CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Blanks, Game Pieces, or Sacred Relics?

The Discoidals of Coastal San Diego County

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology,

Public Archaeology

By

Joseph D. Woods

August 2019

The thesis of Joseph D. Woods is approved:

______Wendy Teeter, Ph.D. Date

______Matthew Des Lauriers, Ph.D. Date

______James Snead, Ph.D., Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

ii Acknowledgements

During the process of writing this thesis, there are many individuals and organizations I would like to thank and acknowledge. I would like to begin with my wife because without her, I would not be here. My committee, whose advice and support was extraordinary. Statistical Research, Inc., Donn, Janet, James, Angela, Scott, and Patrick, whose efforts continued to push me to finish. My parent whose gave me an innate curiosity. The San Diego Archaeological Center and Jessica, who gave me the access to the discoidals and wiliness to help. The Camp Pendleton Cultural Resource Division,

Danielle, Kelli, Nina, and Scott, who introduced me to discoidals and were always available to assist and support me. And everyone else who pushed and encouraged me to continue to learn and become a better person.

iii Table of Contents

Signature Page ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables v List of Figures vi List of Photos vii Abstract viii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Issue 1 Problem 2 Strategy 3 Chapter 2: Research Context 5 Chronology 5 Ethnohistoric 9 Previous studies of discoidals 9 Status of existing data/collections 11 Chapter 3: Research Design 12 Theoretical Approach 12 Methodology 13 Chapter 4: Data Presentation 25 Chapter 5: Analysis 40 Chapter 6: Discussion 51 Conclusion 54 References 47 Appendices 63 Appendix A – Tables 64 Appendix B – Figures 70 Appendix C – Photos 76

iv List of Tables

Table Page

1. Quantity of right discoidals by form type. 34 2. Quantity of right discoidals by form type per site. 34 3. Artifact form with complete inventory of all sites and discoidals 35 sampled. 4. The diameter and thickness in centimeters for each discoidal sampled. 42 5. The diameter and thickness ratio in centimeters of each discoidal 43 sampled. 6. The weight of each discoidal sampled in grams. 43

v List of Figures

Figure Page 1. Revised Chronology for San Diego County (Gallegos 2017) 7 2. Discoidal Taxonomic Descriptions (Koerper and Cramer 2010) 17 3. A map of the distribution of sites containing Right Discoidals 26 across San Diego County. 4. Locational Map of the distribution of sites with positive results 37 for Right discoidals studied in this research. 5. Location of sites with radiocarbon dates with other sites indicated 38 with a red dot. 6. A map of the distribution of sites containing discoidals across San 26 Diego County.

vi List of Photos

Photo Page 1. A discoidal from CA-SDI-1313/14791 in a side view. 28 2. A discoidal from CA-SDI-14626 in dorsal view. 31 3. Right discoidal (CP 119 #63) from CA-SDI-1313/14791 in 45 dorsal view. 4. Right discoidal (SDAC 443 #77) from CA-SDI-11057 in dorsal view. 46 5. Right discoidal (SDAC 616 #18) from CA-SDI-12155 in side view. 47

vii Abstract

Blanks, Game Pieces, or Sacred Relics?

The Discoidals of Coastal San Diego County

By

Joseph D. Woods

Master of Arts in Anthropology, Public Archaeology

This thesis is designed to organize, analyze, and evaluate the archaeological data on the category of artifact known as “discoidals,” specifically the right discoidal, from the latest to the earliest survey, excavation, evaluation, and report. The data will be organized spatially, temporally, and by form. The spatial analysis of the data will add to the extent of the distribution of this artifact, thus plotting the influence of technology. The temporal analysis will show an origin of this specific cultural material and to observe any technological change over time. The analysis of the form of the discoidal will establish an inventory and a standard of the recorded attributes to create a dataset that can be used to

viii identify new problems. This holistic analysis of the data will allow for the evaluation of this ground stone technology to understand the possible function of the discoidal.

How far did this technology reach through across the area? Was this more hunter- gather culture becoming more sedentary? Did this cultural phenomenon travel from the north to the south, vive-versa, or spread from a specific point along the coast? Why did the discoidal lose functionality over time? What is the significance of the discoidal’s form?

ix Chapter 1: Introduction

Issue

Archaeologists working in California on the history of indigenous peoples face many interpretive challenges. Despite the resilience of cultural traditions across the colonial era, much knowledge was lost. Material culture studies are thus essential to understanding this legacy. The archaeological record itself is rich, comprised of ephemeral house pits, hearths and fire effected rocks, faunal bones and shell middens, human burials, fishing technologies, stone and shell beads, and traditions of flaked stone and ground stone manufacturing. But much of this material remains poorly documented and understood.

Ground stones are some of the first real technologies created by humans, along with flaked stones, so their importance to the archaeological record are invaluable and they represent a particularly important area of investigation. Ground stone technologies developed through a need to grind seeds or other food items. Ground stones can be defined as “any stone item that is primarily manufactured through mechanisms of abrasion, polish, or impaction or is itself used to grind, abrade, polish, or impact (Adams

2014). Differences in the type of ground stone can suggest functional aspects of archaeological sites, such as, the presence of scrapers indicating processing of food and clothing. The distinction of ground stone artifacts within a habitation site can indicate different activity areas. Categories such as, “informal” vs. “formal” tools (Adrefsky

1994) may reflect patterns of mobility. Information about subsistence strategies can be gleaned from groundstone analysis (Odell 2003). By understanding discoidals, a new perception can be gleaned about those that manufactured and used them.

1 Problem

One particular “mystery” present in California assemblages is the tool type called a “discoidal”(Eberhart 1961). A discoidal is defined as a groundstone artifact, usually an igneous or metavolcanic cobble, which has been shaped and polished into a disc. Several different types of discoidal forms that have been recorded. Some are referred to as cogstones, because they resemble a mechanical gear cog. Others are called doughnut stones for similar reasons. The discoidals discussed here date to the Middle Archaic

Phase II, from 7,500 B.P. to 3,500 B.P. (Gallegos 2017); they are the right discoidal and are nearly perfectly circular in form with flat, convex, or concaved lateral sides and the vertical side are flat or convexed, with a diameter to thickness ratio of 1:3 to 1:4. They are typically polished and described to have no use marks evident.

Such right discoidals are a regular feature of archaeological sites in southern

Orange and Northern San Diego counties, but their function remains unknown. They are associated with the Millingstone Horizon (Wallace 1955) or the Encinitas Tradition

(Warren 1968); however, for this research I will be using the latest chronology by

Gallegos 2017, which refers to this time period as the Middle Archaic Phase II and dates to 7,500 B.P to 3,500 B.P. Recovered assemblages from the Middle Archaic Phase II include hammerstones, cutting tools, scraping tools, crude chopping tools, groundstone, and large projectile points (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984; Gallegos 2017; Wallace

1954,1955; Warren 1968). In this context, discoidals are a distinctive element and used as a relative dating component.

There is, however, no commonly-shared interpretation of discoidal function. The

Middle Archaic Phase II is characterized by changes in settlement and subsistence

2 strategies, which shift from “small, family-based groups to larger, multifamily groups”

(Altschul and Grenda 2002). Within this context, the significant time expenditure required to manufacture discoidals is potentially significant, implying possible ritual significance or use as items of trade/exchange. Such inferences have, however, proved difficult to evaluate.

Strategy

An opportunity to reevaluate the issue of discoidals has been provided by the large-scale mitigation activity conducted in recent years in southern Orange

County/Northern San Diego County. In the process a large number of discoidals have been recorded in well-documented localities, significantly expanding our sample of these artifacts in good contexts. Comparative analysis of these artifacts is increasingly possible.

Better information about their spatial and temporal distribution can be augmented by additional formal/functional analysis provides an opportunity for more quantitative evaluation.

This analysis will include geospatial documentation to create a more complete map of the distribution of sites associated with the Encinitas Tradition and their topographical /environmental associations.

Formal analysis and inventory of a sample of right discoidals will complement this evidence and clarify their physical characteristics. Important variables include dimensions, the form of the lateral and vertical surfaces of the discoidals, and the material used. Use and wear mark analysis will consist of a microscopic examination of the source of the discoidal to identify scratch or polishing direction, thus addressing the question of use marks. The manufacturing process will also be examined to better understand the

3 effort involved in to create a discoidal from a cobble. Adding this new spatial, temporal and formal analysis to the debate over discoidals will provide new insights into their function.

4 Chapter 2: Research Context

Chronology

Whether by land or sea, the prehistory of California begins with the peopling of the Americas. The ice bridge during the Younger Dryas allowed the access to Alaska from Siberia and eventually into California. The first inhabitants of California found a rich and diverse landscape, which gave rise to rich and diverse cultures. Language, social organization, and customs differed greatly from northern California to southern

California. This diversity presents itself in the archaeological record, which in turn informs the chronology of the area. Even when looking specifically at the chronology of

Southern California, many interpretations are seen.

The chronology of prehistoric Southern California has several iterations. William

J. Wallace constructed an early chronology of Southern California in 1955. The article attempted to create a sequence from Point Conception in the north to the Mexico border in the south. He placed several different traditions, local cultural groups, into four temporal stages or Horizons: Horizon I. Early Man, Horizon II. Millingstone

Assemblages, Horizon II. Intermediate Cultures, and Horizon IV. Late Prehistoric

Cultures. As, Wallace used relative dating to create his chronology overlap occurs in his assessment.

The first horizon Wallace discusses in his article is Horizon I. Early Man. The cultural tradition associated with San Diego County is the San Dieguito Tradition. This tradition is represented by “a distinctive and widespread chipped stone industry distributed from the Pacific shores to the Colorado River and beyond” (Wallace 1955).

The sites are usually found on hilltops and only worked stone is found. The

5 representative assemblages of this tradition are made of simple materials and consist of

“numerous scrapers and scraper planes, choppers, “amulets” or “ceremonial stones”

(small chipped and notched crescents), large blades and points.” (Wallace 1955).

The Millingstone Horizon follows the Early Man Horizon in Wallace’s chronology. The cultural tradition associated with San Diego County is the La Jolla

Tradition. This tradition is represented by “extensive use of milling stones and mullers”,

“a general lack of well-made projectile points”, “bone tools and shell items are scarce”, and “ no containers for storing or cooking food have been recovered” (Wallace 1955).

Wallace estimates a duration range of 2,000 to 3,000 years for this tradition. The subsistence for this horizon is of shellfish and seed-collecting.

Following the Millingstone Horizon is the Intermediate Horizon. The tradition associated with San Diego County is the La Jolla II Tradition. This tradition is represented in the archaeological record by an increase in chipped stone. The variety and quantities of chipped stone increase along side the mullers and milling stones, but, unlike other traditions of this horizon, in San Diego County there is a lack of mortar and pestles.

Wallace admits that, “Any attempt to set definite temporal boundaries is entirely guesswork but a span of time between 1,000 B.C. - 0 A.D. and 1,000 A.D. appears to be well within the bounds of probability” (Wallace 1955).

The next horizon is the Late Prehistoric Horizon and is characterized by more complex artifacts. New developments of this horizon consist of small finely chipped projectile points (suggesting an increase in bow and arrow use), steatite containers, ceramic pottery, circular shell fishhooks and grave goods. In western San Diego County along the coast the tradition associated with this horizon is the Diegueño tradition.

6 B4 First People: A Reyised Chronology San Diego County for m il

ls #i fe # ul-

f\ i', J ;t ,#I \mI

rn^ Iecl % # {'t 1- *6. ttt f.. iJ A p\ v' thO itl F\ l'a ,a d\ ii*^H6 A !rda t r; tr Yi A# . rt f r*, U Il "i6 5i f 0* tlt" ,*t !: }ti )' i* s\= k* qqJ- H; ,a6 'f l\t rv .A *i - .LJ V rn'4 ,i,": c 4, ')d al ,\ #.>l-h.* tff l*-*fa r <* AUUC)-G ^ -S -,H -!r v.,-5lE; *tl :sr*# = l* *X^H i* 1 * r U= i xl l1la,w"l $il5 68#S

r:- g + i I Rr i .er r#t r r4,&+rrd}r** H il %* o * & ft * *r v1 u\,,i./ v : u, (3 O r * .S g E S H a * *\dt ;^--* s@f# i lr9 .Y trl*rn * I O * A ^ nt ...r** nfr ?! F ?l 1*t .- s H H E H: H"-*frn ilF: X S ry3 fr rtx _A-_:-,=r= _-_lrS *__;__-: iS &T #5 ?, i3 ,( ru **--A-*-J l--*-'*-J!, I Xh zIi..-V F, fl ..'* I ut t;t *t r , kl Pr.iI :"1 # t ].,,gl n A€ 0pr s* $Er *E ?"wGY* iSJE, *E t- lAll*Y4 fi,, Aaa* EHES;fr# S5; esiEEF ' H eE I-gt;.-ft: #H#{i #i$, L, v t-v lY UH t 'tY : # .f il * X?S;$;tna, L:- -fi A*# E fr **tEi XEii tl .C Q hJ' #,$ igsfi *, * * * k 7 EgE*l EEls ?i lnxfri r,*,iq;E{ f u' -l ,fi$:-ffi X.$t$j *; * **is :t, H; #l &&ffi# t .tf ;t lr FF f g'=t tsts -"t*l filo*r irn t* r";l r ,ITt ?r'bit rrrr *t f. f,r1 gI I g,H f;t** (;^ 4., t ,d L.# nL, Jf -, i {# .5 T'* r{ Y,h r dd {:;l .EE .F nu rJH r X:* h !, rJ t vu r' *s" ffi Frd!; *.v*t :;l f'.J fE f ua I *,I n*ift Ary - ;E .:: ..1* xGl* !s .; ttl q ifl h* -r- Hjs 'y) ts t VV ,r.r* A ,* # r*i v? V al lU *# F t',+! FV Y C{J AHtrJ# ^lr * I--F vvr&* 4:. t* A t-' '$ 9"il ,i lvva* i, E, rng diisx{V,a*lYJ^ r ]-a ad. + FA;; * L** r A\ rd*d* ,r a r* U lf lul +-) q!1F g.a.I t O.f, .3* tl\ rE Qr'€H.G tfl; rt G aj S AF hh *l.t-:,A. c., u {.} ,,? r"5 rnX&#..Y f"l il?fr* r-fu H ie-'x t- 7 ts E Il .r tu- - rB l,'yr#,a\ rV ?f;Hf;H*$*0O 4r * {r}tro 3€ E,g lr- u",ay #1 r'\ k# ES f {J :: -E} FK.-A f t {S g ffi 11 ,r Vj b ii u &se \-r .E P"n r* G1 ?* tl* *rt-*ttt" -. Httlenr ,'Et tI f,} KESH tf,& j* fi{rHd tt "fi .H U?A u r* e"r 8 r-:rF {H! *l-*l-l.t# .E X J fi c{tl 6 bo [.r*.,: $l. HA d*s -eG ar{rl S O ,*s H *d .=t #Y H *l ,x # eg$sHFV.c c:["tu]E aUlrk V,E.*-e Av c.rc .rU*n .- I ?,E-i?;; L E- i- =- n vi i?1 $.8 il0F dsL ar ; A ,i;; *r ;-E83it -J 'q A. iEn l-J=A .9 .Hr-n-rr;-{ v J i * v t- i*Lr -*1 {u* -r-.{ (r.l *n *e *F-13Erv' ff,i'il H IT *E # f S#,'-t uag !B CT firt X F.- *CH{1 Er E E.= * I HE.N,q i+ .,.i ,n J U fi E- ";T(,HLJ *Hr a -IP ,t"1; * e'E r; '{ ts-t fi -E j t-t 21 f,, fr I # F I Ufr dffi# ,,P t-,{ .'+;ffi Sr f;4 ux$V t F brs ..t{ I .tf,crr r.} {-) il :*I r.i :.Xs {.} r )'i a I Fd#$ a{L I 'tr {.}^f: N Ea*+Y4 Xi:, rr) I A!** t? dt*g^q ,l x f *l tr k FL $ * ,r * L* {# .*V I tU ir- Q) nrt* UAX ar ^ o F- I d.frr ua; h r t! *'x*it:qLu fr* bLs rfi rt t I *-r dii?, I'E'F ,}V H U (} *, .;.r,=. :f; d =t 'E u r4l* xE* x.*,/\ * {} J"* l- *(u* E.* E *It l5:q (J -+ q.l Y d l) {.} .t HLx fr l"-l tfri* d-d\j \rt l* h t ';: ii *-r \J {g !U:J kr:t dr v7-; f;{ k gtE s"u x P Efcu- ":lihuhr* rg r Ffi+Lt ,I:{ }rlr *cr fifi "E\J .g r** 0 -\&-J *d *ln q r\ v)f$'"i ut # lt .{v.fi T \ !u d4 hl {18}ftv;;*** i \J Gt ri ;,q tt J tt "Y aL= v \-a r+ - J.fi X \l T.qI # \..1 "E $ sYr&tv f iJt .lr tz-i E T'E {r fFrlq lX.x H li} *a \J ut CHFrs ji t:* -fi &!* a,a *'*Hln "E E dvrs {. ;i t..} r* {tu st -uA* {r} u* t-l i;f) cill H; EI= I r- *!), aI*# ,'!! ,1 \, ? . tuH -; j' r: r; e* rr. lJ t/] _ 3J -l *- l* dr fi: f #EI k va t *l lsr' rJ t? G&e*{sgH x :<= bc ti *'J tdl u a"1. A" +; HgssBqqd * * 1* Y'r t- k fr ri fa h *$..*.**i'Ij* c H -l E& #r rl T l1 c #"H^$Hi_ l*t I ^$r I I l3 t, I ri ;ll$l'llItr $xlpftd..rlII"I t tlotr'lrld lj1xffi$l *,nu*y;rr6?r *}BT $lEq*.!Y alpr':H U T r atpBilr I

il{lt}ol{}H i atpptH O _c F Figure 1. Chronology for San Diego County (Gallegos 2017)

7 Though Wallace’s chronology was incomplete, he was the first to attempt to establish a temporal framework for Southern California Archaeology. The most recent chronology for San Diego County, however, has been constructed in A Revised Chronology for San

Diego County by Dennis R. Gallegos in 2017. In Gallegos’ book, he proposes 5 time periods for the chronology of San Diego County (Figure 1.). The time periods are divided into: Early Archaic (12,000 – 9,000 B.P.), Middle Archaic Phase I (9,000 – 7,500 B.P.),

Middle Archaic Phase II (7,500 – 3,500 B.P.), Late Archaic (3,500 – 1,300 B.P.), and

Late Period (1,300 – to historic contact) (Gallegos 2017). The time period of which corresponds with Wallace’s Millingstone Horizon is the Middle Archaic Phase II. This paper will refer to Gallegos chronology when referencing time period. Warren‘s (1968) chronology, however, includes the Encinitas Tradition (7,500 B.P. – 4,250 BP), which correlates to the Middle Archaic. This specific time period in the Middle Archaic is identified with sites containing eccentric ground stones or discoidals.

The Middle Archaic Period in Southern California looks as if an increase in resource diversity is resulting in greater regional differences between traditions

(Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). The Encinitas tradition, which Warren placed between

7,500 B.P. and 4,250 B.P., is identified in Northern San Diego County where the data for this research will be collected. The site assemblages of the Encinitas Traditions consist of basic heavy-duty choppers, scrapers, scraper planes, well-formed projectile points, milling slabs, manos, metates, and discoidals (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984). These artifacts show a subsistence pattern, which focuses on hunting and the grinding of hard seeds. Since hunting and hard seed resources, along with marine resources, were easily available the populations of the groups grew. The assemblages on the coastal terraces of

8 Camp Pendleton and northern San Diego County include heavy plant processing tools , like manos and metates and the shellfish middens include flaked cobble-based tools, basin metates, manos, discoidals, and an occasional flexed burial (Byrd et al. 2005). In turn, the settlements became more sedentary. This period lasted more than 3,000 years with continuous occupation of the sites.

Previous studies of right discoidals

Searching for previous studies of discoidals has been an arduous endeavor. Most of the information pertaining to discoidals is either about the game called “Chunkey” played by the Native Americans in the southeastern North America (Butts 1994) or when looking at “cogged stones” in Southern California (Eberhart 1961). The discoidals focused on in this research are only mentioned in passing in most of the literature. The only real studies on discoidals revolve around classification and inventory. There are a few papers however, focusing on discoidals, whose data will be expanded on or used in this research.

Some of the previous research dealing with discoidals is “A Taxonomic Tour of

Cogged Stone Types” (Underbrink and Koerper 2006). The purpose of this paper looks at cogged stones, which are a type of discoidal, and creates a taxonomic guide. Using these taxonomic operations, one can identify basic categories and specific types of cogged stones. The taxonomy of the cogged stone (Underbrink and Koerper 2006) was then applied to the basic discoidal shape by Koerper and Cramer (2010) in A Unique Early

Discoidal from CA-ORA-85, Bolsa Chica Mesa, Huntington Beach, California. The taxonomic classifications developed by Underbrink, Koerper, and Cramer, benefit the research presented here by allowing formal descriptions of the artifacts studied.

9 Other papers look at the possible religious meaning behind discoidals. In an application for the National Register of Historic Places for CA-ORA-83, a case was made for a religious or symbolic meaning for discoidals. There is also connection with Chile, which is explored briefly (Iribarren 1962). Even the mayor of Riverside, Samuel Evans,

Jr., tried to explain discoidals in the early 1900’s (Koerper and McDearmon 2010a,

2010b). Symbolic meaning has also been inferred on the discoidal in the form of effigies from the article “The Antiquity and Significance of Effigies and Representational Art in

Southern California Prehistory”, by Fitzgerald and Corey (2009). But, no real evidence has been presented to validate these claims.

Most of the research about discoidals is attempting to add or “expand the literature on discoidals to make more aware of their existence. This will hopefully result in a broader understanding of them” (Sutton 1978). In the article, “Discoidals from

Northern San Diego County”, Sutton looks at a newly discovered cache of discoidal in a private collection and determine the provenience (CA-SDI-4575). He measures and describes the discoidals. There are several ideas as to the function of the discoidal, but no evidence to confirm.

The function of discoidals is briefly discussed in most papers, although there is never any evidence. Mostly relegated to a paragraph or sentence, the function of a discoidal is usually addressed as a mystery or enigma. An amateur archaeologist from the late 19th and early 20th centuries sought to understand the function of cogstones, but there is no discussion of the discoidals studied in this research.

10 Status of existing data/collections

Artifacts, after being collected from the field or donated from a personal collection, are kept in a repository. A repository will curate and maintain the artifacts for future research. The sample directed examined for this thesis are held in the San Diego

Archaeological Center. Housed in the San Diego Archaeological Center are artifacts from across San Diego County, including the Unites States Marine Corps Base Camp

Pendleton.

The discoidals at the San Diego Archaeological Center are stored in a temperature-controlled vault. The artifacts themselves are split up according to the specific site they are associated. The artifacts from each site are contained together in one or several curation boxes. The artifacts are enclosed in a curation bag and labeled. Each site has an inventory spreadsheet and the San Diego Archaeological Center has a Master

Catalog of the entire collection held at the repository.

All the samples studied here were well care for and maintained. The San Diego

Archaeological Center encourages research, so with the proper verifications access to the collections is allowed. Along with the artifacts, the reports and field notes from each site is stored at the repository to assist in research

11 Chapter 3: Research Design

Theoretical Approach

The theoretical approaches used to explain the possible functions and significance of the discoidal tradition within California archaeology is a holistic endeavor. The theories, which this research will use, will revolve around the function of the artifacts.

Cultural materialism is the remnants of past cultures and their significance within those cultures. Focusing on the form or shape of the discoidal can inform to what the function of the discoidal was to its culture. Using spatial patterning theories will add reasoning to why discoidals are found only in this place. By looking at the location where the artifacts are found within the sites, the function of the artifacts can be determined by the relationship with the other artifacts within the site. Temporal theories can help identify, why these artifacts being made and used during a specific time period. Using this theoretical framework will add important data to the archaeological record. Processual theory that looks at the causal nature of the physical environment driving change in human societies (Fagan 1996). Cognitive-processualism, which looks at the aspects of culture with a human society that drives change (Fagan 1996). Both a functionalist and structural-functionalist approach will look at the effects of the individual action verse the place of the individual within the social order (Barnard 2000) will possibly inform the importance of the discoidal within the society. Middle-range theory will compare the functions of similar objects and their functions to ascertain a probable function of the early Holocene right discoidals of Southern California (Trigger 2006). Finally, a postmodernist approach will be explored to explain the more esoteric or religious possibilities of the discoidal (Preucel and Mrozowski 2010).

12 Methodology

This section will discuss the methods used in the research of right discoidals. The methods will consist of three phases, using both analytical and behavioral constructs. An analytical construct uses language of description and quantification, while a behavioral construct is inferential and uses language of action and people (Adams 2002). The first phase will be the identification and collection of viable discoidal data. The second phase will be to compile and record all discoidal data collected. The third phase is analysis, which will compare and contrast data collected.

The first phase of the research will be to find the data needed. Site records, reports, articles, papers, and museum collections will be the bulk of the data collected.

Some fieldwork was done where discoidals were present, which will be included in this data collection phase.

Site records will be the most useful sources of research for this project. Site records are standardized records of archaeological sites discovered. These records include locational, artifactual, temporal, photographs, maps, and interpretation of the site recorded.

Using the site records where discoidals are present will yield important data such as where the site is located in terms of distance to water and if the site is on a ridge or knoll. Locational data, such as this, when compared with other sites with discoidals present, can show patterns of settlement or activity. Having this information can help understand what type of site was recorded. Maps will show the area of the site in both a 1 to 24,000 meter locational map and a sketch map.

13 Data concerning artifacts present at the site are also going to be found within the site records. Knowing what types of artifacts are present at the site will add to the understanding to the type of site recorded. Quantitative data of the artifact is also recorded, including measurements (length, width, thickness), description of the artifact

(form), photographs of the artifacts, and the sketch maps will show where the artifacts were found within the sight. Discoidals would be worth more recordation because they are considered a special find.

A dating of the site will also be included in the site record. The temporal data will be included in the interpretation of the site using artifacts to establish a relative date. If absolute dating were acquired through carbon dating or spectral analysis, it would be included in the site record.

A report is written for all cultural resource management (CRM) projects and reports will contain much of the same information as the site records because the reports usually written in conjunction with the site records. Locational, artifactual, and temporal data will be included in reports. The reports, however, will have more detail than the site records because reports will have analyses and discussion sections. By reviewing the analyses conducted for a report will help to direct and inform my analyses of the right discoidals. Within this discussion section, questions or hypotheses are presented, which can help to the research move forward by looking at some of the ideas presented by other archaeologists. The bibliographies of the reports are also a good reference when looking for other sources about your topic.

Articles and research papers will add context to this research. This context will show how other archaeologists approached similar problems and explained them.

14 Knowing how others approached their problems, like what questions did they ask? What methods did they used to explain this aspect or that one? Finding this data will allow my research methods to expand on what others have done and/or develop new techniques to answer the questions posed in my research.

The fieldwork employed for this project is two fold. Firstly, previous archaeologists performed a majority of the fieldwork. The work, which was done before, allowed for a greater number of assemblages to be included for analysis. Secondly, I was part of a salvage recovery during a maintenance project while aboard the United States

Marine Base Camp Pendleton. During the salvage recovery, three discoidals were discovered. The discoidals were collected and curated. Both the recent and previous fieldwork efforts will be include in the data put forth in this thesis project.

After combing through the paperwork, I will have an understanding of the sites, which will yield the data needed for this research. But I will still need to examine artifacts found at these sites. Locating the repositories where the artifacts are held is the next step. Most of these locations will be included in the site records. Contacting the archaeologists and CRM companies involved in the discoveries could also lead to the artifacts resting places. After finding out the museums or repositories where the artifacts are located, permission from the institutions will be needed to do research within these institutions. Once permission has been granted, I will do an inventory of the discoidals present in each repository. Then a schedule will be made with the institution to coordinate access to the artifacts.

Once the data has been collected from the several different sources and the locations of the artifacts have been established, phase two of the project can begin. Phase

15 two consists of compilation and organization of the data collected in phase one. There are two sections to phase two, a taxonomy and an artifact form. The taxonomy section will describe each discoidal by form. An artifact chart will be created to organize the data for analysis.

A taxonomic classification will be developed to differentiate one discoidal form from another discoidal form. Not only will the classification show the differences between discoidals, but it will also show the similarities. These distinctions of form will allow for a more formal description for analysis. The taxonomic classification will include specific attributes of the discoidals. These attributes will be based on the taxonomic classification developed by Underbrink and Koerper (2006) for cogged stones and refined by Koerper and Cramer (2010) for discoidals (Figure 2). Using Koerper and

Cramer, the division of discoidal studied in this research is the “Right Discoidal”. A

Right discoidal is a discoidal with the upper and lower faces equal in circumference. A face refers to the either the top or the bottom of the discoidal. The sides refer to the vertical or lateral portion of the discoidals if when the faces are considered the horizontal or plane. There are three types of Right Discoidals as described in Koerper and Cramer, a

Right Concave, a Right Convex, and a Right Straight. The Right Concave discoidal has upper and lower faces equal in circumference with concaved sides. A Right Convex discoidal has the upper and lower faces equal in circumference with convexed sides. A

Right Straight discoidal has the upper and lower faces are equal in circumference with straight sides.

16

Figure 2. Discoidal Taxonomic Descriptions (Koerper and Cramer 2010) As my research is exclusively looking at Right discoidals, I further adapted

Koerper’s and Cramer’s 2010 taxonomy to better illustrate the attributes of the Right discoidal. I will be using six different types of the Right discoidal. The types are

Flat/Concave-Straight, Convex/Concave-Straight, Flat-Straight, Flat-Convex, Convex-

Straight, and Convex-Convex. These classification of form types have the typical Right discoidal form of upper and lower faces equal in circumference. The distinction of my classification of form types lies in the shape of the faces and side of the discoidal.

Denoted first in the description is the shape of the face with the shape of the side second. For example, Flat-Straight describes the horizontal face as flat and the lateral side as straight. A classification with two face descriptors represents different face shapes on opposite faces of the same discoidal, like Flat/Convex-Straight. A Flat face is horizontally level. A Concave face curves inward, while a Convex face curves outward.

The second descriptor denotes the form of discoidal’s lateral sides. For example,

Flat-Straight describes the lateral side as straight and the horizontal face as flat. The lateral side descriptors are Straight, Concave, and Convex. A Straight lateral side will be perpendicular to the horizontal faces. The Concave lateral side will curve inward from the

17 horizontal faces. A Convex lateral side will bulge, curve out, or be obtuse from the perpendicular lateral side in association with the horizontal faces.

This descriptors will constitute the taxonomic classification. By creating this classification system and a formal description for the different types of discoidals will allow for comparison of form types. This will in turn better inform the possible function of the discoidal , as well as, any changes over time.

An artifact form will be developed using attributes of the discoidal and site attributes. The attribute information will consist of site number, other site identification names, type of discoidal, the diameter in centimeters, the thickness in centimeters, the shape of the of the face, the shape of the edge, the material used, any comments, the depth of recovered artifact, was it near a drainage, was it near water, was it on a knoll or near to one, was it on a road or near to one, is the a photo of the artifact, is there a drawing of the artifact, time period noted in the report or site record, and any radiocarbon dates of the site.

The site number of the artifact is created by the SCIC, which give every site a unique number. The number includes the county found and a number. The numbers are generated chronologically.

The measurements of the artifact are important to identify any changes over time.

The diameter is measured because discoidals are near perfect circles across the face of the artifact. The thickness is measured to ascertain the ratio of form. I took measurements of the sample group with digital calipers and a contour gauge. The measurements recorded were diameter, length, width, and thickness. Weight was recorded with a Scout Pro 2000 gram digital scale.

18 The form of the artifact is described by the face and edge of the artifact. The face can be described as concave, convex, or flat. The edge can be described as concave, convex, or straight. This attributes again show is there was change over time or a preference to one form over another. By understanding the form of the object, a better interpretation of the function is possible.

The material is recorded to make prediction of the distance traveled to acquire the material to produce the discoidal. Another reason is to provide a possible preference for one type of material to another.

The comments allow for any interesting observations or any information, which is not included in the existing classification standards.

The locational data is important for spatial patterning questions. Knowing if the artifact was found in a site near water, seasonal drainages, on a knoll, or if there is a road nearby, can help to inform the purpose of the discoidal.

The existence of a photo or drawing is very important in identifying the form of the discoidal. Often times the artifact has been lost and the only visual record of the artifact is the photo or drawing.

The date period and radiocarbon dates help to confirm the association with the

Middle Archaic and allow for change over time analysis.

Once the taxonomy classification has been completed and the data collected has been organized into an artifact form, phase three can begin. Phase three is the analysis of the data collected and organized. The analysis of the discoidals will consist of a compare and contrast of the form types according to the taxonomic classifications. Using the quantifications from the artifact form, a comparison and contrast will be conducted on

19 size and material. A macroscopic use-wear analysis and kinematics analysis will be conducted. An exploration of possible functions will be included in the analysis. The locational data will be compared to ascertain the range of the discoidal technology.

Temporal data will be compared across the landscape to find a date range and by including form type and size, possible changes in the technology over time. These analyses of the discoidal will inform the conclusion of this research in an attempt to provide a positive outcome.

Phase three will begin with an compare and contrast analysis of the form types, according to the taxonomic classification. A number of each form type will be obtained and used to compare across spatial and temporal data sets. This comparison will determine if there are any commonalities in form type by site location or over time. If there is a preferred form type by location or over time it should be observed during this comparison. Recognizing that certain shapes have particular functions could reveal the possible function.

Using the quantificational data from the artifact form, comparisons can be observed in size and material types. I will be looking for the preferred size and material type used for manufacturing discoidals. The information gained from comparing the size of the discoidals could show a preference to larger or smaller discoidals, which in turn could point to a particular function. The material used could be important if the quarry or material resource is close or if there was significant travel time to obtain the material.

Size and material type analyses will give an understanding into the materialistic attitude of the people using the discoidals.

20 The use-wear analysis will inform the function of the discoidals studied. Use-wear analysis is the examination of an item for macroscopic and microscopic evidence that allows us to understand how it was altered through use (Adams 1988, 1989a, 1989b,

1993a, 2014, Adams et al. 2009). Four mechanisms of evaluation of wear patterning for ground stone will be employed for this research. They are adhesive wear, abrasive wear, fatigue wear, and tribochemical wear (Adams 2014). These mechanisms for ground stone use-wear analysis were built upon the research of tribologists who study friction, lubrication, and wear (Adams 2014, Blau 1989, Bushan and Gupta 1991, Czichos 1978,

Dowson 1979, Kato, 2002, Kragelsky et al. 1982, Quinn 1971, Szeri 1980, Teer and

Arnell 1975). The textures of the ground stone will be described in terms of asperity and topography. Asperity describes the material’s durability, for instance the coarser the material the more asperite (Adams 2014). Topography refers the material surface’s granular elevation, which can be examined macroscopically (without magnification) or microscopically (with magnification). Macroscopic analysis will be conducted in this research. Using these terms and descriptions, I will compare the use-wear on the Right

Discoidals to previous experiments of ground stone, which looked at stone-against-stone contact, stone-against wood or bone contact, and stone-against-hind contact. Along, with the contact types, a kinematic analysis of the discoidal will be completed to further ascertain the use-wear patterning. Kinematics looks at how human motions, physical and chemical interactions can effect a tool during use (Adams 2014). Once a contact and kinematic use-wear has been ascertained, a further comparison will be made against known ground stone tools, which can be identified by their contact use-wear patterning.

21 The descriptions of use-wear compared against the tool types will allow for an identification of the function of Right Discoidals.

The four mechanisms when use will the contact experiments will identify ground stone tool types. The visible use-wear on the tool will be from the most recent mechanism activity and contact type with that tool. The descriptions of the mechanisms are contrasted against an unaltered ground stone surface. The fatigue wear on ground consists of the ground stone grains damaged through crushing; the damage is visible macroscopically, as impact fractures, pitting, or pecking (Adams 2014). Adhesive wear is a collection of skin oils adhering to the ground stone through handling or rubbing (Adams

2014). Abrasive wear occurs when a more durable or asperite surface is moved across a less durable surface, which cause scratches or striations in the surface (Adams 2014).

Tribochemical wear is the result of chemical interactions from the former mechanisms.

The build up of residues, such as meat, grain, clay or anything processed on the ground stone, will result in reactionary products (Adams 2014, Czichos 1978). These reaction products are seen on the ground stone as a sheen or polish (Adams 2014). While adhesive, fatigue, and abrasive wear patterns are reductive, the tribochemical wear is an additive mechanism working in concert with the other mechanisms. By examining the use-wear mechanism will inform as to the type of contact was utilized to create the tool studied.

Understanding the differences in contact types will point to a probable use or function. It is those differences in contact types found on the contact surfaces, which will show the distinctive use-wear pattern. The three contact types are stone-against-stone, stone-against-wood or bone, and stone-against-hind. These contact types were tested in

22 experiments to ascertain the use-wear patterns (Adams 1989a, 1989b, 1993a, Adams et al. 2009, Burton 2007, Dubreuil 2004, Dubreuil and Grossman 2009, Hamon 2008,

Hamon and Plisson 2008, Procopiou 2004, Risch 1995, 2008).

The stone-against-stone contact refers to two stone surfaces that are worked against each other (Adams 2014). Adhesive, fatigue, and tribochemical mechanisms are at play in stone-against-stone contact. Macroscopically, the grains of the surface are worn flat and a sheen is developed from the tribochemical mechanism, due to the more hard or resilient surfaces.

The stone-against-wood or bone contact refers to one stone surface worked against a wooden or bone surface. Adhesive and tribochemical wear mechanisms are observed in the stone-against-wood or bone contact. Macroscopically, the top of the angular grains of the stone’s are rounded and a sheen is developed, due to the more pliable surfaces (Adams 2014).

The stone-against-hind contact refers to one stone surface worked against a leather hide during processing. Adhesive and tribochemical wear mechanisms are most dominant in this contact (Adams 2014). Macroscopically, the top and sides of the grains are rounded and a sheen is developed, due to the softer surfaces.

The kinematics operations, which will be used macroscopically to analyze the discoidals for use-wear patterning will be abrasive scratch direction and impact scars.

The abrasive scratch direction will look at the striations evident on the surface of the discoidal from either manufacturing or through function of the tool. These striations are focus on four different stokes which can leave a scratch scar on the surface o the discoidal. The circular stroke, reciprocal stroke, flat stroke, and rocking stroke. Striation

23 occurring in multiple directions can be evidence of a circular stroke, while a back and forth motion would leave striations occurring in one direction, which is a reciprocal stroke. During the process of a circular or reciprocal stroke, the flat or rocking stroke can be seen along the edges of the tool. The differences in flat or rocking strokes rely on the contact between surfaces, if the surfaces are in contact at all times it is a flat stoke. A rocking stroke lifts the edges during use. Impact scars occurs from forceful contact between the surfaces (Adams 2014). Crushing of the surface can be observed from pounding or pecking. All of theses use-wear marker will assist in identifying the function of the Right discoidal.

The three phases of the purposed methods for this research will give the foundation needed to ultimately begin to answer the questions concerned with in this paper. The Data Presentation section will present the information, which was collected in the first phase and show the organization of the data collected per phase two of the methods. Phase three or the Analysis section will follow the Data Presentation section and will make the comparisons need to offer a valid conclusion.

24 Chapter 4: Data Presentation

In this section, the data collected in phase one and phase two of the Methods section will be presented. Phase one was the collection of data, while in phase two the data collected was organized and classified. Phase three, the analysis, will be presented in the Chapter 5.

For phase one, the data was compiled from reports, articles, site records, recovery projects, and museum collections. 20 sites were identified and were found to have Right

Discoidals present in their assemblages. The 40 Right Discoidals examined for this research were from 16 of the 20 sites. The sites with discoidals used in this research are as follows: San Diego County – CA-SDI-303, CA-SDI-4575, CA-SDI-6133, CA-SDI-

11057, CA-SDI-11068, CA-SDI-12100, CA-SDI-12155, CA-SDI-13986, CA-SDI-

14196, CA-SDI-14626, CA-SDI-14628, CA-SDI-14693, CA-SDI-14791, CA-SDI-

16419, CA-SDI-19406, CA-SDI-22443. The reasons the discoidals from these four sites were not used, was due to either lack of access or lack of quantitative data. The sites are:

San Diego County – CA-SDI-9537, CA-SDI-9585; and Orange County – CA-ORA-83.

CA-ORA-83, though a prominent site when dealing with discoidals, had no quantitative data, such as measurements of discoidals, only inventory counts were located.

This research looked at 20 archaeological sites, but only 16 of the archaeological sites are represented in the quantitative data. The discoidals, which were examined both directly and indirectly, were contained in the assemblages of these 16 archaeological sites. A site description for each of the 16 sites can be found below. The descriptions will include when the site was first discovered along with any continuation of work, the type

25 of site, the landscape of the site, the assemblages of the site, number of discoidals, and dates of the site. Figure 3 is a map of the sites, which contains location and site number.

Figure 3. A map of the distribution of sites containing Right Discoidals across San Diego County. Sites shown were used in this research.

26 CA-SDI-303

Site CA-SDI-303, also known as Rincon 133 was first recorded in the 1950’s. The site was recorded as a sparse lithic scatter and most likely a temporary habitation site or food processing station. The is located on a landslide feature adjacent to Nate Harrison

Creek on a sloping surface of Palomar Mountain, known locally as Boucher Hill (True and Beemer 1982). In subsequent visits, the assemblage was expanded to included milling stones, manos, hammers, hammer grinders, scraper planes, domed scrapers, flaked scrapers, flake knives, smoothing stones, bifacially flaked artifacts, cobble chopper, and discoidals (True and Beemer 1982).

CA-SDI-1313/14791

This site was first discovered in 1972 b F. Riddell. The site was recorded as a habitation site with an associated midden. The site was designated CA-SDI-1313. In

1997, ASM Affiliates revisited the site and the site boundary was redefined. A new site,

CA-SDI-14791, was recorded near CA-SDI-1313 in 1998 by Mooney and Associates, and due to spatial overlap the sites were combined into CA-SDI-1313/14791 in 2010.

The site is located on a low terrace above the confluence of the San Mateo and

Los Christianitos Creeks. The site consists of a lithic scatter and midden. The lithic scatter is composed of groundstone, lithic tools, and debitage. The groundstone artifacts include a discoidal. The site is highly disturbed due to modern improvements, such as a sewage facility, roads, parking lots, and storage yards. Several radiocarbon dates have been produced for the site. The dates range from 9,100 B.P - 900 B.P. with the most common dates to 4,000 B.P. and 6,000 B.P (Ugan and Darcangelo 2016).

27

Photo 1. A discoidal from CA-SDI-1313/14791 in a side view. Scale is in centimeters.

CA-SDI-4575

The site was first recorded during an archaeological survey. The site was assigned to the Encintas Tradition (Sutton 1978). The site is located on the south side of a lagoon

(Sutton 1978).

CA-SDI-6133

Unable to obtain site record for a site description.

CA-SDI-9585

Franklin and Ezell originally recorded CA-SDI-9585 in 1981. The site is located on a crest of a narrow, steeply sloping south-trending ridge just south of a prominent hilltop with a live spring adjacent to the boundary of the site. The site appears to be a habitation site. The artifacts found at the site consist of flakes, cores, hammerstones, and groundstone, such as manos, metates, bowl mortars, and discoidals. Franklin and Ezell

28 identified two discoidals in 1981. Another one was recorded in 1997 by ASM Affiliates,

Inc.

CA-SDI-11057

Site CA-SDI-11057 was first recorded by Corum in the late 1980’s and was described as a sparse lithic scatter. The site is located on a knoll south of Kumeyaay

Lake. A surface survey observed a large number of manos, flaked lithic tools , and 4 haammerstones and 2 metate fragments (Gallegos and Kyle 1994). During testing, the assemblage expanded to include debitage, biface midsection, cores, core fragments, flake tool utilized flake, batter tool, manos, mano fragments, metate fragments, and a discoidal

(Gallegos and Kyle 1994).

CA-SDI-11068

Unable to obtain site record for the site description.

CA-SDI-12100

Site CA-SDI-12100 is located on a the top of a knoll. It has been identified as a small habitation site, which was occupied between 5,800 and 8,650 years ago. Activities at the site included food gathering and preparation, lithic tool preperation and maintenance, and ceremonial activities. The assemblage consists of ground stone, hammerstones, cores, a biface, a punch, a scraper, flakes, angular waste fragments, shell beads, worked bone, worked shell, and shell representing exploitation of lagoonal resources (Gallegos and Kyle 1991).

CA-SDI-12155

Site CA-SDI-12155 in located in a heavily disturbed agricultural field, above the

San Luis Rey River floodplain. The site was first recorded by 1991 by Rosen, Dominci,

29 and Crafts. Flaked lithics and ground stone tools were observed on the surface. The site was revisited later in 1991 by Rosen for subsurface testing. The site assemblage consisted of a core , ground stone artifacts (manos, metate fragments, mano fragments, and a discoidal), flaked lithics, ceramic sherds, marine shell, and faunal bone (Laylander 2006).

CA-SDI-13986

Gallegos and Associates recorded CA-SDI-13986 in 1995. The site is located on two terraces 140m west of the Santa Margarita River. The range of artifacts recovered at the site suggests a habitation site. The artifacts consists of two discoidals, a biface fragment, manos, metate fragments, hammerstones, cores, tools, flakes, and debitage, along with one possible feature.

CA-SDI-14196

Site CA-SDI-14196 was first recorded in 1996 by BFSA. The site is was described as a temporary camp with an assemblage of flakes, a metate, a chopper, scrapers, ceramic sherds, and marine shell. The site was relocated for testing in 2008 and the assemblage was expanded to include a flakes, debitage, batterered implements, a discoidal and a mano (Gallegos and Guerrero 2009).

CA-SDI-14626

Statistical Research, Inc. recorded CA-SDI-14626 in 1997. The site is located in

Las Pulgas Canyon on a terrace below two small knolls. The terrace divides tributaries of the Las Pulgas Canyon. The site is recorded as a lithic scatter consisting of over 100 debitage, but the presence of a core tool and a discoidal suggest the site may have other functions. The site is disturbed grading, a firebreak, and a road in the southern portion of the site.

30

Photo 2. A discoidal from CA-SDI-14626 in dorsal view. Scale is in centimeters.

CA-SDI-14628

Statistical Research, Inc. recorded CA-SDI-14628 in 1997. The site is in an open grassland with a spring two kilometers to the southeast. The site is a lithic scatter consisting of approximately 50 flaked stone debitage and two discoidals. Two roads and a manmade berm disturb the site.

CA-SDI-14693

CA-SDI-14693 is located on a ridge with Aliso Canyon Creek to the west. The site consists of two loci. Both of the loci are described as low density lithic scatters of mostly metavolcanic flakes (Reddy et al. 1998).

31 CA-SDI-15110

CA-SDI-15110 was first recorded in 1998 by ASM Affiliates and tested in 2004 by the same. The site is located on a hilltop, low alluvial ridge, near De Luz Creek. The site is a lithic scatter of flaked and groundstone items. The 1998 investigation observed a single bifacially shaped groundstone identified as a discoidal, along with 19 pieces of debitage, a retouched quartz flake, and a metavolcanic retouched flake. The testing recovered 31 pieces of debitage, two cores, two retouched flakes, and a piece of groundstone. Rodents and vehicles impacted the site.

CA-SDI-16419

Site CA-SDI-16419 is on a knoll of the east side of a canyon. The assemblage consists of a metate, a metate basin, discoidals, and manos.

CA-SDI-19406

CA-SDI-19406 was first recorded as a lithic scatter in 2009 by EDAW. Testing and recovery at the site occurred in 2009, twice in 2010, with a revisit in 2015 and 2016. The site is located on a graded area with San Mateo Creek 150 meters to the south. Initial observations in 2009, include two milling stone fragments, two mano fragments, two hammerstones, eight flakes, and more than 40 pieces of debitage. The 2009 testing recovered six pieces of groundstone, two discoidals, seven flakes stone tools, six hammerstones, 21 cores, 80 pieces of debitage, and 678 grams of fire-affected rock. The excavation in 2010 resulted in nine flaked tools, seven cores, five hammerstones, 20 pieces of groundstone, and 530 pieces of debitage. The additional data recovery in 2010 by ASM Affiliates recovered three bifaces, eight flaked tools, eight cores, three hammerstones, 13 groundstone artifacts, and 799 pieces of lithic debitage. The revisit in

32 2015, after a burn event, identified four milling slabs, seven manos, three cores, five flakes, and 32 pieces of debitage. The site is within a disturbed area consisting of a large borrow pit.

CA-SDI-22443

This site is a moderately dense lithic and ground stone scatter located on the side of a southwest facing slope with San Mateo Creek to the west. The site is heavily used for training with much of the area denude of vegetation. The scatter appears to be concentrated mainly towards the top of the slope, with the lower, less concentrated lithic scatter downslope and spreading onto a flat area at the base of the slope, which had been mechanically leveled at some point. Recent rains at the time of the survey indicated downward movement, and concentration of flakes and debitage in obvious slope-wash areas. The assemblage consists of manos, mano fragments, Metate fragments, flakes, a chopper, and 3 discoidals (Woods 2018).

After the sites with Right discoidals were identified. A taxonomic classification of the Right Discoidals from phase one was created. The form attributes first developed by

Underbrink and Koerper (2006) were the basis of the taxonomic classification for this research and later adapted by Koerper and Cramer (2010), then further adapted for this research. Of the 40 Right discoidals used in this research, only 38 were able to be classified by form type, as the two other Right discoidals were not examined directly, but were indirectly examined from data collected from a site record and only contained measurements. 13 of the Right discoidals from the Sutton (1978) article were also indirectly examined, although Sutton classified the Right Discoidals from CA-SDI-4575 in the article. This research used Sutton’s classifications of the those Right discoidals.

33 Table 1. Quantity of Right Discoidals by Form Type. First descriptors are the face attributes and the second descriptor is the side attribute.

Quan%ty(of(Right(Discoidals(by(Type(

Flat/Concave.Straight"

Convex/Concave.Straight"

Flat.Straight"

Flat.Convex"

Convex.Straight"

Convex.Convex"

0" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16"

Table 2. Quantity of Right Discoidals by Form Type per Site.

10" Convex+Convex"

8" Convex+Straight"

6" Flat+Convex"

4" Flat+Straight"

2" Convex/Concave+Straight"

Flat/Concave+Straight" 0" SDI+303" SDI+4575" SDI+6133" SDI+16419" SDI+16419" SDI+11068" SDI+11057" SDI+12155" SDI+13986" SDI+14626" SDI+19406" SDI+12100" SDI+22443" SDI+14196" SDI+14693"

SDI+1313/14791"

34 Table 3. Artifact Form with complete inventory of all sites and discoidals recorded.

Radio% Other%Site% Weight% Diameter% Length% Thickness% On% Carbon% Site%# Identification (grams) (cm) (CM) Width%(cm) (cm) Face%Shape Edge%Shape Material Comments Depth Drainage Near%Water Knoll Photo Drawing dates SDIG6133 SDAC%#453 1655.8 12.1 12.05 12.05 6.6 Flat Convex Granite displayed n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Convex/con SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 9.5 n/a n/a 4 cave Straight Granite pecked n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 9.8 n/a n/a 5.5 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 10.3 n/a n/a 6.2 Convex Convex quartzite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 10.8 n/a n/a 5.5 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 12.5 n/a n/a 7 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 12.8 n/a n/a 6.5 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 13.5 n/a n/a 6 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 14 n/a n/a 6 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 15.5 n/a n/a 5.5 Flat Straight Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 16 n/a n/a 7.2 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Concave/Co SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 20.2 n/a n/a 6.5 nvex Straight Granite pecked n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 21.3 n/a n/a 7 Flat Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 22 n/a n/a 8 Convex Convex andesite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG303 Rincon%133 n/a 9.1 n/a n/a 3.18 n/a Straight n/a n/a n/a n/a y n/a n y;%Fig%16 n/a 7474S6090% Missing% cal%BP,%cal% report,% 5520S4140% SDIG19406 CP%110%#48 214.1 6.55 6.55 5.73 4.44 Convex Straight Granitic fragmented surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a BC 7474S6090%% cal%BP,%cal% Missing% 5520S4140% SDIG19406 CP%110%#51 1487.1 11.96 12.3 11.96 6.1 Convex Convex Granite report surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a BC Site%not%in% report,chipp SDIG16419 CP%112%#4 370.7 7.23 7.27 6.96 4.56 Flat Convex granite ed surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a Site%not%in% report,chipp SDIG16419 CP%112%#3 >%2000 12.97 12.97 12.92 7.41 Convex Convex Granite ed Surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a need%site% SDIG14693 CP%36%#36 516.9 8.5 8.5 8.4 4.3 Flat Convex Granite records surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG14628 SDAC n/a 8.5 n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a 2%discoidals Surface n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG14628 SDAC n/a 10 n/a n/a 7 n/a n/a n/a 2%discoidals Surface n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a need%site% SDIG14626 CP%36%#37 340.5 7.4 7.5 7.3 4.4 Convex Convex Granite records surface n/a 500m ridge y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG14626 CP%72%#94 1187.5 10.64 10.77 10.64 6.34 Flat Convex basalt chipped surface n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a 10S20%cm% SDIG14626 CP%72%#149 980.1 10.87 10.87 10.63 6.16 Flat Convex basalt chipped bs n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a need%site% metavolcani records;frag SDIG14626 CP%36%#38 >%1200 12.6 12.6 11.7 7.3 Convex Straight c mented Surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a

SDIG14196 SDAC%473%#27 909.2 11.35 11.66 11.14 4.08 Flat Convex Granitic n/a Surface n/a Y y y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG13986 CP%10%#619 259.8 6.2 6.22 6.24 4.22 Convex Straight Granite n/a surface n/a y y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG13986 CP%10%#14.1 214.3 6.53 6.52 6.38 3.57 Convex Convex Granite fragmented Surface n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG13986 CP%10%#15.1 293 6.51 6.51 5.48 4.39 Convex Convex Granite n/a Surface n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a FlatS SDIG13986 #116 883.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 4.8 concaved Straight Granite Pecked n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a chipped% 9410S with%some% 2865cal%BP;% SDIG fire% 30S40%cm% 6600S 1313/14791 CP%119%#63 489.8 8.7 8.7 8.58 3.95 Flat Convex basalt affection bs n/a y y y%(5) n/a 5200BP pinkish(iron% content)% Complete% good%for% SDIG12155 SDAC%616%#18 903 10 n/a n/a 4.7 Flat Straight Granitic microscope surface n/a y y y%(4) n n/a second% discoidal% may%exist%in% collection,% named%a% Trench% "gaming% scrape;% 7460S7010% SDIG12100 CP%26%#443 236.5 6.9 6.7 6.5 3.53 Convex Straight Granite stone" backdirt n/a y n/a y%(3) y cal%BP On%display% SDIG11068A #M138 >%2000 17.1 n/a n/a 6.4 Flat Straight Granite at%SDAC n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a displayed,% shovel% scrape%on% SDIG11068A SDAC%#17231 1029.8 11.1 11 11.2 4.6 Flat Convex Granite side n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a FAR%and% SDIG11057 SDAC%443%#77 654.8 11 n/a n/a 5.05 Flat Straight Granitic fragmented surface n/a y%200feet y y%(4) y y LFAMS706S SDIG22443 102 n/a 8 8 8 5 Convex Straight Granite n/a Surface y y y y n/a n/a LFAMS706S SDIG22443 103 n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 7.5 Flat Straight Granite n/a Surface y y y y n/a n/a LFAMS706S SDIG22443 101 n/a 16.4 16.4 16.4 8.5 Flat Straight Granite n/a Surface y y y y n/a n/a

The other 24 right discoidals were examined directly; 21 of the right discoidals are housed at the San Diego Archaeological Center and three are being curated at Camp

Pendleton. The results of the taxonomic classification are as follows in Table 1.

The taxonomy of Right discoidals shows that there are six primary form types included in the sites researched. The form types are Flat/Concave-Straight,

35 Convex/Concave-Straight, Flat-Straight, Flat-Convex, Convex-Straight, and Convex-

Convex. A break down of the form types by site can be seen in Table 2.

An Artifact Form was created from the data collected from all the sites. The criterion for the Artifact form was discussed in Chapter 3. The data on each Right

Discoidal can be observed in the table below. Table 3 consists of the 16 sites and 40 discoidals used in this research.

The spatial data collected for this research can be found within the Artifact Form and Figure 4 shows the distribution of the 15 of the sites across Southern California. The spatial data was obtained from site records and reports. For five of the sites, CA-SDI-303,

CA-SDI-4575, CA-SDI-9537, CA-SDI-9585, and CA-SDI-15110, no locational maps were obtained, but these sites are all within San Diego County.

The temporal data collected for this research is noted in the Artifact Form. Figure

5 shows the location and the date range of the sites with radiocarbon dates. There were three sites with radiocarbon dates that I was able to record. The sites are all in San Diego

County and they are CA-SDI-1313/14791, CA-SDI-12100, and CA-SDI-19406. CA-SDI-

1313/14791 had two date ranges from radiocarbon, which were conducted by Beta

Analytics Inc. in Florida for AECOM Technology Services. The two ranges calibrated ranges are 9410-2865 B.P. and 6600-5200 B.P. (Ugan and Darcangelo 2016). Site CA-

SDI-12100 has a calibrated radiocarbon date of 7460-7010 B.P. and was conducted by

Beta Analytics Inc. for Gallegos and Associates (Gallegos and Kyle 1991). CA-SDI-

19406 has a calibrated radiocarbon date of 7474-6090 B.P. and was conducted by Beta

Analytics Inc. for EDAW, Incorporated (Quach 2016).

36

Figure 2. Locational Map of the distribution of sites with positive results for Right discoidals studied in this research. The range is from Orange County through San Diego County.

37 6600-5200 cal B.P. 7470-6090 cal B.P.

7460-7010 cal B.P.

Legend

(! Sites Ü Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Figure 3. Location of sites with radiocarbon dates with other sites indicated with a red dot.

38 The data collected and organized in this chapter was obtained from reports, site records, field work, and with the help of museum collections. The data has been organized for the purposes of analysis and documentation. The following chapter will provide the results of the analysis of the Right discoidals research for this project.

39 Chapter 5: Analysis

Results of the analysis of the right discoidals are reported in this section. The analysis will be concerned with right discoidal form types, the size of the right discoidal, the use-wear of the right discoidal, and their relationship with one another, as well as their relationship with the original site assemblage. This section will begin with a comparison of the form types examined. Followed by a comparison of the attributes recorded on the Artifact form, such as site location and measurement preferences.

Temporal and spatial comparisons will be included. The use-wear analysis will conclude the analysis section.

The forms of the right discoidals are very similar to one another, but there are subtle and sometimes obvious differences. Modifying the typology introduced by

Koerper and Cramer (2010), I identified and typed 38 of the 40 right discoidals into flat/concave-straight, convex/concave-straight, flat-convex, flat-straight, convex-convex, and convex-straight form types. Additionally, three of the right discoidals have pecking on one of the faces creating a concavity, so included in the typology is convex/concave and flat/concave face forms. Of the 38 right discoidals examined, 14 of them were from previous publications and I was not able to examine them personally. Although, using the descriptions of the authors was enough to establish form types. The combinations of all of these form types are represented in the research. Besides the sites where only one right discoidal was discovered, the form types of the right discoidals at other sites are not uniform. They are a mixture of convex-straight, flat-convex, etc. The quantities of right discoidals, in terms of form types, are broken down as follows in Table 1, along with the quantities of form types by site in Table 2. The right discoidal form type represented the

40 most in this research is the convex-convex form type with 14 discoidals. The three with a concaved side are in the minority.

The quantitative data collected on the right discoidals consists of typology, use wear, measurements, spatial, and temporal data. The measurements of each discoidal were acquired using a caliper for accuracy. Length, width, thickness, diameter, weight, and material were recorded on the discoidals from SDAC and CPEN. The remaining discoidals’ measurements were found in site records and reports. Measurements obtained from the site records and reports varied, in that some of the included weight and some did not and some included length and width, while some only had the diameter. Thickness was included in all of the site records and reports that included measurements. The following table presents the diameter and thickness measurement data collected (Table

4).

Sizes of the right discoidals tell a similar story as the form types. There is a wide range in the diameters of the right discoidals sampled. They range from large to small with the largest at near 23 cm and the smallest around 6 cm in diameter (Table 4). This range suggests that the right discoidals were manufactured from various size cobbles, thus the various sizes recorded. There was no visible effort seen to create uniform sized right discoidals, although there is indication of an attempt at uniformity in the thickness to diameter ratio, which was recorded in this sample group at close to 1 cm of thickness to 2 cm of diameter. The exception to this are the large right discoidals of above 16 cm in diameter, which were closer to 1:3 (Table 4). The discoidals sampled were split in to 1 cm sub-ranges between the overall ranges from between 6 centimeters (cm) on the low end to 23 cm on the high end. The mean or average diameter of the right discoidals

41 sampled is 11.46 cm. The median for the right discoidals sampled falls between 12 – 13 cm. The mode for the right discoidals sampled is between 10 – 11 cm, which seven fall into this range. The mean for the thickness of the right discoidals sampled is 5.59 cm.

The mean ratio of diameter to thickness is 2.05, 1:2 (Table 5). The mean weight for the right discoidals sampled is 804.58 grams (g) (Table 6).

Table 4. The diameter and thickness in centimeters for each discoidal sampled.

42 Table 5. The diameter and thickness ratio in centimeters of each discoidal sampled.

Ra#o%Diameter/Thickness%(cm)% 3.5"

3"

2.5"

2"

1.5" Ra4o"Diameter/Thickness"(cm)"

1"

0.5"

0" SDI+303" SDI+9585" SDI+9537" SDI+6133" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+19406" SDI+19406" SDI+16419" SDI+16419" SDI+14693" SDI+14628" SDI+14628" SDI+14626" SDI+14626" SDI+14626" SDI+14626" SDI+14196" SDI+13986" SDI+13986" SDI+13986" SDI+13986" SDI+12155" SDI+12100" SDI+11068" SDI+11068" SDI+11057" SDI+1313/14791"

Table 6. The weight of each discoidal sampled in grams.

43 The spatial data was collected from the site records and reports. The spatial data consist of GPS metadata collected in the field and georeferenced in ArcGIS. All of the sites sampled are within the boundary of San Diego County, with a majority of the sites within the United States Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (Figure 3). Other locational data was recorded concern type of landscape the sites occupied. All of the sites are near water and are on a terrace, knoll or ridge. The discoidals themselves were mostly found on the surface, with three exceptions. One discoidal was found in a back dirt pile of a trench, another one was found at a depth of 10-20 cm below surface, and the third one was at a depth of 30-40 cm below surface.

The temporal data points to the Middle Archaic Period. CA-SDI-1313/14791 had two date ranges from radiocarbon. The two ranges calibrated ranges are 9410-2865 B.P. and 6600-5200 B.P. Site CA-SDI-12100 has a calibrated radiocarbon date of 7460-7010

B.P. CA-SDI-19406 has a calibrated radiocarbon date of 7474-6090 B.P.

Use-wear analysis was conducted macroscopically or visually. Several of the right discoidals contained chips and scratches acquired during excavations. One of the right discoidals from site (CA-SDI-13986) showed pecking, which created a slightly concaved surface face. Two other right discoidals examined by Sutton (1978) showed similar pecking. Although it is discoidals are commonly described as having no use-wear marks

(Sutton 1978), the polish is actually the use-wear and can give suggestions are to the function of the right discoidal (Adams 2014).

21 discoidals from the SDAC were directly analyzed, macroscopically, for their use-wear patterning, along with three from fieldwork aboard Marine Corps Base Camp

Pendleton. Below the results from the use-wear analyses are presented by site. The

44 description will give the asperity (material type), the topography of the surface, with mechanism used, kinematic process, and comparable tool.

Site CA-SDI-1313/14791 consisted of one right discoidal (CP 119 #63) (Photo 3).

Discoidal CP 19 #63 has a chip and appears to have been fire affected. This discoidal is manufactured from basalt, which is a more asperite material. The topography of this discoidal is flat. The mechanism of interaction is abrasive and tribochemical. The kinematic process is a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Photo 3. Right discoidal (CP 119 #63) from 1313/14791 in dorsal view. Site CA-SDI-6133 consisted of one right discoidal (SDAC #453). This discoidal is manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of this discoidal is flat. The mechanism of interaction is abrasive and tribochemical. The kinematic process is a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

45 Site CA-SDI-11057 consisted of one right discoidal (SDAC 443 #77) (Photo 4).

Discoidal SDAC 4443 #77 was fragmented and appears to have been fire affected. This discoidal is manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of this discoidal is flat. The mechanism of interaction is abrasive and tribochemical. The kinematic process is a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Photo 4. Right discoidal (SDAC 443 #77) from CA-SDI-11057 in dorsal view. Site CA-SDI-11068 consisted of two right discoidals (#M138 and SDAC

#17231). Discoidal #17231 suffered a shovel scrape during excavation. These discoidal are manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of these discoidals is flat. The mechanisms of interaction are abrasive and tribochemical for both discoidals. The kinematic processes consist of a flat stroke for both discoidals, but

46 neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-12100 consisted of one right discoidal (CP 26 #443). This discoidal is manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of this discoidal is flat. The mechanism of interaction is abrasive and tribochemical. The kinematic process is a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-12155 consisted of one right discoidal (SDAC 616 #18) (Photo 5).

This discoidal is manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of this discoidal is flat. The mechanism of interaction is abrasive and tribochemical. The kinematic process is a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Photo 5. Right discoidal (SDAC 616 #18) in side view.

47 Site CA-SDI-13986 consisted of four right discoidals (CP 10 #619, CP 10 #14.1,

CP 10 #15.1 and #116). Discoidal CP 10 #14.1 is fragmented and discoidal #116 has evidence of pecking on one side. These discoidals are all manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of these discoidals is flat. The mechanisms of interaction are abrasive and tribochemical for these discoidals. The kinematic processes are a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-14196 consisted of one right discoidal (SDAC 473 #27). This discoidal is manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of this discoidal is flat. The mechanism of interaction is abrasive and tribochemical. The kinematic process is a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-14626 consisted of four right discoidals (CP 36 #37, CP 72 #94, CP

72 #149 and CP 36 #38). Discoidal CP 72 #94 and discoidal CP 72 #149 are chipped.

Discoidal CP 36 #38 is fragmented. These discoidals are manufactured from granite (CP

36 #37), basalt (CP 72 #94 and CP 72 #149), and metavolcanic (CP 36 #38), which are all more asperite materials. The topography of these discoidals is flat. The mechanisms of interaction are abrasive and tribochemical for these discoidals. The kinematic processes are a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-14693 consisted of one right discoidal (CP 36 #36). This discoidal is manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of this discoidal is flat. The mechanism of interaction is abrasive and tribochemical. The

48 kinematic process is a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-16419 consisted of two right discoidals (CP 112 #3 and CP 112 #4).

Discoidal CP 110 #48 (Figure) and discoidal CP 11 #51 are chipped (Figure ). These discoidals are both manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of both discoidals is flat. The mechanisms of interaction are abrasive and tribochemical for both discoidals. The kinematic processes are a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-19406 consisted of two right discoidals (CP 110 #48 and CP 110

#51). Discoidal CP 110 #48 is fragmented, while discoidal CP 110 #51 is chipped and suffered damage during excavation. These discoidals are both manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of both discoidals is flat. The mechanisms of interaction are abrasive and tribochemical for both discoidals. The kinematic processes are a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

Site CA-SDI-22443 consisted of three right discoidals (LFAM 706-101, -102, and

-103). These discoidals are all manufactured from granite, which is a more asperite material. The topography of all the discoidals is flat. The mechanisms of interaction are abrasive and tribochemical for all discoidals. The kinematic processes are a flat stroke, but neither circular or reciprocal strokes could not be ascertained. A stone polisher is the most possible tool type.

49 This concludes the analysis section of this report. The next section will discuss the possible meanings of the data collected in phase one, organized in phase two and analyzed in phase three of this research.

50 Chapter 6: Discussion

This section of the thesis will discuss the interpretation of the analyses from

Chapter 5. The analyses of the right discoidals sampled used several different methods, established in Chapter 4, which consisted of a comparison of the form of each discoidal, a spatial analysis of the range of the right discoidal, a temporal analysis, and a use-wear analysis. These analyses where performed to identify a function of the right discoidal.

The analysis of the right discoidal’s form can be interpreted into a comparison by site (spatially) or by time (temporally).

By looking at the data, it is not evident that the right discoidals are particular to specific sites, as there are several different form type examples present at different sites.

There are a few possible reasons to this phenomenon. First, this could be evidence of a change of form types over time, but because the samples are dated by associated artifacts, such as shells, only a broad dating to the Middle Archaic Phase II (7,500 B.P. to 4,250

B.P.) can be made. Second, they could be purposefully different because each form type could have a specific symbolic meaning associated with it. Third, the right discoidals could be at different stages in the manufacturing process, but this is unlikely due to the quantity of right discoidals present, unless they are blanks for trade. And last, the right discoidals form types could be the result of different manufactures or manufacturing styles. The range of diameters could point to separate symbolic meanings or values according to size. Another possibility is if the right discoidals had symbolic meanings, then they were manufactured in large and small to allow for permanent and travel sizes.

This diameter to thickness ration could have a functional purpose.

51 The analyses of the site locations and the temporal data contained no surprises.

The site locations are consistent with other sites, which have a right discoidals present in their assemblages. The temporal data from the three sites with radio carbon dates had a range of 9,410-2,865 B.P, but this is from a multi-component site (CA-SDI-1313/14791).

A better estimation of the temporal range of the sites is 7460-5200 B.P., which falls within the Middle Archaic Phases I and II using Gallegos 2017 chronology.

The use-wear analysis is the most interesting. Time and time again, I would read or hear that discoidals show no use-wear, but I think that is an invalid assumption. Once the polish on the right discoidals was identified as a use-wear, the opportunity to discover the function seemed likely. Using Adams (2014) “Ground Stone Analysis” book as a guide, a comparison of tool types by use-wear patterns was a important break-through.

When comparing the right discoidal against the experiments performed, a clear tool was identified, a polisher. A polisher will have a smooth texture to alter the surfaces of other objects, such as hinds, pottery, floors, or stone. According to Adams (2014), stone polishers are “distinguishable from all other types of polishers by their use-wear patterns”. A sheen or polish occurs from the abrasive and tribochemical mechanisms, which correspond with the analysis of the right discoidals. She continues, that “if the polished stone surface is more asperite than the polisher, striations form on the polisher’s surface”, which if looked at conversely, could point to a reason for the lack of striations accounted for on right discoidals.

The analyses of the right discoidals show no real preference to size or form, perhaps that is just the result of a change over time. The locational and temporal data was

52 consistent with other research. The use-wear patterning shows promise. Enough to declare the most likely, original function of a discoidal was that of a stone polisher.

53 Conclusion

When looking at a discoidal, a sense of mystery overcomes you. What is this?

Why was it made? What did this object mean to who made or even to the entire society?

These were some of the questions, which were sought out during the research of this thesis and a likely possible function was identified.

Discoidals are present in the archaeological record early in the chronologies within Southern California. The Middle Archaic ranges from 8000 to 6000 years ago.

This discoidal tradition or culture may have existed for over 3500 years. That is a long time to create this groundstones. Understanding their purpose within that culture could open up a completely new understanding of the Paleo-Indian social structure.

The discoidals could have been weights for nets, blanks for further processing, religious symbols, part of a game, or even a specific tool for the manufacturing of other groundstones.

The discoidal could have been used as weights for netting. Netting is a subsistence strategy used for fishing and hunting. Fishing nets used in the ocean and fresh water could utilize the discoidals as weights to allow the nets to become taut in the water.

Although, there are no use-wear marks that would suggest the discoidals in this research were used in such a way. There would have been friction marks that corresponded with the rope from the netting. Nets are useful in hunting rabbits and other small game, abundant in the area, but again there are no use-wear marks that would suggest such a use. The weight of the discoidals is another factor. They are heavy and would not be consider a mobile tool, maybe some of the smaller ones could be portable, but it is unlikely.

54 The blanks for further processing theory is an interesting one. Because discoidals are found further north into the Santa Barbara Area, one the Channel Islands, further south in the Baja Region, and into the interior, could the Early Holocene discoidals found in northern San Diego County be a trade item. If so, this could point to a very early development of trade in Southern California. We know the discoidal technology is present during the Millingstone Horizon for approximately 3,500 years. Discoidals in all its forms are found throughout, but only in northern San Diego County is the presence of this specific type of discoidal, the right discoidal. Northern San Diego County along the coast is a rich and fertile land, ripe with resources. The sites found during this temporal phase are known to be more sedentary. Although, I believe the right discoidals are in their final form and thus would eliminate them as a blank for some other tool.

The discoidals have been suggested to be religious, ceremonial, or sacred objects.

If this were true, these discoidals would be the early religious artifacts in the new world.

Did discoidals represent a religious symbols? Where they effigies symbolizing something else in the landscape? Or did they even symbolize something in the celestial plane, a star, the moon, or the sun? Once again, there is no evidence to support these functions.

There are games in the northeast that use similar stone discs, like Chunky.

Chunkey is a game found in the Plains and Southeastern United States during the

Mississippian culture. The Chunkey game pieces is a discoidal similar to the right discoidal, except the chunkey discoidal’s face is concaved, where as the right discoidal’s face is flat or convexed. Could the Early Holocene discoidal be a progenitor of the chunkey game piece? Did the culture disseminate this game to other cultures and across

55 the Americas? This is a possibility and there is no doubt repurposing of older tools does occur, but there is no evidence of this game being played during the Middle Archaic.

Many tools are created for specific jobs in the modern world. Could the discoidal be a specific tool for the ancient world? Considering the lack of use-wear on the discoidals in terms of scratches or other marks, the highly polished surfaces suggest continual polishing. Could they have been used the manufacturing process of metates or even in tanning of the skins. If the function of the discoidal was utilitarian, then why is there a lack of use-wear marks? I believe a stone polisher as the function of a right discoidal is verified when comparison of it’s attributes.

It took time to create a discoidal. The continued pecking and polishing. Days, weeks, and probably even months of work to create a discoidal. The culture had to be more sedentary. The culture has to have surplus of resources or readily available without much effort. To allow the time spent making a discoidal would have taken time away from more important activities, which supported survival. So the creation of a discoidal had to be just as important to the culture’s survival as food and shelter. Regardless of function, the manufacturing of the right discoidals suggests specialists.

Further research is welcomed, such as microscopic analysis of the mechanisms and stroke patterning on the surfaces of the right discoidal could validate the conclusion made here. Adding to the inventory of right discoidals could also benefit the research into them, if standard quantitative data and taxonomic classifications are observed. There is ample opportunity in discoidal research and with new technologies, the results here can be verified.

56 References

Adams, J. L. 1988 Use-Wear Analysis of Handstones Used to Grind Corn and Process Hides. Journal of Field Archaeology 15(3):307-315.

1989a Experimental Replication of the Use of Ground Stone Tools. Kiva 54(3):261- 271.

1989b Methods for Improving Ground Stone Analysis: Experiments in Mano Wear Patterns. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D.S. Amick and R.P. Mauldin, pp. 259-276. BAR International Series No. 528. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1993a Mechanisms of Wear on Ground Stone Surfaces. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(4):61-74.

2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

2014 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. Second Edition. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Adams, J. L., S. Delgado, L. Dubreuil, C. Hamon, H. Plisson, and R. Risch 2009 Functional Analysis of Macro-Lithic Artefacts: A Focus on Working Surfaces. In Non-Flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory: Old Prejudices and New Directions, edited by F. Sternke, L.J. Costa, and L. Eigelans, pp. 43-66. Proceeding of the XV Congress of UISPP. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Adrefsky, W. Jr. 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21-34.

Barnard, A. 2000 History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

Blau, P. J. 1989 Friction and Wear: Transitions of Materials. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey.

Burton, M. M. 2007 Understanding Hunter-Gather Grinding Technology Through Experimentation. NSF Award No. 0714727.

57 Bushan, B., and B. K. Gupta 1991 Handbook of Tribology, Materials, Coatings, and Surface Treatments. McGraw- Hill, New York.

Butts, B. 1994 Southeastern Discoidals. Central States Archaeological Journal 41(3):130-132.

Byrd, B. F., J. Rosenthal, and W. Hildebrant 2005 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation at CA-SDI-14,597 and CA-SDI-14,675, MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Chartkoff, J. and K. K. Chartkoff 1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, California.

Czichos, H. 1978 Tribology: A Systems Approach to the Science and Technology of Friction, Lubrication, and Wear. Tribology Series No. 1 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York.

Dubreuil, L. 2004 Long-Term Trends in Natufian Subsistence: A Use-Wear Analysis of Ground Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1613-1629.

Dubreuil, L., and L. Grossman 2009 Ochre and Hide-Working at a Natufian Burial Place. Antiquity 83:935-954.

Dowson, D. 1979 History of Tribology. Longman, New York.

Eberhart, H. 1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern California. American Antiquity 26(3):361-370.

Fagan, B. 1996 The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford University Press, New York.

Fitzgerald, R. T. and C. Corey 2009 The Antiquity and Significance of Effigies and Representational Art in Southern California Prehistory. California Archaeology 1(2):183-204.

Gallegos, D. R. 2017 First People: A Revised Chronology for San Diego County. Story Seekers, San Diego, California.

58 Gallegos, D. R., and M. Guerrero 2009 Cultural Resource Survey and Test for Otay Ranch Parcels B and C Chula Vista, San Diego, California, Vol. 1. Report prepared by Gallegos and Associates, Carlsbad, California.

Gallegos, D. R., and C. E. Kyle 1991 Historical/Archaeological Survey and National Register Evaluation Report for Camp Pendleton Military Family Housing San Diego, California. Prepared by Gallegos and Associates, Carlsbad, California.

1994 Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI-11606, CA-SDI- 11057A, and CA-SDI-11057B, Kumeyaay Lake Campground, San Diego, California, Vol. 1. Report prepared by Gallegos and Associates, Carlsbad, California.

Hamon, C. 2008 Functional Analysis of Stone-Grinding and Polishing Tools from the Earliest Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1502- 1520.

Hamon, C., and H. Plisson 2008 Which Analytical Framework for the Functional Analysis of Grinding Stones? The Blind Test Contribution. In “Prehistoric Technology” 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy, edited by L. Longo and N. Skakum, pp. 29-38. Museo Civico di Verona and Universita delgi Studi di Verona, Verona. BAR International Series 1783. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Iribarren Ch., J. 1962 Correlations between Archaic Cultures in Southern California and Coquimbo, Chile. American Antiquity 27(3):424-425.

Kato, K. 2002 Classification of Wear Mechanisms/Models. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 216(Pt. J):349-355.

Koerper, H. C. and J. Cramer 2010 A Unique Discoidal from CA-ORA-85, Bolsa Chica Mesa, Huntington Beach, California. Pacific Coastal Archaeology Society Quarterly 44 (3): 67-79.

Koerper, H. C. and B. McDearmon 2010a Samuel Cary Evans, Jr. and His Beloved Cogged Stones. Pacific Coastal Archaeology Society Quarterly 44 (2): 55-68.

2010b More on Samuel Cary Evans, Jr. and His Cogged Stone Research. Pacific Coastal Archaeology Society Quarterly 44 (3): 25-65.

59 Kragelsky, I.V., M.N. Dobychin, and V.S. Kombalov 1982 Friction and Wear: Calculation Methods. Pergamon Press, New York.

Laylander, D. 2006 Extended Phase I Testing at Prehistoric Sites CA-SDI-10879, CA-SDI-10880, and CA-SDI-12155 Near Bonsall, San Diego County, California. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, California.

Odell, G. H. 2003 Lithic Analysis. Springer Science, New York.

Preucel R. W., and S. A. Mrozowski (eds) 2010 Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. The New Pragmatism. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Procopiou, H. 2004 Le Broyage des Matieres Minerales: L’apport de la Tribologie A L’identification de la Transformation des Matieres Minerales. Dossiersd’ Archeologie: La Tribologie 290:58-61.

Quach, T. 2016 Site Record Form for CA-SDI-19406. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Quinn, T. F. J. 1971 The Application of Modern Physical Techniques to Tribology. Newnes- Butterworths, London.

Reddy, S. N., B. Giacomini, J. Schaefer, and C. J. Doolittle 1998 Prehistoric Landscapes in Coastal Southern California: Archaeological Survey on Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California Volume 1. Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Encinitas, California.

Risch, R. 1995 Recursos naturales y sistemas de preduccion en la Sudeste de la Peninsula Iberica entre 3000 y 1000 ANE. Ph.D. dissertation, Univeritat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra. http://tdx.cbuc.es/TDX-0507108-164458/index.html.

2008 From Production Traces to Social Organisation: Towards an Epistemology of Functional Analysis. In “Prehistoric Technology” 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy, edited by L. Longo and N. Skakun, pp. 519-527. Museo Civico di Verona and Universita degli Studi di Verona, Verona. BAR International Series 1783. Archaeopress, Oxford.

60 Sutton, M. Q. 1978 A Series of Discoidals from Northern San Diego County, California. The Journal of California Anthropology 5:266-270.

Szeri, A. Z. 1980 Tribology: Friction, Lubrication, and Wear. Hemisphere Publishing, New York.

Teer, D. G., and R. D. Arnell 1975 Wear. In Principles of Tribology, edited by J. Halling, pp. 94-107. MacMillan Press, London.

True, D. L., and E. Beemer 1982 Two Milling Stone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2):233-261.

Trigger, Bruce 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Underbrink, S., and H. C. Koerper 2006 A Taxonomic Tour of Cogged Stone Types. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 19:111-119.

Ugan, A., and M. Darcangelo 2016 Site Record Form for CA-SDI-1313/14791. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Vellanoweth, R. L., and J. H. Altschul 2002 Antiquarians, Culture Historians, and Scientists : The Archaeology of the Bight. In Islanders & Mainlanders: Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by J. H. Altschul and D. R. Grenda, pp. 85-112. Statistical Research Inc Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Wallace, W. J. 1954 The Little Sycamore Site and Early Milling Stone Cultures of Southern California. American Antiquity 20:112-123.

1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230.

Warren, C. N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaption on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin, Williams. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3).

61 Woods, J. D. 2018 Site Record Form for CA-SDI-22443. On file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

62

Appendices

Appendix A – Tables

Appendix B – Figures

Appendix C – Photos

63 Appendix A

Table Page

A1. Artifact form with complete inventory of all sites and discoidals 65 sampled. A2. Quantity of right discoidals by form type. 66 A3. Quantity of right discoidals by form type per site. 66 A4. The diameter and thickness in centimeters for each discoidal sampled. 67 A5. The diameter and thickness ratio in centimeters of each discoidal 68 sampled. A6. The weight of each discoidal sampled in grams. 69

64

Table A1. Artifact form with complete inventory of all sites and discoidals sampled.

Radio% Other%Site% Weight% Diameter% Length% Thickness% On% Carbon% Site%# Identification (grams) (cm) (CM) Width%(cm) (cm) Face%Shape Edge%Shape Material Comments Depth Drainage Near%Water Knoll Photo Drawing dates SDIG6133 SDAC%#453 1655.8 12.1 12.05 12.05 6.6 Flat Convex Granite displayed n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Convex/con SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 9.5 n/a n/a 4 cave Straight Granite pecked n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 9.8 n/a n/a 5.5 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 10.3 n/a n/a 6.2 Convex Convex quartzite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 10.8 n/a n/a 5.5 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 12.5 n/a n/a 7 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 12.8 n/a n/a 6.5 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 13.5 n/a n/a 6 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 14 n/a n/a 6 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 15.5 n/a n/a 5.5 Flat Straight Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 16 n/a n/a 7.2 Convex Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Concave/Co SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 20.2 n/a n/a 6.5 nvex Straight Granite pecked n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 21.3 n/a n/a 7 Flat Convex Granite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG4575 Sutton n/a 22 n/a n/a 8 Convex Convex andesite n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG303 Rincon%133 n/a 9.1 n/a n/a 3.18 n/a Straight n/a n/a n/a n/a y n/a n y;%Fig%16 n/a 7474S6090% Missing% cal%BP,%cal% report,% 5520S4140% SDIG19406 CP%110%#48 214.1 6.55 6.55 5.73 4.44 Convex Straight Granitic fragmented surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a BC 7474S6090%% cal%BP,%cal% Missing% 5520S4140% SDIG19406 CP%110%#51 1487.1 11.96 12.3 11.96 6.1 Convex Convex Granite report surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a BC Site%not%in% report,chipp SDIG16419 CP%112%#4 370.7 7.23 7.27 6.96 4.56 Flat Convex granite ed surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a Site%not%in% report,chipp SDIG16419 CP%112%#3 >%2000 12.97 12.97 12.92 7.41 Convex Convex Granite ed Surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a need%site% SDIG14693 CP%36%#36 516.9 8.5 8.5 8.4 4.3 Flat Convex Granite records surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG14628 SDAC n/a 8.5 n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a 2%discoidals Surface n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SDIG14628 SDAC n/a 10 n/a n/a 7 n/a n/a n/a 2%discoidals Surface n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a need%site% SDIG14626 CP%36%#37 340.5 7.4 7.5 7.3 4.4 Convex Convex Granite records surface n/a 500m ridge y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG14626 CP%72%#94 1187.5 10.64 10.77 10.64 6.34 Flat Convex basalt chipped surface n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a 10S20%cm% SDIG14626 CP%72%#149 980.1 10.87 10.87 10.63 6.16 Flat Convex basalt chipped bs n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a need%site% metavolcani records;frag SDIG14626 CP%36%#38 >%1200 12.6 12.6 11.7 7.3 Convex Straight c mented Surface n/a n/a n/a y%(3) n/a n/a

SDIG14196 SDAC%473%#27 909.2 11.35 11.66 11.14 4.08 Flat Convex Granitic n/a Surface n/a Y y y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG13986 CP%10%#619 259.8 6.2 6.22 6.24 4.22 Convex Straight Granite n/a surface n/a y y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG13986 CP%10%#14.1 214.3 6.53 6.52 6.38 3.57 Convex Convex Granite fragmented Surface n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a SDIG13986 CP%10%#15.1 293 6.51 6.51 5.48 4.39 Convex Convex Granite n/a Surface n/a y y y%(3) n/a n/a FlatS SDIG13986 #116 883.2 9.9 9.9 9.9 4.8 concaved Straight Granite Pecked n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a chipped% 9410S with%some% 2865cal%BP;% SDIG fire% 30S40%cm% 6600S 1313/14791 CP%119%#63 489.8 8.7 8.7 8.58 3.95 Flat Convex basalt affection bs n/a y y y%(5) n/a 5200BP pinkish(iron% content)% Complete% good%for% SDIG12155 SDAC%616%#18 903 10 n/a n/a 4.7 Flat Straight Granitic microscope surface n/a y y y%(4) n n/a second% discoidal% may%exist%in% collection,% named%a% Trench% "gaming% scrape;% 7460S7010% SDIG12100 CP%26%#443 236.5 6.9 6.7 6.5 3.53 Convex Straight Granite stone" backdirt n/a y n/a y%(3) y cal%BP On%display% SDIG11068A #M138 >%2000 17.1 n/a n/a 6.4 Flat Straight Granite at%SDAC n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a displayed,% shovel% scrape%on% SDIG11068A SDAC%#17231 1029.8 11.1 11 11.2 4.6 Flat Convex Granite side n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a FAR%and% SDIG11057 SDAC%443%#77 654.8 11 n/a n/a 5.05 Flat Straight Granitic fragmented surface n/a y%200feet y y%(4) y y LFAMS706S SDIG22443 102 n/a 8 8 8 5 Convex Straight Granite n/a Surface y y y y n/a n/a LFAMS706S SDIG22443 103 n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 7.5 Flat Straight Granite n/a Surface y y y y n/a n/a LFAMS706S SDIG22443 101 n/a 16.4 16.4 16.4 8.5 Flat Straight Granite n/a Surface y y y y n/a n/a

65

Table A2. Quantity of Right Discoidals by Form Type. First descriptors are the face attributes and the second descriptor is the side attribute.

Quan%ty(of(Right(Discoidals(by(Type(

Flat/Concave.Straight"

Convex/Concave.Straight"

Flat.Straight"

Flat.Convex"

Convex.Straight"

Convex.Convex"

0" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16"

Table A3. Quantity of Right Discoidals by Form Type per Site.

10" Convex+Convex"

8" Convex+Straight"

6" Flat+Convex"

4" Flat+Straight"

2" Convex/Concave+Straight"

Flat/Concave+Straight" 0" SDI+303" SDI+4575" SDI+6133" SDI+16419" SDI+16419" SDI+11068" SDI+11057" SDI+12155" SDI+13986" SDI+14626" SDI+19406" SDI+12100" SDI+22443" SDI+14196" SDI+14693"

SDI+1313/14791"

66 Table A4. The diameter and thickness in centimeters for each discoidal sampled.

67 Table A5. The diameter and thickness ratio in centimeters of each discoidal sampled.

Ra#o%Diameter/Thickness%(cm)% 3.5"

3"

2.5"

2"

1.5" Ra4o"Diameter/Thickness"(cm)"

1"

0.5"

0" SDI+303" SDI+9585" SDI+9537" SDI+6133" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+4575" SDI+19406" SDI+19406" SDI+16419" SDI+16419" SDI+14693" SDI+14628" SDI+14628" SDI+14626" SDI+14626" SDI+14626" SDI+14626" SDI+14196" SDI+13986" SDI+13986" SDI+13986" SDI+13986" SDI+12155" SDI+12100" SDI+11068" SDI+11068" SDI+11057" SDI+1313/14791"

68 Table A6. The weight of each discoidal sampled in grams.

69 Appendix B

Figure Page B1. Revised Chronology for San Diego County (Gallegos 2017) 71 B2. Discoidal Taxonomic Descriptions (Koerper and Cramer 2010) 72 B3. A map of the distribution of sites containing Right Discoidals 73 across San Diego County. B4. Locational Map of the distribution of sites with positive results 74 for Right discoidals studied in this research. B5. Location of sites with radiocarbon dates with other sites indicated 75 with a red dot.

70 B4 First People: A Reyised Chronology San Diego County for m il

ls #i fe # ul-

f\ i', J ;t ,#I \mI

rn^ Iecl % # {'t 1- *6. ttt f.. iJ A p\ v' thO itl F\ l'a ,a d\ ii*^H6 A !rda t r; tr Yi A# . rt f r*, U Il "i6 5i f 0* tlt" ,*t !: }ti )' i* s\= k* qqJ- H; ,a6 'f l\t rv .A *i - .LJ V rn'4 ,i,": c 4, ')d al ,\ #.>l-h.* tff l*-*fa r <* AUUC)-G ^ -S -,H -!r v.,-5lE; *tl :sr*# = l* *X^H i* 1 * r U= i xl l1la,w"l $il5 68#S

r:- g + i I Rr i .er r#t r r4,&+rrd}r** H il %* o * & ft * *r v1 u\,,i./ v : u, (3 O r * .S g E S H a * *\dt ;^--* s@f# i lr9 .Y trl*rn * I O * A ^ nt ...r** nfr ?! F ?l 1*t .- s H H E H: H"-*frn ilF: X S ry3 fr rtx _A-_:-,=r= _-_lrS *__;__-: iS &T #5 ?, i3 ,( ru **--A-*-J l--*-'*-J!, I Xh zIi..-V F, fl ..'* I ut t;t *t r , kl Pr.iI :"1 # t ].,,gl n A€ 0pr s* $Er *E ?"wGY* iSJE, *E t- lAll*Y4 fi,, Aaa* EHES;fr# S5; esiEEF ' H eE I-gt;.-ft: #H#{i #i$, L, v t-v lY UH t 'tY : # .f il * X?S;$;tna, L:- -fi A*# E fr **tEi XEii tl .C Q hJ' #,$ igsfi *, * * * k 7 EgE*l EEls ?i lnxfri r,*,iq;E{ f u' -l ,fi$:-ffi X.$t$j *; * **is :t, H; #l &&ffi# t .tf ;t lr FF f g'=t tsts -"t*l filo*r irn t* r";l r ,ITt ?r'bit rrrr *t f. f,r1 gI I g,H f;t** (;^ 4., t ,d L.# nL, Jf -, i {# .5 T'* r{ Y,h r dd {:;l .EE .F nu rJH r X:* h !, rJ t vu r' *s" ffi Frd!; *.v*t :;l f'.J fE f ua I *,I n*ift Ary - ;E .:: ..1* xGl* !s .; ttl q ifl h* -r- Hjs 'y) ts t VV ,r.r* A ,* # r*i v? V al lU *# F t',+! FV Y C{J AHtrJ# ^lr * I--F vvr&* 4:. t* A t-' '$ 9"il ,i lvva* i, E, rng diisx{V,a*lYJ^ r ]-a ad. + FA;; * L** r A\ rd*d* ,r a r* U lf lul +-) q!1F g.a.I t O.f, .3* tl\ rE Qr'€H.G tfl; rt G aj S AF hh *l.t-:,A. c., u {.} ,,? r"5 rnX&#..Y f"l il?fr* r-fu H ie-'x t- 7 ts E Il .r tu- - rB l,'yr#,a\ rV ?f;Hf;H*$*0O 4r * {r}tro 3€ E,g lr- u",ay #1 r'\ k# ES f {J :: -E} FK.-A f t {S g ffi 11 ,r Vj b ii u &se \-r .E P"n r* G1 ?* tl* *rt-*ttt" -. Httlenr ,'Et tI f,} KESH tf,& j* fi{rHd tt "fi .H U?A u r* e"r 8 r-:rF {H! *l-*l-l.t# .E X J fi c{tl 6 bo [.r*.,: $l. HA d*s -eG ar{rl S O ,*s H *d .=t #Y H *l ,x # eg$sHFV.c c:["tu]E aUlrk V,E.*-e Av c.rc .rU*n .- I ?,E-i?;; L E- i- =- n vi i?1 $.8 il0F dsL ar ; A ,i;; *r ;-E83it -J 'q A. iEn l-J=A .9 .Hr-n-rr;-{ v J i * v t- i*Lr -*1 {u* -r-.{ (r.l *n *e *F-13Erv' ff,i'il H IT *E # f S#,'-t uag !B CT firt X F.- *CH{1 Er E E.= * I HE.N,q i+ .,.i ,n J U fi E- ";T(,HLJ *Hr a -IP ,t"1; * e'E r; '{ ts-t fi -E j t-t 21 f,, fr I # F I Ufr dffi# ,,P t-,{ .'+;ffi Sr f;4 ux$V t F brs ..t{ I .tf,crr r.} {-) il :*I r.i :.Xs {.} r )'i a I Fd#$ a{L I 'tr {.}^f: N Ea*+Y4 Xi:, rr) I A!** t? dt*g^q ,l x f *l tr k FL $ * ,r * L* {# .*V I tU ir- Q) nrt* UAX ar ^ o F- I d.frr ua; h r t! *'x*it:qLu fr* bLs rfi rt t I *-r dii?, I'E'F ,}V H U (} *, .;.r,=. :f; d =t 'E u r4l* xE* x.*,/\ * {} J"* l- *(u* E.* E *It l5:q (J -+ q.l Y d l) {.} .t HLx fr l"-l tfri* d-d\j \rt l* h t ';: ii *-r \J {g !U:J kr:t dr v7-; f;{ k gtE s"u x P Efcu- ":lihuhr* rg r Ffi+Lt ,I:{ }rlr *cr fifi "E\J .g r** 0 -\&-J *d *ln q r\ v)f$'"i ut # lt .{v.fi T \ !u d4 hl {18}ftv;;*** i \J Gt ri ;,q tt J tt "Y aL= v \-a r+ - J.fi X \l T.qI # \..1 "E $ sYr&tv f iJt .lr tz-i E T'E {r fFrlq lX.x H li} *a \J ut CHFrs ji t:* -fi &!* a,a *'*Hln "E E dvrs {. ;i t..} r* {tu st -uA* {r} u* t-l i;f) cill H; EI= I r- *!), aI*# ,'!! ,1 \, ? . tuH -; j' r: r; e* rr. lJ t/] _ 3J -l *- l* dr fi: f #EI k va t *l lsr' rJ t? G&e*{sgH x :<= bc ti *'J tdl u a"1. A" +; HgssBqqd * * 1* Y'r t- k fr ri fa h *$..*.**i'Ij* c H -l E& #r rl T l1 c #"H^$Hi_ l*t I ^$r I I l3 t, I ri ;ll$l'llItr $xlpftd..rlII"I t tlotr'lrld lj1xffi$l *,nu*y;rr6?r *}BT $lEq*.!Y alpr':H U T r atpBilr I

il{lt}ol{}H i atpptH O _c F

Figure B1. Chronology for San Diego County (Gallegos 2017)

71

Figure B2. Discoidal Taxonomic Descriptions (Koerper and Cramer 2010)

72

Figure B3. A map of the distribution of sites containing discoidals across San Diego County.

73

Figure B4. Locational Map of the distribution of sites with positive results for Right discoidals studied in this research. The range is from Orange County through San Diego County.

74 6600-5200 cal B.P. 7470-6090 cal B.P.

7460-7010 cal B.P.

Legend

(! Sites Ü Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Figure B5. Location of sites with radiocarbon dates with other sites indicated with a red dot.

75 Appendix C

Photo Page C1. A discoidal from CA-SDI-1313/14791 in a side view. 77 C2. A discoidal from CA-SDI-14626 in dorsal view. 78 C3. Right discoidal (CP 119 #63) from CA-SDI-1313/14791 in 79 dorsal view. C4. Right discoidal (SDAC 443 #77) from CA-SDI-11057 in dorsal view. 79 C5. Right discoidal (SDAC 616 #18) from CA-SDI-12155 in side view. 80

76

Photo C1. A discoidal from CA-SDI-1313/14791 in a side view. Scale is in centimeters.

77

Photo C2. A discoidal from CA-SDI-14626 in dorsal view. Scale is in centimeters.

78

Photo C3. Right discoidal (CP 119 #63) from 1313/14791 in dorsal view.

Photo C4. Right discoidal (SDAC 443 #77) from CA-SDI-11057 in dorsal view.

79

Photo C5. Right discoidal (SDAC 616 #18) in side view.

80