HomeMy WebLinkAboutArchaeological AssessmentO
O
~o ~~®~®c~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
O
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION:
An Archaeological Assessment of
O the Campos Verdes Zone Change
Riverside County, California
by: Christopher E. Drover Ph.D.
Consulting Archaeologist
O 13522 Malena Drive
Tustin, California 92680
(714) 838-2051
for: Mr. Douglas Wood
wood and Associates
1000 Quail Street Ste 165
Newport Beach, California 92660
21 October 1989
O
2
O
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY ................................................3
SUMMARY OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ...........................3
EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENT ..................................6
RESEARCH METHODS AND STRATEGY ..........................7
O
RESULTS ................................................7
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .................................7
CITED .......................................8
O
3
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY:
O On 28 September 1989, Mr. Douglas Wood of Douglas Wood and
Associates, requested an archaeological assessment of a parcel in
Temecula, California. The subject property is under consideration
for a Zone Change. A cultural resources assessment was necessary
to satisfy the requirements of the County of Riverside with
regard to identification and protection of cultural resources.
An archaeological records check and survey were undertaken
in early November, for the approximately 130.60 acre project site
located on the Murrieta 7.5' USGS quadrangle, to ascertain
whether any cultural resources might be impacted by the proposed
development. A surface survey conducted on the subject property
and a check of the archaeological site records on file at the
O Archaeological Research Unit (ARU), University of California,
Riverside, were accomplished.
A 7.5' USGS map of the subject property provided the
boundary reference for the actual land area surveyed. The subject
project lies-northwest of Temecula, immediately north and east of
the intersection of Winchester and Interstate 15.
Survey activities conducted earlier in 1988 resulted in the
definition of no new archaeological sites. No cultural resource
constraints (mitigation measures) exist for the proposed project.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE:
A review of the archaeological site records on file at the
ARU showed no sites within the subject property boundaries,
O
4
however, one site (Riv-1730) is recorded immediately west of the
project, just northwest of the I-15--Winchester Road O
intersection. The site, however, has
and is no longer in existence (Drover
consisted of a campsite--village from
artifacts consisted of food (vegetal)
was estimated to be 4-5,000 years old
sensitive artifact content.
peen previously mitigated
1986). The site in question
which the predominant
processing tools. The site
based on it's time
The general project area was previously studied in a general
records search and reconnaissance (White 1980) but actual survey
of the property was not conducted until 1988 by Drover (1988).
The prior survey was undertaken of 1.049 acres,
the Rancho California Commerce Center, for the Bedford Group by
the author. No cultural resources were identified as a result of O
the study (Drover 1988).
Perhaps the most pertinent regional study of the general
area regarding prehistoric land use is that accomplished at
Perris Reservoir (O'Connell et al. 1974). This research took
place about 20 miles north of the property, in the San Jacinto
Plains. Not much is known about the general
settlement/subsistence patterns of the project vicinity but the
Perris Reservoir project provides a general model of prehistoric
land-use patterns. Most of the archaeological sites described in
that study were late prehistoric age (pottery present) and may
have resulted from population intrusions from the Coachella
Valley caused by the desiccation of Lake Cahuilla (ancestral
O
5
Salton Sea) (Wilke 1978). Settlement patterns
O campsites (located near perennial water sourc
processing locations (O'Connell et al. 1974).
Considering the topography and proximity
parcel to water, site density may be expected
in similar areas of the Perris Reservoir. The
seem to consist of
es) and temporary
of the subject
to be moderate as
lack of surface
water and bedrock granite over most of the project site may
preclude the most common type of sites in the area, bedrock seed
grinding locations. Based on settlement/subsistence models
generated by O'Connell et al. (1974), temporary food
gathering/processing, or campsites might be expected near the
subject project (Riv-1730 was at least a campsite if not a short-
term village site).
Through time, land use patterns at nearby Perris Reservoir
changed from being rather sporadic between 2200 years ago (the
earliest occupations) to about A.D. 1500 when an influx of
population with different subsistence exploitation strategies
(O'Connell et al. 1974).
At European contact times, the study area was within areas
occupied by groups known as the Luiseno, named after the Mission
San Luis Rey de Francia in present-day Oceanside, California,
Which some of their linguistic group frequented. The Luiseno
culture area incorporated southwestern Riverside County, northern
San Diego County, eastern Orange County and was linguistically
comprised of a language of the Shoshonean language family
(Kroeber 1925: Plate 57). The Contact period ethnicity of the
O
6
study area is clear as Luiseno villages such as Pechanga and Pala
are relatively close to the project area. Ethnographic literature O
pertinent to the Luiseno and surrounding ethnographic groups is
fairly extensive and has been collected since the 1800's (see
Barrows 1900; Sparkman 1908; Kroeber 1925; White 1963 and Bean
1972).
EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENT:
The physiography of the subject property consists of low,
flat (cultivated in barley in recent years) grasslands on low
benches and hills immediately above Santa Gertrudis Creek. The
drainage on the property is generally northeast to southwest
toward Santa Gertrudis Creek. Soils on the property consist of
decomposed granitics with recent, alluvial topsoil.
Precipitation is mainly a result of winter dominant, frontal o
storms from the northwest, although occasional summer
thundershowers result from damp air intruding from the southern
(Gulf of Mexico--Sea of Cortez) monsoon season.
The property ranges from 1100 to approximately 1200 feet
above sea level. It contains little native vegetation; that which
remains is located in arroyos where cultivation was impractical.
The one-time native plant association consisted of a sage-scrub
community and native grasses, dominated by buckwheat (Erioaonum
fasiculatum), and California sagebrush (Artemesia californica).
The Santa Gertrudis stream channel would have supported a rich,
riparian habitat at one time dominated by plants such as willow
(Salix sp.), oak (Ouercus sp.) and seasonal, edible plants. The
O
7
above mentioned plant community are noted as having some
O ethnographic uses among the neighboring Cahuilla (Bean and Saubel
1972).
RESEARCH METHODS AND STRATEGY:
Field methods consisted of an on-site, intuitive survey,
conducted by Mr. Andy Jackson in November, 1988. Survey of the
parcel included intuitive, somewhat circular transects defined by
the project boundaries and geographical contours. European
grasses (Gramineae) and other ground cover exist but are few in
number due to dry conditions resulting in relatively good
conditions for observation.
RESULTS:
No archaeological sites were located during survey
O activities although the project area would have been conducive
for prehistoric plant food gathering and/or processing if not
short-term habitation.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION:
As no archaeological sites were found, no cultural resource
constraints exist for the project and no mitigation measures are
proposed.
However,- if any cultural resources are encountered as a
result of grading, is recommended that a qualified archaeologist
be consulted.
O
8
REFERENCES CITED
Barrows, David P. O
1900 The Ethno-botany of the Coahulla Indians of Southern
California. Chicago Press. (Reprinted 1976 by Malki
Museum, Banning).
Bean, Lowell J.
1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern
California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bean, Lowell J., and Katherine S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of
Plants. Banning, Ca.: Malki Museum Press.
Drover, Christopher E.
1986 The Santa Gertrudis Site Riv-1730: A Cultural Resource
Mitigation Plan and Implementation. Rancho California.
UCARU Miscellaneous Manuscripts 191. University of
California, Riverside.
1988 An Archaeological Assessment of the Rancho California
Commerce Center. The Bedford Group. UCARU Miscellaneous
Manuscripts. University of California, Riverside.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, O
D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
O'Connell, J. F., P. J. Wilke, T. F. King, and C. L. Mix (Eds.)
1974 Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric
Demographic Change in Southeastern California.
Sacramento: Department of Parks and Recreation
Archaeological Reports 14.
Sparkman, Philip S.
1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. Berkeley:
University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology 8: 147-234.
White, R. C.
1963 Luiseno Social Organization. Berkeley: University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and
Ethnography 48: 91-194.
O
9
White, Christopher W.
O 1980 Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment for
the KACOR/Rancho California Property. The Planning
Center, 170 Laurel Street, San Diego 92101.
Miscellaneous Manuscripts 191 University of
California, Riverside Archaeological Research Unit.
Wilke, Philip J.
1971 Late Prehistoric Change in Land Use Patterns at Perris
Reservoir. Los Angeles: University of California Los
Angeles Archaeological Survev Annual Report 13.
1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla,
Coachella Valley, California. Berkeley: University of
California Archaeological Research Facility
Contributions No. 38.
O
O
~_~~//~~.. ~c ` e LS'~
v~~ 0
~ ^777 r~ ~. •; 7`s.,. ~• ~
~ )(~J "'_ ~'J 1V O 1800 n'~~ F'~~_ ~ ~`• ~~ T~. IrU~ ~'~.•~/ ~. ~ ( i~ `-=-~
t./~.=/ ~ 'p Ibis, ~ '~-r '~-- n~'.,~ I i, ~1~%~ I,- ~~ Qe
)))) ff /~/ ~ ~ ` +~ ~; 'o r~ ~ Wi'n'%~ L ),
Gmill ~~ETt CC IOBI~ _ ~\' ^V U ~ ~J ~ ~~ - ~r~,~
+ + rzle~-' ~ OL SPTl `\ < ++, ~VJ L( ~ '~~~~~:~\ ~.`( 24
Park 0 ~_ '`'~'\' ~' ~ _
., ~ ~ ~ S _. ~~'l vt _, ~~" ~
) ,~ ~ ~ a-~
/ l ~% Q !. ,- yi' aft ~ /, 1 ~'-~ C/~/ ;_~ sue,\~ Nrp ,~~.,
J C .~', I ''~,n ~ ~i ~ rT~~ I /~r /~1~~1 `~/ ~ ~~~~~ ire ~i C/ '/~ 9<'°s ~
r - ~..i i'w sa ~, / r Oo ~~~ ,/ may! ¢ ~ ~~ ~ ~r~' JO1
4 ~?~ ~ _~ r° ~ .\ ~ / ~~~ ~~l .,J ~ l 00 - ( +w ~ r eser•+0 ` L;
~/ i
~ ~ I`Q>/ ;`z/' ~, ~~,-, ~ ~ i//t ,
' .?~ ~: roJ6 Ga¢~¢ SC+ ,~ +p+ r /~ ~ 1 ~ o, ", ~ 1 9M 1072 ~. ~ C ~ ?~~.._
~s ~~ / ) n _
_\ 5`r u \~ ~j ~~ ~ ~ ~ l yr 1111 ~~1~ ~~~/'-
- ! + ~ J ~. ~ ~~~~///fff///~~~ d ~ .Well ANA' ~~ ~ ~ ~q , ~ L_`
' ~ ~ ~< ~ ~~ a G ~" /'~ ' I
\<'i. • + ~ 6 tQ ,:.. - ?~~ J Reservoir , :/ ~ n0~~
Pe° ;' ~.,e +•+ .-'-rid>p
1 ++++ ~• ~aE'Pa ,s +Fso /OSO Reservoir f*Y ~'~ ~ ^
-~
SUBSECT PARCEL ` ~ __- _I_% ~°
Z ~ ~ CAMPOS VERDt~. ZONE CHANGE ~ '.e• ~ q - °';.' n ~~ ~- >, C
:~ _ ~5 ,C
+ ~~~~
REFF~E-.Y£: ML~2IETA "]•6'U565 M40 \ ~ J ~ ~ ~ °~ ~,:
1 . o ~.. ~ ~ 0 00 ~ J `~~
o
•..-.
I
~~~ o~ ~ ,~ ~ o.~_
~,
t~ P ' _