Specific Plan, Santee, CA
Archaeological Constiaints Study for LCAC Training Activities and Access
Roads at Green Beach and Blue Beach, MCB Camp Pendleton, CA
Archaeological Constraints Study for Military Vehicles at Red Beach and White
Beach, MCB Camp Pendleton, CA
Edom HiU Landfill Expansion, Riverside County, CA
RepubUc Imperial LandfiU Expansion, Imperial County, CA
Deletion of SA 680 from tiie County of San Diego Circulation Element, County of
San Diego, CA
Pipeline 2000 Phase IV, San Diego Gas & Electi-ic, San Diego, CA
Eden Valley Drainage, San Diego County, C A
Mojave Crossing, Apple VaUey and VictorviUe, CA
Whitewater River Levee/PaUn Springs Line 34 in Riverside County, CA
Torrey View-AUred/Sorrento Hills Project. San Diego, CA
Torrey Reserve Terrace Project, San Diego, C A
Beazer Property (NAS Miramar, Parcel "C"), San Diego, CA
SDG&E PipeUne AUgnment near Interstate 805/8 Junction, San Diego, CA
Forty-fourth Street Condominiums Project, San Diego, CA
Eagle Mountain Mine and Kaiser Uidustrial Railroad, Riverside County, CA
Mataguay Scout Reservation near Wamer Springs, C A
0
Cheever, 3
Portions of the Shaw VaUey Property, San Diego, CA
Proposed AUgnment at Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, CA
CarriUo Ranch Road ReaUgnment Stiidy Area, Carlsbad, CA
Phase II - Determination of Significance
CA-SDI-8472, Locus C, North Torrey Pines/Genesee Avenue, San Diego, CA
CA-SDI-7979, Border Avenue Development, Del Mar (LC94/9), CA
CA-SDI-10,940, Del Mar, CA
110 Acres witiiin Carmel Highlands Precise Plan Neighborhood 8A; SDI-10,218,
Locus A; SDI-10,219; and SDI-4905, San Diego, CA
StaUions Crossing Project: SDl-7290, SDI-7291, SDI-7293, SDI-7298, SDI-7300
SDI-10,118, San Diego, CA
Archaic Occupations witiiin fhe San Dieguito River Valley: SDI-687, San Diego,
CZ A
SDI-11,297: A Prehistoric Site in Dulzura, San Diego County, CA
Four Prehistoric Sites witiiin the Railroad Canyon Road Project Area, Lake
Elsinore, CA
SDI-6753, SDI-6754, SDI-6819, and SDI-2046: Four Prehistoric Sites within tiie
Aviara Development, Carlsbad, CA
SDI-8813: The Palomar Heights Project, San Marcos, CA
A Portion of SDI-197: Toney Enterprises-Sonento VaUey Property, San Diego, CA
San Dieguito VaUey Project Area, San Diego, CA
SDM-W-2135: A Prehistoric Site witiiin the Southridge Trails Project Area C,
Oceanside, CA
Pacific Business Park, Otay Mesa, San Diego, CA
SDI-11,019: Uruversity of CaUfornia, San Diego Scripps Institution of
Oceanography Master Plan, San Diego, CA
Results of an Extended Phase II Sampling at CA-SDI-197, Sonento Pointe Project,
San Diego, CA
Culhu-al Resource Significance Assessment of 16 Cultural Resource Sites on tiie
McCrink Ranch Property, Santa Fe VaUey Specific Plan, County of San Diego,
CA.
Phase III - Data Recovery/Mitigation
Alta Loma Heights Citrus Association Packing House Pre-demoUtion
Documentation and Educational Video
Data Recovery at CA-SDl-12,123, Carmel VaUey, San Diego, CA
Data Recovery at CA-SDI-4687, CarriUo Ranch, Carlsbad, CA
Home Avenue Trunk Sewer Data Recovery Project, San Diego, CA
A Proposed Research Design for the Completion of tiie Mitigation of Impacts to
CA-SDI-6941, Locus D; SDl-7604, Locus E; and SDI-10,200, Califomia Terraces
Project; Otay Mesa, San Diego, CA
SDl-4907, Loci A, B, and C, Neighborhood 8A Carmel Mountain, San Diego
County, CA
Data Recovery at CA-SDI-6753 and CA-SDI-6819: Aviara Development Project
Carlsbad, CA
Data Recovery at Nine Cultiiral Resource Sites, Aviara Development, Carlsbad
CA
Mechanical Excavation and Removal of Sixteen Human Burial Features from CA-
SDI-691, Aviara Development, Carlsbad, CA
0
RUSSELL O. COLLETT
Project Archaeologist
Education/
Certifications
Bachelor of Arts, Antiiropology, San Diego State University, 1989
Postbaccalaureate course work in archaeological method and theory, San Diego
State University, 1989,1990,1991
Experience 12 years of experience
RECON
1989-present, Project Archaeologist
An experienced archaeologist with special expertise in cultural resources of the
soutiiwestem United States, is responsible for conducting background research,
field surveys, test excavations, data recovery excavations, and constixiction
monitoring for cultural resource studies. Began his career in archaeology with the
excavation and analysis of tiie San Diego Royal Presidio over the course of six
field seasons. Since receiving his bachelor's degree, has been Project Archaeo-
logist at RECON, where he has supervised more than 70 prehistoric and historic
projects and participated in over 200 survey and excavation projects.
As project archaeologist, he is responsible for conducting prehistoric and historic
background research, site records maintenance, persormel tiaining and review,
and assembUng crews for completing projects. Plarming and directing project '
area surveys, mapping including tiie use of geographic information system (GIS),
and tianslation of results into reports. Is responsible for archaeological
significance testing and excavation of mitigation projects. Is also responsible for
tiie coordination of preparation, cataloging, and analysis of artifacts by
laboratory staff, and interpreting tiie results. Is knowledgeable in data enhy and
editing, and is experienced in transferring tiie results of his field surveys into
RECON's GIS.
RECON
1987-1989, Field and Laboratory Assistant
Alan Lyons, Inc.
1987-1989, Distribution Conh-oUer
Selected Projects Phase I - Cultural Resource Surveys
Carmel View Development, San Diego, CA
Beckman Property, Carlsbad, CA
Norfh Santee Reservoir, Santee, CA
Cuyamaca Stireet Offsite Extension, Santee, CA
Soutii Carlsbad VUlage Storm Drain AUgnment, Carlsbad, CA
Buckel Minor Subdivision, Potrero, CA
Medina-Donaldson Survey, San Diego, CA
Carmel Oaks VTM Survey, San Diego, CA
Santa Fe Depot, San Diego, CA. Affinis
Carmel Valley Towne Center Property, San Diego, CA
0
• Collett, 2
Newland Property, Nortii City West Neighborhood 8A, San Diego, CA
San Diego Gas & Electiric Company Property within the HiUside Review Zone,
San Diego, CA
San Diego Gas & Electiic Company Two PipeUne Altematives, San Diego and
Santee, CA
Proposed Antelope VaUey Business Park, Pahndale, CA
Proposed Los Coches Subdivision, San Diego, CA
80-Acre Parkview Project Site, San Diego, CA
San Marcos Corporate Center, San Marcos, CA
Proposed Sycamore Canyon Power Plant, San Diego, CA
Black Mountain Road Bridge Expansion, San Diego, CA
Rose Ranch Property, San Marcos, CA
El Camino Memorial Park, San Diego, CA
Steiner Property, Carlsbad, CA
Mandana Property, Carlsbad, CA
Cantarini Property, Carlsbad, CA
Melrose Drive Extension, Carlsbad, CA
King Property, Alpine, CA
Phase II - Determination of Significance
Site CA-SDI-4628 Carmel View Development, San Diego, CA
Site HN-1 (temp) Hecht-Nielsen Property, San Diego, CA
Site CA-SDI-8195 Dove Lane/Lohf Property, Carlsbad, CA
Site B-S-1 (temp) Beckman Property, Carlsbad, CA
Site CA-SDI-9677 Peri Property, San Diego, CA
Site CA-SDI-4690 CarriUo Ranch, Carlsbad, CA
Site CA-SDI-9676 Cetel Property, San Diego, CA
Skteen Archaeological Sites on tiie McCrink Ranch Property, San Diego County, CA
Site SDI-12,122H: Sonento HUls Phase 1 Coastal Development Area, San Diego, CA
SDI-11,944 and Archival Research of a Suspected Historic Era Swine Farm within
the South Palm Precise Plan, San Diego, CA
Site SDI-6699A witiiin the Soutii PaUn Precise Plan, San Diego, CA
Ginsberg Property, San Diego, CA
Site SDM-W-109 Manzanita Apartinents, Carlsbad, CA
Thirteen Archaeological Sites in the Future Urbanizing Area, Sub Area III, San
Diego, CA
Twelve Archaeological Sites Witiiin tiie ViUages of La Costa, Carlsbad, CA
Phase III - Data Recovery/Mitigation
CarriUo Ranch, Site CA-SDI-4687 Data Recovery Excavations, Carlsbad, CA
Black Mountain Ranch, Site CA-SDI-4832 Complex and Site CA-SDI-11,982 Data
Recovery Excavations, San Diego, CA
Nortii City West Neighborhood 10, Site CA-SDI-12,123, San Diego, CA
Home Avenue Trunk Sewer Data Recovery Excavations, San Diego, CA
Oceanside Entertainment Center, Historic Archeology Data Recovery
Excavations, Oceanside, CA
Torrey Reserve West, CA-SDI-197, Data Recovery Excavations, San Diego, CA
Construction Monitoring
North Mission VaUey Interceptor Sewer PipeUne, San Diego, CA
0
Collett, 3
Rose Canyon Trunk Sewer Archaeological Data Recovery and Monitoring, San
Diego, CA. RMW Paleo Associates.
Home Avenue Trunk Sewer Archaeological Monitoring, San Diego, CA
Nortii Mission VaUey Interceptor Sewer, San Diego, CA
South ChoUas Valley Sewer, San Diego, CA
Water and Sewer Replacement Group 466A, San Diego, CA
Section 106/NAGPRA/Other Federal Projects
National Register Documentation for White's Point Reservation, Base End
Stations, San Pedro, CA., National Park Service, San Francisco Field Office.
National Register EUgibUity Assessment for Three Sites in the Guatay Grazing
AUotinent Area, Cleveland National Forest, San Diego, CA
National Register EUgibiUty Determination for Schwanbeck's Store, Cross Roads,
CA. Bureau of Land Management Lake Havasu Field Office
Data Recovery Excavations for Prehistoric Sites m tiie San Joaquin HUls
Transportation Corridor, Irvine, CA. Witii Chambers Group, Inc., Irvme, CA
Cultural Resource Survey for tiie 'TUUnore Altemative" for State Route 86,
Riverside County, CA. Calhrans Distiict 11, San Diego, CA
Data Recovery Excavations for Prehistoric Archaeological Sites CA-ORA-106 and
CA-ORA-482 witiiin tiie Area of Potential Effect of tiie Proposed New Ford
Road, Irvine, CA. Witii Chambers Group, Inc., Irvine, CA
DemoUtion Monitoring for tiie Spreckles/Savage Tire Company and Aztec
Brewery, San Diego, CA
Conshruction Monitoring for tiie Big Pipe Project, San Diego, CA. Witii Mariah
Associates, Reno Nevada branch office
National Register EUgibUity Assessment of CA-SDI-12,731 in tiie Pine Creek
Summer Home Tract, Cleveland National Forest, San Diego Coimty, CA
Culhural Resource Survey of Portions of Range 101, Naval Air FacUity El Centio,
ElCenh:o,CA
Historic Property Evaluations
Alta Loma Heights Citrus Association Packing House, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Historical Assessment for tiie Proposed Oceanside Beach Resort Development,
Oceanside, CA
Cultural Resource Survey and Significance Assessment of Historic Properties and
SheU Scatter (CA-SDI-4628) for tiie San Diego Jewish Academy Site, San
Diego, CA
Historical Assessment of Four Residential BuUdings and Associated Features on \
the King Property, Alpine, CA
Special Projects
Revised RECON's Archaeological Laboratory System for the Treatinent and
Processing of Artifacts and Data
Created a Lab Du-ector's Handbook, FUed Director's Handbook, and Manual of
Field Procedures to Accompany tiie Revised Laboratory and Field
Methodologies
Revised the Field Director, Laboratory Director, and Team Member manuals to
reflect tiie requirements of NAVFACENGCOM, Soutiiwestem Division
Co-created an educational program to buUd awareness of planning and
preparation for high temperature field conditions
0
Collett, 4
Developed and implemented an educational program for buUding archaeological
field skiUs among recreational project participants
0