A Cultural Resourge Management Program for \\ the Upper Santa Clara River Valley1 Los Angeles and Ventura Counties 1 California
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE A CULTURAL RESOURGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR \\ THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY1 LOS ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES 1 CALIFORNIA A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology by Michael James Mcintyre / June, 1979 The Thesis of Michael James Mcintyre is approved: Dr. Louis Tartaglia Dr. Carol Mackey Dr. Antonio Gilman, Chairperson California State University, Northridge ii DEDICATION This Thesis is dedicated to Gary Worth Major (1945-1974) iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION . iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES . viii. LIST OF MAPS . vi·ii ABSTRACT . ix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION . 1 2 ENVI RONt"\ENTAL DESCRIPTION . 8 GEOGRAPHY • • • • • • • 8 GEOLOGY • . • • • • . • • • • • 10 STRUCTURAL FEATURES . • • • • • • • 12 CLIMATE.... • • • • • • 13 HYDROLOGY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 VEGETATION • • • • • • • • • . • • • 16 FAUNA • • • • • • • • • • • • • 18 3 HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY 21 CULTURAL SEQUENCE • • • 24 EARLY MAN • • • . • • ·• 25 MILLINGSTONE HORIZON (7,000 TO 4,000 B.P.) . • • • • . • . • 28 INTERMEDIATE HORIZON OR MIDDLE PERIOD (3,500 TO 1,500 B.P.) • • • • 32 LATE HORIZON OR PERIOD (1,500 TO 200 B.P.) • • • • • ••••• 35 Canaline 37 EUROPEAN CONTACT AND COLONIZATION (A.D. 1540-1771) •..•.•. 37 MISSION PERIOD (A.D. 1771-1821) 40 MEXICAN PERIOD (A.D. 1821-1848) 43 iv Chapter Page AMERICAN PERIOD (A.D. 1848-PRESENT) 44 Rancho San Francisco . 45 Travel Corridors . 46 Mining • . • 49 I ETHNOGRAPHIC SKETCH •••• 55 Population . 55 Subsistence . ~ . 56 Hunting . 56 Gathering . 57 Seasonality . • . • . • . 57 Food Preparation . 58 Material Culture . • . • . 59 Clothing . 60 Structures . 60 Settlement . • • . • . • . 61 Trade . ·il • • • 62 Warfare . 64 Social and Political Organization 65 Kinship . • . • . 67 Religion . • . • • 67 4 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW . 68 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS •. 71 Rev. Stephen Bowers .... 72 A. Kroeber, C. Hart r1erriam, and John P. Harrington . .. 73 Richard Van Valkenburgh - Los Angeles Museum of History, Science and Art . .. a • 74 Arthur Perkins, Jr. •. 75 Herrick E. Hanks .....•..... 75 UCLA - Archaeological Survey . • . 76 California State University, Northridge (San Fernando Valley State College) . • • . 76 Robert Lopez . • . • . 76 Gerald Reynolds - Santa Clarita Historical Society . • . • . 77 R. W. Robinson - Antelope Valley Junior College - Antelope Valley Archaeological Society . • . • . 77 Chester King . • 78 Other Researchers . 78 Chapter Page PRIVATE COLLECTIONS • 78 NATURE OF FUTURE WORK • 79 5 RESEARCH POTENTIAL . 81 6 EVALUATIVE SURVEY 92 SAMPLING DESIGN •• 94 SAMPLING SCHEME •••••••• 95 SAMPLING INTENSITY •••••• 97 SAMPLE UNIT SIZE 101 FIELD METHODOLOGY ••••• 104 7 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . 111 THE ROLE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGER ••••••.•••••• 112 EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE .•.•••• 114 Criteria for the Determination of Significance . 115 MANAGEMENT USES FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES. • 117 Socio-Cultural Use 117 Current Scientific Use 118 Management Use . 118 Conservation for Future Use 119 Potential Scientific Use . • . 119 CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PLANNING PROCESS • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • 120 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY • • • • • • • 122 Fee Simple Acquisition 124 Acquisition of Development Uses 127 Zoning . • . • • . 127 Adaptive Uses . 128 Restrictive Covenants . 128 Relocation . • 128 Incorporation . • . • • • . 129 LIST OF REFERENCES 132 APPENDIX 151 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 ROCKS AND MINERALS PRESENT IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY . • . • . 12 2 FLORAL SUB-LIFE ZONES OF THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY . • . 17 3 FAUNA OF THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY. 19 4 ABORIGINAL SITES IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY WITH KNOWN TEMPORAL AFFILIATIONS . 38 5 HISTORIC SITES IN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY WITH TEMPORAL AFFILIATIONS . 52 6 STRATIFYING VARIABLES WITHIN THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY . • 98 7 ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARI~~LES WITH SURVEY QUADRATS . • . • . • . • 102 8 NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTAL COHBINATIONS PER QUADRAr.r. 103 9 POSSIBLE SITE TYPES FOR THE UPPER SANTA CLA~~ RIVER VALLEY . • • • . • . • . 108 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Geologic Formations in Eastern Ventura Basin . 9 LIST OF r~APS Map Page 1 Overview of the Upper Santa Clara River Front Valley . Pocket 2 Geologic Map of the Upper Santa Clara Front River Valley . • . Pocket 3 Sample Environmental Strata for the Front Upper Santa Clara River Valley . Pocket viii ABSTRACT A CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRM1 FOR THE UPPER SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY, LOS ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA by Michael James Mcintyre Master of Arts in Anthropology The present influx of people and urbanization into the Upper Santa Clara River Valley has led to a rapid, unnatural increase in the degree of impact to the various cultural resources present within the Upper Santa Clara River Valley. This increase in the degree of impact is resulting in the unmitigated loss of scientific information and cultural heritage that these cultural resources repre sent, a loss that can be avoided via adequate cultural resource management planning. The program presented in this thesis will outline how the cultural resource poten tial of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley can be realized ix through a comparison of the known cultural resources with the existing archaeological, historical, and ethnographical data, supplemented by a predictive field sampling program which would identify those variables, or corrbination of variables, either natural or cultural, which would be associated with the occurrences and interpretation of cul tural resources. The cultural resource potential would serve as the basis for developing planning decisions regard ing the management and allocation of the potential use of the cultural resource in terms of protection, preservation, enhancement or consumptive utilization. The Cultural Resource Management Program is the vehicle by which the potential of all the cultural resources, either known or unknown, within the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, will be realized and adequately addressed in the planning process, insuring against the wanton destruction of our heritage. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION During the late 1960's and throughout the early 1970's, public awareness centered on the degradation of all aspects of our universe (environmental, cultural, recrea tional, sociological, etc.) caused by modern development and technological advancements. Due to this public aware ness and pressure, a large body of federal, state, and local legislation (Appendix A) was enacted to protect these resources. The laws required that governmental agencies and private enterprises assess adequately both the direct and the indirect impact upon the cultural and natural resources that the developments planned by such agencies and enterprises may have. These assessments usually were described· within an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and in the case of California, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • This new approach to resource analysis has forced new structural changes within many of the disciplines that now, due to this new legislation, have been given the guardian ship of these resources. Archaeology, and Anthropology as well, have been forced to make these changes. Archaeology has indirectly been given the "stewardship" of all cultural 1 2 resources due to the fact that legislation and many experts have defined cultural resources as encompassing mainly archaeological and historical sites: ~ •• potential knowledge, in the form of historic and prehistoric products and by-products of man, about human cultural systems (USDA Forest Service Manual 2361.05). • • • historic and prehistoric values ranging from the evidences of early man dating back more than 17,000 years, to sites and buildings relat ing to the lives of men who are making history today (State of California - Department of Parks and Recreation 1974:23) • • • • sites, structures, objects, and districts significant in history, architecture, archaeology or culture (Hanks 1974) • • • • historic, architectural, prehistoric or sym bolic in nature (Wylie 1975:2) • • • • sites, structures, and objects of histori cal, architectural or archaeological significance (Executive Order No. 11593 1971). However, a few farsighted individuals have applied the -term "cultural resource" to encompass more than merely historic and prehistoric objects; consequently, cultural resources can and should be applied beyond those parameters to include: ••• the potential for·ethnographic and lin guistic research within present remnants of aboriginal populations, properties of ideological significance to these native Americans, ethnic communities of some considerable time depth and generally many resources which anthropologists might apply the label of significance (Garfinkel 1976a:2). Since most of the impact to cultural resources by recent development has been to prehistoric and historic resources, 3 the major brunt of the development of an interdisciplinary approach to cultural resource management has been borne by the archaeologist. The concept of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) developed both from the legislation, and from the growing concern over the destruction of the prehistoric and historic resources. Archaeologists and concerned laymen recognized the fact that these resources are non-renewable; that is, once they are destroyed or disturbed