HomeMy WebLinkAbout3593; Faraday Avenue Road Extension; Historical/Archeological Test Faraday Road Extension; 1999-05-01m
k
m
k
m
k
m
k
HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST OF A PORTION
P OF CA-SDI-8303 FOR THE FARADAY ROAD EXTENSION
^ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
m
k
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
Prepared by:
Gallegos & Associates
m
k
m
* May 1999
IR
P
E
m HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST OF A PORTION
OF CA.SDI-8303 FOR THE FARADAY ROAD EXTENSION
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
Public Works Engineering Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Califomia 92009-1576
Prepared by:
Gallegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
(760) 929-0055
Project No. 5-99
m
m
m
National Archaeological Data Base Information
Area Covered: 1+acre
Site Tested: CA-SDI-8303 (Portion)
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: San Luis Rey
Key Words: Test, habitation, shell, radiocarbon date, obsidian, beads, significant
Dennis IC GaUegos'
Project Manager
Nina M. Harris
Project Archaeologist
3^ Tracy
Lithic Analyst
May 1999
m TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
1 INTRODUCTION l-I
• 1.1 Project Description 1-1
1.2 Environmental Setting 1-1
1.3 Native American Use of Natural Resources 1-1
m 1-4 Background - Prehistory 1-6
1.5 Ethnographic Overview 1-8
- 1.6 Previous Work 1-10
1.6.1 SiteCA-SDI-8303A,B/SDM-W-123/-1892/ 1-11
- -2403/-2404/-2730
2 RESEARCH ORIENTATION AND METHODS 2-1
2.1 Research Orientation 2-1
2.1.1 Chronology 2-1
- 2.1.2 Site Type and Settlement Pattem 2-2
^ 2.1.3 Subsistence Strategy 2-5
2.1.4 Lithic Technology 2-5
- 2.1.5 Trade and Travel 2-6
2.2 Methods 2-6
2.2.1 Field Methods 2-7
2.2.2 Laboratory Methods 2-8
2.3 Specialized Studies 2-8
em 2.3.1 Lithic Analysis 2-8
2.3.2 Faunal Analysis 2-13
^ 2.3.3 Invertebrate Faunal Analysis 2-14
^ 2.3.4 Radiocarbon Dates 2-15
2.4 Curation 2-15
^ 3 TEST RESULTS FOR CA-SDI-8303 3-1
• 3.1 STP Excavation 3-1
3.2 Unit Excavation 3-1
• 3.3 Analysis Results 3-6
m 3.3.1 Artifact Assemblage 3-6
3.3.2 Shell Beads 3-14
3.3.3 Ceramics 3-18
3.3.4 Invertebrate Remains Analysis 3-18
3.4. Radiocarbon Dating Results 3-19
m
m
m
m
m
m
PJ. 5-99
May 1999
m TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
mm SECTION TITLE PAGE
m 4 SITE DISCUSSION 4-1
MR 4.1 Site Type and Settlement Pattem 4-1
4.2 Subsistence Strategy 4-1
m 4.3 Chronology 4-2
4.4 Lithic Technology 4-2
4.5 Trade and Travel 4-2
Ml 4.6 Summary 4-3
m 5 SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
Ml 5.2 Site Significance/Criteria 5-1
5.3 Site Significance Discussion 5-4 Ml 5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5-6
mm
6 REFERENCES CITED 6-1
m LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
3-1 CA-SDI-8303 STP Results 3-3
mm 3-2 Unit 2 A Cultural Material by Depth 3-5
m 3-3 Unit 3A Cultural Material by Depth 3-7
3-4 Unit 4A Cultural Material by Depth 3-8
mm 3-5 CA-SDI-8303 STP and Unit Totals 3-9
iH 3-6 CA-SDI-8303 Lithic Material Summary 3-12
3-7 Hake Types by Depth for Units 2A, 3A, and 4A Combined 3-13
mmi 3-8 CA-SDI-8303 Shell by Depth 3-15
3-9 Unit 3 A SheUfish by Habitat 3-16
m 3-10 Unit 4 Shellfish by Habitat 3-17
mm LIST OF FIGURES
m FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
3-1
Regional Location of Project 1-2
Project Area as Shown on USGS 7.5' San Luis Rey Quadrangle 1-3
Proposed Faraday Road Alignment and Surveyed Area as Shown on
Development Map 1 -4
Proposed Faraday Road Alignment and CA-SDI-8303 as Shown on San
Luis Rey 7.5' USGS Quadrangle 1-5
Location of Faraday Road Extension Alignment, STPs and 1x1 Units 3-2
PJ. 5-99
May 1999
11
m
m
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
3-2 CA-SDI-8303, Units 2,3 and 4 Sidewall Profiles 3-4
3-3 Selected Artifacts from CA-SDI-8303 3-10
5-1 Site CA-SDI-8303 Boundary and Faraday Road Extension Alignment,
• STP and 1 X 1 m Units 5-5
<• LIST OF APPENDICES
m
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
m
^ A Resumes of Key Personnel A-1
• B Artifact Catalogue Sheets B-1
C Radiocarbon Dating Results C-l
IM
m
H
m
k
m
m
m m
• PJ. 5-99 iii
^ May 1999
m
m
it
em
m
TITLE:
AUTHORS:
DATE:
SOURCE OF COPIES:
ABSTRACT:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Historical/Archaeological Test of a Portion of
CA-SDI-8303 for the Faraday Road Extension
Carlsbad, Califomia
Dennis R. Gallegos, Nina Harris, and Tracy Stropes
GaUegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
May 1999
San Diego State University
South Coastal Information Center
San Diego, Califomia 92182-0136
Site CA-SDI-8303 was tested to detemiine site significance under City of Carlsbad
Guidelines and Califomia Environmental QuaUty Act criteria. Testing provides necessary
information to determine site depth, content, integrity and potential to address important
research questions.
Site CA-SDI-8303 is located, east of Agua Hedionda and north of Palomar Airport Road in
the City of Carlsbad. A portion of CA-SDI-8303 wiU be dii^Uy impacted by the
constmction of the Faraday Road Extension project. Testing included the excavation of
twenty shovel test pits and three 1x1 m units. The test program produced 1 Cottonwood
Triangular arrow point, 1 biface fragment, 3 Olivella sp. shell beads, 165 debitage, 1
mano, 2 unidentifiable ground stone fragments, 2 flake tools, 18 ceramic fi-agments, 12
grams of bone and 5617 grams of sheU. Site CA-SDI-8303 represents a Late Period
village. Within the Faraday Road Extension, a portion of this Late Period viUage site was
found to be intact with a wide range of artifacts representing occupation within the Late
Holocene. As the portion of CA-SDI-8303 can contribute to ttie archaeological record of
past lifeways, CA-SDI-8303 is identified as significant under CEQA and City of Carlsbad
Guidelines. Site CA-SDI-8303 wUl be directly unpacted by the constmction of Faraday
Road. Mitigation of Faraday Road Constmction impacts can be achieved through: 1)
avoidance and redesign; or 2) through the completion of a data recovery program.
m
m
Pj. 5-99
May 1999
iv
m
m
m
m
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Gallegos & Associates was contracted by the City of Carlsbad to conduct a cultural
resource testing program to determine the significance of that portion of prehistoric site CA-
SDI-8303 for the Faraday Road Extension project (project area). The project area is located
in the City of Carlsbad, north of Palomar Airport Road and west of College Boulevard
(Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The proposed project is the westward extension of Faraday Road
m from its present terminus to its intersection with Cannon Road. The study was conducted
k in comphance with City of Carlsbad and CEQA guidelines. Previous work included a
^ survey of the project area and the identification of a portion of prehistoric site CA-SDI-
^ 8303 within the ahgnment (Figure 1-3). Resumes are included as Appendix A, unit level
records as Appendix B, catalogue as Appendix C, and site record forms as Appendix D.
^ Maps showing site location are confidential information and are not for public review.
mm 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
^ The project area is approximately 10+ acres in size and is characterizd by roUing hills and
^ relatively steep hiUsides. The majority of the project area is currently used for agriculture,
with the exception of steep slopes in the northeast portion of the project area. Vegetation
consists primarily of agricultural crops, except for steep slopes m the northeast, which are
dominated by coastal sage scmb. Disturbance includes discing for farming and an
^ associated network of dirt roads.
m 1.3 NATIVE AMERICAN USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
^ Prehistoric inhabitants of the region were hunter/gatherers who reUed heavily on natural
^ resources for subsistence. Probably the most important environment exploited by the
PJ. 5-99 1-1
May 1999
o
San Diego
Gallegos & Associates
PJ. 5-98
Regional Location of Project HGURE
1-1
0"14'
4MILS '340 MILS SCALE 1:24000
0 1 MILE
1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
Gallegos & Associates
1 KILOMCTER
Project Area as Shown on
San Luis Rey USGS 7.5' Quadrangle
FIGURE
1-2
Bit
Gallegos & Associates
'PEill^nNAR'- AUGNMENT STUDY
Adapted from ODay Consuttonts
Proposed Faraday Road Alignment and Surveyed Area as Shown on Development Map
FIGURE
1-3
1 MILE
Gallegos & Associates
Proposed Faraday Road Alignment and CA-SDI-8303 as
Shown on San Luis Rey 7.5' USGS Quadrangle
FIGURE
1-4
il
m
m
i
Ml
H
k
m
m
m
m
m
inhabitants was the lagoon and associated lagoonal resources. Most importantly, shellfish
provided a renewable reUable resource that was exploited extensively. Other resources
fi-om lagoonal envkons include rice grass, water birds, and fish, aU of which were
exploited by Native Americans.
The Native Americans of San Diego County depended upon stone for tools and utensUs,
and natural resources for food and clothing. The ridgeUnes are Pleistocene marine and
marine terrace deposits. In addition to providing terraces above the flood and tidal limits,
this formation contains cobbles fi-om the conglomerates which were sought for materials to
make features (i.e., hearths, heating platforms), core/cobble tools, and for cores to make
flake tools.
Coastal chapan^ probably was the dominant plant community, with pockets of Coastal
Sage Scmb along some ridges and riparian plants along fresh water streams leading to the
lagoon. Riparian resources known to have been used protohistorically include willow bark
and branches, tule, rice grass, and mosses as weU as numerous roots and tubers.
1.4 BACKGROUND - PREHISTORY
The body of current research of prehistoric occupation in San Diego County recognizes the
existence of at least two major cultural traditions, discussed here as Early Period (Archaic)
and Late Period, based upon general economic trends and material culture. Within San
Diego County, the Archaic generally includes the period from 9,500 and 1,300 years ago,
while the Late Period includes fi-om 1,300 years ago to historic contact. The Historic
m Period covers the time firom Spanish contact to present.
Early Period (Archaic)
The Early Period (Archaic), for this discussion, includes the San Dieguito and La Jolla
complexes, which are pooriy defined, as are the interrelationship between
contemporaneous inland, desert, and coastal assemblages (Gallegos 1987). hutially
believed to represent big game hunters, the San Dieguito are better typified as a hunting and
gathering society. These people had a relatively diverse and non-speciaUzed economy in
which relatively mobile bands accessed and used a wide range of plant, animal, and Uthic
resources. Movement of early groups into San Diego County may have been spurred by
the gradual desiccation of the vast pluvial lake system that dominated inland basins and
PJ. 5-99 1 -6
May 1999
g vaUeys during the last altithermal period. This hypothesis is supported by the similarity
between Great Basin assemblages and those of Early Archaic sites in San Diego County.
Several researchers recognized the regional simUarity of artifacts and grouped these
contemporaneous complexes under the nomenclature of either the Westem Pluvial Lakes
Tradition or the Westem Uthic Co-tradition (BedweU 1970; Davis et al. 1969; Rogers
• 1939; Warren 1967, Moratto 1984).
The origin of coastal populations and subsequent interaction between the coastal population
and Great Basin/desert groups is a subject of some debate (SDCAS 1987). Whatever their
origin, the first occupants immediately exploited the coastal and inland resources of plants,
animals, shellfish, and fish (Moriarty 1967; Kaldenberg 1982; GaUegos 1991).
The development of a generaUzed economic system indicates that the San Dieguito and
related groups can be placed within the general pattem of the Archaic. Archaic cultures
occur within North America at slightly different times in different areas, but are generaUy
correlated with local economic speciaUzation growing out of the earUer Paleo-Indian
- Tradition (WUUg et al. 1988). Archaic cultures are often represented by more diverse
«, artifact assemblages and more complex regional variation than occur in Paleo-Indian
m traditions. This is generaUy tiiought to have resulted from the gradual shift away fi-om a
herd-based hunting focus to a more diverse and area specific economy.
m
g|
The earUest sites are found near coastal lagoons and river vaUeys in San Diego County.
* These sites are the Harris Site CA-SDI-149, Agua Hedionda Sites (CA-SDI-
210/UCU-M-15 and CA-SDI-10695), Rancho Park North (CA-SDI-4392/SDM-W-49),
m and Remington HiUs (CA-SDI-I1079) dating 8,000 to 9,500 years ago. San Diego
* County coastal lagoons supported large populations, circa 6,000 years ago, as shown by
the numerous radiocarbon dated sites adjacent to these lagoons. After 3,000 years ago,
there is a general absence of archaeological sites associated with lagoons to circa 1,500
years ago. This reduction in number of archaeological sites can be attributed to the sUtation
of coastal lagoons and depletion of shellfish and other lagoon resources (Warren and
Pavesic 1963; Miller 1966; GaUegos 1985). Archaeological sites dated to cm;a 2,000 years
ago are found closer to San Diego Bay, where sheUfish were stiU abundant and may weU
represent what can be considered the end of the La Jolla Complex (Gallegos and Kyle
1988).
PJ. 5-99 1-7
May 1999
m
k
m
ii
pi
m
The traditional chronology identifies the U JoUa and Pauma complexes foUowing the San
Dieguito complex (Wairen 1968). Inland La JoUa occupation sites have been reported in
transverse vaUeys and sheltered canyons (Tme 1959:225-263; Warren et al. 1961:1-108;
Meighan 1954:215-227). These non-coastal sites were termed "Pauma Complex" by Tme
(1959), Warren (1961), and Meighan (1954). Pauma Complex sites by definition have a
predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack sheUfish remains, have
greater tool variety, seem to express a more sedentary occupation, and have an emphasis on
both gatiiering and hunting (Tme 1959; Warren et al. 1961; Meighan 1954).
Archaic sites fi-om 9,500 to 1,300 years ago witiiin San Diego County include coastal
habitation sites, inland hunting and mUUng camps, and quarry sites. Material cultural
assemblages during tiiis long period are remarkably simUar in many respects. These
deposits may weU represent a process of relative terrestrial economic stabUity and
presumably slow cultural change. Though various culture traits developed or disappeared
during tiie long span of 9,500 to 1,300 years ago, tiiere is a clear pattem of cultural
continuity during this period.
Based on evidence fi-om tiie Spindrift site in La Jolla, Moriarty (1965, 1966) suggests the
introduction of smaU projectile points as early as 2,000 years ago. Between 1,200 and 800
years ago, tiie technology of ceramic manufacture had been introduced from tiie eastem
deserts and was estabUshed as part of tiie Late Period artifact assemblage. Also introduced
around tiiis time are cremation of tiie dead and tiie use of obsidian from Obsidian Butte
from tiie Imperial Valley.
m 1.5 ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
m
^ The region which includes tiie study area was populated by eitiier tiie Native Americans
M caUed tiie "Luiseno," an Anglo name given to tiiose native populations associated witii
Mission San Luis Rey or by tiie Kumeyaay/Dieguefio (Kroeber 1925) also known as tiie
^ Ipai (Luomala 1978). The language of tiie Luiseno is part of tiie Cupan group of tiie Takic
subfamily, a member of tiie Uto-Aztecan family. Otiier Cupan group languages were
spoken by tiie Cupeno, Cahuilla, and Gabrielino, Native American groups to tiie north and
east (Bean and Shipek 1978). Luomala (1978) uses "Ipai" to refer to tiiose Native
Americans formeriy designated as tiie Northem and Coastal Dieguefio. The language of tiie
group is classified as part of tiie Yuman language family. This family is often considered
to be part of the Hokan stock.
PJ. 5-99 1-8
May 1999
According to Bean and Shipek (1978), ttie territory of tiie Luiseno stretched from Agua
• Hedionda Lagoon m ttie soutii mland along Agua Hedionda Creek to include Mount
Palomar and tiie northem tip of tiie vaUey of San Jose, tiien northward just east of Elsinore
" VaUey, tuming toward tiie coast at Santiago Peak, and foUowing AUso Creek, Orange
County, to ttie coast. According to Luomala (1978:592), ttie territory of ttie Ipai extended
• along tiie coast from tiie San Luis Rey River in tiie north to San Diego Bay in tiie south,
• with San Felipe Creek marking tiie eastem boundary.
mm
m White (1963) estimated tiiat at tiie time of contact (tiie late 1700s), tiie Luiseno population
totaled about 10,000 persons. The introduction of European diseases decimated ttie
population, especially for ttiose native peoples forced to Uve at tiie missions. Altiiough
many of tiie coastal natives were taken to San Juan Capistrano, ttie poUcy of Mission San
" Luis Rey encouraged ttie natives to maintain tiieir own settiements and subsistence
*• practices, altiiough Christianity was introduced along witii horticulture. When tiie missions
- were secularized in 1834, many of tiie natives tumed to tiie Mexican ranchos for
employment, altiiough ttiose living in wUdemess areas were able to maintain ttieir Ufe style.
When Califomia became part of tiie United States, and homesteaders moved into tiie area,
many of tiie open ranges were fenced off, and tiie areas traditionaUy used for hunting and
gatiiering were no longer available. Altiiough ttie reservations were estabUshed to offset
ttlis encroachment, instead, ttiey forced many natives to adopt a more sedentary Hfe style
m
based on Anglo economics as an altemative to moving to the reservations.
• The settiement pattem of tiie Luiseno (and probably also tiie Ipai), prior to Anglo
interference, was described by Bean and Shipek as:
^ sedentary and autonomous vUlage groups, each with specific hunting, collecting,
and fishing areas,located in diverse ecological zones. Typically, tiiese were in
•» valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges [Bean
and Shipek 1978:551].
It has been suggested that the pattem included two or more permanent base camps with a
number of associated special purpose sites such as quarry sites, hunting blinds, and mUUng
m sites (Tme et al. 1974; Tme and Waugh 1982). The winter base camp, occupied four to
^ six montiis of a year, was ttie location where most of tiie ceremonies took place. The
^ summer-fall camp was tiie acom-coUecting, hunting camp, usuaUy located near an oak
grove. •* PJ. 5-99 1-9 May 1999
During ttie spring, ttie vUlage group was divided into smaUer famUy groups, witii each
group occupying a smaU area where fresh vegetal resources could be procured or where
coastal sheUfish could be coUected. The smaU group size compensated for ttie lack of
resources after ttie depletion of tiie winter stores and prior to tiie harvest of tiie next year's
crop. The summer-fall camps reflected a coalescence of tiie kin-group witti tiie large winter
camp composed of tiie total population (Bean and Shipek 1978; Tme et al. 1974; Tme and
Waugh 1982).
Botti tiie Luiseno and Diegueno cultures were geared to srniple hunter/gatiierer economies
but were rich in oral traditions and rituals (Sttong 1929). The multiple environmental
zones insured that time of scarcity in one zone could be supplemented witii products from
another vegetal zone. SheUfish, fish, acoms, grass seeds, herbs, and game provided a rich
and varied diet (Bean and Shipek 1978; Luomala 1978).
References on San Diego County Native Americans include Barrows (1900), DuBois
(1908), Sparkman (1908), Gifford (1918), Hooper (1920), Spier (1923), Kroeber (1925),
Strong (1929), Wolcott (1929), Woodward (1934), Dmcker (1937), Priestiy (1937),
UnderhiU (1941), Tibesar (1955), Rudkin (1956), Heizer and Whipple (1957), Pourade
(1960), Spicer (1962), White (1963), Keneally (1965), Bumis (1967), Cuero (1968),
Robinson (1979), Langdon (1970), Heizer and Ahnquist (1971), Bean (1972), Bean and
Saubel (1972), MerriU (1973), AUnstedt (1974), Shipek (1977, 1980, 1986a, 1986b,
1987, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 1991, 1993), Harrington (1978), Hedges (1986), and Carrico
(1993).
1.6 PREVIOUS WORK
Prior to the field survey, a literature review and record search were completed at the South
Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University and tiie San Diego Museum of
Man. Six cultural resource studies, submitted to ttie Soutii Coastal Information Center and
the San Diego Museum of Man, have been completed within or immediately adjacent to ttie
project area. These studies include: Archaeological Planning Collaborative 1980; Scientific
Resource Survey, Inc. 1982a,b; Westec 1982; Elfend Associates 1983; Michael Brandman
Associates, Inc. 1983; and Kyle and Gallegos 1997.
These studies identified 67 cultural resources witiiin a one-mile radius of ttie study area and
one cultural resource (CA-SDI-8303) wittiin ttie study area. Sites located witiiin a one-mUe
PJ. 5-99 1-10
May 1999
radius include habitation, sheU middens, temporary camps, sheU scatters, artifact scatters,
Utiiic scatters, and historic resources. These sites reflect extensive prehistoric and historic
use of ttie nortti coastal area of San Diego County where ttie presence of marine and fresh
water sources, plant and animal resources, and bedrock outcrops provided ttie necessaiy
resources for habitation. Previously recorded site CA-SDI-8303 located witiiin tiie
proposed Faraday Road aUgnment is described in subsection 1.6.3.
1.6.1 Site CA-SDI-8303A,B/SDM-W-123/-1892/-2403/-2404/-2730
Site CA-SDI-8303 was recorded circa 1920 by Malcohn Rogers as tiie Kelly Spring site.
Rogers noted ttiat ttie site was located on eitiier site of a canyon. Cultural remains noted
mclude cobble hearths, shell, arrow points, and one bow pipe witii tiiree loop handles.
Rogers also noted tiiat Dewey KeUy found a cremation associated witii tiie previously
described pipe and ceramic sherds. FrankUn identified a portion of what is now identified
as CA-SDI-8303 in 1978. Franklin noted numerous flakes and shell over a large area.
In 1979, Hatiey revisited a portion of flie site (CA-SDI-8303A/SDM-W-2403,-2404) and
noted a large quantity of shellfish remains, flaked stone implements, and an abundance of
charcoal and ash. In August of 1980, Hanna relocated tiie site in tiie bottom and margins
of a large, unnamed drainage to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Hanna noted potsherds, mUUng
stones, flaked stone tools, flakes, and debitage, as well as, dense shellfish deposits
consisting of Chione sp., Argopecten sp., Donax sp., Ostrea sp., Saxidomus sp., and
Protothaca sp.
In September of 1980, Douglas and Weil revisited tiie site which tiiey described as a large,
multi-component habitation site covering 10± acres. Douglas and WeU noted flakes,
manos, cores, and core tools, ceramics, and shellfish remains. Wade (1986) monitored
backhoe excavation for a pipeUne witiiin site (CA-SDI-8303). She reported tiiat tiie soU
was muddy and few artifacts were noted (Wade 1999, Personal Communication). Wade
(1986) described tiie site complex as "composed of several elements which overlap, have
been disturbed, and are spatially separated" so fliat the exact conformation was difficult to
detemiine.
Phase I of tiie Farady Road project included a field survey of tiie 10+ acre Unear project
area. The project area was surveyed on foot using a 10 m interval between transects.
Ground visibiUty was exceUent in graded roads and in recentiy disced fields; however,
PJ. 5-99 1-11
May 1999
dense vegetation obscured tiie visibUity for tiie remaining area. Disturbance witiiin tiie
smdy area included agricultural activities anf graded dirt roads. As per CEQA and City of
Carlsbad's Cultural Resource Guidelines, site CA-SDI-8303 was recommended for testing
to determine site significance/importance. Testing provides sufficient information to
detemiine site size, depth, content, integrity and potential to address unportant research
questions. For sites identified as significant/important, mitigation of impacts can be
addressed tiirough redesign and avoidance or tiirough tfie completion of a data recovery
program, wherein a sample of tiie prehistoric site is excavated to address research questions
such as chronology, settiement and subsistence, trade and travel, and tool technology.
Conversely, if tiie site or tiiat portion of tiie site is identified as not significant/important,
then mitigation measures are not required.
PL 5-99 1-12
May 1999
SECTION 2
RESEARCH ORIENTATION AND METHODS
m
m
m
Ml
2.1 RESEARCH ORIENTATION
Research questions important in ttie archaeological community include: chronology, site
type and settiement pattem, subsistence, Utiiic technology, and trade and travel. The
k research questions posed for tiiis study are addressed below. Given tiie level of work (test
wm excavation), tiie questions presented below wiU be used for research orientation, but can
m only be addressed at tiie data recovery level, wherein a larger sample and special studies are
^ conducted.
2.1.1 Chronology
*" • When were the sites occupied?
mm
Because sites witiiin tiie region often contain residual marine shell, it may be possible to
,p. obtain sufficient shell for an absolute radiocarbon date. Additionally, charcoal and bone or
tal bone artifacts, albeit rare on archaeological sites witiiin tiie area, may also be radiocarbon
dated to provide absolute chronological information regarding site occupation. Materials
^ for absolute dating are coUected from subsurface excavations during botii tiie test and data
recovery programs. Surface material recovered during a survey are possibly contaminated
*" and are not suitable for radiocarbon assessments.
Relative chronological dating may be possible using point types, tiie presence of Native
American ceramics, or tiie presence of ottier temporally diagnostic artifacts. Obsidian,
traded from distant sources, may also be relatively dated using hydration rates since
ii obsidian absorbs water at slow and somewhat constant rates. Obsidian from sources such
as Obsidian Butte in tiie Imperial VaUey was avaUable during the late Holocene whUe
obsidian from tiie Coso Range of tiie central vaUey was avaUable tiiroughout tiie Holocene.
SheU specie preference or avaUabiUty may also be used to place sites witiiin a relative order.
For example, marine shell, if present, can be identified by species to detennine sheU habitat
and, tiierefore, suggests strategies used by site occupants to gatiier flie shell. Along wifli
radiocarbon dates for an absolute date of site occupation, flie variety of shell species may
vary by strata, suggesting environmental change and a change in shellfish habitat over a
period of time.
PJ. 5-99 2-1
May 1999
m
m
m
k
m
k
2.1.2 Site Type and Settlement Pattern
Do tiie sites contain sufficient information to determine tiie type of habitation
and tiie duration of stay? Can tiie site be placed wifliin a temporal settiement
system for contrast with other earUer or later settiement systems?
It has been suggested tiiat tiie pattem during flie Late Period included two or more
* pemianent base camps witii a number of associated special purpose sites such as quarry
sites, hunting blinds, and mUling sites (Tme et al. 1974; Tme and Waugh 1982). The
M winter base camp, occupied four to six montiis of a year, was tiie location where most of
tiie ceremonies took place. The summer-faU camp was tiie acom-coUecting, hunting camp,
usuaUy located near an oak grove.
* During tiie spring, tiie vUlage group was divided into smaller famUy groups, witii each
group occupying a smaU area where fresh vegetal resources could be procured or where
coastal shellfish could be coUected. The smaU group size compensated for tiie lack of
*• resources after tiie depletion of tiie winter stores and prior to tiie next year's harvest. The
summer-faU camps reflected a coalescence of ttie kin-group witii tiie large winter camp
la composed of ttie total population (Bean and Shipek 1978; Tme et al. 1974; Tme and
^ Waugh 1981).
Mi
In order to discuss settiement pattems, it is fnst necessary to define the specific sites witiiin
** a region. The question then becomes:
m
^ • What type of cultural resource sites are represented?
k
gg Major types of cultural resource sites are artifact scatters, habitation sites, historical sites,
H isolates, Utiiic scatters, mUUng stations, quarries, rock art sites, rock shelters, and shell
middens (Gallegos et al. 1992). As each site represents a locale where ecofacts and/or
artifacts are present, they can be more accurately identified on tiie basis of cultural material
or in comparison with otiier sites. Placement of sites into a framework using defined site
types as detemiined by subsurface investigation provides a more accurate determination for
the purpose of site patteming on a regional basis.
PJ. 5-99 2-2
May 1999
« Site Classifications
Witiiin tiie body of San Diego County archaeological Uterature tiiere is a persistent tendency
towards ttie abuse of site nomenclattue. Apart from ambiguities resulting from inconsistent
site boundary definitions, tiiere also exists ttie widespread practice of labeUng deposits as
** "camps," 'Sdllages" and "processing sites" simply on tiie basis of surface surveys.
Inasmuch as ttiese labels are merely descriptive of tiie size and nature of tiie surface scatter,
• tiiey have some value. From tiie standpoint of settiement pattem studies, however, tiiese
^ descriptions may pooriy define archaeological sites due to tiie minimal data base used to
M detemiine site type. The definitions given below are adapted from tiiose discussed by
Gallegos et al. (1992).
Mi
Artifact Scatter: This site type contains a Ught surface scatter of artifacts, such
^ as cores, debitage, bifaces, ground stone (mUUng) implements, and/or pottery. Artifact
* scatters may represent a stopping place on a long joumey, an area where a task force
m accomplished some specific activity, or a special purpose site. Ecofacts such as bone and
k shell are not present on sites of this type or are minimally represented.
Ml
^ Habitation: A habitation site or camp contains a variety of artifact types and
ecofacts (i.e., shell and/or bone), and may contain bedrock milling features, suggesting tiiat
various activities were conducted. Habitation sites may have been occupied for a short
period of time (short-term camp), seasonaUy over hundreds of years (long-term camp), or
^ may represent a viUage site occupied tiiroughout most of tiie year. In addition to a weU-
^ defined subsurface deposit, other indications of habitation sites are tiie presence of features
m such as fu-e-heartiis or rock-lined ovens and bumed bone indicating that cooking occurred.
k
_ Historic: AccoixUng to ttie State Office of Historic Preservation definition, a
M historic site contains stmctures or remains of historic activities older than 45 years.
iH Isolate: As defined by tiie State of CaUfomia, tiie occurrence of less than tiiree
Ml artifacts within close proximity does not constitute a site. Prior to the acceptance of this
" defmition, some isolates were assigned State of Califoraia site numbers,
il
m Flaked Stone Scatter: A flaked stone scatter contains a surface scatter of only
flaked stone such as cores, debitage, and bifaces ttiat may have been created by multiple
_ Utiiic reduction episodes ("flake scatter") or ttirough a single event or occurrence ("chipping
m
k
m
PJ. 5-99 2-3
May 1999
il
Ml
m
m
m
m
HI
Station"). If tiiere is no subsurface deposit, it may be termed a "surface Utiiic scatter."
Haked stone scatters are simply areas where Uthic reduction occurred, either for tiie
production of flake tools, coie/cobble tools, or mUUng implements and lack evidence of
habitation. This descriptive term is confusing in tiiat ground stone implements are also
made of litiiics, yet are not included in "Uthic scatters."
Bedrock Milling Station: This is a locaUty where tiie principle activity
consisted of miUing and ttie majority of artifacts are mUUng tools such as manos, metates,
mortars and pesties. A bedrock miUing feattire is present, and a light subsurface deposit of
pottery and/or tools may be present.
Quarry: This is a locaUty where the principle activity consisted of procuring rock
for Utiiic tools and implements. Quarry sites may be extensive and involve acttial mining of
Utiiic material (quarries), or tiiey may be areas where cobbles from outcrops are tested for
suitabUity (raw niaterial prospects). Major quarry sites may contain pottery, bedrock
mUling tools/feattu-es, or faunal material from support camps. Raw niaterial prospects are
occasionaUy misnamed as Utiiic scatters, when tiiey are more accurately described as smaU
quarry sites where occasionally, raw material was tested for quality. These raw niaterial
prospects will not contain support activity artifacts which will be present at large, extensive
quarries (WiUce and Schrotii 1989).
Rock Art: Sites containing rock art are usually Umited to pictographs or
^ pettoglyphs in tiie soutiiem Califomia region. Petroglyphs are "pecked rock" drawings
and "pictographs" are painted panels created with a combmation of various pigments and
m emulsifiers such as water or animal fat. Intaglio sites consisting of rock aUgnments are
usuaUy Umited to tiie desert region. Rock art sites are generaUy considered to be areas
_ where ceremonies took place.
Rock Shelter: Often a small cave or overhang was used prehistorically for
protection from inclement weatiier. Rock shelters usuaUy contain a cultural deposit from
the occupation and sometimes have pictographs or petroglyphs.
Shell Midden: A site ttiat contains ecofactiial remains of primarily shellfish is
indicative of a special processing area. A small amount of Utiiic artifacts or midden may be
present.
PJ. 5-99 2-4
May 1999
M 2.1.3 Subsistence Strategy
* • What subsistence strategies are represented at the sites? at
* Because different types of artifacts and ecofacts are found in varying quantities at sites,
• tiiey represent differing aspects of tiie ultimate goal of subsistence: procurement and
— processing of food, materials, and ttie tools to process ttiem. The presence of marine sheU
may or may not indicate ttiat shellfish were used for food, since shell such as Olivella sp.
^ (oUve sheU) and Haliotis sp. (abalone) were used for omamentation (i.e., beads,
^ pendants). However, sheUs such as Chione sp. (cockle), Argopecten sp. (scallop) and
Ostrea sp. (oyster) are evidence of a subsistence sd-ategy based upon ttie coUection of
marine shellfish. The presence of animal bone may also represent tiie range of animals
taken and tiie degree tiiat animals contiibuted to tiie overaU diet. The identification of faunal
" material to species, when possible, is important because certain species are known to
•* fi^quent specific habitats and tiiis enables tiie archaeologist to understand hunting and
— gatiiering stt-ategies. Bone can be identified and dated, tiiereby providing botii diet
— information and absolute date of tiie hunting/trapping activity.
m Artifacts such as grinding implements (e.g., manos, metates, mortars, and/or pesties) infer
a subsistence strategy based on plant and seed gatiiering. Different environmental habitats
and time periods are suggested when manos are more abundant than pesties, and it is
generally believed tiiat pesties are more numerous on Late Period sites than on Early Period
* sites. The presence of points used to tip arrows, darts, and spears can serve to indicate
hunting, as weU as providing a relative date of occupation based on pomt type. A
*M fiinctional analysis of Utiiic artifacts can aid in detemiining tiie niaterial being procured
d and/or processed. The relative number of artifacts by functional class can support tiiese
interpretations. m
m
2,1.4 Lithic Technology
How does ttie assemblage reflect ttie technological trajectories used by the
prehistoric mhabitants? Which reduction su-ategies were in use? Does ttie
site contain a sufficient sample of debitage and cores of various Uthic
materials to define tiie technological tt:ajectories used to form the tools? Are
tools made from local niaterials or imported niaterials? What ground stone
implements are present and are they formed or expedient tools?
PJ. 5-99 2-5
May 1999
k
ii
Very Uttle is known about tiie Utiiic technology of soutiiem CaUfomia. For tiie soutiiem
Califomia region, small blade core reduction, spUt cobble core reduction, biface reduction.
Topaz Mountain cobble reduction, and bipolar reduction have been identified. The
reduction ti^jectory selected was dependent on (1) tiie material bemg reduced (flakeabUity
and form) and (2) tiie purpose of tiie reduction (hammer stone production, point
production, ground stone implement production, etc.).
2.1.5 Trade and Travel
• To what extent are trade and travel evidenced at the sites? Do tiie sites
contain imported or ti^ded Utiiic niaterials such as steatite, obsidian, red
bead material, chert, chalcedony, and/or jasper? Can ttiese materials be
sourced to specific locales?
It has been proposed tiiat early tt-ade networks for tiie soutiiem CaUfomia coastal area were
to tiie nortii witii later networks prunarily to tiie east or desert regions (Hughes and Tme
1985; Ericson et al. 1989). This may be vaUd for obsidian, but otiier ti-ade items need to be
traced to tiieir source for verification or test of tiiis assumption. The red bead niaterial
quarry sites are in soutiiem Orange County, near Casper Regional Park. The litiiology of
tiie material is under investigation but is currentiy believed to be a welded tuff (S. WUliams,
Personal Communication, 1995). Beads made from ttiis material have been found
exclusively in Milling Stone Horizon sites. In San Diego County, ttiey have been
recovered from Carlsbad Car Country sites CA-SDI-6134 and CA-SDI-10672 (Schrotti et
al. 1990) and from CA-SDI-5130, located along ttie San Luis Rey River, where tiiey occur
in association with radiocarbon dates between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago.
2.2 METHODS
The following provides the test methods for tiie portion of CA-SDI-8303 tested. The
testing program included the excavation of tiiree 1x1 m units, excavation of 15 shovel test
pits (STPs), artifact cataloging and analysis, radiocarbon dating, and a report of finding.
The purpose ofthe testing program was to determine site significance under CEQA criteria,
and to address questions concemed with chronology, site type and settiement pattem, Utiiic
technology, and ttade and travel.
k
PJ. 5-99 2-6
May 1999
m
m
m
k
k
2.2.1 Field Methods
Testing involved surface coUection and excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) and 1x1 m
units. Each unit was excavated in 10 cm levels foUowing tiie nattual surface contour to
bedrock or a sterUe horizon. SterUe is defined as a sedmient layer void of culmral remains.
AU excavated material was screened tiirough 1/8-inch hardware mesh. CulUiral niaterial
retained in tiie screen was separated and bagged by class (bone, shell, debitage, and tools),
witii appropriate provenience and ti-ansported to GaUegos & Associates' Culttiral Resource
Laboratory for washing (where appropriate) and cataloguing. Prior to backfiUing, unit
sidewaUs were photographed and Ulusttated. Field notes record tiie results of each 10 cm
level including culmral material recovered, sediment type and disturbances observed. The
1x1 meter units provide information regarding site integrity and ttie quantity and range of
cultural material in the subsurface deposit.
Shovel Test Pits (STPs)
STPs, approximately 30 cm in diameter, were excavated across tiie site to determine
presence/absence of a surface deposit. Selection of STP placement was according to
presence of artifacts and/or ecofacts, ground visibUity, and site topography. The STPs
were excavated in 10 cm levels to a sterile subsurface horizon witii sediment screened
tiirough 1/8-inch mesh. All artifacts were coUected and placed in plastic bags labeled witii
the STP number and 10 cm level.
Unit Excavation
One by one meter units were excavated at site CA-SDI-8303 in order to detemiine deptii
and content ofthe subsurface deposit. The units were excavated in 10 cm levels, measured
from the natural surface contour, untU bedrock or a sterUe subsurface horizon was
confumed. Sterile is defined as a sediment layer void of culturaUy related items. AU soil
was screened tiirough 1/8-inch mesh screen, and artifacts and ecofacts were collected by 10
cm levels. Prior to backfllling, unit sidewaUs were UlusO-ated and photographed. AD
recovered cultural material was placed in resealable plastic bags, and labeled by site
number, unit number, level, and date. Field notes included recording the results of each 10
cm level identifying cultural materials recovered, disturbance, and otiier comments (See
Appendix B). AU ecofacts and artifacts recovered were taken to Gallegos & Associates'
Cultural Resource Laboratory for cleaning, cataloguing and analysis.
PJ. 5-99 2-7
May 1999
Ml
li
Ml
2.2.2 Laboratory Methods
Gallegos & Associates' standard laboratory procedures include cleaning, restoration if
necessary, and separating artifacts and ecofacts by material class for each unit-level prior to
cataloguing. Items from subsurface deposits fliat might be appropriate for special residue
analyses were not washed, tiiereby preserving possible microbotanical or protein residue.
* Each item or group of similar items (such as faunal remains, debitage) was counted,
^ weighed, and/or measured and tiien given consecutive catalog numbers using flie site
number as flie accession number. The catalog number was written on tiie artifact where
appropriate in permanent black ink. AdditionaUy, each item or group of items (bone, shell,
* debitage) was placed in an acid-free plastic bag witii an attached foil-backed label
containing accession-catalog number, item classification, provenience, measurements,
*" weight and material. The cataloged material was separated by typological categories for
analysis, and after analysis, were placed m appropriately labeled acid-free boxes for
m curation. In-deptii analysis of artifactual and ecofacttial niaterial was performed including
*• appropriate special analyses (e.g., radiocarbon dating, Utiiic and sheU analysis). The
^ catalog was completed in a Microsoft Access database file on an IBM-compatible computer
^ (see Appendix C).
mm
2.3 SPECIALIZED STUDIES
** SpeciaUzed smdies include Utiiic analysis, faunal analysis, and radiocarbon dating. The
methods are discussed below.
mm
* 2.3.1 Lithic Analysis
IH
gp The Utiiic analysis combines morphological, functional, and technological atttibutes for an
in-depth perspective on the similarities and differences between tiie assemblages. The
analysis was geared to addressing tiie research questions concemed with chronology,
subsistence, and technology. Exotic materials wiU be identified along witii tiieir probable
*• place of origin. Artifact types present in the project area range from esoteric objects such as
* steatite omament, discoidals, and crescentics to everyday work tools, i.e., manos and
w metates.
Ml
li
PJ. 5-99 2-8
May 1999
gg Litilic culttiral remains can be interpreted in at least tiiree different ways (Binford and
Binford 1969): as temporally-sensitive artifacts; as functionally-defmed tools; and as
debris or discards. The fnst interpretation, temporally-sensitive artifacts, is imposed by flie
Mi
archaeologist on tiie coUection. This is not to say ttiat temporaUy-sensitive artifacts had no
function in tiie prehistoric society, but ratiier tiiat tiieir greatest value, to ttie researcher, Ues
"* in their placement wittiin the regional chronologies.
* In ttie second interpretation, functionally-defined tools, tiie artifacts are separated into
^ related task-specific groups to detemiine tiie activities taking place at tiie site. The informa-
^ tion derived from tiie last class, manufacttiring debris, relates to tiie procurement of Uttiic
materials, ttieir relative importance, and tiie metiiods of producing ttie tools needed for
subsistence.
*" Littlic analysis of tools was based primarily on a functional analysis. Functional analysis is
•* concemed witii the technology of prehistoric peoples. It is an attempt to define the types of
activities ttiat took place at a site and is especiaUy important when looking at artifacts from
special purpose sites. Numerous activities leave no ttace in tiie archeological record except
by tiie tools used in tiiose activities. Thus, defining tools used for flint-knapping, seed-
^ grinding, etc., as weU as those whose functions were socio/religious (e.g., sheU beads,
ochre, quartz crystals, etc.) is of major importance in detemiining what activities were
being performed by tiie prehistoric occupants and tiie relative importance of tiiose activities
* (Binford 1965).
tMi
* The functional analysis of prehistoric artifacts is dependent on tiie use-wear present as tiie
m result of utUization of the tool in some task or from tiie manufacmring of tiie item. In a
<i functional analysis, the morphological attributes of a tool, as seen by tiie analyzer, are
^ given secondary consideration. That is, form as it appUes to a template or norm is not
ll considered. Instead, those attributes tiiat result from use are given priority in detemiining
the class in which the artifact belongs. By using such an approach, tiie preconceived ideas
* of the analyzer are not superimposed on that of tiie prehistoric use of tiie tool (Spaulding
1960; Doran and Hodson 1975).
m
* It is recognized tiiat technology is not a static phenomenon, but tiiat through time, one in
Ml which innovations and changes occur. These are discernible in tiie archaeological record as
ii tiiey affect different Utiiic tool types. The preference in flie Late Period for flie use of
ceramic vessels for storage and cooking in place of basketry is one such technological
k PJ. 5-99 2-9
May 1999
Ml
li
^ change. When such a change occurs, flie object becomes, for flie archaeologist, a time
marker. Artifacts, tiien, along witii a functional interpretation, can have tiie added value of
^ indicating a temporal period.
^ Some items were not used but were merely by-products of manufacturing otiier tools.
These are of importance in determining what manufacttuing took place and to what degree.
•I The infomiation derived from manufacturing debris relates to the procurement of Utiiic
k materials, their relative unportance, and the metiiods of producing the items.
m
tf The Uttiic artifacts, tiien, were divided into two primary categories: Utiiic tools and Utiiic
debitage. The method involves scanning aU itenis with a 10X-16X magnification, eitiier a
jeweler's loupe or a microscope. Use-wear or manufacmring marks observable under
magnification then determines tiie major category and type witiiin tiiat category. In die
*" class of functionaUy-defined tools, tiie artifacts are separated into related task-specific
groups to detemiine the activities that once took place at tiie site.
«• Major classes include ground stone tools (manos, metates, pesties, mortar/bowls), flaked
p. stone tools (including points and bifaces), core/cobble tools, debitage, and miscellaneous
^ items. Chipped stone tools were further subdivided into points and flake tools (scrapers,
cutting tools, drill/reamers, engravers, or combinations thereof)-
•I
Projectile Points
* Certain Utiiic items are of importance to tiie regional chronology of tiie area. These are
items whose shapes are as much a product of a culturally-defined "right" template (Binford
and Binford 1969) as they are a product of function. Generally, the projectile points found
^ in the region (e.g.. Desert Side-notched, Cottonwood Triangular) are assumed to represent
^ specific time periods; however, the chronology for this specific area is incomplete and
relies on those from nearby areas. Projectile points ttiat have been detemiined to be time-
sensitive artifacts were described and compared to the regional chronology. Additional
time-sensitive itenis include discoidals, cogged stones, steatite and slate omaments, and
^ other social/religious itenis.
PJ. 5-99 2-10
May 1999
^ Flake Stone Tools
^ Hake stone artifacts include those (excluding bifaces and points) formed from flakes, itenis
usuaUy classifled as scrapers, knives, drill/reamers, gravers, or multiple tools combining
two or more of these. Hake tools are ttiose used in tasks where force was of secondary
* importance and where conttol was of more importance (e.g., drilling a hole in a bead, fmal
« shaping of an incised line, dehairing a pelt, etc.). The wear-pattem of ttiese tools along
«• with angle and shape of ttie utUized edge aid in determining tiie material upon which flie
^ tool was used, and possibly the specific task.
Wiflun flie flake tools, four major types are present witii identification relying on use-wear
ratiier than edge modification, altiiough edge modification was also considered. They can
be classified as flakes used for:
(1) scraping - having primarUy urufacial wear and/or edge modification,
^ (2) cutting ~ having primarily bifacial wear and/or edge modification,
"* (3) drilUng/reaming - having primarily use-wear around and/or on a tip, and
(4) engraving denoted by use-wear, generaUy unifacial, on a smaU (< 1.0 cm)
straight edge.
The edge-modified flakes form a separate category in that tiie type of modiflcation exhibited
. on tiiem may be tiie result of any one of several causes. These are flakes tiiat have no use-
Mi wear present. They may have been pressure-flaked for shaping or dulling (as in backed-
cutting tools to protect the hand). The retouch may be the result of platform-preparation
and hence, the flake would be debitage ratiier tiian a tool. The perceived modification may
be tiie result of "ttampling." That is, a flake may have been inadvertentiy waUced on or a
* tool dropped on it, or it may have hit a hard surface during tiie flaking process. This latter
tf
explanation is the least likely, but has been known to have occurred during repUcative fUnt-
^ knapping by the author. tf
Ground Stone Tools
These tools were used primarily for vegetal processing; however, ethnographic records
indicate tiiat bone, clay for pottery, and pigments for paint were also ground with tiiese
unplements (Gayton 1929; Kroeber 1925; Spier 1978). Ground stone tools were first
separated into four groups: manos, metates, pesties, and mortar^owls, recognizing, of
course, that manos and metates as well as pesties and mortars are in acmality complex tools
k PJ. 5-99 2-11
May 1999
having two primary parts. The attributes selected for discussing ground stone tools are
tiiose most amenable to comparisons witii similar artifacts from otiier sites in tiie region.
Manos: Attributes of importance in the classification of manos include cobble or shaped,
number of used faces (bifacial or unifacial to detemiine extent of usage, end-battering
(presence/absence resulting from roughening grinding surfaces), outiine, and cross-
section. Form can aid in identifying tiie type of metate used wifli tiie mano. Shaping is of
*l importance in determining tiie lengtii of site occupation; tiie time to shape a mano would not
gl be taken if tiie user only meant to use tiie mano for a day or two and tiien discard it.
il Shaping denotes an unnecessary amount of time expended to make an object aestiieticaUy
pleasing.
m
m
k
M)
Ml
li
Ml
m
m
m
k
me
m
Metates: Ground stone fragments were identified as metate fragments on tiie presence of
at least one concave ground surface. Both slab (thin and very portable) and block (thick
and heavy) metates are present. Some were used unifacially and others bifacially, denoting
the amount of time spent grinding seeds.
Pestles: In addition to tiie universal atttibutes, attributes of importance in tiie
classification of pesties include shaped or cobble. Shaping of pesties, as witii manos,
suggests an extended stay on a site by the prehistoric inhabitants.
Core/cobble Tools
Core/cobble tools are tiiose in which tiie parental mass rather tiian tiie removed flake
becomes the tool. These are expedient tools tiiat may have served more tiian one function
during tiieir use-life. TypicaUy, tiiey are classified as hammer stones, scraper planes,
cores, or choppers. In reality, tiiey probably were used for more than one task and were
cycled unUateraUy through several tasks. They are expedient tools, easy to manufacmre
from the nearby river cobbles, and discarded when the occupants moved to a new location.
Manufacturing Debris
For flaked stone, manufacmring debris or debitage consists of unworked flakes sttiick off
purposefully during the sharpening of botii core/cobble tools and flake tools, and shatter
resulting from tiie work. An analysis of the debris can define tiie technologies practices by
the prehistoric knappers.
PJ. 5-99 2-12
May 1999
li
m
k
m
k
m
m
m
k
m
m
k
Miscellaneous
MisceUaneous artifacts mclude tiiose items fliat are more esoteric in nattire and fliose items
tiiat cannot be placed in tiie above categories. These generaUy denote economic stams (as
in beads, pendants) or rimal/ceremonial activities (as in shaman crystals, hematite or red
pamt stone, discoidals). Otiier items classified under tiie misceUaneous category include
tarring pebbles, boiling stones, and manuports.
2.3.2 Faunal Analysis
Faunal remains, if present, were separated into invertebrate and vertebrate for analysis.
This analysis was used to address research questions conceming subsistence and
subsistence change through time.
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
tf
Each bone was examined to detemiine:
element
right or left side
highest taxonomic category
evidence of buming, and if so, what degree of oxidation
evidence of butchering, and if so, what method of butchering
Comparative skeletal coUections used in this analysis included those from private
collections. Bone atiases (Olsen 1985; Sandefiir 1977; Schmid 1972) were used as
supplements during the identification process.
Categories used in tiiis analysis include:
Bumed: Bone elements or fragments tiiat show color change from exposure
to heat or fire (oxidation):
• brown = exposure to heat, bone would but Uttie or no exposure to open
flames
• black = direct exposure to open flames (i.e., roasting or discard in a fire)
• blue/white = calcined bone; direct exposure to a fne hotter than 800 degrees
Celsius (Ubelaker 1978:34). This may represent bone fliat was severely
bumed during preparation, in which case, if flesh was present on flie bone
PJ. 5-99 2-13
m
m
May 1999
.01
tf
Ml
m
k
k
during exposure to flie fne flie bone would exhibit signs of shrinking and
warping (Ubelaker 1978:34). Calcined bone may also be flie result of bone
fliat has been discarded in a fue hearth (Wing and Brown 1979:109).
Unburaed: No evidence of buming or oxidation.
Butchered: Bone that has marks made by slicing or chopping motions:
• slicing marks are tiiin and shallow, and are V-shaped in cross-section
• chopping marks are wider and deeper tiian slicing marks, and often shows
signs of chips of cortical bone removal due to the chopping impact to tiie
bone surface
Small Mammal: All non-diagnostic vertebrate fragments, whose sizes range from a mouse
to a jackrabbit
Medium Mammal: AU non-diagnostic vertebrate fragments, whose size are larger tiian a
jackrabbit, but smaller than a deer.
Large Mammal: AU non-diagnostic vertebrate fragments, whose sizes are deer-size and
larger.
The quantification of faunal material can be smdied with several methods. The methods
used in individual smdies are usually determined by tiie sample size and tiie type of site
being investigated. The size of collection may aUow for two of those methods to be used:
flie number of identified specimens per taxon (NISP), and when possible, the mmimum
number of individuals (MNI). The NISP represents tiie total number of specimens within a
category or genus and species, and the MNI represents tiie least number of ammals present
within a genus and species.
2.3.3 Invertebrate Faunal Analysis
In most cases, the majority of faunal material consisted of invertebrate faunal remains
(shellfish). Each shell was weighed and examined to identify genus and species and
indications of buming. Only shell larger than 1/4 inches was speciated in order to
determme habitat exploitation pattems and obtain paleo-envttonmental data. References
used for tiie identification of invertebrate remains included Morris (1952), Abbott (1954),
PL 5-99 2-14
May 1999
Ml
and McLean (1978). A comparative coUection housed at tiie GaUegos & Associates
laboratory was also used to confirm identification.
2.3.4 Radiocarbon Dates
Radiocarbon analysis of organic materials were conducted by Dr. Murray Tamers of Beta
Analytic Laboratories. Two sheU samples were submitted for radiocarbon dating (see
Section 3 for results).
2.4 CURATION
Field notes, level forms, field maps, and photographs are curated at Gallegos &
Associates. Slides were placed in acid-free plastic slide sleeves and photographs in acid-
free plastic photograph sheets, and labeled by roll, frame, and subject. Artifacts were
processed using standard archaeological metiiods including packaging in acid-free plastic
bags witii foil-backed labels. Artifacts are temporarily curated at Gallegos & Associates
Laboratory until funding by flie City of Carlsbad is provided for long-term curation.
PL 5-99 2-15
May 1999
SECTION 3
TEST RESULTS FOR CA-SDI-8303
The test program for a portion of CA-SDI-8303 included field excavation of 20 STPs and
three 1x1 m unit, artifact cataloguing and analysis, and radiocarbon dating. The purpose of
•» the test program was to determine site significance for tiiat portion of CA-SDI-8303 witiiin
mm tiie area of potential effect (APE). The foUowing subsections discuss tiie results of tiie
M excavation of STPs and 1x1 m unit excavation, Utiiic analysis, ceramic analysis and sheU
^ analysis.
3.1 STP EXCAVATION
A total of 20 STPs were excavated to detemiine tiie northem site boundary of CA-SDI-
" 8303 (Figure 3-1). STP Unes were placed in a nortii-soufli/east-west orientation or along
ridge lines and continued until a negative STP was encountered.
M STPs ranged in depth from 30 to 100 cm and terminated in tiie basil sandstone. Artifacts
were recovered from 15 STPs (lOA, 11 A, 12A, 13A, 14A, 16A, 19A, 38A, 39A, 44A,
mm
^ 45A, 46A, 47A, 48A, and 49A) and include 37 pieces of debitage, 1 Olivella bead, 1 biface
fragment, 2 ground stone fragments, 2 ceramics fragments, 1 projectUe point, 0.9 g of
^ bone and 461.25 g of sheU (Table 3-1).
li
Ml 3.2 UNIT EXCAVATION
k
^ Three 1x1 m units, placed within tiie proposed Faraday Road alignment were excavated at
k CA-SDI-8303 (See Figure 3-1). Unit 2A was located on flie south edge of flie APE. This
unit was excavated to a depth of 30 cm, wifli an STP within flie unit to 40 cm, which
2 terminated in hard compacted sandy clay (Figure 3-2). Artifacts from tiiis unit include two
debitage, one utilized flake tool and 37.7 g of marine shell (Table 3-2).
Ml
il
PL 5-99 3-1
m May 1999
a 4 fti fti ftl ftl fti ftl li tl II II fti i> II ftl
Gallegos & Associates
40 m
Adapted from Oday Consultants
Location of Faraday Road Extension Alignment, STPs and 1x1 m Units HGURE
3-1
fti fti ti ftl fti fti fti tt 11 I I I I ii li II li il ftl ftl ftl
Table 3-1
CA-SDI-8303 STP Results
Cultural Material lOA llA 12A 13A 14A 16A 19A 38A 39A 44A 45A 46A 47A 48A 49A Total
Projectile Point 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Biface 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Debitage-Undif 16 5 3 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 37
Ground stone 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Ceramic 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Bead-Olivella 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Bone* 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.9
Shell* 82.9 131.9 27 77.6 3.1 12.2 5.6 92 0.2 14.05 0.2 2.1 1.5 4.5 6.7 461.25
Total** 18 8 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 44
'Weight in grams
**Does not include shell or bone
UNIT 2
West Wall
(T) Grayish brown clayey loam (Munsell lOYR 5/2)
@ Brown sandy clay (Munsell lOYR 5/3)
UNIT 3
West Wall
(D Daric grayish brown (MunseU lOYR 4/2
@ Brown sandy clay (Munsell 10YR5/3)
UNIT 4
40-
North WaU
(T) Daik grayish brown sandy loam (MunseU lOYR 4/2)
(2) ^feIy pale brown silty sand (MunseU lOYR 7/4)
I = Rodent
Dismrbance
CA-SDI-8303, Units 2, 3 and 4, Sidewall Profiles FIGURE
3-2
tf
il
Ml
il
m
k
m
m
k
Table 3-2
Unit 2A Cultural Material by Deptii
Depth (cm)
Cultural Material 0-10 10-20 Total
Utilized Flake Tool (UFT) 1 0 1
Debitage 2 0 2
Shell* 31.5 6.2 37.7
Total** 3 0 3
•Weight in grams
** Does not include shell
IH
Ml
ii
Unit 3A was located just soutiiwest of STP 44 and was excavated to 50 cm, with an STP
wittiin the unit to 65 cm. This unit terminated in hard compacted sandy clay (see Figure 3-
2). Artifacts recovered from tiiis unit include: 21 debitage, 1 Olivella shell bead, 1 otolitii,
3 small mammal bone fragments (1.5 g), and 4,600.5 g of sheU (Table 3-3).
Unit 4A was also placed witiiin tiie aUgnment, 50 m west of STP 13. This unit was
*M excavated to 40 cm and terminated on moderately compacted sandstone bedrock (see Figure
k 3-2). Artifacts from this unit include 105 debitage, 16 ceramic fragments, 1 utUized flake
^ tool, 1 mano fragment, 4 bone fragments (9.6 g), 1 Olivella shell bead and 517.7 g of
m sheU (Table 3-4). The majority of artifacts were recovered from tiie upper 30 cm of tiie
^ unit, correspondmg to the upper sttata of very dark gray clayey loam.
k
3.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS «•
IM
This section describes the results of Uthic, ceramic and faunal analyses. Methods for these
" analyses were previously discussed in Section 2.
me
mm 3.3.1 Artifact Assemblage by Tracy Stropes «•
The Utiiic assemblage from the excavation of 20 STPs and tiiree 1x1 m units at CA-SDI-
^ 8303 is composed of 1 projectile point, 1 biface, 2 flake tools, 165 pieces of debitage, 1
mano, 2 unidentifiable ground stone fragments, 18 fragments of ceramics and 3 Olivella
* sp. beads (Table 3-5). m
Projectile Point
A quartz projectUe point fragment (Specimen 115) was recovered from STP 11 A. The
^ shape, size, and weight indicate that the specimen is an arrow point (cf, Fenenga 1954).
M The point is a deep concave-base Cottonwood Triangular. Measurements are
14.2x14.8x4.5 mm and weighs 0.9 g (Figure 3-3). The specimen exhibits a bending
^ fracture to the medial section. This pattem of breakage indicates the point likely broke
during impact to an opposing surface, possibly in a hunting simation, and was
* subsequentiy discarded. The point exhibits moderate invasive pressure flaking and was
Ml
likely made from tiiin flakes of locaUy avaUable quartz. These types of arrow points (and
M" arrow points overall) are temporaUy sensitive based on the weapon tiiey were used in
i* conjunction with, the bow and arrow. The atlati and dart were replaced by the bow and
arrow an estimated 1500 years ago in San Diego County (Moratto et al. 1994). This change
PJ. 5-99 3-6
May 1999
m
Ml
il
tf
k
m
k
m
k
m
k
tf
k
m
k
Table 3-3
Unit 3A Cultural Material by Depth
mm
m Cultural Material 0-10 10-20
Depth (cm)
20-30 30-40 40-50 50-65 Total
Debitage-Obsidian 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
tf Debitage-Undif 7 4 4 0 2 2 19
Bead-Olivella 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
gg Shell* 1216.5 1572.8 1018.4 700.1 92.7 0 4600.5
Bone* 0 0 0.6 0.4 0.5 0 1.5
Ml Otolitii 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
m
m
Total** 7 4 5 1 3 2 22
•Weight in grams
** Does not include shell or bone
tf
k
Table 3-4
Unit 4A Cultural Material by Deptfi
VM
il
mm Depth (cm)
Cultural Material 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 Total
mm Utilized Flake Tool 1 0 0 0 1
HI Debitage-Obsidian 1 1 1 0 3
Debitage-Undif 44 42 14 2 102
Ml Mano 0 0 1 0 1
me Ceramic 6 10 0 0 16
•>
Bead-Olivella 1 0 0 0 1
m 517.7 Shell* 109 186.9 158.4 63.4 517.7
il Bone* 1.8 5.4 1.8 0.6 9.6
m Total** 53 53 16 2 124
m
Total**
•Weight in grams
**Does not include shell or bone
tf
k
m
k
tf
k
m
k
tf
li
Table 3-5
CA-SDI-8303 STP and Unit Totals
mm
em Cultural Material STPs 2A 3A 4A Total
Projectile Point 1 0 0 0 1
IH Biface 1 0 0 0 1
Utilized Flake Tool 0 1 0 1 2
Debitage-Obsidian 0 0 2 3 5
m Debitage-Undif 37 2 19 102 160
Mano 0 0 0 1 1
Groimdstone 2 0 0 0 2
m Ceramic 2 0 0 16 18
Bead-Olivella 1 0 1 1 3
m
k Shell* 461.25 37.7 4600.5 517.7 5617.15
Bone* 0.9 0 1.5 9.6 12
tf Otolitii 0 0 1 0 1
il
Total** 44 3 22 124 193
m
li •Weight in grams
••Does not include shell and bone
k
m
k
m
k
tf
k
tf
k
m
k
Ml
m
m
k
m
k
m
k
tf
ii
Biface
Cottonwood Triangular
Projectile Point
SDI-8303-118
STP 11A
10-20 cm
SDI-8303-115
STP llA
0-10 cm
Olivella Beads
SDI-8303-25
Unit 4A
0-10 cm
SDI-8303-15
Unit3A
40-50 cm
Gallegos & Associates Scale: 1:1
Selected Artifacts from CA-SDI-8303 FIGURE
3-3
required ttie tt^sition to smaUer projectile points. Further work by Waugh (1988)
mdicates tiiat of tiie tiiree types defined by Waugh broad, deep, and sttaight based
Cottonwood Series, deep based points appear to be older tiian the other two.
Biface Fragments
One quartz biface fragment (Specimen 118) was recovered from STP llA. Spechnen 118
measures 16.9x19.2x9.3 mm and weighs 2.9 g (see Figure 3-3). It exhibits scars only
from pressure flaking and is likely a portion of a knife or projectUe point preform. No
evidence of use-wear was observed. The specunen exhibits evidence of a perverse
fracmre, which was Ukely initiated during pressure flaking activities causing the specimen
to fracmre.
Flake tools
Two flake tools were recovered and both specimens (specimens 19 and 23) exhibit orUy
moderate use-wear. Specunen 19 is composed of quartzite and measures
43.6x35x9.2 mm and weighs 15.9 g. Specimen 8303-23 is composed of metavolcanic
material and measures 65.3x57.8x25.1 mm witii a weight of 126.3 g. The use-wear in
conjunction with the high angle of the working elements indicates that both tools were
likely used in a scraping motion.
Debitage
For the present collection, ttie debitage from aU three units were analyzed in order to
provided sufficient data for a viable analysis. The STPs were not analyzed (37 flakes). The
128 pieces of debitage recovered from the ttiree units consists of 65 volcanic, 9
metavolcanic, 4 quartzite, 32 quartz, 11 crypto-crystaline silicate, 2 Piedra de Lumbre
(PDL) "chert" and 5 obsidian (Table 3-6). The majority of debitage (94.53%) was
recovered from the 0-30 cm level (Table 3-7). As a result of the analysis two reduction
tf strategies were discemible from the present collection; split cobble core and bifacial
reduction. The spUt cobble core reduction flakes are represented in 30.47% of the overaU
sample combined (Table 3-7). Interior flakes with incipient cone cortex platforms and
interior flakes with obmse angled single facet platforms represent these percentages. Only
a small portion of the observable range of technological flake types for cobble core
reduction is represented by the collection. The bifacial reduction strategy is represented in
7.03% of the overall combined sample (Table 3-7). The biface reduction flakes represent a
smaU portion of tiie observable flake types produced during a
mm
tf
m
m
k
tf
li
PJ. 5-99 3-11
May 1999
Table 3-6
CA-SDI-8303 LiUiic Material Summary
Unit Number Material Type
tf Metavolcanic Quartzite Quartz Volcanic CCS PDL Obsidian Total Percent
mm Unit 2A 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1.56%
m Unit 3A 0 1 11 6 1 0 2 21 16.41%
Unit 4 A 9 3 21 57 10 2 3 105 82.03%
tf Total 9 4 32 65 11 2 5 128 100.0%
m Percent 7.03% 3.13% 25.00% 50.78% 8.59% 1.56% 3.91% 100.00%
CCS= Crypto-crystaline silicate
PDL= Piedra de Lumbre
li
Ml
tf
ftft fti fti fti fci fci fti il li li II 11 li il li II il ftl •!
Table 3-7
Unit 1: Flake Types By Deptii for Units 2A, 3 A and 4A Combined
Depth (cm)
INTERIOR
Interior flake with geological cortex platform
Interior flake with incipient cone cortex platform
Interior flake witii single-facet platform
Interior flake with multi-facet platform
Interior flake with platform absent
BIFACE PERCUSSION
Altemate flake without remnant flake scar
Bifacial edge preparation flake without
Early stage bifacial percussion flake without remnant flake scar
BIFACE PRESSURE
Early stage bifacial pressure flake without remnant flake scar
Late stage bi&cial pressure without remnant flake scar
UNIDENTIFIABLE
Shatter
Flake fragment with incipient cone cortex
Flake fragment with no cortex
Total
Percent
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-65 Total Percent
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.78%
15 5 2 1 1 0 24 18.75%
5 5 3 1 0 1 15 11.72%
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.78%
3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.34%
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.78%
1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1.56%
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.78%
0 3 1 0 0 0 4 3.13%
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.78%
3 4 3 0 0 0 10 7.81%
3 4 0 0 0 0 7 5.47%
22 23 10 1 1 1 58 45.31%
55 47 19 3 2 2 128 100.00%
42.97% 36.72% 14.84% 2.34% 1.56% 1.56% 100.00%
m
complete bifacial reduction and comprise a smaU percent of the coUection overall. It is
Ukely tiiat tiie bifacial debitage was produced during tiie maintenance or wear/attrition of
bifacial tools that were mitially produced at another location. The remairung percentage of
debitage consist chiefly of non-diagnostic flake fragments and shatter. An observable drop
in artifact quantities is present in tiie 30-40 cm level of aU three units. However, tiie
technology and material types remain relatively consistent throughout tiie units. The smaU
•M sample size did not provide a vaUd sample upon which to base definitive statements. The
k majority of Uthic materials represented at CA-SDI-8303 are from locally avaUable resources
^ with tiie exception of five obsidian and two Piedra de Lumbra chert debitage. Altiiough
tf none of the obsidian has been geochemically sourced, on visual inspection aU appear to be
from Obsidian Butte in Imperial County, Califomia. It is possible tiiat tiie material was
ttaded for, or physically procured by the inhabitants of CA-SDI-8303. tf
Mano
A singular fi-agmentary mano specimen (Specunen 37) was recovered from Unit 4.
Specunen 37 is composed of granite and retains orUy one face. The specimen measures
85.7x64.5x45.3nim and weighs 392.5g. The mano is relatively ovoid in form, as weU as
mm cross section. The overall curvature of the remairung mano face is low which indicates that
M the opposing milling surface which the mano was ground against (i.e. metate, milling slick)
was shallow in form. The mano was produced from a locally available cobble and shows
no evidence of shaping.
Ground Stone Fragments
Ml
Two ground stone fragments (specimens 107 and 141) were recovered from STP
«i excavation. These are fragments of ground stone implements that have some grinding, but
"i lack any defining atttibutes that would facUitate tool identification. Specimen 107 is
^ composed of sandstone and measures 48.7x18.7x3.8 mm with a weight of 4.8 g.
li Specimen 8303-141 is composed of a locaUy avaUable volcanic and measures
42.6x32.7x19.1 mm with a weight of 23.4 g. The ground stone fragments, are not metate
fragments given the presence of one convex ground surface on both specimens.
ii
k
*^ 3.3.2 Shell Beads
li
Three Olivella biplicata sheU beads (specimens 15, 25 and 99) are aU Type Al (spu-e-
tf lopped) (see Figure 3-3). Although no use-wear evidence is present on the interior of tiie
i" shell spire, it is Ukely that they were used for omamentation. Specimens 15 and
tf
li
PJ. 5-99 3-14
tf May 1999
il
fti fti fti fti fti ti ii ii it il ii ii fti fti ii tl ii ii ll
Table 3-8
CA-SDI-8303 Shell by Deptfi
Depth (cm)
Unit Type 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 Total Percent
STP lOA 29.4 24.8 16.8 5.3 4.5 0.6 1.5 0 0 0 82.9 1.48%
STP UA 29.4 17.4 23.6 25.1 22.5 10.8 2.8 0.3 0 0 131.9 2.35%
STP 12A 23.3 2.9 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.7 0.48%
STP 13A 24.9 25.5 7.2 18.1 1.6 0.3 0 0 0 0 77.6 1.38%
STP 14A 0 2 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 0.06%
STP 16A 5 1.8 1.7 1.5 2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 12.2 0.22%
STP 19A 4.9 0.6 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.6 0.10%
STP 38A 0.9 4.4 0.3 0 1.8 1.5 6.7 14 24.5 37.9 92 1.64%
STP 39A 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.00%
STP 44A 0.05 1.2 0.4 1.8 1.2 2.4 0.2 6.8 0 0 14.05 0.25%
STP 45A 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.00%
STP 46A 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0.04%
STP 47A 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0.03%
STP 48A 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 0.08%
STP 49A 6.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.7 0.12%
Unit 2A 31.5 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.7 0.67%
Unit 3A 1216.5 1572.8 1018.4 700.1 92.7 0 0 0 0 0 4600.5 81.90%
Unit 4A 109 186.9 158.4 63.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 517.7 9.22%
Total 1489.95 1846.6 1228 815.8 126.3 15.7 11.3 21.1 24.5 37.9 5617.15 100.00%
Percent 26.53% 32.87% 21.86% 14.52% 2.25% 0.28% 0.20% 0.38% 0.44% 0.67% 100.00%
Table 3-9
Ml Unit 3A Shellfish by Habitat
tf
m
m
m
m
m
k
k
tf
k
tf
k
m
m
tf
k
species Unit 3A
Weight (g) Percent
Bay Lagoon Estuary
Chione sp. 2755.2 66.58%
Osfrea lurida (Oyster) 96.7 2.34%
Polinices sp. 2.7 0.07%
Argopecten sp. (Pecten) 1230.8 29.74%
98.72%
Rocky Shore/Outer Coast
Mytilus sp. (Mussel) 2.7 0.07%
Sandy Beach
Donax gouldii (Bean clam) 1.3 0.03%
Tivela stultorum sp. (Pismo clam) 48.8 1.18%
1.21%
* does not include unidentifiable shell
Total* 4138.2 100%
tf
il
Ml
k
k
tf
li
tf
k
m
k
m
k
m
k
Table 3-10
Unit 4 Shellfish by Habitat
tf
ii
tf
species Unit 4
Weight (g) Percent
Bay Lagoon Estuary
Chione sp. 148.9 32.33%
Osfrea lurida (Oyster) 49.7 10.79%
Argopecten sp. (Pecten) 35.3 7.67%
50.79%
Sandy Beach
Donax gouldii (Bean clam) 226.6 49.21%
•does not include unidentifiable shell
Total* 460.5 100%
tf
tf
tf
il
25 are whole whUe the remaining specimen is fragmentary. Olivella beads of tiiis form are
common throughout the prehistory of coastal CaUfomia. They have also been documented
ethnographicaUy in many otiier locations throughout Califomia (Gifford 1947).
3.3.3 Ceramics
Eighteen ceramic fragments were recovered from excavations at CA-SDI-8303. AU
specimens are representative of the Tizon Brown Ware group as suggested by HUdebrand
et al. (1998). All specimens are fi-agmentary central sections of vessels of undeterminable
size and form. No rim specimens were recovered during the current smdy.
3.3.4 Invertebrate Remains Analysis
Ml
k Invertebrate remains recovered from tiie excavation of three uruts and 20 STPs, from a
^ portion of CA-SDI-8303, totaled 5617.5 grams. The majority of sheU was recovered from
^ Unit 3 (4600.5 g/81.9%) foUowed by Unit 4 (517.7 g/9.22%) and Unit 2 (37.7 g/ 0.67g).
Shellfish recovered from tiie 20 STPs made up 9.58% of tiie coUection. Units 3 and 4
were selected for speciation based on quantity of shell, spatial relation, and integrity of
sttata. A total of 7 species, 3 orders, and 2 classes of invertebrate remains were identified
from Units 3 and 4. These shellfish species are representative of ttiree marine
environments: bay/lagoon/estuary, sandy beach, and rocky shore/outer coast.
m
•ft Table 3-8 includes botti STP and unit results. The majority of shellfish remains were
_ recovered from the 0 to 40 cm levels (95.78). None of the shell appeared to be bumed.
tf Tables 3-9 and 3-10 Ust the species identified and their habitats for units 3 and 4. It
appears that the majority of invertebrate remains in Unit 3 were gathered from the
2 bay/lagoon/estuary environment (98.72%). The next greatest marine environment
exploited was the sandy beach environment (1.21%), followed by a mirumal representation
* of (0.06%) rocky shore/outer coast environment. The majority of species represented in
ftl
Uiut 4 were also recovered from the bay/lagoon/esmary envu-omnent (50.79%). Umt 4
Mi also displayed a dramatic increase in the exploitation of the sandy beach envirorunent with
if 49.21% of its total sheU represented by sandy beach specimens.
k
PJ. 5-99 3-18
Ml May 1999
li
*1
k
li
Bay/Lagoon/Estuary
The majority of bay/lagoon/esmary species recovered were Chione sp. (67.24%),
Argopecten sp. (29.31%) and Ostrea luridia (3.39%). The remaining species contiibuted to
less than 0.1 % of the bay/outer coast specimens.
Sandy Beach
The majority of sandy beach species were represented by Donax gouldii sp. (82.36%) witii
Tivela stultorum sp. (17.64%) comprising the remainder of the specimens.
Rocky Shore/Outer Coast
The rocky shore/outer coast species was represented by Mytilus sp. (2.7g).
tf Summary
il
In summary the inhabitants of site CA-SDI-8303 Ukely exploited ttie shell habitats nearest
ii the site, bay/lagoon/esmary environments, followed by sandy beach and rocky shore/outer
coast species. The abundance of Donax present in Unit 4 may represent a paleo-
environmental change during ttie middle to late Holocene, representing a smaUer
bayAagoon and tiie use of sandy beach shellfish.
Ml
ii
3.4 RADIOCARBON DATING RESULTS
Ml
ii Two shell samples were submitted for radiocarbon analysis. Sample Beta-129350 was
^ Chione sp. taken from tiie 30-40 cm level of Unit 3A. Sample Beta-129351 was also
li Chione and was taken from the 20-30 cm level of Unit 4A. Sample Beta-129350 produced
a date of 420 +/- 80 BP (uncorrected). Sample Beta-129351 produced a date of 320 +/- 60
BP (uncorrected). These dates when caUbrated identify occupation ca. 280 to 605 years
ago (Appendix C).
tf
il
tf
li
PJ. 5-99 3-19
tf May 1999
il
^ SECTION 4
SITE DISCUSSION
mm
** RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The importance of a site is detemiined by the infomiation that can be derived from the
culmral material recovered from the site. The foUowing addresses the research questions
Ml posed conceming subsistence, chronology, lithic technology, and ttade and travel.
^ 4.1 SITE TYPE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERN
Does the site contain sufficient information to detemiine tiie site type and tiie duration of
stay? Can the site be placed within a temporal settiement system for contrast with other
earlier or later settiement systems?
— Site CA-SDI-8303 is a Late Period viUage site. The presence of Donax sp. shell, a
Cottonwood Triangular projectile point and ceramics represent the Late Period occupation.
^ Adjusted radiocarbon dates of 280 to 605 years before present also support Late Period
^ occupation. The smaU area tested, did not provide sufficient information to detemiine tiie
duration of stay, however the portion of the site, south of the area tested, is the primary site
^ area wherein duration was on a more permanent basis.
^ 4.2 SUBSISTENCE STRATEGY
k
tf What subsistence strategies are represented at CA-SDI-8303?
li
Given the presence of faunal remains and milling tools, it can be demonsttated that
tf
tf resources of coastal lagoon and sandy beach, as weU as, local plant and animal resources
were exploited. Shellfish coUected from Agua Hedionda and open coast include: Chione
sp., Argopecten sp., Ostrea lurida, Polinices sp., Donax gouldii, Tivela stultorum sp. and
Mytilus sp. The majority of sheUfish were coUected from the lagoon habitat, followed by
sandy beach, and rocky shore/outer coast habitats
Ml
li
Ml
ii
m
m
k
PJ. 5-99 4-1
May 1999
The presence of miUing tools and a projectile pomt represent miUing of plant and/or animal
foods and hunting activities. Also noted was one otolith (fish earbone), tiiereby identifying
fishing.
4.3 CHRONOLOGY
When was the site occupied?
Radiocarbon dating of two shell samples identified occupation ca. 280 to 605 years ago.
The presence of pottery, a smaU Cottonwood Triangular projectUe point and Dorujx sp.
shell also support a Late Period occupation.
4.4 LITHIC TECHNOLOGY
How does tiie assemblage reflect tiie technological tt-ajectories used by ttie
prehistoric inhabitants? Which reduction sttategies were in use? Does the site
contain a sufficient sample of debitage and cores of various Uthic niaterials to
define the technological trajectories used to form the tools? Are tools made
tf from local materials or imported niaterials? What ground stone implements are
present and are they formed or expedient tools?
fti
Given the local niaterial, it appears that tools were manufactured at the site, with cobble
* based industries predominating. Two reduction sttategies are present; split core/cobble and
gg biface reduction. Imported materials included a smaU amount of Piedra de Lumbre chert
• and Obsidian,
tf
^ The mano is shallow faced, thereby representing use in conjunction with a relatively fiat
tf mUUng surface (i.e. metate or milling slick). The flake tools are of quartzite, with high
angled faces suggesting use in a scraping motion. The Cottonwood Triangular arrow
point, biface and bifacial debitage identify hunting and tool kit maintenance activities.
tf
Ml
k
Ml
il
4.5 TRADE AND TRAVEL
Ml To what extent are tt-ade and travel evidenced at the site? Does the site contain imported
ii or ttaded lithic materials such as steatite, obsidian, red bead material, chert, chalcedony,
and/or jasper? Can these materials be sourced to specific locales?
PJ. 5-99 4-2
May 1999
tf
m
k
The majority of artifacts are of local material, however, imported materials include obsidian
and Piedra de Lumbre chert. The obsidian is either from Obsidian Butte in ttie Imperial
VaUey or the Coso Range to the nortti, and the Piedra de Lumbre chert is from Camp
Pendleton. The presence of these niaterials demonsttates trade and/or travel to the north
(Camp Pendleton) and most Ukely to ttie east (Imperial Valley).
4.6 SUMMARY
The portion of CA-SDI-8030 tested contains intact deposits with a range of cultural
materials to address important research questions. The site is a late period village, wherein
otUy the northem edge was tested to determine site significance. Faunal remains and
artifacts recovered identify food resources to include shellfish, fish, plant foods and
mammals were collected and/or hunted. For the most part. Unit 3 identifies exploitation of
primarily a lagoon environment foUowed by exploitation of open coast shellfish, as
demonsttated at Urut 4.
The range of tools (i.e. projectile point, milling tools, flake tools) and the presence of beads
identifies a range of activities conducted at this locality. The presence of Piedra de Lumbre
chert and Obsidian identify ttade and/or ttavel to the north (Camp Pendleton) and probably
east (Imperial Valley) respectively.
li
Ml
m
PJ. 5-99 4-3
mn May 1999
m
"•I
Mi
ll
tf
lil
Ml
ftl
SECTION 5
SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5,1 INTRODUCTION
The portion of site CA-SDI-8303 witiun tiie proposed Faraday Road Extension was tested
during the current study to determine significance under City of Carlsbad and CEQA
*• guidelines. The testing program included excavation of: 20 STPs and three 1x1 m units at
CA-SDI-8303. Significance detemiination for CA-SDI-8303 is discussed below.
Ml
^ 5.2 SITE SIGNIFICANCE/CRITERIA
wm
Detemiination of what is, and what is not a significant resource, is not a straight forward
** task. As suggested by Moratto and Kelly (1976), the significance of archaeological
Ml
resources should be assessed in several terms including research value to tiie scientist,
*" aesthetic/cultural value to tiie community at large, and Native American values. The
importance of an archaeological resource must be demonsttated. According to Section
— 15064.5 of CEQA, tiie term historical resources shall include tiie following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eUgible by tiie State Historical
Resources Commission, for Usting in ttie CaUfomia Register of Historical
" Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Titie 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
me
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
*• Section 5020. l(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in
^ an historical resource survey meeting the requirements Section 5024.1(g) of the
PubUc Resoittces Code, shall be presumed to be historicaUy or culturaUy
^ sigruficant. PubUc agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless
the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historicaUy or
• culturally sigruficant.
* (3) Any object, building, stmcture, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a
tfl lead agency determines to be historically significant or sigruficant in the
architecmral, engineering, scientific, economic, agriculmral, educational, social,
tf political, mUitary, or cultural annals of CaUfomia may be considered to be an
historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be
considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource
meets tiie criteria for listing on ttie CaUfomia Register of Historical Resources
k (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Titie 14 CCR, Section 4852) including flie
following:
1 (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
tf broad pattems of CaUfornia's history and cultinal heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
PJ. 5-99 5-1
May 1999
m (C) Embodies ttie distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of constmction, or represents the work of an important creative
mm individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be lUcely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
^ (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eUgible for Usting in
* the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register
of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020. l(k) of tiie PubUc Resoiirces
Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in
tf Section 5024.1(g) of the PubUc Resources Code) does not preclude a lead
agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as
m defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1 (j) or 5024.1.
(b) A project with an effect tiiat may cause a substantial adverse change in tiie significance
of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on flie
environment.
m
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means
« physical demoUtion, destmction, relocation, or alteration of the resoince or its
ig immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource
would be materiaUy impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical resource is materiaUy impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materiaUy alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its lustorical
significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eUgibiUty for, inclusion in
the CaUfomia Register of Historical Resources; or
M (B) DemoUshes or materiaUy alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of lustorical
resources pursuant to Section 5020. l(k) of the Public Resources Code or
its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements
of Section 5024.1(g) of the PubUc Resources Code, unless the pubUc
^ agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance
of evidence that tiie resource is not historicaUy or culturally significant; or
(C) DemoUshes or materiaUy alters in an adverse maimer those physical
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical
significance and that justify its eUgibUity for inclusion in the CaUfomia
^ Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for
purposes of CEQA.
(3) Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstracting Historic BuUdings or the Secretary of the
" Interior's Standards for RehabiUtation and Guidelines for RehabiUtating
m Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as
mitigated to a level of less than a sigruficant impact on the historical resource.
^ (4) A lead agency shaU identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate sigiuficant
adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency
shaU ensure that any adopted measiu-es to mitigate or avoid significant adverse
changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures. il
Ml
il
PJ. 5-99 5-2
May 1999
Ml
tf
(5) When a project wUl affect state-owned historical resources, as described in
Public Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, ttie
lead agency shaU consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as
provided in PubUc Resources Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should be
coordinated in a timely fashion with the preparation of environmental
documents.
(c) CEQA appUes to effects on archaeological sites.
(1) When a project wiU impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first
detemiine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a).
(2) ff a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it
shaU refer to tiie provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code,
and this section. Section 15126.4 of the GuideUnes, and tiie Umits contained in
Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.
(3) ff an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but
does meet the definition of a uruque archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of
the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with ttie
mm provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation
— activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique
^ archaeological resources.
(4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor an historical
^ resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a
significant effect on the envu-onment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource
and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Smdy or EIR, if one is prepared to
address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the
" CEQA process.
mm
(d) When an initial smdy identifies the existence of, or tiie probable likelihood, of Native
— American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission as provided in PubUc Resources Code §5097.98. The appUcant may
^ develop an agreement for tteating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate
Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. Action
implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
•* (1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains
^ from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5).
mm (2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
"* (e) In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:
^ (1) There shaU be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
fll reasonably suspected to overUe adjacent human remains untU:
(A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
m contacted to detemiine that no investigation of the cause of death is requfred,
and
(B) If the coroner detennines the remains to be Native American:
1. The coroner shaU contact tiie Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours.
2. The Native American Heritage Commission shaU identify the person or
persons it beUeves to be ttie most likely descendent from the deceased
^ Native American.
ii
tf
li
li PJ. 5-99 5-3
May 1999
3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the
landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means
of tteating or disposing of, with appropriate digruty, tiie human remains
and any associated grave goods as provided in PubUc Resources Code
Section 5097.98, or
(2) Where the foUowing conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated
grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to
ftirther subsurface disturbance.
(A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendent or the most likely descendent faUed to make a
recorrunendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.
(B) The descendant identified faUs to make a recorrunendation; or
(C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation
of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage
Commission faUs to provide measures acceptable to the landowner,
(f) As part of the objectives, criteria, and procedures required by Section
il 21082 of the PubUc Resources Code, a lead agency should make
provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources
accidentaUy discovered during constraction. These provisions should
^ include an immediate evaluation of the find by a quaUfied
archaeologist. If the find is detemiined to be an historical or unique
^ archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time aUotment
sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or
appropriate mitigation should be avaUable. Work could continue on
other parts of the building site while historical or unique
"* archaeological resource nutigation takes place.
m
^ Recogruzing that cultural resources often contain information that archival research caimot
^ answer, there is a distinct potential for each resource to provide important infomiation
relevant to several theoretical and regional research questions. Testing through subsurface
mm
excavation provides the necessary information to determine site size, depth, content,
integrity, and potential to address important research questions.
aat
•* 5.3 SITE SIGNIFICANCE DISCUSSION
•a
tf A portion of site CA-SDI-8303 was tested to determine site significance. Testing included
^ the excavation of 20 STPs and 3 1x1 m units. This work produced 1 Cottonwood
^ Triangular projectUe point, 1 biface, 2 flake tools, 165 debitage, 1 mano, 2 groundstone
fi-agments, 18 ceramic, 3 Olivella spire lopped beads, 1 otolitii, 5617 g of shell, and 12 g
2 of bone. The presence of pottery, a smaU projectUe point and two radiocarbon dates
identifying occupation circa 280 to 605 years ago. Given the site size, depth, and range of
artifacts, site CA-SDI-8303 is identified as a major habitation site (viUage). Portions of this
site are intact and can contribute to addressing important research questions.
MR
il
m
k
m
m
PJ. 5-99 S-4
May 1999
fci fci fci 1 fci fti li il li II ii fti fti fti li ftl ii II
m
Ml
tf
Ml
k
•M
(Mi
«M
k
m
m
tf
li
m
Given the site type, content, integrity and potential to address important research questions,
site CA-SDI-8303 is identified as significant under CEQA 15064.5 Item 3, Criteria D.
5.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
As presentiy proposed, a portion of prehistoric site CA-SDI-8303, will be directiy unpacted
by tiie proposed development of tiie Faraday Road Extension (Figure 5-1). Site CA-SDI-
8303 is identified as significant under Section 15064.5 (3) criteria (D) "Has yielded, or
may be lUcely to yield, information important in prehistory or history". Research questions
that could be addressed include: chronology, subsistence sttategy, Uthic technology, and
trade and travel.
Mitigation of impacts can be achieved through either avoidance of the significant site area,
or through the completion of a data recovery program, and monitoring of constraction
activities. Data recovery provides for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and
* ecofacts to be analyzed, special smdies (i.e. radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian
^ hydration and sourcing) and a report of finding which addresses the important research
mn questions,
ftl
Ml
k
PJ. 5-99 5-6
May 1999
ftl
tf
d
k
tf
ftt
k
k
il
SECTION 6
REFERENCES
Abbott, R. Tucker
1954 American Seashells. New York.
Almstedt, Rutii F.
1974 Bibliography ofthe Diegueno Indians. Ballena Press, Ramona.
Archaeological Planrung CoUaborative
1980 Archaeological Records Search and Field Survey, Palomar Airport Excess
Effluent Pipeline, San Diego County, Califomia. Ms. on file, Soutii
Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego,
Califomia.
tf
ii Barrows, David Prescott
1900 Ethnobotany of the Cahuilla Indians of Southem Califomia. University of
Ml Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bean, LoweU J.
1972 Mukat's People. University of CaUfomia Press. Berkeley, Los Angeles,
CaUfomia.
Bean, Lowell J. and Katherine Siva Saubel
*^ 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki
li Museum Press, Banning, Califomia.
HR Bean, LoweU J. and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseno. In: Handbook of North Amencan Indians, Vol. 8, Califomia,
Robert F. Heizer, ed., pp. 550-563. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
^ BedweU, S.F.
* 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fork Rock Lake Area of South
Central Oregon. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of
^ Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Binford, Lewis R.
1965 Archaeological Process and the Study of Culmral Process. In: American
Antiquity, 31:203-210
Binford, Lewis R., and Sally Binford
1969 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago.
Burms, Emest, J., S. J.
1967 Diario del Capitan Comandante Fernando de Rivera y Moncada con un
Apendice Documental. Edicion Prologo (Espanol y Ingles) y notas por E.
J. Burras. Ediciones Jose Porraa Turanzas, Madrid: Coleccion ChiniaUstac
de Libros y Documentos Acerca de la Nueva Espanol, Vol 24-25.
PJ. 5-99 6-1
*M May 1999
li
Carrico, Richard
1993 Ethnohistoric Period, Draft Report, Febraary 1993. In: Historic Properties
Background Smdy for tiie City of San Diego Clean Water Program,
"* Chapter 5. Ms. on file, Brian F. Mooney & Associates, San Diego,
^ Califomia.
Cuero, Delfina
1968 The Autobiography of a Diegueno Woman As Told to Florence C. Shipek.
Dawson's Book Shop, Los Angeles.
IH
Davis, Emma L., C. W. Bott, and D. L. Weide
mm 1969 The Westem Lithic Co-tradition. San Diego Museum Papers No. 6.
tf
Doran, J. E., and F. R. Hodson
1975 Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology. Harvard University Press,
^ Cambridge,
il
Douglas and Wiel
•M 1980 Site record form for SDI-8303. On file, Soutii Coastal Infomiation Center,
tf San Diego State University, San Diego, CaUfomia.
^ Dmcker, PhilUp
^ 1937 Culture Element Distributions V: Southem Califomia. University of
* Califomia Anthropological Records 1(1).
^ DuBois, Constance Goddard
li 1908 The ReUgion of the Luiseno and Diegueno Indians of Southern Califomia.
University of Califomia Publications in American Archaeology and
m Ethnology 8(3):69-186.
tf
Elfend Associates
1983 Environmental Information: KeUy Ranch Master Plan/Specific Plan. Ms.
on file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San
Diego, Califomia.
Ml
il
* Fenenga, F.
tf 1954 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions.
Southwestem Joumal of Anthropology 9 (3):309-323. Albuquerque, New
m Mexico.
tf
Gallegos, Dennis R.
1987 Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the
Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In: San Dieguito-La JoUa: Chronology and
li Controversy, edited by D. Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological
Society Research Paper 1:23-34.
tf 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, Califomia. In:
Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal Califomia, edited by J. M.
Erlandson and R. H. Colten, 19-41. Perspectives in Califomia
Archaeology, Vol. 1, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles. tf
li
Ml
k
PJ. 5-99 6-2
Ml May 1999
ft
GaUegos, Dennis R. and Ivan H. Stmdwick
— 1992 Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Alta Mira Park,
Carlsbad, CaUfomia. Ms. on file. South Coastal Information Center, San
Diego State University, San Diego, California.
mm
Gayton, A. H.
1929 Yokuts and Western Mono Pottery-Making. University of Califomia
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 24(3):239-255.
mm
m Gifford, Edward W.
1918 Clans and Moieties in Southem Califomia. University of Califomia
^ Publications in American Archaeology arui Ethnology, 14:167-174.
tf
1940 Califomia Bone Artifacts. Anthropological Records Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 53-
237. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Ml
li 1947 CaUfomia Shell Artifacts. Anthropological Records 9(1) University of
Califomia Press. Berkeley
m
0 Harrington, J. P.
1978 Chinigchinich. Malki Museum Press, Banning, Califomia.
li
m
tf
ft
Ml
k
tf
Hector, Susan M. and Sue Wade
1986 Archaeological Excavations at SDM-W-132/SDi-10024, Carlsbad,
Califomia.
il Hedges, Kennetii E.
1986 Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of Man, Ethnic Technology
m. Notes, Number 20:58.
Heizer, Robert F. and A. F. Almquist
1971 The Other Califomians: Prejudice and Discrimination under Spain, Mexico
and the United States to 1920. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley and
Los Angeles.
^ Heizer, Robert F. and M. A. Whipple
tf 1957 Califomia Indians. University of CaUforrua Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
HUdebrand, John A., G. Timothy Gross, Jerry Schaefer and Hector Neff
1998 The Significance of Patayan Ceramic VariabiUty: Using Trace Element and
Pettographic Analysis to Study Brown Wares and Buff Wares in Southem
Califonua. In: Neutron activation analysis of prehistoric pottery from the
k greater Southwest, edited by D. Glowacki and H. Neff, Instimte of
Archaelology, UCLA, in press.
tf
tf Hooper, Lucille
1920 The CahuiUa Indians. University of Califomia Publications in American
^ Archaeology and Ethnology 16:315-380.
*l Keneally, Finbar O.F.M.
1965 The Writings of Fermin Francisco de Lausen. Academy of American
^ Franciscan History. Washington D. C.
ft
PJ. 5-99 6-3
iM May 1999
ft
-i Kaldenberg, Russell L.
1982 Rancho Park North, A San Dieguito-La JoUa Shellfish Processing Site on
^ Coastal Southem CaUfomia. Occasional Paper No. 6, Imperial CoUege
Museum Society, El Centto, CaUfomia.
mm
Kroeber, Alfred L.
m 1925 Handbook of the Indians of Califomia. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 78.
Kyle, Carolyn E. and Dennis R. Gallegos
1997 Historical/Archaeological Survey for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
^ Project, City of Carlsbad CaUfomia. Ms. on file. South Coastal
*" Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia.
Langdon, Margaret
•" 1970 A Grammar of Diegueno, The Mesa Grande Dialect. University of
^ Califomia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
— Luomala, Katharine
1978 Tipai and Ipai. In: Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8,
Califomia, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Smitiisonian Institution,
_ Washington, D.C.
mm Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southem CaUfomia Prehistory. Southwestem Joumal
- of Anthropology, 10:215-227.
*" MeniU, Rutii Earl
^ 1973 Plants Used in Basketry by Califomia Indians. University of Califomia
Publications in Archaeology and Ethnology 20. Reprinted by BaUena
• Press.
^ Michael Brandman Associates, Inc.
tf 1983 Draft Environmental Impact Report 83-4 General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change, KeUy Ranch SCH83042707. Ms. on file, Soutii Coastal
mn Information Center, San Diego State Uiuversity, San Diego, Califomia.
k
Moratto, M. J.
1984 Califomia Archaeology. Acadenuc Press, Orlando, Florida.
il Moratto, M. J., A. Schroth, J. Foster, D. Gallegos, R. S. Greenwood, G. R. Romani, M.
C. Romano, L. H. Shoup, M. T. Swanson, and E. C. Gibson
tf 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey
g| River, San Diego County, CaUfomia. Report on file. South Coastal
Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia.
tf
Moratto, Michael J. and Roger KeUy
" 1976 Optimizing Sttategies for Evaluating Archaeological Significance. In:
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael B,
^ Schiffer, Vol. 1, pp. 1-30. Academic Press,
ii
PJ. 5-99 6-4
tf May 1999
k
m Moriarty, James R. Ill
^ 1965 Cosmogony, Rimals and Medical Practices among the Diegueno Indians of
Southem Califomia. In: Anthropological Joumal of Canada, 3(3):216.
1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change, Coordinated
•* with StratigraphicaUy Controlled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego. In:
Anthropological Joumal of Canada, 7(3): 1-18.
M 1967 Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County. Science
155(3762):553-55.
1969 The San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural
^ Relationships. Anthropological Joumal of Canada, 7(3):2-18.
Olsen, S.J.
1985 Mammal Remains from Archaeological Sites. Part I Southeastem and
Southwestem United States. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Uiuversity Vol. 56, No. 1, Peabody
^ Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ml Pourade, R. F.
1960 The History of San Diego: The Explorers: Chapter I. Union-Tribune
* Publishing Company, San Diego, Califomia.
^ Priestiy, Herbert I. (Ed.)
ii 1937 A Historical, Political and Natural Description of Califomia in 1775 by
Pedro Pages, Soldier of Spain. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley.
tf Robinson, W.W.
1979 Land in Califomia. University of CaUfomia Press, Berkeley and Los
^ Angeles.
*i Rogers, Malcolm
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado and Adjacent
^ Desert Regions. San Diego Museum Papers, No. 3.
ft
Rudkin, Charles (Transl. and Ed.)
^ 1956 Observations on Califomia 1772-1790 by Father Luis Sales O. P.
Dawson's Book Shop, Los Angeles. k
m Sandefur, E.
1977 Archaeology arui the Mule Deer: A Guide to Carpal Identification. The
ft Archaeological Survey Association Paper No. 10, La Veme, Califomia.
Ml Schmid, EUzabeth
tf 1972 Atlas of Animal Bones. Elsevier Publishing Company, New York.
«M
ft
tf
k
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
1982a Archaeological Report on Palomar Business Park, Archaeological Sites:
SDM-W-1893, W-1894, W-1895, W-2405, W-2406, W-2407, W-2408,
and W-128. Ms. on file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego
State University, San Diego, Califomia.
PJ. 5-99 6-5
May 1999
1982b
SDCAS
1987
Cultural Resources Report on Site II, Located in an Unincorporated Area of
Carlsbad, San Diego County. Ms. on file. South Coastal Infomiation
Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, Califomia.
San Dieguito-La JoUa: Chronology and Conttoversy. Edited by D.
Gallegos, San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper,
Number 1.
m§
ft
Ml
ft
tf
ft
tf
ft
tf
ft
Mi
ft
Ml
ft
Shipek, Florence
1977 A Strategy for Change: The Luiseno of Southem Califomia. UnpubUshed
Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Uiuversity of Hawaii,
Honolulu.
1980 Prepared Direct Testimony: Part One: Value of Aboriginal Water Rights of
fhe San Luis Rey River Reservations, 1851. Part Two: History of
Agriculttirc and Inigation for the La Jolla, Pala, Pauma, Rincon and San
Pasqual Indians of Southem CaUforrua. Submitted to tiie U. S. Court of
Claims for San Luis Rey River Reservation Water Case, Docket 80A-1.
1986a The Antiquity of the Kumeyaay: Myth and Geologic Reality. In:
Occasional Papers on Linguistics No. 13. Papers from the 1983, 1984 and
1985 Hokan-Penutian Language Conferences. Carbondale, UUnois:
Southem lUinois University.
1986b The Impact of Europeans Upon the Kumeyaay. In: The Impact of
European Exploration and Settlement of Local Native Americans. Cabrillo
Historical Association. Reprinted in 1992.
1987 Saints or Oppressors, Franciscan Missionaries of CaUfomia: Teachers of
Agriculture or Exploiters. In: The Missions of Califomia, edited by R.
Costo and J. H. Costo. American Indian Historical Society, San Francisco.
1988 Pushed into the Rocks: Southem Califomia Irulian Land Tenure 1769-1986.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
1989a Mission Indians and Indians of Califomia Claims Cases. American Indian
Quarterly, 13(4):409-420.
1989b An Example of Intensive Plant Husbandry: The Kumeyaay of Southem
Califomia. In: Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation,
edited by D. R. Harris and G. C. Hilman. Unwin-Hyman, London.
1991 Delfina Cuero: Her Autobiography: An Account of the Rest of Her Life and
Her Ethnobotanic Contributions. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, Califomia.
1993 Kumeyaay Plant Husbandry: Fire, Water and Erosion Conttol Techniques.
In: Before the WUdemess: Environmental Management by Native
Califomians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, Califomia.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 Tlie Culture of the Luiseno Indians. University of Califomia Publications
in Archaeology and Ethnology, 8(4): 187-234.
PJ. 5-99
May 1999
6-6
spaulding, A. C.
m I960 Statistical Techniques for tiie Discovery of Artifact Types. American
Antiquity, 18:305-313.
Spicer, Edward H.
1962 Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain and Mexico and the United States
m on the Indians ofthe Southwest, 1533-1960. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson.
Ml
tf Spier, Robert F. G.
1978 FootiuU Yokuts. In: Harulbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,
^ Califomia, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 471-484. Smithsonian Instimtion,
^ Washington, D.C.
Sttong, WiUiam D.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southem Califomia. University of Califomia
m Publications in American Archaeology arui Ethnology, 26(l):l-358.
Tibesar, Antonine
1955 Writings of Junipero Serra (Vols 1-4). Academy of American Franciscan
History, Washington D.C.
Tme, Delbert L., Clement W. Meighan and Harvey Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, Califomia.
Berkeley: University of Califomia Publications in Anthropology, No. 11.
^ Tme, Delbert L. and Georgia Waugh
1982 Proposed Settiement Shifts during San Luis Rey Tunes: Northem San
— Diego County, Califomia. Joumal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology, 4(l):34-54.
^ Ubelaker, D. H.
1978 Human Skeletal Remains. Aldine PubUshing Company, Chicago.
Underbill, Rutii
^ 1941 Iruiians of Southem Califomia. Bureau of Indian Affairs: Shermann
^ Pamphlets, No. 2.
^ Ulttasystems, Inc.
, 1983 Supplemental Environmental Smdies: KeUy Ranch. Ms. on file. South
* Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego,
Califomia.
ii Wade, Sue A. and Susan M. Hector
1986 Archaeological Monitoring of tiie Encina Gas Pipeline Project: Profiles of
tf Subsistence Pattems along the South Shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Ms. on file. South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University,
San Diego, Califomia.
^ Wan-en, Claude N.
ft 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American
Antiquity, 32(2):168-85.
Ml
ft
PJ. 5-99 6-7
mn May 1999
ft
Warren, Claude N.
mm 1968 Culmral Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southem Coast. In:
Archaic Prehistory in the Westem United States. In: Eastem New Mexico
University Contributions in Anthropology, 1(3): 1-14. Edited by C. Irwin
WilUams.
^ Warren, Claude N., D. L. Trae and A. R. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Westem San Diego County, CaUfomia:
^ Results and Interpretation of an Archaeological Survey. In: Archaeological
^ Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of Califomia Press, Los
Angeles, Califomia.
Waugh, G.
* 1988 Cottonwood Triangular Points from Northern San Diego County,
CaUfomia. Joumal of Califomia and Great Basin Anthropology, 10:104-
113.
em
WESTEC Services, Inc.
— 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Report: Auport Business Center. Ms. on file.
South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego,
** Califomia.
mm
1987 Archaeological Survey of a Portion of Palomar Airport Road. Ms. on file,
«• South Coastal Infomiation Center, San Diego Stale University, San Diego,
Califomia.
^ White, Raymond C.
1963 Luiseno Social Organizations. University of Califomia Publications in
— American Archaeology and Ethnology, 48(2): 1-194.
*• Willig, Judith A., C. Melvin Aikens and John L. Fagan
1988 Early Human Occupation in Far Westem North America: The Clovis-
Archaic Interface. In: Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers
mm No. 21. Carson City, Nevada.
^ Wing, E. S. and A. B. Brown
^ 1979 Paleo-Nutrition: Method and Theory in Prehistoric Foodways. Studies in
Archaeology, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
^ Wolcott, Marjorie T.
^ 1929 Pioneer Notes from the Diaries of Judge Benjamin Hayes. Los Angeles,
Califomia.
m
ft Woodward, Arthur
1934 Notes on the Indians of San Diego County from the Manuscripts of Judge
tf Benjamin Hayes. The Masterkey, 8(5): 140-150.
k
PJ. 5-99 6-8
May 1999
APPENDIX A
KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
Ml
ft
ft
ft
m
ft
m
ft
ft
tf
m
ft
m
k
ft
«fl
ft
RESUME
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS
PRINCIPAL
Gallegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 929-0055
EDUCATION
B.A. Anthropology, CaUfomia State University, Northridge, 1974
B.S. Business, Califomia State University, Northridge, 1973
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
Society for American Archaeology
Archaeological Conservancy
Society for California Archaeology
San Diego County Archaeological Society
Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission 1989-1993
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
GaUegos & Associates
1990 to Present
Principal Investigator for cultural resource smdies within southem Califomia for federal.
State and local compliance. These projects include constraint level evaluations, surveys,
CEQA testing programs, evaluations for National Register status, and data recovery
programs. Mr. Gallegos is knowledgeable of Federal legal requirements as well as, City,
County and (ZEQA requirements, having worked on over 300 projects within the past 20
years. He has served as principal investigator for a number of recent federal cultural
ft resource projects which involved agency and 106 compliance. These projects include:
surveys and test programs on Camp Pendleton, NAS Miramar, Naval Radio Receiving
mm Facility, and Cleveland National Forest; testing of a 5,000 year-old site along the San Luis
J Rey River Valley to determine site importance; and testing to detemiine site boundary for a
viUage within Guajome Regional Park for the County of San Diego. Major culmral
resource overviews include San Dieguito River VaUey Park (80,000 acres), City of
Escondido, San Marcos planning areas, City of Encinitas, Otay River Valley, and San Luis
Rey River Valley. Recent projects managed by Mr. Gallegos include: Stardust Golf
Course, NAS Miramar sample inventory of 20,000 acres. City of San Diego East Mission
^ Gorge data recovery program, Pardee Subarea III inventory (3,000 acres), Subarea FV
ij inventory (1,500 acres), Subarea V Inventory (2,000 acres), and Santa Margarita River
VaUey inventory (5,000 acres). North County projects include Carlsbad Ranch, Carrillo
Ranch Specific Plan - Culmral Resource Element, Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement -
Cultural Resource Element.
tf
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
Ogden/ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company
1978 to 1990
Project manager responsible for management and direction of cultural resource surveys,
test excavations, and data recovery programs. Major projects include the data recovery
programs for Ballast Point, Batiquitos Ridge, Twin Oaks VaUey Ranch, Kuebler Ranch -
Otay Mesa, Fieldstone Northview, and Daon's Santa Fe Ridge. Utihty line projects
involving FERC, NEPA, and 106 compUance include tiie SCE Palo Verde/Devers 200-niile
ttansmission Une corridor survey, testing, and data recovery program; SDG&E La Rosita
ttansmission line; and the SD(j&E La Jet solar study. Large-scale Class II culmral
resource inventories include the Bureau of Land Management's 2.5-niillion acre Central
Mojave and Colorado Desert regions and the BLM's 250,000-acre East/West Mesa
Imperial Valley studies.
Archaeological Consultant
1977 to 1978
Archaeological consultant witii Wirth Associates, Inc. for SDG&E including: Talega
Substation survey (field director); Phase II archaeological inventory report, plant site to
Devers and Miguel Substations, Sundesert Nuclear Project ttansmission system
environmental study; archaeological study of the Jamul Mountain Altemative, Sundesert
Nuclear Project ttansmission system environmental smdy (field director); and Phase I
archaeology report, plant site to Victorville/Lugo and Devers to Victorville/Lugo, Sundesert
Nuclear Project tt-ansmission system envfronmental smdy.
Bureau of Land Management
1975 to 1977
Archaeologist for tiie USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Califomia Desert Planning
Staff, Sacramento/Riverside, Califomia. Lead archaeologist for the Saline VaUey Unit
Resource Analysis (cultural resource inventory of 500,000 acres).
Assisted in the cultural resource inventory, unit resource analysis, and management
framework plan for the East Mojave Planning Units (2,000,000 acres in tiie CaUfomia
Desert). Developed survey inventory and data coUection methods for computer input and
analysis. Developed a predictive model for locating prehistoric sites on the basis of
environmental variables. This model also identified site type and relative site density for
ft each site type on the basis of environmental setting.
tf State of Califomia
^ 1975
tf
ft Califomia.
tf
ft
ft
tf
ft
tf
ft
Archaeologist for the State of Califomia, Department of Parks and Recreation.
Responsible for site testing and excavation of tiie 1812 Russian Fort Ross, Fort Ross,
" DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
Archaeological Consultant
1972 to 1974
^ Archaeological consultant for historic and prehistoric sites to include mapping, survey,
excavation, and data recovery programs for private contractors, utilities, universities,
mm Caltrans, HUD, and museums. Project areas include: Venmra Mission site, Ventura,
Califomia; Kirk Creek, Big Sur, Califomia; Salton Sea area, Imperial County, Califomia;
" Crowder Canyon, San Bemardino County, Califomia; and Cuyama, Califomia.
Responsibilities included data recovery, analysis, photography, and report writing.
m State of Califomia
1970 to 1973
Ml
^ Park aide for the Department of Parks and Recreation. Responsible for survey, excavation,
payroll, and disbursement of funds for the Castaic, Hardluck, and Pyramid projects, Los
^ Angeles National Forest, Califomia.
ft
AWARDS
tf
tf Special Achievement Award, presented by the Bureau of Land Management, CaUfomia
Desert Planning Staff, April 1977.
Ml
ft
tf
Ml
Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Historic Preservation, Leo CarriUo Ranch Master
Plan, Califomia Preservation Foundation, Febmary 1998
MAJOR REPORTS Ml
ft
1998 Management Plan for Otay Mesa Prehistoric Resources, San Diego, Califomia.
^ Preparation of a management plan for prehistoric resources within a 10,000 acre
tf smdy area. Report prepared for Calttans and City of San Diego.
mm 1997 (wifli otiiers)
Route 905 Culttttal Resources Test Report for Sites CA-SDI-6941, Loci G and Y;
^ CA-SDI-11423; and CA-SDI-11424. Testing report to determine site significance
under federal criteria. Report prepared for Caltrans and City of San Diego.
me 1997 (witii others)
Archaeological Survey Report for State Route 905 Study Area. Literature review
aM and field inventory of approximately 2,000 acres for SR 905 route selection.
_ Report prepared for City of San Diego and Calttans.
1997 Batiquitos Lagoon Monitoring Program, Archaeological Test at Site CA-SDI-
11953, Carlsbad, Califoraia. Report prepared for City of Carlsbad.
1996 Carlsbad Ranch Survey and Test Report. Field survey, testing to determine site
significance, mitigation through data recovery excavation, and monitoring. Report
tf prepared for Carltas and tiie City of Carlsbad.
^ 1995 (with others)
Otay Mesa Road Widening Project Cultural Resources Technical Report. Literamre
• review and field survey of 1,750 acres. Report prepared for City of San Diego and
Calttans.
Ml
ft
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
«• 1995 (with others)
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Subarea V Future Urbanizing Area,
^ San Diego, Califomia. Literature review and field survey of approximately
^ 2,000 acres in north San Diego County.
1995 (with others)
Cultural Resource Inventory of the Santa Margarita River Valley, Camp Pendleton.
** Background study and field inventory of approximately 5,000 acres for Camp
Pendleton, north San Diego County.
tf 1995 (witii otiiers)
Archaeological Survey Report for Interstate 905 Smdy Area. Literamre review and
MR field survey for 1,750 acres on Otay Mesa for the City of San Diego and Calttans.
1994 (with Kyle)
Archaeological Testing of Seven Sites for tiie Stardust Golf Course Realignment
, Project, City of San Diego, Califomia. Testing program to detemiine site
ft significance for 10 prehistoric sites. Two major habitation sites within the San
Diego River VaUey were identified as significant.
Ml
tf 1993 (witii otiiers)
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for the Reclaimed Water Distribution
Master Plan for the Northem and Centtal Service Areas Phase la, San Diego
County, Califomia. Literamre review and field survey for approximately 100 linear
miles.
Ml
ft
^ 1993 (witii Sttudwick)
ft The Archaeological Investigation of CA-SCLI-847 San Clemente Island,
Califomia. Data recovery program for a 4,000 year old site on San Clemente Island
tf for conducted for the U.S. Navy.
tf
ft
1993 (witti ottiers)
Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea III Future
Urbanizing Area, San Diego, Califomia. Literamre review and field survey for
3,000 acres in north San Diego County.
1993 (witii others)
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report, One City Block Within Downtown
Oceanside Redevelopment Core Block Area, Oceanside. Testing program to
determine presence/absence of historic resources and the significance of resources.
1993 (with otiiers)
Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for Subarea IV Future
Urbanizing Area, San Diego, Califomia. Literature review and field survey of i — — — ^ ^-i — "— — — ^ ' —
ft 1,500 acres in north San Diego County,
tf 1992 (with Sttudwick)
ll Historical/Archaeological Test Report for Daley Ranch, Escondido, Califomia.
CEQA test program to detemiine importance for 23 prehistoric and historic sites.
^ 1992 (with Sttudwick)
• Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for Montecito Ranch Property, Ramona,
Califomia. Literamre review and field inventory for 953 acres producing
^ 36 prehistoric and historic sites.
Ml
ft
•M
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
1992 (with Kyle)
Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test for Carlsbad Ranch, Carisbad,
Califoraia. Literamre review, field survey and significance testing conducted for
five sites.
1992 (witii Schrotii and Sttudwick)
Historical/Archaeological Sample Inventory for Naval Air Station, Miramar, San
Diego, Califomia. Fifteen percent sample inventory of the 18,433 acre facUity to
provide data for GIS ARC-INFO and site probability modeling for land use
planning.
1992 (editor)
Culmral Resource Evaluation for tiie ViUage of Tenaja, CA-RrV-271 and CA-RIV-
3973, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest. Testing program
conducted to determine National Register eUgibility.
ft 1992 (with Kyle)
Historical/Archaeological Survey and National Register Evaluation Report for
^ Camp Pendleton MiUtary Family Housing, San Diego, Califomia. Survey and
MM testing program to identify and detemiine National Register properties.
^ 1990 (witii Schrotii)
Archaeological Investigations of a Five Hundred Year Old Settiement at Twin Oaks
Valley Ranch, San Marcos, Califomia. A data recovery program for a late period
habitation site in compliance with federal, state and local requirements.
ft
ft 1990 (witii Kyle)
Early Period Occupation at the Kuebler Ranch Site SDi-8654, Otay Mesa, San
tf Diego County, Califoraia. A data recovery program for a 7,000 years old site on
^ Otay Mesa prepared for the County of San Diego.
1989 (witii otiiers)
. Cultural Resource Inventory and Testing Program for LUac Ranch, VaUey Center,
ft Califomia. Survey of 1,000 acres and testing program for 20 prehistoric and
historic sites.
ft 1989 (with otiiers)
tf
ft
tf
Culmral Resource Inventory and Testing Program for Salt Creek Ranch, Chula
Vista, CaUfomia. Survey of 1,000 acres and testing of historic and prehistoric
sites for site importance under CEQA.
1988 (with others)
Culmral Resource Inventory and Data Acquisition Program, GEO East Mesa
ft Geothermal Project, Imperial Valley, Califomia. Culmri resource inventory of
1000 acres for geothermal energy development on USDI, BLM lands in tiie
tf Califomia desert.
ft
1988 (with others)
tf
ft
Cultural Resource Inventoiy for a Series of Drill Sites within the Amir, Indian Rose
Area Lease. Inventory conducted in southeastem Califomia for the development of
gold exploration on federal lands by Amir Mines, Ltd.
- DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
^ 1988 (witii otiiers)
Cultural Resource Inventory and CEQA Test for Site Importance, Rancho Bemardo
— Lake Course. Inventory of 315 acres, identification and testing of ten prehistoric
sites for the J.W. Colachis Company.
^ 1988 (with others)
Culmral Resource Survey and Testing Program for the East Mesa Detention
«• Facility, San Diego Califomia. Project involved ttie survey of 523 acres, tiie
identification of eight prehistoric and one historic site, and the testing of these sites
^ with respect to CEQA. Three of these sites were quarry locaUties on Otay Mesa.
^ Report prepared for the County of San Diego.
m 1988 (witii others)
Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site
** SDI-48 (W-164), San Diego, Califomia. Report involved the excavation of a
2.5 percent sample within a coastal sheU midden site, dated from 6000 to 1500
* years before present. Report prepared for the U.S. Navy,
ft
1987 (witii others)
M» Historical/prehistoric Inventory for the Green Dragon Colony, La Jolla Califomia.
tf Report documents the historical development of the Green Dragon Colony. EIR
report for the City of San Diego.
^ 1987 (witti otiiers)
• Culmral Resource Inventory for Rancho La Quinta. Inventory of 1272 acres
identifying six prehistoric sites within CoacheUa VaUey, Riverside County,
^ California. Report prepared for the Landmark Land Company,
ft
1987 (witii otiiers)
«l Subsurface Testing Program to Identify and Evaluate Culmral Resources for the
^ Santa Barbara RetaU RevitaUzation Project. Testing program to identify historical
and prehistoric sites within four city blocks of downtown Santa Barbara. Report _ prepared for the City of Santa Barbara, tf
li 1986 (witii otiiers)
Culttiral and Paleontological Survey and Testing for Pacific Rim, Carisbad,
tf Califomia. Project involved the survey of over 1,000 acres along the northem
ti shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, the identification of 14 prehistoric, 1 historic, and 1
paleontological site, and the testing of prehistoric and historic sites to determine
^ importance under CEQA. Report prepared for the City of Carlsbad.
i^ 1986 (witii Cheever)
Culmral Resource Testing Program for Archaeological Sites SDI-607, -612, -212,
ft 6825 and W-105, Carlsbad, Califomia. Testing program for five sites located
ft along the south shore of Batiquitos Lagoon for the City of Carlsbad.
tf 1986 (with Cheever)
J Carmel Mountain Ranch Data Recovery Program for Early Period Archaeological
Site SDI-6087. Report prepared for Carmel Mountain Ranch.
1986 (with others)
ft Lake Cahuilla Prehistoric Occupation at IMP-4434 and IMP-5167, Imperial Valley,
Califomia. Data recovery for Ryerson Concrete Company.
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
— 1985 Early and Late Period Occupation at Rogers Ridge (SDI-4845, W-182), Carisbad,
Califomia. Data recovery program to include the excavation of 94, 1 by 1 m units
at six loci dating from 850 to 7000 years B.P. for Resource Microsystems Inc. and
^ Daon Inc.
mm 1984 (with others)
Archaeological Investigations at SDI-5130, Mar Lado Project, Oceanside,
Califomia. Data recovery program for L and L Development.
^ 1984 Culmral Resource Data Recovery Program for SDG&E's Imperial VaUey to
m La Rosita 230-kV Transmission Line. Report prepared for SDG&E, San Diego,
Califomia.
«M
^ 1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program for Site W-131 (Agua Hedionda),
Carlsbad, Califomia. Excavation of a 5 percent sample at a 7,000 to 8,500 year old
^ site for Hunts Partnership.
^ 1984 West Mesa Culmral Resource Survey and Site Evaluation, Imperial Valley,
Califomia. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management.
tf
tf 1983 Excavation of Diegueno/Ipai Subsistence Camps above Encinitas Creek: A Data
Recovery Program for Fieldstone Northview, Encinitas, Califomia. Report
tf prepared for the Fieldstone Development Company.
k
1983 Archaeological Overview for tiie City of San Marcos, BusinessAndustrial,
Richman, Lake San Marcos, and Barham/Discovery Community Plan. Report
2 prepared for the City of San Marcos.
1980 (witii otiiers)
tf Culmral Resource Inventory and National Register Assessment of the Southem
k California Edison Palo Verde to Devers Transmission Line Corridor (CaUforrua
portion). Prepared for Southem Califomia Edison, Rosemead, Califomia.
2 1980 (with otiiers)
* Class II Culmral Resource Inventory of East Mesa and West Mesa Regions,
Imperial Valley, Califomia. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management,
ft Riverside, Califomia. ft
1979 (with others)
tf Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the Centt^ Mojave and Colorado Desert
Regions. Prepared for USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, Califomia.
^ 1978 (witii White)
ft An Archaeological Survey of the Talega Substation Site. Prepared for San Diego
Gas & Electric by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia.
1978 (with otiiers)
Documentation of the Phase II Archaeology Inventory Report, Plant Site to Devers
and Miguel Substation, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System
Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth
Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia.
Ml
ft
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
1978 Jamul Mountains Altemative Route Suitabihty Review, Sundesert Nuclear Project
Transmission System Environmental Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas &
Electric Company by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, Califomia.
1977 (with others)
Phase I Archaeology Report, Plant Site to Victorville/Lugo and Devers to
Victorville/Lugo, Sundesert Nuclear Project Transmission System Environmental
Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric Company by Wirth, Associates,
Inc., San Diego, Califomia.
1977 Saline VaUey Unit Resource Analysis - Cultural Resources. Prepared for USDI,
Bureau of Land Management, Califomia Desert Planning Staff, Riverside,
Califomia.
1976 (with Hanks)
East Mojave Management Framework Plan - Cultural Resources. Prepared for
USDI, Bureau of I^d Management, Califomia Desert Planning Staff, Riverside,
Califonua.
PUBLICATIONS
Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDi-48
(W-164), San Diego, Califomia. (with Carolyn Kyle). Coyote Press, Salinas, Califomia,
No. 40, 1998
Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County (with Patricia
Masters, Ph.D.). In: Archaeology ofthe Califomia Coast During the Middle Holocene,
University of CaUfomia, Los Angeles, Califomia.
A Review and Synthesis of the Archaeological Record for the Lower San Diego River
Valley. Society for Califomia Archaeology 1995, San Diego, California, Volume 8.
Pattems and ImpUcations of Coastal Settiement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years
Ago. In: Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime Califomia. Center for Archaeological
Research at Davis, No. 10, 1992.
Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, Califomia. In: Hunter-Gatherers of
Early Holocene Coastal Califomia, Institute of Archaeology, Uiuversity of Califomia, Los
Angeles, 1991.
A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Culmral Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon
Region. In: San Dieguito - La Jolla, Chronology and Controversy, San Diego County
Archaeological Society, Research Paper, Number 1, 1987.
Relocation of the Ballast Point Tryworks Oven Foundation (with AdeUa Schroth). In Fort
Guijarros Quarterly, 3:2.
tf
ft Early Man and a Culmral Chronology for Batiquitos Lagoon. In: Casual Papers, Cultural
Resource Management Center, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University,
-I 1986.
m
tf
Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In: Casual Papers, Cultural Resource Management Center,
Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, 1985.
DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 11/98
Class II Cultural Resource Inventory, East Mesa arul West Mesa Region, Imperial Valley,
Califomia, (with others). USDI, BLM, 1980.
Cultural Resource Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions, (with
others). USDI, BLM, Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology 1980.
ft
Ml
«M
Ml
RESUME
NINA M. HARRIS
PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Gallegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carisbad, California 92008
(760) 929-0055
EDUCATION
M.A. Archaeology, University of Durham, England, 1992
B.A. British Studies/Visual Arts, New England College, Henniker, New Hampshire, 1978
Classes in Archaeology, Geology and Management, San Diego State University and
University of Califomia
PROFFESIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Registry of Professional Archaeologists
Society of Califomia Archaeologists
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
GaUegos & Associates
Febmary 1995-Present
Field director for archaeological survey, testing, and monitoring programs including
Rainforest Ranch Boys and Girls Club, Subarea IV McMUlin Test, Huber Property Survey
and Test, Beckman Property Test, Otay 69 kV Survey, Santa Margarita River VaUey
Survey and Test, Subarea V Survey, cilsbad Ranch Specific Plan Miendment Project,
North Rios Drive Subdivision, Sorrento VaUey UtiUties Improvement Project, Viejas
Springs ViUage, and Viejas Water Reclamation Project. Duties included project setup,
duection of crew, site mapping, and preparing major sections of the report and graphics.
Pett^ Resources
April 1995-May 1995
Field crew for test excavations at Ritter Ranch and San Nicolas Island.
tf Brian F. Mooney and Associates
May 1993, 1994-Febraary 1995
Ml
^ Field crew for Edwards AFB test excavations, Lancaster, California; Camp Pendleton test
excavations; Twenty-Nine Palms Marine Base Lavic Lake survey; and Otay Mesa test
excavations.
^m
k RMW Paleo and Associates
October 1994-December 1994
Ml
tf Field crew trainer and assistant director in test excavation Phases I and II, Rose Canyon
Tmnk Sewer Project.
NINA M. HARRIS 11/98
Archaeological Advisory Group
1986-1994
Project director for test excavations for Glenn Ranch Road right-of-way, field crew and
crew chief for survey of Hansen Dam, Little Rock Dam, Coal Canyon, Mt. High Ski Area,
Ridgccrest, Chino Hills, and Joshua Tree Basin Water Disttict, and San Luis Obispo Creek
altemative study. Excavation field crew for Avila Adobe Franciscan Plaza, Raiders
Stadium, Laband Ranch, and Prado Dam. Also conducted Utiiic analysis for Avila Adobe
and laboratory and cataloguing for Sexton House project.
Infotech Research
November 1992-1994
Field crew and graphics artist for Dominegoni Valley Reservoir Project.
Greenwood and Associates
April 1993
Excavation at Chinatown/Mission, Ventura, Califonua.
LSA and Associates
August 1992-September 1992
Field crew for Lake Mathews test excavations and H.B. Ranches assessment update and
mapping.
Brian F. Smith and Associates
1992-1993
Field crew for test excavations which included Rose Canyon Trank Sewer Project, Nobel
Drive Extension and Interstate 805 Expansion test, Razooky Subdivision test excavations.
Lakeside Venture and Mussey Grade survey and test excavations and Pump Station 5 test
excavations.
REPORTS
n.d. (with others)
Test Investigations at CA-ORA-827 and CA-ORA-1373, Glenn Ranch
Road Right-of-Way, Foothill Ranch, El Toro, Orange County, Califomia.
1992 (witii otiiers)
Archaeology and Paleontology of the Tsuma Property, San Clemente,
Califomia.
1992 (witii otiiers)
A Cultural Source Survey of Hansen Dam Flood Conttol Basin, Los
Angeles, Califoraia.
1995 (witii otiiers)
Archaeological Survey and Test of Sits CA-SDM014 and CA-SDI-8797
ft for Carlsbad Specific Plan Amendment EIR Carlsbad, Califomia.
1995 (with others)
m Cultural Resource Monitoring Reports for the Sorrento VaUey Utilities
^ Improvement Project, City of San Diego, Califoraia.
1995 (witii others)
^ Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for North Rios Drive Subdivision,
Solana Beach, Califomia.
tf
m
NINA M. HARRIS 11/98
1996 (with others)
Archaeological Survey for the Viejas Reclamation Project and the Viejas
Springs Village Project and Viejas Indian Reservation, San Diego,
Califomia.
1998 (with others)
Cultural Resource Survey Report for Murrieta Lines D and D-1, Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County,
Califomia.
1998 (with others)
Cultural Resource Survey Report for Nason Basin, Riverside County Flood
Conttol and Water Conservation District, Riverside County, Califomia.
1998 (witii others)
Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for the Property, San
Diego, Califomia.
1998 (with others)
Cultural Resource Survey and Test Report for Rainforest Ranch, San Diego
County, Califomia.
1998 (with others)
Culmral Resource Monitoring Report for the San Marcos Boulevard and SR
78 Interchange, San Marcos, CaUfomia.
PRESENTATIONS
1998 Society of Califomia Archaeology
Continued Research on Fired Altered Rock Features Types in San Diego County
(witfi A Schroth)
Temporal Considerations of Two Types of Rock Features Found at Camp Pendleton
Ml
tf
tf
Ml
tf
ft
!
ft
TRACY A STROPES
ASSOCIATE ARCHAEOLOGIST
Gallegos & Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
(760) 929-0055
EDUCATION
University of Califomia, Riverside, B.S., Anthropology (In-progress)
Riverside City College, A.A., Anthropology, 1993
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
tf Gallegos & Associates
1996-Present
2 Responsibilities include, laboratory management, Uthic analysis, professional illusttating, report
ft editing, and contributing author on company report for various projects throughout San Diego
County.
ft Macko, Inc.
1993-1996
Responsibilities include, data management, litiiics analysis, professional Ulusttiating, report editing,
and conttibuting author on company report for various projects throughout Califomia.
Chambers Group
1/93-8/93
Field technician and driver. Various projects include excavation and water screen direction for
tf Ford Road Test Project and Various smdies along Aliso Creek.
m Cypress College
1991-1992
Teaching Assistant, Lab Technician for archaeological field class at several sights throughout
Orange and Los Angeles Counties including CA-ORA-378, CA-ORA-855 and CA-LaN-182A.
ft Duties included instmction of field techniques, laboratory analysis, and grading of papers.
Ml John Minch and Associates
tf 5-92-9/92
Laboratory technician- John Minch and Associates, Gary Hurd, Ph.D Director, San Juan
Capisttano, Califomia. Included excavations on various sites throughout the San Juaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor.
Natural History Foundation of Orange County
tf 8/92
me Field Surveyor-Natural History Foundation of Orange County & Institucion Nacional de
^ Anttopologia y Historia, Gary Hurd Ph.D. and George Cenano Ph.D. Directors. Orange County,
Califomia and Baja Califomia, Mexico. Survey and relocation of several sites throughout northem
Baja Califomia.
tf
Ml
ft
Mi
Tracy A. Stropes
11/98
PRESENTATIONS
1995 Guest Lecturer ,- Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, Califomia.
1994 Guest Lecturer - Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Juan Capisttano, Califomia.
1994 Guest Lecturer - Archaeological Field Class Fall Semester, Cypress College,
Cypress, Califomia.
1994 Guest Lecturer and Flintknapping Instruction - Mission San Juan Capistrano,
San Juan Capisttano, CaUfomia.
1994 Guest Lecturer - El Monte High School, El Monte, Califomia.
1993 Guest Lecturer and Flint Knapping Instruction - Archaeological Field Class
FaU Semester ,Cypress College, Cypress, Califomia.
1993 Teaching Assistant - Archaeological Field Class (instmction of field techniques,
laboratory analysis, and grading of papers)
ft FIELD EXPERIENCE
(HI 1993-94 Field Technician/Surveyor- Macko Inc., Santa Ana Heights, CaUfornia,
k
1993 Field Technician- Larry Carbone, Director. Chambers Group, Irvine, Califoraia.
^ 1992 Field Surveyor-Natural History Foundation of Orange County & Instimcion Nacional
ft de Antropologia y Historia, Gaty Hurd Ph.D, and George Cerrano Ph.D. Directors.
Orange County, C^aUfornia and Baja CaUforrua, Mexico.
Ml
tf 1990-1992 Field Technician- Cypress CoUege Archaeological Field Class, Hank Koerper Ph.D.
and Paul Langenwalter II, Directors. Cypress, Califomia.
mm
1991 Field Technician- Hank Koerper Ph.D.. Archaeological Consultant, Hank Koerper,
*" Director, Orange, Califomia.
Ml
li PROFESSIONAL ILLUSTRATION
Ml 1995 lUustration- "A Glyccymeris Shell Bracelet From Orange County, Califomia" Henry
^ C. Koerper Ph.D., P.C.A.S. 1995.
1994-1995 Primary lUustt^tor- "The Pinto Point Conttoversy In The Westem United States "
AdeUa Schroth Ph.D. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Califomia Riverside,
ft Riverside Califomia.
1994 lUustrator- "Bipolar, Flaked-Stone Reduction in Prehistoric and Protohistoric
tf Southem Califomia" Jeanne D. Binning, Paper Presented at 1994 S.A.A. Annual
Meeting. Anaheim, Califomia.
me
1994 Illusttator- "Obsidian Use and Technological Change in Rose VaUey: Conclusions
" Based On Analysis of Debitage from Two Sites" AdeUa Schroth Ph.D. and Robert
Yohe II Paper Presented at 1994 annual Great Basin Conference, Elko, Nevada.
Tracy A. Stropes
mm 11/98
^ 1994 Illustrator- "Point Size and Atlati Dart Efficiency" Jeffrey Couch, Tracy Stropes, and
*" Adeila Schroth, Paper Presented at 1994 Annual Great Basin Conference. Elko,
Nevada.
^ PUBLICATIONS AND CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORTS-
PRIMARY AUTHOR
1995 Final Report: A Class III Intensive Survey of a 100-Acre Sand and Gravel Mining
Area, Imperial County, Califomia. Prepared for the Lilbum Corporation.
m PUBLICATIONS AND CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORTS-
CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR
^ 1998 Final Report: Cultural Resource Survey Report for the Sterling Property, Carlsbad,
CaUfomia. Prepared for SPT Holdings LCC.
mm
1996 Final Report : Archaeological Survey and Test for the Huber Property Carlsbad,
" Califomia, Prepared for Gene Huber.
1996 Final Report: Results of Phase II Test Excavations and Phase III Data Recovery
m Excavations at Nine Archaeological Sites Wittiin the Newport Coast Planned
Community Phase HI Entitiement Area, San Joaquin Hills, Orange County,
Califomia. Prepared for Coastal Community Builders, a division of The Irvine
Company.
^ 1995 PreUminary Report: Phase II Test Results From Nine Prehistoric Archaeological
Sites Witiun The Proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional County Park. Prepared for
ft EDAW, Inc.
1995 Final Report: A Phase ll Test Excavation at CA-ORA-136, Block 800 City of
tf Newport Beach, Orange County CaUfomia. Prepared for ttie Irvine Apartment
Communities, a division of The Irvine Company.
me
^ 1995 Final Report: Archaeological Investigations Conducted for the Abalone Cove
Dewatering WeUs, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, Califomia.
^ Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Environmental Services.
ft 1994 Final Report: Data Recovery Excavations at Five Late Prehistoric Archaeological
Sites Along the Los Trancos Access Road, Newport Coast Planned Community,
Ml Orange County, Califomia. Prepared for the Coastal Community Builders, a division
tf of The Irvine Company.
^ PAPERS PRESENTED ft
1996 Trans-Tehachapian Litiiic Trade at the Canebreak/Sawtootii Transition. Thirteenth
* Annual Meeting, Society of Califomia Archaeology, Bakersfield, Califomia.
«
1994 Point Size and Atiati Dart Efficiency. Twenty Fourth Annual Meeting, Great Basin
m Anthropological Conference, Elko, Nevada.
liiiiiiiiiiiiii Iliill
CA-SDi-8303
iliililillil ilil
5/5/99
CAT NO UNIT TYPE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT PORT MATERUL QUAN CORTEX LENGTH WIDTH TH(CKNESS WEIGHT COMMENTS
liUnit 3A 0-10 cm Debitage Com Undif 7 0 0 0 0 11.8
2 Unit 3A 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 1216.5
3 Unit 3A 10-20 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 1572.8
4 Unit 3A 10-20 cm Debitage Com Undif 4 0 0 0 0 10.5
5 Unit 3A 20-30 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 1018.4
"6 Unit 3A 20-30 cm Debitage Com Undif 4 0 0 0 0 3.1
7 Unit 3A 20-30 cm Debitage Com Obsidian 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
8 Unit 3A 20-30 cm Faunal Com Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.6
9 Unit 3A 20-30 cm Faimal Com Otolitfi 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
10 Unit 3A 30-40 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 700.1
11 Unit 3A 30-40 cm Debitage Com Obsidian 1 0 0 0 0 0.5
12 Unit 3A 30-40 cm Faunal Com Bone I 0 0 0 0 0.4
13 Unit 3A 30-40 cm Sample Com Carbon 1 0 0 0 0 1.2
14 Unit 3A 40-50 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 92.7
15 Unit 3A 40-50 cm Bead Com Olivella I 0 21.5 11.5 10.9 1.8
16 Unit 3A 40-50 cm Debitage Com Undif 2 0 0 0 0 2.6
17 Unit 3A 40-50 cm Faunal Com Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.5
18 Unit 2A 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 31.5
19 Unit 2A 0-10 cm UFT Com Quartzite 1 0 43.6 35 9.2 15.9
20 Unit 2A 0-10 cm Debitage Com Undif 2 0 0 0 0 22.8
21 Unit 2A 10-20 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 6.2
22 Unit 4A 0-10 cm Debitage Cim Undif 44 0 0 0 0 115
23 Unit 4A 0-10 cm UFT Com Metavolcanic 1 1 65.3 57.8 25.1 126.3
24 Unit 4A 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 109
Ts Unit 4A 0-10 cm Bead Com Olivella 1 0 15.1 8.8 8.1 0.5
26 Unit 4A 0-10 cm Faunal Com Bone 1 0 0 0 0 1.8
27 Unit 4A 0-10 cm Nat Ceramic Frag Ceramic 6 0 0 0 0 13
28 Unit 4A 0-10 cm Debitage Com Obsidian 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
29 Unit 4A 0-10 cm Sample Com Carbon 1 0 0 0 0 10.4
30 Unit 4A 10-20 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 186.9
31 Unit 4A 10-20 cm Faunal Com Bone 1 0 0 0 0 5.4
32 Unit 4A 10-20 cm Debitage Com Undif 42 0 0 0 0 77.2
33 Unit 4A 10-20 cm Debitage Com Obsidian 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
34 Unit 4A 10-20 cm Nat Ceramic Frag Ceramic 10 0 0 0 0 34.2
35 Unit 4A 10-20 cm Sample Com Carbon 1 0 0 0 0 130.9
36;Unit 4A 20-30 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 158.4
37!Unit 4A 20-30 cm Mano Frag Granitic . I 0 85.7 64.5 45.3 392.5
Page 1
11 li li fti fti ftl fti il llllll
CA-SDl-8303
IIIIIII llllilll
5/5/99
CAT NO UNIT TYPE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT PORT MATERUL QUAN CORTEX LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT COMMENTS
38 Unit 4A 20-30 cm Faunal Com Bone 1 0 0 0 0 1.8
39 Unit 4A 20-30 cm Debitage Com Undif 14 0 0 0 0 13
40 Unit 4A 20-30 cm Debitage Com Obsidian 1 0 0 0 0 0.05
41 Unit
.
4A 30-40 cm Debitage Com Undif 2 0 0 0 0 0.8
42 Unit 4A 30-40 cm Faunal Com Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.6
43 Unit 4A 30-40 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 63.4
44 Unit 3A 50-65 cm Debitage Com Undif 2 0 0 0 0 0.9
45 STP 45 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
46 STP 45 10-20 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
47 STP 46 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 2.1
48 STP 47 O-I 0 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 1.5
49 STP 48 0-IOcm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 4.5
50 STP 49 0-IOcm Debitage Com Undif 8 0 0 0 0 11.6
51 STP 49 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 6.7
52 Surface Surface Mano Com Granitic 1 0 109.25 99.71 40.2 0
91 STP lOA 0-10 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 29.4
92 STP lOA 0-10 cm Faunal Frag Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
93 STP lOA 0-10 cm Debitage Com Quartzite 2 0 0 0 0 0.7
94 STP lOA 10-20 cm Debitage Com Quartzite 2 0 0 0 0 0.4
95 STP lOA 10-20 cm Debitage Com Volcanic 1 0 0 0 0 1
96 STP lOA 10-20 cm Debitage Com Metasediment 2 0 0 0 0 0.8
97 STP lOA 10-20 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 24.8
98 STP lOA 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 16.8
99 STP lOA 20-30 cm Bead Frag Olivella 1 0 15.7 9.2 8.2 0.7 bead blank?
100 STP lOA 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
101 STP lOA 20-30 cm Debitage Com Quartzite 5 ice 0 0 0 3.2
102 STP lOA 20-30 cm Debitage Com Metasediment 2 0 0 0 0 2.1
103 STP lOA 30-40 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 5.3
104 STP lOA 40-50 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 4.5
105 STP lOA 40-50 cm Faunal Frag Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
106iSTP lOA 40-50 cm Debitage Com Chert-white 1 0 0 0 0 3.8
107:STP IDA 50-60 cm Ground stone Frag Sandstone 1 0 48.7 18.7 3.8 4.8
lOSjSTP lOA 50-60 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.6
109 STP lOA 60-70 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 1.5
110 STP lOA 60-70 cm Debitage Com Quartzite 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
"m STP llA unknown Debitage Com Quartz I 0 0 0 0 0.1 bag without level or stp #, in with STP 11 mater.
112iSTP llA unknown Debitage Com Metasediment 1 0 0 0 0 4.2 bag without level or stp #, in with STP 11 mater.
Page 2
liiiiiiiiiiiiiii llllll
CA-SDI-8303
llllllllllll IIII
5/5/99
CAT NO UNIT TYPE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT PORT MATERUL QUAN CORTEX LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT COMMENTS
113 STP llA unknown Debitage Com Volcanic I 0 0 0 0 0.5 bag without level or stp #, in with STP 11 mater.
114 STP IIA 0-10 cm Debitage Com Metasediment I ice 0 0 0 1.9
H5 STP llA 0-10 cm Point Base Quartz I 0 14.2 14.8 4.5 0.9
1I6:STP llA 0-10 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 29.4
I17:STP IIA 10-20 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 17.4
118ISTP IIA 10-20 cm Biface Base Quartz 1 0 16.9 19.2 9.3 2.9
119iSTP llA 20-30 cm Nat ceramic Frag ceramic 1 0 0 0 0 I
120|STP llA 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 23.6
I21iSTP llA 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
122 STP llA 30-40 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 25.1
123 STP IIA 30-40 cm Debitage Com Metasediment 1 0 0 0 0 1.1
124 STP IIA 40-50 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 22.5
125 STP llA 40-50 cm Faunal Frag Bone 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
126 STP llA 50-60 cm Faunal Frag Bone 1 0 0 0 0 O.I
127 STP llA 50-60 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 10.8
i28 STP llA 60-70 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 2.8
129 STP IIA 70-80 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.3
130 STP 12A 0-10 cm Faunat Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 23.3
131 STP 12A 0-10 cm Debitage Com Metavolcanic 1 ice 0 0 0 3.9
132 STP 12A 0-10 cm Debitage Com Volcanic 1 0 0 0 0 0.4
133 STP 12A 10-20 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 2.9
134 STP 12A 20-30 cm Debitage Com Metavolcic 1 0 0 0 0 18.8 no shell this level
135 STP 12A 30-40 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.5
136 STP 13A 0-10 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 24.9
137 STP 13A 0-10 cm Nat ceramic Frag ceramic 1 0 0 0 0 0.6
138 STP 13A 0-10 cm Debitage Com Quartz I 0 0 0 0 O.I
139 STP 13A 10-20 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 25.5
140 STP 13A 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 7.2
141 STP 13A 20-30 cm Ground stone Frag Volcanic 1 ice 42.6 32.7 19.1 23.4
142 STP 13A 30-40 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 I8.I
143 STP 13A 40-50 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 1.6
144iSTP 13A 50-60 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.3
145;STP 14A 10-20 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 2 no 0-10-cm level
146 STP 14A 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 I.I
147 STP 16A 0-10 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 5 No STP #15
148 STP 16A 0-10 cm Debitage Com Quartzite 1 0 0 0 0 0.6
149 STP 16A 10-20 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 1.8
Page 3
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii llllll
CA-SDI-8303
I I i I I I i i i i llllll
5/5/99
CAT NO UNIT TYPE UNIT LEVEL ARTIFACT PORT MATERIAL QUAN CORTEX LENGTH WIDTH THICKNESS WEIGHT COMMENTS
150|STP !16A 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 1.7
151
'~~]52
153
STP 16A_ 30-40 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 1.5 151
'~~]52
153
STP 16A 40-50 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 2
151
'~~]52
153 STP 16A 50-60 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 0.1
154
~T55
STP 16A 60-70 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.1 154
~T55 STP 19A 0-10 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 4.9 No STP #17 or STP #18
156 STP 19A 10-20 cm Faunal Frag Shell I 0 0 0 0 0.6
157 STP 19A 20-30 cm Faunal Frag Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.1
195 STP 38A 80-90 cm Debitage Com Metavolcanic 1 0 0 0 0 9.4
196 STP 44A 50-60 cm Debitage Com Quartzite 1 0 0 0 0 0.4 From STP 44, 1 FCR discarded from 60-70-cm level
216 STP 38A 90-100 c Debitage Com Metasediment I 0 0 0 0 0.5
354 STP 39A 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.2
355 STP 38A 40-50 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 1.8
356 STP 38A 80-90 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 24.5
357 STP 38A 70-80 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 14
358 STP 38A 90-100c Faunal Com Bone I 0 0 0 0 0.2
359 STP 38A 90-100 c Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 37.9
360 STP 38A 60-70 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 6.7
361 STP 38A 50-60 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 1.5
362 STP 38A 10-20 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 4.4
363 STP 38A 20-30 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 0.3
364 STP 38A 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 0.9
365 STP 44A 40-50 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 1.2
366 STP 44A 60-70 cm Faunal Com Bone I 0 0 0 0 O.I
367 STP 44A 50-60 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 2.4
368 STP 44A 30-40 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 1.8
369 STP 44A 70-80 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 6.8
370 STP 44A 60-70 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.2
371 STP 44A 20-30 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 0.4
372 STP 44A 10-20 cm Faunal Com Shell I 0 0 0 0 1.2
373 STP 44A 0-10 cm Faunal Com Shell 1 0 0 0 0 0.05
Page 4
APPENDIX B
CATALOGUE
m
ft
Ml
APPENDIX C
RADIOCARBON DATING RESULTS
BETA ANALYTIC INC
RADIOCARBON DATING SERVICES
Mr. DARDEN G. HOOD RONALD E. HATFIELD
Director Laboratory Monager
CHRISTOPHER PATRICK
TERESA A. ZILKO-MILLER
Associate Managers
April 30, 1999
Mr. Dennis R. Gallegos
Gallegos and Associates
5671 Palmer Way, Suite A
Carisbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Gallegos:
Please find enclosed the radiocarbon dating resuhs for two sheU samples (8303-1 lOA
and 8303-36A) which were submitted for analyses on March 26. Pretreatment, C14 content
measurement and age calculation went normally. Delta-R of 0 /- 0 was used in the
calculations as you requested. As always, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact
us.
Our invoice is enclosed as usual. Please, forward it to the appropriate office or send
VISA charge authorization. Thank you.
Sincerely,
mm
tf
Ml
tf
4985 S.W, 74 COURT, MIAMI, FL 33155 U S A,
TELEPHONE: 505-667-5167 / FAX: 505-665-0964 / INTERNET: bela@radiocarbon com
WEB SITE: htfp://www.radiocarbon.com
BETA ANALYTIC INC.
DR. MA. TAMERS and MR. D.G. HOOD
UNIVERSITY BRANCH
4985 S.W. 74 COURT
MIAMI, FLORIDA, USA 33155
PH: 305/667-5167 FAX: 305/663-0964
E-MAIL: beta@radlocarbon.coni
REPORT OF RADIOCARBON DATING ANALYSES
Mr. Dennis R. Gallegos
Gallegos and Associates
March 26, 1999
April 30, 1999
Sample Data Measured
CI4 Age
C13/C12
Ratio
Conventional
C14 Age(*)
Beta-129350 420 +/- 80 BP + 1.1 o/oo 850 +/- 80 BP
-SAMPLE #: 8303-1 lOA
.\NALYSIS: radiometric-standard
"-MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT:(shell): acid etch
Beta-129351 320 +/- 60 BP + 1.6 o/oo 760 +/- 60 BP
"SAMPLE #:8303-36A
•ANALYSIS: radiometric-standard
MATEiaAL/PRETREATMENT:(sheU): acid etch
N'OTE: It is important to read the calendar caUbration information
*md to use the calendar calibrated results (reported separately) when
nterpreting these results in AD/BC terms.
Dates are reported as RCYBP {radiocarbon years before present,
'present* = 1950A.D.). By International convention, the modern
reference standard was 95% of the C14 content of the National
Bureau of Standards' Oxalic Acid & calculated using the Libby C14
half life {5568 years). Quoted errors represent 1 standard deviation
statistics {68% probability) & are based on combined measurements
of the sample, background, and modern reference standards.
Measured C13/C12 ratios were calculated relative to the PDB-I
international standard and the RCYBP ages were normalized to
-25 per mil. If the ratio and age are accompanied by an {*). then the
013/012 value was estimated, based on values typical of the
material type. The quoted results are NOT calibrated to calendar
years. Calibration to calendar years should be calculated using
the Conventional C14 age.
CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR VEARS
(Variables:C 13/C12= 1.1:Delta-R=0±0:Global res=-200-500:lab mult.= 1)
Laboratory Number: Beta-129350
Conventional radiocarbon age: 850 ± 80 BP
(local reservoir correction not applied)
Calibrated results: cal AD 1345 to 1640 (Cal BP 605 to 310)
(2 sigma, 95% probability)
Intercept data:
Intercept of radiocarbon age
with calibration curve: cal AD 1465 (Cal BP 485)
1 sigma calibrated results: cal AD 1425 to 1525 (Cal BP 525 to 425)
(68% probability)
850 ± 80 BP SHELL
IIOO -
1300 HOO 1500 1600 1700 lEOO
cal AD
References:
Calibration Database
Editorial Comment
Sluiver. A/., van der Plichl. H.. 1998. Radiocarbon 40(3), pxii-xUi
INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration
Sluiver. M.. et. ai. 1998. Radiocarbon 40{3). pl04!-I083
Mathematics
A Simplified Approach to Calibrating CI4 Dates
Talma. A. S. Vogel. J. C. 1993. Radiocarbon 35(2). p3l7-322
Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory
4985 S. W. 74th Court. Miami. Florida 33/55 m Tel: (305)667-5167 • Fax: (305)663-0964 m E-mail: betaicti/adiocarbon.com
CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS
(Variabies:C13/C12=!.6:Delta-R=0±0:Global res=-200-500:lab mult.= l)
Laboratory Number: Beta-129351
Conventional radiocarbon age: 760 ± 60 BP
(local reservoir correction not applied)
Calibrated results: cal AD 1450 to 1670 (Cal BP 500 to 280)
(2 sigma, 95% probability)
Intercept data:
Intercept of radiocarbon age
with calibration curve: cal AD 1530 (Cal BP 420)
me
1 sigma calibrated results: cal AD 1485 to 1635 (Cal BP 465 to 315)
(68% probability)
760 ± 60 BP SHELL
900 -
^ 800
700
600 -
1500 1600 1700
cal i=iO
References:
Calibration Database
Editorial Comment
Sluiver. M.. van der Plichl. fi.. 1998. Radiocarbon 40(3). pxii-xiii
INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age CaUbration
Sluiver. M.. el ai. 1998. Radiocarbon 40(3). pI04l-W83
Mathematics
A Simplified Approach to Calibrating CI4 Dates
Talma. AS. VogeiJ.C. 1993. Radiocarbon 35(2). p317-322
Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory
4985 S. W. 74th Court. Miami, Florida 33155 • Tel: (305)667-5167 m Fax: (305)663-0964 • E-mail: heta(a)radtocarbon.com
EXPLANATION OF THE BETA ANALYTIC DENDRO-CALIBRATION PRINTOUT
CALIBRATION OF RADICARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS
.{Variables: C13/C12= :Delta-R= :Glob res= :lab. multl=1)
Laboratory Number: Beta-12345
Conventional radiocarbon age: 2400 +/- 60 BP
Variables used in
the calculation of
age calibration
The recommended
calibration age _
range to be used
for interpretation
Calibrated result:
(2 sigma, 95% probability)
cal BC 770 to 380
Intercept data:
Intercept of conventional radiocarbon
age with calibration curve:
The calibration
result of the
conventional
radiocarbon
age ± 1 sigma
'1 sigma calibrated result:
(68% probability)
cal BC410
cal BC 530 to 390
e^oo eo BP
!700 -
IOO -
>oo -Ml 2 Sigma ,
uncalibrated
Ml conventional
^diocarbon age.
J esoo -
The uncalibrated
conventional
radiocarbon age
(± 1 sigma)
The intercept between
the conventional
radiocarbon age and
the calibrated calendar
time scale curve.
-1 sigma
H 2 sigma calibrated range
1 oo
References:
Pretoria Calibration Curve for Stiort Uved Samples
Vogel, J.C. Puis. A, Wsser, E. and Becker, B., 1993, Radiocarbon 350), p73-86
A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates
Talma, AS. and Vogel. J.C. 1993. Radiocarbon 35(2). p317'322
Calibration -1993
Stuiver, M.. Long. A. Kra, R.S. and Devine, J.M., 1993. Radiocarbon 35(1)
Beta Analytic, Inc., 4985 S.W, 74th Court. Miami, Florida 33155
Reporting results (recommended):
1, List the conventional radiocarbon age with its associated 1 sigma standard deviation in a table and designate it as such
2 Discussion of ages in the text should focus on the 2 sigma calibrated range
5671 Palmer Way. Suite A
Carlsbad. California 92008
(760) 929-0055
G A L L E G O S
Sc Associates
99-300-29
March 23, 1999
Beta Analytic, Inc.
University Branch
4985 S.W. 74 Court
Miami, Florida 33155
Re: Shell Samples from CA-SDI-8303 Carlsbad, Califomia
Dear Beta:
Please find enclosed two conglomerate shell samples (CA-SDI-8303-10A and CA-SDI-
8303-36A) for standard C-14 dating. Please notify our office by fax (760-929-0056) or
Email (GalIegos@aol.com) as soon as results are known.
Thank you.
Tracy Stro
Lab Director
mm
J /3 BETA ANALYTIC INC.
DR. tAA. TAMERS and MR. D.G. HOOD
4985 S.W. 74th COURT
MIAMI, FLORIDA U.SA 33155
TELE: (01) 305^67-5167 FAX: (01) 305-663-0964
E-MAIL: beta@fadiocarbon.com
WEBSITE: http:/Avww.radiocarbon.com.
RADIOCARBON SAMPLE DATA SHEET
P/ease contact us at any time for advice, assistance or discussion of results.
SUBMITTER NAME: QP^LLfo^PS ^ ASSOCfftTgrS DATE: 1> -^^^-^^
ADDRESS: 5A f i P(\l.fA(^^ uJPiY . SiJ tr(n
OArzu£.0PiO rj\(jFf^ma ^ ^O-oo^
F.MAtI- PjPiU.^froS @ AAL. TELEPHONE: (76^)
FAX: (1 h O) <\ flJ^ ~~ rJJ 0-srl=, PURCHASE ORDER #: \
YOURSAMPLE
CODE NUMBER: Si3iQi j>l-l:sl^l^
PLEASE CHOOSE<- 12INITIALCHARACTERS TO APPEAR ON THE REPORT SHEET
INSTRUCtlOMS to LABORATORV I
ADDITIONAL LA&EUNG JF NEEDED
•« TECHNIQUE: l^ifeADIOMETRIC • ACCELERATOR MASS SPECTROMETRY (AMS)
^ DELIVERY
SERVICE:
B^STANDARD
(RADIOMETRIC 30 BUSINESS DAYS)
(AMS 30 TO 45 BUSINESS DAYS)
• ADVANCE
(RADIOMETRIC 20 BUSINESS DAYS)
(AMS U BUSINESS DAYS)
• PRIORITY
(6 BUSINESS DAYS)
RADIOMETRIC ONLY
• TIME GUIDE
(2-3 BUSINESS DAYS)
RADIOMETRIC ONLY
COMPLEX / NON-STANDARD
SERVICES: ADDITIONAL FEES APPLY
('SOME SERVICES MAY REQUIRE
ADDfTIONAL TIME FOR DELIVERY)
• EXTENDED COUNTING
(OPTIM>«. ENHANCED PRECISION)
• WOOD CELLULOSE
(EXTRACTION)
• BULK/LOW CARBON MATERIALS*
(SEDIMENTS AND BULK CARBONATES)
• BONE COLLAGEN EXTRACTION*
(COLLAGEN FRACTION)
SPECIAL REQUESTS
(ADDITIONAL SPACE ON REVERSE)
STABLE ISOTOPE RATIOS: 3/12 (OPTIONAL FOR RADIOMETRIC/INCLUDED FOR AMS) • 018/16 (CARBONATES ONLY)
Ml
SAMPLE MATERIAL: 3^^-^^ ^e/'0s^^^ ESTIMATED AGE: - ^^j^r^ WEIGHT: ^
HEMISPHERE: MORTHERN SOUTHERN IF CARBONATE: MARINE FRESH WATER
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
\TI0N PURPOSES)
GENERAL
I (FOR CALIBRATION PURPOSES)
"EVIDENCEOFcnMTAMiMATinM- fV\.'Afjtr r^t^'"b^JV-AI
j(ROOT PENETRATION. LEACHING, HUMIC ACIDS, ETC )
.COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND STORAGE PROCEDURES: \''<C9~^ C €<^C_jJ j S^(^'^^~^
^u"ol bo^^ , vv\ O-GA Fr^^ hnxejx. .
•STRATIGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL DFTAII S- 0^- ^ ^ ^ "
gPLEASE PUT DRAWINGS AND ADDITIONAL TEXT ON BACK OF SHEET)
mm
J /5 BETA ANALYTIC INC.
DR. MA. TAMERS and MR. D.G. HOOD
4985 S.W. 74th COURT '
MIAMI. FLORIDA V.SA. 33155
TELE: (01) 305-667^167 FAX: (01) 305-663-0964
E-MAIL: beta@radlocarbon.com
WEBSITE: http://www.fadIocarbon.com.
RADIOCARBON SAMPLE DATA SHEET
Please contact us at any time for advice, assistance or discussion of results.
- SUBMITTER NAME: Q ft CJL^-T^TT^S ^ (\ SSOd f^TejS DATE: ^'^Z - "1 ^
AnnRP.^c;- fiA ^ 1 PPiUrA uoP\y . Sti , Tin
E-MAIL: P_^fMA .f^fraS @ Ar>L • TELEPHONE: (Ih^) ^^^'^Q^.C"
art
^ FAX: (1 h 0>) <\^J^ - rJO-^r(=^ PURCHASE ORDER #: :
YOURSAMPLE
CODE NUMBER: -?)iSiL:>i^i-nioiA
PLEASE CH005E<- IIINHTAL CHARACTERS TO APPEAR ON THE REPORT SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS TO LABORATORY I
ADDmONAL LABEUNG IF NEEDED
mm TECHNIQUE: [^^^DIOMETRIC • ACCELERATOR MASS SPECTROMETRY (AMS)
DELIVERY
SERVICE:
S^STANDARD
(RADIOMETRIC 30 BUSINESS DAYS)
(AMS 30 TO 45 BUSINESS DAYS)
• ADVANCE
(RADIOMETRIC 20 BUSINESS DAYS)
(AMS 14 BUSINESS DAYS)
• PRIORITY
(6 BUSINESS DAYS)
RADIOMETRIC ONLY
• TIME GUIDE
(2-3 BUSINESS DAYS)
RADIOMETRIC ONLY
COMPLEX / NON-STANDARD
^ SERVICES: APomoNAL FEES APPLY
('SOME SERVICES MAY REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL TIME FOR DELIVERY)
• EXTENDED COUNTING
(OPTIMAL ENHANCED PRECISION)
• WOOD CELLULOSE
(EXTRACTION)
• BULK/LOW CARBON MATERIALS*
(SEDIMENTS AND BULK CARBONATES)
• BONE COLLAGEN EXTRACTION*
(COLLAGEN FRACTION)
SPECIAL REQUESTS
(ADDmONAL SPACE ON REVERSE)
STABLE ISOTOPE RATIOS: @C13/12 (OPTIONAL FOR RADIOMETRIC/INCLUDED FOR AMS) • 018/16 (CARBONATES ONLY)
SAMPLE MATERIAL: ^W^A\ ^c/'f^^ ESTIMATED AGE: "SoT)^ ^ "^S WEIGHT: "SC.
••HEMISPHERE: NORTHERN SOUTHERN IF CARBONATE: MARINE FRESH WATER
^GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
gg(F0R CALIBRATION PURPOSES)
•EVIDENCE OF COMTAMiMATinM- (A^fKtjT (^^'cAjrb^^x'^^ .
(ROOT PENETRATION. LEACHING. HUMtC ACIDS. ETC )
I
^COLLECTION. TREATMENT AND STORAGE PROCEDURES: ST' CJ^ C<0^ ^ €<Ag_>j j <"tlOTtU^ LlO.
»nuJ\ fr^^ las^^ , a.cJ~A ^re^L^ hnxeM^ .
STRATIGRAPHIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETAILS:. UMU- g Si^ 3o'40C^
PLEASE PUT DRAWINGS AND ADDITIONAL TEXT ON BACK OF SHEET!