4.C.2 Archaeological Resources 1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
4.C.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. INTRODUCTION This section evaluates potential Project impacts on archaeological resources. The scope of work for the assessment included a cultural resource records search conducted through the California Historical Resources Information System (“CHRIS”), South Central Coastal Information Center (“SCCIC”); historical land use research; a Sacred Lands File (“SLF”) search commissioned through the Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”); follow‐up Native American consultation; and a review of geotechnical investigations. Results of the SLF search are included in Appendix F‐2, Archaeological Resources Sacred Lands File Records Search Results. Archaeology is the recovery and study of material evidence of human life and culture of past ages. Over time, this material evidence becomes buried, fragmented or scattered, or otherwise hidden from view. Archaeological resources can be identified during a field survey through direct observation and are often found through evaluation of secondary indicators, including the presence of geographic, vegetative, and rock features which are known or thought to be associated with early human life and culture, as well as knowledge of events or material evidence in the surrounding area. In urban areas such as the Project Site and environs, archaeological resources may include both prehistoric remains (before 1769 A.D.) and remains dating to the historical period (1769 to 1950 A.D.). Prehistoric (or Native American) archaeological resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that predate written records and are generally identified as isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, rock art, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, rock features, and burials. Historic archaeological resources can include refuse heaps, bottle dumps, ceramic scatters, privies, foundations, and burials and are generally associated in California with the Spanish Mission Period (after 1769) to the mid‐20th century of the American Period. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a. Existing Conditions (1) La Brea Tar Pits The La Brea Tar Pits are located approximately 656 feet (200 meters) east of the Project Site. This paleontological locality, also known as Rancho La Brea, is famous for containing one of the world’s richest deposits of Ice Age fossils preserved in asphalt‐rich sediments. The fossils provide a nearly complete record of life in the Los Angeles Basin between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago and characterize the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age. This diversified biota comprises of 60 different mammal species varying in size from the California pocket mouse to huge mammoths. An ecosystem consisting of reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, mollusks, insects, spiders, and plants including seeds and pollen have also been recovered from this location.1 These findings are described in more detail in Section 4.C.1, Paleontological Resources, of this Draft EIR. The first documentation of the La Brea Tar Pits was by Gaspar de Portola in 1769, a Spanish explorer, who described them as “muchos pantanos de brea” which is translated as “countless bogs of tar” in English. Later 1 Seldon, Paul and John Nudds, Evolution of Fossil Ecosystems, 2004. City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐1 4.C.2 Archaeological Resources August 2014 in 1792, Jose Longinos Martinez also recorded “. a large lake of pitch . in which bubbles or blisters are constantly forming and exploding.” By 1828, the area had become part of a Mexican land grant known as Rancho La Brea. During the 1860s and 1870s, the asphalt started to be commercially mined for road construction and it was during this time that animal bones started appearing. However, workers disregarded them as the remains of contemporary animals that had become trapped in the bogs. It was not until 1875 when Major Henry Hancock, the owner of the ranch, presented the tooth of a sabre‐toothed cat to William Denton of the Boston Society of Natural History, that the true age of the fossils started to be understood.2 As described below, the sticky tar (also known as asphaltum) from the La Brea Tar Pits was harvested by Native Americans for its adhesive properties. (2) Prehistoric Background (13,500 Years Before Present to 1769 A.D.) Prehistoric archaeological resources identified in the greater urban Los Angeles area include remains with very old dates, such as the Los Angeles Man remains recovered in 1936 by Work Progress Administration workers digging a storm drain along the Los Angeles River. Radiocarbon dates have indicated an age greater than 20,000 years old, although a small amount of collagen tested from the remains makes the date suspect. The remains were found in association with mammoth bones, however, so the remains can be considered Pleistocene or early Holocene (i.e., 12,000 to 8,000 years before present) in age.3 One of the oldest sets of securely dated human remains discovered in North America, with an age between 13,000 and 13,500 years ago, were identified at Arlington Springs on Santa Rosa Island, which is located approximately 100 miles west‐northwest of the Project Site.4 (a) CA‐LAN‐159 (“La Brea Woman”) In 1914, the remains of La Brea Woman (or CA‐LAN‐159) were discovered at Pit 10 of the La Brea Tar Pits approximately six to nine feet below the ground surface.5 Speculations have been made that La Brea Woman was between 25 to 30 years old at death, although her age has not been scientifically confirmed.6 There have also been many attempts at dating La Brea Woman’s skeleton. In 1971, a bone collagen extract from La Brea Woman’s remains yielded a date of 9,000 Radiocarbon Years Before Present (“RYBP”); however; Erlandson suggests that these dates be regarded with caution given the problems with dating bone collagen and decontaminating samples from tar seeps.7 Several bones of Pleistocene fauna that exhibit possible butchering marks that were found associated with the remains should also be regarded with caution. A mano, shell beads, and extinct fauna are also known to have been discovered in association with the human remains. The shell beads were studied by Chester King in 1988 and he believes that they are similar to the ones found in Level 1 at the Malaga Cove site in the Santa Monica Bay which suggests that an early Holocene age (i.e., 12,000 to 8,000 years before present) for the remains is valid. Michael Moratto has also hypothesized that the extinct fauna (with different radio carbon dates of 12,650 RYBP and 15,200 RYBP) 2 Seldon, Paul and John Nudds, Evolution of Fossil Ecosystems, 2004. 3 Moratto, Michael J., California Archaeology, 1984. 4 Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris, Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by David R. Brown, Kathryn C. Mitchell and Henry W. Chaney, 2002, pages 541–545. 5 Heizer, R. F., DPR Site Form for CA‐LAN‐159, 1949. Record on file at the SCCIC. 6 Kennedy, G.E, A Note on the Ontogenetic Age of the Rancho La Brea Hominid, Los Angeles, California, Bulletin, Southern California Academy of Sciences 88(3): 123‐126, 1989. 7 Erlandson, Jon M., Early Hunter‐Gatherers of the California Coast, 1994. City of Los Angeles Academy Museum of Motion Pictures Project SCH #2013051086 4.C.2‐2 August 2014 4.C.2 Archaeological Resources which were discovered with La Brea Woman’s remains raise the possibility of a late Pleistocene human presence in the Los Angeles area.8 The remains of a domestic dog were also identified and analyzed more than seventy years after they were recovered from Pit 10 and are likely associated with La Brea Woman.9 Lastly, a wooden foreshaft (perhaps for an atlatl),10 dart shafts and a cogstone were recovered from Pits 61 and 67 of the La Brea Tar Pits.11 (b) Gabrielino In the Project Site vicinity, prehistoric archaeological resources are most likely to represent past occupation by the Gabrielino (or Gabrieleño, Tongva, or Kizh). The Gabrielino occupied territory that included the Los Angeles Basin, the coast of Aliso Creek in Orange City to the south to Topanga Canyon in the north, the four southern Channel Islands, and watersheds of the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, and Santa Ana Rivers. Their name is derived from their association with Mission San Gabriel Archangel which is located 14 miles east of the Project Site. The Gabrielino were not the first inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin, but arrived around 500 B.C. The language of the Gabrielino people has been identified as a Cupan language within the Takic family, which is part of the larger Uto‐Aztecan language family. Uto‐Aztecan speakers arrived in southern California in what is known as the Shoshonean migration, which current archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests originated in the Great Basin12 and displaced the already established Hokan speakers. The Gabrielino were advanced in their culture, social organization, religious beliefs, and art and material production. Class differentiation, inherited chieftainship, and intervillage alliances were all components of Gabrielino society. At the time of European contact, the Gabrielino were actively involved in trade using shell and beads as currency. The Gabrielino were known for excellent artisanship in the form of pipes, ornaments, cooking implements, inlay work, and basketry. The Gabrielinos evolved an effective economic system which managed food reserves (storage and processing), exchanged goods, and distributed resources. Otherwise, few specifics are known of Gabrielino life ways. Data collected and presented by A. L. Kroeber in 1925 indicate that homes were made of tule mats on a framework of poles, but size and shape have not been recorded.13 Basketry and steatite vessels were used rather than ceramics; ceramics became common only toward the end of the mission period in the nineteenth century.