The Discoidals of Coastal San Diego County a Thes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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