A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
FOR THE HEWITT AND ESPLANADE
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CITY OF SAN JACINTO,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
APN 439-180-011
Project Site Location: unsectioned, former San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant, Township 5 South, Range 1 West of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as shown on the San Jacinto USGS Quadrangle Map
Prepared on Behalf of:
EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92612
Prepared for:
City of San Jacinto
Community Development – Planning Division
595 South San Jacinto Avenue, Building A
San Jacinto, California 92583
Prepared by:
BFSA Environmental Services,
a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road
Poway, California 92064
December 1, 2023
Fieldwork Performed: November 9, 2023
Key Words: Approximately 24 acres; archaeological survey; negative; no further archaeological study recommended
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project i
Archaeological Report Summary Information
Author: Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA
Prepared by: BFSA Environmental, a Perennial Company
14010 Poway Road, Suite A
Poway, California 92064
(858) 484-0915
Report Date: December 1, 2023
Report Title: A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
Prepared on Behalf of: EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine California 92612
Prepared for: City of San Jacinto
Community Development – Planning Division
595 South San Jacinto Avenue, Building A
San Jacinto, California 92583
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 439-180-011
USGS Quadrangle: Unsectioned, former San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant, Township 5 South, Range 1 West of the San Bernardino Base and
Meridian, as shown on the San Jacinto USGS quadrangle
topographic map
Study Area: Approximately 24 acres
Key Words: Archaeological survey program; city of San Jacinto; San Jacinto USGS topographic quadrangles; negative; no further archaeological study recommended.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project ii
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY / ABSTRACT ..........................................................1.0–1
1.1 Purpose of Investigation ....................................................................................1.0–1
1.2 Major Findings ...................................................................................................1.0–1
1.3 Recommendation Summary ...............................................................................1.0–2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................2.0–1
2.1 Previous Work ...................................................................................................2.0–1
2.2 Project Setting ....................................................................................................2.0–5
2.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives .................................................2.0–5
2.3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................2.0–6
2.3.2 Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) ......2.0–7
2.3.3 Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) .........................................................................................................2.0–7
2.3.4 Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene:1,300 YBP to 1790) .................2.0–10
2.3.5 Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) .........................2.0–10
2.3.6 Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present) ...................................................2.0–17
2.4 Research Goals...................................................................................................2.0–23
3.0 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................3.0–1
3.1 Archaeological Records Search .........................................................................3.0–1
3.2 Field Methodology .............................................................................................3.0–1
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation ..................................................................3.0–1
3.4 Native American Consultation ...........................................................................3.0–1
3.5 Applicable Regulations ......................................................................................3.0–2
3.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act .....................................................3.0–2
4.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................4.0–1
4.1 Records Search Results ......................................................................................4.0–1
4.2 Results of the Field Survey ................................................................................4.0–2
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................5.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................6.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................7.0–1 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project iii
Appendices
Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel
Appendix B – Archaeological Records Search Results*
Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results*
*Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 2.0–1 General Location Map .................................................................................2.0–2 Figure 2.0–2 Project Location Map ...................................................................................2.0–3 Figure 2.0–3 Project Development Map ...........................................................................2.0–4 List of Plates
Plate Page
Plate 2.3–1 The Estudillo Mansion, circa 1890 ..............................................................2.0–21 Plate 2.3–2 Old San Jacinto, circa 1890 .........................................................................2.0–21 Plate 2.3–3 1937 photograph of the ANT-25 plane at the Russian Transpolar Landing Site .................................................................................................2.0–22 Plate 4.2–1 Overview of the project, looking southeast from the northwest corner .......4.0–3 Plate 4.2–2 Overview of the project, looking west from the northeast corner ...............4.0–3 Plate 4.2–3 Overview of the project, looking northeast from the southwest corner .......4.0–4 Plate 4.2–4 Overview of the project, looking west from the southeast corner ...............4.0–4 List of Tables
Table Page
Table 4.1–1 Cultural Resources Recorded Within One Mile of the Project ....................4.0–1 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
1.0–1
1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT
The following report describes the results of the cultural resources survey conducted by BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project. The study includes approximately 24 acres (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 439-180-011) and is located west of South Hewitt Street between East Esplanade and East Commonwealth avenues in the city of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. The proposed project is situated within the unsectioned former San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant, Township 5 South, Range 1 West, of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Jacinto, California (7.5-minute) quadrangle map. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property for a residential development. BFSA conducted this assessment to locate and record any cultural resources identified within the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and following City of San Jacinto environmental guidelines.
1.1 Purpose of Investigation
The purpose of this investigation was to determine if any cultural resources would be affected by the proposed land development. This study consisted of processing a records search of previously recorded archaeological sites on or near the property and the completion of an archaeological survey of the project. The archaeological records search results from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California at Riverside (UCR) indicate that 50 cultural resource sites are mapped within one mile of the project, none of which are recorded within the subject property. The records search also identified 30 previous cultural resource studies that have been conducted within one mile of the subject property, one of which (Swope 1987) includes the subject property. In addition, a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within the project.
1.2 Major Findings
A review of historic maps and aerial photographs indicate that by 1938, the property was utilized for agriculture, with three associated structures located in the northeastern corner.
Between 1975 and 1978, the fields were removed from the subject property and by 1985, the structures in the northeastern corner are no longer extent. By the next available photograph in 1995, the entire property had been cleared and appears similar to its present condition, having been subjected to repeated episodes of discing and clearing.
The archaeological survey of the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project was conducted on November 9, 2023. During the survey, ground visibility was characterized as excellent as the property appeared to have recently been disced and cleared of vegetation. No historic or prehistoric resources were identified anywhere within the project. As such, the current survey results are consistent with those of Swope in 1987.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
1.0–2
1.3 Recommendation Summary
Due to the previous ground-disturbing activities and the absence of identified cultural resources within the project boundaries, there is little to no potential for cultural resources to be present or impacted by the proposed development. Based upon the results of this study, no further archaeological study or mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of permit approval.
However, if any cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, all construction work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine if further mitigation measures are warranted. Should human remains be discovered, treatment of these remains shall follow California Public Resources Code 5097.9. Any human remains that are determined to be Native American shall be reported to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Coroner Division, and subsequently to the NAHC.
A copy of this report will be filed with the EIC at UCR. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
BFSA was retained by the applicant to conduct a cultural resources survey for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project. The archaeological survey was conducted in order to comply with CEQA and environmental guidelines of the city of San Jacinto with regards to developmentgenerated impacts to cultural resources. The project is located in an area of low to moderate cultural resource sensitivity, as suggested by known site density and predictive modeling. The project is situated within an area primarily sensitive for historic resources associated with the agricultural history and development of the San Jacinto region. Sensitivity for prehistoric cultural resources in a given area is usually indicated by known settlement patterns which, in Riverside County, are focused around environments with accessible food and water.
The Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project proposes to subdivide and develop approximately 24 acres located immediately west of South Hewitt Street between East Esplanade and East Commonwealth avenues, in the city of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California (Figure
2.0–1). The project (APN 439-180-011) is situated within the unsectioned, former San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant, Township 5 South, Range 1 West of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as shown on the USGS San Jacinto, California quadrangle maps (Figure 2.0–2). As designed, the proposed project includes the construction of a residential development along with associated streets, landscaping, and infrastructure (Figure 2.0–3).
Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA, directed the cultural resources study for the project with assistance from Senior Field Archaeologist Clarence Hoff. The pedestrian survey of the project was conducted on November 9, 2023. The survey was completed by traversing the property in east/west oriented transects spaced at approximately 10-meter intervals.
During the survey, it was noted that the entire project area has been previously utilized for agriculture, having been repeatedly cleared and disced. Ground visibility was excellent due to recent clearing. Project Archaeologist Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA, prepared the report. Emily T. Soong created the report graphics, while Shawna M. Krystek conducted technical editing and report production. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A.
2.1 Previous Work
The archaeological records search for the property identified 50 cultural resources within one mile of the project, none of which are within the subject property. The records search also identified 30 previous cultural resource studies which have been conducted within one mile of the subject property, one of which (Swope 1987) includes within the subject property.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–5
2.2 Project Setting
Riverside County lies in the Peninsular Ranges Geologic Province of southern California.
The mountain range, which lies in a northwest to southeast trend through the county, extends around 1,000 miles from the Raymond-Malibu Fault Zone in western Los Angeles County to the southern tip of Baja California. The subject property is situated between the Lakeview and San Jacinto mountains in the San Jacinto Valley. Geologically, the project site lies within the active San Jacinto fault zone in areas mapped by Lancaster et al. (2012) as Holocene-aged alluvial wash deposits, with Holocene- to late Pleistocene-aged young alluvial fan deposits mapped at the southwest tip of the property (Wirths 2023). The specific soils found on the property consist of San Emigdio fine sandy loam, Grangeville sandy loam, and a section labeled “Rough broken land” (NRCS 2019). The subject property is relatively flat with an average elevation of 1,585 feet above mean sea level. The subject property does not contain any natural sources of water. The closest major natural source of water is the San Jacinto River found approximately 1.25 miles to the northeast.
At the time of the survey, the property contained sparse non-native vegetation and appears to have historically been utilized for agriculture. As with the current project, much of the surrounding area has been cleared of native vegetation to facilitate agriculture and development.
However, the project vicinity originally would have contained sage and chapparal plant communities. During the prehistoric period, vegetation in the area of the project provided sufficient food resources to support prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the project area during prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the project area during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water could have been obtained from the San Jacinto River. Historically, the project was utilized for agriculture and the property contained similar plant and animal species as are present there today.
2.3 Cultural Setting – Archaeological Perspectives
The archaeological perspective seeks to reconstruct past cultures based upon the material remains left behind. This is done using a range of scientific methodologies, almost all of which draw from evolutionary theory as the base framework. Archaeology allows one to look deeper into history or prehistory to see where the beginnings of ideas manifest themselves via analysis of material culture, allowing for the understanding of outside forces that shape social change. Thus, the archaeological perspective allows one to better understand the consequences of the history of a given culture upon modern cultures. Archaeologists seek to understand the effects of past contexts of a given culture on this moment in time, not culture in context in the moment.
Despite this, a distinction exists between “emic” and “etic” ways of understanding material culture, prehistoric lifeways, and cultural phenomena in general (Harris 1991). While “emic” perspectives serve the subjective ways in which things are perceived and interpreted by the participants within a culture, “etic” perspectives are those of an outsider looking in hopes of A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–6
attaining a more scientific or “objective” understanding of the given phenomena. Archaeologists, by definition, will almost always serve an etic perspective as a result of the very nature of their work. As indicated by Laylander et al. (2014), it has sometimes been suggested that etic understanding, and therefore an archaeological understanding, is an imperfect and potentially ethnocentric attempt to arrive at emic understanding. In contrast to this, however, an etic understanding of material culture, cultural phenomena, and prehistoric lifeways can address significant dimensions of culture that lie entirely beyond the understanding or interest of those solely utilizing an emic perspective. As Harris (1991:20) appropriately points out, “Etic studies often involve the measurement and juxtaposition of activities and events that native informants find inappropriate or meaningless.” This is also likely true of archaeological comparisons and juxtapositions of material culture. However, culture as a whole does not occur in a vacuum and is the result of several millennia of choices and consequences influencing everything from technology to religions, to institutions. Archaeology allows for the ability to not only see what came before, but to see how those choices, changes, and consequences affect the present. Where possible, archaeology should seek to address both emic and etic understandings to the extent that they may be recoverable from the archaeological record as manifestations of patterned human behavior (Laylander et al. 2014).
To that point, the culture history offered herein is primarily based upon archaeological (etic) and ethnographic (partially emic and partially etic) information. It is understood that the ethnographic record and early archaeological records were incompletely and imperfectly collected.
In addition, in most cases, more than a century of intensive cultural change and cultural evolution had elapsed since the terminus of the prehistoric period. Coupled with the centuries and millennia of prehistoric change separating the “ethnographic present” from the prehistoric past, this has affected the emic and etic understandings of prehistoric cultural settings. Regardless, there remains a need to present the changing cultural setting within the region under investigation. As a result, both archaeological and Native American perspectives are offered when possible.
2.3.1 Introduction
Paleo Indian, Archaic Period Milling Stone Horizon, and the Late Prehistoric Takic groups are the three general cultural periods represented in Riverside County. The following discussion of the cultural history of Riverside County references the San Dieguito Complex, Encinitas Tradition, Milling Stone Horizon, La Jolla Complex, Pauma Complex, and San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component present in the Riverside County area was primarily represented by the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Luiseño Indians.
Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this archaeological discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to interchangeably use these terms. Reference will be made to the geological framework that divides the archaeologicallybased culture chronology of the area into four segments: the late Pleistocene (20,000 to 10,000 A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–7
years before the present [YBP]), the early Holocene (10,000 to 6,650 YBP), the middle Holocene (6,650 to 3,350 YBP), and the late Holocene (3,350 to 200 YBP).
2.3.2 Paleo Indian Period (Late Pleistocene: 11,500 to circa 9,000 YBP) Archaeologically, the Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 YBP). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands (Moratto 1984). By the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused the glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes (Moratto 1984; Martin 1967, 1973; Fagan 1991). The coastal shoreline at 10,000 YBP, depending upon the particular area of the coast, was near the 30-meter isobath, or two to six kilometers further west than its present location (Masters 1983).
Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals (Erlandson and Colten 1991; Moratto 1984; Moss and Erlandson 1995).
2.3.3 Archaic Period (Early and Middle Holocene: circa 9,000 to 1,300 YBP) Archaeological data indicates that between 9,000 and 8,000 YBP, a widespread complex was established in the southern California region, primarily along the coast (Warren and True 1961). This complex is locally known as the La Jolla Complex (Rogers 1939; Moriarty 1966), which is regionally associated with the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968) and shares cultural components with the widespread Milling Stone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The coastal expression of this complex appeared in southern California coastal areas and focused upon coastal resources and the development of deeply stratified shell middens that were primarily located around bays and lagoons. The older sites associated with this expression are located at Topanga Canyon, Newport Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and some of the Channel Islands. Radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this complex span a period of over 7,000 years in this region, beginning over 9,000 YBP.
The Encinitas Tradition is best recognized for its pattern of large coastal sites characterized by shell middens, grinding tools that are closely associated with the marine resources of the area, cobble-based tools, and flexed human burials (Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985).
While ground stone tools and scrapers are the most recognized tool types, coastal Encinitas Tradition sites also contain numerous utilized flakes, which may have been used to pry open shellfish. Artifact assemblages at coastal sites indicate a subsistence pattern focused upon shellfish collection and nearshore fishing. This suggests an incipient maritime adaptation with regional similarities to more northern sites of the same period (Koerper et al. 1986). Other artifacts A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–8
associated with Encinitas Tradition sites include stone bowls, doughnut stones, discoidals, stone balls, and beads made from stone, bone, and shell.
The coastal lagoons in southern California supported large Milling Stone Horizon populations circa 6,000 YBP, as shown by numerous radiocarbon dates from the many sites adjacent to the lagoons. The ensuing millennia were not stable environmentally and, by 3,000 YBP, many of the coastal sites in central San Diego County had been abandoned (Gallegos 1987, 1992). The abandonment of the area is usually attributed to the sedimentation of coastal lagoons and the resulting deterioration of fish and mollusk habitat. This is a well-documented situation at Batiquitos Lagoon, where over a 2,000-year period, dominant mollusk species occurring in archaeological middens shift from deep-water mollusks (Argopecten sp.) to species tolerant of tidal flat conditions (Chione sp.), indicating changes in both water depth and temperature (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1987).
This situation likely occurred for other small drainages (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, San Marcos, and Escondido creeks) along the central San Diego coast where low flow rates did not produce sufficient discharge to flush the lagoons they fed (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo lagoons) (Byrd 1998). Drainages along the northern and southern San Diego coastline were larger and flushed the coastal hydrological features they fed, keeping them open to the ocean and allowing for continued human exploitation (Byrd 1998). Peñasquitos Lagoon exhibits dates as late as 2,355 YBP (Smith and Moriarty 1985) and San Diego Bay showed continuous occupation until the close of the Milling Stone Horizon (Gallegos and Kyle 1988).
Additionally, data from several drainages in U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton indicate a continued occupation of shell midden sites until the close of the period, which shows that coastal sites were not entirely abandoned during this time (Byrd 1998).
By 5,000 YBP, an inland expression of the La Jolla Complex is evident in the archaeological record, exhibiting influences from the Campbell Tradition from the north. These inland Milling Stone Horizon sites have been termed “Pauma Complex” (True 1958; Warren et al. 1961; Meighan 1954). Pauma Complex sites share a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack mollusk remains, have greater tool variety (including atlatl dart points, quarry-based tools, and crescentics), and seem to express a more sedentary lifestyle with a subsistence economy based upon the use of a broad variety of terrestrial resources. Although originally viewed as a separate culture from the coastal La Jolla Complex (True 1980), it appears that these inland sites may be part of a subsistence and settlement system utilized by the coastal peoples. Evidence from the 4S Ranch Project in inland San Diego County suggests that these inland sites may represent seasonal components within an annual subsistence round by La Jolla Complex populations (Raven-Jennings et al. 1996). Including both coastal and inland sites of this period in discussions of the Encinitas Tradition, therefore, provides a more complete appraisal of the settlement and subsistence system exhibited by this cultural complex.
More recent work by Sutton has identified a more localized complex known as the Greven Knoll Complex. The Greven Knoll Complex is a redefined northern inland expression of the Encinitas Tradition first put forth by Mark Sutton and Jill Gardner (2010). Sutton and Gardner A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–9
(2010:25) state that “[t]he early millingstone archaeological record in the northern portion of the interior southern California was not formally named but was often referred to as ‘Inland Millingstone,’ ‘Encinitas,’ or even ‘Topanga.’” Therefore, they proposed that all expressions of the inland Milling Stone in southern California north of San Diego County be grouped together in the Greven Knoll Complex.
The Greven Knoll Complex, as postulated by Sutton and Gardner (2010), is broken into three phases and obtained its name from the type-site Greven Knoll located in Yucaipa, California.
Presently, the Greven Knoll Site is part of the Yukaipa’t Site (SBR-1000) and was combined with the adjacent Simpson Site. Excavations at Greven Knoll recovered manos, metates, projectile points, discoidal cogged stones, and a flexed inhumation with a possible cremation (Kowta 1969:39). It is believed that the Greven Knoll Site was occupied between 5,000 and 3,500 YBP.
The Simpson Site contained mortars, pestles, side-notched points, and stone and shell beads.
Based upon the data recovered at these sites, Kowta (1969:39) suggested that “coastal Milling Stone Complexes extended to and interdigitated with the desert Pinto Basin Complex in the vicinity of the Cajon Pass.”
Phase I of the Greven Knoll Complex is generally dominated by the presence of manos and metates, core tools, hammerstones, large dart points, flexed inhumations, and occasional cremations. Mortars and pestles are absent from this early phase, and the subsistence economy emphasized hunting. Sutton and Gardner (2010:26) propose that the similarity of the material culture of Greven Knoll Phase I and that found in the Mojave Desert at Pinto Period sites indicates that the Greven Knoll Complex was influenced by neighbors to the north at that time. Accordingly, Sutton and Gardner (2010) believe that Greven Knoll Phase I may have appeared as early as 9,400 YBP and lasted until about 4,000 YBP.
Greven Knoll Phase II is associated with a period between 4,000 and 3,000 YBP. Artifacts common to Greven Knoll Phase II include manos and metates, Elko points, core tools, and discoidals. Pestles and mortars are present; however, they are only represented in small numbers.
Finally, there is an emphasis upon hunting and gathering for subsistence (Sutton and Gardner 2010:8).
Greven Knoll Phase III includes manos, metates, Elko points, scraper planes, choppers, hammerstones, and discoidals. Again, small numbers of mortars and pestles are present. Greven Knoll Phase III spans from approximately 3,000 to 1,000 YBP and shows a reliance upon seeds and yucca. Hunting is still important, but bones seem to have been processed to obtain bone grease more often in this later phase (Sutton and Gardner 2010:8).
The shifts in food processing technologies during each of these phases indicate a change in subsistence strategies; although people were still hunting for large game, plant-based foods eventually became the primary dietary resource (Sutton 2011a). Sutton’s (2011b) argument posits that the development of mortars and pestles during the middle Holocene can be attributed to the year-round exploitation of acorns as a main dietary provision. Additionally, the warmer and drier climate may have been responsible for groups from the east moving toward coastal populations, which is archaeologically represented by the interchange of coastal and eastern cultural traits A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–10
(Sutton 2011a).
2.3.4 Late Prehistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1,300 YBP to 1790) Many Luiseño hold the world view that, as a population, they were created in southern California. Archaeological and anthropological data, however, proposes a scientific archaeological perspective, suggesting that at approximately 1,350 YBP, Takic-speaking groups from the Great Basin region moved into Riverside County, marking the transition to the Late Prehistoric Period. An analysis of the Takic expansion by Sutton (2009) indicates that inland southern California was occupied by “proto-Yuman” populations before 1,000 YBP. The comprehensive, multi-phase model offered by Sutton (2009) employs linguistic, ethnographic, archaeological, and biological data to solidify a reasonable argument for population replacement of Takic groups to the north by Penutians (Laylander 1985). As a result, it is believed that Takic expansion occurred starting around 3,500 YBP moving toward southern California, with the Gabrielino language diffusing south into neighboring Yuman (Hokan) groups around 1,500 to 1,000 YBP, possibly resulting in the Luiseño dialect.
Based upon Sutton’s model, the final Takic expansion would not have occurred until about 1,000 YBP, resulting in the Vanyume, Serrano, Cahuilla, and Cupeño dialects. The model suggests that the Luiseño did not simply replace Hokan speakers, but were rather a northern San Diego County/southern Riverside County Yuman population who adopted the Takic language.
This period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, yet effective, technological innovations. Technological developments during this period included the introduction of the bow and arrow between A.D. 400 and 600 and the introduction of ceramics. Atlatl dart points were replaced by smaller arrow darts, including Cottonwood series points. Other hallmarks of the Late Prehistoric Period include extensive trade networks as far-reaching as the Colorado River Basin, as well as the cremation of the dead.
2.3.5 Protohistoric Period (Late Holocene: 1790 to Present) Ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence indicates that portions of Riverside County were occupied by three Takic-speaking groups: the Cahuilla, the Gabrielino, and the Luiseño. The geographic boundaries between these groups in pre- and proto-historic times are difficult to place, but the project is located well within the borders of ethnographic Luiseño territory. This group was a seasonal hunting and gathering people with cultural elements that were very distinct from Archaic Period peoples. These distinctions include cremation of the dead, the use of the bow and arrow, and exploitation of the acorn as a main food staple (Moratto 1984). Along the coast, the Luiseño made use of available marine resources by fishing and collecting mollusks for food.
Seasonally available terrestrial resources, including acorns and game, were also sources of nourishment for Luiseño groups. Elaborate kinship and clan systems between the Luiseño and A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–11
other groups facilitated a wide-reaching trade network that included trade of Obsidian Butte obsidian and other resources from the eastern deserts, as well as steatite from the Channel Islands.
According to Charles Handley (1967), the primary settlements of Late Prehistoric Luiseño Indians in the San Jacinto Plain were represented by Ivah and Soboba near Soboba Springs, Jusipah near the town of San Jacinto, Ararah in Webster’s Canyon en route to Idyllwild, Pahsitha near Big Springs Ranch southeast of Hemet, and Corova in Castillo Canyon. These locations share features such as the availability of food and water resources. Features of this land use include petroglyphs and pictographs, as well as widespread milling, which is evident in both the bedrock and portable implements. Groups in the vicinity of the project, neighboring the Luiseño, include the Cahuilla and the Gabrielino. Ethnographic data for the three groups is presented below.
Luiseño: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective When contacted by the Spanish in the sixteenth century, the Luiseño occupied a territory bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Peninsular Ranges mountains at San Jacinto (including Palomar Mountain to the south and Santiago Peak to the north), on the south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and on the north by Aliso Creek in present-day San Juan Capistrano. The Luiseño were a Takic-speaking people more closely related linguistically and ethnographically to the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Cupeño to the north and east rather than the Kumeyaay who occupied territory to the south. The Luiseño differed from their neighboring Takic speakers in having an extensive proliferation of social statuses, a system of ruling families that provided ethnic cohesion within the territory, a distinct worldview that stemmed from the use of datura (a hallucinogen), and an elaborate religion that included the creation of sacred sand paintings depicting the deity Chingichngish (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Subsistence and Settlement
The Luiseño occupied sedentary villages, most often located in sheltered areas in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges. Villages were located near water sources to facilitate acorn leaching, as well as in areas that offered both thermal and defensive protection. Villages were comprised of areas that were both publicly and privately (by family) owned. Publicly owned areas included trails, temporary campsites, hunting areas, and quarry sites. Inland groups had fishing and gathering sites along the coast that were intensively used from January to March when inland food resources were scarce. During October and November, most of the village would relocate to mountain oak groves to harvest acorns. The Luiseño remained at village sites for the remainder of the year, where food resources were within a day’s travel (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The most important food source for the Luiseño was the acorn, six different species of which were used (Quercus californica, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus chrysolepis, Quercus dumosa, Quercus engelmannii, and Quercus wislizenii). Seeds, particularly those of grasses, flowering plants, and mints, were also heavily exploited. Seed-bearing species were encouraged through controlled burns, which were conducted at least every third year. A variety of other stems, leaves, A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–12
shoots, bulbs, roots, and fruits were also collected. Hunting augmented this vegetal diet. Animal species taken included deer, rabbit, hare, woodrat, ground squirrel, antelope, quail, duck, freshwater fish from mountain streams, marine mammals, and other sea creatures such as fish, crustaceans, and mollusks (particularly abalone, or Haliotis sp.). In addition, a variety of snakes, small birds, and rodents were also eaten (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Social Organization
Social groups within the Luiseño nation consisted of patrilineal families or clans, which were politically and economically autonomous. Several clans comprised a religious party, or nota, which was headed by a chief who organized ceremonies and controlled economics and warfare.
The chief had assistants who specialized in particular aspects of ceremonial or environmental knowledge and who, with the chief, were part of a religion-based social group with special access to supernatural power, particularly that of Chingichngish. The positions of chief and assistants were hereditary, and the complexity and multiplicity of these specialists’ roles likely increased in the coastal and larger inland villages (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976; Strong 1929).
Marriages were arranged by the parents, often made to forge alliances between lineages.
Useful alliances included those between groups of differing ecological niches and those that resulted in territorial expansion. Residence was patrilocal (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Women were primarily responsible for plant gathering and men principally hunted, but at times, particularly during acorn and marine mollusk harvests, there was no division of labor. Elderly women cared for children and elderly men participated in rituals, ceremonies, and political affairs.
They were also responsible for manufacturing hunting and ritual implements. Children were taught subsistence skills at the earliest age possible (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Material Culture
House structures were conical, partially subterranean, and thatched with reeds, brush, or bark. Ramadas were rectangular, protected workplaces for domestic chores such as cooking.
Ceremonial sweathouses were important in purification rituals; these were round and partially subterranean thatched structures covered with a layer of mud. Another ceremonial structure was the wámkis (located in the center of the village, serving as the place of rituals), where sand paintings and other rituals associated with the Chingichngish religious group were performed (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal; women wore a cedar-bark and netted twine double apron and men wore a waist cord. In cold weather, cloaks or robes of rabbit fur, deerskin, or sea otter fur were worn by both sexes. Footwear included deerskin moccasins and sandals fashioned from yucca fibers. Adornments included bead necklaces and pendants made of bone, clay, stone, shell, bear claw, mica, deer hooves, and abalone shell. Men wore ear and nose piercings made from cane or bone, which were sometimes decorated with beads. Other adornments were commonly decorated with semiprecious stones including quartz, topaz, garnet, opal, opalite, agate, and jasper (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–13
Hunting implements included the bow and arrow. Arrows were tipped with either a carved, fire-hardened wood tip or a lithic point, usually fashioned from locally available metavolcanic material or quartz. Throwing sticks fashioned from wood were used in hunting small game, while deer head decoys were used during deer hunts. Coastal groups fashioned dugout canoes for nearshore fishing and harvested fish with seines, nets, traps, and hooks made of bone or abalone shell (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The Luiseño had a well-developed basket industry. Baskets were used in resource gathering, food preparation, storage, and food serving. Ceramic containers were shaped by paddle and anvil and fired in shallow, open pits to be used for food storage, cooking, and serving. Other utensils included wood implements, steatite bowls, and ground stone manos, metates, mortars, and pestles (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976). Additional tools such as knives, scrapers, choppers, awls, and drills were also used. Shamanistic items include soapstone or clay smoking pipes and crystals made of quartz or tourmaline (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Cahuilla: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective At the time of Spanish contact in the sixteenth century, the Cahuilla occupied territory that included the San Bernardino Mountains, Orocopia Mountain, and the Chocolate Mountains to the west, Salton Sea and Borrego Springs to the south, Palomar Mountain and Lake Mathews to the east, and the Santa Ana River to the north. The Cahuilla are a Takic-speaking people closely related to their Gabrielino and Luiseño neighbors, although relations with the Gabrielino were more intense than those with the Luiseño. The Cahuilla differ from the Luiseño and Gabrielino in that their religion is more similar to the Mohave tribes of the eastern deserts than the Chingichngish religious group of the Luiseño and Gabrielino. The following is a summary of the ethnographic data regarding this group (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Subsistence and Settlement
Cahuilla villages were typically permanent and located on low terraces within canyons in proximity to water sources. These locations proved to be rich in food resources and also afforded protection from prevailing winds. Villages had areas that were publicly owned and areas that were privately owned by clans, families, or individuals. Each village was associated with a particular lineage and series of sacred sites that included unique petroglyphs and pictographs. Villages were occupied throughout the year; however, during a several-week period in the fall, most of the village members relocated to mountain oak groves to take part in acorn harvesting (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The Cahuilla’s use of plant resources is well documented. Plant foods harvested by the Cahuilla included valley oak acorns and single-leaf pinyon pine nuts. Other important plant species included bean and screw mesquite, agave, Mojave yucca, cacti, palm, chia, quail brush, yellowray goldfield, goosefoot, manzanita, catsclaw, desert lily, mariposa lily, and other species such as grass seed. A number of agricultural domesticates were acquired from the Colorado River tribes including corn, bean, squash, and melon grown in limited amounts. Animal species taken A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–14
included deer, bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, rabbit, hare, rat, quail, dove, duck, roadrunner, and a variety of rodents, reptiles, fish, and insects (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Social Organization
The Cahuilla were not a political nation, but rather a cultural nationality with a common language. Two non-political, non-territorial patrimoieties were recognized: the Wildcats (túktem) and the Coyotes (?ístam). Lineage and kinship were memorized at a young age among the Cahuilla, providing a backdrop for political relationships. Clans were comprised of three to 10 lineages; each lineage owned a village site and specific resource areas. Lineages within a clan cooperated in subsistence activities, defense, and rituals (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
A system of ceremonial hierarchy operated within each lineage. The hierarchy included the lineage leader, who was responsible for leading subsistence activities, guarding the sacred bundle, and negotiating with other lineage leaders in matters concerning land use, boundary disputes, marriage arrangements, trade, warfare, and ceremonies. The ceremonial assistant to the lineage leader was responsible for organizing ceremonies. A ceremonial singer possessed and performed songs at rituals and trained assistant singers. The shaman cured illnesses through supernatural powers, controlled natural phenomena, and was the guardian of ceremonies, meant to keep evil spirits away. The diviner was responsible for finding lost objects, telling future events, and locating game and other food resources. Doctors were usually older women who cured various ailments and illnesses with their knowledge of medicinal herbs. Finally, certain Cahuilla specialized as traders, who ranged as far west as Santa Catalina and as far east as the Gila River (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were arranged by parents from opposite moieties. When a child was born, an alliance formed between the families, which included frequent reciprocal exchanges. The Cahuilla kinship system extended to relatives within five generations. Important economic decisions, primarily the distribution of goods, operated within this kinship system (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Material Culture
Cahuilla houses were dome-shaped or rectangular, thatched structures. The home of the lineage leader was the largest, located near the ceremonial house with the best access to water.
Other structures within the village included the men’s sweathouse and granaries (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Cahuilla clothing, like other groups in the area, was minimal. Men typically wore a loincloth and sandals; women wore skirts made from mesquite bark, animal skin, or tules. Babies wore mesquite bark diapers. Rabbit skin cloaks were worn in cold weather (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included the bow and arrow, throwing sticks, and clubs. Grinding tools used in food processing included manos, metates, and wood mortars. The Cahuilla were known to use long grinding implements made from wood to process mesquite beans; the mortar A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–15
was typically a hollowed log buried in the ground. Other tools included steatite arrow shaft straighteners (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Different species and leaves were chosen for different colors in the basket design. Coiled-ware baskets were either flat (for plates, trays, or winnowing), bowl-shaped (for food serving), deep, inverted, and cone-shaped (for transporting), or rounded and flat-bottomed for storing utensils and personal items (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Cahuilla pottery was made from thin, red-colored ceramic ware that was often painted and incised. Four basic vessel types are known for the Cahuilla: small-mouthed jars, cooking pots, bowls, and dishes. Additionally, smoking pipes and flutes were fashioned from ceramic (Bean 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Gabrielino: An Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspective The territory of the Gabrielino at the time of Spanish contact covers much of present-day Los Angeles and Orange counties. The southern extent of this cultural area is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrielino also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island. Due to their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California.
Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrielino extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Subsistence and Settlement
The Gabrielino lived in permanent villages and occupied smaller resource-gathering camps at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller, seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams and in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Resources procured along the coast and on the islands were primarily marine in nature and included tuna, swordfish, ray and shark, California sea lion, Stellar sea lion, harbor seal, northern elephant seal, sea otter, dolphin and porpoise, various waterfowl species, numerous fish species, purple sea urchin, and mollusks such as rock scallop, California mussel, and limpet. Inland resources included oak acorn, pine nut, Mojave yucca, cacti, sage, grass nut, deer, rabbit, hare, A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–16
rodent, quail, duck, and a variety of reptiles such as western pond turtle and numerous snake species (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Social Organization
Little is known about the social structure of the Gabrielino; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or longestablished lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society.
Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare, and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm and their duties included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status, and in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, as well as making baskets, pots, and clothing (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Material Culture
Gabrielino houses were domed, circular structures made of thatched vegetation. Houses varied in size and could house anywhere from one to several families. Sweathouses (semicircular, earth-covered buildings) were public structures used in male social ceremonies. Other structures included menstrual huts and a ceremonial structure called a yuvar which was an open-air structure built near the chief’s house (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Clothing was minimal; men and children most often went naked, while women wore deerskin or bark aprons. In cold weather, deerskin, rabbit fur, or bird skin (with feathers intact) cloaks were worn. Island and coastal groups used sea otter fur for cloaks. In areas of rough terrain, yucca fiber sandals were worn. Women often used red ochre on their faces and skin for adornment or protection from the sun. Adornment items included feathers, fur, shells, and beads (Bean and A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–17
Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
Hunting implements included wood clubs, sinew-backed bows, slings, and throwing clubs.
Maritime implements included rafts, harpoons, spears, hook and line, and nets. A variety of other tools included deer scapulae saws, bone and shell needles, bone awls, scrapers, bone or shell flakers, wedges, stone knives and drills, metates, mullers, manos, shell spoons, bark platters, and wood paddles and bowls. Baskets were made from rush, deer grass, and skunkbush. Baskets were fashioned for hoppers, plates, trays, and winnowers for leaching, straining, and gathering. Baskets were also used for storing, preparing, and serving food, and for keeping both personal and ceremonial items (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The Gabrielino had exclusive access to soapstone, or steatite, procured from Santa Catalina Island quarries. This highly prized material was used for making pipes, animal carvings, ritual objects, ornaments, and cooking utensils. The Gabrielino profited well from trading steatite since it was valued so much by groups throughout southern California (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1976).
2.3.6 Ethnohistoric Period (1769 to Present)
Traditionally, the history of the state of California has been divided into three general periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846), and the American Period (1848 to present) (Caughey 1970). The American Period is often further subdivided into additional phases: the nineteenth century (1848 to 1900), the early twentieth century (1900 to 1950), and the Modern Period (1950 to present). From an archaeological standpoint, all of these phases can be referred to together as the Ethnohistoric Period. This provides a valuable tool for archaeologists, as ethnohistory is directly concerned with the study of indigenous or non-Western peoples from a combined historical/anthropological viewpoint, which employs written documents, oral narrative, material culture, and ethnographic data for analysis.
European exploration along the California coast began in 1542 with the landing of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo and his men at San Diego Bay. Sixty years after the Cabrillo expeditions, an expedition under Sebastián Vizcaíno made an extensive and thorough exploration of the Pacific coast. Although the voyage did not extend beyond the northern limits of the Cabrillo track, Vizcaíno had the most lasting effect upon the nomenclature of the coast. Many of his place names have survived, whereas practically every one of the names created by Cabrillo have faded from use. For instance, Cabrillo named the first (now) United States port he stopped at “San Miguel”; 60 years later, Vizcaíno changed it to “San Diego” (Rolle 1969). The early European voyages observed Native Americans living in villages along the coast but did not make any substantial, long-lasting impact. At the time of contact, the Luiseño population was estimated to have ranged from 4,000 to as many as 10,000 individuals (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1976).
The historic background of the project area began with the Spanish colonization of Alta California. The first Spanish colonizing expedition reached southern California in 1769 with the intention of converting and civilizing the indigenous populations, as well as expanding the knowledge of and access to new resources in the region (Brigandi 1998). As a result, by the late A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–18
eighteenth century, a large portion of southern California was overseen by Mission San Luis Rey (San Diego County), Mission San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and Mission San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), who began colonization in the region and surrounding areas (Chapman 1921).
Up until this time, the only known way to feasibly travel from Sonora to Alta California was by sea. In 1774, Juan Bautista de Anza, an army captain at Tubac, requested and was given permission by the governor of the Mexican State of Sonora to establish an overland route from Sonora to Monterey (Chapman 1921). In doing so, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through Riverside County and described the area in writing for the first time (Caughey 1970; Chapman 1921). In 1797, Father Fermín de Lasuén (of Mission San Diego de Alcalá), Father Norberto de Santiago, and Corporal Pedro Lisalde (of Mission San Juan Capistrano) led an expedition through southwestern Riverside County in search of a new mission site to establish a presence between San Diego and San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1921). Their efforts ultimately resulted in the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey in Oceanside, California.
Each mission gained power through the support of a large, subjugated Native American workforce. As the missions grew, livestock holdings increased and became increasingly vulnerable to theft. In order to protect their interests, the southern California missions began to expand inland to try and provide additional security (Beattie and Beattie 1939; Caughey 1970). In order to meet their needs, the Spaniards embarked on a formal expedition in 1806 to find potential locations within what is now the San Bernardino Valley. As a result, by 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel had succeeded in establishing a religious site, or capilla, at a Cahuilla rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). San Bernardino Valley received its name from this site, which was dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena by Father Dumetz. The Guachama rancheria was located in present-day Bryn Mawr in San Bernardino County.
These early colonization efforts were followed by the establishment of estancias at Puente (circa 1816) and San Bernardino (circa 1819) near Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). These efforts were soon mirrored by the Spaniards from Mission San Luis Rey, who in turn established a presence in what is now Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (Chapman 1921). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1961). Throughout this period, the Native American populations were decimated by introduced diseases, a drastic shift in diet resulting in poor nutrition, and social conflicts due to the introduction of an entirely new social order (Cook 1976).
Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1822 and became a federal republic in 1824.
As a result, both Baja and Alta California became classified as territories (Rolle 1969). Shortly thereafter, the Mexican Republic sought to grant large tracts of private land to its citizens to begin to encourage immigration to California and to establish its presence in the region. Part of the establishment of power and control included the desecularization of the missions circa 1832.
These same missions were also located on some of the most fertile land in California and, as a result, were considered highly valuable. The resulting land grants, known as “ranchos,” covered expansive portions of California and, by 1846, more than 600 land grants had been issued by the A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–19
Mexican government. Rancho Jurupa was the first rancho to be established and was issued to Juan Bandini in 1838. Although Bandini primarily resided in San Diego, Rancho Jurupa was located in what is now Riverside County (Pourade 1963). A review of Riverside County place names quickly illustrates that many of the ranchos in Riverside County lent their names to present-day locations, including Jurupa, El Rincon, La Sierra, El Sobrante de San Jacinto, La Laguna (Lake Elsinore), Santa Rosa, Temecula, Pauba, San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, and San Jacinto Viejo (Gunther 1984). As was typical of many ranchos, these were all located in the valley environments within western Riverside County.
The treatment of Native Americans grew worse during the Rancho Period. Most of the Native Americans were forced off their land or put to work on the now privately-owned ranchos, often as slave labor. The degree to which Native Americans had become dependent upon the mission system due to the brutal ranchos is evident when, in 1838, a group of Native Americans from Mission San Luis Rey petitioned government officials in San Diego to relieve suffering at the hands of the rancheros:
We have suffered incalculable losses, for some of which we are in part to be blamed for because many of us have abandoned the Mission … We plead and beseech you … to grant us a Rev. Father for this place. We have been accustomed to the Rev.
Fathers and to their manner of managing the duties. We labored under their intelligent directions, and we were obedient to the Fathers according to the regulations, because we considered it as good for us. (Brigandi 1998:21) Native American culture had been disrupted to the point where they could no longer rely upon their prehistoric subsistence and social patterns. Not only does this illustrate how dependent the Native Americans had become upon the missionaries, but it also indicates a marked contrast in the way the Spanish treated the Native Americans compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers did not accept Native Americans into their social order and used them specifically for the extraction of labor, resources, and profit. Rather than being incorporated, they were either subjugated or exterminated (Cook 1976).
By 1846, tensions between the United States and Mexico had escalated to the point of war (Rolle 1969). In order to reach a peaceful agreement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was put into effect in 1848, which resulted in the annexation of California to the United States. Once California opened to the United States, waves of settlers moved in searching for gold mines, business opportunities, political opportunities, religious freedom, and adventure (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). By 1850, California had become a state and was eventually divided into 27 separate counties. While a much larger population was now settling in California, this was primarily in the central valley, San Francisco, and the Gold Rush region of the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). During this time, southern California grew at a much A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–20
slower pace than northern California and was still dominated by the cattle industry that was established during the earlier rancho period. However, by 1859, the first United States Post Office in what would eventually become Riverside County was set up at John Magee’s store on the Temecula Rancho (Gunther 1984).
During the same decade, circa 1852, the Native Americans of southern Riverside County, including the Luiseño and the Cahuilla, thought they had signed a treaty resulting in their ownership of all lands from Temecula to Aguanga east to the desert, including the San Jacinto Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass. The Temecula Treaty also included food and clothing provisions for the Native Americans. However, Congress never ratified these treaties, and the promise of one large reservation was rescinded (Brigandi 1998).
With the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1869, southern California saw its first major population expansion. The population boom continued circa 1874 with the completion of connections between the Southern Pacific Railroad in Sacramento to the transcontinental Central Pacific Railroad in Los Angeles (Rolle 1969; Caughey 1970). The population influx brought farmers, land speculators, and prospective developers to the region. As the Jurupa area became more and more populated, circa 1870, Judge John Wesley North and a group of associates founded the city of Riverside on part of the former rancho.
Although the first orange trees were planted in Riverside County circa 1871, it was not until a few years later when a small number of Brazilian navel orange trees were established that the citrus industry truly began in the region (Patterson 1971). The Brazilian navel orange was well suited to the climate of Riverside County and thrived with assistance from several extensive irrigation projects. At the close of 1882, an estimated half a million citrus trees were present in California. It is estimated that nearly half of that citrus tree population was in Riverside County.
Population growth and 1880s tax revenue from the booming citrus industry prompted the official formation of Riverside County in 1893 out of portions of what was once San Bernardino and San Diego counties (Patterson 1971).
Shortly thereafter, with the start of World War I, the United States began to develop a military presence in Riverside County with the construction of the March Air Reserve Base.
During World War II, Camp Anza and Camp Haan were constructed, with the former located in the western part of the city of Riverside and the latter in what is now the current location of the National Veteran’s Cemetery. In the decades that followed, populations spread throughout the county into Lake Elsinore, Corona, Norco, Murrieta, and Wildomar. A significant portion of the county, however, remained largely agricultural well into the 1970s (Patterson 1971). Following the 1970s, Riverside saw a period of dramatic population increase as the result of new development, more than doubling the population of the county to a population of over 1.3 million residents.
History of the City of San Jacinto and the Surrounding Area Settlement in the San Jacinto Valley began with a 35,500-acre land grant given to José Antonio Estudillo in 1842, known as the Rancho San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant. Estudillo’s A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–21
children began developing the ranch in the
1880s by constructing two two-story brick
mansions, one of which is still located at
Main and Seventh Street in San Jacinto (Plate
2.3−1). In 1889, 15,000 acres of the Rancho
San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant was sold to a
group of Los Angeles investors known as the
San Jacinto Land Association. Prior to the
secession of the acreage, these investors
developed a rival town in 1883 just two miles
away from San Jacinto. The town, which called
itself New San Jacinto, competed for
dominance with Old San Jacinto (Plate 2.3−2). However, the battle was ultimately decided when the Santa Fe Railroad built a branch line that terminated in New San Jacinto. Old San Jacinto ultimately faded from existence by the twentieth century (City of San Jacinto 2020). “The San Jacinto Land Association originally
wanted the region to be a Methodist
temperance colony and had even
gone as far as to state that deeds to
land sold by the Association would
contain a clause prohibiting the
manufacture or sale of alcoholic
beverages upon land sold by the
company. Nevertheless, it appeared
as though such clauses were never
initiated into the deeds” (Wiley
2018).
The valley land was divided
into large farm lots, usually made up
of one quarter of the sectioned land. Portions of the San Jacinto Land Association land were irrigated with water obtained in the San Jacinto Mountains to the east. However, the region still lacked a sufficient water supply to support large scale agriculture, until Edward Mayberry, William Whitter, Albert H.H. Judson, Hancock M. Johnston, and Peter Potts formed the Lake Hemet Water Company and the Hemet Land Company after acquiring portions of Rancho San Jacinto. By 1895, the Lake Hemet Water Company had constructed a dam (Lake Hemet) that they planned to use to irrigate the holdings of the Hemet Land Company. The formation of the Lake Hemet Dam led to the incorporation of the city of Hemet in 1910. (Wiley 2018).
With the expanded irrigation capabilities, agriculture began to thrive in the San Jacinto Valley (City of San Jacinto 2020). Farming continued as an integral part of the San Jacinto Valley throughout the early twentieth century as settlements increased, giving rise to small family-owned Plate 2.3−1: The Estudillo Mansion, circa 1890.
(Image courtesy of the City of San Jacinto archives)
Plate 2.3−2: Old San Jacinto, circa 1890.
(Image courtesy of the City of San Jacinto archives)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–22
agricultural businesses, and large-scale cattle ranching declined in popularity. Instead, “smallscale horticulture increased,” with many different crops grown throughout the San Jacinto Valley due to its relatively high water table (10 to 15 feet below the surface) and warm climate (Wiley 2018; Pitman 1976). “Citrus, alfalfa, corn, potatoes, oat hay, and walnut orchards all prospered in the early twentieth century” (Wiley 2018).
Tourism also played an important role to the development of the San Jacinto Valley. In the 1880s, Helen Hunt Jackson visited the San Jacinto Valley to conduct research for her upcoming book, Ramona. Although Ramona is a fictional dramatization of Native American mistreatment, the book sparked tourism within the San Jacinto Valley which would eventually lead to the creation of the California Historic Landmark Ramona Bowl (CHL No. 1009), where the annual Ramona Pageant, a dramatization of the events depicted in the novel, was first performed in 1923 (Office of Historic Preservation 1993).
In 1909, Edwin Cawston, an English businessman, established a second location of his extremely popular ostrich farm from Pasadena just southwest of the subject property at Cawston and Cottonwood avenues. Cawston raised the birds primarily for their feathers, which were used in women’s decorative clothing and accessories, such as ostrich feather fans and feather boas. The farm was considered a tourist attraction, where guests could view, feed, and ride the birds and purchase goods made from the feathers. Although Cawston’s San Jacinto farm was short lived, his influence on the region is clear, as Cawston Avenue is named after him.
On July 14, 1937, in a dairy pasture located in the northern portion of the city, […] pilot Mikhail Gromov, co-pilot Andrei Yumashev and navigator Sergei Danilin piloted their brakeless, single-engine ANT-25 plane – with a wingspan of 125 feet – to a landing in what is now near the Riverside County city of San Jacinto.
Although the fliers had charted San Diego as their destination, fog forced them to find an alternative landing site. After flying the
6,305 miles from Moscow in 62 hours
and 17 minutes, the crew climbed wearily
out of the red-winged, silver-bodied
craft, walked up to a farmer who had
watched them land and handed him first
a pre-printed note asking him to call the
Soviet Embassy, and then three cards that
read: “Bath,” “Eat,” and “Sleep”
(Rasmussen 2001).
The flight was one of three
different Soviet attempts to establish the
feasibility of flying from Russia to the
United States by way of the North Pole
(Wiley 2019). However, fog forced the plane to make a landing in the cow pasture owned by Earl Smith, near the corner of Cottonwood and Sanderson avenues (Plate 2.3–3; Rasmussen 2001). At Plate 2.3–3: 1937 photograph of the ANT-25 plane at the Russian Transpolar Landing Site. (Image courtesy of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–23
the time, the 62 hour and 17 minute flight established a new world record for longest nonstop distance flown of 6,305 miles (Office of Historic Preservation 1989). As crowds gathered in the fields to get a look at the plane and Russian crew, Earl Smith began charging admission to the onlookers (Rasmussen 2001; Schultz 2017). Before long, a plane from the nearby March Air Force Base landed and men were enlisted to set up a perimeter around the plane. Eventually, the plane was dismantled to be sent back to Russia while the crew was escorted throughout California before also returning to Russia (Rasmussen 2001).
Tourism garnered by the draw of natural hot springs located within the north side of the valley also stimulated the growth of the area by ushering in the development of resorts and hotels.
Notably, the Gilman and Soboba Hot Springs, which were developed in the late nineteenth century, drew increased tourism in the early twentieth century (City of San Jacinto 2020). As the population of the valley grew, the demand for dairy products increased, and dairy farming became more prevalent within the San Jacinto Valley. By 1922, dairy farmers in the San Jacinto Valley were producing more than 500,000 gallons of milk yearly (Law 1922). The wide-open acreage and thorough irrigation allowed dairy cows in the San Jacinto Valley to free forage on ample fresh alfalfa, producing healthier cows and a better milk product, which could then be shipped to Los Angeles daily on the railroad lines (City of San Jacinto 2020). Turkey ranching and lime kilns also added to the economy. These industries are still important to the economy of the San Jacinto Valley today.
2.4 Research Goals
The primary goal of the research design is to attempt to understand the way in which humans have used the land and resources within the project area through time, as well as to aid in the determination of resource significance. For the current project, the study area under investigation is the central-western portion of Riverside County. The scope of work for the archaeological program conducted for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project included an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire approximately 24-acre property. Given the area involved, and the narrow focus of the cultural resources study, the research design for this project was necessarily limited and general in nature. Since the main objective of the investigation was to identify the presence of and potential impacts to cultural resources, the goal here is not necessarily to answer wide-reaching theories regarding the development of early southern California, but to investigate the role and importance of the identified resources. Although survey-level investigations are limited in terms of the amount of information available, several specific research questions were developed that could be used to guide the initial investigations of any observed cultural resources. The following research questions take into account the size and location of the project.
Research Questions:
Can located cultural resources be situated with a specific time period, population, or individual?
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
2.0–24
Do the types of located cultural resources allow a site activity/function to be determined from a preliminary investigation? What are the site activities? What is the site function? What resources were exploited? How do the located sites compare to others reported from different surveys conducted in the area?
How do the located sites fit existing models of settlement and subsistence for valley environments of the region?
Data Needs
At the survey level, the principal research objective is a generalized investigation of changing settlement patterns in both the prehistoric and historic periods within the study area. The overall goal is to understand settlement and resource procurement patterns of the project occupants. Therefore, adequate information on site function, context, and chronology from an archaeological perspective is essential for the investigation. The fieldwork and archival research were undertaken with these primary research goals in mind:
1) To identify cultural resources occurring within the project; 2) To determine, if possible, site type and function, context of the deposit, and chronological placement of each cultural resource identified; 3) To place each cultural resource identified within a regional perspective; and 4) To provide recommendations for the treatment of each of the cultural resources identified.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
3.0–1
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The cultural resources assessment for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project consisted of an institutional records search, an intensive archaeological survey of the approximately 24-acre property, and preparation of a technical study. Statutory requirements of CEQA and subsequent legislation (Section 15064.5) were followed in evaluating the significance of cultural resources. Specific definitions for archaeological resource type(s) used in this report are those established by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO 1995).
3.1 Archaeological Records Search
The records search for the property was conducted by the EIC at UCR. The results of the records search are provided in Appendix B and discussed in Section 4.1. BFSA also reviewed the National Register of Historic Places index, historic USGS data, and aerial photographs (1966 through 2022). Land patent records, held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and accessible through the BLM General Land Office website were reviewed. In-house records and the BFSA research library were also reviewed for pertinent project information.
3.2 Field Methodology
An intensive reconnaissance was conducted for the project that employed a series of parallel survey transects spaced at approximately 10-meter intervals. The archaeological survey of the project was conducted on November 9, 2023. The entire project was covered by the survey process and photographs were taken to document project conditions during the survey (see Section
4.2). The topography of the project was noted as generally flat with an average elevation of 1,585 feet AMSL. Visibility of the natural ground surface was characterized as excellent.
3.3 Report Preparation and Recordation
This report contains information regarding previous studies, statutory requirements for the project, a brief description of the setting, research methods employed, and the overall results of the survey. The report includes all appropriate illustrations and tabular information needed to make a complete and comprehensive presentation of these activities, including the methodologies employed and the personnel involved. A copy of this report will be placed at the EIC at UCR.
Any newly recorded sites or sites requiring updated information will be recorded on the appropriate California Department of Parks of Recreation site forms (DPR 523A/B), which will be filed with the EIC.
3.4 Native American Consultation
The analysis of nearby site components and artifacts did not indicate Native American religious, ritual, or other special activities at this location. BFSA requested an SLF search from the NAHC. The SLF results have been returned with negative results for cultural resources. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
3.0–2
3.5 Applicable Regulations
Resource importance is assigned to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the heritage of Riverside County in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A number of criteria are used in demonstrating resource importance. Specifically, criteria outlined in CEQA provide the guidance for making such a determination. The following sections detail the CEQA criteria that a resource must meet in order to be determined important.
3.5.1 California Environmental Quality Act
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5a), the term “historical resource” includes the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR [California Code of Regulations]. Section 4850 et seq.). 2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript, which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
3.0–3
not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
According to CEQA (§ 15064.5b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA defines a substantial adverse change as:
1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
a) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or b) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, c) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
Section 15064.5(c) of CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites and contains the following additional provisions regarding archaeological sites:
1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subsection (a). 2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, Section 15126.4 of the guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
3.0–4
3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. 4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or [Environmental Impact Report], if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.
Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) contain additional provisions regarding human remains.
Regarding Native American human remains, paragraph (d) provides:
(d) When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from:
1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5).
2) The requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Project
4.0–1
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Records Search Results
An archaeological records search for the project and the surrounding area within a onemile radius was conducted by BFSA at the EIC at UCR (Appendix B). The search did not identify any recorded resources within the subject property. However, the records search did identify 50 (one prehistoric and 49 historic) cultural resources recorded within one mile of the project (Table
4.1–1). The single prehistoric site is the reported location of the Prehistoric Village of Ivah, located generally near the historic core of the city of San Jacinto. However, the site form also lists this location as another known village, Jusispah (Eberhardt 1951). The historic resources are primarily built-environment resources tied to the agricultural history and development of the region.
Table 4.1–1
Cultural Resources Recorded Within One Mile of the Project Site(s) Description
P-33-000124 Prehistoric Village (Ivah)
P-33-005789 and P-33-007405 Historic hotel
P-33-006351, P-33-007302, P-33-007314,
P-33-007328, P-33-007329, P-33-007331,
P-33-007332, P-33-007334, P-33-007336,
P-33-007357, P-33-007365, P-33-007366,
P-33-007367, P-33-007368, P-33-007369,
P-33-007370, P-33-007371, P-33-007372,
P-33-007374, P-33-007375, P-33-007376,
P-33-007377, P-33-007378, P-33-007379,
P-33-007381, P-33-007390, P-33-007391,
P-33-007395, P-33-007397, P-33-007398,
P-33-007402, P-33-014281, P-33-016028, and
P-33-28524
Historic residence/single family property
P-33-013242 Historic footings (location of former
residence)
P-33-019840 Historic ranch complex
P- 33-012194 Historic Estudillio Mansion
P-33-007406 Historic apartments
P-33-007300, P-33-007311, and P-33-007312 Historic commercial building P-33-014319 Historic garage
P-33-007315 Historic church
P-33-013241 Historic water conveyance system
P-33-014318 Historic reservoir
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Project
4.0–2
Site(s) Description
P-33-015743 Historic railroad alignment
P-33-019841 Historic trash scatter
The results of the EIC records search also identified 30 studies which have been conducted within one mile of the project. One of the previous studies (Swope 1987) included the subject property. Swope noted at the time of their survey that ground visibility was excellent due to repeated clearing of vegetation, and that no cultural resources were identified within the property.
As a result no further study was recommended (Swope 1987).
BFSA reviewed the following sources to help facilitate a better assessment of the potential for cultural resources within the property:
The NRHP index;
The Built Environment Resources Directory;
Historic USGS data;
BLM land patents; and
Aerial photographs (1938 through 2022).
The aerial photographs and USGS data indicate that originally the property contained agricultural fields with associated structures. The structures are visible in the 1938 aerial photograph and appear to be a residence and at least two ancillary structures. These structures were situated in the northeastern corner of the property at the intersection of Hewitt Street and East Esplanade Avenue. Between 1975 and 1978 the fields were removed from the subject property, and by 1985 the structures in the northeastern corner are no longer extent. By the next available photograph, from 1995, the entire property appeared as a cleared vacant lot, similar to how it is today, and appears to have been subjected to repeated episodes of discing and clearing.
BFSA also requested a records search of the SLF of the NAHC to identify if any known sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are within the search radius. The SLF results have been returned with negative results for cultural resources. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C.
4.2 Results of the Field Survey
The cultural resources survey took place on November 9, 2023. Principal Investigator Tracy A. Stropes, M.A., RPA, directed the cultural resources study for the project with assistance from Senior Field Archaeologist Clarence Hoff. The intensive reconnaissance consisted of a series of parallel survey transects spaced at approximately 10-meter intervals. All exposed ground surfaces were carefully inspected, including rodent burrows and disturbed areas. A survey form, field notes, and photographs documented the survey work. During the survey, ground visibility A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Project
4.0–3
was characterized as excellent as the property appeared to have recently been disced and contained limited vegetation (Plates 4.2–1 and 4.2–4). No historic or prehistoric resources were identified anywhere within the project. As such, the current survey results were consistent with the findings of Swope’s previous study of the property in 1987.
Plate 4.2–1: Overview of the project, looking southeast from the northwest corner.
Plate 4.2–2: Overview of the project, looking west from the northeast corner.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Project
4.0–4
Plate 4.2–3: Overview of the project, looking northeast from the southwest corner.
Plate 4.2–4: Overview of the project, looking west from the southeast corner.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project Project
5.0–1
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The archaeological study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project was completed in accordance with the City of San Jacinto environmental policies and CEQA significance criteria.
Based on the current study, no cultural resources are located within the subject property. These results are also supported by the previous investigation conducted by Swope (1987) that did not identify cultural resources within the subject parcel. Further, the property has been previously impacted by agriculture along with repeated discing and clearing. Due to the previous grounddisturbing activities and the absence of identified cultural resources within the project boundaries, there is little to no potential for cultural resources to be present or impacted by the proposed development.
Based upon the results of this study, no further archaeological study or mitigation measures are recommended as a condition of permit approval. However, if any cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, all construction work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine if further mitigation measures are warranted. Should human remains be discovered, treatment of these remains shall follow California PRC 5097.9. Any human remains that are determined to be Native American shall be reported to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, Coroner Division, and subsequently to the NAHC.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
6.0–1
6.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
December 1, 2023
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA Date
Archaeological Project Manager
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
7.0–1
7.0 REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith
1978 Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 8. California, edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Beattie, George W. and Helen P. Beattie
1939 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks, Oakland, California.
Brigandi, Phil
1998 Temecula: at the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation, Encinitas, California.
Byrd, Brian F.
1998 Harvesting the Littoral Landscape During the Late Holocene: New Perspectives from Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2):195-218.
Caughey, John W.
1970 California, A Remarkable State’s Life History. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Chapman, Charles E.
1921 A History of California: The Spanish Period. The Macmillan Company, New York.
City of San Jacinto
2020 Explore San Jacinto: History. Electronic document, http://www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us/ explore/history.html, accessed July 1, 2020.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
7.0–2
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1921 San Luis Rey Mission, The King of the Missions. James M. Barry Company, San Francisco, California.
Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 An Archaeological Context for Archaeological Sites on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Fagan, Brian M.
1991 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson, London.
Gallegos, Dennis R.
1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Editor. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1. 1992 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years Ago. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California, edited by Terry Jones.
Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California.
Gallegos, Dennis R. and Carolyn E. Kyle
1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California, Place Names. Rubidoux Printing Co., Riverside, California.
Handley, Charles
1967 The Sun City Story. Sun City News 2 February:6, 15–19. Sun City, California.
Harris, Marvin
1991 Cultural Anthropology. HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, New York.
Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter II, and Adella B. Schroth 1986 The Agua Hedionda Project Archaeological Investigations at CA-SDI-5353 and CASDI-9649. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
7.0–3
Kowta, Makoto
1969 The Sayles Complex: A Late Millingstone Assemblage from Cajon Pass, and the Econological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Prehistory (6), Salinas, California.
Kroeber, A.L.
1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprinted. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Lancaster, J.T., Hayhurst, C.A., and Bedrossian, T.L., compilers 2012 Preliminary geologic map of Quaternary surficial deposits in southern California. Palm Springs 30' x 60' quadrangle. In Geologic compilation of Quaternary surficial deposits in southern California. California Geological Survey Special Report 217: pl. 24 (scale 1:100,000)
Law, George
1922 San Jacinto’s Achievement in Dairying. Los Angeles Times. 23 April. Los Angeles, California.
Laylander, Don (editor)
1985 Some Linguistic Approaches to Southern California’s Prehistory. San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1):14–58.
Laylander, Don, Jerry Schaefer, Nick Doose, Jessica Hennessey, and Ian Scharlotta 2014 A Regional Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeological Landscapes in the Jacumba/McCain Valley Region, San Diego and Imperial Counties, California.
Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management and San Diego Gas & Electric by ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Martin, Paul S.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by Paul S. Martin and H.E. Wright. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179(4077):969–974.
Masters, Patricia M.
1983 Detection and Assessment of Prehistoric Artifact Sites off the Coast of Southern California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology, edited by Patricia M.
Masters and N.C. Fleming, pp. 1–49, Academic Press, New York.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2).
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
7.0–4
Miller, Jaquelin Neva
1966 The Present and Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Master’s Thesis, University of California at San Diego.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Moriarty, James R., III
1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Topological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4(4):20–30.
Morton, Douglas M. and Jonathan C. Matti
2001 Geologic Map of the Lakeview 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2001-174, scale 1:24,000.
Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson
1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1-
46. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2019 Web Soil survey: National Cooperative Soil Survey. Electronic document, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed November 29, 2023.
Office of Historic Preservation
1989 Soviet Transpolar Landing Site, California Historical Landmark No. 989. Electronic document, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/989, accessed November 4, 2020. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, California. 1993 Ramona Bowl, Site of the Ramona Pageant, California Historical Landmark No. 1009.
Electronic document, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/Detail/1009, accessed July 23, 2020.
Patterson, Tom
1971 A Colony for California: Riverside’s First Hundred Years. Press-Enterprise, Riverside, California.
Pitman, Leon
1976 Domestic Tankhouses of Rural America. Pioneer America Vol. 8, pp. 84-97.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. In The History of San Diego (Volume 2). Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
7.0–5
1963 The Silver Dons. In The History of San Diego (Volume 3). Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego, California.
Rasmussen, Cecilia
2001 Three Soviet Fliers’ 1937 Happy Landing in a Southland Pasture. 22 July. Los Angeles Times. Electronic document, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jul-22- me-25380-story.html, accessed October 30, 2020.
Raven-Jennings, Shelly, Brian F. Smith, and Johnna L. Buysse 1996 The Results of a Cultural Resource Study at the 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, County of San Diego. Unpublished report on file at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. In San Diego Museum Papers (No. 3 – 1989 printing). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California.
Rolle, Andrew F.
1969 California: A History. 2nd ed. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
Schultz, Craig
2017 San Jacinto marks anniversary of historic flight. 14 July. Press-Enterprise. Electronic document, https://www.pe.com/2017/07/14/san-jacinto-marks-anniversary-of-historic -flight/, accessed October 30, 2020.
Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty III 1961 Scripps Estates Site, San Diego, California: A La Jolla Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years Before the Present. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93(3):41-131.
Smith, Brian F. and James R. Moriarty, III
1985 The Archaeological Excavations at Batiquitos Pointe and Batiquitos Bluffs.
Unpublished report on file at the City of Carlsbad.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley.
Sutton, Mark Q.
2009 People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2, 3):33–93.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
7.0–6
2011a The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4):1–74.
2011b A Prehistory of North America. Routledge, New York.
Sutton, Mark Q. and Jill K. Gardner
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1–64.
True, Delbert L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3). 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County. Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1–39
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
Warren, Claude N. (editor)
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C.I. Williams ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14.
Warren, Claude N. and D.L. True
1961 The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in California Prehistory. In Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.
Warren, Claude N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961.
University of California, Los Angeles.
Wiley, Nancy Anastasia
2018 Report of Findings from a Record Search Conducted for Assessor’s Parcel Number 436-600-012, 013, -014. SRSinc. Unpublished report on file at the City of San Jacinto, California.
2019 Cultural/Tribal Resource Records Search and Historic Building Preliminary Assessment, Assessor’s Parcel Number 432-270-012. SRSINC At Riverwalk.
Unpublished report on file at the City of San Jacinto, San Jacinto, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
7.0–7
Wirths, Todd A.
2023 Paleontological Assessment for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. Unpublished report on file at BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company, Poway, California A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
APPENDIX A
Qualifications of Key Personnel
Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA
Project Archaeologist
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
14010 Poway Road Suite A
Phone: (858) 679-8218 Fax: (858) 679-9896 E-Mail: [email protected] Education
Master of Arts, Public History, University of California, Riverside 2009 Bachelor of Science, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside 2005 Bachelor of Arts, History, University of California, Riverside 2005 Professional Memberships
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for California Archaeology
Society for American Archaeology
California Council for the Promotion of History
Society of Primitive Technology
Lithic Studies Society
California Preservation Foundation
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Experience
Project Archaeologist June 2017–Present
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California
Project management of all phases of archaeological investigations for local, state, and federal agencies including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) level projects interacting with clients, sub-consultants, and lead agencies. Supervise and perform fieldwork including archaeological survey, monitoring, site testing, comprehensive site records checks, and historic building assessments. Perform and oversee technological analysis of prehistoric lithic assemblages. Author or co-author cultural resource management reports submitted to private clients and lead agencies.
Senior Archaeologist and GIS Specialist 2009–2017
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Orange, California
Served as Project Archaeologist or Principal Investigator on multiple projects, including archaeological monitoring, cultural resource surveys, test excavations, and historic building assessments. Directed projects from start to finish, including budget and personnel hours proposals, field and laboratory direction, report writing, technical editing, Native American consultation, and final report submittal.
Oversaw all GIS projects including data collection, spatial analysis, and map creation.
Preservation Researcher 2009
City of Riverside Modernism Survey Riverside, California Completed DPR Primary, District, and Building, Structure and Object Forms for five sites for a grantfunded project to survey designated modern architectural resources within the City of Riverside.
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2
Information Officer 2005, 2008–2009
Eastern Information Center (EIC), University of California, Riverside Riverside, California Processed and catalogued restricted and unrestricted archaeological and historical site record forms.
Conducted research projects and records searches for government agencies and private cultural resource firms.
Reports/Papers
2019 A Class III Archaeological Study for the Tuscany Valley (TM 33725) Project National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Phase I and II Cultural Resources Assessment for the Jack Rabbit Trail Logistics Center Project, City of Beaumont, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 Cultural Resources Study for the County Road and East End Avenue Project, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 Phase II Cultural Resource Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, California.
Contributing author. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2019 A Section 106 (NHPA) Historic Resources Study for the McElwain Project, City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2018 Cultural Resource Monitoring Report for the Sewer Group 818 Project, City of San Diego. Brian F.
Smith and Associates, Inc.
2018 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey for the Stone Residence Project, 1525 Buckingham Drive, La Jolla, California 92037. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2018 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Seaton Commerce Center Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Marbella Villa Project, City of Desert Hot Springs, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2017 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey for TTM 37109, City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
2017 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Winchester Dollar General Store Project, Riverside County, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2016 John Wayne Airport Jet Fuel Pipeline and Tank Farm Archaeological Monitoring Plan. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the County of Orange, California. 2016 Historic Resource Assessment for 220 South Batavia Street, Orange, CA 92868 Assessor’s Parcel Number 041-064-4. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Submitted to the City of Orange as part of Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3
Mills Act application.
2015 Historic Resource Report: 807-813 Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. 2015 Exploring a Traditional Rock Cairn: Test Excavation at CA-SDI-13/RBLI-26: The Rincon Indian Reservation, San Diego County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 2014 Archaeological Monitoring Results: The New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeological Project Volume 7, Technological Analysis of Stone Tools, Lithic Technology at Bolsa Chica: Reduction Maintenance and Experimentation. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
Presentations
2017 “Repair and Replace: Lithic Production Behavior as Indicated by the Debitage Assemblage from CA-MRP-283 the Hackney Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Fish Camp, California.
2016 “Bones, Stones, and Shell at Bolsa Chica: A Ceremonial Relationship?” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2016 “Markers of Time: Exploring Transitions in the Bolsa Chica Assemblage.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2016 “Dating Duress: Understanding Prehistoric Climate Change at Bolsa Chica.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Ontario, California. 2014 “New Discoveries from an Old Collection: Comparing Recently Identified OGR Beads to Those Previously Analyzed from the Encino Village Site.” Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting, Visalia, California.
2012 Bolsa Chica Archaeology: Part Seven: Culture and Chronology. Lithic demonstration of experimental manufacturing techniques at the April meeting of The Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, Irvine, California.
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
APPENDIX B
Archaeological Records Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)
A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project
APPENDIX C
NAHC Sacred Lands File Search Results
(Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately)