Hallmark‐Barham Specific Plan EIR
Technical Appendices
Appendix F.2
Site Significance Evaluation
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the
Barham Residential Project, San Marcos,
San Diego County, California
Prepared for:
Sophia Habl Mitchell
Sophia Mitchell & Associates
PO Box 1700
Gualala, CA 95445
Prepared by:
Holly Drake, M.A., RPA
Mark S. Becker, Ph.D., RPA
With contributions from Shannon Davis and Laura Taylor Kung
ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2034 Corte del Nogal
Carlsbad, California 92011
Keywords: Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01, USGS 7.5’ San Marcos topographic quadrangle, Archaeological Evaluation
April 2021
PN 36840.00
National Archaeological Database
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project i
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE
Authors: Holly Drake and Mark Becker
Consulting Firm: ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Report Date: April 2021
Report Title: Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project, San Marcos, San Diego County, California
Submitted to: Sophia Mitchell & Associates
Submitted by: ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Prepared for: Sophia Habl Mitchell
USGS Quad: San Marcos
Acreage: 11.5 acres
Keywords: Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01, USGS 7.5 -minute San Marcos topographic quadrangle, Archaeological Evaluation
Table of Contents
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE .................................................... i MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................. v
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .......................................................... 1
1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 CEQA and the California Register Criteria for Evaluation .............................. 4
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 4
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND RESEARCH DESIGN ................................... 5
2.1 CULTURE HISTORY ............................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Prehistoric Archaeology ................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Ethnographic Evidence .................................................................................. 7
2.1.3 History ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1.4 Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos ........................................................... 9
2.1.5 City of San Marcos ......................................................................................... 9
2.1.6 Occupational History of 943 Barham Drive .................................................. 10
2.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................ 11
2.2.1 Chronology ................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 Demography ................................................................................................. 12
2.2.3 Consumer Behavior ...................................................................................... 12
2.2.4 Ethnicity/Ideological Subcultures .................................................................. 12
2.2.5 Technology ................................................................................................... 13
2.2.6 Cultural Geography ...................................................................................... 13
2.2.7 Adaptive Strategies ...................................................................................... 13
3.0 METHODS .................................................................................................... 15
3.1 FIELD METHODS .................................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Archaeological Evaluation Methods ............................................................. 15
3.2 LABORATORY METHODS ................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Standard Processing, Cataloging, and Analysis .......................................... 15
4.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 17
4.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION RESULTS .................................................... 17
4.1.2 Field Results ................................................................................................. 17
4.1.3 Laboratory Analyses and Results ................................................................. 20
5.0 RESOURCE EVALUATION AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION .................... 25
5.1 EVALUATION OF Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 ....................................................... 25
5.1.1 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures .................................................... 26 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 27 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX A - Confidential Maps
APPENDIX B - Confidential DPR Form
APPENDIX C - Artifact Catalog
Table of Contents
iv ASM Affiliates, Inc.
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 Project regional location. .............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 1.2 Project location. ............................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 4.1 Overview of STP-7 location, facing southwest. ......................................................................... 19 Figure 4.2 Overhead view of STP-7, facing west. ...................................................................................... 19 Figure 4.3 All recovered ceramic artifacts from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. .............................................. 21 Figure 4.4 A selection of glass artifacts from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. .................................................. 22 Figure 4.5 Cut nail artifacts from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. ..................................................................... 23
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1 Summary of Soil Conditions and Identifications of Disturbances .............................................. 18 Table 4.2 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Subsurface Testing. ...................................................... 20 Table 4.3 All Cultural Materials Recovered from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 ............................................ 20
Management Summary
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project v
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM) was contracted by Sophia Mitchell & Associates to provide an archaeological significance evaluation for a historic site , Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01, discovered during a cultural resources inventory for the Barham Residential Project (Project), City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California. This cultural resource consisted of a historic site with the ruins of a residential building, various foundations for outbuildings, and a scatter of historic artifacts.
The testing program within Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 resulted in the recovery of 483g of historic artifacts/ecofacts. Artifacts included 47.3g of ceramic fragments, 202.1g of glass fragments, 163.8g of metal fragments, 2.5g of leather, 0.4g of rubber, and 7.6g of miscellaneous artifacts. Ecofacts recovered from the site include 0.8g of faunal bone and 0.2g of Oyster ( Ostrea sp.) shell fragment. Artifact recoveries are presented in this report by their weight, rather than count, due to the extensive fragmentation found throughout the assemblage.
Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 was evaluated for eligibility for listing in the CRHR. It is determined that the site is not eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 1, 2, 3, or 4. The site is determined as not eligible for listing in the CRHR under all criteria. For Criterion 1, there are no indications of significant historical events that occurred in association with the resource. Un der Criterion 2 there is no record of important contributions to local, California, or national history by any of the prior owners. For Criterion 3, the structures were previously demolished and nothing remains to examine distinctive characteristics, the work of a master, or artistic value. Under Criterion 4, the site does not have any substantial research potential as the resource contains a low-density artifact scatter that is situated within a highly disturbed context. Only building foundations remain of the structures, and no features such as privies, cisterns, and trash pits appear to remain at the site.
However, ASM recommends archaeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and native American monitor during grading and earthworks associated with the development of this lot, until a sterile subsoil has been reached. Although this investigation found Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 to be ineligible for listing in the CRHR under any of the four criteria, the possibility remains that features or other intact deposits may be encountered during future earth moving activities . Such a discovery could potentially yield important information about this site and the period of its occupation in San Marcos
1.0 Introduction
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the archaeological significance evaluation of cultural resource Barham-2020-ASM- HD-01, a historic period archaeological site discovered during a cultural resources inventory for the Barham Residential Project (Project). ASM was contracted by Sophia Habl Mitchell & Associates to conduct the cultural resources inventory and subsequent archaeological significance evaluation for the Project; Native American monitoring was directly contracted with Saving Sacred Sites, operated by a member of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians . This report is submitted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] §2100 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15000 et seq.), as amended to date. Fieldwork for the archaeological significance evaluation took place on four nonconsecutive days from March 1 to March 5, 2021. All excavation was performed by qualified archaeologists who w ere knowledgeable in both prehistoric and historic archaeology.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The Barham Residential Project occupies approximately 11.5-acre parcel located on the south side of East Barham Drive between Campus View Drive and La Moree Road in San Marcos, San Diego County, California (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). The Assessor’s parcel number is 228-310-01-00 (943 Barham Drive). The Project area is shown on the USGS 7.5 -minute San Marcos topographic quadrangle, Township 12 South, Range 2 West , Section 18 . The Project applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Rezone, Tentative Map, and a Conditional Use Permit. If approved, these entitlements would allow for the development of 151 multi-family residential units on the currently undeveloped property.
The Project area is currently unoccupied and the environment consists of gently sloping hills rising toward the southwest, covered in various non-native grasses and annual plants such as thistles. The north end of the parcel is bounded by Barham Dr. and the 78 Freeway. South of the parcel remains undeveloped and contains native plants from the coastal sage scrub habitat type, such as Malosma laurina (Laurel Sumac), Artemisia Californica (California Sagebrush), Heteromeles arbutifolia (T oyon), and Erigonum sp. (Buckwheat). The parcel to the west of the Project area is occupied by a church and residential development and the eastern-bordering parcel is a residential neighborhood.
1.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The Barham Residential Project (Project) is subject to compliance with CEQA (PRC §2100 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines ( CCR §15000 et seq.), as amended to date. Cultural resources, as defined in CEQA, include prehistoric and historic era archaeological sites, districts, and objects; historic buildings, structures, districts; and traditional/cultural sites, or the location of important historic events. For potential impacts to archaeological or historic cultural resources to be considered significant under CEQA, the resource in question must be found to be a “Historic resource” as defined in §21084.1, or a unique archaeological resource as defined in §21083.2. CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5) state that a project may have a significant environmental effect if it causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource. In addition, properties eligible for listing in the CRHR or that are defined as a unique archaeological resource in CEQA §21083.2, must be considered.
1.0 Introduction
2 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Figure 1.1 Project regional location.
I
)
I j
6 N
\
\
\
' \
.....
Project
Location
* San Diego
County
Riverside
County
Imperial
County
,.,
_....--~- - ---~-- - ---__..- __,·r-..-,J
0 1.0 Introduction
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 3
Figure 1.2 Project location.
1.0 Introduction
4 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
1.2.1 CEQA and the California Register Criteria for Evaluation The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated against the potential for environmental damage, including effects to historical resources. Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA. It defines historical resources as “any object, building, structure, site, area, or place which is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California,” as cited in Division I, PRC §5021.1[b].
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources agai nst the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical sig nificance (i.e., its character-defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance.
The CRHR is used in the consideration of historic resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA.
The CRHR includes resources listed in, or formally determined eligible for listing in, the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmark s or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.
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, cited as PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852, consisting of the following:
(1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patters of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or (2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or (3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or (4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE
Following this introduction, Chapter 2 includes a cultural context and research design to frame interpretation of the archaeological assemblage generated from the evaluation of Barham -ASM-HD-01.
Chapter 3 describes the archaeological evaluation methods. Chapter 4 is a discussion of field and laboratory results. Chapter 5 provides a resource and impact identification which includes a CRHR eligibility determination and recommendations for future treatment of the resource. Appendix A contains confidential site maps, Appendix B contains the DPR site form update for Barham -ASM-HD-01, and Appendix C contains the complete artifact catalog for the evaluation.
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 5
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND RESEARCH DESIGN
The study area lies on the western margin of the foothills province of San Diego County, just east of the coastal plain province and well to the west of the Peninsular Range’s crest ( Bowman 1973). Geologically, it is an area where outcrops of Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sedimentary deposits, Jurassic or Cretaceous metavolcanic rocks, Cretaceous plutonic rocks, and pre-Cretaceous metamorphic rocks all occur in close proximity (McArthur 2004:19). The elevation is approximately 7 00 ft. above sea level, and the open coastline lies approximately 19 km to the west. The climate is classified as Mediterranean Hot Summer (Pryde 2004:38).The site lies near the San Marcos Creek channel, one of six small- to medium-size parallel drainages on the central San Diego County coast, with its outlet in Batiquitos Lagoon. The area falls within the chaparral natural vegetation zone, although modern development, grazing, and introduced plant species have substantially displaced natural vegetation patterns.
2.1 CULTURE HISTORY
2.1.1 Prehistoric Archaeology
Archaeological investigations in coastal southern California ha ve documented a diverse range of human adaptations extending from the late Pleistocene up to the time of European contact (e.g., Erlandson and Colten 1991; Erlandson and Glassow 1997; Erlandson and Jones 2002; Jones and Klar 2007; Moratto 1984).
To describe and discuss this diversity, local investigators have proposed a variety of different chronologies and conceptual categories (periods, horizons, stages, phases, traditions, cultures, peoples, industries, complexes, and patterns), often with confusingly overlapping or vague terminology.
The prehistory of San Diego County is most frequently divided chronologically into three or four major periods. An Early Man stage, perhaps dating back tens of thousands of years, has been proposed. More generally accepted divisions include a Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene period (ca. 12,000-6000 B.C.) (Paleo-Indian stage; Clovis and San Dieguito patterns), a Middle/Late Holocene period (ca. 6000 B.C.-A.D. 800) (Archaic stage; La Jolla, Millingstone, or Encinitas pattern), and a Late Prehistoric period (ca. A.D. 800-1769) (Archaic stage; San Luis Rey pattern, Palomar tradition).
Hypothetical Early Man (pre-ca. 12,000 B.C.)
The antiquity of human occupation in the New World has been the subject of considerable interest and debate for more than a century. A t present, the most widely accepted model is that humans first entered portions of the western hemisphere lying to the south of Alaska between about 15,000 and 12,000 B.C., either along the Pacific coastline or through an ice-free corridor between the retreating Cordilleran and Laurentide segments of the continental glacier in Canada, or along both routes. While there is no generally accepted evidence of human occupation in coastal southern California prior to about 11,000 B.C., ages estimated at 48,000 years and even earlier sometimes have been reported (e.g., Bada et al. 1974; Carter 1980). However, despite intense interest and the long history of research, no widely accepted evidence of human occupation of North America dating prior to about 12,000 B.C. has emerged.
Local claims for Early Man discoveries have generally been based either on the apparent crudeness of the lithic assemblages that were encountered or on the finds’ apparent Pleistocene geological contexts (Carter 1957, 1980; Minshall 1976, 1989; Reeves et al. 1986). The amino acid racemization technique was used in the 1970s and early 1980s to assign Pleistocene ages to coastal southern California sites (Bada et al. 1974), but the technique’s findings have been discredited by more recent accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating (Taylor et al. 1985).
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
6 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Period (ca. 12,000-6000 B.C.) The earliest chronologically distinctive archaeological pattern recognized in most of North America is the Clovis pattern. Dated to around 11,500 B.C., Clovis assemblages are distinguished by fluted projectile points and other large bifaces, as well as extinct large mammal remains. At least three isolated fluted points have been reported within San Diego County, but their occurrence is very sparse and their dating and contexts are uncertain (Davis and Shutler 1969; Kline and Kline 2007; Rondeau et al. 2007).
The most widely recognized archaeological pattern within this period is termed San Dieguito and has been dated from at least as early as 8500 B.C. to perhaps around 6000 B.C. (Rogers 1966; Warren 1966; Warren et al. 2008). The San Dieguito pattern was originally defined near the central coast of San Diego County, and its presence has been reported through extensive areas to the east, but few traces are recognized on or near the northern coast of San Diego County. Proposed c haracteristics to distinguish San Dieguito flaked lithic assemblages includ e large projectile points (Lake Mojave, Silver Lake, and other, le ss diagnostic forms), bifaces, crescents, scraper planes, scrapers, hammers, and choppers. The San Dieguito technology involved well-controlled percussion flaking and some pressure flaking.
Malcolm Rogers (1966) suggested that three successive phases of the San Dieguito pattern (San Dieguito I, II, and III) could be distinguished in southern California, based on evolving aspects of lithic technology.
However, subsequent investigators have generally not been able to confirm such changes, and the phases are not now generally accepted.
A key issue has concerned ground stone, which was originally suggested as having been absent from San Dieguito components but has subsequently been recognized as occurring infrequently with in them. It was initially suggested that San Dieguito components, like other Paleo -Indian manifestations, represented the products of highly mobile groups that were organized as small bands and focused on the hunting of large game. However, in the absence of supporting faunal evidence, this interpretation has increasingly been called into question, and it has been suggested that the San Dieguito pattern represented a more generalized, Archaic-stage lifeway, rather than a true Paleo-Indian adaptation.
A vigorous debate has continued for several decades concerning the relationship between the San Dieguito pattern and the La Jolla pattern that succeeded it and that may have also been contemporaneous with or even antecedent to it (e.g., Gallegos 1987; Warren et al. 2008). The initial view was that San Dieguito and La Jolla represented the products of distinct ethnic groups and/or cultural traditions (e.g., R ogers 1945; Warren 1967, 1968). However, as early Holocene radiocarbon dates have been obtained for site components with apparent La Jolla characteristics (shell middens, milling tools, and simple cobble-based flaked lithic technology), an alternative interpretation has gained some favor: that the San Dieguito pattern represented a functional pose related in particular to the production of bifaces, and that it represents activities by same people who were responsible for the La Jolla pattern (e.g., Bull 1987; Hanna 1983).
Middle/Late Holocene Period (ca. 6000 B.C.-A.D. 800)
Archaeological evidence from this period in the coastal San Diego region has been characterized as belonging to the Archaic stage, Millingstone horizon, Encinitas tradition, or La Jolla pattern , while a Del Rey tradition has been distinguished immediately to the northwest (Moratto 1984; Rogers 1945; Sutton 2010; Wallace 1955 ; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 2008 ). Adaptations during this period apparently emphasized gathering, in particular the harvesting of shellfish and hard plant seeds, rather than hunting.
Distinctive characteristics of the La Jolla pattern include extensive shell middens, portable ground stone metates and manos, crudely flaked cobble tools, occasional large expanding-stemmed projectile points (Pinto and Elko forms), and flexed human burials.
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 7 Investigators have called attention to the apparent stability and conservatism of the La Jolla pattern throughout this long period, as contrasted with less conservative patterns observed elsewhere in coastal southern California (Hale 2009; Sutton 2010; Sutton and Gardner 2010; Warren 1968). However, distinct chronological phases within the pattern have also been suggested, based on changes in the flaked lithic and ground stone technologies, the shellfish species targeted, and burial practices (Harding 1951 ; Moriarty 1966; Rogers 1945; Shumway et al. 1961; Sutton and Gardner 2010; Warren 1964; Warren et al. 2008).
Late Prehistoric Period (ca. A.D. 800-1769)
A Late Prehistoric period in San Diego County has been distinguished, primarily on the basis of three major innovations: the use of small projectile points (Desert Side-notched, Cottonwood triangular, and Dos Cabezas forms), associated with the adoption of the bow and arrow in place of the atlatl as a primary hunting tool and weapon; brownware pottery, presumably supplementing the continued use of basketry and other containers; and the practice of human cremation in place of inhumation. Uncertainty remains concerning the exact timing of these innovations, and whether they appeared simultaneously or sequentially (e.g., Griset 1996; Yohe 1992).
Labels applied to the archaeological manifestations of this period include San Luis Rey and Palomar (Meighan 1954; Robbins-Wade 1988; Sutton 2011, 2015; True 1970; True et al. 1974, 1991; Waugh 1986).
These remains have generally been associated with the ethnohistorically known Luiseño and have been seen as perhaps marking the initial local appearance of that group in a migration from the north. Traits characterizing the Late Prehistoric period include greater reliance on acorns as an abundant but labor - expensive food resource, a greater emphasis on hunting of both large and small game (particularly deer and rabbits), a greater amount of interregional exchange ( seen notably in more use of obsidian), more elaboration of nonutilitarian culture (manifested in more frequent use of shell beads, decorated pottery and rock art), and possibly denser regional populations. Settlement may have become more sedentary during this period, as compared with the preceding period. It has been debated whether there was any decrease in the exploitation of littoral resources (Byrd 1998; Rosenthal et al. 2001).
2.1.2 Ethnographic Evidence
In ethnohistoric times, northwestern San Diego County was occupied by speakers of Luiseño . The northwestern segment of this group has als o been known as the Juaneño. Luiseño territory extended from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Escondido, and Lake Henshaw northward into southern Orange and Riverside counties. To the east it was bounded by territories of the closely related Cupeño and Cahuilla, whil e to the south lay the territory of the unrelated Kumeyaay (Diegueño, Ipai) (Heizer 1978; Kroeber 1925).
Linguistic evidence links Luiseño with the Uto -Aztecan family of languages (e.g., Golla 2007; Laylander 2010). A hierarchy of relationships within that family likely mirror a sequence of separations reflecting territorial expansions or migrations, leading the linguistic ancestors of the Luiseño from a still-debated Uto- Aztecan homeland to a northern Uto -Aztecan base somewhere in western North America and ultimately south to the ethnohistoric home of the Luiseño. Splits within the ancestral fam ily included the differentiation of Takic (also termed Southern California Shoshonean) (ca. 1000 B.C.?) and the separation of Luiseño from Cahuilla-Cupeño (ca. A.D. 1?).
While Luiseño cultural patterns, as recorded subsequent to European contact, cannot necessarily be equated with Late Prehistoric patterns, at a minimum they provide indispensable clues to cultural elements that would be difficult or impossible to extract unaided from the archaeological record alone. A few important ethnohistoric accounts are available from Franciscan missionaries and others (Geiger and Meighan 1976; Harrington 1933, 1934; Henshaw 1972 ; Laylander 2000). Many accounts by ethnographers , primarily recorded during the early twentieth century, are available ( Bean and Shipek 1978; Drucker 1937; Gifford 1918; Hicks 1963; Kroeber 1925; Laylander 2004; Sparkman 1908; Strong 1929; White 1953, 1957, 1963).
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
8 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
The Luiseño inhabited a diverse environment that included littoral, valley, foothill, and mountain resource zones. Because of the early incorporation of coastal Luiseño into the mission system, most of the available twentieth-century ethnographic information relates to inland groups that lived in the Peninsular Range.
Acorns were a key resource, but a wide range of other mineral, plant, and animal resources were exploited, including coastal fish and shellfish. Some degree of residential mobility seems to have been practiced; the classic fission/fusion pattern involved annual seasonal shifts between consolidated winter and spring settlements in the upper San Luis Rey River valley and smal ler, dispersed groups living on Palomar Mountain in the summer and fall (Oxendine 1983). The fundamental Luiseño social units above the family were patrilineal, patrilocal clans, the latter ideally coincidin g with the winter-spring village communities.
Hereditary leaders performed ceremonial, advisory, and diplomatic functions, rather than judicial, redistributive, or military ones. There seems to have been no national level of political unity and perhaps little sense of commonality within the language group.
Luiseño material culture was effective, but it was not highly elaborated. Structures included houses with excavated floors, ramadas, sweathouses, ceremonial enclosures, and acorn granaries. Hunting equipment included bows and arrows, curved throwing sticks, nets, and snares, as well as nets and hooks of bone and shell for fishing. Processing and storage equipment included a variety of flaked stone tools, milling implements, ceramic vessels, and baskets.
Nonutilitarian culture was not neglected. A range of community ceremonies were performed, with particular emphases placed on individuals’ coming of age and on death and mourning. Oral literature included, in particular, an elaborate creation myth that was shared with other Takic groups as well as with Yuman speakers (Kroeber 1925; Laylander 2001; Waterman 1909).
2.1.3 History
European exploration of the San Diego area began in 1542 with the arrival of a maritime expedition under Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, followed by a similar reconnaissance in 1602 by Sebastián Vizcaíno (Pourade 1960). It is possible that additional brief, unrecorded contacts with the crews of the Manila galleons may have occurred during the following century and a half, and that other influences, such as an awareness of alien technologies or the introduction of diseases, may have reached the region overland from earlier outposts of the Spanish empire in Baja California or Sonora.
The historic period proper did not begin until 1769, when multiple seaborne and overland expeditions under the leadership of the soldier Gaspar de Portolá and the Franciscan missionary Junípero Serra reached the region from Baja California and passed northward along the coastal plain to seek Monterey. To the south, a royal presidio and a mission were established that year in S an Diego. Additional missions were founded among the Luiseño/Juaneño at San Juan Capistrano in 1776 and San Luis Rey de Francia in 1798.
As Spanish attention was consumed by the Napoleonic wars in Europe, California and its government and missions were increasingly left to their own devices. In 1821, Mexico consummated its independence from Spain, and the region became more open to outside visitors and influences (Pourade 1961). The loyalty to Mexico of the European Franciscans was considered to be in doubt, and private secular interests clamored for a greater share of the region’s resources. The missions were secularized by act of the Mexican Congress in 1833. Native Americans released from the missions at San Diego, San Luis Rey, and San Juan Capistrano returned to their native villages, moved east to areas lying beyond Mexican control, or sought work on ranchos or in the towns of San Diego and Los Angeles. Numerous large land grants were issued to private owners during the Mexican period, including Agua Hedionda, Los Vallecitos de San Marcos, Buena Vista, and Santa Margarita y Las Flores in northern coastal San Diego County (Pourade 1963).
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 9 The conquest and annexa tion of California by the U .S. in the Mexican-American War between 1846 and 1848 ushered in many more changes (Pourade 1963, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1977; Pryde 2004). Faced with debts and difficulties in confirming land grants, many Californio families lost their lands to outsiders.
Cultural patterns that were brought by immigrants from the eastern U.S. gradually supplanted old Californio customs.
The region experienced cycles of economic and demographic booms and busts, with notable periods of growth in the mid-1880s, during World Wars I and II, and on more sustained basis throughout the postwar decades. Aspects of development included the creat ion of transportation networks based on port facilities, railroads, highways, and airports; more elaborate systems of water supply and flood control; grazing livestock and growing a changing array of crops; supporting military facilities, including the ext ensive Camp Pendleton facility established in 1942; limited amounts of manufacturing; and accommodating visitors and retirees. After some false starts, San Diego converted itself to a substantial city, and then into a metropolis. Other cities were incorpor ated in the north coastal region, including Oceanside (1888), Carlsbad (1952), San Marcos (1963), and Vista (1963) (Pryde 2004).
2.1.4 Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos
The Project area is within the original boundaries of Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos. Before secularization of the missions, this land was one of the cattle-grazing tracts claimed by Mission San Luis Rey. In 1840, Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado granted the 8,877-acre Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos (the Litt le Valleys of St. Mark) to Don José María Alvarado. Don José married Lugarda Osuna, daughter of the owner of San Dieguito Rancho, Don Juan María Osuna.
In 1846, shortly after the Battle of San Pasqual, Don José and 10 other rancheros were captured by a band of Indians and taken to an Indian ranchería at Agua Caliente, where they were slain ( Bibb 1976; Moyer 1969:22). Lugarda later married Luis Machado, the owner of Rancho Buena Vista. It is unclear who owned Rancho Los Vallecitos de San Marcos in the years following Lugarda Machado’s marriage, but in 1883, the U.S. Land Commission granted a patent to the rancho to Lorenzo Sot o, who had fought against the Americans at the Battle of San Pasqual. Cave J. Couts, a former Army officer and owner of the adjacent Rancho Guajome and Rancho Buena Vista, later came into possession of the ranch. Couts ran cattle on the ranch but did not build any substantial structures.
2.1.5 City of San Marcos
San Marcos was typical of the small agricultural communities that grew up in the hinterland of San Diego, characterized generally by widely dispersed settlements that were united by a common school district, post office, church, and general store (Van Wormer 1986a, 1986b, 1987).
Major Gustavus French Merriam from Topeka, Kansas made the first permanent settlement in the San Marcos area. Merriam homesteaded 160 acres in the northern Twin Oaks Valley and began wine and honey production. German and Dutch immigrants began moving into the area in the early 1880s. In 1883, a few miles south of the Merriam homestead settlement, John H. Barham founded the first town in the area, calling it Barham. By 1884, the town of Barham had a post office, blacksmith, feed store, and weekly newspaper (City of San Marcos 2004 ). William Webster Borden published th e town’s first newspaper called “Our Paper” and later “The Plain Truth” (Sherman 2001 :44). Another small settlement called Buena grew up approximately 4 mi. northwest of Barham in the 1880s. A school was locat ed here, but when the Vista Unified School District was formed in 1916, the former Vista, Buena, and Delpy school districts were subsumed into the new school district.
In 1887, Cave Couts’ widow sold San Marcos Ranch to O. S. Hubbell, and he sold it to t he San Marcos Land Company, headed by Jacob Gruendike, a San Diego banker and his associate W. G. Jacobs, for
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
10 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
$233,000. The San Marcos Land Company had been formed with the intention of developing a town site.
The company laid out a town site near the intersection of Grand Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road with 5- to 10-acre plots. A number of houses were built, in addition to a hotel, post office, and several stores. In 1892, there were 87 registered voters. In the late 1880s, the Santa Fe Railroad announced that it was going to lay tracks going through the valley. To the disappointment of the citizens, the tracks were laid 1 mi. away from the center of the town. The old town was abandoned in 1901, and many of the buildings were moved to the intersection of M ission and Pico (Moyer 1969 :22-24). By 1905, the town had every convenience, including rural mail delivery and telephone service. The first school in the area, which had started in Barham in 1880, was moved in 1889 to San Marcos. Later that same year, the Richland School was built, being the second school in San Marcos (City of San Marcos 2004).
San Marcos remained a quiet rural town through the first half of the tw entieth century. While agriculture had dominated in the late 1800s and early 1900s, by the mid-1900s, dairies and poultry production became a big part of the business in the town. San Marcos was chosen as the site of the future Palomar College in 1946. Classes initially took place in Vista, but Quonset huts were moved onto the San Marcos site in 1950, and the first permanent buildings were constructed in 1956. Population growth in San Marcos had been constrained by the lack of water resources in the region. The arrival of Colorado River water at San Marcos in 1956, supplementing the existing local water supply, was a boon to the city. After the arrival of water, several small businesses started, and the population rapidly increased to 2,500. San Marcos, with a population of 3,200 residents, became incorporated on January 28, 1963. Through the 1960s, the city grew by a few thousand new residents, but in the 1970s, San Marcos was flourishing as the third fastest growing city in the state with a population of 17 ,479 by 1980. During the 1980s, San Marcos almost doubled its population to 33,800. Growth has continued to boom in San Marcos, and the present population of the city is estimated at 96,664 (San Marcos 2004, US Census 2021).
2.1.6 Occupational History of 943 Barham Drive
According to the chain of title, the original owner of the parcel at 943 Barham Drive was Thomas J. Biggs.
Biggs was born in Illinois in 1826 and came to California in 1850. His 1893 obituary stated he had “settled on a homestead near the Richland school,” several years prior ( Escondido Times 1893). General Land Office Records confirm that he was issued the land under the Homestead Act of 1862 in 1889 (Bureau of Land Management 2021). The obituary mentioned that he had no relatives in the area, so the land was inherited by his mother, who had remarried and was named Sarah H. Wetherell. She sold the property to Horace G. Parsons in 1896. Based on the number of acres Biggs owned, it appears that any buildings dating to this time were located on parcels to the north of Barham. The 1893 and 1897 topographic maps show one building in this area but not on the parcel at 943 Barham Drive.
Horace G. Parsons was born in Wisconsin in 1848. In 1880 he was living in C hicago where he worked as a shipping clerk (U.S. Census Bureau 1880). Research on Parsons is complicated because there were two Horace Greeley Parsons born in Wisconsin in 1848, both with fathers from New Hampshire. [In 1880 the other Horace G. Parsons worked as a printer in San Francisco and eventually moved to Bakersfield where he lived at the time of the 1910 census, eight years after the death of the San Marcos Horace G. Parsons in 1902 (U.S. Census Bureau 1910)]. The 1901 topographic map of the Barham property indicates a building near the location of the house that appears on the first available aerial photograph in 1928. After Horace died, his wife Hattie took over the property and made some improvements, including moving the house to face the street . When the move was completed “the neighbors brought their dinners and celebrated the occasion with a very enjoyable picnic under the pepper trees” ( Times-Advocate 1905). The 1907 topographic map shows a building in the same location as 1901, so the move appears to have been a rotation of the house and may not have included a new foundation. Beginning in 1905, Hattie Parsons split her time between San Marcos and San Diego where she worked as an artist (Escondido Times 1905). She rented out the “ranch” in San Marcos when she was in San Diego (San Diego City Directory 1905). In 1910 she sold
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 11 the property and moved to Los Angeles (U.S. Census Bureau 1910). Since digital issues of the Escondido Times-Advocate are lacking for the years 1910-1916, there is no information available about the next owner, Emilia Lau.
In 1916 the house was purchased by another woman, Nellie J. Whitehead, who was married at the time.
She was born Nellie J. Libby in Minnesota in 1874 (U.S. Census Bureau 1880). In 1892 she married Simon P. Smyth and they were living in San Francisco when he died in 1900 (San Francisco Call 1900). She and her daughter moved in with her parents, but in 1906 she married John J. Whitehead, and by 1910 was living with her four children in Los Angeles (Los Angeles Express 1906; U.S. Census Bureau 1910). In 1916, the Whiteheads moved to Escondido with their youngest son, Earl, and started farming (U.S. Census Bureau 1920). The Escondido Times-Advocate documents their many travels to Los Angeles to visit with their adult children and advertisements for their muscat and seedless grapes were also common. In 1918, Nellie Whitehead took over as postmistress for San Marcos and held the position until 1925 ( Times-Advocate 1918). She was also appointed as a member of the San Luis Rey irrigation project for the San Marcos district the following year (Times-Advocate 1919). She also began to work in real estate and owned several properties in the area. Although several rental announcement appear ed in the paper , it is difficult to determine if those announcements were for the property on Barham because no address was given.
The Whiteheads were the owners of the property at the time of the earliest available aerial photo in 1928.
There are multiple structures on the parcel, but the image is not clear enough to determine the exact number.
Jim Ferrero and his wife Margarita purchased the ranch from the Whiteheads in 1932. They were both born in Italy and lived in the home wi th Margarita’s 17 -year-old daughter Mary Rossi in 1940 (U.S. Census Bureau 1940). At that time Jim Ferrero indicated his occupation industry was dam construction, but that he had been out of work for 54 weeks. The 1938 aerial photo shows several buildings and active fields with an orchard at the front of the property. From 1946 to 1947 the home was owned by Walter Lesley Williford and his wife Lenore. Williford was born in 1877 and had several jobs ranging from truck driver to butcher (U.S. Census Bureau 19 10; 1940). In 1947, the field to the east of the house does not show evidence of being farmed in the aerial photograph.
The next owners lived in the home for 30 years, from 1947 to 1977. Donald James was born in Toronto, Canada in 1915 and worked as a dr ywall installer. His wife Lillian was born in Detroit in 1914 and was living at 943 Barham Drive when she died in 1976 ( Times-Advocate 1976). Donald James sold the house soon after his wife died and was living in Escondido at the time of his death in 1994 (Times-Advocate 1994).
The aerial photo from 1953 shows a drive leading west to the adjacent parcel which was being developed.
The 1964 aerial photos, when the James were still the owners, illustrates that the drive to the west was gone and the adjacent parcel was used for farming. There was a larger road leading to the west of 943 Barham and more outbuildings had been added. By 2005 the house on the adjacent parcel had been demolished, and by 2009 a development was located on the site. The buildings at 943 Barham Drive were demolished sometime between 2005 and 2009 (Historicaerials.com 1938-2009).
2.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
While numerous concepts and theoretical perspectives are used to interpret archaeological findings in the San Diego region, several broad themes can be outlined that generally guide interpretations. These themes include chronology, demography, consumer behavior, ethnicity/ideological subcultures, technology, cultural geography, and adaptive strategies, a topical framework that was loosely derived from King et al. 2004. While these topics can inform archaeologist on field, laboratory, and interpretational approaches, assessing these themes with data generated from evaluation Barham -2020-ASM-HD-01 is likely to be difficult due to the high amount of disturbance across the Project area.
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
12 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
2.2.1 Chronology
Determining the chronological placement of a site within a local and regional framework serves as a foundation for addressing many of the other research themes discussed in the following sections. It is also crucial in understanding how and when the project area has been occupied and utilized over the course of the last 150 years. Chronological analysis of the project area would also assist in determining how use of the area differed from other regions.
Questions for Chronology
• Can individual site types be established from site assemblages and historic documentation? If so, did areas used for logging camps change over time? • How did occupation and use of this area change over the last 150 years? How long were sites occupied/utilized?
• What other types of diagnostic artifacts are present at the site that could help narrow down the occupation period?
2.2.2 Demography
The United States Census was only taken every ten y ears, providing ample opportunity for the demographics of an entire enumeration district to change significantly. Archaeological investigations can provide valuable information for sites, like logging camps, that may have only been occupied for a brief time. Identification of archaeological sites provides more specific information about where people were living and working. Collectively, demography and chronology provide the basic data needed for interpretation and discussion of the other research themes discussed in this section.
Questions for Demography
• How densely occupied was the project area?
• Is gender/ethnicity represented in the archaeological sites? If so, how diverse was the historic population at the site?
2.2.3 Consumer Behavior
The study of consumer behavior revolves around the “household,” loosely interpreted as any domestic living arrangement, and how the sharing of the domestic living space is represented in an archaeological assemblage or site. To some extent, the interpretation of consumer behavior utilizes aspects of all the other research themes addressed in this section. Consumer behavior also involves interpretation of household demographics, organization, purchases, and adaptive strategies.
Questions for Consumer Behavior
• What provi sions were available to the residence? Aside from relying on store -bought goods, to what extent was the residence self-sufficient? • Did ethnicity/ideological subcultures influence consumption, and to what degree?
2.2.4 Ethnicity/Ideological Subcultures
Historical accounts of the region indicate that there are areas that were home to a specific ethnic group involved in a specialized trade. The maintenance of cultural traditions is most often reflected in personal food preferences as well as cooking, farming, or construction techniques.
Questions for Ethnicity/Ideological Subcultures
• What, if any, cultural traditions are evident in the archaeological record?
2.0 Historical Context and Research Design
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 13 • Can the residence be linked to a specific ethnic group or ideological subculture? • Were there any id entifiable ethnic groups associated with the site? How integrated or segregated were various ethnic groups with regard to occupation? How is that reflected in the archaeological record?
2.2.5 Technology
By-products from industrial activities can provide va luable information about the types of technology at use in mining, blacksmithing, and milling sites. The varying types of technology associated with mining, for example, leave distinct marks in the archaeological record. The need to adapt technologies to local and regional peculiarities opens the possibility for the development of techniques not recorded in historical documentation. Lack of access to standard, prefabricated resources due to isolation or financial insecurity also results in the reuse or repurposing of old technology for new purposes.
Questions for Technology
• What kind of technology was being used for residential activities in the area? • Was it necessary to modify existing technology in order to accommodate unique environmental conditions?
• Does the archaeological record contrast with the historical record about the types of technologies used in the region?
• Does the technology at various work locations vary based on the size of the operation?
2.2.6 Cultural Geography
The way in which people organize their work, domestic, and recreational spaces can provide data regarding the internal culture of a homestead or work camp. Segregation of activ ity areas offers insight into homestead. Considering alterations to the landscape and how people moved through the landscape with the process or goals of a certain activity in mind aids in understanding how people used the landscape to their advantage or modified the landscape to suit their purposes.
Questions for Cultural Geography
• Can the spatial layout of the homestead be identified in the project area? • What were the social and spatial relationships between various occupants on the landscape?
2.2.7 Adaptive Strategies
People tend to develop unique local and regional adaptive strategies due to climate, available resources, altitude, and proximity to commercial centers, among many other factors. King et al. (2004) have outline d two adaptive strategies that may be pertinent to the project area: the Dependency and Frontier Models. The Dependency Model is constructed around the idea that site occupants are reliant upon outside influences for resources. Single-gender mining camps are an example that would fit in well to the Dependency Model.
The Frontier Model focuses on individuals or groups that are relatively self-sufficient and can provide most, if not all, of their own resources. Ranchers and homesteaders tend to be optimal examples of the Frontier Model.
Questions for Adaptive Strategies
• How did homesteaders adapt to their surrounding environment, and how did they react to environmental changes?
• Do homesteader sites show evidence of primarily individual endeavors, or do they show a lot of interaction with a surrounding community?
3.0 Methods
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 15
3.0 METHODS
This chapter describes the field methods used during the archaeological evaluation of Barham-2020-ASM- HD-01 and the laboratory methods used to characterize the artifact assemblage.
3.1 FIELD METHODS
3.1.1 Archaeological Evaluation Methods
Evaluation metho ds are essentially sampling methods geared toward recovering a reasonably sized assemblage to estimate the density and diversity of the cultural deposit, and to expose enough of the site deposit to determine integrity. Subsurface testing was conducted on A ugust 4, 2015 by an ASM crew led by Associate Archaeologist Zaira Marquez, M.A. RPA. The field crew consisted of Assistant Archaeologists Joakim Lamoy, M.A. and Amber Parron, B.A . Native American monitoring was provided by Alii Suoiunoa and John Pepper of Saving Sacred Sites (SSS). Archaeological evaluation of Barham- 2020-ASM-HD-01 included excavation of ten shovel test pits (STPs) to sterile subsoil or until excavation was prevented due to the presence of large concrete fragments.
Surface Mapping
A Trimble GPS receiver was used to map the site, photographs , and notes. All sub surface artifacts were collected for further laboratory analysi s. All artifact and feature locations were recorded in UTM coordinates using Trimble R1 GNSS receiver GPS units with sub -meter accuracy. Artifact and feature locations were plotted on project maps using WGS84 UTM coordinates.
Subsurface Testing
The excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) was used to determine the presence or absence, horizontal and vertical extent and structure of subsurface cultural deposits within Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. Each STP was 25 x 40 cm in size and excavated in 20 -cm levels as deeply as practical or until no cultural materials were encountered. Ten STPs were excavated within the site area. Sediments removed from the excavation were dry screened through 1/8-in. hardware mesh, and all cultural material w as collected, bagged, and labeled. Excavation results were documented on S TP forms, which include information on provenience, artifact inventory, sediment type and color, termination depth, and general observations. All excavations were backfilled after excavation.
3.2 LABORATORY METHODS
Laboratory work included standard process ing and cataloging of the materials recovered in the field as outlined below. The methods were modified to reflect the minimal classes of artifacts present at this site, which were in a poor state of preservation with little integrity.
3.2.1 Standard Processing, Cataloging, and Analysis
Initial lab procedures included cleaning (as appropriate), sorting, and cataloging of all items. Each item was individually examined and cataloged according to class, subclass, and material, counted, and weighed on a Ohaus digital scale. All coded data was entered into a Microsoft Access database. Data manipulation of a coded master catalog was performed in Microsoft Excel.
The cultural materials were sorted during cataloging into the following categories: seven classes of historic and modern artifacts and two classes of ecofacts. The historic and modern artifact classes included glass, metal, ceramic, textile/leather, rubber, plastic, and miscellaneous items. Ecofact classes included vertebrate and invertebrate remains.
4.0 Results
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 17
4.0 RESULTS
This chapter describes the results of the evaluation of Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. The site was previously discovered during an intensive pedestrian survey of the parcel.
4.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION RESULTS
ASM archaeologists used R1 Trimble GNSS receivers connected to tablets to record visible historic features and conducted controlled test excavations during the evaluation investigation.
4.1.2 Field Results
Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01
On March 1-5, 2021 ten 25-x-40-cm STPs (see Confidential Appendix A for the testing locations ) were excavated within Barham -2020-ASM-HD-01 (Figure 4.1) . Excavations revealed that the subsurface component of the site was comprised of fragmented nondiagnostic artifacts in a highly disturbed context, likely as a result of demolition activities at the site and bioturbation (Tables 4.1 and 4.2).
Demolition of the site, via bulldozer or other piece of heavy machinery, resulted in extensive disturbance of the site’s subsurface component. Disturbance related to this demolition is evident due to the presence of redeposited, fragmented building materials throughout the site area. These building materials were identified within each of the test excavations and found to contain a mixture of fragmented concrete, torn carpet underlayment, fragmented roof shingles, and small pieces of thin plastic sheeting. All indications suggest that the integrity of the site is very poor.
In total, excavations at Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 yielded approximately 483 grams(g) of historic/modern artifacts and ecofacts (Table 4.3). Artifacts included 47.3g of ceramic fragments, 202.1g of glass fragments, 163.8g of metal fragments, 2.5g of leather, 0.4g of rubber, and 7.6g of miscellaneous artifacts. Ecofacts recovered from the site include 0.8g of faunal bone and 0.2g of Oyster (Ostrea sp.) shell fragment. Artifact recoveries are presented in this report by their weight, rather than count, due to the extensive fragmentation found throughout the assemblage. For example, the 40-60cmbs level of STP-10 was found to contain a total of 200 metal artifacts that only weighed a combined total of 16. 6g, making each artifact weigh an average of 0.083 g. Appendix C provides a detailed listing of the recovered assemblage. A sizeable quantity of concrete fragments, asphalt roof tile fragments, carpet underlayment, and plastic film were intermixed in the soil ma trix. Due to the volume of such materials, only a small sample was collected, however their presence throughout the site suggests that extensive disturbance had taken place during the site’s demolition.
Historic artifacts were identified to their most -specific diagnostic level based on their morphological characteristics. Ceramic artifacts included building tile fragments and dishware including plate and mug fragments. Glass artifacts included window glass fragments, safety glass, and highly fragmented glass from bottles or other household items. Metal artifacts were comprised of nails of varying sizes, likely associated with construction at the site, mechanical-related artifacts such as bolts and washers, and agricultural-related artifacts such as barbed-wire fencing fragments. Miscellaneous artifacts included a small section of twine and a broken wooden stake.
4.0 Results
18 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Table 4.1 Summary of Soil Conditions and Identifications of Disturbances Unit ID
Level
(cmbs) Soil Description Indications of Disturbance
STP 1
0-20 Light brown sandy silt with roots, low compaction Rodent burrowing, Redeposited building material fragments
20-40 Light brown sandy silt, moderate compaction Redeposited building material fragments
40-60 40-50 cmbs: Light brown sandy silt, moderate compaction 50-60 cmbs: Medium brown sand, moderate compaction
Redeposited building material
fragments
60-80 Medium brown sand, moderate compaction Redeposited building material fragments
80-100 Coarse sand (poss. construction material), moderate compaction -- STP 2
0-20 Reddish brown sandy silt, low compaction Rodent Burrowing, Redeposited building material fragments
20-40 Reddish brown sandy loam, high compaction, cobblestone encountered at 40cmbs --
STP 3
0-20 0-17 cmbs: Reddish sandy loam, low compaction
17-20 cmbs: Reddish sandy loam, high compaction
Redeposited building material
fragments
20-40 20-32 cmbs: Reddish sandy loam, high compaction
32-40 cmbs: Reddish sandy loam with blue gravel, high compaction Redeposited building material
fragments
40-45 Reddish sandy loam with blue gravel (poss. construction material), high compaction --
STP 4
0-20 0-13 cmbs: Light brown sandy silt, moderate compaction 13-20 cmbs: Medium brown sandy silt
Redeposited building material
fragments
20-40 Medium brown sandy silt, high compaction Redeposited building material fragments
40-60 40-50 cmbs: Medium brown sandy silt, high compaction 50-60 cmbs: Dark brown sandy loam with clay, moderate compaction, wet Redeposited building material
fragments
60-80 60-70 cmbs: Dark brown sandy loam with clay, moderate compaction, wet 70-80 cmbs: Dark brown sandy clay with large cobbles, high compaction -- 80-100 Dark brown sandy clay with large cobbles, high compaction -- STP 5
0-20 Reddish brown sandy silt with roots, moderate compaction Rodent burrowing, Redeposited building material fragments
20-40 Reddish sandy loam, moderate compaction Rodent burrowing 40-60 Reddish sandy loam, moderate compaction --
STP 6
0-20 0-15 cmbs: Light brown silt with roots, low compaction 15-20 cmbs: Reddish brown sandy loam, moderate compaction -- 20-40 Reddish brown sandy loam, moderate compaction Redeposited building material fragments
STP 7
0-20 0-10 cmbs: Dark brown sandy soil with charcoal, low compaction 10-20 cmbs: Medium brown sandy loam, low compaction
Redeposited building material
fragments
20-40 Reddish sandy loam with large cobbles --
STP 8
0-20 0-16 cmbs: Light brown sandy silt with roots, moderate compaction 16-20 cmbs: Dark brown sandy loam
Redeposited building material
fragments
20-40 20-22 cmbs: Dark brown sandy loam
22-40 cmbs: Reddish decomposed granite
Redeposited building material
fragments
STP 9
0-20 Light brown sandy silt with roots, low compaction
Redeposited building material
fragments
20-40 Medium brown sandy loam with cement
Redeposited building material
fragments
STP 10
0-20 0-15 cmbs: Light brown sandy silt with roots, low compaction 15-20 cmbs: Sandy clay loam
Redeposited building material
fragments
20-40 Sandy clay loam, low compaction, rocks appear at 24cmbs and continue to the bottom of the unit
Redeposited building material
fragments
40-60 Sandy clay loam with rocks, low compaction --
4.0 Results
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 19
Figure 4.1 Overview of STP-7 location, facing southwest.
Figure 4.2 Overhead view of STP-7, facing west.
~C.r \..atn £" a lva-h-ori
PtJ¼~O
~\,a111•2.oU>-ASM-H 0·0! ~lt> '1-
0-2" /?,5 Gt\~
'!l/'i(1P'II
4.0 Results
20 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Table 4.2 Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Subsurface Testing.
Unit
No.
Items by Weight (g)
Ceramic Glass Metal Rubber
Textile/
Leather
Vertebrate
Remains
Invertebrate
Remains
Other
STP
1 -- 36.8 16.1 -- -- --
STP
2 -- -- 3.9 -- -- --
STP
3 -- -- 17.6 -- 1.8 0.2 0.6
STP
4 10.2 42.1 14.5 0.4 -- --
STP
5 -- -- 3.3 -- -- --
STP
6 -- 4.9 -- -- -- --
STP
7 11.6 15.7 1.6 -- -- --
STP
8 20.4 29.3 44 -- -- 58.4
STP
9 -- 6.0 -- -- -- --
STP
10 5.2 67.3 62.8 -- 0.6 0.8 --
4.1.3 Laboratory Analyses and Results
This section reviews the laboratory results of the project and is divided into sections by the artifact classes that were identified in the laboratory. Within each of the sections that follow, the discussion is separated by artifact class.
Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01
The testing program at the site resulted in the recovery of a total of 47.3g of ceramic fragments, 202.1g of glass fragments, 163.8g of metal fragments, 2.45g of leather, 0.4g of rubber, 7.6g of plastic, and two miscellaneous artifacts. The recovered assemblage is dominated by metal and glass items that are intermixed with a small number of ceramic fragments and various other materials (Table 4.3). The Master Catalog is provided in Appendix C.
Table 4.3 All Cultural Materials Recovered from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 Class Ct. Total Wt. (g)
Ceramic 27 47.3
Glass 166 202.1
Metal 328 163.8
Rubber 1 0.4
Plastic 1 7.6
Textile/Leather 2 2.45
Invertebrate Remains 1 0.2
Vertebrate Remains 4 0.8
4.0 Results
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 21 Ceramic
The ceramic assemblage recovered from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01, weighing 47.3g, includes a collection of fire-affected mug fragments, an unspecified fire-affected tableware fragment, two building tile fragments, an unspecified glazed whiteware fragment, and a glazed whiteware plate fragment (Figure 4.3).
The recovered ceramic artifacts do not provide any high-resolution temporal data, as none of the artifacts featured any makers marks or other discernable temporally specific features. While consistent with the known timeframe of the site’s occupation, refined earthenware ceramics such as undecorated whiteware ceramics were a popular choice in American homes throughout much of the 20 th century (Majewski and O’brien 1987).
Figure 4.3 A ll recovered ceramic artifacts from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. (a. Mug fragments – STP 4, 0-20 cmbs; b. Tableware fragment – STP 4, 20-40 cmbs; c. Building tile fragments – STP 7, 0-20 cmbs; d. Whiteware fragment – STP 10, 0-20 cmbs; e. Whiteware plate fragment – STP 10, 20-40 cmbs)
Glass
Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 contained a moderate amount of highly fragmented glass weighing a total of 202.1g. Types of fragmented glass identified during the evaluation include window glass, tempered glass, and consumer glasses of various kinds including clear, green, brown, milk, and aqua colored glass (Figure
4.4). A portion of the glass appears to be fire-affected, possibly as a result of their inclusion in a burn pile.
A recovered fragment of aqua colored glass artifact (Figure 4.4) likely dates between the late 1800’s through the 1930’s (Society for Historic Archaeology 2021) . During the 19 th century, there was a general trend toward the use of aqua colored glass, due to its cheaper manufacture with aqua coloration being caused by a.
C.
4.0 Results
22 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
iron impurities in the glass (Lockhart 2006). None of the other glass artifacts exhibit any makers marks or other temporally significant features.
Figure 4.4 A selection of glass artifacts from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. (a. Window glass fragments – STP 9, 0-20 cmbs; b. Brown glass fragments – STP 9, 0-20 cmbs; c. Green glass fragments – STP 6, 20-40 cmbs; d. Fire-affected aqua glass fragments – STP 7, 0-20 cmbs; e. Milk glass fragment – STP 10, 40-60 cmbs; f. Clear glass bottle fragments – STP 10, 20-40 cmbs) Metal
The assemblage of metal artifacts recovered during the evaluation, weighing a total of 163.8g, include three cut nails, numerous wire nails, a few bolts, a washer, several barbed -wire fragments, and numerous unidentifiable ferrous metal fragments. Six cut nail fragments (Figure 4.5), the most temporally diagnostic artifacts of the assemblage, suggest a site occupation dated near 1893, when cut nails were no longer produced in favor of more -modern wire nail s (Wells 1998). Despite the close agreement in age with the title-chain records results, there is a potential that the few recovered cut nails may be present as a component of furniture or other artifacts that were brought into the site at a later date.
Rubber
A single piece of rubber weighing 0.4g was recovered from the 20-40 cmbs level of STP 4. This small artifact fragment, possibly from a basketball, is orange in color and has a circular texture on one side with a woven texture on the reverse.
a. b. j.- c.
e.
4.0 Results
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 23
Figure 4.5 Cut nail artifacts from Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01. (a. STP 1, 40-60cmbs; b. STP 4, 40-60cmbs; c. STP 4, 0-20cmbs; STP 2, 0-20cmbs.) Plastic
A single potentially-diagnostic plastic artifact , a translucent coffee tin lid marked with “GFIC” and a stylized coffee cup design, weighs 7.63g and was identified in the 0-20 cmbs level of STP 8. This artifact, produced by General Foods International Coffee, was found to be modern in age and most-likely dated to the early 1990’s.
Textile/Leather
Three artifacts were classified as textile/leather including two sections of twine from the 0-40 cmbs levels of STP 10 and a woven textile fragment from the 20-40 cmbs level of STP 3.
Invertebrate Remains
A single fragment of Ostrea sp. (Oyster) shell, weighing 0.2 grams, was recovered from Barham -2020- ASM-HD-01.
Vertebrate Remains
Four small fragments of unspecified faunal bone, weighing 0.8g total, were recovered from Barham-2020- ASM-HD-01. These bone fragments were examined and determined to be non-human. a.
b ...
C.
5.0 Resource Evaluation and Impact Identification
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 25
5.0 RESOURCE EVALUATION AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION
An assessment of the eligibility of Barham -2020-ASM-HD-01 for listing on the C alifornia Register of Historic Resources is examined below.
5.1 EVALUATION OF Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all private and public activities not specifically exempted be evaluated for the potential to impact the environment , including effects to historical resources. Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under CEQA. It defines historical resources as “any object, building, structure, site, area, or place which is historically significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (Division I, PRC §5021.1(b)).
Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the Californi a Register criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project will cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change.
The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character -defining featur es) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance.
The California Register is used in the consideration of historic resources relative to significance for purposes of CEQA. The California Register includes resources listed in, or form ally determined eligible for some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been ident ified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the California Register and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.
A resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) consisting of the following:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 consists of the remains of a historical residence with modern and historic refuse. The historic building remains and historic refuse at Barham-2020-ASM-HD-01 is determined as not eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1, 2, 3, or 4. For Criterion 1, there are no indications of significant historical events that occurred in association with the resource. Under Criterion 2 there is no record of important contributions to local, California, or national history by any of the prior owners. For Criterion 3, the structures were previously demolished and nothing remains to examine distinctive characteristics, the work of a master, or artistic value. Under Criterion 4 , the site does not have any
5.0 Resource Evaluation and Impact Identification
26 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
substantial research potential as the resource contains a low-density artifact scatter that is situated within a highly disturbed context . Only building foundations remain of the structures, and no features such as privies, cisterns, and trash pits appear to remain at the site.
5.1.1 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
ASM recommends arch aeological monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and native American monitor during grading and earthworks associated with the development of this lot, until a sterile subsoil has been reached. Although this investigation found Barham -2020-ASM-HD-01 to be ineligible for listing in the CRHR under any of the four criteria , the possibility remains that features or other intact deposits may be encountered during future earth moving activities . Such a discovery could potentially yield important information about this site and the period of its occupation in San Marcos.
References
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 27
REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell J., 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.
Bibb, Leland E.
1976 William Marshall, “The Wickedest Man in California”: A Reappraisal. The Journal of San Diego History Volume 22, No. 1.
Bowman, Roy H.
1973 Soil Survey: San Diego Area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Bureau of Land Management
2021 U.S. Department of the Interior, General Land Use Records. Accessed at:
https://glorecords.blm.gov, April 2021.
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 20:195- 218.
Carter, George F.
1957 Pleistocene Man at San Diego. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore. 1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man in the Americas. Texas A&M University, College Station.
City of San Marcos
2004 History of San Marcos. http://www.ci.san-marcos.ca.us/departments.asp
Davis, Emma Lou, and R. Shutler, Jr.
1969 Recent Discoveries of Fluted Points in California and Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 14:154-169. Carson City.
Drucker, Philip
1937 Culture Element Distributions: V, Southern California. University of California Anthropological Records 1(1).
Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colten (editors)
1991 Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Erlandson, Jon M., and Michael Glassow (editors)
1997 Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene. Perspectives in California Archaeology No. 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
References
28 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Erlandson, Jon M., and Terry L. Jones
2002 Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies on the California Coast. Perspectives in California Archaeology No. 6. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Escondido Times
1893 “Died.” January 19 pg. 3.
Gallegos, Dennis R.
1987 San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.
Geiger, Maynard, and Clement W. Meighan
1976 As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by the Franciscan Missionaries, 1813-1815. Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Gifford, Edward W.
1918 Clans and Moieties in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14:155-219.
Griset, Suzanne
1996 Southern California Brown Ware. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Hale, Micah
2009 San Diego and Santa Barbara: Socioeconomic Divergence in Southern California.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Hanna, David C.
1983 A Major Challenge to “San Dieguito” and “La Jolla.” San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 1(3):76-102.
Harding, M.
1951 La Jollan Culture. El Museo 1(1):10-11; 31-38. San Diego Museum of Man.
Harrington, John P.
1933 Unpublished handwritten notes, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1934 A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 92(4). Washington, D.C.
Heizer, Robert F.
1978 Introduction. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 1-6. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Henshaw, Henry W.
1972 The Luiseño Creation Myth. The Masterkey 46:93-100.
References
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 29 Hicks, Frederic Noble
1963 Ecological Aspects of Aboriginal Culture in the Western Yuman Area. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Historicaerials.com
1938 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1947 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1953 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1964 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1967 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1978 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1980 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1989 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 1998 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2003 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2005 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com 2009 Aerial image of 943 Barham Drive. www.historicaerials.com
King J., K. McGuire, K. Carpenter, M. Maniery, C. Baker, H. McCarthy, and H. Scotten 2004 Class I Cultural Resources Overview and Research Design for the Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise Resource Areas. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Surprise, Eagle Lake, and Alturas Field Offices. On file at the BLM Eagle Lake Field Office, Susanville, California.
Kline, George E., and Victoria L. Kline
2007 Fluted Point Recovered from San Diego County Excavation. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:55-59.
Laylander, Don
2000 Early Ethnography of the Californias, 1533-1825. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 47, Salinas, California.
2001 The Creation and Flute Lure Myths: Regional Patterns in Southern California Traditions.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23:155-178. 2004 Listening to the Raven: The Southern California Ethnography of Constance Goddard DuBois. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 51. Salinas, California. 2010 Linguistic Prehistory and the Archaic-Late Transition in the Colorado Desert. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 30:141-155.
Lockhart, Bill
2006 The Color Purple: Dating Solarized Amerthyst Container Glass. Historical Archaeology 40(2):45-56.
Los Angeles Express
1906 “Marriages.” April 26, pg. 13.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O’Brien.
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Theory and Method 11:97–209.
McArthur, Davis S.
2004 Building the Region: The Geologic Forces that Shape San Diego County. In San Diego: An Introduction to the Region, by Philip R. Pryde, pp. 75-90. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego.
References
30 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Meighan, Clement W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10:215-227.
Minshall, Herbert L.
1976 The Broken Stones: The Case for Early Man in California. Copley Press, La Jolla, California. 1989 Buchanan Canyon: Ancient Human Presence in the Americas. Slawson Communications, San Marcos, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Moriarty, James R., III
1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4:20-30.
Moyer, Cecil C.
1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego. Edited by Richard F. Pourade. Union Tribune Publishing, San Diego.
Oxendine, Joan
1983 The Luiseño Village During the Late Prehistoric Era. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Pourade, Richard F.
1961 Time of the Bells. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1963 The Silver Dons. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1964 The Glory Years. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1965 Gold in The Sun. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 1964 The Glory Years. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego.
Pryde, Philip R.
2004 The Nature of the County: San Diego’s Climate, Soils, Vegetation, and Wildlife. In San Diego: An Introduction of the Region, by Philip R. Pryde, pp. 31-51. 4th ed. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego.
Reeves, Brian O.K., John M. D. Pohl, and Jason W. Smith 1986 The Mission Ridge Site and the Texas Street Question. In New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas, edited by Alan Lyle Bryan, pp.65-80. Center for the Study of Early Man, Orono, Maine.
Robbins-Wade, Mary
1988 Coastal Luiseno: Refining the San Luis Rey Complex. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 1:75-95.
Rogers, Malcolm J.
1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167-198. 1966 The Ancient Hunters, Who Were They? Part II in Ancient Hunters of the Far West, by Richard F. Pourade, pp. 23-108. Union Tribune Publishing, San Diego.
References
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 31 Rondeau, Michael F., Jim Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones
2007 Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the San Clemente Island Woodworking/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 63-70. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., William R. Hildebrandt, and Jerome H. King 2001 Donax Don’t Tell: Reassessing Late Holocene Land Use in Northern San Diego County.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23:179-214.
San Diego City Directory
1905 U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995. Accessed through ancestry.com April 2021.
San Francisco Call
1901 “Obituaries.” February 1, pg. 16.
Sherman, Lola
2001 A History of North San Diego County from Mission to Millennium. Heritage Media Corporation, Carlsbad, California.
Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty III 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jolla Site Dated 5460 to 7370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93:37-132.
Society for Historic Archaeology
2021 Bottle/Glass Colors. https://sha.org/bottle/colors.htm. Accessed 4/2021.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:187-234. Berkeley.
Strong, William D.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1). Berkeley. (Reprinted 1972, Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.)
Sutton, Mark Q.
2010 The Del Rey Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(2):1-54.
2011 The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4):1-74.
Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner
2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1-64.
Taylor, R. E., L. A. Payen, C. A. Prior, P. J. Slota, Jr., R. Gillespie, J .A. J. Gowlett, and R. E. M. Hedges, A .J. T. Jull, T. H. Zabel, D. J. Donahue, and R. Berger 1985 Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older Than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity 50:136-140.
References
32 ASM Affiliates, Inc.
Times-Advocate (Escondido, CA)
1905 “Richland Items.” November 3, pg. 8.
1918 “New Postmistress in Charge at San Marcos.” September 17, pg. 1. 1919 “Local and Personal.” October 16, pg. 3.
1976 “Lillian James” January 6 pg. 23.
1994 “Donald James.” February 24, pg. 14.
True, Delbert L.
1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. University of California Archaeological Survey, Los Angeles.
True, Delbert L., Clement W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew
1974 Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology No. 11. Berkeley.
True, Delbert L., Rosemary Pankey, and Claude N. Warren 1991 Tom-Kav, a Late Village Site in Northern San Diego County, California, and Its Place in the San Luis Rey Complex. University of California Publications No. 30. Berkeley and Los Angeles.
US Census Bureau
1880 The Tenth Census of the United States, San Diego County . U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washingt on, D.C. Microfilm, San Diego Historical Society Archives.
1900 The Twelfth Census of the United States, San Diego County . U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Microfilm, San Diego Historical Society Archives.
1910 The Thirteenth Census of the United States, San Diego County . U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Microfilm, San Diego Historical Society Archives.
1920 The Fourteenth Census of the United States, San Diego County. U.S. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Microfilm, San Diego Historical Society Archives.
1940 The Sixteenth Census of the United States, San Diego County. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S.
Government Print ing Office, Washington, D.C. Microfilm, San Diego Historical Society Archives.
2021 United States Census Bureau QuickFacts: San Marcos City, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanmarcoscitycalifornia.
Van Wormer, Stephen R.
1986a Beeves and Bees: A History of the Settlement of Pamo Valley, San Diego County. Southern California Quarterly 68(Spring):37-64.
1986b A History of Jamacha Valley: Agricultural and Community Development in Southern California. Master's thesis, San Diego State University. 1987 Historic Architectural Documentation: Piper Ranch House. Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON).
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
References
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project 33 Warren, Claude N.
1964 Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: Malcolm J. Rogers' 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River.
San Diego Museum Papers No. 5.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168-185. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales.
Warren, Claude, Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer
2008 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study, pp. 13-107. ASM Affiliates, Carlsbad, California.
Wells, Tom
1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical Archaeology 32(2):78-99.
White, Raymond
1953 Two Surviving Luiseño Indian Ceremonies. American Anthropologist 55:569-578. 1957 The Luiseño Theory of "Knowledge." American Anthropologist 59(1):1-19. 1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48:91-194. Berkeley.
Yohe, Robert M., II
1992 A Reevaluation of Western Great Basin Cultural Chronology and Evidence for the Timing of the Introduction of the Bow and Arrow to Eastern California Based on New Excavations at the Rose Spring Site (CA-INY-372). Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
Appendices
Mission 316 Project 35
APPENDICES
Appendices
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project
APPENDIX A
Confidential Maps
Appendices
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project
APPENDIX B
Confidential DPR Form
Appendices
Archaeological Significance Evaluation for the Barham Residential Project
APPENDIX C
Artifact Catalog