A CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND EVALUATION for the UNIVERSITY DISTRICT PROJECT CITY OF SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
HDR 8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92123
Prepared by:
Don Laylander and Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2034 Corte del Nogal Carlsbad, California 92011
USGS 7.5-minute San Marcos topographic quadrangle
Approximately 220 acres
Keywords: survey; Extended Phase I testing; San Marcos; Township 12 South, Range 3 West; CA-SDI-17896, CA-SDI-17897, CA-SDI-17898, ASM 12760-A&B, Temp 12760-C
January 2009 PN 12760
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... iii 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 UNDERTAKING ...... 1 Proposed Land Use ...... 5 Offsite Improvements...... 5 Project Construction ...... 5 STUDY PERSONNEL ...... 6 2. SETTING ...... 7 NATURAL SETTING ...... 7 Coastal Paleogeography ...... 7 Paleovegetation Reconstructions...... 8 PREHISTORIC CULTURE HISTORY ...... 9 Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene ...... 9 Middle Holocene Period ...... 10 Late Holocene Period...... 11 Ethnohistoric Present ...... 12 Post-Contact History...... 14 3. METHODS ...... 19 RECORDS SEARCHES AND NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION ...... 19 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY ...... 20 EXTENDED PHASE I TEST ...... 20 BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY...... 20 BUILT ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION ...... 20 4. FINDINGS...... 25 RECORDS SEARCHES...... 25 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS ...... 28 EXTENDED PHASE I TEST RESULTS ...... 28 BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY RESULTS...... 31 5. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS...... 37 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ...... 37 BUILT ENVIRONMENT...... 38 REFERENCES...... 39 APPENDICES...... 51 APPENDIX A. Native American Responses APPENDIX B. Confidential Site Records and Map
University District Project i Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1. Project vicinity map...... 1 Figure 2. Project location map...... 2 Figure 3. Project map...... 3 Figure 4. Parcel map...... 21 Figure 5. View of the newly identified milling outcrop at site SDI-17896, looking southwest...... 29 Figure 6. Map of Extended Phase I excavations at site SDI-17896...... 30 Figure 7. Overview of site SDI-17897, looking east...... 31 Figure 8. Map of Extended Phase I excavations at site SDI-17897...... 32
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1. Native American Contacts ...... 19 Table 2. Previous Archaeological Survey Reports Addressing the APE...... 25 Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ...... 26 Table 4. Extended Phase I Testing Results...... 29 Table 5. Parcels With Structures in the Study Area...... 34
ii University District Project Management Summary MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
An amendment is proposed to the City of San Marcos General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow mixed-use development on approximately 187.38 acres. The study area lies within the Heart of the City Specific Plan area in the Barham Drive/Discovery Neighborhood.
Records searches at the South Coastal Information Center and the San Diego Museum of Man identified 59 previously recorded prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites or isolates lying within a 1-mi. radius of the study area. Three of the sites (CA-SDI-17896, SDI-17897, and SDI-17898) are located within or immediately adjacent to the study area. An archaeological survey identified an additional two historic archaeological sites (ASM 12760- A&B and ASM 12760-C) within the study area. Ninety-six of the parcels within the study area have been identified as containing buildings ranging in date from 1925 to 2003.
An Extended Phase I testing program was implemented at prehistoric archaeological sites SDI- 17896 and SDI-17897, to determine whether any substantial subsurface cultural deposits were associated with the milling features at these sites. At site SDI-17896, field reexamination determined that the outcrop originally identified as this site did not contain any milling features, but another nearby outcrop did contain two milling slicks, as well as once piece of volcanic debitage on the ground surface. Four shovel test pits excavated at each of the two sites failed to produce any subsurface cultural material. From an archaeological perspective, these sites do not appear to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources and do not warrant further consideration. However, the Native American monitor recommended further testing and monitoring.
Fifty-four buildings within the project area that were constructed prior to 1965 were evaluated for eligibility to the California Register of Historic Resources. None of the buildings meet the criteria for eligibility and are therefore recommended not eligible.
University District Project iii
1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to assess the presence or absence of potentially significant prehistoric and historic sites in the project area, in accordance with the City of San Marcos’ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
UNDERTAKING
The project would amend the City of San Marcos General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow mixed-use development and preserved open space on approximately 194 acres. (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The site lies within the Heart of the City Specific Plan area within the Barham Drive/Discovery Neighborhood and is designated “Business Park”, “Neighborhood Commercial” and “Specific Plan-Health Care Campus”. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation to Mixed Use and would rezone the area from Specific Plan Area – Business Park and Neighborhood Commercial to Specific Plan Area – University District Mixed Use.
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
University District Project 1 1. Introduction
Figure 2. Project location map.
2 University District Project 1. Introduction
Figure 3. Project map.
University District Project 3
1. Introduction In order to enhance circulation linkages between the project and uses north of SR-78, the project includes a freeway flyover structure to connect the Specific Plan area with San Marcos Boulevard. At this time, the specific alignment of the flyover has not been identified, so an approximate 200-foot wide area for the potential alignment is considered. Two pedestrian bridges are proposed to connect the Specific Plan area with offsite uses to the south of Discovery Street and East Barham Drive.
Proposed Land Use The project proposes a mixed-use land use concept that will allow for a variety of land uses to support a vibrant university-oriented community. Elements of the project include:
• Mixed-Use Residential – up to 2,600 multifamily residential units • Student Housing – 800 units, with a possible increase to 1,000 units • Hotels – 450 rooms, with a possible increase to 600 rooms • General Office Space – 750,000 ft.2, with a possible decrease to 650,000 ft.2 • Medical Office Space – 300,000 ft.2 • Mixed-Use Retail/Commercial – 1,000,000 ft.2 • Parks/Developed Open Space – 13.91 acres • Community/Civic Space – 30,000 ft.2 • Public Streets – for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic • Preserved Open Space – 26.07 acres of habitat area
Offsite Improvements In order to enhance circulation linkages between the project and uses north of SR-78, the project includes a freeway flyover structure to connect the Specific Plan area with San Marcos Boulevard. At this time, the specific alignment of the flyover has not been identified, so an approximate 200-ft.-wide area for the potential alignment is considered.
Up to three pedestrian bridges are proposed to connect the Specific Plan area with offsite uses to the south of Discovery Street and East Barham Drive. At this time, the specific locations of the pedestrian facilities are still under consideration.
Additional improvements to existing intersections are also proposed as part of the project. This includes providing additional lanes and signal modification at San Marcos Boulevard/ Grand Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard/Twin Oaks Valley Road.
Project Construction Activities related to site preparation include grading, blasting and rock crushing. It is anticipated that the Specific Plan will occur in multiple phases.
University District Project 5 1. Introduction STUDY PERSONNEL
The following individuals were instrumental in conducting the investigations and producing this report:
Susan M. Hector, ASM Principal (Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles), served as project manager.
Don Laylander, ASM Senior Archaeologist (M.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University), served as co-principal investigator and report coauthor.
Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, ASM Principal (Ph.D., Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles) served as co-principal investigator, report coauthor, and historian.
Michelle Dalope, ASM Associate Archaeologist (B.A., Anthropology, San Diego State University), served as project archaeologist and assembled information concerning the built environment.
Elizabeth Potter, ASM Associate Archaeologist (B.A., Anthropology, Thomas Edison State University), participated as a crewmember in the field survey.
Shelby Gunderman, ASM Associate Archaeologist (B.A., Anthropology, California, San Diego) was field director for the Extended Phase I test.
James T. Daniels, Jr., ASM Associate Archaeologist (M.A., Anthropology, California State State University, Long Beach) participated as a crewmember in the Extended Phase I test.
Cami Mojado, (San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians) participated in the Extended Phase I test.
Zee Malas was the graphic illustrator, and Marcia Sandusky was the desktop publisher.
6 University District Project 2. Setting 2. SETTING
The following discussion of the physical, biological, and cultural context of the study area is largely taken from discussions in reports for previous projects in San Marcos (Hale 2006; Laylander 2007a).
NATURAL SETTING
The study area lies on the western margin of the foothills province of San Diego County, just east of the coastal plain province and well to the west of the Peninsular Range’s crest (Bowman 1973). Geologically, it is an area where outcrops of Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sedimentary deposits, Jurassic or Cretaceous metavolcanic rocks, Cretaceous plutonic rocks, and pre-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks all occur in close proximity (McArthur 2004:19). The elevations range between about 165 and 215 m above sea level. The open coastline lies about 15 km to the west. The climate is classified as Mediterranean Hot Summer (Pryde 2004:38). The site lies to the south of San Marcos Creek, one of six small- to medium-sized parallel drainages on the central San Diego County coast, with its outlet in Batiquitos Lagoon. The area falls within the chaparral natural vegetation zone, although modern development, grazing, and introduced plant species have substantially displaced natural patterns.
Coastal Paleogeography The paleoecology of the San Diego coastline differed greatly from modern conditions (Inman 1983; Kern 1995; Masters 1994; Orme 1993; Waters 1996a, 1996b). These differences influenced ancient human occupation of the region, since available natural resources changed over time. The rapid rise of sea level during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene shifted the shoreline eastward and inundated valley floors, in places creating steep and narrow bays (Inman 1983). As marine transgression slowed after about 4000 B.C., complex, low-energy coastal environments began to develop in drowned stream valleys. Bays evolved into estuaries and lagoons, rocky shores declined, and sandy beaches began to be established (Nardin et al. 1981). Sea level rose another 1-2 m in the last 3,000 years, estuary systems continued to aggrade, and some were silted in and transformed into freshwater marsh or alluvial environments. At the same time, extensive sandy beaches evolved, initially in the north near Dana Point and then spreading southward to La Jolla, ultimately forming the extensive Oceanside littoral cell (Inman 1983). Throughout the late Holocene, the rate of coastal cliff erosion by wave action has been estimated at between .1 and .5 m per year (Kern 1995; Muhs et al. 1987).
This general paleogeographic reconstruction is based primarily on regional studies of shoreline and offshore data, as well as general models of late Quaternary coastal change related to the consequences of sea level rise (e.g., Inman 1983). While it applies in general to the region, the exact timing and magnitude of coastal habitat changes require detailed local investigations. In particular, the ecological history of estuaries and lagoons is crucial to interpreting the late
University District Project 7 2. Setting Holocene archaeology for the San Diego area, since their demise has been cited as the cause for the disappearance of some local coastal adaptations (Gallegos 1992; Masters and Gallegos 1997; Warren 1964). Estuaries are transient geological phenomena (e.g., Emery 1967) that are extremely sensitive to localized, short-term environmental change (e.g., Davis 1992; Ingram et al. 1996). This situation highlights the need for detailed reconstructions of local coastal settings using multiple data sets in order to model the interrelationship between environmental change and hunter-gatherer adaptations.
In the San Diego region, the precise history of individual drainage systems and their estuaries has rarely been reconstructed with independent data gathered solely for that purpose. Patricia M. Masters (1988, 1994) examined the logs of non-paleoenvironmental drilling projects to generate local reconstructions for San Diego Bay and the San Luis Rey drainage, revealing two very different histories and highlighting the need for local reconstructions (see also Mudie et al. 1974). Most influential, however, was Jacqueline Miller's (1966) research at Batiquitos Lagoon, which was designed to test competing hypotheses posed by archaeologists regarding the timing of late Holocene lagoon closure (Hubbs et al. 1962; Shumway et al. 1961; Warren et al. 1961). This study had a significant impact on subsequent archaeological interpretations of late Holocene coastal adaptations in the San Diego region.
Paleovegetation Reconstructions Late Holocene paleovegetation reconstructions in the San Diego region have been very limited. The 4,000-year paleoenvironmental record from a 4.75-m alluvial section in the lower reaches of Las Flores Creek provided a reconstruction of changes in vegetation and climate that took place in a near-coast late Holocene setting (Anderson and Byrd 1998). Five pollen zones were distinguished, based on pollen concentration and composition (Anderson 1996), and these zones correlate well with the section's six major stratigraphic units and three buried paleosols (Waters 1996a). The Las Flores Creek pollen results indicate that the environment near the end of the middle Holocene was considerably different from modern conditions. Pollen from riparian plants, including cattail (Typha sp.) and sedges (Cyperaceae), was common between 2000 and 600 B.C. Cypress (Cupressus sp.) or a closely related tree may have grown along this riparian corridor, suggesting a larger range for this plant and wetter conditions than today, which allowed this tree to grow at lower elevations. By 600 B.C., a vegetation mosaic including elements of the coastal sage, chaparral, and grassland communities was established, and these conditions were then largely maintained. The most notable changes were elevated amounts of Chenopodium-Amaranthus pollen due to human disturbance and the introduction of exotic weed and tree species in the last century. Recent coring in this area (Byrd et al. 2000) has extended this record back to 7000 B.C. and revealed elevated percentages of fern spores and tree pollen and an early Holocene wet climate, followed by an increasingly dry and unstable climate. In the central and southern San Diego coast region, shallow coring at Los Peñasquitos Lagoon and Mission Bay documented similar regional climatic trends that may have been time transgressive from north to south (Cole and Wahl 2000; Mudie and Byrne 1980).
8 University District Project 2. Setting PREHISTORIC CULTURE HISTORY
Archaeological fieldwork along the southern California coast has documented a diverse range of human occupations extending from the early Holocene into the ethnohistoric period (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Jones 1992; Jones and Klar 2007; Moratto 1984). Different regional chronologies, often with overlapping and inconsistent terminologies, have been used in coastal southern California. Three general periods can conveniently be distinguished as Pleistocene/Early Holocene, Middle Holocene, and Late Holocene. These periods are characterized by changing patterns in material culture that are thought to represent distinct regional trends in the economic and social organization of prehistoric groups.
Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene The antiquity of human occupation in the New World has been the subject of considerable debate over the last few decades. The most widely accepted model at present is that humans first entered the western hemisphere between 13,000 and 10,000 B.C. Much earlier dates have also been proposed (Bada et al. 1974; Carter 1980). However, the amino acid racemization technique that was used to date some of the early sites has been discredited by more recent AMS radiocarbon dating of early human remains along the California coast (Taylor et al. 1985). Despite intense interest and a long history of research, no widely accepted evidence of very early human occupation in the San Diego region has emerged.
The generally accepted archaeological record begins with the Clovis pattern, a widespread phenomena in North America. Noted for its distinctive tool kit characterized by fluted projectile points, Clovis occupation dates to the end of the Pleistocene, around 11,500 B.C. (Meltzer 1993). Although no Clovis sites are documented in the region, occasional isolated fluted points have been recovered (e.g., Kline and Kline 2007; Rondeau et al. 2007).
The Early Holocene period in San Diego County extends from approximately 10,000 to 6000 B.C. (Byrd and Raab 2007; Moratto 1984; Warren et al. 2008). A variety of terms have been proposed for Early Holocene assemblages in the southern California region. Malcolm J. Rogers, the first to temporally order the archaeological assemblages of the region, introduced but later discarded the terms Scraper-Makers, Malpais, and Playa to label early lithic industries of the region (Warren 1967). Rogers (1939, 1945) subsequently coined the term San Dieguito to refer to the earliest artifact assemblages in San Diego County. San Dieguito assemblages are composed almost entirely of flaked stone tools, including scrapers, choppers, and large projectile points (Warren 1987; Warren et al. 2008). The absence or near-absence of milling tools in San Dieguito assemblages was often viewed as a major difference between the Early Holocene economy and the lifeways which characterized the subsequent Middle Holocene period.
The San Dieguito adaptation occurred during a climatic period of somewhat cooler and moister conditions than exist at present. The range of possible San Dieguito economic adaptations and the interpretation of the San Dieguito complex as a big game hunting tradition were based primarily on materials from the C. W. Harris Site (Ezell 1983, 1987; Warren 1966, 1967).
University District Project 9 2. Setting Some coastal assemblages now appear to be contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous with San Dieguito assemblages but closely resemble typical Middle Holocene assemblages. Some critics have hypothesized that differences between San Dieguito and other Early Holocene assemblages may reflect functional differences between particular sites rather than either changes through time or contrasts between contemporaneous cultures (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987; Warren et al. 2008).
Middle Holocene Period The Middle Holocene period spanned the period between about 6000 and 2000 B.C. (Gallegos 1992; Moratto 1984; Rogers 1966; Warren et al. 2008). A distinction is often made between coastal shell midden sites (La Jolla complex) and inland non-shell midden sites (Pauma complex), particularly in northern San Diego County. The shell middens are generally characterized by flaked cobble tools, basin metates, manos, occasional discoids, and flexed burials. Several temporal phases have sometimes been distinguished within the Archaic period (Warren et al. 2008).
Initial exploitation of the San Diego area littoral zone is generally considered to have entailed sizable semisedentary populations focused around resource-rich bays and estuaries (Crabtree et al. 1963; Gallegos 1992; Shumway et al. 1961; Warren 1964, 1968; Warren and Pavesic 1963; Warren et al. 1961). Shellfish were apparently a dietary staple. Plant resources (including nuts and grasses) were an important dietary component, while hunting and fishing were less important. This adaptive strategy remained largely unchanged for several thousand years. According to Warren and his associates (1961:25), "the La Jolla Complex reached its population and cultural climax between 7000 and 4000 years ago when there was a plentiful supply of shellfish in the lagoons along the coast." Major changes in human adaptations occurred after 2000 B.C. when estuary silting is thought to have become so extensive as to cause a decline in associated shellfish populations. A major depopulation of the coastal zone has been postulated, with settlements shifting inland to river valleys, intensifying the exploitation of terrestrial small game and plant resources, including a strong focus on acorns (Christenson 1992; Crabtree et al. 1963; Gallegos 1985, 1987, 1992; Masters and Gallegos 1997; Rogers 1929:467; Warren 1964, 1968; Warren and Pavesic 1963; Warren et al. 1961). The coast was abandoned or only seasonally occupied, but with a possible revival in coastal occupation after A.D. 400-800.
An exception to this scenario was the San Diego Bay and Mission Bay area (e.g., Warren 1964, 1968), more recently extended to include the Peñasquitos Lagoon/Sorrento Valley area (Gallegos 1992). Although refinements have been made on the basis of new excavations (Gallegos 1987, 1992; Gallegos and Kyle 1988; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 2008), the broad perception of the region's coastal adaptations has remained largely unchanged (see the discussion in Byrd 1998). Most interpretations of the timing of estuary silting, decreased productivity at specific localities, and related effects on human settlement were based on inferences derived from excavated shell midden sites (Masters and Gallegos 1997; Miller 1966; Warren et al. 1961) and not from independent paleoenvironmental data (see the critiques in Bull 1981; Bull and Norwood 1977; Carrico 1976). Alternative interpretations regarding the
10 University District Project 2. Setting nature of coastal Middle Holocene adaptations have been presented, generally suggesting that particular estuaries were open for considerable periods of time after 2000 B.C., that some coastal populations migrated southward rather than eastward as coastal lagoons silted in, and that human populations continued to flourish along the northern San Diego County coast during the late Holocene (Bull 1981; Byrd 1998; Hubbs et al. 1962; Shumway et al. 1961:116-117, 124; Smith and Moriarty 1985).
Inland Middle Holocene sites have been less extensively studied, although D. L. True and his associates established an important foundation for such studies (True 1958, 1980; True and Beemer 1982; True and Pankey 1985; Warren et al. 1961). The Pauma complex had its geographical focus on the upper San Luis Rey River, with extensions to the Valley Center area, middle San Luis Rey River, upper Santa Margarita River, and Escondido-San Marcos area. Pauma complex characteristics suggested by True included (1) a high frequency of shaped manos, (2) the presence of finely worked small domed scrapers, (3) the presence of knives and points, (4) the presence of discoidals and cogged stones, (5) a predominance of grinding tools over flaked tools, (6) a predominance of deep basin metates over slab metates, (7) a predominance of cobble hammers over core hammers, (8) a low frequency of cobble tools, (9) a scarcity of cobble choppers and cobble scrapers, (10) a predominance of volcanic rock over quartzite as a source material for flaked lithics, and (11) an extreme scarcity of obsidian. The coastal La Jolla and inland Pauma complexes have been variously interpreted as separate, contemporary socio-cultural units and as seasonal/functional manifestations of a single society and culture.
Late Holocene Period The Late Holocene period is considered to have begun sometime around 2000 B.C., but many of its most distinctive traits only arose after about A.D. 500 (Moratto 1984; Rogers 1945; Warren et al. 2008). Local regional cultural complexes have been distinguished between the northern (San Luis Rey) and southern (Yuman or Cuyamaca) complexes. This period was characterized by the appearance of small, pressure-flaked arrow points (Cottonwood triangular, Desert side-notched, and Dos Cabezas serrated forms) indicative of a bow-and-arrow technology, the appearance of ceramics, the replacement of flexed inhumations with cremations, extensive use of the mortar and pestle, and an emphasis on collecting and processing inland plant foods, especially acorns (Christenson 1990; McDonald and Eighmey 2008; Meighan 1954; Rogers 1945; True 1966; Warren 1964, 1968). The precise timing of the introduction of the various new technologies and cultural practices is still uncertain (Griset 1996; McDonald and Eighmey 2008).
Explanations for the origin of innovations associated with the Late Prehistoric period have varied. A. L. Kroeber (1925:578) speculated that Shoshonean (i.e., Takic) speakers migrated from the deserts to the southern coast of California at least 1,000-1,500 years ago (but on varied interpretations of the region’s linguistic prehistory, see Golla 2007; Laylander 2007b). Some archaeologists have embraced this hypothesis and correlated it with the origins of the Late Holocene complexes (Meighan 1954; Warren 1968). Rogers (1929) initially discussed the Luiseño and Kumeyaay under the rubric of the Mission Indians, and distinguished them from
University District Project 11 2. Setting earlier shell-midden and scraper-maker cultures. He later argued for continuity in occupation from the Archaic to the Late Prehistoric period in the Kumeyaay area (Rogers 1945). He argued that the Kumeyaay appeared as the result of earlier migration of Yumans from the coast to the Colorado River (perhaps as the result of an influx of Takic speakers into northern San Diego County), adaptation to their new riverine setting and adoption of traits from adjacent populations in the Southwest, and subsequent movement back to the coast during the Late Prehistoric period. Subsequently, scholars have proposed several cultural processes to explain Late Holocene cultural developments, including an occupational hiatus (Wallace 1955), cultural continuity with the addition of new traits (True 1966, 1970; Warren 1964, 1968), and population replacement (Bull 1987).
The San Luis Rey complex was defined by Clement W. Meighan, refined by True, and generally applied to the northwestern portion of San Diego County (Meighan 1954; True 1966; True and Waugh 1982, 1983; True et al. 1974, 1991). Meighan (1954:Table 2) suggested that the San Luis Rey I phase began around A.D. 1400 and included small triangular arrow points, manos, portable metates, mortars, pestles, Olivella shell beads, and stone pendants. The San Luis Rey II phase differed primarily in the addition of ceramics and pictographs around A.D. 1750. True (1993:17) further hypothesized that the lower portions of the San Luis Rey drainage had sedentary villages making limited use of marine resources. The Late Holocene period has been linked with the subsequent ethnohistoric record, and direct historical analogies are based on the assumption of considerable stability in adaptations and territorial extent as documented by early non-Native observers.
Ethnohistoric Present Acculturation, assimilation, and the introduction of Old World diseases greatly disrupted and reduced Native American populations, and by the early 1800s traditional coastal villages were largely abandoned (Carrico 2008). As a result, we know very little about traditional coastal life, except what can be gleaned from mission records. Ethnohistoric reconstructions provide only minimal insight into coastal adaptations, particularly with respect to such matters as cultural complexity, population density, and regional interaction. The reconstructions have been largely based on observations of remnant inland populations and their occasional seasonal exploitation of a littoral zone that was dominated and largely controlled by non-Native settlers.
From north to south, coastal San Diego County was occupied Luiseño (including Juaneño) and Kumeyaay groups (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925; Luomala 1978). The Luiseño are speakers of a Takic language within the widespread Uto-Aztecan family, whose territory ranged from Agua Hedionda Lagoon (or possibly Batiquitos Lagoon) in the south to Aliso Creek in Orange County in the northwest, to near Santiago Peak in the northeast, and to the Palomar Mountain area in the southeast. The Luiseño are linguistically and culturally closely related to the Gabrielino, Cupeño, and Cahuilla to the north and east.
The Luiseño have been considered to be relatively complexly organized hunter-gatherers, with noteworthy characteristics including a comparatively elaborate social structure and a moderately high population density (Bean and Shipek 1978). Population estimates for the time
12 University District Project 2. Setting of Spanish contact have ranged from 5,000 (Kroeber 1925) to 10,000 (White 1963). With a territory encompassing not quite 4,000 km², population density estimates range from 1.25 to 2.5 persons per km². Raymond C. White (1963) estimated that the Luiseño lived in about 50 villages of 200 individuals each, while Joan Oxendine (1983), using observations from the 1769 Portolá expedition, concluded that village size was closer to 60. Recent research with mission records suggests that village size in the eighteenth century varied significantly, with larger villages such as Topomai on the Santa Margarita River consisting of multiple lineages (Johnson and Crawford 1999).
The Luiseño were divided into several autonomous lineages or kin groups based on patrilineal descent and patrilocal residence. Each Luiseño lineage was based at an autonomous village that held collective ownership over a well-defined territory for hunting and gathering; violations of trespass were punished (Bean and Shipek 1978). Village territory may have ranged from as little as 10 km² near the coast along major drainages such as the San Luis Rey River (Oxendine 1983:45) to as much as 100 km² elsewhere (White 1963). A variety of shorter-term residential camps (such as for acorn gathering) and specialized localities were present within each village territory (Oxendine 1983; White 1963). There are varied estimates for the length of the annual stay at the main village. True and his associates (1974) suggested a bipolar, fission/fusion settlement pattern with two perennial base camps, with a lowland winter village situated in a major valley and upland summer camps in the mountain region.
Comparatively strong differences in social status, ascribed leadership roles, and elaborate ritual paraphernalia were present (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908). Leaders included hereditary chiefs and council members who had specialized knowledge and authority over specific religious, economic, and military matters. Leaders conducted elaborate ceremonies, while ritual and ceremonial specialists maintained esoteric ceremonial knowledge and only passed on the knowledge to a single heir (White 1963; Winterrowd and Shipek 1986). These leaders and specialists made use of fenced ceremonial areas, located in the centers of the villages.
Economic activities took place on the community and extended household levels, and varied significantly between coastal and inland areas (Bean and Shipek 1978:552). Community-wide efforts included fire management for game drives and systematic use of fire to promote grasslands and increase yields of key plant and animal resources. Such burning was mentioned in early Spanish accounts (Bean and Lawton 1976; Blackburn and Anderson 1993). Acorns, gathered preferentially in upland areas, have been considered the most important food source. Seeds from grasses, manzanita, sage, sunflower, lemonadeberry, chia, and other plants were also used, along with various wild greens and fruits. Deer, pronghorn antelope, small game, and birds were exploited. Coastal marine animals utilized as food included sea mammals, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Nearshore fishing was done from light balsa rafts. Some accounts indicate that coastal communities exploited local shellfish in the winter (Sparkman 1908; White 1963), and during times of stress the interior Luiseño traveled to the coast to obtain shellfish and fish (White 1963). Lowell John Bean and Florence C. Shipek (1978) note that most inland groups also had fishing and gathering locations on the coast that were visited annually when the
University District Project 13 2. Setting tides were low or when the inland resources were scarce, typically between January and March. A rigid sexual division of labor did not exist, but women generally collected plant resources and men hunted (Bean and Shipek 1978).
Houses were dispersed throughout villages. Lowland village houses were conical structures covered with tule bundles, and other structures included sweathouses, ceremonial enclosures, ramadas, and acorn granaries. Domestic implements included wooden utensils, baskets, ceramic cooking and storage vessels, and milling tools. Hunting implements included bows and arrows, curved throwing sticks, nets, and snares. Nets and hooks made from shell and bone were used for fishing.
To the south of the present study area, the Yuman-speaking Kumeyaay (also termed Diegueño, Ipai, and Tipai) occupied a larger and more diverse environment including coastal, foothill, mountain, and desert zones (Luomala 1978; Shipek 1982; Spier 1923). Considerable variability in social organization and settlement was noted, and the Kumeyaay claimed prescribed territories but rarely owned resources (Luomala 1976; Spier 1923). Some Kumeyaay lineages occupied procurement ranges that required considerable residential mobility (Hicks 1963). Acorns are considered to have been a primary staple.
Post-Contact History The post-contact period began in A.D. 1769 with the Spanish establishment of Mission San Diego de Alcalá and the overland trek of an exploring party moving northward along the San Diego coast. However, Spanish explorers first encountered Native Americans in the area in A.D. 1542, when Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo entered San Diego Bay, and again in 1602 when Sebastián Vizcaíno returned to the region. Prior to missionization, local inhabitants may have been negatively affected by the protohistoric transmission of Old World diseases, perhaps spread via intermittent maritime visits or through overland diffusion from Baja California or Sonora (Preston 2002).
Gaspar de Portolá's 1769 expedition from San Diego to Monterey documented a series of Native American coastal settlements in the San Diego area, typically situated along the region's major drainages (Carrico 1977). The subsequent establishment of Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1776 and Mission San Luis Rey de Francia in 1798 further impacted traditional Native coastal settlement systems.
Missionization, along with the introduction of European diseases, greatly reduced the Native American population of southern California by the early nineteenth century. Coastal Luiseño and Kumeyaay were incorporated into the Spanish sphere of influence at an early date, but inland Luiseño groups were not heavily affected by Spanish influence until after 1816, when an outpost of Mission San Luis Rey was established 32 km further inland at Pala (Sparkman 1908). In 1834, under an independent Mexico, the missions were secularized, and much of the region was granted to secular owners of ranchos, including Los Vallecitos de San Marcos Rancho in the present study area (Moyer 1969). California was conquered and annexed to the United States after 1846. The Luiseño variously worked on the Hispanic or American ranchos,
14 University District Project 2. Setting sought employment as day laborers in urban areas, or retreated to eastern areas still largely unaffected by the influx of outsiders. The reservation system, beginning in the 1870s, altered traditional social organization and settlement patterns. Nonetheless, many aspects of the original culture still persist today.
The American period (1846 to the present) witnessed extensive changes in San Diego County. This period encompassed the rapid rise to dominance by Anglo-Victorian (Yankee) culture and the growth of urban centers, rural communities, and transportation networks. A frontier period (1846-1870) saw the region's transformation from a semi-feudal society to an aggressive capitalistic economy in which American entrepreneurs gained control of most of the ranchos and transformed San Diego into a merchant-dominated market town. Between 1870 and 1930, urban development established the cities of San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, while a rural society developed on the basis of family-owned farms organized by rural school district communities. The 1920s brought a land boom (Robinson 1942) that stimulated development throughout the city and county. Development stalled during the depression years of the 1930s, but World War II ushered in a period of growth based on expanding defense industries. From the 1960s to the present, residential and commercial development in northern San Diego County has accelerated. The City of San Marcos was incorporated in 1963 and increased its population more than tenfold over the following three decades (Griffin and Weeks 2004).
City of San Marcos Historical Overview The CSU San Marcos area was originally part of Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos. Before secularization of the missions, this land was one of the cattle-grazing tracts claimed by Mission San Luis Rey. In 1840, Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado granted the 8,877-acre Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos (the Little Valleys of St. Mark) to Don José María Alvarado. Cave J. Couts, a former Army officer and owner of the adjacent Rancho Guajome and Buena Vista later came into possession of the ranch. Couts ran cattle on the ranch.
The transcontinental railroad was completed in November 1885, resulting in an unprecedented real estate boom for San Diego City. The population of San Diego soared in the mid 1880s from a total population of 5,000 in1885 to 40,000 in 1889 (MacPhail 1979). Settlers poured into San Diego, lured by real estate promotions offering a salubrious climate, cheap land, and the potential to realize great profits in agriculture and real estate. Speculators formed land companies and subdivided townsites throughout the county (Pourade 1964:167-191). The real estate boom also stimulated demand for agricultural land in the county and the number of farms increased from 696 to 2,747 between 1880 and 1890 (Schaefer et al. 1994). This boom brought homesteaders to the San Marcos area.
Major Gustavus French Merriam from Topeka, Kansas made the first permanent settlement in the San Marcos area. Merriam homesteaded 160 acres in the north Twin Oaks Valley and began wine and honey production. German and Dutch immigrants began moving into the area in the early 1880s. In 1883 a few miles south of the settlement, John H. Barham founded the first town in the area, calling it Barham. By 1884, the town of Barham had a post office, blacksmith, feed store and a weekly newspaper (City of San Marcos 2004).
University District Project 15 2. Setting The San Marcos Land Company had been formed with the intention of developing a town site. The company laid out a town site near the intersection of Grand Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road with 5 to 10-acre plots. In the late 1880s the Santa Fe Railroad announced that it was going to lay tracks going through the valley. To the disappointment of the citizens, the tracks were laid one mile away from the center of the town. The old town was abandoned in 1901 and many of the buildings were moved to the intersection of Mission and Pico (Moyer 1969: 22-24). By 1905, the town had every convenience, including rural mail delivery and telephone service. The first school in the area, which had started in Barham in 1880, was moved in 1889 to San Marcos. Later that same year, the Richland School was built, being the second school in San Marcos (City of San Marcos 2004).
San Marcos remained a quiet rural town through the first half of the twentieth century. While agriculture had dominated in the late 1800s and early 1900s by the mid-1900s, dairies and poultry production became a big part of the business in the town. San Marcos was chosen as the site of the future Palomar College in 1946. Classes initially took place in Vista, but Quonset huts were moved onto the San Marcos site in 1950 and the first permanent buildings were constructed in 1956. Population growth in San Marcos had been constrained by the lack of water resources in the region. The arrival of Colorado River water to the City in 1956, supplementing the existing local water supply, was a big boon to the City. After the arrival of water, several small businesses started and the population rapidly increased to 2500. San Marcos, with a population of 3,200 residents, became incorporated on January 28, 1963. Through the 1960s the City grew by a few thousand new residents, but in the 1970s, San Marcos was flourishing as the third fastest growing city in the state with a population of 17,479 by 1980. During the 1980s, San Marcos almost doubled its population to 33,800. Growth has continued to boom in San Marcos, and the present population of the City is at 67,426 (City of San Marcos 2004).
Historical Overview Of Development Within The Project Area Most of the Project Area south of SR-78 was occupied prior to 1985 by the Prohoroff Poultry Farm, one of the largest poultry farms in the world at the time. Russian immigrants Terenty and Mary Prohoroff moved to San Marcos in 1924, buying a small farm where they grew hay and kept dairy cattle. In 1945 their son John established a poultry farm with 250 chickens housed in one barn. The poultry farm flourished and at its peak it housed two million hens on 557 acres, producing seven million eggs annually (Rossi 2007, Kathy Shubin, personal communication). The Prohoroff Poultry Farm occupied the area south of SR-78 that includes the project area and the land on which California State University San Marcos is now located.
The Prohoroff family belonged to the Molokan Christian church, a Russian sect that broke away from the Russian Orthodox church in the late 1500s. When they moved to San Marcos there were a small number of Molokan families in north San Diego County. Services were held in a small wood frame house. In the late 1950s at the height of the success of the poultry farm, the Prohoroff family sponsored a group of Molokan families who had lost their lease on land in the Guadalupe Valley in Mexico to migrate to the United States (Kathy Shubin, personal communication). The families lived and worked on the Prohoroff Poultry Farm. To
16 University District Project 2. Setting accommodate the immigrant families, houses were constructed on Shubin Lane, Bolotin Lane, and Terrier Avenue. The streets were named after the migrant families. With the influx of families a new church was needed and starting in 1958 a new Molokan church was constructed by volunteer labor. It was located on a rise at the end of Shubin Lane.
In 1985 the Prohoroff family sold its land to developers and shortly thereafter some of the land was sold to the State of California for the construction of the California State University San Marcos campus.
University District Project 17
3. Methods 3. METHODS
RECORDS SEARCHES AND NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
A records search at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), housed at San Diego State University, was conducted on October 9, 2008. The records search encompassed a search radius of 1 mi. around the present project area. It included plotting of all resources recorded on CHRIS trinomial and primary number maps and making copies of the record forms for the recorded resources, plotting of previous archaeological project boundaries and copying the National Archaeological Database (NADB) citations for reports addressing those projects, copying historic maps on file at the SCIC, and copying a map and database of historic addresses (formerly Geofinder).
Records at the San Diego Museum of Man were searched on October 16, 2008 by Wayne Saunders and Phil Hoog. The search encompassed an area within a 1-mi. radius around the project area. Sites were plotted, site record forms were copied, and citations of cultural resource reports were provided.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) on October 15, 2008. The SLF failed to indicate the presence of any Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC provided a list of local Native American contacts for further information (Table 1). Letters requesting any information on issues of cultural concern were sent to the individuals on the list on October 16, 2008. To date, two letter responses have been received: from Russell Romo on behalf of the San Luis Rey Band, and from Shasta C. Gaughen on behalf of the Pala Band (Appendix A).
Table 1. Native American Contacts
Individual Affiliation Christobal C. Devers Pauma & Yuima Bennae Calac Pauma Valley Band of Luiseño Indians Angela Veltrano Rincon Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Henry Contreras San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen Cupa Cultural Center Russell Romo San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Rob Roy La Jolla Band of Mission Indians Mel Vernon San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
University District Project 19 3. Methods ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
The field survey was performed on October 29-31, 2008. The study area was walked in systematic transects at 20-m intervals. Most of the area had poor surface visibility due to grass cover. Many locations were heavily disturbed by modern uses. In two areas associated with San Marcos Creek – between Johnston Lane and SR-78, and in the northeast portion of Parcel 22114207 – dense vegetation made systematic coverage impossible, and there was no surface visibility.
EXTENDED PHASE I TEST
Limited testing was done to determine the presence or absence of substantial subsurface cultural deposits at sites SDI-17896 and SDI-17897. At each site, four shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated near the bedrock milling outcrops, in locations that appeared to have the best potential to contain cultural deposits. The STPs were 50 x 25 cm in size, excavated in 20-cm levels, and extending to bedrock or compacted clay deposits. All excavated soil was screened through 1-8-in. (3-mm) mesh, and any cultural materials in the deposit were to be collected. Standard STP forms were completed, describing the soil and the results of the excavations. After completed, all STPs were backfilled.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY
An examination of current aerial photographs identified parcels that contained buildings within the study area (Figure 4). County Assessor records were consulted using Realquest.com to confirm construction dates for each structure. Assessor records were not requested for buildings that were clearly of recent construction.
The built environment was surveyed concurrently with the archaeological survey. In the course of the field survey, the survey crew identified specific buildings within the project area.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION
As a result of the initial field survey approximately sixty parcels were identified that according to County Assessor records contained buildings that meet the fifty-year age threshold for eligibility to the CRHR.
In order to assess the eligibility of these buildings to the CRHR, ASM completed field documentation of every building greater than 45 years old, and conducted archival research. The field documentation was completed by Dr. Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin, ASM Principal Investigator and ASM Associates Michelle Dalope and Shelby Gunderman. Each of the parcels
20 University District Project 3. Methods
Figure 4. Parcel map.
University District Project 21
4. Findings that contained buildings constructed prior to 1965 was visited by the survey team. In addition, buildings for which no constructed date was available were also visited. Buildings that appeared greater than 45 years old were also recorded. Photographs were taken of the façade of each building. Since this survey was conducted from the street access was not available to the rear of the buildings.
Archival research for the building evaluations was conducted by Dr. Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin. Historic aerial photographs were examined at the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use and historic maps were examined at the San Diego Historical Society. The San Marcos Historical Society archives were also accessed.
University District Project 23
4. Findings 4. FINDINGS
RECORDS SEARCHES
CHRIS records identified 76 previous cultural resources reports addressing areas within a 1-mi. radius of the project area. San Diego Museum of Man records identified 22 reports. Sixteen of the CHRIS reports included portions of the project’s APE within their scope (Table 2).
Table 2. Previous Archaeological Survey Reports Addressing the APE
Senior Author Date Title Relation to Present APE Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Arrington, included a corridor through the 2006 Finding for the Qwest Network Construction Project, Cindy western portion of the APE State of California Archaeological Reconnaissance of the San Marcos Bissell, included a small area in the 1986 Creek Flood Channel Projects, San Marcos, San Ronald M. northwestern portion of the APE Diego County, California Cultural Resource Reconnaissance in Support of Bissell, included a small area in the 1991 Proposed Flood Control Improvements to San Marcos Ronald M. northwestern portion of the APE Creek within the City of San Diego California Casen, State Route 78 Interchange Improvements at Las included a narrow strip along the 1992 George Posas Road and San Marcos Boulevard northern margin of the APE Dominici, Negative First Addendum, Twin Oaks Valley Road, included a small area in the north- 1983 Debra A. 11-SD-78 P.M. 12.7-13.1 central portion of the APE Cultural Resource Survey of the Oceanside to included a narrow corridor through ERCE 1990 Escondido Rail Project, San Marcos Loop Segment, the eastern portion of the APE San Marcos, California Foster, Management Plan for CDF's Historic Buildings and included all except the eastern 2000 Daniel G. Archaeological Sites extreme of the APE Archaeological Report for Business/Industrial, Gallegos, 1983 Richmar, Lake San Marcos and Barham/ Discovery included the entire APE Dennis R. Community Plan, San Marcos, California Cultural Resource Survey Report for a Portion of the Gallegos, Dennis included a small area in the 2000 San Marcos Creek Flood Channel, San Marcos, R. northwestern portion of the APE California Guerrero, Cultural Resource Test Report for Oceanside- included a small area in the 2001 Monica Escondido Rail Projec,t Oceanside, California northeastern portion of the APE Hector, Archaeology Survey of the Prohoroff Property San included southern portions of the 1985 Susan M. Marcos, California APE An Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric Site CA- Laylander, included a small area in the 2007 SDI-17423 for the San Marcos Creek Project, City of Don northwestern portion of the APE San Marcos, California Michael Draft Environmental Impact Report: San Marco Flood Brandman 1989 included the entire APE Control Channel, San Marcos Creek/Las Posas Reach Associates Cultural/Scientific Resources for the San Diego State Padon, included southern portion of the 1987 University North County Center Master Plan, San Beth APE Diego County, California Robbins-Wade, University Place Due Diligence - Archaeological included an area in the eastern 2005 Mary Survey portion of the APE Wade, Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for University included an area in the central 1992 Sue Center Business Park, City of San Marcos portion of the APE
University District Project 25 4. Findings CHRIS and San Diego Museum of Man records indicated the presence of 59 previously recorded cultural resources within a 1-mi. radius of the project area (Table 3). These included 49 prehistoric sites or isolates: five sites classified as villages, camps, or habitation sites; 16 bedrock milling sites, five of which also contained flaked lithics, groundstone artifacts, ceramics, and/or marine shell; 14 scatters of flaked lithic and/or groundstone artifacts; a flaked lithic quarry; a rockshelter; a rock wall; and seven isolated flaked lithic or ground stone finds. Historic sites included a fire station, five residences, and four refuse deposits, some of them with structural remains. An additional four sites contained both prehistoric remains (milling features and flaked lithics) and historic refuse.
Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
Designations Primary San Diego Approximate Number Trinomial Museum of Distance P-37- CA-SDI- Man W- from APE Contents 000560 560 2009 200 m campsite or village 000749 749 2767 900 m flaked lithic and groundstone scatter 004668 4668 1164 1,600 m flaked lithic scatter 005583 5583 1619 1,000 m flaked lithic scatter 005632 5632 1574 300 m bedrock milling features, flaked lithic scatter, marine shell habitation site with bedrock milling features, hearths, 005641 5641 1556 1,200 m flaked lithics, groundstone, ceramics, bone, marine shell 005642 5642 1620 1,200 m flaked lithic and groundstone scatter 005643 5643 1621 1,300 m two isolated cores 005644 5644 1622 1,300 m flaked lithic scatter 005645 5645 1623 1,400 m flaked lithic scatter 005646 5646 1624 1,500 m flaked lithic scatter bedrock milling features, flaked lithic and groundstone 005647 5647 1556 1,200 m scatter 005648 5648 1557 1,300 m flaked lithic scatter 005649 5649 1558 1,500 m bedrock milling feature, flaked lithic scatter, marine shell 008328 8328 -- 800 m two isolated flakes 008329 8329 -- 1,000 m bedrock milling features 008386 8386 7100 1,100 m bedrock milling features 008720 8720 4757 <100 m bedrock milling feature bedrock milling features, flaked lithic and groundstone 010896 10896 -- 1,000 m scatter 011661 11661 1620 1,200 m flaked lithic scatter, bone 011662 11662 -- 1,100 m rockshelter with charcoal, flaked lithics 011715 11715 4575 1,500 m flaked lithic quarry 011716 11716 4526 1,600 m historic refuse, pad for a structure 011808 11808 4469 500 m bedrock milling features 011809 11809 4470 100 m bedrock milling features 012095 12095 4672 100 m temporary camp with flaked lithic and groundstone
26 University District Project 4. Findings
Designations Primary San Diego Approximate Number Trinomial Museum of Distance P-37- CA-SDI- Man W- from APE Contents prehistoric flaked lithic scatter; historic refuse and rock 012096 12096 4654 800 m wall 012097 12097 4655 100 m bedrock milling features 012098 12098 4656 500 m flaked lithic scatter 012210 12210 4638 1,000 m flaked lithic scatter 012592 12592 4954 900 m bedrock milling features, flaked lithics; historic refuse 012593 12593 4954 800 m bedrock milling features, flaked lithics; historic refuse 012594 12594 4954 700 m historic refuse 012595 12595 4954 700 m bedrock milling features, flaked lithics; historic refuse 012596 12596 4954 1,000 m historic refuse 013742 -- -- 1,400 m three flakes, mano 013743 -- -- 1,500 m historic residential complex 013745 -- -- 1,200 m historic residence 013746 -- -- 1,200 m historic residential complex 014077 14025 6492 1,600 m flaked lithic scatter 014081 -- -- 500 m San Marcos Forest Fire Station 014950 -- -- 1,300 m isolated scraper 015064 -- -- 500 m isolated mano 015578 -- -- 500 m isolated mano 015579 -- -- 600 m isolated mano 015595 14340 271 500 m temporary camp with bedrock milling, flaked lithics 024911 16492 1620 1,300 m flaked lithic and groundstone scatter, bone 025556 16971 -- 1,300 m bedrock milling features 027385 17896 -- within bedrock milling features 027376 17897 -- <100 m bedrock milling feature 027377 17898 -- <100 m historic structural remains and refuse -- -- 271 500 m temporary camp -- -- 2613 800 m rock wall -- -- 2614 1,300 m bedrock milling features -- -- 2615 1,000 bedrock milling features bedrock milling features, flaked lithics, groundstone, -- -- 3533 1,100 ceramics -- -- 3845 700 m two flaked lithic tools -- -- 3846 100 m historic farmhouse -- -- 3849 400 m historic residence
University District Project 27 4. Findings Three archaeological sites within or immediately adjacent to the study area were recorded by Larry Tift and Karen Hovland in 2005 (Appendix B):
• SDI-17896, a single bedrock outcrop with three grinding slicks • SDI-17897, a single bedrock grinding slick • SDI-17898, a 30-x-30 ft. concrete pad with floor tiles, remains of a 3-x-3-x-3-ft. chimney-like structure, and historic/modern debris, including cut bone, round nails, brick, and concrete. Historic maps show the presence of a structure at the location as early as 1942.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
The field survey relocated the three previously recorded archaeological sites (SDI-17896, SDI- 17897, and SDI-17898). It also identified two additional historic-period sites, ASM 12760- A&B and ASM 12760-C (Appendix B). (Official trinomials and primary numbers for these two sites have been requested from the SCIC. It is anticipated that the temporary numbers used here will be replaced in the final version of this report.)
ASM 12760-A&B consists of concrete foundation pads for a post-1945 chicken coop, as well as a concrete drain. ASM 12760-C also consists of concrete foundation pads for a post-1945 chicken coop.
These resources were likely associated with the Prohoroff Poultry Farm. Foundations, are not eligible to the California Register as historic structures. As these structural features are unlikely to be associated with historic deposits no subsurface testing was completed at these sites. They are recommended not eligible to the California Register.
EXTENDED PHASE I TEST RESULTS
Site SDI-17896 was originally recorded as a bedrock milling feature with three milling slicks. A field reexamination determine that none of the surfaces on the outcrop were cultural. However, another outcrop, located about 50 m to the south-southeast of the original outcrop, was found to two milling slicks, and one volcanic flake was also noted on the surface about 10 m west of the outcrop (Figure 5). Four STPs were excavated at this location, reaching bedrock either compact clay deposits (STPs 1-3) or bedrock (STP 4) at depths between 40 and 60 cm below the ground surface (Figure 6; Table 4). No subsurface cultural materials were recovered.
At site SDI-17897, four STPs were excavated, reaching bedrock at 20-40 cm below the ground surface (Figures 7 and 8; Table 5). No subsurface cultural materials were recovered from the STPs.
28 University District Project 4. Findings
Figure 5. View of the newly identified milling outcrop at site SDI-17896, looking southwest.
Table 4. Extended Phase I Testing Results.
Site SDI- STP Maximum Depth Reason for Stopping Cultural Materials Recovered 1 40 cm bedrock none 2 40 cm bedrock none 17896 3 20 cm bedrock none 4 35 cm bedrock none 1 60 cm compact clay deposit none 2 40 cm compact clay deposit none 17897 3 50 cm compact clay deposit none 4 55 cm bedrock none
University District Project 29 4. Findings
Figure 6. Map of Extended Phase I excavations at site SDI-17896.
30 University District Project 4. Findings
Figure 7. Overview of site SDI-17897, looking east.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURVEY RESULTS
The project area includes large parcels of undeveloped land west of Twin Oaks Valley Road. A cluster of greenhouse/light industrial buildings is located north and south of Discovery Street. Residential development is located to the east and west of Twin Oaks Valley Road, on Terrier Way, Shubin Lane, Bolotin Lane, Discovery Street and Barham Drive. North of State Route 78, in the project area for the proposed flyover, residential development is located on both sides of Johnson Drive. Light industrial development is concentrated in the eastern portion of the project area, north of Barham Drive on Redel Road and Industrial Street. Development in this area is recent.
County Assessor records were accessed for 103 parcels. Construction dates were available for 76 parcels. These ranged from 1925 to 2003. A total of 59 parcels within the project area contained buildings that were constructed before 1965. Construction dates were not available for 27 parcels.
University District Project 31 4. Findings
Figure 8. Map of Extended Phase I excavations at site SDI-17897.
32 University District Project 4. Findings Following the initial survey a more intensive parcel-by-parcel survey was completed to identify and record all buildings constructed prior to 1965. While the age threshold for eligibility for the California Register is 50 years, a threshold of 45 years was used for this evaluation to allow for the passage of time from project initiation to completion.
A total of 54 buildings constructed prior to 1965 was recorded within the project area. County Assessor records indicated that an additional ten parcels contained buildings constructed before 1965. The survey crew visited each of these parcels but determined that they are now vacant lots. In two cases houses had been recently demolished.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the field inventory. The dates of construction for the buildings were derived from Realquest.com which has access to building data from the County Assessor’s office. Where an exact year is not provided for construction, the date of construction has been estimated based on the style of architecture and comparison to nearby houses that do have confirmed construction dates. Photographs, descriptions of each of the buildings and assessment of eligibility are provided in the DPR forms in Appendix C.
The oldest extant building in the project area was constructed in 1942. Five buildings were constructed in the 1940s, 33 were constructed in the 1950s and 16 were constructed between 1960 and 1965. The houses constructed during the 1940s were isolated houses scattered on Discovery Street, Shubin Lane, S. Twin Oaks Valley Road, Carmel Street, Myrtle Avenue and Bolotin Lane. These houses were Vernacular style wood frame houses with wooden siding. From the late 1940s houses being constructed in the project area were predominantly of the Minimal Traditional style. The Minimal Traditional style developed during the Great Depression and houses in this style were built in great numbers after World War II. The style is characterized by a lack of decorative detailing, low pitch roofs, close eaves, a front facing gable in many cases and prominent chimney. The style developed largely from the preceding Tudor-inspired cottage. They often feature the use of a variety of cladding materials including wood, brick and stone facing (Mc Alester and McAlester 2000:478). From the late 1950s some Ranch style houses and Split Level houses were constructed in the project area. However, Minimal Traditional style houses continued to be built in to the 1960s.
Houses constructed in the 1940s and 1950s in the vicinity of Shubin Lane, Bolotin Lane, Myrtle Avenue and Twin Oaks Valley Road were associated with the Prohoroff Poultry Farm. In the late 1950s Terenty Prohorhoff and his son John sponsored a group of Molokan Christians who had lost their land lease in the Guadalupe Valley in Mexico to migrate to the U.S. and to work on the poultry farm. Houses were constructed on Subin Lane, Bolotin Lane, Myrtle Avenue and Twin Oaks Valley Road to accommodate the new settlers who worked on the Prohoroff poultry farm. A new church, now located at 124 S. Twin Oaks Valley Road) was also constructed for the newly expanded Molokan community. This was built using volunteer labor (Kathy Shubin, personal communication).
Only 11 houses were constructed in the project area before 1958. From 1958 there was a surge in house construction. This surge included the houses constructed for the Prohoroff Poultry Farm workers and the houses constructed on Johnston Lane north of SR 78. Forty houses were constructed between 1958 and 1960.
University District Project 33 4. Findings Table 5. Parcels With Structures in the Study Area.
Eligibility Parcel APN Address Date Use Style Recommendations 22110059 125 Shubin Lane 1925 Residential Demolished -- 22110032 172 Discovery Street 1942 Residential Vernacular Not eligible 22111042 123 S Twin Oaks Valley Road 1942 Residential Vernacular Not eligible 22020102 337 E Carmel Street 1944 Residential Vernacular Not eligible 22110064 150 Bolotin Lane 1948 Residential Demolished -- 22110068 174 Shubin Lane 1948 Residential Vernacular Not eligible 22110021 260 South Twin Oaks Valley Road 1949 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110042 Myrtle Ave W 1949 Vacant Lot - - -- 22110057 185 Shubin Lane 1950 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018111 148 Johnston Lane 1953 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018115 120-122 Johnston Lane 1953 Duplex Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22111009 207 Twin Oaks Valley Road 1953 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22111010 215 S Twin Oaks Valley Road 1953 Vacant lot -- -- 22110025 209 Shubin Lane 1954 Residential Minimal Traditional/ Vernacular Not eligible 22110040 164 Shubin Lane 1954 Residential Vernacular Not eligible 22018113 138 Johnston Lane 1956 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110070 124 S Twin Oaks Valley Road ~1958 Church Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018126 129 Johnston Lane 1958 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22111012 128 Myrtle Ave E 1958 Vacant Lot -- -- 22111017 134 Myrtle Ave 1958 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22111018 140 Myrtle Ave E 1958 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22111022 156 E Barham Drive 1958 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible
34 University District Project 4. Findings
Eligibility Parcel APN Address Date Use Style Recommendations 22111023 166 Myrtle Ave E 1958 Residential California Ranch Not eligible 22111028 233 S Twin Oaks Valley Road 1958 Vacant Lot -- -- 22018112 144 Johnston Lane 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018114 128 Johnston Lane 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018116 116 Johnston Lane 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018118 108 Johnston Lane 1959 Residential Split Level Not eligible 22018122 153-155 Johnston Lane 1959 Duplex Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018128 119-123 Johnston Lane 1959 Duplex Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018130 107 Johnston Lane 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional/ Ranch Not eligible 22018135 316 Discovery Drive 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018136 320 Discovery Street 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018137 326 Discovery Street 1959 Residential Vernacular Not eligible 22020025 302 Barham Drive 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22020074 318 East Barham Drive 1959 Residential Split Level Not eligible 22020075 308 Barham Drive 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22108025 Discovery Street 1959 Vacant Lot -- -- 22110037 118 Bolotin Lane 1959 Residential Ranch Not eligible 22110054 140 Bolotin Lane 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110071 108 N Bolotin Lane 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110072 130 South Twin Oaks Valley Road 1959 Residential -- -- 22111024 148 E Barham Drive 1959 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110061 129 Shubin Lane 1959/1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110038 128 Bolotin Lane ~1950s Multi-Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110056 134 Barham Drive ~1950s Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible
University District Project 35 4. Findings
Eligibility Parcel APN Address Date Use Style Recommendations 22018120 187 Johnston Lane 1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018109 162 Johnston Lane 1960 Multi-Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22018129 113 Johnston Lane 1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110043 179 Shubin Lane 1960 Residential Ranch Not eligible 22110044 169 Shubin Lane 1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110045 167 Shubin Lane 1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110047 157 Shubin Lane 1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110048 147 Shubin Lane 1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22110058 199 Shubin Lane 1960 Residential Vernacular Not eligible 22110060 137 Shubin Lane 1960 Vacant Lot -- -- 22110066 136 Shubin Lane 1960 Residential Minimal traditional Not eligible 22111031 160 E Barham Drive 1960 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22020056 294 Barham Drive 1960/1985 Medical Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22108015 413 Discovery Street 1961 Residential Ranch Not eligible 22111016 142 E Barham Drive 1962 Residential Minimal Traditional Not eligible 22111033 116 Myrtle Ave E 1964 Residential Ranch Not eligible 22111044 115 S Twin Oaks Valley Road 1964 Vacant Lot -- -- 22017011 404 Discovery Street 1965 Office Utilitarian Not eligible
36 University District Project 5. Management Considerations 5. RESOURCE EVALUATION
The primary goal of this study was to identify cultural resources that have the potential to be adversely affected by future development plans, and to provide an evaluation of resources identified for eligibility to the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register). The survey accomplished these goals in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other applicable federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies.
THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the California Register criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources (PRC § 21084.1, 14 CCR § 15064.5(3)). Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired.
The California Register includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be significant resources unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.
Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR, cited as Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852, consisting of the following:
(A) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or (B) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or (C) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
University District Project 37 4. Findings ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Sites SDI-17896 and SDI-17897 have been evaluated in this report through Extended Phase I testing. Neither site was found to contain a subsurface cultural deposit, and neither appears to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. (Native American monitor Cami Mojado noted that it was nonetheless possible that subsurface cultural deposits might exist, and she recommended construction monitoring at the sites.)
Surface visibility during the archaeological field survey was generally poor. Many portions of the study area have at least a moderate potential to contain obscured or buried archaeological deposits. Accordingly, archaeological monitoring is recommended during initial grading for development projects, and the need for further monitoring should be assessed on the basis of the conditions observed during this initial monitoring.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
The buildings within the project area (see Table 4) are recommended not eligible to the California Register as they fail to meet any of the criteria for eligibility outlined above. Research conducted at the San Marcos Historical Society and at the San Diego Historical Society failed to identify any association between the buildings within the project area and significant events in the history of San Marcos or the broader region and none of the houses was associated with people important to the history of San Marcos or the broader region. They are therefore not eligible under criteria A and B. These modest single-family homes designed in the Minimal Traditional style are characterized by simple design, modest scale and lack of architectural detailing. They are representative of the low-cost, mass-produced housing that was constructed in San Diego County to accommodate a rapidly growing population in the 1950s and 1960s. As such, they lack architectural distinction and do not qualify for listing under Criterion C. Criterion D is generally not applicable to historic buildings. The former Molokan Church, located at 124 S. Twin Oaks Valley Road is also recommended not eligible to the California Register as it also lacks architectural distinction.
As no historic or cultural resources eligible to the California Register were identified within the project area, the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to cultural or historic properties.
38 References REFERENCES
Anderson, R. Scott 1996 Pollen Analysis from Las Flores Creek, Camp Pendleton Marine Base, San Diego County. In Coastal Archaeology of Las Flores Creek and Horno Canyon, Camp Pendleton, California, edited by Brian F. Byrd. ASM Affiliates, Inc., Encinitas, California.
Anderson, R. S., and B. F. Byrd 1998 Late-Holocene Vegetation Changes From the Las Flores Creek Coastal Lowlands, San Diego County, California. Madrono 45:171-182.
Bada, Jeffrey, Roy Schroeder, and George Carter 1974 New Evidence for the Antiquity of Man in North America Deduced from Aspartic Acid Racemization. Science 184:791-793.
Bean, Lowell J., and Harry W. Lawton 1976 Some Explanations for the Rise of Cultural Complexity in Native California with Comments on Proto-Agriculture and Agriculture. In Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective, edited by L. J. Bean and T. C. Blackburn, pp. 7-30. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseno. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Blackburn, Thomas C., and Kat Anderson (eds.) 1993 Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
Bowman, Roy H. 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Bull, Charles S. 1981 Another Look at an Old Lagoon. In Geologic Investigations of the Coastal Plain, edited by Patrick L. Abbott and Shannon O’Dunn, pp. 25-32. San Diego Association of Geologists, San Diego. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito – La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos, pp. 35- 42. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. San Diego.
University District Project 39 References Bull, C. S., and R. H. Norwood 1977 The Archaeology of Villa La Cumbre: Results of Testing Three Archaeological Sites at Batiquitos Lagoon. RECON, San Diego.
Byrd, Brian F. 1998 Harvesting the Littoral Landscape during the Late Holocene: New Perspectives from Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20:195-218.
Byrd, B. F., O. K. Davis, and K. O. Pope 2000 Diachronic Trends in Human Adaptation: Reconstructing a 9000 Year Paleoenvironmental Record for the Lower Las Flores Creek on Camp Pendleton. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for California Archaeology.
Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab 2007 Prehistory of the Souther Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215-227. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Carrico, Richard L. 1976 Results of the Archaeological Test Excavations at the Los Compadres Site (W- 578). WESTEC Services, San Diego. 1977 Portola’s 1769 Expedition and Coastal Native Villages of San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:30-41. 2008 Ethnohistory. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study, pp. 215-240. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Carter, George 1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in the Americas. Texas A&M University, College Station.
Christenson, Lynne E. 1990 The Late Prehistoric Yuman People of San Diego County, California: Their Settlement and Subsistence System. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1992 The Late Prehistoric Yuman Settlement and Subsistence System: Coastal Adaptation. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, pp. 217-230. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications No. 10. Davis, California.
City of San Marcos 2004 History of San Marcos. http://www.ci.san-marcos.ca.us/departments.asp
40 University District Project References Cole, K. L., and E. Wahl 2000 A Late Holocene Paleoecological Record from Torrey Pines State Reserve, California. Quaternary Research 53:341-351.
Crabtree, Robert H., Claude N. Warren, and D. L. True. 1963 Archaeological Investigations at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962-1963:407-438. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Davis, O. K. 1992 Rapid Climatic Change in Coastal Southern California Inferred from Pollen Analysis of San Joaquin Marsh. Quaternary Research 37:89-100.
Emery, K. O. 1967 Estuaries and Lagoons in Relation to Continental Shelves. In Estuaries, edited by G. H. Lauff, pp. 9-14. American Association for the Advancement of Science Publication No. 83. Washington, D.C.
Erlandson, Jon, and Roger Colten 1991 An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies on the California Coast. In Hunter Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 1-10. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Ezell, Paul 1983 A New Look at the San Dieguito Culture. San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 1(3):103-109. 1987 The Harris Site – An Atypical San Dieguito Site or Am I Beating a Dead Horse? In San Dieguito – La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos, pp. 15-22. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. San Diego.
Gallegos, Dennis R. 1985 Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1):1-13. Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito – La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. 1992 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years Ago. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by
University District Project 41 References Terry L. Jones, pp. 205-216. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications No. 10. Davis, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R., and Carolyn Kyle 1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164), San Diego. WESTEC Services, San Diego.
Golla, Victor 2007 California Archaeology and Prehistory after Moratto: Linguistic Prehistory. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 71-82. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Griffin, Ernst C., and John R. Weeks 2004 Peopling the Region: San Diego’s Population Patterns. In San Diego: An Introduction to the Region, by Philip R. Pryde, pp. 75-90. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego.
Griset, Suzanne 1996 Southern California Brown Ware. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Hale, Micah J. 2006 Cultural Resources Inventory for the San Marcos Creek Spa Project, City of San Marcos, California. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Hicks, Frederic 1963 Ecological Aspects of Aboriginal Culture in the Western Yuman Area. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Hubbs, Carl L., George S. Bien, and Hans E. Suess 1962 La Jolla Natural Radiocarbon Measurements II. Radiocarbon 4:204-238.
Ingram, L. B., J. C. Engle, and M. E. Conrad 1996 Stable Isotope Record of Late Holocene Salinity and River Discharge in San Francisco Bay, California. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 141:237-247.
Inman, D. L. 1983 Application of Coastal Dynamics to the Reconstruction of Paleocoastlines in the Vicinity of La Jolla, California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, edited by P. M. Masters and N. C. Flemming, pp. 1-49. Academic Press, New York.
42 University District Project References Johnson, John, and Dinah Crawford 1999 Contributions to Luiseño Ethnohistory Based on Mission Register Research. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(2/3).
Jones, Terry L. (editor) 1992 Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications No. 10. Davis, California.
Jones, Terry L., and Kathryn A. Klar (editors) 2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Kern, Philip 1995 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Geomorphology of San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks. In Archaeological Testing Along San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks, Northwestern Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California, edited by Brian F. Byrd, Drew Pallette, and Carol Serr. Brian F. Mooney Associates, San Diego.
Kline, George E., and Victoria L. Kline 2007 Fluted Point Recovered from San Diego County Excavation. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:55-59.
Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indian of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Laylander, Don 2007a An Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-17423 for the San Marcos Creek Project, City Of San Marcos, California. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California. 2007b Linguistic Prehistory and the Archaic-Late Transition in the Colorado Desert. Paper presented at the Conference on the Archaic-Late Transition in the Colorado Desert, Borrego Springs, California. 2007 Linguistic Prehistory and the Archaic-Late Transition in the Colorado Desert. Paper presented at the Conference on the Archaic-Late Transition in the Colorado Desert, Borrego Springs, California.
Luomala, Katharine 1976 Flexibility in Sib Affiliation among the Diegueno. In Native Californians: A Theoretical Retrospective, edited by Lowell John Bean, and Thomas C. Blackburn, pp. 245-270. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico.
University District Project 43 References 1978 Tipai and Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
MacPhail, Elizabeth 1979 The Story of New San Diego and Its Founder Alonzo E. Horton. Second edition. San Diego Historical Society.
Masters, Patricia M. 1988 Paleo-environmental Reconstruction of San Diego Bay, 10,000 years PB to Present. In Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos and Carolyn Kyle. WESTEC Services, San Diego. 1994 Paleo-environmental Reconstruction of the Lower San Luis Rey Valley, 20,000 to 3,000 Years B.P. In Archaeological Investigations at Five Sites on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California: Final Report, edited by Michael J. Moratto, pp. A1-A19. Applied EarthWorks, Fresno, California.
Masters, Patricia M., and Dennis R. Gallegos 1997 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County during the Middle Holocene. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 11-22. Perspectives in California Archaeology No. 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
McArthur, Davis S. 2004 Building the Region: The Geologic Forces that Shape San Diego County. In San Diego: An Introduction to the Region, by Philip R. Pryde, pp. 75-90. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego.
McDonald, Meg, and James D. Eighmey 2008 Late Period Prehistory in San Diego. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study, pp. 109-169. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Meighan, Clement W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227. 1959 California Cultures and the Concept of an Archaic Stage. American Antiquity 24:289-305.
Meltzer, David J. 1993 Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas. Evolutionary Anthropology 1(5):157-168.
44 University District Project References Miller, Jacqueline 1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. Moratto, Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Moyer, Cecil 1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego, edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union Tribune, San Diego.
Mudie, Peta J., Bruce Browning, and John Speth 1974 The Natural Resources of Los Penasquitos Lagoon. Coastal Wetlands Series No. 775. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Mudie, P. J., and R. Byrne 1980 Pollen Evidence for Historic Sedimentation Rates in California Coastal Marshes. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 10:305-316.
Muhs, D. R., R. M. Thorson, J. J. Clague, W. H. Mathews, P. F. McDowell, and H. M. Kelsey 1987 Pacific Coast and Mountain System. In Geomorphic Systems of North America, edited by W. Graf, pp. 517-581. Geological Society of America Centennial Special Vol. 2. Boulder, Colorado.
Nardin, T. R., R. H. Osborne, D. J. Bottjer, and R. C. Scheidemann, Jr. 1981 Holocene Sea-level Curves for Santa Monica Shelf, California Continental Borderland. Science 213:331-333.
Orme, A. R. 1993 A Geological Assessment of the Study Area. In Whelan Lake (CA-SDI-6010): A La Jollan Campsite on the Lower San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California, edited by R. Vanderpot, J. H. Altschul, and D. R. Grenda, pp. 18- 23. Statistical Research, Tucson, Arizona.
Oxendine, Joan 1983 The Luiseño Village during the Late Prehistoric Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
Pourade, Richard F. 1961 The History of San Diego: Time of the Bells. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1964 The Glory Years. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
University District Project 45 References 1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Preston, William L. 2002 Portents of Plague from California’s Protohistoric Period. Ethnohistory 49:69- 121.
Pryde, Philip R. 2004 The Nature of the County: San Diego’s Climate, Soils, Vegetation, and Wildlife. In San Diego: An Introduction to the Region, by Philip R. Pryde, pp. 31-51. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego.
Robinson, W. W. 1942 The Southern California Real Estate Boom of the Twenties. Southern California Quarterly 24:23-28.
Rogers, Malcolm J. 1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist 31:454- 467. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3. San Diego. 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167- 198. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego.
Rondeau, Michael F., Jim Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones 2007 Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the San Clemente Island Woodworking/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 63-70. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Rossi, Vincent Nicholas 2007 Poultry Production Profited Plucky Prohoroffs. San Diego Union Tribune, July 22, 2007.
Schaefer, Jerry, and Stephen R. Van Wormer 1998 Historic Period. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. ASM Affiliates. Prepared for the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater/Public Works Department.
Shipek, Florence C. 1982 Kumeyaay Socio-Political Structure. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:2.
46 University District Project References Shubin, Kathy 2009 Telephone interview with Kathy Shubin, daughter of Jacob Prohoroff and granddaughter of Terenty Prohoroff.
Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty, III 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jolla Site Dated 5460 to 7370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93:37- 132.
Smith, Brian F., and James R. Moriarty, III 1985 The Archaeological Excavations at Site W-20, Sierra Del Mar: A Site Occupied by the La Jolla Complex from 7,140 B.P. (5,190 B.C.) to 2,355 B.P. (400 B.C.) on the Shores of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, near Del Mar, California. Brian F. Smith Associates, San Diego.
Sparkman, Phillip 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:188-234. Berkeley.
Spier, Leslie 1923 Southern Diegueno Customs. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20:295-358. Berkeley.
Taylor, R., L. Payen, C. Prior, P. Slota, R. Gillespie, J. Gowlett, R. Hedges, A. Hull, T. Zabel, D. Donahue, and R. Berger 1985 Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older Than 11,000 C14 Years B.P. American Antiquity 50:136-140.
True, Delbert L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23:255-263. 1966 Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monographs No. 1. University of California, Los Angeles. 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1-39. 1993 Bedrock Milling Elements as Indicators of Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in Northern San Diego County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(2):1-26.
University District Project 47 References True, Delbert L., and Eleanor Beemer 1982 Two Milling Stone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:233-261.
True, Delbert L., Clement Meighan, and Harvey Crew 1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology No. 11. Berkeley.
True, Delbert L, and Rosemary Pankey 1985 Radiocarbon Dates for the Pauma Complex Component at the Pankey Site, Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7:240-244.
True, Delbert L., Rosemary Pankey, and C. N. Warren 1991 Tom-Kav a Late Village Site in Northern San Diego County, California, and Its Place in the San Luis Rey Complex. Anthropological Records No. 30. University of California, Berkeley.
True, Delbert L., and Georgie Waugh 1982 Proposed Settlement Shifts During San Luis Rey Times, Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:34-54. 1983 Radiocarbon Determinations from the Frey Creek Drainage in Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 5:253-255.
Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
Warren, Claude N. 1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers No. 5. San Diego. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin- Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales. 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In San Dieguito – La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis R. Gallegos, pp. 73-85. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. San Diego.
48 University District Project References Warren, Claude N., and M. G. Pavesic 1963 Shell Midden Analysis of SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962-1963:407-438. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Warren, Claude, Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittner 2008 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study, pp. 13-107. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Warren, Claude N., Delbert L. True and Ardith A. Eudey 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961:1-106. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Waters, Michael R. 1996a Geoarchaeological Investigations at Horno Canyon and Las Flores Creek on Camp Pendleton. In Coastal Archaeology of Las Flores Creek and Horno Canyon, Camp Pendleton, California, edited by Brian F. Byrd, pp. 47-56. ASM Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1996b Geoarchaeological Investigations along San Mateo Creek. In Archaeological Testing in Between and Adjacent to CA-SDI-13,325, and CA-SDI-13,324 along San Mateo Creek, Northwestern Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California, by Seetha N. Reddy, Barbara J. Giacomini, and Carol Serr. ASM Affiliates, Encinitas, California.
White, Raymond C. 1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48:91-194. Berkeley.
Winterrowd, Cathy, and Florence C. Shipek 1986 Ethnographic Investigation: Pala Sand and Gravel Extraction Project. RBR and Associates, San Diego.
University District Project 49 Appendices
References Anderson 1996...... 8 Anderson and Byrd 1998 ...... 8 Bada et al. 1974 ...... 9 Bean and Florence C. Shipek (1978 ...... 13 Bean and Lawton 1976...... 13 Bean and Shipek 1978...... 12, 13, 14 Blackburn and Anderson 1993...... 13 Bowman 1973...... 7 Bull 1981 ...... 10, 11 Bull 1987 ...... 12 Bull and Norwood 1977...... 10 Byrd 1998 ...... 10, 11 Byrd and Raab 2007 ...... 9 Byrd et al. 2000 ...... 8 Carrico 1976 ...... 10 Carrico 1977 ...... 14 Carrico 2008 ...... 12 Carter 1980...... 9 Christenson 1990...... 11 Christenson 1992...... 10 Cole and Wahl 2000 ...... 8 Crabtree et al. 1963...... 10 Davis 1992 ...... 8 Emery 1967 ...... 8 Erlandson and Colten 1991...... 9 Gallegos 1985, 1987, 1992...... 10 Gallegos 1987, 1992...... 10 Gallegos 1992...... 8, 10 Gallegos and Kyle 1988...... 10 Golla 2007...... 11 Griffin and Weeks 2004...... 15 Griset 1996 ...... 11 Hale 2006...... 7 Hicks 1963 ...... 14 Hubbs et al. 1962 ...... 8, 11 Ingram et al. 1996 ...... 8 Inman 1983...... 7 Johnson and Crawford 1999...... 13 Jones 1992...... 9 Jones and Klar 2007 ...... 9 Kern 1995 ...... 7 Kline and Kline 2007 ...... 9 Kroeber (1925 ...... 11
University District Project References Kroeber 1925 ...... 12, 13 Laylander 2007a...... 7 Laylander 2007b ...... 11 Luomala 1976...... 14 Luomala 1978)...... 12 Masters (1988, 1994...... 8 Masters 1994...... 7 Masters and Gallegos 1997...... 8, 10 McArthur 2004 ...... 7 McDonald and Eighmey 2008 ...... 11 Meighan (1954...... 12 Meighan 1954...... 11, 12 Meltzer 1993...... 9 Miller 1966...... 10 Miller's (1966...... 8 Moratto 1984...... 9, 10, 11 Moyer 1969 ...... 14 Mudie and Byrne 1980 ...... 8 Mudie et al. 1974 ...... 8 Muhs et al. 1987 ...... 7 Nardin et al. 1981...... 7 Orme 1993 ...... 7 Oxendine (1983...... 13 Oxendine 1983:...... 13 Oxendine 1983;...... 13 Preston 2002 ...... 14 Pryde 2004: ...... 7 Robinson 1942...... 15 Rogers (1929...... 11 Rogers (1939, 1945...... 9 Rogers 1929...... 10 Rogers 1945...... 11, 12 Rogers 1966...... 10 Rondeau et al. 2007...... 9 Shipek 1982 ...... 14 Shipek 1986 ...... 13 Shumway et al. 1961 ...... 8, 10, 11 Smith and Moriarty 1985 ...... 11 Sparkman 1908)...... 13 Spier 1923 ...... 14 Taylor et al. 1985 ...... 9 True (1993...... 12 True 1958, 1980...... 11 True 1966...... 11, 12
58 University District Project Appendices True 1966, 1970...... 12 True and Beemer 1982 ...... 11 True and his associates (1974...... 13 True and Pankey 1985 ...... 11 True and Waugh 1982, 1983...... 12 True et al. 1974, 1991 ...... 12 Wallace 1955...... 12 Warren 1964 ...... 8 Warren 1964, 1968 ...... 10, 11, 12 Warren 1967 ...... 9 Warren 1968 ...... 10, 11 Warren 1987 ...... 9 Warren and his associates (1961 ...... 10 Warren and Pavesic 1963...... 10 Warren et al. 1961 ...... 8, 10, 11 Warren et al. 2008 ...... 9, 10, 11 Waters 1996a ...... 8 Waters 1996a, 1996b ...... 7 White (1963 ...... 13 White 1963 ...... 13
University District Project Appendices
APPENDICES
University District Project 51 Appendices
APPENDIX A
Native American Responses
University District Project
Appendices
APPENDIX B
Confidential Site Records and Map
University District Project